[b-greek] hO DIAKRINOMENOS in Rom. 14:23

From: Mark D. Nanos (nanos@gvi.net)
Date: Fri Jun 23 2000 - 10:46:02 EDT


<x-rich><fontfamily><param>Palatino</param><bigger>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 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.


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@gvi.net),

Mark Nanos

Kansas City
</bigger></fontfamily>

</x-rich>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:30 EDT