Peter Spitaler, «Doubt or Dispute (Jude 9 and 22-23). Rereading a Special New Testament Meaning through the Lense of Internal Evidence», Vol. 87 (2006) 201-222
The middle/passive verb diakri/nomai occurs twice in Jude’s letter. It is usually
rendered with the classical/Hellenistic meaning “dispute” in v. 9, and the special
NT meaning “doubt” in v. 22. Beginning with a brief discussion of the
methodological problems inherent in the special NT meaning approach to
diakri/nomai, this article offers an interpretation of vv. 9 and 22 based on the
letter’s internal evidence. The content of Jude’s letter permits diakri/nomai to be
consistently translated with its classical/Hellenistic meaning, “dispute” or
“contest”.
202 Peter Spitaler
standard lexica and grammar books — Friedrich Blass and Albert
Debrunner, Friedrich Büchsel, and Walter Bauer (4) — authenticate its
existence. Third, the special NT meaning can be confirmed by cross-
referencing specific NT passages that contain diakrivnomai (5).
Whereas most contemporary scholars use one form or another — or
some combination — of these three explanations to justify the special
NT meaning, “doubtâ€, for diakrivnomai, a closer look at each of these
arguments reveals their weaknesses.
First, it is problematic to deduce a special NT meaning “doubtâ€
(using reflexive expressions like “dispute with oneself†or “being
divided against oneselfâ€) from the middle voice diakrivnomai. Such
reflexive meanings are not present in the classical/Hellenistic Greek
because the middle diakrivnomai consistently denotes a contesting
partner other than — and outside of — oneself. In addition, none of
the NT authors to which the special NT meaning is attributed embeds
unequivocal linguistic evidence in the literary contexts surrounding
diakrivnomai that would lead hearers/readers of the passage to
understand this verb to be semantically expanded. Internal markers
that substantiate such a shift are either inconclusive or absent. For
instance, many scholars observe that (with the exception of Acts
10,20) the noun pivsti" or the verb pisteuvw occurs in the immediate
literary context of passages with diakrivnomai (Mt 21,21, Mk 11,23,
Rom 4,20, 14,23, Jas 1,6[2x], Jude 22) and, therefore, interpret that these
authors juxtapose diakrivnomai with words from the stem pist*.
However, the common inference that these words mark the antithesis
faith–doubt, therefore implying diakrivnomai should be translated
——————
Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources
(Grand Rapids 1963) 150; W. SCHMITTHALS, Der Römerbrief. Ein Kommentar
(Gütersloh 1988) 509.
(4) BAUER, Wörterbuch, 370-371; F. BLASS – A. DEBRUNNER – F. REHKOPF,
Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen 161984) §78:73; F.
BÃœCHSEL, “krivnwâ€, TWNT, III, 920-955.
(5) Contemporary lexica, dictionaries, and commentaries define a distinct
category, NT meaning, for diakrivnomai in Mt 21,21, Mk 11,23, Acts 10,20, Rom
4,20, 14,23, Jas 1,6[2x], and Jude 22 in addition to — and separate from — the
classical/Hellenistic Greek meaning (to be separated; to come to a decision; to
contend); cf. BAUER, Wörterbuch, 370-371; LSJ, 399; D.J. HARRINGTON, “Jude
and 2 Peterâ€, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter (ed. D.J. HARRINGTON) (Sacra Pagina 15;
Collegeville 2003) 221; T.R. SCHREINER, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC 37; Nashville
2003) 488.