Gustavus Paine’s The Men Behind the King James Bible,
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). Gustavus 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 1677, 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 Henry Jessey, p. 44). Acts 1:20 quotes Psalm 109:8: "let another take his office" which was translated in the Geneva Bible in Acts 1:20 as "let another take his charge." Although it is not in many current KJV's, the 1611 KJV did have the following note in the margin indicating other acceptable words: "Or, office: or charge." In 1648, Thomas Hill suggested that this change was made “that you may believe that the
Bishops are the
Apostles successors” (
Six Sermons, p. 24).
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). Thomas Bilson contended that “Peter himself calleth the apostleship ‘a bishopship’” with the reference Acts 1:20 (p. 296). Thus, Thomas Bilson used the rendering “bishopric” at Acts 1:20 as part of his arguments for the divine origin of episcopacy and for apostolic succession. Thomas Bilson also claimed that “I am sure all the fathers with one mouth affirm the apostles both might be and were bishops” (p. 295). Thomas 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). Lancelot Andrewes asserted: “Now the Apostles are Bishops: the apostle S. Peter giving us assurance of it; And his Bishoprick let another take” (
Of Episcopacy, p. 14).
Henry Dexter maintained that “the hierarchical sense [is] quietly put upon one of the important words in this passage by King James’s translators”, and he added: “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).
