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.
86 Peter Spitaler
genres, geographies, authorships, and audiences16. Particularly telling is
the listing of Acts 10:20 in Walter Bauer’s lexicon. Bauer lists διακÏίνομαι
in Acts 11:2 (διεκÏίνοντο Ï€Ïὸς αá½Ï„ὸν οἱ á¼Îº πεÏιτομῆς) under the mean-
ing category, “to contendâ€, and διακÏίνομαι in Acts 10:20 under the
category, “doubtâ€17. However, the clause by the 6th century author Cyril of
Scythopolis, οἱ … πατέÏες διεκÏίνοντο Ï€Ïὸς αá½Ï„όν18, which Bauer cites
in support of διακÏίνομαι’s “NT meaning†in Acts 10:20, is structurally
parallel to Acts 11:2.
Thus, cross-referencing less validates a semantic shift than gives cred-
ibility to διακÏίνομαι’s presumed “NT meaning†in Acts 10:20, “doubtâ€,
and significantly influences one’s interpretation of Peter’s conduct: if
the spirit commands Peter not be troubled personally by “doubts†about
the instruction to follow Cornelius’ servants, the particular problem ad-
dressed by the phrase μηδὲν διακÏινόμενος is located within Peter (i.e.,
the problem is intra-personal) and not in his interaction with the spirit
and with other persons (i.e., the problem is inter-personal)19.
Second, scholars appear to deduce their translation of the phrase μηδὲν
διακÏινόμενος in Acts 10:20, “doubting nothingâ€, from one, or both, of
two aspects of its literary context: Peter’s lack of understanding as to
the meaning of a vision (i.e., his confusion and pondering, διαπόÏεω,
v. 17; διενθυμέομαι, v. 19) in which he resists the spirit’s instruction to
eat forbidden food (10:9-16); and the spirit’s command that Peter must
follow Cornelius’ servants because, the spirit insists, “I have sent themâ€
(10:20). In the first case, μηδὲν διακÏινόμενος is thought to echo Peter’s
confusion as to his vision’s significance, that is, Peter is ordered not to
“doubt†the spirit’s final instruction (his persistent “confusion†being the
inferred cause of his “doubtâ€). However, by grammatically linking μηδὲν
διακÏινόμενος with the main clause of 10:20, the imperative ποÏεύου
σὺν αá½Ï„οῖς (“go with themâ€), Luke excludes the possibility that μηδὲν
διακÏινόμενος corresponds directly to Peter’s confusion about the vision
he experienced. In the second case, μηδὲν διακÏινόμενος is thought to
function as a reassuring command: Peter is to trust (i.e., “not doubtâ€) the
spirit’s instructions to “get up, go down, and go with†Cornelius’ servants
because none other than the spirit (“I have sent themâ€) commissioned the
Cf. David DeGraaf (“Some Doubts about Doubt: The New Testament Use of ∆ιακÏίνωâ€,
16
JETS 48/4 [2005] 733-55, here 754) for a similar observation.
Cf. Bauer, Wörterbuch 370-71.
17
Vita Sabae 174:6-8, Kyrillos von Skythopolis (ed. Eduard Schwartz; TU 49.2; Leipzig
18
1939) 85-200.
This holds also true for the common German translation of μηδὲν διακÏινόμενος,
19
“ohne Bedenken†(cf. Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift, Stuttgart 1980), if “Be-
denken†expresses “hesitation†rather than “objectionâ€.
FOLLOW US