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”.
Doubt or dispute (Jude 9 and 22-23) 203
“doubt†(6), goes beyond the literary context of each given verse,
requires support from an argument that is based on a special NT
meaning of diakrivnomai, and fails to explain 1) why the antithesis
must be formulated faith–doubt in the NT but not in extra-biblical
texts (7); 2) what contextual aspects deny that the antithesis may be
expressed faithfulness–contest/dispute; 3) what semantic properties of
pisti" and what traditional Jewish pivsti"-concepts require that doubt,
v
not dispute, be the appropriate antitheses to pivsti"; 4) why only the
special NT meaning of diakrivnomai can appropriately capture the
relationship with pivsti" in specific NT passages that other words
conceptually related to pivsti" cannot (8); and 5) what clear criteria the
hearer/reader should apply to decipher whether or not the meaning of
the verb is semantically modified. The presence of words from the
stem pist* in the immediate literary context of diakrivnomai is not a
reliable indicator of special NT meaning. In both Jas 1,6 and 2,4, for
instance, diakrivnomai occurs within literary contexts that include
pisti" (1,3.6; 2,1.5), but only one of these contexts is said to establish
v
a special NT meaning (9); in the context of Acts 10,20, words from the
stem pist* are completely absent; Jude 22 is several clauses removed
from the noun pivsti" (v. 20).
Second, whereas contemporary exegetes frequently reference
Blass/Debrunner, Büchsel, and Bauer to support their view that
(6) Cf. G. DAUTZENBERG, “diarivnwâ€, EWNT, I, 735; M. DIBELIUS – H.
GREEVEN, James (Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1976) 136; GÄRTNER – BAYER,
“Unterscheidung/Zweifelâ€, 1719; D. MOO, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT;
Grand Rapids – Cambridge 1996) 862, n. 882; PORTER, “Is dipsychos [James 1,8;
4,8] a “Christian†Word?â€, 479; W. SANDAY – A.C. HEADLAM, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh 51902)
115.
(7) Cf. Josephus, De bello Judaico 7, 1.94.1-95.1.
(8) Cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 20.15.3.1-4; Philo of
Alexandria, De posteritate Caini 13.4-5; De ebrietate 169.6-7; De mutatione
nominum 177.7-178.2; De somniis 1.12.2-12.3; Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae
18.329.1-3; Plutarch, Cato Minor 17.4.1-2; Mt 14,31.
(9) Dibelius – Greeven’s (James, 136) statement concerning Jas 1,6 and 2,4
that “the translation ‘to doubt’ in 1,6, which is assured by the antithesis ‘in faith’
(ejn pivstei), in no way binds an interpreter of 2,4 (where the antithesis is lacking)
to the same translationâ€, indicates that for them, the antithesis needs to be
embedded within the clause that contains diakrivnomai. However, this criterion
(which does not take into account that Jas 2,5 also includes the prepositional
expression ejn pivstei) cannot be applied to all NT passages that are said to feature
diakrinomai’s special NT meaning.
v
FOLLOW US