Tue Mar 19 06:21:02 1996
From majordom Tue Mar 19 06:21:02 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA19732; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:21:02 +0500
Message-Id: <314EA5E1.6E82@uni-muenster.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:17:37 +0000
From: Klaus Wachtel
Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: James 2:18
References: <199603151906.LAA03328@desiree.teleport.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 4248
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status:
On Friday, 15 March 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:
> Leaving the issue of what scribes do aside for the moment, I would suggest
> that my study of James leads me to a completely different conclusion about
> the argument structure in the passage, and that EK, not XWRIS is the only
> word which makes sense [...]
> Specifically, (contra to what Jimmy Adair said in one of his posts about the
> author making a point in v. 18) it is not the author at all who is making a
> point in v. 18 but rather an (real or rhethorical, though I'm inclined that
> James is answering a real objection he has heard to his argument) objector
> is making a counterpoint to James' statment, thus the verse starts ALL' EREI
> TIS, with the objector's counterstatments running through v. 19 (note Klaus'
> statement above about the fact that vv 18, 19, stand apart from the
> preceding and following verses). James resumes at v. 20 with the standard
> rhetorical response to an objector of "you numbskull..." (cf., for NT
> examples Rom 4:19,20; 1Cor 15:35,36). The objector's point is quite simple
> (though I would say, an attempt to deliberately confuse the argument): It
> doesn't make any different whether you start from faith or from works, there
> is no demonstrable and intrinsic link between the two; just look at the fact
> that both you and the demons believe the same thing and yet you do exactly
> the opposite of each other; you James do good works (=POIEW KALWS [BAGD sv
> "KALWS," 4.a. "K. POIEIN do what is right, act rightly, do well]), the
> demons on the other hand just keep on resisting God even though they have
> heard the message of their doom for this rebellion.
Even presupposing that POIEIN KALWS can really mean "to do good works" (which
I doubt, because this rendering ignores that KALWS is an adverb), Dales
paraphrase of Js. 2,18sq. doesn't seem plausible to me. I think a more literal
rendering according to his interpretation will make clear why:
JAMES: ...17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
OBJECTOR: 18 You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith by your
works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is
one, you do what is good (=act rightly). Even the demons believe and shudder.
JAMES: 20 Do you want to be shown, vain man, that faith apart from works is
barren?
In v.19 some one is said to believe (and thereby act) as demons do. I still
cannot see that an objector could reproach James with this kind of faith,
because this cannot but be a faith without works: the kind of faith that even
demons have, which James himself points out to be useless, dead, barren.
Although I must admit not to have the one and only solution to the exegetical
problems of Js. 2,18sq, to me it still seems most probable that the TIS in
v.18 says nothing but "You have faith, and I have works" as if there could
be faith without acting in accord with it, or a Christian way of life without
faith. Neither does SY refer to James nor EGW to the objector. The pronouns
rather have the meaning of O MEN ... O DE or EIS ... ETEROS (cp. J. H. Ropes,
ICC on the Epistle of St. James, Edinburgh: Clark 1916, p. 208-210; M.
Dibelius, Brief des Jakobus, KEK 15, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 12/1984,
p. 191-193). The supposed objector, according to this interpretation, tries to
offer a compromise, which is rejected by James, who at once urges him to point
out, what that could possibly be, a faith without works.
Other divisions of Js. 2,18sq are possible, but I still maintain that it makes
very poor sense, if any, to place something like a competition of works
showing faith between 2,14-17 and 2,20-26. I further maintain that this
conclusion is based on the argument structure of the whole passage, and not on
a presupposition as to the reliability of Byzantine readings. What makes the
Byzantine EK in Js. 2,18 so interesting is the fact that it doesn't fit the
Hortian pattern. Nobody was surprised that Bart Ehrman found a lot of orthodox
corruptions in the Byzantine text, but by scribal blunders like this one we
are forced to revise Hort's classical description of the Byzantine text and
his reconstruction of its history.
K. Wachtel, INTF Muenster
Back