Erasmus was one of the sources used in the making of the KJV, and he is thus a first-hand source.
The later TR editions by Stephanus and Beza essentially followed the earlier textual criticism decisions of Erasmus.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is there Factual evidence of Church of England bias in the 1611?
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
Erasmus was one of the sources used in the making of the KJV, and he is thus a first-hand source.
The later TR editions by Stephanus and Beza essentially followed the earlier textual criticism decisions of Erasmus.
Check out the 1569 Reina Spanish Bible published in Switzerland:
Have you noticed he'll include in his lists translations done in other languages when it fits the contrived story being spun? This doesn't.
But you are saying that the Catholic was the only one that got things right. Are you a Catholic? You have me confused with this contradiction.
Last edited:
The Beza version had extra renderings and conjectures in it in places though, correct?
I think that he is saying that Eramus TR was the basis of the Kjv of 1611, maybe?
So is there a lot of Catholic bias in the KJV?
The evidence of episcopal bias in some renderings in the KJV is not a contrived story.
The evidence is clear, sound, and solid, and it has not been refuted. Some may choose to close their eyes to it.
No, not at all. Presenting the facts is not endorsing or approving of the textual criticism decisions of Erasmus.
I disagree with some of the textual criticism decisions of Erasmus, especially his adding some readings from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate to his Greek text and his conjectures.
Of course not. A Roman Catholic could not post in this forum.
I am a fundamental, independent Baptist.
Erasmus' understanding of Acts 14:23 was actually the Baptist understanding of it in the 1600's.
You are mistaken in assuming a contradiction when no actual contradiction has been demonstrated.
Are you suggesting that there is a textual variant for Acts 14:23 that the KJV translators used that Erasmus & Co did not? I can't find one.
I nowhere suggest a textual variant for Acts 14:23.
The pre-1611 English Bibles may have followed the interpretation of Acts 14:23 which was in agreement with the Latin NT of Erasmus and Beza while the 1611 KJV may have followed the interpretation of Acts 14:23 which was in agreement with the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The Roman Catholic interpretation of Acts 14:23 would be much closer to the Church of England's interpretation of it than it is to the understanding of the verse in the pre-1611 English Bibles.
You fail to demonstrate your allegation of a supposed "contrived story" to be true. Perhaps you are closing your eyes to some of the actual historical facts.
Do you ignore the evidence of the pre-1611 English Bibles, the Latin NTs of Erasmus and Beza, and the evidence of confessions of faith in the 1600's?
A Confession of Faith by a group of Separatists in 1596 maintained in Article 23 “that as every Christian congregation hath power and commandment to elect and ordain their own ministry according to the rules prescribed” and the verses cited were Acts 6:3, 5, 6 and Acts 14:23 (Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, p. 89). In a 1611 Confession of Faith thought to have been written by Thomas Helwys, Article 21 noted “that these Officers are to be chosen when there are persons qualified according to the rules in Christ’s Testament (1 Timothy 3:2-7, Titus 1:6-9, Acts 6:3-4) by election and approbation of that church or congregation whereof they are members (Acts 6:3-4 and 14:23) (Lumpkin, p. 122). The 1677 Second London Confession of Faith by Baptists maintained that a bishop or elder is “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church itself,” and it cited Acts 14:23 in the margin with the comment “See the original” (Lumpkin, p. 287; McGlothin, Baptist Confessions, p. 266). The 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith by Baptists retained the same words that had been based on Acts 14:23: “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself” (Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopaedia, p. 1320).
Baptists in England in the 1600’s had based at least a portion of their doctrine of church government on the original language text at Acts 14:23 with clear support from the Latin translation of Erasmus, the Latin translation of Beza, and the pre-1611 English Bibles. Did the KJV in effect remove part of the scriptural support for this aspect of the Baptist doctrine of church government?
Philip Doddridge (1702-1751) explained Acts 14:23 as follows: “And when they had with the concurrent suffrage of the people constituted presbyters for them in every church” (Family Expositor, III, p. 210). Isaac Backus (1724-1806) noted that Paul and Barnabas “did ordain them elders by the people’s election, signified by their lifting up of hands, as the word is, and as the use was in popular elections” (History of New England, I, p. 14). In 1844, Lyman Coleman maintained that the Greek word at Acts 14:23 “means, to stretch out the hand, to hold up the hand, as in voting; hence, to vote, to give one’s vote, by holding up the hand” (Church, p. 62). Coleman added that “according to Suicer, the primary and appropriate signification of the term is, to denote an election by the uplifting of the hand, and particularly denoting the election of a bishop by vote” (p. 64). Thomas Upham also asserted that the Greek word at Acts 14:23 “implies that the selection or choice of persons to the eldership was made by the vote of the body of the disciples [i.e. by the church]” (Constitution, p. 105). In 1847, Edwin Hall maintained that “in the original, the word is the one in common use to denote an election by the suffrages of the people” (Puritans and their Principles, p. 305). In 1848, Methodist Thomas Allin wrote: “In view of the whole, must we not conclude, that presbyters, like all other ecclesiastical officers, were elected in the apostolically churches by the suffrages of the people” (The Jubilee, p. 208).
In the 1851 edition of the KJV’s N. T. as edited by Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff, Acts 14:23 began as follows: “And when they had ordained by election elders for them in each church.“ In his 1844 book, Baptist Warham Walker noted that the original word implied the election of pastors or elders "by holding up the hand (Acts 14:23)" (Harmony in the Church, p. 19). In his 1846 book, R. B. C. Howell (1801-1868) asserted: “It is plain that the churches elected their own pastors by a full suffrage, expressed by [cheirotoneo] stretching forth the hand” (Deaconship, p. 52).
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). Gail 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.
Was prelatic or hierarchical rule strengthened any in the KJV at Hebrews 13:17?
The pre-1611 English Bibles have this rendering: “have the oversight of you” although the 1538 Coverdale’s English-Latin N. T. has “your overseers.”
Bishop Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the 1611 KJV, twice quoted from Hebrews 13:17, using the words “Obey your overseers” (Perpetual Government, pp. 178, 280). The KJV revised the rendering “have the oversight of you” to “have the rule over you.” Is the KJV’s rendering in its text closer in meaning to the 1582 Rheim’s rendering “your prelates”? Thomas Bilson cited Jerome as quoting Hebrews 13:17 as Bilson translated it into English as: “Obey your rulers and be subject to them” (Perpetual Government, p. 269). Thomas Bilson’s own translating of Jerome’s Latin could suggest that the KJV’s rendering at Hebrews 13:17 was influenced by the Latin Vulgate.
The same difference between the pre-1611 Protestant English Bibles and the KJV is also found in Hebrews 13:7 and 13:24. The 1611 edition of the KJV does have a marginal note at Hebrews 13:17: “or, guide“ and a note at Hebrews 13:7 “Or, are the guides.”
The 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible translated these same words at verse seventeen as “’to your guides,’ [that is, pastors and teachers]” and at verse seven as “your guides [Or leaders, as ver. 17].” In his epistle to the reader, Bilson had a reference to Hebrews 13:17, and there his quotation of it used “leaders” [“the Holy Ghost requireth the faithful to ‘obey their leaders, and to be subject to them‘”] (Perpetual Government, p. 24). Again Bilson had a reference to Hebrews 13:17 in the margin with the word “leaders” in the text (p. 501).
The 1842 revision of the KJV rendered them at all three verses as “your leaders.”
The pre-1611 English Bibles have this rendering: “have the oversight of you” although the 1538 Coverdale’s English-Latin N. T. has “your overseers.”
Bishop Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the 1611 KJV, twice quoted from Hebrews 13:17, using the words “Obey your overseers” (Perpetual Government, pp. 178, 280). The KJV revised the rendering “have the oversight of you” to “have the rule over you.” Is the KJV’s rendering in its text closer in meaning to the 1582 Rheim’s rendering “your prelates”? Thomas Bilson cited Jerome as quoting Hebrews 13:17 as Bilson translated it into English as: “Obey your rulers and be subject to them” (Perpetual Government, p. 269). Thomas Bilson’s own translating of Jerome’s Latin could suggest that the KJV’s rendering at Hebrews 13:17 was influenced by the Latin Vulgate.
The same difference between the pre-1611 Protestant English Bibles and the KJV is also found in Hebrews 13:7 and 13:24. The 1611 edition of the KJV does have a marginal note at Hebrews 13:17: “or, guide“ and a note at Hebrews 13:7 “Or, are the guides.”
The 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible translated these same words at verse seventeen as “’to your guides,’ [that is, pastors and teachers]” and at verse seven as “your guides [Or leaders, as ver. 17].” In his epistle to the reader, Bilson had a reference to Hebrews 13:17, and there his quotation of it used “leaders” [“the Holy Ghost requireth the faithful to ‘obey their leaders, and to be subject to them‘”] (Perpetual Government, p. 24). Again Bilson had a reference to Hebrews 13:17 in the margin with the word “leaders” in the text (p. 501).
The 1842 revision of the KJV rendered them at all three verses as “your leaders.”
Yes, my understanding is that one meaning is to vote by a show of hands. The shorter Gingrich lexicon has "choose or elect (by raising hands) 2 Cor 8:19. Appoint, install Ac 14:23." Friberg's Anlex has as one meaning, "choose, elect by raising a hand to signify a vote." So Biblical churches vote on various things.
Thank you. So I wonder why all the modern versions follow the KJV and have 'appoint.' Any thoughts?
I'm reading through the ESV right now, and I see hints of KJV renderings everywhere. It had such a huge influence, modern English translators have a hard time getting away from it even when the nuance is wrong, because most of them were raised with it like I was.
May I ask if you have any knowledge of Greek, and if so, whether you have done a study on the word hegoumenois? The same word is used of Christ in Matthew 2:6. We get the English word 'hegemony' from it.
It really will not do to pick up just any old stick with which to beat the KJV. I am really not sure why you feel the need to do it so regularly.
My bias is in favor of the KJV. I attempt to be objective and attempt to acknowledge the actual facts and truth concerning the making of the KJV. Applying the same measures/standards to the KJV that are applied to other English Bibles is not beating the KJV. A poster asked for factual evidence, which I attempted to provide.
Last edited:
Are you Mr Rick Norris, author of the Unbound scriptures?
he is not anti Kjv, as I think that it is his preferred translation, as he agrees with the textual basis over the critical greek one, but he is really anti KJVO!
If the Greek word was episkopoi, it might be right to translate it as 'overseers,' but it isn't; it's hegoumenoi.
Before someone criticizes a translation of a word or implies nefarious motives to the translators, the very least he should do is study the meanings of the word under discussion. I can see no real objection to translating hegoumenoi as 'rulers.'