James 5:6 - Is it James?

John Painter suggests that Jas 5:6's ο δικαιος is a reference to James himself, incorporated into the epistle by a later redactor. Painter writes:

This suggestion gains force if the epistle gathers together tradition originating with James the Just, presenting it in a way relevant to a new and later situation. In other words, the reference of James 5:6 would be understood in relation to the martyrdom of James the Just if the epistle appeared subsequent to that event, as we have suggested.[1]

The unlikely hood of this as a referent to James is firstly the notion of two-stage redaction, proposed by Painter, Martin and others is questionable. Johnson has noted, “all the usual criteria for positing a late dating for New Testament writings are absent… On the face of it, everything in the letter suggests an early dating rather than a late one.”[2] Thus, a hypothesis of redaction or even two-stage composition of James, seems unnecessary.[3] [As noted before, my conjecture is that if James was edited by a later redactor, the traces of this redaction are extraordinarily hard to detect and one could postulate that what the redactor has done is perhaps remove narrative sections from the epistle so as to make it more useful in a wider context. This would explain the awkward genre of James and the abrupt ending that has puzzled scholars for some time.] Bauckham notes that:

There are no serious arguments to weigh against the plausibility of the epistolary situation indicated by James 1:1. The letter can be read as what it purports to be: an encyclical from James of Jerusalem to the Diaspora.[4]

But Painter’s notion that the righteous one refers to none other than James himself persists. The question of course is hindered not just by authorial intent, but by reader response/understanding. Is it likely that the readers of our letter would think of James, any righteous one, or perhaps Jesus specifically when reading this verse? Can we imagine, and plausibly suggest, communities of Jewish-Christians listening to these words and thinking of a specific figure, namely, James? This historical scenario alone appears to be the strongest objection to Painter’s view. The ambiguity surrounding this as a reference to James is too large for us to ignore. If the author of our letter had meant to refer to James, we should expect that the reference be significantly clearer than a reference to “the righteous one.”[5]

However, history may tip our understanding towards Painter’s position due to the testimony of Eusebius, which suggests that James was commonly known as ‘the Just’.[6] Richard Hays carefully notes two interpretive options:

Hegesippus’s claim that James was universally known as ο δικαιος is one more embellishment in an account admittedly heavily embroidered with legendary hagiographic motifs. This source provides no reliable information about what James was actually called by his contemporaries. (2) Hegesippus’s account is indeed reliable on this point at least, and Luke has suppressed the information for reasons that parallel Lake and Cadbury’s embarrassment: ο δικαιος is a title that rightly applies to Jesus alone.[7]

Hays then begin to discuss reasons why the first interpretive option seems more likely.

I think there are good reasons for preferring the first of these explanations: the tradition about the epithet as a designation for James is attested neither by any of the several NT writings that mention him, including most tellingly even the Epistle of James, nor by Josephus. Even if the latter explanation that Luke has suppressed James’s characteristic title is correct, however – indeed, especially if it is correct - Luke bears witness to a stream of early tradition that reserves the epithet ο δικαιος for the eschatological deliverer, Jesus.[8]

Hays is probably correct in his comments about the account recorded in Eusebius. It still appears to me that the epithet of “the Just” could be a later accreditation to James, based on his life and ministry and the legend that developed surrounding James.[9] The question then becomes, how much later? The view that James is an earlier rather than later document still possesses enough explanatory power to suggest that when the epistle of James was written the title of ο δικαιος was used [as a title?] more frequently for Jesus than for James. Thus, Painter’s argument may have merit, depending on when one understands James to have been written and how plausible Hegesippus’s claims are understood. Given our understanding that James is early, it seems unlikely that the reference here is to James, even though later generations, (in the time of Eusebius & Hegesippus?), may have seen here an allusion to James.

[1] Painter, Just James, pg. 259

[2] L. T. Johnson “The Social World of James: Literary Analysis and Historical Reconstruction” in Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James L. T. Johnson (Eerdmans, 2004), pg. 110. Johnson notes the specific criteria as: “no institutional development, no sense of tradition as a deposit, no polemic against false teachers, no highly developed Christology, no delay of the parousia.”

[3] R. P. Martin, James (Word, 1988), pg. lxxiii.

[4] R. Bauckham, James (Routledge, 1999) pg. 25

[5] We shall analyse the titular notion of ο δικαιος in a forthcoming blog.

[6] Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 2.23.4 which notes that James “the Just” was known as such “by all men from the Lord’s time to ours.” See also "Primary Sources on James the Just," James Tabor

[7] R. Hays, “Apocalyptic Hermeneutics: Habakkuk Proclaims ‘The Righteous One’” in The Conversion of the Imagination (Eerdmans, 2005), pg. 128. I am thankful to Professor Hays for alerting me to his discussions of this matter.

[8] Hays, “Apocalyptic Hermeneutics”, pg. 128

[9] Apocryphal literature about James suggests hagiographical legends developing. Cf. The Proto-Gospel of James; The “Letter of Peter to James” and its “Reception” both found in B. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (Oxford, 2003). See also "Non-Canonical References to James," J. Julius Scott, Jr.

James 5:6 - Intro

This little verse is a linguistic grenade. Pull the pin and it explodes with a narrative that is both informative and instructive providing both hope and coherence to a somewhat perplexing section of James. Forsake it, and one is excluded from a treasure house of insight and wisdom. But it appears that the pin is stuck and if one is not careful, it will explode in all the wrong places or it will be relegated to the trash heap for recycling due to operation failure.

James 5:6 NRSV

You have condemned and murdered the righteous One, who does not resist you.

Who is this ambiguous “righteous one” to whom James refers? Exegetically we have several voices, none of them appearing conclusive. But the task remains to see which one is plausible, even probable, or if we are doomed to speculation. This discussion seeks to interact with various proposals such as that of John Painter in his interesting study Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition.[1] Painter’s thesis rests on several arguments many of which we will interact with later. His position on this matter is clearly stated when he writes:

The case of the righteous man in 5:6 is very likely intended to be understood as an autobiographical statement by the author.[2]

This is a very interesting proposal, and one that has many sympathisers. However, contrary to this thesis, [on the otherside of the exegetical choir] Richard Hays has suggested that this is a reference to the death of Jesus. Hays provides no arguments or reasons for this position but merely posits that:

If James 5:6 alludes – as I believe it does – to the death of Jesus, then it is “the rich” (not, e.g., “the Jews”) who are blamed for the death of Jesus. The shadow of the cross looms over the image of the wealthy who ‘have lived on the earth in luxury and pleasure.’[3]

However, if Painter or any other thesis is preferred, does that automatically disqualify Hays’ position? We shall have to investigate this carefully.

What makes Hays' proposal interesting is that scholars have long lamented the absence of any direct reference to the death of Jesus in James.[4] This is strikingly peculiar when compared with other early Christian literature.[5] Many contemporary commentators part ways with Hays' in suggesting this as a reference to the death of Jesus.[6] So what could lead Hays to such a judgement? We can only guess...

In the next few posts, I'll begin to explore Jas. 5:6, it's exegetical options and contemporary interpreters of this verse. We shall pay careful attention to Hays' position as it has caught my interest. We shall also question the connection between 5:1-6 and 5:7-11, as this question proves decisive in our analysis.

[1] John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Fortress, 1997) [2] John Painter, Just James, pg. 259 [3] Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (Harper Collins, 1996), pg. 470 n.6 [4] For e.g., R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols., trans. K Grobel (Scribner, 1951-55) Vol.1 pg. 84. [5] Except perhaps for Acts, Jude, 2 Peter, the Didache 2 Clement and Hermas. [6] Hartin, Moo, Martin, Davids, Adamson, Ropes and Wall. But for a defence of this view see Andre Feuillet “le Sens du Mot Parousie dans l’Evangile de Matthieu” in David Daube and W. D. Davies, eds., The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (Cambridge University Press, 1964), pgs. 261-280. Unfortunately, my French is non-existent so I cannot interact with this essay.

2 Stage Redaction of James?

R. P. Martin in his commentary on James [Word, 1988, pg. lxxiii], following P.H. Davids The Epistle of James [Eerdmans, 1982, pg. 12-13] and others have proposed a two stage redaction for the epistle of James. Davids explains that:

If one wishes to explain the apparent contradiction of fors, it will be necessary to come to some type of a two-level hypothesis for the composition of the work. This same hypothesis may also explain some of the curious divergeneces in vocabulary, some of the conflict between the very good Greek in places and Semitisms in others, and some of the apparent disjointedness between topics in the epistle...

The first stage is a series of Jewish Christian homilies, sayings, and maxims, many of which would have been composed in Greek by a person who spoke Aramaic as his mother tongue, while others may have been translations. The second stage is the compilation of an epistle by editing these pieces together into a whole. (12)

L.T. Johnson remains critical of this view. Johnson notes that, “all the usual criteria for positing a late dating for New Testament writings are absent… On the face of it, everything in the letter suggests an early dating rather than a late one.”[1] Also, Patrick Hartin has argued that:

An early date for this writing is required from the evidence noted..., namely, (1) the way the author refers to himself, expecting his hearers/readers to know his identity; (2) the closeness of the author to the heritage of Israel (he still sees himself as belonging to that world); (3) the use made of the Jesus traditions (prior to the appearance of the canonical gospels); (4) the closeness to the spirit and vision of Jesus; (5) the total lack of reference to the Gentiles in any form; and (6) the omission of any reference to the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.[2]

Some of these reasons may be objected to, especially 5 & 6, but otherwise these are particularly apt. Ultimately though, for reasons not readily apparent, Hartin joins Davids, Martin and co in accepting that the letter of James was composed after James' death by an amanuensis or scribe in the mid 60's. My conjecture is that if James was edited by a later redactor, the traces of this redaction are extraordinarily hard to detect and one could postulate that what the redactor has done is perhaps remove narrative sections from the epistle so as to make it more useful in a wider context. This would explain the awkward genre of James and the abrupt ending that has puzzled scholars for some time. Or that the letter has undergone literary revision, as proposed by F. F. Bruce.[3]

The question I have is, are there any contemporary Jacobean scholars who argue [not merely assert] against a two stage composition, or for a single stage writing? (Other than L.T. Johnson) -> [If Jim Darlack knows the answer, could he please email me references so that I may acquire such arguments and assess them. Thanx!] This is a pivotal piece of my argument concerning James 5:6. Once I have resolved this, one may begin to fully lay out the arguments concerning that text.

[1] L. T. Johnson “The Social World of James: Literary Analysis and Historical Reconstruction” in Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (Eerdmans, 2004), pg. 110. Johnson notes the specific criteria as: “no institutional development, no sense of tradition as a deposit, no polemic against false teachers, no highly developed Christology, no delay of the parousia.”

[2] P. J. Hartin, James (Liturgical Press, 2003) pg. 24

[3] F. F. Bruce "The General Letters" in G. C. D. Howley (ed.) A New Testament Commentary London, 1969)

On James

Our resident Blog Expert on Jacobean studies has been catching up on some much needed blogging after some time doing actual work... :)

Be sure to keep a close on eye on this blog if you're interested in James. Unfortunately, all my research on James came to a holt when I couldn't get my grubby paws on Johnson's excellent commentary. I'm still working on a paper: Jesus' Death in James 5:6 but it needs time, which I don't really have at this point... Maybe next year... Jim offers Top Picks on James. I thoroughly agree with these suggestions! Although, I haven't read all of them...

The most helpful commentaries I've used are Davids NIGTC, then Hartin Sacra Pagina, then Wall, Community of the Wise. When Johnson arrives, I'm sure I'll add it to this list. Johnson's collection of studies [Brother of Jesus, Friend of God], for exegetical usefulness, is better than Bauckham's [Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage]. On the sayings of Jesus in James, Deppe and Hartin's work have proved very helpful. Commentaries by Moo and Martin have proved helpful, but at times eccentric or idiosyncratic. They are nonetheless very good.

We look forward to William Baker's work, as everything that I've read of his so far has proved useful, insightful and worthy of time. And of course, there is Scot McKnight's forthcoming commentary of James to expect. But that will be a while in the making...

Baptism in James?

Jas 2:7 provides us with an interesting piece to the perplexing puzzle of devotion to Jesus in James. The referents of James 2:7 are rigorously disputed among various scholars. What was that “beautiful/excellent name”? To whom did this name belong? What did it mean or entail to take on this name? James suggests that this ‘beautiful name’ was ‘invoked over’ them. What does that mean? To what event, if any, does it refer? Did it mean to take on the name ‘Christian’? Or did it refer to the cultic event within the life of countless believers, i.e., the baptismal rite? In his section on “Judean Jewish Christianity” Larry Hurtado suggests that Jas. 2:7 is an “allusion to the ritual use of Jesus’ name in baptism.”[1] Ropes and Moo, as well as others, remain sceptical as to whether this refers to a baptismal rite.[2] I shall, however, suggest that the data does not suggest an agnostic position and although one cannot be certain, plausible judgements may still be administered. The purpose of this discussion is to investigate Hurtado’s claim that this is an allusion to baptism in the epistle of James with reference to those whom he writes. These are all complex and interrelated issues to which we now turn.

ουκ αυτοι βλασφημουσιν το καλον ονομα το επικληθεν εφ υμας

Is it not they who blaspheme the beautiful name that was invoked over you?

The Context

The context of our section provides few clues as to the practical referent. Thus we must ask, what is the rhetorical benefit of James’ question and how does it add to his argument? What images or stories does it evoke in the minds of those to whom James is writing? Is there a narrative sub-structure into which our piece of the puzzle will slot and therefore unlock the answer to our search? Once this is recognized, we may be in a better position to investigate the plausibility of this as a baptismal referent. The section begins in 2:1 with an acclamation that the Lord Jesus Christ is glorious. In vs. 5 James notes that the poor are chosen to inherit the kingdom.[3] Vs. 9 describes the command to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” as a royal law. Sandwiched between these two elements is our verse in question. Royal law and kingdom almost certainly provide the appropriate context to refer to Jesus. Furthermore, since James has already suggested that he is a slave of both God and the LORD Jesus Christ, and he has just referred to Jesus as “our Glorious LORD Jesus Christ” (2:1) we may be confident that James has Jesus in view here.[4]

Jews took very serious the charge of blasphemy (cf. Lev 24:15-16). It was because of Jesus’ supposed blasphemy that the ruling elite had him handed over to the Romans. Jews were prepared to fight and die for the honour of God’s name. God’s name was sacred and any attempt to defame it was met with serious resistance.

Blasphemy is an attempt to injure a man by gravely malignant speech; against God, it is the sin of attempting to bring him into dishonour by such speech.[5]

Thus, if James suggests that this name could be blasphemed, this implicitly suggests a serious reverence for whoever this refers to from James. We may assume this applies to the community as well, for James offers no defence of this position, but merely notes it. Moo notes that,

Because James supplies so little information, we can only speculate about the exact situation here. It may have been Gentiles profanely mocking the God whom believers claimed to worship. It may have been Jews criticizing Christian claims about Jesus. Or, more generally, it may have involved unbelievers making fun of Christian morality and worship practices.[6]

We may not have enough information to describe the exact situation to which James refers, but we must endeavour to understand the boundaries of what James may be referring to. What name could Jews and Christians revere so much? What did this reverence for a name suggest about their allegiance and commitment to the one named? The fact that James uses such a strong word (blasfhmew) suggests that whoever is being referred to is the recipient of a generous amount of cultic allegiance.

But who is the referent of this ‘beautiful name’? Martin notes that the name is either that of Jesus or “the Christian’s own title to faith.”[7] Adamson suggests that it refers to the name “Christians” (See Acts 11:26; 13:45; 18:6; 26:11, 28; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Tim 1:13; 1 Pet 4:14, 16).[8] If Luke is correct in suggesting that the title ‘Christian’ was conceived at Antioch, then it seems unlikely that that is what James has in view here.[9] There is no reason to suggest that this title was in use within the communities to which James writes, so we can but speculate.

We should also pay careful attention to what James has written. Our verse refers to a single past tense event where the beautiful name was invoked over them. This suggests that the name is not currently being invoked over them, since they have already given themselves to this name. This makes the reference to “Christians” unlikely, as this would be a continuous name used to designate believers. Given the context of this pericope, as noted above, it seems more likely to refer to the actual name of Jesus, than to title the ‘Christians’. It becomes, therefore, important to appreciate the use of ejpiklhqe;n, as used when “someone’s name is called over someone to designate the latter as the property of the former.”[10] Davids notes that,

The phrase “to call a name upon one” is a septuagintalism, indicating possession or relationship, particularly relationship to God (Amos 9:12; Dt. 28:10; 2 Chron 7:14; Is 43:7; Jer 14:9; Pss. Sol. 19:18).[11]

Historical Options

Where was this name invoked over them? What options does early Christianity provide us with? Could we postulate a worship setting where the name of Jesus is invocated over believers? But then would this be a continuous element of worship gatherings or a single event? When pagans[12] converted, was the name of Jesus invoked over them? What evidence is there for this claim? The natural response to this is that the new believer would invoke the name of Jesus, not over them [as we have here in James] but they would just invoke it, requesting salvation. This at least is the Lukan and Pauline paradigm that we have from early Christianity.

So the one option, when discussing James, that springs to mind, is that of baptism. There are many examples of the name of Jesus being invoked at baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48). Hurtado observes that,

The widespread acceptance of baptism in Christian circles as the defining initiation rite, and involving the ritual use of Jesus’ name as a constituent feature, is best accounted for by positing its origin among early, respected and influential circles of believers, among whom the Jerusalem church held unrivalled status.[13]

Based on this, and the notion that we have no other event that calls for such an invocation, we may plausibly suggest that Vs. 7 appears as a reference to the baptism rite that followers undergo to express their allegiance to Jesus the King. This verse then indicates that the name of Jesus was a particularly sacred name that was to be revered and not misused. Those to whom James is writing take offence from anyone misusing the name of Jesus, since that was the name of the one to whom they belonged, and to whom they gave their allegiance as the Glorious Lord Jesus Christ (Jas. 2:1).

this blog is a work in process :: thoughts expressed are not necessarily final judgements... Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms? All Welcome...

[1] Hurdato, L. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003), pg. 202. Various other scholars have taken the same position. See P. H. Davids, The Epistle of James (Eerdmans, 1982), pg. 113-114; S. Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James (A & C Black, 1980), pg. 105; L. T. Johnson, The Letter of James (Doubleday, 1995), pg. 226; and P. J. Hartin, James and the ‘Q’ Sayings of Jesus (Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), pg. 92 .

[2] Moo, The Letter of James, pg. 109; J. H. Ropes, St. James (T & T Clark, 1961) pg. 197

[3] The Kingdom of God is the central message of Jesus, but it was not an ubiquitous concept in Judaism thus making its appearance here more likely due to Jesus than anything else.

[4] Davids, The Epistle of James, pg. 113 writes “‘The good name called upon you’ is certainly the name of Jesus.”

[5] Adamson, J. The Epistle of James (Eerdmans, 1976), pg. 112

[6] Moo, D. The Letter of James (Eerdmans, 2000), pg. 109

[7] Martin, R. P. James (Word, 1988), pg. 67

[8] Adamson, The Epistle of James, pg. 112-13

[9] Contra Adamson, The Epistle of James, pg. 112

[10] Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979, [Online] Available: Logos Library System. See 2 Sam 6:2; 1 Kings 8:43; Jer 7:30; 14:9; Am 9:12; 2 Ch 7:14 and Ac 15:17.

[11] Davids, The Epistle of James, pg. 113

[12] Like L. Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship (Paternoster, 1999), pg. 4 the word ‘pagan’ is employed to designate those that do not belong to Judaism or Christianity. It is not meant in a pejorative sense.

[13] Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pg. 203

Devotion to Jesus in James

Larry Hurtado has done a tremendous amount of ground-breaking research into devotion directed towards Jesus of Nazareth.[1] Hurtado defines ‘devotion’ as: “beliefs and related religious actions that constituted the expressions of religious reverence of early Christians.”[2]

Exclusivist monotheism is the crucial religious context in which to view Christ-devotion in early Christianity, and was a major force shaping what Christ-devotion looked like, but monotheism hardly explains why devotion to Jesus emerged. What was the impetus? There are really two questions involved. (1) Why was there such a focus on, and thematizing of, this particular figure, Jesus? (2) Why did Christ-devotion assume the proportions it did in early Christianity, i.e., amounting to a new binitarian devotional pattern unprecedented in Jewish monotheism?[3]

At an astonishingly early point, in at least some Christian groups, there is a clear and programmatic inclusion of Jesus in their devotional life, both in honorific claims and in devotional practices. In addition, Jesus functioned in their ethical ideals and demands, in both interpersonal and wider social spheres.[4]

Based on this, I wish to suggest that the scattered Jewish-Christian communities, to which James writes, represents communities that were devoted to Jesus. More so, I wish to suggest that James is an exhortation to Jewish-Christians to intensify their devotion to Jesus by embracing and implementing the teachings of Jesus, which James viewed as authoritative for communal praxis and thus honouring to God.

Although having surveyed the epistle of James in an article on “Christology” in the Dictionary of Later New Testament and its Developments, Hurtado has not [to my knowledge] applied his insights to the letter of James regarding early Christian devotion to Jesus. This appears to be a depressing lacuna in Hurtado’s research, since I hope to show that James is an important piece of evidence when studying devotion to Jesus in early Christianity.[5] Hurtado lists six specific practices that constitute a novel and remarkable pattern of devotion to Jesus that is seen across the spectrum of our earliest sources.

1. Hymns about Jesus sung as part of early Christian worship;
2. Prayer to God “through” Jesus and “in Jesus’ name,” and even direct prayer to Jesus himself, including particularly the invocation of Jesus in the corporate worship setting;
3. “Calling upon the name of Jesus,” particularly in Christian baptism and in healing and exorcism;
4. The Christian common meal enacted as a sacred meal where the risen Jesus presides as “Lord” of the gathered community;
5. The practice of ritually “confessing” Jesus in the context of Christian worship; and
6. Christian prophecy as oracles of the risen Jesus, and the Holy Spirit of prophecy understood as also the Spirit of Jesus.[6]

In future posts, I'd like to explore some of these facets in James. What do you think?

[1] Studies devoted to this topic by Hurtado include, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003); How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? (Eerdmans, 2005); One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Judaism (Fortress, 1988) and At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion (Paternoster, 1999)

[2] Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pg. 3

[3] Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pg. 53

[4] Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pg. 4. Italics original.

[5] I find it annoying that James is so often neglected in NT research. Many books claiming to be thematically based on the writings of the NT, flatly ignore James. In a book devoted to the ethics of the NT, Richard Hays [The Moral Vision of the New Testament] offers a mere four references to James! Hurtado’s magisterial study offers a mere three references to James, and fails to interact significantly with this important document. Could this be evidence that Luther has infected modern scholarship to such a degree that many simply ignore James as a second-rate document?

[6] Hurtado, How on Earth did Jesus Become a God?, pg. 28. See also Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship, pg. 74-94

Converting James

John Painter has challenged the tide of scholarship on the historical James, suggesting a new hypothesis to explain the extant evidence that we have. Painter calls for a re-evaluation of three widely held positions: [1]

1. James and the other brothers and sisters of Jesus were not believers during Jesus ministry.
2. James became a believer through a resurrection appearance of Jesus to him.
3. A transition from Peter’s leadership to that of James was necessitated by Peter’s forced flight from Jerusalem

The last of these three is, at this point of the discussion, unimportant. What I wish to respond to is Painter’s claim that James was a follower of Jesus pre-crucifixion. That means that the first two positions are related and should be dealt with together.

Was Jesus' mother and brothers were among his retinue during the Galilean ministry (John 2:12; 7:3-5; Mark 3:21 // Matt 12:46 // Luke 8:19) ? Painter argues that the Gospels’ treatments of Jesus family must be read against the Gospel writers editorial tendencies.[2] In both Mark and John, the brothers of Jesus “are portrayed as ‘fallible followers’ rather than as outright unbelievers.”[3] Painter notes:

The overall effect of John 2:1-11, 12, is to lead the reader to the conclusion that the mother and brothers of Jesus were among his intimate supporters. This impression is not altogether undone by John 7:3-5, in which the narrator informs the readers that they did not believe in him at this stage. Yet, the impression that his brothers were followers is confirmed by the presences with Jesus.[4]

Painters conjecture seems unwarranted for several reasons. Firstly, in the absence of positive evidence suggesting James [not just the brothers in general] was in fact a disciple of Jesus [pre-crucifixion], all that Painter’s argument can do is cast doubt as to when James converted.

Secondly, there appears to be several strands of data that lead us to conclude that James was not in fact a disciple of Jesus. From the traditions in Mark, through Matthew and Luke to John, the evidence for James as a disciple is particularly scant and flimsy. The internal evidence from John’s gospel is insufficient to warrant Painter’s conclusion. This is especially evident from the fact that a presence with Jesus does not automatically entail that presence being a disciple. Many people were with Jesus at various stages of his ministry. Not all of them were disciples, and to suggest that just because one was with Jesus made them a disciple, is to go beyond what evidence we have.

The least we can conclude is that according to John 2, Jesus’ brothers [does this have to include all his brothers or just a couple?] may have, at one point early in his ministry, been followers. But by John 7 they have abandoned the way [cf. James 5:19-20, where James could be highlighting wisdom from his own experience though this remains speculative]. Mark 3:21 & 6 suggests that the brothers of Jesus took offence at his ministry. Witherington notes:

Thus, as minimum, we must conclude that mark in vv. 20-21 is presenting the unflattering picture of Jesus being misunderstood by his own family. They either thought he was unbalanced or, at least, not in control of the situation he was precipitating. If the latter, then they may be trying to protect Jesus rather than remove him from the public scene because of the shame and controversy he was bringing on his family. Yet the verb, which occurs again in 6:17 and 12:12, is a strong on and refers in those texts to attempts to arrest Jesus. Here it must mean at least that they have come to restrain Jesus, a forceful action… Seen from the perspective of honour and shame conventions, it is possible to see the action of the family as an attempt to protect their own family honour rather than protect Jesus in particular. They did not want him to disgrace the family.[5]

Witherington’s argument is historically more probable and plausible than the one reference from John. Thus, this explains why Jesus’ brothers felt it necessary to be close to Jesus. They felt the need to protect the honour of their family, and thus restrain their deviant older brother.

[1] John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Fortress Press, 1999), 13

[2] Ibid., 15.

[3] Ibid., 17.

[4] Ibid., 18

[5] Witherington, The Gospel of Mark, pg. 155. Witherington goes on to suggest “There may also be this further connection between the family passage and the passages about the scribes – the reference to a house divided against itself could in fact be taken as an allusion to Jesus’ own household.” Witherington further notes that “The door is left open for Jesus’ physical family to join the family of faith in 3:35, but Mark does not suggest that the family, even later, walked through that door.” Pg. 156

Christology of James

The problem before us is clear. Granted that James was a 1st century Jewish writers, we may assume his familiarity with title LORD as a strict referent to YHWH. However, in this Jewish letter James explicitly identifies the referent of LORD as Jesus. This leads us to the perplexing question at hand: Is there a single instance in James, where LORD is explicitly used of YHWH and it clearly and explicitly cannot refer to Jesus? The reason for this question is clear: Having identified Jesus unambiguously as LORD in two explicitly clear passages, shouldn’t our hermeneutical strategy be to assume that every other reference of LORD is still to Jesus, unless it is exegetically implausible?

Bauckham on James

Richard Bauckham - James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (Routledge, 1999). This I read in conjunction with his essay "The Spirit of God in Us Loathes Envy: James 4:5" in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honour of J. D. G. Dunn (ed.) G. Stanton, B. W. Longenecker, S. C. Barton (Eerdmans, 2004). In this latter essay, Bauckham technically advances the case that James 4:5 be translated: The Spirit of God in Us Loathes Envy (the very title of his essay). Bauckham suggests that:

"The quotation in 4:5 provides the scriptural basis for this by pointing out God's enmity twoards envy. This contextual consideration makes it much more likely that, if this proposal for translation is correct, then refers to the divine Spirit rather than the human spirit. A reference to the human spirit here would be an unnecessaryily indirect way of pointing out God's own opposition to envy...

Understanding James as deploying here a wisdom pneumatology () fits very well with our proposed understanding of the quotation in 4:5. Both the wisdom from above of 3:13-18 and the Spirit of 4:5 are opposed to envy." [pg. 278]

Bauckham's book on James is not for the novice. It has loads of excellent historical analysis and probes various historical issues. But I've got to wonder if this book was just written for scholars. Yes, he does have a superb section the contemporary application of James in the final chapter. Yes, he does have an excellent introduction. But other than that, and his section on James in canonical perspective, this book is exegetically thin. [Not something I was expecting, but maybe that's my problem?]

Bauckham's outline is helpful and his analysis of ancient wisdom compared with James is also insightful. I would have liked to see Bauckham develop his Christological Monotheism and the Identity of God in James' letter more. The conflation of LORD, a title reserved for YHWH, used for Jesus as well as GOD needs to be thrashed out by Bauckham's tinker.

Overall, Bauckham is a fantastic scholar and there are tons of useful insights. Maybe not as helpful for the preacher as for the scholar, but still well worth the effort. And the fact that Bauckham keeps up to date with theologians is astounding.

Make sure you check this out...

Off the Back of a Bird

Thinking about Bird’s recent comments:

The problem is, and I think Kloppenborg and Allison are trying to address it in their own way, to account for the fact that we have a very Jewish letter here, obviously written by a Christian, but it has so little explicitly Christian content. Is that because the author simply drew on a synagogue sermon and made a few cosmetic Christian changes (Dibelius), because it was written largely to non-Christian Jews (McNeil, Kloppenborg, Allison), or because the author drew on the traditions most familiar to him (Jewish Wisdom, Jesus Tradition, or perhaps even Stoicism [?]) in order to offer exhortation and spiritual discipline to a group of Jewish-Christians located somewhere in rural Syria? As the flurry of commentaries by Allison, Kloppenborg, Painter, and McKnight come out we can look forward to seeing how they answer such a question.

Several thoughts bombard my mind as one reads this. Firstly, is James anymore or less Jewish than the rest of the NT? Can we plausibly offer a distinction between Judaism and Christianity when James writes? Yes, there is the distinction that the Lordship of Jesus offers, but what else? The first Christian writers were all thoroughly Jewish, except for perhaps Luke (who was probably well educated in Judaism/LXX!). Is James the shock to the system that reminds NT scholars that they are dealing with 2nd Temple Jewish documents?

Johnson argues that “James’ Christianity is neither Pauline nor anti-Pauline but another version altogether.” Since I am inclined towards this view, why must James be either Christian (Pauline?) or Jewish? Should we expect anything less than what James is, if it was written to Jewish Christians? Graham Stanton writes: “once one accepts that Jesus traditions have been used at James 2:8 and at James 5:12, it becomes more likely that the writer has drawn on Jesus traditions elsewhere.” If this is accurate, then we are experiencing the conversion of James. Someone who was a thorough 1st century Jew, has now encountered the Messiah, the LORD JESUS, and this writing represents part of the ‘first-fruits’ of reflection on what that means. Thus, it appears McNeil, Kloppenborg, Allison have embarked on a journey which leads to a dead end.

Glad to see the Bird moving beyond Paul and Jesus into the rest of the NT. Some good thinking going on in his response to the Kloppenborg.

Who does “LORD” refer to in James?

William Baker EQ 74:1 (2002) 47-57 take issue with Hurtado's claims, posted above, about a few references of LORD. Does it refer to Jesus or GOD? By what criteria shall we measure this? Is the ambiguity intentional?

Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wishes, we will live and do this or that." Jas. 4:15 – Does this refer to Jesus or the Father?

As an example of suffering and patience, beloved, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Jas. 5:10 – This appears to be more of a reference to YHWH or the Father than Jesus, so what reason could Hurtado have for thinking this refers to CHRIST? I was surprised to see that Hurtado fails to deal with James in his tome: LORD JESUS CHRIST, since that is the opening verse in James! Scant attention is paid to the allegiance/devotion to Jesus represented in this letter. Maybe a lacuna for some other soul to fill? The constant neglect of James in my various readings provokes odd theological thoughts... More on those, perhaps later.

In Jas. 5:7, 8, 14, 15 – LORD = Jesus.

In Jas. 1:7; 3:9; 4:10; 5:4 – LORD = Father.

Jesus is clearly referred to as LORD in six of the 15 uses of LORD in James. So what kind of Christology does James have? It seems impatient to suggest that James has a low Christology, given that the title LORD is used. I can concur that James does not develop a Christology, but to suggest that his Christology is some how inferior to Paul is premature.

Does James has a Christology similar to that of the Sphinx in Gone in 60 Seconds?

If his premature demise has, in some way, enlightened the rest of you as to the grim finish below the glossy veneer of criminal [sinful?] life, and inspired you to change your ways, then his death carries with it an inherent nobility. And a supreme glory. We should all be so fortunate.

While not specifically referring to the death of Jesus, does James' Christology function in the same way? As a moral exhortation to the communities that pledge allegiance to this king?

I'll pause for reflection and comments before launching further...

Christology of James - Hurtado

The Epistle of James is mainly concerned with exhortation about right behaviour; its Christology is implicit and largely a reflection of what the author and first readers held as traditional. Whatever one’s view of the question of authorship, the attribution of the document to James the brother of Jesus, the description of the addressees as “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (Jas 1:1) and other factors, including the strongly eschatological outlook (e.g., Jas 5:1–9), combine to give the document a Jewish Christian flavour. It is therefore interesting to note what the author and readers (who either were Jewish Christians or revered Jewish Christian traditions) must have regarded as traditional and uncontroversial Christology.

Jesus bears the titles Christ and Lord (kyrios) in formulaic expressions (Jas 1:1; 2:1). Indeed in James 2:1 we have mention of “the glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (tou kyriou hemon Iesou Christou tes doxes), giving a particularly sonorous and honorific expression. In several other cases Jesus is probably intended in references to “the Lord.” This holds for James 4:15, for example, where the will of “the Lord” is to govern Christian decisions. In James 5:7–11 it is also probable that Jesus is the “Lord” whose coming is awaited (Jas 5:7–8) and the judge standing at the door (Jas 5:9), in whose name the OT prophets spoke (Jas 5:10) and whose mercy and compassion are applauded (Jas 5:11). In all these cases it is noteworthy that Jesus is referred to in roles associated with God in the OT.

Jesus is likewise probably the “Lord” in whose name the sick are to be anointed and who will raise the sick and forgive their sins (Jas 5:13–15). There is probably a reference to Jesus’ name in James 2:7 as “invoked [in baptism?] over you” and blasphemed by opponents. This emphasis upon the sacred significance of Jesus’ name accords with references in Acts 1–11 and other evidence of Jewish Christian attitudes.

In addition many commentators have noted that this epistle is full of allusions to sayings of Jesus preserved in the Synoptic Gospels. This indicates both a familiarity with the Jesus tradition and a practical acceptance of Jesus’ authority as Lord of Christian behaviour. We may say that James emphasizes the practical and ethical consequences of the christological convictions shared by the author and intended readers.[1]

[1] Larry Hurtado “Christology” in Martin, Ralph P.; Davids, Peter H. Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments (IVP, 2000)

Outrageous Questions

Many of the books that I have read [Johnson, Davids, et. al.] refer to the possibility of James having the same provenance as the infamous "Q" source [P.J. Hartin James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (Sheffield: JSOT press, 1991), Martin, James, lxxvi]. Given the allusions and possible quotations that James has to Matt & Luke, what is the relationship between James and Q? I have only questions at this stage, and they are pretty outrageous questions!

1. Did Q look like James in its structure and content? [Will Kloppenberg's forthcoming commentary on James argue this?]
2. Did James have access to Q when he wrote his letter? [Will Allison's forthcoming commentary argue this? As does P.J. Hartin James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (Sheffield: JSOT press, 1991)]
3. Was James the collator/redactor of Q ? [a PhD idea for some poor soul?]
4. Or worse [better?], did James author Q ? [Who's brave enough to suggest that?]

But, given the fact that I am a Q sceptic, like Mark Goodacre [See The Case Against Q], how do those who reject the existence of a documentary Q, explain the Jesus tradition in James?

1. What is the relationship between Matt and James? [There's more likely a relationship between Matt/James then Luke/James, or did I miss something?]
2. Was Matthew, James' scribe? Or vice versa?
3. Or, if Martin [James, lxxvii] is right about the two stage production of James, did Matt edit James? [Martin proposes an Antiochene provenance based on Zimmermann's Die urchristlichen Lehrer (Mohr, 1984)]
4. Is there space for James in the Synoptic Problem? (Did Matthew have access to James?) [According to the Blog Father, Michael Goulder actually proposed that James had access to Matt. But when do we date them then?]
5. Could one postulate an early date for the gospel of Matthew, based on the early dating of James? [Who could propose this argument and actually get away with it? Bauckham? Hengel? Wenham?]
6. Or do we just assume it's oral tradition and carry on as usual? [This appears to be the view of Brosend, James and Jude, pg. 11]
7. What could be the possible criteria for postulating these theories? How would we judge them?

There seems to be a real hesitancy for scholars to engage these questions. So why not just expand your mind and let your presuppositions go, and imagine quite a few variant scenario's for the relationship between James and the Jesus traditions... Which one's are more plausible or probable than others? And why?

A future blog will hopefully catalogue the various sayings of Jesus compared with James. I'm trying to get my hands on Dean Deppe's study [The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James], which most regard as very influential in this realm of Jacobean studies.

Political Theology?

James Darlack, the resident blogosphere's Jacobean expert, has an interesting post on James' Political Theology. In an article by Stuart Laidlaw on James' Theology, Laidlaw focusses on Barrie Wilson of York University:

. . . James was continuing with the teaching of his brother, emphasizing a more political form of religion that stressed the coming of a messiah to overthrow the Romans and restore the kingdom of Israel. . . . The theology of James, with its emphasis on political change as a way to address poverty and injustice, is as relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago, Wilson says.

Darlack then questions: Does care of widows and orphans, a disdain for economic favoritism and the denunciation of social injustice necessitate "political religion" or prophetic religion?

My question is simply: Why [and if so, how?] are these two mutually exclusive? Politics and religion are insepparable, and it was it not the burden of the prophets to influence/direct Jewish politics? Jesus was certainly a prophet, but he was also engaged in serious politics [hence Roman opposition]. Now, while I'm not convinced that either James or Jesus sought to overthrow the Romans and restore the Kingdom of Israel [unless one meant a non-violent overthrow through passive resistance], James may still be a political manifesto for those living under the royal law - the Torah of King Jesus.

Stuff On James

There are few resources available on James, that have not already been mentioned by James Darlack's blog: But these are a few that may be missing from his list...

Beyond the World of Good and Evil - Cha

The Messiah Jesus in the Mythic World of James - McCabe [Scroll down...]

Douglas Moo reviews William R. Baker's book: Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle of James. Moo is concerned about the exegetical intergration of background material and the exegesis of James provided by Baker. Although Moo has a helpful comment to make about Dissertations, I fear he is being too critical at this juncture. Many I have spoken to thoroughly recommend this work But unfortunately it is FAR too expensive [Do a search on Amazon UK or USA] and no library around here has a copy, so we shall have to delete that from the reading list.

I'm also trying to get my hands on: Joel Marcus, “The Evil Inclination in the Epistle of James,” CBQ 44 (1982). 606–21. If anyone has a digital copy or knows a site that has it, I would be rather happy to get my paws on it... Ebsco only goes back to 1990 with CBQ and our library is missing that specific volume... :(

Other than that, its back to the drawing board: thinking outrageous thoughts on James and Political Theology...

Church on James

Hebrews-James by Edgar V. McKnight & Christopher Church [Smyth & Helwys commentary series.]

In his accompanying commentary on the Letter of James, New Testament scholar Christopher Church presents the letter as something of a biblical and historical fossil, a surviving representative of a once-flourishing Jewish Christianity. The Letter of James exposes a form of early Christianity distinct from the Pauline line that later predominated. In the picture that is created of this early Christian community, we find concerns over ethical responsibility and social justice that still serve to define Christian communities today.

The 30pg intro and comments on Jas. 1:1-27 are available for free download. You have to scroll down to pg 59 to get to the start of the James introduction. It looks to be rather useful, with colour charts and diagrams, with photo's. Check it out...

Brosend on James

The New Cambridge Bible Commentary on James and Jude by William F. Brosend, II was recently released and Cambridge offers there usual free excerpt. The table of contents are also available as well as a sample chapter. The Blurb reads:

This is the first commentary to focus exclusively on the two letters written by the 'brothers of the Lord', James and Jude. Each letter is discussed on its own merits, and interpreted as having been written early in the life of the Church - it is posited that the letter of James may be one of the oldest Christian writings as well as an early witness to the teachings of Jesus. Particular attention is devoted to understanding the social worlds of James and Jude and to interpreting the significance of their message for our day. Of special interest is the focus on the 'ideological texture' of James, in particular on James' working out of the ethical implications of the teachings of Jesus on poverty and wealth.

This looks good and promises many homiletical as well as exegetical insights... Check it out...

Outline of James

1:1 - Greetings

1:2-27 Introductory Summary of Exhortations

1:2-4 - Face the testing of your faith with Joy and endurance

1:5-8 - Ask God for wisdom, in faith and without doubting

1:9-11 - Let the lowly believer rejoice in being raised up and the rich in being brought low

1:12-16 - Your are blessed if you endure testing – which comes not from God but from inner desires

1:17-18 - God is a generous and faithful giver, who through his word has made us the beginning of his new creation

1:19-21 - Be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger

1:22-25 - Be doers of God’s word, and not merely hearers

1:26-27 - The nature of false and true religion

2:1-5:20 Twelve Extended Exhortations

2:1-13 - Favouritism conflicts with the law of love

2:14-26 - Faith without deeds is dead

3:1-12 - The threat and power of speech

3:13-18 - The nature of false and true wisdom

4:1-10 - A call to turn from friendship with the world to friendship with God

4:11-12 - Exhortation not to judge each other

4:13-17 - The arrogance of business people

5:1-6 - The oppression of landowners

5:7-11 - Endure patiently the testing of your faith, because the Lord’s coming is near

5:12 - Speak the plain truth

5:13-18 - Pray for the suffering, the sick, and all in need of forgiveness

5:19-20 - Take responsibility for mutual correction

James does have an overall aim: to move his readers towards ‘perfection’ (1:4; 3:2) through fulfilment of ‘the law of freedom’ (1:25; 2:8, 10, 12) and through the wisdom God gives (1:5; 3:17). But this does not entail persuading his readers through an argument pursued sequentially through the letter. It entails providing his readers with a compendium of wisdom instruction on a varied range of topics relevant to fulfilling the law, implementing the wisdom from above, and attaining perfection. In so far as James has a coherent vision of the way he and his readers should live, there will be thematic connections between his treatments of these various topics, but this kind of coherence of thought should not be confused with the notion of sequential development.[1] [1] Bauckham, James, pg. 67

Commentaries on James

Parableman lists these as forthcoming commentaries on James. I'm mostly looking forward to Allison, McKnight and Witherington. Joel Green may surprise me, I hope but Kloppenborg probably won't.

Dale Allison (ICC) - it will be good to see how Allison handles the echoes of Jesus' teachings in James.

Bill Baker (Two Horizons NTC)

Daniel Doriani (REC)

Timothy George (BTCB)

Joel B. Green (NT Library)

John S. Kloppenborg (Hermenia) - how has James appropriated the 3rd strata of "Q"? Or is James the source of "Q"?

Dan G. McCartney (Bakers Exegetical CNT)

Scot McKnight (NICNT replacement) - What exegetical insights will McKnight bring to the table? A New Vision for Israel perhaps? (cf. Jas 1:1)

Ben Witherington (Letters and Homilies of the NT, fall 2007) - Sapiential Sage?

Shifting Focus - to Jacob/James

When Mike Bird posted his thoughts on being a Specialist of a Generalist, I didn't agree with him. I love the gospels, especially Matt and I prided myself on the fact that I did every single paper available at Uni on the gospels and Jesus. I did Romans and Galatians as fill in subjects, they were very good.

Then, Alan Bandy got me hooked on Revelation. I spent a whole summer vacation reading little else except Bauckham, Beale, Osbourne, Witherington and then Aune. I didn't finish it all - not even close. But I did learn that there was more to life than Gospels and Paul. Then I did a series on Colossians, which was kinda fun but it felt so familiar. I was back in a comfort zone. Now I've embarked on a journey with James - inspired by James Darlack's blog. It has been so fascinating and I'm beginning to think that Bauckham is on to something with his focus on NT letters outside the Pauline corpus.

For the next while this blog will focus all things Jacobean. As I learn, and think out loud, I invite others to email or post questions and comments that will engage with James and the scholarship that surrounds the Brother of Jesus, the friend of God [to borrow Johnson's title of this collection of studies].

So sit back, and enjoy the ride...