Is it not they …?: the author brings up the third charge with the emphatic they, as in the second charge. They, the rich, are precisely the ones who blaspheme that honorable name. It seems unnecessary to understand the saying as indicating that Christians are under some kind of religious persecution, as has been suggested by some scholars. The verb blaspheme here means “to abuse,” “to insult,” “to slander” (so Goodspeed, New International Version), “to speak evil of” (so Knox, Good News Translation), or “to say evil things about.” It may be observed that blasphemy can be committed by words as well as by deeds. Since nothing is said specifically about the rich saying evil things about the name in this context, it may be desirable to use a more general term such as “to insult,” “to abuse,” or “to disgrace” when translating the verb. The phrase honorable name may be rendered as “good name” (Good News Translation), “excellent name” (New Revised Standard Version), or “noble name” (Goodspeed, New International Version, Today’s Chinese Version). The translator will have to choose the one most appropriate to his or her language.

The phrase which was invoked over you, or “by which you have been called,” reflects a common Hebrew idiom “to call a name upon someone,” meaning “to give a name to someone,” indicating possession by the name giver or special relationship to the name giver. In the Old Testament, when God calls a name over someone, it means that this person becomes God’s possession and has a special relationship to him (compare Amos 9.12; Deut 28.10; Jer 14.9). In the New Testament it is Jesus who maintains this close relationship with his believers. The verb form used suggests that this has already happened at a definite time, most likely at baptism, as that is often defined as baptism in or into the name of Jesus Christ (compare Acts 2.38; 10.48; 19.5). Slander of the name of Jesus is an abuse of those who bear his name, namely Christians (compare Acts 5.41). On the other hand, whoever abuses the bearer of the honorable name abuses the name itself, that is, the name of Jesus Christ (so Contemporary English Version “make fun of your Lord”).

There are several possible ways to translate this clause, depending on what we understand to be the background of the phrase the honorable name which was invoked over you. The first possibility is to leave unidentified the person whose “honorable name” is referred to. This is the option taken by some translations; in addition to Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, we have, for example, “the honourable name which has been pronounced over you” (New Jerusalem Bible) and “the noble name of him to whom you belong” (New International Version). The second possibility, taking the Old Testament as the background as shown above, is to make God the subject of calling someone; for example, “the honoured name by which God has claimed you” (so New English Bible, Revised English Bible) and “the good name which God has given you” (Bible en français courant). The final possibility, and the most likely one, is to identify the honorable name as that of Christ, and in particular the name spoken at the time when a person became a Christian through baptism; for example, “the good name that was invoked over you when you became a Christian” (so Italian common language version [Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente]), “the good name that they [or, people] pronounced over you when you believed in Christ,” or “the fair name of Jesus, which was pronounced over you, when you became his in baptism” (Barclay; similarly Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

The answer to the two rhetorical questions in verses 6 and 7 is “Yes, the rich.” In some languages it may be more effective to answer the questions directly, as Good News Translation has done after the first question. In this case it is best to express the second question as a strong statement, again as Good News Bible has done. In other languages it may be more appropriate to restructure all these rhetorical questions as strong statements. For example:
• It is the rich who exploit you! It is they who drag you to court! It is they who slander the honorable name invoked on you! (so Today’s Chinese Version).

Other possible renderings may be:
• It is the rich who treat you badly! It is they who force you to go before the judges! It is they who say evil things about your Lord.
• It is they who say evil things about Jesus to whom you belong.

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 .

James again uses the demonstrative particle Behold to call attention to an important statement, summarizing the content of the previous two verses. The force of the particle in this instance has been rendered as “Remember” (Phillips, New Jerusalem Bible), “As you know” (New International Version), “Indeed” (New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version), “In fact” (Contemporary English Version).

We call those happy who were steadfast: the verb rendered we call … happy may be rendered “we reckon … truly happy,” or “We consider blessed” (New International Version). The word “happy” is certainly a modern term that can be easily understood. However, some scholars are not satisfied with “happy” as a rendering, feeling that it weakens the force of the original, and have therefore tried to bring the original force out by adding an adverb, such as “how happy” (Living Bible), or a classifier like “ultimate bliss” (Barclay). It is also possible to consider the clause we call those happy to mean “we praise those who” (similarly Contemporary English Version), meaning “we bless them,” or “we say nice things about them,” or even “they deserve much praise.” We here refers to all Christians and therefore should be rendered as inclusive “we.”

The participle rendered as those … who were steadfast is related in meaning to the verb be patient used in 5.7 (see the discussion there). To be steadfast is to have “the power to see things through” (Barclay). The meaning of the participle has been brought out in various ways; for example, “who have persevered” (New International Version, New American Bible), “who showed endurance” (New Revised Standard Version), “because they endured” (Good News Translation), “who endured the most” (Contemporary English Version), “who stood firm” (Revised English Bible). Those can refer back to “the prophets” in the previous verse, as Good News Translation interprets it with “We call them happy because.” However, it is more likely that those simply means “anyone who.” Contemporary English Version seems to follow this interpretation, with “we praise the ones who….” It is thus possible to express this first sentence as:
• In fact [or, Indeed] we consider anyone truly happy who endured.
• In fact we praise [or, bless] any of those people who….

You have heard of the steadfastness of Job: as a concrete example of someone who showed steadfastness, James cites Job. He uses the noun steadfastness in order to make a connection with the related verb used in the previous sentence for emphasis. The phrase the steadfastness of Job is rendered as “the patience of Job” by King James Version, and obviously it is this translation that gives rise to the proverbial phrase “the patience of Job” in English. In Job’s case “steadfastness” meant that, even though he did complain about God’s treatment of him, he never lost his faith. He believed in God even though he could not understand his sufferings; he continued to have hope in him (Job 1.21; 2.10). The phrase has been rendered variously; for example, “the endurance of Job” (New Revised Standard Version), “the perseverance of Job” (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible), “Job’s patient endurance” (Phillips).

You have seen the purpose of the Lord: this statement is still related to the example of Job. The verb have seen can also be understood as “have understood” (New Jerusalem Bible) or as “know” (so Barclay, Good News Translation). Here again the Lord refers to God. There are two possible meanings of the phrase the purpose of the Lord, depending on how we interpret the meaning of purpose.
(1) It is possible to take it to mean purpose as in the Revised Standard Version translation (so also New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version), referring to the ultimate purpose of God behind Job’s sufferings. In other words, God designed Job’s experience with a purpose.
(2) The second possibility, favored by more commentators, is to take it in the sense of “end” (so King James Version), “outcome,” or “result,” that is, to take the phrase as an objective genitive, referring the final outcome that God brought about. The outcome of Job’s situation was the restoration of his family and fortune (Job 42.10-17).

The second possibility obviously fits the context better and therefore is the one to be preferred. It is also in accord with the thoughts in verses 7-8 above. This understanding is reflected in renderings like “… how the Lord provided for him in the end” (Good News Translation), “… how the Lord treated him in the end” (Revised English Bible), “how the Lord finally helped him” (Contemporary English Version). Some scholars take the Lord here to be Christ and interpret the “end” to be the death of Christ, or even the second coming of Christ, but these interpretations are not supported by the context.

The outcome of Job’s experience shows how the Lord is compassionate and merciful. This echoes the words of Exo 34.6 and Psa 103.8. The adjective rendered compassionate is used only here in the New Testament. It is literally “[full of] many inward parts [or, entrails].” Among the Hebrew people the inward parts were the seat of the emotions, equivalent to “heart” or “liver” in many cultures. The adjective then means “full of compassion” (so New International Version), or “very kind” (Goodspeed). In some languages it will be possible to use an expression that is both descriptive and close to the original expression; for example, “The Lord possesses a large heart and bowels.” The adjective rendered merciful is used elsewhere only in Luke 6.36, where it describes God the Father as “merciful.” It is for all practical purposes the same in meaning as the word compassionate. This is seen in some renderings where the order of the two is reversed; for example, “For the Lord is full of mercy and compassion” (Good News Translation; similarly Revised English Bible) or “he is merciful and kind” (Contemporary English Version).

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 .

The writer now makes a shift in his use of the word “test” from an external trial to be endured to internal temptation to be resisted. The keyword in Greek is peirazō. It carries two basic components of meaning. Depending on context it can mean “to test” or “to try,” referring basically to external troubles and trials; or it can mean “to tempt,” referring to internal enticement to sin. In fact trials and temptations are closely related. The experience of trials naturally carries with it the possibility of failures, and if this becomes a daily ordeal and too difficult to bear, it may be the cause of temptations. What James does here is to give a stern warning against those who may blame God with responsibility for temptation.

The author’s love for a play on words is evident in this verse. He uses the various forms of “test” four times, including the adjectival form “without temptation.” Because of the subtle shift, New Jerusalem Bible has brought out the various meanings in progression, starting from verse 12, “trials … put to test … tempting.” Others have included in its first occurrence the two predominant components in the rendering; for example, “… is tried by temptation” (Moffatt), “… are tempted by such trials” (Good News Translation), and “… under trial and temptation” (New English Bible). Most other translations, however, have rendered this simply as “when tempted” (New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, Contemporary English Version). In many languages it will be difficult to translate is tempted (Revised Standard Version) or “are tempted by such trials” (Good News Translation) literally, as it will be difficult to think of “trials” tempting anyone. In such cases we may say, for example, “If when a person endures such difficulties and feels that he is being made to do evil,” or “If, when … and has a strong urge to do evil.”

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”: it is most unlikely that the writer would deny that God can put the believers through some sort of hard testing or trial. In fact he refers to God’s testing of Abraham in 2.21. His concern is to deny that God has a hand in inducing people to sin. In the Greek no one is in emphatic position, and so this is brought out in some translations, for example, “Nobody, when he finds himself tempted, should say…” (Knox); “No one, when tempted, should say…” (New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible). The participle tempted can be understood as having a time sense, “when tempted,” or as a conditional “if tempted,” or simply “who is tempted,” without any noticeable difference in the meaning. We may also express this sentence as “that person should not say ‘God is tempting me to do evil.’ ” It is also possible to translate in a similar way to Contemporary English Version and say “Don’t blame God when you are tempted.”

James now goes on to give two reasons why we should not blame God for temptation, as the conjunction for clearly shows. The first relates to the nature of God: God cannot be tempted with evil. Cannot be tempted is one word in Greek, an adjective that appears only here in the Bible. The meaning of this verbal adjective has been interpreted in various ways. Knox apparently has taken it in the active sense of “incapable of tempting…” by rendering the clause as “God may threaten us with evil….” But this makes the second statement he himself tempts no one just unnecessary repetition. Most commentators and translators have therefore understood it in the passive sense of “unable to be tempted.” Some take this passive sense to mean “inexperienced in…,” meaning that God has no contact with evil, and so he cannot be tempted by it. This is apparently the meaning preferred by New English Bible: “God is untouched by evil.” This understanding, however, ignores James’ obvious fondness for the play on words, in this case a sharp contrast between “untemptable” and “tempts.” It is therefore best, with the majority of translators, to take the verbal adjective to mean “God cannot be tempted by evil,” or “God never feels the urge to do evil,” or even “No one can tempt God to do evil.” What James appears to be saying is that God is unable to be tempted to do evil, and therefore he himself tempts no one. This is the second reason why we should not think that God tempts people to sin. God can test people to prove the genuineness of their faith (compare Gen 22.1; 1 Cor 10.13), but he cannot induce people to sin. Another way to say this is “he doesn’t use evil to tempt anyone” (similarly Contemporary English Version).

Alternative translation models for this verse may be:
• If any person passes through such difficulties and feels that he is being induced to do evil, he must not say, “It is God who is tempting me to do evil.” For God himself is never tempted [or, no one tempts him] to do evil, and he himself never tempts anyone.
• Don’t blame God when you [inclusive] are tempted. Evil cannot tempt God, and he doesn’t use evil to tempt anyone.

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 .

But some one will say: at this point James makes an interjection. Having given an illustration, he now proceeds to argue his case, using the style of imaginary dialogue. He begins with an objection from another person. Here we face a problem in that the identity of this person is debated. There are three possible solutions, but none is totally convincing, and so we will have to settle for the least difficult.
(1) Some scholars take the person to be an ally of James interested in carrying on his argument further. He attacks the position of the “false” believer mentioned in verses 14-17. The strength of this interpretation is that it is consistent. The you always refers to the false believer, and I to James’ ally or James himself. However, there is a strong objection to this understanding, in that it has to interpret the adversative But differently, giving it a meaning which at best is rare and uncommon. It has to take the opening clause But some one will say as introducing a view similar to that of James. This makes it necessary to take But as “indeed” or “yes” (so American Standard Version). However, this is an exception, not its normal meaning; in fact the standard function of this particle is to introduce an objection, not an affirmation. In addition to this there is the question as to why James should introduce a third person here.
(2) Another possibility is to take the other person not as an ally but as an opponent of James. This will make it possible to translate the adversative as But introducing an objection, and the argument makes good sense. The problem comes as to where the objector’s words end and where those of James begin. Two solutions to this have been proposed. The first is to take the objector’s words as confined to the first three words in Greek, but in the form of a question: “Do you [James] have faith?” This is followed by James’ reply: “and I do have faith….” But this interpretation is a bit strained, because using “and I…” to introduce an answer is unnatural. A second solution is to take verses 18-19 as all from the objector, and James’ answer as beginning at verse 20. In this case, however, the objector appears to be supporting James’ view rather than contesting it, and it is therefore odd. In fact a more natural way to counter James’ view is to say something like: “You [James] have works; I [the objector] have faith.” To explain this difficulty it has been suggested that the original statement by the objector has somehow dropped out of the text, leaving only the reply by James. However, the great difficulty with this suggestion is that there is no manuscript evidence to support it.
(3) Another possibility is to take the pronouns “you” and “I” in the first part of the verse not as James and his opponent, but as two representative positions in the church. In this case the imaginary objector is simply pointing out that while some people have faith, others have deeds. He is claiming that faith and deeds may exist separately as different gifts (compare 1 Cor 12.4-10); a person may have one, but not necessarily both. James then is simply arguing against the separation of different gifts and saying that there cannot be any separation between faith and deeds. The function of the pronouns you and I is then equivalent to “one” and “another.” This is the understanding adopted by Good News Translation (“One person has faith, another has actions”) and Revised English Bible (“One chooses faith, another action”). In this case, in order to keep the sequence of the dialogue clear, it is desirable to add something not in the text to make the progression clear; for example, “My answer is” (Good News Translation), “To which I reply” (Revised English Bible), “I would answer” (Contemporary English Version), or “Then I will answer him” (Bible en français courant).

While not without its problems, interpretation (3) is perhaps the one to be adopted, as it appears to fit the context better and is the one favored by more translators and commentators.

James now makes a counter argument: Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. Notice here a chiastic arrangement of “faith … works … works … faith.” Here Show me means “prove to me” (so New English Bible) or “demonstrate to me.” Barclay has brought out the spirit of the argument by rendering this as “I challenge you to prove to me.” The expression apart from, in the sense of “not accompanied by” (so New English Bible), argues that faith and action are inseparable. The imaginary opponent cannot possibly answer James’ challenge, as there is no way anyone can prove his or her faith without any action to support it.

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• Suppose someone disagrees and says, “One person believes in Christ, while another does kind deeds.” I would answer him, “You must prove to me that anyone can just believe in Christ without doing kind deeds. I on my part will show you that I believe in Christ, and so do kind deeds.”

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 .

But he gives more grace: the signal for a contrast is seen in the use of But and in the comparative more. This contrast may also be expressed as “In fact…” or even “On the contrary….” As to what is to be contrasted, the clue lies in how we interpret verse 5.

(1) If the subject of verse 5 is taken to be divine jealousy (God’s or the Spirit’s), then the point may be that God’s grace is more than adequate to meet the requirements of his jealousy.

(2) If the reference in verse 5 is seen to be to the evil desires of the human spirit, then the contrast is that God’s grace is greater and stronger than this human tendency to sin.

It is also possible to understand that the contrast is with what was said in verse 4. In other words the contrast is not with God who yearns jealously, but with the gifts and friendship of the world. God’s gift is greater.

Instead of putting a question mark at the end of verse 5, the UBS Greek New Testament text places a comma after verse 5, and a question mark after But he gives more grace, making this clause part of the quotation. This is the punctuation followed by Luther 1984, and it makes sense. However, the majority of modern translations adopt what Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have done. The reason is that the quotation is from Pro 3.34, and the words in question are not part of the text there.

Here the pronoun he obviously refers to God, and some translations make this clear; for example, Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, Today’s Chinese Version. The word grace is used only here (twice) in James. It can be understood in the sense in which Paul uses it, of God’s generous, abundant, and unmerited favor given to his people. Or it can mean a practical act of goodwill, favor, or gift. If we choose this second sense, it may be rendered as “kindness” (Contemporary English Version) or “favor” (New Jerusalem Bible). The comparative more may be rendered in various ways, depending on conventions in the translator’s language; for example, it can be “stronger” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible), “greater” (Goodspeed, New American Bible), or “more abundant” (Japanese Franciscan Translation).

Other possible translation models for this first sentence are:
• In fact God treats us with even greater kindness (Contemporary English Version).
• On the contrary, God is even more loving and kind toward us.

In languages that must state what the grace or “loving-kindness” is greater or stronger than, we may translate:
• In fact God treats us with even greater kindness than that [where “that” refers back to the yearning in the previous verse].

Or, if translators feel that the contrast here is with what the world gives in verse 4, they may translate, for example:
• In fact God treats us with even greater kindness than the world does.

Therefore it says: this is a customary formula for introduction of a quotation. Other ways to say this are “As the scripture says” (Good News Translation), “Just as the Scriptures say” (Contemporary English Version), “As we may read in the Scriptures,” “for there are words in the Scripture [or, Holy Book] that say….” See 2.8, 23 for comments relating to how to translate “the scripture says.” It is possible to take the subject of the verb says as “he,” meaning God, as King James Version has done, possibly taking the cue from the subject of the quotation, but this is unnatural. It obviously refers back to “the scripture” in verse 5, and this is made by clear in a number of translations (see Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, for example).

The quotation is from Pro 3.34, based on the text of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Hebrew has “he” as the subject, the Septuagint has “the Lord,” and James has “God.” The function of the quotation seems to be to serve as a transition from negative to positive, that is, to a call to humility and repentance. It consists of a threat and a promise: God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

The proud, literally “arrogant,” are those who disregard God’s claims and show contempt for him on the one hand and despise others on the other. It is quite possible that the proud refers to the arrogant rich (4.16; 5.1-7), who are the class of people contrasted to the poor and lowly in 1.9-10. This is the kind of people God opposes. God’s action against these people is certainly more than “resisting” (so Good News Translation, New American Bible); he is in fact “hostile to” them (so Barclay). The term opposes carries the idea of preventing the plans of the proud from succeeding. The clause God opposes the proud may also be expressed as “God works against the proud” or “God causes the plans of the proud not to succeed.”

In contrast God gives grace to the humble. Gives grace here means “to show kindness to.” The humble are those who know their insufficiency and depend wholly on God. They are the lowly, the pious poor (1.9) destined to be heirs of the kingdom (2.5). In some languages the humble must be expressed as “those who are not proud,” or even “those who do not say, ‘I am great.’ ”

An alternative translation model for verse 6 is:
• On the contrary, God is even more loving and kind to us than that [or, than the world]. For we read in the Scriptures, “God causes the plans of proud people not to succeed, but he shows kindness to those people who are not proud.”

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 he observes himself …: James now goes on to explain his point of comparison. He does this by using a connective for, which is often left untranslated. In Greek both the verbs observes and forgets are in the aorist tense. Scholars generally agree that the form of both verbs means that they describe things that usually and normally happen. For these kinds of repeated happenings, it is natural to use the present tense in English, as most translations have done. The verb observes is the same word as that used in verse 23. As explained there, it means an intense looking and so may be rendered as “They take a good look” (Good News Translation); it is not a momentary or hasty look, as the Revised English Bible rendering “glances” tends to suggest. Scholars who favor the sense of “a passing glance” do so because they see a contrast to the verb rendered as perseveres in the next verse. However, this Handbook recommends the former interpretation, that the person “looks at himself carefully.” Another possible rendering is “stare at himself.” Contemporary English Version uses that verb in the previous verse and then eliminates repetition of the action “looking at” here: “(23) … you are like people who stare at themselves in a mirror (24) and forget what they look like….”

The verb goes away is in the perfect tense and therefore could be understood as saying someone has gone away and remains away. However, it does not seem necessary to see the author as making a deliberate shift in tense to stress the continuing state of being gone. The verb in fact may be taken as expressing an immediate sequel (so Adamson), meaning that as soon as the person goes away from the mirror, he immediately forgets what he looks like. The point the author tries to make is that the impression a person gets from the mirror is temporary and momentary.

The mere hearer of the word is like the person who goes away from the mirror and at once forgets what he was like. What this person forgets is the image seen in the mirror, namely, “what he looks like” (Barclay, New International Version), or “what they look like” (Good News Translation).

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 .

Verse 3 begins a series of three illustrations describing the power of the tongue. The relationship between the tongue and the body is like that between bit and horse, rudder and ship, and fire in the forest. They all show that something very small can effect or produce something really great.

If …: there is a textual problem at the beginning of this verse. The King James Version rendering “Behold…” is based on one variant of the text, the one with slightly weaker support. The UBS Greek New Testament (“C” rating) and a majority of scholars favor the other variant, a conditional construction rendered either as If or “When” (New International Version, Revised English Bible), and this is recommended by this Handbook.

If we put bits into the mouths of horses: in Greek this is all in the plural. In languages where it is natural to give this sort of illustration in the plural, we should by all means keep the plural form. If, however, it is more natural to use the singular form, we can follow what Good News Translation has done: “We put a bit into the mouth of a horse….” In cultures where horses are unknown, translators may say something like “an animal named horse.” It will also be helpful to include an illustration of a horse. The reference to bits links this illustration with verse 2, where a cognate verbal form “to bridle” is used. The bit is usually the steel part of a bridle inserted in the mouth of a horse; its function is to control the movement of the horse. In cultures where a “bit” is unknown, it will be best to use a short descriptive phrase in place of the noun; for example, “we put something in the mouths of horses to make them go in the right direction” or “we put a piece of metal in the mouth of a horse to….”

That they may obey us: in Greek this clause expresses purpose and so can be rendered more straightforwardly as “to make them obey us” (New Revised Standard Version) if we use the plural form, or “to make it obey us” (Good News Translation) in the singular.

In Greek there is a conjunction “and” before the next statement we guide their whole bodies. Grammatically the If we put … clause is the subordinate clause of a conditional sentence, and we guide … is the main clause. In other words “and” is a marker introducing the consequent clause. For this reason it may be desirable to make the relationship between the two clauses clearer. We can do this by supplying “can” for the main clause; for example, “If [or, When] we…, we can…” (similarly Goodspeed, New International Version, Revised English Bible). The verb guide basically means “to cause to change from one direction to another” and therefore “to turn” (so King James Version, New International Version), “to direct” (Revised English Bible), or more generally “to control” (Goodspeed), “to make it go where we want” (Good News Translation), or “turn … in different directions” (Contemporary English Version).

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 .