Featured Word Study G5500, cheirotoneō

I think you need to heed the counsel of GreekTim.

You have ranted on and on in post after post about certain versions having "poured in Calvinitic dogma" and even non-Cals here are sick of it. The translators of the various Bible versions which you have constantly demeaned have no agenda but to bring the Word of God to the English speaking populace. But your agenda is all too clear, and it has to stop Van.

 

It is O so obvious that you have --that's why your demeaning words about Bible trasnslations were deleted and why you were given infractions.

Word studies can do no such thing with their narrow parameters. There is much more to translation that you aren't willing to come to grips with. You would much rather be esteemed as having a better understanding than those who actually are Bible Bible translators. They are the experts and not you Van. That's reality. I know you haven't taken your humble pills today. But it's the truth.

 

You were given an infraction because you continually denigrate certain Bible versions.

No, you don't, because you have continually denigrate Bible versions --as I have just said.

My threads on Bible versions usually deal with poor English in certain translations. I have never said the versions were unsound or not the Word of God -- or poured in false doctrine.

You are not telling the truth Van --in both of those sentences.

In-point-of-fact, you have called the ESV, NIV and NLT worthless. You targeted the NLT later on in your tirades. But you specifically called the ESV and NIV worthless 20 times. Don't try to hide from your own record.

Greektim has already pointed out the flaws of word studies. And he has demonstrated where you err. You have an agenda and it is not honorable.

 

Of course you have. That's why your comments were deleted. You were given warnings which you ignored. And on August 9 you admitted that you were told "any critical comment directed at any English translation will be viewed as hate speech."

 

Just to clarify on this point...

Is us having honest disagreements with the merits of inclusive language in revisions a case of "questioning the versions?

I don't think it is, as never stated that made the Niv a bad version,just thought the 1984 was more faithful to the text, but?

 

Take your derailment to another thread.

 

Why the anger, thought was a legit question to ask here?

 

I'm not angry, I'm just telling you to not speak of things that are not relevant.

 

Acts 14:23 in pre-1611 English Bibles

One place where the 1611 KJV indicates bias for 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, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham’s New Testament, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election").

Henry 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 maintained 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). In 1733, John Currie asserted: “It was not the fault of our translators that the Version of this verse was altered, but it was done by some prelates afterward” (Full Vindication, p. 65). James Lillie maintained that “this [Acts 14:23] is a key-text on the subject of church-government” (Bishops, p. 18). In an article entitled “Did King James and his translators tamper with the truth of God as delivered by William Tyndale” in the Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis, the author asserted: “This all-important text [Acts 14:23] was mutilated and corrupted by James’s revisers, by leaving out the two words ’by election;’ and by changing congregation into church; thus representing the act as exclusively that of Paul and Barnabas, and as Whitgift and Bancroft said they were successors of the Apostles, they turned the text into a justification of their lordship over the congregations, besides leading the people to believe that the congregations of the Apostles were the same as the churches of the bishops” (p. 582). This article maintained “that James and his hierarchy committed a foul crime against God and man in their daring forgery on this text [Acts 14:23]” (p. 583). This article connected the change with the Church of England’s doctrine of apostolic succession.

On the fourth page of the preface to his 1641 book, 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). In a sermon preached in 1776, David Somerville maintained that the translation or rendering in the KJV at Acts 14:23 “is unjust” (Miller, Biographical, p. 246). 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 removing the two words “by election,” the 1582 Rheims New Testament could have been followed. Benjamin Hanbury quoted from the preface of A True, Modest, and Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation printed in 1618 [likely in Leiden] the following: “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 Roman Catholic 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). Bilson quoted from Acts 14:23: “ordained elders in every church,” omitting the words “by election“ in the pre-1611 English Bibles (p. 188). The first-hand evidence from his own book would affirm that Bilson would have wanted the words “by election” removed, and even did remove the words once when he quoted from the verse. 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). Do KJV-only advocates agree with the view of Bilson and Andrewes?


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).

 

Acts 14:23 in Latin NT of Erasmus and Beza, in Diodati, in 1637 Dutch version

William Fulke asserted: “Our translation is true, ordained by election, and answereth the Greek word, which we translate” (Confutation, p. 158). Fulke wrote: “Our translation must be, as near as it can, to express the true signification of the original words; and so it is in that place of the Acts 14:23” (A Defence, p. 467). Thomas Cartwright maintained “it must needs be, that as he wrote, so he meant the election by voices” since the word “signifieth the lifting of them [hands] up“ (Confutation, p. 291). John Owen (1616-1683) wrote: “Before interest had guided men in what they had to do, all the translations that were extant in English did read this text, ‘And ordained them elders by election,‘ as the word doth signify; so you will find it in your old translations. But since, it was left out to serve a turn” (Works, Vol. IX, p. 435). John Owen noted that Erasmus, Vatablus, Beza, and all of our old English translations indicated that the choice of elders was "by election or the suffrage of the disciples" (Church & the Bible or Works, XVI, p. 60).


The text of the Latin N. T. translation by Erasmus has “cum suffragns” at Acts 14:23. In the Paraphrase on the Acts of the Apostles by Erasmus as translated by Robert Sider, Erasmus at Acts 14:23 maintained that “presbyters were chosen throughout by popular vote in each city” (p. 93). Sider also referred to “the annotation on 14:23 where Erasmus insists that we are to understand here a choice by vote” (p. 262, note 33). The Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis cited Henry Stephens, editor of a Greek-Latin Lexicon in 1572 that was consulted by the KJV translators, as giving the meaning of our text Acts 14:23 as “When they had created by suffrages” (pp. 583-584).

In his translation of his Greek text into Latin, Theodore Beza included the words per suffragia at Acts 14:23. Theodore Beza (1519-1605) contended that "the Christians of Asia gave their votes by lifting up their hands (Acts 14:23, Cheirotoneo)" (The Christian Faith, p. 104). James Harrington (1611-1677) translated Beza’s Latin as “When they had created them elders by suffrages in every congregation” (Prerogative, Book Two, p. 77). The Baptist Magazine for 1871 translated Beza’s rendering of this verse as follows: “When they had created for them, by suffrages, presbyters in each of the churches” (p. 583). James Corcoran claimed that Beza translated into Latin as “Quum per suffragia creassent presbyteros, ‘having chosen presbyters by election’ (or votes)“ (American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1880, Vol. 5, p. 709). Clearly, Greek text editors Erasmus and Beza understood the meaning “suffrage” or “election” to be in their Greek texts at Acts 14:23.


The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and 1672 edition of the KJV have a marginal note at Acts 14:23 that observed that the apostles "chose and placed them [pastors] by the voice of the congregation." The Geneva Bible and the 1672 edition of the KJV also have this note at Acts 14:23: “The word in the original is taken from the custom of the Greeks, whose manner was to chose their officers by lifting up of the hands.” The 1557 Whittingham’s New Testament has this note for the word “election” at Acts 14:23: “The word signifieth to elect by putting up the hands, which declareth that ministers were not made without the consent of the people.“


In his commentary on Acts, John Calvin (1509-1564) noted that this Greek word "means to determine something by raising hands, as is usually done in the assemblies of the people" (p. 19). John Cotton also asserted that “the apostles are said to have ordained elders by lifting up of hands (to wit, of the people) as the original word implieth” (Way, p. 42). In his 1612 Christian Dictionary, Thomas Wilson (1563-1622) has this third definition for election: “the choosing or appointing some unto public functions, by voices, or by a common consent (Acts 14:23) ‘when they had ordained elders by election in every church‘” (p. 122). In 1625, John Robinson referred to Acts 14:23: “where Paul and Barnabas do ordain elders in every church by suffrages (not their own as some fancy, unto whom to lift up and to lay on hands is all one) but the people’s; or by the lifting up of hands” (Just and Necessary, p. 34). Francis Turretin (1623-1687) wrote: “The apostles in every city ordain presbyters by the cheirotonian of the people (14:23) or by their free suffrages (the word being derived from the Greek custom of those who voted with stretched out and extended hands; hence transferred to any elections, sacred as well as political, it signifies to appoint by vote)“ (Institutes, III, p. 229). In 1641, John Canne referred to “officers whom the people freely chose by voices, or lifting up of hands” (Sion’s Prerogative, p. 41). In his 1674 book, Thomas Collier cited Acts 14:23 and noted: “When they had ordained them elders (by election, or lifting up of hands) in every church, cheirotonesai, to choose by holding up the hand” (Body of Divinity, p. 486). John Lightfoot reported that Sidrach Simpson (c1600-1655) maintained that this Greek word “is ’to give suffrage’ in all lexicons” (Pitman, Whole Works, XIII, p. 101). Lightfoot also quoted William Bridge (1600-1670) as saying that “the apostles appointed the people to chose; as Acts 6:3, 5, so here [Acts 14:23]“ (p. 102). Concerning Acts 14:23, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) translated the words in the original language as “when they had ordained them elders by the holding up of hands in every congregation” (Leviathan, p. 369).


In his Annotations, John Diodoti translated his own Italian Bible into English at Acts 14:23 as “when they had by common votes ordained.” James Harrington rendered Diodati’s Bible as “When they had ordained them in every church by the common votes” (Prerogative, Two, p. 78). James Corcoran translated Diodati’s rendering as “ordained elders for them by general suffrage” (American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1880, Vol. 5, p. 710). Riplinger maintained that “the Italian Diodati” was a “pure” edition of the Bible (Hazardous, p. 646).

The Dutch Annotations as translated into English by Theodore Haak in 1657 presented the first part of the text of Acts 14:23 as follows: "And when they in every church with lifting up of hands had chosen them elders." In 1657, Harrington translated the words in the Dutch Bible appointed by the Synod of Dort as “When in each church by the holding up of hands they had elected presbyters” (Prerogative, Two, p. 78). In an article in The Baptist Magazine for 1871, the author or editor W. G. Lewis asserted that they translated literally the 1637 Dutch Version at Acts 14:23 as follows: “And when they had chosen elders for them in every congregation with uplifted hands” (p. 584). Edwin Hall wrote that “the ancient French version reads, ‘And after having by common suffrages ordained elders’” (Puritans, p. 305). Francis Turretin maintained that our French version of the Scriptures “understands cheirotonian of a creation by votes or election” (Institutes, III, p. 229). Perhaps that French version was the revision of Robert Oliventanus’ version that was made by Theodore Beza. Henry Baird noted that “Beza found time to give a careful and final revision to the French version of the Bible in common use among Protestants” (Theodore Beza, p. 330). Baird wrote: “Thus was developed the famous ’Bible of the Pastors and Professors of Geneva,’ which, from 1588 on to almost our own times, has passed through a multitude of editions and exercised a vast influence on successive generations of readers” (Ibid.). Harrington presented the rendering of the Swiss Bible of Zurich as follows: “When they had created them elders by suffrages in every congregation” (Prerogative, Two, p. 77). Along with the Latin New Testaments of Erasmus and Beza, the Italian, Dutch, French, and Swiss Bibles agreed with the pre-1611 English Bibles at Acts 14:23.

 

YLT : having appointed to them by vote elders in every assembly
WEB : appointed elders for them in every assembly
Darby : chosen them elders in each assembly
ASV : appointed for them elders in every church

Now here is what you have been waiting for...the lone translation that meets your specs:
Weymouth : they selected Elders by show of hands

Happy now?

YLT : appointed by vote of the assemblies
Darby : chosen by the assemblies
ASV : appointed by the churches
Weymouth : chosen by vote of the churches

Obviously in the Weymouth a correlation was lost between the renderings of the two passages.

No it is not. The means by which the votes were cast is not mentioned; but the vote itself is not by any means "obliterated."

Word studies alone cannot make that determination --the contextual arrangement is more important than merely the replecement of isolated words. In your "studies" you have missed more often than not Van.

Objectively speaking --your studies have been rather subjective. ;-)

 

Your particular "studies" are not at all objective Van. I am not the only one who believes that yours are slanted.