hO DIAKRINOMENOS in Rom. 14:23
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 1 19:03:16 EDT 2000
I was thinking about this question when my modem went out last Sunday, and
as Mark has asked me to offer my own thoughts about it, I'll say just a bit.
At 9:46 AM -0500 6/23/00, Mark D. Nanos wrote:
>Dear list,
>Rom. 14:23 has been usually read as though it is the conscience of the
>"weak/stumbling" person that would be violated by their following the lead
>of the "strong/able" person by eating food that they do not believe they
>should eat (wavering or doubting for DIAKRINOMENOS). I have argued that
>this sentiment is covered in v. 22, and v. 23 refers instead to the
>"strong/able" person violating themselves by eating what they know is
>offensive to the "weak/stumbling" person, for this constitutes that which
>Paul censured in v. 1: they are to welcome the one "weak/stumbling" in
>faith, "but not for disputes over opinions [MH EIS DIAKRISEIS
>DIALOGISMWN]."
>
>The Greek issue I would like to discuss in particular is the
>translation/meaning of the usage of hO DIAKRINOMENOS in v. 23, and its
>impact upon the meaning of the statement, which reads:
>hO DE DIAKRINOMENOS EAN FAGH KATAKEKRITAI, OTI OUK EK PISTEWS; PAN DE hO
>OUK EK PISTEWS AMARTIA ESTIN.
>
>BAGD gives the primary reading of DIAKRINW in entry 2a as "take issue,
>dispute with someone"; but in 2b the entry reads "be at odds with oneself,
>doubt, waver (this meaning appears first in NT." Peter Spitaler brought
>to my attention recently, and I have now confirmed, that the biblical
>verses noted here in the entry do not require one to move away from the
>primary meaning found in other literature of the time; "to take issue with
>or dispute with someone" fits quite well. It is possible and arguably
>better to read the passages included here as variations of "dispute," just
>as in 4:23, since disputing emphasizes the nature of the tension is with
>another rather than within oneself alone; although the psychological
>dimension of self-doubt can be created by or an aspect of such tension,
>this seems a questionable choice for translation.
>
>The translation of the substantive middle participle as "the one choosing
>to dispute" fits Rom. 14:23 and ties it to 14:1 where Paul's injunction
>began, and keeps the focus throughout the verses before and after this
>verse 23 on the "strong/able" being addressed to modify their behavior in
>consideration of the sensibilities of the "weak/stumbling," rather than
>appeal to their rights, as though this was an act of faith. It also fits
>the other usage in the letter, found in 14:20 with respect to Abraham: he
>did not dispute [with God] the promise of God (EIS DE THN EPAGGELIAN TOU
>THEOU OU DIEKRITHH TH APISTIAi ALL ENEDUNAMWTHH TH PISTEI, DOUS DOZAN TW
>THEW). Paul would then be undermining here in v. 23 a self-justifying
>appeal to perceived rights by the "strong/able," when this kind of
>behavior expresses anything but the ideal to which they appeal for their
>"rightness" about the matter at hand, i.e., faithful response to God.
>Paul would on this reading call such behavior an act of "unfaith" and thus
>"sin," since it seeks to justify eating in a way that may injure and even
>destroy another for whom Christ died (14:15), which constitutes "no longer
>walking in love."
>
>The issue for interpreters of this verse is the matter of whom Paul has in
>mind; is it "the disputing one" or better "the one choosing to dispute,"
>i.e., the "strong/able one" who is therefore acting in unfaith/sin by
>their choosing to eat in disregard for the sensibilities of the
>"weak/stumbling," and thus violating them (cf. 14:1), or is it "the
>doubting one," or better "the one choosing to doubt," i.e., the
>"weak/stumbling one" who is because of an uncertain conviction to follow
>the behavioral dictates of the "strong/able one" thus violating themselves?
This is an interesting question; although I've always felt this chapter was
one of the most important discussions in all the Pauline correspondence on
how members of the same ecclesiastical community who differ sharply on
ethical practices and their theological grounds may live in harmony with
each other and not cross swords while they observe their own firm beliefs
and do what they individually believe is suited to serving God
conscientiously. But I hadn't ever really thought about alternative ways of
understanding DIAKRINOMENOS in 14:23. The more I've thought about it, the
more I think Mark is right. Upon doing a little checking on my own I've
been surprised at the range of meanings that DIAKRINW and its
middle/passive form DIAKRINOMAI may have in Koine Greek. In addition to
what Mark has cited from BAGD above, I think that Louw & Nida offer useful
distinctions in ##30.113, 31.37, 33.412, and 33.444--and I would think that
33.412--"to express disapproval of what someone has done"-- does in fact
fit the sense required in Romans 14:23. Here are the entries from L&N:
30.113 DIAKRINW: to judge that there is a difference or distinction - 'to
make a distinction, to judge that there is a difference.' KAI OUQEN
DIEKRINEN METAXU hHMWN TE KAI AUTWN 'he made no distinction between us and
them' Ac 15:9. In some languages it may be best to render this statement in
Ac 15:9 as 'he did not think that we and they are different.'
31.37 DIAKRINOMAI; DIALOGISMOS, OU m; DISTAZW: to think that something may
not be true or certain - 'to doubt, to be uncertain about, doubt.'
DIAKRINOMAI: POREUOU SUN AUTOOIS MHDEN DIAKRINOMENOS 'go with them, with no
doubts at all' Ac 10:20; AITEITW DE ENN PISTEI, MHDEN DIAKRINOMENOS 'but
you must believe when you pray, and not doubt at all' Jas 1:6.
DIALOGISMOS d: DIA TI DIALOGISMOI ANABAINOUSIN EN THi KARDIAi hUMWN? 'why
are you beginning to doubt?' (literally 'why do doubts arise in your
mind?') Lk 24:38.
DISTAZW: OLIGOPISTE, EIS TI EDISTASAS? 'how little faith you have; why did
you doubt?' Mt 14:31.
In a number of languages 'doubt' is expressed by means of idioms,
for example, 'to have two thoughts' or 'to think only perhaps' or 'to
believe only a little' or 'to question one's heart about.'
33.412 DIAKRINOMAI; ANAKRINW c: to express disapproval of what someone has
done - 'to criticize.'
DIAKRINOMAI c: hOTE DE ANEBH PETROS EIS IEROSALHM, DIEKRINONTO PROS AUTON
hOI EK PERITOMHS 'when Peter went up to Jerusalem, those who insisted on
circumcision criticized him' Ac 11:2. It is possible to interpret the
meaning of DIAKRINOMAI in Ac 11:2 as being merely adverse judgment, but
since this judgment was clearly voiced, DIAKRINOMAI implies more than mere
judgment. The direct expression of an adverse judgment may be best rendered
in English as 'to criticize.'
ANAKRINW c: hH EMH APOLOGIA TOIS EME ANAKRINOUSIN ESTIN hAUTH 'this is my
defense to those who criticize me' 1Cor 9:3. For another interpretation of
aÓnakri÷nw in 1Cor 9:3, see 56.12.
33.444 DIAKRINOMAI b ; DIAKRISIS b , EWS f: to dispute with someone on the
basis of different judgments - 'to dispute, to debate about, contention,
dispute.'
DIAKRINOMAI b TWi DIABOLWi DIAKRINOMENOS DIELEGETO PERI TOU MWUSEWS SWMATOS
'in his dispute with the Devil, he argued about who would have the body of
Moses' Jd 9.
DIAKRISIS b: MH EIS DIAKRISEIS DIALOGISMWN 'do not argue about his personal
opinions' Ro 14:1.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20000701/4bd3e1ca/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list