Yuku free message boards

Concerning this verse in his commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander asserted: "Over the which is not a correct version, as it makes the overseers entirely distinct from and superior to the flock, whereas the original makes them a part of it, although superior in office" (p. 249). Alexander indicated that it would better have been rendered "in which, in the midst and as a part of which" (Ibid.). At this verse, Haak's 1637 English translation of the Dutch Annotations affirmed that the Greek meant "in which." Concerning these same words in his notes on Acts, Melancthon Jacobus commented: "literally, in which--wherein--as yourselves a part" (p. 329). The KJV kept its rendering over the which from the Bishops' Bible. Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Geneva Bibles have "whereof," and Coverdale's has "among the which." The Companion Bible maintained that "out of 2,622 occurrences of en, it is rendered 'over' only here" (p. 1635).

Is there really any point and need to answer your questions when you do not answer the questions in my post and do not deal with its point and valid evidence?

William Tyndale is known for his use of variety and synonyms in his translating. It was perhaps due to his tendency to use so much variation in rendering that Tyndale first used "overseers" at Acts 20:28. While William Tyndale was part of the Church of England, he was not necessarily an advocate of all typical Church of England doctrinal views. Miles Coverdale used "bishops" at Acts 20:28 in his 1535 Bible. The 1537 Matthew's Bible kept Tyndale's rendering. The 1539 Great Bible which was a revision of the 1537 Matthew's Bible kept the rendering of the Matthew's. The 1560 Geneva Bible likely simply kept the rendering of the Great, Matthew's, and Tyndale's at Acts 20:28. The translators of the Geneva Bible were not strong advocates of episcopal church government. They would likely be more associated with presbyterian church government views than episcopal church government views though they had likely be taught episcopal views when younger. So far as I know, none of the Geneva Bible translators considered "bishops" or "overseers" to be a different office than "elders" or "presbyters." Therefore, they cannot be claimed to have kept the rendering "overseers" for the same reason that it may have been in the 1611. The translators of the 1568 Bishops' Bible were all diocesan bishops in the Church of England, and they would have been advocates of the episcopal views of their day. Even though they would have defended episcopal church government, the Bishops' Bible translators did not yet advocate the apostolic succession and divine origin of bishops' view that would be developed and advocated by Richard Bancroft in 1589, Thomas Bilson in 1591, Arian Saravia, and perhaps later Lancelot Andrewes. The development of this new theory before 1611 by several men associated with the making of the KJV is one valid reason for considering whether or not this theory influenced the translating.

The translators of the early English Bibles and even the KJV translators did not consider themselves infallible and perfect in their translating.

Would the rendering "bishops" [plural] at Acts 20:28 for several "elders" [plural] of a church [singular] at one city (Acts 20:17) have been a problem for the prelatic or Episcopal church government view that each bishop is over a diocese or district that may include several churches and that a bishop has authority over elders or pastors?

Do you ignore my question because you realize that the rendering "bishops" at Acts 20:28 would have been a problem for the prelatic episcopal church government views of Bancroft, Bilson, etc.? You seem to want to take away the attention from the valid points raised by the information in my posts by trying to change the subject.

There is a reasonable basis for thinking that when the Holy Spirit used the same word in the original language with the same intended meaning in all the cases it would be best to translate it consistently with the same English word that best presents that same meaning. Has anyone proved that the context of Acts 20:28 proves a different meaning was intended than the meaning of the other N. T. uses of this same word? No case or evidence has been provided that proves that a different English word was required and needed at Acts 20:28 than at the other verses where the same word was used.

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages have greater authority than any English translation concerning which rendering is better, clearer, more consistent and more accurate at Acts 20:28.

Would not "bishops" have been one of the ecclesiastical words to be used and kept unless its use at Acts 20:28 was a problem for the prelates and their church government views?

Calibute Downing (1604-1643), who was a son-in-law of KJV translator Richard Brett, referred to "elders or parochial bishops, or bishops of particular congregations; Acts 20:17, 28" (Clear Antithesis, pp. 1-2). In his 1699 book, Thomas Forrester agreed that Paul described "the elders of that one city [Ephesus] as Bishops" (Hierarchical Bishops' Claim to a Divine Right, p. 68).