Subject: Re: James 2:18

From: [email-masked] (Dale M. Wheeler)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:06:52 -0800

Klaus Wachtel wrote:

>Maurice Robinson wrote:
>
>> ...(if the Byztxt is followed) XWRIS has NOT been used before verse 20,
though
>> the use of XWRIS does become a dominant issue in verses 20-26.  Up until
>> that point, the discussion does not center on the issue of faith WITHOUT
>> or APART FROM works, but differs rhetorically and semantically, i.e., the
>> topic under discussion in 2:14-19 is "if someone should claim to have
>> faith, but does not have works" -- this is an entirely different matter,
>> and does not concern the XWRIS discussion of 2:20-26.
>
>That's exactly how Byzantine scribes and readers may have tried to explain the 
>opposition with double EK in 2,18. They seem to have separated v. 18 from
20-26 
>as well as from 14-17. But in 14-17 the author points out that "faith by
itself, 
>if it has no works, is dead" (17). In 20-26 he shows that "faith apart from 
>works is dead" (26). In my opinion the statements in 17 and 26 have the same 
>meaning, though the author uses XWRIS only in 26. Thus 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. 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.
>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).
>

This discussion is, in my mind, a classic example of why many people look at
the process of TC as generally practiced today as hopelessly subjective.  It
appears (and since the following has been their primary discussed basis for
decision-making, the following would seem to be a valid conclusion) Klaus
(and Jimmy Adair in another post) hold to an argument structure in this
passage which then informs their TC choice (I think its fair to say that
there is another presupposition at work in their decision--if not I would
gladly stand corrected--they both think the Byz text form to be in general
inferior to the Alexandrian, but that is not the one brought forth to
demonstrate the point).  The reason that this is important to me is that
when I teach TC in Exegesis and my students read a section from Metzger's
TCCommentary, they see this exact pattern constantly repeated.  While some
might say that the TCCom simply has external followed by internal data, the
problem arises when the data is somewhat equally divided (and for those who
are not committed to an Alexandrian priority, the problem stands in even
starker relief).  The internal decisions are made on the basis of (1) what
scribes do--but we all know that the paprylogical studies of what early
Alexandrian scribes did doesn't match what Westcott-Hort proposed, and which
is in general still followed today (as evidenced by the discussion on this
verse) and that the current studies on the Byz text is showing a different
picture of scribal activity than has been heretofor presupposed--, and (2)
the argument structure presupposed by the decision makers.

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 (I hasten to add that I have no idea at all what
Maurice Robinson thinks about the argument of this passage; so far his posts
have not tipped his hand; thus I speak only for myself here, not him).
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.  James' response then,
with his introduction of XWRIS, makes perfect sense, because he then returns
to demostrate from two OT heros (one Jewish, the other Gentile...note the
shift to plural in v. 24 when the turns from the objector to the audience)
that there is indeed such an intrinsic link between faith and practice, if
that faith is to benefit the believer.

My point is not the exegesis of James here, but that there is another
reasonable (I hope you all will at least grant that the above is a
reasonable reconstruction of the argument, though you might disagree...)
approach to the structure of James' argument, which in fact does not render
the EK nonsense, but demands that it stand in the text as the only possible
way to understand it.  And if this construction is correct, then it is the
Alexandrian scribes who have corrected the text.  I hasten to add that I
feel just as uncomfortable arguing such a correction on the sole basis of my
argument reconstruction as I do about Klaus' argument.  The real problem for
TC, as I see it, is that passages like this, linked together in a chain,
form the basis for the characterizations of what Byzantine scribes must have
done, and then subsequent decisions are based on those generalizations.
Many more studies, like what Colwell did for the papyrii, are needed on the
Byz material, so that we can formulate an accurate, rather than anecdotal
picture of the Byz scribal process...I would suggest that the newest studies
are not all that flattering to the anecdotal picture.

***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept                  Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: [email-masked] 
***********************************************************************

---

From: Klaus Wachtel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:17:37 +0000

On Friday, 15 March 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:

> word which makes sense [...]
> 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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:27:28 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote:

> I doubt, because this rendering ignores that KALWS is an adverb)

I would agree with Klaus on the adverbial nature of KALWS -- the phrase 
does not mean "to do good works," but simply "you do well" (in your 
faith-assumption).

> What makes the 

I also agree that the EK does not fit what Hort would have concluded 
about the Byzantine text; but that EK is a scribal blunder does not seem 
likely nor acceptable in light of scribal tendencies to reject and 
correct such blunders on a wide scale.

=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   <[email-masked]>
=========================================================================