From: Alan B. Thomas (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Feb 16 2001 - 00:33:55 EST
After several off list replies, I would like to state
that I may have erred in getting into the theology of
James. Rather than an individual response to each off
list reply, I think it best I leave it at the syntax
of this might strawy letter.
In what I hope is my final response on this thread,
let me just restate what I thought I had already
On his presentation of justification, I believe James
is simply saying that there are not two requirements
to justification (faith AND works), but that there are
two concepts of justification.
And take KAI OUK EK PISTEWS MONON roughly in the
and not only justified by X
(but also justified by Y}
X = faith
Y = works
This gives us two concepts of justification:
X-justification (before God) corresponding to faith
Y-justification (before man) corresponding to works
Only Y-justification is manifested or shown.
I do not see James implying:
"...and not justified by X and Y" (James states
nothing of a justification by faith AND works)
That is why I take the adverb MONON as modifying an
implied verb and get...
not ONLY JUSTIFIED by X .... (but ALSO another kind of
I realize there are other theological interpretations
to this passage, and again regret having crossed that
I apologize for any confusion, and hope this satisfies
those seeking clarification.
Alan B. Thomas
"Actually, there was no final "s" on "toward," but
now it's acceptable. Languages just change."
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:51 EDT