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 hearing on the question of episcopacy†(
Congregational Magazine, March, 1827, p. 128). Another writer observed: “They retained in all cases but one the old ecclesiastical word bishop, but in Acts 20:20, 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).
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†(Revised English Bible, p. 80). Jack Lewis wrote: “It has been thought that the varied use of ’bishoprick’ (Acts 1:20), ’overseers’ (Acts 20:28), ’oversight’ (1 Pet. 5:2), and ’bishop’ (1 Tim. 3:1) was an effort to avoid identification of bishops and elders†(English Bible, p. 63). John McClintock and James Strong agreed that the use of overseers at Acts 20:28 was “in order to avoid the identification of bishops and elders†(Cyclopaedia, III, p. 218).
John Cotton (1584-1652) affirmed that Paul “called for the elders of Ephesus, Acts 20:17, whom also he named Bishops, for so the Greek word is, which is translated overseers, verse 28†(Way, p. 47). 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). John Davenport (1597-1670) noted that “those whom Luke calls elders, in Acts 20:17, Paul calls Bishops in verse 28†(Power, p. 79). In his 1699 book, Thomas Forrester agreed that Paul described “the elders of that one city [Ephesus] as Bishops†(Hierarchical Bishops, p. 68). In 1688, David Clarkson affirmed that “elders of the church who are said verse 28 to be made Bishops by the Holy Ghost†(Primitive Episcopacy, p. 10). Francis Turretin noted that “the Ephesian pastors who are said to be presbyters are also called bishops (Acts 20:28)“ (Institutes, III, pp. 201-202). Edward Litton noted that “the same persons, whom, at verse 28, St. Paul calls ‘bishops’ are described by St. Luke, at verse 17, as ‘the presbyters of the church’ of Ephesus†(Church, p. 287). Thomas Smyth observed that “on this occasion, Paul formally enjoined upon its presbyters to continue to act as bishops, and to govern that church of which the Holy Ghost had constituted them the bishops†(Presbytery, p. 260). Concerning Acts 20:17, 28, George Campbell wrote: “Here there can be no question that the same persons are denominated presbyters and bishops†(Lectures on Ecclesiastical, p. 72). Henry Alford observed: “For ‘overseers,‘ bishops; elders and bishops, in the primitive Church, were the same†(How to Study, p. 351). Ralph Wardlaw commented: “overseers--the same word as that usually translated bishops†(Congregational Independency, p. 176). Zodhiates noted that “the elders of Acts 20:17†at verse 28 “are called bishops†(Complete Word Study, p. 635). The 1380's Wycliffe's, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1538 Coverdale's Duoglott New Testament, and 1582 Rheims had rendered it "bishops" in this verse while the other pre-1611 English Bibles had “overseers.†An edition of the KJV printed in London in 1660 has this marginal note for “overseersâ€: “Or bishops.“ In his note on Acts 20:28, Diodati indicated that the Italian Bible has “bishops†at its rendering. One source in 1871, Thomas Abbott observed that it had been “stated that this rendering [overseers] was due to Bancroft’s influence,†but he asserted that it was “erroneously stated†because the rendering “occurs in Tyndale who cannot be suspected of high prelatic notions†(English Bible, p. 42). Since this verse is not given as one the examples of the 14 changes in Hill’s 1648 sermon and is also not mentioned in the 1671 book about Henry Jessey, this reference could indicate that there were other sources about them available to authors in the 1800’s.
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). John Davenport maintained: “Not one bishop over many churches, but many bishops over one church; not diocesan but congregational bishops†(Power, p. 79). Calibute Downing referred to prelates as “diocesan Lord Bishops, lording over their brethren contrary to Christ’s forbidding†(Clear, pp. 1-2). At the entry for “bishop,“ Samuel Green asserted that “Diocesan bishops are not known in the New Testament†(Biblical and Theological Dictionary). William Ames (1576-1633) wrote: “Ordinary ministers conform to the instituted church and are not ecumenical, national, provincial, or diocesan bishops, but rather elders of one congregation. In the same sense they are also called bishops in the Scriptures†(Marrow, p. 209). Ralph Earle wrote: “Turning to the NT, we discover one fact immediately: there is no mention of any diocesan bishop†(Word Meanings, p. 389). In his commentary on Acts, John Phillips maintained that “the word [episkipos] does not envision an Episcopal hierarchy†(p. 405).
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 other hand, if “overseers†is a better or more accurate rendering than “bishops†at Acts 20:28, it would also be the same at 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1:7, Philippians 1:1, and 1 Peter 2:25. In its marginal note for the word “bishops†at Philippians 1:1, the Geneva Bible explained: “By bishops here he meaneth them that had charge of the word and governing; as pastors, doctors, elders.†The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has “overseers†or “overseer†at Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1, 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:7, and 1 Peter 2:25. In his commentary on 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, J. Vernon McGee observed: “Those who practice the Episcopal form of church government put great emphasis upon this word [bishop] and its interpretation†(p. 51). In his study on 1 Timothy 3:1-13 entitled Church Leadership, John MacArthur asserted: “’Bishop’ is an unfortunate translation of episkopos because it carries modern ecclesiastical implications that are not consistent with its biblical meaning†(p. 20). In his commentary on 1 Timothy, MacArthur wrote: “In our day ‘bishop’ has been encumbered with much ecclesiastical trapping†(p. 98). Alexander Strauch maintained that the rendering bishops “conveys concepts not present in Paul’s thought and creates misunderstanding for modern readers†(Biblical Eldership, p. 90). David Benedict (1779-1874) pointed out that “mankind in general have been so long accustomed to associate with the term bishop the idea of a superior order of the ministry†(Fifty Years Among the Baptists, p. 289). Concerning 1 Timothy 3:1, James Lillie wrote: “Dean Alford expressly declares that here the Anglican Version ‘sets a trap’ for the common reader; as the apostolic bishop had ‘nothing in common with our bishop’†(Bishops, p. 177). Lillie contended that “Paul does not mean by bishop what the Church of England does†(p. 3). Lillie maintained that “the fatal equivocation of confounding bishop (prelate) with the apostolic overseer†was “essential to the hierarchy†(p. 6). Henry Dunn asserted: “The word here [1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:7] translated ‘Bishop’ should have been rendered ‘Inspector’ or “Overseer;‘ since it has no special reference to what we understand by a Diocesan Prelate†(Study of the Bible, p. 186). James Woolsey maintained the word bishop is “put into our Bible, under the design of keeping up the illusive idea of a distinction among ministers in power of power of conferring ordination, etc.“ (Doctrine, pp. 94-95). Woolsey added: “No such grade of superior power lodged in some ministers to lord it over others, has any foundation in the original Scriptures†(Ibid.). In his commentary on 1 & 2 Timothy, Tom Westwood wrote: “The authorized version speaks in this first verse of the office of a bishop, but it is not such an office here contemplated as is found in some of our modern ecclesiastical systems†(p. 23). In its etymology at its entry
episcopacy,
Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary listed the Greek word
episkopos and defined it as “an overseer, watcher, from episkopein, to look upon, examine†(p. 614).
Also concerning Acts 20:28 in his commentary, 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. Is this rendering [“over the whichâ€] in the Bishops’ Bible one of the examples of where it had more hierarchical language than the other pre-1611 Bibles? Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, and Geneva Bibles have “whereof,†and Coverdale’s has “among the which.†Wycliffe’s Bible has “in which.“ The Companion Bible maintained that “out of 2,622 occurrences of en, it is rendered ‘over’ only here†(p. 1635). At the entry for over in his Lexicon, Bullinger defined the Greek word en at this verse as “in†(p. 565). On the other hand, at this verse, the KJV did keep or follow the rendering “to feed†from Coverdale’s and Geneva Bibles instead of the rendering “to rule†in Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, and Bishops’. The 1611 KJV’s keeping of “feed†from the Geneva Bible at this verse could be understood to indicate that the KJV translators intended “overseers†to be understood as “pastors†[“priests†as they were called in the Church of England] instead of as bishops who rule over a diocese. The diocesan bishops of the Church of England of that day did not feed or preach every week to one congregation or flock as the overseers of Acts 20:28 were instructed to do.
