KJV Anglican leanings

[nwink]

Are the Anglican-leaning renderings in the KJV very significant? Obviously, since the translation was done by a group of High Church Anglican and Puritan scholars, there are a few Anglican renderings (such as "bishop" instead of "elder," "Easter" instead of "Passover", etc). For a translation that has such high esteem amongst several of a Reformed persuasion, it makes me curious if there are any significant Anglican interpretations in the translation...a translation that would need to be accepted both by the whole group of scholars involved in the work.

 

[au5t1n]

Are the Anglican-leaning renderings in the KJV very significant? Obviously, since the translation was done by a group of High Church Anglican and Puritan scholars, there are a few Anglican renderings (such as "bishop" instead of "elder," "Easter" instead of "Passover", etc). For a translation that has such high esteem amongst several of a Reformed persuasion, it makes me curious if there are any significant Anglican interpretations in the translation...a translation that would need to be accepted both by the whole group of scholars involved in the work.

"Bishop" is almost a transliteration. It descends directly from the Greek word it is used to translate. It is a legitimate word in presbyterian polity as long as it is understood that presbyter is synonymous with bishop.

Beyond that, I don't know.

 

[nwink]

Any more thoughts?

 

[nwink]

Thoughts?

 

[nwink]

bump

 

[Marrow Man]

There is this statement from the preface to the KJV by the translators:

Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other,

as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM,
and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH:

as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.

But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.

 

[bookslover]

On a related (sort of) note: I know that J. I. Packer likes to tease us Presbyterian types by reminding us that the majority of men at the Westminster Assembly were Anglicans.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I wouldn't say the word "Easter" is translated so because of Anglican leaning, the KJV tranlated the word "Passover" in other places in the New Testament (Matthew 26:2 is an example). I have heard an explaination that seem plausible in my opinion. The only place that "Easter" is used is in Acts 12:4. If you look at Acts 12:3 it says that Peter was arrested during the days of unleaven bread which is "after" the passover therefore it would seem unprobable that the "jewish passover" was intended in verse 4 when Herod wanted to wait until the "passover" was passed to deliver him to the people unless he wanted to wait and extra year to do so.

I have heard the argument which seems plausible that what was meant by "pasha" in Acts 12:4 was not the Jewish passover but the Pagan festival of Easter which usually is around the same time as the Jewish passover but not necessarily on the same date.

I have heard counter arguments to this saying that "passover" can be used for the entire feast of unleaven bread (spanning the Passover itself and the following 7 days) but I'm not convince since in verse 3 they use "the days of unleaven bread" why not use passover in verse 3?