What's in a word: διακρίνω (diakrino) - doubt, discrimination or distinction?

Bible translators have a tough job. In fact, in some ways they can never win. There is just no 1:1 mapping between words and phrases of one language and those of another. Bill Mounce, an expert in biblical Greek who was on the Translation Oversight Committee of the ESV, offers a brilliant lecture on this in his free course, Greek for the Rest of Us. (Go to www.teknia.com, create an account and then look for lecture 1b of this course.) Mounce emphasises,

All translations are interpretive

and goes on to explain that all translators are biased. Bible publishers have to decide in advance what kind of translation they are aiming for.

For example, do they want to use gender-inclusive language? If so, they might translate "your sons" as "your sons and daughters", since that appears to be what is meant in many places of the text (because men were representative of the whole population). Today we no longer see men as representing the general population so it may make more sense to say "your sons and daughters" in a modern English translation. Translators constantly have to wrestle with the issue of whether to interpret words or meanings, and we should not be quick to accuse them of deliberately mistranslating certain texts. If they translate those same texts differently, then other people will be clamouring against them. The only way to win is for every Christian to become thoroughly competent in the biblical languages -- and that ain't gonna happen!

With that background in place I do want to raise a challenging question for the translators of several modern translations, the English Standard Version (ESV, 2001) in particular. It seems to me that they have imposed their theology on a word in Acts 11:12, theology that they probably drew out of other parts of the Bible.

The word is διακρίναντα (diakrinanta) though some variants say διακρινόμενον (diakrinomenon). These variants both come from the same root word, διακρίνω (diakrino) which essentially means "to waver" (according to the Strongs Greek-English Glossary). In Strong's concordance this word (no. 1252) is explained in more detail:

to separate thoroughly, that is, (literally and reflexively) to withdraw from, or (by implication) oppose; figuratively to discriminate (by implication decide), or (reflexively) hesitate: - contend, make (to) differ (-ence), discern, doubt, judge, be partial, stagger, waver.

So it's not surprising that different Bibles translate this word differently. But my question is why some translate it one way in Acts 10:20 and another way in Acts 11:12. The same word can mean different things in different contexts, of course, but that's not the case here. In Acts 10:20, the Holy Spirit is speaking to Peter, telling him to go with the messengers from Cornelius with no διακρινόμενος (diakrinomenos), that is, without hesitating/ doubting/ making distinction/ discriminating. Discriminating against them, that is; the fact that they are Gentiles should not stop him from going with them. In Acts 11:12, Peter is recounting what the Spirit said to him and he uses the same root word (albeit in a different form). So now, how can one suppose that the meaning must differ based on context, if that second occurrence is a quotation of the first?! (He's not quoting verbatim, but he's quoting nevertheless, in typical biblical manner.)

I did a study of which Bible translations are consistent in their interpretation of this word in Acts 10:20 and 11:12, and which are not. I wanted to see where this is coming from, to trace it to its root. In particular, I'm interested in the translations which use the word "distinction" in the latter verse but not the former one. The results are surprising.

The King James Version of 1611 does not have this inconsistency; it's "doubting" in both verses. So we haven't inherited the problem through translation tradition (as we have for "so" in John 3:16, for example -- see this). Although some old translations do change the word from one chapter to the next (as Jerome did in the Latin Vulgate, ~405AD), the word "distinction" seems to appear first in the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, and in contrast to the word they used in Acts 10:20, "doubting". This difference is continued in the Revised Standard Version (1971) which is not surprising as it is a revision of the ASV (hence my term "translation tradition"). It pops up again in the latest edition of the New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1995), though there "distinction" is only in a footnote as a secondary interpretation. What surprises me the most, however, is its occurrence in the ESV -- an excellent modern translation produced by a great team of scholars.

The ESV says "without hesitation" in Acts 10:20, but "making no distinction" in Acts 11:12. Peter would surely not misquote the Holy Spirit when speaking to Cornelius' household, so why have the translators done so? If they used "hesitation" as a legitimate interpretation in 10:20, then they should have done so in 11:12 since it is not only the same root word but it is also a quotation 10:20! It seems to me that the translators have inserted their theology into the text, theology from Romans, Ephesians and Galatians most of all. It's the theology of the One New Man (Eph 2:15) in which there is "neither Jew nor Gentile" (Gal 3:28), with "no distinction" (Rom 10:12) between the two.

Is this so bad? Why is this important? After all, they have got their theology straight out of the canon of Scripture, right? There are two fundamental problems with this. I've pointed out the first one above: if Peter is quoting the Spirit and uses the same root word, the translators ought not to translate it one way here and another way there.

The second problem is even more serious. What if the translators' theology is wanting? I plan to explore the key scriptures above (Eph 2:15, Gal 3:28, and Rom 10:12) further in later articles, but allow me to make a few points:

1. The oneness of the One New Man may be the oneness of unity, not the oneness of singularity. In the same way that God is one -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- and that Adam and Eve became one. That is, one but not the same!
2. Neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ... indeed. But read the rest of Gal 3:28: "neither slave nor free... neither male nor female". Yet Paul writes different instructions to slaves and free men, and differently to men and women. Is it possible that what was removed was the dividing wall of hostility, not each and every distinction between Jews and Gentiles? After all, God seems to like diversity, as nature and humanity testify. Even in our resurrected states after Jesus' return, we will all be different, distinct, unique -- not all the same!
3. The context of Romans 10:12 ("there is no distinction between Jew and Greek") is soteriology -- how we are saved. Paul was telling his readers that that we are all saved in the same way: through faith in Jesus. He is not speaking generally, saying that there are no differences between Jews and Gentiles; he is speaking specifically about the means of salvation.

It seems to me that interpretations of certain scriptures have been forced back into other scriptures by the translators in a way that reinforces their theology. It's like a positive feedback that fortifies a particular (and potentially wrong) interpretation. I really don't believe this has been done with any ill intent, but it is a serious error nevertheless. Speaking of national Israel, Paul emphasizes that her gifts and calling are irrevocable (Rom 11:29). Implicit in this is the need for Israel to be distinct from other nations, otherwise how can Israel be identified for her gifts and calling to manifest? This begs the question, what distinguishes Israel from the "goyim" -- all other nations?

The answer of Messianic Jews is simple: the Torah (the Law of Moses). In other words, all the dimensions of Mosaic Law that are still applicable  today (now that the Temple, priesthood and Temple sacrifices are gone) are still binding on Jews, whether they believe in Jesus or not. In particular, the keeping of the annual feasts and the Sabbath, the practice of male circumcision, and abstinence from non-kosher foods (treif, or unclean food) are what outwardly distinguish Jews from Gentiles. (For those about to throw Romans 2:28-29 at me, I am going to have to write on that in another post.) But there was no room for this distinction in the theology of our Bible translators because of texts like Eph 2:15, Gal 3:28, and Rom 10:12 discussed above. This elimination of distinction goes right back to the second century Church Fathers, particularly Justin (Martyr) -- see my essay on The Roots of Christian Antisemitism.

The upshot of all this is that, from what I can tell, translators of the ESV have shoe-horned the text (specifically διακρίναντα/ διακρινόμενον in Acts 11:12) to their theology, thereby reinforcing it and undermining its true meaning. I would be grateful for comments on this, especially if I have overlooked anything important that would justify the switch from "hesitation" in Acts 10:20 to "distinction" in 11:12.