JAMES 2:24: RETRANSLATION REQUIRED (Part 1 of 3) by John Niemelä Introduction: Sola Fide Requires Sola Scriptura How easy it is to assume sola fide as axiomatic to Christi- anity without comprehending the tremendous battles Martin Lu- ther and other Reformers fought. Luther’s nailing of his 95 Theses to the door of the Church at Wittenburg marked an auspi- cious beginning on October 31, 1517. One of Luther’s greatest contributions to the Reformation was his translation of the Bible into a language accessible to the common man. However trans- lating from Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts into German was a massive task. Did Luther have lexicons of today’s caliber? Did he have access to an established scholarly community dedicated to biblical languages? Did Luther have any of the modern pub- lishing tools let alone a computer? And, yet the Reformation’s success not only depended upon sola fide (faith alone), but also sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Indeed, Martin Luther and his contemporaries argued that departures from the Scripture authorized by the pope and various councils obscured the biblical doctrine of eternal justification, sola fide. In other words, sola fide was a compelling argument only if sola Scriptura were true. Luther’s enemies not only rejected sola fide, but also sola Scrip- tura, while those who embraced sola fide, of necessity, embraced sola Scriptura. The two doctrines stand or fall together. Luther quickly saw the practical ramifications of sola Scriptura: People who read the Bible for themselves could dis- cover (or verify) that eternal justification comes by faith alone. Those who could not read it were dependant on those who could. Unfortunately, most who could read a Latin Bible were clergy- men of a church that rejected sola fide and sola Scriptura. If Lu- 14 CTS Journal 7 (January–March 2001) ther were to translate the Bible into German, the recently in- vented printing press would allow him to distribute German Bi- bles widely. If people could read the Bible for themselves, not only would they be reading Scripture, but also they could person- ally verify sola fide. Thus, five years after nailing his 95 Theses on the door at Wittenburg, he released his first German New Testament. During the remaining years of his life, he produced almost twenty revised editions of the New Testament and four of the whole Bible.1 For Luther an accurate Bible translation was essential to both sola Scriptura and sola fide; however, the Bible contains some problem passages, which on the surface seem to contradict faith alone for eternal justification. What would he do? Was Lu- ther to compromise the doctrine of sola Scriptura through an un- reliable translation of the original text?2 Or, was he to compromise sola fide with reliable translations of problem texts for which he (and his contemporaries) lacked exegetical answers? 1 A critical edition of every version produced during Luther’s personal super- vision exists: Heinrich Ernst Birdseil and Hermann Agathon Niemeyer, eds., Dr. Martin Luther’s Bibelübersetzung nach der Letzten Original-Ausgabe, 7 vols. (Halle, Germany: Canstein’sche Bibel-anstalt, 1845–55). For those de- siring a summary, Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, Mod- ern Christianity: The German Reformation, 2d ed. (New York: Scribner, 1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 346–49, discusses the many editions of his New Testament and/or complete Bible that he released in his lifetime. 2 Martin Luther, On Translating: An Open Letter, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. by E. Theodore Bachmann, in Luther’s Works, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament, ed. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Mul- lenberg, 1960), 182, 187–88, and 195, defends his insertion of the word allein (“alone”) into Romans 3:28, despite admitting that the Latin lacks it. The Greek also lacks it. Luther does correctly understand the sense of the passage, but Paul did not say alone here. It was not necessary for him to tinker with the text. A literal translation is quite sufficient because the burden of proof would be upon anyone who would add anything to faith in Romans 3:28. Unfortu- nately, Luther was not gracious toward those who questioned his paraphrase (cf. ibid., 181–202. James 2:24: Retranslation Required 15 Few contemporary theologians have faced such tremendous consequences for their work. Quite simply, if through the incor- rect interpretation of difficult passages, the reformation in its in- fancy could be throttled by those amenable to the position of the Catholic Church, the impetus needed to publish the Bible in other languages might stall. James 2:24 remains the quintessential ex- ample of Luther’s dilemma, a passage that translators still ob- scure. Luther’s Dilemma In regard to James 2:24 Luther, the accomplished debater, seems to have prevailed though the use of a two-tiered approach. First, he tinkered with the translation in an effort to salvage sola fide.3 Second, if anyone challenged his translation (or interpreta- tion), he simply expressed reservations about James being ca- nonical.4 In the short run, this approach is quite clever, for if anyone disagreed with his translation, he could then, based upon the strength of their own argument, cite their opposition as reason to question the canonicity of James. Five centuries later most theologians still assume that Lu- ther’s translation was right. This is a situation where an illustra- tion by former Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, applies. He said Canada’s relationship with the United States is like sharing a bed with an elephant. No matter how friendly the ele- phant (United States), Canada suffers when the elephant rolls 3 Luther worked with both Erasmus’ Greek text and the Latin Vulgate. Lu- ther’s translation misconstrued the Greek grammar here, but it violated both Latin grammar and lexicography. Furthermore, Melanchthan, who knew more Greek than Luther, became involved in checking the translation for the many revised editions. Furthermore, Luther’s translation handled monon versus monos correctly elsewhere. One cannot attribute the rendering of James 2:24 to ignorance of the other (the only legitimate) option. 4 Cf. Martin Luther, Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. by E. Theodore Bachmann, in Luther’s Works, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament, ed. E. Theodore Bach- mann (Philadelphia: Mullenberg, 1960), 395–97. 16 CTS Journal 7 (January–March 2001) over. Likewise, Luther’s opinions carried so much weight in the realm of sola fide and sola Scriptura that his tinkering with the translation squeezed the literal rendering out of Protestant Bibles. Indeed, Luther’s approach to the verse has dominated not only most English versions, but also most theological discussions of James 2:24. In this sense, the elephant has been alive and well in Protestant circles for five centuries. However, because modern theologians are not willing to accept Luther’s second tier (to question the canonicity of James), both sola Scriptura and sola fide have suffered under this burden. In other words, what was clever in the short run has in the long run been rejected: The error in translation requires correction, for Luther’s second tier has be- come untenable and rightly so. Context: James 2:21–24 and the Roman Epistle What models of faith without works are conceivable in the epistle of James? What interpretive choices did Luther face?5 Why did Luther find one less repugnant than the other? What is the basis for saying that Luther’s translation is incorrect? Models of Faith without Works The CTS Journal recently published an article titled, “Faith without Works: A Definition,”6 in which two distinct models of faith without works were formulated and described in detail based upon James 2:18–21. These two models are as follows: The Subtraction Model Formula: Faith – Works = Something less than Faith Picture: A Bicycle – A Frame = Something less than a Bicycle 5 Luther exercised a non-option as though it were a valid grammatical choice. 6 John Niemelä, “Faith without Works: A Definition,” CTS Journal 6 (April–June 2000): 2–18. That article goes into greater depth on the basis for adopting the Addition Model within the context of James. James 2:24: Retranslation Required 17 The Addition Model Formula: Faith + (0 _ Works) = Faith Picture: A Bicycle + (0 _ Riders) = A Bicycle Most interpreters understand James based upon the Sub- traction Model. Just as one cannot ride a bicycle that lacks a frame (which is not really a bicycle anyway), they say that such a faith cannot give eternal salvation. Furthermore, this view argues that the addition of works to a defective kind of faith does not convert it into saving faith. Ultimately, the Subtraction Model asserts that the problem is with the faith, not the works. However, the model is unfaithful to James. The Addition Model recognizes that a bicycle without a rider does not go anywhere. Even though they believe certain biblical truths, regenerate believers, who fail to apply these truths, will not receive deliverance from the deadly power of sin in their lives. If a regenerate person believes that the Bible forbids stealing, but he cheats on his income tax, he is not being ‘saved’ from sin’s deadly grip on his life. Will he go to heaven? Yes. Is his Christian experience one of deliverance? Ab- solutely not! Adjectival or Adverbial Usages of Monon Although Luther would never have articulated his argument in terms of these two models. His translation of verse 2:24 treated monon or “only” as an adjective and in so doing presupposed the validity of the Subtraction Model.