Yuku free message boards

One place where the Church of England translators reveal their bias for their Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Bancroft, or another prelate omitted the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election"). Dexter noted: "So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders" (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled "Truth and Love," Thomas Hill asserted that Acts 14:23 was one of the fourteen places altered "to make them speak the language of the Church of England" (Six Sermons, p. 24).

On the fourth page of the preface to his 1641 book, Baptist Edward Barber referred to "the great wrong done in putting out some Scripture, as in Acts 14:23, where election is left out, by which means people are kept from knowing" (Small Treatise, p. iv). Concerning Acts 14:23 in his 1647 book, William Bartlett wrote: "The original reads it otherwise than the Translation [the KJV]: the Translation reads it ordained, but the Greek word is cheirotoneesantes, that is, they chose elders by the lifting up of the hands of the people, which is different from ordination, as coronation is from the election of a king" (Ichnographia, p. 36). In his 1659 book, Baptist William Jeffery (1616-1693) referred to Acts 14:23 and then stated: "where the word election is left out in the new translation, but it is in the old, and cannot be denied to be in the Greek" (Whole Faith, p. 98). Edward Hiscox quoted Matthew Tindale as follows: "We read only of the Apostles constituting elders by the suffrages of the people, Acts 14:23, which is the genuine signification of the Greek word,cheirotoneesantes, so it is accordingly interpreted by Erasmus, Beza, Diodoti, and those who translated the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English Bibles, till the Episcopal correction, which leaves out, the words, 'by election'" (Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, p. 351). In his Annotations, John Diodoti translated his Italian Bible into English at Acts 14:23 as "when they had by common votes ordained."

In removing the two words "by election," the 1582 Rheims New Testament could have been followed. Benjamin Hanbury wrote: "Acts 14:23 is thus translated, not only in the Genevan, but also in the former Church translation [Bishops'], 'And when they had ordained them elders by election.' But the new translation, with the Rhemists, leave out the words 'by election'! Why? It is not to be suffered that the people should have any hand in choosing their ministers; but the papal bishops must do all" (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). The 1582 Rheims N. T. had an annotation on this verse [numbered verse 22 in Rheims] that complained about the early English Bibles' rendering. The Rheims' annotation stated: "The heretics, to make the world believe that all Priests ought to be chosen by the voices of the people, and that they need no other Ordering or Consecration by Bishops, pressing the profane use of the Greek word more than the very natural signification requireth and Ecclesiastical use beareth, translate, Ordained by election. Whereas in deed this word in Scripture signifeth ordering by imposition of hands, as is plain by other words equivalent (Acts 6:13, 1 Tim. 4:5, 2 Tim. 1) where the ordering of deacons, Priests, and others is called Imposition of hands: not of the people, but of the Apostles" (p. 242). William Fulke cited Gregory Martin as writing: "for 'ordaining elders by election,' they should have said, 'ordaining or making priests by imposition of hands'" (Defence, pp. 247-248). Did the KJV translators or the prelate who omitted "by election" accept the Roman Catholic interpretation that this Greek word referred to "laying on of hands" for consecration to ecclesiastical offices?

In agreement with the Roman Catholic view, Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the KJV, asserted that the Greek word at Acts 14:23 signifieth "imposition of hands" and "not to ordain by election of the people, as some men of late had new framed the text" (Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, p. 13). Bilson maintained that the Greek word "with all Greek councils, fathers, and stories, is 'to ordain by laying on of hands'" (p. 120). The first-hand evidence from his own book would affirm that Bilson would have wanted the words "by election" removed. Bilson claimed that Acts 14:23 "is the only place of the New Testament that can be brought to make any show for the popular elections of elders" (p. 137). KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes contended that "the apostles ordained priests by imposition of hands in every church, Acts 14:23" (Pattern, p. 355).

In his 1688 book, Thomas Ward, a Roman Catholic, claimed that "they thought it now convenient to pretend something more than a bare election; to wit, to receive an episcopal and priestly character, by the imposition of hands" (Errata, p. 69). Ward suggested that perhaps one reason the words by election were removed from Acts 14:23 was "that they might more securely fix themselves in their bishoprics and benefices; thinking, perhaps that bishops consecrated, might pretend to that jure divino" (Ibid.). Ward asserted that "they thought good to blot out the words 'by election'" (p. 26).

SAWBONES wrote:

As Benson Bobrick states in his very readable account Wide as the Waters, "the other thirteen changes are unknown" .

It is the same 1600's sources such as Thomas Hill's sermon and the 1671 book about Henry Jessey that refers to an unprinted manuscript made by Henry Jessey that mentions that it was KJV translator Miles Smith who complained about the 14 changes.

Benson Bobrick was probably not aware of the 1648 sermon by Thomas Hill that was also printed and some of the other sources that I have found that list some of the other 14 changes. There may still be other sources or references that I have not found. The sources that I have found may be the source for the mention of Acts 1:20 that you cited.

In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill did not say that it was Archbishop Richard Bancroft that made the changes, but he said that it was "prelates" [plural] which could include Archbishop Bancroft but which could also include others such as Bishop Thomas Bilson. So far the earlier source that I found that directly names Bancroft is a 1727 book by Edmund Calamy [a 1671 source could be referring to Bancroft but it does not directly name him]. Thomas Bilson is not listed on the lists of the translators, but he is said to have been a co-editor with Miles Smith that went over the translating. As a Bishop and higher in rank than Miles Smith, Thomas Bilson could have overruled Miles Smith's editing and have made changes of which Miles Smith and other KJV translators did not approve.

In 1727, Edmund Calamy (1671-1732) noted that Henry Jessey "tells us that Dr. Hill declared in a great assembly, that a great Prelate, viz. Bancroft, who was a supervisor of it, would needs have it speak the prelatical language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places. And Dr. Smith, who was one of the translators and the writer of the preface, (and who was afterwards Bishop of Glouchester,) complained to a minister of that county, of the Archbishop's alterations: But says he, he is so potent, that there is no contradicting him" (A Continuation, I, p. 47).

In his 1671 book, Edward Whiston wrote: "Mention might be made of some unhandsome dealing, not in the translators, but in a great prelate of that time, the chief supervisor of the work, who, as the Reverend Doctor Hill declared in a great and honourable Assembly, would have it speak the prelatical language, and to that end altered it in 14 places" (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49).

Gustavus Paine maintained that Miles Smith, final editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, "protested that after Bilson and he had finished their editing, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes." He gave as an example Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas in Acts 1:20" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). Paine added: "The fact that Smith was the one to protest Bancroft's amendments suggests that he stood against both Bilson and Bancroft in such matters as the importance of bishoprics" (Ibid.). In 1671, Edward Whiston asserted that "many of those in King James' time (had they been as well conscientious in point of fidelity and godliness, as they were furnished with abilities, they) would not have moulded it to their own Episcopal notion rendering episkope, (the office of oversight) by the term Bishoprick Acts 1:20 as they do in 14 places more" (Life, p. 44).

Acts 1:20 quotes Psalm 109:8: "let another take his office" which was translated in the Geneva Bible in Acts 1:20 as "let another take his charge." Although it is not in many current KJV's, the 1611 KJV did have the following note in the margin indicating other acceptable words: "Or, office: or charge." Thomas Hill suggested that this change was made "that you may believe that the Bishops are the Apostles successors" (Six Sermons, p. 24). In 1593, Bishop Thomas Bilson, who would be co-editor of the 1611, had quoted Acts 1:20 as "his bishopric let another take" and had used this verse as his basis for his question "will you grant, that an apostle doth not differ from a bishop" (Perpetual Government, p. 291). Bilson contended that "Peter himself calleth the apostleship 'a bishopship'" with the reference Acts 1:20 (p. 296). Thus, Bilson used the rendering "bishopric" at Acts 1:20 as part of his arguments for the divine origin of episcopacy and for apostolic succession. Bilson also claimed that "I am sure all the fathers with one mouth affirm the apostles both might be and were bishops" (p. 295). Bilson asserted that "whatsoever becometh of the names, it cannot be denied but the apostles had that power of imposing hands, and delivering unto Satan, which they after imparted unto bishops" (p. 296). Bilson claimed: "as by imposing of hands, so by succeeding in the chair, have bishops ever since the apostles' times been severed from presbyters in the church of Christ: which to all that do not eagerly seek to captivate the truth to their own desires, is an argument unrefellable, that the first placing of bishops above presbyters was apostolic" (p. 332). Henry Dexter asserted: "If Judas had had a bishopric, he must have been a bishop; and if Judas had been a bishop, then the man who was to take the vacant place would be a bishop; and the twelve were all bishops" (Hand-Book, p. 25). Abel Stevens asserted that this doctrine of apostolic succession "is the basis of the arrogance and pretension of the prelatical system" (Essay on Church Polity, p. 62). The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology noted that bishopric is a compound of two words: bishop [overseer] and rice or ric [realm, province, dominion, power] (p. 95). White's Dictionary of the King James Language noted that "a bishoprick is 'the realm or province over which a bishop has control" (p. 168). Does White's definition of this English word match the meaning of the Greek word? Ross Purdy contended that "what bishopric meant to the English mind was that it was the diocese of a ruling bishop" (I Will Have, p. 58). In his comments about this verse in his commentary, Adam Clarke asserted that "surely the office or charge of Judas was widely different what we call bishopric, the diocese, estate, and emoluments of a bishop" (p. 687). In his commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander observed that the rendering bishopric "suggests foreign ideas by its modern usage and associations" (p. 30). Did a diocesan bishop want to use a rendering that could convey a hierarchal sense that a bishop has a bishopric, diocese, or realm? Is the rendering "bishopric" more favorable to Episcopal or prelatic views and to Bancroft's and Bilson's claim that bishops were of divine origin than the rendering "charge" or "office?" In his 1853 commentary on Acts, Abiel Abbot Livermore claimed that "this rendering [bishopric] betrays its Episcopalian origin" (p. 22). Andrew Edgar asserted that "the prelatic word 'bishopric' appears in Acts 1:20" (Bibles of England, p. 295). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia noted that the Revised Version "corrects the rendering 'bishopric' to 'office,' thus relieving the verse of possible ecclesiastical pretensions" (I, p. 482). In his comments on Acts 1:20 in his Bible commentary, Adam Clarke asserted: "Surely the office or charge of Judas was widely different from what we call bishopric, the diocese, estate, and emoluments of a bishop" (p. 687).

Some may attempt to excuse or justify the KJV's rendering "bishoprick" because this same rendering had also been used in several earlier English Bibles. John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, and Miles Coverdale seem to have used this rendering in a general sense with the meaning "office" or "overseership." The Oxford English Dictionary gave this as an "obsolete" meaning of the word and cited Acts 1:20 in Wycliffe's Bible and the 1535 Coverdale's as examples of this use (II, p. 224). After Bancroft and Bilson advocated their new theory of the divine origin of episcopacy and apostolic succession, the word bishoprick became more associated with a specific hierarchical sense or meaning as this rendering was used to argue for apostolic succession in a book written by Bilson in 1593. Based on the clear, first-hand evidence in Bilson's book, it was and is valid for believers to think that the rendering bishoprick was intended by them to be understood with a different meaning from that intended by Wycliffe, Tyndale, or Coverdale. If this different sense or meaning was not intended, Bilson could not have linked his apostolic succession argument to this rendering at Acts 1:20. The meaning affixed to bishoprick by Bilson and Bancroft for readers who were members of the Church of England should not be explained in a manner inconsistent or even contradictory to their known sentiments and the meaning that they intended for it. If "bishopric" was possibly considered one of the ecclesiastical words, it would be further evidence that indicates that it was used in a specific hierarchical sense to advocate apostolic succession and not in the general sense? In the 1610-1611 edition of his book first printed in 1590, KJV translator Hadrian Saravia asserted: "St. Peter, himself an Apostle, calls the Apostleship of Judas his Bishopric" (Treatise, p. 192). In a book printed after 1611, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes also cited Acts 1:20 for his assertion that "the apostles were called" "bishops or overseers" (Pattern, p. 359). Andrewes maintained that "upon these [bishops] was transferred the chief part of the apostolic function" (Ibid., p. 355). Purdy contended: "They made a conscious choice to retain the language here that glorified and seemingly sanctioned their church organization; one run by the ordained bishops. This gives those who are ordained the appearance of a connection with the apostles and supports the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession adopted by the Anglo-Catholic Church" (I Will Have, p. 58).

SAWBONES wrote:

---

I just don't believe we have as much evidence as is desirable, and I wish there were more certain documentation as to what the fourteen changes were, and what the original renderings were before Bancroft's alterations.

In 1739, John Lewis referred to an essay towards an amendment of this last translation of the Bible "said to have been drawn up" by Henry Jessey (Complete History, p. 355). In his 1845 book, Christopher Anderson also referred to an essay for the amendment of the last translation by Henry Jessey, and Anderson quoted Jessey as writing in that essay that "Dr. Hill declared in open assembly that Bancroft 'would needs have the version speak prelatic language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places;' and that Dr. Miles Smith complained of the Bishops' alterations" (Annals, II, p. 378). White commented that Jessey "apparently produced a paper arguing the need for a new translation" (Knox, Reformation, p. 141). This 1600's essay or paper may have been an unprinted manuscript since no printed book with a title like that by Jessey is known. This essay seems to have been used by Edward Whiston in his 1671 book about the life of Jessey.