What the Heck is Etymology, and Why Should I Care?

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

What is etymology? Why is it important to faithful and dutiful Christians? Let’s tackle the first question, shall we? Etymology (pronounced “et-i-mol-oh-gee”) is a word which derives from combining the Greek term “etymon” (which means “true sense”) and the Greek suffix “ology” (which means “the study of”).

Etymology, therefore, is the study of something to learn its true meaning, usually referring to words. It is an academic discipline in which a person studies the origin and development of words, in order to understand their forms and their meanings, and it requires examining the past use of words in order to understand what authors of the past meant by what they had written.

In other words, it is similar to mapping the history and progress of how certain words are used, because just as land changes (from soil erosion by wind or rain, or glacial movement), so does language; if we do not have a “key” or “legend” to the meanings of these words at the time they were written (or mapped), then we cannot reasonably hope to find the “treasure” hidden in what the author has communicated to us.

The term “academic,” for example, derives from the French term “academie” (a school for artists), which derived from the Greek term “academy” (a school for philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians); by knowing that the noun “academy” refers to a type of school, one can tell that the adjective “academic” has to do with some type of scholarly pursuit or project.

Etymology also helps us to know the definition of words we have never heard before, if we can recognize their historical roots. For example, once you know that “ology” (or “alogy”) is a suffix which means “the study of,” you know that anytime you see it in a word that the term is the name of some type of field of research.

The prefix “bio” means “life,” and so “biology” means “the study of life”. The prefix “arche” means ancient (as in “archaic” for something very old), so “archeology” means “the study of the ancient” (cities, cultures, people, etc.). “Numerology” is the study of? Numbers. “Genealogy” is the study of? Genes, and how they are passed down. You get the idea, right?

Etymology also helps us to understand cultural and religious traditions, because many times the words were created to express the idea; it also helps us to understand words in other languages.  For example, if you knew that the Latin term “vera icona” meant “true image,” you might be able to remember that it is the woman identified as Saint Veronica (in the Stations of the Cross) who supposedly wiped the sweat and blood off Christ’s face with her cloth while he was on the way to be crucified, the cloth of which was rumored to have left his face imprinted (his “true image”) on it afterwards.

The term “vera” derives from the Latin word for “truth” (“veritas”—and our English term “verity,” also meaning truth, derives from it); the term “icona” is also Latin, and derives from the Greek word “eikon,” which simply means “image”. So if you had a test which asked you to identify the woman with the “sudarium” with Christ’s face on it, you could pick Veronica out of the crowd because of what you knew from the etymology of what her name reveals.

El Greco’s “St. Veronica with the Sudarium,” oil on canvas, 1577-80.

 Don’t know what a sudarium is? If you know the Spanish word for “to sweat” (“sudar”), you could know that this is another name for the cloth reportedly used to wipe Christ’s sweaty face. (See? Your Spanish is already improving your understanding of Latin! For those of you who don’t already know Spanish, learning the Latin roots of words will improve your Spanish, because Spanish is one of the “Romance languages,” meaning derived from the primary language of Rome—which was Latin.)

The word “linguist”(meaning someone interested in language) derives from the Latin term for tongue, “lingua”—and since the Romance languages derive from Latin, the word for tongue in Spanish is “lengua”; in French, it is “langue,”; and in Italian, it is “lingua”. Etymology of words in English (a language which borrows heavily and incorporates words from many others) can help you understand many words in these related languages.

Here’s an example of “mapping” language changes for the same term. The word “priest” derives from the Indo-European word for “ox”.  Huh?  Sounds crazy at first, doesn’t it? How on earth is the word “priest” related to a farm animal? This is where etymology proves to be an invaluable tool in helping us understand the origin, changes, and meanings of words.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (and a bit of Chaldee, which was the language of Babylon), and the New Testament was written in Greek. For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) predominantly had used a Latin translation of these languages, done by the man known as Saint Jerome, which is why it is either called “Jerome’s Bible” or the “Vulgate Bible”. The word “vulgate” was Latin for “common,” and the translation was intended to make the scriptures more accessible to the common people, since Latin was the common language spoken then.

 The word “bible” simply means “book”; it derives from the Latin “biblia,” which derived from the Greek word “biblia” (the plural for “books,” meaning any collection of written works). The Greek “biblia” derived from a Phoenician city which imported papyrus (an Egyptian-devised source of paper), the city of Dschebel. (Phoenicia no longer exists; it was located on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, where modern Syria and Jordan are today.)

The English term “vulgar” derives from the Latin term “vulgate,” because something which is considered common is also considered coarse or unrefined-- hence a new meaning for the term “vulgar,” one which it did not originally carry, but which was added over the course of time.

But back to our ox.

The word "priest," as it given in the Hebrew of the O.T., is kahan (kaw-han'), and it is based on the prime root meaning "to mediate," as relates to religious services; in Hebrew context, it means one who offficiates or executes the office of priest.  In the N.T. Greek, the word "priests" (presbyteros) is used when speaking of the Hebrew Pharisees having conspired against Jesus. The word "priest," as it is written in the Greek, presbyteros, simply means "elder," derived from the root word "presbys," which simply means "old man". The etymology given in my Webster's dictionary states that the term's Indo-European origin is "presgwou: (pres=base[lead] + gwou [male cow] = ox or bull), being translated as "the lead ox".

From this origin, we should be able to see how the term "lead ox" came to mean "an old man" and then "elder" (someone experienced, qualified, trained to lead others), for elders are church leaders, and oxen are male, and the church leaders were elderly men; lead oxen guide the remainder of the herds in the work to be done, and so priests are charged with leading their congregations. Oxen help sow corn in order that farmers are able to reap the food, and so ministers are supposed to help people in like manner, sowing God's "good seeds" of truth, justice, mercy, and the Christian way, in order that followers be able to reap the benefits of life eternal in the Kingdom of God. 

 Oxen being used to plow a field.

The word "presbys" mutated into "preost" in Old English, and then into "prest" in Middle English, before resulting in the present English variation of "priest," thus the etymological map for our term "priest" would read as follows:

presgwou~presbys~preost~prest~priest

(lead ox)~(old man)~(senior officer)~(senior church official)~ (church official)

Pretty unusual, huh?

Okay. Now let’s answer the second question put to you in the introduction; why is it important for Christians to pay close and careful attention to the precise meanings intended by the authors of the scriptures? (The word “scriptures,” incidentally, is a generic term simply means “writings,” from the base word “script”; in India and Asia, the generic word for “writings” is “sutras”—as in “kama sutras,” or “writings on love”.

 A “manuscript,” therefore, is script which is rendered “manually,” or by hand, meaning in handwriting; you should be able to see how the prefix “manu” is related to the Spanish and French words for “hand, which are “mano” and “main,” in that order. When Christians speak with each other, it is ordinarily understood that the scriptures referred to are those of “the Bible”—a generic term for “book,” but understood to mean the Old and New Testaments when used in speech between Christians.)

If the words which appear in the scriptures did not mean the same things to the authors as they do to us, then we will misunderstand what the authors intended to communicate to us—and if we misunderstand the scriptures, then we are in danger of not rightly following the advice or instructions intended to prevent us from being harmed spiritually. In other words, if the apostle Paul wrote something and meant it to be “A,” but we instead interpret it to mean “B” (according to definitions which did not apply at the time he wrote it), then we are doing “B” instead of “A”—and if “A” is what God wants us to do, then doing “B” instead can only harm us, correct?

 Let’s use an example to clarify the danger in ignoring etymology, since etymology involves studying and rightly dividing (discerning) the truth, as the scriptures direct us to do.

You have no doubt heard the expression “the communion of saints” many, many times (it’s part of the Apostle’s Creed), but what does it really mean? Does the exact phrase appear in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? No, it does not, but the sentiment is conveyed in the many places the word “saint” appears—a total of 61 times in the N.T. verses alone. Let’s examine the word “communion” first.

In fact, the exact word of “communion” appears in the N.T. Greek in only three verses, and nowhere in the Old Testament Hebrew or Chaldee.  Where the word is used in the N.T., it speaks of believers in communion with Christ and the Holy Ghost (1 Cor 10:16 and 2 Cor 13:14), or is used in an example in which Paul writes that God and Christians have no part of evil practices and people (2 Cor 6:14)—both uses which indicate very good things and behavior.

 

Michelangelo de Merisi da Caravaggio’s “Saint Jerome,” 
oil on canvas, 1605. 
(A skull in art is a symbol of human mortality.)

In Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians (the people who lived in Corinth, Greece), the word “communion,” in the original Greek script, is written “κοινωνία,” or in the letters more familiar to we English readers, as “koinonia,” (pronounced koy-nohn-ee’-ah). It was, in his day,  the Greek word for “fellowship,” and was used to indicate a partnership of social intercourse which benefits the participants. It is derived from the Greek word “κοινωνός” (“koinonos,” pronounced koy-no-nos’), which, in Greek, meant “partner, sharer, associate, or companion”.

That word is derived from the Greek word “κοινός” (“koinos,” pronounced koy-nos’), which was the Greek term signifying “common,” which meant, during Paul’s lifetime, “shared by all or several”. So the base word for “communion” (koinonia) stems from the root word for “common” (koinos)—you can see the similarities in the terms, yes?

The word for “common,” believe it or not, actually derives from the Greek word “σύν” (“sun,” pronounced “soon”); the word “sun,” in the Greek of Paul’s time, was a prime preposition indicating a union (in the same way the prefix “con” means “with or together,” as in “contemporary,” which means “with the times,” as “tempo” is Latin for “time”); “sun,” therefore, indicated association, but even more than that, it meant a union or companionship of completeness or wholeness—a very good thing, indeed, and the best type of partnership and communion.

Here’s where things tend to get interesting. In time, the Greek word “koinis” (common) came to mean something profane or unholy, in the very same way that the Latin word “vulgar” (common) came to mean something negative and unclean—which is why, nowadays, “vulgar” language is another way of saying “dirty” or “filthy” talk.  How did changes like this happen?

Since “common” used to mean “available to a great number of people,” it came to be a word used to describe poor and uneducated people, since there have been, are, and always will be more of them than wealthy and educated persons. (Remember, Jesus said that the poor would always be with us. See Mt 26:11.)

As most poor and uneducated people were considered rude and stupid, the term “common” came to have a negative meaning, one completely different than at the time the scriptures (and their Latin translation) were written. (During the period of time when royalty ruled in many lands, such as England, for example, the poor and uneducated people were called “commoners,” because only the wealthy and privileged members of society could afford to be educated.)

So the word “koinos” originally indicated a very good thing—the best kind of communion with fellow human beings, but came to mean precisely the opposite thing, namely, the type of people one should avoid; it went from indicating something holy (communion with God) to something unholy (communion with sinners), from something inclusive and desirable to something to exclusive and undesirable. (The word "barbarian" has a similar story; the Romans had used the term in order to indicate someone or something foreign to the Roman Empire, thus what had initially meant "foreign" came to mean "crude and inferior," since the Empire had been considered supremely civilized, and all else paled in comparison. The Romans came up with the term as a mocking imitation of the "barbar" sound of the words of foreign languages at it realm's ends.)

Paul did not write his letters to the Corinthians at a time when the terms were used to indicate something negative, so we must remember what the terms meant at the time Paul was writing, in order to make sure we correctly understand what he was trying to say. In other words, when Paul wrote his letters, the words associated with “common” meant “A,” but over time, they came to mean “B”—but if we want to protect ourselves from spiritual harm (and protect others, including those whom we love), then we need to make doubly certain that we are following the author’s meaning, not the definitions of the time after he wrote.

Okay, so now we know that “communion,” as Paul had intended it, meant to indicate a coming together or partnership for some benefit of the participants, which is to say, a joining together of individuals to accomplish or enjoy some type of goodness. Now let’s examine the partnership, meaning which individuals are meant to come together in this way. According to the Apostle’s Creed, the communion, recollect, is “of saints”.

Once we understand the meaning of the word “saints” at the time Paul wrote his letters, then we can know for certain precisely whom is meant to get together to achieve this positive goal and enjoy the fruits of this relationship. Remember, the phrase does not appear anywhere in the text of the original languages, but we should still be concerned with what the word “saint” implied by the writers of the N.T. scriptures.

Our English word of “saint” derives from the Latin “sanctus,” which meant “holy, consecrated, or sacred”; it is the past participle of the Latin term “sancire,” from “sacer,” which meant “to consecrate or make sacred”: similarly, in French, the word for “saint” is “sainte”; in Spanish, it is “santo”; and in Italian, it is “santa”. 

The word “saints,” as it appears in the original Greek tongue (all 61 times in the N.T.), is written “άγιος” (“hagios,” pronounced hag’-ee-os), and meant either “pure” or “morally blameless”; our modern understanding of the word “saint” is “a holy person,” presumably holy because they are morally superior.

Salvador Dali, "The Sacrament of the Last Supper," oil on canvas, 1955.

In fact, Webster’s defines “saint” as being “a person officially recognized as having lived an exceptionally holy life, and thus as being in heaven and capable of interceding for sinners”; officially recognized by whom? The Roman Catholic Church. Webster’s also recognizes that, in the N.T. writings, it meant simply “any Christian,” and that is how Protestant churches still use the term, indicating any true believer and follower of Christ.

 The word “hagios” is derived from “άγυός” (“hagnos,” pronounced hag-nos’), and that word meant, in Paul’s time, “clean, pure, or innocent”. They are both related to the Greek word of “άγνότής” (“hagnotes,” pronounced hag-not’-ace), which meant “a state of cleanness or of blamelessness”.

Understanding the meanings of the words for “communion” and “saints,” therefore, at the time which Paul wrote them, should lead us to conclude that “the communion of saints” should rightly be a coming together of those who are morally blameless (by the Greek definition), or holy (by the Latin definition). But who is morally blameless or holy, by God’s standards?

No person alive naturally meets these conditions—not in the past, present, or future. Why? Because the scriptures tell us that we all fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), and only God is holy (Rev 15:4)—and, moreover, that  God does not change (Mal 3:6), and that the Word of God is the same “yesterday, today, and tomorrow” (Heb 13:8). This means that no human has ever been morally blameless, not even the Virgin Mary, since the scriptures relate that she plainly confessed, when still pregnant with Christ, that he was her “Savior”; see Luke 1:47.

 If Mary were free of sin, then she would have not needed a savior, which is to say, someone to have saved her from Satan and death, for the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), just as the way of God is life (John 14:6). In Greek, the word “Savior” is rendered “σωτήρ” (“soter,” pronounced so-tare’), and meant “Deliverer”; who delivers us from evil, but God? Mary, then, confessed that even she had need to be delivered from sin. In the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13), believers are instructed by Jesus to ask our heavenly Father to “deliver us from evil,” and Paul goes on to identify Christ as “the Deliverer” (Rom 11:26); the use of the word “the” indicates that there is only one who can fulfill this role, and so we are to know that this one is God.

(Don’t let people trip you up by saying that since 1+1+1=3, it means that Christians really worship three gods; remember that 1x1x1=1, and so the powers of the Trinity are multiplied into one supremely powerful God.)

So be not deceived—by her own admission, Mary was not morally blameless any more than are the rest of us, and no faithful Christian dares to call Mary a liar, or a deceived and simple person, for to do so would deny her the honor she richly and rightly deserves in having freely chosen to serve God, as a humble “handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:38).

But if none are morally blameless, and only God is holy, then in what sense did Paul use the term? Recollect that it indicated blamelessness or cleanness, and since the first application doesn’t fit, then the second one is the one which must apply; those who have been made clean by God are saints.

Saints are those who are in a state of cleanness, having had their sins washed away by the blood of Christ, achieved by belief in Him and obedience to God. Christianity does not require us to simply believe in God, but to obey Him as well; Jesus plainly stated that if we truly love God, we would keep His commandments (John 14:15), and that Christians are easily identified by their obedient conduct in loving one another even as Jesus loved--and loves--others (John 13:35).

The process of spiritual cleanliness involves five elements: (1) repentance (acknowledgment of bad behavior); (2) reconciliation (an attempt at making up with the person wronged); (3) confession (admission of sin to God); (4) supplication (prayer to God for forgiveness in having violated His law); and (5) atonement (a commitment to refrain from future bad behavior, in order to be "at one" with God). 

 Repentance requires humbling yourself before God.

Numbers in the bible symbolize certain aspects of God’s message, and five, in biblical numerics, signifies grace—a sanctified state of being attained by means of spiritual cleanliness. In other words, the saints are those who have been sanctified (made clean), for one is sanctified by faith in God (as the risen Christ attests in Acts 26:18, or by God, whether by the Father (John 10:36), the Son (1 Cor 1:2), or the Holy Spirit (Rom 15:16), each of whom are part of the Holy Trinity.

But “sanctified” also means “made holy”. Only God is naturally holy, so to be made holy indicates a change from one state of being into another. The word “holy” derives from the Greek “hal,” and meant “whole”—which calls to mind that the word “communion,” as Paul used it in the N.T. Greek, indicated a union of completeness (wholeness).

The word “sanctified,” as it appears in the N.T. Greek, is written “άγιάξω” (“hagiazo,” pronounced hag-ee-ad’-zo), and meant “to consecrate, purify, or make holy”. So, according to Paul’s use and understanding of the terms, “the communion of saints” would involve a coming together of people already washed clean of their sins, and therefore made pure enough to participate with the naturally holy God.

This is what is the partaking of the wine and bread typically involves, and why it is commonly referred to as “the sacrament (or sacred act) of communion”; confession and reconciliation, therefore, are required before approaching the altar, for the altar is sanctified (made holy) by God (Exod 29:44), and God is holy, and God will admit no unholy person or thing to join with Him—this last argument is the message Paul states definitively in his examples and use of the word “communion” in 2 Cor 6:14, when he declares that God will have no part in joining in evil.

But it must be remembered that the phrase “the communion of saints” appears nowhere in the manuscripts written in the original Hebrew and Greek languages; Paul never paired the terms “communion” and “saints,” even though he used them both.  Paul used the word “communion” when speaking of our uniting with God, and used the word for “saints” to refer only to those who had been “sanctified” either directly by God or by their faith in Christ. (Again, this is why Protestants use the term “saints” to indicate any faithful Christians,  per the conversation between the risen Christ and Annanias, the man having restored the sight of the blinded Saul/Paul, as given in Acts 9:13; it includes those sanctified by their belief in Jesus as Lord, not simply dead folks venerated per the dictum of church officials.)

Since the phrase does not originate in the scriptures proper, one must examine the source, what it came to mean, and how it is used today. For any word in existence, there are at least three types of definitions: original, traditional, and contemporary. The first deals with what a word meant at the time it was coined or first recorded; the second deals with how a word commonly had been used (which could include a shift from the original meaning); and the third, of course, deals with how a word is used in the present time.

We have already witnessed how the terms indicating “common,” over time, mutated into a definition which came to indicate precisely the opposite of what it started out as: the original use implied something good; the traditional use mutated to imply something available to the multitudes; and the contemporary use implies something negative or not special in any way.