That idea of translation of yours is not so hot. First, my NA27 (and my
USB3) says Iakwbos theOU - msg, not theos, msn. What you typed in doesn't
make sense (unless you accept James deifying HIMSELF).
Second, the foremost reason is that it seems to be inserting trinity
dogmatics into a simple identification of James servant of Christ.
If James had in mind deification of his Lord Jesus, he could have wrote "who
is" instead of having zealous interpreters furnish it for him. But James
sticks to the NT party line, identifying Jesus as Lord, and distinct from the
If the lack of definite articles is leading you this way, see that there are
eight nouns in the first sentence, and only three d.a.'s to go around. I
love StJames, he's so terse!
Now, distinction (theos from kurios Christos) is not "anti-trinitarian," but
it is undeniable and very important. Ive been reading Pannenberg' ST (God
help me!) and he thinks distinction is very important! It even stands as an
argument for trinity itself!
I don't think there's a need to dig for Trinity in this dirt. It's good
dirt, but it grows a different fruit I reckon.
God bless you in your calling!
Gregory Yeager (ELCA* and Wartburg Sem-bound)
*But I really do believe in Jesus!