Not sure how you figure that those are "closer," since the Greek words for "overseer" and "elder" are the direct ancestors of our English words "bishop" and "priest".
Tyndale was not indicted or tried for translating the Bible, as the OP seems to imply, nor was he indicted or tried by Englishmen, but by Belgians under Spanish rule.
The bill of indictment against him is available in translation on the Internet; "translating the Bible" is not on the list of his offenses.
His Bible contained his own heretical commentary in addition to Scripture. I'm not sure why anyone would expect the Catholic Church to approve such a translation, full of venomous rejection of her doctrines.
However, it is true that his translation was the ancestor of the KJV, which is not only a very influential piece of literature, but was a reasonably good Bible translation in its own right. And for that he deserves some honor.
The Bible I use for private devotion is the RSV-Catholic Edition, which is a revision of the KJV. So ironically, pride of place on this Catholic's bookshelf goes to a Bible which is a second-generation descendant of Tyndale's.
Don't tell me . . . J, E, P, and D, right?
Except the NT was NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH ..it was written in GREEK
There is a word for priest in greek and it is NEVER USED FOR THE NEW CHURCH. That word is "hiereus", the greek word for elder is presbyteros''', IT never translates as PRIEST
The defination for elder/ Presbyteros is
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews 1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches)
The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
[Elders is a leadership role, not a roll of sacrificer .with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.
The priests were not elders and the elders were not priests
Act 4:5 ¶ And it came to pass on the morrow] that their rulers ( archōn), and elders ( presbyteros), and scribes (grammateus),
Act 4:6 And Annas the high priest (archiereus), and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest (archiereus), were gathered together at Jerusalem.
Young's Literal Translation
Acts 4:5 And it came to pass upon the morrow, there were gathered together of them the rulers, and elders, and scribes, to Jerusalem,
Act 4:6 and Annas the chief priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the chief priest,
Even the Douay-Rheims Bible does not translate that as priests.. Acts 4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their princes (,archōn) and ancients, (presbyteros) and scribes,(grammateus) were gathered together in Jerusalem;
As you see the latin translation from the Greek is CORRECT ... presbyteros /Elders are ancients that is the actual translation.. to the Jews the presbyterors were the older members of the community.. the wisdom of the community so ancients is correct..
The ORIGINAL latin translation did not try to make elders Priests..completely different roles to the Jews
There was NO PRIESTHOOD in the church is later than 300 AD..
Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."
"A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, 'overseer'). In English this came to be translated as 'bishop' (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community's Eucharistic assembly."
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."
Not sure how you figure that those are "closer," since the Greek words for "overseer" and "elder" are the direct ancestors of our English words "bishop" and "priest."
That is because of attempts to conform the Bible to Roman Catholicism and Anglicism, as the Greek word translated “elder,” presbuteros,” (Titus 15 etc.) or bishop, “episkopos,” is not the same as the one for priests, “archiereus,” or “hiereus,” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) While Roman Catholics try to make texts as such as 1 Tim 4:14 refer to priests, the word there is not the one for priest or priesthood, but is the word “presbuterion” and is used in distinction to priests in Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5, and which comes from “presbuteros” which denotes maturity, and specifically such those in the Jewish Sanhedrin (Mt. 5:22) or order of elders (and ancient political and judicial Jewish), with “bishop” denoting “overseer,” that being the general function of an elder.
A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but the two were not the same formal class. Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins, (Heb. 5:1) which Rome's separate class of sacerdotal priests is modeled after, while the only priesthood (hierateuma) of the church is that of all believers as they function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
Thus while the Bible uses Elder, Presbyter, Overseer, Bishop, they all refer to the same shepherding, pastoral office in the church, (Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:17,28) and the splitting of these is something that took place later, and are not formally called priests.
Tyndale was not indicted or tried for translating the Bible, as the OP seems to imply, nor was he indicted or tried by Englishmen, but by Belgians under Spanish rule.
I did not say he was tried for translating the Bible. As for waging war after the flesh against theological enemies, that was often pushed by Rome and those trained by her, but this was not the manner of the New Testament church. (Jn. 18:36; 1Cor. 5:13; 2Cor. 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12). I have little doubt that if Rome had not lost her secular power then the sword would still be used against God-fearing men who theologically oppose Rome, while many things of Vatican Two would be seen as treasonous.
His Bible contained his own heretical commentary in addition to Scripture.
Heretical according to an authority which infallibly declares she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and content-based) formula, thus rendering her own declaration to be infallible, while Tyndale must appeal to the weight of Scriptural warrant. And as for heretical commentary, apparently that does not apply when written by Catholics (see next).
I'm not sure why anyone would expect the Catholic Church to approve such a translation, full of venomous rejection of her doctrines.
My statement did not refer to his notes, but to the translation.
However, it is true that his translation was the ancestor of the KJV, which is not only a very influential piece of literature, but was a reasonably good Bible translation in its own right. And for that he deserves some honor.
The Bible I use for private devotion is the RSV-Catholic Edition, which is a revision of the KJV. So ironically, pride of place on this Catholic's bookshelf goes to a Bible which is a second-generation descendant of Tyndale's.
That is what i meant, and for all of Rome's statements about being zealous to provide a safe and faithful translation and commentary, i think few conservative Roman Catholics today will defend Rome's official Bible for America as being such, despite the stamps. Especially this one: