πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα (James 4:5)

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

Is πνεῦμα the subject or the object of ἐπιποθεῖ?

There are several difficulties in this verse that have left me bewildered, but finding a definitive answer to this basic question about the syntax, if such a thing is possible, would help considerably to clear up the other doubts as well.

The whole verse reads, adopting what seems to be the accepted punctuation:
ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει, πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκισεν ἐν ἡμῖν;

The published translations vary widely. Several Bibles, in fact, give an alternative translation in a footnote, or even two alternative translations. Three examples:

Jerusalem Bible, 1966:
(1 a) Surely you don’t think scripture is wrong when it says: the spirit which he sent to live in us wants us for himself alone?
(1 b) … the spirit he has made to dwell in us yearns for our love
(1 c) … he yearns intensely over the spirit he has made to dwell in us

New International Version, 1983:
(2 a) Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?
(2 b) … that God jealously longs for the spirit that he made to live in us
(2 c) … that the spirit he caused to live in us longs jealously

Good News Bible, 1992:
(3 a) Don’t think that there is no truth in the scripture that says, “The spirit that God placed in us is filled with fierce desires.”
(3 b) … “God yearns jealously over the spirit he has placed in us.”

In five of these eight examples the translators have seen the spirit as the subject of the verb (1 a, 1 b, 2 a, 2 c, 3 a) and in the other three as the object. When they have seen it as the object, they have found themselves obliged to supply a missing subject, filling in the blank space with “God” or simply “he”. In contrast, when they have seen the spirit as the subject, only the JB has attempted to supply a missing object. In the NIV, a transitive verb deprived of its object has been left dangling. The reader is left to puzzle out, if he can, who or what it is that the spirit “envies intensely” or “longs [for] jealously”. The GNB sidesteps the embarrassing omission by opting for an elegant circumlocution, “is filled with fierce desires”.

All these quibbles could be easily settled, of course, if only we knew the context of the γραφὴ that James is quoting here. Unfortunately, it remains untraced. In the words of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, “No such text can be found in the OT. James may be quoting an apocryphal work or a lost variant from a Gk OT version.”

So which would you say is the better answer, subject or object?

2

Dunno. But if you squint and look sideways, it could be a riff on the second half of Ecc 12:7:

καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ὃς ἔδωκεν αὐτό.
And the spirit returns to the God who gave it

Πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκισεν ἐν ἡμῖν
He jealously feels the lack of the spirit he made to live in us

3

I’d take this as meaning something like “As to jealousy he longs for the spirit that he implanted in us.” The subject of επιποθεῖ must surely be God, and το πνεῦμα must surely be its object. I really don’t see much room for doubt about that. The difficulty, of course, is πρὸς φθόνον (“with regard to φθόνος”?). I take it that he’s deploring φθόνος among his addressees. This fits with his inveighing against their internal dissensions (4.1 πόθεν πόλεμοι και πόθεν μάχαι εν ὑμιν; etc., 2 ζηλοῦτε etc., cf. 3.14 ει δε ζῆλον …) and with the rest of the letter. ζῆλος is very close to φθόνος, and I take him to be saying that φθόνος is alien to the spirit that God housed within them (or among them) and yearns to be realized. I very much doubt that the φθόνος is to be understood as God’s; I think the context precludes that.

4

“With regard to φθόνος” hardly fits. For πρὸς φθόνον, of course, we have LSJ.πρός.C.I.7 “πρός c.acc. freq. periphr. for Adv. …”

Rather then context precluding it, God’s jealousy is in fact a frequent topic in scripture. Verse 4, with the accusation of “μοιχαλίδες” demands the adverbial understanding here: “jealously”

5

I disagree. πρός has many uses besides making an adverb. I gave the most neutral and least question-begging one. I’m well aware that “God’s jealousy is in fact a frequent topic in scripture”—less so in the NT than in the Septuagint, however, and not in this letter. Joel takes no account of the contextual indications I adduced; I’m sorry he’s not more receptive. I can’t agree that μοιχαλίδες supports “jealously” here, let alone that it “demands” that sense.

6

Hi all, just to zoom out to the broader context (and in passing I note that I agree with Michael that, when you read the whole sentence, τὸ πνεῦμα must be the object, especially given κατῴκισεν in the relative clause for which the subject must be God):

I was just wondering whether anyone has considered whether the background context James refers to here is Isaiah 63:10 and ff. All the key elements seem to be there: the spirit that God put within/among people (63:11: ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ θεὶς ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον;), God becoming enemy of people because they were disobedient and so provoked his enmity (63:10: αὐτοὶ δὲ ἠπείθησαν καὶ παρώξυναν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἐστράφη αὐτοῖς εἰς ἔχθραν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπολέμησεν αὐτούς.), etc.

(Not sure about the reference to jealousy in this context: however if Isaiah 63 is the general background source, which is a pure guess, the general story from 63:8 on could explain it, as he there is a reference to ‘his’ people being disobedient and grieving him? Οὐχ ὁ λαός μου τέκνα οὐ μὴ ἀθετήσωσιν; … αὐτοὶ δὲ ἠπείθησαν καὶ παρώξυναν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ· …)

Maybe there is no connection, but have a read of James 4 and Isaiah 63:7 and ff. and please let me know your thoughts, thanks!

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=James+4&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0156

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Isaiah+63&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0156

Cheers, Chad

7

Is φθόνος ever found in an unambiguously favorable sense? Or even in a morally neutral sense? Isn’t it typically used pejoratively or at least with implied disapproval, just as “envy” is used in English? In the NT it occurs several times as one item in a catalog of sins, e.g. in Romans 1:29. In the Passion narrative (Matt 27:18, Mark 15:10) it is given as the chief priests’ motive for handing Jesus over to Pilate.

8

Brian, Yes φθόνος is perhaps invariably regarded as bad, and I don’t know if it’s ever attributed to God. In the famous “God is a jealous god” (Exod.20.5, Deut.4.24) the term used is ζηλωτής. In classical Greek, as in the NT, ζῆλος (as applied to humans) in certain contexts can be a commendable thing (zeal, for instance) but the Septuagint is a long way away from that.

Chad, I really can’t say. The fit doesn’t look that good to me, but I know next to nothing about this sort of thing. It’s true that ἡ γραφή strongly suggests a Septuagint reference, but I thought it might be an uncanonical text, if indeed he’s not just bullshitting.

9

Looking at the sixteen occurrences of the noun ζῆλος in the NT, it struck me that they are split exactly half and half between “good” zeal (eagerness, keenness) and “bad” zeal (envy, rivalry). I am including as “good” zeal verses such as Php 3:6, where Paul explains that in the past, when he was persecuting Christians, he had then seen acting as a zealous Pharisee as the right thing to do. In Heb 10:27, “the fierce fire that wll consume God’s enemies” is similarly seen as just retribution.

“Bad” zeal is instanced, for example, in James 3:14, where ζῆλος is paired with ἔρις and both are contrasted with εὐδοκία. In Acts 5:17 ζῆλος is specified as the Temple authorities’ motive for arresting the apostles, just as in Matthew and Mark φθόνος had been the chief priests’ motive for sending Jesus to be tried by Pilate.

“Good” zeal: John 2:17; Rom 10:2; 2 Cor 7:7,11, 9:2, 11:2; Php 3:6; Heb 10:27.
“Bad” zeal: Acts 5:17, 13:45; Rom 1:29; 1 Cor 3:3; 2 Cor 12:20; Php 1:15; Jas 3:14,16.

10

1 Πόθεν πόλεμοι καὶ πόθεν μάχαι ἐν ὑμῖν οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν 2 ἐπιθυμεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε οὐκ ἔχετε διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς 3 αἰτεῖτε καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετε διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε ἵνα ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ὑμῶν δαπανήσητε 4 Μοιχαλίδες οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ὃς ἐὰν οὖν βουληθῇ φίλος εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου ἐχθρὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ καθίσταται 5 ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει Πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκισεν ἐν ἡμῖν 6 μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν διὸ λέγει Ὁ Θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν

First notice how weird φονεύετε is in verse 2, and how much less weird φθονεῖτε would have been, as Erasmus correctly points out. [I must have read that φονεύετε about ten times before realizing that it must be φθονεῖτε. I Googled and found that I had only discovered an old chestnut.]

φθόνος is comparatively rare in the NT/Septuagint, but much more common in Philo and Josephus, whose language strikes me as much closer to James.

James is not accusing them of being actual adulterers. He’s accusing them of being spiritual adulterers because of their devotion to worldly pleasures. This is obvious. If you miss it, you take a juvenile parody of the sense and go off in juvenile directions.

πρὸς φθόνον adverbial might be less explicit than a straight adverbial. Maybe “approaching jealousy” or “like jealousy”, because he does not want to attribute the negative characteristic to God. But the old Testament descriptions (Ezekiel, Isaiah) of God’s relationship and jealousy over his unfaithful or whorish wife, picturing Israel, are clearly in mind.

Michael’s “bullshitting” isn’t really defensible. You’d want to be able to point to a pattern of unlikely unsourcable quotations to make that claim, and it’s just not there in James or the NT in general, even in the letters making unlikely authorship claims.

11

φθονεῖτε καὶ ζηλοῦτε in 2 seems clearly right to me. (And then the φθόνος in 5 is all the less likely to be God’s.)

12

And I wonder whether πρὸς φθόνον etc. is not after all to be taken as a putative scriptural quote, as everyone has been assuming, but as James’s own comment, with actual quotation coming only after the following διὸ λέγει. I really don’t know how plausible this is, but I think it’s worth floating the suggestion.

However that may be, it seems clear that James is deprecating the φθόνος and ζῆλος (jealousy and rivalry) that prevail among his addressees, and is not referring to God’s jealousy. See my first post above.