Titus 3:9-11 αἱρετικὸς ἄνθρωπος

[jeidsath]

Μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο εἰσὶν γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ ἁμαρτάνει ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος

I looked up the usage history of αἱρετικός, and it seems that our non-orthodox “heretical” meaning is used as early as Clement (Lampe). But here, in its only NT usage, it seems to be describing instead people who get partisan and argumentative about certain beliefs. The “bible code people”, referred to in a comment on the Latin board.

Ἁιρετικοί might also be a good word to describe what the internet seems to be turning us all into.

[C_S_Bartholomew]

αἱρετικὸς was very popular in the fourth century Athanasius, Basil, both Gregorys.

[Barry_Hofstetter]

αἱρετικός, ή, όν (in Ps.-Pla., Definit. 412a; Aelian, NA 6, 59; Hierocles Stoic. [I/II A.D.] Eth. 9, 5; here 7 and Diog. L. 7, 126 also the adv.; subst. pl. οἱ αἱ. Iren. 5, 13, 2 [Harv. II 356, 8] al.) pert. to causing divisions, factious, division-making. ἄνθρωπος αἱ. division-maker Tit 3:10 (s. αἵρεσις 1b, c).—TW.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 28). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[jeidsath]

αἱρετικός, ή, όν (in Ps.-Pla., Definit. 412a; Aelian, NA 6, 59; Hierocles Stoic. [I/II A.D.] Eth. 9, 5; here 7 and Diog. L. 7, 126 also the adv.; subst. pl. οἱ αἱ. Iren. 5, 13, 2 [Harv. II 356, 8] al.) pert. to causing divisions, factious, division-making. ἄνθρωπος αἱ. division-maker Tit 3:10 (s. αἵρεσις 1b, c).—TW.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 28). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

It is a little breathtaking to me that none of the examples cited have the meaning given in the definition, excepting the Titus passage. And in Titus (uniquely?) it seems to draw more more from αἱρετιστής than αἵρεσις, though I would strongly disagree with “division-maker” as accurately capturing the Titus sense. The Irenaeus passage cited seems to mean it as simply “heretic.”

Pla., Definit. 412a

καλῶν καὶ αἰσχρῶν· ἕξις καθ’ ἣν ὁ ἔχων αἱρετικός ἐστι καὶ εὐλαβητικὸς ὧν χρή.

Aelian, NA 6, 59:

Τὸ δέ γε ἐνθυμητικὸν καὶ διαλεκτικὸν καὶ τὸ τοῦδε μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦδε αἱρετὸν εἰ καὶ τὰ ζῷα οἶδεν, εἰκότως ἂν εἴποιμεν διδάσκαλον τῶν ὅλων τὴν φύσιν ἄμαχον

Diog. L. 7, 126:

τὰ δὲ ποιητέα καὶ αἱρετέα ἐστὶ καὶ ὑπομενητέα καὶ ἐμμενετέα καὶ ἀπονεμητέα, ὥστ’ εἰ τὰ μὲν αἱρετικῶς ποιεῖ, τὰ δ’ ὑπομενητικῶς, τὰ δ’ ἀπονεμητικῶς, τὰ δ’ ἐμμενητικῶς, φρόνιμός τ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἀνδρεῖος καὶ δίκαιος καὶ σώφρων.

Hierocles Stoic Eth. 9, 5

ἡ μὲν πρὸς ἑαυτὸ εὐνοητική, στερκτικὴ δὲ ἡ συγγενική· καλεῖται γὰρ … πολλοῖς …ιν, ἡ δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἐκτὸς χρήματα αἱρετική. καθάπερ οὖν στερκτικῶς μὲν κατὰ τοῦτο οἰκειούμεθα τοῖς τέκνοις, αἱρετικῶς δὲ τοῖς ἐκτὸς χρήμασιν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ζῶιον ἑαυτῶι μὲν …

Iren 5,13, 2

Μάταιοι οὖν ὄντως καὶ ἄθλιοι, οἱ τὰ οὕτως ἔκδηλα καὶ φανερὰ μὴ θέλοντες συνορᾶν ἀλλὰ φεύγοντες τὸ φῶς τῆς ἀληθείας, οἱ κατὰ τὸν τραγικὸν Οἰδίποδα ἑαυτοὺς τυφλώττοντες. Καὶ ὥσπερ ἀπάλαιστροι προσφιλονεικοῦντες ἑτέροις, ἕν τι μέρος τοῦ σώματος ἀπρὶξ κρατήσαντες, δι’ ἐκείνου οὗ κρατοῦσι πίπτουσι, καὶ πίπτοντες οἴονται νικᾶν διὰ τὸ φιλεριστικῶς ἔχεσθαι ἐκείνου οὗ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐδράξαντο μέλους, πρὸς δὲ τῷ πεπτωκέναι καταγέλαστοι γίνονται· οὕτω δὲ καὶ οἱ αἱρετικοὶ τὸ «σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα βασιλείαν Θεοῦ κληρονομῆσαι οὐ δύνανται», δύο λέξεις ἄραντες ἀπὸ Παύλου, οὔτε τοῦ Ἀποστόλου κατεῖδον οὔτε τὴν δύναμιν τῶν λεγομένων προερευνήσαντες, ψιλῶς δὲ αὐτῷ μόνον τὰς λέξεις κρατοῦντες περὶ αὐτὰς ἀποθνῄσκουσι, τὴν πᾶσαν οἰκονομίαν τὸ ὅσον ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῖς ἀνατρέποντες τοῦ Θεοῦ.

[Barry_Hofstetter]

It is a little breathtaking to me that none of the examples cited have the meaning given in the definition, excepting the Titus passage. And in Titus (uniquely?) it seems to draw more more from αἱρετιστής than αἵρεσις, though I would strongly disagree with “division-maker” as accurately capturing the Titus sense. The Irenaeus passage cited seems to mean it as simply “heretic.”

Ah, I see, you don’t get BDAG’s organization. It normally begins an entry with earlier occurrences of the word, whether or not those earlier occurrences are used in the same sense. If the earlier usage of the word supports the NT usage, they will usually put it after the gloss.

[jeidsath]

But it never seems to be used like that again in the corpus, as the “heretical” definition takes over immediately. So this is a strangely elaborate definition for what seems to be a unique usage:

pert. to causing divisions, factious, division-making. ἄνθρωπος αἱ. division-maker Tit 3:10

The LSJ’s brief “2. factious, Ep.Tit.3.10.” is much more to the point and reasonable.

Also, is BDAG only meant to be a NT wordbook? I thought I saw “early Christian literature” on the cover.

[Barry_Hofstetter]

But it never seems to be used like that again in the corpus, as the “heretical” definition takes over immediately. So this is a strangely elaborate definition for what seems to be a unique usage:

pert. to causing divisions, factious, division-making. ἄνθρωπος αἱ. division-maker Tit 3:10

The LSJ’s brief “2. factious, Ep.Tit.3.10.” is much more to the point and reasonable.

Also, is BDAG only meant to be a NT wordbook? I thought I saw “early Christian literature” on the cover.

In practice, this means through the period of the sub-apostolic fathers.

[Barry_Hofstetter]

Test, otherwise disregard.