[B-Greek] DIAKRINW and prophets

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Apr 1 12:48:26 EST 2003


>
> In I Corinthians 14:29-32, Paul writes:
>
> 29 PROFHTAI DE DUO H TREIS LALEITWSAN KAI hOI ALLOI DIAKRINETWSAN* 30
> EAN DE ALLWi APOKALUFQHi KAQHMENWi, hO PRWTOS SIGATW. 31 DUNASQE GAR
> KAQ' hENA PANTES PROFHTEUEIN, hINA PANTES MANQANWSIN KAI PANTES
> PARAKALWNTAI. 32 KAI PNEUMATA PROFHTWN PROFHTAIS hUPOTASSETAI,
>
> Thus, in I Corinthians Paul instructs "the others" to DIAKRINW the
> prophet(s) who speak(s), but in the Didache the readers are instructed
> not to DIAKRINW a prophet who speaks. Assuming the meaning of DIAKRINW
> is the same in both passages (i.e., to evaluate or judge -- but see my
> later comments), is there a conflict here? And, as I discuss below, how
> should one translate the Didache passage? And who are hOI ALLOI in
> Paul's passage?
>
> I see a couple possibilities:
>
> 1. hOI ALLOI in I Corinthians 14:29 refers to the other prophets, and
> not to the entire gathered assembly. Thus, while it may be out of line
> or a great sin (per the Didache) for just any person in the church to
> pass judgment on or evaluate what a prophet speaks, it is all right and
> indeed expected for prophets to judge each other and be so judged by
> each other.

Yes, here I think DIAKRINW must mean evaluate and it needs to be the other
prophets, possibly including other mature leaders in the church, especially
any apostles present, but not the whole assembly.

> 2. LALOUNTA in the Didache verse could be translated as "while speaking"
> so the sin is not one of evaluating or judging what the prophet says,
> but of interruping him while he is speaking.

Probably not.

> Another possibility, though, is that DIAKRINW in the Didache passage
> means "to doubt" as in Acts 11:12 (or possibly "to criticize" -- see
> Acts 11:2). Louw-Nida gives "doubt" and "criticize" as definitions of
> DIAKRINOMAI, but not of DIAKRINW (per the vol. 2 glosses). A problem is
> that in Acts 10:20 where the Spirit speaks to Peter, He (the Spirit)
> says "MHDEN DIAKRINOMENOS" (i.e., DIAKRINOMAI), but in Acts 11:12 where
> Peter recounts this event, he (Peter) says the Spirit said "MHDEN
> DIAKRINANTA" (i.e., DIAKRINW) -- though UBS4 gives the Acts 11:12
> reading only a {C} rating, and lists as variants DIAKRINONTA (i.e.,
> DIAKRINW) and DIAKRINOMENON (i.e., DIAKRINOMAI). If the UBS4 reading is
> the correct one, then there may be no distinction between DIAKRINW and
> DIAKRINOMAI in terms of them both being able to mean "to doubt." And if
> it does mean "to doubt" or "to criticize" in the Didache passage, then
> it means that the readers are warned not to question or doubt what is
> said by a true prophet who speaks by (or in) the Spirit, and it thus may
> not be the same meaning for DIAKRINW that Paul has in I Corinthians 14.

DIAKRINW is a tricky word with various related senses. In the Didache
context it seems to be used in a rather negative sense of "passing
judgment", almost "condemn", or at least "criticize" as you suggest.
In 1 Cor it seems to be a positive sense of making careful judgment, i.e.
evaluating/discerning the message. It seems to me that the Didache passage
is closer in intent to 1 Thes 5:19-20.
The common translation "doubt" for DIAKRINOMAI has been questioned by some
people. It does not seem to refer primarily to "hesitate", but rather to an
internal debate with some arguments pointing in one direction and other
arguments pointing in another direction. It is possible that the difference
between the active form and the M/P form is that the active is mainly
debating with or judging something outside of one self, and the M/P is
mainly debating within oneself or within a group. So, it may be that in Acts
10:20 the Spirit is asking Peter not to start an internal debate about what
is right and wrong, but just follow orders. At this point in time Peter had
not met the visitors and did not know what it was all about.
In 11:12 Peter says that he was told to follow those Gentiles without
judging them (because they were Gentiles). After the event he could express
himself a little different from what the Spirit actually said.

It is also possible that the distinction between the active and M/P forms is
disappearing at the time of the NT. I wonder whether the distinction was
clearer in Classical Greek?

Iver Larsen



More information about the B-Greek mailing list