Following are a number of back-translations of James 2:18:
Uma: “Perhaps there will be someone who will say like this: ‘One person trusts in his faith, another person trusts in his good behavior.’ Yet I say: you (sing.) cannot show me that faith of yours(s) if your (sing.) behavior is not good. But I, from my good behavior, I show you (sing.) that I also have faith in the Lord.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “But perhaps someone wants to argue. Perhaps he says, ‘Never mind, for the people don’t follow God (all) in the same way. Some trust in God. Some do good.’ So-then this is also what I answer him, ‘Make sure to me that you are truly trusting God even if you don’t have good works along with it (lit. cause-to-follow-with). And I also will make sure to you that I truly trust because of my good works.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “If someone says, ‘One believes in God so that he might be freed from punishment, and as for another person, he does good so that he might be freed and both of them are right.’ But what my answer is to the two is: it’s necessary that we believe, but it cannot be that our faith in God is true if that faith of ours cannot be perceived by means of our good behaviour. It is necessary that we show our faith by means of our actions.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “But there is perhaps someone who will debate saying, ‘There are indeed many-different ways in which people believe, because the one, he has faith only, but the other, it’s good deeds only that he has.’ If someone says that, here also is my answer. ‘All right then, if you (sing.) believe only, how perhaps will you (sing.) show the truth of your (sing.) faith? Because as for me, I will confirm my faith by what I am doing.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “But maybe there’s someone who wants to argue/disagree, saying, ‘As for one, the believing which has been graced to him is his far-from-ordinary trusting-in/relying-on God. As for another, what has been graced to him is doing good works.’ But my answer to that is, ‘There’s no dividing-place between true believing and good works. Cause me to comprehend how I can recognize whether there is truth to that believing of yours(s) which has nothing you are doing which testifies that you belong to the Lord. As for me, the things I do testify that my believing really is true.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Suppose there is someone who says: ‘Now there are some who have their faith, and also there are some who do good,’ he says. I will say to them, ‘How can it be apparent that you have faith and there is not a bit of good to be seen in what you do? For my part, you can know that I have faith by means of the good I do,’ I will say.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Translations of the Greek pistis and its various forms that are typically translated as “faith” in English (itself deriving from Latin “fides,” meaning “trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence”) and “believe” (from Old English belyfan: “to have faith or confidence in a person”) cover a wide range of approaches.
Bratcher and Nida say this (1961, p. 38) (click or tap here to read more):
“Since belief or faith is so essentially an intimate psychological experience, it is not strange that so many terms denoting faith should be highly figurative and represent an almost unlimited range of emotional ‘centers’ and descriptions of relationships, e.g. ‘steadfast his heart’ (Chol), ‘to arrive on the inside’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui), ‘to conform with the heart’ (Uab Meto), ‘to join the word to the body’ (Uduk), ‘to hear in the insides’ (or ‘to hear within one’s self and not let go’ – Nida 1952) (Laka), ‘to make the mind big for something’ (Sapo), ‘to make the heart straight about’ (Mitla Zapotec), ‘to cause a word to enter the insides’ (Lacandon), ‘to leave one’s heart with’ (Baniwa), ‘to catch in the mind’ (Ngäbere), ‘that which one leans on’ (Vai), ‘to be strong on’ (Shipibo-Conibo), ‘to have no doubts’ (San Blas Kuna), ‘to hear and take into the insides’ (Kare), ‘to accept’ (Pamona).”
Following is a list of (back-) translations from other languages (click or tap here to read more):
Limos Kalinga: manuttuwa. Wiens (2013) explains: “It goes back to the word for ‘truth’ which is ‘tuttuwa.’ When used as a verb this term is commonly used to mean ‘believe’ as well as ‘obey.'”
Ngiemboon: “turn one’s back on someone” (and trusting one won’t be taken advantage of) (source: Stephen Anderson in Holzhausen 1991, p. 42)
Mwera uses the same word for “hope” and “faith”: ngulupai (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Yala: ɔtū che or “place heart” (in John 5:24; 5:45; 6:35; 6:47; 12:36; 14:1); other translations include chɛ̄ or “to agree/accept” and chɛ̄ku or “to agree with/accept with/take side with” (source: Linus Otronyi)
Matumbi: niu’bi’lyali or “believe / trust / rely (on)” and imani or “religious faith” (from Arabic īmān [إيما]) (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
Awabakal: ngurruliko: “to know, to perceive by the ear” (as distinct from knowing by sight or by touch — source: Lake, p. 70) (click or tap here to read more)
“[The missionary translator] Lancelot Threlkeld learned that Awabakal, like many Australian languages, made no distinction between knowing and believing. Of course the distinction only needs to be made where there are rival systems of knowing. The Awabakal language expressed a seamless world. But as the stress on ‘belief’ itself suggests, Christianity has always existed in pluralist settings. Conversion involves deep conviction, not just intellectual assent or understanding. (…) Translating such texts posed a great challenge in Australia. Threlkeld and [his indigenous colleague] Biraban debated the possibilities at length. In the end they opted not to introduce a new term for belief, but to use the Awabakal ngurruliko, meaning ‘to know, to perceive by the ear,’ as distinct from knowing by sight or by touch.”
Language in southern Nigeria: a word based on the idiom “lose feathers.” Randy Groff in Wycliffe Bible Translators 2016, p. 65 explains (click or tap here to read more):
What does losing feathers have to do with faith? [The translator] explained that there is a species of bird in his area that, upon hatching its eggs, loses its feathers. During this molting phase, the mother bird is no longer able to fly away from the nest and look for food for her hungry hatchlings. She has to remain in the nest where she and her babies are completely dependent upon the male bird to bring them food. Without the diligent, dependable work of the male bird, the mother and babies would all die. This scenario was the basis for the word for faith in his language.
Teribe: mär: “pick one thing and one thing only” (source: Andy Keener)
Tiv: na jighjigh: “give trust” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Luba-Katanga: Twi tabilo: “echo” (click or tap here to read more)
“Luba-Katanga word for ‘Faith’ in its New Testament connotation is Twi tabilo. This word means ‘echo,’ and the way in which it came to be adapted to the New Testament meaning gives a very good idea of the way in which the translator goes to work. One day a missionary was on a journey through wild and mountainous country. At midday he called his African porters to halt, and as they lay resting in the shade from the merciless heat of the sun. an African picked up a stone and sent it ricocheting down the mountain-side into the ravine below. After some seconds the hollow silence was broken by a plunging, splashing sound from the depths of the dark river-bed. As the echo died away the African said in a wondering whisper ‘Twi tabilo, listen to it.’ So was a precious word captured for the service of the Gospel in its Luba Christian form. Twi tabilo — ‘faith which is the echo of God’s voice in the depths of human sinful hearts, awakened by God Himself, the answer to his own importunate call.’ The faith that is called into being by the divine initiative, God’s own gift to the responsive heart! (Source: Wilfred Bradnock in The Bible Translator 1953, p. 49ff. )
J.A. van Roy (in The Bible Translator 1972, p. 418ff. ) discusses how a translation of “faith” in a an earlier translation into Venda created difficult perceptions of the concept of faith (click or tap here):
The Venda term u tenda, lutendo. This term corresponds to the terms ho dumela (Southern Sotho), and ku pfumela (Tsonga) that have been used in these translations of the Bible, and means “to assent,” “to agree to a suggestion.” It is important to understand this term in the context of the character of the people who use it.
The way in which the Venda use this term reveals much about the priority of interpersonal relationships among them. They place a much higher priority on responding in the way they think they are expected to respond than on telling the truth. Smooth interpersonal relationships, especially with a dominant individual or group, take precedence over everything else.
It is therefore regarded as bad form to refuse directly when asked for something one does not in fact intend to give. The correct way is to agree, u tenda, and then forget about it or find some excuse for not keeping to the agreement. Thus u tenda does not necessarily convey the information that one means what one says. One can tenda verbally while heartily disagreeing with the statement made or having no intention whatsoever to carry out what one has just promised to do. This is not regarded as dishonesty, but is a matter of politeness.
The term u sokou tenda, “to consent reluctantly,” is often used for expressing the fatalistic attitude of the Venda in the face of misfortune or force which he is unable to resist.
The form lutendo was introduced by missionaries to express “faith.”
According to the rules of derivations and their meanings in the lu-class, it should mean “the habit of readily consenting to everything.” But since it is a coined word which does not have a clearly defined set of meanings in everyday speech, it has acquired in church language a meaning of “steadfastness in the Christian life.” Una lutendo means something like “he is steadfast in the face of persecution.” It is quite clear that the term u tenda has no element of “trust” in it. (…)
In “The Christian Minister” of July 1969 we find the following statement about faith by Albert N. Martin: “We must never forget that one of the great issues which the Reformers brought into focus was that faith was something more than an ‘assensus,’ a mere nodding of the head to the body of truth presented by the church as ‘the faith.’ The Reformers set forth the biblical concept that faith was ‘fiducia.’ They made plain that saving faith involved trust, commitment, a trust and commitment involving the whole man with the truth which was believed and with the Christ who was the focus of that truth. The time has come when we need to spell this out clearly in categorical statements so that people will realize that a mere nodding of assent to the doctrines that they are exposed to is not the essence of saving faith. They need to be brought to the understanding that saving faith involves the commitment of the whole man to the whole Christ, as Prophet, Priest and King as he is set forth in the gospel.”
We quote at length from this article because what Martin says of the current concept of faith in the Church is even to a greater extent true of the Venda Church, and because the terms used for communicating that concept in the Venda Bible cannot be expected to communicate anything more than “a mere nodding of assent”. I have during many years of evangelistic work hardly ever come across a Venda who, when confronted with the gospel, would not say, Ndi khou tenda, “I admit the truth of what you say.” What they really mean when saying this amounts to, “I believe that God exists, and I have no objection to the fact that he exists. I suppose that the rest of what you are talking about is also true.” They would often add, Ndi sa tendi hani-hani? “Just imagine my not believing such an obvious fact!” To the experienced evangelist this is a clear indication that his message is rejected in so far as it has been understood at all! To get a negative answer, one would have to press on for a promise that the “convert” will attend the baptism class and come to church on Sundays, and even then he will most probably just tenda in order to get rid of the evangelist, whether he intends to come or not. Isn’t that what u tenda means? So when an inexperienced and gullible white man ventures out on an evangelistic campaign with great enthusiasm, and with great rejoicing returns with a list of hundreds of names of persons who “believed”, he should not afterwards blame the Venda when only one tenth of those who were supposed to be converts actually turn up for baptismal instruction.
Moreover, it is not surprising at all that one often comes across church members of many years’ standing who do not have any assurance of their salvation or even realise that it is possible to have that assurance. They are vhatendi, “consenters.” They have consented to a new way of life, to abandoning (some of) the old customs. Lutendo means to them at most some steadfastness in that new way of life.
The concept of faith in religion is strange to Africa. It is an essential part of a religion of revelation such as Christianity or Islam, but not of a naturalistic religion such as Venda religion, in which not faith and belief are important, but ritual, and not so much the content of the word as the power of it.
The terms employed in the Venda Bible for this vital Christian concept have done nothing to effect a change in the approach of the Venda to religion.
It is a pity that not only in the Venda translation has this been the case, but in all the other Southern Bantu languages. In the Nguni languages the term ukukholwa, “to believe a fact,” has been used for pisteuo, and ukholo, the deverbative of ukukholwa, for pistis. In some of the older Protestant translations in Zulu, but not in the new translation, the term ithemba, “trust”, has been used.
Some languages, including Santali, have two terms — like English (see above) — to differentiate a noun from a verb form. Biswạs is used for faith, whereas pạtiạu for “believe.” R.M. Macphail (in The Bible Translator 1961, p. 36ff. ) explains this choice: “While there is little difference between the meaning and use of the two in everyday Santali, in which any word may be used as a verb, we felt that in this way we enriched the translation while making a useful distinction, roughly corresponding to that between ‘faith’ and ‘to believe’ in English.”
Likewise, in Noongar, koort-karni or “heart truth” is used for the noun (“faith”) and djinang-karni or “see true” for the verb (“believe”) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between. One way Japanese show different degree of politeness is through the choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
Here, -sete (せて) or “let/allow (for me)” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
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 .
In this paragraph, James said that we show that we have true faith by the way we behave.
2:18
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have deeds.”: There are a number of difficult issues in this verse. Some of the difficulties are:
(a) It is not clear whom the word someone refers to.
(b) It is not clear whom the pronouns You and I refer to.
(c) It is not clear where the quotation ends. This is because there are no quotation marks in ancient Greek manuscripts to indicate which words are direct speech.
Many interpretations have been proposed to try and overcome these difficulties. (Three commentaries have done a good job of summarizing (and critiquing) the various interpretations: Dibelius (pages 149–151, 154–158), Ropes (pages 211–214) and McCartney (pages 157–160). Ropes gives six options and McCartney lists eight (while leaving out the option put forward by Huther (pages 89–92) and Lenski, (pages 581–582) which is described in footnote 52).) The two interpretations that most English versions follow are:
(1) The word someone refers to an imaginary opponent of James.
The pronouns You and I in the quotation are a way to say that some people have faith; other people do good deeds. These pronouns do not refer specifically to James, to James’ audience or to the imaginary opponent.
The quotation includes only the words “You have faith; I have deeds.”
According to this interpretation, the imaginary opponent was speaking to James. He implied that (a) faith alone can save a person and (b) works alone can also save a person.
For example, the Revised English Bible says:
But someone may say: ‘One chooses faith, another action.’ To which I reply: ‘Show me this faith you speak of with no actions to prove it, while I by my actions will prove to you my faith.’
(Berean Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, New International Version (2011 Revision), English Standard Version, Revised English Bible, NET Bible, God’s Word, Good News Translation, New Living Translation (2004 Revision), New Century Version) (This interpretation was defended by Ropes, pages 208–214; and is accepted by Davids (1982), pages 123–125; Laws, pages 122–124; Mitton, page 109; Moo (1985), page 105.)
(2) The word someone refers to a person who agrees with James.
The pronoun I refers to the person who agrees with James. The pronoun You refers to an imaginary opponent.
The quotation includes all of 2:18b–e.
According to this interpretation, the person who agrees with James was speaking to an imaginary opponent. This opponent claimed to have faith but did not have good deeds. The words of the person who agrees with James were somewhat ironic. That is, he did not believe the imaginary opponent had true faith: “You have faith, do you?”
For example, the New American Standard Bible says:
But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
(New Jerusalem Bible, King James Version, New American Standard Bible, Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English) (Alford, pages 298–299; Mayor, pages 95–96; Adamson (1976), pages 124–125.)
It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1). This interpretation is supported by the majority of English versions and a number of commentators.
2:18a
But: The Greek conjunction that the Berean Standard Bible translates as But introduces a strong contrast. The contrast is between James’ statement in 2:17 that faith without deeds is dead and the argument that faith alone is enough.
someone will say: The phrase someone will say introduces a statement that an imaginary opponent might say to James. The statement in 2:18b–c is a type of debate or argument. One way to introduce this argument more clearly is to use a more specific verb. For example:
someone will argue
-or-
someone will debate me saying
-or- Suppose someone disagrees and says
2:18b–c
You have faith and I have deeds: As mentioned above under interpretation (1), the pronouns You and I are a way to say that some people have faith, other people do good deeds. These pronouns do not refer specifically to James, to James’ audience or to the imaginary opponent.
Consider how speakers in your culture create imaginary persons as examples when they discuss a topic seriously. You may choose to use those types of references here. Also consider if it may be best to replace the pronouns You and I with more general words. For example:
“One person has faith, another has actions.” (Good News Translation)
-or-
“Some people have faith; others have good deeds.” (New Living Translation (2004 Revision))
-or-
“One person trusts Jesus, another person does good deeds.”
The imaginary opponent was arguing that there are different ways to be saved. He said that some are saved because of their faith. Others are saved because of their good deeds. In some languages, it may be good to make this explicit. For example:
18aBut someone will argue 18bthat there are different ways in which people are saved.He may say “One person has faith, 18canother has good deeds. Either one of these is enough.”
-or- 18aBut someone will disagree saying 18bthat people do not all follow God in the same way.He may say “One person has faith, 18canother has good deeds.”
-or- 18b“Some have faith; 18cothers have works; don’t expect everyone to have both.” (NET Bible note)
2:18d–e
Verse 2:18d–e is James’ reply to the imaginary opponent of 2:18b–c. In some languages, it may be necessary to make it clear that James is now speaking for himself. One way to do this is to begin 2:18d with a short phrase. For example:
My answer is (Good News Translation)
-or-
But I say (New Living Translation (2004 Revision))
-or-
But I, James, say
2:18d
Show me your faith without deeds: This clause challenges someone to prove that he has true faith when he does not have good deeds to support his claim.
Some other ways to translate this clause are:
Show me that you really believe/trust in Jesus, even when you do no good deeds.
-or-
Prove that you have faith without doing kind deeds (Contemporary English Version)
-or- I challenge you to prove to me that you have faith when you have no deeds.
In some languages, it may be natural to translate this clause as a rhetorical question. For example:
“How can you show me your faith if you don’t have good deeds?” (New Living Translation (2004 Revision))
-or-
If you believe only, but there are no good deeds, how will you show me that you really believe in Jesus?
2:18e
and I will show you my faith by my deeds: This clause indicates that good deeds will prove that a person has true faith. Faith and good deeds always go together.
Some other ways to translate this clause are:
I will show you that I really believe/trust in Jesus Christ by the good deeds I do.
-or-
I will use my good deeds to prove my faith to you.
-or-
What I do will show you that I really have faith.
Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible. BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.