In 2001 I submitted a suggestion to the NET Bible translation committee for translating διακρινόμενος in James 1:6 as 'making distinctions' instead of 'doubting'. The suggestion was rejected.But he must ask in faith without making distinctions, for the one who makes distinctions is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed around by the wind.I wonder how many people have struggled to understand the logic of not allowing for doubts in James 1:6 when the whole point in James 1:5 is that a person lacks wisdom and God gives it generously to those who ask for it without finding fault...
If anyone of you is lacking wisdom, let him ask of God, the one giving generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given him.We need a child-like faith when we ask God for wisdom. A child-like faith can doubt, but a child-like faith will ask the Father and trust him to give what is best. This is the force of what it means to ask "without making distinctions." When we pray, we need to pray according to the Lord's will (cf. James 4:15), not specifying how we want our prayers answered without allowing for the possibility that God may have a better answer for our needs.
You ask and do not receive because you ask wrongly, in order that you may spend on your own pleasures.
Peter Spitaler (2007: 202) writes...It is problematic to deduce a special NT meaning "doubt" (using reflexive expressions like "dispute with oneself" or "being divided against oneself") from the middle voice διακρίνομαι. Such reflexive meanings are not present in the classical/Hellenistic Greek because the middle διακρίνομαι consistently denotes a contesting partner other than - and outside of - oneself.Here is the latest research on the word διακρίνω...
Peter Spitaler. 2007. "Διακρίνεσθαι in Mt. 21:21, Mk. 11:23, Acts 10:20, Rom. 4:20, 14:23, Jas. 1:6, and Jude 22-the 'semantic shift' that went unnoticed by patristic authors." Novum Testamentum 49:1-39.Perhaps with the recent outburst of scholarship on this word, translation committees will be more willing to hear suggestions for better translations where διακρίνω occurs.
Peter Spitaler. 2006. "Doubt or Dispute (Jude 9 and 22-23). Rereading a Special New Testament Meaning through the Lense of Internal Evidence." Biblica 87(2): 201-222.
David DeGraaf. 2005. "Some doubts about doubt: the New Testament use of Διακρινω." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48(4): 733-755.
Norbert Baumert, SJ. 2002. "Das Paulinische, Wortspiel Mit krin-." Filologia Neotestamentaria 15: 19-64.
I want to suggest some arguments for interpreting the pericope of Peter's denial as a kind of court trial. Introducing the account of Peter's denial of Jesus in Luke 22:54-62, I. Howard Marshall says this in his NIGTC commentary... In Mk. the arrest of Jesus is followed by a night-time trial of Jesus, the mocking of Jesus and the denial by Peter (Mk. 14:53-65); since Luke has recorded a morning trial in place of Mark's night-time trial, he has necessarily placed the accounts of the denial and the mockery before his trial scene. The result is that we are given a further example of the πειρασμός in which the disciples were placed (22:46)...πειρασμός means 'test', 'trial' or 'temptation', so Marshall introduces this narrative section by pointing out that a unique feature of the way Luke tells the story is that the 'trial' of the disciples during Jesus' arrest is highlighted more than in the other Gospels. He doesn't limit the sense of 'trial' to the court, but referring to the German scholar W. Dietrich, Marshall continues...
According to Dietrich, 145-157, the Lucan narrative is more forensic in character, various witnesses in turn making an accusation against Peter, first a woman (whose testimony is ipso facto suspect) and then two men (whose testimonies confirm each other). The scene reaches its climax in the confrontation of the denier by the One who has been denied. Thus the roles of Satan as accuser and Jesus as the defender of Peter (22:31f.) are depicted in the actual narrative.However, for several of the unique features of Luke in this pericope, Marshall states, "No plausible explanation of the change has been suggested." He says this about the servant girl in 22:56 referring to Peter in the 3rd PERSON in Luke instead of the 2nd PERSON as it is in Mark. However, this could readily be explained as the girl accusing Peter within a trial scene. The unique use of the vocative 'woman' on Peter's lips may function to discredit her testimony. The three accusers in the Gospels are different. Luke is the only one that includes two men, which may also be significant for interpreting this as a trial.
In Luke 22:59, Marshall sees no evidence of a trial scene...
ἐπ’ ἀληθείας (4:25; 20:21) replaces Mk. ἀληθῶς, a word which Luke reserves as an equivalent for ἀμήν (except Acts 12:11). The accusation is in the third person, diff. Mk., Mt., Jn., a change for which no redactional motive can be seen.
However, these changes may also serve to picture Peter within a forensic trial. While the other Gospels have this man speaking directly to Peter, Luke tells the story that the man is speaking to the others around the fire about Peter. It gives a greater sense of Peter being on trial with a witness giving testimony. This also explains why he says ἐπ’ ἀληθείας, literally "upon truth" or "based on truth." Rather than just meaning 'truly' or 'certainly' (as in Matthew and Mark), "upon truth" in Luke gives this statement more the sense of Peter being on trial in court. This man is giving a testimony based "upon truth" or based on evidence. The evidence that he gives that Peter was with Jesus is: "for he is a Galilean."
The oil on canvas painting is "The Denial of Saint Peter" by Gerrit van Honthorst, c. 1623, and is housed at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts.
These days I’m doing an advisor check of a Bible translation for Luke 21-24. The vernacular translation will be used as the source text for related Austronesian languages at a translation workshop in November and December.
Theology" in his collection of essays, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004). I don't think I ever read this essay when I bought the book after it first came out. I was pleased to see that one of the main arguments of my current M.A. thesis on coherence and discourse structure in James agrees with Johnson's discussion (pp. 246-8) of James's theology.Most distinctive in James's understanding of God (as patristic interpreters and Kierkegaard perceived) is that God is the giver of gifts. James makes the point three times. In 4:6, James takes from the text of Proverbs 3:34 ("God resists the proud but gives grace to the lowly") the lesson that "God gives more grace" (meizona de didōsin charin). That this is neither a random nor a careless observation is shown by James's very first statement concerning God in 1:5, that God "gives to all simply (haplōs) and without grudging (mē oneidizontos)." Finally, there is the programmatic statement in 1:17, "every good and perfect gift comes down from above from the father of lights with whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration." Taken together, these three statements assert that God's giving is universal, abundant, without envy, and constant. Such a view of God is the basis for James's perception of reality as God's creation, open to his constant care but also answerable to God as the source of all that is good. This view of God is, in turn, the deep premise for James opposing an ethics of solidarity to the logic of envy, for in the first the world is construed as an open system in which cooperation makes sense, while in the second the world is considered a closed system in which competition is demanded.This theme of God giving is implicitly in the letter a lot more than what Johnson states, and even with the “give” terminology in 5:18 (where heaven “gave” in response to Elijah’s prayer). I love how Johnson develops this discussion of God's gifts in terms of the world being an open system where God’s gifts oppose a closed system where we would have to compete in envy with one another.
Because God does not exist in isolation from the world but is in constant and active relationship with the world, human existence is defined in terms of a story in which both God and humans play roles. The story has as its past what God has already done: created the world and humans as representatives ("first-fruits") of that creation; revealed his will in the law and the prophets and "the faith of Jesus Christ"; implanted in humans the "word of truth" and "wisdom from above" and "spirit." The story has as its future what God will do in response to human behavior within God's creation: God will judge the world; will reward the innocent and faithful and persevering, who have spoken and acted according to "the royal law of liberty." And God will punish the arrogant and oppressive who blaspheme the noble name by their aggressive and hostile attitudes and actions against God's people. The present of the story-line is found in the moral decisions made by James's readers, above all their choice to live as friends of the world or as friends of God (4:4).Relating what God has done and will do in the past and future to our present moral decisions is exactly what I do in my thesis. Most people think of James in terms of the imperative wisdom ethics. But this cannot be separated from the indicative statements about God.
It is of first importance, then, to understand that James does not "do theology" in an abstract manner, as a form of speculation about or study of God. Rather, James uses his theological propositions precisely as warrants and premises for his moral exhortation. His statements about God and his commands do not sit side by side in accidental juxtaposition. The two kinds of statements are intimately related. In James's 108 verses, there are some 59 imperatives (46 in the second person, 13 in the third person). And these imperatives are almost always accompanied by explanations or warrants, for which James uses participial constructions (1:3, 14, 22; 2:9, 25; 3:I), gar clauses (1:6, 7, 11, 13, 20, 24; 2:11, 13, 26; 3:2, 16; 4:14), and hoti clauses (1:12, 23; 2:10; 3:1; 4:3; 5:8, 11). The commandments are also sometimes connected to purpose clauses (1:4; 5:9) or used in the context of an implied argument signified by the use of oun (4:4, 7; 5:7, 16), dio (1:21; 4:6), or houtōs (1:11; 2:12, 17; 2:26; 3:5). In these connections, it is always the theological statement that stands as the cause or the purpose or the motivation or the warrant for the moral action recommended. James's moral exhortation, in short, is grounded in James's understanding of how humans are related to God. Because of this, each of the moral exhortations in James invites reflection by readers not only about their own lives—how to translate and perform James's script in the texture of their actual existence—but also about the nature of the world and of the God who creates, shapes, and saves the world in which humans are invited to participate as a sort of "first-fruits."I don't always agree with everything that Johnson says about the Letter of James, but I resonate with these three paragraphs more than just about anything I have read in Jamesian scholarship.
The following essays all come from this edited volume by Chilton and Evans. I have only included those titles that deal more or less specifically with the Letter of James...
Robert W. Wall. 2004. "A unifying theology of the Catholic Epistles: A canonical approach." In The Catholic Epistles and the tradition, ed. J. Schlosser, 43-71. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.
38. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans (2004).I have recently become aware of several new works of scholarship on the Letter of James. Under this blog’s heading of RECENT JAMES RESEARCH, I am adding ten titles that have been published in the last year. Six of these are essays that come out of edited volumes rather than journals or monograph series, so I give you the pretty .jpg)
front covers next to the essay title included in each one...
Richard Bauckham. 2007. "James and the Jerusalem community." In Jewish believers in Jesus: The early centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik, 55-95. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
The following five titles that include the "Search Inside!" logo can be browsed and searched online with the Amazon Online Reader. This is even true for Beale and Carson's Commentary on the New Testament Use of the .jpg)
Old Testament even though it has an availability date from Amazon.com of November 1st. Follow the links.
D. A. Carson. 2007. "James." In Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 997-1014. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
James M. Darlack. 2007. Pray for reign: The eschatological Elijah in James 5:17-18. M.A. thesis, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. (available for free download here) .jpg)
Patrick Hartin. 2007. "The religious context of the Letter of James." In Jewish Christianity reconsidered: Rethinking ancient groups and texts, ed. Matt Jackson-McCabe, 203-31. Minneapolis: Fortress.
John S. Kloppenborg. 2007. “Diaspora discourse: The construction of ethos in James.” New Testament Studies 53:242-70.
Peter Spitaler. 2007. "Διακρίνεσθαι in Mt. 21:21, Mk. 11:23, Acts 10:20, Rom. 4:20, 14:23, Jas. 1:6, and Jude 22—the “semantic shift” that went unnoticed by patristic authors." Novum Testamentum 49:1-39.
.jpg)
David G. Horrell. 2007. "The Catholic Epistles and Hebrews." In Redemption and resistance: The messianic hopes of Jews and Christians in antiquity, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton Paget, 122-35. London: T&T Clark.
Huub van de Sandt. 2007. "James 4,1-4 in the light of the Jewish two ways tradition 3,1-6." Biblica 88:38-63..jpg)
Kurt Anders Richardson. 2006. "Job as exemplar in the Epistle of James." In Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter, 213-29. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
.jpg)
James Tauber is once again working on a project that really piques my interest (see my previous posts about his Greek Nominal Paradigm Browser and how he introduced me to Many Eyes).
uncle's cottage in Northum-berland, England. This is not too far from Durham University where Nijay is studying. Here's another view...
A word tree is a visual search tool for unstructured text, such as a book, article, speech or poem. It lets you pick a word or phrase and shows you all the different contexts in which it appears. The contexts are arranged in a tree-like branching structure to reveal recurrent themes and phrases.... A word tree is a visual version of a traditional concordance.
So what was the 500th book? Finally, after several years of searching, I finally found this book for a decent price through Germany's Amazon.de site:The exegetical problem is indicated by the split between English versions...
1. Paul wanted the Corinthians to have the same joy that he did
2. Paul wanted the joy of the Corinthians to make him joyful
Versions following option (1) include...
Versions following option (2) include...
Versions that allow a somewhat ambiguous interpretation of options (1) and (2) include...
Here is the heart of Wayne's post (written before it was acknowledged that the last 5 versions are quite ambiguous and they were grouped with option [1])...
If we simply counted versions, option 1 would win by majority rule. But exegesis can't be determined just by voting. Some kinds of evidence may be more important than others. Sometimes a minority position eventually becomes a majority positions.Good questions Wayne! In response to his questions, it has been acknowledged that the KJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NASB are quite ambigous. This is because the ‘of’ in English can indicate that Paul’s joy either comes from ‘you all’ or that his joy would move in the opposite direction. David Lang responded to Wayne's post and suggested...We must also take into account internal evidence (such as logical flow) for understanding a passage: What makes most sense in the context? For me, it makes most sense for Paul to be saying that he wanted to be made happy by how the Corinthians responded to his previous instructions to them. But the Greek doesn't tilt me one way or the other. In such a case, many say that we should leave an English translation "ambiguous" since the Greek is "ambiguous." But I cannot think of a way to leave the English ambiguous in this case. (I'd like to hear from you if you can.) Sometimes, when translating, there is no way to leave a translation ambiguous when we are unsure what the source text meant. At a minimum, in such cases, I believe we should include a footnote explaining that the Greek could have two different meanings.
Do you think that the linguistic evidence in the Greek text tilts us more strongly toward option 1 or 2? And what leads you to think that if you do? And if you are not sure which option should be chosen in translation of 2 Cor. 2:3, what do you suggest an English translation have in its text and in its footnote?
This is a great translation discussion that stems from the ambiguity of the Greek genitive phrase πάντων ὑμῶν 'of all of you'. I tend to agree that if the Greek is ambiguous that we should try to leave our translations ambiguous as well.One way to preserve the ambiguity might be to focus on the connection between
Paul's joy and that of the Corinthians, rather than on who brings joy to whom. Possible wordings might be:
- "being confident in you all, that my joy and yours go hand in hand."
- "...that my joy is connected (joined? linked?) to your joy."
- "...that my joy is connected to all of you."
- "...that my joy depends on all of you."
Of all of these, suggestion 1 is the least "literal," but I think it sounds the most natural. Suggestion 3 is the closest to the original Greek construction, while still being ambiguous. Suggestion 4 is the least ambiguous and comes down on the side of saying that the Corinthians' joy would make Paul joyful (your option 2).
Alternate interpretations of the genitive phrase “of all of you” could be read as “my joy is [from] you all” or “my joy is all of yours.” There is certainly a difficult exegetical question here concerning the cause of joy and how that joy is functioning in Paul's argument. However, the immediate and wider contexts in the letter argue against an interpretation that has to do with joy itself being transferred from one party to another. More on that next time…πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἡ ἐμὴ χαρὰ πάντων ὑμῶν ἐστιν.
having confidence in you all that my joy is [of] all of you.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}