Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

Dear list,
I recently posted the following to B-Greek seeking some discussion of the Greek aspects of this issue. But there are obviously several matters of concern relevant for the C-P list in addition. I cross-post this here with minor modifications (and a correction; 14:20 should be 4:20 for Abraham comment) in the hope of generating some discussion of this matter.

Rom. 14:23 has been usually read as though it is the conscience of the "weak/stumbling" person that would be violated by their following the lead of the "strong/able" person by eating food that they do not believe they should eat (wavering or doubting for DIAKRINOMENOS). (This is argued more on the basis of 1 Cor. than I believe the text of Romans warrants). I have argued that this sentiment is covered in v. 22, and v. 23 refers instead to the "strong/able" person violating themselves by eating what they know is offensive to the "weak/stumbling" person, for this constitutes that which Paul censured in v. 1: they are to welcome the one "weak/stumbling" in faith, "but not for disputes over opinions [MH EIS DIAKRISEIS DIALOGISMWN]."  (Similar to my argument in Mystery of Romans on this is Cranfield, seeing this as a criticism of the strong rather than the weak; cf. 2.729)

The Greek issue I would like to discuss in particular is the translation/meaning of the usage of hO DIAKRINOMENOS in v. 23, and its impact upon the meaning of the statement, which reads:
hO DE DIAKRINOMENOS EAN FAGH KATAKEKRITAI, OTI OUK EK PISTEWS; PAN DE hO OUK EK PISTEWS AMARTIA ESTIN.

BAGD gives the primary reading of DIAKRINW in in the middle form in entry 2; with a) as "take issue, dispute with someone"; but in b) the entry reads "be at odds with oneself, doubt, waver (this meaning appears first in NTŠ." Peter Spitaler brought this anomaly to my attention recently, and I have now confirmed that the biblical verses noted here in the entry do not require one to move away from the primary meaning found in other literature of the time; "to take issue with or dispute with someone" fits quite well. It is possible and arguably better to read the passages included here as variations of "dispute," just as in 4:23, since disputing emphasizes the nature of the tension is with another rather than within oneself alone; although the psychological dimension of self-doubt can be created by or an aspect of such tension, this seems a questionable choice for translation. 

The translation of the substantive middle participle as "the one choosing to dispute" fits Rom. 14:23 and ties it to 14:1 where Paul's injunction began, and keeps the focus throughout the verses before and after this verse 23 on the "strong/able" being addressed to modify their behavior in consideration of the sensibilities of the "weak/stumbling," rather than appeal to their rights, as though this was an act of faith. It also fits the other usage in the letter, found in 4:20 with respect to Abraham: he did not dispute [with God {being implied on this reading}] the promise of God (EIS DE THN EPAGGELIAN TOU THEOU OU DIEKRITHH TH APISTIAi ALL ENEDUNAMWTHH TH PISTEI, DOUS DOZAN TW THEW). Paul would then be undermining here in v. 23 a self-justifying appeal to perceived rights by the "strong/able," when this kind of behavior expresses anything but the ideal to which they appeal for their "rightness" about the matter at hand, i.e., faithful response to God.  Paul would on this reading call such behavior an act of "unfaith" and thus "sin," since it seeks to justify eating in a way that may injure and even destroy another for whom Christ died (14:15), which constitutes "no longer walking in love."

The issue for interpreters of this verse is the matter of whom Paul has in mind; is it "the disputing one" or better "the one choosing to dispute," i.e., the "strong/able one" who is therefore acting in unfaith/sin by their choosing to eat in disregard for the sensibilities of the "weak/stumbling," and thus violating them (cf. 14:1), or is it "the doubting one," or better "the one choosing to doubt," i.e., the "weak/stumbling one" who is because of an uncertain conviction to follow the behavioral dictates of the "strong/able one" thus violating themselves?

If it is the former, then this would have value not only for the discussion of the identities and issues among the Romans addressed, but it would also have additional value for those who may seek to combat the kind of arrogant disregard for the other that is sometimes justified by appeal to one's rights on the basis of supposed superior beliefs to the other; in at least this situation Paul calls such self-serving "rightness" unfaith and even sin when one does so knowing that the other is violated thereby.

Thanks for any feedback,
Mark Nanos