Eristic reasoning creates strife and contention

Aristotle defines "eristic" reasoning as a non-logical reasoning that seeks to win an argument in the eyes of others rather than be a search for the truth. Paul uses this word often in writing to Greek audiences. The KJV (King James Version) translates this word as "strife" whose modern meaning may not capture the original meaning.

The English word "eristic" is from the ancient Greek word "ἔρις" ≈ "strife" as in "discord". Originally in a physical and quarrelsome way, the meaning changed in Greek philosophy to a verbal and intellectual way.

The word has origins in the Greek god "Ἔρις" ≈ "Eris" who is the goddess of discord and strife - which could be physical or might not be.

The modern Greek word "εριστικός" (eh-ree-stee-KOS) ≈ "grumpy, quarrelsome".

The garden of Hesperides, visited by Hercules, was in the extreme west (setting sun) from Greece and is the source of the Greek word for "evening" which comes, through Latin, as "vespers" which is related to the English word "west".

More: Vespers in the west at evening

The English phrase "apple of discord" means the central part of an argument that could lead to a bigger dispute.
Much "strife" is caused not by physical confrontation, not by quarrelsome verbal attacks, but by otherwise innocent intellectual argumentative disputes.

Most people would agree that using "bad logic" to prove something is not a good idea.

This view can easily disappear when one's favorite way of using "bad logic" is exposed.

Let us try a just a few.

Another "eristic" argument is that because someone is a "hypocrite" (in the modern sense) what they are claiming is not true.
Example: The pastor preached that we should not sin. I know he did what he was preaching about. How can he be trusted?

More: An actor as a hypocrite is not real

More: Tu quoque or you too fallacy

Are you starting so see how many people use "eristic" reasoning?

Can you see how such reasoning, when used to promote viewpoints such as social, political, religious, etc., can create discord?

The Roman equivalent to the Greek goddess "Eris" is the Roman goddess Discordia. The Latin word "discordias" ≈ "discord".


The "lies" can be arguments or reasoning that does not apply to showing some useful truth. This can cause "discord".

Here are some synonyms and associated attributes for the English word "eristic".

• argumentarian
• belligerent
• combative
• controversialist
• disputant
• litigious
• quarrelsome
• scrappy
• testy

It is very important to be able to distinguish or separate the following.

• An "eristic" argument that diverts from the idea needed to show what is true.
• A "valid" argument that focuses on the idea needed to show what is true.

From an observer's point of view, both sides appear very similar. A common technique is to accuse the other side of doing what you are doing - or trying to do. This is called "projection".

[Feynman anecdote of what is obvious and what is not obvious]

A common idea is that someone using "eristic" arguments is a person who is a "know it all" and always "has to be right" (even when they are wrong).
I find that people who are like that can be very irritating and get on my nerves. How about you?

I've been told to go look in a mirror but that didn't help. I guess I do not know everything yet. So why do they call me a "know it all"?

Lawyers (and law enforcement, etc.) sometimes use an "eristic" line of questioning involving "yes" and "no" answers that allow them to try to get the answers they want rather than the truth.

This is why it is said, with good reason, that a court hearing is not about finding the truth, but following the rule of law.

Aside: Since lawyers get paid by the hour (or part of an hour), it is to their financial advantage to extend court hearings with such questions until there are no more funds to go around.

A common form of this is what is called a "perjury trap" where the goal is not to get the truth but to get the person answering questions to say, usually unknowingly, that they have committed perjury by answering questions in such a way as to be logically equivalent to a "lie".

Since the Greek word had to do with the idea of nonproductive intellectual argumentative disputing, let us look at the use of that Greek word in the NT (New Testament) where Paul uses that word, or variation, in 16 verses. It is used 1 time in Matthew and 2 times in James.

The word appears 2 times in the LXX (Septuagint) in successive verses in Samuel.

In all these verses, the goal is to determine which of the two sides of the definition better fit the context and meaning of the verse

• Greek side: nonproductive intellectual argumentative disputing as in "eristic".
• Latin and English side: bitter, and possibly violent, physical conflict as in "strife".

Then discuss: How does the change in meaning effect how each verse should be taken in terms interactions of members within and without the church?

What does the "strive" mean here? The English word "strive" means to seek towards some goal and comes from the Middle English word "striven" ≈ "strive" from French and before that Frankish. The idea was that of competition and/or quarreling.

Does the word "strive" in this verse mean more of a physical meaning or more of an intellectual meaning? Is it "quarrelsome"?

How does a physical meaning fit with the other words in the verse?

The Latin word "contendo" ≈ "hurry, stretch" but can mean "dispute", "contend". It is the source of the English word "contend".

• The Latin prefix "con" ≈ "together".
• The Latin word "tendo" ≈ "stretch, extend" and is the source of the word "tendon", "tenuous", etc.

The Latin word loses some of the intellectual argumentative disputing and has a more physical connotation.

The English word "strife" comes from the Middle English word "strif" ≈ "strife" and comes though French and, before that, Frankish.

The meaning is that of "striving" for superiority though hard work but came to mean bitter conflict, sometimes violent, and trouble of any kind.

Like the Latin word, the idea of nonproductive intellectual argumentative disputing gave way to a more physical meaning.

The German word "zanken" ≈ "dispute, scold" which has both a logical reasoning meaning and a more verbally abusive attack meaning.

The Old Church Slavonic word "преречет" ≈ "contradict" (using the modern Russian word) which would appear to be as a logical argument.

The modern Russian word "воспрекословит" ≈ "reprove" which still has the intellectual aspect but leans towards a more physical aspect.

Let us look at the broader context of the verse.


Let us go back to verse 16 where Jesus has charged the disciples not to make what they know about Him known.


We continue.

Does this prophecy of Isaiah fit Jesus?
Did Jesus go through the streets crying out and/or use eristic arguments? How might this verse reflect on "street preachers"? Discuss.

Paul provides a laundry list of sins to the church in Rome.


Is a "debate" about in issue a sin? The sin of "debate", after "murder", is that of nonproductive intellectual argumentative disputing.

Paul adds "deceit" as a separate sin.

Aristotle points out that it can be difficult to determine if those using "eristic" reasoning are actually "ignorant" or are being deliberately "deceptive".

Jesus provides rules that handle such distinctions in a fault tolerant way.

More: Matthew 13:24-30,36-43 Second kingdom parable: fault-tolerant approach to the toleration paradox

Paul often provided a laundry list of sins tailored to the church to whom he was writing.

Discuss: If a certain "sin" is not on a given list, does that mean it is not a "sin"?

More: Sin and good people

Discuss: Is a discussion using such a line of reasoning "eristic"? That is, do such questions cause "strife"? Explain.

Paul lists "eristic" reasoning right after "murder".

Should "eristic" arguments be considered on the same level as "war" or "murder"?

Discuss: Provide some examples of how verbal "words" can escalate into physical "actions" that can be destructive or lead to "murder".

Paul continues later in Romans. The Greek for "envy" used here, from which we get the English word "jeolous", is that of competing with another for the same goal or idea.

Discuss: Compare and contrast the Greek definition of "eristic" with the definition of "envy".

More: The coveting of greed

Discuss: How might the Greek idea of "eristic" as a nonproductive intellectual argumentative disputing apply here?

Discuss: Compare the Greek definition of "eristic" as a nonproductive intellectual argumentative disputing with "envy" as in competing with another for the same goal or idea.

Those "divisions" often end up with different groups. In ancient Greece, the word for such a group was a "heresy".

Paul uses two words for "eristic". One is translated as "debate" and the other as "strife".

Do all of these have to do with intellectual and verbal interactions? Do any have to do with physical interactions?

The word for "tumults" has to do with "commotions" as Paul contrasts with the Greek word for "peace" or "tranquility".

More: A mania for confusing commotions

Paul has a list of sins in Galatians that spans 3 verses before listing the fruit of the spirit.


Here Paul also uses two words for "eristic" as "variance" and "strife" and the word for "jealous" as "emulations".

The Greek word for "heresy" had to do with a group or faction that had certain ideas. Over time, the meaning changed to that idea rather than the group with the idea.

More: A difference of opinion of a heretical group heresy

The Greek words for "jealous" and "eristic" are used again. This appears to be a common problem in churches to which he wrote.

Discuss: Are these problems evident in your church today? Explain.

Discuss: Do factions within the church use "eristic" reasoning to compete (as in "jeolous" in the Greek sense) to get followers for that group? Such a group was called a "heresy" in Greek.

To Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, where such thought by Aristotle was well known, Paul provides more detail about "questions" and the "strife" of verbal "words" (and not physical confrontation) and the result of such actions.

Paul wrote to Titus on Crete a large island south of Greece.

The "contentions" as "eristic" arguments could be considered "foolish questions".

In the LXX in the book of 1 Samuel, the Greek word for "eristic" is used in two verses in succession.

This is done in the Hebrew way of contrast so that one verse is said one way and the next in the negative sense.

The two ways provide more clarity in the written word to attempt to avoid "eristic" arguments against what is said.

The "rebel" is that of "eristic" questions to "resist" the Lord.

The "rebel" or "resist" need not be physical. It can consist of "eristic" arguments.

An English saying used by children goes that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me".

This appeared in print in 1830 in England. Many music groups and song titles and verses have used this idea.

The opposite saying to "sticks and stones ..." is that "the tongue wounds more than the lance".

This is stated by James.

James uses the Greek word for "eristic" 2 times in 3 verses in James 3:14-16.

Since the word "eristic" has to do with (invalid) verbal reasoning using the tongue, it is interesting that James precedes these verses with the power and danger of the tongue.

Note: Some verses omitted that do not appear to be essential to this line of reasoning.

The Greek word for "tongue" is the same word for "language" as in spoken language.

The "tongue" can brings forth "blessing" or "curse".


The Greek for "sweet water" did not mean with sugar added. It meant "fresh water" that one could drink without danger.

After the discussion of the "tongue", the words for "envy" and "strife" are now paired in both verses 14 and 16.


The "bitter" goes with "envying" (competition for an idea) and not with "strife" (verbal reasoning) which is in the "heart". The Greek for "sensual" is that of "soul" as in the desire of man.

In a perfect world, or a perfect church, "eristic" reasoning would not happen. In reality, some people will use "eristic" reasoning.

How can one determine "eristic" reasoning and avoid it but, at the same time, admit and allow "valid" reasoning?

Any false teacher may, at times, be using "eristic" reasoning. If any person attempts to address this false reasoning, might they themselves be falsely accused of creating "strife".

• Eristic (invalid) reasoning causes "strife".
• Does "strife" mean that eristic reasoning was the cause?

Aristotle addresses false teaching at length and the danger to the truth.

Jesus and Paul (and others) address the dangers of false doctrine to the church.

Discuss: When was the last time you heard a sermon that addressed false doctrine in detail with examples of how to identify false doctrine and how logical tricks could be used to promote false ideas?

Discuss: If you have trouble coming up with examples, why might that be the case?