From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Jul 01 2000 - 19:03:16 EDT
<x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:30 EDT
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [b-greek] hO DIAKRINOMENOS in Rom.
14:23</title></head><body>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 9:46 AM -0500 6/23/00, Mark D. Nanos wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Palatino" size="+1">Dear
list,</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Palatino" size="+1">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]."</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Palatino"
size="+1"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Palatino" size="+1">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:</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Palatino" size="+1">hO DE
DIAKRINOMENOS EAN FAGH KATAKEKRITAI, OTI OUK EK PISTEWS; PAN DE hO
OUK EK PISTEWS AMARTIA ESTIN.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Palatino"
size="+1"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Palatino" size="+1">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
NTŠ." 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.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Palatino"
size="+1"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Palatino" size="+1">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."</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Palatino"
size="+1"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Palatino" size="+1">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?</font></blockquote>
<div><font face="Palatino" size="+1"><br></font></div>
<div>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:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font color="#000000">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.'</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">31.37 DIAKRINOMAI; DIALOGISMOS, OU m;
DISTAZW: to think that something may not be true or certain - 'to
doubt, to be uncertain about, doubt.'</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">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.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">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.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">DISTAZW: OLIGOPISTE, EIS TI EDISTASAS?
'how little faith you have; why did you doubt?' Mt
14:31.</font></div>
<div><font
color="#000000"><x-tab>
</x-tab>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.'</font><br>
<font color="#000000"></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">33.412 DIAKRINOMAI; ANAKRINW c: to express
disapproval of what someone has done - 'to
criticize.'</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">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.'</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">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.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">33.444</font><font color="#DD0806">
DIAKRINOMAI</font><font color="#000000"> b ; DIAKRISIS b , EWS f: to
dispute with someone on the basis of different judgments - 'to
dispute, to debate about, contention, dispute.'</font></div>
<div><font color="#DD0806">DIAKRINOMAI</font><font color="#000000"> 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.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">DIAKRISIS b: MH EIS DIAKRISEIS DIALOGISMWN
'do not argue about his personal opinions' Ro 14:1.</font></div>
<div>-- <br>
<br>
Carl W. Conrad<br>
Department of Classics, Washington University<br>
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243<br>
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com<br>
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>
</body>
</html>
</x-html>