SUPPLEMENTS TO
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM C.K. B - ~ T TDurham , - F! BORGEX, Trondheim ,JK. E m o n , Leeds - H.J. DE JONGE; Leiden A;J. M.~I~HEKBE, New- Haven 1M.J. J. MENKEN,Utrecht - J. Svm SIRING~Z, Amsterdam Exicuhue Edilors
M.M. NIITCFIELL, Chicago & D.P. MOESSNER, Dubuque
VOLUME C
LOGOS AND LAW IN THE LETTER O FJAMES The Law o f Nature, the Law o f h'Ioses, and the Law o f Freedom
BRILL LEIDEN . BOSTON . KOLN 200 1
This book is printed on acid-free paper
Library of Conpress Catalo$ng-in-Publication Data ,Jackson-hIcCabe, hlvtt 11. Logos and law in the letter of James : the lam, oC nature, the iasz. of h~Ioses; and the law, of rreedom / by Mau A. Jackon-McCabe. cm. - (Supplements to Nobum Testanlenlum, ISSN 0 167p. 9732 ; \; 100) Rcvision or Ibid.; 35.
362. Ihid.. 35. 396.
W2rh (l'hiladelphia: hluhlenbcrg, 1967) 33. 396.
Since he heard that Christians placc great weight on faith in Chris& he thought, "\\'sit a moment! I'll oppose them and urge works alone." This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and rcsurrection of Christ; although this is what all the apostles preached about." As emerges quite clcarly from thcse remarks, Luther's evaluation of ,James and its place in carly Christianity was determined in large measure by two related assumptions: first, thcre was somc csscntial messaze, or "gospel," that w-as common to "all the apostles"; and sccond, this essential message underlies "all the genuine sacred books." This model for imagining Christian origins is at lcast as old as competing Christian claims of originary orthodoxy over against divergent, decadent heresy. As a hermcneutical approach to the Ncw Tcstament canon, one sees a critical step in this direction already in Irenaeus's view that thc "Son of God.," through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, "has given us the Gospel under four aspects."" Indeed, the assumption that a singlc such cssence-often, as with Irenaeus and Luther, spoken of in terms of "the Gospel"--underlies each of thc various writings of the New Testamcnt is reflccted in the very formulation and arrangement of the canon itself." Such an essentialist approach to early Christianity is, at least for the historian, quite problematic." Simply put, the historian has "neithcr a theorctical basis nor an empirical warrant" for assuming the persistence of any given trait, ovcr time, which might be taken to constitute the "cssence" of Christianity.'2 And while historical criticism, as Harry Gamblc has rightly observed, "has traditionally disregarded the canon as irrelevant for the interpretation of individual documents,"'~heinfluence of this long-standing paradigm on the modern critical study of Christian origins and the New Testament This suggestion wzu reportedly made in the Summer or Fall or 1542; see Luther'r Work 54. 424. " A. H. 3.1 1.8. This approach to the gospels is correlaled with the later use of. the titles "Gospel according to" by H. Y. Gamble (7% flew Teifnmenl Canon: Iti M & q and Meaning [Guides to Biblical Scholarship, NT Series; Philadelphia: Fortress, 19851 35; cf 76j. See Crmbie, Nem 7 2 f h m t Canon, 73-82. " The appropriateness or this model for the theolo$an is another mattcr, hut onc that need not he addressed for h e purposes of the present study. On the problem of using an essentialist (monothetic) paradigm for the classification or historical phenomena, see the very important essay ofJ. %. Smith; "knces and Neighbors: Somc Contoun of Early Judaism," Imaginirig Reigon: From Babylon lo Jonwtom (Chicago and Inndon: Universiry or Chicago Press, 1982) 1 1 8 . The phrase "neither a theoretical basis nor an empirical warrant" is taken from p. 4 . 7 h e .A'm 'Tlament Canon, 80.
''
"
4
INTRODUCTION
should not be undcrestimated. In fact, though perhaps not as ovcrtly so, such an approach continues to inform critical scholarship on the Letter of James. This is now-hcrc more evident than in the interpretation of "the implanted logos" (b Epguro5 h6yog) which, according to thc author of Janies, "is able to save your souls." "That the gospel, if obeyed, is able to save a person's self [cf. qruh]," writes one interpreter of Jas 1:21, "is certainly a truism of the N[ewj T[estament]."" This assumption regarding the centrality of "the gospel" in early Christian or, in this commentator's terms, "New Testament" s o t e r i o l o ~manifests itself no less definitively, if more subtly, in the comparisons which various interpreters have formulated to illuminate the meaning ofJames's "implanted logo^.."^" Arnold Meyer and M:E. Boismard, who argued for the non-Christian origin of James as a whole (so Meyer) or at least of Jas 1: 17-2 1 (so Boismard), adduced passages, respectively, from Ciccro's De L&bus and the Apostolic Conrtitutiom in support of the thesis that the association of "implanted logos" with a perfect law in James results from a dependencc on the Stoic equation of human reason with natural law. With the rejection of these scholars' more general views regarding the non-Christian origu of James or of this passage, however, has come a (usually tacit) rejection of their interprctation of its logos. Regardless of their views regarding the philosophical origin of this expression, those scholars who do identify James as a Christian work have generally ignored the rclevant passages from Cicero or the Apostolic Cons&itutiom, and emphasized, rather, the similarities between thc language used in connection with the logos inJames and the treatment of "the Gospel" elsewhere in the New Testament. Thus, for example, Martin Dibelius, who reasoned from James's description of the "implanted logos" as that "which is able to save your souls" that, regardless of the expression's philosophical provenance, James's logos must bc interpreted as "the James is a Christian work, it is 'saving' word--hence, the gospel."'"f evidently reasoned, then thc lopns which, according to its author, "savcs" must be that which is the unique possession of Christians, the essence of Christianity; in a word, "the Gospel." Such reasoning finds par-
"' P. H. Davids, 7 l e EpEtIe of James A Cornmentav on he Geek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1982) 95. I'. For what ~ollows,see the detailed discussion bclow in Chapter One. 'Qibelius, Jamer, 113 (emphasis mine).
titularly vivid expression in Martin Klcin's recent interpretation of the A6yos hhq0eiaq of Jas 1:18 "Mit B e ~ u gauf Gott," Klein writes, sind es vor allem zwei 'Wortc', die so bezeichnet werden kijnnen: die Tora und die chIlsdichc Verkiindigung. D a es rich nun b& Jakobusbrief um ein chrirtliches Schreiben handell, wird nuch mit d m 'Wort der Wahrheit' in ivendeiner Form die chrirtluche Verkiind 113 (= Der BritJdrs,j'akobw /1921] 108); citing Ram. 1:2; Y:9 and Tgn.; Epk. l7:2. Ihid.; 35 (= Der B h f des ,7akohio j192ij 34).
""
IMPL.LNTEU
LOGOS IN JAMES
19
Dibclius whcn he then proceeds to argnc that the phrase "law of frccdomn-which the author equates uith b Zpquroq hhyog-must bc understood in lighc of Stoic concepts." Thc notion that Jamcs (or his "tradition") has taken a Stoic phrase, drained it of its philosophical significance, and filled it with an entire1)new meaning has been advocated in various forms by a handful or scholars.+' Given this approach, it is not surprising that, even among these authors, thc passages cited by hfcycr and Boismard are relegated to footnotcs and parentheses, if mcntioncd at all.'" Rcfcrring inter alia to Cicero's summa ratio insita in nutura, Justin's Epqurov anippa roc h6you, and the Epquzoq yvGoq of the Aposlolic Conslitutions, but emphasizing that the author of James describes his Epquroq hiryoq as that which "saves souls," Klein, for example, puts it this way: "So mag man zwar in der VVortmahl stoisch-philosophischen Einflun konstatieren, in der Sache ist die Vorstellung vom Myoq a ~ t e p p a ~ ~fur ~trg das Verstandnis der Stcllc [Jas 1:21] aber wenig hilrrcich."" That is to say, given the divergences between the languagc uscd in connection with the Epquzoq h6yo5in the Lcttcr ofJames and that found in the Stoic sources, one is dealing at most with a superficial connection existing sheerly at the terminological level. Any Curther comparison between James and those w-orks that are substantively inRucnccd by Stoicism, thererore, would not prove illuminating. Regardless of thc provcnancc of the phrase, James's use of it is in any cvent "ganz ungricchisch und ~ n s t o i s c h . "Thus ~ ~ even when inclined to see Stoic influence in James's conccpt of a "law of freedom," such scholars, l i e Dibelius before them, do not correlate this with James's equation of the "law of frccdom" with Epquzog hiryo~.""
See Dihclius's cxcursus on "The Perfect Law or Frccdom" in Jamei, 116-20. Vouga, L'Eppilre de Salnl Jacques, 63; Felder, "\Visdom, Law and Social Conr:em," 73-74,; Frankcmiille, Der BrieJda ,7akobu~,1. 329; 'l'syji, Ghube, 108 n. 58; cf: ~Marty,L'Epihr de Joyua, 53; Cantinat, La Epitres, 96 and 104-5. See further the comment of R. Fahris mcntioned bclow in note 84. i W ~ t that e neithcr Cicero nor the Afio.~tolicComlil3ionr is even mentioned in this connection by Dihclius-Greeven. Laws, Fr'rankemiille or Tsuji. " Klein, Ein inwllkornmenei Werk, 135; emphasis minc. Klcin, in Tact, identifies Deuteronomy 30 as the "Schl~ssci" Tor interpreting Jas 1:21; suggesting that the author ofJames simply couches a deuteronomistic notion in philosophical languagc; sce Ein vollkommenes We7k. 136-37. '30 Fmktmiille, Der Brie/du,7akobu; 1. 329; cT. Bonhniitr, Epiclzl und das~Vcuo 7e.rtamenl; 97. ' " 0 ; pafiicicularly strikingly, Klein. Ein ino1komrnnzt.x Werk; 152: "So durfte dic Redr vom h6T005 i!ilrTupuro;Icalich ihren U i s p r u n ~in der dcutcronomistischen Theologie
'' Windisch, Die kothnliichen B G j , I I; I.aus,Epirtle ofjhmei, 83-84.;
'The Rqection
of
Stoic Injuence
More often one h d s interpreters dispensing with the Stoic cvidence altogether. In this case, James's notion of a "saving" Epqupu.roqh6yo5 is explained by comparison with the use of $anting imager); in early Christian missionary contexts, as for example in 1 Cor 3:6-8 (cf. qupuz&o)"" and, above all, in the synoptic par;xble of the sower (Mark 4:3-20 pars.; cf. meipo)."' Along these lines, ofle also finds comparisons with I Peter's description of "the word (bfipa)which was announccd to you as the gospel" as an imperishable "seed" (~xopck),or with the ~ a manner reminiscent of Boismard, use of seed imagery in 1 J ~ h n . 'In in fact, some have argued that a common tradition underlies Jas 1:18, 21 and 1 Pet 1:22-2:2-a tradition associatcd, perhaps, with bapti~m.'~ Here, though, the tradition is considered to be a Christian one, and Boismard's detection of a difference between 1 Peter and James has generally been disregarded." Indeed, MuRner considers the supposed baptismal Sitz im Leben of Jas 1: 18, 2 1 itself to be decisive for the interpretation of both the hiryoq ahqOeia5 and 6 Cpqupu.roq h6yoq as "d[ie] urapostolischen Paradosis," that is, as "the Gospel."" des Alien Testaments haben, wahrend die Spur d e s v 6 &htu8~pia< ~ ~ chcr zu giechischem Denken, besonders zu dem der Stoa fiihrt"; cf. ibid., 136-37. Cf. also Vouga, L'Epihe de Saint J q u e r , 65-66. "t' should he pointed out in this connection that the i c m iprpvrog derives not from iprpu?&o, but from ipgho; sre, e.g., Ropes, St. James, 172. Of course, this does not o i itsell preclude comparison of Jas 1:21 with 1 Cor 3 : 6 8 . j' Beyschlag, Der Briefdei J m b u r , 83; Mayor, Ejktle o f s t . James, 68 6 9 ; Meinertz and Vredc, Die katholischen BGfe, 251 Hauck, Die Bn&, 12; Reicke, 7 h e Epi~llesof James, Peter, m d M e , 21; M a n e r , D m JakobusbGfe, 102 and n. 2; Adamson, Epktle @ J a m , 81; Davids, Ejktle $Jamex, 95; Martin, J a m , 4 9 cT. Cantinat, Ler Ejitres, 1 0 5 Sre also F. ivlanns, "Une tradition liturgique," 87--89, who locates the roots of this terminology, as well as the "seed" imag-ery of 1 John and I Peter, inJewish litur~icalusage; cf in this respect Fabris, Legge, on whom see below. 1 Pet 1:22-25 (cf. 1 Pet 1:23: hkoyou jGv.io< 0eoG lcai fiivoviog); 1 John 3:9. See Beyschlag, D e BriPj dex Jmobus, 83; Moffatt, 7he Gmml Epislles, 24; Manns, "Une vaditiun liturgique," 8 9 d Hauck, Uie B G j , 11; also Cantinat, Lm EpfLres, 105. j3 See esp. Popkes, Adrerxaten, 136-56; MuBner, Dm JakoburbGJ 95-97 and 101-3; Schrage, "Der Jakobusbrief," 21; Adamson, James: 77ze Man and HG Msap-e, 397; Hoppe, Dm lheolo@che H i n f e ~ p n ddesJakobusbriefe~(2d ed.; FB 28; Wiirzburg: Echter, 1985) 94. See also Fabris, Legge, on which see immediately below. Others are more reticent regarding the baptismal connection; sec in this respect Davids, Epistle oJ Jarnu, 93; also Laws, Epklle ifjmiames; 18-20. Boismard's study is often overiookcd altogether. Note, however, the works of Cantinat and 1.econie discussed above in note 37, and the study of Fabris discussed immediately below. 'j MuRner, DeJrJohub7ieJ 95c 102. Note that neither the Aflostolic Comliulwnr nor Cicero's De L q i b u iF mentioned in this connection. CC Schmgc: "Der Jakobusbricf," 2 1.
"
'
I M P W I T E D LOGOS IN JAMES
21
It is this line of interpretation which is advanced in Rinaldo Fabris's h g e dell0 Liberta in Giucomo. Fabris's intensive study of the issuc presents by far the most direct and sustained challenge to the interprctation of Mcycr and Boismard to date. With an eye both to these scholars and to those, like Dibelius, who find Stoic influence behind ,James's association of law and freedom, Fabris formulates the problem in terms of a choice between interpreting James in light of an "ambientc biblico, giudaico" or an "ambientc g~eco-ellenistico,"j"and finds dccisivcly in favor of the former. He concedes, of course, that one does see analogies in the Greek, and particularly Stoic, sources h6yog and for the varboth for James's equation of law with k~~+~pu.rog ious epithets given to the law in James.'' The crux of his argument, though, is that the context in which such phrases are used in James is "tipicamente biblico e giudaico," and that one must therefore look exclusively to Jewish literature for the ultimate source and mcaning of such expressions.jR The phrasc k?pqv.rogh6yog is of particular interest to Fabris since it dominates the immediate context in which the "perfect law which is of freedom" is first mentioned, that is, Jas 1:19-27.i' Indccd, he considers the interpretation of this phrase to be the decisive factor in determining the significance of the expression "law of freedom" for Jarnes.Gn Fabris observes that the former phrase was read in line with Stoic concepts already in the commentaries of Oecumenius and Theophylactus. Against such an interpretation, however, he argnes that only limited analogies to James's phrase are found in the Greek literature; there are no expressions precisely parallel to it6' While -
-
... ..~
'' See b g e ,
13? 31 and parim. Note that throughout Fabris's study, thc cxpression "hiblico," which is used in opposition to "preco," "ellenistico" and "stoico," includes not only the Jewish scriptures, but the Nrw Testament as well; see, e.g., his treatment of thc phrase ?&yogcihqtleiag, on which see immediately below. 'This peculiar dichotomy cffectivcly excludcs the possibility of hellcnistic influence on any works later included Mithin the Christian canon. Ibid, 33-48. '"ce esp. his ch. 3, "11 contcsto della degge di lilsertia: il suo carattcre biblico e gnidaico" (hge,53 -81), noting particularly the concluding comments on p. 81. Ibid, 55-53. Ibid., 113: "lnfdtti il Myog, che ha il potere di salvdre le anime 1,21 . . . P la elegge perfeta. . . . Percii, la compiensione di questa formula di lac. 1,21 t decisiva per chiarire il significato delia degg-e della libertia." C t ibid., 27: "Si deve natare chc questa esspressione di Giacomo 1;21 P dccisiva per tutti gli autoti, assicme all'altra S;&yog drhqtleiag; di lac. 1,18, per determinarc la natura e il significato deila rleggc dclla lihertia." "I See L , e ; 43: "Pcri, nella letteratura e nei documenti greci non si trova la
''
"
22
CHAPTER ONE
veI); strictly speaking accurate, this claim is nonetheless quite misleading inasmuch as Fahris curiously neglects to mention, hcrc or elsewhere in his lengthy monograph, Cicero's dcfinition of law in terms of ratio insita, the Ppqvroq v6poq of the Apostolic Comtitulions, or the Ppqvrov m Q p a h6you of Justin-and this despite his interaction with both Meycr and Boismard." Indeed, the similar phrases to which he refers in this connection are, apparently, only the Stoic hbyoq and 6pObq h6y05.~~ expressions &v6thOero~ As mentioned above, Fahris argues in any case that it is the context in which the phrase is used in James w-hich is decisive: thc trcatment of the kpquroq h6yoq in James is "biblico e giudaico," not Greek or Stoic." The usual observations and arguments are made in this connection: the ascription of "saving" powcr to this logosis particularly reminiscent of early Christian literature? the thcmc of "hearing and doing" is typical of Jewish and Christian works;" the kpqvroq h6yoq is to be identified with the h6yoq 6hqOeiaq of 1:18, which is itself understood not only to refer "dccisamcntc ad un contesto hihlico-gi~daico,"~'but to he a clear reference to "the gospel";" Jas 1:18 and 1:21, which are "perfectly parallel" to 1 Peter 1:22& rcflcct Therefore, Fabris concludes, one must ancient baptismal paraene~is.~~ attempt in the first place to locate precedents for the phrase Ppquroq h6yoq in the biblical literat~rc;~" and this precedent, he argues, is found in Jeremiah's expectation that God would place his law within the human heart in the eschatological era." More specifically, Fahris fi~mula&o< EpTuro5, come in lac. 1,21; dovc cssa rivela un caraterrc stereotipo e fisso"; see further 43f and 46. "' See Leece. - . 42-44: cf. 26r. as well as his extensive interaction with Boismard's interpretation ofJas 1:21 on pp. 142-46. "1 See Fahris, Legt, 43. " Ibid., 59. " Ibid, 62, 148. " I6i& 63-64. '' Ibid.; 62, citing Jewish works such W( Ps 118:43 and TGnd 3:1, as well as Col 1:5; ED^ 1:13 and 2 Tim 2:15. " 9 e e the discussion orJas 1:18 in Leg#, 134-42; esp. 138-40. I' Ibid., 191; cT. 59-62 and his anticipation of this line of a r p m e n t already on In54 "-
''
Ibid? 113: "Dato il carattere biblico e giudaico del contesto nel qu& cssa [sc. the Connulaic expression ibrpvroSh6yo5] i- inserita? 6 indispensabile esaminare in quale misura questo concerto della qarola impiantata,, lrova un riscontro in quelI'ambicnte." Ibid., 116, 130, 148~49;see further 113-21. This passage from Jeremiah had already been adduced in this connection by a number of other authors; for a list see T e e l 24 n. 46, and note in addition Cantinat, I A Epz^trex3 ~ 105.
"
I?+PIANTEU
LOGO.$
m JAMES
23
argues that James's &pqu.ios h6yo5 is the law of love as the internalizcd "messia~claw"; the equivalent, in essence, of what Paul conceivcs in terms of the holy spiri~.~'
hfartina L u d ~ i g ' srecent Wort ah Gesetz reprcscnts another sustained attempt to interpret the Lettcr of Jamcs as a Christian work, and its logos without recourse to Greek philosophical sources. At the same time, this study differs significantly from those discussed above in that its fundamental aim is in fact to overturn the usual "gospel" interpretation ofJames's logos. It is Ludwig's contention that James's equation of law and logos is rooted in a Jcwish "nomistic word theology" which first surfaces in works of the deuteronomistic school. Primarily on the basis of this thesis, Ludwig argucs that James's logos is not "the Gospel," but the Torah.'" If thcrc is promise in Ludwig's ability to conceive of James as a Christian work without immediately concluding that "thc Gospel" must be its central soteriological category," the form w-hich her argument takes, unfortunately, is less than persuasive.'" Among the chief problems is the apparent formulation of h e question in terms of a strict dichotomy between "Jewish" and "Hcllenistic" preccdents for Jarncs's concept of logos. Givcn the overall aim of Ludwig's study, hcr use of thesc categories as mutually exclusi\~eis less explicit than with Fabris. For example, her emphasis on thc ,Jewish preccdents ~~ for James's use of exprcssions likc 6 i x o p a t .rbv . . . ? ~ 6 y o v ,"hearing
"
See I ~ g e ,133 8 1 . C t with respect to this latter comparison Wein, EIn uollkomrnene~ Wwk; 158--59; Curther J. A. Kirk, "The Meaning oC Wisdom in Jamcs: Examination of a Hypothesis," ATS 16 (1969--70) 24-38. '3 See, e.g., the summary of thc argument as round in Wort a11 Ceietz, 169: "Bestimmte Formulierungcn aus Jak 1,12-25 sind . . . zufriedenstellcnd aus jiidischnomistischer Tradition zu crklBren. Danach scheint es mir e n ~ e s m ,d d der Jak in 1.18.21-23 mil Myog nicht das Evangclium, die christliche Lehre o.d. bczeichnet, sondern &as $dische Gesetz." Inteipretation ofJas 2 : R l l is presented as being of scconda~yimponance: it is discussed dong with other rclcvant passag-es found oubide ofJames I only in order to provide "ein vollstdndig-ercs Bild der jlidiscii gepr*gten Theolo~iedcs Jak" (Ibid, 171; c f 1 7 1 75). 'I See in chis connection also Tsuji, Claube, 1 0 8 115, who relics in large -emure on Ludwig. ' S c e my review in,7BL 115 (1996) 372 75. I have drawn freely on porlions nf lhis review for what follow~s. PVort ah Gr.retz. 159 6 1 .
''
24
CHAPTER ONE
and doing,"" and h6yo5 & h q O ~ i a ~is' ~not meant to rcfute Stoic influencc on James's concept or logos, but to show that such usages can be undcrstood apart rrom comparison with Christian trcatments of "the Gospel." A similar aim underlies the compilation of Jewish texts that use agrarian irnagcry to spcak of thc internalization of the law in order to explain Jamcs's description of thc logos as ~pvu.ioq.'" In short, Ludwig rejects the possibility of Greek philosophical influence on James's conccpt of logos, but the rejection is tacit-a function, apparcntly, of hcr thesis that Jamcs rclies on a j'&h tradition or equating law and logos. Ludwig's treatment of Philo's analogous equation of law and logos is especially suggestive in this respcct. Philo's extcnsive reliance upon Greek philosophy, according to Ludwig, renders any similarity between his language and the "Jewish Word-tcrminology" "only a c ~ i d e n t a l . " ~ ~ In fact, analysis of Phitlo's writings suggcsts that "the taking up or thc nomistic Jcwish Word theology is apparcntly not to be expected in authors heavily intluenced by HeUenism."" Conversely, it would sccm, one ought not expect Jamcs-which according to Ludwig k influcnccd by this Jewish tradition-to exhibit significant hellenistic influence. And in fact, the possibility that James's understanding of these terms has also been influenced by Grcek philosophical ihought is entirely overlooked in Ludwig's study. The interpretation ofJames's Epqu.ioq h 6 y o ~offcred by Meyer, Boismard and in the early commentaries of Oecumenius, Theophylactus and Dionysius is passed over in silence? as are the often discussed Stoic precedcnts for thc work's repeated association of law and freedom.
Whcther by rejecting Stoic influencc outright or by positing an entirely supcficial acloption of Stoic terminology to convey a patcntly Christian Ibid, 164-67. Ihid., 151-57. ' V W r t air Ge~elz,162-64. Cf. Ward: "Communal Concern," 130-33; Klein, Eia vollkomrnenes We&, 136-37; Tsuji, Glade, 109. OD Ibid.. 86. " Ihid., 194. " Note that Ludwig dues rercr to the Apo~iolic Con~liluhnnrwhen discussing thr expression Bpgviag h6yoq; biir shc gives no indication that its phrasc Elrrpuiog v 6 p g may be in any way indebted to Stoic rhoughr. It is cited, rather, primarily because "
jH
it "sounds like a clarification of Jas 1:21"
($2; 164.).
IMPLANTE.D .D.OGOS IN JAMES
25
meaning, thosc interpreters who view, James as a Christian composition have uniformly rcjccted the proposition that its notion of a "saving logos" might be illuminated by compa~isouwith texts irformed by Greck philosophical tradition. The relcvant passages cited by Meyer and Boismard, l i e the commentaries of Oecumenius, Thcophylactus and Dionysius bar Salibi, are scarcely deemed worthy of mention, let alonc substantivc discussion. When cited, the passages are quickly dismissed as irrelevant to the interpretation ofJames. The striking coincidence of terminologi in this rather diverse series or work has not led to thcir collection and systematic study. Such a hasty dismissal of evidence, coupled with the fact that the two authors who do detect substantive Stoic influcncc do so Mhie doubting the Christian origin of, at least, this portion of James, suggests that this state of affairs is symptomatic of a wider set of assumptions regarding the centrality of "thc Gospel" in early Christian-or, pcrhaps more to the point, "Ncw Testamentn--sotcriology.If it is taken to be a "truism of the Ncw Testamcnt" that the gospel savcs; if it is nndcrstood that the "logos of truth" in a Christian work must naturally refer to "the Christian message"; then it is scarcely snrprising that the philosophical notion of a logos innate in the human animal would be seen as relevant to James only if it was originally a non-Christian work." In any event, scholarship's consistent failure to reckon with the possibility that James's correlation of law and logos--even if it is a rcpresent a creativc fusion of tradiChristian composition-might tions of diverse origins is problcrnatic. Despitc thc formulation of the problcm in the works of Fahris and Ludwig, it does not immediately follow from James's use of typically Jewish or Christian expressions in association with gyquzog %yo5 that the lattcr phrase itself was coined cntircly apart from Greck philosophical influence. As Dibclius and othcrs have recognized, it is quitc possible that an exprcssion of philosophical provenance is simply used in James alongside cxpressions ofJewish or Christian origin.@At the same timc, against Dibelius
" Sce the further discussion of this prohlcrn in the Introduction. "'Note; in Fact, the apparent concession in Fahris, Lege? 81. HavinS concluded regarding the contcxt in which James's "law of freedom" occurs that "non solo il complesso dcllc nozioni, ma anchc il loro rapport0 si s p i c e esclusivarnentc &a luce della tradirionc biblica e giudaica," Fabris goes on to write that the prescncc oC"(al1cune sorni$ianzc estcrne di vocahulario con I'arnbientc grcco" does not alter the fact that the "caranere biblico e guidaico" ofJames excludcs "l'ambiente greco c atoico come matrice delle nozioni di Giacorno." Rather, "a1 massirno possono
26
CIIAPTEK ONE
and others, it does not immediately follow from the fact that James speaks of Epgv~osh6yo5 in a manner uncharacteristic of Stoic discussions of human reason that the original meaning of the phrase is entirely irrelevant to James. Such facile conclusions bcspcak a much too simplistic approach to the very complex problem of thc merger of Jemish, Christian and Grcck tradition in the early Christian literature. A numbcr of ancient Jewish and Christian works sought to incorporate Stoic concepts into religious traditions with which they were not originally associated, and this inevitably resulted in the adaptation and modification of the philosophical ideas. If the treatment of Epqv~ogh6yo5 in the Letter of James is not typical of Stoicism, ncither is its Christian author a typical Stoic. The question, howcver, remains. Is the expression Epqupuros Myog in fact of Greek philosophical provenance? And if so, to what extent are its original connotations significant for understanding the religious thought of the Letter of James? In what follows, I will show that thc phrasc Epqv.ro5 h6yog was in fact coincd in philosophical circles, in connection with thc Stoic theory that human reason comprises a divinely given "natural" law. More spccifically, the theorctical background of the phrase lies in the Stoic correlation of the inchoatc logos with which humans arc that is, born with "implanted preconceptions" (Tpcpu~otnpoh~'pq~q), with the human animal's innate disposition to form concepts like "good" and "bad" (Chapter Two). We shall see, further, that as thc Stoic theory of law was adapted by various Jewish and Christian authors, it was, naturally, variously modified to accommodate aspects of these authors' thought which were alien to Stoicism. Most common is ihe identification of some a vcrbody of instruction--the Torah or thc tcaching of Jesus-as bal expression of this innate natural law (Chapter Threc). It is my contcntion that the Letter of James, with its correlation of implanted logos with the "perfect" law, a "law of freedom," presents another example of the Christian adaptation of this philosophical conception of law. Those aspects of James's treatment of Epquzo~My05 which diverge from the discussion of human reason in the Stoic sources
suffra,pre I'ipo~esidi uno usunsione ntalnialr da park di Gimorno drllo tcminolo,@a p a , per6 con un i@$calmnuooo e d2um nel conleiro alluah della lellnd' (emphasis mine). Fabris does not rcfer specifically to b Fwquro5 h6Yog in this connection, but cf. 33-48, esp.
12 44.
rcsult from thc fact that Jamcs has incorporated the Stoic concept into a set of religious and historical comictions which derive from Jewish and Christian tradition rathcr than Stoic philosophy. In James it is assumed that the Torah represents a written expression of the implanted logos that all human beings posscss by nature; and it is expected that the god who authored this law d l executc an cschatological judgment in accord with it at the parotlsia of Jesus Christ (Chapter Four). Accordingly, logos and its opposite, human desire, are prcscntcd as the two "\vaysn upon ~ h i c honc can travel toward this jud,ment: the latter is characterized by "deception," manifests itsclf in "sin," and leads to eschatological "death," \+-hide the lormer is characterized by "truth," manifests itselr in "good works" (Epya), and "saves souls" from deaih (Chapter Five). Thc sotcriology of the Letter ofJames, in short, has been woven from strands of tradition that derive from Jewish, Christian and Greek philosophical discourse. The implications of this analysis for attempts to locate the Lcttcr of ,James within early Christianity, and particularly in relation to Paul, will be discussed at the close of the study.
CHAPTER TWO
LAW AS IMPLANTED LOGOS: CICERO AND THE STOICS O N NATURAL MI'V
It wdl have been obsclved from the preceding chaptcr that a rather remarkable coincidence of terminology exists between Dionysius bar Salibi's commentary on the Letter of Jamcs, Cicero's De Lepibus, and the Apostolic Conrtitulions. In each work the tern "implanted" (Epvuzoq, insita) is used, in the course of a discussion of natural law, to describe either that law itself or the "reason" (hbyoq, ratio) ~ 6 t hwhich it is identified. Further instances of this terminology can be adduced; for example, the "implantcd natural law" (Epvvzog vualxbq vb~oq) treated by Methodius, or "the seed of the logos implantcd in every , race of humans" (16 Epquzov n a v ~yi & ~ tavOphnwv anhppa ~ o iMyou) that Justin correlatcs with the "natural law" manifested by and in Jesus Christ. Finally, one might also cite that text which Dionysius bar Salibi was interpreting, and which is the central concern of this study: the Letter of Jamcs itself correlatcs "implanted hgos" with a law that is both "perfect" and "of freedom." It is the purpose of this chapter to show that the recurrence of this terminology is not, in fact, mere coincidence. The similar language found in these othcmise widely disparate works is to be explained in terms of their common dependence on the Stoic theory of law. In order to demonstrate this point, it will be necessary to delve somewhat deeply into this important, but sqrismgly neglected, aspect of Stoic Before turning to an examination of the evidence, though, a couplc of introductory remark., arc in order. I P. A. Vandcr Waerdt describes the "derailed consideratian" of the problcm presented in his recent dissertation a "never previously anernpied"; see "The Stoic Thl'heor) of Natural 1 . a ~ " (l'11.D. diss., PrinceLon University, 1989) 5. CT. the earlier studies of H. Koester, "NOMOZ OVZEUE The Concept of Natural Law in Greek Thought," Reiiqions in AntiquiIy: i7soy.s in Memoy of Enuvl Randall Goodnoqh (ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 521-41; G. Watson, "The Natural Law and Stoicism," problem.^ in Shicinn (ed. A. A. Long; Inndon: Athlone Press, 1971), 216- 38; R. Horsley, "The Law of Nature in Philo and Ciccro," HZR 71 (1978) 55-59; G. Striker, "Origins of thc Concept of Natural Law," Roceedingr of lhe Bo~tonA ~ e i Colloquium in An&t Philo~opb 2 (ed. J. j. Clear).; New Yo& University Press of
Law was a subject to which the Stoic philosophers devoted a significant amount of attention. Treatises on the subjcct arc associated with the most important names in thc carly movement: Zeno, Clcanthcs and Chrysippus all w-rote works entirlcd On Law or On Laws,as did Sphaerus and Diogencs of Babylox2 Unfortunately thcsc ~ o r k are s entirely lost to us, with the exception of a couple ofimportaut fra-pents from Chrysippus's On Law. In fact, Cicero's De L e 8 . b ~ is by far thc most extensive treatment of natural law that has been preserved from antiquity. The use of this treatise for reconstructing the early Stoic theory, however, is complicated by the fact that Cicero's primary sourcc may have becn Antiochus of Ascalon, a philosopher who had left the skeptical Academy to form his own breakaway "Old Academy," and whose thought represcntcd a blend of Stoic and Platonic element^.^ Accordingly, while it is clear by all accounts that the thcory of law presented by Cicero is essentially the Stoic theory: a number of authors havc variously identified this or that dctail of Cicero's account as departures from Stoicism. This question will in fact impinge on our discussion precisely at its most
America, 1987) 79-94. O n Cicero's De Legibur in parlicular L. P. Kenter, M Tullius Cicero, De L r . b u s A cornmmlav on book I (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1972); S. Benardete, "Cicero's De Legbus I: Its Plan and Intention;" A3P 108 (1987) 295-309. Note also those studies published since the appearance of Vander Waerdt's dissertation: G. Striker, "FoUoMmg Nature: A Study in Stoic F,thics," Oxford Sludier in Ancienl Pt~iloiophy9 (1991) 1-73, esp. 35- 50; P. Mitsis, "Natural Law and Natural Right in Post-Aristotelian Philosophy. The Sloics and their Critics," ANRW 2.36.7 (1994) 4812-50; J. G. DeFilippo and P. T. bfitsis, "Socrates and Sloic Natural Law," nLe Somatic Mouemnzl (ed. P. A. Vander M'aerdt; Ithaca: Comell University Press, 1994) 252-71. See also Vander CVaerdt's o m m o x recent studics: "Philosophical Influence on Roman Jurisprudence? .l%lheCase o f Stoicism and Natural I.aw," M R W 2.36.7 (1994) 4851-4900; "Zeno's Republic and the Origins of Natural Law," % Socrntic Moumenl, 272 308. * See the index in SVF 4, p. 100, under v 6 ~ 0 c . The most recent and sustained argument Tor this position is that of P. A. Vander Wacrdt, "The Stoic Theory of Natural Law"; see also idnn, "Philosophicd Influe~ce on Roman Jurisprudence." For a sketch of the earlier discussion of the question sec L. P. Kenter. Ile I~ribw.9 10. A rood introduction to Antiochus of Ascalon is found in J. ill on, ?he ~ i d d Phbnirtr: i i 0 B.C. to A.D 220 (Ithaca: Comell Univcrsiq Press, 1977) 52 106. ' This point will becomc clear over the course of this chapter, and is a1 any rate not disputed in thc secondav literature. Vander Waerdt's approach is properly cautious: "Cicero's account provides a check against which to evaluate the evidence that does survive from the early Stoa. but not a starting point for our enquiry" ("The Stoic Theory of Natural Law," 30). Nonetheless, he finds sipificant cantinuity from Zeno la Cicero (&id; 28)pand this despite his strenuous ar-prnent ilia1 Ciccro's source was Antiochus of Ascalon. ~~~~~~
~
~~
~ 4 w AS
IMPLANTED LOGOS
31
critical juncture: the analysis of Ciccro's trcatment of thc Stoic docnpohilv~~according g , was pointed to Chrysippus, providentially guaranteed by o i ~ ~ i o o las out in connection with our discussion of the "natural" orign of the concept of "something just."'"VVhilc Dio, to bc sure, cites the parents' kindness toward their child as a crucial factor hcrc, his language suggests that the whole reciprocal relationship is in effect guaranteed by naturc.'"' One might compare in this respect the assertion of Ciccro's Stoic Balbo that thc newhorn child "untaught and by nature's guidance" sccks its mother's brcast."Thus Loo could we understand l'hilo's claim that one's "desire for @n and c o u n t 4 may be said to bc born and grow with each of us and is a part of our nature as much as or cvcn more than the parts which unite to make the w h o l ~ . " ' ~ ~ Whatever the case, our initial bclief in God, the "iirst and immortal parcnt," arises ultimately as a rcsult of this same dynamic according to Dio.lg' Indecd, the "Grst breast" that feeds the child is that of "the earth, its real mothcr": it is the air which "after breathing into it and quickening it, at once awakcns it by a nourishment morc liquid than milk and enables it to emit a cry."'!'8 Humans, according
"" '"'
t'lutarcii, Sl. Rep. 10388; see above pp. 6lf. Cf. the pmols adduced hy the Stoics from Naturr for thc natural social tcndcncy of humans in, e.g., De .Not Deor. 2.128-29 and ile Fin. 3.63. CT further thc apparently common Stoic discussion or non-human animals which scern "naturally" to cooperate; esp. the sca pen discussed in De Nbt Umc 2.123-124 and Philo, ile Anirml. 60 and 93. Cf: with this position Arislode's ~ i c wcited , by Inwood ("Comments;" 198) that "the thing produccd is o h i o n to its source . . . but to the product the source is nothing, or lpss important'' (such "products" including human children). p the evidcncc This passagc from Dio Chrysostom may in fact fill a crucial g ~ in for the Stoic dortrinc of social 0 i K ~ i ~ (filt; l < COT example, by Pcmbrok roikeiosis,"' 124q) by emphasizing precisely thc newborn child's io\~efor its parcnis. De 8aL. Deox 2.128. "'I' A61 63: hv [ouyy~v6v rai nqrpi60~] b i r 6 0 o ~h r b m o .ip6rrov r ~ v hrmv&qrar rai ouvqGh.iat icai pirhhov io b fiirov ~ 56" j v o p i v o v ~ e p 6 vrmpniqure; translated according to LCL. CT De Fin. 5.65, wherc Cicero traccs onc's alIecdon for; amoiig others, one's farnil) arrd fellow citizens; a, "the fact that rl~ildreriare loved hy their parents." "" Note esp. tht: description or God as irponbxop in 12.29 and nu?p@ov h i a in 12.42. " W i o Chrysosrom 12.30 31.
'"
72
CHIWTER TWO
to Dio, are thus unable to feel anything other than wonder and lovc for the deity'" In fact, Dio can speak rather loosely of a similar recognition and honor toward God evcn on the par1 or plants and non-rational animals w-hich, unlike humans, are of course incapable or formulating Cvvo~atat all.'" Thc scant nature of our cbidencc surrounding thc Stoic position on the origin of thc human bclief in the gods prohibits the drawing of any decisive conclusions. It is noteworthy, however, that what evidence thcrc is leads us back once again to the doctrine or o i ~ e i o o ~ ~ . Thus the description of thc human belief in thc deity, by at least somc later Stoics, as &pqvpu.roqwould seem to providc still furlher confirmation or Pohlcnz's general contention that the impla~ltcd preconceptions must be understood in light of the Stoic doctrine of oi~eioo~g.
The Stoics distinguished two types of conccpts. Concepts (&vomt) in the strict scnsc of thc term arc the result of conscious intellectual effort and begin to be formcd only when one has achieved an inioccur "nattial statc of rational maturity. Preconceptions (xpohily1~15) urally," that is, from simple mcntal processes which do not rcquire conscious intcllectual labor, and bcgin to form, apparently, almost immediately. While empirical expericncc is necessary for thc fonnation of all concepts according to the Stoics, fundamental ethical concepts such as "good" and " b a d form a special class of preconception, called implanted preconceptions (!pqvpu.ro~ npohfiyIetd. These derive ultimately from the tendcncy, innate in all animals, to subjectively cvaluatc experience in terms of that which is bencficial for oneself and that which is harmful. Humans are not born with cthical conceptions per se; nonetheless, as rational animals in whom conccpts naturally be@ to form almost immediately, they are predisposed to thc formation of thcse conceptions regardlesr of the nature of their experiences.'"' The imagery of "sparks" and especially "sccds" of knowledge or virtuc is often uscd to describe this potcntial and inevitable
'"
DD Chrysostorn 12.32.
Dio Chiysoslom 12.35. An actual hpqurog 665a or 5liivo~aof God, of counc, is nevertheless the peculiar endowment o f t h e ralionol animd, see 12.27 and 12.39. "" The same cannot be said; for cxmple, of die canccpts of "while" and "blach". lhus drc distinction reponed by Plutarch a1 Comm. hht. 1070C. 'O"
ethical knowledge with which humans are naturally endowcd. In what was perhaps a later development in Stoic theology, a posited universal human belief in the deity w-as also explained with reference to this dynamic, and itself described as Epquzog. Our interest in thc rolc of the implanted prcconccptions in Cicero's thcoq- of natural la>\; has led us into a rather long digression, but thc matter is one of great impolt for our present study. This Stoic doctrine is an important piece in the puzzle of the recumng use of the term "implanted" to describe either human rcason or the natural la>\- it comprises in a rangc of ancient literature. In order to clarify this point, let us nows rcturn to Cicero's definition of law- in tcrms of "implanted reason."
Implanted Preconceptions, Human Reason, and Natural Law It is Cicero's view that divine Nature endows individual human bcinps with certain "obscure conccpts" in order to providc them with the "foundations of knowledge." While it is sometimes supposed that this vicw represents a platonizing intcrprcration of the Stoic doctrine of preconception, we have found that this is not a necessary conclusion. The Stoics themselves a r p e d that a certain class of prcconception was different from all other conccpts in that they arise not simply from empirical experience, but, ultimately, from the inborn sclf-awarcncss and self-love guaranteed by o i ~ e i o ~ l gThere . is thus no reason to suppose that Ciccro deviates from Stoic theory in locating the divine e n d o m c n t of these preconccptions at the beginning of the dcvclopmcnt of human reason, and ultimately too, therefore, of "right rcason" or natural law,."" In fact, this position is best understood in light of Chrysippus's own view of human reason. We have seen that human rcason, for the Stoics, is the product of development. Existing only in a potential form in ncwbom humans, it rcachcs an initial state of maturity only around the age of seven, w-hcn it is "completed out of the prcconccptions" (;K riuv rrpohfi~q~wv ~~pzh11poGaOa~).'~' This lattcr statement
""
As I will s u ~ ~ c h the standard by which Jnsticc and Injustice arc measured."" Justice, that is, is "natural" inasmuch as it derives from law; and the law, in turn, is natural to the extent that it is identical to the rcason gibe sage. Indccd, it is to be noted that- -excluding, of coursc, the possibility of the defiition in question-1.18-~19 contains not a single reference to the idcntification of the law with thc divine ratio. Nor does Ciccro's argulncnt at this point depend upon this identification. Ciccro, in fact, docs not attempt to secure his interlocutors' concession that the cosmic ratio will be relevant to their discussion at all until 1.21. As far as I have notcd, in fact, Cicero elsewhere uses the term insila only with reference to the naturc or animus of the human being."' In fact, thc term appcars in Cicero's works in conjunction with themes and idcas associated particularly with thc k ~ ~ ~ u . r o t ?rpoh+qe~g:it is used as a description of in connection with o i ~ ~ i m oand t ~ ,even ~ ~ ~in direct connection with the Stoic doctrine De IZ8. 1.18. "e IZE. I. l i : naturn enim k l i r explicando nvbir ert eoqze ah horninis repenlendn nalura; 1 havc altered the translation of LCL only in addins emphasis, and in rendering hnminis noturo as "human nature" rather than the more gender-specific "nature of man." De Leg. 1.19: quod ri iia reek dicitur, ut mihi quidm~p h m q u e oideli solet, o lep ducendurn ext im2 ezmdiurn; ea esl enim noturoe uii, ea m rahoque prudmfe, een iu+ otque iniuriae re& 1 have altered the translation or LCL only in the addition of the emphasis and in rendering prudentis as "of the sage" rather than "or the intelligent man." Regarding the lauer, it scems to me rather clear in the context of the De L @ h u that it is the Stoic identification of the law with the reason of the sagc that Cicero has in mind here; cf. Kenter, De IZg&r, 88. "' Cf. TD. 1.57; 1.26-27; De 0fl3.32; De f l i t . Deor l . l i ; De Fk. 1.31; 4.4; 1% Sexla Roscio Arne& 5%; Topica 31; Again~tVma 2.48, 139, 177; 1% M u ~ m30; Brulw 2 13; Axainrt A r o 15; Ro Cluentiu 4,. "' Ri, .Murena 30. "" CT 1311 Srxto Roscio ilnierino 53; where a fathcr's love fin his child is described as i n s i t ~ mwith ~ the Stoic doctrine of social oixeioa~g.One might aLso mention in this connection Cicero's description of his lovc for Rome as such in V m Z.139,
""
LAW AS IAIPL.4VrED LOGOS
79
of ~onception.''~Whiie there is thus good precedent for Cicero's use of the term imita in connection with human naturc, and even in connection with the Epqu.io~rrpohfiryeq, its use in connection ~ i t h divine nature would be quite peculiar."" Indeed, when: in another work, Ciccro wishes to convey the notion of the omniprcscnce o i the oera lex, he chooses a phrase more directly reminiscent of Chvsippus's: d f i a in ornne~."~ If, then, the nalui-a into which rcason has been "implanted" according to De Leg. 1.18 is thus human nature,"' the phrase ratzo insita would seem to bc used with particular rcfcrcnce to the initial endow mcnt of reason in its potential, lcss-than-completc state. In [act, Cicero's use of the term insita in this connection, recalling as it docs the Grcck Epquroq, is quite striking given the foundational role played by thc Epqu.iot rrpoh$yrey in his theory or law-. The perfected human reason which is identified with natural law is, in its initial form, comprised of "implanted preconceptions." Cicero's usage, it would seem, simply applies the technical dcscription of the inchoate preconceptions with which one can compare 1)e Fix. 5.65 66. See runher the report in De Fin. 1.31 that some Epicureans had expanded upon Epicurus's doctrine of the Goal, which was rooted in the belief that humans from birth naturally seek plcasure and avoid pain, by arguing that this judgment resa not only with the scnscs, hut is nalnralem el imitam in ar~imiinoil7ir; such a position is perhaps to h r understood as thc adaptation of Stoic ideas Tor the support of Epicurean ethics. "* 711 1.57;
[email protected]. Note d s o the description of all human beings' notions (cognikones) of the gods as inritu . . . uel p a k u innolm in De ~VaNal.Deor. I .44, which admittedly, however, is given in an account oC Epicurean theology; cf. though the use of the identical phrase by Cicero in De Fin. 4.4. in connection with a report of a Platonic/Peripatetic view concerning the universal desire lor knowledge on the part of human beings. Kentcr cites sevcral passages to demonstrate the synonymirq of kit?and innoto, all of which rcfcr to thc nature or nnimu of the human being; he does not, howevrr, comment upon thc possible significance of this fact for the interpretation of the account of law at De I A ~ .1.18. Sec Kcnter, De I@bru, 82. ""p. 3.33; cf. Chrysippus's 6rh n6v.iov i . p ~ 6 f i ~ v o(Diog. < Laert. 7.88) and Cleanthes's GI& xdrvrov ~poti@ ( S F 1,537; p. 122, lines 8m. I1 is noteworthy that cvcn in this passagc thc cosmic ratlo manifest= itself in human bcings in thcir experience of thcir own naturc. Thus when Cicero describes this l m further as nahirae ronpen.r, it bccomes clcar that the natura that he has in mind at thc \-cry lcast includes the notirra hominiq for "jwlhocver does not submit to it [sc. the "true law"] is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and for this \,cry reason will sufkr the worst penalties, even if he cscapes what is commonly considered punishment"; the transladon is an adaptation of that of LCL. CF. in this respect Dionysius bar Saiihi's paraphrasu and explanation or the kp~puto<Myomngms159. According to Hadas, 4 ililoccabeei "signifiranlly diverges" Srom ihe Stoics in this matter by rctai~iinga distinction between minor and great sins, though it is not altogether clcar whether he heiicvcs ihis to hc a c o r ~ ( i o udivergcncc; see 7 7 ~7hird and Fourlh Boob ,f~Maccabr*s, 172f. n. 21, and notc Surther p. 173, n. 23. Redditt is more explirit: "thc author seems to distance himsell slightly fiom thc Stoic notion that ail errors are everywhere alikc in severity" ("The Concept of flt~rnoi" 254). Renciran, with whom, at lcast an this matter, T am in substantial agreemcnl, remarks that "I myselrcannot comprehend how the clear statcmerit in verse 20 can bc construed a anything but general agreement (iritended or not) with the Stoic tcaching"; scc "The Greek Philosophic Rack&~ound~" 230, and Surther 229-31. 'The author's point, d t c r d l , is that dl sins are ullirnately eyiialb scrious. Cf. deSilva, 4 Mnccabea, 106-7. " 4 M o r ~ n h ~5;r . ~ci' 2 Macc 6: 18 31, upon which 4 rMaccoheri most likely depends ( ~ ~ d a s ; nzrd our^^ Book , ~ , M O C L ~ ~ 9 ~U 2 4~ 5 ; 4 "ilakkobnni,~ch654 5 7 ; dt:Silva; 4 ~Maccnbeu, 28 29). 2 Maccabees neithcr places Antiochus at thc scene nor describes E l c z a r as a "philosopher"; with rpspccl to the latter, d: 4 ~Wacc5:i, 21; 7:7, 9, 21; and 5 4 in some manuscripts; also R:l, on the seven brothers. " 4 .Ma.lacc 6:21 22. H a d a ~characterizes Antiochus's criticpc as Sorwarded "on the basis of the Stoic philosophy which he [sc. .4ntiochusj assumcs Eleazar r~llolvs'~ ('The 77iird B t'o'ou~thHooh oJMaccabee.rl 170, n. 7); ci' Klauck, 4 ,MoWilhachuci~,710. Notc. pace Hadas, chat this assumption on the part of Anuochus is accurulc; see below. "" These overlapping points arc supplemented by two liinhcr a r p m e n w which arc not, however, directcd againstJudaism per re: EL:irzar's capitulation in lllis matter would be the expedient cuune olvrtion (56;10-12); and findly; even if Eica~ar's piety should have some divinc sanction, his vansgression would he mitigated by Lhc ficr rhat it was commito:d under compulsion (5:13).
e
98
CHAPTER THREE
The author finds his solution to this challcngc in the Stoic concept of a natural law. O n thc lips of Eleazar and throughout 4 ~Maccabees, the claim is dcvcloped that the Torah accords with both "right reason" and human naturc. Human Reason and Jewish
h i
It is clcar fiom both Antiochus's critiquc and Elcazar's rebuttal that the underlying claim of Eleazar-~-and thc aulhor of 4 iWaccabees -is that adherence to thc Torah is to be vicwcd not only as the "philosophy" of the Jews, but a philosophy that is supremely rational. Having first explained the necessity of fidclity to that law undcr m y circumstances," Elcazar begns to spcak of life according to law as "our philosophy," correctly perceiving the basic thrust of Antiochus's argument: "You mock at our philosophy as though our living undcr it were contrary to rea~on."~%e dcfends the reasonableness of his "philosophy" by asserting that the law trains its adhcrents in the virtucs and, conversely, teachcs control of thc passions: [our philosophy] teaches us temperance so that we are in control of all our pleasures and desires;'" and it gives us a thoroug-h training in courage so that we willingly endure all hardship; and it tcaches us justice so that whatever our diKerent attitudes may be we retain a sense of balance; and it instructs us in piety so that we most highly reverence thc only living God. Thercrore, we do not eat unclcan rood. . .j" With Eleazar's claim that observance ofthe Jcwish law leads to virtuc and control of "plcasures and desires," we are immcdiately reminded of the author's central thesis: that reason should bc master of the passions.i' The Torah, that is, functions vis-a-vis the passions and
~
" 4 A4acc 5:16 a$*
21; cf Anliochus's argument in 5:13. 114m 522: ] ~ k u & j e r 66 < hpGv t$v cp3oooqiav Gmep 06 per& ~6hoy~oriag iv $~obvuov.AU translations of 4 Maccobeei, unless othciluise indicalcd, arc taken
Anderson, "4 Maccabees." early Stoics would not, or course; have spokcn in terms PI' "contml" or the passions, but rather in terms or their elirninalion; sce further Long and Sedley, 77~EIellmisk~Philoiophni; 1.410-23. It is to be obsen,ed i n this connecdon that the undcrsmding or h c pa3aions in 4 1Wacca6w is more in line with that of I'osidonius and other detractors of the monistic psycho lo^). of the carlier Stoics; see, cg., 4 ~ l l o c c3:5 and 221. See further Kenehan, "'l'he Greek Philosophic B a c k ~ o u n d , " 226-27; deSilva, 4 ~Vnccabeei,52-54. from
'" The
Macc 52'1-25. For the association oTpleasurc and desire with the passions, sce the author's discussion of thc latter in 120-29. " 4
"
MOSES. JESUS. .LYE NATUR.41,
L.W.
99
the \irtucs precisely as docs human rcason." In fact, he claims, just as the creator gave humanity an intellect as its "sacred -guide," so too did he give a la$\: to the intellect; thus, he says rcith a distinctly o in accord with this law "shall reign Stoic ring, the one ~ h livcs o\.cr a kingdom that is tcmperatc and j u s ~and good and bra\.c."'" 'ihc "divine la\v" protects reason in its strugglc to maintain dominance ovcr rhc passions;'' reason, in fact; dominates the passions precisely "throush the law" ( 6 t h 7 b v ~ 6 ~ o v ) . "T'he " correlation of rcason b hoytap65 to and law is such that ihc author can simply pass from ~. b v6pos as though thc two arc simply synonymous."' Indecd, Exod 20:17 can be cited as proor of reason's ability to domina~ethe passions: "Surcly, thcn, since thc Law tells us not to covet (p$ i x t O u p ~ i v ) , I should the much more readily pcrsuade you that rcason has thc powcr to control the dcsires (76v i~atOup~Gv)."" The relationship between human reason and the Torah is spelled out systematically in 1:15-17, where hoytup65 is delincd. hoylow65, I suggest, is intellect sclccting with rizht mason (voiiq p n & bpOoC Myou npo.rtpi3v) the life of wisdom. Wisdom, I submit, is know-Iedge of things divine and human, and of their causes And chis wisdom, 1 assume, is the culture \vc acquire rrorn the Law ($TOG v6wou x a ~ S e i a )throush which wc learn thc thins oi G o d rcvcrcntly and the things of mcn to our worldly advantagc.j8
In 4 Maccabees's usage, thcrcfore, b y t o p 6 5 denotes not rncrely "reason," but particularly thc "right rcason" that amounts to wisdom j ' O n the rclation between the passions, rhe virtues and reason, sce csp. 4 i%cc 1:2 4, 6, 13-30. Notc that the verb tipa~iw,used in 5:22 in connection with the Jewish philosophy's instruction in the domination of the pleasures and dcsires, is used routinely in 4 Maccabee~ in connection with reason's control of die passions; e des Machabies, 1701, under rpari-o, see the indcx of Dupont-Sommcr (Le ~ u t r G m Lime for... rekrenccs. " 4 M o c r 2:25: lcaf3' 8" rro;ir.reu6w~vo5 Pao~heGoerPuorheiav ohqpavb .re r a t Sutiaiuv rai i ~ a O $ vlcui drv6peiuv; cf Diog. I.acrt. 7.122. 4 M m 11:27. .'' 4 Mu6 28; 14. Conversely, it is "through rreuson" (St& .rbv h o y ~ o ~ 6 that v ) one is broughl under the rule of law (29). ~. de.7 ej,Mnchabiexei;38, 94; n. 10; ' " Notcd also by Duponr-Sornmzrl I* Qualriime Hadas, 'fie T/%rd&? Fourth Hooh ofMaccnheer; 154? n. 1% Breitcnstein. Beobachtungert; 171; .. Anderson, "4. Maccabees," 546, [rote h. " I i W u c 2:ii. 'This reasoninc is to be undcrs~oodin light of 4 ~Mocc 5:26, on which see below. "' Anderson's translurion ofva6< pe.ri hp8oii h6you xpo.ir~iivin 1:l5 as "the mind making a deiibemte choice" is rather intcrpreuv~,and cluile obscures thc Stoic connection. Hadas's (7he 7llird and Fourth H,~ok\ ofhfaccabrt,r; 149) and Redditt's r T h r Concrpt of ~V,mo.i," 25Xj translildorr "corrca judgment," is morc appropriaic; but still hils LO makc the Stoic refi:rcnce explicit.
"'
100
CHAPTER TIIKEE
and virtuc.'%d this wisdom is nothing other than that which is taught in thc Torah." The upshot of this string of definitions is that obsen~anccof the law is, by definition: life in accord w:ih "right reas0n):6~~~..an association which is by now quite familiar from thc Stoic sources. It is no doubt this core conviction that has givcn rise to thc authois choicc of Jews martyrcd during thc persecution of Antiochus as the chief cxempla of his formal thesis that "pious reason is absolute master of the passions." Moreover, it is in this light that his peculiar and characteristic phrasc "pious reason" is itself to be understood."' Like "right reason" itself, ultimately, piety too in 4 Maccabees consists "einzig und allein in Geset~es~ehorsarn."~"hc treatise, that is, is not merely concerned with the ability of reason to master thc passions; its intcrcst lies, more preciscly, in the mastcry of the passions by right reason spec$calb as itfinds expression in the T~rah."~
Human Nature and Jewiih Law The other criticism of Judaism raised by Antiochus in his attcmpl to persuade Eleazar to eat pork is more immediately to the point: "Why should you abhor eating the excellent meat of this animal which nature has freely bestow-ed on us?. . . it is wrong to spurn nature's good gifts."" This providential and anthropocentric understanding of the existence of the pig eehocs the Stoic vicw of the
'"As opposcd to the "weak reason" (ibv iro8svfi hoyrap6v) of those who do not "with d l their heart make piety their first concern," and who are lhus unablc to master thcir passions; sec 4 Macc 7:17-23. "" Note that the law, like wisdom itself, is also said to concern thing both divine and human ( 1 :16-1 7). CCf Heidand, "hoyiy properly so callcd "is life to them that kccp it.""" It is thus the bishop's duty "before all" to "be a good discriminator between the Law and thc Second Lcgi~lation."'~~ This distinction within the Mosaic law is repeated in the first six books of the Apostolic Comlitutionr, whcre the compiler draws on the Didascalia. At the same timc, howevcr, several significant changcs arc introduced. First of' all, thc redactor show-s himself to hc rather squeamish regarding the absolute abolition or the deutmosic whiie he preserves a number of the Didmalia's statements that Christ took away its commands, he repeatedly add? tbc stipulation "though not all of them.nlo" His understanding of thc original purpose of the deuterosis, similarly, is substantially less negative: God is now said to givc Israel the laws regarding sacrifice and purity not simply as punishment, but to hclp them return "to that law which is sown by [God] into V v6pov rbv bz' kpoC @i the naturc of all human beings" ( ~ K E ~ V O.rbv Didmcnlia are those of Connolly, and are cited according the pagc numben of' his volume. 1 havc also depended upon Connolly's edition of the Latin fmgments of this work. Translations of the Aporlrilic Constitutions are my nwn unless otherwise noted, though for passages from hooks 7 and 8 I have drawn liberally upon the translations of D. R. Darnell ("Hellenistic Synago~alPrayers," O P , 677-97), Ficnsy (Boyerr Alleged to be Jeiosh, 43-127), and Goodenough (By Ikht, %ILL, 306-36); see also the translation in U F 7.391-508. Fur both thc Didnrcalia and the Apostolic Constitzhanr I rely on the cdition of F. X. Funk; DLiarcalia el Constituhioner Apostolorom (Paderhorn: Schoenin~h,1905), largc sections or which are reprinted by Fiensy. The L d h characteristically spcaks of decal~~ps et iudza; the Syriac is consistently rendered by Connolly irs "ten words and judg-ments" (Connolly, Didmcalia, 14f and esp. 218f). Connolly (ibid., lxvii) understands these '>udgments" to rcfcr to the legislatiun +en a1 Exod 21 23. Notably, thc decalogue's Sabbath commandment is interoreted bv h e author of the Didmmlin as a "woe of the (final) rest." and is thus :or to he observed by Christians; see con no^^, Llidmcolk, 2 3 3 ~ ~ 3cf8 190 92. Cf. the lists of the hpes or laws covered by the deuterosir in Connollv, .. Didascnlia, 218, 222, and 252. This approach to biblical law is not uncommon in early Christian literature; cf., e.g., Ptolemy's Letter to Floro; Irenaeus, A. H. 4.14. 15; Ps.-Clem. Rer. 1.35-39 and more generally H. Bietenhard, "Deutcrosis," KAC 3 (1957) 842-49. ""S~ce esp. Connolly, Lhdmcalk, 218-230; see furthcr his General Index under "law" and "Deuterosu." On the law as "lilt." sce ibid.. 228. "'* Ibid.; 34.. I":' CT. A(: 1.6: si rui 66 ilndrvrov; r:f 6.22.1 and 6.22.5: ~i~ u i i(&vta.
'""
'A
'" '"
..
110
CHAPTER THREE
(pba~t ~ a ~ a B h q 8 i &atv v ~ a & V ~ ~ C ~ ZOOnI the ~ ) .whole, ' ~ ' ~ one can fairly say that thc redactor has a much more positive appraisal of the Torah-d not simply- the ten cornmandmcnts-than does his sourcc. In fact, the L\-holcnotion of a deulerosir ncvcr surfaces at all in books scven and cight, when tbc redactor relies on other sources."" On the other hand: the compiler's rcdactional additions to the Diduscalia in book? 1--6 do include several aspects of the treatment or the law found in hooks 7-8. That which the Didascalk considers the "law" propcrly so called is rcpeatcdly identified as "natural law'' ((puat~bc v6~0\-of Moses with an innate natural law from an earlier prayer collection which was itselr edited and incorporated into his larger work."" One might find support Tor such a hypothesis in the ract that a common source apparently underlies 7.34 and 8.12, thc latter of which prcsents thc fullest account of this natural la~v."' Certainly he got the idca from somewhere: it would seem rather improbable that this fourth century cornpilcr has comc up with the notion entirely on his own, especially since thc incorporation of Stoic ideas into conccptions of biblical law had long been accomplishcd. Without Further investigation, howcver, it can be assumed neither that such a source existed, nor, if it did, that it was not itself a Christian work. The prominence of this idea among thc compiler's redactional interests in any case warrants caution; it is clcar in any event that thc ideas most characteristic or such a supposed source were also characteristic or the redactor of the Apostolic Constitutions himself."" Ultimately, whether thcse ideas come From a s o u r c e a n d whether that source, furthcr, was Christian or not---matters little for the present investigation. The philosophical concepts and terminology pre-
"' So also Fiensy, Prnym Alleged to be Jmirlt, 143-44. "" van dcr Horst, who wrcstles witb a similar problem
in tbe recurring phrase "God of Abraham, Isaac a d Jacob," formulates the dilficulties in formulating such hypotheses quite well: ". . . the formula 'God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob' which has such a close parallel in Avolh h a t it is generally taken to bc part of the oripinal Jewish prayer, was also imerhd huice into oflie? lexli 6y our compiler (VII 26,3 and VITI 40,3)! It could thus be argued that this orm mu la is from the compiler's hand as well, bul in view of the parallel in Avolh it secms better not to do that. But h e mauer does demonstrate painfully how diflicult it is to separate tradition from redac lion and how many uncerrainties remain." " ' This problem is desening or more attention than can he given it in the prcsent context. Neither does Fieiensy go into this irsue in detail; but it is interesting that he finds the best oarallels for such an nnderlvine ~~, oraver . in Christian sources: see Pmye7~A l l q d lo be Jewish, I37 40. "WCT. van der IIorst, "The Jewish Prayers," who commenrs on d C 7.33.3 as Collows: ". . . the inleweninc words, 'bv imoianted knowlcdee and natural iudprnent , a s well as tbrough the teachin- or thc'l.a\;', reflect recurrik motifs in thc AC The
".
.
words 'implanted' (Epvvrog)and 'natural' (quotic6 c , < &TE 6 i rir 9 v o u n&@q ~ im&ierv &olraOiqnlow; &M& .rilv roijxov drpmpiav. l'his svilicrnent is only i n t e l l i ~ h l cas a rciection of ihe early Stoic undcrswnding of the vassions.
118
CHAPTER THREE
the human as "the rational animal" ( ~ hoyt~bv b jGov).'"Vt is in fact emphasized rcpcatedly throughout the Af~ostolicCorutitutions, and particularly in books 7 and 8, that the human animal is hoyu~6v."' Thus when it is stated in the third passasc containing this title that one \\-ho wishcs to be initiated into the g o u p must first understand, among other things; "why ihe human being was appointed world citizcn" as well as "his/hcr own nature, of what sort it is," it is almost ccrtainly the casc that thc "naturc" intended here is the rational human nature.''' T h c connection is further attcstcd by the repeated characterization, in thcsc samc passages, of thc human as ~6opou ~6opog,an ambiguous titlc that sccms in any case to be rclatcd to the human animal's rational naturc."" Thc compiler ncvcr states categorically that the implanted law is to be identificd with the human logos. Perhaps owing to the centrality of Moscs's law to his purpose, he speaks dircctly or an Epqurog v6pog rathcr than or an Epqu.ro~h6yog which is v6poq, as in the source of Ciccro's De Legibw and the 1,cttcr of James. It is nonethclcss quite clear that he understands the relationship betwccn the two as being of the most intimatc order; indecd, so much is already sugg-estcd by his characterization of the human animal as "world citizen." Moreovcr, the close association of human rcason with both the implanted and the Mosaic law becomcs quite explicit when it said that God "raised up thc human [to bc] the ~bopou ~6opogthrough Christ, and gavc to it an implanted and written lawso that it might live lawfully, as a rational [animal]" ( ~ uv6pov i 6oGq a6.r+ Epqvpurov K a i ypan~bvnpbq .rb cfiv a6.rbv &O&~p&g &g hop~6v).Given to the human both as ,an innate endowmcnt and, later, in writtcn form, God's law, as in 4 Maccabees, provides thc definitive guidelines for thc rational life. The phrase iug hoync6v, moreover, must bc seen li" d C 7.34.6; 8.4.1.4. It is noteworthy, too; that this latter description recalls the philosophical definitions ofiivflporrog as "a rational rnonal animal"; cT in this connection esp. 8.41.4, where the human animal is further dcfined as B v q ~ 6 5 , thus echoing even more clearly thc Stoic definition. 88' r*orreferences see Fiensy, / + ~ m All@ lo be j'ewirit; 204, n. 28. Note, however,
that whilc Fiensy does not indicate that any of the rcScrences in books I 6 apply the term specifically to a "special characteristic oS man," this is clearly the implication in several oS thcsc passages (see esp. 2.19.2 6.lO.c 6.11.7). It is noteworthy that this designation is particularly prominent in the prayers of book 7 and 8. "' AC 7.39.2 a a r 6 ~ u i o 8 o .. . &' S 1coobmohi1q5 b Ptv8ponog x a r f a q . kmytvw o r i ~ wmjv iau.ro5 ipborv, diary ~?z&EI. I" AC 7.34.61 0.9.8; 8.12.16. S f e furthcr al3ove; note 122.
in light of the repeated description of the human as "the rational animal": the la\\- is given so that humans might livc "as rational beings," xvhich is to say in accord with their own nature, the deiinitivc feature olcrhich is reason.'" Thus the repeated use of the term "natural la\\-" ( V V U I K ~ ictetus,J h . 4.1.175.
(~6Pcp),or shrunken by- grief ( X G q ) : o r hclplcss in thc , ~ pof anger j b p f i ~ ) , it cnslaves itself and makes him whosc soul it is a slave to a host of masters.""' Freedom consists, rather, in obcdiencc to God.'> SpccificaUy, says Philo; this entails li\ing in accord with "right reason," the true dix4ne law:
just as tvith cities, those which lie under an oligarchy or tyranny suffer enslavement, becausc they have crucl and sevcrc mastcrs, who keep them in subjection under their slv-a?, while those which have laws to care for and protcct them arc free: so; tool with mcn. Those in whom anger ( 6 p ~ or ) desire (hnt8upia) or any other passion (TI Eihho a(r805), or; again: any insidious vice ( ~ a ~ iholds a ) sway; are entircly enslaved, whilc all whose life is replated by la>.\;are free (6001 G i ~ E T &v6pou < 6 o ~ vh;6 8 e p o r ) . And right reason is an infillible law (v6po5 6h &yrn6$5 b 6pfJb5 %yoavids coiisidcrs an explicit reference to a biblical command by James to he no more than "an attracli\~eh p o t h esis" (Jamex, 115). Dihelius, on the other hand, sees the influcncc of Lev 19:15 a s thc rcsult of the author's dependence upon a supposed '~ewishparaenesis which dealt with paniality in lllc context of its treatment of lovc on the basis of Idev 19" (Jarnri, 142); in this rcspect he neirrs the later position of I.. T. Jolmson, "Thc Use of l.cviticus 19 in tlic Letter oFJamcs;" ,JRL 101 (1982) 391-401. "" See in ,qeatcst derail Wachob, "Rich in Faith," 197-223, esp. 198 212. "" See esp. Johnson, "The Usc of I.e\iticus 19."Johnson's understanding of the author ofJamcs's approach to thc I'orah is a l s o WCII illustrated in idem, "hlirior of Rembrancc," 641-45. Note in this conncction that Johnson apparcndy considers
LOGOS AND THE U W OF FKEEDOhl
157
of the author's understanding oS the rclation of "love of ncighhor" to the partiality command on one hand, and to "the whole law" (2:lO) on the other: arc thus critical for determining his gencral approach to thc Torah. Third: the lcttcr is silent on issues such as diet, ritual purification, the calendar and circumcision. Gi\-en lhis silence, one can do little more than spcculatc on their role in the author's view oS la\% and the conclusions one draxvs from this silence will likely depcnd as much or more upon one's understanding of the placc of such Jewish practices in c m e r ~ n gChristianity in gencral as upon intcrpretation of Jamcs itself. Noncthclcss, given the importancc of these matters in the formation of g~oupswithin thc Christian movement, this question deserves at least some attention. These thrcc issues will be dcalt with in turn. Acbr
oJ Partial@
in 2 1 - 13
,Jas 2:l-13, as a coherent argument against the practice of partiality, represents a discrete section within James." In 2:l the audicncc is instructed not to "have ihc faith" of Jesus Christ togcther "with What "partiality" entails is acts of partiality" (iv xpotrwnohqpyria~g).~ the author of James to havc understood thc Jc\visli scriptures in gcncrd (however precisely his "canon" may or may not havc bcen delined) to represent thc "law or rreedom": of the several "models for imitation" which he rinds in Jamrs, only onc (Abraham) is actually found in thc Torah (contrast Rahab, Elijah and Job); sec csp. "Mirror or Rcmbrance;" 641-42. "' 'lhus: e.g., does Dibelius refcr to it as "A Treatisc on Parlialiiy" (James, 124); c f Chninc, Soin1 Jaquei, 39: "Ne fiirc pas acception dc pcrsonnnes"; I-Iauck, Die KirchenhGji, 14-16: "Kcine Verachtung dcr Armen"; Mullner, D m Jakohlohnel; 114: "Penonenkult und kommende Gericht"; Cantinat, Lei EpSesr, 119: "Ri-pn~hationde la partialit?'; Fahris, I q p , 66 (cf. 165): "l'arencsi contro il favoritismo"; Davids; Ejistle oJJamex, 105: "No Partiality is Allowahlr." Sce SurtIler Burchard, "Nichstcnliehcgcbot," 520K and esp. the recent analyses of 2:l 13 in light 01ancient rhetoric by Wachob ('LThe Rich in Faith") and D. F. \Vatson (.James 2 in Light of GreroRoman Schemes of Argumentation," .NrS 39 jl993] 94-121, esp. 102 108). While ,Johnson reco.pizcs that Jas 2:s 13 "is not in the least a transition to another topic tlrarl that pursued in 2:l-7" "/,7ornw; 235); he nonetheless prrsents James 2 as "a single argument" made up or three discrcte sections: 2 - 7 1 8-13; 14-26 (ihid. 218 19). Johnson is certainly corrcct to emphasize the averarching unity ofJamcs 2 (sce on this dso Watson, 'yames 2;" and lurther bclow, the Conclusion of this study); howevci, his separation of thc chapter into thrcc scclions ,gives the impression that 23-13 and 2:l 7 are no morc dusely related ro each othcr than they are to 214-26, while in Tact Iliey form, togcther, a s i n ~ l rurpmcnt against the practice of partiality. See further on this helow. ' W n the precis? torre oS the phrase 6" rrpooozahqpiricrrg as "a dcsignalion or accompanying circum~tancc~" sce Dihelius, Jnrnt.~, 126 n. 9. For the phrase EZELV nioi~g.cC Jas 2:14, ID.
158
CHAPTER FOUR
illustrated in an example, framed as an accusator)i rhctorical question, which contrasts the deference show-n to a w-ealthy man with the disrespectful treatment or a poor man as both enter a "synagogue" (2:2-4, uuvaywy;l)."%ter a further series of rhctorical qucstions intended to revcal that such behavior disre~ardsboth thc precedent set by God's treatment of the poor (2:5b-~6a) and the audience's ow-n social experience at the hands of the wealthy (2:6b, 7), the author proceeds to argue more formally that such behavior is a transgression of the law ( 2 - 1 1, esp. 2:9)?' In 22-9, showing partiality and thus transgressing the law are juxtaposed with fullidling the "royal law" by loving one's neighbor as oneself. The love command is quoted from the W(, and cited with specific reference to its scriptural context (2:8, ~a.iZx6lv ypaqfiv). It is therefore striking that within the Torah, just prior to the command regarding love of neighbor (Lev 19:18), one r i d s a prohibition of partiality (Lev 19:15): You shall not render an unjust jud-pent: you shall not be partial to the poor (LXX: 06 X6pyn ap6ownov niw~oij),or defcr to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor.
A number of interpreters have thus concluded that the argument from the law in 2:8-11 is made with the prohibition of partiality as found in the Torah in mind." The citation of the love command specifically as "scripture" would thus serve to point to ihe written context of Lev 19:18, where one also finds an injunction against partiality. 13 Against; e.g-., Spiua, Der BGJ dei Jakobu, 61 n. 3, thr image of these two ''ping into" jeioi.p~a&ate i ~ )the o u v a y d and thcn heing- seated suggests that thc term is used of the meeting place of the assembly rather than the assembly iself; (Cf the use of i d ~ o i with a the latter meaning in Jas 5:14.) The author's use or this term is interesting given other aspects of the work which seem to suggest a self-understanding which is not formulated over-against 'yudaisrn," e.g., ihc address o i the leuer lo "the twelve tribes," on which see [he preliminary remark in M. A. Jackson-McCabe, "A Txtter to the Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora: Wisdom and 'Apocdptic' Eschatology in James" (SBLSP 35 [1996]) 510-15. It is, however, by no means decisive in this respect: as Dihelius points out: even Marcionite Christians could use ouvaywyi)as a term of scifrrferencc, whether with respect to their mceting place or the community itself; see Dihelius, jarner; 132-31. 'U C f . Burchard, "Nichstenliehegehot," 524E "Spmche und Sache wechseln [in 2:8-111. Stam rlictorischen Fragcn Argumentation mit wenn und weii, allgcrneine moralische Urtcile auf Grund von N o m e n statt Kennzeichen v ~ mPersonen.pppen." "i Spitw, Dn Bmfdrn3akobzr, 66-69; Ropes, St James, 19% hluOner, Dn Jakobub&A 124; Laws, Epirth o/Jarnn; 114; Ludwig, Wort als Ceielz, 172; Johnson, "Thc Use of L e ~ i f c u s19?" 393; idem; latier @James, 231: cT Martin; James, 64: 68; and Klein, Ein :ino/lkommm~~ei Wnk. 148 n. 171.
LOGOS rZND THE LAW OF FREEDOM
159
This much is in fact confirmed by a comparison of the author's illustration of "acts of partiality" in 2:2-3 with other ancient treatments of the theme. Immediately follow?ng the initial admonition against such acts in 2:1, thc author offers a n example of thc type o i behavior he has in mind in order to explain the relevance of this cxhortation for his audience: hly brothers and sisters, do not hold the fiith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" with acts or partiality (iv npoowxohqwvia~g).For if into your synagogue should come a man with gold rings and brilliant clothes, and at the same time a poor man in filthy clothes should enter, but you look to the one wearing the brilliant clothes and you say, "you sit here, in an honored place" (~orhiug),"' while to the poor man you say, 'yon stand there" or "sit beneath my footstool", have you not made distinctions among yourscl~es"~ and becomc judges who reason evilly?gq 'I" O n the somewhat awkward TOG kupiou i p 6 v 'Iqaoi! Xpraioi! 6 5 6b&, see esp. Dihelius, James, 126-2% more recently, Wachoh, "The Rich in Faith," 148-59. "' Ropes sought to account for this adverb by hypothesizing a conversational use of this term analogous to the English "picase" (Sl. Jarne~, 190). Regardless of any such convention, its primary effect in J m c s is to contrast the "honor" shown to the rich man in the seat giviven him with the "dishonor" shown to the poor man; notc in this respect 2:6a: by acting in this way, the addressees have "dishonored c ~ m q b v ) . Cf. Wachoh, "The Rich in Faith," 167, the poor" (ii& Sh t j r ~ p & a arbv 190-92. It is also likely that the much discussed invitation to the poor man to sit 6x6 .ib inon66tov pox ("under my li~otstool")in 2 : 3 is to be regarded less as rralistic diai~~pgue than as an hyperbole w-hich makes the point regarding the humiliation of the poor man painfully clear; cf. the use of the image or the foolstool in IXX Ps 109:l (= Ps 110:l). CT Ward, "Communal Concern," 94t O n the problcms in the interpretation of06 S~elcpi&lrei.v fau~oi5,see Dibelius, j'nmer, 1 3 6 ~ ~ 3and 7 , further R. B. Ward, "Partiality in thc Assembly: Jarncs 2:2- 4," HTR 62 (1969) 87-97. Some have found the use of6rukpivea8a~in 1:6 to he decisive, and thus translate the clause in light of the theme of division within individual human beings which is so promincm in the letter (ct, e.g., the fi~pgure of the Siyruxog in 1:8, 4 8 ) ; so, e.g., h.l;iyor, Epiille oJ St. James, 85: "Are you not divided in yourselves?, i.e., guilty of StvuXia." In fact, Dibelius's objection to this, viz., that the example of 2 2 - 3 does not concern a wavering between "the world" and God (j'ajomes, 136-37), scems to me to be quite off the mark: such a courting of the rich to the dishonor of thc poor might be taken to signiry prcciscly that lack of faith in the providence of God against which the author rails in James 1 and 41-6 (see the discussion of these passages hclow, in Chapter Fivr). At the same time, however, given the association of parrialily with '?udhpentn and making unjust distinctions between people on the basis of their social status, it seems likely that the connotation of 'Sudging" or "making distinctions" is foremast on the author's mind. Mitton suggcsts that thc author plays on both scnscs of thc verb (Epirlle oJJarr~es. 84); cf in this respcct thc author's use of6~aAoyrap6vin 2 4 , on which see the foilowing notc. '" 'l'he characterization of those who she\*, paniality ar those with " c d *reasonings" (6~aAoyrowiuviiovqp6v) is noteworthy, for; as ivc have seen, thc law which
160
C I ~ ~ P T E RFOUR
This example, as definitive of the typc of behavior that the author has in mind, is rundamental to the elaboration as a whole: it is an example of the "partiality" (npoownohqpyrin) that, he . i d argue, rcnders one a transgressor of the law.'"" The nominal and vcrbal forms of npoowcohqpyria, not exldent prior to their occurrence in several Christian works of the first and second centuries, arc compound forms or the expression np6ownov hakp&ve~v,with this, in turn, bcing a rather literal translation of thc Hebrew D':g NO^.'^' As uscd in the Hcbrew Biblc and LXX, thesc expressions do not necessarily carry a negative connota~ion.'"~ Such a connotation is frequent, how-ever, in judicial contexts, often implyIt is this ing particularly-as in Lev 19:15---a subversion ofju~tice.'~' negativc usage which bccomes most prominent in later Jewish and Christian literature, w-hethcr or not the tcrm is associated with a fornial judicial setting.'"" In conformity to this later usage, npoowuohqpyryria carries a clcarly ncgative connotation in Jas 2:l-13. Here it is flatly statcd that faith is not to be held & npooonohqpyriaq (2:1), and that thosc who act in this way "work sin, bcing convicted by the law as transgressors" (2:9). Typical, too, is the application of thc conccpt particularly to the disparate treatment of peoplc on the basis of their socio-economic standing;'"' and the characterization or those who act in this manncr as '~udges," moreover, recalls thc common judicial associations of the term'"" such pcrrplc thereby transgress (see 2:8-12) is itself equated wilh b hpquiog %yo L o d e
of
165
N&hhor, and the "1.Wzole Laio"
Love of ncighbor, of course, rcccivcs special emphasis in a number of carly Christian works. Of particular intcrest in connection lvith Jas 2:8-11 are lhosc instances in which LC\; 19:18 is accorded somc special status specifically among thc other commands of the laxi."' Love of ncighbor, paired with love of God (Dent 65): is so clevated in each of the synoptic gospels. In Luke, Jcsus agrccs when a legal expert sinsles out these two commands from all that is "written in the law" as the particular requircmcnts for inheriting "eternal life" (Luke 10:25 - 28). Conversely, &Lark tells of a scribc's approval w-hen Jesus ranks Dcut 6:4-5 and Lev 19:18 as first and second, rcspeclively, of all the commandments; and whcn the scribe then suggests that these two are morc important than demands of thc sacrificial cult in particular, Jcsus declares that he is "not far from the kingdom of G o d (Mark 12:28-34). The Jesus ofMatthe~7similarly names Ueul 6:5 as "the -)""madc only onc stipulation regarding Paul's quest to secure non-Jelvish adherents to the movement: they asked "only" that they "remember the poor" (Gal 2: 10, ~ClvovrGv nrwxGv 'iva pvq~ove.5wpev),resulting in Paul's on-going collcction for Jcrusalem from his non:Jcwish churchcs (Gal 2:lOj."" Such a socio-economic. intcrcst is of course round throughout the synoptic gospels, and is particularly prominent in thc synoptic sayings source, where oi arwxoi-as, perhaps, among the Jerusalcm Christians (cf. Gal 2:10; Rom 15:25)-~-~sccms to be used as a selfdesignation for mcmbcrs of thc movement.""' Such a selr-designation
"' llihclius's interpretation of the I.euzr of Jarncs, c.g.; seems to be irifomcd by an approach to early Christianity wrhich assumes only two basic f i ~ m sof the mouement for which "the break with Judaism was not accomplished in thc radical fashion with which wc arc familiar from thc Pauline T.ettersn (Jamex, i 19; with specilic reference to the g n u p I've numbered [i]): (i) a "liberated Diaspora Judaism," in which Christians "were no longer bound to the leuer of the Old Testament" and thus "no longer had to bear thc burden of ritualism" (22);and (ii) "the advocates of a strict ritualistic praxis" characterized as a "hidebound Jcwish-Christian piety," of ~ , h i c hJames the brother o f Jesus and "thc pcoplc from Jamcs" of Galatians 2 are taken to be representative (ibid.? 17). " V ~ a u laccuses Peter (and, by implication; apparently ever). uthcr ChristianJew at Anliocil except himn:lfi) of refusing lo cat with non-Jews after "certain people from James" arrived (Gal 2:11 13)~-which, of count, implies that these latter &o had mispjvings ahout eating with non-Jews, at least under the circumstances obtaining at Antioch. The extent to which those "certain people from James" attempted to rorce non-Jews into living in accord with Jewish customs, however, is by no means clear. Note particularly that Paui's characterizadon of Peter as "compelling the gentiles to live like Jcws (iov6oi;c~~v)"is not obviously based on anything more than his withdrawal from common meals. It is not clear, that is, whether the issue in Antioch was onc of gentile participation in thc movemcnt per re, or the extent of the participation in thp movemcnt hy non-observant adhcrcnts. "" Notc that the (evidently) uncircumcised 'Fitus (cf G d 2:Q!)was himself engagcd in this collrrtion according to 2 Cor 8:16, 23. '"' J. S. Kloppenborg, The Formahon cf 0, Tr"~Pcto7ierin Ancienl Chnilkrt lliihelius,Jamer, 44: '3a[me]s can express his sympathy with the poor with SO lirtle reserve because for him being poor and hcing Christian were coincidental concepts, not only by virtue aC his archaizing dependence on the literamre [sc. the Jewish literature dealing with "the poor"], hut also by virtue of his own personal conviction." More prcciscly, oirrrwxoirG ~6apq1,i.e., "poor in the eyes of thc world." Notc thc subsenucnt descriotion of them as nhauoia~i v i i i o ~ ~int :actualitv, the", are "rich" in the sense which mauers most. This somewhat peculiar phracr is undoublcdly ro bc understood in lisht of the author's negative portrayal of "the world as ~unddmcntally opposed to God (44.1, and a source or impurity, the avoidance of which gets at the ver)r heart of his understanding- oS iriic rcligion (1:27). Sec funher on "the world" inJames, L. T. Johnson, "Friendship with the World/Friendship with God: A Study of Discipleship in James," Diicipleihip in the N m Taiammt (ed. with an introduction by F. F. Segoxla; Philadelphia: Fonress: 1985) 166-03. CCf Luke 16: 19-3 1, on which scc ah?x,e, note 180. See Jas 5:7: 9; noting especially the 06" that joins 5:7 to .5:6. O n lhc ''pamu-
'"
'" ""
LOGOS AND THE L ~ WOF FREEDOM
185
T o point out such similarities, of course, is nor necessarily to arguc that thc Lettcr of James originated among Jerusalem Christians or among second century Ehionites, much less that it represents an authentic wsiting of James the brolhcr of Jesus.'" It is only to point out that the qucstion of its author's position rcgarding mattcrs of diet, purity, cult and circumcision is much more complex than is oftcn thought to he the casc. Even iT. as is most likely, the author's position regarding the relation of the lovc command to the "wholc law-" and his discussion of niazq and :pya in Jas 2:14-26 are to be understood in light of pauline formulations, it is not clear what conclusions are to be drawn from the fact that hc docs not feel compelled to lay out his o m position on those aspects of the Torah which most rankled Paul. While this, along with his characteristic emphasis on socio-cconomic concerns, surely does indicate what aspccts of the law mattered most to him, he is apparently not altogethcr different in this respcct from a number of Christians who thcrnselves continued to follow Jewish customs. Such Christians could and did hold a variety of positions regarding issues like diet and circumcision; and somc, at least, w-hilc continuing to livc in accord with Jewish customs themselves, did not require such of non~ews.'" In short, firm conclusions rcgarding the position of the author on such matters require morc information r c p d i n g h i and his intcndcd audience than we currcntly possess. While it is clear that James's law is thc Torah, the question of his interpretation of those aspects of it which legislate matters such as purity, dict, circumcision and thc calendar must remain open.'" -
~
..
ria o r the Lord" in James, sec Jackson-McCabe, ''A Letter to the ~I'welveTribes," 509-10; Johnson, Letter of Jamps, 3313 14. Such questions are difficult, perhaps impossible, to answer with any d e ~ c c of certainty given the paucity of information in James regarding its ori@n, not to mention thc meagcr cvidence for the "historicalJarnes," the Jcmsalem church, and the Ehionites. '"" Cf., e . ~ . ,Acts 21:17-26: the prohlcm is that Paul reachesJemr who live among non-Jews not to live in accord with the law. CCT Wachoh, "The Rich in Faiih," 291 n. 94: "\%%atever the author may or may not have thought about the so-called cultic ordinances of the law, marten like circumcision and dietary ordinances: we do not know." Note that while Wachoh refers to Scitz, 'yames and the I.aw," in this connection, Scitz himselr is inciincd to the view h a t the "law or freedom," though representing "the 'old' law" to hc sure, means "only thc dccrilogue tog-ether with such erhical precepts a love or neighbar"; the author of James "simply ignores" issues af diet and cimmcision when using ihe expression "the whole law." See 'Tames and h e Law;" 484-8.5.
'"
'"
186
CHAPTER FOUR
Thc cxprcssion Epqu.rog h6yo5 was coined as a term for human reason by Grcck philosophers, particularly in conncction nith the Stoic theory that human reason comprises a dixincly given natural lav internal to the human animal. That the author ofJames speaks of "the implanted logos" in 1:21 with at least a general ~ p s pof its original significance is clear from the fact that he equales it with a "perfect law of freedom." Si\pificantly, however: he also speaks of this logos in ways which are not typical of Stoic tradition. In a manner rcminiscent, rather, ofJcwlsh and Christian literature, he considers it to be something which can (and must) bc both "hcard" and "done," which "is able to save your souls," and which can, in some scnsc: be "rcccivcd." These differences rcflect the [act h a t in James, as in the other Jcwlsh and Christian writings examined in thc previous chapter, the Stoic concept of law has been fused with a set of religious and historical convictions alicn to Stoicism. Given the obvious indications or the author's dependcncc upon Jewish and Christian traditions throughout the lettcr, such differences are hardly surprising. Nor are they by any means insignificant: the aspects of thc treatment of the implanted logos in James which divcrge from its trcatment in Greek philosophical discussion are just as illuminative of the author's understanding of it and its role in his religous thought as thc rcspects in which it is similar to thcm. Of particular importance in this respect is the facl h a t thc auihor of James, again like Philo, Justin, and the authors of 4 Maccabees and thc Apostolic Conr%itutz~m, assumes that this lops has an external, vcrbal form. The "perfect law of freedom" is in fact the Torah, however precisely interpreted by the author. It is in light of this idcntification that James's peculiar notion that thc logos can be "hcard" and "done" is to be understood; for while scarcely typical of Stoic discussions of natural law., such a pairing or "hearing and doinf is not uncommon in Jewish discussions of the Torah. In a manner which recalls Romans 2:13, the author ofJames insists that one must not only hc a "hearer" of the logos, but a "doer" of it as well. Mcrcly to "hear" it is to "deceive (~apa-ho~1j6ywo1) oncsclf." for it is prethat one d l bccome "blessed" cisely "through doing'' (b3 EO~;~OEL) (1:22, 25). One becomcs such a "logos-doer" through constant attcntion to [he "pcrfcct law of freedom," which is to say: to thc Torah.
I,OCOS AND THE LAW OF FREEDOM
187
Jamcs's emphasis on bccoming a "doer" of the la\\- (cf 412)and ihus of the lap-os-acquircs a particular urgency in light of thc cschatological dimension of thc letter. Thc palnusia of Jesus Christ will cntail jud,mcnt (5:8-9), executed in accord with the law by the diline la\.\rgiver himseE and it %illbc, potentially: "mcrcilcss" (2:12-13; 4:12). Aware of the idea that ''Iovc of neishbor" represents a summary of "the 'ivholc ia.c\-," he cautions against an eschatological confidcncc based on attention to ihis one general command: summary or not, Lev 19:18 is still onc command among many within the law; transgressing any of thc others, even if onc "lo\res one's neighbor," can still render onc liable to judgment."' In a manner rcminisccnt of his carlicr warning regarding thc sclf-deception of thosc who do not "do" the lop-as, he thus admonishcs thc "brothers and sisters" to speak and "do" (rrotei~e;more idiomatically: "act") "as those about to be judgcd by means of the law of freedom" (2:12).'"' This cxpcctation of an eschatological judgment by the law gocs a long way toward clarifying thc author's dcscription of thc implanted lap-or as that "which is able to savc ( ~ b vGvv&p~vov o6oat) your souls" (1:21). Indeed, it is in his capacity as "lawgiver and
'"'
This is not to say drat James envisions a judgment that \\ill of ncccssity procccd = a woodcn accounting of one's vans~essionsof the law. Jas 2:13, in fact, points to a n "cscape clause": showing mercy to others will mpan receiving mercy a t the judgment. A similar notion is h u n d both in the Matthean parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt 18:23-35), and csp. in Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai's reported response to a companion's grief at thc dcsvuclion of the temple, and thus of the mechanism Tor Israel's atonement: "Do not grieve. M'e trave another atonemem as elrectivc as this. And what it is? It is acts of lo\ingkindncss: as it is said: 'I desire mcrcy and not sacrifice"' (Xbol R. .Nat 6; cited as found in A. F. Segd, hbeccn'.~ Chiidrnr Judoirm m d Cimitiaioni& in Uie Roman World [Cambridge, M A : Haward University Press, 19861 131). In James; this notion can be correlated particularly with the author's emphatic concern for thc socially and economically disadvantaged; see esp. 1:27; 2 1 1 3 ; 215-16; 5:l-6. Intcrcstingly, he does nor simply equate such a concern with the general nodon of "love of neighbor." His notion that mcrcy "boasts ovcr judgment," more specifically, is m bc understood in light of thc clitiqur, implicit in J a 2:l-13: n i a social system in which tokcns of honor are , ~ t c d on the hasis of wcalth and/or patronage. The ar-pment of 2:13 does not assume hy courting (or rewardthat one who "shows parriality" as dcfirled in 2:2-+perhaps ing) a awealthy pavon by granting him, rathcr dian a b e g ~ a r ,an lionorable seat in thc synagogue is violating the command of "love of neighbor." The argument, rather, is that ihcy arc violating the partiality command by acting as "unjust judges" of thc rich and poor. Again; despitc h i \*.dlincss regard in^ the use of thc l ~ v ccommand as a summ a of~ thc law, his cmptrasis lies above all on socio-cconomk: issucs. Scc above all the cunstnral of "pure rcligon'' as concern for widows and oiphans in 1:27.
'"
188
CHAPTER FOUR
judge'' that James's god himself is described as one "who is ablc to save" (b 6uv6k~vo5otSoa~)--and to destroy (4:12).'"" Somewhat more difficult to intcrprct is the author's notion that the implantcd logos can in somc scnsc be "received." I must insist at the outset that the command 6iSaoBe rbv Ewqurov hhyov (121) is equally problematic on any interpretation of thc logos. Thc essential difficulty of the passage is the fact that thc author commands his audience to "receive" something that is alrcady "implanted." Whcther, therefore, thc logos is understood to have been so "implanted" in all humans from the time when God created them, or only more recently in a sclect g o u p of peoplc who consciously sought it, the apparent contradiction remains. Of itself, therefore, this command no more excludcs interpreting James's kpquxo~hhyoq in light of Stoic ideas, as has frequently been argued,'" than it excludes reading it in light of an already implantcd "gospel." It is obvious in any case that the command iv nPa6xllxt 6itaooe rbv Eyquxov Myov is not intcnded to connote a "reception" analogous to the initial "implanting" of the l~gos.'~"ven beyond the clcar assumption in 1:21 that the logos is alrcady "implanted" in those who arc to "rcceive" it, it emerges from the letter as a wholc that the author aims to induce in his intended audience something- more appropriately characterized as "repentance" than as " c o n v e r ~ i o n . " ~ ~ ~ It is plain from 1:22-25 in particular that James assumes an audi-
'""lhe
soteriological signilicanc~of the logr~rinthc religious thousht of,ramcs
d l be takcn up more fully in thc tbllowing chapter.
'" Sce Chapter One. '"' C t Ilihelius, >ma,
114. See esp. the condusion of the leLtcr, =,here the concern is that any who have "\vandered from the truth" (cf: 1:18, A6yo~drhqOeiag) be "turned back" (519-20). See also 4:l 10; where the author rcminds his audience that thcir frirndship with the world is incornpatihle with thcir (presumably desired!) friendship with God; points out that they are acting as "adulteresses" and as though "scripture speak in vain"; and ultimately urges a posture o r repcntancc upon them ( 4 7 10). In this respect, Johnson's use or the t c m "canvcrsion" in connection with the aim of the lcttcr as a whole, and ~ l t hthat of this latter srction in particular. is not parricularly helpful. Such a description apparently rrsults from his classilication of the \+,or6 as "protreptic"; cr. csp. Ixlter oJJamri, 16-24 with his descriplion of 313-4:10 as a "Call to Convemk,nn ($id.; 267). Rc.qrdless or the merits of this gcnerir dassificdlion (on which see esp. the discussion of I'Liachob; "Rich in Faith," 98-122), it is clear rrom lhc lcncr as a whole that the author prcsupposcs that his intended audience already has somr manner of "fiith" (cT Klein, Ein in!,~l&ornrnrne~ We*, 47). '1'0 this extent, "ronversiori" secms an inappropriarr p a r a d i p fnr characterizing the rhetorical aim of the le~tcr. "I'
LOGOS .LID THE LAW OF FKEEDOM
189
encc xvhosc currcnt "hearing" of the logos is such that they mig-ht be dcceived regarding its implications for their cschatolo~calstatus. Given the context or 1:21 within thc claboration of thc admonition to be "slow to anger," thc cmphasis of the command sccms to lie palticularly on thc manner in which this logosis "received'-namel>-; "with meekness" (iv r r p a 6 ~ r t )sincc , anger (6py;l) "docs not produce God's righteousness" (l:20)--rather than with thc "receiving" per ~ e . " ~ Thc "rccciving" itself. that is, is simply assumed, much as the "hearing" of the logos is assumed in 1:22-25. Thc "rccei\ingn of logos in 1:21 must in any case be understood morc on the a n a l 0 9 of thc "hearing" or 1:22-25 than thc "implanting" of 1:21; and F i ~ o ~ a t c a n in fact bc used with a scnsc of "gjve ear to," or "hear.""" Indccd: so understood, thc transition &om 1:21 to the discussion of "hcaring and doing" in 1:22-25 appears all thc morc natural: "receive the implanted logos with humility. . . and (Fi)'""' bccomc logos-docrs, and not rncrely hearers who dcccive themselves." On thc othcr hand, a numbcr of authors have sought to account for James's peculiar command to "receive" something which is already
""
Notc in this connection esp. the usc or616 to join 1 2 0 to 121: 'knger does not efi'ect the righteousness of G o d . . . rhercfi,rc.. . rcceive the implanted loxo~with humility." Note also in this connection that whereas thc (implid) command to "lay aside ail 12th" is paired with that to receive thp logor with humiliv in 1:21: thc call lo "cleanse hands" and "purify heartsn--which f"llows a discussion of thc origins of social strifc (cf 6 h ) is paired with an injunction to "humble oneselt" h e f i x God in 43-9. See further on this latter passag Chapter Five; under the heading "llesirc and the Gifts of God in 4:1 6." '"" Sce I.SJ, Gixomr, $1.3: "simply, lo * h e ear lo, hear"; cf: also $1.2: "of mental reception, take, accept without complaint." Again, tlie author o r Jamcs certainly assumes that his audience, on at least some lcvcl, "accepts" tllc log,,.~:thus the probIcm oS "seK-deception" (122). What concerns him is a pc:rceiv
'"
190
CHAP'IXK FOUK
"implantes' by a r p i n g that the author is drawing on a fixed early Christian expression, F&e&at .ibv h6yov.'"' Such expressions are found particularly in Acts and the pauline letters, and rcfcr consistently to an initial acceptance of the Christian proclamation, the Since the author of James cannot in any case be using thc phrasc with rcfcrcnce LO an initial acceptance of the logos (i.e., the "implanting" itself), such interpreters apparently understand h i to bc using an cxpression which connotes "con\~ersion" with reference to an ongoing "acceptancc" of the now (i.c., post-conversion) implanted logos.'"" lndecd, it is often noted that James had just rcferred, in 1:18, to the fact that God "gave birth to us by means of a logos of truth (%yo drhqOeiapos REPI QQONOY:" and further bclow note 34. &. All. 3.114 Philo will go on say that "the soul is saved" only when rcason (h6yq) dominates b h p 6 < ( h ,All. ~ 3.137).
'"
.
"
-
202
CHAPTER FWE
In a manner reminiscent of James's preceding descriptions of "thc wisdom from above" as "peaceruY (3:17, eipqv~dl;cf 3:18) and the pleasures as 'C\arring among your members" (4:1), Philo proceeds to characterize the pursuit of such baser drives as a circumstance in which "war (x6hewo5) prevails in the soul," with reason (AO~LOF~V), which "is in us not as a combative ( ~ ~ X I F Obut V ) as a peaccful (eipqvaiov) inmate," becoming a "prisoner of war" (Lepl All. 3.1 1 i)."" In Fact, such a causal connection between pleasure (ilFovG) and angcr as is made by Philo in this passage reflects a "logic of envy" which is commonplace among the Hellenistic moralists, as Johnson has well demonstrated.'" Following precisely such a logic, James locates the origin of social strife in the human pursuit of their own pleasures (4:I, 6Fovai). More specifically, strife is thousht to result from the fact that such a pursuit is precisely thc wrong way to go about acquiring something: ixtovweire uat 06u Zxezc. . . 06u gxeze FL&zb k~ a i z e k 0 a ~6pCq (4:2). That is to say, zb aizeioOa~,not zb ixtOuw~iv,is the way to obtain something. In ract, so opposed are thc two that cven one who "asks" cannot expcct to rcccivc anything if it is the object of his or her pleasures 6t6.n U ~ K & aizeicroe, Yva iv that is requested: aizei~r~ a06i Aapp&ve~e ~aiqiFovai5 Ck5v Faxavfivqze (4:3)." Worsc than vain, the pursuit of desire is Likened to "friendship with the world," and thus "enmity with God" (4:4); indeed, it emerges subsequently that it represents a failure to "resist the Devil" (4:8)." The author thus reserves some of
33 Note also l'hdu's emohasis in this connection on rhe i m ~ o r u n c eof sneech for healing anger (I4f. All. 3.121); see further on this bclow, pp. 227f See Johnson, ':James 3:13-4:10 and the Tojox nEPI ORONOY." As Johnson , far from sumriine. shows, the charce or 4 2 . "you kill," when seen in this l i-~ h. t is On the convary, "it lie thc context perfectly, because in thc topos on envy, murLetter oJJamr, 277). In this der is regarded as a logical concomitant of envy" (dm, connection, one should particularly note Jas 5:6, where "the rich," who are the pre-eminent pleasure scckers inJames (ct;e.g., 55); are charged with having "killed (hrpov~6ca~ the ~ ) righteous"; note further the apparent echo ofJas 4 . 5 in Jas 5 5 , on which see below p. 223. 3' CE in this rcspect the author's logic in 1 :5 8: though God is dcscrihed as "thc God who rives to all." it is nonetheless the casc that the onc who oetitions God incorrcctlyushould not expect to "receive anyihing Crom h e Lord." k o t e that the author rcfers to both types of improper petilioncrs as Siyru~ot(1:R; 48); sec further on this term below. "' For a similar svnerev nemesis. sce , -. bctireen human desircs and God's anrelic u The 'Texhmmli ofhe Tweliie I'ohiachr, esp. % Reu. 4:i-l I , and Curther Johnson, ':Tames 3:13-410 and thc 7i,flui 17EPI ORONOY," 341-46.
"
.
.,
LOGOS AND DESIRE
203
his harshcst invective for those w-ho pursue their OMTI desires, addressing thcm as "adultcresses" in the idiom of the biblical prophets (4:4)." The host of exegetical problems involvcd in the intcrprctation of 45-13 have made this anothcr of the letter's most controversial passages." Thc qucstion of whether the author here introduces a ciratiou from somc no longer extant "scripture" is not likely to bc definitively resolved barring thc discover). of somc ancient work; dated earlier than James, which contains either some or all this passage.'Vortunatcly, this qucstion is morc important for the gcucral problcm of thc history of the canon than it is for the interpretation of the passage itself. More critical with respect to the latter are the V ~ and ~ the punctuation of the verscs."' subject of K ~ T ~ K ~ OinE 4:5 The neuter gender of .rb nv6pa renders its syntax ambiguous: it could bc takcn cithcr as the subject or the object ofPntnoO~?.If it is taken to be the object, James would thus be implying that his "adulterous" intended audiencc has underestimated the deity's jealousy (q06vog) for them.12 This reading, however, is most unlikely. In the first placc, that the author has chosen to cmphasizc the jcalousy of God in thc contcxt of a discussion which repeatedly treats 'Sealousy" (tijho5) as something entircly negative and opposed to God
"
See the literature cited by Johnson, I ~ t t wofJmer, 278. Only the biling irony of his (rhetorical) address to "the rich" -who, in James, are the pursucrs or dcsirc and the "friends of the w o r l d par excellmceis harsher. Cf. the rather lcss threatening address of the foolish man in Jas 2:20, which is more reminiscent of diatribe. 38 For discussion of the problems sec the commentaries; esp. Mayor, Epistle ofSt. Jamei, 140--45and Dibelius, James, 220-2.5; further S. Laws, "Does Scripture Speak in Vain? A Reconsideration ofJames IV.5," JVTS 20 (1973-74) 210-15; Johnson, 'James 3:13-410 and the Tqopoi nEP1 QQONOY," 327-32; Klein, Ein inolhmrnenes We& 111-1.5. See, however, the discussion below, with n. 59. "I The additional, texrual problem of whether this or thr intransitive ra.r+qaev is to he read here is largely inconscqucnlial for the interpretation of the passagc: whatever the case, the author would no doubt have assumed that it was God who a in the human being. made m & ~ dwell I' Dibelius raiscs the possibilty that the rhetorical question introduced in 4 5 ends with z p b ~ R ~ v o Ybut , ullimately argues that it runs through 4:5b, which is ta he understood as a citation (Jorner, 220 -23; cf. 207); cf the NRSV. Laws argues that 4 5 2 and 4:5b are to he understood as two distinct rhetorical clucstions; and suggests that the "scripture" in question is an allusion to LXX Pa 83:3 ("Does Scripture Speak in Vain?" esp. 234~-15);cf. Johnson, Letler of,j'ames, 280. 'The 26th edition of Nestle-ALand punctuates the passage with a colon after ?&EL, and extends thc question (and apparently a supposed citation) through 4 6 a . *' So, e.g.; Ropes, St Jomn, 264 -65; Dihelius,Jomei, 221; MuBner, DerJakobubrieJ 18lf This is the reading which 1 myself assumed in "A Leuer to tkle Twelvc Tribes,'' 508 n. 35.
"'
204
CHAPTER FIVE
(3:14, 16; 4 2 ) is hardly plausiblc."~Morcovcr, while the motif of God's jealousy is, of course, not uncommon in the Jewish scriptures, the tcrm @Lo< is normally uscd in such contexts in Greek translations, and never, in any event, is q86vo5 so used.'+ Indecd, "in Greek usage, phthonos is always a vice."'" In light of these observations, it is prima facie likcly that the author rather refers to the nv&pai%which resides within each of the "adulterers" among his audience. In fact, a characterization of the intendcd audience as longing for somcthing "to the point of cnvy" (npb5 qO6vov) accords quite well with thc prcccding depictions of them as peoplc who are jealous 14:2, &ioC.re; cf. 3:14, 16), who pursue desire (4:2, intChp~Tz~), and thus at most petition God with the "cvil motive" ( K ~ K G ~ )of" pleasure.48 The subsequent reference in 4 6 to the "greater gifr" (peil;ova.. . ~ h p t v ) ,moreover, would seem to imply some comparison to a "lesser" gift; and this can bc read as a comparison or that which God gives with thc satisfaction of the pleasures for which the spirits of the imagined "adulteresses" vainly long.4" I' This seems to me to be a problcm especially lor those, likc Dibclius, who T E , the autiior would thus be ascribadvocate cmending q o v ~ h n ein 4:2 to ~ ~ ' ~ J ~ Y c ~ Elor ing to God (cT 4:5, q06vov) the very behavior hc condemns in his intended audience! Note also that the author understands '>calousyX(cf 5qho6rc) to be the result of frustrated "desire" (cL iz18ufiirzz) according to 4 2 , and that God is not subject to temptation by indhfiia (cf 1:13-14). Incidentally, it might be pointed out that, ironically, the "logic of envy" which Johnson describes applies quite well to the author's understanding of his god in any case: his "resistance" of such adulterous ones, at Icast in the case of the rich, will ultimately take the form o l a brutal "day of slaughter" (cf 5:5, on which sec below)! I ' Laws, Epirtle ofj'arnes, 177-78; cf Johnson, Leller ~JJarniamei, 282, who considers thc attribution of q86vog to God to be "virtudly impossible." '"ohnson; LeItm oJJaiamer, 281, emphasis his. This nv6&cr is not andogous to the "holy spirit" refcrred to in the leuers of. Paul. but rather simnlv, thc life-zivinp human soirit: cf las 2:26. and further Laws. " ~ o k sScripture Speak in vain::' 215-13. h,Johnson rightly notes; not simply "incorrectly" ( I ~ t t m of,7arnes,278); cf esp. 1:13, where ''c\.il" (cf. rarirv) is associated with temptation by desire. Notc that the entire discussion leading up to 45-6 has dealt rvith the "envy" which resulis from the pursuit ofi$av$ see Johnson, ':James 9:13-410 and thc Topes llEPlOl3ONOY." "" See further on this phrase below, note 61. The debate over the translation of ~irptg as "giR" or "grace" owes more to comparisons of James with Paul than the logic of the passage itsclf: The followkg considerations seem to me to bc decisive in favor or translating this, with Johnson (Ixtter ofJarner. 282); as "giR." First, while the author does not show any ovcrt interest in a pauline concept of "grace" elsewhere in his work (though cf. the comments of MuRner, Der JokobubkJ: 96, and others on the use of pouhq'tJeime5 and fi~schalology, 155. 5i Note rhe use ofonv in i:7. "' C t Jas 4 9 , 10 with 5:1; see runher l:Y I I.
" " ''
206
C E L W ~ RFIVE
to them (4:7--8)." Thcy are "sinners" (&l*ap~whoi) who must cleanse thcir hands; Giyru~otwho must "purify" ( a y v i ~ a stheir ~ ) heart^.^' As thc fact lhat the subject of the clause 6tb [il ypaq+] h&et must be supplicd from 4:5 already suggcsts, thcrcfore, t11e charge that those who pursue an adulterous "friendship with thc \corld" arc acting as though "scripture spcaks in vain" is issued with Prov 3:31 in mind, whether or not it is also made with reference to some now lost \cork, cited in 4:5(--6a)."\Accordingly, it sccms to me that Jas 4 5 6 is best punctuated as rollo>\-s: Or do you think the scripture speaks in vain? The spirit which hc [i.e., God] madc to dwell in us longs to the point of en\-). (xpbg rp86vov); hut hc 1i.e.; God] gives a ,greater @fi. Therefore it says.. . What is clear in any case is that the author imagines two ways in which one can go about acquiring things. The propcr and en'ectivc way, emphasized also in the opening and closing sections of the letter, is simply to ask "the god who gives to all without rescrve and without reproach" (15); more precisely, to ask him humbly, entirely apart from any intention of sating onc's own desires. The impropcr way, conversely, is to attempt to sate onc's desires, whethcr through petitions to God or not. T o engage in the arrogant pursuit of one's own desires is to become an "enemy or God" and thus, ironically, to alienate the "gift-giver," whose gifts are reserved for the humble.
Desire and the Gzfis God in 1.13- 18 Immediately following the claim, in Jas 1:13-15, that the chain of temptation, sin and death originates with an individual's own dcsire rather than from God, James states that "cvery good gift and every
j' A s b has often been noted: these admonitions and promises r h d close analogies in thc T ~ ~ T m" l/ t si l e Twhe Patriarch sec Dibelius, Jamex, 226. jU Ct: Jas 1:8, whcrc the one who does not ask God 6" n b ?is~similarly ~ described as SiyruXog,drra~drora-ro~ i v aboarg r a i b60i5 ~ ariroG. Note rurthcr in this connection the association ofducaiaoraoia with an "earthly" and "demonic" wisdom in 3:16, while the "wisdom from above" is "in the first placc" (irp6rov) "purc" (3:17, b p i ) . "' This Latter possibility, however; secms to me LO bc an unneccss-AT hypothesis in light or the importance of Prov 2 3 4 to the passagc. While it is possible tlmt the author combines two quotations here (a coupling: one might suggest; facilitated by thc occurrence in both o r the phrasc 6iSootv ~ h p ~ vitj ,seems more likely that the question in 45, "do you think sctiprure speaks in vain," simply anticipates the 611 hiYe~\vhichintraduccs the citation of Prov 3:3+ as poinicd out, [he suhjrct of 611 hiyet must in any CASC he supplied from 4:5. Less plausible still is L~MIS'S suggcslion that the author d u d c s here to W( Ps 833 (';Does Scripture Speak in Vain?' 214f).
perfect prcscnt""" is "from abovc" (6vwO~v);i.c.: rrom God. l'hc connection between these two statements is greatb illuminated by the emphasis on God's sole as tlie souscc of good dlings t111-ougl~outdie letter, and by 4:l-6 in particular. .MI truly good things, according to James, come from God; and it is by asking him rather than pursuing one's own desircs that one can receive thcsc gifts. O n his lie\\., scripture ilselr tcachcs that God "@\-es a $St" only to the humble, while resisting those who arrogantly pursuc thcir own desircs."' Succumbing to desire, in short, represents a mistaken understanding of how (truly) good things can be obtained: one must depend humbly: simply and wholly upon God. 'She pursuit of one's own desires, lvhile enticing, \+ill ultimatcly achievc nothing good, only sin and death.
"" As has long been noted, z t o a Sbarg ciy& rai aciv Ghpqpa rfhetov forms ;r hcxameter. H. Grccuen has ar,ped, on thc supposition that ibis line must therclire be a quotation of an carlier saying, that Jas 1 : l i actually consists of two scntences: a traditionai statement and its explaration. Grecven thus paraphrases thc ver.se as follows: "'Jede Gabe ist gut, rind jedes GcscJ>cnk is1 vollkommcn'. Und warum? \Veil es von oben stammt, hcrabkommt vom Vater des Lichts . ." (':Jrde Gabr ist ~ ~ 1 ,13). ' ' Greeven, however, docs not serm to have won a ~i~gnifirant follo\ving on thk point; scc, c.g., the subsequent t~.anslatiansofMul3ncr (DerJakobusbriel; 811, Cantinat ([asEpttr~.~,30). Laws (EpIrtIe oJJan~er, i2), Johnson (Lellr ? / , 7 a r r ~ ~ , 173); see further Klein, fiGn nuIih,m,mnmzer Wkkk 6 6 6 7 . Davids suxgrsts that cven if t h ~hexameter was proverhid, it is altered in James so that "every good gift and rvcry p c r f c ~ tpresent" is now rhe subject of &&If" i m t v (EpIrtlr uf,7ames, 86). In fhct, whereas the author's intercst in establishing- that d good things come from God is readily understandable in thc context of ]:Is-18 (see immediately hclow), it is ditficult to scc ~ r h yhe shoilld suddanly reel compelled to dcfcnd l11r claim thar all "gifW are good or perfect. The significance to he accorded to the usc of two diffcrrnt phrascs in connecLion with God's bencficencc (i.e., 6 6 0 ~ 5drya&i and 6hpqpx rfherov) has also been thc subject or same discussion. Some read hcre a disiinction hchvcen the act of giving (660~5)and the @ft itsclf (6hpqpa); see Mayor, EpIrlle uf St. jarne.~, 56 58; Hurt, E$i,lle oJSl. Jame~, 28; more rccenliy,Johnson, Leller gf.7arr~ei; 195. Ropes, on the othcr hand, argued that "there is no special distinclion intended, the repetition being solcly li,r rhetorical elrect" (St. Jams, 159); sct: also 13. Greeven, "Jede Gabc is1 gut, Jak. 1,17," T z 14 (1958) 1-13; Cantinat, 18.7 fi$ihe.r; 91; id;, Epislle o/ Jamex, 86; ci: I)ibeliu.s, jams, 100. The issuc is in any r:asc not crucial for understanding the author's basic point, on which scc belaw. Note that diere is a certain tcrlsion behvecn the author's view of God and his pcrcepiion of his present economic realities: r f Jas 1:7 and 4:2-3 with thr wcaittl of thc ~ i c k c d"rich" (e.g., 5:2-3). 'Skis tension, perhaps; underlies his notion of thc "greater @li" in 4:6: the material iuxulics of "the rich'' arc not in fact [he truly good gifis; hut only llccting material possessions which ultimatcly work to h e i r disadvantag?; cf: in this conncctio~~James'suse oCphrasesnho6a~o~ hv Z-Christian) myth, which explained the supposed ariomalies in terms of certain stars' rcbcllious deviations from the courscs v-hich wcrc laid out for them b?God. Thc carlicst rcfercncc to this myth in thc cxtant Jewish litcraturc is pcrhaps found in our present 1 Enoch,'Vn wl~ichthe I\'atchcrs are identified as "stars" \\hose do>mfall, as it wcrc, was prccipitated by their illicit desire for thc daughters of "the sons of men": "thc angcls, the childrcn of hcavcn, saw them and desired (htre06fiqaav) thcm" (1 Enoch 6:2)." In any case, thesc "\vandcring stars" became paradi<patic examples of those who disregard Gods command^'^ for later writers, many of whom do clearly identify thcm with the Watchers. Thc author of thc Letter of Jude, for example, liens a q o u p of Christian "intruders" who "defde the flcsh, rcject authority and slander the slorious ones" to thc &a.ripe\ND DESIRE
215
that this logos rcprcscnts the "way" contrary to dcsirc, i.e.: thc way which leads to "life." As we haw sccn, Jas 1:19-27 rcprcscnts a discrete section within thc first chapter of Jamcs: Jas l:19b presents a threc part admonition, each element of which is elaborated in 1:20--27. Its connection with 1:13-18, howcver, is clear nonetheless. Dcpcnding upon whether one takes Ya.ie as an indicative or an imperative, 1:19a refers to what has prcccded either as a rcmindcr ("you know this") or, more gcncrally, as something of which the audience should in any casc be aware ("know this!")." Whatever the case, the use of ZTE.. . Sk to introduce rhc admonition "let cach pcrson be quick to hear, slow to spcak, and slow to anger" implies that this latter represents an cthical inference drawn from what has preceded, whcthcr 1:13-18 as a whole or 1:18 in particular." It is thcrefore striking, given the recerence to thc birth oS "us" by mcans of the "logos of truth" in 1:18, that "thc implanted logos" is ccntral to the claboration of 1:19b: since human anger doesn't produce God's righteousness, it is to he received "with humility" (1:21); ihough one is to be "quick to hear," one must not merely "hear" the logos, but "do" it as we11 (1:22-23); and whilc the logos is not explicitly mentioned when the author explains being- "slow to speak" in terms of "bridling the tonguc" (1:26, ~ a h t v a y w y 6 i vy h G ~ a a v ) ,it emerges when this themc is revisited in James 3 that "bridling the tongue" is nothing other than not "stumbling" i v h6yv (3:2)-a phrase that certainly rcfers to speech, but speech particularly in its relation to the implanted logos." In short, knowledge that an individual's own desire is the ultimate source of temptation, that giving in to temptation lcads to sin and death, and, perhaps most especially, that God "gavc birth to us by means or a logos of truth," should give risc to a particular type of bchavior vis-a-vis the implanted logos which is "ablc to save souls."
Conclzlszon The rcfcrcncc to the "1ugo.os of truth" by which God "gave birth to us" is made in the context of an argumcnt that locatcs the origin of temptation, sin and dcath in human dcsirc rather than with
"'
'l'hc reading &me, while also strongly attested, is likely a later scrihal attempt to solidify the transition from 1:18 to 1:19-26. "' So also Johnson, I d & of Jmtex, 199; cf Klcin; Ein n u o l h m n e x We& 44, 133. Dibelius's characteristic rejection of any coherent conneclion between 1:lR and 1:19-26 results more rrom his gencral iiterav approach to thc lctier than lo exegesis or this particular passase; see James, 109 Sce below; pp. 224-30.
"
God. A distinction is drawn between God and humanity: Cod, unlike human beings, neither tempts nor is himself tcmptcd. The uue source of tcmptation, rather, is each individual's own desirc. Playing, as in 519-20, on both of the common connotations or ihe verb nhavho, thc author warns his audience, ,uj nhavCo8e: they are not to be "dcccivcd': by the allure of desire and &us induccd to "wander" in sin toward death. Despite its seductive aliurc, nothing that is truly good will be achieved by giving in to dcsire. "Every good gift and cvery perfect present" comcs from God. His "gifrs" are reselvcd for those that humbly depcnd upon him, >%-hide he "resists" those who arrogantly pursuc their own desircs. In the same way that any "wandering" on the part of thc astral "lights" is not reflectivc of the nature of their "Father" who created thcm, so too, God is not responsible when humans "wander" onto the path of sin and death, despitc the fact that he "gave birth" to "us." Indeed, far from tempting pcoplc to pursue desirc, God "gave birth to us" by means of lop-as; he "implantcd" within us, that is, ihe logos whose primary characteristics oS "truth" and the ability to "save souls" stand diametrically opposed to the deception and dcath of desire. Knowledge of this fact should lead onc to resist the "desire" w-hich leads to death, and "do," ratherl the logos "which is able to savc souls."
Locos
AND
ERGA
'The antithetical relationship between logos and dcsirc in Jamcs is underscored by the series of contrastive terms associated with each. They are portrayed as two "ways," wilh desire characterized above all by "dcccption" (1:16; 5:19-20, ~hdrvq)and logos by "truth" (1:18; 5:19, ahfi8e~a).Thc path of dcsire leads to "death" (1:15, 0hva.iog): while the logor is able to "savc souls" from death (1:21; cE 5:20: o60ei yrv~ilv. . . k~ Oav&.iov).Each "w-ay," morcovcr, is characterized by its own particular catcgory of behavior. ,Just as succumbing to desire results in "sin" (1:15, bpapziu; cf. 5:20, &pxprwh&v),so too docs "doing" logos producc a particular type oS action, namely an ergon: "the one who looks into the perfect law which is of freedom and remains" and thus becomcs a "l0go.r-doer" bccomes, more specifically, a noiqziq &pyou(195). AualyzingJames's emphasis on "works" from the perspective of his view of logos and desire as "two ways," in fact, sheds a good deal of light on this controversial topic.
LOGOS AND DESIKE
217
The rolc or erga as counterpart to sin within the ethical and sotcriological thought of James emerges most clearly through a comparison or 1:2-4, 12"' with 1: 14 -1 5. In Jas 1:2-4, thc author insists that the "endurance" (Grropovfi) produced (idcally) by ze1paop6g must "havc a pcrfcct work (Epyov r&etov) in order that you might be perfcct, %-hole, and lacking in nothing." The somcwhat peculiar phrasc kpyov rkhetov has been variously interpreted." Dibclius took it to be a rather pleonastic anticipation of the subsequent clause, ba ~ T rkhetot ~ abld~hqpot i iv pqrl6~vihe~rr6pwot.Thc latter, therefore, whilc "formally. . . dcpendent upon the imperative" fi G i bnopovi epyov rkhe~ovixkro, is "in thought parallel to it"; thus: "You arc that perreci work."" This intcrprctation, however, trcating 1:4 as a wholc simply as thc climactic element or a concatcnation after thc manner of Rom 5:3-5 and 1 Pet 1:6-7, uttcrly takes the teeth out of the imperative k ~ k r o . " O O e r shavc taken the phrase with reference to
"" Jas 1:12, picking up the kcy thcme or enduring nerpaolrb5, forms an inclurio with 1:2-4 (cf. esp. 1:2, nerpao$oi~with 1:12, netpaopbv; 1:3; 4, Lnopovfi(-v) with 1:12, rirrolrivet; and 1:3, Gariprov with 1:12, 66~tpog).The problem of the logical development or the intervening versesi.r., from 1 5 8 to 1 : 9 - 1 1 ~ i s among the most challenging problems in the interprrration of the lcncr, and is Dibelius's strongest casc Tor rcadingJames as a collection of disparate traditions; d the cumments of Johnson, Letter oJ Jamex, 1 7 4 ~ 7 6 Dibelius . himsclf nonetheless rccopized the resumptive character of 1:12 (James, 88). However one construes thc precise logical connection both between Jas 1 : 5 8 and l:9-I I, and between w-hat preccdcs and follows them, it should he stressed that these sections address issues which are not only of fundamental concern to the lettcr as a whole, but closely related to one another: the proper way af acquiring things (namely, rrom God through prayer [1:5-S]), and the coming eschatological reversal of the rich and humble (1:9 1I). For recent attcmpts to disccni the precise progression of thought in thcse verses, see Hoppe, iler 7heoioS;che H i n k p n d des Jakobubriefer, 11844; Klein, Ein inolhmmener V V d , 92-100; Johnson; I e t k ofJarnei, 182-84, 189-91; cf. Tsuji, Ghuhe. 64-67. '" Klein, approaching Jas 1:2-4 as a traditional p d a t i o (cf Rom 5:3-.5 and 1 Pet 1:6~7),but finding no prior use of the phrase Zpyov rhkrov in ancient literature, considers the lauer, at least, to havc bcen coined by the author of James himself (Ein u o l h m i m Werk, 54). Indeed, it is Klcin's view that this expression represenis a summation or thc overarching interest of thc author urJames: "Das 'vollkommene Wcrk' ist die Forderung, in der die venchicdcn Mahnreden des JakabusbrieTes ihr Zentrum hahen" (;hid, 12). For a discussion ofthe past inteqrctation OF the phrase, see ibid., 5 4 3 6 . q' Dihelius, Jam#& 74; emphasis his; rollowed by MuRner, L ) n Joki,hi~shri& 66f; P. J . Hartin, James and t/ls Q Sngiq.~oJJesus (,JSYrSup 47; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1991) 85. Kcin, Ein ~ollkonlmenes PVd, 55. Dibclius, who or course emphasizes thc t r a ditional nature of this passage, reduces the significance or the imperative to tlie level or h r m , auributing the "obscurity of the cxprcssion" to "the intention of dlc author to let thc concatenation end, not with a declarative statement, hut rather with an admonition; for such is in accord with the paracnetic character of his
"
E
218
CH~PTER FIVE
the "complete" endurance that those expcriencing l i E l p u ~ ~ 6must 5 achieve; thus: "let [endurance] have its full effect."" This reading is accurate as far as it goes, but it remains too general. It too; like the prccediig one, overlooks the significance of the appearance of a command to "have an ergon" in the opening admonition oi" a work whose emphasis on the soteriological importance of oga has become incarnous. The rcfcrcncc to the "perfect ergon" that endurance is to "have" is in fact quite consistent with the trcatment of the theme of erga elsewhere in the lctter. An abstract noun is used as the subject of &XEIV & p y aagain in 2:17, though there h e subjcct is I'aich itself rather than the endurance produccd by the &sting of faith as in 1:')-4.'"' Though "faith is the nominal subject, the issue, of course; is nonetheless the significance of a person "having faith' ( l i b r t v . . . EXEIV) if (s)he does not also "havc" (Exn) erga, as is clear from 2:14.1°' James's view of the matter is well known: "faith, if it does not havc erga, is dead" (2: 17). Such a l i i ~ ~xwpiq tq Epyov, he puns, is &-epyov, "usclcss" (221; cf. 2:26): it cannot effect "righteousncss" (2:24),"" nor is it "able to save" (2:14, 6 6 v a ~ a t .. . goat). Indeed, it is clear [rom the challenge posed to the "foolish" interlocutor in 2:18 that the author undcrstands erga to be the tangible manifestation of a living faith:'"' "show me your faith apart from ergu, and I will show you, out of my erga, my faith."'"" writing" (;%mr.r, 74). Thc similarities hetween,Jas l:2 4 , Rom 5:3-5 and I Pet 1 :6 7 are indeed noteworthy; such sirnilaritics; howevcr, should serve to underline, not obscure, the peculiar use of the imperative in Jas 1:4. "30 Mayor, Eppiitlr of.% ,j'amei, 36; cC hlartin, Jamex, 16: "Let endurance yicid its complete work." 'O" On i b Garilrrov in Jas 1:4 as "the instrument or means by which a man is and proved (66~rpo~)," see Mayor, Eflistb oJSt. 3omu.s; 34-35; tested (Salcrlr(r~~~crt) more recently Klein, Eix inollkr~mmenes Wnk, 47. Klcin, Eit inooMommme~ We+ 55. ID' Indecd, with further wordplay, the author writes that in the case of Abraham's offiring of Isaac, faith "worked with" (ov-$pya) Cpya to accomplish righteousncss (2:22). It might he notcd; in light of tklc associatiori oflaith and mga withneipatip6< in 1:2-4, tlral Abraham's sacrifice 01Isaac is commonly presented as onc-and sometimes the last and greatest of a selics of "tests" cndurcd by Oiu paliiarch; see ,Tub. I El.5-lR:19, and the additional literature discussed by Dihclius; Jam 168-70. Note also that Sir 41:20 and 1 Macc 2:iZ both speak of Abraham's being found laithrui Ev rretpaop@. See furtlier on this point Klein; Ein i,ollki,mmmr~Werk, 73 71. Contrasr Jas 2:17, 26: faith irithoot works is "dead." '"I Jas 2:18 is another wzll-known crux in the intrrpretation of.James; for a convenient description of the pmblcm and its various solutions, see S. McKnight; '3amcs 2: I Da: 'She UnidendTiablu Interlocutor;" M'7.7 52 (1990) 355 61_csp. 355 59. '1.0 my mind, ir is the solution pnlposed by H. Neit~cl!"Einc alte crux intcrprcrum im ,Jakobusbrief 2; 18;" ZjVCl' 73 [I9821 286 93) and advocated hy Klein (Ein inall-
'"
""
LOGOS 4 N D DESlKE
219
A challenge quite similar to that posed to thc one \\-ha says ($he has faith in 2:18 is offcrcd to any who claim to posscss wisdom in 3: 13:"" whocver is "wise and undcrstanding'"O%s LO "she\\- (6~1cix.iw) from a good manner of lixing his or her e r p with wisdom's humility (or: "\rise humility"; cf. i v npabqrt ooqiag)." It emcrges from this passage that the two "x\.ays" which the author imagines in 5:19--20 can also be conceived as ht-o opposing "\
