Computer analysis has revealed that more than three quarters of the King James Version can be traced directly to Tyndale (83% of the NT and 76% of the OT). . . . The King James Version is sometimes called ‘the greatest book written by committee.’ And I suppose there is something to celebrate about that. Yet, for the most part, those 47 scholars, working in peace and prosperity, could not improve on the work of a young evangelical who gave his liberty and his life for the gospel.
For a biography of the man, see David Daniell’s William Tyndale: A Biography. (John Piper says this biography is one of the best he’s ever read of any person.)
HT: Andrew Sullivan
Wow…it looks like I need to brush up on my history. I had no idea so much of this could be tied back to one person.
Have that Bio – just waiting to get started reading. Lot to be said for not reinventing and innovating for innovations sake. Gerald Hammond in his book, The Making of the English Bible, was also good to point out how much of Tyndale was preserved through the various versions leading up to and including the KJV. And also how well and faithful the original was translated by Tyndale. (Hammond concentrated on the OT.) Sometimes Hammond and I expect Daniell will also, lamented translations in the KJV that were less faithful or less beautiful than Tyndale’s and at other points he cheered an improvement of translation. But isn’t it amazing that there wasn’t a felt need to completely throw away Tyndale for something fresh that they could call their own.
I wonder what it really means for two translations to be 83% (or 76%) the same. It seems like you’d need to know what percent similarity would be expected for two completely independent 1600-ish English translations of the Bible, and compare that with the percent similarity for the KJV and Tyndale’s, to get an idea of how much of the overlap would likely be coincidental.
David Owen, that’s where reading a book like Gerald Hammonds is very helpful. The translators didn’t translate in a vacuum of what had come before. Nor did they set out to be unique – rather as they translated they were to consult Tyndale, Geneva, and Bishop’s Bible as well as other translations even in other languages. It was hoped to improve upon the predecessors but not totally reinvent. There was also some reasons from a “political” position. The Bishops bible was the authorized for Anglican churches translation. But it was never wholeheartedly adopted by the peoples who continued to use the Geneva Bible. So from the King’s and Church’s point of view getting a new translation which could do what the Bishops never could do was desirable – to usurp the Geneva. And to have a bible without notes – a very few which evidently felt threatening to the King. Hence as they translated preference was to be given to the Bishop’s bible over other translations but they were free to improve upon the Bishops or to draw from another translation when the sense was more perfectly made known. Invariably Tyndale and Geneva readers were adopted over the Bishops. Hence it was not coincidental that readings identical to the Tyndale bible appear in the KJV. Translational choices were conscientiously picked in this manner.
Hope this makes sense – don’t undersell the giftedness of Tyndale whose translations were purposely chosen first in the Geneva Bible and then again in the KJV and in the case of the KJV over those of the Bishops.
What Daniell points out with example after example is how in many cases the AV committee attempted to improve Tyndale, only to exchange his more vibrant rendering with a translation that feels more archaic by comparison. Tyndale’s vision was beyond just an English translation from the original languages; he had his sights on an English which would capture the imagination of the uneducated ploughboy. As as result his renderings often still have currency more than 400 years later. Amazing man of God. I am deeply in his debt.
Scott, I didn’t mean to question the significance of Tyndale’s contribution, just the meaning of the numbers. I suppose there are standard ways of determining the percent similarity between two texts; perhaps there are even standard ways of determining the percent similarity between two translations of the same text. But I’m a computer science professor, so any time I hear something along the lines of “we used a computer and found out that _____ is ___ percent more ____ than ____” I think: How exactly did they use the computer? What do those numbers really mean?
David, really sorry to make the main thrust of my comment to be questioning whether you were denigrating Tyndale’s contribution. Primarily and truly what I hoped to accomplish was to make the point that using Tyndale’s wordings was purposeful and according to the translators commission and not just that coincidentally when the KJV translators translated they also came up with exactly the same phraseology as Tyndale. I taught computer science for 18 years myself, only as an adjunct. I think understand what your thinking and I’ve also wondered how the statistical similarity comparison was made. Is it a weighted average of matching words verse by verse (guess in that case your coincidental surmise is more warranted than I thought) – or is this analysis resulting from matching phrase for phrase Tyndale to KJV?
The link following is also an excellent Tyndale bio by John Piper and one I have enjoyed listening and reading several times: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/always-singing-one-note-a-vernacular-bible
Good question David.