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.
Peter Spitaler
84
21:21; Mark 11:23; Rom 4:20, 14:23; Jas 1:6; Jude 22)12, cross-referenc-
ing Acts 10:20 with some passages but not with others that also have
the middle/passive διακÏίνομαι (Acts 11:2; Jas 2:4; Jude 9) introduces
several, and in my opinion unwarranted, paradoxes into the exegesis of
these passages.
1) In NT texts, διακÏίνομαι’s newly shifted meaning exists parallel
to its traditional (i.e., classical/Hellenistic Greek) meaning: three of the
six authors who use διακÏίνομαι use it both with its classical/Hellenistic
(Acts 11:2; Jas 2:4; Jude 9) and presumed “NT meaning†(Acts 10:20;
Jas 1:6; Jude 22). However, alternating the meaning of a common Greek
word presupposes that the audiences recognize the authors’ semantic
creativity, especially if comprehensibility of word usage, and thus of the
argument, is the goal of their efforts. Yet, they neglect to place consistent,
recognizable lexical and/or contextual markers in their texts that would
signal the audiences whether, and when, διακÏίνομαι has the traditional
or the “NT meaningâ€. In these three texts, semantic inconsistency cancels
out possible rhetorical advantages that shifting διακÏίνομαι’s meaning
might entail.
2) In NT texts, διακÏίνομαι’s newly shifted meaning exists parallel to
traditional verbs for “doubtâ€. Matthew both uses διστάζω (14:31; 28:17)
and presumably joins other NT authors in changing διακÏίνομαι’s mean-
ing to “doubt†(21:21)13. However, Matthew uses διακÏίνομαι only once,
and the gospel narrative provides no clues as to what particular semantic
qualities of διακÏίνομαι make changing its meaning the better choice
rather than reusing διστάζω. If Matthew indeed attempted to shift the
verb’s meaning, from the audience’s perspective, the result is semantic
confusion, not clarity, because of a lack of coherence of expression.
3) Two of the six authors use διακÏίνομαι only once in their texts (Matt
21:21; Mark 11:23). These single occurrences do not constitute a “critical
mass†of evidence to support the claim that both authors use διακÏίνομαι
with a meaning that is semantically foreign to this verb. In other words,
based on the texts of Matthew’s and Mark’s gospels alone (i.e., without
Cf. Barrett, Acts 158; Witherington, Acts 351; Daniel J. Harrington, “Jude and 2
12
Peterâ€, in 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter (SacPag 15; Collegeville 2003) 221; Edmund D. Hiebert,
“Selected Studies from Jude. Part 3: An Exposition of Jude 17-23â€, BSac 142 (1985) 355-66,
here 363; Dautzenberg, “Wörterbuch†735; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (The New
American Commentary 37; Nashville 2003) 488; Pheme Perkins, First and Second Peter,
James, and Jude (Louisville 1995) 98. For a critique of cross-referencing NT passages that
have διακÏίνομαι, cf. Christoph Burchard, Der Jakobusbrief (HNT 15/1; Tübingen 2000)
60; Martin Dibelius and Hans Greeven [rev.], James, trans. M. A. Williams, Hermeneia
(Philadelphia 1976) 136.
Cf. also Baumert, “Wortspiel†27 n. 7.
13
FOLLOW US