222 Peter Spitaler * ** In this article, I have pursued a classical/Hellenistic interpretation of Jude 9 and 22-23 that uses the text’s internal data to explicate these verses rather than imposing a special NT meaning upon diakrivnomai. As a result, I recommend a reconsideration of predominant contemporary interpretations of vv. 22-23 that are built upon a special NT meaning for these verses’ common verb. The claim that there exists an exclusive NT category of meaning is weaker than commonly acknowledged; its application to Jude’s text should be abandoned. Diakrivnomai’s classical/Hellenistic range of meaning allows one to understand, and appropriately and consistently interpret, the grammar and syntax of vv. 22-23 within the literary context of Jude’s letter. Department of Theology Peter SPITALER and Religious Studies Villanova University 800 Lancaster Ave. Villanova, PA 19085 USA SUMMARY The middle/passive verb diakrivnomai 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 diakrivnomai, this article offers an interpretation of vv. 9 and 22 based on the letter’s internal evidence. The content of Jude’s letter permits diakrivnomai to be consistently translated with its classical/Hellenistic meaning, “dispute” or “contest”. —————— lacks a refutation of the infiltrators’ arguments supports my interpretation. For the differing opinion that Jude admonishes the faithful to have nothing to do with the infiltrators, cf. HARRINGTON, Jude and 2 Peter, 209-210; KRAFTCHICK, Jude, 2 Peter, 36; NEYREY, 2 Peter, Jude, 91-92.