Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James

LUKE T I M O T H Y J m B R O T H E R O F JESUS F R I E N D O F G O D S T U D I E S L E T T E R O F I N T H E J ...

Author: Luke Timothy Johnson

234 downloads 2421 Views 15MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

LUKE T I M O T H Y J

m

B R O T H E R O F JESUS F R I E N D O F

G O D

S T U D I E S

L E T T E R

O F

I N

T H E

J A M E S

BROTHER OF JESUS,FRIEND OF GOD

Brother of Jesus, Friend of God Studies in the Letter of James

LUKE TIMOTHY JOHNSON

WILLIAMB. EERDMANS PUBLISHINGCOMPANY

/ CAMBRIDGE, U.K. GRANDRAPIDS,MICHIGAN Thio

One

8 2004 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. A11 rights reserved U'm. B. Eerdmans Publtshing Co. 255 Jefferson Ave. S.E., G m d Raptds, M~chigan49503

/

P.O. Box 163,Carnbrtdge CBj 9PU U.K.

hinted in the United Stares of America

Library ofC015pss Cataloging-in-PabUonData Johnson, Luke Timothy. Brorher of Jaus, friend of God: studies in the Inter of James / Luke Timothy Johnson. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8028-0986-3 (pbk.: alk. paper) I. Bible. N.T. James - Criticism, inrerpmtation, etc. I. Title. BSt785.~2,/6q 2ooq 227'.9ro6 - dcz2

Contents

Preface

vii

Acknowledgments

ix

PROLOGUE:

James's Significance for Early Christian History

i

An Introduction to the Letter of James

24

A Survey of the History of Interpretation ofJames

39

The Reception of James in the Early Church

45

Journeying East with James: A Chapter in the History of Interpretation How James Won the West: A Chapter in the History of Canonization The Social World of James: Literary Analysis and Historical Reconstruction The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James The Sayings of Jesus in the Letter ofJames Taciturnity and True Religion: James ~ 2 6 - 2 7

CONTENTS

The Mirror of Remembrance: James 1:2z-25 James 3x3-4:1o and the Topos =pi dHdvot1 Friendship with the World and Friendship with God: A Study of Discipleship in James Gender in the Letter of James: A Surprising Witness EPILOGUE: The Importance ofJames for Theology

index of Authors Index of Scripture References Index of Ancient Sources

Preface

This book contains a collection of essays on the Letter of James that were written over a period of two decades. Although published at a time when the historical figure of James is the subject of much interest because of the claim chat his name, linked to that of his brother Jesus, is inscribed on a first-century ossuary, these srudres are directed entirely to the letter attributed to James, in the conviction that, unlike any fragile reconstruction of the past, its words still speak directly and powerfully to contemporary readers, and deserve the same careful and disciplined attention as the other canonical writings. Some readers will be aware that I am also the author of the Anchor Bible Commentary on James and may wonder at. the relationship between the two efforts. The commentary made substantial use of the essays written before 1994.But the format of a commentary does not match that of an essay. In the commentary, some of the arguments and some of the data found in indrvidual srucGes can be used, but much must also be left aside. This coilection also contains a number ofessays that have been wrirten since the publication of the commentary. And in them, I sometimes refer to places in the commentary that provide background for the point I am trying to make in the essay. The relationship between the two forms of literary production, therefore, is reciprocal. In my view, the essays provide a richer and fuller examination of specific issues than is possible within a commentary. Previously published essays stand as first written, with no revisions. I must apologize for the mixed style of citation from ancient sources. Because the essays were written at different times and for different formats, there is considerable variation in the case of some authors in particular (e.g., Philo and Plutmh). In the Index ofAncient Sources, I standardize somewhat by using the language and style that occurs most often in the text.

PREFACE

In addition to making more available some essays chat are not otherwise easily accessible, and others that have not previously been published, I have written two studies especially for this collection. The first deals with the significance of James for early Christian history, and the second with the theological importance of James. Although written at the end of a decades-long study of this remarkable composition, these two essays are less a summation than a stepping-stone, an invitation to others to go further than I have been able to in engaging a writing that has the potential of revising our understanding of Christian origins, and reinvigorating contemporary Christian theology. I am grateful to the many students and colleagues who have studied James with me and helped me see more clearly. I owe special thanks to my editor AUen Myers and Eerdmans Press for making possible a publication that is (I hope) sober and solid, but scarcely sensational. And as always, I give thanks to my dear wife Joy, who has been for me one of the "good and perfect gifts" (James 1:17) and to the God who "gives to all simply and without grudgng" &mes 1:s). LUKE TIMOTHY JOHNSON Emoty Unit~ersip bflarc-h

11, 2003

Acknowledgments

The author and publisher gratefully acknowledge permission to reprint material from the following sources: "The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James," Journal ofBibliccrl Litmhcre 101 (1982) 391-401. "James 3:13-4:10 and the Topos ncpi :pi$dvov,"Novurn Testantenhtm 25 (1983) 527-347. "Friendship with the World and Friendship with God: A Study of Discipleship in James," in Disciplrship in the New Testament, ed. F. Segovia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 198j), 166-183. "The Mirror of Remembrance (James1:22-25),"Catholic Biblical Qwrterty j o (1988) 632-645. "Taciturnity and True Religion ('James 1:26-27)," in Greeks, Romns, and Chrrstians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. D. Balch et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ~ggo),329-339. "The Social World of James: Literary Analysis and Historical Reconstruction," in 7hf Social World ofthe First Christians: Essay in Honor of Wayne A. Meek, ed. L. M. White and 0. L. Yarbrough (Minneapolis: Fortress 178-197. Press, 199s)~ "The Sayings ofJesus in the Letter ofJames" (with Wesley Wachob), in Authenticating the Words ofJesus, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans (New Testament Tools and Studies 28:1; Leiden: Brill, 1999),431-450. "An Introduction to the Letter of James," Review and Expositor 97 (zooo) 155-167. The chapters entitled "Journeying Easc with James" and "How James Won the West" began as the Carmichael-Walling Lectures at Abilene Christian University, November 1995.

PROLOGUE

James's Sign$cance fir Early C h t i a n History

Even before the recent commotion owr the discovery that an ossuary dated to the first century CE bears the Aramaic inscription, Yames son of Joseph brother of Jesus,"" the figure of James had, in one of those odd convergences that seem to characterize scholarly progress, focused attention on James ofJerusalem and his place in early Chrisaaniry.f The quest for the historical James, however, suffers from the same inherent limitations, and therefore the same inevitable tendency toward distortion, as the search for his b r ~ t h e rNot . ~ all efforrs have been equally worthwhile.* I For the blsrc story ltne of the drscovcnr and the dtscusnon, see H Shanks and B Wrther~ngton111, Ihr Bmdnr o f J m 7k Dram&&ry and Srgnrficrr~cof dx Erst l q c d Ltnk to Je$us and Ha Famaiy (San Francrsco HupcrSanFrancuco, 2003) z Among others, B Chtlton and J Neusner, eds., 7k B m k r ofJew James &Just and HIJM l l ~ (Lourrvllle n Wesrrntnsrer/John Knax, 2001), R k n m a n , Idnu, dre ~ o f J Ihr Key to Unfocbcng tbe SR-retr of&$ Chnmanl~and dx W Sea Srrdlr (NewYork Penguin Books, 1998). P-A &rnherm,Jamer, RmPher ofJesur (tondon SCM Press,rgg7), R Bauckham, James (London Roudedge, 1999),J Panter,Jwr James Ihr BrodmofJeslls m Hutmy and Tradthotr (Columbra, SC Unrwrsrcy of South Carolma Press, 199;), B Chrlton and C A Evans,J a m dx Just and P d h a n Ongmr (Laden BrtU, 1999) 3 For the htstorrographrcal d h a s a n c e s canted out rn the name of the quest for the hrstoncd Jesus, sce L T Johnson, 7hc ReaIJmrr Thc M~sguufdQuest* dx HmorurrlJesus and rbe %th 4dfp Tmdthonal Gorpolr (San Francrsco HrrperSanFrancrsco, rq*), and "A Historiographical Response to Wright's Jesus," in J a w and dx s ofN T W M q l e s u s and the V~rtoryof God,ed. C. C. Ncwman (Downers Gruve, IL. InrerVarstcy Press,1999),206-uq 4. Just as B Thtenng's Jess and tbe M e of the Drad Sea Scmtlr (San Francrsco HuperSanFrannxo, xyp) showed how badly the Dead Sea Scrolls could be mtsread to veld a hrstortcd Jesus, u, R Ersenmm has pmmded the same scrvtce rn hrsJames dw B w k ofJesus The posrttve rmnv of thts bawk by R Prrce, "Erscnman" Gospel ofJames the Just," pp 186-197tn Ch~ltonand Neusner, rds, 7k Bw&r ofJmr, can best be termed m~sch~e-

PROLOGUE

Generally, the more critical researchers have been in their treatment of the sources and the mote modest they have been in their claims, the more persuasive they have been in their respective portrait^.^ If the ossuary insniption proves to be authentic, it will simply strengthen the already wellsupported conviction that James the brother ofJesus was a notable figure in Jerusalem because he was a leader in the nascent Christian move men^.^ A puzzling feature of all these reconstructions of the historical James is the minor role played by the letter ascribed to him. Either the letter is interpreted within a framework that has been established on the basis of sources much later than any serious scholar would date this composition,7 or doubts about its authenticity make it something of an afterthought6Only rarely does the "message" serve as the main evidence concerning "the man.* But this is a mistake. With the exception of the evidence in Paul, Acts, and Josephus, the letter is the historically most certain evidence we have concerning James.'@Even if it is supposed that a composition by James vow For a more balanced re\qeur, see J Parnrer, "Excursus Robert Ersenman's Jams dK Bmtber ofJrrur,," in hrs Just James, pp 277-288 5 In this nspccr, the portraits drawn by Parnrer, Wrtherrngton, and Bauckham arc far more convlncrng than the highly speculatiw wntures by B Chrlton See "James rn Relanon ro Petcr, Paul, and rhe Remembrance of Jesus," rn Chrlton and Neusner, eds ,7he&B of ]@us, pp 138-160, and "Conclusrons and Quesnons," rn J a m the Just and Ongm*, 251-267,as well as hrs A Feast of Meanmgs EtuJsaruhc front J e w to J&nn~ne C m b (Lzrden Brtll, I W ) , +-I& 6 The w r d t n g on the ossuary resembles that of Josephus, who rn Anhquthes of theJew zo zoo reports the death in the year 62 at the rnsngarron of the Hrgh hrest Ananus Josephus refers to "the man named James, the brother of Jesus who war called the Christ " Far the probable authenuctry of the passage, see J P Meier, A Margrd Jew (New York. I)ot~blt&), lwl), 158-59. 73-73 7 Note how E~senmanfollrnvr the lead of I. C Baur rn usrng the fourth-century Pxuda-Clemennne Irterature as levera the "real hrstory" that IScamouflaged by the canonical w a n g s , see Jrrmrr rhc B 4 pp 7*79 8 See Bcrnhetm, pp z q p q ~ Panrer. , pp 227-276 9 Notably.J B Adunson,James %Man and HISM m r g r (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1989) lo I have mentioned already the account tn Josephus's Anhqurhes 20 zoo, for Paul. see I Cor g 5, IS.?, Gal I 19, 2 9-14, for Acts, see I 14, 12.17, 1-j 12-29, 21 18-2s Later evrdence IS hapcrgraphid It focuses largely on James's marryniom (see Eusebius, H I S ~ W F s~ h ~h r a 11, I , 5, 111, 23, P K L U b - C b w Rrcognrtrons 1, 70-71, & n r c b n Psalm Book, Psalms of Herd&a 192 8-9, Second Apacaiypse ofJitmes 61-62) N'tth respect to James's character or authorrry, the later sources follow one of thme streams the broadly eccfesrascrcal (C;orpllofthe H e h s ; Clement, H-poscs 6 [see HE 11, I , 31 and Hympr",~s7 [HE 11, I , 41, Hegcrrppus [HE 11, 23, 41, and Euscbrus, HE 11, I , 2-7), revelarronal ( A m * ofJames 1-2, 16, Second ApllfYpse ofJames 61-62, F m Apac~pscofJdmes 25, .~.z,Gorpel of %mar $2).and polemrcal (Ltmrr of FWm to ]dm, kt* of Clement to James, Ilw Arcrnt~of James, Hmtlres)

James's Signif;cance fir

Eady C h t i a n History

ofJerusalem was later redacted by someone else, the present letter 1s almost certainly appropriated by early-second-centuryChristian writings." In fact, however, there are strong reasons for arguing that the extant letter was composed by James of Jerusalem, whom Paul designates as "brother of the Lord."12 What is more, the evidence provided by the letter fits comfortably within that provided by our other earliest and best sources (Paul, Acts, Josephus), whereas it fits only awkwardly if at all within the framework of the later and legendary sources that are used for most re~onstructions.~~ In this essay, I will not try to do the impossible and demonstrate beyond the possibility of cavil that James of Jerusalem was indeed the author ofJames, even though I share the view that the preponderance of evtdence makes that position one that can be held with a high degree of confidence.14 Instead, I propose that we begin from the opposite end of things, take as our premise that the letter is indeed early and authentic, and see where that leads. What difference does it make if the Letter of James was written by the brother of Jesus from Jerusalem before the year 62? How does the evidence offered by this letter affect our understanding of history in the first generation of the Christian movement? It is obwous that IFthe letter is late and pseudonymous, it offers no primary, much less first-hand, information about earliest Christianity or pre-Roman War Judaism. But if it is authentic, what can we learn? 11

See mv cssav "The Rnceptton of James rn the h l y Church," pp 45-60 tn thts vol-

ume 12 In addttion to the authors ltsred m L T Johnson, 7hP LclprojJames A New Tmnh tton md,l n d u m o n and Commcntay (Anchor Btble 37A, New York Doubleday, 1995)~159 176,see R Bauckham, J a m (NewTestament Readtngs, London Routledge, 1999)~ and hts

"James and Jesus," In Chtlton and Neusner, eds , 7he Brothrr ofJesus, pp 100-135 13 See B Wrthenngton 111 m & BmtbPr ofJew 7'be hntaac Shny, pp 109-143 14 In lrght of recent scholarshtp on Hellenrsm tn Palestine (see belaw), there ts no a prior1 reason for excluding an early Palestintan provenance on the basts of language Other fxtors a) James lacks anv stgn of lace pseudonymous authorshtp arcording to the cnterra u s d y employed (ficnonal elaboranon of author's tdcnnry, ranonalturron for delav of the parousca, doctrinal development, accommodanon to soctew, emphasis on tradtt ~ o nas a deposit, polemics a p n s c false teachtng, developed tnsrrrunonal srructurr), b) James reflects rhe sooal maltties and outlook appmpnate to a sect in the early stages of rts ltfe It reflects a face-to-face, ~ncennonalekklhu with intense bonds of uxtal saitd;utty rather rhan a htghly rvolvcd organranon, c) James makes use of Jesus rradttions at a stage that is earlier than rs found in the late-first-cenrurv Synopnc Gospels (see below), d) across a broad range of language and rssues, James most resembles our earltest datable Chrtsoan author, the Apostle Paul, e) James IS used by at least nvo late-first- or early-second-cenrunt wrtrrngs, I Clement and SkphmiofH-, f)James's language (espcciallv his use of "Gehenna" tn 3 6) suggests local knowledge even more rhan L t e q tnflucnce

PROLOGUE

James as Early Christian Leader The first and most obvlous thing the letter confirms is James's place as a leader of the church. The letter provides literary confirmation of the portrayal of James's influence extending beyond Jerusalem to those "in the dspersion" @mes I:I). Paul speaks of James as one of the three pillars of the church in Jerusalem, whose authority he recognized (Gal 139; 2:9), but also speaks of "men from James" visiting the Christian community in Antioch (Gal 2x2). Acts does nor connect "those who had come down from Judea" to Antioch (Acts I ~ : Iwith ) James, but does portray James in its account of the Jerusalem Council as having a pastoral concern and an assumed authority extending well beyond Jerusalem. I t is James who declares that Moses is read in the synagogues "in every city"(kuta polin) on "every Sabbath" (pun subbuton, Acts 15:21), and it is James who makes the judgment (15:19) that is subsequently communicated to churches in h t i o c h and Syria and Cilicia (15:23-29). In the simplest and most straightforward fashion, the letter presents itself as addressed to the "twelve tribes in the dispersion" from "James, slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" Uames 1:~).If Paul's authority even in his own communities was never to be taken for granted, even by him, James's authority, even outside Jerusalem, is never in doubt. The letter also tends to support the portrayal ofJames in Acts - as well as a precise reading of rhe evidence in Paul's letters - that James was a leader in full fellowship with Paul, rather than the basis of a sustained opposition to Paul's Gentile mission in behalf of "the circumcision party." Luke does not mention James in his Gospel (compare Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55), but may have James in mind as one among "the mother ofJesus and his brothers" who meet in prayer before Pentecost (Acts I : I ~ )Af. ter Peter's escape from prison, he tells the assembly ro "inform James and the brothers of these things" (IZ::~).After this, James stands as spokesperson for the Jerusalem presbyterion. His support for the Gentile mission is decisive (15:rz-21).He advocates the sending of a letter to diaspora communities (1523-29),after rejecting the demand that Gentiles be circumcised and observe the law, demanding only those minimal requirements that enable table-fellowship with pious Jews. Acts associates James neither with the agitators in Antioch (IS:I) nor with the Pharisaic party in Jerusalem that demanded of Gentiles that they be circumcised and keep the law (15:s). The letter sent by the council does acknowledge that "some from among us" caused the disturbance in Antioch. This statement confirms in substance Gal 2:12, but is even more vague, and the rest of the statement

James? Sign$cancefor Eudy C h c i i r n History

distances the Jerusalem leadership from the agitators, "though with no instructions from us" (Acts 15:24) With regard to the events transpiring in Antioch and Jerusalem, Acts depicts James not as an opponent of Paul but as a mediator between Paul and his attackers.IS The final meeting between Paul and James is more ambiguous, to be sure. On his final trip to Jerusalem, Paul and his companions come into the presence of James and all the elders and report on all that God had done through his d i a b n u (an oblique reference to the collection [Rom rs:z5-32]?) among the Gentiles (Acts z1:18-19).This echoes Paul and Barnabas' recital at the Jerusalem Council (15:~~). The elders respond by glorifying God (21:20), that is, they express their approval of God's activity through Paul (compare Luke 526; 7x6; 18:43; Acts r1:18; 13:48). The elden then assert the essential accord b e m e n Paul's Gentile mission and the Jerusalem leadership by repeating the decree issued for Genriles by the council (2~25).NO further obligatiox~sbeyond those stated in 1~:23-29are stated. But Paul's own fidelity to his Jewish heritage is now questioned. Acts does not make the charge come either from James or the elders. Instead, they tell Paul what some of the Jewish believers who are "zealous for the law"" are claiming: chat Paul has been telling Jews to stop circumcising their children or practicing the law (2120-21).James and the elders suggest that Paul perform a ritual act in the Temple to demonstrate his loyalty to the people and show that he himself follows rhe law (2r:rq). Once more, James (and the elders) appear as mediators rather than attackers. There is no hint of opposition to the Gentile mission, no suggestion that Gentile believers should be circumcised or observe the law. It is only Paul's sum reaching and practice as a Jew that is in question. In the Acts portrayal, the question does not arise from James and the elders, but from those "zealous for the law" among Jewish believers. Both the narrative of Acts (16:j; 18:rS; ro:r6) as upell as Paul's own letters, furthermore, show that the charge is false. Paul never advocated Jews abandoning their ancestral customs. We only resisted the demand that Gentiles adopt them. Does the evidence in Paul contradrct the picture in Acts? There are o b vious and real diff~cultiesin aligning the account of the Jerusdem Council provided by Acts and that reported by Paul in Galatians.16 My interest here 15 Ben W~therlngton111 calls htm -James the Jmsh-Gentale Medramr."rn Tlrc A+ ofJesus 7he D n m w Sw9, p 109 16 See the detailed d~scussronof these lrterary and hrstorrcal d~fficitlrtes~nL I Johnson, S m p m and Durmmenr &rujon MArng rn he Chrrh (Nashwlle Ab~ngdun,r w ) , 6180, L T Johnson, 7he Acw of& Apstlrr (Sacra P a p a 5, Collegfvrile Ltturpcal Press, rggz), 258274

PROLOGUE

is only Paul's depiction ofJames. If Paul himselfviewed James as an enemy, he failed to say so. I haw already noted how Paul recognizes James as one of the apostles in Gal r:rg, and in 2:9 lists James with Cephas and John as those considered (or considering themselves as) pillars. Although Paul's tone is cool (see also 2:2 and 2:6), he does not question the group's authoric): and comes prepared to submit (amtith&~i) to them the Gospel he preached among the Gentiles, "lest I am running or have run in vain" ((2:2). His claim that they imposed no further obligation on him (2:6)apart from the care of the poor (2x0) and that they gave him the right hand of fellowship in acknowledgement of the legitimacy of his mission (2:9) recognizes their authority to discern and judge. Paul's entire narram to this point makes clear James's place of authority in Jerusalem and his willing fellowship with Paul. Nothing in Paul's remarks can be read as an attack on James. In fart, Paul carefully distinguishes the leadership of the pillars from the "false brethren'kho tried to suppress Paul's freedom by forcing the circumcision of Titus (2:~s).Paul says that despite much opposition neither he nor the Jerusalem leadership gave way to this pressure (27-9). It is against this backdrop that Paul recites the incident at Antioch: Cephas and other Jewish believers (see 2x3) ate freely with Gentile believers until e l h n tinas apo I&bou (2:iz). Cephas then withdrew out of fear of tous ek @s pprritomes ("those out of the circumcision"). Paul accuses Cephas, the other Jewish believers of Antioch, and even Barnabas, of hypocrisy (233). Paul" main target here is plainly Cephas, whom he confronts "in the presence of all" (2:14). The role of James is less clear. The "people from James" were a catalyst, but were they so as an official delegarion sent from Jerusalem? Did they represent James's vie\crs or only their own? Did they challenge the practice of fellowship or did Cephas (as Paul suggests) give way of his o\vn accord out of human respect? The most that can be drawn from the account is that the presence of James's representatives posed a challenge to open table-fellowship. This corresponds to the "some from among us" in Acts 15:24, but Paul does not make clear, as Luke seeks to, that "they acted without instructions from" James and the Jerusalem presbyterion. Because of the way the Galatian evidence has been used in reconstructions of Christian origins, two final points concerning Paul's view of James ofJerusalem need to be made with some emphasis. The first is that Paul's s w a t i o of past events in Galatians s e w s to present himself as an example to his readers of steadfastriess in the face of opposition: Paul stood by his gift despite false brethren and expects the Galatians to do likewise. Paul does not connect any of the problems he experiences in Galatia to the "false brethren" in Jerusalem, and explicitly distinguishes

Jr mes iSrgnrjicilnce fir Ed12 Chrzstkzn Htstory James and the other leadership from those false brethren. He does not make James the cause of the troubles in Antioch, and does not connect the dispute a t Antioch causally to the issues in Galatia. Even in the harshesr reading of Galatians, James of Jerusalem is at most the occasion of a dispute over table-fello\vship among Jewish m d Gentile believers. James is nor connected to any ideological opposition to the Gentile mission, o r to any effort to impose circumcision on Gentile converts. The second point is Paul's statements concerning James in I Cor 157, where his language suggests that James (as a wimess to the resurrection) is an apostle in the Pauline sense (compare r Cor 9x1, and where Paul concludes by insisting on the fellowship of all the \vitnesses with respect to teaching: "whether therefore it is I or chey, thus we are preaching and thus you have come to believe" ( I Cor 15:lr). Here if anywhere Paul had the chance to distinguish his own preaching from that of the Jerusalem church, if there had been any such fundamental difference. Rather he speaks of what he had received and was handing on (I Cor IS:I-3). First Corinthians, furthermore, is written well after the events reported by Galatians. If Paul were at enmity with James o r the Jerusalem leadership at any poinr, much less in a constant state of alienation with the mother church, his language never reveals it. Rather, the effort expended in behalf of his great collection ( I Cor 163-4;2 Cor 8 and 9) is cast in terms of a debt that is owed for the spiritual blessing that had been received from "the s), he explicitly distinguishes from saints" in Jerusalem (Rom r ~ : z ~ - j \vhom the "unbelievers." If the letter of James is taken as seriously as Acts and Paul as a historical source from the first century, how does it fit into the portrayal of Janles chey give? Henlarkably well. The letter presents its inscribed author as a James who addresses the twelve tribes in the dispersion (I:I). This corresponds to the picture given by both Acts and Paul of a James in Jerusalem who exercises some influence among (at least) JewishChristians in (at least) Anriach, Syria, and Cilicia (Gal 2; Acts IS). The sense of quiet authority communicated in the simple greeting and hortatory tone O € the letrer fits the epistle arrribured ro James and the Council in Acts IS. The designation "m~elvetribes" most naturally suggests Jewish Christian readers." The lecter's strong aff~rmationof the law (nornos) supports this suggestion. James speaks of the "perfect law of freedom'"~:r-j), the 17 For the alrernarlve readtng of dfarprd as retlcuc~nga x n s e o f sprrlrual exlie awa\* Ironi a hea\vnlv homeland, see johrlscln Jams, pp 170-1-1

PROLOGUE

"lau. of freedom" (z:I+),and the "royal law" or "law of the kingdom" (nomos brisilrkos) in 2:8, as that which should be "gazed into" (1:25), "fulfilled'" (1:25), and "kept" (2:ro) both in its parts and as a whole (z:Io). Otherwise, one is a "transgressor of the law" (2x1) who places one's own authority over the law and of God, who alone is lawgiver (nomothetts) and judge (kritcs, 4:rz). Humans are to live as those who are to be judged by God on the basis of the law of freedom (2:rz). And what does James mean by nomos? I t certainly includes the Decalogue (Z:II)and the commandment of love from Lev 19x8 ( ~ 8-) this is the "royal law." Jarnes also clearly understands the law of love to be explicated by the moral commands of Leviticus 1g:r1-18.'~ James also considers nomos as a source of moral examples. The image of the "mirror of remembrance" in 1:22-2s makes the "perfect law offreedom" something into which the readers can "gaze" and "remain in," by becoming a "doer of the deedn (poi&%q u ) . The Law as text contains examples that the readers can see and imitate: Abraham and Kahab (2:zo-as),Job (s:II), and Elijah (5x7-18). It is equally important to note what James does not include when speaking of nomos. First, he does not connect laup to circumcision in any fashion. If he were writing to Jewish-Christians, to be sure, circumcision would be assumed. Second, however, we note further that James does not speak of the "works of the law"((ergs torr nomou), the phrase that Paul uses Gal 2x6; j:z. 5, lo). Neither does James speak in his polemics (Kom 3:2o, a; of "commandments" (entohi) as Paul sometimes does (Kom 7:s; 13:9; r Cor 7x9).James recognizes that the law can be thought of in terms of discrete commandments, buc rejects chat view in favor of one that sees "the whole law" as the object of obedience; breaking a part of the law is breaking the whole law, for obedience is not directed to the specific commandment but to the lawgiver and judge (z:~I;see also 4x1-12).Third, James does not connect nomos to any form of ritual observance. Besides not mentioning circumcision, he shows no interest in special days or feasts (contrast Gal 4:yrr; s:z-4,12; 6:12; Col2:16), or in dietary or purity regulations (contrast Cal. 2 : ~ )James . makes no mention of any sort of meal, and certainly betrays When James speaks o f a "pure relino interest in a pure table-fellow~hip.~~ gion" that is "unstained from the world" in ~ 2 7he , defines it in terms of control of speech and the care for wido\vs and orphans (1:26-27). 18 Sce mv essay "Ihc Uw of Lev~ncusrg rn rhc latter of James,"pp

123-13srn ch~swl-

unle 19 Desp~ce13 Chrlton's efforn to connect Jamesco &sp~iresroncernrng meals in A Fe& E h n s n c Thcdqc*sfromJnw tolabanntnr Cmfes (Laden Brill, 1%)- @-in$

afiUmnmn#

James j. Sign~ficancefir Ear& Christian his tor^

In summary, nornos in the Letter of James encompasses a set of moral rather than ritual norms established by divine authority and providing the basis for God's judgment of human actions. I t focuses on the low ofneighbor, and explicates that low through specific attitudes and actions prescribed by Torah. The law also provides narrative examples b r imitation, models offizth in sewral dimensions: the obedient deeds of faith shown by Abraham and Rahab, the endurance of faith shown by Job, and the prayer of faith shown by Elijah. What James says about nomos cannot be linked to any recognizable program for the protection of Jewish ethnic identity. Still less can it be connected to any '~ud;uzing"projectfor early Gentile Christians. Indeed, focusing on James's language about nomos is itself distorting, for it is clear that this composition draws equally from the prophetic and wisdom traditions of Scripture in shaping its message. James refers to the "prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord" in 5x0, and draws from the language and the passion of the prophets particularly in his speech concerning the rich and the poor (1:9-11,27; s:~-6),and the necessity of choosing b e m e n friendship with the world and friendship with God (44-10). Likewise, James makes "uisdom" thematic (1:s; 3x3-16),cites Proverbs 3:34 (4:6), and makes extensive use of motifs that are associated with the wisdom tradition: the testing of virtue (r:r), deliberation in speech (r:rg, 26; 3:r-9), the incompatibility of anger and justice (1:2o), the necessity of helping those in need (1:27; 2x4-16). If I have accurately represented the voice of James as expressed in the letter attributed to him, then it must be said emphatically that this voice agrees substantially with the best reading of Luke and Paul with respect to the historical James (and for that matter, with the evidence provided by Josephus as well).20The letter can, in turn, be used as the best available, first-hand, evidence for what James of Jerusalem was about. I t is in light of this combination of information that uv are best able to assess the historical roles of James and Paul. ao In readrr~gJosephus, Antzqutnar ao 2 0 0 , one must be careful to see what IS sard and what IS not sald Ewn Wrtherlngron draws from Jouphus's statement that "those rn the crw who were mast far-mrnded and who were strict In the observance o f t h e law" were offended at Ananus's sconlng of Jamm, that James himself was pharrmc m his rendcncrrs "the passage emphasizes thar James was a Tonh-true, futhhrlly observant Jew prerumably (the Pharrseesj recogn~zecihlm ro be a good and farrhful Jew" ((TbP B m t h nj Jesus Thp llramrrhr S t o ~p, 149) In fact, hcmwer, Josephu s a p n a t h ~ n gdlrectly about James's practlces He was condemr~edfor hawng tranrgresed the law And Josephus rmplres that rt was the pmcess ("Ananus had nor been cotrrct e\*n in hrs first step") rarher than the charge agarnsr the person that offended those who u.ere scrupulous b u t the law

PROLOGUE

James and Paul The evidence found in Acts and Paul's letters resists any attempt to make Paul and James opponents or even rivals in the earliest period of the Christian movement. And the Letter ofJames lends no support to the hypothesis that the historical James was part of or even the fomenter of an anti-Paul ~ampaign.~' Indeed, the letter is so conspicuously lacking any trace of anti-Pauline animus, that even the early Tiibingen School considered James pseudonymous and part of the harmonizing tendency of earlycathol~c~sm And .~~ the most common way of dealing with James and Paul IS to cons~der the letter a mild rebuke to a "mtsunderstandlng of Paul."z3 Even D~beltus,who sought to remove James from any specific historical and social setting by appeal~ngto the genre of "paraenesls," thought that James 2x4-26could be understood only with reference to an earller tradltion established by But how should we think about Paul and James ~fthe letter stands - uqth I Corlnthlans and Galatians, to be sure - as the most important first-hand prlmary evidence for the h~storlcalJames? A frrst tmpulse for those who have not, as good historians, been seduced by the Importance accorded Paul in the canon of the New Testament Into thlnking that Paul's historical lmportance must have been equally central to the early Chrlrtlan movement, m~ghcbe ro follow J. B. Mayor's lead. Mayor, convinced that James was authent~cand therefore among our earllest Chrlsnan writings, argued thar rt 1s far more log~calto suppose that Paul was respondlrig ro James than that James was responding to Paul. James, after all, was In Paul's sow eyes one of the certified WICnesses to the resurrecclon; James was one of the pillars of the mother church whose approval Paul was not certain of hawng; James was the leader whose influence, even through emissaries, uras sufficient to sway Cephas and Barnabas from t h e ~ prlor r course of behawor; James who wlf21 Marcln Wengci regards James as nr1rri.n Lv James of Jcruulem, bur lnterprers Ir throughout as an mu-Pauhne polemtc, a read~tlgthar vtolenth distorts James 2 14-26 and makes the remunder of rhe lecter an entlrcly trnplaus~bleevcrctse we "DerJaltobushrtefals m t ~ p a u l ~ n ~ s rPolemlk," he tn Tr&aon rrnd Inrcrpre*rrton m tbe 12'eu Teswmtnt, ed G F tiawrhorne and O &tz (Grand Rap& Ecrdmans I*;), 248-278 u See F W Kern, Lhv C % & und m Lkpnimg der Rrwfhr Jitkobr (Tublngen Furs, 183s). zq-36, F C Waur, Paul, & Aps&ofJe~rs C h r , 2nd cd ,ed E 2 l l e r trans A Menrtcs (London W~lliamsm d Norpre 1875), 2 297-311. The Chrtnh H&n-, of the Rnr T h e hrrtnes, 3rd cd , trans A Llenrres {London Wtlltams and Norgate. 1878). I iJ-r3o 23 See, c g ,J Jeremtas, "Paul and James," Expstrmv Trnrtrs G6 (195.+I(()368-371 24 M Drbehus.Jnmez A C2rrnmentJt-y on the tpirtic ofirttner, rev H Greewn, trans M A W~lhrms(Phlladelphta Fortresr Press, 1975). 17 18

James's Significance fir Eady Christiczn History

confidently assumed an authority over believers "in the dispersion." In contrast, Paul was by his own admission, "like one born out of season'" among the witnesses to the resurrection; Paul had to fight for the recognition of his authority even among churches he himself founded; Paul exercised no discernible influence outside those churches that fell within his circuit; Paul sought the approval and fellowship of the Jerusalem church through his collection. If James had written to believers in the diaspora on the insufficiency of "faith alone" and had insisted on the necessity of doing "the works of faith," and had pointed to the figure of Abraham as an example of a believer whose faith war tested and brought to fulfillment through the "work" of offering his son, Mayor argues, it might well have been heard by Paul as a challenge, and Paul's language in Galatians particularly might have had the letter ofJames in mind. In this reading, Galatians would be a "misunderstanding of a Jacobean teaching." Now, I don" chink that Mayor is correct, for the reasons I will give below. His position fundamentally falls into the same trap of reading James and Paul only through the narrow lens ofJames 234-26and Galatians r-4.25 But I applaud the historical sensibility that lies behind his thesis. If the Letter ofJames is taken as a genuine first-generation composition from James ofJerusalem, then the accustomed ways of reading the evidence must be challenged. Assessment of the respective places of James and Paul in earliest Christianity that takes their respective literary productions seriously must begin with an appreciation of some obvious disparities. Paul has thirteen letters ascribed to him and James only one. Paul writes to many specifically named communities and individuals, while James addresses a general readership. Paul addresses Gentile or mixed congregations he has founded, whereas James addresses Jewish Christians. Paul responds to circumstances in his churches or ministry, while James appears to have no specific crisis in view. It is also obvious that Paul and James each have a range - of issues not shared by the other. We find in James no trace of Paul's concern for his own authority, for sexual ethics, for the ordering of worship, for positions advanced by rivals. James, in turn, focuses on the ethics of speech, the care of the poor and needy, and the ministry of healing and reconciliation, with a concentration not found in Paul. It is just as much a 25 Mayor argues that ~t tr more likely for Paul out tn the mtssron field to h v e read a ctrcular letter x n t by James to the disperston chan i t is forJames to be aware of a lener that Paul umte to churches tn Galatla, we J B Mayor, 7 7 Epud. ~ of Jirnrpi, 5rd ed (London hlacmtllan. IYIO), x c ~ clxxxttt-clxxwvltt, , for a stmtlar argument, see C P w ~ l l '"'Fatth' , tn James and Its Bearing on the Date of the Eptstlc,"bkpdz~xovfimer 62 (1950-31) 311.~14

PROLOGUE

mistake in method to reduce James to a comparison with a portion of Paul as it is to reduce Paul to a comparison with a portion of James, particularly when chose comparisons are disconnected from the dominant concerns of each author. The reason why such comparisons arise is the distinctive way in which James and Paul both converge and diverge in their use of certain kinds of language. To make the comparisons valid, however, it is necessary to move systematically from the general to the specific, from what is common to what appears to be distinctive. I leave aside here the thick texture of language that James and Paul each share as part of the developing Christian argot: Jesus as Messiah and Lord, the purousia of the Lord, and the rest,16 and focus only on the similarities and differences between James and Paul in their respective letters. The first thing to observe is the stylistic resemblance: both authors employ at times the distinctive rhetorical flourishes associated with the diatribe. The stylistic similarity points us to a still more fundamental agreement: James and Paul are both recognizably moral teachers within the Greco-Roman tradition: they have vice-lists with shared elements, call for mutual correction, connect testing and endurance. Most of all, they agree with all moral instructors that identity must be translated into consistent moral behavior: profession must exhibit itself in performance. A natural term to use for such performance is "work" (ergon). James uses it for such an effect or action in 1:4 and $13, and connects it particularly to rhe "working out" of faith ( ~ 2 52:14,17-18,2o,rr, ; rz,24,25,26). James n e w connects the term "work" or "deed" to law (nornos). Instead, like every other use of the term in the NT outside Paul's letters, he uses it in the sense of moral deed or effort. Of first importance for our comparison, however, is the fact that Paul also uses erpn predominantly in chis same sense. In his letters, he uses the term some 50 rimes with this denotation (e.g. Rom 13:3; 14:20; 1-98; I Cor 3x3-15; 9:1; 15:58; I Thess 1:3), and only 17 times in the more restricted and polemical sense of "works of the law." Paul speaks unembarrassedly about "your work of faith" (I Thess 1:3) and "the work of faith in power" (2 Thess I:II).Like James, he would consider it axiomatic chat "each person's work (eqon) will become mmifest'"~ Cor 3x3) and that "each person should test his own work" (ergon, Gal 64). As moral teachers within the symbolic world of Torah, James and Paul each affirm ho nomas as the revelation of God's will for humans and there25. For a full disasston afJmes'slmmersron rn early Chr~sclanlanguage see Johnson, l

d

~ pp. ,

48-53

fore the measure for human behavior. Paul agrees in principle with James that the "whole law'must in some sense be kept (Gal ~:j/James2:lo). And if James speaks of the law of liberty and the perfect law and the royal law - meaning thereby the law of love in Lev 19:18 Uames 1:25; 2:8), Paul also speaks enthusiastically about the nomos as spiritual (Rom 7:14) and "holy and just and good" (Rom 7:12) and "noble" (Rom 7x6). And as moralists in t l ~ aframework, t Paul and James agree that not only knowing bur keeping God's law is what matters. It is not James but Paul who declares, "It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous but the doers of the law who will be considered righteous" (Rom 2:13). In the remarkably similar statement in James I:=-25, James uses the term "word" (logos) for what must be both heard and practiced. Likewise it is Paul rather than James who declares that circumcision "counts" or "profits" (ophelei) only if the law is observed, and that if one is a "transgressor" (paraba*~) of rhe law, then circumcision does not profit (Rom 2:z~-27;compare James 2:9-11). Deeds matter, rather than membership or ethnic identity. It is Paul who stresses that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, but "keeping the commandrnenrs of God" ( I Cor 7:19), and insists that the "righteous demand of the law" ((to dilzaicim~tuu nomou) is fulfilled by those who "walk in the Spirir" (Rom 8 4 . Paul also finds this righteous requirement in the law of love of neighbor, found in Lev r9:18, which "has brought the other law to fulfillment" (Rom 13%; compare James 2:8). It is this understanding that enables Paul to say in Gal 5:6 that neither circumcision nor its absence matters, but "faith (pistis) working itself o u t ( m q u u m e n ~ through ) love (di ' / ~ p p s s ) . " Both Paul and James have a strong appreciation of God as judge. In Rom 2:6, Paul quotes favorably from LXX Ps 61:12, "he \r-illgive to each one according to his deeds (ergu)," and in the verse preceding says that the wicked are "laylng up a treasure of wrath for the day of wrath" {Rom 2:s: see James 5:3!) On the basis of their belief in God as judge, both authors forbid judgment of the neighbor (Rom 14:3, 10~13).In language reminiscent of James 4x2, Paul asks rhetorically in Rom 14:4, tis k ha krinon allotrion oikctt'n ("\vho are you to judge the servant of anotl~er?"). Both authors consider "doubting" (dkkrimmdi) as a hindrance to faithful obedience (Rom 4:zo; 14:23/Jarnes 1:6). Both, indeed, acknowledge a deeper sort of dvidedness in humans. In James it is being "doubleminded'"drpsychos, 1:8; 48). In his discussion of keeping the commandments in Romans 7, Paul speaks of "another law doing battle in my members against the law of my mind"(en tots tnelesin mou anmtrateuomcnon t(i nomg tou n w s mou, Rom 7:23), which is strikingly similar to the description

PROLOGUE

of wars deriving ek tcin hedonon b m o n ton strateuontenon en tois melesjn hynrun, in James 4:r. Compare also Paul's moral dualism between the "works of the flesh" and the "fruit of the spirit'3n Gal 5x6-zj to James's opposition benveen the wisdom from below and the wisdom from above in James 3x7-18. Finally, and most critically, James and Paul emphatically agree on the primacy of faith, and agree that being "heirs of the kingdom of heaven'" is a matter of God's promise (compare Gal 3:29/James 2:5) and gift Uames 1x7; 4:6/Rom 3:24; IS) rather than human accomplishment. But it is precisely on these matters that they are often thought to diverge, when James z:14-26 is compared and contrasted to Galatians 3 and Romans 4. The question must therefore he posed: do James and Paul disagree on the matter of righteousness (dikarosyncj in its relationship to faith and hurnan effort? In this question above all, the influence of Refarmarion polemics has had a deleterious and distorting effect, so that a fresh examination is exThe polemical placement of Paul arid James has traordinarily diffi~ult.~' had the effect of misreading both.=*I t is important to state from the first, then, that the correct understanding of Paul on the issue of faith and righteousness is as much open to dispute as is the correct understanding of James. In the discussion that fallows, readers should be aware that I enthusiastically subscribe to the position that in Paul's arguments in Galatians and Romans, the phrase pistis Chnstou must be understood subjectively rather than objectively: Paul argues that it is the human faith of Jesus that establishes humans in right relationship with God, not the faith of humans in Christ.29 For the narrative of rhrs ltne of tnterpreratton, set Johnsun,j~mes,pp 140-161 It IS fksclnanng to see commentators avoldrny the platn gramrnatrcal sense of G a l a t ~ m ss 16 for example, becau\e that p l a n grammattcal wnse does not yeld the -right" meanrng accordrng to rrad~t~onal understanding of Paul So the phrase er me, whtch tn Gal I 19 rnurt mean "except" (("I did not see another of the apozrles, except James the Brother of the Lc.mi"), and IS rnost naturally read as "except" also In Gal 2.16 ("a person is not r n d c rrghtecrus our ofworks of lau except through the farth ofJesus Christ") IS read as 3 flat adversarive "but rather" (see J L Marryn, <~&&ns A Neu T r i r n s h n u-th In&bm and Com mrntaw [Anchor Rtblc jy\, Neu* York Doubledav, 19971, 251,F Matera, C ~ L h s n s[Sacra Pagina 9. Collegev~lle Ljturgtcal Press. 19921, 93.94) or ~ 7 t ah bracketed "only" chat ts then lnrerpmted as "but" (see H I) Betz, (L&nanr A Commentdry on Paul i Lenpr ro rhc Cb&s tn (Lljna {Phriadelphla Fortress Press, 19791, 117) 29 For a full d ~ u u s s i o nSCP , K R Havs, 7%e FJJ& efJesss C%rzst Ilre . V j f f J h r ~hbsnrcrrum of G d k h ~ n s3 1-4 r l md rd (Grand Kaptds Fxrdmans, 2 0 0 2 ) , and L T Johnson. "Romans 3 21-26 and the f-atth of Jesus," GarhoIrc Btbiuel pujrtd-~44 ( 1 9 2 )77-90 The poslnon that 27

28

James k Szgnrficance for Early Chrzstian History

A full sorting out of the probleni must begin with the context of Paul's discussion. In Galatians, Paul is opposing Gentile Christians who want to "Judaize," that is, become circumcised and observe all the cornmandmerlts of Torah, including the ritual ones (Gal 4:g-ro; 5:3, 12).Paul sees their desire for "more" to be in effect the denial ofwhat they have already been given, namely, God's gift in Chrisc, by which Paul means, "the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:2o; see also 1 : 4 ) .Paul's ~ rhetoric about "works of the law" (9 tou nomou) is therefore specifically fitted to the situation of Gentiles seeking circumcision and the observance of ritual practices, posed in opposition to pistis Christou, the faith of Christ. It is in this narrow context chat Paul declares that "a person is made righteous not through e r p nomou except through the faith of Jesus Chrisc, and \ve have believed in Chrisc Jesus so that \ve migl.1~be made righteous ek pisteos It?sou C h t o u (Gal 2x6). Paul therefore sets in opposition erga nomou and pistis Christou as principles of righteousness before God. He denies thar righteousness comes through law (dia nomou) apart from faith; rather, it comes through a free gift of Christ (darean, Gal 2:21). Righteousness derives not from ergon nornou but from akoes pisteos ("hearing of faith," Gal 3:2). It comes not through nomos but through epangelia ("promise," Gal 3x8). In this argument, Abraham is cited as the example of faith that makes a person righteous in response to God's epangelk, and Gen 156 is quoted to that effect (Gal 3:6) The principle of faith is [hereby established as justifying humans 430 years before the nomos was given to Moses (Gal 3:17). In Romans 4:1-25, Paul's treatment is broadly consistent with that in Galatians 3, but also distinctive." Again, Abraham, "our forefather according to the flesh" (Rom 4:1), is cited within the context established by 3:20, ex ergin nomou ou dikaiothesetai pasa sam ("no flesh is made righteous on the basis of works of law"), and 3:~2,that God's dikaiogae is being revealed dia pisteos lesou Christou eis pantss tous pisteuontas ("through the faith Paul speaks of the "fath o f Jesus" In cr~rtcalp w g e s does not rn the least suggest char "fa~th111 Chr~st"1s nor also equally amporrant as the human response o f Chrtctlanr (chub platnl\, Gal z 16b "and we have bel~ewdIn Clirtst Jesus, w that u e m ~ g h be t made rrphcmur out o f the fa~tho f Chrtst and not out o f works of iau,") jo for the reltgour sttuatton faced by Paul, see L T Johnson, ''fZltua1 lmprinrrr~gand the Polltrcs o f Perfectton," in Rrltgtous Ceperrence m brfjest C h a n t y A M f s ~ ~ nDrmrnnot~ g m h'ew Tprrawmt Studies (M~nneapolrsFortress Press. 1 9 9 ) .69-103 31 See W Boers, Thu jusnfi~anun of fbe C;m&fe~Pitad's Lanprr ta dw theuhhrnr and the Romans (I'eabody, M A Hendrtkson, ~ggq),i++vrzo,see also L T Johnson, Rrdrng Rarndni A ~ J ~ P T A md Q 7hohgtci11Carnmenkzq (Macon, G A Smrth and Heluy.i, rool), 69-75

PROLOGUE

of Jesus Christ for all who belie~e"').~' When Paul speaks of erga in Rom 4 2 , therefore, it is not with respect to moral effort broadly considered, but specifically with respect to the commandments of Torah, and most partictrlarly the requirement of circumcision. This is why Gen 156 is used to denlbnsrrate ;hat Abraham was declared righteous be@? he was circumcised (4:lo). Again, Paul contrasts nomos and epsngelia (4:13),as well as nomos and kl&onomLa (4x4). Abraham is the exemplar of faith for both circirmcised and uncircumcised (4x6). Against this backdrop, how should the disputed passage in James z:14-26 be read? A number of points can be made in rapid sequence. The first is that James's entire discussion is not a separate essay but the continuation of James Z:I-13,which has as its theme precisely how pistir tou +s hgmiin Iesou C h t fz?s ~ dm& (XI)must express itself in deeds of low and not be contrahcted by acts of discrimination between To rip z : I ~ - 2out 6 of this context is fundamentally to distort James's argument. Second, as I have already stated, James's understanding of nomos has nothing to d o with the issues Paul is debating: James never connects "works" to the law or to circumcision or to any ritual observance. Third, James is entirely in agreement with Paul in placing faith (pistir), promise (cpangelk) and inheritance (khnomid) in the same column: they originare in God rather than in human striving (XI-5). Fourth, James places in opposition an empty pirtir theorc (here an objective gentitive: faith in God) or an emptyprstzs Chstou which amounts to a sort of profession of identity that is purely verbal (23, 19) to living mgi pisteos ("deeds/works of faith") that make such profession real and performarive. Fifth, James cites Abraham as an example precisely of such "active faith" which is shown by his offering of Isaac (2:rr). Sixth, chis Mgon pirteos is itself "coworked by faith" (rynergez) and "perfects faith," that is, brings profession to full realization in performance (2:22).

Seventh, Genesis z2:z-9 is read by James as the textual or narrative "fulfillment" of the declaration made by God that is reported earlier in Genesis IS:^, that Abraham's faith made him to be declared as righteous Uames z:rj). jr See Jotinsotl, "Romails 3.21-26 and the Fach af Jesus",R B Way, *Psalm 143 and the Logic of Komans 3," Journd ofBtb11cd trtcr~tsrrc99 (1980)107-115, S Wtlltams, "The Rtghteuurness of Cod tn Romans,"Jountal of 51bIud Lterdhrtr gq (1980)241-290 33 See the full dtscusston of thrs encrre sectton, "The Deeds o f Fath (2 1-26),"rn Johnson, James, py 217-252

James's Signif;cancef i r Edrly Christun History

Eighth, James's statement in 2:24, ex ergcin &rout& ant%pos kdi ouk ek pisteos monon ("a person is shown to be righteous on the basis of deeds and not on the basis of faith only"), which has been taken as a direct contradiction of Gal 2:16, does nothing of the sort, for the terms in the two statements have quite distinct referents. Ninth, James's use of Rahab as a second example of the eqy pisteits (2:25-26) demonstrates beyond cavil that his interest is neither in law nor in circumcision, nor even exclusively in Abraham, but in the moral issue of whether belief in God and the faith of Christ is translated into "living action." A comparison between Paul and James, I suggest, is distorted when reduced to the single topic of righteousness as found in Galatians/Romans and James 2:rq-26. The range of similarities and dissimilaricies in the two writers is broader and more complex than that of a simple agreement or disagreement on a single point. Each author's language, furthermore, is consistent within the topic each addresses, and there is no compelling reason to suppose that either had the other in mind. And what is most intriguing when placing them on the same plane is the discovery of how much they share as moral teachers within the symbolic world of Torah. in this essay, I have tried only to clarify that point. I have not yet begun to show what we can learn hiscorically by placing Paul and James into a more positive and energetic conversation within earliest Christianity, a conversation that involves not only their two voices, but those (at least) of the developing Jesus tradition and the Letter to the Hebrews as well. But even this brief discussion has left too little space to do more than touch on some of the other ways in which taking James as an authentic production by James ofJerusalem in the first generation can have importance for history.

James, Hellenistic Judaism, a n d Jewish Christianity One of the most important developments in the study ofJudaism over the past decades has been the recognition of how thoroughly Hellenistic culture permeated Judaism, both in the Diaspora and in P a l e ~ t i n e If . ~ the ~ 34 For orrmtaclon, see M Hengel,J u d u ~ md n d Hellenurn WU:J rn Tbrw E ~ w n t P rtn IZtkstrne m cbe FA+ Heilmimc P d , 2 w l s , crans J b d e n (Phrladelphta f20rtres Press, 1974),G Mussres, "Greek In Palesctne and the Dtaspora,"in Thc]eu*ub.People m cbe F m i O mry, z w l s , ed S Safrar and M Stern (Compmd~umRerum Iud~carunlad Novum

PROLOGUE

provenance of James is indeed Jerusalem, and its date before 62, w e would then have one of our most important and securely located pieces of evidence for the presence of such Hellenistic Jewish sensibility within Palestine. In the previous sections, I noted the obvious ways in which James fits within the symbolic world of Torah shared by other Jews, and I observed that, like Paul, James also resembles Greco-Roman moral teachers. Here I can briefly elaborate on this fascinating combination. James is Hellenistic first of all in every dimension of his literary composition. Much of James's dction derives from the Septuagint, but it is far from "translation Greek" in its complex rhetorical effects produced by pleonasm (36-7), alliteration (see 1:~-3),parachesis (1:24), and paronomasia (2:4, 20; 4:14). His subtle word-play involving krtJis\eko~\rlnefeos in 2:13, his frequent use of word-linkages (r:rz-13;1:26-27; 3x7-is), and his construction of a s o r i ~ sin 1:~-4,make it virtually certain that James was not a translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic 0riginal,3~but was thoroughly Greek from the start. In terms of composition, furthermore, the letter's use of elements of the diatribe, and the paraenetic-protreptic form of his deliberative rhetoric - not to mention his remarkable capacity for l o p - locate James's wriring within the world of Greco-Roman literat~re.~ James also shares the sensibility of Greco-Roman moralists on any number of small points (the testing of the wise, the unity of virtue, the mirror as a source of self-reflection, the tongue as venomous, the charioteer and pilot as images for self-control), and fundamental convictions (rhat virtue must be tested, that speech must be controlled, that friends correct each other, that wars arise from disordered passions, that speech must be translated into action). More than that, James uses the @poi of Greco-Roman moral instruction in order to develop his argument: in 3x34:1o he employs the t q s on envy, in 4:4 and 223 the t o p s on friendship, and in 1x9-20, 1:26, and 3:r-9, the t o p s on taciturnity. At the same rime, this thoroughly Hellenistic sensibility takes as its authoritative text the Jewish Scripture, shown must vividly by the fact that the warrant for moral behavior is grounded not in the "honor/ Tesramcncum, srct~anone, Phrladelphra. Fortress Press, rg7). ~ o j o - ~ v M $ ~Hengel, , "The Inrerpenerrauon o f J u h s mand Hellenism In the Pre-Mwcabem Pcrtvd,"tn 77x Gmbndge H u t q o f J k m , vol 2, ed W D Davles and L.Ftnkelstern (New York Cambr~dgeUnrvcrSIT)' Press, 1989)~ t67-U8 35 See R P Martrn,James (U'anl Btbltcal Commentary 4.U'aco, TX Word Publlshlng, 1988), lxu-lxxw~ 36 For fuller drscussron, see Johnsvn,James, pp 16-24

Junzes k Srgnrficance fir Early Chrishjn Hrstory shame" motivation found so commonly in Greco-Roman moral discourse but in the pourer of God to create and to judge. As noted above, James makes use of wisdom and prophetic traditions from Scripture as well as the law. Here we find a complete and seamless merging of Greek and Jewish sensibilities, in the manner of The LetterofAristeus, q Mdccabees, The Sentences of Pseudo-Pbocylides, and Philo J u d a e u ~But . ~ ~whereas all these writings can safely be located in Alexandrian Judaism, James is located in Jerusalem. And its closest companion within Jewish literature - besides Paul - is Tbe Testaments of the Twelve P~hiavChs.~~ In the Testaments, we find the same use of Greek topoz for moral i n s t r u c t i ~ nset , ~ ~within the frarnework of the law of Israel. We also find the same imagery regarding the involvement of cosmic forces (pneumdra) in human activity. Most significant, ure find in the Testdwrmtsas well as in James the same combination of sapiential and apocalyptic traditions inextricably i n t e r w v ~ v e n .They ~ share a remarkably similar dualistic appropriation o f Greco-Roman ethics within the symbolic world of Torah. James also shows us a thoroughly Hellenized Judaism that interprets Scripture, not through the sort of allegorical readings that ure associate with Alexandrian compositions such as Aristeas, Aristobolos, and Philo (or for that matter, Paul and Hebrews), but with specifically Palestinian modes of halachic midrash, with the difference that the text being thus treated is Greek rather chan Hebrew. In his distinctive use of Leviticus 19 throughout his composition, James can appropriately be designated a sort of halachic midrash." In this respect, the closest comparisons to James are found in certain passages in the Letters of Paul and in the speeches of A ~ t s . ' ~ IfJames offers us historical evidence for the possible varieties ofJudaism within first-century Palestine, n o less is it a reminder of the complexity hidden within the catch-all category, 'yewish Christiani~y."~~ The ex37 The full dtrplay of parallels &\ \\.ell as d~ssi~nilartt~es ir found tn Johnson,Jdme5, pp 38-43 38 See Johnson.]smt~, pp 43-46 39 7hr Test~mmtofSrmcon,for example, IF cntltled In Greek, Pclr P h h m (On Envy) 40 See T C Penner, 7be Ep8stB ofjiimes snd Eschatology RaRead~ngan Ancrent LPmr (JSNTSup 121, SheFteld SheiXeld Academ~cPress. 1996) .$I Johnson, "The Use of Lev~trius19 In the Letter of James," pp 123-135 +z. See L T Johnson, Sepruagrntal Mrdriish rn the SpecI-hesofArn (The Pere Marquette Lecture In Theology 2001; M~lwaukee:Marquette Ur~lverslcyPress, 2002) 43 See, e g , R A Kraft, "In Search of 'Jewish Chr~saaniw'andIts 'Theology' Problems of Dcfinlc~onand h.lethodolagy," Rerherches du rcu?nce mlzpnwe 60 (1972) 81-92, K kegel, "Jeu.lsh Chriscianrn~Definlclons and Termtnology," Neto Testament S&xs 24 (1978) 410-4x5

PROLOGUE

tended discussion in the first part of this essay suggests that James represents a way of being Jewish and a follower ofJesus that is thoroughly grounded in fidelity to the law but without any specific or special concern for circun~cision(as noted, it may simply be assumed) or for any ritual practices. James shows a thoroughly moralizing form ofJudaism that recognizes Jesus as Messiah and Lord (I:I; 2:1), lives within the framework of If James his teachings (see below), and expects his return as judge (5:7-8). can be taken as evidence for the messianic movement among Jews in Jerusalem before the Jewish War, then the nature and history ofmJewishChristianity" will need to be reexamined. We need to think in terms of different varieties both ofJewish and Gentile C h r i ~ t i a n sIt. ~should ~ at least give us pause that of all the writings in the New Testament, James has the most profound kinship with the letters of Paul.

James and Early Christianity I turn finally to the ways in which the Letter of James can serve as evidence for Christianity in Jerusalem before the year 62. Its importance here can scarcely be overestimated, since without this composition, every judgment made about the Jerusalem community must be based solely on inferences drawn from Paul's letters, the descriptions provided by Acts, or by later legendary sources. Concerning James the man, I have suggested that there is far more agreement among Paul, Acts, and this letter, than there is with the later sources. What can tve learn about the Christian movement represented by James? Before seeking positive evidence, we remind ourselves of the necessary methodological cautions. First, James is not describing the church in Jerusalem, but is writing to diaspora communities, and that in general terms. Second, as in all literary texts, ure have access only to James's perceptions, not to things as they were. Third, arguments from silence are especially diff~cult.I have pointed out that James does not speak of circumcision, but this may be sinlply because he assumes its pracace among those he writes, and there is no need to take up the subject. I have also noted that James makes no mention of a sacred meal of any sort, but this cannot be taken as evidence that he or the communities to which he wrote celebrated no sacred meals of any sort. Likewise, it has often been noted 44 R E Brown,"NotJewsh Chrlsnan~tyand Gennle Chrlst~antcy,bur Types of Jewtsh/Gentlle Chrtsnanlty," CBQ qc, (1983) 74-79

James 's Significance fir E a d ~Chrrrtirrn Histo9

that James makes no reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus or the bestowal of the Spirit (compare Acts!). We cannot conclude that he or his community had no experiences of or convictions concerning these things. Silence is simply silence. The information we get from James concerning Christianity in Jerusalem, therefore, is no less inferential, but it must nevertheless be taken into account. There are basically five aspects of the Christianity represenced by James in his letter that deserve particular attention. In combination, they serve to suggest something about the "Jesus Movement" as continued by James the Brother of Jesus. First, although the name Jesus occurs only mice (I:I; z r ) , and 4though James never speaks of the resurrection directly, there is every reason to think that for James, Jesus is not simply a figure of the past but of the presenr. Jesus is designated both as c h t o s and as kyrios in I:I, and James designates himself as doulos both of God and of Jesus. Likwise, in 2:1,Jesus is designated as k+yrios tPs doxts. The use of "slave," of "Lord" in combination with "God" and the use of "glory," all point to Jesus as resurrected one. This is supported by the references to thepmousia tou kytl'ou in 57, which is virtually a technical term in the New Testament for the second coming ofJesus, and the o n o m t m kyrimc in 5x4, which again is used most often in the New Testament with reference to the power of the risen Lord. If one can heal in the name ofJesus, and ifJesus is expected as judge, then Jesus now shares in God's life and pourer. Second, the distinctive presence of Jesus within James's composition is through the medium of his sayings. The pervasiveness of these sayings, and their thorough integration into James's own discourse, has long been noted.4SMore recent scholarship has sought to identify the sayings, align them with the respective versions in the Gospels, and reach some conclusions concerning what stage of transmission is here represenced. It aypears more than ever likely that James contains genuine logia ofJesus at a stage earlier than their redaction in the Synoptic Gospels.* The Letter of J F J H Koprs, A Crstrciri irnd kngrtscal Co?nnren*tryon the l'p~stkof St Jirmes (Ihe Internartonal Crtncal Cornmentar)., Cdtnbu~hT&T Clark, 1916), 39, P J Harttn, "Jamesand the Q Sermon on the Mount/Platn."S O O P (IfBsblscCil ~ O I P T ~SZe U m~ r ~ Pr I I 1~.8 (1gSg) ~ 440457, P J Harr~nJames ~ r r dthe Stzyrngs ofjesus USNTSup 47, Sheftield JSOT, 1991),P W Davlds, "James and Jesus,' i n Gospef Persppcn~.crr7ht. Jesus Trrufrhon ottf~rdethe G o ~ p f sed , D Wenham (Sheffield JSOT, I&), 63-84, D B Deppe, fhp Sgtngr ofjmus in the Cpudr 4 James (Chelsea, MI Bookcratiers, 1989) 46 See my essa) w t h W k4 Warhob, "The Saytngs ofJesus In the Letter ofJames,"pp 136-154rn rhts volume

PROLOGUE

James, therefore, stands with Paul as our earliest evidence for the tratismission and use of the sayings of Jesus in Greek. That James wrote from Jerusalem suggests as well that this transmission and use were taking place there from the start. It can also be noted that James does not cite these sayings as Scripture or refer them to Jesus. While it is possible to argue that this suggests a later mode of incorporation, it is my judgment far more likely that this easy and natural appropriation poinrs to the brother ofJesus standing within the movement and outlook ofJesus himself, and naturally using his brother's language as his own.J"he Jesus movement was a movement, after all, and it seems to have had its effect on James. Finally, it is striking how the use of the sayings ofJesus intersects James's ,~ it more than likely that use of Leviticus 19throughout the l e ~ t e rmaking when James calls the law of love of neighbor in Lev 1 ~ ~ the 1 8 nomos ba~llrkos (2%) he means "the law of the kingdom" that usas proclaimed by Jesus (z:~)."~

Third, James not only contains allusions to the sayings of Jesus, but the entire spirit of his discourse poses a sharp challenge to the ethos of the world, a challenge that echoes the ministry of Jesus as recounted by the Synoptic Gospels. Indeed janies claims that one must choose between friendship with the world and friendship with God (4:4),and this moral dualism is expressed above all in James's rejection of rhe rich and the arrogant in favor of the poor and the humble. The nloral exhortation in James eschews all conventional notions of honor and shame, pays no attention to the domestic sphere, cares little for sexual issues. I t focuses exclilsively o n moral attitudes and actions, and these are of the most countercultural sort.s0 Fourth, James nevertheless locates this sectarian outlook not in individuals but in an intentional community. The ekklesW ( 5 x 4 ) or syndgogt! ( 2 : ~is ) made up of men and women who use fictive kinship language with each other ("beloved brethren," 1~16;"brother or sister," Z:IS). There are leaders who are called "teachers" (d(dtdasMor,3 3 ) and "elders of the assembly" 's1.y~eroreroi t@s ekkltsiar, s : I ~ )The . assembly meets together for purposes of judging (XI-s),as well as for healing and confession of sins (5x416).Sparse as it is, this positive information concerning the church con47 W H Wachab, 7k Lbrce ofJesus in thp SmdI Hwtorrc ofJ'rrner (Soclew far Neu Tecra nlrrlr Studres Manograph Scrrrs 106, N m York Cmbrrdge Unl\rrsrtv Press 2000) $3 Jot~nson, "171e Use of kv1rrcu5 19 In the kctrr of James,' pp 123-135 49 Matt 19 19, zx 39, Mark 1 2 31, Luke lo 27, see Rom 13 9, Gal 5 14 $0 Scc mv essay "The Socral World ofJanlei L~terarvAndvsrs and kiutor~calReconstructron," pp rro-ir.~In chrs volume

]umes 3 Significancefor Eurly C h h n Htstoty

firms in some instances information concerning the first generation of Christianity found in other sources (assembly, argot, leaders, judging), and adds to our knowledge that there were healers (1 Cor 12:g) the drscription of an actual practice of healing that (even in its wording) echoes the healing ministry of J e s u ~ . ~ ' Fifth, James provides us a vision of early Christianity as a community of solidarity. The rejection of discrimination (XI-s),of the logic of envy (3x3-4:ro), as well as the practices of arrogance (4:rr-y6) and resentment (5:9), is matched positively by practices of solidarity: honor toward the poor (2:14-IJ), simple and unadorned speech (5:12), care for the sick (5x3151, murual confession of sins and prayer for each other (5:16), and murual correction (519-20). This essay is scarcely exhaustive. I t suggests only some of the ways In which, working from the premise that the Letter ofJames is actually written by James of Jerusalem before the year 62, we might begin to re-examine early Christian history. And it suggests that it is already past time for such scholarly reexamination.

51. James says that the prayer of f a t h will "saw the sgck one, and the Lord wll rase htm up" (534).The comb~nationofpistis and yiznn echoes, the refrun "your faith has saved you" in Mark $34; 10:s~;Matt 9 : ~ and . especially in Luke (7:~o;8:48; 17:19; 1 8 : ~ )In . Arrs. Luke explicitly links "faith" to the pmvr worked by "the name of the Lord" ((seeJames ~ : I J ) in healing (Acts 3:16; 4:glo; 14:9). The phrase "raise him up." in turn, echoes the desrriptron ofJesus'gesrure in the Gospel healing stories (Matt 95-7; Mark 2:9;3:3: 541; 10:49; Luke 5 : s ~ 24; 7x4; 8:54;John 5:s; rt:zg).

An Introduction to the Letter of James

The Letter of James is a composition from the first generation of Christianity, possibly composed by the brother ofJesus, the most likely candidate for the one the letter's greeting calls simply a "slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ"(1:~). Addressed to the "twelve tribes of the dispersion," it is most naturally understood as written to Jewish Christians outside of ancient Palestine by someone residing within that land. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, scholarship has been evenly divided concerning the authorship of the letter: was it written by that James who was a leader of the church in Jerusalem (Gal r:rg; 2:g; I Cor 15:7; Acts IS:U), or was it composed pseudonyn~ouslyas late as the midsecond century? Those who have paid slight attention to James o n its own terms but seek to fit the letter into some scheme of early Christian history have tilted toward pseudonymity. Those who have studied the text carefully have also been persuaded by many small and converging details suggesting it could well have been written by Jesus' brother. The rep -

p -

This essay ISa pamal epttome of the tnrroducc~onto L T Johnson, 7hr LpmT oflames A New Ttansk?~lmcmPb In&&on ~ n Commentary d (Anchor Btble 3 7 4 Garden Ctty Doubicday, 1995)~wrh mdficanons and - I hope - some rrnprowment bv way of afterthought Full btbLogrrphtes arc found there My comrnencary responds In parctcular to the mapstenal rwcnueth-cenmry commentary by M D~beitus,]rtmes A Commentdry on thp Episde ofJ6me3, rev. H. G m n , trans M Wtlltams (Hermenera Phtladelphia. Fortress Prcss, 1975) Other averall crearmenrs of James chat are helpful tnclude J B Adanlson,]ames The M6n and dn Mazrrgr (Grand Raptds. Ecrdmans, rg7j), R B U ' d , Tbe Comm~nalConcern of t h E p d c of ] a m (Ph D d~ssertanon,Harvard Untversrcy, 1966), 1' B Cargal, Resmng dx Dtazponr Drcm v c .Stmurun and h p s c m rhe E p d e ofJames (SBLDS 144, At~anca.Schohrs h, 1995). and R Wall, Commuwy of dx me The LemT ofJames (The New Testament tn Context, Valley Forge, PA. Tr~n~cy Press Internat~onal,1997)

An Introduction to the Lettev of James

sults of contemporary research tend to support authenticity and an early date. There are a number of ancient accounts concerning James of Jerusalem, who was martyred in that city in 6 2 CE. The accounts are so legendary, however, that they give us little historically reliable information. Even if we knew a great deal about this James, and even if we were certain that he wrote the letter, it would be hazardous to interpret the composition from the perspective of authorship. A far better approach to any composition, ancient or modern, is to give close attention to its literary shape. In this essay, James is introduced through such a literary description, which leads to a consideration of the composition's moral and theological concerns, and finally to some brief and tentative remarks about the historical and social situation which these elements suggest.

The Composition's Voice One of the reasons some scholars have had trouble seeing James as a firstgeneration composition of Palestinian provenance is the quality of its Greek prose, which employs a variety of rhetorical tropes (alliteration, paronomasia) and at times achieves real elegance (see I : I J ) . How could a Galilean brother ofJesus write so well? Nor is it simply a matter of syntax and diction. James is aware of Greco-Roman moral commonplaces, and uses them deftly. Some of his essays are masterful miniatures of frequently found lscussions on topics such as envy (3x3-4:3), friendship ( 4 4 , and garrulousness (3:~-is).There is no real reason, however, why a Galilean Jew like James could not write such Greek and know such rhetorical and moral tropes. Research in the past decades has shown that Palestine had been hellenized thoroughly since the time of Alexander the Great and that other Jews in Palestine were writing in Greek. Archaeological discoveries confirm the report of the Jewish historian Josephus concerning the city of Sepphoris, only a few miles from Nazareth, as a major center of Greek culture. James's sentences resemble most those written by ancient moralists. He favors the imperative mode and the kind of brevity often associated with the crafters of moral exhortation. This sort of aphoristic style dominates chapter one and is found in individual statements throughout the letter. Same readers have found in the apparent disconnectedness of James's statements a similarity to that form of Greco-Roman moral exhortation called paraenesis. Other aspects of the paraenetic can be de-

BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

tected in James's appeal to memory (1:23-25) and in his presentation of moral exemplars for imitation (2:21-25; 5x0-11,16-18).But James has more coherence than appears a t a first reading. Portions of the composition are style associated with the Greco-Roman diastructured in the dialogical tribe. In the diatribe, an imagined interlocutor is engaged in a give-andtake of rhetorical questions and incisive answers that makes for lively reading. Splendid examples are James 2:14-26 and 3:1-12. The rhetorical genre of the Hellenistic world that James most resembles, however, is the protreptic discourse, which sought to exhort those holdmg a profession to behavior consonant with their ideal. In James, this is expressed in terms of practicing the profession of faith, or, putting it in James's own language, not only hearing the word but doing it (I:=). Since letter wricing was so widespread a practice in the ancient Mediterranean world, other genres often were put within the framework of the genre "letter." James appears to be an example of this practice. It may be considered a real letter in that it was sent to be read by others (the "twelve tribes of the diaspora"), but it is closer to a literary letter than to the sort of correspondence that represents an exchange of news and views between friends and colleagues. The combination of these stylistic and generic elements has made James a composition peculiarly diff~cultto analyze in terms of its literary or rhetorical structure. Suggestions range from the accurate but dull listing of the contents in sequence to fascinating but fanciful architectonic structures. Thac James contains a series of topically coherent essays is clear to all, though few agree totally on where they begin or end. That aphoristic statements punctuate the essays is also clear, though their literary function remains debatable. That chapter one differs from the rest of the composition because it is aphoristic from beginning to end and touches on so many subjects is also apparent. Putring all these observations together is less easy. A reasonable approach to James's literary structure is to see chapter one as a rhetorical epitome of the succeedmg essays. In effect, James I uses aphorisms to introduce the themes that are later developed in essay form. By so doing, the epitome also necessarily establishes the basic dualism between God and World that is thematic for the composition a s a whole (1:27; 4:4). An even more obvious accent in James's Greek is biblical. Virtually all the vocabulary in James is found also in the Septuagint, and some of his Semitic constructions, such as the neologism proscipoli?cin~psi~("respect of persons"/"discrimination") or the expression "doing the word," would make sense only to a reader of Greek who was familiar with the usages in

An Introduction to the Letter of Jdtnes

the Septuagint. Scripture provides James with more than diction. James's entire symbolic world is that of Scripture in all its parts. James's positive appreciation of the law (nomos) is obvious in his descriptions: it is the "perfect law of liberty"(1:25) and the "royal law" (or perhaps better, "law of the kingdom," 2:8). James explicitly cites from the decalogue and insists that "all the law" must be kept. But what does he mean by "all the law"'? There is no indication char James was advocating any sort of "judaizing'" program, for the composition is i~tterlyfree of any mention of circumcision or other ritual observance. By the "royal law," James means the commandment of love, found in Leviticus 19:18,"You shall love your neighbor as yourself' (2:8). This summary of the law is found also in Paul's letters (Gal 5x4; Rom 13:5)),as we11 as in the Gospels (Mark 12:s-34; Matt 22:35-40; Luke 10:25-28). What makes James distincrive is his understanding of "all the law." He means loving one's neighbor "according to Scripture" (2:8), that is, as guided by the amplification of that moral norm found in Leviticus 19:rx18. Thus, L e ~ t i c u 19:15 s forbids partiality in judgment, and James 2:~-11argues that such discrimination between rich and poor within the community is incompatible with the law of love. James uses Leviticus 19 throughout the letter to provide a basis in Torah for his instructions (see, e.g., 4x1; 542 9). The prophetic tradition helps shape James's voice well beyond his citation of Isaiah 40:6-7 (~9-11).His language echoes chat of the prophen Isaiah and Amos in his condemnation of the carelessly entrepreneurial merchants (4x3-17) and the oppressively wealthy landowners (53-6). In his call to conversion from double-mindedness in 4:7-10, James's words resonate with all the prophetic literature. And in his insistence that God sides with the poor (2:s) and will come in judgment to vindicate them (5:r-g), James contemporizes a central prophetic theme. The wisdom tradition of Scripture continues in James not only thematically in his distinction between the "wisdom from below" and that "wisdom from above" that comes from God (1:s; $13-17), but also formally by means of his hortatory style. James can be seen as part of that broad river of wisdom that flowed through and from the ocean ofTorah in antiquity, although as we will see momentarily, James is a distinctive and easily discernible current in that flow. James's voice, in short, combines in distinctive fashion the language of Greco-Roman moralism and the language of Scripture. It is possible to locate his distinctive voice even further by comparing and contrasting it with the traditions already named. W can begin with contrast. Ifwe place

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

O F GOD

James next to all the wisdom literature of antiquity, both from the side of the Near East and Judaism and from the side of Hellenism, James appears as virtually unique in four major ways. First, James is entirely concerned with morals rather char1 manners. A large portion of all ancient wisdom instructs the reader on the ways of finding and keeping one's assigned place in the world, using the status markers of honor and shame as motivation. James deals only with moral behavior that is consonant with God's honor. Second, James addresses the intentional community of the assembly (fymg*, 2:z; eWsia, 5x4) rather than the household (oikos). James shows no concerns for the orderly arrangements of the household that so preoccupy ancient moralists. There is no attention given to the roles and duties of domestic existence; more strikingly, there is no particular attention to sexual behavior (the use of "adulteresses" in 4:4 is symbolic), whether heterosexual or homosexual. Rahab, for example, is identified as a prostitute (porn&), but she is portrayed as an example of faith (2:~s).Men and women alike are addressed as moral agents within a community; James seeks to reinforce a certain kind of community identity consonant with "the faith of Jesus Christ" ":I), rather chan a domestic tranquility. Third, James is egalitarian rather than hierarchical. Ancient wisdom massively reinforced a stratified view of the world in which the older had more authority than the younger, the free mote than slaves, men more than women, the rich more chan the poor. James decisively rejects that view of the world. The author is not the "father" of this community and they are not his "little children" (language found even in Paul). He is only a "slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (I:I). Teachers are not better than others but are held to a more severe judgment (3:1-2). Elders are to be summoned by the weakest in the community and are to tespond (s:I~-15).They are all "brothers and siscers"(2:14), equally answerable to God and to each other. Fourth, James is communitarian rather than individualistic. Much ancient wisdom was addressed to the individual ("my son") as instruction in social as well as moral improvement. But James opposes any sort of self-advancement a t the expense of others. Individuals are called, rather, to a life of mutual gift-giving and collaboration, rather than one of competition and rivalry. In contrast to "the w~orld"that operates on the basis of an envy that leads to murder (3x3-4:3; 5:r-6),James seeks to shape a community that shares its gifts that come from God and restores the life of the sick (s:I~-16). So much ofJames can be understood within the symbolic world ofJudaism that some scholars have questioned whether it began as a Christian composition at all. Perhaps, they say, it upasoriginally a Jewish discourse

An I n d u c t i o n to the Letter ofJames

to which a Christian added the only two references to Jesus (in I:I and XI) and appropriated it for the church. The suggestion has sufficient superficial appeal to require response. On the one hand, James is certainly not Christocentric in the manner that so many New Testament compositions are. No stories about Jesus are recounted. More significant, James makes no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus or the sending of the Holy Spirit. But on the other hand, James's language bears unmistakable traces of the developing Christian argot that we find in other early letters. Examples include the pervasive use of kinship language (1:2,9,16,19, etc.), the ambiguous use of the title kyrios ("Lord") applicable either to Jesus (23) or to God (I:?), the use of doulos ("slave'" for a leader of the assembly (x:~), the concentration on the distinctive virtues of pistis ("faith") and a p p e ("LOV~"), the absolute use of to onotnd ("the name") as in the phrase "the name that is invoked upon you" (r:?), the language h u t "kingdom" and "promise" and '5nheritance" (2:5),the use of rhe Christian neologism p s o p o l e m p s ~("respecting of persons," 2:r. 91, and, most impressively, the use of the almost technical term purousta to designate the Lord's coming (37-8) Virtually all these terms can be found in other Jewish literature, but nowhere outside the writings of the Christian movement with equal concentration and in identical combination. Among other Christian voices, rhose ofJesus and Paul are the closest to James. Although James is not, as noted, Christological in the usual sense of the term, the writing makes heavy use ofJesus' sayings. The most obvious is the proclamation of love as the "law of the kingdom3'(2:8), which is found also in the mouth of Jesus. The detection of these allusions is not easy because so much of James's language echoes Jesus' speech, as when he speaks of the judge standing by the door ( 5 : ~see ; Matt 24:33), or of having faith uithout doubting (1:6; Matt 21:21), or when he states that those who endure will be saved (1:12; Matt lo:=), and those who humble themselves will be exalted (4:6-10;Matt 23:12). Four statements are particularly close to the spirit ofJesus as we find it in the Synoptic Gospels: the declarations that the poor receive the kingdom (2:s; see Luke 6:20), that the merciful receive mercy (2x3;Mart 5:7), that the pure of heart and peacemakers are blessed Uas 4:6,3:18 and Mart 5:8,9). And three statements in James are so close to Jesus' sayings in substance and style that the most reasonable surmise is that they in fact derive from Jesus: that God responds to those who ask (1:s; Matt 7:7), that they should not judge lest they be judged (4:rr-12, 59; see Matt ?:I), that they should not take oaths but speak with a simple yes or no (5x2; Matt 5:34). Close analysis of these statements in comparison with their parallels in the Synoptic Gos-

B R O T H E R OF J E S U S , F R I E N D O f G O D

pels reveals that their form In Jarnes 1s probably closer to the (hypothetical) source Q than to the redacted Synopttc verstons, another reason for locartng James In the first rather than a later generatton of the Chrtsttan movement. More Important, these multiple and subtle connections to the words ofJesus tndtcate how for Jan~esthe "falth ofJesus Chrtst" 1s mediated through hts ceachlngs The most tntrlgutng and problemattc relattonshlp IS benvcen James and Paul Analysls of the stmilaities and dtfferences between them has domtnated and dtstorted much of the study of James, espectally slnce the time of the Reformation Marnn Luther tnststed that Paul's teachtng on righteousness through Fatth rather than the works of the law (in Galanans and Romans) and James's dtscuss~onof the works of fatrh (tn Jas 2.14-26) represented an ~rreconcilableconrradtction tn Srrlpture Since In Luther's vtew Paul represented the truest undersrandtng of the gospel, James was relegated to a secondary postrton in the canon Luther's \ww on chts point opposed the enctre tradition of tnterpretac~onbefore htm and was followed by few of hts fellow-reformers But because of Luther's great Influence over that farm of German scholarship that came to dominate the crtttcal study of Scripture, Jarnes has repeatedly had to seek rehabilitation withtn scholarshtp, ctnce tdeas about t t c composition were understood tn early Chrtstiantcy w t h t n the context of a supposed tdeological opposirton b e m e n Paul - as tile representattve of the freedom of the gospel -- and James - as the representative of a Judalztng movement A better approach to the compar~sonbegins by recogntLtng the mulnple ways In which the ltterarv productions arid religrous preoccupattons of James and Paul d~flfer,rather than reductng the compartson to a handful of verses on each srde A more adequate compartscln also takes Into account the multtple ways In whtch Paul and James agree They share the common Chrtsrian symbol~cworld, though each shapes t t differently They resemble each other sr)lltstlcally because they both employ the Greco-Roman dmtrtbe T h y are both moral teachers, insisrtng that ~ntellectualassent or verbal professton must be matched by performance. Note that the vast majorITof ttmes that Paul use5 the term er;qon tn hts letters, i t has norhtng to d o wtrh the Law, but means human acttons, and he can speak con~fortablyof "your \wrk of fath" (1 Thess r:j) Paul and James also share the symbolic world of Scripture, maktng t t natural for them to speak of "la\v," and to tnstst on the need to observe God's law It is Paul rather than James who says "it 1s not the hearers of the law who are righteous bur the doers of the law who w~llbe declared rtghreoits" ((Komr 13). and tt 1s Paul rather than James who says thar i-trcumc~sron"counrs" tf the law 1s observed but docs not lftt

transgressed (Kom 2 25-27, see James z 9-11}Both authors agree, furthermore, that what Paul calls "the rlghreoi~srequlrenient of the la\v'\s fulfilled by a ltvtng f a ~ t hthat expresses ~tselfrn self-donat~velove So Paul declares, "In Chrrst Jesus, nerther crrcumclsron matters nor unclrcumclslon, but falch workrng Itself out through love" (Gal j 6 ) Those drscussrng the drsputed passage In James 2 14-16also need to recognlre the d~fferrngcontext o f James from Paul's response to the judaztng factlon In Galaclans In that letter, Paul defends the adequacy of farth as God's g ~ fagalnst t those who Insist on the need to practice clrcumclslon and advocate r ~ t u a "works l of the laxv" In contrast, James 2 14-26is actually the clrn~axo f a n argument rhat beglns rn r:r concer nlng the need to act rn a manner consonant \rrrh "the falth ofJesus Chrlst 'James does not oppose the "fath of Ckrrst" and "works of law" as soreriologcal prinaples, but contrasts an empty bellef In God (2 19)wlth a lrv~ngf a ~ t hthac expresses Itself tn deeds of f a t h Paul and James both use Abraham as exemplar, and they sho~rldnot be lnrerpreted In conrradlctlon because they u s rhetorrcal srtuarrons. The key verse for address qulre drfferent r e l ~ g ~ o and underscandlng the Hook of James IS t st, whose s~gn~ficance can be grasped only tf translateci qurte Irterally. Speaking ofAbraham's offering of Isaac, James declares, "Sou see that f a t h upasco-acnng (or 'co-workrng') his deeds {ergors), and farth uas brought to complet~onout of his deeds (ergon) " F a ~ t hnever becomes somerhlng else. It IS perfected as f a ~ r hby the deeds rhat ~tperforms And the polnt forJames 1s not soter~ologlcalbut Intensely moral James wants readers to gra5p chat "the f a ~ t hofJe.;us Christ" must be enacted by the acceptance of rhe poor rn the assembly as u.ell as the rich (2 1-5) and must be expressed by the dlrect care of those In desper1 Jarncs, nurate need (2.14-17)It 1s ludicrous to suppose thac erther 1 ~ 1 1 or tured by the tradition of Torah, should wer thmk otherwrse Although James IS rnfluenced bv tlellen~sm,Judasm, Jesus, Paul, and the early Chrrstran movement, he \peaks zn a manner all his own No ~ve of brevity and elereader ofJames can mrstake hrs d ~ s t ~ n c t con~blt~arrcln gance In style, hls l~cellnessin dralogue, and hls vrv~duse of metaphor. Precisely because James does not deal \rzth the ~ssuccof a spectfic communlty but takes on universal problems of cornmun~tylife and, even more, the perennral remptarlons of the human heart, his vorcc. sounds across the centuries w t h remarkable freshnes.; and v ~ g o r In piaces, James 1s marched for styllst~cverve only by 111s colleague Paul and his nearcontemporary Eplctetus One reason why James speaks ro readers of every age wlth such rmniedlacy, however, 1s not merely a matter of style but a matter above all of moral passton and rel~grousconviction IS

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

FRIEND OF GOD

Moral and Religious Perspectives in James The earlier comparison benveen James and other ancient wisdom writings showed James's distinctive interest in morals rather than manners, in an intentional community rather than a household, in equalicy rather than authority, and in the community rather than the individual. These perspectives suggest that James stands over against a dominant culture rather than as the champion of a ruling elite or the scribal class within a stable, traditional culture. James's moral teaching opposes behavior that has real socioeconomic expression: "Do not the rich people oppress you and themselves drag you into courts? Do they not blaspheme the noble . opposition between rich and name that is invoked over you?""( ~ 6 - 7 )The poor (1:~-11;2:r-6) is expressed also as the opposition between the arrogant and the lowly (4:6), che oppressor (2:6; 5:1-5) and the innocent/righteous (55). James's eschatological framework gives the opposition great urgency: judgment is coming soon (5:9), when the wicked will be punished (5:i-6) and the righteous will be rewarded (1:12). These oppositions are matched by ocher sharp moral contrasts be; war and peace (3:16-42). meekness and tween truth and error ( ~ 1 81:16), anger (I:~o-2i),envious craving and generous gift-giving (.+:I-3;1:r7), hearing the word only and doing i t (I:=, 25), forgetting and remembering ( ~ 2 4 29, perfection and instability (1:4, 6-11, 17, 25). Cognitively, the contrasts express the difference benveen wisdom (1:s; 3x3) and foolishness (126). Religiously, they correspond to the contrast between filthiness and purity (I:ZI, 27; 4:8), blessing and curse (39). Cosmically, James puts in opposition saving and destroying (4:12). death and life (I:IS), an "indwelling spiric" (4:s) and one which is earthbound and unspiritual (3x5).Such contrasts fit within a spatial imagery of "above and below," and "rising and lowering." James says that "wisdom from above" comes from God (1:5, 17; 3:15). Receiving it demands human "submission" or "lowering," to which God responds with a "lifting up/exaltingS (4:~-10).In contrast, James posits a wisdom from below that is "earthbound, unspiritual, demonic" (3:~s; 2:19), sponsored by the devil (4:7).Wisdom from below seeks to elevate humans on their own terms through boasting and arrogance (3x4; 4:6) But just as God raises the lowly (4:1o), so God resists the arrogant (46; 5:6). The thematic center for this moral and religious dualism appears in James 4 4 , "You adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore, whoever chooses to be a friend of the world is established as an enemy of God." James contrasts God ( h s ) and world (bsmos) as objects of human commitment ("friendship'" and

An I n d u c f i o n to the Letter oflamer

says that humans must choose between them. Such a startling - stacement makes sense only if we see how James consistently speaks of "world" in negative terms, indeed, as opposed to God, as though "the world" were not a place but rather a system of meaning - or value system - by which people might choose to live (see 1:27;2:s; 3:6) Such choice is expressed in the Book ofJames in terms of friendship, which in antiquity involved a serious commitment based on a complete sharing of outlook. To be "friends of the world," then, would mean to share completely its view of reality, its way of measuring value, to be of "one mind" with it. The best access to James's understanding of "the world" as a measure is found in 3:13-4:3, where he elaborates the logic of envy (phthonos). Envy operates within a view of existence that sees it as a zero-sum game, a closed system of limited resources. Being and uwrth depend on having. Having more means being more. Having less means being less. By this logic - since there is just so much "having" possible - humans are essentially in competition for resources and for the security and worth they provide. The surest way to succeed is to eliminate the competition. The attintde is expressed by those who boast in their capacity to gain profit (4x3-16).I t is expressed a e n more boldly by those willing to kill innocent people by holdmg back wages due the workers in their fields (53-6), thus realizing the ancient conviction that envy leads to murder (phthonos phonor). But it is also expressed by all the ways in which people seek an adtanrage in order to assert themselves: by partiality in judgment (r:r-4))by refusal to help others (2x4-16),by judgtng and slandering others (4:12),by murmuring against them (5:g). To act in such fashion is to show oneself a "friend of the world," a world that excludes God from consideration and is heedless either of God's gift or judgment. In contrast, Abraham perfectly exemplifies what James means by being a "friend of G o d (the title he explicitly applies to Abraham in 2:23). By offering his son Isaac, Abraham accepted God's measure rather than the world's. By the measure of the world, Abraham should have clung to his only and beloved son, especially since Isaac was a gift from God, in order to ensure the blessing that God had promised. Bur Abraham did not see reality as a closed system of limited possibilicies. He listened to the God who is the "giver of every good and perfect gift" (1x7)and was willing to give back a gift co the one who "gives a greater gift" (46). To be a friend of God, then, means to see reality as gifted constantly by God, and therefore be open to the possibilir): of sharing possessions and living a life of communion and cooperation, rather than one of individualism and competition.

BROTHER OF

JESUS, FRIEND

OF GOD

James's moral teachtng, then, IS closely tled to hts understandtng of realtry as defined by God. Thts leads to a short constderatlon of James's theology. Readers who tend to ident~fytheology ullth Chrtstology find James deficient, for, as we have seen, hts way of approprtatlng the f a t h of Jesus IS not chr~stocentrtctn the manner of Paul or Peter Readers llkewse who thrnk of theology tn terms of theory or dialectic find James flat and uninteresttng, for he dtrects everythtng to practtcal results. But once readers approach James on h u own terms, they find a composttlon that 1s among the most "theolog~cal"tn the New Testament. James constantly speaks of h thos ("God") rather than ofJesus or the Holy Sptrtt (I:I,S, 13, zo, 27; 2:s. r9*zj 121; 3:9; 4:4 [z], 6, 7, 8), somettmes In apposttlon to pat&("Father'"), as tn r:17,27;3:9. Several Instances of k ~ o ("Lord") s also almost certarnly refer to God rather than to Jesus (1:7; 3:9, 430, IS; 5:4, 11).In 108 verses, James has at least 24 dtrect references to God. James's charactertzacron of ho tiheos 1s rlch and complex. Ltke all Jews, he agrees that God ISone (z:19),but emphastzes that thts God IS the lrvtng one who makes "demons shudder" ( z : I ~and ) u the "Lord of Hosts" who redresses oppresston (5:4).God IS defined tn contrast to human weakness and vlce: unltke Inconstant humans, God has no change - or shadow of alteration ( I : I ~ )unlike ; humans who are seduced by desire, God is not tempted by evil (1x3);unlike humans who rage when wronged, God" righteousness has nothing to d o with human anger (r:zo).James's positive statements about God assert God's powerful presence to creation and humanity. God is not only light but "the father of lights" (1:17),who expresses God's will by a "word of truth" and - in a deeply paradoxical turn - "gives birth*' to humans as a kind of first-fruits of creatures (1x8).God has done so by creating humans in God's own image (39). James" God is not distant and uninvolved uith creation. God has revealed "the perfect law of libercy" (2%-11)and will judge humans on the basis of that rmvlation (2:rz).As James puts it in 4x2, '"ere is one lawgiver (nomothetes) and judge (kritts), who is able to save (scisai) and destroy (apoki)." God does nor leave humans with only a verbal norm. The word of truth is also an "implanted word" that is able to save their souls/lives @sychos, 1:~s). God has made apneuma ("spirit"') to duvll in humans. God is in control of human affairs (4x5) and declares as righteous and as friends those who show faith (z:zj). God reveals Godself above all in mercy and compassion, terms that virtually define God (s:II).God promises the crown of life to those who love God (I:IZ; 2:s);has chosen the poor by the world's measure to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom (2:s);regards true religion as visiting orphans and widows in their distress (1:27),even as

An fntroduchon to tbe Letter of James God hears the cries of the oppressed @4), raises up the sick (s:rs), hears the prayers of those who ask in faith (1:s) rather than wickedly (4:3), and forgives the sins of those who confess them to each other (5x5-16). This is a God who seeks communion with humans, approaches those who approach God (4:8), raises up the lowly (4:1o), and enters into friendship with humans (223; 44). But God also resists the proud and arrogant who exalt themselves by oppressing others (4:6; 5:6). Above all else,James's God is defined in terms of gift-giving. In 4:6, James derives from Proverbs 3:34 ("God resists the arrogant but gives grace to the lowly") the lesson that "God gives more gracqgift" (rneiwna de d&sin chdrin). The characterization cannot be accidental, for James's first statement about God in r:S is that Gad "gives to all sintply (haplosj and without grudging (me oneidimntos).'%d his most solen~nstatement appears in r:17, "Every good and perfect gift comes down from above from the father of lights with whom there is no change or shadow of alteration.' The three statements together affirm that God's giving is universal, abundant, without envy, and constant. God is that open-system of giving and reciprocity into which humans have been invited. Human existence, as James understands it, can be expressed in terms of a story involving God and people as characters. The story's past describes what God has already done: God has created the world and all its creatures, making humans into creation's representatives as those bearing God's own image; God has revealed the "word of truth" in the law, the prophets, and in "the faith ofJesus Christ"; God has implanted in people the "word of trutli,"and the "spirit," and "wisdom from above." The story also has a future, expressed in terms of how God will respond to human fidelity to covenant: God will reuard chose who are innocent and enduring, who speak and act according to the "royal law of liberty"; God will punish the wicked oppressors who blaspheme the noble name borne by God's people. The close link between James's moral teaching and his theology is demonstrated by the way in which theological propositions serve as warrants and premises for moral exhortation. James does not simply juxrapose the nvo sorts of statements. Instead, the theological aluays functions as the motivator of the moral. James grounds moral life in the relationship of creatures, and above all humans, with God. These theological grounding statements are conveyed by means of participles (1:3, 14,u; 2:9, 25; $:I), gar ("for") clauses (1:6, 7, 11, 13, 20, 24; 2x1, 13, 26; 3:2, 16; 4:14), and hoh' ("thatfiecause") clauses ( I : I ~23; , 2:1o; 3:r; 4:3; 5:8, 11). Thus, it is precisely James's affirmation of God as the constant, universal, and un-

BROTHER OF J E S U S , F R I E N D OF G O D

grudging giver of ail good and perfect gifts that grounds his moral imperatlve chat humans live in a community not of competition but of collaboration. Given James's moral and religious dualism, which demands of everyone a choice between friendship with the world and friendship with God, the composition's most obvious target are those called "double-minded'" (IS;4:8), who want to be friends with everyone. In 4:4, James uses language that had been used by the prophets to symbolize apostasy from covenant when he addresses his readers as "adulteresses"; if covenant with God is like a marriage, then breaking covenant is like adultery (see Hos 3:I; Ezek 16:38;23:45; Isa 57:3;Jer 3 9 ; 13:27). So James regards double-minded Christians as those who claim to live by the standards of the "faith ofJesus"but daily adopt the values and behavior of outsiders, in a kind of spiritual "adultery." They pray, but they do so in doubt (r:8) or for their own gain (4:3).They meet in assemblies, hut there practice discriminasion against the poor (XI-4).They express verbal sympathy for the wretched but give no concrete help (2:rq-16).With one side of their mouth they bless God but with rhe other they curse those created in God's image (3:9). James calls the double-minded to simplicity or purity of heart (4%).He wants them to choose God as friend and to live consistently with that profession, rather than compromising it by behavior more consonant with the logic of envy. James's final verses in 5:7-20 sketch his understanding of a community that lives by the "faith ofJesus Christ" and in "friendship with God" in a religion "pure and stainless before God." Not surprisingly, given his attention to the ways speech betrays friendship with the world (above all in J:I-121, James pays particular attention to the speech of such a community. They are to wait patiently far the coming of the Lard and judgment, resisting the temptation of those under oppression to turn on each other in complaint and murmuring (5:7),standing firm until the end, knowing from the example of all the prophets and of Job how God's compassion is expressed toward those who persevere (5:ro-11).They are to be a community that 1s simple in speech, requiring no oachs to support their affirmations or denials because their lives are transparent both to God and to each other (5:12).They are to be a community of mutual correction, turning those who err back to the right path (5:rg-zo),in effect doing for each other what James in his letter has tried to do for them. In contrast to the world that lives by the rule of competition that says only the fittest survive, a logic that leads from envy to murder, the church is to be a community of solidarity. The weak member can sumnion the elders and they will

An ~ n d ~ ~ toh the o nLetter oflames

come. Far from avoiding the sick, the community gathers to the sick, touching them with healing oil and praying for them (5x4-IS).The community heals itself as well by the mutual confession of sins, using speech nor as a weapon of self-assertion and arrogance, but as an instrument of self-revelation and murual vulnerability (5:16). Above all, the community prays in every circumstance to God (5:13,16),knowing that "the prayer of the righteous is powerful," and having an example in Elijah of how God responds to the praycr of the righteous (5x7).Those who speak and act in this fashion reveal that they truly believe in the God who gives gifts generously, and live as friends of God.

The Circumstances o f Composition For reasons of convenience, I have collapsed author and composition in this essay, referring interchangeably to '"its'' and "hisY\~oice.Can we go any further in trying to move from a description of the composition to a determination of the circumstances of its composition? I suggested earlier that interpreting the text from the perspective of a putative author was unhelpful. But is it possible to mow from what we have learned from the text to a time, place, readership, and author? Yes, but not very far and not with great certaincy. The way to the real readers is blocked above all by the general character of James's moral exhortation. We is certainly detailed enough, but his lively vignettes appear as situations that might apply to all communities, rather than a single church. The address to the "twelve tribes of the dispersion" supports such a generalized sense of the readers. Are they ethnically Jewish? Nothing in the writing demands that idencification and nothing in the writing disallows it. As r Peter demonstrates, Gentile readers also can be addressed as the diasporic people of God. And as the letters of Paul prove, Gentile readers can also inhabit and understand the symbolic world of Torah. If the readers of James are ethnically Jewish, the author sees no need to touch on matters of circumcision or ritual practice. But for that matter, neither do such Jewish moral exhortations as Wtuiom of Solomon and Sentences ofPseMio-Pho~luies. A berrer way forward may be to assess the cumulative effect of all our literary and thematic observations. If they have been accurate, they can serve to point us in one direction rather than another. That James was written from within the Christian movement is certain. W e t h e r it was written to Jewish Christians cannot be determined. Can we say whether it was written earlier or later?

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF G O D

The best arguments for dating James as late and pseudonymous rather than early and authentically by James of Jerusalem (Brother of Jesus) are its good Greek and its apparent dependence on the Pauline teaching on righteousness through fa~th.But research has shown thar Greek as good as Jarnes's was u*idely attested by Palestinian Jewsh writers. And I hope I have shown thar there is no need to make James dependent on Paul. I t is at least possible that James preceded Paul, if one insists on a conversarion between the two. More plausible is the position that they differed on one point because they addressed different questions and resemble each other on many points because they are both Jewish Christians of the first generation who move intimately and instirrctively within the world of Jewish Scripture. Other reasons for dating a composition late include doctrinal development, a claim to tradition, hostility to heretics, increased institutionalization, adaptation to society, and a reduced sense of eschatology. None of these characterize James. The writings of the late first and early second century that have some resemblance to James in language (especially I Clement and SkphPrd o f H m u s ) reveal by the rest of their outlook that they are the heirs rather than contemporaries of this far more vivid and original writing. Among the positive arguments for dating James as early as the first Christian generation, the least powerful is the appeal to the many small details thar seem to reflect a Palestinian setting. These are, in fact, irnpressive. But a number of them could well have been drawn from Scripture, and need not demonstrate local kno\vledge. A more con~pellingreason for placing James in the firsr g e n r r a t i o ~is~ its marked resemblance to Paul acr~rssa wide range of points. They clearly both occupy the symbolic world of Torah as challenged by the "faith of Jesus Christ"in a manner chat d~sappearedby the end of the first century. Still more impressive is the way James's speech is shaped by the sayings of Jesus. And when we realize that the form of sonie of the more certain allusions is simpler than the redacted form of the sayings found in the Synoptics, then we appreciate that James may be very close indeed to the formative stage of the Jesus traditions. Finally. there is the moral and religious voice of the composition itself. I t is impossible to think of this sectarian, rigorous, egalitarian, counter-culcural voice as coming from any stage of the church's life but the earliest. I t is literally impossible to think of a Hermas or Clement or Polycarp speaking in this voice. Finally, then, it is the voice of the composition with which we haw to do. It may or may not come from James ofJerusalem. But it is, in any case, an original and compelling witness.

A Survey of the History of Interpretation of James

Just as the oripns of the letter ofJames are obscure, so also is the history of its early reception. Was the author an apostle and identified as the ? he write for Jewish Christians? Was "brother of the Lord" (Gal I : I ~ )Did the "diaspora" of I:I literal or symbolic? Did he write early or late? These questions puzzle us as much as they may have puzzled James's first readers. How and when the church first appropriated James is, in fact. unclear. No official canonical list (such as the bluratorian canon) contained the letter until the late fourth century. Eusebius listed James among the "disputed books," alrhough it was "recognized by most" (Hist. eccl. 3.25.3). The Paschal Letter of Athanasius (367) and the Council of Carthage (397), however, included James without any hint of indecision. Substantive objections to James were not made, and its neglect - if such it \vas - seems to have been benign. The apparent silence between the letter's composition and canonization is difficult to evaluate. The authors of I Clement and the Shephwd of H e r m ~ smay have known and used it (cf. I Clem. 10with Jas 2:23; I Clem. 12 with Jas 225; I Clem. 30 with Jas 4:6; Mdnd 9:1I with Jas 3x5; M a d . 3:r with Jas 4:s). But perhaps all three Christian moralists used common paraenetic traditions. Allusions to James in other extant writings of the second and third centuries are wen more difficult to decide. None is sufticiently definite to demand James as the source. The Alexandrian School under Clement and Origen gave the letter its first explicit literary attention. Clement named James among the found, ers of Christian Gnosis (Hist. eccl. 2.1.3-4) in his H ~ p o ~ p s eascommentary on "all the canonical scriprures," including the disputed ones (Hist. eccl. 6.14.1).According to Cassiodorus's De InstihltiOnc Divinizrum Litterarum 8 (PL 7o:i12o), Clement's conimentary included James, even though the ex-

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

rant Larin translation does not contain it. Origen called James an apostle and explicitly quoted from and designated the letter as Scripture (see, e.g., Cornmenu9 on john xix, 6, PG 14: 569; Homrltes on Letjihcus 2, 4 , PG 12: 41; and the Conrmentary on R o m n s iv, 8, PG 14: 989). After Origen, the letter came into wider use and gained authority, as Jerome put it, "little by little" (De \Jz"iru I l l ~ ~ h ' b 2, u sPL 23: 639). The precrirical commentary tradition is sparse. Didymus the Blind, who was also head of the carechetical school, wrote -- if we except Clement - the first Greek commentary on James (see PG 33). Fragmenrs from Didymus and Chrysostom (see PC 64) are also found in the Catena Graeconrm P ~ h w m(ed. J. Cramer (184o]),together with short scholia from Cyril, Apollinaris (fourth cent.), and others. The Catena probably dates from the seventh or eighth century; there is some overlap between it and the full commentaries of the tenth century by Oecumenius of Tricca (PC 1x9)and by the eleventh-century Bulgarian bishop Theophylact (PG 125). Cassiodorus made an eleven-paragraph summary of James in Latin in his Complexiows Canonicawm in Epistohs Apostohrum (PL 70), and the Vmerable Bede (673-735) produced a full-length commentary in which he, like his predecessors, placed the letter first among the catholic epistles (PL 93). Martin of Legio (d. 102x), Nicholas of Lyra, and Dionysius the Carthusian (1402-1471) continued the Latin commentary tradition. Also extant are two Syriac commentaries. The commentary of the ninth-century Nestorian bishop of Hadatha Isho'dad of Merv (M. Gibson [1913]), is noteworthy for its brevity, its skepticism concerning the letter's apostolic oripn, and the note that Theodore of Mopsuestia (whom Isho'dad calls "the Interpreter"') knew nothing of the catholic epistles. More extensive and intelligent is the nvelfth-century commentary by rlionysius Bar Salibi (I. Sedlacek [rglo]), who also complained of the lack of full commentaries oil James. The precrirical commentary tradition, resolutely non-allegorical, treated James very much as moral exhortation. Doctrinal preoccupations occasionally surfaced (see, e.g., Oecumenius 16th cent.] on the Trinity in Jss ]:I, PG 1x9:456). Particular concern was shown for harmonizing James and Paul in the matter of faith and works Uas 2x4-z6), either by distinguishing the condition of the believer before and after baptism (so Oecumenius and Bar Salibi [twelfth cent.]) or by distinguishing kinds of One also finds acute linguistic obserfaith (so Theophylact [c. 11~0-12251). vations, as when Chrysostom noted the apposite use of makm%mk in Jas 5x0 rather than the expected W m o n P (see PG 64: 1049) or when Bar Salibi commented on the various kinds of "zeal"in Jas 3x4.

A Survey of the H~storyo f l n ~ t a t i o of n Jdrnes

The patristic and medieval commentary tradition, therefore, is sparse, interdependent, and renlarkably uniform. It is also uninformative concerning the role the letter of James may have played in liturgical, hamiletical, or didactic settings. Such uses of the text are particularly important For the history of precritical interpretation, since each explicit application of a text to life involves also an implicit understanding of the text itself (cf., e.g., the citation of Jas 2x3 in the Rule of Benedict 64, or the discussion of Jas 2x0 in Augustine, Letter 167, PL 33: 733). Research into so our knowledge such usage has scarcely begun (see L. T. Johnson, 199~), of the letter's pre-critical reception remains partial. In the fourteenth through the sixteenth centuries, first the Renaissance, then the Reformation stimulated a transition to a more critical reading of James. Three figures established lines of interpretation that have continued to the present: Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin. Erasmus provided short comments on the verses of James in his Anno~tionerof 1516.In contrast to earlier commentators, he treated James as he would any other ancient author, raising questions concerning atrribution, providing alternative manuscript readings, clariFying linguistic obscurities on the basis of parallel usage, and even suggesting textual emendations (reading phthoneitr for the diff~cultpboneuete in Jas 4:~).The letter's moral or religious teaching was scarcely dealt with. Luther wrote no commentary on James but exercised considerable influence over subsequent scholarli interpretation. In the preface to his 1522 German Bible, he dismissed the letter as an "epistle of straw" compared to the writings that "show thee Christ." Luther would therefore not include James among the "chief books" of the Canon, although he admired "the was the reason for Luther's reotherwise many fine sayings in him." "at jection? James "does nothing more than drive to the law and its works," which Luther found "flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture." This is the clearest application of Luther's ~Chkritik(content criticism) within the canon; the disagreement between James and Paul on one point removes James from further consideration. The fact that Jas 5x4 was cited in support of the sacrament of extreme unction did not soften Luther's hostility. In this light, the commentary by the Roman Catholic T. Cajetan in 1532 is all the more fascinating. Cajetan also questioned the apostolicity of James and denied that 5:14 could be used as a proof text for extreme unction. But concerning Paul and James on faith, he diplomatically concluded, "They both taught truly.'' In contrast to Luther, Calvin wrote a sympathetic commentary on James in 1551. He found the reasons for rejecting the letter unconvincing

BROTHER O F J E S U S , F R I E N D OF G O D

and saw nothing in its teaching unworthy of an apostle. Although ready to accept Erasmus's emendation at 4:2,he scoffed at those who found a fundamental conflict between Paul and James on faith and works. As in all of his commentaries Calvin brought great exegetical skill to the text, anticipating contemporary sensitivity to the rhetorical skill of James as well as systematically reflecting over its religious significance. With the obvious modifications caused by the ever-growing knowledge of the first-century world and the ci~mulativeweight of scholarship itself, the basic approaches established by the Reformation continued to dominate scholarship on the letter. The legacy of Calvin continued in those commentaries that, however learned, focused primarily on James as teacher of the church. An outstanding example is the 1640 commentary by the Puritan divine T. Manton. Fully conversant with past and contemporary scholarship (much of it no longer available to us), Manton's approach remains essentially pious and edifying. The German commentary of A. Gebser (1828) is similar in character. He cited many ancient sources to illuminate the text, but above all he gave such extensive citations from patristic commentaries and discussions that his commentary virtually provided a history of interpretation. This tradition can be said to have continued in the commentaries ofJ. Mayor (19103)and F. Vouga (1984). In a real sense these commentaries continued the patristic tradition; the meaningful context for understanding James is the Bible. The strength of this approach is its accommodation to the writing" religious purposes. The weakness is its narrowness and scholastic tendency. The heritage of Luther continued in the historical approach associated with the Tiibingen School, in which James was studied primarily as a witness to conflict and development in the early Christian movement. When such scholars as F. Kern (1838) viewed James as written by Paul's contemporary, they saw it as representing a Jewish Christian outlook in tension with Paul's teaching. When such scholars as F. C. Baur (1853-62, 1875) regarded James as a pseudonymous composition, they understood it as a second-century medration of the conflict between Peter and Paul. In either case James's discussion of faith in 2:rf-26 and its apparent disagreement with Paul became the central point for interpretation. L. Massebieau (1895) and F. Spitta (1896),however, maintained that James represented an entirely Jewish outlook; they considered the Christian elements in the letter the result of interpolation into a pre-Christian writing. This approach continued in those (often "rehabilitating") studies that used Paul as the essential key to understanding James (see J. Jeremias [19ss]; D. Via [1969];J. Lodge [rg81]).The strength of this approach is its

A Survey of the Htstory of Interpretation oflames

historical sensibility. The weakness is its tendency to reduce James to a few verses and earliest Christianity to the figure of Paul. The Erasmian tradition sought to place James explicitly within the language and literature of the Hellenistic world. The pioneering monument was the two-volume Norwm Es&zmert&m Gtlzecum (1752)of J . Wettstein, who brought together a storehouse of parallel illustrative material from both Greek and Jewish sources, a collection all the more tempting because unsorted. The Jewish side of this approach was dewloped in the commentary of A. Schlatter (]goo), who especially emphasized rabbinic parallels. Mayor (1910) also brought together a rich collection of Hellenistic and Christian material. The commentary by J. Ropes (1916) paid particular attention to the letter's diatribal element and singled out the striking resemblances between it and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The Erasmian approach b u n d its greatest modern exemplar in the commmtary by M. Dibelius (1976). Dibelius combined the best of previous scholarship and brought to the text an acute sense of the appropriate illustrative material, bringing to bear pagan, Jewish, and Christian parallels that placed James squarely in the tradirion of paraenetic literature. Most latetwentieth-century scholarship on the letter either derives from or reacts to this magisterial study (cf. L. Perdue (1981j;Johnson [19g~]), although studies haw also used more Semiotic (see T. Cargal [1993]) and Rhetorical approaches (see D. Watson [1993)).The strength of the Erasmian approach is its textual focus and comparative scope. Its weakness is its ability to miss James's religious dimension entirely. These assertions would meet with fairly general consent among scholars: James is a moral exhortation (ptrepsis) of rare passion whose instructions have general applicability more than specific reference. Although not tightly organized, the letter is more than a loose collection of sayings; the aphorisms in chap. I establish themes that are developed in the essays in chaps. 2-5.James's Christianity is neither Pauline nor anti-Pauline but another version altogether. I t appropriates Torah as the "law of liberty" as mediated through the words of Jesus. James opposes empty posturing and advocates active faith and love. He contrasts "friendship with the world" (living by a measure contrary to God's) and "friendship with God" (living by faith" measure). He wants Christians to live by the measure they profess, and his persuasion has a prophet's power. BIBLIOGRAPHY

E. Baasland, "Literarische Form, Thematik, und geschichtliche Einordung des Jakobsbriefes,"ANRW I1 25 (1987) 3646-62. F. C. Baur, 7he C:hrcrrb H~shnyof

BROTHER OF JESUS, FRlEND O F GOD

the F m t T h m Centrrrzes (1853-62);Paul, h e Apostle of Jesus C h t (1875"). T. B. Cargal, Restmmg the Duspwcz. Ducrcrsiiw Structure and Purpose rn rhe Eprrdo of James (SBLDS 144, 1993).J. A. Cramer, Catena Grjecorum Pahwm (IQo). P. H. Davrds, "The Epistle of James In Modern D~scusston,"ANRW 11 25.5 (1987) 3645. M. Dibelius, A Commentrtty on the Eprstle of James (rev. H. Greeven, Hermeneia; ET 1976). A. R Gebser, Der Bnefdes]akoks (1828). M . D. Gibson (ed.and trans.), Hmac Semitase X. The Commentaries of lsho'dad of Mew, vol. 4, Acts of the Apostler and Three C a d d c Eptstles (1913). F Hahn and P. Mulfer, "Der Jakobusbrief," 7 b 63 (1998) 1-73. J. Jeremias, "Paul and James," EwpTrm 66 (1955) 368-371. L. T.Johnson, Thp Letter oflames (AB 37A, 1995). rncludlng full b~bl~ograph~c entries fbr all mvrks referred to in the text and not listed in the btbliography; "The Letter ofJames," NIB (1998),1 2 : r ~ - u sF.. H. Kern, Der Bnef ]ahin (1838). S. Law, A Commentary on the Epude of James ( W N T , 1g80). J. G. Lodge, "James and Paul at Cross-purposes: James z:u," Bgb 62 (1981) 195-213. L. Masseb~eau,"L'epitre de Jacques: Est-elle l'oeum d k n CMtren?" RHR 31-32 (1895) 249-283. T. Manton, A Pn?chcaI C o m m e n t a ~or rtn Exps~bonwttb Notes on the Epude ofJdmcs (1640).J. B. Mayor, The Eptstfe of St Jrlmes (19i09)). L.G. Perdue, "Paraenesis and the Epistle of James," ZNW 72 (191) 241-256. J. H. Ropes, A CntacrtI ilnd Gommentrt'y on the Eprtde ofst. Jrtmes (ICC, 1916); "The Greek Catena to the Catholic Epistles," HTK 19 (1926) 383-388. A Schlarter, Dte B m f i d r s &ms, J&, Jlakobrrr, drr B m f an dte Hebraw (1900). I . Sedlacek (ed.), Dwnyws bar Srtltbt m Ap~cdypssrm Actus et Eputuks Ccltbolrcrts (CSCO 60, Scriptores Syn 20,1910). F. Sptrta, Zur Geschtc-hteund Ltemhtr & U h m t r r m r 2. Bet B m f dvs Jaleobw (1896). D. 0. Vta, "The k g h t Stracy Epistle Reconsidered: A Study in Biblical Ethtcs and Hermeneut~cs,"JR 49 (1969) 253-267. F. Vouga, ~ ' k p i t r ede h n t Jrlcques (CNT, 2nd ser., 13a, 1984). D. F. Watson, "James 2 in the Ltght of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumentatton," NTS 39 (1993) 94-121.

The Reception of James in tbe Early Church

The history of the interpretation of James properly bepns with its first use in the Church. Unfortunately, the determination of James3 first reception is as obscure as the circumstances of its composition. There is no extant evidence for its early liturgical use. We must therefore rely on the appropriation of James by other early Christian writers. So far as we can tell, Origen was the first to cite James explicitly and as Scripture,# although Clement, his predecessor in the Alexandrian Catechetical school, may have devoted a commentary to the letter.2 Since both Clement and Origen were sensitive to the differences between what was traditionally received and what was not,' the Alexandrian sponsorship ofJames would seem to argue for some prior period of accep tance, at least in their church. The search for positive evidence ofJames's having been used, however, runs through the briarpatch of post-apostolic literature. Although there are good reasons for thinking that James u.as known and used by some of these writings, the problems in reaching certainty are severe.' The evidence is obscure. Everything depends on its adI Cf e g Hom m Ex III3 (PG IZ, 3161, VIII,j (PC rz, 3551, Horn m Lrv 11.4 (I% 12,418) Hom lVm Pr XYXM,a (PG 1% r j s ~ ) C , m m m Rom IV,I (PG & 961), G m m m@ XIX,5 (PG 14,1691 z Accordtng to Euscbrus, HE tl,14,1,Clement rnrludrd "all rhe canonrcd urrtrtngs rn hts Hypotypose~ The extant Larrn translacton does not rnclude James Accordrng to Cassrodonrz'sDc Insmaone & m 4 ~ m Lmemzmrn 8 (PL70,1120), however, the comnientan dtd rnclude James 3. Cf Clement of AIexandr~a,Sfrmutns I I, 39-42 (PG 8,700) and III,x3 (PC 8,1rql), as well as Ongen, De Rncymr 1 , s (PG 11, I=) and W, z, 4 (PG 11, 365) Orrpn also rncluded James In hrs list of unonrcd wrtnngs, m Hum m J&s VII, I (PG 12,857) 4 N o swrous case can be made for James's ~nfluenceon the letters of Igrlatlus or of Polycarp, or the Letter to L)lognem~or the apologcnc w u n g s of Theophalus, Jusrtn.and

BROTHER OF J E S U S , FRIEND OF G O D

uation. The proper procedure for the evaluation, however, 1s not itself clear.

Difficulties The first d~fftculrycomes from the way these wrttlngs generally approprtate and use earlter sources. For the most part, only Old Testament cltattons are formally tntroduced? although other "scrtpture" IS alluded to, more or less expl~cltly.~ New Tesrament wtltlngs are not usually ctted as Scrtpture.' Yet as early as Clement, the approprtatlon of New Testament wrtttngs takes place. Clement obviously knows some form of the Gospel tradltlon,8 and both knew and used Paul's First Letter to the Cortnrhtans (to whlch he doPs expltcttly refer); and the Letter to the How do we know a New Testament wrlttng ts b a n g used when tt IS not expltc~clyctted? Two tmpl~cttcrlterta gutde readers to such a dectslon. Flrst, there IS the use of language, rheme or Imagery found previously (so far as we know) only In che N T wrtttng betng used. Second, the use of such language must be sufficiently dense and pervasrve to suggest dependence The second dtfftculty 1s more acute In the case ofJames than for other New Testament wrtttngs. - James IS a form of moral exhortar~on (paraenesis) which uses traditions already widely artested in both Greek and Jewish moral literature. From the start, then, James is less idiosyncratic in expression and outlook than a writer such as Paul. To complicate Arhenagorks Nerrher the apocrvphal Acrs a r ~ dCiospels nor the wrrrlngs from NagHammadi show rhe sl~ghwsttrace of James's impress Thts leaves the Cp~stleof Barnabas, Dldache, I md 1 Ckmenr. The Shepherd of Hermas, and posstblv rhe T e s r m m t s o f the Tuvlte f~atrtarchs 5 CF e g I Clemenr r n , ~I\.I, \trr,z, xrwr1.3, Ignanus, Map xtr,r. Polyvarp, PM XII,I, Ep fbm I V , I ~ ,vrz. 6 l h u s I Clement XXII:,)ha an orherwse unknou-n "xnpture" concerning the "double-n~rnded,"whrch IS also reporred by a Clemenr xi,2 a "propheric nerd " Hermas, Vis 11,3 refer\ to the Book of Eldad and Modad as Scr~prureThe T I ~ refer P repearedly to the " h k of Enoch" bur rn a fashion rhar corrrspond\ co none of the evranr Enoch Lrerrrure cf TKeub xrv.1, TJud xv~tr,~, TNaph 1v.1, T k n j =,I 7 The inrroductron of Mark z; as "another u r ~ p t u r e "In z Clement I I ,IS~ unusual 8 Of t Clement xirr,r-2. x1w1,--8 5, The cxplrcir wference ro I Cortnrhlann IS In I Clement xl\1;,1-3 Tracer of I Cor can br .ipotred In xxrv.~,xxx1v,l, m t . ~ xllx,~ . lo Clen~enr'suse of Hebrews is drscussed brlmo, for places where Its language IS diserrruble, cf I Clement 1x4, X,I-7,x11,l-2,x v ~ r , ~ . ~ 1.YX*VI,I-S, 4 , xlllt,r

The Reception oflrmes in the Early Church

matters hrther, post-apostolic writings such as I Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas are also fundamentally paraenetic in character. It becomes difficult to sort out literary dependence in the strict sense from the natural consonances attendant upon writing in the same genre or using the same topoi"

Directions Commentaries have tended to follow the dominant fashion in this matter. The older tendency in New Testament scholarship was to trace literary dependence in ladder-like sequences. Any recurrent phrase was taken as evidence that an earlier document was being employed as a source.12J. B. Mayor's classic commentary illustrates this approach to James's influence on subsequent Christian literature. Mayor sedulously lists every verbal or thematic echo as evidence for James's thoroughgoing impact on the early Church.13The weakness of the approach is twofold. Not only does it tend to over-detect literary nuances, and thus lose credibility; it also ignores the point mentioned above: some recurrent elements must be attributed to factors other than literary dependence. The second tendency in New Testament scholarship has been to invoke broad "traditions" to account for the verbal resemblances between writings. Scholars are now schooled to think in terms of testimonia or of haustaf2ln available to both Peter and Paul, rather than in terms of borrowing benveen them.14 Paraenesis is another, although much looser cate11.

Cf. my "James ):r3-4:1o and the Topos REP!#(MWIt:" pp. 183-203 ~ t rchis volume, esp.

n. 33.

Ir. Thus in 0.D. Foster, 7be LitPmry R&fzons of "The First Epsde of Peter'' (Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 17; 1913), 363538, Janies appears as a bridge berween Ephesians and I Peter. For the method applied to the disputed Paulrne letters, cf. A. E. Barnect, Par1 Becomes a Literary lnfience (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941).The approach continues in the work of C. L. Mitton, "The Relationship between I Peter and Ephesians," j73 I (1950) 67-73, and ukm, Ephesians (New Century Bible; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976). 13.J. B. Mayor, 7 7 E~ p l of St. James, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan and Co., ~gro),lxvtLuxxiv. In the process, of course, Mayor provides an indispensable starting point for essays such as the present one. The real weakness of his approach becomes clear when he tries to show the influence of James on other canonical writings (Ixwvsix). An obvlous premlse guiding his evaluation of the dara was the conviction that James was among the first of the NT writings, composed before the year 50 (cf. p. cl). 14. CF. e.g. A. C. Sundberg, "On Testimonies," NovT 3 (1959) 368-81;P. Carrington, The

BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

gory, to which appeal can be made. In the case ofJames, the commentary of Dibelius best illustrates this second approach. Although Dibelius recognizes the often starding resemblances between James and Hermas, for e ~ a m p l e , and ' ~ although he faithfully notes them throughout his comrnentary,"j he will not commit himself to any statement concerning possible influence between the two writings, relying instead on a general appeal to a shared paraenetic tradition." Although this approach provides an antidote to the earlier overconfidence concerning the detection of sources, i t has drawbacks of its own. First, it downplays the specific ways in which even traditional materials can be used and borrowed. Second, it minimizes how thoroughly and self-consciously literary the Christian movement was from the begnning and continued to be in the allusive writers of the second century.'" If a serious case is to be made that James was known and used by second-century writers, full account must be taken of the difficulties. The investigator must be careful not to claim too much (everything resembling James comes from him), or too litde (nothing resembling James could possibly have come from him). The argument proceeds best not by way of universal statements, but by way of cumulative probabilities. In judgments of literary dependence, moral certainty is the best we can do.

Prmmi&w Chns~tlnCa~odjtsrn(Cambridge At the Unrvcrsrty Press, 1940)~D L Balch, Lct Wtues i w 7hc Daruhc Code m I &trr (SBLMS 26, Chrco Scholars Press, 1981) In contrast to 1:uster's al~gnment,note how the convlcnon that Peter used shared communtty tradtttons affipcts the commentary of E G Seluyn, 7be F m t Eprrde of k n t Peter (London Macmtllan and Co , 1958) 15 M Dtbeltus, A Commen*rry on the EprrdP ofJamcr, rev H Greeven, trans M A Wtllranrs (Hermenera, Phtiadclphra. Fortress Press, 1976), 31 16 Cf e g Drbelrus, pp 141, 2x3, 219 17 Drbehus, p ~z "rt IS probably the case rhar both wrtttngs have at therr dlsposal a relat~wlylarge store of paraenctrc marerd whrch H m passes on In a reworked condraon ('expanded paraencsu') and James rn the form of sayings " 18 Drbelrus, p 34 "Vtrtually nowhere can rt be shown that an author 1s dependent upcin Jas for the srmple reason that the conccpn contained rn Jas are so unorrg~nal,and so very much the common property of pnmrnw Chnsnanrcy In c h ~ the s essence of paraenesrs shows trself once more" Thts IS, of course, arcular revontng But the premrse drrvcs Dtbelrus to deny ( w t h somenmes tortuous argument) any spectfic potnts of resemblance, or, when forced to acknnwlcdgc them, to deny thcrr srgntficance

Tbe Reception oflames in the h r l y Church

Narrowing the Possibilities No firm case can be built on points of resemblance between James and other early Christian writings that are either too isolated within the later composition, or are too widely attested elsewhere. The phrase "doubleminded" (dtps~chos),for example, is distinctive co James 1:s and 4:s within the New Testament canon. But its recurrence in I Clement xi,z; xxiii4-3; 2 Clement xi,z-5 and xixt; Didache ii;l and i v ~as ; well as the Epistle of Barnabas xix,~-7does nor count for much by itself. The incidence in each document is too scattered, and the possibilities of derivation are too great.19 In some cases, furthermore, the reference for the term seems different than in James.2oOther examples include the designation of Abraham as "friend of God" in James 223 and I Clement x , ~xvii,z,zl ; and the ideal of impartiality . ~ ~ in judgment in James XI, Didache iv,3 and Epistle of Barnabas x i x ~Similarly, an axiom such as "love covers a multitude of sins," which appears in James 520 as well as I Peter 4:s; I Clement xlix,~and z Clement xvi,4, cannot stand as independent evidence that these writings used James. A more difftcult decision involves the common use of a tops. James 3:13-4:ro is a call to conversion which uses the hellenistic topos on envy.23 Given the nature of a topos, it is not surprising to find I Clement's exten19 On the posstble antecedents for &p+s (apart from James, who IS the first documentary evadence for it), cf O J F Sertz. "The Relatronsl~rpof the Shepherd of Hermas to the Eprstle ofJames," JBL 63 (1944) 131-140,dm,"Antecedents and Srpificance of the Term 'D~psychos,"JBL 66 (1947)ZII-ZI$,and d m , "Afrerthoughrs on the Term 'Drpsychos,'" NTS 4 (1957-58)327-34 Although Drbelrus (actually Grewen) greets Seln's efforts wrrh approval and drsmtssfs Mayor's conrenr~onthat James ong~naredrhe term as sally (rndrcated by an exclamatron pornt), the fact remains that there IS no posrrrve evldence for the term's use before James, and the alrernat~vehypotheses remaln only that See also S E Porter, "Is drp'yrhor (James I 8 , 4 8) a 'Chrasaan' Word>" Btb 71 (xggo)469-498 20 In I Clement xx111,2,z Clement XI&,EpBarn xwc,~and Did r v ~ the , term drpychs swms to mean doubr~ngprophcc~es,cspecrally concern~ngthe cocnrng judgment, Dcbchus, p 83, correctly notes He errs In assunling I Clement xi2 and z Clement x u t ~ have the same meanrng zr For the wdespread use of the desrgnatron, cf the dacumentatron rn Drbelrus, pp 172-173The Gut that rhe only t h ~ n grn lrenattus that could support dependence on James IS the nvo-fold use of thls expression ts therefore cnstgnificant (Adcm#s HMUH rv,r3,4,1v,16,I) u The same can be sad of other ~solatedpotnrs of contact, however ~nrerestrngthey mrght be rn themselves The nooon of "fnendshrp w t h the world" In opposraon to "Fnends h ~ pw t h God" (James 4 4), for example, rs paralleled by I John r 15-17as well as r Clement m,3-4 Lkcwtw, the prohrbrtron of oaths rn James 5 rz IS found also in Justrn's I Apology r,16 (as well as rn Mart 5 34) r j Johnson, "James 3 13-4 10,"' )%-+$I

B R O T H E R OF J E S U S , F R I E N D OF GOD

sive discussion of envy (chs. iii-vi) having many points of contact with James. Likewise in the Testament of Simeon, subtitled in the Greek text pcli phthanorc, we discover multiple parallels to James 3:13-4:10." It is certainly possible that the three writings employed the hellenistic topos independently. But is it a complete coincidence that all three writings place their discussion in the context of a call to conversion? Although these sorts of resemblance cannot in isolation carry the burden of proof for dependence, they are not meaningless. Their appearance together with more definite evidence adds to the probability that a particular writing knew and used James. Positive criteria which data must meet before they can be considered evidence for literary dependence are these: I) an overall similarity in outlook and in language between the writing in question and James, with a t least some of the linguistic parallels distinctive; 2 ) the parallels come from more than one section of James and appear in more than one part of the -later writing; 3) the parallels are sufficiently dense and pervasive to suggest dependence and not simply c o i n c i d e n ~ e . ~ ~ When these negative and positive cr~teriaare appl~ed,there remain only three writings for which the influence of James can plausibly be argued. In order of their probability, they are The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (TxrP), I Clement, and The Shepherd of Hermas (Hermas).

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs It may seem odd to include the Testaments among early Christian works, since the dominant scholarly opinion considers them to be pre-Christian ~ ~ older opinion Jewish compositions with Christian i n t e r p ~ l a t i o n s .An has recently been vigorously argued by M. DeJonge, that from the begtnning, TIZPwas a Christian c o m p o ~ i t i o nWhether .~~ one agrees with his arguments or not, it is certainly the case that in their present redaction, the rq Johnson, *James3 13-410,"344-346 z$ 1 am pmpslng here the same method as that developed In mv art~clc,"The Use of L~wrrcus19 m the Letter of James,"JBLlo1 (sgSz) 391-401,see below, pp 123-135 26 Cf e g the Introducuon by H C Kee m TbL? Old Tsument P s d p t p p k ed.J H Charlesworth, I "Apocdypnc hterantrc and Tesramentsn(Garden Clry. N Y Doubleday and Cu ,1983)775-780 17 M DeJange,7?x Trstammnof dx Tidve I"ama& A Stat+ of 7hw Trur, Composthon, and Ongin, md ed ( A w n Van Gorcum, 1975). esp 117-I&,and dm,ed ,W i e s a rbe T i men& of& TffvlteP ~ n a n l w(SVTP 111, Letden Br111,1975)

The Reception of Jutnes in the Eddy Church

TlrP can be considered part of early Christian l i t e r a t ~ r eThe . ~ ~parallels to James occur, as we might expect, in the paraenetic sections, and have frequently been noted in passing.29Are they sufficiently strong to support a literary dependence moving from James to the Testaments? There are a number of striking individual points of resemblance. James's saying about mercy and mercilessness in 233, for example, is found in two parts, in TZeb viii,j and TGad V,II.The commandment to love the neighbor Uames 2:8) appears repeatedly (Tlss v,2; TGad vi,~).As in James 57-8, the virtue of long-suffering is praised, using the same somewhat surprising term makrothymia (TDan v,8; TGad iv,7; TJos x v i i i ~ ) . ~ ~ Evil speech (katalulk) is opposed as vigorously by TGad v,4 as by James ~ : I IThe . "double-tongue" (digiossu) is said to both bless and curse in TBenj vi,j as well as in James 3x0-11. Even more impressive is the overarching symbolism of TrzP and James. Humans are subject to the influence of good and bad spirits (TJud x x , ~ that ) "indwell" them (TSim v , ~TDan ; v , ~TBenj ; v,2). Humans can "approach God" (TGad vi,z) or "flee to the Lord,"which in turn makes the evil spirit flee (TSim iii,~;iii,j; iv,7). All this is virtually identical to James 45-8. As in chat passage as wdl, humans face the choice between the God "who gives grace" (TSim iv,~)and the "error of the world" (TIss iv,6; cf. James 4:4). The cosmic options are spelled out in terms of ethical behavior. On one side is the spirit of envy (TSim iv,6; iv,7) which leads to murder (TSim iii,j) and war (TSim iv,r; James 43-2). Envy has an ally in arrogance (hyperephank), which opposes God (TJud xiii,~;xviii,j: cf. James 4:6). On the other side are lowliness (tapeincisis, TGad v,3) and simplicity of heart (haplotes; TSim iv,j; TLev xiii,~;Tlss i i i ~iv,~) ; dedicated to the Lord. Every form of doubleness (TAsh iii,~;TBenj \1,7) is contrary to this simplicity. 28 C f the percepttve remarks on this pcmt as well as a revsew of xholarsh~pin H D Sltngerland, ?he Testamrnts of the 'litulm Pamitrrbs A Crttrrdl Hntcny of &sear& ( S B M S 21, Mlssoula Scholars Pres, 1977). e5p 91 115 29 Among commentaton parr~cularattentton was pard co the "spectal afftnicy" bcm e n James and the Testanlenrs bv J H Ropes, A Cr~trc~l and Expgehwl Commentdry on tbe Epzsrie ofSt lames ( K C , Edtnburgh T&T Clark, 1916), 20-21,cf also Dlbellus, p 27,and Johnson, "James313-4 lo,"'pp $41-344 3a The same expresston occurs tn The Testament ofJob 26 b and 17 10,In R A Kraft, et d , eds , 7'he E x t ~ m m ofjob t (Texcs and Translarrons 5 , Pseudepigrapha Series 4, Mtssoula Scholars P w s 1974) so (2 The usage 1s strikrng enough for ar least one reader ro suppose that lame\ 5 11 used TJobf Cf B -A Wacholder. "Job,Testament of," Ewyriopdu Juddusr (1971),1 0 1 3 0

BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF G O D

There are some strlkrng linguistic as well as themat~cparallels. TSlm i v , ~ seems to echo James 4:1-6,and TDan v1,2 IS identical to James 4:7. Desp~tethese points of contact, there are goad reasons for doubting the dependence of TIZP on James. The most obvlous IS the uncertanty whether t h ~ text s postdated James. In add~tlon,the elements in T I ~ that P parallel James are swallo\ved up In a much larger proportton of mater~al dedtcared to narrative and eschatolog~calcomponents, as well as eth~cal emphases not found in James. Rnally, the polnts of contact essennally parallel only one passage In James, 3:13-4:10. As noted above, the most str~kingresemblance of all IS found En the Testament of Simeon wh~ch, like James, uses the t o p on envy. As a whole, then, the Tr2P does not adequately meet the second p s i tlve cntenon, that the parallels der~vefrom more than one part of James. The dependence of TrzP on James is possible, but not so likely as the case cons~derednext.

I

Clement

Making a firm judgment on the relationship between James and I Clement is particularly diff~cultbecause of the number and complexity of factors involved. Here is an author who writes with at least two earlier Christian compositions (I Cor and Heb) either before his eyes or so much in his memory that he can unmistakably echo their language and theme, yet never explicitly cite them. There are places where Clement's use of Hebrews is obvious, because the content and language could come from nowhere else. A prime example is I Clement xxxvi,~,where Clement clearly alludes to Heb I:J-4. Indeed, his whole passage derives from Heb 1-2. Yet a close comparison of the two texts shows that Clement has used his source with considerable flexibility. He elides phrases, transposes words, adjusts tenses, all without comment. The language of Hebrews has become, for the moment, his language. On the basis of such certain appropriations, it is possible to state that other places in I Clement rely on Hebrews. Although the verbal echoes are not so sharp in I Clement k,2-4, for example, the subjects discussed and the sequence of their appearance make it likely that Heb 11:s-7 is being used. We are also able to detect even fainter echoes scattered through the text, as in I Clement xvii,~,hoitines en dmsrsin aigeiols kai melotau pcriepatr"srln which recalls Heb 1 ~ 3 7pmelthon , en rnelotais, en rligeiois dewnusin.

n e Recepnon ofjarnes in the Ea*

Church

The possibility that Clement used James in similar fashion is complicated in three ways. First, the language ofJames is not nearly so distinctive and easily recognizable as that of Hebrews. Second, both Clement and James use the conventions of paraenesis. Clement could have learned them from James but need not have. As I have shown elsewhere, James uses the image of the mirror in 1:23-24 in a way characteristic of panenesis: to suggest the themes of memory and of models.31The image is carried through when he presents the examples of Abraham, Rahab, Job, and Elijah, by the use of verbs ofseeing. In I Clement m q i 3 , the metaphor of the mirror is also used. Clement provides examples ( v , ~xlvi,i; ; Ix,r; Luiii,~)for his readers to imitate (xvii,~)and remember (vii,~).Throughout I Clement as well, the metaphor is carried by the use ofverbs of seeing (v,j; i x j ; xix,j; xxiv,~;W,I; xxxvi,~;cf. esp. d and liii). The similarity is certainly strong but not conclusive. Third, some though not all of the material in I Clement parallel to James is also found in Hebrews or r Peter. Despite all these complications, there are striking points of resemblance. Some of the parallels, of course, have little independent value. We cannot make coo much of the fact that care for orphans and widows appears as a sign of repentance (viii,4;James 1:27),or of the single occurrence of the phrase "double-minded" (xxiii,z-3;James IS),or of the note that humans are created in the image of God (xxxiii,~;James 3:9), for these are all too widely attested. Nor can we build a great deal simply on the occurrence of the axiom "love covers a multitude of sins" (xlix,~; James j:20) or of the ciration of Prov 33.5, "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble" (xxxj; James 4:6). They appear as well in I Peter 4:8 and 5:s. The context of this last citation in Clement will, however, deserve our closer attention. Of greater significance in Clement is a thematic opposition between arrogance and humility wry similar to that in James (see, e.g. ii,~;xiii,~; lix,j). In at least one instance, i t takes the form of a strong verbal resemblance. In I Clement lix,3, we read, ton tapeinountd bybrin byp~ephanon. . . ton poiountu tupeinous eis bypsos kri tous bypilous tapeinounta, which recalls i bypsosei bymds. The continuation James 4x0: tupeindthete enopion k y w u h in I Clement, Con apokteinontu kzi zt% poiortntd (lix,3) likewise picks up on James 4:12, ho dynamenos sosai kui upolesdi. I Clement's wording in other places is very close to that of James. I Clement xlvi,~,for example, reads hinati ereis kzi tbymoi kzi dichostasi~ikai schismutu polpmos te en bymin? which reflects James 4:r: potben polemoi h i 31. L. T Johnson, "The Mtrror of Kemcmbrance games 1:23-25),"CBQ 50 jiggo) 623-647, see below, 168-181.

B R O T H E R OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

O F GOD

potben tfwchd~m Itymin? The resemblance is strengthened by the fact that (as noted below) I Clement 111-IV so closely parallels James j:1j-4:10, yet this verbal echo occurs outside that passage. Another striking example: James j:rj has hs sopbos krr epurimos en byrnm?derxatzj ek t@sh i e s an~stmphisk~ yla tautocl en prauttitr m p h w This u matched both in form and theme by I Clement xxxvir~r;r:bo sopbos endp~knysnctciXeir sophtan autou me en logozs all' en r ~ w dgtathou. Although any of these points of contact can be drsmissed when taken tn rsolation,j2 account should be taken of therr cumulae~veeffect. When examining I Clement's use of Hebrews, we saw that passages in which there was a high densicy of verbal and thematic similarity provided the best basis for detecting Hebrews' influence. In I Clement, there are three such clusters. The first is Clement's condemnarion of the Corinthians'en\r).(iii-vi). Here we find a large collection of verbal and thematic parallels to James j:13-q:ro: envy causes social unrest and war (iiis; v i ~ )chrough ; envy death came into the world ( i i i ~ )envy ; causes the murder of brethren (iv,7). These parallels low some of their &stinctiveness because they are found consistently in the hellenistic topos on envy. On the other hand, as in the case of TSim, I Clement follows the condemnation of envy wich a call to repentance in viir;r-viii,~,a combination found elsewhere only in James. The second set of similarities comes in the treatment of Abraham.33 The more obvious point of dependence here would be Hebrews, for Clenient lists Abraham among heroes of faithful obedience, beginning with Enoch and ending with Rahab (ix,2-xii,S), and introduces the list with language strongly reminiscent of Hebrews 11. Close inspection shows that Clement does not follow Hebrews slavishly. In the case of Abraham, Lot, and Rahab, Clement goes into considerably more detail, and uses the biblical text directly, with multiple citations from Genesis and Joshua. Is there any indication of a dependence on James in this pastiche? The most interesting deviation from Hebrews is the designation of Abraham as "friend of God" (x,~),which is repeated in xvii,r (cf. James 2:23). James and Clement both cite G m 15:6 verlrahm, whereas Hebrews cites Gen 15:s but not 156 (Heb xr:rz). Abraham is praised by Clement for his "faith and hospitality" (x,7), which is carried through the examples of Lot (xi) and jr C'f D~bel~us's dr.;mlsd "Thr admonltton to the w ~ wrn I Clem vxxvl11.2resrmhles James J 13more an form than In content" (p 33) If u'e had to choose, In fact, the oppnsrre would bc the rase 3 % I Clement m1,j-4mrnnons Job as uell, but there is no rrssnn to suspect m y rnfluencc ofJames $ I I The treatment of Rahab In I Clement xi1 1%cqudly close to James t 25 and Web 11 j r

f i e Recephon ofJarnes tn the Ed@

Church

Rahab (xii). This enlphasis is closer to James's point than to he brew^'.^^ All three include the sacrifice of Isaac (lames 2:21; I Clement x,;; Heb II:~;), but only Clement adds in xxxi,~:tinos charin eulogetbi ho pater hemon Abruam, ouchi dikaiosynr'n h i aletheian did pisteos poiesas? Not only does this recall James 2:21: Abruam ho pat& hemon ouk ex ergon edikaiotht, bur it follows immediately (and serves as exemplar for) the exhortation in xxx,j: ergois dikdtoumenoi, me logois, which, in the overall context of James 234-26, captures perfectly the sense ofex ergon dikaioutai a n t h p o s kai ouk ek pisteos rnonon (James 2:24). A final passage in I Clement contains a cluster of parallels to James. I t begins in xxix,~,with the exhortation to approach God in holiness of soul and with pure hands raised to him (cf. James 4:;-8). There then follows in I Clement xxx,~-5,this sequence: they are to flee evil speech (katalslia, James 4 x 1 ) evil ~ desire (epitbytnia, James 4:2), adultery (moicheia, James 4:4), and arrogance (hyperepbanid, James 46). Then Clement cites Prov 3:34, "God resists the arrogant but gives grace to the lowly" as does James 4 6 . hifore i~tteresting,Clement picks u p on the "God gives grace" as does also James 4:6a, and follows with the exhortation to be "lowly-minded" (tapeinopbronount~s;cf. James 4 6 ) . Clement then again forbids evil speech (h*ltdlulia,James ~ : I I )with , the statement that they should be justified by deeds and not by words (xxx,~; James 2:24). Clement continues with an exhortation to brevity in speech (xxx,~;James 1:26), and concludes with the statement thar whereas arrogance is cursed by God (cf. Jatnes 4:16), God blesses gentleness (epieihiu, James 3:1;), humility (tapeinophsyn8, James 4:xo), and meekness @rdutes, James 3x3) As pointed out above, the example of Abraham as one who shared in this blessing of God by working righteousness and truth through faith is then cited (xxxi,r-2).This is a sequence of thirteen items with the highest degree of thematic and verbal similarity between James and I C l e n ~ e n t . ~ ~ Some doubt may remain, but the probability is that Clement knew and used James. The parallels are found in concentrated clusters as well as in scattered verbal echoes. They match in outlook as well as theme. They are found throughout I Clement, and are taken from more than one part of James. Even taking into account the generic character of paraenesis 3.r Cf R 1% Ward, "The %rks of Abraham James 2 14-26," HHTR 61 (1968)183-290 35 Dlbcl~us'sdircucs~onof this passage (pp 32-33) ISso dornrnaced b\ the hlse Issue of

\rherller Clcnlcnr was responiitng to a Paul~neteachrng thar the ma1 prrtrnence of this sequence of strnllarltles IS rnrssed

BROTHER O F J E S U S , F R I E N D O F G O D

and the presence of the same topos in both writings, the combination of ethical and religious language is remarkably similar. And in the case of r Clement, the fact that at least two other New Testament writings are used in the same flexible and acknowledged fashion strengthens the argument that he used James.

The Shepherd of Hermas The resemblance in outlook, theme, and language between James and Hermas is unmistakable. Dibelius paid particular attention to the similarities between James and the Mandates section of H e r m ~ , which 3 ~ made his refusal to acknowledge any real dependence all the more pu~zling.~' The evidence, in fact, is considerably stronger than was recognized by Dibelius, and extends beyond the mandate^.^^ Hermas' use of dipsychos (cf. James 1:8; 48) in all possible forms (even making a verb of it) is extensive.39Opposed to double-mindedness is sim36. "Here there is found a kinship which goes beyond lexica1 and conceptual agreecould be placed alongside isolarcd adment. Extenstve and coherent discusstons in W-r monitions in James and serve as a commentary on the latter" (Dibeltus, p. 31). For his emphas~son the Mandates, cf. p. 3. 37. So regularly docs Dibelius undercut the evidence for literary dependence between James and Hermas, sometimes even at the cost of logic. that the suspicion grows that his own theories of dating and authorshrp might be havlng as much tnfluence on his conclusions as did Mayor's premise of an early dating on his conclusions. Despite his denying all other forms of literary dependence in the name of paraenesis, we noiice that Dibelius insists that James z:14-26 is "not conceivable prior to Paul" (p. 23), and "presupposes an acquantance with definite patiline slogans" (p. 29). Dibeltus places the dare ofJames between So and 130 (p. 45). which milttares against its use either by Clement or Hermas. Dibelius concedes "which [date] of course could be substantially reduced tfit were possible to prove that 1 Clement is dependent on James" (p. 46). He has, of course, made that determination impossible. As for Hermas, Dibeltus is consistent if not altogether intelligble. If Hermas can be an "expansion of paraenesis, its application to specifically Christian situations, and at least the Christianization of its framework and arrangement of the traditional materials" (p. 46), why could it not do that in dependence on James as much as on the vague "circumstances of the second century," whatever t h w were? jS. The study of C. Taylor, "The Didache Compared uqth the Shepherd of Hermas," Journal of Pbzlo& 18 (I-) 297-325, includes in pp. p e p s a helpful analysis of the way Hermas appropriates materials from James. 39. Vrr. itij, z; iii,~,4; iii4, 3; iii,io, 9; tv,x. 4; tv.1, 7; iv,~,6; Mdnd. IX,I-5;ix,7; ix.9; lx,ir; x,z, 2; xi,^; xi,~j; xii4, z; Sim. 43; vi,z; vii,~;viii,j-5; viii,q, 4; viti,11,3;1~,18,3; I ~ J I2., Precisely the extravagance of this use rweals the relan\rly mtnor potnt made by Setrz (cf. note 19, above). Of much greater importance is the larger pattern of use.

% Recephon of James in the Eddy Church plicity (hcrplote~s).~~ In James I:S, it is used only of the quality of God's generosity, but the term captures precisely what James means by adiakritos (3x7) o r "purity of heart" (48). In Hermas, as well, the terms are interchangeable. Thus, Ahand ix,4: kutharison sou tin kardian apo pantlin tcin mataiomaton tou aionos toutou (cf. also Mznd ix,?) is equivalent to Mand ii,7, en haploteti heurethf kui b r d i u sou kuthara kai ~rniantos.~' As in James as well, the idea of cleansing the heart is part of the response of repentance, which is perhaps the major theme o f Hermas as a whole.42 Thus, metunoesc'te . . . he kurdiu b m o n genitui kuthara kdi arnotnos (Vis iv,r, 5). Conversion means turning from double-mindedness to simplicity and purity of heart. The pattern of repentance fits within a cosmological fratneupork virtually identical in substance and expression to that ofJames. Humans are intimately related to the cosmic forces, represented by God and the Devil. As in James, the "pneumatology"ofT~rPis focused on these single personified powers. In an exact parallel to James 4:5, Mand i i i , ~has to pneuma iqj ho theos katozkisen en tf sark taut# (cf. also Sim v,6,5 and v,?, I). And as in James 47, it is the Devil who is to be resisted. The Devil is responsible for , If double-mindedness (Mand ix,g), but need not be feared ( f i n d x i i ~7). resisted, he will flee: ean oun antistuthc'te auto nikatbeis pheuxetai aph' hymon Ewkscbytnmenos (Mand d i , ~2).43 , Compare James 47: antis#te de @ diubolg, h i pheuxetui aph' hymon. As in James as well, the choice benveen God and Devil is expressed spatially by the contrast bemeen "from above" and "earthly.'Wand &,II has hc' prstis anothen esti para tou kyriou h i echei dynamin megal&. hc' a'e dipsqchia epigewn pneuma estin pdra tou diabolou, dynamin me ecbousa. Compare James 3315: ouk estin haute he sopbid rlnothen kuterchoment, &La epigeios, psychikp, daimoniodps. This contrast between "faith" and "wisdom" can be expressed likewise in terms of "spirit," as in Mund xi,rq: to pneuma to e p i g ~ w nThe . ~ choice can also be expressed, as in James 44, in terms of "God" and "this world": hosoi un kutharisosin h u t o n tas kardks apo ton mafaion epitkymiun tou aionos toutou h i esontai tg the@(Mand xii,6, Within this cosmological (religious) framework, the ethical concerns of the two writings are also similar, a t times identical. The problem of 40. Vu. I L ~ 2; , 111.1~ 9; I I I , ~ 5: , 1i1.9, I; Mdd. 11.1;11.4.6;V ~ Z2; , Szm. I X , : ~ , 1;1x.24, 3; u,31,4. 41. Cf. also 1's. 1i1.2,2; hfdnd. IV. 1; I V , ~ ,3; xi1.6,5; S"m. i v , ~7; , v33. 6; V ~ E I , I I3. , @. Cf. e.g. liLr. w.2, 5; v,7: h f a d 1v.r. 8-10; I V , ~ ,2-4; V I I , ~ ,I: and many clmes more. 43. Cf. also Mand. r v ~ w.2. ; 7 ; X I I ,x1.3. ~; 44. Cf. also hfand x1,8; XI,II-12: X~JI. 45. Cf. also b'zs. I V , ~ 2-4; , Srm. IIIJ; ~ , j6;, %?,I, j.

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

F R I E N D OF GOD

wealth and poverty for Christians pervades both composition^.^^ In James, three aspects of the subject are emphasized: that wealth and poverty are transvalued in the light of faith (1:s-12;25-71; that those involved in the affairs of business lose sight of God's will (413-16);and that the luxurious rich have oppressed the poor and can expect to be punished for it in God's judgment (2:6; $1-6). Hermas has the same three emphases. First, ho men plousws echei c&tnilta, ta de pros ton theon pt6cheuei (Sim ii,~).Second, those wrapped up in business "and many other occupations of the w o r l d (Mand x , ~4) , "also sin much" ( S h iv,4, s).~' Third, those who live luxuriously must beware mtipote stmaxousin hoi hysteroumenoi, h i bo stenagmos aut6n atklbtisetai pros ton kyrion. This last is very close to James 5:4. It is therefore the more striking that the passage is introduced with blepete c#n krisin ain byperchomenen (Vis iii,g, s), just as the corresponding passage in James is followed by he parousia tou kyriou engrken . . . bo krites pro t6n heste'ken (5:9). As in James ~ 2 7 f~rrthermore, , the proper use of wealth is spelled out in terms of "visiting orphans and widows" (Sim i,8).48 In a manner very similar to James .+:II,Hermas condemns evil-speech: @ton men medenos kdtahki vnede bedeos akoue kdtalalountos (Mand ii,~). James 3:16-18 connects envy to war and civil unrest; Hermas attributes them to evil-speech in remarkably similar language: pones he katalalia. &atataton daimonion estin. medepote eireneuon, all& pantote en dichostasiais kutoikoun (Mand ii3). Evil-speech is a manifestation of double-mindedness (Sim viii,7, 2 1 1 . ~ ~ Hermas places the same sort of emphasis on "long-suffering" (makrotbymia) as does James 5:7-to: can gar makmtbrnos ese, to pneuma to bagion to krtoikoun en soi kthclron estai (Mand v,r, 2).50Indeed, in a statement that picks up the same notion of "complete faith" as in James I:.+, we read in Mand v , ~3:, haute oun h?m a k m 9 m i a kdtoikei meta t6n tPn pistin echontdn bolokkmn. The notion of "perfecring faith" in rurn Games 1:2-4)occurs in lMand ix,xo: be gar pistis panta epangelletai panta teleioi, he de dipsychia me krtapisteuousa heauw panain apotynchanei t6n ergon autes Mn prassei. We have made the transition from the language characteriscic of moral cGscourse to that appropriate to the religious life of the Christian community. Again, we find that Hermas has if anyhing even more strik46 Dtbeltus's sketchy treatment o f thts tssur (p

jr)

1s confused, u ~ t hno atrentton to

specific texts 47 Cf also Ssm LYJO, w.2. I, VIA, I,

V I , ~ ,4

48 Cf also &and vltt,lo, S J tx.26. ~ 2, t x j ; , z 49 Cf also Stm wj, 2-3. 1x,z6, 7 50 Cf also Lfand v , ~ ,I, v.1, 3, v.1, 6, Srm V I I I , ~ 6, , :x,ry, z

The Reception oflames m the Early Church ing agreements both in emphasis and in terminology. In James, faith is closely tied co the effectiveness of prayer; double-mindedness impedes prayer (13-6; 4:3; 5x7-18). Mand ix,1-1exactly parallels James 1:s-8: aron apo seuutou tPn dipgvhian kai me bolos dipsychesPs aitPsasthai ti para tou theou . . . aitou par' autou distdktos . . . ean de distases en 4 kurdu sou, ouden ou me kpse tdn aitP.mat6n sou . . . houtoi eisin hoi dip?chois1 Sim iv,6, in turn, parallels James 43: pcis, phtisin, ho totoutos dynutai ti ai~sasthuipara tou kyriou kai labein, me doufeuon t(i k y r i ~ ? When James speaks of the rich oppressing members of the community in 2:7, he says, ouk autoi blasphemousin to krlon onoma to epikletben eph' hyzymas? The expression "noble name" is unusual, and Dibelius lists it as one of the touches that marks off James's distinctive Christian character.s2 It is all the more striking to find Hermas, then, speaking of apostates from the church in this fashion: kai blaspkm~santesen tuis hamurtiais uuton ton kyrion. eti de kai epaischunthentes to onomu tou kynou to epiklgthen ep' autous (Sim viii,6, 4; cf. also Sim ix,14, 6). Concerning the power to give life, Hermas and James express the same sentiments in similar language. James exhorts: dexastbe ton emphyton logon ton dynamenon sosai tus psychas hymon ( 1 : ~ ) Concerning . the commandments (entofai)Sim vi,~,I has, kaidynamenai scisaipsychh anthpou. In James 4x2, judgment against a neighbor is forbidden with this warrant: heis estin nomotbetts kai krites bo dynamenos souri kai apolesai. In Mand xii,6,3, we read: phobethete ton pantd dynamenon scisai kai apolesai, kai tas enrolas uutas kai dsestbe t(i the4 (cf.also Sim ix,23,4). Perhaps the most intriguing points of resemblance are these last, because the sentiments expressed in James are seemingly so distinctive, yet are so clearly paralleled in Hermas. James 4x7 condemns sins of omission: eidoti oun h l o n poiein ltai me poiounti, hamartia auti, estin. In Mand viii,~,we find: ean gar enkraterise to agathon me poiein, hamartkn megal& ergdq (cf. also Sim x,4,3). James concludes his letter with a command of mutual correction: eun tis en hymin planethf apo tts aletbeius h i epistrepsf tis auton, gin&ketd hoti bo epistrepsashamart6lon ek plan& hodou autou scisei psychen autou ek tbanatou ijames 5x9-20). In Mand viii,~othere is this command: eskunddlismenous apo tPs pisteos me apoballesthai, all' epistrephein kai eudymous poiein, h~martanontusnouthetein (cf. also Sim. x,4, 3 and Vis. ix,~o). 51 Dtbeltus, p 31, calls hfmd IS "the best ~nrerprecatlon ofJamesI 5-8 ~magtnabie," but cavlls over the use of a dtfirenr word for douhrtng' gr Dlbeltus, p 1.3 In h ~ dtscusslon s of James 2.7, however (pp 140-141)'he makes reference to Hermas's usage wthout noting char, of all the texts crtd, I C ts the only one to repllcare the onoma eprklehen

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

FRIEND OF GOD

Hermas meets all the criteria for deciding in favor of dependence. It shares outlook, themes, and language with James. The similarities are found throughout Hermas, though they are densest in the Mandates. And Hermas uses material from every chapter in Jamess'

Conclusions Some might object that this essay has reverted to the older style of proving dependence by lining up points of similarity. In fact, the method here has been more rigorous and the conclusions more modest. It is not, after all, claiming a great deal to say that the Testaments could have used James, Clement probably did use James, and Hermas did use James. Given all the literature produced by Christians in the second century, this is not an inflated claim for James's influence. The argument here does, however, put the burden of proof on those who would wish to deny any knowledge or influence of James before Origen. The case here has been made by the cumulative effect of probability that makes for moral certainty. One can dispute any of the points made, or any series of them. But the cumulative impact, especially when consideration is p e n to the differences in circumstance, genre and purpose, is substantial. It should especially be noted that the points these writings have most in common are not the commonplaces of hellenistic moral teaching. And if James was not used by TrzP, Clement and Hermas, what other writing, Jewish or Christian, antecedent to them, offered just these possibilities in just this language? There is none. James is the obvious and available cause for the effects Isre haw observed. We can safely conclude, therefore, that ifJames did not enjoy wide usage in the late first and early second century, he was read and appreciated by some few authors, whose appreciation w a s shown by their adaptation of his moral teaching for new circumstances.

53. U'e haw gtwn close verbal parallels from Hermas to these passages in James: 12-4; 1:s;1 5 ; 1~8; 1:Io;1:zr; 1:27;2:s; 2:7; 3%;3:13; 3:IS; 3:16;44; 4:s;47; 48; ,$:I1; 4:12;4:13-17;5:4;5:s; 57; 5:g; $:lo; 5:19.2a.

Journeying East with James: A Chapter in the History of Interpretation

This essay is the report of a journey, not across continents or oceans, but through a great body of literature.' Paul Therow, our generation" premier writer of travelogues, reveals the risks as well as the pleasures of the genre.2 How can the writer know the trip is worth writing about before taking the trip, and how can the journey be experienced in a way that makes writing about it worthwhile? The present expedition is motivated by the desire to better understand the history of biblical interpretation, specifically that concerning the small New Testament writing called the Letter of James. Largely under the influence of Luther, much of the history of interpretation of this letter since the sixteenth century has revolved around the alleged contradiction between Paul and James on the issue of faith and works, and because of the privileged place given to Paul within critical New Testament scholarship, James's place within earliest Christian literaA widely used Inture became for many scholars ever more problemati~.~ troduction to the New Testament took up "the theological problem" " ~what is posed by the "irreconcilable conflict between James and P a ~ l . In I. This article origmated as one of the Carmichael-Walling Lectures delivered in November 1 9 5 at Abilenc Christian Unicrrsicy. An abbreviated form of the argument and a small pornon of the evidence appear in L T.Johnson, 7h LefferofJames (Anchor Bible 37A; New York: Doubleday, 1995).My thanks to Mark Pitu for his preliminary scouting of the cemtory, and to Patrick Gray for his help with this fbrrn of the paper. 2. Among many others, see Riding fbe Iron Rooster By Thin h g b C%ina (New York: G. P. Putnarn's, 19881,and 7hPillarsof H d s : A Amnd Tortr of tk Medttmnean (New York: G. P. P u m a ' s , 1995). 3. For this history, see Johnson, The Lerter o f J a m q 140.161. 4. W. G. Kiimmel, Intmducrion to tk New Testament, rw. ed., trans. H. C. Kee (Nashville:

BROTffER O F J E S U S , F R I E N D OF G O D

unquestionably this century's most influential commentary on James, M a r t ~ nDibelius asserts that only a handful of Greek, Latin, or Syriac commentaries are devoted to this composition and that they were of undisnnguuhed character.' An easily rece~vedimpression is that James was marg~nalthroughout all of Christian history and deserved the demotion It recelved from I.uther. A journey undertaken through such a wasteland wvuld necessar~lybe a dull one ~ndeed. The impression of such complete emptiness, ho\xrver, itself causes one to wonder d ~ nd o one In all those centurles treasure James and use it? But if they did, why is there so little evidence for such appreciat~on? Part of the problem is the way we define blblical interpretation. To a large extent, the history of interpretatlorl 1s identified urith the writing of biblical conlmentaries Rut that equatlon results from an unexamined bias of critical scholarship. In commentaries, the text is the explicit problem that requires "explanlng"; the commentator's tack is to solve the textual problem so that the composition is rnore intelligible. Commentaries both anclent and modern tend to be written by scholars with scholarly preoccupations concerning language, consistency, and coherence. Hc)wever awkwardly, commentaries - even so-called "pre-critical'" ones - fit prectscly the understanding of "rnterprerar~on"held by crltlcal scholars Rut what would happen if we uyre to broaden our defin~tlonof interpretation? What ifwe were to consider all the ways in which biblical texts were used in communities of faith throughout the centurles, all the ways biblical texts found their way into compositions other than cornmentarles: letters, sermons, theological treatises, polemical tractates, hag~ographies, monastic rules, and liturgical books? In such uses of the text we tnight find a vast collectton of clues as to what the text could "signifj." for

Ahingdun, 19751, j i j 416 See d c o rhr comment of M tiengel 'Prowdentla f ? e ~hac die fruhe Kliclle in Paulu\. ntrhc In JacoLjur,dm h6cndol; gesehen," In '.'I)er Jakohusbrlef als antrpaul~n~clhe h l e r n ~ k , 111 " TrJdrhlrn snd Inrc7pr~r'znr>nrn the Neu Trrwmmc, ed G F Hawthorne and O &rz (Grmd Raplds Ecrdrnans, @-), z h j J h.f I)~bb.Iius,.4 C o m m t ~ r on ) F& knm offiimpr, rm. H Grreven, trans M Willrams (Hermenno, i%~ladelph~a Eorrress Press. 1976).51-77 Dth*rIruss tmatrnent of an) subjecr rcpavs claw stud\, becauul hr p a k s w much learntng tnco such small space On some subk n w l r u t p of parrtsrlc marcrrals, although i t I\ i e s certain haw jects he also s h o w much dcrirvr trom drrecr reading and how much from the highly developed German commentan*rradrtron hefore him A R Gehser s DwBrrcf&~/ubcbur (Rerltn Kuecker, 1828). for example uhtrh I>~t*eilus uses frequenrl\ made e~cellenrit far from adequate use of patrtsrc inatcnals

Jaumryrng East u~rthJames

the believers who cited it. Here it would not be the biblical text which was regarded as problemacic and in need of explicit artention, but rather some aspect of life which required interpretation in light of the biblical text. By applying passages to some aspect of the life of faith, however, authors thereby also implicitly interpreted the biblical text itself. Their citations and applications reveal the potenrial for meaning they considered the biblical text to possess, and in a more spontaneous fashion than could the commentaries of scholars. The collection of clues is potentially vasc, because patristic literature is a continent far larger than the Talmud, and for most biblical scholars it is a territory largely unmapped. Fifteen hundred years of Christian literature lies between the conlposition of the New Testament and the Reformation. h4ost of this literature used the Bible u'ith frequency and vigor. The obvious and almost overwhelming problem is how to get any control over such a body of material. In this very respect, however, the Letter of James appears as the perfect research instrument. Because James is small in size and surely not on anyone's list of the central writings of the New Testament, its use should be traceable with relative ease, and provide a manageable amount of data for analysis. This, then, was the imperus for my journey through patristic literature. By examining the uses of the letter ofJames in Christian writings I hoped to gain a better sense of its significance within the life of the church over a period of fifteen hundred years, and contribute to the history of biblical literature by correcting the narrow focus on the commentary tradition, thus perhaps also expanding the concept of "interpretation" itself.

Outfitting the Journey There is really only one potnt of departure for the sort of trtp I uranted to cake: the great 19th-centurycollect~onof ecclesiastical uritings publ~shed under J. P. Migne, the Patralaga Grueciz and P u m l w Lrlhrw wh~chcombtne to make a set o f s o n ~ 430 e volumes. The texts In Migne are rarely crltical edtnons, and those that are have been superseded by later effort^.^ The 6 Among the collrcaon, of parrtsrrc rrrtrcal edttrons, rf IIit <;n~bi~&nCbnn11ck SchrtfD.tcIkrdo Frrtm ]#&dm (btpztg 189--) Corpus Chrtrr~anorum Scrles Iatina (Tournolr. 1953-), Carporr hptcrrum Ecik.rrdrhcorum btrnorum [Vlcnna, 1866-), Corpus S r r ~ p m mEcrkswttrmm OnpntSt~m(Louvatn, 1l)o3-) All ot thrce wries are .;rtll tn progress wrth the end nor In stghr The wries that produces crlttcal ecirrtrmr fur 41 languages rogcther ~ 7 t hct3ptous ncrres and cranslarmns tnro French, 15 Suurrtr C h e n n r s The wries

BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

process of making better critical editions, unfortunately, is not only slow but always begins with writings everyone regards as "important." For better or worse, Migne remains the essential source for the majority of patristic texts. The collection is arranged chronologically.All the writings attributed to a particular author, spurious or not, are grouped together. Reading Migne from end to end is indeed much like a trip through many centuries and across several lands. I chose to bepn with the Greek writers rather than the Latin for three reasons: first, it is a smaller collection; second, I was interested in how people who continued to speak and write in Greek would read the Greek of James; third, I knew that Western writers from the time of Augusrine and Pelagius would inevitably be caught up in the problem of faith and works, and wanted to see if Christian literature in the East was similarly preoccupied. My method of research could not be simpler. The Greek volumes in Migne lack a cumulative Scripture index, but the editors carefully footnoted, page by page, the biblical citations and allusions that they spotted in the text. All I had to do was mindlessly go through each page of the 164volumes, ending up with some 64 pages filled with some 800 references to verify and analyze in context.

Travel Problems Like an ambitious train trip that must deal with delays and missed connections, this research expedition through the Patmlogrrr Grdecn had some technical problems. The most obvious was the difficulty in determining what really was a citation from James and what was only an allusion, or perhaps even a commonplace that may ultimately have derived from James but was no longer clearly connected to it. The obvious example is James 4:6, which reads, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (RSV). No line from James is found more frequently in the patristic writings, occurring some forty-seven times.' The problem, though, is that James himself is quoting from Proverbs 3:34.8 Of all the times this began appearing In 1 % ~and by 1987 had pubitshed 339 volumes, bur rhesc represent only a rrny fractton of whar appears In Mtgne 7 The llne IS tntmduced tn a vartery of ways, sumetrmes ulrh no mrroductlon, thus prrpetultlng 11s"pmvcrb~d"character 8 The WU( of Prw 3 34 mads +s, whtle James 4 6 mads dms The majortn, of patrsac uses ha* b, whtch may account for the edtrors' chotce ofJamesas source The problem IS furrhrr complicated In nw, ways Ftrsr, kyzm and thews frequently get exchangd both tn

Joumcyzg East wtth Jczmes

line occurs in the patristic writings, indeed, only once does the writer himself attribute it to James? Despite such authorial reticence, the editors of Migne attribute it to James every time, so relentlessly that one wonders whether they knew of its occurrence in Proverbs, or of its use also in I Peter s:~!From the context, I was sometimes able to determine to my own satisfaction chat in fact the allusion was to James,lo and at other times that i t probably was not." The case of James 4:6 shows how each occurrence needs to be examined individually. I t also helps explain the notorious unreliability of even the best scriptural indices.'~ortunately,the editors of Migne erred on the side of over-attribution, although even they missed some.I3 Concerning James 4 6 , we can be certain that it expressed a sentiment dear to the Greek authors; whether in every case they knew it came from James cannot be proven. Speaking of citations, one of the diversions on this journey was the variety of ways in which quotations from James were introduced. The first writer to cite James unequivocally and by name is Origen of Alexandria (184254). He refers to "the letter which circulates under the name of James"" the LXX and NT manuscrtpt tradtnon Second, Proverbs j n dm quoted bv I R t 5 5 , once more ustng d m 5 The dtfftcult) tr ~Ilustratedtn the earbest occurrence, tn Clement of AIexandna's Smmthrr 111,6,52 (PG8 1 1 5 ~ )Attlcktng Gnosttcs who clam a deeper understand~ng of the gospel when they forbtd marriage, Clement savs lcgn de mtou he mho dxor anhtassrtat ~prrnorsde duiostn chann The order of words IS sltgh m the LSX, James, or r Pet Yet the usr of the NT u ~ u l dseem I~kelyhere because ever) other cltanon rn this chapter IS from the NT - except far several from Proverbs (PG 8 11-\9)f 9 Anttochus Monachus, Uornrlra XLIV (PG 89 I V ~ ) atcrtbutes , the passage to James, rather than lhpos but tn thls case the cttanon uses +s 10 See Ongen, Homrfu tn Embrefnn IX, 2 (PG 13 734), John Chn*sastom,I n Pralmrtm C, J (PG$5 6341, I n W z c u m et PhO m 2 (spurious>] (PG59.6~0).Ntlus the Ahbut, EputuLu I, CSLW (PG~q 144)- a full and acute reading of the passage tn ta Jacobean conrext - and Cyrtl of Alexandra, Hornrlta Pas&&, XIV, z (PG n 713) Eusebrus, C*Ammmcannm rn Pralrnos LXXIV, 7-9 (PG 23.872), ts also postble e g , Burl, Cornrnentanrrm rn Isaum V, 143 JPG 30 5&), L)e H n r n h u & 6 (PG 31 536). ~ R E WTnrc*nku=AT (ffij r 1105) In & Cmr&~row m M m z 2, Bas11 t n t m dures the sayzng tn this fashton, "Yt31i find wrlrten tn Procrrbs," vet M r p e c r e d ~ uI t co James (PG 31 1699) Cf also Gregory Naztanzen, C o n m Julrannm I (PG 35 yrg), Cuscblus, Comrnt-ntnrutm m Isawm XXIV, 3 (PG 24 260). Procoptus of G a u , Commmtrrm m Iuurlm XIII. 12-16 and XSIV, 1-25 (PG87 2and 2197), and many others 12 The Bibhcrr Parrrsnc~ (Paris Edtttons du Centre Natronal de la Recherche Sctennfique, 1975)~ 5 z 4 - ~ 2~Ilustram ~, the problem I t attempts a complete lrrttng of scrtp rural cttacions up to Terrulltan, but the majoncy ofentrtes for James are at besr doubtful 13 The reference to JamesLZOin Ph~LppusSolttartus's &upma i (PG 127 712) IS missed by the edrtor, ewn though it brgtns rhe ennre creattse 14 Cornmmtrrrutm mJdjannnn XIS, 6 (PG 1q. 569)

BROTHER OF JESUS, FRIEND OF GOD

and "the brother of the Lord"'* and 'yames the A p o ~ t l e . "He ~ ~even inrroduces quotations from James as "Scripture."" Each author after Origen has his favorite designation. Cyril of Alexandria, for example, prefers the sobriquets "Disciple of C h r i ~ t "and ' ~ "Disciple of the Sa~ior."'~The title "brother of the Lord" is found already in Paul (Gal r:~g).~O By the time of John Chqsostom in the fourth century, however, i t is elevated to "Brother of God" (*delphotheos).ll Such a dramatically elevated status must be amibuted to the Christoiogical controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries which led to an emphasis on the dwiniry of Christ almost to the loss of his humanity. By an application of what was called the commnicetio idiomaturn (exchange of characteristics),James can be called "brother of God" just as Mary can be called the "mother of God (&eotok~s)."~~ In the Byzantine peuntil he is termed by riod, in fact, James's personal exaltation accelera~es,2~ one writer simply as "God's brother" (tbeadelpho~).~~ Those who so advanced 1s

Commrntjnrrm m Eprstulum ad ibmdnor I\", 8 (PCt 14 989) In Euadrrm Homrh 111, 3 and VIII, 4 (PG rz 316 and ~ s s )In , LPrmcum Homrlrrt I1,4 (PG 12 419)~ ibmmmranum rn Epuarlani ad Ramanor IV, 8 (PG 14 w),and many tsmes more 17 Gdmmontlmtrn a E ~ ad Romanor ~ mR! I (PG 1 4 961),Orrgen speaks of "&wne mpcure" when refemng to James 5 lo,In b r a c u m Horn& 11.4 (PCrr: 418) He uses the srmple name "James" ~n%If& rn PIPlmos C:XC'III, 153(PC 12 1621),and the perrphrastic "rt IS md," CommentDrurm m EpMorlsm ad l d m r l ~ If, s 13 (PG 14@), "ICu w n e n , " S e h m Pralmor Homrka 111 m Ps.m?, r r (PG 12. r ~ j f and , "rr IS read,"Selertia m Exodum XV, z~(PG iz L88) 18 Dc Adurahow m Spnfu rt k t a t c . XI1 (PG 68 836) and Xn" (PG 68 925-28); Commmrarrum m Lucam VI, 37 (PG 72 600) 19 De &mne m S p t u Et tfm&zteXI1 (PG 68 Bro), C o m m m ~ r u r mIn Amos Prophe&m XXXVII (PG 71 &I), Conrmenrartum in M&&m hopbetam XXI (PG 72 yz), In E p r r d m ad Romanor VIII, 26 (PG 74 8x5) zo The title is used as urll by Eprphanrus of Salamu, k,putaka ad]&nnem Vl (PG 43 99). Hesychrus ofJeru\alem, In Imtfacum I\', I ~ , I -(PG J 93 wo), Athanas~usS~nairus,Vfoc Dux WIl (PG 89 123),John the Faster Senno dr Povn;tmha (PG W3 1920) 21 John Chrysuscom, De Pontrmtra Homrl~a IX (PG 49 34%).In Pkllmor CXVIII. 159 (PG 3s 704) Cf dso Gregory Agngent~us,F x p l a ~ h EcZlPstustilp c II1,27 (PC;98 904-905) and V, 4 (PG 98 Ns), Theodorus Studrtae, Sermo LXXXIV (PCpg 619), Symeon Metaphrasrae, Vt& S ]obunnrc ~ k m o s y n 4 n IV, t 23 (K 134 917). Thwphylact of Bulgarra. Enamru, m EwngrLtum Mrlnx C1, 12-13 (PC 123 549) u SEe I>enzrgcr-Schwnmeaer, Enchdzon Symbolorurn g j and 139,for examples 23 Niles the Abbot calls hrm "great James," E p u t u h 11, CLIX (PG 79 276); "Holy James," Epw&Iac 111, C W I (PG 79 462), and "drvtne (&or) James," EplraJsc 111, C C X W I I I (PC1 79 &) The eprther "drvmc" occurs also In Caesar~usof Cappadocla, Ddogus I, r (PG 38 SF?), Cyril of Alexandrra, Commentamm m Muluchiam Propheturn V (PG 7 2 285); Theodorus Studrtae, Srnno LXVIII (PG 9 b ~Eustrarlus, ), Vm S Errrydtii (PG 86. a s ) , Nrceras Paphlygonis, Omm XX (PG 105 452) y C f Skmeon of Thessalonrca, Exponho S a m Symbolr (PC; 155 788 and 804) 16

his status did not, however, necessarily know or use James more appreciatively. The opposite seems to be true: the weightier the designation the lighter the use. In some cases, in fact, the author mistakes James for another writer.2s Another sort of difficulty can be mentioned in passing, one that seems to be an inevitable consequence of rapid travel. Reading only citations ofJames across this vast literature is a bit like travelling through Europe and eating only at NcDonalds. The sense of repetition and sameness is unavoidable. The difficulty reminds us that i t is impossible to assess the relative importance of the James citations in a particular writer without analyzing that same writer's overall use of Scripture, a task considerably greater than that undertaken by this essay.

Impressions o f the Territory Before reporting on the specrfrc use of James In these patrrstic writings, I want to convey three overall rmpressions of the terrrtory traversed. It u, first of all, a remarkably stable world. Although the literature was produced rn many lands across a span of fifteen centurres, t t IS all recognrzably part of the same hellenlstrc culture that desprte the wctssrtudes of external events changed tnternaliy very llttle. The Greek language trself remans an astonrshrngly steady medium of expression. The overall sensatzon of permanence, even of furrr): IS enhanced by the way later wrtters contlnue to speak of therr predecessors, sometimes wrttrng hundreds or even a thouPerhaps tnsand years before them, as though they were contemporar~es.~~ zy; John C h r w s t o m knew the I ~ t t e ofJames r well. yet rn the very passage u-here he

cdls tts author "brother of Gud,"he cttes from I Jn 3 18 rather than from James, In Psirlmof CXVIII, 159 JPG y~ 704) Later wrzcers make more frequent mlsrakes Johannes Xtphrlrnus atrrtbutes 2 I ) to a saytng of Jesus, Orahones porr Arcennaem (PG 120 I&), E u t h p t u s Ztgahenus arrrrbutes 2 26 to "the great Paul," Commentanurn m h4dmrm X U , 18 (PG 129 491, Theodorus Balsamonrs arrnbutes both 2 26 and I 19 ro "Paul the Aposrle," In E p d r n S aisrhr Crrnontrdm 11, 45 ( 1 5 158 m i ) and Ep$t& de b $ o p h r s I (PG 118 1360) Gregory Palama$ even atrrtbutes James 4 4 to Paul, De Mental! Qureauirne (PG 150 1056) 26 So naturallv does thts occur that only occas~onallyIS one jarred by the r e d t u n o n that Clement nftUerandrra. tn hts S r r o ~ a u for , example, IS ctnng, exrollrng, or reburcrng authors (ruch .as Plato and Artstntlc) who lrwd some SIX centurtes before hrm Another example Leo Ph~losophus,the Roman emperor tn 911 (not "Holy Roman Emperor," who rs a barbarran), has his Onrnom ~ncludrdtn Mtgnc, among them one "In Prase of St John Chrysostom,"hho usas btshop rn Constannnople five hundrnl years before, Ombo XWIl (PG107 zz8) It IS, of course, another feature of' that world strange to present-day readers,

BROTHER OF JESUS, F R I E N D OF

con

ewtably, thls complex and self-referentlal literature fell Into decllne. After . ~ Greek John of Damascene, the lack of lntellecrual rlgor IS o b v ~ o u sThe Chrlstlan wrtrers become prtmartly preservers rather than creators. Second, rhls world 1s a thoroughly scmptrrral one. No gap 1s acknowledged benveen the btblical narrattve and emp~rlcalreallty. The blbllcal hrstory 1s the earller portlon of the wr~ters'own story The chasm between the perce~vedworld and the blbllcal world whlch 1s so fundamental to Western post-enl~ghtentnentlnrerpretatlon IS simply not present fd All of Scrlpture, furthermore, 1s dlwnely ~nsplred.Because God 1s the true author of the texts, there cannot be a genutne or fundamental contradrcnon between them.29 Apparent contradtct~onsat the l~terallevel can be harmonued by appealing to the sptrttual meanlng The splrttual meanlng 1s not always "allegorical"; ~t can be stmply "the incentton of the dlvlne author."jO Thrrd, the Scrtpture 1s construed more as a set of dlvlne oracles than as a collecclon of composlaons. The human authorship and the dfferences between wrtcings tn the collectton are never denled But at the level of spontaneous usage. Scrlpture functions as a reservoir of oracle^.^' The char the emperor should meddle tn reltgtous affairs, see also Emperor Jusrtnun's T r m a ~ r Con&& Afono&srw w*rrtten to the monks of Alcxandrra after 527 (M;86 1116) Ftndly, one notes the perdurance of certarn Irterarv Fornu The l u i ~Communes of Maximus the Confessor tn the mid-seventh centurv (PG 91) and the hmri Ekrillak of John Damascene in the nud-etghch cenrurr (I%94) and the h(30rnmunm of Anrantus Melrssa tn the mrd-cwelfth century (K136) arc ail the same b=tc work, and rhq. conrtntle the rradtcton ofGreek secular Irterarure reflected tn the iollecttons of topor such as Scobaeus'a A n a h u l q ~ mG r w m (also of the srxrh century) 2: A perttnent erampie ts the kind of mtstaken scriptural atrrtbutton dtscussed tn note 25 S See tspecrallv H Fret, Tbe Eihpse 01 B~bJIial.Yilwrfbzr A Study rn Eghteench and N2)rlcs wench Cenhcry f i m e r t ~ r t t ~ (New s Haven Yale U n t ~ ~ r s rPress, n * 1974),esp 14-85 19 Stmeon Mecaphrastae refen to James as "drwnely tnsprred Scnptun," Cwramen S Marpru Chiltnln I\' (PC115 4811, as docs Cwtl of Alexandrta In De Adoractone tn Spmtu et V m * m VI (PG 68 472) Cyrrl expresses the general senttment u hen. In hts commentary o n Romans, he opposes James to k'aul and then asks rhetortcally, "I)o the dtvtnelv tnsplred men speak agarnsr each other'" tits subsequenr argument chows that tn fact they d o not, In Eptstttlam cuf Rownor IV, r (PG74 781) He agaln states a general pcrrcpcton conccrntng Srrtpturc =hen he calls James the "unlytng drsctple of rhe Savror," rn Jdklnnts Et*angelfum t , 9 (K 7'1 140) 30 A.; rn Ortgcn, Commentrmm rn tpst&rn Jd Rom~nor11, r3 (PC;14 908) 31 As rn Ntlus the Abbot, h k n a IV, X\' (PGr) 845) "accordtng to the dtwne ora-

cle" The perceptton rs revealed and strengthened bv such prlphrilstic r n t d u c t r o n s as "the mvstzc docrrzne handed down clt us,' D~dvmusAlexandrrnus, Ue Tnntrrue 11, 6, 6 (IY; 39 524) and 'rsotce of the satnt." Cyr~lof Alexandrt4 Comntentilnum tn Amos f'IVphe~mXV (PG71 440). Cy~tlof fUerandrra, In Johannzi Etwngrlfum X (PG 74 549)

Journeying East with James

atomistic conception of the text enables the practice of proof-texting in all its fascinating forms. God speaks in every sentence and in every part of every sentence. The human author's "original intention" and a statement's original literary context are often not considered and are seldom primary. On the other hand, proof-texting is rarely arbitrary. It is governed by conventions of creed or communal practice. Every hermeneutical game has its rules.32

Journeying with James 'Who Used James? Two groups of Christian authors made James a favorite source for citations. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that churches aligned with Alexandria in Egypt used it most vigorously. And wherever they were, monks also made James one of their scriptural resources. The Alexandrian connection is impressive. It is uncertain whether Clement, the second head of the famous catechetical school in Alexandria, used Jamess3 His successor, Origen, was Christianity's first great theologian. Origen listed James in his canon3' and cited him f r e q ~ e n t l y . ~ ~ After Origen and under his influence, the Alexandrian church made heavy use of James. We have, for example, only a few fragments from the Alexandrian teachers Dionysius, Peter and Alexander, but the extant frag9. The elemcnn noted here are remarkably similar co those identified by James L Kugel in Tbe Bible rlr It Was (Cambridge: Harvard Universrty Press, 1997),17-23. 3% According to Eusebius, Historin Ecdesiartico VI, rj,r, Clement included "all the canonm (PL 70: ical writings" in his H y m s q and Cassiodorus, Lk Inmarhone D i $ ~ ~ r uLimntnrm 1120)says that this included James. The extant Lacin translatron, however, does not ~ncludc it. As for cicrng James, it is certain rhat Clement n m r does so by name, even though he does cite by name I Pet, I Jn, Jude, and the Apocalypse; cf. N. LeNourry, Drrser*rrio Smtnda de Dbrrc Shontltum fV, 3 (PG 9: rog4-g~). In note 8 , I discuss Clemenr's possible usc of James 4:6 in S t m m m i s 111,6,52(PG8:ZIP).The only ocher allusion rhat could scriousiy be argued as deriving from James is found in Clement's discussion of righteousness In .%vwh.rrVI,18,13-14 (PG9: 397). where his u x of W hseems to point to James z:8. Other allusions, as co the "friend of God" uames 2:23) in P a c d a g ~ p111, z, @ (PG 8:,573); 111, 8,25 (PG8: 613);and Strumam 11, 5,8z(PG8:9 ~could ) equally be d c r i d from Philo. The deciuon, howwer, is difficult. In Strumte~cN,17-18,Clement ofAlexandria quotes atensiwly from I Clement (PG 8:36-86).Could the knowledge ofJames have reached Alexandria through that connection? 34.Origen, In LibrumJrnr Naw Homilia VII, I (PG rz: 857) 35. For Origen's manner of citation, cf. notes 14-17,she. In his exranc writings, Origen cires James some 36 times, referring to 24 verses from every section of the lerrer.

BROTHER OF

JESUS, FRIEND

OF GO;)

ments from each author contatn references to The first extant commentary on James comes from st111 another head of the catecl.~etical school, Didymus the Bllnd (313-398).j7The great theologians and polemicrsrs Athanasius and Cyrll found In James an important collection of theological proof-texts. Cyrll cites Janies more frequently than any other Greek eccles~asticalwrlter.jS Next to Alexandria in the use of James are the churches of Palestine, most notably that of J e r u ~ a l e mSince . ~ ~ by tradltlon James was the first Blshop of the Jerusalem church, the favor shown him chere is perhaps no surprise. Sophronlus, Patriarch ofJerusalem from 634, IS part~cularlyproprietary, referring to "James, the brother of the Lord, who was once pastor of this f l o ~ k , and " ~ in another place introducing a cltatlon from "James, the brother of the Lord, and first holder of thls xar."" This attention to Jame\ may also owe somethrng to the strong influence exerted In Palestine hy Or~gen.'~ 16 Dronvsrus tUexandnnus Commen.normtmin h t d m XXII, 46 (PGro 1596).Aleiander nf A1ex.urdrra. Acra Sntcm Sdncn P i m (PC;18 466) 37 Drct\mtrs Alexandrrnus, Enctrm~t~o in Eptsrulam tlPDtr ldcohr (PG 3 3 1-49-1754) I>idmus quores James m his theologscal uprrnngrand orher wrrrptural exposrttons some 23 trme.c, using 16 separate wrst-s @ Arhanasrus (296-373) ~ncludedJames tn hrs tnfluentral cancmical lrsr (PG26 11--1 He puhitshd a short summary of James rn hrs Syoprrr Smpatrae S j n i t a \1,51(PG 28 405408). and crteti Janies 20 trmes rn addrtron, usrng 12separate verws Cvril of Aleuanciria Id 444) cited James same 124 rrmes, using 39 separate r9er\es HI\ fa\orltc.\ \rrSrzlames 3 r (16 rrmes) and I 17 (16 times) C r t l also cr~nrrrhutcdIicn\~l\t o ihc t , , t r r l . ~ wrth 111s 1~ho1u or1 James, cf CiIrme G ~ J M I WP~NUIII ~ I i n \'o'01U I M I L I I J I ~ I ~ ?~ Ic~Jf~ JI\ ~ tP ramer. I \fI1l. Catena rn E p - t u h r ( athirl~ia> fChtorrl Olctord Unttt-run i'rr\, 12-40) Among orher Alexandrian aur h o r i ywiral rrrzntron ~houllibe made r)f t u r h a l ~ ~the r r Deacon, who tssued an edrtlon of iarl~oltir p r c c l a ~<; 85). Andreu of Jeru5alem (PG 97), Hesychrur o f J e r u d e m (PG 931, Eptphanrus of Salamis (PG 41-43).John Damascene (PC; 9-p 6). Antiochus Monachus (I"(; 89). Zacharr Pacrrarch clfJerusalem (S%i 86), and Dori>theus, Archimandrrte of Palestrne (PC 881 j n Ohno I (PG 87 3206-pa-) 41 Orarra V (PC87 3304) Orrgen spenr rhr latter part of hrr Irfe In Caesarea Pamphilrus of C aesarra ( r ~ o 3 0 9 ) WIU hts ardenr scudcnt. and tn turn ueas the reacher of Eurebrus of Caesarea (260-jlo), whose admrration for Orrgen IS amply demonsrrated rti W r s t m Ecclrsrast~r~ \'I In W F III,ry, 1, Eusebrus hsts James among the drspured books ofrhe NT rather rhan among rhe unlver-

Journey~ngEdst with James

Not every regional church shared the Egyprians' enthusiasm for James. The letter is scarcely used a t all by Achanasius's Cappadocian colleagues in the fight for orthodoxy. Gregory of Nyssa never mentions James. Gregory of Nazianzen lists James in his canon, but does not quote him." And in all of Basil the Great" voluminous writings, there are only a handful of refer.~ neglect of James is all the more strange since he ences to J a m e ~ Basil's was a monk and moralist whose sermons should have found ready ammu. ~ lesson here seems to be that formal recognition does nition in J a m e ~Tlie not necessarily lead to enchantment, and that there is always some difference between any author's official canon and real canon. There is even reason to think that some authors slighted James because he was such a favorite with the Alexandrians. To understand this, we must remember the fierce competition during the fourth and fifth centuries between the theological schools located in the rival patriarchates of Alexandria and Anrioch. If the Alexandrians favored the divine side of the salvific equation, the Antiocheans leaned toward the human side. Each thought the other went too far, indeed, all the way t o heresy. The more fervently the Alexandrians quoted James in favor of their theological positions, the less attractive James would likely appear to those opposing such positions. There is extant evidence that the great leader of \allv acknc?wledgedbooks In hrs other umrrngc, he cttes James only rarely, hut he d w s not cavrl concerning rts starus, calltng htm "the holy aposrle" when rntroducrng 5 13, Commentm-rum rn Pwllmor LVI, 2 (PG 23 sod), and "rhe scrtprure" u hen alludtng ro j 11,rbui, C, F (PC 13 1244). and he usus Jarncs 5 16 ro make an rmporcanr Lngutrrtc potnr in Dr tcclcnzamne~7hwIog1ed If I, z (PG y 976) 43 Grrgorv of Naztanten (329-389)lrsts James as the finr of rhe catholtc eprsrles rn hrs (;Prm~numLber I Thpdoprd Secr I (PG 37 474) and rn Gnntnum Lber 11Hlrrvnc~Secr I1 (PG 3; 1$9:-1$9) HISd l u s ~ o n srojamer 4 6 rn Omho fVConua JulrJnum I (PG 35 7x9) and ONho X'III De Pace 111 (PG 35 1176)dndOram ,YLIII rn Rard~~ Afilgnr (PG j6 5%) mav well nor refer ro James bur ro P r m r h s 334 He appears ro refer ro James 2 2 0 "Fatrh u-ithour works 15 dead" rn Omho ,W'I (PG 35 1233)and OronoXL (PG 36 q ~bur ) , does nor menrton Janirc hv name and tn twrh eases rhe phrase appears as an axrom rartier than a clratlon 44 In addlrion to the porstblr dlusrons ro James 4 6 dtuussed rn nore 11 ahow, Hasrl rhc Grrar (330-379) cttrs James, but nor by name, in h o dr Conrrrbmd~bus8 (1% $0 a d ) and C'onrhhchona Monasllcoe XXV1, 1 (K:31 1416) He quoresJames 2 to as from "James the Apsrle" trr Da l b p t ~ mI j (PG31 1529), and James I 2-3 as from "James in the canontcal letrcr" rn rhr (pcstbly spurrous) De Gbnso&brme IH 4diet-m 2 (PG 31 16Rg) 45 Must surprtstng ts rhe Faer char Basrl finds no use for James tn sermons that de\.clop themes rdenrtcal ro rho= cenrral ro James, For example Quod UpUJ tWn est AuTnr Malorum (PG 31 3.29-~sJ)* De Invrdra (K; 31 371-$36),Lk I n i d u et M&&m (PG p 13361346) Netrher doer he frnd a place for James tn hrs M d u (PC; 31 699-87o), ushrch crtes Scripture for rhtmes so dear ro Jarnes a rcrnpratlon and persrcutron

B R O T H E R O F JESUS, F R I E N D O F G O D

the Antiochean school, Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-@), at the very least did not like James, and perhaps even rejected it from the canon.* Monks - who are always moralists - also loved the letter of James, whether they lived in the desert of Egypt, the countryside of Palestine, or hn (347-407)~for exthe capital city of C o n ~ t a n t i n o p l e . ~ ~ J oChrysostom ample, is usually associared with the Antiochean school, yet because he is fundamentally a moralist and preacher he uses James enthusiasrically"8 and wen composed a c ~ m r n e n t a r yMonks . ~ ~ appreciated James because, like him, they were concerned with the practical living out of Christian ideals. They found in him a clear and challenging support b r flight from the world of sin, repentance, the giving of alms, and control of anger and of the t o n g ~ e . ~ 46 Leontrus of Byzantrum rn his Conwa Nerromnos et Euryshlilnos 111,14 ('PG 86 1365) says that Theadore excluded James and the other cathol~ceprsrles from hrs canon. LMntrus thereibrr compares hrm unfavorably to Marcton, srnce he truncated the New as well as the Old Testament Leontius IS urtcxng In the swth century Hrs oprnran may find support rn the nrnrhccnmry Syrmc commentary of Isho'dad of Men., Brshop of Hadatha, who says ngarding all the catholrc letters, "Thaxiorus also, the Interpreter, docs not even mennon them rn a single place, nor does he brlng an rllustrarton from them rn one of the wrlttngs he made, alrhough w see that he brxngs rllustranons not only front the books that arc wrltren by the Holy Ghost, but also from the book about Job, and from the Great U'isdom, and from Bar Srra, those that are wrrtten bv human learnlng " Cf Horde Semrhc~cX TIM Commentrrrtrr of Isboitrd of M q ed. and trans M D Gibson, \'ol IV,Acts of the Apostles and Three Catholic Eptscles (Camhrrdge Unrversrry Press, r913), 36 For a sensrtrve treatment of Theodore's Chrrscology, cf A Cnllmeier, C h r m & Chrrstran T d h o n (London A R. o f M o p s w s ~ExMowbray, 1965).338-368, For hrs excgencal method, cf R A Greer, wte and 7 h P d t p n (Westmrnsrer The F a t h Press, 196r),86.111 47 Of monks who made signrficant use ofJames, the representanon from Egypt IS understandably large Antony (PG 40), lsarah (PG 40), Serapian (PG 4o), Onresrus (PC; 40). Macanus (PG M),Palladlus (PG 65), and Zosrmus (PG 78) Others who are erther monks themselves or who wrtte for monks are Annochus Monachus (PG &)). Andrew of Jerusalem (PG 971, Ntles the Abbot (PG 79). John Damascene (PG 94), John Clrmacus (PG 88), and Pachom~us(PGy8) 4 Chiyostom quotes James some 48 times, usrng 20 separate v c m s 49 In Epstolam &ncO Jd (ffi 64 1040-ro(z) 50 Some outstandrng examples Athanasrus Ur I r q n r r s r r (PG 28 269). Orsrrrjrus, D o c r n ~de Insnbchmu M&wm XXXI, XLI, and L (PG 40 883, 887,and Sgr), Anrony, Srrmones Jd M o d s rg (PG 40 975), and Epurda I. V (PG 40 W), Isrdore of Pelusrum, E p d n r m Obct I, XClll (PG 78 LqR) and 11, CL\W (PG 78 613). Johannes Carpachius, 0p a H~~ 1.86, Ad Manachos tn India (PG 85 (107),Annochus Monachus, Efomdu @arrrm) (W89 1445-1834,Nilus the Abbot, EpueSp Lib III,73 (PG 79 q i - ~ 2 4 )Hyperechius, , Erhonoho (PG79 1477). Mwrmus the Confessor, Lm Comm~nes( p n n ) (PG 91 76&951), Georg~usMonachus (Humanolus). C h r c m Bme IV,251 (PC; 110 g s ) , Anronrus Melrssa, Lm Communes ( w i n r ) (PG 136 769-1212)

Journeying E a t with James

How WasJames Used? Patristic biblical interpretation is often thought to be dominated by allegory. I found no evidence that the text ofJames itself was ever allegorized, although in its literal sense James was sometimes used in allegorical readings of Old Testament text^.^' The literal sense, however, is put to many uses. Not surprisingly, readers found in this wisdom writing statements of general validity concerning the human condition. James 3:2,"we all fail in many ways," for example, becomes a proverb to be invoked in all the o b vious contexts.s2 In fact, James 3:1-2 provides a fine example of the sort of versesplitting that is frequent in our authors. As a whole, it reads, "Let not many among you become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we are subject to greater judgment. We all fail in many ways. If anyone does not fail in speech then he is a perfect man able to control the whole body." It is a coherent statement, but rarely if ever is it quoted in Full by the patristic writers. Instead, "Let not many become teachers"serves as a general warning for c o m m u n i t i e ~"We . ~ ~ all fail in many ways" is applied to human frailty and sinfulness, but not to that of teachers. And the statement about controlling the tongue has its oum separate application^.^^ 51. See, e.g., Cyril of Alexandria on Ps. 1o3:rpu in De Adoraliac rn Sptrih et Vmtofe XIV (PG 68: 925-928); Origen on James I:IS. In k b c u m XII, 3 (PG IX 538);James 4:6 in Homtlur tn EwcbkIem IX, z (PG 13:734); Ezeluel44:9 is interpreted by Origen according to "allegoriar leges" in order to explicateJames 2:17 and Romans i:26-27 in Commnrtanum m Epzstulam t d Rownos I1,13 (PG 14: @). Origen wen uses James r : ~to legirimlce the generation of allegorical d i n g s , In Genesin Homrlta Vflf, to (PG 12: tog).The most elaborate allegorical uses of James are found in Hesychius of Jerusalem. In h i t i c u m (PG 9 9 8191ogo). 5 2 See Origen, S e h m Pralmor Homilu Nm Pr. XXXW, 2 (PG 12: 1351);Alexander of Alexandria, Acta Stncm- Sdncfi PFh (PG 18: 453-466). It is one of Cyril of Alexandria's favor~te verses from James. He refers ro it regarding the weakness of human nacure in De A h t i o n e rn Spirihc n Veri6te X\' (PG 68: 949) and 14 other times. Cf. also Pmcopius of Gaza. Commentarii in Lrtiticum XI, 2 (PG 87:727);Theodorus Scuditae,* E If, u (PG 99: 1188); Arerhae of Cappadocia, Commenranum m sin V (PG I&. 536); Occumenius of Tricca, Commntanum in EpUhJam 1 ad Conntbm 111, 12-15 (PG 118: 676); Theophylact of Bulgaria, Ldmde Iir Qwrmm Lattnr I w n n t r 16 (PG 126: 2 4 ) ; Eqosttio in P r o p h m Omam 1,7 (PG 126: 585). 53. Cyril of Alexandria, De A & r & m ein S p i t u et Veritdh.N (PG 68:jz8);C u m m m ~ r z u m in L u a m V, 41 (PG 72: 604); Commentarirtm m Larcan XII, 41 (PG 72: 752); In Jobannrr Euangdium Proem (PG 73: 9); Isidore of Pelusium, Epubhrum Utpr I XCIlI (PG 78: 248); Procopius of G a q Commmtarri in Numom XXX, 3 (PG 87: 881); John Damascene, S*KM P~rdUela,R I1 (PG 96:329). 54. Athanasius, Expo~rroin Ps. W J I I (PG 17: 1208); Caesarius of Cappadocia, h + s

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

F R I E N D OF GOD

Another text is frequently used for discussions of human frailty.James says, "desire when it conceives gives birth to sin and sin when it is grown brings forth death." m e statement locates responsibility for human sin in free choice and in concupi~cence.~~ By so doing, it relieves God of direct responsibility for sin. The immediately preceding passage in James says, "Let no one when he is tempted say, 'I am tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil and himself tempts no one. Each one rather is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire" Games 1:13-14).~~ The principle that God does not tempt humans to evil can be employed for such troublesome passages as che testing of Jesus before his death.s7 James, however, creates the possibility for confusion when he states at the beginning of his letter, "Count it all joy, brethren, if you fall into various testings" (1:2),"* and a bic later, "Blessed is the man who suffers testThe difficult): camouflaged by the English translacion but ing" (1:12).~~ 1:r-j

11l.140 (PG 38 10731, Cyrr1 ofAle~andrta,In Irawm V, 4 (PG 7n r ~ o r )tragmm.nta , m Fpshrkm I Be& Pmr (PG 74 ro~j),Procoptars of Gaza, Commmtan&m rn l s w m L\1II, 1-11(PG 87 2597), Hesychtus o f J e r d e m , De ~ n n p e r u ntf~Vtrcute I I , q (PG 9; r ~ r o )John . Danrascene, Sare Parallels, C, XV (PG 95 I U ~ )Antrothus , Monachus, Homrlu XXII (PG 89 rgor), Maxrmus the Confessor, A h Captfo 18 (PG 90 I ~ o s )LOCI , Cammunes Scrmo XV (PG gr 813) 55 Orrgen, In ter~~ncum XI1, 3 (PG rz 538), r\thanas~us,Vtta rt (:onrwsllho 5 Anmntt zr (PG 26 873). Cyrtl of Alexandrra, De Admaone m Sp~rtrun Vmtace I (PG 68 14-149).In l w m I, 1r.21 (PC,70 93),In Johdnntr E~ungeltumIV, \'I1 (PG 73 689), 1)idymus Alexmdrrnus, De Sp~nhcSanchr 41 (PG 39 I O ~ OMark ), the Herm~r,De Sjphsma (PC; 65 roar), Procoptus of Gaza, C o m m f o r u tn k l h c u m Xlll. 2 (PG 87 733). Sophronrus of Jerusalem, OTDho V tn Eraltiutone S C r w (PG 87 3304). Hesvchtus ofJerusalem, Frapentir tn Psafmos L, 7 (PG 93 1202),OIymprOdorus ofAlexandrta, In BeaturnJob XXXI, 9-10 (K 93 324),John Damascene, S a c t ~Padiela, A, XI1 (PG 95 1157), Chrtstopher of Aexmdrta, Homrtw Cut Vita H u m w SIC S~mrlrrV (PG rw i u o ) 56 See Dldymus Alexandrrnus, De Tnnrtate 11, lo (PG 39 6411, Cvrtl of Jerusalem, Homdu m A d y h c u m XWI (PC33 1152), Ep~phanlusof Salam~s,A d m u s H m e s Ill, z, 59 (PG42. 753). Palladtus, Apophhtpata Pafrum Dr Abbatc Stcoe (PG 6$ ~ o T )Cyrtl , of Alexandrla, De Adorahone m Spmtu et Verttate XV (PG 68 981),Hesych~usofJeru.dem, In h b ~ I,~ m 11i,&-r7(PG 9;.819), John Damascene, Sam4 PitraltPI-J,A IS (PG g~ I 113), I'hotrus, BrM1urhecii CCLXXX (PG 104 345) 57 Dtonysrus Alexandrtnus, Uommmtanum m Luca-am XXII, 46 (PG ro 1596) Ortgen msrsts that when God "tests" rr rs for ycxd rather than for WII, ctrrng James I 1; tn S e k t a tn &x&m XV, 2 5 (PG 12 288) 58 The text cs ctted tn straghtforward paraenertc fashton by Ortgcn. In Gmesrn tlomrlta Vlil, ro (PG 12 l o g ) , Basil (spurious'), De Consoknone m Adwnrj r (I% 51 r a g ) , John Chrysosrom (spurlous'), De Poenirenhil r (PG 60 685), Antlochus Monachus, Homtlu LXXVIII De &nmm (PG 89 166S), Theodorus Studttae, Scrmo LXVIII (PG 99 601), Germanus 11 of Constanttnople, E p m k 11 dd Cypnor (PG 140 616) 59 James I l r 1s crted u~ithoutcompltcatton tn paraencttc fashton by Athmastus,

Journeying East with James

evident to Greek readers, is that James uses the same term, peirasmos, for both "testing* and "temptation." The Greek interpreters must scramble to reconcile these verses to each other and to other NT passages such as the one in the Lord's Prayer, "Lead us not into temptation" (Matt 6:13). They d o this by distinguishing external afflictions, which d o come from God to test faith, and internal temptations to sin, which do not come from God but from desire and/or the devil.60 In a much less problematic way, chapter five ofJames provides scriptural warrant for a number of early Christian practices.James 5x3,*'Isany among you happy? Let him sing psalms,"is used consistently as a justification for just that activifll James 5:14 legitimates the calling of elders to pray over and anoint the sick." James 5:16at once encourages the prayer of faith63 Eprrtoh dd E p ~ ~ ~ o Acgypb pos et I t b y e 23 (PG 27: 593). Dtdymus Alexandnntts, & p $ l h ~rn P d m o s XCII, 4 (PG 39 15ot),Ors~estus,Docrnm de I n m t u t r o ~Monachorrrm L (PG40 891), Athanasrus Slnurus, I n q h o n e s et Rerponswnrs, Quaescto 1X (PG89 4r6), and others For an excellent example of a cext applred drrecdy ro Irfe, cf the lerter of Cynl of Alrxandna ro the church ar Ephesus, whtch was expenencrng persecunon. Homtlrac DICPTSCZC \'I1 IPG n 1005) 60 Thts IS a "conrradtcrron in Scrtpturc" rhat ts recognized as such and raken seriously by the patrrstrc wrtrers Among the treatments, see Athanasrus. E p & k Hmusfzciie xtit, 6 (PG 26 1417),Cyrtl ofJerusalem, Gatdem Mystaggua V, 17 (PG33 rut), Max~musthe Confessor, Q w n m ad Thdrurum, Quacsno LVIII (PGgo 594); Exponrto OMhonu Damtnt (PGgo 908)- Gaprum Qwnqutes Centenorurn Cen&m III,92 (PGgo 1300).Phorrus, A m p h r h I, 23 (PGr o ~n), Theaphylacr of Bulgarta, E ~ m h rno Ewngelutm L u m XXII, 39-46 (PG123 I-), Euthymtus Ztgabonur, Cammentarrum m Ma&m VI. 13 (PG129 y o ) . and a partrcularly full consrderanon tn Gregory Palamas. Homrlw XXXII (PG 151 401-40q) 61 Ortgen, S e f w m Psdmor XII, 6 (PGtz 1205).rbd, XLVU, 7 (PGI Z 1437), tbui, W ,4 (PG12 1500). rbuf., CXIX, 117(PG12 1628), Achanastus, Eputdr ad MamUmwm z8 (PG27 40), Erpostho m Psdmum XLVI, 6-7 (PG 27 217). Euseblus of Caesarea, Clmmentarrrtm rn Psalmor LVI, 2 (PC; 23 ~ o j )Asrer~us , of Anasenus, Homtlu X V I I rn P d m u m V (PG 40 +I) John Chrfsostom, Lk SS Bernxe et h r d o r e 3 (PG50 634), In Ep&m ad H C ~11, SHomrlta IV (PG63 431, and others 62 Ortgen, In Ler.rmm Homrlur 1I,4 (PG12 419).John Chrysoscom, De Sacnrloho 111,6 (PG48 644). In Chamrumem (I% 61 ~ o )Cyril , of Alexandrta, De Adoranone m Spmru rr Vmtatc VI (PG 68 472), Eurrranus, Vtta S Euyrhu VI (PG 86 z*), h w o p t u s of G a u , Cornmentarrum rn Lcvr&um XIX, 19 (PG87 763), John Damascene, .Sara P~nrlleL,V, I I (PG 96 1881, Theophyiact of Bulgaru, En.acsmr&o m Eiungelzum Marn VI, 12-13 (PG 123 549). Euch,mtus Ztgabenus, Comnr~n*mrtmm M u m m Vf, 12 (PG129 $081, Anrontus Melissa, Lorr Communes I. XVlI (PG136 825). Gregory Palamas, Homrlra XXXI (PG 151 400) 63 See Arhanastus Stnarcus, Iwrwcq3rhones et Rrsponrroner, Quacsno XX (PG$9 5321, OMho de k a S d p w(PG89 836), Maxlmus the Confessor, CIpr&m Qunqrurr C o t t e ~ n v m Cenruru 111, 80 (PG90 1296). Hesychtus of Jerusalem, In Lctlhcum I, IV, u-31 (PG 93 Bay), John Damascene, .Sara Pardlleh, DO,VII (PG95 1364), tbuf., E, W1 (PG95 1440). Theodorus Smdrrae, Smno CtlI (PG9 6471, Epu&e II,IJ (PG99 11?3)>Euscranus, t7mS Ecrtychu VI

B R O T H E R OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

and the mutual confession of sinsMFinally,James 5:zo justifies the practice of mutual correction in the comm~nity."~ Proof-testing can appear to be mechanical or arbitrary, but i t sometimes reveals unexpected insight into the text ofJames. An example is the patristic use ofJames 2x3, "judgment is without mercy to those who have nat done mercy, but mercy overcomes judgment." We may at first wonder why this text is used by several writers to interpret the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16:1y-31).There is a fairly obvious connection, of course. When the rich man cries out from Hades to father Abraham for mercy, the patristic commentators could exclaim, "Now he asks for mercy when it is too late for r e p e n t a n ~ e ! "But ~ ~ the citation of2:rj is appropriate in a less obvious sense as well. We remember that the Greek word for mercy is e h , and that eleos was commonly used in early Chriscianiry for alms and almsgiving. With few e~ceptions;~ indeed, James 2:13 is used in a direct, paraenetic sense, to support the giving of alms to the needy.68 Under(PG 86 2234), Zachary Patrrarch of Jerttsalem, EpuIolJ (PG 86 3232), Symeon of T h e d o nica, Responra ad Gdmdrn [email protected] (PG 15s 917) 64 Origen. k ~ n t t m o P r o d m XXXVIII, 51 (PG r7 244), Eprpi~antusof Salamrs (spurious), H o d u III rn Reurmcmw Chrzsh (PG 43 qjr). Pdladius, Abbate Marco Aebvto (PG 65 joq), John the Faster, Pot-nrennak (& 88 1891).S e m dp h i t m a d (PG (18 19zo), Athanas~us Srnmtus, I hones et .tsponsrone~,Quaesno VI (PC & 3731, Heqrhius ofJerusalem, In L w t m r n I, I (PG93 829), rbPd, 11, ['I, 8-rr (PC 93 8 ~ s )John . Damascene, SPcn? P u d e L L M,111 (PG gb 112) 65 Orrgm. I n h c u m Homrlta 111, 4 (PG 12 418).Didymus Aiexandrrnus, De Tnnrtdte 111, I (PG 39 7761, Imas Abbas, Ombona XXV, 14 (ffi40 118j),John Chrpostom, In P d m o r C4wltI. I* (I"G sy :q), (spurtous) puod t turn (PG 61 785), Cvrd of Alexandria, Gommm&mrrm rn S o p b u m P m w m XIV (PG 71 969), De Rccra Fidr ad R rue), John Damascene, .Sam Pardfek A, XLWII (PG 95 IZV),tbd, C), XXIX (PG 96 3o5), Andrew of Jerusalem, Orarrt,XIS (PG 97 I Z ~ TTheodorus ), Studttae, Ep?s&w 11, CXVI (PG rgg 1@5), tbrd, 11, CXXXIV (I% rgg rqp), Symeon Metaphrasrae, Cnzdmen S Mrrrrynr Callrntn IV (PG 115 , @ I )rbtonaus , Melrssa, fnn Ccnnmuws I, .WIl (PG 136 825). Gregory Palamas, NU S f b Y A h & \1, 27 ( f f i 150 1020) 66 John Chrysoscom, DELawm ct Drvffr 2 (PG (9 595). kfomdfa de E h t m m y ~IS (PG 6+ HI), Nilus the Abbot, Pcnrtcrra IV,XV (PG79 8 4 ~Johannes )~ Xtphil~nus,O r a h o pon ~~ kmrmnmr (PG 120 I&) 6: The versc is used to refer to judgment tn Basrl, Smno de ConrsbwM11bns 8 (PG 30 B q ) , John Chr)w.rtom. Conm L'ng r (PG 60 741), (spurrous) In I h d , M e w Fur I)er (PG 61 6961, In E p d m ad , z (PG 62 717).and Mark the Hermit, Dc Spmncalt CXW (PG 65 920) John Damascene uses the ccxr to exhort the emperor Theophtfus ro show mercy, E p t d a ad 7kop&m I m p r o r r m 26 (PG 97 380) 68 In addtcron to the four wrrtrngs 1rstc.d In note 66, cf also Athanas~us,Dc Ti&u h f m a u m XL, z (PC27 8ro),Caesarius of Cappadr~ta, dud^ 111, 140 (PG $4 ro6i), John Chry~ostom(spurious), I n &%-ern Vrrgmer I (PG $9 s&), De Pacnfunaa (PGGo 767); Cyrti of

Journrying Eart wtrb James standing this, we better perceive why the text was applied to Lazarus and Dives, for the rich man had ample opportunity to show mercy (give alms) to the beggar at his gate and had rehsed. The text in James accords beautifdly with the literary and religious point of Luke's parable in its original context. When we place James 2:rj in its own original context, furthermore, we discover that it forms with 2:1z the hinge between James's essay against discriminatory judgment in matters involving the poor (XI-II), and his insistence on the necessity of acring out one's faith with deeds (2x4-26),a section he opens with the example of sharing possessions with the needy, that is, the giving of alms.69 With their continuing appropriation of the term in the tradition, the polywlence of the term elws was more obvious to the ancient Greek readers than to us. However odd (to our eyes) their point of entry, their reading provides access to a rich understanding of James's text and of Christian existence as well.

Two Favorite Texts James 2:20-26: Faith and Works

This section ofJames is among the most heavily quoted by the Greek writers. Once again, some parts of the text are splintered off for separate application. A handy text to throw at opponents is 2x9: uYou believe char God is one; you do well, even the demons believe, and shudder." The point, of course, is that the right kind of belief is necessary.70Likewise, the statement that Abraham's belief was reckoned righteousness to him, and that he was called "friend of Godn Uames 2:23) has a life of its own.71 Alexandna, Dc Adorahune m Sprnh et VMW VII (PG 68 $28). Isrdore of Pelus~um Ephrlunum Lber I, CDXCII (PG78 4491, Muumus the Confesror,Lon Commrtnes S e m o \?I (PG91 7681, Hesych~usof Jerusalem, Frrrgwun&s m Pralmar XL, 4 (PG93 1193) John DamaParallels, E. \"I1 (PG 9s 1461), H o d IV (PG96 640), Gregory Ayr~geiltius, scene, fiphnano Eccies10stae V, IV (PG gS 96s) 69 The connccnon IS made by Cjml of Alexandna, Homdra P h t r r XI, 4 (PG 77 645) cf dso John Damascene, S i m 70 Cyrtl of Alcxandna, In (PG70 1269),In J h n n e Essn@f~rn\?, I (PG 73 9 S ) , I M ,X (PG74 368), Photi CCXXII, 39 (PG 10) 817).Gregory Agrxgenrrus, Gcpka~hoE c c k s a w 111, XX (PG98 888),Symeon of Thesdonlca, Exposrtw de kri Symbol? (PGIS5 804) 71 Clement of Alexandna, h c d a 111, ~ II,qo (PG8 . ~ 7 3rbzd, ) ~ 111, Vlll, zy (PG 8 613). S&wkaf~u 11. V, 82 (PG 8 952). Cyril ofJerusllem, Crr& V, T)E f& et Symbdo (PG 33 5 1 2 ) ~

BROTHER O F JESUS, FRIEND O F GOD

When the passage as a whole is considered, nvo aspects of the Greek First, there is the impl~cltrecogniwriters' treatment deserve attent~on.'~ tion that James was not opposlng f a t h in the Messiah and the works of Torah such as circumcision, and was therefore not directly contradicting Paul's principle ofjusc~ficacionby farth. Rather, these wrrters understood that James used the terms " f i t h " and "works" prec~selyas Greek moralists spoke of "word" and "deeds." James's contrast was benveen verbal profess~onand lived behavior, between empty talk and frultful actlon. Recause for the most part these writers were also moralists who contrnued the same tradition, James's exhortation appeared to them as the most obvious common sense?) Second, when the verbal differences benveen James and Paul become a matter for discussron, the patristrc wrrters d o not oppose the statements, as Luther did. Rather t h y harmonrze them by dlstingu~shingthe points of reference. Paul, they s a d , addressed the f a t h that leads to conversion tptph;mius of Salamis, i \ d & w s Humrer 111, 2, 6 (1G 4r 707). Or~gen,Comrnentonum m J6hannem XX. 23 (PG14592). Commentarrum m EptrruLm ad Romunos KV, 3 (I= 14 9-)o), Cyrtl of Aleuandrra, In Jobdnnzx E:wn~11um \?, V (PG 75 8&), Aiaranus of Egvpt, R p b dd L4on;whor n"iG 972) 72 In speaklng of the " p a g e as a whole," I mean prtmarll) the g ~ s r"fa~thwtthout works is, dead 7 hts occurs tn James 2 26 and tn 2 17, bur the wrston most ofren ctted ts tn r 20 where the krne ms rrad~ctonreadsptsnr c h nm crg6n nekra esrrn, even though modern cnrtcal edrtrons (probably correctiy) prefer a q c to nekrrl In 2 20 Gtveri the haphazard mode of cltatton atid the desr~nyof thtr passage to become an axrom, anv one of the verses or none of rheni nlav haw k e n tn a partrcular wrlter s mrnd - 5 The unselfcon~c~ous appltcatrorl of J m r s 2 2.0~26in exhortac~onis found tn O r t g n , In O h m Jrw 'V@YJIV Humrlu X, 2 (PG 12 MI),S e k w m Psulmur XXX, 6 (PG t 2 ~ ~ o o ) , Conrmn~rarrumtnJahannem XIX, 6 (PG 14 $69),Commmwrrum m Eprshtbm dd Romanus ViII, I (PC;14 ir 59) Athanasrus Ik V q n r u t e (PC ZS 269). Antony, ~ o n r ad s &4onacftos I (PC qo 9611,John Chr\*sostom, fi Pwnltenha Homtira IX (PG 49 34)). De V&rs Apostoh 1 lo tPG 5 1 281), In Mdctheum Hamrl:a LI1 (PC1 56 9j1), In IJasch I1 (PG 59 727), In Epurblam ad fitlemonem 11, t (PG 61 ?og), Cyrtl of Alexandria, CommrntJrrum rn Mrchrlm I'rophrzam XXXW f ffi 71 bgj), Comrnrnrartum m M&ram hphctom XLIll (PG 7 2 357), In Johnnu IIr.*ngtlrrrm IX (Mz 74 253). rbd, X (PG 74 349), lsatas Abba, Onzhonrs XXI, 8 (K;40 1163). Is~iiorerrf Pelnsrum, Epuiularum l ~ IV hUCXXVl (PC; 78 ~ p t ) h4axrn1us , the Confcs+or, Qnertrones ad Jdfass:unr Quaertro LIV (PG go p ) , De ChuntJte 1, 59 (PG go 968). I W ~ U ~ \I r (PC1 u 91 677). Sophrontus of Jerusalem, Orrlko I (PC; 87 3206 po7). Svmeon Junior, Orako I11 (Ki xzo j j y ) , Ordm XXll (PG 120 ~ 8 )Drrmnorum . Antoturn Lbrr XV (PG rzo (to), Euthvmtus Ztgabcnus, C'ommmt~num rn Johunnem XVI, 18 (PG 129 Nqg), Athanas~usSlnartus, Orrrko de M a Symbolr (PG 89 S36), Johanncs Carpath~us,Caprta Horr&una 11, XXXVI (PC 85 SIJ), Eustranus, \+&i S Eufycbr: V (PC 86 .?PI), Oecumentus of Trrcra, fimmmr~rrrrmtn kpr~t&m 11 S PPm 1, 3-9 (PG 1x9 784), Theophgact of Bulgaria, Etrsmrho tn Ftwngelrum Joknnrr XV, 1-3(PC 124 193) "

before baptism, whereas James addressed the faith of Christians already baptized." Paul therefore was correct in saying that no works of Torah could bring one to faith in the Messiah. But James was also correct in affirming that Christian belief needed to be expressed in more than words." Far from calling James into question (as it did for Luther) the discrepancy appears to enhance James's authority. Indeed, both Origen and Cyril in their commentaries on Romans explicate Paul in the light of James!" I discovered, in fact, a short exchange of letters between Julian, the monophysite bishop of Halicarnassus (d. after 518) and Severus, the monophysice Patriarcli of Antioch (465-538).Julian raises the question concerning the contradiction in Scripture posed by these passages, and Severus responds. His harmonizing resolution is exquisitely argued, with careful attention not only to the argument in James and in Paul but also to the narrative sequence of Genesis upon which both Paul and James are dependent." The author decides, quite rightly, that what James means by the works of faith is what Paul means as well, citing Galatians 5:6, "faith working through love." The strongest contrast to Luther in this whole discussion is the governing premise, stated by the author this way: "The Holy Wkitirigs and the Fathers have always handed on to us a harmonious teaching.'"* 74 See Ortgen, Commentanurn m Eprrrulm ad Rmnanos 11, 12 (PG 14 w)Thar James'.; e~horrattonwas addressed spccrfically to the hapazed ts emphasrzed tn*John Damascene. De Frde C h - r A IV, IX (PG yq IIZI),Theophants of Stctly, Homrfu XXVIII (1'2; 132 617), John ofAntroch, Omno& D~saplinirM o m m d (M;131. rrro), Phrlrppus Solttartus, Dropw~Re1 C~IISLMMP I (PG 117 712), Euthynuus Zrgabenus, Pmopiur D4ymdhca XI (P(; 130 ~ $ 3 ) 75 The drsttnct~on1s argued parrtcularlv well by Istdorr of Pelustum, i ~ p t s u l r u mh b e ~ I\', L D r (PG 78 1121) The letter lxgtns ~ 7 t ah cttatron and rakes Its theme from James 2 24 16 See the full remarks in Origen. Commenrunum tn Eptshrkm d Rom~norIi. I.?, 11, 13, I\', I, I\', 3. it: 8.1'11, I. IX, 14 (K 14 goo, go8,961,970. e - y p ,risy, l a b ) , ('vr~l of Mexandrra, In Lpisntkm ad Kom~nosn',2, tfllI,16, Vl11,26 (PC74 781,812,82g),dro Theophylscr of Bulgarta. Enamho m Ewngehu~nJohdnnrr IX, 30-33 (WJ124 57), and esptoally trporrr~om Fptstulam ud CIulafilr V, 6 (PG 124 IOIZ), where, wtthuur b a n g named as such, James 1 2 0 1s ctted as the cqutvaltrtt of Galattans 5 6, "farth work~ngtlirough love", and F~cpos~mo in Eprshrkrrr d TIhtm I, 16 (PG tzy 136) 7; See the Chptka S c k ex H ~ r t w r sEcclesriutrcac ~ wctton XIX, comptled by the 6th certrurv monophys~ttbtshop Zachaw the Rhecorrct~n.whose orrgrn war tn I'aalssr~ne (PG 85 1176-1178) 78 (PG85 ~178)The ulttmate expresston of thts "harmonrous reachtng" IS rhr comblnarton axiom that begtns to emerge already rn the fourth century and !xcomes a frequenrly used t a g "as f a t h wthout uvrks I S dead, so are works without fatrh dead " Some f&-m of rhts eombtnarton 1s found In Gregory Nazlanzen, Orcrho X X l l (Mi37 1233) Orutro XI. (PC;

BROTHER OF

JESUS, FRIEND OF G O D

James rcrf: E ~ v r yGood and Perfkt Gifi

For the Greek authors, however, the primary locus tbeologuus is James 1x7, which reads, "Every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from above, from the father of lights with whom there is neither change nor shadow a f alteration." h n a quick parsing reveals the verse's potential for exploitation. The adjective "every" denotes universality but also connotes exclusivity: God gives every good gift, and no one else does. The word "from above" (ctncitben), as in the Gospel of John, suggests an oripn in God. The title "Father of Lights" is also congenial to Johannine theological symbolism and co the creedal tradition of "God from God, light from Light." The phrase "without change or shadow of alteration," finally, points to the immutability of God - and, equally importantly - to the changeless and therefore spiritual character of the "good and perfect gifts"that come from God. We find the text used first in theological arguments, properly so termed - that is, with arguments concerning the nature of the Godhead itself. As expected, ic appears in passages asserdng the unchangeability of Codr" and rhe universal beneficence of God.* The text plays an important role in trinitarian theological arguments, being used to assert the full divinity of the 36 +?$).JohnChryxastotn. In C-tn I, i f o d u 11, $ (PG 53 j ~ )In , Pralmum CLT'lIl, 48 (PG g$ 685). C y ~ dof Alexandrta, De m Spmbr cr Vm*ru XI\' (PG 68 954). Homttta P~schairr IX, 6 ( I T 1 77 tmus the Confessor, L k Astenc~s34 (PG go 940)~ n Rcsponrtonu Quaesr I (PG &) 99), Basrl of Scleucn, Athanastus S~nmtus,In UrJao XXXIX, 6 (PG 85 pius of Gas, Commnt&m m Ln%fwm XI, 1 (PG 87 p7), John Damascene, Vrta B u k m aJwphXI (PG gf, 9491, rbtd, XIX (PG 96 lot?),Symeon Juntor, *d&o I\' (PC; 120 341). Onrho MI (PG rzo 356), Theophylact of Bulgar~n,Enamho tn krengpl~urnJohannlr VI, 18-30 (PG 123 1297), Call~stuset Ignat~usX a n t h o ~ p u l o r u m , OpuruL Arrmc~16 (M;147 664). Johannes Cantacuzentas, Conm MAmm&m 1s.g tjtro) Philotheus the Patrtmh, L O h Trrum h r t o m m (PG154 788) , Damascene, Lk 79 See Ongen, In Numnos Homtita XVIII, I (PG 12 ~ I Z )John Imo@ntbus, O r ~ r i1t (PG 94 1240).Gregory Actndynr, Dr Essmhta ri O p h o n r L)er 6 (PG 151 1200) 80 The range of "gifts'" IS consrdrrable, from the Paultne "gfrs of the Sptnt" tn Origen, Commmrarrrtm m Eputu&fmd Rownos LX,24 (PG rq. 1u6), to the "pft" of rhe eptscopaq In Svmeon of Thesdonlca, Lk Secnrlotu, (PG 155 965) Cf, vartously, Antony, h o n e s d Monackar 7 (PG 40 967), Mark the Hermtt, Ik Bupmmo (PG 65 rols), D u p n o cum (;lrcs$d~oIV (PG 65 ro;r~),Cynl of iUexurdrz, De Adorahmw tn Spmbr et Vm~ateXI (PG 68 72). Commmrarnrrn m Amos PmphrrJm L\q (PG 71 st)). John Damascene, Clrra P m a W X, I /ffi g(i $41).& F& odmfuwaIV, XV (PG 94 1165),Eustranus, Vira S Eu@rt I (PG 86 2285), Pantaleon of Constant~nople,Senno IV (PG 9 it@), Theophvlact of Bulgua, Oram m h m t a a o n n n A M a w to (PG 126 141)

Journeying East with James

Son, the second person of the Christian Trinity?' Even more often, the passage is used in b e n t s asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit." The Letter ofJames refers toJesus only mice (XI; 2:1), but in the Alexandrian school, James 1:17 was put on active duty in Christological arguments to assert that, even in his humanity, Jesus was fully divine.83In this connection, the fact that both James and John use anotben to mean "orrgin in God" has significance: Jesus is not the appearance of a lesser demiurge, but "God from God.""8 Cyril of Alexandria, in particular, makes frequent use of m o other passages from James in Christological arguments. James 2:1 is used (rather oddly) because it implies that Jesus shares the same glory (that is, status) as the Father." James 4:12 is used because it asserts, "there is one lawgiver and judge.'And since the gospel attributes both legislative and judging functions to Jesus, the passage In James stands as warrant for the equality in status of Jesus and God.86 Much of this argument was addressed against the extreme Antiochean 81. Arhanasius, E p d ad Afms Episcopor 8 (PG 26: 1044); Caesarlus of Cappadocia, D d u p I, z (PG 38: 857);Cyril of Alexandria, C ~ m m t a r t n mn k a m XXII, 19 (PG 72: @); De SS Tinitiltp LharogU 11 (PG 75: 782); Cyril of Jerusalem, Cztnbem VII (PG 33: 609); Maximus the Confessor, rf Rezponrionn Quaesrio 1. (PG go:469). 8 2 Didymus Alexandrinus, De Trinttatc II,6,3 (PG 39: 513);ibrd, 1I,6,6 (PG 39: 52.1); rbd., I1,6,8 (PG 39: 5p); Arh-ius, Ep&& I ad h p w n e m 26 (PG 26: 592);Cyril of Alexandria, De SS T i t & Dlrrlogrcs U1 (PG 75: 841-844): De Rwrc Fidc ad Rgnas (PG 76: 1255);Dc ILute Fzde d Regnar (PG 76: 1289);Arhanasius Sinaitus, i7ke DK\. XI11 (PG 89: 22s); Eutllymrus Ztgabenus, Pano@ DogmalicJ XI1 (PG 130: 717); M.,XI1 (PG 130: 869); Johanna Vecus, Refitamno adwnus D. Androntci GzMtm' (PG xqx: 528); Dominicus Besarionis, Refi&do Mam Ephemr (PG 161: 188); Geowus Trapezuntius, De Promnone Sprntus &nch (PC 161: 772). 83. See Cyril of Alexandria. Gkpbynmm m Genestn \'I (PG 69: 325); In Epirtolam 11 art Corinchm II1,q-6 (PG 74: 929); A d v e m s Nesfwknurn V, N (PG 76: 229); De Rech Fkfr ad R e p w (PG 76: 1255); ibid. (PG 76:1289); Andrew of Jerusalem, Oraho IX (PG 97: l o r ) ; John Chrysostom, In M a h m Homilia XXXIX (PG 56: 847); Nicecas Paphlygonis. Orabo I (PG 105: 25). 84. See Cyril of Alexandrla, In Johannir Evrtngelitm 11, 11 (PG 73: 268); Do SS Tnnrfdto Ddogw I (PG 75: 704); IM,N (PG 75: 872);John Chrysostorn, In ManhPum Homilia IV, 4 (PG56: 657). 85. Cyril of Alexandria. In Johnntr Ewngefium IV,I (PG n:549); &wnu dr SawU er Comubst~ntzalr%nitate (PG 75: 509); rbuL (PG 75: 636); De SS Trinikatc. D*rlogrrs VI (Mi 75: 1029); Q d Unus Sit Umshtra (PG 75: 1321);cf. also Euchymrus Zigabenus, Pi~noplra XV (PG 130: 976). 86. The usage began with Didymus Alexandrinus, Dc Trinrtah I, 15 (PC;39: 313); rbd, I, 29 (PG 39: 416); tbrd, 111, ZU (PG 39: 944). and ir was a favorire of Cyrzl af Alexandria, De Adorahone m Sprnru n Vm'uteXI11 (PG 68: 881);In Pdmum XCU; 3 (PG 69: 1z.g); Dr SS Tnni*ttr 111 (PG 75: 812); ibid (PG 75: 821); ibid (PG 76:1268); ibrd. (PC 76: 1419)The lwc of the argument is revealed in Commentlrirtm in Amor Prophetam XV (PG 71:440).

BROTHER OF JESUS, FRIEND OF GOD

emphasis on Jesus'humanicy called Nestorianism. Not surprisingly, the extreme Alexandrian position itself was soon enough also called the heresy of monophysicism*" James 1x7 was used in many other contexts. I t supported the &vine origin of mystical illumination," personal transformation,B9 and the working of miracles.g0It is used as an invocation, the Christian equivalent of calling on the Muses. Humans cannot speak about these great mysteries, but with divine aid they can, because "every good and perfect gift. . . ."I In the same way, the text is employed hermeneutically. God is the one who inspired the scriptural texts. Therefore, God's Spirit is required to understand them, because "every good and perfect gifr. . . ."gZ James 1x7 is such a favorite text throughout this rrahtion that we are not really surprised to find it enshrined in the liturgy of the Eastern Church. The last citation from Scripture heard by the faithful before departing the church in every celebration of the Eastern Liturgy - down to our own day - is this declaration from James, "Every good and perfect gift comes down from above, from the father of lights, with whom there is neither change nor shadow of a l t e r a t i ~ n . ' ~ ~ 87 See Grillmeter, Chrut m & Chnstlltn Tradmon, 363-368 88. It 1s noteworthy that the very first ltne of (Pseudo-) Dionysrus (the Aereopagite),De Cwiesttrl If~mcchw1, I (PG 3: 119)is an (unacknowledged but clear) citatton ofJames 1:17, and it forms the very basis of hts theology, whtch was deeply rnfluential on the mysctcal tradttion of the medieval West; cf J. F. Ben M. de Rubles, O.P, h e m c z o in PG j: 57-95, and in particular the points of influence on Aquinas, cols. 88-90 89. For the knowledge of God and lllumtnarton in prayzrr, cf, e.g.,John Chrysostom, In P d m u m OrYIll, 33 (PC55: 683); Onrao Secundrl (PG 63: 925),John of Raythu, S M w m Scdlam Pamdirz IX ad Gradum 27 (PG 88: 1247); Nicetas Pectoratus, PrcKczcorum Capttum I, loo (PG 120: 897900); Theophylact of Bulgaria, Erponh6 rn E p i s A m S. Ju&e 19 (PG 126: 101);Gregory Palamas, H m d w XXXN (PG 151: 436); Homrlra XXXV (PG 151: 437). po. Anon., Vrto S. C k e n l i r R o w . The narrative is attributed to St. Ephmm In the text i w l f (PG 116: 183). 91. As an invocation, cf. Cyril of Alexandria, In J o h n n u Ewn@urn, proem (PG 73: 9); Athanasius Sinairus, In Heuumeron, praef. (PG 89: 851);Maximus the Confessor, Queshunes Jd 'l%ekjzurn, praef. (PG go: 248); Andrew ofJerusalem, Oraho XIX (PG 97: 1209);John Damascene, Dzalcchc4 praef. (PG 94: s-); De Instiatfione EInnot*nr, praef. (PG 95: loo); Stephen of Constantinople, Vita S. Stpphanr Junimts (PG loo: 1073); Johannes Vecus, Eptstola rui Joannem Papitm (PG 141: 944). 92. As a general hermeneutical principle, cf. Cyril of Alexandria, In Jailnnrc Et~ngelwrn N, 111 (PG 73: 605); Maximus the Confessor, Questiones ad Tkfasmm Quaestio U X (PG 90: 605); with reference to the understandng of Scriprure, cf. John Damascene, De Fide Orhodom N,XVlI (PG 94: 1177); Athanasius Sinaim, In He.uammn, praef. (PG 89: 851). 93. For the Alexandrian Liturgy spuriously amibuted to Basil, in which James I:]? ap-

Journqzng Edst with James

Conclusion Excursions such as this one show that further such trips must be undertaken if the full history of interpretation is to be appreciated, not only for James, but for all biblical texts. We cannot be content only with the commentary tradition. In pre-critical interpretation, a far richer body of material is to be found in ecclesial uses of the text than in scholarly examinations of it. Such empirical research would also provide a better test for theories of interpretation. It is one thing to study Origen's or Augustine's argument how a text ought to be interpreted. It may be something else to discover how in fact they interpreted it by acrual use. Even for the tiny Letter of James, more needs to be done. This study covers only the Greek writers. There remain the 271 volumes of Latin Fathers, the Syriac writers, and the Western medieval authors. All of this usage, finally, needs to be correlated with the formal commentary tradition.94 More such travelogues can be written.

pears at the end, cf PG $1 1656 for tts canttnurng use. cf J Raya and J de Vtnck, Bytonew L r t r t r ~ ) (Tournat . Dexiee et cte, 1958), "Prayer behtnd the Ambo," pp 110-111 g j In addrt~onto the commenrartes l~stedby Dtbel~us,262, namely Dtdymus Alexandr~nus(PG 39 1749-1754).Oecumentus (PG 119 JSZ-SO~). and Theophylacr (PG 125 1132-I;&), one should add the fa pent^ of Chrysastom (PG 64 1040-1052), the Fr~gmenraof Hvsechtus of Jerusalem (PG 93 t389-1jgo). as well as the extensrw interprcttw comments found tn Euthallus of Alexandrta (PG 85 676-677) and Symmn Metaphrasrae (PG XIS 200217)

How James Won the West: A Chapter in the Histoty of Canoniration

The process by which the Letter of James reached canontcal status rn the Lann-speaking church of the Western Roman Empire appears at first to be sudden and inwpl~cable.Though known and used fa1r1y early in the Greek church of the East, James u usually consrdered to haw been largely unknown In the West. How then dtd James go so quickly fiom an obscure and apparently noncanonrcal status to a secure posltion in the New Testament? Even one lnvolved in the process seemed a blt puzzled. In a short passage devoted to James the Brother of the Lord,Jerome remarks concernlng the letter that ~t may have been edited by someone other than James, and that ~tgamed recognttlon tn the church only "Ilttle by 11rrle."~ It IS t h ~ puzzle s of tncremental authorrty and sudden canon~c~ty that requires closer scrutrny. In brief, I wlll argue first that the non-use of James has been exaggerated, and that closer analysls reveals that James was an important writlng in the local Roman church from the end of the first century. I udl argue, second, that James's secure place In the canon was won by h u belng sponsored v~gorouslyby three wrrters who were ascettcs, alltes of Damasus of Rome, and adrnrren of Ongen.

I.

Jerome, Dc V m Illvlmbw z (PL 13. 639). -

-

-

-

Thts c s u y began as one of the Cumrchxl-UMlmg Lsctums, delawred In November 1995 at Abllene Chrrum Universtty. Some elemenu appear 4x1in an abbmlated farm in L T Johnson, Ttx L.trcr ofJames (Anchor B~ble37A, Garden Ctty Doubleday, 1995)

Hou~J~ames Won

the West

T h e Pertinence of Canonicity The comparative study of religions confirms that the concept ofcanon is not uniformly present or important in all traditions.' But for Chrisrianit): the canon of Scripture is a critical element in its self-definition for at least four reasons. First, Christianity produced an impressive amount of literature from its inception, exchanged and collected it, and established something like a formal and closed canon within a remarkably short rime.3Second, the bulk of this literature engaged and reinterpreted the Scriptures ofJudaism, so that the combination of shared texts and diverse interpretation was critical to the separation of Christianity from its mother tradition and led to a continuing debate over which texts made up Torah and in what version.' Third, it can be argued that in Christianity, the process of canonization and the process of self-definition u ~ r virtually e identical, since the issue of which writings represented the authentic and original character of Christianity was at the heart of the decisive battle with Gnosticism and Marcionism in the second c e n t u r ~ Fourth, .~ in Irenaeus of Lyons' response to Gnosticism, the establishment of the canon of Scripture was part of the threefold strategy of orthodox self-definition, together with the rule of faith and the episcopal succession, so that to resolve subsequent controversies, Christian leaders would meet in council to debate these same texts in order to define and refine their beliefs and

practice^.^ For Christianity, therefore, the canon of Scripture is an essential element in self-definition. In private, all the apocryphal gospels ever written can be read, but only these twenty-swen small compositions serve as the public documents of the community. They alone are to be read publicly at worship to shape the consciousness of the community. They alone are considered authoritative for continuing debates over hour the church z See, e g ,U' A Graham, +nd rhP Wmten Word &p o f h p h r m m he W m t - ~oj Re Itgionr (Cambrtdge Cambrtdge Untversrry Press, rpH7), J Z Smtth, "Sacred Persistence Touwd a Redexrtptton of Canon," lmiigtnrng Relagon (Chicago Unlvers~tyof Chrcago Pnru, 1 9 7 ) . 36-52

3 For the basic process, see H Y Gamble, The New Tr~umenrCrrnon Its A4dkmg and Mcdnntg (GES Phtladtphra. Fortress, i y l ) ~ ) 1 For the Neu~'Testamentas a mtdrashtc engagement uwh the texu ofTorah, see I. T Johnson, 7% U'mng of& iVnr* Tesktmcnr An In , 2nd rd [M~nneapolrsFortress, rggq). for a g o d stnse of the drspute mvr the prvprr form of the text (Hebrew or G m k ) , x e substanctal prttons of Justtn, h l o g u c u d T'ypAo 5 See, e.g , E Pagel$, nK Gnostrc Gospels (New York Random House, 1979).37-83 6 See Irenaeus of Lyons, Adrmus Hdmes 111, 1-4 (PG 843.857)

-

B R O T H E R 01: J E S U S , FRIENK) OF G O D

should respond to God in present circumstance^.^ The opiritons of cheologians past and present are significant only as they give insight into these writings. And k c a u s e the canon plays this critical role in the continuing process of Christian self-definition, the question of how these particular writings came to be included, while others were not, is undersrandably an important one. Because oFficid canonical lists from bishops and synods d o not appear before the late fourth century, it is sometimes thought rhat canonization began at that point. But official lists ratify the results of a much longer, more natural, and more organic process. From the sending of Paul's letters on, we observe how writings were exchanged between communities and built into local collections. A much more dit-ticult and critical stage came when, in the face of Marcion's challenge to truncate rhe traditional collection, and Gnosticism's threat to expand the authoritative Scripture with countless new compositions, the church (in the person of writers like Tertullian and Irenaeus) began consciously m select the traditional writings over against new challenges, and as a result began to "name their sources" in a manner previously unattested. I t became suddenly necessary to identify which writings attributed to Paul were being cited, which Gospels were being taken as authoritative. This process was made explicit by writers such as Eusebius and Augustine, who adduced certain criteria, such as apostolicir).., correspon. ~ of these dence with the rule of faith, and citation by earlier ~ r i t e r sAll are criteria for historical prioriry, asserting that the canonical writings restiFy to the primordial expression of the faith. Citatiori by earlier wirers is the main "hard" criterion, since it is dificult to prove a writlng existed by such and such a time if tio writer prior ro that time ever quoted it. In effect, these criteria represent after-the-fxt rationalizations for an earlier process that had proceeded much less self-consciously. Thew, however, were the sort of criteria that Luther used in his rejection of J a n ~ e sfrom the proper books of the Bible. Like Erasmus? Luther denied apostolic authorship for James and declared that to be the reason why James had been rejected by the ancients.1° Mosc of all, James was un7 For further remarks on the mlc of cantrn m ecclesrd hcrmcnrut~rs,we L T JohnAbtngdon Prev,, son, S m p m lrnd D u m m m t h i o n Malung In thu (%umh (Nash\~~lle 1996) 8 See Eusebrus, Hrshrrra trclpsusruli 111, z p z ~Augusnne. , De D ~ ~ Chnrhilw I M 11.8 9 Eramiis, Anmanwet rn Eputukm ,I&In & O!p ~ aOmnu, LQI6 (Letden \ k & n e n , IJOS), to38 lo Sea "Thc Rabvlonran Captmcy of the Church,"tuthrri. Warkt wl 36 V i a n d % . a,

How James Won the West

acceptable because i t contradicted Paul on the questron of f a t h and works, and, in Luther's phrase, "drrves us back to the law."i1The editor of Luther" 'Preface to the New7 Testament of rglz," where these sentiments appear, refers us back to Eusebius, who says, concerntng James, "It is to be noted rhar its authenticity is denled," and grves as hrs reason, "feu*of the anclents quote ir."'" Close analysis of Eusebius's statement, however, shows that ~t was descriprrve rather than prescrrptrve. He acknowledges that some quesrron James's authenticity, but he himself does nor question st, for in another place where he cites James he refers to hrm as "the holy apo~tle."'~ He therefore lists James among the disputed wrlrings rather than among the rejected ones, and says, "nevertheless we know that these letters have been used publ~clywrth the rest In most churches (plerstrlls ekklisuts).""' Nevertheless, lack of cltation of James by early Christian wrrcers is regularly taken by some scholars as evidence that the composrtlon was not written by James the Brother of the Lord from Jerusalem In the first generatron of the Christian movement, but was rather compo5ed pseudonymously in response to a generalzed Paullnism perhaps as late as the middle of the second century.ls As a result, James 15 seen as a witness not to the earllest stage of the f a t h but rather to a developed and (in the eyes of many) an already declining one. Its inclusron in the canon therefore appears a g a n as arbrtrary, rasing questrons both about ~ t authority s and about the integrity of the canonical process as a whole. In effect, was not Luther correct rn demoting James to apocryphal status?

rammr 11, ed A R Ulfencs (Phliadelphla Muhlenberg Press. r q ~ q )118-119, , also rile '"Preface to the New Testammt of i ~ u , "hk's Work, m i 35 Word and b m m t I , ed E T Nachrnann (Phrladdph~a.Muhlenberg Press, rgsg), 395 1 1 "Preface ro the New Trsrament of i~zr,"pp 396-3912 Euseblus of Caesrea. H m m Ecckr~1m~l 11, 23. zg 11 Eusebius, Commm~nrrrr~ m P d m s LW,2 (PG 23 503) r4 Euscbius, Hutom Frrks~1ma11, 2%2.5 15 Adolf van Uarnrck dated James no earlier than 120-140, wlrh ~ t cttrle hrlng apI~mhrre bu Euirs~binrTell 2 pended as late as the rhlrd cenrurv, see Gexbzrhte $erd&dt& Drc (Letptlg Ulnr~chr'scheRuchhandlung, 1897) r 46-91More recently. Rurcon Mack mapped early Chr~snani~rerarureand placed Jama with the Lertcr c)f D~ognetus, under "locaaan uncertain," benveen 120 and 150,see Burton, The b s r Gorprl 7 % h~ k of Q and Chnmmn Ongrnr (San Frannseo Harper, 1993).279

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

F R I E N D O F GOD

The Shape of the Problem In the East, the enthusiastic sponsorship of James by Origen (185-z54),l6 and the entire Alexandrian tradition after him," fairly well assured the canonization of the composition at least in the rest of the Greek-speaking empire.I8 Origen gives no hint that his appreciation of James was a novelty, and despite the originality of his mind, he was extremely careful to distinguish between tradition and his own position^,'^ so we are justified in assuming a prior use ofJames at least in the Alexandrian church before him. The first Alexandrian writer of whom we have substantial evidence is Clement ( c a 150-2x5). He assumed the leadership of the catechetical school in Alexandria from his teacher Pantaenus around 190 and ceded it to Origen around 202. Clement also was concerned to distinguish what came from tradition and what did not, and in the case of writings, the apocryphal from the r e c e i ~ e d If . ~ we could be sure that Clement knew and used James in his writings, then we could push its reception in the Alexandrian church back to at least 180 (when Pantaenus seems to have started teaching there). Unfortunately, the evidence for Clement is mixed. His extant writings contain a number of phrases that could be from J a r n e ~ , although ~' only one of them seems to demand some knowledge of 16. Orrgen Irsrs James as canon~caltn I n O h m Jenc h'are VII, I (PG 1 2 857), knows the author as "the brother of the Lord" rn C o m m m t ~ r i ~rn mt p r ~ ud m Romtws W, 8 (PG14 989).as well as "James the Apostle" 111 I n Exodum Homtlue I I I , j (PG12 316),artd refers to the wnttng as 'kripture" rn I n Lnam4m Horndue 1 1 , (PG ~ 12 418) In his extant works, he crtes James some 36 ttmes, ustng 24 \.erses from the letter 17 The fragments of the Alexandrran teachers Dtonysrus, Peter, and Alexander all contarn cruoons of James (PG 10 1596 and PG 18 466) Dldyrnus the Blrnd wrote a commentary on the letter (PG39 1749-1754)Athanaslus and Cvrrl both use James extensiwly James a [PG 26 appears in Athulanus's canonical 1st rn his Paschal Letter of 364 ( E p u ~ b XXXIX 11nl)

18 For rhr drfftculnes faced bv the letter (together w t h other catholic eplsdes) rn the Syrrac church before the Peshrcta, spe J S Srker, "The Canontral Status of the Catholrc Epistles m the Synac New Testamenr,"J75 n s $I(1987) 311-33 19 See De Pt-rtu7pfs 1,8 (PG 11 120) and IV,2, 4 (PG I X 365) 2 0 See&om&u 1, I , 39-42 (PG 8 700) and 111, 13 (PG 8 1193) 21 E g , Clement may allude to James 4 6 rn Shomuttw 111 6, $2 (PG 8 I I S ~but ) , stnce the m e lrne appears also rn h v 3 34 and I Pet 5 5, rt IS rmpossible to know whether Clement got rt from James The same drffrculty of mulrtple possrble sources applres to Clement's speakrng of unclean sptrrts who "tremblen ( p h o u s ~ n at ) the sight of the baptrzed (Ercerpu cx Thcodoto 4, n, excerpt 3 [PG9 6931). and callrng Abraham "frrend of God" (PrKddgop 111, 2, 40 [PG8 5731, Snamatcu 11% 5, 8z [PG 8 9521)

How James Won h e West

that c o m p o ~ i t i o nand , ~ ~ he never cites James by name, the way he does I Peter, I John, Jude, and the A p o c a l y p ~ eSeveral . ~ ~ of the possible allusions to James, furthermore, occur in a section of the Strumateis where Clement is obviously dependent on an earlier Clement, the elder from Rome who wrote to the Corinthians around the year 95.24This other Clementine connection will be noted again. I t is possible, on the other hand, that Clement of Alexandria actually wrote a small commentary on James. According to Eusebius, Clement composed a work called the Hypotyposes, "in which he has set forth his interpretations of the scriptures and his tradition^."^ And he continues, "he has given concise explanations of all the canonical scriptures, not passing over even the disputed writings, I mean the epistle ofJude and the remaining catholic epistles."26Since Eusebius himself considers James to it would seem logical that James be the first of the Catholic would be among the writings on which Clement commented. Such was the opinion of Cassiodorus as well.28 The extant fragments of the Hypofyposes, unfortunately, contain no portions of James. Nevertheless, Clement may have included it. I say this because Eusebius quotes explicicly from Books 6 and 7 of the H'otyposes when dscussing traditions of James of Jerusalem's death and ministry.29Since according to him Clement's work contained both commentary on texts and tradxions, his ciring Clement's traditions on James would seem to suggest that Clement commented on the text of the letter as well. But, as I said, we have no extant evidence. We are therefore not able to push the reception of James in the East back earlier than Origen. The situation in the Western parr of the empire appears at first to be even starker. If we look in the obvious places, it is almosc impossible to 22 In .Sfr-mweu VI, 18, 13-14 (PG 9 397), Clement prmdes a demonstratton from "scrrpture" (gmpk),begrnnrng wrth Matt 5 ro, concernmy a r~yhteoucnesschat exceeds that of the Pharisees, hut then speUlng ~t out In terms of Lev 19 18, which of course IS also found in James 2 8, what makes thls most rnteresrlng IS that Clement declares that unless thev act thrs way, they wll not be bdnlrkor, thac IS."kmgly" The usage IS so unexpected, and IS so ciow ro James's rekrencc to L a tg 18 as the nornos bus111Ira1m z 8, that an allusron rs here Irkely, rn my vtew 23 See L LeNourry, Dwprtdnon Secunda DP L f h Smmahtrn IV, 3 (PG y 1094-1095) 24 See SrrornIzfers N 17-18 (PG 8 1311-1328) 2s Eusebrus, HISErclesmsma W, 13. 2 26 Euscb~us,Hutom Eccksusncd \'I, 14. I 27 EuSC~IUS, Hutom Eccksmshc~11, 23, 25 28 Cassrodorus, DP I n s a ~ h o nfitmarum ~ Ltmrilrum ( P L 70 1120) 29 See Eusebrus, H J S ~Eccksliuacir ~ A 11, I , 3-7

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

FRIEND OF GOD

catch a glimpse ofJames before the late fourth century. Among the apolog s t s of the second century, James seems unknown.30 In Irenaeus, there is n o real trace of James's influence.ji In the works of Tertullian and Cyprian of Carthagc, there is nothing that can certainly be attributed to Jame~.~"nall the writings of Ambrose, there is scarcely a trace of James.33 Outside the church in Rome, the earliest clear use ofJames is the citation of James 1x7 by Hilar). of Poitiers (356-3~8).~~ Hilary was an admirer of Origen, as his commentaries on Matthew and the Psalms indicate.3SEven more striking, James is absent from the Muratorian canonical list, which is traditionally located a t Rome around 170, even though that list recognizes Jude and two of the Johannine letters as well as the Apocalypse.% James is also missing from an African canonical list called the Cheltenham or Mommsenian Canon. dated around 360." Then, quite suddenly, within a two-decade period, James appears werywhere in the West. Athanasius, the fierce opponent of Arianism, published his famous paschal letter with its canonical list in 367, and it contained James.= In the See of Rome, Damasus became pope in 366, and he proved to be an ally of Athanasius, and equally commirced to the defense of the anti-Arian position. He u.as also a consolidator of papal authority in the West. It is perhaps no surprise, then, to find James appearing in the canonical list of Damasus in j 8 ~ . 'But ~ James also appears in the canon of 30 No rrace of James's dtsttncttve language appears tn Arrsteas. Justtn Marryr, Theophrlus, Tatran, Achenagoras, or the Lotter m Drugwars The tncidental traces found tn other p o s t - a p t o h c Itterarure are drscussed In L T Johnson, 7hr LcmrofJizmer ( h c h o r Stble 37A, New York Doubleday, 1995)~ 68-72 31 There IS only the twofold reference to Abraham as "frrend of God," tn M m r t IV, 3.4 (PG 7 1-1 and RT,16, I (PG 7 1016) p. In Cyprran, them IS nothing at all In Termlhan, there IS only the reference to Abraham as "fnend of God" rn A d t w r ~ J&s 600 s (PL 2 638) 33 'There IS a possrble allus~onto James 4 8 and t $ in Ambrusc's Frpos~hotn Lucdm (PL 15 *I and 15 1859) The absence IS more smkmg, grven his dtxussion of jusrtficatson by fvrh tn Epu& UONIII (PL 16 r p j - l p ~ ) jq Hdary of Poraers, De Tmrrtatc N , 8 (PL to ror) 35 See Thr O x W D r c t ~ ~ oftho t y Chnsrutn WNlrch, 2nd e d , ed F L Cross and E A I-lwngscone (Oxford Oxford Untverstry Press, 19741, 649 36 See A Sourer, 7 h Tcrl iz J anon o f b e New T~riament,rev ed , ed C S C Wtllrams (London Duckworrh, 1954)~191-193 37 Sourer, pp 195-196 38 Athanasrus, Eptsrula XXXIX (PG 26 1177) 39 That a canon m 5 tssued under Damasus, and later cdrted and expanded under Gelasri~sand Hormtsdas, IS argued by C H Turner, -liltrn Lrsts of the Canonrcal Books," J7'S old xrtes I (1899)554-60 'The posrrton that this w a s onlv an extract from a srxth-century

How James Won the West

the Council of Carthage in 397, even though no trace ofJamesk use by any African writer can be detected before this timew James is listed again in the canon of Innocent I in 405.~'And from the fifth to the sixteenth century, James is securely part of the canon in the Latin church.

The Use of James in the Roman Church While it is true that no certain citation of James appears in secondcentury literature, that is only part of the truth. There is a very strong possibility that James was known and used by the authors of two writings composed in Rome before the middle of the second century, namely 7he First Letter of Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas. Before presenting the positive evidence supporting this case, however, the difficulties in making it should be acknowledged. The first d~ff~culry is the way the writings of the early second century appropriate earlier sources. For the most part, only Old Testament citations are formally introduced," although other "saiprures" are alluded to more or less e ~ p l i c i t l y New . ~ ~ Testament writings are not usually cited as Scrip Yet the appropriation of New Testament writings is clearly happening. It is obvious, for example, that I C h e n t knows some form of the Gospel traditi0n,4~and used I Corinthians (to which he explicitly refers),* as well as the Letter to the he brew^.^' The detection of such appropriation, Demtum (;elartanurn, whtch ctrculaced tn some MSS tndependently under the name of Damasus, 1s argued by E. von Dobschutz, Dds Decretnm Gefastrnum de Labm Rrap~enduet Non Rerzptendu (Ictpztg, 1912).The argument I make here tends to confirm, by other than purely text-crtncal means, the posinon of Turner. 40. For the Latin text, see Souter, p. zo+ 41. Innocent I, Eptshtla VI, 7,13 (PL20: 502). q.See, e.g., r Ckmenr 3:'; 4:1; 8:r; 18:3; Ignatius, ~ d p ~ ~ r1r:I: l n Polycarp, s LP?rer to dn PhtLppns IZ:I;Epistle of b & s 4x4; 5:r. 43. r Ckmenr z3:3 has an othemse unknown "scrrpture" concerntng the doubleminded, whtch is also reported by z WeRtPnt I I : ~as a "prophettr word." The Shepherd of H-s, VIS3, 4 refers to the Book of Eldad and Modad as "scripture." 44. The intmducrion to Mark 2:7 as "another scripture" by z &mt z:4 is unusual. 45. See I Ckmenr ti:[-2; 167-8. 46. The explicit reference m I Cortnthians ts in I C h e n t 47:~-3.Traces of I Corinthians can be found also in 24:1; 4:8; 375; 49:s. 47. For the use of Hebrew, see 1 UPmPnr 92; IO:I-7;IZ:I-5;17:1, 4; 361-5; 43:1. See also P.Ellingworth, "Hebrews and 1 Clement: Lsterary Dependence or Common Tradition?" BZ n.s. 23 (1979)262-269; D. A. Hagner, The Use of& Old and New Testaments m C k t ofhme (NovTSup 34; Letden: Brtll, 197j), 179-237.

BROTHER OF J E S U S , F R I E N D OF G O D

therefore, must rely on the evaluation of linguistic signals: language, themes, or imagery appears in a uriting which finds precedent (so far as we know) only in a certain NT writing, and does so with sufficient density and pervasiveness to suggest dependence of one writing on another. In the case of James, however - and this is the second difficulty such detection is made more d ~ f f ~ c uby l t the fact that James is a moral exhortation, or prorrepsis, that uses traditions otherwise widely attested in both Greco-Roman and Jewish moral literature. And to make things even more complicated, writings such as I Clement and Shepherd of Hwmas are also hortatory in character. This makes i t difficult to sort out literary dependence in the strict sense from the natural consonance of compositions using the same genre or topoi.@ The older tendency in scholarship was to assert literary dependence everywhere. Any recurrent phrase could stand as evidence that an earlier document was being used as a source.49In the case oflames, J. B. Mayor's great commentary sedulously lists every verbal and thematic echo as evidence for James's thoroughgoing impact on the early church.s0The problems with this approach are obvious. I t tends to over-detect literary nuances, and it fails to account for the use of shared traditions. By claiming too much, the method loses credibility. A second tendency among scholars has been to assert broad traditions to account for the verbal and thematic resemblance between compositions. Similarities between Paul and I Peter, for example, are attributed to the use of common materials rather than to literary dependen~e.~' Appeal can also 48 It IS clear, for example, that r Clement makes use of the standard examples and connectrons found rn the top on envy eveqwhcre rn Grero-Roman and Jewtsh Irteracure, as well as in James 3 13-4 ro, complrcating the question of poss~blederrvaaon of those tropes fbr C l m r from James, see my essay "James % 13-4lo and the topor mpr &Mvou," pp 182-201 tn thrs volume, esp p 189, n 33 49 A classrc example IS 0 D Foster, 77.w hrmry Hek&onrof 'the FInt Eprsde ofPeter" (Tmnsact~onsof the Conncct~cutAcademv of Arcs and Sciences 17, 1gr3),363-538 James appears as a brrdge b e w e n Ephesrans and r Peter For the same approach, see A E Barnert, P d I k n t m n a htmq i (Chicago Universrry of Chrcago Press, 19411, and C L hlrtton, "The Relanonshtp b e w e n I Peter and Ilphesians,"m n s I (1950) 67-73 so J R Mayor, ThP E p d e of St. James, 3rd ed (London h.lacmrllan and Co , I ~ I O h) ,r Luatv The weakness of the approach is shoum especrally when Mayor trles to show James's rnfluence on other canonical urrtingc (pp Ixxxv-cix), uhrch IS bared on his premise that James was composed bfforr yo and one of the earlrest NT wrrnngs (see p cl) Sr Notrce, for example. how the convrctton that Peter used shared tadltrons &ects the commentary nf E G Selwvn, 77.w Ftnt Eplsdc of Sarnt Peter (London Macmlllan and Co , 1958), In contrast to Foster's approach

How James Won the West

be made to a literary genre like parenesis or the farewell discourse to account for similarities between compositions. In the case ofJames, the classic commentary of Martin Dibelius best illustrates this second approach. He recognizes the often starding resemblances between James and Hermas, for exarnple,s2and faithfully notes them throughout his c ~ m m e n t a r yBut . ~ ~he refuses to recognize any possible dependence benwen the writings, appealing instead to a shared parenetic tradition." This approach provides an antidote to the earlier overconfidence concerning the detection of sources, but it has drawbacks of its o w . First, it tends to neglect the specifi ways in which even traditional materials can be borrowed and used, and therefore tends to ignore the specificity of language that points to possible dependence. Second, it minimizes the thoroughly literary and self-referential character of the Christian movement from the beginning.s5 To make a credible case, then, that second-century compositions knew and used James, it is not enough to locate specific phrases that occur both in James and in these writings, even when they are otherwise unattested, ~ even in this such as the expression "double-minded" ( d i p y d ~ s ) , 5although 5s M Dibelius, A Commentary on hk Eptstk oflames, rev H Grrrrwn, trans M A Williams (Hermeneia, Phtladelphta Fortress Press, 1976), 31 53 Dibelius, pp 141, 213, 219, etc 54 "It is probablv the case that both wrttings have at thetr dtsposal a relattvely large store of paraenertc material uhtch Hennas passes on in a reworked condrtton ('expanded paraenesu') and James m the form of saytngs* (Dtbeltus, p p ) 55 Dtbeltus, p 34, stares "Virtually nowhere can tt be shown that an author is dependent on Jas for the simple reason that the concepts contamed rn Jas are so unorrginal, and so very much rhe common property of primitive Chnstlanity In thts the essence of paraenests shows tnrlf once more " Thts 1s not only an example of circular reasoning, but tr also obvlouslv farls to deal ~ 7 t hthe htghlv dtsrincnw b n p g James uses to express what are somenmes (not alu-ays) shared concepts Thts premtse leads Dtbeltus to deny, s o m e rimes w t h tortuous argument, any spectfic points of resemblance, or, when forced to acknowledge thcm, to dismiss their rtgntficancc 56 U'tthin the NT canon, dtpryrhos is found only in James (I 8 and 4 8) There IS,furthermore, no evrdence of tu occurrence before James, desptte the efforts of 0 J F Seitz, "The Kelationshtp of the Shepherd of Hermas ro the Epistle ofJames," JBL 63 (19.14) 131-40, "Antecedents and Stgn~ficanceof the Term 'drp~ychos,"JBL 66 (1947) 211-219, and "Afterthoughts on the Term 'drpsychos'" MS 4 (1957-58) 327-334 That James IS the source of the expression is argued by S E Porter, "Is d t p y h o r (James I 8 , 4 8) a 'Chrtstian' Word?" Brb 71 ( 1 ~ 469-498 ) Still, it IS better to be cauuous concerning the occurrence of rhe tsolated term in passages such as I Uemmt 11 2,23 2-3,z &ent 11 2-5, rg 2, Dtdrtdx 4 4, and Eprsdc of Bdrnilbris 19 5-7 The m e u true of such expresstons as '"friend of God" applied to Abraham (James 2 23) found tn I Clement lo I , 17 2 , the tdeal of imparttal~tytn judgment Uames 2 I) found tn D A c k 4 3 and Eptttir ofBambar 19 4, and the expresston "love covers a mulrtcude of sins" Games 5 zo), found tn I Peter 4 8 as urll as tn I Clement 49 5 , z Uement 16 4

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

case it 1s pertinent to ask where such wrrtlngs would have learned the expressron except from James. In order to assert the use of Jan~esby one of these writings, three positive crtceria must be met: ( I ) thew is an overall similarlry In outlook and language knveen thrs writing and James, with at least some of the linguistic parallels being dlsnnctive tf not unique, ( 2 ) the parallels come from more than one secnon of James, and appear In more than one part of the second-century wrlting; (3) the parallels are sufficiently dense and pervasive to suggest dependence rather than coinc~dence. r Clement meets these crlteria impressiveiy. In addlclon to scattered p i n t s of parallel l a n p a g ~r ,Clewtent ~ establishes a chematlc opposrnon between arrogance and huniility very similar m that in James,s8 urhich in one place also takes the form of a strong verbal parallel.39There are also sentences in I C l m n t that match James in both language and meaning.@' In addinon, there are three sections, of I Clement in which there is a particularly hlgh density of verbal and thematic resemblances to James. The first 1s Clement's condemnation of the Corintlnans' envy (I Clement 3-4): a.5 m James y13-3:10,uv see that envy causes, social unrest and war, brought death into the world, and causes the murder of the brethren. These elements, ~tis true, are commonly found in tile topos on envy, but in I Clernent the condemnation of envy 1s follou*edby a call to conversion (7.2-8.9, a combination ocherwse found only in the Tatanrent ofSrmeon 4:4 and the Letter ofJames. Second 1s Clement's treatment of Abraham (9.2-r2:X), which, whlle havrng some resemblances to Hebrews as well, on crincal details comes closer co the portrayal of Abraham In James 2:2o-26 Thlrd 1s a sectlon of I Clement runnlng from 2 9 : ~to 31:i-2 in u'hlch there IS a sequence of thlrteen Items wlth the highest degree of themarlc and verbal similarity to James!' There is, then, the strong probability that I Clement knew and used James. If the data are so impressive that an argument can be made that James used I Clement,62they are even inore convlnclng for the dependence of r Clement on If tlils IS SO,then a composttron that certainly was $7 See the examples tn rhe prevloub nore $8 See I C i m ~ n 2'1, t ~jI, 59 5 59 Camparc I C h m t 59 w to James 4 10, and (9 $hto James 4 Ir 60 Compare I Chtnnr 46 5 to Jamcs 4 I . and i c*hpnr $3 r ro James 1 r j 61 For full dara on rhrs and the prwtour points, .ice I. T Johnson. n*p ittior ofJames (Anchor B~ble%?A.New York tbublcday, rqqg), 72-7% 62. k F Y Young, "The Kelrtscrn of I Clement rn the tplstle ofjames,"J U l 6 7 (1948)

339-345 63 Sex alro Hagner, & Urr of & Oid a d

Nfrc3

Tcstrinrcnu In C h e n t o f h m t , pp 248-

Haul James Won tbr West written from the church at Rome, probably around the year 95, testifies to the presence of James and its assumed authority in that local chiirch. That the ShepherdofHmas uJasalso written from Rome in the first half of the second century is attested by the Muratorian Fragment, which attributes the writing to a brother of Pius, the bishop of Rome from 140 to 1 5 4 . ~ The resemblance in outlook, theme, and language between James and Hemus is remarkable and has often been noted.6s Martin Dibelius is so appreciative of these parallels that his refusal to acknowledge dependence in this case seems based more on his presuppositions than on the evidence. If Hermas is, as Dibelius notes, "an expansion of paraenesis, its application to specifically Christian situations, and at least the christianization of its framework and arrangen.lent of the traditional materials,'" why should urtr not accept here a direct dependence on James, rather than the (unsupported) hypothesis of shared parenetic materials uith the same distincrive linguistic characteristics? The points of contact include the use of dipsychos in all its possible permutations, including as a verb, and its being placed (as in James 4%)in direct opposition to purity and simplicity of heart, which is accomplished, as in James (.+:8-ro),by repentance. Hemrls shares the same cosmology as James, and the same contrast between a wisdom from above and one from below. Its ethical preoccupation with poverty and \vealth matches precisely that in James, as does its focus on evil speech.67The demand for simplicity and lack of double-mindedness in prayer in Hemzas Mand. 93-4 and James 15-8 is so alike that Dihelius is moved to declare Hermas to be "the best interpretation ofJames imaginable."'68But isn't the best explanation of such an "interpreracion" the use of James by H e m s ? Finally, there is a series of statements in which the sentiment and the Ianguage alike are so similar that the dependence of the later writing on the Indeed, the evidence in H m a s is so strong earlier is virtually den~anded.~' 64 See the Murarorran Canon in Souter p 193 65 rile nav rn uhich I f m a s appropriates mater~alsfrom James tc demonstrated by C Taylor, "The Didache Cornpared rrtth the Stiepherd of tlerma\ "Jlowrnal of Philolog). 18 (1890) 297-$25 \Z'rth nferencr to the Mandates D~belrus(p 3 ) nones ' Here there is found a kinshrp which goes bevond Ievtral and cc~ncepcualagreemmc L\tensrte m d coherent drscusstons rn H m a r could be placed alongside rsolated adrnonir~onsin James and serve ar a cotnrxientarv on the latter '" 66 Dibeltur, p 46 67 Tor cpecific references see Johnson, 7 %l~rrer ~ lofJ~me$,pp -5 78 68 Iltbelit~sp j r 69 Compare James 2 7 to f-iermds S~rn8 64,Janie\ I 11ro Htmdr Stm 6 I , I , James 4 rz

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

F R I E N D OF GOD

that the burden of proof is shifted: ifJames is not the source of such distinctive language, then what is? If this analysis is correct, then there are two writings from the Roman church, dated circa 95 and 150, that, without citing James by name (which was, as we have seen, rarely done for any NT writing at this time), make extensive use of this composition in their respective moral exhortations. The evidence for the continued use ofJames in this local church is slender and suspect. There is extant an encyclical letter from Urban I (ca 230) which begins with a mixed citation from James 2x4 and j : ~ ,introduced by "James the Apostle says."70 Sometime before 250, Novatian's tractate on the Trinity contains an allusion to James 1:17.?' In a series of letters from Stephanus (before 257), there is an allusion to James 2:13.~An even clearer allusion to James 2:13 appears in a spurious composition attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (after 260). There is a lengthy and explicit citation of James 3:r-8 attributed to "James the Apostle" in a letter from Pope Marcellus (308-309).~Finally, there is a possible allusion to James 5:9 in an encyclical letter fkom Liberius (352-366), the immediate predecessor to Damasus." There is, therefore, some evidence for the knowledge and use ofJames in the Roman church from the late first century up through the fourth century. T h e Three Doctors Despite the importance of the Roman church, its use of James locally would not itself have been sufficient to secure the place of James in the canon. Had not three teachers who were all monks (or near enough), who were all aligned with Damasus and who were also all admirers of Origen, sponsored James so enthusiastically, it might not have won general acceptance in che West. Rufinus ( ~ 5410) - is the least well known of the three. Born in Aquileia, he went to school in Rome, where he became friends with Jerome. Around to H m Mand 12 6,j,James q 17 to Hmrrrzr Mand 8 2,Jarnes5 19-20to H e m w Mand 8 so For the speaftc language, see Johnson, 7&e Lrtter ofJdmes, pp 78-79 70 Urban I, E p d ud a d ~ Urruba~tr s (PG lo 135) The problem w ~ t hthis and the other "papal"letters clted ISthat they are among the "False Drcretals,"undoubcediy me&evd forgenes I rnclude them s~mplybecause, even ~f spur~ous,they assoctate James wtth Rome rn an ~ntr~gutng way 71 Novat~an,Dc T i & & IV, I (PL 3 919) 7 2 Stephanus ,"rc~wmm(PL 7 rcig+rog~) 73 Marcellus, 74 Lbertus, Epwtula ad O m o GmrnJlfer Epucopo~(PL 8 1402)

Huw]ames Won rbe West 372, he went to Egypt and visited the monks there. He studied for sewral years with Didymus the Blind (313-398), himself a disciple of Origen, who Rufinus was in also happened to have written a commentary on Jame~.'~ Jerusalem living as a monk during the same period that Jerome was there (381-397). Rufinus's admiration for Origen was so great that he was thought to haw been an Origenist. He translated into Latin Origenk Fint Principles, as well as a number of his commentaries. He also translated Eusebius's Hisknur Ecclesiakd, from which he undoubtedly learned of Eusebius's vim5 on James.% In any case, Rufinus explicitly lists James as canonical in his commentary on the Apostles' Creed, calling him both "apostle and brother of the Lord," and concluding the list, "These are the ones the fathers have closed within the canon and from which they wished assertions of our faith to stand.'" "en Rufinus fell into dispute with Jerome over his understanding of Origen, he quoted against his new adversary James 3:r, "not many of us should become t e a ~ h e r s ! " ~ St. Jerome (jq-40) was also a narive of Aquileia, who spent time in Rome as well as great periods of time in Palestine as an ascedc. He is of tremendous importance for the wider acceptance of James, simply because, with Origen, he was regarded as the supreme authority on Scripture. Indeed, his explicit debt to Origen is acknowledged in a letter he wrote to Augustine." He also shared Origen's esteem for the Letter ofJames, remarking in a letter to Pauiinus how the catholic epistles "declare as much mystically as succinctly," and he quotes James frequently in a variety of his writings as "the apostle James."81Most of all, of course,Jerome's influence is found in the fact that he included James among the NT xr~irings,when, acting as secretary to Pope Darnasus and instructed by him in 382 to provide a better Latin translarion of the Bible, he produced his Vulgate version. But why did Jerome include James in his improved translation? Here we come to what is properly a third line of argument concerning che use

75 Drdymus, Enarmtau rn Eptrtulam & a & j ~ o b r (PG 3q 1749-1754) 76 For these brographrcal details, see Thc Qxfbrd D ~ c h a - 0 of&

p

Chmn Chd,

1207

77 Rufinus Carmmlitnru m Sy-m

36 (PL 2.1 374)

80 Jerome, F p w l d (3 8 (PL u 548)

11, 5, lo-15,11, 18, 6, for see, e g ,Trscrdm de w m o CXVIII 2, H a m d ~ m k d m XV1,fg-31, ocher ntulons from Junes, Cmnmtarwm m , % f a b mI, 5, u,-6 admws &lagrams I, zo,1-19,tI. r3.30,11, 14,4o, 11, 18, zo, Ill, 14, 33

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

FRIEND OF GOD

of James in the West, namely the fact that it had already been translated from the Greek into Latin in a variety of versions that are known collectively as Old Latin. If, as some critics have argued, the text lying in back of the Bobbio MS (fifth cenruty) and Corbey MS (ninth/centh century) actually went back to third-century translations produced in Africa, such dissemination of James would have considerably preceded its earliest known citation by an African writer.a2As J. H. Ropes has observed, James does not always, in such MSS, appear with other biblical writings.= But this may, in fact, be an example of what Jerome himself described as James gathering authority "bit by bit." The presence of James in Old Latin NT hrlSS, the probable use of James by the local Roman church, especially its bishops, since the second century, the listing of James as canonical by Damasus his sponsor in 382, and the strong tradition ofJames1sinclusion in the canon in the school of Origen; these all must have combined to make the inclusion of James in the Vulgate, and therefore its acceptance as part of Scripture for the Western church, seem almost inevitable. There remains North Africa, which had seemingly made no use of James before the fourth century. North Africa in turn brings us to Augustine of Hippo (354-430), the youngest but also ultimately the most influential ofour three doctors. It is undoubtedly through his influence that James finally won this last piece of the West and helped shape a millennium of Christendom. Augustine rose rapidly through ecclesiastical ranks after his long-delayed conversion, becoming a priest in ,391,a coadjutor bishop in 395, and bishop of Hippo in 396. Augustine was almost obsequious in his admiration for Jerome, as their star-crossed but farcinating correspondence in&cates. Their letters make clear that both teachers found Origen to be a significant authority in matters scriptural." His letters also attest to Augustine's enthusiastic recognition ofJames as S ~ r i p r u r e ?as~ does his inclusion ofJames in the canonical list provided by On C h r i d n D o ~ m ' n e . ~ ~ 82 See J Wordsuwrrh, "The <:orbey Sr James (ff) and Its Relatxon to Other tattn Versrons, and to the Ongtnal language of the Eytsrle,'"UB I ~ ~ I Eudyi C J m B~bltcrrlA rgy nnd Crth~lsm,ed S R Drtver er al (Oxbrci Ciarendon Press, 1885). 134-136 83 J El Ropes, "The Text of the Eytsrle of Junes."JBL 28 (1909) laj-129 84 See, e g , Augustane, Epshck 40 (PL 33 ITJ-158) and ?( (PL 33 251-263) 85 He, tm, quotes James 3 2 to Jerome, as Rufinirs had, see E p L 73 (PL 33 r q g z ~ o ) For other crtatlons ofJames tn hrs correspondence, see, e g EpshrLe 82 (PL 33 285), 137 (PL 33 516). 140 (PL 33 549. r74), 147 (PL 33 h z ) , 149 (PL 33 632-633).153(PL 33 6 p ) , 19 (PL 33 6.;-8, @I), 162 (PL 33 7071, 167 (PL 33 7)rl-742),1 7 (PL 31 766), 1% (PL 13 &o), 189 (PL 33 857), 205 (PL 33 9471, 214 (PL 33 970-971),250 (PL 33 1a67), 266 {PL 33 1090) 86 & i k ~ m n rChruhrrna 11, 13 (PL w 41)

.

How James Won the West

Augusrine even wrote a short commentary on James, although it is not extant?' His many citations of James in other conipositions suggest some of the things that might have been in that expsitio, and show how the developing Western tradition of interpreting James was remarkably close to that in the Eastern church. On numerous occasions, for example, Augustine combines Gal g:6 and James 2x9-a6 in a harmonizing resolution of the issue of faith and works.= That Augustine saw no conflict bew e n James and Paul is obvious. He uses James 4% to interpret Rom 1:20,8~ and concludes his treatise o n "Grace and Free Will" with a catena of verses from James 1:s; 3x7; and 3:14-17!* Like Greek patristic writers, Augustine used James I:I3 to assert that God did not tempt humans, and 1x4 to blame human passions for temptations and sin?' Like Eastern writers, Augustine used I:[.). to assert the unchangeableness of Godg2and to de.~~ also offers a clare that God is the source of all r i g h t e o u ~ n e s s Augustine full discussion of James 2:xo in light of the Stoic principle of the unity of and 512.9~ all virtue,94 and sermonic cxpositions of James 1:19-22~' In the light of the development I have traced, the canon that includes the Letter ofJames published by the Council of Carthage in 397 (one year after Augustine became sole bishop of Hippo and an ever greater influence together with his ally Bishop Aurelius of Carthage) takes on even greater significance. Not only does it show James finally winning the West, but it suggests something of the process by which this happened and the network of communication that enabled it. Canon 39 begins, : 8 Rcrroctlones 11. 9 (PL $1 643-644)ltsrs among hts o p u m k an "exposttto eptstulae Jacobr ad duodeclm trthus ' 86' See Dr F& et O p h s XI\' 23 (PL40 212),Dc 7nnrtatr XV, 18(PL4 ~dj), De G n r u er I r h Arbrmo VIl, 18 (PL44 892),DtKmm 2 on P d m jr, I 26 (PL 36 259). and the n w l v discmered f pumh *2 6 ~ Onend 10 (PL 44 212) 89 Dc S p m n 90 Dt. Grdhrl et I r h Arbrtrxo 46 (PL~1 912)Norlce dm the usa+A u ~ s t ~ concludes ne hts "tncomplete"Irro;tl I n t w p u n o n of Genests uwh a cttatton of 3 9,artrtbutd to "the authorrty o f the apoqtle James" ((XC'I, 62 [PL34 2461) 91 For I 13, see tplrmh 162 (PL 33 707)and 205 (PL 1~ 947) lislctahs m Evangrlrum Johnnu 43,$ (PL35 1-07), De Gram n b h Arbrmo r, j(PL44 883) Far I 14,see De Gnrrw ct I h m Arb~hao4,8(PL44 887) 92 T)e TrmrtJR I, I (PL~2 ~zI), See also the "tncomplerr"Irtmd ~ n t q w w h o nofGenes~s !PL 34 334) 93 Ue Spin!= cr bttmd 1 1 , u,and 63 (PL4 4 107,214,and 242) E p h c k 147 46 (PL35 617) and 2144 (PL 33 970) & Gram et I r h Arbrhl(l \)I, 15(PL 44 &o) % f p u m b 167 (PL 31 733--;1-1) 95 S ~ r79Q(PL38 966-9721 96 Smno 180 JPL38 972-979)

BROTHER OF JESUS, FRIEND OF GOD

"nothlng IS read In church under the name of the dlvlne scriptures except the canonical mnngs." It then 11ststhe Old Testament, and our present canon of twenty-seven wrlttngs, rncludlng James, concluding, "For the confirmanon of this canon, the church across the sea [ - we understand t h ~ sto be the Roman church ] 1s to be consulted."'" The argument depends on a frustranngly small amount of data and a wll~ngnessro take a poslnon on some dlff~cultand obscure potnts. But the process by wh~chJames came to enjoy an unquestioned place tn the canon of the Western church unrtl the ttme of Luther must have been close to the one here suggested. The argument IS that James was wrttten suff~c~ently before the year g~ to have been employed by wrlters In the Roman church by the end of the first century and that this local usage, together w t h Rome's alllance wrh Alexandria and three great doctors' admtratton for Ongen, helped secure James its place. .

97. For the Lartn text, ,we Souter, p. 204. I

0

The Social World of James: Literary Analysis and Historical Reconstnution

In the history of New Testament scholarship, the name Wayne A. Meeks inevitably and appropriately will be associated with the social analysis of early Christianity. Both by his writing and by his teaching, Meeks has demonstrated that a "sociological" approach to the New Testament is not a scholarly fad but a fundamental contribution to historical knowledge. His seminal contributions to the discussion of Christianity's social world have revealed the rich possibilities of the approach and have helped secure at the very least a conviction that earliest Christianity can no longer be understood simply in terms of a "history of ideas." But Meeks's own highly successful forays into the analysis of early Christian social realiries have also suggested certain intractable limitations on what this approach can yield by way of real knowledge. In The Rrst Urban Cbristizns, for example, Meeks built on his own and others'previous studies to provide a rich profile of the Corinthian congregation during the years of Paul's work there.' By combining the close analysis of the Corinthian correspondence with archaeological evidence, and reading these texts for signs of social strucmres and relationships, Meeks was able to illuminate not only the social realities underlying the I Wayne A Meeks, 7hc first Urbrtn Cbrzsf~nrThe S d U y d@he Apa~drPml (New Haven Yale Unrversrry Press, 1983) See also, for example, W A Mreks, "Socrd Functrons of Apocalypnc Language rn Paulrne Chrrsttanrry," m Apoca~phmmtn the M e d m n c a n W d and the Nerlr Cut, ed D Hellholm (Tubrngen Mohr-S~ebeck,1982). idem, "The Image ofrhe A n d q m e Some Uses of a Symbol rn Earlrest Chnsnanrry," HR I ) (1974)165-208, E A Judge, "The Socrd Identrcy of the Frrst Chrrstrans A Qucsr~anof Method rn Rrltgrous Hrstory," Journal of KcIrgrour Hstory 11 (I*) 101-217, A J Mdherbe, Socurl A s p of Ear5 C h -try (Baton Rouge LOu~sranaState Unrrers~wPress, 1939, G Theisen. The SocrPISamrgof Porrlme Chnshilntfy E s q s on Crmnch, mans J Schutz (Phrladelphra Fortress, 1982)

BROTHER O F J E S U S , F R I E N D O F G O D

specific problems dealt w t h by Paul but also something of the umbrella of meaning that provided an ideological framework for the nascent Christian movement. So brilliant was his achievement that it may have raised unrealistic expectations of accomplishment elsewhere. Meeks u~ouldbe the first to acknowledge that the success of his Corinthian analysis depended on an unusual combination of factors: a successfully excavated and archaeologcally rich urban sett~ngthat was also described in ancient literature; a correspondence that nor only dealt with speafic problems in the community bur did so w t h an unparalleled degree of part~culariryand specificity, down to the naming of names; and, finally, the existence of other Christian literature (Acts, Romans) which helped locate this correspondence chronologically and confirm some of the social realities suggested by I Corinthians To a remarkable degree, in fact, Meeks's analysis focused almost exclusively on the Corinthian congreganon, wtth mdence from other Pauline letters and communities offered mainly by way of corroboration. Where a 11ke combtnarion of converging evidence is lacking, sociologtcal analysis of early Chrisnanity can eas~lymean a return to a sligl~cly more complex version of the history of ideas, with the use of sociological/ developmenral models filltng in for the lack of genuine data.* Think what our knowledge - of the Corintllian church itself would really amount to, if I Corinthians - so ror.ted in the real and urban world were no longer extant. 2 Corinthians could lend itself to any number of "mirror readings" concernirlg Paul's rivals, as In fact ~t has R. Hock has offered a slight foothold in realitv bv sketching rhc background to debates concern~ngpayment for serl-ices among Hellenisrlc philosophers, \vt~ichllelps inake sense of Paul's language in z Corinthians 10-12.* But uth+.r\\~ire, 2 (lorinth~ansand the other Pauline letters rend to be read as ev~dencefar theological debates between "Paul and his opponents,'wirh L An early advocate of ;m expltctt curnmtrmenr ro rurfi models \\a J G Cager, Ktng durn ilnd Comrnnnrrj The S o d Worfd of &nanr~ ( E n g i e w d Cltffs, N J PrentrceHall, rg-$1, for the options. see H E Kemus, "Socroioy of Knowledge and the Stud) of Earl) Chrtstutlrn," SX 11 (1982) 4 5 . ~ 6 3 The most elaborate and tnfluenrral exarnpie has h e n D Georgt 7 7 Opponmrs ~ 4 P d m Connrh (1964,Eng trans Ph~ladelphtaFortress, 1*5), bee also C K Barrett. "Paul's Opponents In I1 Cortnthrans " A 7 5 17 (19-1)233-254 Crtncrsm of rhts approach IS hund tn C J A Htckltng, '7s the Second Eprsrle ro the Cortnthranc r Source for k i y (Ilurch HIStory," ZNW 66 (1975)284-287, and rn C K Hollada,. 7hrror Aner rn bgur of dx Use of lhrs Cirtegot-9 rn New Tmtirmmr Chnstdog-) (SBi DS 40, Mruouh, Monr Scholars Press, 1977) 4 K I Hock, 7% Socwl Cantext of Pdul i Mrnr~h) (i'htladelphrn forrras. 198o), (0-65

The Socidl World of James rhe letters rhemselves being chopped into ever finer pieces and arranged in sequence to supply the appropriate reconstruction of the "stages" of such debate^.^ The recent attempt by J. Neyrey to read Galatians in terms of anthropological concepts such as "witchcraft" shows the intrinsic limitations of social-scientific approaches for Pauline letters where rich supporting evidence is lacking: his readings are fascinating and suggestive, but cannot reach much beyond t h x 6 When it comes to the disputed Pauline letters, the evidence is even thinner. M. MacDonald's study of institutionalization in Pauline churches, for example, is forced to make the production of pseudonymous letters itself the major evidence for chat particular stage of institutional d ~ v e l o p m e n t ! ~ It seenis clear that the more we move from occasional literature such as letters ro compositions intended for a wider readership, the more the factors of rhetoric and literary artistry necessarily interpose themselves between the contemporary reader and the social world that may have been presumed by the composition. Likewise, when the text itself reveals little specific information about its social world, the investigator becomes more dependent on theoretical models concerning social groups and their development. The sheer multiplicity of possibilities suggested for the various "communities" presupposed o r addressed by the Gospels raises severe doubts concerning the usefulness of the s e a r ~ h . ~ 5. On z C ~ r ~ n t h ~ abee n s ,the recent attempt along these Irnes by it. de Oliveira, Dte Dtabnre dm (;rn&ngkpjt u d der Versohnung m der Apdoge &s 2 K o r m h ~ f i s Annbse : und Auslepng ten 2 Kor .?,I?-46; ~ , r l d , l o( M A b h n.F. 21: Munster: Axhendorff, ~gqa):for orher f'aultne Letters, see J. T>.son. "Paul's Opponents In Galacia," NorrT ro (1968) 241-154; I<. Jewert, "Confl~crtngMovements ~n the Early Church as Reflected In Philippians," Not*T Ir ( ~ g n 361-590: ) Rr. A. Meeks and F. 0. Francis. Conficr at Colorrat, rev. ed. (SBLSBS 4; Mrunula. Monr.: Scholars Press. 1975). 6. J. h'eyrey, b u l rn 0th U.bnk: A Culrurdl Reddrng ufHts tpttpn (Loursvrlle: U ~ e s t n ~ ~ n srer;John Knox, ~ggo),181-206. 7. M.Y.MacDonald, 7he 'aulme (~bwn-bes:A SoctoHrstoncd Study of~nst~runonjltzahon tn h e 'aulme dm1 &utemP~uftne Wnnngs (SNTSMS 60:Cambridge: C a m b n d p University Press, I*), 86-97; somewhat simrlar 1s the argurner~tationoFM. Wolter, Dze Pi~storalbrwfials P~ulushadrtron( F R L M T 146;Gbrtingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupmcht, 1988), 115-130.As I nored in my revtew ofblacDonald's study ~nJAAR 58 (1990) 716-719, her work lras the stgnificant v~rrueof n~ethodologrcalclarrt). and consrstency; rn ms wew, however, that very qualrry makes t v n nrore douhrtLl the valrdrry of the dmlopment as she exposes tt. 8. 1 have trted to suggest some of the d~fficultiesfor findrng a "communlry" behlnd the Ciospel narracrws 111 "On Ftrlding the Lukan Communrty: A Cautrous Caut~onaryEssav.'\n Socxciy of Brb1jc.d Orer~rure1 9 3 Semmar Papers, ed. P. J. Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, r g ~ q )87.100. ,

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

F R I E N D OF GOD

Not that stunning invention is impossible. By his use of sociological categories concerning sectarianism, Meeks himself masterfully exploited the possibilities of such a theoretical model for unlocking the intricate rhetoric of a narrative text? No one acquainted with Meeks's analysis of the Fourth Gospel's textual ironies as reinforcing the sectarian views of Johannine Christianity can, I suspect, ever totally shake the force of that reading. Yet even so great an accomplishment did not significantly add to our knowledge of John's social world, although it immeasurably sharpened our appreciation of its ideology and literary rendering. More pedestrian attempts to derive from the layered texture of John's narrative or from the sequential arrangement of the Gospel and Johannine letters a "history" of Johannine Christianity must be viewed as interesting but nonconclusive paper chases rather than history.1° Beyond the signals obwous to any careful reader - that this literature reflected experiences of being embattled from without and divided from within; that such division sharpened its symbols into polar opposites; that the causes ofembattlement from without and division from within involved the central figure of Jesus - efforts at reading a "history" out of such fragmentary sources become less plausible the more highly they are developed. Once more, access to the social world of John or his readers is blocked by the lack of controls offered by a convergence of diverse sources from a specific time and place, as well as by the literary character of the texts.'l These observations on the possibilities and problems of reconstructing the social world behind New Testament writings bring me in a chastened mood to the real topic of this essay. What, if anything, can be determined from the Letter of James about the social world of its author or readers? Can the Letter ofJames be rooted in history at all? If so, by what means or with what benefit to the understanding of the letter? On the one hand, we are offered hope because James is so obviously enmeshed in the realities of life and practical wisdom. On the other hand, our hope is 9 Wi A Aeeks, "The Man from Heawn In Johmntne Secrarrantsm,"'JRL91 (1972)4.472

ro For example,J L Marqm, Hlztorysnd ThPology tn h e Fourth Gospel (rev ed ,Nashvrlle Ab~ngcion,1979).Idem, 7k Gospel ofJohn rn Cbrumn HISW (Neu York Paulrsr, 1978),R E Bmm, 7 %Communrty ~ of dn Bclowd D~sopk(New York Paulrsc, 19791,J Painter "The F a well Discourses and the H~scoryof Jnhann~ncChrtstranrry,"'TTS 27 (x9&J-81)5294% 11 Chances are obvtously tmproved ~f the book of Revelat~onIS taken sertously as a source for the h~storyofJohann~ne Chnsrtantw see, e g , E Schtissler Frorenza, "The Quest for the Johann~neSchool The Book of Revelauon and the Fourrh Gospel," in 7he Baok of eon J w a c ~and Judgmpnr (Ph~hdelph~a. Fortress, 1980, 85-11)

7he Somi World oflames qualified by the realization that James's no-nonsense practicality is never clothed with the sort of specific information we desire. In the remainder of this essay I propose to survey some of the ways the social world of James might be approached and assess the chances of success offered by each.

A Social World Suggested by Traditional Authorship The most encouraging possibilities would seem to be offered by the identity of the author, if we could assume that James "the Brother of the Lord" - universally considered the 'l)amesn of the letter's greetingi2 - was the real and not simply the eponymous author. What u.e would gain by this supposition is a writer whose position and importance as a pillar of the church in Jerusalem are attested by other New Testament writers,I3 and rr See the very full drscusstons rn J R Mayor, Thc Eprrdc 4 S t James (3rd ed , London Macmrllan, ~gro), I - h ,J H b p s , A Cnnrd and Exegt-fxal Comm~n*nyon drc Eprrdc af Sr James (Edrnburgh CIark, 1916). 53-74, M Drbelrus,Jirmes A Comnrm*uy on thr kpdcaflhmrr, rcv H Greovn, trans hl A UJrllrams (Hermenera Phrladelphra Fortress. 1976), 11-21, K. P Martln,]dmpr (U'RC 48, Wxo, TCX U'ord, 1988).XXXl-lxtx 13 Paul l~stsJames as a uu.lmrssto the resurncrron In I Cor 157, and may rnclude James rn hrs parsrng reference to those who tra\.cled wrth a ueman/srster "the rest ofthe apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Crphas" ( I Cor 9 5 ) In Galatians, Paul recounts havtng seen James in Jerusalem on his trrp to that ctcy imopfiaar K&&v Yto \~crcCephas"), although hrs language does not make clear whether he regards him as one of the apostles (I 19,camparc the lanprage rn I Cor 157) James IS rncludcd first rn h ~ lrst s of those "reputed to bc prllars" (Soroivrc~m o dvar) ~ in that crcy who made agreement u*rth Paul concernrng the allocatron of rnrssron uwrk (2 9) Frnallv, there are the mvstcrrous "pmple from Jarnes" (nvac,&nb 'laxtjaou) u h o catalyze the problem b e m e n Paul and Cephas tn Anaoch (2 12) In contrast to Mark 6 3 and Marthew 1355, u h o menr~onJames among Jesus' bmthers In a somewhat negatrve context (see J D Crossan, "Mark and the Rclznws ofJesus," NwT 15 119731 81-113). Luke makes no cerran menoon of thrs James (see the ambcgutcy of Luke 6 16. Acts I 13) ur:trl kter'c; exapc from prtson rn Acts 12 1-17 bcforc "depamng to another place." he told the asembit to "~nformJames and the Brochets of these thrngs" (12.~7)The language, cc~getheruqrh chat rn I Cor 9 5 , suggests the picture of James at the center of a spec~algroup called "brothers of the lard"(see also Acts I 14) James appearr twrce more rn Acts as spokrsptson for the J e d e m church, f i n t at the Apostolrc Councrl, where hrs responsc to the debate concerning crrcumcrsron of Genrrle converts u definrnw (Acts IS 1321), and second at Paul's final t n p to Jerusalem, where James and the elders w t h him recommend that Paul deflect charges concemrng hrs reject~anof the law and crrcumcrsron for Jews by pcrform~nga svmhr~lrcact of solrdancy (21 18-25) Frnally, the author of the Letter of Jude rdenaties himsclf as *scr\ant ofJesus Christ and brother of James' (Jude I I, compare Mark 6 3, Mart 13 5 5 )

BROTHER OF J E S U S , F R I E N D O F G O D

who is sufficiently prominent in the public &airs of Jerusalem to have his martyrdom in 62 noted as well by J o ~ e p h u s . 'By ~ this means we would gain as wrell the sort of geographical and chronological controls otherwise so difficult to come by in the analysis of New Testament literature. Geographically, the greeting to "the twelve tribes in the dispersion" ":I) would be unproblematic if written by one residing in J e r u ~ a l e mas , ~\vould ~ the assumption that his readers were, indeed, fellow Jews "holding the faith of our Lord Jesus Christn (2x1. References to "Gehenna" (3:6), "fig-tree, olives, might even be taken as grape-vine" (3x2) or the "early and late rain" ((57) spontaneous evidence for the influence of local conditions.I6 Chronologically, connecting the letter to James the brother of Jesus makes more plausible the simple social structures and activities suggested by the text. The letter contains no sign of the institutional complexities that are supposed to be the marks of a community developing over time. The gathering of the community can be called the ovvaywyil ("assembly or 14 Josephus. Annqurnes ro zoo In contrast to an older crrrrctsm that tended to reject the aurhenticin of the notice (see F C Baur, I"itu1, thr Aposde oflesur Chut, m d e d , ed E Zcller, cms A Mcnzies [London U'1l11ams8L Norgate, I S ~ S ]I ,~ b o )more , recent scholars have tended to credrt 11.see the dtrcusron, w r h literature in J P h4rrer, A ~ V q r n aJru* f Re rhrnfung the Hutorrcuf Jesus,vol I 7lx H w n af Pmblcm ~ n & d Pmvn (Neu York noubleday, rpgr), 58-59, 72-73 James's death IS also recounted (uqth vartaoons) by the account from Hegesippiu found rn Eusebrus, Chrtrch Hrsforv z 23, m d in the Nag Hammadt wrrttng the A M f e of[~mes61-62 15 An alternarrve to the starghrforwardly geographical understanding of "draspora" (6taonapdr) is to understand r t as syn~holr~rng the Cllrrst~ancondicron of berng "exrles, allens, and sojourners" wrth respect to therr heavenly homeland (compare espcrally I Pet I I, r r l , z Cor 5 1-10,Gal 4 26, Phrl I zl-rd, 3 za-21) And the opposrtron bznwen faith and a certain undersrandtng of "the world* rs certanly central to James (see 2 ~ , 4)4 See my essay "Fnendsh~puprth the U'orld and Friendshrp uqth Gad A Stud) of Dtwlpleshrp rn James," pp 202-zzo in thrs volume Bur the two lmels of meantng arc compatible 16 For commenrarres that consrdcrJames ofJerusalem to be the author of thrs letter it IS characrertstrc to entertan the passrbrlirv of "real Irfe" perceptsons brhrnd passages such as 3 12 (we Mayor, Efxsdr, p 124 hlartrn, lame,, p 121,J B A d a w n , Ihc Eplstlr of James [NICNT, G m d Rapids Eerdmans, 19761, I Z ~ ) whereas , commentaries holdrng for preudonymous authorship lean enttrely on l~terarvsources (K~rbelrus,]ames, pp zo+ro5) Mayor ( E p t l p , p cxlrrr) rs convinced that the supposrtron ofearly authorship rs "confirmed hy tncidental allusrons to the early and latter rains (v 7 ) .ro the effect on vegetation of the burning w n d (I 11)-to the existence of salt and brtter sprrngs (rrr II), to the culclvarron of figs and 01rves (111121, and to the netghbrhood of the sea (I 6, r t r 4) "The case ofvtvvr( ("Gehenna") in 3 6 is particularly lnterecr~ngSrnce it docs nor occur in the LYX and IS absent as well from gs the Gospels, rt seems rn Phrlo and Josephus or any other Neu Testament u ~ ~ r i n except panrcular to suggest a knowledge of local Palestrn~anusase ((seeJ Jereniras, )%ivvtl,TDNT 16~-6581

The Social World of James synagogue'" 2:2) as well as tudqala ("assembly or church"; ;:14)." AS for authority figures, the author designates himself simply as a 60O)iw ("servant") of God and the Lord Jesus Christ (I:I) before modestly receding behind his message. He demands no further recognition from his readers and asserts no further role among them, with the exception of carrying, with fellow teachers, the burden of "a greater judgment" (3:1).I8Otherwise, the letter speaks of the "elders of the church" (npufjk~polT& trdqdat;) who are to be called to pray over the sick.lVApart from this collegial leadership - if, in fact, ~ p ~ ~ $ l ~("elders") l & p ~ here l suggests a position of official leadership rather than age - there is no indication of a formal strucrure, with only a passing warning against many seeking to become "teachers" because of the inherent dangers of that role (3:r-2)." Such minimal strucrure fits well within what little we know of the diaspora synagogue in Judaism.*' The same can be said about the straightforward activities of the community mentioned by the text: judging cases (2:1-4), assisting the needy (1~27;2x4-17), teaching (3:1-r), praying and singing (5:13), anointing the sick (;:14), and practicing murual correction ( ~ : 1 6 , 1 9 ) . ~ ~ If James the brother of the Lord wrote the letter sometime around the 17. Compare the use of dmovvaywyrl in Heb r o : ~Although ~. the terms tnrAqaia and owaywyil usuld come in some contexts to signifj. opposition between Christiantty and Ju-

, also continues a more flexible usage in daism (see Justin, f)raloguc u& T ~ p 1h~ . 3 )there which the tern~sare \.irrually interchangeable: see Ignarius, PdPdw 4.2 rp(or the cnmbinarion of ~ ~ ~ o v / in~Trd. x 3.1); ~ SAk ~ ~ h m oaif H m a r , Mbnd 11.9, 13-14; Justin, D&pe uvrh T T P 63.5 ~ 18. The ntle of 6oaAq (*servants) for leaden is acrested in several places rn the firstgeneration Christian literature (Rom I:I; 2 Cor 4:s; Gal I : I ~Phil ; I:I; Col 4:12: 2 Tim 2:24; Titus !:I: t Pet I:I: Jude I: Rev r:r). 19. According to Acts, the leadership of elders was found not only in Jerusalem (15:2.4, 6, u-23; 21:18) but also in "d~aspora"churches of the first generation (14:zj; ZO:I~). Although ~t rs popular to dismiss rhrs portrayal as anachronistic for Pauline churches (see, e.g., F. Prast, Presbyter und Evanglwm rn ~cbdposducher&t: L)IP Abd&s P~~lrrr rn Mdet (Apg 20, 17-38) rm Rahmen der lrckanrschen Kunzpphun der Ewn~~imsverkundrgung [Sruttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, rg7gj), the rvldence of I Tim ,+:I.+;$:I, 17,19;and Titus 1:s should not altogether be disregarded, nor that of I Pet 5:1, 5. 20. For the &lbbUKdcy ( d s o b 6lbhUKwv, &I ~ a q x t S v as ) a first-generation position within the assembly, see Acts 13:1; Rum 12:~;I Cor 1t:zS-29;Gal 6:6; Eph 4:rr. For teaching as a possible double-duty for the elder, see I Tim S:IJ. 21. See Josephus, Anhqurhes 14.260; the inscriptional evidence has been gathered by L. H. Kant, "Jewsh Inscr~ptionsin Greek and Latin," ANRW 2.20 (1987) 692-698. 2 . Far the range of acrtvicles in the synagogue, see Josephus, Anhqurhes 4.211; Agarnsr Apron 2.10: hfi 2g~-jo2;Philo, hfiof Moses 2.216; Spec& LlWS 2.62; b. k 6a; Bcr 64a; Ket. sa; B. Me$. r8b; h.loia; Yeb. 65b.

BROTHER O F

JESUS,

FRIEND OF GOD

middle of the first century, other aspects of this composition also make sense. It has frequently been noted that, despite mentioning Jesus by name only twice (XI; 2:r), this letter appears to know and make use of the Jesus , 5:g, I Z ) . At ~ the same time, the sayings traditions (see, e.g., I:S, 9,12;r : ~8; letter combines a profound appreciation for wisdom (1:s;3x3-18),~together with a vivid sense of the nearness of the napowfa ("coming'') of the Lord for judgment (Z:IZ-13; 3:1;4x1-12;~ : 7 - 9 )Although .~~ I haw misgivings about some of the ways in which the hypothetical document Q has been hypostatized, it is striking that just this combination of features (a concentration on the sayings of Jesus and his return as judge) is taken in Q as characteristic of a distinctively Palestinian form of earliest C h r i ~ t i a n i t y . ~ ~ z j See, e.g., M Shepherd, "The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew," JBL 75 (1956) 40-51- P. Mrnear, "'Yes and No' The Demand for Honesty In the Early Church,* NovT 13 (1971) 1-13, P J Hutrri, "James and the Sermon on the MountiPlan," rn h e f y of B8bhraf Ltimrhrr~1989 S m r t ~ rPA^, ed D J Lull (Atlanta S c h o l m Press, rg8g), 440-57 y See B K. Halston, "The Eptstle ofJames 'Chnstran Wrsdom" in S& Ewngeftcd 4 (1968) 308-jl4, J A. IGrk, "The Meantng of Wudom in Janies Examtnatron of a H p t h e s ~ s , ' ' 16 (1949) 24-@ 25. There are three Lrnes of evidence supporting the posrtron that the comtng of the Lord m 57-9 refers to the return of Jesus rather than the k-rsrtacron of God (I) The term napowla occurs only four trmes rn the LXX and always rn the secular sense (Neh z 6 ,Judrth ro 18, r Macc 8 rz, I$ 21. 3 Macc 3.17) The use rn Tcsummr of]& 22.2 for "the appearrng of the God of rrghteausness" may be an rnterpolanon. In the New Testament, the term can bc usmi rn the secular sen.^ ( I Cor 16:17; z Cor 76-7:1o:ro; Phil I:&; 2:12), but its domrnanr usage rs as v~mrallya m i n u s rpcbnrcws For rhc return of the Son of Man (Mart 24:3,27, n,39; I Cur 15:23; I Thess z:~g;3x3; J:I~; 5:23;z Thess z:I, 8; I John z:d; z Pet 1:16). (2)The use of the w r b M C w ("draw near") rn the perfect tense to express "the Lord IS near" IS srmrlar to the usage in Mark r 17, Matt 3 2.4 r7, ro 7, Luke ro 9,1i, Rom 1311,I Pet 4 7, Phrl j 5, Rev I 3, u 10 (3) The statement of 5 gb, "the judge IS standrng at the doors" (npb r& 8u@v), seems to fit wrthrn the development of the cluster of statemena found In Mark r.):zS-rg; Mart 2432-33; and Rev F20 16 Already James Rapes had observed, "James was rn relrgrous rdeas nearer to the men who collected the saylngs of Jesus than to the authors of the Gospels" lJames, p. 39) It 1s scrrkrng co observe the complete lack of any references to James rn the analyses of Q which dcscrrbc preczselv those preoccupattons that have long been asmc~areduwh James the theme ofjudgment rn a context of wsdom and prophecy; sce,e.g., R A Edwards, A ofQ &&*, Piwphrvy, dnd dudurn (Phrladelphra Fortress, 1976) It rs especially startling when the argument about Q 1s precrsely rrs srmrlartty to other ulsdom tradrtrons and therefore rts conrfortable fit u-rthrn early Palestrnran Jeulsh Chrrst~anrry,set. J S Kloppmborg, 7 h e f i m h o n ofQ 7 rn A m t likdom C d k m n r (Smdles rn Antiqurcy 8r Chnsnanrry, Phrladelph~aFortress, 1 9 7 ) The lrnk ~ 7 t James h called out to be made, and has been recently by P J Hartrn Uames and the Q kytngs U ~ ~ C J U USNTSup I 47, Shefield. JSOT Press, 19911). reachrng conclusrons concernrng the prmvnance of James stm~larto those rn the present essay (see esp. pp. u o - y j )

The Socud Wmld of James Even with such a simple and straightforward hypothesis, of course, great caution would need to be exercised in drawing conclusions froni the text about James's social world." In the first place, the self-presentation of the document itself suggests a broad readership, and one nor lotaced in the same place as the author (I:x)! Throughout the diaspora, furthermore, readers could live in a variety of social situations. Such specific and lively examples as that provided in 2:1-7 must, therefore, be handled gingerly. They can reflect general or typical situations just as easily as they could local ones known to the Similarly, language that seems to derive froni knowledge of local meteorology and horticulture might equally come from the reading of Torah:9 or acquaintance with popular moral tradition^.^ The language of "rich and poor" in James is likewise complex and not easily reducible to conclusions about the economic status of the readers3' James's frequent and fluent use of topoi from Hellenistic philosophy equally resists simplistic conclusions concerning the social situarion being addressed;32it is surely a mistake, for example, to take James 4:1-z 27 The most o h a u s error in method ts to deduce from the c1rcumstance.i of rhr at1 thor the sttuatton of the readers tS Thts, of course, ts the potnt made emphattcally by Dtbeltus,Jamer, pp 2, 46 Yet tt I \ perhaps noteworthy that the analysts that has provlded the fullest understandtng of even a hyporhettcal social context for Jas z 17finds ~ubasts tn spectfically J m s h tradrnons see R B Ward, "Parttlllw tn the Assembly," 62 (1969)87-97 29 For the "early and late run," tn 5 7, see W( Deur 11 14, Hos b 4 jer $24, Jwl113, Zcch to I jo I)csptte the broad resemblance of 3 12 to Mart 7 r6//luke 6 44, Dtbcltus V~tmer pp zoq-205) Its= an trnpresstw number of Stotc parallels, see also Mayor, Eputfc, p 125 31 An adequate analysts of thts language complex requtres (a) maktny approprtatr dtstrncttons between terms for the "poor" ( m q o i , z z, 1 , ~6) , and the "'rtch" (nAohot, r to, 11, z 5, 6 , s I), whtch narurallv bear an economtc sense, and terms for "lowitness" (raxrivbC, etc , I 9, 10,4 la) and "exaltatton" (CwpoC, I 9 , 4 to), which may haw an cconamrr sense but need not, (b) dcterrntntng the u a w such language may serve to demarcate cornrnuntr) boundar~es(e g ,r5-7 $ I, 6). (c) correlactng such language w t h the vartaus chararters and actt\w~esdcxrtbed tn the letter Is the "nch man" who enters the assembly ( 2 2 ) a member of the communtty or an out.itder (2 6 ) >Is the rtch man who "[boasts] tn hrs humtltanon" (1.10)a member of the communtry or an outstder ( I 1r)'Are those who thougilrlesslv engage tn commerce (4 13-15) and oppress daylaborers (5 1-5) the wcked ourstders, or ~ n i t d r nwho have been seduced by the measurement of "the u~rld"(44)' Lkmse, uhar do u e make of rhe abtltn of members of the communtry to feed and clothe the needy (2 14-16)>I t ts easzer to affirm that the author and h n readers shared the tdeolngy of the poor rhan tr IS ro dcduce from that a realtsnc appreciation of the acrual economtc condtttons wthtn uhtch they ltwd 32 See my own artetnpts to tdenttfy some of these topr of Hellenrstrc moral teachrng tn "James 3 13-410 and the Tops mpt +fMvou," pp 182-zor,"The M t m x of Kernembanre

BROTHER O F JESUS, F R I E N D O F G O D

out of its literary context, that is, of a topos on envy, to conclude that the author was responding to Zealot activity in first-century P a l e ~ t i n e . ~ ~ Despite such warnings, it is obvious that the hypothesis of authorship by the historical James ofJerusalem at least provides the possibility for ~ genuine investigation into the social world of the c o m p ~ s i r i o nIt. ~may be appropriate, therefore, to ask why that hypothesis is now so seldom entertained. There is certainly nothing in the letter that prevents its having been written from Palestine in the middle of the first century. All the usual criteria for positing a late dating for New Testament writings are absent: there is no institutional development, no sense of tradition as a deposit, no polemic against false teachers, no highly developed Christology, no delay of the parousia. On the face of it, everything in the letter suggests an early dating rather than a late one. The rejection of traditional authorship is based on a perceived conflict benveen what we think we know of the "historical James" from other sources and the evidence suggested by this letter. Sometimes the hstinctive Greek style of the letter has been cited as a factor against its being composed by James 0fJerusalem,3~but that argument has no real weight; it is now iiniversally acknowledged that Palestine was thoroughly Hellenized and that writers from there could write sophisticated Greek.j6 The real problem has to do with what is believed to be the attitudes and actions of the "historical James" concerning the question of circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses. Although it is rarely stated in such James I:IZ-25,'' pp. 168-181; "'rac~rurnityand True Rel~gon:James 1:26-27,- pp. 155-164,all in this volume. 33. See M. T Townsend, "James J:I-14: A UJarnlng Against Zealotry!"' hp'iirn 87 (1975) 211-13. 34. Notlee, for example, that by working with traditional a~lthorshipMayor is able to lorare the poor in the Christian communltzes of the dlaspora, and the rich oppressors in thelrJru~shcompatriots (Eprsde, pp. cxuxviii-cxli);whatever one thinks of his argument, his prernise at least enables the Inquiry. 35. "Nor does the language of our text polnt to an author who spent hts life as a Jew In Palesrtne" (Dibclius, Jrrn~es,p. 17). 36. Thus. Dibelius himself adds a foornote U~mes,p. 17 n. @) that cancels the opinion just cited; see also J. N. Srvenstcr, Do You Knou~Grpek? (NovTSup 19; Leiden: Brill, I$@), 3-21; hd. Hengel, J d u m and HeIImm: Studrei m Thetr Encounter tn Palestine dunng rhr hr!y Helientstrr Rmuri, trans. J. Bowsden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1g74),56-106. But the habit is hard to break. Even after answering the objections to James's ability to write such Greek, Martin (p. lmiii) 1s compelled to add: "on the several grounds of the letter's style, its Jeuishness in tone and content, its post-Paul~neamblenee . . . it seems hardly to have been written as tt stands by James of Jerusalem." So Martin invokes a two-stage theory of composirion (p. h w 1 ) .

The Soci;~lWorld ofJames

bald terms, James is taken to be not only a representative ofJewish Christianity but specifically the source of the so-called judaizing movement that was fundamentally hostile to Paul's Gentile mission.

Challenge to Traditional Authorship The essential body of evidence comes from the only firsthand source contemporary with James, Paul's Letter to the Galatians. In the namtio that forms the first part of his argument in gala ti an^,^^ Paul mentions James three times. When Paul went up the first time to Jerusalem after his conversion, he visited Cephas, "but I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother" (Gal I : I ~ )When . he went u p by way of revelation after fourteen years ~ 4 t Titus, h "James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised" (Gal 2:g). So far, nothing but Paul's acknowledgment of James's position and James's reciprocal acknowledgment of Paul's. Then, when recounting his altercation with Cephas in Antioch, Paul attributes Peter's change of behavior and "insincerity" to the arrival of "certain men from James": before they came, Cephas had eaten with Gentiles, but after they came, he withdrew from such fellowship (Gal 2:12). Now the difficulty of this text for learning much at all about the "historical James" is obvious. Paul's dispute is with Cephas, not with James, nor even the men from James. Nor does Paul suggest that the "men from James" were on an official mission from that leader. The way these cornments get turned into a portrayal ofJames as Paul's opponent is, first, by identi*ing the "false brethren" who threatened Paul's liberty in Gal 2:q with these "men from James," as representatives of a circumcising party, and, second, by connecting "those unsettling" the Galatians by advocating circumcision (Gal 5:12)with emissaries sent o u t by James.38 By an even 37 For the rhctor~calFunctron of the rwrratro, see H V Betz, Galiltwns (Hermetiria Phthdelph~aFortress, 1979). 58-62, 83 38 See Baur, Paul, he Apostle ofJesus Christ, I 122-23 n I , I 136, the men from Jame.i are " h ~ declared s focs and opponents" ( I ref), Raur rs crrcumspect, however, In artrzbutztjg rhr troubles In Galatla d i ~ c c l vto James, although Paul's opponent5 there rrprrsent James's party ( I 250-257) More recentlv, see M Hmgei. Arts and the Hutmy of Earlatst Cfmstdjnrrj., trans J Houden (Phrladelphra. Fortress, I*), 112-126 See also h ~ argument s for the earl) danng of James and rts character as a contemporary and sustarned IF indirect polem~c aganst Paul, in "DerJakobusbrtefds ann-paulmtxhe Polemlk,"in Trdtnon ~ n Intwpnzr d

B R O T H E R OF JESUS, F R I E N D OF G O D

further extrapolanon, Paul's "opponents" in Ph~lippland Corinth as well are then connected to a coherent program of represston ulttmacely denving from the Jewtsh Christlantry of the Jerusalem church over whlch James ruled.39 I t should be obvious that these connecnons are nor required by the text of Galattans. if Paul hlmself saw his problems either in Jerusaiem or In Galatla as sremmlng from James, he was remarkably retlcent and roundabout 111 hts complaint. In fact, James may well not have had anychtng to do wlth Paul's troubles in etcher place. The tone of Paul's comments tn Gal I : I and ~ 2:g IS entirely posinw (as, for that matter, IS h u reference to James In I Cor IS:^). But once Galatians is read thts way, then the evtdence of Acts 12:17;IS:I-21;and 21x7-26 1s taken nor as a hlstorlcally accurate portrayal of cooperation between James and Paul bur as a parnally succecsful cover-up for a relatlonshtp characterized by mutual h o s n l ~ t y . ~ ~ Then, the admlctedly legendary account In Hegestppus concerning the death of Jamesa is taken a t least as confirmatton of James's place In the '~erusalemC a l l p h a ~ e "and, ~ ~ together wlrh an unreasonably high valuatbP NPfl* Tc~tomncE s s y in Homr of F Ear& tUu,ed G f Hawthorne wrth 0 Rccz (Grand Raprds Ecrdmurs, 1987). 248-278 39 See b u r " drscussron whether the "Chrrst Paw" rn Connrh mrghr bc explrcrtly associated wrth James, he seems almost convmced, but of course the demands of hts system w t h the Jrulsh Chnsrequire that there be only two real Ypartres."sa lame5 IS -rated n m ~ wof Peter (Pa~1,tbe A p t & of Je$w Chrst, I 265); see also the drscussron of the 'superayostles" rn 2 Corrnthrms, and James" s r a t r o n uqth them (I zn)For a mom recent renderrng of thrs vtew, see P Achtemeter, 7hc Quatfbr Unrg m & hku Tstcimmf Chmb (Phrladelphra Fortress, I*?), 59-61 jo An e m n t n l pur of Baur's mconstrucoon of the conflrct beoreen the Paulrne and Jewrsh-Chnsnan parries, of course. IS the desrrucnon of the credibrlrry of Acts rn the key passages dealrng wrrh Paul's relatronshrps w t h Jerusalem (Pad, the e s d e ofJrsur C h t , I rro-rrr, 125-126 n I, 129) Sec Achtemerer, & Qllcsrfor Unq, pp 29-55 JI That the account rn E u ~ b r u sChrtrdt , H L ( 223 ~ IS filled w t h patently ficttnous elemenrs IS otn?otts to anyone who carefully examrnes rt (a the comments of Drbelrus, Jirmes, pp 15-17, and Martrn, James, pp xlv~rr-ltv)What IS more surpnsrng IS the hold tt has on schohrs' rmaginarrons "Thrs legend from Hqgcsrppus cannot be consdered a sertous rr\.;11 to the short, clear, and pmsvc statement ofJosephus tiouwer, rt is valuable ar emdence o f Jeuqsh Christian ptcty, and moreover rt sketches the Image of rhe 'just'James whtch wu current tn certvn crrcles of Jnvrsh Chrrscran~ry"(Drbelrus,Jam% p 17) +t Other prrmlry texts support the ptcntre ofJames's spccral role See the account tn Eusebrus (dertved from Clement's Hympm) concerning the rnstallaaon of James on the 'throne af the btshopnc of the church tn Jerusalem" bv the apostles themselves, Clement had also made James a drrect recrptent of "the tradiaon of knowledge" (yvGa~)from Jesus after the resurrectran, a pomayal that accords ouctly wtth that tn the Nag Ham& wntrngs asoc~ateduqth James (see Eusebrus, Cbrrrcb H q 2.1 2-5) There rs also the fragmenhen m

The SociiIl U'orld oflames

tion of the Pseudo-Clementine literature, is thought to reflect the character ofJewish Christianity in some sort of continuity with an earlier historical A number of observations need to be made about this reconstruction of the "historical James" as an opponent of Paul. The first is that it is even on its own terms a fragile restoration, dependent more than it might like to think on presuppositions concerning the rival "parries"in early Christianity derived from the Tiibingen school,*" and requiring the connection of a good many pieces that need not be connected at all.* Second, the disrary passage from ne (;ospel of the Hebreur (crtcd by Jerome In De Vrm IU)(rh~bw2) thar appears rn make James the f i n t wtness of the resurrcctron For the language of "caliphate," see, e g , K Mmd, "&r Herrenbruder Jakc>bus und der Jakobusbrref Zur Frage etnes urchrrsrltchen Kalrfirs," 772 69 (1944) 97-104 43 "The Eblonttes are generdy q a r d r v i as mere herettcs, but their connectran uwh the onpnal Jcwtsh Chrrsttanrty ts unmrstakable Thus their \.rewofthe Apostle Paul rs no ~snhttxi phenomenon" (F C Baur, Chnrrrh Hfitory of& Ftrsr 7 h e Cmrtlnq 2 w l s [Landon Urtllrams and Norgate, 1878-791, I go) More recently, see H J Schoeps, Thpdop and G~ffhtcht@ dCI ]udenchrutntrums (Tubingen. Mohr-Srebcck, 1949),69 The parts of the extraordrr~arilycomplex collectrall called the Pseudo-Clemencrne lttcrarure char are regarded hy adwxates of such wews as denwrlg from the Ebtonrces and reflecting early percepaons are the Epu"h Pmt ad ]~obum and the Contesatzo (Schocps, Thedup, p go) The map? secnons that cantzun the most expl~cttpolemtc agarnsr (supposedlv) Paul under the gutse of Srmon M a p are k v v m s 143-72 (rncludtng a role p l a d by "the enemy" rn the death ofjames, 70-71) and Homdvs 11, 16, XI. 3y, XVIJ, 13-19 The rdenttficauon of those called Ebrorures (Irenacus, Advmur H ~ n r u Ir 26 2, Orrgen, C m o C&m tx)ISesscnctal for Raur" p w n o n . But see L Kcck, "The Poar among the Szunts rn the N w Testament," ZNUI $6 (1965) 109-129, tdem, "'The Poor among the Sarnts rn Jeulsh Chrtsnanrcy and Qumran," 7 M 5 7 (1966) 54-78 The hr~tortcrryof the Ebtonitc.5' "flrght f m n Jeru.dem" ~ to P e h - essenttal to maktng the cannecnon betuven thrs group and the Jerusalem communtty - has been challenged. G Ludemann has d e x n k d rt as a legend servlng to legttrmate rhu wrsron ofJeuqsh-Chnsnanrr).; see "The Successars of Pre-70 Jerusalem Christ~anttyA Crrtlcal Evaluanon of the Pella Tdatton," tn Jtumk dnd C h nan S p l f - W i ed ~~ E P Sanders (Phriadelphta Fonreu, I*), I 161-73 44 For a cnoque of the entire premise that undergrnis so much of the T u b t n g n p r q ect and remans as a staple of htstorrcal reconscrucnons, namely, the t h m l q ~ c a distxnctton l bcovren the "Hellenrsts" and the "Hebrcu*~" In the Jerusalem church, wrth the figure of Stephen p m d t n g the neceswv brrdge k - e c n che "Hellent.rts" and Paul (as st111rn Hengel, Aca ond Iht Hrrlory of Eadczt C h a n r t y , pp. 71-80),see now C C H111,HeUmtsa ,andHebrews Redppm~ngD ~ ~ w owrrhtn n the Eurfrut Chnrrch (Mrnneapolts Fortress, rggz), among other things, Htll argues for the fictronal character of the Hegesrppus story thar has prwcn so Influentral rn shaprng the Image of James (pp 18j-rqr), argues that the Jerusalem church on the basts both of Acts and of Galatrans IS shown by our best sources to be in fundamental agreement w t h Paul (pp 1 4 ~ 1 ~and 7 ) clalms ~ thar James ts cxpl~crrlynor an opponent of Paul (pp 183-192) 45 For more neutral drscusstons ofUJeuqsh-Christtaniry"that recognize the complcxr.

BROTHER OF

JESUS, FRIEND OF GOD

covery of the Nag Hammadi writings shows us that the figure of James could be developed in quite a different direction by later parties seeking legitimation in the founding figures of the Christian movement. In the Nag Hammadi writings, James is not connected to circumcision or the observance of the Law or hostility toward Paul. The place of honor held by James in this Gnostic collection suggests that, like other eponymous figures in earliest Christianity, he was capable of various exploitation^.^^ Wle are thereby given the salutary reminder that the "James" of Hegesippus and the "James" of the Pseudo-Clementines are not necessarily any closer to the historical James than is the 'yarnes" of the Nag Hammadi Library. Third, and most critically, the Letter of James - at the very least one of the earliest witnesses concerning James - simply does not support this picture. Despite the lingering influence of Luther's dictum that James "drove you back to the law,"47contemporary readers are increasingly coming to agree with Calvin that such an opinion was a form of "absurdity."* James's references to the "perfect law, the law of liberty" (1:25),we now see, have nothing to do with a demand for circumcision or the keeping of ricual commandments. Nothing in James could possibly be construed as part of a judaizing program, much less one directed against Paul. Rather, James's understanding of "the royal law" (2:8) involves the keeping of the Decalogue and the moral commandments of Lev 19:1r-18.~~ James cakes the same moralizing approach to the Law as we find in such Jewish parenetic texts as the Testaments of the Tu~elvePahiarcbs and the Sentences of Pseudo-Ph~cylides.~~ Far from being a point-by-point rebuttal of Paul's ctes of categorization and hisrorical identificarion, see J. Danielou, ~ l o g t dw e ]& Chruaanrsme (Bibliotheque de Theologre; Taurnai: Dexlee, I~sS), 17-98; S . K. Riegel, "Jewish Chnsrlanltv Defintoons and Termtnology," hT5 24 (1977-78)410-415 46 James rhe kghteous IS called one "for whose sake heaven and earth came tnto betng" and ts recommended as a leader after Jesus' departure in Gospel of 7 h o w 12 He a p pears w t h Peter as the source of a "secret book" rewaled by the Lord in the Apacrypban of James, and as a Gnosnc reacher tn the Frrst Apocalypse o/lames and the Second Apocidypse of James 47 See the preface to the Letrers of James and Jude tn hts "Preface to the New Tesramenr"' of 15u, tn Luther's Worbr,vol 35 Wwd and Snrramenr I, ed E T Rachmann (Phlladelphta Muhlenburg Press, ~ g ~ g395-397 ), 4 J Calv~n,Commenrarm on the C;rrholu:Epudes, trans and ed J Owen (Grand Raptds Eerdmans, 1948).314-315 49 See my essay "The Use of Lev~ncus19 tn rhe Letter ofJames," pp 123-135In chis volume 50 The resemblances ro the Testaments were noted espectalfy by J H Ropes,]ames, pp 20-21, see also my essay "James 3 13-4 lo and the Topos ncpi M w t l , " pp 18.1-zor In rhts MIume See also M de Jonge, "Light on Paul from rhe Testaments ofthe TTwie &tr*zrcbs%"tn 7he

The Soclal Wmld of James

teaching in Gal r:tj-16.James's discussion of "faith and works" in 2x4-26 uses those terms in quite a different fashion:' elaborating the moralist's concern that profession be enacted by specific deeds (compare Jas j:ij), and agrees substantially with the position stated by Paul in Gal ~ : 6 . ' ~ Remarkably, however, despite three substantial objections to the standard historical reconstruction of James of Jerusalem, the portrayal still has sufficient influence to make scholars uncomfortable with the notion that the jerry-rigged portrait is wrong, and that this letter may actually represent the straightforward views of the historical James. Instead, it is simply assumed thar something in the traditional picture must be right and chat the Letter of James must come from a later, pseudonymous author. Despite a grudging admission that James and Paul were talking about two different sorts of things, scholars have not been able to rid themselves of the besetting sin of virtually all historical reconstructions of earliest Christianity, namely, that Paul has to figure in the equation someSoml U'orld of& F~rstChrunanr: Esrdyr rn Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, ed. L. M. Vl'%tte and 0 . L. Yarbrouyh (hftnneapolts: Fortress Press, 1995),roo-115.On Pseudo-Phocyltdes, see P. W. van der Worst, The Senrencts of I'reruio-PIqlzdes ( S \ T P 4; Leiden: Rrtll, 1978), 126, 295; tdem, "Pseudo-Phocyltdes and the New Testament," ZNU) 69 (1978) roz. 51. The maln problem u-lth the putative James-Paul opposition on rhts point is rhar it stmply refuses to take Into account the full range of meaning in erlher author. Paul is reduced to parts of C;alatrans/Romans. and James is reduced to XIJ-26. Yet tt is obvious that Paul in those places ts aryutng a contrast hemseen €pya TOO \dpou ("works of the law") and n i u n ~XpioroO ("faith of Chrtst"), whereas James IS arguing thar nim~ &00 (('fath of God'') requtres expresston tn €pya ximq ("works of faith"). Thus, James says in z:z2, "firth couvrked hts works and out of the uvrksfartb was perfected." The connecttons In each author, furthermore, are more complex than the dtscusston usually rakes Into account. The use of tpwv in Jas 1:4 and 3:13 musr be considered. Equally, Paul's use oftpyov IS much wder than often supposed (see Rom 13:3,12;14:zo: 15:18; I Cor j : t j - ~9:1; ~ ; 15:58; 16:ro;z Cor 9:s: II:IS: I Thess 1:3; 5x3; 2 Thcss 2:17). If the enttrr Paultne corpus IS considered, over 50 occurrences o f t p ) fit ~ ~perfectly w t h the meantng tn James, whereas only 17fit Paul's narrower polemtc purpose. Note that Paul can speak uithout embarrassment abour "your uvrk of fath" (tpyov +?c man%) in I Thcss i:j and of the "work of fatrh in power" (tpyov nime.q tv livvdpct) tn 2 Thess I:II;and if we can make bold to use the Pastorals, Titus 1:16, "They c l a m to know God bur deny htm by thctr works." accords perfectly uith Ja$2:rg. 52. Thts IS the conclusion reached by an exquistcelv argued letter wrtrten by h e r u s , the Monophystte patrtarch of Antioch (ca. 465-538), to a Julian, who uw probably the Monophystte brshop of Haltcarnassus (d. after 518); see Zachary the Khetorlctan, Gpzta Selectd ex Hrstorra Dcfes~sncae,sect XIX (PC; 85: 1176-1178).The entire pacrtsttc and medieval traditton concerntrig the apparent contradtction was that there ura..none, a view nowhem more trenchantly conveyed than by Erasmus, "\'erum Paulus illrc opera vocat observatlonem Legis Mosatce, htc sennr de offictts preraris et charitatis"; see In Eptsmbm ]acobr tn Opera Omnw (1516: repr. London: G r e g , 1962),6:1o31.

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF G O D

where. Although it is a historical fallacy of the plainest sort to ~nferfrom

Paul's canonical importance data relevant to his historical importance, scholars continue to read whatever is different from Paul with reference to Paul, rather than allow i t to stand as simply different.s3

Pseudonymous Authorship and the History o f Ideas Deciding for pseudonymous authorship does not by itself mean abandoning hope for finding the social world of James, but it makes the quest more dtfficult, if only because the number of variables automatically increases. In reality, the decision to regard James as pseudonymous has tended to place James not in a specific social context but within a temporal development of ideas. If the letter is not by the historical James but by a pseudepigrapher, then it must be not only later than James but also later than Paul. Why? Not because there are any indications within the text of the letter itself that suggest a situation inconsonant with that of the first generation, but because Paul is the only stable point of reference available. And if the letter cannot be taken as a response of the historical James to the historical Paul, then it must represent a response of a certain kind of Christianity to a certain brand of Paulinism. The conflict model used by the Tiibingen school is demonstrated by F.Kern's 1835 study oflames. Although he designates James as a "sittlicheparaenetische" letter,J4he nevertheless works to place it within the movements of early Christianity. To do this, he aligns nvo major themes of the letter: that dealing with the rich and poor and that dealing with faith and works. By this means he locates the intended recipients of the letter as second-generation Jewish Christians who are being marginalized by Gen.~~ teaching of faith and works is, therefore, sometile C h r i ~ t i a n sJames's 53 k c ,e g , E Lohsc, "Glaube und Werke Zur Theologie des Jakobusbrtefes," Z W 48 (199)I-uIn the ltght of my remarks belou about Dtbcltus's tnconstscency t t should be noted that he clearly saw the fallac~ousnessof rrytng to pull Paul Into wery equatton "Yet, only too eastly we fail tnto the error - whtch, to be sure, IS fostered by the character of the materials preserved from the early Chrtsttan period - of thtnktng that Paul influenced every branch of euly Chrtsttanrty Thts IS,In fact, an error " Uitmes, p 118) 5 J See F H Kern, Der Chdracterund h p n g d e r Bnefisjacobr (Ttibtngen Fues, 1835)~ 5 55 See Kern, CIMradtr, pp 24,36,Kern argues that James had to know Paul's letters e w n though ~t IS not a dtrect attack on the person of Paul (p 25), and that on the Issue of rtghteousness Luther was correct James and Paul are ~ncompattble(pp 11-17,44)The stmtlmry ofJames to the Letter of Clement and the Pseudo-Clemenones suggests a ttme after the apostol~cage but Lefore the wrtnng of the Ps~uda-Clementmes(p 86) Note here the as-

The Socral WorM ofJames

thing of a rapprochement between these competing parties.s6 Likewise F. C. Baur (who expressly approved Kern's reading) considered the Letter of James - though incompatible with Paul's teaching on r i g h r e o u ~ n e s s-~ ~ to be part of that synthesizing movement that helped shape catholic C h r i ~ t i a n i c yIn . ~ ~the same tradition, Hans Joachim Schoeps refuses to consider James in his elaborate reconstruction of "Jewish Christian Theolo g y , ' " ~ ~ in an excursus devoted to the letter, he defines it as a postapostolic writing of "Jewish Christian but not Ebionite" character and of basically an "anrignostic" tendency.sq More recently, J. Jeremias argued in similar fashion that James's teaching on faith and works was intended to correct a misunderstood and misused P a u l i n i ~ m . ~ Whatever the merit of these respective positions, their inadequacy for enriching our understanding of James's social world is obvious. Because they need Paul as a control, they isolate within James only that aspect which can be brought into conversation with Paul, namely, the section on faith and works (234-26).Not only does this perpetuate the fallacy of treating Paul as the essential pivot point for all early Christian history; it distorts James's discussion in 214-26by treating it as a "response" to a theoretical position putatively held by Paul, rather than as an integral part of James's own argument. Finally, by making 2x4-26 the only section of James of compelling interest, it fails to take into account those other features ofJames's text that might prove instructive precisely concerning the "world" inhabited (or at least imagined) by this text.

Social Setting Through Genre? The magisterial commentary by M. Dibelius placed its entire tnterpretiw weight on a decision concerning the genre of James. Dibelius regarded the epistolary format as nothing more than a formal adornment. James was resumptran of cont~nurtybetween the Jerusalem church of the firsr generatton ("the poor among rhe sants,"Rcm 15 26, Gal 2 ro) and the later group ~dentrfiedac '"rheEbtonrres " I t IS nor shocking thax Kern made che rdmnficanon, hut drsprte work such as that noted In n 43, h, the equation IS scrlI somcrtmes made ;lr if rt were ubnous, see Hmgel, Am and rhr Hasmy of Earfiat C h m m t y , p I 18 56 Kern, Chr~m, p 58 9 Haur, P d , dw Apsiir ofJesus Chnsr, z 297-31.) 58 Baur, 77x Chn* Htrrrr) oj rhc F m T h e Cenmnn, r 128-rjn 59 S c h ~ p s , r rrd GrcJnchu des mitJ4ms. pp 343-349 Cxr J Jeremias, " h u l and Junes,"EspTm 66 (1955) 368-371

BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

O F GOD

ally a form ofpame~is.~' This meant, for Dibelius, that James m a s a relatively structureless compendium of wisdom traditions with no specific reference to time or place. Topics are taken up as much because they are the expected topics for the genre as because they addressed specific social situation^.“^ It was possible to describe certain broad aspects of James's outlook, such as that concerning wealth and but the characterizations were ideational rather than social. In effect, Dibelius's decision on genre seemed to cut James off from any connection to the real world, allowing i t to float in the sea of generalized wisdom traditions with little distinctive character of its own. Given his overall commitment to the exegetical consequences of this generic decision - so much so that he treated each unit atomistically, disallowing in principle the possibility of contextual analysisa - it is surprising to find Diklius still insisting on James's connection to Paul in z:1426, proving how powerful that particular assumption has been!6s Recently, however, L. Perdue has taken the generic analysis ofJames in the opposite direction. He has suggested that the genre ofJames might actually provide a sort of back-door entry to the social world of the writing. Perdue agrees with the designation of James as parenes~s.~~ But he is convinced chat this literary genre, as a subset of wisdom literature such as we find it reaching back into antiquity$' demands a certain kind of social 61 See Drbelrus, James> p 6 2 Ibrd , pp 3-5

I

6 3 In Drbeltus's lengthy drscussron ("Poor and R~ch.' pp 39-45),he sketches the plety of the * p r of the Lord,"wrthrn whrch James stands Bur desprte h ~ earlter r uparntng(p 11) that "the admontttons ~nJames do not applv to a single audrence and a srngle set of crrcumscances n tr tlotpou~bleto construct a stngkjkme rnto u~btrbtbcj allfF (111semphasts), the legacy of Kern and Baur remans strong I>lbelrus suggests that the most hkelv place" ushere thrs pauperrsttc plety w u l d haw survlved was in the churches of dtaspora Juda~sm"where the consrstency of Paul 1s alren" (p 43) 6 4 Dtbelrus, j~ntes,pp 2-3 He coilld scarcely be more emphatrc \Y;ttli orrgrnal rtalrcs, he declares (p 6) "It seems ~IJ me 64:bk lrtmry e t w h h o n of]& depends tompierely upon the ml u m ofhu v s t t o n . " and tn hts exegests he sttcks to that prlnctple (see, e g , pp m7-208) 6s Just how, deeply conflrcted 1)tbeltus was can be tndtcard by hrs painful d ~ x u s s t o n on pp 17-18, where he rnstscs that Jas z SJ-26"cannot be comprehended u~rthoutthe prevlous acr~vlgof Paul pr the letter presupposes not only Paul's formulacton of the questton about the Lau but also the resolutron of Paul's struggles regardtng the Law," and pp 29-30, where he must argue that the passages ~nJames u htch seem to habe an otn~rousatxntry wrrh Paul (e g ,Jas I 2-4 and Rom 5 3-5) are to be expisrned on a basts other than a kncwledge of Paul s letters 66 L G Perdue, "Paraenesrs anit the Eprstle of James," 7NW 7 2 (1981) Z J I - Z J ~ 67 L C Perdue, "The Death of the Sage and hforal Exhortation From Anc~entNear Eastern lnstrucnons ro Greco-Roman Paraenests," %mew s o (1990) 81-109

setting. Specifically, the formality of "father to son" transnlission of wisdom so typical of wisdotn/parenetic texts fits the state of liminality (and therefore danger) that occurs in moments of transgeneratiorial change. Parenetic literature provides a medium for safe passage across such moments of crisis." With this sort of rough-and-ready equivalency model, che identification of James as parenecic would seem to demand its production a t such a momenc in the history of Christianity, and its function as an instrument of resocialization and relegitimation of the social world of the readers. Perdue suggescs a situation when the author is either separated from the readers (and must write a letter) or about to leave them bec a ~ ~ of s eage and approaching death (a farewell address).69 When I read Perdue's first effort along these lines, I was not convinced,'O primarily because I considered parenetic literature more diverse in character and capable of being fitted to a variety of social situations. I doubtcd that direct concl~~sions could be drawn from -genre to social world.?' Recently, however, more careful attention has been paid to these connections. J. G. Gammie has pursued the variety in literary (material and formal) characteristics within wisdom/parenetic writings.'* And L. G. Perdue has greatly refined his analysis of the sociczl worlds of parenesis, recognizing that parenesis can function variously within them For purposes of conversion o r socialization o r legitimation. In such situations, parenesis serves to establish o r confirm order.i3 Rut it is Perdue's perception of some parenetic texts as serving a "conflict" function that is particularly interesting. In these cases, parenesis 68 L G I'erdue, Lrmtnaitn as a Soclal Serrrng for Wrsdom Instructron," ZAW 93 (1981) 114.126 69 Perdue, "Paraenesrs and the Ep~stleof fame\," pp 250 271 70 1 commented on rr ncgactvely In Frrendshtp ~ t the h Wforld and 1-rrend\h~purth God." p 204, rt 13 and "The hlrrror of Kementbrance." p 168, n I, both rn rhrs volume 71 See, e g A J Malhcrbe, Mord kbortacron A Greco Rornirn Sourtebwk (Lrbran*of Carly Chruttanrr)., Phtladelphta Wesrmtnstcr, 1986),23-29 For bfalhcrbe's vreus on the relanon-,hrp betueen Irterary prvducrron artd socral secrrngs, see Suncll ilspecu of Early Chnsnan 16,2nd ed (Pht1adelphta bortres\, 1983) 29-59 h4alherbe had In v ~ A w Derssmmn's faat of lerter wrrttng' mous theus An atrempt ro drrne somethtng of an " ~ m p l ~soctology (p 87) has recmrh been essayed by S K S t i m r s on the b a r s of the ancient classrficat~ons of Ietrer wpes, see ‘Social lyptficatron and the C1;lscrficatton of Anctenr Lwttcrs," rn Tbe So d World of Fonnah~~e CChnshitnrh ~dufludaarn, ed J Neucner, P Rorgen, et a1 (I'hrladclphra Fortress, 1988),78-89 72 J G Gamm~e "Par,aenet~c Llterarcre lo\rard the MorphoIogv of a Secondart Genre, ' Semna 50 (1990) 41--7 73 L L Perdue "7 he Socrai Character of Paraenesrs and Paraenetrc Lrteracure." Senreza so (1990) 19-26

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

F R I E N D OF GOD

serves to "subvert" the broader cultural values (those of the Gesellschafr)in order to reafftrm the values of an inner group that has withdrawn from that larger society (as a Gemeinschaft). Here "a different social reality is constructed, and efforts are undertaken to protect i t from the threat of outside worlds," clearly a "sectarian position." Perdue locates the Letter of James as an example of such subversive parenesisi4 Although he does not himself explicitly make a connection between James and Q, i t is striking that Perdue lists as another example of such "conflict" parenesis "the sayings source Q, produced by an early Christian community before the fall o f J e r u ~ a l e m . "Thus, ~ ~ the genre analysis tends to confirm the connection between James and the early Palestinian traditions about Jesus suggested earlier. To some extent, Perdue is pursuing the principle already enunciated though not systematically applied by Dibelius, namely, that an author's "voice"can be heard even in parenetic literature through analysis of the "selection and arrangement of traditional thought and of the new emphasis which he gives to it,"% as well as his own conviction that the way toward the analysis of social function is through comparative analysis."" But that project might be pushed much further. What might we learn ifwesysitemczticalb compare James to other recognizably parenetic/wisdom writings across the cultural spectrum of the Mediterranean world, as a way of checking what James might be expected to include but does not, and what it does include that might not be anticipated? Among the distinctive (though not necessarily unique) characteristics ofJames that emerge from this comparison is the letter" focus on a community ethos rather than simply individual behavior,'* on moral behavior 7 1 Ibld, pp rdr7. tn thls artrcle, hrs type dtstrncttons make the final determtnarron concerntng James mare convtncrng than tn "Paramesrs and the Eptstle of James," pp 25556

75 Perdue, "Soctal Character of Paraenesrs," p 14 76 Dlbelrus, jrrmes, p 11 "Anv suggesnons about concetvable soctal setttngs fot the parenests ofJames must necessarily be mferennal and analogrcal, based on a varrery of other paraenetlc texts"

n

("Paracnes~sand the Eprstle of James," p 247) 78 The p u p IS always b a n g addressed m James even when rndtv~dualcases are berng constdered, the exhortanon rn the majortry of ancrent parenthc texts IS to the rndrwdual see, e g , Inscrnchm of rhe V z m P&Horep (AhrE7; pp J I Z - ~ I~~l l s)r ,n C C t J ~fbr ? I Ktng Men-Ka-Re (AN- pp 414-418)~ Inrrmcmn ofKzng Amen Em Het (ANE1; pp 4x8-419),Instrnrmn of Prrnce Hm-Dedpf ( m c p 419), fnsmchon ofAnr ( M 7 ; pp ~ 2 0 - @ I )~nrmwhm , of Amen-Em-Opet (mpp 4 2 1 - ~ )Coutlcek % ofW&m (AhrR; pp 416-4271, U r d ofivnqar (ANt?; pp 427430), the book of Proverbs, Qohelcth, Slrach, the Sentences of Psewio-PhoCylrdos, Pscudo-

7Y?e Socicll Worfd of 1drnc.s

rather than on manners,- on an ethics of solidarity rather than of compet i t i ~ n . ~ Bur O equally worth considering are the elements typical of parenesis chat are entirely lacking in James. It is not remarkable that James should use kinship language, for it is universal in wisdom writi n g ~ .What ~ ' is remarkable is that James lacks completely any generational Instead, James" use of kinship language such as is found even in kinship language is entirely egalitarian.83 Far from reflecting the tensions of generational change, James lacks even the conventional use of generational language. It is also remarkable chat James should find no nerd to speak of sexual ethicsa4or of marriage,w since these are, once more, cornmon fare in parenesis, including the parenetic sections of other early New Testamenr letters.& Nor does James cake up the subject of the care and Ixxrates, To Demontcus; the Sentences of Satus; and the Srntencesof SWC hlmnctm A partla1 exception 1s the Testaments of tbe hew112 Paharchr.

79. See Prov 2j:I-9; Sir 4:27-31; 7:l.); 9118; 31:Iz-30; 3211.9; Wmdr ofAhrqar x.Iq2ff.; Counsrls of Wisdom 20; Sentmrrs of SF Menan& 11-14,~-62, gg-1o1,148-153,181-18.+; To Dmonrms I j, 20, 27, 41; Sentences ofSextur 149, IF, 164, 252, 265; Sentences of'Ps& 81-82, 98,123, 147-148, 156-158, 211-212; Insmurwns of Vtuer Plrrh-Hotcp 139; Insfrucmn of Amen-Em-Her 1.4-7; Instnunon of An1 6.1; 7.7; lnrhlrcfron of Amen-Em-Oput 9, 23. 80. That one of the motivations for being "wise" IS to be a greater success tn the world than others is frequenrly implied, but nou~heremore obvrous than in Pseudo-lsocrates, 7b Demonteas 2,3,13, IS,17~21,24, 26,32, 33,3~,38; nothing could be ar greater odds ro such "pursuit of nobility" than the lowly-mindedness encouraged by James (;)::-lo), 81. The transmission of wisdom from father to son is, of course, rhe standard mue-enxkre of parenesis, from the most ancient works (Inmucnim of& Vfzter PIJh-Horep) ro uvrks close in time to James (Testitmmk of dx TuAe Ektrtrtdsj, and enables the play o n the cnnvention in Pseudo-lsocrates, To Demontcus 1-3, 9-10. 82. Thus, it is Paul's clam to be the "father" of the community that legitxmareshts m o d instrucnon (I Cor 4x5; I Thess 2x1); see also h u language about individuals 1tL Onesirnus (Phlrn 10)and Timothy (Phil x u ) . It is not surprising chat the most ohqously "parenenc" of the letters amibuted to Paul explidrly employs this kinship tops (2 f tm I:Z; 23). 83. James never designates hlmsclf or anyone else as "father," bur ~dentifieshis readers consistently as '"brothers" (I:z, 9; r:1, 14, 15; j : ~ ,10, 12; ?:I[; 57, 9, 10, 12, 19) or as "lxloved brothers" (1x6, 19), the only exceptton belng the reference to rhe sister in z : I ~ . 84. For commandments concerning sexual ethics, see .htrwes of Pseuda-f'b~iz&s 3, 19: Sir ?:24-25; 93-9; r$:zr-26: zb:r~-rz:Prov 2:16-u; 62.4-32; 7:10-27; 9x3-18: Pseudo-isorrates, To Demontcus IS,ZI;Sentences of Sertrri 60,67,70,71,73,75,102,139,240,346,449; Testament of h b e n 41-6:s; Sentiwe: of S y M m n d e r 170-17r 240-219; InshuCtron of'Anr 3.13. 85. For discussions of marriage, see Sentences o f S y Mmnder 45-~1.1111-1u: Inrhlrcnon of h n r e nor-hie$ Slr 7:25-26; 26:1-9, 13-18; jo:rg; Prov S:r=j-zo; 31:la-31; Inrtrucnon of Vizrtr Ptuh-Hutep fzo-340; Counsefs of W&m (Obverse 23); Sentpnces of Pm&P~Itdes 3, 175-19:. 201-206; Sentences o f k w ij~-z39;Inrtrucmn of Ani 3.1; 8.4; 9.1. 86. See Rom I 3113; I Cor 5:1-5; 6:1z-zo;711-24; Eph 5:21-6:4; Coi 3:18-25;I Thess 4:4-5; I Tim r:9-15; Titus z:3-5; Heb 1314; I Pet 33-7.

BROTHER O F J E S U S , F R I E N D O F G O D

disciplining of children so frequently found in such In a word, the sort of topics rhat work for the establishing of order and socializing people within it tend to be absent from James. Taken together with the characteristics sketched earlier in this essay. these deviations from the generic norm help support the suggestion rhat James is not simply a compendium of wisdom themes or a free-floating piece of parenesis, but a vivid exhortation that emerges from and addresses real human beings in specific social settings. Everything in the letter and everything lacking from the letter help confirm the impression that this social world was one shared by a leader of the Jerusalem church and Jewish messianists of the diaspora during the first decades of the Christian m ~ v e m e n t . ~

87. See, e.g., Words of Ahiqar 6.79, 7.106, 9.138; To b n u w 14, 16; Scntmccs of PI& 207-217; Prw (W)~o:r-8;i3:1-2; 3o:11-14; SIT3:r-16; 7:r8; I&I-5;30:r-6; Sentenres of

ucr W

H q 565-595; Inmtnutmn of Mm-&-Re 55-60; InsofAni 7.17. 88. Readers familtar with the history of xholanhip cm James wtll recognize that the basic points in my argument, although rasponding to more recent contnbunons to the discussion, do nor diftir dramatically from the ones laid out so simply by G . Kittel, "Der gexhichtliche Ort des Jakobusbriefes," Z M 41 (19~2) 71-10s.

The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James

The family resemblance between the Letter of James and B e Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides has long been recognized. Both are paraenetic writings from the first century of our era, studded with imperatives dealing with practical life rather than theory. Both, in some fashion, use Leviticus 19 in their paraenesis. James, in fact, cites Lev 1g:18b accurately from the LXX in 2:8: &yanilucl~rbv nkqaiov aou (jS ucaunjv. The way he places this citation in the context of npoownokqpvia (23, 9) has led most readers to acknowledge that, at least here, James made use of Lev 19:18b within its original context (Lev I~:Is).'Mar$ and D i b e l i u ~in,~ deed, suggested a possible dependence of James on some form of Jewish paraenesis based on Leviticus 19, such as Pseudo-Phocylides. Strangely, after their comments on 2:8, neither commentator pursued this insight further. The most recent translator of and commentator on PseudoPhocylides, Pieter van der Horst, has also noticed the resemblance of that Cf., e.g., J. B. Mayor, The Epude ofst. James, 3rd ed. (London: MacmiUan and Co., rgro), 1 Commentary on tbe Epistle 4%/dmer (ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1916), 186; A. Mqzrr, Dus Raetwl dPr Jakabusbricfis (BZNTW lo; Giessen: A. Taiipelmann, rgjo), rjo n. 5; F. Mussncr, Lkr J a h s h w f ( H W 13; Fretburg: Herder, 1964), 115;C. L. Mitton, Ep~sdtofJames (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1966),80, 89,92;J. Adamson, 7h Epzstfe ofJames (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, r976),108; R B. Wad, "Parridicy in the Assembly," W T R 62 (1969) 90; 0. J. F. Seirz, "James and the Law." SEIl (-N87 [lg~gl)476. 2. J. Marty, L'Epitm de J ~ q w (Paris: s Felix Alcan, r y j ~ )69. , 3. M. Dibelrus,]am~r (Hermeneia; Phtladelphia: Forcress, rg*), 142Dibelius also recognized the resemblance of James 5x2 to Pseudo-Phncylides 16 (p. 248), and James 5:4 to Pseudo-Phocylides 19 (p. 238 n. 46). I.

cxl, 78; J. H. Ropcs, A Cnhcul und

B R O T H E R OF J E S U S , F R I E N D O F G O D

writing to James, both in parallel expressions,j and in tone.s The likelihood of literary dependence is negligible. The resemblance, however, involves more than a sharing of parallel expressions. It is due, at least in part, to an analogous use of Leviticus 19. That Pseudo-Phocylides used Leviticus 19 in a rather systematic fashion is the consensus of those who have studied him. After an opening couplet (lines I-2), and a poetic reworking of the Decalogue (lines 3-8); Pseudo-Phocylides 9-21 depends heavily on Leviticus 19.' There is no citation of or allusion to Lev rg:18b,but several other verses from Lev 1g:12-19 can be spotted beneath their poetic tran~formarion.~ Such a thorough use of this section of the law has not yet been recognized in the case oflames. Yet there are grounds for thinking that, in even clearer fashion than Pseudo-Phocylides, James used the LXX of Lev 19:12-18as a whole in his work of Christian exhortation. A look at the way Leviticus 19 appears in Pseudo-Phocylides can help us hscern its presence in James.

The Use of Leviticus 19 in Pseudo-Phocylides The LXX text of Levltlcus 19 does nor leap off the page of PseudoPhocyltdes; I t IS subtle enough In its presence, In fact, to have escaped detectlon unnl the analysts of the Jewlsh scholar Jacob Bernays? The reason 1s srmply that the language 1s transformed A word can be recognized here, perhaps part of an Idlorn there, but otherwtse l t ts a matter of thematic rather than verbal allusions. The clearest clue to the text of LevlttJ P van der tiorst, T?x Sentences of Pseruia-Ph.(rI&s (S\ilP j, Lerden Br~ll,1978). 126, 295, and "Pseudo-Phwlrdes and the New Testament," ZNKr69 (1978)202, where he lrsrs the J a r o h a n passages 3 ~ f ,f3.6,s 4, and 5 12 as parallel to Pseudo-Phocyl~des20,27, 19, and 16

5 "Pseudo-Phocyl~derand the New Trstamenr," p 20.2

6 Van der Horst,

p 66, cf J Bernays, Ubcrdru PhokyfuicuI-hrC;cdichr Em &mg

hmnrr Uahr~sberxchtdes judtxhe-theologr:t~hcnSeminars "Fraenckelx h e n Snftung", Berlin Hertz, 1856)~xxi

der Horst, Sentences, pp IIJ-118, I ~ ; ) - I292 z~, (Munster Thelssmgsche Buchhandlung, 191o),Ir n 2, and 33, drsputes a svsrernatrc use of Levlttrus 19,bur then acknowledges allusrons to it in Pscuda-Phocvhdes 11-14,on pp 33-34? 8 So van dcr klorsr sees Pseudo-Phqlrdes ro referrrng to Lev 19 15 ( h e w s , pp 117 1181, Pseudo-Phorvlrdes 16 to Lev rg 12 (Sestmm, p I*), Psrudo-Phocylrdes 19 to Lev 19 13 ( S c n w a * p izb), and Pwudo-Phosylrdes 21 to Lev 19 16 (regardrng t h ~ last s as doubtful, Smw e , p 292) 9 Cf rhe htsrorv of research 1n van der Horst, Sentences, p 66 M Rossbro~ch,& Ps&

The Use of ht~ihcus19 in the Letter ofl6mes cus 19 is found at Ps.-Phoc. 10, pfi r p i v ~np6uonov, which manifestly derives from the Septuagintalism np6uwnov )ia@iv, which in turn translates 0'13 NWI. The term is used for favoritism in judging, and is classically expressed in Lev 19x5: 06 )\fiyg n @ w r o v mox06. Again, one can glimpse beneath Ps.-Phoc. 19, ptdbv poxBfioavn Gibu, the phrase roo ~ I & T O ~ in Lev 19x3. But generally, verbal allusions are less evident than thematic ones. This suggests a heuristic guideline. Where we can show a cluster of allusions from one document to another, it is easier to argue for the probable presence of ocher allusions in passages which, considered alone, might seem at first unlikely canddates. The certain presence of one makes a second more plausible. Two in the same spot render suspicion of a third less absurd. So, in Ps.-Phoc., the presence of PI) r p i n np6ownov in line 10 increases dramatically the chances of line 9's x&vra Strata vt5pav pt) 61: K ~ ~ U I V 6~ x&plv a ~ a dependmg v on Lev 19:15, oli notficnn Ei61~ov6v rpicn~.Likewise, although pfi 6 ' 6 r n o p r j g ~pqr' &yv% pfir&~SKOVTI (Ps.-Phoc. 16) is not verbally identical to olir 6 p ~ i d tr:q 6vcipari pou 6n' &Giuc;(Lev 19:12), given the clustering effect, i t almost certainly represents an allusion to it. Another consideration is thereby suggested. So dense is the cluster of allusions to Leviticus 19 in Ps.-Phoc. 9-21 (compared with the rest of the writing), and so disparate the topics the cluster contains, that one is moved to see Leviticus 19 precisely as an organizing principle for this section of the work. There is no a priori reason why the condemnation of perjury, partiality and oppression should appear so closely together in a work otherwise so scattered in exhortation as this one. The clustering, one suspects, is created at least in part by dependence on Leviticus 19.The probability of this is increased significantly by the virtual certainty of the Decalogue forming the basis for lines 3-8. Finally, the determination that Leviticus 19 has been used in this fashion by Pseudo-Phocylides has had considerable impact on discussions of the nature and purpose of the work. Since Bernays, its "Jewish" character has generally been acknowledged, but the precise delineation and direction of that character remains a matter of debatet0 The importance of Pseudo-Phocylides for this examination is that it provides a helpful analogy for the use of Lev 19 in the Letter of James.

10.Cf. the drscusston in Bemap, pp xwv-xuxvl; Rossbrotch, pp. 102-103; Sentences, pp. 72-76.

dcr Worst,

BROTHER OF JESUS, FRIEND OF GOD

The Certain Use of Leviticus 19 by James James certainly knew and made use of the LXX of Leviticus 19. As stated above, he quotes Lev rg:18b accurately from the LXX in 2%. What is more striking is the way that he places this in the framework of partiality in judging, showing a clear allusion to Lev 19:15. Furthermore, as in the case of Pseudo-Phocylides, James combines the reference to Leviticus rg with a citation of part of the Decalogue: "For he who said, 'do not commit adultery,' also said, 'do not kill"' (2:11), following the order of commandments found in one manuscript tradition of the LXX for Deut 5x7-18 and Exod 20:rjff.l~There can be lirtle doubt, therefore, that James was aware of the levitical context of the "Royal Law." The textual implications for James's fiv ypa44v (2:8) become inunderstanding of 6hoc (3 vtipoc; (2:1o),and K ~ T & triguing. There is another virtually cerrain (and generally noted) allusion to Lev 19x3 in Jarnes 54: ibi,6 ptdbq TGVt p y a ~ a vT ~ hpqodrvrwv V T&S x h p a ~ bp3v 6 OtmmpqptSvoc kc$' bpGv K@&I.. . .IZIn this verse, James characteristically (cf. 2:23's combination of Gen 155 and 2 Chron 20:7) melds Isa 5:g (LXX) to the Lev Ig:I3 reference. The reason for claiming an allusion to Lev rg:Ij here in the first place, however, should be noted. The language of James 5:4 is no closer to Lev 1g:q than to Deuc 24:14 or Ma1 3:j. In Fact, Ma1 3:s (&noor&poBvrag ptdbv p t d w ~ o 6 is ) closest verbally to James 5:4. The allusion to Lev rg:rj seems secure, nevertheless, because of the cluster effect. We know of the deliberate allusions in t:r, 8 and 9, and can therefore more readily assume James" use of the levitical allusion here. To this point, then, we have a d~rectcltaclon and nvo verbal alluslons. Is there ewdence for further use of Lev~tlcus19 by James? There 1s good reason for conslderlng 4:11,5:9,~:12and 5:20 all as themat~calluslons to Lev 1p:12-18.The first three passages share formal characterlstlcs, and so will be cons~deredbefore 5:2o.

Cf Uzbclzus, p I 4- n xu,Sezrz "James and the Law,' pp 474-475 Dlbelrus, p 218 n 46, Mayor, pp cxr, 158, Ropes, p 288, hl~tcon,p 179,Adamson, p 186, Mussner p 19b,A Schlattrr, Dm Rncvdes lakubrcr (Scurcgart Calu~r,~ g j z )31, , J Mzchl, DIPK b t h l i s c h Bnefi, m d cd (RhT 8 2 Ilegensb~trg F Puster zgfS), 77 11

12

Further Allusions to Leviticus 19 in James

General Remarks The most striking feature of the passages we are to consider is their formal resemblance. I t is this structural similarity which first directs the reader's attention to a possible connection to Lev 19. ( I )Of dl the negative conirnands in James (1:7, 13,16;2 3 , 1 1 ; 3:1;4:rr; s:9, 12), two are third person imperatives (I:?, I)), one is merely rhetorical (1:16), and one is a direct citation from Scripture (2x1).This leaves 2:1,j : ~411. , 5:9 and S : I as ~ second person plural, present prohibitions, introciuced by pi. This alone reminds us of Leviticus 19 with its repeated prohibitions (06 w~chthe f~iture). (2) All these passages make explicit mention of the litw and/or jcuigment in their immediate context, and these references serve as warrants for o t roc vdpou ljS n a p a w r a ~. . . the prohibitions. For 2:1, cf. i k y ~ c i p ~ v unb n a p a f % q ~ v6pou . . . 61h v6pou kiieu8~pia~ p m o v q ~ p i ~ . d. . a~pimq ~ (2:p-13). For 3:1, p ~ i r o v pi pa Aqpydpr0a. For q:~r-12,t c a r d a h ~ i vi5pou ~ u ~ip i w vcipov t . . . d wpiwv rbv nAqdov. For 5:9, Yva p i ~pt8fire. . . ibob 6 K P I ~ G .For 5:r2, Yva p i brrb rpimv n t a q r ~ . I t is important to note that, apart from the mention of the law of lib~ 2:4. these passages erty in 1 : ~ s .the royal law in 2:8, and the use of r p t d in contain all the references to law and judgment in the Letter of James. In ; 5:g and 5:1z,therefore (and only in these cases), the case of 23, 9; j : ~4x1; w find a negative command, together w ~ t ha sanction either explicitly or implicitly connected to judgment under the law. The first of these coninlands contains all the elemcnts In chc frillest fashion. The prohibition of 2:s is follou~edby the explanation o f t h e pcrtlnerlce of the law in s:8-11,and the scatemcnt concerning judgmenr under the law of liberty in 2:i.z-13.The farnlal pattern is more inlpressive in this case since 2:1 begins the series of thematic essays which characterizes James after the aphoristic firsr chapter, and since in this first instance, there is the direct citation of IRV 1g:18hin 2 % No claini is being made here for any allusion to Leviticus inlames %:I, so no further mention will be made of it. The formal notes shared by q:rr, 5 : and ~ 5:12, together w:th r:r, 9, suggest a definite family relation b e m e n the passages: these prohibitions entail judgment under the law. Is there further cause for seeing in them a conneccioti to Lev rg? The case has already been made for X I , 9, so we can turn to q r , j:9 and 5:12 in some detail, before considering 5:zo.

BROTHER O F

JESUS,

FRIEND OF GOD

TAe Individual Passages (I) 4:11: p j r a ~ a h a h e i nMhjhov, &6~h&i.This short prohibition, with its extensive sanction and warrant (4:ixb-12)is strikingly similar to Lev 19:16, as some commentators have already seen.13 The likelihood of allusion is made stronger by James's shift to nhqdov in 4:12 in place of &6EAm.l4 This is used elsewhere by James only in the levitical citation of 2:8, and is found at the conclusion of the passage to which allusion is being made, Lev 19:16: ob n o p ~ w 66h* tv T@ Ethel uou . . . roc nAqdov uou. In spite of Dibelius's demurral,lJ furthermore, it is likely, in view of the elaborate statement about slandering and judging the law, that James does have in mind a concrete commandment, namely the command to love in Lev 1g:18b, precisely as explicated by the commandment of 19x6. The important question with regard to this verse is whether we have a real thematic allusion to Lev 19x6. There is clearly no close verbal resemblance, just as there is not in the allusion to Lev 19:16 spotted in Ps.-Phoc. 21.16 Although rarahaheiv means generally to speak boisterously against anorher,17 and although its appearance in NT vice lists does not in itself lend greater specificity to it (cf. 2 Cor 12:20; Rom I:30; I Pet XI), its use in the O T justifies its understanding as secret speech against another, or slander.18 This is seen most clearly in LXX Ps 100:j (rbv ~arahaho0vrah&0paroc nhqdov airro0), Ps 49:zo and Wis X:XI, and is further supported by the use in I Clem 30:3, 35:j, and, above all, Hermas, Man 2:2-3 and Sim IX,26,7. When placed in the context of "judging a neighbor," r a ~ a h u k i vcertainly means "to slander,'Vor such judgment is always involved in secret, hostile speech. What about Lev 1g:16? Although the Greek may be translated "Thou shalt not walk deceitfully among thy people" (taking the prepositional phrase as adverbial), it represents here the Hebrew 3'31 l'?n a(? which means, "do not go about as a slanderer," and is elsewhere similarly translated (cf. Jer 9:3). Between Lev 19:16 and James 4:II, the fit is nor airtight, but is, nevertheless, remarkably snug. Four points converge to support the probability of an allusion here: a) the negative command; b) its 13. Cf, the m q l n of Nestle-Aland, 25th edition; Mary, p. 165;Micron, p. 166. rq. Dibelius, p. u8,Mussner, p. 187. There is variar~onin both. James has &&A@&. nlpdov; Lev 19x6, kv r+ fBrzl m u . . . nApdov. 15. Dibrrlius, p. u8. 16. Van der Horst, Senrertces, p. 292. 17. Cf, Liddell-Scott-Jones,S.V. 18. G . IGttel, "xardalkw." TDNT 44.

..

Tbe Use of Ler~ibcw19 In the Letter oflr?mes

content; c) the reference to "the neighbor"; d) its attachment to obsetvance of the law. (2) 5:g: p? o n v & & &&&k+oi, , K ~ T cW.fikwv. ' This is the most tenuous of the possible allusions to Levlcicus 19 in James, and is advanced here only tentatively. I suggest that it 1s a thematic allusion to Lev xyrtla, which ImmerGateIy precedes the "Law of Love"" ~ aobr i hbirlrrai m u fi xeip, ~ a i ob P ~ M ~E o~i vioic c mO AaoO oou ("And thy hand shall not avenge thee, and thou shalt not be angry with the children of thy people") Note that anger and revenge are both prohibited. But can James 5:g seriously be read as a thematlc allusion to this? At first glance, i t u not encouraging. hv&@tv, after all, means simply to groan or sigh, and some commentators take it in as banal a fashion as po~sible.'~ Two aspects of the verse, however, give the reader pause First, the construction amdr@iv K ~ T &nwv is somewhat unusual,20and reminds us of ~ : I I ~, m a A a k i vWfihiov.The rar&renders the verb considerably more rransinve. Second, the sanction Tva ph KplCfiiT~seems excessive, if there is only a question of slghing As in 4:xr and the other verses we are considerrng, the issue of judgment is explicit.215-9, therefore, poses three quesnons: how strongly are we to understand mdz@w, aganst whom is i t directed, and why is the injunction so forcefully supported? The "do nor grumble" of the RSV should haw the strength at least of the KJVs "grudge not agarnst one another." But even ifmv&<ewbe granted maximal force, a further d1flicu1t-y is presented by its being directed r a ~ ' &AAfiAwv,when the appropriate objects of grumbl~ngwould appear to be those outside che ~ommuniry.2~ Nevertheless, and agarn despite I > i b e l i u ~ , ~ ~ a contextual reading of 5:9 gives us the best chance of grasping the sense of this verse, and therebre of its possible connection to Lev 1g:18a James 57-11 must be seen as a response to S:I-6. The obv of the exhorcanon in 5:7 is based on the statement of nonresistance whlch concludes 19. "James~ : g chaqes Chrrstrans so ro order thew mucud rrlarions that thev have no c a w for srghrng agalnst one another The rrference is to inner stgh~ng,nor to open compiarnrs " J Schnerder, "anvhCw." 'hT 8 603. zo Although riaranvcii& appears rn LXX bod 2 23, Jer rr 23, Lam r 1 1 21 M~cron,p 187, and Adamson, p 191, see a resemblance brmven J i t and 5 9 22 Cf A Feurllet, "Le Sens du mot Parouste dans I'rvangrle de Marshleu Cnmpararson ennr Mart xx~ver Jac Vi-11," rn 7be Rackpund of dx New Tmrnmt ilnd lir E s c h a t d ~ ed , W.D Dawes and D naube (Cambrtdgc Cambrrdgc Unrvers~cyh s s , r9$6),S o - 2 8 . 1 23 "Thtsv c i e IS qurte rsolaced, so them IS no need to find some sort of connecrron bem e n the m-arntng not to 'grumble agarnst one another,' and the preced~ngsapng" (Drbelrus, p 244)

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

F R I E N D OF G O D

5:6b The overall context for 5:9, therefore, is one of response to oppression by oi nAohot (5:r). I t should also be noted that 57-11u except~onally well structured. There 1s an alternation of imperatlves concerning attltudes (be paaent, strengthen your hearts, do not grumble, recelve examples), and the imperatlves ibi, ( 5 7 , 9, 11) which provlde the grounds for the attitudes. They are to be patient unhf ( E N ) , just as the farmers are patlent ~ n t r (I-, l 5 7 ) . They are not to complaln because the judge is near; they are to receive examples h u s c they show the blessedness of endurance (5:9* 11). 5:9 fits neatly and cogently between "the parousia of the Lord has approached" and "the judge stands before the door." Within this context of oppression and exhortation the amtude of pa~poBvplarecommended to the congregation and the exhortation to strengthen their hearts represent a characteristic response to tribulation (cf. 2 Cor 6:6; Eph 4:2; 2 Tim 3x0; and Acts r8:23; Rom 16:25; 2 Thess 2x7; I Pet s : I ~ )particularly , that which precedes the Lord's coming in judgment (cf. I Thess j:13). Here, the two attitudes point the same way: in spite of the affliction suffered by the innocent, they are to allow God to do his work. They are not to usurp his role of making judgment against oppression. They are to be long-suflering and firmly fixed. How should pq UTEV&&E.be understood, then? The use of s n v c l t ~ ~ w in the LXX is confined to the sense of sighing or groaning, not surprisingly in situations of sufiering. There are places, however, in which the groaning is in response to oppression such as that pictured by James (cf. Job jo:2S, Isa 59:11; Lam 1:21; Ezek 26:15; I Macc 126). The classic instance is f a uioi v 'Iopaqh . . . the complaint of the Israelites in Egypt: ~ a ~ ~ o r k v a ol ~ aEl~ ~ K O U ( T E6V BE& T ~ m V ~ v a y p b va h 3 v . . . (Exod 2:23, cf. 6:s). The "complaint" of the people was raised, not against each other, but to the Lord, for his hearing. In 5:9. then, the author forbids his readers' taking out their resentments at oppression and trouble on each other. They are not to assume the role of judges and vindicate themselves, either against the outsider who oppresses or against each other. Vindication belongs to the Lord (Deut 3x35-36)who is now ready to judge the oppressors without the community and the grumblers within (5:9b). If they assume his prerogative ofjudging (by their complaint against each other) they will chemselves be judged. Within this context, James 5:g is thenlatically close to Lev 19:18a. There, revenge and wrath against a fellow Israelite are forbidden. Here, that grumbling against each other which arises from resentment and is equivalent to seeking vindication on one's own terms rather than the Lord's. It must be granted that this argument for a thematic allusion in 5:9 is the most fragile of those I am suggesting. But the strange features

of the verse, coupled with the formal resemblances to the other passages considered, make the suggestion at least possible. (3) S:IZ: pil ( 5 p w ~ n. . . lva p? bnb rpicnv n t q r ~ In . this prohibition, there is not only a thematic but also a verbal allusion to Lev 19:rz, which reads O ~ 6p&i&~ K r+ b d p a t i en' hMrc;, r a l oC $~@qhchucnr b 6vopa roD 0 ~ o l*av. j Certainly the resemblance to Lev 19:12 is clearer in the case of James than in Ps.-Phoc. 16.'~The Leviticus text has been recognized by some as one of the texts which form the general background for James 5x2, but no direct allusion has been suggested, so far as I know.2s Failure to see an allusion here is surprising, and is undoubtedly due to the fact chat ~ : r so z emphatically calls attention to itself as a possible saying of Je.~~ sus, and has been srudied primarily in relation to Matt ~ : 3 4 - 3 5Although other passages of the Law pertain to the issue of swearing (cf. Num 30:~; Deut 23:21), James is by far closest to Lev 19:rz in vocabulary and form. The cluster principle is again imporrant here. Knowing that James had recourse to Lev 19:1+-r8several other times in this letter makes a decision in favor of an allusion here easier to reach. (4) 5:zo: ytvoortfrw Bn b emurptlyac; Etpap~wAbvelr nA&vqc,M O D abroD o i h vwfiv ~ a t r o o 4r &xv&tou r a \ r d b ~n~A Q t w hpapni3v. After the negative commands comes this positive one, which corresponds to Lev 19:17b, also positively stated: &ypc$ &tyCe~s~ b nhqoiov v oou, r a l o t hfppa 61' a M w txpapdav. The notions of "covering sins" and "bearing sinn in each case are connected to the correction or reproval of a neighbor. The relation between the verbs trnmpft$w and UtSyXw is close, with the first denoting the completion of what the second intends (cf. James's use of QfyXw in 2:9). The thematic allusion seems clear, but has remained virtually unattended." As with 5x2, another factor has probably proven dis24 The clearest connectton between James and Pseudo-Phocylides here ltes tn the repeaced pfin @fin and the threat of dtwne rctnbutton Mart 5 34-35 repeats the p h n four ctmes and lacks the explrc~rnote of judgment In Lev 19 12, rhe h/w elpi m p t q i) eE& bp& has an equivalmr functton In Sentences, p 124, van der Horsr sees an d u s t o n ro Lev 19 12 tn Pwudo-Phqltdes 16, and In "Pseudo-Phocyltdes and the New Testament," p lor, he sees one beturen PseuduPhocyltdes 16 and James 5 12 (also S p n t t ~ ~ cps , 295) Huc neither he nor Dtbelrus (who also sees the relar~onro Pseudo-Phocyhdes 16) finds any connecuon between James 5 12 and Lev 19 12 zs Cf Mary. p 199, Mussner, p 213, E Kursth, "Eun Kede aber sel ja ja, netn nem," FvT 20 (1960) 208 P M~near,"Yes or No, the Demand for Honescy tn the Earlv Church," NwT 13 (1971) z. connects La 1912 to Matt 5 34-35, but noc dtrecrly to James 5 12 26 Cf esp Kutsch, pp 206-218, and Mmeu, pp 1-13 2; H Van \'her, Nu SJB& T m m - 7 (Umcht Kemrnk En Zoon, 1958). I, 54-m accurately notes the alluston and tcs funcrron

B R O Y H E R OF

JESUS,

F R I E N D OF GOD

tractlng, namely the resemblar~cebetween 5 : ~ o on , the one hand, and Prov 1o:12 and I Pet 4:8, on the other. It niust be said, however, that apart from the notlon of "htding" (found tn all three), and that of "a multttude of sins" (shared w t h I Pet), James 5:zo sfi inch on ally much closer to Lev tg:r7b. Drbellus had little use for attempts ro find strucrure In James. Thts outlook led him to remark, "Any of the adtnonltlons In James would be as good a concluston as ~:19f.'"~ That judgment IS less than sound In any case, for the last verse of James extends as challenge to the reader the task James had set for hlmself tn addressing hts reader (cf. 1:16). But rf we haw In 5:20 a themanc alluslon to Lev 19:17b, rt is all the more an approprtate conclus~on,forming a posrtive frame \mth s:8 around the prohlbtnons of 2:1, 9x1, $:9 and 5:rz. The lmpltcatlons of the royal law of lave are spelled out not only rn avotdance, but also In care.

Conclusions Beginning with some clues derived from the use of Leviticus 19 in Pseudo-Phoqlides, I haw shoum that in addition to the direct citation from Lev 19:18b in 2:8, the Letter ofJames contains certainly four, and possibly six further verbal or thematic allusions to Lev 19x2-18. Arranged sccording to the order of Leviticus, and with the least likely allusions marked with asterisks, they are: (I)

(I) Lev 1 9 : ~ ~ James 5:rz (2) Lev rg:rj James 5:4 (3) Lev xg:r5 James z:~, g (4) Lev 19:16 James 4x1 (5) Lev rp:17b James 5:20r (6) Lev 19:rSa James s:g* (7) Lev 19:18b Jatnes 2:8 The only verse from this section of Leviticus which is missing is 19:14.~~ The evidence, therefore, srrongly suggests that James made conscious and sustained use of Lev 19:rz-18 in his letter. The text of Leviticus did not 28

Dtkxlrus, p r

zg Also alssenr are the apodtcttc commands of Lev 19XI, although the~rsubstance IS

touched on ~nJames 3 13 4 m

The Use of Let~iticus19 in the Letter of James guide the order of his exposition, nor did it, by any means, exhaustively dictate the contents of his message. But the clear thematic connections, together with the formal characteristics involving law, judgment and prohibition shared by many of these passages, point this way: that James regarded the "Royal Law" by which Christians were to live, and the "Law of Liberty" by which they were to be judged, as explicated concretely and specifically not only by the Decalogue (2:11),but by the immediate context of the Law of Love, the commands found in Lev 19x2-18. (2) Awareness oflames's use of Leviticus 19 can lead to exegetical consequences. For example, consternation has always been caused by the apparent dislocation of 4x1, 5:9 and p z . The solitude of 5x2 is only exacerbated by its introduction, xpb xln?wv, which is even more problematic here than in the counterpart passage in I Pet 4%. Commentators have suggested an interpolation,* a gloss,3l and various epistolographic s o l e ti on^.^^ Dibelius, typically, despairs of any resolution, "Since this verse has no relationship ~ 4 t what h precedes or follows, nothing can be determined Dibelius is correct in about the significance of the phrase, 'above this case concerning the unattached state of 5:12. Can the verse have found its way into the text at least partially by way of the inertia created by the use of the ocher Leviticus passages by James? This would certainly not be enough in itself, for James did not use Lev 19:14. Nor can there be any doubt that 5:1z's relation to a saying of Jesus had importance for James. But there is this intriguing speculation: Lev 19:rz stands first in the list of injunctions used by James to explicate the law of love. Can this ordinal position in Leviticus have played a role in the incongruous continuance of npb n & w v in S:IZ?Such a solemn opening would better suit the whole listing of Lev 19:xz-18 than just this isolated command in James 5x2. More pertinently, ifJames read and understood the law of love explicitly within the context of Lev r9:12-18,we are also better able to understand of 2:8 which is most puzzling in this James 2%-13. It is not the @xolhi~& section, but the precise relation between "fulfilling the law" and "according to the Scripture." Unquestionably. the pfvro~of v. 8 and the tik of v. 9 must be seen as correlative. This means that the conclusion of v. 9, & A ~ ~ , ~ ~ E inrb v o I roi, v6pou (jS napa@irai should correspond to the v 6 p q 30. Cf. Mayor, p. 165. 31. G . Rendall, The Epirtk- oflrrmn and Juduc Christj,ntq (Cambridge: Cambridge Uniwrslty Press, 1927),68. 32. Micton, p. 191; Rapes, p. 300; hlussner, p. 211; cf. also F. 0. Francts, " T h e Form and Functton of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs ofJames and I John,"ZZNWI (1970)125. 33. Ditwlius, p. z ~ a .

BROTHER OF JESUS, F R I E N D O F GOD

of v. 8. Furthermore, the phrase which precedes the citation from Lev rg:18b, K ~ T &filv ypa@qv, is not a typical introduction to a Scripture citation. Its only ocher NT use is in I Cor 15:3-4, and there it does not introduce a citation. James uses other forms of introduction. One wonders, therefore, if the ~arCcfilv yw@flvmight refer to more than just Lev 1~):r8b. %at follows from these obsen~acionsis this: keeping the law of love involves observing the comntandments explicated by the Decalogue (2:rr) and Lev 1g:12-18in their entirety. Given the connection James draws beween Lev 19:r8 and Lev 19x5 in 2:9, this conclusion appears certain. Breaking the prohibition against partiality is breaking the law of love, for that prohibition is one of its explications." The emphasis of 2:8, rherefore, should be, "If you reail-- keep the royal law, ~ccordingto the Scripture (that is according to the dictates of the scripture), 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you d o well." ForJames, Lev 19:rz-18provides an accurate explication of that la\vof love which should obtain in the church. (3) A further polnt should be made. James regards Lev 19:12-18as an accurate exposinon of the demands of love, but not, by itself, an idequate one. These commandments enter James as filtered through the Christian r r a d ~ t ~ oIn n . remarkable fashion, precisely these halach~cstatements are colored by expllclc domlnlcal references Parnallt). is lncompaable with "the f a t h of our glor~ousLord Jesus Chrlst" @:I).The law of love from Lev 1g:18b is characcerlzed as &xolh1~6g not only because of its "excellence," but because it is the "law of the klngdorn" (the use offJaolX~ia111 z 5. 1s decisive for this) first enunc~atedby Jesus (cf hfarr 19 19,22 39, hlatk I2:TI; Luke 10:27; Rom 13.9; Gal 5.14) The prohib~r~un of \lander and judglng not only recalls Icsu\ conlmai~dacalnst jucig~ng(Mart 7:1), but is sancrloi cd bv rhe trurh char rhcrc rs but one ~ p ~ n i(4:12), c ; whlch points us to I h corning uirhe jtidgr Irr 5 ~ bin, turn, can only, in the l ~ g hof t 5.8, ii t retor ro the conilng of Jesus (cf the use of napowta and b~$&), and the language of 5:gb itself recalls s)~lopticcradlrlons (Mart 24.43; Luke 12:39, cf. also Rev. 320) The prohib~ttonof oaths has clear connection to the dom~nlcalsaylng In Mart 5.34-35 The Ideal of fraternal correction (7:so) reflects a saylng of Jesus (Mart 18.15; Luke 173). In James, the value of Leviticus IS affirmed for the church by reading it in the l~ghcof the Chrlstlan tradttion which began wtth the words ofJesus. Because of cercaln excesses along these I1nes,3~one hesitates to use 34 For rhe o p p s i r e pos~rion,c i I>~heliusp 142 35 C f , e g , h4 Germer, "Mldrashirn in the Neu Testarnent,"/SS 7 (1962)267-292 HIS atrrntpr to show rhar James is a r n ~ d r ~onh Psalm 1 2 is rnldirecred

Tbe Use ofLevrhcus 19 in the Letter oflames

the term midrash in a n y but the clearest of cases, but this is really what James is doing by his use of Leviticus 19. In the passages I have isolated, James engages in halachic midrash. The text is Lev 19x2-18.The perspective on the text is provided by the understanding of life and law given by the experience ofJesus Christ. James has long been seen as a NT representative of the wisdom and prophetic traditions. He reshapes as well the inheritance of Torah. (4) Finally, a note on the possible historical significance of this use by James of Leviticus 19. In his introduction to 7;4e Sentences of PseudoPhocyl&s, van der Horst suggests that the late rabbinic tradition concerning the role of Leviticus rg as a summary of, or counterpoint to the Decalogue, to be read in the assembly2may be supported by the evidence If of systemaric use of this chapter of Leviticus by Pseudo-Pho~ylides.~~ my reading of the levitical allusions in James is accurate, James would be another first-century witness for such a role.

36 Van dcr Worst, Senmces, pp. 66-67

13s

The Sayings of Jesus in the Letter of James (with Wesley Wachob)

The task of this essay is to assess the intertexture of several sayings attributed to "James a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" 'as I::).' Put difirently, our interest is the apparent use ofJesushyings that appear in the Letter of James. Whether its specific rhetorical category finally be called paraenesis or protrepsis, the Lerter of James is certainly a form of wisdom literature that appropriates cross-cultural tradirions without explanarion, apology, or explicit citation. Determining the precise provenance of any specific expression within James is commensurately difficult, since there are usually too many possibilities. The sayings of Jesus themselves present a similar problem: what parts of the gospel tradition can be said to come from Jesus, and what parts from other sources? Asking about the presence of Jesus sayings in the Letter ofJames is therefore an invitation to a hazardous and necessarily tentative examination. James offers some small help in the way it makes use of Leviticus 19. The quotation of Lev 19:18 in Jas r:8 is the letter's only direct and explicit citation of "scripture" (y(ypa+l/). Yet other places in James strongly suggest allusions to LPv 1g:11-18: sometimes the wording is close, sometimes not. The important methodological point, however, is this: the clear and explicit citation of one passage legitimates the search for others and makes the detecrion of each incrementally more plausible. Close analysis shows that James's use of Lev I~:II-18 is considerable: Lev 19x2 = Jas 5:12; Lev 1933 Jas 54; Lev 19:s~-Jar 23, 9; Lev 19:16 -Jar 4:rl; Lev 1g:17b = Jas 520; Lev 1g:18c = Jas 2:tL2 Lev 19:11 and 19:rq are not verbally echoed but the sub-

CM&

r On the mrcrrrxrure of texts, see rsp V K Robb~ns,& p h n g & Texwrr @TA m (Valley Foqc Tr~nlryPress Intemanond, r996),40-70 &Y !hu r Set.my esuy "The Use of Lcvlncus rq In rhe LmerofJmes," pp. 123-135 In this volume.

The Sgings of Jesus in the Letter of Jdmes stance of their commands is covered by Jas 2x4-16 and 3:13-4:10 respect i ~ e l yA . ~similar procedure will be followed in this essay: the surest candidate for a saying of Jesus within James will receive the greatest attention, for the simple reason that securing it makes the possibility of the presence of other sayings more likely. For more than two centuries some scholars have held that James uses a tradtion ofJesus' sayings in his letter. They base their conclusion on the perception that a number of the sayings attributed to James have a striking affinity to Jesus logia. Further, as M. Dibelius observed,' some of these parallels are similar to Jesus logia in form, style, and convictions. Recently, these scattered opinions have been given the fullest possible airing by D. B. Deppe: who stuched the twenty-fiw most frequently mentioned parallels and concluded that at least eight of them are conscious allusions to Jesus' sayings: I.

2. 3. 4 j. 6. 7. 8.

-

Jas 1:5 = Q" 7:7 Q1-1x9 = GThom $92, 594 Jas 4 : ~ - 3 QM7:7 QL1x9 GThom 592, 594 Jas 2:s = QM5:3 = QL 6:20b GThOm 954 Jas 4:9 Qh45:4 a QL6:21b GThOm 569b Jas 4:IO = Qh' 23:IZ; QLI4:II Jas p - 3 a * QM6 2 0 = QL 12:33b GThom 376b JilS 532 " QMj:34-37 Jas 5:1 = QL 6:24-25

-

---

-

-

"

The present essay focuses on only six sayings: four that Deppe calls "conscious allusions" -j:12; ~ :and j 4:zc-3; z:j) and nw, others that are among the twenty-five sayings he mentions, but not (in his view) "conscious allusions" Uas 2:s and 13).

-

James 5:12 Matthew 5:34-37 Apart from Jesus and James, no one else in the Old or New Testament categorically prohibits oaths. Oaths are, in fact, regarded as an acceptable 3 L 7 Johnson, 'fkh f e r of J~SWJ (AB PA, Gardm City I)oublcday, 1995),31 M Dibelius, James A Commentary on dre Epudr ofJamcq rev H Grecum, mans hl W~lliams(Hermeneta. Phrladelphta Forrrcss, r976), 28 5 D B Deppc, 7hr Wmgs qfJmrr m dx E@ of J a m ; (Cft~serrar~on, Amsterdam, Chelsea, MI h k c a f t e r s , r989). zrguo, m - 2 2 3 SW also W H Wachob, 'The Relanonsh~p &iswen the Ep~stleofJames and Q"(unpubhshcd paper presented to chc Southeastern K c J

pond r-

SBL Mcenng, Macon, GA)

B R O T H E R O F JESUS. F R I E N D OF G O D

and important part of life in both Testaments (Gen 22:r6; Exod 13:s;=:lor;; Num r4:16; Deut 6x3; r Kgs 8:3r-p; Jer 12:rG; Matt zj:16-u; Luke I:s~; Acts 2:30; Rom 1:9; 2 Cor 123; Gal 1:2o; Phil 1%;Heh 6:rj-zo; Rev ro:6). There is, to be sure, criticism within Judaism of frequent and flagrant swearing (Lev 5:4; Num 3o:j; Deut 23:~s; Sir 23:9-11; Philo, Decalope 84-95; m.Nedarim; m. Sebu. 4:~).Such critiques are found elsewhere in the Urnwelt (e.g. Epictetus, Enchr. 33.5). The aversion to swearing even led some in the ancient world, like the Pythagoreans, to prohibit oaths (see Diog. Laert. 8.22; Iambl. Vit. 8 t h . 47) Such interdictions, however, are based on different ideas than those grounding Jesus' and James's prohibirions of oaths6 And, while there was a prohibition of oaths among (one branch of) the Essenes, the evidence is complicated by the fact thar the Dead Sea sect required an entrance oath (see Josephus, j.W 2.8.6 5135; 2.8.7-8 5139-43; Ant. 15.10.4 §3~0-j72;cf. IQS 5:s; IQH 14:17;CD 15:s. 8-12; 16:1-5).The distincriveness of Jesus and James with regard to oaths, therefore, is striking? A comparison ofJames's prohibition of oaths Uas s:rz) with the one artributed to Jesus in Mart 5:34-37 shows thar they have sixteen Greek words in common: . . .pQ Bp[ 1 . . . pjn TI 1 ot\pav[ ] . . . pfin . . . r[ ] y[ ] . . . pjre . . . [ ] rw . . . bp3v . . . vai vat . . .oil 06 . . .

tit?

James's prohlbltion ("do not swear") features the present tmperanve active, second person plural (pq ~ ~ V L ~ whlle E T E the ) , Marthean version has the aorist infinttive acttve (pq 6p6uat) wrrh the adverb Elhwg. In Matt 5:34c and jga the first two pfire-phrases ("nelrher by the heaven . . . nor by the earth"') have tv, the datlve artrcle and noun, a Semirlc usage;%he third pfir~-phrasein Matt 5.35~("nor by . ") has ~ i g+ an anarthrous noun In the accusartve case. In Jas 5:Iza the first nvo pfir~-phraseshave the accusative article and noun, which 1s ordtnary classical usage: and the third pfin-phrase also fearures the accusarlve case &Mov nvh 8prov. Both Jas 5:1zb and Matt 5:37a have the tmperatrve third person singular b

Dtbcltus,Jirmes, p y8 n 41

7 Conccrn~ngthe enterra of authenttctq, the prohtbtrton of oaths wnsfies the crtterton of dissrmiluiry If we ma) regard Jar; 5 12 as a Jamrstan perfbrtnance of a s a p g of Jesus, then w have mulrtplc atrwtnnon, for Matthar andlamer am most probably t n d e p n -

&nr sources for r h ~ Is w o n The prohtbtrion dw sartsfies the crtterron of c m b w s m e n t , since both rhe Old Testament and New Testamcnc accepr and hotlor the suvxlng oarhs 8 Sre BDF 5x49, tjzzo, N Turner, r\ Grirmirwr of.him 7ertjment G m k , \-1 3 (Ed~nburgh T & T Clark, 1963),252-253 9 See t.i W Smyth, Greek Grirrnrn~r(Cambridge Hamard Untwrstr, Press, 1956), sr(g6

Thr Sayrngs o f i s u s rn the Letter of James of ~ i p ("but i let be"), though the forms are different (4rw and tmw, respectively). And where James has ~b vai . . . ~ a rbi 00 . . . ("your yes . . . and [your] no . . ."), the compound (articular) subject of the verb, followed by a compound (anarthrous) predicate, vai . . . oii ("yes . . . no"), Matt 5:37a has as its subject Adyo5 b p d v ("your word"), and an anarrhrous, asyndetic and emphatic va\ vai, OD 06 ("yes yes, no, no") as the predicate.I0 The fact that there are grammatical and syntactical variations in these performances is anything but surprising, since "recication of a saying using words different from the authoritative source" was a common practice in the culture of the Greco-Roman age, including early Christianity." Resides, the variations here do not hide what the nvo texts have in common. In fact the Jamesian performance is overwhelmingly regarded as the surest example of James's use of the sayings of Jesus.12 For example, H. Koester says, "In Jas 5 3 2 there can be no doubt that James is quoting the same injunction that Matchew used in the third [sic!; should read fourth] anrirhesis of the Sermon on the Mount. James has preserved an earlier form."I3 The Matthean performance of Jesusprohibition of oaths occurs as part of a (so-called'") antithesis, which, within the Sermon on the Mount, 10 The lack of the artsclr rn Mart 5 37a does not prevent the statenlent from havtng the same meanrng as that ofJas 5 12 DrtVIrus &me, pp ZSO-~SI),a.. ="ell as H Ktrcsrrr (Ancrmt Cbnshsn CtusprL k H r s t q and &idopmt [London SCM Press, Phtladelphta Irrnrn Press Internattonal, ~ g g o ]73-75), . sugXests (on the basis o f r Enwh) that 5 371 should be underztcwd as prot-rdlng a milder and acceptable "oath formula" (as oppowd to tlio\e rn 5 jqc-36) Rut It IS hcrrer to understand the second w s and no tn 5 373 as cmphattc See W D Davres a i d D C Allrson J r A Cnfzcal ond kkqm41 Cbmmmtatary a rb4 ( ~ o s pacrodng l to k m t Mdnhcu (ICC, Cd~nburghT & T Clark, I*), 538, H D Berz. 71Pe Snmon a thp Mount A Comtnmwry on rhc h o n on ?he hlount, rnclndrng tfx h o n on the I % I ~ ( k n f t r u 5 3 -2: and Luke 620.19) (Hermmc~a,hl~nneapul~s Fortress, rg95). 2-1 hlorecner, that rhr emphaac "ves, w s and no, no" ts svnon\nii~usu-rrli slmple "yes and no" ts corroborated h Paul's usage in r Cor I 17-18 See P Mtnear, "'Yes and No' The Demand for t-iclnesw In the Early Church," NatT 13 (19-1) 1-13 11 5ee Robbtn5, Exploring thp Texturn of Texts, pp 41-48 and rdem. Thc Tdpesrrv of hrl> Chnrwn Drsrwrrre Rhrturrr, tad Ideofugy (London and Nru York Rvurledge r946), +-

143 12 Of the swtv authors llsted bv Deppe (Thr Sclymng ofJrsrcs m thi. Fpirtle of Junies 141 n $001, frfw nlne of them include Jas 5 12 K A Credner (kmlormng m dar N e w resrdrnenr [Halle Watscznhauses, 18j6]), the only exceptton, oni~rtedst acctdenrallv, according to

"~PF 15 Koester, Ancrmc Chnrmn GurpIr, p 74 14 Although hfart 5 21-48 IS LISU~IIV referred to as '"the anttthews ' thts IS ar L P Sanders ( T k H u m d R p m ofjesrrr ILondon The Pengun Press,igql],201) argues, an rnac

RROTHRR OF JESUS, F R I E N D OF G O D

u a rhetor~calargument rhat supports the thests rhat Jesus has come "not to aboltsh the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them" ((Matt 5:17).~~ The argument may be o u t l ~ n e das follows: A tesnmony of the anctents

based on the law: A conrrary judgment by Jesus based on the law: Three parallel examples: Reason (in three parallel statements): A fourth example:

Reason:

Do not swear falsely (5:33), Do not swear at all (5:34b); by heaven, by earrh, by Jerusalem 65334~~ 35% 354;

heaven, earth, Jerusalem belong to God (s:3.+d335b$ 354. Do nor swear by your head (5:36a); you cannot even make one h a r black or white (5:36b).

A judgment by Jesus based

on the law:

k t your yes be yes, and your no, no (5:37a); anything more is evil (5:j7b).l6

Reason:

The anctthet~calcharacter of Jesus' prohtbtnon of oaths In Matthew IS due to tts juxtapos~r~on to an authorltattve judgment based on the law "by the men of old" (Mart 5:33). The latter judgment 1s not a quotarion of the law; rather, t t appears to be "a Hellentst~c-Jewuhhalakah"I7 o r summary based on the law (esp. Lev 1g:xz; cf. Exod 20:7; Num 30:3-rS: Deut curare dcstgnat~on Anr~thesrarn form does nor necessarilv mean oppostnon tn content "Thtssecnon ofh.lotrhru. has often been aced as s h m n g Jesus' 'opposrtron' to the law But hetghcmtng the law tc not upposing rt, rhough I have shown elsru.herc (pp zfo-rt) tt tmpltes a kind otmttctsm If rntms~frcilnonwere aganst the law, then the m a n groups ofJuduun, the Pharisees and the Essencrs, were sysrcrmnc breakers of the law But m fun no annent Jew thought that bring super-rcrlrt w a r dlqyal, nor d ~ dthe author of Miuthnv" (p slr) 15 G A Kennedv. Neu, Temmmr 1 n ~ - n and London Un;wrsiw of Nonh C-unl~naPress, I the Sermon on the Mount (- SM), the fourti1 (Mart 5 33-37) begxnr a second set ofrhree annrhcxs See the analvmi and d l ~ u s s r o n rn s Bea (Sernm on & Mount, pp 259-274).Dav~es and Allisan (iEId&+, pp s ~ ~ $ I ( Sand ) , U Lur (Mdithrut r 7 [Nrnneaplts Augsburg, r e ] , 310-ju) 16 B L hlack,

nt

dx Neu Tmum~nr(Guides to Brbl~crlScholmhtp, Mtnncapo-

11s Fortress, I ~ w8% ), 17

h, h o

n o#

drr Mount, p 264

7he wings ofJesus in tbe Letter oflames 23:21-23). Its probable meaning is, "You have heard that it was said to the men of old: 'All your oaths are to be true.'"1s To this judgment Jesus authoritatively responds with a different, intensifying judgment, "'Rut I say to you, 'do not swear at all'" (Mart ~:34b)Jesus' judgment is also based on the law and is not contradictory to it: the person who does not swear obviously would not transgress the law which forbids swearing falsely.lq James's instruction occurs at the beginning of a section of the letter chat has an undeniably pragmatic and linear relation to earlier advice concerning speech, but does so with specific emphasis on speech acts within the bdqoia (5x4). In James, as in the SM, the judgment about oaths seeks to persuade its addressees to refrain from an action (the swearing of oaths) and to perform an action (speaking frankly, truthfully) in the immediate future. Jesus' prohibition of oaths is amplified and illustrated by four p q n sentences, each of which features a h-clause as its rationale or basis. The first three sentences (5:34c-35) are parallel and symmetrical; the fourth (5:36)breaks the pattern and flow of the previous three. As illustrations of the tendency to avoid using God's name in swearing, however, they are ail examples of the effort to reduce the binding character of oaths, accenruating Jesus'conviction that all oaths are equally serious (cf. Matt 23:16-22).~~ The formal similarity of the threefold repetition p? . . . p q r ~. . . pqrc: . . . p d n in Jas 5:rza and p q . . p f i n . . .p d n . . . p d n . . . p q r ~in Macr 534-36 is impressive. The formal similarity is only strengthened by the fact that the fourth p h n clause in Matt 536, which is so markedly different from the three in Matt ~:34c-35,is probably a secondary addition. Nor should i t be overlooked that the meaning ofJames's chird and climactic P ~ T EMAov nvb: d p ~ o v("nor any other sort of oath") corresponds to the qualification of p? 6p6aa1 by 6Aw (*at alln) in Matt ~ : 3 4 . ~ ' 18 Davres and Allison, Af4nheu: p 534 It appears rhar the hdakah In 5 33 1s clo\est ro Lev 19 12 (but cf Ps -Phocyl~des,Sent 16), where nor fulfill~ngoaths sworn 1x1 the name of God is a grrevous arr of pequry The ampl~fiuoonssupport thzs bv ;ugulng rhar all narhs used in place of the Holy Nune a n ncvcrrheless blnd~ng(Dames and .\lltson M p 536, E P Sanders,J e u d wh J b m Jmw to dx Mubnab Flw Skf~es[London SCM Prea5, Ph~ladelph~a Tnn~ryPnss Incernaaonal, rggol, 53) '"The position rhat oaths should nor be 19 Sanders,J m h Lul: p 55 taken at all irnpharlp m u a s the r catering to human w~akncss" (p FF scc esp pp 51-57) zo Dawes and Alhson, M4ttbeu: p 536, Sanders,J m b lau: p $5, and esp k r z h o n on h e MwnZ pp 266-270 21 A H McNetle, 7k Gosp.1 arrafrng to Sf ManhPul (London h.lxmillan tqly) b;, Johnmn, J a m & p @

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

The similarity of form and content tn these two performances is undentable and raises the question of the relationshtp of James and Matthew hlost scholars correctly agree that neither James nor Matthew knows the other,12 so the questron of a common source presents itself, along smrh the issue of \vhich perforinance, James's or Matthew's, has prt-

any. Our analysis suggests that Matt 536 IS most probably a secondary element, furthermore, the three pfir~-clauses tn James are the better, srnoocher performance: tn Matt 5:34b the adverb t s k q makes the subsequent explanations redundant, whtle James's placement of the limiting phrase, "any other sort ofoath," 11s a rather logical extenston and intenstficatton of the prohibttton Matthew" '%by Jerusalem" IS also probably redactional, though t t is uncertain whether the redaction is pre-Matthean (SM) or Matthean.13 The final clauses tn both texts (Matt 5:37b and Jas y u b ) are most likely redacttonal statements, as well. In short, although we cannot always argue chat the briefer verston is the more original, the spec~ficelements of Marthew's longer version support the conclusion thac 111s redacttonal Interests are a t work, and thac the form of Jas 5:1zb may be closer to Jesus'original saytng. With regard to the last point, Justtn Martyr's performance of thts prohtbition is crucial (I Apol. r 16.5) Like the one tn Matthew, t t is contextually attributed to Jesus; t t reads: "Do not swear at all (pfi (2p6uqn t s h t ~ ~ ) , but let your yes be yes and your no be no (LmorwM bpdv r b val vaE ~ ar bl OD 00; a l y t h ~ n gmore than this is from ewl (rb 6t mpioabv TOWWV &K TOD novqpofi) The first and last of these three clauses are virrually identical to Matt y34b and 37b; the only differences are the form of the verb in the first clause and the elltpsis of the w r b In the last The second clause, however, IS tdentical to Jas s:~zb,except for the verb Emw (which agrees with Matthew). One may argue thac Justin's performance is a harmonization of the performances of Matthew and James.2JO n the other hand, one can argue thac while Justtn clearly depends on Matthe\\: his agreement wlth James In the second clause is due to the fact that the Jamesian form 1s 12

Pace M H Shepherd, "The Epistle of James and the Gospel of hfatrhew,"JBL 75

(1956) 40-71 23 The tension bccuven the categorical proh~btnonof oaths 111 the pn-Matrhean Sh4 (Mart 5 34-37) and Matt 23 16-12 makes i t pvsstble that the understanding of oaths m the SM IS nor that of the find ~ d a c r o rof Mattheup (see Deppe, &ymngs of]esu:, p 137, Be=, Sermun on the Slortnt pp srp214) r j A J Bell1n7on1,7 h Savrnga ofJp~utin he E'nhngs f l u s a n i L I d y (Leiden Brtll, 19671, 6%

The Sayrngs ofJesus in the Letter oflames broadly and independently known; indeed, it is the Jamesian form of this clause thar is replicated throughout early Christianity, even in texts rhat are presumably quoting Matt ~:37a.~' Since Luke does not share this material with Matthew, most scholars d o not include the prohibition in Q. This simply shows the limits of our knowledge of Q: Luke could have chosen not to include it, if he and Matthew read a shared version; alternatively, Matthew and Luke could have had different versions of Q, with Q-Matthew containing the prohibirion. H. D. Betz's hypothesis thac both the SM and the SP were pre-synopric sources suggests that the SM is the primary source for Jesus' prohibition of oaths. Perhaps the antithesis before us appeared in both Q-h4atthew and in the SM.26James, on the other hand, does not appear to be dependent either upon Q or the written gospel^.^' Nevertheless, it is quite possible - perhaps probable - thac James was familiar with a collecrion of sayings in which Jesus categorically prohibited oaths. In other words, James was familiar with a collection of Jesus logia similar to those in the preMatthean SM and/or Q-Matthew. Our analysis supports the hypotl~esisthat most probably Jas 5x2 is an independent source for the prohibition of oaths attributed to Jesus in Matt 534-37. and that - in agreement with Koester - the saying in James reflects an earlier stage of the tradition than the one in the Matthean SM.28The high probability that James in 5:12 recontextualizes without attribution a saying of Jesus also increases the probability thar other, less obvious, echoes might have the same source.

-

James I:S, 4:2c-3 = QL' 7:7, 11 = Q' I I : ~13 , GThom 392, $94 Jas 1:5Ei 6 i ng 5p8v ) I E ~ x & Tm@fag, ~I ailriro nap& roo 6166vrog 0soC n&mv & ~ ) I I & ~ a PI) i 6v~t6qovrog~ a 608jmra1 i a b ~ qJas . 4:2-3 o b ~ EXEX 6th rb p? aini&s bp&g, airzirs ~ a obi hap&kvsr&616n r a ~ 3 ~ air~iioec,Yva t'v raig fi60vaig bpDv Ganavfpqn. 25

D C Duling, "Againsr Oaths Crossan Sayings Parallels ~ 9 , Foruni " 6 z (1990)q r ) 138,

here 133 zh Betz. .Sermon on dsa Mount, rsp pp 42-88 "The conclusion IS most Ilkel!,' sacs Werz "that Matrheu as well as Luke found the SM and the SP, rrspecnwiy, in t h e ~ recension t of Q (Q"~[' and Q ~ ~ (p ~ 44) ) * ' 2- U' D Dawrs, T h SPmng of& Svrmon on the Mortnt (Cambrtdg Cambr~dgeUn~versit)' h s s , 19641, 403 404 r8 Knesrer, Ancmt C h a n Gospels, pp 74-75

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

Both Jas I:S and 4:ZC-s have a parallel tn Matt 77, 11 = Luke I I : ~ 13. , The latter verses are the begnnlng and endmg statements In perlcopae (Man 77-11 Luke r1:9-13) whtch concern prayer. While some scholars argue for a complex cradttton-htstory behtnd these synopnc texts," others hold, uqth better reason, that they deft a htstory of rradtrrons analysts and conclude rhac they are untfied s e c t ~ o n s . ~ ~ In Mattheup and Luke, tespecnveiy, a three-part exhortatton (Matt 7:7 = Luke 11.9) IS followed by a three-part rattonale (Mact 7:8 Luke 11:ro) whlch ts confirmed by two examples, both of whtch are arguments from analogy (Mact T:~-IO = Luke II:II-I~) and warranr the tnferred concluston (Matt 7x1 Luke 11:13). Moreover, five occurrences of aitfw and ~ L Xformattons from Gibpt - weld the tndlvtdual parts Into unlfied eiaborat~ons.~~ Shared by Matthew and Luke and almost ~denclcaltn wording, these elaborattons are, accordtng to most scholars, dertved from the common source Q"-n'. the other hand, the dtfferences tn the wordrng and order of Mart 7q-10 (breadlstone and fishisnake) and Luke II:II-12 (fishlsnake and egg/scorpton), are stgnrficant and &fficult to e x p h n as etther wangelst's redaction. Consequently, a graulng number of scholars argue that Matthew and Luke had difFerent recenstons of Q and/or other sources.33 This posttlon IS further strengthened by the fact chat the perlcopar have different contexts and functtons tn Matthew and Luke The Lukan pertcope fits eastly wtthtn a large tnstructton on prayer whtch bepns w t h the Lord's Prayer (Luke II:I-I~). In contrast, the Matthean pencope, whtch 1s part of the SM, seems, at first glance, only loosely connected to tts surroundtngs Certarnly t t makes a complete argument for praytng confidenrly, but the funct~onof Matthew's eelaboratlon IS less an tnstructton on prayer than an argument ustng prayer to emphastze God's generosrry. In other ~vords,the prtmary funcnon of the prayer elaborat~ontn Matt 7::-11

-

-

-

29

J U Crassan, In Frugmmw Ihr A p h s

of J e w

(San Frmnxo Harper & Row,

i J 3 ) . 95-104

ju Luz, M d m i * 1-7, pp fro-.)zy, Davies and Alltson, Miltfheu?pp 677-685 7he best Mount, pp 5ol-pS and most complete & x u s s ~ o nis in k z , hen an 31 On "rwrarson," see kMak, m dx iVruf Tnr;rmcng pp 31-49, 81-85,and esp Kohbrns, F q h g rhc k r n m o f E m , pp 4% 52-59 ncr (Sonomr p J S Klappnborg. Q Ila* S w p , CCrrtrcJI N m und Polcbr~dge~ 1988).8(i+ 33 k I H Marshall, Commmlirp an Lukc (Grand Rapids. Eerdtnans, 1978), 466, p Mr, G Strecker, Thp n afK M m n t (Ab~ngdonNlshUawer and Alltson, on dn Mmnt, esp pp @a wllr, t@3j, 11-13,L u , a t-7, pp 46-49. and &tz,

f i e Sayings of Jesirs in the Letter ofJames is to argue that the children of the Father in Heaven should generously give to others (cf. 7:12).~+ A clue to the secondary emphasis on prayer in Matt 7:7-11 may be reflected in the partial parallels to Matt 7:7 found in the G n o m §gz .and 994 (the latter has a partial parallel in Matt 7:8; and with G f i o m $93; cf. hdact 7:6). These parallels have been overlaid with gnosric emphases and are unrelated to prayer. Likewise, the partial parallels in The Gospel of the Hebrews and in POxy 654 $1 (which is similar to GThom § 2 ) , while attesting to the widespread popularity of the saying in view, are not necessarily relaced to prayer and are but faint re~niniscencesof the elaborarion in Matt 7:7-11. The history of tradition is o p a q ~ e . ' ~ In Mact j:7-II = Luke II:~-13 it is only in the final statements (Mart 7:II Luke 1r:13) that "asking and receiving" (("seeking" and "knocking") are clearly related to prayer. Nonetheless, even if the prayer-connection here is due ca secondary interpretation, there is nothing in the history of tradition chat violates the integrity of these synoptic sections. In other words, already in the sources used by the evangelists these pericopae were unified wholes. It is certainly conceii~ablethat the original elaboration goes back to Against this background, let us look at Jas 1:sand 4:zc-3. Both concern i Uas prayer and share the pertinent lexical terms: a i n i ~ .o. . ~ abo0fpral 1:s) and aimn ~ a. l. . )iapfi&wr& oas 4:3; cf. Mact 7:8 = Luke II:IO)." Additionally, in Jas 1:s the reference to God as "the God who gives to all liberally and does not upbraid," though clearly different from Matthew's ("our Father, the one in the heavens, [who] will give good things to those who

-

34. See esp. Retz, Sermon on thr &fount, pp. 423-428, 500-508. The Golden Rule (Matt 7:12), which epitom~zes"the law and the prophets," not only s u p p r r s chis assessmenr of Matt 7:7-IIbut, as Ber~argues (see csp. Sennon mi rhe Mount, pp. 508-519). 1s (I) alm the herrneneurlcal key for understanding the third sectton of the Shl: (Matr 6:rg-?:I!), and (2) a framing device that, with Matt (:17-18,interpreted the Law* In ternis of fulfilling the love command. In Jas XI-13we are In the sanie milieu as the SM, for "those who Iwe God" Uas 2:s) are those who obey the Torah U a s 2x0 "the rap1 law,nJas 2:8). whtch, summarlzed rn the low-command Uns 2:s; cf. Lev 19:18),coheres uirh the "fatrh ofJesus [himselfl'"U a s s : ~ ) . See below in the remarks on the parallel b e w e n Jas z : and ~ Man $3 Luke 6:zob. 35. Whether the Gospel oflhumlrs depended on Matthew or on pres)mopttc rraditton is uncertain; cf also John rq:13-1j;t ~ : f and ; 16:24 (see Retz, Sennon on thr Mount, pp. 426, $03504; Marshall, Luke, p. 466; Davies and Allison, Mdnheu: pp. 674-675, 678-680. 682) 36. Lux, .%thew I--?, p. -)+I;also K.\V. Funk and R \V. Hoover, eds.. %h4 F ~ t l eGorp&: Thr ktrh tbe A u h m Words ofJesrr (New b r k : Macmillan, 1993).p. 155. 37. In Jas 1:s air& occurs once; liibwp~m c e . In Jas 4:zc-3 a i d w occurs three ames; &i&p~does nor occur but its synonym Aap&Clwoccurs once. See Philo, Mtgr Abr 121.

-

-

BROTliER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

ask hlm") and Luke's ("the Father, the one from heaven [who] uqll give the Holy Sptrit to those who ask him"'), is a linguistic performance that captures the essence of the emphasis on God's generostcy in the Jesus loglon. Thus, r t appears that in Jas 1:s the author has reclted, in his own words, the essence of both the fundamental exhortation (Matt 7:7 = Luke 11:9) and the fundamental conclusion (Matt 7x1 .- Luke I I : I ~of ) the saylng of Jesus in Matt 7:7-11 = Luke 11:p-13. Most scholars hold, \wrh good reason, that the Marthean performance, wtth its reference to "good thtngs," 1s more orig~nalthan Luke's reference to the "Holy Spirlt " This is extremely stgnificant in llght of the connecttons chat James makes with the "wisdom from above" (3:17),which u one of the goad and perfect gft(s) whlch come down from God the Father (1x7) Indeed, rt ts because God the Father is a generous giver of "goad rhlngs" that one is exhorted tn Jas I:S to pray wtth confidence for *wwsdom." The pragrnarlc relations between James's ssaygs rewal a network of presuppositions that resonate wtth the saylng of Jesus in Matt J:7-11 = Luke 11'9-13.There is more than enough to suggest that Jas 1:s is a Jameslan recttatton of a saying attributed to Jesus. Moreover, t t appears chat Jas r:5 is closer to the pre-htatthean sapng in Matt 77, 11. The lexical terms and the prayer theme in Jas 42c-3 recall the language ofJesus In Marc 7:8 = Luke 11.10.On the other hand, some have argued that here James is not using a sapng afJesus. Apart from tts lack of artrtbunon co Jesus, rhe argument against Jas j:zc-3 ts basically thu: James, here, ts dealing w t h unanswered prayer (he juxtaposes an unqualtfied form in 4:z w t h a qualified forni in 4:3), the forniac ofJas 4:3 IS negattve (while the formar of Matt 7.8 = Luke 1I:ra 1s poslttve); and there are grammancal variaclans in the texts t'James has the lndicanve, rather than tmperative, mood, and he shifts voices: middle to acnw to middle, in 4:rc-3). None of these arguments IS persuasive. James here seems to use the active and middle vorces interchangeably (see 1 John s:I~-16and cf. r John 3:~');neither the diRFerences tn the grammar of Jas 4x-3, nor the negatlve format ofJas 4:3 can disqualtfjl thts as a Jamesian recttatlon of the Jesus log~onin Matt ~ : 8 Luke 11:io. Moreover, the unity, coherence, and emphasis in Jas 4 : ~ - 3cohere with the Integrity of lts grammar, form, and content.

-

James 2:s

-

QU$3

- QL6:20b - GThom

554

James 2:s is one of James's most important parallels to a Jesus logion. It has a straregic function within Jas r:r-13, which is a well-defined and com-

n e Sayings of Jesus in the Letter of James plete elaboration of the theme introduced in Jas 2:r; namely, that "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ" is incompatible with acts of p a r t i a l i ~ y . ~ ~ From a rhetorical perspective, it appears that James has adapted a Jesusbeatitude (Matt 5:j = Luke 6:zob) and partially recited it for his own persuasive purposes. Besides Jas 2:5, there are four other performances of the saying in question. These are Matt 53; Luke 6:20b; GThom 954; and Polycarp, Phil. 2:3. All five performances share two key terms: "the p o o r ' h d "the kingdom." Moreover, all five performances exploit the common terms to produce sentences that feature one common denominator - "God's kingdom is promised to the poor."Apart from this, however, Jas 2:s is observably different from its four parallels in attribution, form, content, style, and function. For example, the parallels to Jas 2:s are beatitudes, specifically attributed to Jesus. In addition, they are also enthymemes, rhetorical syllogisms: each consists of a conclusion (a macarism) and a premise (a (Inclause), with, as is typical of enthymemes, one premise unstated and tacitly assumed. Because of these differences, and because it emphasizes God's concern for the poor, some scholars separate Jas 2:s from its context and conclude that it simply states a "principle of the traditional piety of the poor."39 There is no doubt that both the OT and Jewish literature reflect the notion that God has a special concern for the poor, and Jas 2:s clearly evokes "the traditional piety of the poor.'" On the other hand, as Deppe reminds us, "there are no references in the OT, intertestarnental literature, or the Talmud specifically saying that God is giving the kingdom to the poor."41This $3 U' ki U'achab, "%hkb tn Fa& "and "7hek r n Spmt" 7%c T l x R h r r d FuMaon oj a Saying of Jcsur m & tprstk ofJrmcs (doctoral drsscrtanon, Atlanta. Emow Unrvcrsrty, 199J forrhcnmrng an SNTSMS,Carnbrtdge Cambridge Unrwrsrcy Press), Johnson, jams,

P 56 39 Karster Anrrpnr C h a n h p c l s , p 74 40 H D Bcu (Ermy on dx S m o n on tbe Mount [Phtladelphia Fortress, r*~], 34) rrghtly asserts that Q ~ 5' 3 also "derlcvs from the J m s h 'piety of the poor '" See L T Johnson, Slurring hsmsmns h ~ a n d r arnd Symbol offirth (OBT 9, Phtladelphia Forrrrss, I+). 79116

41 Deppe, Szymngs ofJesus, p 90 He further says (wings ofjesw, pp go-91) ' m e dec:clue ~ for the presence of a saylng ofJesus ltes In the fact that the word 'krngdom' IS not Jamesran vocabulary Jas z 5 is the only occurrence of chrs term rn the eprstle Cerranly the employment of a term partrcularly assoctated w t h the preaching of Jesus IS e.v~denrethat James is alludrng to the same saytng quoted rn Matt 5 3 and Luke 6 zo Thts rs confirmed by the fact that even crttrcal exegetes ltke Drbelrus and Laws admrt the probabtlrty that Jas IS consciously referring to a logon prtwously spoken by Jesus" He refers ro Drbcltus and $

1

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF G O D

fact alone warrants the conclusion that the most llkely source for Jas 2:s IS not the tradlnonal prety of the poor but the teaching of Jesus. Strong support for thls conclusron is found In the followwng facts. Frrst, the term kingdom appears only here in James, although srgnlficantly, + ~ I K & occurs immediately In 2:8 Second, this term, whlch 1s so dlstlnctlve in the language of Jesus, appears In a statement about God that is marked by, subsumed under, and intimately connected to Jesus' o m f i c h Uas ~ : t ) . ~ ~ T hprmous ld, research has shown that the hlstorical example in Jas 2:s achieves its rhetorical meanlng and function by recalling Jesus' own f i t h as the measure for the elect community's faith.43 Fourth, the tntroductron of hlstorical example rn Jas 2:5 ("Was not God promrsed . . . 2"') presupposes that, lrke Jesus'ffith which ~trecalls, it 1s already known to James's addressees. In sum, looklng at the letter of James as a procrepac wisdom discourse, we find that the first and fundamental supporting proof Uas 2:s) of rhe argumentatlw unit tn Jas 2:1-13IS a statement - about God's acnon w t h reference to "the poor" - which recalls Jesus'own f a t h (Jas 2:x) rn language that resonates wrth the texture of a well-known wisdom saylng of Jesus In whrch the poor are promised God's kmgd~rn.~ A closer look a t the lnterrexrual relations of these five performances only increases the probabiltty that Jas 2.5 is a recitation of a Jesusbeantude. Recent Q-studles clatm that Matt 5:3 = Luke 6:20b belonged to the formanve stage rn the development of the Synoptrc Sayrngs Sour~e.'~ Grecven Urimcs, p ~ p )and , S Laws (% Eprctk of Jdmrr [HNTC Ssn Franasro Harper & R*nv, lg(b), 103-104) ~r For the suggestion thac the reference to Jesus' fath tn 2 I funcrrons as a "global alluston" that evokes the whole of what our author prcctves Jesus to have behard, sad, and done, see Wachob ("7hc Rtcb rn 161tb"and%Pacn rn Spt," p 263) For the term "'global aflwton," scr R Alter, 7br. Wearrrm of &&ng rn +an cal Age (Nen Yo& Stmon & Schuster, 1989), 124 43 Wachob. "Thr Rub m Farth" and "% Pcm m Sptrzt*"pp 1 3 J - q $ JJ Wachob, "7hc R& rn F d " and "'7kc Pour m Spmt," pp zjq-jzg Becausc the entire letter presuppases a untty of purpose and actton for God and the LordJesus Chrtst (cf I I), thts argument presumes a congruence benvwn the fatth of the Lord Jesus Chrtrr and God's chotce of the poor to tnherit the kingdom, and supports the chests thac Jesus' fatth and arrs of puttahty are contrary and tncompanble to each ocher (p 188) 47 Set J S Kloppenborg, 7hc i + ~ ~ ~ of~ Qn o Trapturtes n m Annmr W & C~#&mn (SAC, Phlluielphta Forrrcss, 197). I ~ I - I ~ ~ , I ~The J-Y saytngs S In this stratum (Q 6 mb-49, 9 57-62 + 102-16, 21-24, 112-4, 913, 12.2-12, u-jq,r j 24-30) comprtse "clusters or 'speeches'" that arc governed by "saplennal themes and devices" and "are d~rectcdat the Q communtty tn support oftrs radical mode of existence "Thus, KIoppcnborg classtfies Q 6 zob as a "wsdom sapng", on the other hand, Koester ( A m m t C h u n ( h s p l s pp 136-138, esp 149-171)

The Sayings of Jesus in the Letter ofJames Supposedly, this stratum of Q was comprised mainly of wisdom sayings, some of which are also found in the Gospel of Thomas. Among the latter is GThom 5 ~ 4The . ~ source of this wisdom saying, however, seems not to have been Q itself but most likely a cluster of sayings that also belonged to Q. Both Paul and the author of I Clement (chap. 13) appear to have known this cluster of sayings4' This is significant, because Polycarp, Phil. 2:3 also suggests an intertextual relation to I Clem. 13:z (and probably also to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke).48If these scholarly hypotheses regarding the development of the Jesus tradition are correct, then the Jesus logion alluded to in Jas 2:5 is an early, widely known and exploited saying ofJesus. Recent research on the intertexture ofJas 2:s has shown that there is a difference in the perspectives respectively of QL 6:20b, G n o m 954, and 3 Jas 2:s.49While all of the latter, except Polycarp, Phil. 2:3, and of QM~ : and Jas 2:5. are enthymemes, and therefore logical arguments, the reasoning within QL 6:20b, GThom 954, and Polycarp, Phil. 2:3 is different from that in QM53. And while all five performances, except (perhaps) GThom 954, are dependent upon their respective contexts for their meaning and functii711, QM5:3 and Jas 2:s have different rhetorical and theological functions than do QL 6:20b, GThom 954, and Polycarp, Phil. 2:3.50 For example, the similar performances of QL 6:20b and GThom 954 pronounce blessings on people in an ascribed state of socio-economic classifies it as a "prophetic saying."The reader notes that such research presupposes that Q went through several rcdaccional stages; see Kloppenborg (pp. 89-262, 317-328) and Koester ~ P P 133-171). . 46. Koescer (Ancient Chnsmn Gospels, p. 87) finds that forry-six of the seventy-nlne saytngs shared by the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels are Q sayings (see his hst and dlsxussion, pp. 86-95). 47. Koescer, Ancient Chrisrian Gospels, p. 137. 48. Koescer, Anctent Christian Gospels, pp. 19-20; also idem, Synophsche iiberliefert~ngbei C n dpostolischen Vdtern (TU 65; Berlin: Akademie, 1957). 114-120. Also see W. R Schoedel, bkdvd:arp, Marprdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias (The Apostolic Fathers 5; London: Nel5t11:, 1967), 12. 49. Accorhng co Wachob, "The Rich in Faith" and " B e Poor in Spirit," pp. 326-327 n. 162: " Q 7 3 and ~ Jas ~ z : ~as ~ , the~saylngs of Jesus and James, respectively. recall the cradcional Jewish piety of the poor. Though in dfferent ways, both sayings address 'the Poor of God,' that is, chose who in their actions love God by obeying God's law. In neither of the latter are the socially and economically impoverished promised the kingdom on the basis of their situarion (as chey are in Q~~~~6:20b and Gos. %om. 54). In Q~~~~5:3 and Jas 2:s the kingdom is the incentwe, the reward, ofthose whose actions conform to the law of God (as it is not in @*lke 6:2ob, Gos. Thom. 53, and Pol. Phil. 2:3)." 50. For a complete discussion of Polycarp, Phil. 2:3, see Wachob, "The Rich in Faitb" and " 7 h Poor in Spirit, " pp. 317-319.

BROTHER OF JESUS, F R I E N D OF G O D

poverty. In other words, what Koester says of Luke 6:2ob, namely, that it "blesses the situation in which chose to whom Jesus' message comes h a p pen to be,"$'is also true of G%m 554.52But this is not the case in QM5:3 and Jas 2:s - in neither of these sayings are the socially and economically impoverished promised God's kingdom o n the basis of their situation. ~ thac the kingdom is thc inO n the contrary, both QM5:3 and Jas 2 : argue centive, the reward, of those whose acrions conform to the Torah as interpreted by Jesus and summarized in the love command.s3 In their respective contexts, "the poor in spiric" (QM53) and "the rich in f a i t h ' u a s 2:s) designate people (not of an ascribed scacus but) of an achieved status. Both of these sayings recall the traditional piecy of the poor; and each saying, in its own manner, addresses "the Poor of God."James, in particular, plays o n the fact that his addressees are for the most part socioeconomically impoverished ("the poor before the world"), but Jas 2:s manipulates their s c r i b e d scacus from the perspective of the Jewish piecy of the poor. In n o sense does James suggest thac God's kingdom belongs to the socio-economically poor as a reward for their earthly poverty. The poor are chosen by God, for God, chac they might be rich now in obedience t o God and therefore receive the promised reward, God" kingdom. In Jas 2:5, "rich in faith" is synonymous with "loving God," and both arc: functionally equivalent to fulfilling the Torall of God, summarized in the love command. Deppe" reminds us of Spicca's assertion "thac if one could somehow show Jas 2:s to be dependent upon a logion ofJesus, then one could legitimately be convinced chac James throughout his epistle alludes t o Jesus' saying^.'"^ This has been done.56It is beyond dispute chac in Jas 1:s the author of James is reciting a saying of Jesus very much like that in QM5:3, s o thac "the poor in spirit" of Qh45:3 are "the rich in faith" of Jas 1 : ~ .

51 Kocster, Ancmt &fun Gospeh, p 156 g r Wachob, "7ha k h rn Fa&" and "7be Poor m Sprrrt," pp 315-317 53. Hem, Essay on & Sontlon a h e Mount, p 34, and Wachoh, "5 Rrch m Farrh' and POOI m Spnrt," pp PS-329 r+ W p e , %*B QJJ-, P 90 55 F Sprcca, 'Der B r ~ e fdes Jakobusbr~ef,"i n Zur Gesch~chte und Ltemtur der m w vol 2 (COttrngen Vmdenhoeck h Ruprechr, 1&t6), 164 56 Wachoh, % Rid m F a d " and "&Pwr rn Sprra ''

The Sa-yzngs ofjesrrs zn the Letter ofJames

James 2:8 and Matthew 2x39; Mark 12:31;Luke 10:27 James 2%-11is a four-part argument based on the written law; the argument is adduced as a judgment, an authoritative witness, that supports the theme introduced in Jas 2:r. In Jas 2% the author clearly activates an antecedent text from the LXX, exploiting seven of the twenty-four words in Lev 19:18. Actually, Jas 2:s is but the third clause In (the four clauses of) Lev 19:18. James marks it with a citation formula as an authoritative text (ypa+rj), and recites it verbatim. Technically, Jas 2:s is an "abbreviation" ( o u a ~ i h h ~ of ~ v Lev ) 19:18; and the Jamesian performance of the loveof an ancommandment is properly a rhetorical "recitation" (dnayy~kia) cient auth~rity.~: Is James aware of the prominence of the love-commandment in the ? ~support ~ of the argument that James is not only citreaching o f J e s u ~In trig Lev 19:18 but also alluding to a logion of Jesus is the fact thac Jas 2:s has an unmistakable rhetorical connection to the ~nentionof "Jesus faith" rn Jas 2:1; this is a strong indication that - as those who "hold the faith Jesus" - both James and his addressees are aware of Jesus' use of the lovecommandment. Moreover, Betz is certainly correct in saying that "early (-hristianity wras historically united on the fact that Jesus taught the fulfdIment of the Torah in the l o v e - c o m m a n d l ~ ~ e l The ~ t . "parallels ~~ to Jas 2:s in Matt 2 ~ 3 9Mark ; 12:jr; and Luke ro:27 bear this out. On the other side, however, the abundance ofJewish and Christian sources that corroborate the use of Lev 19:18 as a summary of the whole law (e.g. Hillel in b. Sabb. jfa; R. Aqiba in Gen. R4b. 24.7 [on Gen 5:116'; and also Matt 543; 19:19; hfark 12:31 = Matt 2x39 = Luke 1~x27;Ram 13:g; Gal j:14; Did.1:2; Barn. 19:s)~'makes the argument that James was specifically alluding to a logion of Jesus more difficult to sustain. 57 Theon, Progvtnnasm~ta,ed C Walz (Rhetotcs G ~ a e cr. ~Scuctgart Cortar 1832), 139R Butt\, The Progytnno,tnatu il$Tl~aon A Neu Text ujith Pan.afi,htion und Comnzmtnry (doci c b r n l d~sbertaclon,Clarrmont Graduate School, 1987), 204-205 58 O n James's use of Leviticus 19. see mv essay "I he Use of Lc.i~~t~cus 19 in the Letter of idti-es," pp 12; 157 In r h o volume, and for a rhetoiical analys~sof language In Le\r~trcus19 ai-d the love conlniandllient 1nrerte.ic ofJaa r 8, see K'achoh, "Tl,e R z ~ hin Fazth 'nnd "The Poor m Splrrt," pp z~;-rho 59 Recz, E ~ s u yon~ the Stmion on the Alonnt, p 37, also Davles, Semng of the Sermon on the Mou~nt,pp 405-413 60 Sce f-1 L Strach and P Blllf~heck Ko?~:?ncntdr zzt~7nNeum Testumrrzt 'zrt, T a h u d und hlrriascl~,7 vols (h.luni~hBeck, 1965) I 356-378 61 C~redIn H D Rrrz, Galilhdns A Commrntary on P~z111s h t t e r to thr Chrirche, m Gaiilha filermene~a, Phlladelphla Fortrrrs 1979), 276 n 74

1 4 ,J

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

Nevertheless, it can be asserted thar in the context of a wisdom discourse rhat is addressed co Christian Jews (r:~)and pointedly embraces "the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ," i t is hard to imagine that judgments connecting the poor, the promised kingdom, the royal law, and the love-commandment could haw been heard without thinking of Jesus'words and deeds.

James 2:13

-

QM

5:7

=

Q~6:36

The problem of determining whether this aphorism is reliant on a Jesus logion is even more severe. All commentators agree that the conception expressed in this verse is conventional in Jewish thought and literamre from the prophets to the rabbis (Sir 29::; 7:Zeb. 5:r; cf. Tob ~ : I o - I I )For .~~ example, J. H. Ropes notes that its performance in "Jer. Baba q. viii, ro, 'Every time rhat thou art merciful, God will be merciful to thee; and if thou art not mercif-ul, God will not show mercy to thee,'" is very close to the performance in Jas 2:xj." Ben correctly sums up the evidence: "for dl branches ofJudaism the exercise of mercy was one of the preeminent relig o u s and social duties. This duty was based on the belief that God is a God of mercy. Early Christian cheolagy continued chis tradition in a variety of ways."64 The criterion of dissimilarity would also apparently rule out QM5:7 QL6:36 as a saying of Jesus, given its conwntiond character both within Judaism and early Christianity (I Clem. r3:1-2). Similarly, with respect to Jas z:13, the well-worn argument and widely accepted view is thar James draws on Jewish tradition rather than a Jesus saying. The Jamesian performance certainly reflects thinking similar to the thought emanating fmm the pre-Marthean SM."

-

6 2 C~rcdtn DibcLus,Jwmrs, pp rj:-1q8 63 J H Ropes, A Cn&d w n d f i e d Commmtary m rht. E M burgh T & T Clark, 1916), z o ~ 64 &a,%won on rhc Mount, p 133, we esp nn )rpjtS

4%jwnuv (KC, Edtn-

on dw . b u n of & Afotmr) has argued rhat the SM den^^ from a Jw&-Chnsnan gmup In whrsh law and gospel are strangly rntenwrned (p 35) "In the SM, Jesus IS r e g d e d as the authorttanw teacher and interpreter of the Jrwsh Torah" (p 91). "AEcunbng m the SM,Jcsusauthorrt) depends upon that of the To&, though naturally in accordance uqth his parrtculu tncerpetatmn"of rr (p 92) "The Torah taught by Jesus IS noth~nglcss than chc way revealed by God u h ~ c hcornsponds to hts kingdom and u-hrch leads one into IC ([Mart] 7 13-14)"(p 95) Moreover, as Kocscer ( A ~ t t - n rCbwtwn Gorp&,

The Sqings of Jesus in the Letter of Jantes

Jesus may well have said something like the sayings attributed to him in Q" 5:7 = QL6:36.66Converging lines of evidence (multiple attestation) and the argument from coherence - both of which are more important than the criterion of dissimilarity -- based on, for example, the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 1o:30-37)and the command to love one's enemies QM5:44 = QL6:27) certainly support that possibility. The saying coheres with numerous other texts in the tradition which indicate that Jesus' interpretation of the lax7 emphasized justice and mercy. But the road from possibility to probability is a long one, and cannot be traveled for Jas 2:rj with the available evidence. In this analysis, we have deliberately been minimalist, seeking to avoid sweeping generalizations and grandiose claims, and placing our analysis within the broader scholarly conversation concerning the sayings ofjesus. We argue that there are four passages in James where not simply an echo of Jesus' teaching but a specific use of his words is to be found. The strength of the evidence supporting this claim is shown by contrast with the two passages that we have considered but rejected. We d o not deny that Jas 2% and 2x3 could have derived from Jesus logia, only that the evidence is insufficient so to assert. The same goes for the other passages in Deppe's extensive list; there is no intrinsic reason why the author ofJames should not have been so deeply influenced by the teaching of Jesus that his inflections in each of these cases also echoed what had been said by Jesus. But we cannot show it. The isolation of four passages as performances of Jesus logia, however, is by no means insignificant, especially since, in each case, a further argument can be sustained that the form of the saying in James is closer to the form of tradition commonly hypothesized as Q than to the final redaction of Matthew and Luke.67On this point, the instinctive assessment of RopesG8has been substantiated by all subsequent analysis. The most p. 171) has correctly observed, "the author of thls epistle Dames] and [he redactor of Q who produced the Sermon o n the Mount belong to the same Jewish-Christran mllleu; both share the decision that the follo~versofJesus belong to law-abiding Israel and that fulf~llxnent o f t h e law, though without any emphasis upon circumcision and rltual law, is the appropriate interpretation of the teachings of Jesus." 66. Funk and Hoover, The FICVGospels, pp. 296-297, designare QM 5:7 = QL 636 gray. "Gray" means, 'yesus drd not say this, buc the rdeas in it are close to hrs o a n " (p. 36). However, it should be pointed out that ofcen "graf ~ndtcatcswlde disagreement among the members of the Jesus Seminar. 67. P. J. Hartin, Jurnrs uttd the Q Su-yifigs ($Jesus (TSNTSLI~ 47; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 140-217, 220-244. 68. Ropes, Jilmej, pp. 38-39.

BROTHER OF

JESUS, FRIEND

OF GOD

logical conclusion to draw about the composition of James, given this finding, is that it took place in a setting that ulas temporally and geographically close to an early stage of the developing tradition. The authors of this essay differ on the judgment concerning authorship. Johnson thinks that the author may very well have been James, the Brother of the Lord;@Wachob thinks that an anonymous teacher wrote in the name and ethos of James, the Brother of the Lord, and used the Jesus sayings as a way of strengthening his m m i n s r r u c t i ~ nThey . ~ agree, houwer, on the following judgment: the use of an early form of the Jesus tradition suggests that the Letter ofJames was written either before the campsicion of the Synoptic Gospels, or at the very least before their version of Jesus" teachings became standard.

69.Johnson,J a m , pp. 89-113 70. Wachob, "Ibc W rn Faah" a d "Thr Paor m Spmt "

154

Tm'~rniiy and True Religon: James 1:26-27

The careful attention to speech in the Letter ofJames reveals its roots in the wisdom traditions of the ancient world. Like other Hellenistic moralists, James insists that speech find consistent expression in deeds (I:=-25; 2x426).l Of equal importance, however, are speech-acts themselves. The way James shares, yet also differs from, the perceptions of his world concerning proper speech is the focus of this chapter offered in fond tribute to a teacher who exemplifies,(jg h,kobnrpc? (as in a mirror), the virtues here discus~ed.~ The ancient world agreed that che wise person was also taciturn. Silence was generally better, and always safer, than speech. Brevity in speech was preferred to loquacity. The evidence is everywhere: in the Wisdom literature of the OT (LXX),3 Hellenistic Jewish4 and other Jewish I. "In the first place I require that the consistencyof mm's dwmnes be observed in their way of living." Hutarch Stoic, Rpp. I (Mor. 1o33B). In addition to the passages in Stobaeus's Andxtlgpum 11, 15 (Hense 185-1g6),see also Seneca Ep. 20.1; Diog. Laert 1.53; and 9.37; Plut. De Pmf: V i 14 (Mor. 848);Philo Kt. Mor. 1.6.29; 2.8.48; Spec. Leg, 2.14.53; Congr 13.67; 7be SentencPs of Suhcc 1 7 ; l)rd 2.5, as uell as the references in my essay "Friendship with the World and Friendsh~puith God: A Study of Discipleship in James," p. 219 n. 66 in this volume. 2. Like the other students of Abraham J. Malherbe, I have enjoyed and benefited from the Matherbtan apothegms, dellrered in his inimitable style. In this essay, I emulate Professor Matherbe's scholarly example of making appropriate dist~ncrionsin order to clarifj. specific traditions. 3. The bibilcal passages (LXX) include Prov 10:8,14,i9,31; rr:r2-13; 12:13,18; 13:3; 14:3; 15.3; 1727-28;18:4, 6-7; 21:23; 29:20: Eccl S:I-2,6; 1o:14; Wis 1:rr; &IZ;Sir I:=-24; q:zj, 29; 6:33; 7x4; 8:); 9:18; rr:8; 1j:I2-13; 19:p12,16;U):I, 5-8,18,27;21:26; 21:27; 23:s; 32:4,8. The u~idespreaduse of the theme in the annent Near East is shown by 7be Inrmtctionr of Shuruppdk 21 and 130 (ANET595);InsfrurlMnr of Ptdh-Hotep 535 and 575 (ANET J I J); I n r m n r f m Kmng h4eri-&-re 30 (ANGT~I~); 7he Instmmon ofAnr 4.1 (ANET4zo);T k Inshrrction ofAmen-Em-Opet 3.15; 11.1~; u.15 (ANlT~u-qaq); Iht. Wonk ofAhiqur 7.95-110 fANET@U-.+q?).

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

tvritings? and early Chrisr~anlt~erarure.~ The coptc was so wtdely dtscussed by Greek wrtcers that t t u?as anthologrzed under several d~fferent rubrtcs.' In the NT, James grves most dtrect expresston to thts tdcal: " k t every one be qutck to hear, slou~to speak, slow to anger" 'as 1x9).He devotes considerable (tf complex) arrennon to the power and peril of speech tn 3:r-12.8 The person who can control the tongue, he says, IS "perfect" (&tq [ 3 : ~ j ) . ~ HIS statements seem at home wthtn the standard dtsanctlon b e m e n the lacon~cand loqumous, in which short is always better than long.I0 Another of James" statements, houwer, IS more puzzling: "If anyone 4 Cf , e g , 7hp h m w o f p s d p k f k m,n,69, IZ~-I.Z.$ Among many piaces tn Phrlo are Fug 16136, Som r qo 262-270, r .+a 276, L)ct Pol Ins 134, 27 lo, Spec & rl+So, Abr J to,kfut Mom 41-q y a - . r ~ 3 .Lq: All 1 $3 15%. I'tmt + I 176 5 See 'Abor I 5, g, 11,15,17,3 14 $ 7 12,and ilbor R Nar 13,u,26, 37, d m Thc Scna7rcesof dx S y w Mmndrr jrr. 311, 31; 6 1 Clem 21 7, 301. Ign Pbld I I, Epb 15 1-2, fbm 197-8, Herm Vu 23, Mdnd. 11 12 Smktng stmtlarrnes to James can be found rn 7he Srntences of Sexrus 15p19,16u, 163b, 171, r 8 5 , r s ~350.351.361.366, . a6.v'~ 430-4j~ 7 Stobaeus's An contams pemnenr enrrres in these chapters. nyit aryi)i; (["concernmg srlence" nse, 678-811, llcpi TOO ~bcalpi>; Myerv (["concernmg speakrng at the apprioprlarc tame"] 3 M,H e w , &137), ncpi (["concern 3 35, Hense, 6 8 7 - 6 ~ )and , flcpi &bo)irwa~ (["concernrng garruitty"] 3 36, Many passages, parrtcularly from h~scor~ans and rhetonclans, are consrde der, I)(. Anaqmrum Hommum Tunhtmrtat~et T ~ e n d o(Traveaux de la h e r e des Screnca de Wmclau, 56, Wroclaw, 1956) Among the noteuwrthy passages not contvned In the above sourea are Dtog k r t I .IF. 69, 70, 88, 92, 104, 9 2, Lucran Demon 64, Plut h b Erircc 14 (Mar I & ) ,and those drxussed bvlou Far the conrtnuatlon of the Ideal In Western monasncrsm, cf A G Utathen, O S B , &fenre 7 7 Mcnntng ~ of S k e m t&e K u k of 3 &ncdrcr (Curerclan Snrdres Scrres 22,U'ashmgon, I) C Crstercran Publtcannns, 1 9 ~ 3esp ) ~ 109-176 8 The NT has much ro sav about appropnare and rnapproprtate modes ofspeech as rn Matt 677 Col ~ 8Eph , ~ 4 I ,Tzm r 6, Trtus I 10) bur little h u t speech as such The term M i a in 1 Thess 4 11 and 2 T h e s 3 12 refers to the qu~eclife Paul s tw of acybo (to be sdcnr) tn I Gar 1418-30 IS purely funcrtnnal The notable excepuon IS the stlence imposed on uwmen tn the assembly (I Cnr 14 14, I Trm r 11-iz) 9 For a careful discusston of the exegetrcal problems In Jas 5 I-I&with a rrch selectron of matenal tllustratlng the metaphor of "mnrng the tongue," ser M DrbeLus, A G m m ury on the E p t b oflrrmes, rev H Grerven, trans M Urr1ltamc (Hermencia, Phtladelphra Fart m s , [*), 181-zo6,and J B Mayor, % bprrdr o f 3 Jrrmes, 3rd ed (London Macmillan, rgro), 107-125 Nelther supplres the best parallel to James's assertton concerning the "perfecnnn" of someone who concrnls speech, ~tIS rn Phtlo Poster C q 88 (cf dso Magr Abr 1373) I of terms are used far both "laconrc" and "kqui~cious,"the most common being (bmqtirr) and hmca).ia ( g d r m ) For the rough equtvalent af m w and mar* (to be dent), cf Schnayder, Tmwmr*ttr, p 51 n ji, for that h r e n &re and ~ m , cf Wathm, S h e , pp 13-19

Taciturnzty and True Religion: James 1:z6-z7 thinks that he is religious [0prlm6~], not curbing his tongue [xaAaaywyBv yhBooav] but deceiving his heart, this person's religion [epqm~ia]is vain [p&ra~oc]" Uas 1:26)." Why and how should speech be connected to authentic religion? Jas 1:26 raises the question of why silence was preferred to speech, the pithy to the prolix. This chapter surveys the rationalizations given in Hellenistic moral literature12 and examines James against that background. The relative rarity of explicit rationalization should not be surprising. Perceptions that are pervasive often appear to those holding them to be so obvious and experientially confirmed as to require no theoretical support. Enough evidence remains available to suggest a fairly intricate web of perceptions governing the preference for concision in speech. A line of at least implicit logic can be traced through the three realms of the rhetorical, the ethical, and the religious.

Silence a n d Speech i n t h e Hellenistic World Brevity Is Best

In rhetorical &scussions, the quality of speech known as flpaxuhoyia (brevitas [conciseness]) holds an honored, but for the most part minor, place. Aristotle does not use the term. In several places, he does assert that b between the overly concise and overly difin style, "the mean" ( ~ pkoov) fuse (CtGohLmq) is to be observed (Rh. 3.2.3; 3.12.6; 3.16.4). He recognizes that brevity communicates knowledge quickly (3.11.9) and that "laconic apothegms and riddles" have their uses.13 Cicero scarcely adverts to brevitas when dscussing figures of thought and speech (De Or. 3.53.202). Only slightly more attention is given by the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium, who links brevztas to the figure apo~iopesis.'~ Quintilian de11. O p q m 6 ~ is a hapax legomenon, bur Opqmeia is common, having perhaps a slighr and b c n 6 ~ qro~ emphasis o n cultic observance (cf, BAGD 363). Thus, Philo opposes &fioCpe~a 8 p q m ~ i ain Llet. Pot. Ins. 7.21. The "vain" character of rehgon (~CLTUIOS) can also be read as "foolish," suggesting a wisdom/folly contrast in the statement, which reinbrces the connection of tacirurnicy to wisdom (cf Liddell-Scott, s.~.). 12. The largest number of exhortations to silence or brevicy lack explanarion. The fullest kscussions are found in the Greek materials. 1 concentrate on them, nocing passim points of agreement or hsagreement In Jewish literature, 13. His phrasing is: r b Aartwwrtb hrro@BbyMara~ a aiwy~ar06q, i Arist. Kh. 2.21.8. 14. Rl~et.Her. 4.54.67-68. Breottas has this admiring definlrion: "Rrevitas esr res ipsis

BROTHER O F JESUS, F R I E N D OF

con

clares that the "praise awarded to perfect brevity is well deserved'because it expresses a great deal in a few \vords, but he warns that failure to achieve such perfecrion results in obscurity (Inst. 8.3.82). In his exrerisive treatise on rhetoric, he gives meager attention to B p a ~ d o y i a(expressions not linked by conjirnctions or other grammatical connectors) as a form of asyndeton (9.3.50;cf 9.3.99).Brevity is considered only in passing as well by '"Longinus," who characterizes garrulousness as a sign of old age and who, like Aristotle, recommends a middle ground benveen excessive breviry and prolixity in speech (Subl. 9.14;42.1-2;cf. also Philostr. Vit.Ap. 8.2). In contrast, the treatise "On Sty1e"attributed to Demetrius pays considerably mare attention to brevity. Demetrius thinks lengthy sentences appropriate to an elevared style, but when they grow roo long, garrulousness results (Eloc. 4.204, 212-14).In the same way, sentences that are too short fail to make an impression on hearers (1.4).Demetrius nevertheless shows unusual fondness for f3pa~uhoyia.He attaches three qualities to brevity. First, short sentences are forceful ( 6 ~ 1 ~ 6hcessive 5). length paralyzes intensity, but flmuho$a, because it packs "much meaning in a brief form[,] is more forcible" (Demetr. Eloc. 5.241; trans. Roberts in LCL; cf. also 5.274)." Like Longinus, Demetrius considers garrulousness a sign of old age, occurring then "because of their weakness." In contrast, the people he associates with ppaxuhoyia are the vigorous Lacedaemonians (1.7). Second, because of its force, brevity is appropriate to apothegms and maxims. It thereby reveals great skill in speakers or writers by "putting much thought in little space." Demetrius cites nvo sorts of examples. From the Spartans, he qilotes the response to the tyrant Philip, "Dionysius at Corinth." From the pre-Socraric sages, he cites the apothegms "Know thyself' and "Follow God" (Eloc. 1.9;cf. also 5.241). Third, Demetrius says thar brevity leads to a certain inevitable ambiguity. This makes it useful for symbolism. The hearer is forced to supply interpretation (Eioc. 5.242) In this respect, ppa~uhoyiaresembles apasiopesis (5.253, 264). 1)emetrius can thus call the statement "Dionysius at Corinth" an "allegory" (2.102). tantummdo trvhrs neceliwus e\pdjtaW("Conc~seness1s the expressing of an idea by the mtntmum of e m n t ~ dm o d s " lrrans Caplan m Lt'Lj) Plutarch's cfiararter~urron comes very c l a ; ~ He slates that the orator Phocts had @(xrxok@aand *.as consldercd the nlost clever in speaking kcausr "hss s p h conraned rhe most mrmang in the feuest wrmls" (her C;rr Hnp ;[Mor IlolE]) rr T l ~ esan~econnection bemeen @pcquAnytaand Suvapir rs made by Phtlo RPT DIE up7 L i 101 \.cry

As the art of rhetorlc developed, ~t left behind Ppaxdoyia except as one figure of speech or thought among others.I6 But the rherorlcal sources st111 contan Intriguing traces of another way o f v l e u ~ ~brewty. g Garrulousness is a sign of age and weakness. Brevity represents youth and power. Is there, in these assoclatlons, a nostalgia for perhaps an earller nme, when speech was the slgn o f a certain kind of character rather than a matter of nlaktng proofs (Phtlo Pldnt. 38.157-~8)? The examples of the sages and Spartans wo~lldmake us suspect that tt was not the professional speakers, but rather the professedly v i r t u o ~ ~who s , would treasure $pa)(uAoyia as the Ideal mode of speech

Speech as Selfcontrol The moralist was concerned with fipaxuAoyia as a sign of character. The connection b e w e n style and character is suggested by Demetrius in his discussion of epistolary style, because letters are an "image of one's soul" and enable the reader to "see the character of the writer." One epistolary virtue is brevity, but its exaggeration is sententiousness (Demetr. Eloc. 4.227-32).17 Seneca makes the most explicit connection between virtue and style. In one place he argues that rhe style not only of individuals but also of peoples at a particular time reveals private and public character (Q.114.2). A luxurious life-style is reflected in overly ornate (or even preciously clipped) speech (114.9-14, 17). Not surprisingly, Seneca recommends care for the soul as a prerequisite for appropriate speech. When the soul is sound and strong, "the style too is vigorous, energetic, manly; bur it" rhe soul loses ics balance, down comes all the rest in ruins [illo sane ac valenre oratio quoque robusta, fortis, virilis est; si ille procubuit, et cetera ruinam sequuntur]'"114.u; trans. Gummere in LCL). Elsewhere, Seneca argues that speech should be unadorned and plain. Above all, it should be controlled: "Quoniodo autem regere potesc quae 16 Dra Chrysostom, for example. acknouledges rhe mpuration of L\srac tor hrmltv and srmpltcrty but does nor recommend htm for tmttacton (Or 18 11) DIOuas ionftdenr char speech could express m~rvthtng(12 64-65) His phrlosopher need ' n e w keep silmce" or tu: at a loss for u.o& (-I I ) U'rth the eKepnons nored belw Philo oken expressed rhe same scnrrments concerntng the p ' t t r of spefch Of lor 44269, Phdo M p Abr 1.4 15 -8-81. &I I"ot Ins 35 129-31 17 Admce and provrrbs are appropnare to letters, but rnamms and ewhorrarrons are not (Den~etrEloc 4 ~ $ 2 )

BROTHER OF JESUS, FRIEND OF GOD

r e g non potest? [But how can that speech govern others which cannot itself be governed?]" (Ep. 40.4). Speech that runs too fast or too elaborately reweals a loss of self-control and w t h ~ tthe , loss of modesty [40.131). Seneca concludes with the clearest possible connection between speech and the sage: "Just as a less ostentatious gait becomes a philosopher, so does a restrained style of speech, far removed from boldness. Therefore the ultimate kernel of my remarks is this: I bid you be slow of speech [ t d l o q u u m esse te iubeo]" (40.14).ls Taciturnity, then, is associated with the philosophical life. The preSocraric sages,19and in particular the Pythagoreans, are consistently characcerind by silence and ~pa~ukoyia." The necessity of silence for becoming wise is obvious: one must hear in order to learn. Silence is the precondition for the learning of wisdom.21Garrulous people can become neither wise nor virtuous simply because they never stop talking (Sir 83; Plut. & Gum I [Mor. ~ o z C ] ) . Silence is also safer. If one does not speak, then one cannot misspeak. Silence is therefore a protection against error. I t is the mute symbol of p e r f e ~ t i o nOnce . ~ ~ something is spoken, furthermore, it enters the public 18 Thc connearon beruzrn svlc and character IS rnadc w t h r q u d force by Plur Dc L f r t 7 (Mor 7981, Lb E . &c 9 (Mor 6R-7B), Quo& A d d 11(Mor jjl-7 19 See the saying in Drogenes Laertlus atrr~butedto Thalcs ( I 3%)-Chrion (t 6p7o), Bras (I 88), Cleobolus (I 92), hacharsrs (I 104)~ and Weracletrus (9 12) Note as well Drogenes Laeruus"~own chancrentattons of Chdon, BpaXuA6yoF ITfiv (I p),&no, fiv (8 8), and Weracle~w( 9 7) Srmrlu c h u u t c r ~ u r l o n are s found rn Plut qydr Or z g j o (Mor 4 d E - 4 w D ) and De G w 17 (Mor SIIR) &no's hemtc refusal m dtvulgc names to the tyrant made a great tmpmston, cf Plut De Gurr 8 (Mor 5o5D). Phrlo O m n Rd, L h 16 108, Dcl U1, Inr JB I$ 20 The Pyhagoreans demanded a fivp-year perrod of stlence as part of rnruatron (Drag Laem 8 lo), and stlence was a well-known aspect of the Pythagorean q r n e n (Lucun 64) The murrns of Pvrhapras arc fine examples of (dDrog k r t 8 17) Apollonrus of Tyana uw a specramlar rpprewnrarrve of rhrr t n & u o n (Phrlostr Vrr Ap I I, 1.14, 6 11) Ph~losmcusrepeatedly refers to the Bpoxu),oy(a of the sage (Vrr rip I 17, 4 33,s p.7 351, and thc lettcrs atrrrbuted to ApoUonrus both drscusr and man~festthat style (cf, e g Ep 8) Cf also R E Perry, SKIcndElr tbe Sdmt P h ~ l o r o p h(Phrlologcal Monographs rz, Ithaca. Cornell Untwnrry Prrrs, 1964).esp 69 11&no saw, 'The reason why wc haby n\.o cars and only one rnourh is rhat we may I s ten thc mom and ralk the less," Dtag Laen 7.23, cf also I 92, Luc M a r 51, Phrlostr Vrt. Ap 6 11, P $ozE), Prclv 1727-28, Str 6 33, 118. Phrlo Her Dw Her 3 10-13, .Ah% 5 12, I, a-b rz Cf Dtog k r t 726, Eprct Lnch (rn Stobaeus 3 35, lo), Apollon~usofTyana tpp 8182, Plur Lb %. LC 14 (Mor IoF), Rect A d 4 (Mor 39C), I)( GJW 23 (Mor SISA),Prov 1rr3, 133. 1123, Srr zo 18, u 27, Phrla Fug 14 136, Sum 2 4 0 262-70, T)rt. Pbl Inr 1 3 4

Pto/

.

Taciturnity and True Religron: James

1:26-27

realm. Its consequences cannot be controlled (see Plut. Lib. Ed. 14 [Mor. roF]; Wis I:II). The results of loose speech can be disastrous both for speaker and hearers. The speaker is discredited2' and the listeners put in In the Hellenistic world, self-control (tytcpdtnta) was an inarguable virtue. Emotions and their expression in speech ought to be directed by reason.2s Lack of self-control (&cpada)is a vice. I t is revealed above all in drunken speechz6and in speech driven by anger." People who speak when angry not only show lack of self-control and thereby shame t h e m ~ e l w s ; ~ ~ they also can d o real injustice to others.29 Rhetoricians define &xxxuhoyia in terms of compression, and the moralists define it in terms of self-control. Together, these definitions point to power and authority in speech. It is therefore not surprising to find alongside the sages the Lacedaemonians of old as the exemplars of taciturnity.'O Their "laconic" speech was licerally p r ~ v e r b i a l .By ~ ~exten23. Prov 10:18;12:13;133;18:6-7: Sir 9:18; zo:S, 8; 23:s; Epict. Dui. 4.13.11.17;Plut. Cap. Uhl. 8 (Mor. WC); De Gum J-7 (Mor. SO&-F); 16 (Mor. 5soD); Philo Spec. Leg 1.9.53; Fug. 3.+.191; MU^ Nom. 43.247; fit. Pot Ins. 47.174. 24. See P m 18:6; Plut. Lib. Edrcc. 14 (Mor. IoF); Cohib. Iru 4 (Mor. 45513); Dc Gum 3 (Mor. 503C); 7 (Mor. 504F-so~A). 25. Cf. Drog. Laert. 1.70; 1.104; 7-14; Philostr. Vst. Ap. 6.11; Eprct. E d . 33.1-2;Plut. Lib. Edu. 14 (Mor. SOB);C+. U d 7-8 (Mor. qoB-C); Dc Gdm 3 (Mor. 503C); g r r (Mor. 506D507F); 14 (Mor. 51oA); 17 (Mor. SIOE);Philo Spec. Leg. 2.14.50; Con$ Ling. 13.53-55;Cong. 14.80; Det Pot. [?IS. 19.68; Tk Sentences of Sex&$ z53b; 294; 429-30. 26. Cf. Diog. Laerr 1.69; Plut. De Gan: 4 (Mor. S O ~ E - S ~ OPhrlo C ) ; Leg.AX 3.53,155; Plant. 42.176. 27. Cf. P m 29:11; Eccl 79; Sir I:=-24; Diog. Lacrt. 1.70; 8.23; Luc. Demon. 51; Plut. Cap. Uhl. 8 (Mor. 90C); Cohrb. Ira 3 (Mor. 454F); 7 (Mor. 461C); 16 (Mor. 46413-C); Lib. Educ. 14 (Mor. roB); Phrlo Leg. A#. 3-42-44, 123-28. 28. In contrast, the person who controls speech maintans dignity and modesty; c t Plut. fi Gam 4 (Mor. 5046); Gap. U d . 8 (Mor. qoD); De Pmf: Virt ro (Mor. 8oE-8113); Philo Con$ Ling. 10.37;Sen. Ep. 40.13. Those, in turn, who can make their meaning clear even wrthout words are even more to be admired (Plut. De Gun: 17 [Mor. 5rrCj). 29. Plut. Cohib. 1ru 9 (Mor. 4 n D ) ; 14 (Mor. 462C); Smr 5 (Mor. SSIA). 30. Cf. Ihuc. 4.12.16; Hdt. 4.77; 7.135; 7.226; Anst. Rb. 3.21.8; Demerr. Uor 1.7; 2.102; DIO Chrys. Or. 12.55; PIut. De Gun: 17 (Mor. 5roF); Lyc. 19.1-4;Apophd,. E p a m n n d j 16 (Mor. rg3D); Charillus I (Mor. 1891"): When Charillus the king was asked why Lycurgus enacted so few laws, he replied that "people who used fwv words had no need for many laws." Cf. also Apophth. Lrc. Charillus I (Mor. zpC). In Plutarch, the view is nostalgic; cf. Inst tzc. q ((Mor. . . 239F). Clement of Alexandria also attaches brevity to the Lacedaemonians in particular. S w e ~ 1.14.42-43, ( 31. Cf. the examples in Plut. &pb&. Ltc. Agis 7 and 9 (Mor. zrsE-F), and Dtaphon 1 (Mor. 232E), as well a s Imt. Lac. 39 (Mor. zjgC); Lyc. 20.1-6.

B R O T H E R OF

JESUS,

F R I E N D OF GOD

sion, it seems natural as well that brevity should be a quality of lawgiv e r ~ . ~ ~

Religious Silence and Speech Two religious rationalizations appear in the Hellenistic literacure. Silence is legitimated by the Mysteries, and brevity by the Delphic Oracle. Because the Mysteries demanded silence of their initiate^,'^ silence icself could, by extension, take on a sacred quality.34In the Pythagorean tradition, this is clearly the case.3s And following from the religious value of silence, the reception of teachings could also haw a religious connotation. The sayings of a sage or legislator were like oracles.36Finally, the Mysteries can be understood as providing a religious legitimation for the keeping of human secrets." The practice of taciturnity - and its legitimation - centers on the shrine of Pythian Apollo at Delphi. The connections are complex and interwoven. In the first place, the oracles delivered by the prophetess at the shrine were themselves marked by Bpaxuhoyia. As a result, they were also obscure (sometimes notoriously so).% Around the shrine at Delphi, fur32. Cf. Philosrr. Vrt. Ap. 1.17; Luc. Ma.51; Plut. h. Ger. Resp. 14 (Mor. 81oD). Plurarch says that those who receive a royal and noble education "learn first to be silent, and then to speak," Lk Garr 9 (Mor. 5o6C). 33. Hdt. z.171; Plur. De DeJ Or. 14 (Mor. q17C); Philo Urn 1448. 34. rb dpvov ral rb ltytov rai rb p u q p i & ~ @Cotcr?r@c;("the solemn, holy, and mystertous character of silence"), Plut. De C;ilm I7 (Mor. 51oE) trans. Helmbold in LCL; also Phiiosrr. Vrt. Ap. 326; Plut. De h r f : Virr. 10 (Mor. 81E). 35. Cf. Phllostr. Vit. Ap. 1.1; 6.11. Philo is fond of defining Judasm in terms of its "lesser and greater mysteries" (Vit. Moj. 1.11.62).Consistent with the symbolism attached to the Mysteries in the Greek world, he repeatedly invokes silence as one of their chief components, as in Op, mrnd. 1.14;Fug. 16.83-86;Sac. A. C. 15.60; C k . 12.42; Vtt. Cont. 10.73. In parricular, read Sar. A. C 16.62. 36. Philostr. Vtt. Ap. 6.11; Plut. Is. cl 0s. lo (Mor. 354F). For Phllo, hloses spoke like a prophet in oracles (Vit. bfos. t.lo.~jj.He learned the secrets of the holy mysteries and revealed them to those uith purified ears (Gg. 12-54) Ewn the translators of the LXX were Lke prophets and priests of the Mysteries (Vtt. Afas. 2.7.40). 37. "Men of olden times established the rites of lnioation into the mysteries, that we, by being accustomed to keeping silence there, may transfer that fear which we learned from the divine secreu to the safekeeping of the secrets of men," Plut. Lb.EdK. 14 (Mor. [OF); also Lk Grr 8 (Mor. SOSF).Schnayder. Tmmmrrote, p. 51 n. 42,touches on this in passing. )8. Plut. Pyh. Or. 29-30 (Mor. 4d)E-~ogD)Among the many examples of obscure oracles, the most notorious may be the one that told Croesus he would destroy a mighty em-

Taciturnity 5nd True Religion: James

~26-27

thermore, were inscribed the gnomic sayings of the Seven Sages. Visitors, when confronted with them on the way to consult the god, found themselves forced to reflect and interpret these sayings:39"Know thyself" (Diog. Laert. ~.qo),"Nothing too much" (1.4)~and most intriguingly, "Follow God."*O In the most obvious way, therefore, a person who used brevity in speech imitated the sages and, more impressively, "imitated the god" as well, in this case the Pythian A p ~ l l o . Plutarch ~' explicitly aligns the apothegms of the sages and the oracles of the god, even noting that both were formerly delivered in verse but, in his day, only in prose ( 5 t h . Or. 18, 24 [Mor. 402F, 406E1). The tripod that was used when delivering prophecies at Delphi also excited comment and speculation among visitors (Plut. Ei ap. Delph. 2 [Mor. J~sD]).The symbol of the tripod was portable. The Sewn Sages, according to one tradition, were supposed to have passed the tripod to one another in succession, according to the command of the Delphic Oracle that the one who was most wise should have the tripod (Diog. Laert. 1.28, 82). Because the tripod ended up at Delphi, we are to assume that Apollo is always most %rise. The association of tripod, prophecy, wisdom, and $pa;(uAoyia occurs frequently in the literat~re.~' Finally, the Greeks most renowned for their $pa~uAoyiawere also most widely known for their devotion to the Delphic Oracle." There is even a tradition that has Lycurgus's Spartan Constitution revealed by the

-

ptre (Hdt. 1.53)and the one assurtng the Arhentans that they would be saved from the Perstans ky a " d m u d l " (Hdr 139-143; 8 5 1 ) 39 Plur Ez ctp Lkfph 2-3 (Mor J8sD-E) For the legend of the sages meeting at Dclpht, cf Dtog Laert 1-41 40 For the attrtbur~onof fxou &@ to Pyrhagoras, cf Stobaeus Anrh 2 7 16 (Hense, 49), as u.cli as lamb Vrr 4.d, r8 137 Dtverse rradrnonls make Pyrhaptns himself the Apollo of Delos (Dtog Lacrr 8 to), or haw htm uvrshtptng exclustvrly at Apollo's altar (8 13), or re cermng hts doctrines from the Delphtr prresress Ihemtstnclea (8 21) 41 For "followtng God" as the "tmrtatton of Gml," cf Plaro Tht. 1765D, Phdr 248A, Eptct Das r 128, Plut Sera 5 (Mur 5 ~ o D ) ~2 AS prtest of Apoiio at DeIphr, Pluurch mtght be expected ro have Inom than ordtnary rnrerest tn chts symbolism, and such IS the case cf Sera 17 (Mor $GOD),zy (Mor 566D), Conv Sepr Sap 10(Mor 154A),EI ap m ph 6 (Mor 38%-D), @rh Or rq (Mor 406D),nP DCf Or 7 (Mor 4138) Rut traces can be found tlso m Hdr I 144; 4 1 1 9 Phtloctracus Lkcm one who prophesres (as dtd Apollonrus) to the Delphrc Oracle, claspttig the rrrpod to the breast and urterlng oracles (Vrt Ap 3 4 2 ) HIS tacicurn sage IS himself s a d co s p a k 3omp tr rp(rro(icy (as from a r r t p d [Vtt. Ap I 171) 43. Cf.. e.g., Hdt. 1.31;1.66; 1.67;3-42-43;5.62-63;5.91; 6.52; 6.57; 6.66; 6.76; 6.86; 7 . ~ 0 ; 7.239; 8.114; 8.141; I ~ u c 2.7.55; . 3.11.92; 4.13.118;S.IS.X7.

B R O T H E R OF J E S U S , F R I E N D O F GOD

oracle ~ t s e l fSeers, .~ sages, and Spartans come together at Delph~.For such as these, "follouw~gGod" In speech means the pracnce of tac~turnlty, for "the god htmself [IS] fond of conciseness and brevity tn h ~ oracles s [~docnivrop& t'd ~ a ppa~uh6yog l t'v roii; xprlapoi~]"(Plut. De Gam 17 [Mor. SIID]; mans. Helmbold in LCL).

Speech and Religion in James

Tbe Shred Tradation Much of what James says about speech fits comfortably within the conventions of Hellenistic wisdom. At the rhetorical level, James deserves high marks for his own flpa~uhoyia.Although Jas 3:1-12 is one of James's longer 'kssays," it is a marvel of brevity, compressing a variety of conventional motifs with unconventional ~onciseness."~ Many of the Hellenistic ethical concerns are also f k n d in James. He links speech and character. He emphasizes the importance of hearing. Speech should be slow. Incontinent speech he connects to anger, and anHe thinks control of speech parger to the doing of injustice uas I:I~-20). ticularly inlportant for the sage (6t66o~a)ioi;[3:1]). He uses the stereotypical metaphors: the rudder of a ship, the bit for a horse, the taming of wild animals.* Equally commonplace are statements on the tongue's disproportionate power to do both good and evil (3:5, g-12).~' In several decisive ways, however, James differs from the standard rreatment of speech. He is, for one thing, far more pessimistic. Hellenistic moralists recognize the difficulty in controlling speech but d o not really doubt its possibility." In contrast, James denies that anyone can truly control speech Uas 3:8)?9 He also heightens the tongue's potential for evil. 41 Wdt r 65,Plato Leg I 624A.632D,Plut I.Y~ 5 J, b ( To compircate matters stdl further, Plutsrcl~m one place suggests char I.ycurps u u also rnflurnced by Thdcs (42)' 45 Compare Jas 51-12 wtrh Plurarch's De G m r ~ i ~ t a faecomprndrum , of the themes here under revleu, marred only bv its own garrulousness [cf' esp Mor SIIF-FI~A)' 46 Cf the fine collectron of p a s a g s In L>rbcl~us, jam&, pp 185-390 47 In mast dramatar fishton, Frmr 18rr saw, "Lrfe and death anr In the paver of the tongue " Cf also Anacharsrr in [hog h e r t I 105 and Rlas In Pluc k c . Aud 1 (Mor $B), also Lb Ed# rq (Mor roBj, Dr Garr 8 (Mor 5o6C) 48 Cf Dlog Laerc I 69, Pluc Ck. (.krr r and 19 (hlor ~ o z and f grrI') 49 Cf Utbehus, J a m , p rqt The sentiment ciosesr to James IS found In Srr rg 16 "Who has not stnned w t h hrs tongue'"

Taciturnity and True Relipon: James 1:26-27 He personifies the tongue as though it were indeed completely independent: "It boasts of great things" (3:s). He also makes the tongue a cosmic force. It is a "world of wickedness," a fire that is "lit from Gehenna" (3:6). This mention of Gehenna introduces the most important difference between James's treatment of speech and that of Hellenistic wisdom: in James, the religious valuation of speech is distinctive, more fundamental to his exhortations, and more pervasive.

James's Distinctive Approach The first and most startling thing one notices in turning to James from the Hellenistic materials is that he entirely lacks the religious motivations found in those writings. He makes no mention of the Mysteries or of the Delphic Oracle. James's monotheism is not sufficient reason for his abstinence, for Philo appropriated both themes into h s system. James's entire outlook is distinctive. He has a relational or, perhaps better, a covenantal perspective, in which the speech and actions of humans are hndamentally qualified by the speech and action of the God who chooses to be involved with humans. Three elements in the essay of Jas 3:r-12 provide important clues to James's perspective. First, the "double-mindedness" (cf 1:8;4 8 ) of human speech is manifested by the same tongue, both blessing God and cursing humans (3:g). The cursing of people is wrong, because they are "created in the image of God." This is an assertion that is derived from something other than the observance of behavior. Second, when James mentions Gehenna, he not only invokes the symbolic world ofTorah but also points to the conviction that the rule of God in the world is opposed by the devil. This theme is developed in the call to conversion that immehately follows Third, teachers who fail in speech are the essay on the tongue (3:13-4:10).~~ not simply "foolish," failed sages. They are instead liable to a "greater judgment," obviously from God ( 3 4 . These small touches alter the reader's view of James's traditional material. They direct us to the central religious polarity in James between the "wisdom from above," which leads to "friendship with God," and the "wisdom from below," which manifests itself in a "friendship with the world (Jas y13-16; 4:4).51All human activity, certainly including speech, is lived within these competing norms and allegiances. 50. Cf. my essay "James 3:13-4:10 and the Topos nepl (p86vou," pp. 182-201in this volume. 51. Johnson, "Friendship with rhr World," pp. 202-220.

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF G O D

The theological urighttng u present as wvll In Jas I : I ~ - 2 0the , passage w t h which this essay began. James's command to be "quick to hear, slow to speak, slou*to anger," is classrcally HeIlenlst~c.So also, as we have determined, is the connecnon between rash speech, anger, and the dolng of injusnce. Nonce, hotvwer, chat for J m e s , it is human anger that does not work God? jusnce. The nvo levels of activity are internvlned with an intenslty that would be unsertllng to a P l u t a r ~ h . ~ ~ James's commandment, furthermore, is framed by wro starements that show that taciturnity is more than a matter of self-control. In Jas 1x8, readers are told chat they have been given blrth by a "word of truth" (h6yv hkqe~ial;) thac has made then3 "first-fru~tsofcreation." In I:ZI, they are orv )i6yov] dered to "receive w t h meekness the Implanted word [ ~ bbpcpu~ov thac is able to save your souls." Human speech is qualified by reference to the creatrng arid savrng word of God. God's word determ~nesa form of ~denrrryand behavior not measured by the world or its upisdom. James's transcendental reference polnt is stated succinctly in Jas 2:1r. "So speak and act as those who uqll be judged by the law of freedom." By the law of freedom, James means the law of love (r:8), dertved from Lev 19:18 and explicated by the Decalogue, the scriptural context of Lev 19:1218, and the words of Jesus." Thus, James categorically condemns slander (J:II),mutual grumbling ( s : ~ )and , the caking of oaths (5:12).As in 33, these sins of speech bring a person under God's judgment (see the warrants In 4x2; 5:9; 5x2). Less directly, but no less emphatically, James rorldcn~t~s speech chat dtstarts the proper relationshtp btnveen humans and God:s" arrogantly boart~ngabaur human proltbctsurrhour reference to God's will Gas 4:r~); clai.l~ingchar temptarion has rt\ source in God (1x3); and prapng w ~ t ha doilblr mind, etcher w r h doubt (1.5-6)or "wlekedly" as a means of selfgraclfrcar~un(4.3).James l~kewisecondemns religious language that does not manifest itself in moral actzon. it is uwless to pronounce a benedrction ("Go in peace") while deny~ngto the needy the food or clothlng that they requtre (s:l.+-16).This is precisely to bless God and curse humans made In God's Image ( 3 : ~ )In . James's covenantal perspective, relig~onand ethics are ~nseparable.The l ~ n efrom c l a ~ m ~ ntog be relig~ousto "visiclng orphans and wdows" ts a d~rectone (126-ZJ) But cf Plur CAib fm tb (Xlor ~64R-C3) 53 Cf mv essay *The U s of Lmtrrus 19 In rhr Lerter of)amcs, " pp 123-135tn thts w1$2

unic y j Tuv pasages that touch on the same concern, rhough In verv d ~ f i r m fash~on, t are

Eccl 5

1-2

and Phtlo Spec 1 4 z z

-

Taciturnip and True Reltpn: James r:26-27

James has few positive instructions on speech. He prefers listening and acting. But he does add a few characteristic commands: say "if God w i l l s ' k d mean it Uas 4:15),and let your "yes be yes and your no be no" (5:1r).Most of all, he stresses the speech that builds the community. In every circumstance, members of the community are to pray and sing (5:13). When a brother or sister is ill, the elders are to be called for the prayer and anointing of the sick person (5x4).They are to confess their sins to one another and pray for one another (5x6).They are to turn a brother or sister from the path of error back to the truth (5:zo). These are the uses of speech that match the measure of friendship with God and express the wisdom from above. Without them, even the claim to be "religious" is a dangerous failure to "control the tongue" (1:26).~~

55. Johnson, "Fnendshtpu ~ r hthe World," pp. 202-220; B. C Johansan,"Thc Defin~tron af 'Pure Rcltgton' tn James I:V Reconsrdcnd,"&pEm &4 (1973) 118-119.

167

The Mirror of Remembrance: Jizmes 1:22-25

Although the Letter ofJames is generally regarded as a form of parenesis,' it appears at first to lack some features often found in such moral exhortation. Of maxims it has an abundance, in the form of short commands. But parenesis usually attaches such maxims to a model or paradigm which is presented for imitatiom2 The example (or paradrgm/model) provides a living framework which the maxims fill in with their specific drectives. The imitation of the model is also closely connected to the use of m e m ~ r yParenesis .~ is not new teaching but the reminding of instruction already learned. So in James's "Do you not know," there is an intended rebuke - the readers should have known (44). I. James was identified as "sittlich-paraenetisch" at least as early as F. H. Kern, Dm Brief Jacobi (Tiibingen: Fues, 1838), 37; M. Dibelius argued that parenesis was a Gattun& but did not elaborate its form beyond calhng it "a text which strings together admonitions of general ethical content" (in A Commentaty an the Epzsrfe of Jumes, rev. H. Greeven [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, r976],1-7,esp. 3). The attempt to align parenests with a specific social setring by L. G. Perdue ("Paraenesis and the Letter ofJames," ZNW 72 [1981] 241-256) is nor convincing. 2. For the display of these elements, see A. J. Malherbe, "Hellenistic Morahsts and the New Testament," in Aufstieg u d NieaLqang der mmischen Welt (II/26; ed. W. Haase and H. Temporini; Berlin: de Gruyter, forthcoming); and more succlncrly, idem, Mwul Exhortahon: A Greco-Roman Sourcehook (Library of Early Chrisnanity 5; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 124-129. 3.2 Timothy and 2 Peter are NT writlngs which illustrate these componencs in impressrve fash~on.For 2 Timothy, see L. T. Johnson, "11 Tlmothy and the Polemic Against False Teachers: A Reexam~nation,"JRelS 617 (1978-79) 1-26. I'articularly rich parallel material on the exemplum is provided by B. Rore, ?he Funchon ofpersonal Example in the Sowatic and Pastoral Eprsties (AnBib 105; Kome: Biblical Institute, r986), esp. 26-100. For z Peter, see L. T. Johnson, ?he W'ritings of the New EsLament: An Intffprefdhon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 549450. Notice in particular the element of "forgetting" in 2 Pet 1:9; 3:5,8, a s in James 1:24.

The &firm-of Remembrance: James

122-25

But the themes concerning model, memory, and imitation so often found in parenesis seem at best vestigial in James. He does point his readers to the bpoderrgma of the prophets in 5:ro, but leaves the allusion undeveloped. In 124 he mentions, apparently casually, "forgetting" what one has seen in a mirror. To contemporary readers, the phrase is both isolated and obscure. The problem of obscurity is directly connected to that of isolation. When these rwo passages are joined together with several others, we begin to perceive how James links the elements of memory, imitation, and model in a distinctive fashion. The key passage is that concerning the mirror in I:=-25. By grasping the force of James's metaphor, we better appreciate how it establishes connections to other parts of the writing and how James follows the conventions of Hellenistic parenetic literature. I will first analyze the passage in its immediate context, then demonstrate the proper understanding of the metaphor in the light of Hellenistic parallels, and finally show the way it points to specific models for imitation. The point of the analysis is threefold: to sharpen the perception of James as parenesis, to clarity the proper use of comparative materials, and to appreciate the intertextual connections in James's moral instruction.

James x:zz-z~in Context However complex at the metaphorical level, James's statement makes a simple point. Consistent with his letter as a whole, James contrasts two modes of human response. One person is content with the verbal profession of conviction. The other enacts conviceions in behavior. The contrast is carried in this case by those who are "hearers of the word only" and those who are "doers of the word." In fact, rhe contrast is established by a carefully balanced parallelism: I Hearers

hearers only deceive themselves like a man who sees narural face

gazes perfect law of freedom in a mirror

B R O T H E R OF JESUS, F R I E N D OF G O D

gues away forgets

renlntns does not tbrget doer of the word happy In hls doing

So much is clear and corresponds perfectly to James" consrstenc preoccupatton wlth the drsparrty benveen the merely verbal and the actwe (cf. esp. 2:14-26).~ Several other feanlres of the contrast also deserve attention. Frrst, the human response 1s at least impl~citlyfitted to two divergent measrtres The passage apparently contrasts a person" snatural appearance" (Itcerally, the face of begetting), and "the perfect law of freedom." This, too, should not surprise us. Throughout James, there is che opposttlon benveen the "natural world" as a closed system of operanons whrch rejects God" clam and the world as shaped by God's creative word and actron. In 3:rj-16, we learn that the first perceptton of the world is a "wrsdom from below" whlch is opposed to the " w ~ s d o nfrom ~ ab~ve."~ in the present case, the "natural person" IScontrasted to the measure set by the "word of truth"(i:i8), whrch is characterized as an "implanted word" rn r:zr. Thls uwrd, we see, "comes down'" does "every good and perfect g~ft."There IS also a correspondence benveen the "perfect glft" of 1x7 and "the perfect laura'of ~ 2 5 In . t:zz-2.5, therefore, there 1s a contrast at, not stmply benveen two ways of looklng but also b e m e n uhat IS 1~lM benveen the measure of nature and the measure of God" word, "the perfect law of freedom." Second, we observe how 1:22-25 functions in its context. The phrase "deceiving themselvesn in I:= clearly corresponds to the "do not be deceiwd" in 1x6 and links the statements into a single coherent passage, which is rounded off by the distinction benveen true and false religion in 1:26-27, again spelled out in terms of practical action. The passage as a whole, furthermore, anticipates the fuller development found in the essays of chaps. 2 and 3. In 2:14-26 the contrast benveen rnerely verbal profession and enacted faith is fully displayed. In chap. 3 we read of the difficulty of controlling the tongue f3:i-iz),as here in r:rg and 126. Then we see the contrast beween friendship with the world and friendship with God A constant mortf rn Urllenrscrc moral Instructton, rummarrxrd bv Seneca rn M0mIt.s XX I as 1 d 6 mbrts p r o b ~ 5 See my essays "James 3 13-4 ro and the Tupos mpi w v o u , " pp 182-201,and "Frtendshtp wqth rhe Ubrld m d Frlendshrp u ~ t hGod A Study of D ~ s c ~ p l e s hrn~James," p pp 202u o , both in this volume J

The Mirror of Remembrance: James r:zz-25 (3x3-4:1o), which displays the opposition between the two measures and makes clearer the meaning in I:27 of "keeping oneself unstained from the world.''6 If that much is clear, we can address the third and most problematic aspect of the passage, which is the metaphor of the mirror itself. M. Dibelius complains that commentators overinterpret the passage, but his own explanation is curiously flat and unsatisfjlng, consisting more in denials than in clarification^.^ This is at least partly due to the fact that Dibelius did not grasp the meaning of the metaphor as part of a Hellenistic He refers to the use of the metaphor in Hellenistic religious literarure but, not surprisingly, finds no connection between it and James9 J. B. Mayor, in contrast, lists a rich collection of useful parallels - together with many references that are not so useful10- but makes no real use of the material in deciphering the passage." 6 Johnson, "'Fnmdshtp wrh the World," esp pp 216-220 7 Dibeltus,]&ma, pp 115-116 8 For thts, see Johnson, "James 3 13-4 to." p 1%. and the ltterature ctted there 9 He correctly derues the peranence of the m a t e d gathered bt- R fletuenstetn, H t m M&mm und Htstmta hmzaa (Gurnngen Vandenhoeck & Ruprcchr, 1q16),qz-255 to As always, Mayor IS the indtspensable rtarang place for comparaove matertd, dthough - also as always - tr is tndtscnn1tnately handled In this case, Mavor's crtatton.; from Seneca, Plutarch, and Epicterus (the moralrsts) are helpful Those from the apocrv phd Arcs of]& 95 25 and passages tn Phtlo are less useful, see J I) Mayor, 7hc Eptsdc ofSt Jmtez, 3rd ed (London Macmtllan, 1910). 71-72. I I Commenranes are notortous for assembltng parallels and fulrng to exploit thctr stg mficance In chis amcle, I d ~ x u s the s ke) passage from Plutarch, Mor @I) It IS crced already by J J U'ertstetn (Nomm Tertrtnr~ntnrnCnrecum (Amsterdam h m m e n a n 17521, z 464) and IS included by Mayor In Dtbeltus, it dtsappcars Of the passages &rectly aced by I>rlxliu.i,only Wts 7 26 and I Cor 13 12 offer any red parallel HIS references to Str rz 11, r Clem 36 2, Theophrlus, Ad A n ~ u m 1.2, and Ode, Sd 13I are nor ad rem for thts passage The same IS true for the reference to ActJ o~~ 112 bv H Conzelmann, A Commmuty on h e Fmr Epznlc to the Cmthutnr (Hermeneta, Phtiade2phta. Forcms, 1975).227 (to tllustrate I Cor 13 tz) T h c potnt of such cttanons often seems to be whether a word occurs elsewhere, but the real rtgntficance ltes tn s t m t l a r t ~of trsage or functton IS the word or concept doing the same or a stmtlar thtng tn parallel places' When w rum to S Laws ( 7 h Eprstlr ofirnes [HNTC, Sari Franctxo Huper & Row, I*], 85-86),we find that the oniy extrabiblical aranons are to the 0th Sal 13 I and to Phtlo, LrfOofMw 2.11 In thts last, the tdeaof the mtrror does not occur at all, but only the notton that torah portrays p a r d g m s of the soul F Vouga (L cp1m de h t n t jilcqwps [CNT ZIIM Geneva. Labor et Rdes, 19841, 65) correctly asserts chat mirrors "ont fdquemment s e m d'111usctmona la Iitrerarure ec i Iknse~gnemmtethtque," but he has not checked the sources He refen rn Seneca, hbturitf QwItlons r 174 and Eptcretus, Dt~ourwrr I1 1421 and tn n 11 avers that he got these references from Dtbellus But Dtbeltu\ does not a t e them' Learntng tn rhts matter has not progressed beyond Wertsretn and h 4 a ~ r

BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

The proper startlng point is the text Itself We norlce first how the metaphor of the mirror makes the text more drficalt. It Intersects the dominant contrast between hearlnddolng with ~ t verbs s of seelng, gazing, departing, remaining. The reader 1s confronted with a bewildering comblnarxon of aural, vlsual, and spaual images wlth no instructron as to how to a l ~ g nthem. Next, we observe the allusive quality of the metaphor. Everything IS not spelled out. The first man gazes inro the mlrtor at his natural face. The second gazes inro the perfect law. I t is true that the law 1s not explicltly culled a mlrror, as Dtbelrus insists l2 But neither is the law explic~dy called "the Word," yet virtually every reader of James makes that identtfication, and rightly so, for the force of the metaphor itself demands it. We haw, then, at least by implrcation, two mirrors: that presented by "nature" and that by "the law of God "13 But we st111d o not know what to make of the comparison itself. What are the persons supposed to see In each n~irror?And why does James characterize their responses here simply as (in one case) "going away and forgetnng" and (in the other case) "remaining and not forgettlng"? By implicanon, the first person sees something but does not act on i t (or at least so we expect by the "hear~ng/doing"contrast). The second sees and acts. Bur why has James encoded this as "forgetting" and "not forgettlng"? James can leave these loose ends untled because his Greek-read~ng - readers would naturally have knotted them. They were familiar with the conventions associated with mirrors in a way that the contemporary reader is not. To place ourselves in the position ofJamesls first readers, we must rediscover some of the wavs in which the n~irrorwas used as a metaphor for moral instruction.

The Mirror i n Moral Instruction The mlrror - made of polished metal in those days (cf., e.g., Sir 1z:rx)14- was an artifact with few practical uses but many possibilit~esfor theorizing.ls rz 1)theLus jarnix, p rr5 13 So L3.\us,]amw, pp 82-87. Drbelrus, jarnrr, p 115 14 See "kitraptrun," Pduly, Redl EnvlopJdre dcr ~ k t s r h cUMhrmru,uspn+ n (1st series, ed CI Wt%sma,Srutrgart Meczlcrxher \"eriag, xigrr), 21 29-45 rg For a surr-.a.of ihe use of rhe mtrror in religious Ircerature, see A E Cr;lwiiy, *Mlrrar," in Jarnes Hzstrngs, e d . E ~ l o p c c f uoffiifgron dnd Erh~cs 1 1 wls (kilnburgh Clark, I@),$ 695-97, and B A L~nlnskit,"Mirrors," rn M Ellade, ed ThP E v h w c t f R e h p , 16 \rols (New York Macmrlian, I+-), q 556-579

The Mtrror of Remembrance: James 1:22-25

Some of these concerned the relationship of mirrors to the "natural order of things": were rainbows, e.g., substantial or were they due to a "mirror-~Eccr" (Seneca, Ndtural Quertiuns 1.15.7)? Was the soul simply the "mirror" of che bod): receiving from the body's sensations its impressions and images (Plutarch, Tdle T& V, M m 672E)?Was the face on the moon really due to its mirroring of the earth's surface (Plutarch, Fsice of& Moon 3, Mm gzoF-gzxA)? Images in mirrors could also be deceptive and lead to illusions (Plucarch.S i p #Socrates es, h4ur 591E). And since images in mirrors were not permanent, they could be the metaphor for what is transitory, as when Dio Lwails the f d n g of beauty when it is cfisregarded and ill-esteemed,as the fading away of reflections in a mirror (Dio, Or& 21:2).16 The mirror had some technical applications (Seneca, Ndturi Queshons 1.17.2-3), but its most obvious use was for the contemplation of personal appearance. This is what enabled the mirror to become a moral metaphor. A mirror should not be used simply as an instrument of luxury bur as a tool for self-improvement. Seneca declares, "Mirrors were invented in order that man may know himself," and spells this out not in terms of physical appearance but in terms of character. The handsome man is to avoid infamy, "the homely man to understand that what he lacks in physical appearance must be compensated for by virtue." The young man is reminded to learn and do brave deeds while the old man is to think thoughts of death (Seneca, Natural Questions 1.7.4). In his dialogue on anger, however, Seneca recognizes the limits of this method. Although an enraged person might see in the mirror the accurate reflection of his distorted face, this might not deflect him, for that is just what he would wish to see (Seneca, On A n r 36, I-j)! Plutarch recommends a similar use of the mirror for selfimprovement. He advises the mistress of a household, when she holds a mirror in her hand, to talk to herself: . . for the ill-favored woman to say to herself, 'What if I am not virtuous? and the beautiful one, 'What if l am not blrtuous as well?'" concluding that it is better to be loved for character than for beauty (Plutarch, Advice to Bruie and Groom z ~Mor. , 141D).I7 'I.

16 It is the obrcurrty of the mirror's reflecnon and the knowledge i t grants u.hrch rs emphasrzed In Paul's use of the metaphor In I Cur 13 t r & ' e s o p nt ornrgmah, rather than mystical or magrcd transformanon The metaphor there IS also located tn a thoroughlr~ parenctrc context Note the use ofdrrknymr In 12 31 and dmte rn 14 I , as well as the cnntrasc beween the child and adult (13 11) and the part~dand perfect (wk~os,13 to) 17 There ts a srm~larturn 111 Phrlo's statement chat the women rn the wrlderness donated their mlrmrs for the butld~ngof the tabernacle (LXX Exod 38 26)so that t h o ' h a v be helped to see thernwlves reflected by recollecnng the mirrors our of whrrh the lawr usas

BROTHER O F

JESUS, FRIEND

O F GOD

Plutarch also advrses the wfe to reflect her husband's character as a mrrror whrch "shows a true Itkeness." She IS to fir her Itfe to her husband's anci her character to hrs (Adv~reto B d and B d p m 14,Mor. I#). Because of trs abrlrty to reflect one's Image, therefore, the mtrror served as a nietaphor for moral self-rmprovement. Accordtng to Bias, a man not only gazes at hts face rn a mrrror bur espirc~allyat hrs deeds (prrzyeu) tn order that lie might adorn the noble ones and cover over the shameful (Stobaeus, G m k Anthology 111. ZI.XI).'~ By extension, the mrrror can be regarded as an instrument for rmprovement rn another way, which brtngs us closer to the use tn James 1:2225 In rhrs case, the mtrror does not gtve an accurate Image, but an &dl one. In the mirror, one can see a modL.1 for proper hehawor. To imrtate the vrrtue of anocher, therefore, 1s to gaze tn a mtrror whtch reflects a better seIf "A humorous example 1s prov~dedby Plutarch, when he proposes the ant as a model for human socral relatrons: "Nature has, rn fact, nowhere else so small a mrrror (kamptron) of greater and nobler enterprtses . . . among ants there exists the delrneatton of ever). virtue" (Plutarch, 7k Clelwrnesr ofAnrmdls 11, Mor 967D) So also can the moral teacher provlde such a mwror. In a ryprcdly v ~ g arous "restrng'hf a aqsrtor to one of hts lectures - a man he has shown to be tn need of the "thrngs most necessary and rmportant far happiness" --Eprcrerus protests that he has done the man thereby no harm "unless the mtrror also does harm to the ugly man by showrng hrm what he looks Itke" (Eprctetus, Dmrrrses II.14.17-s3) So also can the moral exhorranori ttsrlf serve the function of the mtrror. In hrs advrce ro Nrcander on rhe proper way to Itsten ro lectures, Plutarch stresses that he should "use all d t l ~ g n c eto sound the deep meanrng of the words and the rntenrron of the speaker, drawrng from ~t what IS useful and profitable (clrrEsrmon hr ophpltmon) He IS to "remember" (memnemmon) chat he has come " ~ 7 t h the purpose of anlendrng hrs l~fe(bros) by what is w d (ri, loge). In order to do thts, the young man IS to exanline the efict of the lecture on his arntudrs, "whether he has acquired enthustasm for vlrrue and goodness.'" nor [to]overlruk any ugh fnrhtond i f ~ p m z o n r ubr~zirooubrtrir mncmm rtm ~Mpaan) thrny shauqng rtwlfrn the appearance of the soul " (On & 18 The aapng i s attrthuted to Socrares by Plurarch (Adr*icetgenrs La~rc~u?; (htw I t 13) 19 T h e cr;mciformnrtw etTecr n f y z r n g at the mtrror ts cmphas~zedin 2 Cor 3 18, bur alrhough In char cwr rr ts rhe rmaye of the Messrah w h ~ c hrs seen, char image as an & d o n e u hach changes rhose u h a contemplate rt see \' P Furnrsh, r iIorrnrhrms (AB p.4, C d e n CIW Douhledav, 1984).214-215

7he Mirror of Remembrance:Jumer

I:=-25

Plutarch compares this process of self-examination to that of gazing in a mirror at the barber shop, when one checks to see "the difference made by the trimming." Likewise, on his way home from a lecture, "it \vould be a sharne not to direct his gaze forthwith on himself" to see if there has been any improvement after listening to the lecture (Plutarch, On Listening to Lectures 8, Moo,: @-B). In his treatise The Educahon of Children, Plutarch places the image of the mirror within the context of moral instruction. He sketches certain "rules of conduct" for the young (14,Moo,: roB), which include, we notice, "control of the tongue" (as in Jas 1:26; 3:r-12) and "conquering anger'yas in Jas 1:1g-20). These rules can be expressed by short maxims (17, Mor. I ~ D ) . But Plutarch precedes these rules with a series of examples (pardeipnilru) which illustrate them by making the virtues "mare intelligible" (gnorim6tera); they are grven life by being enacted by Socrates and other heroes from the past. The main example provided children for their tmttatian, however, is that of their father, who has the major responsibility for educating his children in virtue (13, Moo,: gD). This task involves first of all training the children's memory, "for the memory of past activities serves as a pattern (przrzdeigma) ofgood counsel for the future" (13, Moo,:gF). I t is for the father, therefore, to provide the main example, as in a rnimr: "Fathers ought, above all, by not misbehaving and by doing as they ought to do, to make themselves a manifest example ( p a r a d e p a ) to their children, so that the latter, by looking at their fathers'lives as rzt a rwror (h~%per kdtoptron apoblepontt.s), may be deterred from disgraceful deeds and words" "on hi logcin, 20, Ilh. I@). Plutarch uses the image of the mirror in much the same uray in f r o g ress in Virtue. As in the case ofJames, the context is one in which the necessity of action and not merely speech is being addressed: "The translating of our judgment into deeds (erga) and not allowing our words ro remain mere words (logous) but to make them into actions ( p r h ) is, above all else, a specific mark of progress (prokop'; 14, Moo,: 848). Plutarch then turns to examples of such "translation" that can be emulated and imitated (dlcin kai mirnoumenos, Mot: 84C). Behre taking any action, Plutarch advises his readers they should "set before their eyes'good men of the present or the past and ask what they would have done in similar circumstances (15, Ator 8jA). He continues: "Before such mirrors (esop~u)as these, figuratively speaking, they array themselves or readjust their habit, and either repress some of their more ignoble utterances or resist the onset of some emotion." He explicitly calls this an act of memory (rnnemq which gives support to those making progress in virtue (IS, Mor. 858). In

BROTHER O F J E S U S , FRIEND OF GOD

t h ~ passage s as In James, therefore, we find cogether In one place the contrast berween speech and actton as the sign of moral progress, the mtrror, the role of memory, and the use of models. A final and lmpresslve example of the mlrror metaphor In moral exhortat~on1s found In Seneca's On Clemen~He begns h ~ treatlse s to Nero by saylng that he Intends I C "to serve as a sore of mirror" by whzch "I can show yourself to you" (1.1.1). The Image of the mirror IS carr~edthrough the openlng paragraph by the use of the verbs rnspum and m m t m oculoz. As Seneca holds t h ~ (flattering) s mirror of Nero's "true self" before him, so also Nero IS be a model for the Romans to lmltate (exemplar, rmrtan, 1.6 I). The note of memory IS struck when Seneca says that the Romans need never fear Nero's s'forgetfulness" of h~mself(1.1.7)Seneca proposes the gods to Nero as h u best models for b e ~ n gking (ophme exemplum ptmcrpr, 1.7.r), but also provides numerous terrestr~alexamples of clemency for Nera's imltatlon, concludtng with the example of the fond father (1 15.3). Once agan, ure find the cornb~nat~ori of elements: mirror, memory, models. A reader schooled In such convenclons would readily supply what u lack~ngIn James's ell~pncaluse of the metaphor of the mirror. The man who goes away and forgets what he looks l ~ k eis ~mmedlatelyrecognizable as the man who has not properly used a mirror for self-improvement by turning "hear~ng'>nto "deeds " James's readers would also In all likehhood have recognized the ~ r n p l ~ econtrast d between the "natural selF' and "the perfect law of freedom" as sources of moral reflecnon. In t h ~ case, s the law stands in place of the moral teacher (Epictetus), the father (Plutarch), or even moral lectures (Plutarch) in supplying, as in a mirror, the beecer image of what one should become. The metaphor is not found frequently in the literature of Hellenistic Judaism, but the f w instances show the use to be consistent. In the Wisdom of Solomon 726, we find Wisdom (sophid) called "a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror (esoptron ~kLi1uioton)of the working of God, and an image of his goodness." This passage has often and appropriately been read for its value in deciphering NT christological statem e n t ~ . ~In* its original context, however, it closely resembles the use of the metaphor in James. The point of this encomium of Wisdom, after all, ro So on Mcb I 3, see B F U'estcotr, 7he Eprstfe to tbc Hrbrcrr.r (London. M a c m d h , c h (RNT. Regensburg Pustrr, 1966))30-31, on Col I 15, see E Lohse, Culosunr dnd P h t h o n (Wermencra, Phrladclphra. Fortress, 1971), 45-52. o n John, scc R E Brown, 7he Gospel Accmding to John (I-xrt) (AB 29, Garden CIV, NY Doubleday, lghS), Ill-lxst, cxxr1-cxxv 19-29) I O - I I , ~Kuss, Der Brrefan drr H

7he Mirror of Remembrunce: J 4 m s ~ : u - 2 5

is her ability to teach Solomon not only about the shape of reality (7x7-

u)but above all how to Iiw (8:8-18). The importance of Sophia's reflecting the working of God and his goodness, therefore, is thae by gazing into that mirror, right knowledge might be gained, superior to that granted by "nature": "I could not possess wisdom unless God gave her to me - and it was a gift of insight to know whose gift she was -- so I apAs in James, therefore, a pealed to the Lord and besought him" (8:19-21). "wisdom from above" (Jas3x7) comes by way of a gift from God Uas ~:r'i.), which makes of those who receive i t and live by it "friends of God" "isdom 7:27;cf. Jas 4:4).21 The Wisdom of Solomon does not make the connection between the In The Contemplatire mirror and torah. That link is established by Phi10.~~ Lrfi Philo describes the practices of the Therapeutae with regard to torah, which he describes as "fostering and perfecting (cpfeiountai, cf. Jas r : r ~ ) knowledge and piety" (25). By reading torah, they "keep the memory of God ahve and never forget it" (uleston echousi ten tou theou mnt'min, 26). They interpret torah allegorically. In a difftcult passage, Philo seems to suggest that the Therapeutae found the exemplar for so doing in torah itself: they imitated (mimountai) the examples (irrrheppis) that were left in Scripture as "memorials" (mnheid, 29).Discussing such allegorical interpretation at a later point in The Contemplative La@, he says this: For to these people the whole law book seems to resemble a living creature with the literal ordinances for its body and for its soul the invisible mind laid up in its wording. It is in this mind especially that the rational soul begins to contemplate ( t h e h i n ) the things akin to itself and looking through the words as through a mirror (busper dtk kztoptrou) beholds the marvelous beauties of the concepts, unfolds and renloves the symbolic coverings and brings forth the thoughts and sets them bare to the light of day to those who need but a little reminhng (hypomneseits) to enable them to discern the inward and hidden through the outward and visible. (78)

21 For the tncrlcare connecuons benwen these Images and thetr occurrence cisahere, see D Wtnston, Thc Ur& of Solomon (AB 43, G d m Crr): NY Doubl&v% rq;.9), r84-rgo u Ph~louses the metaphor of the mirror m various ways In addatson to the passage from On h e hP1Mpbon of Abmham 911 ( & s c w d rn n 17 above), see Quertrons on Genesrs I 57 (the w x i o m of the world ts ltke a mrrror of the powers of God - very close to Wtsdom 7 ) , On dx 105(the number 7 mirrors God's acttng tn the world), and Dn rJn hfrgmmn of Abraiklm 190 (the mind convenes w t h tcself. "fixmg ra gazx on truth ac on a mtrror")

~~

BROTHER OF JESUS, FRIEND O F GOD

Philo apparently regards actions as well as concepts to be capable of such hscerning; later in his text he applies the example of Moses and Miriam leading men's and women's choirs at the Red Sea to the contemplatives' practice of choral song and dance. The contemplatives' practice is a "copy of the choir set up of old beside the Red Sea" (85, 88). Neither for Philo nor for James was there anything particularly mystical about imaging God's law as a mirror for moral instruction. It was literary convention of prosaic and pre&ctable use. This survey of how the convention operates helps us see why the note of memory is so intimately connected to the mirror and also how "the perfect law of freedom" could so easily become a mirror of moral instruction. It remains to see how James uses that image to remind his readers of the models they are to imitate.

Models for Imitation In another place I tried to show how seriously James reads torah and uses it to shape his moral exhortation. His close reading of Lev 1g:rr-18enables him to use that segment of the law as a guide to explicating "love your neighbor as yourself' (2:s) in order truly to do it "accorhng to the Scrip t ~ r e . By " ~proposing ~ "the perfect law of freedom" (1:~s)as a mirror, I suggest,James also prepares his readers to find in ic models of moral behavior for imitation. He displays four such models: Abraham and Rahab, Job, and Elijah. Each shows how faith is "perfected" (or: "finished") by appropriate action.

Abraham and Rahab (zrzo-26) James's use of traditional interpretations associated with Abraham has been well den~onstratedby R. B. Ward, who also argues convincingly that the plural "works" of Abraham (2:21) include his "works of mercy" such as hospitality, as well as his obedience in sacrificing his son Isaac.24Rahab's "work was also that of hospitality, which is identified in the narrative of torah as an act of faith in the Lord (Josh 2:rr). Abraham and Rahab together, furthermore, clearly function as exilv~plesfor the moral lesson 23.

See my essay "The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter ofJames," pp. 123-135 in this vol.

24.

R. B. Ward, "The IVorks of Abraham: James 2x4-26," HTR 6 (1968) 283-290.

ume.

The Afzrror of Revremhnce: James

1:2-25

James is drawing in r:14-17 As male and female they correspond to the "brother or sister" who are in need (2:15), but in contrast to those whose faith is merely verbal (or confessional), Abraham and Rahab both enacted their faith in "works of mercy" by showing hospitality to the needy.2s And because they are counted among the righteous, thcy show how "mercy conquers even judgment" (2:rj). Other aspects of this passage connect it to the metaphor of the mirror. First, we notice that it is the "law of freedom" which will judge those who act with mercy or without it (Z:IL-IJ),just as it is the "perfect law of freedom"which is the mirror modeling merciful behavior. Second, James says that faith is "brought to perfection" by Abraham's works ( 2 : ~ )The . "perfect law" shows how faith is finished in deeds (1:s~).The careful reader also cannot miss the allusion to r:3-4: "The testing of your faith produces steadfastness, and let steadfastness have its full effect ( q o n teleon echeai)." Third, and perhaps most intriguingly, James twice uses verbs of seeing when developing the example: "You see that faith co-works his deeds and out of his deeds faith is perfected" (2:u). Where do the readers "see"? In the mirror of torah. Likewise in 2:242"You see that a person is justified out of deeds and not our of faith alone."

Job (5:xo-11) James's treatment of Job is much more succinct, yet makes the connection to the mirror metaphor even more clearly.26First, James explicitly tells his readers to "take as an example" ( r ? y p d e z p ) the suffertng and makmtbmla of "the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord." Second, he uses the verb "you have seen" in S:rr, even though t t fits awkwardly with the inimcdiacely precedtng ekousrzte; the mixture of seeing1 25 Rahab is lrstcd urrh Abraham as a mudel of futh in Web t r 31 and her f u t h IS explrcared In terms of hosprtaltr) Even more impressr\.ely, I Clement ro m d 12 speaks of the "farrh and hosprtdin*"both of Abraham, "the frlend af God* (I C l m ro I , 7). m d of Rahab ( 1 2 1-8) Clement bzgrns hrs ltst of examples rn this fashron "'Let us fu our g u c (rrtm&mm) on t h o x u h o have rendered perfect (tel~tos)servlce to h ~ excellent s doryn (11 2 ) Later, he UKS the mrrror metaphor ufjesus, agatn usrng the term "fixrng the gaze" (36 2 ) Concern. tng the models from the past, Clement explrcltly calls them the a r r b bypdespha ( 5 I), anci he recites them for the purpose of "nmlndtng" (bpmtmnerbnas, 7 3 ) those who shairid become "rm~rators"((nrtm*ta~,17 I) The connectrons of I ( % m t wlth James arc, of course, multrple see Johnson, *James 3 13-4 lo," passim 26 For mrdrashic tradrtrons concerning Job, see L Grnsburg, Thc Legends o f h e Jeus (Phtladelphta J e u ~ s hPubltrac~onSor~erva f Amerrca, r91oj, 2 . u ~ - 2 4 5. #1-3go

BROTHER O F J E S U S , F R I E N D O F G O D

hearing is, as in I:=-25, created by the metaphor of the mirror, which demands the verb of seeing. Third, the readers have seen the telos kynou. A As so often with telos, the senses difficult phrase, and much disc~ssed.~' of "end" and "goal'may both be intended. The readers can "see" in the story of Job both what God's purposes were and how they were accomplished. Fourth, the exemplary function of Job within the immediate context is obvious. James has just enjoined those undergoing persecution to have the same attitude of makrothymid by which he characterizes Job.ZBFifth, when James says, "Behold, we count blessed (mabrizomen) those who endure," he points the reader back to two earlier macarisms. James has said in 1:25 that the doer of the word urill be makarios en 6 po&ei autou. Even more impressively, in 1 x 2 , James declares makdrios a n k hos hypornenei peinzsmon. Why? "Because he will receive the crown of life promised to those who low him" - for this Job provides the example. And who is the "him"? Clearly, the Lord, "who is compassionate and merciful" ( 5 : ~ ) .Finally, we see again in this example how faith is "perfected by deeds. The example of Job illustrates the opening exhortation, "Let endurance have a perfect work (tekion ergon), so that you may be perfect (telews) and whole, lacking in nothing" (1:4).

In the case of Elijah there are no verbal echoes of the mirror metaphor. That Elijah functions as an example to the readers is, however, made abundantly clear.29 He is homowpa&s heman, a characterization that is 27 See the dtxussion in Dibeliur, Jumes, pp 246-247, and Mayvr, Jrrmc~,pp 164-165 J That mruhemrii r s a brr unexpected hem (w wvuld haw antrcrpatrd bypmone) was notrccd already by John Chrysostom (PG64 1049) That Job had W c d IS not at all obvtous froni the dtalogues In the canon~calbook (desptte the strange use of &+mad In LXX Job 7 16) - although the framing of the stonrclearly tndicatcs Job's reward for h ~ fidel~ry s Uob 42-7-17) In contrast, the Testament ofJob s h o w a parrrarch who corresponds to the popular Image of "panent Job " His b p t r ~ o n eremains constant ( I 3) He tells hts wfc, " k t us be panenc in everything ( m h ~ m r r o m m unrtl ) the Lord tn compasslon shows us mercym(26 6-7).which is scrucrurally verv like Jas 5 lo-11 Job also tells his children, "You must a h be patient (maknr+mosate) in everythrng that happens to you, for panence is superior to everything" (kmm @n punton he makmthymur, 27 to) Placing this wrtnng IS itself dtficult, see the bibliography in R A Krafr, 7hP Testlrnenr ofJob (SBLTT 5, P~udepigraphicalSeries 4, Miuould MT Scholars, 1974)~17-20 zg f i e midashic tradinons concerning Elijah are found tn Gtnsburg, 7hL.LC& of &Jews, 4 195-253,6 316-342 Among the earliest materials, Sir 48 1-3 1s particularly interest-

The M i m of Remembrance: J~mesi:u-25 meaningless were it not for his exemplary role: it is because he is like them that his prayer can serve as a model for theirs.= So will their "prayer of faith" be effective in the community (s:Is). The lesson precedes the example: "The prayer of a righteous man is powerfuln ($16). Again, the example picks up an earlier exhortation and gives i t life. Elijah shows us the person who "asks in faith, not doubting anything" ( ~ 6 ) . Such are the examples James wants his readers to see in the text of torah. They are models of how faith is "brought to perfection" by specific deeds. Abraham and Rahab exemplify the obedience and hospitality of faith; Job the endurance of faith; Elijah the prayer of faith. Because torah shows as in a mirror the "perfecting of faith" through such examples, it can justly be called "the perfect law of freedom* (1:25). By examining the use of the mirror as metaphor within the context of Hellenistic moral exhortation, we &scover not only how the verbs of "forgetting" in James r:tq-2s should be understood, but also how the metaphor helps pull together disparate parts ofjames's own composition. The examples of Abraham and Rahab, Job, and Elijah, are not random. They exempliFy faith translated into deeds. The language used to present them alludes both to the mirror metaphor and to the maxims of chap. I. James's use of the mirror of remembrance makes him an even more convincing sample of Hellenistic parenetic literature.

three rrmes tng, srnce tt sayi, "BY the word of the Lord he shut up the heavens and brought down fire," whtch corresponds to James's use of "in the name of the Lord" tn 5 14. In 4 Ezra 739, the prayer of Eltjah for m n IS jclmed to the prayer of Abraham for the people Drbcltus (/am, p 256) thinks that James used such tradrtiow rather than the brblical text ttsclf, since the notion of pnyer and of the s p f i c nme period IS not found expl~ctrivthere But James (like Strach and 4 Ezra) could haw understood the words from I Kg.; 17 r, "except by the word of my mouth,"as the first Instance of p r a r r and the prostrarton of Elijah in I Kgs 18qz as the second Instance That "the earth brought forth frurt" Uas 9 18) rs likpulse lackrng tn the text of I ffings But tt fits ntcely w t h James's prenectc tntencions as the dry land IS to the frutrful, so tr the stck man to the one rased to health See also James's enptnmg of patrence ( mu) rn 5 7 'Behold the firmer warts for the pnctous fruit of the earth, being paacnr w r tt unnl rr rccerws the early and the late rain " 30 It is unltkcly that James IS concerned m deflect a perccptron of Elrjah as supcrhuman, so,correcrly, Drbelrus, James, p 257

James 3:13-4:10 and the Topos mpi $ 8 6 ~ 0 ~

Few sections of the New Testament contain more infamous puzzles for interpreters than James 3x3-4:1o Otherwise confident commentators here become diffident. Not only are the problems many and difficult; they have also been dssected so many times that a quiet despair falls over any investigator sufficiently unwary to poke about in the area at all. Rather than rehearse all of these difficulties in detail, I will touch on only a sampling, and only long enough to suggest why it may be appropriate to begin approaching the text from another angle.

Exegetical Problems in James 3x3-4x0 The issues are both structural and thematic. Among the thematic, some are lexical. In ?:IS, for example, a oocpia &voeevis contrasted to one which r j Fatpov16Frl~. The "earthly" is a clear enough conis 6mycto~,y u x ~ ~and trast to "from above." But what are we to make of V U X I K ~ ?The commencators review the appropriate Pauline distinctions between rrveiya and yuxrj (I Cor 2x4; 15:46), and the characterization of opponents by Jude 19 as y u x ~ ~meGya oi pfl Exovre~;and all deny any real Gnostic engagement,' alI. A. Schlatter, Der Brief des Jacobus (Stuttgart: Calwer. r932), 49; F. Mussner, Der Jacobusbrief; 3rd ed. (HTKNT 13; Fretburg: Herder, 19751, 171;J. Marty, L'Epibe de J ~ q (Paris: m Felix Alcan. r93~),144-145;J. H. Ropes, A Critical and Fxegetital Comrmntary on the Eptstle of St. Jilnzes (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, rg16), 248; F. J. A. Horc, fie Epistlr ofst. James (London: Macmillan and Co., 1909)~84; J. B. Mayor, The Eptstk ofSt.Jamcs, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan and Co., rgro), 129; S. Laws, A Commentary on the Epzstle o f s t . Jantes (I-farper's NT Commencartes; New York: Harper and Row, ry8o), rGr-162. Cf. also R. Pearson, The PneumdtikosPsychikos Tminology in First Corinthizns (SBLDS 12; Missoulz Scholars Press, 19681, 14.

James j:rj-4:10 and the Topos mp\ @06vou

though Uibelius thinks to find illumination in the blithras L i t ~ r g yAll .~ agree that a contrast with nvt0pa is implied by the term, bur n o commentary has drawn attention to the nv~fipaofJames 4:s. Why? Because it is in "another section." The 6a1pov166rl
BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

method of interpretation, so that one may seek lexical help from Ignatius of Antioch, but not from eight - verses away in James itself. Dibelius sees 3x3-4x0 as a loose arrangement of independent units. 3x3-17 form a unit of thought joined only accidentally (perhaps by the to 3:1-12. The saying in 3:18 is completely indepenlinking word TCLI(P~<) dent in origin and function, and 41-6 begins a new inclusive whole. From 3x3 to 4:6, Dibelius can detect some "uniformity of tendency," but neither a train of thought nor a formal unity." As for 4:7-10, this simply stands in contrast, formally and thematically, to the preceding verses. Finally, Dibelius rules out any connection to the section beginning in j : r , dealing with 6160tmahoi." Although Dibelius is most decisive in his rejection of thematic or structural unity in this section ofJames, other commentators follow much the same path in practice, if with less clearly articulated principle^.'^ Given such a view of parenesis and rhe composition of James, contextual interpretation is obviously out of the question. But is this view correct? Rather than prior convictions, the text itself should decide. Before looking directly at the question of structural unity, it may be helpful to sharpen the issue by glancing at three further thematic d~fficulties in this section, which have bedevilled readers of James. The first i s found in 4:2. The verse is notoriously hard to punctuate, and appears to contain an intolerable anticlimax in the movement from (POVE~ETE to t q h o i h ~Of . ~the ~ various attempts at intelligible p u n c t ~ a t i o n ,Mayor's '~ is certainly the best, respecting as it does both the text and the thought:15 krneup&i~& KC() o l j ~ ~ X E T(POVEUETE E. KC(I j q h o f i ~KC(\ ~ oh ~I)vc(&E 6rnmx~IV. ~ & X E & E ~ c c Ti ~ o ~ E ~ E ~ TBut E . SO strange does the idea of murder appear in point of reference for the meaning of parenesis among New Testament scholars. Not only do parenetic texts often have definite structure, but it is misleading to think of parenesis ss a genre (Gattung) as Dibelius did (p. I). All the more disasrro~lsare attempts to fit this supposed genre to various social settings and social Functions in a mechanical fashion, as is done by L. G. Perdue, "Paraenesis and the Epistle of James," ZNW 72 (1981) 241-256. 10. Dibelius, pp. 207-208. 11. Dibelius, pp. 208-209. 12. Cf. Laws, p. 158; Marcy, p. 141; although Ropes, p. 5,takes 4:r-5:6 a s a separate literary unit. he connects 3x3-18 to 32-12. And J. B. Adamson, The Eplsde ofJames (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 149, considers 333-18 to continue the secclon beginning in 3:1, as do Mussner, pp. 168-169, and Hort, p. 80. 13. Adamson, p. 168; T. Garcia, Epistold Sancti Jacobr (Roma: Lateranum, r954), 170. 14. Cf., e.g., Marcy, p. 155; Mussner, p. 178; and esp. Dibelius, p. 217. 15. Mayor, p. 136, says he saw it also in Hofmann. Mayor is followed by Ropes, p. 254, and Laws, p. 169.A very similar punctuation is arrived at by Hort, p. 89.

James 3:13-4:10 nnd the Topos xepi 486vou this phrase that those who do not interpret it spiritually,16 find themselves attracted by the suggestion of Erasmus (despite a con~pletelack of E T &those . ' ~ who Ms support) that cpove6s.r~be emended to C ~ @ O V E ~Even and who argue in support of cpovs6are correctly reject this en~endation,'~ the tradition connecting envy and murder,19 do not appear altogether convinced, especially since they cannot call upon the use of cfiAo
B R O T H E R OF

JESUS, FRIEND

OF GOD

nent," and she correctly argues that Wvoc;"would seem a quite unsuitable word to use in relation to God."26 Laws does not adequately show, however, udry Wvoc; is inappropriate for designating "the divine zeal." Nor does she tell us why Prov. 3:34 could be regarded by the author as a pertinent citation in connecrion with Wvoc;And because she treats the verses in isolation, she fails to draw any support for her contentions from the context of 3x3- j:ro, though she could have. A final thematic difficulty has to d o with the connection of 4:~-10 with anything which has gone before. The o h of 4:7 demands some sequence, but most observers think that, at best, only 4:6 forms the premise for this conclusion. Commentators are able to cite some precedents for '"eeing the devilswnbut do not see any reason to connect 816$dwhere with the batpowcjdqr;character of C f i k q in 3:15;~~ still less is 4%-10 regarded as part of the same development. The habitual perception of James as srructurally fragmented, therefore, means that each of these problems is treated in isolation, which only reinforces the initial conviction that there is no unity of thought. The atomistic approach also obscures the issue of which materials from Hellenistic literature might prove helpful for understanding this part ofJames. In their consideration of James 4:r, for example, n6&v rr6Arpo1 . . . oirr h W e v &ti T&V ~ M Wbpdv V . . . , commentators dutifully pass on standard references attributing war to untrammeled desires for pleasure.29 But they seem unaware that an even more consistent connection is made among Hellenistic writers between Mbvoc; and wars.jOThe material cited gives lexical precedents, but little insight into the development of a

2s

b u s , "Scnpntre,* pp

& Iaws, "Scnprw," p

213-11s

Thl~ ts an Important cons~dennon,and tt w n l s to have exaped Dibelius, urually attentive m marten of thts sort, completely, p uq 27 Espcrally from the Tsununb of r6a T u e k Patnarrh and nX' S Ropes, p 268, Mart): p 161, Ian*s,pp 180-181, Mayor, p 146, Dlbcltus, p 226 28 It ts therefore possible for the most recent commentator to note, "the command to resist the dcld docs not fit," b u % ,p 167 29 Mort tirqrtently, Piam, P k h , MC',Epictetus I, a,14,and a smartertng of passages from the T i ~ m m t roftbe TUYIWPmurrhs Cf Cattnat, p 195, Mussner, p 177,Marry, p 154, Ropes, p 253, Mayor, p 13j, Dibelius, p rrs The comment made tn note 19 applres here as uvll jo Wtndlxh, p 26, does make brtefmennon of envy in t h s connectton The w t w of Laws, p 167,1s more ryp~cdShe sees no ltnk between 3 18 and 4 I, unless "the echo of CQ<, jealousy ts deliberate. but the transanon from the subject of p a c e to the subject of war is an underrtan&le one " But haw these been the "rubjects" aar all? 11+

James j:13-4:10 and the Topos mpl 4106vov

theme. All of this is logical, of course, if one works with the conviction that there is no theme being developed. Release from the unhappy task of picking over old exegetical bones will not come about unless the reader be willing to step back once more and see those bones as part of a living organism. We can begin by regarding James 3:13-4:10 as a single literary unit, namely, as a call to conversion which employs the Helienistic topos on envy (mpt (p86vou). To establish this perspective, it is necessary to show the structural coherence of the passage as a whole, and then indicate the ways in which the topos might make the passage more intelligible.

The Structure ofJames 3x3-4x0 For readers who have grown accustomed to seeing James as a pile of pieces, something of a leap of faith is here required, or perhaps only an adjustment in perspective. One must forget for a while the chapter and verse &visions, as well as the helpful but overdefining subject headings of the UBS New Testament. It is also helpful to remember the ways Hellenistic moralists go about their business, using traditional ethical materials in rhetorically effective ways.31 In the end, however, some violence is required: we must simply pull out 3x3-4:1o, call it a unit, and see what happens. Taken as a whole, the passage appears as a call to conversion with rwo major parts: 333-46 sets up an ind~ctment,to which 4:7-10 responds. The connective o h in 4:7 indicates that the series of imperatives (and assurances) is based on what preceded it. The exhortation itself is rounded off q~ xvptov uat by the final command and promise: ~ a x e ~ v c j e6v6mov t-I Gp85 (4:1o), which returns to the ~ a m ~ v of o i 4:6 as well as the above/below pattern found there and in 3:13-17 As for the content of the exhortation, in addition to submission (4:7, lo), and the movement toward God rather than the devil (4:7-8)>the commands demand ethical purification and mourning - in a word, conversion (4:8-9). The indictment in 3:13-4:6 is more complex, and cannot be easily examined without going into tedious detail. Far from being hsjo~nted,how31 When Ropes, pp 10-18,dtuusses the "dtatribai"character ofJames,tt 1s nor surprtstng to find a large number of tlfustrations drawn prectsely from rhts secnon of the letter, for tt ts tntensely sermontc, wrh a full batter)..of aposrrophes, hyperbole, rhetortcal quesnons, and the rest.

BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF G O D

ever, it is a rhetorically polished presentation. We notice first how the discourse moves by means of rhetorical questions in 3x3, 4:r (two), 434, and 4:s (two). We also notice that the first and second of these are joined: 3x3 asks about the wise and understanding t4v 6piv and 4:1 asks about the source of wars kv Gpiv. The rhetorical qt~esrionsare each followed by exposition or accusation. In 3:13-14,an initial contrast between a wisdom from above and bitter jealousy is explained by a second set of antithetical statements in 3315-16 (oix Llmv . . . &A&, and brrou y&p . . . k i ) , and 3x7-18 then resumes, with an emphasis on cipijvq, the thematic opposition established by 3x3: true wisdom is manifested in mild and peaceful behavior. The second set of rhetorical questions forms a sharp antithesis to 3x718, and returns to the bitter jealousy of 3:r4-1~,now explicitly seen not only as a cause of htca~auraoiabut of wars and battles. Rather than exposition, accusations follow these questions: t r n t h p c i ~rpovedcn, , C M o h , p*Eaee, noAcpdn (4:2). These are followed by a short explanation of why their requests d o not get fulfilled (4:3), and another rhetorical question which reminds them of a traditional understanding of the irreconcilability of friendship with God and with the world (44). The climax of the indictment is reached in 45-6. However difficult it is to construe precisely, its rhetorical intent seenis plain. The whole exposition comes down to the validity of the scriptural wimess. Is all that rhe Scripture says in vain? Is envy really the proper sort of longing for the spirit God put in humans? The citation of Prov 3:34, in turn, sets up the exhortation of 4:~-10. Looked at in this way, the thematic importance of envy appears obvious, for the climactic question concerns cpedvo~.However apparent the contrast between war and peace, therefore, it is governed by the more fbndamental rheme of envy. I will show below why CjAcy and (p86vcy can be regarded as synonymous. For the moment, we can note the presence of (OAK m ~ p &in 3x4, Cjhoc; ~ akp18eia l in 3x6, CTJAOOTE in 4:2, and (pesvw in 4:s. These are not the only thematic threads. The terms of the exhortation to conversion tend to correspond to the qualities described in the opening section. Thus, the purifying of hands and hearts by the Giquxot in 438 corresponds to and &Gt&tcpt~o< in 3x7. Fleeing the 616poAo~in 4:7 matches the Ga~povtcjsr)~ in 3:15. The m O p a God made to dwell in us in 4:s contrasts with the quxt~ijin 3x5. The lowliness and sorrow in 4:g-ro oppose the arrogance and boasting of 4:6 and 334, r a a p ~ t nicely a balancing bxcpqcpavia. It is possible, though much harder, to draw some connections be-

&w

James j:13-4x0 and the Topos n ~ p 4 i 86~0~ tween 3:13-4:10 and what goes before and after it in James.32 But the very &fficulty of establishing these makes the relative coherence of 3:13-4:1o the more impressive. If a plausible case can be made for regarding this passage as a call to conversion using the motif of envy, then we can turn to the sort of Hellenistic material in which that topic is treated.

The Character of Envy in Hellenistic Moral Philosophy Envy ( e b v ~is) treated with sufficient frequency and variecy in Hellenistic moral philosophy to be regarded as a t~pos.'~ Typically, when ethicists are describing the nature of a part~cularvice or virtue, they tend to make &stinctions which fall away when they are using the same categories in another context, in a less technical way. Thus Cqhog (or CqAonnn'a) can be distinguished from @6vw, as in Aristotle's Rhetorrc 1388A, tJme~dgtfmv b Cj h o ~ aLSme1~3v, i ~b 6b cp&>vt-iv cpaOAov uai cpai.)\wv." Aristotle calls (%w p.mw& in ~ : I Iand 3x4 appears to be a word-linkage. We notc as u~11"in your mcmben," in both 3:6 and .+:I;a form of hrmaorada in 3% and 326. Apart from these details, there is a fairly natural transition from the two sources of water and their fruits in ~:II-IZ and the m'o sources of wisdom and their fruits in 3:13-18. and the cunlng of one's brother (3:)))is not less antisocial than wars and battles (4:1). Above all, there is a natural and unmisof 333; cf. especially Mussner, takable link h e e n the 6rMmaAor of 3:r and the ti< pp. 168-169. Connet-nons on the other side are harder, since 4x1 is one of those passages In James which haw a genuine arr of independence. The notc ofjudgnlent sounded 1x1 3:1 is explicitly elaborated In 4x1-12,and rc is possrble to argue for a natural transition from arrogance to wa~daAtOl,unce it is found elsewhere In paaenetic materials (as In Hermas Mand it?, and especially I Clem 3o:1-2). On ~ : I Icf. , my essay "The Use of Leviticus rg in the Letter of James," pp. 123-13sin this volume. 33. It is found in the Admf~gucmof Scobaeus, 111, 38 (Hense, pp. 708-721). The mast thorough survey of chis t o p s in Hellenistic ph~losophyhas been done by E. Milobensk~,Der Nerd m der gruchuchen Philomphre (Wassisch-Philologtxhe Studien 29; Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowia, 1964). That study pmvided some inrtial leads for the discussion here. On the subject of topoi and their use in New Testament exegesis, much work snll remains. A start was made by D. Bradley. "The Tops as a Form in the Pauline Paraenesis,"]BL 72 (1953) ~ $ 3 2 4 6 The more recent article by T.Y. Mullins, "Tops as a New Testament Form," JBL 99 (I*) 541-547,is far too u-eighted on the formal side. Topor in the Hellenisric writings rcsembie clusters of themes, and they can be fit to many forms and are found in many variations. An example of this sort of research applied to a particular text can be found in H. D. Beu, G&nans (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, rg79), zzoff Set also R C. Trench. S - m m s of dx N.7: (London: Marmillan, 1&So9), 5 m. 11.So also James speaks of a T v o mrpiy ~ in 3:14. which leads to nib @)im xpciy)a (3:16), whereas the wisdom from above is t m ~ r u r(3:r~). / ~ For another saying joining t p e d q and cpaO)io~,cf. Stobaeus III,j8, 36-37.

B R O T H E R O F J E S U S , E R I E N D OF G O D

a sorrow caused by another possessing something because u)e do not have IC. I t can therefore be a poslclve lricltement to achtevement, so t,Uc C ~ p exd lntmuv Utrtri~trMC, ~ I W Dc , Trcrnqu~lrrsrte.+-or, ~7x11. I'laro, S ~ m p c t u m213I), 1 ~ ~6 17 C , , Eplctetus. 111, 22, 61 $I M~iobensk~, pstm 39 Stobaeus 111, 38" 48, cf h(lloben*kl, p 1 1 JO iji; j16vov T O ~ T Or& flc ~ ~ xvouqpbrwv f i ~ hn6ppqrov, De mr.& n odro 537E JI C'f M~loErPtnskr,psamm d A J M d h e r k 7hu Cvnrc kprsder (SWL Sources for Wibltc d al~rddy12, Misxlula Scholars F'ress, 19-). pasrm @ Malherk. e n r c Fpudlaj, p 188 httlobensk~,p too, n 13, remarks, "Die Tr~as. 'Hass, Neld, \"erachtung 1st rop~srh,"and gr\.rs references 43 Cf i'iaro, L y s zrrD, and Plurarch, Dc T j p d 86C q1B 44 E g Plaro, Lrsu rrtC and 1110 ('hr\soscilm, (harms 7-178, I 3s Cf

James 3:rj.-q:io and the Topos nep't Mbvou frequently asserted.4s Epictetus says that Caesar can free people from ndA&poi~ apdrxai i but not tnrb cpecivou (111, rj, 9). In the b u r 86230, Plato shows how the passions (tm0vpia1)can lead to contlict and even murder. As such tmeupiai, Plato lists 06poc, &Bog, flbvfl,h6m1, and 9 0 6 ~ 0 5(Lzua 863E). These can lead to killing- (Lzuls 870A, cf. James 4:r-2).* The violent and antisocial character of envy is reflected by its placement in the vicelists of the New testa men^.^' That (p86vo~opposes friendship is obvious,* and since friendship involves a certain harntony (bpbvoia) between people, it follows that e n w should destroy b p 6 ~ o i a A . ~good ~ example is found in the Sentmcu of Ps&P@itdes 70-75. An initial command not to be envious (70) is supported by the model of the heavenly beings (obpavibi) who are all &cp&>voi (71). The stars and moon do not envy each other, Crei 6' bpbvoiav Exouolv. Harmony reigns in heaven. Line 75 concludes: ei yClp lpic pa~&peaolv Eqv, o b &v ~ ndAq Envy leads to strife and discord. W e are reminded of James 3x6, which rells us that where Cjhoc ~ a tpi0eia i are, there is etwaramada. In his commentary on this part of Pseudo-PhocyIide3, P. W. van der Horst calls attention to nvo aspects of envy. The first is that of envy considered as a human vice (as in line 70). The second is &cpf)ovia (lack of envy) as a divine attribute.s0 This last aspect has been thoroughly examined by Nf. C. van Unnik:' who notes that just as envy can be directed

m.

45 Arrsrorle, NrcrrmdAdn E k s I I ~ I Af,. v n H k v ai )t&cn Icf James j r) Plutarch, De Trdfiq#4tlltsle4 7 ~ 8De . tL.3te-mn Amore 487F. Eprctetus I l l , 19, 26,111 u,61 Dto, ~ h m 77,-8 n ~ - 2 9for further referencrs ~olningen>y and war, cf hlrlobenskr, pp 3, 15-16 103 46 Plaro dtscusses the mbrcrous (cplAbnpcy)man who through en\%/tp&.lwr;) or fear (@&) ends up cummtrtrng murder ( r p b ~ ) ,bw,87oC'-D In b u r , 93~1\he call, lor Ileavxer puntshments for robh.rre.i or murders u htch arc due ro plczsums pams, dcstrcs, en vles and rages 47 VV.% ts found next ro €PICin Rom 1313, r Cor .I 3, r Cor 112 0 Wvly tr bestde C P c , ~ and tptq rn Rom I 2 9 , and next to €P(F m Phtl 1 15 and r Tlm 6 4 In I Pet r t tr lotns irndrplcnc, and w a ~ W t & (cf James 5 17 and 4 11) TIC3 3 attaches to nuda m . ~and &)ti@& The extended vice-itst of Gal 5rn.zr has. ~n order, t @ ~ ?PIC, . cx;, BJpc, tpr&ia. S ~ x w t u d aalprrn~ , and Wrry. a wrtual summary of the arp 48 Cf Plato, Ph~Iebrir4gD, Artctatle, I'olrhcs, 1295i3, P l u n n h , L)e Fruternv Amom .@A487B, DP Intvdlil ~t &, 5361: 49 Mtlobenskr, pp 7-8 go P W van drr Horst, ThP S m m e s o f P 1 0 u d u - P ~ l r d e(SVTP ~ I\' Lesden Rr111, 1978). 161-165 51 vt' C t a n Unntk. A W N METAAlhnMI (Rru\sels Palcrs drr Academ~en,1971), s t e f ~ kOtmrrrnr (Amsterdam Noord-Hollandxhc and De &cpBovta tun God tn de U~tgeversMaatxhapij, 1973)

BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

O F GOD

from one who has not toward one who has, so the opposite can also happen: a person who has something (especially mystical knowledge or wisdom) can be "envious" or "grudging" in the sharing of it with others. CxqOovia is therefore a quality of generosity, or liberality, and it becomes a significant divine attribute in the patristic literature. The possible pertinence of this nuance to James 4:6, peicova 6b 6i6oolv xhp~v,should not be o v e r l o ~ k e dBoth . ~ ~ van Unnik and van der Horst emphasize the continuing influence of two statements concerning envy by Plato, which provide a divine basis for human b e h a v i o ~ r . ~ ~ In contrast to the bitterness which can be generated by the faults of others (including their 9 8 6 ~ and 0 ~ cqkowma), Plutarch advocates a mild and gentle response. Instead of seeking to purge the evil of others by bitter medicine (harshness), Plutarch wants the person of good understanding to act like a physician, Ymo~qxxivg ~ ap ib r p ~ o(De ~ Tranq 468C).S4Again, the contrast between bitterness and mildness reminds us of the opposition between Cfiho~ T I I K ~ ~and S the wisdom from above which shows itself kv n p a d q n (James 3x3-14).The same sort of contrast is also found in Dio Chrysostom's Oration 77/78, which is entitled TIEP~ M ~ V ODio U . begins his discourse with Hesiod's proverb concerning strife caused by envy (I), and he sketches the sort of violence toward which envy can lead (17-30). But the discourse then shifts to a consideration of the ideal philosopher, one who is free from any sort of envy.55This positive ideal is drawn by means of contrasts. The philosopher oh o ~ a o l vkycipov 0666 nhsov&
James 3:13-4:ro and the Topos mpi

Wvou

(40-45).In Dio, we see the topes mpi cp&lvoufitted to a protreptic discourse on the sage; will we find it totally inappropriate that in James it is fitted to teaching concerning 816drmdot (3:~)and oocpoi (3:x3)F6 Even this quick glance at Hellenistic materials has given us a good ground for considering James 3:13-4:ro to be dealing with envy. We have seen how CqAw and @ 6 v q can be used interchangeably; how irn~pqcpavia is associated with envy; how social upheaval and wars, as well as murder, are attributed to envy; and how the bitterness of envy is opposed by the gentleness of genuine wisdom. We are no further along, however, in understanding how chis wisdom can be "from above," or what the devil might haw to do with it, and how it comes by a "spirit" which is "indwelling." In short, much of the language here is specifically biblical. The question is, can we locate it more precisely with regard to envy?

Envy in Hellenistic-Jewish Writings c086vq does not occur frequently in the LXX. In Sirach 14:xo, the dcpeaSlbq novrlpb~cpBomp& characterizes a rich man who does not share what he has (cf. Sir x4:3-10). In Tobit 4:7,16, an "envious eye" is again used of one who does not share with others by means of almsgiving. In I Maccabees 8x6, cpec)voc, and (;@ware used synonymously in the sense of "envy." This is not much."? The most striking text in the Greek Bible on envy is in Wisdom 2:24, which states that although God created humans to be immortal, cp&lvc;St 61a@5Aou War% ~idl)iOev~ i rbv c r b p o v . Here we find a direct link between envy, death, and the devil. But to what death is the text referring? The first possibility is the death fated for Adam and Eve (Gen 3x9) because Eve was seduced by the serpent (Gen 3:1-7)." It is also possible that 56 For Dto on the tdeal phtlosopher, cf A J Malherbc, "'Gmrleas a Nurse The Cyntc Background to I Thess 11," Norvm G~turnennrm12 (1970) 203-217,on the anrtthencal rtructurn, cf L T Johnson, "I1 Timorhv and the Pnlemrc against False Teachers A Reexamrnanon,'" JOY^ of Re@s Studes 617 (19;8/79) 1-16 57 It ma? be noteworthy. however, rhat in Tobx 4 13, the young man IS told not to be arrogant. 616~1kv imtpqcpavfp (rncjk~axu1 &xammuola mMr/ (cf James 3 16) As for C4).% apart from Gcn 37 11 (on ahlch, see belaw), t r IS used 1n the sense of "zeal,"as m Ps 6q 9, I s 97 58 Thts IS the vaeu of V Wmston, Thc W& of Sddmon (Anchor B~ble43. Garden Crcy Doubleday, 1979), 12;-rzz.Josephuc, Anfqurttn 1. 4, @ atrnbutes the Serpent's seducnon of Eve u, hts being cpBov~prjCWinston ntes apc~n7)haiand Gnostrc texts to the m e effect In addloon ro the srudtes mencloned earher, van Unn~khas pursued rhrs aspecr of

BROTHER OF JESUS, FRIEND OF G O D

Wisdom is referring to the murder of Abel by Cain (Gen 4:1-9).'~This is the first real death in Scripture, and it is by murder. In that text, neither envy nor the devil is mentioned. But we read that Cain Abfirlmv Aiav ( 4 4 , and we remember that envy is described by the moralists as a kind of We also notice that Cain did not offer his s f t s c)w~ (Gen 4:7), which reminds us somewhat of those who make requests rar* in James 43. Neither Philo nor Josephus makes much of a connection between envy and murder when they discuss the Cain and Abel story. In his allegorical treatment, Philo mows into the contrast between true wisdom and sophistry, and in the Post. Cdin 140, 150, he contrasts the &@ovia of urisdom to the grudging sharing of knowledge characteristic of s o p h i ~ c r yNeither .~ does Josephus explicitly call Cain envious, though he attributes vices to him which regularly accompanied the envious p e r ~ o n . ~ ' The application of envy to Cain becomes explicit in Christian texts. Thus, r Clem iii,q quotes Wisdom 224, and follows immediately with the example of Cain (Afifirl being picked up from the text of Genesis), and he concludes: 6p&r&&beAcpoi, C j h o ~r a i @6voc; &b&rporroviav r a n i p y 6 u a r o (I Clem i ~ , 7 ) . ~ ~ Another place in the U X where envy and (intended) murder come together is the Joseph story. Jacob's special love for Joseph caused dissenV cpka I?K n&vrov T&v ui&v sion: i s 6 v r ~ q6L oi &GEAcpolabror) 6n U ~ T 6~ nar)lp ahor),L p i q u a v a h b v r a l obu fibbvavro Ad&ivabr@ o w v ~tpqvrr6v(Gen 37:4). After Joseph's dream, KfiAoaav be abrbv ol &b&qo\ abroS, (Gen 37:11), and this led to their plan h ~ o r n i v a Ui ~ T (37:18). ~ V In his version of the story, Josephus emphasizes the role of e n t ~ Philo . ~ ~also makes the

Am.

envy tn "Der Netd In d m Paradresgcxhrchte nach etntgcn gno5oxhen Texcen." EZIO~ on be k g Ham& Tcxta tn Honor ofA&.wn& Bohlig. rd M Krauw (Nag-Hammadt Stud~es111, Le~denBrtll, rgp), 120-132. 59 Wtnscon, p 121 Cf J A I Gregg, 7 h U'sdurn of Solomon (Cambridge B~ble,Cambrrdge Gmbrtdge Untversto* Press, I W ) , u 60 Elsewhere, Phrlo can speak of the "~ndwclhng"of envy, Dr Vtrtute 223, and E Goodcnough, P&&a of Phlo J d a e n r (New Haven Yale Un~versltvPress, lgj8), 47 n 15, says, "Phtlo uses cpedwy almosr as an evll sptr:r " 61 C a n was driwn by fiw, &IF, nkcoweiu, and rhcse drrwq lead ro all sorts of upheat*& and battles A n b ~ b 1,e ~56-66 62 The same a t n ~ b u n o nts made In Theophrlus's Ad Aut+tn 11, zy When Sacan saw that Adam and Eve had nor dted. but had propagared ch~ldren,he weas m d w t h envy (cpB6vcp c p ~ p 6 p ~ vand q ) ~nctcedCarn Crnornivu~h&Acpbv atrob XPU (PG6 r o g ~ )Even more ekhorate IS Rastl the Great In hrs sermon e~~rrcled mpi cpec)vou he calls C u n b npSmc; p a w * zoB ( i t a m ,raicp&iwv KUI@vov nap' aGr00 &&rX8ri~(Hom XI, 3, PG 21 371-386) 6; Jacob cpedwv t r i m r a l pi% among the brethren, rnstriltng rn them a (;@onmia

James 3:13-4:10 and the Topos mpi 4Mvou theme of envy explicit. In the De Josepho, he says w v created ~ division in the family, and since feelings unexpressed tend to grow more violent (5), the brothers' resentment bred disturbances (IO), and finally led to the plotting of murder, @ v s (12). Here, cp&)voc and @voc; are expressly joined.@' The role of envy in the betrayal ofJoseph is recounted by Luke in the Stephen speech, ~ a oi i lrarpihpxa~6 q A h v n g ~ b v' 1 4 9 MGovro E ~ C A~~VITTOV (Acts 79). Given Luke's love for prophetic typology," it is not shocking to find him also attributing to the same vice the opposition of the Jewish leadership to the apostles (Aces 9 7 ; 13:45;17:s). Even more strikingly, two of the Synoptics attribute to envy rhe resistance of Jewish leaders to Jesus: kyfvwo~n,yCrp 6n 6 h cpe6vov napa&6cjw~ioavabr6v (Mk IS:IO;cf. Mt 27:18).~~ Envy has been seen co play a role in the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Joseph and his brothers, Jesus and the Jewish leaders, and the apostles and Jewish leaders. The connection between envy and murder could not be more explicitly drawn in this Hellenistic-Jewish literature. The "devil," however, has been found explicitly in only one text, Wisdom 224. In order to get even closer to the language and outlook of James on envy, we must take a close look at the Testaments of tbe licelve Patria~hs.

Envy, Death, and the Devil in the Testaments The resemblance of parts of James to the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs has been noted often enough by commentator^,^^ but it has been MayoP and especially Ropes who have stressed the frequent points of contact in isolated verses of this section. Ropes considered the Tesfaments to have a "special affinity" to James in language, though not in structure or (Annqurhcs 11, to). God countered rheir q-436~ by sending a second dream (11, r j ) , but when the brothers heard it, tAhqoav (II,17). so they planned to kt11 Joseph (11,18). 64. I t IS nor a surprtse to find r Clem 4.9 include this example, Woc Lnoiqcm lwilcp p&p1 -mu, nor to see Bas11stare that rhe q06vcq nSv made Joseph a slave (Hum XI, 4) 65 Cf L T Johnson, Tho lrtcwry Funchon of Possesstons In Iultc-Ach (SBLDS 39, Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977).41-76 66 t Clem 7 2 picks up the envy of the apsrles, but omits rhar dlrected at Jesus Bas11 omlcs the apostles, but says that the death ofJesus usasdue m the mvy of thc Jew (Horn XI, 4, F G ' 21 377) 67 So Cannat, p 22, Laws, p I r , Dtbeltus, p 21 68 Mayor, p cxvn

B K O T H E R OF J E S U S , F R I E N D O F G O D

style." Specifically, it has frequently been observed that the idea of1'fleeing the devil" in James 4:7 is found often in these writings." Among other inciGames 4:8)," the equivalent use dental resemblances are the term Givu~o< ~ the theme of war (James of cijho~and cp06voc; Uames 3x4-15; 4 : ~ ) . 'and 4:1).'~ Apart from Ropes, however, few have placed as much importance on the resemblance to the Testaments as to the Shepherd of Hermas." And not even Ropes went beyond the collecting of lexical parallels. The complex issues concerning the dating and integrity of the Testatitents thelnselves cannot be treated here7' My purpose is simply to show how the treatment o f ~ 6 6 v o cin them may throw some light on James 3x34:ro. No direct literary dependence need be argued in order to show rhis. The disputes concerning rhe redaction of the Testaments, furthermore, center largely on the apocalyptic materials, whereas I am interested in the parenesis and the way it is illustrated by the character of the various patriarchs. A central event in the Genesis account is the betrayal of Joseph by his brothers. This event is retold from various points of view in the separate Testaments. The autobiographical accounts form the background a n d sometimes the basis for the ethical instructions. The distribution of these, in rum, is to some extent (there is much overlapping) indicated by the Greek titles, such as rrepi awcppoodvq~,e t ~ . ~ ~ Much of the outlook and language ofJames 3x3-4:ro can be gathered from the Testaments as a whole, but the following points are of particular significance. A. There is a sharp contrast between the "two ways" of life (T. Asher i,3),governed by the "two spirits" of truth and falsehood (T.Jud. xx,~).Actually, there seem to be any number of rrvdpara (T. Reub. iii,~), 69. Ropes, pp. 20-21. 70. Ropes, p. 268; Mavor, p. 146; Dibelius, p. 226; Laws, pp. 180-181; Marry, p. 161; Catinat. p. 208. 71. Dtbehus, pp. 226-227; Ropes, p. 270. 72. Masty, p. 176; bfussner, p. 183; Dtbelius, p. 217. 73. Ropes, pp. 257-258. says, "Thrs section of the Trslanwnt ofBenja7nrn is full of ~arallels to James." Cf. also Mt~ssner,p. 178; Windisch, F. 27: Catinat, p. 197; Marry, p. 1-74, 74 Cf esp. Mussner, p. 37; Laws, p. 2.3; I>ibelius, pp. 31-32, 75. Cf. the essays by h4. de longe, "The Interpretation of the Testaruenu of the Twelve I'atriarchs in Recent Years,'' and "Christian Ilifluerlce in the Testanienrs of the Twelve Pacriarihs," In Stmiles on thc Trsti2vtmts ofthr Tu~eliirPatriL~rchs,ed. M. de Jotige (SVTP 111; Leiden: Brill, 1975). 183-246, for an overview of these Issues. 76. For rhis dtscusston, 1 am using the cr~ncalGreek text of M. delonge, The Tescatnentr ofthe 'fi~,elfa Ihtrzdrchs (PVTG 1.2; Leiden: Brlll, 1978). The manuscript problems concerning the titles are discussed by R H. Charles, 7he Greek Vrrsionj ofthe Estantents ofthe Tufelw Pah-idrcl~s(0xfi)rd: Oxford University Press, 1go8), ul~v-slvi.

James jr~j-4:1o and the Topos nepi $ 0 6 ~ 0 ~

which go by a number of designation^,^^ without a great deal of consistency. The particular "evil spirit" (T. Levi v,6) seems to be named more or less according to the vice being discussed.7s These spirits empower humans toward certain actions (T. Naph. ii,z). Their resemblance to the yetzerim of Rabbinic texts is obvious, as is the same lack of precise psychology. The evll spirits are represented by Beliar?9 whose words are "double" (T. Benj. vi,z). B. An evil spirit is given an opening in a person by an upset or dsturbed mind (T. Dan iv,6-7). Besides being called Beliar, the evil spirit is known as the devil (bihpoho~,T. Naph. viii,4) or Satan (oa~av&c,T. Dan vi,~-2).He leads people to evil. In fact, he is said to "dwell" in a person (T. Naph. viii,6). In contrast, the person who does good has the Lord "dwelling" in him. The verb used consistently in these passages is that used by James 4:s of the meDpa "he made to dwell in us," K ~ T O IC.KHumans ~ . ~ ~can choose between the domination of the Lord or the evil spirits. This is expressed in spatial terms as a "turning," as when Beliar is said to reward those who "turn" to evil (T. Benj. vii,~),or when one abandons God by "turning" to Beliar (T. Iss. vi,~).Likewise, one can "flee" Beliar (cpedyo, cf. James 4:7), and "approach" God (kyyim, cf. James 4:8).81D. This language about turning from one spiritual authority to another is an alternative way of speaking about a change of attitude and behavior in the world a t the moral level. Next to the language about spirits, therefore, we find talk about "turning" from evil, envy and hatred of the brethren (as in T. Benj. viii, I). It is here that the parenesis of the Testaments comes into play. The rule of spiritual forces is spelled out in vices and virtues. On the side of Beliar, we find among others, the attitude of boasting (cf.James 3:14),~~ arrogance (bmprlcpavia, cf. James 4:6),83and hatred ( p i ~ o ~Associated ) . ~ ~ closely with them is the vice of envy (
BROTUER OF

I

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

are almost synonymous tn the Testaments (cf T. Dan I I , ~The ) person piuw stirs up (p86vog who hares envtes one who does good (T. Gad III,~); and leads i t to murder (T. Gad iv,~-6). There IS a direct connection between hatred, envy, and wars (T Gad v , ~ T. , Jos. 1,4, cf. James 4.1) The Joseph story IS obvtously central to thls perceptton, and we find Joseph htmself stattng that he has known both @bvoc uui &!#va~q (T. Jos. 1,3).E If the way of life dominated by Beltar 1s "double,"'" that guided by the Lord IS characterized by "singleness" or s~mpl~ciry (&n;lbqc),%'whtch, as In James 4:8, can also be called a "purlry" of heart (T. Renj. v ~ ) Thts . stngleness IS opposed ro all jealousy (ci@og)and envy (Bcrmuvia) in T Iss iv,~.The person who IS simple is able to show mercy txbtarpirwg (T. Zeb vii,z; cf. James 3x7). And ~f the evil man shows arrogance (fin~prlcpada),the singlemtnded person is characterized by lowliness (~amivworg),as In James 4.6, lo).= The ltnk between envy and death IS found also In a reference to the C a n and Abel story. In the Tertarnent ofUcnjarnm VII,I-2,the readers are told ~E@ETE *V rariav Toij B~Athp.The reason? He gives sewn swords to those who trust in htm. The first of these IS envy ((p86vog). Then tt says that 6th roirro, C a n recctved seven pun~shrnentsfrom the Lard (vit,j). This text led Charles to emend rpB6vog to cpbvw, because "Can's first sln was murder "89 As in the suggested emendat~onsofJames 4.2 in the oppostte dtrect~on,there IS no rnanuscrtpt support, and as l~ttlelogrc, for the text continues, oi Ibpo1015pntotTI$Kdiiv tv rp&lvv~ i qc v ptoa&Aqiav T$ auT$ ro)l&oet ~p~efiaovtai (T. Bent. vri,~). The nlottf of envy and murder ts nlost exrenstwelv displavcri t i 1 the Te5tsrnent of S~meon,whtch IS rtrled I r i Greek, nepi c p f k l v o ~ I. t~ 1s one of the shortest Testament\, and I \ riomiriatcd by the niternatton of autobiographj ; u ~ devhortarron The rescniblance to Jatnes j.rj-4:10 tr found both In langi~ageand rn structure, i'ur in this Testament, the tops on enwy ts placed within an expltcit framework of con~mron,as tn James. I t therefore deserves close attentton. The Testament expllc~rlyexplorrs the Genests account (37:11),for Simeon says of himself, tcfihwoa rbv , 1 4 9 iSn qydrm aGrbv i, hp3v (T Sim. tt,6). To what does he atrrtbute thts envy? The (jrpxwv nAhqg 86 Cf rhc 'run faccs'\n T Asher 11.2 and '"nvo rongue.r" tn T lknj vt,!, 87 C'f T Rcub n,~, T Lm xin I T 1s 11124, VI,~ 88 C l T Gad %,) T Jas u-2-3 &I R H Charles, A p ~ p and h l > s e & p ~ p p h of& (MTesummr (Oxford Clarendan, r6)1(), z 357 C I alrrr his G m k V~TSJO~S, pp u p r z q g(x K>rsptre the varaanans elsewhrrpr the Ms mldtnce IS rrmarkabl\. srrnng for thlr rttic C'F Charles, Greek \'mrtlns, pp xltv xlvt

James 3:rj-g:~o and the Topos nspi +Mvou

(cf.James 3x4) sent the m ~ l i p aTOO cdhog (cf.James 4:5), and it blinded him ( i i , ~ ) .Simeon ~' therefore sought to kill Joseph (cf.James 4:2), and was furious when he was thwarted (ii,7, 11). He says that every evil intention was aroused because of his envy of Joseph (ii,14;cf. James 3x6). In a later passage, he states that envy makes the soul savage, and destroys the body, leading to thoughts of 6pyh r a \ n6Arpo~and the spilling of blood (iv,8;cf. , says, disturbs (bla~ap&oou)the soul (iv,g; cf. James 4:1-2). c M ) b v ~he James 3:16), and alulays seeks to kill the one who is envied (iii,z-3). If people could straighten out their hearts and turn away from @6vo~,then ~ a r a n a l i c nil~yii nriroa &nb~ a p a ~ raii jncioa ~ 13n'ooGpavori &nbnoMpou {v. I; cf. James .$:I). That last point is the distinctive element in the Testament ofSimeon. I t holds out the possibility of repentance from envy. Simeon says that if someone flees to the Lord, the evil spirit will depart from him (iii,~;cf. James 47). A model for this conversion is given by Simeon's own life: rai pet-avo+xxr,litchatma rai qg&pqv rvpiq Yva & n o r a ~ a q & Z~1 a &i n d q r j p a ~ hnb n a v r k p d ~ o rul b q66vou ra\ &nb nixoq~&cppoarjvq~(T. Sim. ii,rj; cf. James 4%-9,s). The exhortarion of T. Sim. iv,q is based on this model, and is strikingly similar to the call to conversion in James .+:?-lo: cpuAdrfau0e o6v rtwa pou &nb nav& CijAou ral q66vou rai n o p ~ l r ~ dkve Crrrhbqn tpvxijr, rai h &yaefi r a p b i a ~Yva @q rai 3piv 6 Or& x&plv rai boSav rai ~Ckoyiav.And in T. Sim. iv,7, the readers are told to love their brothers &yaeO ~ a p s i pral & n o w o a n &tp' Gp&v ~b m b p a TOO (P&Jvou(cf. James 45). In addition to the cohererit thematic framework provided James 3x34x0 by the Testaments as a whole, then, the TestdmentofSimeon offers eight separate points of similarity: (I) the explicit call to conversion; (2) the synonymous use of c@% and wvor;;(3) the attribution of envy to a m 6 p a which is a deceiver; (4) the tendency of envy toward murder; (5) the role of (6) the turning from the evil envy in generating societal unrest and spirit to God by prayer and mourning; (7) the giving of grace by God to those who turn from envy (or Beliar) and turn to the Lord; (8) the portrayal of envy's opposite as simplicity of soul and goodness of heart. The emphasis I have placed on the Testaments is not intended to denigrate the similarities to James 3:13ff. in the Shepherd of N m a s , which have been frequently noted:p2 the contrast between Gtpu)(ia and 91.In I. Stm. III,I, I C is called the mzwa roi.tpesvov, whlch ts even closer to James 4 : ~ . 92. Cf. csp. Mart): p. 144;ROF, p. 2 4 ;Lws, pp. 161-16r;Mayor, p. IS;Cannar, p. 31;

D~helius,p. 21).

BROTHER O F

JESUS,

F R I E N D OF G O D

whether from above or from be10w;~s & r r h 6 ~ q
Conclusions Treating James 3x3-4:1o as a rhetorical unit which uses the topos on envy within the framework of a call to conversion throws light on a variety of smaller and larger issues. The study of Hellenistic moral literature and in particular the writings of Hellenistic Judaism supported the contention that the theme of envy runs throughout this section. Because of the characterizations which consistently attend @6vo~,we are able to identify words like T I I K~~I ~E ~I K , &~I&KPITO< ~ ~ G , and Cuca~amadaas pertinent to that topic. We have been able to offer overwhelming support for the association of envy with murder, and therefore for the reading cpov&d&~& in 4:t. As for the citation of Prov. 3:34 in James 4:6, the choice of that verse with reference to cp06vo~now becomes clear, for bnapllcpavia has been so frequently associated with that vice.99 The precise meaning of 4:5 remains difficult, but in the light of the material from the Testaments both the provenance and intehgibility of the language seem clear. The m&OpaGod made to dwell in us is certainly nonl, in this context, xpb< @6vov. The spirit is one God caused to dwell, and ir does the longing, and the rhetorical question expects a negative answer. 93. Mand. l i , ~Mand. ; Ix,7 and r I . In this lasr passage, and in Mund. xi,16,as. we noted e m Irer, 611puxiais trriys~oc,nap& roo 61a$6;hou. 93. Mand. v,l; ii,j; iii,~. 95. bland. x,16: xi.8-16. 96. Mund. vi,z, -5; Sirn, viii,gj. 97. Milnd. ii,j. 98. The closcsr thing is 6Su~o;hia,which is called mxp6<, and which is joined to mger and artogance (illand. v,z, 4-5) as wrU as double-mindedness (Mand. x,z, 5). 99. Lyle might also note that the context of Prov 334 promises Twr/ and ~ipfivq(Prov 33, 16, 22) to the man who has oocpia xai cpp6qo1c (3:13), and contains this warning only a frur verses from the ones cited by James, ph x ~ K ~ qK W V&v6@v bv~liliq,pq62
James 3:,3-4:10 and rhe Topos mp\ #%5vou

As for the odd phrase pslrowx M SK~WUIV x&p~v, in view of what is said elsewhere about the divine L t ~ v f uand , in view of the hint of this notion earlier in James (r:~),a deliberate contrast to the attitude of evil human longing n p b ~@ ~ V O V may be intended. God resists the proud who long enviously always to overcome others and assert themselves; but to the lowly who turn to him, he never "grudges," but gives more grace.lW Beyond these details, we have shown that it is possible to use Hellenistic materials in a more fruitful way than the simple search for lexical parallels. It demands, however, an attention to the form and function of the New Testament passages as well as those of the Hellenistic writings. The examination must go beyond the occurrence of single words, to the consistent clusters and patterns which show the presence of a t o p s . In one sense, only at this point can the creative work of exegesis begin. For, once we know what sort of stereorypical rhetorical or ethical material the New Testament author was employing, we can begin to see what dstinctiw use he has made of it, if any.'O1 In this case, the reader will have observed that virtually everything in James 3x3-4:1o could find a comfortable home in Plutarch's De Invidid et Odio, and if not there, in the Testament ofsirneon. But there have been two major exceptions: the first comes in 43, where James talks about asking KUK(;Y; the second follows immediately in 44, where the readers are reminded ( O ~ oKk n ) of an apparently traditional understanding that friendship with the world means enmity with God. But this understanding is precisely not found in the material dealing with envy, or indeed anywhere else in rhe Hellenistic material which James so comfortably uses. Where does it come from, and what does it mean? It lies at the heart of this passage, it represents the distinctive touch ofJames, and it is the necessary next step in understanding James 3x3-4:1o.

loo

And thls IS the e d g to the term WIK&

- the human being who IS enwous does

nat have the divine sprrlt ac work In htm, but only narural d m s , or worse, the Insprraoon

of the dwtl (so the connecncm lot Cf ,e g ,the way A J Malherbe places the Paullne treatment of "benevolence"and "the qutet 11fe"~nI Thess agatnst the contemporary dsxusslons of chase tssues among pf.11losophers, In S o d asp^ of Eady C h a r m 9 (Bacon Rouge Lourstma Scace Uniwrszw Pnss, 1977), 23-28, and the way R Hock locaccs the drxusslon of Paul's self-suppart, In 7%e Soad Conrcxr ofPrtulr Mtn* (Phrladelph~arFormss, 1980),50-65

Friendship with the World and Friendship with God: A Study of Discipleship i n James

A discussion of discipleship in the Letter of James must begin with some adjustments in perspective. We must first ask of James a different sort of question. To ask about &scipleship in James is really to ask about the shape of Christian existence,' for in spite of the definite connections between James and the gospel tradition,' the distincrive synoptic way of defining Christian life is not found in James."f our question, therefore, is, What does James tell us about the nature of Christian existence, we find ourselves looking not merely for specific observations or commands but For an overall sense of Christian identity. The second adjustment required of us is to read James on its own terms. This adjustment demands three separate shifts from ways in which this often unread letter is too often read. When James is noticed at all, it is usually as a foil to Paul, even in those studies which seek to rehabilitate James from its stepchild status in the New Testament canon. The rather minor semantic differences between James and Paul on the matter of faith and works is treated obsessively as though it were all in James that is I. That James is in fact a thoroughly Christian writlng and not a l~ghtlyrrurorkeci Jewish document should no longer be doubted. Although Jestis is mentioned only nvice (I:I; 2:1), the specifically Christian connections are pervasive. Some of them xi11 emerge In this study. 2 . Among others, see P. Ivlinear, "l'es or No: The Demand for Honesty in the Early Church," NovT13 (1971) 1-13; M. 11. Shepherd, "The Epistle ofJames and rhe Gospel of Matthew," JBL 75 (1956) 40-51; and my essay "The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Lerter ofJames," pp. 123-135in this volume. 3. The terms characteristic of the Synoptlcs are c ~ t h e rmissing or used differently: "teacher" (GtGCtmdo~)1s used in 3:r of cominuniv teachers; "to follow" ( b ~ o h o u 0 ~and w) "disciple" (pa%qrfic)are absent.

Friendship with the World and Frzendshzp with God worth studying? To treat James on its own terms means first, then, reading it neither as Pauline nor as anti-Pauline but simply as an extra-Pauline witness to Christian existence. When a historical fixation is not operative, a literary one frequently is. I refer to the pervasive impact of Martin Dibelius's magisterial commen.~ on the work of J. B. tary on all subsequent study of J a r n e ~ Buildng Mayo# and J. H. Ropes? among others, and using his own extensive knowledge of Hellenistic literature, Dibelius stated that the key to understanding James was its genre (Gatttbng), and that its genre was, simply, parenesis8 This was a great half-truth. Dibelius was correct in seeing James not as a systematic theology or innovative argument but, rather, as an exhortation which employs tradtional ethical teaching, parallels to which can be found in many other Greek and Jewish writing^.^ Unfortunately, Dibelius's knowledge did have limits. He wrongly identified garenesis as a genre. It is better described as a mode of ethical teaching which can be fitted to many Qfferent literary genres. He was mistaken as well in his insistence that parenesis is totally without structure. Sometimes, parenetic materials do appear in loosely arranged aphorisms. Hut 4. For example, J. Jeremias, "Paul and James," ExpTim 66 (1965) 368-7171; D. 0.Via, "The Right Strawy Epistle Reconsidered: A Study in Biblical Ethics and Hermeneutics."]R 49 (1969) 253-267; J. G. Lodge, "James and Paul at Cross-purposes? James 2,22." Bib 62 (1981) 19s213. 5. First published in 1921 as part of the Meyer commentary series, its latest apparition is M. Dibelius,James: A Commentaty on the Eptstle ofJames, rev. H. Greeven, trans. M. W~lliams (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976). In subsequent commentaries which deal with the question of genre a t all, the influence of Dibelius can be seen clearly in 0. Bardenhewer, Der Bnefdes Hezligen Jacobus (Freiburg: Herder l'erlag, 1928); T. Garcia, EpLlrrlts Samk Jacobi (Rome: Lateranum, 1954);J. Catinat, Lcs 6pit~csde Saintlacques et de Saint j d (SB; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1973); H. Windsch, Die Katholischen Brick, 2nd ed. (HNT IS; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1911); F. Mussner, D a Jacobush@; 3rd ed. (HTKNT 13: Preiburg: Herder Verlag, 197s). The most explicit rejection of Dibelius is found in J. B. Adamson, The Epistle ofJames (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976). 6. A great deal of comparative material had already been gathered by J. B. Mayor, The Epritle of St. James, 3rd ed. (London: Macnullan & Co., I~IO),cf. esp. c x - c m ~ i . 7. J. H. Ropes (A Cntical and Exegrlical Commentilq on the Epistle of St. Jmnes [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 19161) saw the particular pertinence of the Testanients qfthe Turlur Pdmarchs for understanding James (20-21) and emphasized the dtatribal character of the wrlting (10-1s). 8. Dibelius, James, 1-3. 9. In addition to the parallels collected by Mayor and Ropes, Dibelius made extellsive use of lexical materials from the Greco-Roman moralists, Hellenistic Jewrsh writings such as The Sentences ofPseudo-Phoqluies, and Christian parenetic writings like f i e ShrpL7errE of Hms.

BROTHER OF

JESUS,

F R I E N D OF G O D

other times, they are found in rather impressively articulated s t r u ~ t u r e s . ~ ~ On the basis of this somewhat partial view of parenesis, Dibelius made rather sweeping judgments regarding James. He refused it any possibility of literary unity: James would be regarded only as a kind of storehouse of traditional lore. And if that was the case, then it was out of the question to find in James any theology, or even the basis for deriving a theology." In both these assertions, Dibelius was wrong. I t would be inappropriate to deny thac parc of Dibelius's great achiwement which was correct, but it is important to recognize that wisdom writings, too, have their own inner coherence and that it is hazardous co move rapidly from general characterization to exegetical fiat.I2 Finally, caking James on its own terms means not assuming ahead of time that we know what it means, whether because of its supposed genre, imputative historical setting, or its possible social function^.'^ This means being willing to expend the same exegetical patience on James that we d o with Paul. This is all the more necessary because of the deceptive simplicity of wisdom writings. They often lack the punch of parables or the bite of argument, sometimes seducing us into a presumption that we grasp the message." In the matter of trying to discover James's teaching on lo See the obson*atrons of A J Malherk, "Hellenrsttc hforal~stsand the New Tescament," rn Auf)b~gusd N~c-ng d m Rontllrka Wt (ed ti Temportnr, 3,26 [forthcomrngl), and the applrcation of t h e to a parrrcular prsonal parenetic letter in L T Johnson, "I1 Ttmochf and the Polemtc Against False Teacher\ A Rcexamrnaoan," ]Refs 6/7 (1978-79) 1-26 r r Drkltus,Jamcs, 11 Drhalrus's influence IS seen in a recent attempt at descrtbrng the rhealqpcal outlook ofJarnes rn R Hoppe, Dm thprdogzscbe H t n t ~ r g r u n d h J sa u l h t u w (FS, Wurzburg Echter-Seelsorge. 1 9 n ) As I do rn thts essay- Hoppe regards James 3 13-r8as part af James s our11 theology Bur follou-tng Drbcl~us'slrterarv norms (I), he separates 3.13-18 from 3 1-12 and q I-la (9, 44), a procedure opposite the one follourd here 12 Drbeltus docs recogntze some "treanses" in James (strch as z I - ) 12) but resrscs d l further arrempr.r at findtng structure fjames, u ) Cena~nly.uverlv c l a r r schemes should be awxded But one can note srmply that statements of theme made by way of aphorism rn chap 1 have a rather conrtsrenr uw of bang devebpcd by way of essay tn the other c h a p ten, so that the openlng ccr of verses funcrions as a aorc of "table of contents" of the book we, e g 1 2 - & 12-15 (trials), tn 5;-11. 19-11(rrch and pour), In 4 13-56, I 1p21,26 (speech), In 3 1-18.1 a - z 6 (doing the word), 1n 214-26, I 5-8, 16-18 (true wisdom), in 3 13-4 10 I; See the unfc>nunaceexamples oCM T Townsend, "James 4 1-14 A Warnrng Aganst Z e ~ l o r r y Expltm ~" 87 (ryn) 211.13, and L G Perdue, "Paraenesrr and the Letter of James," Z N W 72 (1981)241-56 r+ U M a m Itteratur~may ha general m rntmnon, bur rr IS pantcular in upmssron Even mrnrmal arrangement of matertals represents an rncerpretatron and polnt of VICW Furthermore, aphorrsms may be worn to clrches, but thev do clarnl to make statements

Friedhip with the World and Friendship wrth God Christian existence (discipleship), this attitude implies a readiness to follow the contours of particular texts in their particularity, not seeking too quickly to fit them to molds, exercising instead the classical rules of our dscipline. They insist we attend carefully both to the content and context of statements, both to their form and function. We allow them to become very strange before our eyes and ears, so that we can be sure it is the text and not our own presuppositions to which ure hearken.

The Immediate Context My proposal here is a s~mpleone: to pay close attention to a single verse in James, to see where it will lead. The text is James 4:4: "Unfaithful creatures! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmiry with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." At first glance, this does not appear to be either a pleasant or promising statement. But it may open for us some of the distinctive richness of James's understanding of Christian existence. What first drew me to this verse was its appearance of sane clarity in an otherwise hopelessly confused section of James. This first impression quickly changed as the verse began to look stranger and increasingly difficult to swallow. But first, the reason for that first impression: the mess surroun&ng the verse on either side. James 3:13-4:10 is notorious for its exegetical problems. Questions concerning the proper text,Is the meaning of words,'6 and the way to punctuate1' abound. Some time spent hacking through this tangle, however, convinced me that the problems were conabout teilltw - not only to sav somcthrng well but to say somethtng lcstrng such statcmenrs may require wry specld cools, but thry should be no less sharp than those l a d to argument and narrarrw The characterruttons ofJames found tn J T Sanders (77~ Ethtc~of& New Testamant [Phrladelphrr Fortress Press, 19751,115-28) show no such acurw 15 Should u.e read & m h ("you m u r d e r ) in 42. or b r & , w h ("you are en\.tous"'), Erasmus thought the context demanded the tarter, so he emended ~tto that Bur the harder rcadtng IS "wumurder," and IC 1s suppurred by the connectron between krllrng and envy rn the moral~sts'drxussrons 16 The batponLjtuK ("dailrsh") of y r and ~ the & E ~ I & K("wthout ~ I T ~ uncertainty") of 3 17 are kp"' I g o m and drffrcul unrrl they are lrnked m the b~@okw("the dm]") of 4 7 and the Myqw ("double-mrnded man") of 4 8, although commentators ncwr make chis Irnkage 17 The puncruarron o f 4 2 and 4 5-6IS complex and much drscussed by commentators For 4 2, the brst urlution IS that of Mayor (Epudr o f 9 Jamn, 136), for 4 5-6, see S Laux, "Docs rile Scrrpmre Speak In Vsln'A Reconsrdcnnon ofJunes 4 5," MJ zo (r97p:j) 210-15

1

BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

nected to the habit Dibelrus had lnstrlled In us of reading- James as a set of disconnected sayings. As an experlment, I pulled j:13-4:10 out as a unit for closer lnspectlon What drd I find? In broadest terms, I dlxovered a coherent lrrerary structure: as a whole, it appears as a call to conversion from one way of 11feto another. James 333-4:6 sets up an indictment, to which 47-ro responds.ra The conneccrve "therefore" ( o h ) rn 4:7 indrcates that the series of lmperatrves fallowing it is based on the ind~ctmenc.The conclusron, "Humble yourselves before the Lord and he will exalt you" (4:10), clearly picks up from 4 6 , "God. . gives grace to the humble." The secc-non contalnlng the tndrctment (3x3-4:6) is even more refined In its rhetorrc, movtng forward by a series of ant~thet~cal contrasts and rhetorical questrons. Far fram a congeries of aphorisms, then, thrs part ofJames appears as a caherent rhetorical unit My next step was to read the passage agarnst the broad background of Hellenistic moral philosophy. When I d ~ this, d I found that James was usrng a tapos on envy to g~vesubstance to his conversion call.19 To know how the vice of envy IS typrcally discussed by moralists 1s to understand not only the repeated presence of "bitter jealousy" ln j:14, and "jealousy" In 4:r, and the cl~mactic"envy" m 415,hut also to see why many other terms denotlng socral unrest ( & r a m m a d a , 3:16), warfare (ncSAepoi, p h a i , 4:r), and even murder ( & 5 ~ , 4.2) are found here, for they are cornmonplace assoclarions in drscuss~onsof envyz0 Greek moralrscs, however, uwuld not have put qurte the emphasis James has on murder, nor on those cosmlc forces, the splrrt (mOpa, 4:s) and the dew1 (61&&Aog, 47). These symbols are due to the development of the theme of envy in Hellenistic Jewish texts, beg~nnrngIn the Sept~iaglntdBook of Wisdom (2:24) and elaborared most extensively In the Greek Testament of Stnteon As a call to conversion emplayng the t o p s on envy, we see that James IS The \~xabularycrf J 8-10 recalls the threat repentance languap of the Prophets in the Srpcuag~nr r a n r ~ v h("to humble"), Hosea 5 5, 7 10,uatk;rpiughreview of the roper In Greek rtriters, see E hlilobensk~,L k A"md m iicr p & s b I'halosophta (Klactxh-l'hholo@xhe Studien 29 Wresbaden Otrn HarrassOU"IC7, I*J)

21 The 2 s u r n e m t ofSxrnmn is entltled in Greek mpi ~ y o and o places the tops wlrh~n rhe conrexr of "msplrirs" language and a call ta conversion, 3s In James See esp E & m t ofStmron 2 1 3 ' 1 J* and Johnson, "James 3 r j 4 lo "

Fnendshrp uvth h e World and Frrendshrp with God

3:13-4:10 is organized according to sharp contrarcs. The most obvious is that benveen the attack and the command, benveen the indictment and the exhortation. The reader is told to replace one way of life with aw other.22Corresponding co this contrast is another beween two measures of reality, which derive from different sources and lead to different actions. The wisdom from above which leads to goodness and peace (3:17) derives, we gather, from the spirit which God made to dwell in humans (4:s). In contrast there is a wisdom from below, which is characterized by bitter envy and which comes from another force, the devil (47). It is demaniacal, psychic (that is, \rrithout spirit), and *earthly" (3x5-16). Those addressed by James are told to shift allegiance from one pouvr to another and from one measure of reality to another. They d o this by " t ~ ~ r n i n g , " here expressed in terms of "resisting" the devil and "drawing near" to God (47-8). This means, in effect, submitting to the power of God (4:7, 10). What is most striking in all of this is that the only part of this section of James that cannot be paralleled in Hellenistic o r Jewish texts is 4:3-4, to which u.e must now turn. What does it say, and how does it fir into the context I have described?

The Text: James 4:4 I will naw examine this single text carefully in each of its parts, and from several points ofview. Such a procedure seems particularly apprapriare in this case. Despite a superficial air of clarity, James 4 4 makes a fairly outrageous and not-at-all-clear claim.

The Greek potxahitkg is both more specific and harsher: "You adulteresses!" Now, it is characteristic of diatribal material to have sudden expost u l a t i o n ~ Ruc . ~ ~ what has mori\~atedsuch an unprecedented oi~tbreakin 12 The dexr~pct\.t. terms of the exhorrarron mirror the terms of the tnd~ctment the "lowrr~ng" 014 7 and to corresponds to the "from above"m 3 15, the "cieansmgorheart" in 4 8 picks up the "selfish ambrnon tn your heart" rn j 14, che r a w t a ('dejeccron") elf 4 g opposes the irrnprl+buvia ("pride") of j 6, rhe liirpga~("double-minded men")of 4 8 matches ("u*tthout uncertatn~")of 5 17, rhe clean\tng and purlfvrng crf 4 8 correthe &lSr&rprr~ sponds to rhe "pure"of 3 17 2 3 See Ropes U~mes,1 0 - 1 0 who rsolates many d~alog~cal-dtarrrbal features rn

B R O T H E R OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

O F COD

James? And why adulteresses? He has not been accusing them of adultery In the literal sense but of envy and molence. Some early scrlbes apparently thought that it was a matter of sexual a n and wanted to be fair, so they made it "you adulterers and adulteresse~!"~~ We can ask, further, whether it u self-aaandlzing atntudes and annsorlal jealousies in general which have sa exercised James, or whether it is, in pamcular, a way of praying. He has just ment~onedin 4:3 thar they ask for what they desire (ask God we presume), but they do not receive because they ask "wrongly." They turn to prayer, we nonce, only as a last expedient, and then they ask wrongly But is the Greek word KUK* adequately translated by "wrongiy"? Better would be "uqckedly." Why IS rhls important? For one th~ng,the term "wrongly" could be taken to mean thar they did nor follow the right method of prayer, whereas it is really a quesnon of praying wckedly, in a perverted way. How is thu? They are trylng to use God as one more means of graclfjmg their desires: *[You ask] to spend it on your passions.'"ey see God as part of a closed system w t h themselves. This IS,of course, the arntude characteristic of idolatry: to regard God solely as the fulfiller of our des~res.*~ T h ~ sreminds us, in turn, that the language of adultery is used frequently by the prophets in thew accusations aganst Israel of covenantal rnfidel~ry,an infidelity which almost always was assoctaced w t h idolatry The first part of this verse places us rather squarely, therefore, in the context of idolatry and covenant fideltty. But let us go Further.

"Do You Not Know?" o h oTGare is a stock phrase in parenesis, in which the point is remember-

ing traditional ethical standards, nor learning new ones.27This is the only time it occurs in James,= though it is an expression familiar to us from James The best rrearrnenr of the dtatnbe IS nmv S K. Stowrs, 7hr Dwnibeand P d j Lener tu & Ram~tri(SBLDS 'i7; Chtco, Caltf Schulm Press,@I) esp Ss-too q potxoi rul potx&i&< 15 found In W" PI? 0, and the mss of the h n c tradttion The shorter and better read~ngu held hy W", A, B, and orhen zy We are nor surprtsed, then, that one of the frw occurrences of "wtrked praycrn In the Sttpcuagrnt IS in a rharactertzacton of ldolarors (WIS 14 30) zb Cf e g , Hosea 51,Ezek r6 $3, z 34%. Isa. n3, Jer 3 9,rj 27 z- See Midherbe, "Hcllen~srtc Moral~sts,"and Idem, "Exhorratron In First rhrsdnnians" (a paper d e l ~ w dto the Socrcry of B~bltcdLtrrnrun Slrntnar on the f i r d o n u n Cornspandenre, I*:) 2 28 Strntlat expresons, m&trattng rerolircnonsof pnvlour kno\i.lrdgr,are Found at r 3

Fnendshrp mth the Wnrld and FtlPndrhtp with God

Paul's letters, where it introduces elements of traditional Christian underor even proverbial sayings.30The phrase not only reminds the readers ofwhat they already know; ~ t negauve s phrasing suggests a rebuke as well - they should not need reminding. It also serves to establish a ground of shared understanding: if they agree to chis, then they can follow the conclusion built on it as well.

"Friendship &wid,

the Wmld Is Enmi9 widi God*

This is the content of what they know. No problem with the Greek: the genitive constructions are plainly objective; that is, the friendship is one directed toward, not received from, the world.'' A bigger problem has to d o with the supposedly traditional nature of this statement. Why should they know this? We know of no such proverb in all the Hellenistic literature, nor is it found in Old Testament wisdom texts or in the Hellenistic Jewish literature.'* Critical editions and commentaries point us to another Christian text, I John IS-17, and it is, without question, the closest parallel to what we find in James 4:4:13 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father i s not in him. For all that 1s in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of (ytvrjm;ovrq), I 19 (Tm), the series of neganw rhetorical questtons followtng I r r o ~ j o a rIn~

(fixoiroa+E, ERlm),and the alternative reading at 5 l o (yivuoxcn) -Do you not know that MU are God'sTetilple? (I Cor 3 16). "Do you nor knou rhat the s v n n wtll j u d p the world," (I Cor 6s) jo "Do you not know that a Itttle y t s r l e a r n s the u*hoie lump," ( I C'or 7 6) Cf also Ram 6 16,112, r Cor g *) 31 D t b e l t u s , ~ m c ~ n ,o , Ropes, J;rmes, 260 32 Mayor's suggestion - "The reference is to our Lord's s r d s , Mt 6 24" - rr, surelv urung, for though the substance of the statement IS slm~lar,the phrasmg, and m e n the sense, a n dtffemnt The commentators are not able to adduce any parallels from the Hellentsric o r Jew~shmatertals In the T e ~ m m t s whrch , o t h e r u w parallel James on so many points, there 1s only the expression "from the deslre of the world* (&nb @C nAhvr)r, TOO r h p o v ) , Tmamntr oflriaclxr 4.6 For many expresstons in the Apocrypha of hstd~g to the world as an ewtl place, see Dtbclturlamn, rpq None ofrhem mil) correspond to James's usage 13 It IS far closer than anorher New Testament rexr somertmes ctred, I Ttm j 4, u hlch says of false teachers that they arr "lovers a f pleasure rather than lovers of God" ( W ~ W j k m o v 4 (BA68tol) 2 5-7, 3 1 ( r i M ~ )5 ,11

29

I

BROTHER O F J E S U S , F R I E N D OF GOD

life, is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the wlll of God abides for ever. There are some obvious similarities between the two passages. They have a similar structure. I John 2x5-17makes a statement on the division between the world and God and follows it with a conditional sentence - "whoever loves the world'" just as James does in 4:4. In addition, the notion of"desires" is in each case associated with the world. The language of I John, though, is one of love, not of friendship; it lacks the note of enmity t c ~ ward God; and the essential contrast is between the permanence of God and the cransicoriness of the world. Still, it is the most helpful analogy to the passage in James." But what is the connection becween them? Few would want to argue for a literary relationship bewren John and James, so it may be that both were independently working o u t o f a shared cradition (whose origin we n o longer know), each shaping it to his own perceptions. John does not much help us, then, except to make even clearer the distinctly Christian sericimenc here being expres~ed,'~and to suggest that the dualism here is less cosmological than religious o r ethical. I t is not, in either text, the "world," as the place of trees and cities, which is the problem, but "the world" as a systeni of untrammeled desire and arrogance. We have yet to discover the exact shape ofJames's perceprion, though, and will have to delay chac until we look a bit at the last part of 4:4.

"Tberefbre, W k v e r Wishes to Be (1 Friend of h e World M A S Himseycm E n of G d " The Greek here is, again, clear enough. It is a question of friendship toward the world and enmity coward God. But norice how the "cherefore" ( o h ) creates a small argument. The truth of the first statement ("Do you not know?") permits a conclusion, "Therefore." We note in passing chac the conclusion leads to one direction for life. Another "cherefore" in 4:7 points out the ocher direction. Although the sentence seems almost cau34 For a drscusston of I John r ~ y - r i see , R E Broun, 7be Epuda o m (AB 30. New York Doubleday & Co , rg$z), 306-28 The fact that the Johann~neu-rltlngs generallv are comfortable wrh "frrendship"language n~akesthe dtfferences here the more srnktng In John r( 19, e g , M find "If you were of the world, the world would love tts own" (ci I?K TOO K-U fin,6 K-W & rb b o v i&&t) Sec also John r j 13-15,16 27,zo z, 21 rg-17,3 John 13 35 See the drxusston by H h, " x ~ k w rrA , ," TDNI 3 (1965)894-95

Friendship with the World and Friendship with God tologous, two small features deserve attention. First, the "wishing" (poBhopa~)indicates an effective choice, as it does also in James 1%.Wanting to be a friend already has another consequence. That consequence is expressed in especially harsh terms: "makes himself' is too weak for the , in the New Testament and elsewhere has alGreek verb ~ a 0 i q p 1which most an official tone.36Better would be "is established as" - the desire itself has the effect of placing one in a state of enmity with God! Only in one other place do we find a similarly harsh characterization: in Rom. 8:7, Paul says, "The desire of the flesh is enmity toward God." We have now disassembled the verse and have found it to be as threatening as we first suspected. The only parallel passage we could find was just as harsh. But we have not yet made much progress in understandng it, for we do not yet know how to evaluate the two key terms in the verse: "friendship" and "world." How is James using these terms? Is he establishing a metaphysical dualism, whereby material reality must be shed if one is to find God? Or is he presenting an ethical dualism? If so, how precisely are we to understand it? Where is this "world? Is it outside us or also within us? Does James define it cosmologically or axiologically? We cannot affirm or reject this fundamental assertion by James - an assertion which clearly anchors this whole section - unless we grasp securely what he means by "world and "friendship."

T h e Terms "World" a n d "Friendship"

O G )times outside this passage, James uses the term "world" ( K ~ C I ~three and each time it means something more than the merely material world or even the structures of human society. It points to a kind of measure or system of meaning. I. The occurrence in 3:6 is the most difficult and elusive. James calls the tongue a ~ 6 u p fo ~l &81~tac, ~ a "world of wickedness," or if we take the genitive adjectivally, "a wicked world," among the members of the body. It , ~ ~ it is clearly metaphorical, and it moves is an ambiguous e x p r e ~ s i o nbut 36. Cf. LSJ, s.v., ~atX(m7~11, and the use in (LXX) Exod. 2x4 and Ps. 8:7, picked up by Acts and Heb. 2:7, respectively, as well as Matt. 24:47>Luke IZ:+Z,Rom. 5x9. 37. We notice that ~ a H i q pappears ~ here as well, so that the Dibelius-GreevenWilliams translation seem apt: "And the tongue is a member [the tongue presents itself ?:I0

BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

O F GOD

in the direction of understanding "world" as a category of value. Notice that James says it "stains the whole body" - we meet this idea of "staining" again shortly. 2. The use of "world" in 2:s is somewhat clearer. There, James says that ~ tc60pv) to be rich in faith and heirs of the God chose robq ~ T O X O UTQ kingdom promised to those who love God. The question is how to put together the words "world" and "poor." It could be read simply as "the poor," but then "the world would be redundant. Or it could mean "poor people in the world,'' as one textual variant has it.38But the best text uses what we can loosely call a dative of reference,39which enables us to read "poor from the world's point of view," or "according to the world's measure, poor." That this is at least generally correct is shown by the way in which the expression is contrasted to the measure of God's kingdom, the measure of faith. In this passage, therefore, "world" is a measure distinguishable from God's. 3. The usage in 1:27 is decisive. James characterizes "pure and unstained religon before God and the Father" as one expressed by the visiting of orphans and widows in their distress and by "keeping oneself un. exactly does this mean? stained from the world" (Emb TOO K ~ O ~ O U )What First, there is absolutely no indication in James that Christians are to observe ritual separation from other people or from any class of objects which are regarded as "impure." Nor does James ever suggest that Christians flee the customary social structures and seek or establish alternative life styles. On the contrary, as we shall see, he envisages Christians taking full part in the affairs of the world: commerce, landowning, judging, owning and distributing possessions, having houses for hospitality. does not mean physical or Being "unstained from the world," then:' ritual separation. Instead, "world here stands as a measure or standard, which is distinguishable from that of "God and the Father." "World" and among our members as che evil world] staining the whole body" (D~belius, James, 181). See " his discussion, 194-95. as well as that of Sasse. " K O U ~ ~ W . 883-84. $3. Both b rq ~ 6 a p ( ?and TO^ K ~ W O U have poorer attestation, are longer, and are more easily explained as clarifications OFTI$~6op$,which is shorter, harder, and better. 39. See the discussion of ambiguoi~sdatives by C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book ofNew Testa~nentGreek (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. I'ress, 1959) 47-46, and his second thoughts concerning]amcs 2 : (204). ~ See also J. H. Moulton, A Grammnr ofNew Estdment Creek (vol. 111: N . Turner, Syntm [Edinburgh: 7.& T. Clark, ry6j]), 238. 40. We have seen how that "world of wickedness," che tongue, "stains" the whole body (36). "Pure religton" is here called irpiavro<. We notice a .well chat the call to conversion demands "cleansing" the hands and "purifying" the heart (48).

Ftmendshzp u ~ t btbe World and Fnendsh~pwrrh God "God" are opposed as measures of valuiition. We notice as well that meeting God's measure is done not just by control of speech (the subject of rhe ) above all else, by "visiting orphans and widows in their context, ~ 2 6but, aMiccion."" These actions show one to be unstained by the world's view of things. But as we can see everywhere in the Law and Prophets, effective care for orphans, widows, and sojourners is shorthand language for meeting covenantal obligation^.^^ It is also a sign of conversion to the covenant after apostasy.43 These three uses of "world" confirm what we saw in James 44. In James, "the world" does not refer positively to God's creation. Nor is it used neutrally to mean the arena of human endeavor. Rather, it represents a measure of reality, or a system of meaning, which can be contrasted to that of God. Indeed, these passages virtually suggest that "the world" is a measure that does not take God's existence, and therefore his claims, into account. But this may be anticipating. We need now to look at the other key word, "friendship."

What does James mean by this term? We shall not get far if we view friendship in contemporary terms, as a sort of affection, benevolence, or positive attitude toward another. In the Greek world, friendship was among the most discussed, analyzed, and highly esteemed relationships. Epicurus included it among the highest of goods available to humans." The Pythagoreans founded a way of life on its basis." For Plato, it was the ideal paradigm for the city-state.* Even the more pragmatic Aristotle considered friendship the prime metaphor and motive for 41. The obvious salvific m~pi~catrons of t i m o r t x r ~ ("to t tis~t'") as rt is used In the Sep tuapnr (cC Cen. 21:r; b o d . 3x6; .):3I; and many more t~mes)is picked up in the New Testament marnly by Luke-Accs (cf. Luke 1:68,78; 7x6; rkrs 723; 15:14). @. Cf. E x d . 2j:lo-11; Lw. 19:9-10;2322; Deut. 14:2&29; 2&12-15;~ O 2:6-8; S H W W12:7~ 9; Mrcah 33-3; Zeph. 1:q; 3:1-3; Mal. 3:s; Isa. J:S, 14-15; 5710; 50:12; 58:3; Jer s:r~-z'). 43. Cf. Zech. 7:s-10;Jer. 21:12;ZZ:~;Hosea 1x6; IS&3J:1916; 563-6;Jer. 7:s-7;W k . 187-9. 44. Among Epicurus's M u m s is the follmng (number 27): '"Ofdl the means which are gxwn by wisdom to ensure happiness throughout the whole of irfe, by far the most rmporrant 1s the acqu~srtionof frrmds." For other nores on friendship among the Epicureans, cf Dlogena Laertius IO.IO,II,rm. 45. Cf. Diogenes Laertrus 8.10; Iamblichus, VPs.26-27,18.81;Porphyry, VP ~.rq,6.30-jr. 46. Plafo, &public 44%-D. 46zA-C; cf. hups 7a8D, 742E. 47. Arrstnrle, Pd~hcr1287R. I&B.

B R O T H E R O F J E S U S , FRIEND O F G O D

The word "friend'h~asnot used lightly In these circles, nor was frtendshlp considered slmply a casual afFectlon. On the contrary, rt was regarded as a particularly Intense and inclusive klnd of Intimacy, not only at the physlcal level but, above all, a t the splr~cual.Already In the Ortlstcrs frlends are called "one soul" ($a vqi)," and Arlstotle quotes this among orher proverbtal expressions of the sort by means of whlch the Greeks typically expressed thelr deepest p e r c e p t ~ o n s .To ~ ~ be "one soul" with another meant, at the least, to share che same attitudes and values and percepnons, co see things the same way. Indeed, the frlend was, an another phrase frequently repeated, "another self."% St111another proverb had ~t that "frrends hold all thlngs tn common." So seriously was this taken that communltles of shared possestlons were founded on that deal.^' The sharing of material possessions symbolized a sharlng in splrltud values. Fellowshrp (~otwvia)uus frlendshlp, because "frlendshlp IS equality The ideal of frlendshlp moved rn the dlrectron of equality, or even ~dentrcy.And rf James understands by "the world" a system of values dtstlnct from God's, how would the phrase "frtendship urirh the world" be heard by cars of that age? I t u-ould be heard not as a statement of posltsve regard for God's creanon but, rather, as a statement of profound agreement w t h a measure opposed to God's. One would see things exactly the way "the world" does.s3 "Q

Eunptdes, OmLu rojb n Ftkrs 9 8 2,where he also quotes rorvh TCI r6v diilwv ('Trtmdr hold 41 thtngs tn common") and i o 6 41Abw ~ ("fnendshrp 1s equalin*")For @a ct also Plutarch, Am Mult #F s o Aristotle, N ~ ~ k Exh6rs d n 4 5 9 I , 9 ro Cf Ctccro, D@ dmmk4 21 80, PIutarch $3

Am

rWhlr q3E

5 1 See I- T Johnson, . h m g hwsfionr & d a t e and SymM u f h r t l , (ORT I'hiladelp h ~ aForrress Pnss, tgXt), I I ~ & 52 Plaro, b u s 7$rA, 7458, Arrrrc?tle, Nzramahdn F&tes 8 5 5 6 -, 8 5, Iarnbltchus, VI" 29 162, p 167 P l u t m h , F ~ Am z &jB-C For the role of"1tkeness" in frrendshtp, cf Plarcr i , m 2158, ~ Ctcero, DCam8onj 14;o,19 &9, Plucarch, A m Mult #D For a general guide to rhc mp, the rrfemnccs tn G Stahltn, "+∨, n A , " TDhTg (1974) tj;-y7, G Bohnmblurr, khag zlrm Tops mpi Wiw (Berlin Unrrvrsttats-buchdruckent\Qn Gustat Schadr, 1 ~ 5 1 , and L Dugsr, Lilmrne dnhgue (Paris Felwr Alcan. 1914) $3 That frrendship rn\nl\rd such a shanng of \~alucscan be seen in lamblichus, VP 1775* 33 240, C'rcero, I)r dmafu 4 15, 6 lo, Plutarch, Am kfuft 96F. Plam, Lam t%tC, 6946, 697C That b c h Luke and I'aul use sirch frtcndsh~planguage tn connccrlon ~ t the h sharrr~gof possesstons has beer1 noted often before, ?;M L T Johnson, 7 7 Lm4ry ~ F u w n of k s mmr m h k h (SBLDS )g, Mt=ula, Mont Scholars Press, ~ g y )2-5, , p-16 Paul m n also use the language cffertiirly apart from cnns~derarronsnf monrraw rharrng Phtl 2 1-2 rrrrssrs the shartng of ourlrwk an sptrttual fcllnu?ifitp

Fr~endshrpu ~ t hthe Wmld and Frrmdshrp wztb CtOd

Friend of God This understanding is given further support by James's only ocher use of friendship language. James 2:23 states that Abraham was called "friend of God."Si James says this was so because he "believed God"(Gen. 156) and because, when he was tested in the matter of sacrificing his son Isaac, he allowed faith to find its perfection in his faithful actions (2:22)." We should note exactly \\.hat is being said. Once more, the genitive is objective: Abraham shows himself to be "friend toward God." But why did faith make him so? For James, it is because Abraham accepted God's way of seeing the situation and acted on it. According to the measure of "the world," the sacrifice of his own beloved son would have been senseless, and doubly so since Isaac uras a gift from God himself (Gen. 18:g-10;2132). If Abraham had seen things the way "the world" did - a measure of reality, we remember, which excludes God's claim - he would have rejected God's call to obedience. He would have striven "according to the flesh" to create a blessing for himself with chis possibility of biological de$4 The roots of James's expresston hew remaln obscure and cannor be clarified sanshcrortlc rn this paper The folloutng potnts are intended only as a gurde ( I ) The "frtendshtp' language of the Sepnlaglnt IS resrraned Tltere are dlrcusrlons of frtendshlp In tlie utsdom urttings (Cf , e g . Str 6 1-17, 17 I-6),but uqthout rhe drsrrncrtve Hellenrsr~ccoloratron In Wts r 16 u e find people who are frtends uqth death, and In Deut 13 b there IS a vrarntng aganst 6 6 l o q r i ) tpv;r% ~ m u Ieadrng orie astrav Into tdolatr) (2) The pos\tbtltr) of frterrdshlp wrth God IS found evpllcttlv only tn the Book of Wlsdom the g ~ fot f u w dom (7 ); enabled "frrendshtp \i.ltti God" (+iAia npbC Bzbv, 7 ~ q )and , It IS sard that utsdom enters soulc and makes "frtends of God and prophets" (+iXoy t)EoB ral npodrfirai;,7 27) (3) The onl\ lndrvldual rxp2scltlr called a frtend of God IS Moses God spoke tcr htm face to face a, rf he had been spcaktng to hts own frtend, +&ov (Exod 33 11) - translarrng the Hebrru r hu Abraham rs nor called "frrend " In z Chr ro 7 and 1% 41 8, the Sepruagrnr rranslates rhe Hehreu 'bbutth forms of 'n) love ' (iryazrttw) (4) The passage concerning Abraham chat gave rise ro calltng titm a frtend of God seems, above all, to be Gen 18 17 "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do 7" Phllo rendered rhts pr) trnuahliqc &iL. hnb 'A$pahp rob +Aou pau, S o b 56 Note chat frletlds share splntual goods ( 5 ) A full dlxusslon of the usage in Jewlsh cexrs IS found 111 M L>rbeltus(James, 172-74) A more conwenlent ltatlng of Phllo's references to the parrtarch5 as frtends can be found in Stahl~n & h ~ , 158 " ( 6 ) In contrasr to the rrearment of [ ) r t ~ l ~ u1sam , less concerned wtth the general understanding of the term In Jmie\'\ entstronnient a concern made cntlcal, gtwn hu methodolog) - or wrrh ficrrng t r co a Paullnc undenrandlng of farrh than I am uqth connectmg tt ro James \ o u n perceptions $5 It tsja~frrrthuhlch IS broughr ro complerton deedt (not works of the la*) brmg Tach rtself to eupre\.iton (cf r 3-4) Fatrh co-urorks the works The dt.*t~ncrlve ernphasrs of James hem should not he mlssed For a tine rrearmenr of Abraham ~nJames, see R Ward, 'The W'orks of Abraham Janies 2 14-26," tlTR 61(1968) 283-90

BROTHER O F

JESUS, F R I E N D

O F GOD

scents But he did not. He showed himself friend toward God. His faith made him art according to a measure that made the world not a closed system of meaning, but a system open to the meaning given by G o d s word.

By studying James 4:4 in the light of his other language about the world and friendship, therefore, WT can reach the following conclusions: I. The world can be regarded as a system of meaning and values which excludes God from consideration and is hostile to God's claim. r. Friendship with the warld means accepting char system as one's own, idenrifylng oneself with it, measuring oneself by that measure. 3. Doing so makes one an enemy toward God. Indeed, simply d i n g to be friend to this closed system establishes one in a stare of enmity, which means, of course, alienation and estrange men^.^' 4. This "friendship" language, therefore, makes a statement about human freedom, values, and ways of acting. One can choose the system of values by which one will live. One can lead one" life as though God had no claim on it - be a friend co the world - or one can acknowledge that claim in faith and action as did Abraham and be a friend toward God. The question immediately arises: Am I over-reading this small verse? Is there evidence elsewhere in James that this interpretation accurately represents his view? Yes, it is everywhere.

Living by Opposing Measures Living Accotding to the Measure of& World I. We find this in the i~nmedrate context of James 4:4. James is attackingactions that flow from envy: social unrest, divisiveness, hostility, murder. Why does envy lead to such behavior? The ancients defined envy as a kind of sorrow that is experienced simply because another has some-

56 1 am aavare of the Paulrne tone af this chu;lctrrtunon (Cf Rrrm 4 1 - 2 ) James would have ref-errrd to an "carthi) u.tuiorn"(+IS) I am suggrstmg,of course, that at a deep l ~ c Pjul l and James see the chorce hefan h u m s m a ~ m u a t a b i vstmrlar fashion ("enemy") m Kom 5 lo and 11 3,Gd 416, Col =I, and IXBpa m Eph t 14-16Cf d m LSJ,s v , &€tm 111

Frtendshrp wzth the World and Frzendshlp with God

thing.s8 If I see the world as a closed system, if I forget that everything comes as a gift from God (1:17), then I identify what I have with who I am. And I can be more only if I have more. If another has more, then the other is a threat to me, makes me less. Envy, then, moves inexorably toward hostility and murder: I can be more only if I eliminate the other. Among the pious, this logic might work itself out in manipulating God in prayer, so that I can gain something and "spend it on my drives" ( 4 3 ) . If the world is a closed system (one unmeasured by the transcendence of God), then self-aggrandizement has a certain implacable logic.sy 2. In James 3:6-8 we hear of the vicious use of speech - the tongue as instrument of destruction. James points out the conflict between perspecti\.t!s: we curse people with the same tongue with which we praise God. But the one we curse is made in God's image (39). 3. James 413-16 gives us another sharp vignette: this time, of people carrying out grand business projects as though the future were secured by rhe plans they make, as though the world were a closed and utterly predictable system. They forget their own utter contingency - they are like mist that passes away (4x4). They forget that only God's will determines dl futures (4x5). They act as though God had no power over or claim on che world. They boast in their arrogance (4x6). 4. In 2:1-7 we find Christians discriminating between wealthy and pour in their assemblies - showing themselves to be corrupt judges by allowing themselves to be bribed by the powerful impression made by the w ~ a l t h y They . ~ ~ forget that God has chosen the poor for the kingdom ( q ) , that the rich will pass away like the flower of the field (I:IO),and that God will judge those who judge by the standard they have used (2:12-13). 5. In S:I-6 wealthy landowners defraud workers of their wages and igr-iore their cries of suffering. They trust in their storehouses of gold and silver (5:3). They kill innocent people (5:6).They forget that the Lord is judge and chat judgment is certain (57-8). So do people act who live according to the measure of the world, who are "friends of the world."61And 58. Aristotle, Rhetoric rj87R. 59. I have developed this line of thought in Sharzng Possesstons, 80-88. 60. For the settlng here, cf. K. \Y'ard, "Partiality in the Assembly,"H?R 62 (1969) 87-97. 61. James puts a definite and sardonic twist o n the "friendship" language. The HeUenistic topos constantly asserts that true friendsh~pis possible only between the virtuous and t s incompatible with envy. Here, "friendship with the world" 1s illustrateii precisely hy envy. (If., e.g., Iamblichus, liP 17.75, 22.101-2, 31.198; Placo, Lysis 21jD; Cicero, De amtcirta 5.18, 7.2324,18.65,22.83; Plutarch, Frdt. Am. 4848,485H; Aristotle. Nicotnachean Eth~cs8.12.6, 9.3.2. 12.3; Iliato, Lows 837A-B; Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences 71-75,

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

because they ignore God's claim, they establish themselves thereby as his enemies.

God's Meos~(re

We are able to see the measure af the world as inadequate precisely because we haw been pven another measure by which to wmv it. For James, chts measure ISa gift whtch ISgiwn humans by God. The ultimate dependence of all on God is fundamental for James: "Every good endowment and every perfect p f t u fmm above" (1x7).And James 1x8 adds, "Of his own wll he brought us forth by the word of truth that we should be a kind of first fruits of hw creatures." James is speaking nor only of"creanon*here but of the re-creaaon of humans by rhat faithful utterance which u God's Word, most specifically, the Gospel (as in Col. I:S, Eph. I : I ~ ) This . ~ ~ makes those who receive i t a sign and promlse of what all "crearures" can be. In I:ZI we find thu: "Receive wch meekness the tmplanced word, which is able to saw your souls." What IS symboltzed by the "implanted u ~ r d here " is exactly what is signaled by the "wlsdom from b e " in 3x7, the "spirit God made to dwell tn us" m 4:5,and "grace" in 4:6.63God has made avalabie to humans another way of vtewrng a i d measuring realiry: nor as a closed system but as an open one. God" word has gven us birth, has been implanted in us; we can receive it, and we can become "doers of the word" (I:=). What this means specifically is itwng out the demands of the law of the kmgdom, ''Love your netghbor as yourself" (r:8),as this IS expltcated by the words of Scriprure and as understood in the l~ghtofJesus the Messtah.@ 62. 1 r8 IS undenrably dtficult Desp~ttethe drswnnng wrcc of L E Ellrott-Brnns ("Jmes 118 Creanon or Redempnon'" NTS j l l g r j 14-61).I thrnk the wnvs of Rapes game, 166). D t k l t u ~(Idme, to$), and hlayor ( E p d e ofSr J-frrrer, 63)* ro be correct It should be noted, though, rhat rt rs strll a measure from God In etcher case - the world IS to be regarded as answerable to God In this Irght, see how James calls the envlous atnnide one whrch "boasts and ISfake co rhc rrtrth" ( j14, cf also J 16) 63. More work IS snll q u r r e d on the rum of pwchology presupposed by the language ofJames As m the hbbrnrc talk ofthe m or the loose char;lctervanons of the sprrrn (m&tara) in the %k$mmb ofthe Ac.u*-lwFlrnzarcbx, there do not seem to be hard and f a ~dut unctrons drawn beween "created" and "un-created* facron For James, all comes from God, both the grft and the poss~brl~ry of mcerwng rr (cf I 21) The connection bctxven sprrrt and w d o m rn James :,13 and 4 5 seems clear enough See J A Ktrk, "The Meanrng of Wrsdom m James m ~ n a n o of n a Ht.pathesrs," A 1 5 16 (1954) s ~ - $ &+. This posrt~trsrde of James" tteachlng 1s developed In Johnson, *Use of Lcvltrcus

19,"132-33

Friendship with the World and Friendship with God But a "law of God's kingdom" which is a law of love - therefore, of selfhsposing concern - makes sense only if the world is not closed in on itself, only if we dwell in a fundamentally open system (one in which God is judge), not a closed one which destroys those who give it their friendship.

The Doubk-Minded It is, finally, in this connection that we meet the one James is specifically addressing with this call to conversion, the "double-minded person ( G i ~ p u x o ~What ) . ~ ~makes someone double-minded is precisely the desire to live by both measures at once, to be friends with everyone. In James 1:8 we meet him as the man who wants to pray, but he does so without really being convinced that this is an open system. He doubts and therefore never breaks out of his idolatrous circle. And in this call to conversion, we read, "Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double m i n d (4%). Purity of heart, of course, is simplicity: not that of compulsion but that of choice. For James, one must choose one's friends; one cannot have it both ways. Even to "wish" to live by the world's standard is already to live by its measure. This whole call to conversion in James 3x3-4:1o, then, reminds those Christians who would like to hedge their bets that the process of turning from one measure to another is never over, that it must continually be renewed. Although that word which shapes their Christian identity has been "implanted in them, they must still "accept it with meekness," they must continually become "doers" of it; therefore, even for those already . ~ ~soon as converted, the prophetic call to conversion is a p p r ~ p r i a t eSo they even wish to compete enviously with one another (3x4-4:~);so often as they rely on a merely formal profession of God's existence (z:14-19) 65. For the term, see 0. J. F. Seitz, "Antecedents and Significance of the Term 'Dipsychos,"'JBL 66 (1947) 211-19; idem, "Afrerthoughts on the Term 'Dipsychos,"' NTS 4 (1957) 97-34; and W. Wolvercon. "The Double-minded Man in the light of Essene Psychology," ATR 38 (1956) 166-75. 66. Is it by accident that 3x3 -- "By his good life let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom" - is the last appearance of Epyov in James? Up to this point, he has used it some fourteen times. The point is always the contrast between verbal or ideal assent to truth and the living out of it. This is a contrast rypical of Hellenistic moralists. Among countless examples, cf. Lucian of Samosata, Hermotimus 79; Trmon 54; Runau~ays19; Epictetus, Dissertations 2.1.31. 2.9.21, 3.22.9; Julian the Apostate, Oratron 7:225a; Dio Chrysoscom, O~ahon35.2, 3, 11.

BROTHER O f

JESUS, FRIEND

OF GOD

wnthout translanng that Into effective care for others and obedience as did Abraham (s:zo-26); so much as they would wsh to man~pulateehe divine power In prayer (4:3),not prajqng in the slmpl~atyof faith as &d Elljah, who also was only a man (5:~s-18); so frequently as they would wheel and deal and cheat and hold vlolent grudges agrunst each other (4:13-5:9), rather than wrut panently for the judgment of the Lord, as drd the panent Job (5:ro-rt); then they are not redly "doers" of God's word (I:=) but double-m~nded,and must be called back, as James now calls them, to that other measure, knorvlng that for those who do submit themselves to the measure of God" power wen greater g f t s wl1 be given, and they mil be msrrd up (4:6, 10; cf. S:IS).

Conclusion This short analysis cannot pretend to exhaust the meaning of &sclpleshlp, or of Chrlsnan emstence, in the Letter of James. I hope that ~t has shown someth~ngof the drsttnctive way James employs the language and percepnons of Hellen~sncculture and of the Scr~pcureand of farth tn the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the way theologcal warrants like that in James 4:4 funcnon mthln h ~ work s as a whole. Most of all, by crying to respect the way in which James g~vesexpression to hls Chrisnan witness, I hope I have shown he deserves such respect.

Gender in the Letter oflames: A S u r p i n g Witness

The testimony of the Letter of James on the question of gender can be heard only by attending carefully to the voice of the composition itself. This may seem an obvious procedure, but it is one that has seldom been employed when srudying thematic elements in this small writing. More often, theories about the putative author and his supposed place in the development of early Christian history have substituted for close analysis of the text itself. Thus, James has largely been read from the perspective of a "Jewish Christianity" that, connected to James of Jerusalem, is more or less antagonistic to Paul,' or a late "Paulinist" Christianity that seeks to rescue Paul from the hands of libertines who distort his teaching on righteousness by faith rather than works of law.2In either case, what is considered to be of interest in the composition amounts to a handful of verses that can be compared to Paul, and most of what is truly fascinating about the composition eludes comment. A way out of such unhappy and uncreative reductions may be afforded by three quick (but well-supported) adjustments. The first is to sever the composition from the diverse hagiographical traditions concerning the Brother ofJesus in early Christianity, recognizing that even if that James is the author (as well he might be), we are unable to argue from his portrait to the meaning of his composition.' The second is to allow I.

The classic example is M. Hengel, "DerJakobusbriefals ancipaulinische Polemik,"in

Ttadihmr and Interpn*rrjon rn the New Teslrrment, ed. G. F. Hawthorne and 0.Beu (Grand Rapids. Eerdmans, 19871, zjS-z78. 2. See, for example,J. Jeremias,"Paul and James,"*Tim 66 (1955)3 6 8 . ~ 1J. ; C. Lodge, "Jamesand Paul at Cross-Purposes?James 222," Bib 62 (rg81)I ~ S - Z I ) . 3. The recenrjcrmcs &Just and Chrirtkn O r p i s , ed. B. Chilmn and C. A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1999), continues co focus on the James of Josephus/Eusebius. A more complex a p

BROTHER OF JESUS, FRIEND OF C O D

the composition to locate itself in early Christianity. When ure d o this we discover that the Jewishness of the writing is pretty much the same as with mast other writings in the NT canon - that is, it interprets reality within the symbolic world ofTorah in the light ofJesus - and that internal evidence suggests that James niay well be among our earliest Christian composition^.^ Third, we allour the composition's own preoccupation provide the frame for our inquiry, recognizing that the question we put to the text may not be the one it is itself seeking to answer. In the present case, this means recognizing that James's concern is to sharply distinguish the moral patterns of "friendship with God" and those of "friendship with the world," and in particular to summon chose he designates as "double-minded" to the realization that they cannot be friends with a.eryone bur must make their practice conform to their profession." I approach James, then, with the two (nor ungrounded) premises chat it is the voice of the cornposicion rather than that of its putative author that we seek, and that the voice is one from the first generation of the Christian movement that, in the broadest sense, speaks wisdom! The validiry of these premises is best tested by the quality of the reading ofJames they enable. I propose to read James for gender through three approaches, looking first at explicitly gendered language and roles, second at sexual imagery, and finally at the implications of James's conte~lrsin comparison to other wisdom writings. The convergence of these lines of evidence will support an overall characterization of James's testimony on gender.

proach to the "hrstorrcal" James IS requrred, scarring u ~ t hthe recopttron that the several sources each have rnteresrs InJames as a hem that shape rherr respecrive accounrs, see L T Johnson, 7 h 1oflJmn(Anchor Wrble 37A, Garden Can* Doubtcdav, rqg)gy),94-106 j There are stx basrc reason$ u~hv James should be dared tn the first generanon I) tt lacks Jnv of thc classrc srgns of development rn doetrine or tn\ntutton or delavof pamusra, 2 ) r t reflects the uxrd realirres and outlnok of a counter-cultural z c t rn the earh stages of rtc extstcnce, 3) it uses sayings ofJesus rn a stage closer to that of Q tiran to the Synopnc reeiact~on,4) rr resembles our earliest datable urtrer. Paul, acro\r a utdr range o f p o ~ n t s5, ) rt has many incrdcntal detarls strggestrng a Palesttntan provenance, 6) rt rs almost certainly used t.).Clement of Rome, see Johnson, MYIo/James,pp 118-121 )gy See my e s a y "Prtcndship with the World and F~rrndshrpulth Gcul A Study of I)tsclpleshlp rn James," pp zoz-zzo rn this volume 6 Among many others, see B R Hal.iton. "The Eprstle of James C hrist~anWrdom>" SE 4 (1968) 308-j14, E Badand, "DerJakohusbriefals neutcstamentiiche W1ershe:tsschrtft," ST 36 (1982) 119139,K Wdl, 7 %Comnrunr~ ~ offhe Il"isr Ikp k t f muffames (Valley Forge, PA Fr~nrtvPmbs Internattonal, 1997)

Geadw in the Letter oflames: A Surpwing Witness

Explicitly Gendered language and Roles At first glance, James shares the casual androcenuism typical of his time and of the symbolic world of Torah. He never uses the noun "woman" (gyne). God is designated as pat& ["father"] (1:17,27; 3:9), and Abraham as "our father" (bo pattr hhemon, 2:zr). Consistent with the use of fictive iunship language common among early Christians,7 James addresses his , readers with the vocative adelphoi mou ["my brothers," 1:2;2:1,14; ~ : I , I o12; 4x1; 57, 9,1o, 12,191 and adelphoi mou agapctoi r m y beloved brothers," 1x6, 19; 2:5]. Should such vocatives be taken as including women members of the community? The evidence is mixed. In 1:9, James refers to "the lowly brother" [hoadelpbos ho &zpeinos]but this is matched by 2:15, which speaks of "a brother or sistef [adeiphose &lph@] going naked and hungry. These instances would suggest that James's language is androcentric but not in principle exclusive. Against this, however, is the letter's frequent use of a& in several of its aphorisms, a word impossible to take with reference to both genders (I:& T2, 20, 23; 2:2; 3:~).Four of these occur in the first chapter, which is aphoristic in character. Perhaps James's language is influenced here (as in other ways) by the Septuagint, especially in the wisdom literature, in which a n f f stands without apology as the subject of instruction.' The usage in 3:2 is equally sapiential. In 22, the use of ant? may be owed to the fact that James speaks of a specific male rather than people in general. But this is all quibbling, really. Basically,James's language is androcentric, and there's an end to it. We could scarcely expect otherwise. James presents to his readers three male figures from Torah as moral exemplars. Abraham exemplifies the obedience of faith spelled out in works (2:21-q), Job personifies the patient endurance of faith (s:II), and Elijah represents the powerful prayer of faith (5:17).'James includes Rahab together with Abraham as an example of how faith is expressed in works: her hospitality to the scouts of Israel embodied her faith in the one God (2:~s-26).1°The designations James uses for the male heros indicate their 7. W. A. Meeks, The First Urban ChnstLzns. fie Social World ofthe Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 87, u 5 . 8. An& is used some 144 times in Proverbs, rz times in EEcies~asres,and 85 times in Sirach. Fwr the influence of the Septuagint o n James, see Johnson, Let& ofJamps, pp. 7-8. 9. For the way in wh~chthese examples function literarily m the composltion, see my essay "The Mirror of Remembrance: James I:zz-z~,"pp. 168-181 in this volume. 10.When Rahab meets the scouts, she recounrs what she has heard about the Lord's deeds, and confesses, "For the Lord your God is he who is God in heaven above and on

BROTHER O F

JESUS,

F R I E N D OF G O D

place of honor within the tradition of Torah. Abraham is "our father" (2:21) and "friend of G o d (2:23). Job is connected to "the prophets who spoke in the name of the L o r d (5:lo). Elijah, although "a person like us in nature" [antbrfipos homoiopatbes hemin],is "a righteous man" [dikaios, 5:16]. In contrast, Rahab is identified solely as "the harlot" [hepornt?],a designation that is not exceptional within the midrashic tradition," but is nevertheless hardly honorific. It has been argued with some justice that the combination of Abraham and Rahab, together with the otherwise odd use of the plural "deeds" (erga) in 2:22, might point toward midrashic traditions concerning the hospitality of these ancient characters.12 In that case, Rahab's generosity corresponds to the "sister in n e e d just as Abraham's corresponds to the "brother in n e e d (2:15). There is an inclusiveness of sorts here, even if Rahab is given neither the attention nor the explicit honor paid to the male exemplars.13 Perhaps a more interesting and fruitful way to pursue the question s f explicitly gendered language and roles is to turn from designations to characterization. Here we find something unexpected. The males who dominate the action within the composition do not necessarily act according to gender stereotypes.14 Some males are indeed boastful (3:14; 4:16), are envious, competitive and cause social unrest (3x4-16), are among earth beneath" (Josh 211). Her action of saving the scouts expresses this conviction. Her faith is also singled out for praise by Heb 11:3I, and the examples of Abraham and Rahab a n combined once more in I Clement 10 and 12. 11. For the celebration of Rahab as a proselyte and as an example of hospitahty, see b.Meg. 14b-rja; Mehlta on Exodus par. Jith. Amal. 18:1;Ekodus k b b a h z7:4; Numbers Rabbah 3:x 8:g; 16:1; Deuteronomy Rdbbah z:z6-27; Ruth Rabbah 2:1; Song of Songs Rabbah I,3,3; 1,159; W,IJ; VI,z,3; Eccksidstes Rdbbah V,6,1; V,II,I; VIII,IO,I;Josephus, Antiquities j:j-30. 12. R B. Ward, "The Works of Abraham: James 2:14-26," H777 61 (1968) 283-290. 13. The figure of Rahab is the only aspect of gender in James touched on by S. Uowd, yames," in The Women's Bibk Commentary, ed. C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe (Louisvilict Westminster/John Knox Press, ~ggz),368-369. 14. For a guide to such "gender stereotypes" in Hellenistic culrure, see Xenophorr, Oecumenicus, which praises women who are docile (VII, lo), discreet (VII, 14), work indoun (VII, 22), are trustworthy (VII, 41), fearful (VII, zj), temperate (IX,lo), loyal (IX, IZ),affectiunate (VLI, 24). They are fitted to indoor work because they lack the physical strength of men (VII, 23); when they have a capacity to command, they are called "manly-minded (X, I). In contrast, men are outdoor types because of their narurally greater strength (VII, 23); they also have courage (VII, 26), ambition (XN, ro), leadership qualities (XXI, 7-8). It is appropriate for them to train intensively for war (XI, 12 and IT), exercise rule (XIII, lo), and be able both to accuse and defend others in open forum (XI, 22). At least X e n o ~ h o npays attenriun to women. For an extreme androcentrism, see the discussion of "Greatness of Soul" in Aristotle, Nicowhedn Ethics r123B-r12jB.

the rich oppressors (2:6-7; 5:1-6), are heedless in pursuit of financial gain (4x3-14), slander and curse their neighbors (3:9; 4:rr), engage in war and murder (41-2).What unites all these behaviors is that they show such people to be "friends of the world and enemies of God'qames 4:4). Other males within the composition exhibit qualities not stereotypically associated with mascuiinicy. These are the ones James considers "enemies of the world and friends of God." Thus Abraham's faith in God is demonstrated by his willingness to give up what was most precious to him rather than to seize or secure it (2:21). Thus Job is praised not because of his conquest . Elijah is of suffering but for his endurance of it with patience ~ : I I )Thus characterized as one who turns to the power of God in prayer rather than as one who is self-reliant and self-sufficient (5:17). The only mention ofjesus outside the greeting (1:~)associates him with the (scarcely dominant) attitude of faith (putis, 2:x). Notice further that the poor man who is rebuffed by the community is declared the recipient of God's promise (z:~),just as God stands at the side of the righteous man to resist the arrogant oppressor (5:6),15just as God gifts with a harvest the farmer who waits patiently for the rain (5:7), and rewards with the crown of life the one who endures testing (1:12). These males who are "friends of God'bre depicted in terms that are more often stereotypically female: they are faithful, they defer, they endure, they pray, they wait, they sacrifice what they have been given. James has little to say about leaders in the community, but what he does say follows the same pattern. He designates himself in 1:: as a dortlos, and while in some contexts self-description as a slaw car1 bear overtones of authority,I6 it is not an obviously self-aggrandizing title. James mentions teachers in 3:1, but only by way of warning: teachers do not dominate others but rather fall under a harder judgment; they should therefore exemplifj that "wisdom from above"chat is characterized by lowliness, meekness, reasonableness, and every sort of peace-seeking (3:13-17). Finally, James speaks of the elders in 5:14, not with reference to their administration of the community or their command over others, but strictly in terms of their service. They are at the call of the sick, responding when they are summoned by the weakest and most marginal in any community 15 This rnterpreranon depends on reading mrk rtnabimwr bymm rn 5 6 as a quesrron, w t h thcos as the rmplred subject, therefore rhetclrrcally echotng rhe statement in 4 6, ho rheor b m b n o u dfih*rS~ek~t, see L A Schdkel, "Jamesg j [sic] and 4,6," Btb 54 (1973)73-76. and Johnson, Later of J a m , p jog 16 See D B Martin, Y i r c w y .as bbwmm 7hc iblctd* ofSkawery re WIW C!mzmm~ly (New Haven W e Unr\vn~tyPrecs, rggo), 50-61

BROTHER OF JESUS, FRIEND OF GOD

to anoint their bodies uith oil and pray over them and engage in mutual confession of sins (534-16).In sum, James presents a remarkable portrait of male leadership within the community, a portrait that shares with his depiction of males who are "friends with God" qualities not of arrogance and control but attitudes of meekness and service. This first approach to the composition leads to the conclusion that although James's language and focus are androcentric, his value system is one in which traits stereoc).pically associated with male patterns of aggressiveness and dominance are evil, while traits associated with stereotypical female patterns of passivity, patience, and self-donation are good, men when expressed by males.

Sexual Imagery James uses expliclt sexual Imagery ~n two passages, w t h the Interpretstlon of each uncertan and disputed. The first occurs after the macartsm of I:IZ that assures those who endure testrng that they wll recetw the promlsed crown of Ilfe: 13. Let no one when tested say, "I am berng tempted by God." For God IS not tempted by ev~ls.Nar does he hlmself tempt anyone. 14.Instead, each person, by be~ngdrawn away and lured, 1s tempted by his own deslre [ep&ymlaJ. IS. Then the deslre [eplthymla], once it has conceived [ylkabowa], brtngs forth sln [ h h bumsrtzan]. And when sln IS brought to term [be & h a m a m upotelerthersd], It gives btrth to death [apokyz thorrrlton].

The use of female sexual imagery is obvious and powerful and negative, leading in a rhetorical climax from conception to full term of pregnancy to a birth that is, in shocking reversal, a death. Two cultural conventions support the imagery. The first is the feminine gender of the noun epi*mirl, which enables a female personification according to the conventions of the Wisdom tradition, in which the wise man is seduced by the "foreign woman."17 The second is the strong connotations that attach themselves to the noun e p i e m i a in Hellenistic moral discourse: although it can be used for any sort of "desire," whether positive or negar- Abwe dl,b e r b s r 16-u,5 1$-23- and espectdly 7 5-27 See C A Newsom, "Wisdom and the Dlscaurse of Parraarchal Wtxfom A Study of Praverbs I 9,"in GPnderdnd rn AM^ I d ed P L Day (Ph~lsdelph~r. Fortress Press, 1989),1 ~ 1 6 0

Gender in the Letter of James: A Surprising Witness

tive, more frequently it is used negatively, and with a specifically sexual dimension.18 What should we make of this female personification? J. L. P. Wolmarans argues that it has cfirect gender implication^.'^ Using passages in Philo and Paul that he says subordinate the lower (female) passions to the higher (male) reason, Wolmarans thinks that James has in mind the same sort of subordination of the sensual and unreliable feminine to the reasonable and steady masculine.20He says that desire is here cast in feminine terms as a deliberate contrast to (masculine) reason in 1:18.~lHe combines this text with James 4:4 (the second to use sexual imagery): You adulteresses [rn~ichalides]!~~ DO YOU not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore, whoever chooses to be a friend of the world is established as an enemy of God. Wolrnarans thinks that characterizing sinners as female sexual offenders ~~ is consistent with the sexual personification of desire and sin in 1 : 1 5 . ASsuming that James is a second-century composition, Wolmarans moves directly to the conclusion that such language functions in support of a developing patriarchal church and the suppression of women.24 I must delay until the next section the main reason why Wolmarans's overall conclusions about James are wrong. But his reading of the sexual imagery itself is faulty on several counts. First, his use of Philo and Paul is i n a d e q ~ a t eSecond, .~~ even if he were correct in his estimation of James's 18. For extensive documentation, see Johnson, Letter ofJames, pp. 193-194. 19. Wolmarans, "Male and Female Sexual Imagery: James 1x4-15, 18," Acta Patristic* et Bymntina 5 (1994) 134-141. 20. Wolmarans, p. 136 rr. Wolmarans, pp. 137-138. 22. Some MSS (the second hand of Sinaiticus, P, the Koine trahtion) add moichoi kui to the beginning of the line, making "you adulterers and adulteresses!" While we might applaud the even-mindedness of this reading, it is probably an addition (lacking, e.g., in the original hand of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the Old Latin and the Peshitta, as well as other Greek witnesses), based on a literal rather than a metaphorical understanding of the passage. 23. Wolmarans, p. 139 24. Wolmarans, pp. 139-141, 25. It is difficult to know what to make of Wolmarans's careless citation of texts. He cites Rom 7:5 to support his statement that "Paul speaks of sinful desires that bear fruit for d e a t h (p. 136), but Paul there speaks ofpathCmata rather than epitirymiai, and nothing in the language of Romans 7 connects co Wolmarans's theme of the "immoral woman." For that matter, neither do his citations from Philo. He cites On rhe Creation of the World 152, but it

BROTHER OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

O F GOD

language, he would not be justified in moving hrectly from sexual characterization to social roles: the relation between cultural scripts - even clear ones - and real life is never so simple. Third, his appreciation for the language itself is too literal and limited. The image of conception and birth in I:IS is a powerful one, but it is, after all, one of many such metaphors in this remarkably compressed composition. Already before this verse, James has compared doubting people to waves of the sea driven and tossed by the wind (1:6), and the rich person to a flower of the field that withers and falls (I:II); later, James will speak of the tongue as a consuming fire and as a "world of wickedness" in the body (3:5-6).Some of his metaphors derive from Torah,z6 some from the commonplaces of Hellenistic rhetoriqZ7some may be his own crafting. But they are metaphors that resist literalization. Wolmarans succeeds in clumsily literalizing the metaphor when he argues that James is trying to reject "illicit" sexual relations (presumably initiated by females) and accept "licit" sexual relations (initiated by males) and thereby reinforces patriarchal values. The use of female larlguage for desire is also metaphorical, shaped, as 1 have suggested, by the grammatical gender of epithymia, its sexual associations in rhetoric, and the sapiential tradition of the seductive woman. Note that in his only other use of a cognate term, James speaks of desire in terms of a coveting (epithymein) after possessions which, failing to secure its desire, turns t o war and murder (4:~).Once more, desire leads to death, but in this case with no literal sexual connotations at all. Even more strikingly, in 1:18,James uses the same verb for "giving birth" (izpok-vein) with reference to God (named as "father," pa& in ~ 1 7 ) :

should be 151; he cites On the Cherubim 54ffin support of his interpretation that Philo considers man's sensory perception to act as an immoral woman that victimizes male reason. The pertinent passage is actually 57, which collcains a striking parallel to the image used by James, but in no manner is it connected co a sexually "immoral woman." Philo's treatment of Eve in these passages is both more complex and (from our contemporary perspective) sadder than Wolmarans's perceives. 26. The metaphor of a rich person as a flower of the field echoes Isaiah 4o:6-7, that of wealth being eaten by moths, Isaiah 71:s. 27. James's use of the metaphor of the bridle as a means of controlling the tongue (126; 3:3) is well-attested in Greek moral disco~trsefor controuing the passions (see Plato, Phaedrrts r.+6B-z4?C)or speech (Philo, On Dreams ~ 1 6 5 )Similarly, . the metaphor of the rongue as a rudder ( 3 4 ) is found wich reference to che control of moral behavior (Dio Chrysostom, Oration 1z:34: Lucian. Double Indichnent z; Philo, O n the Chwubim 36).

Gender in the Letter of]ames: A Surprising Witnesj By his decision [boule'theis]he gave us birth [apekycsen] through a word of truth, in order that we might be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. That a female image of maternity is attributed to a grammatically male theos shows just how provocative and paradoxical James can be in his use of metaphorical language. It reminds us as well of the dangers of literalizing. No more than "the father of lights" in 1:17 should be taken with reference to the physical appearance or limitation of theos, should his "giving birth" be taken as an i d c a t i o n of God's gender. Similarly, the female grammatical gender ofsophia and the strong feminine associations with the personified figure of sophia in the Wisdom tradttion should not lead us to conclude that James is making a point about God's gender (James 1:s; 3x3-17). The importance of findrng James using birth language in both in I : I ~and in 1x8 is that we thereby gain some clue to his real point. The first chapter ofJames - indeed the entire composition - is structured by the polar opposition between the way of life measured respectively by the world, and by God.28The contrast between S:ISand I : I ~is not between modes of sexual activity, but what is "given birth" respectively by these measures. God is neither tempted by evils nor does God tempt others (1x3); instead, God is the source of every good and perfect gift (~17). God's birthing through the word of truth - whether James means here the word of creation, torah, or the gospelz9- brings forth humans who can represent (as "first-fruits") all God's creatures (1x8). In contrast, those who live apart from God's measure are seduced and lured by "their own desires" (the idias epithymias in v. 14 is emphatic) rather than by the "will of God" (1:r8). These desires issue in the dreadful murder of other creatures through word and through deed. For James, it is a matter of which source of reality one recognizes, by which measure one lives. It is a matter of friendship, or in the terms of Torah, of covenantal loyalty. It is for this reason that James uses the female moichaiides ("you adulteresses") in 4:4 in his charge against those choosing to live by the "wisdom from below" rather than the "wisdom from above" (3x3-17). It is not, as Wolmarans says, that "he exhibits suspicion of the female; women are dangerous." The language has nothing to do with actual women, for clearly it is men who are doing the violence in 4:s-3. Rather, James is using 28. For James's use of polar oppositions throughout the composition, see T. C. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora ( S B L D S 144; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); for the oppositions in James I, see Johnson, Letter offames, pp. 174-176. 29. For chscussion, see Johnson, Lettw offames, pp. 197-198,205.

BROTHER O P J E S U S , FRIEND OF G O D

the conventional language of the prophets to express infidelity to the covenant. If the lmrd is bound by covenant to Israel as a husband is to a wife, then Israel's infidelity to the covenant is appropriately imaged as adul~ery.~O And so here. The first two ways of questioning the composition have had equivocal results. James's gender language is androcentric as is his choice of moral exemplars. The use of Rahab and of the "sister in need" breaks the pat. tern, but not decisively. We have seen, however, that James's perspective on gender roles is not stereotypically patriarchal. While his bad males are active and aggressive and boastful, his good males exhibit the traits of acceptance, gentleness, patience, self-sacrifice, and service. And while hrrc use of sexual imagery may a t first be seen a s sexist, a closer examination of his metaphors shows that he is far from such an attitude. Indeed, his language about God giving birth and his association of sophia with God suggest that his sense of gender is both fair and flexible. These ambiguous conclusions prepare for the last and perhaps most helpful way of approaching James on the issue of gender.

The Egalitarian Perspective of James A third way of inquiring into James's testimony on gender is to examine

the overall voice of the composition in comparison to other writings in the wisdom tradition. Such a comparison is justified both by the sapientid character of the composition and by its explicit thematic attention to sophzu (1:s;3:13-r7).~~ Noticing the absence in James of elements that are standard - even dominant - in other wisdom literature helps us iocate its d~stinctiveoutlook. It is not surprising, for example, that James should use kinshlp language, for i t is found everywhere In wisdom literature. Rut what does give pause is that James lacks any generational lnship language such as is found even in the Letters of Paul. In James, we find nothing of the transferred sense of "father/sonn relations that dominate the genre from the Instrwtmn of V z m Ptuh-Hotep to the Esta?nenis of the 30. See, e.g., Isa 544-8;57:3;LXX Ps 7x27; Jer 3%-ro;r3:27;Hos j:r; 9:r;Ezek 16:38;z3:45. 31. Some of the basis for such a comparative approach is given by J. G . Gammie, "Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology o f a Secondary Genre," S m i a 50 (r9go) 4 1 - 7 , and L. G. Perdue, "The Social Character o f Paraenesis and Paraenetic Literature," SemeIrr 30 (1990) 14-27,and some o f the evidence Gven here appears also in my essay "'The Social World ofJames: Literary Analysis and Historical Reconscruccion," pp. lor-122in this volume.

1

Gender in the Letter oflaws: A Surprzszng Wztness

Twelve PaEriarch~.~~James does not claim to be the "father" of his readers in the way that Paul sometimes does (I Cor 4x4-17;Gal 4x9; I Thess 2:rr);he is simply the doulos of the God who is alone "father" of all creatures (1x718,27).The absence of this register of language is of first importance, for when exhortation is framed as from "father to son," the very structure of the communication tends to privilege males over females. Even more unusual, James has none of the conventional concern for generations even within the natural household. In fact, the oikos as a social institution does not come within the range oflames's concern, which is entirely dedicated to the intentional community he calls the ekklesid (5x4). As a consequence, James entirely lacks the attention given to marriage in virtually all wisdom literature, attention which serves to locate women within the household and in subordination to males.33Indeed, in contrast to most wisdom literature, which exhorts the individual to virJames's concern is addressed to the community as such. Individual cases are cited only for illustration. Equally unusual, this composition is entirely devoted to moral behavior, and pays no attention to manners at

all.35 The largest part ofJames's moral concern is wtth the use of posses sions and the use of speech; both topics are well-represented in the wlsdom genre. James IS distlncnve, however, In gving no attentton at all apart from clung the commandment, "do not cotnmlt adultery" (2:rr) t o sexual behav1or.j6James does not take up the subject of the care or &s32. Note how Pseudo-Isocrates, Drmonicus plays on the convention that advice is communicated from "father to son" (1-3, 9-10). 33. For discuss~onsof marriage, see Sentences of .SF Menandvr 45-51,118-122;InsmdctiDn of Prince Hor-Dede$ Sir 725-26: 26x9, 13-18; 4o:rg; Prov 5:l.y-20; ~I:IO-31; InstrumDn of b7izfer Ptukffotep PO-340; Counsels of Wlsdom (Obverse 23); Sentences of Pseudo-Phoqlides 3, 179-197, 201-206; Sentences of S&r 235-239; insbudzon of Ani 3,1;8.4; 9,r; 1 Cor 7:1-24; Cof 3x8-25; Eph 521-6:4: r Tl~ess4;4-5; 1 Tin1 2:g-15; Tit 2:3-5; Heb r j : a I Per 3:'-7. 34. In the Bible, see Proverbs, Sirach, Qohelerh. In other literacure, see Instmctmn of the Vz& Ptdl-Hotep (ANET 412-414);Instmctzon jbr Ktng Men-Ka-& (ANET 414-418); I n s t ~ ~ c f i o n ufAtnen-Em-Opet (ANET 421-424);Cownsels of Wtsdom (ANET 426-427); WOTdS of Ahjar (ANET 427-430): Sentences of Pseudo-Phocyldis; To Demonims; Sentences of Sextu,; Sentences uf S y r w Mmnder. A partial exception is fie Testaments of tbe Tu~elilePatTiarcbs. 35. Contrast Prov 23:r-9; Sir 4~27-31;7x4;9x8; 31x2-zo; 3x1-9; Wmds ofAhiqdr X, 142ff.; Cansels of Wisdom 20; Sentences of Syrtac Menundm 11-14, 57-62, 99-10', 148-153, 181-184; To Demonicus 15, ro, 27,41, Sentmces of'Sextus 49,157.164,252, 265; Sentences of Pseudo-Pho~lides 81-82, 98, 123,147-148,156-158, 211-212; Instructions of V b Ptah-ffokp 139; lnstncction of AtnenEm-Het I, 4-5; Instruction ofAni 6.1; 7.7; I n s W o n ofAmen-Em-Opet 9, 23. 36. Compare Sentences of Pse&Ph~~fdes 3,198; Sir 724-25; 9:1-9;25:21-26; 26:11-12; Prov 2:16-21; 624-9; 7:10-17;9x3-IS: TODemonuus 15~21;Sentences of Sextus 60,67, 70,71,73,75. 102,

B R O T H E R OF JESUS, F R I E N D O F G O D

ciplining of a topic taken up by at least some NT writings (see Col3:zo-21; Eph 6:1-4). In short, the topics that have to do with the establishing of the civic and domestic social order are absent from this writing, and since in antiquity this social order invariably subordinated women, such studied silence is not insignificant for our topic, and is the final reason why Wolmarans' construal ofJames's sexual imagery is more than improbable: nothing in the letter otherwise supports such a reading, and werything argues against it. We can take the elements absent from James together with lus specific emphases and combine them in an attempt to locate James's distinctive kind of wisdom, together with its implications for the question of gender. I. James is concerned with morals rather than manners. Virtually aU wisdom literature devotes substantial attention to getting along in the social world as it is tradtionally defined. James has nothing about such "knowing and keeping one's place." He says nothing about obedence to rulers, gratitude to benefactors, reverence toward the elderly, reciprocal generosity to friends. He has no interest in table manners, courtesy, or conformity. In wisdom literature both Jewish and Greek, honor and shame function as powerful motivations for behavior in conformity with the established order.38Note that apart from one paradoxical usage (z:~), James utterly lacks such honor and shame language. He is concerned nor with conformity to the customs of the world but with moral choices that conflict with many of those customs. His wisdom is subversive rather than supportive of the social structures and symbols of society. The implications for gender are red. James is not concerned with the adornment and clothing of women; indeed, the only character dressed opulantly and adorned with jewelry is a man (2:2).Women are simply nor, for James, a "special problem" needing control by males. They may be in need, just like men (2x5). They may also be moral agents, just like men 139,240,346,449;Testdment ofReuben 4:1-6:s;Sentences ofSyrrac Menander 170-172,240-249;Instruction of Ani 3.13. 37. See Words of Ahiqar 6.79; 7.106; 9.138; To Dewsonuus 14,16;Sentences ofPseacdo-Phocyh 207-217;Prov 13:~-2;3o:rr-rq; Sir 3:r-16;728; 16:r-5;30:r-6; Sentences of Satus 254,256-257; Sentences of Syriac Menander ~-6,9-1o,zo-24,94-98,1g4-212; I n s m ' o n ofVizier Ptdb-Hotep 565-595; lnstruchon of Men-Ka-Re 55-60; Insmction of Ani 7.17. 38. See B. J. M&na and J. H. Neyrey, "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values in the Mediterranean World," in Tbe Socidl Wrld of Luke-Acts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 25-66, and especially D. DeSilva, The Hope ofGlory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretahon (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999).

Gender in the Letter of James: A Surprzsing Wztness (2:~s).By focusing on moral action challenging to "the world" James cuts the ground from under all the ways of thinking about women in terms of decency and conformity. 2. James addresses an intentional community rather than a household. This point follows naturally from the last: the reason why James lacks a11 attention to household duties and the conventional roles assigned within the oikonornia of antiquity is that he is concerned exclusively with the ekkltsia, a congregation of moral agents drawn together by shared values, summarized in the shorthand of "the faith ofJesus Christ" (2:1). The community has both male and female members, but James lacks any of the tension that we find in Paul between the (egalitarian) standards established by baptism en christg and the social expectations of the oikos. If women are therefore to be defined in terms of their moral agency rather than in terms of their biological or social roles, then generativity is a matter of moral choice for both males and females. Men can be self-seduced and be adulteresses, just as a woman who is a porne can show faith through hospitality, just as theos can by his will give birth by a truthful word to truth-dealing humans. 3. James is egalitarian rather than authoritarian. The kinship language in this composition, as I have noted, is entirely egalitarian. The readers are "brothers and sisters" not only to each other but to the author as well. He does not assume any paternal authority nor does he recognize such authority in others. The teachers and elders within the community, as we have seen, may be male, bur they are defined in terms of service. James does not single out any class of people within the community. All alike are called to covenantal loyalty, to "friendship with God" (4:4; 223). Each is responsible for the correction of others when they stray from the way of truth (5:20).The egalitarian outlook of James is shown also in his emphatic rejection ofpros6polempsGz, or partiality in judging (2:1, g), as well as all kinds of boasting (3x4-IS;4:rG) and all forms of arrogance (4:6,1o). This composition is hostile toward the rich who use their wealth to oppress others (I:II; 2 6 7 ; 51-6). It condemns the slanderous speech and slighting judgments that assume the moral superiority of one member over another (4x1-12).It need scarcely be argued that social arrangements that place some in authoriry over others, whatever the overt basis, tend to favor the large, the strong, the mobile, the aggressive, the loud, the male. Women are more often than not among the oppressed, not only economic d y but also in terms of moral valuation. An outlook that refuses to establish a fixed structure of authority o r a system of mediation in which some funnel authority and benefits to others, but which assigns equal

B R O T H E R OF

JESUS, F R I E N D

OF GOD

moral worth and responsibility to all, is profoundly liberating for both men and women.39 4. James is communitarian rather than individualistic. This composition does not teach an ethics of individual perfection that redounds to the honor of its practitioner. James calls on individuals only insofar as their single-mindedness is required to build and support the ethos of the community. James vigorously opposes any sort of individualism that seeks gain at the expense of another. He condemns that "friendship with the world" that is built on envy and leads to every sort of rivalry, competitiveness, social unrest, war, and murder. He seeks instead a community of solidarity, based not on the logic of envy but on the logic of gift-giving and mercy ( r : ~17; , 2x3;4:6). In 5x2-20 in particular, James sketches a community whose speech and action express such collaboration and solidarity, nowhere more powerfully than in the gathering of the church in response to the summons of its weakest members, to touch healingly, to pray, and mutually to confess sins. The pertinence of such a vision for the issue of gender is patent. By his rejection of the way of the world and his construction of an alternative community ethos, James points to the possibility of thinking and acting about gender in ways that are not based on power but on presence, that are not a matter of competition but of cooperation, that live life not as a battle between haves and have-nots in which the one who dies with the most toys wins, but as a festival of gtftgiving, in which humans show themselves to be the "firsr-fruits of creation" by imitating the God who birthed them.

39 My points here are in fundamental agreement w t h rhose expressed succlncdy by L W. Countryman, Dirt, Grrrd, ~ n k d S e x 4 E&KS rn dx New T i a m m t ltnd kI m p b hanrfCn

T+

(Ph~ladrlphia:Forrress Press,

I*),

us--.

EPILOGUE

The Importance ofJames for Tbeologv

The historical-critical paradgrn that has unnl recent decades dominated biblical studies provides many benefits. Few would argue, though, that the historical-critical p a r d g m has had a positive effhct on a theological engagement with Scripture. The evidence - not least that connected to the travails of the subdiscipline called "biblical theology?' - points too decisively the other way.' The owrall effect of historical analysis has been to keep all the texts of the New Testament futed in the past, so that the question of what they might signifj- must always pass first through the bafFle of what they first meant.z And conclusions concerning the historical authorship or situation of the New Testament writings have had the adddonal effect of assigning theological worth.3The historical-critical method has often had more to do with theology than with genuine history, and the theology with which it had to do was specifically marked by Protestant pre~uppositions.~ I For a succinct deptccton of the rtse and m a n forms of New Testament theology folIoulng the tnaugural declaratron by Johann Phrlrpp Gabler in 1787, see H Boers, Whdt Is N w T i m e n ? M w ?7 7 Rvr ~ of Cntrcsm u d rlrr of& h"cu Ter&nrmr .fa (Phrlade1phl;l ForPress, 1979) z See the rnfluenrral uncle by K Stendahl, "Contemporary Btblrcal Theology," tn 7fw Intmpmc07's Drcho~ryof rhe Bible (Nashvrlle Abtngdon Press, 1962), I 418-432 3 Perhaps the most tmpresstve example IS the treatment of Paul's letters to Ttrnothy and TINS a dettsron for rnauthentictn*usudl decrsron for theologtcal rrrcl~~ance, see the discuss~onrn L 7' Johnson, 71w F m a LenPn a,*lT (Anchor Bible 35tl, New York Doubleday, ZOOI). 42-90 4 See J Z Smith, Drudpy Drrtsne On the Companwnt of Eady Cbrzsrurmrtl~,and the Rrlt~SZO~~J o f h e An-ify !Jordan Leccures m Comparatrw Rcltgmn 14, Chtcago Untversrr). of . L T Johmn, ce m E4&t U m r b r l n r ~A Mtcsng Chrcap Press, 1 9 ~ )1-37, Dimrnsmn m New Tcriament S&s (h4tnneapch.s knress Pnss, 1998), L T Johnson and \K' S Kim, 71w Futun of CrrthoIrr Btblrci/ Schdadtp (Grand Raprds Eerdmans, zoor), 3-34

Gtven the neganw charactertranon of the Letter of James by Luther: and given che fact that the Protestant presuppositions d r t ~ n gthe histor~cal-criticalparadlgrn have been largely Lutheran, tt is not surprising that James In parncular finds ttself on che margms. If James is late and pseudonymous, t t 1s not part of that mapc age of orlgrns (read: Paul) whlch pmrtdes the measure far all authentic Christtanity And tfit IS read primarily through 2x4-26, whtch ts understood as a correcnve co a "m~sunderstanding of Paul," then tt has l~ttleimportarice as a t h e o l o g d resource bestde Paul and John and I Peter, wh~ch,as Luther memorably put tt, "show thee the Christ."- And if "theology," further, is defined In (mosdy Protestant) terms as "Christology," then James appears qutte righdy to be neglected. In Dtbellus's €famous character~zation,"James has no

James in Classic New Testament Theology To demonstrate the point, I will dtscuss the trearmenr ofJames in three classic expresstons of the subdtscipltne we call the theology of che New Testament. The first ts che earl~esc,found in che second volume of Adolf Schlatter's B e o l o of ~ the New T e s t m t ~ n tSchlatter's .~ first volume was, in effect, a study of the theology of Jesus as found primartly tn the Gospels of Matthew and John. Schlaeter emphastzes the way in which Jesus" tdentit). was expressed by his commitment to God's w ~ l l . 'His ~ second F See Marttn Luther's "Preface to the New testa men^" of as uvil u hrs rnrroducrrons to James and Jude rn that same erirtton, found tn L u k k Wonks,w l 33 Word a d S a m menr I ed E T Bachmmn (Phrladelph~aFortress Press, 1960). 362,395-397 6 Fur r*.presenmtt\v statements on the htsrurrcal-cnnc as the one n h o r e c o ~ r the s ssenre of Chnsoantw, we, e g F C Baur, P a f , dR Ap& ofJesw C h r Hu Lf; and W i d , Hu A Cottmhuhon to thr C n d Hurory of Pnmrhrrc. Wm~turwy,2nd ed , ed E Zeller, t a n s A hlenrrec 2 vols (Lutldon W ~ l l t m and s Norgate, 1875), I 2, P 'Wcmle, r)x w n n m m p ofCksnamrt)., fi*ols trans G A Bienemann (Landon Wtil~ams IW)), I W-X. and for a great example of the enterprise, see A Harnuk, W"ha I5 trans T B Sanders (London Ishrster and Companv 1go-l) 7 I.uther, "Preface co the Neu Testament" (x~u) tn Lurlmi W&, 3s 396 B hi Drbelrus, James A Cammmt~ryon & kpurdc of Jrtme?;, rev H Crewen, m n s M A U;'~llruns (Phrladclphta Fortress, 19-6), r r

.

ddC Nm Temttlpnt \%>I

I

Ttx f i l s t c q 4n"KC h r lk Fcundrcnd Raprds W e r Books,

mmt* w l 2

T14C

A~ortllr ThE UCt&pwmt of

apt& Baker Books, rggg), page references to the second \.olume are grwn pumthectcally rn the rcxt ra Scc Schlarter, H u m of & <%sf pp 53-61, 265, 363-37r

The Importance of James for Theology volume begins with a short sketch of the beliefs and practices of the early church before turning to "The Convictions Held by Jesus' Followers." Schlatter emphasizes the way in which Peter, Matthew, James, Jude, and John all show unity of teaching among themselves and continuity with the teaching (and practice) of Jesus; then he turns to a lengthy consideration of Paul ("The Calling of the Nations through Paul") (pp. 187-322). After Paul, Schlatter takes up the writings of Mark and Luke, Hebrews and Second Peter ("The Share of the Apostolic Associates in Doctrinal Formation," pp. 323-360), and he concludes with a synthetic statement concerning the doctrine and practice of the early church (pp. 361-416). Schlatter's treatment of James appears at first to be full and eminently fair. In "Traditions Received from Jesus," he discusses James's statements concerning God, especially God's unfailing goodness and human faith directed toward God (pp. 82-83), then statements concerning Christ (pp. 83-85) and the community's obligation (pp. 85-86). Next, Schlatter considers James's "New Material": his depiction of sin (pp. 86-87),Insrructions regarding faith (pp. 88-89), indctment of the rich (pp. 89-90), and the goal of the community's life (pp. 90-91). After this catalogue of themes, Schlatter considers "James' Relationship with the Jews," which involves both points of fellowship (pp. 91-93) and points of difference (pp. 93-95). Finally, Schlatter discusses "James' Place in the Apostolic Circle" by locating James with reference to Peter, Matthew, John, and Paul (pp. 95103). A closer analysis, however, reveals some of the limitations of Schlatter's treatment of James. First, he pays no attention at all to the prominent theme of speech in James (see Jas 1:26-27; 3:1-9; 5:9,12). Second, Schlatter is aware of no hermeneutical difficulty presented by the letter; he thinks that he presents the New Testament teaching just as it presents itself. In Philipp Gabler's terms, Schlatter seeks a "true biblical theok ogy."" He is blissfully unaware of any distinction benveen history and theology. Third, his presentation of James is therefore a flat recital of contents: there is no real exegetical engagement.12 Schlatter does not expose '

See H.Boers, What Is New Testament Theobgf? pp. 67-74. even the notoriously knotty 4:5-6is daunting. He r~iakesit one of the texts demonstrating that Tames arrives at the concept of the Spirit," clearly implying the Holy Spirit. Then Schlatter remarks in a note, "the dificult statement of 4:5apparently refers to the spirit that has indwelt man since creation" (p. 84 n. 41).But since this 1s the only use of pneuma in the letter apart from the analogy in 2:26,it can scarcely govern those passages Schlatter lists as evidence for the Spirit (1:5;3:15, 17) that do not use the term. 11.

12. Not

EPILOGUE

questions but only lists answers. Nowhere is the voice ofJames heard, only a list of his positions. Fourth, since his entire presentation is in service of showing continuity and communaliry among the first-generation teachrrs, Schlatter folds what is distinctive in James's teaching within the frame ofJesus (on one side) and other early writers (on the other). Fifth, it is clear that Schlarter's ultimate interests are historical rather than in the proper sense theologicd. His early daring of the letter and his concern to show the continuities among James and other early teachers serve to establish James's theological value by means of historical placement. Rudoif Bultmann had great respect for Schlatter, but his own New Testament 7beology could hardly be more different.13 Rather than a "true biblical theology," Bu1rm;mn represents what Philipp Gabler called a "pure biblical theology": he sought less to report on the contents of the canonical writings than to enucleate and elucidate those elements within the canon that are of permanent pertinence.IJ Bultman~i'sapproach to the New Testament was decisively shaped by the History of Religions School, by his Lutheran theological convictions, including the embrace of silchkritik, and by his Heideggerian hermeneu~ics.'~In contrast to Schlatter, Bultmann does not consider Jesus as the beginning of New Tcstamenr theology but rather as its presupposition (in the section titled "The Message of Jesus," r:3-32); despite this, no less than Schlatter does Bultmann find deep resonances between the proclamation of the word by Jesus and the kerygma that is the basis for New Tesrament theology.I6 Rultnlann follows the historical progression of earliest Christianity traced by his History of Religions predecessors Heitmiiller and Bousset: he considers first the Palestinian church ("The Earliest Church as the Eschatological Congregation," 133-62), then "The Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church aside from Paul" (~63-184), in each discussion providing a historical description of the life and convictions rhat can be drawn from the extant sources. Bultmann devotes most of his attention to the nvo New Testament 1 3 Rudolf Bultmann, %ology of dx New Testdment, r vols , trans K Crohel (New York Scribncr, 1951-55), subwqucnt cirarions u ~ l be l gtwn parenrhencally in the text 1.4 k r s , ~ r h i t IS t ~ e n efislanrortr pp 3-* 15 See rhe perceptive revleu*by N A Dahl, "KtidolfBultmann's ofthe h'ew Tes t4mpnt,* in 7 k C m j ? dMess& a d O d m EISOJS (Minneapolis Augsburg, 1974)~ 90-128 16 Bulrmann says that Jesus' preachrng "onlv drrecrs man into the Nou af his meeting ~71th h ~ neighbor s fult~llmentof God's uqli is the cclndition for participation In the salbatton of his Reign these imperartves are clearly meant radically as absolute demand u ~ r ha vdtdlw tndepandenr of the temporal situatinn"((~19-20)

&+

The Importance ofirnes for Theology writers whom he considers to have been theologians in the proper sense ) only bear witness to the of the word. Paul (1:187-352) and John ( ~ 3 - 9 2not k e ~ g m athey ; also provide interpretations of the human condition before God that reveal the basic drama of authentic or inauthentic existence. Just as Luther recommended Paul and John as the \miters who "show thee the Christ," so does Bultmann focus on them as the theological voices that also show the true dimensions of the choice faced by all humans. Next to these giants, the other writings of the New Testament are relatively insignificant. Just as Bultmann mined them indiscriminately to depict the historical progression before Paul and John, sa at the end he discusses all the other writings as a historical progression, "the De\*elopment Toward the Ancient Church" (2:9~-236).Paul and John, then, loom above the historical flow with timeless grandeur. Before them, only history; after them, only history. Theology is what transcends history by addressing human existence before God. And consistent with his Lutheran presuppositions, the progression toward the early church is a story of developmenr that is in reality a story of decline.17 Given Rultmann's presuppositions and the shape of his project, we would scarcely expect him to show much appreciation for the theology of James. In fact, it is dificult to find James at all. Bultmann refers to James ofJerusalem three times, twice concerning his leadership of the church in Jerusalem (1:.52,sg), and once concerning his theological impact on Je\vish Christianity: it was the influence of James the Brother of the Lord rhat was partly responsible for a "retrogression"from the sayings of Jesus, so that "the old scruples and fidelity to the law had gradually gained ground" (1:s~).What about the Letter of James? Bultmann follo\vs the lead of his predecessors in considering James pseudonyn~ous,and therefore a source of informarion about Hellenistic Christianity apart from Paul together with "other sources of a later date" (1:64).As i t turns out, though, Bultrnann only notes that James agrees with Acts and Hebrews in its expectation of an imminent world judgment (1:74). and that James stands with Acts, Jude, z Peter, the Didache, 2 Clement, and Herrnas among early Christian writings in nor speaking of the sacrificial dearh of Christ (1:84).When he deals with the "development to\vard the anclent church," Bultn~annmentions James twice. Speaking of the development of right teaching, he asks rhetorically, "And can the rreatment of rhe I J For a slmliar readlng of early Chrlstlan hlsrory as decline, see H von Campenhausen, f~cck~u~strc*l Aurhwrty and Church Onkr m the Church oftbe Ftrrt 71rt~*CPM runts, trans J Baker (Stanford.CA Stanford Unlverslry Press, 1969). esp 1o.i-rltr

EPILOGUE

theme of 'faith and works' in Jas. 2:14-26 be understood in any other way than that it is a debate against misunderstood ideas of Paul?" (2:131). In his (obligatory) summary of the contents of James, which consists of three short paragraphs, Bultmann touches only on the expectation of judgment, the keeping of the law (with no effort to discern what James means by law), and, once more, the way 234-26 is distinct from Paul (~162163). Bultmann says with respect to James on the law, "the Pauline idea of freedom is just as remote from the author's mind as is Paul's concept of Faith" (2:162). And he concludes his exposition with another evaluative comment: "Every shred of understanding - for the Christian's situation as that of 'between-ness' is lacking here. The moralism of the synagogue has made its entry, and it is possible that James not merely stands in the general context of this tradition but that its author took over a Jewish document and only lightly retouched it" (2:163).Bultmann reads James entirely with reference to Paul and entirely to the disadvantage of James. The New Testament Theology of G. B. Caird (completed and edited by L. D. Hurst) has as its first sentence, "New Testament theology is a historiCaird-Hurst eschews the ambitious historical and cal dis~ipline."'~ hcrmeneutical engagement of Bultmann and seeks only to describe the contents of the canonical sources on a number of topics that can be called theological in nature. The book employs the conceit of a "round-table" (modeled on the "apostolic council" in Acts IS) at which every composition can have its say, without any obvious privilege accorded to any single author.19 In fact, however, the soteriological framework used to organize the agenda for the &scussion is clearly derived from Luke-Acts, so it can fairly be said that the privileged place Bultmann assigns to Paul and John is accorded to Luke-Acts by Caird-Hurst. For Caird-Hurst, furthermore, the "theology ofJesusn is part of New Testament theology: "the theology of the New Testament began with the ways in which Jesus thought and spoke about himself and his people" (p. 419). But unlike Schlatter, whose focus on Jesus was his perfect obedence to God's will, Caird-Hurst focuses on the political character ofJesus' ministry: "for him, politics and theology were inseparable" (p. 357, emphasis original).20 18. G. B. Caird, New Tesument Theology, completed and e&red by L. D. Hurst (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), I. Subsequent citations will be given parenthetically in the text. 19.Caird and Hursr, pp. 18-26. 20. The continuation of this basic approach can be seen (from quire &fferent approaches) in the works of two of Caird's students, Marcus Borg, Jesus, a New Vision: Spirit, Culture,and dte Life ofDircipieship (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987),and N. T. Wright,Jestis and the l'ictory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).

The round-table format would, it scem, provide the chance for James to speak in its own voice. But the soteriological agenda tends to suppress the letter's distinctive theological voice just as effectively as Bultmann's anthropological focus had. Superficially, James is mentioned more often in Caird-Hurst than in Bultmann. The index provides 33 references to 24 different verses. Closer analysis, however, shows that frequency of reference does not equal substantive attention. The only characterization of the letter provided by Caird-Hurst is less substantial than Uulrmann's: "While the Epistle of James continues to be a source of much discussion, what remains clear is that it is addressed to the twelve tribes of the dispersion by an author who sees himself as standing in the unbroken Jeuish tradition of James of Jerusalem and who looks back to Abraham, as 'our father' (221);yet it is marked out as a Christian document by two mentions of Jesus Christ and by the author's obvious familiarity with his teaching" (p. 54). For the most part, James is cited along with other texts in clusters of evidence for some point or other: Christian teaching on the moral life (p. 125), baptism and rebirth (p. 182),judgment (p. 77 n. I), enmity with God (p. 156), cleansing (p. 119).Remarkably, a number of these proof-texts seem to derive from a careless use of the concordance and distort James's Only a few aspects of actual meaning (see, e.g., pp. 53,88,119,125,156,22.2). James's own voice manage to emerge. Under the topic, "abolition of discrimination," for example, Caird-Wurst notes (on p. 237) chat "the Epistle of James furthermore castigates those who would show any form of discrimination within the worshiping church (r:~-71."But this is stuck a n at the end after a lengthy consideration of other authors, wen chough James is by far the most powerful and explicit witness on the subject. The letter" strong position with regard to speech is ignored, and James's prohibition of oaths (5:12) is cited only as a corrective to the Matthean version ofJesus' logion (p. 389). The only sustained attention to James comes, once more, through comparison with Paul on the subject of "che sovereignty of grace." Caird-Hurst devotes a paragraph to the passages in James that pertain to the subject, culminating in r:r7-26. In contrast to Bulcmann, Caird-Hurst considers that "on this point there is no disagreement between James and Paul, only a difference In emphasis" (p. 190). But this is to be expecred, since the very structure of the book leads toward the harmonization rather than the differentiation of voices. And, despite its avoidance of any formal embrace of sacbkritik, CairdHurst ends up by focusing on the same single aspect of the letter as did Bultmann.

EPILOGUE

These three theologies of the New Testament are representative. Even though they differ in perspective and method, they all keep the voice of James in the past and relatively submerged. James is read primarily with reference to other voices: Jesus, Paul, Matthew, and Peter. Or his letter is mined as a source for the history or practice or doctrine of early Christianity. New Testament theologies fail either to engage James's theological voice directly or to hear that voice as speaking to Christian existence in the present.

Engaging James in Theological Conversation Throughout the history of interpretation, James has been most appreciated theologically when allowed to speak in its own voice, and when (as appropriate for a sapiential-prophetic composition) allowed to speak directly to the p r e ~ e n t . ~A' good contemporary example is Richard Bauckham's study of the letter of James?2 which, after considering the composition in its historical, literary, and canonical contexts, turns to a consideration of "James in Modern and Contemporary Contexts." For the modern context, Bauckham takes the great nineteenthcentury thinker Kierkegaard as exemplary for a passionate engagement with James unmediated by scholarship, an engagement in which James it1:;?2-2~)for the reader's self becomes the "mirror of remembrance" self-exa~nination.~~ Bauckharn appreciates that Kierkegaard is not an exegete in the sense defined by historical critics; he does not try to determine

"

21 Far examples m the last w'I))cmtunes, see J P Lzr~geand J J Osrenee, Thc Epwffe of ]anus, 2nd 4, trans J I Momserr (Nm York Chades Scrrbner's, 18671,R W Dale, Ibc Eps tie ofJdmes rld OdXT Ducounrr (London Hodder and Stoughton, I ~ S P )C , F Deems, 7bc Gos pel ofCumnon Sew rw Clonliuned rn rlx Glnonrrsrl Epuib ofJdmrs (NewYark Kercham, 1888). R Johnstone, Irmc a dtu Epuric of ] a m , 2nd ed (Unburgh Ollphant, And mtes, Thc Epudr o f l a m and tbe LrJr o f E d , voI I 7hr W d 2 13, 2 %-b k w o f h e An + a m of Jaws r rj 412, k p m n ofJ~nursg l r - f z o (Grand Rapids knimans, 1959-6u),A T Robertson, I'Mchcrrl and Soclrtl Aspects of C h a n r g Ibc Iudom of lamer (NewYork I>onn, tg!~),W Strrngftilow, Count It All JOJ R r w n r on Fa&, D d t and T m y ah & dx L P m o f l o w s (Grand Rapids Eerdmuls, rg(j7) u R B;ruckh;un,J a m (Ncu, Testament Read~ngs,London Routledge, 1999) 25 Bauckhvn usrs Krerkegaard In h ~ prologue s to set rhe frame for hrs book (pp 1-10), and dmres pp 158-174to a fuller analysis of ffierkegaard's approprratrun Bauckham acrk done on K~erkegjvrias reildcr of James by T H Polk, 7 k B b h d the R& o f F d (Macon, G A ~ e ~ Unrwrslry e r Press, 1997)

Ihe Importance of Jamesfor Theology what the text meant to its first readers. Instead he reads James as Scripture, as a word directed to his own life; he was especially fond of the first chapter ofJames, and above all James 1x7-21,to which he returned time after time in his edifying discourses. Kierkegaard does not so much try to figure out what James meant as to consider what his own life means in light of James: I t makes no sense to ask where his reading of James ends and his own creative chinking begins. But this is the way biblical texts have always had their creative effects both in the thought of the great Christian theologians, and also in the lives of the exemplary follou*ers of Christ, known and unknown, who have lived creatively the texts they loved.r4

Bauckham identifies four aspects of James that Kierkegaard makes thematic in his own work. The first, remarkably for a Danish Lutheran, was "faith and works" (pp. 162-165): Kierkegaard suggested that Luther himself would have used James to criticize the Lutherans of the nineteenth cenrury who had turned "faith alone" into an excuse for a comfortable bourgeois life-style. The moralist in James appealed to the social and religious critic in Kierkegaard, and James's insistence on profession leading to practice is the constant theme of the theologian's masterpiece, Works of Love. The second dimension of James found obvious expression in the title of Kierkegaard's Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing, which drew on James 4:8 as its text. For Kierkegaard as for James, "doublemindedness" was incompatible with authentic faith, and he called for a manner of life that was simple, transparent, and single-minded in its devotion to God. The third element ofJames that Kierkegaard, like the theological tradition before him celebrated, was God as the unchangeable giver of good (pp. 169-170).~~ Kierkegaard devoted four discourses to James 1x7, finding in its declaration that God is the giver of goad and perfect gift an inspiration for a grace-drenched view of reality, leading to attitudes of thanksgiving and hope. The fourth theme of James that Kierkegaard appropriated in his own thinking was that of equality in neighborly love (pp. 170-172):he draws from James's linking of the royal law of Love (2:s) to the forbidding of partiality in judgment (XI-4,9), and also from James's theme of the reversal of fortunes by God (1:9-11; 2:s). r ~Hauckham,James, . p 161 Subsequentclcatlonswtfl be g w n parenchetreallyin the text. 2% See L T Johnson, 77w Ixtter ofjumes (Anchor B~ble37A, Garden C ~ t yDoubleday, rwxf, PP 138-139,204

Bauckhani also notes two llmlraclons in Kierkegaard's theologlcal approprlation ofJames (pp. 173-174) The first I F the complete neglect of the letter's escharologlcal dimension. Klerkegaard's thought plays u,lthln the gap between the eternal and the finlte, rather than the already and notyet. The second ltmttat~on1s Klerkegaardk concentrarlon on the indrvidual rather than the community. Rauckham recognizes that James's exhorcations frequently have the ~ndrvldual'sbehavior tn \tleul, bur he also recognlzes, quite nghtly, that James's erhtc is solidly cornmunltarian; he 1s nowhere more llke Paul than tn hls concern for shaping a communlry of character more than the perfection of lndlvlduals. Although he could not transcend hls own wry madern context rn these respects, Kierkegaard nevertheless provldes a stunning example of hour James, when taken stratght, can stimulate and shape theologlcal reflection Bauckham calls hls own eMort at engaging James theolopcally "Reading James at the Turn of the h4illenniurn" (pp 174-2089 He begins by proposing nc.o complen~entarymodels for readlng In the first, the text creates a world Into whlch readers can be drawn, with all they know of thelr own contemporary life, and so, "drawn anto the texr," can measure rhelr own llves by what they find there In the second, the text functtons as a script, wh~chreaders seek to "perform" or enact In their Ilves. "We cannot suficrently know what the blbllcd \rrrlclngsmean until t h q are approprtated and ilved In the way they expect co be'yp 176) James's text then 1s not simply "gazed into,'" a mmlrror, bur 1s put into practice by the pacterns of Christian llfe Bauckham correspor~dinglydevelops four theological aspects of James that provlde a script, which can be enacted by Christians. The first 1s wholeness and integrity (pp 177-185) Rauckham shows how James calls for an integration of character, for the exclusion ofwhat does not fit that character, for completion of character In performance, and for consistency, and shows also how all these nioral demands are connected ro James's language about the drvlne perferrion (pp 137-1851 Next, Bauckham focuses on the rheme of soltdarity ut~rhthe poor, assoctatlng htmself wlth the goal of Itberatton theology to ~dentifywlch the poor and oppressed of the world, rn accordance wlth God's own chotce of the poor, and developing a number of lssues of contemporary relevance concerning such solldarlty wlrh the poor (pp 185-203). More brlefly, Bauckham takes up the Issue of speech ethlcc, a rheme rhar he rightly recognizes as central to the lemer rtself yet oddly neglected by rheolog~ans(pp. 203-205) More succinctly still, Bauckham concludes uqch remarks on prayer in James, noting that the letrer 1s concerned to show both that God responds to

The Importance of Jmwr fir Beologv prayer as the pver of all good gifts, and the way in which prayer is an articulation of faith, rather than "double-minded" (1:s) or even "wicked" (4~3). I t is very much to Bauckham's credit that in each of these discussions he does not remain content with listing the passages in which James elaborates one theme or another, nor with observing that the ideal presented ought to be practiced. Instead, he seeks to discover what it might mean to perform the script provided by James in the context of contemporary life: what does genuine character mean in today's world, who are the poor among us, why does morality in speech matter, and how can Christian prayer be distorted? By seeking what the text of James might mean in the practice of the Christian life, Bauckham in turn suggests dimensions of meaning inherent in the text itself. His is a genuinely theological engagement.

Enlarging the conversation Of the eight aspects of James singled out by ffierkegaard and Bauckham, only one (God as the unchangeable giver of pfts) clearly has God as subject; the rest pertain to the moral life of Christians. If we are to have a full appreciation of the theological voice ofJames, we must start by appreciating the richness of James's specifically theological language. Because scholars have sought "theo1ogy"in complex discussions of soteriological issues, and because Protestant scholars in particular have tended to identi+ theology and Christology, and because James speaks of Jesus explicitly ) of salvation without reference to Jesus (1:zr; z:rq; only twice ([:I; z : ~ and 4:xz; S:IS, 20), they can easily conclude that "James has no theology." In fact, however, the Letter of James is one of the most properly theological compositions in the New Testament. Its explicit attention is given to ho theos ("God") rather than Jesus or the Holy Spirit. The term occurs fifteen times (I:I, 5,13,20,27; its, 19,23 121; 3:g; 4:4 [r], 6,7,8).In apposition to ho theos, James speaks ofpa& ("father") in 1:17>27; 3:9. And at least some of the time, his use of Igyrios ("Lord") certainly has ho theor as the implied referent (see 1:7; 3:g; 4:1o, IS; 5:4,11).In his 108 verses, James has some 24 explicit references to God. What James says about b heoeos reveals a perhaps surprisingly complex set of affirmations. Together with other Jews, James agrees that God is one (2:19), but his understanding of God goes far beyond an assertion of simple monotheism. His is the Living God, who makes "the demons tremble" (2~19)and is "the Lord of Hosts" ((54).James describes God in negative

EPILOGUE

cerms as the one with whom there is no change or shadow of alteration (r:r7),who does not tetlipr and is not tempred by evil ( I : I ~ ) ,whose righteousness is not associated with human anger (1:20).James's positive assertions, however, move in the direction of God's powerful presence to creation and humanity. God is not only "light" but the "father of lights" (1:17),who expresses his will and by a "word of truth" has, paradoxically, "given birch" to humans as a kind of first-fruits of creatures (r:18),and has created them in his own irnage (3:9). Most striking is Ciod's continuing ~nvolvementwith the world and specifically with humans. God has revealed his will in "the perfect law of liberty" (2:s-11)and will judge humans on the basis of that revelation (z:12; 4 x 2 ) . James states emphaticaily, "There is one lawgiver (nornothetts) and judge (krz@s,)who is able to save (sosa~)and destroy (apolesal, 4x2). But humans are not left with only a verbal norm as their guide. The word of truth is also an "implanted word" that is able to save souls (1:21),and God has "made to dwell a spirit" within humans ( 4 5 ) . God remains in charge of human affairs ( 4 x 5 ) and can declare as righteous and his friends those who have faith in hitn (2:23). The true human story, indeed, is told by those whom Scripture shows to have been such friends of God through their falth: Abraham (2:23),Rahab (2:25),Job (5:11), Elijah (5x7). James defines God in cerms of mercy and compassion ( ~ I I )Thus, . God promises the crown that is life to those who love hitn (i:12;2:s);has chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom (2:s);regards true religion as including the care of widows and orphans (1:27),even as God himself hears the cries of the oppressed (5:4),raises up the sick (5:1j),hears the prayers of those who pray in faith (1:s-6) rather than wickedly (4:3),and forgives the sins of those who confess them ( 5 : ~ s ) This is a God who approaches those who approach him (429, raises up the lowly (4:1o),and enters into friendship with humans (2:23;4:4).But this is a God who also resists rhose who arrogantly exalt themselves over others through oppression (4:6;5:6). Most distinctive in James's tmderstanding of God (a5patristic interpreters and Kierkegaard perceived) is that God is the giver of gifts. James makes the point three times. In 4:6,James takes from the text of Proverbs 33.1- ("God resists the proud but gives grace to the lowly") the lesson that "God gives more grace" (meizona de didisin chann). That this is neither a random nor a careless observation is shown by James's very first statement concerning God tn r : ~ ,that God "gives to all slmply ( h a p l ~ s )and without grudging (me onezdizontos)." Finally, there is the programmatic statement in 1x7, "every good and perfect gift comes down from above

The lrnportance oflames for Theology

from the father of lights with whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration." Taken together, these three statements assert that God's giving is universal, abundant, without envy, and constant. Such a view of God is the basis for James's perception of reality as God's creation, open to his constant care but also answerable to God as the source of all that is good. This view of God is, in turn, the deep premise for James opposing an ethics of solidarity to the logic of envy, for in the first the \vorld is construed as an open system in which cooperation makes sense, while in the second the world is considered a closed systern in which competition is demanded. Because God does not exist in isolation from the world but is in constant and active relationship with the world, human existence is defined in terms of a story in which both God and humans play roles. The story has as its past what God has already done: created the world and humans as representatives ("first-fruits") of that creation; revealed his will in the law and the prophets and "the faith of Jesus Chrisr"";mplanred in humans the "word of t r u t h ' b d "wisdom from above" and "spirit." The story has as its future what God will do in response to human behavior within God's creation: God will judge the world; will reward the innocent and faithful and persevering, who have spoken and acted according to "the royal law of liberty." And God will punish the arragarit and oppressive who blaspheme the noble name by their aggressive and hostile attitudes and actions against God's people. The present of the story-line is found in the moral decisions made by James's readers, above all their choice to live as friends of the world or as friends of God (4:4). It is of first importance, then, to understand that James does not "do theology" in an abstract manner, as a form of speculation about or study of God. Rather, James uses his theologrcal propositions precisely as warrants and premises for his moral exhortation. His statements about God and his commands do not sit side by side in accidental juxtaposition. The rwo kinds of statements are intimately related. In James's 108 verses, there are some 59 imperatives (46 in the second person, 13 in the third person). And these imperatives are almost always accompanied by explanations or warrants, for which James uses participial constructions (r:3,14, u;2:9,25; j : ~ )gar , clauses (1:6,7, 11, 13,2o, 24; 2x1, 13,26; $416; 4:14), and boti clauses (1x2, 23; 2x0; 3:1; 43; 593%11).The commandments are also sometimes connected to purpose clauses (r:4; 5:9)or used in the context of an implied argument signified by the use of oun (44. 7; 5:7, 16), dio (r:21;4:6), or houhis (I:II; z:rt, 17; 226; 3:s). In these connections, it is always the theological statement that stands as the cause or the purpose or the nlotivation or

EPILOGUE

the warrant for the moral action recommended. James's moral exhortarion, in short, i s p u d d in Jamesk understanding of how humans are related to God. Because of this, each of the moral exhortations in James invites reflection by readers not only about their own lives - how to translate and perform Jamesk script in the texrure of their actual existence - but also about the nature of the world and of the God who creates, shapes, and saves the world in which humans are invited to participate as a sort of "first-fruits."

James and the Contemporary World Two aspects of James's distinctive theological voice are of special importance to a world that is increasingly pluralistic (both culrurally and religiously) and morally embattled. The first is the way that James grounds moral behavior in God rather than in the disrinctiw Christian set of experiences and convictions rooted in Jesus Christ. It is precisely Jamesk sologtcdl rather than chrrstobcxl focus that enables it to be a precious resource for ecumenical conwrsarion, not alone between Christians and Jews, but also among all those belonging to monotheistic faiths, and perhaps even all those who interpret realit), religiously. A glad embrace of James by Christians enables them to open a conversation that tends to be closed by more exclusive Christian discourse. Here, within one of the defining canonical compositions of the Christian tradition, we find an understanding of God that is, to be sure, consonant with the "faith of Jesus Christ," yet is also in every ocher respect connected to the belief structure of both Judaism and Islam, not least in the respect shown to Abraham as the father of obedient faith. The element in James that in an era of Christendom seemed an embarrassment - its lack of explicit Christology - now in a post-Constantinian era becomes a special (and unique) gift within the Christian canon. Without in the least abandoning their own insider understanding of the triune God rewaled through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Christians can, with the help ofJames, enter into serious theological and moral conversation with those who worship the same Gad in different terms and within different traditions. At the very least, James can help Christians reach agreement with those in other Abrahamic traditions that we all are to be judged by the same God on the basis of our deeds, and that we should therefore *so speak and so act as people who are going to be judged by the law of freedom'"(2:xz).

?Re Intportance of James for Theolog

The second aspect ofJames's theological voice that is of particular importance for Christianity's engagement with the contemporary world is the way in which theology is interconnected with moral instruction. One of the pressing issues facing religious people is how to live together despite different or even competing religious convictions and claims. Ours is a world that, because of a diminished space in which to live together with increased awareness of difference on fundamental points, faces a crisis of survival. James provides at least nvo resources for those seeking better mutual understanding and a form of social ethics that can enable cooperation among those of hffering faiths. Alone among the New Testament writings, James emphatically asserts the truth that humans are created in the image of God (39) - all other instances of "image of God" language in the New Testament are connected to Christ - and that any religious response to the one God must correspond coherently with moral behavior toward fellow humans created in the image of God. James uses the example of speech ("the tongue"): "With it, we bless the Lord and Father. And with it, we curse the people who have been made according to God's likeness. Blessing and curse come out of the same mouth! My brothers, things like chis should not happen!" "(310).The principle clearly does not apply only to speech. I t can be extended to virtually all realms of human behavior. An appeal to this principle enables Christians to engage those of other faiths not on a chtistological but on a theological basis for a wide range of issues touching on human dignity and rights. Likewise, James draws its moral exhortation from both Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions and shapes them into a single, coherent if dualistic, vision. By so doing, James embraces a wider world of moral discourse. And, by his use of Greco-Roman moral topoi, James invites readers to reflect more deeply on the philosophical and theological bases of his exhortatiorts. Examples of this are almost as many as the topics James addresses. But one stands out as particularly pertinent. When James opposes the "wisdom from above" and the "wisdom from below" in 3x3-4x0, he employs the Greco-Roman (and Wellenisric Jewish) moral topos on envy. The philosophical rCscussion of vice that leads to every sort of acquisitiveness and competition is of first importance for at least two issues of tremendous importance in today's world. One is the question whether humans, as the "first-fruits of creatures," are to be stewards of the world through patterns of ecological respect, cooperation, and nurture, or are to ruthlessly exploit and dominate not only other humans but the earth itself, in a never-ending quest for competitive edge. James's use of this

EPILOGUE

philosophical topic enables people of all fiiths to examine and reflect on the lpgc embedded in these respective responses, and therefore on the deep grounding of the ethics that springs from "the wisdom from above." The other pressing issue today is war and peace. Peace is an ideal everywhere in the New Testament, and for the Letter ofJames as well (3:18). But James is alone among the New Testament witnesses in entering into the causes of war in the human heart. His linking of war to the impulses that are "bartling within our members" because of the spirit of envy is profound and perceptive, whether the "wars" are between family members, neighbors, or nations, and deserves a far more extensive development than theologians have cver attempted.

James and the Contemporary Church In any number of ways, James also provldes a resource for theologrcal reflection concernrng the church rn the contemporary world, and pamcularly how the church mrght lrve according co "the f a t h of Jesus Christn and "the law of love" ":I, 8) tn a manner that bears authentic wtmess to God. I will here touch on only three.

Integrity in Speech

kchard Bauckham correctly notes that James's astontshrng attent~onto speech-ethrcs (seeJas 1.19-+o,26,3:1-12,~ : x I - x 5:g, ~ ; 12) ts often subordtnated to the other value by whrch he defined "pure rellg~on,"namely through the helping of the poor (1.27) But although Bauckham points to the need to develop rhls drmenston of the letter, hls own brtef dlscusston remans broadly p r o g r a m m a t ~ c Takrng .~ hls lead, I uvuld ltke here to suggest some of the ways rn whrch James" focus on speech might be rncorporared Into thrnkrng about the church's stance toward the world and, equally rmportant, d o u r its own pracnce. Immediately tnrrlgulng ts the way James's dtscourx on speech in 3:112 makes a connection b e m e n creatron and speech. James echoes Gen 26 Llauckhm rccamn~endsthe monograph tq. W R Baker, SpredEtbKs ~n dK E p u l oflames (QWNT dli8, Tub~ngenMohr [S~ebeck],rgq~),whtch daes tndeed offer a g d amount of exqetrcd and comparative rnatrrd hut does nor drvclop rhmlqpcal ampl~rattons

The Importrtnce oflames fir Theology 1:26 when he insists that humans are created in the likeness of God (3:9), and his mention of "beast and bird, of reptile and sea-creature" that can be tamed by humans alludes to Gen 1:27-28.It is with respect to such creatures in Gen 2:19 that humans exercise the first power of speech in naming the animals. The first and most distinctive mark of humans is the power to name, to create language, and by creating language to continue God's own creative activity in the world. But when that power is distorted and misused, the tongue becomes a "world of wickedness within our members . . . [it] sets aflame the cycle of life" (35). Language is a world-creating capacity, an awesome power by which humans can either structure life according to the "word of truth," so that humans are "a lund of first-fruits of his creatures" (1:18),or make a structure of meaning in which God is omitted, ignored, or denied. The greatest peril of speech is not the passing angry word or casual oath or even the malicious slander - though these are, as James has it, a "death-dealing poison" (3:6) - but the shaping of &storred worlds of meaning within which the word of truth is suppressed. If the church is to be a community that "receives with meekness the implanted word that is able to save," then it is called on one side to resist and challenge the distortions of speech (and therefore distortions of the world) in the world, while a t the same time cultivating that simplicity and transparency of speech - letting its yes be yes and its no be no (5x2) which reveals purity of heart. The church has the responsibility to challenge, rather than be coopted by, the distortions of language in our culture, which is a virtual babel of linguistic confusion and misdirection. The entire advertising industry is based on the use of language to deceive and seduce. It seeks consciously to create, by means of words and images, multiple illusions in pursuit of which other humans can spend their energies and their fortunes. Advertising operates with a cunning awareness of how desire, avarice, and envy can "seduce the heart" (Jas 1:26).The slippery half-truths of advertising, in turn, have become the staple of politics as well. Messages to the public are crafted precisely in order to "sell" a candidate. Slandering opponents in "negative ads" is measured not by morality but by effectiveness. Political agendas are advanced by appeals to the electorate's most primitive fears and most unworthy prejudices. Such distortions of speech are by now so pervasive chat the "hermeneutics of suspicion" is a necessary element in deciphering virtually all communication. No generation in history has been so self-consciously aware of the capacity of speech to shape perceptions of reality and thereby to shape human reality itself.

EPILOGUE

And no generation in history has deployed the awvesonie resources of rommunications technology in service of distorted speech and perverse desire. No generation in history, indeed, has so systematically set itself to shaping a perception of the world that excludes God's claim on humans and eliminates all notion of transcendence. The church's ability to challenge such patterns of speech is lost when the language of the church itself is corrupted. When the church defines itself in terms of power, influence, and numbers of adherents, it is using the same language and the same criteria of success as the world. A church whose language is indistinguishable from the world of advertising has nothing to say to a world held captive by advertising. The church therefore has an obligation to tend its own language. The language of faith is not something that can be taken for granted. I t is fragile and constantly threatened, for it insists on the trurh of what the entire world colludes in insisting is an illttsion: God's claim on the world. The language of faith must therefore be nurtured and preserved, not through artificial regulation, or through an obsessive concern for doctrinal formularions (important enough, to be sure), but through a use of language that remains open to the mystery of God's power and presence in creation. A theological language that is correct but does not connect to the real experience of God in human lives is, as James says, as dead as a faith without deeds (2:26). James 3:: insists that it is above all the teachers in the conimunity who bear the greatest responsibility. Teachers generally are vulnerable to failures in speech, not only because their profession demands of then1 that they speak more than others in public and before captive audiences, but because such a setting provides temptations for virtually every form of evil speech: arrogance and domination over students, anger and pettiness directed to inattention or contradiction, slander and meanness toward absent comperitors, flattery of students for the sake of vanity. No wonder James warns against many taking up the role of teachers, for "we will receiw a more severe judgment!" Teachers within the church - those who have the special task of shaping its theological language - likewise bear the greatest responsibiliry for preserving and enlivening the language of faith and, with it, the capacity to hear God's word in the utorld. If preachers corrupt the language of faith in order to sell the gospel like merchandise for profit, then they receive a more severe judgment. And if they deaden the language of faith by remwing i t from the experience of God in the u*orld, then they receive a more severe judgment. And if, no matter how they speak, they show in their

The Importance of James for Theology

manner of life the "bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in [their] heart," then they also "lie against the truth" (James 3x4). James says, "If anyone considers himself religious without bridling his tongue and while indulging his heart,"27 this person's religion is worthless. This is pure and undefiled religion before the God who is also Father: "to assist orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unstained from the world" Uas 1:26-27). By this measure, the church fails its basic mission as often by its neglect of its own and the world's speech as i t does by its neglect of the world's and its own needy.

E n y and Arrogance In separate essays, I have argued that James 3x3-4:1o is a coherent rhetorical unit that forms a call to conversion addressed to the "double-minded among James's readers to a "purity of heart" and a singleness of devotion to God. In this call to conversion, James uses the Hellenistic topic of envy as a way of sketching the manner of life that is opposed to God and the source of human conflict. And at the heart of his call to conversion James places the small argument that gives the most precise expression to his theological voice, the choice between "friendship with the world and friendship with God" (44). I further argue that to appreciate fully James's language, we need to place it in the context of Greco-Roman thought concerning friendship. For James, being a "friend of the world means sharing the world's perceptions and values and acting accordingly, just as being a "friend of G o d means measuring by God's own measure and acting according to that measure. In short, "friendship with God" is for James precisely the sort of hermeneutical and moral criterion that "the mind of Christ" is for Paul (see I Cor 2:16).~~ It can be used to evaluate all of the activi ties of life. In fact, James himself provides in 4x1-5:6 three examples of human behavior that fall within "friendship with the world because they demonstrate the envy and arrogance that James made thematic in 3:13-4:6: slander of the neighbor (4:rr-rz), boasting in business (4x3-17), and oppression of the poor (s:I-6).The section is held together by the statement "God op27. For this translarion, see rhe discussio~lin Johtlson, James, pp. 210-211. 28. See my essays "James 3:13-4:10 and the Topos nepi @36vou," pp. 182-201,and "Friend-

ship with the World and Friendship with God: A Study of Discipleship in James," pp. both in this volutne.

220,

202-

EPILOGUE

poses the arrogant" rn 4:6 and the concludtng rhetortcal questton rn 5 6 , "Does not [God] oppose For each example, James prowdes as well the measure by whrch those who are frtends of God ought to measure (4x2; .#:IS;54). These three examples of envy and arrogance are not arbrtrary. They reveal the consrsrency of James's theologtcal votce and tnvlte nor only tndswdual beltevers but also the church as such to reflect on the measure by whrch t t ltves Envy, .md Artstotle, ts a certasn sorrow that one expertences because someone else IS in possesston of somethrng one does not haw ( h c 1387B-1388A).Paradoxtcally, thts most "needy" of \rrces ltes also at the heart of arrogance. The loglc of en\y IS based on the perceptton of the world as a closed system of lrmrted resources for whtch humans are tn compettnon. Envy and arrogance are two srdes of the same competlnve struggle. Envy spurs the "have-nots" to rootence against those who have what they want. Arrogance spurs the "haves" to h a s t over those from whom they have taken rn order to 'Gmore" by "havrng more." The great value ofJames's examples 1s that they show how subtle and pervartve are the mansfestacrons of arrogance, how sneaky and secretwe are the mechanrsms of tts vlolence It ts not only in murder for hrre or In wars between nations that envy and arrogance operate. They more frequently appear as the normaltzed "way of the world,"even wchtn the church. James calls us to a more rtgorous self-examtnatton than IS accompl~shedby an easy condemnatton of arrogance's most abvlous forms. HIS first example - slander agslnst the nerghbor (4:11) - makes the pornc beauttfully. Not much thought ts requtred to agree that thrs "ewl speech done In secret," which specrfically seeks to tear down another so that I can appear supertor (as crrtlc, as judge), u drrven by envy. Whatever I consrder my r t d to possess that I d o not (starus, reputatton), I seek to take away, at least in the perceptions of those whom I try to rnfluence by my slander A brt more reflect~onhelps us see the appropriateness of James's sncluding thrs also as a form of arrogance, not only agarnst my netghbor, but also against the law of God, whrch farbtds such slander (see Lev. 19:16)."Who are you," asks James, "to judge your netghbor?" (4:12). Slander arrogates to oneself the dlrone powers of knowing the hearts of ochers and of candemnrng them To thrs arrogance, James opposes the understandrng that should gutde the practlce of thosc who are "friends of God," namely, that God alone IS lawgtver and judge, who rs able to save and to destroy (4:ir). And, I 29

FWI.a full

~ I X U S S ~ Osee ~ , Johnson. J ~ n e spp ,

299-310

Tbe Importunce oflames for Theology suggest, James invites us to recognize that slander is one of the most common and destructive forms of arrogance within the church as well as outside it. The willingness to use the "death-dealing poison" of secret speech against the neighbor has become so normalized that it is diftlcult for many of us to any longer recognize it as evil: from the whispered comment behind the hand in the pew during a sermon, through the screaming headlines of tabloid publications, to the rich stew of gossip in tclevision talk-shows, slander works to destroy those created in the image of God. James's second example of arrogance ("you boast in your arrogance," 4x6) is provided by the ancient entrepreneurs who planned their trips and anticipated their profits in the vain assumption that the world is predictable and controllable and that they can define their being in terms of their having ("we will get gain," 4x3). James reminds his readers that they can make no such arrogant assumption. They are fragile creatures who depend on God for every breath (4x4-IS).James speaks powerfully and directly to the contemporary world of conglomerates and multinational corporations, where the bottom-line of profit and loss is the only value worth considering, where everything is reduced to a commodity and werything has its price. This pan-commercial outlook perfectly expresses the logic of envy - to have more is to be more - and the logic of arrogance: those who have che most rule over those who have less. Were is the perfect expression of the measure of the world as opposed to the measure of God.On one side is the view of reality as a closed universe of limited goods for which all are in competition. On the other side is faith in the God who gives to all generously and without reproach (x:~),and who calls for sharing what we possess (2x4-16). The church ought always to be the strongest and most convincing critic of this "way of the world."The church, both in its speech and in its practice, ought to represent "friendship with God" in its rejection of consumerism and commodification. But it is a serious question whether the church today - at least in those places where capitalism reigns supreme can exercise the prophetic voice to which James summons it. Is not the church itself so compromised by its own embrace of commercial language and practice - if not always in strictly monetary terms, certainly in terms of its wal for program over presence, for success over fruitfulness, for influence over truthful wimess - that the language of James needs first to be turned toward the church itself for self-examination? James's final example of arrogance is the most overt and shocking (51-6). Being heedless of anything but making a profit is bad enough, but

EPILOGUE

committtng actual vtolence against others in order to live Iuxurtously oneself is, in James's sew, literally to commit a crime that "cries out to heaven" "(5). We see here agatn the way James connects the diseases of the human heart and the distortions of the soclal order. And i t is clear that James's prophetic outrage applies not only to ancient absentee landlords who a b u x d the laborers tn thetr fields, but equally ~fnot more to contemporary economtc and polttical practices Envy and arrogance take systemtc form rn economtc and polttical structures that pr~vtlegethe few and punlsh the many, that explott the resources of the earth for the extravagant life-sryle of those who happen to live in the first world rather than In the thtrd, that reduce the laborers tn the field (and In sweatshops and factories and fast-food eatertes) to slaves bv patterns of income and taxation perpetuating inequality, rhat commit legal murder agatnst the innocent by means of Ittigation and the corruption of the court. Liberanon theology - espectally tn the thtrd world - has used chts parsage in James to challenge the o h o u s l y oppresswe systems of government and finance (often sponsored by first-world corporations and governments) rhat marginalize and abuse the vast majority of the u ~ r l d ' s population chat is desperately poor. It has appropriately identified the ways tn which the church ttself has In such lands too often idencrfied w r h oppressors rather than the oppressed. Bur churches 111 the first world have been much slower to challenge the systems of meaning thac perpetuate such abuses from wchtn corporate headquarters down the street from suburban congregations Perhaps this 1s once more because the church has accommodated itself all too easily to the logic of envy and arrogance In tcs own ltfe. James tells us thac we cannot close our eyes to such realittes and sctll clam to live by the "fath of Jesus Chrtst" or the "royal law of love." A church that proclarms the good news ofJesus but does not prophesy (not only tn tts words but tn its manner of life) agarnst the evlls of oppression is exactly ltke the man who says to the naked and starving brother and sister, "go in peace," without giv~ngthen1 the chtngs needed for the body (James 236).

A Community of Solidarity

In contrast to h u attack on those forms of speech and acrlon that are governed by the loglc of envy and arrogance. James presents n \ ~ opowerful examples of the way in whtch the church can exemplifjr the lagtc of cooperanon or soltdanr).. James uses the term "assembly" in both examples (2:2

The Importance of Jumes fbr Theoloa and s : I ~ )and , shows how the community as such should live by the standard of "the faith ofJesus Christ" (2:r) and the "royal law" of love of neighbor (2:8). The first example is the more familiar: in contrast to the behavior of the rich, who withhold wages (51-6) and oppress the poor by draggtng them into court (2:6), the community is to act by God's standard, which is revealed by the choice of the poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom (2:s). The community, therefore, is not to dishonor the poor, but to show the same honor that God has shown. It is not to deny the help needed by the poor, but to respond with concrete and practical help (2:1416). And, like Abraham and Rahab, it is to show its faith by welcoming others in h ~ s p i t a l i t yThe . ~ church can resist the oppressors through its own practices of economic solidarity. The second example is equally powerful but less well appreciated: James sketches the response of the ekklcsia to those who are sick. The sick person is to summon the elders. They are to pray over the sick person and anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord. And the community, in turn, is to confess their sins to each other and pray for each other, so that they may be healed (5x3-16) Sickness is not the same as sin, nor does James suggest that sickness derives from sin. Yet, sin and sickness are analogous in their social effects. Sickness is a profound threat to the identity and stability of any community. The healing of the sick person, therefore, like the restoration of the community after sin, must take into account both the physical and spiritual dimensions of this threat. The challenge to the community of faith posed by physical or emotional or mental illness is to test whether the community will act as a friend of God or as a friend of the world (44). According to worldly wisdom, the logical response to any threat is self-defense. Only the fittest should survive, and competirion identifies the fittest. Envy seeks strength at the expense of others, and has as its ultimate goal the elimination of others Uames 4:1-2). Has someone known to us fallen ill? Then that person is weak and should be left behind. The resources devoted to the ill sap our strength and diminish us. The sick leech at the healthy and deprive them of their full power; attention given to the sick distracts us from cultivating our own potential and weakens us in our own struggle for supremacy. The elimination of the sick uill leave more resources available to chose who remain. The logic of friendship with the world is therefore to isolate the sick 30 See rhe d~scuss~wn of the "uvrks of fa~th"~nJohnson,Jirmes,

pp z@-zjg

EPILOGUE

and the weak from the healthy and the powerful. The healthy organism recoils from what is diseased in order to protect itself. Sickness, then, becomes the occasion for social isolation and alienation. This "natural reflex" of survival, however, also becomes a form of sin when it leads to the deliberate exclusion of the sick from the community's care and support, when the physical &stance imposed by sickness is exacerbated by a spiritual distancing of the sick from the life of the community. In James, it is precisely the sick who are empowered to summon the leaders of the community. This is as remarkable a reversal of the logic of envy as is the way the community is to honor rather than scorn the poor (2:s). Not those who are well, but those who are sick are to define the truth of the situation. And in the speech of those gathered in the presence of the sick person, James explicidy calls for the mutual recognition and acknowledgment of the weakness and failure of all, so that not only the person manifestly ill but all those in the community might be "saved/healedW(sgzein) by the confession of sins and the prayer of faith. The scenario sketched by James of an intentional community structured on the principles of solidarity and mutual gft-giving, in which the powerful and the leaders are to honor and respond to the poor and weak, not only provides the most direct challenge to contemporary culture's practices with regard to the poor and the sick but also encourages the church of today to engage in self-examination concerning all those who are weak and alienated from a full participation in life. I t is parent that the larger society is increasingly organized by the logic of envy: competition as a form of social Darwinism runs through our culture. The sick and the poor - who are most often the same - represent a threat to survival that must be repelled by, at best, official neglect, and at worst, fraud, oppression, and murder. The harder question is whether the church operates by a hfferent and countercultural logic or not. According to James, it is the "manner of life" Q : I ~ that ) demonstrates whether we live according to the wisdom from above. How does the church work with and for the care of children, the poor, the ill, the elderly, the dying? Does the church, like the world, seek to secure its own survival by defending itself against the threat of weakness? Or does the church seek friendship with God by embracing the logic of gift-giving rewaled by the God who gtves to all generously and without reproach (x:~), so that the strength of each one is gathered from the shared strength of all? From its first words to its last, the Letter of James witnesses to a way

The Importance of J ~ m efor s Theology

of life that is genuinely radical in its implications. It challenges inhvidual Christians to an integrity in thought, speech, and action. But more than that, it challenges the church to realize in its communal life a vision of the world that is the opposite of that offered by the logic of envy, and to live as a community of true solidarity within a world defined by the giftgiving God.

Index of Authors

Achcemeier, P., 112 Adamson, J. B., 2, 24, 106, 123, 126,129, 184,185,203 Aland, K., 113 Alllsfln, D. C., 139, 140, 141, 144, 145 Alter, R., 148 Baasland, E., 43, 222 Baker, VET. R, 250 Balch, D. L., 48 Bardenhewer, O., z o j Barnett, A. E., 47, 92 Barretc, C. K., 102 Bauckham, R., I, 2, 3, 242-45, 250 Baur, F. C., 2, 10, 42, 43, 106, 111, 112, 113, 117, 236 Bell~nzon~, A. J., 142 Bernays, J., 124, 125 Bernheim, P.-A,, I, 2 Betz, H. D., 14, 111, 139, 140, I@, 143, 144, 145, 147, 150, 151, 152, 189 Billerbeck, P., 151 Boers, H., 15, 235, 237 Bohnenblust, G., 214 Borg, M., 240 Bradley, D., 189 Brown, R. E., zo, 104,176, 210 Bultmann, R, 238-40 Butts, J. R, 151 Caird, G. B., 240-41 Calvin, J., 41. 42,114

Cargal, T. B., 24,43, 44,229 Carr~ngton,P., 47 Cat~nat,J., 185, 186, 195, 196, 199, 203 Charles, R. H., 196,198 Chilton, B., I, 2, 8, 221 Conzelmann, H., 171 Countrymall, L. W., 234 Cramer, J. A,, 44, 70 Crawley, A. E., 172 Credner, K. A,, 139 Cross, F. L., 90 Crossan, J. D., 105, 144 Dahl, N A , 238 Dale, R W., 242 DanlClou, J , 114 Davids, P H ,21,44 Davles, W D , 139.140,141,143,144, 145, 151 Deems, C. F., 242 De Jonge, M , 50, 114, 196 de Ol~velra,A , 103 Deppe, D. B., 21, 137, 139, 142, 147,150, 152,153 de Rubles, J F , 82 De S~lva,D , 232 de V~nck,J., 83 Dtbel~us,M , l o , 24,43, 44, 48, 4 9 , ~ ~ 54, 55, 561 58, 59, 62, 839 93, 95,105, 106, 109, 110, 112, 116, 117, 118, 120, 123, 124,126, 128, 129,131, 132, 137,138, 139, 147, 156,164,168, 171,172, 180,181,183,

Index of Authors 184,185,186,195,196, 199, 203, 204, 212, 215, 318. 236 von Dobschutz, H , 91 Dowd, 5 , 2 2 4 Dugas, L , 214 Dullng, D C , 143

Edwards, R. A., 108 Eisenmann, R.. I Ellingworth, P., 91 Elliott-Binns, L. E., 218 Evans, C. A,, I, 221 Feuillet, A., 129 Fiore, B., 168 Foster, 0. D., 47, 92 Francis, F. O., 103, 133 Frci, H., 68 Funk, K. Wf., 145, 153 Furnish, \I., 174 Gager, J. G., 102 Gamble, H. Y.,85 Gammie, J. G.. 119, 230 Garcla, T., 184, 185, 203 Gebser, A., 4 , 4 4 , 62 Georg~,D , roz Gertner, M , 134 Gibson, M D , 44, 72 Ginsberg, L , 179, 180 Goodenough, E R, 194 Grahain, W A , 85 Gregg, J A F 194 Greer, R A , 72 Gr~llme~er, A 72. 82 Hagner, D., gr,94 Hahn, F., 44 I-Ialsron, B. R, 108, 222 von Harnaik, A.. 87 Hartin, J P , 21, 108, 153 Hays, R B., 14, 16 Hengel, M., 10, 17, 18, 62, 110, 111, 113, 117, 221 Hlckling, C J A , 102 Hill, C C., 113 Hock, R F , 102,201 Holladay. C R , 102

Hoover, R U%, 145, 153 Hoppe, R, 204 Hort, E J A , 182, 183 Hurst, L D , 240-41 Jeremias, J., 10, 4,44, 106, 117. 203, 221 Jewett, R , 103 Johanson, B. C , 167 Johnson, I, T , I, 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 41, 44, 49, 50, 51, 53, 67>84, 85, 86, 90, 94, 95, 96, 103, ~7,147,174, 165,167, 168, 171, 179,193, 195, 204, 206, 214, 218, 222, 223. 229, 235, 243, 254, 257 Johnstone, R., 242 Judge, E A , lor Kant, L. H , 107 Keck, L., 113 Kee, H. C., 50 Kennedy, G. A., iqo Kern, F. H., 10, 42, 44, 116, 117, 168 Kierkegaard, S., 242, 243 Kirk, J. A., 108,218 Kittel, G., 122, 128 Kloppenborg, J. S., 108, 144, 148, 149 Koester, H., 139, 143, 147. 148, 149, 150, 152 Kraft, R. A., 19, 51, 180 Kiimmel, W. G., 61 Kugel, J. L., 69 Kurz, W. S., 235 Kuss, O., 176 Kutsch, E., 131 Lange, J. P., 242 Laws, S., 44, 147, 148, 171, 172, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 195, 196, 199, 205 Le Nourry, N , 68, 89 Llnllnskl, B A , 172 Lodge, J , 42. 44, 203, 221 Lohse, E , 116, 176 Ludemann. G ,113 Luther, M , 41, 86, 87, 114, 236 Luz, U , 140, 144, 145 MacDonald, M. Y., 103 Mack, B., 87, 140, 144

I N D E X OF AUTHORS

Malherbe, A J , 101, 119, 155, 168, 190, 192,193,201, 204, 208 Mallna, B , 232 Mancon, f ,@, 44 Marshall, I H , 144, 14Y M a r t ~ nD , B , 225 Mart~nR , P , 18, 105, 106, rro, I12 Marry, J , 123, 128, 131, 182 183,184,185, 186,196,199 Martyn, J L , r 4 , 104 Massebreau, L , 42, 44 Mareraq, F , I4 Mayor, J R , to, 11, 4,43, 44, 47, 49, 92, 105, 106 110, 123, 126, 133, 156, 171, 180. 182, 183, 185, 186, 195, 196, 199, 203, 205, 218 Mecks, W A , Ior 103, 104, 223 Meler, J P , 2, 105 Meyer, A , 123 Mtchl, J , 126 M~gne,J P , 6 3 Mtlobenskl, E , 189, 190, 191, 206 Mlnear, P , 108, 131, 139, 202 Mltton, C J , 47, 92, 123,126, 12% 129, 133, 185 Moule, C F D , 212 Moulton,J H 212 Muller P , 44 Mullrns, T Y , 189 Muss~es,G , 17 Mussner, F , 123, 126, 128, 131, 133, 182, 184, 185, 186, 189, 196, 203 McNerle, A H , 141 Neusner, J., I, 2 Newsom, C. A., 226 Neyrey, J., 103, 232 Osterzee, J. J.,

242

Pagcls, E , 85 Palncer, J , I, 2, 104 Pearson, 8 ,182 Penner, T C , 19 Perdue, L , 43, 118, r19, 120, 168, 184, 204, 230 Perry, B E , 160 Polk, T H., 242

Porter, S. E., 49, 93 Powell, C., 11 Prast. F., 107 Pr~ce,R., r R a p , J , 83 Reitzensteln, R , 171 Remus, H E , 102 Rendall, J., 133 Retgel, K , 19,114 Robertson. A T , 2 4 Kobblns, V K., 136, 139, I44 Ropes, J H , 21, 43, 44, 51, 98, 105, 108, 114, 123, 126, 133, 152, 153,182, 183, 184, 185 186, 187,195-96, 199, 203, 207, 209, 218 Kossbro~ch,M , 124. 125 Sanders, E P , 139, 141 Sanders, J T , 205 Sasse, H , 210, 212 Schlaner, A , 43, 44,126,182, 236-38 Schnayder, C , 156, 162 Schnelder, J , 129 Schoedel, W K , 149 Schokel, L A , 225 Schoeps, H -J , "3, "7 Schussler-Florenza, E , 104 Sedlacek, I , 44 Seltz, 0 J F , 49, 93, 123, 219 Selwyn, E G ,48, 92 Sevensrer, J N , 110 Shanks, H , I Shepherd, M., 108,142,202 Siker, J. S., 88 Slingerland, H. D., 51 Smith, J. Z., 85, 23% Smyth, H. W., 138 Souter, A., go, roo Spicta, F., 42, 44, 150 Stahlin, G.. 214 Stendahl, R., 235 Stowers, S. K., 119, 208 Strack, P., ISI Strecker, G., 144 Stringfellow, W., 242 Sundberg, A. C., 47

Index of Authors Taylor, C., 56, 95 Theissen, G., ror Theroux, P., 61 Thiering, B., I Townsend, M. T., 110, 204 Trench, R. C., 189 Turner, C. H., 90 Turner, N., 138, zrl Tyson, J., 103 van der Horst, P. W., 115, 124, 125, 128, 131, 135>191>192 van Unn~k,W C , 191.192, 193-94 van Vllet, H , 131 Vla. D 0 , 42, 44, 203 von Campenhausen, H , 239 Vouga, F , 42, 44, 171 Wachob, Vi7. H., 21, 22, 136, 137, 147. 149, 170, 151, I54 Wacholder, B.-A,, 51 Wall, R, 24, 222

Walz, C., rjr Ward, R B., 24, 5.7, 109, 123, 178, 21.7, 217, 224 Wathen, A. G., 156 Watson, D., 43,44 Westcott, B. F., 176 Wettstein, J. J., 43, 171 WiUlams, S., 16 Windisch, H., 183.185, 186,196, 203 Winston, D., 177, 193, 194 Wissowa, G., 172 Witherington, B., I, 2, 3, 5, 9 Wolmarans,J. C. P., 227, 228, 232 Wolter, M., 103 Wolverton, W., 219 Wordsworth, J., 98 Wright, N. T., I, 240 Young, F. Y., 94 Zodhiates, S., 242

Index of Scripture Refrences

OLD TESTAMENT

1 Deuteronomy 5 17-18 6 13 r r 14

'

Genesis

Leviticus

13 6 I4 28-29 23 21-23

126 138 109 215 213 140-141

Joshua 2:11

178,224

Kings r7:r 831-jz

181 138

I

z Chronicles 20:7

Exodus

126, 215

Nehemiah 2:6

108

Maccabees 1:26 8x6

130 I93

z Maccabees 8x2

108

I

Numbers 14x6 30:2 30:3-15 30:3

138 131 IqO 138

Index of Scripture Refiren6 3 Maccabees 3:I7

108

q Maccabees

19

Tobit 4:7 4:1o-11

Judith 1o:r8 Isaiah 3:s 334-15 5:7-10 5:9 9:7 22:4 244 30:12 30.19 33:9 33:15-16 38:3 40:6-7 41:8 51:s 544-8 56:r-6 57:3 583 59:11 Jeremiah 2:23 j:6-10 319 4:28

I93 152

108

Malachi 126, 213

Lamentations 1x1 1:22 5:15

Proverbs

Ezekiel 16:38 18:7-9 23:45 26x5 36325 44:9 Hosea j:r 5:s 6:4 7:IO 9:1 12:6 12:7-9 Amos z:6-8 8x0 9:s Joel 1:s 1:9 1:10

Micah 3:1-3 Zephaniah 1:9 3:I-3 Zechariah 723-10

35,

2

120, 223, 231

INDEX O F SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

Job 7x6 30:25 42:7-17

180 130 180

Psalms (LXX) 8:7

211

Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) 120,223, 231 51-2 155-166 5:6 I55 719 161 ro:s4 155 Wisdom o f Solomon 37 I:II 128, 155, 161 2:24 193,194,195,206 7:7 215 7114 2x5 7x7-26 171 7:26 171,176 7:27 177, 215 8:8-18 I77 8x2 155 8x9-21 I77 14:30 208

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 312 108 4:I7 108 5:3 137, 145, 146, 147, 148,149,150 5:4 I37 5:7 29, 152, I53 5:s-9 29 517 140 5:20 89 5:33-37 140

Index of Scripture References Mark

Luke 1:68 I:73 1:78 2:24-25 523-24 5:26 6x6 6:20

Acts

Romans

INDEX O F SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

z Corinthians 1:23 3x8 4:s S:I-Io 6:6 7:6-7 8 9 9% 10:10

11:15 12:20

I Corinthians

214

Ephesians

182

Galatians 1-4 IT 1:4 15 1:10 107 2, 4, 6, 24, 39, 66, 105, 111, I12 1:20 138 2

2:2 2:3-5 2:4 2:6 2:9-I4 2:9 2x0 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:~s-16 2x6 2:20 2:21 3:z

7 6 6 111

6 2

4, 6, 24, 105, 111,

1x3 2.14-16 4:2 4x1 5:4 s.21-6:4 62-4

218 216

130 m7 156 121,23r 232

Philippians 1:1 1:8 1:15 1:ZI-24 1:26 2:1-2

II2

2:12

6 4,6,105,111 6 6 115 8, IS717 15 15 8, IS

2:22

3:20-21 4:s

Colossians

1:s I:IS 1:21 2:16

218 176 216 8

Index of Scripture References Philemon I0

Hebrews I

Thessalonians

1:3 2x1 2x9 3:13 44-5 4x1 4x5 5113 523

a 12, 30, 1x5 121, 231 108 108, 130 121, 231 156 108 115 108

2 Thessalonians

1:11 2:1

2:8 2x7 3x2

12,115 108 108 115, 130 156

I Timothy

1:6 2:9-15 2:II-I2 4:I 4114 5:1 5:17 5:19 6:4

z Timothy 1:2 2:I 224 3:4 3x0

121 121

107 209 130

Titus I

1:s 1:IO 1x6 213-7 3:3

107 107 156 115 121,231 191

James

121

52

29, 108, 109, 121, 223 60,109, 217 35,106,109,228, 233, 247 204 18 29, 32, 34, 35, 74, 108, 180, 223, 225, 246, 247 226 74 34, 35, 99, 127, 166, 229, 245, 246, 247 12, 35, 99, 229, 247 32, 73, 227, 2% 229 204 22, 29, 32, 121, 127, 132, 170, 223 243 231 vlll, 14, 25, 32, 33, 34, 80, 82, 96, 99, 146, 170, 177, 217, 218, 223, 228, u g , 234, 245, 246 32, 34,166, 170, 218, 227, 228, 229, 245, 251 99 204 18, 164, 166, 250 9, 29, 67%121,156, 170, 209, 223 32 9, 34, 35, =3, 245, 246,247 32, 34, 59, 60, 95, 166, 170, 218, 245, 247 204 110, 155,169, 170, 180, 242 26, 32, 35, 1701 218, 220, 247

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

Index of Scripture References 187, 189, 193, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201. 204, 205, 206, 207, 219, 249, 253 3:13-4:6 187, 206, 253 333-4:3 25, 28, 33 3x3-18 108, 184, 189, 204 3:13-I7 184, 187. 225, 229 3:1j-16 9, 27, 165. 170 3:13-14 188, 192 3:13 12, 32, 84, 58, 60, 94. 115, 184, 188, 189, 193, 218, 219 3:14-4:2 219 3:14-17 993 224 3:14-15 188, 196, 233 3:14 32, 40, 185, 188, 189,197, 199, 206, 207, 218, 224, 253, 258 3x5-16 207 3 3 32, 39, 57, 60,182, 183, 186, 188,205, 207, 216, 237 3x6-4:~ 32 3x6-18 58 3x6 35, 60, 188, 189, 191, 193, 199.206, 247 327-18 13, 18 3:r: 55%57, 99%146, 177,183, 188, 189, 191, 198, 205, 207, 218, 237 3x8 29, 184, 186, 250 4:r-5:6 184 4:r-10 204 41-6 52, 184 4:I-3 229 4:1-2 51, 109, 191, 199, 257 4:1 13, 53, 94,186, 188, 189. 191, 196, 198, 199. 206 42-3 137,144, 145. 146 412 41, 42, 55, 184, 188, 198, 199, roo, 205, 206, 228

I N D E X OF S C R I P T U R E REFERENCES 2 Peter

I

1:g

1x6 3:5 318 I John

2:Is-17 2:28 3:18 3:22 5x4-16

I

Peter Jude I

19

Revelation 1:3 3:20 10:6 22:10

Index of Ancient Sources

NEAR EASTERN AND MANICHAEAN

Inshwctiun of Prince Hor-Dedef 120, 121, 231 Instructions of Shurappak 155 155

21

Instructions of Amen-Em-Opet 3.15 9 11.15 22.15 23

130 120 155 121, 231 155 155 121, 231

Instruction of the Vizier P#b-Hotep rzo, 121, 230, 231 121, 231 121, 231 155 122, 232 155

Inshucrimrfor Xing Mwi-Ka-Re 120, 231

139 320-340 535 565-595 575

30 55-60

Manichaean Psalm Book

155 122, 232

JEWISH

Instruction ofAni 3. I 3, 13 4, I 6, 1 7, 7 7, 17 8, 4 9, I

120

121, 231 121, 232 155 121, 231 121, 231 122, 232 121, 231 121, 231

Psalm of Herackides rg2:x-9

2

Sentences of Syriac Menandm 121, 231 5-6 9-10 11-14 20-24 45-51 57-62 94-g8

122, 232 122, 232 121, 231 122, 232 121, 231 121, 231 122, 232

Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 13 22 26 37

156 356 156 156

Aristobolos 19 Babylonian Talmud Ber. 6a 107 Ber. 64a 107 Ket. ga 107

INDEX O F ANCIENT SOURCES

Meg. 14b-15a Mes. 28b Pes. rota Shab. jra Yeb. 65b

224 107 107 151 107

Deuteronomy Rabbah 2.26-27 224 Eccksiastes Rabbah v, 2, 1 V, 6. I VIII, 10, I

224 224 224

Exodus Rabbah 27.4

224

Fourth Ezra

181

Genesis Rabbah 24.7

151

I07

Antiquities of the Jews

Decalogue 84-95 105

3.2 8.9 16.1

224 u 4 224

Odes of solomofi 13.1

171

Philo Judaeus

19 I55

AllegmOflcal Laws 3, 42-44 161 3, 53 156, 161 Change of Names 41-42 43

138 I77

Dreams

Numbers Rabbah

Abraham 3

Josephus

Against Apion 2.10

Mishnah Ab. 1.5 Ab. 1.9 Ab. 1.11 Ab. 1.15 Ab. 1.17 Ab. 3.14 Ab. 5.7 Ab. 5.12 Ned. Sheb. 4.1

1.56

161

2, 40

160 156

2, 42

1.56

Every Good Man 16

160

2

Flight and Anding 14 160 16 156,162 34 161

Joseph 5 TO 12

44

19.5 195 195 159

Life of Moses

Creation of the Won2 Life 294-302

I

107

151 152

162 228 227

Confiston of Tongues Mekilta on Exodus Par.Jith.Amal. 18.1

10

224

I3

161 161

1, 6 I, 10 I, 11 2, 7 2, 8 2, 11 2, 216

155 162 162 162 155 I73 107

Mzgrakon of Abraham I? 156 14-15 159 98 173-174, I77 121 14.5 190 I77

Index of Ancient Sortrces Noah's Work as a Planter 38 159 42 156, 161 Posterity of Cain 24 140 150

Song of Songs Rabbah 1, 3, 3 I, 115, 2 IV, 1, 2 V, 1, 2, 3

156 I94 I94

224 a 4 224 224

Testament ofJob 1.3 17.10 26.6-7

180 51 180

Ruth Rabbah 2, 1

Questiuns on Genesis 1, 57 177 Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 15 162 16 162 Sobriety 56 Special Lzws 1, 9 2

2, 2 2, 14 2, 62

Virtue 223

215

161 156 166 188, 161 107

194

Worse Attacks the Better 7 157 13 156,160 I9 161 27 156 35 159 161 47 48 160 Who Is rbe Heir? 3 21

160 158

224

Sentences of Pse& Phocylider 19,37,114,

1-2

3-8 3 9-21 9 I0

12-14 16

120, 123, 125, 135, 203, 231 124 124, 125 121, 231 124,125 17-5 124 I24 123,124,125,131,

Testaments of 12 Patriarchs 19, 46, 50, 52, 114, 121, 186, 195, 200, 203, 218, 230, 7-31 TestAsher 2.2 51 3.1 198

TestBenjamin 3.3 197 5.2 51, 197, 198 6.2 I97 6.4 I97 6.5 51,198 6.7 51 7.1-2 198 7.3 198 7.5 198 7.11 I97 8.1 197 9.1 46

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T SOURCES

TestNaphtall 197 197 197, 198 198 185 197 jr 198 51,198 $1, I97

197 46 197 197

22

61 84 86

TexReuben 35 41-6 5 14 1

197 rzr, 232 46, 198

$1

jr 51 197

198 51 197 51 198 jr, 209 51 197, :98

TestJoseph 1.3 1.4 10.2-3 18.3

198 197, 198 197,198 51

TestSitneon

19 54, 198, 201, 2 0 G

23 26 27 2 11 2 I3 "4 3.1 3 2-3 33 35 41 44 47 46 47 4 49 51

18j

1 ~ 8 199 I99 199, 206 51.185, 199 ,99 5r 51, 199 j1

94,199, 206 51, 52, 187 51 199 19'

I99 51, 197) I99

TestJudah 13 2 13.3 14.8 18.1 18.3 20 I

22.2

51, 197 I97 197 46 51 I97 jr 108

TestZebulon 35 5 72 $3 97

197 IS2

183, 198

" 197

GREEK AND ROMAN I97 197 51, 198 197 197

Aristotle Nzcotnachedn Ethics 11238-~rzjA 224 113A 191 6, 7 214 8, 5 274 8, 5, 5 274 8,12, 6 217 9%1 214 9, 3, 2 217 9%4, 5 214 9, 8, 2 214 12, 3 217

Apollonius of Tyana Letter 8 IbO 81-82 160

Poilhc8 1280B

12878 I29YB

Rhetortc 1386B 1387B-1388A 1387B rjX8A 2, 21, 8 3, 2, z 3, 11, 9 3, 12, G 3, 16, 4 3, 21, 8

213 7-13 191

190 254 190, 277 189 157 I57 157 157 157 161

Cicero De Arntczhd 4 15 318 6 20 7 23-24 1450 18 65 19 69 22 83

214 217 214 217 214 217 214 217

De Oratore 3 53 202

157

Tusct~lanD~sputac~ons 111, 21 192

Index of Ancient Sources Herodotus History

Demetrius On Style 1.4 1.7 1.9

158 158, 161 158

Dio Chrysostom Oration 12.34 12.55 12.64-65 18.11 21.2

228 161 159 159 I73

Epidetus

Hesiod Days and Works 25-27

Diogenes Laertius Lives of Emtnent Philosophers 1.35 1.41 1.53 1.69-70 1.69 1.70 1.72 1.88 1.92 1.104 1.105

156,160 163 155 160 156, 161, 164 156, 161 160 156, 160 156, 160 156, 160, 161 164

190

Iamblichus Life of Pythagoras 5.26-27 17.75 18.81

Epicurus Sovereign Maxims 27

213 214, 217 213

213

Euripides Orestes 1046

214

Julian the Emperor Orations

Heraclitus Epistles 2.7

190

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Longinus On the Strblzme 9.14 42.1-2

757.4 837A-R 862D 863E 87oC-D

158 lj8

Lucian o f Samosata Dernonax 51 160, 161, 162 64 155, 160

9344

Lys1s 214R 214D z15C 21jD

Double Indrctme~zt 228

L

Mitbras Liturgy

Quo?t$odoAdulescens 8 (Mor @A-B)

172;

De Cilprmda Uhlztate I (86B) 190 7-8 (hior 9oB-C) rlir 8 (Mor goC) 16t 9 (Mar 91B) rqo

Phaedrus 246B-247C 247A 248A

219

164 160 r 60

In Vzrtclte Profictus 7 (Mar 79B) IkO ro (Mor 84B) 155 14 (Mor 84 B-C) Ijj, 175 15 (hlor 8jA-R) s1;

Phaedo 66C Runaways 19

De Rtcte Audlendt (Mor 388) 4 (Mar 39'7 12 (Mor qjF) 2

Phzlebus

183

49D Philostratus Lij; of Apollonlus 1.1

1.14 117 3 26 342

1 ii 5.3' 6 11 7 35 82

Plato L ~ M 624.4 632D 679C 693C 694 697C 708D 742E 7448

Republrc

160, 162 160 160, 162, 163 162 163 160 160 160, 161, 162 160 158

449C-D 462A-C

Conzi~pbaPrarcepta (Mor ~ j g t ) 1-4 25 (hlor 14rL)) 173,r-q

Sy mposzt~m r13D

Septeni Saplenhunr lo (Mot r j d )

rhl

Theaetetus 176B-D

De Iszde et Osrrrde lo (Mor 354F)

162

Titnaeus

De E Apud Adelphos 2-3 (Mor 38jD-E) 163 6 (Mor 387C-D) It73

244

29E

1

14

192

Plutarch De Lzberas Educandzs 9 (Mor 6B-7B) 160 13 (Mar 9D) 375 14 (Mor roF) 156, 160, 161, 162, 164 17 (Mor IZD) 175 20 (hlor I&) 175

De Pythlite Oracirlzs 24 (Mor 406D) 161 29-30 (Mor 408E409n) 160,162

Index of Ancient Sources Ik Cohrbendu Ira 3 (Mar 454F) 4 (Mar 4593)

- (Mor 461C) (Mor 4 ~ 7 C ) 4 (Mor 462C) rb (Mor 46qB-C)

.rf 1

161 161 161 161 161 161, 162

De Sera Numlnzs 5 (Mor ~ 5 o D ) 161,163 17 (h4or 56oD) 163 29 (Mor 566D) 163

De Stozcorum Repugnankrs I (Mor ropB) Apophthegmata Lscon~cu --g (Mor 215E-F) 161 161 39 (Mor 239C) lnshtuta Littonrra 19 (Mor 193-D) 42 (Mor 239F)

161 161

De Garrulttate I (Mor 502E) 160,164 2 (Mor ~ o 2 E ) I 60 161 3 (Mor 703C) 4-7 (Mor 504C-F) 161 4 (Mar 503E) 161 8 (Mor 5o6C) 160,162, '64 9 (Mor 506C) 162 14 (kior j1oA) 161 16 (Mor 51oD) 161 17 (Mor 51oE) 160. 161 19 (Mor 51IF) 764 De Inzjrdio et Odro 536F 537E 586F

155

De Facre rn Orbe Luna 3 (Mor 920F-92A) 193

Rhetorics ad Herennium 4, 54, 67-68

157

Quaestronum Convtviultunj 5 (Mor 672E)

Seneca On Anger 36, 1-3

173

Porphyry L f r of Pythagoras 5.29 6.30-32

I73

213 2 13

Pseudo-Isocrates To Demonlcus 121, 231 Natural Quesbons

120

191 190 190

I

Sentences of Sextus 60 67

121, 231 121, 231 121, 231

I N D E X OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Anonymous Vita S. Clementis Romae Antiochus Monachus Homiliu

Xenophon Oecumenzcus 7.10 7.14 7.22 7.23 7.25 7.41 9.10 9.12 10.1 11.12 11.17 11.22 14.10 17.26 21.7-8

22

44 78

1, 17

74 65,72 74

75,76

Antony o f Egypt EpzsCOh 1, 5

Acts ofJolm 95.25

171

Ack of Thomas I12

I71

Alexander o f Alexandria Acta Sincera Sanrti Petri

70, 72

Antonius Melissa Loci Communes 68,72

CHRISTIAN

Stobaeus

82

First Apocalypse ofJames 25 42

72

114 2 2

Second Apocalypse ofJames 1x4 61-62 2,105

88 70, 73

Ambrose o f Milan Epistukz 78

90

Arethae o f Cappadocia Commentarium in Apocalypsis Theon Progymnasmata

151

Andrew o f Jerusalem Oratio

5

73

70

Aristeas

90

Index of Ancient Sources The Ascents oflames

2

Orutm de Sacra Syrnboli Athanasius of Alexandria Eprrtula ad Afios Episcopos 8

Oratio de Sacra S y n a x ~75

81

Epistulil ad Episcopos 23 74-75 Epistulae Heorashcae 8, 6 75 Eplstuka ad Marcellinum 28 75 Epistula I ad Seraptonem 26 81 Epistula Paschalis (39)

78

88, go

Expositio in Psalrnum UivIIl 73

V u e Dux 8 13

Athenagoras

66 81 90

Augustine of Hippo De Dochina Christians 2, '3 98 De Fide et Operibus 14, 23

99

De Gm&z et Libero

Arbim 2, 3 43 8 4, 15 7, 18 46

Genests ad Lztteram 16, 62

99

99 99 99 99 99

Tractatus in Johannem 43, 5

99

Basil of Seleucia De Trinrtate I, T 15, 18

Vita Antonii 21

74

Athanasius Sinaiticus In Hexaerneron Praef. 82 Interrogahones et Responses I

Oraho 39, 6 99 99

80

Basil the Great Cornwzentarzum tn Isalam 5%I43

65

Conshtuhones Monashcae 26, r 71 De Baptismo

80

1,

3

71

INDEX O F ANCIENT SOURCES

De Consobtione 2 65, 71, 74

Regub Brevis Trsctatae 35

65

Bede the Venerable 40 Benedict o f Nursia Rule for Monks 64

40

Caesarius o f Cappadocia Dzalogus I. 2

3,140

66, 81 73-74, 76

Cajetan (Thomas de Vio)

41

Callistus et Ignatius Xanthopopulorum Opusculae Ascehcar r6 80 Cassiodorus Complexiones Canonicum 40 in Eputolas De Instimaone Dizinarum Litterarum

8, 89

Christopher of Alexandria HomrI*t Cut Vita Humana

Clement of Rome I Clement 3, 38, 19, 46, 47, 92, 94%222 2.1 53, 94 50, 54 3-6 54,94 3-4 31 46, 91 32 54%185 34 54. I94 41 46%91 47 54, '94 I95 49 51 537 179 52 195 64 54 72-8 5 54, 94 73 179 82 46, 91 84 53 g 2-12 8 8, 54, 94 9 2-4 52 92 46. 91 TO 39, 179, 224 10 1-7 46, 91,179 10 I 49, 54, 93 10 7 54, 55 11 54 I1 2 49, 93) I79 I2 39. 54. 55, '79, 224 12 1-8 179 12 1-2 91 13 I49 3 . 46, 53, 91, 152 13 I 94 14 46 17 1 46, 52, 91, 179 I7 2 493 54, 93 17 3-4 54 17 4 46 18.3 91 19 3 53

Second Clement

Clement of Alexandria Excerpts ex Theodoto 4, 77 88

Index of Ancient Sources I

1

I

Paedogogos 111, 2, 40 111, 8, 25

69, 77, 88 69,77

De Adoratione in Sprritu I 74 4 73 68,75 6 7 76-77 I1 80 12 66 I3 81 14 66,73, 80 D 74

In Johannis Eoangelium Praef. 73.82 1, 9 68 2, 2 81 4, I 81 41 3 82 5, 5 78 6,1 77 78 9 10 68, 77, 78

De Recte Fde

In Psalmum 99, 3

76>81

81

Quod Unus Sit Chnstus81

Cyprian

Thesaurus de Sancte Trinitate

90

Cyril of Jerusalem Catechesis Mystagogca

Cyril o f Alexandria 40 Adi~ersusNestmaanurn 5, 4

81

F r i e n t a in Ep. I R. Petri 74

Commentanum m Amos 15

37 56

68, 81 66 80

Commentarium in Lucam

Commenturrunr an Malachiam 5 21

66 66

43

78

81

Glaphyrorum in Genesin 6 81

5, 17

75

Catecheszs N de Decem Dogmaticis 36 70 Catechesis V de Fde et 77 Symbolo Catechesis VII

Homilia Paschalis 9, 6 14, 2

80 65

In Epistulam 11 ad Corintbos 3, 4-6

81

81

Honrilia in ParaIyticum 17 74

Commentanum in Micheam 36

78

Commentarium in Sophonzam '4

76

Dionysius the Areopagite Coelesha Hierarchla I, 1

82

I N D E X OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Didymus the ~ h d Enarrdho In Ep Jatobl

40,88

46

Dr Sprrztu Sancto

Eustratius V ~ t aSt. Eutychii

76

I

97

46, 91 46, 91 49, 93 49.93 151 I,,

70, 74 71

5 6

Epistle ofBarnabas 4. 14 5- 2 19, 4 19. 5-7

Dionysius Alexandrinus Comnrentarzrtnt In Lucan? 22,

Homllra 111 tn Resurrechone

Epistle to Dwgnetus

Euthalius the

I

70,83

Euthymius Zigabenus Commentartum in Johannem 16, 18

Erasmus of Rotterdam 41,42,185 Annotatzones tn Eprstulam Jacob1 86, 115

Comtnentanum rn

Eusebius of Caesarea Commentanurn in Isdtam 24, 3

Dionysius Bar Salibi

40

Dionysius the Carthusian

40

Dominieus Bessarionis Refataha Marcr Ephesent 81 Dorotheus

70

6, 12 16, 18

75 67

Commentarium in Mattheum 6, I3

75

6s

Georgius Monachus Chronzcon Breve 4, 251

3>2. 6 3, 2, 59

78 74

Eprstula ad Johannem 6 66

72

Georgius Trapezuntius De Processione Spiritus Sancti 81

Gospel of the Hebrews

2,

113

Gospel of Thomas 2

Epiphanius of Salamis Advwsus Hareses

66 80 78 7-5-76

54 69 76 92 93 94

145 137, 146, 147, 149) 150 I37 I37 137,143,145 14s 143, I45

Index of Ancient Sources Vita S. Petn Athonite 5, 27 76

Hegesippus Gregory Acindini De Essenha et Operahone Dez 6

80

Gregory Agrigentius Expkandho Ecc~esrashcae 3, 20 77 7, 27 66 5, 4 6677

Hesychius of Jerusalem De Temperantia et Vrrhrte 2, 24

71

Carmrnum Liber I1 Histonca Sect. 2

71

70

74

Fragmenta in Epistuhm Jacobi 83 Fragmenta in Psalmos 503 7 74

I

65,71

Oratio XXIII De Pace 71 3 Oratio XXVI oratio XL

71,79

113 85 90 90

Isaiah of Egypt Orahones 21, 8 25, I43

72

Ignatius of Antioch Ephesuns 3.2 183 15.1-2 156 Magnesians 5.2 12.1 Philadelphians 1.1

67

72 78 76

90

Isho'dad of Merv

40

Jerome Commentarium in Matthueurn 1% 5, 22

97

71

Oratio XLIII in Lauden Basilii Magni 71

Gregory Palamas De Mentali Quietdine

Hyperechius Ad Monachos Exhortatio

Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses I, 26, 2 ILI, 1-4 Iv, 3,4 n! 16, I

Isidore of Pelusium Epistukarum Liber 1, 93 72>73 1, I597 77 I, 118 72 4, 65 79 4,226 78

Hilary of Poitiers De Trinitate

Oraho N Conha Iulianum

91

2

Gregory Nazianzen Carminum Liber I Theobgca sect.^

Innocent I Eprstuh VI, 7, 13

183 46, 91

1, 156

Dialogus &versus Pehgianos

97

INDEX O F ANCIENT SOURCES

Oratio S e c u d

81

QuoJ Oportrat Eum

76

John Climacus Johannes Carpathius Cdpztd Ilortatorza I , 86 72 2 , 36 78

70,72

John Damascene 70,72 De Fzde Orthodoxa 43 9 79 4, Ii 80 4, 17 82

John of Antioch Oratlo de Dzsctpl~na hlonastica 79 Johannes Cantacuzenias Contra ~Mohantatem Apolopa 80 Johannes Vecus F~~zstula ~d,lvhunnen Pdpam

Refi4tdho dzlersus D. Andronirz Canateri

75

De Insfttuftone Elementanz Prar f.

82

Imperatorem 26

76

In Genesrn I Homzlza 2, 5 80

Dzalectica Praef.

82

In Nlud, Memor Fur Dez

Homilia LV

77

82

81

Johannes Xiphilinus Orahones Post Atcmszonem 67, 76 John Chrysostom Conha Virginunr Grrrptore,

In Epzstulum ad Hebraeos 2, 4

76

76

John of Raythu Schoba zn Scakim Paradzsi 9

Index of Ancient Sot~rcfi John the Faster Pmztenhale

76

Sermo de

Poenrhntra Julian of Halicarnassus

Martin o f Legio

40

Muratorian Canon

95

66, 76

79, 115

Justin Martyr Apology I I, 16, 5

Maximus the Confessor Alra Captta 18

71

68

Leo Philosophus Orahon AVI11

67

Leontius of Byzantium Contra Nrstorzanos et Eutychranos 3, 14 72

h c t Communes Sermo 7 Sertno 15

72

66 b6

Novatian De 'firnztirte 4. 1

96

65 66 -/7

-

68, 72 77 74

Quaeshones ad Thelasmm 72

7s

Marcellus Epistula ad Episcopos Antiochenae 96 86

Mark the Hermit De Bdpnsrno 74, 80

De Lege Sprntualr 114

Nilus the Abbot Eprstztla I, 146 11, 159 111, 73 111, 167 111. 228

Oecumenius of Tricca 40, 81 Commentanurn ln Ep~stulai 3d Connthos 3. 12-15 73

Liberius Epstula ad Onlnes Generalrter Eprstopo, 96

Marcion of Sinope

40

142

Justinian Tractatus Contm Monophyus

Macanus of Egypt Regula ad Monachos 4

Nicholas of Lyre

14 58 59

78 75 82

Quaeshone~et Responses Praef. 82 50

81

Nicetas Pectoratus Prat hcorum Caplttun I

82

Nicetas Paphlygonis Oraho 76

T

81

Olympiodorus of Alexandria In Heaturn Job 31, 9-10

74

Origen Agdlnst Celrus 2.1

113

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T SOURCES

Commentarium in Numeros 30,3 Palladius Apophthegmata Patrum Exposzho in Proverbra 38,51 76 Homilia in Exodum 3.3 45,66,88 8.3 452 66 15.15 66,74

Homrb zn Joshua 7.1 45,69,88 10.2 78 Hontilia in Genesin 8,1 0 72>74

72 74,76

Pantaleon o f Constantinople Semo 4

80

80

Selecta in Psalmos 12, 6 75 30,6 78 36,2 45,73 36,11 66 47,7 75 65.4 75 75 66,2 Orsiesius Doch-ina de Institutione hfonitchorum 31 72 41 72

Homilies 11, 16 35 XVII, 13-19

2

113 113 113

Peter o f Alexandria 88 Philippus Solitarius Dioptra Rei Cbrzstiana I 6579 Philotheus the Patriarch Luuddtio Trium Doctorum

80

Photius Amphilo& 50%23

75

Homilia in Leviticurn 2,4 40)45,66 3,4 76 12, 3 72,74 Homilia in Numeros 18,I

Pseudo-Clementine Literature Contestaho 113

Letter of Clement to James Letter of Peter to James Recognitions 1, 43-72 1, 70-71

Procopius o f Gaza Commentarium in Isaiam 13,12-16 14,1-25 58,1-21

13,2 I9,19

Serapion Severus o f Antioch

113 2

96 72

79,115

Shepherd of H-s

65 65 74

Commentarium tn Leviticum 11, 2

2,113

Rufinus o f Aquileia 96 Apolop Contra Hieronymum I, 19,31 96 Commentarium in Symbolurn 36

Polycarp o f Smyrna Philippians 2,3 147,I49 12,I 46,9I

2

73>80 74 75

3, 38,46,47,56, 95,186, 199,203 Mandates 2.1 57,200 2.2-3 128 2.2 58,189 2.3 58,ZOO 2.4,6 57 3.1 393 57,200 4.1 57

Index of Ancient Sources Visions 2, 3 2 , 3, 2 3, 1, 9 3. 2, 2 3, 3, 4 33 4, 3 33 93 1 3, 9, 5 3, '0, 9 4, 1, 4 4, 1, 7 4, 2, 5 4 2 %6 4, 3, 2-4 5, 7 97 10

Similitudes 1.3 1.8 2.5 3.2 4.4, 5 4.4, 7 4.6 5.3. 6 5.6, 5 5.7, I 6.1, I 6.1, 4 6.2 6.2, 2 6.4. 1 6.52 4 6.21, 2 7.1 8.3-5 8.6, 4 8.7. 6 8.7, 21 8.9, 4 8.11, 3 8.11, 13 8.95 9.14, 6 9.15, 2 9.18, 3

Sophronius of Jerusalem Omho I

70,78

Stephanus Epzstulae Decretales

96

Stephen of Constantinople Vita S. Stephurri Junhns

82

Symeon 83 Metaphrastae Certamen S. Alartyrrs Caliznut 4 68,76 Vrta S. Joha?tnrs Eleemosynarzr 4, 23

66

Symeon of Thessalonica De Sacerdoho

80

Rrsponsu ad Gabrlelem

76

Symeon Junior Drvrnorron Amotl6nr Llbrr 15

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T SOURCES

Expositio in Epistulam ad Titum

Theophanis of Sicily Homilia 28

Theophilus Ad Autobcum 1.2 2.29

Tatian

90

Theodore of Mopsuestia

40

Theodorus Balsamonis Epistola de Rasophoris L

67

2, 45

67

Exposrtio in Prophetam Osedm

Theophylact of 40,83 Bulgaria Enarratio in Et~angeliumJohanncs 6, 28-30

80

9, 30-33 1.5, 1-3

79 78

75

Enarrako in Evangelium Marci

Theodorus Studitae Epzstulae 2, 17 2, 22 2, 116 2, 734

90 171 194

22,~-46

75 73 76 76

6, 12-13

66, 75

Expositio in Epzstulam ad Galatas 5, 6 79 Expositio in Epistulam S. Juhre 79

79

I,

Enarratio in Etlangelium Ltrcae

Eprstolam S. Basilii Canonicam

16

79

1, 7

73

L~berde Irs Quorum Latini Incusantur 16

73

Oratio in Praesentationem 8.Mariae I0

Thomas Aquinas

82

Urban I Epistula ad Omnes Chrishnos

96

Zachary Patriarch of Jerusalem Epistula

70 76

Zachary the Rhetorician Captta Select4 ex Historicae Ecclesiaskcae 19

82

80

79, 115

-)QWM

~ I M T ~

ST. MAaK'S SCHOOL OF TlECaLOQI. CHLlllLLt C M I T U W I R w t *

I

t

COVE. ART:

-

01 SAINT JAMES or EL CRLCO t tsrt ILI?) o men LESSJNG t ART RESOURCE. w DESIGN: RLVIW YAW DCU t t e r D W ~ Q Wtwit.

I

~BISHING CO. b Gmmd u.#M'mbridge

ISBN O-b028-0lbb-