Berean Fact Sheet Number 027

This Fact Sheet is best viewed in Times New Roman font. It is also available in PDF format. For more information, click here.

The Origin of the Word “Church,” Part II:
The Acceptance of a Mistranslation
Copyright © 2006 by Larry G. Overton

In the conclusion of my previous Fact Sheet (Berean Fact Sheet No. 026, “The Origin of the Word ‘Church,’ Part I”) I raised several questions, one of which was “How did this mistranslation [i.e., church] come to be the accepted rendering in English?” As promised, this Fact Sheet is designed to answer this question.

So how did the transliteration/mistranslation church come to be the accepted rendering in English?” The short answer is…(drum roll, please)…the Church! I know that sounds like circular reasoning, but then circular reasoning is a large part of why this term has been foisted upon believers. The socio-economic religious institution called the “Church” was known by that name long before translations of the New Testament (hereafter, NT) into English were allowed. And this religious institution dictated how the Biblical terms in the Greek NT were to be translated.

The King James Version of the Bible played an important part in popularizing and maintaining the “ecclesiastical” term church. Though the King James Version (hereafter, KJV) was not the first translation of the NT in English to render the Greek word ekklēsia [ε̉κκλησία] as church, we essentially have the KJV to thank (?) for the standardization of this particular mistranslation. From the version of 1611 onward, translations of the NT into English have consistently followed this pattern of substituting the word church, a transliteration of kuriakos [κυριακός], into the English text instead of translating the meaning of ekklēsia .

The sixteenth century English translations of the New Testament did not all use the term church. The translations of Tyndale (1526), Coverdale (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537) and the Great Bible (1539) all consistently read congregation where the Greek text has ekklēsia .

The Geneva NT (1557) broke the pattern, rendering ekklēsia as “church” throughout its version of the New Testament. The Bishops’ Bible (1568) was not consistent with itself in this matter. In most cases, the Bishops’ Bible rendered ekklēsia into English as “church,” but in key passages (including the initial New Testament reference, Matthew 16:18), the word “congregation” was used.

The next major version of the Bible in English was a seventeenth century production, being initiated in 1604 and completed by 1611. Of course, I am referring to the “Authorised” or King James Version. As it turned out, the KJV would come to be considered the Bible in English for more than two and a half centuries. Consequently, this version was the most influential in determining how the Greek term ekklēsia would be rendered into English translations of the NT. And a little knowledge of the history of King James I and the Bible version that bears his name is sufficient to show us why the mistranslation “church” was chosen.

Before he had reached his second birthday, James Stuart became King James VI of Scotland. In 1603, he ascended the throne of England, uniting England and Scotland under one crown. James literally did not know what it was like not to be a king. He therefore was thoroughly committed to the doctrine known as “the divine right of kings.” And he saw episcopal church polity as conducive to monarchy, whereas a more presbyterian form of government was perceived as incompatible with kingship.

At the Hampton Court Conference (January 14, 16, 18, 1604), James referred to the conference’s purpose as “for the hearing, and for the determining, of things pretended to be amiſſe in the Church.” In it, he made the following comments.

“…we acknowledge the gouernment eccleſiaſtical, as it now is, to haue been approued by manifold bleſſings from God himſelfe…”

“I approue the calling and vſe of Biſhops in the Church, and it is my aphoriſm, ‘No Biſhop, no King.’”

“I will have one doctrine, one diſcipline, one religion, in ſubſtance and in ceremony.”

“If you aim at a Scottish preſbyterie, it agreeth as well with monarchy as God and the devil. Then Jack, and Tom, and Will, and Dick, ſhall meet and cenſure me and my Councill.”

“If this be all your [Puritan] party hath to ſay, I will make them conform themſelues, or elſe I will harry them out of the land, or elſe do worſe.”

The best thing to come out of the Hampton Court Conference was the proposal for a new translation, which of course we know as the King James Version. However, even this happy result had its down side: the KJV reflects the high church, institutional religious mindset. In responding to the idea of new translation, James I said

“I wiſh ſome ſpecial paines were taken for an vniform tranſlation; which ſhould be done by the beſt learned in both vniuerſities, then reuiewed by the Biſhops, preſented to the Privy Councill, laſtly ratified by royall authoritie to be read in the whole Church, and no other.”

Clearly, then, it was to be a version produced by and geared toward the institutional church. Richard Bancroft, the Bishop (and later Archbishop) of London, represented King James in expediting the work of translation. Bancroft (with perhaps the help of even King James himself) set forth rules for the prospective translators to follow. Rule number three for the translators read as follows:

The old ecclesiaſtical words to be kept, viz, the word Church not to be tranſlated Congregation, & c.

The translators of the KJV, therefore, were not only instructed to utilize “ecclesiastical words” in their translation; they were also explicitly instructed to translate the Greek word ekklēsia as “Church.” Virtually every English translation since has followed the long-standing precedent set by KJV, rendering ekklēsia as “church.”