hO DIAKRINOMENOS in Rom. 14:23
Mark D. Nanos
nanos at gvi.net
Fri Jun 23 10:46:02 EDT 2000
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?
Thanks for any feedback (I take digest, so please copy me, nanos at gvi.net),
Mark Nanos
Kansas City
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3719 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20000623/0e99bc0b/attachment.bin
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list