Customer Reviews
The First Modern English Book - By: Dr. C. Jeynes, 23 Dec 2008 
In 1526 the English language was undergoing the "great vowel shift" & changing from the language of Chaucer (for whom we need a translation) to Shakespeare. At that time there was almost no English literature (Chaucer was an exception) & the general scholarly opinion was that English was too crude to say important things in. For such things the literate man needed Latin!
There was also great intellectual excitement, with the flames of the new learning being fanned by widespread printed dissemination. In particular, Luther had, in a highly subversive act, translated the newly published Greek & Hebrew originals of the Bible into German, with protection from the Inquisition by his local prince. England was too centralised to allow a similar thing, & besides, the so-called "Constitutions of Oxford" from 1408 were stillin force: these made it effectively a capital offence to translate any part of the Bible into English, & were a response to Wyclif & his Lollards who were preaching a pure (and, it was thought, a highly seditious) Gospel from Wyclif's English Bible. But this manuscript (and very expensive) Bible was little more than a transliteration (into very poor English) from the Latin Vulgate text.
William Tyndale was one of the polymaths of the age, fluentin all the European languages, &in Biblical Greek as well, so much so that he could hear the Aramaic underneath the Greek of Matthew. He was also the only manin England to be fluentin Hebrew. And he believed that Everyman (and Everywoman too) should have access to the sacred text, the very words of God. But translationin England was vigorously prohibited, so he effected his translationin Europe, & printed the book underground, managing (just) to keep one stepin front of the authorities.
This is the text we havein our hands, smuggled unbound into England & passing from hand to hand like wildfire. And what a text it is: probably the most influentialin English, since the 1611 King James New Testament (ubiquitous until fairly recently) is essentially a revision of it. And we still know Tyndale unmediated by King James: when we say "it is for the best" we are directly using Tyndale's text of Romans 8:28, & this is only one of very many places where King James is not an improvement on Tyndale.
Tyndale's New Testament is an important book at many levels. Without Tyndale there would have been no Shakespeare! And (despite the spelling) this book is completely accessible to us: it is the first bookin modern English. And what beautiful & stirring & evocative English it is!
Read aloud - By: David Nunn, 14 Apr 2007 Great bible version to read aloud. Try itin a mock Scottish accent, it works a treat! Compares well with modern translations (e.g. ESV, NIV, TNIV) & makes a refreshing alternative. Thank God for Tyndale.
lovely - By: quakeyjase, 26 Aug 2003 Be warned - it's a bit unwieldy for quick reference, so have an easier version to hand if you are doing Bible study. Otherwise amazing.
Review of the first all modern English Bible - By: Rev. A.J.Carr, 11 Aug 2002 I purchased this Bible from the British Library as they published it for the 2000 millennium. It was a careful rewrite of the 1526 edition with corrected spellings taken from the 1536 edition. One problem for the modern reader is that there are no verses only chapter headings. It is therefore difficult to match verse by verse with other translations. The spelling is original but well worth reading. One helpful tip; Tyndale was a Gloucestershire man so try reading aloudin a Gloucestershire accent & it really does come alive!
W.R.Cooper who was given the task of reviewing the three remaining original manuscripts has done a remarkable job. On occasions Tyndale reads better than other translations. Take for instance the difficult word propitiationin Romans 3:25. Tyndale calls it 'seat of mercy.' In fact his translation was so good that the King James translators took large parts of Tyndale & transported it direct into their pages. I have compared every text of the Book of Romans against the New King James Version & Tyndale. There are whole sections of text where little if any changes are noticed. He uses words like 'favour' for 'grace' 'valour' for 'forbearance'.
Just to give one comparison with the New King James Version, we readin Romans 3:31
"Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." NKJV
"Do we then destroye the lawe throw fayth? God forbid. We rather mayntayne the lawe.." (Tyndale original spelling.)
"Do we then destroy the law through faith? God forbid. We rather maintain the law." (Tyndale modern version by review writer.)
Notice the different use of wordsin this verse as an example where there are changes. Tyndale uses 'destroy' instead of 'void'. 'God forbid' instead of 'Certainly not 'maintain' instead of 'establish'. We also need to bearin mind changesin the meaning of words since 1526.
To sum up. The Christian reader will find much to learn from Tyndale's beautiful translation. On occasion he is to be preferred to other translations. Reading this translation has brought much enjoyment & enrichment when reading the Word of God. I recommend it highly.
All Bible readers should have a copy. - By: , 23 Mar 2002 Good fun to read aloud & get the intonation of the sixteenth century & a different slant to the meaning.
