Peter Spitaler, «Doubting in Acts 10:27?», Vol. 20 (2007) 81-93
The verb diakri/nomai occurs twice in the Acts of the Apostles. Many contemporary interpreters assert it means «hesitate/doubt» in 10:20 –a meaning of the middle and passive voices that, according to opinio communis, first surfaces in NT texts– and «contest/dispute» in 11:2, its classical/Hellenistic meaning. In this article, I first discuss and critique the criteria that guide scholars to render diakri/nomai in Acts 10:20 with a meaning that diverges from extra-biblical Greek meaning categories. Next, I investigate the verse within its immediate (10:9-20) and larger literary contexts (10:1-11:18) to show that interpretations of the phrase mhde\n diakrino/menoj that rely on a «NT meaning» of diakri/nomai (i.e., «doubting nothing») have no support in the text. Rather, the placement of Acts 10:20 within its literary context supports a rendering of diakri/nomai in accordance with classical/Hellenistic Greek conventions.
83
“Doubting†in Acts 10:20?
First, interpretations of Acts 10:20 that rely on a distinct “NT mean-
ing†of διακÏίνομαι, “doubtâ€, are without firm methodological basis. The
central argument for the existence of such a meaning, that is, Acts 10:20
is part of a small network of authors (Matt 21:21; Mark 11:23; Rom 4:20;
14:23; Jas 1:6; Jude 22) whose uses of διακÏίνομαι reveal that a semantic
shift from classical/Hellenistic to NT Greek meaning has occurred, can-
not be supported justifiably with references to Acts 10:20. There is no
evidence (grammatical, linguistic, semantic, or contextual) in the text
of Acts that Luke joins other NT authors in redefining διακÏίνομαι’s
semantic properties. There is also no evidence that early readers or hear-
ers of Acts ever realized the completion of the semantic shift9: extra-
biblical Greek writers neither adopt διακÏίνομαι’s “NT meaningâ€10 nor
use the middle in the sense of “contend/dispute/at variance with oneselfâ€,
from which hypothetical semantic in-between stage (i.e., between classi-
cal/Hellenistic Greek and “NT meaningâ€) scholars most often deduce the
meaning, “doubtâ€11. Whereas scholars commonly verify διακÏίνομαι’s
“NT meaning†in Acts 10:20 by cross-referencing this verse with other
passages in which διακÏίνομαι’s “NT meaning†is thought to occur (Matt
Greek patristic and medieval writers who comment on Acts 10:20 show no awareness
9
that διακÏίνομαι has taken on a special meaning in that verse (cf. Spitaler, “Semantic
Shift†13-36). For Chrysostom (4/5 CE), the phrase μηδὲν διακÏινόμενος in Acts 10:20 does
not refer to Peter’s bewilderment or confusion concerning the vision he had just received
(10:17.19). Rather, it captures Peter’s repeated protest in response to the spirit’s command
to eat unclean food (In Acta apostolorum 172.51-5 [ed. J.-P. Migne, PG 60, 13-384; 162
vols.; Paris 1857-1886]). The entire Joppa incident serves as a lesson for Peter (which he
relates later in Jerusalem as a teaching point for the community), i.e., he learned to object
to nothing (ἵνα μάθωσιν, ὅτι καὶ διεκÏίθη, καὶ á¼Ï€Î±Î¹Î´Îµá½»Î¸Î· μηδὲν διακÏίνεσθαι; 173.41-3).
Centuries later (11 CE), Theophylact repeats Chrysostom’s argument; Expositio in Acta
Apostolorum 661.21-2 (PG 125: 495-818).
Cf. Büchsel, “κÏίνω†948, 950; Dautzenberg, Wörterbuch 734; Lawrence O. Richards,
10
Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Grand Rapids 1985) 236.
Cf. Bauer, Wörterbuch 370; Dautzenberg, Wörterbuch 734; Gärtner/Bayer, “Unter-
11
scheidung/Zweifel†1719; Haubeck/von Siebenthal, Neuer Sprachlicher Schlüssel zum
griechischen Neuen Testament: Römer – Offenbahrung (Gießen 1994) 47; Douglas J. Moo,
James (TNTC; Grand Rapids 1985) 64; William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh 51902) 114-5;
Carroll D. Osburn, “The Text of Jude 22-23â€, ZNW 63 (1972) 139-44, here 141; Stanley E.
Porter, “Is dipsychos (James 1,8; 4,8) a “Christian†Word?†Bib 71 (1990) 469-98, here 479.
Other scholars suggest the semantic in-between stages “being undecided within oneselfâ€
(cf. Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek
New Testament [Baker’s Greek NT Library; Grand Rapids 2000] 110) or “being divided
against/within oneselfâ€, cf. Patrick J. Hartin, James (SacPag 14; Collegeville 2003) 118;
Johnson, James 223; James H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek
New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources (Grand Rapids
1963) 150; Walter Schmitthals, Der Römerbrief. Ein Kommentar (Gütersloh 1988) 509.
FOLLOW US