IN WHAT SENSE WAS TYNDALE A HUMANIST?

The renowned Bible translator, William Tyndale, did not appear in a historical vacuum, but was the product of the changing world in which he was raised. As a boy, he breathed the air of Lollardy; in his college years he swam in the waters of humanism; and throughout his career, he interacted with the ideas of Lutheranism. For decades, scholarship on Tyndale has attempted to place him squarely into one of these traditions.[1] While I do not think Tyndale would have called himself a Lollard, a humanist, or a Lutheran, each of these certainly had their influence on his thought and theology. In this article, I want to focus specifically on his relationship to humanism. First, I will orient you to the humanist movement and give general definitions. Then, I will address how Tyndale reflects the humanist ideals.

The Characteristics of Humanism

Humanism was a pre-Reformation movement that had its hands in ethics, literature, politics, and art.[2] There are three features of humanism that are particularly important for Christian history. First, this group of scholars stressed a return to the study of literature in the original languages. This resulted in the study of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew. Perhaps the most significant fruit of this emphasis was the printing of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (GNT) in 1516. Second, certain humanists recognized that both the clergy and the scholastics had become morally corrupt. They attempted to call church leadership back to the holiness which the New Testament demands. For instance, John Colet, in his famous sermon at St. Paul’s cathedral said, “Priests and bishops are the light of the world…[I]f priests and bishops, that should be light, run in the dark way of the world, how dark then shall the secular people be?”[3] In this way, many of the men in this movement called for a spiritual reformation. Finally, the humanists were very educated men and believed that higher education was a necessity. Unfortunately, this led most of them to stay in the lecture hall, and only a handful became pastors or stooped down into the pulpit. Nevertheless, they trained generations, which resulted in men like Luther, Tyndale, and others.

There were three humanists who were significant in the life of William Tyndale—Desiderius Erasmus (died 1536), John Colet (1467–1519), and Thomas More (1478–1535). As I will show in a moment, Erasmus was one of the most influential men on Tyndale’s practice as a translator. Erasmus printed his GNT with annotations in 1516, and Tyndale used it for his translations. Erasmus wrote other books which Tyndale made use of, like his Enchiridion (a handbook on the Christian life) and De Copia (a manual on writing and rhetoric).[4] John Colet and Tyndale probably never met, since Tyndale came to Oxford as a student right after Colet had left.[5] However, Colet’s lectures on the epistles of Paul left fruit at Oxford, and Tyndale benefited from them indirectly.[6] Tyndale also seems to have appreciated Colet’s preaching, which was done in English while he was in London.[7] Thomas More did not help Tyndale at all but was his greatest adversary. More wrote a huge amount warring against Tyndale, and Tyndale published a response to More called An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue (1530).[8] With this context, let us consider Tyndale’s agreements with humanism.

Tyndale’s Agreement with Humanism

Tyndale could be categorized as a humanist in three ways. First, he believed that documents should be handled in their original languages. It was for this reason that he chose to translate the Scriptures, not from the Latin Vulgate, but from the Greek and Hebrew.[9] Indeed, anytime that he translated, he went back to the original language. When he brought Erasmus’ Enchiridion into English, he did it from the Latin.[10] Likewise, when he translated Isocrates, he produced the first English translation ever, and he did it from the Greek.

Second, he relied on teachings that were found in the humanist tradition, especially Erasmus. Tyndale directly referenced Erasmus’ works in his favor.[11] He also appropriated the language of Erasmus for his own purposes. When Tyndale famously told the papal doctor, “if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough, to know more of the Scripture than you do,” he was likely alluding to this passage in Erasmus’ “preface to the reader” in his GNT, “I wish that they [the Scriptures] were translated into all languages of all Christian people…I wish that the husbandman may sing parts of them at this plow, that the weaver may warble them at his shuttle, that the traveller may with their narratives beguile the weariness of the way.”[12]

Another possible allusion to Erasmus is found in Tyndale’s prologue to Genesis. There he taught that the reader of the Scriptures should not only chew on the outer bark of the text, but get into the “sweet pith” within, which is medicine to the soul.[13] In this way, the reader should not only read and talk about them but apply it to the heart. Erasmus had employed this same language in the Enchiridion. Although for Erasmus, he used it to describe the distinction between the literal sense (the bitter bark) and the allegorical sense (the pith within).[14]

Third, he criticized the corruption of the church and called for spiritual reformation like Erasmus and Colet. He despised the ungodliness that was so common among those who were meant to serve Christ’s church. Instead, a true preacher must “preach purely and spiritually,” and they ought “to fashion their lives after, and with all ensample of godly living and long suffering to draw all to Christ; and not to expound the scriptures carnally and worldly.”[15] In fact, Tyndale wished that they would repent, although he thought their hearts were too hard.[16]

Conclusion

Although Tyndale was not a humanist in a pure sense, he certainly reflected several of the humanist ideals. He wanted to work from the original languages of a given source as he interpreted or translated. He clearly made use of humanist writings, both in allusions and quotations. Finally, he had a burden for the clergy to return to the true path of life, so that they would put their hands to the plow and live with godliness.

Stay in touch with CBTSeminary

For more information about CBTS, go to CBTSeminary.org

Consider giving to CBTSeminary to help us train the next generation of gospel ministers.

Apply to CBTS today to be sharpened for a lifetime of faithful ministry.

Follow CBTS on our socials: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

Sign up for our newsletter and receive monthly updates related to the Seminary.

[1] Notably see these dissertations, John K. Yost, “The Christian Humanism of the English Reformers, 1525–1555: A Study of English Renaissance Humanism” (PhD Dissertation, Duke University, 1965); James Edwards McGoldrick, “Luther’s English Disciples: The Reformation Though of Robert Barnes and William Tyndale” (PhD Dissertation, West Virginia University, 1974); Donald Dean Smeeton, Lollard Themes in the Reformation Theology of William Tyndale, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, VI (Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1986). For a thorough rebuttal to them, and a study which attempted to show that Tyndale was an independent thinker, see Ralph S. Werrell, The Roots of William Tyndale’s Theology (James Clarke & Co, 2013).

[2] There are great studies published on Humanism. As an introduction I would recommend, Myron P. Gilmore, The World of Humanism: 1453–1517, The Rise of Modern Europe (Harper & Row Publishers, 1952); Arie Johan Vanderjagt et al., eds., Christian Humanism: Essays in Honour of Arjo Vanderjagt, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, v. 142 (Brill, 2009); Jerry H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance (Princeton University Press, 2018).

[3] I have slightly updated the spelling of the text that is found in John Colet, “Appendix C. ‘The Sermon of Doctor Colete, Made to the Convocacion at Paulis,’” in J. H. Lupton, A Life of John Colet, D.D., Dean of St. Paul’s, and Founder of St. Paul’s School (George Bell and Sons, 1887), 294. A helpful study on this sermon was done in Jonathan Arnold, “John Colet, Preaching and Reform at St. Paul’s Cathedral, 1505–19,” HR 76 (2003): 450–68.

[4] These are still available and in print in fine translations. Desiderius Erasmus, The Enchirdion of Erasmus, trans. Raymon Himelick (Indiana University Press, 1963); Desiderius Erasmus, On Copia of Words and Ideas, trans. Donald B. King and H. David Rix, Mediaeval Philosophical Texts in Translation (Marquette University Press, 2005).

[5] There is no way to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Andrew Brown has suggested that Tyndale chose to be ordained in London because of Colet’s standing at St. Paul’s cathedral. He has gone so far as to propose that “it is not unlikely that Colet would have been present at Tyndale’s ordination as dead, which took place at St. Paul’s.” Andrew J. Brown, William Tyndale on Priests and Preachers: With New Light on His Early Career (Inscriptor Imprints, 1996), 20.

[6] On the nature and importance of Colet’s lectures see Alden, John Joseph Wenham, “An Examination of the Thought of John Colet (1467?–1519): A Catholic Humanist Reformer at the Eve of the Protestant Reformation” (PhD Dissertation, Yale University, 1969), 93–122.

[7] Tyndale only referenced John Colet once. It is in his Answer to More in a section that is formatted as a dialogue. It reads, “More—‘the bishop of London was wise, virtuous, and cunning’; Tyndale—’For all those three, yet he would have made the old dean Colet of Paul’s an heretic, for translating the Paternoster in English, had not the bishop of Caneterbury holp [sic.] the dean.’” William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale (Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 3:168.

[8] David Daniell’s chapter on Thomas More is very helpful if you would like to understand the context and exchange between these two monumental figures. Other studies have been done on their debates. See E. Flesseman-Van Leer, “The Controversy about Scripture and Tradition Between Thomas More and William Tyndale,” DRCH 43 (1960): 143–64; E. Flesseman-Van Leer, “The Controversy about Ecclesiology between Thomas More and William Tyndale,” DRCH 44 (1961): 65–86; Donald Dean Smeeton, “Marriage, Motherhood and Ministry: Women in the Dispute between Thomas More and William Tyndale,” Churchman 108, no. 3 (1994): 197–212; David Daniell, William Tyndale: A Biography (Yale University Press, 2001), 250–80; Brad C. Pardue, Printing, Power, and Piety: Appeals to the Public During the Early Years of the English Reformation, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, vol. 162 (Brill, 2012).

[9] For Tyndale, the Hebrew and Greek were not only preferred, but actually easier to translate into English than the Latin. See Tyndale, Works, 1:148–149.

[10] It has been suggested that one of the oldest English versions of Erasmus may indeed be Tyndale’s. Although, this cannot be proved, it is likely. See John Archer Gee, “Tindale and the 1533 English Enchiridion of Erasmus,” PMLA 49, no. 2 (1934): 460–71.

[11] After making his arguments in defense of Bible translation, he said, “A thousand reasons more might be made, as thou mayest see in Paraclesis Erasmi, and in his preface to the Paraphrase of Matthew, unto which they should be compelled to hold their peace, or to give shameful answers.” Ibid., 1:162.

[12] As cited in J. F. Mozley, William Tyndale (1937; Greenwood Press Publishers, 1971), 34.

[13] Tyndale, Works, 1:398.

[14] Erasmus, The Enchirdion of Erasmus, 49.

[15] Tyndale, Works, 1:207.

[16] Ibid., 2:343.