Featured Claimed 14 changes in the KJV by a prelate or prelates

There are several sources that refer to the 14 changes, but I do not know of one that lists what all fourteen were. The 1648 sermon by Thomas Hill lists several of them.

 

In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill (c1602-1653), a member of the Westminster Assembly, stated: “I have it from certain hands, such as lived in those times, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some of the great Prelates, (men I could name some of their persons) to bring it to speak prelatical language, and they did alter fourteen places in the New Testament to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24; see also Currie, Jus Populi Divinum, pp. 37-38, Eadie, English Bible, II, p. 272, and Bridges, Patronage in the Church of Scotland, p. 6).

In 1727, Edmund Calamy (1671-1732), whose grandfather Edmund Calamy the Elder had been a member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, maintained 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 of the Account of the Ministers, Vol. I, p. 47).

In a 1807 book, Erasmus Middleton also noted that “he {Henry Jessey] observed that, (as Dr. Hill declared in a great assembly,) archbishop Bancroft, who was a supervisor of the work, altered it in fourteen places to make it speak the prelatic language” (Evangelical Biography, p. 50). In 1808, Walter Wilson asserted that Miles Smith “complained of the Archbishop’s unwarrantable alterations” (History and Antiquities of Dissenting Churches, I, p. 44 note M). In his 1821 book, James Townley likewise pointed out that “one of his biographers remarks, that he [Henry Jessey] says in his Essay, that Dr. Hill declares in a great assembly, that Archbishop Bancroft, who was a supervisor of King James’s Bible, ‘would needs have it speak the prelatic language, and to that end altered it in fourteen several places” (Illustrations of Biblical Literature, Vol. III, p. 327). In 1839, Benjamin Hanbury asserted that “Bancroft, the supervisor of James’s translation, altered fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 2). In his 1853 book, Alexander McClure also referred to Miles Smith's complaint about the Archbishop's alterations: "It is said that Bancroft altered fourteen places, so as to make them speak in phrase to suit him" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 220). Bobrick confirmed that "Smith afterward complained that Bancroft made fourteen changes on his own account" (Wide as the Waters, p. 248). In 1671, Edward Whiston commented: “Indeed those and such other alterations were not only against the minds of the translators, but of the Bishop of Gloucester [Miles Smith], who was joined with the other as a Supervisor, and complained of it to a friend, a minister of that county, but he is so potent, said he, that there is no contradicting him” (Life, p. 50). Joseph Fletcher noted that “the Bishop of Gloucester excused himself for submitting to this tampering with the sacred text, by saying, ‘but he is so potent, there is no contradicting him’” (History, III, p. 39).

In Oxford University Press’s account of the making of the KJV, Gordon Campbell asserted: “Finally, the completed revision was sent to Archbishop Bancroft, who made fourteen alterations” (Bible: Story of the KJV, p. 64). Under the heading “The Final Reviser,“ Campbell listed Richard Bancroft and noted: “As the text of the KJV was being finalized, he insisted on fourteen alterations” (p. 293). Opfell also reported: "In the end Smith complained that Bishop Bancroft had introduced 14 more changes" (KJB Translators, p. 106). Opfell concluded that “as some translators had attested, he [Bancroft] had poked his nose into the text often enough to assure himself that no indignity had been done to bishops” (p. 118). Conant asserted that Bancroft "was publicly charged with having altered the version [KJV] in fourteen places" (The English Bible, p. 440). John McClintock and James Strong also wrote that Bancroft "is said to have made some alterations in the version [KJV]" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 560). Josiah Penniman observed that “it is said that Bancroft, Bishop of London, insisted on fourteen alterations” (Book about the English Bible, p. 393). Edwin Bissell wrote: “And ‘my Lord of London,‘ who is probably the one referred in the Preface as the chief overseer of the work, was publicly charged at the time, with having altered the version on his own sole authority in fourteen places, the rendering of 1 Peter 2:13, ‘to the king as supreme,‘ being instanced as one of them” (Historic Origin, p. 78). Alister McGrath asserted that Bancroft “had reserved for himself the privilege of making revisions to what hitherto thought of as the final draft” (In the Beginning, p. 178). He also referred to Smith’s complaint “that Bancroft had introduced fourteen changes in the final text without any consultation” (p. 188). In the introductory articles found in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “another Bishop, Bancroft of London, is said to have insisted on fourteen alterations” (p. 42). David Teems asserted that “Bancroft claimed to make fourteen changes to the translation” (Majestie, p. 232). John Nordstrom contended: “Richard Bancroft was the last reviser of the King James Bible, with the stroke of his pen, he made fourteen changes to the text” (Stained with Blood, pp. 174-175). Even Laurence Vance, a KJV-only author, acknowledged that Bancroft “is to said to have made fourteen changes” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Henry Fox asserted: “Again and again were renderings upon which the translators had agreed altered by him [Bancroft] to suit his own views” (On the Revision, p. 7). David Allen wrote: “Bancroft is reported to have made some fourteen changes” (The Jewel, p. 271). David Norton maintained that Bancroft “contributed some changes to the text” (KJB: a Short History, p. 61). Donald Brake asserted: “After Bilson and Smith completed their final task as editors, translators complained that Bancroft had made an additional fourteen changes to the text” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 155).

 

Thomas Hill was not one of the translators of the KJV. He was taught by one of the KJV translators, and he could have met other of the KJV translators. Thomas Hill was a member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.

Thomas Hill would have known KJV translator Laurence Chaderton (1536 or 7-1640), who was Master of Emmanuel, when Hill received his B. A. from Emmanuel. Thomas Hill could have had contact with other KJV translators in his years at Cambridge. For example, KJV translator Thomas Harrison (1555-1631) was vice-prefect of Trinity College at Cambridge the last twenty years of his life so that Hill could have met him or at least could have had possible access to his books and papers. KJV translator Samuel Ward was master of Sidney-Sussex College at Cambridge a number of years so that Hill could have met him. KJV translator John Richardson died at Cambridge and was buried in Trinity College chapel.

The time before 1638 when two KJV translators were among those editing the KJV for the 1638 Cambridge edition would have been another opportunity for Thomas Hill to have had firsthand contact with translators. Furthermore, other men with close connections to the KJV translators and Richard Bancroft during the time of the making of the KJV could also have been at Cambridge. For example, Samuel Collins (1576-1651), who was chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft and later to Archbishop Abbot, became provost of King’s College in 1615 and regius professor of divinity at Cambridge in 1617.

In addition, Thomas Hill may have had access to other primary sources at Cambridge, including the Lambeth Library with the papers of Archbishop Richard Bancroft. Therefore, it can be validly concluded that Thomas Hill could have had access to enough primary sources to know whether or not the information in his sermon was reliable and accurate.

Along with Hill’s 1648 sermon, there are state papers from 1652-1653 that cite his sermon and that refer to the testimony of other preachers that confirm the information in it.

The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73).

John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.).

That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].

 

The title of Thomas Hill's sermon was "Truth and Love happily married in the Saints and in the Churches of Christ."
It was preached April 3, 1648. It was printed in London in 1648. On the title page, Thomas Hill is identified as "Master of Trinity College in Cambridge."

This sermon may also have been printed in a booklet entitled Six Sermons.

I had found the text of Thomas Hill's sermon in a large computer data base of Early English Books.

In his sermon, Thomas Hill listed the following as part of the fourteen changes:

bishoprick (Acts 1:20)
hell (Acts 2:27) instead of "grave"
Easter (Acts 12:4) instead of "the passover"
omitting of "by election" (Acts 14:23)
"Helps in government" (1 Cor. 12:28) instead of "helpers, governors"


Another source indicates that "robbers of churches" (Acts 19:37) was one of the changes.

In his 1671 book, Edward Whiston identified Acts 19:37 [robbers of Churches, for robbers of the temple] as one of the fourteen changes (Life, p. 49).

Alexander McClure wrote: "Bancroft, that he might for once stick the name [church] to a material building, would have it applied, in the nineteenth chapter of Acts, to the idols' temples! 'Robbers of churches' are strictly, according to the word in the original, temple-robbers; and particularly, in this case, such as might have plundered the great temple of Diana at Ephesus. Let us be thankful that the dictatorial prelate tried his hand no farther at emending the sacred text" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 221).

 

One of the reported 14 changes made by a prelate or prelates according to Thomas Hill’s 1648 sermon involved 1 Corinthians 12:28. “Helpers, governours” was the rendering of Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles at this verse. The 1557 Whittingham’s and 1560 Geneva Bible have a marginal note for helpers: “As Deacons” and a marginal note for governors: “As Elders.” The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1672 edition of the KJV have the following marginal note for helpers or helps: “the offices of deacons” and this marginal note for governours or governments: “He setteth forth the order of elders, which were the maintainers of the churches discipline.“ Concerning this verse, Paul Baynes (1573-1617) wrote: “The helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of deacons” (Diocesan’s Trial, p. 72). Augustus Strong referred to “helps” as “indicating the duties of deacons” (Systematic Theology, p. 917). At this verse, the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has these notes: “helps [that is, who take care of and help the poor and sick] governments, [that is, they that are appointed to keep the Church in good order, and to guide them, which are the elders, Rom. 12:8, 1 Tim. 5:17].”

Benjamin Hanbury quoted the following from the preface to the reader in the Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation that was printed in 1618: “1 Corinthians 12:28 is translated, both by the Genevan and former Church translation [Bishops’] ‘helpers, governors,‘ but the new translators, herein worse than the Rhemists, translate it ‘helps in governments;‘ foisting into the text this preposition ‘in.‘ Why? They cannot abide elders to assist the minister in governing Christ’s Church. So their churchwardens are but the prelates’ promoters” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). In his exposition of Ezekiel, William Greenhill (1598-1671) asserted that 1 Corinthians 12:28 “is faulty in this place, reading those words thus, ‘helps in government,‘ which was done to countenance all the assistants prelates had in their government” (p. 551). In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill maintained that helps in governments “is a most horrible prodigious violence to the Greek words; for they are both the accusative case, helps; there are elders; governments, there are deacons; now to obscure these, you must put it, helps in governments” (Six Sermons, p. 25).

In his 1593 book advocating that prelatic or Episcopal church government is apostolic, Bishop Thomas Bilson acknowledged that some use 1 Corinthians 12:28 as one verse that they cite for Presbyterian church government. Thomas Bilson wrote: “There remained yet one place where governors are named amongst ecclesiastical officers, and that is 1 Corinthians 12” (Perpetual Government, p. 197). Bilson wrote: “Why should they not be lay elders or judges of manners? Because I find no such any where else mentioned, and here none proved. Governors there were, or rather governments” (p. 199). Bilson claimed that “Chrysostom maketh ‘helps’ and governments’ all one” (p. 212). In 1641, George Gillespie maintained that “Chrysostom, expounding this place, doth not take helps and governments to be all one, as Bilson hath boldly, but falsely averred” (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 19).

The 1611 edition of the KJV does exactly what Bilson suggested by connecting the words “helps” and “governments” with “in.” David Norton pointed out: “1611, uniquely and apparently without justification from the Greek, reads ‘helps in governments” (Textual History, p. 34). Was this change deliberately and purposely introduced in order to attempt to take away a verse that had been used by those who advocated Presbyterian church government? Did Bilson or other prelates take advantage of their position to attempt to undermine or obscure a favorite text used to support Presbyterian church government? What truth of the original demanded that this change or error be introduced into the 1611 edition? In 1641, Scottish reformer George Gillespie wrote: “We cannot enough admire how the authors of our new English translation were bold to turn it thus, ’helps in government,’ so to make one of two, and to elude our argument” (Assertion, p. 19). Andrew Edgar suggested that Gillespie “recognized in these words a covert attack on the constitution of the Church of Scotland” (Bibles of England, p. 299, footnote 1). In 1646, Gillespie wrote: “Whereas he [Mr. Hussey] thinks, helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles; antilepsis kubernesis was read thus, helps in governments: but afterwards, the prelates themselves were ashamed of it, and so printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, governments” (Aaron’s Rod, p. 103). Could the 1611 edition’s rendering at 1 Corinthains 12:28 be considered to contain a known error purposefully inserted into the text?

 

One place where the 1611 KJV indicates bias for Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Bancroft, Bilson, 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.

 

The known facts suggest that it is possible that some Church of England bishops that were not translators may have been permitted at some point to review the translation and make changes. For example, one such fact is that at the Hampton Court Conference there had been mention that the translation “be reviewed by the Bishops“ (Barlow, Sum and Substance, p. 46; also Cloud, Glorious History, p. 130; Vance, King James, His Bible, p. 52). Conant affirmed that “the original plan” had been for the translation to be subject to “the examination of the bishops” (English Bible, p. 439).

The original plan for the making of the KJV at the Hampton Court Conference had also asserted that after the review of the Bishops that the translation “be presented to the Privy Council” (Barlow, Sum and Substance, p. 46). In his introduction to Everyman’s Library edition of the KJV’s New Testament, John Drury wrote: “The king’s plan for the process of translation was characteristically hierarchical, ascending from scholars, through bishops, to the Privy Council and the crown” (p. xix). The Archbishop of Canterbury was a member of the King’s Privy Council, and other bishops also sometimes had other positions that made them members of that same Privy Council. Bishop Thomas Bilson was also a member of that Privy Council.

If the original plan was followed, there were at least these two times when bishops who were not translators could have possibly introduced changes into the work of the translators. While there may be no known evidence that indicates that the translation was taken to the entire Privy Council, there is sound historical evidence that shows that Archbishop Bancroft, one member of that Privy Council, had chief oversight of it, and it seems very likely if not certain that according to the original plan it would have been taken to him before going to the printers.

George McWhorter asserted: “Finally the revision of the two latter [Smith and Bilson] was submitted to Bancroft, Bishop of London, who retouched the whole” (Popular Hand-Book, p. 52). Edwin Bissell suggested: “It was at this point, moreover, that Bancroft, now Archbishop of Canterbury, found an opportunity to step in, and that he did so, with the evil result of marring the version in a number of places, is generally admitted” (Historic Origin, p. 81). Larry Stone indicated that the archbishop of Canterbury reviewed the 1611 (Story of the Bible, p. 75).

 

One of the KJV translators is also said to have maintained that changes were made by bishops, which would support the claim that the 14 alterations were “against the minds of the translators.”

In “a series of memoranda concerning the translators, set down about 1640,“ Charles Butterworth noted that the following was stated: "Dr. Bret [Richard Brett, a KJV translator] reported that the Bps [bishops] altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon" (Literary Lineage of the KJB, p. 213).
KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: “A manuscript about the translators in the Lambeth Palace Library, apparently written about 1650, records that Richard Brett (1567-1637), a translator of the Oxford Old Testament company, reported that ‘the Bps. altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon: He had a note of the places’” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). KJV-only author Gail Riplinger also wrote: “The Bps. [Bishops] altered very many places that the translators agreed upon,” noted Dr. Brett of the Old Testament Oxford Committee” (Hidden History, p. 32). Opfell also confirmed that Brett "complained that the bishops had altered many places on which the members of the company had agreed" (KJB Translators, p. 62). Opfell maintained that “a man with whom [Miles] Smith often conferred was Richard Brett” (Ibid.). Brett and Smith had been part of the same Oxford group of O. T. translators.

 

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 may have used this rendering in a different 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 Richard Bancroft and Thomas Bilson advocated their new theory of the divine origin of episcopacy and apostolic succession, the word bishoprick became 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 in the 1611 KJV than that intended by Wycliffe, Tyndale, or Coverdale. If this different sense or meaning was not actually 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 additional compelling evidence that indicates that it was used in a specific hierarchical sense to advocate apostolic succession and not in the earlier general sense.

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 of Congregationalism, 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).

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). Ross 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. The king and his bishops used the new Bible as a tool to promote their agenda of absolute monarchy and episcopacy” (I Will Have, p. 58). Was the rendering “bishopric” used in the 1611 KJV in order to uphold the error of the doctrine of apostolic succession? Hierarchical church government views are often connected to a claim of apostolic succession. Firsthand evidence from the writings of Bilson, Andrewes, and Saravia demonstrated that the KJV’s rendering “bishopric” was linked to the Church of England’s claim of apostolic succession.

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).

 

Do you claim that a standard authority for the meaning of English words [The Oxford English Dictionary] is wrong in suggesting that Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Coverdale used the rendering "bishoprick" with a different meaning than the later meaning asserted by Richard Bancroft and some of the KJV translators?

John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, and Miles Coverdale may have used this rendering in a different 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 (Vol. II, p. 224).