The Works of Abraham James 2: 14-26
IT is customary to divide the second chapter of the Epistle of James into two sections, verses 1-13 and 14-26. The question whether these two sections have any connection with each other was answered negatively by Martin Dibelius. Dibelius argued his case, first of all, by denying that the parable i...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[1968]
|
| In: |
Harvard theological review
Year: 1968, Volume: 61, Issue: 2, Pages: 283-290 |
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament |
| Further subjects: | B
Bible. Jakobusbrief 2,14-26
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | IT is customary to divide the second chapter of the Epistle of James into two sections, verses 1-13 and 14-26. The question whether these two sections have any connection with each other was answered negatively by Martin Dibelius. Dibelius argued his case, first of all, by denying that the parable in 2: 15, 16 with its contrast between speaking and doing (cf. 2: 12) represents the point of 2: 14-26. Along with other commentators, Dibelius understood this section to treat faith and works and the connection between the two in the light of the Pauline theological treatment of them. Thus, e.g., he argued that the author of James employed the Abraham example in the manner of Jewish tradition, but whereas in the Jewish tradition the faith of Abraham is itself a work, it is not so in James: Dibelius found his solution by assuming that this discussion presupposes Paul's treatment of p?st?? and ???a. But ???a for Paul means works of the law (e.g., circumcision), which is not the meaning for James. Therefore, James must presuppose a misunderstood Paulinism. When James 2: 14-26 is approached in this way, the parable in 2: 15, 16 appears as only an example, somewhat incidental to the main thrust of the section. Thus, the connection of 2: 14-26 with the foregoing verses cannot be affirmed, even though it appears that the parable in 2: 15, 16 is similar to 2: 12, 13. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1475-4517 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Harvard theological review
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0017816000028030 |