Mon Mar 18 18:05:19 1996
From majordom Mon Mar 18 18:05:19 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA17090; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 18:05:19 +0500
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 18:02:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: James 2:18
In-Reply-To: <31497D7A.E35@uni-muenster.de>
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3699
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status:
On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote:
> In my opinion the statements in 17 and 26 have the same
> meaning, though the author uses XWRIS only in 26.
I see the non-use of XWRIS before verse 20 indicating a clearly different
angle. "Faith _not having_ works" versus "faith _apart from_ works" --
both may be "dead", but for different reasons.
James is speaking to and about believers in any case: the illustration
given in v.15 is of a believer seeing a brother or sister in need and
doing nothing but offering kind platitudes. "Faith not having works"
appears to indicate doctrinal orthodoxy but no praxis when the proper
opportunity to demonstrate such arrives. Failure to produce good works in
such a circumstance entails NO risk to the one "having faith" but not
exercising it, nor does loss of life necessarily occur as a result.
The illustration given of "faith without works" in vv.20-26 applies to a
time of severe testing where clear risk is involved to either the one
"having faith" or his or her intended recipients of the action in cases
where loss of life can result (Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac and Rahab's
protecting the spies from death at the risk of her own life).
Rhetorically, I see two very distinct sequences here, each with a specific
guiding term ("faith not having works" versus "faith apart from works"),
and the terms need not overlap and, according to rhetorical structure,
should not overlap.
> it seems very unlikely to
> me that in v. 18 he might confront a challenge to show faith by means of
> works with his own promise to show his faith by means of his works.
Again, this may be the objector making the challenge and not James.
> A competition of
> works showing faith doesn't make sense in a context which opposes the dead
> faith that bears no fruit to the faith that shows its being alive by works.
The issue in vv.14-19 is not competition, but the question of acting when
opportunity presents itself. No matter how you read it, vv.14-17 clearly
show the need for active works to illustrate inward faith, and not the
mere proclamation of goodwill to those in need. Why in light of vv.14-17
would either an objector or James (depending on where the quote ends)
demand to be shown an opponent's faith _apart from_ works, when the
illustration makes sense ONLY when faith HAVING works seems valid?
It is far better to see v.18 as a continuation of the objector saying
"Let's both demonstrate our faith by our works, you to yours, and I to
mine" The further issue of faith in God and the demons also believing
then would provoke the discussion of action or inaction in time of
personal testing and trial, as opposed to mere inaction when the
opportunity to do good arises.
Rhetorically, there seems to be clear progress from vv.14-19 into 20-26,
with the topic being developed on two fronts.
> Thus I conclude that the first EK in the Byz. text of 2,18 is an error,
> presumably caused by parablepsis (EK before TWN ERGWN in the next sentence).
And I conclude that parablepsis might produce error in a single MS and a
few others copied therefrom, but I cannot see such error growing to a
dominant position within transmissional history without a word of protest
or numerous corrections by scribes.
=========================================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina
=========================================================================
Back