Whether in his bibliography or somewhere in the text of his biography of Tyndale, “God’s Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More, and the Writing of the English Bible – A Story of Martyrdom and Betrayal,” Brian Moynahan refers to David Daniell’s tome, which carries the eponym of the title of this book review. Daniell, in addition to being a student of Tyndale – he produced modern-spelling editions of both Tyndale’s New and Old Testaments – was also a Shakespear scholar. His expertise concerning these two literary giants of 16th century English literature brings with it a knowledge of the language as spoken at that time and in applying that knowledge, he marvels at Tyndale’s ability to render such extremely accurate translations from the original Greek and Hebrew into the English vernacular of the period. In fact, Daniell declares that owing to the techniques of translation that Tyndale developed, “he made a language for England.”

One methodolgy that the author employs is comparing Tyndale’s biblical translations with those done by Luther. It isn’t until near the end of the book that Daniell acknowledges that one of the reasons that Luther’s translations into English sound awkward is owing to German syntax. Up to that point, the author had been translating Luther’s German into English word-for-word as required by German syntax! In my opinion, this lapse in linguistic awareness by someone who was obviously a student of language is inexcusable and therefore failed to prove his point that Tyndale was Luther’s superior in translating the Bible. Actually, it is a moot point as to whether Tyndale or Luther was the more proficient translator, not as far as correctly glossing various words or concepts, rather, of writing style; they were writing for different readerships. As it was, Luther had several years agewise on Tyndale, so that Tyndale was able to use Luther’s German translations for his own translation work.

Daniell’s is a thick 430-page volume, stretched to this length by discussing in fairly detailed fashion Tyndale’s treatises, The Parable of the Wicked Mammon and The Obedience of a Christian Man, as well as his ‘disputation’ with Thomas More, mainly from the latter’s perspective in order to demonstrate the intensity of hatred More had for Tyndale. That hatred stemmed from Tyndale’s activity of replacing the Latin with an English version of the Bible which, based on the original languages, called into question the translation of three Greek words found in the New Testament that were of extreme importance to Rome.

Of first instance was Tyndale’s refusal to translate the Greek word ‘ekklesia’ as ‘church,’ insisting that the correct gloss should be ‘congregation,’ based on the fact that the translators of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament, most of which had been written in Hebrew) had rendered the Hebrew word ‘qahal,’ meaning ‘congregation’ as in “the whole congregation of the sons of Israel,” as ‘ekklesia.’ There is much more that should be discussed here to completely understand Tyndale’s reasoning, but the bottom line is that the raison d’etre of the Roman ‘church’ in its English manifestation depended on this incorrect translation. As a personal observation I would comment that, although there is no indication that Tyndale was aware of or concerned with the derivation of the word ‘church,’ it must have played a part in Tyndale’s refusal to use the term. Obviously, his antipathy toward the ‘church’s’ practices and teachings heavily influenced this decision.

Tyndale’s nonacquiesence to translate two other Greek words of burning importance to Rome, together with the above ‘ekklesia,’ would eventually lead to his being burned at the stake. To gloss these two Greek words – ‘metanoia’ and ‘agape,’ to mean respectively ‘repentance’ vice ‘penance’ and ‘(God’s) love’ vice ‘charity’ – as Tyndale insisted would have drastically restricted the ‘church’s’ means of financial support.

It is in this context that Daniell, relying on his understanding of 16th century English, notes that the almost total incoherency of More’s ravings against Tyndale are indications of a man, whose hatred has rendered him completely incapable of reasoned argumentation.

Of course, the author allocates sufficient space to recount for the reader the treacherous ne’er-do-well Henry Phillips’s turpid betrayal of William Tyndale. Phillips had been able to ingratiate himself with Tyndale because he too was a gifted linguist. The contrast is striking – even if Danielle does not follow this line of thought – that both were talented linguists, one of whom God used for the righteous purpose of translating His Word into clear, vernacular English, not from the Latin Vulgate, but from the original languages. The other was allowed by God to be used by Satan to nip this bud before it had fully bloomed.

In an attempt to draw a comparison between Daniell’s and Moynahan’s biographies of William Tyndale, I would characterize the former’s as a much broader stroke, while the latter’s hones in on events that Daniell just touches on. Daniell especially illustrates the tendency of the effective translator to go deep into a Biblical text with the outcome being extremely fruitful exegetical insights.

Reading these biographies of William Tyndale is instructive and invigorating for the student of the Bible who is engaged in working in it in the original Hebrew and Greek. To the extent that the reader identifies with Tyndale through his love for God’s Word and the languages in which the Holy Spirit breathed it, these biographies will leave the reader with a sadness, sitting with him in his dark cell without access to his Hebrew Bible, grammar and lexicon; and, finally, at his gruesome execution. On the other hand, it should embolden the reader to all the more vigorously delve into the original languages to do as Tyndale did – to glean jewels, the gleam of which radiates the salvation described through them.