Is "Epistle" a Correct Translation?

[Richard Aberdeen]

Means both "letter" and "formal letter" in Koine Greek. While today one can look up the word "epistle" in a modern dictionary and find that it refers to a formal letter of special importance, in the First Century world of Paul and other authors of the New Testament, the Greek "epistole" apparently referred to any and every kind of letter.

Some of Paul's letters were intended to be read to one or more groups of people, some of them like First and Second Timothy, Titus and Philemon, are personal letters written to a specific individual. It is the very counter-productive and misleading habit of modern translators to leave certain words in modern bibles in or close to their original Greek (and sometimes Latin) form or worse, in Old and Middle English, rather than translating them correctly into modern English and other languages.

Thus, words like "epistle", "disciple", "gospel", "doctrine", "church" and far too many others give modern Bibles an orthodox religious 'tone' where none is likely intended. The message of Jesus in every way is a highly secular message intended for sinners and common average people, as well as for the rest of humanity.

There is nothing in the New Testament that is remotely similar to the modern Catholic or Protestant theology-laden Christian religion. One should never confuse simple basic English words like "teaching" and "instruction, with the religious sounding "doctrine", as if it somehow means something different, which it does not.

Paul always refers to God's "law" in the singular and, never as "laws" in the plural. If we break any part of God's law, we have broken God's law. Unlike what is frequently heard in pulpits, there are no such thing as "doctrines of the church". Rather, "doctrine" is singular; "sound doctrine", as found in II Timothy 4:3 and elsewhere in the New Testament, simply means proper teaching or instruction.

Likewise, disciple simply means follower, gospel means good news and assembly (wrongly translated as church) ALWAYS refers to people. The word "assembly" as found in the New Testament, does not ever refer to a religion, a religious building or a religious brand or organization.

 

[MatthewG]

Maybe scroll? Idk?

 

[bdavidc]

Some of Paul's letters were intended to be read to one or more groups of people, some of them like First and Second Timothy, Titus and Philemon, are personal letters written to a specific individual. It is the very counter-productive and misleading habit of modern translators to leave certain words in modern bibles in or close to their original Greek (and sometimes Latin) form or worse, in Old and Middle English, rather than translating them correctly into modern English and other languages.

I agree that epistle means a letter. I do not have any problem with someone saying “Paul’s letter to the Romans” instead of “the Epistle to the Romans.” That is not where I disagree with you. The problem is that you are taking a simple word definition and then using it to strip away the spiritual weight Scripture itself gives to these writings.

Paul’s letters were not just ordinary letters from one man giving his personal opinion. Peter spoke of Paul’s writings and placed them with “the other scriptures.” He said, “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things... as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” ~2 Peter 3:16. So yes, they are letters. But they are inspired letters. They are Scripture.

That is where your argument goes wrong. You define words like epistle, gospel, doctrine, disciple, and church down to their simplest meaning, then act like the biblical meaning attached to those words does not matter. That is not careful Bible study. That is watering the words down until they lose what God has revealed through them.

Yes, gospel means good news. But the gospel is not just good news in some general or secular sense. Paul tells us exactly what the gospel is. “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” ~1 Corinthians 15:3–4. That is not a secular message. That is the message of Christ crucified and risen for sinners.

Jesus did come for sinners. I fully agree with that. But He did not bring a secular message. He said, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel” ~Mark 1:15. He said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” ~John 3:3. He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” ~John 14:6. There is nothing secular about that. That is truth from God.

The same thing applies to doctrine. Yes, doctrine means teaching. But Scripture does not treat doctrine as an empty religious word. The Bible says the early believers “continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” ~Acts 2:42. Paul told Titus, “But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine” ~Titus 2:1. John said, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” ~2 John 9. That is not translator tradition. That is Bible language.

Your claim about doctrine only being singular does not hold up either. Scripture uses the plural. Paul warned about people “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” ~1 Timothy 4:1. Hebrews says, “Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines” ~Hebrews 13:9. So the Bible itself speaks of doctrines, both true and false.

I also agree that the church is not a building. The church is people. But the church is not just any assembly of people either. Jesus said, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” ~Matthew 16:18. Paul called it “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” ~1 Timothy 3:15. In Acts 20:28, Paul speaks of “the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” That is not a secular gathering. That is the people Christ purchased.

The same goes for disciple. Yes, a disciple is a follower or learner. But following Jesus is not the same as following any ordinary teacher. Jesus said, “If any man come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me” ~Luke 9:23. That is not casual following. That is surrender to Christ.

So yes, use simple English if you want. Say letter instead of epistle. Say teaching instead of doctrine. Say assembly instead of church if the context allows it. I am not against plain English. But plain English must still carry the truth of Scripture. You do not get to take Bible words, flatten them into bare definitions, and then claim the New Testament is secular.

The message of Jesus is for sinners and common people, yes. Praise God for that. But it is not secular. It is the gospel of God’s Son, the call to repentance and faith, and the truth that salvation is found only in Jesus Christ.

 

[Richard Aberdeen]

Maybe scroll? Idk?

In koine Greek, which all of the New Testament is written in, except for James, a formal letter and any other letter are known by the same word, translated correctly as letter. Many Christian leaders and authors say "epistle" instead of letter, giving the secular Greek an orthodox religious tone where none is likely intended. They also use other orthodox religious sounding words like gospel, church, bishop, deacon, disciple, doctrine and others, that are not correctly translated into modern English as good news, assembly, overseer, servant, follower, teaching, etc.

It is important that modern bibles and other writings be translated correctly, as Jesus and the authors intended. Translating them differently than intended leads to misunderstanding, false religion and confusion. For example, leaders often talk about "doctrines" of the "church", when there are no such thing. Doctrine simply means teaching in the Greek. For example, the word church today can refer to the body of Messiah, but it also today refers to a religious building and to a religious organization. Jesus chose the word "assembly", which always refers to people and, this is how his followers should correctly say what Jesus intended.