Claimed 14 changes in the KJV by a prelate or prelates

I have made no claims about the Oxford English Dictionary regarding this, that I remember. However, I did say that the word bishopric has a semantic range that covers from "office" to "bishop/overseer of a realm." Do you disagree?

Why do you only say "may have used" if you have some solid evidence from the OED that they "did use"? Further, do you claim that the Oxford English Dictionary suggests that the word bishopric did not hold in its range of meaning "bishop [overseer] and rice or ric [realm, province, dominion, power]" before the days of Wycliffe and Tyndale?

 

Glenn Conjurske wrote: "The facts we learn by personal observation, or by the testimony of others, whether by the living voice or in written books" (Bible Version Controversy, p. 35).

Glenn Conjurske wrote: "But in receiving testimony, we are always obliged to consider the character (and the animus, if any) of the witnesses" (Ibid.).

In one of the two books that provide the most information about the KJV translators and which as been recommended by KJV-only advocates, Gustavus S. Paine wrote: "Miles Smith, as final editor, protested that after he and Bilson had finished, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes. 'He is so potent there is no contradicting him,' said Smith, and cited as an example of Bancroft's bias his insistence on using 'the glorious word bishopric' even for Judas, in Acts 1:20" (The Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). Gustavus S. Paine repeated the report of 14 changes as being factual.

The character of Thomas Hill in repeating the testimony of Miles Smith concerning the making of changes to the work of KJV translators has not been demonstrated to be unreliable or untrustworthy. No historical evidence from the 1600's has been presented that conflicts with what Thomas Hill asserted and that was said to have been confirmed by personal observation by some who had seen the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers.

 

While it is not known whether they are among the reported 14 changes, some of the KJV’s other uses of “ordain” or “ordained” may be the result of Episcopal bias. John Beard asserted: “King James’s divines gave implicit obedience to their sovereign by retaining another ecclesiastical term. We allude to the word ‘ordain’” (A Revised English Bible, pp. 107-108).

One of the KJV's other uses of “ordain” is found at Acts 1:22.

Concerning Acts 1:22 in his commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander wrote: “Ordained, like bishopric [Acts 1:20], has acquired a fixed ecclesiastical meaning, wholly foreign from the Greek word here used, which means simply to become, or more emphatically, to be made” (p. 32). Ross Purdy asked: “How did to become turn into ordained in this verse” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 58). Ross Purdy commented: “Tyndale rendered it that way and the King James ’translators’ merely copied it. Yet the fact remains that the final choice of text was their responsibility and there simply is no basis for ordained in this verse whatsoever. Yet the Church of England ordained their bishops and verse 20 mentions a bishopric” (Ibid.). Purdy added: “Here they inserted an ecclesiastical word that had no basis in the original Greek” (Ibid.).

M’Clintock and Strong asserted that “the word ordained is inexcusably interpolated in the English version of Acts 1:22” (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 819). Byron Sunderland claimed that at Acts 1:22 “the word ‘ordained’ is inserted in the English, while it does not occur in the Greek” (Prelacy Discussed, p. 50). In his commentary at this verse, Adam Clarke maintained that “this translation [must one be ordained] misleads every reader who cannot examine the original text” and that “there is no term for ordained in the Greek” (p. 687). Concerning “ordained” at this verse, the 1839 Baptist edition of the Comprehensive Commentary stated: “The Greek is simply ‘be made‘, no rite was used, and none is alluded to” (p. 6).

The 1560 Geneva Bible has “be made” at Acts 1:22 instead of “be ordained.” The Wycliffe’s Bible also has “be made” at Acts 1:22. The 1657 English translation of the Dutch has “become” at Acts 1:22 as does the 1842 revision of the KJV.

Bullinger’s Lexicon defined this Greek word as “to become” (Acts 1:22) (p. 559). Young’s Analytical Concordance also defined ginomai as “to become” (Acts 1:22) (p. 722).

 

Some validly suggest an indication of possible subtle Episcopal bias in the KJV at Acts 20:28.

In his history of Baptists, D. B. Ray noted the following about Acts 20:28 in the KJV: "The word overseers in this passage is episcopous in the Greek--the word which is usually translated bishops; but to have rendered it bishops in this place, would have shown that elder and bishop is the same office, which would have condemned the church of the translators" (Baptist Succession, p. 292). Edward Hiscox quoted Henry Alford, Dean of Canterbury, as saying that the English Version [the KJV] "has hardly dealt fairly in this case with the sacred text in rendering episcopous, v. 28, overseers; whereas, it ought there, as in all other places, to have been bishops, that the fact of elders and bishops having been originally and apostolically synonymous, might be apparent to the English reader" (Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, p. 90). If a Church of England Dean can in effect see the bias, why are KJV-only advocates unable to see it? Four times the KJV had translated the same word as bishops (Phil. 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:7, 1 Pet. 2:25). In Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s Commentary, David Brown asserted that the reason the word was not translated “bishops” at Acts 20:28 was “to avoid the obvious inference that the same persons are here called ‘elders’ (v. 17) and ‘bishops’” (III, p. 150). Concerning Acts 20:17, 28 in an article entitled “On the Right of Dissenting Ministers to the name of Bishops,“ the author asserted: “This is a stubborn passage, and a passage that never can be made to bend to diocesan episcopacy. The translators of King James’s Version saw with what tremendous weight and edge this text would fall on prelacy; therefore, to break its force, and prevent the effects, they introduced a Saxon compound, which has rendered its fall so easy, that the mere English reader never imagines this text to have any bearing on the question of episcopacy” (Congregational Magazine, March, 1827, p. 128). Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff observed: “They retained in all cases but one the old ecclesiastical word bishop, but in Acts 20:28, they did not do so; nor could they, without making it appear that there were several bishops in the church at Ephesus, which would not have agreed with diocesan episcopacy” (Primitive Church Magazine, Vol. IX, June, 1852, p. 170). Silas Shepard noted: “The word episcopos they translated uniformly by bishop except in one case. Why did they not so render it in that place? Because it would have been fatal to their notion of prelacy” (British Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VIII, p. 78).

R. Mackenize Beverley contended: “The translators obviously had a motive for concealing the word bishops; and it is to keep out of sight the fact that elder and bishop are synonymous terms, that they have substituted the word overseers; for if the many elders of Ephesus were bishops as the Scriptures assert that they were, then the theory of diocesan Episcopacy would be incurably damaged” (Church of England Examined, p. 8). Silas E. Shephard asserted: “The word episcopos they translated uniformly by bishop except in one case. Why did they not so render it in that place? Because it would have been fatal to their notion of prelacy” (The Reviser, 1855, p. 63). In The Expositor as edited by Samuel Cox, this is stated: ‘It can hardly be doubted that the translators avoided the word ‘Bishops’ in Acts 20:28 and put ‘overseers’ instead, because otherwise it would have been obvious that in the Apostolic age the word ‘presbyter’ and ‘bishop’ were practically identical” (Vol. III, p. 301). James Lillie maintained: “Because had it there (Acts 20:28) been rendered bishop, everyone would have seen, that in the one Church of Ephesus, there were several bishops. In that one text alone, therefore, the word is translated, not as everywhere else, transferred, because, there, dust had to be thrown into the common reader’s eyes, lest he should discern the unscriptural nature of English Church government” (Bishops, p. 186). John Eadie wrote: “It has also been alleged, and not without some reason, that in Acts 20:28, the rendering of the clause ‘over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers’ is a deflection from the true translation, and conceals the identity of the ‘elders’ with the office-bearers usually named ‘bishops’” (English Bible, II, p. 271). John Beard suggested that the KJV translators saw that the use of “bishops” at Acts 20:28 would have acknowledged that “plain presbyters were the same as bishops” (A Revised English Bible, p. 80).

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? Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary gave as its second definition for bishop the following: “in the churches maintaining apostolic succession, a prelate superior to the priesthood, consecrated for the spiritual government and direction of a diocese, bishopric, or see” (p. 187). Would use of the rendering “bishops” at Acts 20:28 have conflicted with the hierarchical or prelatic sense or definition of the diocesan bishop? Would not “bishops” have been one of the ecclesiastical words according to the third rule to be used and kept unless its use at this verse in the genuine prelatic sense was considered a problem for the prelates? Would use of “bishops” at Act 20:28 have demonstrated to English readers that “bishops” and “elders” were names for the same office and that these were not diocesan bishops? Was “overseers” used at Acts 20:28 in order to prevent English readers from seeing the error of the Episcopal claim that a bishop was superior to an elder? David Calderwood (1575-1650) maintained that “the prelate maketh a confusion of names that he may put himself in the place of the apostle” (Pastor and the Prelate, p. 21). Calderwood noted that “the question is not of the bishop, but of the prelate or diocesan bishop, whether he be the divine bishop” (p. 33). Calderwood observed that “the diocesan bishop is but one, in a diocese, over many kirks [churches]“ (p. 33). Calderwood asserted that “the diocesan bishop hath no particular congregation for his flock” (p. 34).

When quoting from or referring to Acts 20:28 in his book Perpetual Government of Christ‘s Church, Bishop Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the 1611 KJV, had quoted or rendered this word at least five times as “bishops” (pp. 211, 269, 290, 501, 514) and three as “overseers“ (pp. 134, 159, 481). At least two of those five times as “bishops,” Bilson seemed to be quoting Jerome (pp. 269, 290). Bilson wrote: “If all the elders came to Miletum, they were all pastors and bishops” (p. 211). Bilson cited Jerome as referring to Acts 20:28 and then as noting: “Here mark diligently, how calling for the presbyters of Ephesus only, he afterward termed them bishops” (p. 269). Bilson claimed: “Bishops were always singular; that is, one in a city and no more, except another intruded, (which the church of Christ counted a schism, and would never communicate with any such; ) or else an helper was given in respect of extreme and feeble age” (p. 319). In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes cited Acts 20:28, noting that “He placed them Bishops” (Ninety-Six Sermons, III, p. 381). What advantage or gain was provided to English readers by translating the Greek word as “overseers” only at Acts 20:28 besides the obvious gain to those who advocated Episcopal church government?

 

On the translation of episcopous in Acts 20:28, the KJV made no major departure from the English Bibles that preceded it, or from those Bibles the translators were to consult. Only Wycliffe and Coverdale has "bishops".

• 1382 Wycliffe - hath set you bischops
• 1526 Tyndale - hath made you oversears
• 1535 Coverdale - set you to be bishoppes
• 1537 Matthew's - hath made you oversears
• 1539 Taverner - hathe made you overseers
• 1541 Great Bible - hath made you oversears
• 1560 Geneva - hathe made you Overseers
• 1568 Bishops - hath made you overseers

It would appear that most modern translators have not been so excited to go with "bishops" either, not even the Southern Baptist HSCB and CSB.

Like Martha, you are careful and troubled about many things. If we don't know all 14 changes, we'll just make up some that might be them. Maybe that will distract from the question about semantic range of the word bishopric.