WHERE HAVE ALL THE BISHOPS GONE?

This paper investigates how the Greek term episkopo`~ and its related variants are trans­ lated in English Bible translations. From early translations to the middle of the 20 th century, “bishop” was the preferred translation equivalent. However, translations done in the latter half of the 20 th century prefer the more generic term “overseer” or a functional equivalent. This apparent neutrality in selecting a more general term has, however, theological impli­ cations and may actually violate the principle of sola scriptura . The paper shows that the New Testament episkopo`~ functions as a term with meanings similar to its secular use in ancient times as well as its use in the Septuagint. It is suggested that the term boldly declares the colonisation of the kingdoms of men by the kingdom of God. Therefore the translation equivalent also needs to be a term with equivalent semantic content.


INTRODUCTION
In English Bible translations, the words bishop or overseer are used as transla tion equivalents for the New Testament office of the episkopos. The term bishop is derived from the Old English bisceop derived from the late Latin episcopus which, in turn, is derived from the late Greek word episkopos [a composite of epi (over) and skopos (from skeptestai, "to look at")] (Houghton 2004:1;OED 2005;Webster 1828). The term overseer is derived from epi + skopos = overseer or supervisor. Thus bishop is a transliteration, whereas overseer is a direct trans lation. Hence, from a linguistic perspective, both appear to be valid equivalents for the term episkopos.
This paper compares the use of these terms in English translations with that of episkopos in the Greek New Testament and the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), as well as its secular use in ancient Greece, in order to determine whether the English terms indeed function as equivalents. This is followed by an examination of intratextual and contextual evidence re garding the term episkopos. The paper is based primarily on linguistic grounds, although theological considerations are also dealt with. The research model is derived from Descriptive Translation Studies.

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
The research framework is derived from the branch of translation studies initiated by Gideon Toury (1980), who argued that studies of translations essentially amounted to investigations and descriptions of the differences or shifts between source (ST) and target (TT) texts. He broke away from previous perspectives in that he did not prescriptively impose a norm of what should be considered a cor rect translation, but instead regarded all translations as valid. This comparison is usually done in terms of a tertium comparationis (TC) (Kruger & Wallmach 1997:120), i.e. a set of factors against which both ST and TT elements are com pared. In this paper, the elements to be compared are restricted to semantic mean ing and the TC comprises the following factors, represented as a set of questions: Who gives the authority? •

How is it vested? •
Over whom is the authority exercised? • What is the nature of the authority? • What is the extent of the authority? • Bible translation (as translation of sacred text) differs from secular transla tion in that greater adherence to the ST is required. Thus any theoretical model applied to Bible translation must necessarily incorporate what Nord (1991:93) terms loyalty to the ST, i.e. the translator is not at liberty to adapt the text as s/he pleases, but instead is obliged to represent the ST elements within the mean ings and intentions of the original authors. This is highly significant in theological terms, since if the principle of sola scriptura is to be upheld, theology must be derived from, not woven into, the Scriptures, i.e. the translator should practice exegesis, not eisogesis. Therefore, in considering intra and extratextual evidence, this paper notes the extent to which the principle of sola scriptura is upheld.
The corpus consisted of 37 New Testament and 30 Old Testament trans lations, ranging from Wycliffe's translation in 1395 to recently published elec tronic versions (2006). They are listed in Appendix 1. Because of the nature of the work, most copies are in electronic format. Rick Meyer's concordance tool ESword proved an invaluable research aid.

EPISKOPOS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
The term episkopos (and related words) is used 10 times in the New Testa ment to designate a position of authority in the church, namely Acts 1:20, Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:12; 2 Tim 4:22; Tit 1:7; Tit 3:15; 1 Pet 2:25; 1 Pet 4:15; 1 Pet 5:2. The term used as translation equivalent was analysed for each refer ence. The most common translation equivalents were "bishop" and "overseer", followed by "elder" or "leader". The results are summarised in Table 1. In Acts 1:20, the reference is to the office: gegraptai gar en biblw falmwn genh htw h epauli~ autou erhmo~ kai mh estw o katoikwn en auth kai thn episkophn autou laboi eteroF or it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

1
The Greek text is given together with the King James translation for clarity. The electronic text used on ESWORD is Pierpoint and Robinson's Majority Text (1991).
The only instances where differences between the various Greek texts affected the present study were the additions in the Majority text for 2 Tim 4:22 and Tit 3:15, which are omitted in the critical texts (cf. Aland 1983) and therefore in most translations.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Most translations (54%) preferred the term overseer, with only 19% using bishop. This is influenced by the fact that the men are also referred to as presbyters in Acts 20:17. 2 In Philippians 1:1, the reference is again to the person, here contrasted with diakonos: Paulo~ kai; Timov qeo~, douloi Cristou, j Ihsou` pasi toi` aJ gioi~ ej n Cristw/ j Ihsou` toi` ou\ sin ej n Filiv ppoi~ su; n ej piskov poi~ kai; diakov noiP aul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: The majority (43%) of translations preferred the term bishop, with 35% using the term overseer.
In 1 Timothy 3:1, the reference is to the office: Pisto; oJ lov go~ ei] ti~ ej piskoph` oj rev getai, kalou` e] rgou ej piqumei. This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
In 1 Timothy 3:2, the reference is to the person: dei` ou\ n to; n ej piv skopon aj nepiv lhmpton ei\ nai, mia` gunaiko; a] ndra, nhfav lion, swv frona, kov smion, filov xenon, didaktikov n, A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 2 These verses serve to argue the equivalence of the two terms. An alternative argu ment is that a bishop is a particular rank of presbyter. After the first century, the latter perception predominated.
The following Scriptures only appeared in two older translations. In both cases, the term is translated as bishop. aspazontai se oi met emou pante~ aspasai tou~ filounta~ hma~ en pistei h cari~ meta pantwn umwn. amhn [pro~ titon th~ krhtwn ekklhsia~ prwton episkopon ceirotonhqenta egrafh apo niko-polew~ th~ makedonia~] All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen. [It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.] In 1 Peter 2:25, the reference is to Christ as our episkopos: h\ te ga; r wJ prov bata planwv mena, aj ll j ej pestrav fhte nuǹ ej pi; to; n poimev na kai; ej piv skopon twǹ yucwǹ uJ mwǹ.
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shep herd and Bishop of your souls.
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind … Translators made no attempt to match the verbal form to the term bishop, preferring instead "oversight" (54%) or a more general term, e.g. "care" (32%).
Applying the tertium comparationis to the above Scriptures, we deduce, firstly, that the episkopos derived his authority from God (a supreme ruler) through the apostles (Acts 20:28; Tit 1:7).
Thirdly, it is evident that the episkopoi exercise their authority over the local church, i.e. Christian believers (1 Pet 5:2).
Fourthly, the nature of the authority is primarily pastoral: he is likened to a shepherd (1 Tim 3:5; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:2). He acts as guardian over the local be lievers' spiritual welfare as well as guardian and propagator of the truth (2 Tim 1:1314; 2:2). He is also responsible for church discipline (cf. Tit 2:15).
Fifthly, the extent of his authority is spiritual only (cf. 1 Tim 3:5). He is to have no secular interest in money or power (1 Tim 3:3). Moreover, whereas disobedi ence to apostolic authority could result in death (cf. Acts 5), the authority of the episkopos is limited to rebuke and excommunication (cf. 1 Cor 5:5; Tit 2:15). It is also evident that the jurisdiction of the episcopate varied: an episkopos could be in charge of a region (e.g. Titus was first episkopos for the whole of Crete), a city (Timothy was first episkopos of Ephesus) or merely a local church (e.g. there was more than one episkopos in Phillipi) (cf. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.4).

ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF EPISKOPOS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
In the translations, it is evident that overseer competes with bishop as transla tion equivalent for episkopos. It is also evident that even though bishop was the most popular choice in the references in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, the majority of translations do not use the term consistently.
Moreover, when the translations were analysed chronologically, it was found that although bishop was the most popular translation equivalent in ear lier years, since the latter half of the twentieth century it has been increasingly avoided. Between 1949 and 1995 only three translations preferred bishop to overseer as translation equivalent (namely The Bible in Basic English, the 21 st Century King James Version and God's Word). After 1995, no translation used bishop as translation equivalent, thereby prompting the title of this paper: where have the bishops gone?
Arguments against the use of bishop can be grouped according to linguis tic, theological/intertextual or historical grounds.

LINGUISTIC ARGUMENTS
The need for a specific term was attacked. It is claimed that: was a general term in ancient Greece meaning overseer and thus not unique to the New Testament (Barnes 1798;Orr 1939).

episkopos
• was also merely a general term for overseer in the Septuagint (Barnes 1798;Orr 1939;PMI 2005:16). Therefore, it is argued, the generic translation "overseer" is preferable to the specific term "bishop".
In order to investigate these arguments, it is necessary to investigate the use of the word episkopos in ancient Greek writings and the Septuagint, as well as the use of overseer as translation equivalent in the Old Testament.

Episkopos in Ancient Greece
An analysis of the occurrences of the term episkopos in ancient Greek writings provided a number of instances. The term was used by Homer to describe both Hector of Troy and the gods (Barclay 2001;Iliad 22.255). It was also used to designate certain guardian gods of treaties and agreements (Plutarch, Cam. 5 in Barclay 1969:281;Orr 1939), protectors of homes (e.g. Justice) and in Plato's laws to describe the Guardians of the State (Barclay 2001). Similarly, Plato's market stewards (equivalent to our police force) who "supervise personal con duct, so as to punish him who needs punishment" are termed episkopoi (Bar clay 2001). In ancient Athens, the term designated governors and administra tors sent out to oversee colonies or subject states (Barclay 1969:281;Bakker 2007:7;Rapp 2000:379;Steiner 2001:625) and in Rhodes, the Chief magistrates (Rapp 2000:381). In Rome the term was used for magistrates who oversaw the re venues of pagan temples (Douglas & Hillyer 1962:146). Other uses of episkopos included special delegates who ensured that the king's law was carried out as well as city administrators and inspectors, especially over financial affairs (Rapp 2000:379;Steiner 2001:625).
In terms of the TC, the episkopos's authority is delegated by a supreme power such as the emperor, king or god (cf. Bakker 2007:7). It is vested by ap pointment to a special office. The episkopos ruled in the name of the supreme authority over the latter's subjects, who were citizens of the mother city or inhabitants of subject colonies. This authority was used to protect the just, ad minister lands and finances, maintain law and order and punish offenders (cf. Barclay 1969:281). The nature of his authority was both positive and negative. Authority over humans extended to exile and even capital punishment (cf. Plato's The Apology of Socrates in Eliot 1969:27).
It is evident that the episkopos was a specific office, not just a general term for overseer. He ruled as delegate of a supreme authority, primarily directing the affairs of men.
We then examine the occurrences of the term in the Septuagint.

Episkopos in the Old Testament
The following nine references were found for episkopos in the LXX: Numbers 4:16; Judges 9:28; 2 Chronicles 34:12, 17; Nehemiah 11:9, 14, 22; 12:42; Isaiah 60:17. The results are summarised in Table 2. For each reference, the percent age of translations (of the 30 translations in the corpus) that translated episkopos as "overseer" is also given. (Their relevance is discussed in paragraph 5.3.) It is evident from these references that the word episkopos in the LXX trans lation was restricted to priests, Levites (a priestly clan) and city governors. In only one case it is used figuratively (Isa 60: 17), in which case St Ireneaus (episkopos of Lyons, AD 188) reinterpreted it in a Christian context to designate Christian episkopoi. Therefore, the writers of the LXX used the word exclusively for those who governed the conquered territory of Israel (in accordance with its secular use) or the house of God. In terms of the TC, the authority is delegated by God in the case of priests and Levites or by a conquering ruler in the case of the governors. The authority is vested by appointment to a specific office, and in terms of the priests and Levites, by appointment and birth lineage. Whereas the governors ruled the inhabitants of the subject colony of Israel, the priests and Levites ex ercised oversight over God's people (the Jews) and His Temple. In both cases, the episkopos had legal jurisdiction over men as well as administrative rights. This authority in both cases was both positive and negative in nature. The go vernors upheld law and order, but could also execute offenders. Similarly, the priests and Levites ensured God's commandments were obeyed and cared for the spiritual needs of God's people. According to Jewish Law, the priestly clans also had the right to punish offenders by excommunication (cf. Lev 18:29). 3 The LXX either echoed Greek secular usage or used the term to designate the administrators of God's House. In both cases they therefore indicate a spe cific term.
The above results were then compared to references to overseers in the Old Testament.

Old Testament overseers
The corpus of 30 translations of the Old Testament was searched for all possible references to overseers. In all, 43 verses were found that used overseer as trans lation equivalent. From the investigation, it was evident that overseer was used for a multitude of responsibilities, including: herders of livestock; sellers of pancakes; property stewards; agricultural ministers; herdsmen; slavedrivers; priests and levites; temple guards; those carrying out temple duties; temple officials; those in charge of division of land; foremen; palace officials; city governors; those involved in temple reconstruction; army commanders; treasurers; tribal chiefs; choir direc tors; harem managers; the abstract concepts of peace and justice; eunuch court officials; palace stewards; guards. It is evident that while some of these functions corresponded to the LXX concepts of episkopos, overseer is used in a far broader sense to mean anyone with delegated authority, however menial the task, and not necessarily over humans. Thus it is generic rather than a specific term.
The words overseer and oversight were then tabulated for each Bible, firstly as a percentage of the total 43 readings, then as a percentage over the read ings for episkopos, and finally as a percentage of coincidences when overseer was used as translation equivalent where the LXX used episkopos. (For this survey, the figurative use of episkopos in Isa 60:17 was left out.) It was found that translations that showed high coincidences with episkopos also showed a tendency to use overseer far more frequently than the LXX used episkopos, and hence as a general word, not specifically as an equivalent for episkopos. (Since most translators use the Hebrew text as ST, it is not surprising that the transla tors exhibit little sensitivity towards the frequency of a term in the LXX.) Texts using Simplified English tended to avoid the use of overseer in both Testaments, thereby not employing it as a translation equivalent of episkopos. The New International Version appears to reserve the word to its New Testa ment usage. Only the Geneva Bible and the Amplified Bible used overseer as translation equivalent to episkopos consistently in both Testaments.
In conclusion, it is evident that overseer is used by most Bible translators in a general sense to denote any person with delegated responsibility, whether over pancakes, buildings or men. In contrast, the term episkopos in the LXX is restricted to those having authority over God's house or city governors.

INTRATEXTUAL ARGUMENTS
From the literature, a number of objections based on interpretations of the New Testament were found against the use of a specific office of authority. Although the objections were theological in nature, from a linguistic perspective the inves tigation of intertextual agreement amounts to the examination of the immediate linguistic context of the ST word, or, in other words, contextual factors (cf. Baker 1992:228).
Firstly, it is argued that the New Testament does not really provide teach ing on church government (Douglas & Hillyer 1962: 207;Erickson 1985Erickson :1084. However, this ignores the teachings found in the books of Titus, Timothy, Peter and Acts (as outlined above), as well as the writings of early Church Fathers and the oral and practical traditions of the early Church (e.g. as outlined in the Didache (cf. Bettenson 1963:66).
Secondly, according to Erickson (1985Erickson ( :1085, the apostles never instituted such a formalised, highly developed structure of government. Yet we see Paul encouraging Titus and Timothy to appoint leaders in order to propagate what has become termed the apostolic succession (cf. 2 Tim 2:2; Tit 1:5). More over, as discussed above, it is evident that the apostles appointed three dif ferent sets of clergy, namely episkopoi (cf. 1 Tim 1:6), presbyteroi (Acts 14:23) and diakonoi (Acts 6:6).
Thirdly, according to Pratt (in Orr 1939), the New Testament Church did not distinguish between laity and clergy. This argument ignores the three ranks above and their details on ordination. Moreover, in Acts 20:28, St Paul con vened a special meeting with clergy only.
Fourthly, according to Erickson (1985Erickson ( :1079, "the apostles made recom mendations and gave advice, but exercised no real rulership or control". In con trast, we read of the man handed over to Satan (1 Cor 5:5) and the deaths of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:5), as well as the assurances of apostolic power in 1 Tim 3:2 and Tit 1:7. The apostles therefore exercised a very real authority over the churches.
Fifthly, according to Erickson (1985Erickson ( :1081, Jesus denounced rank in favour of democracy in Matt 23:8. However, this ignores the fact that Christ esta blished a kingdom, not a democracy (cf. John 18:36). He therefore denounced the abuses of rank, not the structure.
Sixthly, according to Erickson (1985Erickson ( :1081, the early church decided mat ters through consensus, not through a single person. This statement is based on the council of Acts 15:22. However, this council was a council of Apostles only, thus this consensus in Acts 15 was a consensus of apostles only! A similar argument is that authority to discipline belongs to the group as a whole, not just one man (cf. Erickson 1985Erickson :1078. What is being objected to here is autocratic rule, not the actual validation of the office. In fact, in 1 Cor 5:5 we read that the church together with the apostle/bishop is involved in discipline. However, the highly individual nature of John 20:23 ("whose sins you remit") cannot be ignored.
Seventhly, according to Erickson (1985Erickson ( :1084, the type of church govern ment depended on the type of community, thus it differed from place to place. However, Acts 14:23 states that the apostles appointed elders in every town. Moreover, Paul emphatically underlines unity of practice in 1 Cor 3:4; 4:17 ("what I teach in every church"). This is further disproved in the next section.
Moreover, according to Erickson (1985Erickson ( :1074, the episcopate denies the direct lordship of Christ over His Church. This argument does not distinguish between those whom Christ called (termed apostles) and those trustworthy men entrusted with guarding the truth of the faith (i.e. episkopoi). In contrast, the office of the episcopate ensures the purity of Christ's teachings and guards against the dangers of false apostles. A similar claim is that bishops deny the "priesthood of all believers" (Erickson 1985:1085 cf. 1 Pet 2:9). Again, this aris es from the failure to distinguish between the general priesthood of all believers and the special priesthood (clergy) ordained after the patterns recorded in the book of Acts. Making "every man an apostle" simply leads to arrogance, heresy and the consequent multiplication of sects as each expounds his own subjective version of the truth, as St Irenaeus warned in 188 AD (Adv. Haereses 4.28).
A final objection is that clergy was chosen by the laity, not from above. However, as discussed above, it was a joint procedure in which the laity chose candidates and presented them to the apostles who ordained them (Acts 6:6; 14:23). Moreover (as discussed above), St Paul in his epistles instructs both Timothy and Titus to ordain other worthy men.
We see that the New Testament church in fact had clergy or presbuteroi (literally, elders, from which is derived the transliteration, priests). Moreover, a distinction is made between episkopoi or senior elders (to whom were de legated apostolic authority) and diakonoi (cf. Phil 1:1). Thus intertextual evi dence does not refute a hierarchical structure.
We turn now to an examination of the historical context of the early church.

HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST "BISHOP"
The following arguments have been put forward based on early church his tory. Erickson (1985Erickson ( :1074) raises three objections: firstly, that the early church decided matters through consensus (Acts 15:22), not through a hierarchical structure; secondly, that apostolic succession is just a theory without any real evidence; thirdly, that the type of church government depended on the type of community; it differed from place to place.
In order to investigate these objections, we need to examine church govern ment in the first four centuries. This period can be divided into three eras, namely the apostolic missionary church, the persecuted church and the State church.
The missionary church (AD 33100) was characterised by the apostles and apostolic delegation of authority through ordination (cf. Walker 1985:34). Its pri mary documentary evidence is the New Testament itself (discussed above). However the letters of St Clement, Bishop of Rome (AD 6897) are also primary sources of this era. According to St Clement: The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders … they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards be lieve. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their dea cons in faith" … Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason … they appointed those already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry (1 Ep. ad Corinth. 42,45).
St Clement confirms the twofold New Testament offices of bishops and deacons (cf. Walker 1985:47;Webster 1828).
The second stage of the church (AD 100300) was characterised by fierce persecution and the rise of the episkopoi as the successors of the apostles. One of the earlier manuscripts of this time, the Didache, which is ascribed to be of Syrian origin from the beginning of the second century, also confirms the above twofold hierarchy of episkopoi and diakonoi (Chapter XV, Bettenson 1963:66;Walker 1985:42, 48). However, St Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (AD 107) indicates a threetiered hierarchy of the local church, with supreme au thority vested in the episkopos: I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me ... As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, be ing united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters (Ep. ad Magnes. 6,7).
... Let no one do any of the things which concern the Church without the Bishop (Ep. ad Smyrn. 8).
Moreover, according to St Ignatius, each local community, gathered round its Bishop, is the Church in its fullness. The presence of the episkopos validated all sacraments and activities: See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid (Ep. ad. Phil 8).
By the time of St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 188), apostolic succession was a dogma of the church (cf. Walker 1985:49;Bettenson 1963:68). St Ire naeus confirms the three tiered hierarchy as a mark of the true Church: (It is interesting to note that already in AD 188 there were those who rejected the hierarchical structure.) By the time of St Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (AD 258), Christianity had spread over the entire Roman Empire. The episcopate, like the Christian Church, was viewed as a single body composed of many members (cf. Walker 1985:83). There were many episcopoi but one episcopate; many churches, but only one Church: The episcopate is a single whole, in which each bishop enjoys full possession. So is the Church a single whole, though it spreads far and wide into a multitude of churches as its fertility increases (De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 5).
The third period saw the consolidation of Christianity as state religion af ter St Constantine's conversion (Walker 1985:125). This time of peace saw the rise of metropolitans (presiding bishops of regional councils) of Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch and the institution of ecumenical councils (conventions to which all episkopoi were invited) to solve issues that arose (Ware 1963(Ware :2638cf. Walker 1985:101). In AD 325, the Council of Nicea (First Ecumenical Council), apart from condemning the heresy of Arianism and formulating the Nicene Creed, also accorded the metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem special honour (Canon VI) (cf. Walker 1985:134136;Ware 1963:30). At the Council of Chalcedon (Second Ecu menical Council) in AD 451, the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were termed patriarchs (Ware 1963:34). Although the hierarchical system of ecclesiastical organisation was now complete, disputes of doctrine were not solved by a council of patriarchs or metropolitans, but by a council of all bishops. During this period, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea Pal estine, wrote his History of the Christian Church (Crusé 1892) (ca AD 330). It details the succession of bishops from apostolic times, especially in the above five sees (e.g. Hist. Eccl. 3.4;4.1,4,5,10,19,20;5.7;7.2,etc.). It is Eusebius, for example, who confirms the Majority Text readings: Timothy, indeed, is recorded as having first received the episcopate at Ephesus, as Titus also was appointed over the churches in Crete (Hist. Eccl. 3.4).
In the first four centuries of Christianity there was a single universal Church 4 governed by the same pattern of a threetiered hierarchy (cf. Walker 1985: 47, 98), namely episkopoi, presbyteroi and diakonoi (cf. St Paul's claim in Acts 14:23; 1 Cor 3:4; 4:17). From apostolic times, issues of the church were solved by a consensus of bishops at regional and supranational councils. Finally, the above quotes and Eusebius' detailed history refute the objection that there is no real evidence of apostolic succession. Moreover, both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches keep welldocumented updated records of apostolic succession dating from the apostles to the present (cf. Patriarchate of Alexan dria 2006).
It must be noted that the reluctance to accept an episcopal structure lies in the fear of the abuse of power, which was indelibly printed onto later Church history though medieval Catholic excesses such as the Pope's insistence on infallibility, the Crusades and the Inquisition (cf. Ware 1963:5181). Indeed, one of the main differences between the Christian episkopos and his secular Greek counterpart was the extent of his authority. The Christian episkopos is denied secular power 4 The above quotes represent churches in Rome, Middle East, Gaul and Africa, i.e. over the whole Roman Empire.
as well as the right to exercise capital punishment. In contrast, he has to be truly holy, humble and altruistic. According to Ware (1963:35), "Rome's mistake … has been to turn this primacy or 'presidency of love' into a supremacy of external power and jurisdiction." As a result, communion was broken between Rome and the other four Patriarchates, which became known as the (Eastern) Orthodox Church (cf. Ware 1963:69). Similarly, the later rise of Protestantism and the rejec tion of episcopalean structures of government can be understood as reactions to the Catholic Church's abuse of power. However, the abuse of authority does not negate the Scriptural pattern of church government.
In the light of the above, it is of value to consider present forms of church government and the ways they may impact on translation choices.

PRESENT FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT
At present, three main forms of church government are practiced in Christian churches, namely Episcopalian, Presbyterian and congregational government (Erickson 1985:10691082).
In an Episcopalian structure, authority is vested in the bishop or episkopos (Erickson 1985(Erickson :1070. Authority is received from Christ through the apostles and transmitted throughout generations through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim 4:14) (i.e. apostolic succession). Three different levels of ordination are recognised, namely bishop, priest and deacon (Acts 6:6; 14:23). The bishop supervises a group of churches or a region. He is the presbyter of the presby ters and ordains other priests through the laying on of hands. He is charged with safeguarding the Church against heresy from within and without; exercising dis cipline and administering the sacraments (which he can also de legate). He is regarded as the representative (icon) of Christ. Different levels of bishop may also be recognised, e.g. bishop, archbishop, cardinal/metropolitan and patriarch/ pope. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican (Church of England) and Method ist churches have an Episcopalian form of government. (Not all, however, can claim both apostolic succession and disinterest in secular power.) The Presbyterian structure is based on the Jewish synogogal system, in which authority is vested in a group of elders (presbyters) (cf. Erickson 1985Erickson :1074. The terms bishop (episkopos) and elder (presbyter) are regarded as synony mous. Nor do they claim apostolic succession. The elders are chosen by the local congregation (i.e. elected from below). Those affirmed by the local church represent God's own choice. There is a deliberate coordination of clergy and laity in that Christ's authority is regarded as resting on the individual, who in turn delegates it to the elder. Distinctions are made between ruling elders (laity) and teaching elders (clergy), who together make up the session or consistory which governs the local church. Regions are governed by a presbytery or classis composed of lay and clergy representatives from each local church. The presbyter ies in turn chose equal numbers of laity and clergy to make up the Synod and General Assembly. Administrative posts (e.g. stated clerk of the presbytery) are filled by laity. Churches having a Presbyterian form of church government include the Presbyterian and Reformed denominations.
A congregational structure of church government is based on the con cept of "the priesthood of all believers" (cf. Lk 22:2527; Matt 23:8). Author ity is vested in the individual. Congregational structures emphasise autonomy and democracy (cf. Erickson 1985Erickson :1078: each local church is selfgoverning through democratic vote. All believers are regarded as equal, thus no distinc tion between special and general priesthood is made. Hence the concept of apostolic succession and thereby the episcopate is rejected. Interchurch is sues are decided democratically by representatives from each church through voluntary associations (e.g. the Baptist Union) and assemblies. There is only one level of clergy, the minister, who is elected by the local church and whose authority is restricted to an advisory role only. Local churches may also elect lay elders and deacons. These distinctions are primarily functional, although some denominations regard deacons as ranked lower than elders. Denomina tions having congregationalist structures include Baptists, Congregationalists and certain Lutheran churches.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is evident from the TC that the New Testament episkopos was similar to his secular Greek counterpart in that his authority was delegated by a supreme ruler (God) and vested through ordination (i.e. appointment to a spe cial office). Similarly, his authority extended over the subjects of the supreme ruler (in this case, Christians) and was, like his secular counterpart, primarily a guardianship of law and truth, for the protection and care of obedient subjects and for the punishment of the disobedient. However, contrary to his secular counterpart, the disciplinary power of the Christian episkopos was restricted to excommunication and he was divorced from secular power. Therefore its use in the New Testament is a logical extension of its secular use.
An even greater similarity can be seen between the LXX designation of the Jewish priests and Levites as episkopoi and the New Testament usage. In both cases, they governed God's house and people, protected His laws and ordinances and provided primarily spiritual care and guardianship to be lievers. The New Testament term is a logical extension of its LXX usage. A weakness in almost every translation is the lack of linkage between Old and New Testament occurrences of episkopos (most likely due to the reliance on the Hebrew Masoretic Text.) It can be concluded that the New Testament writers imported a specific term with related connotations of delegated authority. The New Testament episkopos can be regarded as God's regent. (In fact, the New Testament writ ers restrict the term to its ecclesiastical use only: although Israel was then a Roman colony, the local governors mentioned in the gospels and the Book of Acts are not termed episkopoi, thereby breaking with the LXX practice.) It is suggested that the application of the term to the leaders of the church can be viewed as a bold declaration of the colonisation of the kingdoms of men by the Kingdom of God and of the victory and reality of God's Kingdom.
It is concluded that the New Testament references should be translated by a specific term. Although bishop and overseer are both valid equivalents from a lin guistic perspective, it is clear from the above investigations that overseer is used as a generic word by most Bible translators and thereby does not have the status of a specific term. In contrast (apart from Wycliffe's overly zealous translation), bishop is a term restricted entirely to the New Testament use of episkopos.
Furthermore, the need for a specific term is supported by both intertextual and historical evidence (i.e. translation in context). In this sense, bishop is more appropriate, not only since it is the term chosen in the earliest English translations, but because it has entered and remained in the English language as the term designating an ordained official of the Christian Church with apos tolically derived authority. It is understandable that for many it has negative connotations. However, any alternative equivalent must be able to maintain the status of a term. In this sense, some translations have opted to translate both episkopos and presbyter as "elder". However, apart from losing the con notations between the New Testament, secular and LXX usages of episkopos, this also masks ST distinctions between the two terms. Other translations use the term "church leader", which again not only loses the link of episkopos with its secular and LXX usages, but also masks almost the entire semantic content of episkopos as evident in the TC, namely the source, means and nature of his authority, as well as the concept of apostolic succession.
Finally, it must be concluded that the primary objection to the use of bishop as translation equivalent is based more on theological grounds than on trans lation principles, i.e. that translators object in principle to a hierarchical struc ture of church government and thereby reinterpret the ST in terms of their own presbyterian or congregational viewpoints, rather than in terms of cotextual and contextual factors. This can be viewed as a type of cultural substitution. However, in doing so, Bible translators violate the principle of sola scriptura, namely that it is the biblical text that should provide the theology, not vice versa. It is therefore ironic that in seeking to distance themselves from pre Reformation church government structures, the translators violate the very principle that defined the Protestant Reformation.