Hebrew, Greek, Latin or English?
by Mark Venn
Monument to William Tyndale, North Nibley, Gloucestershire, UK.
Photo: Anne Hayward, https://pilgrimstreet.uk/
It is a sad fact in these days that communication, whether written, verbal or visual, is rarely objective. It may be doubtful that it could ever be, since we are all products of our own genetics, upbringing, education, environment and friendships. Even with good intentions, the best of us will have an individual slant on an issue. Similarly, a free press will probably reflect the owner’s or editor’s preferences. There are communications however that are deliberately not objective. Often there will be a ‘party line’, or a particular topical issue to push. We see this especially in certain countries (generally dictatorships) where only certain stories are permitted and anything going against the official position is not allowed, often with the perpetrators imprisoned, or worse.
One of the tasks seen as vital to autocratic regimes is the need to control the information to which their population is allowed access, since it allows them to spread disinformation or paint very biased views of other countries. For example, I was particularly struck by some of the remarks made in an early article on Only Connect regarding the British involvement in the Second World War 1; one remark from Kyrgyzstan, was perhaps predictable, but the other from a French resident was quite startling.
Controlling information is familiar territory in the secular field, but it also happens in others, particularly religious. My special interest in 2026 concerns the situation in England five hundred years ago. If I had wanted to read Scripture then I would not have been able to, not primarily through illiteracy, but because in England the Bible was only available in Latin. This language was generally understood by clergy but by few common people. Any translation into vernacular language was vigorously opposed by the Church authorities, fearing that those common people might start to form their own understanding. Limiting Scripture to Latin therefore allowed the church to retain a monopoly on biblical interpretation.
The year 2026 is the 500th anniversary of one of the most significant developments in England. In 1526 for the first time, ordinary people, provided that they were literate, could have access to Scripture in the English language 2. The man responsible for this was William Tyndale, a Gloucestershire man whose memorial is on a hill outside North Nibley. In that year Tyndale published the New Testament in English. Cardinal Wolsey, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London all denounced the translation and arranged to buy up copies to be burned at St Paul’s cathedral. Even Thomas More and King Henry VIII opposed it (though to be scrupulously fair to Henry, after the split with Rome, he did order that a Bible in English should be placed in all churches).
On the continent, Scripture had already been translated into several other languages - Luther produced a New Testament in German in 1522 for example. Tyndale's work though was particularly valuable since he used the original Greek and Hebrew texts rather than working from the Latin Vulgate. It is worth mentioning that translators at the time were considerably helped in their publications by the very recent invention of the printing press, which meant that the time-consuming hand-copying of documents was no longer needed. The actual use of vernacular language versions though was essentially limited to Protestant churches.
For his efforts, Tyndale had to flee to the continent where he continued his work. He was eventually betrayed and executed for heresy in Belgium in 1536, but his legacy remains. In addition to the New Testament, he translated around half of the Old Testament, and it is estimated that some two thirds of the text of the Authorised (or King James) Version of the Bible, published in 1611, uses Tyndale’s wording. Many phrases of his, such as “the powers that be” and “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” have remained in common use.
Control of sacred religious texts continues to be retained by many religions. The Roman Catholic church held officially to the Latin forms until very recently, though the use of vernacular translations was allowed. Within Islam, the Quran is only permitted to be written in Arabic; while certain translations are permitted, the original Arabic must appear alongside. Other religious groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, may base their texts on the Bible, but make subtle modifications to reflect their own doctrines.
Tyndale’s efforts were taken to a new level in the early 1800’s, prompted by a very young Welsh girl, Mary Jones. Space does not permit Mary’s full story to be told here, other than to say that she was determined to have a Bible in her own native language; Welsh Bibles did exist, but were in very short supply. Her determination inspired the Clapham Sect 3 to found the Bible Society in 1804, whose mission was to provide native language Bibles to the wider world. In their first ten years of operation, the Society produced 114 translations and distributed over a million Bibles.
The freedom to translate sacred texts into contemporary languages is, to my mind, a necessary one. The vital conditions are that a translation should be as objective as humanly possible, and made through using original material. Comparing different translations will often bring out nuances of meaning that can be illuminating.
1 “As Others See Us...and History” by Richard Pooley.
2 Strictly speaking there were earlier English translations, such as the one by Wycliffe during the late fourteenth century. However, these were all hand-copied and therefore of extremely limited circulation.
3 Not a sect in the strict sense of the word, but a name given to a group of wealthy, philanthropic men who lived around, and were members of, Clapham church in London. Their number included William Wilberforce. In addition to the Bible Society, the group led the campaign to abolish slavery, founded missionary societies, worked for prison reform, were instrumental in the Sunday School movement and many other initiatives. I should declare a small interest here: the Vicar of Clapham church at the time, and a member of the Sect, was a man called John Venn. For interest, his grandson (also called John) invented the Venn diagram.
Mark Venn:
English. University and rowing colleague of Richard Pooley. Thirty years spent in IT management for a UK government research council, thenfifteen teaching Maths and Further Maths at the local 6th form Collegein Cirencester, UK. Now retired, but busier than ever as a Lay Minister,a competitive rower, woodworker, and renaissance musician and instrumentmaker. Not forgetting the four children and (currently) sixgrandchildren, a 51-year marriage and a boisterous Border Collie.
Comments