Talk:William Tyndale

message: To User:70.171.63.100, who doesn't agree that divine in the intro refers to a religious leader in England, maybe "religious reformer" is suitable in a generic sense. The historian Will Durant describes Tyndale as anti-Catholic at Cambridge, no way the plowboy's friend will go down in history as priest. Disagree, show your colors. - Athrash | Talk 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyndale the Reformer

message: Have verified the entry. Dunnhaupt 17:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep on hacking, but such a grammatical gaffe has no backing. That is the beauty of revert. - Athrash | Talk 05:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enrollment at Wittenberg 1524

message: I think that by merging it is creating confusion. I came here to see a Tyndale article, not The Tyndale society which seems to be just a book traders site. It would be like having Jesus soley on a Catholic page. Potters house 08:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is cleared, since a long time. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Merge Article 

message: I removed the following from the article:
::Tyndale translated the term baptism into "washing;" Scripture into "writing;" Holy Ghost into "Holy Wind," Bishop into "Overseer," Priest into "Elder," Deacon into "Minister;" heresy into "choice;" martyr into "witness;" evangelist into "bearer of good news;" etc., etc. Many of his footnotes were vicious. For instance, Tyndale referred to the occupant of the Chair of Peter, as "that great idol, the whore of Babylon, the anti-Christ of Rome."::
It was a very POV passage from an obviously bitter Roman Catholic, obvious from the fact that he refers to the pope as the occupant of the chair of peter, which is an idea only shared by Roman Catholics and thus POV. Also, the passage is not entirely accurate as Tyndale DID use the words "scripture," "baptism," and "deacons" where it applies. I did leave in the bit about the small to no emphasis of ecclesiastical authority in Tyndale's translation that angered the Roman Catholic Church.
I also removed the following:
::King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects." Protestant Bishop Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible.1::
This passage makes it seem like Henry was more angry over Tynale's Bible translation then he was over Tyndale's critique of his divorce and remarriage (which was the king's real reason for demanding Tyndale's life.) --dimestore 04:51, December 16 2006
::* I, (the obviously bitter roman catholic), do not object to your changes. I knew my additions to the article would be revised. Thank you for doing so in a fairly objective way. That was my goal; to make this article on Tyndale objective. You have to admit it is lacking a bit in objectivity. Thank you for your revisions, however, and for trying to make this article objective.  Not to mention my original additions were plagiarism, so i'm glad they were revised in  manner which fixed that also. (Also i agree with that last bit about king henry.) --'that obviously bitter Roman Catholic' 66.191.128.106 20:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have made some revisions, hopefully they do not come off as bitter. 66.191.128.106 21:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * p.s. I'm not Roman Catholic. 66.191.128.106 21:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the changes by dimestore.  Why take Tyndale to task for making changes in the text and wording that is much more accurate.  Most modern translations of the Greek Scriptures use "Elder" or "Overseer" in lieu of "Bishop" and some use "Minister" or "Servant" in lieu of "Deacon".  Of course, modern translators had the advantage of working with Westcott and Hort's compiled Greek text and other compiled ancient texts which clearly show this was the intended meaning.  Lending precedent to the idea that Tyndale was perhaps working with more than just the Vulgate.
I removed what appears to be a weasel word, "mercifully", since it is more than a little odd and glaring before "strangled". Infinitelink 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To comment on an old thread: yes, strangulation was regarded as a mercy, compared to being burned alive. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  This kind-of reminds me of text-criticism when someone utilizes what is thought-of as a poor manuscript; the use isn't forbidden, disdained, or unwelcomed: it's just done carefully. The "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" /might/ be considered "propaganda"...but can only be considered such if it's truly innaccurate: it is, after all, no secret that the Roman Catholic Church committed mass murder, inquisition, etc...John Paul II was the first to officially announce apologies for its role in all that. Further, writings from those times are almost guaranteed to contain polemical writing, or theological viewpoints...and sometimes they're valid, other times it's substance-less vitriol: an appropriate example is of Sir Thomas Moore's attacks on Tyndale's NT: he claimed that it was aweful and a corruption...yet modern English Bibles are sometimes comprised of as much of 85% of Tyndale's work: Moore's attacks were based on the fact that he was assigned the duty of attacking the list of works delivered to him, not judging things on their merit.
And just because someone wrote that book is "anti-catholic propaganda" in Wikipedia doesn't mean it's true: a Pope actually issued apologies for mass-murder perpetrated by the organization he belonged to. So be cautious about materials cited, but not so quick to dismiss them.Infinitelink 11:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To comment on an old thread: modern historians tend to see Foxe's Acts and Monuments as both highly partisan *and* a good source of objective information: from what I have read, partisan because the aim of the book was partisan, and the spin he gives is partisan, and he takes every opportunity to believe the worst; however he does also diligently preserve a lot of information as evidence which otherwise is lost. So where there is some document he actually reproduces, that is probably reliable; where he is commenting or giving hearsay, that probably needs to be treated with caution and alternative balancing info needs to be found to get the NPOV.  Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

text: On the idea that More as wrong because 85% of modern versions are based on Tyndale: 85% is bogus (see first item in this Talk page), "based on" is historically un-nuanced (More's comments were mainly about problems in the first versions of the NT: Tyndale revised and even took up some of More's suggestions), and I think the argument is a non-sequitur (since when does adoption prove truth? or, if  adoption does prove truth, can't the Catholics point out their numerical superiority?)  Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some POV  violations 

message: Someone needs to have a look at this site, particularly the opening paragaph. Its gone a bit... how shall I put it? ... wierd! ThePeg 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UMMMM - Opening paragaph

message: The header has one birth year, and the biography section has another.  Which is it?  Badagnani 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the ODNB, "Tyndale, William (c.1494–1536), translator of the Bible and religious reformer, was born in Gloucestershire, probably in one of the villages near Dursley (possibly Stinchcombe)." --HJMG 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1484 or 1494 born? 

message: If anyone is able to change the articale than how do we know that this is real information? Is this comment page the only thing that keeps the articale acountable? How do we discern the here say form the Truth? All I want to know is where I can get real information!     ChrisJohn --66.69.6.122 09:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: such is the eternal question of wikipedia.  There is a resource that may be of help.  It's called a book (don't feel bad; they've only been around for a few thousand years), and they are available for purchase in bookstores or online.  Many communities and schools also have places called libraries where you can read a book from a large collection of them or even borrow one for free!  I hope that was of help.  Josh 19:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the TRUTH? 

message: I'm not confident enough to make the correction myself but will someone else who is confident look at the second par which says: "through the work of 54 independent scholars". I assume this should read "THOUGH the work of 54 independent scholars"
Golux 02:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed back to "though" again and a nice adverb could make it stick. - Athrash | Talk 04:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text correction in Intro paragraph 

message: I just marked this up with a lot of "Citation Needed" tags. Some may not be needed, but some def. are (like where the article states that Tyndale's capture was a "betrayal"). This is a pretty old article, and it seems that most of the original writers have come and gone, no? Can someone here point to where most of this material comes from?
Also, I am OK with paraphrased citations from Foxe, but putting quotes from Foxe right in the article makes for clumsy formatting. Nosferatublue 15:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citation Needed" tags 

message: This article has a strong Christian bias and has factual inaccuracies, e.g. an incorrect assertion that Tyndale coined the term "atonement." (In fact, he may have used it in a special sense, but the word was in existence earlier in related meanings and far earlier in more "literal" meanings).  In addition, the interpretation of the Hebrew word kippur (as in Yom Kippur) is offensive. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur
Finally, can we agree to use a generic term, such as Hebrew Scriptures, in place of Old Testament, except where especially contrasted with New.  While an article on Tyndale relates to Christian publications, the juxtaposition with Jewish terminology within the Hebrew Scriptures makes clear this is a discussion of Jewish texts (albeit in a Christian context).
Finally, finally, the page on atonement has a similar error of etymology.  See 
      http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50014218?query_type=word&queryword=atone&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&search_id=GGuN-AyRxcx-4236&result_place=4
(requires university or similar authorization).
Why shouldn't there be Christian bias? He was a Christian. Do you want a Jewish perspective of Wm Tyndale? If there are factual inaccuracies, they should be corrected. 75.192.242.122 (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Coinage of the word 'atonement' is often ascribed to Tyndale, but the word was around in at least 1513, before Tyndale's translation: see OED entry here (also see entry on atone in an Online Etymological Dictionary and the info provided in this blog entry, More on "Atonement": Before Tyndale). --Woofboy (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors and bias in Tyndale article; error in atonement article 

message: I don't want this to turn into a war, but the October date for his death is the only one I've been able to find in any book or online source other than that article sited that mentions the possibility of a September date.  Of course that doesn't mean the October date is the real one, but it is the accepted one in every source I've seen.
SO...I've edited to article in what I believe to be a very generous and open-minded way, removing refs to the date of his death from the infobox and mentioning the September date as an alternative.  I hope this will satisfy the "Septemberists" out there.  Josh 16:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is really whether wikipedia should simply keep repeating things that are "accepted" but unlikely. Like the year of birth: a very putative 1494 was based on Foxe saying he was educated at Oxford "from a youth" (so, Victorian biographers postulate, this must mean he was much younger than people generally went to university; so perhaps born in 1494 ...). Now that his ordination records have been found it seems very likely he was born about half a decade earlier than that, so may have been a "young" student, but no younger than most. None of the reference works (even the Oxford DNB) reflect that yet. The same with date of death: no contemporary gives a date beyond a month. Foxe's Kalendar (not his biography of Tyndale) has Tyndale down for 6 October, but Foxe deliberately avoided having dates of commemoration coincide with dates of death (the way a Catholic martyrology would) so all we can conclude is that he didn't think Tyndale died on 6 October (but of course you have to read Foxe's small print, which isn't even reproduced in later editions, websites, etc.). Now the conclusions from the financial records for Tyndale's imprisonment have been published (again recently), but the "scientific" date is available one publication, and 10,000 google hits will find the "accepted" date instead - and looking at older, paper reference literature shows that Victorian and 20th-century biographers, like wikipedia editors, just go on repeating the "accepted" dates they find in general reference works, without even looking at them closely. --134.58.127.72 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not the question.  What you are engaged in is original research, and that's not what wikipedia is for.  This is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly journal.  Neither is this page, let alone the article itself, a forum for debating issues like this.  The standard reference books everywhere cite his date of death as October 6.   But I have edited this date business in a generous manner, in order to leave the issue somewhat open.  What you are doing is edging closer and closer to just plain vandalism.  Work with me here, man.  Josh (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reproducing the findings of reliable and readily verifiable secondary literature that publishes original research is not, in itself, original research. The tertiary sources unanimously cite dates that the secondary sources have now shown are impossible to square with the primary sources. What's more, they do so on the authority of an author (John Foxe) who never actually asserted those dates himself. Surely you aren't suggesting that any widely reported fact that is unverifiable (and even impossible) at a primary level, and has been shown to be so at a secondary level, should at a tertiary level still be repeated as though verified simply because it has previously been so repeated at a tertiary level elsewhere? That, in fact, we should create on wikipedia the "reality of consensus" rather than verifiable reality? If I wanted to join in with the name-calling I'd call that a lack of common sense. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: David Daniell, in the Oxford DNB, has "a morning early in October (traditionally the 6th)". So you can see that even the tertiary sources are starting to step away from a bald statement of a non-fact. If you look at Foxe's kalender (the only 16th-century reference for the date 6 October) you will see that there is a second column after the name where Foxe recorded the date of death when he knew it (scroll down to Latimer and Ridley for an example); the number in front of the name is just the day of the month for commemoration (in chronological order by year of death, not date of death). Things that the British Academy publishes for anybody to read for free on the internet are hardly "original research". --Paularblaster (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly is citing something you have written yourself and put up on the internet yourself not original research?  I don't know where you think I called you a name, nor do I know why you are taking this so personally, but your insulting tone is out of line.  Aside from your citation of yourself, the article (or that paragraph anyway) as it now reads is fine.  If you want to continue this discussion on my talk page feel free.  Josh (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I didn't cite myself: as near as I can make out JonHarder, someone unknown to me, cited me here first on 7 October. Secondly, even if I did cite myself, it would be in line with Wikipedia:NOR#Citing_oneself. Thirdly, you suggest that restoring JonHarder's edits to bring wikipedia into closer line with the latest secondary sources (2002) and tertiary sources (Oxford DNB, 2004) was tantamount to vandalism (pretty insulting to my good faith, my expertise, and your common sense). Fourthly, your latest edit completely misrepresents Foxe: if you consult the link in my previous message (above), you will see that Foxe precisely does not give 6 October as date of death (right hand column), only as date of commemoration (left hand column). He does give the month of October (as against Bale and Hall giving September). Your current edit suggests that Foxe says "6 October" and Paul Arblaster says "6 September": in fact Foxe says no more than "October", Bale and Hall both say "September", and I say: 6 September is the right number of days from the end of the fair in Bergen op Zoom that Pointz was absent at when Tyndale was arrested, which makes it the most probable date that can be established from the primary sources. I'm not married to the date 6 September, but I am determined not to father a date on Foxe that Foxe himself never made claims for. And I delight in the irony of the article on Tyndale being the site for this repudiation of ad fontes argumentation and the maintenance of invented traditions, so don't think I take it too personally ;o). --Paularblaster (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just checking to see whether you'd responded and noticed that you not only suggest I cited myself, but cited something I "put up on the internet myself": in fact it was put up on the internet by the Tyndale Society, without my permission or consent, abbreviating and rephrasing (I know not how legally) an article originally published by Brepols (a reputable academic publisher) in Tyndale's Testament (2002, pp. 176-177). I was rather surprised to find it linked to here. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't respond for a couple days to allow cooler heads to prevail.  The way it looks right now is satisfactory to me.  If you have any lingering personal issues with me, or wish to continue this discussion, please direct them to my talk page.  Have a nice day.Josh (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date Conflict: Date for Tyndales death

message: Can I ask if anyone would object to removing the disambiguation redirection of the word 'Tyndale' to the article on that family: Tyndall?
I appreciate that William Tyndale was the most eminent member of the family and the first individual people may think of when saying 'Tyndale'.  However, it is a family name and, in its variant spellings, refers to a very large number of eminent members of the family, many of whom have entries on wikipedia.  William Tyndale would then be given a disambiguation note at the top of the Tyndall family article, as he already is on the Tyndale (disambiguation) page.
This would follow the practice with Leo Tolstoy.  Tolstoy goes straight to the article on the Tolstoy family, but Leo is given a disambiguation note at the top of that article.
Francis Hoar (talk)Francis HoarFrancis Hoar (talk)
:The problem is cleared, since a long time. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: According to the German Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon Tyndale was ordained not until 1521.  For those who read German:
BBKL: s.v. Tyndale.
But as this source is available in German only, it may not be aedequate for citation on en.wikipedia. Even so a correction may be indicated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.102.131 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, in the german wikipedia we citate english texts, too. A lot of users in the english wikipedia, placed on there Wikipedia-Site that they can speak german. (What should be the reason for this practise? What do you think?) In classical encyclopedias you will find here and there citations of foreign books. It is clear that sometimes it is the only way to make a good wikipedia-article. Tyndale was a long time in germany. Don't forget that it is normal practise that a lot of articles are translated from one language to another. German is not an exotic language. When you can't german you can use the babelfish for a bad translation or you can ask a lot of other Users which can speak German. ... use the horse-sense (-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Priesthood in 1515/21

message: If you read the article ohbibi HHHHHHHHIIIIII woeid talk:81.193.220.222|talk]]) 18:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, IP203, if it is a lie that he never used torture, then perhaps you can find a WP:RS for it on the Thomas More article, but there's no point in talking about it here.  This talk page is for article improvement only.  And fyi, 1) their crime could not have been only wanting to read it in their language because it already existed in their language and 2) if Thomas More really was a rotten guy, the Church can simply "de-saint" him, as has been done to others in the past, hence they have no need to try to "prove he justified that status."Farsight001 (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the claim that More executed 6 people, this seems to be quite legally confused. As I understand it More was, as  Lord Chancellor, head of a kind of Appeals Court with the King's main advisors: it could not impose the death penalty: it could only affirm that the original trial had been handled according to the law or, if it hadn't, commute or overturn the capital verdict. By the time the appeal got anywhere near More's court the sentence had already been given. The article on More has more info. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  And on the claim that More tortured, More himself explicitly denied he had tortured  in a book he wrote before his death. Under the law of the time, torture could only be used (in some pre-trial interrogations, under laws designed for seditious heresy) when the suspect was pretty-much known to be lying: NOT when they were rashly telling the truth. So the torture claim makes little sense: the problem with the Lutherans was often not that they needed to be forced by torture to acknowledge they were Lutherans, the problem was that they loudly volunteered it: contrast with More's discretion in his year in the Tower, until he was betrayed. (The source of the claims of torture was a particular Protestant, John Constantine, who ratted out other Protestants and needed to justify why he had done it, IIRC.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  On Foxe, from what I can make out, his preservation of old documents (laws etc) (the "Acts" of "Acts and Monuments") is regarded by historians as very reliable preservation of primary material. However, his authored descriptions are regarded as frequently propagandistic and prone to lurid interpretation, and so presumably not suitable for simply quoting as if a WP:RS. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Attitude of Roman Catholic Church

message: I have removed The souper of the Lorde from the list of Tyndale's works. This anonymously published treatise used to be accredited to Tyndale (based on John Foxe's collection of Tyndale's work), but this ascription is not held any longer. It has been shown that the author is George Joye. See:
* William A. CLEBSCH, More Evidence That George Joye Wrote ‘The Souper of the Lorde’, in HTR 55 (1962), pp. 63-66.
* Orlaith O’SULLIVAN, The Authorship of The Supper of the Lord, in Reformation 2 (1997), pp. 207-232.
GJ1535 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The souper of the Lorde

message: It is amazing that this ERROR is repeated so often and by such reputable authorities. It is has been demonstrated time and again that the the vowels of Adonai DO NOT correpond to those of Jehovah, which would render it "Yahovah" instead of "Y'hovah". In the Masoretic text, it is usually the second vowel, "O", which is blotted out so that the reader will not prononce it. Hence, יְהוָה , which correponds to Y'h*vah, making Adonai an even more improbable source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Foxe reports Tyndale's last words as "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." --Paularblaster (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not reliably attested by contemporary sources, as I understand it. It is likely mythologizing, like the ploughboy story.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article incorrectly attributes the term "Jehovah" to the vowels of "Adonai" 

message: The article doesn't openly states what was his Protestant denomination. I think most evidence indicates that he was a Lutheran.82.154.80.194 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would say it like you especially, because I looked in his texts and in Luthers texts. I would say he was an independent Lutheran. His independence is to see in his text The Obedience of a Christian Man. Tyndale made an english variant of Luthers text: The Freedom of a Christian, but he used another sentence of Luthers text for the title, because Tyndale learned from the peasant  uprisings. Beside his Bible translation, where you can see the influence of Martin Luther, without problems, this is his most known book. And I mean it would be not false to translate this book into german. (-: I suppose that this is one good example for Luthers influence on Tyndale and Tyndales independent. But a lot of people don't like it to read that Tyndale was a Lutheran. Because, they are eg baptists and want not to baptise children and so on or they are from another protestant group. So I will not have the fun to make an edit war. with friendly greetings, Sönke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect the issue of "denomination" is anachronistic wrt the 1520s and 1530s. There is an interesting 1962 article  which says that Tyndale used Luther rather than followed him, and had more of an influence of Zwingli and Erasmus. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: His Denomination

message: There has been a lot of discussion on this page, in various sections, about the relative merits of Brian Moynahan and his contentious book. Given this has direct and sizeable implications for the main historical narrative the article presents, it seems we should reach a decision about his work and stick with it.. We could vote and note the conclusion for future editors so we don't keep covering the same ground. We could add a line to the article stating that Moynahan takes a different tack.  Ref the discussion of Moynahan  at Talk:Thomas More. I don't think barking that Moynahan is a jumped up, up-start non-historian help matters. I'm sure most of us would want to rely on the most solid sources and ref the rest. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure this bickering Helps the article much Spanglej (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but your original suggestion, "We could add a line to the article stating that Moynahan takes a different tack." sounds reasonable. Harrycroswell (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brian Moynahan]] 

message: Hi, is something of his works translated into other Languages, e.g. Latin, Dutch, German, Spanish, French etc. I suppose it would be an interesting and relevant question. And I think the answer should be implemented into the article. Please make a statement on the talk page also when you don't find anything in a foreign language after an intensive searching. (Alternative, when the statement would be to long, please, place it on my German Talk Page.) Especially a translation of his work The Obedience of a Chistian Man would be interesting, I think. with friendly greetings, Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Obedience of a Chistian Man = The Obedience of a Christian Man.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. (-: with friendly greetings --Soenke Rahn (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations of Tyndales Works into other Languages? 

message: Contention from Roman Cathoics came not only from real or perceived errors in translatin but a fear of the erosion of their social power of if Christians could read the Bible in their own language.
This is a gloss and, I contend, untrue, instead being a reflection of a common myth taught in England for centuries.  The Church in fact had no problem at all with vernacular Bibles - Wycliffe's and others had been circulating quite legally for decades - it had a problem with unauthorized translations, especially those by Protestant "heretics" like Tyndale and Luther. So also did Henry's C of E, which continued to enforce the Statute of Oxford. The Vatican, of course, would soon issue its official Douai-Rheims.Solicitr (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Erasmus wasn't accepted by the Catholic Church."  Sorry this is quite wrong, or borderline meaningless. If by "Catholic Church" I suppose your mean the hierarchy...but Erasmus was sponsored and directed by Bishops especially the English Bishops throughout his life: the hierarchy saw him as performing an important work; the Pope contributed a preface to the second edition of Erasmus' New Testament; Cardinal Ximinez defended him; the Archbishop of Canterbury wanted Erasmus to be buried in the same grave as him. Etc. etc. Erasmus' enemies in the church were mainly university theologians from the mendicant orders, and there had been a centuries-long fight at the universities between the "theologians" (scholastics) and the "poets" (humanists and mystical theologians.) Much of Erasmus' writing in the last decades of his life was vehemently defending himself against people who claimed he was not Catholic: historians point out that he was for institutional reformation not doctrinal revolution. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the topic of priesthood of all believers, please look at the article on Wikipedia for better information. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed line

message: The Tyndale Society (an educational charity based at Hertford College Oxford and set up in 1995 by Professor David Daniell) has substantial online resources devoted to the topic of William Tyndale.  This includes a fully-searchable archive of research articles published in 'The Tyndale Society Journal' - the Society's twice yearly magazine, and 'Reformation' - the Society's annual scholarly publication.  Could a link to the Society's website be included in this Wikipedia page, so that this wealth of research material can be added to the resources currently included here?  If so, the url is: http://www.tyndale.org/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.161.168 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past there was a link to it and I mean it was moved to a special page a society article in the wikipedia. But this article was deleted or was it in discussion that it should be moved? I would be for it to place some informations to the society again into the article. with friendly greetings, Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way there exists an Article to David Daniell also. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for link to substantial resources on Tyndale 

message: We are told "...first...Greek...first..Greek...". The claim that Tyndale was the first to translate the New Testament into English from Greek seems to refer to Erasmus's editions. As noted in the article Novum Instrumentum omne, this text was partly translated from the Latin vulgate.
In fact almost all protestant translations until recently were based on the Erasmus-Stephanus text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article is not to read that he does not use the Latin text. But it was not a primary base and so on ... it was not the new thing on the Bible translation. I suppoe it could be possible to find a good quote, ...  --Soenke Rahn (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First 

message: According to "The English Hexapla"  were "some of the officers of the emperor" who seized him.
Tyndale was under Imperial arrest. Lord Cromwell in his efforts to free Tyndale addressed to members of the Imperial Government and not of the Church: "Cromwell, however, did make some exertions on his behalf, by striving to influence some members of the Imperial Government in his favour, using the king's name, but his efforts were useless.".
Priscilla Martin in her introduction to "William Tyndale's New Testament" writes that "The King and Cromwell appealed in vain to the Emperor" .--Domics (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusation of the trial? --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:   heresy & treason (this last charge is missing in the article). Arrested by Emperor's men and seized in a civil prison under Imperial control. The kings (both of them) had all power to free him if they wanted. In the "English Hexapla" is clearly written that the Emperor's men were sent from Bruxelles to Antwerp expressly to arrest him. And "In 1536, when Tyndale suffered, Henry VIII and the Emperor were again on good terms; which may have been the reason of his being put to death, even though Henry had nothing to do with his apprehension. If Henry had chosen, he might now have interfered to save him."--Domics (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  also Poyntz addressed to the Emperor's council in Brussels (see Daniell, William Tyndale, p. 371) in order to free his friend Tyndale..So who arrested him and who had the power to free him?--Domics (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that, if Martin Luther would have written down, please pope convert, that there will hapen something. It is clear that Poyntz wrote to an administration. If you have problems in another country, you will write also to your administration first. It based on a conviction of old catholic theology. This is clear and so on ... The question: Is which persons were involved in the trial on the place were Tyndale was imprisoned ... and who had given the order to seek him for the trial. Another thing is that it is not possibly in each case to devide persons in a person of the church and a person of reign of Henry, e.g. Thomas Morus. -- It is a little bit like the topic of the Diet of Worms. Nobody would say, that only Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor is guilty. The Catholic Church of this time wanted that Luther should be condemned. The court proceedings based on theoologic questions and persons of the church had given opinions and so on. --- If you want to underline, which persons are guilty for the dead of William Tyndale, it is clear that both parts, administration of Henry and the Catholic Church, represented by several English persons and the old theology, made mistakes and this is readable in the article. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked again on the sentence and I have erased "by church authorities", because I think it is clear that the church was involved but this is better to see by the topic heresy which is following in this sentence. And I would say in such sentence, how he was to read, it would correct to "write by local authorities, after repression by the church (spiritual power) and the worldly power and so on". But this sentence should give an overview to the article nothing more. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "arrested by church authorities"? wrong  

message: I added the original research template for this section. It appears to be the contribution of one author, who has done his own research with original texts. As usual, I think this should be published elsewhere first, and then we can link to it. For now I would recommend that this whole section be deleted. -- Margin1522 (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in Tyndale phrases, based on Greek? 

message: The article lists Sir John Tyndale and Amphillis Coningsby as his parents.  Sir John was born in 1486 and Amphillis in 1478.  I am not sure how they could have had a son circa 1492.  Tyndale and other variations of it's spelling was common at that time.  I can't help to wonder if the parents listed are actually his parents or not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtate007 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not know for sure where he was born nor the exact year nor the exact place. ChilternGiant (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Tyndale's parents 

message: The section entitled "Theological Views" contains the following sentence: "He taught justification by faith, believer's baptism, the return of Christ, and mortality of the soul."
The idea that Tyndale taught "believer's baptism" and soul sleep is patently absurd. The only source used for this information is this: Bryan W. Ball, The Soul Sleepers: Christian Mortalism from Wycliffe to Priestley (2008), pp. 48ff.
Can someone please check to see whether or not this is a reliable source, or just some cult publication? 96.234.153.69 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the hint, I have the unsourced Baptistic Pov Wish Theory erased, today. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Believer's baptism" and soul sleep? 

message: It should probably be mentioned that the general Catholic position is still that he deserved to die for disrespecting the church. A quick Google search of "William Tyndale Catholic church" will bring a lot of apologetics about how he was "such a sinner" and that his murder was not wrong.2600:1:91CB:A803:DE27:8D6B:7543:4700 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article should not have non-NPOV original research that expresses obvious bigotry: "general Catholic position" pulllllease... Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholics still defend execution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on William Tyndale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021257/http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/25/arblaster.html to http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/25/arblaster.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tbn.org/watch-us/our-programs/william-tyndale-his-life-his-legacy
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I corrected this... In 1611, the 47 scholars who produced the King James Bible<ref]King James Bible Preface</ref] 73.85.207.40 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  47 scholars/translators produced King James Bible 1611 

message: In the second paragraph I believe "foment" should be "ferment." "Foment" is a verb, not a noun.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCIrving2 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foment/ferment 

message: …so why on earth would the aforeshown spellings of his lastname be left unlisted? 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:59DD:8FD3:CAC7:1E82 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surely “Tindal” and “Tyndal” are (also) sundry spellings of of his name 

message: "In thus publicly attacking the King, Tyndale proved he was willing to not only hinder his own translation work, but even to risk his own life for the sake of a virtuous society."
I have marked this as dubious: he was in exile in order to not give up his life, surely? How would it hinder his work? This is more of the confusion about countries, kings and jurisdictions that plagues material on Tyndale.  If given, it needs a citation to a non-hagriographic Reliable Source IMHO. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to Henry VIII's annulment 

message: "In 1536 he was convicted of heresy and executed by strangulation, after which his body was burnt at the stake."
This should be the 2nd or 3rd sentence in the lede, and not the last sentence of the lede's last paragraph.  Ledes are not the actual Article, nor do they need to be structured in a "timeline" like the Article.  The fact that he was killed by the Church is rivaled in importance only by the fact that he translated the Bible, and I suspect that the reason he was killed was BECAUSE he translated the Bible, therefore these two most-important facts are "married" and mutually co-dependent.  His translation efforts are made more significant by the fact that he was killed as a result, and the fact that he was killed was due to the fact that he translated the Bible, therefore it is nonsensical at best, and censorship at worst, to try to separate these two "married" facts and try to present them as if they are two separate and standalone facts that have nothing to do with each other, when in fact the information is not divisible, and both sides of the coin exist as a single "unit" of information.  The fact that intelligent minds that have created this Article have divided them indicates something significant other than oversight or error, and probably something more akin to information manipulation, censorship and attempting to control the narrative for a reason other than simply telling the truth of historical events.2603:8081:3A00:30DF:F85B:2B2B:EF87:ED46 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, there is no evidence that his scripture translations (as distinct from his own writings) caused his execution. A suspicion is not enough, nor are the hundreds of books which repeat what appears to be a myth.  If you can find a WP:RS source which actually references contemporary witness, please do so.  But there is a lot of well-meaning but bogus info on Tyndale (such as that More killed him) so I think it is better to be strict and not drawn unfounded connections. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priorities of the Lede