Perspectives

For September/October 1998
Volume 1 Number 1

[Home [Up] [Our Editorial] [Letters to the Editor] [Questions & Answers]

This page provides a place for the opinion of our editors and viewers and for answers to short questions from our viewers.

Our Editorial

Neanderthals Again? Has the Media Got It Right?

Neanderthals are newsworthy, but did they mix their genes with early humans? Some members of the media report no. Are they right? Or do we need to get the data straight?

by Michael P. Germano

Neanderthals always seem to make the news. There is even a Web site devoted to them and those whose genetic endowment is decidedly on that side. Would you believe that a species that became extinct 20,000 years ago would command such interest in the lay public? Several folks brought to my attention the recent stories that science now has evidence that Neanderthals were not our ancestors. I suppose they found it comforting that we mere mortals did not arise from the Neanderthal family Uncle Bubba notwithstanding. They were after all, big brutish looking creatures. So, they are not near kin. So what?

What bothers me most is not the lay misconception about present-day models seeking to explain the origin of anatomically modern Homo sapiens. Rather, it is the misconception held by the press. Statements in the secular and the religious press, reporting on the recent Neanderthal DNA research, stating that Neanderthals "never mixed their genes with early humans" and "are not the ancestors of humans" are not accurate. Apparently relying on secondary sources some well-meaning fundamentalist Christian writers claim the new findings once and for all disprove human evolution. Hardly. It appears to me that the authors of such statements simply do not know enough about the concepts and vocabulary of the discipline they are talking about to accurately report such research let alone to suggest its implications. The study did not rule out a Neanderthal genetic contribution to anatomically modern H. sapiens (that is us folks). Now I do not suggest anything about the origins of modern humans for that would miss my point.

Neither the public nor members of the press know much about genetics, Neanderthals, archaic H. sapiens, nor the issues involved in the scholarly discussion of the origin of anatomically modern Homo sapiens. This is what we should expect. Our public high schools, under-funded as they are, do not offer courses in anthropology although these topics may appear in high school biology. Moreover, colleges and universities generally do not require students to study anthropology as part of their general education requirements. So learning in this discipline is a hit and miss situation.

My suggestion to you, my friend, is that you spend some time with anthropology. In my own case, I consider myself a biblical anthropologist. I enjoy the Bible and its central truths as well as the holistic approach of anthropology. Both help me make sense in understanding the natural world and lifeways of humans. One provides me knowledge through spiritual insight and the other through application of the scientific method. For me the two complement each other and assist me in extending my understanding in both. Remember education is more than preparing for a career to make money. Education also makes you into the kind of person you are and shapes your values and worldview. It enriches you culturally.

If you are a college student, I suggest you round out your education with three courses: (1) cultural and social anthropology, (2) biological anthropology, and (3) introduction to archaeology. Some colleges and universities combine cultural anthropology with archaeology. If you are beyond traditional college age, and think you cannot take courses, study the subject on your own. It is worth it. At least you will know what the issues are and will be capable of communicating an informed understanding. We suggest helpful readings for you in our Research Aids page.

–Michael P. Germano

Michael P. Germano, a graduate of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, holds earned doctorates from the University of Southern California and the University of La Verne. He completed post-graduate study in anthropology, archaeology, and theology at Southern Methodist University and Texas A&M University at College Station. He and his wife Brenda reside in Cullowhee, North Carolina, where he continues his research, teaches, and writes.

Affiliated with Ambassador University since 1959, he served as AU's vice president of academic affairs 1973-1978, dean of academic affairs 1987-1995 and chair of its anthropology department 1995-1997. He held responsibilities in the institution's involvement in excavations at the south Temple Mount directed by Benjamin Mazar, the Umm el-Jimal Project directed by Bert de Vries, the Mozan Expedition directed by Giorgio Buccellati and Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati, and the Hazor Excavations in memory of Yigael Yadin directed by Amnon Ben-Tor. He supervised the Ambassador contingent at the Hazor Excavations and held responsibility for excavation videography.

His current research consists of an investigation of the relationship of the Tomb of Jesus, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Cenacle in Jerusalem. He has a book in preparation entitled The First Christians: Myths, History, and Traditions of the Ancient Church as well as Cultures, Peoples, and Lands of the Bible: An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology. You may communicate with the writer of this editorial at [email protected]

Letters to the Editor

BIBARCH^™ invites letters to the editor of 200 words or less. The editor reserves the right to use or not use comments so addressed, in whole or in part, as deemed in the public interest, to include your name, and to edit or condense the letter for clarity and space.

Please send us your Letter to the Editor by e-mail. All letters must be signed and include your street or route address and telephone number, which we require for verification purposes only. Click here to send us a Letter to the Editor.

Questions & Answers

Churches or Synagogues?

Did not early Christians meet in synagogues? If so, why do Christians now refer to their meeting places as churches and not synagogues?

–P. McNair Minnetonka, MN

The Greek word �kkles�a, translated “church” in English language editions of the New Testament, means “assembly,” “congregation,” “group of people,” or the “community” but not a building or assembly hall. Its derivation is from the association of two Greek words �k denoting “out of" and kale�n meaning “to call.” In a literal sense �kkles�a referred to a class of individuals “assembled” or “called together.” In Christian parlance, the word came to refer to the group of individuals called together from the world to form the people of God and the community of faith. In a non-religious sense, it implied the calling of an assembly by a crier or herald for an event such as a town meeting.

Quite early the less formal designation “church” �kkles�a became an abbreviated form for the designation of the congregation-at-large (II Corinthians 11:8, Ephesians 5:23, I Timothy 3:5) as well as specific congregations (I Corinthians 14:23, 34; Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14) but was still used in the sense of an assembly. In this sense the more appropriate description of a Christian congregation in English would be "the assembly" and that is the form followed in the Romance languages.

The normal gathering places, or meeting locations, of local Christian congregations were synagogues not churches. The Greek word synagogue simply means “a gathering” or “a bringing together” and is the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew edah or for bet knesset, meaning “a gathering place.” The term could infer a group (Revelation 2:9; 3:9) but more often refers to a gathering place where such a group would meet (Matthew 23:6; Acts 6:9, 9:20, 13:14). Jews of the first century preferred synagogue to describe their local meeting places.

The writers of the New Testament generally used the word synagogue with respect to its meaning as a meeting place, e.g., “in the synagogues” (Acts 9:20 NASB), “the chief seats in the synagogues” (Matthew 23:6 NASB), “they went into the synagogue and sat down” (Acts 13:14 NASB). They did not refer to their community as a “synagogue” in the sense of an assembly or congregation. Rather, Judeo-Christians met in synagogues but saw themselves as the new elect people of God or assembly of God. New Testament writers did not use the word synagogue to describe their assembly. Nevertheless, they did use synagogue in reference to various Jewish and opposing “christian” sects (Revelation 2:9).

The English word “church” is problematic and comes to us from paganism. Ebenezer Brewer in his Dictionary of Phrase and Fable under the entry “church” states that “the etymology of this word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, Kurious oikos (house of God); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of Greek. No doubt the word means ‘a circle.’ The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular (Welsh, cyrch; French, cirque; Scotch, kirk; Greek, kirkos, etc.). Compare Anglo-Saxon circe, a church, with ‘circol,’ a circle” (Brewer, 1910, p. 252).

In Homer’s Odyssey the sorceress Kirke, a daughter of Helios and Perse who lived on the island of Aeaea, was an enchantress who turned men into swine. In Greek mythology Helios, god of the sun and light, as an omniscient figure was all seeing and all knowing. Perse personified the underworld aspects of the moon. The sun and moon, presumably, came together in an ancient solar eclipse. The disk of the sun blackened by the disk of the moon produced a glowing ring of fire—the flaming circle (Kirke, Circe). Echoes of this fiery circle are present in nimbus and halo symbolism. This is the symbolic ring of light, shown around the head of divinities, dignities, and saints, emanating a bright glow. A full disk mirrors sun god symbolism.

The word church, in Middle English chireche, chirche, kirke, and in Anglo-Saxon circe, cirice, cyrice, finds its derivation in neither �kkles�a nor kyrios but in kirke. The Romance languages do not reflect this derivation as �kkles�a—Greek: �kkles�a; Latin: ecclesia—provides the basis for contemporary words for “the assembly,” e.g., French: �glise; Italian: chiesa; Portuguese: igreja; Spanish: iglesia.

–editor