James (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)

JAMES

Baler ExeQetical Commentaru on ike New Testament ROBERT W. YARBROUGH A N D ROBERT H. STEIN, EDITORS

Volumes now available Matthew

David

L.

Turner

Mark

Robert

H.

Stein

Luke

Darrell

L.

Bock

John

Andreas Acts

Romans

J. L.

Thomas

R.

1 Corinthians

Karen

Robert

J u d e and 2 Peter Revelation

Schreiner E.

Moises

Dan G.

1 Peter 1-3 J o h n

Bock

David

Philippians James

Kostenberger

Darrell

Garland Silva

McCartney H. W.

Jobes Yarbrough

Gene L.

Grant R.

Green

Osborne

D a n G . M c C a r t n e y (PhD, Westminster T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary) is professor o f N e w T e s t a m e n t interpretation at Redeemer T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary in Dallas. Prior to this, he was professor o f N e w Testament at Westminster T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary, where he taught for more than twenty-five years. H e is the author o f Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible and Why Does It Have to Hurt? The Meaning of Christian Suffering. H e also revised J . Gresham M a c h e n ' s New Testament Greek for Beginners.

JAMES DAN

G.

MCCARTNEY

Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BakerAcademic a division of Baker Publishing Grand Rapids, Michigan

Group

© 2009 by Dan G. McCartney Published by Baker Academic a division of Baker Publishing Group PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287 www.bakeracademic.com Printed in the United States of America All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data McCartney, Dan. James / Dan G. McCartney. p. cm. — (Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8010-2676-8 (cloth) 1. Bible. N.T. James—Commentaries. I. Title. BS2785.53.M36 2009 227.9107—dc22

2009019502

Unless otherwise indicated, all English Bible quotations (except for the Epistle of James) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations labeled NIV are from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978,1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations labeled RSV are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1952 [2nd edition, 1971] by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. All quotations from the Epistle of James are the author's own translation. 09

10

11

12

13

14

15

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

To my former colleagues in the biblical studies departments at Westminster T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary, for their encouragement and support, and in m e m o r y o f J . Alan Groves, whose life so beautifully manifested the wisdom that c o m e s from above.

Contents

Series Preface ix Author's Preface xi Abbreviations xiii Transliteration xix Map xxi Introduction to J a m e s 1 I. Salutation (1:1) 7 7 II. Overview o f the Life o f Faith ( 1 : 2 - 2 7 ) 81 A. Faith and Wisdom ( 1 : 2 - 8 ) 83 B . Pride and Wealth ( 1 : 9 - 1 2 ) 95 C. Faith and Testing ( 1 : 1 3 - 1 8 ) 103 D. Doing the Word o f G o d ( 1 : 1 9 - 2 5 ) 114 E. True Religion ( 1 : 2 6 - 2 7 ) 127 III. First Discourse: Faith and Behavior ( 2 : 1 - 2 6 ) 132 A. Part 1: Faith, Favoritism, and Law ( 2 : 1 - 1 3 ) 133 B . Part 2: Faith and Works ( 2 : 1 4 - 2 6 ) 154 IV. Second Discourse: Faith, Wisdom, and Speech Ethics ( 3 : 1 - 1 8 ) 176 A. Part 1: Teachers, Tongues, and Turmoil ( 3 : 1 - 1 2 ) 178 B . Part 2: Wisdom from Above ( 3 : 1 3 - 1 8 ) 197 V. Third Discourse: Strife in the Church as L a c k o f Faith (4:1—12) 205 A. Part 1: Lusts and Repentance ( 4 : 1 - 1 0 ) 206 B . Part 2: Defamation and Censure ( 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) 220 V I . Interjection: Two Oracles o f Warning ( 4 : 1 3 - 5 : 6 ) 223 A. Oracle 1: Warning to M e r c h a n t s ( 4 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) 2 2 5 B . Oracle 2: Warning to Landlords ( 5 : 1 - 6 ) 231 VII. Fourth Discourse: L o o k i n g to G o d ( 5 : 7 - 1 8 ) 239 A. Part 1: Faith and Patience ( 5 : 7 - 1 1 ) 240 B . Bridge Verse: Prohibition o f O a t h s (5:12) 245 C. Part 2: Faith and Prayer ( 5 : 1 3 - 1 8 ) 250 VIII. Closing E x h o r t a t i o n : M u t u a l Responsibility and Blessing ( 5 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) 262 Excursus Excursus Excursus

1: Faith as the Central C o n c e r n o f J a m e s 267 2: Faith, W o r k s , and Justification in J a m e s and Paul 3: J a m e s and Wisdom 280

272

Excursus 4: J a m e s and Suffering 293 Works Cited 301 Index of Subjects 313 Index of Authors 316 Index of Greek Words 319 Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

321

Series Preface

T h e chief concern o f the Baker Exegetical C o m m e n t a r y on the N e w Testa­ ment ( B E C N T ) is to provide, within the framework o f informed evangelical thought, commentaries that blend scholarly depth with readability, exegetical detail with sensitivity to the whole, and attention to critical problems with theological awareness. We hope thereby to attract the interest o f a fairly wide audience, from the scholar who is looking for a thoughtful and independent examination o f the text to the motivated lay Christian who craves a solid but accessible exposition. Nevertheless, a major purpose is to address the needs o f pastors and oth­ ers involved in the preaching and exposition o f the Scriptures as the uniquely inspired Word o f G o d . T h i s consideration affects directly the parameters o f the series. For example, serious biblical expositors c a n n o t afford to depend on a superficial treatment that avoids the difficult questions, but neither are they interested in encyclopedic c o m m e n t a r i e s that seek to cover every conceivable issue that may arise. O u r aim, therefore, is to focus on those problems that have a direct bearing on the meaning o f the text (although selected technical details are treated in the additional n o t e s ) . Similarly, a special effort is made to avoid treating exegetical questions for their own sake, that is, in relative isolation from the thrust o f the argument as a whole. T h i s effort may involve (at the discretion o f the individual contribu­ tors) abandoning the verse-by-verse approach in favor o f an exposition that focuses on the paragraph as the main unit o f thought. In all cases, however, the commentaries will stress the development o f the argument and explicitly relate each passage to what precedes and follows it so as to identify its func­ tion in context as clearly as possible. We believe, moreover, that a responsible exegetical c o m m e n t a r y must take fully into account the latest scholarly research, regardless o f its source. T h e attempt to do this in the context o f a conservative theological tradition presents certain challenges, and in the past the results have not always been c o m m e n d ­ able. In some cases, evangelicals appear to make use o f critical scholarship not for the purpose o f genuine interaction but only to dismiss it. In other cases, the interaction glides over into assimilation, theological distinctives are ignored or suppressed, and the end product c a n n o t be differentiated from works that arise from a fundamentally different starting point. T h e contributors to this series attempt to avoid these pitfalls. O n the one hand, they do not consider traditional opinions to be s a c r o s a n c t , and they

are certainly c o m m i t t e d to doing justice to the biblical text whether or not it supports such opinions. O n the other hand, they will not quickly abandon a long-standing view, if there is persuasive evidence in its favor, for the sake o f fashionable theories. W h a t is more important, the contributors share a belief in the trustworthiness and essential unity o f Scripture. T h e y also consider that the historic formulations o f Christian doctrine, such as the ecumenical creeds and many o f the documents originating in the sixteenth-century Reformation, arose from a legitimate reading o f Scripture, thus providing a proper frame­ work for its further interpretation. N o doubt, the use o f such a starting point sometimes results in the imposition o f a foreign construct on the text, but we deny that it must necessarily do so or that the writers who claim to approach the text without prejudices are invulnerable to the same danger. Accordingly, we do n o t consider theological assumptions—from which, in any case, no c o m m e n t a t o r is free—to be obstacles to biblical interpreta­ tion. O n the contrary, an exegete who hopes to understand the apostle Paul in a theological vacuum might just as easily try to interpret Aristotle without regard for the philosophical framework o f his whole work or without having recourse to those subsequent philosophical categories that make possible a meaningful contextualization o f his thought. It must be emphasized, however, that the contributors to the present series c o m e from a variety o f theological traditions and that they do n o t all have identical views with regard to the proper implementation o f these general principles. In the end, all that mat­ ters is whether the series succeeds in representing the original text accurately, clearly, and meaningfully to the c o n t e m p o r a r y reader. Shading has been used to assist the reader in locating salient sections o f the treatment o f each passage: introductory comments and concluding summaries. Textual variants in the Greek text are signaled in the author's translation by means o f half-brackets around the relevant word or phrase (e.g., ""Gerasenes" ), thereby alerting the reader to turn to the additional notes at the end o f each exegetical unit for a discussion o f the textual problem. T h e documentation uses the author-date method, in which the basic reference consists o f author's surname + year + page number(s): Fitzmyer 1 9 9 2 : 5 8 . T h e only exceptions t o this system are well-known reference w o r k s (e.g., B D A G , L S J , TDNT). Full publication data and a complete set o f indexes can be found at the end o f the volume. 1

R o b e r t W. Yarbrough R o b e r t H . Stein

Author's Preface

T h e Epistle o f J a m e s is perhaps best known for its declaration "Faith without works is dead" and its assertion that a nonworking "faith" c a n n o t justify any­ one. It is vital to the health o f the church that we r e m e m b e r this. O r t h o d o x y is worthless unless it produces orthopraxy. Jesus declared, " B y their fruits you will know them" ( M a t t . 7 : 2 0 K J V alt.), and he made it quite clear that not everyone who claims Jesus as Lord on the day o f judgment will enter the k i n g d o m , but only those who have done the will o f the Father ( M a t t . 7 : 2 1 - 2 3 ) . O n e c a n n o t have Jesus as Savior without owning him as L o r d , and one c a n n o t have him as Lord without a c o m m i t m e n t to obey him. T h e Epistle o f J a m e s serves as a reminder that a faith claim and genuine faith are two different things. T h i s is not at all to set the voice o f J a m e s against that o f Paul. Paul, n o less than J a m e s (and J e s u s ) , insists that right belief must result in right b e ­ havior and that those who live wicked lives have n o part in the k i n g d o m o f G o d (Gal. 5 : 2 1 ; Eph. 5:5). Even a mountain-moving faith, if it has not love, is nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). It is a grotesque caricature o f Paul to turn his doctrine o f justification by faith into a ticket to heaven by a one-time "receiving J e s u s into your h e a r t . " B u t J a m e s ' s letter, perhaps even m o r e clearly t h a n Paul's writings, warns Christians that faith in J e s u s Christ means more than saying yes to an offer o f free fire insurance. J a m e s has other c o n c e r n s , o f course. H i s letter touches on a n u m b e r o f issues o f practical Christian life: temptation, anger, speech, care o f the poor, respect for everyone regardless o f social status, relationships within the church, business plans, prayer, illness, and more. But the theme that runs throughout is J a m e s ' s insistence that true Christian faith must make a difference in the way we deal with such life questions. In fact, J a m e s talks a b o u t faith consid­ erably more than he talks about works as such. It is precisely because faith is so crucial that J a m e s insists that it must be genuine and active. Hypocrisy is as dangerous and insidious a problem for the church today as it was for the Christians o f J a m e s ' s day or the J e w s o f J e s u s ' s time. It is still possible, indeed easy, for religious people to deceive themselves into thinking that they are true believers and chosen by G o d , when all the while they belie their "faith" by living according to their own desires rather than G o d ' s . It is precisely our amazing ability to deceive ourselves that makes J a m e s ' s warnings so i m p o r t a n t . T h i s c o m m e n t a r y is offered in the hope that the epistle that it seeks to e x p o u n d will be heard more clearly in the church o f our day.

Several words o f thanks are in order here. First, my thanks to my colleagues a n d the B o a r d o f W e s t m i n s t e r S e m i n a r y for granting me a study leave to complete the manuscript. S e c o n d , I am indebted to my research assistant for one s u m m e r and now my colleague, Dr. Adrian Smith, for his help in digging up and preprocessing numerous journal articles and chapters in multiauthor works. T h i r d , I greatly appreciate the patience that Wells Turner has shown in helping m e get the details right. F o u r t h , I a m tremendously grateful to M o i s e s Silva, first my teacher and advisor, then my colleague and friend, for giving me the opportunity and encouragement to delve into a b o o k to which I had previously given little thought. Finally, how could I ever express adequate thanks to my wife, Kathy, dearest c o m p a n i o n , most trusted advisor, faithful prayer partner, o c c a s i o n a l research assistant, and best friend? T h e heart o f her husband safely trusts in her.

Abbreviations

Bibliographic and General ABD ASV b. BDAG

BDF

DNTB Encjud ESV ET Gk. Heb. IDBSup JB JE KJV L&N

LSJ LW LXX m. MHT MM

MT NA

27

Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D. N. Freedman, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992) American Standard Version Babylonian Talmud Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Lit­ erature, by F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by C. A. Evans and S. E . Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000) Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by F. Skolnik, 2nd ed., 22 vols. (Detroit: Thom­ son Gale, 2007) English Standard Version English translation Greek Hebrew Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, edited by K. Crim (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) Jerusalem Bible Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by I. Singer, 12 vols. (London: Funk 6c Wagnails, 1909) King James Version Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, edited by J . P. Louw and E. A. Nida, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible So­ cieties, 1989) A Greek-English Lexicon, by H . G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H . S. Jones, 9th ed. with revised supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) Luther's Works, edited by H . T. Lehmann et al., 55 vols. (Saint Louis: Con­ cordia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1 9 5 5 - 7 6 ) Septuagint Mishnah A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J . H . Moulton, W. F. Howard, and N. Turner, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1 9 9 6 - 9 9 ) The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources, by J . H. Moulton and G. Milligan (London: Hodder &c Stoughton, 1930; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) Masoretic Text Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by [E. and E . Nestle], B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M . Martini, and B. M . Metzger, 27th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993)

NAB NASB NEB NETS NIV NJB NLT NRSV NT OT OTP PG PL PW RSV RV Str-B SVF TDNT

TDOT

Theod. UBS 4

New American Bible New American Standard Bible New English Bible New English Translation of the Septuagint New International Version New Jerusalem Bible New Living Translation New Revised Standard Version New Testament Old Testament The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by J . H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1 9 8 3 - 8 5 ) Patrologia graeca [= Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca], edited by J.-P. Migne, 161 vols. (Paris: Migne, 1 8 5 7 - 8 6 ) Patrologia latina [= Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina], edited by J.-P. Migne, 221 vols. (Paris: Migne, 1 8 4 4 - 7 9 ) Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, edited by A. F. Pauly and G. Wissowa (Stuttgart: Metzlerscher Verlag, 1921) Revised Standard Version Revised Version Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, by H. L . Strack and P. Billerbeck, 6 vols. (Munich: Beck, 1 9 2 2 - 6 1 ) Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, by H. von Arnim, 4 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903-24) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1 9 6 4 - 7 6 ) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. J . Botterweck, H . Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry, translated by J . T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, D. E. Green, and D. W. Stott, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974—) Theodotion's Greek recension/translation of the Hebrew Bible The Greek New Testament, edited by B. Aland, K. Aland, J . Karavidopoulos, C. M . M a r t i n i , and B. M . Metzger, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994)

Hebrew Bible Gen. Exod. Lev. Num. Deut. Josh. Ruth 1 Sam. 2 Sam. 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chron.

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles

2 Chron. 2 Chronicles Ezra Ezra Neh. Nehemiah Esth. Esther Job Job Psalms Ps. Prov. Proverbs Eccles. Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Song Isaiah Isa. Jeremiah Jer. Lam. Lamentations Ezek. | Ezekiel

Dan. Hos. Joel Amos Obad. Jon. Mic. Nah. Hab. Zeph. Hag. Zech.

1 Daniel 1 Hosea Joel 1 Amos 1 Obadiah 1 Jonah 1 Micah iNahum lHabakkuk IZephaniah lHaggai Zechariah JMalachi

Greek Testament Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians |Galatians

Matt. Mark Luke John Acts Rom. ICor. 2 Cor. Gal.

Eph. Phil. Col. 1 Thess. 2 Thess. ITim. 2 Tim. Titus Philem.

Ephesians IPhilippians IColossians 11 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians 11 Timothy | 2 Timothy Titus Philemon

Heb. James IPet. 2 Pet. 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Rev.

Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation

Other Jewish and Christian Writings Tertullian, Adversus ]udaeos (Against the Jews) Adv. Nest. Cyril of Alexandria, Ad­ versus Nestorii blasphemias (Five Tomes against Nestor ius) Apocalypse of Abraham Apoc. Ab. Apoc. Mos. Apocalypse of Moses 1 Apol. Justin, Apologia i (First Apology) 2 Apol. Justin, Apologia ii (Second Apology) Ascen. Isa. Martyrdom and Ascen­ sion of Isaiah 6 - 1 1 Tertullian, De baptismo Bapt. (Baptism) Baruch Bar. 2 Bar. 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) Barn. Barnabas 1 Clem. 1 Clement 2 Clem. 2 Clement Comm. Rom. Origen, Commentary on Romans Dial. Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone (Dialogue with Trypho) Did. Didache Doctr. chr. Augustine, De doctrina christiana (Christian Instruction) lEn. 1 Enoch 2 En. 2 Enoch Ep. fest. Athanasius, Epistulae festales (Festal Letters) Epist. Jerome, Epistulae (Letters) lEsd. 1 Esdras 2Esd. 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) Genesis Rabbah Gen. Rab. Adv.

]ud.

1 Irenaeus, Adversus hae1 reses (Against Heresies) Herm. Mand. 1 Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate Herm. Sim. 1 Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Similitude 1 Shepherd of Hermas, Herm. Vis. 1 Vision Eusebius, Historia eccleHist. eccl. 1 siastica (Ecclesiastical 1 History) on Horn. Exod. 1 Origen, Homilies 1 Exodus on Horn. Josh. 1 Origen, Homilies 1 Joshua Horn. Lev. 1 Origen, Homilies on 1 Leviticus Ign. Eph. 1 Ignatius, To the Ephesians Ign. Magn. 1 Ignatius, To the 1 Magnesians 1 Ignatius, To the Ign. Phld. Philadelphians Ign. Pol. 1 Ignatius, To Polycarp Ignatius, To the Romans Ign. Rom. Ign. Smyrn. 1 Ignatius, To the 1 Smyrnaeans Ign. Trail. 1 Ignatius, To the Trallians jdt. 1 Judith Jos. Asen. 1 Joseph and Aseneth Jub. 1 Jubilees 1—4 M a c e . 11—4 Maccabees 1 Tertullian, Adversus MarMarc. 1 cionem (Against Marcion) Mekilta on Exodus Mek. E x o d . 1 Tertullian, De monogamia Mon. 1 (Monogamy) Nat. grat. 1 Augustine, De natura et 1 gratia (Nature and Grace) Haer.

Paed.

Pan.

Pol. Phil. Ps. Sol. Res.

Sib. Or. Sir. Strom. Symb.

T. Ab.

Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus {Christ the Educator) Epiphanius, Panarion {Refutation of All Heresies) Polycarp, To the Philippians Psalms of Solomon Tertullian, De resurrectione carnis {The Resur­ rection of the Flesh) Sibylline Oracles Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) Clement of Alexandria, Stromata {Miscellanies) Augustine, De symbolo ad catechumenos {The Creed: For Catechumens) Testament of Abraham

T. Benj. T.Dan T.Gad T. Iss. T.Job T. Jos. T.Jud. T. Naph. T. Reu. Tob. Tract. John Vir. ill. Virg.

Wis.

Testament of Benjamin Testament of Dan Testament of Gad Testament of Issachar Testament of Job Testament of Joseph Testament of Judah Testament of Naphtali Testament of Reuben Tobit Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John Jerome, De viris illustribus {Famous Men) Pseudo-Clement, De virginitate {Letters on Virginity) Wisdom of Solomon

Josephus and Philo Ag. Ap. Abraham Alleg. Interp. Ant. Confusion Creation Decalogue Flaccus Giants Good Person J.W Migration Names Posterity Sobriety Spec. Laws Virtues

Josephus, Against Apion Philo, On the Life of Abraham Philo, Allegorical Interpretation Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues Philo, On the Creation of the World Philo, On the Decalogue Philo, Against Flaccus Philo, On Giants Philo, That Every Good Person Is Free Josephus, Jewish War Philo, On the Migration of Abraham Philo, On the Change of Names Philo, On the Posterity of Cain Philo, On Sobriety Philo, On the Special Laws Philo, On the Virtues

Rabbinic Tractates The abbreviations below are used for the names of the tractates in the Mishnah (indicated by a prefixed m . ) , Tosefta (£.), Babylonian Talmud (fc), and Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud (y.). 'Abod. Zar. 'Abot 'Arak. B. Bat. B. Mesi'a

1 'Abodah Zarah 1 'Abot 1 'Arakin 1 Baba Batra 1 Baba Mesi'a

B. Qam. Bek. Ber. Besah Bi'k.

Baba Qamma Bekorot Berakot Besah {= Yom Tob) Bikkurim

Demai 'Ed. 'Erub. Git. Hag. Hal. Hor. Hul. Kelim Ker. Ketub. Kil. Ma 'as. Ma 'as. $. Mak. Maks. Meg. Me'il. Menah. Mid. Miqw. Mo'ed Mo'ed Qat. Nas. Naz. Ned. Neg. Nez. Nid. Ohol.

Demai 'Eduyyot 'Erubin Gittin Hagigah Hallah Horayot Hullin Kelim Kerithot Ketubbot KiVayim Ma'aserot Ma 'aser Seni Makkot Maksirin Megillah Me 'ilah Menahot Middot Miqwa'ot Mo'ed Mo 'ed Qatan Nasim Nazir Nedarim Nega 'im Neziqin Niddah 'Oholot

Or. Parah Pe'ah Pesah. Qidd. Qinnim Qod. Ros Has. Sabb. Sanh. Seb. Sebu. Seder Seqal. Sotah Sukkah T. Yom Ta'an. Tamid Tern. Ter. To bar. Vq. Yad. Yebam. Yoma Zabim Zebah. Zera.

'Orlab Parah Pe'ah Pesahim Qiddusin Qinnim Qodasim Ros Hassanah Sabbat Sanhedrin Sebi 'it Sebu'ot Seder Seqalim Sotah Sukkah Tebul Yom Ta 'anit Tamid Temurah Terumot Toharot Vqsin Yadayim Yebamot Yoma (= Kippurim Zabim Zebahim Zera 'im

Qumran / Dead Sea Scrolls CD-A lQH 1QM lQpHab 1QS lQSa 4QMMT 4QpPs 4Q185 4Q372 a

a

3

Damascus D o c u m e n t Thanksgiving Hymns/Psalms {Hodayot*) War Scroll (Milhamah) Pesher to H a b a k k u k Rule of the Community (Serek Hayyahad) Rule of the Congregation (Appendix a to 1QS) Halakhic Letter (Miqsat Ma'ase ha-Torah) Pesher to Psalms* Sapiential Work Apocryphon of J o s e p h b

Greek Papyri BGU CPR P.Cair.Preis.

Aegyptische Urkunden aus den KoniglichenlStaatlichen Museen zu Berlin: Griechische Urkunden, 15 vols. (Berlin, 1 8 9 5 - 1 9 8 3 ) Corpus papyrorum Raineri, archeducis Austriae (Vienna, 1 8 9 5 - ) Griechische Urkunden des Agyptischen Museums zu Kairo, edited by F. Preisigke, Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Strassburg 8 (Strassburg: Triibner, 1911)

P.Mich. P.Oxy. P.Wisc.

The University of Michigan Papyrus Collection, University Library, Ann Arbor, Michigan The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, edited by B. P. Grenfell et al., 71 vols. (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1 8 9 8 - 2 0 0 4 ) The Wisconsin Papyri, translated and edited by P. J . Sijpesteijn, 2 vols., Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 16 (Lugdunum Batavorum: Brill, 1967-77)

Classical Writers Adol.

poet.

Anab. Autol. Cons. Apoll. Ep. Epict. diss. Hist. Leg. Metaph. Mund. Per. Rhet. Tranq. an.

aud.

Plutarch, Quomodo adolescens poetas audire debeat (How a Young Man Should Study Poetry) X e n o p h o n , Anabasis (The Persian Expedition) Theophilus, Ad Autolycum (To Autolycus) Plutarch, Consolatio ad Apollonium (Condolence to Apollonius) Seneca, Epistulae morales (Moral Letters) Arrian, Epicteti dissertationes (Discourses of Epictetus) Herodotus, Historiae (Histories) Plato, Leges (Laws) Aristotle, Metaphysica (Metaphysics) Aristotle, De mundo (On the Universe/Cosmos) Plutarch, Pericles Aristotle, Rhetorica (Rhetoric) Plutarch, De tranquillitate animi (On Tranquillity of Mind)

Transliteration

Hebrew N

n a T n i T n u

' b g d w

«

h f * y 1/n k b I D/D m l/j «

D s P

F/s ? P

4

n r to

5

to

s

n a n a n e 3 e 3 i 3 i n o in 6 n 6 n u n u 1 u nn a n e e ^3 i n a 3 e n 6 n e 3

qames patah furtive patah segol sere short hireq long hireq written defectively qames hdtup holem written fully holem written defectively sureq short qibbus long qibbus written defectively final qames be (nn = ah) segol yod (*n - ey) sere yod ("3 - ey) hireq yod (*n = iy) hdtep patah hdtep segol hdtep qames vocal sewa

n * Notes on the Transliteration of Hebrew 1. Accents are not shown in transliteration. 2. Silent sewa is not indicated in transliteration. 3. T h e spirant forms H £3 n "T Jl n are usually n o t specially i n d i c a t e d in transliteration. 4. Dagesforte is indicated by doubling the c o n s o n a n t . E u p h o n i c dages and dages lene are not indicated in transliteration. 5. Maqqep is represented by a hyphen.

Greek a

Y

5 e

a b gin d e

? n e i K

Z e th i k

X V

K

0

/ m n X o

K

P r P a/c, s r t u ylu

9 X CO K

ph ch ps 0 h

Notes on the Transliteration of Greek

1. A c c e n t s , lenis (smooth breathing), and iota subscript are not shown in transliteration. 2. T h e transliteration o f asper (rough breathing) precedes a vowel or diph­ thong (e.g., 6c = ha; oci = hai) and follows p (i.e., p = rh). 3. Gamma is transliterated n only when it precedes y , K, ^, or X4. Upsilon is transliterated u only when it is part o f a diphthong (i.e., au, eu, ou, i n ) .

Introduction to James

T h e document known as the Epistle o f J a m e s has a unique voice in the N T Its orientation to practical theology, its interest in true godly w i s d o m and consistent Christian behavior, and its large supply o f m e m o r a b l e phrases and aphorisms that encapsulate many aspects o f the practical Christian life have made it useful for purposes o f moral exhortation. However, it has been a lesser influence on the development o f the church's theology, and until recently it has been somewhat neglected. Further, the second half o f J a m e s 2 appears at first glance to clash with certain statements by Paul on justification by faith. T h i s , along with the lessdeveloped Christology o f J a m e s , led M a r t i n Luther to question its validity as an expression o f the gospel o f J e s u s , even calling it "an epistle o f straw." M o s t o f the R e f o r m e r s , however, even L u t h e r ' s protege M e l a n c t h o n (Loci Communes 9.5.12), along with most o f the church throughout its history, t o o k a more sober view and argued that J a m e s , when understood better, is not in conflict with Paul. T h e issue o f J a m e s ' s relationship to Paul's theology will be examined in more detail both in the introduction and in the c o m m e n t a r y on J a m e s 2 . Indeed, a careful study o f the letter leads to the conclusion that J a m e s ' s insistence on works is precisely because faith is i m p o r t a n t . A faith devoid o f works is a faith devoid o f life; a living, saving faith is one that has an effect on behavior, and therefore it is essential that a person's faith be a working faith. 1

1. The famous words appear in Luther's 1522 edition of his German Bible (an English trans­ lation is available in L W 35:362). Luther did not, however, exclude James from his NT. He grouped it along with Hebrews (!), Jude, and Revelation as being among the less-significant writings. Further, Luther's own theology is closer to James than he perhaps realized. In his preface to Romans he declares that real faith is "a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith . . . it is impossible for it not to be doing good works incessantly. It never asks whether good works are to be done; it has done them before the question can be asked, and is always doing them. Whoever does not do such works is an unbeliever. . . . Thus, it is impossible to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light from fire" (LW 35:370-71). James surely would concur.

It is in fact the thesis o f this c o m m e n t a r y that J a m e s should be seen as a b o o k a b o u t true faith as opposed t o a false o n e . Far from minimizing faith, the a u t h o r o f J a m e s regards faith as supremely i m p o r t a n t , and it is for this very reason t h a t it is crucial that a person's faith be genuine. People often deceive t h e m s e l v e s , and it is quite p o s s i b l e for p e o p l e t o t h i n k that they have faith when in fact they are hypocrites. J a m e s , in the first chapter alone, uses three different words t o describe this capacity for self-deceit: TiAavdco {planad, lead astray) in 1:16, TtapaAoyi^ouai (paralogizomai, deceive) in 1:22, and ocTiarda) (apatad, deceive) in 1:26. Indeed, the issue runs all the way through J a m e s : the d o u b t e r ' s double-mindedness in 1 : 6 - 8 , empty religiosity in 1:26, the pretense o f loving n e i g h b o r while showing favoritism in 2 : 8 - 9 , the empty, dead faith o f 2 : 2 0 , the c o n t r a d i c t i o n o f blessing G o d and curs­ ing his image-bearers in 3:9 and o f b o a s t i n g while being false to the truth in 3 : 1 4 , and the pretense o f the m e r c h a n t in 4 : 1 3 are essentially all referring t o forms o f self-deception. B u t J a m e s wants those who profess to believe in C h r i s t t o be real disciples and manifest living faith, and he wants to awaken p e o p l e w h o c o m p l a c e n t l y think that they are believers but do not act like believers—in o t h e r words, those who have deceived themselves. Further, the threats t o faith that can c o m e by way o f persecution, illness, and the delay o f the c o m i n g o f the L o r d are met with e x h o r t a t i o n s t o persevere, which is the s t a n c e o f faith. Truly, J a m e s as a whole is a b o o k a b o u t genuine faith. Surely, there are few times m o r e in need o f J a m e s ' s insistence that faith be genuine than o u r own. Controversy has continued to swirl about the b o o k , however. Almost every aspect o f interpretation, its author, its date, its original audience, its theological substructure, its organization (or lack o f o r g a n i z a t i o n ) , its overall purpose (especially whether it is in any way a reaction to some form o f Paulinism), its unity, and even the meaning o f several o f its words, phrases, and sentences have been heavily debated, and many matters remain without anything close to a scholarly consensus. All these questions o f introduction, authorship, dating, original audience, t e x t , g e n r e , and c a n o n i c a l a c c e p t a n c e are t a n g l e d together, and even the meaning o f the text and the questions o f introduction are interlinked. As a result, n o obvious starting point presents itself. T h e question o f authorship, for e x a m p l e , depends on when we date the letter and on the history o f its use in the church, but dating is heavily dependent on identifying the original audience as well as the author, and the identity o f the original audience is tied up with the author, date, and genre as well as the meaning o f certain o f J a m e s ' s statements. C h a n g e any piece, and the whole puzzle must be as­ sembled differently. Nevertheless, the b o o k gives us some clues about these things, and if we listen sympathetically to its message and pay close attention to the world in which it was written, we can, with some measure o f confidence, answer many o f those questions. Fortunately, the b o o k ' s central message is comprehensible regardless o f its origins.

Character Following the lead o f J o h n s o n (1995: 3 - 4 ) , we will begin with a preliminary and brief attempt to listen to the "voice" o f the letter and ascertain how it might fit in the story o f the earliest church. T h i s will give us a means o f tenta­ tively dating the letter. We can also determine how well it fits with what can be known o f its putative author, whom the letter itself identifies as simply " J a m e s , servant o f G o d and the Lord J e s u s C h r i s t . " As we will note shortly, this must refer to the J a m e s who appears in Acts as the leader o f the J e r u s a l e m church, whom Paul identifies as "the brother o f the L o r d " (Gal. 1:19). 1. J a m e s is interested primarily in practical Christianity. H e assumes the content and saving power o f the Christian gospel (1:21; see " T h e o l o g y " below), but his interest is on how that is worked out in life, and he de­ nounces a kind o f faith that does not act accordingly. J a m e s also packs the letter with aphorisms that encapsulate godliness and thus has c o n ­ tributed many pithy and m e m o r a b l e phrases to the Christian's w i s d o m vocabulary. T h e letter is also heavily imperatival, containing s o m e fiftyfour imperative verbs (plus a few negative aorist subjunctives that serve as prohibitions), and it displays an e x h o r t a t i o n a l tone throughout. O u r Western Christian heritage has vigorously stressed the impor­ tance o f doctrine, focusing on propositional truth as crucial for Christian identity, because ideas and t h o u g h t s m a k e a difference in a c t i o n s and relationships, particularly our relationship to G o d . But J a m e s reminds us that the ultimate purpose o f Christian instruction, the goal o f doctrine, is a godly character and righteous behavior. T h i s purpose is also found in Jesus's teaching and even in that o f Paul (see, e.g., R o m . 8:29, "conformed to his image"; see also Phil. 2 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) , but it has tended to b e c o m e lost in our battles over precise doctrinal formulation. J a m e s reminds us that genuine faith is more than a matter o f simply acknowledging the right concepts; it is right living in a c c o r d a n c e with those concepts. 2. J a m e s exhibits throughout, b o t h in vocabulary and in c o n c e p t , a J e w ­ ish flavor. M a n y scholars have n o t i c e d the similarities between J a m e s and Jewish wisdom literature, especially Sirach (see excursus 3 , " J a m e s and W i s d o m " ) . And several scholars have pointed out that despite the distinctively literary quality o f J a m e s ' s Greek in several passages, m a n y o f its expressions have a pronounced Semitic cast (see M H T 4:116—20; see also "Jewish Literary B a c k g r o u n d " below). Also, J a m e s exhibits in its use o f the O T a c o m m o n J e w i s h exegetical procedure o f interpret­ ing one text by reference t o a n o t h e r ( J a m e s 2 interprets G e n . 1 5 : 6 by referring to G e n . 22) . It uses features indicative o f a Semitic rather than normal Greek style—for e x a m p l e , attributive genitives such as "hearer o f forgetfulness" ( = "forgetful hearer") in 1:25, and attributed genitives 2

2. Jacob (1975) notes similarities with 1 Mace. 2:52; Sir. 4 4 : 2 0 - 2 1 .

such as "abundance o f wickedness" ( = "abundant malice") in 1:21 and " b e a u t y o f its f a c e " ( = "its lovely a p p e a r a n c e " ) in 1:11. Even a m o n g ancient interpreters J a m e s ' s use o f parataxis (using " a n d " to join two sentences where literary Greek would use a subordinate clause) was noted (Theophylact, Commentary on James [PG 125:1152]). Further, the law o f G o d is termed "royal" (or better, "kingdom-related") and "liberating." J a m e s ' s concerns are reflective o f O T ethical interests, particularly as seen in the prophets and wisdom literature. Its view o f the law, like that seen in the Gospel o f Matthew, is entirely positive; there is no development or even hint here o f the Pauline experience o f the law as an "enemy." O n the other hand, J a m e s ' s focus is not at all on the Jewish distinctives o f circumcision, food laws, or Sabbath observance, but on things such as showing n o favoritism, loving neighbor, acting mercifully, caring for w i d o w s and o r p h a n s , being unselfish and h o n e s t , and persevering in prayer. H e n c e , the Jewishness that J a m e s exhibits is not an exclusion­ ary kind that sees covenant in terms o f ethnicity or ritual, but one that consists in godly behavior. 3. Although J a m e s only twice explicitly refers to Jesus Christ, this b o o k is decidedly Christian. T h e Christian framework is implicit in several places, and the b o o k as a whole expresses a Christian outlook (Cranfield 1965: 182—93). Particularly, J a m e s shares the Christian eschatological orienta­ tion, evident in that the motivation for ethics is chiefly the knowledge o f the i m m i n e n t c o m i n g o f the L o r d in j u d g m e n t ( 1 : 9 - 1 0 ; 5 : 7 - 8 ; see " E s c h a t o l o g y " and " E t h i c s " below). Further, although perhaps some o f the numerous echoes o f J e s u s ' s teaching (see " J a m e s and the Wisdom o f J e s u s " below) can be explained as a c o m m o n Jewish heritage, the sheer number o f correspondences is so great and at times so distinctive that few scholars any longer doubt a substantial link between the Synoptic tradi­ tion and J a m e s , although that link probably is an indirect o n e . In only one instance does the similarity approach quotation o f a Gospel text (the vocabulary o f J a m e s 5:12 closely resembles that o f M a t t . 5 : 3 4 - 3 7 , which also has an echo in 2 Cor. 1:17). B u t the content correspondence with the didactic material found mostly in M a t t h e w and Luke is pronounced (see H a r t i n 1 9 9 1 ) . 3

4 . J a m e s is multithematic in character. T h e letter does not evince a linear discussion o f a single theme, but appears to be a collection o f admoni­ tions on faithful life, on what a life full o f faith looks like. N o r is this collection linearly organized; instead, it interweaves several themes that are introduced in J a m e s 1 and then ties them together and examines the issues from various sides (see "Structure" below). 3. Several commentators have attempted to list the connections, and these lists vary consider­ ably, but even the most conservative of them usually see in more than twenty of James's verses a correspondence with something in the Synoptic tradition of Jesus's teaching (see Deppe 1989). The correspondence with the Sermon on the Mount is particularly striking.

5. T h e Epistle o f J a m e s , though clearly Christian, exhibits almost no christological development. J a m e s has no trace o f the "union with Christ" theme seen in Paul's letters. J a m e s also exhibits little redemptive-historical reflec­ tion and, although the fact o f G o d ' s mercy is central (2:13), shows hardly any interest in how the mercy o f G o d is possible or how the death and resurrection o f Jesus are related to G o d ' s mercy. Likewise, J a m e s makes no mention o f the H o l y Spirit. Even the alleged reaction to something sounding vaguely like Paul in J a m e s 2 seems to be dealing n o t with the theological concerns o f Paul, but with a lack o f ethical consistency on the part o f confessing believers, a problem often seen in Israel in the O T and one endemic to every age. 4

6. J a m e s exhibits a good c o m m a n d o f Greek. Hellenistic literary imagery abounds, such as forest fires, ship rudders, horses and bits, astronomical phenomena (perhaps, but see the c o m m e n t a r y on 1:17), mirrors, and life cycles. O n the other hand, some o f J a m e s ' s imagery is narrowly Palestin­ ian (saltwater springs, early and late rains) and unlikely to have been well understood outside Palestine. Several scholars have noted that the language o f J a m e s is "relatively polished G r e e k " (Dibelius 1975: 34-38) o f an almost literary character (Mayor 1897: c c x x - c c x x i x ; Ropes 1916: 25-27; Schlatter 1956: 7 7 - 8 4 ; Mussner 1975: 26-30; B a a s l a n d 1988: 3650-62). T h e author appears to be quite at h o m e in Greek, using extensive alliteration (e.g., the allitera­ tive IT [p] in 1:2,11,17, 22) and wordplay (e.g., epya [erga works] versus apyti [arge, vain, ineffectual] = a-epyr] [not-working] in 2:20; or the play on the double meaning o f ioc, [/os, rust, poison] in 5:3). Further, he dem­ onstrates a good vocabulary, using several words that are well known in classical literature but found nowhere else in either the N T or the L X X (e.g., svdAioc, [enalios, sea creature] in 3:7; Kazr\(peia [katepheia, gloomi­ ness] in 4:9; see M a y o r 1897: ccxviii), and he seems somewhat familiar with Greek popular imagery (Ropes 1916: 231). J a m e s also tends toward classical syntax in contrast to other N T writers (e.g., 5:12 preserves the classical accusative o f oath with ouvuui [omnymi, swear] as opposed to the more Semitic sv + dative in M a t t . 5:34-35 or Kara + genitive in H e b . y

6:13; see B D F §149). It was therefore supposed by many scholars that the literary Greek style is prima facie evidence that the author is unlikely to have been a Galilean J e w i s h peasant. Presumably, a fairly highly educated Hellenistic J e w or perhaps even a Gentile convert with literary training could more easily write such a letter. However, some curious facts suggest a more complicated picture: 4. The TTveGuoc (pneuma) in 4:5 is best understood not specifically as the person of the Holy Spirit but as either the human life-spirit (i.e., that which makes a human being alive; cf. 2:26) or the divinely given spirit of wisdom and understanding, by which God equipped Israel's leaders and artisans. See the commentary on 4:5 for a more complete discussion.

1. All but thirteen o f J a m e s ' s words are found in the L X X . Even some o f J a m e s ' s unique words seem t o have Semitic roots. T h e word

5upuxoc,

(dipsychos, double-minded), for example, which is not found in any extant literature prior to J a m e s , including the L X X , appears to be a reflection 5

o f a Semitic idiom such as that found in Ps. 119:113, where the psalmist declares his hatred for the seapim

[those o f "divided" loyalties, i.e., the

double-minded). Similarly, Ps. 12:2 condemns the "double-hearted" (lib wdlib). Whatever the author's background, he was well grounded in the 6

J e w i s h Scriptures. 2. J a m e s s o m e t i m e s uses idioms very unlike G r e e k and very like Semitic 7

style. Particularly, J a m e s ' s use o f the genitive noun as an equivalent o f an adjective (e.g., in 1:17 "shadow o f turning" [ = shifting shadow], or in 1:25 "hearer o f forgetfulness" [ = forgetful hearer], or in 2:4 "judges o f evil o p i n i o n s " [ = judges who make bad decisions], or in 3:6 "world o f unrighteousness" [ = unrighteous world]) is difficult to attribute to anyone o t h e r than a person whose first language was Semitic (see B D F § 1 6 5 ) . Likewise, the omission o f the article in certain phrases with a possessive pronoun (e.g., "his t o n g u e " and "his h e a r t " in 1:26; "his way" in 5:20) echoes Semitic style ( B D F § 2 5 9 . 3 ) . J a m e s 5:17 evinces imitation o f the Septuagintal style o f rendering o f the H e b r e w infinitive absolute via a verb with the dative o f its cognate noun, and in 5:18 the circumlocution "heaven gave rain" for " G o d sent rain" also suggests a Jewish author (like M a t t h e w , which uses "kingdom o f heaven" for "kingdom o f G o d " ) . 8

3. J a m e s uses some words o f Jewish background that were either unknown outside J e w i s h circles (e.g., " g e h e n n a " in 3 : 6 ) or had special meanings (e.g., " s y n a g o g u e " in 2 : 2 ) . Further, J a m e s 5 : 2 0 alludes to Prov. 10:12 in a form n o t evident in the L X X translation but only in the Hebrew, 9

1 0

5. LSJ 440 does list a reference appearing in a fragment of a manuscript of Philo, but BDAG 253 indicates that in the fragment in question (11.663 Mangey) the word appears only in a title that is not from Philo's hand. 6. In neither of these texts does the L X X render the "divided" aspect clearly. In Ps. 118:113 (119:113 M T ) the equivalent is simply "lawless"; in Ps. 11:3 (12:2 M T ) the Hebrew idiom is rendered literally and, probably for most Greek speakers, incomprehensibly (ev KapSia Koci £V KOCpSta). But James, being of Semitic background, may have understood it, and he attempted to render the concept of divided loyalty by the novel but quite comprehensible term Sufuxoc;. See the additional note on 1:8 in the commentary below. 7. For more on the Semitic style of James, see M H T 4 : 1 1 6 - 2 0 . The suggestion that the Epistle of James may originally have been written in Aramaic was both raised and put to rest by Mayor (1897: cclx-cclxviii). 8. Although James is referring to an O T event (Elijah's intercession), the L X X has no equiva­ lent to James's Tipoosuxfi Ttpooriu^aro (see BDF §198.6). 9. O f course, this word occurs in the record of Jesus's words found in the Synoptic Gospels, but though James seems to know the tradition of Jesus's teaching, he never, with the possible exception of 5:12, reflects the actual wording found in the extant Gospels. 10. Admittedly, the word "synagogue" was picked up in the second-century church to apply to Christian gatherings (Ign. Pol. 4.2; Justin, Dial. 63.14; Herm. Mand. 11.9-14).

suggesting familiarity with the c o n t e n t o f the proverb a p a r t from the c o m m o n Greek t r a n s l a t i o n . 4. Although J a m e s frequently uses phrases that at first seem to evoke G r e e k rather than J e w i s h literature (such as "cycle o f g e n e r a t i o n s " in 3 : 6 , o r astronomical terms such as " p a r a l l a x " and "turning s h a d o w " in 1:17 [see the c o m m e n t a r y on 1:17], o r the illustrations o f ships being steered by rudders and horses by bits), often the a u t h o r either has failed to under­ stand the original meaning o f such phrases or has ignored that meaning and developed his own in a way that fits more with Semitic b a c k g r o u n d than G r e e k . F o r e x a m p l e , m u c h ink has been spilled over the alleged origins o f "cycle o f generations," which the tongue sets afire, as being in the O r p h i c mysteries, but the cycles o f birth, death, and rebirth (re­ incarnation) seem totally irrelevant to J a m e s ' s use. It is more likely that the author is using terminology borrowed from Greek culture for his own ends rather than importing the full c o n n o t a t i o n s o f that terminology into his own e x h o r t a t i o n s . Likewise, the reference t o G o d being w i t h o u t the "shifting shadow," such as is apparent in the movement o f the sun o r the phases o f the m o o n , probably has nothing to do with the a s t r o n o m i c a l p h e n o m e n a or their astrological c o n n o t a t i o n s . It is instead simply an example to contrast the unchanging c o n s t a n c y o f the G o d o f the Bible with the constant changes o f everything worldly, including the astronomi­ cal entities that the G r e c o - R o m a n world perceived as gods. Such use has more the appearance o f an "outsider" to a culture borrowing the terms but ignoring their "insider" c o n n o t a t i o n s . T h i s is exactly what we would expect o f a Palestinian J e w i s h Christian who was c o m p e t e n t in G r e e k and who was familiar with the Hellenistic cultic milieu while also being critical o f it. 11

Another feature o f J a m e s ' s style is his frequent use o f c o m p a r i s o n s . He refers to tossed waves (1:6), plants withering ( 1 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) , a corpse with­ out breath (2:26), horse and bridle (3:3), ship's rudder and pilot (3:4), a forest fire ( 3 : 5 - 6 ) , fresh and bitter springs (3:11), grapevines and fig trees (3:12), evanescent mist (4:14), moth-eaten g a r m e n t s (5:2), rusted metal (5:3), and that peculiarity o f Palestinian climate k n o w n as the early and the late (rains) (5:7). Sometimes J a m e s ' s vigorous and colorful rhetoric can be baffling, par­ ticularly if too much precision is expected. As will be argued in the commen­ tary, this probably is not a reflection o f overly subtle or secret meanings on the part o f the author, but is simply the result o f impassioned rhetoric, and it is a mistake to press the specific language t o o hard or to expect linguistic 11. Since the form appears also in 1 Pet. 4:8, which virtually quotes Prov. 10:12, it is difficult to argue that both James and 1 Peter, independently of each other and of Proverbs, came up with the same phrase that just happens to resemble the Hebrew of Prov. 10:12. Ropes (1916:316) therefore feels compelled to hypothesize "that some familiar Greek aphorism (all the associations of which can no longer be traced) has been used by 1 Peter, while a part of the same form of words has been independently used, in a very different sense, by James" (italics mine).

precision where none was intended. I will argue that James's difficult passages often are not difficult at all in terms o f the point that the author is making; it is only the imprecision o f the comparisons or language that have us scratch­ ing our heads. T h u s , as in the difficulty o f the interlocutor's statements in 2:18, or the odd "face o f his generation" in 1:23, or the question-begging reference in 3:6 to "the tongue, a fire, the wicked world, the tongue is set in our members," whatever it is that J a m e s exactly had in mind is not ultimately germane to his overall main point. It is when the oddity o f an expression is pressed t o o hard that some o f the more idiosyncratic interpretations arise, sometimes to the obfuscation o f J a m e s ' s main point. T h e evocativeness o f the imagery serves J a m e s ' s interest in motivating action or behavior. It is a mistake to read him as generating excessively subtle sophistries in order to win a theological argument or philosophical debate. 12

Here we may draw some preliminary conclusions. T h e letter is Christian, but it reflects a fairly primitive stage o f theological development. J a m e s evinces no concern for ecclesial authority or structure; the importance o f the substitutionary death o f Christ receives no mention; there is no cultic identification with Christ, no discussion o f how the inclusion o f Gentiles affects theology, and no reflection on how Christ fulfilled O T expectations. Although J a m e s is concerned with the problem o f Christian suffering, he, unlike 1 Peter or the letters o f Paul, deals with it not by reference to the Christian's identification with Christ's suffering, but by way o f simple exhortations to endure because it pleases G o d , produces maturity, and will someday be over. O n the other hand, James reflects the peculiar orientation to godly life that appears in the recorded teaching o f Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (more on this below). Yet J a m e s at no point actually cites the Gospels (at least not in the form in which we have them) or even acknowledges that the material comes from Jesus or reflects the special interests o f Jesus. It is as though J a m e s is imbued with the wisdom teaching o f Jesus, but not in the written form in which we now find it. All this points to a time quite early in the life o f the church, prior to the theological reflections o f Paul, prior to the circulation o f the Gospels, and prior to the authors o f Hebrews, 1 Peter, and the J o h a n n i n e materials, or at least prior to the time when these other writings began to have widespread and determinative influence. 13

Authorship and Date Because the questions o f authorship and date are interdependent, I will discuss them together. T h e n a m e " J a m e s " is the equivalent o f the O T name " J a c o b " 12. This has been particularly true in the case of the interlocutor's position in 2:18, which at first read seems to be saying the opposite of what the interlocutor would be expected to say (see the commentary). 13. O f course, the lack of influence on James does not prove that he wrote chronologically prior to these documents, but at least it means that James represents a stage of Christian think­ ing that has not yet been determined by them, and hence it is logically prior.

(hence the adjective " J a c o b e a n " to describe things pertaining to J a m e s ) . It is quite a c o m m o n name in the N T as well as in J u d a i s m generally, and thus the identification o f the a u t h o r as simply " J a m e s , servant o f G o d and the Lord Jesus Christ" implies s o m e o n e very well known in the church. T w o o f the twelve disciples were n a m e d " J a m e s . " T h e better k n o w n o f these was J a m e s the son o f Z e b e d e e , b r o t h e r o f J o h n , but this J a m e s was killed by Herod (Agrippa I ) , as we know from Acts 12:2. T h i s happened s o m e t i m e in (or possibly before) the year 4 4 , which probably is t o o early for him to be the author o f the letter. J a m e s the son o f Alphaeus also was one o f the Twelve, but nothing is known o f him after the earliest days o f the church, and if he had authored the letter, he would have needed further identification t h a n just " J a m e s . " T h e r e was another man named " J a m e s " who might have been a disciple (not one o f the Twelve) named " J a m e s the Y o u n g e r " (or perhaps "Little J a m e s " or " J a m e s the L e s s " ) , but he is known only by the fact that his mother was one o f the witnesses o f the crucifixion, which makes him even less known than J a m e s the son o f Alphaeus (unless it was the same p e r s o n ) . T h e only J a m e s who seems to fit, therefore, is the J a m e s who was leader o f the church in J e r u s a l e m , indicated in Acts 12:17 and elsewhere, and w h o m Paul mentions in G a l . 1:19, calling him " J a m e s the L o r d ' s b r o t h e r . " H e is the J a m e s named a m o n g the family o f J e s u s in M a r k 6 : 3 . N o t all students of this letter conclude that J a m e s the brother o f Jesus wrote it, and shortly I will discuss the issue o f whether J a m e s is pseudepigraphical, but even those scholars who do not think that J a m e s "the Lord's b r o t h e r " wrote this letter acknowledge that he is the " J a m e s " intended in the salutation and in whose name it was written. 14

15

Who Was James? T h e person named " J a m e s " who was leader o f the church in J e r u s a l e m , Paul knows as "the brother o f the L o r d " (Gal. 1:19 [cf. 1 Cor. 9 : 5 , which mentions "brothers o f the L o r d " as a m o n g the church leaders who are married]). L a t e r Christian writings (e.g., Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2 . 2 3 ) usually refer t o him as "James the J u s t " ('ldKO)(k)(; 6 SIKOCIOC;, lakobos ho dikaios [perhaps better trans­ lated " J a m e s the R i g h t e o u s " ] ) . T h i s J a m e s appears three times in Acts, always in a prominent role. After the death o f J a m e s the brother o f J o h n (recorded in Acts 12:2), and after Peter is miraculously delivered from prison, Peter tells the people to "inform J a m e s and the brothers" o f what has happened (Acts 12:17), which surely indicates this J a m e s is already a prominent leader o f the church. At the apostolic council in Acts 1 5 : 1 2 - 2 1 (probably occurring about 14. It is for this reason that, despite the media frenzy, the ossuary inscribed as that of "James brother of Jesus," even if its inscription be determined to be genuine (as appears increasingly doubtful), is unlikely to be that of the brother of Jesus of Nazareth. But whether or not that ossuary contained the bones of James, it contributes nothing toward our understanding of his letter, and its authenticity will not be evaluated here. 15. This event is neatly datable to 44 because the death of Herod Agrippa I occurred shortly thereafter (Acts 12:23), an event noted also by Josephus {Ant. 19.8.2 §§343-59).

five years later, in 4 9 ) , J a m e s is the spokesman for the Jerusalem eldership, and it is he who sends the letter o f Acts 1 5 : 2 3 - 2 9 . Finally, in Acts 2 1 : 1 8 - 2 0 it is this J a m e s to whom Paul gives his report. H e probably is also included in Acts 1:14 as a m o n g those waiting in J e ­ rusalem for the H o l y Spirit, a m o n g whom are "the mother o f Jesus, and his brothers." T h i s J a m e s is also named by Paul in G a l . 2 : 1 - 1 0 as a leader o f the church in J e r u s a l e m , and in 1 Cor. 15:7 as one o f the notable witnesses to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection. T h e text o f 1 Cor. 1 5 : 5 - 7 is also informative because o f how Paul identifies those to whom Jesus appeared: H e a p p e a r e d t o C e p h a s , then t o the twelve. T h e n he appeared to m o r e t h a n five h u n d r e d b r o t h e r s . . . . T h e n he a p p e a r e d t o J a m e s , then to all the apostles.

T h i s shows t h a t the t e r m " a p o s t l e s " is applied m o r e broadly than just to the Twelve, and presumably it includes the person named " J a m e s " who was not one o f the Twelve, which is unlikely to be anyone other than J a m e s the leader o f the church in Jerusalem. Likewise, Paul in G a l . 1:19 directly refers to this J a m e s as an apostle: " I saw none o f the other apostles except J a m e s the Lord's brother." T h e author o f J u d e also mentions J a m e s by identifying himself simply as the " b r o t h e r o f J a m e s , " which could only be a reference to this J a m e s , the brother o f J e s u s , the leader o f the church at Jerusalem from 4 4 - 6 2 . We also have references to J a m e s from outside Christianity in comments by J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2 0 . 9 . 1 §§197—203), who identifies him as a leader o f the Christian movement and notes his death in 6 2 as one o f the atrocities leading up to the catastrophe o f the J e w i s h war o f 6 6 - 7 0 . S o m e scholars have debated whether this is o n e o f the " C h r i s t i a n i n t e r p o l a t i o n s " added into J o s e p h u s by C h r i s t i a n scribes. However, J o s e p h u s ' s words here speak o f J a m e s and the Christian movement only tangentially; his main focus is the hasty and unjust behavior o f Ananus and his subsequent deposal. If this is a Christian interpolation, it is odd that the only mention o f Jesus identifies him as one w h o is " c a l l e d " the Christ. It is likely that this text serves as evidence that a m o n g non-Christian J e w s o f the mid- to late first century, J a m e s may have been at least as well known as Jesus o f Nazareth. T h e closely similar but not identical a c c o u n t related in Eusebius {Hist. eccl. 2 . 2 3 . 2 1 - 2 4 ) generally con­ firms the historical plausibility o f J o s e p h u s at this point. O n the other hand, the story in Hegesippus's a c c o u n t (which Eusebius recounts a little earlier in Hist. eccl. 2 . 2 3 . 4 - 1 8 ) has a more fanciful character and bears the marks o f forced h a r m o n i z a t i o n . 1 6

17

16. This also fits with the identification of "James . . . and Judas" as two of the brothers of Jesus named in Mark 6:3 ("Jude" and "Judas" are English equivalents of slightly different Greek adaptations of the one Hebrew name "Yehuda," just as both "Simeon" and "Simon" can be used to refer to the apostle Peter, whose Hebrew name was "Shim'on"). 17. Eusebius seems to think that Hegesippus is of the first generation of Christians after the apostles, but internal evidence suggests that Hegesippus was more likely writing in the mid-

The Epistle o f J a m e s receives little mention in extant literature until the late second and early third centuries (see " E x t e r n a l Indications and the C h u r c h ' s Reception" below), by which time we begin to see traces o f its wider circulation. But quite apart from this letter, J a m e s b e c a m e something o f a favorite " h e r o " for a number o f diverse groups, both within and without the pale o f the o r t h o ­ dox church. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2 . 1 . 2 - 5 ) notes that C l e m e n t o f Alexandria spoke o f J a m e s as the " b i s h o p " or overseer o f the Jerusalem church. Further, Clement's Hypotyposeis (books 6 - 7 ) describes J a m e s ' s m a r t y r d o m o f being thrown from a parapet. (Although there are some difficulties in harmonizing this account with that o f J o s e p h u s , both accounts agree on the timing.) Other, later material on J a m e s is m o r e dubious historically. T h e gnostic Gospel o f T h o m a s found in the library at N a g H a m m a d i has J e s u s telling his disciples to "go to J a m e s the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth c a m e into being" (12). M o r e reasonable but still excessive is the report by Hegesip­ pus that J a m e s had knees like a camel from his extended prayers, and reports that J a m e s had access to the sanctuary at the temple, which is extremely un­ likely and probably impossible because J a m e s was not o f a priestly lineage. Hegesippus's a c c o u n t o f J a m e s ' s m a r t y r d o m , recorded by Eusebius (Hist, eccl. 2 . 2 3 . 4 - 1 8 ) , which apparently tries t o h a r m o n i z e the story o f J a m e s ' s death found in Josephus with that found in C l e m e n t o f Alexandria, is equally hagiographic and historically unconvincing. T h e second-century d o c u m e n t known as the Gospel o f the H e b r e w s describes the appearance o f J e s u s t o J a m e s in eucharistic language, clearly borrowing from a selection o f N T texts and referring (like the Gospel o f T h o m a s and Eusebius) to J a m e s as " J a m e s the R i g h t e o u s . " But what can we k n o w o f this J a m e s w h o led the church in J e r u s a l e m , whose name appears at the head o f this letter? W h a t was his relationship to Jesus? Since he was not one o f the Twelve, how did he c o m e to have a posi­ tion o f prominence? As already noted, Paul identifies J a m e s as the " b r o t h e r o f the L o r d " ( G a l . 1:19). T h e most natural way o f understanding this, along with the m e n t i o n of J a m e s as one o f J e s u s ' s brothers in M a r k 6 : 3 , is that after J e s u s was b o r n , J o s e p h and M a r y had o t h e r children. J a m e s therefore would have been the half b r o t h e r o f J e s u s . O n c e the idea o f M a r y ' s perpetual virginity a r o s e , this b e c a m e a problem, and so two o t h e r theories o f J a m e s ' s relationship to Jesus developed. T h e first theory was proposed by E p i p h a n i u s o f S a l a m i s 18

second century. Likewise, the material found in the Pseudo-Clementine letters on the "Ascents of James" has no credible connection to the historical James. See Painter 2001: 3 6 - 4 6 . Eisenman (1997) makes an exhaustive attempt to work out his earlier thesis (Eisenman 1990) that drew a connection between the "James the Righteous" of the Pseudo-Clementine material and the "Teacher of Righteousness" mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The suggestion that James was the central figure of the Qumran community caused a brief sensation in the popular media, but virtually all other scholars have rightly rejected it because it is built on too many speculative leaps and historical improbabilities. See Painter 1999: 2 3 0 - 3 4 , 2 7 7 - 8 8 . 18. See Martin (1988: xliv), who provides a translation of the relevant passage.

( 3 1 5 - 4 0 3 ) , and hence this view is called the " E p i p h a n i a n " view. Epiphanius p r o p o s e d that J a m e s and the o t h e r " b r o t h e r s " were children o f J o s e p h by a previous m a r r i a g e , J o s e p h ' s first wife having died prior to his betrothal t o Mary. T h i s idea is also found in the G o s p e l o f Peter and is supported by Origen (d. 2 5 4 ) . T h e second theory was proposed by J e r o m e ( 3 4 7 ^ 4 2 0 ) , whose L a t i n n a m e is " H i e r o n y m u s , " and so this view is called the " H i e r o n y m i a n " view. J e r o m e p r o p o s e d t h a t there was c o n f u s i o n over the n a m e " J a m e s " because o f the n u m b e r o f people by that n a m e , and also because " M a r y " was such a c o m m o n n a m e . J e r o m e t h o u g h t t h a t the " a p o s t l e " J a m e s t o w h o m Paul referred in G a l . 1:19 was J a m e s the son o f Alphaeus, and that this apostle was the s a m e as the J a m e s son o f M a r y noted in M a r k 15:40, leading to later confusion. O n the o t h e r hand, J e r o m e proposed, J a m e s , the " b r o t h e r o f the L o r d " w h o led the J e r u s a l e m church and wrote the Epistle o f J a m e s , was in fact a cousin o f J e s u s . T o do this, J e r o m e had to claim t h a t the G r e e k w o r d abeXcpoq (adelphos, brother) could mean "cousin." Augustine o f H i p p o ( 3 5 4 - 4 3 0 ) supported this view, and it c a m e to be the d o m i n a n t view up until the R e f o r m a t i o n . R o m a n C a t h o l i c c o m m e n t a t o r s (e.g., H a r t i n 2 0 0 3 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) have continued to support this tradition by argu­ ing that " b r o t h e r " could indicate m e m b e r s o f a b r o a d family network. Cer­ tainly, " b r o t h e r " can be used as a social c o n n e c t o r , as J a m e s frequently does within this letter. Unfortunately for this view, however, all those o c c a s i o n s in G r e e k literature where a cousin, o r s o m e o n e else within a larger family unit, is called a " b r o t h e r " are instances where " b r o t h e r " is being used in a general sense, as when all Israelites are called " b r o t h e r s " or all the men in a military unit are called " b r o t h e r s , " o r fellow believers are called "broth­ ers." A n d in all cases where " b r o t h e r " is used n o t as a social c o n n e c t o r but as a m e a n s o f identifying s o m e o n e (brother o f a n a m e d p e r s o n ) , it always signifies s o m e o n e w h o shares at least o n e parent with the n a m e d person. Since G r e e k has a perfectly g o o d word for " c o u s i n " (&vr^i|no<;, anepsios), and because never is absXcpoq used u n a m b i g u o u s l y to mean " c o u s i n , " J e r o m e ' s view l o o k s a great deal like special pleading. Even in the a n c i e n t church the natural way o f reading the references to J a m e s "the Lord's b r o t h e r " was not unknown. Tertullian, who with his natu­ ral ascetic interests would have no reason t o deny the perpetual virginity o f Mary, nevertheless simply accepts that J a m e s was Jesus's younger half brother (Tertullian, Marc. 4 . 1 9 ; Res. 7; Mon. 8 ) . Likewise, the C h r i s t i a n writer Helvidius (wrote c a . 3 8 0 ) simply proposed t h a t M a r y and J o s e p h had o t h e r children subsequent t o J e s u s ' s b i r t h . And indeed, the reference t o M a r y ' s virginity in M a t t h e w implies that it was n o t perpetual, saying t h a t J o s e p h " k n e w her n o t until she had given birth 19

20

19. Jerome also appears to have depended on other, dubious sources regarding James as the cousin of Jesus, in particular the Gospel of Peter and the even more dubious Protevangelium of James. For more on this, see Mayor 1897: viii-xlvii. 20. N o works of Helvidius have survived. We know of him and his theory only because Jerome specifically opposed it in putting forth his own theory.

21

to a s o n " ( M a t t . 1 : 2 5 ) . We may also n o t e t h a t since pious J e w i s h c o u p l e s regarded it as a r i g h t e o u s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o b e a r a n d raise c h i l d r e n , it is exceedingly likely that J o s e p h and M a r y would have at least tried t o have more children. T h e o c c a s i o n a l a p p e a r a n c e s o f J e s u s ' s siblings in the G o s p e l accounts ( M a r k 3 : 2 0 - 2 1 , 3 0 - 3 5 ; 6 : 1 - 4 ; J o h n 7 : 3 - 5 ) , as well as in Acts ( 1 : 1 4 ) , suggest that they were successful. M a y o r ( 1 8 9 7 : x ) further makes the p o i n t that since T e r t u l l i a n , w h o w r o t e at the end o f the s e c o n d o r b e g i n n i n g o f the third century, seems t o be unaware t h a t he is c o n t r a d i c t i n g any earlier t r a d i t i o n , it is likely t h a t the H i e r o n y m i a n a n d E p i p h a n i a n views a r o s e in r e s p o n s e t o the t h e o l o g i c a l need o f s a f e g u a r d i n g the idea o f M a r y ' s perpetual virginity. 22

If J a m e s was J e s u s ' s half brother, and probably even if he was a son o f Joseph by an earlier marriage, he would have been raised in the same fam­ ily. T h i s close familiarity with Jesus since childhood makes very natural the close resemblances o f the Epistle o f J a m e s and the teaching o f J e s u s in the Synoptic Gospels. But it appears that J a m e s earlier in his life did n o t share so closely his brother's expectation o f the kingdom o f G o d . M a r k 3 : 2 0 - 2 1 and 6 : 1 - 4 seem to indicate at least a hesitancy on the part o f J e s u s ' s earthly family, and J o h n 7:5 plainly says that " n o t even his brothers believed in h i m . " T h i s last text in particular is somewhat unambiguous, since "believing" in the Gospel o f J o h n is something that many people do and yet do not d o . But the consis­ tent picture gleaned from these texts, plus the fact that J a m e s was not with the disciples but rather received a special appearance from Jesus (according to 1 Cor. 15:7), suggests that J a m e s was less than enthusiastic about J e s u s ' s itinerant ministry. 23

But after receiving that resurrection appearance, J a m e s becomes not only active as a believer but also prominent. As already noted, it is he, not, as might have been expected, Peter, who is the de facto leader o f the church whom Paul meets in Acts on three different occasions. And the early church preserved several traces of James's reputation, not just in Acts and the letters o f Paul, but also in the hagiographic materials such as Hegesippus's comments recorded in Eusebius, the Pseudo-Clementine materials (both the Recognitions and the Homilies contain several references to J a m e s ) , the Gospel o f T h o m a s , and Clement o f Alexandria 21. The Greek phrase £0)C, ou (beds hou, until), as in English, does not require an end to the previous condition, but normally it does imply it. 22. See the lengthy discussion in Mayor 1897: viii-xlvii. 23. Painter (2001) in particular argues that James and the rest of Jesus's family were not "unbelievers" or opposed to Jesus's mission before his resurrection. According to Acts, Jesus's family, including James, is a part of the early church, and the appearance to James mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:7 is not said to be a "conversion" experience, any more than the appearance to Peter mentioned two verses previously. However, when Jesus responds to his townspeople's skepticism in Mark 6:4, he observes that a "prophet is not without honor, save in his own country and among his own kin, and in his own house." Coming as it does immediately after the specific mention of his brothers and sisters in 6:3, this statement would seem to be inappropriate, perhaps even odd, if in fact his own kin did honor him.

(in Hypotyposeis,

books 6 - 7 ) ,

2 4

and even in the non-Christian Jewish source

Josephus. N o t all o f these have much historical value, but the variety and the distribution o f the tradition o f J a m e s ' s exemplary piety suggest that he made an impact on many people entirely independently o f the letter under his name.

25

W h e t h e r this J a m e s was the half brother o f Jesus or simply a close relative, virtually all scholars acknowledge that this p r o m i n e n t leader o f the church in Jerusalem is the J a m e s referred to in J a m e s 1:1. But was this letter written by the historical J a m e s so designated?

Four Views of Author and Date T h e r e are four c o m m o n l y espoused views regarding the authorship and dating o f the Epistle o f J a m e s : 1. T h e letter was w r i t t e n by the historical J a m e s p r i o r t o the G a l a t i a n s controversy, and even before the apostolic council in Jerusalem noted in Acts 1 5 , thus probably in the mid- to late 4 0 s . 2. T h e letter was written by J a m e s in response to Paulinism o f some sort, specifically correcting the idea that righteousness can be acquired simply by acknowledging certain theological propositions. 3. T h e letter is pseudonymous, written at the end o f the first century or early in the second century by a proponent o f Jewish (non-Pauline)

Christianity.

4 . M u c h o f the material o f the letter goes back to J a m e s , but has been edited and assembled after his death by someone with Greek literary training.

26

VIEW 1: T H E LETTER WAS WRITTEN BY JAMES BEFORE PAUL'S LETTERS Since the first explicit acknowledgment o f the Epistle o f J a m e s by Origen in the early third century, Christians have held that its a u t h o r is J a m e s , known 24. Also, Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.1.2-5) informs us that Clement of Alexandria referred to James as the "bishop" (STTIOKOTIOC,, episkopos) of Jerusalem. 25. Chilton (2001: 146-47) suggests that James was a Nazirite who saw his brother's move­ ment as oriented toward producing more Nazirites. He supports this by reference to (1) the Amos 9:11-12 prophecy (to which James is said to refer in Acts 15:16-18), a prophecy also quoted in the Damascus Document, where it refers to the restoration of Torah, and (2) the record in Matt. 2:23 of Jesus being called a "Nazarene," which Chilton understands to be a mistaken remem­ brance that Jesus was a "Nazirite." The idea is brilliant, but it involves too many suppositions to be likely and is implicitly contradicted by passages such as Matt. 11:19 // Luke 7:34 (which report that Jesus was being called a "wine-drinker"). Moreover, the one passage where James is most similar to the Synoptic account is James 5:12 (Matt. 5:34), which prohibits the taking of oaths. Since Nazirites became Nazirites by taking an oath, it is difficult to see, if Jesus and James were Nazirites, how they could have prohibited oaths. 26. A fifth view, that James is an adaptation of an earlier, purely Jewish work with 1:1 and 2:1 (the only explicit references to Christ) added later, is proposed by Massebieau (1895) and Spitta (1896: 1-13). Dibelius (1975: 22-23) thoroughly debunks this view by pointing out that certain Christian distinctives permeate the book of James (e.g., the reference to the parousia of the Lord in 5:8, and the invocation in 2:7 of the "name," which can be no other than that of the Christ), and I could find no commentary of recent vintage that supports this view. See also the discussion in "Original Recipients and Occasion" below.

to Paul as "the L o r d ' s brother." T h o u g h after the R e f o r m a t i o n m a n y have assumed that it was w r i t t e n in r e a c t i o n t o Paul, it may in fact have been produced prior to the letters o f Paul and thus prior to the controversy that occasioned the letter to the Galatians. T h i s is the view o f M a y o r (1897: c x x i cliii), Z a h n (1909: 1 . 9 1 - 9 4 ) , and Schlatter (1956: 7 ) , and it has more recently gained renewed support from Adamson ( 1 9 8 9 : 3 - 5 2 , 1 9 5 - 2 2 7 ) , J o h n s o n (1995: 1 1 1 - 2 1 ) , M o o (2000: 2 6 ) , and to s o m e degree B a u c k h a m (1999: 1 2 7 - 3 1 ) and Brosend (2004: 5 - 6 ) . Several indications point to the Epistle o f J a m e s being quite early, despite the paucity o f references t o it in the early church (see " E v i d e n c e : E x t e r n a l Indications and the Church's R e c e p t i o n " below). O n e is the indication that the recipients apparently are meeting in "synagogues" (2:2), and s o m e " r i c h " attendants at these synagogues are the very people w h o are " b l a s p h e m i n g the good name that has been invoked upon you" (2:7). As Dibelius (1975: 2 3 ) points out, the " n a m e " being blasphemed can only be that o f J e s u s or perhaps "Christian." An implication o f this is that the letter envisions a time prior to the "parting o f the ways" when J u d a i s m had expelled Christians from its assemblies. Another indication that the Epistle o f J a m e s may be quite early is that de­ spite the heavy correspondences with the Synoptic tradition, hardly anything in J a m e s except 5:12 has any linguistic similarity to that tradition as we k n o w it from the canonical Gospels. T h e one exception in 5:12 also has an echo in Paul, which suggests that it may have been circulating prior to the Synoptic Gospels (or Q , the hypothetical source for M a t t h e w and L u k e , if it existed). O n e possible explanation for this is that the author o f J a m e s had knowledge of the teaching o f Jesus prior to its "standardization" in the Gospels, indepen­ dently from the (probably Petrine or at least M a r k a n ) preaching tradition that had rendered Jesus's teaching into Greek. If J a m e s were late and harking b a c k to the Synoptic Gospels, one would expect closer verbal correspondences, such as exist between the Synoptics. Further, the primitiveness o f J a m e s ' s theological framework should not be overlooked. E x c e p t for the alleged interaction with Paul or Paulinism in 2 : 1 4 - 2 6 (see excursus 2 , "Faith, W o r k s , and Justification in J a m e s and P a u l " ) , the theology o f J a m e s is to a large extent a recasting o f the "kingdom o f G o d " exhortations o f Jesus into a somewhat Hellenized framework, though retaining its roots in Jewish wisdom and prophetic traditions. T h e significant theological issues that occupied the minds o f Paul, J o h n , the authors o f H e b r e w s and 1 Peter, and other N T writers—for e x a m p l e , the nature o f redemption and the application o f it to J e w s and Gentiles, the significance o f resurrection, the dynamics o f sacraments, and the nature o f the church—are only nascent or are simply absent in J a m e s . Yet as we have seen, J a m e s is tremendously concerned for faith in Christ (see the c o m m e n t a r y on 2 : 1 ) , for eschatological hope ( 5 : 7 - 8 ) , and other c o n c e r n s that are also evident in J e s u s ' s teaching. This is exactly what we would expect o f a very early Christian writing. O n the other hand, Christian writings that are known to be late first or early second

century demonstrate much more development, either in typological theoriz­ ing ( B a r n a b a s , Shepherd o f H e r m a s ) , ecclesiology (Ignatius), philosophical development (Justin), o r sacramental theology (Didache, M e l i t o o f Sardis). M a n y recent interpreters have regarded the material o f J a m e s 2 as directed against a "faith without w o r k s " opinion that is difficult to conceive among Jewish believers prior to Paul. T h i s presupposes that J a m e s is addressed strictly t o J e w i s h believers with solid ethical backgrounds, and that Paul is absolutely unique and c a n n o t have had any precedents. We have no evidence o f any J e w prior to Paul suggesting that a faith devoid o f deeds can justify, but neither does Paul suggest this. I will discuss this issue o f J a m e s ' s relationship to Paul later, but here we note that if J a m e s is reacting to Paul at all, he is reacting to a deviation from Paul that Paul himself would repudiate. In regard to J a m e s ' s addressees, it is not altogether manifest that the audience comprises only Jewish Christians. Indeed, the inclusion o f believing Gentiles was already thematically introduced by J e s u s himself, who c o m m e n d e d the faith o f people such as the centurion ( M a t t . 8:10) and the Syrophoenecian w o m a n ( M a t t . 15:28) and mentioned nothing about circumcision o r b e c o m i n g a Jew. And Peter's experience with Cornelius in Acts 10 occurred prior to Paul's mission. So there very well may have been several believers o f Gentile background already in the church prior to Paul's missiological activities. Yet they, because o f their faith in J e s u s , still could be considered as those who had been accepted by G o d and thus as members o f the "scattered twelve tribes" (see "Original Recipients and O c c a s i o n " below, and the c o m m e n t a r y on 1:1). In fact, therefore, although there are s o m e similarities o f phrasing and use o f O T texts (particularly G e n . 15:6) that may sound as though J a m e s is " r e a c t i n g " to a perversion o f Paul's n o t i o n s o f justification by faith, those similarities may instead be attributed to the fact that both J a m e s and Paul operated in a Hellenistic J e w i s h environment that was experiencing growing pains resulting from an influx o f people from a Gentile background. Paul t o o had problems with G e n t i l e believers who did not always apply their Chris­ tian faith to their ethical behavior (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 6 ) . And Gen. 15:6, which both Paul and J a m e s quote, is o f interest not just in the N T ; Second Temple J e w i s h literature quite often refers to G e n . 15:6 because o f its declaration o f A b r a h a m ' s righteousness, and understands it in relation to the offering o f Isaac (e.g., 1 M a c e . 2 : 5 2 R S V : " W a s not A b r a h a m found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?"). T h i s is not to say that J a m e s would necessarily c o n c u r with 1 M a c c a b e e s , but it does indicate that J e w s were c o n n e c t i n g G e n . 15:6 with G e n . 2 2 prior to Paul. H e n c e , it may be best to read the Epistle o f J a m e s not as a tract reacting to Paul or even as a diatribe against a misunderstanding o f Paul, but as entirely independent o f the controversies addressed by Paul in R o m a n s and Galatians and as dealing with an entirely different kind o f problem than Paul's concern with "works o f the law" (see B a u c k h a m 1 9 9 9 : 1 2 7 - 3 1 ) . If J a m e s is read on its own terms instead o f as a reaction to Paulinism, the Jewish character o f the b o o k (for which, see M a y o r 1897: e x x i v - e x x v ) , its primitive theology and

lack o f developed Christology, its close similarities to the Synoptic tradition (yet without actual q u o t a t i o n s thereof), the reference t o the assembly as a "synagogue," and other data point to a period not just prior to the "parting o f the ways" o f Christianity and J u d a i s m , but even earlier, to a period when the church was still largely J e w i s h , though s o m e Gentiles had believed. T o this can be added that J a m e s seems to k n o w nothing o f the controversy between J e w and Gentile that drove Galatians and R o m a n s , and the "trials" in J a m e s seem to be more o f the general type often endured by the p o o r at the hands of the rich, or by early believers at the hands o f other J e w s , than any official or imperial persecution. Finally, if J a m e s wrote the letter after the apostolic council in J e r u s a l e m in 4 9 , one might have expected the letter to evince s o m e knowledge o f the controversy over the role o f the law in the early church. W h i l e J a m e s consis­ tently speaks positively o f the law, as a law o f freedom, a "royal" law (or bet­ ter, " k i n g d o m " law; see the c o m m e n t a r y on 2 : 8 ) , there is n o indication that anyone thinks o f the law negatively, but only that s o m e professing believers are failing to live in a c c o r d a n c e with it. 27

VIEW 2: THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN BY JAMES AFTER PAUL'S LETTERS Some scholars think that the Epistle o f J a m e s was written by the historical J a m e s , but specifically in reaction to Paul (Hengel 1 9 8 7 : 2 5 3 - 6 7 ) and hence later, or that he was reacting to a misunderstanding o f Paul's theology ( H o r t 1909: x x v ; Tasker 1957: 3 1 - 3 2 ; Chester 1994: 4 8 ) . J a m e s 2, with its explicit denial o f a "justification by faith a l o n e , " suggests that some a m o n g J a m e s ' s audience were propounding such a thing. B u t most scholars find it difficult to imagine such an idea o f a J e w i s h audience prior to Paul. Hengel (1987) is the most vigorous proponent o f the idea that J a m e s is directly challenging Paul's notions, arguing that it c o m e s from the historical J a m e s , and that not just J a m e s 2 , but indeed the whole o f the letter, is in s o m e sense a challenge to what J a m e s sees as a dangerous n o t i o n . T h e primitive and typically J e w i s h c h a r a c t e r o f the theology is rooted in J e s u s ' s teaching o f the fatherhood o f G o d and imminent eschatological e x p e c t a t i o n . Hengel thus dates the letter to the very early 6 0 s . O t h e r scholars, such as T a s k e r (1957: 28—32), also see J a m e s as written by the historical J a m e s in reaction to Paulinism—not to Paul directly, but to a misappropriation o f Paul's teaching on justification. T h i s requires a date prior to the death o f J a m e s in 6 2 , but after G a l a t i a n s and possibly R o m a n s had started circulating (i.e., the late 5 0 s ) and h a d h a d t i m e e n o u g h t o be misunderstood. A l t h o u g h this may appear t o c o m p r e s s the c h r o n o l o g y t o an undue degree, we should note that Paul himself finds it necessary to deal 27. Mayor (1897: xci-xciv) proposes that it is Paul who is reacting to James rather than the other way around. Zahn (1909:1.126-28) also holds this view. However, the discovery of 4 Q M M T among the Dead Sea Scrolls has demonstrated that discussion of the relationship between faith, "works of the law," and righteousness or justification was in the air in Judaism generally, and it is unnecessary to suppose any direct dependency between James and Paul.

with a similar perversion o f his teaching already in R o m a n s itself (3:8). If Paul's antithesis o f faith and works had already been misunderstood by the time R o m a n s was written (probably c a . 5 5 or 5 6 ) , then certainly J a m e s could have encountered i t . 28

VIEW 3 : THE LETTER IS PSEUDONYMOUS Several scholars (e.g., Dibelius 1975: 1 7 - 2 1 ; Kummel 1975: 4 1 3 ; Popkes 2 0 0 1 : 69) think that the letter was written in the n a m e o f J a m e s o f Jerusalem by a later Christian, probably in the late first century or beginning o f the second century. In addition to d o u b t s expressed in the ancient church (e.g., Eusebius [Hist, eccl. 3 . 2 5 . 3 ] mentions that it is a "disputed" b o o k ) , in the pre-Reformation period Erasmus expressed doubts about whether the Epistle o f J a m e s could be attributed to the J e w i s h bishop o f J e r u s a l e m . Although Luther expressed his low opinion o f the value o f J a m e s in his introduction to his translation o f the Bible, he did n o t couch it in terms o f a challenge to its authorship, but simply criticized its content. But later scholars, particularly o f Lutheran tradi­ tion, have developed arguments against its authenticity. T h e y find it difficult to conceive o f anyone advocating "faith without w o r k s " prior to Paul, and such an idea is considered especially unlikely a m o n g any Jewish audience even after Paul. H e n c e , the letter o f J a m e s is placed much later, at the end o f the first century or even into the second century, and is written not to J e w s at all, but to the Gentile church at a time when in its own conception it has b e c o m e the replacement for Israel, and when Paul is being understood in antinomian ways. T h i s would mean, o f course, that the letter o f J a m e s is pseudonymous. Several arguments are used to support this view. (1) T h e r e has to have been time for Paul's theology to have been disseminated so as to generate a reaction from the author. Since J a m e s died in 6 2 , according to J o s e p h u s , there is insuf­ ficient time prior to the death o f J a m e s for a misconstrued Pauline theology t o have developed and b e c o m e a problem in the church. Further, the idea that faith and obedience were separable is unlikely to have taken root while Chris­ tianity was still predominantly J e w i s h ; it reflects a time when the church had lost its J e w i s h m o o r i n g , and the law o f G o d is c o m i n g into question (as with second-century G n o s t i c i s m ) . (2) T h e Epistle o f J a m e s is not included in the M u r a t o r i a n Fragment, n o r is it acknowledged o r cited by n a m e until Origen (third c e n t u r y ) . Although several sources speak o f the person o f J a m e s , no church father prior to Origen refers to this letter as being by him, nor does anyone explicitly indicate any knowledge o f the existence o f this letter. (3) T h e similarities with 1 C l e m e n t and Shepherd o f H e r m a s , which sometimes have been put forward as evidence that C l e m e n t and H e r m a s knew the Epistle o f 28. An additional factor possibly indicating some relationship between James and the let­ ters of Paul is the vocative " O man" in James 2:20 as an address to a perceived opponent, a phrase that elsewhere appears only in Rom. 2:1-3 (2x); 9:20; 1 Tim. 6:11. The problem here, of course, is that Paul's material in these passages is not what appears to be in contrast with James 2—quite the contrary.

J a m e s , simply indicate that C l e m e n t , the author o f Shepherd o f H e r m a s , and the author o f J a m e s operated around the same time and had similar c o n c e r n s , or even that it is the a u t h o r o f J a m e s w h o is influenced by 1 C l e m e n t and Shepherd o f H e r m a s rather than the other way around. (4) T h e Hellenistic imagery (such as references to controlling horses with bits, and ships with rudders) and the accomplished literary Greek style o f J a m e s are unlikely to be the product o f a Galilean J e w i s h p e a s a n t . T h e reference in 5:7 to "early and late (rains)" (Tipoiuoc, KOU 6t|uuo(;, protmos kai opsimos) is a problem for this view; however, it is seen not necessarily as evidence o f direct knowledge o f the phenomenon, but possibly as c o m i n g from the use o f the phrase in the Greek O T as an expression o f eschatological expectation (especially J o e l 2 : 2 3 ; Z e c h . 1 0 : 1 ) . T h e apparent " J e w i s h n e s s " o f the letter is not because the a u t h o r is Jewish; rather, it reflects that he is writing at a time when the Greek O T and the Jewish wisdom tradition have b e c o m e familiar to Gentile Christianity. 29

30

VIEW 4: THE LETTER COMPRISES MATERIAL ORIGINALLY FROM JAMES BUT REWORKED BY A LATER EDITOR Concerned by the difficulties in assigning J a m e s to a pseudonymous Chris­ tian writer in the second century, but also giving weight to the unlikelihood of J a m e s being able to write such literary G r e e k , and accepting the c o m m o n view that the letter o f J a m e s is reacting to some kind o f misuse o f the Pauline tradition, several scholars (e.g., Kittel 1942: 7 9 ; K n o x 1 9 4 5 ; M u s s n e r 1 9 7 5 : 8; Davids 1982: 2 2 ; M a r t i n 1 9 8 8 : l x x , lxxvii; Niebuhr 1 9 9 8 : 4 3 1 ; Byrskog 2 0 0 0 : 170; Hartin 2 0 0 3 : 2 5 , 2 7 ) advocate a two-stage view o f authorship. O n this view, the historical J a m e s o f Jerusalem is the originator o f most or all o f the content o f the letter, but its assembly and literary G r e e k polishing are the work o f a later redactor. 31

T h e primary reason for this view is to hold together the clear Jewishness and primitiveness o f the material with the fact that it appears to respond to a perversion o f Paul's theology that must have taken time to develop. A second­ ary reason is the matter o f Greek style noted by Dibelius, Popkes, and others. T h e s e , it is argued, make it unlikely that the letter's final form is the product 29. Many scholars (e.g., Kummel 1975: 406; Ropes 1916: 50; Dibelius 1975: 17) regard the excellent Hellenistic Greek of James as decisive proof that James of Jerusalem could not have written it. 30. Curiously, however, James's omission in 5:7 of the word "rain" led to confusion among later interpreters. Scribes who were unfamiliar with Palestinian climate (e.g., the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus) sometimes supplied the word "fruit," suggesting that early Christians did not immediately recognize the O T references. Ropes (1916: 296) acknowledges that it is "unlikely" to be "a purely literary allusion . . . made without any personal knowledge of these rains." 31. Something akin to this view may be as early as Jerome (Vir. ill. 2; see Martin 1988: lxxii), though Jerome is not entirely clear at this point. In the modern period, Harnack (1897: 1.485-91) proposed a two-stage authorship of James whereby some original early first-century source material (some of which perhaps even goes back orally to James of Jerusalem) was gathered and edited in the second century. Harnack saw this as the solution to the tension between an apparent lack of coherence of the whole alongside an inner unity of character and thematic interests.

o f a Galilean J e w i s h peasant, whereas if a later redactor was using J a c o b e a n ( J a m e s ' s ) m a t e r i a l , that could explain how the letter could be both Jewish and G r e e k , b o t h Semitically influenced and literarily polished. T h i s view o f the origin o f J a m e s may also give e x p l a n a t i o n for the occasionally baffling arrangement o f the letter. Although s o m e segments o f J a m e s , most notably 2 : 1 - 2 6 ; 3 : 1 - 1 8 ; 4 : 1 3 - 5 : 6 , seem to be rhetorically coherent, the structure o f J a m e s 1 and the interconnectedness o f all the parts o f J a m e s are difficult to see clearly. I f in fact the arrangement o f the various parts was the result not o f a single writing effort but o f a later editing (and possibly translating) by a redactor who wished simply to assemble and disseminate the J a c o b e a n tradi­ tion, then the apparent disorganization is simply a real disorganization, and it is unnecessary for us t o assemble some unity o f the whole. Davids (2001: 6 6 - 6 7 ) , for e x a m p l e , says that "the work is an edited collection o f sayings and sermons attributed to J a m e s (and his brother Jesus) and . . . that process gives it a certain unevenness." It may be worth noting, however, that Davids goes on to acknowledge that "even then the work is not without its logic," as he demonstrated in his 1 9 8 2 c o m m e n t a r y (see "Structure" below). In order to resolve the question o f authorship, we should e x a m i n e both the history o f the reception o f this letter and the characteristics o f the letter itself within the environs o f the early church to see where the letter best fits.

Evidence EXTERNAL INDICATIONS AND THE CHURCH'S RECEPTION T h e Epistle o f J a m e s is not mentioned in the M u r a t o r i a n Fragment (the origi­ nal o f which usually is dated c a . 1 8 0 ) , n o r is it found in the early Syriac canon (Souter 1 9 1 3 : 2 2 5 - 2 6 ) , though it was included in the Peshitta (the "official" Syriac translation dating from the fifth century). T h e earliest explicit indications o f the existence o f this letter occur in Origen (early third century [see near the end o f this section]). T h e earliest extant manu­ scripts o f J a m e s (^3 and ^3 ) are usually dated mid- to late third century. 20

23

32

T h e r e are, however, several indications that the content o f the letter was in circulation. T h e earliest implicit evidence o f a knowledge o f the Epistle o f J a m e s is in C l e m e n t o f R o m e ' s Epistle t o the C o r i n t h i a n s (also known as 1 C l e m e n t ) . C l e m e n t , writing at the very end o f the first century or the beginning o f the second century, does not specifically refer to J a m e s , but a 33

34

100

32. The recently published fragment known as ^ 3 (P.Oxy. 4449) is datable to late third or early fourth century (J. K. Elliott 1999). 33. Interestingly, Dibelius (1975: 33) regards the Epistle of Jude as the earliest implicit evi­ dence. Since Dibelius regards Jude as also pseudonymous, he thinks it unlikely that the author of Jude would have chosen such a pseudonym ("Jude, brother of James") unless there was already known to be a letter under the name of James. 34. Like James, 1 Clement provides few clues for its date, but the letter is known fairly early on in the second century. Recently, Jefford (2006: 18-19) dates 1 Clement to the 60s based on its references to the temple that suggest it still stands. If his dating is correct, it either supports the very early (pre-Pauline) dating of James or else points to James being influenced by 1 Clement.

number o f phrases in 1 C l e m e n t are so similar t o the Epistle o f J a m e s that if Clement is not quoting or influenced by J a m e s , then the author o f J a m e s and Clement must have had some c o m m o n influence. M a y o r (1897: lii-liii) lays out the similarities, noting especially 1 C l e m . 5; 2 1 ; 2 3 ; 3 0 ; 3 5 ; 3 8 ; 4 6 as having remarkable parallels (see also H a g n e r 1 9 7 3 : 2 4 8 - 5 6 ) . T h r e e striking examples will suffice here: First Clement 23.3 refers to the wretchedness o f the "double-minded" (5uJ;uXOi, dipsychoi) and the "doubting," which stands in contrast with G o d ' s approval o f "singleness o f m i n d " in 2 3 . 1 (cf. J a m e s 1 : 5 - 8 ) . First Clement 3 0 . 2 quotes Prov. 3 : 3 4 in the form found in J a m e s 4 : 6 (which differs from the L X X ) . Admittedly, this form is found also in 1 Pet. 5 : 5 , but the connection to J a m e s becomes clearer when Clement immediately goes on to speak o f "being justified by works and not by words." First Clement 38.2 adjures the readers, " L e t the wise man show his wisdom not in words but in good deeds" (cf. J a m e s 3 : 1 3 ) . Even more striking than 1 C l e m e n t ' s parallels with J a m e s are those found in Shepherd o f H e r m a s , written in the late first century or the early second century. Like 1 C l e m e n t , Shepherd o f H e r m a s uses J a m e s ' s unique word 5u|;uxo(;/5u|Jirxia several times, in all three o f its sections (Visions, Mandates, Similitudes). But there are even more striking parallels, particularly in the Mandates. S o m e o f the more noteworthy similarities are the following: 35

36

Shepherd of Hermas

James

Herm. Mand. 3.1: "the spirit that God has caused 4:5: "the Spirit that he caused to dwell in to dwell in this flesh" (cf. Herm. Simil. 5.6.5). us." 4:11: "Do not slander one another, broth­ Herm. Mand. 2.2-3: "Do not slander any­ one. . . . Slander is an evil thing; it is an unstable ers." demon [aKardcTaTOV Saiuoviov, akatastaton 3:8: "The tongue . . . is an unstable, evil daimonion]." thing." Herm. Mand. 5.2.3: "Now this patience dwells with those who have complete faith."

1:4: "Let that endurance finish its work, so that you will be complete."

Herm. Mand. 5.2.4: "Anger is first of all fool­ ish, and also fickle and senseless. Then, from senselessness comes bitterness, from bitterness wrath, and from wrath anger, and from anger spite. Then spite, consisting of such evil things, becomes great and incurable sin."

3:17 is structured similarly: "The wisdom from above is, first of all, pure, then peace­ able, considerate, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, constant, sincere" (cf. 1:14-15).

35. Shepherd of Hermas certainly was written well before 175, since Irenaeus, writing about that time, refers to it, as does the Muratorian Fragment. If we allow time for Shepherd of Her­ mas to have circulated, that pushes its date to no later than the first half of the second century, possibly earlier. 36. The word Styuxoc, is found only in James in the N T and indeed is unattested elsewhere until 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas. Seitz (1944) rejects this as evidence of Hermas's de­ pendence on James, but as noted here, the connections between James and Hermas are much more than just this term.

Shepherd OF Hermas

James

Herm. Mand. 8.2: " I f you hold back from doing 4:17: "For the one who knows a good good, you do a great sin." thing to do and does not do it, there is sin." Herm. Mand. 8.10: "Then, hear the things that follow [from faith, love, truth, etc.]: to serve widows, orphans, and to visit those in need" (similarly, Herm. Sim. 1.8 instructs people of means to "visit widows and orphans").

1:27: "Religion that is pure . . . is this: to look after [visit] orphans and widows in their tribulation."

Herm. Mand. 9.1-6: "Take out from yourself double-mindedness [5upuxfa> dipsycbia] and make your requests from God without any double-mindedness [urjSev oAcoc, 5ii|;uxnor)<;, meden holds dipsycheses]. . . . For God is not as men. . . . You therefore must purify your heart from all the vain things of this world. . . . If you are doubtful in your heart, you will certainly receive none of your requests, for those who are doubtful toward God are double-minded [5upux > dipsychoi], and they never get any of their requests. But the perfect in faith make all their requests trusting in the Lord, and they receive them."

1:6-8: "Let him ask in faith, not doubting in any way, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is blown and tossed about. Let not such a person think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded [5u|;uxo<;, dipsychos] man, unstable in all his paths" (cf. 1:13; 4:8).

Herm. Mand. 9.11: "Faith is from above [AVO)9sv, andthen], from the Lord, and has great power."

5:16: "The prayer of a righteous person is very powerful and effective."

Herm. Mand. 11.8: "The one who has the divine spirit from above [ A V A ) 0 £ V , andthen] is meek and quiet and humble and abstains from all evil and vain desires of this world."

3:17: "The wisdom from above [ctvcoGev, andthen] is . . . pure, then peaceable, considerate, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, constant, sincere."

Herm. Mand. 12.5.2: " I f therefore you resist him [the devil], he will, being conquered, flee from you."

4:7: "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

Herm. Mand. 12.6.3: "Fear the one who is able to save and destroy all things."

4:12: "There is ONE lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy."

0l

Herm. Sim. 2.5: "The rich man has much wealth 2:5: "Has not God chosen the poor in but is poor in the things of the Lord. . . . The worldly things to be rich in faith?" (cf. poor man is rich in intercession and confession, 1:10-12; 5:16b). and his intercession has great power." Herm. Sim. 8.6.4: "who have blasphemed the 2:7: "ARE they NOT the ones who blaspheme Lord in their sins, and have, moreover, been THE good name THAT HAS been invoked upon ashamed of the name of the Lord by which they YOU [TO K(XA6V O V O U A TO £ T U K A R | 0 £ V £(p' were called [TO O V O U A TOU K U P I O U TO £7iiKAr|6ev UJACXC;, to kalon onoma to epiklethen eph' en AUTOUC,, to onoma tou kyriou to epiklethen hymas]." ep' autous]."

Although o c c a s i o n a l resemblances might be expected, and some similari­ ties might be due to a c o m m o n J e w i s h w i s d o m t r a d i t i o n , it is difficult to 37

37. For example, the advice "Resist the devil and he will flee from you" in Herm. 12.5.2 and James 4:7 has close parallels in T. Iss. 7.7; T. Dan 5.1; T. Naph. 8.4.

Mand.

attribute all these to h a p p e n s t a n c e ,

38

and it seems hard to deny that H e r m a s

must have had s o m e knowledge o f the material o f J a m e s . T h i s knowledge could have been o f the material in a form not yet collected into the Epistle o f J a m e s as we know it, which would allow for the two-stage view, but it makes the late-date pseudonymous view quite unlikely. O t h e r similarities to J a m e s are found in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, Didache, Epistle o f B a r n a b a s , and the second-century apologists J u s t i n , Irenaeus, and Clement o f Alexandria, but most o f these can be attributed to the c o m m o n Christian milieu rather than to any direct influence from J a m e s (see J o h n s o n 1995: 6 6 - 6 8 ) . Indeed, even the similarities to 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas sometimes have been understood in terms o f a c o m m o n influence,

39

though if one does not reject out o f hand the possibility that J a m e s might be early, it is easier to assume that J a m e s influenced H e r m a s and C l e m e n t than to suppose without further evidence s o m e c o m m o n s o u r c e .

40

T h e earliest undeniable reference to J a m e s occurs in Pseudo-Clement, Virg. 1.11.4: " N o r did they heed what the scripture says: Let not many a m o n g you be teachers, brethren, n o r let all be prophets. H e who does not transgress in his speech is a perfect m a n , able to t a m e and to subjugate his whole body." M o s t o f this is an almost e x a c t q u o t a t i o n o f J a m e s 3 : 1 - 2 and is identified as "Scripture." Although no indication o f the a u t h o r is given, it is clear evidence that J a m e s not only was known (Ropes 1 9 1 6 : 5 1 - 5 2 ) but also was regarded as canonical in the early third century.

41

As the Pseudo-Clementine literature

also contains several (rather hagiographic) references to J a m e s , the a u t h o r of De virginitate

certainly would have esteemed as c a n o n i c a l a letter that he

thought had been written by J a m e s . 38. Mayor (1897: lviii-lxii) adduces these and several other parallels in detail. Although Ropes (1916: 248) is cognizant of the parallels, he is still able to claim that "there is no evidence of literary dependence," presumably because in no case is there exact verbal correspondence. Similarly, Dibelius (1975: 31), even though he acknowledges that Herm. Mand. 9.1-6 is "the best interpretation of James 1:5-8 imaginable," rejects Hermas's dependence on or knowledge of James. One suspects that this is an application of the dictum " I f the data do not fit the theory, they must be disposed of." 39. Seitz (1944: 131-40) proposes a now lost apocryphal work as a background for both James and Shepherd of Hermas. 40. Young (1948) suggests that it was James that used Shepherd of Hermas rather than the other way around. This is unlikely, however. Shepherd of Hermas has echoes of the Gospels, Paul's letters, and Revelation, as well as James. No one suggests that Hermas is a source for those N T books. Further, as Dibelius (1975: 235) points out, where James warns against certain potential developments, Hermas seems to know of real and specific problems (e.g., Herm. Vis. 2.3.1; Herm. Mand. 3.3; Herm. Sim. 6.3.5, all of which envision Christians enmeshed in shady dealings, untruthfulness, and scheming). Shepherd of Hermas represents a later, more developed social situation than that of James. 41. For the dating of De virginitate, see ABD 1:1060-61. Westcott (1881: 186-87) dates it into the late second century, which would put recognition of James even earlier, but a citation within the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions is datable to 220 at the earliest, which means that unless the citation was added later (which is quite unlikely), the original work cannot have been written prior to mid-third century (Schneemelcher 1992: 493).

T h e earliest extant witness to both cite the letter and identify J a m e s as its author is Origen (d. 2 5 4 ) , who refers to J a m e s some thirty-six times (Johnson 1995: 1 3 0 ) . W h e n referring to J a m e s 4:7 in his Horn. Exod. 3 . 3 , Origen at­ tributes the letter to " J a m e s the apostle." W h e n referring to J a m e s 4:4 in his Comm. Rom. 4 . 8 , he refers to it as written by J a m e s "the brother o f the L o r d " (see also Origen, Comm. Rom. 4 . 1 ; Horn. Lev. 2 . 4 ; Horn. josh. 7 . 1 ) . T h e evidence from Eusebius (writing c a . 324) is somewhat problematic. Al­ though he accepts the letter as genuine (Hist. eccl. 2.23; 3.25), he acknowledges that it is one o f the disputed b o o k s ("antilegomena") and that some regard it as spurious (Hist. eccl. 3 . 2 5 . 3 ) . It appears, though, that some o f the doubt about the provenance o f J a m e s and the identity o f its author is a by-product o f the difficulty generated by the suggestion that Jesus had a brother. As noted above, J e r o m e (Vir. ill. 2 ) , for example, had to hypothesize a complicated and unlikely explanation for " J a m e s the Lord's brother" in order to protect the n o t i o n o f M a r y ' s perpetual virginity (see T a s k e r 1 9 5 7 : 1 9 ) . T h e letter may have had slow acceptance also because it contributed little to the christological controversies (although J a m e s 1:17 sometimes was seen in connection with J o h n 3 as evidence for Christ's deity [e.g., Cyril o f Alexandria, Adv. Nest. 5.4]). Further, the fact that J a m e s o f Jerusalem was being claimed as a source for the "secret teaching" traditions in the Gospel o f T h o m a s and the Apocryphon o f J a m e s (both found at N a g H a m m a d i ) , along with J a m e s ' s lack o f stature c o m p a r e d with Paul or one o f the Twelve, may have contributed to the early church's hesitancy regarding J a m e s ' s letter. However, the letter's cache o f practical wisdom continued to influence other Christian writers from time to time, and it was almost universally accepted as authentic in the Eastern churches by mid-fourth century, as is evident from its inclusion in the Catechism o f Cyril o f Jerusalem (348) and Athanasius's wellknown Easter Letter (367 [Ep. fest. 3 9 ] ) . Likewise in the West, both J e r o m e (Epist. 53.8) and Augustine (Doctr. chr. 2.2) accepted it without question, and the b o o k was included in the canon agreed on at the third Council o f Carthage in 3 9 7 (Westcott 1 8 8 1 : 4 4 0 ) . With rare e x c e p t i o n s , the Epistle o f J a m e s was no longer disputed until the Reformation p e r i o d . 42

43

44

INTERNAL EVIDENCE: PALESTINIAN INDICATIONS T h e r e are several indications within the Epistle o f J a m e s o f its author's Pal­ estinian Jewish origin: 42. Hort (1909: xxvii) thinks that Origen's predecessor Clement of Alexandria also knew of the Epistle of James. Although Clement does not specifically cite James, in Strom. 5.1 he describes a faith that is not vain and alone (rf|V nioziv TOIVUV OUK dpynv KOCI uovnv), a possible echo of James 2:20. But if Clement was alluding to James, he used the phrase quite differently, since what makes a faith not vain and alone for Clement is not deeds (as in James), but "inves­ tigation" of the "deeper things" of Christianity, something quite foreign to James. 43. According to Westcott ( 1 8 8 1 : 4 4 2 ^ 3 ) , Leontius says that Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 429) rejected it. 44. For more on James's use in the early and medieval church, see Johnson 1995: 130-40.

1. T h e reference to the "early and late rains" in J a m e s 5:7 is t o a peculiarly Palestinian phenomenon. T h i s may be an allusion to Joel 2 rather than an appeal to something in the hearers' experience, though even Ropes (1916: 2 9 6 ) , who does not think that J a m e s wrote the letter, acknowledges that the author seems to think o f it as natural, which hints at a Palestinian author who knew the p h e n o m e n o n from personal experience. Further, J a m e s in fact omits the word "rain" in 5:7, which has led to some manu­ scripts (e.g., C o d e x Sinaiticus) supplying the word Kapnoc, {karpos, fruit, harvest), precisely because o f unfamiliarity with the p h e n o m e n o n . 2. T h e reference to the sirocco (scorching east wind) in 1:11 also suggests direct experience o f Palestinian climate. 3. A reference to the chaotic character o f the sea in 1:6 reflects J e w i s h aver­ sion to the sea. 4. T h e sweet and bitter springs o f 3:11 are an interesting feature o f Palestin­ ian geography, especially in the Rift Valley. 5. Although olives, grapes, and figs are c o m m o n enough throughout the Mediterranean, they are a prominent feature in Palestine horticulture. 6. T h e reference to "day laborers" in 5:4 suggests an agrarian social envi­ ronment like that in Palestine (although, o f course, other places in the Mediterranean world were similar). 7. T h e reference in 3:6 to the tongue set afire by "gehenna," without further explanation, either requires a date after the Gospel tradition had circu­ lated enough that Christians would be familiar with the term or c o m e s from the author's Palestinian J e w i s h parlance. T h e word does not o c c u r in the L X X , J o s e p h u s , or Philo. O n e can also note similarities (as well as some differences) to the material attributed to J a m e s in Acts 1 5 . Admittedly, the historical value o f Acts has often been questioned, and Haenchen (1971: 5 9 0 ) , for example, has little doubt that the speeches o f Acts, including that o f J a m e s , are simply the invention o f the author o f A c t s , who is writing long after the alleged events. But H e m e r (1990) and Ludemann (1989) have ably demonstrated the historical character of Acts (see also Barrett 1 9 9 9 ) . T h e markedly J e w i s h flavor o f J a m e s ' s letter recorded there in particular, and the absence o f any hint o f the destruction o f Jerusalem, far from giving the letter o f Acts 15 a veneer o f L u k a n invention, 45

45. Haenchen is, like many others, following the path laid down by Dibelius in several works, one as early as 1926, where Dibelius claims, "These speeches, without doubt, are as they stand inventions of the author. For they are too short to have been actually given in this form; they are too similar to one another to have come from different persons; and in their content they occasionally reproduce a later standpoint (e.g., what Peter and James say about the Law in chap, xv)" (Dibelius 1936: xv; the German work was originally published in 1926). For a thorough reexamination of the whole subject of the historical roots of the speeches in Acts, and the way in which Dibelius and other scholars have tended to treat them, see Bruce 1974: 5 3 - 6 8 . See also Gempf (1993), whose analysis of ancient historical recording of speeches demonstrates decisively that although recorded speeches were not intended as transcriptions, they were conceived to be faithful representations of historical events.

46

give it a certain aura o f authenticity. In any case, both the actions o f J a m e s recorded in Acts and the speech and letter recorded in Acts 15 c o m p o r t well with what we have in the letter before us. M a y o r (1897: iv) notes several simi­ larities o f vocabulary that are u n c o m m o n elsewhere in the N T and especially the following rather unusual phrasing features: 1. T h e use o f yjxipzxv {chairein, greeting) in the salutation in both letters (Acts 15:23; J a m e s 1:1). T h i s is a standard greeting in Hellenistic letters, but it is rare in the N T . In fact, the only other use o f x^ipeiv as a letter greeting in the N T is the letter o f Claudius Lysias to Felix recorded in Acts 2 3 : 2 6 . 2. T h e reference to the n a m e being called "upon" the people (Acts 15:17; J a m e s 2 : 7 ) , using the passive o f eTUKOcAea) {epikaled, call) with the preposi­ tion £711 + accusative, to mean " G o d ' s name invoked upon people," that is, for those people to be designated as belonging to G o d . T h i s is not typical idiomatic G r e e k , and it is found only in these two places in the N T It is, however, an idiom found in the L X X (e.g., Bar. 2 : 1 5 ) . 3. T h e imperative <XKOUG(XT£ (akousate, listen) with the vocative aSeAcpoi [uou] (adelphoi [mou], [my] brothers; cf. Acts 15:13; J a m e s 2 : 5 ) . How­ ever, a similar address is used in speeches by Stephen (Acts 7:2) and Paul (Acts 2 2 : 1 ) , suggesting that it may be a standard Jewish speech opening (cf. 1 C h r o n . 2 8 : 2 ; J d t . 14:1). In addition to the linguistic similarities, the character o f J a m e s in both Acts and the Epistle o f J a m e s is that o f a mediator, one who is seeking to bring reconciliation and avoid strife. Finally, Paul notes that J a m e s in Jerusalem, along with C e p h a s (Peter) and J o h n , did place one obligation on Paul, "to remember the p o o r " (Gal. 2:9—10), exactly as one might expect from the writer o f the letter o f J a m e s (see J a m e s 1 : 9 - 1 0 , 2 7 ; 2 : 1 - 7 , 1 5 - 1 6 ; 5 : 1 - 6 ) . T h e r e is one apparent difference, however: J a m e s ' s letter in Acts 15, as well as his recorded speech, express c o n c e r n for what appear to be cultic issues— "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:29)—whereas the Epistle o f J a m e s has no c o n c e r n whatsoever for these matters. But what is J a m e s ' s actual c o n c e r n in Acts 15:29? T h e first (idolatry) and the last (sexual immorality) might be understood as moral c o n c e r n s that Gentiles perhaps do n o t realize are i m p o r t a n t , but abstention from eating blood and things strangled appears to be a c o n c e r n with J e w i s h food laws, matters that Jesus implicitly declared o b s o l e t e ( a c c o r d i n g t o M a r k 7 : 1 9 ) and that the vision 46. Indeed, the rationale for supposing that the speeches in Acts are inauthentic seems largely to be based on the dubious notion that Acts is an attempt to obscure the deep divide between Gentile (Pauline) and Jewish (Petrine) Christianity, a divide postulated on the basis of the clash reported in Gal. 2. But it has often been demonstrated that Gal. 2 supposes Peter's acknowledgment of his error and gives no indication whatever of an ongoing rift. See Bockmuehl 2006: 121-36. On the character and historical nature of James's speech in particular, see Bauckham 1996.

o f Peter in A c t s 1 0 , as well as the e x p l i c i t t e a c h i n g o f Paul, i n d i c a t e s are superseded. O n e c o m m o n l y held answer is that J a m e s was restating the N o a h i c pro­ hibition o f Gen. 9:4, which would apply to all N o a h ' s descendants (i.e., all humankind). Although G e n . 9 says nothing about things strangled, the pur­ pose o f killing food by strangulation was specifically to retain the blood, so presumably that prohibition could be a simple extension o f the prohibition against eating blood. T h e prohibition against blood is further reiterated in Lev. 17:10, where the alien in Israel is included: " I f any one o f the house o f Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any b l o o d , I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from a m o n g his people." Another view is that J a m e s was supporting a practical, perhaps temporary, compromise to facilitate fellowship between Gentile and J e w i s h Christians. Especially given the severity o f the prohibition in Lev. 1 7 : 1 0 , it would have been difficult for a J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n t o eat with a G e n t i l e w h o was eating blood. T h u s , the Acts letter was a mandate o f concession rather than moral principle, and J a m e s ' s entire admonition would serve more or less the same way Paul advised in 1 Cor. 8. T h e best way o f a p p r o a c h i n g the p r o b l e m , however, p r o b a b l y is a l o n g lines proposed by Witherington (1998: 5 3 9 - 4 4 ) , w h o observes that all four o f J a m e s ' s c o n c e r n s , not just the middle two, have t o do with p a g a n wor­ ship: eating sacrificed food, eating b l o o d , eating strangled a n i m a l s (so as to retain the b l o o d ) , and cultic sex. All four o f these matters were means o f cultic identification with pagan deities, symbols o f absorbing the power and life o f a god. Since such activities were a c o m m o n p a r t o f Gentile social life, recent converts from pagan backgrounds might not immediately have grasped that their new allegiance to the true G o d implied total a b a n d o n m e n t o f such public cultic activities. It certainly appears that the converts in C o r i n t h had difficulties o f this sort, given Paul's concern in 1 Corinthians with both cultic fornication and cultic meals. Even Paul recognizes that if s o m e o n e declares to the believer that a food has been offered to an idol, one should not eat it, not because eating is anything in itself, but because o f the religious c o n n o t a t i o n s o f eating under those circumstances. It is still true, o f course, that the Epistle o f J a m e s makes no mention o f that, but no author can mention everything in every letter, and there is n o incompatibility between J a m e s ' s letter in Acts 15 and the Epistle o f J a m e s .

Language Issues As we have already observed, J a m e s appears to be stylistically sophisticated. T h e letter displays a large vocabulary as well as a fund o f illustrations and rhetorical polish that are somewhat surprising if a Palestinian J e w i s h peasant is the author. M a y o r (1897: xlii) recognizes that Galilean Palestine was Hellenistic, and its residents would have known the lingua franca. S o m e towns within Galilee

(e.g., Sepphoris, less than five miles from Jesus's hometown, Nazareth) were so dominantly Gentile that it is difficult to suppose anything being spoken there other than Greek. It is likely that tradesmen would have had some familiarity with the c o m m o n language. T h e most thorough study o f the use o f Greek in northern Palestine is by Sevenster ( 1 9 6 8 ) , who specifically examines the case o f the Epistle o f J a m e s (1968: 3 - 2 1 ) and concludes that the bilingual character o f northern Palestine, and the fact that several cities in Galilee were almost entirely Greek-speaking, make it likely that J a m e s and the other disciples were fluent in Greek and pos­ sibly even capable o f a degree o f literary facility. Further, Greek was known and used beyond northern Palestine. T h e discov­ ery o f the Greek M i n o r Prophets scroll fragments in a cave near Nahal Hever (Wadi H e b r o n ) gives indication that biblical texts in Greek were circulating in southern Palestine, another indication that Palestinian J e w s knew Greek. Indeed, their knowledge o f their Bible was to some degree influenced by that translation, since a literate J e w could readily refer to a Greek translation or even own a personal copy, but the H e b r e w texts could be read only under prescribed circumstances. T h i s , rather than a late Gentile origin, is most likely the explanation for the d o m i n a n t presence o f Septuagintal readings through­ out the N T , including J a m e s . However, like the Nahal Hever fragments, the Greek O T readings in the N T , including those in J a m e s , not infrequently give evidence either o f editing b a c k toward a M a s o r e t i c type o f reading or o f an independent G r e e k translational tradition. 47

Amanuensis or Collator? T h e definitive work on amanuenses in the G r e c o - R o m a n world by Richards ( 1 9 9 1 ) s h o w s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in the c a s e o f Paul's letters, t h a t the degree o f c o m p o s i t i o n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n by secretaries c o u l d vary widely, from simply taking dictation, to slight editing, to heavy editing, to coauthorship, to virtual c o m p o s i t i o n in the case o f stylized standard letters. Richards identifies certain explicit and implicit m a r k s o f the use o f an amanuensis, but J a m e s has no explicit marks, and given that we have only one letter from J a m e s to consider, it is difficult to do more than hypothesize regarding implicit indications. T h e o n e consideration that might apply is that the language o f J a m e s is stylisti­ cally more like what one would expect from an educated Hellenist than from a Palestinian J e w whose knowledge o f Greek would have been only secondary. As already noted, since Greek was the lingua franca o f the entire Mediterranean region, and since J a m e s would have grown up in a racially mixed area, it is likely that he learned Greek from childhood, and there is no reason he could n o t have written in G r e e k . Further, o n c e he assumed a leadership role in a church that was rapidly spreading in the G r e c o - R o m a n world, it would have been appropriate for him to educate himself more broadly in Greek literary 47. For a description, transcription, and translation of these fragments, see Tov, Kraft, and Parsons 1990.

conventions. T h e use o f certain phrases and illustrations in ways somewhat different from their classical use (such as the astronomical terms in 1:17 and the echo o f O r p h i c language in "cycle o f generation" in 3:6 [see the c o m m e n t a r y for details]) might be an indication o f a self-educated writer. However, it is also possible that J a m e s used a secretary and may have given his secretary a fair degree o f autonomy in word choice, phrasing, and even organization. T h i s could explain the "relatively polished" Greek c o m p o s i t i o n a l style o f J a m e s without recourse to pseudonymous authorship. T h i s is at some remove, however, from the hypothesis o f a collator, s o m e ­ one who apart from J a m e s ' s direction assembled and edited a variety o f his material (see view 4 under "Four Views o f Author and D a t e " above). In this last case, both the content and the organization are essentially that o f the re­ dactor, and it is more difficult to see how it can legitimately be called a letter from J a m e s , since the c o l l a t o r would be not an amanuensis but the author. I f J a m e s is the product o f a collator, then even if the material is in s o m e sense J a c o b e a n , the ascription in 1:1 appears to m a k e the letter p s e u d o n y m o u s . However, the typical marks o f pseudonymous literature are absent from J a m e s (see "Historical C o n t e x t Issues" below).

Historical Context Issues Bauckham (1999:21) points out that "when Jerusalem was no longer in practice but only in symbol and hope the centre o f the J e w i s h world, the frequent c o m ­ munication with the Diaspora which gave the mother church its role in relation to the churches o f the D i a s p o r a can hardly have continued." H e n c e , the form o f J a m e s , as a "letter to the Dispersion" would have been anachronistic after the year 7 0 , when the R o m a n s captured and destroyed J e r u s a l e m . Further, as noted above, the primitive character o f the theological material in J a m e s suggests an early stage o f the church's development, if not prior t o Paul's mission and theological reflections, then certainly prior t o the wide distribution o f his letters to the R o m a n s and the Galatians. But J a m e s ' s practical application o f the basic Christian theology, namely the Jewish ethical religion and Jesus being both Christ and Lord (2:1), is very much along the lines apparent in the Jesus tradition. Indeed, as will be noted below, the influence from the content o f the Synoptic tradition o f Jesus's wisdom is patent, which is exactly what one might expect from a time when Jesus's teaching is being handed on but the church's theological development is in its infancy. Surprisingly, the primitiveness o f the theological framework o f J a m e s does not strike Dibelius, who dates J a m e s very late, as odd, perhaps because he identifies the genre o f J a m e s as "paraenesis" ( e x h o r t a t i o n ) , which is by nature nontheological. It is noteworthy, however, that no other unambiguously late Christian d o c u m e n t has such a primitive Christian theological framework. Even documents o f a primarily moral or practical nature such as the D i d a c h e display a more explicit Christology than is evident in J a m e s . That James is concerned primarily with praxis, not doctrine, ought also induce caution with respect to identifying the specific historical context. Problems o f

conformity o f behavior to asseverations o f belief are perennial and not specific to any occasion. J a m e s nowhere addresses doctrine as a point o f contention. T h e assumption is always one o f agreement on doctrine. T h i s is why the attempt by Popkes ( 1 9 8 6 : 1 6 - 2 1 ) to identify the situation o f the addressees as false teaching in the late first century fails to convince. As Burchard (1980a: 3 1 8 - 1 9 ) had already demonstrated, the problem in J a m e s is one not o f false teaching but o f disputes and controversies within the community. N o judgment o f date or situation can be made on the basis o f the general exhortations o f J a m e s . We should also note that if J a m e s is late and pseudonymous, it is unusual in that it lacks certain characteristics typical o f pseudonymous literature: 1. 2. 3. 4.

elaboration o f the author's identity o r authority warning against heretical teaching emphasis on tradition insistence on proper lines o f authority and submission, or an interest in ecclesial structure

5. c o n c e r n with a supposed delay o f the p a r o u s i a

48

All these point to J a m e s ' s c o n t e x t as more characteristic o f the church o f the first half o f the first century than that o f the second century.

Conclusion In the attempt to determine the authorship o f a document, it seems reason­ able to begin with that d o c u m e n t ' s own claims and then evaluate whether such claims fit the internal and external evidence. I f the author o f this letter is J a m e s , brother o f J e s u s , then several lines o f evidence converge: 1. T h e letter shows marked similarity to J a m e s ' s letter in Acts 1 5 , in both vocabulary and in character. 2. T h e letter's interests reflect to a large degree the interests o f Second Temple J u d a i s m in w i s d o m , particularly in the tradition that had followed the lead o f Sirach, who saw G o d ' s law as the ultimate expression o f wisdom (see "Jewish Literary B a c k g r o u n d " below). T h i s bespeaks a Jewish writer o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e period. B u t the letter also has a distinctly Chris­ tian cast to it, and its interests are not only those o f wisdom but also o f eschatology and o f Christian c o m m u n i t y and discipleship. 3. T h e letter appears to have been written before the christological develop­ ments found in Paul's letters, 1 Peter, and the J o h a n n i n e literature, or at least it does not explicitly take up those developments. 4 . T h e letter appears to have been written before the parting o f ways be­ tween J u d a i s m and Christianity (e.g., J a m e s ' s reference in 2:2 to "your synagogue"). 48. Indeed, in James the imminence of the parousia seems to be a vital assumption shared by author and audience.

5. T h u s , the letter is likely to have been written before the n o t i o n s o f supersessionism or displacement o f J u d a i s m had taken hold in the church (as happened in the second century). 6. T h e letter exhibits a close c o n n e c t i o n o f c o n t e n t with J e s u s ' s ethical in­ struction yet without conformity to the language o f the Synoptic tradition, just as might be expected if J a m e s was written prior to the congealing o f that tradition in the written Gospels and/or their (Greek) sources. 7. T h e letter shows n o trace o f the c o n c e r n s o f the so-called early Catholi­ cism o f the second century: church order, the m a i n t e n a n c e o f uniform doctrinal tradition through ecclesial authority, the gnostic heresies, and so on. 8. T h e primary use o f "early and late (rains)" in 5:7 is not as a reference to Scripture (although an allusion certainly may have been in the a u t h o r ' s mind) but as a direct illustration o f the farmer's patience, which suggests that the author had firsthand knowledge o f the p h e n o m e n o n . T h e r e are only two difficulties with assigning the letter t o a t i m e p r i o r to the Jewish war: (1) J a m e s ' s supposed reaction to Paulinism; (2) the rela­ tively polished Greek style. First, as I have already argued, the letter has only the appearance o f a reaction to Paulinism because it is supposed that "easy believism" is inconceivable before Paul. In fact, however, Hellenistic pagan religion divorced ethics from religion, and at a stage when Gentiles were being included in the messianic J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y (as a grafting in rather than a displacement o f Israel), J a m e s needed to warn these new believers against this unethical religion, declaring it useless. As I will argue below, the situation in the earliest church involved Gentiles c o m i n g into the messianic community, and some o f these Gentiles may very well have had trouble c o n n e c t i n g the requirements o f covenant obedience with their newfound belief in G o d ' s pro­ vision o f salvation. Also, J a m e s ' s c o n c e r n with self-deception and hypocrisy, if the Gospels are any indication, is just as relevant to J e w s as it is to G e n ­ tiles. As I point out in excursus 2 ("Faith, W o r k s , and Justification in J a m e s and Paul"), J a m e s ' s c o n c e r n is with a "workless faith," which is effectively a nonfunctioning faith, and Paul is miles from advocating anything like this. It still could be that J a m e s is reacting to a perversion o f Paul's theology that developed much later (as with M a r c i o n ) , but this scenario does n o t fit with the other issues noted above. T h e second alleged difficulty, the polished Greek style, is less o f an issue once it is observed that since J a m e s was from the mixed Gentile territory o f Galilee, it is no wonder that he knew G r e e k quite well. O n the other hand, the form o f his letter is quite n o n - G r e e k ; it is cyclical w i t h regard t o sev­ eral thematic concerns rather than a linear development o f an argument (see "Structure" below). In this it is similar to other letters that aver authorship by Galilean J e w s : especially 1 J o h n and 1 Peter, which, curiously, also evince good Greek writing (1 Peter more than 1 J o h n ) and thus also are regarded as spurious by many critical scholars. Since I have read works in what appears

to me to be excellent literary English written by people whose first language is not English, I am unconvinced by any argument that a "Galilean peasant" could not have learned to write good literary Greek. Even if it be conceded as unlikely that J a m e s o f Jerusalem had the ability to write literary Greek well enough to produce this letter, it would still be well within the realm o f possibil­ ity that in addressing a letter to the D i a s p o r a (which would have to be in the lingua franca), J a m e s acquired the services o f an accomplished amanuensis. As B a u c k h a m (1999: 24) observes, if J o s e p h u s , who knew Greek very well, employed assistants to help give his works a literary polish (Ag. Ap. 1.9 §50), there is no reason why J a m e s could not have done so. T h i s in no way would vitiate J a m e s ' s authorship. 49

Original Recipients and Occasion W h e n Dibelius (1975: 1-3) doubts that the letter o f J a m e s is a "real" letter, he not only doubts that the author truly is J a m e s ; he also thinks that the audi­ ence is fictional. T h u s , although some o f the pieces that were collected into the final "epistle" as we have it may originally have addressed some specific c i r c u m s t a n c e , the " p a r a e n e s i s " nature o f the assembled d o c u m e n t has no particular "life situation" that determines its meaning or significance. T h i s , o f c o u r s e , assumes that the letter has n o overall coherency, an assumption t h a t will be challenged m o r e directly when we l o o k at the structure o f the Epistle o f J a m e s . If J a m e s does have c o h e r e n c y o f intentionality, however, then there are several indications that he is addressing a real audience. T h i s real audience may have been relatively nonspecific ( B a u c k h a m 1999: 2 5 - 2 8 ) , which is what one would expect o f a letter addressed to "diaspora" congregations o f various types scattered through the M e d i t e r r a n e a n world, but nonetheless "real" in that there are real circumstances being addressed and real people whom the author wishes to influence. T h e clearest indication o f this reality is found in the c o n s t a n t use o f second-person plural pronouns when J a m e s is describ­ ing a p r o b l e m a t i c situation. S o , for e x a m p l e , in attacking favoritism, J a m e s says, " I f s o m e o n e c o m e s into your synagogue" (2:2); and in the illustration o f a workless profession o f faith he says, " I f a brother or sister is without clothing and lacks daily food, and one of you tells them, ' G o in peace, stay w a r m , and eat well'" ( 2 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) ; and warning against strife, he asks, "Where d o the b a t t l e s among you c o m e f r o m ? " ( 4 : 1 ) . T h i s linkage o f " y o u " with specific problems runs throughout J a m e s . T h e way he raises the issues, even if they are not evident in all the churches o f the Diaspora that he had in mind as potential recipients, and even if he draws those issues hyperbolically, gives the impression that the problems are quite real and that he has heard about s o m e specific things that ought not to be taking place. 49. The possible use of an amanuensis by James should be distinguished from the sugges­ tion of Davids (1982) and others of a two-stage authorship, whereby the actual letter does not involve the intentionality of James himself.

A further indication is t h a t J a m e s consistently addresses his readers as "brothers." " B r o t h e r s " was a term J e w s used to refer to fellow J e w s . S o , for example, 2 M a c e . 1:1 R S V : " T h e Jewish brethren in Jerusalem and those in the land o f J u d e a , T o their J e w i s h brethren in Egypt, Greeting and g o o d p e a c e . " T h i s appears as well in Acts, where " b r o t h e r s " can mean either "fellow J e w s " (2:29; 3:17; 7:2; 1 3 : 1 5 , 2 6 , 3 8 ; 2 2 : 1 ; 2 3 : 1 , 5, 6; 2 8 : 1 7 ) o r "fellow C h r i s t i a n s " (1:16; 6:3; 1 5 : 7 , 1 3 ) . Paul frequently uses the word to address fellow believers whether J e w o r G e n t i l e , and it also m e a n s "fellow believers" in 2 Pet. 1:10 and 1 J o h n 3 : 1 3 . T h u s , I conclude that J a m e s ' s letter was addressed to real believers, n o t a fictional audience.

The Audience as Diaspora J a m e s addresses his letter to " b r o t h e r s " w h o m he designates as "the twelve tribes o f the dispersion (diaspora)" who meet in "synagogues." W h a t is the makeup of this "diaspora" brotherhood? D o the terms imply a Jewish audience, either Jewish believers in J e s u s or both Christian and non-Christian J e w s ? J a m e s ' s opening is similar to 1 Pet. 1 : 1 - 2 . T h e term " d i a s p o r a " was used in J u d a i s m to refer to J e w s w h o had been " s c a t t e r e d " away from Palestine (e.g., Ps. S o l . 9 . 2 ) . It is used in A c t s 8:1 o f C h r i s t i a n s , where the £KKArjGia (ekklesia, church) o f Jerusalem has been scattered (5ison<xpr\oav, diesparesan) in Judea and S a m a r i a , and then in 8:4, where they are called the "scattered o n e s " (5iaGTi(Xp£VT£<;, diasparentes). H e n c e , one might quickly conclude that this letter was written to J e w i s h Christians. T h e reference to the readers as "the twelve tribes" also points in this direction. A n d certainly there are in­ dications that J a m e s regarded his readers as m e m b e r s o f the o n e family o f G o d c o m m o n l y called "Israel." B u t we k n o w from Acts that s o m e Gentiles were being converted even before the Pauline mission and c e r t a i n l y before the controversy over circumcision arose. Since J a m e s is addressing churches outside Palestine, it is likely that some o f them had Gentile converts, but these converts would have been as much a p a r t o f the Christian " s y n a g o g u e " (2:2) as J e w s , indeed more than J e w s who had not believed in J e s u s as the Christ. It is only as we remain locked into an ethnic definition o f " I s r a e l " that the question even becomes relevant. I submit that, given his insistent rejection o f favoritism, ethnicity was irrelevant for the author o f this letter. WAS THE AUDIENCE CHRISTIAN OR JEWISH NON-CHRISTIAN? Although the theory is seldom proposed anymore, at the end o f the nineteenth century two scholars (Spitta 1 8 9 6 : 1 - 1 3 ; M a s s e b i e a u 1 8 9 5 ) independently suggested that the Epistle o f J a m e s was originally purely J e w i s h , n o t Chris­ tian, material to which 1:1 and 2:1 had been added. T h e theory is based on the Jewish character and allusions in the letter and the fact that apart from two passing references, no mention is made o f J e s u s , and n o theological o b ­ servations or e x h o r t a t i o n s are based on anything distinctively Christian (not found in J u d a i s m ) .

T h i s view is definitively countered by Dibelius (1975: 2 2 - 2 3 ) , who notes that n o t only is there n o indication, either internally or externally, that 1:1 and 2:1 were added, but also several features o f J a m e s evince a Christian environment: 1. In 1 : 1 6 - 1 8 G o d is Father, and believers are "brothers" and the "firstfruits" of creation who have been "planted by the word o f truth" and are "destined for the crown o f life." T h e s e are Jewish images indeed, but the peculiar c o m b i n a t i o n o f them is distinctively characteristic o f Jesus. Further, while rare in J u d a i s m , they are all c o m m o n p l a c e in the early church. 2. In 2:7 believers are suffering for "the n a m e . " As Dibelius (1975: 1 4 0 ^ 1 ) notes, this can only be the n a m e o f Christ, because if the " n a m e " refers to J u d a i s m o r Israel (or A b r a h a m ? ) , it would not set the name-bearers over against the " r i c h " (2:6) who c o m e into the synagogue. 3 . In 5 : 7 - 8 J a m e s gives as the motive for patience the i m m i n e n c e o f the parousia o f the L o r d . N o t only is the term " p a r o u s i a " the distinctive word for early Christian expectation o f the return o f Christ in judgment, but also the event is said t o be " a t h a n d , " using the same e x a c t word ( f ] Y Y ? engiken, the perfect tense o f eyyi^ix), engizo) that the Gospels use to describe J e s u s ' s a n n o u n c e m e n t o f the nearness o f the kingdom o f God. 50

lK£V

T h e several parallels with J e s u s ' s teaching as reported in the Gospels, es­ pecially J a m e s 5:12 (cf. M a t t . 5 : 3 4 ) , make it quite likely that J a m e s is in some way related to the J e s u s tradition. 51

WAS THE AUDIENCE ETHNICALLY JEWISH OR GENTILE (OR MIXED)? Scholars generally have been divided into two camps. T h o s e who think that J a m e s is early and written by J a m e s tend to see the audience as ethnically J e w i s h , either a mixture o f non-Christian and Christian J e w s (Adamson 1989: 1 1 - 1 2 ; Allison 2 0 0 1 ) or simply Jewish Christians outside Palestine (Zahn 1909: 1.89—91; M o o 2 0 0 0 : 2 3 ) . T h o s e who regard J a m e s as pseudepigraphal and late usually (Allison [2001] being a noteworthy exception) adduce arguments for a primarily o r entirely Gentile audience, for whom "twelve tribes" has b e c o m e a cipher for C h r i s t i a n i t y that has " r e p l a c e d " Israel as the people o f G o d 52

53

50. Dibelius ignores another implication of this: Christians and non-Christian Jews are still meeting together in the same synagogue when James is writing. This can hardly fit the secondcentury setting that Dibelius envisions. 51. Dibelius (1975:23), who regards James as written late, also thinks that James 2:14—26 must reflect a reaction against Paulinism, which would support the Christian character of James. 52. Bauckham (1999: 16) suggests that since "early Jewish Christians thought of themselves, not as a specific sect distinguished from other Jews, but as the nucleus of a Messianic renewal of the people of Israel . . . what James addresses in practice to those Jews who already confess the Messiah Jesus, he addresses in principle to all Israel." 53. As in 1 Pet. 1:1, which most recent scholars think is addressed to Gentile believers, partly because of the paucity of evidence of Jews living in the areas designated in 1 Pet. 1:1, and partly

(Popkes 2 0 0 1 a : 6 3 , 7 0 ; Vouga 1984: 2 4 - 2 6 ; B a a s l a n d 1988: 3676-77). Popkes (2001b: 9 0 ) , who holds the letter to be pseudepigraphal and fairly late (end of the first century or early second century), notes the conspicuous absence of key Jewish terms and elements such as Israel, Israelites, J e w s , M o s e s , J e r u ­ salem, temple, priesthood, S a b b a t h , circumcision, food laws, fasting, J e w i s h feasts (not even Passover), and any references to particular J e w i s h groups, and he concludes that this is because "these items were not o f interest in his [the author's] present mission in relation to his addressees." T h e conclusion is true as far as it goes, but this does not mean that the audience was Gentile or that those items were o f no interest to writer or audience. It means no more than that they were not the point at issue. With the exception o f 1:1, the b o o k o f Proverbs mentions none o f these things either. D o e s this mean that Proverbs was not written by or for Israelites, or that neither author nor intended audi­ ence o f Proverbs cared about these things? O n the other hand, if J a m e s o f Jerusalem wrote the letter, is it necessary to suppose that his audience was exclusively or even dominantly ethnically Jewish? Chilton (2001:143—44) thinks that Acts 15 presents J a m e s as trying to preserve the distinction o f J e w and Gentile within the church and argues that J a m e s is implicitly rejecting the allegedly Pauline "redefinition" o f Israel. If so, we could expect a letter from him to be consciously addressed more or less exclusively to Jewish disciples o f Jesus Christ. But what appears to be operative in Acts 15 is that J a m e s is accepting the inclusion o f ethnic Gentiles into the people o f G o d , and his injunction regarding eating blood and fornication is meant not to maintain a distinction, but to preserve the unity o f the believing community. T h u s , the ethnic distinction ultimately is unimportant. Gentile converts do, says J a m e s in Acts 1 5 , need to observe certain features, such as abstaining from idols and from consuming blood or strangled animals, all o f which had religiously symbolic value, and avoiding fornication, which, given the c o n t e x t , may be particularly focused on the ritual fornication that was also an aspect o f Hellenistic cultic life. Further, the J a m e s o f Acts 15 refers to A m o s 9:11 ( G o d ' s promise o f re­ building the fallen tent o f David) as a reflection o f how Gentiles are included. If Gentiles are indeed included in the "tent" o f David, it means that they are included in the restored messianic community. It would be strange to think o f them as "non-Israelites" or pagans outside G o d ' s people. As Davids (2001: 67) puts it, "In J a m e s ' s view, as far as he reveals it, all followers o f J e s u s were in some sense Israel." In J a m e s ' s view, in other words, the determinative factor is not ethnicity, but faith. If in fact the J a m e s o f Acts 15 is also the author o f the Epistle o f J a m e s , then it may be that its " J e w i s h " flavor, and its address o f the intended recipients in 54

due to texts such as 1 Pet. 1:18; 4:3, which seem more appropriate to an audience of Gentile background. 54. M o o (2000: 23) thinks that the recipients "were almost certainly Jews," but he notes that some scholars see the "twelve tribes" not as a literal reference, but as a metaphor for the totality of God's people.

language that implies that they are J e w s , are not so much an ethnic indication as a reflection o f J a m e s ' s acceptance o f Gentiles who trust in the Christ as ingrafted into "Israel." Indeed, in 2:25 the author presents just such an individual from the O T , R a h a b the Gentile harlot, as a star example o f someone whose deeds manifest faith and who consequently is justified and included a m o n g G o d ' s people. T h e inclusion o f Gentile converts, then, does not at all call into question the " J e w i s h " flavor o f J a m e s any more than it does the b o o k o f J o s h u a . O t h e r evidence also supports the Jewish character o f J a m e s . Z a h n (1909: 1.89—90) notes that J a m e s makes no mention o f such typically "Gentile" sins as idolatry and fornication. I f J a m e s is, as I have argued, early and not a reaction to Paul, the church probably is still largely Jewish, and the Gentiles who are now included probably were mostly "God-fearers" who already had some prior exposure to Jewish ethics and religion. But the presence o f Gentile converts may also have opened the d o o r for the pagan disconnection between religion and ethics to have crept into the church even before Paul's mission, and thus there is n o need to suppose a form o f "Paulinism" as the background for J a m e s 2. It is often supposed that, especially if J a m e s ' s audience was J e w i s h , he could only be reacting to a form o f Paulinism, because prior to Paul no J e w would ever suppose that faith without works could avail anything. However, the Gospels give plenty o f indication that J e s u s constantly encountered J e w s who, though they paid lip service to the law, failed to perceive and practice its priorities (see especially M a t t . 2 3 ) . T h e kinds o f works o f faith that both J a m e s and Jesus propound are things such as showing no favoritism, caring for the destitute, showing mercy, avoiding judgmentalism, and the like. B o t h J e w s and Gentiles have often had difficulty in fulfilling these responsibilities. Arguably, J a m e s in 2 : 1 - 1 3 was showing readers that neglect o f the poor and showing favoritism to the rich is functionally equivalent to ignoring Torah. J a m e s 2:8 assumes that the readers agree with Lev. 1 9 : 1 8 , but the author avers that showing favoritism runs counter to it, and indeed Lev. 19:15, just three verses earlier than the love c o m m a n d , specifically forbids favoritism. J a m e s ' s true target is neither the Pauline notion o f justification by faith nor even a per­ version o f it; rather, it is the endemic and widespread problem o f hypocrisy. In any event, certainly some Gentiles had b e c o m e Christians prior to Paul's letters (and indeed the tensions generated by such Gentile converts joining the [Jewish] Christian c o m m u n i t y is the provocation for the Galatians con­ troversy). Further, the problem in J a m e s is not a soteriological issue; it is the practical issue o f hypocrisy and a disconnection between faith assertions and behavior. I think it n o t unlikely, therefore, that J a m e s ' s audience is mixed J e w and G e n t i l e , but that J a m e s thinks o f his audience as "Israel" regardless o f ethnic b a c k g r o u n d , and he is not addressing any form o f Paulinism.

Location of the Addressees J a m e s specifies no location o f his intended audience in any way other than by the term "diaspora," which one would normally take to mean J e w s outside Palestine. However, as already n o t e d , if addressed t o J e w i s h Christians, it

could even include J e w s within Palestine. Although J u d e a had had a period o f political independence following the M a c c a b e a n revolt, the resulting state was hardly anything that could be seen as a fulfillment o f the prophetic e x p e c t a ­ tions, and according to Wright (1992: 2 6 8 - 6 9 , 2 9 9 ) , even J e w s geographically in Palestine may still have regarded their condition as one o f exile. Further, 1 Peter, if it is addressed to Gentiles (as seems likely), gives evidence that the early church soon adopted the language o f " e x i l e " and " d i a s p o r a " in spiritual rather than literal terms. It is more likely, though, if the a u t h o r is J a m e s in Jerusalem, that he is addressing a circular letter not to the Christians in his own city but to Christians "scattered" outside Palestine, many o f w h o m were o f J e w i s h ancestry, but also s o m e o f G e n t i l e origin w h o may have b e c o m e "people o f G o d " by virtue o f their a c c e p t a n c e o f J e s u s as Christ and L o r d (as J a m e s terms Jesus in 2 : 1 ) . 55

If the letter is pseudepigraphal, the location o f the intended audience is guesswork, and it may in fact have n o specific readers in mind at all (Popkes 1986: 9 - 5 2 ) . Even if written by J a m e s o f J e r u s a l e m , as a "diaspora letter" it may have simply been intended for general circulation, but as I argue below (see "Social S i t u a t i o n " ) , the vividness o f J a m e s ' s illustrative material suggests that he at least had in mind some real problems that he had heard about. Given that the letter's earliest echoes are from 1 Clement and Shepherd o f H e r m a s , it may be that the letter had its first readers in the western parts o f the M e d i t e r ­ ranean, but on the other hand, its first acknowledgment as being from J a m e s occurs in Eastern Christendom. Beyond conjecture we c a n n o t go.

Social Situation Are the situations described in J a m e s 2 (showing favoritism, neglecting those in need), J a m e s 4 (traveling merchants, bickering a m o n g brethren), and J a m e s 5 (withholding wages) purely hypothetical examples, or do they reflect real situations? Since J a m e s is a "circular" letter without specific addressees, there is a "generalized" quality to the whole o f it that may suggest that the situa­ tions implied in the letter are simply hypothetical or constructed. However, the vividness with which some o f the situations are described, such as the man dressed in fine clothes with gold rings (2:2), or the brother or sister without adequate food or clothing ( 2 : 1 5 ) , or the merchants taking mercantile jour­ neys without reference to the Lord's will (4:13) suggest something more than general hypothetical situations. J a m e s appears to have heard s o m e disturbing news, and he is addressing real problems. 56

55. As most modern commentaries on 1 Peter point out (e.g., Achtemeier 1996: 50; Michaels 1988: xiv), 1 Pet. 1:14, 18; 2:9b-10; 4 : 3 - 4 imply that the intended readers of 1 Peter had Gentile backgrounds. Jobes (2005: 23-24) suggests that ultimately the racial background of the recipi­ ents of 1 Peter does not matter because the author regards his hearers as covenant people of God through faith in Christ and thus as truly "Israel" whatever their background. This is, in my view, likewise true of James. 56. As noted already, the partitive genitive " o f you" in 2:16 is more naturally read as assuming specific real people than general hypothetical ones. See also the commentary on 2:16.

T h e letter seems to address Christians as those whom the rich "drag into c o u r t " (2:6), which would imply that the intended recipients are not among the wealthy. T h e rejoicing o f the lowly in 1:9 and the denunciation o f the rich in 5 : 1 - 6 also imply this, and "the p o o r " are the "rich in faith and heirs o f the k i n g d o m " (2:5). S o m e interpreters (e.g., Dibelius 1 9 7 5 : 3 9 - 4 0 ) understood "the p o o r " as a S e c o n d T e m p l e J e w i s h metaphor, a reference to the pious, the faithful, the religious, the 'dndwim of, for e x a m p l e , Ps. 8 6 : 1 ; cf. 132:15. Recent interpreters (e.g., T a m e z 1990) have been more inclined to regard literal material poverty as in view, reflecting the social dynamics o f benefactor and patron, meaning that most or virtually all o f J a m e s ' s intended audience was lower class, servants and dependents who were tempted to seek patronage by showing favor to those who could grant it. However, the target o f J a m e s ' s e x h o r t a t i o n s does n o t appear to be the destitute; rather, it is those who have at least some means o f sharing but are reluctant to do so, or those who wish to dissociate from the "man in shabby c l o t h e s " and curry favor with the "gold-fingered." Although there was no social stratum equivalent to our modern middle class, the target audience is, generally speaking, neither the rich nor the truly destitute (such as orphans and widows; B a u c k h a m 1999: 1 8 8 ) . It is nevertheless probably t o o restrictive to ask questions such as whether there were rich Christians in J a m e s ' s church. J a m e s exhorts all believers both to identify with the p o o r and to exhibit G o d ' s character in caring for the poor, not as a " b e n e f a c t o r " or patron but as one who knows that he or she is also poor. T h i s is the intention behind 1 : 9 - 1 0 , which calls upon the rich man to rejoice in his humble position (or perhaps humiliation). T h e point is not just irony; it is a call to recognition that G o d ' s values are not those o f the world.

Communal Orientation H a r t i n (2003: 4—5) represents the viewpoint o f many that J a m e s exhibits pri­ marily a communal interest and ethic as opposed to an individual one (see "Eth­ ics" below). Thus, Hartin (2003:13) sees the purpose o f J a m e s as "socialization," that is, the process o f social formation whereby the people addressed are drawn into and instructed in the ethos and values o f a social group, in this case the c o m m u n i t y addressed as the "twelve tribes in the dispersion." T h e purpose o f the letter, then, is not merely to demarcate and identify the characteristics o f a community, but to exhort those who wish to be associated with that community to conform to those characteristics. But whereas community responsibility and "socialization" certainly are a concern o f J a m e s , they are by no means the only concern. Patience in suffering (5:7), keeping oneself "unspotted" by the world (1:27), resisting the devil (4:7) and drawing near to G o d (4:8), and being a friend not o f the world (4:4) but o f G o d (2:23) also are concerns, and these at the very least involve some degree o f individual intentionality. O f course, to some extent almost all practical life concerns are bound up with social environment, but J a m e s ' s interest in holiness is certainly as much the individual's relation to G o d as it is the c o m m u n i t y ' s social consciousness and responsibility.

Text J o h n s o n (1995: 4—6) discusses the state o f the text in s o m e detail and indi­ cates that it is "relatively stable and h o m o g e n o u s , " though it is not as well represented as the Gospels and Paul's letters in manuscripts prior to the major texts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) o f the fourth century and later. Further, there ap­ pear to be no examples o f a "Western" form o f the text o f J a m e s , probably, as Davids (1982: 59) suggests, because o f the letter's obscurity in the first few centuries, particularly in the West. T h e early papyri from the third century are quite fragmentary: ^ 3 ( J a m e s 2:19-3:9), ^ ) (James 1 : 1 0 - 1 2 , 1 5 - 1 8 ) , and^3 (James 3:13-4:4; 4 : 9 - 5 : 1 ) . ^ 3 is later (fifth o r early s i x t h c e n t u r y ) a n d also is f r a g m e n t a r y ( J a m e s 2 : 1 6 - 1 8 , 2 2 - 2 6 ; 3 : 2 - 4 ) . ^ 3 is late (seventh c e n t u r y ) but p r o b a b l y is r o o t e d in an earlier t e x t tradition (it m o s t often resembles A l e x a n d r i n u s a n d , t o a lesser extent, V a t i c a n u s ) , and it c o n t a i n s sections o f every c h a p t e r o f J a m e s . O n the o t h e r h a n d , ^ 3 also offers a n u m b e r o f unique readings, as will be noted in several o f the additional n o t e s in the c o m m e n t a r y . T h e only early witnesses to the whole o f J a m e s are the great uncials S i n a i t i c u s , A l e x a n ­ drinus, and Vaticanus (K, A , B ) . U n c i a l C (fifth c e n t u r y ) c o n t a i n s m o s t o f J a m e s , up to 4 : 2 . T h e r e are also several a n c i e n t t r a n s l a t i o n s , including o n e valuable O l d L a t i n m a n u s c r i p t designated "ff" (the C o r b e y m a n u s c r i p t ) , which is a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l w i t h B e x c e p t for t w e n t y - o n e i n t e r e s t i n g a n d unique v a r i a n t s . 20

2 3

100

5 7

54

7 4

7 4

58

M o s t o f the significant textual variants in J a m e s are traceable to attempts to deal with some o f the idiosyncracies and difficulties o f J a m e s ' s phrasing. Specific text-critical issues are addressed in the additional notes to each sec­ tion o f the commentary.

Genre and Purpose J a m e s falls into the class o f J e w i s h literature known as a "diaspora letter," which presents itself as a circulating epistle sent by a person o f recognized authority in J u d e a to J e w s located outside the land. D i a s p o r a letters typically give advice on how to maintain integrity as the people o f G o d in the midst of a non-Jewish world, and they articulate s o m e expectations regarding the future (Niebuhr 1 9 9 8 ) . T h e A r a m a i c letters o f Gamaliel are o f this sort, and similar epistles are seen in 2 M a c e . 1-2; Bar. 6 : 1 - 7 3 (the so-called Letter o f Jeremiah); 2 Bar. 7 8 . 1 - 8 7 . 1 . T h e short letter o f J a m e s found in Acts 1 5 : 2 3 - 2 9 is also o f this type. As noted earlier, there are s o m e interesting similarities between the letter reported in Acts and the Epistle o f J a m e s . J a m e s ' s presentation o f itself as generally within this genre o f epistle still leaves several questions unanswered. Is J a m e s a real letter? W h a t is its purpose? 100

57. For a description of ^ 3 , see J . K. Elliott 1999. 58. For example, Corbey drops " o f faith" from 1:3, yielding the reading "knowing that your probation produces endurance." The text of the Corbey manuscript is most easily accessible in Mayor 1 8 9 7 : 2 - 2 7 .

W h a t is the rhetorical character or function o f the letter? Should it be classed as genuinely J e w i s h literature, or is it primarily a G r e e k d o c u m e n t with a Jewish veneer?

Is James a Real Letter? Curiously, J a m e s is the only letter o f the N T to begin with a classic Greek salutation: x a i p e i v (chairein, greeting). We do see this greeting in two reported letters in Acts 15:23 and Acts 2 3 : 2 6 , but not in any o f the letters o f Paul (who has replaced the standard greeting with X<*P <; ^ sipiqvri, charts kai eirene, grace and peace) or in any other N T letter. If J a m e s is pseudonymous and written late, it probably is n o t a letter from an individual to a specific audi­ ence, but is a literary epistle that simply has been put in the form o f a letter for a r t i s t i c p u r p o s e s o r to give it s o m e k i n d o f authority. T h e distinction between "literary epistle" and "real letter" goes b a c k at least to Deissmann ( 1 9 2 7 : 2 3 3 - 4 5 ) and p r o b a b l y is implied by the j u d g m e n t o f R o p e s (1916: 1) that it is a letter in form only. Dibelius (1975: 1 - 1 1 ) in particular argues that J a m e s is a " l i t e r a r y " epistle that is public and artistic, not a real com­ m u n i c a t i o n between specific people. B u t the distinction between "real" and " l i t e r a r y " letters is unclear. H o w "specific" does an audience have to be for a letter to qualify as "real"? A study o f ancient Greek letters by J . L. White (1988) d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t the G r e e k " l e t t e r " was a very elastic genre and was used for a variety o f purposes in a variety o f forms. T h e specificity o f the audience could vary from a single intended recipient to only the vaguest o f general audiences. Especially the "diaspora letter" type has an intended breadth o f audience. Further, as discussed above, J a m e s does appear to have at least s o m e specificity o f audience and is responding at least to some po­ tential if n o t actual situations, particularly the preferential treatment o f rich visitors c o n d e m n e d in J a m e s 2 and the intraecclesial bickering that called forth J a m e s ' s reprimand in J a m e s 4 . l

K 0

Rhetorical Purpose and Origins J a m e s has a large number o f c o m m a n d s and prohibitions, but these are not " b a r e " imperatives, as with apodictic law codes such as the Ten C o m m a n d ­ ments. Rather, J a m e s admonishes and e x h o r t s his readers to manifest the life o f faith by obedience—in other words, to behave according to the precepts that they already have acknowledged. J a m e s tries to convert his readers not t o a new opinion but to an appropriate life. H e assumes that the audience already accepts the precepts and truth o f the Christian message, and he pre­ sumes that they already k n o w and accept the ethical teaching o f Jesus (see below under " O l d Testament Connections") as well as the truth o f his lordship (2:1). However, there is some disconnection between profession and behavior, which is calling into question the genuineness o f the profession. T o convey how serious this matter is, he uses a wide repertoire o f both Greek and J e w ­ ish rhetorical devices.

SIMILARITY TO GREEK RHETORICAL FORMS Aristotle (Rhet. 1.3.3) identified three general types o f rhetoric: legal (foren­ sic), deliberative (mostly political), and epideictic ( c e r e m o n i a l ) . W h e r e legal rhetoric tries to prove a case, and deliberative tries to persuade toward a course of action, epideictic is less specific, though generally it praises or blames an individual or group. Aspects o f all three types can be seen in J a m e s (such as making a case in 2 : 2 0 - 2 6 , or casting blame in 4 : 1 3 - 5 : 6 ) , but in general, J a m e s exhibits the characteristics o f deliberative literature, which attempts not just to persuade people that something is true, but to move them to a course o f a c ­ tion (Kennedy 1 9 8 4 : 1 4 7 ) . Certainly, the heavy use o f a d m o n i t o r y language in J a m e s indicates a concern not so much to inform as to influence behavior. Diatribe (to attack an argument). Undeniably, J a m e s shows a familiarity with certain Hellenistic rhetorical devices. Ropes (1916: 10—18) demonstrates that J a m e s has many features o f the Greek diatribe form, and he argues that the whole o f J a m e s may be seen as a diatribe. D i a t r i b e is used mostly to at­ tack a position, argument, or course o f action as wrong and uses a number of forceful rhetorical devices to achieve its end. Recently, W a t s o n (1993a: 119) notes several specific features often found in Greek diatribes that appear also in J a m e s 2: 59

Introduced "dialogue" with an imaginary interlocutor ( 2 : 1 8 - 2 3 ) I t e r a t i o n o f the o b j e c t i o n s a n d false c o n c l u s i o n s o f the i n t e r l o c u t o r (2:18-19) A series o f questions and answers ( 2 : 2 0 - 2 3 ) Questions designed to lead the reader to reject the conclusion (2:20) Outright censure ( 2 : 2 - 7 , 8 - 1 3 , 1 4 - 1 7 , 1 8 - 2 0 ) Illustrative vices (2:2-4,

15-16)

Harsh vocatives ("you idiot" in 2:20) M a x i m s and quotations (2:8, 1 0 , 1 1 , 23) Irony and sarcasm ( 2 : 1 8 - 2 0 ) Personification ("judgment" in 2 : 1 3 , "faith" in 2 : 1 7 , 26) But although the latter part o f J a m e s 2 exhibits diatribal features, as also do parts o f J a m e s 4 - 5 , it seems to be pressing things t o o far to say that the genre o f J a m e s as a whole is a diatribe. It is difficult, for e x a m p l e , to see the exhortation to prayer in J a m e s 5 as attacking a position. Paraenesis (to provide exhortation). Dibelius, whose commentary was origi­ nally published in 1 9 2 1 , acknowledges the diatribal aspects that Ropes had pointed out, but he argues that the diatribe was simply one device a m o n g many used for a variety o f exhortations. Dibelius (1975: 3) designates J a m e s 59. For a good survey of how James fits in the scheme of Hellenistic moral literature, see Johnson 1995: 16-24.

as being an e x a m p l e o f "paraenesis," which he defines as "a text which strings together admonitions o f general ethical c o n t e n t . " Such texts have no overall controlling theme or purpose and n o discernible formal structure; they simply assemble s o m e e x h o r t a t i o n s , precepts, and pithy sayings. T h e y do address a particular (though possibly fictional) audience, but the material is connected, when there is any c o n n e c t i o n at all, only by catchwords. Such a classification has the advantage o f connecting the Epistle o f J a m e s to both its Greek origins and its Jewish background, since Jewish ethical teaching in Hellenistic c o n t e x t also lay behind other "paraeneses" (Dibelius [1975: 4] points to the two paraenetic chapters in the b o o k o f T o b i t [ 4 : 5 - 1 9 ; 1 2 : 6 - 1 0 ] as e x a m p l e s ) . It further has the advantage o f explaining why there seems to be a lack o f continuity even in the meanings o f certain words in close proxim­ ity in J a m e s . T h u s , the apparent shift from a positive meaning o f Tieipaauoc, (peirasmos, testing, temptation) in 1:12 to a different, negative meaning o f the cognate participle Jieipcc^ouevoc, {peirazomenos, being tempted, tested) in 1:13 is not an interpretive conundrum; it is simply the result o f connecting two originally unconnected sayings by means o f a similar word being used in each. Dibelius further points to two other characteristics o f paraenetic literature: the repetition o f identical motifs in different places, and the impossibility o f fitting all the a d m o n i t i o n s into a single set o f audience and circumstances. T h u s , there is n o identifiable "life situation" for interpreting J a m e s . It is simply a repository o f ethical and sapiential injunctions. 60

Paraenesis versus protreptic discourse. Ever since Dibelius's definitive study, the paraenetic or h o r t a t o r y character o f J a m e s has been widely recognized. But to say that J a m e s has features in c o m m o n with Greek paraenetic literature is quite different from identifying the entire letter o f J a m e s as a paraenesis. One o f the principal marks o f paraenesis as a genre is its lack o f focus or organiz­ ing theme. But although J a m e s is difficult to outline linearly, a close study o f the letter indicates that it is far from lacking in theme or focus. M o s t recent scholars have perceived various themes that give coherence to J a m e s , and few scholars now support Dibelius's p r o n o u n c e m e n t that J a m e s has n o formal structure. Further, work on paraenetic literature by J . G a m m i e (1990) suggests that a distinction should be made between "paraenesis" as a genre and what G a m m i e calls "protreptic" discourse. Whereas paraenesis is marked by "the enumeration o f precepts or m a x i m s which pertain to moral aspiration and the 61

62

60. Dibelius (1975: 7) notes similar catchword (mis)connections in 1:4 and 1:5; 1:26 and 1:27; 2:12 and 2:13; 3:17 and 3:18; 5:9 and 5:12; 5:13-18 and 5:19-20; along with a couple other possibilities. He then devotes three whole pages to noting similar catchword connections in Pseudo-Isocrates' Ad Demonicum, Tobit, and in other N T admonitory passages, most strikingly in Rom. 12:13-18 and Gal. 6:2-10. But few regard Rom. 12 and Gal. 6 as incoherent, so these comparisons appear to undermine Dibelius's theory. 6 1 . O f course, the recognition that James is an exhortation is nothing new, but Dibel­ ius's classification of James as a type of Greek paraenetic genre has been a starting point for discussion. 62. For example, several scholars have pointed to holiness or perfection as a principal theme running through James (see J . H. Elliott 1993).

regulation o f human conduct" (Gammie 1 9 9 0 : 5 1 ) and a lack o f thematic unity, protreptic discourse is marked by sustained arguments (in J a m e s , especially evident in the diatribe o f chapter 2 , but see also 3 : 1 - 1 2 ; 4 : 1 3 - 1 7 ; 5 : 1 - 6 , 1 3 - 1 8 ) and a clear focus on a limited number o f issues. Protrepsis aims not merely to present a convincing case for the truth or error o f a position, but to persuade the audience to make a change in behavior or make a new c o m m i t m e n t (see Baasland 1988: 3 6 5 2 ; Hartin 1999: 4 7 - ^ 9 ; W a c h o b 2 0 0 0 : 4 8 ) . T h i s fits J a m e s , in particular his concern for believers' responsibility toward the poor, his dis­ cussion o f the difficulty with godly speech, his e x h o r t a t i o n s toward peace, his interest in prayer, and, tying it all together, his mandate that an asseveration of faith must be matched with correlative behavior (explicit in 2 : 1 , but implicit throughout; see "Controlling T h e m e : Genuine Faith" below; and excursus 1, "Faith as the Central C o n c e r n o f J a m e s " ) . T h u s , J o h n s o n (1995: 24) no doubt is correct to classify J a m e s as "protreptic discourse in the form o f a letter." Protreptic literature (from the G k . verb TtporpeTia), protrepd, turn) is a kind o f conversion literature, but it is not so much a call to adopt new religious concepts as a call to adopt a different lifestyle or behavior pattern, that is, to repent. J a m e s is addressed to those who already name the name o f Jesus as Christ and Lord (2:1). But in a sense Christians too, just as Israel did so often in the O T , need a constant call to behavioral "turning b a c k . " It is neither difficult nor u n c o m m o n for those who name the name o f Christ to slide back into "friendship with the world" (4:4), a divided loyalty that J a m e s calls "double-mindedness" (literally "two-souledness") in 1:7, and if they do so, they must repent ( 4 : 8 - 1 0 ) . JEWISH LITERARY BACKGROUND Several scholars (Ropes 1 9 1 6 : 2 4 ; Dibelius 1 9 7 5 : 1 7 - 1 8 ; Popkes 1 9 8 6 ) , while recognizing that J a m e s c o m e s from a Christian environment that was cogni­ zant o f its Jewish ethical roots, notice the letter's marked similarities to G r e e k forms and its use o f certain Hellenistic phrases, plus the letter's inscription in good literary style, and conclude that it was written by s o m e o n e with a background in Hellenism and written for an audience o f Hellenistic, mostly G e n t i l e , C h r i s t i a n s . T h u s , it was n o t by J a m e s o f J e r u s a l e m , w h o was an Aramaic-speaking Galilean Jewish peasant. But several other scholars (Mayor 1897: c x x i v - c x x v ; Schlatter 1956: 2 1 - 3 6 ; Gertner 1962; Baasland 1982; Mussner 1998; B a u c k h a m 1999) notice that the strikingly J e w i s h features o f J a m e s are not just superficial or artificial, nor are they simply the remnants o f the J e w i s h origins o f Christianity; they reflect an inherently J e w i s h character. Cladder (1904) examines J a m e s ' s style and vocabulary and demonstrates J a m e s ' s re­ semblance to certain psalms as well as to J e w i s h wisdom literature. Although we may reject the thesis o f Spitta (1896) that J a m e s is a strictly J e w i s h (not originally a Christian) document, Spitta was right in seeing J a m e s as firmly situated within Jewish wisdom tradition. 63

63. Spitta (1896), in his footnotes throughout his exposition section, draws an extensive list of parallels to James from Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, 4 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon,

M e y e r (1930) even goes so far as to propose that the b o o k o f J a m e s is a J e w i s h b o o k structured on the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, and the " J a m e s " in whose n a m e it is written is a reference not to J a m e s o f Jerusalem but t o the p a t r i a r c h J a c o b ( " J a m e s " and " J a c o b " are identical in G r e e k ) . M e y e r ' s volume then works out how the segments o f the Epistle o f J a m e s c o r r e s p o n d to the patriarchal n a m e s . T h e whole approach is inventive and involves a n u m b e r o f unlikely stretches and unsupportable hypotheses, and few other scholars have been persuaded, but M e y e r does point out a number o f resemblances o f J a m e s to J e w i s h literature o f the period. M o r e recently, B e c k (1973) observes similarities between J a m e s and the Q u m r a n d o c u m e n t s 1 Q S (Rule o f the C o m m u n i t y ) and l Q S a (Rule o f the C o n g r e g a t i o n ) . Even a century ago, H o r t (1909: x - x i ) noted that J a m e s in certain ways bridges J u d a i s m and C h r i s t i a n i t y and pointed out that "the Epistle o f St. J a m e s marks in the most decisive way the continuity o f the two 64

65

Old Testament Connections Although J a m e s is widely regarded as closely allied with the wisdom literature o f the O T , one o f the letter's strongest O T connections is to Lev. 19, particularly Lev. 1 9 : 1 0 - 1 8 . N o t e the following echoes o f Lev. 19 found in J a m e s : 19:10

Show c o n c e r n for the p o o r and the sojourner (cf. J a m e s 2 : 1 - 6 ,

19:12

D o not swear falsely (cf. J a m e s 5:12)

1 5 - 1 6 , 25)

19:13

D o not oppress neighbor (cf. J a m e s 5:1—6)

19:15

D o not show partiality (cf. J a m e s 2 : 1 - 1 1 )

19:16

D o not slander o r falsely accuse (cf. J a m e s 4:11)

19:17-18

D o not hate brother in heart o r take vengeance, but love n e i g h b o r as self (cf. J a m e s 2 : 8 ; 4:1)

J o h n s o n (1982: 399) observes that only one verse o f this passage in Leviticus (19:14, which forbids cursing the deaf and putting a stumbling block before the Jubilees, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, Apocalypse of Moses, Testament of Abraham, and m. 'Abot as well as from O T texts. Although none of these, with the exception of the half dozen O T citations, represents anything close to actual quotations, the interest and style of addressing practical ethical concerns, and the recurring connections between wisdom and God's law, so much like Sirach, show very well the deeply Jewish character of the Epistle of James. 64. Beck (1973) goes so far as to find the structure of James based on 1QS, but the controlling concerns of the documents are radically dissimilar, and Beck's argument is burdened by much special pleading. See Cheung 2003: 5 3 - 5 4 . 65. Mussner (1975: 136) suggests that James may also in our own time provide a bridge between Catholic and Protestant Christianity. 66. The view that James is addressed to non-Christian Jews as well as Christians is pro­ pounded by Allison (2001), who argues that James was written to reassure Jews that Christians were faithful to Torah.

6 7

blind) has no parallel in J a m e s and concludes that " J a m e s made c o n s c i o u s and sustained use o f Lev. 1 9 : 1 2 - 1 8 in his l e t t e r . " Since J a m e s quotes Lev. 19:18, it is hard to argue that J a m e s was unaware o f the significance o f Lev. 19 for his own ethical a d m o n i t i o n s . O n the other h a n d , it might be nearer the mark to say, with B a u c k h a m (1999: 7 4 - 8 3 ) , that J a m e s as a disciple o f J e s u s is adapting the ethical teaching o f J e s u s , for w h o m Lev. 19 seems to play a determinative role. M u c h o f this is also found in the S e r m o n on the M o u n t ( M a t t . 5 - 7 ) and/or the parallel S e r m o n on the Plain in Luke 6. Further, the reflections o f Lev. 19 found in J a m e s s o m e t i m e s have the c h a r a c t e r o f their form and content in Jesus's sermon more than in Lev. 19 itself. N o t e especially how the warning in Lev. 1 9 : 1 2 against swearing falsely is reflected in J a m e s 5:12, not directly, as it is in Lev. 1 9 , but in the intensified and generalized form found in J e s u s ' s teaching recorded in M a t t . 5:34—37. In fact, n o n e o f the allusions to Lev. 19 in J a m e s is w i t h o u t s o m e parallel in J e s u s ' s teaching recorded in the Gospels. 68

J a m e s shares much with Proverbs, as well. J a m e s , like Proverbs, w a n t s readers to acquire wisdom and regards w i s d o m ' s source as G o d and its char­ acter as ethical. Twice J a m e s quotes from Proverbs ( J a m e s 4 : 6 ; 5 : 2 0 ) . T h e r e are also several allusions: Prov. 2:3—6 (get wisdom) has an echo in J a m e s 1:5; Prov. 2 7 : 2 1 (on being tested) can be seen behind J a m e s 1:3; J a m e s 2:6 reflects the concern for respecting the p o o r also seen in Prov. 1 4 : 2 1 ; Prov. 16:27 has the same c o n c e r n for the tongue seen in J a m e s 3 : 6 ; and J a m e s 4 : 1 4 has an echo o f Prov. 2 7 : 1 ; other parallels may be seen. But these parallels also may be found in other Jewish literature. If J a m e s was alluding to these passages from Proverbs, he was likely doing so only unconsciously. R a t h e r unlike Proverbs, on the other hand, J a m e s speaks with a voice re­ sembling that o f the O T prophets at points. In particular, his e x c o r i a t i n g indictment o f rich landowners in 5 : 1 - 6 is quite unlike wisdom literature. It rather sounds like A m o s p r o n o u n c i n g woe to those at ease in Z i o n ( A m o s 6 ) , or like Jeremiah warning against the c o m i n g "day o f slaughter" (verbally echoed in J a m e s 5:5). Again, though, this is a further point o f similarity with the nature o f J e s u s ' s w i s d o m teaching. J e s u s also spoke as b o t h sage and prophet, and J a m e s appears to be following J e s u s ' s e x a m p l e .

Relation to Extrabiblical Jewish Wisdom Literature Sirach O f all J e w i s h wisdom b o o k s , J a m e s ' s closest r e s e m b l a n c e is to the J e w i s h Wisdom o f Jesus the Son o f Sirach, generally known simply as Sirach (or by its 67. Actually, even Lev. 19:14 has a remote echo in James's admonition against cursing a fellow human being made in God's image (3:9-10). 68. Johnson might also have mentioned Lev. 19:10, which forbids stripping a vineyard bare so that the poor and the sojourner might have something. James too is concerned for the poor and requires a response to their neediness (1:26-27; 2:15-16) as well as honoring them (1:10-12; 2:6).

Latin title, " E c c l e s i a s t i c u s " ) . M a y o r (1897: l x x i v - l x x v i ) lists some thirty-two points o f similarity, several o f which o c c u r more than once in either Sirach or J a m e s or b o t h . T h e warning in J a m e s 3 about the dangers o f the tongue and the difficulty o f controlling it also is o f great concern in Sir. 1 9 : 6 - 1 2 , 16; 2 0 : 5 - 7 , 1 8 - 1 9 ; 2 8 : 1 3 - 2 6 . At several points Sirach not only has similar interests, but even uses phrasing quite similar to J a m e s . For example, Sir. 1 5 : 1 1 - 1 7 ad­ dresses the same c o n c e r n as J a m e s 1:12—15 in much the same way: D o not say, "Because o f the L o r d I left the right way"; for he will not do what he hates. D o not say, "It was he w h o led m e astray"; for he had n o need of a sinful m a n . T h e L o r d hates all a b o m i n a t i o n s , and they are not loved by those who fear him. It was he w h o created m a n in the beginning, and he left him in the power o f his own inclination. . . . Before a m a n are life and death, and whichever he chooses will be given t o him. (RSV)

O r c o m p a r e Sir. 5 : 1 1 , " B e quick to hear, and be deliberate in answering," with J a m e s 1:19; and also Sir. 5 : 1 3 , " G l o r y and dishonor c o m e from speaking, and a m a n ' s tongue is his downfall," and Sir. 1 9 : 1 6 , " W h o has never sinned with his t o n g u e ? " with J a m e s 3:2. J a m e s also shares with Sirach the odd imagery o f hoarded gold and silver "rusting" (Sir. 2 9 : 1 0 ; J a m e s 5 : 3 ) . M u c h o f Sirach itself is in fact a recasting o f material in Proverbs, though with two differences: true wisdom is located in G o d ' s revealed law (something only implicit in Proverbs itself), and the motive for true wisdom or obedience to Torah is the eschatological hope. B a u c k h a m (1999: 7 4 - 8 3 ) makes a convincing case that given the deep con­ nections between the content (though not the wording) o f Jesus's teaching as found particularly in M a t t h e w and Luke and the sayings o f J a m e s (see " J a m e s and the W i s d o m o f J e s u s " below), the Epistle o f J a m e s is a recasting o f the w i s d o m tradition o f J e s u s in much the same way as the wisdom o f Sirach uses Proverbs as a lens for understanding Torah. As Sirach understands true wisdom as rooted in Torah, and true Torah as giving expression to wisdom, so J a m e s has adopted and adapted the tradition o f J e s u s ' s teaching to undergird his c o n c e p t o f true wisdom "from above," as J a m e s 3:17 terms it. At several points in the commentary, other similarities to Sirach will be noted.

Wisdom of Solomon Although there are fewer cases o f verbal similarity between J a m e s and Wisdom o f S o l o m o n than are seen in Sirach, many characteristics o f the outlook and interests o f J a m e s are also seen in W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . Like J a m e s , W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n operates with both the wisdom tradition and the apocalyptic mentality o f Second Temple J u d a i s m (see Burkes 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e motivation for wisdom is the judgment o f G o d (Wis. 1 - 6 ) , as it is in J a m e s . W i s d o m in Wisdom o f S o l o m o n functions much like the Holy Spirit, just as in J a m e s (see Kirk 1 9 6 9 ) , and indeed wisdom is G o d ' s Spirit (see, e.g., Wis. 1:6-7; 9 : 1 7 ) . As such, wisdom is a divine gift (Wis. 1 : 2 - 5 ; 7:7; cf. J a m e s 1:5). Wisdom

does not c o m e to those who put G o d to the test (Wis. 1:2; cf. J a m e s 1:13), but it does c o m e to those who ask in faith (Wis. 7 : 7 ) . T h e rich are condemned for the oppression o f the righteous p o o r (Wis. 2 : 1 0 ; cf. J a m e s 5 : 1 - 6 ) . Earthly cycles, heavenly phenomena, and the nature o f animals provide illustrative material in Wisdom o f S o l o m o n (7:18—20) just as in J a m e s (1:17; 3:6—7). However, other aspects o f Wisdom o f Solomon seem foreign to J a m e s . J a m e s knows nothing o f the personification o f wisdom as in Wis. 8 and displays n o interest in how wisdom functioned in the creation o f the world or the history o f Israel. T h e similarities between J a m e s and W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n testify that both operate within the broad interests and ideas o f wisdom in S e c o n d Temple Judaism, but they give little indication o f a direct use o f W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n by the author o f J a m e s . Although it is possible and even likely that J a m e s knew o f the Wisdom o f S o l o m o n , that b o o k does not function as an immediate source for J a m e s .

Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 69

Unlike Sirach, Pseudo-Phocylides, like J a m e s , focuses on the universals o f Jewish ethics, not the distinctives o f J u d a i s m : circumcision, Sabbath obser­ vance, and food laws. Similarities o f Pseudo-Phocylides with J a m e s may be seen in the following S e n t e n c e s : 70

10:

" D o not cast down the p o o r unjustly, do not judge partially"

11:

" I f you judge evilly, subsequently G o d will judge you" (cf.

(see also 137; cf. J a m e s 2 : 1 - 4 ) .

J a m e s 2 : 4 , 13; 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) . 19:

"Give the laborer his pay, do not afflict the p o o r " (cf. J a m e s 5:1-6).

20:

" T a k e heed o f your tongue, keep your word hidden in (your) heart" (cf. J a m e s 1:21, 2 6 ; 3 : 2 - 1 2 ) .

22:

"Give to the p o o r man at o n c e , and do n o t tell him to c o m e t o m o r r o w " (cf. J a m e s 2 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) .

27:

"Life is a wheel" (cf. J a m e s 3 : 6 ) .

46:

"For [gold's] sake there are battles and plunderings and mur­ ders" (cf. J a m e s 4 : 1 - 3 ) .

50:

" B e sincere to all, speak what is from your soul" (cf. J a m e s 3:17).

63:

"Anger that steals over one causes destructive m a d n e s s " (cf. J a m e s 1:20).

69. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides is a didactic morality poem written in the name of an ancient (sixth century BC) philosopher. As it exhibits a vigorous monotheism and opposition to paganism, but without any discernible evidence of Christian influence, it was written probably by a Hellenistic Jew early in the Christian era. See O T P 2:565-72; Harnack 1897: 2.589. 70. Citations of Pseudo-Phocylides are from O T P 2:574-82.

124—26:

"Speech is to m a n a weapon sharper than iron. G o d allotted a weapon to every creature; the capacity to fly to birds, speed to horses, and strength to the l i o n s " (cf. J a m e s 3 : 3 - 8 ) .

144:

" B y a tiny spark a vast forest is set on fire"

71

(cf. J a m e s 3 : 5 b ) .

N o n e o f these several similarities e x h i b i t the close verbal parallels with J a m e s that are seen in Shepherd o f H e r m a s . T h e s e are o f a general sort, and they find echoes elsewhere in moral literature. Therefore, resemblances prob­ ably do n o t indicate that J a m e s k n e w o r was using the Sentences o f PseudoPhocylides, or that the a u t h o r o f the Sentences k n e w J a m e s ; however, they do suggest that the authors o f both J a m e s and Pseudo-Phocylides moved in a similar environment (Hellenistic J u d a i s m ) , and that both were concerned a b o u t living as the people o f G o d in an u n s y m p a t h e t i c world. T h i s might suggest that the author o f J a m e s was not Palestinian, but as already noted, even Palestinian J u d a i s m was Hellenized, and J a m e s ' s roots in Judaism are even m o r e fundamental than those o f Pseudo-Phocylides. J a m e s has similarities to o t h e r S e c o n d T e m p l e J e w i s h wisdom literature as well, but these are even less likely to indicate any dependence. It should be clear, however, that J a m e s is "at h o m e " in this tradition, which has melded O T wisdom, law, and eschatology (effectively the three parts o f the O T canon) into a general practical theology informed and motivated by the c o m m i t m e n t to J e s u s as the Christ, the Lord o f glory.

Eschatological Motivation for Exhortations T h e b o o k o f S i r a c h was w r i t t e n p r o b a b l y in the early p a r t o f the second century B C (Coggins 1 9 9 8 : 1 8 - 1 9 ) . Sirach was concerned with wisdom and understood the ultimate source o f w i s d o m to be G o d ' s law, Torah. Although we see inklings o f this notion already in Proverbs, which states that the fear o f the L o r d is the beginning o f w i s d o m (Prov. 9:10; cf. J o b 2 8 : 2 8 ; Ps. 1 1 1 : 1 0 ) ,

72

Sirach, along with W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , also introduced to the Jewish wisdom tradition a strongly eschatological note that had been only marginally present earlier. Since wisdom as Torah obedience in this life sometimes results not in earthly bliss but in earthly suffering, the motivation for wisdom/obedience is not simply that things will go better in this life, but that one will be rewarded in the c o m i n g age. M o s t J e w i s h wisdom writings subsequent to Sirach, and indeed virtually all J e w i s h literature in the century prior to J e s u s , adopt this eschatological motivation. Essentially, the prophetic (eschatological) tradition and the wisdom tradition have merged. T h e eschatological element is thus also seen in J a m e s . For e x a m p l e , 71. P. W. van der Horst, in OTP 2:579, places this verse in brackets because it is found in only one manuscript. It possibly was imported into that manuscript from James, though it is also found in Philo, Migration 21 §123. 72. In Ps. 19:9 (possibly also in Ps. 34:11) the "fear of the Lord" appears to have become metonymous for God's law.

J a m e s 5 : 7 - 8 gives as an example the farmer waiting patiently for the harvest, which is a model o f the Christian waiting patiently for the parousia o f the Lord. J a m e s 1 : 9 - 1 2 reminds readers o f the c o m i n g eschatological reversal, when the humble will be exalted and the exalted will be made low. J a m e s 1:21 and 5:20 remind readers o f their e x p e c t a t i o n o f the salvation of souls. J a m e s 5 : 1 - 3 warns o f the fiery j u d g m e n t c o m i n g u p o n the w i c k e d w h o oppress the poor. As B a u c k h a m ( 2 0 0 1 : 1 1 1 ) p o i n t s o u t , " R e c o g n i z i n g t h a t J a m e s is w i s ­ d o m i n s t r u c t i o n does n o t require us t o play d o w n t h e e s c h a t o l o g i c a l ele­ ment in J a m e s . " N o r does the e s c h a t o l o g i c a l element mean t h a t J a m e s has departed from the genre o f J e w i s h w i s d o m . It rather is thereby distinguished from G r e e k w i s d o m , which, since it has n o t e m p o r a l e s c h a t o l o g y and n o single divine judge, is n o t oriented toward a future manifestation o f divine righteousness. Further, note that J a m e s ' s e s c h a t o l o g y lies closest t o that o f J e s u s , w h o spoke o f the e s c h a t o l o g i c a l j u d g m e n t as a harvest ( M a t t . 1 3 : 3 9 ; cf. J a m e s 3 : 1 8 ) , referred to the Son o f M a n ' s c o m i n g in judgment as his parousia ( M a t t . 2 4 : 2 7 , 3 7 , 3 9 ) , understood the judgment to be a lifting up o f the lowly and a casting down o f the high ( M a t t . 2 3 : 1 2 ) , and warned o f the fiery judgment that is coming upon those who care nothing for the p o o r ( M a t t . 2 5 : 4 1 ) . And that brings us to the literature that in general bears the closest relationship to the content o f J a m e s : the teaching o f Jesus.

James and the Wisdom of Jesus At several points in the preceding survey we have n o t e d t h a t J a m e s closely resembles the recorded teaching o f Jesus. J a m e s does n o t cite the words o f J e s u s in the form t h a t we have t h e m in the G o s p e l s (although 5 : 1 2 c o m e s fairly close to M a t t . 5:34—37), nor does he explicitly refer to J e s u s ' s teaching, except in a general sense in 2 : 1 . Nevertheless, as m a n y scholars have n o t e d , a great deal o f J a m e s ' s instruction has a marked similarity to what we find in Jesus's ethical instruction in the Synoptic t r a d i t i o n .

73

T h e m o s t thorough

study o f this matter was undertaken by D e p p e ( 1 9 8 9 ) , who e x a m i n e s s o m e sixty writers on J a m e s from 1833 to 1 9 8 5 on the question o f J a m e s ' s paral­ lels to Synoptic tradition. Deppe finds a wide variety in the specific texts that scholars have seen as parallels, possibly because many o f the apparent paral­ lels also occur elsewhere in S e c o n d T e m p l e J e w i s h literature, but he concludes that regardless o f whether any one particular alleged dependency is real, the sheer number o f correspondences makes it difficult to argue that there is n o 73. Kittel (1942: 84) refers to the "echoes" (Anklange) through James.

of the Lord's word that are interspersed

relationship whatever.

74

T h i s is especially true o f the marked correspondences

t o the S e r m o n on the M o u n t ( M a t t . 5 - 7 ) and L u k e ' s corresponding S e r m o n on the Plain (Luke 6 ) .

7 5

James and the Sermon on the Mount/Plain T h e J e w i s h c h a r a c t e r o f the G o s p e l o f M a t t h e w has often been observed, and J a m e s ' s relationship t o M a t t h e w is also close (see Schlatter 1 9 5 6 : 1 9 - 2 9 ) . T h u s , it is n o t surprising t h a t J a m e s e x h i b i t s a high degree o f correspondence with M a t t h e w ' s presentation o f J e s u s ' s ethical teaching found in the S e r m o n on the M o u n t ( L o h s e 1 9 5 7 ) . W e may p o i n t t o the following correspondences: Matthew 5 - 7

James 1:2

Joy in suffering

1:4

Be perfect

5:11-12 (Luke 6:22) 5:48 (Luke 6:36)

1:5-6

Ask in faith

7:7 (Luke 11:9)

1:10

Riches are like grass

6:30 (Luke 12:28)

1:17

The Father gives good things

7:11 (Luke 11:13)

1:19-20

Do not be angry

5:22

1:22-23

Hearing and doing

7:24-26 (Luke 6:47^19)

2:5

God chooses the poor

5:3, 5 (Luke 6:20)

2:10

Doing the whole law

5:18-19

2:11

Murder and adultery

5:21-30

2:13

Mercy triumphs

5:7 (Luke 6:36)

3:12

Fruit indicates the tree

7:16-18 (Luke 6:43^14) 5:9

3:18

Peacemakers

4:4

Serving two masters

6:24 (Luke 16:13)

4:8

Pure in heart

5:8

4:10

God exalts the humble

5:5

4:11 (5:9)

Do not judge

7:1-2

4:13-15

Not worrying about future

6:34

5:2-3

Moth-eaten treasures

6:19-21

5:10

Prophets as examples

5:11-12

5:12

Do not swear

5:34-37

74. Deppe (1989) himself conservatively maintains that there are eight "conscious allusions" in James: 1:5; 2:5; 4:2, 9 , 1 0 ; 5:1, 2 , 1 2 , plus another ten ethical themes that are paralleled: joy in trial (1:2; 5:10-11), faith and doubt (1:6), warning against anger (1:19-20), hearing and doing (1:22-25), faith and action (2:14), the love commandment (2:8), mercy (2:13), serving God versus loving the world (4:4), refraining from judgment (2:12; 4:11-12; 5:9), and perseverance leading to blessing (1:5; 5:10-11). To this list I would add the theme of eschatological reversal evident in 1:9-11, as well as in the "conscious allusions" noted above (2:5; 4:9; 5:2-3). James 1:9-10 particularly, in contrasting the rich with the humble rather than the poor, appears to echo Luke 1:52-53. Deppe thinks that all told, there are about twenty-five verses that evince enough cor­ respondence to indicate dependency of some sort. See also Mussner 1975: 4 8 - 5 0 . 75. Whether or not the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke are redactional adaptations of the same event or record two different sermons with similar material, they present a coherent image of one dimension of Jesus's teaching.

T h e clearest example is the last one. T h e similarity here is quite evident: James 5:12 NIV

Matthew 5 : 3 4 - 3 5 , 37 NIV

Above all, my brothers, do not swear

But I tell you, Do not swear at all:

—not by heaven

either by heaven, for it is God's throne;

or by earth

or by the earth, for it is his footstool;

or by anything else.

or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.

Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," Simply let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," no, or you will be condemned. " N o " ; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

T h e Jewish tradition, and the wisdom literature o f the O T itself, advised caution in the use o f oaths, but the outright prohibition o f them seems to be a unique characteristic o f J e s u s ' s teaching, which we also find in J a m e s , even to the mention o f "neither by heaven nor by e a r t h " and the admonition to let yes be yes and no be no (this last being evident also in 2 Cor. 1:17). In addi­ tion to this very close correspondence, the sheer number o f correspondences seems to rule out pure coincidence.

Other Correspondences to the Jesus Tradition T h e correspondences are not entirely restricted to the M a t t h e a n S e r m o n on the M o u n t . A few correspondences are found only with the L u k a n S e r m o n on the Plain and not in Matthew, especially the reference in J a m e s 4:9 to eschato­ logical reversal in terms o f laughing and weeping (cf. Luke 6 : 2 5 ) . In addition to the above, other similarities to J e s u s ' s teaching outside the S e r m o n on the M o u n t may be noted, such as J a m e s 1:6 (believing and not doubting), which resembles M a t t . 2 1 : 2 1 ( = M a r k 1 1 : 2 3 ) . Further, it is not only the content o f J a m e s ' s teaching that bears such close affinity to the teaching o f J e s u s ; even the w i s d o m forms used in J a m e s are patterned after those found in the G o s p e l s . B a u c k h a m ( 1 9 9 9 : 5 6 ) observes that J a m e s ' s wisdom sayings (2:10; 4 : 4 ) , c o m p a r i s o n s or parables (1:23), be­ atitudes (1:12), woes ( 5 : 1 - 6 ) , and models ( 5 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) have antecedents in the forms that Jesus uses.

Conclusion W h a t is to be m a d e o f this? Certainly, o n e would e x p e c t s o m e c o r r e s p o n ­ dence o f J a m e s with J e s u s ' s t e a c h i n g , simply b e c a u s e they c o m e from the same milieu o f early Christianity, which had evolved from within J u d a i s m (Penner 1 9 9 6 : 2 5 4 ) . However, the e x t e n t o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , and the unique c h a r a c t e r and similar phrasing o f the p r o h i b i t i o n o f o a t h s , m a k e it m o r e likely that J a m e s k n e w M a t t h e w (or vice v e r s a ) , o r t h a t b o t h J a m e s and M a t t h e w had access to variants o f a p a r t i c u l a r t e x t (such as a p r e - S y n o p t i c form o f Q , as H a r t i n 1 9 9 1 : 1 4 1 - 7 2 p r o p o s e s ) , o r that b o t h J a m e s and M a t ­ thew were disciples o f a p a r t i c u l a r t r a d i t i o n , n a m e l y the t e a c h i n g o f J e s u s . Given the l a c k o f verbal c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , this last p o s s i b i l i t y s e e m s t h e

76

likeliest e x p l a n a t i o n . J a m e s and M a t t h e w (and at points L u k e and M a r k ) are s i m i l a r b e c a u s e their a u t h o r s were disciples o f J e s u s . B u t the similari­ ties fall far s h o r t o f a n y t h i n g like the verbal c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s seen a m o n g the S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s . J a m e s is p r o b a b l y therefore either writing prior to the formal solidification o f the G r e e k t r a d i t i o n o f J e s u s ' s words, and thus " q u o t i n g " in a different f o r m t h a n we have it in the S y n o p t i c s , o r (more likely) he is p a r a p h r a s i n g and reapplying the ethical t e a c h i n g o f J e s u s . 77

B a u c k h a m (1999: 9 7 - 1 0 7 ) notes that not only are particular texts similar, but also the overall tenor o f J a m e s ' s wisdom is similar to J e s u s ' s teaching in its (1) radical reinterpretation o f T o r a h , (2) rejection o f social stratification, (3) appeal t o eschatological motivation, (4) emphasis on G o d ' s mercy over judgment, and (5) c o n c e r n for the reconstituted people o f G o d . T h e author o f this letter has absorbed not just several o f J e s u s ' s sayings, but indeed the very ethos o f J e s u s ' s ethical vision.

James and 1 Peter J a m e s bears a certain curious relationship to 1 Peter. Although they are stylis­ tically quite different, both are deeply concerned with the problem o f Chris­ tians suffering ( J a m e s 1:2—4; 1 Pet. 1 : 6 - 7 ) . Admittedly, whereas 1 Peter has an intensely biblical-theological approach to the issue, understanding suffering as meaningful b e c a u s e o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the sufferings o f C h r i s t , J a m e s takes an entirely pragmatic approach, understanding it as building maturity o r wholeness. B u t despite this difference, there are some intriguing linguistic and o t h e r s i m i l a r i t i e s . B o t h address their audiences as " d i a s p o r a . " B o t h letters cite o r allude t o Prov. 3 : 3 4 ; 1 0 : 1 2 ( J a m e s 4 : 6 ; 5 : 2 0 ; 1 Pet. 5 : 5 ; 4 : 8 ) . Curiously, the forms o f the c i t a t i o n s o f Prov. 3 : 3 4 in J a m e s 4 : 6 and 1 Pet. 5:5 are not just alike, but together they are unlike the L X X or any other text form. B o t h letters also allude to Isa. 4 0 : 6 - 8 (James 1 : 1 0 - 1 1 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 2 4 - 2 5 ) . 78

For both J a m e s and 1 Peter the word o f G o d is a generative seed (James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23; see B a u c k h a m 1 9 9 9 : 155-56). M a y o r (1897: c x i v - c x v ) , who sees these and a n u m b e r o f o t h e r c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s , therefore supposes that the a u t h o r o f 1 Peter k n e w J a m e s and modeled his letter after it, arguing that 76. Wachob (2000: 17-18) says that the Epistle of James, by not specifying that the material comes from Jesus, effectively "attributes the wise sayings of Jesus to James." In addition to presupposing that James is pseudepigraphical, this reflects a Western way of thinking about texts, which requires proper acknowledgment of sources and avoidance of "plagiarism." It is like saying that the book of Sirach, in "adapting" Proverbs, is "attributing" the wisdom of Proverbs to Jesus the Son of Sirach. In most cultures, especially ancient ones, words and ideas were not "owned" by their first utterer, and wisdom in particular, even when its source is known, is a shared, communal thing (as Wachob himself appears to acknowledge). 77. This would apply also if any of the sayings in James suspected of being agrapha (words of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels) are in fact such. The sayings in James 3:18; 4:17; 5:20 sound like they could be references to traditional teaching stemming from Jesus, but there is simply no way of knowing. 78. For a thorough discussion, see Schlatter 1956: 67-73. Bauckham (1999: 155-57) has a more succinct and accessible discussion.

the much more extensive christological development o f 1 Peter puts it later. Certainly, 1 Peter exhibits more theological development, but the similarities between J a m e s and 1 Peter are, like J a m e s ' s similarities with the S e r m o n on the M o u n t , more indicative o f a c o m m o n milieu than o f direct dependence. T h e relationship between J a m e s and 1 Peter is much better understood as the result o f both stemming from a Jewish Christian Hellenistic environment in which Christian profession is b e c o m i n g dangerous. T h e use o f Prov. 1 0 : 1 2 (love covers many sins, which J a m e s only half quotes in 5:20) and Prov. 3 : 3 4 suggests not direct dependence, but only that b o t h these texts had b e c o m e important parlance broadly in early Christianity and were being adduced on occasions o f persecution or suffering. T h e c o m m o n t e x t form o f Proverbs and the dependency on a similar collection o f O T texts suggest a currency o f certain O T texts in the Christian community, which in the first century was by no means very large. But the uses o f the texts, the underlying theological development, and the style and vocabulary o f the two letters are so different that direct dependence in either direction is unlikely. 79

Was James a Reaction to Paul (or Later Paulinism)? As discussed above (see "Authorship and D a t e " ) , Hengel (1987) sees J a m e s as over against Paulinism not just in terms o f the "faith versus w o r k s " question, but in the way J a m e s and Paul see Christianity. W h e r e Paul takes a practi­ cal and cosmopolitan approach to wealth, seeing the wealthy as those who have responsibility to contribute to the support o f the p o o r and to facilitate Christian mission, J a m e s simply exhibits an unremitting negativity toward monetary wealth generally, so much so that the rich are seen as necessarily excluded from the kingdom o f G o d . W h e r e Paul is concerned with J e w i s h Gentile relations, J a m e s is simply focused on social responsibility. W h e r e Paul tells people that they should desire to be teachers, J a m e s e x h o r t s people to be reluctant to be teachers. But Hengel overstates the matter. N o d o u b t there are differences o f em­ phases, but it is not evident that the differences reflect a deliberate purpose on J a m e s ' s part to polemicize against Paulinism. W h i l e it is arguable that the latter part o f J a m e s 2 may be confronting a misreading o f Paul, most o f the other differences can more easily be explained with reference to their differ­ ent audiences. M o s t scholars who view J a m e s as a reaction see it more as a reaction to a later development o f Paul's thinking than to Paul himself. Dibelius (1975: 179) acknowledges that if the a u t h o r o f J a m e s is reacting to Paul, then he understood Paul poorly, but Dibelius also bluntly declares that "his remarks in 2.14ff are still inconceivable unless Paul had previously set forth the slogan 'faith, not works/'''' Likewise, D u n n (1977: 251—52) regards it as "obvious . . . 79. And, of course, if James and 1 Peter indeed were written by their namesakes, the two authors were colaborers who may have shared a particular Greek translation/recension of Proverbs.

t h a t what is reflected here is a controversy within Judaism—between that stream o f J e w i s h Christianity which was represented by J a m e s at Jerusalem on the one hand, and the Gentile churches or Hellenistic Jewish Christians who had been decisively influenced by Paul on the other." Similarly, Painter (2001: 58) thinks that J a m e s is "clearly an attack on what is understood to be Pauline teaching" (see also Painter 1999: 8 3 - 8 5 ) . 8 0

However, many older scholars (Beyschlag 1 8 9 7 : 7; Z a h n 1 9 0 9 : 1 . 1 2 4 - 2 5 ; M a y o r 1 8 9 7 : c x x i - c l i i i ; Schlatter 1956: 7 ) , as well as some more recent ones (Johnson 1 9 9 5 : 1 1 1 - 2 1 ; B a u c k h a m 1 9 9 9 : 1 2 7 - 3 1 ; Brosend 2 0 0 4 : 5 - 6 ) , argue that J a m e s should be read on its own terms rather than as a reaction to Paul or Paulinism or at least prior to making a judgment whether it is a reaction to Paul (Schlatter 1927: 4 1 9 ) . T h e fact that Dibelius, along with others who regard J a m e s as "inconceivable" apart from Paulinism, concedes that J a m e s is opposing "an abuse o f Pauline tradition that is quite at odds with what Paul himself advocated" (cf. Popkes 2 0 0 1 b : 9 0 - 9 2 ) ought to alert us to the possibility that J a m e s is reacting to neither Paul nor Paulinism but to something else. In fact, J a m e s ' s similarities with Paul's language in Galatians and R o m a n s in the last twelve verses o f J a m e s 2 (which is the only place where there are similarities more specific than the general c o n t e x t o f early Christianity) are best seen as the result o f a c o m m o n Jewish heritage (Bauckham 1 9 9 9 : 1 3 1 - 3 3 ) . T h e y are n o t in direct dialogue, and they are addressing entirely different problems (Childs 1984: 4 3 8 - 4 3 ; Chester 1994: 2 8 ) . W h e n J a m e s speaks about the limitations o f faith, he indicates that the problem is one o f a truncated notion o f faith, a false and empty faith that does not do what genuine faith does. T h i s has nothing to do with Paul's problem, which related to certain expressions o f distinctively J e w i s h c o m m i t m e n t to Torah (circumcision [Gal. 5:3]) and confidence in o n e ' s T o r a h observance or ethnicity rather than in G o d ' s mercy ( R o m . 3 : 2 7 ; G a l . 6 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) , nor is the faith that J a m e s attacks anything like what Paul calls "faith," which "works through love" (Gal. 5:6; see excursus 2 , "Faith, W o r k s , and Justification in J a m e s and Paul"). But, one may argue, surely it is inherently quite unlikely that any J e w prior to Paul ever supposed that faith without works did count with G o d , and so J a m e s could not have faced this problem prior to Paul. T h i s line o f argument presup­ poses two things: (1) there was, for J e w s , no problem o f empty profession o f faith prior to Paul; (2) J a m e s was addressed to Jewish Christians exclusively. I argued above, regarding the second presupposition, that it could very well be that J a m e s is addressing an audience that he regards as " J e w i s h " in the 80. M o o (2000: 26) suggests that James 2 is a reaction to a misunderstood form of Paulinism, but is prior to the meeting of Paul and James in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 (AD 49), since there they are said to have achieved mutual understanding. This view is difficult to maintain because it assumes not only that Paul did clearly delineate faith in opposition to works of the law before Galatians, and that this was propounded prior even to Paul's confirmation of his message that he indicated in Gal. 2:2, but also that the position had time to be misunderstood and presented as an "easy-believism" by Jewish believers all prior to the apostolic council at Jerusalem. This is as unlikely as Mayor's view that Paul was reacting against James.

sense that they are a m o n g G o d ' s elect people, even though not all o f them are genetically the offspring o f A b r a h a m , Isaac, and J a c o b , and a m o n g pagans the connection between religion and ethics could be very loose indeed (see "Original Recipients and O c c a s i o n " above). Regarding the first presupposition, as to whether J e w s were likely to think that an empty profession o f faith without obedience would have been salvific, it is worthwhile to observe carefully exactly what it is that J a m e s is attack­ ing. T h e " w o r k s " that J a m e s is c o n c e r n e d with, the " w o r k s " that people who profess faith must have, are things such as showing n o favoritism, showing mercy, and caring for the poor. J a m e s makes no mention at all o f circumcision, Sabbath observance, and purity laws. Now, if one reads the Gospels, one can find plenty o f cases where Jesus berates his fellow J e w s precisely for failing to do the kinds o f works that are most i m p o r t a n t to G o d , focusing instead on Sabbath observance or food laws (e.g., M a t t . 1 2 : 1 - 7 ; 2 3 : 2 5 - 2 6 ) . T h e scribes and the Pharisees that Jesus so readily calls "hypocrites" were devoid precisely o f those " w o r k s " that J a m e s insists are a necessary correlate o f real faith, even though those same scribes and Pharisees undoubtedly would have vigor­ ously proclaimed their "faith" in one G o d . And indeed, that is precisely how J a m e s characterizes such pseudo-faith: as a declaration o f belief in one G o d (the primary article o f faith attested in the S h e m a [Deut. 6 : 4 ] , a touchstone o f the Jewish faith), a faith that J a m e s derides as o n e that the d e m o n s can profess, though they shudder at it. Put simply, J a m e s ' s c o n c e r n is n o t with how one is put into right relationship to G o d , but with hypocrisy, and that was as much a problem in J u d a i s m as anywhere else. T h u s t o o , J a m e s does not oppose works to faith, but rather points to the absurdity o f their separa­ tion (Blondel 1 9 7 9 : 1 4 8 ) . So, even if J a m e s is addressing a purely J e w i s h audience, there is n o reason why J a m e s ' s diatribe against "faith without w o r k s " has to be a reaction to Paul or a misunderstanding o f Paul. It could very well be simply a n o t h e r echo of the teaching o f Jesus. But in fact I think it also likely that at least s o m e o f J a m e s ' s audience were o f Gentile background. It thus appears that J a m e s has features that can be linked to G r e c o - R o m a n moral e x h o r t a t i o n s , and t o O T w i s d o m and poetry, and t o O T p r o p h e t i c material, and to J e w i s h Second T e m p l e literature, and to certain other N T writings, both Gospels (especially M a t t h e w ) and other N T writings (especially 1 Peter). O n the other hand, J a m e s bears little resemblance to the letters o f Paul, beyond what may be expected o f their c o m m o n Christian milieu. Even if the alleged "response" o f J a m e s to Paul in J a m e s 2 is in fact a response to Paul's letters or teaching, it seems to move in a different sphere, deal with dif­ ferent problems, using similar vocabulary differently. 81

81. Resemblances can, of course, also be shown to later Christian literature such as Shepherd of Hermas, as well as later Jewish material such as the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. I have already argued that the strong verbal resemblance to Shepherd of Hermas is an indication that James was already circulating in the early second century.

All this is best explained if J a m e s was written prior to the later heavily christological development o f the church as seen in Paul and 1 Peter, prior to the parting o f the ways between Christianity and J u d a i s m , by a person o f Palestinian J e w i s h b a c k g r o u n d who was a disciple o f Jesus o f Nazareth, but written to a Hellenistic Christian audience, perhaps many o f whom were o f Gentile origin, but had, by virtue o f belief in Jesus as Lord, become reckoned a m o n g G o d ' s people (see further J o h n s o n 1995: 26—88). J a m e s , coming as it does from a J e w i s h source with J e w i s h theological background and assump­ tions, and J e w i s h identification o f ethics and wisdom (wisdom from above is pure, peaceable, etc.), is fundamentally J e w i s h in o u t l o o k and grounding, but is addressed to Hellenized believers, either Gentiles, or J e w s who had been acculturated into a Hellenic world. T h u s , as a g o o d preacher who "stands between two worlds," applying Scripture (the O T and Jesus's teaching) to a world different from that in which Scripture (both the O T and Jesus's teach­ ing) was originally given, J a m e s speaks the wisdom o f G o d using the forms, imagery, and rhetorical devices o f Hellenism. T h e Epistle o f J a m e s is therefore very much a "real" letter from one person to others, even if we c a n n o t identify the circumstances o f specific people, be­ cause this is neither an isolated theological t o m e nor a response to a specific church's problems; it is a practical admonition intended for circulation. It seeks to evoke from those who claim to have faith the kind o f behavior that manifests faith. It applies the righteous wisdom o f the sage J e s u s o f Nazareth to the Hellenized "diaspora" who have professed belief in this Jesus as the Messiah (Christ) and Lord (2:1), using the language and style that communicated well in their broad M e d i t e r r a n e a n environment.

Controlling Theme: Genuine Faith Several c o n c e r n s seem to recur in the Epistle o f J a m e s . Davids (1982: 2 3 - 2 5 ) lists several o f these in his attempt to outline the structure o f J a m e s . Simply reading J a m e s for content yields the following issues: H e a r i n g and doing the word (1:18, 2 1 - 2 7 ; 2 : 1 - 2 6 ; 3:2; 4:11) Speech control ( 1 : 1 9 - 2 1 ; 3 : 1 - 1 2 ; 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 , 1 3 - 1 7 ; 5:9, 12) Suffering, endurance, perfection ( 1 : 2 - 4 , 1 2 - 1 5 ; 5 : 7 - 1 2 ) Wealth and the desire for it ( 1 : 9 - 1 1 ; 2 : 6 - 7 ; 4 : 1 - 4 , 1 3 - 1 7 ; 5 : 1 - 6 ) Love, mercy, humility (1:27; 2 : 8 , 1 3 , 1 4 - 1 7 ; 3 : 1 3 - 1 6 ) W i s d o m (1:5; 3 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) Prayer (1:5; 5 : 1 3 - 1 8 ) Davids (1980: 9 7 ) thinks that the problem o f suffering is the controlling matter, but although that is a c o n c e r n at the beginning and the end o f the letter, m o s t o f the central portions do not directly touch upon that problem. Suffering is explicit only in 1 : 2 , 1 2 . And the c o n c e r n with suffering is indirect:

it is the response to suffering in faith and endurance that is J a m e s ' s interest. Unlike 1 Peter, he does not develop a theology o f suffering per se. I propose that the overall theme o f J a m e s , the matter that occurs n o t just at the beginning and the end but throughout, and that drives the deep c o n ­ cerns o f the whole letter, is that genuine faith in G o d must be evident in life (see Cranfield 1965: 3 3 8 - 4 5 ) , and that if one wishes to avoid false faith (i.e., hypocrisy), the "faith said" must correspond to the "life led." Genuine faith "saves" ( 5 : 1 5 )

82

and is indispensable ( 1 : 6 - 8 ) , but a faith de­

void o f works is a c o n t r a d i c t i o n , an absurdity (Blondel 1 9 7 9 : 1 4 8 ) . Indeed, the entire b o o k o f J a m e s is, in one sense, about the i m p o r t a n c e o f true faith and the danger o f a false, self-deluded, hypocritical faith. J a m e s ' s diatribes against hypocrisy are one o f the m a n y features o f the letter that bear uncanny resemblance to the teaching o f J e s u s . J a m e s ' s interest in genuine faith is introduced at the beginning o f his letter in his e x h o r t a t i o n to stand firm in the face o f the difficulties that his readers may encounter, described as a testing o f faith (1:3). It is also the request made in faith that is the key to wisdom (1:6). L a c k o f faith, on the other hand, o r "doubting," is the cause o f instability and failure (1:8). Faith is also presented as the crucial factor at the end o f the letter. It is specifically the prayer o f faith that rescues the sick person and eventuates as well in the forgiveness o f sins (5:15). But more broadly, although the word "faith" is n o t used throughout, it lies at the root o f the whole o f J a m e s ' s e x h o r t a t i o n . T h e patient waiting in 5 : 7 - 1 1 is nothing if not a presentation o f the character o f faith. H e n c e , the great diatribe in J a m e s 2 against a " f a k e " faith, a faith without deeds, is all the more trenchant because a "false faith," s o m e t h i n g that l o o k s like faith but is not, is perhaps the most dangerous idea in circulation for s o m e o n e who names the name o f Christ (2:1). T h e tongue is dangerous because it can give the appearance o f "faith" by praising G o d , but if it is simultaneously cursing those made in G o d ' s image, its employer is engaging in self-deception. In fact, the matter o f self-deception, which is what false faith is, is raised throughout the letter. T h e illustration o f the person l o o k i n g in the mirror in 1:22-24 is basically about the capacity for self-deception. T h i s self-deception is also an explicit concern in 1:16 and 1:26 and is implicit in 2 : 4 .

83

Self-deception

is deeply troubling precisely because one can deceive oneself into thinking that one has faith when there is n o n e .

84

82. Although the sense of physical salvation certainly is present in the beginning of 5:15, there is probably an overlay of spiritual deliverance (forgiveness of sin) as well, as is implied by the remainder of the verse. This is also the case with the similar language in Luke 7:50. 83. In 2:4 "judges with evil thoughts" (RSV, ESV, NIV), which I render in the translation in the commentary section as "judges rendering perverse verdicts," is in Greek Kpvrat StaAoyiauwv 7iovn,pd)V {kritai dialogismon poneron), literally "judges with bad reasoning processes," possibly another indicator of the self-delusion of those who are gathered in the name of Christ but are showing favoritism to the wealthy. 84. For more on the centrality of genuine faith in the letter of James, see excursus 1, "Faith as the Central Concern of James."

Structure J a m e s presents itself as a "letter to the dispersion," which, as noted above, was a type o f circular letter addressed from s o m e central figure, usually in Jerusalem or elsewhere in Palestine, to the J e w s o f the D i a s p o r a , those "scat­ tered" throughout the Hellenistic world. Such letters generally address how to preserve o n e ' s Jewishness in the midst o f a world antagonistic to Jewish culture, faith, and values. T h e content o f J a m e s certainly fits this character, though J a m e s is interested particularly in the form o f Jewish faith and values advocated by Jesus. But the Epistle o f J a m e s does not fit the pattern o f most other N T letters. Its ending seems quite abrupt (though Francis [1970: 125] shows that abrupt endings without personal greetings are not unknown among both public and private correspondence). M o r e significantly, J a m e s 1 appears to raise a n u m b e r o f items in sequence without an immediately discernible p a t t e r n , and often it is difficult to see the c o n n e c t i o n between the various c o m p o n e n t s o f the letter. T h e difficulty o f finding a convincing linear structure in J a m e s has resulted in a p l e t h o r a o f u n c o n v i n c i n g o r only partly convincing suggestions as to its organization or overall structure. Dibelius (1975: 1-11) seems to cut the G o r d i a n k n o t when he identifies the genre o f J a m e s as "paraenesis," which by definition has n o overall controlling structure. According to Dibelius, as the genre admits o f no overall coherent structure, it is fruitless to try to identify o n e in J a m e s . Dibelius could support this analysis by pointing to the "disor­ ganized" character o f Q , to which J a m e s has many connections. But just as later scholarship on Q has questioned Dibelius's judgment that Q is simply a "stratum" o f tradition without a theological message, so it is now questioning his judgment that J a m e s is simply a collection o f ethical exhortations with n o c o n n e c t i o n to the Christian message. Increasingly, scholars who study the Gospels are finding the ethical teaching o f J e s u s at the core o f J a m e s ' s mes­ sage ( e . g . , B e t z 1 9 8 5 : 3 5 ) . Dibelius is in s o m e ways reiterating a judgment made by Luther, who also saw no order or method in J a m e s (LW 3 5 : 3 9 7 ; 5 4 : 4 2 5 ) . But Dibelius acknowl­ edges that pieces o f J a m e s do have coherent structure. In particular, 2 : 1 - 1 3 is a unit, bearing the marks o f a treatise (Dibelius 1975: 124—25), a thematically coherent collection o f ideas that has the characteristics o f both diatribe and sermon. But this coherency is only within the pericope; it does not apply to the b o o k as a whole. Further, s o m e scholars have even seen parts o f J a m e s to be contradictory. For e x a m p l e , A m p h o u x (1981) observes that not only is the style o f the two interjected " C o m e n o w " sections (4:13—17; 5:1—16) different from the rest o f the letter, but also they seem directly c o n t r a d i c t o r y to the denunciation o f judgmentalism in 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 (cf. 2 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) . A m p h o u x thus argues that at least these two sections represent a divergent voice from that found earlier in J a m e s 4 and in J a m e s 2 . T h e alleged contradictory character o f these two interjections will be discussed in the commentary, but J a m e s is, after all, an exemplar o f the

genre o f wisdom, and in wisdom literature it is not infrequent that seemingly contradictory theses are deliberately j u x t a p o s e d to demonstrate the c o m p l e x character o f wisdom.

P. H. Davids and the Double-Opening Theory O p e r a t i n g with a t w o - s t a g e a u t h o r s h i p theory, D a v i d s ( 1 9 8 2 : 2 3 - 2 5 ) a c ­ cepts D i b e l i u s ' s j u d g m e n t t h a t the various pieces o f the E p i s t l e o f J a m e s were gathered by a later editor, but he a t t r i b u t e s t o the later e d i t o r m o r e skill and intentionality t h a n D i b e l i u s was able to see. In p a r t i c u l a r , Davids builds on the o b s e r v a t i o n s o f F r a n c i s (1970) t h a t G r e e k epistles s o m e t i m e s evinced a " d o u b l e - o p e n i n g " s t r u c t u r e w h e r e b y t h e c o n c e r n s o f a l e t t e r first are sketched out and then slightly m o r e u n p a c k e d before the b o d y o f the letter. Following this lead, Davids finds n o t a simple linear structure t o J a m e s , but two series o f t h e m a t i c i n t r o d u c t i o n s followed by a d e v e l o p m e n t o f the main t h e m e s in reverse order, with s o m e c l o s i n g e x h o r t a t i o n s piled up at the end: I. Double-Opening Statement (1:2-27) 1. First segment:

Testing pro­ Wisdom through Poverty exceeds duces joy (1:2-4) prayer (1:5-8) wealth (1:9-11)

2. Second segment:

Testing pro­ duces blessed­ ness (1:12-18)

Pure speech con­ Obedience tains no anger requires gener­ (1:19-21) osity (1:22-25)

[Summary and Transition] (1:26-27) II. Body (2:1-5:6)

Excellence of poverty and generosity (2:1-26) Demand for pure speech (3:1-4:12) Testing through wealth (4:13-5:6)

III. Closing State­ ment (5:7-20)

Endurance in the test (summary of the three major themes; 5:7-11) Rejection of oaths (5:12) Helping one another through prayer and forgive­ ness (5:13-18) Closing encourage­ ments (5:19-20)

This line o f approach is promising. First, J a m e s does seem to exhibit a double opening somewhat along the lines articulated by Francis. Second, Davids rightly recognizes that certain themes recur in several combinations in J a m e s . Unfortunately, close examination o f Davids's outline tends to raise certain questions. For example, "excellence o f poverty and generosity" seems a strange and narrow way to describe J a m e s 2 , and "testing through wealth" poorly rep­ resents the stern character o f the two warning sections that rebuke merchants and landholders. T h e s e seem, rather, to be carefully worded titles designed to make the facts fit the theory. Further, even the groupings seem somewhat inco­ herent. For example, the middle grouping—"wisdom through prayer," "pure speech contains no anger," and "demand for pure speech"—mixes together elements only loosely related (wisdom, prayer, anger, control o f the tongue). And there is much material in 3 : 1 - 4 : 1 2 , for example, that could fit under the poverty/wealth paradigm (e.g., 4 : 3 ) . And verses such as 4:10 ("Be humble before the Lord, and he will exalt y o u " ) , which seems closely related to 1:9 ("Let the humble brother boast in his e x a l t a t i o n " ) , is yet in an entirely different division. Finally, the fact that the latter part o f J a m e s 5 is treated as something o f a bag o f leftovers might suggest that J a m e s ' s structure is not quite so neat. O n the other hand, Davids's proposal is helpful in showing that the various parts o f J a m e s are not, as some maintain, unrelated to each other. There is indeed, as I will argue below, a cyclic t h e m a t i c recurrence, and Davids has shown that J a m e s is not simply an incoherent assemblage o f miscellaneous exhortations.

Rhetorical Approaches Recently, several attempts have been made to understand J a m e s in terms o f its rhetorical effect. R h e t o r i c a l analysis focuses on how a text functions as an effort to affect people or cause something to happen. An example o f an attempt to use rhetorical analysis to resolve the problem o f J a m e s ' s structure is seen in B a a s l a n d 1982. Baasland recognizes that J a m e s is at heart a kind o f wisdom instruction, but he also argues that the presentation o f that instruction is framed as a horatio, a language event that urges people to do something or behave in a certain way. In particular, Baasland ( 1 9 8 2 : 1 2 2 ) notes that the open­ ing o f J a m e s ( 1 : 1 - 1 8 ) introduces all the main themes o f the b o o k , which then are set forth, argued, and drawn from. Baasland outlines J a m e s as follows: 1. Exordium ( 1 : 2 - 1 8 ) : introduction to the matter to be dealt with 2. Propositio ( 1 : 1 9 - 2 7 ) : setting forth the thesis to be argued 3. Argumentatio a. Confirmatio ( 2 : 1 - 3 : 1 2 ) : proving the case b. Confutatio ( 3 : 1 3 - 5 : 6 ) : disproving possible objections to the case 4. Peroratio ( 5 : 7 - 2 0 ) : applicational conclusion Wachob ( 2 0 0 0 : 5 9 - 1 1 3 ) , more carefully restricting himself to the clearly iden­ tifiable unit o f 2 : 1 - 1 3 , finds the " c o m p l e t e argument" described in Rhetorica

ad Herennium 2 . 1 8 , 2 8 as the operating framework for this segment. H e re­ gards 2:1 as the theme (exordium), 2:2-4 as the reason (ratio), 2 : 5 - 1 1 as the p r o o f (probatio), divided into an a r g u m e n t from e x a m p l e ( 2 : 5 - 7 ) and an argument from judgment based on law ( 2 : 8 - 1 1 ) , and 2 : 1 2 - 1 3 as the conclusio or peroratio. Hartin (2003: 128) refines and expands this to include the second half o f J a m e s 2 and 3 : 1 - 1 2 as well (similarly, Watson 1 9 9 3 b ) , so that 2:14 is the theme, 2 : 1 5 - 1 7 the ratio, 2 : 1 8 - 1 9 the p r o o f or confirmatio, 2 : 2 0 - 2 5 a development (in this case embellishment by e x a m p l e ) , and 2 : 2 6 the conclusio. In J a m e s 3 , 3:1 is the theme, 3:2 the reason, 3 : 3 - 5 a the proof, 3 : 5 b - 1 0 the development, and 3 : 1 1 - 1 2 the c o n c l u s i o n . T h e problem with these kinds o f rhetorical analyses is manifold. First, rhetorical scholarship has been n o m o r e successful than any o t h e r type in producing a clearly identifiable and agreed-upon structure for J a m e s . S e c o n d , close e x a m i n a t i o n o f the material itself, away from the p r o p o s e d o u t l i n e , shows that the rhetorical model accomplishes its analysis by pushing the ma­ terial o f J a m e s into the framework and minimizing the fact that, at points, this is forced. For example, does J a m e s ' s discussion on "wisdom from above" versus the "earthly w i s d o m " really function to disprove possible o b j e c t i o n s t o J a m e s ' s concern? Is 2 : 2 - 4 a reason or rationale for not showing favoritism, or is it rather an example o f favoritism happening in the church? Is 2 : 2 0 - 2 5 sim­ ply an embellishment and different in rhetorical design from 2 : 1 8 - 1 9 ? T h i r d , even when the analysis is restricted t o a clearly identified segment (such as in W a c h o b 2 0 0 0 ) , one can, given the wide range o f types o f rhetorical argu­ ment in the classical literature, to some degree choose the model that seems to match one's theory about J a m e s ' s c o n c e r n s at any particular point and then, after some massaging, find that it "fits." D o e s this truly help us better understand J a m e s ? 85

Rhetorical analysis o f J a m e s does, to its credit, recognize that the letter's overall purpose is not simply to "prove a p o i n t " or " m a k e a c a s e . " Instead, J a m e s assumes that his readers share a number o f basic theses and truths that he puts forward (Wachob 2 0 0 0 : 1 9 4 - 9 5 ) and then seeks to move his hearers to action. In other words, the problem is not that his audience has different assumptions and ought to change their minds; instead, it is that the audience, who are assumed to agree with J a m e s ' s theology, may be living in ways incon­ sistent with that theology. (Whether that inconsistency is real or hypothetical is not crucial, for such inconsistency is always a potential problem.) However, simply trying out classical rhetorical structures and making J a m e s , or s o m e part o f J a m e s , fit one o f them offers us no help in recognizing the structure of the letter. Further, such rhetorical analysis, although it does bring to light aspects o f J a m e s ' s c o n c e r n for C h r i s t i a n behavior, a s s u m e s t h a t the a u t h o r was 85. Later on in his commentary Hartin (2003: 203) treats 3:13-4:10 as another rhetorical unit, based on the topos of "envy" (following Johnson 1983).

consciously following a G r e e k pattern o r else (unconsciously) developing a classically based rhetorical p a t t e r n in a c c o r d a n c e with a G r e e k education. T h e fact that J a m e s has to be massaged into one pattern o r another ought to warn us that although it is possible that J a m e s was indirectly influenced by such patterns o f presentation in the broad M e d i t e r r a n e a n culture, such influ­ ence is only a function o f his linguistic environment and does not represent a conscious rhetorical effort.

Toward Resolving the Structure of James Although Davids's outline seems forced, and his application o f the "doubleopening" (addressed in the body in reverse order) appears somewhat manipu­ lated to fit his theory, I think that he has hit upon the general path to a solution to understanding J a m e s ' s structure. T h e difficulty in outlining arose because, as Western thinkers, we are used to the linear organization and thinking patterns o f the Greek tradition, such as we frequently find in Paul. As B a u c k h a m (1999: 112) points out, however, "It is a mistake to think that coherence in J a m e s must be sought in the form o f a logical sequence o f thought running through the whole text." T o o much demand for logically linear coherence will simply result in Dibelius's conclusion that J a m e s has no coherence. But if J a m e s comes from a Palestinian J e w i s h environment, and in particular a Galilean Jewish back­ ground, we might expect something unlike typical Greek (or Western) linear letter structures, rhetorical or otherwise (cf. Schlatter 1927: 4 1 8 ) . M u c h more progress is made, therefore, when attention is given to central thematic elements rather than to searching for similarities to pre-existing Hel­ lenistic forms. O n e o f the most promising studies in this direction is that o f Cheung (2003: 1 8 1 - 9 4 ) , who highlights J a m e s ' s thoroughly Jewish character by identifying the S h e m a as a unifying thematic principle in the epistle. T h e Shema is theologically foundational for J a m e s , but beyond being a simple state­ ment o f fact (to which even demons can agree, 2 : 1 9 ) , the unity o f G o d implies his integrity, which should also be manifest in the unity and integrity o f G o d ' s people. T h u s J a m e s ' s concern that his faithful hearers be "perfect" (i.e., whole and complete, 1:4; 3:2) as well as mutually respectful and supportive, and his attacks against the non-integrity o f double-mindedness, strife, self-deception, falsehood, favoritism, and hypocrisy, run all the way through the letter and are integral to a genuine c o m m i t m e n t to the G o d who is one. M y own m e t h o d in approaching J a m e s is as follows: 1. Identify the chief c o n c e r n s o f the letter by observing how much time the a u t h o r spends on each o f the issues and how vigorously they are presented. 2. Observe the structure within the smaller units that are clearly recognizable as such ( 2 : 1 - 1 3 ; 2 : 1 4 - 2 6 ; 3 : 1 - 1 2 ; 3 : 1 3 - 1 8 ; 4 : 1 - 1 0 [or 4 : 1 - 1 2 ] ; 4 : 1 3 - 1 7 ; 5 : 1 - 6 ; 5 : 7 - 1 1 ; 5 : 1 3 - 1 8 ) . By this we may discover within each unit a con­ trolling t h e m a t i c interest, with various related issues and perspectives, around which central theme other issues orbit.

3. Determine how these c o n c e r n s are presented and interrelated. 4 . O n c e we have a general picture, return to the first task o f reidentifying the chief concerns and begin the process again. We already noted the observation by J o h n s o n (1982) t h a t m a n y aspects of J a m e s have a c o n n e c t i o n to Lev. 1 9 : 1 0 - 1 8 , and that probably this reflects Jesus's own interest in the ethics summarized in Lev. 1 9 . B u t these reflections are not systematic, or at least the organization is far from obvious. It rather appears that J a m e s , writing to the " d i a s p o r a " gatherings o f Christians, has a number o f mostly ethical c o n c e r n s : suffering, constancy, care for the poor, showing no favoritism, speech ethics, unselfishness, c o n d u c t in recognition o f G o d ' s sovereignty, forgiveness, and intercessory prayer. Further, the studies noted above have made it clear that J a m e s 1 is a kind o f precis o r " e p i t o m e " (see J o h n s o n 1 9 9 5 : 1 5 ; B a u c k h a m 2 0 0 1 : 1 1 2 ) t h a t summarily presents the themes o f the letter, though n o t in a straight line but cyclically and from a variety o f angles. Also, the "double opening," though perhaps not quite as neat as Davids drew it, does appear in principle to be operating: the several themes o f the b o d y o f the letter are introduced and reintroduced. T h e n J a m e s 2 : 1 - 5 : 6 presents a series o f a d m o n i t i o n s that tend to focus on one o f these issues while relating some o f the other issues to that central one. T h e end o f the letter, 5 : 7 - 2 0 , in echo o f chapter 1, draws a few remaining things together and to a close, focusing primarily on patience and intercessory prayer. As I will show below, the fundamental m o t i f that runs straight through J a m e s is his c o n c e r n with genuine f a i t h . 86

Structural Indicators In the process o f observing J a m e s ' s structure, certain features b e c a m e manifest that seem to be functioning as structural markers, in particular the use o f the vocative " b r o t h e r s " and the use o f proverbs as " c l o s e r s . " "BROTHERS" AS DISCOURSE MARKER T h e vocative " m y b r o t h e r s " often serves to i n t r o d u c e a new s e g m e n t , but some segments lack it (e.g., 4 : 1 ) , and sometimes " m y b r o t h e r s " occurs in the middle o f a discussion (3:10), so it c a n n o t be used by itself to identify topic shifts (contra M o o 2 0 0 0 : 1 2 2 ) . However, as noted below, " b r o t h e r s " does often introduce segments and might serve as a secondary marker. PROVERBS AS "CLOSERS" O n e reason J a m e s has been regarded as an e x a m p l e o f J e w i s h wisdom litera­ ture is the density o f apophthegms (short, pithy a p h o r i s m s ) , catchy turns o f 86. Johnson (1995: 14) argues that the organizing principle in James is the polar opposition of "friendship with the world" and "friendship with God," an approach earlier developed in Johnson 1985. However, I think that at points it is a stretch to see this as the controlling rubric throughout James, and the opposition of friendships fits much better as one aspect of James's concern with genuine faith.

phrase, and s u m m a r y proverbs in the b o o k . B a u c k h a m (1999: 6 3 - 6 9 ) suggests that these s u m m a r y proverbs also serve as a structuring device. Clear, short, apophthegmatic "sayings," often embedded in exhortation and sometimes concluding the several segments, can be seen at these locations: 1:20:

H u m a n wrath does not work G o d ' s justice.

2:13a:

J u d g m e n t is merciless to those who show no mercy.

2:13b:

M e r c y triumphs over judgment (cf. 4 : 6 ) .

2:26: 3:5:

Faith without works is dead (cf. 2 : 1 7 ) . T h e tongue is little but makes big boasts.

3:18:

T h e fruit o f righteousness is sown in peace for those who

4:4:

Friendship with the world is enmity with G o d (cf. 1 J o h n

make peace (cf. M a t t . 5 : 9 ) . 2:15). 5:16:

T h e prayer o f a righteous person has effectual power.

In addition, if it is correct that in 4 : 5 a the "scripture" that J a m e s has in mind is not 4 : 5 b but rather the quotation o f Prov. 3:34 in 4 : 6 , then possibly the saying o f 4 : 5 b is another o f these proverbial sayings rather than an intended Scripture reference (see the c o m m e n t a r y ) : 4:5:

T h e spirit he has caused to dwell in us yearns toward envy.

Several other verses have s o m e o f the character o f a proverbial saying, but are more expansive and less pithy: 1:12:

Blessed are those who endure temptation, for being proven, they will receive the crown o f life.

1:27:

Religion that is pure and undefiled with G o d and the Father is this: to watch over orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

2:5:

G o d has chosen the p o o r with respect to this world to be rich in faith and heirs o f the kingdom (cf. Luke 6:20).

2:10:

W h o e v e r keeps the whole law but stumbles in one thing is guilty o f all things (cf. M a t t . 5 : 1 9 ) .

3:2:

W h o e v e r does not stumble in word is a perfect person, able to control the whole body.

3:8:

N o one can t a m e the tongue; it is an unstable evil, full o f deadly poison.

3:12:

A fig tree does not make olives, o r a vine produce figs. N o r does a salty spring make sweet water.

4:12:

T h e r e is one lawgiver and judge, who is able to save and de­ stroy (cf. M a t t . 1 0 : 2 8 ) .

4:17:

T o the one who knows a good thing to do and does n o t do it, there is sin.

5:20:

T h e one who turns a sinner from the wandering way will save that sinner's soul from death.

All o f these are in the form o f observations and applications o f w i s d o m and are expressed as third-person indicatives. B u t several o f J a m e s ' s direct imperatives, while in the form o f c o m m a n d s rather than proverbs, also have similar memorable and trenchant style: 1:19:

Everyone should be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.

3:1:

N o t many o f you should be teachers, knowing that teachers will receive greater judgment.

4:7-8:

Resist the devil, and he will flee from you; draw near to G o d ,

4:10:

H u m b l e yourselves before the L o r d , and he will exalt you (cf.

and he will draw near to you. Luke 14:11). T h i s pithy style not only has given rise to a large number o f widely m e m o ­ rized verses in J a m e s , but also may be a key to the letter's structure. THE PARALLEL STRUCTURE OF JAMES 2 AND JAMES 3 One o f the clearest clues to the structuring o f J a m e s lies in the parallel structure of J a m e s 2 and J a m e s 3. Even Dibelius acknowledges that J a m e s 2 seems to consist o f two distinct parts, 2 : 1 - 1 3 and 2:14—26. T h e same bipartite structure may also be seen in J a m e s 3 . T h e very close parallel structure is even m o r e observable if we lay it out as follows: Favoritism, and Works Generally (2:1-26)

Speech, and Wisdom Generally (3:1-18)

"My brothers, do not have" (2nd plur. pres. "My brothers, do not be" (2nd plur. pres. impv. impv. verb; v. 1) verb; v. 1) "for"

"for"

conditional sentence to demonstrate preced­ conditional sentence to demonstrate preceding ing (vv. 2-4) (vv. 2-3) "Listen" (v. 5)

"Look" (v. 4)

first concluding (double) proverb (v. 13)

first concluding (double) proverb (vv. 11-12)

Secondary Development: Faith That Works Secondary Development: Wisdom from Above versus Empty Faith (vv. 14—26) versus Earthly Wisdom (vv. 13-18) "What good is it?" (v. 14)

"Who is wise?" (v. 13)

//clause with negative example (vv. 15-16)

/ / clause with negative example (v. 14)

development (vv. 17-25)

development (vv. 15-17)

concluding proverb (v. 26)

concluding proverb (v. 18)

T h i s structure may also be observed beyond just these two chapters. Start­ ing with J a m e s 2 , J a m e s may be seen as comprising a series o f discourses, circulating around the themes introduced in J a m e s 1: persecution and suffer­ ing, faith and perseverance, speech ethics and wisdom, poverty and wealth. E a c h o f these discourses is marked off by an opening rhetorical question or a c o m m a n d (2:1; 2 : 1 4 ; 3 : 1 ; 3:13; 4 : 1 ; 4 : 1 1 ; 5:7; 5 : 1 2 ; 5 : 1 9 ) , accompanied by the vocative "brothers," and is closed by a short summary proverb or saying (2:13; 2 : 2 6 ; 3:12; 3 : 1 8 ; 4 : 1 0 ; 4 : 1 2 ; 5 : 1 1 b ; 5:18; 5 : 2 0 ) . T h i s leaves only one interposed section, 4 : 1 3 - 5 : 6 , which bears something o f the character o f woe oracles (see the c o m m e n t a r y ) . It is not addressed directly to " b r o t h e r s " as an exhortation but rather stands both as a warning to those who are oppressing the brothers and as a reminder to the oppressed that solace is at h a n d . 87

Although J a m e s 4 roughly follows the same pattern as J a m e s 2 and J a m e s 3 , it is not as tightly parallel as they are. Possibly, the discourse beginning at 4:1 already closes with 4 : 1 2 , because 4:13 seems to be an entirely new subject. But 4 : 1 2 is not proverbial, and 4:13 is neither a rhetorical question nor a pro­ hibition. T h i s could call into question whether J a m e s 4 fits the pattern at all, but the difference may be because in J a m e s 4 the author is beginning to move into the final series o f warnings and e x h o r t a t i o n s .

Summary and Outline In addition to the t h e m a t i c c o n c e r n that runs through J a m e s (the necessity that faith be genuine), there is the structural device o f summary apophthegms. J a m e s seems to close out the various segments o f the body o f his letter (after J a m e s 1) by using apophthegms as " s u m m a r y statements" or conclusions to his several c o n c e r n s , and I think that B a u c k h a m is correct that these pithy sayings thus constitute a marker o f the letter's organization. 88

A l s o , J a m e s regularly addresses his hearers as " b r o t h e r s , " and although sometimes " b r o t h e r s " can appear in the middle o f a section, he seems regu­ larly to use it at the beginning o f each section. T h i s , coupled with the use o f apophthegms as s u m m a r y statements, allows us to delineate the structure o f J a m e s . B e a r i n g in mind J a m e s ' s overall interest in genuine faith, I offer the following outline: I. Salutation (1:1) II. Overview o f the life o f faith ( 1 : 2 - 2 7 ) A. Faith and wisdom ( 1 : 2 - 8 ) ["brothers"] B . Pride and wealth ( 1 : 9 - 1 2 ) C. Faith and testing ( 1 : 1 3 - 1 8 ) D. D o i n g the word o f G o d ( 1 : 1 9 - 2 5 ) ["brothers"] 87. The analysis here is similar to that of Bauckham (1999: 63-65) in that he too has taken his literary cues from the vocative "my brothers" and the concluding aphorisms. 88. Although my outline differs somewhat from Bauckham's, both are based on the same notion and thus are broadly similar.

E. True religion ( 1 : 2 6 - 2 7 ) [summary statement] III. First Discourse: Faith and behavior ( 2 : 1 - 2 6 ) A. Part 1: Faith, favoritism, and law ( 2 : 1 - 1 3 ) ["brothers"; apophthegm] 1. Faith and favoritism (2:1—7) 2. Faith and law ( 2 : 8 - 1 3 ) B . Part 2: Faith and works (2:14—26) ["brothers"; apophthegm] IV. Second Discourse: Faith, wisdom, and speech ethics ( 3 : 1 - 1 8 ) A. Part 1: Teachers, tongues, and turmoil ( 3 : 1 - 1 2 ) ["brothers"; apophthegm] B . Part 2: Wisdom from above ( 3 : 1 3 - 1 8 ) [apophthegm] V. T h i r d Discourse: Strife in the church as lack o f faith ( 4 : 1 - 1 2 ) A. Part 1: Lusts and repentance (4:1—10) [apophthegm imperative] B . Part 2: D e f a m a t i o n and censure ( 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) ["brothers"; apophthegm] V I . Interjection: T w o oracles o f warning ( 4 : 1 3 - 5 : 6 ) A. Oracle 1: Warning to merchants ( 4 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) [apophthegm indictment] B. Oracle 2: Warning to landlords ( 5 : 1 - 6 ) [apophthegm indictment] VII. Fourth Discourse: L o o k i n g to G o d ( 5 : 7 - 1 8 ) A. Part 1: Faith and patience ( 5 : 7 - 1 1 ) ["brothers"; apophthegm imperative] B . Bridge verse: Prohibition o f oaths (5:12) C. Part 2: Faith and prayer ( 5 : 1 3 - 1 8 ) [apophthegm in v. 16] VIII. Closing e x h o r t a t i o n : M u t u a l responsibility and blessing ( 5 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) ["brothers"; apophthegm] These segments, with the exception o f the interjected woe oracles, have a basic formal structure, most beginning with a vocative " b r o t h e r s " or s o m e variant thereof (marked above with ["brothers"]) and closing with a s u m m a r y proverb or apophthegm (marked above with [ a p o p h t h e g m ] ) . 89

Theology Dibelius (1975: 11) declares, " J a m e s has n o theology." Presumably, he means that J a m e s , by virtue o f its genre as "paraenesis," neither articulates a coher­ ent Christology nor develops a soteriology. T h e theology o f J a m e s is assumed more than expounded in the letter, and to s o m e degree the reader o f J a m e s must extrapolate the underlying theology by reading the letter against the back­ ground o f J a m e s ' s Jewish framework and Christian c o m m i t m e n t . Certainly he shares, as do all the N T writers, the c o m m o n convictions o f J u d a i s m that 89. Remarkably, given James's close connections with the Synoptic Gospels, this is not dis­ similar to the way apophthegms come at the end of some of the didactic stories about Jesus (e.g., picking grain on the Sabbath, which ends with the summary conclusion "the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath