"Doctrine", "Heresy", and "Truth"

Post Reply
Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

"Doctrine", "Heresy", and "Truth"

Post by Singalphile » Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:05 pm

I'll put this out there if anyone's interested and would like to comment or steer me in the right direction.

My premise is that the KJV translation contributed to the overconfidence of English-speaking theologians over the centuries while it was the only English translation that most people knew. Certain words were either badly translated or else came to be widely misunderstood because of theologians and preachers. For example, you're familiar with the KJV use of the word "mansion". Apparently, either the KJV translated the Greek poorly or theologians and preachers changed the meaning over time for some reason.

My thesis is that the same thing is true for the following three words:

"doctrine" - didaskalia (LSJ) or didaché (LSJ) - To most people, "doctrine" means "theological opinion". But I would argue that those Greek words meant simply "teaching" or "instruction" (nouns), such that, strictly speaking, I myself don't have any doctrine, since there is nothing that I teach or instruct (b/c I'm no teacher).

I think I've heard Steve G. and others point this out, and although "doctrine" still appears in newer translations, it is not used nearly as often as in the KJV. How many uses of those aforementioned Greek words in the NT clearly refer to what most people think of as "doctrine"? Those remain to be counted up.

"heresy" - hairesis (LSJ) - Again, to most Christians, "heresy" means "really wrong/bad theological opinions", or in other words, "really bad doctrine". And a "heretic" (hairetikos, LSJ) is a person who has those really bad opinions, and is therefore not even saved.

The use in the NT however is much less clear. It is usually translated with some form of "sect" or "faction/division". It looks to me like the emphasis is always on the dividing up into cliques and factions. Does it ever refer to just wrong opinion?

"truth" - alétheia" (LSJ) - (This is much less of an issue.) We usually think of "truth" as synonymous with "facts". Again, this emphasizes a persons opinion, since that's mostly what you do with facts (esp. theological facts/truth); you have opinions about them.

But the NT occasionally (how often?) speaks of obeying the truth or practicing the truth and the like. That is odd wording - we don't normally speak like that - if "truth" only refers to facts and opinions about facts. This needs more review.

That's the gist. If you have answers to any of the questions, I'd be interested. If there are blogs or lectures that cover this sort of thing, I'd be interested.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: "Doctrine", "Heresy", and "Truth"

Post by Paidion » Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:52 pm

As you pointed out

1. "doctrine"="teaching"

2. "heresy" = "a sect that chooses for itself its tenets or beliefs"
Paul referred to Christian people (the Nazarenes) as being called a sect of Judaism by Jewish people (Acts 24:14). The Sadducees were also a sect of Judaism (Acts 5:17) and the Pharisees were a sect of Judaism (Acts 15:5).

3. "truth"="reality"
As I see it, the word αληθεια ought to be translated as "reality" unless it clearly means "truth."
A better translation than "obeying the truth" would be "being persuaded by the truth".
A better translation than "practicing the truth" would be "acquiring the truth."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: "Doctrine", "Heresy", and "Truth"

Post by Homer » Fri Aug 26, 2016 7:49 pm

I think the very worst result of the KJV came as a result of the instructions King James provided the translators, particularly item #3:

From Lewis' History of the English Translation of the Bible:
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation &c.
"&c" (etc.) naturally included "baptize". In fairness it must be said that the word baptize (a transliteration, not an English word) was in use long before King James. #1 of his instructions was that the words as commonly used in the church be retained. However, a great opportunity was missed; if they translated the words rather than transliterated "church" and "baptize" we would have "immerse" and "congregation" or "assembly". It is odd because baptism had a history of being by immersion at least as far back as Saint Patrick.

Kinda sad that people think "church" means a building rather than Christians, whether in a building or not. Every Sunday the preaching minister where we attend closes the assembly with the exhortation to "go out and be the Church".

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: "Doctrine", "Heresy", and "Truth"

Post by Paidion » Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:25 pm

Homer wrote:I think the very worst result of the KJV came as a result of the instructions King James provided the translators, particularly item #3:

From Lewis' History of the English Translation of the Bible:
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation &c.
I think you are right, Homer. Consider the following passage from Acts 19 in the King James Version:
35 And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?
36 Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.
37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
38 Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.
39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day’s uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
What if the translators had followed King James' instructions and translated "εκλλησια" as "church" instead of "assembly" in verses 39 and 40?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: "Doctrine", "Heresy", and "Truth"

Post by Homer » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:06 pm

Good point Paidion.

When I wrote:
It is odd because baptism had a history of being by immersion at least as far back as Saint Patrick.
I should have said "had a history among the English". Obviously baptism by immersion goes back to the earliest Christians, even practiced by the Jews.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: "Doctrine", "Heresy", and "Truth"

Post by Singalphile » Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:39 am

I want to look into the statements regarding alétheia ("truth" or "reality") when I can. I was not aware of that explicit instruction regarding the KJV and words like "baptism" and "church".

I did have a chance to look into hairesis (noun) and hairetikos (adjective),which was easy b/c they are used few times.

The noun is used nine times. In the NASB, it's translated as "sect" six times (all in Acts), "factions" twice (1 Cor and Gal) , and "heresies" once (1 Pet).

The adjective is used used once (Titus), and is translated as "factious".

Again, the current definition of "heresy" is "opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine" or "any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc."

Only 2 Peter 2:1 might fit that definition, though that is not clear. The context suggests a good deal more than only some wrong opinion, which is never clearly defined anyway.

Again, my argument is that these words - such as "heresy" - ought to be largely abandoned b/c they put an emphasis on a lot of theology (i.e., "-isms") when Biblical teaching does not in fact emphasize such things, and often actually seems to warn against such things.

Thanks!
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: "Doctrine", "Heresy", and "Truth"

Post by Singalphile » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:20 pm

This post is a response to a few posts in another long thread, which was not quite on topic. See here, here, here, and here.
Candlepower wrote:Hello Singalphile,

So, are you saying that heresy involves only a spirit of divisiveness (sectarianism) and does [not] include clear scriptural error of some sort?
Assuming that you meant to type "not" there where I put it, then, yes, it appears that the New Testament use of the Greek word hairesis (and its various forms) seems to primarily refer to division, sectarianism, or factions. That is why it's almost always translated as some form of "sect" or "division". (Actually, it's not necessarily a negative word, as possibly demonstrated in 1 Cor 11:19).
Candlepower wrote:But if you are saying that, then it seems to me that any pleasant atheist would not be a heretic if he isn't argumentative and sectarian.
True. An atheist might not be particularly sectarian. But of course an atheist is not a Christian. As the writer of Hebrews wrote, "for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him [emphasis added] (Heb 11:6)."
Candlepower wrote:Methodists, however, would be heretical because they don't belong to the Baptist group, Lutherans would be heretical because they don't belong to the Nazarene group, and I would heretical because I don't belong to any group, formally.
Not necessarily, but it can probably cross the line. As I'm sure you know, Paul got after the Corinthians for just that sort of thing (1 Cor. 3).
Candlepower wrote:All I'm saying is that heresy can be either a divisive spirit or a significant Scriptural error, and usually it is both.
If you have biblical (or other early Christian) support for that, then please let me know, if you have the time. That is why I created this thread.

I do see that those things are often linked, but Scriptural soundness and divisiveness are also often linked. There can be pride and jealousy when it comes to theological opinions, I think.

Thanks, Candlepower. I think you're right that we probably agree more than not, despite our different emphases. Maybe someday we'll have that coffee and pie, although if sugar is no concern, then I'll have chocolate cake! :)
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”