Translation Bias
For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, James 2:2 NASB
Assembly– In Greek, the word translated “assembly” is synagōgḗ. James addresses his audience with this word, obviously intending that the audience are members of a synagogue, not a church. But synagōgḗ can be understood as “assembly” in the technical language of Greek. Because synagōgḗ has a wider range of meaning than just Jewish synagogue, translators find it convenient to avoid the obvious meaning “synagogue” in order to direct the reading audience today to imagine that James was writing to Christian believers, not Jewish followers. Unfortunately, this deliberate theological manipulation of the text ignores virtually all the information about the use of synagōgḗ in first-century Israel. For example:
synagōgḗ occurs some 200 times in the LXX. It usually translates either ʿēḏâ or qāhāl. The former is the term for the national, legal, and cultic community of Israel, preferred in Exodus and Leviticus, used exclusively in Numbers, but replaced by qāhāl (which has essentially the same meaning) in Deuteronomy, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.
2.ekklēsía and synagōgḗ. Like the Hebrew terms, these two words have essentially the same sense. Individual translators seem to prefer either the one or the other. If synagōgḗ is mostly found in the Pentateuch, this is perhaps because the translators find here the charter of their synagogal communities. They almost always use it for ʿēḏâ.[1]
James wrote in “Jewish Greek,” that is, the kind of Greek used in the LXX. James assumed that his audience, an audience far larger than the “assembly” in Jerusalem, would understand that the meant because the Greek of the LXX was the common Greek of first-century Jewish life. To intimate that James didn’t mean “Jewish synagogue” is to ignore the more than 200 occurrences in the LXX. But notice the theological shift in the following citation from the same author:
“The term synagōgḗ has the sense of ‘assembly’ in the NT only in Acts 13:43 and possibly Jms. 2:2 (a Christian assembly).”[2]
When did “Christian” become the modifier of synagōgḗ for the first century audience? The answer is, “Never!” The term “Christian” was incorporated into the meaning of synagōgḗ long after the first century audiences were dead. This is sheer translation bias built on a commitment to replacement theology. James is writing to members of a Jewish synagogue. The fact that he writes about commitment to Yeshua simply means that the earliest followers of the Messiah did not leave the synagogue. They remained orthodox Jews in the Jewish place of teaching and worship—and they believed Yeshua was the Messiah. They did not “convert” to Christianity nor did they build churches. But none of these facts fit the manifest destiny ideas of early Christianity. The Jews must be replaced if Christian ideas are to survive. Therefore, when convenient, the language is modified to make us think that the Church began at Pentecost. And it worked. I know of no Bible translation that intimates James wrote to Jews in a synagogue. Doesn’t that bother you?
Topical Index: synagōgḗ, assembly, James 2:2
[1]Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament(1108). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
Just for information, the Complete Jewish Bible, Tree of Life Version and Young’s Literal Translation all use ‘synagogue’; while the OJB includes it as an option in brackets. Those are just a few that I know of, not meant to be exhaustive!
You would expect it of the Complete JEWISH Bible, and YLT is simply literal. But I don’t know any modern major translations that use “synagogue.” Perhaps are there.
I don’t know what is considered modern and major but in addition to Mary’s list, in my e-Sword library the, Darby Bible, Concordant Literal Version, Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, and, World English Bible, all use the word, synagogue. (All available for free download.)
I don’t understand what you mean by Young’s being, “simply literal”. Don’t you want a translation to be as literal (faithful) to the original as possible?
Ah, thanks for the list. Some of those I didn’t know. As for “simply literal,” the idea is that translation from Greek or Hebrew to English that is word-for-word (dictionary type) literal often misses idiomatic expressions which are absolutely necessary to understand the text. This, of course, is true in ANY language translation. In English, “kicked the bucket” could not be literally translated and understood as a word-for-word. All the more so in Hebrew where innuendo, hinted meanings and similar constructions are often more important than the words themselves.
And the New Jerusalem Bible, as well.
It bothers me exactly as much as it bothers me that neither side seems willing to recognize that the Jews of the Old Testament were just as much a part of the true church of God as the believers of the New (no, “church” is not a dirty word: it is just a word that gets used a lot to justify bigotry on both sides – as does “synagogue”!). There is no doubt, to followers of Yeshua, anyway, that His followers are composed of the synagogue that God sent His Son to lead, but not many people realize that God always leaves us free to choose. We are part of the true calling of God to the extent that we follow His Son. It seems clear, to me, anyway, that the Christians who refuse to follow the Commands of His Father are just as much out of the following as the Jews who refuse to follow His restitution for their sins, no matter what either side calls itself or not. The Jews were free to choose to follow Yeshua or not, but just because some of them didn’t does not legitimize their subsequent assemblies as the ‘true’ synagogue, either. What’s good for the goose is, ipso facto, good for the gander.
The, what we in the Gentile faction refer to as the word “church” (yes, we call our assemblies that) started in the Garden of Eden, continued through the gatherings of the “sons of God” and the priesthood of Melchizadek to the calling of Abraham and the Exodus: through the Babylonian exile and down to Herod’s temple, where One came Who pointed to Himself and said “destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days”. All one continuum. Sad that NEITHER side will concede this, however! I would beg us to not become part of the argument that serves to keep both sides apart! In Acts 28, Luke writes about the fact that the believers were considered a “sect” of Judaism, but in the same chapter he makes clear that Gentiles were included equally in that same sect. I want to say, let’s steer clear of this dialectic, because it does not exist in reality: only its participants can keep this nonsense alive through their dissension (and I have noticed that ONLY the sides that are refusing to actually follow Christ in full obedience are interested at all in continuing to keep it up). I, for one, think that the assembly of God is one valid entity, through Messiah, no matter what it is called. If it is a rose, it is still a rose. Conversely, if it is not actually a rose, it does not matter what it is called, either. May we, as God’s roses, “still smell as sweet” no matter what we, or anybody else, calls us!
Theological bias : translation bias :: heart : conduct.
It is very saddening. I do not aim to be a Jew because I do not believe God is sending me that direction. Anyways, the problems of understanding Yeshua as the Messiah would be the same there. Distraction, diversion and deceit have been active in all religions for centuries. It saddens me that there is no group that one can search for meaning. If you have a different view of a group’s theology you are ostracized instead of intelligent discussion. How can we reconcile with one another or the Jews if we are unable and unwilling to question our own beliefs and theology. No one here on earth has the 100% answer. Only one man did and he was the first fruit. We can only attempt to draw closer to God and hope for help in getting along as children of God.
Yes, it is sad. And discouraging. But our little group in Virginia Beach goes forward, I am glad to say. Looking to make more progress in June.
Let’s put the LXX aside for the moment. Stats on the usage of both ekklēsia and synagōgē in the NT should prove much more instructive. In the Gospels, the former is found only in Matthew (16:18; twice in 18:17—each instance referring to the yet-to-be collective of Christ-followers), while it occurs 23 times in Acts. Comparatively, synagōgē is found 34 times in the Gospels and 18 times in Acts. It should not be surprising to find synagōgē referring to religious gatherings of largely non-Christ-followers in the Gospels, of course. Acts is a bit more evenly split, but a careful study will reveal this split to be between Christ-following congregations (ekklēsia) and the typical contemporary Jewish synagōgē, the latter largely made up of non-Christ-followers (though, of course, some Christ-followers did attend these). This excludes those few instances in which ekklēsia is used in a non-religious context.
Outside the Gospels and Acts it is much more telling. Ekklēsia is used a whopping 86 times in the remainder of the NT, referring to a gathering of Christ-followers or Christ-followers collectively. There is one usage in James (5:14). Comparatively, synagōgē is found only 3 times, once in the subject verse, James 2:2, and twice in Revelation as synagōgēs tou satana, “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9).
It makes perfect sense to me that James would choose the term synagōgē over against ekklēsia in 2:2. In this way he covers any gathering of Christ-followers (see James 1:1), whether they be one consisting solely of other Christ-followers or whether they be of any mixed group of non- and Christ-followers. In other words, such non-favoritism (2:1) should be expressed in any meeting, which may even include non-religious ones (see LXX translation of synagōgē for qwh in Genesis 1:9, e.g.). The NIV, NLT, and HCSB render the term “meeting” here in order to illustrate such a broad understanding.
HE HAS RISEN!
He is risen indeed!
Yes, “meeting” might be neutral, but since James addresses his letter to the 12 tribes spread abroad, I feel confident that he did not mean Christ-follower meetings. And since Acts 15 shows that Gentiles were incorporated into synagogues, not Jews into “meetings,” I am all the more confident that the initial assemblies of followers of the Messiah (preferable to “Christ-followers”) were in fact in Jewish synagogues. Therefore any rendition of “church” or implication that these were separated groups of Messianic believers seems unwarranted. The first followers of the Messiah were Jews, and those who joined them joined Jewish groups.
Some of the evidence you provide can go contrary to your interpretation. The way I see it, the book of James was written very early. Evidence for this is found in the letter’s omission of Gentile inclusion, which was an early issue (Acts 15), and that Gentiles are not included in the opening of the letter (twelve tribes of the Diaspora). However, note that in 2:1, it is stated ‘my brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ’. This means at least this section is specifically written to “followers of the Messiah”, as opposed to Jews in general. These Jewish ‘Messiah-followers’ (Christ-followers) are not to show favoritism in the “synagogue”. And see Mark Randall’s comment below, citing the BDAG (and I parenthetically mentioned Gen 1:9 above).
In the comment above I illustrate an apparent semantic shift in which ekklēsia is the term specifically used for a gathering of, or the collective of, Messiah/Christ-followers, while synagōgē largely falls into disuse in the NT. There must be a reason for this. That’s not to mention the split between the two terms (and groups) in Acts, as I specifically noted above. You’ve not addressed this issue at all.
And James’ use of ekklēsia in 5:14 must be considered along with his use of synagōgē in 2:2. Why didn’t he just use synagōgē again in 5:14 if your position is correct? There seems to be some sort of difference between the two in the book of James.
I don’t dispute that Messiah-followers initially attended their local synagogue, but that situation had apparently changed at some point, as evidenced by John speaking about being kicked out of the synagogues specifically for overt Messiah-belief (John 9:22, 34). Being a follower of ‘the Way’ was certainly frowned upon by a good many!
Last night on a cruise, I happened to be seated with an American Jew who was born and raised in Jerusalem. So, of course, I started talking to him about religion, the meaning of words and Skip’s blog. I asked him about his thoughts on “synagogue”. He replied in an email to me today with an interesting anecdote.
“Thank you, Daniel.
I am interested in the source and evolution of words, so I will look into the websites you recommended when I get back from the island later today.
As to the word synagogue, in Hebrew, a synagogue is: בית כנסת, directly translated as “House of Congregation (assembly).” The word כנסת Knesset is used today for the governmental assembly of the state of Israel – without any connection to religion or worship.
It appears that in time passing, the term has evolved to mean a sort of a temple.”
Yes, words evolve, some retaining a bit of their original meaning while adding more, others changed altogether. This is why context is important. By “context” I mean the immediate and the larger context.
Hope you’re enjoying your cruise!
It’s not the building you are in — it’s the
condition you are in.
Earlier in James 1, he cautions against believers
becoming haughty since they, too, will pass away
like a wild flower. Worldly discrimination will easily
strangle one’s attempts to do what the Word is
saying . And also be careful about “religious” behavior
as it too can interrupt the true believer’s path.
James speaks sincerely about DOING what Jesus
taught and to be careful about not becoming deceived.
Truly, he was just giving good ole “brotherly” advice!
I think the BDAG does a great job of understanding the use of the word sunagōgḗn as used in the James text.
I’m not disputing it’s use as a Jewish synagogue either but, that isn’t all it referenced. Let’s take Gen. 1:9.
In the LXX, as pointed out by BDAG;
A gathering or assembly of the “Way/Christ followers” can be exactly what was intended by the writer. I don’t believe it was a “deliberate theological manipulation of the text” at all.
I see no reason to have to read into the text a different context then what it’s saying or referencing. James, as well as many other passages in the Apostolic writings most certainly, can be referring to the “Sect of the Way” gatherings as opposed to Jewish sects of the Judaisms gatherings.
Personally, I can honestly say it’s never bothered me to read the word ekklēsía or synagōgḗ translated as “church”. In my mind, I know what’s meant and who it’s meant too, at least I believe I have. I would say that also applies to words like “Easter”. I have always known what’s meant there as well. We can get hung up on etymology fairly easy. Or we can use a good Bible software program as we’re studying. It has a way of clearing up any translation confusions.