Commentary on the Epistle of James (BNTC HNTC)

THE EPISTLE OF

JAMES

BLACK'S NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES GBNEIAL EDITOR: HENRY CIUDWICK D D

T H E EPISTLE OF JAMES

B U C R 1 NEW TrrmM(BHII m

W

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. M A m f E W Zloyd V. P W THE GOSPHL ACCORDING M ST. MARK Slamom E. Johnan THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE A. R. C. Lcney THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN I. N. m n surd 8. A. h k t h THE ACIS OF THE A m s T L m C S. C. Wlllimn THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS C. K B . n n t THE PIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS C. K B m t THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS C. K B u m , THE EPISTLE T O THE PHILIPPIANS F. W. Bevc

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES Timothy I & 11. .nd T i m J. N. D.Kdly THE EPISTLE T O THE HEBREWS H. W. Montrfim THE EPISTLE OF JAMES Sophe Lnan THE EPISTLES OF PETER AND OF JUDE J. N. D. Kdlg THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES I. L. Hd&" THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DNlNE G. B. Csird COMPANION VOL I

THE BIRTH OF THE NEW TESTAMENT C. F. D. Movk

I

I I

A COMMENTARY ON

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES SOPHIE LAWS LLsaurrbNe"T~t8Ndl. KitIg" w e , La,&"

ADAM k CHARLES BLACK LONDON

PIIWI PUBUSWED 1980

*. AND C. BLACK WBLISHBIIS) UMllPO

35 aeowao now.

0 1980 8-

W N ~ N wcis4m

LAWS

N n r T n u n m t mmmeatuin). I. Bibk NmTcatamen. EpinkofJ-sCommurk

I. Title 11. B i b k . N c a T e u m a t . E p i & o f Jamn. English. h. 1980 227.91'077 882785.1 ISBN &7136207%7

prinied and bound in cn&8dain by Ellling sod Sans Lxmltcd Guildford, London. Oxford, Woraafc.

CONTENTS PREFACE ABBREVIATIONS INTRODUCTION T H E ENVIRONMENT OF JAMES T H E SETTING OF JAMES T H E CHARACTERISTIC IDEAS AND INTERESTS OF JAMES T H E EPISTLE OF JAMES AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY THE AUTHOR SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY T H E EPISTLE OF JAMES TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY INDEX OF REFERENCES INDEX OF NAMES

PREFACE

ON compledng this mmmmaq an the Epistle of Jams, my thnLs are due above dl to Dr HenryCbadwick, forentmscing the task to an untried postgraduate audcnt, for waitingthcunmngionablc time she tmk to aaomplish it. and for helpful advicein thefinalanees IamalsomatcfultoDrHcdkvS~~ks . who supervised my research work, and to friends and fellowteachas at King's College London, whoeneouragcd, or goaded, meon towriteMyparentshavealwaysfoUowedthepmgressof the book with interest, as hasmy husband, who even assisted with its typing. For that, if for nothing else, itsdedication must be to him:

..

J a mforJohn: the man of lam

n.62

NmrEmtem TesU R J o l i q l o t h Old TU1m R i d a d I d & , PkcRm 1969. The Aponypha and P~mdqigrophaoftha Old Taste 1MU.d.R. H . C h d ~ . , 2 V o 1 4 O d o d1913. 1MU. d.J. B.

EST

HTR H c d ~ Schrr+mdck

LXX

rn

MM

OCD

7-1 daiMimlLham. J m l ofSendt#r Stdir~. J a m 1 ofThologiaia1S t u l L ~ . Glak-Englid L m ' q rd. H . G.Liddcll m d R s a t ; new edn 1 9 4 3 Thc sentuasint

~ ; . ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ m .

T ~ C

~ h vuroburor) r 4 1 h 0 l r k ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ l r ~ t u w n ~ a w a d a h NmLiuray Sam,.By J. H Moulmn m d C hGUil(.a. Lmdon I P I C I 9 2 9 . T h r Orlovd Clorr~rolD i r t i a o w . ed. N. G. L.

Po.! I* P

NTS SB TDNT ZNW

TG,rqicar Zni4 t h NN r--. ed G.w. Bmmilcy (u.n.l.,ion d G. K i d ' , The&"& W m t m b d ) ,GI& R.pidl,Michig.n 1 9 6 C 1 9 7 6 z e ' t s c h n f i die I Wirinurhafr.

2 ENGLISH TIIANSUTIONB OF THE BIBLE AV

GNB JB

The A u b a i d (King J - ) V s i o a Gmd New. Bib*. J d m Bible. ir

THE E P I S n E OF JAMES NEB . * b i ~ a@a ? ! we ~ RSV R n i d StmdrdVm-.im. RV Rcdd Venioa

Kap&

3. Eorno~sOF m Nuw 'RBzmmm H KAINH AUBHKH, d 0. D. Iwptrick la tk B l i t i l .nd Padgn Bib*

m+,

2nd & h d m

1958.

UBS WH

The6khN~TatnnnSdKALadM.Bl"k.C.M. Mutini B. M. Mmger a d A. W i e n fa tk United Bible %*in. 3rd & MGnaer 1975 The N m Te,t.mmu in h C+#hl Druk d.B. F. Wutmt.ndP.J.A.HorqC.mbridge~odLondw1881.

1 pnt d the Christian a n o n d holy scripture, the epistle of Jams is an oddity. I t lacks almost all distinctive marks of Christian faith and practice. Same have suggested that it wps originally not a Christian dacument at all, but a Jewish t e n interpolated to bring it into Christian usc; yet if this wen so. it would still he remwkabk that the added veneer should be so thin. T h e b a t known comments an the epistlc am those of Mmin Luther. In his 1522 Rdace tothc New Testament, he judges that 'St John's Gospel and his first epistle, St Paul's epistleq especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St Peter's first epistle arc the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvltary far you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other boak or doctrine. Therefore St James' epistle is really an epistle of straw,' compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.' Luther placed James, with Hebrews, Jude and the Revelation of John, at the end of his wanslation of the New Testament, out of their usual canonical order. In his Reface to the Epistles of St James and St Jude, he denies that James is the work of an apostle, because of what he s e s to be its opposition to Paul in its intapretation of justification, and because 'it is the office of a true anostlc to oreach of the Passton and resummion and offre of Chr~st,and ta lay the foundnt~onof fatth tn hm.. . All the genuine sacred bmka agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [freiben]Chrsot'. Luther's misgivings about the prerrnce of the epistle in the canon are hardly unprecedented; as he himself mmments, the histon, of its slow a c m t a n a into the canon mav indicate that tiey were felt from'an early stage. In hmorieal tmna, the ehnef lntcrest of t k epistle of James is in itsevidenceof the way the nature ofChristtanrty WPP un-

CONSIDEREDM

of what might he thought to he the

.

' A n duaion to 1 Cor. iii. 12.

1

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES &mood by this author, his mdcrs, and, maybe, by those who accepted his work as a p m of thdr &pun. Yet a h , as even Luther admitted about the work of this 'good, pious man', 'then nre many good enyings in him'.' In his reinternretation of traditional ideas in new nituations in his insnnence on the right practiced p y c r and of charity, and in his appeal to the nature of mm and the nature of Cod tn cstabl~shxngrules far conduct, the author of the epistle dcorrvcs a continued hearing. The intmduetion to a mmcntarv is espntidv a mnclunioi presenting to the reader the vi&s that the m'mmmtator has fonned about the character and intention of his t e n in the course of his study of its contents and his attempt to elucidate the author's argument. This invoduetion will, then, assume an interpretation of various verses of the epistle for which detailed exegesis will be found in the commentary.

The epistle of Jamen affords notaioudy scanty material for answering the traditional questions of an introduction, as to the date of the document, the identity of the author and the situation and geographical location of both himself and those whom he addrenncs It is b a t to begin by &etching in bmad g m e d t w s t h e worldofthought andexpnienu towhich this author belongs In the first plat+ he belonga firmly in the mmld of early Chnktionity. There is no tatual w m t for eliminating the hn,refmnccs to J e w Christ in i 1 and ii. 1,' and even apart hmm these them are other clear indications of the author's

' hmtiolu fmm h l h d s Rehw am from Lrtlm's

Wmkr VoL 35. Word snd &mot I. ed E Thodo- B.ehmnn. Phibdclphi. 1960, pp. 362. 396 md 397. A8 did L. M-4 Z'cpifrr & J ~ -1' ~cua Cdticn?', R l w r de I'ffindr~du Reti~'(.u. 32.1195, pp. 24%283; d F. Spirt* 'Do Brid d n Jabbud, in hia ZYI G e ~ c h i h I lu d LiftnOM dsr Uvchrirrmru~.2, Gbrtingsl 1896. ,pp. 1-239; bRh w i n g for the ercluainly Jewish chux~tcrof the ep~atle.

'

2

INTRODUCTION Christian character. The teaching d Jeaus as found in the synoptic tradition is rdiccted in i. 5, i. 17,ii. 5, ii. 8, ii. 19, iv. 3, v. 12 and perhaps d m v. 20.Th d i m s i o n about faith and wmks in ii. 1C26 is mnductcd in twhich premppoac mme acquaintance with the Pauline argument about jwificstion; it cannot he m d as n Jewish reaction to Paul becauae of the author's failure to r e d i ~ that Paul's attack is directed to nations of works of the Law, but must represent a debate conducted within Christian circles. J a m s u p s the language of Christian eschatology in v. 7 f.; and the language of Christian initiation (whether spccificdy of baptism or m a r generally of mnvssion) is drawn on in i. 18,21and ii. 7. C l o s similarities to the teaching of other New Testament authors, especially the author of 1 Peter, may r e k t common use of developing patterns of Christian ethical instruction (i 24,i. 21, iv. W). In designating Jesus as 'the glory' in ii. 1, James shows an acquaintanoe with one line of development of Chrismlogical thought; and he fallows the initiative of curliest Christianity in entitling him 'the Lord', in i. 1, ii. 1,v. 7 f., v. 14 f. It is under the authority, and in the power, of Jesus that the eldss of the community anoint the sick, and that community is termed rkklZria, the Church (v. 14). Yet the amisi o n of what might be thought to be central and indispensable Christian themes is glaring. There is no reference to Christ's death and its & a s or to his rrsumction; none to the gift and activity of the Holy Spirit; none to the sacrament of the eucharist. Example of endwarn is found in the prophets and in Job, v. 10 f., rather than, a s by the author of 1 Peter, ii. 21-23, in Christ; and in contrast to the practice of every other New T n t m c n t author (except the author of the A p d y p e ) , the titlealord' is still more frequently a title of God (i. 7, iii. 9, iv. 10,iv. IS,v. 4,v. 10,v. 1 I).By conmst with thinkers such an Paul. John or the author of Hebrews, the Christianity of James will inevitably be judged as superficial and undevdoped. Semndlv. lames ahoaa a dear awmintaace with the warld oj~udoirk:in affirming the pmpodtion that is onep,i i 19, he affirms the central tmct of Jewish faith, p h p s even in terms of its ccntrd praya. His characteristic eondrmnation 3

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES d t k 'doublamiaded' man, i. 8, iv. 8, & a s

the Jewish t k m d doublmess as a cause of sin. and in p n i d u ; as for James, of d&dmor in mw. P d l s mnv be drawn from many weas of Judni&to~Jams's extoniig of t k Law as 'perfst' and as 'the law of freedom' (i. 25, ii. 12) and to his inmstmce that it be kept in full (ii. 10). James frqwntly quotes the Jewiah d p t u r e s and appeals to examples drawn from them (ii 8, ii. 11, ii. 21-25, iv. 4 r. 11, v. 17 f.); retains the title 'Lordof Sabaoth' for God,v. 4; and uses the Jewish term for the p l u r of punishment. Gchcnns, iii. 6. His piety, the theme of the righteous poor (i. 9, ii. 5, v. 6) and the importance of charity (i. 27, ii. 15 f.), can be scen to have its rmts in Jewish tradition. Ye it may be doubted that Judaism is really the h.amework of the author's life. He is one of the few New Testament authors to mention neither the Jcws nor Israel by name, and his addregl to his readers as 'the twelve vibes of the Dispersion', i. 1, is most readily understmd as dimred to Christians in their character as the true I s a d (though that would not of munr preclude their being also in fact Jews by nce). He makes no mention of Judaism's characteristic institutions: circumcision; the keeping of the Sabbath and the fmd laws; rules of ritual purity and aeparation (see on i. 27); the worship of the Temple (and his sunogogi in ii. 2 is not necessarily the Jewish place of meeting). It might be a p e d that he had no occasion to mention such mattor that he tmk them far enntcd. but it is m h n g that hc d&s n u appmiarc that the faullnc Gumen1 on fatth and works involved a d~sputcabout the Torah. Hie own appeal to the Law, w k n made explicitly, is to a very limited area: Leviticus xix. 18 (ii. 8) and the Dcdogue ( i i II), and the m n t n t and manner of his appeal to the latter calla in question the m e n t of his 'whole' law. His appeal to scriotm. tm.. is ecneraUv , simle and straiehdorward. T h e elements of'Jcwphneso' ~n Jams am thrown tnto mlef by the lack of pronounced Chnatan mlownng, but thew w e n t should not be exaggerated. James's sniptwal quotations M drawn from the Scp tuagint, and he knows the Greek Old T n t a m n t so intimately as to make telling use of allusions to it as well as fonnaUy

.

4

INTRODUCnON citing quoutions (thus in i 10, iii. 9, iii. 18,iv. 5, v. 4)). The third 'anld' to which k bdonga is rk ifelhiitti -Id: the &wed cult- of the c u c m Mediamncu, area within the Roman Empire that m d t e d from the mnqucas of Alexander the Gnat and the aubscqucnt founding of G m k cities with their characteristic featurn of agora, stadium, theatres, templea and gymnasia (an acmunt of the attempt thus to Hellenise the city of Jsusalem m y be found in 2 Maw. iv. 7-15). The citizen of this world would be expected to have a general education in rhetoric. grammar and elementary philosophy. pmes'a language is G m k , and he vlrs it with a emam feeling for cadence and an especial fondness f a alliteration (e.g. i i 6, i. 14, i. 25, iii. 5, 17, iv. 9); the imperfect hexsmner of i. 17 is probably of his own devising.' He opens with the m n m t i d form of greeting of a Hellenistic letter, i. 1, and makes use of some of the devices of the d i a t r i k a form of m d address, both mitten and oral developed in the Cynic and Stoic schmla but widely adopted by popular preachera of many pemasims, including Paul (eg. ii. 18. iii. 10, iv. 13; ssc Ropcs, pp. 10-16). Som of his striking metaphors have little biblicd background, but are mmmanplace in G m k .nd Latin litmature (the horse and the ship in iii. 3 f., d.the images of man's control of the animd kingdom in iii. 7, and ofthe mist in iv. 14). The pious pmviso he commends in iv. IS has no biblical precedent, but is a familiar Hcllcniaic idiom. Jams shows same acquaintance, too, with the language of philosophy, though very much at the level of the catch-phrase with little appreciation of its original content (i. 21, iii. 6); and he makes clumsy play with the tshnical vocnbulq of aaronomy (i. 17). Aloo in catehphrase t-s, he shows n fmiliarity with the Imgung of magic. as it is found in the rich store of magical papyri (i!. 19, iv. 7); the p r a n i a of mlgie was, of cawst, an m a of religious

'

An nurdaltaa of Jnmn'. Olsck wk d d bc nn d in this m m m u r ) r , ba my. bc raud in & mmmnurin d - ~ a y m pp. , ali-lii md Diitiu%pp. 3 6 3 8 . W. L.K m x d m r n nnrntionto vbat k re. as pulidticm of t k qi-kles Cract, in mnUr~Ringhis theory of it ss mmpacd of origin.1 tm plus HcUmiric m m m n t y i . 'lk Epistle dSIJame.'.jTSXLVI. 19+l.pp. 10-17. 5

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES syncmiam, where Jearish. Greek, Oriental and ultimately Christian dements intermingled. In g m m l , then, Jams's environment would seem to be the -tine of Christian. Tewish and Hellenistic thought, at a popular and unsophisticated levd.

lk SETT'INGOF JAMES

The attempt to ewahlish mon precisely the situation of James within this general environment d l focus on t h m a s : fist, the social situation of James and his r a k s in the life of the Hellenistic world; pmndly, their lo~stianamong the s e o u a groups of early Christianity; and thirdly their gengaphical location. The attempt to define thex three areas will also he conducted in t h m ways: through assessment of internal indications, of literary affinities, and of the external attestation of the epistle. The appeal to i n t n ~ N l i b fmm the epistle as to its situation is problematical on the grounds of its g m and the character of its mntent. Thc epistlc of James is a literary letter. Its opening addrens is not to a spcific community in a oanicular dace to which it is to he desoatched. liLc Paul's to the Corinthians. Philippians or Thessalonians. J a m s addresses Chnotran madao in g n m l , as the pmple of Cad In it* dnsprsion. and any of them mqht be s u p p o d to pmfi from what he mite+ His letter form is a common wnvention employed alike by Roman authors such as Seneca and Pliny (though some of Pliny's are genuine letters), Jews like the authors of the epistles of Aristeas and Jeremiah, and Christians like the author of the epistle of Barnabas (ac Ropes, pp. 6 1 0 ; A. Deissmann, Lightfrom TheAncient E a t , revised edn. ET London 1927, pp. 227-233; and an. 'letters, Latin' in OCD). Congruously, his materid is of general applicability, rather than a respons to a specific situation Uncertain prayer, abuses of speech, quarrclsomncss and envy, are not the pmicular problem of any one wmmunity. James draws his material Imm a variety of sources, and the structure of his writing is Imse. Sometimes there is a passage of sustained argument, as io ii. 1-9, ii. IC26, iii. 1-12; more 6

ohm the author mwes from one subject to snaher with only a loose min of thought disemiblc (so in i. 2-8, iv. 1-10. v. 1-1 I). Thest ehsrnnaiascs d cclcettcism and lack of m n tinuity in the mntcnt of Jams's teaching lead Dibelius to classify the d w u m a t as pronesis and strongly to d i e murage any attempt to deduce its situation from the author's choice of s l b j m mattn and examples (see his Introdunion, sections 1 and 7, pp. 1-11 and 45-47). It may. however, reasonably be s u p p s d that although the author thought of his work as having a general interest, he probably also had some i d a of its initial readerahip; that hi8 selection from the vast stock of ethical material. Jewish, Hellenistic and Christian. orobablv d s t a somethine of his own interests or of the c h & n n oithe Christian comLunity with which he is most immediately familiar; and that the illustrations u d to mif o m his general admonitions would only serve to do so if they'bom some relation to the actual experience of those who mad them. Thus, for inlaancc, when James expounds his warnine nepinm discrimination in terms of n D ~ C ~ Wof the canmukt73 mcctlng (18. 2 A), it m y be sup& that m e such dtustion as he sknchcs would be mognisabk. The mn-tianal scriptural t-s in which to illustrate such n warning would be those d the law-cow; James d s t s a knowledge of this in v. 4, but hc d u s not simply take it over. Similarly, the behaviour of merchants is not necessarily the obvious namplc from which to draw warnings about the tnnsitoriness of human life and the folly of human boasting (iv. 13-16). One may p r u m that the author c h o r it beaux he thought his madcrs would nppneintc it. The problem of detecting intsnal pointers to a ml situat b n is most acute in assessing Junes's remarks about rich and wor. lames's Iancuaee on this s u b i a is at its most mlised &th k e balancednan~theacsof 8 . 9 i.. the apoeslypt~et h k n 2 v. 1-3 and the Old Testament imapry of v. 4. Momver. an quatton of rich as wicked and p m r as pious had long bcrn a convention in some areas of Jewish thought (it is sen notably in psalms such as x, xlir and cxl, and in the Pulms of Solomon), passing theinto Christian tradition (for a full survey of the r r l w ~ mataid, t see the article by E. Bnmmel 7

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

m o ~ 6 rin TDNT vol. VI pp 88&91S. d m Dibelius p p 39-45). Junea may. then, be aem as aimply including in his collstion of ethical materid a familiar idea; and no funher deductions ahould be drawn. Ho-, it is uguablc that the tradition of the poor as the rightem was most fervently maintained by those who w a r in fact actually poor: the Qumran community cdled themselves 'the poor'. and in thcir xlf-ehosm isolation may well have litmlly been so; the Jerusalem Church.called 'the poor' in Gal. ii. 10; Rom xv. 2 4 needed red support (cf. Acts xi. 2MO); the designation of Jewnsh Christians in Palestine as Ebionites, fmm the Hebrew ' e b y a , poor, lnta sltiriscd by Oligm,' may have its origin in part in thcir cxpsiences dwing and .her the two Jewish mvdts Where such mnditiona did not obtain. the ndvanrages d wealth might bc appreciated, and the vndition modified' James himself modifies it: the poor arc choxn to be 'rich in faith' and thus inherit the kingdom (ii. 5; ef. the variation in the parallel passages of Lk vi. 20; Matt. v. 3). N a is his language on this subject m m l y conventional,buf is distimivdy adapted. T w i a he employs his characteristic method of Old Testament allusion to add f o m to his argument (i. 10, v. 4). His precise delinestion of the rieh man of i i 2 is in t m s pmbably evocative of a particular type in his and his rcadm' experience. His rhetorical question about the a c tivim of the rich as moressors draws on the lanrmaec " " of b a ~ t m (I, b f), and he may be seen them 8s mralltng actud c r p m c n a s of hno Chrtstnan moders h o w m dtffirull these .re to monsuuct. Chws~ngsa h ~ eramplc s of d~vr~mlnntton the relative treatment of rieh and poor at a community meeting, he very deliberately links this to thc central Christhn commandment of Lev. xix. 18 (ii. 8); and he dcmonstntea

.

' mi. w i t h i s "pd by D.L.m m d in Tk di.pngemrnt of

vrdrh in Nca Tenrmmt rime.', n unpvhlihrd M. Lilt. lkaa for thn University or Btinoi, 1971; alao in M. Hmgel PmprnyoldRirhr, in the Eorly C h m h . ET Landan 1974,e.pcidyc h p s s 2 d 1 8

INTRODUCIlON t h htility of 'aalrkas' faith w t only by acripud eumplc but d m in a pointed p d y of IIIC piety that neglects charity to a ' b m h a or sister' (ii. 15 I.). It seems maamable, then, lo suppoae that the inclusion d taching on rich and poor, thus ma~ivelypmsmted, r e f l a s a red c o n a m of the author hmself. He does not i&alis povaty pr re, but his antipathy to the rich as a dass is explicit From the force of his language it would sccm thnt this nttitude is not s h a d by the Christian group he knowsmast iw timntelv. Althouzh t h m mav have bcen netdv mmbers whose ktuation Zould call foAh charity, this d&s not mean that the wholc community was pmr. If ii. 2 IT.represents, however ernggerntdly, a possible situation, it would seem thnt they would not readily identify with mmone in red povmy. They may well have perceived the advantages of attracting wealthv ,omon or wealthv mnvenslii. 2 f.. mrhaos such might he d r a m fmm the praperour merch~ntoof iv. 13); as H~ma~confidently saw the mutud benfit of rtch and pmr brlicvers: the rich supplying the poor's n d s , the poa making intcrmsion for the rich (Sim. ii). James, however, writes to punctuate such confidence by exposing, as he s e s it, the character of the rich at pr-t (ii. 6, iv. 13-16) m d their f u t m fate(i. 10f.. v. 1-3.5). James's language may, then, giw mme mdimtion of the social situation or aocid attitudes of himaclf and his madera It is doubdul if it supplies any evidence of t h i r gcognphicd situation. D. Y. Hadidian has argued h a t the imagery of the epistle is at timm drawn fmm the Pdeninim secn:' thus i. 4 i. I I, iii. 1 1 and v. 7, hut the warding of the first three is too imprecise to guppon hia mnclusions, while the fourth may readily have been derived from the LXX, espcdzlly as James is in context presenting a mnsioualy 'biblical' situation. He c h o w s to much his atla& on the rich in terms which arc pointedly evocative of a wholc tradition of divine judgment on injustice; the picture cannot be t a k n to indicate thnt his

.

.

.

.. .

D. Y. H.didim. Tdrainim -8 io tk Epin* d Jmn'. ErT LXIII.1951-52 pp 227-228. L E. EUiat-Binn* Galilmn Chrillimtity, L o n h lPSQpp.45-5Z -fmtheepidee~aigin inG.Wcc, a 1

THE EPISTLE OP JAMES

readers were an ngricultural wmmunity, far less a Palestinian amicultwal wmmuniw. His reference to waders liv. 131 and ho; nmagc of the ship'(iii. 4), have been mkcn tb indientc a vapa pettmg, but lhcn la mthing to show the former as necessarily travelling ovawas, while the latter is again a familiar image, though not this time of biblical origin. A further attempt to place the epistle in its rrtting may k made through observing osfnities mith other documents, and t h i r rrtting; but again precise links are difficult to establish convincingly. Strack-Billerbeck cite numerous parallels ktJames and Rabbinic literature (SB IV,pp. 751-761h but the resemblances are of a very general kind. Similar ethical questions are treated, and t k same doctrinal principles employed: consideration of t k nature of man; the sanction of the law of the m Gad. The d o e s t similarities am to the simple maxims of the Mishnah tractate Aboth (se parallels cited on, e.g., i. 6, i. 19), where the Rabbinic tradition itself is seen at a primitive stage and as still broadly in the wisdom tradition. James's u a of scripture shows no acquaintance with the subtlety of learned Rabbinic exegesis to e s tablish holnknh or to provide midrashic expansion of biblical narrative. Paul shows his education in the use of scripture in such passages as Rom. iv. 2-8; 1 Cor. x. 1-4; Matthew and John have a knowkdge which they use polemically (e.g. Matt. xxiii. 1 6 2 2 ; Jn vii. 22-23), but them is no comparable evidence for such knowledge on the part of Jamerr' Similarly, there have inevitably b a n attempts to link James, like other NT dacuments. with the Qumran manuscriasl Tames's phrase 'Father of tights'(i. l7jis campared with;hes~rineeof lights' of the Manual of Diaipline (I QS iii. 20; cf. CD v. 18); 0 Sc. on ii. 25, s. ]Of., v. 17.Theuggcnionof M. Gertnnrhet Juncsean k rcn as a sgaematic npo(1ifi0nof Ps mi. 1-5 ('Midrashim in the Nrv Testnmmt',JSS 7, 1962, pp. 283-291). foundemon the n b a m of quotation of that text: them e m s no maon why the authw should cdit out his main text whcn he d s n r k r e relics on explicit quotation. 'A. R. C. kmey.A ~ i d & e the Snolb. London 1958. pp. 91 L;T.H. Gsster, The S m @ n u of the Dead S w S e t , Landan 1957, pp. 2627: G. R, River, The Judoeon Snolb. Oxfad 1965, pp. 543 f.; W. I. W o l v a ton. 'The DoublrMtndcd M m in the Light of Esane PsychoW. Aqlican Theobgr'grgrl Reuino 3 2 , 1956, pp. 166175.

10

INTRODUCTION

his m u r d c d 'rightenus one' (v. 6) with Qunuan's martymd 'teacher of rightmuancsa'. These specific links are unconvinang, and the parallels which exist (c.g. on i. 6 IT., i. 25, ii. 10) are again in areas of general interest in Judaism. The diffsences between James and Qumran we more striking than any resemblances: James does not employ the sect's characteristic methcd of berhn exeeesis: . has none of its int m s t in rituals of purifi&~ionor grades of mitiation; no echo of its nationalist hopco; no evidence of ,to h~crarrhtcalcommunity structure; nor docs his mmmunity seem to have been a closed soeicty, but rather one acquainted with mercantile life (iv. 13) and law courts outside its awn discipline (ii. 6), and which admitted visitors to its meetinn lii. 2). The lewish character of Jameo cannot plausibly be seen to denvc from links with citha of these two dmttnct~vcawns of Judaism. SVikmg sim!larities of Impagc may he found ktJmcs and 'testamental' literahre, esp&ially the Testaments of the Twdve Pnviarrhs.' The T e s t a m t s show. like James, a great interest in the doubleness of man's character, and its o i l effects (see parallels cited on i. 8, especially fmm the Testaments of Asher and Benjamin; Test. Benj. vi. 5 candemns there being 'two tongues, of blessing and of cursing', cf. Jas iii. 10). However, the Testaments do not employ James'a distinctive term dipsucbs, using instead the idiom of 'two inclinations' or of being 'double-faced', while on the o t h a hand James shows no knowledge of their association of doubleness with the work of Bcliar. The probability is that each is independently developing a common and familiar theme. Similarly. James and the Testaments urge the putting to flight of the devil (parallels on iv. 7), but here they are likely

-. .

'

.

lhne p.r.llds may hvsc pmckd the &oq of Mcyer that tbc cpldc is in origin tha'tcenmnt' offikirbol. Iamb, to hie t d v e m s ( A . MCFI, Dai Rdtirl der Jabbwbriefm. Gie1930; u h e a o t i d y adapted by 8. S. Easton. The Epistk of Jams. lnt-m'. Bibk Vol. I& New Ymk 1957). T7G theory founders like rhst of Gsmcr on the abof the eutntid nrvnurd festuma supposed, in thmeax t k nrmen of t k twelve mns, and on the mnordinary vssstility of the author, who 8s seen to make rrferme. to them lhmugh n krmwkdge not only o f t k LXX but d s o of thc H e b c w f e n of the OT. and thmugh plnymg on the meanings of Hebrew nnrncs (onamneie).

11

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES both to he dnwing on the language of popular magic and exorcism. The ns~mblancesue not au&icnt to link Tames wtth the Mting of the Tcanmnts; nor would such h link clearly catabl~shthe ongin of the cpistk, since the date of the Tcstamcnts thcmsdves is d~sputed. as t o their original character, whether Jewish or Christian.' Within m a i n l y Christian literature, the striking parallel between Jas V. 12 and Man. v. 33-37, a paawge peculiar to Matthew in the gospd tradition, immediately suggests a close relationship between the epistle and that gospel, and that the snting of the former should be found in relation to that of the latter. Funher parallels might seem to substantiate this. Sane of the vocabulary characteristic of Matthew's edition of his material is found also in James: dikoionrni (Jas i. 20, iii. 18; Man. iii. 15. v. 6. 10, 20. vi. 1, 33, xxi. 32); teleior (Jas i. 4; Matt. v. 48, d x . 21); ekklZria (Jas v. 14; Matt. xvi. 18. xviii. 17); porarria (Jas v. 7; Matt. xxiv. 3, 27, 37 and 39). In cow tent, too, James might seem to draw upon Matthew, d e c t i n g the Matthean beatitudes an the merciful and peacemakers (Matt. v. 7, 9) in ii. 13 and iii. 18. Both warn against care for the m o w : Man. vi. 34; J.s iv. 13 f., and about seeking the status of teacher: Matt. xxiii. 8; Jas iii. 1. Initially impressive+ these parallels need to be mighed carefully. With I.% t k d i m d m by M. & J m g . 'Tk iaterprrtatioo of th+ Teaunens of the Twelve Patriuchs in mmt pan', in his edition of S t d i a r on the T n t m m u of tiu k l o r P o M , Leidm 1975. pp.

1R1LIP2 ... . .

M. R. Tmn Mta a number d -Ma bctnm lams m d snothr 'tc.!rmmi~. dauman. The ~ e r m - r 01% m hm;dlt80n ( T m i and Sludws. V I. C m h * 1899). but 11 IS d x l r l y thst my of #he+ would hssr m m d noucr had 81 nar k e n lhsr I x m s m d the rutha d thr T a r t a m t b a h chmcrcriae Job na n man of huponarl. T h ~ ais to some cxfcnf an intcrprnarion of the biblicd pinure, but mt such m enrsordmrry ow ns to demand a link ber*m the two m t n a M. R. lams judged tk Tatnlnrnl to be ~ m n century d J c w i l Christian w a k ; S. P. B m k , tk mon mmt editor of the work. R r u d r p i ~ a p h o Yacrir T c s t n m t i Grnrcr If. Leidm 1967, mnsidera (in s private letter) t h r it could be o f t k fur m t q BC n AD. Its dare and character are thva u h certain, a that it roo would -tribute little to the dnring and placing d J r m o r u m if lome mlntianlhip were argued. 12

the parallels of vocabulary, diRaioMli and telcior PR ethical t m a with a mnmdmble biblical (LXX) backgmund; skk6n.a one mieht exocn to find in anv earl" Christian docummt:pomu~absbmea n tshnical term in dhnstisn eschatobgy, found fqucnlly dscwhcre in the NT,'and James lacks Matthew's 0th- and more didnctivc eeehatologtcd 1-8, pnlingenncrio (fix. 28) and runleleio tmr oi-s (uiv. 3, m i i i . 20). It may be that the two beatitudes underly lames's statements about merev, and oeacemnkine. but these are in a form so different from the .Matthean that II c m o t be certain, and w ~ t hthe second an altcrnar~vewwce In OT allusion may be suggested. In dealing with care for the morrow, the two authors'-targets differ, att thew's k i n g over-anxiety and James's over-confidence;whiie in the warning to teachers James shows no mnscious~ssof Matthew's specific attack on those who m e t the Jewish title 'Rabbi'. Similarly, when the two draw on teaching of Jesus in the Q tradition. they & d a p it diffmtly: Jesus' call to ask in order to receive is by Matthew referred to receiving 'gwd gifts' in general; by James related speeificdly to the gift of wisdom (Matt. vii. 7, Il;,Jas i. 5; d. Lk xi. 9, 13; James later returns to this theme, in rr. 3, to mnsider the problem of asking which is n a faUowed by receiving, a development not found in Matthew). The beatihtde on the poor is in Matthew spiritualised as an addnss to the 'pmr in spirit', and in J a m s bemmes a double promise to the poor m he 'rich in faith' and to inherit the kingdm (Matt v. 3; Jns ii. 5; d.Lk. vi. 20). Even with the prohibition of oaths which is the most striking parallel between the two, their wording of the positive ruling is 8ufficiently dissimilar as to give a different meaning to the whole, and James also lacks both Matthew's direction of this

.

Davits and D,bluk cd.. Slrdies in tk ~ark&nd o f t k Nno Twonrnl and itr E x h a w . Cambridge 1956. pp. 261-280. His s r p m n t msta on m identlfieation of We tighrcoua me' of 1.8 v. 6 with Iraus, and on 8 strict spplieat!an ofchmnolog~ulordcr in Matt.raiv, dtnringuieh~ng r k ennra of vv. 27 and 30, and 1s unmvincing in both rmpects.

THE EPISTLE OF J-S teaching m an attack on Jedsh casuistry with oath formulae (Matt. v. 34-36, d. ndii. 16-22) and his theological rational6 for the prohibition, namdy that man's oaths constitute an amgant appeal to God's sphere where man has no control M. H. Shepherd, arguing for a relationship between Matthew and James, concludes that 'the Gospel of Matthew provides the author of the Epistle with eupport for the presentation of his themes, and it gives hi in his treatment of t h e s themes such theological depth as he has',' hut Matthew's theological dimension is absent in this as. The parallels which exis between Matthew and James are in sayings which muld readily be abmbed into the gencral stock of Chnstian ethical teaching. The majority of them are found in the -on on the mount which Matthew himself characteriws as Jesus' teaching to the erowds(Man. ni. 28 f.); Matthew, of course, in presenting this teaching calls attention to the authority of Jesus the teacher, while James makes no such appeal. For the setting of James to be established in relation to that of Matthew, the two authors must be shown to share each other's more characteristic interests and conm n s . James's affvmation of the 'whole law', ii. 10, is eupnbci* similar to that inMatt. pi. 17 fE, hut whereas it is clear that for Matthew this involvesthc whole Torah (loc. Fit. and Matt. xdi. 40; James's inter-relation of L o . dx. I8 and dx. 15, argued an ii. 4, is m t comparabk to Matthew's implication of 'all the law and the prophets' in the gnat cornmandmcnt), including the maintenance of its ritual presrrip tions (Matt. xxiii. 23. and the omission of Mk vii. 19b in the parallel passage Matt. xv. 17). and maybe evm cnmding to its oral intcrpretat~on(ndii. Z),James's explicit appeal to the Law 8% as has already h e n noted, much more Ixmitrd. only to Lev. d x . I8 and the Decalogue. which might have been seen as the law sanct~oncdhy Jrsur (d.Mk u!.29 IT. and x. 17 IT.). 9 M a w H.Shcphsd. Thc Epidc of J m a d t k c o l p l of Matthew'. JBL 75. 1956, p. 47. Shrphsd mmnts f a the imprcciv wading of the p d l a by mggning that James dcri~edhis krmkdge of h h n k w fmm ksring the goapd -4 in ChwQ rsths thm fmm mading it himself: a is unelw if he thinks that this reading ir taking pha in thc original Matthem mmmunity, to which J m s w d d ~ k r e f o mbclong.

I4

INTRODUCTION Alongside his mintmedux of the Law, Matthew takes up a polemical attitude to its Jewish, &idly Pharisaic, interpreters, most notably in chaptcrs v. ZWvi. 18 and n i i i (his warnings a b u t oaths and the d e s k to be teachers have already been seen to be thus slanted), and indeed towards the Jewish pew ple (Mat. mi. 43, niii. 35 f., m i i . 25). James contains no such explicit attack, nor can it be seen to be implicit in his writing at any point; again as h e a d y noted, he show no s p Darent interest in the Tewish oeoolc. His own most soeeific attack is on the Pauline interprrtat~onofju,tPcntiun, as he understands ~ tand , this In turn is unlihly to be n mnccrn of the author of Matthew. Evm w e .Matthcw9sdefenceof the Law to be seen as a reaction to Paul's treatment of it, that would be p r s i s l y the dement in Paul's argument of which James seems to be ignorant. His dispute with 'Paul' is not a dispute a b u t the Law. Finally. James's suspicion of the rich has already beat discussed; Matthew, by contrast, may be seen to lone down the antipathy to riches found m his source matcrtal (compare .Matt. v. 3 wtth Lk. vl. 20 and 24: poasibly the ~nclusion of the mndit~onalclause In .Matt. ux. 21.6. Mk r. 21. 1s intended to moderate the instruction to the rich young man; certainly there is not that hostility to the r i d per re found in the Lukan material, e.g. Lk. i. 53, xii. 16-21, mi. 19-25).' The condusion must surely be that although Mntthew and James both draw on a similar tradition of the teaching of Jesus, not only do thcy use and interpret it differently, but the", are meaeed in different debates. Their chanctcristic c o n m s are oo dissimilar that thcy must be seen as employing their common material in different situations. The rdation of James's argument a b u t justification by faith or by works, in ii. 21-25, to Paul's expasition of juatifration in Gal. iii and Rom. iii-iv is fully discussed in the cornmentary on that passage, and will not be rehearsed here in advance. Jamca's argument rnuw presuppose Paul's, but it is in the highest degree unlikely that it presupposes Paul's as the .apostle himself presents it in his letters. Rather, James has I Fw the wggestion b a t Mattka rnvisrge* a mrnmunity of ano.

.

. .

--

~

~

.Rlucace, sc G. D. KilpatriY Tk O ~ i o m f the Oorpl ocmrdiq ra Soilt M o n k , Ward 1946, p. 125 f.

I5

THE EPISTLE OF JAImS hcvd Paul's a h a t i o n of justifsation by faith used as a dogan to justifynot libarinism as Paul himself experienced it beine uacd (Ram. iii. 8.. vi. 1).,. but s nious ouietism that saw ~ expressions of ma in God as doing away with the need for active charity. The probability in, h o m e r . that thoac who so used it dtd so as hwmg the authmty of Paul, and that James knew this The question hm is of the d n s m e of this relationship for defining the setting of James; of where eveh a miluse of Paul's teaching would be likely to have &sen and been cnmuntcred The original m n t m of his argument, the rejection of Judaiaing tendencies in the Churches and so of the Law as the means of justification, has been left behind, and 'works' an clearly not understood as worka of obedience to the Law but as 'good works' in m a of general charitable activity. This translation can be ken to be made by writers who sought to be faithful to Paul. The pseudonymous 'Paul' of Tit. iii. 5 writes that God saved us 'not by works done in righteousness (mrk ex er@ rein en dikaiosunZ) which we did aurslves, but according to his mercy'. More strikingly, Clement of Rome, who knows and quotee Paul's epistle to the Romans, performs are not justified thmugh the same wanslation: 'we works which we wmught in holiness of heart, but thmugh faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men' (1 Clem m i i . 4). Clement g a s on to raise the rhetorical question, 'What then must we do, brethren? Must we idly abstain from doing good, and forsake love?' (xxolxiii. 1); pncisly the argw ment that Tames has encountered. It is sueeested bv I. B. Ltghtfwt ('?he Aportobr Fofher. Part I. S FTemenr o j ~ o m s Vol. 2, London. IR90, n. ad loc.) that Clmrnt knows James as well as Paul, and writes to reconcile their two positions. This is unlikely. There is no reflection of James's language in Clcment indenendent of the wav that Tames bimself reflects Paul. and althdugh Clement el&ek like James couples th; examples of Abraham and Rshab ( ~ on e ii. 25) he does not appeal to them in this mnten as examples of t h o s who 'work righteousness' but rather appeals to the example of God himself, who 'adorned himself with works' in creation (I Clem. m i i i . 2-7). When Clement raises the question of

-

. .

...

16

...

INTRODUCIlON

abstaining from good a m k q it is a hypothetical argument; he lacks James's polemial tom nnd it is unlikely that he has encountered any who anua!ly put the argument forward. He would rather seem to be following, in his own tmns, the ayle of Paul's argument in Rom vi. 1 f. What Clemnt and Titus show is how Paul's language muld be used outside the cootext of his original controveray, and be given new content a c cordingly. While their intention is no doubt to be faithful to the apostle, his language is thus o p m d to new possibilitiesd misintcrpmation. That such misinterpretation mumd in mmmtmities which had mnnections with Paul in their past, mmmunities which he had founded or to which he had written, cannot be ruled out; they were not guaranteed to keep his teaching aauosanct. E. Trocm6, in fact, s t s the epistle of James (or the central section of it) PS giving a depressing picture of the latter history of Pauline Churches.' He links Jams's criticism of this misuse of the Pauline formula with criticism* of hehaviourin thecontenofworship(Jasii.2 f., ii. 15 f., iii. 9f.), and stresscs the mnnstion in context bn-n the unbridled tongue and the rdk of teachem (iii. 1 f.). This he thinks d s t s the unrestrained conduct of Christian meetines in the Churches founded by Paul (d.1 Cor. xi. 3 ff., x i 6 which is foreign to the cultie Vadition to which the author of James belongs James's violent reaction to the notion of favouring a rich visitor (ii. 5 ff.) is similarly seen to be aimed at what Trocmb regards as the 'conaervatiasne social' of Paul and his Churcha, (exemplified in Rom. xiii. 1-7; 1 Cor. vii 17-24; Eph. vi. 5-9; Col. iii. 224". 1; Philcm.). T h e s are tenuous links. The benefits of patronage are likely to have been perceived by Christian communities other than just those of Pauline origin; and t h a t is no indication that James's teachers were im~enedby the charismatic eifts of Carinth The evidence nr+ons ody a mare general>onclusion. The situation of Tames is one in which Paul is seen to have constdaablc authonty, so that hts ehararter~mrelanguage cow tlnucs to he appealed to outs~dcIts ongmal mntext. and to ' E. Tmnnt 'LcsEgli-pautinicnneswedu dchars: JqueaZ.I13.13', Stvdio Eoor!+lim

11. 19M, pp. 66W69.

17

THE EPISTLE OP JAMES provoke e a a h u v q . Neithr the appeal nor the controversy appears, however, IO focus an Paul's writings. In this respect James may be interstingly compared with the author of 2 Peter. For the Imer. Paul's mestire must he aeknowlvledeed: he is 'nu brothcr Paul';' and the appeal to him by 'the ignorant and unleamd' causes mntmversy; though the suhjen of the mtmversy is not here stated This controversy. howew, is conducted in the knowledge of some wllenion of Paul's epistles (2 Pet. iii. IS f.). James and those with whom he engages are at ane remove from Paul, in that the original thrust of his argument is absent, but the contan with Paul is still, as it were, with Paul in 'oral tradition'. Finally, within Christian literature, p d d s &st between James and the first epistle of Peter. On three onssians James seems to follow a Line of argument and to use vocabulary dose to Peter's: i. 2-4, d.1 Pet. i. 6 7 ; i. 18, 21, d.1 Pet. i. 2J-ii. 2; iv. 6-8, d. 1 Pet. v. 5-9 (iv. 1, d 1 Pet. ii. l l may be s e n to provide a fourth parallel, hut the idea of i ~ c warfare r is not uncommon, and James and Peter differ in their identikation of the antagonists inwlvcd). Again, the passages arr dirr cussed individually in the commentary. and their evidenoc as to the aeninr of Tames may be hricflv assessed. As with Tames and att the;, the mnvasis bnwcen the distinctive concerns of James and P e t a are t m strong for it to be probable that they derived their common material in the same situation Both, certainly, describe the communities they address as the dimpuporo, but for bath this is an ideal rather than an empirical description (see an i. I), and it is not an idea peculiv to them One of the spiking characteristics of Tames is his lack of interest in the figure of Jesus; Peter by contrast focuses on Jesus 2s redeemer and as example (e.g. 1 Pet. i. 19-21, ii. 21-25, iii

. -

Jad i k e Tad, don mt name Plvl io his dime. nilcan be vuinub iorcrpmed. I t might he q u r d that hul's prc~igcis n m such that Jamel o m a artm to miticiac him d i d y ; a mnvrrscb that the mitian of 'the am&. is not vet a r h that it mua a l w n he ; c k n o w ~ e d r h s ; con te m tm&dmtc c n g q c m n t a ~ t hb s t c a l h q 'lhc amt.ston m d d thul he rm..s s a g of cnhcr Ihrc ur an cnrly nttnr for thr cmnlc. but ul nthcr event t k ummcnt mu*, k fmm a l l m e

INTRODUCnON I8 f. and 22). Peta writes out of the experience of h t i k p.nsure on the Chrinian mmmunity, and in the expectation th8t this d be intcnGfied(rg. 1 Pet.ii. 12, iii. 13% iv. 22% v. 9; t k epistle is hwe taken to be 8 unity, I d b r a n d to a single and specific situation, as also argued by J. N. D. Kelly. The Epistler of Prln and London, 1969, pp. 5-10). Pet- relates this anticipation to nn expctatian of imminent eschatological oisis (I Pet iv. 7, 17); James dm affirms the eschatalogicd expectation (v. 5, T), but he mint-ts the mditiond language of tribhtkm so that it mfers to the trials of everyday life (seon i. 2, i. 12 f., i. 27, v. 7, 10 f. and below, p. 28 f.). The content of the psnlld pmages is ethical exhortation, and for the firm two o t h a NT parallels exin. With Jas i. 2-4 c m also be m m p d Rom v. 3 4 . m d with Jas i. 18.21 alcn CoL iii. G I 0 m d Eph. iv. 22-26. Ewn in the third cnac, the individual elements of Jama'a thmcfold pattern a n be shorn to be drawn fmm familiarlv uacd sources or to emmss ideas found vprroudy dsewhnr.ihe probabnlity 8s that'~amesand Pncr allkc make oe of devduping p a t t m s of Chrirtian ethical instrunion, though the mntcn of them p t t m s 3s un&sin. It hss been suggeatcd that such patterns evolved in the canten of the prnctice of baptism, either as cntcehesis or as liturgical forms P. Carrington and E. G. Selwyn have suggested mnsrmnions of catshetical forms' but James does not fit whoUy satisfactorily into their schemes M.-E B o i m ~ r dhas nrgucd for bapimal hymns in James and Peter:' but this is an unconvirring hypothesis in view of the considerable difference in apression by the two authors af their common idem mnce the patic rhythm of a hymn might be expected to pre-e its lnnguage intact. James would not, anyway, provide evidence for the use of such forms in the baptismal c m t e n ; although he shoes baptismal thema (i 18. 21. ii. 7). his mncern is ckarly with the continuing in-

a>&,

'

P.curinson.T I I M i I i w Chmilim Colrh"r. Cunbdgc 1940, pp. 22-66: and E. G. SdTho Fir11 E P i I b oIS1 P&r, 2nd e d 4 Loodm 1917. Euuy II pp. 38GX.l. M.4. B o i m d . p o w hymw & P l * M L s &Pmnah d. PLm.P.ris 196l.npeldIy pp. 1051. ud 133 t

19

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

-

amztion of the believing community (if bapismal forms detected in the epiale, this would then provide a &ng against t w rigid an assmiation of form with sittution). James and Peter may thus he seen m draw alike m the common stock of Christian ethical teaching. However, within the range of parallels, the language of these two in theii common passages is sometimes particularly close: as in the phrase poikilois priranois (i. 2; 1 Pet. i. 6), the noun dokimimr (i. 3; 1 Pet. i. 7). the idea of the logor (i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 23, perhaps also in i. 21 d. 1 Pet. ii. 2). and their common quotation of Rov. iii. 34 (iv. 6; 1 Pet. v. 5). Neither author can plausibly be ueucd to be usine the other's work. but a m e w h a t looser rei6tionship mag & puggested; that that they draw on this common Christian material not in the s a m specific oituatian but as it was presented in thc same m a or region of the Church. The t h i possibk means of identifying the situation of James is by examining its external attertotia and so d i s covaing where it was first current The first author to quote Jameg explicitly and with citation, is, however. Origm (c. A.D. l8S255). R s e n t study of the history of the canon of the New Testament is increasinglycautious about detecting knowledge of a document in default of sped& reference to it or exact quotation of it, and this caution is esptcially necessary in respect of James. The epistle contains so much familiar. tmditiond mataid that snnher document may readily show parallels with it but yet be completely independent. For example, there are reaembiances between James and the 'Two Ways' sections of the Didache and epistle of Barnabas (nee on i. 5 f., 8, ii. 1). but this is ethical material of -11-known pattern and mntent, and no parallels exist with distinctive material outside that section to link James speeikally with either document. Conversely, the detection of an author's knowledge of a document depends on the contingency of its being useful for his purpse to quote it. Absence of reference need not argue ignorance. Again, this consideration is especially relevant to James, which may have been known, but, because of its general ideas and lack of distinctive Christian interpretation, not have lent itself to quotation. However, if

84

20

INTRODUCIlON there is a m n s s m t lack of d m c by author8 in a particullr arm, this an be taken to argue that the doeummt was not c m a t them. This nppars w hnvs k e n the case for the epistle of Junes in the C h u r h of Syria. No writer fmm the Sy-ian Church, fmm Ignatius of Antioeh onwards, e m be Ken to use the cpistk. It first appears in Syriac tmndation in the Peshitta, r 412, but even then its general u s was not assured, m d Thmdorc of Mopsuestin and Theodomt, notably, make no reference to it. There is a similar neglcn of the epislk in the Wcacrn Church from the lntc semnd to thc mid founh century. The description of Abraham as n 'frlnd of God' by Irenaeus and Tcrtullim e m be seen as the mmmon us of a familiar p h n r -(see on ii. 23h as also a n Irenaeus's reference to a 'law of freedom' (d. an i. 25). James is absent alike fmm the Muratorian a n o n list, u d y taken to represent the saip tures of the Roman Church c. 2W, and tram the Mommrn Catalogue (or Chelrmham List) thought to represent the Church in Africa in 359.' In the latter oan of the founh century a begins to be quoted by authors such na Ambmrioncr, H t l q and PrjsdUtul, and Its u s is s e m l y establnohed by Augustinc and Jerome Augustinc mmplains of thc unusual badness of the Latin text of the epide(Rdroci. ii. 32), and its Latin t e n d history and chv~teristicssem different from t h o s of the o t h a atholic epistles, suggesting that it was manslated at n later stage (thus 6 . F.Westcott, Agennalruc ory of the hirtmy ojthe C a m o f t h e N ~ Testament. u 7th edn Landon 1896,p. 270 f.; sce alp, the discussion by Ropes, p p 84-04). That the epiatle of James was not cumnt in the Western Church at a comparatively Lte stage in the history of the canon there seema dear; what is debatable is whether it had been lmown at an w l y stage. Clemnt of R o m does not appear to have known it. His treatment of faith and works has k e n dimsaed above (p. 16 f.); it has nome similarity to James's. but is surely independent. His appeal to Rnhab as well as to Abraham is to a popular exemplar (see an ii. 25h ' For a brid vmunt or !her canon ]ins,er thc mtrirs in The Ozfird D i d h a y of the Chritlion Church. hd ecd, F. L. C m r and E. A. Llvingnm. London 1974.

21

THE EPISTLE OF J M S

and his descriotiw of the latter as 'friend of God' mav be explained like k a t of lnnaeua and Tmull~an(d.again i n i ~ . 23). Dispute m t m s rather on the relationrhip bctwcen James and the other Roman document among the 'Apostolic Fathers', the Shepherd of Hermas. Older commentators like Mayor and Hon were sure that Hennas knew and used James, but the maioritv of submuent commentators have thoueht otherwise (& R ~ ~ ~Si b.e l b s Mittan; . Cha~ncthinksit 3s i p s pobsble that H m s s used James than that Clcmmt did; Cantinat cautiously suggests 'unc utilisation plus ou moins directe', p. 32). J. Drummond, in the valuable study by the Oxford Society fw Historical Theology.' examines suggested parallels and condudes that 'the passages which point to actual dependence on James fail to reach, whm taken one by one, a high degree of probability, yet collectively they p n m t a fairly strong case, but we should be hardly justified in placing the Epistle higher than dass C', i.e. where dependence is not very probable. This conclusion should be challenged. Mayor (pp. l e v - l m i i i ) gives a formidably long list of parallels in thought and expression, but what is impressive is not this numbs (Hermas is after all a long work) but the coneentration of parallels in some particular contexts Thus in M a d a t e ix Hemas attacks doublemin&dness. dipsuchin, and in particular its d f m on prayer. Prayer should be made in faith without wavering, or the petitioner will receive nothing (Mand ix. 1-6, d Jas i. 6-8; k. 6 uses the phrase dipsuchor o n 2 as in Jas i. 8). The object of prayer is to know the gnat compassion of God, polueurplnnchnia, ix. 2, a compound noun not found in the LXX or other earlier literature, but related to the compound adjmivepolurplonchnor in Jas v. 11. The Mandate conclude8 by pasonifying dipsuchia as the 'daughter of the devil' and contrasting it as an 'canhly spirit' with faith which is'from above'(ix. 9-11, d James's contrast of 'earthly devilish' wisdom, and the wisdom which is 'fxom above', iii. 15, 17, with which may also be compared the contrast of spirits 'from above' and 'earthly' in Mand. x i

...

INTRODUCTION 5-8). In Mandate v H w a s diseusaea insibility, oxucholio. a word pmliar to him. One of its effects is that it leads men aspav Srom r i e h t m u a ~ s sIMnnd. v. 2 1). sr Tames savs of m,qi.' anger. ;hat it C-OI effecl riRhteou&ess (i.'20). E s p s i d y Hennas dnims rhnt tt I r d s astray the dipmchoi; nnd its issue is that a man becomes dominated by evil spirits and 'unstable in dl his actions' (v. 2. 7,d.Jas i. 8). It sets UP a conflict with. md may finally expel. 'the holy spirit which dwells in you' (v. I. Z v. 2. 5 f., d JM iv. 5, with which alsa m m p m M a d . iii. 1). Akin, in Mendate xii, H m n s urges resistance to 'the evil desire'. It must be 'bridled' (the rare verb chalkagigd is d) s. i n e it is tamed only with diffieult y ( M o d . xii. 1. 1 £. d.Jameson the tongue, i. 26, iii. 2.8). If misted, it will 'Ace fm fmm you' (xii. 2. 4), ns alsa will the devil (xii. 5. 2, d.Jas iv. 7). In rather serving the good desire, man must m a n s the commandments, as he ncrcims mastery over Cad's creation (xidi.4. 2 f., cf. Jas iii. 7); and he must fear God 'who is able to do d l things, to save and to destroy' (xii 6. 3. cf. JM iv. 12). H w a s hap m exact quotation of James, but, as is mnsismt with its premtation as new revelation, the w a k contains nonplicit quotation of any document, save the apocryphal Eldad ond Modod in Vir. ii. 3.4. Nor does he derive distinctive ideas fmm the epistk; the M o d o t r r like James draw on the common stock of ethical tcachlng, and though both mate much use of the Jewish theme of doubleness as a cmae of sin, Herma's exploration of this in I s m s of two miritr or two desires.. though it has Tewish parallels (see on i. 8). is foreign la J a m s T h e stmng i m p s sion is, however, that H e m w is familiar with J a m %that the lsnguqe of the epistle mlows his exposition of hns ideas and tha~t &here he once tnkes up P n expression, other reminiscences tend to fdlow. That being so, whatever its later history. the epistle was known at an w l y stage within the Weslern Church. How carlv it a n a b a a in th C h d af Alcmdris is d m debatable 1s n natural assumption that Ongm knew ~th r n 11s currency m that C h m h Euacb~uslugs of Clement that '. in the Hflotvposeb he has given concise explanaions d d the canonical sriptures,not passing over.. the epistle

~.

..

...

.

23

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

of Jude and the remaining catholic epistks' (HE vi. 14. 1). Cassiodorus, C l e m t ' s translator, in the later pact of the e n Clement 'made som comments sixth century, q ~ ~ i f i that a n the canonical epistles, t h a is to say, on the first epistle of

St Peter, the fvst and ssond of St John, and the epistle of St James, in p m and elegant language' (Inrt. viii), but there iano m e of a knowledge of James in the extant writingsof that omnivorouareada.anditismobnblcthntCasaiodorus's'lames'isn slip for'JudeSwhichClement certainly didmmmcntan(saon i. 1). Ongcnalso, however,hadcloseconnections withthe PalestinianChurchodCaeoarea and Jerusalcm(Aelia).and hecameto reside permanently in Cacsarea from A.D. 232. Origen's referenoesto theepistlecomein works written after thismoveto Caesatea For examole. . . exolidt reference to the eoistle is found in his Conmtntoryon~ohn.wh~eh wassubstnntially completed duringthe Caesarean prnod.' whereas mDe Pnncipiir, a work ofthe Alexandrian pnod, nosuch quotatton tsfaund(sce on IV. 17) It wouldsecmqutcposablc. then, that Ongcnacccpvd the eptstle on the authartty of the Church in Palestme, and that h ~ s description of it as 'the epistle of James which is current' (en t i #hermnmi.Ia!&bou ~' ' s f o.l C i :a m . i n 'fn xix. 61...mavmflect his , apprmatlon that it was not everywhere known and accepted. The suggestion that he adopted it from rtr cumncy m the Church ~nPalenine may receive tentative comboratnon from the fact that the epistleis also quoted, though without attribution, in the Pseudo-Clemcntine Episrlor to Virgins, which are thought to be of third-century Palestinian Afta Origcn, the epistle is accepted by authors in the Alexandrian tradition, though his disciple Euscbius classes it among his 'disputed' documents (HE iii. 25. 3, ef. ii. 23. 24 f.), most pobably in recognition of its atill limited currency; and two third-century Alexandrian papyri, p 20 and p 23, contain fragments of it. It would seem, then, that Jamen was known in R o m at the

.

.

'

Conm, a Jn *1.6 lllvdes m Jss ii. 2% 2% fngnrnta 6 and 38 to JPSi. 17; fmgmcnt 126 to Jss iii. 15. ' n u s J. Qlurcn, P o n a l VoL ~ I, U 1950,p. 58 f. Ep. i. 11quotes Jssiii. I f.aa'snptmc'.mddu&~miii.15.ndi.S.andi.12pmb.bly.Uvdrs to Jaa i. 27.

time of Hamaq but thnt thae is thEn no certain evidemr of it until the time of wen,who may well have met the epistle first in the Church of Pdestinc.' This ocntury of silence ktthe two wittmsscs med not e m e d m d n a r y . Jamea may weU have had n measure of circulstion after it was tirst written. and thm. because of the eenral chamcter of its contents, h&c fallen into disuse udck a particular Church had a a p a d interest in retaining it. The Church of Jerusalem had such sn intcrca. Alter A.D. 135, the Church of Jerusalem was the gentile Church of Aclia, but was concerned to affirm its orieins in the earliea cmmunitv led bv Tames. the brother of ~ e s G sIt exhibited his chair ( ~ & h . ~ & i . 19. I), and its liturgy was sluibuted to him; it is therefore likely to have preserved an epistle bearing his name, even if it was one not remarkable as a preentation of Christian faith. However, the earliest evidence of a knowledne of the eoistle comes from Romc. If Jamcs was not a letter intended for despatch to n pan~culardesttnation, but n l ~ t a a r yletter, t k n it IF l l l l y that it would be earlien read in its place oforignn. A Roman origin f a James would be wnsiaent with f e a b s of the epistle already noted. In its presentation of pannns of ethical teaching. it is sllikiglv similar to 1 Peter. a document usuallv considered to be of Roman origin. James is swam of a lively currency of the Pauline language of justification, and the Roman Clement also shows this language in u s , albeit to different &em. James's distinctive and unusual adjective diorwhor is oprt of a word-muo used with mast obvious fkiliarity by'the Roman auti;ors'Clement and Hennas. The chief objection to the idea of Roman origin is that the epistle makes no reference to the kst-known event in the early life of the Church in Rome, its persecution by Nao in A.D. 64

-.

' H e m s is mtorioudv d i m to dare. In the -d Viiim. ii. 4. 3, t k author is prcented n; mnrnopnwl of Clcmnt, r. na 9 6 who will e n d .'little bmk' to fomicn cities for him I n thc Mumtorim C h o n k is tdcnlaficd na a rmnc wnlrr. thr bmthcr d Plus, bmhopof Romc Iromr u 139-154 Ncatbr x a s q rdo.hlcmtdencc l h c f m n r r may only =flea ul xrnuc d Llrrnmt ss Church mmamndmt. #he Ihltrr rs n rcndcnlmur 3tat;mcnt ma& m ugurnent qrinLreading the Shepherd r a 'kriptue'. The bmk a m r be more M y dated than m the early decades d the = a n d anrury.

25

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

(conmat 1 Clcm v-vi); but this could be a o d by m i n g the e p i d e as mitten either before or very considerably after that date, or as mming from n commtmity which was not involved in the event It is highly lmlikely that even at its firs[ city Christianity in Rome constituted beginnings in that a single Church; them were probably several communities of different character (as the different characters of Clement and Hcrmas themselvn suggest) and with different arpniem.' That the epistle of James had its origin ~n some part of the Roman Christian community is a plausible, if not provable, hypotheis.

Thus far the emphasis has bem on what James has in mmman with other wnterq and on his debt to various forms of tmditian. Yet, ns har already been remarked. has selection of material. even if that material be traditional, may be taken to reflect hia own interests, and in pescnting it he may be seen to put his own stamp upon it. Hia concern with rich and pwr has already been discussd. Another concern indicated by the frequent appearance of the subject is with speech, itsuec and abuse. T h e subject is vented in a variety of forms. In i. 19 there is a simple t h e f o l d admonition to be swift to hear and slow to apecch and anger; in i. 26 a warning to the would-be 'religious man' to 'bridle his tongue', similar in form to the definition of the 'perfect man' as the om who makes no error in speech; i. 22-24 argues the need far consistency in word and anion. an argument echocd in ii. 12; in iii. 3-8 there is a highly rhnoneal attack on 'the tongue', drawing on a variety I cr. P. a*, ~b~pormtir~ l r u mvd. , L TA. s h ~ of ~ Hnror.C.mdm N.I. dT-10 1 9 4 pp. I9f. 8. H. S-er dm thought that H e m s her and u r d Jemq and argued for tk qinlc'a Romm origm. but f a r a m that am now unmn vincing: rg. that Rhnb (ii. 26) war prmliuk a modrl d fsith i n Rome; that it was tn Romc hat r Christian meting phcc wna nUcd a 'lynsgquc' (ii. 2): and thzr in R m c in p n k h r the Chureh .u.r sttreming amlthy -a (ti. 2 f.); T k Plinilia Chwch, hn&n 1929. pp.

18V2M).

26

d

INTRODUCI'ION

d metaphor8 o f d i R m t origin; and in v. 12 a prohibition d one pmicular mode of spxh, the usc of oaths In iii. 9 f. Junes nposcs another form of inmnsimncy, that bet-n speech to Cod and apeech to man. 'from the =me mouth comes blessing m d u s e ' . S p h to God, praycr, ia mother d his i n t m a a In i 5 he munsds praya for wisdom; but prayer must be of the right quality, that is, wholehearted, i. 61. James there Rmgnises the possibility of unanswered pmyer, as alm in iv. 2-4, whae the explanation is that prayer is for ends inimical to God In v. 13-18 he munacls prayer in diKmnt circ u m s w a s and dvcs inMuction for the resort to mm in the particular aih;stion of sickness This advice is kiniomd with the aswancc that 'the active prayer of s righteous man is v a y powrrful'(v. 16), as the praycr of Elijah dcmonsates Prayer forms may be echoed in the Innmag of ii. 19 and iii. 9, and, fmm a diffe-mt bockground, in t i c ~ophylacticformula of iv. IS; while ii. 16 cites a prayer, though in this case nn ineffective one. The idea of prayer is linked to the idea of faith: v. 15 desribes the saving prayer as 'the prayer of faith'; i.6 w m s that it is only praycr made in faith and without doubt to which God responds; and the prayer of ii. 16 is presented as an erpession of that faith which being unaccompanied by worka is worthless. Tbis characteristic aasocintian of faith and prayer shows h a t fa~th8s not for J a m 9 elmply formal a+ sent to pmpoauons about God, as ts aomrtnmcs deduced from ii. 19. (It is anyway wrongly deduced, since the statement about Cod is presented as one that evokes response rather than formal aasent, even from the demons.) Faith is that attitude to God which is wprcased in prayer, but is also m e n d y issuing in Mion. Tbc epistle of James is the most consistently nhid d m mcm in the New Tcnanmf but its various warnings, prrrrpts and words of m m u n g e m n t SCI not h s e d on a thological principle in any way rermtcly mmpanble to, for instance, Paul's dnwing of ethical mncluaions fmm his p r o d ~ m t i o nof the dcnth and rcsurrstion of Chrin in Rom vi. Only in the aequmce of Jas i. 21-22 is it indicated that the snving word of the gospcl carries with it an imperative. J. L. 27

THE EPISTLE OF J N S Houldm judges that, 'the ethics of the E p i d e of Jamn am, fmm the mint of v i m of mnceaunl mttem. the simoka in the New kcstament no theolog!~cpl rmpulse avcnly pmvldes them anth baelung and the wrtta embraces a srmple bellcf m practical charity, humMe endurance and m n m l of the tongue ns the keys to m o d life' (Ethics ondthcNrm Tctromnr, Humondswonh 1973. p. 66). Houlden acknowledgesJames's vision of the 'law of libaty' in i. 25 and ii. 12, which he sees a8 centring an the command to love of one's neighbour, as in ii. 8; but even the mmmand of agopi, variously interpreted as the basic principle of Christian behaviour in Man. rdi 37-40; Jn xiii. 34f. nnd 1 Jn iv. 7-21; Rom. xiii. &lo, docs m t appear to unify James's mllstion. Lev. xix. 18 is cited in ii. 8 land alluded to in iv. 111. and the oarticular issue of d i e crimination bmught into relation to it, but as the 'royal law' it is not a governing principle, but rather one commandment which has, however, a certain primacy of importance. Another notion which appears in some of James's ethical teaching is of the sanction of rshatological reward and punishment Them is a pmmise of future reward for the one who e n d m a trial (i. 12), for the paor (i. 9, ii. 5), and for the reantant liv. , 101: ,. and the mminc of the Lord is an enmuragemmt to patient endurance (v. 7f.). An expectation d judgment undcrl~csthe various wpmings of is. 12 1.. 111. 1, iv. I I f v. 9 and v. 12; and the future mnaces the nch (i. 10 1, v. 1-7). In Linking his enmllragmrnt to mdur. with e b chatalogical hope. James u s s familiar language but with a m c w h a t d i f f m t mntmt. In other documents it is clear that what is to he d u d ISextreme d c n n g , n t t r k an the p p l e of Cod, the w a l l e d 'msplonrc woes' (see on I 12) Jamcs grvcs no ~ndtcat~on m 1. 2 of the nature of the 'vmous lrinds i f trials' to be encomtacd, but his examples of endurance in v. 7. the fanner, and v. 11, Job, suggest that he thinks of the everyday diffrmlties facing the individual nthcr than of a p l n i d a r misis; and in i. 27 he uses the almoa technical term thlipsis of the perennial plight of widows and orphans In i. 13 f f he follows the pmmis to the one who endures (i. 12) with a discussion of the experience of temptation If the sequmce is more than a simpk verbal link, it may be 28

.

that the a i d he thinks of is the dhttle against temw tation to in. It is alsn notable t i a t h ptsents &e end of &e chain of probation in i. 2-4 as the achieving of persod integrity. It seems p ~ i b l etha! for Jams'sm&unity the traditional marks of eschatdogid h o p =re not apparent (cf. 2 Peter iii. 3 f.): thev, did not s n m to be called umn to face the onslaught that would usher nn lhr bnngdom James therefore necks to keep the hope altve wtth a re-tn~erprrtatnon of its traditional aims.' Much more pcrvasnve, however. than an s p p a l to law or to eschatological reward and punishment, is Jams's indictment of dlsunity and rnconsiaency tn h u m n behaviour. Man 1s tom apart by conflicting desires (iv. I), rendering his prayer ineffective (iv. 3); and prayer is also rendered ineffective by doubt (i. 6 8.). Tbe man who separates hearing and action deceives himself (i. 22-24); and to divorce faith and works is to make faith worthless (ii. 14-17). Disunity mars human relationships, with 'discrimination between persons'. e s p i a l ly between rich and poor (ii. 1-9). It may also be demonstrated in the difference between a man's attitude to God and to hia fellow man, with the tongue an especial #nnw ment of this disunity, nu 'with it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it dso we curse men, who are mnde in the likeness of God' (iii. 9). Those who would combine t k i r prayer to Gad with the 'friendship of the world' are associating two incompatible things and are s t i g m a t i d a c mrdingly as 'adultercslrs' (iv. 3 f.). James's characteristic pjorative adjective is dipsuchor, 'double-minded' (i. 8, iv. 8); in iv. 8 he addresses the call to npentance alike to dipnrchoi and to hanurriiloi, 'sinnerd. and from the praUe1ism it would seem that lor him these t m s are vinullly synonymous: doubleness is of the essence of sin. The comUary of this must be that the ideal state for msn to achieve is one of singleness or integrity, and this positive p i n t is also made. The aim of enduring trial is that 'you may be whok and complete' (i. 4);

.

' With this interpution, mmn Rdek'a association dthc epistlewith thc tmublcd prind d thr htrr yars d Domitian. T k Ep'rtkr o / J a a s , P m o n d w , 2nd cdn. Nca Ymk 1964, ssp&* pp. 5 f. Rcicke fvldn rdcmcr to actual pnvrvtian in i. 2 f., .i 12, ii. 6, iv. I f., iv. 6 and v. 10 f. 29

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

and the man who c m bridk the tongue, the insvumcnt of duplicity in iii. 9, is 'the perfect man, abk also to bridle the whole body' (iii. 2). He will also, premmably, be the wise man, sinec disunity is foreign to wisdom (iii. 17). me theme of doubleness as mil, and singlmess or unity as the state to be desired, has parallels in Jewish, Greek, and even gnostic. thought (see on i. 8); James gives it a strongly practical. ethical content Both congruous and contrasting with this emphasis on the doubleness of man is an emphasis on the singlemss of God. The a h a t i o n of faith 'that God is one' is to be commended (ii. 19); granted that it has appropriate consequences. It is a statement of the integrity and consistency of that one Go4 and this point is variously made dgwhcre in the epistle. In i 5, God is said to give haplGs, an adverb which conveys the idea both of generous and of wholehearted giving; hence it may be asserted that 'every gift that is good is fmm above'. from the unchanging God (i. 17). The singkncss of God is also the sanction for obedience to the whole law, since 'he who said "Thou shalt not commit adultery". said also "Thou shalt not murder" '; and as there is one lawgiver, so also there is one judge (iv. 2). It is tempting to associate these two similar themes, of the singlemss and cmsistmcy of God, and the doubleness and inconsistency of man, and to suggest that underlying James's condemnation of the latter and his orhatation to singlenem is the idea of ethics ns the imitation of God. This is an ethical principle familiar in his world. It is debated whether it is already present in the OT, in Lcv. x i 44, 45, xix. 2,' but it we. dearly employed by the Rabbis (G. F. Mom, ~ u d o i s mvol. 11, Cambridge Mass 1927, p p 1W111, gives z n u m b s of examples, including Sotoh 14a which explores the idea in mnsiderabk detail; cf. also 1. Abrahams. Shrdier in Phmiroism and the Gospels, F i r s

. ..

' G m m IL J. Tindq, T b I ~ i ~ i m o J O o dCi i m

,London 1960.pp. 50 R.. .nd T.W. M m . K t h b au( the CoIp.1, Loadon 1960,p 18 f.. with W.Midncliq art, p~piopar,TDNTvol. V pp 369 R. .nd 8. Lmdam SSF. 'Imitation of Cod nod Irmtstion of Christ' in Thmbty LXXVI, 1973. pp. 3 9 U 0 2 and Dvty and Dixnnnnt, cd. G.R Dunsun. LO^ don 1975, pp. 1Cm-110.

30

Series, Cambridge. 1917, p. 16 f.). Thc amibutes of God moa frequently held up for imitation arc his macious and merciful quplitiec which b n be put into by m n in acts of charitv. Within the Greek world. the idea is eivcn classic expre;sion in Phto's Theocrms, t k adviathat . we ought to try to e s r p e horn earth to the dwUing of the gods as quickly as we &;and to e s u p is to bemnilike God, so far as this is poasibk; and to b e e m like God is to become righteous and holy and ndari(176a: d Republic. 501b. 613a; Lomr, 7 1 6 k ) . ' Epictctua quotes Zeno, the founder of Stoicim, as saying that T o follow the gods is man's end' (Dircarrres, ii. 14. 11-13), as daes his fellow-Stoic Seneca (DePlmnilmtia, i. 5). Philo. dekor to Jew andGmk.dudesto the TheaeUhu mwme i n D e F u- ~ o8 2. s n d m k n f m u e n t u s e o f thsnhc.lprindpleo(tmtatian: mnn'srrur end is alikencssto God who begat hnm (De O H 144); begmncrs, md chddren. ahould~rni~atcthnr FathcrandTeschn(DcSoml M 6 8 ) ; t t is a salutary thought thatthcvinueofmn isonly &imitationand mpy of the divinc(Quoddu.16W61). Philo pmvides the closest parallel to the suggested devdopmmt of the t h e m of imitation in James, t h o man ahodd be one as God is one, in a work in which the Platonic elements of his thought arc most overt. De Gigantibur. 7 h a e Philo argues that God is perfect, a, that he who turns to God turns fmm the imoerfm:.the wise man is one 'averse to change and mutability', and the expricncc of uuc stability and immutabletranquillity is tobe foundbesidetheimmutable God(45-49). With thistranquillity Philoconvasts the 'war in wsce' of human soeinies, and in Ih individual (51; cf.

'. .

. -

.

iion of ihe One by the mul that alone &inas stability (521 cf. J a m s o n the tongue asthc instrument of daublencosin iii. gff.).'

-

' A M dimRut&,

dt k br in hm'm mithyla is given by 0. 0. Tbe Domiu 4 tha I d a i m o/ Ccd in Phro. Philddphi.

19%.

The p d e l rib D. C j n t i h q ~ e n e d~o private cornmpmdrn~by tbc R o d D L. M c d d d I W n b q h Umrruty. d 01 hem m t d d v .cLnmbdlad. Cf. d o Lb M a N m . 27-34: Orod Dar ~ m n i t 82-8:; . Qvarit E"&. ii. 29. Log. 61 of the Goapl of Tkmxas muld pmide m o t h dnu pnlld, 31

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

The connstion between the two ideas, of the doubleness of man that should be singlmess and the singleness of God, is never made explicit by James; the two are simply j u n a p a r d in the epistle ( a s indeed. God's oneness and man's singleness arc juxtaposed in Deut. vi. 4 f.). When he appeals to the character of man ns m d c 'in the likeness of Gad'(iii. 9), it is with an interest in the object rather than the subject of action: to insist on mnsistmcy in m a m n t of God and of his image rather than that man should live in amrdanct with that character, imitating God in whose likeness he is. The argument that this theme of imitation underlies James'sethical instruction n s t s an the familiarity of the theme, and on the ob vious congruity of the two ideas juxtaposed. If God is one, and man should be one, it is obvious that man's aim is the imitation of God. If this is admitted, then it can be said of James aa of other NT authors that his ethical teaching has a theological basis He wonld be employing an ethical principle used by'other NT authors, for the imitation of God is urged in Eph. v. 1; d Man. v. 48, Lk. vi. 36; 1 Pet. i. 15 f.; but for Christian authors the theme of imitation is more characteristically that of the imitation of Christ (thus explicitly. Jn xiii. 15; 1 Cor. xi. 1; 1 Thess i. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 21). If James is using this them, he is, typically, not doing m in its distinctively Christian form.' THE EI'ISTLE OF JAhlES AND EARLY CHRlSTlAMTY

In the seond mtion of this Introduction, it was argucd that James cannot be asmciatcd with any specificarea of early Christianity as d e n e d in other documents of the NT. The fm in thc mndation ofl3lhoma 0. L M M i n Gad 2s spoken of as'thc Uo divided'; mania Pd rilh light ifundivided,but d t h d.rtrrrmif diridrd (TheNo# t i a d L h r y in Eqlhh, ed. IM. Robimaro, Lcidm 1977, p. 125); but the logian ia absure urd tmnalations accordingly vary (two variations may hc found in HemkcSFhncemlchcr I, on p. 298 and, in an Aswndix bv R. MeL. Wdoon. 0. 517). c Tk nqummt for th; thcmc of xmcn!& .a Adnhpng Jamra'n n h c d lrsching s pcernld 8n m r c dnal ~n an urlcle 'Thc Dvetnnll Baa8o for thc Ethsn of j a m s ' , hphnc h w r Stuho Eounpel~m(lonhmmng)

32

INTRODUCTXON episde must be a m a i d e d by m d in itself a8 pmviding a p i e ture of w e fonn of Christian community m d thus contributing to an appreciation of the variety of early Christianity; is, as always, nmer to define what it is not than what ~t 1s The Christianity of James is m t an 'enthusiastic' or 'eharism8tie' Christinnirr. Unlem in iv. 5 (whch ts unlikely). t h m is no mfcrem io the pmarna and aanvity of the Holy Spirit. Pmphcto u.@res of the p s l sewing aa m o d examples (v. lo), not pm of cantempmary experience. R s t h s the community dues teachers; and in his warning against m over-dincss to nmme that r61c (iii. I) the author mnkcs no rdcrmcc to a need for chuismtic cndowment for it (mntrrst Rom. xii. 6 f. m d I Cor. xii. 28 f.) He castigates a b u r of the tongue, in apeech to man and to God, but knows nothing of the abuse of 'tongues' that troubled Paul (I Car. dv). In v. I4 f. he advies on =king healing within the Church, by m a n s danointing and prayer. and it is ccnainly inadequate to an the anointing as simply n common thanrmtic measure. However. those who anoint and pray over the sick rmn arc 'the eldm of the Church'. and tt a not smd that they act as n mouh of a sptntual gtft n t k r to heal ( a g ~ ~antrust n 1 Ca. u t 9) or m leadcroh~p James m a i n l y assumes that within the Christian community pcople will n p r r i m a physical healing, but this assumption is not pan of a general atmoaphse of enthusiasm. There iseven less to associate J m s with 'gnastic' tendencies in early Christianity. He has no apprent interest in Jesus as a redeemer-figure; and his definition of wisdom is in ethical and wt esoteric t a m s (iii. 17), as also his opposition to 'the world' is ethically and practically expmsscd (i. 27, iii. 6, iv. 4). Only in his use of pruchikos as a pejontive adjective (iii. IS) is there an s h o of what came to be the technical language of gmmiciw; but its f o m hem is no mom thm that of a catchword. Christianity for Junes m d his community is m t then a matter of pmticiption in n charisnutic m m m n t , of initir tion into emtaic kmwlcdge. or of sammental panicipatim in the mystery of salvation. Primarily. it is a way of life b e f m God a moral mde (d. the dehition of 'true religion' in i. 27) 33

+

THE EPISlZE OF J M S k p s f a behaviour am backed by s notion of solvntian a M a i s t d 6 t h mnvsmon m d baptism (i. 18, Zl), ~d with reclamation from sin (v. 19 f.), and also by an expectation of judgment (ii. 12 f., iv. 12. v. 9. 12). The time of judgmnt is the time of the mming d Christ the Lord (v. 7 f.), though how Christ is involved in the e x m i r ofjudgmnt ia not indicated. Christ is also a fanor in the prclrnt in the regulation of canduct, which must be a-sed in relation to faith in him (ii. I). In the determining of this way of life the teaching of Jesus plays a pan, adapted to the author's interests as it is in the synoptic tradition; and in his understanding of Christianity the author mmes into conflin with a tradition of the teaching of Paul. T n m is 4ome mensum of wganisation in the corn munity, for meetings (ii. 2 ff.); and there are forms of leadership, the teachers of iii. 1 and elder3 of v. 14; though there is no definition of criteria for office, like t h o r given in the Pastoral epistles (cf. 1 Tim. iii. 1-13; Tit. i. S-9), nor is it clew whetha teacher and clda arc distinct offices. or if teaching might be one function of an elder (d. 1 Tim. v. 17). Interestingly, although t h m nm women members of the mmmunity (ii. IS), there is no rdsence to a s p ~ i f i crbk for wanm within the Church, and no guidance for their behaviour within the mmmunity or in marriage (iv. 4 is of course maaphorieal): a f i n perhaps obmred by the insistence in the ET of Dihelius on rendering James's adelphoi PS 'brahers and simera'. Some of these features might he variously tmken as indieations of the epistle's representing m early or a late stage in the develoomcnt of Christinnitv. Contact with the tcuhinc of Jcsuo tndcpendent of pnpcl fix~tymnght gem to tnd~cate an early date, but there 1s no reason to thtnk thnt thc arrtt~ng of the gospels brought the oral tradttton to an end, and mndced the enthusiasm of Papias, however misplaced, for the living rather than the w i t t m word (Eusebius, HE iii. 39. 3 f.), indicate. thnt it did not. The adoption of the gospel form has the & s t of identifying teaching as Jesus'; Jnma provides evidence of another way of retaining and preserving it, ab sorbed without differentiation into the general stock of ethical material (d.the incorporation of what may be recognised as 34

INTRODUCTION goapl materid into the 'Truo Wags' of Did, i-ii; and -ma Paul's cprrful idrntificntion of thc tnchimg of the Lord in 1 Cor. vii. 1W12 with his useof it in Rom. riii. It is not im wrtant to Tames to indicate whnc his m o t s derive from Jesuq and it mua bcuncennin if he ism fact consious of t h ~ a d i a i m origin of some pans ofhts materlnl (though in ii 8 he singles out the 'royal law' as having an eppcid status). It is dso of interra that lames draws on material that would be regarded as belonging to different saurccs for thc gospels: nr 8. 19 d m i n g Markan material; i. 5. 17, li. 5 and iv. 3 that common to Matthew and Luke md usunlly dcugnated 'Q'; and v. 12 being peculiar to Matthew. This may Krve to indicate that while the t h m may be regarded as distinct m t a in the creation of the eosncls thcv did not neceswilv mist in isolation fmm each eke; in oml'tradition. As contact with the oral trad~tionof the teaching of Jmus might be thought to indicate an early date for Jamis, p, the absence of charismatic elements and presence of institutional featureq together with the lack of prominence of the kerygma of Chriaianity and an emphasis instead on Christian behaviaur, might be taken to indicate a later period. In two respects James has affinities with 2 Peter, which is generally taken to be among the latest, if not the latest, of the NT documents: both seek to re-interpret traditional eschatdogicd hopes (cf. above. p. 29; m d 2 Pet. iii. 1-13), and both tackle problems arising from thc Pauline tradition (above, p. 18: 2 Per iii. 15 f.). However, while 2 Pet. admits and intcrpms delay in the fulfilment of exhatological hope (iii. 8 f.). Jamcs &ma its imminem (v. 8 f.); and while 2 Pet. w i t m in the knowledge of some mUection of Paul's letters. James's mntact with Paul is in ' m l tradition'. These contrasts are w t , mnvcnrly, arguments for an earlier situation f a Jamca as againa 2 Pncr: the pamusin hope m y wen have b k n held more persistently in some arcas of the Church than in others; and a tradition of the teaching of Paul have mndnued in m e circles aloneside or even indcocndcnt of an tncreastng knowlcdgc of has G t n s (.a may he'tndtentcd by the authors of Ans m d the Panoral cptnles, both In thelr ways Paulmc dtx~pleqyet whose h w k d g of hts wnttngs 8s

n.

. .

35

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES debatable). It is highly implausible to think of simple lines of devdmmmt in the h i s m of carlv - Christianitv: of a fading of the imininmt plrousia h o p ; of a move fromth;cb~rism& to the institutional; or from n kerygmatic to n moralistic Christianity; and m attempt todate J a m s by plotting his position along sueh lines. Ratha we should think of a diversity of f m s a f &Iy Christianity -existing; and theintmstingqucstionisnot the probably hsolubkancof thedateof James, but by whom the form of Christianity represnted by t k epistle might be appropriated. James is commonly qwkm of as 'Jewish Christian',' and this in itslf p o s s a problem d delinition.' At the very least, such a description of J a m s must take m o u n t of the Hellenistic elements in the epistle;' though it is increasingly demonstrated, notably by M. Hengel.' that absolute lines of demarcation between 'Judaism' and 'Hellenism' do not exist, and that even Judaism in Palestine was pan of the Hellenistic world. Jamcs Dunn desaibes Jewish Christianity as itslf a upenrum within the total spectrum of early Christianity, embracing both the earliest Jerusdem community and the sects accounted heretical from the seeond century onwards. He isolates three traits as characteristic of this heretical Jewish Christianity, which may be traced back into the New Testament writings: adherence to the Law; exaltation of James and denigration of Paul; and adoptionism.' These traits might Beem discernible in lames. thus locathe him within the total spectmm: the epinlc upholds'the law'; written In the name of Jamcs it attacks a nouon mmgnlsahly Paultne in ongin; and

.

.

' C. F. D.Movlc mmmmtathat 1-aamvld

b imponmt N i k ofthc

r d l h clnistim

in the NT ~ o d .if. only we mything about its provmme and purpoac'. The Binh oflhr Ncm Tertanmt. 2nd London 1966,p. 158. 'far discussion of the pmblem, aa R. M m y 5.1.. 'Drfming ludChristianity', Hcylhrnp Journal n.1971, pp. 303-3la urd A. I. F. Ktijn. 'The Study of J e d h Christianity',NTS 20. 197971, pp. 419431. 'See above. o. 5. M. ~mge&&imadHeI*nrn,ETLamh 1971. 1 Jamen D. G.DUM. Uni* o d D i m i t y in rhr N m T a n m m I , landon 1977, pp. 23-266; d H. 1. Sch~cps.'Ebionite Christianity', )TS IV. 1953. pp. 21-224. 36 dn.

its refmneea a f i s t am distindy limited Yet the c o c respondma is auperlieial. The references to Christ are ta, brief to argue the nature of the author's underamding of his pereon, though the d e s r i p t h of him as'the glory'(ii. 1)might indicate a tmdmcy in the 'onhadox' nthcr than the 'adap tionia'dirretion: Ismes's attackon thenotion ofiustificationbv faith JoneconminsnoaplidtorimplicitattackonPaulhimslf, although James is probably consciousthat the ideais thought to carry Paul's authority; nndit hnsbzenargued nbovcthatJames's 'law' is unlikely tobe the Jewish Tomh in its entirety.' It is this l k t factor that stands in the way of regarding James as Jewish Christian in the sense that his is a Christianity professed by one who would also call himself a Jew and retain the practice of Judaism as the framework of his life. His 'Judaism' consists, broadly, in the affirmation of belief in the One Gad;the notian of obedience to a law which, when its content is r e f e d to, appmrs in terms of the @at moral commands; and in a c l o s if not pmieulnrly scholarly hnawledge of the LXX It is probable that these were precise ly the dements of Judaism absorbed by those gentiles who stood on the fringe of the HeUenistic synagogues, and %re known as ' g o d - f c m ' (rrbomenoi or phobou-oi trm thm).' Not bsoming full proselytee, these people were stvacted to Judaism as one among the phllosophics of the Graecdbman world. Acts indicates that early Christian preachers drew adherents from precisely this group: Cornelius (x. 2. 22). Lydia (xvi. 14), Titus Justus (xviii. 7). nnd o t h m in Pisidian Antiaeh (Idii. 16, 26, cf. 431h Theasalanica (xvii. 4). and Athens (xvii. 17). T o them Christianity offered the same attractions as Judaism. the neknowledgrment of the Chx God, the high m o d standard. nnd the appeal to the anacnt holy bmk; but without the civic and social disadvantages of full membership of thc national Jewish religion. They stood on the fringe of Judaism; but as Christians they could be full memmb of a community which 'Sccp.4. z ~ d a i c ~ d t b e g o d - h . r m d s t h p b K ~ i n F . J . Fmkcs Jscbon and R Lake, The B q ' ~ n i m pof Chd#tionily. Vd. V. London 1933. pp. 7-6

37

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES had in b a n i w ita o m rite of initiation. The a n o w i a t i o n of the of Jesus might no doubt vary fmm'&rd8ng him as a saviour figure, as a t e r h n , a3 the present Lord who= authority is to be a&nowlcdged in dally life, or ns the future judge. The epistle of June. would rmLe gmd s e n e .a I donr mcnt fmm this ares of cmly Christianity. and its a h a s of a h s populm philolophies would also fall into plan. It represents a form of the gentile mission independent of PnulS.% and not, as for him, involving a radical disjunction from Judaism. (It may well be that the origins of Christianity in Rome, already established Wore Paul's contact with it. R o m i. 8, may be in pan sought in this area.) J a m s is 'Jewish Christian' in the lrnw that Judaism has provided for nonJa bridge to Christianity, and the elements attractive to them in it are r e u i n d in their Christianity, together, it would perm, with the u a of forms of organisation that would have been familiar fmm the synagogue: Beside the ways in which an understanding of Christ has, for Paul and the authors of Hebrews and the Revdation. mnsformcd inherited ideas and language, the appropriation of Christianity by James may s a m supaficial. Yet the epink is impanant in showing one form in which Christianity made its initial appeal in the Ramen world, and one eumplc of what 'conversion' to Christianity might mean. Moa certainly the future develop mcnt of Christianity docs not Lie with James's interpretation of it, but this interpmation may have been more widespread and influential in the early period than the epistle's now isolated position in the New Testament canon would suggest.

THE AUTHOR The tnditiond q w i o n a of

M Intmduction, of the date and place of origin of a document, its plnpose and ita probable recipients, would be easily m a a d if the identity of its author were knoT h e 'James' of the opening greeting of this epistle is waditionally identified as Junes the leader of the Christian community in JemsPlem from a time quite swn Pfter its fvst beginnings, called by Paul 'the Lard's brother'

38

INTRODUCTION (Gal. i 19: d.ML vi. 3). u;d l a t a known as 'lames the luat'.' ~ v i d a o c,bout this 1;mea mmea fmm co&l m h m k s to the unMievmg bm&s d J c m s (Jn vi.? g . d Mk 111 21, 31 ff.), from AEts, m d from Paul's rrfemnxs nn Cilatans snd 1 Corinthima Outside the NT, varying accounts of his martjrdom am given by Jascphus ( A n t . n. 200, n passage generally eonsidered to be authentic, and quacd by Euscbius. HE ii. 23. 21-24),..Heecsioous lmaervcd bv Euscbius. HE ii. " ., 23. 3-18), and Epiphnniuo (Hoer. Ixxviii. 13 1.. which draws on and clnborntcs Hcgeeppus); o f a k c h the latter two contain 8 good deal of dearly I q e n d q mbellishmmt. With such fragmentary and unrrnain infarnution available about him. it is difficult to make iudements about what T*ms d " Jerusalem mtght or might not have written.2 Little weight can be put on similarities between the epistk and the speech and k t t s of James in Acts xv, s i n e the historical accuracy of

..

.

' I n tk 4 kf. p. 24;

C

s dw e n mmr i n G m L the epl* m in Jm Ins. 126 'Jam. (hr

row *, 'tkbrmhsof the Lad'anly

IS

otd as by 'Jams'

'lhls J-

m n Rufinus'a trasl.!inn

10 #dm-

of 0"gcn'm

Comnmrmy om Rmums, iv. 8. (me Comm. m R a . was rntten at c.esuc. and Crnt.,". n p l i t dsto the rpistl*, but is nt.", only in Latin; d s c n e t a .rr gi- by Mayor, pp. I d . ) In his Comrntory m Mntthn. x. 17,on Matt. xsii. 55 t.0rigmmmmmtath.t Jude the bmlher of Jeeausia the author of thc epide under that nam, but m t c a no s!mmlnr m m m n t on Jsmrs the hmlhn. Thna in surprising, r~pcci.tly as the Comm in Matt. la a daummt d the C-m anod, but th erolmatoon may -ply be lhnc Ongm b d plmty c l r to n y a b u t l r m but only that .but Jude Thm tr m maon m avppor t b t hc ~dcnllhedthe lamel o f l k cpstle n l h nnv o t h o lama snd hosd#sr#~lc F##uh>t..I$ erv iain1y quite c1ar a. to the iulhor'; l&"tiry. It is not n c m s v y here to d i m s r h m l v i m h i p d Jams to Jrauq which n ex-& Jrmrnc. Disuuions may bc found in rhr ddrr mmmcntancq e.g. Mayor, pp. -1". m d Rops, pp. 5-2, and m I. 8. Lightfmt'a e w y . 'The Brethren of the Lord', m his C m m t n r y on Golatiom. l C ~ hcdn. London I8W, pp. 252-291. ' A notable &bate relating to thc date of J a m .nd thus to the .uthmticitv of the v d i t i o n d author hi^ $9 mnduned br G. Kirtel and K. Nand i n ; m e . "f .",d" C Klttd. : ~ grrh,chd,& n On dcs Jsbbushncl".. ZVlV41. 1942 pp. 71-10T. K N.nd.'Drr H c m h d c r Jskobusunadn l.kobusbnb. Thaolomrrh, 1.trnoruontvnn 69. 1944, m, 97-lo+. C icia.1. 'Do ~skohu&ricf und die ~po,;olirhm VI;;Z. ZNU' +I. 195&51. pp. SCI12.

39

THE EPISTLE OF J M S Luke's repon is debatable, m d many of the auggeatcd p d d s w myany familiar aprraaions (Those usually cited pn Jasi. 1 cf. AUsxv. 3 % i 16, 19.25,dxv. 25;i. 27 cf.xv.14,29:ii.5d.m.13;ii7dxv.17;v.9f.dxv.19. Even J. A. T. Robinm, who argues f a the traditional nuthamhip m d a date c. A.D. 48 f a the epistle, assesses these ns not verv simifiont evidence. Redotiup the N m TcltanmL London 676; p. 130 f.) It is hrtainly b longer possible to asam with mmplete mfidence that James of Jerus~lemcould not have mitt& the gmd Greek of the epistle. since the wide cwency of that language in Palestine is increasingly a p nrrdatcd. 1. N. Smcnster in his monoctranh on that subien' uses the epistle of James ns a testsasc for his invcotigat~on, m d mndudes th.1 a 'mum n n be deemd impossible" that James the brother of Jesus muld have acquired the facll~tyto compose a Inter in reamnable literpry Greek. Yet other familiar objections sill seem to hold gaod. It must seem extraordinary that a Christian with such an especial tnowledce " of.. indeed Antionshin with.. lcsus . . should "eive him so mall a place in his miting, m e e s p m d y as this Chnslinn was not only witness, although sppamdy an unaym pathetic one, of Jesus' earthly cucer, but also a witness of his resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 7; this tradition was, according to Jerome, dsbonted in the Gospel to the H e t m r , De Virir Illustribus 2).,. m aDsicnce which mnv, be suowaed to have brought hxm to faith. Again, the trnditlon about J a m s of J n u d e m is unanimous in presenting him as a Christian who wntinued to attach great importana to the observance of the Jewish Law. cspeddy in cultic matters Thus Luke shows him as presiding o v a the muncil held to decide what observance should be required of gcntilc wnwrts (Acts xv. 13-21). and as suggesting to Paul a dcmonstntion of piety in relation to the ritual discharge of vows (xi. 18-24). Paul himslf

-.

.

.

..

'J.N.Smolp.Doprbm~kI.ubmM'Hmmuh~mvld Chmanshrr kmm?. Lodm IW8,orpmdly pp. k 2 1 16%191: d. W Hqnld&&rmdHell&Vol I pp 5-1 and

h hr 1-h and

,"L,"*

INTRODUCTION d s the intmmtion of 'eenain psopk from James', whatever may have bren their pwiec file w their authority, as provoking the msis in Antioch over tablcfellaruship between Jewish and gentile Christians (Gd. ii. 12). Josephus lists James among those arraigned far Iaw-breaking by Annnus the High Priest, but dsa records the intervention of the Pharisees, in protest against Annnus's o m illegal action: an intervention unlikely if they had thought that law-breakers werc being justly punished (Ant. rx. 200). The arrounts of Hegnippus and Epiphrnius prcscnt James as mered among the Jews themselves for his piety, in p n n i d a r hisdevotion to the Tcmplc (Euseb. H E ii. 23. 6; Epiph. Hoer. I-iii. 14). The traditions vary, and are of doubtful reliability, but they show that James of Jerusalem was remmbered as a Christian loyal to the Torah; and this memory is not consistent with what has been q u e d above as to the attitude of the author of the epistle to 'law'. James of Jerusalem, of all people, might be expected to appreciate the impact of the Pauline slogan of >ustification by faith and not by works'. The author of the epistle, then, has adopted the m v m t i o n of pseudonymity familiar in both Jewish and GraaxrRoman literature. No more than genuine authorship, however, is the adoption of prreiacly this pecudonym n key to his situstion Certainly Jamcs of Jausplcm was the hem of heterodox Jewish Christianity, as he is in the pseudoClementine Homilirr and Recognitions (in conwlst to their villain. Simon Magus, a thinlydisguiscd Paul). Them he b appointed by Christ to be 'bishop of bishops, who ru*s Jerusalem, the holy Church of the Hebrews, and the Chwhes everywhere' (Rec. i. 44). The Protmongrlium meobi, an infancy gospel populnr among the Ebioniten (though not nnrs~nrilyoriginating from them, ace 0. Cullmnnn in Henncckc-Schncemlcher I, p. 372th is attributed to him (PJ xxv. 1); and Epiphaniua w o r d s that the Ebionites dao used a document called The Ascnts aj James (Han. m. 16). Yet this respect for James is by no means confined to Jeaish Christianity. The gnostic Gospel of T h m a s despibes James as the one 'for whose sake heaven and earth came into being' (log. 12). Also in the Nag Hammodi library are the Aponyphon of Jams (I. 2). a tractate *I

THE EPISTLE OP JAMES catehed in the form d a Inter fmm James;' and the First and Second ApocaEypsa qfJamsr (V. 3, 4): the former a dialogue brim Jesus and Jmea, the latter a dismursc of J a m s b e f m his manydorn. All three documents are clearly gnostic in character. No doubt J a m appnled to the gnostics as one f a whom, as for Paul, T h m s and Matthias. belief or kmwledge c m c in an enmunter with the exalted rather than the earthly Jesus. Within the mainstream of Christian devdapmmt, Eusebius remrds Clement of Alexandria as explaining the reason for the early leadership of James: Pets, J s m a and John 'did not lay claim to glory, 1s men who had been prefared in honour by Him, hut selected James the Just as Bishop of Jerusalem' (HE ii. 1.3, cf. 23.1); while Epiphanius &maJcsua himaelf enmating James with his throne over the world (Haer. I m i i i . 7). James of Jausnlem WPB B very condd~nblefigwe in the Vadition of early Christianity; it is not surprising that an author of the background and situation which has been suggested here should have chosen the name of this early leader of the earliest centre of the Church in whicb to mite a letter that, whiic envisaging the problems of a particular community, is yet applicable to the whole Israel of God, dispersed throughout the world3

' ET in JumM. Robinmm, 4, Tk N q H @ m d i L i A r q ,pp 29-36. Despite the Mter (onn d opnimg uldrrm 'Jamsn i t " to.. a, sign d bowLdgc d the ~ u a a u d epistle.

:, thm is

Ibid. pp. 242-248 d 2+255. 'To ward the epide as pndongmau 4 de m , to pwide .a,thn 6xrd point f a it* datmg. It an h e b e uppoacd thmt Ihc p ~ & n y mof Jams would he adopted during Jarna's o m l i f n i m ; rather this &a his bving k m n c a mssd 6gw-c d the p u h Thc manyrdom ofJunesd Jenrwlem is placed by Joaephua in the inemgnum betFenua a d Mbinus, &.o. 62. and by Hcgaippvt immediately b e f m Vespri.n'l invnsion of Pdntinc, pmbsbly themfm A.D. 67. The former ia gncrnlly mnsidcrcd rdixblc, the Iattcr bang n relmoping of crcnca la show the dcgc and ultimate fall of J m d e m ..mibution f a Jams'sf*. F a the -ting of the ~ p i d e thm. , *D 62 arrvrs as the f n n i n u r a p o , snd the m t m g of the Shrphrrd of H m n s ns the tnninw ad won. ,

42

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Jrmsis -0 rrvd by older mmmt.r*. in English, which indudc P. J. 6 H a T1.EpLtlr of St J o e , ( m m c n u y to iv. 7). London. 1W9

R

I. Kmrting. The Ep"ll o/ St )hw (Weaminnrr I",.,"".--.-..- . -

Commmtq).

IO(U

J B Maya. T k Rpirtl of St James, 3rd rdn mid. Lmdm, 1913 1. H. Rope, A Critic01 ond RxqdLol C m u r l m y a thr Ep*rL of St j a w (In,-ao~ul Cntrd Cmumtuy). Edmburgh. 1916

E.C BlvLDuS T k Ep*& ojJom(Torcb Bibk Commcnrqh Lndm ud N.pnill+ IU., 1957 B. 9. E m . The Epistle of 7-s (1"-dl Bible, vol. 12). New YorL 1957 C L. Mitrm. T k Epalh oJJonrr. Lmdm .nd Onnd Rapid* Mich.. I966 8. Rdckc. Tk Episllrr ofJa1~1.P M d J Y d . ( A n e h m Bibk). 2nd &, New Yak, 19M E. M. SidebntomJam*, Jdeom.nd2Pder(Tk C c n t q Bibkh Lmdm. 1967 R V . G.Tab. The G-d E#& ojJmvr W a l e New Tnanmn Cammcotqh London. 1956 M. Dibdiuh Dm Brhf d.rJ&k(Mc)o Kommcnurh 11th d n by H. G Giittingen, 19M. En@& m n l r i o n . Jams, by M. A. Willim. (Hemacis), Philldclphi~1976 P. Muasmr, D n Jnkaburbrirf (Hcrdsa Thmlogilsher KommnuI m m Ncvcn Tntamrnt). Pmiburg. 19M H. Wxndisch. Die Kolholirrhe* Bri~fa. (Hsndbuch .urn Nevrn Tetamna) 3rd dn.T"bingm. 1951

I. Cmlinrr. CM.. &#

tpllm, & Smit J q r iel & Soint y d z (burs

Bablqml. Panh 1971

1. C h a m . L'fpllr. dr S o w j o r p u s (Bude. Bnbliqucs), 2nd 4%P v l r 1927

1. Mull.L%pVn&Jorpr~:bndemil+.Rnh I915 h u h and ahcr s N d i 0 f e ~ i F Y-0 LD th.cpi*Iq Y . rrfnd to in the lnvodunnon An rrh.unive b8blw.phy. bmught up-rod.1. by the vmd.!a, mar kfolnnd ~ n ~ h c E T o f L h b c l ~ v r

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

I. ADDRESS AND GREETING i. I

(1)Jmes,newant of God a n d of the Lonl Jesos Christ, to the Twelvc Tribes in the Dispersion: Orrctings.

The epistle OpmS in mnvationd ktter form. with ident i h t i o n of aritcr and recipients, and rnlutation. Thc a r i t a identifie himaelf as James, I~&&I. the Creek form of the Jewish name 'Jamb'; he write in the character of J a m s the brother of Jesus, leader of the Christian mmmunity in Jerusalem before the fall of that city ( s e Introdwtion, p p BU-42).

- H=& deaaibea himaell ra w n ~ of t God mtd of the Lord rervs Christ. The description of a -shipper .a thc mwont. doulor, lit. 'dsve'. o f his god is common tn Helknistic religion, cspciaUy the mystcrykligions, and may be s e n as the natural mmllary d calling the god 'lard', kurio~.a title with connotations of ownwhip and abmlutc mastery (though cf. the m j a i o n of that logic in Jn xv. IS). The term has -dents in the LXX, whmc all lsnel may be r d e m d to as God's douloi (eg. Dcut. acdi. 36), but where alao it may denote panicular impmpnt individuals such as Moses ( I Kga viii. 53.56; Md.ii. 24), a Dnvid(1 Kgaviii. 66). and -has (Jm.vii.2S;Amosiii. 7;cf.potiinDan. ix. IO).Corrcspandingly, in early Christian dccummts rmont of God denotes both belicvcn, in genaal (c.g. 1 Pet. ii. 16; Hamas, Vzi. i. 2 9, and prnieulpr individuals such sa prophets (Rev. x. 7, xi. 18) and apostles (Acts iv. 29; Tit. i. 1; Paul describes himself and Timahvpa'aavantaofChria'inPhil.i.l ..~ d G d . i . 10:andthe . srlfdeipntton m m o M ia~oinedto that of 'apostle' in the nddmsrrof Rom. and 2Pn.). Jnmesmny ~a&scr~behlmsclf,theh

THE EPISTLE OF JAhfES

i.1

4 t h to identify himaelf with his readers, as 8 worship% writing to fellow worshippsa whom he willlater cnll 'brothas' IeoRoocs.whommmcntathat Paul wsthisformofdnrrintion only in Romans nnd Phdippims. 'cpstlcs In which he 1s c o p snously arivingtosvoidthe wsmpionafprrmalauthor~ty'); or, ns a p ~ l d o n y m o uw s i t % to wsmthisplaceof authorityin tbe Church and in theline of God's great snvants of the past (en Dibeliusl. He catainlv writes with an implicit authority, and in iii. 1 classes himsef with the orooal; restricted moun of teacher%hut the mnglcwordof self-dcoignationcannotreally be seen as strongly cmphasising nthrr claim or dnsclaimcr. The author preacntshimsYtohisreadersas achristian worshipper, and ns-one whose right to address them requires no f u t h a explmationorjustification.' His service is directed bath to God and to the LardJesus Christ. The phrase them koi h r i m firm Chnitmr muld in fact be translated as referring solely to JesusChrist, described as 'God and Lord', but that Jesus should be called 'God' unequivaally would be very unusual in the light of NT practice On xx. 28 is an outstanding exception), and is hardly to be expected of this author with his distinctly limited chriatdogicnl interest Some MSS e e k to clarify the dininction between the two objects-of srvice by identifying God as Father. them potms. and Jesus as Lmd (so 69. 206. +29). while some versions, in the abpence of a definite article in Greek, add the qualification 'our Lord'. This recognition by sribcaofanawkwprdnewinthc text, together withthefact that the acknawledgmmt of two-fold service is unparalleled in the nddrcsaes of other NT cpides, might seem to lend mppon to those who, like Spitta, see the reference to Jesus as a

.

. .

. . ,

- .

dawned, but more probably.thm is & n p p n l ta'thebctter-knom suthariol m u m n the hcnuthor'a mn. Ditdiua IInrmdunion. o. 19). ~ h l n k .that #ksddrrar of Jude p r c u p p o x s a kmwlrdgc of !he cpnstk of James. h l hrrr m olhrr tnltcaxon 8" Jude of 9uch LnaalcJp, and thc foran of k a r n o l ~ r mn n hc mrd~lrsrrarnlrd for b !hc ucncnl. nrlv

.

..

.

il

ADDRE99 AND GREETING

Chiaianiaiog interpolation into theorigid &signation of the author w sm~td'GodtheLord',Yphweh.Thcrcisnotmud evidence for this a h m a reading, and 11~r anyway unlikely tn view of a h a evidence of the Christian character of the document. In calling Jews Lard. J a m s foUows general Chnstipn p n i o c . appar&ly from a very cvly initint&e, sin= the title appeus in its Aramaic form in the prayer of I Cor. xvi. 22 ( c t Rev. xxii. 20), and is d a found in what appears to be a mnfessiond formula in Rom. x. 9 (d. 1 Cor. xii. 3). It was an i b itiative of potentially great christnlogicd significance, since kwior ia used in t h c L M both to translate the Hebrew adtimi used of God,and to render the divine name. l a m s daes n n n p l m the nmpl~eat~onsof the ti*, and indeed moref~quently nppl~csitt o a d thpn to Jesus(e.g.1.7.8rn.9. IV. 10.". IO).Chrial. by contrast, seems to have lost h titular sense; it gocs with Jesus as effectivelyp m of the proper name of the Lord. The recipients of t k letter are identifrd as the Twelve Tribes in the Dispersion. T w l v e Tn.ber is an obvious way of referring to the Jewish nation ( c t Ano m i . 7; 1 Clem. Iv. 6); and Dispersion, diorpmn, is a familiar term for the phenomenon of Jews resident among gentiles outsidc Pdestinq variously denoting the fan of that reoldmet (c.g. Deut. nviii 25; lcm. xli. 17). the lears so resndent fer. In vii. 35; 2 M ~ C Ci.. TI), uld th; p ~ n hin which they A% (c.g. Judith v. 19; Test Asher vii. 2). The address a u l d xem. then, to define the readers in r a d d and geographical terms. though the g a r p p h i c d delinition would be mom than mmcwhat open (6. the address of 1 Peter to the 'chosen a j o w n a s of the Dispersion' in the provinces of Asia Minor. 1 Pet. i. 1). The epistle would then be understood as addresxd to J e w or Jewish Christians in the w r l d outside Palestine ( a , e.g.. Mayor, Hort and Chaine). However, the address cannot be misfanorily explained as simply an empirical definition. Although its Dispersion was an a n a d fact for the Jewish nation. its being Twelve Ttiber w s rather a description of its ided composition as, since the fall of the Northern Kingdom of I a ~ c lto As+a in 721 B.c.. ten of those tribes were thought to be effectively 'lola' (d. Ass. Moa iv. 8 1.; 2 Bar. i. 2; in Ant. xi. 133 Josephusexplains that tben are two tribes 17

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

il

in Europe and Asia subject to the Romans, and ten tribes beyond the Euphntes, 'countless myriads'. w h a s number cannot be ascertained), and their reconstitution had become a hope for the future, the new age (so Is. d . 11-16; J m . m i . 8; Ezek. x m i i . 15-22; Zech. x. 6 1 2 ; 2 E d . dii. 3 M 7 ; and also the letter of B m c b to the nine and a half tribes, in the hope of their return in the last times. 2 Bar. l m i i i ff., esp Ixxviii. 5-7). For James to address his m d e n in terms of this ideal would be comparable with other widence that the Christian community thought of itslf as the t r w I m e l of God's time of salvation (e.g. Rom. ix. 24-26; Gal. v. 16; Heb. iii. 6, iv. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 9 f.). The idea of the twelve tribes is variously retained by Christian authors: the Q tradition includes Jesus' pramis that his disiples will judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt xix. 28; Lk. uii. 30); Rwelation envisages a sealing of the twelve tribes, or their reprrsntativcs, for d e l i v m n e (Rev. vii. C 8 ) ; while Hcrmas uses the tenn to denote the universal number of believers, 'these twelve vibes which inhabit the whole w r l d are twelve nations'. as they are now, in need of judgment and purification (Sim. ix. 17. 1 f.).' S i n a the Christian community also thought of itslf as one whose present character was temporary (Phil. iii. 20 f.; Heb. dii. 14), it was natural that it should appropriate to itslf the language of lsnel as the sojourning people of God. Addresss to Churches in this 'dispersion' character are found in 1 Pet. i. 1 (cf. ii. 11) and the introductions to 1 Clement, the Epistle of Polycarp and the Mnrtyrdom of Polprp, cf. also Hermas, S b . i. 1; Diognet. v. 5. If the main intention ofthe address is to define the community theologically in its Christian character (so also, c.g.. Ropes and Dibelius), the question whether its wmbers are of Jewish origin remains undecided; the 'dispersion' community of 1 Peter indeed seems to have had a predominantly gentile background (1 Pet. iv. 3, cf. i. 14, 18). To describe a Christian community as fulfilling or in-

'

Th.%- canmuniry, which dm saw itsell as thc'tnr Imel', inthe w i l d a s . m a r s to have m ~ l w e da division of the mmmunirv q m bollraUy Iso'i*lve mbcs, rep;;xnrcd by thc ,*Is Ibymn aho Conned tbcc ~ I C * B ) ,hex w p m m munch1 ( I OS vnt 1 . ~ 1 C . Vcrme. The D m d S m S n o L ~nFnplcrh. 2nd d n H m m o n d d 1975.p 1 7 1 )

TRIAL AND INTEGRITY

i.Z-8

haiting the rble of I d need mt. of murr, imply that t k r c had hem an absolute b m k with the empirical Jewish people; however. other widcna svill he nccesary in or&, to nrgue that themcmbcrahip of the Christian 'larnel'hm addressed is in f x t Jewish in origin. (To see the readers as ddned here in their theological ch&a~&r is also. of course. to leave uh decided the question whctha the author intends his work to be of general dmnu, or whether he writes with n specific community in mind.) T o these readers the author pddrrssea Geethgm. using the infinitive choirein, the rrgulu fonn of salutation in Hellenistic Inters, found fmlumtly in the pap*, in the LXX in the lctcers of Alexander, Dnnnrius and Jonathan (I Macc. x. 18 25, xii. 6, ef. 2 Macc i. II), and in the NT in the kttcr of Lysias to Felix (Acts rdii. 26) and the Jcmsalem encyclical (Acts N. 23). The J k s h salutation would commonly k 'Peace' (as in the r e a d s of royal letters in Dan. iv. 1, vi. 26; Ezra iv. 17; d 2 Maw. i. 1). James's opening address mct n s t s markedly with other cnrly Christian epinks, none of which usc the letter styk with such formality, but mostly o p n with n wish a prayer for 'grace and pncc' for their r e d a s (so dl the P a u l i P a m d and Pctrinc epistles; RN. i. 4 f., the address to the m e n Churches; 1 Clem. and Ep Polv.: 'abundant ~ m t m"z.' . 'aleisla chcrirrin. in , . Irmatius's " Magn.. TlolL, Snrym, and Paly. 8s comparable, though his &slgnation of witcr and addressee^ 1s more elaborate than James's).

2 TRIAL AND INTEGRITY

i. 2 4 (2) My bmtbm, regud it M wholly a matter for joy whenever you fall into r . r i w s kindm of h i . l a . (3) lmowing that ths testing of your r u t h brhg. about adurance; (4) and let a d u r a n c e d o its whole work, u, tbnt you m a y he whole and complete, Iselring in nothing. (5) If any of you I m k s riadam, let him ask d 49

THE EPlSTLE OF J M S

i.28

Cod who gim to dl freely md nitbout grudging. d it d l be given him. (6) But let him a& in faith, nothing doubting,-for the m m who doubts is like a wave o f t h i men, b l a i n about u r d tossed by tbe wind. (7) Let not that man expect that be will receive urythiig from the Lord; (8) he is s double-minded man, unstmble in evaytbing h e d o n . ?he formality of the opming n d d m is modi6ed in the immediatdg Mowing it, in two ways. First. it is linked into the opening pnsPagcs of instruction by a wbal echo: those whom the author has givm greetings, &irnnn, he now urge8 to regard their trials as a ground far jay. charam. Semndly, he addresses them in direct, perwnal terns as my broths., a recumnt phrase throughout the epiale (eg. i. 1 4 19, ii. 1, 5, iii. 1, 10. v. 12. 19). This address to his madcrs as brothers is also characteristic of Paul (e.8. Rom vii. 4; I Cor. i. 10 f.; Gal. i. 11; Phil. iii. I), while Matthew refers to thc disciples of Jesus as 'brethren' (Mat. xxiii. 8, cf. xviii. 15) and Luke to the earliest Jausnlrm mmmunity as 'the brethren' (Acts i. 15 f.). However, although the term is eh.ractetcristica!ly Christinn it is not peculiarly so, being used of fellow-Jews in Acts ii. 29, Idii. 26 (d.Rom k 3), in Jewish religious mmmunities auch as the Esrmes (Josephus. BJ ii. 122), and g e n d y for d o s nsaoeiatcs (c.g. Jud. xix. 23; 1 Sam. xxx. 23); as ala, for m m b s s of Hellenistic religious nssoeistions (MM cites, eg., associstes at the Serapum at Memphis). The d o n , w. 2-8, is given a structural unity by verbal links such as that between w. 1 and 2; thus w. 4 and 5 am linked by the v e h leipo, and w. 5 end 6 by nitco. It may be argued whether these links m p m l y structural, or whether they d s t a disernible sequence of thought. In w. 2 4 , however, the chain of w d s and phrases expresses nn idea of progressive apericnce. The readers should r e g d it as wbolly n matter for jog (lit. as 'all joy'; not thnt suffering is the occasion for all the , iov ,there i s hut thnt it should occasion only joy, unmixed with other reactions) when they come under trial, for in trial is the testing of faith which produces endurance, which, when carried through, leads to the achieve-

TRIAL AND INTEGRITY

i2

mcnt of a mmplne churcta. A similar chain is found in I Pet.i. 6-7: the readas ahould rejoice when grieved by omimv kin& of hiolr ithe ailme ohcane. feirarmois boikiloir. is used by pet& 8s by J a m % whb c8rri;'son the al$ention i i t h h ~ s vcrbpniprrifs; Dibcliuscommcnts that the ad~ectivcpoih~lm is a favourite one for patnying a variety of torments and persecutions, citing inln olin 3 Mur. ii. 6; 4 Macc. xvii. 7; Hennas. Sin. vi. 3. 3, 4); f a their faith, proven in trial, wiU mcive praise m d glory nt the revelntion of Christ. A simpler chain, on the sune theme. is found in Rom. v. 3 4 , where rejoicing in d c r i n g is in the knowledge thnt suITering produces endurance; endunace, approved character; and a p proved chwmcr, hope, which will not be disappointed. The corrcspondenecs are n n a, dose as to argue literary interdependence between the t h m Chriaian writers, but rnthcr sugget that all three are makiig use of an established pattern of ethical instrunion, w the theme of the value of endurance under uial. Their diRncnas are due to each writer's developing this pattun in relation to his o m interests and situation. Neither James nor Peter d d i n s the l u t w of the v u i a u 2 kinds of hid which thcv, ennsnnc. " but Pets socaks of his readen being 'grieved' by them, and compare8 the* proving m , o n with thrt d f u e ( i . 7, cf. 8". If where the camlng fiery trial is to be sesl ns ahwing in the suffcnng of Chr~st).He is probably t h a d m thinking of cn-l presswe, hostility or persecution producing n c t d suficring; of a particular crisis. perhaps nlrrsdy in progress. Paul's use of thlipsir, suITering, with its mnnatatians of eschatologicaltribulation (seeon Jas i. 27) indicates thnt he envisages the situation in which endursna is demanded in similar terms. whether or not he sees a crisis ns imminent for the Roman Christians. They both t h m f m stand in the wadition of Jewish martyrology, where rndummr is demanded in the crisis of persecution (d., e.g.. 4 M a a . iv. 11, ir. 30; Judith viii. 25 IT.; and further on i. 12). It is condaent with this that both Peter and Paul also see the link in the chain in eschatological tcrma F a Peter, his mad& pmvcn faith will r m w c praise at the revelation of Christ, as yet u n m , but mming (i. 7 1.. e t i. 13); for Paul the 51

THE EPISTLE OF J M S

i.2-3

finnl tsm is hope, demibcd in v. 2 as hopc of the glory of Gad James gives no indication that he s n s the hinlr in such ~anicularterms. His use of hotan. ahanever, muld indicate ihat he is thinkine of s recurrent exoerience.. and he mav be con6ciously gener&siog the language to relate it to the &PIS of everyday ltfc (d. on i. 12.27, v. 7 1.). Hc thus rnthcr follows in the wadition of Ben Sin, who pea testing and endurance as the perennial experience of life in God's senice (Ecclus i i 1 4 ; d Test. Jos ii. 7). Tltere is no eschatological term to James's series, either: the process of probation leads to an achieving of permnal integrity, apparently an end in itself. The expression of borh the first and the third elements in 3 James's sequence is difiult. The noun dokimia usually means 'test' in the smse of 'the m a n s of testing' (so Pmv. m i i . 21.. LXX). which would be awkward in this context The sarious trials am no dauht the mano by which faith is tested, but nt is r a t h a in the cxprience of wh~chthey are the means that endurance will be w o r m out. In I Pet. i. 7 the noun appears to carry the s e n s of that which is established by testing, tried charmer or genuineness (so Pa xi. 7, LXX): it is not the means of testing faith, nor the test itself. which will receive praise, but the proven genuineness of faith. For this gens, the nonnal expression would be the muter rdjee tivc d o k i m (dJas i. 12), found as a variant reading for dokimia in both Pets and James (in p 74 for both, and some individual MSS for each). This sense, however, will suit James no better, for to dokimia is in his m n t m clearly somethine a result rather than itself a resultant " that vields , fan. The most mtisfictory meaning for it to carry in Jnmcs IS that of 'test' as testing, a sense which Dibelius h i e s that it can c q , but which ts cited by AC and LS. Inndentally, the use by Peter and James of the =me word in a similar conten but with a different meaning accords with the suggestion that they are independently using a mmmon pattern rather than either being dependent on the other; and Paul's use of the noun dohimi, approved character, as the third link in his chain, further indicates that a word, or words, of that root played an established p m in the pattern of teaching on which all t h e authors variously drew.

.

..

52

TRIAL AND INTEGRITY

i.M

The tenting of faith, then. brings about eadrumce, huponmi, a word which indkates rather an active sendfmtneu in, than p a i v e ubmissian to. elcumstmrrs (cf. m v. 11). Endwmncc must be n l b d to do its whole work. 4 T h meaning of the phrlae ngm bleim is unclear, and then we three main tin& of i n t q a a t i o n . First. the complete lumk mav he understood as the activc meadfietness itxll: this &auld be carried thmugh 'completely', so that as tnal rhould be m n only in terms of joy, should dm be m t with unw n v a i q sendfastneas (thus Mayor and Hon). Scmndly, the m a k miy be sem as the manifestation or proof of steadfastneaa. which win bear fmit if put into effect (thus Ropes; AG suggests, 'la mdurance show itself perfectly in pnctice'). Thirdly, it may be scm as the final link in the chain. The chain has thus far bem spxific: probation kads to hope, hope to endurance; and the expnation is thnt the outmmc of endurance will dm be rpen'fied. The following clause sugests that the outcome of endurance would be sm as completeness of charmer, but James hns departed fmm the simple aequenee of 'endunnee prod-s perfection' to intmduce an imperative note. The x q u e n a is not automatic; it demands effort and decision (thus also Dibelius; the imperative aervcs to undcrlinc the fact that endurance is active rather than paplive). ?be smse muld he brought w t in n pmphmse: enduranoc 'must do its work of perfecting'. Having thus reached the tvlal term of his sequma. Jams typicdly elaborates on it, adding a synonym and lhen a ncgative ddinition (d.w. Sb, 6a): the aim ia chat you m a y be whde and eomplets, lacking in mthmg. To be bleios, whole or perfect, is not a matter of having achiwcd a higher standard (contrast Did.vi. 2, where those who can bear the whole yoke of the Lord are 'perfect', while others must do as much PS they can). Paul m y , in 1 Cor. is. 6, reflect and reject a claim of some in Corinth to be 'the perfea' over against ordinary believers (a d i m with n history in gnosticism), but in Col. i. 28, iv. 12 his hape is 'perfection' for all his readers Similarlv. Matt, v. 48 d w s not orexnt arfection as either an impossible or m auaordinnry demand. The adjective can carry the s m r of 'mature'; the phrase trleios o n k , u s d in Jas

.

.

THe EPISTLE OF JAMES

i.4-5

iii. 2 meaning 'a mhuc nun' (d.Eph. iv. 13), but this sense is not uppermost m James hue. As th negative definition d c s dear, m be trkbr is t o be a complete p e m , having integrity, unlike the divided mnn cd w. 6 8 . In iii. 2. perfection is seen in cxsdoing m t r o l o m the tongue: ckarly not something form Uite only to attempt but for all to strive for in order to avoid that disunitv that is most blatant in sins of speech (iii. 9 f.). (This may w k l be the scnsr of the word u p permost for Matthew too, f a Ihc dcmand for perfection in v. 48 IS n demand for maistmcy of behsvlour ltkc that of Cad, while the rich young man is o&d the proopect of perfection in relation to what helncks, xix. 20 f.) Both telrim and its synonym Mokliror cm also cvry connotations of moral completeness. and thus blamlepmess, and this smse is undoubtedly present f a James (d.trleios in Gtn. vi. 9;' Deut xviii. 13; Ecclus xliv. 17; and Llokkos in W i d . xv. 3). 5 Moral integrity is a matter for exhortation, and lack of it may comspondiily be a matter for blame, but James now twns to consider the lock of a i d o m , n lack that cannot be made ua bv human effart. far it is a aik of God and must theref& b;asked of him (d.Rov. ii. b l Kgs ni. 9 ff.; Eeclus i. I; Wid. 1 1 17). The scgumoc of w. 4-5 l o not an obvious one. Mayor quotes Bede's suggestion that the linking idea is that wisdom-is nnrsclary in;;;dcr to sn suffering i s a joy (rcfsring back to v. 2). a suggemion adopted by Chaine; but this very precise m m m i o n is not indimtcd. It is possible that there was a familiar amxiation of perfection and wisdom (e.g. W i d . ix. 6 asams that though a man may s n m perfect, he is wonhleas if he In& the widom that mmcs from God; cf. also I Cor. ii. 6 f. and Col. i. 28 for the conjunction). Struct d y , the sequence is established by a'stitch-word', the verb IcipG used in both verses, but this is not merely an artificial link, for a lmse m i n of thought may be observed. To move fmm a d e i m for mmpletmess to consider a lack which only

'

In Gm vi 9 N d is d c a i as &ion. Philo c x p m d s this i n t m s d mmpthe mm r h o is ukim is h&hGm~ ex orchis, that i q corn olltc in v i n e (Ik Abr. 47. d. 34. w k m Nmh i8 rrlaos m mukin* nc4

TRIAL AND INTEGRITY

i.5

God can supply is n a mmordinrry, and the t h e m of intcgrity introduced in v. 4 mntinucs in the following verses in the eonunst of God pnd man. When James refers to wisdom again. in iii. 13, 17, md anempta mme definition of it, it is seen as the gmund of anion and the sum of vimes, so perhaps here too it is thought of as a unifying bond, mnducive to the desired wholeness. As the gift of God, it mmcs from him freely, h q l 6 r . The uaual meaning of thenoun hoplotis is singleness or simplicity. As contrasted with duplicity, it may convey n lack or resrvation or of guile, and as. further, this might be expressed in magnanimity or generosity, the word can alsocarry this latter meaning (el. Dibelius, excursus pp. 77-79). Thus Issachar. the exemplar of haplotis in the Testaments. as the man of integrity, is generous (Test. Iss. iii. 8). and neither mvetous (iv. 2) nor meddlesome (v. 1). James's idea, then, m y be either that God gives without hesitation or semnd thoughts, or that he dves eenemslv. bv,the con, The latter d d be sueeested "" trnrt ~mmed~atrly following: he gwcs genen,usly ond withow grudging: the former by the n e n vcrec: Gud'r lack of henlatlan In ynving would convast arith msn's her~tottonin nrk~ng. Quite probably the author is conscious of both meanings and intends both contrasts to be made.' The same ambivalence is found in Paul's use of this language, of human giving, in Rom xii. 8. where 'Ict he who rives do it reneroualv' or 'wholeheartedly' would make equal sense in context; tiough in 2 Cor. viii. 2. ix. 11. 13 it is d c d y of gcnaour giving that he writes. Hermas, d m writing on the theme of human giving, inclines to the former rensc: 'Givc whakheanedly, without doubting', i.e. as to the object ( M o d ii. 4.6; cf. Did. iv. 7: B m . x k I l I Hsmas's laneuaee " " is svikinelv ", similar to James's and as thtm M mhm echoes of the rptstle nn thns Mondofe ( s e o n i. 27, iii. 8). he may be adapttng the prevnt passage to his own argument. The mntrast between giving and g r u d g i n g is familiar from the aphorisms of Ecclestasticus (e.g. viii. 15-18, xx. IS, di. 22), and is probably

- -

' A disussm of thc mntnr bet- b p b t i s and hbhn. i e given by

I. K i l o u . Thr Tblogr of]-h

Christiaily. ET Lo&

362-365.

55

1964, pp.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

i.54

pmverbid; d.dm Sarms, Smdmtioc 339 and Pss Sol. v. 15 f., where a mntrnst betgnrdging human m d g e m s divine giving is made: 'Man's gwdmss is (bestowed) grudgingly .,And if he v a t (it) without murmuring, even that is marvellous But Thy gift is g c a t in gaadness and wealth, And he whoae hope is (sa)on thee hall have no lack of gifta'. It is in the light of this known characteristic of God that James a d a s s , let him a& and it will be given him. T h s e is an obvious similarity to the mmmand of Jesus in Man. vii. 7, Lk. xi. 9: 'Ask, and it will be given to you'. In the gospel passage the mmmand is followed by a comparison betimprfcn human fathers who yet give their sons a p propriate gifts, and 'your fatha in heaven' who 'will give.. . to those who ask him'. James similarly attributes 'every gih that is gwd' to 'the Father of lights' (i. 17). It s e m s quite possible, then, that Jsmes draw on the tradition of the teaching of Jews, but if a, it is clear that that teaching has t e n absorbed without diffmtiztion into the general stock of ethical instruction. He will have drawn on it independently of its literary fixity in either gospel, since in contrast to Manbew's general 'good gifts' he specificsthe gift of God, hut as the gift of wisdom rather than Like's 'Holy Spirit'. 6 James has further elaborated on the gospel theme by inmducing the idea of unanswered requests. He turns h.om the quality of God's giving to the quality of man's asking. An interest in oraver. ita character and its mwer. is a marked feature ofjl&istJe (see Introduction. 27) Prayer must be made in faith (d.v. IS; and Mk xi. 24. Matt. x x ~ .22) and witha31 doubting, othenvrsc r s request wiU na be granted. The problem of apparently unanswered prayer is taken up again in iv. 3; in both places it is clear that the explanation is in terms of man the asker and not God the giver. The nature of the doubt is not here defined. It muld be doubt a b u t the object of the q u e s t , and what is really desired, as in iv. 3 requests are not granted as they are for an inappropriate object (SB cites as n parallel here Tonckuma 234 24a on Deut. xxvi. 16. ' When you make your prayer to God,do not have two heart& one for God and one for something else')

..

...

ip.

56

TRIAL AND INTEGRITY

i6-7

probably it is doubt about the m m of the request, of God's abilitv or willinmess to give. This theme is e c h a d u in precept an the T w o W a r ' =lion of the Didock and epigtle of Bmabaa: 'Thou shah not doubt whether a thtng shall be a not be' (Did.iv. 4; B m . d x . 5); and by H-s fin Mond. ix. which again e m s to draw upon the language of the epistle but develops the theme a, that the doubt is specific~Uythat of a sinner about what he can hope to receive fix. &la", in mantine m u c s t s is due to some , 1)... and no-1, sin of which the pnittaner is lgnonnt (ix. 7 1.). The nmlure o f doubt is related to the nature offaith. Undefined In v. 3. faith here will bc not amply a =nerd mnfidena in the proposition that prayer will bc~&aw&i, but a confidena based on the belief that the God addressed is a God who eives freelv , lcf. Joo ii. 19, w h m the demons' pcrrptsna of the proposition that 'God is one' 8s doo an amptpnrr of the 1mplicat8onsfor them of that fan). Raycr, then, should be m exprerrron of man's integrity: he should be wholehearted in his approach to God. The man who h&s such intepity is like s r a v e of the sea; k l u d h wave, often carries in the LXX the scnsc of 'tempest'. as in Jd i. 4; 1 Macc. vi. 11; d Lk. viii. 24; but the e l a s a d usc as m i n g surf or mugh water makes better =nee in an image of one who wavers and hesitates. tossing about like the surface of water thmwn up by passing gusts af wind (Wiad. xix. 7; and d. Eph. iv. 14. where the verb Mudinrinmoi is used). The mggemion that the image is d r a m specifimlly fmm the inland 'sea' of Galilee with its sudden stonns (D. Y. Hndidim. 'Pnleminian Pictures in the Epistle of James', p. 227 f.) is distinnly far-fetched. The verbs giving the trandation M o a n about snd tossed by tbe wind, ammix6 and r i p i ~ 6are , virtually synmymous. and the former may be of James's mining since it hn?i not so far been found in earlier documents He is fond of such alliteration. which gives a certain cadence to his style ( d . Introduction, p.

Mm

-

.

" .

.

5).

That mm, the man who praysin doubt, need not expect to 7 receive mythimg fmm the L o d . T k Lmd is hrrc clearly not Jnus, but God the Father, the gwer of gifts ~ni. 5. 17. 57

i. 7-8

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

Some MSS, Muding ShhiCUl, omit t k prrmoun anything, so that the ~ @ 6 ccase of Wycr for wisdom mnains in the f o ~ e r ~ u n but d . it is m m likelv that lames intends his wnming"to beapplied to praycr k gc&al. m e punctuation of the end of this rrrsc, and its mlation to the following vase, is uncstnin. The twa verses may be sm as two sentences wntaining propositions about (a) the doubting man, and (b) the double-minded man, that are distinct, thouch t h e m a t i d v related (so , Am. , Ahcrnativclv ,v. 8 mav , he pen no pn of the pedtcate of the sentbegun ~nv. 7: 'the doubts should not thtnk that a daublcminded man.. w0 m c w c anything' (RSV); or, thirdly. the sccand verse m y be m n in apposition to the first, with the statement about the double-minded man providing a funher and pejorative descrimion of the doubter (NEB:TB: GNBI. This last interpmtrtion has been dopted in t< above t*nolation, on the snrlouy of similar two-fold desxipionr In the epnstle. the sc cond often bong, as here. compcssd and more d l m t (c.8 IL 4, iii. 2, iv. 2). 8 Jamcs's stigmatising of the doubter a8 a double-miadcd m a n accords with and no doubt dcrivcs from the idea of doubleness as the clecncc of sin, as found in the O T (c.g. P s xii. 2; 1 Chmn. xii. 33; Eeclus i. 28) and l a t a Jewish literature, -idly the T e s t n m t s (ag. Test. Aaher i. 3-vi. 2; Test. Benj. vi. 5-7) and Q u m n documcnts(e.g. I QS iii. 17-18, iv. 23). This idea was developed in the Rabbinic t h a r y of the 'nvo impulses' in man, the g o d and evil impulses which arugglc for conh.d of the individual, an idea for which 'pmof texts' w a c fmnd in Gm. vi. 5, viii. 21, and which is sometimes seen to be m k t c d in Paul's analysis of his moral conflict, in Rom. vii.' This way of characterising man as sinful is rdlmed in other early Christian literatun: in Hermas, especially Mnnd. ix on 'double-mindedness' (Light-

.

For inurntionafthe ida ia J.rilbdo~umrnt% re SB IV. I. Em- 19. gur U. d s w T&b'. pp 4bb48): .ad. er*.of .nick by 0.1. F. Scitz, .Antoedcnu md lignifxuxc d thc t m diymzos'. JEL bb.

.Der

..

."

1917..om 211-219:'ARcrthwchts o n r k t s m 6lumros'.NTS4. . . 1957-58. 327-33*; 'Two qinls in man: an e m y in biblid exegesis', NTS 6. 19594, pp. 8%95.

pp.

58

TRIAL AND INTEGRITY

i. 8

f m ' s translation is 'doubtful-mindcdness') and Mmd. xi-xii 3 on the ~ i and l good desires; and in t k 'Two Ways' of Didochc and Barnabas, where for both 'doubleness of heart' is a mark of the way of death (Did. v. I: Barn. u. 1). (There is no suggestion that James associates this division with the activity of cosmic, angelic or demonic, foras such as the Prince of Light and the angel d darkneaa of 1 QS iii. 2G24; the angel of p s c e and Beliv in Test. Benj. vi. I. 7; thc two spirits of Hennas Mnnd. ix. 11, xi. 1-17; or the 'black one' of Barn. m. I.) The general theme of doubleness or division as a characteristic of man to be disuusted, indud deplored, and wnuolled, is not mnfined to Jewish literature. It is not without d o g y in the common Hellenistic attitude towards man as unhappily compounded of body and soul, or to the Platonic theory of divisions in the soul itself.' The former attitude comes to be characteristic of gnosticism, and the theme of doubleness emsees svikielv in the G o s ~ eof l Thomas lae. 22. 'Jerur said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the msdc l~kcthe outside and the outs~deltkc the inside, and the above like thc below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male shall not be male nor the female &male.. then will vou enter (d.log. 106). It is not suggested tiat James (the Kingd~m)"'~ m f l s t s such speculative or philosophicsl ideas, but that this

-.

.

I Far the bodpaul diehornmy aoc. rg.. Phoedo 67, and d. F%h, DI Vim Mor. ii. 288. For mneix rnnun of t k desclopmnl of Plalo's "0denaandiag of t k mmpaite nature of tk pnrrhi i n tk Phodo, P h m h r nnd Rlpublic. sm W. K. C. Guthric. A H i m of Greek Philosophy IV. Cunbridgc 1975. pp. 346 f.. 121-5. 176-8; dm Tim-. 69 c-e. Philo . @ m e 8 the tripwire nd the pn& in 4. Allzg. i. 70-73, iii. 11S;DaSper.k~.is. 92.Pabahline8of&ohaught,aocdr,ER. Dodda. The Cwsh and the I n a i m 2 W i o m i a 1951, d u p t m V and VII: Pqon end Chn'stim in on A p qf Anriefy. Cambridge 1968, pp.

ZW6. ET by Thomu 0.Lmbdii in 1-8 NL Rcbiinm, ed The Nad Ham mad; L i k q in Eqlish. T k mying is ubnnnthny quoted in 2 acm. xii, wkrs it is expunded in ahid t w a , and it w s de known to Clr mcnt of Nolandria, rho ueribcsir totk Goapl o f t k Egypthns. Stmm. iii. 13. 9 1

'

i. 8

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

idea of doubleness was widely cwrent in his world and variously developed, and would thus make amac in other than a purely Jewish m n t a t . (For the p a s i v e n c s s of the theme of doubleness and singleness in the epistle, see Introduction, pp. 29-32.) In Jewish d m m m t s the ides of d o u b l e n c ~on which Junes draws would most prnbhly be mnveyed through uae of the idiom of the h e m as v e n t i n g the person. The 'double heart' is mndemnd in Ps. xii. 2; 1 Chmn. xii. 33; Eeclus i 28; 1 Enoch xci. 4; 1 QH iv. 14; as also the 'Two Ways' paauge cited above; mntraa the importance attached to the 'whole heart' in, e.g., Dcut. vi. 4, xi. 12, xiii. 3; I Kgs ii. 4, xi". 8; 2 Chron. d i . 38, mi. 21. Jams's adjective dipsuchas, doubleminded, used h a e and again in iv. 8, is unparalleled in the L X X NT,or any other known earlier literature, though with the noun dipsuchia and verb dipruck6 it appears in other early Christian litcmhlre: 1 and 2 Clement, the 'Two Ways' of Didache and Barnahas, and very frequently in Hermas, who uses James's own phrase, dipsvchor a&, in Mond ix. 6. Mayor suggests that the word was introduced by James himself, but it is unlikely that 1 and 2 Clement and the 'Two Ways' can he seen to derive it fmm him. and although Herma9 knows the epistle the hrquency of his use of the wordgroup (over forty occurrences) is unlikely to be accounted for by that knowledge done. In 1 and 2 Clement the adjective appears in nn aparyphd quotation (I Clem. -ii. 3 f.; 2 Clem. xi. 2 f.), and 0. J. F. Seia argues that this is the s a w for James and Hermas m well ('The relationship of the Shepherd of Hennas to the Episde of James', JBL 63, 1944, pp. 131-140, d.on iv. 8). It is pmbsbly, however, mistaken to seek to identify a mngle source from which aU the known authors derive their language, and most likely that the background is an idiom m e n t in Greek-spaking Judaism Its coining is not remarkable; in the LXXprvchi is the usual rendering of nepksh, which dermtes the individual, the self, as does 'the heart' (e.g. Gen. ii. 7; and cf. Jas u. 20), and indcedpsuchi occasionally appears as the LXX rendering of fib, h a r t (ag. Ps.Ixviii. 21. 33; Is. vii. 2. 4; Jere. iv. 19). T o convey the Jewish idea of doublenegs thmugh a use of pruchi 60

TIUAL AND INTEGRITY

i. 8

rather than the idiom d the h e m may have samcd capecidy appropriate in view of the r a t of pruchi in expressing a p parently conltruous Creek ideaa about the composite selt It is however wokh noting that of those authors who use the language confidently outside quotation (thus Hennas, who uses it very frequently independent of any apparent quotation; 1 Clem. xi. 2, adii. 2 and 2 Clem. xi. 3 outside their aparyphm; in m t r a s t with Didache and Bmabas for whom it is confined to the 'Two Ways' maxim which both include, Did.iv. 4; Barn. xk. 5). Hermas and 1 Clement are of certain Roman origin, and 2 Clement is also arguably Roman (see Robert M. Grant and Holt H. Graham, The Aportolic Fotkers. Vol. 2, First and Second Clement, New York and Toronto 1965, p. 109). The w a d may, then, be a local idiom, and thus n straw in the wind in identifying the provenance of James' The double-minded man is lunher descritd as unstable in everything he does. This adjective, ahatartam, is also confined to James in the NT (krc and in iii. 8h as is the noun okntostnsia (iii. 16). but both have precedent in t k LXX and classical literatwe. It may mean 'restless', as in iii. 8. or 'unstable', and as the phrase en pasair tois hodois o u h is literally 'in all his ways', the whole might conjure up the image of a stumbling walker ((d Jn x. 10). HOMYET,'ways' and 'walking' are familiar biblical idioms for conduct (e.g. Pss mix. 1, &. 17; Jmxvi. 17), and Jnmea's language is here more probably literal than figurative. (Once again Hennas may be seen to who the epistle: the dipswhoi are susceptible to being led astray by evil spirits, and a man aa conmlled 'is unstable in his c v q deed', nkntartei en posi proxei outou, Mond. v. 2. 1 , 7.) The man who is divided in himself, then, will show himself as such in his doubtful prayer, and also in his inability to net firmly or reliably.

' For a fulkr disusaion ofthis questiow arr Saphi S. Mlrahdl, 'Aivm~os,

a 1-1

term?. Sadin Emngelko Vl. 1973. pp. 348-351. 61

3. THE POOR AND THE RICH i. 9-11 (9) Let the brother in humble eircumstsncea b o u t of hi. exhdtation. (10) but let t h e rich man boast of his humiliation, for h e will pass away 'like a meadow Bower'. (11) For t h e sun risen with burning heat and 'dries up t h e grass a n d i t s Bower falls' and its loveliness perishes. Just so the rich man will wither away in mid-career. A loose train of thought was followed through the previous section: probation leads to wholeness; n la& of wisdom may be remedied thmugh prays; but prayer must be without doubt; the doubting man is 'dauhle-minded' and this affects everything he does Thar is no apparent connection between this and the contrast between humble and rich in the present passage. It could be seen to take up an idea fmm the beginning of tbe xquence: povmy is one of the perennial trials which must be endured (so Ropes), and the humble man's boasting therein is equivalent to the rejoicing of v. 2; hut the link is not in any way obvioug and it is best to see these verses as intraducing a new theme which, Like those of prayer and doubleness d l recur fmm time to time in the eoistle. 9 T h e antnthnld structure of the verrro requires that the bmthsr in humble circumstsncn should be seen m contrast to the nch mon, and hts humdity be understood as not a matter of spiritual or moral attitude but of social and material circumstances: he is humble in being poor. The character of 10 the rich mnn is more debatable. The author mav see both the figures whom he contrasts as 'bmhers' within hia community, a3 in ii. 2 a rich man may be present at a meeting of the community as a member or at least a welcomed visitor; or he may contrast the humble brother with the rich outsider, as in v. 1-6 the rich aa a class receive unqualified condemnation Several modem translations (NEB.1B. GNBI and the maiority of commentators adopt the for& alternative. The phrase ho plmrrior contains no noun, and it is natural to supply the

i %lo

THE POOR A N D THE RICH

one in the previous vssc, cldrlphor; dmiluly v. 10 lacks a main verb. and if this mo ('boast') is supplied from the preceding m s e it is reasonable to take it thnt it dhave the same acnae. The poor bmthcr and the rich brother b n h hnvc cause to b o u t in their situation, as Christians; it is the content of their boast which differ* nm its character. Their boasting may be in view of the future, in the p m s p c t of the mming new age with its attendant blessings: the poor boasts in the a r m i s e that his situstian will be reversed. thnt be will tnhmt the ktngdrm, ps m 18 Sh; thc m h Chnstmn wdl hnvc to f a a sonal stigma and pmbablc Ions, but can reloxce tn opltc of that, laoktng to thcrnuord he knows wtU follow Stmdarly. their boast may be understood as in the prospect of death, which rendas .U present mnditions imlevsnt, because of what they as Christians expect beyond it. Alternatively, their basting may be in the present: for the poor in his new-found atatus in the Christian community (d.Gal. iii. 28); for the rich in what he has gained, despite xppsrent losees, through conversion (dHeb. r 34). Such n boast m y be in an understanding of the reality underlying p e n t circumstances: the pw boasts of his exaltation as 'rich in faith' (d.ii. 58); the boast of the rich is not in his transitory possessions, but in being 'poor in spirit' (Matt. v. 3). The difficulty of this line of inurprctation. in whatever f m . is that the boaetinr d the two is not r e d v, analonour Thm es exaltatton for the poor, but m cxpress~mof clthcr future pmm~sea p r e m t bksmnp for the neh, and 11 IS nm hto ncbes wh~chur smd to p o l s ornay, but he htmself. It ts logical to undersund this 'passing away' as nn explanation of what is meant by the rich man's humilktion. and as a threat The p m r brother may e x p a t a future reward (the future tense of the verb in v. 9 indncates that t k rxnltotia should be understwd in t c m a of future h o p rather than present experience), and bopst in that h o p , but t k encouragement to the rich man to boast is a bincr irony, for he has no such are like those of Diws and Laznlus in future. T h e rrv-Is Lk. xvi. 25. Thc difiulty, thnt the verb expressed in v. 9 is undcmood with a different xnse in v. 10,must be nmptcd; nor n.xd the nouh 'brother', of v. 9 be understood in v. 10:

-

63

i. 10-11

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

James u k a hoi plmrim' without accompanying noun for the rich he castigates in ii. 6 and v. 1. The contrast. then, is betthe poor brother and the rich man. who is here almost by definition not bmher. The reversal motif in humility and exaltation is reminissent of the aphorism found in various contms in the synoptic gospels: 'He who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be aalted'(Lk. dv. 11, xviii. 14; Matt. rxiii. 12), but its general terms are applied by James to the spcific situations of wealth and poverty. The passing of the rich men is Iike a meadow Borer:the image is that of flowers like poppies a.anemones which gmw wild among the sown wheat or grass pasture, d.Matt. vi. Z M O , an image evoked in the O T phrase, 'flower of the field' (e.g. P s ciii. 15). The fate of evildars is likened m the withsing of grass in Pas m i i . 2, c d x . 6, but James rather than using n conventional s i d e repeats here a unique mistranslation in la xl. 6 of ris ha-sideh as onthor chortou, 'Rower of @ass', rather than onthor agrou,'flower of the field'. The Isaiah passage is taken up again. more loosely, in the 11 following verse: the sun dries up the grass and its flower falls, cf. Is d. 7, 8. There is no formal quotation, but a deliberate allusion which adds point to Jams's threat to the rich. T h e image in Isaiah isof the vansitorincss of humanity, 'all flesh', and its glory, bdore God; and James's application of it to the rich man sets him in that context. Funher.. hv, muching his threat In the language of pophecy, Jamcr adds the suggestton that it s ~nsome scnse fore-ordained. A similar allusive and ponntcd usc of the OT in relation to the nrh may be found in 4. Isaiah XI. 6 8 is also used in precise quotation in 1 Peter i. 24 f., but for a different purpose: in order to identify the word of God of which Isaiah goes on to speak with the word of the gospel. Isaiah ascribed the wilting of the madow flower to the blowing of the wind or breath (nroch) af the Lord; James explains it as due to the rising of the N n with burning heat T h e noun k u r k is frequently used in the LXX for the strong, hot wind of Palestine, the descn Simcm (e.g. Job arvii. 21; Jere. xviii. 17; Hos. xii. 2), and Chaine and Cantinat

.;

64

i. 11

THE POOR AND THE RICH

argue that James identifies two agents here, the sun and this hot wind, the latter being his vasion of I d a h ' s 'breath of the Lord'. It is not, howcva, cntlin that that phrase appeurd in the LXX translation of Isaiah h m which James has drawn his allusion: Origen marked la xl. 7b-8a as a passage which he had supplied from the Hebrew in his edition. The noun maLes g d sense here in its gcnml meaning of m n g heat (d.Matt. u. IZ), and it is pmhahk that James is simply developing Isaiah's image in his own, and a p e m d y natural way (dthe image of a flower withering in the heat in 2 Esd xv. 50). If he were to be reforine to the Siracm.. thoueh. such a referenee muld come through the literary med~umof the LXX rather than necessarily from any personal knowledge d the Palestinian dimate (18 Hadidinn, ari. cit.). He rounds off his image of the falling flower with a p a t i e periphrasis, probably semitic in idiom: its Loveliies~p e r i l e a , lit. 'the beauty of its face'. As the flower fall6 so the rich man will wither away in mid-en-. Like hodor in v. 8, pmeia can carry the sense of P way of life or mnduct (Dibelius cites the LXX of Pmv. ii. 7; and 1 Clem. Idviii. 4; Hennas. Sim. v. 6. 6), though it mom usually retains its literal sense of walking or journey. Such business vips aa ue planned by the mrrehmts of iv. 13 might be in mind in the u e of the plural noun hm,hut a more general sense is probably to be prefemd: the rich man win disappear 'in the middle of his affairs'. On the analogy of the flower dropping in fierce heat, this disappearance is not a gradud process but a sudden, unexpected end. This muld be the crisis of death, as suggested in iv. 14, and as for Luke's rich fool and Dives ( L t xii. 16-21, xiv. 19-25), but the corn ing of the Day of the Lord is similarly seen in the NT as an unheralded interruption of everyday affairs (Lk mii. 26-31; Man. x i " . 37-42). and it is this that a o a a r s as the threat to the rich In v. 1-7. Hcrc, as thcrc, the threat to the rich IS unqualified by any mnsidmtion that there m~ghtbe a righteous or reformed rich man (don iv. 15). Yet ahereas in the Luknn parable no more is said of the blessed Lazarus than that he ia a beggar, and the Lukan beatitude on the poor is on them simply as poor (Lk.vi. 20). the poor to whom James promises

..

65

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

i 12-18

exaltation is aplicitly a 6m:ha (d.on ii. 5). His mntnra is not quite a simule black-and-white antithesis between rich and &r; thougi his emphasis is firmly on the fate ofthe rich (cf. Introduction. pp. 7-9).

4. THE GlETS OF GOD

i. 12-18

(12) B l n s e d is the m a n who e n d l ~ ebid, s for w h n h e is p r w e d h e will receive the crown of life which h e has promised t o those who love him. (13) Let no-one under trial say. 'I a m being tempted by God', for God is not templed by evil and himself tempts no-one. (14) Each m a n is tempted when he is drawn out and lured nwny by his own desires. (IS) When desire m c e i v e a , it bears sin. and when sin is mature it eives birth t o death. (16) Make n o mistake, my belovedobrothers; (17) every gift that is good and every present that is perfect is from above, coming do- from the Father of Lights. with whom there is no variation nor shadow cast by change. (18) Of his own will he gave us birth by a. word of truth, so that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. The general theme

of this gction is of what may or may

not be said to come fmn God, in tenns of futwe reward or

destiny. presmt npaienrr, and formative p s t went?. Within this overall them the sequence of thought is again a lwse one, dependent on a s k a t i o n of ideas through verbal links rather than the dnnlopmnt of a logical argument. 12 James's exposition of his image of the flower for the rich man has been mneludcd, and he m u m s to the interlinhed ideas of trial, probation and endurance, now seen not in relation to the presRlt perfecting of character, as in i. 2-4, but to the p m s p n of a futwe reward. The macarism b l e n d is the m a n is a form familiar in t b OT, e.g. P s i. 1: Prov. viii. 34; 66

i. I2

THE GIQTS OF GOD

Job v. 17; Ecdua xir. 1. U8ms use8 the LXX style of dcnaing the recipient of blcasing by mun and adjmivd clause rather than the plnicipial phr~selucd in other NT mpcarisms, r g . M a n v. 3 ff.; Jn xx. 29; Rev. i. 3.) The blessing of one who endures is d m familiar: Dm. xu. 12; Zech. vi. 14, LXX; 4 Mw. vii. 22; cf. the pmmiss of Mt riii. 13; Rev. ii. 2 f., ii. 10: Hennas, Vis. ii. 2. 7; however, while these d a u in m n t m to the mdurana of suffering or persecution nccn by most as the nchatolagid tribul~tion, Jam- again gives m indication of the nature of the trial he envisages It might be argued that the verse relates to the previous astion. and that m d m e e is of the trial of poverty, the promix tdiiing up the indiotion of f u t m reward in v. 9. The promiaed crown is here for those who lmc him; and in i i 5 the promise of the kingdom to r b r e who love him is inherited explicitly by the poor. James's idea would then be that of Pss Sol. mi. 14 f.: the testinn to be endured bv the rtghteous 9s 'the sfictton of poven;'; and thnr would b;conmstcnt with hts mtcrpmatim of tnbulstion and endurswc sn terms of evaydsy pmblcms. in 8 27 and v. 7 7 i tlowcr, James daes not make such a link betmen this and the preceding m i o n at d l obvioua and it can only be conjee tural. The phrase tho= who l o r e him is itaclf conventional rs a d-ription of the faithful, as in Ex. ar. 6; Deut. v. 10; P s nlv. 20; Eeclus i. 10: Ran. viii. 28. In mme late Jewish literature there is evidence that 'thox who love him' MR thought of as a special dass in the new age. pmmincnt in virtue and t h m f a c &at in rank m d glory (m G. H. Bo% commmting on The T s ; o & ojAbrnham iu, ad loc., m d m the invoduction to hia edition. London 1927. no.niiil: and it may well have h m e an -al d e h ~ t t o nof the martyrs who loved God wtth dl thew I~fc'even though he takes 11 away' (n comment on Deut. vi. 4 diacusaed by B. Ccrhardsmn. 'The parable of the Sower and its Inter pretation'. NTS 14, 1967-68. p 169). James, hovrrvcr, docs not work with such specific &finition, as is shown by his application of the term to the poor in ii. 5. 'Those who love him' ala, expect a futurc rrarPrd in the ucidentified quotation of 1 Cor. ii. 9, which appears in a r l y 67

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

i. 12

Christian I i t a n variously ~ ~ ~ ~s a promise ma& by Gad or by Jesus ( I Clan. mdv. 8; 2 Clem. xi. 7; Goapl of Thomas log. 17; Acts of P e a Irxdx). H m the pmmie is of the em- of life. m e image of n naa has a wide nnge of possible a-istions: the bay a olive math of a victor in battle or in the games (rg. 1 Cor. ix. 27; 2 Tim. ii. S), the gold crown of royalty (c.g. P s mi. 3; Wisd r. Ib), the flowu garland worn at weddings, festivals, or o t h a t i m s of rejoicing (e.g. Wisd ii. a), or evm the wreath of the initiate in the mysteries (Apuleius, Met. xi. 24). Figurative uaes of the term may also befoundin.e.g,Pmv. iv. 9; W i d i v . 2;Ecduai. 11; 1 Thesa ii. 19; 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; the ideas -Led being variously of reward, honour ud d e b n t i o n , and since J a m s gives no morc precise dPnition of his image, any or d of t h e e may be in his mind (See Ropes for a full account of literal and figurative meanings for the word n m . ) The c m n here is fllnhcr described as of life. The genitive could be one of quality: the c r o w is an enduring, living one, in contrast to crowns that fade or tarnish (d I Cor. ix. 25; 1 Pet. v. 4; Mort. Poly. x i r 2). but is mom probably cpcagctic: the crown promised is in fact lie iurlf, the life of the age to arme or, on analogy with ii. 5, of the kingdom. (A close parallel may be fwnd in 2 Bar. XV. 7 f.: 'As regards what thou didst my touching the righteous, that an account of them has this w a l d come, ar ala, ahlll tha. which is to mmc, c o m on their account. For this world is to them a strife and a labour with much muble; and that accordingly which is to come, a emwn with great glory'.) The subjm of the main verb, thc giver of the pmmisc. is not expressed in many MSS (thus p 23. 74. S AB, and the Coptic and Armmian versions) This is most pmbsbly the COImt reading, the supplying of 'The Lord' by a large number of Gmk MSS and of 'God' by snnc nhcrs and by the majority of the old Latin MSS being scribal guesses. The latter is most likely to represent James's intention, if wt may rely on the content, in which he is mncerned with what comes from God (w. 13, 17). and the analogy of God's promise to 'those who love him' in ii. 5. In Rev. ii. 10 the same pmmis is held out to the Church of Smyrna by the exalted Jesus.This Church is to 68

i 12-13

THE GETS OF GOD

be expoacd to trill, dearly aeoerr wid, nnd faithfulness to d a t h will be nwa~Irdal with 'the uom of life'; obviously t k n the reward is of life itelf. The mineidem between James d the Apoalypec k d Resch to identify the promioe as an 'unwritten' saying of Jems (A. Rerh. 'Appha'. Tenr und Untrnwhunpz. 14. 2. 1896. p. 253). If ur. the vcrec in James would evidence of the absorption of such sayings without diffmtiatian info the stack of Christian teachine. However. in view of the familiaritv both of the mami& on those who endure and of the im& of a crown, any connection bemen the two authors t o an unnecessary hypothesis: they can rather be seen as independently reproducing a popular theme in a papular image; and it is characteristic of the chistology of the Revelation that its author should prcsmt the promix as pronounad by the exalted Christ. In v. 12 pcirnsms denoted irial, m e n m a l pnssurc to be 13 endured; in v. 14 the cognate verbpirn.6 denotes the internal experience of temptation, a drawing towards sin which is to be misted. (Bnh noun and v a b can be used in either scnoe; the conten is detmninativc.) The sequence of w. 12-14 can be sm (as by Dibelius) aa p m l y artificial: the saying on vial is sclfsontakd, while in w. 13 f. a new theme is opened up and explored; the two am j u n a p m d only because pa'ra(mr/p"'roi a m as a 'atitch-word'. By contrast, Hon and Cantinat sec t k expaition of a single theme: trial mnv be an occasion for reward.. but mav ,also be the accaaion of failure, and such failure wi!J be seen as a moral failure for which the individual must be k l d responsible. A purely verbal link =ems unsatisfactory, but l m s a sequenee of thought may be suggested. The author reiterates the eonvmtional blessing on t h o r endwing pcirormor, but he will be conscious of the ambiguity of the word he uees, and this suggests to him a further t k m of vial to be explmd. The cxoerience of vial carries with it the masibiiitv of failure: it may thus be apprehended as t k npcricnet of being tempted. This is t k more probsbk if the vial envisaged by James is not the g m t ordeal of penrcution, but the perennial struggle of everyday life. James supposes a man who reacts to vial in 69

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

i 13

thia way, to comet a miapprrhcnsion. Th lhift in the meaning of peirax5 will thus come within v. 13: let no-one under tdd .my, 'I a m being tempted by Gad'. It is not clear if l a m s would denv God MV rdle in the access of trial: he could h d y ignore d~ mf&eo to God< testing of, fo; i n a a m . Abraham, to whom he refers tn ii. 2l.even though ~n later pans of the OT this tcsttng 1s increasingly .. ntmbuud to the Satan as n pennitted (Job i. 72, ii. 6), or even as npparentIv a fret aemt 12 Chron ni.1. cf. 2 Sam. xriv. I: and compare the g l e o f ' ~ z s u m nin testing Abraham In Jubnlrro rvii. 16, cf. Gen. nil. I). Jams's concern lo simply to deny that Cod has any interest in pmdwlng In man a state of sln 88 the outcome of trial, a,that he might be x e n as a tempter. That man responds to his own failwe by blaming God or t b gods is a theme with ampk parallels in both Creek and Jewish liumture. (There is certainly no m d to suggest, with Reicke, that the attitude is more comprchensibk in a convmed gent*, used to th capriciousness of his former gods.) Ropes and Dibelius cite pasages from classical I i t e n t m ; a striking example is the mmplaint of Zeus in Odyssey i. 32 R.: 'What a lamentable thing it is that men should blam the gods, and regard us rs the a,of their troubles, when it is their own wickedness that brings them sufferings w a x than any which Destiny d o t s them'. Within Jewish literatwe, Mayor begins his list of p d c l s with the attempt of Adam to shift blame in C m iii. 121 Other exnmples are Pmv. r i r 3 and Eedus xv. 11 IT.Ben S i a usea the same rhetorical form aa James, that of quoting a s u p p o d claim in order to rebut it: 'Do not say "I fell away b e c a w of Gad"; for he will not m s t c what he hates Do not say "He made me m";for he has no nccd f a a man to be a s k ' ; but the wording is not so similar as to suggest that the epistle alludes to this pssnge. The ground for James's a s m i o n that God himself tempts no-oae is that Cod is not te-ted bv, evil. The adiective apnrmtor 3s virtually without prmdent In blblical or xcular Creek. and its mcantq is therefom unannin. Hort s r r o tt as representing the familiar opeirotor in the sense of 'inexperienced in'; i.e. Cod has no contact with evil and a, cannot be xen to tempt to it. However. SB derived from

.

70

i. 13-15

THE GIFTS OF GOD

pciro.6 (and as thua again showing James's f o n d a ~for playing with words), the adjeetiw win m m 'without t e m p tntion', dthcr in the active acnsc,.Cod is 'un-tempting to' evil, or the passive, God is 'un-tempted by' it. The former would make the two halves of the statement mrclv,tautoloeous.. and symact~cdlythe pnssisc rs more probable. (This tr the xnse , of man. ' m unin which st is used in Inter I ~ t a n t m both tempted man is untried', anir adokims apeirastor, Const. Aport. ii. 8 ; and of God. ACU of 'john IIvi.) God, then, cannot be seen as the author of temptation since he himaelf caunot be tempted. The logic is not immediately obvious: God's imperv i o u s ~to~temptation could be seen ns an nspeet of his power; he is impervious because there is no other able to put pressure upon him. and this nacd not bar his action on men. What must be understood is that temptation is an impulse to sin, and since God is not suscepible to any such d e s k for evil he cannot be seen as desiring that it be brought about in mam The am- of temptation is to be found in man himself, 14 and mare p M i d a d y in hi8 own dedrea. As in iv. 2, desire is for lamia n f m Ib evil (though t h m is no suggestion that epifhrnio is used by him in thc specific xnse of sexual lust, as with the seductive 'desires' of 2 Pet. ii. 181. Its action is described in two participles, errlkomoms and &leonomms, perhap uacd simply in the author's fondness for alliteration as in i. 6, or with a mnaciausness of their different nuances: desire may affect the initial stage of temptation when n man is drawn out. and arry the prmss through ss he is lured away; or its pmmptings may be aecn as both violent and seductive, m that a man may be 'dragged OF or 'enticed away' by them. The conseqwna of d e s k rs vividly &&bed IS in terms of the image of dreadful progeny: when desire conceives. it b a r s sin; pnd a h e n sin is mature (undersanding the participle apotelestkira within the framework of the image rather than in its general sense of 'being compleu') it gives binh t o death. Different verbs are used for the two births, tikt6 and npokud: Hon suggests that the latter indicates an abnormal binh (cf. the monstrous progeny of sin in Milton's Paradise Lost ii, lines 777-802), but this is unlikely

~.

71

i. 15-17

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

in view of its uae for God's gift of birth in v. 18; the variation is stylistic only. The inevitable seqwncx of desire, sin and death presented hem is found also in Paul's self-analysis in Ran. vii. 7-11: the commandment mrk epithumCreis in fnn acasions desire, and then 'sin revived and I died'. The impossibility of finding in Cod the origin of this sequence leading to death is further underlined by J a m s in drawing attention m what in fact mmes from him, bath gifts in general and birth in particular (Pbilo draws the same eonvast in De Fuga 79 f.: 'the treasures of evil things arc in 16 oursclvcg with God arc those of goad only'). He enforces this with the warning, Make no mistake, my beloved botbars. The famula mi p l a a r t h has no LXX background (save in some MSS of Is. xliv. 8), but is used by Epietetus and by Paul ( I Cor. vi. 9, xv. 33; Gal. ui. 7) and may be regarded as an idiom of HeUenistic rhetoric It can be taken as the conclusion of the preoeding remarks: the readers ehould make no mbrnhe about the origin of temptation; hut more orobablv , nerves as in 1 Cor. vi. 9 to mark the transition to n new stage of the nrgumnt. the readers should make no mistake about cithcr the mien of temptation or the uue gdts 17 of God. As tn I Cot. rv. 33. the formula invodueer what sppcprs to be a line of vcnc (as the translation jingle is intended to suggest, d. GNB):every gin thmt io good and e v a y pm-t that is perfed represents a slightly imperfectly quantitied h a m e t e r . If this is a quotation, its s o m e has not k e n identified, and its alliterative quality may reflect again James's own playing with words. The pairparo dorir and pan &;ma arc probably simply synonymous; if there is a distinction it could lie either in the fact that dosir may be wanslated as n verbal noun (d. Phil. iv. IS), so that it is 'all good giving and every & s t gift' (NEB) that may be attributed to God;or in Philo's distinction between dosir as a moderate and do720 a s s special grace (Leg. ANeg. iii. 70; Paul uses d a i o and dmima vltemhangeably for Gad's gift of saving grace in Rom v. IS f.). In any event, e m y such good gift is t o m above, coming down from the Pnthcr (or, 'comes down from above, from the Father'. reading =%then ortin kotnboinon as a periphrastic present with NEB). Such

.

72

i. 17

gifta wiU, of -,

THE GIFTS OF GOD

indude that d widom wh'id, is 'from above' (iii. IS), and givm by God to those who ask (i. 5). The Fathn who givca g d gills fmm above (d.Matt. vii I I; L t xi. 9) is here described as the Father of Lights. No certain precedent for this titk has been f m d in Jewish litenturc It is read by Chnrlcs in the Apaealyps of M a r s mi following MS D and the h n i a n vmion: the sun and mom are &own as unable to shine 'before the Light of the Univnae, the Fathn of Light', but the expression 1s s b sent from moat Greek MSS and t h a c f m from Tiachcndorfa edition (L. F. C. Tischendorf, Apocalysss Apocryphoe, Leip zig 1866). Similarly, the Testament ojAbraham, in the later recension, B, of the Greek md in the Amhic versions of ehapcr vii dcmibes thc archangel Michael as shining brightly IPS if he WNC the Light which is called the Father of Light', i.e. he a p p v s with the glory of Gad (M. R. James, T a t s and SIudies 2.2.1892; James's edn of the G m k t e n s is reprinted with 8 new trmslntion by Michael E. Stone, The Testament of Abraham, Mismula, Montana 1972). Both theac references may, however, have mmc into the t e n s during their history in Christim uansmission. In both the referenrr to God as 'Father of Light' is to him as creator of the hcavmly bodies, d. Gen. i. 1 C t 6 ; Ps orxrsi. 7; Jere. iv. 23 (LXX). The stnrs could be identified with or prsonikd as, angels; as in Job m n i i . 7. 'the morning am ssng together m d all the mns of God shmted for joy'; h e m Qummn's title for Michael 'Rince of Lights', is in vinue of his status as lcnda of the heavenly host (1 QS iii. 20; d. CD v. 18. where Charles suggrsts the title is that of Uricl; certainly it is that d an archangd and not, ns Dibelius suggests God). James's use of astronomical terms in v. 18 shows, however, that he is thinking of the l i g h simply aa heavenly bodies. God is the Father of the stars in being their -tor, but he does not sham the ehmncristies of his creation. for with him there i s no ..rimlion nor s b d o a es.1 by Qlage. The g m e r d point that James is maktng IS dear: 11 is a funher 8"s t s t m a upon the m n s m m y of Cod ss only and always the gwcr of gmd (an idea mmplementary to that of Cod as the single, i.c.. unpdgnng give= oft. 5 ) ; but the prmra form ~n 71

i. 17

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

The trandation & a s the which it in m d e in urn&. readingparollagi i :m& aporkiormo, found in the majority of MSS and dewibed by Meuger as the 'least unsatisfactory' d a n m y of variant madings at this pint.' The likclihmd is that Jam- is using loosely words which could bear a technical meaning in natronomy ( a s he uses loosely certain philosophical tags, d. on i. 21, iii. 6), and this has left his language open to confusion. ThuspamlIagi has aamc cumncy as a technical term (AG), probably as equivalent to p m n l l ~ i the , change in mgks of abserntim. hut hem it caries its g e n d m s e of variation or alteration, although in an 'astronomical' conten; similarly fropi may mean s p s i k d y 'solsticc'(as in Deur m i i i . 14; Wisd. vii. Is), hut that would make no acne in this conten, and again the general meaning of turning or change is being wrricd, in relation to the heavenly bodiea ('Shadow of change' must not be u n d e r s t d . as in JB, as the English idiom, ix. 'no trace of change', n m n ~ p h a r i c dsmse the GEL aposkicmnot bear.) While heavenly badin can be seen to change, then, either through their o m movement or when shadows are cast upon them by the movement of others. God is both himself unchangeable and un.ffmcd by change in anything outside himself (as in v. 13 he is both u n f c m p ~ dand mtempting). A similar mmpnrison bnwcen the changelessness of God and the variability of the heavenly bodies is m d c by Philo (Dew Imnuf. 2lL32; d. k g . All%. ii. 33; De C h m b . 88-90), for that the divine is immutable. atrepfor,is an axiom of Platonic thought; but a d o e r paraUd in thought to James may he found in the assertion of divim changelessness as pan of the

' 8. M. Meager, A T

m lhe C n d N- T d m d .

d C-oy

e w Yat 1971. ad h.lk m d i q doped in th.t ldoptd,in .U major editions of the mr .nd by the majarty d mmmmt~tan,anth rkna.bknecptimsofRopa.whofh(~pZ3, H m d B i o ~ d i Wfi I+, o~xkiornalor, m d thus pmng the unnslstnm '. .. mm ol the v m a f b n that klonga to the w i n g d a ahsdow'; and Dikliur. who p o p o r , an emendation to thr -. A d r a i l d naa m tk nnnnts -Id be !nappropiate in this mmmnny, eapcidly as the genml xnx of the p e w e e is not mstrri.Uy d t d by my of them; such notes may k found m Ropa and Dihclivr M

74

i. 18

THE GIFTS OF GOD

pictwe of relationship bawcen God and man in Mal. iii. 6 Them follows a funher desription of God as F a h r , in 18 reference to one in pvticulnr of his gifts, that of birth and of a m i c u l a r status m'pd-mi hia creation: of his o m will he ;we us binh by a word ofbuth. UJ thw r e should be kind d 6 r s t f r v i a ofhis c-wee. It is sometimes o b j a e d that the verb und here, opoku~i,more properly denotes the female's pnn in giving binh and is thus inappropriate for Cad the father. but it is the verb u s d of the bmcdine of dcalh bv i n in v. 15 and its repetitionis probably intended to point the contrast and continue the snme loose train of thought. From i n comes death; hut God is the giver of dl, and only, good gifts, and from him comes life. The difficulty of the passage is that there am three posible ways of interpreting James's reference to God's gift of birth. First, it may be understood as a reference to the mention of man, 'Adam, the son of God' (Lk. iii. 38: and d.Paul's appeal in Acts xvii. 28f.), on the divine decision 'In us makc man' (Gen. i. 26) and by the creative word of Gen. i: and to the dvine to m n of dominion over the rest of crenuon, Gen. 1 . 2 8 TG Brrtfmits was the s d e e a K e d at the beginning of harvest (Lev. rxiii. 10 K.; ci. EL I x i ~ 29 1.; Deut. rviii. 4); taken from the hawem 99 a whale it scned to -sent it. By its offering the sovereignty d God w e r the harvest was Pflmnodedged. As an image for man in -tion it would denote not priority, since man was in order of time the Last to be mated, but primacy: man stands in special honour as the head of creation and its representative hdore God. (Whm Paul desrihes Christ as 'the fustfruits of the dead' in 1 Cor. xv. 20-23. his resurrection is of course first in time, but the point of the image is that he is identilied with those who bdong to him so that his resumetion repremts, and b m s t h e hope for, theirs) Secondly, the reference eould be taken to be to thc m i o n of Israel, God's mn (Hoa xi. 1) whom he begat (Dew. m i i IS), and who has a special antus wer against other nations beenuse of the divine choice (e.g. Deut. vii. 6, arvi. 19; Juh. i i lV2l). Philo wit- of Israel as a 'firstfruits' for God among the nations (Do Spec. Leg. iv. 180), as Jeremiah had also described her as God's firstfruita (ii. 3; not LXX). Again the 75

i. 18

THE EF'ISTLE OF JAMES

image would a p s a ptimoey of h o w rather than a priority in time. The creation. to &isman, would be the human m a t i o n mankind: and the mard of tmth. the insttument o f begmnng, would be ~dentrfiedns th; Law, so deocr~bed~n PL CXIX 43, d.Test Gad ~ u .I. 'wads of truth'. Thirdly, James m y be am to echo the familiprdcserrpion of Christian converts as, on divine initiative, =born and become the children of God (sg. Jn i. 12 f., iii. 3 ff.;1 Jn iii. 9; 1 Pet. i. 3, 23; Tit. iii. 5; cf. ala, Paul's description of Christians sa God's mns, R m . viii. 14 IT.; Gal. ir. 5 IT.;and Justin Martyr's ssaodatian of rebinh and baptism, I Apol. Ixi. 3, 10, Ixvi. 1). This idea of conversion as rebirth may be argued to be derived either from the language of Jewish proselytism (for references and discussion see J. Jeremias, Jerurahm in the Time oj Jorur. E T London 1969, p p 323-5), or from Hellenistic initiation (e.g. Corp. H m . xiii); in any event it had a wide currency. Particular Christian convats are described as 'hrstfruits' by Paul in Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Car. mi. 15; and in many MSS of 2 Thcss. ii. 13; probably not simply because they were in fact the first in their m a to be converted. but because Paul r e e d e d them as sienifvine his o ~ a i n g their rqion to mid.Rom. xv. 16; ilpieG takes over Paul's image and sees t h c s 'hrstfruits' eonvcns as becoming bishops and deacws, thus having a primacy in honour, 1 Clem. dii. 4). In Rev. xi". 4, the 144,000 have been purchased from mankind as a firstfruits to God and the Lamb; it is not dear if they are regarded as exclusively the redeemed, the firstfruits taken away from the rest, or whetkr the image should be pressed and they be regarded as representing also mankind yet to be redeemed. James's thought would similarly be of Christian believers as having a special relationship to the rest of creation, whether the human ereation as in Rwelation, or the total cosmos, as in Rom. viii. 1%23, for whose redemption theirs pmvides a hope. T h e m d of truth would now, of course, and despite the absence of the a n i d 5 be the gospel, so dcsnibed in Col. i. 5; Eph. i. 13; 2 Tim. ii. 15; perhaps also 2 Cor. vi. 7;the gospel being the word that is the seed of rebirth in 1 Pet. i. 23 and 1 Cor. iv. IS. 76

THE GIFTS OF COD

i. 18

Of these three nltemtivcq the least likely is t h ssond Despite the p d d s for individual dements in James's p i c t m . t h e e is no p a r d d for the idea of the Law as the instrument of Isrsel's sonship. More g c n d y , such an appeal to the status of Israel in relation to the rest of mankind would only make mee in a doeument that could otherwise be seen to attach importance to a Jewish identity or heritage. It muld ocrhaw be suecested that the laneuaec has bemme that of ;he 'new 1sradY-as in 1 Clem. mix. !th; Church is seen as the subject of the unidentified quotation. 'The Lard taketh for Himslf a nation out of the midst of the nations as a man taketh the fistfruits of his threshing Rwr'; but then there would have had to be a two-fold translation of terms: fmm Israel the firstfruits to the Church as the new I m e l and a,the bstfruits; and fmm the word of truth as the Law to that word as rmw the gospel. The main alternatives am the firs and third interpretations With the exception of H a t , most oldu commentators adopt the latter. though among modem mmmmtatoro both Blackman and Sidebottom do so with mnsiduable reswation. When the language of binh is used of Christian conversion, it is uaallg expressly defined as noro birth,or as being born ofah: thus Jn lii. 3 ff.; T i t iii. 5; 1 Pet. i. 3.. 23 lthoueh , - not 1 Tn iii. 9):..snd in Paul's comonnble idea of the new crestno" (2 Cor. v. 17) or of the new man (Col. ih. 10). It is doubtful if the tmak of the bstfruits would convey this s e n e of apsificdly nrm beginning; and in the syntax of the verse the image rather describes the intention of the divine begetting than its character. Moreover, there is no preparation in the immediate context of J a m s for the it=trodunion of a reference to Christian regeneration, which would *par with surprising struptnns: although it muld of murse be argued that to a Christian this would be the supreme gift and kcystme of any argument on what comes from God, and, further, that the following reference to the word as 'saving' (v. 21) indicates what has bcm in mind. So far as the mntext g m , the b s t interpretation fits m m readily. It is easy to imagine a movement of thought from God the fatha, as mator, d the heavenly bodies, to God as the father and ereator of man, the head of his crcntion. (A

.

77

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

i. 18

mnpnrabk mnnccdon may be o b s e d in iii. 9, where the ideas of God as father and of man as k has created him are linked) Rapes ohjsts that the image of begetting is nowhere in the O T applied to creation, but L. E. EUiondinnq arguing that this is James's referme, provides an example from Philo: 'with his knowledge God had union, not as men have it, and bcgat created being' (Dc Ebr. 30; se an. 'James 1. 18: Creation a Redemption?'. NTS 3. 1956-57. p. 148-161). Further. Lhis intmmation allows i a bfismnla to c a m its m a e usual smoe of the nohhumm m t ~ o n However, . there 1s no parallel lo the word of ercatlon bemg called the word of truth, and no obv~ousmason why st should be specnfically so defined. The language of James may, then, bemheremly interpreted in terms of either eration a --ion, but in neither case is his language wholly f a d i m in expresaim of the idea. This may indicate that them should not k m absolute choice betwen them A possible solutim is that James indeed moves naturally from thinking of God ns father and creator to thinking of him as father and creator ofman. but the language of sonship and birth is now so entrenched sa the language of Christian conversion that this is inevitably brought to mind. and the creative ward thus asmiatcd with that other creative ward, the gospel. Thus the language of the second idea interpenetrates the expression of the first, and both are indeed in mind. (This is the more plausible if it may he supposed that there would anyway be r concepunl link betwen the work of creation and redemmion. t k latter k i n e thoueht of as the cnrnplnnon or m r t a h b ~ h m m tof t k former; an ~ d e abrought to developed chnstolopcal cxpmosion ~nJn i. 1-14 whcrc the s m c Word is ncuve tn both, ef. Hcb. I. 1 4 . James,of cowre. shows no indication of such christologicd rdlection: the birth of creation and the b i i h by the gospel would both be sen as eifts of God.) Creation remains. thoueh. the orimarv and iominant ide;, and the image of thefi;rt/;uitr ;elates ;o the God-given primacy of man in his creation.

-

.

78

-

5. RELIGION IN WORD AND DEED i. 1 M 7 (19) Undmtand, m y beloved brotben. Let every m a n be quick t o l i s M , slow t o speech, slow to anger; (20) for man's anger does not produce God's righteousness. (21) Therefore lay aside dl vulgarity and the great mass of malice, and humbly accept the implanted word which is able to save you. souls. (22) But be doers of t h e word and not just listeners, deceiving yourselves. (23) For if anyone is only a listener to the word and not s doer. h e is like a man who takes a good look in n mirror at the face h e was born with: 124) h e considered himoelf carefully, and went away and forgot what h e WPP like. (25) But h e who has caught a glimpse of the perfect law, that offreedom. Pad stayed (with it), beine not a forgetful listener, but a doer of (its) work, he i i blessed i n what h e does. (26) If anyone thinks h e is religious, when he does not bridle his tongue bllt deceives his heart, this man's religion is worthless. (27) Pure and unstained religion before God the Father is this: t o visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and t o keep himself undefiled by the world.

.. .

The last nine verses of the chapter contain a variety of material, elements of which would make their own sense in detachment from the rest. There is no clearly developing areument. . and hence some commentators divide the section. Cantinat, for instance, separating w. l%ZS from 26-27, and Blackman w. 19-21 &om 22-27. However there is again a sufficient asmiation of ideas within the passage to argue the connection of a train of thought rather than simply a series of 'stitch-word' links. Thus Jam= turns from the word of God to s v i c t w s on human soesh. Behnviow should be rmided bv the saving word; but th'is w r d must be acted "poi and ;n mnel" lirtmed to. It has the character of. and may be spoken in terms of, a law. Finally, the bchaviaw of the truly rcl1g8ous man is outlined in t e r m s h control of spech and pekor&nce of specific action 79

i. 19

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

19 The verb in the opening ~ 1 - i*, could be mad as indicative or impmtivc, and comequcntly as the eooclusion to the pwious section rather than the i n d u c t i o n to the prcscm one (thus NEB, 'Of that you may he a m i n , my %ends'). Some copyists, feeling the abruptnew of the clause, alter to his&, therefore; thus making the whok of v. 19 read as a deduaion h.om v. 18. On the analogy of s i m i b expressions in i. 16 and ii. 5. howwa. the imperative rading is to be p d c m d : the nutha calls for particular attention to what he is about to eay (though. as with the Other two passages, there is m e mnmmion with h i a p e d i n g remuks). Of his three-fold admonition here, he develop the theme d listening in the Mlowing verses. w. 22-25, returning to extensive warnings about speech in iii. 1-12, and anger in iii. 13-18, cf. iv. 2, 11. Such encouragemnt to ready listening, and strictures an unconsidered or passionate speech, are commonplace in ethical teaching. Parallels may be found in the wisdom litemtun of the ancient Near East, e.g. the Instruction of Ani: 'Do not t& n l a . Be &t and thou d t be happy' (4. 1,ANET p. 240; d. Ptah-hotep 535 and AmenemOpe1 chapters %lo); in I ~ a e l i t ewisdom r g . Ecclus v. 11, 'Be s& in your listening, and with patience give your snswer' (d.'xx. 5-7; Pmv. x. 19, mi. 32); in Rabbinic literatespecially in Aboch (rg. i. 15. 17, ii. 10); and in Hellenistic moral teaching (e.g. Dibelius citea the advice in Lucian, D m m a x 51, to those in authority, 'Dw't lose your temaer Do little talking and much listenind: c t alao Scnka's Da Im) ~ o m ~ a r l s gmay n also obvtously be drawn wnth the mchtng of Jesus 3" Matt nl 16 f. C8ntlna1 SCe8 the instructions as addressed especially to those who are preachers, as in iii. 1 (the anger being that which might flare up betwem rival nrnton), but there is nothing to indicate that they arc being given other than the most general reference. They are mmmonplwe precepts, but the author insists on serious attention being p i d to them by PU his readers. It is only the prohibition of anger that rcceives a particular rationale, but this is probably more bsnuse it is the last of the uio than because James is addressing an especially contentious community. The reason for avoiding anger is that

...

80

i. 2&21

RELIGION IN WORD AND DEED

mm's anger dace not produee God% r i g b t w n s ~ ~ s20. The ohnse dikoioruni them can be intemmcd in three wavs ,. since the genitive may be snn as luhjeetivc, objective or a genitive of origin.' It may thus be understwd as the quality of God's charact&, an a righteous or just God, which miy be i m itated like his a r f s t i o n or his mm 16.Matt. V. 48: Lk vi. 36); Cad doesnot indulge in anger. ih;refm nun ahould not. Alternatively, Cod's n~hfrmunrrrmuld be m n osthnt which he demanda his standard sn for men to nitam, d.Matt vi. 33; to be angry isnot to measure up to that standud. Thirdly, dikaiosvni theov could be that which Gad gives. his justification, the verdict of acquittal or acocptance, efTcctively his salvation (d Rom. iii. 24, v. 16 f.); in the% terms James's warning muld be that an angry man cannot h o p to win thia favourable verdict. James is m a i n l y familiar to som extent with Paul's use of the lmuac!c of iustifieation. as is dear from the pdcm!cal pasaagc 31 51-35, bit 8t 1s probable that he here uscs thc erprcswon In the second s n s , that 01 Ihe standard God m y for man and whtch he canna achieve t i he gwes way to nnga. Hamas dearly undmtood James in this way when he also warns that 'angry temper' (his idioaynmtic word oxucholia) leads men astray from righteousness (Mnnd. v. 2 1; f a the use of James in this Mandate eee I n d u c t i o n p 23). What is required is rraulint, indeed a h l u t e mumiation, 21 of d vulgarity ud the grad mass of malice @usan rvpurion kniprrirrrion Rnkior). The two nouns mparin and Rnkio are fairly gmaal in meaning, w i n g the sense of physical dirt and by analogy moral uncleanness, and wickedmss or viciousness respectively. S i n e James is concentrating in mntext on wmings about speech it is probably fair to onnicularir his mndemnntia as of vulear and malicious talk. His fondness for cadence and alliteration has produced n difficulty in translation. The noun pn*seio normally means an exem or surplus: J m c s is hardly counselling 'Cf. t k mdyais of thr pow& i n t . r p t s t h s of fh r m phrsr in R o n i.17, iii.21, by J. A. Zicdn, T k m n i y drighuornrnr in P o d , Cambridge 1 9 7 2 . ~9-14.

81

i. 21

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

merely the disenrding of surplus rmlial C b i n e and Cantinat think of the final dimination of any malice that remains in the chsracter of the Christian mnven: NEB of excess as what malice pmduccq p~raphnsing 'the malice thsl hurries to excess'. James's mcan~ngis dear, as in i. 17, although he usts his words imprecisely: as he wants all wlgan'ty abandoned, so he wants all malice, which he x e s as a great m a s , eradicated. Both these his readers must lay .side. This reprrsrnts the idiomatic u s of the verb a p t i t h k i , which normally refers to the tlLing olT of clothe& found in similar pssagcs of ethical instructioll in aher epistles: Cal. iii &LO.; Ephiv.22-26.; 1Pet.ii. I ; k o k i o a p p u r i q i n a l l t h ~ + p a ~ e % T h e act or munciatian is to be balanced by an act of acceptance, made humbly. T k phrasz en proiiriti could qunlify either verb, and m y be intended to cover both. Renunciation and nacptancc alike require the quality of humility which will lnta be eeen as n mark of life ordered by widam (iii. 13). What is to be accepted is the word which in able to save y a u 4 s (the soul,pmU, not of course denoting a higher p m of man, but t k man himaelf, cf. v. 20). This word would mola mturally be understood ns the preached word of the gospel, with both its promise of salvation and its ethical demand. and to 'receive' or 'ampt' the word is a familiar description of conversion in the NT,e.g. Acts viii. 14, xvii. 11; 1 Thess i. 6, ii. 13; cf. Lt viii. 13. The negeticd difficulty m i s t s f r m Jsmcs's desription of this word as implanted. The adjective empkutm usually means 'im@antcd from birth', i.e. innate (na wickedness is innate in the inhabitants of Canam. according to Wisd. xii. lo), though it can also describe a subacquent ingrafting, Like that of gifts of God in B m . i. 2, ix. 9. Yet whether the implanting is af nature or of subsequent gift, there is a logical diffrulty in a mmmand to receive what is s h a d y within; and the command cannot as it a m d s be understood to be to m i v e the wmd 'so that it bemmcs' innate. The NEB translation suggests a pro(prssive srceptnncc: 'quietly accept the message planted in your hems' (6.JB,' a m p t and submit to t k word.. .'); and b n h Chainc and Cantinat suppan such an intcrpretntion, the latter arguing that the diffculty is removed

...

82

i. 21

RELIGION IN WORD AND DEED

if 'accept' is undmtood as 'obey', d the thought as of obedience to the MU hw. as in Rom. ii. 14 t It is improbable that James's language u n be- that interpretation. The verb dechaai indicates an initial rmpion, whether of a gift, a proposition or n person (it can m a n 'welcome'); and Jamcs uses the aorist imperative. carrying the s n s of a single rather than n pqremive anion. Three factors should be b o r n in mind in interpreting this difficult versc. Fiat,the balanoc of'lay mi&. ocupf' may well represent an established pattern of teaching which J a m s adopts deliberately to r a f i m and r e d far his renders their undertakings at cornmion. Semndly, the diffrulty of a corn mand to accept what is already within depends on the identity of what it is that is b a h to be received and yet is already possessed. In i. 18 the 'wad' to which James m f m d was E n to be the m r d of meation, yet bceausc for him reference to the word of cration suggests also the word of the gospel thc language of the latter has corn into refemnee to the former. H m , eonveraely, it may be mid that the rcfmnce is primarily to the word of the gospel, yct because of thia interaction of ideas, and becausc the mention word of v. 18 is sill in mind, the word of the gospel is described in tenns of the w a d of erration, pnn of the nature of nun fmm his birth Jamcs is mnccmcd with ethical cxhorution not mtsphysical speculation about the nature of the word of God,but the i d a behind his impentivc could be that the call to accept the ward of the gospel is a call to man to be what he properly is, what he was created to be. A call to receive this word, already 'natural' to man, would not then be s meaninglessone. Thirdly. James's phrase cmphvtol logor is rcminiacent of the Stoic notion of the logos tpnmorikos; the Reason that is the principle of the universe as macmcosm is seminally pncmt in man as microcosm. Stoic ideas of tbe logar were dram on in Hellenistic Judaism in dxscussion of the Torah, which might be seen as the pattern f a mention as well ss n demand to be obeyed (a notion developing in the later wisdom tradition, cf. Ecclus rdv. 23). Thus Philo assodates the Stoic term 'right reason: ho mthor logor, with the law of Ex. mi. 4 (Dc Vin. 127, and cf. the digussion by P. Borg~n.Breadfrom Heoven,

..

83

i 21

THE EPlSlZE OF JAMES

Leiden 1965, pp. 136141); 4 M m . tells t k story of the Maccabcan martyrs in terms d the Stoic virtue of npatkia, and E l e w r argues that living according to the Law is living accordine to reason and n a t m (4 Maa. v. 22 K.1: and Paul nssms t&t the gentiles do the Law by nature &use it 1s 'wrinen on their hems' (Ran.ii. 14 1.). Thc Stoic idea comes into specifically Chnninn dismwsc with the claim of Justin Martyr's second Apology that 'all writere, thmugh the enmahed (emohutal seed of the Word which was ~lantedin thim wwere'abie to s& the truth darkly'(IIApo1. dii.'~,cf. viii 1); aU truth is thus 'Christian' truth. J a m s m y be familiar with this sort of language in the context of popular philosophy, whether or not through the medium of Hellenistic Judaism, and the notion of the natural word might seem congruous with his interest in the word of creation. Very probably he has choscn as he does elsewhere (iii. 6) to adopt a philosophical tag as a f n m of expression, without intending to import its full technical maning, even if he wett conscious of it. Ias i. 18. 21 and 1 Pet. i 23-5. 2 nre UiLindv similar in ~ u e Amd language. In b n h t h m is a nmin$&of birth by a word of Gad, fallowed by a call to renunciation (including in both a rmundation of kokio). and then an enmuragement to receive a word. with the hope of salvation (if Peter's phrase in ii. 2, to lon'kn nola is rrrooslv translated 'the milk of the word', on k e b*& that 'th; ad&ivc must in mnten refer back to the logos of i. 23. R.). James invrmpts the squenn with his t k - f o l d admonition in v. 19 f.; and the two writers use different verbs for the giving of birth, Peter using onogenn G , beget again, and developing the idea with his image of the newborn infants. Peter has no hint of James's interest in the word of acation; his 'word' is eqmssly 'the word which was preached to you: and he cites Is. XI. 6 8 (a passage to which James alluded for a diKment purpose in i. 10) for its testimony to that word. It is unlikely in view of these differences that the similarity can be explained in tenns of either author's d i m dependence on the other, but highly likely that they are drawing on a common pattern of insuuc84

i. 22

RELIGION IN WORD AND DEED

tion, most pmbably for new c o n m a (see Introduction, pp. 1a20). The word that eon save c u r i n with it an imperative. It is 22 irnponmt to be swift to liacn (v. 19; now the general admonition is related to a more developed and specific argument) but listening done is not enough. Because the word demands response m d Petion, i d a s of ohedicna nnd so of law are asmaated with it. m d in v. 25 J a m s shifts from tdkinr in terms of m a d to tslkine in terms of low. ( h e m i a & n i n d u c e this duft car&, rading ' d m of tdc Inw' in v. 23.) Thrs does not mean that the word and the Inw m identified, but that the farma involves the latter. Jams's phrase doara of the word, like his'doers of the law' in iv. I I. represents apparently a Jewish idiom: in ordinary GICC~ poiitis logm would be 'a wad-maker', ia. an ontor, as pmetir wmov would be 'a law-maker'. Paul uses t k latter phrase in the snmc way as James in Ran. ii. 13, for om who o b s m s and practises the law, and the background may be found in the idea of 'doing' the commandments Deut. xv. 5; d. Ecdus xix.29; 1 Mace. ii. 67. The idea that heving the Law is valueless a p v t h m its acting out MS a abject of debate in Judaism, for the rrvacnec d c d to the Tornh was swh that onlv to hear it mifiht be accounted a hlcmng. me relative mmtsdhc.ring a d doing ue d~scussnlIn Aboth, i. 17 and v. I+, m d h u l alludes to mch diguspion in Rom ii. 13. A midrash on Ex. ad". 7 phures Israel as crowmd by sir thousand nngels when, a Sinsi, she gave prmdena to 'we will do' over 'we will hearken' (Shabbot 888). Such debate may weU bavc been familiar to James and, translated into his own terms, his position in it is dm. T h a c is dso, of course. a p r d e l in thought l y to his with leaus' condemnation of tho- who ~ ~ elisteacd words, Man. vii. 24 ff.; L k v. 47 fl, but James shows no knowledge of the illustrative p m b k of the two houses and anv deocndmce is unlikdv. Jamw's o m pvnhlc ia d s mirm, nn imge r u c in biblid 23-25 literature (Job m w a . 18: Eedw rii. 11; Wtd. vii. 26; d.1 Cor xni. 12. 2 Cor. I I ~ .18).Thc man wholooks at himself in a

. .

THE EPISTLE OF J M S

i2 M 4

mirror is mnmated with the mnn who looks nt the law, and the w b s used in the two caaes heighten the contrast. For the fonna, the verb is kafanoio, to notice arefully or eon23 template: the man with s minor takes n good look and 24 amaidered himself cnmfully; for the latter it ispornkupto, to bend ova, and hence to contrive to steal 1 glance (d.Jn xx. 5, 11; 1 Pet. i. 12): for the mnn who has just caught n glimpc of the law, this is enwgh to cause him to stay with it and remember it. (The NEB surprisingly reverses this sense. so that the Iwb in the mirror is &tin@ and that at the law careful, but thto stems both ~ n a a w a t cand to weaken the force d the contrast )The funct~onof the parable 3s disputed. D~heliusand Rlackman regard ~t as rtmply ~Uustrat~ve. a simile for looking at the law. H a t draws attention to the oddity of the phrax prosopa t i s gmeseir; had the intention been to give simply the metaphor of a man Iwking at his face, prmcipon done would have bem enough. Hort therefore argues that genesis should be takm to mean not 'birth' but 'nature', as it does in iii. 6. The man who hears the word recognises his 'invisible face', his self as God created him to be; but, hearing only, he forgets In iii. 6, however, genesis is pan of a stereotyped phrase; its meaning there cannot be determinative clxwhse. The translation the face he we. born with (VFB. 'the fncc nature gave ham') 8s adequate for the sense of the passage, but the dcl~hcratequallficatlon of p o l o p a may be intended to ruggest that t h m l o more to be seen of a man than that. and that another, or fuller, image of him may be found in the law. It may be suggested that the law shows man as he was created to be, which is also his reborn self (cf. the interaction of the 'word'of i. 18,21), but this suggestion mmes rather from the eontcxl than fmm being built in to the image. Philo uses the image of a mirror rather similarly when he comments on the record that the basin in the Temple was m d c of mirror glass (1 Kgs vii. 23 8.; 2 Chron. iv. 2 ff.): this was to remind the priests as they washed their bodies to wash their cm~scicncesin the Torah, the mirror of the soul iDe Vito Mos. ii. 11: in the Christian Ode, of S o l o m aii. 1 i. the Lord ts the beln~vs'smnmr in which he sees and kams his face, cf. 2 Cor.iii. 18).

i. 25

RELIGION IN WORD AND DEED

The law that the man looh at, and which it m y bc 25 suggmed shows him his t w =If, is Laeribcd as a perfect

I.a(dPaxk.7;AriRas3l~Ag~a8inii4,them~idaol arfstionisofwholmess:the k w i s i t a e l f a ~ o l e d t h e d a e hemands integrity; it must bc kept in f d (ii. 10) and be bath listened to and acted upoh It isaloo thelnr offdom.P scaningly prndoxicd d c a r i p i m that d d however be f m i l i v to Jcw and Grcek dike. 'Hethat takes upon himselfthe yoke of the law, fmm him shall be takm away the yoke of the kingdom and the yokcof-Idly urc'(A&thiii. 5,d. Matt. x i 29 f.; cf. also Aboth vi. 2 and P s cxir 45). Jewish echolus speculated on the exegesis of E r xxdi. 16: the witing of the Law wns'gmvm', honrth.on thetnblns; but onemight instead read h m t h , 'fradom' (Aboth vi. 2; the m m p i n t may have been tzken at Qumran, d. lQS x. 6-8. which refers to an ordinance 'enmaved' for ever. with thc m e ambieuitv). ,. For the Stoic, 'only the wee man is fm'. dncc he nno aocudlng lo nature karplng h!spnsaonsundermnlml lhmugh the Iaw,thc Reason of the cosmos (Dibeliua cites many exnmplcs, c.g. Scnccn. Dc oito bcoto xv. 7 ;Epictaw, iv. 1. 158). Philo Pdops the Stoic dictum, applying it to t k Torah (Quod Omn. Rob. 45f.;De VitoMor. ii.42ff.).ForPaultmthacis'thelawofthe spirit oflife in Christ Jesusthat hasfreedm from the lawof sin d dcath'(Rom. viii. 2; d. B m . ii. 6,'thencw law of our Lord Jesus Christ which iswithout the yokeofmmpulsim'; andlnter Irenaeus Adv. H o n . iv. 34.4, the gospel is the law ofmedomb James is then reiterating P f d i u idea, probably in a familiar phrase; the ndstmce of Jewish p~nllclad a s not decide the question of the idmtity or -tent of hislow, ofwhich he givo hcrc no funher indication. The mnn who is not n fmgellul list(lit. 's heol fugetfulness', akmotZr rpiliprmmGr, balancing poGt2r erpu. lit. 'a doer of work', in James's familiar love of cadence and dlitemion), but one who puts the law into practice is Messed in what he does. There is here the S a m ambiguity ns rn i. 9-10. The blerrinc may be a promiac for the future: the man is, i.e. will be, blesscdfm what he docs; or it may be inhmnt in the obeying of the Inw, to perfonn which cnrrica its own experience of blessing wkh it. Very probably the

...

-

87

THE EPISTLE OF JAM!2S

i. 2-7

author would consider both interprrutions comet. The terminology now changes hut the general line of thought continues, with a warning of the need for restraint in speech (including no doubt angry, v. 19, or vulgar and malicious, v. 21, speech), and a s t a t e m t of the necessity also 26 for anion. If a man thinLs he is religious, but lacks that conwol of ap~eh, he deceives his heart and his religion is aorthlmn. (The first clause could be translated as 'if anyone seems to be religious', but the judgment of self-deception would seem to follow rather on what he seems to himself than what he seems m others.) ?he noun thriskin is rare in biblical Greek (and James provides the first literary evidence far the adjective thrZskos). It denotes the worship of a deity, usually as expressed in cultic form (though not always; AG cites a passage from Corp. Herm, xii. 23 that is strikingly similar to James's thought: 'the worship, thrZskia, of God is one thing 0 9 : not to be evil'), and i s used of idolatrous worship in Wisd. dv. 27; of the worship of angels in Col. i i Is.; but also of Judaism in Acts xxvi. 5 (so also JosphusAnt. di. 253; 4 Maw. v. 7); and of Christianity in 1 Clem. Idi. 1. The religimrr man must bridle his tongue; James's verb chalinng~e0is not found dswhere in the N T or LXX used either l i t e d y or metaphorically (his metaphor appears in P s xnix. 1, but in dafmnt language in the LXX).He usesit again in iii. 2.. of the 'oerfst man'. and his laneuaw " - is adonted and adapted by Hermao in rdation to the 'evil desire' (Mond. xi,. 1. I L. e m Intmductton p. 23). Without thls control the man dcceives his heart, perhaps beeuse he fails to rsognise the inconistency of his words to God and to man (iii. 9 f.); and his religin is wmthless, mntoior, an adjective often applied to pagan religion (e.g. Jae. viii. 19, x. 3; Acts xi". 15; 1 Pet. i. IS), which may give an extra pejorative thrust to James's condemnation. This religion is ineffectivea inemistent (d.on ii. 14-17); by contrast J a m s supplies a description of pure md un27 s t a b e d religion, in terms of mion. Such religion is that addressed to Cad the Patha flit. 'the God and Father'. d. 1 Cor. m. 24; Eph. v. 20; and sce on iii. 9); it is not here funher defined in terms of a reverrnee for Christ (contrast the

.

.

i. 27

RELIGION IN WORD AND DEED

dFvdwmmt of the desriution d God as F a h in Rom. xv. 6; 2 cbr. i. 3, xi. 31; 1 P& i. 3). It is cxpnakd in thc #o+ mance, limb of a duty to orphans and widows. This could be b e c a u ~their plight win particularly prominent in the situation to which the epiatle was addressed, as it would s x m the plight of widows was a matter of spccial concern in m e Christian mmmunities (dActs vi. 1; I Tim. v. 3-16). or more probably beenuse in the OT trnditian widows and orphans uc especially the object of God's c o n m and man's charity (e.g. Ex. nil. 22 ff.; Dcut. xmii. 19; P s Ixviii. 5; 1%i. 17; Ezdr. xxii. 7; Zah. vii. 10; Eeclus iv. 10, nmr. 14). This tradition is mntinued in Hcrmns's listing of the cam of widows and visiting of orphans among good works (Mond. viii. 10); Justin's putting this first in his examples of Christian charity (I Apol. Ixvii. 7): and the stigmatising of sinners as t h a r ncelectful of it bv, Imatius I S m m . vi. 2) and Bamabas " (u.2). James's reiteraion of this duty mny have more to it than simply vadit~onalismor nrchnnsm: nnaamuch as God 3s known to have an especial care for orphans and widows, a worship of him should naturally be cxpresaed in a similar mnmn T o visit w b n s and widows (the verb is e b i ~ k b r o m , nt~ may be literally to go to scc and spcnd t i m with them (cf. Ecclus vir 35: Matt uv.36.43); but cmasnly is also to do so in a d s to make provision for their needs. Their .8lidion would be that of poverty, and the lack of protection and legal status that came with the &nth of the head of the family. That this defenceless condition should be called aflkrirm is an inlmsting use of language, since dscwhse in the NT the noun fhlipsis has almost the status of a technical term for the sufferings that p r ~ e d ethe End. the 'Messianic Woes', rg.Mk i i i . 19; 2 Thess i. 4: Rev. ii. 22: ef. Dan. xii. I; Hermas Vir. ii. 2. 7 . In Cd. i. 24 Paul seems to 8ee his own sufferings as contributing to the fhlipreu Lou Chrisrou, the 'Messiah's affliction' which his people must bear. Schlicr mncludes that in the NT thlipsis 'is inseparable from Christian life in this world, it is the suffering of Christ, who is afflicted in his mmbers, this is eschatological tribulntion'(TDNT 111. p. 144). IfJames is aof this mnnotrtion of the word (even without Schlicr's

.

2

' .

...

89

...

i. 27

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

c l v i a t d ~ dimcnmm). his oom adaption of it is of m e s8gnlticancc. For hrm the mayday, mmmonplnec s d e n n g ol the socially disadvantaged 1s to be deocrtbed m vrmo of the waes that precede the End. It muid be that he is uyinp: to d i e p n s e with the old csdutologid ideas finding them no lone6 annmriate i w h a w m reaction to the 'delav of the Parousia'), and one wav of doing t h ~ ois to gcneralisc the t ~ h n i c a llanguage. Alternat~velyJ a m s m y be tryng to keep the expeetatlon alive and ma1 in P situation wbere the traditional 'signs' are mnspieuously Inckiig, and in that attempt he carries out a ddibernte einterpretntion of the Mture of the signs (d.on v. 7 ff., above on i. 2. 12, and Intrcdunion p. 28 f.). The further demand of pue religion is that the religious man should I w p himself d l e d by the m r l d . This is the reading of the majority of MSS, though mme miniscules read 'keep them undefiled .'; i.e. n further definition of the duty to orphans and widows w h h tbe early papyrus p 74 has s different verb and reads '. .. to moten them from the world'. AS James began with a considiration of the would-be mligious man in himslf, it is appropriate that he should return to that point in conclusion, and the expression of a duty to avoid defikmcnt iscongruous with the description of religion as 'pure and unstaimd'. (For an argument in favour of the second variant, howevcr, sc D. J. Robens 'The definition of "Pure Religion" in James 1"'. ExT LXXXIII. 1972. p. 215 f.) Rcligim. thm, involves keeping oneself undefiled by the world. The noun kosmor as meaning 'world' was used by Greek writas h m Pythagom onwards to denote the universe in its d m order and maneerncnt. and it is used gmenUy in the KT Ju, of the crated unnvnsc, the wuld In wh~chmen Itvc, and of the wald of mrnkmd ~taelf.Jamen's eounpd to nvatd -tan w~ththe world rhowo, howver, that his u s of kornor mmponds to that found sometimes in Paul (Rom. xii. 2; 1 Ca. ii. 12), and especially in John (e.g. xv. 18 f., xvi. 33; cf. 1 Jn ii. 15-17): the world is that which is separate from, and indeed at enmity with, God. In John the hostility is primarily that of men, and 'the world' means

.. .. .

.. .

..

W

RELIGION IN WORD AND DEED

i 27

'mankind in omwition to God' IlsTn i. 1 M 1 indintcsh in 2 is h e r i. 4, ii. 'l'8-20, ,anin @&c ihought, the that of the physid (tnduding cspcctdly scxud) and mawrid aspects of human existence from the divine nature. Thre is some similarity berueem the language of James and 2 Peter Idthe use of adlor.. undefiled. here and in 2 Pet. iii. 14). hut juries's meaning win be deduced from other contens in which he uses the word. In iv. 4 the enmity t o d s Gad is that of m m who seek their own pleasures and thus 'the friendship of the world'. This pnoducesdivisions among them (iv. I), and ineffective prayer (iv. 3). In iii. 6 it is the tongue the defilement of the which reoresmts the wmld and &s body th; mmnty towards Cod would be p e n an the human -h whwh blesses h m whlc w s m g hts Image (tu 9) 'The world' far James would seem to be manktnd tn Its fdec value* self-seekine and self-assertion. and in that dindedness that is for him the eosence of sin (cf. 3". 8). It 19mngruous, thm, thas apure religion. which demands avoiding the defilement of fhr world thus understood, wxll n e a ~ a r i l yalso involve control of the tongue and acts of charity. It might be argued by contran that in his definition of relieion Tames shows his lewish athnities Relieion is addressed to God the Father; >a&d piety isexpressed in that form of charity traditional in Judaism; w b h the avoidance of the world's defilements might e r n to be most obviously achieved thmugh maintaining the Jewish laws of cleanness and seoantion. Hawevs. the fvst two would be om of the hcritag'e of any Chnruan group that uaed the OT (hnd ,"deed thc term 'the Gal and Fatha' would s n m to be a a e m t y p e In Chrtnian rather than Jewish lamature): while them is no spsific reference in the epistle to any Jewish rule of ritud purity to give mgmcy to the third suggestion. Junes's first two adjectives, kotharos and omiantos, pure and unstained, might well lend themselves to use in connection with ritud cleanness, but he uses thcm explicitly far the expression of religion in charitable action (and Hermas takes thcm over in a similar connection, Mond. ii. 7). The third, orpilos, undefiled, has no LXX background and does not thenfore of itslf naturally suggest an alluaiw to the Laws of cleanness con-

.

91

i. 27

THE EF'ISTLE OF JAMES

tnind thcrr. In o t h a passages wbcm James usc. similar language, iii. 6 and iv. 8, it is ckPr that no cultic asmiations M involved. 0. J. F. Seitz in enmining this question rightly concludes tha. 'although our author makes occasional use of words which, in the vocabulq of the LXX may he said to have acquired some cultic associations, in no case does it appear that he is mnsioualy llludiig to any spcific Jewish cult practice, or that he shows any noticeable w n n m with cultic defilemmt a purification from it'('James and the Law', Studio E~~mgelico 11. 1964. p. 483). On the 0th- hand. James's appropriation of the language of purity for the exposition of religious duty in ethical terns cannot be seen as therefore imdying a pokmic against Judaism and its ritual Inw. Sufh a palem!e is found in the prophetic tradition of Judaism itself, c.g. Is. i. 1-11. Iviii. 3-7; Jere. vii. 21 fi.; Hos vi. 6; Amosv. ZIfi.; Micah vi. 6ff. and Ps. li. 1-17; cf. also the teaching of Jesus in Matt. xii. 7, xxiii. 23; Mk vii. 14-23; but the a b s n a of specific contrast with ritual prrscriptions, as in thaw pasmges, tells against polemical intention on the pan of James He should rather be compamd with passages whcm 'eultic' language is used of the right conduct of daily life, without the edge of controveray: e.g. Ram. xii. 1; I Pet. ii. 5; and within Judaism cf. Pn uvi. 6 and the famous o b m n t i o n of R. Johanan b. Z&ai after the dcstruction of the Temple that 'we have an atonement the doing of loving deeds' ( A w l R Nolhon iv. Iln, cit. C. G. Montcfim and H. Laarc, A Rabbinic Amfhdqy, London 1938, p. 430 f.). James's language is neither Jewish nor sntiJewish; that is not the i s m . His tnrgct is the would-be religious man who docs not control his speech w (by implication) put his religion into practice. The fonn in which such a man might himslf express his reverence for God is not criticiad. nor indeed is it dcfimd funher than being a reverence for God the Father; what is at issue is the incansirtcncy of his acwmpvlying behaviour, an issue that greatly concerns this author and which he wiIl raise again (d.ii. 1C17. 19,iii.9f.,iv. 3f.).

. ..

6. THE SIN OF DISCRIMINATION

i i 1-9 o w Lord Jesus (1) My bmthen, d o mt hold t h e f+ Christ, the glory, tog& a i t h dmmmmation between -1s. (2) If there should eomc into vour msetine a iolg-ring;d gentleman w m i n g splendid d o t h n , &d there should d s o come in n poor m a n in filthy clothes, (3) and you should look s t the m u l wenring the splendid clothes and say, 'You sit here, in n g m d place', and SPY to the poor man, 'You stsnd t h a e , a sit here under mv frmstml'... (41 would , vou not have made distinctions in your own minda mnd have becomejudges who make cormpc d m s i o n s ? (5) Listen, my beloved brothers. Did not God choose the poor of the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to t h a e who love him? (6) But you have inaulted the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, and drag you into the courts? (7) Do not they slander the g o d name which was e d e d upon you? ( 8 ) If you are indeed f u l l i l l i i the r o y d law according to the saipture, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbow ns thyself, you are doing well; (9) but if you ere showing discrimination you are eommitting sin, nnd stand convicted by t h e Isw ss tmnsgmson.

.

James continues with hia theme d maiatmcy, giving it a new refermu, for now the isax is of conduct m m p t i b k with faith in Jems Christ. The q u m t of this m i o n is much tighter than any in chapter one: a single theme is intraduced and a p l o d at length. The p h s s i o n of Christian faith is inconsistent, indeed incomptibk, with an attitude towards o t h a m a that discriminates against som and in favour of others. It should be unthinhhk to hold the fdth, I and n u c i s e dirrimination between people. 'respect d prwns', an attitude frequcntiy condemned in the O T (c.g. Lev. dl. IS; Ps. Ixxxii. 2; Mnl. ii. 9), and seen to be wholly uncharacteristic of God (Job rxldv. 19; Eeclus xxxv. 13; cf. 93

THE EPISTLE OF JAMJ3S

ii. 1

Acts r 34; Barn. aix. 7). The Hebrew idiom Msnr panim is rendered literally in the LXX ss prolbpm larndazi. 'receive the face': an idiom m i d in the 'Two Ways' s m i m s of the Didache, iv. 3, and Barnabas, xix. 4. dampound words derived from this apparently did not appear before the NT, where the noun pror~oGmpsias p p ~ r in s Rom. ii. 11 ; Col. iii. 25 nnd Eph. vi. 9 as MU as here in J a m s (the compound verbpror+limpt& is found only in James ii. 9; the adjective in Acts x. 34; and the adverb, with negative prefu, in 1 Pet. i. 17). MM describes the gmup as 'among the earliest definitely Christian words', but if they are so, they were clearly not coined to express a distinctively Christian idea but i n n logicd dcvelopmmt of Chrisrinnity's heritage of Jewish biblical language. James uses the noun in the plural; this may be because he begina with a general condemnation of all forms of dimimination before giving a specific example, or even because it is felt that the e r m i r of discrimination is not a stngle exercise: to disaiminate in favour of one is to discrirninac Pgaina another; to give special tratmcnt to the rich is to deny it to the poor. T h e o p i n g verse of this d m contains the a m n d of the taro explicit refemceo to Jesus in the epistle, for the faith with which discrimination is incompatible is the faitb in our Lord Jesua Christ, the glory. The whole p h m s is syntac ticsUy extremely awkward, being n suing of genitives of which the last, rir doxir, mads l i b nn appendage without any clear connection with what precedes it. It hasbeen suggested, therefore, as with i. 1, that the r e f m a to Jrrvs Christ is an interpolation to Christianisc the daument, and that originally the ddnition of faith was that of the Jew in 'the Lord of Glary', Yahweh (d.'the God of glory', Acts vii. 2). It is adomntic that didmination between people is foreign to his nature. and it is t h d m intolerabk in t h o x who profess faith in him. There is again no textual warrant for omitting the reference to Jesus, and the title 'Lmd of Glory' is not in any e a x so mmmon s title for God in Judaism ns to argue its being the natural original rending for the verse. (The main cvidenec for its nvrmey is found in 1 Enoeh, e.g. arv. & -6. 4, xl. 3, and it may be fmm an apocalyptic background 94

ii. I

THE SIN OF DISCRIMINATION

that Paul derives it a s. in fn*.. a title for Christ in 1 Cor. ii. 8.1 It seems best, then, to mpin the p h s c in full no an origind pan of the epistle, and to nnempt toerplnin the m n m i a n of fir d m i r with what -des it. T h a c is a wide vlriny of suggestions for such an explanation. The find p h m r may bc seen as adjectival, qualifying one of the p d i n g nouns: 'the glorious Lord'. or 'the glorious Christ'; but this would be to disrupt the elfcontained phrase 'our Lord Jesus Chris'. Ropes and Dibelius e e it as qulliying the whole phrase, 'our glorious Lad Jesus Christ'; but for that one would elrpea a different word order, with tir d m i r intervening between the first noun and its nrticle. Alternatively, the genitive might bc seen as objective. describing the content of the faith as in 'the glory of our Lord This is the solution of Chaine, who finds support in the Peshitta, and cites for comparison Acts iv. 33, the witness of the awstles ti$nnnrtareGr iou kuriou fmmoarison mav also , be made with nmtlar mnstmctions in 2 Cor. IV. 4 and Rom. v. 2). Again, the objmion to t h ~ suggeslion s is hat the gcnitivc phrase is at some distance from the noun, faith, which it is &id to define; c v m granted the self-contain;d character of the long intervening phrase. A t h i i approach is to admit that ti8 dDxb cannot be attached to any one ward in the preceding phrase; rather it stands separate from it to supplement or complement it. Thus it could be taken as giving a xcond title of lordship to Christ: 'our Lord Jesus Christ, (the lord) of glory'; though one would expect that semnd 'lord' to be erpresscd rather than understmd. GNB adopts that translation, and NEB paraphrases. 'our Lord who reigns in glary'. H o n and Mayor ase the relation of tZs doxis to the preceding as one of apposition: 'our Lord Jesus Christ', i.e. 'the glory' (Mayor compares a similar use of the genitive in apposition in 1 Tim. i. 1; Jas i. 12 would provide a comparison within the epistle itself). This solution seems best to take affount of the structum of the vers, but the question would remain of what it means to describe Christ as the glory. In the LXX doxa as the regular translation of the Hebrew &bid is part of the language of theophany denoting the splendour, sanetimes actual light,

..!.

.

...

95

ii. 1

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

that is both a sign and an &a of the presence of God.' So the premee of God in the wilduness is demonstrated by a 'glory' (Ex. xvi. 10); the entry of the glory into Solomon's new temple 1s a sign of Gad's p n m c e in it (2 Chron. vii. 1-3), as its departure is a sign of his abandoning it (Ezek. xi. 23); glary is part of the context in which the prophet meets with God (Is. vi. 1; Ewk viii. 4), and in which the shpherds receive a mcasage from heaven (Lk.ii. 9). The eschatological hope of the future enjoyment of the paenee of God may be expressed as a hope for the return of glory, as to the temple, in Hag. ii. 7-9; Zsch. ii. 5 (and thus there is no need for any other light in the New Jmsalem of Rev. arii. 5). In the NT Jesus is frequently associated with, or desnibed in terms of, glory. The synoptic transfiguration narrative has dear associations with the Exodus theophsny (Mkix. 3; Matt. xvii. 2. 5; Lk. ix. 32). and may reflect the hove emremed in 2 Macc. ii. 8 that at th; last dais 'the glory k th; Lord shall return, with the cloud'. 2 Pet. i. 17 dmribes the transfiguration as Jesus' mciving 'honour and glory'. Paul, John and the author of Hebrews nll speak of his glory in terms of his relation to Gad: Paul, contrasting the revelation in Christ with that through Moss, asserts that God has given 'the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ' (2 Cor. iv. 6 ) ; John described the glory of the Word ss 'glory as of the only begotten of the Father' (Jn i. 14), and r ~ o r d the s Son's prayer to the Father to 'glorify thou me with thine own self (xvii. 5); while in Hebrews the Son is 'the effulgence of his glory' (i. 3). These writers develop the i d a of g l q in their individual ways, but in their common use of it them may be reflected one early form in which the Church expressed its understanding of Jesus. In him it experienced the presence and activity of God (however precisely or imprecisely this might be defined); a revelation of Gad that was perhaps his final revelation. A ~ t u r a framework l of language in which to express this belief would be the OT language of thmphany, of which 'glory' was

' See L.H.Bmetington,'?iw

Septusgintd bactgmnndto thc New Testr

mmt u s e d 66ta', in Sadie, in fhr Gmprh, ed. D.E. Niharn. Word 1955. pp. 1-8.

96

ii. 1

THE SIN OF DISCRIMINATION

an important dement. So when James c d s Jema theglmy,he may be sem to &a this undastanding of Jesus as 'thophany'; a m d e a t s t i o n of the p s m a of God.' James differs from the aha N T witem quoted nbon in not providing any huther definition of theglory he a-iates d t h Jcsuaa This sbmlutc uee of the noun probably kd to Hort's tnLing it ns P more s p x i t k title, identifying Jesus with the divine hypostsais, the Shekinah or the Presence. It is not. however. certain either that 'the Pmscnec' was t h o u l t of ns an hypostnsts tn the NT penod, or that 'glory' he an nhvtous or nppropnate term f a tt. llx mare gcncnl idea already prcaented is pmbably as far as un can go in defining Jams's christology. We have, as in i. 18, a passing reference to an element of faith whose full c o n m t we can only guess at. James is not here mnarncd with the definition of ehristology but with the relation betwem faith m d behaviour; he does not explain why this particular elenrnt of faith should seem to him to be relevant to the puticulnr subject of discrimination Perhaps the underlying thinking might be that faith in Christ is a faith in the Christ who provides a revelation of God,the God whose opposition to discrimination is wll known, and with faith in this Christ the o m t i a n of n double-standard in h must be unthlnkablc. dealings w ~ men 4hcr thns opening statement of the ~nmmpatibilityof faith with an attitude or exactst of dlwnrnlnatloh Jamespracceds to give an example of what he is condemning. Dibelius wams against pressing the example into service as evidence for the actual circumstances of Jams's community. James is not here attacking an actual, flagrant offence within that community JvdnMufv ate. up this swl ides, dmbwg it withill hi. much mnr mphisticated rhrm of thought,when k mfen to th prrrner d r k Loga in rhqhanicq md to his msequrntly k l r i n g the txtk d ( D i o l q l u . m v i i i . 2). I t i. lomctimea ugg.red that J d sur d'th g h j + h u t hmm d r h s l o n .a a Ifor Jcms e m k pnl*kd in I Pet. ir. I+:lotildmil ha; to rou them pnorm muld k t d n t d s s ' t k spirit of t k glory and tk spir~td God: bur m this much simplc. mnsuurtim tk funmion d tk genitive p b a x is mor. ohviovdy adjccuv.1, giving 'the glorious npiril of Cod' or 'the glaaus and divine spin,' I

97

ii. 2 THE EPISTLE OP JAMES l m n u r a 1 Cor. r. 1. f a mmok): he is m m c d to attack a

i(ensll nbtudc m mode d m b d & ,

a h c h he iUunrntes In an andionlly conmvcd pnurc Yet far the example to mnvcg his message it m u a presumably b w some relation to his readers' experience, and patray a situation which either has a could obtain lor them (he appeals directly to their m s i e n a in v. 6t-n. T h e illustration mnv have an element of cxaggsntlon or cnricntwc, but it may still shed glmc ltght upon the sctting d t h e eplde (el. the way that the pnrabler of Jesus develop in extraordinary t a m s from situations familiar to his hearers. C. F. Evans. Paroble ond Dogma, London, 1977, p. 16 f.; and Intmduction p. 7). Ccrtsinlv the Drcaent illustration denicts an u t m m c situation: ;WO &aticdY different pcrsks am ahown as Vrptrd in ahuply mntrascd ways (d.Jesus' phnrise m d 2 publican, Lk. mitt. %I 1) The gdd-ringed gentlcmsm may be something more than simp@ a typical riih man: James's coining of the d j a i v e ch~sodnkruliosmay be to indicate his sccial status, f a the gold ring was pan of the insignia of the emestrian d m . the second rank of theRoman a r i s t o c r a,~(en ~ : ~ . ] u d g~zh s ~ o r i o l ~ o r fofChristion ern GrouprinthoFirrt Century, landon 1960, p. 53; the euggcstlon was aloo made by B. H. S m t m , ThePvimiriveChurch,p. 196).Equesv~nnowere maomarily wealthy, for there was a property qualification f a therank, andthiscouldbeachicvcdthroughvadeandcommeree as would not have been thought appropriate for members of the senatorial ords. Equestrian rank was somewhat debased under the Empire, when it muld be bestowed upon freedom (like Claudius's P d a s and Fdix), but it was still the road to careersin the civil m i c e , perhaps leading to procuratorial o f i e such as Felix and Pilate held in Judaea. Afurthaopponunity was open toeauestrinns to increase their wealth throueh holdimnn nostsin the taxd cf. I n d u c t i o n , p. 28 f.). Alternatively the relationship may be reversed: the bringing of aome Christians into court, pahnps in the financial causes suggested (exaction of taxes or debt) kads to the slandering of them as a group by those d o wield such power as, say, had citizens or unreliable debtors. Again, it could be suggested that the situation is an internal one: that rich Christians have been resorting to the civil murts in mits against their brothas (cf. 1 Cor. vi. l a ) , and by this unloving litigiousness either themselves implicitly abuse the name they bear or bring it into disrepute among outsiders (as Clement sees to be the effect of the contention at Corinth. 1 Clem. xlvii. 7; and as Paul accuses the Tews of causine the name of God to be blaaphcmcd. Rom. ii. 24). Thls line of inrerprctat~onwould, huwwcr, omin the active form of the verb; and mom duect condemnation of such behnvtow would he expected if it o C tained within the mmmunity itself. Thc acmnd mnsvuetion s e m s the most probable, but the two charges am framed in rhetorical ouestions. and their connection should oerhaos not be too prccioely interpreted. In general terms, though. James's madrrs' expersenre of the rich as a class in society Is of them

. .

i i i8

THE SIN OF DISCRIMINATION

as prme to taking opprrssive kgal s l i m against themslveq probably with a view to financial d m n m p , and M also prone to nbusinu the mfcssian of Christianity. Rich and pmr dike may corn; as & t a r s to a Christian m&ng, but &at son of potentid members am they? The rendas have little cause to be optimistic about the prospects of the rich man, but they sre weU aware of God's promise to the poor. T o give an enthusiastic welcome to the former and effectively to insult the latter is ridiculous It is also a vansereaaion d the row1Ino. The miunction 8 meatoi is an cmph&c one: if his rc~durarc indecdias, it is implied, they claim) okying the law; &.el It is highly i m prabable that, as Ropes suggests, James is count&g an argument of his opponents that in honowmg thc rich man the" are o M n the commnnd to love. Rather.. he beeins with a haPic canmon nswmption. His readers. lute himself, -pt the impatance of the command to love one's neighbow, and in this they are doing well. It is necessary, though, to s-x the implications of thi; acceptane, and that &&rimination between people is inconsistent with it. James uses the same procedtlre as in ii. 19 of mmmoding something that his readem as well as he accept, but then attacking the fact that proper conclusions are not dram from it. It has already b n n suggested that the movement of thought from love d neighbour to condemning discrimination is not an immediate ly obvious or necessary one, and that James justifies the connection by &wing upon the context of Lev. x i z 18, and especially upon Lev. xk. IS.It might have seemed simpler just to cite Lev. x*.IS, as a precept directly opposing that form of behaviow, but it seems that Lev. dx. 18 carries a special authoritv. It 3% d8sputed & t h e a not that w i d authonty consists in Lev. nx. 18 being idarifvd as itself the myll ha,mnos borilibr. S c v d c a n m n t a t a s , e.g. Ropes and Blackman, argue that -or would not be used of i single commandment, for which mtofi would be'the omen term (as used of the command to love in Mk xii. 28: Matt. xxii. 36:. Tn xv. 12: though d.the use of n a o s tn Rom. vii. 2 for one pmiculpr dictate of the law). .Moreover, fcko, fulfil, mnght seem an a p

-

.

THE EF'ISTLE OF JAMES

ii. 8

popriato verb for o b t d i m a to the whok law (as e.g. in R o a i i 27), but for a aingle prsept t m l , keep, would be expected (d.v. 10, and Matt. xk. 17 f. f a individual precepts including k.xix. 18). Dibclius and V. P. F m i s h (The Looc Cmn n a n d in the Nm Tula-t, Lmdon 1973. pp. 177-180) nrguc further &om the c o n t c a In v. 10 f. James mighs cmc p r m p alongside another, arguing for thc keeping of the law in its cntiretv. The force of this is that he is reinfarcine his wanung agatnra dtsolnunaoon by showing that ti other commvldmcnto u e kept but thto one ~glected.the whole 'royal law' 1s not betng fulfilled. Thus Lev. xtx 18 IS one prcept among others. a psrt of the whole law. This argument is unconvincing. First, had James wished to weigh the -pt against discrimination alongside others it is again sur+sing that he does not cite Lev. fix. IS itself. Even granted that he wished instead to invoke Lev. xix. 18 against that sin et Lev. dx. 18 is not in fact one of the two precepts he w e i g h k order to appeal to the wholc law. The supposed argument has a missing link. Moreover, v. 10 mark8 a new stage in the thought of the epistle. The section vv. 1-9 focuses on the sin of discrimination, and reaches its dimax when Lev. d x . 18 is invoked precisely against that sin. In v. 10 a new, albeit related, idea, that of keeping the law in its entirety, is i h troduced and d i m a d in its own fama. Certainly Lev. x i r I8 is not for James waything he means by law. but nor is it simply one command among others. Mitton and Sidebottom guardedly suggest that inasmuch as it muld be seen as the guiding principle for obedience to the law as 1 whole (the law is to be fulfilled 'aceordine to the scrimwe'. i r . in the wav indicstcd by 1.w. rlx. l~)."mdinosm&h nathnt whole I&is 'royal'. Lev. xtr. 18 panakcs of that character. However, st is justifiable to oee the mmmandmnt as ~ t ~tdenttfied l f as the royal lorn. It is dearly imponant for James to bring his warning against discrimination into relation to this commandment, to show that it is mmprehcnded within it, and he underlines the authority d the commandment with sn honorific description. (The argument thus rests on the weatment of Lw. rix. 18 in mntcn; there may also be something to be said for Hm's mmment that 'there is no diffrulty in.. 108

.

ii. 8

THE SIN OF DISCRIMINATION

applying m wide a I s m as v@os to a i n g k psep,since the pra~epti t d f was m mmprehenive'; cmninly if J a m s is indicatine the wide aootie~bilitvof that mcem. teb6 muld be arguedio be the a&priate'd.) Lev. xi. 18, thm, is the myol h w . m e adjective borilibs means regJ or belonging to a king, as in its usc ofthe king of Edom's highway in Num. xx. 17 and of Huod'a territory in Acts rdi. 20 (wherc the noun is understood). Philo comments on N u n u.17 that the king's highway ia'myd'bth becaw it is hia and because it lends to him, and he finds here an allegory of the Law, which is the t n r 'royal mad' (De Port. Coirr 101-102; d Clem. Alex. Slrom. vii. 73. 5: the deliberate choia of righteoumas is the 'royal mad' which the 'myal nation' m l s ) . In relatiw to a law, the adjective would most n a t u d y indicate n law pmmulgatcd by a king. and is so used of the d n n e of Anaxmes in I E d . viii. 24, or n law applicable in his kingdom, as pmbnbly in the Pergamum inacription quoted by A. Dcissmann (Light frmn the Ancird E u t , p. 362, n. 5). C. H. Dodd gives examples of the usc d the phrase borilibs nor by G m k poiitid w i t m to d e a i b e a law as given by, or wonhy of, a king, m d sanetimes in relation to the maxim Ihat 'the law i t r l f is king' (The B i b b and the G~cchs. Lmdoo 1935. p. 39). H m suggests that n myol Imo c d d be's law which governs other laws. and so has a specidly q a l character'. We amuld then undersand k.rdx. 18 88 the governing principle for PO precepts (cf. Matt. ndi. 37-40). H o ~ v c r ,this mains the meaning of the adiatise. , . which never xems to have been used in the r n s c of 'govaning'; m d Lev. d l . 18 Is anyway not appealed lo hem as a key to other p c c p l s but in vinuc of its own content and authority. The Isw of love w d d be royal in being promulgated by a king or as applicable to his m l m . or indeed both. It is natural to compare this passsge with Mk xii. ii 29.. and Jcaua' iden tilktion of the two great commandments. The Inw is not cited hem as a word of Jcaus but as - w e , and quoted preeiscly; but of m u m Jesus himrU was quoting the Law (nm was k unique in singling out this p r e p t . for R. Akiba also saw it as the mo* comprehensive d l l c in the Law,

. ..

109

THE EPISTLE OF J M S

ii. 8-9

(Moore.Judoinn 11,p. 85 I.. citing Gm R. 24. 7). Paul tca quotes Lev. xh. 18 as the a ~ p r e m wnunand, with no explicit appeal to the authority of Jesus (Rom. xiii. 8-10; Gal. v. 14). John, by mntrast, attributes a mmmand to love specifically to Tesus.. and never u s s the O T form of love of the neiehbow (though 1 Jn 81. 7 shows n mnpctousncss that the new commandment is dm an old one). It is wasonoble to suppose that the prominence of a mmmsnd to love ~n many of the ST daeuments is due to its pmminena in the teaching of Jesus, even when this is not explicitly acknowledged. If so, it is probable that when James quotes Lev. xix. I8 as srripturc he does so in the knowledge that this script- has reaived the added authority of Jesus' use. It is unlikely that the descrip tion of the law as royal involves anything so spsitic as n recognition of Jesus as the king who has promulgated the law. especially as it is God who is said to pmmise the kingdom in ii. 5 (ef. iv. 12: them is only one lawgiver; dearly God). Lev. x i x 18 is for Tames the mvol lam because it is the law of the kingdom of dod; but as ;n ti. 5 he would be conrnous that Jesus proclaimed Cod's pnnnm, so hem he will he conpc~ous that Jew3 prodaimed God's kingdom and its law. So then, James concludes, if his renders me prey to the sin of dis9 crimination. they me mnvicted by the myal law of Lev. xix. 18 itself, and are found to be trpnsgresson of it.

.

7. THE WHOLE LAW i i 10-13

(10) P a whoever L a p s the whole law, but t r i p op in one parIieulu, h a s &me ansonsmhle in respect of d. (11) For h e who said. 'Th s h d t m t commit adultery', said also, 'Thou h a l t not murder'; so if you d o n a commit adultery, hut murder. you have become a transgressor of the Inw. (12) Speak and act in every respect ns people who are going to be judged in terms of P law of freedom. (13)For judgment is merciless to 110

ii. 10

him who ahjudgment.

THE WHOLE LAW no mercy; mercy boasts in the face of

James now moves fmm his considantion of what is inwlved in the keeping of one maja precept to the full,to insist upon the keeping of the law in its entirety. This invoduces a 10 new idea, but it is probably intended to add funher ~eriouwessto his previous warning. He has argued that by people his readers put exercising discrimination bet-n themselves in the position of transgressing a particularly notable commandment: now he reminds them of the yet wider implications of the wansgrssion of a single commandment in relation to the whole. His statement that the law must he kept in every particular a it is not kept at all, finds nmpk parallel within all branches of Judaism. The Rabbis ~ m e dagainst distinguishing between 'light' and 'weighty' commdmcnts, with the commonsense ob-ation that 'if you beeome slack a b u t m e commandment, you will end by becoming slack a b u t another' (DerokE~cflZvtaiii. 5. as quoted by C. G. Montetime and H. Loewe. A Rabbinic Anthology, London 1938. p. 157); and the judgment of R. Joh-n is often quoted by commentatas, 'if he do all, but omit one, he is guilty of all severally' (Shabbat 70b, the comment is specifically in relation to the Sabbath regulations). Paul warns the Galatians of what they are taking on in their acceptance of Judaising. 'wry man who receives circumcision is a debtor to do the whole Law' (Gal. v. 3); a wzming derived from the principle that a proselyte must be considered 'in all things as an Israelite', i.e. k wan bound to o b s w e the wbde Law (Yebamoth 4% cit J. Jeremias, Jmsalem in the Time ofyew,p. 323). The Testament of A s h a s~stheknpingdsomemmmnndsandbmPtilg of others as s manifestation of 'doubleness', a characterisuc which theTestament8 hold inasmuch abhorrenceasdoes James (Test. Ash. ii. S10). At Qumran the community rukd in regard to itsawnlaw that 'noman m n e the membersofthe Covenant of the Community who delikrately, on any point whatever. turnsastdefmm allthat ismmmanded, ahalltouchthepurcMeal of the men of holiness ( 1 QS viii. Ibf.) In HellenisticJudaism,

...

ii. 1C-11

THE EPISTLE OF J M S

Philo, in mdling the stay of Joseph and Potiphu's wife, mndudesthat 'he who a s d s c s p r f m aclfsonuol must shun In sins, both the greater and the lesser, and k found implicated in none whatma'. Len. Allen. iii. 2411. In 4 % ~ .the m m tells King ~ n t i o c h u'&ink i it not then h small thing forus to L t the unclean thing; for the hansgrmion of the Law, k it in small thingsoringreat isequally heinous.forincither a s e e q u d y t h c Lawisdespised'(v. 19).4Macc.isconcerncdtoreIatetheJcwish religion to-stoic philosophy, and the insistence an the Jewish principle may be intended, as Charles suggests, to show a cop reswndmce with the Stoic thcorv ofthe solidsritvofvirtucs or vices (Augurtine, wriung to Jerome. Ep rlrv~i.4, d r s w ~ a m m pnsonbetrcenthisSto~ctc~chingandJames's).Finslly,aclose parallel may ofmursebe seen between Jamesand the warningof Man. v. 19, followingJesus' insistencean the absolutemntinuity of the Law, that 'whosoever therefore shall brezk one of the least of these mmmandmmts. and teach men the same. shall he called least ~nthe Kangdomof Heaven' A mm. therefore, who trips up in one particular (no noun ts exprcpoed) becomes answerable in respect of d l The pnmanl) legal term mochos has a number of funniana Wnh the datwe ~tdenoteslnabll~tvt o a tnbunal las In Matt. v 2Za1. with the -eenitive.. as hbc. it has three wssible meanings: liable for punishment; guilty of crime; or liable in respect of a pcrmn or thing again31 which an offence has been mmmitted (as tn 1 Cor. u 27) It is unlikely that James m y be understmd to say that the man who commits one transgression is liable to all the punishments specified for all transeressions. and to sav that he i s euiltv, of all transgressions is probably too enreme, so the third meaning is prefmed. The man who commits one d e n - muot accept that he is responsible and answerable not only in respct of the single precept he has broken, hut in reapen of the whole corpus of law of which that precept is a put. In assertine this minci~leTames would aerm to stand squarely within the mnten of Jewish legalism. But the situation becomes less straightforward when he proceeds to give 11 an example of what he means: if you do not commit adultery, but murder, you have become a transgressor

..

-

. . . 112

ii I t THE WHOLE LAW d the 1.r. Two m m s d thc dsnloeuc we Mmced

. .

against ach othff, nnd the lgwnent scems cvrioudy inept The decalogue wae m a w a l a p m of the Torah that M one of its precepts would aeem to need reinforcement by such an pgunrnt as this Moreover, the phibition of murder and sduhav w u l d be so eenedlv accened that asxnt to them would iurdly be secn e n t d ~ a a c n ~ r F c i f r d to l y the Jewish Law and everythlllg d x contamed in 11. It 3s impmbabk that these two commands are mngled out in relation to the situation addressed because, as Hon suggests, tbe ~ 0 m m u ~ t y prided itsclf on srmpulously avoiding fleshly sins (if the a& d m s in iv. 4 were taken LitmUy, as he later W c s the m v s x might bc the cnscl); and nor is it likely that 'you m w d d in iv. 2 is to be taken as literally dcsribing the situation to which this argument dates. Nor ia there any indication thrt Tnrnea is enlareine " " the idea of murder as Tesus docs in M a n v. 21 1.. wing 81 as an m m lack of love, f u less that he intends to subsume undn ,la headnng the 9-tmatmnt of the poor man in a. 2 f. U J a m s ~ntcndcdto argue for the entirety of the Jewish Law he could have don; so mom tellingly by juxtaposing a 'light' and a 'weighty' commandment, .s mme Rabbis jun~poscdh t . mii. 6 1. .gains birdsuesting, and Deut. v. 16, on honouring f a t k r and mahcr, pointing out that the mwvd promised was the same f a cach (Moo* Judaism 11 p. 5, cites Kiddwhin 61b. cf. 39b; Montcfiam and Loewe. Anthology p. 126, quote a Rubbinic oarable makine this mint). It k g h t be sugg;sd &at nr i s Jamei'a earlier quotation of Lev. ur. 18 t h a haa Id hnm to the precepts of the deeahgue, because of a familiar connection between the two. In Matt dx. 18 t Jews concludes a recitation of put of the 'lsond table' by citing also Lev. x*. 18 (the connection is also made in the version of the stow of the rich man in the &-I of the Nazarenes, perhaps independently, see HenncckeSchnermclchcr I, p. 148 f.); and in Rom xiii. &lo. LN. xi= 18 is s e m as the summary of these commandments in particular. K. Stendnhl comments that 'the combination d the latter ppn of the Decalogue with a Leviticus t e n as wcU knawn as that of Lev. rir. 18 was ccnninly in accordance 113

iii l l

THE EF38TLE OF JAMES

with Jeriah msmm' (TheS h l of St Manhaw, London 1954, p. 63). Howmu, cvm if this eonnetion is assumed, the t a m s of Jams's l g u m n t aiU nicz t k question of the content and m e n t of his 'law'. Hc quotes the decalogue; he quotes Lm. xix. 18. The I a t t s he pmbablg expounds in m l r tion to another puqn. Lo. x k 15, but one from the immediate amtext, and from the H d i s s Code which could bc rcg-ded as a unit in itsdf .ad which was a min source of the Jewish c a t K h d u l tradition. Both thex ckmmta of the Law have in the gospel tradition the sanction of Jesus (ML x. 19, xii. 29 ff. nnd pnmllda); bolh .re s k d by Paul (Rom. n i i 8-10), who of courx mjmed the imposing of the whole Low upon d Chriaians When TW further take into account Jnmea'a mnnncr of using 'cultie' language in n non-cultic connection (sce on i. 27) it would s x m by no means certain that his l g u m o t involvcs the whde Jewish Torah, but pmbable instead that he is using a familiar, originally Jcwiah, principle with a different 6opc m d appl~cationin the Chriaian context. James's citation of the two precept8 of the & d o g u t is different fmm his usud m y of introducing quotntiona. He normdv intmduees t h e as nabhi fii. 8. ii. 23. iv. 5 f.l but here uks a rnsruline a n i d m i puuci&. This f o r b k ~ a n assumed refurnee to the feminine pophi, though tt might be suggested that the rdma is to the law. mmor. of w. 9-10, thought of as'spedtiing' ns scripture does in iv. 5,6. However, the use of the aorist participle suggests a single event rather of law or srinurc. and the than the continuing -h probable thought ~$&he;eforeoftk definitive past s&sklng of Cod on Sin*,: he d o said anid dm.The point of this form of ~ntroductionmay bc simply to dimn numtian to Cod as the ultimate authority for t k law, but it may d m the widespread Jewish tradition that the decalogue was distinct from and men oerhaos holier than the rest of the antsteuch Philo says that unlike the @her commpnd~of t k Law, the dcedogue was revealed by s mimculoualy created voice (Dc Dec. 32-35); and Jaocphus dso m o d s that as these p r m p t s w a e too holy to be impaired by the human voia &ey w&e spoken by a heavenly one (Ant. iii. 89 f.; according todnt. iii 114

...

. .

THE WHOLE LAW

ii. 11

273 the other laws were limned by Mws).l It may be that m e such tradition, that the dadogue is peculiarly the law that Cod spenks, ties behind James's form of citation here; but if so it would not forhimlewn t k spccialimponana to be attached to the'myal law'. James quotes the two precepts in the order Thou .halt not commit adultery and Thou .halt not murder. This reverses the o r d a found in the Hebrew (MT) r e d of both Ex. xx. 1-17 and Deut. v. 6-21. in which the sixth to eighth commandments prohibit murder, adultery, theft, in that sequmce. The same qma is followed by Mk x. 19; Matt rix. 18 f., d v. 21,27. In most MSS of the LXX, however, the order of commandments in Exodus is adultery, theft, murder, a d in Deuteronomy, adultery, murder, theft. Although the placing of the prohibition of theft varies, this sequence adultery-murder is followed by Phio, De Dsc. 51 and Ds Spec. kg. iii. 2; Lk. xviii. 20 (an alteration by Luke of his Markan source); and Paul, Rom. xiii. 9. Jasephus, although in Ant. iiii 91 he is dearly following the LXX narrative of Exodus, m e n 8 to the 'Hebew' or& in recording the decalogue. The question of the order of the decalogue as known in the Grek-speaking synagogue is a vexed a n d A precise distinction between 'Hebrew' and 'Gmk' or 'Palestinian' and 'Diaspora' orders should probably not be drawn Yet it would seem probable that in areas of Judaism which had dose contact with the Temple a knowledge of the daily recitation them would enmurage a fixity of order, whereas in the syaagogue mntea, where such a practice never obtained, 1 This tradition pmbably gave tie to t k dsim of the minim thxt 'mly t h m cnmmdmcllts were givm to Moes m Sine',P.B n a b * i.3c; claim that is gircn as the -an fm the nbndoning dtcr AD 70 of the daily recitation of the d d o g u e which had fomrd pan of the Temple r r via, ef. T o d d v. I. Im it should give riae to n mialeding cmmtr.tim m it. A full d i ~ u d mmay k be in K SSond.hl. The Schd of St Monhno. p 6 2 The problem is m m p t i ~ . f dby the exinof. H e k w MS ol diapltcd provenmcs md pvrpar thc Nn.h Paw h i h emtsins thc decdoguc in thcGGrrek'orda. acc 8. A. Cmk, 'A P L M M I U ) ~ ~ B i b k d Pap~us',B-d+ of the Soc*ty ofBibl*olArdosolw, m. 1903. pp. 3CS6.

115

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

ii. 11-13

fluidity would be more undemandnbk. As the bulk of evidence for variety in o h is in Greek literature (ag. the variation between E d u s and Deuteronomy in the LXX; the releeation of the m m m d to honour mrents from fifth msitio; in d the spoptnc gospels) M tkynssocorte ~tp r m k d y with the Creek-speaking synagogues, and take this as perhaps anotha pointer to James's situation, or at least to the medium through which he gained his knowkdge of Judaism. He does not in fact quote the commandments in precisely their LXX wording. It is characteristic of the LXX tonpress prohibitions by the negative mr with the future indicative, and this idiom is retained by Paul and Matthew in their quotations of the decalogue. James, l i b Mark and Luke, uses instead the stylistically more c a m n form of mi with the aorist subiunctive. This mav be with lames a stvlistic improvmeni or reflect the fa=; that he laquoting ndr from the t e n d i s t , but from memay or common knowledge of it. After g1Vtng hthls ~ x m p l r Jnmcs . sums up wrth an cxhms12 tion that his readere ahould .peak and act in every reaped P. people who are going t o k judged in terms of a law offreedom. The translation i n mew resbect is an atternDt to bring out the force of the rrpcatcd'hu&r. 'so spcak arid so an', the stmas IP not on the observance of a sum total of minuuae, but on the marntmance of a complete tntegnty of word and deed. The reference to judgment makes explicit what is implicit in the idea of liability in v. 10. There is a mokoning to be made in the future, a judgment d i a ~ m o u . The law is not here the norm or standard bv which the" me measured for ludgrnmt, for that would mqum the pmposltlon koro: dro with the gmnttve normally sms to ~denttfythe agent or instrument of action, a, that t k law might be seen as the agent of judgment, as in Jn vii. 51 ( c t the law as 'convic ting' in Jas ii. 9). More probably, though. it hem indicates the state or condition in which an anion is arformed: the lnar of freedom, d.i. 25, is the framework or mnten within which they speak and an, and thc f u t m judgment w l take amount of that fact (a,Ropes and Hon; the idea will be that of Rom ii. 12). 13 Finally J m e s adds to the idea of judgment that of mrcy, in 116

THE WHOLE LAW

ii. 13

two statement8 only lmacly stuched to thc foregoing ~gr m m and skming p a b i d in fonn. The train of thought -8 to be simply from one iden of judgmat to m t h c r . Talking d judgment It wodd be f w d to ke in the introduction of this new idea of mpn, a referene bsct to the ailuption of James's illunration in ii. 2 IT, wlth m y as the implted antithesis of dimrimination and thcmfore aa the basts fa the tratmmt the pmr m m should hnvc reatved. 7 h e s y m a n i d change 6om lrmnd person a d d ~ ~to s sthird prson statement suggests that what is being given is a general ineiple rather than a spsific guide. The prindpk that judgment is m e r c i l e n to h i m who a h o m no mercy is s famtliv one,as d e ~ e l o p din thc parable of the unmerciful savant (Mat xviii. 23-35). Ropcs cites P. 8460 K. vii 10, ' E v q time that thou art merciful. God will be merciful to thee: d if thou an not msciful. God will not show mercy to thee'; an argument similar to that which Matt. vi. 14 t draws out of the petition far fargivcnesa in the Lord's pmpr. T h e principle is enunciated in the positive fonn of blessing rather than t h r a t in the beatitude of Matt. v. 7; ef. Ps. xviii. 25; Test. Zcb. v. 3, viii. 1 4 ; and with mercy aeen in its concrete demonsration in almsgiving in Eeclua XI. 24; Tobit iv. 10. (James's word anekor, d e s s . is maher hapnr *gammon in the epinl+ the usud term b e i i omkis or onikcr, but it is formed by the regular prindpk of adding negative prrfix to noun.) No conjunction joins thc Iira r a t e m n t in the vme to the K c a d to wggcn their rclationahip Thc ampound verb uacd in the eeeond statemm, kaakmuhmmai, to boan against, or exult ovs, another, is m in d n r and biblical Greek, el. only Jns iii. 14 and Rom. xi. 18 in the NT;and the aphorism m m v bwt. in the f r e of iudement muld bc understood in either of two ways. Judgment and macy could be srrn b m as t w attnburesof God. God, the author ofjudgment In 13% delights in n situation where his mrey may over-ride his judgment. W h m a man has shown no mcrey. God'sjudgmnt of him is inexorable, but where them is evidence of merciful deeds, Cod's nrtnbute of mercy t r ~ m p h ovcr s the dictates of his justice, and the h d m a mopped ~n man's fsvour (dthe

..!.

-

117

-

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

ii. 13

saying of R. Eli-,

'The sales are evenly balancd: the s a l e of iniquities on the one side and of merits on the other; the Hdy One indines the balanee to m y ' , Perihta 167a). More probably, though, the focus is on man's rather than God's mercy. The merchso man may a p t mercilessjudgment; a man, however, who has shown w r c y may stand before judgment with d d e n c e (LS offa the paraphrase 'to have no fear' for kataknuchoomai hue). James would apparently have no difficulty with the notion that man may boast before God. his judge: or that man's mrcy may be made a meritorious work that b a s t s a claim on God's appmval (contrast Rom. iv. 2 4 ) . His aphorism could be slid, though, to be not only independent of but logically inconsistent with the argument of i i 10: there the law must be kept in full or there isliability for the whole; here the consideration of mercy may apparently sene to w i v e judgment. The sequence of thought an law and judgment has therefore moved aome way from its initial introduction in terms specifically of the exercise of discrimination to the enunciation of g a d principks of judgment and mercy. In the fallowing -ion the leading ideas are of faith and wcrks. but the note of mercy on which this sstion ends may provide m e transition to the next subject, which is introduced in relation to the treatment of those in need.

8. FAITH AND WORKS ii. 14-26

(M) What i s the good of it, m y b r o t h m , if a m a n d o o l d say that he h s s f&, h t has n o works? His faith cannot mave him, can it? (15) If a brother or sister i s scantily dressed and lacking food for the day, (16) and one of you says t o them 'Go in peace. may you be warmed and filledl' but does not give them the bodily necessitiea, what is the good of it? (17) In just the same wsy, faith, if it has n o works, i s dead in itself. (18) But w m e o n e will say. 'You have faith and I have works'. 118

ii. 14

FAITH AND WORKS

Show m e this faith of youn without mL..nnd I d demmntrate t o you m y faith from my works. (19) You k l i e v e that Dod i. -, d o you? You d o well. The d e m m s believe thnt too, and they shudder. (20) Do you wish to understand, you stupid mnn. thnt faith i s useless without works? 121) Wns not Abrsh.m our father justified by works whin h e offered u p his son Isaac o n the altar? (22) You see that faith at-ope~mted with his works and by works faith was made complete. (23) And t h e scripture w a s fulfilled which said, 'Ahrsham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for iustification'. and h e was called 'friend of God'. 124) t o u see c h k t h a t P man is justified by works and no; b; faitb alone. (25) And was not Rnhnb the harlot justified by works h the same way, when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another mute? (26) For just a s the body is dead without breath. so is faith dead without works. The m m s t between judgment and mercy now changes to a contrast between faith and work%In a question that can cxp.eu no answer but an emphatic 'no', James asks of the man with faith but no works. his fnith cannot save him. c a n it? 14 (his is not present in the Greek but may be taken as the sense of the article). It d d not save him, presumably. from the judgment of w. 12-13, for he has no deeds of mercy to boast in the face of judgment. What i s the g o d d it, this faith? None. it would seem to himselt. nor.. in v. 16..to t h o s in need for whom he does mhing. Hr may sny thnt he h a s fsith. but thnt is itself an unreal dam, for the faith ao noolatcd from works 1s n dead thing (v. 17). James's example of unreal faith is shown in faile x s e i s charity, an argument m i n i * cent of Matt XXV. 3146, where the destiny of the 'goats' f a eternal ounishment and the 'shee~'for eternal life is devendent on'whcthcr or not they have'pcrfonned such dceds:'and of 1 Jn iii. 17-18. w h m the daim to have the love of Cod abiding in one connot be sustained against a lack of w m p a s sion far the needy; and indeed of James's awn presentation of ' m e religion' in i. 27. 119

ii. IS

THE EPISTLE OF J M S

In both James and 1 John the situation ia enviaaged as 15 within the community: it is n hoths or rn sister who may be in nud. As with ii. 2-4, James is providing an illustration for hia general theme, and this one duo has elements of caricature. Those in need of fwd and clothing arc of course stock objects of charity (e.g. Tobit iv. 16), but preswnobly to carry its point the illustration must bear sow relation to experience. It is possible for the readers to conceive of such need existing within the community, though this should not be taken as evidence of the chnmcter of the whole soeietv: it is alm assumed that lhcrc d l he members nbk lo suppl; their need It ~s debatable how extreme a need Jamcs ~ntcndsto present; whether it is of as stark a poverty as that of the beggar of ii. 2. The brother or sister am described as being gumnos, an adjective that can mean literally naked, as in Mk xi". 51 f., or inadequately dressed, having the chitin or undergarment but not the more substantial outer himation,' as probably in Jn ad. 7; Acts xix. 16. cf. in the LXX Amos ii. 16; 1 Sam. d z 24. MM states that this is the familiar smse of the word in the papyi. AG and Mayor suggest as s third meaning 'pmly dmsrrd', but it is not dear how this would be distinguished fmm the m n d . The brother or sister are also in want o f tes ephinvmv tmphir, a phrase not found elsewhere in NT or LXX. but familiar in secular Greek litanhue. This too could h taken in a more or less ememe w s e : the phrase cannot mean 'daily food', i.e. a supply from day to day, but must mean 'food for the day', 'the day's supply', but this could be interpreted as implying 1 crisis in which the suffsers have no food earn for that day, or as simply a statement of the case at the time: for that day they have no fwd. Hm wishes to pmss the use o f the verb hupmchi, and the present participle loipomonoias describing n continuous condition. habitual poverty, but it is doubtful if that is demanded. It seems probable that James intends to draw not a picture of utter destitution, the abject condition of 'For d i 6 n lad hinotim ns the mmpmts of MmYl d m . a ~ the e two f m . of the ..gmg in Mat' v . 4 if. m.n ma for the pie of the u* dag.rment he i. to be gin" the m m ~'pc"ddhi",.,tim; ,"d Lt "i29. if svcdfm the nnqumnt,hmd m m t h indiapnmbk chit% .srrUl

120

FAITH AND WORKS

ii. 15-17

(LtNi. 20 f.) which only the most &a

muld ignore+ but ratha of a povaty which, though certainly m i c mble. mieht not .ctm to muire emerecncv action but which ' muld bc &miaed with hodeful re-is. James IS not m n c d io portray the mm he rcmses r s simply cnlhus He lo the man who says thnt he hrs futh, md his words should be read as expressing a pious hope, if not .c- 16 t d l y a prayer. Go in p e e is a semitic idiom. a form of fmwcU fwnd in the O T (Jud. xviii. 6; 1 Sam. xx. 42; 2 S a m xv. 9) and r e p m d u d in the NT citha ns hvpogcte en eirini (ah e x and Acta mi 36) orris eirink (Mk v. 34; Lt vii. 50). The two imperatives t h i n e s i h e and chonozesthr muld be in the middlc or passive voice. The middle would give the h d y , if umnlimic enmmgement to 'dress warmly1 keep fedl' (m AG); but them is little evidence that cbrtoxd was wed in the middle with this active snse. and the passive is to bc preferred. May you be warmed and Iilledl This use of the passive to express hope should further bc undcrstwd as a reverential priphmsis: the hope is not simply thnt s o m h a a ar 0th- t h e wants will be supplied, but that Godwill supply them (cf. Mk v. 34. 'Go in peaa, and be healedl'). In the light of this Go in pence may take on an added solemnity: 'Go in the peace of cod' (though there is no need to suppose it to be the deacon's blessing at the close of a service of worship, as Reickc, md d.TmmC. an. 'Les Eglims psulinicnnes vues du dehors', p. 663). The wading of the pious hope would not in the circwnsmces gem very felicitous: chorraci is usually applied to the fanming d cattle (though it can have the sense of being d l - f e d , satisfied, as in Mk vi. 42). Jams's choice of this verb is probably intended as a caricature of w h a to his supposed man of faith would seem n wholly appropriate response. Confmnted with n case of need, he commits it with prayer to God, who clothes the naked and feeds the hungry (Gen.iii. 21; 1 Sam. ii. 5; Pe mii. 5 f.; Lk. i. 53). and sends away his fdlow-believss with n p e g l i m s of mofidcnce. To James such a respons is wholly inadequate. He canna 17 give this expression of faith even the qualified approval that be will give to another in v. 19. This faith is not simply inadequate or unprofitable in relation to the situation p o d , it a Lums

121

THE EPISTLE OF JAhfES

ii. 17-18

is d d in itself. Rows riehth, em~haeiscsthat the mntnat hae is not simply &tare& f&b ind w m h but beta dead faith and a living one. T h man is presumed to have the means to supply the sseda of the body ( f a rpr'fidein tou s h a t o t ; a p h m c foundonly here in the NT, thou& common in c l a ~ i c authors), d to &e his pious hope n &lity, and does not do so. He believes that God would wish such need to be relieved (since his prayer is that God will resgond to it), yet he does not himself act in accordance with that belief. (The argument of Jack T. Sandas that in James's insistence that the needy be relieved a 'humanistic principle' opmtes (Ethics in the New T e ~ t a m m t ,London 1975, pp. 125-128). ia anachronistic and inadequate. The works of charity are not for James n matter of 'mere humanity', but of live faith in God.) 18 At this point there is an intetjection into the argument, someone will say ., which poses an enremely difficult critical question, discussed at length by R a p , pp., 208-214. and Dibelius, pp. 1SCISI. The probkm is that the interjector appears to attribute to J a m s himself precisely the claim that he has been opposing: 'You have faith'. and to c d i t himself with that which James had advocated: 'I have worls'.l Apart from resorting to suggestions that there has been a major cormption of an original text in which the claims were reversed, there are three main lines of approach to a solution of this pmblem First, the interjector, the someone, may b identified as an ally of J a m s , taking up his pasition in the attack on the 'man of faith'(- Mayor, who comments that this attack demands a daim to 'works' which James is t m modest to make for himself); or with James himslf as putting up an 'Aunt Sally' suggestion (lanemight say', '1 might as well say') that works and faith might be separated, only to knock it down in the second half of the verse (so Chaine). Secondly there are attempts to make sense of the t e n as it stands and to suggest a content for the faith with which J a m s seems to

..

'

This ia .pluming with mo* mmmcnutm th.1 t k inf+aion mnsiats of v. l h . Some vguc th.1 it mnrinves in lab, m e wen inelude r. 19. But 18b is m a . plsuibly rend la an kmk demand to do the ~mposribk. and v. 19 ur *n cqudly imnic demonauntion of the mnnmng!esmesaof no rppal only to faith.

122

ii. 18

FAITH AND WORKS

be credited md the amLa which his opponnt d s i m s By dismisaine nu daim w futh in v. 17.. lames imolies that he knowAhst rcd fdlh is, indeed that he posx&s st. Be t h a as ~t may ('You have futh. do you, Junes?'), the man he has emdcmncd msy Iny dntm dur to works. hut not J a m s ' s son of works: worts ofthe Law ('I hrve works as w l l ao youl'; thw Hon, and d Reidc). Thiidh, it may be prwcd thnt the You I dininnion &odd nbt be &ken & soeeifinllv, d a t i n g w Jarnco and m opponent, but may be lakm more lmsely 88 the cxpmsion d two conmsted posittm~.'me has faith and mother has warks'(n, Ropes. who cites a not wholly convincing parallel from the cynic Teles). The hrst approach must be dismised. T o intmdwe m ally who disappears as abruptly ns he has n p p m d ia nn unlikely procedure far any writer, however modest. Momover, as Ropes and Dibelius argue, the phr~aeall' n e i ti* is so standard an introduction of an objstion, especially in the diatribe tmdition, that it muld not be used in reference to the authar himself, or his 'scond'. It docs not x c m to be dew, though thnt the objection must necessarily be I hostile one; it could, come from P neutral obscwa or an interested but perplexed listener (d 1 Cor. xv. 35, where the objection, 'How arc the dcad r a i d ? ' muld be read either la a scornful attempt to ridicule Paul's prodamation of resurrection as prrposteroua or as the punled queaion of one who desires to believe but finds the idea unimaginable). The scond appmach certainly mads the words as those of an objector, but demands a new undemanding of 'works' which is neither made explicit nor tnkm up in the auhsequrnt munter-attack. The third suggestion ssems to fit best into the xquenee of the nrgurnmt. James hss anted t h t faith without works i s dcad, that the two are inxpamhle. But is this uuc? Might it not be objected that they are different activities, doubtless complementary and equally praiseworthy, but the provinces of different persons?(Cantinat and Mitton m m p r e 1 Cor. xii C I I , whac faith is anc among the gifts of the Spirit. 'to another faith by the same Spirit; to mother gifts of healing !; cf. llso Rom. xii 6 8 , where scpamte instruction is given to 'he that cxhortcth' and 'he that giveth'; or even Ans v i

.

...

.

..

123

2-4, a h the twchn require seven p m m s to see to the ' h i Iv miniarntion' m thst thev can d w tkrnsclvcs to m v s r and {be minmtry of the word.) i t is& som to & m e ihekaelves to ehuitnble works, for o t h a s to give themaelves to fnith, c e @ally if faith is arm S8 rehtcd to prayer in v. 16. The s m n e m who puts lorwnrd this Prgument is not ~ x s s a r i l yto be identified with the one of vou of v. 16. but wodd be seen to give the d d m w of that lin; Lf conduct. Yet ewn this attempt to give contmt to the objection in terms of genuinely held positions may be loo dsborate for Jams's rhetorical struc ture. He may just be putting up P m a w man in order to knock him dawn: supposing purely artificially n scprntion of faith and works in order to enfonr his m m n t for their inscpuabiiity (thus Dibdius) Faith cannit stand apart: sbow m e this fmitb o f y o u r s aitbavt works is an impossible d c man4 but I rill demonstrate to you my faith from my works, for they are its proper expression.' (The objection to the thud line of approach, that of taking 'you' and 'I' as equivalent to 'one' and 'another'. is thst it assumes that the Greek m and qi could be used as equivalent to kis and ktems, a usage which does not seem at d wen mbstantisud. Moreover in v. 1% the pmnouns m u l d seem to revm to their nonnal usage, 'show me this fnith of yours'; even if 'yours' means 'the faith you are talking about' rather than 'the faith you claim'; and 'I will show you .'. The objection is admitted. This solution to tbe di&dty ia adopted bsnuae it Beems to make the beat sense in context. not beausc it is mtimly satisfactory.) 19 T o reinforce the point that it is not the mntmt of an expression of faith that he is quarrelling with but ita lack of

..

I Pcrblp

.

imii.Oy. IIW k b c l mmmnt, d m pnphn-, on this p""ge m y be f d in lufhrr'. Rdy+ to thr Epi& of 51 hul to the Romans: '0it is living, buv. active mighty thing. 116s faith It i8 i m pasiblc lor it mt to k doing gmd things i n m ~ m ~ l It y .d a s mt .I vkskr gmd work8 are to k done, but k f m e t k qucaim is asked, it haa a h d y dmcrhem.and ismnnmtly ddngth- Whoenrdoc8mtdo uch work% ho-s, is an unbeliever.Hc gropcs md Imb m n d for faith md g o d works, but kmws neither what f a t h is o m what g o d pork8 .re. Yct hc rdka and tdh, with many ararda, about faith and g m d mrka! 121

FAITH AND WORKS

i i 19

c m n a i o n 6 t h d o n , Jamca atea what must be a central t m n both for himaclf and his upposed objector: You klisre tbmt Cod i. one, do yem? You do rdl.The first s e n t m e can be read as a simple statemnt of fact: certainly the rhetorical question is not intended to cast any doubt on what the man believes: he believes this, and it is a good thing to believe. There is some t e n u d variance over the expression of belief. A number of t m a , notably B, lack the ddinite article and so read the statement as heir theor estin: 'there is one God', a s t a t e m t of simple monotheism. This reading is preferred by Hort and Ropes, probably b c a u x it is unusual to find them without an mide. Other t e n s include the article but vary the word order; the above translation is based on the reading of p 74, K and A among other Greek MSS, and sup wrted bv ,the Comic. Svriac and Armenian versions: heir estin ho theos. This mading is also adopted by Kilptriek and the UBS ten, and among commentators by Mayor and Dibelius It gives a statemalt rather about God's character than simply his existence: God is me. The datum of faith thus appaled to is not specifically Christian. It is of course characteristic of Judaism (Deut. vi. 4 makes the acceptance of it basic to Inel's behavim and this formed pan of the twice-daily mitation of the S h m a , and fw Phila it is the aceond article of his 'creed', Dc Opif. 171);but it is equally so of Christianity in its Jewish heritage(d. 1 Cor. viii. 4 4 ;Gal. iii. 20; Eph iv. 6; 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; Hcrmaa, Mnnd i. and Didoche i. I),and it has a special plan in this authar's thought (selntmduction p. 30). It might be mggested that the statement of belicf is m d c not just in gmaally acceptable tams, but s@ally in terms of the Shemo, whether as read in Deut. vi. 4 ar as recited. T h e LXX t e n as we have it reads Kutior rather than Theor for the divine name in the Hebrew ten, but it is not clear in what words the Shono would have brrn recited by Greek-s@ing Jews. and it is possible that Thms and Kurior might have been alternative mbstitutes fm the n a m . Another explanation of James's choice of wards will be suggested below, but it is rcwnsble to suppose that any a h t i o n of the oneness of God would mntain, or evoke, an allusion to the central t e n

.

.

.,

125

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

ii. 19

for ha d d m t i o n , even withut exact quomtion; and if such an allusion were caught there might k for the Christiq an additional point of connection, with Jesus' c o n h a t i a n of Dcut. vi. 4 (Mk xii. 29 ff.). In this tradition Jesus brought t o e n h a Dcut. vi. 4 and Lev. x k 18.. n coniunnion thnt seems , to be original whim (unlcs Test. I s . v. 2 IS certatnly e~rl~cr). d which was maintained in Christian ethical insvucuon, cf. Did. i. 1, which in contrast to Barn. xi*. 2 appears ns n Chrisrianising of the original T w o Ways' material. Though this is often simplified into the double command to love Gad and the neiehbour without the intrcduetorv doctrinal basis for the fist ?so Matt. l d i . 37 &and L b x. i7,editing Mark). it is unlikely that that basis was forgotten. It is notable that James singles out for approval in the spme tmns, you do well, Lev. x k . 18 in ii. 8 and the nffumation that Gad is one, here, a d this may be bsause he has in mind their conjunction by Jesus and sees them as having an equal status and authority. Howcva tha may be, the acfeptanac of so central a tenet of belief cannot be o t h a than approved. andyou do well is n a ironical. The sting in the tail is in what follows: the demons believe that tw. and they shudder. This passage is often cited to show that James's understanding of faith is of it as mere intcllmual a s m t to a prnposition.' which even a demon can make. This is meatlv . to undervalue Tames's veument. The demons' a s m t is by no means merely intellectual: in believing that Gad is one they belleve something about h m that evokes a response: thnt as one he is wholly and consistently their memy, and fhcy shudder. The pinure of the demons' recognition of Gad is mmparabk to that of demons recagnising Jesus in the Markan exorcism traditions (Mk i 24.. ili. 11.. v. 71.,. when the naming should not be seen as merely rdcntifieation hut as a defiant attempt to gain powr o v a the a d v a o q whom t h y can pee has eomc 'to destroy us' (Mk i. 24). It is highly p h a b l e that Jnms's own illusmtion has its background in the practice of a o r d a m The verb vlndated

' A% for eamplq b,

lk Hebrrm. London

K W.Momcfim, A C-ay I'M*. p. 187. 126

on tho Ep"tk to

ii. 19

FAITH AND WORKS

s h ~ . p h r i ~ia~only i , used in g m m l tenno in the LXX to express horror or fnr (though the use for a reaction to visions in Job iv. 14 f. and Dan vii. IS is intarsting) but baa n very specific use in the papyi. It 'is constantly used of the dim that the m-r wishes to bring about by means of his magic' (MM). The Leiden pnpyi contain an exnmple similar to James, mmmending the exorcist 'to say the p a t name (A6th). which every god kneels to and at which every demon shuddm'; and Deissmann gives, from the Paris papyri, a Jewish example contained in a phylactery (or amulet?) which is to be hung mund the neck of the patient beeausc 'it is of every demon mmcthing to be shuddered at (phriktm), which he fears' (A. Deissmann, Lightfrom the Ancient East, p p 254 260). Ddssmsnn also m r d s an example which he calls 'A Sepnugint Memorial': 'I c h q e you by the holy n a m which I shall name it and the demons shall be is not spakcn aroused and astounded, 2nd shall be in great f e d (Bible Studies, E T Edinburgh 1901, p. 288).' This last example may suggest an explanation for the choia by James of the 'God is one' formula of faith. In the Jewish incantation the divine name is not spoken, its prmunciation being kept as an ultimate threat. The magical pap* reveal that in this syncretistic s i e n a the Old Testament n s m s and titles for Gad w a c fnqumtly and often arangdy employed (ace, for exam plc. J. Hull, Hellmistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, Landm 1974, p. 31), but it serma probable that mch use would be shunned by an 'orthodox' Jcwish e m i n , and the statement 'God is one' or appeal to 'the one God' would be sufficiently spcdfic and mffidcntly patent. Jeremias comments on this pasage that the demons tremble 'whenever the ~ l Orbs r is used aa an n m i n formula' (J. Jeremias. 'Paul and James', ExT LXVI. 195CSS. p. 370). The formula need not be confincd to Jcwish use though; Dibelius paints out that it could appeal to Hdlenintic us in the context of papular philomphy'~tending to monotheism, and E. Peterson links the formula with the ATm name found in the magical papyri

...

'Justin M y r d e m i h he,.ealhoddcring' brforr t k pmcr d in tk d c d Chri~,Die+ A i r 22.

Cad -&d

I27

ii. 1%20 THE EPISTLE OF J m S (ELOe61, Giinmgca 1926, pp. 295 &). Funher uae of the language of exorcism may be f n n d I a a m the epistle, at iv. 7; and d. Inmduaion, p. 5 f. James's orgvmntum ad hmninrm is, tka. a pungent on% He4s not concerned to mmrnst faith, as intellectual assent, with works, but to indicate the neccssyr outcome of faith, if it is a live faith, and theimpossibility of its existing alone. For the demons, belief in the God who is one produces a response of fear (if there is indeed an cmrcist background it could be said that adslaration of thisfaith is itself active, effecting the work of casting out the demon). The idea that belief in God as one cnrries implications for action is not of course a new one, but goes back to Deut. vi. 4 itself: 'The Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord thy Gad with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might', and the Rabbis pondered the proper expression of that total love (see B. Gerhardsson, 'The parable of the Sower and its interpmaioo', pp. 167-169; and Berakolh v. 5). For Jclus,whose teaching may be in James's mind, love of the Gad who is m e leads tolow of theoeighbour. The challengeto James's man of faith is to show what response his profemion cmkesfrom him 20 The next stage of James's argument is to confront the stupid man with sriptural examples as authority for his position The direct, harsh address is characteristic of diatribe style (d.Rom ii. 1; 1 Cor. m. 36). James's imagined objector is chsracterised as k m s , lit. 'empty'. The faith he advocates is, without works. useless. Some MSS read nekro, dead probably in nssimilation to w. 17 acd 26; p74 describes the faith as h i , empty, like the mnn himslf, assimilating the sc cond half of the verse to the first; but the majority of MSS have nrgi, which as a contraction of o-ergi,provides a nice pun in James's typical style. Faith without works is indeed 'workless'; useless. It ia at this point that James intmduxs into his ergument about faith and works the idea of justihtion, and the nnmpk of Abraham. The queation is therefore raised of the relation of his argument to Paul's discussion of justification in Gal. ii. and. mom fully, Rom. ii-iv; the question that makes this probably the most discussed m i a n of the epistle (as MU 128

ii 20-25

PNTH AND WORKS

aa the commmurin. re J. Jeremias, 'Paul and Jams', cited above). The a p p m t mtnheaia between Paul m d James cm be prarnlcd most sharply in the conwarn betPaul's judgment in Rom. ii. 28. 'wc m k o n that a man isjustified by faith without works', and Jnmes's conclusion in v. 24, you see, then, that a man is juni$ed by ambr and m t by foith alone. On closcr amination, however. the two arguments nppar kas closely engaged. B a h writas quote Gen. rv. 6 Uas v. 23; Paul, Rom iv. 22; Gal. iii. 6), but w h c m s Paul interprets the justifying faith of Abraham in relation to the immdiate cont e a of the pmmiacs of Gad (Rom iv. 18, quoting &. rv. 5. d Gal. iii. 16). James links it with the offering of Isaac (v. 21. alluding to Gen. xxii. 2, 9). In this linking of &. xv. with Gen. uii.James passs without comment over the account of Abraham's drcumcision in Gen. mi, and thereby mises a vitally important point in Paul's cagetical argument: that A h h a m ' s justification was promnced befm he was c i r eumcised. and can therefm have no relation to the Law (Rom. iv. %I 1). This lends on ton acmnd and mom obvious differena. When Paul opcaks of 'works' in relation to justification, he q e & s consistently md explicitly of worka of obedicnec to the Jewish Lnw ( R m . ii. 20.28, d.x. 31 1.; Gal iii. 10 f.). Thc Law plays, however, no prt in Jams's argument at this point, and his understmding of mmks is man naturally acm in tenns ofthe deedsof charity demanded in v. IS t Paul's other deduction from the example of Abraham that justification applies to the gentile in the same way as to the Jew (Rom. iv. I I f.; Gal. iii. 7-9), is not m n 8 i d c d by James.Nor don, he attempt an alternative exegesis of Paul's second major pmof-ten. Hab. ii. 4, 'the just by faith shall live' louotcd in Rom. i. 17 and Gal. iii. 11). which one m i l t have erpeeted h ~ mto do Ilhe was attemptang both to engage wllh Paul and to eatablrsh hns case from srtpturc Conwruly. h a scond smptural example, that of Rahab ( v 25). has no place in the Pauline argument. It is unlikely, therefore, thrt James's argument isdeveloped in relation to Paul's, as that apmle ayatcmticdy expounded i r Even bearing in mind E. L. Allen's warning hcrr that 'the history of theological dimmion s h o a that no limits whntI29

THE EPISTLE OF J M a S

i i 2&25

axw em be a a p i m i to t k p d b i l i t i e s of misundemand i e ('Cmmasg in the New Testament', NTS 1,1954-55, o. 1441. he mifir uro mvlv m i n t s Yet the mkmical tone bt v. 24 cannot be igmcd, m h i k majority o f ~ o m m t n t a s agree that the Pauline doctrine 8s In s o m way the issue inw l d . Mayor. a mtzbk exception to this pried cansensug q u a for the priority of J m s to Paul, and that Paul mites to corrst a mimse of this epistle in the Judaising interest (his argument has m m t l y bem r e v i d by J. A. T. Robinson, R e dntinr the N m Testament...o. 1261. , This takes the mint that Jomcs d u s not deal thnrarghly 6 t h Paul's arpmcnt, hut gweo insufficient weight to James's pokmnul tone. The idea of justtficat8on is an imponant one in Old Testsment and sub&umt Jewish thought. In t k forensic mntext to which the laneunne oridnallv belonced. iuaification d m e d to the jud$;'s';erdng'on ;hc 8ndhvTddupl before h ~ m who is acquitted or pronounced 'sn the right' on the basis of his proven innomar. Thi, ~desof being 'ln the right'could be extended to describe the status of one person over against another in a situation w h m the criteria applied am not strictly thox of pmvm h u e (Gen. nxviii. 26; Lk. xviii. II: Tamar m d the ~ublienn are mat vinuous mmns in sonightforward &x). Funher, t k O T idea $the judge included his function of upholding the cights of prmna nt n d i e advantage and in need of protection. like widows and orphans and the pmr (Pmv. nxi. 8 f.; Is. i. 17). This understanding of justice is srrn ns suthoriscd by Gad. and when the language is used of hlm, it is of him ra the judge who is expected to pronounce the verdict of acquittal and to confer the status d being in the right with him on thox whox obedience ( c s p s i d y to the Law) merits sueh a verdict; as Paul reminds his resdela in Rom. ii. 13; Gd. iii 1 1 f. He is also however w h e n of, n p c d d y by DeutemIsPiah as 'just' in his dchvaanec of Israel Irom oppression ( I s xlv. 21,d.xlvi. 13 and Ex. ri. 6); pmbably in an extension of the idea that the judge is dm the p r a a o r of thox in need. Theological problems a r i x whm Gad is not a m to k acting in this way: the argument of Job is anrked out very much in terms of Jab's right d God's apparent injustice (c.g. Job rriri. 2-7. 130

u 2&25

P N T H AND WORKS

mu 2-6); or wben the wrdia djuatifrstion is pronounced

in a situation which aKms w h w incompatible with it. This is the @& pmdox d Paul. In dcehring both that 'an have sinned', and yet that 'we nre justified freely' (Rom.iii 23-24), he is compelled to ares& with the idea of the justice of God,so mvnl to his Jewish k i t a g e , and to show thst it is tolaable and indeed nscsspry both to seem to describe God as an unjust judge (Rom iv. 5, cf. I s v. 23) and yet to continue to sssm that he is 'just and the justfir' (Ran. iii 76) --r

It in impouible here fully ro disuss Paul's doctrinc of junificnion. or indeed t k background of interpretation ofthe idea against && he cxpouods his own' Suffice it OI say here thst in his exposition Paul distinguishes between any 8uggwtcd rMe for men's works in the forming of God's judgment, which he rules out as smposs~ble~n vliw of mm'b sinf u l n a s ( R m . sii. 9-20). and therdlc of fanth rr the acacpanrr that Cod m fa& does the ~rnposeblc,as he dtd for Abraham and as he now does in justifying mmersin Chnst ( R o . v 1 7 1. 23 ff.). It is this absolute hametion between faith and wcrks in relation to juraification that secms to have no p e dent in Judaism (wen in 2 Ed. k. 7 t, xiii. 23. where works and faith secm to be distinguished, &ey are sm as alternative poudble m m s of salvation m d not as o p p d ) , md which is the subjen of Jamcs's attack. As argued above, it is highly unlikely that his familiarity with the distinction mmes from a following of Paul's a m wrinm argument. and probable instead that he has hcud it used ns a slogs" by a h m s to mppon their own position. Paul himself feared that his teaching would he twisted (indeed secm to haw k n o m that it had b- 80 twisted) to licence nntinanianirm or libertinism (Rom iii. 8, vi. I). It d a s not sEem likely that James has met it in this connection: his concern is not here with immorality but with quietism, t k argumnt that confession of

'

Paul's qnmcnt i8 d rmor m d p d n d v v i a n l y inin mm -tad" on bm~mmd Wti.n% md in t h . mpl T k k + d the New Terne.g. R. BuhTlu* o/tk N m Testa-. Vd. I. ET Landon 1952, pp. 270-285; nd W. G.Kumml. Thr T h m k o j Ik

Nn. Tnranmr. ET Lmdon 1974 pp. 193-203 131

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

ii 20

God is dl, that nprrsmms of aum in God obviate the ncnuity fw taking any action about human need (the mmc auggemion is m i d rhctorially after the statement d justification by faith in 1 Clem m i i i . 1; ef. Introduction, p 16 f.l 1;ia a funhm quntion rhRha J m s heard the 'jumificr tion by faith done' dogan quoccd as attributed to Paul. Deapite Jeremias's auggestim that it is Jcaua' teaching in the mrable of Lk. xviii. 14 that is the origin of Paul's docvine imr: cil. p. 396 f.), tbc NT evidcnoc sukests that the usc of jlrntficrion as a t s m for snlvntron is m the Chrbm~anwaditton peculidy asmc~atedmth Paul. Luke, who stems in Acts to betray little if any knowledge of Paul's epistles, uses the t m n only once, putting it into the mouth of Paul in the only one of his apeshes (apart from his apologia under trial) that is a d d r e d to ]ewe, and in relation to the question of the Law (Acts xiii. 38 f.). Similarly, the author of the Pastoral epiedcs, writing u n d s the name of Pnul, uses the language of justifkcation in s summary account of salvation, probably 'paulinising' a a t e m t y p d mnfcssionnl or credal formula ( T i t iii. 4-7). The likelihood is, therefore, that w b a James heard the sloean 'iumification bv faith alone' used (or misusd) it was rs&ing the nutho& of Paul. (For the;mplication; of l h s for reconstructing James's situation, sm Introduction rr.--

-.-,

Attempts to hnrmmiae J m s and Paul and thus pmdux an npcatolic arnacnsu4 nn pmblbly fruitless Certainly they have more in common than the bdd iumawmtion oftheir kev natemcnts micht on i t " surrcm. It has &eadv'been n-d. 19, that faith 19 not for J a m s stmply a w n t to a propornnon 11 8s for hrm as for Pnul a m a t t s of relattonah~pwlth Cod and st $3 nnklng that Jams's refc~mmeto fsrth outs#& thns conten mnnen it with prPFr (p, i. 6, v. 15) or with must in face of adversity (ii. 5, poverty is faced in assunace of Gad's promise; i. 3, trials am to be ocm as having a purpose). Paul, tm, outside the tight argumnts of Gal. iii and Rom. iii-iv, asumes the necessity of good works ss the expression of w response of faith ( c t the'fmits of the Spirit'of Gal. v. 22, and the logic of Rom. xii. 1 R.), and wen writes of a future judg132

-

u 21

FAITH AND WORKS

w n t on the b a d s d worts (I Cm. iii. 13; 2 Cm. v. 10). TN+ tm, they address themklvcs to different sspens of aplvrtion: Paul to the initial a p n i a ~ d c accepby God;J a m s to the cminuine life of faith. Yet Paul muld s m l v never have tdcnted Jpmeds explicit ~ a r n i o n1h.l lustiFr.tion is a t by Joith a h nor his lack of attention to an initial ssvlng act of God that mpkes hith and consequent good works possible. Howevs much one may modify the s"perficial contrast, a basic lack of sympathy must remain. It is doubtful. t w , if James could have followed Paul's 21 highly original exegesis of the example of Ahaham, for his own appeal to that a a m p k is simpk and traditional. He refers, like Paul, to Abraham ns our father. This would of course be a familiar daim for a Jew (e.g. M a t t iii. 9; Lk. iii. 8; Jn viii. 33, 39; Aboth v. 3), but Paul claimed Abraham also for gentile Christians (Rom. iv. 11-12. 16; Gal. iii. 7 f.. 29), perhap following precedent in proselyte theology, d on v. 25. Clemnt alsl describes Abraham as 'our fathcr'. in addressing n Christian community that is certainly not exclusively, if at d,Jewish Christian ( I Clem. m i . 2). In fact, as he cites them nciths of Junes's examples explicitly makes the point that he wishes, for the 'work' of Abraham seen to complete his faith was not actually performed, since Isaac was not in the end aerificed, and converrly although Rahab's 'work' is derrribed in v. 25, there is no mention of her faith1 In both caaeg however, familiar ideas are being drawn on. Whether v. 22 is mad as a statement or as a rhnoricd question. James appears to aasum that his interlocutor, and his reader, d follow him in his association of Abmaham'sjustific.tion d h both his faith and his deed+ The s r i p t w which mnnas Abraham's juatifk~tion with his faith requires to befullflled,and sueh fulfilment is to be seen in terms of Abraham's works. me justification of Abraham by God rests on God's magnition of something p r o m a provable in Abraham's faith. Such an idea, dearly d i m to Paul 6nds m y p n l W s in Jewish murces. Abnhun's faith undaatocd as trus in Godm fidelity,might be seen as itseXachievcdand m a s s mritorious work: 'Abrahamour father inherited this worldmdthe world to 133

THE EPISTLE OF J M S

ii. 21-22

come aoldy by the muit offaith, w k b y he b e l i d m the L a d ' (Mekilt4 on Ex. xiv. 31 d u r i n g to Gen. n.6). UThrc

faith is n s w d y undsaood in rchtion to thc Tmh, Abraham's was e e a as mnsiaing in his having fuKXed the whole Law M o r e it wan written (Kiddwhin iv. 141. At a less saphtaicated levd, and more familk, isthc ides that kbrahsm's fnith wasdcmonaratedinhisuialo,ofwhch the requirement to sPmficc Ioonc was the find and most crucial tea: 'Was not Abraham found faithlulintrmptatio~nndit wsmunted tohim for rightmuwcss?'(I Maw. ii. 52; d.Ecelus div. 2O);'Withten temotations was Abraham our father temoted. and he stood steabfaa in them all.toshow how great was;hel&eof~braham o w father'(Abo1h v. 4; d. Jubilees xvni. 17 1.. rk.8. where the &~thofSarahisthefinaltrid).FortheauthorsofHcbrrwsmd 1 Clement, too, the movement of thought from Gen. xv. 6 to Gcn a d i is a natural one, since it is the child ofthe promise who is to be sacrified and t h a e f m the faith of Abrahnmin that promise thatiabeingputagaintothe~mf(Hcb.d.17f.; lClelax.E-7). While setting James's argument in the eantcn of familiar idcae (and for further discussion md illustration of thc Jewish i n t e pretation of the faith of Abraham, scc Dibelius, pp. 169-172 and Lighdmt, Golafinnr, pp. 155-164), his characteristic emphasis should alwbenoted. Therelationbetween Abraham's 22 faith and his works is not properly one of consequence, demonaration or confinnation. all of which tvms assume a measure of drstrnctlon betmen the two: for James they go together in a necessary unity, fnith co--mtd with his wake. .nd by worlrs faith was m d e complete. Some commentators find a discrepancy between the use o f the plurd works in w. 21 and 22 and the appeal to the single, snd unperformed, act of the offering of Isaac. Thus R. B. Ward draws attention to the imiiar conjunction of Abraham and Rahab as oremplsrs in 1 Clem. x- xi^, where they are examples of faith and of hospitality, philoxenia ("The W a k s of Abraham', HTR 61, 1968, pp. 283-290). It is Rahnb's acts of hospitality that demonstrate her faith in Jas ii. 25 and so, Ward sueeeas.. the workr of Abraham to which Tames refers should be understmd in the same way, with both James and Clement r d l a i n g the strong tradition of Abraham as an Q-

FAITH AND WORKS

ii. 22-u

hoapiuble man (deriving from Gen, Kiand akn in Atuth R. Nathan i. 7 and the midnah on Ps m i i . 7. w h m Ab.h.m is an innkeeper, the can-" of whoac guests 8s hia payment). 'lhe sncrifia d Isue, since it did not take place, wna not a justifying w a k ; rather its being averted is the sign of the justification A h h a m hnd received for his hospitality to the three angels. This e m s to q u i r e a rework of dlusian more complicated thnn Jaws's usual use of scripture suggests. and as he sems clearly to define Rahab's works in v. 25, so he may be taken to do so with Abraham in v. 21. Should the p l u d noun seem to need any explanation, it would m m probably lie in the idea of the offering of Iwac as the culmination of Abrrh~m's tests But the plural is myl no more appropriate in the cane of M a 4 for the reception and safc-xnduct of the w s m g e m is a single event rsthm than two distinct actions; and the use of ergo in both nampla, m l y dcriws fmm the contrast between faith and wrkr throughout w. 14-24 the language being impossd on both illusvations of the them, mher than emerging from a strictly literal consideration of their content. Apart from his conjunction of Gen. xv. 6 with Gen. u i i which, although it is not indicated in Genesis itself and is alien to Paul. has been shown to be a familiar one. lames's use of the passage is straightforward. T h e is no'tkce in his reference to the offering of Isaac d the inmasing Jewish interest in Isaac's own participation in the event as willing vie tim (ssc G. Vameq Sniptun and Tradifia in Judaism. Leidm 1961. pp: 19S218); Abraham remains the cmtrd 23 figure. The dtauon of Gen. xv. 6 derives fmm the LXX which differs fmm the Hebrew t e n in expressing the subje~t of the %st m b . 'Ahahom believed', and in replacing the aetive of the scmnd. 'he r s k o m d it', by the passive, 'it was reckoned'. Jmeaditiers slightly fmm the LXX in hisopening conjunction, makiig a stylistic improvement, and in giving the name Abrohom ratha than the LXX 'Abmm'. The latter is of c w s e comct. since Abram is not dven his new name until Cm. N i t 5, hut the ncw name is the more familiar, and the slrp. as it most probably 1% is easily explained tf the quotation is made from mcmary rather thnn n consultation of the 135

THE EPISTLE OF J M S

i i 23

ten. (Paul, incidentally, shows the same ditTmmrs from the LXX in his quotation in Rom. iv. 3 and Gal. iii. 6). The final dause of v. 23 ie m a e oroblem~tical.since although tt seems to be included under ihe oratton of snip lure, the dcsnptran of Abraham ns Mend of Cod d u s nor derive from Gen. rv. 6. In the Hebrew t e a of I s xli. 8 God is seen to speak of Abraham as 'my friend' and in 2 Chron. xx. 7 Jehoshaphat refers in prayer & the seed of Abraham 'thy friend', but in neither ease does the LXX translate with the naunphilos but paraphrases with the verb agopn6: Abraham 'whom I loved' ( I s xli. a), or 'who was loved by you' ( 2 Chon. xx. 7; d. Dan iii. 35. LXX, d 2 E d . iii. 14). This might seem to indicate that if James's reference is indeed 'miptural', then it must derive fmm the Hebrew scripture. However, rhc designation of OT saints PS philoi theou in Greek-splbing Judaism can be a e n in W i d . vii. 27 and Philo, De Vita Mos. i. 28, and them is some suggestion that epithets implying the divine affection found their way into Greek versions of the Abraham saga itself. Gen. rviii. 17 in the Hebrew reads 'shall I hide from Abraham the thing which I do?', and the LXX as we haw it adds 'from Abraham f m paidor mod, 'my chid' or 'my servant'. Philo quotes the p a w g e in this form in Lcg. All% iii. 27, but in De Sobr. 56 he ouoles the same v s s e in the farm ohilmr mou. 'mv frtkd' As 11ts rclattvdy anun that Phtlo ;ad has bable od; ~n Greek, m d a n a n that he based hs cxegesto on the Cmk t e n , rt d d be jusdfiable to conclude that he knew a ton that gave that rending; and as James refers to two pansof the Abraham saga, it would be more likely that he derived his third r e f a e n a h m that -ten than from Isaiah or Chronides However, it is perhaps more probable that the Hebrew passages originally supplied the title for Abraham, which became popular (c.g. Jubilees xi% 9; CD iii. 2; it is found frequently in tprgums on the saga and in Rabbinic literature, cf. J. Bowker, The Targums ond Rabbinic Literature, Cambridge 1969, pp. 209, 212), and passed into Greek-speuting Judaism without dirrn dependence on the biblical ten, but ratha intruding glosses into it. Philo's vanant quaations of Gen. xviii. 17 may be seen as evidence 136

PNTH A M ) WORKS

ii. 23-25

of mcb glmdng. James, then, is mc suictly quoting rripture at this point but d o i n g a familiar deaeription of Abraham which ultimately bas a s a i p d bnckgmund The continuing popularity of the description of Abnham asfrimdof God can Lx seen in early Christian literstm (I Clem. x. 1, xvii. 2; Ten.Adv. Jud. ii. 7 ; Iren. Ado. Haer. iv. 14. 4, 16. 2; all passages surely independent of Junes). and ultimately in its passing into the hnguage of Islam (Rops cites the Qwnn. rvro iv. 124 and the description of Abraham as d k k l i n . Before citing his second a m p l e . James states his genad 24 canelusion fmm his fist. It is imnically he and not Paul who gave Luther his term by faith done, and this is a vital pan of his argument. He is not concerned to s t faith and works againat each other and deny the former any rdle in justification; what he is contrasting is 'faith without works' d 'waks inleparnbk from faith'. Abraham is ovr father and thefriendof Cod; R d a b ia hi 25 F I G , the h u h r James and H e h w a , xi. 31, show m, h d t a tion in following the OT and so desriiing her, whereas Josephus, A d . v. 7 and the Palestinian tagum m Josh. ii. 1 make h a an innlrcepr ( 8 e note ad loc, in the L a b edn of Ant. v). The two figures, the holy patriarch and the Binful foreign woman, stand as sharply cunmaing illustrations of the same theme. as Junes emphasiscs with his introductory wm. Rahab is 1 compnrativcly minor character in the hexatnuh, apparing only in Josh ii and vi, but later legends gathered about her. With Sarah. Abigail and Esther, she was one of the four chief beauties, she married Joshua, and bccune the aneesvcss of eight priests who were also prophets, including Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Megilloh 14L-15~). Josphus, Ant. v. 12, and Clement. 1 Clem. rii 8, deacribe her ( f a different reams) as herslf a prophetess. In the Matthean genealogy, Matt. i. 5, she is (by a union with Salmon) one of the ancestresses of the Christ, singled out for mention with Tzmar, Rvth and Bathsheba, d four women whose sexual unions were, initially at least, irregular, and who s r v e therefore as in wme meaaw t y p s of Mary whose apparently shameful conception was in fan blessed. Most of the later interest in her was fmacd an two 137

ii. 25

THE EPISTLE OF J M S

demenu of the biblid narratim:hrr confession in I&. ii. 11 that 'the L a d your God is he who is God in h k m n above and on anh beneath', a sutrment of faith that is d m the & m u to Moues' pramblc to the m r m n d m c n t s in Dcut iv. 39; and the note in Josh. vi. 25 that after her macue from Jericho she dwelt in I m d 'to this day'. She therefore came to be seen as the archctypd pmsdytc, the foreigner who makes the confcsaion of Isael's faith and enters the community of IsneL Daube quotes Joshua b. Lcvi's account of the prayer of Hnekiah in his illness: he ' m d to the wall of Rahah, saying. Lord of the Univass Rahah saved only two souls for thee.. (the spies she helped to escape), and how many oouls hast thou mvcd lor her.. (dher family were spared); my f a t h m g a t h e d for thee d the proselytes.. how much the m m shauldest thou s p v e mcl' (D. Daube, The Nm Tcrloment and Rabbinic JuLin.London 1956. p. 354). It i s prhaps because she has this character that she is p a i d with Abraham here, for he a l s could be thought of as a v ~ c l y t e : Paul's apped to him as the father of the gentiles who have faith (Rom. iv. 11) has pnrallcls h Philo's account of his COGversion from a d religion (De Virt. 211-216; 'He is the standard of nobility for all pmslytes'. De Virr. 219), and in the description of him in Mckilto an Ex. adi. 20 as the M proselyte, on the hasis of his words in Gen. adii. 4 'I am a manger and a sojourmr with youS. The conjunction of Abraham and Rnhab by James. then, may he not simply because they pmvidc a dramatic contrast, but b e c a w they &ady belong t o g n h a in Jewiah preaching in their character as ideal proselytes Clement probably draws indcpmdently on t k same ideas when be couples them together as examples of 'faith and hospitality' (1 Clem x. 7, xii. 1; the intervening n m p l e of Lot being of 'hospitality and piety', eurebio). It would seem then that the idea of Rahsb's faith would be sufficientlyfamiliar for James to assume that when he referred simply to her wmb, they wwld be aeen to be works in which faith dso was o p t i v c . Gmnted this assumption. J l w s ' s appeal to the a m p l e of h h n h is as BvaighdorarPd .amthat ofAbnham.He indudes none of the legendary devclapmcnts nfcmd to above, nor 138

.

.

.

THE POWER OF THE TONGUE

ii. 25-26

does be fmd hidden rmninga in the events as does Clcmnt in her ' s u l n tbrcad' (1 Qem. xii. 7-8; d.Justin, Dialogue c x i 10). T h e window thmugh which & k t them down is aimPy the other way by which they kft. without further clabontion. T h e only oddity lies in his description of the two spies as anp-bi. In Joah. ii they are d e m i k d eimply as mm. LXX adrrr or neanirbi. Joscphus, Hebrews and Clemnt fallow this, or rder to them as knmkopoi, spies, which derives from the c h m c t u of their m i d m and the use of the verb btolkopiki in the LXX is no evidence of a midmshie tradition that gave these figures the character of angela and thus made of Rnhab one who 'entertained angels unawares: and it would e m a rather unlilrely development of the story. Yet neither were they redly 'messengers', except in the sense that they were m rrport back to Joshw. J a m s is obrioudy only dludimg to the story in gcnad terms. Finally, James reiterates his statement of v. 17, with an 26 analogy: just .a the body is dead withovt k a t h , so fmith is dead without works; pnovmo is here uaed of the animating ~rincioleof life ld. G n . ii. 7.. vi. 17:. E d m i i . 8 f.; Eolm xu. 7). Agun tt is d u r that June1 is n a dnvlng I simple eonaas b n w m faith and works, but betrmn/a,rh alone, which 1s dead, and faith active ~n snd completed by deeds, which is only thus alive v .

.

9. THE POWER OPTHE TONGUE iii. 1-12

(I) Do not m m g ofyou laemme teachas, my hmhrs, beemum y m Lnm t h a we 1.11 receive a stricterjudgment. (2) F a we dl e r r in rnmny wmys. If a n y m a cornmite no srar in his speech, h e is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also. (3) Lwk, we put bits in h o r s a ' mouths so that they will obey us. d we guide their whole body. (4) Look a &pip* too, whieb big M they are and driven by strong winds ue guided by a tiny rudder where the i m p u l e of the s t a n m a n direds. 139

THE EPISTLE OF J W S

iii. 1

(5) In the same a n y , the tongue is n litt* limb which bout. n lot. See how smdl n Iim lrindles how great a foreetl (6) The tongue is n 6re u well; the tongue n p points itself ns t h e wicked w a l d among our members and defiles the whole bods it set8 light to the wheel d life and is set alight by Gehennn. (7) Every kind of beast and b i d , of creeping thing and of sen creature, is tamed and h.s been tamed to humankind. (8) hut noone can tnme the tongue; it is n restless evil, full d deadly p i s o n . (9) With it we h l n the ~ Lard and Father, and with it also we curse men, who are made 'in the likeness' of God. (10) Out of L e enme mouth come blesaine and curse. Mv brothers. these thines 8hould not he &. (11) Surely A P r i n g do& not gush fzrth fresh and bitter water from the same opening? (12) Surely, my brothers, s figtree cannot produce olives, or a vine figs? No more can salt water produce fresh. This passage, with its highly rhetorical and dramatic acmunts of the evils attributable to tbe tonme. " . takes uo and devdops themes invoducd in i. 19, 26 and ii. 12. T h e selfcontalncd nature of the snton and tts prnUds in Hellentstne literature have led some to suggest that an independent diatribe on the tongue has been incorporated but there am sufficient Linhs in language, thought and style with the rest of the epistle to make it dear that, whatever in his environment he mav have drawn uwn.. this section also is Tames's cornpositton There is howcvs no obvious mnnmion rtth the preccdmg passage; 118s mificml to suggest that the warning against bmming teachers is relntcd to James's attack on the purveyors of the Pauline slogan. This initial specific warning stands itself in some isalation Imm the passage as a whole, which is of eeneral aoolication: it is surelv not onlv teachers who may myx blessings and c u k s in the;r sprnhi The k t verse should not however be mated as a separate saying, but seen PS intducing the general topic by reference to a particular instance. Teachers being men of words par ercrllence are particularly exposed to the danger of sins of spech. 1 James seeks to discourage many of his readers from 140

.

iii. I

THE POWER OF THE TONGUE

bcmming t e r h e n . and his wnming is therefore different in -tent fmm Matt. rdii. 7 f., where it is the u s of titles of honour which is forbidden, not the c a r c i r of the teaching funnion. It may be presumed that it was the status given to the t e a c h that was the attraction in Jams's community. Jeremias Vcrvsolem in the Time of Jesus, p p 233-24s) provides illustlltions of the e n w m u s respect accorded to teachers withii Judaism ('Let.. the fear of thy teacher be as the fear of heaven'. Abdh iv. 121. and if lames's communitv had snmc lnnks wnth or bnck~mundIn Judalom, th~smayhave been to some extent vansfcmd to rts Chstnu, teachers Them is no suggestion that James is opposing exponents of false teaching, as with 1 Tim. i. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 1 (unless one wre to make s close mnnection with the following passage on widom, iii. 13-18, and detect h m an implicit attack on a false daim to 'heavenly widom'). Rntha he seeks to dissuade those inadequate for the proper task. Hennas, in his vision of the twelve mountains, saw on the fifth mountain slfappointed teachers who had taken on the rdle from pride and misplaced mnlidence, but who because they were only foolish and lacking in undemanding had a chance of repentam ISim.ix. 22. 2). Thia is no doubt a m n i a l t m n a t i o n in a community whcrc teaching and h e m the teacher is given an important place, enough far it to be the object of ambition There is no warrant for associating James's warning specificany with an unregulated Pauline Church, in whwe meetings many spcdss, more or less qualied, might intervene at will (as Tr-6, 'Les Eglises puliniennes vues du dehors', p. 665 f.,cf. Intmdumion, p. 17). By thus sceking to limit the number of teachers, James shows that he views teaching as the function of particular members ofthc community nther than of the mmmunity as a whole (as might pem assuwd in Cal. iii. 16; Heb. v. 12). The relation of t h c s teacbar to the 'dders' of v. 14 is undefined; rather than being distinct groups, the former might he mcmbera of the latter group, as with the ddcrs'who labour at . teaching' of 1 Tim. v. 17; cf. Tit. i. 9. Further reference to teachers is found in other n r l y Christian literatux. Acts dii. 1 lists 'prophets and teachers' at A~ntioeh,without it being 141

. .

..

.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

iii l

dear if theac are different dnaaea Paul distinguishes in 1 Cor. xii. 28 b n w w apostles, prophas and teachers, as docs E p h iv. I 1 (funher distinrmishine 'maneelists and oastors'l. and Did. xi: 1-3, d.xiii. if.. xv.7 f. l'hl's distinctiA is bl-d in Mart. Poly. where Polyearp is described as 'an apostolic and prophetic teacher' (mi. 2). It is not wholly clear on what the distinction rested, and what was the specific function of the Christian teacher. It is orobable that whereas amstles were itinaant preachers, c o n k e d with the foundstlbn period of the Churches (though retain~ngsome pernnal authonty over the Chlnches of their own foundmg), moat prophets and certainly teachers were resident mmbers of their local community, working within its mntinuing Life. So in Acts G i the prophets and teachers are members of the Antiochene Church; 1 Cor. d v may be seen to assume the regular presence of prophets in the Church of Corinth (thus C. K. Barrett, mmmenting on 1 Cor. xii. 28 in The First Epirtb to the Corinthians, Landm 1968); and the Didoch q u i r e s that mu apastles must heon themove, but prophets may settle Pad be suppnzed, as teachers arc (xi. 4ff., dii. 1 f.). As bnwecn the latter two, again a precise distinction is difficult. K. H. Rengstorf's definition of prophets ns 'pneumatics' and teachers as 'non-pneumatics' (in micle drdhuxoAor, TDNTVol. 11, p. 158) is unsntisfactmy, since he himself audiiiesit in afootnotebvsavinnthat teacherswouldof c m s e &o have thepnouma, andkn&~sulisclenrth.tte~ching is a chmismo IRom. di. 7). m d that teachers are ~rovidedbv God (I Cor. xh. 28.4. v. 8). The mmmon d~sttnntonbctwcm kerypno and didochc is also probably unhelpful, d it is u u d to suggest that prophets were the proclaimers of the gospel, while teachers (didnrkaloi) were concerned only with the mord education of the communitv. 1. D. G. Dunn. though m i n e again* thedrawing o f m &&padistinction b e t & n t h c t w ~ proposes as 8 gcncmd one that 'pmphecy would exprePs o new w a d from God assuch', thoughthat new word might mmcfrom the interpretation of earlier sayings. 'whereas teachiig would tendtodenotemoreansurinsightintoanoldunndfromGod',i.e. intouaditionsalmdv aeecvted as authoritative: the Old Tentament, expounded iniis~hr:stianreference,sayingsafJesus,and 142

iii. 1

THE POWER OF THE TONGUE

the gospd hitially received(J.D. G. Dunn,yenrr and the Spirit, London 1975, p. 237, 6. pp. 186 and 282 f.). The Christian teacher would thus be heir to the role of the Jewish teacher as guardian and interpreter of the hadition he shared with hiswmmunity (cf. the mle of the 'guardian', mebakker, or 'master', markil, at Qumran, asinstmaor and intapreter: CD xiii. 7f.; 1 QS k. 12-20; and Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p p 1!%25). The teacher might he much occupied in study, and expect some material m p p l t from the Church, and his work could thereforebe seenmore than that ofthe prophet astheexercise of an4office'(Gal.vi. 6; 1 Tim. v. 17; Did. xiii. 7). This theory of the teacher's function is supported by those dccuments which may be associated with 'teachers'. The epistle of Bamahas, whose author's insistence that he addresses his readers 'not as a teacher hut as one of you' (i. 8, cf. iv. 9) should be read as a modest disclaimer rather than, as by Cantinat, as an actual refusal to assume the teaching office without warrant, wntains the ethical material of the 'Two Ways' (xviii-xx), but is also characterised by its reinterpretation of the Old Testament: allegorical interpretation of the ritual laws (x), and expsition of the Old Testament prefiguration of Christ (v-ix, x k i i ) . The Didnche too, inasmuch as it warns against teachers who teach contrary to its own instruction (vi. 1, xi. 1 f.), may be taken as an example of Christian 'teaching'; it also includes the 'Two Ways' (i-vi. I), with instruction about the Christian liturgy and ministries (di-xv). James, who by his use of the first person plural in iii. 1 would seem to class himself among teachers, may provide in his own epistle the best example of the exercise of the Christian teacher's task: his primarily ethical instruction is at various points linked with the interpretation of his law (ii. 8 f., 10 f.); the re-application of the Old Testament (i. 10 f., iv. 5,v. 4); of the teaching of Jesus (i. 5, 17, iv. 3, v. 12); and of the received doctrine of God (i. 13, ii. 5, ii. 19, iii. 9). The teacher would, then, be responsible for passing on the various traditions accurately and thoroughly, for their legitimate re-interpretation and application, and hence to a large degree for the guidance of the community in many aspects of its life (intellatual, spiritual and liturgical as well 143

iii. 1-2

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

mwd). It is impatant that aspirants to that position should be fit for it, though James supplies no criteria for assessing this and makes no mention of a spiritual gift for teaching any more than he does for healing (v. 14). Those who so aspire should he conscious that with responsibility g a s a@ countability: we shall receive a stricter judgment. The noun k r i m can mean the process of judging, and also the judicial verdict, usually of condemnation. It generally cames the latter sense when bund, as here, with the verb lornbomj (d. Mk xii. 40: Ram Idii. 2). However, it seems unlikely that James would hold out to all teachers, and indeed himself, only the proswet of greater or leaner ounishment.' but rather that of panidarly hgomus smtiny'at the final judgment (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 1&15).The wnming issimilartathat ofMatt.xii. 36f., and arinciok that of Lk. *i. 4% (cornoarison mav alsa - - the r . be made with Paul's especial severity to the Jew who pwpotts to be a didorkobr, in Ram. ii. 17-23, and with the warning to EEekiel as the watchma- Ezek. m i i i . 1-9). If, however, the m m usual sense of k v i m wen to be adopted, the w e n t would mesumablv be that the m s m t of ~unishmentmust 2 be acc&ted bccaise the likelihdod df failw; is so strong: we d l err in many ways. This clause forms the vano~t~on from the special case of the teacher to the general topic of the use (or abuse) of speech. The special case J a m a rained waa also his o m case, and he continues to use the fist p a o n plural in spaking now of a general human condition. Error in speech may be particularly crucial for the tezcher, hut it is not a problem for him alone. In view of the desttuctive power James attributes to the tongue it is ~urprisingthat he should use here only the verb ptai6, to trip or make a mistab. If the choice is deliberate, it may be in order to assxiate with the danger apparently vivid failws as well as blatant offenees (d. ii. 10). The first half of the verse assats a universal failure, we all e n ; the second shows this to be a warning couched in hyperbole, for it i m mediately introduces the qualification, if anyone commits as

~.

' Tk Vulgate m d s the -nd

prm plural, rumifis, rather than the C R , mmirnur, peaurnably to avoid my svggcaion that the rutha mxght h i m d bc apm to mndcmnation.

144

THE POWER OF THE MNGUE

iii 2-3

no a m in him .oath. h e is a d c e t man. able to bridle t h e whole bddg.S;I. Bm Siia simikly both asksLWho is he that hath not sinned arith his tongue?' (Eeclus xix 16). and also pronounces blcaeing on the man 'that hath not slipped with his mouth' (dv. 1); a dose wincidencc. but not identity, of langungc on e mmmon' theme. Thc metaphw of bridling, used in i. 26 of the tongue, is here re-introduced with a m i n i n g of the image, in relation to tk whale body. The argument muld be that if a rmn can wntrol his tongue he can a jmtimi wnvol the raa of his body, but a better interpretation might be that in that the tongue produces instability and dimnity (w. 8, 9), the man who is master of his speech is ips0 fado in total wntrol of himself. The following image of the horse would bear out this interpretation: the man who puts a bit in a horse's mouth by so doing achieves control w a its whole bodv. As in i. 4, * f e d relates not to a h i g h slandnrd of h u e in some only to attain, but to the complneneso and wholeness that is the ideal for onyonr. The re-introduction of the meunhor of bridling leads in to 3 the first of three examples of an e & c i x of powe;like that of the tongue: thox of horse and bit, ship and rudder, and firr in the forest. Of the L s t two, there is no prallel in biblical literature for the image of the ship; though the image of the rudda for the tongue is, interestingly, found as early as Amen-em* 8: ' S u a not with thy tongue (done). If the toneue of n man the), the rudder of a boat. the All-Lord is its pilot' (ANW p. 423 f.). The nearest parallel to the imagc of the horse in found ~n Po m i i . 9: horae and mule must be controlled by bxt and bndle; such wntrol should not be nemssary for man. The images we however commonplace in Hellenistic literature, and thus scrve to demonstrate James's familiarity with HeUmistic idiom. (His image of the ship is no indication that the author lived in some coastal town, any more than that of the horse indicates his equestrian skiUI) Ropes cites some examples of the two in similar wmbination, as by Plutarch: "'It is the c h s a n s ofthe speaker which persuades, not his soeech!' No. rather it isboth character and s-h. or character hg means of speech, just as a horseman usco a bnt, or a helmsman u s s a rudder, rdnce virtue has no tnstrumcnt so

.

iii. 3 4

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

human or so akin to itself as speech' (@om a d d . poet. aud deb. 33 f). Dibelius explores the images at length, their derivation, association and application, and the correspondence in detail between James's use of the metaphors and that of Greek and Latin authors (pp. 185-190); it is unnecessary to duplicate or summarise his examination. I t may however be noticed that the metaphors are found together three times in Philo: De Agric. 69; De Opif. 8 6 8 8 , in expounding the control of man over the rest of creation, both animals and plants; and Leg. Alleg. iii. 223 f., where the control of charioteer and helmsman is compared with that of the mind: if irrational sense takes contra1 'the mind is set on fire and is all ablaze'. The coincidence of ideas in t h e e last two contexts with -~~~ James in vv. 6, 7 is of course only evidence of their familiarity in Hellenistic thought. Reicke indulges here in a flight of fancy in reading the verses as a warning to preachers, the leaders of the Church, to control the Church itself, as the 'body' (understood as Paul's 'body of Christ', 1 Cor. xii. 27), and the 'shin' (as in the Petrine imaee. 1 Pet. iii. 20). Many miniscules, and the gulk of the old iti in tradition, introduce the example of the horse with the conditional phrase 'if we out . .'. hut the sentence would lack a correctlv formed apadoks in answer to this protaas. The reading eideis thus a more difficult reading than the imperative ide, look, found In other MSS including A. R. C and P, and the ~ntmductionof the latter could he eiplaineh by itacism and by hamanisation with idou in w. 4 and 5b (thus Metzger, Textual Conment o y , ad loc.; the reading is algl adopted by Hort and Cantinat). However, ide would dearly make better sense in context, and the rise of ei de from it equally be explained by itacism, and by harmonisation with the ei of v. 2h. On balance, therefore, it is read here, as also by Mayor, Ropes and Chaine. 4 The image of ships is more elaborate than that of the horses (where it was not wen explicit whether the control thought of was that of a rider or a charioteer). The size of the ships is emphasised in contrast to the smallness of their rudder (the superlative elachiston is used), and they are driven by strong winds. The point of this detail might he ~~~~~

.

~

\

.

146

iii. 4-5

THE POWER OF THE TONGUE

either that the rudder aadsn mnvol esm when the winds are con^, or that the movement of ships requires a strong f~vowsblewind yet the d d i i i v c f m m i not the obvious ly powerful one T h e rudder guidca the ship where the imp1~1.ed th .tee-direct. (lit. 'wishes'). The impulse, honni, muld be n physical pressure a a mental decision; neither fits very weU with the verb. the idea of physicd pressure 'wishing' k i n g odd. and thnt of a decision wishing tautologous The former would further develop the image by introducing the i d a of the mntrol of a great ship by a man's hand; the latter would indicate the f a n thnt behind the control e r e r c i d by the small object, whether rudder, bit a tongus lies a human decision (n,Cantinat nnd Dibclius). The illumratian that t h e s images provide of the power d 5 the t o w e is summnriaed bdwc the i n d u c t i o n of the third image:';he tongue is stmnlnrly a little limb thDt bo.818 Id (the translation rdlects Pllitmtt~onin the Creek, the rtylnntic devtcc for r h ~ c hJames has ouch fondness, cf. I 2.1. 17. 1.21). This boasting is not just vainglory, for the tongue's power is red, and the use of the phrase megalo owhci, 'it boasts great things', rather than the verb megalawhco (cf. Emk. mi. 50: Zeoh. iii. I I: Ecdua xlviii. 18) mnv be to make thnt distinc tton A further play on words a found tn the use of the onme *djenovc. hrbkor, f a firr and foreat. wth the oppostte aenee understood fmm the context. The image muld be thnt of lire consuming 'a huge stack of timber' (NEB),for huli m y mean cut wood-as W& PS wwdland, but Ropcs and ~ i b ; l i u sillustrate the popularity of the metaphor of the forest fire in both clnssicd and biblied literature (c.g. P a Lxariii. 14; l a i r 18; and Philo. De Dm. 173 of the spread of desire like a flame in a forest). As the image of fire is used in v. 6 of the dcsuuctive power of the tongue, the idea of a devastating conflagration is more appropriate h a e than that of the banfire or the hemh (for which d. W u s ri. 32). Many commentators draw attention to the dissimiluity, indeed incongruity, of the three i m g e a Ropca ob-s thnt no mte is taken in v. 3 of the size of the bit. the point t h m being of the n a c i s of mnvol on the mouth, whereas in w. 4 and 5 it is the mall siEe of rudder and flame that is wed, and 117

THE EPISTLE OF J M S

iii. M

t h e e two images thus go togetha to illustrate tbe great power that un be exercised by s.mall o w . This is hardly s cmvindng division in view of his o m demonstration of the familiac pairing of horse and ship images, and of the preenee of James's summary obssvation between ship and lire images in v. 5b. Mitton draws attention instead to the convast between the images of control, the positive exercise of power. in the case of horse and ship, and the image of fire as n destructive force. Cantinat thinks that there is here a deliberate indicntian that the tongue can be a force for gwd as wdl as evil; it can,after all, utter blessing (v. 9). Yet such a reasonable balance is hardly prcsnt in this section, where the mess is oatentlv , , on the tongue a8 evil in its character and its eRccts (vv. 6-8); and even the blesstng of v. 9 is gven In a situation which 'should not be so'. n h l ctmps should be pm neither as alternative illustrations of s single p i n t , mr as making diaerent points, but as building up an argument through s chain of associated ideas: to control the tongue is to control the whole body (v. Zb), as a bit (which it is taken f w panted is a small abject) in a horse's mouth controls the whole body of the horse (v. 3); in v. 4 the idea of control remains, and now it is explicitly the wntrol of a mall object over a great one; in v. 5b this smplVgreat contrast is stressed, but the idea of control gives way to that of destrunive power. The very difference of the images serves to make James's point clear: contml of the tongue is imperative, because the tongue is n force for evil; and the statement in v. 6 of this destructive force takes up n link fmm the beginning of the chain, for the power of the tongue is e m c i e d over 'the wholc body'. 6 The gmanl m s c of the sratrment is dear enough hut as with i. 17 it is made in a verac which is emsordinnrily difficdt for the translator and exegete. In the tirat place, the syntactical atrueturn of tbe vase is obscm. and some m m mentators wggcst that the t e n is compt. The subject, the tongue, ia (a) connected with a noun in the nominative case acting as its complement,'fire'; (b) it is the subpct of the verb in the elnus 'appints in our members'; and (c) it is described in a sPies of three relative clauses formed with participles, it 148

G.6

THE POWER OF THE TONGUE

'defiled, 'sets dune', and 'is ignited'. B e t ~ m (a) and (b) intemnes a furtha $rase, (d), with .nick and noun in the nominative u s e , 'the wieted world', who= function in the vase is a major difficulty. Mob editors and translators of the t e n (induding RV, RSV, NEB and JB) isolate (a) Iimn the rest of the verse, seeing it as n mmment by the author on the image of the forest fire: ' t k tongue is s fue as well'. It is poasible to read (d) as a furtha such gloss: '. a fire as well; it is the wicked world'; though the relation of that mmmcnt to the image would be obscure (the Peshitta provides an degorical explanation: 'the tongue is the fire, the wicked world the forest'). To adopt this solution m u l d l e a n (c) as the predicate of (b): the tongue 'appoints (itself)' as that which 'defiles' etc; n mnsrmnion which Hort judges to be impossible. Dibelius regards (b) and (d) aa a composite gloss on an original sequence of lire imagery in (a) and (c), but the two may be more strictly related. The verb u s d in (b). Rothistimi, has in is. 4 a rd*dve face: he who seeks to be a friend of the world 'm&cs himslf an enemy of God'. and it can be seen to have the same force here. with the phrase (d) acting as its predicate. The tongue oppoinfl ifrev or f k wicked -Id o w our members. Such n decision about its structure d u a not, h o w , immediately d d y the meaning of the vcnr. That the tongue is n Rre is a familiar analogy, deriving no doubt from the visual image (d,for example, Ps. oa 3 f.; Prov. mi. 27; Ecclus miii. 22 f.; Psa Sol. di. 1 ff.; a n d l m . R. 16, where R. Jose b. Z i m m a r k s on the inflammatory p o w of the tongue, despite its prone poaition with a water channel beneath itl). Mwh more probkmatical is t k statement that the tongue appoints itadf rs b b s m s Cs odikios. The noun b n o t may bear a number d possible meanings. F i t , it may mean'ornnmcnt', d. 1 Pet. iii. 3,thc smseit usually cwieainthe LXX,except in t h w bmks origindly written in Gtteh The tongue would thus be 'the mnment of wickedness', i.c. that whichputsafairout-mrd appearanceon wickedneseThisinter pretation is adopted by Chine, appealing to the authority af lsidore of Pelusium. Ep. iv. 10. A scond possibility is that it means ssum-total' (d.Prov. xvii. 6a; Mart. Poly. xvii. Z), the

..

149

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

iii. 6

m a d o g . a u g g e d bg the Vulgate's rendering, unwrihtis rmqutfanr. and by AC, wh*h mcxcm the mndadon Wr tmme be-cs (or h e 8 to be) the &I tmsl of ~n~qunry'~ a h e ; d these lnterpetattons would y u v c h m t to carny hem I d~Kscnta s fmm thrt In L 27 and IV 4. In spkte of apparent links between thep-ges in thcrdmnce todefilcmcnt& both iniii. 6 i I. In i. 27 andiii. 6andtothem&rsofthebody bath i. 27 andiv. 4, korrnm mems'worldS,with theconnotation of'thc world of men as hostiletoGod'(see on i. 27, and d.nlsoii 5). James's meaning h a c might thus be that the tongue, with its destructive and disuniting power, is in the individual a miccaosm of that hostile mncmosm: it is 'an unrighteous world among o w members' (RSV),or 'a whok wicked world in itself (JB). Both these translations, howcver, d i m g ~ r dthe ~nwnceofthm e i d e in the clause, whkhiamoddityofthe syntax. It is p s u m b l y t h e to point nquite spcifie reference to the m e M world (lit. 'the wald of wickedness', the genitive luving an sdjstivd funnian, d.I Enach xlvkii. 7; Mk mi. 14, W;Lbmi. 9).1tisthetonguethatbringstheindividudmaninto relation with 'the world'; !"deed brings the world within him, amom our members. NEB uanalates: 'it reorescnts amone our m&bers the world with aU itswickcdness'(d. Ropes, an: Dibelius on the meaning of the t e n as it now stands). As represmtntivc it is to be scsl as an active agent. The tongue &ens inn man the dcfilcmmt that is inherent in the world ( d . i. 27. with the warning already in i. 26 thnt the religiousmanmu* bridle his toneuc). and its effect is total: it defilm the whole body The tdea 18 prcmmsbly that n ts tn ho speech thnt n man ~drnufieshtmoelfw~th that total hosttl~tytoCu(,andBhowrthot ot to pan of hro !nnercharana ( d hlk vln 20 U ) Nor is the influence of the tongue confined to the icdividual, for in addition it sets light to the abed of me. Again the general sense is dear: the baneful cKet of the tongue is felt not only m the individual but throughout the realm of human cxperimcc.The p i n t is made, though by the use of an expression which has no biblical background, ho trochol r i s gcnete6r. lit. 'the wheel of birth'. (Ps luxiii. 13. even granted the mincidencc of the image of the forest 6re in v. 14, presents only a very general similarity. and Hon's 150

.. .

iii 6

THE POWER OF THE M N C U E

m g g d link6 b e t a e n Jams's expression and tbe wheels of Ezekiel's vision, Emk. i. 15. 16b, 19 f.. uc far too tenuous.) The obvious background far the phrasc is its u s , with similar expressions such as the 'circle' of life, fate or neassity, to express the origkdy Orphie and Pythagorean theory of metempsychosis, the eternal tmsmigrntion of souls fmm one body to another with little hope of the desired escape. (A fuU citation and vanalstion of r d e r m e s in elalsical literature to this thmry. which was also adopted by Plsto, is given in Dibelius, p. 196, n. 79 d 80.) James is hardly to be credited with so peasimistic and fatalistic a view of human existence. and his use of the phrnse h m is a funher exampk of his adoption of a papular philosophical a t c h - p h n ~without adopting, maybe without understanding, its connotations (cf. i. 21). That this particular expression had already passed into common use as P tern for the course of human life, whether a not pesaimiaticdy regarded, is demonstrated by Philo's aUegay of Pharaoh's gift of a necklace to Joseph a s 'the circle and whscl of unending nealsity' in contrast to Tmar's pledges to Judnh which r e p e n t e d the 'natural order' (De Somn. ii. 44, refaring to Gen. xli. 42 and xrxviii. 25). Another Hellenistic Jewish writer judged that 'sufferings uc common to all: life is a wheel: haooiness is uncertain' (PseudoPhaylnder. 27) fnteresttngly. the expreerton 1s also found ~n Rabbtntc Interatme, thus ~Uusvat~ngthe absorptnon d tfellentouc tcnns unto so-called Paleottnun Juda~sm:'Them 8s an ever muting whccl in this world, and be who is rich today may not be sa tomorrow, and he who is pmr today may nm be so tomorrow' (S(Sbbnl ISlb, d Ex. R. 31). It is unneeesrury to suppose that Jams's knowkdge of the phrase came oia Jewish usage; what is demonstrated is its wide currency outside the strictly technical mntcn. As the mpc is ojire, the desrmctive e R m it has on the murse of human Life is dcacribed in the same imagery: it sets light to it. Pythagormnism taught tbe periodic dcsvuction of the univaee by %re (an idea adapted in 2 Pet. iii. 7. 10). but the background of James's language w w becomes unambiguously Jewish, fw the wheel is .at .Light by Gohcanr (Once again James's fondness f a ditcntion is d m n s t r a u d 151

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

iii. 6 7

in the alternation of active and passive participles afphlogix6 and the sequence of genereis and geennir.) Gi HinGm, the valley of the son($ of Hinnom, a ravine to the south of Jerusalem once used far pagan fye sacrifices (2 Kgs uiii. 10; Jere. vii. 31), was portrayed in Jere. xix as the place of slauehter and divine ounishment for Terusalem. Its traditional character as the place of burning is variously derived from its being the place where the fire sacrifices had been offered, and from its being the place where refuse from Jerusalem was burned (so Mitton). By New Testament times the corruption 'Gehenna' becomes the term far the place of punishment after the last judgment, and so appears in the synoptic gospels, especially Matthew (Mk k. 45 and parallels; Matt. v. 22, x. 28, cf. Lk. xii. 5 and 2 Clem. v. 4, and xxiii. 15; cf. the 'accursed valley' of 1 Enoch rxvii. 1.?I Ivi. 1 f., xc. 26 f.; 2 Esd. vii. 36). The word is only otherwise used in the N T at this point. Tames's use can hardly be derived from the LXX for. exceot in Josh. xviii. 16, the translation phnrap huiou Ennon is preferred to transliteration; but this is not therefore necessarily a pointer to Palestinian origin as the word was probably pan of the general stock of Jewish vocabulary in the first century. The sense of the phrase might derive from Gehenna as the place of punishment: the tongue directs human life towards inevitable retribution, and the course of life has about it alreadv this doomed character: or from Gehenna as the ahode of its 'prince', who* evil power lies hhind that of the tongue. Ochenna therefore giving it that fire w t h whnch it 1"flamcs the human realm. Iln Avokhrn I5b. God 1s said to summon the Prince of Gehinnom to join him in punishing the slanderer with the evil tongue.) The language is rhetorical and allusive, with an evocative force rather than a meaning to be precisely spelled out. 7 Having thus indicated the destrunive potency of the tongue, James takes up another image of control: that of man over the animal kingdom. The image is similar in character to those in vv. 3 and 4. The images of horse and ship indicated the need far control of the tongue; the image of the order of creation serves to accuse men of their lack of this control. As with the earlier images, reflection on man's control of the 152

iii 7-8

THE POWER OF THE TONGUE

animal kingdom is a comonphce of Hellenistic. e s p c i n y Stoic, philosophy (c.g. Cimm, Not. Dm. ii. 60. 151; Scneca, D e Ben ii. 29. 4; d. alp, Philo, D. S m . ii. 152 R. and Dr OM.88, cited m v. 3 above). In this me, however, there is also a biblicd background to the idea, in thc account of man's being given dominion over the beasts at emtion (Gm. i. 24 28-30, with Adam's naming th beasts in Gen. ii. 19 f.; Ps viii. M; Ecdus nrii. 4; d. Jubilees iii. 1-2 IS f.). It is probable that Jams's daim that every mature is tuned ud b . . bccn t u n e d is made in rhis twc-fold form not simply f a rhetorical d t c Z but to indicate that the present situation was established in t k oast.. at mation (them is an explicit allusion to the a a t i m narntive in v. 9). That the matures am tamed to humankind (the mnsmmion is more readily understood as the usual dative of advantage than as the instrummtnl dative) is also an indication that man is nm responsible for this order in cmtion, but it is given to him. lames uses the chmcteristic biblleal division of the animal hngdan into four dapses: d bena .nd bird. d creeping thing and of v a creature ( G n . 1. 26. tx. 2; Deut. tv. 17. 1 Kgr IV. 33: I r v . xi definesthe dcanmso a uncleanness of the four dasses: the class of 'creeping things' indudes small m a m mals like the moue and weasel; Jams's ward for ses nrsture, the Pdjsctive m l i m , of the sea, is not found in the LXX nor el-hm in the NTI. The 'taming' of creation would involve not only the domestication of o a u i n animda but dm rmo'spower to hum wildsnimnlsTheunivsddo~nionisq~ulified.t amepoints in the biblical tradition: the food I& pmsupposc the i n accessibility of catnin species;Job mviii. 3Varxir. 12.26-30 d e a i b c s some creatures pa e m s a l v bewnd man's m t r d or m m ~ e h e n a ~ oand n ; some vamon%oftheaoryofthcfaU =the mbell~onof the beasts as n conqequence of rhls (Apt M o s x-xu. Llle a( Adam and Eve u x v u - x x x ~ x ) Herc however 1118 urrquivaeally awned to point the contrast, that nc-oaecan 8 tamethe tongve(whetherto'domesticate'mtoovcrpoweritb Thc logical inconsiscncy with v. 2h.whichaapums that thcrc may be a man who can avoid sins of s p e d , shows that the languagehere asinv. 2aisthatofhyprbole, with anunderstood 153

.

.

. .

THe EPISTLE OF JAMES

iiii 8

~ m 8 t i o n t o a i r r t o d o p r r d d g w h . t i a dtobeimpokble. Ham- adapts thellngulgc.ndthoughtdJamsiohistadfth Mandate: in aritin~of'~e~i1dnirr'kclhortsthrt'thou.. . ahnlt bridle and d& it ~s thou wilt. For the cvildesk is wild and only tamed with difficulty'(Mand. Idi. 1. 1 f.); and he ht= argues that s i n a God has subjected all hisacatim to man, m that he is its master, man ought to he able to m s v r the corn mandmmu, (hi. 4.2 f.). The tongue is a restlesa evil okakutaton b h ;an odd ~hrasefor which m e t e n s IC. w. 33 mad ' u n m m U ~ h l e hvil', akatarchera k a k a . ThLfiib heiur with the context. but ts probablv an emendation. The a d l m i ~ ablorlolos has llrndy been sen to be pan of Jams's w e a b u l q in i. 8, in referena to the douhle-minded man who prays and doubts; it is quite appropriate that it sbould be re-introdwed here to describe the tongue, which will be m n in v. 9 as the insuument of doubleness, again in relation to address to God. The tongue may be described here as r a t k a because it is the insvummt of this inconsistency, or because it is seen ns like an uneonmued. 'restive', beast. Hennas, in Mand. ii, another m i o n of his work showing kwwledge of the epistle, describes 'evil dander' as 'a restless demon' (ii. 3; cf. on i. 5). F m h a , it is full of deadly poimn; n description which assumes the obvious comparison between the tongues of men and of s a p m t s (Pss Iviii. 3 f., al.3, quoted in Rom iii. 13; for the tonguc as dcnthdcding cf. also Ealua arviii. 18. 21). 9.10 At this wint. Tames at last movides a svecifie c u m ~ kof t k cwl working the tonguk and typicnily for t h ~ ks t h o r the sin deocnbcd is one of ~ncansistcncy,doubleness: with it w e b l a * the Lord nnd Father, nnd with it dso we c u n e men. James does not psusc to commend blessing or to condemn mrsingpn re (oontnst 2 Enoch lii. 1 4 , where the man wha bl-s God is b l e d , and he who c u r s s his ncighbaur is cursed), for it is their incongruity with which he is concerned (and which would presumably for him render the blessing valueless). The theme of the mnmdinory work of the tongue has many paraUels in Greek and Jewish muras. It appears for example, in Pmv. xviii. 21; Eeclus v. 9 f.. 13 (cf. arviii. 12); and Test. Bmj. vi. 5, 'the good mind has not two IS4

of

THE POWER OF THE TONGUE

iii. 9,lO

tongues, of blessing and cursing'. Rato m m e d tbat .judge in a competition should not give his d i n c d e s d y , kst he muear falsely with the slme mouth with which he invoked heaven on taking up hie position (Law1 65%); Philo urged self-exmination before oath-taking since 'it would be sacrilege to empby the mouth by which one pronounces the holiest of names. to utter any words d slum' (Dc Dm.93). A sim~larstay is told of the srvant of R. Simeon b. Gnmalid who, smt into the market to buy firat good and thm bad fwd, broueht back tonrmc in e i t h r c a s fLm. R. 33): and of one ~nttacuswho, tali by the kxng of ~~~t to cut o'ut the fairest and foulest meat of a sarri6einl antmal. cut out the tongue for both purpaocs (Plutarch. Do Conul. 8. el. the story as told d one ~ i n s ~De i n Aud. 2). James e h ~ r p m sthe incongruity by reminding his readers that men .re mmde 'in the likcnn~'of cod,and so both the blessing and the nvae arc in n way addressed to God 7 h e blessing of God may rdlm the familiar Jewish custom of glossing reference to him in the farm, 'the Holy One, blcsscd Ix he' (d.Rom. i 25, ix. 5; 2 CGT.xi. 31; 'the Blessed' is a circumlocution for Cod in Mk Idv. 61). Thanksgiving pmyers, such as the Eightem Benedictions, opned in the form 'Blessed a n thou .', and 1 Pet. i. 3 and Eph. i. 3 follow greetings with thdagiving in this fonn: 'Blessed be the God and Father.. .'. T h e o h r a s the Lord and Father docs not appear el-hac tn ihe b~ble,the n a x s t annlagtes bemg 1 Chron. ark. 10; Is. Lriii. 16; Erdus nil,.1, 4 and Matt. x i 25. and the mmnwn form 'Cod and Father'. found in 1. 27. is read inaend in a number of t e n s (K. L, most minisules, the Vulgate and Copic versions). The m a c difiult reading which mywsy has better tenlul support, is clearly to be prefemd; it pmvidea a further exampk of James's retaining the title Lmd for God. As Fathn, God is creator ofman (d.i. la), and he mated him m h a o m image. Appal to the chrnner of man as the imsge of God is found in J e w i s h n h i d teachng fmm as cndy as Cen. 1. 6. and 1% taken uo m 2 Enmh d ~I lf. R. Simon b. Azzd judgcd reverence f& the image in one's fellow men to be the most comprehensive principle in the Law (Gm. R. 24.

..

155

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

iii. 10

7, cited by Moore, Judoinn 1. p., 446 f. and 11, p. 85). In the account of man's rrcntion, Gen. I. 26 remrds Cod's intention as to make man 'in our image. .her our likeness'; LXX,en cihoni h & k , kth' h m i i s i n hinim. Gen. v. 27 and ix. 9 &r simply to man's creation 'in the image', cik&i, of GocJ and this is the word used in this m ~ a i o by n Edus (xvt~ 3), Wisdom (ii. 23), and Paul (I Cor. xi. 7; 2 Cor. iii. 18, iv. 4, of Christ as the image). Jmcshowever adopts instead the word Likmcss, homoi8sir,- a word rare in the LXX outside Gen. i. 26 and not found elscwhem in the NT. Possible cxplnnnt~onsof hts cholce could m m from what 3s scen to be a d l r ~ n c t ~ obetn the trao wardnTheremuld be a mottve of mcrcnw h a o w r t r , Ink the Hebrew d m u t h whlch ~t translates in Gen. i. 26 denmcs a msemblsncc rnths than an exact rmmduction: man is tike God. but not exactlv like him (the mgnatc noun h m ' 0 m o ia u x d to translate dnnuth In Emtiel's viaion. with thm nunnce clearly prcsnt. Emk. I. w. 5. 10, 26). Philo, eommmttng an the two words an G n . 8 . 26, srrs e i k n as relating to the mind of man, which is 'a god to him who carries it', but as images do not always wrrespond to tbcir pattern. the author added the second term to show that 'an accurate cam1WPS intended (Da Opif. 69-71). On this arwment. . homaicirir would be used to indicate the faithfulnew of the image in mnh lrmaeus damnnguiahcd between m u ' s rikim, his fundamntal nature as rntiond, and hornoibsis 8s his moral potentid, which mtght thcmfore seem the more appropriate term in an ethical w n t e n (Ado. Horr. v. 16. 2). Then is, however, no indication of any such d i a i n c tion in lames. nor is it likelv that he avoids r i h as havine bezaneh term for wsdom ( w i d . VII. 26)or for Chnst (2 CO; iu. 18). The probability IS that he deliberately u s s the more unusual of the two words m (;en. 1. 26 to make a opccificallusion to that passage (a technique he employs in i. 10 and v. 4). and m to add force to his argument. The man who u x s his tongue to bless God and cur% men is not only using it ineow aiaently, but is acting ngdnst the work of God in creating man by thus taking up a diametrically opposed nnitudc to God and to him whom scripture prcsnts as in Gad's likcnnr. 11.12 A Rnd pair of metaphors make the paint that the incaw 156

iii 11.12

THE WWER OF THE TONGUE

matmcy ahown in this double use d the tongue is 'unartunl'. Surely a spring doa not gush fath frnh m d bitter 11 rPten from the same opening? The adjective pikros, bitter ( a in v. 14), is often used of salt waur(ef. h a l u b r in v. 12); Hadidian therefore foUowsMayorin seeing an allusion to the fresh m d salt aprings by the Dead Sea ('Palestinian Pict m s in the Epistle oflames', p. 228), but no specific reference seems intended, and indeed James's q u m n t would hardly he assisted by pointing to a situation where these oppsrtes in fact c m i s t . (The same image of unnatural order is drawn on in 2 Esd. v. 9, where the mixture of salt and sweet waters is pan of the msmic upheavals preceding the End.) Similarly. s 12 figtree c-ot pmduee olives o r n vinc figa. As with the images of w. 3-5, some commentators remark on the incongruity of the images: blessing and cursing, frcsh and salt water, mixtures of gmd and bad; but olives and figs m both good. Jesus' argument, 'Do men gather grapes from thans, or figs from thistles? Even p, m r y gmd trec brings forth good fruit; but the m p t tree brings forth evil fruit' (Matt. vii. 16f.. Lk.vi. 43f.),wouldbemore appropriate.Cantinat and Dibdius, however,dcmonarate the popularity of such images of figtre. and vinc in Stoicteaching, as inPlmarch.'We do not expect the vine to bear figs nor the olive grapes' (De Tronpuill.An. 13); Scnea.'Good does rot springfromevilnny mom than figa grow from olive trees' (Ep Ixxxviii. 25; cf. dso Epictnue, ii. 20. 18 f.; M m e Awelius. Meditations, viii. 46). Thiscould then be n lunhercxamplcaf Jsms'sfamiliprity with thcpopularlangulgeofHeUmisticpMmphy,but thedrawing of images from olive, figtree and vine is hardly surprising in the Mediterranean wee Hisown p i n t is in fact quiteelcar: inconsistency in human spech ahould hensmuchout ofthe question ns ~tis for one trec to pmduce a d f i m n t fruit. The final d s u r of v. 12, n o more cam ..It r.ta poduce fresh, is unnsessnty to this argument. and provides a rather lame mndusion to the m i o n . It is dso syntactically difficult, and hence there are many variants in the textual tradition. Dibdius suggests that it is a later gloss intended to bring the two images into close conformity: v. I I spoke of the waters not mming out of the ssme place, but v. 157

THE EPIaZE OF JAMES 12. of the trrcs not @wing

iii. 12

the m m huit, d so it is f& asouted that salt water cannot pmdvu h s h . The gloss could bc thc author's own, but hc does not normally handle his images in such a wmdcn fashion, and at this point a corruption of his original t e n acems more likly.

10. THE WISDOM FROM ABOVE iii. 13-18 (13) Wbo amon# you m i w i n ad uadaagding? Let him demonstrate from his good mode of l i e thmt his wort. a r e done with the humility of w i d o m . (14) If you hsve biner joabluly and seffilh ambition in ynu benru, d o not boast Md lie against the truth. (IS) This is not the wisdom which comes d m from above, hut is e d y , unspirimd, demon-like. (16) For where t h a e is jedousy nnd aellish ambition, there is instnbility nnd mery sort of menn action. (17) But the wisdom from above is in the fist place pure, then peaceable, equitnble and p m u a d s b l e , full of mercy nnd g d fruite, not m & i g distinctions and without dissimulntion. (18) And the 'fruit of righteousness' is sown in peace for those who make pence.

This ncn sarion also has a sll-mntsined chmctcr, and again r d s like the d c v d o p r n t of a tkmc intmduccd in the *st chapter: the man who lacks wisdom should ask it of Cod thc g i v s (i. 5). and In such gmd g~ftsarc from above (i. 17) Now the c h u a c t a of that wisdom from above is dcsribcd The W~siti0"from a disusaim of the dangers of -h to a diaeussion of the nature of wisdom is not an cmaordimry one, e s p s i d y as the farmer smion was reminiscent of passages in the wisdom literat-, e.g. Ealus uviii. 13-24 but no precise mnncuions are mndc. In particular, them is no indication that the desription of viadom is addressed e r peeidly to the would-be teachas of iii. I, who might have thought of thcmsclves as 'wise men'por excellence. According 158

iii 13

THE WISDOM FROM ABOVE

to i. 5, it is ope11to a n y m to ask f m wisdom, and so hcre the 13 opening question of v. 13 is addressed to the readers in general, to wbmer, including no doubt the muld-be teachers, might think himself wise md uad-tanding. The adjective rpisfi-m6n, undemanding, is rmt found clswhem in the NT, but the combination of the two is familiar in the OT, e.g. Dcut. i. 13, iv. 6 (cf. alm 1 Kgs h.29; Job arviii. 28; Dan. v. 12), and James's challenging qvestion is reminiscent of Paul's in 1 Cor. i. 20, quoting I s rir. 12. T h e challenge to makc g d a d u m to wisdom is dm reminisent of the chdcnging offer in ii. 18, '1 will show you my faith from my mrks', but the invitation ia not aimply, as might have been expected, to demonstrate wisdom from works (contrast the mommcndntian of 1 Clem. aaviii. 2 that the wlL 'd~sp~sy hlo wnsdom. not In m r d s but In gmd worts', and Matt. u. 19, ' w s d m ~sjusufiedfrom ha worts'; no relation exiras anyway hetahen James and these two passages). It is the - ~ I I that ue to be exhibited from their Mting in a man's good mode of life. The rdlc of wisdom in this demonstration is not immediately clear. The ~hrpsewith Ihs humiliw of r i d o m m i l t be attached to ;he verb, s,that the man Lould demomn~itehis works with appropriate, and w i s , humility (cf. Ecclus iii. 17, LXX). It is however more doscly and readily attached to the noun umb: the demonstration of these works is of them as performed (the verb is not p m m t in the Greek) in the spirit of humility that is 'of wisdom'. The argument will be that a m n ' s whale manner of life should demonstrate that his works ue guided by wisdom, m d will therefore in effst demonstrate his wisdom. ( l l ~ l h c noun anasfrophi, hcre translated mode of lifr. is especially charaefcristic of the vocabulary of 1 Peter, whose author lays mess on the imponan~cof the whole style of Christian living as a tcstimany of their faith to outsiders: 1 Pa. i. 15.. ii. 12.. iii. 1 f... 16.1. The asaumotion that humilitv is charanerinic of wisdom, and is vinuc, 1s clearly made in other Chrnaian literstwe (d.the references to the humsliry of Christ. Matt. xi. 29; 2 C a . x. I; Phil. 11. 8), but 1s often uld to be unfamilinr in the contemporary environment: 'There was same place for humility in Hebrew thought, in Flato, and in 159

iii. 13-14

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

the Greek distaste fm hybris; but the dominant morality of the day associated it with meanness and grovelling. It is linked with adjectives like ignoble, abject, servile, slavish downcast and low. Epinetus names it %st in a list of moral faults' (E. Osbom, Ethical Patterns in Early Christian Thought, Cambridge 1976, p. 32; d.also Mitton). 14 This style of behaviour should elldude bitter jealousy and a e E s h ambition, aClm koi eritheia. These two words are also found in Paul's lists of vices in 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 20.The latter word is uncommon, confined to James and Paul in the NT (also Rom ii. 8; Phil. i. 17, ii. 3), and its meaning is uncertain Aristotle uses it of intriguing for political office; u s d generally it presumably denotes an unsempulous determination to gain one's own ends (d. AG). The verse opens with a conditional dause, Ifyou hove ., but logically the following prohibition would remain valid whether or not the condition were realised: boasting and lying would be condemned whether or not they arise from jealousy and ambition. The wording of the prohibition, d o not boast and lie against the truth, is compressed and unclear. Some copyists obviously found the nation of lying against the truth tautologouq and separated the two verbs to give 'do not boast against the truth, and lie' (thus Sinaiticus). Ropes sees them as in a causal relationship, 'do not boast, and thus play false against the tmth'. James's thought may be that the t m t b in this context consists in the fact that humility is characteristic of wisdom; jealousy and self-seeking will issue in boasting and lying which an both agoinst that truth (cf. NEB). Clearly James seeks to dissaeiate any claim to wisdom from a spirit of competition, and it might be argued that he does so beeause he is aware of a situation where rival claims an being made. There is an obvious comparison to be drawn with the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians, where Paul both attacks the contentiousness assoeiated with the Cnrinthian 'parties' (i 10-13, iii. 3 f.). and also seeks to pmvide a proper interpretation of Christian6wisdom'(i. 18-ii. 15, iii. 1621). Ropes thinks that the jealousy and ambition to which James refers is that of rival candidates f a the position of teachers in the community, who vie with each other to be considered 'wise

..

160

iii 14-15

THE WISDOM PROM ABOVE

men: This of mur a r u m a d m n a h c k to the w m i n g d iii. 1, and a link bstthe two ~ t i o n of s the chsptcr. Altcmativelv it micht k thoueht that lames is wmsine,. a ditTsmt undastnn&ng of w&m, of &~n~ellcnualand e w tnic type cumnt among a =If-nglcd Clitc. against which he outlines the nature of wisdom in terms of practical virtues, open to d to pmctiu. This monstruction of the situation would rent on what thought to be thc implications of the ndjectives in v. IS, md whether they indicpte thnt over 15 against the widom which comes down from above t h m is anotha 'wisdom' which ia earthly, wupirihlnl. demonlike (this lun ndjmive, dm'mrmi6d2s, is vety unusual, not found in the LXX or classical literature b e f w James, n a c l s w h n e in the NT;its form suggests similarity nthcr than origin: wisdom that is 'like a demon's' nthcr than 'demoninsoid'b Philo mnmsts an eanNv and a heswnlv wisdom in Eden ~n irg. ~ l k g1.. 43. where Cod's plan~!ngthe is taken to rrp-t hns provision of ranhly wulom for the aid of man's soul; but this is seen as a copy of the heavenly wisdom. not as oppaacd to it. Hcrmns, probably again ndnpting the language of James, contrmts t w prophecy, inspired by the spirit of God and 'from above', wlth false prophecy which is 'earthly' (Mand. xi. 5 f.) and mmes from the deva (xi. 17): hem them are tanr rival forms of prophecy in mind (In M a d . ix, a m i o n in other respects dependent on the epistle, d on i. t-8, H a m s contrasts faith which is 'fmm abme' with dipwhio which is 'an cmhly spirit fmm the devil'. M o d . ix. 11.) The question of whether a del'bmte m m a betancn two wisdoms, or hvo u n d e r a d i s of widom, is being made, centres on James's second djenive, pruchibor. This is oc ~.sionnllyused in elassicnl litcrsture in antithesis to r5norikor of w h t pertains to the aoul rnthcr than to the body, but it comes to have a wide cumncy in gnosticism in antithesis topncumotikor, thcre designating an inferior order of being and orperiencc in m m s t to thnt of the 'spiritual'. Those who do not partake of special knowledge and enlightenment remain at the level d the p w h i ; that is, the merely human man living as pan of the 'natural' world-order,

..

161

iiii 15-16

THE EFTSTLE OF J M S

ah.ring the Lifeforce of the animals, naponsivc only to his xnscs and untouched by the divine spirit' (the Montanista, men of the Spirit, also demibed thdr catholic opponents as p w h i h i Ten.A h . Rar. i 6 f.). In the NT both Paul and Jude adopt the language for polemical purposes, turning w h t would serm to bc the vocabulary of their opponents againla thcm.Thus]udedcacribeethcfnlseteackrswhomhc wtshesto attack Iv. 3 1.1 os tmchikoi, 'not hnvtnr thc s ~ u n ' ( v 19). . Paul

.

.

ing, deecribesthisvmously as awisdom'dthis world'(l Cor. i. 201,'acmding totheflesh'(t. 26).'#rfmen'(i~.S).'of this ngc'(ii 6), and as put forward 'in words which human wisdom teaches' (ii. 13); epithets which w d d add upto comprehensive definition of what is meant by beingpswhikor, and presumably to precisely what the group at Carinth claimed that they were nor Aeainst this Paul describes his own oreachine ns of Christ 'the w~pdomd~od'(~.23f.),tau~htb~th~~~int.~dreceive pneurnotthor but not the psuchib,,~ man (81. 13-15: he funher adapts the language for his own argummt tn I Cor. xv. tt,t6). Jam- thm, uses in relation to his teaching on wisdom an adjstive which would be taken to imply a contrast (hence the translation unnpiritud, adopted also by RSV and GNB); and in his canten there might seem to be a contrast between two forms of wisdom. H o w m r , in contrast to Paul and Jude, there is no other indication that he is opposing an alternaive, and to him false, ?stem of tcrhing. His opposition, in v. I t and again in v. 16, tsdirected towards jealousy and xlfishmss 16 and their consequences in instability and every sort d m e a n ndion. It is not indicated that thex arise from the rival claims d c a n p t i n g wisdoms, and indeed in 8". 1 f. such dtvloivencos is ratha said to anor fmm the pursuit of indvidual desires James to concerned to %howh ~ readers s that any claim to wisdom is vitiated by such behaviaw as he

'

% gmnk we of the distinction between pnrhikor md p r r m t i k m , and its pmiblr dsisation, ia v&y dim4 by B. A. Pear- in his

mnognph The k . n o t z k o ~ P l y r h l o zTnniwlo@ in I Cainthiou, Miaaula. Mon1.n. 1973; P - m implausibly atIributcs J a m ' s ur d thc term pswhdos to a litmry dcpmdme on Paul, p. I 3 f. 162

iii. 16-17

THE WISDOM FROM ABOVE

describes: it becomes z 'non-wisdom' (dEcclus d x . 22 f., LXX). His point is not that there is a different wisdom in o p position to the true one, but that a claim to true wisdom cannot be upheld in the contea of an inconsistent style of life. In making this point James uses a term which he is aware has a pejorative force, and assumes to be familiar, but again uses it without its fuU mnnotations (d. i. 18, iii. 6). Dibelius sees the three adjectives as rising to a crescendo, from 'earthly' to 'demonic', with prudikos as the middle term meaning not merely 'natural' but 'sensual' (sinnlich; cf. NEB). They can alsa be seen as each carrying a negative force: wisdom claimed without appropriate works 1s earthly, i.e. Inonheavenlv'. and unroiritunl. i.e. merelv human. whereas true wtrdom' I; the #f[nf God, lndrcd ~ t ' l sdemon-like. tn h n p : the wrt of w~sdorna demon mrght posurs, a demon's fanth nr ~n 11. 19 a son of falth, but u~thoutthe wurk* I" whtch faith is properly seen. Positivelu. an outline of the real nature of wisdom shows 17 that it cannot be present in a jealous or selfish atmosphere. Nothing is said about an inteUectual or doctrinal content for wisdom: James's wise men will not be the guardians of an e r oteric wadition ( d . 2 Esd. dv.45 f.). Wisdom is understood in terms of moral vinue and practical goodness. It i s i n the first nlaee nure. h a"m i.. a word rare in the LXX, used in the cultic ipherc of the dell? and c\myrhing h,lcmgtnp:to h ~ ma, bemg frw fnrm defilement (cf I Jn ~ t r3,, but csnylng a l n thc r n j c of freedom from moral ~mprfectton(PhJ. tv. d ; I I'er. 81,. 2,. It is t h e n peaceable, and thus incompatible with jealousy and selfish ambition. It is equitable a n d persuadable, ebieikis and eubeithir. a oair of adiectives havine a basic cammon mcan~np:of gentleness or reawnahlcncss, bnr the first belng oftrn a s s m a t 4 with the r x e r c l v ofjustlce and the scrond urth thc auttudc of abedicncc. Thcv may be wen ar 3 complementary pair, two sides of a cox": wisdom is reasonable or gentle both in a dominant and a subordinate position. It is full of mercy and good fruits, as 'wue religion' is seen in acts of kindness in 1. 27, and faith comes alive in works of charity in ii. 15 f. Finally, there is another pair of alliterative adjectives, odiokritos and anupokrifos, 163

. .

THE EPISTLE OF J N S

iii 17

similar to the fist p.ir in having a basic overlap and a nice distinction. The fmmer is the more unusual word (only found here in the NT), and can mean 'an separated', but h m its meaning may best be &ducal fmm the cognate verb diakrinomai which James uses in i. 6 and ii. 4. Wisdom is without doubleness, mot m&g dhtHctians, as it is also without dissimulation. James's desuiption of wisdom is charactmstic of his consistent attack on disunity, in man's characta and in his approach to God and men. Them is nothing here of the picture of wisdom as the child of God (Prov. viii. 30; ef. Ecclus i. 4. 9); the preun. and in thcraseofJncmtrh.temptsuon~todespairand gtvc . ~ p (Jrrc.x~7-9). It ~ s ~ n t h e r o u r ~ c o f t h c ~ r I ~ ~ ~ e s , l i l t h c r ~ h ~ n ~ deaths, that the prophets serve as an example ofpatienee. ~

.

' Found in Charles. Aporrypho

and P~eudepipigropho11, as Marrrdom of

Isaiah. chspfs v.

214

s. 11

THE COMING OF THE END

Fwther, Jamcs reminds his mdcra of the high regard in which p ~ e r p n c eis familiarly held: we c d Lhns who 11 andblessed. At this point, Jamel employs the verb hupupontaci with ita amnger ccnnotations of the endurance of actual suffering, but in doing so he is probably reproducing traditional Innguagc. perhaps even quoting a current macarism 6.on i. 12. As in i. 12 J a m s snmed to take advsntage of an ambiguous word, peirarmos, to present endurance in t a m s of the i n n s q u i e n c e of temptation rather than that of enannl testing m d trial, sa his chosen example of h u p a a i will indicate the c i m s t a a x s in which he thinks of its exercise: Job was n a a man under attack fmm others, but one who experienced. albeit in nn acute from, the ordinary human aMiction of w v a t v . baravemnt and ill-health. lob does not fiw elsedhfre &;he NT, though Job v. 13 l o c~lcd in I Cor. u t 19, but he -a in I Clemcnt 8s m example of n righeoua man humble enough to adm~this sin (I Clem ~ I I . 3;citing Job i. I, xi". 4 I.), nnd aaonc who cxpmsacs a hope of m m e u i o n (1 Clem nvi. 3. Job ir 26); and figures also in 2 C l m a t in an argument about individual responsibility (vi 8, drawing on Ezekiel's rcferena to Job. Ezck. d v . 1 4 18). Test.Abraham rv (A) dncribcshirn as a'mamllous man'; and Sotnh v. 5 m r d s n Rabbinic discussion of the quality of his piety:ofwhnberhe w e d Godfromfcnrorfromlove.Heisno~ therefore, an obscure figure to selst for an exemplar. The Jobofthecanonical bmk wouldnm lremrcnurhhlcfa his endurance, either of God or man, and indeed the word hupomai, rare myway in the LXX, only appears in the b k d Jab at i v . 19, and thenna inrelation s p c i f r d y t o Jab himself. Suikingly, however, hupomoni is, with eleimoruG, the key word in the Testomnt ojJob, the theme, intmdwcd at i. 8 f, which this-telling by Jabof hisstmyisdcsigncd toillustrate.' Thceamcapondmeehet~tnthetwodaumentsismlc~ntalso

d tk Tertamm, but h h c n i n g d tk latter's daa make; my of intsdcpcndmrt highly pmb4nmtLd. cf. Inrm. p 12 M o r pmbsbly thcy h h re-t a w.y in which t k rory of J& h .. comc to k told, mm o Ins indepmdmtly of thc bmt that k s r s hisnnmc.

(hoay

215

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

v. l l

tothequestionofwhnhuJobp~&~)forJa~s~nc~~mpIcnd ditiond to that of the prophets, or whether he is aingled out as providing a pmkular demonstration of what has k e n said about prophets in genud. That Jobcould be dnssed among the prophets may be argued hmm Ben Sin's comment on Ezekiel, that he 'dm made mention of Job among the prophns' (Ealus xlix. 9. Hebrew t e n , though Charles, Apoc~ypho and F'seudepigropha I, p. 505 n. 9 shows that the t e n is doubtful); and Charleseomppnswith thistheopinionof some Rabbis that Job was one of the prophets of the gentiles (citing Seder Olnrn Robbn ad). However. if lob was familiarlv taken as a tvoe , of hupomone.nt tsrnoreltkcly that wehavc hcmtwoeramplesdenduranac, first the prophns. then Job, rather than one example prcscntedfirst mgenerdand t h r n ~ n p a n ~ c u l p ~ t cFtnnll\.a ~mo iswonhnotingthat Jobwasgenerallyunderstood tobeagentile: in the Rabbinic reference above he is a gentile prophet; in the LXX he is deacritxd as theorebis. hmm thelandafAuritirllob i. 1); in the Terfnmmt his conversion from idolatry is dcscribcd, eulminatine in his destruction of his father's idol: he fits well. then, with-~ames'a othn cremplaro. Abraham, the 'father proselytcs'and Hahnh the typ~cdprosclytc (12.21,ZS);perhaps dsoWtjah(v. 17),who1nLC1v.25R.isaprophetscnttothr~ntile w a l d The readers have, then, h e d the story d Job, and s e a the end the Lard brovght to it (lit. 'the end of the Lord';lo telot kuriou; that is, the restoration of Job by God, as described in Job xlii. 1C-17). Some commentators understand talos as meaning 'oumase' (so Minon. and d RSV and 19): the maders will then be inntcd to nee the purpose underly~ng Job's cxpcrima, and therefore to find one in their own, a9 ~ n h c a l a l ~n the cham of probatnon of i. 2 f.; but this BS a less usual meaning of the word and to find attention directed to 'what the Lard did in the end' is more appropriate in a cont e n where James is encouraging his readers to hope for a futun intervention of Gad as the end of their period of endurance. The analogy is not, of course. exact, s i n e the md the Lmd brmrght to the experience of Job was a return to his former happiness, abeit on a l a w scale, whereas what the readera look for is an event c-ntially new in kind. What they

2

". . .

..

216

v. 11

THE COMING OF THE END

perceive, though, in the ending of the story of Job, and what gives them their own hope, is that the Lord i s full of cornpassion a n d merciful (polusplonchnos . . kai oiktbmin). James echoes here such passages as Ex. =xi". 6; Pss ciii. 8, cxi. 4. The adjective oiktinnon is frequently used in the L X X and almoat alwaysof God. James's first adjective is equivalent to the equally familiar polueleos, but has itself no currency before the epistle. The adjective is found in Hermas, Mond. iv. 3. 5, Sim. v. 7. 4, as is the cognate naunpolusplonchnia, in Mond. ix. 2, Vir. i. 2. 2, ii. 2. 8, iv. 2. 3, cf. also Justin, Dialogue Iv. 3; it could be of James's coining, but may be easily explained as deriving from the use in bath classical and biblical Greek of splnnchnin, lit. 'bowels', for emotion, especially pity (e.g. Lk. i. 78; Col. iii. 12). James's appeal to the prophets and to Job as examples of patient endurance of hardship and suffering has struck many as extraordinary since the example of Jesus would seem the obvious one in this respect for a Christian author, as indeed it does to Peter ( I Pn. ii. 21-23, d.also the author of Hebrews, for whom in chapter xi the OT provides many examples of faith, hut for whom Jesus is 'the pioneer and perfecter' of faith, xii. 2). There have been attempts to read in such a reference in James, taking telw to mean 'death9, as in Wisd. iii. 19, and relying on the change of verb in the verse: the readers have heard of Job, a figure of the past: they have seen what happened to the Lord Jesus, in recent history. (Both Augustine and Bede found in this passage a reference to the example of Jesus' passion.) This interpretation is not convincing. The objection is not that it would demand taking Lord as used in two different ways in the same sentence, first of Christ and then of God, for this is not impossible (cf. on v. 8); nor, as Mayor and Chaine object, that to refer to the death of Jesus without his resurrection would not make the encouraging point that James intends, for any Christian reader would take for granted that the resurrection of Jesus followed his death. Rather, to read dauss b and c of v. 11 as of the endurance of Job and its sequel is to have a complete and selfcontained example for James's argument, and the two verbs serve the same purpose of reminding the readers of a well217

.

s. l l

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

known story. To read d a u g b of Job's patience only without

its mwsnl (men though no doubt knowledge of that muld be t a k a for aanted)., and e ns s reference to the suffering of Jesus made bndly, obliquely, nnd wthout a s king singled out as In any way dlsthnct fmm a more mmpclltng than the others (d on v 6) ts z complkcat~onof the ten that produces, in fan, P less satisfactorykading of it. To ask why James should use the example of Job rather than that of Jesus is to presume that he has made a real choice. It might indeed be that, as Chline suggests, James was m a r interested in the glay and the return of Christ than in his suffering; a wen that the namplc of Jesw being one of the mdurance of direct attack and of extreme m~ffering,would be less than a p proptiate for James's purpose; but the simple explanation is surely that James appeals to Jab because he was a proverbial man of.mdurance. What we have evidence for is not a rejcc tion of the example of Jesus, but a use of the example of Job; and thnt in itself is perfectly understandable.

IS. LIFE IN THE PRESENT--RELIGIOUS CONVERSATION v. 12-20 (12) Moat importantly, m y brothem, d o not use oaths. not by the h e m e n nor by ths earth nor any other form d omth, but let your 'gr'mean yes, and y m r 'no' no, lest you f d under judgment. (13) Is anyone among you in difficulties? Let him prny. I s anyone feeling cheerful? Let him sing praise. (14) Is anyone among you sick? Let him call the elders of the Church. and let them prny me. him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (15) And the pray- of faith will save the sick man. and the Lord will r i s e him up; and if he should have committed nny sins, it will be forgiven him. (16) Confess you. sins to one another, then, and pray for one another, thnt you may be healed. The active prayer of a righteous mnn is very powerful. (17) Uijnh waa a 218

r. 12

LIFE IN THE PRESENT

rum jlut like us, .ad hc prayed .ad prayed that it should not rain, and no rain fell o n the earth for thrw p a r a .nd & months. (18) And h e prayed as-. m d the h-vvm gave rain d the e.nh produced it. fruit. (19) My t o t h e r s , if nnyone among you should stray from the m t h snd someone turn him back, (20) let him know that the m m who t u r n back a sinner from his a n y of error will save his aoul from dcnth and viU

'cover a multitude of sins'.

In the p r ~ i o u sd o n . J a m was concerned to encourage his readers to patienee and p en nee in the vials of daily lifi in confident ham of the coming of the Lard and of iudammt u ~ o ntho= who mieht bc held to bc. in some m&suri respons'tble for thetr dtfficultnrs Ho-ucyer, ltfc 8s dso lived M a e God tn the prescnt, and In the final scctson d hns epst k James turns to hnstmcthons about the pmpr conduct of dady lnfc T h e unnty of the sccoon has heen d~sputed(d the .nnlvaea of Dtbel~usand Cantmat). but o t m n of thought. tf nm hways a tightly logical one, h a y bc dimmed mining through it. James taken up the t h e m brieRy vented in i. 26 f.. but deals here with mom conventionally or obviously 'religious' activities and, predictably for this author, in particular with religious utterance: prayer, prniae, confession, and the uae of oaths which bemuse they cnml the god as witness to his spesh might be thought a proptr form of aonssion for n 'relieioiaus man'. On the conwan. ,. thoueh. " J a k s b g i n s with Pnmbsolute pmhibitnon of oaths Hts pmh~bitianis pcfnecd wtth the phnec pro p a h , lit 12 'before everything (elx)', which u u o o m e diRculty in interpretation. ~ t r i & y applied, it would seem to indiite that the command thus introduced is the conclusion of n aeries of commands, but singled out as the most imponnnt of all. It is difficult to sce how n pmhibith of oaths would fonn such a conclusion to the imperatives of w. 7 IT.;nhcr J a m s ha8 laid such stmm a patience, it would be odd for him to intmduee n wholly new idea with the e m m m that it is much the man imponantl Ropes and Cantinnt interpret the comparison ns with v. 9: in time of hardship it is imponant not to lay blame 219

THE EPISTLE OP JAMES

v.

12

upon others, or to mPLe mmplaints against them, but even more vital to avoid an impatient or imverent calling upon Gad. The strictly mmparative s e n e of the phrase is not always to be prcs$d, hokver: it may perform & intensifying function. identifying something as particularly important in its own riuht. - . and w t necessarilv in mmoarison with other ideas. T h u 9 some schdar8 see the prohib~t~on as an ~wlatcd saying, induded because it IS a 'hobby-horx' of James, or b e a u s oath-making was espsidly prevalent among his readers, so that they particularly need to be warned against it (Mitton). Dibelius thinks that the saying was attracted into the context by a similar reference to judgment in v. 9. Such an isolation af the prohibition is unnecessary, since its substance harmonises well with what follows it: there am wrong, and right, ways of addressing a calling upon God. It seems best to read the phrasepropntbn as introducing rathcr than cancluding a section; the author moves on to n new line of thought with a transitional and emphatic 'mouimportantly .'. T o read the omhibition in this wav muld be to solve another, minor dnfficulty: that despite ;he fact that he 1s g ~ n dg i m insuucuon to hs madcrs m w. 13 K. the author would mot otherwise u s the palanal address, brothers, until v. 19. (A similar function may be seen to be performed by pro pon6n in 1 Pet. iv. 8: the exhortation to mutual love would read oddly as 'more important' than watching and praying at the nearness of the end, but is easily understood as introducing with emphasis the inatructions to various forms of mutual service in w. 9-11.) James's opposition to oaths m&na a widespread resme about them, as also about vows ( p m i x s of dedication to God). The decahguc indudes the commandment not to take the name of the Lord in vain (Deut. v. 11, cf. Lev. xiz IZ), although the Law requires oaths in some circumstances (Ex. mi. 10 f.. d 1 Kgs viii. 31 f.). Oaths must be made by the name of Gad and by no u h a god (Deut. vi. 13, d. Jcre. x i i 16). Notable figures such as Elijah am seen to make oaths (1 Kgs xvii. I),and even God m a r s , by himself (Gen. xxii. 16, cf. Heb. vi. 13; Philo, Leg.Alleg. iii. 203 ff.,De Son.91-94, explains that this statement is merely a concession to the

..

220

v. 12

LIFE IN THE PRESENT

frailty of human imagination, for d God's words am aths). Against this background. a complete interdiction would be difficult in Judaism. but t h a e is cvidclwr of a desim to limit oath-taking. It might be arm to be undesirable for a number of reasons: a low standard of mthfulncss is indicated where the need is felt of reson to an oath; the name of God might be p.ofaned by usc in trivial matters, or by being invoked as witness to a lie; a mM might, by binding himself with oath or vow, expose himaelf to dislsmua consequences (of which Jcphthah is the prime example, Jud. xi. 30-39. while the fate of the forty Jews of Acts xxiii. 12 ff is unknown);there might be a temptation, in dealing with pagans, to adapt heathen formulae. Ben Sira warns against being 'accustomed to the naming of the Holy One', 2nd of the danger of false swearing (Eeclus uiii. 9-11). Both Josephus and Philo portray the Esscnn 8s forbidding oaths (BJ ii. 135; Ant. xv. 371; Q w d Omn. Rob. 84), though Josephus refers also to their 'tremendous oaths' on initiation into the community (BJ ii. 139. 142). He also describes them as in their avoidance of oaths foUowing 'a way of Life taught to the Gmks by Pythagons' (Ant. loc. cif.), and Diogrnea Lncrtius indeed &s of Pythagoras that he taught his disiples'not to call the gods to wrmcss, man's duty being rmther to strive to make his own word carry conviction' (Lkcr of the Philorophcrr viii. 22. the 'rather' makes the statement less than an absolute prohibition; cf. Epictctus. Enchr. m i i i . 5. 'Avoid an oath altogether if you can, and if not, then as much as poss~ble under the cimmmances'; Dibelius hw a long note on the possibility of Pythagorean influence on Epietetus here). Although Josephus's account of the Eaames may be pffectcd by his desire to prelmt them as Jewish philosophers,it is congruous with the evidof the Dpmaseus Doeumcnt, that oaths were administmd on envy to their community (CD xv. 5 ff.) but w m afterwards rarietly limited in form (CD xv. 1 I T. not by any variation on the name of God, abbreviations of Elohim or A d m i , but by 'a biding oath by the curses of the covenant') and in eirmmscances (CD k 9 f., they must only be made in the presence of judges). Philo for his own pan u r g e the avoidance of oaths in the interest of maintaining a 221

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

v.

I2

high nmdard of truh-telling in all sp+ch (De DIF. 84 ff.). but doo suggests oath formulac which amid the name of God and thus profanity, ar safeguarding the third commandment (DeSprc. Log. ii.2ff.;suchsubstitutcs includemeluingbyone's parcnts, as images of creative power, a by the pnrts of the cosmos, as Nidencc of thst power, rat& than by the Creator himself). The Rabbis, controlled no doubt by scriptural precr dent, arc leas obviously discouraging of oaths. Nedorim 20s counsels,likcBenSin,'Accuromnot thysclftovows,fwsooner alsterthouarilt swar fdseoaths', but W. D.Dnviescamments that there was a 'rrgmful a a e p t m c ' d the pronia (The Setting ofthe S e m a rhc.Uounr.Cnmbridgc 1964, p. 24Of.). Tractate Shebuofh of the Msohnah regulates the use ofoaths, and ltke Philo treats of weskmed fmnulac, though zddrcssnng ratha the problem of thc consequences of oaths than that of pofanity: oaths by heavm and by e m h are judged not btndnng byem~trastwith oath3 by Yoh, El, any subst~tuteforthe dlvtne name or my attribute of.God (Sheb. &. 1). Granted this widespread distrust of oaths in contempanry Hellenistic and Jewish thought. James's unqualikd prohibition still finds its closest parallel in the teaching of Matt. v. 3 S 3 7 , the dosest point of contact, indeed, between the epib tle and any other part of the NT.There arc, however, certain impanant differences betwem the two passages. First, in giving examples of oaths, lames u s s the accusative case f w the things sworn by, and Matthew en plus the dative csae; James's is the meet Greek form whik Matthew d e a s h i t i c idiom (d. e.g. Jere. xii. 16). Secondly. Matthew. provides mom examples of oath formulae, adding 'by Jerusalem' and 'by my head' to Jams's by heaven and by earth. That this may d m the crangelist's o m interest in the topic is *able fmm his r e t m to it in Matt. a d i i 1627, a passage psuliar to this gospel; then is there an attack spedfically in Jewish t s m s on 'avoidable' farmulac, and Matthew may be cansious that the f o m s he quotes in w. 34-36 would similiarly be thought of as not binding. Hence, thirdlv. . he sundies a thmloeical r a t i a o l for the orohibition. absent fmm James: neither heaven, earth nor Jerusalem can be spoken of without reference to God; and man may not

..

222

LIFE IN THE PRESENT

r. 12

swear by himsclf, being powerless even over himself. Founhly, in mpplying .n alternative to mth8, Matthew "so the impntivc crti. 'la it be'; James it2 and here Matthew's f m ia daasical, James's mlloquial. Fifthly, in the framing of this alternative, James indudcs the &finite article: in speech it should be 8 question of to m i nai and M ou m; Matthew has no article: spesh should be nai noi, ou ou. This spoarcntlv , slight " difference in fact alters the mntmt d the two alternatives. James counacls truth-telling, speaking in such n way that 'yw' should mem ye8 and 'no'. no, and thus no oath should be nccesmy; Matthew advocates plain speech simple 'yes, yes' or 'no, no' without the elaboration of oaths. Finally, James mncludes with a warning of judgment; Matthew with a ruling that 'anything more than this is evil'. This amount of diff-ce between the two in so brief a passage makes a literary dependenceof either on the other unlikely, and it ia probable that they therefore represent independent cryaullisations into l i t a a q form of the samc oral tradition. It might bc argued that Tams reoresmts an earlier. , his more original, Form of tiat traditibn than ~ a t t h e asince version of the prohibition is, with its fewer examples, s simpla one. and his alternative, ns m exhortation to truthtelling, gives n gmeral precept by contrast with Matthew's 'casuistic' substiNtian of one mode of speech for another in, maybe. a Jewish-Christian community conarned with the framing of laws. It is, indeed. James's form of the alternative that is quoted, as the citation of a dominical saying, by Justin (I Apol. xvi. 5); Clement of Alexandria (Shorn. v. 99. 1, vii 67. 5) and ia the C h e n t i n r Homilies (iii. 55. 1. fix. 2. 4); all quotations by authors who show no nber sign of Laowing the epistle, and who are therefore also dnwing upon an oral tndition of the saying. On the other hand, if the in8VUction goes hack to Jesus, it would origindy have been given in a Jewish context m d vay probably with just such z polemical thrust as Matthew p m t s ; James's presentation could be a simplifmtion of the mdition ss it pasxd outside the m a of purely Jewish eomxms, and his form of the alternative might reflect the acmmmodntion of it to the popular theme of truth-telling as illustrated above (hie own idiom is u x d by Paul in 2 Cor. i.

.

223

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

P'.

12-13

1 c though Matthew's d m finds p u r l k l a in 2 Enoch xlix. 1 a d Sanhedrin 36a, where it is ruled that a repeated 'y~s'or 'no' has in fact the value of an oath; ef. W. C. Allen, The Gorpel Accmding to St Manhm, 3rd cdn Edinburgh 1912, ad la.). Arguments far priority can be put forward on either side, and it is safer to condude simply that Matthew and Tames renresent altanative forms of the same tradition than to vytocPtablish their rdstive anriquity. One final major &tTcmee, however, remains to be noted Manhew, of muse, cites thetrnditnon as the teschingof Jesus; James includes it without ascription in the courseofhisinstrue tions (the suggestion that his introductorypropnt5n singles it out as of especial impmame baause dominical is unmnvincing). It might therefore be srgued that Matthew has taken n eumnt saying from the general stoek ofethical teaching and attributedit to JesusHoweva,itisdear h.omRom.xiii. 7,8ff.; 1 Pet. iii. 9, that words of Jeaus were absorbed by Christian p a e h a s into their teaching without differentiation. as well na being retained expressly as'eayings ofthe Lord'(& Acts xx. 35; 1 Cor.vii. 10-12). AsthcunaualEed mhibitionofoathsgems to have no -;dent befo; the ~ G i s t i a ntradition. and as it would be an rrtraonlnary sand to take ~n the J C M R context. ~ givcnthcOTbackgmund, it =ems most pobablcthat it derives from Jesus himself Jarncs'n lack of aomptton is certainly no argument that it doesnot; though, equally, therecan be no c e tainty that he himself knew that it did. Oaths, then, must be avoided, lest you fall m d e r judgment, d.the warning of iv. 12, v. 9. The warning is given in general terms, and need not be specified, as by Mayor, as a threat of judgment for breach of the third commandment. (One variant reading, found in P, takes the point of James's admonition to truth-telling, and reads instead of hupo kririn, undor judgment, a warning against falling epi hupokririn. 'into hypaerisy'.) But if oaths are unacceptable, there are other forms of address to Gad that am,in differing circumstances, 13 right and propa. I. m y m e n m m g you in diicultin? (kokopathei, a general term, d.knkopatheio, in v. 10). Let him pray; presumably for relief or deliverance. Is m y m c feeling cheerlul? Let him sing praise (proNeti;the verb in

.

.

224

LIFE IN THE PRESENT

v. 14.15

dsssical L i t s 1 ~ r crrfelred m the playing d a w e d insmem.andisuseddDsvid'sphyingin l Kgsrsi.23;intheLXX it is dao d o f s i n g i n g to m h pn PnarnpnimenS Pss vii. 17. h I I, xcviii. 4 I.; and intheNTdsinging alone. I Cor. xi". IS; ED^ v. 19). The sentiment of Iamceisthat of the nuthorof the &alms o f ' ~ m n 'good : is ipsalm sung to God from a glad hem'(iii. 2);shoddheaddresdwithth.nksgivingintime of joy a8 wdl s.9 with petition in time of grief. Contrasting condition~a moods ofdaily life are thus &etched in g e w a l terms, and James continues with detailed instrmions-for a specific situation, that of aickness The props response of the sick man to hia situation is to 14.15 call to himself the elders o f t b e Church.This is one phras which gives a specifically Christian colouring to the cpistlc since rkkGrin became at a very early stage the chosen selfdesienation of the Christian mmmunitv. whether considered as an individual local unit (c.g. the h o u s church of Philcm. 2 ) or as the whole body ofbeliwa%(e.g.Matt. xvt. 1R;Col. I. 18; Paul's habitual opening addre- 'to the okkbrio in .' may be understood in eithb way; as an address to a partidax local community in its own right as an ekkbsia, or to it considered as a manifestation at one particular place of the total rkktirio). By mnuast, it dacs not seem to have had any real currency aa a slf-designation of Jewiah communities, for whom runogtjgi would be the normal term (see on ii. 2). Outside the gospelg of which Mattbew is the only one to use the tnm, it is found in all the N T documents except the Peuine epistle% 2 T i m and Titus, 1 and 2 Jn, and Jude. Although it Acts was a word ~ m n int secular Greek for an assembly (d. xi*. 39), the probable background of its Christian use is to be found in its ldlc in the LXX where it generally translates q a i l , a term used primarily for the assembly of Israel Sehmidt considers that Tames 'does not refer to a oarticular congregation, but to the Chnsrian communtty as a whale, to which the Epistle is addressed' (pn. dxxir,oiu, TDNT VoL Ill. p. 5). but the immed~ateconten of instruction to themdividual in a particular d a i s strongly suggests a local reference. It is to the leaders of this immediate community that a sick man would send, not to the highest authorities in

..

225

THE EPISTLE OF JAhlES

v.

14,lS

the whole Christian body. The aganisation of local coxmunidcs under the leadership of elders is paralleled in Acts in rderena to Jerusalem (xv. 2.4, xi. 18). Ephesus (xx. 17). Antioch LysVn and %be (xi. 30, xi". 23); in the Pastoral epistles (1 Tim. v. I, 17, 20; T i t i. 5); and in the slfdesignation of the nuthws of 2 and 3 Jn and 1 Pet (v. I). Polyclrp demibed the duties d d d m (Ep. v. I), m d Clement commands that they be shown respect ( I Clem i. 3, rai. 4 though the reference here may be to older members of the Church rather than to leaders). Despite the account in Acts of his appointing ddm, there in, however, no refcmce to such Laden in Paul's letters It is probable that this form of leadership was adopted an the synagogue model (cf. Lk, vii. 3) by Christian communities having at least mme initial contract with Judaism, whether as themselvesJewish Christians. or as drawn from the gentile adherents to the synagogues of the diaspara (cf. Introduction, p. 37 f.). The elders when they come will prmy o v e r him, m i n t i n g him with oil (the aorist participle nk+sanus denotes an accompanying r a t h than a pnrliminnry action). The primary action, dearly, is the p y e r . Prayer in time of sickness might be thought of as having either of two functions. It might be prayer as intercession, a request for God to heal (c.g. Ecdus mrviii. 9: the advice seems to be to a& God first, and then let in the physician as the mediator of his healing gift; d Babo Bathro 116a, whieh advises n sick person to ask a wise man, prcsumsbly a Rabbi, to intercede f w him, without that man k i n g considered his healer); alternatively, the prayer might be thought itself to eUect the healing, like that of Hanina h. Dona, who is ncordcd as knowing fmm the fluency of his prayer whether the patient would recover or not (Berokofh v. 5; see G. Venacs,Jesus the jm, London 1973, pp. 72-78, for an amount of Jewish charismatic healers of the NT period). James gems to think of the prayer of the d d m as having this latter function, since he exdains that the n r s v n of faith ii.e. a oraver that is made'in faith and wiiho; doubt, cf. i. 6 ff.) will snve the sick man. However, the cUectiveness of the prnyer would ultimately be s e n as ul a n of divine or heavenly power, h e m

.

226

.,

v. 14, IS

LIFE IN THE PRESENT

that the Lord rill raise him up (cf. the further as-cc the literal, and demonstrative, raising of the sick in Mk i. 31. ix. 27; Acts iii. 7. k 41). The function of the anointing is la3 undefined Oil was eataioly widely uacd in the m i m t world for medicinal purposes: e.g. for swthing and deansing wounds (1%i. 6; Lk. x. 34); for warming a sick person's body (Hemd's, in Joaephue, Ant. xvii. 172); for toning the muscles (Philo, De Smnn ii. 58; Seneca, Ep. ciii. 5, after sea-sickness);for paralysis (Gala,De med. Ump. i i 10 ff.); even for toothache (Pliiy, Not. Hirt. ndii. 79)' It would, however, be wmng to distinguish between the 'medical' and the 'religious' elements of Jmcs's oictwe. A distinction bnwem remedies based on sunerstition ind remedies based on sclem would have been fo&tgn even to the prmitianen of Greek mcdieme; and the Eanene~would see the potency of thcir prescriptions as derived as much from the antiquity of their rubrics ls from the inherent properties of their herbs (set Vames, op. cit. pp. 61-63. Josephus. 87 ii. 136 and Inhilees x. ICL13\. Bsauac anointin@with ail was mdely ass&rated mth the Ancf of ouffemg (tLugh, accordmg to Josephus. 83 h. 123. the Essenes were aver= to 11).~t is an appropriate action to be performed where such relief is being sought, and sought thmugh player. It would be mileading, however, to describe this anointing as either a 'sym bolic action' expressing the intention of the prayer, or as a 'folk-medicine' accompaniment to it (Dibelius). The anointing is performed in the name of the Lord, and is thus part of the single event of spiritual healing. the request for which is the relieiaus remnae to sickness. Thc phrak in the n a m e of the Lord mnuins a number of nmbiguitsee Rrot, thcrc to ngnm th pmhkm of the identity of the Lord, whether thio is a referen- to Cod a lo Jesus; secondly rhc question of whether anointing in the mm refers to an invocation of the person named, or a daim to act with 'In t k A p m l y p c of U o r e 3% (LL d Mvo md Err nm).Adam hop8 Lnt (;od may md od hom t k of I Ito k d the pun or hw chet8snncnt. Tlus d- not &v d o u . mmcPI a d o u s value attached to oil as such, but is ither an adapt.& in the rerma of t k myth of the notion of the uae of oil i n healing generally. 227

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

v. 11.15

his authority; and thirdly wbaher this u p of the mm is pan of the prayer, a ia a ditTemnt form of unennce. On the first question, granted thnt the sening is the life of n Christian mmmunity, the IiLelihDod is that the Lard is the Lord Jesus Christ, since the practice of Christian healing in his name is reflected in Acts (iii. 6. iv. 30, mi. 18) and the synoptic gospels (Mk xvi. 17; M a t t vii. 22; Lt x. 17). and it would appear that a,familiar was this that the form was adopted by other healpa (Mk ix. 38; A a s x*.13). M a i n l y in v. 10 the name of fhe Lord is that of Go4 who is also the Lord of v. 11, but in v. 14 as in vv. 7. 8. there is most probably n convcn tional, almost technical, a p m s i o n whose interpmtntion is not controlled by its eonten. (Daubc draws attention to the variant reading of B which omits the phrase far Ruriou. and comments that haling 'in the name' would be 1 mom o b noudy Jewish way of refening to healing in the name of Gd, The New Tertam~trand Rabbinic Judaism, p. 236; but this madine is unlikelv to be orieinal.)

~n&berofth~bcali~~;nthc~lmeofJe~lusmfemdronhe arc cracismo, and Dlbdrus r~gardsthe scene in J s m a u, also

thnt d a n exarc~s~ngofthedemunresponeihleforthcdiusse,thc name of Jesua being invoked in the citing or summoning of his master that is pan of the exorcist's technique in addressing his adversary. This is an unwarranted elaboration of the picture. lamesclearlv knowsmouehof exorcist lanrmamlcf.ii. 19. iv. 71 mnfrontation with the demon are in a number of respects different fmm those told without guch aconflict, andone major diffarnce isthat physicalmntaet with the patient playsno p u t inermcisms. The physical contact throughanointingin James's account indicates that this is a healinc where demonic w s s e r r slon xsnot thought to be xnvdved (dhkw. 13, the onlkother passage in the NT where momting plays a pan ~n Chnsttan healing, and wherethe anointing ofthe sick and theexae~ringof demons are dearly separate a&vities). Anointing in then& does not, therefore, refer to an exorcist's invocation es distinct from prayer. Thephraseshauldprobablybeunderstwdinterms ofauthority:onthcanalogywiththeprophetsofv. IOwhospoke 228

v. 14, IS

LIFE IN THE PRESENT

under Yahweh's commission and indeedin words which may be called his. the healer acts under thecommand of Tesos and in an exercise of his power. James is providing an interpretation of how the healing is achieved, or the grounds on which it may be expected, rather than an account of the form ofwords to be used at anointing. It should be stressed again that the prayer and anointine are not to be seen as seoarate but asoartsofthe same anlon, rhepravn would nodouht lncludca requerr to Icwr that the hrallrng power wh~chhe hacgtven mayhe exerc~sxd. Though James does not apparently here associate sickness with demonic activity, he retains something of the longestablished connection between sickness and sin. That sickness will be the result of sin is threatened in the curses of Deut. xxviii. 21 f., 27 f.. assumed in Ps. xxxviii. 1-8 and the thanksgiving of Hezekiah, Is. urxviii. 17; Ben Sira thinks of repentance as a prophylactic (Ecclus xviii. 19 8.) and warns the sinner that he wU find himself in the hands of the physician (Ecclus mrviii. 15). The same connection is maintained in the Testaments (Reub. i. 7. Zeb. v. 2 ff., Gad. v. 9 f.); in the Prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran, see Vermes, op. cit. p. 67; in Nedarim 41a: 'No sick person is cured of his disease until all his sins are forgiven him'; and appears to be assumed by Jesus in Jn v. 14, though rejected by him in Jn ix. 2 f. James thinks of a possible, but not inevitable, assacistion rather than a direct cause and effect relationship: if he should h a v e committed any sins, then the restoration will be spultual as well as physical, and it will be forgiven him. There is no suggestion of an additional form of response to the situation where sin as well as sickness must be dealt with: forgiveness is conveyed in the same single a n of prayer and anointing. James is clearly in all this describing something other than the simple vlsiting of the sick which is a frequently recommended act of charity (e.g. Ecclus vii. 35: Matt. u v . 36; Nedarim 40a, 'He who visits the sick lengthens his life. and he who refrains shortens it'; Polycarp, Ep. vi. 1, one of the duties of elders). The visit of the elderr is of a formal character, with the expeetotion of healing attached to it. James dtes not give the impression of instituting a new practice, rather of describing a response to the situation of 229

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

v. 14, 15

sickness that should be as obvious as praying in time of hardship or singing when cheerful (the optimism of his recommendation would presumably be conditioned by his account of 'unanswered' prayer in i. 6 8 : if healing were not given, it would be becat& there was doubt in the Gayer). Yet despite the assumed familiarity of the practice, it differs from the known analoeies of bath lewish and Christian soiritual hcaltngq. There Is no mention of the laying on of hand< uhlch muld be a feature of J c w ~ r hheal~ng(L)auhe, op. cil. pp. 228 f. and 234-6; 1 QGn .4poc. u. 25-30; and cf. \lk v. 23, ~ 1 1 .32 for popular expcctatlon of jeru..) and u h ~ c hIr a frequent ulemcnt In the healing$ of Jerus and htr followurs (hlk \,L. i. \$!I. 23. 25. x\,i. 18: 1.k iv. 40. xltl. 13:.icts1x. 12. 171 Indeed. ro common is thi$ anion in healing, and 30 surprisi& its o m i e sion here, that Origen reads it into his quotation of James's instruction: '. . . call the elders, and let them lay their hands on him anointing him with oil .' (Horn. in Len. ii. 4, Latin translation). Then, the actions described are specifically those of the elders, the established leaders of the community. Vermes demonstrates the distinction in Judaism between the charismatic healers and R a h b i i c authorities (Hanina h. Dosa healed the sans of R. Johanan b. Zakkai and R. Gamaliel, but is never quoted as an authority on the Law and is not himself a Rabbi; Jesus, a charismatic healer who also interprets the Law, may be the exception to this general rule), and in the tension between the two traditions the charismatic is squeezed out rather than taken over by the Rabbinic (op. cit. pp. 8G82). In the synoptic gospels and in Acts a commission to heal is givm not only to the Twelve (if, indeed, they could be called 'established leaders'), but also ur the seventy in Lk x. 17, and to the individual disciple Ananias in Acts ix. 17. Paul, too, sees healers and administrators (Rubernireis) in the Church as exercising distinct gifts (1 Cor. xii. 28). A precise line of development to James's practice from precedents in either Judaism or the mission of Jesus and other early Christian communities cannot be traced; James represents a community which has inherited both a charismatic character and an arganised structure and leadership, and the hope of charismatic experience is

. ..

230

v.

,

' I

1

! 1

1 I

14. IS

LIPE IN THE PRESENT

associated with the a a e i a c of that leaderahip. An dder m y be apected alm to be a h&r ( t h m is no suggestion that he is an d d a because he is s healer\ Inms's o i n m is often m e tmsted with Paul's, that of a wild;spread;nd varied e m i s e of charismata within the whole community (Rom. xii. 6 8.; 1 Cor. i i . C l l ) . and xm as a late development and as an 'institutionalising' of charisma. However, if Jnmcs's mmmunitv was from its k i"n n i n r s- an onmined one with P " munure of lcaderahipdmved fmm prior nsnciatnon with the synagogue, and if the in~rnalrcccption of Chnrtnan~tynncludcd an adoption of charismatic hopes, then t h e s hopes m y well have been from the beginning related to that structure. A grwp accustomed to leadership and now encouraged to hope for manifestations of the Spirit of God in, for instsncc, hedinge, would be vny likely to focus these hopes upon their leaders. The m p ofcharismatic h o p , and experience, may be more limited thsn is Paul's, but this will not nmssnrily imply there has been a retreat from his position (cf. Invoduc t i ~ i ; ~35. f.). The subsequent history of the rite of anointing in Christian healing is chronicled by the older mmmntators, especially Mayor and R o p a Thia psssge in t k epistle wan appaled to in psrticulnr by the Roman Catholic Church as giving miplural wnrrant for t k m a a m n t of e l u c m unction, the a ~ i n t i n gof a sick man in danger of death with a view to his absolution and ratoration; the health of soul and body. Chainc (whose mmmmtary was published with Imprimatur in 1927) identifies James's elders as priests and finds the gravity of the sickness indicated by the use of the verb orthem5 in v. 14 (d. its use of s i c h s s resulting in death in Jn iv. 16, xi. 1-6; Acts ir. 37), and the apparent inability of the cick man to leave his bed since the prints must be summoned to h i (surprisingly, he does not appal to Ihe use of the verbs r6n6 and kamM in the phrase roue the r i d mon in v. IS; the f m n s might be taken to indicate salvation in a life or death situation. and the Ian- may he used of hopeless sickness, L i kamnotder even being a term for 'the dead'). By contrast Caw tinat (commentary puMiahcd in 1973, also with Imprimotur) dcnia that the language indicates grave or monal sicknesa 231

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

v. 16

This nuance is, in fan, neither demanded nor excluded; James's language may refer to any sickness from which healing is desired, and it is in physical healing that he is primarily interested, the hope of absolution, as commented above, beine only associated in some cases. From thto dcwnption of the kpetfic respnw appropriatr tn case of mckness, Jamcs revats to general ad\.lce and obver 16a sattons The sequence 1% not a strictly lqlcal one. If v. 16 were seen to be dealing also, in broader terms, with the hope of physical healing,it could not be read as ageneralisatianIYomthe instructionsofv. 15. Theadmonitiontocodessvoursinsdoes nntllcnveiromade~r~ptionofruch aconfeoslunby thcs~ckman ufv. 15, and theexhonaunn tomutualact~r.~ty1~)~hel~esers, who are to confessto and pray for one anothercontainsnoreference totheelderswhoarethechief anorsintheprecedingverse.Both the confession and the prayer here counselled are specifically mutual acts: the verse cannot bereadasafurther instruction to the sick to confess those sins which mav have caused their s~ckness(Blaekman) to the elders who have come to the sick roomtopray for them(Sidebottom). Indeed, Jamesmight seem to have incorporated a piece of instrunion from a tradition differentfmm hisown, in which sicknessand sin are necessarily related so that confessionis an essential oreliminarvto healine. and in whchrhe hopeofqr~r~tual hcalmg~rarruciated uith the scttvity of bclievcrs I" general and nut the lcadcrr of the com-

mtlntt~inpanicdar.U~bcliurthink~thatthr~n~truct~onden~es from an originally independent logion about confessionand i n tercessayprayer, attracted to". 15bythecatchword hnmnrtia. sin. and im~erfectlvconformed to the context bv, Tames's addition of a coicluding statement of intent, thotyou may be healed. A certain sequence of thought, rather than a purely formal linguistic connection may, however,be observed.The situation he has sketched suggests two ideas to James, which he goes on, albeit unsystematically and not particularly originally, to exdore. First. the fan of sichess raises the wssibilitv of sin. hcnce he t u n * todeal wlth the proper respanor to rtn tn genrral cxpoirnce, both asadmitred ~noncrrlf(\.Iba),an~larobrn.cd unscknowlcdgcd~notherr(v 19f.) Secondlv.thcrxp~tat~on~~f healing is related to the efficacy of prayer, an idea important to

.

232

v. 16

LIFE IN THE PRESENT

him which he takes the q p m u n i t y hPthcr to iIlurmtc in w. 16b-18. The prevalence of sin even among believers was acknowledgedby James in iii 2. ud the aolution t k r e would asem to tie in individual d d i d p l i n e . Hae the response is a communal one, a m u d convssrtion whose mntcnt is a humble admission of fault and a generow, giving of suppon (in sharp mntraa to the m u t d ceompLmt condemned in v. 9). A mnfesaion of sins might be thought to be properly addressed to God, who 'demseth fmm sins a soul when it makcth mnfesaion'(Psa Sol. ix. 12; cf. Num.s.5 ff.; Pe li. 3 f.; 1 Jn i. 8 f.; 1 Clem. li. 3, li.; H-as, Vk. iii. 1. S), and confession IO fellow-memh of the community EM hardly be intended to replace that. James's referem should not, however. be s ~ as n limited either to an admission of fault to pcrronaonehn,sctually injwcd(d.~att.xwii. 15;LLxvii. 3f.) or to the makmg of mnfcsaion in publk (cf. Did. iv. 14. iiv. I). It is not anyway dnr whether this reciprocal mnfcsaion and payer is pati of the public worshipping life d the whole mmmunitv. or the orivntc activitv of smaller e m u ~within s it Nor is thLpurpo& of the conf;saion of s%s nddrcsxd to fellow-mcmbas of the mmmunity defined. It m y be thought thnt if the community is mndc a w m of P member'sbertting sins it will be able to hdp him in resisting them, or thnt confession is a preliminmy to mumal prayer: the sins confessed bemming the subject of intercession. What is stated is the object of this mutual mnvusntion as a whole: it is that you may be hemled. Such healing should m t be -in the light of vv. 14-15 as spcdfrcally physical healing fmm s~cknesa James's desription of the response to sickness suggested the idea of sin, but the respons to this is a topic in its own right As with v. 7, the conjunction oun used in v. 16 suggests a g m d deduction from the prseding p m g r p h rather than a specific wnclusion drawn fmm it; in the c a r of sickness, one may hope far forgiveness of sins, .o then this may pmpcrly be sought in other circumstances. The healing now thought of i p from pin and tts mnsequmacs (which may or may not include physical ouffsnng),and the verb ioomoiislibwise used in this connection tn Is. vi. I0 (auotcd in .Matt. xti~.IS: In xii

v. 16

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

27); Ia liii. 5 (quoted in 1 Pet ii. 24); Hennas, 40; Acts d. Vis. i 1. 9. S k . ix. - ~28. - -5. The prayer that is part ofthe mspons ofthe wmmunity to the experience of 6n is pmbably thought of aa intenrssory. cdline for God's foreivcness and restoration of the sinner, r a t h g than as havingUaneRective power of its own, as in v. IS. Howcva, the power of prayer is in my event to be 16b mphasised: The active prayer d a rightsous man is very powerful. This sentence muld he read as a h l , mcouraging wmmcat on the intaceasory prayer of v. 16%or as introducing a second line of thought: the eRracy of prayer, as demonstrated by Elijah, in w. 17 f. Most texts punctuate v. 16 sa as to give s major paua between the two halves, JB even presenting 16b as the opening of s new pmgnph. Its function is most pmbably transitional, taking up the t h e m of prayer from the insvuctions of both w. 14 f. and 16a, with a view to expounding it by illustration. That powerful prayer is predicated of o righteous m n may not be taken to indicate that the righteous am an hlite w h o s prayer is more effective than that of the ordinary believer. James stresses that even his exemplar Eiijah is j w t like u,, at least in that respect. His language s h o e s the scriptural assurance that Cod hears the prayer of the righteous (Pp ad". 15, quoted in 1 Pet. iii. 12; Rov. xv. 29), and the t i g h t e m man is, 88 in Y. 6, the faithful man of God, who trusts in him Th description of this prayer as act& represents the participle cnergmrnreni,which doses the verse, but whose function in it is unclear. It may be understcod adjativally, ashre,(d. JB,'hcpn-felt prayd),oras giving an adverbial dause: thisprayeriapowrful'whmit isput into effect'bv God or bv the S ~ i r i(thus t Mavor and Blackman. reading the participle i s in &e passive voi'ce); or 'when it is exercised' (Ropes and RV reading the pnniciplc as middle in voice). T h v~ousoptionsmltclittlediffermeetothe overall m a , but it ischarnctcristicthat Jamesshouldsuggestth.tprayeri8to be undastocd as something sctive. He is concerned to cnc m a g e confidence in the eRracyaf prayer, but the man whose prayer isdfiolciouswill bconc for whomit isnotjusta matter of words, and certainlynot ofhalf-hearted or doubtful petition (cf.

.-

234

v.

17, 18

LIFE IN THE PRESENT

i. 5 f., ii. 16,iv. 2f., andMk xi. 22-24for comparable teaching on the power of prayer when made in full conviction). It is at first Bight surprising to find Elijah, commonly 17,18 thought of as the archetypal prophet, appealed to as the e x e m p l a ~man of prayer, and in particular that the appeal is not to that story of his m i a d e s in which he is specifically described as praying and which might seem more appropriate to the context of James: the revival of the son of the widow of Zarephath (1 Kgs xvii. 17-24, esp. v. 20f.). In the narrative of Kings, his action at both the beginning and the end of the drought appears rather as prophetic announmment than as prayer (I Kgs mii. 1, xviii. 1, 41, 44; cf. Ecclus xlviii. 3, and the prophecy of the 'two witnesses' of Rev. xi. 6), but his standing before God in 1 Kgs xvii. 1 and, less plausibly, his crouching posture in 1 Kgs xviii. 42, might be interpreted as anitudes of prayer (cf. Lk. xviii. 11, 13; Neh. viii. 6). He appears, however, in the catalogue of men of prayer in 2 Esd. vii. 106-110, in relation both to the giving of rain and to the revival of the widow's son (7. 109). The marvel of rainmaking, or withholding, as a result of prayer had a certain place in popular imagination, such stories k i n g told of Onias the martyr (Josephus, Ant. xi". 22); of Honi the circle-drawer and his descendants, and Hanina b. Dosa (Taonith iii. 8; Taanith 24b: see Vermes..00. ' cit. DD. 69f.. 72.761:evenlater of Jamcs himself (Eprph., Ilon. Ixnqil. 14)': wh~chmay explain uhy at is that James appeals to t h ~ part s of Elilah'r actlnt!. as demonstrating the power of pray". James emphasises the energy of Elijah's prayer, an example of the actineprayer he wishes to encourage: he prayed and prayed. The repetition of noun and verb, proseuchei prmiuxato is sometimes seen as representing the Hebrew idiom of the infinitive absolute (dJosh. mi". 10; Is x u . 19; and also Lk. xxii. IS), though Diklius and Cantinat quote parallels from classical literature; in any event, its function is to intensify the statement, hence RV's'he prayed fervently' or NEB'S 'earnestly' (Ropes's suggestion, 'he prayed a prayer',

..

' Thlsd~velopmenfofthe tradition abovr 'Jamcs h e Jusr'may

came h m a knowledgsaf theepistle itself fmm whatwouldbc deemed to be, in". 1 6 8 . James's o m description of the activity and powers of 'thc righteous man'.

235

v. 17. 18

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

weakens the force of the example). He also emphasises the ordinary human character of Elijah: he was a man just like us (homoiopothis hkmin; ef. Paul's protestation to the Lystra crowds, Acts riv. 15). This is an extraordinary statement in eonvast with the adulation of Elijah in Ecclus xlviii. 1-12, the presentation of him as the eschatological prophet in Mal. iv. 5 f. and subsequent Jewish expectation, and, indeed, his place in Christian tradition, in the figure of John the Baptist (e.g. Lk. i. 17: Matt. xi. 14. xvii. 10-131., Tames mav not be ignorant of such ideas, or intending to exclude them; his statement is related to h ~ intention s in the cmtext. If the example of Elijah is to serve to encourage his readers to similarly confident and energetic prayer, it must be clear that the efficacy of Elijah's prayer is not related to any superhuman gifts or qual~tiesin the man (even prophetic charisma) but only to the fact that he prayed, and prayed with fervour. (A comparison may be drawn with the presentation of Solomon as an ordinary man in W i d vii. 1-7: his wisdom was not a superhuman quality in him, but a gift of God for which, by implicatioh any man may ask. Far Cantinat, this consideration explains why James does not appeal to the example of Jesus' prayer, so strongly stressed in the Lukan =adition, e.g. Lk. iii. 21, ix. 28 f., xxii. 44, and by the author of Hebrews, v. 7.) James's description of the drought as lasting for three years and six months does not derive directly from the OT, whae the announcement that the drought is to be lifted is simply said to be made 'in the third year' (1 Kgs xviii. 1). T h e known midrashic intapretations of this reference calculate the duration of the drought as either fourteen or eighteen months (Esther R.14; Lev. R.19; see also G. H. D s l m a ~ Jesus-Jerhua, ET London 1929, p. 52. The calculation of fourteen months would presumably suppose that the drought is pronounced at the end of the first year, a month before the 'early' rains were due to begin, the second year would then be without a rainy season at all, and the drought would end at the beginning of the third year, for its 'early' rains to fallow. For eighteen months, the pronouncement would come after the 'late' rains of the fist year, with the drought period taken to include the months of dryness that normally follow.) A

.

236

LIFE IN THE PRESENT

v. 17, 18

three and a half year pcriod of drought is mentioned dso in Lk, iv. 25 (6. alm the duration of thc witnews' prophecy in Rev. xi. 2 f.), and this m s p o n d e n c c might be taken to reflea another midrnshic dculntion wharby the drought is pen to be bmken at the end of the third year, after three consxutive yearn without rain, to which may be added the usual dry M o d of the prseding year (so Chaine and Cantinat). Howevs, it may well be that no background of clabamtc calculation should be supposed; rather, 'three and a half years' was a stock pivase for 'a considanble period' (so Dnlman), which seemed to h m o n i s c well mough with the note in Kings. The numba 'three and s half' plays a cumin n3le in apocalyptic symbolism as half the perfst number, seven, and therefm as a sinister number (e.g. Dan. vii. 25, di. 7; Rev. xi. 2 f.. d i . 6, 14. xiii. 5); if James and Luke arc using a stock phrase, it is one which might appropriately suggest a time of misfortuneordianster.(Alm intheLukanaeemt ofhisactivity. Elijah isprnmted nsnprophet =nt tathegcntilcworld,iv. 26;if one could think Jamn might be aware of this idea, hisappeal to Elijah would h m o n i s e with hisuse ofnbr'gentile'exemplprs, Abraham, Rahab and Job.) After the period of drought, tbc haven g8ve rain. J a m s s h m biblical idiom rather than d i d y quoting the Elijsh narrative (d 1 Kgs xviii. 1, as also in his statement that M rain fell on the eavfh, d.1 Kgs xvii. 7). In the narrative of 1 Kings it is God who sends the min (1Kga xviii. 1, d. 1 S a m xii. 17; Acts xi". 17; and on v. 7 a h ) ; James's neat balance of statements that the heaven c a w rain and the emth produced its b i t might suggea that Elijah's prayer had a direct effect upan the natural order, but he would prsumsbly expen his reders to tlLe it for granted that it has this & s t b e a u s God acts in a n s m to it. It is interesting that by thus using Elijah an example of the m n of prayer, James has in fan implicitly d t n r d the mof the original story. As a pmphet. Elijah declared the prior decision of God communicated to him; when his activity is seen as p y a , it is rather God who responds to his internasion. In the dosing v m e s of the epistle, James m u m s to the 19,20 question of dealing with sin within the community. Apparent-

-

237

v.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

19-20

ly assuming that the duty of trying to recla~ma i n n e r will be neognised, he encowages the hJfilmnt of t h s duty by reminding bis readers of its outcome. (For a similar m g n t tion uf this duty. 6.the Matthcan version of the prablr of the lost shm. Man. xviii. 12-14; CPI. vl. I f.; 1 Thess. v 14; 2 Thess. iii. '14 f.; Jude 22 f.; 2 Clem. xvii. 2; Hermas, Mmrd viii. 10; Ecdus xix. 13 f.; and in relation specifically to sins committed against cmarlf, Matt. xviii. 1 S 1 7 ; Lk. mii. 3 f.; Test. Gad. vi. 3; I QS v. 25-vi. 1.) The nature of the e m from which the sinner is to be reclaimed is not defuud; most probably it is moral rather than dcctrind crmr, although James is unlikely to distinguish between cthiol huth and the vuth of the gospel as a whole (cf. i. 18, iii. 14). The metaphor of the way is frequently employed in Jewish ethical teaching, e.g. Ps i. 6; Rov. iv. 14, and is developed in the 'Two Ways' pancm of instruction in 1 QS iii. 134". 26; Did. i-vi. 1; Barn. xviii-ar; cf. Tea. Asha i. 3 ff.; Hermas, Mand. vi 1; 1 Jn i. 6 f. A variant reading of v. 19 by Sinaiticus balances the refaenee to his r a y of ermr ( a , 'the error of his way', ek planis hodmr outmr) m v. 20 with one to a straying spsificdy ' h m the way of n t h ' (ape hodm t i , oletheios ef. Wisd. v. 6). The redamntion of an m m t m m k of the community has far-reaching mnsequcnas: it achieves the dvntion of a 20 .owl from desth. and forgiveness of sins (for the idiom rover.. dns as meaning forgiveness,cf. Ps. xxxii. I). Here, however, James's language is ambiguous, and it is not dear to whom t h e s blessings are seen to accrue: to the convened sinner a to the man who mnvms him. T k attention of v. 19 is foeused upon the act of the convener mnsequent on the m r of awther, and it might scem logical that v. 20 should assure him of his w a r d in t a m s of future salvation. That merriful deeds deliver their d u r from death is affirmed in Tob. iv. 10, xii. 9, d Dan. xii. 3 and contrast Ezek mdii. 9; that they dlen atonement far hissina is w i o u d y indicated in Dan.iv. 27:Eedusiii. 3.30:Did.i~. 6.Bm.xix. 10: ZCleaxvi . . 4. Thia interpretatson is favowed hy Mnya. who, however. finallyR j m s it asoffsingamotiveof reward nnconsistent w ~ t h the Christian gospel; he thaeforc intcrpms the vene a s

.

238

LIFE IN THE PRESENT

r. 20

1

'

assuring the convcrtu ofthe doubk bleaaing he hasachieved for his fellow. That d v a u o n fmmdesth is the c o n q u e n a ofconversion for the sinner e m s mast pmbabk. J a m s has himaclf nffirmedthem~mionofsinwithdeahini.15IdRom.v. 12); death Howcva, if t h e c o n w e d sinner is deemed to have been rescued from d c a h as the consequence of his sins. he must be deemed already to have bem forgiven: an announcement of his foreivmess foUawins this nnnounammt of his delivmnee would he an odd sequence. It seems feasible, then, that J a m s haldsout nn asurance o f b l e ~ l n gboth to t h e c o n ~ n c dand to the converter; the an ofeonversion isof mutunl benefit: the man who istumed fmmerror isthemby dclivaedfromdcathnndthe man who rrelsims him crprimccs himself forgivenem of his sins It is, of course, assumed that the man who takes it upon himself to redaim his fellow from error will be conscious of m a s of his own for which he t m aanda in need of forgiveness Such an intapretation might acemconsistcnt with the pictureof amutunlmsponsctosin, and mutualhencfit, in". 16.Thatv. Z h rderstothe convmed and 2% totheeonverterisaI~~)c~neI~ded by Blackman, Dibclius, Ropes a n d with reservations. Mitton.' Othercommentators howcvs,pointoutthat 20bisnot James's own composition, but is s papular expression, and might therefore have a m a e g e m a l r d e m m : to the sinsof both cow v a t u and converted (Chainc); or to the community at large, pRenedby thepresenceof sin(Reich,sndcf. Sidebottom).This e m s I n s mbablc:.. Tnmcs or-ts to his readers n situstion f o c u d on two actors, nlhcit m t k ~ midst, r and lolikely to p r e scnt llsoutmme aln, in npmficrcferrnce lothcoe two. The ambiguity of the v e r s is reflmed ~n two vlriant readings within it. Finn, the impzr~tivewith which it opens is rnriously mad as in the third pcrson singular, giGsbr&, let him Lnm (so the majaity of Greek MSS and versions), m d

.

.

' Cornprioa may be made with the r n m d ten& to =&I md ~ r h r r in I lim, iv. 16. nd to mrUa nd rmnrlled m ZCkm rs. 1. ir 1; E+l. Apon rnir I0 5,. H e d c s c h n a m k h a I. p. 2.25, though thm tk sitwtia, e m s to be one d prmnal mnjuy, mybe d rich to poor.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

y

v. 20

in the second person plural ginoskete, know you (so, e.g., B and the Ethiopic version). The latter probably represents a desire to harmonise the imperative to the opening address to my bothers; less plausibly, it may have been felt that to address the converter directly would be to speak only of his reward, an impression some scribes may have wished to avoid. Secondly, the first assurance, that the convener of a sinner will save his soul f r o m death, (psuchin outou ek thanntou) is so read in, e.g.,N, A. 33, most of the old Latin and the and Armenian versions and the . - Vulgate. the Svriac , Hohairir, but the pmnoun rs omitted by man!, Greek MSS. ~nclud~ng K and t , , and by the Sahldlc vcrsron, whtle in P 74, B and ,"me old Latin MSS it is transposed to gwc ' sa\,e a soul from death itself' (ek thnnatou~nutou.)It seems more probable that the pronoun originally stood in the t e a and was variauslv omitted or re-oositioned than that it was arieinallv absent and variously introduced. To take the first alternative as the original reading of the verse is not, however, to solve the problem of its ambiguity at this point; since autou is frequently confused with the reflexive hoautou (especially in its contracted form houfou), the reference might still be either ta convener or to converted. (The reading ek thanatou autou would aooear to be an eseaoe !?om that ambieuitv. - , thoueh it Br supported bv Wlkgren ~n a hswnunp: judgment from thr. 1 BS ehtton; see .\lnrgs'oTexfuol Cornmenlory a the Greek New Testament,ad loc.) The terms of the second assurance, that the converter will cover a multihlde of sins corresponds to those of the exhortation to love in 1 Pet. iv. 8, because 'love covers a multitude of sins'. The correspondence in each of ihe phrase pGthD~hamarton suggests a closer relationship than a merely coincidental use of the biblical idiom 'cover sins'. Peter's statement appears to be a rendering of the Hebrew t e a of Prov. x. 12, 'love coves all sins', although not that of the LXX translation, where love (philio rather than Peter's ognpi) is rather said to 'cover all those who do not love strife' (an accommodation of the second proposition of the verse to the first. 'hatred a i r s up strife'). It is unlikely that either James or Peter is drawing upon the Hebrew text here, in con-

- .

..

" .

240

v. 20

LIFE IN THE PRESENT

vast to the normal oractice of both of usine the LXX. T h e aphorism is quoted, in the form in which it appears tn 1 Peter, by cenain of the early Fathers, cf. 1 Clem. xlix. 5; 2 Clem. mi. 4; Ten. Scarp. vi. 11; Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 12. 91 and Quis Din. 38; Odgen. Horn. in Lev. ii. 4; and in the Didmcalia, ii. 3. 3. By the last three, the farm is attributed to Jesus; Origen cites it in connection with Lk. vii. 47, and the words of Jesus about the sinful woman could in fact be understood as a citation or paraphrase of the OT aphorism. (Incidentally, all those who thus cite the saying understand the sins forgiven as those of the man who loves, which might give weight to interpreting James's assurance in relation to the convener, not the converted.) The probability is that the saying, originally derived from scripture, became proverbial in the Palestinian Church, as perhaps it wss also in Jewish teaching, and so passed into Greek-speaking Christianity without the medium of the LXX. James has adapted a to his context, relating forgiveness to the work of conversion, and using the verb in the future tense (this does not necessarily imply a referenrr to the future judgment when sins will be forgiven, but only a consequential relationship between conversion and forgiveness). He does not appear to ascribe to it scriptural authority, since he neither introduces it as a quotation nor employs his technique of allusion by use of a striking LXX phrase, or dominical authority. It is also uncertain if, by thus adapting an aphorism whose original subject is love, he intends conversion to be interpreted as a work of love, since this principle of Christian action plays no part in his argument after his citation of the 'royal law' in ii. 8. James concludes, then, with a picture of a Christian community whose members take responsibility for their errant brothers, to their mutual benefit, as they regularly act together for their common deliverance from sin and its cansequences (v. 16). He accepts that this need exists, and that sin remains a fact of Christian life. Yet he is optimistic; he does not consider the contingency of failure to convert a brother (contrast Matt. miii. 17; Ezek. xxxiii. 9). or the possibility of sin so grave that reclamation may not be attempted (cf. Heb. vi. G 6 ; 1 Jn v. I6b; possibly also 1 Cor. 241

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

v. 20

v. 2-5). It is, however, with redamation of the errant member

only that he is concerned, and thus with the maintenance of the existing community. There is no reference to the conversion and incorporation of outsiders, though same of the language used could have been given such a reference (the verb &istr&tG. turn. is so used in Acts xi". 15: 1 Thess. i. 9: and tge refirekc ro the oavtng of Rahab's soul, Josh. 11. 13; war understood tn tcrmr of her membership of Israel when rhe was rern as rhc archetypal pruuel)~e;cf. on it. 25). Ihe community is not an enclosed, exclusive body, since visitors may be welcomed, sometimes t m enthusiastically (ii. 2 f.), and the author's own writing shows an openness to the language and ideas of the wider environment; but there is no evidence of an enthusiasm to extend its bounds and tq take its gospel out into the world. Some scribes sought to mitigate the abruptness of James's conclusion with the addition of a final Amen, or of a doxology (cf. 2 Pet. iii. 18; Jude 24 f.). Certainly there are none of those final greetings and messages that characterise a personal letter of the Pauline type. Yet, especially in this last section, the author has seemed m envisage and address an actual community in the course of its daily life (whether or not he thought of it as typical of d Christian communities so that his advice would have a general reference), and his work thus has an immediacy which sets it apart also from the category of an essay in conventional wisdom or a would-be philosophical tract.

.

~

INDEX OF REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT AND APOCRYPHA

! E10d"l vi 6 xvi. 4

'

i. 1 6 1 6 i. 26 i. 2 M O i. 28 il. 7 il. 19f. iii 12 iii 21 iv. 10 v. 27 "1

v,.

3 (LXXJ 5

Wiii rvlii. 17 rval. 20

rvia. 25 rir. 13 ua.2 uli. 9 rxii 16 rxiii. 4 xxrviii. 25 XXXVUI.

Ai. 42

26

%:NI

xui. 10 nr. 22 xr 1-17 xr. 5 xr 6 xrii. 10:. xrii. 228 xxii. 29f. .xi" 7 x i 6 xxxiv. 6 x n l v . 14

. . .

. . .

. . . . . . . .

. .

r11.12 xix. 13 xlr. IS

. . .

xv.11 xx. 17 ui. 7

. . . . .

. .

.

. 130 . . 83 . . 96 . . 183 ,115 . 176. 177 . . 67 . ,220 . . 89 . 75 . 85 . . 87 . . 217 . 176. 177

. . ,220 . . ,201 14, 93, 102, 104, 107. 108. 114 rix. I8 4. 8, 14, 28; 102, 101, 107-10, 113. I l h 126. 187. I88 rxiii, l M . . . . 75

Deulwonomy i. 13 iv6

iv. 7

. . .

. . . . .

.

. . . .

,233

.

. 186 ,177 . 109 . 186

. . .

. 183

,159 ,159

INDEX OF REFERENCES Dauteronmy(catd.)

.

.

.

vii 6 . . xi 12 xi 14 . nii. 3 . rv. 5 . rviii. 4 . xviii. 13 xxii. 6f. . xxiv. I5 . rxvi. I6 xxvi. 19 . xxvii. 19 xxviii.10 xxviii Ztf xwiii. 25 xxviil. 27f. rrr. 15-20 x u . I rrrii. 18 i n i i . 36 xxxii. 39 r u i i i . I4

.

. 75 . 60 .211.212 . . 60 . . 85 . . 75 . 54 . . 113 . 201. 202 . 56 . 75

iv. 17

.

Jmhue ii. I1 il. 13 25 xuia. 16 xxiv. I0 x i . 9 "1.

3&39 xviil. 6

.

. . . .

.

.

.

.

2Samuel v. 10

rv. 9 iaiv. 1

,,,

4 , iii, 9R, , ,i. 29 i", 33 vii. 23ff "iii,3,f, iii, 53 viii. 56 "iii. 66 , xiv, 8 , xvi, 23 , -ii, 1 7 , -ii, 17-21 rvi,, 2~ ~"iil.1 . rviti. 41 ."iii, 42 xvii;, xix. 10 ,

89

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. 137, 139 . . 138 . . 242 . . I37 . . : . . 235 . 177

.

. .

. .

"

. 229 ,239 . 177 . 75 . 45 . 188 . 74

::;

. 221 . 121

. . .

I Kiqs

: .: ,105 :2; . . . . . . .

Judgrr XI

. . . . . .

rk.23

. 153

I

2Kinp

''

'

xxiii' l o

1 Chronicler 33 n i x . LO XIX

. .

INDEX OF REFERENCES I! ix. 18 ix. 21

2 Ck~onicle* iv. 2 6 vii. 1-3 rii. 38 xv. 2 rv. 4 rx. 7 rxi. I x m i 21 xxxvi. 16

IX.

.

xi. 7 (LXX) rii. 1-5 rii. 2 rii. s t xviii7 . xviii. 2s xir. 7

Ezra iv. 17

~~"il.3 . xxvii. 21 xxviii 28 . rxxii. 8 . . nxiv. I9 . u x v i i . 18 . xrxviil.7 . xrxva,. 39-mix. I 2 r-rri*.2 6 3 0 . xlil. 1G17

Plalmr i l

.

.

=xi". I 5 . . xxvi. 6 . . rrir. 1 . . xuii.1 . rrxii. 9 . . rxrvii. 2 . rrxvii. 14 . ~Xx"il.20 . umi. 32 . rxxvlii.1-8 . nxix 1 . . rli. 2 (LXX) di". 22 . Aix . . xlir. 20 . . 1,. 1-17 . . 18.36 . . Iviii.3f. . . lir. 5 . . lxvili.2 . . Ixvili.5 . . IXYII~. 21 (LXX) 1,"ii. 33 (LXX) IXX,5 . . . i ,1 7 (LXX) Ixxiii. 13 hiii.27 . Ixxvd. 19 hl*ii. I 1xxxii. 2 lxxxii8 . lxxxii,. 3 (LXX) I , .

7 (LXX)

INDEX OF REFERENCES Prolmr (ronfd.)

I-.

.

10

c. 5 cit.3

. . . . . . .

. .

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

eiil. 8 cia. 15 cai. 21 mi,. Sf. mi. 4 cxviii. 20 (LXX) cruiii. 21 (LXX) exv~ii.131 (LXX) crvlii. I74 (LXX) erix. 43

cnx. 45 cxx. 3f. euix 6 cxxxvi. 7

cxl cxl. 3 exlv.17 ulv. I8 crlu. 20 Proverb. 110% ii.6 ii7(,

.

. .

.

. . . . xl2 . x. 19 . . XL. 30 . rv. 29 . r v i . 27 . . xvs. 32 . . rvii. 6 . . rviii. 21 . nr. 3 . . nr. 21 . . xr. 23 . n v x . 27 . . rrvii. l . . x m i ~ .21 (LXX) r u i . 8f .

vtu viil. 22ff viii. 30 viii. 34

. .

. . . . . .

. I86 ,191 . 217

.

64 ,202 ,121 ,217 . 178. 179 . .I79 . .I78 . . I78 . . 76 . 87 . .I49 . 64 . 73 . . 7 . 151 . . 61 . .I83 . . 67

. . . . .

. ,164 . . 164 . . 164 . . 66 . ,240 . . 80 . . 166 . 165. 166 . ,234 149. 200 . . 80 . .I49 . . I54 . 70 . 192 . ,189 . ,200 . 190. 194 . 52 .

.I30

.2041

.

:"/

166. 182

iii. 28 in.

34

iu. 9 iv. I4 vii. 22

. . . . .

. . . 183 20. 176. 17-80, 181, 183. 207 . . . 68 . . ,238 . . ,204

xi. 11-16 rnt 6

.

. .

. .

. 48 . 197

INDEX OF REFERENCES Lniah ( m t d . ) xi". 31 X". 2f. xvi. 7 rk. I2 xxvi. I1 ixix. 13 1x1. 19 ux.27 x u 30 rxdi. 17

. . . . . . . . .

XI. 6

xl. 7-8 di. 8 d"i. 7 div. 8

Jnrminh

ii.3 . ii4f. . ~ i i 6. 1 4 iii.20 . iv. 8 . iv. 19 . iv. 23 (LXX) v. I 4 . u. 24 . vii. 21% "li.25 . vii.31 . vii1.19 . 1. 3 . rii.3 .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M. 84

~=d&l

.64 6CS ,136 ,105 . 72 ,130 .I30 ,191 ,234 .207 ,205 . I74 ,205 . 92 . 155 ,105

i.5 i. 10 i. IS i I6 i. 19t i. 26 viii.4 xi. 23 n v . I4 XIV. 18 xv.

7

X V ~

. . 75 . ,214 . . 174 . . 174 . 184, 198 . . 64 . . 73 . ,199 . ,211 . . 92 . . 45 . ,152 . . 88 . . 88 . ,204

mi. 42 X V ~ . so xviii. I2 ad. 15 xrii. 7 rrii.29 lxiil

. . . . .

. .

. . . .

. . . . . ,

~ f i i i 1-9 . xxxiii. 9 rxxvii 86 r m i i . 15-22 div I3 .

Daniel

217

iii. 3s ( ~ x x ) iv. l . iv. 27 , ". 12 vi. 26 . vii. I5 .

INDEX OF REFERENCES Danirl(contd.) vii.25 IX. 10 ri1.1 xi1.3 rii. 7 iii. 12

. . . .

. . . .

. .

. ,237 . .I5 . . 89 . ,238 . ,237 . . 67

.

.

.

. . 57

Hobohlnrh ii. 4

.

Zlphonid ili.I t

.

Hodgoi ii.7-9

.

noren

vi. 3 vi. 6 ir. 10 xi. I xii.2 xiii.3

Ano, i.3 i.12 i.14 li.16 I". 7 iv. 1 v. I l f . v. 21s. vi. 12 "iii.3 viii.4f. viii.4 viii.10 ix. 19

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

riii.23 riii. 3 9 4 7 xi". +Sf. iv. 50

. .

INDEX O F REFERENCES Errbiosticur

Tobit (card.)

With v. 19 viii. 25% r. 18 mi. 17

ii.8 it.12 ii.18 ii.20 ii.23 ii.24 iii.19 iv. 2 v.6 v. 12-13 v. 16 ui. 19 "i. 23 "ii vii. 1-7 vii.18 vii. 22-24 "ii.22 vii.26

.

.i 9 ir. 17 rii.10 rv.3 rv.11 rir. 7

.

. . . . . . . . . . .

iu. 16 vi.7f. vi. lM.

. . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .

.

. , ,

.

,201 ,120 ,181 ,181 . 181 ,238

. 47

, 5

,208

. 199

. .

. ,

.

, . iii.3 . i i i 17 (LXX) isi 30 . iv. 7-8 . iv. l o . 7. 91. . 7.11 v. 13 vii.35 . viii. 15-18 r. 10 r. 23 xi. 14-19 xi. I 4 xi. 32 rii. 11 . xi". I xv. llff. xvii. 3 . rvii. 4 . xviii. 1%. xk. 13t r k . 16 . xk. 2% (LXX) rk.29 . n 5-7 . rr. I5 rxiii. 1 . iriii. 4 . rriii. 9-11 U i v . 23 . rm,. 2+uvii. 2 xmiii. I2 m i i . 13-26 uviii. 18 uviii.21 uviii. 22f. uix. lo . uk. 12 .

. . . . .

.

. 82 . 88

. 5, . 179

. 57

:i. ;l 1

. .

. . 190 . . I91 . . 68 ,205, 206 . ,204 . 204. 206 . . 156 . . 177 . ,217 . . 68 . ,238 . .I91 . . 68 . . 183 . . 177 . . 164 . ,236 . . 74 . . 164 . . 164 . 85, 156 . ,136 , . 54 , .1M , . 54 , , ,

i. 1 i. 4

249

INDEX OF REFERENCES Ecbiorticu~(con1d.J r u l v . 2lf.

rxnv. 22

m.13 14 i i . 9 xuviii.10 xuviii.15 xl. 24 xli. 22 xliv. 6 xliv. 17 xliv. 20 xlviii.1-12 xlviii.3 dviii. I 8 x i9

I-.

. . . . .

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

24 ,205 ,201 93 89 ,226 184 ,229 ,117 55 ,197 54 134 236 ,235 ,147 ,216

. . . . . . .

,198

1 Meccabeer ii.52 ii.67 ll viii. 16 i. 18 r. 25 xu. 6 "8.

ZMocrobeer I.

1

i.I 1 i.27 ii.8 iv. 7-15 vdi. 12 viii.15 xv.21

NEW TESTAMENT

. . . . . . . . . . . .

1

INDEX OF REFERENCES xi. 2% xi. 29 XI,. 7 rii.36f. rii.39 riii.15 xiii.42 xiii 55f. xv. 17

.

. . . . . .

x x . 17f.

xix. l8f. xix. 2m. x*. 21 x k . 28 xr. 8 x*. I2 rm. 22 rri. 43 xxii. 36 xrii. 37-40 rrii.40 xdii xriii.2 xriii.6 xriii. 7f. xxiii.0 rxili. I2 miii. 1-2 xxiii. 23 uiii. 34f. xriii. 351 rxiii 35 r r i a . 39-11 rxiv. 3 n t v . I4

. . . . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. 87 . 159 . 92

xxiv. 27 xmv. 30 u i v . 33 xxw. 37-42

. . .

INDEX OF REFERENCES Mak(crmtr n.22-24 xi. 24 rii. 28 rii. 2911. rii. 39 xii. HI xiii. 6-23 xsii. 9-13 riii. 9 xiti. 13 riii. 19 riii. 29 riii. 39 *I". 51t xi". 61 xv. 20 m i . 14 xvi. 17 rvi. 18 Lub

i. I 7 i. 51-53 i. 53 i. 78 ii. 9 iii. 8 iii. 21 iii. 38 iv. I 6 iv. 25ff. iv. 25 iv. 26 iv. HI v. 4711. vi. 20 vi. 2& vi. 24ff. vi. 24 vi. 29 vi. 36 vi. 37 vi. 4 l t vi. 43f. vii. 3 vii. 47

rii. 5 xii.lM1 rii.21 xii. 33t xii.33 x i riii.t-0 r i i i 13 xi". 11 xv. 14 mi. 9 xvi. 19-25 mi. 1 W 1 m i . 2Ot m i . 25 xvii.3f. xvii. 2&31 xviii. 9-11 xviii. 11 x"iii.20 u i . 12-19 u i . 28

rrii. 14 rriii. 11 u i i i . 47

. . . . .

. . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .

.

INDEX OF REFERENCES 30hn

i. I i. I F 1 1 i 12f i 14 iii. 3 8. i s. 46 4 vii. 3 8. vii 22-23 vii. 35

. .

.

.

viii. 39 u. 2f. r. 10 xi . 1 4 xi. 55 xii . 10 n i i. 15 riii . 34f. rv. 12 rv I5 rv. l8f. rv 22 rvl. 33 rvii. 5 xviii.20 xr . 5 rr . 11 rr 28 xr. 29 rxi. 7

.

. . .

.

. .

.

Acb i . l5f .

.

ii l6f ii. 29 ii. 38 iii. 6 iii. 7 iii. 14 iv. 29 iv. 30 iv. 33 v . 41 vi . 1

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

. 78

.

. . . . . . . . . . .

1

76. 77 .231 229 . 39 . 10

.

1

. . . .229 . . 61 . 231 8 3 203, 23. . 32 . . 28 107 . . 45 . . 90 193 . . 90 . . 96 100 . 86 . . 86 . . 46 . . 67 . 120

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

.2 ..9 VI

4

( ?i. 2

. . . 91 . 76 . 96

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 ,

vli. 52 viii. I 4 2 I x. 12 ix. 15 i r . 17 ix. 37

lr

r. 22 30 x . 34 x . 48 fi. 26 xi. 2 0 xi. 30 rii . 20 rii . 21 riii . 1 riii I 4 xiii. I6 riii . 26 xiii. 38f r i a 43 ~iii.50 x i. I xiv. I7 xiv . 23 irv. 2 ;3-21

.

,

,

. 50 .200 . 50 1 .I05 .228 1 .227 / .205 i . 45 .228 ; . 95 .105 1 . 89

.

1

253

::

. . . . . . . . . . . .

xv 13

xv . I4

17 r v 19 xv 23 xv 25 rv 29 xv 34 xvi 14 m i I8 xvi I9 rvi 36 -ii 4 xu

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

. 1294 .1W . . 94 .205 214 . . 82 . . 104 . .230 . . 105 . .230

.

. 230, 231 . .227 . 37 . . 37 . . 99 . . 94 . . 105 . . 105 8 . . 226 . . 109 . . 99 . 141, I42 . . 100 . . 37 37 49, 50 . . 132 . 37, 101 . . LO6 88 236, 242 . .237 . .226 . .226 . .226 . . 40 . . 40 . . 40 . W , 105 . . 40 . . 49 . . 40 . . 40 . .W . . 37 . .228 . .106 . .121 . . 37

.

.

.

INDEX OF REFERENCES n i i . 11 n i i . 17 xvii. 28f. xviii. 7 xviii. I2 xviii. 21 irr. 5 rii. 13 xk. I6 rix. 39 rr. 17 u. 35 m i . 11 ni. l a 2 4 xri. 18 xri. 20R. xri. 24 xrii. I* xxiii. 121f xxiii I2 n i i i . 26 uvi. 5 rxvi. 7 u v i . 28 uviii. 27

Romnr i. l i. 8 i. 17 i. 25 i. 29 i. 30 ii. I ii. 5 ii. 8 ii. I 1 ii. 12 il. 13 ii. 14f. ii. 17-23 ii. 24 ii. 27 ... . ,,,-,v

~ i i .6 iii. 8

iii. 9-20 iii. 13 iii. 20 iii. 21 iii. 23-24 iii. 24 iii. 26 iii. 28 iv. 2-8 iv.24

vi. If. i . I vii vii. 2 vii. 4 vii. 7-11 "xi. 21-23 vli. 24 viii. 2 viii. I+#. viii. 19-23 uiii. 28 ir. 3 ir. 5 ir. 2 C 2 6 ir. 29 r.9 r. 31f. xi. 8 n. 18 xii. Iff.

.

.

,131

. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. I54 . 129 . 81 . 131 . 81 . 131 . I29 . 10

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I7 I 6 131 . 58 ,107 . 50 . 72 ,168 184 . 87 76 . 76 . 67 . 50 ,155 . 48 ,202 . 47 129 ,203 117 132

.

. . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

,118

.

. .

. . .

INDEX OF REFERENCES Romnrn (mtd.) rii I

.

.... xii. 8 xii.16 rii.17 xiii. 1-7 riii.2 nii.3f. nii.7 xiii. 8-10 xiii.9 riii. 11 riii.12 xi". I xv. 6 xv. 16 xv. 26 mi. 5

. . . . . . . . . . , .

. .

1 Corinrhianr i. 1&13 i. IM. . i. 13 i. 18-ii. I 5 i. 20 i.23f. i. 26 , ii.5 . ti.6f. . ii.6 . ii.8 . ii.9 . ii.12 . ii. 13-15 3.13 . iii.3f. , iii. 1&15 iii.12 . ili.13. . iii. 18-21 iii.19 .

. . .

iv. I5 iv. 19 v. I v. 2-5 v. 3s. vi. 1 4 vi. Sf. vi. 9 vi. 11 "i. 15 vii. 1&12 vii. 17-24 vii. 31-33 vii. 31 viii. M ir. 25 ii. 27 r. 1 - 4 r. 11 xi. 1 xi. 3s. xi. 7 xi. 27 rii. 3 xii. C l l xii. 8 rii. 9 rii. 12-26 rii. 27 rii. 28f. rii. 28 riii. M xiii. 12 xi" xi". IS xi". 23s. xv. 7 xu. 2*23 xv. 23 xv. 24 xv. 33 xv. 35 w. 36 xv. 44 xv. 46 xv. 5lf. mi. 7

INDEX OF REFERENCES

2 Cminthionr i.3 i. 17 iii 18 iv. 4 iv. 6 v. 10 v. 17 "i. 7 "iii.2 ir. 10 ir.11 ix.13 r.1 r. I0 xi. 2

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . 45 . .50 . .39 . . 8 . . 41 15, 128. I32 . 129. 136 . ,129 . .I33 . ,129 . ,130 at.16 ili.20 iii.28 ia.29 iv. 58. v.3

.

.

. . . .. .. . . .

.

,129

Phil@perv i.l i.11 i.17 ii. 3 il. 8 ia. I ii,. 2M. iu. 5 tv. 8 1v.15

. . . . . . . . , .

INDEX OP REFERENCES 3am81 (crnd.)

Zf. i. 2

.

.

29. 170. 216 5, 19, 20, 28, SO, 51-2, 54. 62, 90. 147 i. 3 . 20, 52-3. 57, 132 i. 4 12, 29, 50, 5 3 4 , 55, 87, 145 i. 5f. . . . 20. 235 i. 5 3, 13, 24, 27, 30, 35, 50, 53, 5 C 6 , 57, 73, 104, 143, 154. 158, 159, 17% 187 i. 6 8 . .11, 22. 29, 54, 161, 168. 173. 226. 230 i. 6f. . . . . 27 i 6 9, 10. 27, 5% 5% 5 6 7 . 71. 132, 164, 173 i. 7 . . 3. 47. S7-8 i. 8 4. 11, 20, 22. 23. 29, 30, 5&61, 65, 154, 174, 179, 185 i. -10 . 7. 87, 185, 207 i.9 .4.28.62-4367.103, 193. 197 i. 1%. . 9. 28, 143. 197 i. 10 .5. 8, 62-1. 84. 156. 166. 178, 203 i. l l . 9, 6+6, 103, 193 i. lzf. . . . . 19 i. I2 28. 29, 51. 52. 6 6 9 , 90. 95. 103. 174. 215 i. I3ff. . . . . 28 i. 13 . 68, 6-71, 74. 143 i. I4 . . 5. 69, 71, 168 i. I5 . . 71-2, 75, 239 i. 16 . .40, 50, 72, 80 .3, 5. 10, 24, 30, 35. i. 17 56, 57, 68, 72-5, 82, 143, 147. 1483 158, 176 i. I8 3, 18, 19, 20, 3 4 72, 73. 7 5 8 . 83. 84. 86. 97. 155, 163. 238 i. 1%. . . . . 84 i. 19 10, 26, 40, SO, 80, 85, 88. 140 i. 20 . 1 2 23, 81. 166 i. 21-22 . . . 27 i. 21 .3, 5, 18, 19, 20, 34, I.

258

74. 77, 81-5. 86. 88. 147. 151. 179 . . . 80 . . 26, 29 . . 85, 187. 193 . . 85-6 . . 85, 86 .4, 5, 11, 21, 28, 43, 85. 87-8. 116 i. Zbf. . . . . 219 i 26 23, 26. 88, 140, 145, I50 i. 27 1. 19, 24. 28. 33. 40, 51. 52. 55. 67. 8&92 106. 114, 119, 150, 155, 163, 173, 183, 210 . 6. 29. 108, 197 ii. 1-9 ii I .2. 3, 20, 34, 37. so. 93-8. 99 ~ i 2. 8 . 7, 9, 34. 117, 120, 172 it. 2f. .9. 17.26. 113. 196. 242 . 4, 4 11. 26, 62, ii. 2 98-102. 120. 198. 225 ~ i 3. . . . 99, 101 ri. 4 . 14, 58, 101, 102, 164, 168 ii. 5s. . . . 17, 190 i 5 . 3, 4, 8. 13, 28. 35. 40, 50, 63.66, 67,68,80,10M. 110. 132, 143, 150, 173, 197 it. 6f. . . 8. 98, 207 i,. 6 . 9, 11, 29, 64, 101, I W 7 . 196. 205 ii. 7 . 3, 19. 40, 105-7 ii. 8f. . . 102. 143, 187 ii. 8 3, 4 8, 28. 35. 107-10. 114, 126, 177. 178, 188, 241 ,i. e l 0 . . . . 114 i. 9 . . 94, 110. 116 ii. IM. . . 108. 143. 187 . 4, 11, 14. 87. 108, ii 10 111-12, 118. 144 4, 112-16, 177, 178 ii. 11 ii. 12f. . . 28. 34, 119 ii. 12 . 4, 26. 28, 116, 110 i. 22-25 i. 22-24 1. 22 i. 23-25 i. 23 i. 25

.

INDEX OF REFERENCES 1 Pcter(cmtd.) ii. 21-25 ii.21 . ii.23 . ii.24 . iii.If. . iii.1 . iii.2 . ifi.3 iii.5 , iii.9 . iii12 . iii.13R. . iii.13 . iii.16 . iii.186 . iii.18 . iil.20 , iit.22 . i". 2t . i". 3 . iv. 7 . iv. 8 . i",ell i". lZRl . iv. 12 . iv. 14 . iv. I 5 . iv. 16 . iv.17 . iv. 2 m . , v. 1 ,

.

I N D E X OF REFERENCES

xi.1 ii.2f. ii. 9 ii. 10 ii. 13 ii. 22 iii 9 iii. I7 iii.20

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

.

. . 181 210 . . . 48 . . . 45 . . .237 . . .235 . . . 45

vi. S l l vii. C 8 . r.7 . xi. 2f . . xi. 6 . xi. I8 . rii.6 rii . I4 riii . 5 . xiv. 4 . rv. 6 x i. 11-19 rir 7 r i r. 8 . . u i. 8 ui 9 . u i i. 5 . u i i . I0 . u i i . 20 .

. .214 . . 67 . 100. 103 .67. 6&9 . . 105 . . 89 . . 100 . . 103 . .213

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. . 237 . .237 . .237 . . 76 . . 99 . . I89 . . 174 . . 99 . .201 . . 174 . . 96 . 209, 210

.

.

47.210

.

. 80

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TEXTS The Inavvnion of Amehm-Opef 8 I45 9-10 . . . . 80 I8 . . . . 190

.

.

.

.

~ h In c a m t i o n of Ani

.

4.1

.

Ths Instructionof Pfnh-Hofcp 535 . . . . 80

JEWlSH LITERATURE

Jubilees

ii. 19-21 iii 1-2 ili l5f r . 1&13 xvii . I6 xvii . l7f . xix. 8 xtr 9

. .

.

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. 75 . 153 . 153 .227 . 70 . 131 . 134 . 136

Apmalypee of Moses ix(Life of A h m and Eve urvi) 227 r-xii (Lie of Adsm 2nd Eve uxvii-mdx) . . 153 nwi . . . . 73

. . . .

l

EOOC~

mi. I rm.2 u v i i Iff.

.

navi.4

. .

.

. .

.

. .

.203 . 94 .152 .

~

. . . . 94

INDEX OF REFERENCES I Ena'h (cafd.) uxviii. 2 Xl. 3 . dviii. 7 hii.6 . liv. I t . Ivi. If. . xc. 26f. . rci. 4 . x i . 12 . xciv. & l l xi". 86 . xcvi. C 8

. .

.

,206 94

.

. 199 . . IS2 . . 152 . . 60 . . . . 197 . 203,204 . .I97

1 1

. .

. .

,203 2067

1

Martyrdom of Isaiah

.

,214

xcvi. 7

.

. . . .

.

. . . . . . . .

miii. l o rcvtii. I2

.

:; I B~;=P .

. . . .

.

~ i i-7 . vi. 5

. i",

2 Bnrvh i.2 xu. 7 t rri. I ;i"f,

. .

,229

. . .

..

. . . . . . . . .

.I26 , 181 ,229 ,117 I17 181 181 181 76 ,229 ,238 103 . 58 ,238

v. 2

vii.7

Zcbulun v. Zff.

". 3

. viii. 1 4 . Dan v. l . vi. 2 . . ~ ~ ~ huiii. t dI i Gad iii. I . ". 9f. . . ~ i 3. . . vii. 6 . . i. 3 4 . 2 i. 3ff. . .

,

,

. .

. .

. . . . .

laoriii.5-7

. .

.

Simeoniii.3 iii.5 .

.

Reuben i. 7

. .

Assumptron of Moaca

,

Tcntamenta of the Twelve Pattiarcha

. . . . . . .

ii.5-10 ni. 2 . Joseph ii. 7 v.

. . . . . . . . . . .

3 Mxcabeca ii. iii. l 7 Yi'

4 Mxcnbeca

iv. I 1 v. 7 Y.

19

v. 22s.

vli. 2 ix. 30 xvii. 7

263

. .

.

'

'

.

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

INDEX OF RCFERENCES T h ! , ~ e l o m s mof dbraham 1,'

vii xiii N

. . 67 . .,20973 .. ,215

. . . . . . . .

The T s n t a W of 3d i. 8f. . . xii 4 . .

. .

,215 ,201

Qmn:TheMnnwlofDisipline (lw) lii. 1347. 26 ,238 lii 17s. . ,168 iii. 17-18 . . . 58 iii. 2&24 . . . 59 iii. 20 . . . 10, 73 iv. 3-11 . .I M iv. 23 . 58, 168 . 2 I . ,238 viii I . . 48 viii. I6f. . . ,111 ir. 17.40 . . .I43 x. &8 . . 87

. .. .

. . .. . .

. .

Qummn: The Hymns (IQH) iv. 14 . 60 . ,175 iv.31 rii. llf. . . 175

. . . . .. .

I h n r a n : The Genesis Apocryphon (IQGn A m ) rr. 25-30 . . ,230 Qumran: The Prayer d Nabmidus .

.

,229

The Dsmancus Rulc (CD) . . . iii. 2 Y. I8 . . i r 5f . . riii. 7f. . . rv. Iff. . . . xv. 5& . .

.

. 136 10.73 ,221 ,143 ,221 ,221

Philo: DI Opifiio Mundi 69-71 . . .

. 156

. . .

.

86-88 . .I IU . , , 171 . . L ~ ~ ~ A I ~ & D I I i. 43 . . i. 70-73 ii.33 . , . iii. 27 . , , iii. 70 , . , i i i 80 . . , iii. 115 . , iii.203ff. . , iii. 223t . iii. 241 Dc chnubi; ' ' 8&90 . . De Som@i" 6C68 . . . 91-91 . . . @~d&tm'~ 160-161 . . DePonnitotc Coini 101-102 . . DC Gignntibw 45-49 , , 51 . . . 52 , . . @odDmsImmulobilir 2G32 . . . 82-85 . . . DeAg<uro 69 . . . DeEbrLlnfe 30 . . . Dc Sobrielate 56 , . . De Fuga 79f. . . . 82 . . . DeMutotiauNminun 27-34 . . . De SomniL ii. 44 . . ii. 58 , , . i1.152ff. . . Dz Abrohomo 34 . , .

. . . .

.

.

.

.

.

INDEX OF REFERENCES Da Abrohorno (rmtd.) 47 . DI Virn Morir i. 28 . ii. 9 . ix. 11 . . ii. 428. ii. 288 De Dlcobgo 3%35 . 51 . 84K. . . 93 . 151-153 . 173

. .

iii.273

.

54

. . ,136 . . ,188 .. . . 86 . . 87 . . . . 59 . . ,114 . . ,115 . ,222 . . .I55 . . .. .I69 I*'

iv. 180 . . Db virtvtibvr 127 . . 211-216 . 219 . QdOrnai Ploh +Sf. . . 81 84 .

'

. .

.

. . . . . . . . .

7 12 h. 55 . ri. 133 xii. 253 xi". 22 N. 371 mii. 172 u.200 ControApimrn i. 2 8 r

s. s.

.

. . . . . . . . . .

75

. 83 ,138 ,138

.

. . .

.

. .

. . . . .

. . . . . .

Pa.-Phaylidea

Mishnah: B n a b t h v. 5 Toonigh i. 1-7 i. 2 . 87 iii. 1-3 . .1W iii. 8 ,221 Soloh . . . 31 v. 5 1 pdduthin Jouphus: ThrJmbh Wbr(B)) sv. I4 . ii. 122 . . . 50 Shabuoth ii. I23 , . . 2 2 7 i. I ii. 135 . ,221 Abolh ii. 136 . . ,227 i. IS ii. 139 . . ,221 i. 17 . . ii. I42 . . . ,221 ii. 10 . . ii. 285 . . . IW iii. 5 . . ii. 289 . . . ,100 iv. 8 . . i 44 . . . lOa iv. 12 u.3 . . Antiquitia v. 4 . . i. 19 . . .I88 v. I4 . . iii. 80 . . ,208 . . lii. 89f . . . 114 vi. 2 Tamid ili. 91 . . ,115 v. 1 . . ia. 202 . . ,208 265

. .. . . . . . . guarrtims i n E d u r n ii. 29 . . .

.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

.

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .. . .

. . . . .

.

INDEX OF REFERENCES Bnbylonian Tdmud: S k o b h t 70b . 88a . . . l5lb . . . Toonith 24b . . . Megilloh 14&15a . . Yebnmtk 47b . . . Nldorim ZOP . . .

.

4Oa

41a

. .

. .

. .

Dnek Err& Zvto lii.5 .

,111 85 ,151

.

.

.

,111

Palestinim Talmud: Bwokotk I. 3e . . . ,115 Bobn Kommo vli. 10 . . . . 117

,235

. 137 . 111

Mekilto on Ex. xi". 31 on Ex. adi. 20

.

Perikto 1678

,222 ,229 , 229

Tmwhnmd

(m

.

Dent. m i . 16

Gem9ir Robbek Z* 7 Exodus Robbok 31 Lmitinu Robbok I6 19 . 33 .

. .

Dnn-orny

. 134 . 138 . I18

.

. . .

.

,151

. 149 .236 ,155

. 191

Rnbboh 9

E l t h n Rnbbok 14

56

109--10. 155-6

.

,236

T q u m on Joahur ii. l

. 135 . 137

Seda O l o n Robbs bnai

,216

Midmsh on Pa. uxvii. 7

GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE Apuleius: Mstornm$korer xi. 24 . . .

.

Ciccm: DP Fi"ib"~ i. 13. 4 3 4 4 . DeNntvra Deorum ir.60.151 .

.

. 169 . 153

.

. .

Cmpur H m n i c v m mi 23 . . xiii . .

.

68

/

1

Diogcnes Lamiua: Liort of tkr Philorophm viii. 22 ,221

88 Gden: De m e d i a m e n t m m 76 temperomentis ii. l M . 266

--. ,227

INDEX OF REFERENCES Pliny, the younger: Epistles r 96. 2 Liry:Ab Urhe Condito ii. 32. e l l .

.

.

. 106

. 168

Aurdiul: Mediatixu viii. 46 . . . 157

Ma-.

.

Plnto: Republic 5Olb 613. . . Phaedo 6 b .

. .

. .

31 31 ,169

Pliny, tho eldcr: ~ o t u r aHismy l xriii. 79 . . ,227

Scxfus: Ssntentio~339

.

Tacitus: Annals rv. 41

,106

56

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

. . ii. 32 Epistle of Barnabas 8.2 . . i.8 . . ii.6 . . iv. 9 . v-*

vi. 7 ix9 rkii xviri-r. rir. 2

. . . . . .

.

. . . . . . .

.

71

iu.4

,

.

21 ,112

. . . .

. 87 . I43 . 143

!

::::

6

. 113. 238 . ,126

.

.

:. :. . . .

.

.

.

5?:i .238

(

.

Clement of Alexandria: Pmdogogoriii 12.91 Stramatzir iii. 13. 92 u. 99. 1 . uii. 67. 5 . ti. 73 5 . @ t i Dimes 38

,

1 clement i 1

.

267

.

91

. . 55 . 59. 60 . . 89. 186

.

Cnss~odorus:Inrtitutioncr viii

82 ,143 ,

,205

xix.lO XI*. I1 ar. I u.2

.

. . .

24 ,241 . 59 ,223 ,223 . 109 241

48, 49

INDEX OF REFERENCES xi. 7

.

uiii.15

.

.

.

.

.

. I52

.

.

Clmntinc Reropitiat i.44 . . Clemcntine H o n i l i b iii.55. 1 rir. 2. 4

.. ..

. . .

rvii.3 xvii.6 ui.6

4 udii. 1 udii 2-7 udv. 8 mv.5 xuviii. 2 dii 1 dvi. 5 xlvi. 7 rlvii. 7 dviii.4 rlir. 5 li.3 1-i.

. .

.

. . .. . ..

i-si. I iii.2 iv. 3 iv. 1 iv. 6 iv. 7 iv. 14 v. l vi. I vi. 2 xi. 1-3 xi. If. xi. M. rii-xv riii. If. riii.7 riv. I rv. lf. mi. 3

. .

2 Clcmcnt v. 4 vi. 8 xi. 2f. xi. 2 xi. 3

.

ii.8

Didache ki i.l

. .

Iv. 6 Ivi. I Irii.1

lii

,223 ,223

. . . . .

Conrtitvliaar A p r v t o h m

. . .

. . . . . . . .

41

Clernentine Epirlks lo Vbgint i.11 .24 i.12 24

. .

rrr. 2 ud.2

68

. .

. .

:

1

.

.

.

. 113, 238 . . 35 . 125. 126 . ,172 . . 91 .. 57,.23861 . . 55 . ,233 . 59. 60 . . 113 . . 53 . ,142 . ,143 . ,142 . . 143 . . 142 . . 143 . . 233 . . 142 . ,200

. . .

. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . .

,176 61 Didorcolin ii.3. 3 268

. . . . .

.

. 71

,241

INDEX OF REFERENCES

.

Epiatk of Diogmeus v. 5

48

ii.4. 6 . ii.7 iii.1 , iii.5 . iv. 3. 5 v. 1. 2 4 v. I.2 ri. 2. I v. 2. sf. v. 2. 7 "i. 1 . viii. 10

Epiphmiua: Hamexu m 16 41 u r . 18 . . . ,100 luviii. 7 . 41 l u v x i i . 13f. . . . 39 l-iii. 14 . . 41, 235

. .

Ep&fulaA~dmm u k . 1Mf.

.

.

,239

Eusebiua: Ercloliortical Histmy (HE) il.1. 3 . . . . 42 i,.23. 1 . . . 42 ii.23. 6 . . . . 41 ii.23. 21-24 . . . 39 ii.23. 24f . . . 21 ii 23. 3-18 . . . 39 iii.25. 3 . . 21 tii. 39. If. . 31 vi. 14. 1 . . 24 uii. 19. 1 . . . 25

ir

k . 1-6

.

. . .

Gaaprl of Thomas I2 . 17 . . . . 22 . . 54 61 . . I06 .

ir. l

ix. 2 k. 6 k. 7f. k. 7 k. 9-11 ir. 11 % 2 , &xii 3 xi. 1-17 xi. 5-8 xi. 5 t u. 8 . n.9 . xi. I 3 . xi.14 . xi. 17 . *i.1. If. di. 2. 4 di. 4. Zt xii. 4. 7 ii.5.2 iii.6.3 s i m i l i t ~ d ri. 1. 3 ii li C 7 v 6. 5 v.6.6 7. 4 ui. 3. 3, 4 viii.6.4 vai. 10. 3

.

. . .

Hermaa: Shcphnd i n L 1. 9 i.2. 2 i.2.4 ii.2.7 ii.2. 8 ii. 3. 1 ii.3. 4 ii.4. 3 iii.1. 5 iii.7.1 iv. 2. 3 Mandote i ii . ii.3 .

. . . . .

. . . . . .

. 41 . . 68 . . 59 . 103, 104 . 31-2 . . 59

. . . .

. 2 . ,217 . .45 .67,89 . . .217 . . . 189 . 23, 176, 183 . . 25 . . .233 . . .I85 ,217 . . . I25 . . ,186 . . 154. 187

".

269

INDEX OF REFERENCES Hermor (contd.) i . I . a. ix. 16. 3 ix. 17. If. k. 19. 2 ir. 22. 2 ix. 23. 4 ix. 28. 5

. . . . . . .

euodii. 1 u u v i . If.

. . 105 . . 105 . . 48 . . I65 . . 141 . . 188 . 105, 234

. .

. .

,205 ,205

Melita: Homily a Posch072 205 Minuciua Felix: onovivr rviii. I1 . . .

O d ~ r o f S o h o dii. n If. xlii. 2 . .

.

. 192 . 86 ,205

Origrn: Ds Principiu i. 3. 6 193 iv. 3. 8 . . 8 Contra Ccbum ii. 1 . 8 C o m n r n t o r ~ aMotthew x.17 . .39 . . 8 mi. 12 C m m t a r y rn 30h" mix. 6 24 fragment 6 . . 24 fragment 38 . . 24 fragment 126 24. 39 Commentary a R a o n , iv. 8 . . . 39 Homily on Lauilirur ii. 4 . ,230. 241

.

. . .

.

.

Jerome: De Virir INwfribvr 2 40 Eoirtbr d i . 13 . 1W Juarin M*: mi. 5 lxi. 3 L*. 10 Iwi. I Lxva.7 ZApology vai.1 ri,i. 5 Dialope riii.7 mi. 4 xuii. 1 xhx. 8 dix. 22 I". 3 Ixiii.14 n.6 "xi. l o cxiit. 3 euvili.2

. 1 Apology . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

.

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

I:

,205 ,208 177

i

.

Martyrdom of Polyco* 1.1 . .

.

I : : : : : 2 . . . x

.48

:::

.

68

INDEX OF NAMES Abrahnms. I.. 30 AIP"~. K.. 39 Albinus. 42 Alexnnda, 5 a n . E. L., 129 fin, W. C,224

Alphabet of Bm S"a, 192 Ambmsirstcr. 21

Bachmnon. E. T., 2 Bnmmel. E.. 7 Barnabas. 6.20 Barnard. L. W., 206 Bmett, C. K., 142 Bede. 54, 205, 217 Blackman. E. C.. 77. 79. 86. 107. 168, I+, 176: ZM, 207,209, ' 232, 234, 239 Boirmard. M.-E., 19 The Book of C m m Plqyn. 212 Borgen, P., 83 Bowku, 1.. 136 80% G. H., 67 Brack, S. P.. 12 Brackingtan, L. H.. 96 Bulrmnnn, R, 131

Chlrles. R. H., 73, 112, 214, 216 Claudiur. 98 Clemenf,af Alexandria, 23.24.4, *A

Ckment, of Rome. 22.25,26 Clcmentins Homilies, 41 ClcmentmeRmoplitionr, 41 Cook. S. A,. 115

Dalmnn. G. H.. 236. 237 DaniClou, J., 55 Daubc. D.. 13. 138, 228, 230 Davics. W. D.,I3, 222 Dcisomsno, A,, 6, IW. 127 Dibdius. M.. 5. 7. 8. 22. 34. 46. 48.

~ i d o c h a ,20 ' ' Dodd, C. H.. 109. 209 Doddn. E. R..59 Domaian, 29 Driver. G . R.. I0 h m m a n d J., 22 Dunn, J. D. G.. 36. 142, 113 Dunsfsn. G. E.. 30 Eaaron. 8. S., 11 Eldod nndModad, 23, 176, 183 Elliott-Bims L. E.. 9. 178 Epicletus. 72, 160 Emsmua. 171 Eusebius. 42 Evans. C. F., 98

'

NAMES

Felix, 98 Fcsma, 42 Feuillef, A, 13. 205, 207 F o J c s Jackson. F. 1.. 37. 206 Fumiah. V. P.. 108

J0han.n b. Zakkai. 230 John, apostle. 42 Jongc, M. dc, 12 Joacphus. 42 Judc. 39 Joahux b. k i . 138 Judge. E. A.. 98

Gnarcr. T. H.. 10 G a h u d m n , B., 67. 128 cmncr. M.. 10. 11 Gotpel to the Hebmos 40 colprr 4f the N ~ 113

Kcbl*, 1.. 212 KcUy, 1. N. D.. 19. 172 Kdpatrick. G. D.. 15 Kittel, G.. 39 ~ Kliln. ~A. 5 F.. 36 Knor, W. L., 5 Kummd, W. G.. 131

~

Graham. H. H., 61 Grant. R. M.. 61 Greeven, H., 206 Guthrie. W. K. C.. 59

~

Lakc, K.. 37,206 L m M i o . T. 0.. 3Z 59 Laws. S. (formerly Msrshd), 32, 61, 179 kaney, A. R. C.. 10 Lighdwf. J. B.. 16. 39. 46. 5&9 13% 191 Lindsrs, B., 30 Livingatone, E. A,, 21 Lawe. H.. 92. 111. 113 Longenecka, R. N..206 Luther. Mutin, 1 . 2 124,137,171

Hndidim.D.Y.,P, 57, 65,157,212 Hnninn b. Doar. 230 Hegesippuq 42 Hengel, M.. 8. 36, 40 H a m a q 22, 25, 26, 42 Hdaru. 21 J. A,. 22.47.53, 69.70.71, 77, 86. 95. 97. 108. IW. 113, 116. 120, 123, 125. 146, 149, 150. 165. 174, 175. 176, 207 Houldrn. J. L., 27-8 Hull.1.. 127

on:^.

Jnmca. ~ p o d e42 , James, of Jrmsllnn. 3H2.45.206

Aparryphon o f J o m s , 41 Firxt Aporolypse ofFme,, 42 Secoad Apaulyp.. of Jam*. 42 Arrenn o f l n m r , 41 t m c a , M. R., 12, 73, 214 Jeremiah, 6, 214 Jeremias. J., 7 6 111. 127. 129, 132, 141. 201 Jemmc, 21. 39 Test~mentoflob, 12, 215, 216 272

1

Mnnan, T. W., 30 Marshall, S. S., w Law* S. Mas~ebieru.L., 2 Matthias. 42 Mayor. J. B., 5, 22. 39. 47, 53, 5+, 60, 70. 95. 120, 122, 125, 130, 146. 157. 171. 175, 176, 192, 198.206.217, 224,231,234,218 Menland. D. L.. 8. 31 Metzgs, B. M.. 74. 99. 146, 240 Meyer, A,, 11 Miehdis. W.. 30 Mdton. J o b 71 Mitton, C. L., 2 2 108, 123, 148, 152. 160. 165, 170. 175, 2W, 211. 216. 220. 239 Moflaft, J., 171 Mommvn catalogue (Cheltcnhnrn Lint). 21

~

INDEX OF NAMES Montdim, C. G.. 9 2 Ill, 113 MontEtim,H.W.,126 Mmrc, k L., 211 Moore,G.F.. 30, 110, 113, 156 Mode. C. F. D., 36 Murnorian Canon, 21.25 M-y, R.,36 N a l Papyrus, 115 Noo, 25 Nineham, D. E.,96

Oecumeniw,205 Origen. 20, 23. 24. 25. 65 Oabom,E.,160 PaUas,98 Pnoina.31

145, 146. 147. 150, 160, 166, 168, 169. 175. 176. 187. 190. 191. 192 199. ZM, 206, 207. 212. 219,231. 234,235, 239 Rutmbs. 0. G., 31 Sanders, J. T.. 122 Schlia, H., 89 Schmidt, K. L.. 225 %it=. 0.I. F.. 58. 60, 92. I85 %I-.. E.G.. . 19 Scnccs, 6 se"e"8ter, J. N., 40 khocpq H. J.. 36 Shepherd. M H..14 Sidebottom E. M.. 77. 108. 170, 175. 176,232. 239 Simon M~gua.41 Snydn: G. F.. 26 ~pittn.F.. 2, 46, 176 Stendm K., 113. I15 Stone. M. E., 73 Streeta. 8.H..26. 98

Petenan,E.. 127 Phillip% J. B.. 171 Pilntr. 98 Plur,25 Plnto. 59. 151. 159 Pliny, the ymger, 6 Prisiuinn.21 Pythagarss, 221

Theodore, 21 Thmdorct, 21 Thomaa, 42

Quaatm. J., 24 Q",.", 137

Vennca, G.,48, 135, 143, 226,227,

Reiekc, B., 29, 70, 121, 123, 146. 170. 176, 239 Reognorf,K. H.. 142 Rerh. A,. 69 Roberta. D.1.. 90 ,,.ib~n J:A. T., 40, 130 Robinmn, J. M, 32, 42, 59 Rap% I. H., 5,6.21,22 39,46,48 53. 68. 70. 74, 78. 95, 99, 107, 116. 117. 122. 123. 125. 137.

Tclea. 123 Tertdinn,21. 22

Tinslcy. E.1.. 30 Tishendaf. L. F. C.. 73 T r o c d , E., 17, 121, 141 229. 230.235 vcspnrinn. 42 Ward. R. B., 101, 134 westant,8.F., 21 Wikpn. A,. 240 Wiisan, R.McL., 32 Windish. H.,198 W~lverfohW . 1.. 10

&ectected docu&mts in the New %tammt, pfilcipally because it srrm to lack Ibe charmcmc f;ahun of C6d3tiaar scriEwrc. It docs, h.very muchreflenthe world of~amcr.onevhieh ail1

dmw on ideas and idioms that derived from both JewLh aai O~G& d m while sharing common gaitems of Ohrirtian teaohing. Throughout hia varied material, James aprrsscs with force and simplicity his paniaular concerns and ethicPL prindplca. Sophie Laws ahighd e p ofcritical scholarship and of cnthwiaaaa, both in the inwdeetioa and in the cmnmemary. Thm accomp~nyhv own rranalationw b k h ia designedto =rve the nods of h with or wi\hout a lmwled@of the original

Cwk. For other b w k s in the series, ace the lia facing the titk

A & C BLACK

. LONDON