Challenge to speaker label in James 4:5

Reading James 4:5, which is an extremely difficult passage to translate, I notice that the L5 speaker label team put a speaker label here that points us to the Pentateuch. Unfortunately, I cannot find any reference in the Pentateuch to this quote (nor can anyone else). It's not a quote! (cf. als the FSB on this passage!)

There is a theory that this points perhaps to Gen 8:21, or possibly (given one's translation of this passage) Ex. 20:5, par. Deut.5:9. One could also consider Deut 32:10-11 (LXX - the only time where by way of metaphor God has epipotheo for His people, and in a context of being separate from the world). But in no case is this anything approaching a quote or even a paraphrase - this a summary of some Scriptural teaching at best.

I would like to recommend that the speaker icon here be reexamined and eliminated from this passage. Alternatively, if it is decided to leave it in, an explanation should be given, and potential references provided in the FSB.

Thanks for considering this.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

I agree that it is better to be more reserved when the speaker isn't clear.

Rich DeRuiter

I agree that it is better to be more reserved when the speaker isn't clear.

IMHO, there is no speaker at all! It's not a quote, nor a paraphrase.

JT (alabama24)

IMHO, there is no speaker at all!

I agree, but I was speaking about the "speaker" labels more generally.

DMB

Beg to differ: read Pseudo-Jonathan. Right there plain as day. (Ok, not the MT.)

MJ. Smith

I would prefer a solution that allowed the user to put notes on the speaker labels - and to "change" or mark them.

MJ. Smith

IMHO, there is no speaker at all!

But the syntax identifies it as a quote whether or not we can identify the source, doesn't it? Linguistics requires the presence of the speaker icon doesn't it - so I hope by "more reserved" you mean something like speaker identification uncertain?

Rich DeRuiter

IMHO, there is no speaker at all!

But the syntax identifies it as a quote whether or not we can identify the source, doesn't it? Linguistics requires the presence of the speaker icon doesn't it - so I hope by "more reserved" you mean something like speaker identification uncertain?

The lack of "hoti" in the text ("hoti" is the common Greek marker to identify a quote), suggests that this is not necessarily a quotation. That is there is no syntactic quote identifier. One can assume a quote if one takes the phrase as the object of the Greek verb "lego," but that is not required syntactically, as far as I know. It would seem a natural reading of the text, but not a necessary one. Further, the total lack of ability to identify this as a quote or paraphrase of any extant text (canonical or otherwise), suggests something other than a quote (IMHO).

I think one could make the argument that James is the one summarizing a point made in several passages of Scripture, or he may be quoting from a source no longer available to us (in which case the identification with the Pentateuch would be wrong). So, yes, the 'more reserved' approach would be to identifiy the speaker as unknown. It is certainly questionable as to whether the Pentateuch is the source, since no single place in the Pentateuch comes close enough to make a strong tie here, IMHO. Further, the ties one might make depend on how one translates the most difficult passage in James - something Logos tends to avoid.

My suggestion is to either remove this speaker icon, or explain its presence in the FSB. I'd be happy with either, provided the FSB explanation demonstrated the difficulties of precisely identifying the source of the quote.

DAL

I think James 4:5 may be an allusion to Numbers 11:29 where 2 men were prophesying and Joshua asked Moses to forbid them. REad it, the concept is there and James applies it to us in NT context. I hope this helps!

Blessings!

DAL

David Paul

Logos really needs to increase its assortment of emoticons...this deserves a clappy. [Y]