> Late Latin episcopus in Spanish became obispo, in Italian vescovo, in Welsh esgob. The Germanic forms include Old Saxon biscop, Old High German biscof.
Episkopos literally changed over time into the English transliteration of Bishop.
You are misusing transliteration and, more importantly, making the error of assuming that because something is the etymological root of a term that it can have had no other meaning when it was written than that term for which it is the root.
Yes. Episkopos is where we get “bishop" and presbuteros is where we get “priest”, but their use for distinct positions in the heirarchy of orders are newer than the NT itself, in which they are used more loosely and apparently, at least in some cases interchangeably.
Confusing knowing etymology (either forward or backward) for knowing meaning in context is a common, but potentially very serious, error.
You argued that I was mistranslating. I showed that the etymology and transliteration made a mistranslation effectively impossible. You then completely ignore the evidence to make up an assertion about changing semantics with ZERO proof (even though the burden of proof is on you).
The only reason the word bishop exists in English is because we needed a loan word for episkopos. It has served that purpose and in the religious context has had no significant change in semantics.
As to your assertion that bishop and priest are different, you are wrong even from the Catholic framework (and completely wrong from a Protestant framework). Here's a quote from Thomas Aquinas about 1 Tim 3:1
> But since Dionysius declares that there are three orders, namely, bishops who rule, priests who enlighten, and deacons who cleanse, why does the Apostle make no mention of priests?
> The answer is that priests are included under the term, bishop, not as though the two orders are not really distinct, but only nominally. For priest is the same as elder, and bishop the same as overseer. Hence priests and bishops are indiscriminately called both bishops and priests.
> As to your assertion that bishop and priest are different, you are wrong even from the Catholic framework (and completely wrong from a Protestant framework). Here's a quote from Thomas Aquinas about 1 Tim 3:1
Aquinas is writing a narrative more than 1,000 years after the fact rationalizing how it is possible for the biblical narrative to be consistent with the order observed later. He does a very good job of that. It is not, in the slightest, evidence that the three-orders system and the particular roles assigned to each—which has evolved considerably over time since it is first clearly attested within the Catholic Church, without even considering what Protestants and newer movements claiming the title "Christian" have done with it —actually existed at the time of the NT and was being referenced therein.
This makes no fundamental argument aside from "we decided to change things to be different from what is in the Bible".
The clear reference was to the overseer of a church or what would be considered a pastor or priest. All bishops are priests.
Mark 10:8-9 KJV
[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
[9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
This shows that even if you considered bishops to be a new creation, they shouldn't abandon their family for the position. And of course, the order of deacons isn't necessary of commentary as it is specifically addressed in the next part of 1 Tim 3.
I am the one who argued you might be mistranslating (not the person you just replied to), and I am now somewhat convinced that you are, and that the intent of 1 Tim was to discuss church leaders in a more general sense than the modern term of "bishop." The etymology bears very little weight on the actual meaning of the translation. Lots of words change meaning over time.
Your quote of Aquinas also appears to disagree with you, and takes "episkopos" more generally than the modern usage of "bishop." It actually seems that the catholic bishops may have adopted a word that was in common use for an overseer of a parish.
More recent translations and scholarly commentaries all turn away from the "episkopos" = "bishop" idea. Again, the literal translation of "episkopos" is "overseer."
Aquinas takes it in the only sense that would make sense if you could. These verses discuss the overseer of a church and the rest of the chapter discusses the requirements to be a deacon of a church. The two are completely linked by the context.
Because it is discussing churches, it would be saying that priests must be married. As all bishops are priests, it would apply to them as well.
Even if you took the broader position that it must apply elsewhere, the Catholic Church has only three orders -- deacon, priest, and bishop. These verses MUST be discussing either priest or bishop meaning at least one of those two is not following what Paul wrote.
> Late Latin episcopus in Spanish became obispo, in Italian vescovo, in Welsh esgob. The Germanic forms include Old Saxon biscop, Old High German biscof.
Episkopos literally changed over time into the English transliteration of Bishop.