Continuing the theme of the generous goodness of God, the author links it now with the gift of new birth for believers. Of his own will is a participle in Greek, literally “Having made his decision.” It emphasizes that God acted freely according to his gracious purpose. This can be rendered in various ways; for example, “Of his set purpose” (New English Bible), “By his own choice” (New Jerusalem Bible), “In fulfillment of his own purpose” (New Revised Standard Version), or “God made a decision and brought….”

The pronoun us in he brought us forth is inclusive. This clause, rendered as “gave us birth” by New Revised Standard Version, can be understood in three different ways:
(1) First, it is sometimes taken to mean the birth of Israel as God’s special son (Hos 11.1) and as having a special place over other nations (Deut 7.6).
(2) The second interpretation takes it as a reference to the creation of the human race in general. The references in verse 17 and the use of the term “creatures” (meaning the whole creation) in this verse lend support to this understanding. However, there are some problems with this view. For one thing it is most unlikely that the Divine will is simply to create human beings. This would be too self-evident to be meaningful. The will of God is to bring about salvation of believers. Secondly and more importantly, the verb used here, “to give birth,” is never used for creation.
(3) The majority of scholars therefore prefer a third interpretation, understanding “brought us forth” to mean the new birth of Christians (compare John 3.3-8; Titus 3.5; 1 Peter 1.23). The verb “to give birth” is normally used of a mother giving birth to a child. It is interesting to observe that here God takes on a feminine role by giving new birth to Christians. The verb here is the same as the one used in verse 15 and is meant to contrast with that use: there sin gives birth to death, and here God gives birth to spiritual life for Christians. This interpretation receives further support from the two phrases that follow, the word of truth and first fruits. Other ways to render he brought us forth may be “he caused us to be born anew” or “he caused us to have new life.”

The word of truth is the means by which God brought about the new birth. Those supporting the second interpretation above naturally take the word of truth to mean the creative word of God in Genesis 1. However, it is more likely that the phrase refers to the gospel, as this is the common New Testament usage (Eph 1.13; Col 1.5; 2 Tim 2.15). If this is so, in many languages it will be helpful to render word of truth as “the true message” (Contemporary English Version) or “his true message.”

The concept of first fruits comes from the Old Testament regulation that requires the presentation of the first crop to God at the beginning of harvest. It has to be the best of the harvest and be presented annually as a reminder of God’s faithfulness (compare Exo 23.16, 19; Lev 23.10-14; Deut 18.4). As used in this context, it can mean humanity as the crown of creation, having a special place as the representative of the creation before God. But here again it is best interpreted by taking Christians as the first fruits. They are first in time and order as well as in importance; that is, those people were the first to become Christians (compare 1 Cor 16.15; 2 Thes 2.13), and more importantly, as the focus of the context shows, they had a special place of honor in God’s new creation. This is clearly brought out by some translations; for example, “first place among…” (Good News Translation), “the first and highest place” (Barclay), “his own special place” (Contemporary English Version).

That translates a preposition plus an infinitive in Greek, expressing a goal or purpose (thus “so that” [Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version]). The purpose of God’s bringing us to rebirth is to make us a kind of first fruits of his creatures. The expression a kind of indicates that what is said here is to be understood figuratively. It can be rendered as “so to speak” (Phillips), or “as it were” (Knox). The word creatures in Greek is often used of God’s creation in general and the creatures in it (compare Rom 8.18-25; 1 Tim 4.4; Rev 5.13). Since God’s creation includes the creatures, it is possible to use the more inclusive term, “all his creation” (Knox), “in all creation” (Barclay), “all he created” (New International Version), or “all things that he has created.” That we should have the first place in all his creation means that the whole creation is included in the process of rebirth or re-creation. The new birth of Christians then is to be seen as the prelude to the new creation of the whole world. The clause may be rendered as “so that we should receive the greatest honor of all things that he has created” or “so that God should give us more honor than anything else he has created.”

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• God willed [or, made a decision] and he caused us [inclusive] to receive new life through his true word [or, message]. He did this so that we [inclusive] should receive the greatest honor of all the things that he has created.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And the scripture was fulfilled: as a result of cooperation between Abraham’s faith and works, especially the faith and obedience shown in sacrificing his son Isaac, he received God’s approval and was declared “righteous.” What does it mean for James to say that the scripture was fulfilled? The scripture quoted is Gen 15.6, giving the impression that the text is a prophecy; but it does not look like a prophecy—it is a declaration. In its original context Abraham believed in God’s promise to give him his natural son and many descendants, and on this basis, that is, his faith, he was reckoned or approved by God as “righteous.” How can this declaration be said to be “fulfilled”? Actually what James has done is to connect this particular text to the event in Genesis 22, that is, the obedience shown by Abraham in sacrificing his son Isaac. This is something that happened about thirty years later than the promise to give him a natural son in Gen 15.6. Obviously James was not interested in the actual historical event of 15.6 but was more interested in seeing the event as applying to the whole of the life of Abraham. In other words the initial declaration of righteousness on the basis of faith (Gen 15.6) is given its real meaning and full significance through the final declaration of righteousness on the basis of the kind of faith accompanied by and showing itself in works (Genesis 22). The scripture here obviously means a certain passage of the Old Testament. The Contemporary English Version translation may serve as a good model: “This is what the scripture means by saying, ….” Other ways of saying this are “This is what the Holy Book means when it says” or “This is explained by what we read in God’s Book.”

The first part of the quotation is Abraham believed God. In the context of Gen 15.6, the content of faith is in God’s promise to give Abraham natural descendants. The second half of the quotation says and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. The verb reckoned is a commercial term meaning “to add to someone’s account” or “to place to someone’s credit.” This latter sense can be brought out in various ways; for example, “and this was counted to him as righteousness” (Moffatt; similarly Revised English Bible) and “and it was credited to him as righteousness” (New American Bible, New International Version). The verb is in the passive voice; the one doing the reckoning is God. In many languages it is desirable to make this clear; for example, “God accepted him as righteous” (Good News Translation; so also Biblia Dios Habla Hoy) or “God approved him as a righteous person.” The word righteousness is related to the verb translated as “justified” in verse 21. Suggested translation models for this sentence are “God regarded [accepted] him as a good person” or “God considered that he had done the right thing.”

The second result of Abraham’s active faith is that he was called the friend of God. This is not part of the quotation from Gen 15.6, but the thought appears in 2 Chr 20.7, and also in Isa 41.8, where God speaks of “Abraham, my friend.” Being made a friend of God is actually a natural extension of being declared “righteous,” since to be declared “righteous” is to be restored to a right relationship, and to maintain a proper and right relationship is to be on friendly terms. Bible en français courant, taking God as the implied agent of the passive he was called, phrases the clause in the active as “God called him his friend.”

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• This is what God’s Book [or, the Holy Book] means when it says, “Abraham believed God and God accepted him as a good person.” That’s how Abraham became God’s friend.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Do not speak evil against one another, brethren: it is clear that James is introducing something new here from the fact that instead of “adulteresses” and “double-minded” people he is now addressing brethren, a particular group. The expression speak evil against is a single verb in Greek, literally “to talk [someone] down” or “to speak against.” It is sometimes used of speaking against others behind their backs without giving them a chance to defend themselves, and therefore has acquired the meaning of “speaking evil against” or “slander.” In the New Testament it is sometimes listed as one of those vices and sins in the sense of false accusations (Rom 1.30; 1 Peter 2.1), and at other times it is used for harsh criticism or malicious accusation (2 Cor 12.20; 1 Peter 2.12; 3.16, “abused”). In the present context the verb is used in the sense of criticism or accusation made against others, and therefore it may be rendered as “criticize” (Good News Translation), “slander” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible), “disparage” (New English Bible; compare the noun phrase used by Barclay, “the habit of disparaging criticism”). A Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, page 51, provides a number of good alternative renderings for speak evil: “shoot people with words,” “harm others by whispering,” “spoil someone’s honor with evil words.” We can also render speak evil idiomatically as “put evil on others.” Contemporary English Version has a helpful alternative translation model for this clause: “Don’t say cruel things about others.” The word brethren refers to fellow believers and is meant to be inclusive. It may therefore be rendered as “friends” (Revised English Bible, referring to Christian friends), “fellow believers,” or “brothers and sisters” (New Revised Standard Version).

James goes on to define what he means by “speaking evil against” someone; the person who speaks evil against a brother is the one who judges him. In some languages it will be better style to begin the second sentence with “If you do [speak evil against]…” rather than translating literally He that …. It is obvious that James uses the two verbs speaks evil against and judges in the same sense, using the second to define the first. The person who speaks evil against a fellow believer is guilty of passing judgment on (or, condemning) that Christian brother or sister. Furthermore anyone who judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. What James is suggesting here is that slander is a form of passing judgment on a fellow Christian, and this is going beyond what is legitimate. The law demands that a believer love his fellow believer (see 2.8); but to slander a fellow believer is to condemn that believer, and is therefore to break the law—for in doing so he is denying the law’s authority and is setting himself above God’s authority. The offense against a fellow human being is an offense against God, who created that person (3.9). The law may refer to the Mosaic law, but in view of the reference to the “royal law” in 2.8, James is here probably referring to the same law—the “love command” of the Kingdom manifested in the teaching of Jesus (see the rendering of Barclay, “… is to disparage Christ’s law of love…”).

But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge: to judge the law is to pass judgment on it or criticize it as useless or unnecessary. The person who passes judgment on the law is therefore not a doer of the law. This person is someone who does not practice the law, but a judge. What James is arguing is this: to set yourself over against another person is to break the law of love that commands you to love your neighbor. For not keeping the law is to judge it to be invalid and to put yourself above and outside it. The violator, then, in effect puts himself into the position of being a judge. And to exercise the function of a judge is something forbidden by Jesus (Matt 7.1-5).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• My friends, do not say evil things about a fellow Christian. If you do, or if you criticize [or, condemn] another Christian, you are in fact condemning God’s law of love. And if you condemn this law you are really refusing to obey it and are putting yourself above it as if you were a judge.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

For if a man …: James has just pointed out that discrimination is inconsistent with faith in Jesus Christ. He now proceeds to give an example. The conjunction For is used here to explain what is said in verse 1, and it therefore has the force of “To illustrate” or “For instance” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible). The “if” clause can be taken as the subordinate clause of the long conditional sentence here, and verse 4 “have you not…” as the main clause. If points to a hypothetical situation, especially with the exaggerated details in the example, but we can not rule out the possibility that it reflects some typical and actual problem faced by the church. To indicate a hypothetical situation it may be more natural in some languages to begin the sentence with “Suppose” as Good News Translation has done (so also Moffatt, Phillips, New International Version, Contemporary English Version). In other languages quite different constructions are required for hypothetical statements, and such constructions should be used in this context. Since verses 2 and 3 constitute a long conditional statement, it is possible, in order to avoid confusion, to repeat if at appropriate places, as New Revised Standard Version has done, “For if a person…, and if a poor person…, and if you…,” or “suppose” as Contemporary English Version has done, “Suppose a rich person… And suppose a poor person….”

Here man, in Greek, is the word for a male person. Obviously our author is taking a male person as an example. In languages where an inclusive and general term is available, such as “person” (New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version), it is desirable to use it here. This person, wearing expensive rings and clothing, and in contrast to the poor man, is obviously a rich person. And so Good News Translation has made this clear, “a rich man” (so also Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Bible en français courant). The context also suggests that both the poor man and the rich man mentioned here are visitors, not regular church members, for otherwise they would not need to be shown to their seat (compare the rendering “visitors” [New English Bible, Revised English Bible]). And their social status is known only by their outward appearance.

James obviously wants to paint for his readers a picture with a sharp contrast: two men, one wearing gold rings and in fine clothing, the other in shabby clothing. In Greek gold rings is one word, and it appears only here in the New Testament. The wearing of rings by men was not unknown among the Jews. In the parable of the two sons (Luke 15.11-32), a ring was put on the finger of the younger son, perhaps as a symbol of authority. Here it is no doubt used as a symbol of wealth and social status. In some languages it will be more natural to say “wearing a gold ring [singular]” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). In other languages that employ numeral classifiers, translating gold rings literally will result in an unnatural phrase; for example, “wearing ring golden several pieces.” Languages such as these usually have an expression that is not marked for number, meaning that it is neither singular nor plural. Such an expression should be used in this context.

The image of wealth and social status is further illustrated by the rich man wearing fine clothing. The expression fine clothing is literally “shining garments.” The adjective “shining” is used of the clothing of an angel (Acts 10.30) and of the clean linen worn by the bride of the Lamb (Rev 19.8). It is quite possible that the author uses this adjective to describe the clothing worn by the rich man as both elegant and luxurious as well as spotlessly clean, as contrasted to the shabby and dirty clothing worn by the poor man. Other possible ways to express fine clothing are “expensive clothes,” or even “fancy clothes” (Contemporary English Version). In certain languages it will be more natural to put the reference to clothing after the gold ring and say “wearing a gold ring and expensive clothes.” Though we cannot with any degree of certainty judge whether or not this rich man is a senator, nobleman, or politician, as has been suggested (Reicke), we cannot miss getting the impression that he is a man of wealth, power, and social standing.

In stark contrast the poor man comes in shabby clothing. The poor man in Greek denotes a beggarly person who has nothing, not just a man without property and therefore having to earn his own living. The adjective shabby, as used in this context, is meant to be a word opposite in meaning to fine. In translation, therefore, it is desirable to maintain the contrast; for example, “fine … shabby,” “well dressed … ill-clad,” “shiny-clean … dirty.”

We may note here that neither the man with gold rings and fine clothing nor the poor man is identified as a Christian, but it is generally assumed that they are; otherwise it would be strange for them to visit a Christian assembly. It is also to be assumed that they are not members of this particular Christian community but are visitors; otherwise there is no need for them to be shown where to sit.

The word rendered assembly is the word often rendered, or rather transliterated, as “synagogue” when used of the Jewish place of meeting for worship or teaching. The reason for using this word here instead of the normal word for “church,” which James uses in 5.14, is debated. It has been suggested that the word refers to a Jewish synagogue where Jewish Christians still retained their membership rights. This understanding is unlikely in that, as the expression into your assembly indicates, Christians were the ones showing where visitors would sit; they obviously had their own authority to dictate what they wanted to do. It is probably best to take assembly as a reference to a Christian assembly, as some of the early Christians occasionally called their own meeting places by this name. Another question is whether the term is to be taken as the place of meeting or the assembly of people. Most likely the latter is intended, even though a meeting is impossible without a place. The nature of the meeting is not defined. It is generally assumed that it is a meeting for worship. Recently, however, it has been suggested that it is a congregational gathering to hear a judicial case. But this is unlikely, as it seems clear that both of the people are visitors. In either case it should not affect the translation. On the whole a general rendering like “meeting” (Good News Translation; so also Phillips, Barclay, Revised English Bible) is preferable to “synagogue” (New Jerusalem Bible), “church” (Living Bible), or even “place of worship” (New English Bible; so also Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Other possible ways to express comes into your assembly are “comes to where you are meeting together” and “comes into the place where….”

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• Supposing a rich person wearing expensive-looking clothes and a gold ring [on his finger] comes into the place where you are meeting. And suppose a poor person wearing shabby [or, worn-out] clothing comes in too.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

We can subdue and control all animal species, but no human being can tame the tongue. The particle but introduces a sharp contrast. In Greek the tongue appears first for emphasis and contrast; people can subdue wild animals, but the tongue no one can! Other ways to express this first clause are “But we cannot control our tongues” or “But our tongues get out of control” (Contemporary English Version).

The tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison: this construction is grammatically odd. The two descriptions of the tongue have been taken either as in apposition to tongue or as predicates of a separate sentence. In the first case the Revised Standard Version rendering will result (and New Revised Standard Version is the same). However, this approach will be difficult in many languages, and so translators may prefer the second option and put a period after the tongue, and then the tongue (rendered as “it”) is understood as the subject of a separate sentence, resulting in a rendering like that of Good News Translation, “… the tongue. It is evil and uncontrollable, full of deadly poison” (similarly New International Version, Revised English Bible), and Contemporary English Version “But our tongues get out of control. They are restless and evil….” There is, however, a third possibility, which is to take the two descriptions as two separate statements; thus “It is a restless evil. It is full of deadly poison.” In this case the first sentence “It is a restless evil” may be taken to conclude the previous description of the tongue as an uncontrollable animal. And the second sentence “It is full of deadly poison” may be understood as introducing the following reference to the contradictory use of the tongue (verses 9-12). This interpretation also makes good sense and is reflected in the rendering of Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, which begins a new paragraph with this statement. This Handbook recommends that translators follow either the second or third interpretation.

There are a couple of problems relating to the expression a restless evil. The first has to do with the meaning of the adjective restless. In place of this word King James Version follows a Greek text based on later manuscripts and translates “unruly.” While this fits better with the context, it is considered less likely to be original and is therefore rejected by most modern commentators. The same adjective was used in 1.8 in reference to the double-minded person who is “unstable” and “undecided.” As a modifier of evil it may suggest that the evil is difficult to control and disorderly, and therefore the term is rendered as “uncontrollable” by Good News Translation (so also Translator’s New Testament). To keep the image of untameable beasts in focus, Phillips renders it as “always liable to break out,” capturing the picture of a caged beast pacing back and forth seeking an opportunity to break out.

The second problem has to do with the use together of two adjectives restless evil without a connective. Two solutions have been offered. One is to take the word evil as a noun, thus rendering it as “an evil thing” (so Translator’s New Testament and Revised English Bible). The other is to take the two adjectives as a pair by providing a connective between the two, thus “restless and evil” (Contemporary English Version), or “evil and uncontrollable” (Good News Translation). This interpretation is the more likely one, and is recommended by the Handbook.

The second description of the tongue is that it is full of deadly poison, like a snake. As we have observed, this description serves as an introduction to the discussion of the contradictory use of the tongue. The word deadly occurs only here in the New Testament and means literally “death-bringing.” The poison brings about death. The idea of the tongue as full of deadly poison reflects a familiar teaching in the Old Testament about evil people; for example, “Their tongues are like deadly snakes; their words are like a cobra’s poison” (Psa 140.3, TEV; similarly Psa 58.4-5). In many oriental languages it is possible, indeed desirable, to keep the literal and more picturesque language of the original; for example, “It [the tongue] is full of poison that brings about death” (Japanese colloquial version, Japanese New Interconfessional Translation, Today’s Chinese Version).

Alternative translation models for the final part of this verse may be:
• It is restless and evil, and full of poison that brings about death.
• They [or, The tongues] are restless and evil. They are full of deadly poison.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

You have condemned, you have killed the righteous man: James now makes his final charge against the rich, which serves as a transition to the next subject matter. The charge here reaches the high point of the list in the words condemned and killed. The verb “to condemn” is a judicial term. In this context it suggests that the rich abuse the legal system for their own gain. They not only accumulate wealth for themselves through illegal means, but they also exploit the poor to the point of condemning them by perverting the legal processes. Condemned may also be expressed as “declared to be guilty.” However, it is more likely that the rich took poor people into court to be condemned by a judge. The rich did not do the condemning themselves. So we may translate “You have caused innocent people to be declared guilty,” or in the case of languages that do not use the passive, we may express this as “You had a judge [or, chief] declare them guilty” or “… say, ‘You are guilty.’ ”

What does James mean when he says you have killed the righteous man? Some do not see any possibility of actual killing and so have interpreted this as a symbolic killing of the poor, referring to the failure of the rich in sharing their possessions and to fraudulently robbing the poor of their wages. In Ecclesiasticus 34.22 (a deuterocanonical book) we find a definition of such conduct: “To rob your neighbor of his livelihood is to kill him, and he who defrauds a worker of his wages sheds blood” (REB). Others, however, interpret the saying as a “judicial murder,” understood from the previous verb “to condemn”; that is, by perverting the law, the rich condemn the helpless poor to death. It can also happen that the courts deprive the poor of their livelihood by confiscating their farms or other means of support. Still others feel that James may not have in mind any actual crime in the Christian community that he is addressing. Rather he is echoing the theme of the merciless oppression of the defenseless poor by the rich, and highlighting the extent to which the rich are willing to go in exploiting the poor.

Who is the righteous man (“innocent people” [Good News Translation], “innocent men” [Phillips, New International Version], “innocent one” [Revised English Bible], “the just” [King James Version], “the upright” [Goodspeed, New Jerusalem Bible])? In Greek this is in the singular, and possibly because of this some earlier commentators see it as a reference to a particular righteous person, for example, Jesus or even James. But these suggestions seem out of place in the present context. It is best to take it as a general term referring to innocent or good people. Wealthy people using their power unjustly to oppress the powerless poor and the innocent is a recurring theme denounced by the prophets in the Old Testament (Amos 5.7-12; 8.4; Isa 3.14-15) Further, the idea that the powerful can go as far as to bring about the death of the poor and the righteous is often found in the wisdom literature (Pro 1.10-19; Psa 37.14-15, 32); an especially close parallel to the saying here is found in Wisdom 2.10-20 (deuterocanonical).

Taking the righteous man as a general term, we can render it inclusively as “innocent people,” as Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version have done. On the other hand, if we think that it is best to take it as a collective singular, referring to the kind of person killed in a representative capacity, and if this will be natural in a particular language, we can render it as “the innocent one” (so Revised English Bible) or “the righteous one” (New Revised Standard Version).

He does not resist you: this final clause in James’ charges is problematic. The problem is in deciding whether it is a question or a statement. Most of the recent translations render it as a statement. However, some consider the statement as an anticlimax and therefore have rendered it as a rhetorical question, “Does he not resist you?” with the expected answer to it “Yes, he does resist you.” In this case we still have to identify who “he” is, since the subject is not given in Greek. There are two possibilities:
(1) The first possibility is to take “he” as “the innocent one” who is exploited by the rich. This is apparently the option favored by Goodspeed when he renders the clause as “Will he make no resistance?” In this case what James would be conveying here is “Yes, he will resist you,” with the sense that this will be in the future, that is, on the Day of Judgment. If we wish to take the “righteous man” in the general sense as “innocent people” (in the plural), we can replace “he” with “they.”
(2) The second possibility is to take “he” as God. In this case the rhetorical question can be rendered as “Will God not resist you?” as in the Good News Translation alternative rendering. The answer to the question would be “Yes, God will resist you!”

Of the two possibilities, the second one seems better, as it fits better with the tone of charges and warnings.

The rendering of the last clause as a rhetorical question, while making sense, encounters some difficulty in that the present tense of the verb has to be taken as referring to the future, or even rendered as a future (so both Goodspeed and the Good News Translation alternative rendering). However, had James wanted to refer to the future, he could have altered the tenses accordingly, as he has done in 5.3. It is probably best therefore to render the final clause as a statement and take “he” as referring back to “the righteous one.” The righteous man is unable to resist because he is helpless and defenseless; “he cannot offer resistance to you” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). This last statement need not be seen as an anticlimax. In fact it is quite powerful in several ways. The change to the present tense makes the fact of nonresistance more vivid. The fact that the statement does not have a connective to link it with the previous statement makes the fact of nonresistance more deliberate. In fact it is probably best to make it a separate and complete sentence (Reicke). Finally, a simple statement of defenselessness and powerlessness serves to put the abuse of power by the rich in sharper focus.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .