Titus 3.10 and αιρετικον ανθρωπον

Roger Pearse (whose blog you really should be reading) has some questions on how αιρετικον ανθρωπον should be translated in Titus 3.10.

He lists a number of English translations (plus the Vulgate) and has some other discussion; but the meat of his question is:

The most natural English usage would appear to be ‘heretic’ or ‘heretical man’.  Why don’t we say so?  How would we translate this in a patristic text? The Vulgate does not hesitate to say “haereticum hominem” – “heretic man”.

A heretic is not necessarily a “divisive person”, after all.  The Greek word, surely, will relate more to the variety of belief in the philosophical schools (haereses) than to modern ecumenism, or indeed even to 4th and 5th century doctrinal debates?

It’s been awhile since I’ve worked through the text of Titus, but I consulted my notes on this word instance from a few years back; here’s what I wrote:

While the typical literal translation of αἱρετικός (hairetikos) seems to be factious, this word is somewhat difficult in that it is not a common word, and its meaning is not readily at hand for many readers. Thus I’ve translated as division-causing instead of the other seeming option, heretical. This is one who not only believes contrary to the sound teaching of Paul, but causes problems in the community by advancing his own heretical agenda (hence factious or division-causing).

Anyone else have ideas? If so, feel free to comment here or (better) head to Roger’s blog and interact there.

Köstenberger on 1Ti 2.12

Andreas Köstenberger blogs further on 1Ti 2.12 ("Was I Wrong on 1 Timothy 2:12?"), a section of scripture that he’s done fairly intensive syntactical research on for his edited volume on $amz(080102904X Women in the Church).

Do check it out.

Saving Yourself and Your Hearers (1Ti 4.16)

I’ve blogged about the phrasing found in this reference before, on ricoblog (here, here, here and here) and on the previous incarnation of PastoralEpistles.com (here).

It’s the phrasing that intrigues me, “you will save both yourself and your hearers” because similar phrasing turns up in other writings ($af(2Cl 15.1), $af(IEph 16.1-2)) as well.

Here’s what I found in Hermas, Mandates 2.2 (27.2):

First, speak evil of no one, and do not enjoy listening to someone who does. Otherwise you, the listener, will be responsible for the sin of the one speaking evil, if you believe the slander which you have heard, for by believing it you yourself will hold a grudge against your brother. In this way you will become responsible for the sin of the one who speaks the evil.

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (377). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Similar, but not quite the same. But still interesting as it tries to explain how the listener falls under guilt of the speaker. Blogged here for posterity so I can find it again when I look into it next.