I enjoy translating. I find James’s letter interesting, particularly its content rather as opposed to issues like authorship. I decided to merge the two and work my way through this letter, noting anything that I find of interest. I always appreciate comments, critiques, and insights. Without further ado:
1 Ἰάκωβος θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ δισπορᾷ χαίρειν.
[From] James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ: Greetings to the people of God who are scattered across the world.
- Louw-Nida notes that δώδεκα φυλαῖς (lit., “twelve tribes”) is in a figurative sense a reference to the New Israel.
- “The world” in James’s time meant the Roman Empire.
- The phrase θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is positioned between “James” and “servant” leaving no ambiguity as to of whom James is a servant.
2 Πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε, ἀδελφοί μου, ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις, 3 γινώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν.
Consider it all joy, my siblings, whenever you undergo various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith results in endurance.
- “All joy” is emphatic here. James seems to encourage the people to always rejoice during trials.
4 ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἧτε τέλειοι καὶ ὁλόκληποι ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι.
And let endurance be a perfecting work so that you may be complete and whole, lacking in nothing.
- The position of ἔργον τέλειον is between the subject and the verb, possibly indicating an emphasis on it. The following clause seems to confirm this as it expands the idea of endurance being a perfect work. Alternately, the ἵνα clause might be more related to the verb; if this is the case, then the focus could be on one’s allowing endurance to have its “full effect” (NET).
the archives near Emmaus 
In the light of your translation “Consider it all joy, my siblings,” I was wondering if there is any instance in the NT where the traditional “brothers” (as the KJV has it) should not be translated “siblings”?
I’m wondering why ἐν τῇ δισπορᾷ (v.1) is rendered “scattered across the world” when something like “in the Diaspora” or “in the Dispersion” seems simpler.
Brian, good stuff! At some point, we have to make a decision about δώδεκα φυλαῖς. I see you did. 😉 One question: Why not “slave” for doulos?
JohnDave wrote this post.
Brian what is your source for this Greek? What happened to:
“Ἰάκωβος θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ χαίρειν“?
No matter, φυλαῖς (lemma φυλή) is not ambiguous, and not figurative. It means ‘tribe’ and only applies to a tribe where people are kindred. See this same expression in [Matt 19:28] (“δώδεκα φυλὰς” = “twelve tribes“), [Luke 22:30] (twelve tribes), [Hebrews 7:14] (tribe of Judah), etc. It’s the same Greek expression. Given your example above, you’re suggesting we translate [Luke 22:30] as “..that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the people of God (of Isarael).”
Similarly, διασπορά has exactly one meaning as well. It is used in the LXX to mean the scattering of the House of Israel in [2 Esd 11:9], [Ps of Sol 9:2], (prophetically in [Deut 28:25, 30:4]), [Jer 15:7] etc. It’s used exactly the same in the NT to describe the dispersed of Israel; [John 7:35][1 Peter 1:1]. There isn’t an instance in the Greek NT or the Greek OT where διασπορά is used with anyone but the scattering of Israel. Therefore to make figurative [James 1:1] by translating it as you have to say “Greetings to the people of God who are scattered across the world.“, is not the least bit honest, linguistically (notwithstanding the theological issues your translation poses). An honest translation would be something like “James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, (or more properly Yeshua, anointed one), to the twelve tribes that are dispersed – be glad (rejoice)!“.
The goal here is either to translate the meaning of the Greek clearly for the sake of conveying its intended meaning, or make it say what we want it to say. The latter approach is worthless as it introduces ideas foreign to the author. We can make it mean anything we want it to in that case …
In [James 1:2] ἡγέομαι implies ‘being led’ – so the English ‘consider it joy’ stems from the idea of trials leading to joy is pretty typical. It’s conversational English (which is fine) but unfortunately loses the strength of Paul’s comment.
@Roland: I’m taking a more gender inclusive stance here because I think that “God’s people” includes females as well. If I translated “twelve tribes” more literally, I think “brethren” might have been the better choice. I think that the themes in James are something that can be applied to both male and female in James’s time. I’ll need to look at other usage in the NT, though, so that’s a great point.
@Brian: The term “Diaspora” seemed to carry too much of a Jewish flavor. I followed Louw-Nida in translating dōdeka phulais as “God’s people,” which is a bit more inclusive. I think that James is a bit more inclusive, like Matthew with whom James shares many features. So the translation into “scattered across the world” was something that tried to be more in line with that.
@TC: I wasn’t sure if James, if this is the brother of Jesus, could think of himself as being wholly subservient to and controlled by Jesus. It might be the brotherly thing. On the other hand, if there is the idea of respect for the sibling hierarchy, and, of course, the Jewish thought of their being subservient to God, then “slave” is probably the better choice here.
What’s interesting about your comment on ἔργον τέλειον in [Jam 1:4] is how it was used in the LXX. Look at how τέλειον is used to describe the perfection of the pascal lamb in [Exo 12:5] (for example).
There are definite resonances between the language in James here, and the OT (though I confess, in this case I’d likely blame the influence of Greek OT scripture, rather than it being evidence of Hebrew thought (which is my ‘normal’ preference for when we see resonances)).
JohnDave, for you to read this as inclusive is beyond the semantic scope of the words used. The Greek is specific. Compare δώδεκα φυλὰς to any other instance if this expression in either the OT LXX or the NT. In every case the tribe(s) are literal tribes.
Only a theologically driven agenda or an unusually low view of linguistic meaning could drive into this text other meanings (and I would argue such things are likely dishonest at best).
My apologies Brian and JohnDave – I attributed the translation to Brian when I should have credited you instead JohnDave.
@Andrew: Thanks for all the comments. Both Louw-Nida and Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich acknowledge that δωδεκα φυλας is figurative (I haven’t checked with the latest edition of Arndt, Danker, Bauer, and Gingrich, though). Both are leading lexicons as far as I know and I think they might be working with something that I don’t quite know concerning this phrase. As I commented to Brian, if James is in any way like Matthew (as they both share similar content), then I think James is writing to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles, not only to those of the twelve tribes. That is where I think Louw-Nida and BAG are probably coming from as well.
The phrase εργον τελειον was as a little difficult, but I find the NET Bible’s rendering of “full effect” the best state how I understand it. In trying to stay close to a literal translation there, I rendered it “perfecting work,” which I think is accurate.
I wouldn’t close the door on James writing to Jewish Christians, specifically. Are there other elements of this epistle that lead us to think it had to be a mixed audience? It seems to me that James’ use to “twelve tribes” and “Diaspora”, even if figurative, should cause us to pause and ask why he used these words, even if they have a more dynamic meaning.
JohnDave, I don’t doubt that Louw-Nida and Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich acknowledge that δωδεκα φυλας is figurative. However Louw-Nida’s, Bauer’s, Arndt’s, and Gingrich’s opinion on the matter is just that – opinion. It’s not correct because they are ‘experts’ and its not correct because they agree. If it’s correct, its correct because of true premises, and sound logic. If I simply acquiesce to their opinions because they are ‘experts’ I would be committing the fallacy of ‘appealing to authority’, or, if I were to acquiesce to their opinions because their opinion represents the ‘popular’ opinion, again I would be committing another fallacy ( ‘Argumentum ad populum’). Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions.
How can I dare reject the opinions of Louw-Nida, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich? Two reasons; I think for myself, and I have done what they have not … I’ve looked at the standard Greek usage of the words in question in every instance, both in the Greek OT (LXX) and the entire NT as well as secular Greek outside of biblical translation, and found that these words are used consistently and non-figuratively (in the biblical context) to mean the ‘Twelve Tribes’. Specifically φυλή | φυλας are never use to mean anything but “progeny of a common ancestor” (G5443). This is why I provided a list of where these words were used in OT and NT Greek usage ( [Matt 19:28], [Luke 22:30], [Hebrews 7:14], [2 Esd 11:9], [Ps of Sol 9:2], (prophetically in [Deut 28:25, 30:4]), [Jer 15:7] ). You don’t need to believe me – you can see the evidence for yourself, if you bother.
To prove my claim wrong, it is typically wise to avoid using fallacies (such as appealing to authority, or popularity). I’ve shown why Louw-Nida, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, are wrong (and provided evidence), as eminent as they may be. To prove my claim wrong, the standard of disproof is fairly low. You only need to show a single instance (other than the one in question) where φυλή or φυλας is figurative, not literal. Since the internet is flush with repositories of ancient text’s containing secularly Greek (so normal usage) containing millions of Greek words, and since you also have a Greek OT and NT to entirely source (also containing φυλή or φυλας used in everyday usage), asking you to provide but a single clear example of where either of these words is used figuratively, is not too much to ask as a burden of proof, is it?
If a counter-example cannot be found, the intellectually honest thing to do would be to cede the point and follow the evidence (however painful).
@Brian: I agree. I’m not discounting any other translation. I only found Louw-Nida’s view interesting, which is why I translated it that way here.
@Andrew: I think you’re making much ado about nothing in regard to what I’m doing here. I stated in the opening, I’m noting anything I find of interest. This isn’t meant to be a once-for-all, settled, and perfect translation. It’s simply a translational exercise that I’m blogging on.
You mention “intellectual honesty” as if I’m somehow being purposefully misleading. I’m not. I’m stating where I’m coming from and what I think is going on with the lexicons. That’s all I’m saying. Nowhere am I trying to “appeal” to the lexicons as authorities as an argument. Rather, I’m saying that because they are leaders in their field, they might be working with information that I didn’t know concerning the phrase. It doesn’t mean that I think they are completely correct. I think you’re quite presumptive that I’m firstly making an argument and secondly that I don’t know what informal fallacies are.
I’m not here to “prove your claim wrong.” In fact, my own personal stance on this goes with the literal rendering (perhaps you should ask me what my own personal stance is; one should not assume that in a translational exercise where I note things that are interesting that I personally believe it). Once again, I went with Louw-Nida because I found it interesting. I’m not changing the translation here, simply because you think it’s “intellectual dishonesty” because that doesn’t apply here. Nor do I need to line up with your “goal,” although I try to be clear about where I’m coming from.
Nowhere in your comments have you ever asked me “to provide but a single clear example of where either of these words is used figuratively” so I am clueless as to what you’re talking about. All I can see are declarative statements and statements bordering on demeaning. Maybe you can provide clips from your comments stating specifically that question. The only thing painful to me is that you’re investing all your energy to create arguments against a simple interesting observation (which I haven’t ever affirmed as final or something that I believe) and a non-argument. However, I did find it laughable that you would state that you “think for yourself” (the implication being that I don’t or that they don’t?) and that you “have done what they have not … [that] [you’ve] looked at the standard Greek usage of the words in question in every instance, both in the Greek OT (LXX) and the entire NT as well as secular Greek outside of biblical translation” (as though you can be 1000% sure that they haven’t?).
JohnDave, you make some good points, and I was not aiming my comments about logic and reason at your translation. With the possible exception of the bit about how you took δωδεκα φυλας, I appreciated your comments. So if it seemed personal, I apologize. That would be a defect in how I communicate. I will try to do better.
That said, if I did have a criticism , it was the δωδεκα φυλας business, only because there is a bigger issue at stake (that is somewhat important), and that is this – some bible language is clearly figurative, intended to be so, but it is the minority, and determined by the literary genre of the work in question. In this, our Post-modernist age, where truth is relative, many honest Christians ‘spiritualize’ the text where they should take it at face value. The end result is that scripture begins to say whatever we wish it to say, and not what it was intended to say.
If I responded to you harshly, again I’m sorry, but this is why.
FWIW, I enjoyed the post, keep ‘um coming!