William Tyndale and Atonement: A Brief Note
Tyndale Bible
Short of turning the past three blog entries into a huge research project, I think that I've gone about as far as I can go in my investigation of Tyndale's reason for choosing to coin the word "at--one-ment."
Since Tyndale first translated the New Testament from the Greek, using Erasmus's critical text (roughly, the Textus Receptus), publishing it in 1525-1526, and only four years later published the Pentateuch, then I infer that his primary intention in coining "atonement" -- which he used 3 times (and once the word "atone") -- was to express the practical effect of Christ's sacrifice, namely, to make sinners "at one" with God.
In translating the Pentateuch -- commonly known as the Mosaic books, the first five books of the Bible -- Tyndale perhaps chose to continue using variants on the term "atonement" (63 times by my rough count) to express the practical effect of animal sacrifice in the Old Testament, namely, also to make sinners "at one" with God.
Presumably, Tyndale would have considered the practial effect of animal sacrifice to be temporary, for the sacrifice had to be repeated, whereas he would have considered the practical effect of Christ's sacrifice to be permanent, for the sacrifice was made one time.
Interestingly, although Tyndale uses the term "reconcile" in the New Testament four times (excluding one non-soteriological instance), he never uses this term in the Old Testament . . . but that's another blog entry.
Labels: Atonement, William Tyndale
posted by Horace Jeffery Hodges @ 3:46 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
The book of Hebrews deals with the Old Testament Sacrifices. It states that the blood of bulls and goats, sheep, and other sacrifices could never take away sin.....but that the blood of Christ, by one offering, has taken away sin forever in those who believe in him.
It seems to me that the OT sins were covered in anticipation of them being removed with Christ's sacrifice.
That would make the OT sacrifices covered, not removed.
At one ment is a concept of the interpreters, don't you think?
Cran
"I think that I've gone about as far as I can go in my investigation of Tyndale's reason for choosing to coin the word "at--one-ment."
Well Professor, I for one am happy to see that. With the exception of Cran (good to see you up and about Cran - practicing your bulldogging?) most of your Ozarkian readers have problems commenting on this Tynsdale fellow.
Working up a good comment has been kinda like a passel'a perplexed poodles preparing pooping peach pits.
JK
JK, good to hear from you once again.
I have been disappointed of late, looking for your pithy (I speak with a lisp), comments, and incisive comments regarding my blog entries.
I am now officially retired from bulldogging, and pretty much any other outdoor activity for about two months. And, of course, any possibility of pooping peach pits.
Commenting on any subject re Biblical interpretation can bring up a whole can of worms among commentators.
I won't be pooping cans of worms, either
Cran
Uncle Cran, I think that you're right. Tyndale's "at-one-ment" does not reflect the meaning of the Greek New Testament or the Hebrew Old Testament.
The word thus seems to me to be Tyndalle's peculiar addition to the text -- well-intentioned, no doubt, but misleading. Oddly, the term has become so deeply embedded in the religious discourse of English-speaking Christians, both lettered and unlettered, that it is probably here to stay.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
JK, I am as pleased to see you back as Uncle Cran claims to be.
The irony is that this biblical post brought forth your response even though, for you, "Working up a good comment has been kinda like a passel'a perplexed poodles preparing pooping peach pits."
Keep up the good work.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Well Cran,
As to your last point, well next to last, I don't want you to worry about it much. I have a tendency to get recalcitrant (I hope I spelled that correctly-use too) overly at times.
I know too well my faults and will, in the future, bite my fingers whenever the subject comes up (as it often does) on your sorta favorite nephew's site.
Actually I visit here daily, it beats the heck out of visiting my ex-wife annually. The difference is: here I (should) know when to keep silent. With her it doesn't require a parenthetical.
JK
I receive emails alerting me to comments, and I received one today (December 15, 2010, Seoul Time) for a comment here, but I don't see it, so let me post what was sent to me, which begins by quoting from my post:
-----------------------------------
"The word thus seems to me to be Tyndalle's peculiar addition to the text -- well-intentioned, no doubt, but misleading. Oddly, the term has become so deeply embedded in the religious discourse of English-speaking Christians, both lettered and unlettered, that it is probably here to stay."
I am wondering how it could be "misleading" as your text states. The atonement is for all Christians the reason for which Christ was born. Even his own statment so claims, "unto this end was I born." After reading you comments and those of David (the Hebrew) on a previous post, they were very inspiring and informative. I have now gained a much deeper appreciation of what the ATONEMENT is all about. To reconcile us to Christ and the Father, to meet the demands of justice, and show all God's children mercy through obedience.
LsB
-----------------------------------
LsB, by misleading, I was referring to the fact that there are better English translations of the Greek and Hebrew. See again those other posts that you mention.
Thanks for visiting.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Post a Comment
<< Home