Skip to main content

Full text of "The first English New Testament and Luther the real extent to which Tyndale was dependent upon Luther as a translator"

See other formats



li W ;. T 



C>bc Minivers Uv of CbicaQO 



I t ; - - 
f t 
1 I 

* /^rf^r " 


/., ' -. ''- r - ' ''.'''- - '' . ' : : - 








President Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary 

Author of "Whence Came the Universe?" "The Theory of a 

Finite and Developing Deity," "The Einstein 

Theory: Relativity and Gravitation," 

"What After Death?" 





Copyright, 1928 

by L. Franklin Gruber 

Maywood, Illinois 

Printed in the U. S. A. 



Preface 7 



I What Tyndale's New Testament Was Called 15 

II Contemporary References to Marginal Notes 

Etc. 19 

III Early Bibliographers Perplexed 22 

IV The Mystery Cleared Up by the Finding of 

the Cologne Fragment 24 

V Contemporaries on Tyndale's Association 

with Luther 29 

VI George Joye on Tyndale's Ability as a Trans- 

lator 35 

VII Contemporary Testimony Discredited by 

Most Historians 46 

VIII Contemporary Testimony Accepted by Some 

Writers 55 


I The "Prologge" 63 

II The Notes or Glosses 73 

III The Parallel References 97 

IV The Text and Its Arrangement 104 

V Summary and Conclusion 118 

Index 123 


H E Quadricentennial of the beginning of 
the Reformation, in 1917, was made the 
occasion of a reexamination of many 
things associated with that great move- 
ment. The personalities of its great 
leaders, in and with their historic back- 
grounds, were studied as perhaps never before, both 
from the Protestant and from the Roman Catholic 
standpoint. The far-reaching events of the sixteenth 
century, in which they figured, and their literary la- 
bors, were reviewed in the light of the twentieth cen- 
tury, with the keen scrutiny developed by four centu- 
ries of history. 

Of the great men of that eventful period there is 
none that received anything like the attention in this 
fresh study that Luther, the brave monk of Witten- 
berg, received. Nor is there any other Reformer 
whom such reweighing in the balances of present-day 
unbiased critical judgment has found wanting in so 
few essential particulars. After every fresh examina- 
tion, and comparison with others, he still stands out 
like an "Alpine Mountain," as the religious genius in 

whose soul the Reformation was born and by whose 
mighty hand, under God, it was directed toward its 
consummation; as the restorer of God's unchanging 
truth from the accumulation of traditions and errors 
of a millennium; as the matchless translator of the 
Bible into the vernacular and the consummate expositor 
of its real doctrinal essence; as the heroic figure that 
marks the second greatest turning point in human 

In attempts to ascertain a proper measure of the 
greatness of Luther he has often been compared with 
other Reformers. But such a measure in itself might 
have but a relative value. If the contemporaries of a 
man were all relatively small men, the standard by 
which such a man might naturally be measured would 
be small ; and though he might be great as compared 
with them, he might still be small as compared with 
men of another period. But historians have vied with 
one another in lauding the greatness and the deeds of 
the contemporaries of Luther. Indeed, on this point, 
both friends and foes of the Reformation will perhaps 
agree, namely, that throughout the Christian centuries 
there has been no period with a greater array of truly 
great men than that of the Reformation. But, of the 
great men of that period, Luther, with his many-sided 
genius, must be acknowledged to have been incompar- 
ably the greatest. Thus a suggestive comparison of 
Zwingli with Luther might be made through Carlstadt. 
While Carlstadt was associated with the Wittenberg 
Reformers and the far-reaching Reformatory Move- 


ment in its full swing there, he was a small man as 
compared with Luther ; later on, when associated with 
Zwingli and his co-workers in the more local Swiss Re- 
formation he was considered, and undoubtedly was, 

But Luther was great not only as compared with 
all his contemporary Reformers in every land, but al- 
so as compared with the truly great men of all ages. 
Our own admiration continues to grow with continued 
study of the man, of his prodigious literary output, and 
of the Titanic movement which must always be identi- 
fied with his overmastering personality. Indeed, in a 
sense, Luther was the Reformation. We marvel also 
at the vast range of his versatility and the genuine 
catholicity of his teaching, at what might be called the 
timelessness of his outlook upon truth and upon events 
and the consequent freshness or uptodateness of his 
attitude toward many great world-problems. But why 
say more? We believe we can truthfully say that Lu- 
ther was one of the few truly great outstanding charac- 
ters of all time men who have turned the world's 
history into totally different channels and who belong 
thereafter to all future ages. 

It is therefore no discredit to a contemporary Re- 
former to compare him or his work with Luther; it 
should rather be an honor to be compared with one so 
great. The following comparison of Tyndale with Lu- 
ther is therefore not meant to minimize the work of 
Tyndale. It is meant only to subserve the interests of 


the truth as to a much debated point, namely, the ex- 
tent, if any, to which Tyndale was dependent upon 
Luther as a translator of the Bible. 

The subject which we are discussing is thus not 
a new one. As will appear in Part I., it is virtually 
as old as the two historic publications of which it treats. 
But, while it is an old one in that sense, it is one that, 
in another sense, is ever new and fresh. Moreover, it 
will also be seen that it has hitherto persisted in re- 
maining an open question. What contribution this 
first-hand fresh study may humbly make to this histori- 
cally and bibliographically interesting subject, we shall 
leave to the judgment of the candid reader. 

The substance of the following comparison of Tyn- 
dale's Cologne New Testament (1525) with the New 
Testament published by Luther, together with our con- 
clusions, we first offered as a Quadricentennial study in 
several issues of the Lutheran Church Review, 1916- 
1917. A little later it was issued separately in book 
form. But copies of the Church Review may be inac- 
cessible to many who are interested in the subject, 
while the edition in book form was soon exhausted and 
is now out of print. Some of the writer's conclusions, 
with various new elements, were published also in the 
Bibliotheca Sacra, as a Quadricentennial offering in 
commemoration of the publication of Luther's New 
Testament (1522). As considerable interest, both in 
America and abroad, has been manifested in these in- 
vestigations, and as there have been many calls for co- 


pies of the above which could not be supplied, we be- 
lieve that this revised and somewhat enlarged publica- 
tion on the subject will be welcomed. We therefore 
send it forth on its intended mission. 

January 6, 1928 

L. Franklin Gruber 
Maywood, Illinois 







T is a rather singular fact that Tyndale's 
New Testament was regarded by ene- 
mies of the ^Reformation, both in Eng- 
land and on the Continent, as "Luther's 
New Testament in English." It is alto- 
gether likely, however, that their first 
examination of this new book in the reformatory move- 
ment was somewhat superficial. At any rate, it was 
not likely at first sufficiently thorough-going to warrant 
so sweeping a conclusion. And yet, if we transport our- 
selves back to their time and in thought place ourselves 
in the midst of the great religious upheaval of that pe- 
riod, and consider the matter from their point of view, 
we can readily understand how natural such an in- 
ference must have been. 

The conflict with the long established order had 
begun in Wittenberg in 1517, and at the time of the 
appearance of Tyndale's first New Testament in 1525 
it had reached menacing proportions. Almost every 


significant event associated with that conflict was some- 
how considered as emanating from Luther as its great 
directing genius. Tyndale was known to be on the 
Continent, and the current rumor was that some of 
the time he was spending in Wittenberg. Moreover, 
when his Cologne New Testament publication appeared 
its printed page closely resembled the corresponding 
page of Luther's New Testament, which had already 
passed through three folio editions September, 1522 ; 
December, 1522; and 1524. It was therefore quite 
natural to think that at last Luther's New Testament 
was making its appearance in the English language. 
Hence, loyalty to the Church demanded that this, like 
all other Lutheran publications, must be suppressed 
before it could do its supposedly deadly work of in- 
fecting the people of England with the heresies of the 
sect of Luther. 

In further confirmation of what is said above, we 
shall now give several quotations from contemporary 
writers, in which the name "Luther's Testament in 
English" is applied to Tyndale's New Testament. 
These, as also the numereus other quotations that will 
appear throughout this book, we shall reproduce with 
their quaint spelling exactly as they appear in the 

In A dyaloge of syr Thomas More, 1529, chapter 
eight of the third book, occur the following striking 
words: "It is/quod I/to me gret meruayl/that eny 
good cristen man, hauing eny drop of wyt in hys hed/ 



* * '< 1J 

O 'r-S^. 

X 5 


^=r>.. 5|S s 
:^2-=-s2s^'i.n = 

1 v( u-*53Ojyut; 




g 1 








bJD S 

oa 0> 

QJ o 

$H 3 

?H "0 

8 g 

- o> 

O> CD 

C bJD 


17 &JO 
A o 





TM be 
_1! O 

cS to 

wold eny thing meruell or complayn of the burning of 
that boke if he knowe the mater which who so callith 
the new testament calleth it by a wrong name/except 
they wyl call yt Tyndals testament or Luthers testa- 
ment. For so had tyndall after Luthers counsayle cor- 
rupted & chaunged yt from the good & holsom doctryne 
of Criste to the deuylysh heresyes of theyr own/that 
it was clene a contrary thing." 

So also in the Commentaria lohannis Cochlaei, de 
Actis et Scriptis Martini Lutheri, etc., 1549, we find 
this passage: "Verum Duo Angli Apostatae, qui ali- 
quandiu fuerant Vuittenbergae, non solum quaerebant 
subuertere Mercatores suos, qui eos occulte in exilio 
fouebant & alebant: Verum etiam cunctos Angliae 
populos, uolente nolente Rege, breui per nouum Lutheri 
Testamentum, quod in Anglicanam traduxerant lin- 
guam, Lutheranos fore sperabant" But two English 
apostates who sometime had been at Wittenberg, not 
only were seeking to ruin their own merchants, who 
secretly were fostering and supporting them in exile; 
but they were even hoping for all the people of Eng- 
land, whether the King were willing or unwilling, soon 
to become Lutherans, through Luther's New Testa- 
ment, which they had translated into the English 

And again, a few pages farther on in the same 
publication, in giving an account of how he discovered 
that the New Testament was being printed in Cologne, 
Cochlaeus says that several printers had told him how 


England was to be won over to Luther; "Nempe 
uersari sub praelo Tria Milia Exemplarium Noui Test- 
ament! Lutheran!, in Anglicanam linguam translati, 
ac processum esse iam ad literam Alphabet! K. in or- 
dine Quaternionum Namely, that three thousand co- 
pies of the Lutheran New Testament, translated into 
the English language, were in the press, and that they 
had proceeded as far as the letter K in the order of 

Other passages showing that contemporaries con- 
sidered Tyndale's New Testament at least largely a 
translation of Luther's Testament into English, will be 
given under the next head, and some additional ones, 
when we consider more in detail such contemporary 
evidence for the connection between these two men. 




E shall now cite a few passages in which 
an attempt is made to establish what 
was considered Tyndale's manifest her- 
etical connection with Luther, from a 
comparison of the notes, etc.. of Tyn- 
dale's New Testament with those of 
Luther's New Testament. 

In a letter of February 24 (probably 1527) to 
Henry Gold, the chaplain to the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, Robert Ridley writes: "Maister gold I hartly 
commaunde me vnto you/as concernyng this common 
& vulgare translation of the new testament in to eng- 
lishe/doon by M. William hichyns/other wais called 
M. W. tyndale & frear William roy /manifest luther- 
anes heretikes & apostates/as doth opynly apeir not 
only by their daily & continuall company & familiarite 
with Luther & his disciples/but mych mor by their 
comentares & annotations in Mathew & Marcum/in the 
first print/also by their preface in the 2d prent/& by 


their introduccion in to the epistle of paule ad romanes/ 
al to gither most posoned & abhominable hereses that 
can be thowht/he is not films ecclessiae christi," etc. 
Ridley here was probably somewhat confused as to the 
two prints or editions referred to, for, while the first 
or Cologne print did have annotations, etc., the second 
or Worms print did not have a preface. It had an 
epilogue, To the Reder, instead. As to the Introduc- 
tion to Romans, it might be said that the language 
would indicate that this statement has reference rather 
to a separate edition of that Introduction. Al- 
though it has generally been denied that a copy of 
such an edition is extant, there is one, without date 
and place of printing, in the Bodleian Library. But, 
as precision of language was not a prevailing virtue 
in that day, it is not altogether certain whether it does 
here refer to such a separate edition. And yet, as the 
earliest form or issue of this Introduction extant in 
connection with the New Testament is found in the edi- 
tion of November, 1534, it must almost certainly re- 
fer to the separate edition. 

Again, in A copy of the letters wherein .... our 
souerayne lorde kyng Henry the eyght .... made 
answere vnto a certayne letter of Martyn Luther 
(1526-27), we read: "And thrvpon without answere 
had from vs/nat onely publysshed the same letter and 
put it in print/of purpose that his adherentes shulde 
be the bolder/vnder the shadowe of our fauour/but 
also fell in deuyce with one or two leude persons/ 
borne in this our realme/for the translatyng of the 


Newe testament in to Englysshe/as well with many 
corruptions of that holy text/as certayne prefaces/and 
other pestylent gloses in the margentes/for the ad- 
uauncement and settyng forthe of his abhomynable 
heresyes/entendynge to abuse the gode myndes and 
deuotion/that you oure derely beloued people beare/ 
towarde the holy scrypture/& to enf ect you with the 
deedly corruption and contagious odour of his pesty- 
lent errours." 

These and other passages that might be cited, refer 
to certain commentaries or annotations in Matthew and 
Mark, certain glosses in the margins as well as to 
prefaces and introductions as manifest evidences of 
Tyndale's confederacy with Luther and of the open 
connection of his New Testament with that of Luther. 




OR a great many years, such passages as 
we have cited in the preceding division, 
perplexed bibliographers. Just what 
such prefaces and introductions, and es- 
pecially such annotations or glosses, 
might have been, could not definitely be 
determined. There were indeed copies of later 
editions of Tyndale's New Testament (1534, etc.) 
extant; but no one knew of the existence of any 
copy of the earliest edition with notes, etc., re- 
ported to have been published. It is important, of 
course, to remember that the above two passages, as 
well as some others of a similar nature, belong to 1527, 
or even earlier. They, therefore, antedate the print- 
ing of any copy of Tyndale's New Testament with notes, 
definitely identified up to nearly a century ago. Even 
the Worms edition, without notes, etc., was unknown 
for over two centuries. Some idea as to the meaning 
of such passages could be formed, however, from 
known copies of the later editions, noted above. But 
even as to some of these and their real existence there 


was only rumor or tradition. And the contents of 
those few copies that were known to be extant, were 
practically unknown except to their owners. In- 
deed, those who owned, or knew about, them, either 
did not have access to, or did not think of comparing 
them with, copies of early editions of Luther's New 

Thus the real connection between the New Testa- 
ments of Luther and Tyndale was long overlooked. 
And, of course, references to such connection by con- 
temporaries of these men were generally explained 
away as rather hasty conclusions on their part. These 
conclusions were supposed to have been based upon 
the fact that Tyndale was believed to have been at 
Wittenberg, and that because he, like Luther, published 
a New Testament, it must be that of Luther in the 
English language. Indeed, some contended that this 
was due to the fact, that work of the same nature as 
that of Luther was then generally attributed to, or as- 
sociated with, him. So generally was this explanation 
of the statements of Tyndale's contemporaries accept- 
ed, that practically all connection between Tyndale and 
Luther was almost categorically denied. This 
denial, even to the extent of arbitrarily declaring that 
Tyndale never saw Wittenberg or had anything to do 
with the Continental reformer, has to a considerable 
extent persisted even to our own day. 




E are not left entirely without evidence 
that throws light upon contemporary re- 
ferences to certain prefaces and pesti- 
lent glosses. In the year 1836 Mr. Tho- 
mas Rodd of London found, bound up 
with a small quarto tract of Oecolam- 
padius, a curious fragment of 31 leaves of St. Ma- 
tthew's Gospel, in old black letter type. This 
fragment, upon careful comparison with books 
printed by Peter Quentel of Cologne, was finally 
proved to have been printed by that printer, either 
during or before 1526. This date was determined 
chiefly from the fact that a woodcut of St. Matthew 
used therein, was used also, slightly cut down, in a 
work by Rupertus, entitled In Matthaeum, from the 
same press, bearing the date M. D. XXVI., and known 
to have been finished by June 12. That this New Test- 
ament fragment was therefore printed during the early 
months of, or before, 1526, and at Cologne, by Peter 
Quentel, was evident. By comparing its text with 


that of later editions of Tyndale's New Testament, it 
was proved to be a fragment of the famous Cologne 
English Neiu Testament, with glosses, etc., 1525, re- 
ferred to by Cochlaeus, et aL This precious fragment 
came into the hands of Thomas Grenville, by whom it 
was bequeathed to the British Museum for permanent 

A word should here be said also as to the history 
of the only complete copy of the Worms octavo edi- 
tion known to be extant. Probably only about a year 
or two before the death of Lord Oxford (1741), Mr. 
John Murray somewhere purchased for him a curious 
copy of the New Testament, which proved to be of 
Tyndale's Worms or octavo edition, for which he was 
rewarded with a gift of ten guineas and an annuity 
of 20 pounds for life. Upon the dispersion of Lord 
Oxford's Harleian Library by the bookseller Osborne, 
1743, this copy was bought by the bibliographer Ames 
for 15 shillings. At Langford's sale of Ames's books, 
May 13, 1760, it was sold for 14% guineas to Mr. John 
White, who on May 13, 1776, sold it to Dr. Andrew 
Gifford for twenty guineas. In 1784, Dr. Gifford 
bequeathed it to the Baptist College at Bristol, Eng- 
land, where it has found a permanent resting place. 
Another, but very imperfect copy is in the library of 
St. Paul's Cathedral, London. 

But as we are here dealing more particularly with 
what we shall now definitely call the Cologne Fray- 


ment, above spoken of, we shall now resume our con- 
sideration of the same. 

From this priceless Cologne Fragment, which was 
photo-lithographed and published in a limited edition 
by Edward Arbor in 1871, the references to pestilent 
glosses, etc., made by Tyndale's contemporaries some 
of them as early as 1526 became clear. There is the 
long "prologge" or introduction referred to by some 
writers, and along the outer margin of the text are the 
so-called commentaries or pestilent glosses, in the form 
of explanatory notes, while along the inner margins 
are the parallel references. 

Over a half century ago, even before the publica- 
tion of Arbor's facsimile edition, Brooke Foss West- 
cott, the great New Testament critic, compared this 
Cologne Fragment with a copy of Luther's New Test- 
ament. The result was that he at once recognized a 
similarity between the two, especially as to the table 
of the books of the New Testament, and found that 
some whole paragraphs of Tyndale's prologge were 
translations from Luther's introduction. The most im- 
portant results of this investigation he published in 
his excellent History of the English Bible (1868), in 
which he gives, however, a far more thorough analysis 
of Tyndale's Worms octavo New Testament and later 
editions, and their relation to Luther's New Testament. 
He, however, stoutly denied any great, or at least ser- 
vile, dependence of Tyndale upon Luther as a trans- 


Mr. Arbor in his Preface to his facsimile reprint 
gives us the results of a more careful comparison of 
the Cologne Fragment with Luther's New Testament, 
made for him by J. Baynes, Esq., of the British Mu- 
seum. In addition to part of the prologge, a great 
many notes and references are here traced to Luther. 
Demaus, also, as the result of a similar comparison of 
the Cologne Fragment with Luther's first edition, is 
moved to acknowledge a very striking similarity be- 
tween them, and a manifest dependence of Tyndale 
upon Luther, especially as to most of the marginal nates 
(William Tyndale, p. 129) . Some other writers on the 
history of the English Bible, largely following these 
investigators, also acknowledge some such dependence. 
But many are unwilling to make such a concession, or 
rather prefer to remain silent on the subject. As 
very few writers have had access to copies of the 
earlest editions of Luther's New Testament, they have 
generally accepted what has been said by others, to 
which they have therefore added practically no further 
evidence. Many of them have preferred rather even 
to take the view of earlier writers, or have at least 
refused to make as much concession as did Westcott, 
Arbor and Demaus. Moreover, even original investi- 
gators have apparently not had access to, or at least 
did not compare Tyndale's Fragment with, copies of 
all the Wittenberg editions of Luther's New Testament 
printed before 1526, which were evidently accessible 
to Tyndale. Even such comparisons as have ac- 
tually been made with one copy of Luther's New Testa- 


merit, seem not to have been exhaustive. Therefore, a 
fresh presentation of the most important contemporary 
evidence, as well as such evidence as is afforded by all 
the Wittenberg editions probably accessible to Tyndale, 
is important. 




N A dyaloge of syr Thomas More (1529), 
from which we have already quoted, fo- 
lio 80, we read, "For now yt ys to be 
consydered that at the tyme of thys 
translacyon hychens was wyth Luther 
in wyttenberge/ and set certayne glosys 

in the mergent/ framed for the settyng forthe of 

that vngracious sect. 

"By saynt John quod* your frende yf that be true 
that Hychens were at that time with Luther/it is a 
playne token that he wrought sumwhat after hys coun- 
sayle/ and was wyllynge to helpe hys maters f orwarde 
here. But whyther Luthers matters be so badde as 
they be made for/that shall we see hereafter. 

"Very true quod I. But as touchyng the confeder- 
acye betwene Luther and hym/is a thyng well knowen 
and playnly confessed/by suche as haue ben taken and 


conuycted here of herysye comyng from thense/and 
some of them sente hyther fro sowe that sede aboute 
here/and to sende words thyther fro tyme to tyme how 
yt sprang." Then the author attempts somewhat at 
length to trace Tyndale's change of the words charity , 
church and priesthood or priest to Luther. And else- 
where More says that, as soon as Tyndale left England, 
he went straight to Luther. Nor did Tyndale deny that 
he had been at Wittenberg, but he denies, only that he 
was a confederate of Luther. This undoubtedly means 
that he denied co-operation with Luther in the Refor- 
mation, or perhaps that he denied endorsing all Lu- 
ther's acts and teachings. But it does not involve a 
denial of the use of his translation, etc. Hence, though 
More apparently accepted Tyndale's denial of being a 
confederate of Luther, in his Confutation issued later 
he .still speaks of him as having been at Wittenberg. 

Thus, Sir Thomas More, one of the ablest and keen- 
est critics of his day, concluded from such evidence as 
he had, that Tyndale had been with Luther at Witten- 
berg, and that this accounted for Tyndale's marginal 
glosses and certain renderings in his translation, which 
he claimed he recognized as being taken from Luther's 
New Testament. Indeed, he declares that it was well 
known that there was an association of Tyndale with 
Luther, as also confessed by convicted English heretics. 

Of similar import are the following words from a 
letter of Edward Lee to Henry VIII., Dec. 2 (1525) : 
"Please it your highnesse morover to vnderstond/that 


I ame certainlie enformed as I passed in this contree/ 
that an englishman your subiect at the sollicitacion and 
instaunce of Luther/with whome he is/hathe translated 
the newe testament in to Englishe/and within four 
dayes entendethe to arrive with the same emprinted in 
England. I nede not to aduertise your grace/what in- 
fection and daunger maye ensue heerbie/if it bee not 
withstonded. This is the next waye to fulfill your 
realme with lutherians. . . . Hidretoo blessed bee 
god/your realme is save from infection of luthers sect," 

So, in An expediat laicis, etc., 1533, Cochlaeus says, 
"Etenim ante annos octo, duo ex Anglia Apostatae, qui 
Vuittenbergae Teuthonicam edocti linguam, Lutheri 
nouum testamentum in linguam Anglicanam uerterant, 
Coloniam Agrippinam uenerunt, tanquam ad urbem 
Angliae uiciniorem, mercatuque celebriorem, et nau- 
igijs ad transmittendum aptiorem, ibique post rusti- 
corum tumulturn aliquamdiu latitantes, conduxerunt 
sibi in occulto Chalcographos, ut mox primo aggressu 
tria milia exemplarium imprimerent, Cumque eo in 
opere alacriter ingenti spe procederent, iactitabant 
conscij Bibliopolae et Chalcographi, totam Angliam 
breui fore Lutheranam, uelint nolint Eex et Cardinalis" 
And indeed eight years before (namely, 1525), two 
apostates from England, who, having been taught the 
German language at Wittenberg, had translated Lu- 
ther's New Testament into the English language, came 
to Cologne, as to a city nearer England, more celebrated 
for commerce, and better equipped with vessels for 


transportation; and there after the rebellion of the 
peasants for a while concealing themselves, they secret- 
ly hired printers that thereupon in the first under- 
taking- they might print three thousand copies. And 
while they proceeded eagerly with great hope in this 
work, the booksellers and printers who knew of it, 
boasted that all England would soon be Lutheran, 
whether the king and cardinal were willing or unwill- 

In like manner, the same writer in his Scopa, etc., 
1538, speaks of the secret machinations of two Eng- 
lishmen, "quibus Lutheri Testamentum nouum in An- 
glicanam linguam unsum, Coloniae excudebatur, ut in 
Angliam in multis milibus occulte transmitteretur," 
etc. by whom Luther's New Testament, having been 
translated into the English language, was struck off at 
Cologne, that it might secretly be sent in many thou- 
sands into England. 

So in his work, Commentaria. . . de Actis et 
Scriptis Martini Lutheri, from which we have already 
quoted, Cochlaeus speaks of two English apostates who 
some time had been at Wittenberg. 

Fox in his Actes and Monuments (4th. ed., 1583), 
page 997, in speaking of the persecution of "Maister 
Humfrey Mummuth," has this, among other things, to 
say: "Stokesley then Bishop of London, ministred 
Articles unto him, to the number of xxiiij, as for ad- 
hereing to Luther and his opinions: for hauing and 


reading heretical bookes and treatises, for geuing exhi- 
bition to William Tindall, Roy, and such other, for 
helping them ouer the sea to Luther, for ministring 
priuie helpe to translate, as well the Testament, as 
other bookes into English," etc. This he says in 
the light of Tyndale's denial of actual confederacy with 
Luther, and of More's later declaration that he had 
been with Luther, as then amply established. In this 
charge, which, according to the records, Monmouth did 
not deny, he is accused, among other things in connec- 
tion with Tyndale and his association with Luther and 
his teachings, of assisting Tyndale even in getting to 
Luther. In the articles of accusation brought against 
Monmouth, 1528, it was, moreover, declared that he 
was "privy and counsel" that Tyndale and Roy went 
to Luther in Germany to study his sect, which decla- 
ration also Monmouth did not deny. 

Then, from the further abundant evidence at 
hand, a little farther on in the same work Fox definitely 
declares, "At his first departing out of the realme, he 
toke his iorny into the further parts of Germany, as 
into Saxony, where he had conference with Luther and 
other learned men [probably Melanchthon, etc.] in 
those quarters." ' 

So also, in the English edition of the answer of 
Henry VIII. to Luther (probably March, 1527) , entitled 
A copy of the letters, etc., as already quoted, Henry 
charged Luther with being back of Tyndale's transla- 


tion of the New Testament, with its prefaces and 
glosses, into English. 




E come now to some remarkable state- 
ments by one of Tyndale's associates 
and co-workers, namely, George Joye, 
"some tyme fellow of Peter College in 
Cambridge," as he himself says. 

After Tyndale's first two nearly simultaneous edi- 
tions (Cologne Matthew, etc., and Worms) of the New 
Testament had appeared, some Dutch printers, not fa- 
miliar with the English language, took it into their 
heads, probably for mercenary reasons, to reprint Tyn- 
dale's New Testament. Accordingly, at least two edi- 
tions, apparently full of errors, mostly of a typographi- 
cal character, appeared. Then it appears that Tyn- 
dale was urged to send forth another and corrected edi- 
tion, in accordance with his promise in his "To the 
Reder" at the end of his Worms edition, to> offset these 
erroneous editions, but that he delayed so long that 
George Joye was asked by these Dutch printers to edit 
their third edition. But Joye, it seems, declined, upon 


the plea that a new and corrected edition would soon 
be issued by Tyndale himself. Thus another erroneous 
edition was printed without any aid from an English 

Again the printers asked Joye, and now, seeing that 
Tyndale still delayed in issuing a new edition, Joye con- 
sented and accordingly edited this fourth Dutch edi- 
tion. It ended with the following colophon: "Here 
endeth the new Testament diligently ouersene and cor- 
rected/and prynted now agayn at Antwerpe/by me 
wydowe of Christoffel of Endhoue. In the yere of oure 
Lorde. M.CCCCC. and. xxxiiij. in August." The only 
copy of this edition extant is in the Grenville Collection 
of the British Museum. It might also be stated that 
not a single copy of any of the earlier surreptitious 
editions printed between Tyndale's Worms edition of 
1525-26 and this edition edited by Joye, survived the 
desolation of the English Reformation. Therefore, 
nothing further than mere report or rumor is known 
of them, although the market of the time was flooded 
with these reprints or imitations,, even as to a much 
greater extent the German book market was flooded 
from many presses with reprints of Luther's match- 
less translation of the New Testament and other parts 
of the Bible, as well as of the whole Bible, against which 
he repeatedly protested. 

Tyndale would, however, now no longer allow these 
surreptitious and poorly edited editions to circulate 
among the English people, unchallenged and without a 


corrected competitor. He accordingly, in November of 
the same year, followed this edition edited by Joye . 
with a more correct edition of his own. In this ap- 
peared a second preface, "Willyam Tindale/yet once 
more to the christen reader." In this he bitterly takes 
Joye to task for supposedly corrupting the text of his 
translation. A temporary reconciliation between Tyn- ' 
dale and Joye, brought about by friends, followed. 
Thereupon Joye issued a second edition, dated January 
9, 1535, in which, in an address "Vnto the Keader," 
though mildly defending his former edition, he sets 
forth the terms of agreement between himself and Tyn- 
dale. Another break, probably caused by this expla- 
nation of Joye, followed. Then Joye issued a lengthy 
defense of his position, February 27, 1535, entitled "An 
apologye made by George loye to satisfye (if it maye 
be) w. Tindale," etc., the only known extant copy of 
which is in the Library of the University of Cambridge, 

In this tract Joye gives an account of the temporary 
agreement between himself and Tyndale, which he says 
Tyndale has broken. He then defends himself against 
Tyndale's vehement attacks upon him in the second pre- 
face to the November edition of his New Testament 
in the second part quoting and answering Tyndale's 
preface, paragraph by paragraph. Although Joye was 
no doubt moved, by his controversy with Tyndale, to 
unusual bitterness and some exaggeration, his testi- 
mony is here given for what it may be worth in the 


light of the comparison of Tyndale's Cologne Fragment 
with Luther's New Testament, to be given later. 

Near the beginning of the second part of this tract, 
in commenting upon Tyndale's statement about having 
again looked over the New Testament and compared it 
with the Greek, Joye says, "It was but loked ouer in 
deed nothinge performing his so large promyses added 
in the later ende of his first translacion [Worms] to 
the reader/and I wounder how he coude compare yt 
with greke sith himselfe is not so exquysitely sene 
thereyn." In this paragraph he declares that Tyndale 
was not very proficient in the Greek language, and this 
apparently without fear of refutation on the part of 
either Tyndale or his friends. 

Incidentally, it should be said that this statement by 
Joye about "promyses added in the later ende of the 
first translacion to the reader," clearly implies that the 
first completed edition of the New Testament was the 
small octavo, without marginal notes and preface, 
printed at Worms. It is thus evident that the inter- 
rupted Cologne edition was never finished. From var- 
ious other contemporary statements, we have come to 
the conclusion that it was finished, however, to the end 
of Mark. And this would seem altogether possible. 
When Cochlaeus discovered the printing of the New 
Testament, he found that it had been completed to sig- 
nature K. But, it is altogether likely that the type had 
already been set up for additional sheets, some of which 
may even also have been struck off before Tyndale 


knew that he was discovered, and therefore before he 
and his co-worker William Roye started on their flight 
up the Rhine toward Worms. And, even if not actually 
struck off, it is quite likely that the type as far as set 
up, together with the necessary sheets, was taken along 
by the refugees, who may even have had sympathetic 
laborers or other assistants to< help them. Thus, it is 
altogether probable that the Cologne edition was actu- 
ally completed to the end of Mark, only Matthew as far 
as the end of signature H, or more definitely as far as 
the twelfth verse of the twenty-second chapter, being 
extant in the famous Grenville Fragment. This would 
also explain the contemporary references to an edition 
of Matthew and Mark. But, from what we have said 
above, it is equally certain that the whole New Testa- 
ment was not thus completed, as is often asserted by 
writers. Moreover, the type and paper of the Cologne 
press could hardly have been matched by type and paper 
at Worms, so as to make a homogeneous book. 

The points noted above should therefore establish 
the fact, that the Worms edition was the first completed ' 
printed edition of the New Testament in English. This 
is even implied in Tyndale's To the Reder in that edi- 
tion, in which he makes an apology, "that the rudnes 
off the worke nowe at the fyrst tyme/offende them not." 
The same is implied in his prologue To the Reder in 
his Genesis of 1530, in which he speaks of the Worms 
edition as his translation of the New Testament, to 
which he "added a pistle vnto the latter ende." 


It is, indeed, true that Cochlaeus speaks of the pub- 
lication of a quarto edition at Worms, but this is ap- 
parently a statement only from memory, as he wrote 
this some years after the first appearance of the book he 
describes. He was therefore probably somewhat con- 
fused as to the precise facts. It is not altogether 
unlikely that he had reference to the fragmentary edi- 
tion of Matthew and Mark, spoken of above. 

But, to resume our analysis of Joye's account, two 
pages farther on he says, "And what T. dothe I wote 
not/he f maketh me nothing of his counsel/I se nothyng 
come from/ him all this longe whyle. wherin with the 
helpe that he hathe/that is to saye one bothe to wryte 
yt and to correke it in the presse/he myght haue done 
it thryse sence he was first moued to do it. For T. I 
know wel was not able to do yt with out siche an helper 
which he hathe euer had hitherto." In this paragraph, 
in defending his action in co-operating with the Dutch 
printers in issuing an edition, Joye charged Tyndale 
with unnecessary delay in himself issuing a revised 
edition, declaring that with such helpers as he had 
there was no excuse, while he incidentally points out a 
very prominent part these helpers had in the work of 
translating and printing. . 

Of these two helpers he says a page later, "And 
as for his two disciplis that gaped so longe for their 
masters morsel that thei might haue the aduauntage of 
the sale of his bokis of which one sayd vnto me. It 
were almose he were hanged that correcketh the testa- 


ment for the dewch/and the tother harped on his 
masters vntwned string/saying that because I englissh 
Resurreccion the lyfe aftir this/men gathered that 1 
denied the general resurreccion : which errour (by 
their own sayng) was gathred longe before this boke 
was printed/vnto which ether of theis disciples I semed 
no honest man for correcking the copye/I wil not now 
name them/nor yet shew how one of them/neuer I dare 
say seyng. s* lerome de optimo genere interpretandif 
yet toke vpon him to teche me how I shuld translat the 
scripturis/where I shuld geue worde for worde/and 
when I shulde make scholias/notis/and gloses in the 
mergent as himself and hys master doith. But in good 
faithe as for me I had as lief put the trwthe in the 
text as in the margent," etc. Joye here defends himself 
not merely against Tyndale but also against his two 
associates, and incidentally throws some light upon the 
method used by Tyndale and his helpers In the work of 
translating and annotating the text, apparently attri- 
buting at least the glosses to them as much as to Tyn- 
dale. He apparently here refers to some mechanical 
process in translating, perhaps implying even the copy- 
ing of notes, etc., the source of which Joye no doubt 
well knew. 

In reply to Tyndale's appeal to God that he wrote 
nothing out of envy or malice, or in order to stir up 
false doctrine, Joye says : "Here is an holy othe bro- 
ken/and a perellouse desyer/yf the contrary to be 
trewe/For here he rayleth vpon me/he belyeth me/ 


he sclaundereth me and that most spightfully with a 
perpetual infamye: whiche al yf yt be not of enuy/ 
malice/and hatred of what els shulde yt spring ?" Then 
immediately follows this startling statement: "And 
euen here for all his holy protestacions/yet herd I 
neuer sobre and wyse man so prayse his owne workis 
as I herde him praise his exposicion of the v. vj. and 
vij. ca. Mat. in so myche that myne eares glowed for 
shame to here him/and yet was it Luther that made it/ 
T. onely translating and powldering yt here and there 
with his own fantasies, which praise methought yt then 
better to haue ben herde of a nother mannis mouth/ 
for it declared out of what affeccion yt sprang euen 
farre vnlyk and contrarye vnto these whiche he now 
professeth and protesteth so holely for wordis be the 
messageris of mennis myndis." In the first part of 
this passage Joye attempts to show that Tyndale was 
moved with envy, etc., to make his bitter attack upon 
himself. Then he endeavors to show that back of 
Tyndale's attitude of envy, etc., there was really pride, 
as manifested by his praise of his own works. As an 
instance he cites Tyndale's Exposition of Matthew v. 
viL, which Joye declares Tyndale merely translated and 
adapted from Luther. And, while Tyndale unmistak- 
ably based his Exposition upon, and freely used, Lu- 
ther's Expository Sermons of 1530 (printed in 1532), 
it should, however, be said that he used them in a man- 
ner that might be considered more legitimate than that 
with which he used Luther's glosses and some other 
of his writings. 


In a passage following the above, in commenting 
upon Tyndale's professed motive in translation, Joye 
says among other things : "For in good f ayth/ and as 
I shal answere before god/ere he came to one place of 
the testament to be last corrected/I tolde his scrybe/ 
euen him that wrote and correckted the testament for 
him/that there was a place in the begynnyng of the vj. 
cap. of the actis, somwhat derkely translated at fyrst/ 
and that I had mended it in my correction and bode 
him shew yt Tin. to mende yt also/yf yt be so sene 
vnto him/and I dare saye he shewd yt him/but yet be- 
cause I fownde the fawte and had corrected yt f efore/ 
Tin. had leuer to haue let yt (as he did for all my 
warnyng) stande styll derkely in his new correccion," 
etc. Then follows the passage spoken of. Joye here 
speaks of an assistant of Tyndale, who, he says, wrote 
and corrected the Testament for him, as a fact to him 
well known. Nor does the passage imply merely a me- 
chanical copying. In speaking of this corrector, Joye 
does not, however, imply that Tyndale was not also 
properly active in this work of translation. He also 
speaks of a correction which he pointed out, through 
this assistant, to Tyndale, but says that, because it 
was he who pointed it out, Tyndale would rather let it 
stand than have it corrected to Joye's credit. 

A few pages later, he defends himself against Tyn- 
dale's criticism of the changes in his (Joye's) edition 
of the New Testament, in the following words : "And 
I saye/I haue made many changes which yf T. had had 


siche sight in the greke as he pretendeth and conferred 
yt diligently with the greke as he sayth he did/he shulde 
haue made the same changes him selfe/which places 
I shal poynt him to here after/but yet let Tindale loke 
ouer his Testament once agene and conferre yt a lytle 
beter withe the verite and greke to/I wolde euery man 
wolde compare my correction wyth his/and marke well 
euery change/and he shall se that I changed some 
wordis and sentencis/which T. aftir me was compelled 
euen as I did/so to change and correcke them himselfe." 
In this passage Joye again speaks of certain corrections 
that he made, but which were overlooked by Tyndale 
(1534 edition), and of others that Tyndale adopted, 
strongly hinting at only ordinary knowledge of the 
Greek language on the part of Tyndale, as against what 
he professed. 

And again, about two pages still farther on, in 
speaking of Tyndale's supposed evasiveness in defend- 
ing his translation, Joye adds: "If he were so wel 
sene in the greek as he maketh him selfe/doing siche 
diligence in this his correccion as he pretendeth and 
professeth/he shulde haue lefte out some of so many 
vayne and fryuole notis in the mergent nothing corre- 
sponding nor expowning the texte." Following this 
statement he cites examples in illustration. In this 
passage also Joye seriously questions Tyndale's pro- 
fessed knowledge of Greek, as shown in his 1534 edi- 
tion of the New Testament, especially in some alleged 
inapplicable notes, as well as in various unconnected 
erroneous passages in the translation. 



This testimony of George Joye, which we have 
given somewhat at length, is before us. But it would 
not do for any one to pass hasty judgment upon this 
testimony alone. Further evidence is available, espe- 
cially from Tyndale's Testament. And only in the 
light of all the evidence can one really pass an unbiased 
intelligent judgment. To what extent Joye's testimony 
is reliable, will appear from our examination of Tyn- 
dale's Cologne Fragment itself. 




T has stoutly been denied by some writers 
that Tyndale was ever at Witten- 
berg, or even that he was to any 
marked extent dependent upon Lu- 
ther. Thus Christopher Anderson in 
his well-known Annals of the English 
Bible (1845 and 1862) firmly declares: "This 
idea of Tyndale's immediate and intimate confederacy 
with Luther, and his dependence upon him, originally 
imported from abroad, through men who were, at the 
moment, under the torture of examination in England, 
has been repeated from Sir Thomas More and John 
Cochlaeus, two determined enemies, not to say John 
Foxe, a decided friend, down to Herbert Marsh in our 
own day; but it is more than time that it should be 
exploded" (p. 24) . As a proof of this statement, An- 
derson refers to Tyndale's denial of being a confederate 
of Luther, which we have already explained. 

Another supposed proof Anderson cites, is the fact 


that in Monmouth's appeal for release from the Tower 
of London where he was imprisoned for financially 
aiding Tyndale and abetting his heresies he says that ' 
Monmouth paid Tyndale ten pounds when he went to 
Hamburg and "that within a year after he sent from 
Hamburg for other ten pounds which he had left in his 
hands, and that thither he had sent it to him" (Ibid., 
p. 25). From this Anderson draws the unwarranted 
conclusion that Tyndale "remained in Hamburg 
throughout 1524." Indeed, it is only natural that Ham- 
burg, where he first stopped, should be the place from 
which to appeal to Monmouth for more funds; but it 
is faulty reasoning to conclude that Tyndale remained 
there during that whole interval of a year, especially 
in the light of abundant contemporary evidence and 
abundant circumstantial internal evidence from his 
New Testament to be given later to the contrary. 
Moreover, Anderson falsely quotes Tyndale, when he 
says, "More had affirmed that Tyndale 'was with Luther 
in Wittenberg' ; and Tyndale replies, 'that is not truth* " 
(Ibid., p. 26). The words of Tyndale, "that is not 
truth," are Tyndale's answer to the charge that he was 
a confederate of Luther, as explained before, not to a 
charge that he was in Wittenberg, or with Luther. 

So Anderson's further contention that Luther was 
then so occupied with his controversy with Carlstadt, 
etc., as to forbid approach by Tyndale, is altogether 
contrary to what is well known concerning Luther's 
general character and approachableness. Anderson's 
statements that "Tyndale was not at present, nor 


indeed ever was, a Lutheran," and that "as a scholar, 
he needed neither assistance nor advice, from a man 
with whom he could have conversed only through the 
medium of Latin" (Ibid., p. 26), are mere groundless 
assertions. That Tyndale bodily incorporated, by mere- 
ly translating them from the German, whole pages of 
Luther's writings, not only in his New Testament pro- 
logue and in his introductions to separate books, but 
also in some of his tracts, is an open secret, as we could 
easily show. And what appears later from our com- 
parisons between the New Testaments of Luther and 
Tyndale, should be evidence enough, that Tyndale did 
abundantly rely upon, and freely use, Luther's New 
Testament. Even Cochlaeus in An expediat, as already 
noted, declares that Tyndale and Roye learned the 
German language at Wittenberg. 

Moreover, Anderson's quotation from Tyndale's "To 
the Reder" at the end of his "Worms" New Testament 
(1525-26), that he "had no man to counterfeit" (An- 
nals, p. 27), affords no proof for his contention that 
Tyndale worked independently of Luther. Tyndale 
there defends only his honest endeavor to translate 
as well as his gifts or qualifications enabled him, be- 
seeching his Christian readers that they should consider 
how that he "had no man to counterfet/ nether was 
holpe with englysshe of eny that had interpreted the 
same/or soche lyke thige I the scripture before tyme." 
This would rather mean that he was not imitating or 
following any other English translation. Indeed, he 
definitely says, "nether was holpe with englysshe," etc. ; 


but he does not make any such statement as to other 
languages. In the light of this interpretation, 
these words are no doubt correct, as he was certainly 
not following the beaten path of any previous English 
translator. The English of Wycliffe's version was not 
that of Tyndale' s time. At any rate, Tyndale apparent- 
ly did not follow Wycliffe's translation to any great ex- 
tent. But, if his biographers, and writers on the history 
of the English Bible, insist that he meant versions in 
other modern languages, then the evidence is over- 
whelming that this statement would not be correct. On 
the contrary, it would then seem rather that he was 
somewhat afraid that he might be thought to have fol- 
lowed Luther, or to be a confederate of the German 
reformer, and that he meant thus to offset such suspi- 
cion, as there was much bitterness manifested against 
Luther, while the English people and their rulers were 
then not much acquainted with his German version. 

We are surprised that Westcott accepted Ander- 
son's conclusions, apparently even without further in- 
vestigation. In a note at the foot of page 36 of his 
History of the English Bible, he says, "Mr. Anderson 
successfully disposes of the common tradition that he 
[Tyndale] visited Luther at this time [1524] . . . 
Luther indeed was otherwise engaged." Westcott also 
denied that Tyndale was sufficiently acquainted with 
German up to the time his New Testament was finished, 
largely basing his conclusion upon the absence of Ger- 
man from the languages ascribed to Tyndale in Spala- 
tin's dairy, as reported by Busche (Ibid., p. 174) . But 


this omission is only natural for the German Busche, 
who, while exaggerating Tyndale's knowledge of other 
languages, apparently passed over the German as na- 
turally implied. 

And yet, Westcott himself admitted that Tyndale's 
Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount (1532), was 
traceable to Luther's German Expository Sermons of 
1530, as the Latin translation was not made till 1533. 
He even admitted the possibility of Tyndale's using 
notes taken by himself, or by some one else (Ibid., p. 
196). Indeed, as those German sermons did not ap- 
pear in print till 1532 the same year in which Tyn- 
dale's Exposition appeared it seems altogether likely 
. that Tyndale was one of the entranced audience that 
heard Luther deliver them, and that he was therefore 
quite familiar with the German, to appreciate a dis- 
course. Indeed, it is probable that Tyndale was 
at Wittenberg most of the time from 1527 to 1530. 
Westcott also acknowledges (History, etc., pp. 194-195) 
that in his Prologue to Romans Tyndale freely used 
both the German and the Latin of Luther's Preface. 
In like manner does he admit that in his short prefaces 
to various other books in his 1534 edition, Tyndale 
largely used Luther's German prefaces. He even con- 
cedes that this edition indicates, if anything, more de- 
pendence upon Luther than do his earlier editions 
(Ibid., pp. 198-199) . However, this is probably due to 
the fact that he did not fully recognize the extent to 
which those earlier editions (Cologne and Worms) 

were dependent upon Luther's earlier editions. De- 



ma^us also acknowledges the dependence of Tyndale 
upon both Luther's Latin and German Prologue to Ro- 
mans (William Tyndale, pp. 145-146). However, he 
erroneously says that no copy of this Prologue by Tyn- 
dale in separate form is extant. 

It should be said here that, although Ames, Hazlitt 
and Lowndes note such a separate edition of this Pro- 
logue, it would by no means necessarily follow from 
this that it now exists. There has been some confusion 
among bibliographers as to a number of those early 
prints, some being reported apparently from mere ru- 
mor. Thus, they have reported several editions of 
Tyndale's New Testament, both surreptitious and gen- 
uine, of which there are certainly no known copies ex- 
tant. However, the Librarian of the Bodleian Library, 
Oxford, England, reports to the writer a copy of Tyn- 
dale's Introduction to Romans in that famous Library, 
and he has kindly also furnished him with a description 
of the same. This separate edition of the Compendious 
Introduceion to pistle to Romayns agrees generally with 
the version found in the 1534 edition of the New Testa- 
ment. It is, however, three pages shorter, ending with 
the words, "the weaknes off my f ayth and encrease it." 
But, whether it was printed in 1526, as is assumed, is 
not certain, a's it bears neither date nor place of print- 

But, that this Introduceion in this separate form 
was printed before its appearance in the 1534 edition 
of the New Testament, is evident from several facts 


that become apparent by comparing the two, especially 
the fact that it is the shorter and less complete form 
of it. This is also in line with early contemporary 
references to this Introduction, as though it circulated 
as a separate tract. In the light of these facts it is 
altogether probable that it was printed some time dur- 
ing the year 1526, as has generally been believed. 

Westcott's own observation (History, p. 185) that 
in the 1534 edition Tyndale approaches more closely to 
the Greek original, should have suggested to him that 
Tyndale's acquaintance with Greek was considerably 
less in 1525 than in 1534. And yet, despite this fact, 
he states (p. 182) or implies (p. 185) that Tyndale's 
1534 edition even more closely approaches Luther's 
translation than do his 1525 editions. This, then, should 
also be a convincing evidence of the general accuracy 
of Luther's translation in the estimation of Tyndale 
in the light of his further study notwithstanding his 
liberal use of it in 1525. Moreover, Tyndale's partial 
dependence upon Luther in his 1525 edition, Westcott 
also acknowledges (pp. 193, sq.). 

Among other writers who deny that Tyndale was 
ever at Wittenberg, etc., are Henry Walter, in his Bio- 
graphy of Tyndale in The Parker Society's publication 
of Tyndale's Works, 1848 ; but his arguments are even 
less satisfactory than are those of Anderson and West- 
cott. So, also, W. F. Moulton, in his History of the 
English Bible, 1878, denies that Tyndale spent any 
time at Wittenberg, as also he denies practically all 


connection of Tyndale's translation with Luther's (pp. 
87, sq.) . But, that Moulton either was unfamiliar with 
Luther's translation, or that he did not compare it with 
Tyndale's, is evident from his many errors as to the 
source of certain of Tyndale's renderings (pp. 76-78, 
and elsewhere) most of which we have traced directly 
to Luther. 

Many other writers, even apparently without any 
further investigation, have accepted the statements of 
these men and have been led to make extravagant 
claims for Tyndale, which can not bear the light of in- 
telligent 1 scholarship. Thus, Pattison, in his otherwise . 
rather readable History of the English Bible, writes 
thus : "He [Tyndale] has been charged with drawing 
his inspiration from Luther, but some years before 
Luther's Bible appeared, Tyndale's mind was full of 
the purpose of translating the New Testament, and 
between his work and that of the German Keformer 
there are only such points of resemblance as are natural 
in the work of men so like-minded as were they. It 
was to the Greek text of Erasmus and to his Latin 
version that Tyndale turned when he set himself to 
his task" (pp. 47-48). To be sure, Luther's complete M 
Bible appeared first in 1534, but here it is his New 
Testament that we are dealing with, and that appeared 
in September, 1522, not to speak of other smaller parts 
or passages of the Bible, some of which appeared as 
early as 1517. 

A similar misstatement is found in Conant's Eng- 


Ush Bible (1856), on page 124, for which there is no 
excuse whatever, as it is not founded upon fact, but 
upon mere theory or prevenient wish. Even Arbor 
denies that Tyndale ever was at Wittenberg or ever 
met Luther (The First Printed English New Testa- 
ment, p. 20), but also altogether without any proof. 

The quotation from the diary of Spalatin, entry for 
August, 1526, often referred to in proof that Tyndale 
was an unusual linguist, but that he was not familiar 
with the German language, might here he further ex- 
amined. It is not Spalatin who thus praised Tyndale's 
linguistic ability, but he says that one Herman Busch- 
ius reported the printing of 6,000 copies of the Eng- 
lish Testament at Worms, "translated by an English- 
man who lived there with two of his countrymen, who 
was ,so complete a master of seven languages, Hebrew, 
Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, Brittanic, French, that 
you would fancy that whichever one he spoke in was his 
mother tongue." This was therefore only a rumor, and 
by the time it had reached Spalatin it had assumed the 
form of exaggeration, which it so clearly is. And, of 
course, as reported by a German to Germans, of a man 
who was known to have been living for some time in 
Germany, it was apparently considered that German 
was implied in the statement. 





HERE are writers on Tyndale and the 
history of the English Bible who accept 
the testimony 1 of contemporaries that 
Tyndale was at Wittenberg during part 
of 1524 and 1525. Thus, Ellis, in his 
William Tyndale (1890), on page 31, 
after citing some contemporary evidence, concludes 
thus: "It seems, therefore, probable that almost 
immediately after his landing at Hamburg, Tyn- 
dale made his way to Wittenberg." As a prob- 
able reason, he cites Tyndale's admiration of Lu- 
ther and his sense of loneliness. Likewise, G. Bar- 
nett Smith, in his work on William Tyndale, page 34, 
also acknowledges that Tyndale and Roye were in Wit- 
tenberg. In these conclusions these two authors, as do 
some others, avowedly follow Damaus in his William 
Tyndale, a part of whose arguments they quote. 

Of similar conviction is Hoare, "The unanimous evi- 
dence of his contemporaries supports the view that he 


was at Wittenberg with Luther, and that he worked 
there at his translation. His modern biographers, on 
the other hand, keep him in Hamburg for the whole in- 
terval" (The Evolution of the English Bible, 1901, p. 
125). The same author also says, "Speaking generally 
it may be said that up to the year 1523 Tyndale re- 
mained more or less the disciple of his earliest instruc- 
tors, John Colet and Erasmus. Thenceforward he felt 
very strongly the influence of Luther" (76., p. 109). 
On page 130 he also acknowledges a somewhat close 
relation of Tyndale's Cologne New Testament to that of 
Luther, and yet ascribes to Tyndale originality and in- 
dependence as a translator, at first hand, of the Greek 
text. He, however (p. 131), denies that Tyndale was 
a Lutheran or a sectarian of any kind, basing his denial 
upon Tyndale's words in the edition of 1534, that he did 
not mean to stir up false doctrine or be the author of 
any sect. But this is wholly inconclusive, as Luther 
also openly denied both. 

This dependence of Tyndale upon Luther, Eadie 
in his great work, The English Bible (Vol. I, pp. 143 
sq.), also to some extent acknowledges. But he, too, 
denies that Tyndale was a Lutheran (p. 122), yet with 
equal inconclusiveness. Mombert, in his Hand Book 
of the English Versions, also acknowledges that Tyn- 
dale was at Wittenberg (p. 83), and that he was some- 
what dependent upon Luther (p. 89). Stoughton, in 
his Our English Bible (p. 80), also accepts this con- 
clusion. That Tyndale spent some time at Wit- 
tenberg is also the position taken by Jacobs in his 


work on The Lutheran Movement in England, in which 
he points out not only a manifest general dependence 
of Tyndale, but also of other English reformers, upon 
Luther. Among other writers who in the main have 
accepted this general view, may be mentioned Froude, 
Green, Offor, Kenyon, Pollard and Price. 

A number of able writers among them Fuller, 
Hallam, Marsh and LeLong have not only acknow- 
ledged that Tyndale was under the influence of Luther, 
but they have gone even so far as to hold that he 
translated his New Testament merely from the Latin 
Vulgate and Luther's German, and that he was a man 
of but ordinary scholarship. 

Without going to that extreme, we believe, how- 
ever, without the shadow of a doubt, that, as his con- 
temporaries so repeatedly declared, Tyndale was with 
Luther at Wittenberg and that probably there he did 
most of his work of translating the New Testament. 
As to his ability as a translator, etc., our estimate will 
appear later. It was also probably in Wittenberg dur- 
ing 1524 or early 1525, that Tyndale was joined by 
Roye, who for some time became his necessary assist- 
ant for the speedy translation and preparation of the 
copy for the printer. 

But we must conclude this part of our discussion 
with a brief summary of what seem to be unmistak- 
able historic facts. In 1525 we find Tyndale again * 
at Hamburg, where he received a second installment 


of money from Monmouth. Thence Tyndale and Roye 
went to Cologne, where the printing was carried 
through at least as far as signature K (10 quires), 
when i was interrupted by that inveterate foe of the 
Reformation, John Doebneck, better known as Coch- 
laeus. Thence they fled up the Rhine to Lutheran 
Worms, where the octavo edition was prepared, and 
printed by Peter Sehoeffer, and where the quarto edi- 
tion, with notes, etc., interrupted at Cologne, was pro- 
bably also completed to the end of Mark, thus explain- 
ing many contemporary references) to these Gospels. 

While Tyndale was at Cologne and at Worms, en- 
gaged in printing his Testament, William Roye was 
his intimate companion and helper, as already noted. 
Even during his work of translation, which we 
believe was largely performed at Wittenberg, Roye was 
also supposed to have assisted him. But this helper 
apparently left Tyndale early in 1526. Then Joye, of 
whose testimony concerning Tyndale we have spoken 
somewhat at length, was associated with Tyndale about 
four years later, and probably much earlier. We find 
references to him in connection with Tyndale already 
in documents relating to 1529 and 1530. Thus, he is 
spoken of in Halle's Chronicle as co-translator of the 
New Testament, with Tyndale. In 1533 he even made a 
personal appeal by letter to the King and Queen of 
England for a license to translate Scripture. 

Joye was apparently for three or four years with 
the English refugees at Antwerp, and was seemingly 


quite closely associated with Tyndale. Even his po- 
lemical Apology e, from which we have quoted, incident- 
ally throws considerable light upon the intimate asso- 
ciation of Joye with Tyndale. In addition to the evi- 
dence of his connection with Tyndale that appears in 
passages already quoted, near the end of his Apologye 
he appealingly declares : "But yt was thou [Tyndale] 
my nowne f elowe/my companion in lyke perel and per- 
secution/my f amiliare/so well knowne/vnto whom I 
committed solouingly my secretis/with whom gladly 
I went into the house of god." Nor did Tyndale any- 
where deny this close former association. 

Joye's statements concerning Tyndale's ability as a 
translator and his dependence upon Luther, as to glos- 
ses, text, etc., though they need not wholly be accepted 
should, therefore, have considerable evidential value in 
arriving at the true measure of Tyndale as a Greek 
scholar and Bible translator. He knew Tyndale in- 
timately, and his methods in translation, at first hand, 
as well as through others. And, as we shall see, the 
following direct comparison of Tyndale's Cologne 
Fragment with Luther's Testament, largely confirms 
Joye's testimony, however unfortunate we may regard 
his acrimonious attack upon Tyndale to have been. 

The general testimony of Tyndale's contemporaries 
as to his connection with Luther and his dependence 
upon him as a translator, can not lightly be disregarded. 
Nor can the statements of George Joye be set aside as 
of no evidential value, because of the unfortunate per- 


sonal differences between him and Tyndale. The testi- 
mony is before us, and only positive counter-testimony 
to neutralize it could convince the unbiased reader to 
the contrary. Indeed, there has been no lack of at- 
tenipts to overcome this contemporary testimony, as 
we have indicated ; but all such attempts have failed to 
establish Tyndale's supposedly extraordinary ability 
and independence as a translator. 


We have already shown how the finding of the frag- 
ment of the quarto Cologne New Testament threw new 
light upon contemporary accounts. We have learned 
that some direct dependence of Tyndale's New Testa- 
ment upon Luther's has been pointed out by various in- 
vestigators, however much certain writers have tried 
to deny this dependence. In Part Two we shall pro- 
ceed to a fresh and thorough examination of the con- 
tents of that Cologne Fragment in further development 
of this long debated subject. Thus we shall be able 
to determine to what extent, if any, the testimony of 
Tyndale's contemporaries is reliable. 




HAT Tyndale's prologge is in good 
part taken from Luther is even al- 
ready an open secret. Two entire pages 
of this prologge are a literal translation 
of what constitutes over half of Lu- 
ther's Vorrhede alone. 

The following is a reproduction in parallel columns 
of the part of Luther's introduction used by Tyndale 
and Tyndale's version or use of it. We reproduce the 
Vorrhede of Luther, as well as the prologge of Tyndale, 
from the beginning, as far as Tyndale more openly 
followed Luther. The point at which Tyndale directly 
begins to translate Luther, and his bodily appropriation 
of whole paragraphs, is, of course, readily recognized 
by the reader. 

We give Luther's Vorrhede verbatim et literatim 
from his first edition indicating variations, other than 
those of mere spelling, in the second and third editions 
as also we give Tyndale's prologge from the Cologne 


Fragment. Hence, some apparent errors in spelling, 
etc., even for that day. 


Luther: First Edition 
September, 1522 


Es were wol recht vnd bil- 
lich/ das dis buch on alle vor- 
rhede vnnd frembden namen 

Tyndale : 

Cologne Fragment 

The Prologge. 

I haue here translated (breth- 
ern and susters moost dere and 
tenderly beloued in Christ) the 
newe Testament for youre spir- 
ituall edyfyinge/consolaeion/ 
and solas: Exhortynge instant- 
ly and besescynge those that 
are better sene in the tongs 
then y/ and that have hyer 
gyfts of grace to interpret the 
sence of the scripture/ and 
meanynge of the spyrite/then 
y/to consydre and pondre my 
laboure/and that with the spy- 
rite of mekenes. And yf they 
perceyve in eny places that y 
have not attayned the very 
sence of the tonge/or mean- 
ynge of the scripture /or haue 
not geven the right englysshe 
worde/that they put to there 
hands to amende it/rememr- 
ynge that so is there duetie to 
doo. For we have not receyved 
the gyfts of god for oureselues 
only/or forto hyde them: but 
forto bestowe them vnto the 
hononringe of god and christ/" 
and edyfyinge of the congrega- 
cion/ which is the body of 

causes that moved me 
to translate/y thought better 
that other shulde ymagion/ 


^.uszgieng/vnnd nur seyn selbs 
'eygen namen vnd rede furete/ 
Aber die weyl durch manche 
wilde deuttung vnd vorrhede/ 
der Christen synn da hyn ver- 
triebe ist/das man schier nit 
[/nicht in eds. 2 & 3/] mehr 
weys/was Euangeli oder ge- 
setz/new oder alt testament/ 
heysse/fodert die noddurfft 
eyn antzeygen vfi vorrhede zu 
stellen/da mit der eynfelltige 
man/aus seynem allten wahn/ 
auff die rechte ban gefuret vnd 
vnterrichtet werde/ wes er 
ynn disem buch, gewartten sol- 
le/auff das er nicht gepott 
vnnd gesetze suche/da er Eu- 
angeli vnd verheyssung Gottis 
suchen sollt. 

Darumb ist auffs erste zu 
wissen/das abtzuthun ist der 
wahn /das vier Euangelia vnd 
nur vier Euangelisten sind/ vn 
gantz zuverwerffen/has etlich 
des newen testaments bucher 
teyllen/ynn legales/historiales 
/Prophetales/vnnd sapientiales 
/vermeynen damit (weysz 
nicht wie) das newe/dem alten 
testament zuuergleychen/ Son- 
dern festiglich zu halten/das 
gleych wie das allte testament 
ist eyri buch/ darynnen Gottis 
gesetz vn gepot/ da neben die 
geschichte beyde dere die sel- 
ben gehallten vnd nicht gehall- 
ten haben/geschrieben sind/ 
Also ist das newe testament/ 
eyn buch /darynnen das Euan- 
gelion vnd Gottis verheyssung 

then that y shulde rehearce 
them. More over y supposed 
yt superflnous/f or who ys so 
blynde to axe why lyght shuld e 
be shewed to them that walke 
in dercknes/where they cannot 
but stomble/and where to 
stomble ys the daunger of eter- 
nall dammacion/ other so de- 
spyghtfull that he wolde envye 
eny man (y speake nott his 
brother) so necessary a thinge 
/or so bedlem madde to af- 
fyrme that good is the natural] 
cause of euell/and derknes to 
procede oute of lyght/ and that 
lying shulde be grounded in 
trougth and verytie/and nott 
rather clene contrary/ that 
lyght destroyeth dercknes/and 
veritie reproveth all manner 

TJAlso hit has plcasyd god to 
put in my mynde/and also to 
geue me grace to translate this 
forerehearced newe testament 
into oure englysshe tonge/how 
esoever we haue done it. I 
supposed yt very necessary to 
put you in remembrance of cer- 
tayne poynts/ which are: that 
ye well vnderstonde what these 
words meane. HThe olde test- 
ament. HThe newe testamet. 
Tithe lawe. flThe gospell. fMo- 
ses. IfChrist. ^Nature. ffGrace. 
ffWorkinge and belevynge. 
lIDedes and faythe/ Lest we 
astrybe/to the one that which 
belongeth to the other/and 
make of Christ Moses /of the 
gospell the La we /despise grace 
and robbe faythe : and fall from 


/danebe auch geschichte beyde 
/dere die dran glewben vnd nit 
glewben/geschrieben sind/Al- 
so das man gewissz sey/das 
nur eyn Euagelion sey/gleych 
wie nur eyn buch des newen 
testaments /vnd nur eyn glawb 
/vnd nur eyn Gott/der do ver- 

meke lernynge into ydle despi- 
cious/braulinge and scoldynge 
aboute words. 

Denn Euangelion ist eyn 
kriechlisch wortt/vn heyst auff 
deutsch/gute botschafft/gute 
meher / gutte newzey tung / gutt 
geschrey/ dauon man singet/ 
saget vii frolich ist/gleych als 
do Dauid den grossen Goliath 
vberwand/kam eyn gutt ge- 
schrey/ vnd trostlich newt- 
zeyttung vnter das ludisch 
volck/das yhrer grewlicher 
feynd ershlagen/ vnd sie erlo- 
set/ zu freud vnd frid gestellet 
weren/dauon sie sungen vn 
sprungen vnnd frohlich waren 
/Also ist dis Euangelion Gottis 
vnnd new testament /eyn gutte 
meher vfi geschrey ynn alle 
wellt erschollen durch die App- 
stell/von eyn em rechten Dauid 
/der mit der sund/tod vnnd 
teuffel gestritten/vnd vber- 
wunden hab/vnnd damit alle 
die szo ynn sunden gefangen 
/mit dem todt geplagt worn 
teuffel vberweldigt gewesen/ 
on yhr verdienst erloset/recht- 
fertig/lebendig vnd selig ge- 
macht hat/ vnd da mit zu frid 

old testamet is a boke/ 
where in is wrytten the lawe 
and comaundmets of god/and 
the dedes of them which fulfill . 
them /and of them also which 
fulfill them nott. 

IfThe newe testamet is a boke 
where in are coteyned the 
promyses of god/and the dedes 
of them which beleue them or 
beleue them nott. 

Euagelio (that we cal the 
gospel) is a greke worde/ & 
signyfyth good/mery/glad and 
ioyfull tydings/ that maketh a 
mannes hert glad/ and maketh 
hym synge/ daunce and leepe 
for ioye. As when Davyd had 
kylled Galyath the geant/ cam 
glad tydings vnto the iewes/ 
that their fearfull and cruell 
enemy was slayne/and they de- 
lyvered oute of all daunger: for 
gladnes were of /they songe/ 
daunsed/and wer ioyfull. In 
lyke manner is the evangelion 
of god (which we call gospell/ 
and the newe tostamet) ioy- 
full tydings /and as some saye: 
a good hearing publisshed by 
the apostles through oute all 
the worlde/of Christ the right 
Davyd howe that he hathe 
fought with synne/with dethe/ 
and the devill/and over cume 
them. Whereby all me that 
were in Bodage to synne/ 
wouded with dethe/ ouercu of 
the devill/are with oute there 
awne mei-itts or deservings/ 


gestellet/vnd Gott wider heym 
bracht/dauon sie singen/dan- 
cken Gott/loben vnd frolich 
sind ewiglich/ szo sie des an- 
ders fest glawben/vnd ym 
glawben bestendig bleyben. 

Solch geschrey vnd trostliche 
mehre odder Euangelisch vnd 
Gotlich newzeyttung / heyst 
auch eyn new testament/ dar- 
umb/dz gleych wie eyn testa- 
ment ist/wenn eyn sterbender 
man seyn gutt bescheydet nach 
seynem todt den benandten er- 
ben aus zu teylen/Also hatt 
auch Christus fur seynem ster- 
ben befolhen vnd bescheyden/ 
solchs Euangelion nach seynem 
todt /aus zuruffen ynn alle wellt 
/vnd damit alien /'die do glew- 
be/ zu eygen geben alles seyn 
gutt/das ist/seyn leben da mit 
er den todt verschlungen/seyn 
gerectigkeyt da mit er die sund 
vertilget/vnd seyn seligkeyt 
damit er die ewige verdamnis 
vberwunden hat/Nu kan yhe 
der arme mensch/ynn sunden/ 
todt vn zur helle verstrickt/ 
nichts trostlichers horen/denn 
solch thewre lieblieh botschafft 
vo Christo/vn mus seyn hertz 
von grund lachen vnd frolich 
druber werden/wo ers glewbt 
das war sey. 

losed/ iustyfyed/ restored to 
lyfe/and saved/brought to li- 
bertie/and reconciled vnto the 
favour of god /and sett at one 
with hym agayne: which tyd- 
ings as many as beleve/ laude 
prayse and thancke god/are 
glad/synge and daunce for 

TJThis evangelion or gospell 
/that is to say/suche ioyfull 
tydings/is called the newe test- 
ament. Because that as a man 
when he shall dye apoynteth 
his goodds to be dealte and 
distributed after hys dethe 
amonge them which he nam- 
eth to be his heyres. Even so 
Christ before his dethe com- 
maunded and appoynted that 
suche evangelion/ gospell/ or 
tydyngs shulde be declared 
through oute all the worlde/ 
and there with to geue vnto all 
that beleve all his goodds /that 
is to saye/his lyfe/ where with 
he swalowed and devoured vp 
dethe: his rightewesnes/ where 
with he banyshed synne: his 
salvacion/ where with he over- 
cam eternall damancion. Nowe 
can the wretched man (that is 
wrapped in synne /and is in 
daunger to dethe and hell) 
heare no moare ioyus a thynge 
/then suche glad and comfort- 
able tydings/of Christ. So 
that he cannot but be glad and 
laugh from the lowe bottom of 
his hert/if he beleve that the 
tydyngs are trewe. 

Nu hat Gott solchen glawben fiTo strength such feythe 


zu stercken/dises seyn Euange- 
lion vnd testament viel felltig 
ym allten testament durch die 
propheten ver sproche [verhey- 
ssen, in third edition] /wie Pau- 
Jus sagt Ro. 1. [i, in third ed.] 
'Ich byn aussgesondert zu pre- 
digen das Euangelion Gottis/ 
wilchs er zuuor verheyssen hat 
durch seyne propheten ynn der 
heyligen schrifft/von seynem 
son der yhm geporn ist von 
dem samen etce. Vnnd das 
wyr der etlich antzihen/hat ers 
am ersten versprochen [ver- 
heyssen, in third edition] /da 
er sagt zu der schlangen Gen. 
3. [iij., in third ed.] Ich will 
feyndschafft lege zwischen dyr 
vn eynem weyb/zwisschen dey- 
nem samen vnd yhrem samen 
/der selb soil dyr deyn hewbt 
zutretten/vn du wirst yhm 
seyn solen zutretten/Christus 
ist der same dises weybs/der 
dem teuffel seyn heubt/das ist 
/sund/tod/helle vn alle seyne 
krafft zurtretten hatt/Denn on 
disen Samen kan keyn mensch 
der sund/dem todt/ der [nach 
der, in third ed.] hellen ent- 

with all /god promysed this his 
evagelion in the olde testament 
by the phophetts (as paul 
sayth in the fyrst chapter vn- 
to the romans). Howe that he 
was chosen oute to preache 
godds evangelion/which he be- 
fore had promysed by the pro- 
phetts in the holy scriptures 
that treate of his sonne wchich 
was borne of the seed of da- 
vyd. . In the thyrd chapter of 
gennesis/god saith to the ser- 
pent: y wyll put hatred bi- 
twene the and the woman bi- 
twene thy seede and her seede 
/that silfe seede shall tread thy 
heed vnder fote. Christ is this 
womans seede/he it is that hath 
troden vnder fote the devylls 
heed /that is to saye synne/ 
dethe/hell/and all his power. 
For with oute this seede can no 
man avoyde synne /dethe/ hell 
and euerlastynge danacion. 

Item Gen. 22. [xxij., in third 
ed.] versprach [verhies, in 
third ed.] ers zu Abraham/ynn 
deynem saman sollen alle ge- 
schlecht auff erden gesegnet 
werden/Christus ist der same 
Abrahe/spricht Sanct Paulus 
Gal. 3. [iij., in third ed.] Der 
hat alle wellt gesegnet/durchs 

fiAgayne gen. xxij. god prom- 
ysed Abraham sayige: in thy 
seede shall all the generatios of 
the erthe be blessed. Christ is 
that seede of Abraham sayth 
f aynet Paul in the thyrd to the 
galathyans He hach blessed al 
the worlde through the gospel. 
For where Christ is not/there 


Euangelion/Den wo Christus 
nit [nicht, in eds. 2 & 3] ist/ 
da ist noch der fluch/der vber 
Adam vnd ,seyne kinder fiel/ 
da er gesundigt hatte/das sie 
altzumal der sunde/des tods/ 
vnd der hellen schuldig vnnd 
eygen seyn mussen/Widder den 
fluch/segenet nu das Euange- 
Ii5 alle wellt/da mit/das es 
rufft offentlich/ wer an disen 
samen Abrahe glewbt/sol ge- 
segnet/das ist/vo ,sund/tod vnd 
helle/ los seyn/vnd rechtfertig 
/lebendig vnd selig bleyben 
ewiglich/wie Christus selb sagt 
lohan. 11. [xi. in ed. 3] Wer 
an mich glewbt/der wirt nym- 
frier mehr sterben. 

remaineth the cursse that fel 
on ada as soone as he had 
synned/ So that they are in 
bondage vnder the domina- 
cion of synne/dethe/and hell. 
Agaynste this cursse blesseth 
nowe the gospell all the worlde 
/in asmoche as it cryeth open- 
ly/who so ever beleveth on the 
seede of Abraha shalbe blessed 
/that is /he shalbe delyvered 
fro synne/dethe and hell/and 
shall hence forth contynue 
righewes/ lyvinge/ and saved 
for euer/as Christ hym sylffe 
saith (in the xi. of Ihon) He 
that beleveth on me shall ne- 
ver more dye. 

We need hardly make any further comment upon 
these parallel columns of part of this production of 
these two Reformers. We surely need not point out 
that the paragraphs of importance in Tyndale's pro- 
logge are virtually direct translations from Luther. 
Moreover, even for other parts not so directly approp- 
riated, Tyndale apparently received the suggestion or 
inspiration from Luther. 

We should like to reproduce both introductions com- 
pletely, and to trace sources of other passages of Tyn- 
dale's prologge, but space will not permit. And, of 
course, equally interesting might be a similar examina- 
tion, of other writings of Tyndale, if such came within 
the scope of our consideration. 


But we must here necessarily confine ourselves to 
a comparison of Tyndale's Cologne Fragment with Lu- 
ther's New Testament up to Matthew 22 : 12, with 
which we shall therefore continue. 

In connection with this account and reproduction 
of the introductions to the New Testament, we must 
consider also the pages of contents, as these follow, and 
may be regarded as parts of, the introductions. 
These, too, we shall reproduce in parallel columns as 
they occur in Luther's first edition and Tyndale's Frag- 
ment respectively. 


Luther : 
September, 1522 

Die Bucher des newen testa- 

1 Euangelion Sanct Matthes. 

2 Euangelion Sanct Marcus. 

3 Euangelion Sanct Lucas. 

4 Euangelion Sanct lohannis. 

5 Der Apostel geschicht be- 

schrieben von Sanct Lu- 

6 Epistel Sanct Paulus zu den 


7 Die erste Epistel Sanct Pau- 

lus zu den Corinthern 

8 Die ander Epistel Sanct 

Paulus zu den Corin- 

9 Epistel Sanct Paulus zu den 


10 Epistel Sanct Paulus zu den 


11 Epistel Sanct Paulus zu den 


Tyndale: Cologne Fragment, 

The bokes conteyned in the 
newe Testament. 

i The gospell of saynct Ma- 


ij The gospell of S. Marke 
iij The gospell of S. Luke 
iiij The gospel of S. Ihon 
v The actes of the apostles 

written by S. Luke 
vi The epistle of S. Paul to 

the Romans 
vij The fyrst pistle of S. Paul 

to the Corrinthians 
viij The second pistle of S. 
Paul to the Cortinthians 
ix The pistle of S. Paul to 

the Galathians 
x The pistle of S. Paul to 

the Ephesians 

xi The pistle of S. Paul to 
the Philippians 


12 Epistel Sanct Paulus zu den 


13 Die erste Epistel Sanct 

Paulus zu den Thessalo- 

14 Die ander Epistel Sanct 

Paulus zu den Thessalo- 

15 Die Erst Epistel Sanct Pau- 

lus an Timotheon. 

16 Die ander Epistel Santc 

Paulus an Timotheon. 

17 Epistel Sanct Paulus an 


18 Epistel Sanct Paulus an 


19 Die erst Epistel Sanct Pe- 


20 Die ander Epistel Sanct Pe- 


21 Die erste Epistel Sanct lo- 


22 Die ander Epistel Sanct lo- 


23 Die drit Epistel Sanct lo- 


Die Epistle zu den Eb- 


Die Epistel lacobus. 
Die Epistel ludas. 
Die offinbarung lohan- 


xij The pistle of S. Paul to 

the Collossians 

xiij The f yrst pistle of S. Paul 
vnto the Tessalonians 

xiiij The seconde pistle of S. 
Paul vnto the Tessalon- 

xv The fyrst pistle of S. Paul 
to Timothe 

xvi The seconde pistle of S. 
Paul to Timothe 

xvij The pistle of S. Paul to 

xviij Te pistle of S. Paul vnto 

xix The fyrst pistle of S. Pe- 

xx The seconde pistle of S. 

xxi The fyrst pistle of S. Ihon 

xxij The seconde pistle of S. 

xxiij The thyrd pistle of S. Ihon 

The pistle vnto the Ebrues 
The pistle of S. lames 
The pistle of lude 
The revelacion of Ihon 

The above parallel columns tell their own story. 
From the heading down to the last book mentioned, 
Tyndale's list of books is apparently practically a literal 
translation, amounting almost to a transcript, of Lu- 
ther's list. Note the heading, the order of the books, 
and even the very arrangement on the page. Note 


Tyndale following Luther in such details as in v. of his 
list, as to the Acts of the Apostles. Likewise, some- 
what like a student following a great authority, Tyn- 
dale follows Luther in placing Hebrews and James 
after the Third Epistle of John, instead of placing it 
after Philemon, as he also follows him in numbering 
the books down to 23, and then leaving the last four 
books unnumbered and with a little space between them 
and the books above them. Only in using Eoman nu- 
merals instead of Arabic numerals does he differ from 
Luther. In the light of these and many other facts 
and details, is there any wonder that his contemporaries 
actually considered Tyndale's New Testament as "Lu- 
ther's Testament in English"? But we ask the reader 
kindly to be patient with us and with us to reserve 
judgment for the present, while we pass on to a con- 
sideration of other points. 




HE exact number of the marginal glos- 
ses in Tyndale's Fragment (Matthew 
122:12) is 92. Of these, we find 
57 to be almost wholly (several part- 
ly) practically literal translations of 
Luther's notes; and these are the 
notes of importance. At least three other notes 
are based upon Luther's notes (Matt. 2 : 18 ; 5:8; 
15 : 5) . And 32 are apparently not based upon Luther's 
notes in Matthew (1 22:12) ; but these are generally 
short and comparatively unimportant. Therefore, of 
Tyndale's 92 notes, almost two-thirds, and these the 
notes of significance, are taken directly from Luther's 
parallel notes and, of course, without anything to indi- 
cate their real authorship, which was indeed a fortu- 
nate circumstance for Tyndale and his work. And, of 
course, with the source of other notes we have, in this 
comparison between the two Testaments (Matt. 1 22 : 
12), nothing to do. 

It should here be said that one note (1:25) which 


has, however, hitherto generally also been ascribed to 
Tyndale by men who have traced other notes, is indeed 
not found in Luther's first edition; but it is found in 
his second and third editions. To this we should add 
that one note (13: 12), also used by Tyndale, is found 
in Luther's first edition, but is wanting in his second 
and third editions. We should also here state that the 
note at the end of chapter 21 was also manifestly taken 
from Luther's second or third edition, rather than from 
his first edition, because in one particular it follows 
the second and third editions, as we shall indicate in 
connection with the note. These facts, therefore, al- 
ready prove that Tyndale used Luther's second or third 
edition, as well as his first edition, as will more clearly 
appear later. 

This would, however, show only that Tyndale, in ad- 
dition to Luther's first edition, used also his second or 
his third edition. But it does not prove which of these 
two editions he actually used or whether he used both 
these editions in addition to the first edition. 

Apart from the fuller proof to be given under Re- 
ferences and Text, we might here also adduce a proof 
from these notes that Tyndale certainly used Luther's 
third edition. Two of Tyndale's notes are clearly from 
the third edition. The note on the word Moorne (9 :15) 
has these words, they must faste after Christs deth & 
suffre payne of godds hand. Luther's third edition has, 
Sie musten aber fasten vn leyden denn/ do Christus 
todt ward, while in the first and second editions the 


reading is, Sie musten aber fasten vn [vnnd, edition 1] 
leyden denn/do Christus todtet ward. So the note on 
the word Sygnes (16: 3) refers an Old Testament pro- 
phecy to Esaie xvi., as Luther's third edition, by re- 
versing the 6 and 1, 'erroneously does ; while Luther's 
first and second editions correctly refer it to Isaie. 61. 
Tyndale seems to copy or imitate even Luther's spelling 
of the name Isaie. These two notes, therefore, conclu- 
sively prove, even apart from the References and Text, 
that Tyndale used Luther's third edition. Whether 
he used Luther's second edition also will appear later 

The extent to which Tyndale appropriated Luther's 
notes may further be seen from the fact that of Luther's 
available outer marginal notes, as far as Tyndale's 
Fragment goes, he used all but 12; and even three of 
these form the basis of three of Tyndale's notes, as al- 
ready seen. It might here be said that Luther's first 
edition, up to the first part of the twelfth verse of 
Matthew 22, has 67 outer marginal glosses, and that 
the second and third editions each have 68. The first 
edition has a note) (13: 12) which was used by Tyn- 
dale not found in the second and third editions ; and 
the second and third editions have two> notes (1: 25; 
5: 25) the first also used by Tyndale not found in 
Luther's first edition. The other notes are the same, 

except as to spelling, etc. Hence, there are 69 different 
outer marginal notes in the three editions. There is 
also an inner marginal note (9:23) in all three edi- 


tions, apparently placed there because of want of space 
on the outer margin. 

As these marginal glosses are almost inaccessible, 
and as they constitute a running commentary that is a 
not unimportant contribution to theological literature, 
and especially as a reprint here affords an ocular de- 
monstration of our analysis above, we believe that a 
reproduction of them will be welcomed. We shall, there- 
fore, present them complete as they appear, up to 
Matthew 22: 12, in a column parallel to Tyndale's 
notes as found in the Cologne Fragment. We take 
these notes from Luther's second Wittenberg edition 
as between the first and third editions and indicate 
variations (except the unimportant differences in spell- 
ing) in the other two editions. But the notes are given 
in the original spelling even as to typographical er- 
rors and punctuation, as they appear in Luther's se- 
cond edition and Tyndale's Fragment. For the notes 
which Tyndale directly appropriates, either in whole 
or in part, we do not repeat in the English column the 
chapter and verse of the English version now in use. 


Luther: Second Edition, Tyndale: Cologne Fragment 

December, 1522 1525 

Matt. 1 :1. Abraham vnd * Abraham and David are fyrst 

Dauid werde furnemlich antzo- rehearsid/because that chirste 

gen/darumb das den selbe was chefly promysed vnto 

Christus sonderlich verheyssen them, 


1 :6. Sanct Mattheus lesset 
ettlich gelid aussen/vnnd furet 
Christus geschlecht von Solo- 
mon nach dem gesetz/aber 
Sauct. Lucas furet es nach der 
natur von Nathan Solomonis 
bruder. Denn das gesetz nen- 
net auch die kinder /szo von 
brudern aus nachgelassenem 
weyb geporn sing. Deuter. 25. 

1 :19. (Eugen etce.) 
Das is er wolt sie nicht zu 
schanden machen fur den leu- 
ten/als er wol macht hatte 
nach dem gesetze/vnd rumbt 
also sanct. Matth. Josephs 
fromkeyt das er sich auch sey- 
nes rechten vmb Hebe will en 
vertzigen hat. 

1 :25. (Bis) 

Soil nicht verstanden werden 
das loseph Mariam ernach er- 
kenet hab sondern es ist eyn 
weys zu reden yn der schrifft 
/als Gene. 8. der Rab sey nit 
wider kome/bis die erde truck- 
net /wil die schrifft nit/das der 

Saynct mathew leveth out cer- 
teyne generacions/ & descri- 
beth Christes linage from solo- 
mo/after the la we of Moses/ 
but Lucas describeth it accord- 
yng to nature /fro nathan solo- 
mos brother. For the lawe cal- 
leth them a mannes childre 
which his broder begatt of his 
wyfe lefte behynde hym after 
his dethe. deu. xxv. c. 

1:16. *That ys to saye by 
the workige & power of the ho- 
ly goste. 


That is he wolde not put her to 
ope shame /as he wel might 
haue done bi the lawe. Also 
mathew reioysith of the good- 
nes of ioseph/which for loves 
sake dyd remyt of his ryght. 

1:21. *Iesus. 

lesus is asmoche to saye as a 
saver /for he onli saveth all 
men from their synnes bi his 
meretes with oute there de- 

1:23. Christe bryngeth god. 
where Christ is there is god. 
and were christ is not there is 
noti god. 

*Till she. ye shall nott sup- 
poose that he knew her after- 
warde/but hit is the maner of 
the scripture so to speake/as 
ge. viij. c. the ravin cam not 
againe till the water was droke 
vppe and the erth drye/the 
scripture meaneth nott/he cam 


Rab hernach komen sey/also 
auch hie volgt nicht/das lo- 
seph Mariam hernach erkennet 

[The above note is not 
found in the first edition; 
but it is also in the third 

2 :1. (weysen etce.) 
Die S. Math. Magos nennet/ 
vnnd sind magi in etlichen 
morgenlender Natur kundiger 
vn priester gewesen. 

2 :6. (Mit nichte) 
Bethlehem war kleyn anzuse- 
hen/darumb auch Micheas sie 
kleyn nennet. Aber der Euan- 
gelist hat (mit nichte) hyn zu 
than/darumb/ das si e itzund 
erhohet war /do Christus da ge- 
porn ward. Vnd trifft also der 
Euangelist die figur / denn 
Bethlehem bedeut/die chri'sten- 
heyt die veracht fur der welt/" 
gros fur Gott ist. 

agayne after warde: evyn soo 
here/hit foloweth not that io- 
seph kewe cure lady after 

*wyse men. 

Of mathew they ar callid Magi 
/ & in certeyne coutreis I the 
est/ philosophers conynge in 
naturall causes & effectes/an! 
also the prestes/were so callyd. 

2 :5. *Iury is the londe. lu- 
da is that trybe or kynred that 
dwelt there in. 

2 :18. (aus mit yhnen) 
Diszen spruch hat Sanct Math, 
sonderlich anzoge/dz er durch 
yhn anzcyget/wie er sich all- 
zeyt vmb die Christenheyt helt 
/Denn es lest sich allweg fur 
der welt ansehen/als sey es 
aus vmb die Christen/doch 
werden sie/widder all macht 
der helle/wunderlich durch Got 

2 :18. *Rachell was buried 
nor ferre from bethlehem/ad 
the prophet signifieth that as 
she mourned her sone benia- 
myn/in whoes byrth she dyed 
/so shuld the mothers of these 
children mourne. And here 
maye we se/howe it goeth all 
way e/ with the righte christen 
men before the world/for the 


J> bis ff Otc 

cptirt^Qjtffft wm-abcr Alfo gctf;mV3fstnftrf|cyncmutcr )Uee.i, 

rugcn/gc&ocf?t fiber (k 

j g(X>t f (t/&tt8 <(l VOlf OCtll IjevUC 

eii folm 
ey vok(f!cU$n<tct7nvo yt^rcu funftln. 

VttM) flC Wjttqw 


"fr<u wirt fcf>tt> 

iDabcrief CK>0<80fcJeyren ^ey 
wn |fjneh/wn &cr jlmi crfcfo pnen were/ vno weyfct pe gen >!* 


. ars jfcua &cn f oniggefjoir&flttcti / jogcn jtc &r o / w& (^>e/&cr 

(iwy,!X3m5j6Jft|ejiii)0/t<^<^tjt vg*^ fwTw <wit,gros fcr eott ijl. 

Matt. 1: 15-2:9, Second Edition of Luther's N T It con 
tains note to 1:25 (Bis), not found in First Edition sle of 
text of original 8%x5 inches. See pages 77 and 78. 

erhalten/vnd man sicht hie yn 
disen kinden/wie eyn recht 
Chris tlich wesen/ynn ley den 

3 :4. Solche hewschrecken 
pflegt man yn ettlich morgen- 
lender zuessen/als Hierony. 

faythes sake/which they have 
yn christe/nott withstondinge 
they are wonderfully mayn- 
tained & defended alwaye of 
god/ageynst all power of hell. 

*Locustes/are more then oware 
greshoppers/& souche men vse 
to eate i divers parties of the 

4 :9. Put youre truste I 
goddes wordes only /and not I 
abraham. Let saynctes be an 
ensaple vnto you & not youre 
truste & cofidence For then ye 
make Christ of them. 

3 15. (alle gerecht) 
Alle gerechtickeyt wirt erful- 
let/wenn wyr vns aller vnser 
gerechtickeit vii eehre vertzey- 
hen/das Got alleyn fur den ge- 
halte werd/der gerecht sey/vfl 
gerecht mache die glewbigen. 
Diss thut lohannes/so er sich 
seyner gerechtickeyt aussertf 
vn wil vo Christo getauft vn 
gerechtfertiget werde. Diss 
thut auch Christus so er sich 
seyner gerechtickeyt vn ehre 
nicht annympt/sondern lest 
sich teuffen vnd todten/Denn 
tauff ist nicht anders denn 

*A11 Rightwesnes /ys fulfilled 
when we forsake all oure awne 
rightwesnes/ that god only 
maye be counted he which is 
rightwes/& maketh righwes/ 
rightwes/ throw feith. This do- 
eth Ihon I that he putteth fro 
hym hys awne rightwesnes /& 
wold be wesshed of Christ ad 
made rightwes. This also do- 
eth Christe/i that he taketh 
nott rightwesnes & honour on 
hym: but suffreth hym silfe to 
be baptised & killed /for bap- 
tim is none other thinge then 

5 :5. (besitzen) die welt 
vermeynt die erden zu besitzen 
vn das yhr zu schutze wen sie 
gewalt vbet/aber Christus le- 
ret/das man die erden alleyn 
mit senfftmutigkeyt on gewalt 


The worlde thlkethe too pos- 
sesse the erthe/and to defend 
there awne /when they vse vio- 
lence & power: but christ 
teacheth that the world muste 
be; possessed with mekenes on- 


ly/ and with oute power and 

5 :8. (fridfertigen) Die 
flridfertigten sind mehr denn 
fridsamen/ nemlich/die den 
frid machen furdern vnd er- 
halten vnter andern/wie Chri- 
stus vns bey Gott hat frid ge- 

5 :7-ll. All these dedes here 
rehearsed as to norisshe peace 
/to shewe mercy/to suffre pse- 
cucio/and so foth/make not a 
man happye and blessed/nether 
deserve the rewarde of heven: 
but declare and testifie that We 
are happy and blessede and 
that we shall have greate pmo- 
cio I heven. and certyfyeth vs 
I oure hertes that we are god- 
des sonnes/& that the holy 
goost is in vs. for all good 
thynges are geven to vs frely 
of god for christes blouddes 
sake ad his merittes. 

5 :13. ;(das saltz) wenn die 
lerer auff horen Gottis wort zu 
leren/mussen sie von menchen 
gesetzen vberfallen vnd zu 
tretten werden. 


whe the pachers ceasse too 
preache godds worde/ the 
muste they nedes be oppressed 
& trod vnder f ote with mannes 

5 :18. *Iott. 

Is as moche too saie as the 
leest letter, for so is the leest 
lerter that the grekes or the 
hebrues haue/ called. 

5 :19 (auff loset) Also thut 
der Papisten hauff/sagen dise 
gepott Christi seyen nicht ge- 
pot/sondern redte. 

This do they which say that 
these Christs comaudments are 
not comaundmets/ but consai- 

5 :19. (kleynist heyssen) 
das is/wenig geacht/sondern 
verworften werden. 

*The leest 

That is to saye. shalbe little 
set by and despised. 


5 :19. (gros heyssen) 
das is/gros geacht werden. 

5 :20. (der Phariseer) 

Der Phariseer fromkeyt 

steht alleyn in euserliehen wer- 

cken vn scheyn Christus aber 

foddert des hertzen fromkeyt. 

522. (Racha) Racha ist 
das rauch scharren ym hals/ 
vnd begreyff et alle zornige zey- 

5 :25. (wilfertig) 

Gleych wie der schuldig ist 
zu versunen der dem andern 
leyde than hat also ist der 
schuldig zu vergehen vnnd gut- 
willig zu seyn/dem leyd ge- 
schehe ist/das keyn zorn bley- 
be auff beyden seytten. 

[The above note, though 
found also in the third edi- 
tion, is not found in the first 

5 :2&. (reys) Geystlich aus 
reysson/ ist hie geporten/ das 
ist/wenn der augen lust ge- 
todtet wirt ym hertzen *vnd ab- 


That is/shalbe moche sett by 
/ & had in reverence. 

The goodnes of the phari- 
saies/ stodith in ovtwarde 
works & appieraunce: but 
Christe requyreth te goodnes 
of the herte. 


Is the .whoaree soude in the 
throate/ & betokeneth all 
sygnes of wrath. 


To plucke oute spiritualy is 
here commaunded/that is when 
the yes luste is put awaie and 
kyllid in the hert. 

5 :34. (schweren) 
Alles scweren vnd eyden ist 
hie verspotten/das der mensch 
von yhm selber thut/wens aber 
die lieb/nodt, nutz des nehisten 
/odder Gottis ehre fodert/ist 
is wolthun/ Gleych wie auch dei 
zorn verpotten/ ist/ vnd doch 


All swearynge & othes which 
a ma of him silffe doith/are 
here forbyde/never thelesse 
whe love/neade/thy neghburs 
proffyte/or godds honoure re- 
quyrith hit/then is hit well 
done too sweare. like as wrath 


loblich wenn er aus Hebe vnd 
zu Gottes ehren/erfoddert wirt. 

5 :3&. (nicht widder stre- 
ben) das ist/niemant soil sich 
selb rechen noch rach suehen/ 
auch fur gericht/auch nicht 
rach begere. Aber die vbirkeyt 
des schwerds/sol solchs thunr 
von yhr selbs odder durch den 
nehisten aus lieb ermanet vnn 

5 :46. (zollner) heyssen la- 
tinisch Publicani vnd sind ge- 
wesen/die der Romer rendte 
vnd zoll bestanden haten/vnd 
waren gemeyniglich Gotlose 
heyden/da hyn vo den Eomern 

forbydden is/& yet is lawd- 
able whe hit proceadith of love 
to honoure god with all. 

No * man shuld avenge hyme 
silfe/or seke wreeke/no nott 
by the lawe: butt the ruler 
which hath the swearde shuld 
do such thyngs of hym silfe/ 
or when the negbures off love 
warne hym /and requyre hym. 

*Publicans gaddred rentes/toll 
/custume/& tribute for the ro- 
mans/& were comely hethen 
men ther vnto appoited of the 

6 :6. *Rewarde. 
ye shall not thynke/that oure 
dedes deserve ani thyng of god 
as a labourar deserueth hys 
hyre. For all good thynges 
come of ithe bounteusnes/Ii- 
beralite/ mercy/ promyses/ & 
trewth of god bi the deseru- 
inge of Christs bloud oly but 
it ys a maner of spekinge. as 
we saye (thy labur or going 
was well rewarded) vnto hi 
that hath but sett only the 
promyses of a nodyr man. 

6 :22. *Syngle. 
The eye is single when a man 
I all his dedes loketh butt on 
the wil of god/ & loketh nott 
for laude/honour or eni other 
rewarde in this worlde. nother 
ascrybeth heven or a hyer 


6 :34. (seyn eygen vbel) 
das 1st tegliche arbeyt/vnd will 
/es sey genug das wir teglich 
arbeyten/sollen nicht weytter 

7 :1. Richten gehort alleyn 
Got/darum wer richtet on got- 
tis befelh/der nympt Gott seyn 
ehre/vn dis 1st der balck. 

7 :6. (heyligthum) 
Das heyligthum ist Gottis wort 
/da durch all ding geheyliget 

7 :6. (hunden) 

Hund sind die das wort ver- 

7 :6. (sew) 
Sew sind /die 
nicht achten. 

roume I heve vnto his dedes: 
but accepteth/heven as a thig 
purchased bi the bloud of 
Christe/ & worketh frely for 
loves sake only. 

6 :30. <*fornace. 
Men heete there fornaces & 
ovens with suche thynges in 
those cuntreyes. 

*Trouble/is the dayly laboure. 
he wil hit be ynough that we 
laboure dayly wyth oute for- 
ther care. 

Too ludge or codem/belongith 
to god only/therefore who som- 
euer rudgeth with oute godds 
comaundment/ takith goddes 
honoure fro him/& that is the 
beame in the eye. 


The holye thlges are the 
woorde of god/that sanctifieth 
all thinges. Doggs/ are the 
psecuters of the worde. 

ersoffen ynn 
lust/dz wort 

*Swyne/are they which are 
drowned in fleshly luste & de- 
spice the worde. 

7 :24. (thut) 

Hie foddert Christus auch den 
glawben/denn wo nicht glaub 
ist/thut man die gepot nicht/ 
Roma. 3. vnd alle gutte werck 

*The same. 

Here Christe requirith faith/ 
for wheare faith is. not there is 
not the comaundment fulfilled: 
Ro. iij. And all goode workes 


nach dem scheyn/on glawbe ge- 
schehe sind sund. Da gege auch 
/wo glawb ist/mussen recht 
gutte werck folgen/das heysset 
Christus (thun) vo reynem 
hertzen thun. Der glawb aber 
reyniget das hertz. Act. 15. 
vnd solche frumkeyt/stehet 
vest widder alle wind /das istf 
alle macht der helle/Den sie 
1st auff den fels Christu/durch 
den glawben gebawet. Gute 
werck on glawbe /sind der to- 
richten iunckfrawen lampen on 

8 :2. (so du wilt) Der glawb 
weyss nicht/vertrauet aber 
auff Gottis gnad. 

8 :4. (vber sie) 
Moses nennet das gesetz eyn 
zeugnis vber das volck/Deut. 
31. Denn das gesetz beschul- 
diget vns/vfi ist ein zeug vber 
vnser sund/also hie/die prie- 
ster so sie zeugen/ Christus hab 
disen gereyniget/vn glewben 
doch nicht/ zeugen sie widder 
sich selb. 

after ovtwarde appieraunce 
with ovte faith are syn: con- 
trarie wyse where faith is/ 
there must the veary goode 
werkes folowe. Christe callith 
here/doige: too doo with a pure 
herte. Actu. xv. And souche 
goodnes stodith fast agaiste all 
windes/ that is too saye 
agaynste al the powre of hel/ 
for hit is bilt on the rocke 
Christe /thoor owe faith. 


*faithe knoweth not & trusteth 
I the favour and goodness of 


[This note follows the next 
one in Tyndale.] 

*In witnes. Moses callith the 
lawe a wytnes vnto the people, 
deur. xxxi. for the lawe acu- 
sith vs/ & is a testimonie 
agaynst oure syn. lyke wyse 
here/yf the prestes bare re- 
corde that Christe hadde 
clensyd this leper/ & yet be- 
levyed not/ the testified they 
agaist themselves. 

8 :9. (wen ich sage) 
Das ist /Sind meyne wort so 
mechtig/wie viel mechtiger 
sind denn deyne wort? 

8 :11. '(vom morgen) 
Das ist/die heyden werden an- 
genommen/darumb das sie 


glawben werden/die luden vnd 
werckheyligen verworffen/Ro 

8 :19. (wo du hyn &c.) 
Ettlich wollen Christo nicht 
folgen/sie seyen denn gewiss/ 
wo hyn darumb verwirfft Chri- 
stus disen/als der nicht trawen 
/sondern zuuor/der sach ge- 
wiss seyn wil. 

8 :21. (Begrabe etce.) 
Ettliche wenden gutte werck 
fur/dz sie nicht folgen odder 
glewben wollen. Aber die deu- 
tet Christus todte vnd verlorne 

8:13. I^"" Centurion. 
Is a captayne of an C. me/ 
whom I cal som tyme a cetu- 
rion/but for the moost parte 
an vnder captayne 

9 :1. (Seyne stadt) Caphar- 


Some pretend goode werke be- 
cause they wolde not folowe 
Christe & beleve: but Christe 
signifieth/ that such werks are 
deed and loost. 

This cite was capernaum. 

9 :13. (nicht am opfer) 
Christus spricht er esse mit 
sundern das er barmhertzig- 
keyt beweysze vnd heyst die 
phariseer auch barmhertzig- 
keyt beweysen vnd die sunder 
nicht verachten/drumb das al- 
leyn diss gutte werck sind/die 
dem nehissten zu gut komen/" 
singes/ fastens/ opfers/ acht 
Gott nichts. 

9 :13. (nicht den frumen) 
Christus verwurft all mensch- 
liche frumkeyt/vnd will das 
wyr alleyn auf seyn frumkeyt 
ba wen/ darumb er auch hie 
spricht/ er ruffe alleyn den sun- 
dern /vnd i. Timot. i. spricht 
Paulus/ Christus sey in die 
wellt komen/ die sunder selig 
zu machen. 


9 :15. (leyde tragen) 
Es ist zweyerley leyden. Erns 
aus eygner wal angenomen/als 
der monch regulen &c. wie 
Baals priester sich selb stache. 
3 Reg. 18. Solchs leyden belt 
all welt/vnd hielten die phar- 
seer/auch lohannis iungere fur 
gros. Aber Gott veracht es. 
Das ander leyden /von Gott on 
vnser wal zu geschickt/als 
schand/tod etc. Diss williglich 
leyden ist eyn recht kreutz vnd 
Gott gefellig. Darumb spricht 
Christus/seyne jungere fasten 
nit/ die weyl der breutgam noch 
bey yhn ist/das ist die weyl 
yhnen Gott noch nicht hat ley- 
den zu geschickt/vn Christus 
noch bey yhn war/vnd sie 
schutzet/ ertichten sie yhnen 
keyn leyden/denn es ist nichts 
fur Gott/ Sie musten aber fa- 
sten/vn leyden denn/do Chri- 
stus todtet ward [do Christus 
todt ward, in third edition]/" 
da mit verwurfft Christus der 
heuchler leyde vnd fasten /aus 
eygner wal angenomen. Item 
wo sich Christus freunt- 
lich erzeygt/als eyn breutgam/ 
do mus freud seyn/wo er sich 
aber anders erzeygt/mus traw- 
ren seyn. 

9 :15. (Niemand stickt) 
mit disen worten weyset er sie 
von sich/als die /so seyne leer/ 
von solcher freyheyt seyner 
lunger/ nicht verstunden/ vnnd 
spricht man kunde alte kleyder 
nicht mit newen, lappen flicken 
/denn sie halten doch den stich 
nicht/das ist/man kunde dise 

*Moorne That is too suffre 
payne. There is payne ij man- 
ner awayes. oone waye of a 
mannes awne choyse ad electio 
/as is the moks rules/and as 
baals prests prickyd the selves, 
iij regu. xviij, suche paine doth 
al the worlde/the pharisaies/ 
ye & Ihones disciples estems 
greate: but god despise th hit. 
An other waes is there payne 
/ & ordeynyd of god with oute 
oure elecctio as shame/rebuke 
/wroge/deeth. such too suffre 
paciently and with goodwill/ 
is the ryght crosse and pleas- 
eth god well. So Christs di- 
sciples faste nott/but are mery 
att the mariage/ whyle the 
bryde grme is yett with the/ 
ad defendeth them /ye & god 
had yett ordeyned no trouble 
for them /they fayne them sylfe 
no paine/for itt pleaseth not 
god/ they must faste after 
Christs deth & suffre payne of 
godds hand and ordeynauce. So 
now wharsoever a man taketh 
on hym. by hys awne elececio/ 
that is reproved/ye & where 
Christ sheweth hymsilfe frend- 
ly as a byrde grome/ there 
muste nedes be amery herte. 

Pecyth. with these words 
Christ dryveth them fro hym 
as them which vnderstoode not 
his lernige/as cocernige the li- 
bertie of his disciples/ and 
sayth: No man mendith an 
olde garmet with newe clothe/ 
for the olde holdith not the 
stiche/ as who saith suche spi- 


newe leer nit rait allten 
fleyschlichen hertzen begriifen 
/Vnd wo man sie fleyschliche" 
leute predige/werde es nur 
erger/wie man itzt sihet/das 
/so man geystliche freyheyt le- 
ret/ mast sich das fleysch der 
freyhet an/zu seynem mutwil- 

[We shall here give also the 
note on the inner margin of 
Luther's first three editions.] 

rituall newe learnynge cannot 
be coprehedyd with olde fleshly 
herts. Pache to fleshly people 
and they were worse/as we se 
when spirituall libertie is pach- 
ed/the fleshe drawith hit vnto 
carnall luste. 

9 23. (pfeyffer) die man denn 
zu der leyche braucht vnd be- 
deutten falsche lerer. 

937. *The hervest are the 
people redy to receve the eva- 
gelio/ad the laborers are the 
true preachers. 

10 :9. beyonde the see co- 
menly they have as well bra- 
sen moneye as of golde & syl- 

10:14. (schuttelt) also, gar 
nichts sollt yhr vo yhn nemen 
das yhr auch yhren staub von 
schuchen schuttelet/das sie er- 
kennen/das yhr nicht ewern 
nutz/sondern yhr seligkeyt ge- 
sucht habt. 

10 :23. (nicht auszurichten) 
als wolt er spreche/ich weya 
wol das sie euch verfolgen wer- 
den/denn dis volck wirt das 
euangelium verfolgen/ vnd 
nicht bekeret werden bis zu 
end der welt. 


That is/se that ye take noo 
thinge of the in so moche that 
ye shake of the very duste 
from youre shues/ that they 
maie knowe howe ye soght not 
youre awne proffit: but there 


That ys/ye shall tnott haue 
coverted or preached. 

10 :27. That ys to sey open- 
ly/where every ma maye here. 

10 :41. *In the name of a 
prophet /a rightwes man /or a 
disciple, that ys to sey/in that 


h e perteyneh to god & to 

11 :11. (der kleynist) 

11 :12. (leydet das hymel 
reych) die gewissen/wenn sie 
das euangelion vernemen drin- 
gen sie hyntzu/dz yhn niemant 
were kan. 

11 :30. (meyn ioch etce.) 
das creutz st gar eyn leychte 
last denen die das Euangelion 
schmecken vnd fulen. 

12 8. (vber den sabbath) 

so gar stehet der verstandt al- 

10 :42. *water. Compare 
dede too dede/ so ys one great- 
er then another: but copare 
them to/god/so are they all 
lyke/ad one as good as an- 
other. even as the spyrite mo- 
vyth a ma/ & tyme & occasio 

11 :6. ff* hurted & offeded 
thorow oute all the newe test- 
amet betokeneth to decaye & 
f aule in the f ayth, for may whe 
thei saw e that Christ was but 
a carpentars soe as thei sup- 
posed/^ he hym selfe also a 
carpeter/& his moder/& kyne 
of so lowe degre. moreover 
when they sawe him put to so 
vyl e a deeth/fell clene fro the 
faith/& coulde not beleve. 

That is Christe. 


When the coscieces perceave 
the gospel they thruste in no- 
thynge can let them 

11 :20. To vpbrayd is to 
cast a man in the tethe. 

*My yoke. 

The crosse is an easy thinge 
too them that perceave the 

The vnderstondinge of all c5m- 


ler gepott ynn der Hebe das 
.auch Gottis gepot nicht binder 
wo es liebe vnd nodt f oddert. 

12 :31. (widder den heyli- 
gen geyst) Die sund ynn den 
heyligen geyst ist/verachtung 
des Euangeli vnnd seyner 
werek/die weyll die stehet ist 
keyner sund radt/denn sie sicht 
widder den glauben/der da ist 
der sund vergebung/wo fie aber 
wirt ab than /mag der glawbe 
eyngehen vnd alle sund abfal- 

12 :32. (noch ihener) 
das hie Mattheus spricht (wid- 
der yn diser noch ynn ihener 
welt) saget Marcus also: Er 
ist schuldig eyner ewigen 

[The next note is found 
in the first edition, but not 
in the second and third edi- 

13 :12. (wer do hatt) 
wo das wort gottis verstanden 

aundmets stode so greatly i 
love/that the very comandmets 
of god binde not where love 
ad neade requyre. 

12 :25. *Desolate. 
That ys wasted /dfestroyed/& 
brought to nought. 


Syne ageynste the holy goqst 
/ys despisynge of the gospell 
and hys workyng. where that 
bydeth/is no demedy of syn. 
for it fyghteth agenst fayth/ 
which ys the foryevenes of 
syne, yf that be put awayef 
fayth maye entre yn/and all 
synes departe. 

*where Mathew sayeth here 
nether in the worlde to come/ 
Marlce sayth: he is in daunger 
off eternall danacion. 

12 :34. *A viper ys after 
the maer of an adder, ad ys a 
worme most full of poyson. 

12 :35. Here may ye se that 
wordes & dedes declare out- 
wardly what a ma ys with yn/ 
ad are witnesses with hym or 
ageynst hym /but nether make 
him good nor bad /as the frute 
declareth what the tree ys/ 
but makethe yt nether good nor 

He that hath, where the 
worde of god is vnderstode/ 


wirt/da mehret es sich vnd 
bessert den mensche/wo es 
aber nicht verstanden wirt/da 
nympt es ab vnnd ergert den 

13 :31. (senff korn) keyn 
verachter wortte ist/denn das 
Euangelium/vnd doch keyn 
kreff tiger s/denn es macht ge- 
recht die so yhm glewbgen/ge- 
setz vnd werck thun es nicht. 

13 :33. (sawerteyg) ist auch 
das wortt dz den menschen ver- 

there hit multiplieth & makith 
the people better, where hit is 
not vnderstode/theare hit de- 
creasith & makith the people 

13 :19.- -The seed ys sowen 
I the grounde & the gronnde 
ys sowen with the worde of 

13 :25. Tares & cockle are 
wedes that growe amonge 

*Mustarde seed. 
There is not so simle a thynge 
I the worlde/or more despised/ 
then the gospell/& yett yt sa- 
veth ad iustifieth .the that be- 
leve there on/the lawe & the 
workes doeth it not. 

_ ' Leven. betokeneth the 
gospell also: for yt chaungeth 
a man ynto a newe nature. 

13: 44. (schatz) der verbor- 
gen schatz ist dz euangelium 
das do vns gnad vnd gerech- 
tigkeyt gibt/on vnser ver- 
dienst/darumb findt man esr 
vnd macht frewd/das ist eyn 
gut frohlich gewissen welche 
man mit keynen wercken zu 
wege bringen mag. 

13 46. Ditz euangeliu ist 
auch dis perlen. 

13 :52. (altes) das gesetz 
(newes) das enangelium. 

*Treasure hyd ys -the gospell/ 
which geveth vs grace ad 
ryghtwesnes with out oure de- 
servyng therefore we fynde it 
ad make ioye and have a mery 
concience/a thynge that no 
man ca obteyne with workes. 

pearle is also the 


*Olde/the lawe. 

Newe/ the gospell/ or evange- 



Icn mcyiicsYtttcrs jritfbynicl/tKr jcl bt jcTfr HicyiJbai&cr/|cbwcfkr 

vniiJ^ iMtirt"f*i* * * ' 

Sj^wllDr in fcfbt\y:i; racjcicnff, ^befits sue & fcftiife n^ffitjt g^^ 

iSf-^M. jriip cjiii vjvr/ vn rryct>rc ?u ybj- iiu-iKbci Icy- ourd> glcyd^nif)i 

ju fccn/f no yin; OCHI cr JW, p'clcr tird?s (j^Tocn w?c<;/ef mcn fcicvo 
gel / vno {TAlfcns u(f . /cttlicbs pel y nn br.s j?cy n irt;tc/ co iricbt 
w'cl crocn bstt/Yv.O stciiglic^miff / Dtimmb oo CP itt Meffc crbcu 

wurtjcl bcsTc/ivftrs cs oiin-c. |Pttikfjs? pel vntcrotc oomcn/vno die 
bfcii jf/vnP ci(ftcPrcni-;.triicbsftcl r.uffcyngntt 
wb frcbr/cttJtcl?A b 

DicEwo;& l :iit5H!x>Jcn/vnOf{>:"tgcfinO y 

Matt. 12:45-13:15, First Edition of Luther's N. T. It con- 
tains note to 13:12 (wer do hatt) 3 not found in Second and 
Third Editions. Size of text of original, 8%x5 inches. See 
pages 89 and 90. 

14: 1. (vier furst) ludea 
mit ylir zugehor was in vier 
herschafften teylt/ daher man 
die hern tetrarchas/ has ist 
vierfursten nennet. 

14 :25. Die nacht teyltt man 
vortzeytten in vier wachte/der 
igliche drey stund hatte. 

15 :5. (Gott geben etce.) 
odder/Es ist dyr nutzer/wenn 
ichs zu opffer gebe/ wie die 
Canones itzt leren vo testa- 
menten vnd stifftungen. 

15 :13. (alle pflantze) alle 
werck die Gott nicht wirckt 
ym mensche/sind sund vnd hie 
sihet man wie gar nichts der 
frey will vermag. 

16 :3. (zeychen) die zey- 
chen meynet Christus/seyne 
wunder thatten/die verkundi- 
get waren/dz sie geschen soil- 
ten zu Christus zeytten Isaie. 
61. [the first edition also has 
Isaie. 61., which is correct; 
the third edition incorrectly 
has Isaie. 16. Thus Tyndale 
used the third edition and co- 
pied its error here, as he does 

Tetrarcha/ys he that hath 
rule over the fourth parte of 
a realme. lury with her per- 
tenaunce was the devided ito 
iiij lordshippes. 


The nyght in the olde tyme 
was devided into iiij quarters/ 
and too every parte was gevyn 
iij houres. 

15 :5. *Proffytt. Marke the 
leve oif the pharises. God 
wolde that the sone shuld ho- 
noure hys father & mother 
with hys temporall goods/ad 
the pharises for there tempo- 
rall lucre iterpreted yt say- 
ng: god is thy father ad mo- 
ther/ offer to hym/ So were 
the pharises disshes ful with 
robery & extorcion/ & the 
povre fathers and mothers pe- 
risshe for hunger and neade. 

15 :13. Tradicions of men 
muste fayle att the last: gods 
word bydeth ever. 


The signes are christs woder- 
full deades and miracles/ 
which were prophesied of be- 
fore/ that they shulde be done 
in Chrustus tyme. Esaie xvi. 


16 :18. (Petrus) Cepha Sy- 
risch/Petrus kriechisch heyst 
auf deutsch eyn fels/vnd alle 
Christen sind Petri vmb der 
bekentnis willen/die hie Petrus 
thut/wilche ist/der fels/dar- 
auff Petrus vnd alle petri baw- 
et sind/Gemeyn ist die be- 
kentnis /also auch der name. 

16 :18. (hellepforten) 
Die helle pf orten sind aller ge- 
walt widder die Christe/ als/ 
sunde/todt/helle/weltlich wey- 
szheyt vnd gewallt etce. 

Peter i the greke/syg- 
nieth a stoone I eglysshe. This 
confessio is the rocke. Nowe 
is simo bariona/or simo ionas 
sone/ called Peter/ because of 
his cofessio. whosoever the 
this wyse cofesseth of Christe/ 
the same is called Peter, nowe 
is this cofession coe too all 
that are true christen. The ys 
every christe ma & worn a pe- 
ter. Rede bede/auste & hiero 
/ of the maner of lowsinge & 
bynding and note howe hiero 
checketh the presumcio of the 
pharises I his tyme/ which yet 
had nott so mostrous Iterpreta- 
cions as oure new goddes have 
feyned Rede erasmus anota- 
cions. hyt was noot for nought 
that Christ badd beware of the 
leven of the pharises. noo 
thynge is so swete that they 
make not sowre with there tra- 
dicios. The evagelion/ that 
ioyfull tidynges/ys nowe bite- 
rer then the olde lawe/Christes 
burthe is hevier then the yooke 
of moses/oure codicio ad estate 
ys ten tymes more grevious 
then was ever the iewes The 
pharises have so leveded 
Christes swete breed. 

16 :23. iW Itt soundeth yn 
greke/away fro me sathan/ 
and are the same words which 
Christe spake vnto the devyll 
when he woolde have had hi 
to fall doune & worshippe hym. 
luc. iiij. 

16 :27. *Dedes. For the deds 
testify what a ma is inwarde/ 


the tree shalbe preysed acor- 
dynge too hys frute. 

16 :28. (den tod) das ist/ 
wer an mich glawbt wirt den 
tod nicht sehen lohan. 8. 11. 

17 :26. (frey) 

wie woll Christus frey war/ 
gab er doch den zyns/ seym ne- 
histen zu willen/also ist eyn 
Christen senyet halben alles 
dings frey vnd gibt sich doch 
seynem nediste willich zu 

19 :8. (hertigkeyt) 
Etlich gesetz lere. Ettliche we- 
ren/ihene leren das beste/dise 
weren dem bosen das nicht er- 
ger werde/drumb lassen sie 
viel des besten nach gleych wie 
das weltliche schwerd auch 

19:12. (sich selbs) 
dz dritte verschneyten mus 
geystlich seyn/nemlich willige 
keuscheyt/sonst were es eyner- 
ley mit dem andern das leyp- 
lich geschicht. 

19 :17. (mich gut) 
Gleych wie Christus spricht 

Deeth. That ts whoso- 
ever beleveth 6 me shall not se 
deeth. lo. xij. 

17 :20. Stronge feyth re- 

quyreth fervent prayer/ & 

prayer requyreth fastyng to 

subdue the body that lustes 

vnquyet nott a manes mynde. 

*Fre. Though Christ were 
fre yet gave he trybute for his 
neghburs sake. So ys a christe 
ma fre I al thyngs as pteyn- 
yng to his awne parte/ yett 
payeth he trybute & submit- 
teth hym silfe to all me/ for 
hys brothers sake/ too serve 
his borther withall 

18 :18. Here all bynde and 

*Hardnes. Lawes pmitt & 
suffer many thyngs/to avoyde 
a worsse iconvenience which 
god will iudge & punysshe. 

*Selves. The thryde chast- 
ite muste be gostly vnderstod 
that ys to say voluntari chast- 
ite/ or els hyt were all wone 
with the seconde/ which is out- 
warde i the flesshe. 

mT'Goode. As Christ speak- 
eth lo. vij my doctrine /ys nott 


lohan. 7. meyne lere 1st nicht 
meyn/also auch hie. Ich byn 
nicht gutt/denn er redet von 
sich selb nach der menscheyt 
durch wilche er vns ymer zu 
Gott furet. 

19 :21. (volkomen) 
Volkomenheyt ist eygentlich 
Gottis gepott hallten/darunib 
ists klar/das diser iungling die 
gepott ym grund nicht gehal- 
ten hat/wie er doch meynet/ 
das zeyget yhm Christus/da- 
mit/das er die rechten werck 
der gepott yhm furhelt/vnd vr- 
teylt/das keyn reycher selig 
werde/der diser iungeling auch 
eyner ist/Nu werden yhe die 
selig die Gottis gepott halten. 

my dottrine/even so sayieh he 
here/ y am not good/ for he 
speketh of his humanite /where 
with he ever leedeth vs too 

*Perfectnes is pperly the 
kepynge of gods comasidmets 
therefore hit appiereth evi- 
dently/that this man hadde not 
fulfilled goddes comaundemets 
groundly/as he yet supposed. 
& that Chrst declareth when 
he putteth forthe vnto hyme 
the right worke off the comaud- 
ment/ and iudgeth that none of 
the riche men ca be saved of 
whose nobre this yonge ma was 
/ yet shall all they be safe that 
kepe gods comaundments. 

20 :3. Seve a clocke with vs 
ys one with the iewes/ & ix. 
is iij. xij. is vi/iij. att after 
none is ix/ & v. is xi. with 
them/ ad vi. is eventyde. 

20 :1S. -By this jstmilitude 
maye ye pceave that no simili- 
tude serveth throwgh out/but 
su one thyng coteyned i the si- 
militude. As this loge par- 
able pteyneth butt herevnto/ 
that werkc holy shall despise 
weeke synners/ which same 
werke holy shall not there have 
ther rewards as these which 
come fyrste have here butt 
shalbe reiecte & put awaye/ 
because they chalenge hit of 
meritts & nott of mercy & 


20 :22. (der kilch) das 1st 
/leyden. Das fleysch aber wil 
ymer ehe herlich warden denn 
es gekreutzigt wirt/ehe erho- 
het denn ernyderigt werden. 

21 :9. (Hosianna) 
Hosianna heyst auf deutsch. 
Ach hilff odder ach gib gluck 
vnd heyl. 

21 :44 (fellt) Es mus sich 
alles an Christo stossen/ettlich 
zur besserug ettlich zur erge- 
rung. [The first edition be- 
gins this note, (fellt Es mus) 
another indication that Tyn- 
dale used the second or third 
edition, rather than the first, 

22: near end of verse 12. 
(Hochtzeyt kleyt) ist der glaw- 

*The cuppe signifieth the 
crosse/ & sufferyng: but the 
flesshe wolde be glorified yer 
then crucified /wolde be exalted 
& lif te vp an hye yer the cast 

20 :28. Redeme/ is to deli- 
ver out off bondage 

20 :30. *Sone of david. 
As many as called hym s5ne 

of david/ beleved that he was 
very messias that grete pphete 
promysed off god /which shulde 
come and redeme israhell/for 
it was pmised that messias 
shuld be davids sone. 

UFY Hosiana/ is asmoch to 
sey as pch helppe/or och geve 
good lucke & health. 

21 :31. *Ihon taught the ve- 
ry waye vnto rightewesnes : for 
he iterpreted the lawe right/ 
and dampned man & all his 
deds & rightewesnes/and drave 
me vnto Christ/to seke true 
rightewesnes /thorow mercy ob- 
teyned in hys bloude. 

*Pall. All must fall or stoble 
at Christ/some to there sal- 
vacion/some to there damna- 

[At this point Tyndale's 
fragment stops, Matt. 22: 


be/den dis Euangelio verwirfft middle of verse 12. Hence the 
die werck heylige/vfi nympt an note, on the wedding garment, 
die glewbigen. a few words later, found in Lu- 

ther, does not appear in Tyn- 
dale's Fragment, but was pro- 
bably used, as it is very sug- 

We have given the analysis of the marginal notes 
in Tyndale's Cologne Fragment, to which we have ad- 
ded as ocular evidence a reproduction of these notes 
in a column parallel to a reproduction of Luther's 
notes. Further explanation is not required to show 
the extent of Tyndale's dependence in these notes upon 
Luther's New Testament. In the light of these facts, 
this work of Tyndale seems somewhat analogous to 
that of a disciple appropriating the thoughts and imi- 
tating the methods of a great master. At any rate, 
these notes of the Cologne Fragment, like some other 
things to which we are calling attention, do not indi- 
cate the striking originality of a very independent scho- 
lar or of a truly resourceful master such as Tyndale 
is sometimes represented to have been. And, in the 
light of these facts, the assertions of George Joye as 
to these particulars of Tyndale's work though no 
doubt somewhat exaggerated, and though rather un- 
fortunate in their vehemence and perhaps in their mo- 
tive are seen after all not to be very far from the 
truth, and hence must have had some foundation in 
fact. But, as more evidence on this subject is to be 
presented, we shall withhold further comment at this 




HE references, along the inner margin 
of the text, are also full of interest for 
our investigation. Several investigators 
who have compared Tyndale's Fragment 
with a copy of an early edition of Lu- 
ther's New Testament, have come to 
the conclusion that many, and probably most, of 
Tyndale's marginal references were taken from Lu- 
ther. But it was apparently Luther's first edi- 
tion, or perhaps a later reprint, that was prbb- 
ably used in making these comparisons. The second 
and third Wittenberg editions are indeed almost in- 
accessible, especially the latter, of which only a few 
complete copies are known to be extant. And yet it 
was the third Wittenberg edition that Tyndale chiefly 
used, as already indicated, and as will still further pre- 
sently appear. We shall now proceed to show that 
every one of Tyndale's marginal references in the Co- 
logne Fragment was borrowed from Luther. 

Counting double references, such as Exod 20. et 21. 


(first edition, near middle of chapter 5) as two, Lu- 
ther's first edition has 191 of these parallel references; 
the second edition has 210, two of them being repeated 
(Luce. 4. and lohan. 2, middle of chapter 4) ; and the 
third edition has 208. Apart from the two references 
repeated in the second edition, the references in the 
second, and third editions are the same, except as to a 
few differences in the abbreviations and as to printer's 
errors. Of the references in the first edition, 2, are not 
found in the second and third editions (last reference 
of chapter 5: Luce. 6., and .second last reference of 
chapter 11: I oh. 17). There are, therefore, 21 refer- 
ences in the second edition, and 19 in the third edition, 
which are not found in the first edition. Of the 191 
references found in Luther's first edition, Tyndale used 
167 or all but 24 and repeated 2, thus making 169. 
Of the 21 additional references in Luther's second edi- 
tion (or of the 19 in the third edition) , Tyndale used 
16. Tyndale, therefore, used 167 plus 16, or 183 of 
Luther's references, and repeated 2, making 185 in all. 
And this is all the references that Tyndale's Fragment 
has. Thus, every one of Tyndale's references was 
taken from Luther's Testament. It should also be said 
that of these 185 references (or 183, if the repeated 
references are not counted), 3 also following Luther 
in this help to make up double references (such as 
Le. xix. & xxm., near end of chapter 5). And, of Lu- 
ther's total of 210 references in the three editions, 
counting the 2 references not found in the second and 
third enditions, noted above, but not counting 1 the 2 re- 


ferences repeated in the second edition, Tyndale, there- 
fore, borrowed all but 27. From the above it is, there- . 
fore, also certain that Tyndale used Luther's second 
or third edition. 

The question now naturally arises as to Tyndale's 
originality in appropriating these references. In the , 
first place, let us remark that these references are 
more correct in Luther's first edition than in his second 
and third editions, although one might rather expect 
the contrary. This, however, is apparently due to mere 
printers' errors. And, strange to say, whenever a re- 
ference in Luther's third (or second) edition is incor- 
rect, Tyndale copies the error in his Fragment. Thus, 
one of the references, though correct in Luther's first 
edition, is incorrect in his second and third editions: 
and Tyndale unwittingly copies the error (third refer- 
ence of chapter 5 : Exo . . . xij, instead of xxi) . Ano- 
ther reference, though correct in the first and second 
editions, is incorrect in the third edition : and this er- 
ror also Tyndale copies (second reference, chapter 15 : 
Leui. xxix, instead of xx.) . This reference, by a mere 
printer's error in setting the Arabic numeral, is Leuiti. 
29. in the third edition, instead of Leuiti. 20 in the 
second edition (Leuit. 20. in the first edition). And, 
although Leviticus has only 27 chapters, strangely 
enough even this error Tyndale copies. So one re- 
ference, not found in the first edition, that is correct 
in the second edition, is also incorrect in the third edi- 
tion (near beginning of chapter 14: Luce. 18.) : and 
this error also is copied by Tyndale (Lu. xviij., instead 


of Leviticus 18 Leui. 18., as Luther's second edition 
correctly has it) . 

In addition to the very conspicuous errors noted 
above, in which Tyndale apparently blindly followed 
Luther's third edition (or perhaps in some cases the 
second edition) , there are errors in placing references, 
etc., in which also he followed Luther's third (or se- 
cond) edition. Thus, the last group of references, con- 
sisting of 5, near the end of chapter 5, Tyndale also 
unmistakably takes from Luther's third (or second) 
edition; and in so doing he follows a printer's error 
in misplacing the last 2 references (double : Le. xix. & 
xxvi.) which are correctly placed with the following 
paragraph in Luther's first edition. In like manner, 
Tyndale takes the 2 references (Mar xij. and Luc. xx.) 
of the second paragraph of chapter 22 from Luther's 
third (or second) edition; and in so doing he follows 
another printer's error in misplacing them, as they 
are correctly placed with the third paragraph in the 
first edition. So also Tyndale follows Luther's third 
(or second) edition in omitting Luce. 6., the last refer- 
ence of chapter 5, and in omitting the important refer- 
ence of loh. 17. at the close of chapter 11 both of 
which are found in Luther's first edition. 

There would, of course, seem to have been no pos- 
sible excuse on the part of Tyndale for copying these 
errors of Luther's third (or even second) edition, espe- 
cially those of the kind first pointed out. He also had 
Luther's first and more correct edition before him, as 


is evident from the fact that he used a note (Matt. 
13: 12) which is found in the first edition but is not 
found in the second and third editions. So, indeed, 
was there no excuse for him to appropriate any such 
references at all without at least first verifying them. 

Besides these errors, in which he follows Luther's 
print, there are 14 other errors in these references, 
which are correct in Luther's three editions. Most of 
these are, however, likely only printers;' errors; but 
several of them (more correctly, 5 of them) appear 
more like errors in copying, either directly from the 
page or indirectly from dictation by some one else from 
the page. 

It should also be said that 2 references which are 
incorrect in Luther's first edition, are corrected in the 
second and third editions. These, therefore, are 
correct in Tyndale's Fragment (chapter 12, first re- 
ference : i. Regu. xxi., Luther's first edition not having 
the i before Reg. 21., the same being correctly inserted 
in the second and third editions ; and chapter 13, near 
end : Mar. m., as in Luther's second and third editions, 
the first edition having Matth. 6.) 

The above analysis, especially as to the copied er+ 
rors, etc., conclusively proves that Tyndale certainly 
used Luther's third edition, and that for the marginal 
references he probably used that edition principally, or 
even alone. That he might have used that edition alone 
for these references, seems all the more plausible from 


the fact also that all the references he used are 
found in that edition. And yet, as already noted, he 
certainly also had the first edition as no doubt he also 
had the second edition before him in his work in gene- 
ral. More evidence along this line will, however, ap- 
pear in our examination of the texts. 

In the light of the above almost startling facts as 
to Tyndale's appropriation of these references, further 
comment is unnecessary. To attempt to excuse Tyn- 
dale on the ground that, in order not unnecessarily to 
delay the publication of his New Testament, he had 
necessarily to avail himself of all materials at hand, 
and that therefore time would not permit him to verify 
every reference, etc., will not do. According to his 
biographers and many writers on the history of the 
English Bible, he was supposedly engaged in his trans- 
lation for a long period of time. Then, in the light 
of this fact and the additional facts that this was ap- 
parently his one, and almost his only, great work dur- 
ing that time, and that in its performance, as is well 
known, he had the help of other English scholars, such 
an attempted excuse would hardly be satisfactory. The 
fact might be urged that he had such unbounded con- 
fidence in the correctness of Luther's New Testament 
that he considered it not necessary to verify references, 
etc. But even this could not account for some very 
open printers' errors, which he followed. 

Moreover, though this work was pioneer work on 
the part of Tyndale, it was not so in exactly the same 


fuller sense as was that of Luther. He had the greater 
work of Luther, Erasmus, et al., at his disposal to use 
and follow; and his too free use of at least Luther's 
work unfortunately apparently tended even to stifle his 
own originality. Then, too, it must be remembered 
that Luther finished the first draft of his more original 
translation of the New Testament practically in three 
months, by the side of which this work of Tyndale 
might be considered as comparatively slow. At any 
rate, it would seem that no attempt to excuse Tyndale 
in thus almost servilely following Luther in many 
points, can fully vindicate him, or somehow justify the 
placing of him in the same exalted historic position as 
that of his incomparably greater master. Nor must this 
be regarded as in the least detracting from his true and 
proper, and indeed truly important, place in the history 
of the English Reformation and that of the English 



ROM the foregoing comparison of Tyn- 
dale's notes and marginal references 
with those of Luther, it is very evident 
that of Luther's Testament it was the 
third Wittenberg edition that Tyndale 
chiefly used. It is, therefore, with this 
edition especially that Tyndale's Fragment should na- 
turally be compared to determine to what extent he 
followed Luther also in his translation, although the 
essential differences' in text between the three editions, 
as we find by a careful comparison, are not very nu- 

As a demonstration of the marked dependence of 
Tyndale upon Luther also as a translator, we shall 
therefore give a parallel collation of Tyndale's Cologne 
Fragment and Luther's third Wittenberg edition 
(1524) with the Greek text of Erasmus (corrected text 
of 1519 and 1522), to which, as a matter of additional 
interest and light on this subject, we shall add Eras- 
mus's Latin translation (printed parallel to the Greek 
text) , the Latin Vulgate and Wycliff e's English version. 


Moreover, where there are variations in the texts 
of the first and second Wittenberg editions of Luther's 
Testament, they will also be indicated in our collation. 
Mere differences of spelling and punctuation will, how- 
ever, not be given. But the spelling of the third edition 
will accurately be reproduced. So also will be that of 
Tyndale's Cologne Fragment, as well as that of Eras- 
mus's Greek text and Latin translation and that of 
what is probably one of the best texts (Baxter's) of 
Wycliffe's version. And, as the text of the Latin Vul- 
gate then was the unrevised text current in the many 
noted early printed editions of the Bible and was, with 
the exception of peculiarities in contractions, etc., es- 
sentially the same in all of them, we shall use in our 
collation a copy of one (1478) of Anthony Coburger's 
magnificent editions, printed at Nuremberg. To 
be consistent, we are also reproducting the spelling of 
this edition. But, as several of its marks of contraction 
are somewhat difficult of reproduction, we shall give 
only such contractions as can conveniently be repro- 
duced. Further explanation of these should not here 
be necessary. It might here also be said that several 
difficult contractions in parts that have already passed 
through the press are found not be indicated (such as 
the stroke below or above the p, etc) ; but the reader 
can generally readily determine them. Our aim is to 
be accurate here, as elsewhere, although errors may 
have crept in. 

The Greek text is reproduced in Roman letters. 
The eta is given as e, the omega as o, the theta as th, 


the chi as ch, the phi as ph, the psi as 1 ps, the 
script as an added i, and the rough breathing (') as an 
initial h, the initial rho being represented by rh. The 
upsilon is in all cases represented by u. No attempt is 
made to reproduce the accents. 

The apparent sources of the passages of Tyndale's 
text here collated are given in full-faced type. That does 
not mean that these were necessarily the only sources, 
but that they undoubtedly determined Tyndale's phrase- 
ology. Of course, a complete or full collation is, for want 
of space, not here given; but enough is given to il- 
lustrate Tyndale's actual use of Luther's version. In- 
deed, a complete list of passages in Tyndale's text into 
which Luther's version entered as an influence, would 
be difficult to give. For that matter, not only for 
the more evident passages, a number of which are here 
given, but probably for the whole translation, Tyndale 
iiad before him and to some extent used a copy of 
Luther's New Testament. 

The collation in a shortened form, giving a number 
of illustrative examples, follows : 


to the transmyg 
ioun of babuloy 

















J3 >> 

























vmb die zeyt der 
Babiloniachen gc- 
fencknis, etc. 







.S s 

c a 
















ioi 2 














H- 1 








5S g l 

)r I Cfl 

































O 1) 

S q 

rt <nS 











^3 f^ 


"'S 5 









Mir; r-i 





3 l-o 


S^ M 





J2^ {> 

















(5 EO 

c o 8"o 













M 4) 



(Mi i 



.. iH 





I - 

ffi < !'- 


Mkj r-t 

1^ C^ 





S 5o " 


-p ^ 



C M y 

i sonne 












03 QJ jj^ 












c e 






*s s 1 ! B 




._ w 




g X 


3 S g.c 






V"J M "^ 

y y 

*? H-. ^ 

















"3 8 




i" 3 - 



tjC3 P^ 

^S'B'S a 

jg rt B fi 



>2 -oo 


1-4 M 









en toi phaneroi 

me battologesete 











"S ^ 

10) CO 
-C 4) O 
**M 1> 





oudeis de epiballei 
epiblema rhakous 
agnaphou epihim; 
tioi palai5i 




aspasasthe auten 

tuphloi anablepousi 
kai choloi peripz 
tousin, etc. 





in propatulo 

ne sitis multiloqui 









I 1 

misericordia uolo, 
& non sacrificiu 

Nullus immittit 
assumentum pan: 
rudis in ueste 






Caeci uisum recipiu 
& daudi ambula 







D 1 








isc'diam volo : < 
no sacrifitu 

mo aut Smittit 
commisura pan: 
rudis i vestime 















<^ CO O> 

M CO t> 



d; - 

g - - 

d" " 































o whennes this 
wisdom & vertu 
comen to this? 







d therefor verti 
worchyn in hym 






















CO h 


n c4 






S <u 

T3 ^ 


r>> <B 

>, g 



* M 









S3 R 


m Jj 


^Z "5 




^^ f^ ^3 


^ fc 



*" M 




o o 






O 0) 

, S 












K m 

i 1 


B W 











"" OQ 


"S * 

E 3 


.3 I? 





O +* 




ng jj 




























o ^TM 

^9 OQ C 

O C8 OQ 
t kl 



+ O 


** * 

o 5 *3 "3 







e <e > 


i o 

















ai biastai harpa- 
zousin auten 

oti daimonion ech 

outos ouk ekballei 
ta daimonia, ei m 

ina tou prophetou 

po kataboles 

othen toutSi he 
sophia haute kai 
hai dunameis ; 




ia touto hai duna- 
meis energousin 
en autoi. 

ia herodiada ten 
gunaika philippou 
tou adelphou 







T3 o 








.3 8 







13) 3 





um arundine: 


aemoniu habi 

0) C 
C (fl 





0) O 




- c 



opter Herodii 
uxorem Phil 
fratriis sui 




























nstitutone mu 


U U 

r incredulitat 



uxore fris 






-3 a) 
















"tf* O) 

10 * 00 

C3 GO 

t> ?H i-l 

a N w 

. OT 10 1O 











r T 



S S 






*< m 






doctrynes and 
dementis of 


thei forgatan 
looues, etc. 


bo 41 

*3 41 










[Beeinnins: of 




r i 


doctryne/ which is 
nothynge but men 


4) O 0) 

o tt 
3 01 

I4 O ^! 

f "^ 

they had forgotten t 
take breed with 
them, etc. 




S P 

Q o 












I 1 

hosiana. . . 
. . .hosianna 

[Ending of XXI., 
followng iErasmus 








m s 










3 I 





_g S 





* ** 

^ +3 



















g II 


'S' B 




^ DO 






s . 





i i 






didaskalias, ental- 
mata anthropon 

pothen hemin en 
eremiai artoi 

epilathonto artous 
labein, etc. 


S l^r 

all' heos hebdomi 
kontakis hepta 

ou sumpherei 










MI i 





1 r< 











ca * 

p 41 




.s s 

lO 4> 


2 " 



' 05 


doctor inas, 

o Q, 

f) +3 C 

obliuione n 
serat pan 





A 01 






3 -a 






i 1 





MI i 














0) . 


** !f! 





<u 43 




5s i-3 



A . 


ra & 



. mi 


W i^ 

"o "*^ 

-u 2 





fc^ ^> 





>P 4) 

03 .9 



- <u 




B . 

r* r'^ 



. 'S 



S I 


B 3 




* . 












CO > 









. CM 

. TH 







The above collation throws a flood of light upon 
the long-debated question as to the extent (if any) of 
Tyndale's dependence upon Luther as a translator. That 
he used Luther's text with almost the same freedom 
with which he used his introduction and marginal notes 
though he used it with greater independence no 
one who really examines this collation can deny. 

Moreover, from a much more complete collation, of 
which the above collated passages are only a small part 
as illustrative examples from the different chapters, it 
is very manifest that Tyndale used also Erasmus's La- 
tin translation and Wycliffe's version, as also that he 
to some extent used the Latin Vulgate. Indeed, we find 
a number of passages whose source is found in several 
of these texts. There are also cases (whether they 
be regarded as errors or as having been derived from 
some other source), in which Tyndale differs from all 
these texts. As an example we might cite 1 : 18 (not 
given in above collation) , where Tyndale has incorrect- 
ly was marled, (mnesteutheses,, R. V., had been be- 
trothed), where Luther has correctly vertrawet war. 
So in 11: 1, he omits twelve (disciples), which is mani- 
festly only an oversight. 

It should also be noted that Tyndale follows the 
Vulgate and Wycliffe in omitting the doxology to the 
Lord's Prayer. It may, however, be contended that 
he might have followed some manuscript in this, al- 
though such a possibility is too remote to deserve much 
consideration. In not translating the Greek eikei (La- 

tin, temere, in Erasmus), without cause, verse 22 of 
chapter 5, he follows Luther, Wycliffe and the Vulgate. 
Another interesting point is the translation of egennese 
(1:2, sqq.). Here Luther has gepar Isaac, etc., (hat 
geporn den Isaac, etc., in eds. 1 and 2), undoubtedly 
in the causative sense of begat, which (begatt) is also 
the translation of Tyndale. Here Tyndale apparently 
follows also Wycliffe, who has bigat; and if he be re- 
garded as equally following Luther, which is likely the 
case, it would evidently be the text of his third, rather 
than that of his first or second, edition. In passing, it 
will be interesting also to note the Vulgate's addition to 
the text (end of 7 :29) , of the words eorum et pharisei, 
an error naturally followed, in his direct translation 
from it, by Wycliffe (who has of hem and the farisies) , 
but correctly avoided by Erasmus, Luther and Tyndale. 

In a former connection, in giving a probable ex- 
planation of Tyndale's statement in his "To the Reder" 
at the end of his "Worms" New Testament, that he 
"had no man to counterfet/nether was holpe with 
englysshe of eny that had interpreted the same," we 
said that Wycliffe's English was not that of Tyndale's 
time and that probably Tyndale did not use Wycliffe's 
version very much. This statement is true only as it 
bears upon the distinctive differences between the Eng- 
lish of the two versions. But there are elements 
common to the language of the times and of the two 
versions that in our vindication of Tyndale's defense 
we ignored for the time being. As we did not point 
out this common element of the two versions, we should 


in this connection say that our conviction is that Wy- 
cliffe's version influenced the English of Tyndale far 
more than writers on this subject have generally re- 
cognized or acknowledged. Thus we find many of 
Wycliffe's forms and combinations of words, to which 
is due much of the rhythmic beauty of Tyndale's ver- 
sion, retained or tastefully reproduced. And yet, it is 
true that in the actual translation itself he was not 
likely greatly influenced by Wycliffe's version, as we 
have said, as that version was clearly only a transla- 
tion from the Latin Vulgate. 

However, it was in connection with, and as invalu- 
able aids in, his translation from the original that Tyn- 
dale used all these versions. And his use of them was 
with considerable discrimination. Thus his trans- 
lation is to some extent an eclectic composite product, 
in which the relative order of sources is probably as 
follows: Erasmus's Greek text, Luther's German, 
Wycliffe's English, Erasmus's Latin and the Latin Vul- 
gate. The statement of Westcott (History, etc., p. 
179) that the Latin version of Erasmus influenced 
Tyndale's translation more than the German of Luther 
is very far from correct, at least as far as the Cologne 
Fragment is concerned. Of all the versions accessible 
to Tyndale he followed Luther's version far more than 
any other, and, indeed, than all others combined. It 
was apparently largely used as a close second to the 
Greek text itself. This fact, apart from the fact itself, 
is interesting also as indicating his high estimate of 
Luther's version. Although his version was a trans- 


lation from the Greek text of Erasmus, which he 
used as a patient though advanced student of the lan- 
guage, Luther's version was undoubtedly the model in 
form and substance followed by him. And thus, large- 
ly as an interpretation also of the true meaning of the 
original test, Luther's version was Tyndale's guide. To 
say, however, as has been said by several able writers, 
who should have known better, that Tyndale's trans- 
lation was only a translation from Luther is surely in- 
correct and manifestly unjust. Much more so is 
it incorrect and unjust to say that it was a translation 
from the Latin Vulgate. Therefore, also George Joye's 
charges against Tyndale as to this particular point 
seem rather exaggerated. 

It is not for us further to rate Tyndale's Greek 
scholarship. But, that he was familiar with the gram- 
matical forms of the language is evident from very 
many literal renderings. Indeed, his translation is of- 
ten strikingly remarkable in its many literal render- 
ings of the Greek into chaste and exquisite English. 
And, for that matter, Luther's version is altogether 
striking in its many exquisite free renderings. It often 
approaches the beautifully and tersely interpretative. 
This very freedom of many of Luther's renderings is 
a true evidence of his thorough understanding of the 
Greek language and of the mind of the Spirit in those 
inspired utterances. It is not likely, however, that 
Tyndale was as familiar with Greek idioms as he was 
with the grammatical forms. It is rather in the trans- 
lation of these that we find him more generally f ollow- 


ing Luther's renderings. In his repeated ignoring of 
Greek particles he apparently also follows Luther. 
Hence, his version often appears also quite free in its 
renderings. And, of course, in some of his expressions 
he unmistakably follows Luther's German, rather than 
the normal English, order of words. But this point 
must be made in the light of all the facts, as the order 
of words of some of his expressions, which might ap- 
pear as though it was determined by Luther's phrase- 
ology, was current also in the English of his day. 

Then, too, in his arraigement of matter upon the 
page, Tyndale also follows Luther very closely, not 
only in the list of the books of the New Testament and 
in the marginal notes and parallel references, already 
noted, but also in the paragraphs with the spacing be- 
tween them, as well as sometimes very strikingly in the 
text itself. Thus, in the first chapter the arrangement 
of the genealogy upon the page is throughout a minute 
reproduction, sentence for sentence, of that of Luther's 
New Testament, one line being given to each separate 
statement, however short or long. At a distance the 
two, with notes, etc., or photographs of them, look al- 
most as if they were really identical except for the 
size of the pages. 

In his headings Tyndale also undoubtedly follows 
Luther's New Testament. Thus, at the top of the first 
page of Matthew the heading of Luther's Testament is : 

Euangelion Sanct Matthes. 
Das erste Capitel. 


Tyndale's Fragment has: 

The gospell of S. Mathew. 
The fyrst Chapter. 

Then, on the succeeding pages Luther's Testament 
has Euangelion on the left-hand pages and So/net Mat- 
thes. on the right-hand pages. And Tyndale's Frag- 
ment has The Gospell of on the left-hand pages and S. 
Matheio. on the right-hand pages. Moreover, in the 
numbering or naming of the chapters Tyndale appar- 
ently follows Luther. Thus, Luther has Das Ander Ca- 
piteL, Das Dritt CapiteL, . . . Das Sechst CapiteL, 
etc., and Tyndale has The Seconde Chapter., The thryde 
Chapter., . . . The Syxt Chapter, etc., however us- 
ing Roman numerals beginning with the seventh chap- 

And in his divisions of the chapters into paragraphs 
he does not follow Erasmus, the Vulgate, or Wycliffe, 
or one of the older divisions; but he manifestly fol- 
lows Luther here also. In only one case throughout 
the twenty-two chapters does he indicate a new para- 
graph; namely, in dividing into two paragraphs 
(XVIII. 15-18, 19-20) what appears as one in Luther. 
In only nine cases does he combine what constitutes 
two paragraphs in each case (II. 7-8, 9-12; V. 21-22, 
23-24; X. 5-10, 11; X. 12-13, 14-15; X. 19-20, 21-22; 
XL 20-24, 25-27; XVIII. 1-6, 7-9; XIX. 3-6, 7-9; XXI. 
23-27, 28-32) in Luther's first three editions. These may 
have been omissions of paragraph indications due part- 


ly to haste or oversight on the part of Tyndale and his 
assistants, or to that of his printer. In all other cases 
the paragraphs of his Fragment fully agree with those 
of Luther's Testament. 




ROM the foregoing analysis it is seen 
that throughout the entire Cologne 
Fragment, both in form and substance, 
Tyndale generally very closely, and in 
places minutely, follows Luther's New 
Testament. But it is also seen that 
the translation itself, though in this also he quite 
freely follows Luther, is the most original part 
of this precious treasure of the beginnings of the Eng- 
lish Reformation. Indeed, this is Tyndale' s most 
valuable contribution to that great movement, and thus 
to the permanent enrichment of the Church and of 
his country and language. 

It is also seen that justly to value or to magnify the 
importance of Tyndale's translation by pointing to the 
fact that it survives, to so large an extent in King 
James' Version, as well as in the Revised Version, is 
therefore inadvertently also to emphasize an inherent 
dependence of those English versions upon Luther's 
great original Protestant Version. As the Bible, es- 


pecially the New Testament, in those formative days of 
the English language, was the most generally read, and 
almost the one book, especially as England tended to- 
ward Protestantism, the natural result was the estab- 
lishing of the language practically upon the English 
version of the Scriptures. And, as the successive ver- 
sions were in large measure based upon that of Tyn- 
dale, mostly retaining its very phraseology, the lan- 
guage of Tyndale's version largely survives, not only 
in our present Bible, but even in the very language of 
the English-speaking world. Indeed, it is readily con- 
ceivable that if Tyndale's version had been different 
in its phraseology and had been equally followed by the 
succeeding versions, the English language of our day 
might be correspondingly different. 

It must, therefore, be said that it was a fortunate 
circumstance for the English language that the first 
printed English version came from the pen of so noble 
a master of expression as was William Tyndale. It 
was an equally fortunate circumstance for the Eng- 
lish Church, as indeed also indirectly for the English 
language, that that English master of expression sat 
at the feet, and even so freely used the work, of thai 
consummate German theologian and translator, and 
even greater master of expression, Martin Luther. 

Thus, though, in the interests of truth, Tyndale's 
scholarship and originality should not be exaggerated, 
his work must nevertheless unquestionably be re- 
garded as great in its influence in the English reform- 


atory movement and upon the English Church and lan- 
guage. And if the man, considered in the light of the 
times, be rated by such footprints of genius as he act- 
ually left, and if his work be in turn contemplated in 
connection with this measure of the man, then at this 
true valuation will it yet appear great to this gene- 
ration. Thus such a proper and just measure of 
the man and of his noble work for the Church of Christ 
and for the history and language of the English speak- 
ing race, will not lower him in our estimation, as it 
shows him also to have been a leader among the great. 

Therefore, our comparison of Tyndale with Luther, 
based upon their translations, should not minimize the 
former's work and make him appear smaller than he 
was among the heroes of the faith of that generation. 
But it may rather tend, by the contrast, to exalt, if 
that were possible, the unique personality of Tyndale's 
accepted incomparable master, and magnify that ma- 
ster's unparalleled work as original translator, theo- 
logian, reformer, and leader of men. 

However, a comparison of Tyndale with Luther, as 
though he were his equal or belonged to his class 
such as has sometimes been made since the latter be- 
longs to the few uniquely great men of all time, it 
might truly be said, would seem improper. With Tyn- 
dale, practically the one great work of his life was that 
of translating the Bible ; and yet, apart from his trans- 
lation of a few short passages, such as the Book of Jo- 
nah, his translation of the Old Testament extended 


only to the end of II. Chronicles. And, of this, the part 
from the end of Deuteronomy to the end of Chronicles 
was left only in manuscript, to be incorporated by Ro- 
gers, his literary executor, into the so-called Matthew's 
Bible. His comparatively few theological and contro- 
versial tracts were rather incidents by the way. 
Even these and especially the former like his 
introduction, prefaces and notes accompanying his 
translations, were largely based upon the various writ- 
ings of Luther. With Luther, on the other hand, the 
translation of the Bible, although he made a transla- 
tion of the whole of it, and repeatedly revised and im- 
proved the same however important it was for his 
work and for the world was after all but an incident 
to the Herculean task of conducting and directing the 
great world movement of the Reformation. And yet, 
though Luther was of the same age as Tyndale, his 
mighty work was largely done when Tyndale suffered 
martyrdom. His work as theologian, professor, 
preacher, writer, controversialist and translator, was 
of such a colossal magnitude that, had it been the united 
work of a dozen eminent men, it would have made them 
all forever illustrious in the history of the great. Tyn- 
dale was a man indeed comparatively great among 
those heroes of the faith of his class, among whom he 
moved and with whom he labored. Luther was one of 
those few overtowering historic personalities that have 

turned the world's history into totally different chan- 
nels and forever afterwards dominate the thought of 
the nations. Largely the composite product of the 


century that also produced the Renaissance, by the re- 
ligious Reformation Luther saved that intellectual 
movement from ending in infidelity and atheism. It 
was he that, in a sense, through these two mighty 
movements, broke the bonds of medisevalism and usher- 
ed in modern history. However great locally Tyn- 
dale and other men may have been, and however long 
some of their work may be an influence, Luther's work 
has in an altogether unique sense endured in the civili- 
zation, the liberty and the thought no less than in the 
Church of these centuries, and it must continue so to 
endure. In a real sense, he belongs to the twentieth 
century as truly as he belonged to the sixteenth, as 
indeed he will belong to all future time. 


Ames, on Tyndale's introduc- 
tion to Romans, 51 

Anderson, on Tyndale's stay on 
the continent, 47 
on Tyndale's dependence up- 
on Luther, 48 

"Apologye," Joye's, to Tyn- 
dale, 37 

Arbor, Edward, Cologne Frag- 
ment of Tyndale's New Test- 
ament photo-lithographed by, 

on Tyndale's dependence up- 
on Luther, 27 

Arrangement of matter on 
page, Luther's, followed by 
Tyndale, 115ff 

Baptist College, Bristol, Eng- 
land, copy of Tyndale's 
Worms edition in Library of, 

Bibliographers perplexed, 22ff 

Bodleian Library, copy of Tyn- 
dale's Introducton to Romans 
in, 51 

Books, lists (Luther's and Tyn- 
dale's) of, in parallel col- 
umns, 70, 71 

British Museum, depository of 
Cologne Fragment, 25ff 
depository of copy of Joye's 
Dutch edition of Tyndale's 
New Testament, 36 
depository of Cologne Frag- 
ment, 25 

Buschius, Herman, on Tyn- 
dale's linguistic ability, 54 

Cambridge, Library of Univer- 
city of, copy of Joye's "Apol- 
ogye" in, 37 

Carlstadt, comparison of, with 
Luther, 8 

Cochlaeus, on printing of Tyn- 
dale's New Testament at Co- 
logne, 31, 32 

on Tyndale's New Testament 
as Luther's New Testament 
in English, 17, 18, 31, 32 

Colet, Tyndale a follower of, 56 

Collation, parallel, of texts, 

Cologne, first English New 
Testament printed in, 25 

Cologne Fragment, finding of, 
in British Museum, 25 

Conant, on Tyndale's associa- 
tion with Luther, 53 

Connection, long overlooking 
of, between New Testaments 
of Luther and Tyndale, 23 

Contemporary testimony, ac- 
cepted. 55ff 
discredited, 46ff 

Demaus, on Tyndale's depen- 
dence on Luther, 58 

Doebneck, John, better known 
as Cochlaeus, 58 

Dutch, editions of Tyndale's 
New Testament in, 35 
one edition of Tyndale's New 
Testament in, edited by Joye, 

Eadie, on Tyndale's stay at 
Wittenberg, 56 

Ellis, on Tyndale's stay at Wit- 
tenberg, 55 

English Bible, dependence of, 
upon Luther, 118ff 


dependence of, upon Tyndale 

Erasmus, Tyndale's use of 
Greek of, 113, 114 
Tyndale's use of Latin of, 
111, 112 

Fox, on Monmouth's assistance 
of Tyndale, 32 

on Tyndale's connection with 
Luther, 32, 33 

Froude, on Tyndale's connec- 
tion 'with Luther, 57 

Fuller, on Tyndale's depen- 
dence upon Luther, 57 

Glosses (notes), marginal, 73ff 
Luther's and Tyndale's, in 
parallel columns, 76-96 

Gold, Henry, letter of, on mar- 
ginal notes in Tyndale's New 
Testament, 19 

Green, on Tyndale's dependence 
upon Luther, 57 

Grenville Collection, Cologne 
Fragment in, 25 
copy of Joye's Dutch edition 
of Tyndale's New Testament 
in, 36 

Hallam, on Tyndale's depen- 
dence upon Luther, 57 

Hazlitt, on Tyndale's introduc- 
tion to Romans, 51 

Headings, Luther's, followed by 
Tyndale, 115ff 

Henry the Enghth, charge of, 
that Luther influenced Tyn- 
dale, 33, 34 

Hichyns, Tyndale's assumed 
name, 19 

Hoare, on Tyndale's stay at 
Wittenberg, 55, 56 

Introductions, the two (Lu- 
ther's and Tyndale's), in par- 
allel columns, 64-69 

Jacobs, on Tyndale's general 
dependence upon Luther, 57 

Joye, George, answer of, to 
Tyndale, 41, 42 
"Apologye" of, to Tyndale, 

edited Tyndale's New Testa- 
ment, 36, 37 

on Tyndale's ability as a 
translator, 35ff, 59 
on Tyndale's helpers, 40-43 
on Tyndale's knowledge of 
Greek, 38, 44 

Kenyon, on Tyndale's depen- 
dence upon Luther, 57 

Lee, Edward, letter of, on Tyn- 
dale's association with Lu- 
ther, 30, 31 

LeLong, on Tyndale's depen- 
dence upon Luther, 57 

Lists (Luther's and Tyndale's), 
of New Testament books in 
parallel columns, 70, 71 
numbering of, 72 

Lowndes, on Tyndale's intro- 
duction to Romans, 51 

Luther, as Greek scholar, 114ff 
as translator, 8, 114, 119 
compared with great men of 
all ages, 9, 121, 122 
compared with other Re- 
formers, 8 

comparison of, with Tyndale, 
121, 122 

editions of New Testament 
of, 16 

editions of New Testament 
of, used by Tyndale, 74ff, 

Expository Sermons of, 42, 50 
influence of, upon English 
Bible, 70, 71, 118ff 
literary output of, 9 
uptodateness of, 9 
versatility of, 9, 120-122 

Marginal notes, Tyndale's, spo- 


ken of by contemporaries, 


discussed, 73ff 

Luther's and Tyndale's, in 

parallel columns, 76-96 

Marsh, on Tyndale's depen- 
dence upon Luther, 57 

Mombert, on Tyndale's stay at 
Wittenberg, 56 

Monmouth, Humphrey, Fox on 
association of, with Tyndale, 
32, 33, 47 

More, Thomas, on Tyndale's 
association with Luther, 29, 

on Tyndale's New Testament 
as Luther's New Testament 
in English, 16, 17 

Moulton, on Tyndale's associa- 
tion with Luther, 52, 53 

New Testament, depositories of 
copies of Tyndale's, 25, 36 
edited by Joye, 37 
editions of, 33-40 
lists (Luther's and Tyn- 
dale's) of books of, in paral- 
lel columns, 70, 71 
notes or glosses in, 73ff 
Luther's and Tyndale's notes 
of, in parallel columns, 76-96 
Tyndale's first, printed at Co- 
logne, 21 

Tyndale's second, printed at 
Worms, 25 

Tyndale's translation of, ed- 
ited by Joye and printed by 
Dutch printers, 35, 36, 37 

Notes, contemporary references 
to marginal, in Tyndale's 
New Testament, 19ff 

Offer, on Tyndale's dependence 
upon Luther, 57 

Paragraphs. Luther's division 
of text into, followed by Tyn- 
dale, 116 

Parallel refernces, 97ff 

use of, by Tyndale, 99-101 
number of, 98 

Pattison, on Tyndale's depen- 
dence upon Luther, 53 

Pollard, on Tyndale's depen- 
dence upon Luther, 57 

Price, on Tyndale's dependence 
upon Luther, 57 

"Prologge," Tyndale's, based 

upon Luther's "Vorrhede," 


Quadricentennial, 7, 10 
Quentel, Peter, printer of Tyn- 
dale's Cologne Fragment, 24 
References, parallel, 97ff 

use of, by Tyndale, 99-101 

number of, 98 
Ridley, letter of, to Henry Gold, 

Romans, Tyndale's introduction 

to, 20 

Ames, Hazlitt and Lowndes, 

on, 51 

Roy, William, assistant of Tyn- 
dale, 19, 33, 39, 57 
Saint Paul's Cathedral, London, 

copy of Tyndale's Worms edi- 
tion in, 25 
Smith, G. Barnett, on Tyndale's 

stay in Wittenberg, 65 
Spalatin, on report of Tyndale's 

linguistic ability, 49, 54 
Stoughton, on Tyndale's stay 

at Wittenberg, 56 
Summary of conclusions, 118ff 
Tyndale, as a Lutheran, 48 

at Hamburg, 57 

at Wittenberg, 29, 47, 50, 55, 


Cochlaeus on New Testament 

of, 17, 18 

comparison of, with Luther, 

9, 120, 121 


dependence of, upon Luther, 

English Bible dependent up- 
on, 118ff 

Exposition of Matthew by, 42 
Extent of translation of 
Bible by, 121 

Greek scholarship of, 114ff 
Hichyns, assumed name of, 

linguistic ability of, 54 
Marginal notes in New Test- 
ament of, referred to, 19ff 
More on New Testament of, 
16, 17 

name of New Testament of, 

New Testament of, resembl- 
ing that of Luther, 16 
stay of, in the Continent, 47ff 
use of Luther's notes by, 76ff 
use of Luther's parallel re- 
ferences by, 97ff 
use of Luther's text by, 107ff 
use of Luther's "Vorrhede" 
by, 63ff 

Texts, parallel columns of, 107- 

used by Tyndale, 113 
Uptodateness, Luther's, 9. 
Versatility, Luther's, 9, 120-122 

Versions, different, used by 
Tyndale, 113 

"Vorrhede," Luther's, the basis 
of Tyndale's "prologge," 63ff 

Walter, Henry, on Tyndale's 
association with Luther, 52 

Westcott, on Tyndale's associa- 
tion with Luther, 49 
on Tyndale's dependence up- 
on Luther, 26, 50, 52 
on Tyndale's linguistic abili- 
ty, 49, 50 

Wittenberg, Tyndale undoubt- 
edly at, 29, 47, 50, 55, 58 

Worms, two copies of edition 
of, extant, 25 

Tyndale's octavo edition of 
the New Testament printed 
at, 25 

Wycliffe, Tyndale's use of 
translation of, 49 

Zwingli, comparison of, with 
Luther, 8 



L. Franklin Gruber, D. D., LL. D. 

The book that answers many questions you have been asking. 

What After Death? 

An examination of several theories of future punishment and an 

exposition of the teachings of the Scriptures as to the 

state of the lost and the state of the saved. 

While most books, because of the very nature of their con- 
tents, make their appeal only to certain special classes, there 
are some books that appeal to every reader. One of these books 
with a universal appeal is "WHAT AFTER DEATH?" 

The discussion is clear and entertaining in style, and like 
the author's other publications, it is powerful and convincing in 

Well Bound in Cloth, 253 pages, Net $2.00. 


Whence Came the Universe? 


"WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE?" is a conclusive an- 
swer to those who would reason God out of existence by con- 
tending that the universe is itself an infinite, eternal, and there- 
fore self -existent or uncreated entity. 

Well bound in beautiful red cloth. Print clear and readable. 

$2.00 Net. 


The Einstein Theory 

Relativity and Gravitation, with Some of the More Im- 
portant Implications. For the General Reader. 

The Einstein Theory gives us a new world-view. It involves 
conceptions of time, space, etc., that 'are radically different from 
those hitherto held. And who has not, in moments of reflection, 
asked the question, What are spacq and time? The great Eng- 
lish physicist Sir J. J. Thompson, President of the Royal S-ociety, 
correctly speaks of it as "one of the highest achievements of 
human thought." 

To assist the general reader in sharing in that common 
knowledge, is the object of this book. It sets forth this remark- 
able theory in sufficiently intelligible terms to enable him to 
know what i1( is about, what its essential elements and its most 
significant implications are. 

The book is clear and interesting in style, written as far as 
possible in non-technical language, and abounds in suggestive 
ideas as to further implications of the theory. The print is clear 
and readable. 

Price: Art Covers, 95 Cents; Cloth Covers, $1.35