I hope you all will be mature enough not to take offense that these documents make references to "church." Remember: the institution is more important than the name. We want to build healthy communities so we can nurture the broader community, reach the unsaved, feed the hungry, provide shelter to the homeless, clothe the naked, take care of the widows. Keep your eyes on the goal. This is just one example of how to articulate the principles for establishing a local community. The Ruach is our ultimate authority.
Here are the links to both documents:
Principles of Local Community
Theology of Compassion
I do not want to unnecessarily offend. If you would tell me what the preferred term to "church" is and I can use it while remaining intellectually honest, I'll be happy to do so.
ReplyDeleteBless you, brother. You are very humble. Mind you, I don't see this as a big issue but, since you asked, the preferred term might be something more culturally neutral (e.g. congregation, community, etc). If you'd like me to, I can certainly update it at any time.
DeleteYou can if you like. I will try to use the more inoffensive term, but wonder how folks who are offended by such things would like us to translate "ekklesia"? Odd.
ReplyDelete
DeleteTranslating is a very difficult task. I have a lot of admiration for Christian translators of the Bible. They have to translate Greek terms as best they can, trying to take the nuanced Hebraic context into account. Words like ekklesia (which in Acts 7:38 refers to the kahal of Israel in Dt. 9:10; 10:4; 18:16) are difficult to translate in that there are no precisely equivalent words in the English language. Neither Greek or English have terms that fully capture the nuanced socio-political-relgious dimensions of the wonderful term "kahal." For this reason I applaud the best efforts of the translators.
For this reason it's frustrating when people focus to much on a term and even become offended. They should take a lesson from the Christian translators--we do the best we can. "Church" is as good a term as any to translate the concept of "kahal."
Only that the scholarly consensus is that the word "Church" is derived from the Greek "kuriakos," Not "ekklesia."
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree, brother Benzvi. Though some philologists may choose to trace the word "church's" origins to kuriakos, I believe there is no basis for such a hypothesis. There are only two occasions when kuriakos arises (1 Corinthians 11:20 and Revelation 1:10) and in neither case is it related to people. The word means "belonging to or related to the Lord". The occasion first is "the Lord's Supper" and the second is "the Lord's day".
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't mind being referred to as "the Lord's". In fact I'd be thrilled! Nevertheless, ekklesia occurs 111 times and is universally translated with words that focus on the PEOPLE of God (assembly, church, congregation etc).
English is not my first language, I speak several languages and my MOS in the Marines was cryptolinguist. So I'm well aware of the limitations of the English language. But I think that it's linguistically unsound to try to use words like congregation or synagogue or whatever, when the Greek word has already been assigned a perfectly good English noun that everyone understands and that pretty much every Bible translation uses.
I'm all for being a "Jew to the Jews and an Greek to the Greek" but not to the point of intellectual dishonesty. If we are caught doing that we will lose both the Jew and the Greek.
As you said, "Kuriakos" means "of the Lord." Its early use referred to things belonging to the Lord ("day of the Lord" or "table of the Lord") 1 Cor. 11:20; Rev. 1:10.
ReplyDeleteEventually by the 3rd and 4th Centuries the word was applied to a "Church" building as "belonging to the Lord" and thus a sacred place. This may be seen in Eusebius who notes that Christians were given permission "to build Churches."
This is not what the word "Ekklesia mean in the Apostolic writing.
May I ask how you would render ekklesia then?
DeleteYour question to Dan made me curious how ekklesia is rendered in the literal versions of the New Testament. Young's Literal Translation says:
Delete"'This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the messenger who is speaking to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers who did receive the living oracles to give to us;" (Acts 7:38).
So this is confusing to me. Why does the literal translation differ? I need to do some research...
Well this is weird for sure. I never realized this before but there are a ton of English translations (NIV, ESV, etc) that translate ekklesia as something other than church:
Deletehttp://bible.cc/acts/7-38.htm
For the Apostles "Ekklesia simply meant "a gathering," or "an assembly of people for a common purpose." (See BDAG, ad. loc., 303-04 where "a regularly summoned legislative body, assembly" is the first meaning given.
ReplyDeleteI can go deeper if you want.
I'd like to find some scholarly papers on this... Does anyone know of anything offhand?
DeleteI just consulted a very old etymological dictionary (1895). Under the entry for church on page 81 it says:
ReplyDelete"Church. (Gk.) M.E. chirche, chireche. A.S. cyrice, cirice, later circe (whence E. kirk). --Gk. [kuriakon], a church, neut. of [kuriakos], belonging to the Lord. --Gk. kurios, a lord, orig. mighty. ...The Icel. kirkja, G. kirche, & c. are borrowed from A.S." pg. 81
This is truly bizarre. Why would translators try to replace ekklesia with an anglo-saxon translation of kuriakon? I'll wager that it had to do with politics. Thanks, Dan, for bringing this to our attention.
I have to go get ready for Shabbat but we can all talk more about this later. I wouldn't want to act without everyone reaching a consensus. Blessings to all. Shabbat Shalom!
Shavua tov, brothers. I'd like to reiterate that I know "church" can be etymologically traced back to kuriakos. I said so. My point is not based on the Greek. My point is based on English. My thought is that there is not a superior word to use to represent the concept of ekklesia in English than "church" or "congregation".
ReplyDeleteLet me give you an example from my days as a linguist. I had a general for whom I translated who liked to use idioms. He would refer to someone as "crooked as a dog's hind leg." How do I translate that into French? I could say, in French, "He thinks the guy is dishonest." Or, if I'm a superior translator I'll use a French idiom to means the same thing. That gives my listeners not only the denotation but also the connotation (the flavor) of the word.
I think we need to be careful about being so anxious to distance ourselves from Evangelical Protestantism that we begin setting aside perfectly good words that carry the denotation and the connotation of the original word, simply because it's not sufficiently Hebraic. Just as we do not want to unnecessarily alienate our Hebrew brothers, we also do not want to alienate our Gentile brothers. In the desire to develop a different culture, a counter-culture, let's not make the same mistakes the gender neutral people have made with the Holy Scriptures.
There is a historical story here we need to consider:
DeleteKing James knew that the term ekklesia referred to the representative-democratic government of ancient Greece, a political ideology which was directly opposed to England's monarchy:
"...(ecclesia) was the name given to the governmental assembly of the city of Athens, duly convoked (called out) by proper officers and possessing all political power including even juridical functions," (Encyclopedia Britannica).
So in order to ensure that the King's authority over the sphere of religion remained absolute and unquestioned, King James ordered the translators to purposefully mistranslate ekklesia so that the true form of government would not be conveyed, the true form being a federated assembly.
What if there was a way to be inclusive of Protestants and also communicate the truth of the ekklesia's federal structure?
Cajun,
ReplyDeleteHow do account for Romans 16:18?
"I will build My ekklesia..." Do you think the ekklesia is something New, in the future?
Romans 16:17-18 HCSB Now I implore you, brothers, watch out for those who cause dissensions and pitfalls contrary to the doctrine you have learned. Avoid them; 18 for such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.
DeleteI'm sorry, brother Dan, I'm apparently slow on the uptake. Are saying that I'm causing dissensions and pitfalls and should be avoided or that those who say the assembly of the tzaddikim should be addressed as "church" should be avoided? I don't get the Romans 16:18 reference. I'm hoping that you mean Matthew 16:18. :-)
As to ekklesia being something new, yes and no. I think that Hashem does not change so His fundamental plan does not change. He remains. Those who obey His mitzvoth (including accepting His Messiah) are His. Those who rebel, regardless of their genetic origin, remain beyond the pale of grace. There are also certain practical elements that remain: there were elders and officers in the Old, there are elders and deacons in the New. We supported the Tabernacle and Temple in the Old with our monies, and we continue to do so in the New.
Having said that, there are some things that are new and different. The operations of the Ruach ha Kodesh for instance; coming and going in the Old Covenant, remaining permanently and sealing to the Day of Redemption in the New.
If you don't mind me asking, what changed about the ekklesia?
DeleteWhat do you mean by supporting what you called a New Temple with our money?
The Ruach remaining permanently? What do you mean?
May I say to you both that I appreciate a good conversation on meaningful, spiritual, theological issues that doesn't quickly degenerate into a maelstrom of strident ad hominem abusive.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the gift of shared time and wisdom.
Cajun, it is a true pleasure and honor to converse with you. We need more men like you in the Body.
DeleteOoopppsss...Of course it is Matt. 16:18.
ReplyDeleteTodah rabbah, Peter. So, allow me to yield on this issue and see where it goes. If we were to steer clear of using the word "church" in our letters, responsa, covenants, etc (which is what I'm assuming the point of this conversation is?) I again ask what English word you would suggest to translate ekklesia?
ReplyDeleteAssembly
Body
Congregation
Disciples
Flock
Gathering
Host
House
Or would you use something Hebrew and teach people a particular meaning you'd like to emphasize?
Hassidim – Pious ones
Haredim – Lit., “Those who tremble in fear of God.”
Talmidim – Disciples
Tzaddikim – the righteous
Before deciding on a term we'd have to consider the following question: what is our goal with the translation?
DeleteIf our goal is to perfectly transmit meaning, then we could use Hebraic terms; If our goal is to balance clarity with diplomacy, then we could use a generic term such as "Assembly."
I lean towards the latter goal, that of balancing clarity with diplomacy. But I'm open to different approaches. What does everyone else think?
To my mind, "assembly" keeps us from having jargon that would be confusing to newcomers that would have to constantly be defined for them.
DeleteWe struggle with this in our congregation where we routinely use terms like yetzer hara, d'vekut, or lashon hara. Newcomers often have a bewildered look. So we define the terms on the screen or in the bulletin for them. In a class that introduces them to the congregation, we briefly discuss the principle terms they will often hear and explain why they are necessary to the development of our congregational culture. It's a lot of work.
Hebrew is unavoidable if we are to discuss biblical concepts but if we can simply use English terms, I think we should, every time we can.