Featured Is there Factual evidence of Church of England bias in the 1611?

In my opinion, my actual sound observation and point still stands and have not been soundly refuted. My actual point does not seem to be soundly addressed as some seem to want to suggest that I am claiming something that I did not say. The point is not whether another rendering is possible, but whether the changes were made which can be regarded as more favorable to Church of England church government views.

Actual factual evidence supports the observation that the Church of England makers of the KJV changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles "to different renderings more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views." Documented historical evidence has also been provided that other believers beginning even in the 1600's asserted that there was episcopal or prelatic bias in the KJV.

Claiming that later English Bibles had the same renderings as the KJV (likely following the KJV) would not deal with the reasons or motives concerning why the KJV translators changed the pre-1611 English Bible renderings.

If it is being suggested that trying to seize upon one example and find a way to expose some weakness in it would be defeating or refuting my actual point, it could be that this would be an example of committing the fallacy of refuting the example. Claiming another possible explanation for one example would not actually answer nor refute my point and would not refute all the other changes which were more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views.

Do some seek to rationalize away the factual evidence of some episcopal bias in the 1611 KJV? Would KJV defenders accept the same answers for their allegation of translators' bias or their questioning the motives of later translators as they offer for the KJV translators?

 

There is historical evidence from the 1600's that suggests that the KJV's rendering "Easter" was one of the 14 changes made by prelates.

The majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” at Acts 12:4. Instead they likely supported tor followed he Geneva Bible’s rendering “Passover.” Just as the KJV translators changed the Bishops’ Bible’s two other uses of “Easter” at John 11:55 to “Passover,” they may have also changed this third use at Acts 12:4. While Tyndale and Coverdale had used the rendering “Easter” several times for the Jewish Passover, the later English translators had increasingly changed this rendering to “Passover.”

In 1671, Edward Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life and Death of Mr. Henry Jessey, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,” Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25).

In his 1727 book, John Currie maintained that at “Acts 12:4 in which place we have Easter, whereas it is the Passover according to the Original, this might be to favor their holy time of Easter, or an Easter communion” (Jus Populi Divinum, p. 38). Was the goal of inserting the rendering “Easter” back into the text at this verse in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning? In his volume on Acts in his An Interpretation of the English Bible, B. H. Carroll observed: “Pious Episcopalians and Romanists use this verse of the A. V. to confirm their custom of celebrating Easter” (p. 184). James Woolsey asserted: “To support, from the Scripture, the idea of Easter-Sunday and Easter-day, they suppress the original word which the Holy Ghost moved the inspired penman to use, and employed the Saxon word Easter” (Doctrine, p. 93). Concerning “Easter” at Acts 12:4, James Edmunds and T. S. Bell commented: “The excuse is, that by this utter disregard of what the Holy Spirit really said, the solemn feasts of the Church are sustained” (Discussion, p. 33). The evidence that this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter should be an embarrassment to those who claim to be defending faithful and accurate translating.

 

Gustavus Paine asserted: "Given the times and the number of bishops among the learned men, the new Bible was certain to sustain the cult of bishops wherever the chance arose" (Men Behind the KJV, pp. 95-96).

At least some of the KJV translators along with Archbishop Richard Bancroft (overseer of the translating) recognized Episcopal Church government as of divine intention and institution.

Richard Bancroft had preached that “the doctrine of the Church of England, is pure, and holy: the government therefore, both in respect of her Majesty, of our Bishops is lawful, and godly: the Book of Common Prayer containeth nothing contrary to the Word of God” (Seymour, English Sermon, I, p. 124). Adam Nicolson wrote: “Bancroft, and almost certainly the king, was not prepared to give any ground in the language of the translation to the Presbyterians” (God’s Secretaries, p. 75). The Dictionary of National Biography maintained that “he [Bancroft] contrived to cast a slur upon the principles of Presbyterianism” (I, p. 1029). Paine noted how Thomas Bilson, one of the editors of the KJV, was ready to squelch the Presbyterian nonsense which King James hated, and thus the word "presbyters" appears only once in the KJV with the Greek word thus rendered in many other places as "elders" (Men, p. 97). This evidence indicates that Bancroft, Bilson, and other prelates would have been willing to attempt to weaken any verses used to advocate or defend Presbyterian church government. These Church of England bishops would have likely objected even more strongly to congregational church government views than they did to Presbyterian views.

Williston Walker noted that Richard Bancroft, Adrian Saravia, and Thomas Bilson "affirmed a jure divino right for episcopacy" (History of the Christian Church, p. 406). Peter Milward maintained that Bancroft, Saravia, Thomas Bilson, and William Barlow claimed an "apostolic origin and a divine right for the episcopal institution" (Religious Controversies, pp. 16-17). Patrick Collinson pointed out that Bancroft "seems to have been the engineer and promoter of the jus divinum" (Religion of Protestants, p. 17). John McClintock affirmed that Bancroft "was the first Anglican divine who publicly maintained the divine right of bishops" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 631). John Eadie noted that “Bancroft was among the first to defend episcopacy as of absolute divine right” (English Bible, II, pp. 271-272). The Dictionary of National Biography noted that Bancroft “asserted, with a plainness hitherto unheard in the English church, the claims of episcopacy to be regarded as of divine origin” (I, p. 1029). James MacKinnon asserted that Bancroft held to an “extreme doctrine of the divine right of Episcopacy” (History, III, p. 24). Alexander McClure observed that Bancroft preached that "bishops were a distinct order from priests [Church of England name for pastors], and that they had a superiority over them by divine right, and directly from God" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 126). Samuel Hopkins noted that “the preacher was fairly understood to assert that bishops--such as were then in the Church of England--governed the Church and the inferior clergy jure divino, by a right inherent to their office and derived from God alone; that without such a hierarchy there could be no true Church; that except from such bishops of the Church of England there could be no true ordaining to the Gospel ministry” (Puritans, III, p. 335). J. B. Marsden reported that Bancroft “maintained in his [1589] sermon, that bishops were, by the institution of God himself, an order in the Christian ministry superior to priests and deacons and distinct from them; and that they governed the church and the inferior clergy, jure divino, by a right inherent to their office, and derived from God alone. The denial of these truths, he said, was heresy” (History, p. 228). McClure asserted that Bancroft was strenuous for the divine right of diocesan bishops (KJV Translators, p. 219). Thomas Bilson wrote a book in defense of episcopacy or prelacy that was first printed in 1593 with a second edition printed in 1610 and with a Latin edition printed in 1611. Bilson’s book further developed the view advocated by Bancroft in his sermon. Did Bishop Bilson have any possible reasons and motives to see that the translation that he revised did not conflict with his own interpretations in his book?

KJV translator Hadrian Saravia maintained the authority of bishops by apostolic warrant and claimed that "by apostles are meant bishops" (Paine, Men, p. 35). Saravia, who had assisted in the drafting of the Calvinistic Belgic Confession, wrote a book championing the cause of episcopacy in 1560 [or 1590] (Butterworth, Literary History of the Bible, p. 195). V. J. K. Brook confirmed that Saravia wrote a book “which insisted that episcopacy was both primitive and Scriptural” (Whitgift, p. 156). Alexander McClure also pointed out Saravia's "zeal for the divine right of episcopacy" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 93). Saravia wrote: “Now the Episcopal Order has been every where received by all Churches, wherefore it is an Apostolical tradition and divine institution” (Treatise, p. 199). Saravia addressed his book “to the Most Noble the Prelates, and to the Most Reverend Fathers and Lords in Christ, the Lords and Bishops and most vigilant Pastors of the Anglican Church” (Treatise, p. 1). John McElhinney asserted: “The views of ministerial order so earnestly advocated by Bancroft in a sermon ad populum, were soon after defended in a learned treatise by Hadrian Saravia (Doctrine, p. 226).

 

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.).

Concerning the fourteen changes, Benson Bobrick asserted: “One of them was to insist on that ‘glorious word Bishopric’ for the titular authority of Judas in Acts 1:20” (Wide as the Waters, p. 248). David Teems wrote: “Because an argument followed between Smith and Bancroft, the Translators’ draft obviously read ‘And his charge’ (Geneva Bible) and not bishopricke” (Majestie, p. 232).

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 and Death of Mr. Henry Jessey, p. 44).