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:
I think we're not understanding each other. The English word "priest" undisputably comes from the Greek word "presbyter". The English word "bishop" undisputably comes from Greek word "episcopos". Any dictionary will demonstrate that; it's not a matter of "attempts to conform the Bible to Roman Catholicism" (??), it's a simple fact of the development of language.
To this day, when official Catholic documents wish to refer to priests (as distinct from priests and bishops, or the clergy in general), the words they use in Latin are derived from presbyter.
Now, hieraeus does not mean the same thing as presbyter. It would be nice if we had a different English word for hieraeus, but we don't.
The NT is ambiguous about episcopoi and presbyteroi being the same office. They don't say flatly that they are, nor that they are not.
The writings of Ignatius of Antioch (died AD 107-110, knew at least Peter, Paul, and John personally) are not ambiguous. They clearly show an episcopos as one man having authority over the church in a (large) town or region, with his presbyteroi, under obedience to him, ministering to the needs of the people, primarily by presiding at the Eucharistic celebration. I did not say he was tried for translating the Bible.
No, but the OP and lots of Protestant Tyndale hagiography either says it outright or implies it.
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
Circular word games aren't really required: Tyndale's notes were heretical according to Catholic teaching, which hasn't changed on these issues before or since.