The Genre, Composition, and Hermeneutics of the Epistle of James

THE GENRE, COMPOSITION AND HERMENEUTICS OF THE EPISTLE OF JAMES Luke Leuk Cheung A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 1999 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/12751 This item is protected by original copyright The Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics of the Epistle of James by Luke Leuk Cheung Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree ofPh.D. University of St. Andrews, School of Divinity of St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews June 1999 ProQuest Number: 10166445 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion. uest ProQuest 10166445 Published by ProQuest LLO (2017). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e Microform Edition © ProQuest LLO. ProQuest LLO. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.Q. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346 I, giufce Cheung . hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 100,000 words in length, has been written by me, that it is the record of work carried out by me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. Date: !L ^ C ■ ? f ______ Signature of Candidate^____________________ (Luke L. Cheung) I was admitted as a research student in Sept. 1995 and as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in April 1996; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St. Andrews between 1995 and 1999. Date: I L ^ ù . 9 9_____ Signature of_Candidate:____________________ (Luke L. Cheung) I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in thé University of St. Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree. Date:___V____________ Signature of Supervisory (^PpoJl % nuckkm n) In submitting this thesis to the University of St. Andrews I understand that I am giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any copyright vested in the work not being affected thereby. I also understand that the title and abstract will be published, and that a copy of the work may be made and supplied to any bona fide library or research worker. Date: ^^ ^ ‘ ^ ^ _____ Signature of Candidate:____________________ (Luke L. Cheimg) The present thesis aims to detennine the genre, the compositional structure and the hermeneutics found in the letter of James. It is divided into five parts. Part one first examines the various proposals for the genre of James. James is found to be a “counter cultural” wisdom instruction challenging the hearers’ world­ view and to reorient them to the values acceptable to God. previous attempts to uncover the structure of James. Part two examines the Here I adopt discourse analysis, paying special attention to the foiinal features of wisdom instruction. Part three explores the importance of law and wisdom to the understanding of the a hermeneutics of James. James is using the love command as hermeneutical principle in understanding the Torah and is comparable to that in Matthew. Wisdom, a gift from God, is involved in the “how” of the important hermeneutical task of applying and keeping the law in one’s particular situation. itself in one’s keeping of the law. It also manifests Part four investigates the meaning of the call to perfection and the predicament of doubleness in relation to law and wisdom in the context of early Jewish and Christian thought. By adhering to the implanted word, doing what this word/law requires, Christians will be on the way to perfection and to life/salvation. Part five looks at the importance of eschatology which provides the underlying framework for the hermeneutics found in James. In conclusion, James is seen as a wisdom instruction which adapts the teaching of Jesus, making it relevant to his readers. Our author exhorts his readers, the messianically renewed people of God, redeemed by the word of truth, to move along the way of perfection in obedience to the law, waiting for the coming of the Lord at the end of this age. ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION 1 PART ONE ; The Quest of Genre for James 6 Chapter One: Previous Attempts 7 Chapter Two: James: Hellenistic Paraenesis or Jewish Wisdom Paraenesis 20 PART TWO: A. The Characteristic Features of Hellenistic Paraenesis 20 B. The Characteristic Features of Jewish Wisdom Paraenesis 27 C. The Genre o f James Ascertained 48 D. Conclusion and Further Observations 64 Compositional Analysis of James 69 Chapter One: Previous Attempts 70 Chapter Two: In Search of the Compositional Structure of James 75 A. Methodological Considerations 75 B. The Letter Form of James 77 C. The Prescript, the Prologue and the Epilogue 77 D. The Main Body 92 E. Further Observations and Conclusion 107 TABLE A: A Tabular Analysis of the Main Body of James 111 PART THREE: The Centrality of Word/Law and Wisdom to the Henneneutics 112 in James Chapter One: The Word, the Law and the Love Command 113 A. The Word of Truth and the Implanted Word 113 B. The Royal/Perfect Law of Liberty 120 C. The Royal Law, Leviticus 19 and the Love Command 130 D. The Love Command as Hermeneutical Principles in James 137 and Matthew E. The Unity and Wholeness of the Law IV 154 F. The Perfect Law of Liberty and Religiosity 158 G. Be Hearers and Doers of the Perfect Law of Liberty 165 H. Concluding Summary 170 Chapter Two; Wisdom and Its Relationship with Law in James 173 A. The Need for Wisdom 174 B. Earthly and Heavenly Wisdom Contrasted 177 C. Wisdom and Spirit/Divine Power 190 D. Torah as the Source of Wisdom 195 E. Wisdom, Meekness and the Interpretation of the Law 208 Conclusion PART FOUR: Perfection, Doubleness and their Relationship to Word/Law and 212 Wisdom Chapter One: Call to Perfection 213 A. The Call to Perfection in Early Jewish and Early Christian Traditions 213 B. The Concept of Perfection in James 234 C. Concluding Observations 255 Excursus A: Faith and Works in James and Paul Chapter Two : The Predicament of Doubleness 258 261 A. Doubleness as Divided Loyalty 261 B. Doubleness as Inconsistency, Insincerity and Deception 274 C. Doubleness and the Work of the Evil Inclination 276 D. Concluding Observations 300 Conclusion PART FIVE: The Eschatological Existence of the Messianic People of God 301 303 A. The Eschatological People of God as the Restoration of the Twelve Tribes 303 B. Eschatology as Motivation of Behaviour 315 Conclusion 342 CONCLUDING SUMMARY 344 ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 350 Introduction The history of interpretation of the Epistle of James (henceforth, James) has been dominated by the agenda set above all by Martin Luther, who famously described James as an “epistle of straw,” and questioned its authority for doctrinal reasons. Luther read James as contradicting Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. His polemical attitude to James has been enormously influential, especially in Protestant scholarship. The question often asked is: “Does James contradict Paul?” with Paul teaching justification by faith and James justification by works. The apparent contradiction between them is not an insignificant matter as far as Christian theology is concerned. Yet, as Johnson (1995B:191) rightly protests “scholars continue to read whatever is different from Paul with reference to Paul, rather than allow it to stand simply as different.” In another words, it is of paramount importance that we should “let James be James,'" Nevertheless, James should not be read in isolation from other documents of its time (see esp. Evans 1992:3-6) particularly relevant Jewish materials. As Bauclcham (1995:90-91) rightly points out not only that first-century Judaism was the principal religious context of Christian origins, but also that the character of early Cliristianity was decisively determined by these origins, so much so that, in terms of the history of religions, the Christianity of the NT period must be seen, not as something quite different from Judaism, but as a distinctive form of Judaism. The exposition of a NT author on a certain theme is often linked with the Jewish scriptuies through the theology of early Judaism. The Jewish scriptures in the first- century did not function in isolation from the context of early Jewish pieties and theologies. Moreover, some of the Jewish religious literature that has not acquired the status of scripture was also widely read by Jews, Jewish and gentile Christians alike. It is probable that all the NT writers read some of those non-canonical Jewish writings and were familiar with them (Bauclcham 1995:95). All people at that time including Jesus, Paul and James, read the Jewish scriptures in the context of early Judaism. It is thus imperative not just to look to the Jewish scriptures, but also to the Jewish writings, including Qumran literature, targums, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha,^ Philo’s writings, rabbinic writings,^ etc., for the understanding of any concept of any author in the early church. All these wiitings share a common tradition of exegetical activity (see Dimant 1988:4). ^Of the pseudepigrapha, Test. XII Pair, presents particular difficulties. Some argue that they are an originally Jewish document that has been interpolated by Christians (see, e.g., Kee 1983:1.777-78). However, de Jonge (1953) champions the view that they are a Christian document that has heavily reworked various Jewish sources. It is quite certain that in its final form which we have today, it is a Christian document used by Christians in the second century to show Jews and Christians that the Jews were wrong in rejecting Jesus as God’s Messiah, which had already been foretold by their forefathers, the twelve Patriarchs. The discovery o f fi-agments of the Aramaic T. Levi in Cairo Geniza, the Hebrew T Naph. and a fragment o f a Hebrew T. Naph. (4QTestNaph) in Qumran show that Test. XII Patr. is at least in part based on older purely Jewish (Hebrew or Aramaic) material. Moreover, there are strildng conceptual and verbal parallels with some sectarian works from Qumran, particularly the Community Rule, Damascus Rule and the War Scroll. This will be well demonstrated in my study o f the dualistic concepts in early Judaism. ^ The use o f rabbinic literature needs caution since the earliest rabbinic literature (Mislmah) we now have, was compiled in late second century G.E. Yet it is also beyond doubt that they contain earlier Jewish materials. Some go right back to the beginning o f the tannaitic period (50 B.C.E.). The preservation o f an old tradition in the rabbinic literature can sometimes be demonstrated with a parallel in the NT or another Jewish work. This is also true o f many o f the Targums. Some o f the targumic literature beai s witness to the targumic oral traditions and therefore is significant for the study of biblical interpretation by Jews living between the second century B.G.E. and the first century G.E. The discoveiy of targumic materials at Qumran has shown that these traditions already existed in early Judaism. One should also be cautious not to ascribe all aclmowledged parallels to borrowing as the proponents of the histoiy-of-religions school often assume. Similarities and parallels may simply reflect that they are of the same literary milieu. All Jewish literature in the first century would reflect concepts common to early Judaism. Overlap among them is only to be expected, particularly if they are worldng with the same material, the Jewish scriptures (see esp. Sandmel 1962:3-5). We must treat those similarities as evidence of the ideas and terminology with which our author and the first readers were familiar. The study of similar ideas in early Judaism and Christianity can also help to fill in conceptual gaps that may occur in such a short work as James. In this thesis, in the study of the relationship between law and wisdom, the pursuit of perfection and the concept of doubleness in James, I will first survey those concepts as found in early Judaism and early Christianity to provide a general background for my understanding of them in James. This will furnish a broader scope of what the various concepts mean in their literary milieu, providing us with more definite clues on what to look for in James for the concepts being studied. This will also help to avoid the limitation involved in merely looking for the occurrence of one or two words in the understanding of the concepts in James. The title of the present thesis is “Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics of James."" No consensus whatsoever has been reached over the genre and the compositional structure of James. the understanding of both. explanation. The present study will hopefully contribute to The word “hermeneutics,” however, needs some The Second Temple period is, in the words of M. Hengel (1994:158), “not only a period of many-faceted exegesis, but first and foremost of scripture production. One cannot separate the two. interpretation is also the history of the canon. During this period, the history of The formation of the canon of the Hebrew Bible took place in a constant process of interpretation.” Such exegetical activities in the regular and persistent study of scriptures were rampant in the Second Temple period. To be a pious Jew is to learn the Torah (cf. Ant. 20.264). The different parties, schools and sects in early Judaism often have different ways to interpret and apply the Torah. One of the distinct example is the charismatic exegesis of the “Teacher of Righteousness” of the Qumran sect. Apart from a few scholars (see, e.g., Johnson 1982), not enough attention has been paid to the importance of the interpretation of the Torah in James. Discussions on the importance of the law are often approached fi’om the perspective of the Paul-James debate and the contrast between moral and cultic aspects of the law (see, e.g., Gench 1995:29). Still less attention has been paid to the connection between James" interpretation of the Torah and that found in Jesus’ tradition. Though the use of Jesus’ tradition in James has been articulated by some recent important studies (see, e.g, Deppe 1989; Hartin 1991),^ often the emphasis is on distinguishing between quotations and allusions, and identifying the source of the tradition used by James. Seldom is there any study that relates the Jesus tradition, especially Jesus’ teaching on the interpretation of the law, to the overall paraenetic ^ For some older works, see esp. Mayor 1913: Ixi-lxiv, Ixxxv-Ixxxviii; Kittel 1942, 1950; Mussner 1981:47-53. concern of our author.^ In investigating the hermeneutics of James, we can see from our author how the Mosaic law should be understood and applied to the messianically renewed people of God, in what way it should function among them and how that is related to the purpose of the entire instruction. This thesis seeks to show that the use of a particular genre, the structuring of the entire work and the emphasis on the importance of interpreting and applying the law as understood through the Jesus tradition all contribute to the central pastoral concern of the author of James. ' Hoppe (1977:119-45), e.g., rightly sees James and the gospel traditions on the theme of “perfection through fulfilment o f the law” stand together in the same tradition (though it remains doubtful whether it should be confined only to wisdom theology); he still falls short o f identifying the importance of the theme to the overall concern o f our author. PART ONE The Quest of Genre for James Dibelius and Greeven (1976:1) in their commentary on James rightly point out that “a clear concept of a document’s literary character is necessaiy in order to understand it as a whole.” This literary character with regard to the entire document is what is refeiTed to as literary genre. Gem*e here refers to the work as a whole viewed in comparison with other literary works. As distinct from the shorter literary forms such as pronouncement story or aphorism, genre refers to the longer, larger, more encompassing literary types like apocalypse, Gospel, wisdom instruction and letter. A clear distinction must be made from the outset between the smaller literary forms within complete works and the larger wholes of which they are contituent parts. ^ Works of different genres may contain the same literary form. The primary purpose for determining the genre of any text is hermeneutical.^ A work cannot be properly understood or interpreted unless its genre is recognized and its literary conventions understood. Identification of genre helps to locate both the intention of the author and the expectation of the reader/audience. Genre may also reflect the social world of the original writer and readers/audiences since the use of certain literary genres suggested its social function in tenns of social anangements and relationships. ^A typical example o f confusion between the two can be found in Bailey and Vander Broek 1992. ^ Baird 1972:385-391; Doty 1972:30; Gerhart 1977:309-25; Bailey 1995:197-203. Chapter On© Previous Attempts James resists easy classification. Its genre has been variously understood. Here I will consider six of the most prominent ones. 1. James as an Allegory on Jacob's Farewell Address Patterned on the Twelve Patriarchs Arnold Meyer (1930) believes that the addresses of Jacob to the twelve patriarchs in Genesis 49 underlies the present James} As found in later Jewish tradition, the addresses of Jacob underwent development in the Test XII Pair, and also in Philo’s interpretation. James, Meyer argues, is basically a pre-Christian Jewish document, the Testament of Jacob that addresses the twelve tribes, following the scheme of the typical Jewish allegorical tract, as an ethical guide to the Jews at the diaspora. Taking the lead from the research of Massebieau (1895:249-83) and Spitta (1896:2.1-239), he also regards the references to Jesus Christ found in 1:1 and 2:1 as later Christian interpolations. The real author is a Jew in the diaspora at the turn of the first century B.C.E., while the Christian redactor puts it together in 80 to 90 C.E. (pp. 305-07). Meyer undertakes to demonstrate the similarities between Jacob’s addresses to ^ Meyer’s hypothesis is supported by Hartman 1942; Schenke 1983:225-27. Easton (1957:11) accepts Meyer’s hypothesis with modifications. the twelve patriarchs and James particularly in connection with the allegory of the names of Jacob’s twelve sons. His major identifications are: 1:2-4: Isaac as “joy,’ Rebecca as “steadfastness,” Jacob as “perfection tlirough trials”; 1:9-11: Asher as “worldly rich man”; 1:12: Issachar as “doer of good works”; l:18:Reuben as “firstfruits”; 1:19-20: Simeon as “hearing” and “hearer”; 1:26-27: Levi as “religion”; 3:18: Naphtali as “peace”; 4:1-2: Gad as “disputes and conflicts”; 5:7: Dan as “judgment,” “waiting for salvation,” “patience”; 5:14-18: Joseph as “prayer”; 5:20: Benjamin as “death and birth.” To the above, Meyer adds some more obscure but he deems possible allusions: 1:22-25: Levi as “he who acts”; 2:5-8: Judah as “the royal one”; 5:12: Zebulun as “oath.” He also finds a number of minor references to Laban, Esau, and Rachel. ^ Each tribe appears in its proper order in the epistle. Meyer is surely correct in looking to the Jewish background for understanding James. Yet his ingenious hypothesis is far from being convincing. Apart from the name Jacob/James, there are no explicit hints whatsoever that the work is an allegory of Jacob’s testament to the twelve patriarchs, except those extremely vague allusions. If the original work is a deliberate allegory of Jacob’s farewell address, one would wonder why the alleged tribal allusions can only account for less than one fifth of the verses and why they are not fairly evenly distributed throughout the work. The allusions that Meyer finds are no more than a reading-back into the text of James. It would also be extremely strange to find allusions to Job and Elijah in a testament of Jacob, not to say allusions to the sayings of Jesus! There is no evidence that the For a summary o f Meyer’s findings, see the table in liis book 1930:282-83. “original author” would have his work understood in this way nor that a Christian redactor has removed all the direct hints. 2. James as a Greek Diatribe Ropes (1916) identifies James as a Greek diatribe which he defines as a popular kind of ethical address invented by Bion (c. 280 B.G.E.) and popularized by Seneca and Epictetus.^ He writes: “To the most characteristic traits of the style of the diatribe belong the truncated dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor... and the brief question and answer... ” (p. 12). He regards diatribe as having “a general controlling motive in the discussion, but no firm and logically disposed structure giving a strict unity to the whole, and no trace of the conventional arrangement recommended by the elegant rhetoricians.” (p. 14). He argues that this is the style Seneca and Epictetus most often used in their writings. He finds in James thought patterns close to those of Jewish wisdom writings but expressed as Greek diatribe. The most notable example is the imagined dialogues found in 2:18f. with objections anticipated and answered. He also notices that such fonnulae as pq TTÀctvâo0e (1:16), QéA-eLç ôè yvcovai (2:20), pi&eiç (2:22), ap&te (2:24), tare (1:19), tl ô(|)eXoç (2:14,16), 01) xpq (3:10) to introduce a conclusion, 5l6 léyei (4:6) with a quotation, iôou (3:4, 5; 5:4, 7, 9, 11) have frequent occurrence in diatribe. Also the use of imperatives, rhetorical questions, personifications, metaphors, examples of famous individuals (such as Abraham, Rahab, Job, and Elijah), harsh address (2:20; 4:4), the use of paradox at the beginning (1:2) and the use of sharp antitheses (1:26; 2:13, 26; 3:15- ^Also Sandmel, 1956:220; Furnish 1972:181 n.46; Kee 1984:323 18; 4:12) or a question (4:12; 5:6) or a quotation (5:20) are for him modes of expression characteristic of diatribe (pp. 13-14). Ropes is right in seeing James as having close affinity with Jewish wisdom writings. Yet his designation of James as diatribe is problematic. Stowers {ABD: 2.191) notices that at the beginning of this century, the main criterion for classifying a literary work as a diatribe was that “it contain moral teachings advocated by the hellenistic philosophies and it employ a lively popular style.” This imprecise way of defining the genre results in including often nontechnical and moral-philosophical Ropes’ classification of James as diatribe suffers from the literature as diatribe. same problem of imprecision. found in other genres. Many of the features he mentioned can also be James" use of the rhetoric, style and subject matters common with the diatribe is much more limited and conventional than Ropes allows it to be. What Ropes has done is to try to force James into the mode of what he believes diatribe to be. Stowers {ABD: 2.191) well confines the use of diatribe as “only for moral lectures and discussions in the philosophical schools, written records of that activity, and literaiy imitations of that kind of pedagogical discourse. It is also appropriate to speak of other genres employing features of style and rhetorical techniques from this tradition.” Malherbe (1986:129) is right in pointing out that the ancients did not regard diatribe as a literary genre but only as an educational activity of teacher and student. rather than a genre. He finds that it is better to describe it as a mode There is no doubt that James contains ideas and ethics that found parallels in Greek ethical wiitings, and rhetorical techniques of the diatribe. But to say that James is likened to a lecture or informal discourse in dialogical style 10 as found in Socrates’ philosophical school is simply unfounded. Though James does use diatribe (2:18-20), it has yet to be determined whether the influence is direct or indirect (e.g. via hellenistic Jewish writings). 3. James as a Hellenistic-Jewish Homily Stevenson (1924:44) suggests that James is “a collection of little sermonettes or sermon notes” of James first delivered in the diaspora synagogues, either Jewish or Christian. In a discussion of Jewish diaspora homilies, Thyen (1955:15-16) sees James as an adaptation of a synagogue homily which is itself a summary on the theme of Jacob’s address to his sons by a devout Jew. Reiclce (1964:7) regards James as a circular letter with contexts equivalent to a sennon not unlike the hellenistic-Jewish collection of admonitory speeches of the Test XII Pair. Wessel (1953:80-96) argues that James is a composite of homilies after the manner of Jewish synagogue sermons. Cabaniss (1975) regards James as a homily addressing different groups in a Jewish-Christian assembly. Davids (1982:22) finds the letter a two-stage work, with an initial series of sermons and sayings from James the Just and a later redaction of these individual units into an epistle either by James himself or a member of the church. Scholars who advocate James as homily often offer no substantial argument for support, except the studies of Wessel and Thyen. ^ Grounded upon Mannersten’s work (1929:183-204) on the literary characteristics of the haggadah as ^ Scholars in favour o f James being a homily are J. Moffatt, E. Goodspeed, H. A. A. Kennedy, J. Weiss, S. C. Agourides, J. M. Reese; L. E. Elliott-Binns; et al. 11 preserved in the homiletical and expositional Midrashim, Wessel (1953) finds four characteristic features which Janies shares with the literary fonns in Jewish synagogue sermons. They are (1) the use of dialogue 2:16-20 (cf. 1:13) in the manner found in Pesilcta des Rab Kahana (pp. 80-82); form of address (pp. 82-85); (2) the use of “Brethren” as (3) the presence of variability of subject matter, explained by assuming that James is a collection of a considerable number of sermons on different subjects (pp. 85-88); in 4:2 (pp. 88-89). (4) the presence of alliteration as found In order to account for the presence of a high frequency of imperatives, Wessel argues that many of the materials in James are actually derived from early church catechesis. The use of catechetical materials and the verba Christi accounts for the aphoristic type of statement found in it. Apart from the fact that much of the evidence for the fonn of the synagogue homily comes later than 70 G.E., WesseTs argument from the presence of literary forms found in Jewish synagogue sermons to the literary genre of James is flawed methodologically. Granted that the literary form of dialogue in James is actually derived from the way it was used in synagogue homilies, the presence of one such dialogue in James can hardly be said to be characteristic of the document. also be said of alliteration. This can The scanty evidence (only one passage!) Wessel digs up can hardly support his claim. What characterizes James is that which he has noticed, the unmistakable presence of imperatives and aphorisms. Wessel realizes that this cannot be explained in terms of synagogue sermons and seeks to find explanations elsewhere. Thus he himself has already exposed the weakness of his argument. 12 Thyen, a student of Bultmann, shows no loiowledge of the study of Wessel. He finds in Jewish hellenistic homily the following oratory devices as characteristics of James as a homily (1955:43-54, 89): the use of short formula in dialogue - lôotj (2:4, 5; 5:4, 7, 9, 11), àicoiJoaTe (2:5); addressing listeners as àôelcjjoL (1:2; 2:1, 19; 3:1; 4:11; 5:7, 10, 12, 19); short questions that call for listeners’ attention - t l to 6(j)elog (2:14, 17); diatribal address to the listeners - w av0pa)ire icevé (2:20); the useof parallelisms (2:26; 4:4, 7, 8); word puns and word plays - ïïetpaapoy T T e L p a C o p e v o ç . . . T r e i p d C o ii c c L . . . d T r e L p a o t o ç . . . T r e L p ccÇ eL . . . i r e i p à Ç e t a i ... (1:12; cf. 2:13); paradox (1:9); rhetorical questions (2:19, 21, 25; 4:4, 5, 12); and invitational imperative - pq TrXccvâoOe (1:16). Thyen’s thesis is not only faulty methodologically as being circular (a group of works including James is identified as reflecting diatribe style and then used to prove that they are homilies),^ he, like Wessel, also fails to define formally what is a homily. Homily is simply not the sum of the above “rhetorical devices.” Or else, almost all of the Pauline epistles would also be designated as homilies. interesting that Thyen does not analyse any of the Pauline epistles. should be drawn to the fact that It is Attention ancient writers often produced their work tobe listened to, not just to be read silently in private.^ Thus the presence of lively oral discourse is no proof that the document is a diatribe or a homily. The rhetorical devices Wessel and Thyen found are common both in paraenesis and instructions in ^Thyen also analyses the following works: Pliilo, 1 Clement; 4Macc.; Hebrews; Acts 7; D id 1-6, 16; Barnabas; Hermas; Test. XII Patr. ; Wisdom o f Solomon. ^ See also Kennedy 1963; Ong 1982:19; Andersen 1991:51. Achtemeier 1990:3-27. 13 For the NT in particular, see the hellenistic period. Some scholars simply reject the form-critical designations of homily as too imprecise, obscure and speculative (see, e.g., Koester 1982:273). Thus Donfried (1974:26) can say that “the term ‘homily’ is so vague and ambiguous that it should be withdrawn until its literarily generic legitimacy has been demonstrated.” Recent scholars have developed a more precise way in identifying synagogue hortatory homily. ^ Some subsume homily or sennon as a sub-genre of paraenesis or protreptic (see Attridge 1990). Yet James simply lacks any of the indicators of oratory and fonnal patterns of homiletic argumentation (formal introduction, scriptural citation, exposition or thematic elaboration, and application) as found in Hebrews and 2 Clement 4. James as a Protreptic Discourse The understanding of James as a form of logos protf'eptikos, protreptic discourse, has been suggested first by Berger (1984:147), accepted by Baasland (1988:3650) and further developed by Johnson (1995A). Johnson finds that protreptic discourses often consist of the same features as found in paraenesis. The primary setting of the Xoyoç TTpoTp&TLKoq was the philosophical school. Functionally, it is a particular kind of paraenesis, which aims to “encourage commitment to a certain specified lifestyle or profession” and is communicated “with a certain urgency and conviction” (Johnson 1995A:20-21). Johnson argues ^ For the fomi o f the hellenistic Jewish and early Christian homily, see Wills 1984; Black 1988; Stegner 1988; Bailey and Broek 1992:166-170. 14 thatJame^ is advocating a form of behaviour defined by a certain community which professed to be “heirs of the kingdom” (2:5), bearing “the noble name” (2:7), being “friends of God” (2:23), thus those having faith (2:5). The admonitions and warnings in James are what fit in with such a profession and “are delivered with a passion appropriate to a call to conversion.” Such a classification would explain the presence of rhetorical arguments and the literary logical cohesion found in it (see also Baasland 1988:3652-54). The distinction of paraenesis and protreptic is a matter of much dispute. Johnson’s concern that the imperatives in James be regarded as a call to conversion is based on a particular understanding of protrepsis. Stowers (1986:92, 113), for example, who based his argument upon a comparison of Aristotle’s Prolrepticus and Isocrates Or. 1-3., defines protreptic functionally as hortatory literature that calls the audience to a new way of life, that is, conversion (also Perdue 1990B:23-24; von Lips 1990:410). Yet recent scholars challenged such an understanding of protieptic discourse largely as conversion literature. In the Jewish milieu. Wisdom of Solomon can be regarded as a protreptic discourse to encourage the readers to pursue their ancestral traditions.^ Nevertheless it has a dual audience: primarily for the converted and secondarily to persuade people to accept the faith of hellenized Judaism (Scott 1971:213; Gammie 1990B:70; Popkes 1995:539-40). Protreptic can be both conversion and confirmation literatuie. In antiquity, according to Seneca {Epistles 95.65), there are four kinds of ^ Tliis view was first suggested by Focke 1913:86, later developed by Reese 1970:117-121; 1983:98. Also accepted by Winston 1979:18-20; Nickelsburg 1981:175. 15 paraenetic literature: precept-giving, persuasion (irpOTp&TiKoq), consolation and encouragement. They are all varieties of paraenesis. Functionally, protreptic can be defined as a sub-genre of paraenesis which seeks to persuade through systematic deliberative argumentation and philosophical reasoning to succumb to the enchantment of the philosophical life (Malherbe 1986:124-125; cf. Reese 1970:118; Winston 1979:20). It can be argued that James contains protrepsis (see Watson 1993A; 1993B), but to regard the entire work as persuasion to follow a meaningful philosophy as a way of life seems to have ignored the overtly practical orientation of James. James does not expound or defend its position on the ground of reason, but focuses ethics on the basis of the Torah as interpreted in the Jesus tradition. The work is concerned more with general moral exhortation of wide application than sustained deliberative argument on specific problems (Aune 1987:191; also Mitchell 1991: esp. 50-53 for distinction between paraenesis and deliberative rhetoric). It is characterized more by the presence of precepts and maxims than systematic argumentation which is characteristic of protreptic. On the other hand, we need to define protrepsis more precisely in fonnal terms, not just functionally. A recent study on the protreptic discourse has revealed that characteristically it has three main formal features (Aune 1991B:282-83): (1) a negative section centering on the critique of rival sources of knowledge, ways of living, or schools of thought which reject philosophy; (2) a positive section in which the truth claims of philosophical loiowledge, schools of thought and ways of living are presented, praised, and defended; followed by (3) an optional section, consisting of a personal appeal to the hearer, inviting the immediate acceptance of the exhortation. 16 The work of James can hardly be divided simply into a negative section with critique of rival sources of philosophy and then a positive section. Thus, both formally and functionally, it is defective to identify James as a protreptic discourse. 5. James as Hellenistic Paraenesis Since the classic commentary on James by Dibelius and Greeven, it has been generally recognized that James is paraenesis. Dibelius and Greeven argue that paraenesis was traditional both in its foim and content, though there may be changes in fomi and emphasis (1976:5). It is basically “a text which strings together admonitions of general ethical content.” (p. 3). In the case of James, it results in a text that has lack of continuity in thought (pp. 5-6), strung together only by fonnal connections of catchwords for the benefit of easy memorization (pp. 6-7). This results not only in a ‘'Jepetiiion o f identical motifs in different places Mnthin a writing,"" but also a certain lack of design (p. 11; italics original). Thus, Dibelius and Greeven contend, paraenesis cannot be expected to display any developed, coherent viewpoint of the author, whether it be theology or ethics. They also suggest that paraenesis has an audience in mind, either real or imagined (p. 3) and it is composed in such a way that it could have general applicability (p. 11). applied to a wide variety of audiences and situations. It can be These conclusions are consistent with the findings of some major commentators such as Mayor and Ropes in the early twentieth century and have gained a host of followers.^ More recently. * Kümmel 1975:404, 408; Perrin andDuUng 1982:372-375; Sioyan 1977:28-29; Schrage 1973:7-8; 1988:281; Popkes 1986:10-17; 1995:535-61; also commentaries on by Laws, Sidebottom, e ta l 17 Perdue (1981) has tried to establish James" genre both form critically and functionally. Though the suggestion of Dibelius and Greeven that the literary form of James is basically paraenesis earns wide acceptance, their literary and form-critical analysis of paraenesis has been criticized ruthlessly by later scholars. Stowers (1986:23) has rightly pointed out that the genre paraenesis has often been too narrowly conceived in NT studies. I will define the fonn, content and characteristics of paraenesis in greater detail later in this thesis. 6. James as Christian Wisdom Instruction Similarities between James and Jewish wisdom literature have been recognized by previous studies. ^ Yet most of these studies tend to emphasise the vocabularies, literary fonns and wisdom traditions or themes that James shares with Jewish wisdom instructions, rather than the generic characteristics, the style and literary features, of wisdom instruction itself. In determining the genre of a particular work, one is concerned not merely with the presence of the smaller literary form units, such as beatitude, prophetic oracle or diatribe, but with the work as a whole. It is necessary to analyse the literary features and styles of the entire work by comparing these with the characteristic features of the genre to which it may belong. This is what I will do in Part 1 Chapter 2 below. ^ See, e.g., Rendall 1927:40-41; Knox 1937; Mullins 1949:339; Beardslee 1967; Halson 1968; Luck 1971; Obermüller 1972; Hoppe 1977; Baasland 1982; Hengel 1987; Martin 1988 bcxxvii-xciii; Hartin 1991:42; Gowan 1993; Chester 1994:8-10; Baker 1995:7-11; Bauclcham (forthcoming). 18 Cottcliisioi! The two best contenders for the genre o ï James are hellenistic paraenesis and Jewish wisdom instruction. Both of them are paraenetic literature. Dibelius and Greeven (1976:3-4) have rightly noticed that the early Christian paraenesis has to be understood in the larger context of Greek and Jewish paraenetical traditions. The examination into both parallels with, and antecedents of, the paraenetic materials of James in the corpora of hellenistic and Jewish writings would help us to ascertain its genre. An awareness of the characteristics of the genre may also contribute to a firmer grasp of the nature and the intention of the work as a whole. 19 Chapter Two James: Heîîenistk Paraenesis or Jewish Wisdom Paraenesis A. The Characteristic Features o f Hellenistic Paraenesis Gammie (1990:51; italics original) well defines paraenesis as “a form o f address which not only commends, but actually enumerates precepts or maxims which pertain to moral aspiration and the regulation o f human conducts Paraenetical discourses in the Greco-Roman period can be found in Isocrates’ moral essays and his letters to Demonicus (c. 436-338 B.C.E.), and Seneca’s Moral Epistles. The paraenetic letter is a particular form of paraenesis, since paraenesis can appear in many fonns of communication. By the first century C.E., the paraenetic letter was established as a form of hortatory address (Malherbe 1992:284). Some of the epistles of Seneca are paraenetic in natuie and exhibit the characteristics of paraenesis. There are five major features of hellenistic paraenesis (Perdue 1981; Malherbe 1983). (1) The Use o f Precepts or Maxims in Moral Argumentation and Imperatives in Exhortation Isocrates has left with us three treatises on ethics, namely. To Demonicus, To Nicocles, and Nicocles or the Cyprians, the practical morality of his time. They are paraenetical in nature and reflect Isocrates is probably the earliest known Greek author who ever applied the term parainesis (ïïocpccCveaLç, “moral exhortation, ”) to 20 his own work {To Demonicus 5). In To Demonicus, he characterizes his teaching as gnomai (yvcopai, “principles, precepts, maxims”) of good persons. His aim for writing this parainesis to Demonicus is “to counsel [ai)|iPoi)A,év6Lv] you [Demonicus] on the objects to which young men should aspire and from what actions they should abstain, and with what sort of men they should associate and how they regulate their own lives.” (5). The rest of the address consists of a series of precepts of proper conduct very roughly divided into the following topics: in relation to the gods, in relation to people, including society in general, and parents and friends in particular, and in relation to the character development of oneself (12-51). These maxims are sometimes strung together quite randomly without obvious connections in thought. They are all marked by the use of imperatives. Isocrates’s To Nicocles is a moral treatise directed to the young king Nicocles on the duties of monarchs. paraenesis. Isocrates surely regards what he puts to Nicocles as He highly praises these kind of discourses. They are the best and most worthy of a king, and most appropriate to me, which give directions on good morals and good government; and especially those which teach how men in power should deal with the people, and how the ranlc and file should be disposed to their rulers. For I observe that that it is through such discourses that states attain the highest prosperity and greatness (28). His reason for his lengthy defense on the advantages of monarchy is that “I might leave you no excuse for not doing willingly and zealously whatever I counsel [aupPouA.ei)a(o] and command” (36). Nicocles should perform (36-49). He then proceeds to enumerate the duties Again, though most of the individual precepts 21 can be roughly grouped in certain topical units, no structural order as a whole can be found. Seneca distinguishes four lands of discourses: precept-giving, persuasion, consolation and encouragement {Epistles 95.65). is the same as paraenesis. {Epistles 94.37). According to him, precept-giving He remarks: “[P]recepts urge a man on to his duty.” As paraenesis is written as an address, it would often express itself in the framework of imperatives. Yet indicatives serve a profound function apart from stating a certain truth as in precepts. Firstly, in reply to the Stoic Aristo’s argument that paraenesis is superfluous and only proofs of the precepts are helpful, Seneca argues that bare precepts are useful, but precepts based on reasons are even more compelling: The counsel that assists suggestion by reason-which adds the motive for doing a given thing and the reward that awaits one who carries out and obeys such precepts-is more effective and settles deeper into the heart. commands are helpful, so is advice. If But one is helped by commands; therefore one is helped also by advice (94). On another occasion, he commends the need for wisdom or philosophical doctrines as justification of certain actions rather than just stating the precepts. laiow the reason and the motive, not just what to do and what not to do. One needs to The reason is (95.7-8): Because no man can duly perform right actions except one who has been entrusted with reason, which will enable him, in all cases, to fulfill all the categories of duty.... Precepts by themselves are weak and, so to speak, rootless if they be assigned to the parts and not to the whole. 22 It is the doctrines which will strengthen and support us in peace and calm, which will include simultaneously the whole of life and the universe in its completeness. Thus the rational basis or motive for action is not only compatible with the use of precepts/maxims or exhortation/admonition but can enhance the effectiveness of the moral exhortation. In prescriptive speech, models, examples, choices to take or avoid and reasons or motivations for the choices are in indicative mood rather than imperative.^ These form the rational framework in which a certain behaviour is encouraged or discouraged. (2J The Use o f Moral Examples Seneca notices that in paraenesis, there is ethology or characterization to illustrate each particular virtue. Its function is “to give the signs and marks which belong to each virtue and vice, so that by them distinction may be drawn between like things. Its function is the same as that of precepts.” {Epistles 95.65-66). Characterization is “the embodiment of precepts.” Drawing a list describing the characteristics of a certain virtue or using illustrative exemplary models can also provide motivation for conduct {Epistles 95.72). In comparing the benefits one can get out of good examples with that of good precepts, he finds that “ ...good precepts, often welcomed within you, will benefit you just as much as good examples.” {Epistles 95.42). ^ Hare (1961:3) classifies prescriptive language under two categories: imperatival statements and value-judgments. All these prescriptive indicatives are under the category o f value-judgments. 23 In Isocrates’s To Nicocles, his use of himself as example of virtues of justice and temperance with illustrated incidences well demonstrates the application of models in paraenesis (43-47). After the brief mention of the excellent character of Heracles and Theseus, he recommends Demonicus’ father Hipponicus as a moral example before proceeding into his prescriptive speech to Demonicus. well illustrates its employment in paraenesis {To Demonicus 3-4). This also Thus the use of examples, though written in indicatives, serves also as part of moral argumentation in paraenesis. While the example illustrates the kind of character and conduct to be pursued and sets a pattern for imitation, the addressee is urged to live worthy of his father’s example and his other ancestors (see also Stowers 1986:94). The human examples of virtue or paradeigma recommended can be those in the past, often from the same cultural tradition of the one addressed. They can be parents of the one addressed, famous heroes, monarchs, and teachers. They can also be living examples, including at times the author himself (see esp. Epistles 52.8). (3) Close Relationship Between the Author and the Recipients Paraenesis often requires some form of positive relationship between the author and the one addressed. In Isocrates’ address to Demonicus (2), he reminds Demonicus of his friendship with Demonicus’ father; “for it is fitting that a son should inherit his father’s friendships even as he inherits his estate.” As Stowers (1986:95) notices: 24 Paraenesis required some type of positive relationship, e.g., that of parent and child, or friendship. It was customary for the adviser to liken himself to a father exhorting his child. character development. Friends were supposed to care for each other’s The author’s self-presentation as a friend is often 4he relational framework for providing exhortation and specific advice. The wiiter is often the recipient’s friend or his moral superior, one of senior position, either socially or morally (see also Berger 1992:1076; Fiore 1986:66-67; Aune 1987:191). (4) The Use o f Traditional Materials In Isocrates’ address to Nicocles {To Nicocles, 40-41), he said:^ And do not be surprised that in what I have said there are many things which you laiow as well as I (à k k l o u Y L yvw oK eL g) in discourses of this sort we should not seek novelties, for in these discourses it is not possible to say what is paradoxical or incredible or outside the circle of accepted belief; but, rather, we should regard that man as the most accomplished in this field who can collect the greatest number of ideas scattered among the thoughts of all the rest and present them in the best form. Paraenesis does not suppose to teach anything that was essentially new. precepts are generally confirming and traditional in nature. Paraenetic In Stowers’ words (1986:95): “The basic elements in paraenesis are precepts, examples, discussions of traditional moral topics {topoi), encouraging reminders of what the readers already know and have accomplished, and reasons for recommended behavior.” ^ Also To Demonicus, 51-52. Seneca {Epistles, 84.3ft) exhorts readers to gather “from a vaiied course o f reading” and assimilate them as bees gather from flowers and malce honey out o f it. 25 In answer to the possible objection that “what good does it do to point out the obvious?”, Seneca replies {Epistles 94.25): A great deal of good; for we sometimes know facts without paying attention to them. Advice is not teaching; it merely engages the attention and arouses us, and concentrates the memory, and keeps it from losing grip. in fact, a sort of exhortation. Advice is, The mind often tries not to notice even that which lies before our eyes; we must therefore force upon it the knowledge of things that are perfectly well known. He then goes on to give three examples on how paraenesis concentrates on memory and concludes (94.26): Hence, you must be continually brought to remember these facts; for they should not be in storage, but ready for use. And whatever is wholesome should be often discussed and often brought before the mind, so that it may be not only familiar to us, but also ready to hand. And remember, too, that in this way what is clear often becomes clearer. Thus paraenesis serves as a constant reminder of recommended and disapproved behaviour to the one addressed. (5) General Applicability In response to the question whether precepts are numberless, Seneca replied: “they are not numberless so far as concerns important and essential things. Of course they are slight distinctions, due to the time, or the place, or the person; but even in these cases, precepts are given which have a general application.” {Epistles 94.35). Precepts of this kind are not supposed to address a particular situation or pinpoint an immediate occasion (cf. Isocartes, To Demonicus 44). 26 Taken individually, paraenetic precepts may be applied to a wide variety of circumstances. They often involve topoi of common concerns on the moral life. B, The Characteristic Features o f Jewish Wisdom Paraenesis Jewish wisdom paraenesis in the hellenistic period is in many ways similar to the wisdom literatuie in the OT. In the hellenistic period before the NT times, Jewish wisdom paraenesis can be found in the maxims of the Wisdom of Ben Sira (c. 180 B .C .E .), and the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides which is a collection of 230 hexameters, in dactyls, in the Ionic dialect of Greek (composed between 100 B.C.E. and 100 G.E.). It has been an accepted consensus that Ben Sira in some way continues the Judaic wisdom tradition along the lines of the Book of Proverbs. They basically belong together, though the nature and extent of the link between them have been variously expressed (cf. Gordis 1968:25-26; Sanders 1983:3 with n.l). It is perhaps an exaggeration to describe Ben Sira as “a non-canonical doublet of the canonical Proverbs” (Schuier 1986:1.118-19). Yet, it tells of the close resemblance between the two. Ben Sira is the paradigmatic work of wisdom paraenesis in the hellenistic period. The Book of Proverbs is, in turn, the standard wisdom instruction which the later wisdom paraenesis looked up to as paradigm. Thus in examining the literary genre and the use of traditions in Ben Sira, it is imperative to go back to the Book of Proverbs. 27 The recent discoveries of the wisdom texts in Qumran contributes greatly to our understanding of wisdom writings in the Second Temple period.^ 4QSapiential Work A is preserved in seven fragmentary copies, one from Cave 1 (1Q26) and six from Cave 4 (4Q415, 416, 417, 418a, 418b, 423).^ The manuscripts are Herodian in their script, hence dated to the mid- or late first century B.C.E. ^ Six copies of the work have been found in the Qumran library. It appears in fragmentary form. 4Q418 alone has about three-hundred fragments, many of them the size of a postage stamp."^ I omitted here the Book of Mysteries, which is sometimes regarded as wisdom instructions, since it is not the most obvious.^ (1) The Use o f Proverbs and Aphoristic Sayings, Commands and Admonitions Ben Sira shares with the Book of Proverbs the fundamental feature of the employment of popular proverbs, experiential (observational) and aphoristic sayings (Murphy 1965:4-5; Crenshaw 1976:15). Here I call all these literaiy forms ^ Worrell (1968) identifies IQS 2.2-4; 3.13-4.26; 9.12-21; ll.lOb-11; CD 2.2-23; 2.14ft.; IQH 1; 2.9, 17-19; 11.15b-17, 23f., 31f.; 10.1-12; 11.3-14, 27b-28; 12.1 Iff. as “wisdom passages” in the Qumran scrolls largely on the presence o f wisdom vocabularies. However, he fails to establish his method in determining wisdom influence. Some would also include the “Instruction o f the Two Spirits” in the Community Rule as wisdom wiitings, see Collins 1996:32. I, however, regard the Community Rule as a sectarian text with wisdom features rather than wisdom composition. ^ For the provenance o f 4QSapA, see esp. Elgvin 1995B:459-63; 1996:128-34. For reasons why they should not be classified as apocalyptic writings, see Elgvin 1995B:451; 1996:136-39. ^ Harrington (1997B:25) regards them as roughly contemporary vrith Ben Sira or even earlier. Elgvin (1994A:191-92), however, regards them as somewhat later, either contemporary with the two spirit treatise in IQS 3.13-4.26 or dependent upon IQS in its more or less final form.. For a reconstruction o f the text, see Elgvin 1995A. ^ Gosp. Thom., though it can be regarded as a collection o f wisdom sayings o f Jesus (see Patterson 1990:93), is not included since the Coptic version has undergone a development fi'om its original Greek Vorlage; see Blatz 1991:111. The genre o f the Sayings Gospel Q is still a matter o f much debate and is again not included in the study here. For a concise summary o f recent discussions on the genre o f Q, see Steinhauser 1990:13-22. 28 aphoristic discourses. An aphoristic discourse is usually short and concise, or in a longer text, often it can be divided into individual “units” that can stand in their own right (Williams 1981:69). These are all pungent sayings expressed in the indicative mood, growing out of concrete situations and often conclusions drawn from experience. Williams (1980:38-39) notices that there are five basic characteristics of aphoristic discourse. They are apparently self-evident assertiveness, insight as process (it stimulates a journey of thought), paradox (reversing expectations, provoking surprise, exaggeration), brevity and conciseness, and play on ideas, words and sound. He finds that the two more basic characteristics in common are firstly, aphoristic discourse stems from the dynamic of a searching subject, and secondly, comparison is the formal structure in all these gnomic utterances. These explain why proverbial sayings can be highly poetic and parabolic, associated with effective speaking and thinking and often with words and images in juxtaposed sentences playing off against each other. In fonn, it may be a one-membered saying, two- membered saying or even multi-membered. In Proverbs, the sayings are predominantly two-member units in verse with parallelismus membrorum typical of Hebrew poetry. Another fundamental feature of OT wisdom traditions is that of instructions in terms of commands and prohibitions, which is thus characterized by imperatives. They abound in wisdom instructions. They can appear in isolated form or linked together by various means: a common letter (Prov. ll:9-12b; 20:7-9, 24-26); the same introductory word (15:13-14, 16-17); the same idea (ch. 16); the use of an acrostic (31:10-31); paradoxical unity (26:4-5); and numbers (30:24-28). 29 The sage exhorts or prescribes by using the imperative or the jussive, either negative or positive. These exhortations are usually provided with motive clauses and may be introduced by ’’D [“because”] or 33 [“lest”], whereas the motive clause seldom occurs within an ordinary aphoristic saying.’ The admonition may appeal to a very wide range of motives, from practical and pragmatic purposes (e.g. 22:24-25), to more religious motivations (e.g. 22:22-23). A proper understanding of the admonitions cannot be achieved without taking into account the role and function of the motive clause (Nel 1982:4, 5, 18ff.). As Nel (1982:88) well remarks: The main intention of the motivation is to illuminate the truth and validity of the admonition by means of its reasonable, dissuasive, explanatory and promissory character. The dominant dogmatic premise occurs to be that of the created order which in no way contradicts wise thought. The motivation shows to which extent the human act violates or honours this order. The motive clause not only gives justification for the admonition, it also enhances the persuasive power of the instruction. This is not unlike how the indicatives function in relation to the imperatives in hellenistic paraenesis. The aphoristic sayings are not mere experiential observations but have a certain bearing on human behaviour (Nel 1982:14). They are associated with a kind of practical thinking directed to specific life situations. In the main, the aphoristic saying gives the general ethos while the admonition makes the demand explicit by relating a certain truth to a certain form of behaviour (Nel 1982:76). ' For the various ways prohibitions are expressed in Proverbs and Qoheleth, see Crenshaw 1992:119-21. 30 Sometimes, the aphorisms, commands and prohibitions can be strung together to form larger units of instruction similar to the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope. In Prov. 1-9, for example, Murphy (1981:49) finds that there are twelve units of instructions. Independent collections of sayings and admonitions can be tied together loosely by theme or literary devices such as wordplay, catchwords and mnemonics (Murphy 1965:68-74; Fontaine 1993:99). Ben Sira Like Proverbs, Ben Sira is also characterized by the presence of aphoristic discourses, admonitions and prohibitions, though they appear more as second person addresses than figurative maxims and sage observations in the third person as found in Proverbs (Scott 1971:208). He is also fond of using parallelism in a verse. Independent sayings in single couplet (11:1-3), or two couplets (11:4, 5-6; 43:9-10, 11-12; 50:25-26) can be found. Again, Ben Sira uses motive clauses to provide incentives for right thinking and behaviour (Skehan and DiLella 1987:26). Instructions in Ben Sira often come in longer thematic units, employing the expanded proverb-collection units rather than individual sayings to present its practical advice.’ Nickelsbuig (1981:57-58) notices that often the combination of related proverbs is with an identical formula such as “He who....” and the linking of proverbs by means of catchwords. The teaching on sons honouring their parents, for example, is a combination of the identical formula “He who honours his father” (3:3, 5, 6) and the catchword “blessing” (3:8-9). It is also noteworthy that the ^ Scott 1971:206-07; Crenshaw 1981 A: 160; Sanders 1983:14-16; Gammie 19900:356-58; Murphy 1996:70; Collins 1997A:45-46 all notice such stylistic difference. 31 theme of honouring one’s father is found only in 3:1-16 and seldom again. In Proverbs, more than twenty verses touch on this subject, scattered amid heterogeneous materials. The individual proverbs on the differences between the rich and the poor (Prov. 10:15; 18:23; 19:4, 6) correspond to the cluster found in Sir. 13:21-23 and 31:1-4. What may appear as one proverb in Proverbs might appear as a whole section in Ben Sira. For example, Prov. 13:24 on the training of a son is found in Sir. 30:1-13 as the training of sons. Other thematic clusters of sentences can also be identified.’ Gammie (19900:357) suggests, for example, on listening and speaking (4:2-28; 6:32-37; 9:17-18; 19:5-12; 20:1-8, 24-26; 27:4-7; 33:4-6); on etiquette (31:1-31; 32:1-12); on friends and friendship (6:5-17; 19:13-17; 22:19-26; 27:16-21; 28:8-12; 37:1-6); and on women (26:1-18; 36:22-26; 42:9-14)? Scott (1971:207) proposes the term “essays” for sections on acceptable worship (35:1-20); on the superiority of the scribal profession (38:24-39:11); on the blessings of wisdom (14:20-15:8); on the works and mercy of God (16:24-18:14). There is the well- known encomium of chapters 44-49 on “In Praise of the Fathers.” There are also the hymns “On the Works and Providence of God” (39:16-35); “On the Works and Judgment of God” (42:15-43:33) and several odes to wisdom (1:1-20; 4:11-19; 6:1831; 14:20-15:8; 24:1-29). Yet a satisfactory explanation of the overall plan of Ben Sira is still found wanting.^ ^For an index o f the various topics, or in Mui-phy’s own words, an “informal table of contents,” see Murphy 1996:73. ^ Such kind o f thematic cluster can also be found in Qumran wisdom text, see particularly the reconstructed text for 4Q416, 417, 418, 423 by Elgvin 1995A:esp. 579-80. A whole section o f eschatologicai discourse, e.g., can be found subdivided into three sub-sections: 4Q416 4, 4Q416 1.2-7 and 4Q416 1.8-10. ^ See the proposal by Roth 1980; yet see Gammie's criticism (1990C:356-57). 32 Of particular interest is the tendency to use a single proverb to introduce a series of other proverbs or serve as a topic sentence at the beginning of a cluster of other proverbs. ’ 26:1 introduces the topic on having a good wife which is further developed in 26:2-3. This pattern can also be found in 2:1-6; 15:11-20; 16:1-4; 21:1-10; 23:16-21; 28:12-16 (Skehan and DiLella 1987:57-59). Another phenomenon is the rounding off of sections on a particular topic with final summary proverbs, a trait which is not found in Proverbs. Harvey (1981:55-56) points out that 2:18 concludes the section on Service of the Lord (2:1-18); 3:16 concludes the section on Honour of Parents (3:1-16); 3:31 concludes the section on Humility and Pride (3:17-31); 4:10 concludes the section on Concern for the Poor (4:1-10); 7:36 on the section on Human Relationship (7:1-36); 9:14-18 concludes the section on Dealings with Others; 11:7-9 concludes the section on True and False Honour (10:111:9); 12:16-18 concludes the section on Discretion in Dealings (11:29-12:18); 13:21-23 concludes the section on Associating with the Rich (13:1-23) and 14:18-19 concludes the section on Riches and Happiness (13:24-14:29); 16:1-16 and 17:2518:14 conclude the two parallel sub-sections on God’s Relationship to sin (15:1116:16 716:17-18:14). Similarly, J. T. Sanders (1983:15) points out that 28:6 concludes the section on the Value of Forgiveness as Opposed to Vengeance (27:3028:7); 35:10 concludes the section on the Value of righteousness with Regard to Sacrifices (35:1-11); 37:15 concludes the section on True and False Counselors (37:7-15). ’ For the phenomenon o f using proverb(s) in the OT as a literary device to bring about the final conclusion and to “set up” the introduction o f actions that follows, see particularly Fontaine 1982:154. 33 It should also be noted that almost all other wisdom fonns used in Proverbs can also be found in Ben Sira. The tôb-sayings can be found in 41 ;1-2; 25 ;8-9; 26; 1; 28:19ff, the blessed-sayings in 14:1-2; 25:8-9; riddles in 22:14, and the numerical sayings in 26:5-6; cf. 23:16-18; 25:7-11; 26:28; 50:25-26. Pseudo-Phocylides The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides are characterised by collections of yvwpou, short sentences giving rules for conduct in daily life. These sentences are loosely arranged, with no clear connection with the preceding or succeeding verses. Only sometimes are they arranged alphabetically or thematically. arranges them under 15 headings and Derron into 18 sections. of the units are very clear, but some are not. Van der Horst The themes of some Verses 153-174, for example, are on the usefulness of labour, and w . 175-227 on maniage, chastity and family life. Recently, Wilson (1994:178) has suggested that w . 3-8 function as a type of propositio, setting forth the basic principles and assumptions of the work while w . 9-227 is the body or probatio which is the expansion on the introduction. is in turn divided into two main sections. The body The first section is organized according to the four cardinal virtues: justice (9-54), moderation (55-96), fortitude (97-121), and wisdom (122-31). The second section is organized according to the different social relationships in the life of an individual. The division of the body into two sections with their respective emphasis seems to be generally correct, while the detail of the analysis may not be that convincing. An important fonnal difference is that the typical OT form of the two- 34 membered sayings in parallelismus membrorum has been dropped. It is more like Jewish didactic poetry, one of the literaiy forms found in wisdom paraenesis. Qumran Wisdom Texts Due to the fragmentary nature of the Qumran wisdom texts, sometimes the parallelismus membrorum typical of Proverbs has been destroyed and has to depend on reconstruction which involves some guess work. However, the best preserved parts of 4QSapA (4Q 416 2 and 417 1-2) are wisdom instructions with second person masculine singular imperatives and negative admonitions (occasionally the addressee is described in the third person singular). The second person plural also occurs. One of the eschatologicai discourses, 4Q418 69 addresses both the ungodly and the godly in the second person plural. A large part of the book consists of proverbial aphorisms. Elgvin (1995A) has proposed a reconstruction of 4Q416 in twenty-three columns. Columns 3-4 deal with financial matters and business dealings, social relations and family matters (also 4Q416 2/417.1). Columns 7-8 are an eschatologicai discourse (also 4Q416 1 and 3) followed by reflections on God’s “mystery” and by instructions to walk in righteousness (cols 10-11; also 4Q417 2). Column 15 deals with the lot of the elect (also 4Q418 81); column 20,23 on rewards and punishments (also 4Q418 55), column 22 on the conditions of the farmer (also 4Q423 1-2), and column 23 with a warning on the coming judgement (also 4Q418 127). As in Ben Sira, it does not have a rigid outline. 35 (2) The Use ofJewnsh Traditions: Jewish Wisdom Traditions, Law and Prophets It is well known that Proverbs collects and adapts wisdom sayings from ancient Mesopotamian (Sumerian), Egyptian and Canaanite sources such as the "Sayings of Lemuel” (see Prov. 31:1-9) and the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope (cf. Murphy 1981:9-12). In fact, Israel herself compared her wisdom, in the person of King Solomon, to “the wisdom of all the people of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt” (1 Kgs 4:29-34). are traditional. These sayings command authority precisely because they A sage is supposed to devote his life to leam and to understand the proverbs passed on to him (Prov. 1:2-6). Ben Sira This is also the advice of Ben Sira has for his hearers: “Do not slight the discourse of the sages, but busy yourself with their maxims” (8:8a). fact a witness that he himself lived by this advice (cf. Sir. 39:1-11). His book is in Thus, unlike OT prophecy which seeks to listen for the Word of God anew, wisdom seeks to pass on what is worthwhile. Ben Sira firanldy confesses that he was the last to represent such a great tradition, last in a long line of sages (33:16a: “last to keep vigil”). He gathers from the earlier wisdom traditions (33:16b: “a gleaner following the grapepickers”), an heir and custodian to a rich heritage. From his lifetime of diligent study of wisdom of the ancients and of his contemporaries, he does not keep them just to himself but passes on to the future generation what he has learned (33:18a: “Consider that I have not labored for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction.”). 36 Ben Sira is not just an accumulator of traditional wisdom sayings. He integrates the different traditions: the Jewish wisdom traditions, law and prophets, and offers new insight to the hearers. Through memory that recalled the teachings of old, the sage engages and transmits the various traditions by study, critical examination, and reflection.’ deposited in Proverbs. Ben Sira continues the older wisdom wliich is In Sheppard’s study on Sir. 24 and the wisdom poem in Bar. 3:9-4:4 (1980:118), he finds that wisdom for these post-exilic writers serves as a “hermeneutical construct to interpret the Torah as a statement about wisdom and as a guide to Israel’s practice of it.... [T]he canonical Torah provides the ultimate justification and source of wisdom in Israel.” to the law and to the fear of the Lord. Thus Ben Sira subordinates wisdom While he identifies Torah with wisdom, the actual content of his advice is overwhelmingly sapiential, not legal, interpreting the law in tenns of wisdom (Sanders 1983:17). It is appropriate thus to describe the book, as in the prologue to Ben Sirah, as a work “pertaining to instruction and wisdom,” a description typical of sapiential writing. There are no formal scriptural citations in Ben Sira, yet informal citations and allusions to the Scriptures can be found throughout the book (e.g., 2:18 drawing on 2 Sam. 24:14; 17:27; and 45:23-4).^ Most allusions are derived from Pentateuchal traditions concerning the Primeval History (Gen. 1-11) and the Patriarchal Narratives.^ Occasionally, quotations from part of a biblical verse are found. The ^ See Sheppard (1980:16) for a summary o f the result of previous research on Ben Sira’s use of the OT. ^For the use o f the Pentateucii, Prophets, and Psalms, Job, Proverbs as identified by various scholars, see particularly Wright 1989:143-97. ^ See Crenshaw 1981 A: 150; for the various allusions. 37 proverbial motto “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (cf. Prov. 26:27; Qoh 10:8; Ps. 7:15) is found in Sir, 27:26a.’ As Ben Sira’s grandson emphasizes some time after 132 B.C.E., Ben Sira “had devoted himself for a long time to the diligent study of the Law, the Prophets and the rest of the books” of his ancestors. Wisdom, fear of the Lord, and the law are intricately connected (Sir. 15:1; 19:20, 24; 23:27; 24:1-23; 25:10-11). In Sir. 39:1, Ben Sira connects wisdom with prophecy: “He [A sage] seeks out the wisdom of all the ancients, and is concerned with prophecies.” Through prayerful spirit-inspired study of Torah, wisdom and prophecy (39:1-8), the sage, as in the case of Ben Sira, becomes an indirect channel of God’s wisdom. He believes that his work carries authority in his claim to prophecy (24:33) and possibly in his use of prophetic fonns (Nickelsburg 1981:60). In Ben Sira, there are both streams of interpretation of sacred literature: the “inspired’ reading centered in the Law and Prophets as foimd among the Essenes and a more scribal approach with particular interpretative methods and principles as foimd in later rabbinic writings.^ In fact, some kind of combination of prophecy and wisdom utterances was also beginning to take shape (Gammie 19900:370-1; Witherington 1994:80). In 44:1-49:16 on “In Praise of the Fathers”, Ben Sira surveys Israel’s history of great heroes of the past and God’s great deeds for his people. He stresses the importance of obedience to the law (45:4-5, 17; 46:10, 14; 49:4), the continuity of * Other examples are Sir. 4:3 (Prov. 3:27-28); Sir. 4:5-6 (Prov. 24:11-12); Sir. 8:13 (Prov. 22:26-27); Sir. 18:32-33 (Prov. 21:17); Sir. 20:6-7 (Prov. 15:23; 17:27-28); Sir. 22:15 (Prov. 27:3); Sir. 21:20 (Qoh 7:6); Sir. 27:26a (Prov. 26:27), etc. ^ Perdue 1994:244 in agreement with Hengei 1974:1.135-36. 38 Also Blenkinsopp 1981:14-15, the covenant (44:11, 18, 22, 23; 45:5, 15, 24, 25; 50:24) and the inheritance of the land (45:25; also 24:23), concepts deeply grounded in Hebrew traditions. He takes pride in the priesthood, the temple and temple worship as found in Pentateuchal traditions (7:29, 31; 45:6-24; 50) as well as the fulfillment of divine promises as found in prophetic traditions (36:15-16). It is “everywhere obvious that the roots of his thought lie primarily in his Judaic traditions” (Sanders 1983:26). Pseudo-Phocylides One of its primary sources is from the OT LXX, especially from the Pentateuch and the wisdom writings. Verses 3-8 is a summary of the Decalogue, followed by a number of precepts taken from Lev. 19, with the omission of the introductory formula “I am the Lord, your God”.’ It may be that the author takes Lev. 19 as a kind of summary or central chapter of the Torah (Van der Horst 1978B:66f.; Gilbert 1984:315). Themes typically Jewish can be found, for example, the concern for the poor and needy (w.lO, 19, 22-23, 29), the concern for strangers (w. 39ff), the bodily resurrection from the dead (w. 103-104), a very heavy emphasis on sexual matters (esp. vv. 186-190) and greediness, etc. Verse 59 may contain an allusion to Jer. 9:22 and w . 84-85 may draw from Deut. 22:6-7.^ As in Ben Sira, though he uses legal materials, his sayings are typically sapiential. Van der Horst (1978B:67) remarks Though Ps-Phoc. has adopted many precepts from the Pentateuch, the spirit of his writing is more congenial to the Wisdom literature. There, too, we see ^From w . 17ft, Lev. 18 and 20 form the basis of the precepts used. ^ See particularly the table by Derron (1986:36-54) listing the parallels with Jewish literature. Barclay 1996:338-40. 39 Also constant search for a universal ethics which shuns particularistic elements and is not averse to the good and useful elements in the ethics of the sumoimding peoples. Qumran Wisdom Texts Some of the Qumran wisdom texts also reflect stylistic similarities to Proverbs and Ben Sira. 4Q184 (“The Wiles of the Wicked Woman”) is similar in content, style, vocabulary, and to a certain extent, in form, to passages in Proverbs (2:16-19; 5:3-6, 20; 6:24-26; 7:5-27; 9:13-18) that warn the young male students against various types of “wicked women”. Harrington (1996A:34-35) rightly sees that the work is based upon these passages in Proverbs and set in the context of the traditional “two ways” motif. 4Q185 1.9-13 draws a number of images, “sprouts like grass,” “blooms like a flower,” from Isa. 40:6-8 (cf. Pss. 93:5-9; 103:15-17) to describe human life. The personification of wisdom as a woman (2.9-14) reflects that found in Proverbs and Ben Sira. 1.14-15 (“... remember the miracles he performed in Egypt, his portents [in the lands of Ham]) clearly draws on Ps. 105:5, 27. Even more impressive is the language and imageiy used in 1.13-2.15 that deduces from Jewish wisdom instructions, especially from Proverbs. The form of address in 2.3 and the call to listen is typical of Proverbs: “Listen to me, my sons” (cf. Prov. 4:1; 5:7; 7:24; 8:32). Its anthological style reflects most closely that of Ben Sira (Tobin 1990:147-48, 152). 4QSapA deals with traditional wisdom topics such as honouring parents (4Q416 2 3.1-16) and the relationship between husband and wife (4Q416 2 3.194.11). 4Q417 1 1.21-26 probably draws upon Prov. 6:1-5. 40 It also draws upon Ps. 37, Prov. 2:21-22 and Isa. 61 for its eschatologicai teaching (Elgvin 1995A:446-47). The section on relations with one’s wife (4Q416 2 3.9-4.6) draws its instructions from Gen. 2:24 and 3:16. The instruction on annulling the wife’s vows and votive offerings (4Q416 2 4.6-13) is based on Num. 30:6-15. The author draws on numerous traditions of the Hebrew bible to form his own wisdom paraenesis.’ It also shows affinity with the Book of Watchers and the Epistle of Enoch (Elgvin 1995A:448).^ (3) The Use o f Other Traditions Ben Sira Like Proverbs, Ben Sira shows many points of contact with the international proverbial literatui'e of the Ancient Near East. Prov. 22:17-24:22 (“The Thirty Precepts of the Sages”) modeled in part on the Egyptian work “Instruction of Amenemope” {ANET, 421-24) provides precedence for Ben Sira’s use of non-Judaic traditions. Ben Sira’s use of non-Judaic sources has been widely acknowledged (see, e.g., Mack and Murphy 1986:374-76). Sir. 39:1-2 reads, “He seeks out the wisdom of all the ancients, and is concerned with prophecies; he preserves the sayings of the famous and penetrates the subtleties of parables.” Among the ancients studied by Ben Sira are Egyptian and hellenistic sages. ^Elgvin (1996:140 n.35) also suggests the following allusions: Isaiah 61 in 4Q417 1 1.11-12; Nah. l:6in4Q 417 1 1.15-16; Ps. 77:17 in 4Q416 1 12. ^ For comparison o f these wisdom texts with Ben Sira in general, see Harrington 1994A: 146-51; 1997A; Elgvin 1995A:449. 41 Much controversy surrounds the degree of hellenization and the motive for using hellenistic materials in Ben Sira. here. The detail of the debate does not concern us Despite Hengei’s overstatement of Ben Sira as anti-hellenistic (1974:1.131- 53),’ Ben Sira is conservative in his use of non-Judaic sources in comparison to the spirit of compromise and syncretism rampant at the time (see, e.g. Sanders 1983:105; Skehan and DiLella 1987:50). Just as in the case with the Hebrew bible, Ben Sira never quotes exactly from these non-Judaic sources. He would use a word or a phrase from his source often verbatim in reformulating a proverb. A case can be established that Ben Sira did use the elegiac poems of Theognis (mid sixth centuiy B.C.E,), and less probably Iliad and Odyssey, or other Greek (Stoic and Cynic) sources.^ Ben Sira subjects whatever hellenistic thought or forms he takes over to a thorough Hebraizing. He uses the hellenic materials to expand themes which he inherits from the Judaic traditions (Sanders 1983:57; Skehan and DiLella 1987:48). “The Inshuction of Duauf’, an Egyptian wisdom instruction, seems to be the source of many ideas found in Sir. 38:24-39:11 (see esp. Skehan and DiLella 1987:449-53). Far more important aie the instructions of Papyrus Insinger by Phibis, an early hellenistic Egyptian scribe. According to Sanders’s calculation (1983:80-100), over 15% of the instructions of Papyrus Insinger have close parallels in Ben Sira, compared to just over four per cent for Theognis. also derived gnomic insight from Phibis. Besides, Ben Sira In Sanders’ words (1983:105; italics ^ See particularly Mack and Murphy 1986:375 and Goldstein 1981:72-75, for their criticisms of Hengei’s position. ^ For the parallels in Greek literature cited, see particularly Middendorp 1973:8-24. Sanders (1983:29-38) takes issue with Middendorp’s finding o f about one hundred “possible” such parallels. Middendorp has gone beyond what the evidences can support. Here I follow Sanders’ view. 42 original): ^"Phibis is more like Ben Sira, in both style and content, than is any other collection o f proverbs, Theognis included, save only the Book o f Proverbs itselfP Perhaps his motive for using these non-Judaic sources is “to show his fellow Jews that the best of foreign thought is no danger at all to the true faith but could even be incoiporated into an authentically Jewish book, the purpose of which was to encourage fidelity to the ancestral religion” (DiLella 1992:6.940).’ For Ben Sira, “wisdom was the language of truth and its correlation with hellenistic philosophy was intended to serve its own claims, not to recommend hellenistic learning and culture as a superior option” (Mack 1985:156). Thus, in effect, he makes his nonJudaic sources as Judaic as possible. There are also traces of wisdom forms of speech combined with hellenic genres found in Ben Sira as proverb-maxim. Ben Sira’s knowledge of hellenistic literary fonns, including maxim collection, hymn, encomium, and history is evident. Sir. 44-50 reflects distinctive features of encomium, drawing on Greek rhetoric (cf. Mack 1985:128-37). Pseudo-Phocylides Pseudo-Phocylides shows considerable acquaintance with the Greek gnomological traditions, perhaps indirectly through other hellenized Jewish literature at his time (van der Horst 1978B:64f.). It seems that Pseudo-Phocylides is closer to the Greek didactic poetry in dactylic hexameters.^ As I have mentioned earlier, the ^Also Skehan and DiLella 1987:50. A similar attitude is also reflected in later rabbinic writings. ^ As Denon (1986:XXVII) rightly points out that the characteristics o f Greek gnomological literature, namely, the use for educational purposes, the recurrence o f traditional moral themes, the attribution to a great name in the past, the disconnected juxtaposition of phrases, the elevated diction. 43 two-membered unit in a verse typical of Jewish wisdom paraenesis has been dropped. Instead, the poem is composed of yvwpou, not unlike that of the prose gnomic sayings of Isocrates. He may have known Stoic theories, at least second hand, as can be seen in verses 63-67 (van der Horst 1978B:57f). There are also some other parallels in classical Greek authors (see esp. van der Horst 1978B:241-42; Derron 1986:35-54; Barclay 1996:340-41). Different from the perspective of Ben Sira, Pseudo-Phocylides tries as much as possible to get rid of the distinctive Hebrew elements. He never mentions the name Israel and avoids anything about Sabbath, circumcision, dietary rules, ritual purity, or any cultic precepts. This explains how for more than 15 centuries no one ever suspected that it may be a forgery despite people’s awareness of the numerous reminiscences of the Hebrew bible. The purpose of the poem has been a matter of much dispute. The present scholarly consensus is well summarized by van der Horst (1988:16): ...the characteristics of our poem, such as its pseudonimity, the omission of anything exclusively Jewish..., and the incorporation of originally non-biblical commandments, can all be explained on the assumption that the author wrote a kind of compendium of mi§vot for daily life which could help Jews in a thoroughly Hellenistic enviromnent to live as Jews without having to abandon their interest in Greek culture. If our author intended to write a schoolbook ..., one could imagine that, as a Jewish writer, he tried to provide a ‘pagan’ text that could be used safely in Jewish schools to satisfy Jevsdsh parents who wanted their children to be trained in the classical pagan and the use o f antithesis, can all be found in Ps.-Phoc. 44 authors.' (4) The Interpretative Framework Provided by the Prologue and Epilogue Von Lips (1990:413) in his exhaustive study on wisdom traditions in the NT and its backgroimd concludes, upon studying numerous biblical and Greco-Roman paraenetic works, that ... the beginning of paraenetic collections is apparently consciously moulded. Basic admonitions stand at the beginning but without necessarily being a connection in content to the subsequent admonitions.... However it is also to be observed that thematic fundamentals are stated at the beginning to which further explicit or implicit reference is made (my own translation). ^ It is doubtful whether von Lips has established his case with respect to Greco-Roman paraeneses by supporting his conclusion vyith only the study of Isocrates, Ad Demonicum. He also fails to offer a detailed study on this feature with respect to Jewish wisdom paraenesis. Here I take up the task of showing that it is characteristic of wisdom paraenesis that the opening and closing sections play a special role with respect to the entire work. In Ben Sira, the introduction (1:1-10) and the opening acrostic poem (1:11-30) are programmatic for the understanding of the work and the latter fonns an inclusio with the concluding autobiographical acrostic poem (51:13-20; Skehan and DiLella 1987:137, 142-43, 576). The same pattern can also be found in Pseudo-Phocylides ' Of similar position, see Derron 1986:xlvii-li; Barclay 1996:345-46. For other different possibilities, see van der Horst 19788:70-76; Gilbert 1984:314; Collins 1997A: 176. ^ German original: “der Anfang paranetischer Sammlungen offensichtlich bewuBt gestaltet ist. Grundlegende Mahnungen stehen am Beginn, aber ohne daB notwendig ein inhaltlicher Zusammenhang zu den weiteren Mahnungen bestecht..., Aber es ist aucli zu beobachten, daB thematisch Grundlegendes zu Beginn gesagt wird.” 45 where the opening prologue (1-2) corresponds with the closing epilogue (228-230). The TcdjTcc ÔLKaïoowqg in verse 229 fonns an inclusio with miJToc Slktio’ in verse 1. Verses 229-230 actually summarize the content of the whole poem (Van der Horst 1978B:260). The author may intend the rest of the poem as an expansion of the opening summary of the Decalogue in the seven commandments in 1:3-8 (von Lips 1990:414; Collins 1997A: 161-62). canonical OT wisdom literature. This pattern can already be seen in some of the In Proverbs, the opening 1:1-7 states the purpose and intention and even suggests its contents (see, e.g., Childs 1979:553; Johnson 1987; Murphy 1996:16). The book ends on the same theme with which it began (1:7): the fear of the Lord (31:30). Moreover, chs 1-9 can be read as introduction and are instructive for the understanding of the entire work. Zimmerli (1976:185- 86) speaks of chs. 1-9 as an “interpretative canon” and Childs, as a hermeneutic guide for the rest of the book, can be interpreted on this basis. The acrostic poem of 31:10-31 at the end of Proverbs echoes the major themes of the work, possibly fonning an interpretive framework for the whole (Childs 1979:553, 555). Recently Camp ( 1985:esp. 186-208) and McCreesh (1985:25-46) argue convincingly that the book’s concluding acrostic poem combines with the introductory poems on Woman Wisdom in Prov. 1-9 to give the proverbs collection in chapters 10-30 a thematic framework. This concluding poem ties together the book’s major themes by using the image of woman prominently used in the early chapters of Proverbs. pattern can also be detected in the Qoheleth. A similar Wright (1968:265-66) suggests that the concluding poem of 11:7-12:8 (epilogue) balances the opening poem of 1:2-11 (introduction). These two poems state the two main thoughts of the book: whether 46 there is profit in toil, and advice concerning enjoyment. According to Crenshaw (1992A:273), the superscription in 1:1, together with a thematic refrain in 1:2 and a poem in 1:3-l 1 at the opening form an outer frame for the book with a poem in 11:712:7, a thematic refrain in 12:8 and two epilogues in 12:9-11, 12-14 at the closing of the work.^ Or alternatively, Whybray (1989:40-41) suggests that the prologue (1:1- 2 or 1:1-3) balances the epilogue in 12:8-14, the first section (1:4-11) balances the conclusion in 12:1-7. He also believes that there are reasons to suppose that 1:12- 2:26 serves a thematic purpose in introducing most of the topics discussed in the rest of the book. 4Q184 begins with the identification of “Lady Folly” who seeks to lead people astray with nonsense (//. 1-2). 4Q184 11-16 conclude the entire wisdom poem with the warning to take heed of the way of the wicked woman who seeks to divert the righteous away from the paths of righteousness in rebellion against God to the paths of the pit (sin and death). Both 4Q184 and 4Q185 are too fragmentary at their beginning to laiow exactly how the beginning and the end correspond. Note the poem begins with what the woman utters and “words from her mouth,” and ends with “seduce the sons of men with smooth words.” For 4QSap Work A, Harrington (1996B:41; also Collins 1997B:274) notices that 4Q416 1 has an extensive margin on the right-hand side which seems to designate the beginning of the work. He contends that the sage may have provided the eschatological framework for the entire Sapiential Work A in which other ' See also the analysis by Rousseau 1981. 47 instioictions on various issues are to be interpreted. Such understanding is in line with the general characteristic of a Jewish wisdom instruction. We thus conclude from the above observations that it is a general feature of wisdom paraenesis that the opening often outlines the basic elements found in the rest of the work. The closing often recapitulates what is stated in the opening and thus fonns an interpretative framework for the entire work.^ C The Genre o f iwxiQS Ascertained There is significant overlapping between the general characteristics of the sub­ genre of paraenesis and wisdom instruction. and aphorisms. They are both marked by imperatives One of the most prominent features of James is the presence of a striking amount of imperatives, a total of 52 imperatives and 1 imperatival participle out of 108 verses (BibleWork’s syntactical count). 1 Thessalonians and 1 Peter, the other two epistles in the NT that have been classified as paraenesis, have 19 imperatives (no imperatival participles) out of 89 verses and 38 imperatives plus 18 imperatival participles out of 105 verses respectively. has the most imperatives of the three. Proportionately, James still Besides, eschatology provides the framework in which these commands are given, though this may not be as obvious as in 1 Thessalonians (see Malherbe; 1983) and 1 Peter (see Martin 1992:85-120)^ a point to which I will return later in this thesis. ' Interestingly, Ps.-Meti., which is probably a third century wisdom writing, has an epitome at the beginning. The ending o f the epitome (1.34-39) is repeated at the end o f the work (11.470-73). Though, it has already been noticed by Berger (1977:18-22) that the prologue and the epilogue of any pericopes o f literary text in the NT are usually carefully crafted to give special significance, the peculiarity with wisdom paraenesis is that they fonn an interpretative framework for the entire work. 48 It can hardly be denied that James employs hellenistic literary forms such as diatribe in forwarding his argument. On the other hand, of similar if not greater extent, is James likened to Jewish wisdom instruction in using wisdom literary forms. As has been well demonstrated by Bauckham (forthcoming), various types of aphorism found in Proverbs and Ben Sira abound in James. The synonymous parallelism found in the paradigmatic wisdom instruction has not entirely been dropped (see 1:9, 15; 3:9, 12; 2:26; 4:8b, 9b, 10, 11b; 5:2, 4, 5). Particularly significant is the fact that aphorisms are fondly employed often as confînnatoiy conclusions of discourse units (1:27; 2:13; 3:18; 4:17; 5:12), a style we have already observed in Ben Sira. together. James also employs catchwords to linlc sayings and sections Yet the hymnic and lyrical materials Ben Sira and Pseudo-Phocylides are fond of are not found in James. In James, as in Ben Sira and Pseudo-Phocylides, the author draws together traditional materials from a wide range of paraenetic literature. Yet apart from the use of hellenistic literary forms such as diatribe (2:14-17) and vice-virtue catalogues (3:17) and Greco-Roman schemes of argumentation (2:1-26; 3:1-12; Watson 1993A, 1993B), literary dependence on any hellenistic source is still found wanting {pace O’Boyle 1985). Most notably, James uses materials drawn from various parts of the Hebrew bible. These include quotations from the Torah (Exod. 20; Lev. 19; Deut. 5) and Proverbs (3:34; 10:12), and allusions to the Torah, prophecy and wisdom (see esp. Johnson 1995A:29-33). James also shows great affinity with a wide variety of Jewish literatme in the Second Temple period (see Johnson 1995A:34-48). There is, for example, the striking parallel with Pseudo-Phocylides’ 49 use of Lev. 19. It has already been a well established fact that the sayings of Jesus play an important part in the epistle.^ James may also share with other NT writings teachings of primitive Judeo-Christian paraenesis of the early Church (see, e.g., Johnson 1995A;48-58). Malherbe (1983:253) notices that in 1 Thessalonians, Paul does not use words of friendship to address his recipients. topos on friendship. He argues that Paul is familiar with the However he does not use the terms 4)C àlüc or ({)lA.ol because he believes that these tenns were too anthropocentric and they are insufficient to describe his relationship with the recipients as those called to be God’s people and on the ground of human virtues. The talk of brothers and brotherly love is the way of the early church to speak of their relationship in Christ. Though I am not sure whether the author of James knew about the topos on friendship, the new relationship of God’s family surely provides the ground for him to address his recipients (1:17-18). In James, the author frequently addresses the recipients as “my brothers” (1:2; 2:1,14; 3:1,11; 5:7, 10,12,19) and “my beloved brothers” (1:16, 19; 2:5). Yet on the other hand, this feature of close relationship is not exclusive to hellenistic paraenesis. The sense of personal address (“my son...”) of the sage to his pupil as found in Jewish wisdom paraeneses can also account for the fonn of address found m James? It is important to notice that against the designation of James as hellenistic ' See this thesis, p. 4 n.l. ^ Davids (1988:3635) remarks that “Change ‘my son’ to ‘my brothers’ and the ethical exhortation in the wisdom tradition is not unlike that in James.” 50 paraenesis is the fact that vocabulary characteristic of paraenesis is found lacking in James, Arguing for 1 Thessalonians as a paraenetic letter, Malherbe (1983:241) lists as evidence the following hortatory terms mostly used as descriptions of different types of exhortation in the Greek and Roman sources: TTapaicA,i"|aL<; (2:3), TTapaKKA,€0) (2:12; 3:2, 7; 4:1, 10, 18; 5:11, 14), TTKpapnOéopon (2:12; 5:14), (ôLa)papTnpopaL (2:12; 4:6), onipi(w (3:2,13), irapayYeXLa (4:2), TrapocyyéÀlw (4:11), epwmopKL (5:12), vonOeTeco (5:12, 14), (xvrexopcn (5:14), and pmcpoOnpiopcn (5:14). Martin (1992:100) finds in 1 Peter similar exhortatory terms: mpaicccA-éü) (2:11; 5:1, 12), WipapTupéw (5:12) and atripCÇo) (5:10). Except paicpoOnpiopaL (5:7, 8), and oxripLCco (5:8), almost all of the above hortatory tenns are missing in James. Their presence (once in each case) can be explained by the fact that “endurance” is also a common theme in Jewish wisdom sayings (see association of the theme with Job) and apocalyptic traditions (e.g. pocicpo0i)nCo|iccL in Sir. 2:4; Bar. 4:25 and axripLCo) in Sir. 5:10 ). Most significant is the absence of the TTKpamÀéw/mp&iclqoiQ terminology.' Wisdom thinking can be found in all ages and among all peoples. By the end of the hellenistic period, an intriguing amalgamation of Eastern and Western elements has been taking place, as can also be found in later rabbinic literature (Fischel 1975:72-73). It may be an exaggeration to regard wisdom writings as “religiously neutral or non-committal” (Fischel 1975:87). Yet it is right to see that the very nature of paraenetic literature in using traditional materials from the ' See Martin 1992:101-03 for the importance of the term in Christian paraenesis. 51 ancients seems to provide the matrix for differing degrees of exchange of ideas and literary forms. As Hengel (1974:1.148), though he overestimates the opposition to hellenism in the case of Ben Sira, rightly admits, “[i]n the spiritual climate of the period about 175 EC in Jerusalem, this phenomenon is not surprising. Even a fundamentally conservative scribe like Ben Sira would have to adapt himself to the learned arguments of his time, if only to be heard and understood by his pupils and his opponents.” The other way round is also true, that the Stoa had grown up on Semitic ground and has a lot in common with the thought world of the Hebrew Scripture.' faith. Ben Sira did make use of hellenistic materials in service of his Jewish While Pseudo-Phocylides can be seen as both a hellenic gnomology and a Jewish wisdom didactic poem, it is a typical example of a cross-cultural product of its time. In the hellenistic period, there is a whole spectrum of Jewish paraenetic literature ranging from the more conservative wisdom instruction such as Ben Sira to the hellenistic moral exliortations (protreptic discourse) as found in Wisdom of Solomon. Thus neither is James composed in a distinct airtight compartment.^ It is not surprising to find that James shows both features of hellenistic paraenesis and Jewish wisdom instruction. Furthermore, it is possible that James came to use some of those hellenistic materials through Jewish wisdom and apocalyptic sources.^ ' Fischel (1975:74) notices that hypostatization o f wisdom in Prov. 8 and Sir. 24 can also be found in Seneca {Epistles 94 and 95). For other examples on the use o f Hebrew materials in hellenistic moral writings, see p. 70. Smith (1971:57-81) has shown that “hellenization” meant not only Greek influence in the Hebraic world but also Semitic influence in the hellenistic world. ^ Buss (1980:74-75) rightly reminds us that generic divisions often cut across one another forming a multidimensional pattern. Thus a certain degree o f flexibility must be allowed so that the characteristic patterns can be seen in terms o f probabilities rather than of rigid standards. ^ Moule (1962:166 n.6). See also Stowers 1981:41 for the use o f diatribe. 52 It is beyond doubt that James belongs to paraenetic literature, but to which end of Jewish paraenetic literature is a matter of much debate. As we have already seen above, the similarities with hellenistic paraenesis which James exhibits may as well be explained as characteristics in tenns of wisdom instruction. Yet some of the features in James such as the use of aphorisms as confirmatory summary can only be found in wisdom instruction. balance towards identifying This tips the as wisdom instruction. According to Gammie (1990B:48-51), paraenetic literature can be subdivided into two composite sub-genres: moral exhortations (hellenistic paraeneses) and instructions (wisdom paraeneses). composite sub-genres. There is considerable overlap between the two One can generally distinguish them, Gammie remarks, with reference to their respective source of influence: the former looks to a model in ancient Greece and the latter looks to Egyptian instructions. On stylistic grounds, it seems that James modeled itself more on wisdom instruction such as Ben Sira than on hellenistic paraenesis. In tenus of source of influence, there is no doubt that Jewish wisdom instractions (often modeled after Egyptian instructions) have a dominant influence on James. This is also reflected in the content of James. Murphy (1962:160; cf. Scott 1971:197) argues that content is reckoned as a determining factor in distinguishing sub-genres. He remarks that a wisdom psalm should reflect themes of the OT wisdom literature. Certainly care must be taken not to take the mere presence of admonitions and exhortations, for example, to establish the classification as paraenesis. That is to say, the presence of a certain form of speech is insufficient to prove that the entire literary piece of work belongs 53 to the genre associated with the form. of the genre. One should avoid taking a part for the whole Particular caution should be taken in avoiding the error of equating form with content, as Fohrer (1961:312) rightly warns. Similarly, the use of wisdom language and ideas do not constitute wisdom writings (Muiphy 1967:104; Crenshaw 1969:130 with n.6). Thus, for example. Wisdom of Solomon contains a lot of wisdom materials, nevertheless it is classified as protreptic, not as wisdom instruction. There is always the difficulty of deciding how many wisdom elements a piece of literature must contain before it may legitimately be so described. Nevertheless content-analysis can be useful in establishing the necessary condition, but not the sufficient condition, for the identification of sub-genre. A mixture of form and content as criteria for assigning a text to a particular genre must be allowed (see also Barton ABD\ 2.840). It would be absurd to say that a certain piece of work is a wisdom instruction if no wisdom themes can be found in the work. Moreover, as Crenshaw (1981 A: 19) points out, wisdom involves “a marriage between form and content.” It must be said, however, that it does not mean that wisdom instmctions in the Second Temple period must have a single worldview, as the Qmnran wisdom texts illustrate (see esp. Collins 1997B). Yet some sapiential themes traditionally associated with them are found invariably in all known Jewish wisdom writings. Account needs to be taken of such close connection between the genre of wisdom instruction and the sapiential themes. The presence of wisdom materials is so prevalent in James that it needs no demonstration. In addition to the presence of typically wisdom related vocabulary,' Whybray (1974:5, 74, 155) argues that though the presence of vocabulary distinctive of wisdom 54 such as a o (j)L ft (1:5; 3:13, 15, 17), oocfioç (3:13), è -r r L a t q j iw v (3:13; hapax legomenon), ic€vé (2:20), and aviLanite tcÔ ôLctpéltp (4:7),' far more important is the presence of wisdom related themes and ideas. In James, as in the Jewish wisdom tiaditions, wisdom is fundamentally a gift from God (1:5). Religion is foundational to ethics and in close union with it. This kind of thinldng is different from Greek sophists who generally see wisdom as something acquired through education and constant rational reflection (see, e.g., Kerferd 1990). In Jas 3:13-18, wisdom, whether it be heavenly or earthy, expresses itself in concrete characters and behaviours (3:13-18). typical of the wisdom tradition. This practical orientation is Topics on wisdom-piety are numerous in James: the antithetical ways of life of the righteous and the wicked (3:13-18; 4:7-10); the study of the “Torah” as the focus of pious meditation (1:25); the arrogant selfconfidence of the merchants with the theme of the transience of life (4:13-17); guarding and controlling one’s speech (3:2-12); enduring suffering and temptations (1:3-4, 12-15; 4:7-8, 10-11); religious duty such as almsgiving and care for the orphans and widows (1:27; 2:14-16); and theodicy (1:13-17). Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that the entire book is shaped in the tradition of Jewish wisdom instruction. The absence of themes such as domestic issues, friendship, sexuality, etc. are not objections in identifying it as wisdom instruction {pace von Lips tradition in a particular text does not prove infallibly that it is “wisdom literature,” it can still be a valid criterion for identifying the tradition. For a more precise way in identifying “distinctive Wisdom phraseology,” see Hurvitz 1988. ' This phrase is virtually the same as the expression yiQ mo which is a stock phrase o f the wisdom writers. It occurs 10 times out o f 13 in Proverbs and Job in the Hebrew Bible. See Scott 1971:195 11.13; Hurvitz 1988:47-49. 55 1990:433). No single wisdom instruction can exhaust all wisdom themes. Moreover, as in the case of Jesus, Jameses wisdom is “counter-cultural,” challenging the present order of the society rather than reinforcing it. relevant topics is understandable. A narrower selection of Some recent studies begin to see both Jesus and James as Jewish wisdom teachers, with James following in some ways after the manner of Jesus in appropriating and continuing his wisdom (see, e.g., Baasland 1982:123-27; Hartin 1991; Witherington 1994:236-44; Bauckham [forthcoming]). Escliatologkal and Wisdom Elements in James Penner, rejecting that James is a wisdom document, challenges those seeing it otherwise to demonstrate how their view can account for the various and diverse aspects of the letter (1996:102). As I have shown, wisdom instructions possess the characteristic of incorporating a wide variety of materials from their surrounding culture. Here I wish to demonstrate that the presence of eschatological elements in James is not an objection against identifying it as a wisdom paraenesis. Rejecting prophecy as the souice of apocalyptic thought because of its different understanding of history, von Rad (1965:2.306-07; 1972:263-83) asserts that apocalyptic literature originates from the matrix of wisdom. Knowledge is, according to him, the “nerve-centre of apocalyptic literature,” and the use of “figurative discourses” (o‘’b(ys) which is typical of wisdom is also characteristic of apocalyptic writings. Ezra). The apocalyptists are basically wise men (Daniel, Enoch, and He finds that the heart of the apocalyptic is not in eschatology but in the deterministic interpretation of history. This corresponds in the wisdom writings to 56 that idea that everything has its own time which can be known only through wisdom. The imderstanding of the times through the interpretation of oracles and dreams in apocalyptic writings is the task of the sages. To this, von Rad also finds that concern for theodicy and the form of argumentation in terms of question and answer in apocalyptic writings find their root in wisdom traditions. Though von Rad’s hypothesis has not been widely accepted, he has raised the awareness of the presence of similar elements in both literary genres. A renewed interest in the relationship between wisdom and apocalypticism in early Judaism and early Chiistianity has given rise to a new SBL consultation in 1994 which aims to clarify the nature and interrelationship of the wisdom, prophetic and eschatological elements in Jewish apocalyptic writings and what this knowledge tells us about the coexistence of those elements in Q James in the NT (Nickelsburg 1994:716). Following Mussner’s lead in recognizing James^ eschatological perspective (1981:207-11) and grounded upon Kasemann’s programmatic claim that “apocalyptic is the mother of Christian theology” (1969B: 108-27), Wall sees James as a apocalyptic paraenesis emphasizing the ethic of the eschatological community (1990:11-22). He isolates the presence of apocalyptic elements in James. Firstly, the author’s soteriological viewpoint of the community of James shows affinity with the social world of apocalyptic. The opening formula t k l ç ô c o ô e ic a (j)U/\,alç xcâç èv xh ôLcto-îTop^ indicates the community addressed is in some measure disinherited, which “envisages an apocalyptic sociology” (pp. 14-16). Secondly, there is the presence in its deeper logic of the three major themes in apocalyptic tradition:(l) a deterministic view of human history (pp. 16-18); 57 (2) a good-evil dualism of human existence in terms of heavenly and earthly wisdom as well as holy and Qvil yesarim; and (3) a futuristic view of God’s salvation embodied in the Lord’s imminent parousia, which provides the motivation for the wise to endure suffering as well as to obey (pp. 18-21). Thirdly, the fluidity of form typical of apocalyptic writings is used to embody the apocalyptic themes (pp. 21-22). not say that James is an apocalyptic writing. tradition rather than a literary genre (p. 21). It is significant that Wall does He treats apocalyptic as a theological It is, however, contestable that the elements Wall isolates are peculiarly apocalyptic. The transience of life and the lack of control over one’s own life is a well known motif in Jewish wisdom writings (Prov. 27:1; Job 7:7, 9, 16; Qoh. 8:7; Sir. 11:18-19; Wis. 2:1-2; 3:14). The good- evil dualism can be explained in terms of the “two ways” tradition, which is again not exclusively apocalyptic. Yet, the presence of eschatology surely occupies an important role in James, both in terms of motivation for ethical behaviour and in defining the identity of the community. The importance of eschatology in James has been highlighted in Fenner’s study (1996). In the Second Temple period, apocalyptic eschatology has already found its way into all kinds of literature. of Pseudo-Phocylides. Apocalypticism shows no influence on the sayings The Wisdom of Solomon, a protreptic discourse, however, contains eschatological material in juxtaposition with wisdom sayings. Nickelsburg (1981:175; cf. also Reese 1971:91) divides the book into three closely linlced parts: the “book of eschatology” (1:1-6:11), the “book of wisdom” (6:12-9:18), and the “book of history” (chs. 10-19). He remarks that the author of Wisdom “combines the wisdom and apocalyptic traditions of Israel, synthesizing them with an eclectic 58 use of Greek philosophy and religious thought” (1981:175).' There are a few references to eschatology in Ben Sira showing that he was familiar with those concepts. The list of examples of righteous men in Ben Sira (chs. 44-49) seems to have placed history in the very sphere of wisdom (Collins 1977:131). Ben Sira declares that Wisdom has been present and active throughout history, as in the days of creation (24:5-6). In Sir 36:10, he prays: “Hasten the end (fp), and remember the appointed time (lyin).” The words for “end” and “time” occur together also in Dan 11:35 in a similar context. Yet whether the prayer in 36:1-17 is Ben Sira’s own composition remains uncertain.^ However, in 48:10, it is umnistakable that Ben Sira, citing Mai. 3:23-24 with Isa 49:6, is attributing to a coming Elijah who will inaugurate a time to restore Israel, the coming of the messianic age. In 36:20-21, Ben Sira pleads to God: “Give evidence of your deeds of old; fulfil the prophecies spoken in your name. you, and let your prophets be proved ti*ue.” Reward those who have hoped in This shows that the author is concerned with the fulfilment of the oracles of the prophets (notably Second and Third Isaiah). As Nickelsburg (1994:720) rightly remarks, he operates “with a teleology that anticipates a time when the prophetic oracles will reach their goal or fulfillment.” This is not to say that Ben Sira has a full-blown eschatology as found in apocalypses. What we have is a beginning of confluence of both wisdom and apocalyptic traditions as found in the Wisdom of Solomon. ' See also Johnson 1989:74-79. There is no need to squeeze prophecy into wisdom as Obermüller (1972:234-35) tliinks our author did. ^ Mack (1985:200) in agreement with Middendorp regards 36:1-17 as a later addition to the book; also MacKenzie 1983:137. Yet, Skehan and DiLella (1987:415-16, 420-22) seems to accept their authenticity without hesitation. 59 Much more significant are the Qumran wisdom texts in the understanding of such phenomena. One of the ten reasons that Harrington (1997A;250) finds important in the study of those texts is the linking of wisdom to creation and eschatology. 4Q185 begins with the impending judgement by the angels, a feature that is supposed to be found only in apocalyptic writings (also Verseput 1998:69697). 4Q184 line 7 tells the fate of the wicked woman and those seduced by her: “In the midst of eternal fire is her inheritance, and those who shine do not enter.” “Those who shine” seems to correspond to those righteous who would enjoy immortality in Dan. 12:3, while the eternal fire is for the wicked. If this is the case, then we have here the theme of eternal rewards for those who follow Lady Wisdom and eternal destruction for those who follow Wicked Woman (Harrington 1996B:33; Collins 1997B:271). The best preserved parts of the fragment I of 4Q416 is concerned with reward and punishment at the judgement: “He [God] passes judgement in the heavens upon eveiy evil deed and takes pleasure in all the sons of truth ... their end, and all those who wallow in it will tremble and shout, for the heavens... the waters and the abysses will tremble and all the spirits of flesh will strip naked, and the sons of the heavens... his judgement, and all injustice will end at one go and the time of truth will be complete...” (10-13; cf. 1Q27 1 1.1-12). Harrington remarks that this fragment has an extensive margin on the right-hand side which seems to designate the beginning of the work. framework of what follows. It thus provides the theological If this is indeed the case, the sage may have provided the eschatological framework for the entire Sapiential Work A in which other instructions on various issues are to be interpreted (Harrington 1996B:41; Collins 60 1997B:274). In 4Q418 69, the foolish are told: [For Sheo]l you were formed, and you will return to eternal destruction....”(/.6) and “All the crazy at heart will be annihilated and the sons of iniquity will be found no more, and all those who strengthen evil will be dried up” (/. 8). In line 7, in contrast to the fate of the foolish: “Those who seek the truth will rise for the judgement.” Their inheritance is life eternal (/. 12). Like 1 Enoch and other sectarian writings, human history is divided into periods, “the periods of eternity” (4Q416 1 14; 4Q417 2 1.7). There will be a time when “the period of tiuth” will be completed with God’s judgement and the wiping away of all injustice (4Q416 1 13). Another apocalyptic element in these Qumran wisdom texts is the reference to “the mystery that is to be/come” n ). ' The phrase occurs more than twenty times in Sapiential Work A, and also occurs in the Book of Mysteries and in the Community Rule (IQS 11.3-4). of study. This mystery is repeatedly mentioned as the object In 4Q416 2 3.14-15, the study of “mystery that is to be/come” will reveal truth and evil: “Investigate the mystery of existence (rr^n: n ), consider all the paths of truth and examine all the roots of evil. and what is sweet for a man.” Then you know what is bitter for man Similarly, in 4Q417 2 1.6-8, in the meditation and study on the mystery: “you shall Icnow truth and injustice, wisdom [...] ... [...] in all his paths with his visitations through all the eternal periods, and the eternal visitation.” It is what the parents have instructed their children (4Q416 2 3.18). Poverty is no excuse for not studying it (iii. 12-13). In 4Q417 11.10-12, the mystery ' The word is a word o f Persian derivation which appears in the Aramaic part o f Daniel (4:6; cf. 2:18, 19, 27, 30, 47). mna is niphal perfect o f rpn. 61 is related to eschatological salvation and judgement: “[Consider the mystery of] existence and take the offspring of salvation and know who will inherit glory and injustice. Is not [...] and for his sorrows he will have eternal happiness.” It is related to “the entrance of the years and the departure of the periods” (4Q416 123 2.2-3). Whatever this reference means exactly in reality, it seems to be a body of teaching distinct from the Torah but related to behaviour and eschatology (Harrington 1996:49).' The Book of Mysteries (1Q27 1 1.1-12; 4Q299 1.1-4; 4Q300 3.16), which is also a kind of wisdom instruction (Harrington 1996B:70-73; Collins 1997B:276), relates the “mystery that is to be/come” (occurs twice; 1Q27 1.3; 1.4) to the knowledge of good and evil, the wisdom that led humans to righteous behaviour and to end time events (4Q300 3 1-4). Despite the fact that God has granted this wisdom, humans had failed to heed it. The result of the final divine visitation is expressed in sapiential tenns: “knowledge will pervade the world, and there will never be folly there” (1Q27 1 1.7). The foolish ones together with the wicked will also be destroyed (4Q418 69 6-8). Then in apocalyptic terms, it is described as the time when “those bom of sin are locked up, evil will disappear in front of justice as darloiess disappears in front of light. will evil disappear for ever. As smoke disappears, and no longer exists, so And justice will be revealed like a sun which regulates the world” (1Q27 1 1.5-6). ' HaiTington (1994B;150-51; 1996A;552) also suggests several possible candidates; it may be something like the “Instruction on the Two Spirits” (IQS 3.13-4.26). It may be the “Book of Meditation” (see 1 Qsa 1.6-8) or it may be the “Book of Mysteries” (1Q27, 4Q299-301). Collins (1997B.273-74) notices that it encompasses “the entire divine plan, from creation to eschatological judgment.” 62 The eschatological perspectives in 4QSap A and the Book of Mysteries distinguish themselves significantly from the older wisdom teaching of Ben Sira and Qoheleth. This eschatological perspective may be attributed to the influence of the apocalyptic revelations of Enoch and Daniel (Collins 1997B:278). I fully agree with Schiffmann’s conclusion in his study of these wisdom texts (1995:210):' The Mysteries texts and the Sapiential Works open to us a new genre of wisdom literature. In that literature, hidden secrets, unlocked by way of a proper understanding of the past, spell out the future, but such secrets are available only to a select group endowed with an ability to interpret the signs. Unlike biblical wisdom literature, the hallmark of which was commonsense advice, these texts proffer wisdom of a deeply religious character. What we have here is a wedding of wisdom and prophecy—not only a new literary genre, but further testimony to the religious creativity of Second Temple Judaism. I thereby conclude that, in the second temple period, the presence of eschatological elements in wisdom instructions is well attested. The various and diverse aspects o f James are not difficulties in identifying it as a wisdom instmction.^ ' Of similar opinion, but explaining the phenomenon from the development o f the Qumran community, see esp. Lange 1995B;354. His article is a brief summary o f his dissertation, Lange 1995A. ^ This would throw into question the legacy left by Robinson (1971) who argues that the formative layer o f Q is a sapiential collection of Jesus’ sayings (Xoyoi oocjiwv) with an apocalyptic collection added on later. In view o f the presence o f both sapiential and apocalyptic elements in the Qumran wisdom texts, it is right to question with Harrington (1996B:91): “Why should we search for parallels and analogies far removed in time and place when we have some impressive evidence for Jewish wisdom movements in late Second Temple times?” 63 D. Conclusion and Further Observations The presence of wisdom related vocabularies, wisdom related literary forms and wisdom themes alone is insufficient to classify James as a wisdom instruction. In identifying the genre of a document, one has to compare it with the generic characteristics of the genre to which it may belong. The study above has shown that James shows formal features of both hellenistic paraenesis and Jewish wisdom instruction. The decisive factor in identifying James as wisdom instruction, however, lies in its subject matter. Its subject matter shows considerable indebtedness to a number of wisdom related themes and ideas. Moreover, the presence of eschatology in James is no objection to identifying it as such since both eschatological and wisdom elements are found to be present in the recently discovered Qumran wisdom texts such as 4QSap A. Not unlike the author of Ben Sira, in adopting the genre of wisdom instruction, our author as a sage is not just an accumulator of traditional wisdom sayings. He integrates the different traditions — the Jewish wisdom traditions, law and prophets and the Jesus tradition — in offering new insights to his audiences. As we will see later, Leviticus 19, a kind of summary of the Torah, is central to the understanding of James as a whole, as also found in Pseudo-Phocylides. Though James uses legal materials, our author writes in the spirit of wisdom literature, not in the terms of legal text. Genre and its Social Setting Perdue (19813:247-51; also 1981A)^ in his generic analysis of James, argues that the social setting of James is a liminal one, which occurs in a time of transgenerational change. The author is either separated from the readers or is about to leave them because of his old age and approaching death. Later, under the influence of A. J. Malherbe, Perdue (1990B: 19-26) refines his position in view of a 64 wide variety of social contexts in which paraenesis was issued. It can be used for the purpose of conversion, confirmation, socialization or legitimation. Perdue (1990B;26) regards James as a paraenetic text in a “conflict” situation in which the author effectively urges his readers to withdraw within their own Gemeinschafi and protect the inner group from the cultural values of the outside world {Gesellschafi)} Johnson (1995B:195-96), in agreement with Perdue, notices that such description of James as a subversive paraenesis fits in well with the work’s emphasis on community ethos rather than individual behaviour, on solidarity rather than competition. Moreover, the use of egalitarian language rather than generational kinship language, the absence of sexual ethics or household relationships, the kind of topics that seek to sustain an existing social order, all point to James as emerging from and addressing real huiuan beings in specific social settings. James can then be regarded as a “counter cultural” wisdom instruction containing various aphorisms, aiming “to challenge and perhaps even undermine the hearers’ world-view in which they find meaning and continuity for living... [and] to reorient their hearers to a new and different meaning system” (Perdue 1986:28-29; cf. Williams 1981:47-63; Scott 1990:407-15; Witherington 1994:157-83 in the case of Jesus). Vox James, this “new and different system” is one that is grounded on the faith of Jesus Christ the Lord of glory (2:1) and the teaching of Jesus. The authority of Jesus’ teaching is not found in its verbal repetition, but in the applying of it in a new situation. James is offering not just a collection of maxims derived from traditional materials, but providing personal innovative insight by offering new solutions to old problems (cf. ' For proverb performance in a conflict situation, see esp. Fontaine 1982:154-55. 65 Crossan 1983:4, 20; Perdue 1986:28-29 n.42), generating new aphorisms, or clusters of aphorisms (cf. Kelber 1985:24).' These aphorisms provoke reflection, discussion, interpretation and application. Jas 5:19-20 shows that our author sees his instructions as corrective, bringing people back to the course of perfection. In this work, our author is not just alluding to the sayings of Jesus, but, after the manner of a wisdom sage, re-expressing creatively the insight he has learned from the teaching of Jesus (Baucldiam [forthcoming]) and creating some aphorisms of his own. As I will show later in the study (Part 5A) of the expression “diaspora of the twelve tribes” (1:1) as the addressee of James, this work is a circular epistle written after the manner of wisdom instruction to all members of the messianically renewed people of God living in the diaspora. Thus unlike the majority of the Pauline epistles, it is not addressed to a specific Christian community in its specific situation. The situations portrayed in the epistle are general and typical, rather than specific and local. It would be precarious to speculate on the polemical situation based on mirror reading of the text. Those who regard James as a pseudonymous work, dating from 80 C.E. or later would, for example, tend to see Jas 2:18-22 as polemics against Paul or some form of Paulinism. However, the similarities in wording with Pauline writings (Rom. 4:2-3; Gal. 2:16) can be accounted for by their common dependence on the Jewish exegetical traditions on Abraham, rather than James" writing in response to the slogans of Paul. The use of diatribe in the passage points ' Gerhardsson (1998) has overstated his case in arguing that exact memorization and authoritative tradition necessitates the fixed transmission o f the sayings of Jesus. Rabbinic writings are full of multiple attestations o f the same traditions. See esp. Alexander 1991:181 -82. 66 to his intention as pedagogical and hortatory rather than polemical. The imaginary interlocutor is not a real opponent against whom the author polemicizes, but “represents a synthesis of possible objections voiced by students whom he is trying to teach” (Watson 1993A:121). Johnson also shows similar concerns in his exposition on the topos on envy in Jas 3:13-4:6. In answer to the question whether James is responding to zealot activity, either present (Reicke 1964:46; Townsend 1975) or past (Martin 1988:lxiv-lxv, 143-45), he remarks that “if the question posed is part of James’ argument that is using the Hellenistic topos on envy, then it should be seen as one of the standard features of that topos, based less on the supposed activities of his readers than the logic of the argument.” It means that the “ancient debate form” found in 1:13-15, ' the diatribe in 2:18-22 and the topos in 3:13-4:6 are not addressing some real opponents but imaginary objections that fit in the standard features of those literary forms. Such understanding seriously undermined reading James as opposing Paul or some form of Paulinism. If our author was not writing in any way in response to Paul, it may further suggest that James was composed in earlier dates even before the rise of the controversy out of Paul’s gentile mission. The fictional apocryphal letters such as the Epistle of Jeremiah (late fourth century B.C.E.), Apocalypse of Baruch (late first century C.E.) and Paraleipomena Jeremiae (6:17-23) all inspired by the letter from the prophet Jeremiah to the exiles in Babylon (Jer. 29) may reflect a similar genre of genuine letters (cf. Niebuhr 1998; Verseput 1998:702; Bauckham [forthcoming]). James, as representative leader of the mother church in Jerusalem, writes “in the well-established Jewish tradition of letters from For the ancient debate fonn, see Crenshaw 1983 ; 135; 1981A;170-72. 67 the authorities at the centre of the Jewish world, Jemsalem, to the communities in the diaspora” (Baucldiam 1997:154).' ' Here I do not intend to give sustained arguments on the assumption that James, the brother o f the Lord, is the author o f the epistle. However, it should be noted that there is no serious objections that the letter was written by him, who alone would be recognized by the mere mention of his name in the prescript. The use o f good hellenistic Greek can no longer be held as objection to it being written by a Galilean. See esp. Sevenster 1968:96-175, 190-91; Porter 1994:128-47; Freyne 1998:139-145; cf. Meyers and Strange 1981:62-91. James’ similarities with Hennas can be seen as both depending on some early Christian paraeneses (as in the case o f 1 Peter), not James dependent on Hermas. The late acceptance of James into the canon may be due to its apparent contradiction with the teacliing of Paul on the relationship o f faith and works (Tasker 1946:125). 68 PART TWO Compositional Analysis off James Under the influence of Dibelius and Greeven, many scholars regard James as loose in structure. Yet the lack of cohesion is not a characteristic of paraenesis. The identification of a particular literary work as paraenesis does not rule out a priori that it has a definite structure or exhibits coherence (see esp. Johnson 1983:329 n.9; Vemer 1983:118-119). Perhaps behind such “structural agnosticism” is the impression that the book’s complexity resists any discermnent of an overall recognizable structure. 69 Both Meyer and Beck argue that James derives its outline from another document. For Meyer (1930), it is Test XII Pati\\ for Beck (1973), it is the Community Rule (IQS & IQSa). Since we have already seen the wealcnesses of Meyer’s hypothesis, here I concentrate on that of Beck. Beck (1973:41-230) proposes the following parallels between James and the Community Rule: Jas 1:218/lQS 1.16-4.26 (Two Rationales for Membership within the Community); Jas 19a27/lQS 5.1- 4 (General Rule for the Membership); Jas 2:1-13/1QS 5.7-24 (Criteria for the Admission of Members); Jas 2:14-26/1QS 8.1-4 (Faith and Works Issue within the Commimity); Jas 3:1-12/1QS 9.12-10.8 (The Role of the Teacher within the Community); Jas 3:13-5:6/lQS 10.9-11.7; and Jas 5:7-20/lQSa 1.1-2.22 (Instructions for the Endtime). He also finds that there is a sequential parallel between the first line of every major section in the Rule (except the second section) and the initial verses of the major units of the Epistle. He concludes that James must have derived its outline from that of the Rule (pp. 232-33). alleged parallels, I find Beck’s analysis unconvincing. Despite the On the first three major units (1:2-2:13), it can hardly be argued that James is concerned with the need and admission of membership within his community, while the concern for right behaviour within his community is the general consideration of the entire work. James has no concern for the “entering in” of the covenant, but the “staying in” the 70 community. According to Beck, the first part of chapter two deals with “entering in” and the other half with “staying in.” chapter. This disrupts the unity of the whole Some of the alleged parallels such as Jas 3:13-4:10 with IQS 10.9-18 can be seen as depending on similar lines of argument rather than literaiy dependence. Fry (1978) divides James into 18 sections thematically. His method is firstly to divide the entire work into paragraphs, then identify the main themes in each paragraph, and finally to examine if there is any recognizable pattern of where these main themes occur and from this to see if the stmcture of the book emerges. He regards the main theme of the whole book as the testing of faith and patient endurance in trials with the structure centering around that theme. This approach depends on the ability of the analysts to identify topical turns in the discourse. Fry’s delineation of James is nothing more than an overview of the work under the single theme of testing. There are other themes such as faith that can be equally justified to be used as the organizing theme. ^ The repetition of different themes in James is so common that it is very difficult to avoid being subjective in one’s choice of theme and thus forcing this theme into the organization of the work. ^ Vouga’s threefold categorization o f faith (1984:18-23);the testing, the obedience and the faithfiilness o f faith, with respect to the tliree major sections o f the work faces the same difficulties as mentioned here. He is closely followed by Martin (1988:cii-civ). For other variations of thematic approach, see Ropes 1916:4-5; Stagg 1969; Amphoux 1981; Johnson 1995A; Tollefson 1997. Wall (1997:esp. 35-37) regards the main body o f James (1:22-5:6) as a halalchic commentary on divine Wisdom as summarized in 1:19: “Be quick to hear” (1:22-2:26), “slow to speak” (3:1-18), and “slow to anger” (4:1-5:6). His analysis shows close affinity to Pfeiffer’s analysis (1850), who considers 1:19 as key to the structure o f James. This clear demarcation between these three different essays, however, brealcs the connection between the sections, e.g, 3:13-18 with 4: Iff. as I will argue later; see esp. Johnson 1983. 71 Cargal (1993) applies Greimasian structural semiotics in order to relate the purpose of James to its discursive structure. He argues that in unraveling the coherence of the work, instead of looking to discursive syntax, that is, the logical connection between the units, one should primarily look to its discursive semantics, that is, the progression of the thematisation and figurativisation used to express meaningful relationships. He (pp. 31-51) maintains that the key to uncover the purpose of the author is found in the parallels between the “inverted” and “posited nature” of the contents of the introduction (1:1) and conclusion (5:19-20). The inverted parallelism suggests the importance of the theme of restoration for the structure of James. The limits of the discursive units of the entire discourse can be identified by isolating the parallels between “inverted” and “posited” content. Watson (1995) in his review of CargaTs work rightly points out two methodological wealcnesses of his approach. Firstly, delineating the structure by isolating the parallel between inverted and posited content is too restrictive and often ends up in subjectively imposing connections in the text. Secondly, Cargal depends too much on mirror-reading of the text, ascribing opposition of actions to the stance of the author and figurativization as key to the understanding of the position of the readers. Moreover, Cargal’s (1993:58) reading requires that 1:2-4 be taken as a stance that the author is written to correct, which is impossible to sustain in the light of the entire work. Wuellner (1978), the forerunner in applying rhetorical analyses to the NT texts, applies such technique in delineating the organization of James. According to him, the first part of James consists of an epistolary prescript (1:1), exordium (1:2-4), 72 narratio (1:5-11), and propositio (1:12). The argumentatio of the letter (1:13-5:6) consists of six sections (1:13-27; 2:1-13; 2:14-26; 3:1-18; 4:1-12; 4:13-5:6) of approximately equal length, bound together by their material as well as rhetorical effect upon the recipients. Following his lead, Elliott (1993) modifies Wuellner’s argumentatio into seven sections with negative indictments and positive recommendations. Baasland (1982:122-23; 1988:3655-59) presents a rhetorical structure of two main divisions based on two important themes: 1:19-3:12 as confirmatio and 3:13-5:6 as confutatio. Central to the first section is the positive reminders of loving one’s neighbour while in the second section the antagonistic theme stands dominant. Connecting the two is the concept of the law. ^ Though rhetorical criticism is gaining popularity nowadays, it still remains doubtful how far the assigning of general designations such as exordium, narratio, argumentatio to large sections of the book is helpM in imderstanding the literary dynamics and structure of the text. Recently some scholars also call into question the application of rhetorical analysis to ancient epistles. Reed (1993:301), for example, queries the use of rhetorical features such as inventio because some of them are such a general phenomenon of argumentation, literature and language in general, that they can hardly be said to be unique to the classical handbooks of rhetoric. Functional similarities between the argumentative pattern of the NT letter writers and the rhetorical handbooks are no proofs that there is a formal relationship between them (pp. 229-324). James as a wisdom paraenesis, though it contains a * Along similar lines, see, e.g., Frankemolle 1990:161-97; 1994:1.152-80; Thurén 1995:208-82; Klein 1995:39-42. 73 wide range of rhetorical features, can hardly be forced into the mode of a single classical speech. Hence the structure of James should not be made nor meant to fit into such kinds of composition. 74 Chapter Two Search of the Compositional Structure of James A. Methodological Considerations Nida and Taber (1969:131) notice that in relation to discourse as a whole, there are two universals of discourse: “(1) the various ways, often fonnulaic, of marking the beginning and end of the discourse and (2) the means of marking transitions between the major internal divisions of the whole discourse.” The genre of the work would inform us about the characteristic features associated with the beginning, the end and the transitions between sections within the discourse. In the case of James, we should pay special attention to it being a wisdom paraenesis together with the literary forms associated with it. In delimiting the sections, subsections and subunits within the entire work, we should examine the literary criteria:^ the introductions, conclusions, inclusions, characteristic vocabularies (lexical and semantic cohesion), transitions (hinges),^ and change in the manner of expression (change in literary fonn and pronominal reference). devices should also be talcen into consideration. Other literaiy These include the use of hook- ^For the use o f similar methods in delineating the structure o f biblical literature, see, e.g., Vanhoye 1976; Mlakuzliyil 1987; Guthrie 1994. ^ Paranak (1983) discusses the use o f keywords, links and hinges in the Bible as indications o f transitions in biblical discourses. These transitional techniques are concerned with surface patterns in terms o f repetition or similarity that join successive textual units together. Also Parunak 1981; Mlakuzhyil 1987:103-106; Guthrie 1994:94-111. 75 words or catch-words, chiasmus,^ and parallelisms. Syntactical analysis will be helpful not only in understanding the relationship between statements, but also between sections and units. Content or thematic analysis is essential in uncovering the organization of the text. All this is based on the assumption that "a close link exists between the way a text is structured and its meaning” (Snyman 1991:89; also Green 1995:176). This method is sometimes called discourse analysis.^ The textual coherence has to be considered in terms of both form and content (Frankemolle 1990:164; cf. 1994:1.71ff, 135ff, 153ff). Though here I prefer the formal-semantical-syntactical-thematic to the rhetorical delimitation, the rhetorical perspective does help us to see how different parts of the letter function to serve the purpose of the author. ’ CMasmus is a literary technique widely used in antiquity. For its use in the NT, see especially the classical work Lund 1992 repr. Also Stock (1984) for the history o f the use o f chiasmus in the Greek and Roman world. ^ Snyman (1991:84) finds it very difficult to give a definition for discourse analysis because o f the multiple reasons discourse is being studied by linguists and scholars fi“om other disciplines. Here we will only consider a discourse on the text-linguistic level. Brown and Yule (1991:125-52) point out that in the production o f a discourse, there is the so-called “linearisation problem”: the author can only produce one word at a time. Choosing a certain starting point as well as a particular sequence will affect the readers’ interpretation o f what follows in the discourse by this initial context and the following sequence. In order to overcome that, the production of a text or discourse usually involves a process o f “thematisation.” Thematisation can be explained by way o f the more general concept o f “staging.” They explain this concept by citing from J. E. Grimes’ work {The Thread o f Discourse [The Hague: Mouton, 1975], 323): “Every clause, sentence, paragraph, episode, and discourse is organised around a particular element that is taken as its point o f departure. It is as though the speaker presents what he wants to say from a particular perspective.” It does not mean that there can only be one theme in a particular text. Nevertheless, it does imply that the different elements in a text would exhibit a certain coherence. No wonder Cotterell and Turner (1989:230) describe discourse as “characterized by coherence, a coherence o f supra-sentential structure and a coherence of topic.” (italics original). Readers would read a text with the assumption that it has a certain structure or a theme behind the discourse when they treat it as a text. See the discussion in Brown and Yule 1991:190-99 on “What is ‘text’?” Cf. also Louw 1992:17-20 and other articles in the book; Snyman 1991; Reed 1997:205-12. 76 B. The Letter-form o /J a m es Scholars have long debated whether James can be regarded as a real letter/ Dibelius and Greeven (1976:2-3) reject outright that James is in any way a letter on account of its content. However, Bauckham (1988:471) has rightly pointed out that formally speaking, what makes a letter a letter is not so much its contents, but the presence of the parties formula in which the sender(s) and the recipient(s) are specified. Though a circular letter, James is nevertheless a real letter in that it was meant to be sent from a real author to real recipients, from James to the diaspora Jewish communities.^ “Letter” in the ancient world can be used as a framing genre for a wide variety of other genres pressed into its service.^ It is thus insufficient to simply identify as a Christian or apostolic diaspora letter (as Tsuji 1997:20-27; Niebuhr 1998). It is a paraenetic instruction fitted to the frame-components of the epistolary genre. C The Prescript, the Prologue and the Epilogue The standard hellenistic letter opening often consists of two basic elements: the prescript and the fonnulaic expression of concern for the well-being of the recipient(s) in the form of thanlcsgiving-healthgiving clauses. See particular the discussion o f this issue in Penner 1996:136-39. In James, the prayer Also Bauckham 1988. ^ Pace Laws (1980:6) who regards James as a “literary letter” but not a real letter due to its general applicability. ^ See Berger 1984:1338; Baucldiam 1988:473 and the discussion o f the nature o f paraenetic letters in Stowers 1986:94-97; 1992:1992:290-93. ^ This format came to be in common use from second centmy B.C.E. onward, see also Doty 77 of thanlcsgiving typical of Pauline letters is missing. Francis (1970), in his influential study on the structures of hellenistic-Jewish epistolary literature, demonstrates from the Jewish letters embedded in historical narratives found in 1 Macc. (10:25-45) and Josephus’ Antiquities (8.50-54) that both James and I John have a doubling of opening formulae which states and restates the themes of the letter (also Euseb. Praep, Ev. 9.33-34; Phlm. 4-7; 1 & 2 Thessalonians). He identifies the same pattern in the common letter tradition found in “secondary letters.” These secondary letters lack the situational immediacy of ordinary correspondence and are more literary in style (p. 111). Thus in James, following the greeting, the double letter-opening twice (1:2-11 jjoy] and 1:12-15 [blessing]) introduces the subject matter of the letter. ^ The second segment is not mere repetition, but recapitulates and develops further the themes of the first segment. The and paicapLoç sections of the letter-opening, Francis maintains (p. 115), correspond to the €u%apioTw and eù/toyilToc; sections found in Pauline letters, which also outline the major themes of the epistle. In the liturgical background of Pauline epistles, the e^XoyriTOQ-fbrmula functions the same way as the paicccpLCeivformula, though a definite preference for formula of thanlcsgiving rather than blessing is found within the tradition history of primitive Christianity (pp. 113-15). 1973:29-33; Stowers 1986:20; White 1986:195, 200; Aune 1987:184. ^ Francis’ study is endorsed by Davids 1982 with modifications. 1991:27-28; Penner 1996:144. 78 See esp. the critique by Hartin A major wealaiess in Francis’ analysis is that the aforementioned correspondences are purely fonnal and, strictly speaking, the exact form is not used in James. The exhortation to rejoice in James is different from the usual expression of the senders’ expression of joy on behalf of the recipients in the opening of hellenistic letters. Granted that the paicapLoç-formula finds correspondence with the GuÀoyfiTOQ-fbrmula in their liturgical histoiy, the beatitude in 1:12 is apparently different from the euXoYfitoQ-formula in the thanlcsgiving section of the Pauline epistles. The first readers can hardly be able to recognize the beatitude as a modification of a blessing of God formula. The Prescript The prescript functions like the greeting in a personal speech dialogue, not only providing information concerning the sender and the addressee (Koskenniemi 1956:156-58). James opens with the customary form of the inside address of a Greek letter: “A- (the sender) to B-(the recipient) %aLp6Lv” as also found in two embedded letters in Acts (15:23; 23:26).* He uses the single word salutation, a feature more in line with the common convention than that in the Pauline letters in which the salutation is christianized and shaped to the liturgical setting of early Christian worship (White 1984:1740, 1742). ^ Wliite (1984:1734) also notices that about two-thirds of the Greek papyrus letters have this opening formula. Such formula remained in use from the end o f the fourth centmy B.C.E. right to the fourth century C.E. See also Doty 1973:5, 29. For the use o f the formula in other Jewish texts written in Greek, see, e.g. 1 Esdr. 6:7-8; 1 Macc. 10:18, 25; 13:36; 14:20; 2 Macc. 1:1; 11:16, 34; Ep. Arist. 35, 41; Josephus, Life, 217; 229; 365-66. 79 The Prologue The opening section has been variously delimited by scholars, the most notable ones being (i) 1:2-12 (Wuellner, Elliott, von Lips, Frankemolle, Penner; Konradt); (ii) 1:2-27 (Francis, Amphoux, Davids, Hartin, Bauckham); and (iii) 1:2-18 (Dibelius and Greeven, Baasland, Thurén, Edgar)/ Following Vouga, Martin’s proposal of 1:2-19a can be regarded as a variation of the last one listed above. Penner (1996:144-149), taking the lead from von Lips (1990:413-14), finds a discernible chiastic structure in 1:2-12: A: testing of the believer (1:2-4), B: two themes relating to the believer (1:5-1 l=Bi)— wisdom and reversal (1:9-11=B2), A : testing of the believer (1:12).^ Penner rejects the inclusion of 1:13-15 as part of the opening to the main body of the work because it disrupts the eschatological themes appearing in 1:9-12. He seems to be over zealous in ascribing eschatological significance to 1:6-8 (see 1996:201-03). If the destiny of the double-minded person in 1:6-8 is one who “will not endure until the end and consequently stands under judgement...” (p. 203), those described in 1:13-15 would, at least, be not less than that. It is true that unlike 1:5-11 which are connected by 6é, 1:13 lacks any coordinating or subordinating particle with 1:12. Yet it is also true that 1:12 has no connective with the preceding passage (also 1:13, 16, 17, 18). However, 1:12 is connected to 1:13 with the hook-word TTeLpcrtaiiéç/TreLpaCeLv and the tiial-temptation theme (Dibelius and Greeven 1976:71; Laws 1980:13). Davids (1978:386-92) also argues that the discussion on God as a source of temptation flows out of the maxim ^Baasland (1988) is the only one who suggests 1:2-15 as an exordium. ^ Burdick (1981:170) and Johnson (1995A:189) take 1:12 as concluding the section 1:2-11. 80 of 1:12. If we take 1:13-18 instead of 1:13-15 as the next sub-section, we would see that in 1:18, the eschatological motif reappears. If God is regarded as the one who promises life to those who love him, then 1:18 simply drives home what our author has set forth in 1:12. Most recently, Verseput (1998) has shown that 1:2-18 exhibit coherence with 1:13-18 linked with the preceding beatitude in 1:12 as confirmed by its parallel in 4Q185 1-2 ii.8-11. section. Thus 1:12-18 should be considered as a unified The most viable options remaining are (ii) and (iii). The key lies in the relationship between 1:2-18 with 1:19-27. The opening expression of the authorial concerns in a series of admonitions is linked together by the literary device of paronomasia or wordplay: %aLpeiv/%e£pccv. This literary device is also found in 1:4-5 :1:4 linlcs with 1:5 with l e urropev o L i r e r K i . The author has demonstrated his mastery of language just in the first four verses of his work. This includes the use of alliteratio (1:2: TreipccopoLg-irepnreofiTE- TTOLKLÀoLç), anacHflosis (iJTTopovri, 1:3-4), gradatio (1:3-4), antithesis (xeXeLoL icccl oXoicA-TipoL / leLTTopevoi 1:4) and paronomasia (xocLpeLv-xapav, 1:1-2). This use of catchword and alliteration is not uncommon in Proverbs. Despite the wealcnesses of Francis’ study, 1:2-11 do reflect a number of thematic parallels with 1:12-18. Semantically, 1:2-4 and 1:12-15 are linked together by the words TT6Lpocap.6e-iTeLpaCeLV, ôoicLpLoç-ôoicLpoç and i)Tropovf|-i)iTopéveiv and the theme of endurance in face of testing explicated in the two sub-sections. In 1:5, God is described as the one “who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly.” This is further developed in 1:17 that “every generous act of giving, with every 81 perfect gift, is from above (avcoGév), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” God is the God who gives (1:5/1:17). The wisdom for which one should ask is wisdom from above (f) avo)0ev ao(|)La, 3:17). This matches the word of truth (1:18: Xoyoç àA,r|0eLaç) which gives life to people. In contrast to those who receive wisdom from God through prayers of faith, the doubters cannot expect to receive anything from the Lord. described as indicates. Those ôtijmxoç” (1:8) are also sinners, as the parallel address in 4:8 Such description is not far from that of 1:13-15 where people are tempted to sin. In addition, in 1:5-8, those who have wisdom from God through faith are set in sharp contrast with “those who doubt”=“double-souled.” Such contrast also matches that of 1:13-18 where those who are tempted to sin by their evil desire resulting in death are set in contrast to those who receive life through the word of truth. The relationship of 1:9-11 to the preceding passage has always been enigmatic to commentators. There are four possible answers: (i) they are unrelated, 1:9-11 simply introduces a new subject (Laws 1980:62; Moo 1985:66); (ii) 1:9-11 is a reprise of the teaching in 1:2-4 as a special application of the teaching of rejoicing in trial (Ropes 1916:144; Hort 1909:14); (iii) it is a warning to those who are rich, that wealth is a test of true faith (Martin 1988:22, 23); estimate of life by the tried (Hiebert 1979:88). (iv) 1:9-11 tells the correct Viewpoint (i) seems to be an easy answer, yet does not explain why the author puts the passage there at all. (ii) has not explained how 1:9-11 is related to 1:5-8, yet is right in seeing that the passage has something to do with trial in life. It seems that in 1:5-8, the author speaks of 82 the need for wisdom in order to achieve the programme set out in 1:2-4 (thus view [iv]). Then the wisdom perspective that one needs is brought out in concrete life realities in 1:9-l 1. That is to say, how would those with wisdom through faith view things differently from those without. Instead of the rich being blessed, from a wisdom perspective, it is those who have life through endurance of testing (1:12) and who are born by the word of truth (1:18). The rich will be scorched in the sun’s heat, an imagery of their final judgement by God the Judge (cf. 5:1-6). humble who will receive grace (4:6) and be exalted (1:9; 4:10). It is the The great eschatological reversal can only be appreciated from the wisdom perspective! While in 1:9-11, the emphasis is on the judgement of the rich, 1:18 tells of the blessing of those belonging to God. Therefore, though it is possible to see 1:2-4 and 1:12 forming an incliisio for the unit(s) in between, in view of the above analysis, it is better to regard 1:12 as the beginning of another subsection parallel to 1:2-11. I conclude that 1:2-4 and 1:12 (a beatitude) stand at the beginning of two sub-sections and serve as parallel introductory principles. 1:11 is an aphorism probably alluding to Isa. 40:6-7 (LXX) or Ps. 103(102): 15, 16 or both (cf. Wis. 2:4; 5:9). In both the contexts of the Isaiah and Psalm passages, there is a contrast between the transitoriness of humanity and the permanence of God. In 1:17, it is precisely the permanence of God that is emphasized. In addition, if the parallel here is an allusion to Isa. 40:6-7 as in 1 Pet. 1:24, then 1:18 may probably be an allusion to Isa. 40:8 (cf. 1 Pet. 1:25a). * A contrast thus is set up between the rich ^The connection o f the present passage in James with the quotation of Isa. 40:6-8 in 1 Pet. 1:24-25a can also be seen in the light o f the use o f “implanted word” as the word o f truth in Jas 1:21 in close affinity with the “imperishable seed” as the word o f proclamation in 1 Pet 1:23. See Johnson 83 who will face the future judgement of destruction with those who are bom by the word of truth as the firstfruit of God’s new creation. The humble person can then be seen as the one who receives God’s word of tmth and lives in accordance with it. Thus 1:17-18 should be seen not as a repetition of 1:9-11 but a further development of the thought. It can be concluded that 1:5-11 is in many ways parallel with 1:13- 18 in content.* In my study on the theme of perfection later (Part 4 Chapter One), we will see that the entire section 1:2-18 contains themes that are traditionally associated with Shema^. Formally speaking, 1:2-11 can be divided into three sub-units: 1:2-4,1:5-8, and 1:9-11. 1:12-18 can also be divided into three sub-units: 1:12,^ 1:13-15,^ and 1:16- 18.^* The connection between 1:12 and 1:2-4 has been generally recognized by most 1995A:I91; Verseput 1998:705. ^ Connection can also be seen in 1:3-4 and 1:13-15, both of which involve a gradatio. There are also verbal links: t6A.€lov in 1:4 with àTOTeXeaOetaa in 1:15. ’Atrexijriaev in 1:18 is set in parallel with the dcïïoicueL in 1:15. Thus an implicit parallel is found with those who endure to the “foil effect” and those who are born through the word o f tmth. These parallels are so intermingled that it is also possible to regard the thematic parallels as between the two sections 1:2-11 and 1:12-18 without restricting the parallels to their respective sub-sections. ^ Syntactically, there is no connective that linlcs it with the above. Dibelius and Greeven (1976:88) characteristically regard 1:12 as an isolated saying unconnected to its context, yet they admit that it ties in with the subject o f trial and endurance found in 1:2-4. They seem to have contradicted themselves in seeing 1:12 in contrast to 1:13-15 (p. 71). For its connection with 1:13, see the note below. ^ 1:13-15 linlcs with 1:12 by means o f the catchword: TreLpaCop.evoç-'treLpaopoç. There is no syntactical link between them. Hort (1909:21) treating 1:5-11 as parenthetical, sees here the exposition o f the single theme o f trial, since the reward o f the crown o f life to one who endures testing (1:12) is set in sharp contrast to the outcome o f death, for one who is tempted to sin (1:15). Putting them together side by side seems to say that the experience of trial may be an occasion for reward, but it may also be the occasion o f failure. It is interesting to notice that the author changes from the noun form iT€Lpaap6ç (1:2, 12) to its verbal form (1:13-14, 4X). The noun form invariably carries a neutral sense as something one objectively meets in life, while the verb form is used in a negative sense of tempting to sin, sometliing which arises from within rather than from without. The way to triumph is the way o f faith-endurance. The way to failure is the way of being tempted. 1:16 should probably not be regarded as concluding the preceding section, as Windisch 1951:9. In this letter, the negative prohibition with the vocative address has never been used as concluding a section. We should rather regard it as introducing a new paragraph and tying the preceding section to what follows, as Dibelius and Greeven 1976:99; Laws 1980:72; Davids 1982:86. 84 scholars. While 1:5-11 emphasise the need of wisdom from God (through praying to a generous God in faith) in order for one to excel in testing as illustrated in the exaltation of the humble in contrast to the destiny of the rich, 1:13-18 emphasize the gift of life from God by means of truth in contrast to those who are tempted to sin which eventually results in death. The entire section of 1:2-18 is enclosed with a second person plural imperative in 1:2 (f|Yfioaa6e) and 1:16 (pi) ir^ocvaBe), with six third person singular imperatives in between (èxeico [1:4], ctixeLTca [1:5], aiTeitco [1:6], oLéo0a) [1:7], icauxao0o3 [1:9] and leYÉTw [1:13]). This distinguishes this section from 1:19-27 where the second person plural form is invariably used. Such change in person is significant for the delimitation of sections (Berger 1977:23; Guthrie 1994:52), Jas 1:19 begins with the perfect imperative “’Tate”.* The unusual introductory particle ôé in 1:19b cannot be in an adversative sense, since there is nothing in the previous context to stand in contrast to it {pace Cargal 1993:60). Dibelius and Greeven (1976:109, also Davids 1982:91) suggest that 1:19b is an older saying with 5é in its original context that the author took over. Though it is possible. * Some mss (K P F syi'. Byz.) read woxe (“therefore”), wliile the reading ïaxe (“know this”) is strongly supported by both Alexandrian and Western witnesses (k“B C (81) 1739 it^vg al). The change from the latter to the former can be explained as attempting to connect 1:19 with 1:18 in a smoother way (as Adamson 1976:78). Though the form iax€ may be indicative (if so, 1:19 would be the conclusion to the previous section), it is more appropriate to take it as imperative. In 4:4, the author uses the form oïôaxe for the perfect indicative. In addition, as Davids (1982:91) rightly points out, the vocative in James is generally associated with an imperative; only once does it introduce a declarative sentence. Most commentators favour this view. Martin (1988:41, 44; also Johnson 1995A:199), though he regards tote as imperative, argues that 1:19a functions to confirm what the readers already have been taught in 1:16-18. ^ The 1:20 connection with ppaôùç eLç ôpynv is obvious in dealing with the same issue o f anger. 1:21 begins with ô l o (“therefore”) which concludes this subsection; Davids 1982:93 and Balcer 1995:86. 85 Baker (1995:85) seems to offer a better explanation in seeing the use of ôé as the author’s style in preferring ôé to kkl. James. Baker points out that ôé is used 37 times in It is used in a continuative sense seven times, as an intensifier at least once. Moreover, the author substitutes the kkl from the quotation of Gen. 15:6 (LXX) in 2:23 with ôé indicating that it is part of this book’s stylistic feature. itself has no essential notion of antithesis or contrast. The particle ôé It can simply denote something new (Robertson 1934:1184; Dana and Mantey 1955:244). It is probably used in a transitional or continuative sense here (Amphoux 1982:93-96). The threefold admonition is probably a proverbial saying of Jewish provenance, though the idea itself is universal. This proverb stands at the beginning introducing the subject matter to the section 1:19-27. The last part of the three-fold admonition (triple-stitch aphorism) ppaôhç eiç opyqv is expanded in 1:20-21 on the theme of anger.* This theme of anger may be related to the intracommunal strife the author addresses in 4:1-10. Dibelius and Greeven (1976:112) are probably right in seeing 1:21 as representing a transition to the theme of hearing and doing. So while syntactically, 1:21 is connected closely with 1:20, thematically it is linlced both to 1:20 and 1:22-25. 1:22-25 develops the theme of hearing-obedience in the first part of the three-fold admonition in 1:19, Tccxîjç eiç to aKonoaL, an issue further elaborated in detail in 2:1-26. 1:26 develops the theme of speech in the second part, ppccôùç €iç TO ÀccA-fjoaL, further elaborated later in 3:1-12. Instead of regarding that the worldng of God’s righteousness, acting in accordance with God’s word and being religious as the three main concerns of the entire work, they actually refer to the singular concern of perfection, a point to which I will return later. 86 In line with the style of the wisdom paraenesis, the last two verses, 1:26-27, are the concluding smmnary of the entire section. Verse 27 can also be regarded as a transitional statement pointing forward to the argument of 2:1-26 (see, e.g., Chaine, 1927:39; Davids 1982:100-01; Vouga, 1984:70; Johnson 1995A:218,236). It has been rightly recognized by Martin (1988:ciii, 47-48; cf. Motyer 1985:7275) that 1:19-27 hold an overture to the themes which recur throughout the letter. * A number of rhetorical critics have identified 1:19-27 as the propositio of the work (Thm'én 1995:272; Klein 1995:41). As we will see later, 1:2-18 centres on themes associated with Shema^ , while 1:19-27 centres on the obedience of Torah (focused on the commandment to love one’s neighbour, 2:8). theme of perfection. They are both related to the Thus I call the entire section the “programme of perfection” with the author stating his overarching concern right at the beginning of the work. The two sections that centre on the “double commandments” stand at the beginning as a prologue in providing an interpretative framework for the entire work, a style in line with wisdom paraenesis.^ Klein (1995:38-41, 43-44) approacliing it firom a rhetorical perspective also divides 1:2-27 into the same two sections that function as a double propositio. ^ ^ Gladder (1904) regards 1:19-27 as comprising the focal point of Janies. Adamson (1989:98) remarks that 1:19-21 is “the kernel o f the entire code o f Christian conduct; then from 1:22 to the end o f ch. 3 we have a continuous and coherent unity o f argument, expounding the meaning of the requirement summarized in 1:19-21.” He fiirther argues that the entire book is an expansion of 1:2-18 on the Christian mind and 1:19-27 on Christian conduct (pp. 92-99). Wliile he is right in seeing 1:2-27 as outlining most o f the themes in the book, his understanding o f the role o f the two sections is inaccurate. ^ InDid. 1-2, the double commandments also stand at the beginning of a series of injunctions. ^ Johnson (1985:178-79 n.l2; 1995A: 14-15) regards the fonction o f the opening chapter as a sort o f “table o f contents” o f the book. Also Townsend 1994:33; Edgar 1995:64, 67-68. 87 The Epilogue The closing admonition is marked off by an eschatological injunction (5:7-11). The word oTTopovri that appears 1:3 is mentioned again in 5:11. 5:9-11 actually belongs to the section 4:11-5:11. I would argue that The justifications will be set out in detail in the discussion of the structm e of the main body of the work. The epilogue begins with 5:12 introduced by irpo -iTKVtcoF, and the vocative address &ôEi^0 L pen with negative prohibition (see, e.g., Edgar 1995:55; Klein 1995:39, 41).* The latter is a usual technique the author employed in marking major divisions in the main body (cf. 2:1; 3:1; 4:11). 5:12 is a reminder, an eschatological injunction, of what the readers should do in order to avoid the future judgement (icpLoiq). In the epilogue, our author draws attention to an important and earlier matter in the body (especially requests and commands) and thus urges the recipients forcefully to pay attention to that matter. Responsibility phrases in terms of imperatives (5:12, 13, 14, 16) and motive clauses (5:15-16, 19-20), and conditional clauses (the phrase Tlç ev ôpîv occuis tluee times: 5:13, 14, 19) which are prevalent in the main body are also found throughout the ending of the work. The focus of 5:12-18 is on the theme of perfection with different circumstances having appropriate matching responses (Tamez 1992:69). The epilogue begins appropriately with an apparent allusion to a saying of Jesus (cf. Mt. 5:33-37; 12:37), perhaps deliberately so in highlighting the authority of his teaching, accentuating the importance of integrity (perfection) in speech by refusing to take an oath in everyday ^ Pace Dibelius and Greeven (1976:248) who regard tliis verse as having no relationship with its context and hence, are unwilling to give the phrase irpo TrdvTwv any significance. 88 discourse (5:12). The emphasis in 5:13-18 is on the presence of the power of Christ in the communal prayer of the faithful righteous, both in healing and forgiveness of sins, for their perfection. 5:19-20, an allusion to Prov. 10:12, not only serve as the conclusion to the entire work but also restate its purpose (Davids 1982:198; Thurén 1995:276; cf. Johnson 1995A:15, 345). As we have already seen, one of the characteristic feature of wisdom paraenesis is that the prologue and the epilogue act as an interpretative framework for the entire work. The issue on faith in 1:3 (ïïlotlç; 1:6-8) is elaborated mainly in chapter two (2:1, 14-26). in 1:27 (2:2-8, 14-16). This is intertwined with the concern for the poor set out The concern for proper speech found in 1:26 is further developed mainly in 3:1-12 (also 4:11; 5:9). The avoidance of worldliness in the pursuit of piety stated in 1:27 finds expression in 4:1-5:6 where also the worldly attitude of arrogance is criticized. There are two lands of boasting, one approved (icauxao6ocL;l:9; cf. 2:13 KücmicauxâoGccL) and the other rejected (Kaaxaaôai 4:16; cf. 3:14 KamKKUxocoÔaL). This also finds its coiTespondence in 1:9-11 (TOTreLvoç, WTTELvwoLQ, iJijioç) whcrc the destiny of the humble and the exalted are contrasted (cp. 4:10; T&ireivouv, hij/oOv). The theme of endurance in testing in 1:3-4, 12 (ùnopovu, i)7TO|iév6Lv) finds its echo in 5:7-11 (pwpoGijpLa, pocKpoGnpELv; Wopovfi, WopEVEiv). Particularly significant is the need to attend both in deed (woLUTu;; 1:22, 23, 15 with 4:11) and in word to the law of liberty (1:25; 2:12). The obedience of which would lead to blessedness (1:25; cf. 5:11) and salvation (owCeiv,l:21; cf. 2:14; 4:12). call to obedience to God’s law is repeated in 2:9-13 and 4:11-12. This Associated with the concept of the law is the need of wisdom from God to deal with daily testings 89 (1:5). In 3:13-18, wisdom from above is contrasted with worldly wisdom which actualizes itself in human community as worldliness. This is associated with the traditional wisdom teaching on speech (1:26 with 3:2, 5-9; ylwooK [èv loyw]). On the other hand, those who fail will be under the judgement (icpi-cognate verbs:2:12; 4:11; 5:9; cf. 4:12; icpCotç 2:13; 5:12) of God the Judge of all (4:12; 5:9; cf. 2:4; 4:1). Other themes mentioned in the opening sections and repeated in the main body include prayer (ocLtELTeLv; 1:6 with 4:2-3), and perfection (r&ELoq; 1:4, 17, 25 with 2:8; 3:2). Verbal re-occurrences include ôli]juxoÇ(1:8 with 4:8); dicocmomTOQ (1:8 with 3:8; cp. 3:16 aicataamaia); “ETTfiyyELlorco tolç ayarrwaLv aurov” (1:12 with2:5; cf. 2:13 (j)LA,oç 0€oD); paicdpL- (1:12, 25 with 5:11); àpccpTCa (1:15 with 2:9; 4:17); &lï]0EiK (1:16 with 3:14); ôticai- (1:20 with 2:21, 22; 3:18; 5:6); ïïpaiJtr|ç (1:21 with 3:13); and icoopog (1:27 with 4:4).* The epilogue of James reiterates some of the topics found in the main body. 5:19-20, as we have noticed above, restates the purpose of the letter. The concern for the welfare of the community comes to the fore with the repetition of the phrase ev i)ptv (3X; 5:13, 14, 19) and &XlqA,wv (2X; 5:16) which is also found in 3:1 and 4:1 (ev i)[itv), 4:11 and 5:9 (&lli]lwv). This concern can already be found in 1:5 (tiç npwv), though not as explicit as it unfolds later. The topics of judgement (5:12) and salvation (5:20 [acoCetv]; cf. 5:15) found respectively at the beginning and end of the section are some of the major concerns of the entire letter. Particularly significant is the word “righteousness,” (ôiicai-; 5:16) and the phrase “salvation of souls” * See the impressive table composed by Frankemolle 1990; 1994:175-80; cf. von Lips 1990:414-24, esp. the table on p. 415, though he restricts liis analysis to 1:2-12. 90 (ocoCeLv ai)To1j; 5:20) that appear in the prologue (owCeuv mç ij/nxàç hpcôv; 1:21) are repeated in the epilogue. Other themes include the concern for right speech (5:12), prayer (Trpoa6ij%ea0aL, SeqoLq; 5:13-18), faith (5:15), truth (5:19) and sin (5:16, 20). Connections with 1:2-17 alone are found in the use of the words rrlav- (5:19, 20 with 1:16) and ôôoç (5:20 with 1:8; in 2:25 the word is used in a literal sense), and the relationship between sin and death (1:15 with 5:19). Most rhetorical critics of James identified the fimction of 1:2-18 as the exordium and 5:7-20 as the peroration of this rhetorical piece of work.* Thurén (1990:76) well summarizes the function of the exordium in rhetoric speech as to effect a ‘meeting of minds’: it must wake the audience’s interest and arouse their sympathy and willingness to listen; in other words it must create the conditions in which communication and interaction are possible. It also prepares and attimes the audience for the central goals of the discourse. According to Wuellner (1991:136), the relations between the peroration and the exordium are based on the dual goal shared in both: (1) the stating at the beginning, and restating at the end, of the problem or subject, and (2) some emotional appeal which at the beginning is designed to establish the contact between author and audience, but which at the end is designed to consolidate the practical effects of the argumentation as ‘a function of the audience addressed,’ or as paving the way for action. Such emotional appeal, however, must match the nature of the problem which was introduced, then argued over, and is now recapitulated in the conclusion. ^ The close connection o f 1:2-18 (exordium) with 5:7-20 (most o f rhetorical critics identified this section as peroration) has been noticed by Baasland 1982:122; Frankemolle 1990:175-84; Thurén 1995:269. Thurén (1995:272) regards 1:1-4 as the exordium par excellence and takes 1:5-18 as specifying and exemplifying the exordium. 91 It is not necessary for the peroration to repeat all the major themes in the exordium. What is significant is the restating of the main issue to be dealt with. Themes related to perfection with an eschatological-soteriological perspective are found both in the prologue and epilogue of James. For the prologue, the importance of the word of truth in the founding of the renewed community of God’s people and the law is being highlighted, while for the epilogue, the focus is on the presence of the power of Christ and the importance for the community of walking in the truth. D. The Main Body As noticed by Davids (1982:168) and Johnson (1995A:292), it seems that our author is using the negative prohibition plus the vocative consti’uction to mark the beginning of new sections within the main body (2:1; 3:1; 4:11; cf. 5:12). This transitional technique could be easily discernable if the document was read orally to the audience. Here, I am concerned not only with major transitions but also transitions between smaller textual units. 2 :1-26 2:1-26 begins with the vocative “àô€A,t|)OL pon” and the negative prohibition “pq €V ïïpoaW'ITOXïlpilJLCCLÇéxETG TfiV TTLOTLVTOh KUpLOD f)pWV ’IllGOh XplOTGl) Tf\Q Ô6ÇT)ç” and ends with the aphorism “f| ttlgtiç xwpiq epywv veKpa éortv.” The word ïïlgtlç forms an inclusio for the whole section. It is possible to regard the theme of the entire section as “genuineness of faith” borne out in not showing impartiality and demonstrated in works (of mercy). If this is the case, 2:1 gives the topic of the issue 92 to be dealt with, a style informed by the literary character of wisdom paraenesis. This section has been recognized by most commentators as the most unified and coherent unit in James. On the other hand, minor transitions can be found within this section. 2 7-7, 8-73 2:1-7 reflects internal coherence in dealing with discrimination against the poor in the assembly. 2:7 probably forms an incliisio with 2:1 with the emphasis on the fact that the good name that they held in faith and invoked, that is, “the glorious Lord Jesus Christ,” is exactly that against which the rich blasphemed. The entire section 2:1-13 concludes with 2:12-13 (Laws 1980:116; Watson 1993A:107).* This reflects the style characteristic of wisdom paraenesis that concludes with an aphorism. 2:13 can be regarded as made up of two separate aphorisms: a “measure by measure” saying (v 13a) coupled with another held together by the catchwords icpLOLç and elgoq. 2:8 begins with the postpositive particle pevroi that coordinates with ôé in 2:9.^ ^Watson (1993A: 107) rightly points out that the use of the emphatic constmction oüxwç ... ouxcoç in 2:12 underscores the role o f 2:12-13 as a conclusion. Blackman 1957:86; Dibelius and Greeven 1976:147-48 and Mussner 1981:126 find that 2:13 does not follow naturally from the preceding verse and is best understood as an isolated saying. It is better to regard 2:13 as a proverbial saying (note the change from 2nd person in v. 12 to 3rd person in v. 13) added to back up (so the connective yap) the conclusion drawn in 2:12, and the emphasis on mercy is connected with the topic o f charity in 2:14-26; see Davids 1982:118; Deppe 1989:96. ^ Some commentators understand p.évxoi (an intensive form of gév) in “its original force o f a strong affirmation,” (Hort 1909:53) as “indeed” or “really,” giving emphasis to the verb winch follows. So, e.g, Cantinat 1973:131; Dibelius and Greeven 1976:141-42; Johnson 1995A:230. While others understand it as adversative (“on the contrary”, or translated in a concessive sense as “however”), so, e.g., Mussner 1981:123; Davids 1982:114; also Robertson 1934:1188; BDF §450(1). The adversative sense fits in well with the other 7 times it is used in the NT (Jn 4:27; 7:13; 12:42; 20:5; 21:14; 2 Tim. 2:19; Jude 8) and the 4 times it occurs in the LXX (Prov. 5:4; 16:25, 26; 33:12). Usually peuxoL is set 93 A strong contrast is thus set by means of the two et-clauses (first class conditional), underlining the royal law as the standard of judgement (Davids 1982:114; Jolinson 1995A:230). It is far from clear, however, how 2:8 is linlced with the above section structurally. After a series of four rhetorical questions from 2:5 to 2:7, there seems to be a turn in the author’s argument. unit within the sub-section 2:1-13. Thus, it is justified to regard 2:8-13 as a sub­ The word vojioç, while entirely absent in the sub-unit 2:1-7, is repeated throughout 2:8-13 more frequently than in any other section of James (5 times out of 10 in the entire work), giving coherence to this sub­ unit. Here in 2:8-13, the author is stating a general principle encapsulated in the quotation from Lev. 19:18, which also applies to other areas in life. Among commentators who regard 2:1-13 as a single section, some also discuss it in two sub­ units: 2:1-7 and 2:8-13 (Blackman 1957:76-89; Johnson 1995A:218-36). Thematically, 2:1-7 is tied to 2:8-13 with the common concern for “showing partiality,” with the lexical link of TTpooa)ïïoA,ii|Jii]fLcc in 2:1 and its verbal fonn 'iïpoacoTToÀ'npiîTeLTe in 2:9. Another verbal link can be found in 2:1-7 with the noun paoLl€ia (2:5) in connection with the adjective PccolIlkoç (2:8) in 2:8-13. The vocative dÔ6À(j)oC pou in 2:14 signals a new departure in the argument. 2:14-26 reflects an internal coherence, stylistically as particularly diatiibal, thematically on the relationship between faith and works and lexically on the in coordination with the Ôé in the next sentence, in this case with ôé in 2:9, rather than seeing it in connection with what precedes, pace Dibelius and Greeven 1976:141 ; Amphoux 1982:99. 94 repeated use of the words ttlotlç (11 out of 16 times in James) and epya (14 out of 15 times). Both the works of Nicol (1975) and Burge (1977) have demonstrated that the whole sub-section is a carefully lout unit. 2:26 forms an inclusio with 2:14^ as well as 2:1 on the topos of faith and reiterates the author’s thesis in 2:17 with a similitude (2:26a). 2:26 is an aphoristic saying (as/so correctives) which concludes the sub-section 2:14-26, a style again characteristic of wisdom paraenesis,^ 2:8-13 is related to 2:14-26 on three counts. Firstly, there is a concern for judgement (2:12-13) and salvation (2:14, 16), which for James are two sides of the same coin. The evidence can be found in 4:12 where God is described as the judge, the only one who has the power to save (salvation) and destroy (judgement). Secondly, the call for the recipients to exercise mercy (2:13) finds concrete illustration in providing for those in need (2:15-16). Thirdly, there are clear verbal links between the two passages: icaÀwç TroLeLte / icaXwç TToiaç in 2:9 and 2:19; and T€À6LTe in 2:8 with èTeÀ€i(o0îi in 2:22. together. 2:8-13 functions to tie 2:1-7 and 2:14-26 No transitions of any land, either syntactic, semantic or thematic, can be found between 2:1-26 and 3:1-4:10/12. 3:1-4:10(12) When two larger units are joined together, not directly, but by joining each to a transitional unit, this unit is called the hinge. Parunak (1983:540-41) defines the hinge as “a transitional unit of text, independent to some degree from the larger units ' Note that 2:14 also forms an inclusio with 2:16 with the rhetorical question “t l to (icjieXoq;". ^ 2:26 functions as a complexio or conclusio from a rhetorical perspective, see Watson 1993:116. 95 on either side, which has affinity with each of them and does not add significant infonnation to that presented by its neighbors.” The hinge belongs exclusively to neither of the adjacent units, but contains elements of both. It serves not only to join together the units of text on either side, or in Parunak’s words, “to unify its context,” it can also advance the argument by adding distinct material of its own in larger units of text (pp. 541-42).^ I would argue that 3:13-18 functions somewhat like a hinge to its preceding and subsequent passages. 3:1-12 Like 2:1, 3:1 begins with a vocative (àÔeA.(|)OL pou) and a prohibition (Mf)...YLveo0e). This marks the beginning of a new line of thought. In line with the style of wisdom paraenesis, 3:l-2a announces the topos to be considered (Davids 1982:136; Watson 1993B:52). Dibelius and Greeven (1976:182; also Laws 1980:144) argue that the introductory admonition in 3:l-2a deals with the specific case of “committing sins in speech” among teachers, while what follows is concerned with the general theme of the use of tongue. Both the studies of Johnson (1983) and Watson (1993B) on the flow of the argument prove convincingly that 3:112 is a coherent whole, not as Dibelius and Greeven (1976:182) contend, asserting that it consists of ideas which “bump against or even clash with one another.” This entire section is enclosed by the vocative àôelcjjGL pou occurring at the beginning (3:1) and at the end (3:10, 12) of the section. It is characterized by the use of a large See also Guthrie 1994:105-11. 96 number of metaphors/ proliferated with the repetition of words related to the physical body; acDpoc (3:2, 3, 6; 3X out of 5 in James); yXùoocL (3:5, 6, 8; 3X out of 4) and oTopa (3:3, 10), and also with words of speech:A,6Yoç (3:2); eî>A,oYoüpev/ei)XoYLa and KaTO'pwpeôa/KüiTapa (3:9,10), which give cohesion to the entire section. 3:13-18 3:13-18 is a completely unified section of its own. The ao(|)6ç in 3:17 forms an inclusio with the oo(|)ia, in 3:13 (also the pair of words Cfj^oç/èpL0€La in 3:14 and 3:16). 3:13a announces the topic to be dealt with in this section:wisdom manifested in one’s character. The unified subject is found in the contrasts between the wisdom from above and earthly wisdom. 3:18, though fitting in with the subject matter in 3:13-17, is probably originally an isolated saying (Dibelius and Greeven 1976:214-15; Blackman 1957:122; Mitton 1966:143), and here sums up the virtues of heavenly wisdom and concludes the section (Mussner 1981:174; Davids 1982:155; Martin 1988:126). The ultimate manifestation of wisdom in one’s life is found in one’s performing “just acts in a peaceful way.” To sum up a section with an aphorism is again a style in line with the literary character of wisdom paraenesis. Contrary to the opinion of Dibelius and Greeven (1976:208-09) that 3:13-18 is an entirely independent unit unrelated to the preceding section,^ this shorter section ^ 3:3: Bits into the mouth o f a horse; 3:4: A veiy small rudder that guides the sliip; 3:5b: a small fire sets a forest ablaze; 3:6: the tongue is fire; 3:7-8: taming o f animals; 3:11-12: spring brings forth water and fig tree brings forth finit. ^ Also Laws 1980:158-159; Wuellner 1978:51-52. Mussner (1981:169) and Davids (1982:149) regard the section as originally independent in the James tradition, then put together in this place by the redactor. See also Marconi 1988. 97 is closely related both to the preceding and following sections (Davids 1982:149; Martin 1988:125-27; Hartin 1991:29-32; Watson 1993B:52). 12 in four ways. It is connected to 3:1- Firstly, the rhetorical question at the beginning of 3:13 with the brief vice list of 3:15 indicates that there may be teachers claiming to be “wise and understanding,” a collocation of terms which is used of Israel’s judges (LXX Deut. 1:13-15). ALôàaicaA.oç in 3:1 stands in parallel to oo(j)6ç iccd eiTLOTqpwv in 3:13. Secondly, the image our author uses in 3:12 of trees bearing fruit each of its own kind corresponds to 3:18 that those who are characteristized by the wisdom from above will “bear good fruits” and have “fruit of righteousness.” It can be argued that 3:12 and 3:18 use similar imagery in order to indicate that 3:18 seives not only as a conclusion for the unit 3:13-18, but also for the entire chapter. ^ Thirdly, there are three lexical connections: iTLicpov in 3:11 and 3:14; aKaTaomtov in 3:8 with aicatotomaLa in 3:16; and peotq in 3:8 and 3:17. Finally, the transition from a topic of speech to that of the nature of wisdom is not uncommon in wisdom paraenesis (e.g. Sir. 28:13-26). Not only is 3:13-18 linked to 4:1-10(12) in terms of the theme of community peace/disorder, the eipqvqv at the end of 3:18 also fonns a contrast with the irolepoi of 4:1. Thus 3:18 not only concludes 3:13-18; it also probably provides a transition to what follows (Davids 1982:135; Martin 1988:126). A correspondence in structure can be seen in 3:13 asldng about the wise and the understanding kv (jptv ^ 3:18 is not an isolated saying, as Dibelius and Greeven (1976:214) characteristically assume. Martin (1988:126) remarks that 3:18 rounds off chapter three as well as the shorter section o f 3:13-17. See also Mussner 1981:174; Davids 1982:135. 98 and 4:1 asking about the source of wars kv iiptv. Moreover, as noticed by Johnson (1983:333), both sections develop by means of rhetorical questions in 3:13, and 4:1 (two), 4:4 and 4:5 (two). with CqÀoÛTE in 4:2. Lexically, the word in 3:13, 16 connects verbally Also the first item in the virtue-list oiyvr\ in 3:17 corresponds to the call for cleansing in 4:8 (aYVLoate). In addition, the devilish wisdom (ôaLpovLc5ÔT|ç; 3:15) has to do with the devil who is behind all the community trifles (6 ôLccpoÀoç; 4:7). Johnson (1983:327-47; 1985:167-69) rightly identifies 3:13-4:10 as a single rhetorical unit developing the topos of (j)06voç with 3:13-4:6 setting up an indictment and 4:7-10 as response to it. Martin (1988:142) well summarizes the connection between 3:13-18 and 4:1-10 as follows: The wisdom ‘not from above’ (3:15) reduces the practitioner to the abasement of tine humility (4:6, 10) if ever he is to be converted. The pride (ÙTrepTicjiavLüc) of 4:6 based on ‘boasting’ (3:14, icamicauxocaOccL) must be replaced by its opposite (icaT-qcjieLcc, ‘dejection,’ 4:9), just as the ‘selfish ambition’ (3:14, èpiOeta) that has its seat in the human ‘heart’ (icccpôia) must be expelled by an act of cleansing and renewal (4:8:«YVLaccT€ icapôLocç) leading, in turn, to wisdom that is ‘pure’ (ayvq, 3:17). The wisdom ‘from above’ in 3:17 is marked by the quality of being ‘impartial,’ answering the commonest designation of the malady James exposes in the people of his community, 4:8. They are ôCijnJxoL, ‘double-minded. ’ Thus I conclude that 3:13-18 forms a transition for the section 3:1-12 and 4:110(12).^ This shorter section fits in well with Parunak’s description of a hinge passage. Also Reese 1982:83-84; Watson 1993B:52. 99 The question in 4:1 again announces the issue to be dealt with in this section:conflicts and fightings within the community. into three sub-sections: 4:1-6, 7-10, 11-12. 4:1-12 can be further divided The first sub-section 4:1-6 is characterized by indicatives explicating the causes of their internal conflict. 4:7-10, on the other hand, is characterized by imperatives exhorting the audience to repent. These two sub-sections are linked together by a catchword in 4:6 and 4:7: àvtLmaaemL/àytLatrjxe. repentance in 4:7-10.^ The citation of Prov. 3:34 in 3:6 sets up the call to 4:10 is a wisdom admonition that summarizes 4:1-10. It is not clear whether 4:11-12 should be included as a sub-section in 4:1-12 (Davids 1982:155ff; Cargal 1993:154ff.; Thurén 1995:280), or if we should regard it as a discrete unit (Adamson 1976:175; Laws 1980:186; Vouga 1984:120), or whether it forms a single unit with 4:13-5:6 [12] (Johnson 1995A:292; Motyer 1985:155ff.). It has no connective to link it formally to its immediate context. Dibelius and Greeven (1976:208, 228) uncharacteristically include 4:11-12 as part of a "series of admonitions” in 4:7-12 on formal grounds, admitting on the other hand that it does introduce something new.^ This understanding is seriously undercut by the fact that in 4:11, the author uses a present imperative prohibition while in 4:7-10 he consistently employs aorist imperatives admonitions. Moreover, there is a change ^ The connective onu in 4:7 indicates the link; Johnson 1985:168. It is also true that 4:6 with the word TaueLvoLç fonns an inclusio with taireLvcoGqTe in 4:10; Martin 1988:142. Thus 4:6 is a kind of transition that also serves to bind the two sub-sections together. ^ Martin (1988:159) suggests that 4:11-17 continues the theme of the use and abuse o f the tongue. Yet this delimitation suffers from breaking the close connection o f 4:13-17 with 5:1-6. 100 in tune from the more severe admonitions directed to the poixaA,tôeç in 4:4, and àpaptcoicL and ôCtjrDxoL in 4:8 to the more gentle address as aôeA.(j)OL in 4:11 (Chaine 1927:108; Laws 1980:186; Johnson 1995A:292). There are indications, however, that 4:11-12 should be linked with the preceding pericope. 4:11-12 reintroduce the theme of judgement and the use/abuse of speech set out in 3:l-2a (forming an inclusiol). Dibelius and Greeven (1976:230) rightly point out that there is no formal connection between 4:13-5:6 with the preceding unit, but the content of this unit 4:11-12 can fit in well with the main idea of 4:1-10 on the polemic against worldly disposition. Schokel (1973:73-74) notices that the verb àvtLTaaaeîv in 4:6 (a rare word which occurs only 6 times in the LXX and 5 times in the NT) corresponds with the same verb in 5:6/ Thus he maintains that the first half of the text quoted from Proverbs in 4:6 (“God opposes the proud”) acts as “the thematic announcement” for 4:13-5:6 and the other half (“He gives grace to the humble”) for 4:7-10. His understanding of 4:11-12 as explaining God as Judge found implicit in the text quoted from Proverbs is unconvincing, since the main issue in 4:11-12 is not God as Judge, but God as Judge against one who (arrogantly) sets oneself up as judge ^ Schokel’s view is endorsed by Reese 1982:82, 84; Penner 1996:155. Fermer (1996:152-58) argues that 4:6 begins the closing to the main body. His argument is based on the abrupt turn from 4:5 to 4:6. Yet the use o f the verb Xeyei with an unexpressed subject in 4:6 speaks against the Idea that the verse marks a major break with 4:5. The subject obviously refers to q ypacjifi in 4:5, showing that 4:6 flows directly from 4:5. Penner maintains that in the parallel of the present passage with 1 Pet. 5: 5b-11, the citation o f Prov. 3:34 in 4:5b forms the transition between the main body and the letter ending. Yet another incident where the same text was cited is found in 1 Clem. 30:1-3, it does not serve at all to conclude the entire epistle. Also the alleged use o f linguistic and thematic parallels Penner finds between 1:9-11 and 4:6 with the mention of TaireLvot; in both units and nXouoLoç in 1:10 with birepiyliKvoLc; in 4:6 may be due to the allusion and quotation from Proverbs on similar topics and on the common theme o f the great reversal. Anyway, many topics outlined in the prologue can be found repeated throughout the letter. This may be one of those incidences. I also find Fenner’s argument on the parallel between 4:6-12 and 5:7-12 (both with injunctions to the community) with the indictment o f the rich/proud (4:13-5:6) in between unconvincing. Communal concern is found throughout the work. The pattern which he discerns is more incidental than intentional. 101 against one’s neighbour. Thus it can be argued that thematically 4:11-5:6 develops the theme “the Lord opposes the proud.” Semantically speaking, it is noteworthy that the word fcijpLoç is used exclusively after 4:10 rather than the usual Geoc; before that.* The exhortation for sinners and double-souled persons to weep (kXclU iv ) in 4:9 found its example in the rich (5:1). Viewed from this perspective, 4:11-5:6 can be regarded as an extension of the preceding section 3:13-4:10 (cf. Martin 1988:159). On the other hand, the vocative address àô6À(j)oi plus the prohibition pq ic«;TaA.aleÎTe marks the beginning of a new section as in 2:1 and 3:1. The unity of the shorter units (4:11-12; 4:13-17; 5:1-6; 5:7-8; 5:9; 5:10-11) in a single section will be discussed later in detail. Though it remains uncertain whether 4:11-12 contribute more to what precedes or to what follows, the transitional nature of 4:1112 should be recognized (see Cargal 1993:141, 169; Deppe 1989:118 c. n.364). 4:11-5:11 The unity of all the sub-units in 4:11-5:11 consists in the common theme of the impending judgement. The icpt- cognate words (icpiveiv, KpiTqq) occui" five times (out of ten) within the first unit (4:11-12), setting the mood and tone for the entire section 4:11-5:11. The identical opening of 4:13-17 and 5:1-6 with the Greek phrase "Aye vw and the vernacular form of direct address (ol Xkyovx^ç / ol itàouoiol) indicates that the author intends the two paragi aphs to be read together as a single unit (see Noack 1964:10-25. Also Mussner 1981:193; Davids 1982:171; Penner ' This has been noticed by Millar 1971:50-51. KupLoç in James, which should be 14 instead o f 9. Yet he is wrong in his number count o f the word 102 1966:151). Thematically both of them in different ways deal with the acquisition and use of wealth and God’s judgement upon these (Johnson 1995A:292). 4:17 should not be regarded as an isolated saying without any connection with its context (as Dibelius and Greeven 1976:231). The connective oîv shows that the author understands it as a conclusion of 4:13-16. The last verse of the sub-section 5:1-6 acts as a conclusive charge against the rich. This again reflects the style of wisdom paraenesis (see 2:13,26; 3:18; 4:10). The address of &ôeX(()OL marks a new beginning for the unit 5:7-8. The change of tone from one of harshness in the preceding two units to the more tender and comforting tone also signals a break (as noticed by Mussner 1981:200-201; Davids 1982:181; Martin 1988:189). The particle oCv at the beginning of 5:7-8, however, links it to the above two units, 4:13-17 and 5:1-6, marking the transition to the attitude the readers should have in the light of the certain and imminent judgement of the two groups of people mentioned (Mussner 1981:199; Davids 1982:181; Vouga 1984:133 n.2; Johnson 1995A:312). The image of the farmer in steadfast patience waiting upon the Lord for His provision is set in sharp contrast with the boasting of the arrogant merchants and the exploitative rich awaiting the j udgement of the Lord upon them. * All this is placed in the context of the imminent judgement at the coming of the Lord (rrccpouoLa xoh icupiou) with some under his judgement to destruction, and some to be saved by his mercy (4:12). The insecurity of the merchant’s arrogant boasting in his plan for tomorrow and the hazard of the ' Edgar (1995:79) rightly notices the contrast between 5:7-8 with 5:1-6. contrast should also include 4:13-16. 103 Yet here I argue that the gross injustice of the oppressive rich are apparent in face of the TrocpouaCa. 5:7-8 corresponds to, yet is in contrast to, 4:13-5:6. Thus The greater length devoted to 4:13-5:6 suggests that the author places greater stress on the eschatological threat posted against those who do not live in accordance with the will of God. The two groups of people (cf. 4:12):one being judged and destroyed (4:11; 4:13-5:6; 5:9), and the other being saved (5:7-8, 10-12) can be clearly distinguished. I would also argue that 5:9 corresponds with 4:11-12 thus forming a chiastic pattern ABB*A*. At first glance, 5:9 seems to be very isolated and has no connection with its context (so Dibelius and Greeven 1976:244). It can be argued that not to grumble against each other in face of oppression and suffering is a way of showing patience (Davids 1982:184-185; Martin 1988:192; Johnson 1995A:316-17). Yet what makes it enigmatic is that 5:10-11 seems to follow naturally from 5:7-8, and thus the introduction of 5:9 into its present context seems quite abrupt. On the other hand, 5:9 begins with the vocative àôeÀcjioL plus a negative prohibition pq oTevctCexe. James, this often signals the beginning of a new section. In Its occurrence here can be best explained by understanding it as following the pattern of 4:11, forming a chiastic pattern. Both its form and content correspond closely with 4:11-12. The warning against gi'umbling against one another is similar in meaning to the warning of speaking against each other. There are clear verbal linlcs between the two passages:in 5:9 icpL - cognate words occur twice, while in 4:11-12, they occur five times (out of 10 tim es'm James); the word alA.qA.wv is found in both passages. As mentioned earlier, 5:10-11 is more related to 5:7-8 on the theme of endurance than to 5:9. In these final two verses in the main body, the author gives 104 two examples which may also correspond to the two groups of people (“those who said...” and “the rich”) mentioned in 4:13-5:6. The prophets “spoke in the name of the Lord,” preaching on the will of God (on the coming judgement?), and showed patience in the face of suffering. This is set in contrast to those who said they were in control of their lives boasting in their ability to make wealth (4:13-16). Job, though once rich, had lost all that belonged to him, yet endured to see the purpose of God worked out in his life. He is an example set in contrast to the rich whose wealth will eventually be evidence against them when the final judgement comes. Job in 7\ Job is famous for his care of the poor and the needy (9-15; 17:3; 44:2, 3; 45:l-4).Thus, it can be concluded that in the main body, there are three major sections: 2:1-26, 3:1-4:10 and 4:11-5:11. Within each of the first two sections, the central unit binds the two adjacent units together. For the last section, 4:11-5:11, 4:11-12 linlcs it with the preceding section 3:1-4:10 using the theme of judgement from God the Lawgiver and Judge, which means destruction for some (4:13-5:6) and salvation for others (5:7-8, 10-11). All the major sections in the main body begin with a prohibition and a vocative address. This may be the hint which the author plants in the text to prompt the addressee to recognize the major divisions. We have noticed earlier in our discussion of the style of Jewish wisdom paraenesis that aphorisms are frequently employed as conclusions of discourse units. Thus 1:26-27 (conditional saying + elaboration) marks the conclusion of the section 1:19-27, rounds off the prologue and provides a smooth thematic transition to the following sections; 2:12-13 (v. 13a:statement of reciprocity) concludes the subsection 2:8-13, rounds off 2:1-13 and provides a smooth thematic transition to 2:14-26; 3:18 in the 105 same way concludes the subsection 3:13-18, rounds off 3:1-18 and provides a thematic transition to 4:1-12. 2:26 (aphoristic sentence:as/so correlatives), which fonns an inclusio with 2:1, concludes 2:1-26. Though James does not use a proverb to begin a section, the first sentence or few sentences of the major sections often serve as topic sentence(s). This can be seen in 1:2-4; 2:1; 3:1; 3:11-12. From the above analysis, I come up with the following structure ofJames\ The Prescript I d The Prologue; The Programme of Perfection 1:2-27 1:2-18 Themes Associated with Shema^ 1:19-27 Obedience to the Law of Liberty for True Piety The Main Body 2:1-5:6 A. The Testing of the Genuineness of Faith — Obedience to the Royal Law (2:1-26) 2:1-7 Genuine Faith is Incompatible with Partiality 2:8-13 Partiality and Lack of (Works of) Mercy are Violations against the Royal Law 2:14-26 Genuine Faith would Issue in Works (of Mercy) B. The Manifestation of Wisdom from Above (3:1-4:10) 3:1-12 Against Heedlessness in the Use of Tongue 3:13-18 Wisdom from Above and Below Contrasted 4:1-10 Against Worldly Attitude C. The Eschatological Judgement of God, the Lawgiver and Judge of All (4:11-5:11) 4:11-12 Against Evil Slanderers « 5:7-8 Exhortation to Endure 4:13-5:6 Against the Arrogant and the Unjust 4:13-17 Against the Arrogant Merchants ^ 5:9 Against Grumbling 5:1-6 Against the Unjust Rich against One Another 5:10-11 Concluding Examples: Prophets and Job Epilogue: The Concerns for Perfection 5:12-20 5:12 5:13-18 5:19-20 Oath Communal Prayer of the Faithful Righteous Community Responsibility Regarding Judgement and Salvation 106 E. Further Observations and Conclusion H. Van Dyke Parunak (1983) in an article “Transitional Techniques in the Bible” discusses the use of keywords, links and hinges in the Bible as indications of transitions in biblical discourses. The underlying assumption is that the use of such literary devices is common in the ancient world and readily at the disposal of the author. These transitional techniques are concerned with surface patterns in terms of repetition or similarity that can be readily identified. He remarks that often two larger units of discourses are joined together, not directly, but by joining each to the hinge. Parunak distinguishes two common patterns of hinge: the direct hinge and the inverted hinge. He explains (1983:541), In the direct hinge, A/ab/B, the affinity between the hinge and each of the larger units follows the pattern already described as a linlc. The inverted hinge, on the other hand, offers the pattern A/ba/B and reverses the order of the joining elements from that of the larger blocks of text. According to him, there is a third option of “mingled hinge” where the linking elements shows irregular pattern. The hinge belongs neither exclusively to the adjacent units, but contains elements of both. It serves not only to join together the units of text on either side, or in Parunak’s words, “to unify its context,” it can also advance the aigument by adding distinct material of its own (1983:541-42).* If the ^ Building upon Parunak’s study, Guthiie (1994:105-11) distinguishes four types of hinges, namely the direct intermediary transition, the inverted intermediary transition, the woven intermediary transition and the ingressive intennediary transition. The first tliree corresponds to Parunak’s classification of the direct, inverted and mingled liinge. 107 hinge passage fonns both the conclusion of the preceding passage and the introduction to the next section, it may be appropriately be called “bridge passage” (Mlakuzhyil 1987:104) * or “overlapping constituent” (Guthrie 1994:102-04). The structural analysis above has shown that the sub-unit 2:8-13 functions to tie 2:1-7 and 2:14-26 together. Fonnally speaking, it approximates an inverted hinge with the key word “showing partiality” in 2:9 linking with that in 2:1 and the key word “fulfil” (related to the perfection theme) in 2:8 linking with that in 2:22. Similarly, 3:13-18 functions to link 3:1-12 and 4:1-10 together. It approximates again an inverted hinge with the key word “restless” (related to the doubleness theme) in 3:16 linldng with that in 3:8 and the key word “envy” in 3:13 with that in 4:2. The bridging nature of the two units is further strengthened by the fact that their respective adjacent sections seem to be entirely unrelated thematically without tire presence of these units. In addition, 2:8-13 and 3:13-18 show overlapping themes with their respective adjacent sections. In the study of the section 4:11-12, though it is uncertain whether 4:11-12 contributes more to what precedes or to what follows, again the bridging or transitional nature of it has been recognized. It is significant to notice that these three units 2:8-13, 3:13-18 and 4:11-12 which act as bridge passages reflect similar arguments (see Table A in p. 110). In 2:12, the author exhorts the recipients to speak and act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. In 3:13, 14, the author exhorts the recipients to show their good lives by their works done with ^ Mlalcuzhyil remarks that it is a literary device used by ancient writerrs like Lucian to join the different sections o f a well-organized book together. 108 gentleness of wisdom (3:13), and not to boast and be false to the truth (3:14). The former virtually means to act with the meelaiess of wisdom and the latter to speak according to the truth. Also the call to have mercy in 2:13 finds its counterpart in 3:17, where fullness of mercy is one of the characteristics of wisdom fiom above. If we take dôLàicpLToç in 3:17 as the very opposite of irpoowiTolqpi|fLK (cf. 2:8), we then have another reference back to the previous transitional unit. 4:11, we have another reference on how to speak and act. Similarly, in The renewed people of God are not to speak against the law (KocToc/\,aA,eL vopou) nor be non-doers of the law (cf. ouic 'iTOLqxqç vopou). The designation of “ 6 icpivcov T o v irlqoLov” reminds one of the description “éyéveoOe icptxcd ôLKÀoyLopwv irovqpwv” in 2:4. In the context of chapter two, “becoming judges of evil thoughts” is set in contrast with “àyaTrqaeLç tov TTÀqoiov non cSç oeavrov.” passage 2:8-13. Thus 4:11-12 shows implicit connection with the The emphasis of 4:11-12 is on God being the lawgiver and the Judge of what one says and acts. The law of liberty and the wisdom from above find its unity in God, the Lawgiver and Judge of all humankind. The law of liberty and the wisdom from above and ultimately God the Lawgiver and the Judge are the yardstick against which the Christian’s speech and action have to be measured and judged. The importance of these units can also be seen in the light of their relationship with 1:19-25. Connection between 1:19-25 and 2:8-13 can be seen in the common emphasis on the “law of liberty”, which is perfect (1:25; xéÀeioy) on the one hand and needs to be fulfilled (2:8; xeÀetxe) on the other. 1:19-25 also shows connection with 3:13-18 in its exhorting the addressee to “rid yourselves of all sordidness and 109 rank growth of wickedness [with meelaiess] and welcome with meelaiess (èv iTpatJTqtL) the implanted word” (1:21) that corresponds to “show out of the good life the good works of his wisdom with meelaiess (èv irpccuTqxi)” (3:13; literal translation). 4:11 similarly linlcs 1:19-25 with the theme of the law. It is interesting to notice that in 1:19-25 the double theme of “speech and action” also comes to the fore as in 4:11, with emphasis on the latter. They are to be “slow to To A.aA.qaaL; 1:19) and to be “doers of the word” (iroiqTod loyou), not just hearers (1:22). The theme of speech falls on the passive side, that is, the hearing, speak” (etc rather than the active side, the speaking. This double theme of “speech and action” is also found in 2:8-13, and 3:13-18. Conclusion Our identification of James as a wisdom instruction helps us to understand how our author structures his work. Particularly significant is the use of aphorisms in either introducing a section or concluding a section or both. In addition, the framing prologue and epilogue restate the purpose of the work: the renewed community of God’s people has to walk in the truth and avoid doubleness in its pursuit of perfection. It seems probable that in composing the work, by using 2:8- 13, 3:13-18 and 4:11-12 as transitional passages, our author has given readers/audiences hints to the importance of the themes of law and wisdom with respect to his paraenetical purpose. This has been demonstrated above in the close relationship of these three passages with 1:19-25. I will examine the themes of law and wisdom with respect to the heiineneutics of James to show their importance to his entire instruction. 110 1 * 1 § - II g m i r 'K I- I •S §. I I 00 Q LO = 4 R m ■o g ■o' B> fT Hi < R R R•o d =4 R O' O) g, <p 0> 7^ oo i ■u> to *o w On 5? -% to ob U) CD (D (— I H _____ I ! 1 to VO PART THREE The Centrality of Word/Law and Wisdom to the Hermenentics in J a m e s Some scholars assert that the theme of the law and its interpretation do not play any significant part in James. Schrage, for example, (1988:287; also Evans 1983:29; Metzger 1969:254-55 has omitted this theme entirely) bases his argument on the author’s neglect of the cultic laws and his failure to stress the double law of love as a canon for interpreting the law. My study of the structure of James shows that units 2:8-13; 3:13-18 and 4:11-12, which hold the context together, are highly significant in the understanding of the argument of James. They are all related to 1:19-25 which is programmatic in the understanding of the hermeneutical concerns of the entire work. Like Ben Sira, our author is conscious of the hermeneutical task set before him and spells that out explicitly in 1:22-25. All these units are related to either law (1:19-25; 2:8-12; 4:11-12) or wisdom (3:13-18). The following is a study of these two important themes in James to show how they are related to the wider hermeneutical concerns of the book. 112 Chapter One The Word, the Law and the Love Command A. The Word o f Truth and the Implanted Word The word of truth is among the perfect gifts (1:17; the heavenly Father. Tov ôcopripa réleLov) from It is out of God’s good intention (PouÀîiôeiç) that humanity be saved from the process of sin and death (1:18).^ The verb “teicuriaev” used here is ' The description in 1:18 probably refers to Cliristian conversion rather than to the creation of humans at the beginning o f creation (as Spitta 1896:45-47; Elliott-Binns 1956-67). Firstly, as noticed above, 1:18 is related to 1:15 in dealing with the problem o f sin through the association o f the verb “beget.” Secondly, in the OT, Israel is seen as God’s son whom he begot (Deut. 32:18; cf. Pss. 22:9; 90:2; Num. 11:12). See Meyer (1930:157-59) who argues for a reference to God’s election o f Israel here. The language of regeneration or rebirth is clearly attested in the NT: in Pauline tradition (1 Cor. 4:15; Eph. 1:5; Tit. 3:5), in Petrine (1 Pet. 1:3, 23) and in Johannine tradition (Jn 1:13; 3:3-8; 1 In 3:9; 4:10). In later Judaism, the idea o f conversion to Judaism is also described in terms o f birthterminology, and the winning o f a proselyte can be compared with the creative work of God. These lend support that here we have a reference to the choice (pouÀriOeiç) o f the new people o f God through regeneration by the “word o f truth.” Thirdly, the “word o f truth,” as I will argue, refers to the gospel message. The use o f the expression “word of truth” in creation is not found anywhere in Jewish literature. It is also hard to explain why the author has to define it as the word o f tnith if he is concerned with creation (see 3:14; 5:19). Fourthly, in the OT, “firstfmits” refers to things explicitly set apart to God and were either redeemed or offered to him (see later in this thesis). In the NT, it is also used soteriologically, referring to those who belong to God (Rev. 14:4; 2 Thess. 2:13). The reference o f Israel as the firstfmits for God among the nations (Exod. 4:22; Philo, Spec.Leg. 4.180) can also be accounted for, with the understanding that the new people of God in Christ is the tme Israel in the NT times. Fifthly, the ambiguity may be due to the author’s clothing redemption in creation language. So although it is tme that Pliilo did refer all God’s creating (-iroLetv) as “begetting” (yevvav; Leg. AIL, 3.219), it is also tme that the word iccLapa should not be limited to humanity alone, as Elliott-Binns (1956-57:154-55) notices. Yet Elliott-Binns fails to see humanity as part o f creation that needs redemption. Belling (TDAT: 1.486) takes icTLopa as humanity, but has failed to see that creation motif has been applied to a time o f new creation in the OT and the entire creation (here literally “his creatures”) is in need o f redemption. Christians are seen as the firstffuit in the cosmic redemption. In the NT, redemption is often seen as new creation (cf. Jn 1:1-4; Rom. 8:19-23, 38-39; 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 1:3-14; Phil. 2:6-11). See also Edsman (1939:11-44) who interprets groundlessly here as a reference to creation in temis o f a Gnostic androgynous creator myth. See esp. Konradt 1998:41-58. 113 the same as used in 1:15 of sin eventually begetting death. The contrast is in seeing that the “word of truth” possesses the power to deal with the problem of sin and brings life to humans (cf IQS 3.7). is the veiy opposite of f| aXiiOeCcc. In 5:19-20, the way of deception, TTÀctvT] ôôoû,^ The “word of truth” in 1:18 is related to the Law which is so described in LXX Ps. 118:43 (ioyog/oL see Fss. Sol. 16:10; T. Gad 3:1; 1 En. 104:9; cf. Ps. 118:30; Wis. 5:6 for ôôôç àÀTiOeLaç; and Ps. 118:42; Neh. 9:13; Mai. 2:6 for v6[ioç/oL aXtiGeCaç). Here, the “word of truth” (loyw aXTiGetocç), the instrument of begetting (instrumental dative), despite the absence of articles, is best understood as the gospel message,^ as in 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 1:13; Col 1:5 and 2 Tim. 2:15 (cf T. Gad 3:1; Pss. Sol. 16:10). 1 Pet. 1:25b also interprets the “word of the Lord” in the Isaiah passage as “the word which was announced.” It is through this gift of the word of truth that one possesses the power to deal with the problem of human sinning by one’s own desire (1:14; uto tfjç tôiaç èiriGuirLaç). As Johnson (1995A:205) rightly observes: “The reversal [brought about by the word of truth] is complete in every respect, countering the deceptiveness, the drivenness, and the destructiveness of epithymial^ life (cf. 3:14; 5:19-20). It is a turning from falsehood to truth, from death to This “word” is again picked up in 1:21b as the eiuputov Xoyov which again points to the gospel that can save one’s life. ^The lack o f article reflects Hebraism; cf. BDF § 259 (1). ^ As most commentators. It is also possible to understand the “word of truth” as related to the baptismal proclamation as in 1 Pet 1:23. Further characteristic features o f early Christian baptismal exhortation can be seen in 1:21 with the verb àïïOTL0ea0aL as referring to the removal of old clothing in the act o f baptism (cf. Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:8). See Braumann 1962:405; Hoppe 1977:94; Mussner 1981:101; Luck 1984:16; Martin 1988:48-9. Yet both Braumann and Luck have exaggerated the importance o f baptism for James. Popkes (1986:136-46; also O’Brien 1978-79:510) rightly points out that our author has taken over earlier baptismal tradition and reworked it for his own purpose, with no special emphasis on baptism at all. 114 Jas 1:20 reminds the readers to be “slow to anger” because (yap) human anger “does not work” (lit. for oi)ic èpyctCexcti) the righteousness of God. The word epyccCeoGccL occurs again in 2:9 as “worldng sin” (lit. for àpapriav èpyctCeoGe; cf. e.g., LXX Pss. 5:8; 57:3; 63:3; 93:16; 124:5; Sir. 27:10). The verb epydcCeTou means “to do,” “to practice” rather than the rarer sense of “effect,” “produce” or “bring about” (cf. 2 Cor. 7:10; KocTepyccCexaL in Jas 1:3). This is how the phrase “èpy<xÇ6p.evo(; ôLicatoauvriv” is used in LXX Ps. 14:2 and Acts 10:35. It probably corresponds to the common use of the phrase TTotelv xf|v ôLicouoaiJVTiv in the LXX (e.g., Gen. 18:19; 24:49; Isa. 56:1; cf. Tob. 13:8). If “working the righteousness of God” is taken as a contrast to “working/committing sin” in 2:9, then the expression “the righteousness of God” would take an ethical sense to mean the righteousness required by God. ^ The wrathful person does not work the righteousness of God, which would mean acting contrary to his word. The genitive Geoi) is set in contrast to the genitive àvôpoç, the divine with human, in that what God requires of righteousness is different from what humans would achieve with anger. The question then remains: How can one do the righteousness required by God? One can imply from 1:22-25 that the one who receives the implanted word in meekness and is the doer of it, not just a hearer, will be doing the righteousness required by God. This is perhaps the thrust of the particle ô l o at the beginning of v. ^ The phrase ÔLicaLooévp Qeou can be taken in three different ways; taking the genitive as subjective (righteousness as God’s character), objective (righteousness required by God) or genitive o f origin (righteousness bestowed by God as often in the Pauline sense). Most commentators take the objective sense, see, e.g., Ropes 1916:169; Laws 1980:81; Davids 1982:93; also Ziesler 1972:135. Felder’s suggestion (1982:70-71) that here the imitatio Dei is implied as in Mt. 5:48 is unfounded. So is his claim that “working a righteousness o f God” involves the reception o f the gospel (p. 72). 115 21. Instead of reacting in anger, which avails nothing with respect to the righteousness God requires, Christians are to receive the implanted word with meekness (ev TTpa&TjXL). in V. 20.^ This attitude of meelaiess is contrasted with anger (opyq) It speaks of readiness to put off wickedness (including anger) as well as to receive the implanted word. The stress falls on the latter since “ôéÇaoGe” is the main verb and v. 22 also makes this clear; be doers, not merely hearers of the word. The exhortation “ôé^aaGe tov eptjiuTGV loyov” is set with the preceding negative admonition “airoGÉpevoL Trctoocv puTOpLocv kocI irepLooeLocy KcticCaç.” The word €|it()uxov is a hapax legomenon in the NT, occurs only once in the LXX (Wis. 12:10), and is relatively rare in the second century Christian literature. speaks of how ejujiutov tfjç ôcopeccç ïïveuiiaTiicfjç %&piv Ô TT]v ep(|)UTGV ôwpeàv xfjc; ÔLaGrjicTiç ccùxoû GépevGç kv qiatv. Bam. 1:2 and later in 9:9 olôev The word may mean the usual sense of “natural” or “innate.”^ Hort (1909:37; also Knox 1945:14-15) argues for this meaning in accordance with his view that “the word of truth” in 1:18 does not refer to the gospel. Thus he interprets this “innate word” as referring to the original capacity for the knowledge of God found in human beings as God’s creation. Taken in this sense, the phrase ep(|)i)XGv Àoyov would be very close to the Àoyoç ^Tliis can also be seen in Sir. 10:18 where pride, the very opposite o f meekness, is set in parallel with anger. “In meekness” may also stand in contrast to “wickedness.” As in Col. 3:8 and Eph. 4:31, anger is listed with other icaicta that are to be cast off. It is the word of tmth that can protect one from the misuse or abuse o f the tongue in anger. For the connection of (pko; with 6pyp, see LXX Prov. 34:4; Pss. Sol. 2:24. Such connection is found in Jas 3:14, 16. ^ Johnson (1995A:202) cites Herodotus, Persian War 9:94; Plato, Symposium 19ID; Phaedrits 237D where the word is used in the usual sense as “innate.” Cf. Josephus, War 1.88; Atit. 16.232; V\ù\o Deus Imm. 22;Ps.-Phoc. 128. 116 aTrepiiccTLKoç, a Stoic expression for some kind of cosmic Reason in human being (cf. Dibelius and Greeven 1976:113).^ However, “the word” described here as something received makes such understanding inappropriate since what is innate needs no receiving. The evidences in Barnabas show that the word can be used of something bestowed (“gifts”), not innate or natural. Ropes (1916:172) is right in pointing out that the rendering “engrafted” is inappropriate “because it directly expresses the idea of ‘foreign,’ ‘applied from without,’ ‘not a natural growth,’ a meaning for which a derivative of é|u))UT€U€iv, ‘engraft,’ would be required.” Besides the word for “engrafted” is ep,(|)ui:eux6g, not ’é}i(()i)Toç as here. Most commentators support the ti'anslation “implanted.” The translation “deep-rooted” advocated by some (as Ropes 1916:172f.) may have overinterpreted its meaning. No one seems to have noticed the importance of the association of icaicLot with ’ép(j)i}Toç as “inborn wickedness” in Wis. 12:10. with loyoç. Here in 1:21, xaicta is set in contrast If the author understands human wickedness as being something inborn as reflected in Wis 12:10, it is possible that he is implying that this word implanted in Christians is as powerful as, if not more powerful than, the inborn wickedness or evil inclination humans find within their human nature (cf. Jas 1:14-15). As God gave Christians new birth through the word of truth (1:18), this word becomes inherent in this very nature of the new creation. Thus the phrase “implanted word” refers to the word planted in the new nature. It becomes a kind of second natuie. ^Later, Justin Martyr seems to use the word in this sense: “through the sowing of the innate word ['^)ict)i)tO(; tor» A.6yoç], they [Stoics, poets, historians] can see things darkly” (2 A pol 13:11-12); also Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.10.5. 117 In such understanding, the “word of truth” is essentially the same as the “implanted word” that has the power to save one from the evil desires as described in 1:15 (see, e.g, Konradt 1998:85-90). A parallel to “the implanted word” can be found in the prayers of 4QDibHam‘^ (4Q504) frgs 1-2 col.2, probably a pre-Qumranian hasidic writing. The author sets the prayer in the context of the Exodus event and the Sinai covenant. In //. 12-14, the author prays to God: “Remember your marvels which you performed in view of the peoples, for we have been called by your name. [...]... with all (our) heart and with all (our) soul and to implant your law in our heart ( nsnTn nyts*?), [so that we do not stray] either to the right or to the left. blindness and confusion [of heart].” For, you will heal us of madness, The Shem J -like phrases “with all (our) heart and with all (our) soul,” which is linked with God’s implanting his law “in our heart,” probably refers to total repentance (see Vermes’ translation). also described as “engraved in my heart” in IQH 12[4].10. God’s law is Here the implantation of God’s law in human heart would allow one not to go astray and is seen as healing from madness, blindness and confusion of heart. These parallel closely the implanted word in James here as God’s means of saving one from the power of evil inclination and sets guidance for one to work for the righteousness required by God. The inwardness of God’s word/law was prophesied by the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel in Jer. 31:31-33 and Ezek. 36:26-27 respectively (cf. Deut. 30:14).^ ^ The connection here has been noticed by Ward 1966A:127-32; Baker 1995:91; Tsuji 1997:109; Laato 1997:53. Walters (1995:47-49, 116, 119, 171, 249) regards these two passages as fundamental in the understanding o f the concept o f perfection both in early Jewish traditions and in the NT. 118 Both prophets looked forward to a time when there would be a new covenant with its law not imposed upon humans from outside but a planting of the Torah within the hearts of his people. What is new about the covenant they prophesied is that they assume obedience to be beyond human capacity. the hand of God. Real obedience will come only by Moreover, it fits in well with the description of the law as the law of freedom in 1:25. Instead of being bound by one’s own self desire, one can be freed to fulfill God’s law as summarized in loving one’s neighbour. Such freedom is only possible through the working of this implanted word of truth. separation of the word from the law is impossible. The Christians are supposed to draw the practical consequences through practicing the word. It is also the perfect law of freedom that they are supposed to obey. Commentators are quick to point out that the verb is used several times with respect to “receiving the word of God/Gospel” in the NT (see Lk. 8:13; Acts 8:14; 11:1; 17:11; 2 Cor. 11:4; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:13). Nevertheless, in all the passages cited above, they are all in the indicative mood and referring to what happened in the past. Büchsel (TDNT:2.52) notices that this word may mean “to receive, hear or understand the words of someone.” It is particularly common in the Jewish wisdom instructions to use this verb with words and commandments of God or in relation to wisdom herself (LXX Prov. 1:3; 2:1; 4:10; 9:9; 10:8; 21:11; 30:1). In Deut. 30:1 and Isa. 57:1 (èicÔéxeoGou), it can be taken as referring to “pious insight into the ways of God with His people and with righteous individuals, esp. in suffering and death” (Büchsel, TDNT: 2.52). Thus, here the emphasis is not on receiving the gospel of truth in conversion, but rather on learning and understanding 119 the word of truth, the messianically renewed community’s formative message which “is able to save your souls,” that has already been given to them in order that they might gain wisdom from it. The importance of “receiving the implanted word” is underlined by the fact that this word has the ability to save one’s life (cf. 5:20; 1 Pet. 1:23).^ actualization of the implanted word is essential for one’s salvation. The Salvation here is probably referring to the future eschatological salvation as the context of the word awC^iv in 4:12 and 5:20 suggests (also 1:12; 2:12-13; 3:1; 5:5, 7). God who has the power to save (4:12). to the implanted word of God. to save (2:14). Ultimately it is He will judge according to one’s response The response of faith without works will not be able With all James" emphasis on the importance of “works”, he never lost sight of the saving power of the word that brings about final salvation (Mussner 1981:103). Yet, it should not be limited just to the future; the implanted word actually makes salvation a present and positive reality in daily experience. B, The Royal/Perfect Law o f Liberty The law in James is described as “perfect” (t€A,€loç), “of liberty” (xfjc eleuGEpCuq) in 1:25 and “royal” (paoiXiicoç) in 2:8. The precise meaning of these qualifications is far from clear and must be understood in the context of their use in James. ^ It is possible, as Konradt (1998:75-77) argues, that James shares with 1 Pet. 1:23-2:2 common early Christian traditional material. 120 The Perfect Law The law is first described as “teXeiov” (1:25). The theme of perfection is closely related to the obedience of the law in Jewish thought. In Ps. 19:7 ([18:8]; cf. Pss. 1, 119), the law of the Lord is characterized as “unblemished” (apcopcç), a synonym for “perfect.”^ In that Psalm, there are six characteristics of the Torah illustrated with reference to its role with respect to humans (Craigie 1983:181-82). The Torah gives vitality, wisdom, delight, enlightenment, righteousness to humans (Ps. 19:7-9). It is the source of rich life. guidance and The Torah of God is perfect in “reviving the life” (6TTLaTpé(j)cov ijfDxaç; LXX Ps. 18:8). This is not far from the description of the implanted word being able “to save your souls” (1:21).^ In Jas 5:20, the same verb èiTLOTpé(j)eLv is used with reference to turning one from the road of error. The result is the salvation of one’s soul. It is doubtful that a contrast with the laws of the Gentiles is implied in describing the law as perfect (pace Dibelius and Greeven 1976:116; Furnish: 1972, 180; Klein 1995:68). Rather it points to the law as the means by which one can be perfected (cf. 1:4; 3:2; Martin 1988:46; Lohse 1991:173; Tsuji 1997:111). fulfillment is what works the righteousness of God (cf. 1:20). Its Davids (1982:99- 100), following Davies’ suggestion (1964:402-05), regards the law as perfect in the sense that it has been perfected by Christ and is thus a new law (cf. esp. Mt. 5:17). Yet the notion of a “new” law is dubious. ^ The expression “perfect Torah” occurs ^ Cf. also Ep. Arist. 31 also describes the divine law as “guileless” (àKéaioç), a word veiy close in meaning with a|iw|ioq, see Phil. 2:15. ^ For the expression “Torah o f life,” see Sir. 17:11; 45:5. ^ The concept o f a new Torah as an important element o f messianic hope in early Judaism is not 121 later also in 5 En. 11:1 (5-6 Century C.E.) and Alphabet of Aqiba/ The Law of Liberty The nature of the perfect law is further defined as “tov rqç èA-euGepCaç.”^ The background of the description is a matter of much dispute. Dibelius and Greeven (1976:116-17) represent those who champion the view that the idea comes from the Stoics where the keeping of the law, the Reason of the cosmos, brings about the state of inner freedom.^ Stoics also contend that since the law is good and no one desires to do bad, the only one who is free and does what he wants is the one who does what is good and thus follows the law (see, e.g., Cic. Parad. 34; Epict. Diss. 4.1.1-5, 158). Philo ipmn. Prob, Lib. 17) tries to bridge this Stoic concept with Judaism by linking the Mosaic law with the Stoic cosmic Reason in seeing them as functioning in the same way. For him, the type of freedom is more of an internal freedom of the mind, which God alone can enable (e.g., Sacr. 127; Omn. Prob. Lib. 42; Conf. Ling. 93). Yet in James, as in other NT writings, freedom does not have the fundamental notion in the Greek and Roman world as “doing whatever one wants” (see Jones, ABD\ absolutely certain. Most o f the evidences in rabbinic writings on a new Torah are late (see, e.g.. Lev. 7?. 13:3; Targ. Isa. 12:3; Targ. on Cant. 5:10; Qoh. R. 2:1). See esp. Davies (1952:85; 1964:109-90) followed by Adamson (1976:285) and Banks (1975:65-81). For a recent advocate, see Allison 1993:185-90. Allison agrees with B. Z. Wacliholder and M. O. Wise that IIQTemple was a new or eschatological Torah for the Qumran sectarians. Yet this still remains uncertain. See esp. Chester 1998. ^Bet ha-Midrasch 3.14: “But for the perfect Torah the whole world would not endure; but for the whole world the perfect Torah would not endure.” ^ The article before the genitive phrase is almost pure demonstrative, see Robertson 1934:780. Thus there may be a slight emphasis on the description o f the genitive phrase; Dana-Mantey 1955:148. Stauffer’s finding (1952) the expression “law o f freedom” three times in succession in the Qumran Community Rule (IQS 10.6, 8, 11) is based on a faulty translation of an error in transcription. ^ Dibelius and Greeven cite many examples, e.g. Seneca, De vita beata xv.7; Epictetus, iv.1.158; see also Kasemann 1969A:86; Kee 1984:326. 122 2.856). Davids (1982:99) rightly insists that though the words may be from “the general Hellenistic pool to which the Stoics added their share,” the entire expression should be understood against its Jewish or Jewish Christian context (also Ropes 1916:178-80; Hübner, EDNT: 2.344). Most recently. Wall (1997:93-95) suggests that the phrase is a metaphor of the levitical Jubilee (Lev. 25) where “freedom” is a reference to liberty granted to the poor and the oppressed. ^ He argues that the use of Jubilee as a metaphor for the fulfillment of the coming kingdom is familiar to the author and the readers at that time. In addition, specific parallels in the liberation from the oppression of the powerful can be found in Lev. 25:46 and Jas 2:2-7 (cf Jas 5:1-6; par. Lev. 25:39-46). Attractive as Wall’s suggestion may be, the law of liberty here seems to have a wider reference than just liberation of the oppressed from the oppressor. Mayor argues that it has its background in the free obedience to the law as also recognized in the OT (Exod. 35:5; Deut. 28:47; Pss. 1:2; 40:8; 54:6,45) and found its expression in Pauline writings (2 Cor. 3:17; Mayor 1913:73). In the OT, freedom is primarily seen as the deliverance from slavery, as God has done in redeeming the people of God from Egypt in the exodus. They are said to be his people, belonging to God alone, as his servant (Exod. 6:2-12; Lev. 25:42; Deut. 6:20-25). This exodus typology is used as a paradigm for freedom in the Jubilee tradition (Lev. 25:38, 42), in national deliverance^ as well as in eschatological hope/ ^Wall is not the first to suggest this. Fundamental to the See esp. Ward 1966A:115-27. ^ Philo uses the terms o f freedom to describe the Exodus (e.g.. Vit Mos. 1.71, 86), something not yet seen in the LXX. C f also 1 Macc. 14:26; 2 Macc. 2:22. 123 concept of freedom in Jewish tradition is that one might be free to devote oneself completely and without restraint to the service of God and the fulfillment of his will (Rabinowitz, JudEncL: 7.118; Olivier, NIDOTTG: 1.987-88). It is in accordance with this principle that R. Joshua b. Levi comments on Exod. 32:16; “Read not haruth (graven) but heruth (freedom), for you find no free man except him who occupies himself with the study of Torah” (m. Ab. 6:2b). The messianically renewed people of God, as the “frrstfrints” of God’s creation, belong only to God as they are redeemed by him (1:18; cf. Rev. 14:4). Freedom is, in the context of James"s prologue, freedom from the evil inclination within,^ freedom to love God wholeheartedly as confessed in the Shema^ and hence, freedom to be perfect. Such freedom from one’s evil desire enables one to do God’s will with the love for others (Mussner 1981:108 c. n .ll; Martin 1988:51; Konradt 1998:93-100). This is what 2:12 makes clear: this law of freedom is to be understood through the command to love one’s neighbour. Such freedom-love-perfection can only be achieved by the eschatological fulfillment of Jer. 31:31-34 with the new creation of God by the word of truth (1:18; Martin 1988:51; Chester 1994:37; Hübner (EDNT: 3.344).^ Though the relationship between word and law is not entirely clear in James, they can be understood in tenns of their distinctiveness in emphasis. It is the word of truth that brings the renewed people of God into existence and allows one to be liberated, but it is the perfect law of freedom that one is supposed to keep. It is the implanted ^ Cf. e.g., 4 Ezra 7:96-98, 101, 13:25-26, 29. ^ Freedom from evil inclination would lead eventually to freedom from death. In Exod. R. 41:7, those who possess the Torah will have freedom and they will be delivered from the sway o f the angel of death. ^ Cf. Fabris 1977. 124 word that God put in his people that frees one for love, and it is the keeping of the law one accepts that frees one to do acts of love. In another words, it is insufficient just to have the word of truth for one to be free, one must also keep the law in order to be truly free. It is to this extent that the “word” is different from the law. Ultimately such freedom is constituted by loyalty to God and his kingdom, as found in Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God (see Keck 1974:81). between the word and the law is impossible. Sharp separation Therefore the implanted word is closely related to the law of liberty, yet not totally identified with it. ^ Goppelt (1982:2.203) aptly sees this law as “the imperative side of the word that not only made demands but also accomplished its ends.”^ The gospel contains within itself the ethical appeal that demands obedience. (TTOLqTccL Therefore being doers of the word Xoyov; 1:22) is the same as being doers of the law (cf. rroiriTT); v 6 |i o d ; 4:11). Though the meaning of freedom here is not freedom from works of the law as in Paul (Gal. 2:4; 4:21-31; 5:1, 13; Rom. 7:1-4; 8:2), there are overlappings in understanding of freedom in Paul with James primarily in terms of freedom from sin (Rom. 6:18-23). Such freedom results from liberation from the power of sin through the salvific activity of God in Jesus Christ appropriated in baptism. It is a liberation from the domination of self-indulgent desires and selfish habits (cf. Teach. Silv. 105.15-25). In Paul, sin is understood as power that lords over (Knpieneiv) humans (Rom. 6:14; cf. 14:9). With the salvific activity of God in Jesus Christ, ^Many scholars equate the two, see, e.g.. Ropes 1916:173; Eckart 1964:524; Moo 1985:84; Martin 1988:45, 49; Frankemôlle 1986:204, 205, 219; Klein 1995:129-53; Hogan 1998:87. ^ Also, e.g„ Blondel 1980:255; Laws 1980:85; Laato 1997:51; Konradt 1998:72-73. 125 humans are no longer left helpless on their own in sin’s power (cf. 7:14). While the final outcome (lélcç) of sin’s rule is death, the obedience which results in righteousness will eventually bring about eternal life as its final result (6:21-22). In Gal. 5:13, Paul reminds readers that Christians are called to freedom (from the law; cf. 5:1). The purpose of such freedom is for them to serve one another through love. Though here in James, our author falls short of saying that Christians are enslaved to righteousness (Rom. 6:18) or to love (Gal. 5:13), they are to produce righteousness in acts of love (Jas 1:19-20).^ In delineating the structure of James, we noticed that 2:8-11 is a sub-unit of 2:1-13 linking 2:1-7 (on partiality) and 2:14-26 (on faith and works) together. “To show partiality” (2:9) is contrary to (pevtoi) “doing the royal law ‘according to scripture’.” Our author is here setting off a scriptural argument against the practice of favouritism. The article for vopcç is omitted probably because it is regarded as a quasi-proper noun (cf. 2:11, 12; 4:11; also loyo;, 1:22, 23; Ropes 1916:198). epithet “royal” (paaiÀLicoç) does not mean something worthy in the vague sense. The It should not be treated simply as decorative (as Ropes 1916:198f.). Dibelius and Greeven (1976:143) cite 4 Macc. 14:2 with the praise of Reason being “royal”(pKOLlLicwTepoi) and “free” (èXeuGepoStepoL), which corresponds to the descriptions of the law here. They point out that in the Stoic concept. Reason is ^ Paul seems to find it difficult to put “freedom” and “law” together except in Rom. 8:2 where a complicated definition is involved. According to Paul, the law brings about enslavement, never freedom. 126 regarded as a king who leads to freedom and suggest that this may underlie the concept found both in Fourth Maccabees and here. remote. Yet we find such allusion to be A number of scholars found that there may be an allusion to the Stoic conception of the wise as kings and as alone free. Thus this law is fitting for the kings, as the heirs of the kingdom (2:5) not slaves (Mayor 1913:89-90; Ropes 1916:198f). However it is hard to understand why it is necessary in our author’s argument to describe the law as “for the kings” here. supreme, governing all others. Some regard its meaning as Thus “supreme law” is one that has absolute authority over all other laws supremely important and completely binding (Hort 1909:53). Yet the adj ective was never used in the sense of “governing. ” According to the rabbis, the Torah derives its authority from the “kingdom of heaven.” They interpreted the biblical passages introduced with such words as “I am Yahweh (your God)” (as in Exod. 22:6 and found repeated in Lev. 19) as manifestations of the divine authority of the Torah. In order to accept the rule of Torah, Israel had first to receive the “yoke of the kingdom of heaven.” In m. Ber. 2.2, Rabbi Joshua ben Qorha explains the order of the biblical passages found in the daily Jewish liturgy: “Why does [the passage of] Shemd" precede [that of] And it shall come to pass [ if you keep my cofmnandment]? ‘So that one may first accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven and afterwards may accept the yoke of commandments’”(cf b. Ber. 13a). The daily recitation of the Shema^" and the commandments in Jewish tradition functions as an acceptance of God’s sovereignty and is parallel to the acceptance of the Torah at Sinai (cf. m. Ber.2.2, 5; Midr. Ps. 99:112a). Freeman ( 1986:93-94) comments that “[t]he kingdom of heaven becomes 127 a reality when the commandments are accepted. commandments is the kingdom of heaven. The authority for the When the declaration is made the ‘yoke of the kingdom of heaven and the yoke of the commandments’ are received by the person, and he binds himself to the Torah.” Safrai (1987:93) also points out: “The essence of the Kingdom of Heaven is not in the first verse, which proclaims the unity of God (Deut. 6:4), but in the continuation: the requirement to love God and to do his commandments. The Kingdom of Heaven is both a reality in which man must live at present and a hoped-for reality in the future, when it will fully unfold in the final redemption.” In the Jewish expectation of the age to come, the kingdom of God is a reference to God as the almighty king for ever and ever as prophesied in Zech. 14:9: “And the LORD will become king over all the earth; on that day the LORD will be one and his name one” (cf. e.g., Obad. 21; Isa. 24:23). Since the adjective pocatÀLicoç was used in LXX Niun. 20:17 as those who belong to the king (also Acts 12:20), it seems best to understand it as from a king. It is used like this in 1 Esd. 8:24 in the decree of Artaxerxes. Yet it remains to be detennined whether it is a reference to God (as, e.g., Laws 1980:110; Martin 1988:67; Tsuji 1997:110) or to Christ (as, e.g., Adamson 1976:114-15; Davids 1982:114; Johnson 1995A.226). Though it can be argued that the strong association (even identification) of the kingdom with God himself as we see above suggests that it is referring to God here, the coming of the kingdom through the agency of the messiah allows the transference of reference firom God to Christ. In our present context, the strong christological emphasis in the previous sub-unit (2:1, 7) seems to suggest its reference to Christ, the messiah, rather than God (see Schmidt 7DWT:3.498). 128 A connection of the epithet “royal” with the previous verse can be seen in its reference to the “good name” of Christ. In the OT, invoking the name of God over someone means through this, they become God’s possession (see Gen. 48:16; Deut. 12:11; cf. LXX Amos 9:12; 2 Chron. 6:33; 7:14; Acts 15:17). Martin (1988:67) notes the following connection of “invoicing” with the rite of Christian baptism:^ There is a long line of development... from the practice of baptism ‘in/into the name of Jesus’ (Acts 2:38; 10:48) to the receiving of the (new) name in baptism (cf. Rev 3:12; Herm. Sim.9A.S; 13.7) and the use of the Lord’s name invoked over the candidate in the rite {Herm. Sim. 8.1.1; 6:4). The newly baptized then became bearers of that name (1 Pet 4:14-16; Herm. Sim. 8.10.3; 9.13.2-3; 15.2; 16.3; Ign. Eph. 7.1). Christians are regarded as baptized in Christ’s name, belonging to Christ, and heirs of the kingdom (2:5), Thus here the phrase vopoç pocaiÀncog (cf. 2:5; pKatleLoc) is understood as first promulgated by Jesus who proclaimed God’s kingdom and its law, hence the “law of the kingdom” (cf. Mt. 19:19; 22:39; Mlc 12:31; Lk. 10:27; as, e.g.. Laws 1980:110; Davids 1982:114; Moo 1985:94; Chester 1994:19, 38). The close association of the royal law with the love command in James also points in this direction (cf. Gal. 6:2: 6 vopoc; toi) XpLOTou). If analogy can be drawn from the rabbinic association of the Torah with the kingdom, it would mean that the law of liberty derives its authority through the kingdom of heaven inaugurated by Christ. The kingdom of heaven finds its continuing realization in this present age by living out this royal law. Thus the law of liberty is constitutive for the proclamation of the ‘ Braumann (1962:408-10) argues, in my opinion unsuccessfully, that Christian baptism lies behind the background o f .James by drawing parallels of the book with 1 Peter and Ephesians. The conversion experience (cf. 1:18) which baptism signifies is more fundamental. See notes on 1:18 in p. 105 n. 1 o f tliis thesis. 129 kingdom. This law, however, is still the law given to Israel through Moses, now understood as the law of God’s kingdom over his messianically renewed people. Whether this constitutes a new Torah, as some argue, still remains uncertain. C The Royal Law, Leviticus 19 and the Love Command The function of the prepositional phrase “ iccctà tt)v Ypa<{)qv” in 2:8 is far from clear. Some regard it as referring to the quotation following (Davids 1982:114; Deppe 1989:33). Yet it is not exactly a citation formula. The only other NT usage is in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 (2X; icarct tccç y pa^^aç), which is not really introducing a quotation. In the LXX, the expression “icaTo, lip ypoc(()T)v” occurs six times of which two surely refer to the writings of God (1 Chron. 15:15; Ezra 6:18). kind of writings in general. The others refer to some The explicit citation fonnulae we have in James are “o eLircov... eÎTrev kocl...” (2:11);‘%A,tip(j69t| f| Yptx(j)T] f) leYonaa” (2:23) and “f| Ypcc^h Xkyev... (4:5, 6). These resemble those found in Paul (for q YP#h Xky^i, see Rom. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; cf. 1 Tim. 5:18). intend to use the prepositional phrase for citation. It seems that our author does not Since the prepositional phrase is modifying the verb relelTe, the emphasis would then be that the royal law is to be fulfilled perfectly in accordance with the prescription of scripture. royal law is not equivalent to the scripture, it is supported by scripture. So though the The citation “love your neighbour as yourself’ just following the prepositional phrase “ icccxa xfiv Ypcc(j)'nv” virtually gives the scripture in support of the royal law. How the royal law relates to Lev. 19:18c is a matter of much debate. 130 Some regard the royal law as equivalent to the love command in Lev. 19:18c (Mayor 1913:90-91; Laws 1980:108-110; Martin 1988:67; Hartin 1996:487-89; Gutbrod TDNTA.lOSl). Some argue that “love your neighbour as yourself’ is only one commandment, not the whole law or the royal law itself, as 2:10 seems to suggest (Ropes 1916:198; Dibelius and Greeven 1976:142ff.; Davids 1982:115; Johnson 1995A:230). The “one” in 2:10 in this understanding would mean the love command, while the whole law points to the royal law. Those who are against the identification of the royal law with the love command as stated in Lev. 19:18c argue that for a single precept, “to keep” (tqpeLv) should be expected, while for obedience to the whole law, the verb fulfill (xeXeiv) seems to be more appropriate (as in Rom. 2:27). Yet in Tob. 14:9, we have an example where Tqpeiv is used even for the whole law. Secondly, it can be argued that it is unusual in the NT to designate a single commandment as vopcç. In the NT, the word vopoq is usually used to designate a body of commandments or precepts rather than a single commandment where evxolq would be used. Thus, it seems best to understand the royal law as the law of the kingdom given by the king, then this law can be understood as embodying a set of commandments focused in the love command. The royal law is closely identified with Lev. 19:18c, though not entirely identical to it.^ The love command shows not only the focus of the author’s emphasis (as Chester 1994:37), nor a mere summary of the whole law as in Paul (see Rom. 13:9; as Hoppe 1977:89; Luck 1984:169 n.29), but the way the royal law of ^ A number o f scholars identify the “royal law” with Lev. 19:18; see Mussner 1981:124; Laws 1980:108-09; Frankemôlle 1986:210; Martin 1988:67. 131 liberty should be kept (Goppelt 1982:2.205; pace Schrage 1988:287). This is close to Matthew’s understanding of the love command as “principle of interpretation” in 5:17-20 and 22:37-40. The love command thus provides the direction in which particular guides for Chiistian conduct are derived from the Torah. Our author quotes the Leviticus passage not as part of a double commandment in support of his argument. Furnish (1972:177) argues that the author regards the royal law of liberty as authoritative not because it is a command from Jesus, but because it is scriptural. 4:12). The ultimate authority of the law lies with God himself (cf. However this does not mean that our author is ignorant of the gospel tradition on the love command. On the contrary, as Baucldiam (1984:376) concludes on the use of the gospel traditions in early Christian literature other than the Gospels: “In paraenesis,..., the influence of the Gospel tradition was felt and its implications developed by teachers and prophets, but the tradition was normally not explicitly quoted. Since it was well laiown in its own right, it did not need to be.”^ Moreover, the epithet “royal” may be used here precisely to recall the central message of Jesus on the kingdom of God. To obey the love command is to fulfil the royal law, the demand of the kingdom of God. Our author is citing Lev. 19:18c with reference to its context in Leviticus 19, drawing attention also to other commandments from this chapter which are relevant to his instructions. Leviticus 19 can be characterized as a brief torah (instruction), including commandments representative of the basic teachings of the Torah. The entire ^A typical example can be found in Didache, where the sayings o f Jesus were adapted into the “Two Ways” scheme. See also Kittel 1942:91-94; Dodd 1959:106-118; Piper 1979:134-39. 132 chapter stands out as a major biblical statement on the duties of the Israelite people. As embedded in the Holiness Code, the central thesis is the call to holiness as imitatio Dei (19:2): Israel is to be holy as God is holy. The recurrence of the verb marks the three divisions of commandments: 3-18; 19-29; and 30-36.^ The section ends with the concluding exhortation to keep (“iD^y) these commandments (v. 37). Lev. 19:4-18 can be further divided into two subunits (Magonet 1993:160-61), with 19:3 outlining the two spheres of human life, the human (respect for parents; as vv. 9-18) and divine (keep the Sabbath; as vv. 4-8). Lev. 19:9-18 can be further divided into five strophes (w . 9-10, 11-12, 13-14, 15-16, 17-18), each ends with the statement: “I am Yahweh (your God).”^ This statement marks the divine authority with which the connnandment is proclaimed. Except for the second strophe that consists of five lines, all the others have six each. of charity (19:9-10; cf. 23:22).^ The first strophe concerns laws The second strophe, on stealing and deceptive trades, deals with property offenses. The prohibition against pequry (v. 12), by which God’s name is profaned, is connected with the above perhaps because oaths had a special function in judicial proceedings concerning property conflicts (Exod. 22:7-11). The third strophe (19:13-14) deals with provisions for the disadvantaged in society: the physically handicapped, blind and deaf, and for the wages of the day labourer. Verse 13a,b seems to refer to those who are liable to be oppressed and/or robbed (Mic. 2:1-2; Jer. 21:12; 22:3). The fourth strophe (19:15-16) concerns * The last division w . 30-36 seems to be a repetition of w . 4-18 with a deliberate extension of the concepts to include aliens, see Criisemann 1996:325. ^ The LXX version consistently has èyo) elpi icupioç b Geoc; ù(X(3v, wliile only the Hebrew text for 19:10 has the full expression: I am Yahweh your God. The others have only “I am Yahweh.” ^ For the analysis below, see Crüsemann 1996:323-24; Sanders 1985:232; Hartley 1992:310. 133 dealings at court, in which every slander may cause the death of another person. The last strophe (19:17-18a) deals with conflict between neighbours. Long harboured hatred in one’s heart may end up in actual vengeance and retaliation. The “love command” in verse 18 functions not only as a summary but as the basic principle for interpersonal relationships. and specific actions. of the decalogue. decalogue.^ This love is expressed in law as concrete The entire chapter constitutes the priestly summary of some Lev. 19:9-18 is associated closely with the second half of the It covers interpersonal, social, economic, and judicial matters, which are also matters of concern in James. The linldng together of the decalogue with the commandments in Leviticus as in Jas 2:11 can also be found in Philo {Hyp. 7.19), Josephus {Apion 2.190-219) and Ps.-Phoc. 9-41.^ In the case of Ps.-Phoc., the author also seems to take Leviticus 19 as a kind of summary or central chapter of the Torah (van der Horst 1978B:66f.).^ These writings and Ben Sira too all emphasize the moral aspect, especially on sexual ethics and care for the needy, and minimise the cultic aspect of the law (Niebuhr 1987:20-26, 51)."^ James alludes extensively to Lev. 19:9-18 on holiness in the human sphere while the cultic aspect has been left out entirely. As far as commandments are concerned, our author only alludes to ^Hartley (1992:310) sees the parallels between decalogue and Lev. 19 as following: Commandment 2. No molten images/v.4a; 3. No vain use o f God’s name /v.l2; 4. Remember the Sabbath/w.3a, 30a; 5. Honor parents / v.30a; 6. No murder /v.l6a; 7. N o adultery/v.29 (20-22); 8. No stealing /w .lla , 13 (35-36); 9. No false w itness/w .llb, 16a; 10. No coveting / w .17-18 (9-10). The strong affinities between the Decalogue and Lev. 19 are also the subject oîLev.Rab. 24-25 esp. 24.5. ^ For parallels o f Lev. 19 with Ps.-Phoc., see van der Horst 1978B:135; DeiTon 1986:22; Niebuhr 1987:26fF. ^ Thus, it should not be surprising at all that Ps.-Phoc. shares a number o f themes with James, see esp. Bottini 1986. Though cultic matters may not be the centre o f interest in their works, it does not mean that they all have the same attitude towards the cultic law. The observance o f the cultic laws is often assumed (see Philo, Abr. 89-93; Sir. 7:31; 31:16). 134 those of the Decalogue and in Lev. 19 in the OT. It is virtually certain that James quotes exactly from LXX Lev. 19:18c in 2:8c. Johnson (1982) has shown convincingly that Lev. 19 plays an important part in the entire work of James} In addition to allusions to individual passages in Lev. 19, he finds that there are also formal allusions. Jas 2:1; 3:1; 4:11; 5:9 and 5:12 are sentences of second person plural present prohibitions introduced by the particle pq. This recalls Lev. 19 with its repeated prohibitions (oi) with second person plural indicative future in the LXX). The motivations for these prohibitions are provided in the immediate context with references to the law and/or judgement. His findings can be summarised as follows (pp. 397-98): 4:11 alluding to Lev. 19:16: Jolmson finds that the support is on four counts: “a) the negative command; b) its content; c) the reference to ‘the neighbor’; d) its attachment to observance of the law.” 5:9 alluding to Lev. 19:18b: Johnson regards this allusion as the most tenuous one. He argues that in Lev. 19:18a, “revenge and wiath against a fellow Israelite are forbidden. Here, that grumbling against each other which arises from resentment is equivalent to seeking vindication on one’s own tenns rather than the Lord’s.” 5:12 alluding to Lev. 19:12: Though there are other passages of the Law relating to swearing (cf. Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21), 5:12 is by far the closest in vocabulary and form to Lev. 19:12. For the points of contact, see also Mussner 1981:124; Frankemôlle 1986:208; Laato 1997:57-58. 135 It has been generally noticed that 5:4 alludes to Lev. 19:13 (oi) pf) icoLpr|0qaeTaL 6 pioGoq Toh pioGcoToh). Though Mai. 3:5 (LXX: eirl xoix; atrooTepouviaç pioGov pioGwxoh) is closer verbally to Jas 5:4 (6 pLoGôç xwv epyocxcSv ... 6 àTreaxepTipévoç à(j)’ hpwv), the “cluster effect” of the allusions to Lev. 19 in 2:9 (also w . 1, 8) lends support that our author is alluding to the same passage (p. 395). This cluster effect remains highly significant in identifying all allusions of James to Lev. 19. others are thematic allusions. All the 5:20 alludes to Lev. 19:17a and also finds its resemblance also in Prov. 10:12 and 1 Pet. 4:8. Johnson argues that “apart from the notion of ‘hiding’ (found in all three), and that of ‘a multitude of sins’ (shared with 1 Pet.), James 5:20 is functionally much closer to Lev. 19:17b.” In addition to Johnson’s suggestion, it is also possible that 3:13-16 and 4:1-2 are alluding to Lev. 19:11. Though there are no verbal connections with Lev. 19:11, 14 in James, if we take V. 11 with v. 12 and v. 13 with v. 14 as two strophes each on a single theme, and w . 9-10 on the theme of charity (cf. Jas 2:14-16), there is no difficulty in seeing that our author is engaging in halachic midrash on Lev. 19:9-18 (Johnson 1982,1995A:31; Wall 1997:87; cf. Sigal 1981). Thematically, the connection can be seen as follows: on (1) charity (Lev. 19:9-10 cp. Jas 2:14-20); (2) partiality (Lev. 9:15-16 cp. Jas 2:16); (3) perjury (Lev. 19:12 cp. Jas 5:12); (4) concern for the disadvantaged in society (19:13-14 cp. Jas 5:1-6); (5) slander (Lev. 19:15-16 cp. Jas 4:11; cf. 3:1-12; 5:9); and (5) conflict with neighbours (Lev. 19:17-18 cp. 3:8-10; 4:1-3). This covers almost all the major themes in the work apart from the overarching concern for perfection and doubleness. The love command (Lev. 19:8c) not only forms the epitome of Lev. 136 19:11-18. According to James, it is through this love command that the royal law is to be understood and kept. D. The Love Command as Hermeneutical Principle in James and the Jesus Tradition Not only is the appeal to scripture as the basis for loving one’s neighbour shared by all references in the NT traditions (Mt. 19:17-19[19]; 22:36-40[39]; Mk 12:28-31 [31]; Lk. 10:26-27[27]; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14), but the form cited in all these places is exactly the same as in LXX Lev. 19:18c, Due to the limitation in space, I will focus on the Matthean passages to see the close relationship between James and Matthew in the use of the love command as a hermeneutical principle in their writings.^ ^ Parallels between James and Matthew have been noticed by many. See, e.g.. Mayor 1913:lxxvIxxxvüi; Sclüatter 1956:19-20; Dillman 1978; Mussner 1981:48-50; Davids 1982:47-48; Hartin 1991:141-42. The relationship between the two is a complicated one. Shepherd (1956; also Gryglewicz 1961; Halson 1968:312-33) argues for dependence of James on Matthew, with our author recalling from memory the sayings o f Jesus which he had heard as the Gospel was read in worship services. He further concludes that James must have originated in Syria in a church where Matthew was used exclusively. However, he has failed to account for Lucan elements (such as the motif of eschatological reversal between rich and poor) in James. See esp. the criticism o f Deppe 1989:151-52. Most recently, Hartin (1989,1991:44-80; 140-98; 220-33) argues that James knows both the original Q and , with some contacts with M and Marcan traditions, but not the final form o f the Gospel o f Matthew. He contends that James derives Ms gospel traditions from the Matthean community, which was in Antioch. Yet as Bauckham (1993:300) rightly points out, Hartin fails to establish clear criteria for what should count as an allusion. See esp. the excellent study by Thompson 1991:30-36; also Baucldiam 1984:383-84 on those criteria. As the detailed study o f Deppe (1989) has shown, James may have preserved independent traditions o f the teachings of Jesus “embedded in Jewish concepts and background and intricately absorbed into the etMcal teacMng of the early church” (p. 166). For an excellent discussion on the presence o f oral Jesus traditions side by side with written traditions, see Barton 1997:79-105. Dillman (1978:280, 304-05) may be right in seeing that they may be produced in the same general Christian milieu, though some years apart. 137 Love command and The Rich Yoiing Man (Mt. 19:16-30; cp. Mk 10:17-31; L k 18:18-30) In M t 19:17, a possible allusion to the Shemd occurs in Jesus’ reply to the young man’s question concerning what good deed he must do to have eternal life: etq eoTLv Ô ayocGoq. There may be a deliberate vagueness in the clause referring both to God and to Jesus (Byrskog 1994:302). The way to eternal life is to look to the commandments given by the good God (cf. Lk. 10:25-27). The Matthean version has Jesus quoting the first four commandments from the second table of the Decalogue which concerns human relationships, then back for the last commandment of the first table: “Honour your father and mother.” This is followed by quotations from Lev. 19:18: “You shall love our neighbour as yourself.” The young man declares that he has kept it all. wish to be perfect” (v. 21). Then Jesus challenges him: “If you Jesus shows the inadequacy of the young man’s righteousness: to obey “perfectly” the commandment of Lev. 19:18 will involve for him firstly selling his possessions and giving them to the poor. follow after Jesus in discipleship. Dei in 5:48. Secondly, he is to To follow Jesus takes the place of the imitatio The demand for total allegiance to Jesus for him involves giving up his wealth, which he is not prepared to do. This accords with the rabbinic interpretation of the Shema^ to love God with all one’s might, as we will see later. The young man’s failure to be perfect in terms of obeying Lev. 19:18 perfectly becomes the hindrance for his entering into eternal life. Jesus’ demand is not additional to the commandment of Lev. 19:18, but rather an intensification of its requirement, spelling out its implications (Mohrlang 1984:95). 138 It is in obedience to Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah, centred in the love command, that one can be perfect. It is to submit oneself entirely to the demand of the kingdom of God (6:33). Love is the accompanying condition for one’s entering into the kingdom of God made possible through the power of the kingdom (19:25-26). The Double Love Commands (M t 22:34-40) Mt. 22:34-40 is the last of the same sequence of controversy stories as the Markan pericope.^ Matthew, as Lulce, has a lawyer (vopLKoç) of the Pharisees, instead of a scribe in Mlc, challenging Jesus with a question in order to test him: “Which is the great (peycclT)) commandment in the law?” (v. 34). counted 613 commandments. The rabbis had The lawyer may be attempting to draw Jesus into the debate of distinguishing “lighter” and “heavier,” and “smaller” and “greater” regulations. The formulation in 22:40 (èv xamaic, toclc; ô d o Iv kvxoX&XQ o lo g 6 vopcç icpépatai ical ol iTpo({)qT(%L) makes it explicitly clear that the issue involved is the interpretation of the law. Jesus’ answer does not have the first part of the Shema^, the “monotheistic” credo, as in Mark. Some argue that the omission suggests the early Christians have abandoned the regular prayer of Shema^ (so, e.g., Hilton and Marshall 1988:23-24), yet this is far from certain. presupposition of both parties involved. Rather, Shemcf is the axiomatic Like the Hebrew Bible and the LXX, the command to love God comes with three elements. Yet instead of “with all your ^ For the sources o f the present pericope, see the discussion in Davies and Allison 1997:235-36. I concur with their judgement that the substantial agreements between Matthew and Luke can best be explained by their use o f Mark and oral tradition and are insufficient to ascertain that they both draw from Q. 139 strength” as its third element, here we have “with all your mind (ÔLavoLoc).”' It may be that Matthew emphasizes one’s attitude towards power and property, hence the administering reason (Gerhardsson 1976:136). On the whole, however, the stress is on loving God with the total capacity of all of one’s faculties. Jesus replies, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind,” yet describes it not only as the “great” but also the “first” commandment (pey&Xii ical irpwtri; v. 38), giving priority to it. As in Mark, a second commandment is also given, but with the phrase “like it” (opoioc ai)xfj). This means that they are similar in kind as distinct from the rest. As Gerhardsson (1981:49) suggests, this indicates that each of the two commandments is to be interpreted in the light of the other (the interpretation principle of mW n'T'T3 “similar category”). The hermeneutical concern in Matthew is underscored in his concluding with Jesus’s assertion: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” The word icpépcctat can be understood in at least two different ways: (i) the term is compared to the technical use of by the rabbis to isolate a commandment or principle so that all others can be “exegetically deduced.”^ In the LXX, Kpeiidvvopi ^It is possible that Matthew is following Mark but dropping the last o f the four elements in order to align itself with the three elements in the OT. Or alternatively, Matthew may have gone directly to the Hebrew text. ^ E.g., b. Ber. 63a. As Barth 1982:77; Gerhardsson 1976:137-38; cf. Str-B, 1.907-08. Gerhardsson (1976:136-39) also argues that the patterns o f thought and terminology in Matthew are reminiscent o f the rabbis’ hermeneutic principles. Donaldson (1995:689-96) finds that Jesus’ use o f the word “hang” is very similar to the rabbinic usage but wonders “why Matthew would use such a characteristically rabbinic formulation in such an anti-Phaiisaic passage, and to such unrabbinic ends.” (p. 694). The Matthean Jesus does not always oppose the Pharisaic view (see 23:3). Chilton and Evans (1994:29293) regard such summation as an application o f the “general and particular, and particular and general” (bbai ^^3), the fifth o f the HilleTs principles o f scriptural exegesis. 140 is the predominant rendering of and (ii) It can mean that the love command is “like a door on its hinges,” that is, the basic henneneutical principle of the Torah in which the essence of the Torah is found (Bomlcamm 1957:93; Barth 1982:78; Moo 1984:11). It is true that these two interpretations need not be mutually exclusive, as Gundry (1982:450) rightly points out: “what summarizes the others also provides a starting point for deduction (cf. m. Hag. 1.8; b. Ber. 63a).” Nevertheless, the point is not so much that all others may be deduced from these two commandments, but that these two detennine how all others are to be interpreted and applied (Matera 1996:48, 53; Snodgiass 1996:108). This means that the two commandments have hermeneutical priority over all the rest but they do not displace them {pace Schweizer 1975:425). We may conclude that in Mt. 22:37-40, the hermeneutic prograimne finds that Torah is still valid with its continuing significance guided by the Shemcf in conjunction with loving one’s neighboui*. The double coimnandments play a formative role and have constitutive importance in the interpretation and application of the law. According to the sages, the Shema^ is also the commandment to believe in the Kingdom of Heaven. To declare God’s unity and believe in him is “to take upon oneself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven” {b. Ber. 13a). the Torah and obey his commandments. To love God is to study The close connection can be seen in R. Simeon ben Lakish’s prescription for the treatment of evil impulse not only in occupying oneself with the Torah but also in reciting the Shema^ {b. Ber. 5a). Jesus, loving God cannot be separated fi*om loving one’s neighbour. his proclamation of the coming of the kingdom. 141 For This is part of The absolute primacy of the love commands is seen as a distinctive emphasis in Jesus’ teaching and mission. Law, Love Your Enemies and the Golden Rule (Mt. 5-7) The single most important passage, yet also the most controversial one, in understanding the relationship between Jesus and the law is undoubtedly Mt. 5:17-48. I do not intend to give a definitive treatment of the issue here but only to outline its significance for the importance of the interpretation of the Torah in Matthew. Mt. 5:17-20 states explicitly the henneneutical principles, the interpretation of the scriptuie and the law with its constituent elements, and vv. 21-48 demonstrate how they can be applied. There are four henneneutical principles involved: (1) the purpose of the scripture (“law or prophet”) in bringing righteousness can be fulfilled with the coming of Jesus who is the fulfillment of the salvation promised in the law and the prophets (v. 17).^ Jesus, together with the kingdom of God in his person, comes to give a definitive interpretation and fulfilment of the law to bring righteousness; (2) the law as interpreted by Jesus remains valid and authoritative till the final eschatological end (v. 18; cf. 24:34; Lk. 16:17).^ It is not until then that ^ Davies and Allison 1988:1.486-87; Luz 1989:264-72; Hagner 1993:105-06 The crux o f the matter lies with the meaning o f the word -rrX-ripcSaaL. Other possible interpretations are: (i) to obey the commandments o f the OT; see, e.g., ScWatter 1959:153-54; (ii) to confirm, or establish the lasting validity o f the OT law. This interpretation sees the verb as a translation o f the Aramaic Dip; see, e.g.. Daube 1956:60-61; Barth 1982:69; Betz 1995:178-79; (iii) the fulfillment o f salvation tlirough the fulfillment o f prophecy in the ministry, death and resurrection o f Jesus (cf. Lk. 24:27, 44); e.g. Banks 1975:203-26, 229-35; Meier 1976:41-124; Luz 1989:261, 264-65. The first and second interpretation unjustifiably neglect the theological use o f the word irXTipwaaL in Matthew and ignore the antitheses in Mt. 5:21-48. Here I combine the interpretation o f the fulfillment of righteousness with the third interpretation. It is in the light o f the fiilfillment o f the salvation event that the righteousness required by the law can be fulfilled. The close association of righteousness and Jesus can also be seen in 5:1011 where the eighth beatitude puts persecution for the sake of righteousness and Jesus side by side. Our interpretation fits in well witli v. 18 as the basis as well as the consequence o f v. 17. ^ Davies and Allison 1988:490, 494-95; Hagner 1993:107-08; Betz 1995:184. The clause “until heaven and earth pass away” is interpreted together with “until everything is accomplished” as synonymously parallel. I reject the hyperbolic understanding of the clause as “never,” as Strecker 142 the Torah will be replaced by salvation itself, the very content of the Torah (Betz 1995:184). (3) The coininandinents as interpreted by Jesus are to be kept and taught in every detail because such is consequential for one’s status in the future coming of the kingdom (v. 19). This principle is particularly significant for teachers who are at work in the community. Finally, (4) to follow Jesus’ interpretation of the law amounts to a righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees, one that God demands at the last judgement with the coming of his future kingdom (v. 20). It is a righteousness that goes beyond mere compliance to the written statutes of law. The demand for righteousness is the key concept in the entire Sermon. The application of these principles in 5:21-48 confirms our understanding. The contrast of “but I say to you” emphasizes a new and sharpening focus on the authority of Jesus, an authority that goes far beyond a simple restatement of the Mosaic law. Torah. Simultaneously Jesus is objecting to rival Jewish exegesis of the The Mosaic law now takes its authority not from itself but through Jesus and his interpretation. In these six “antitheses,” Jesus does not simply reestablish the true meaning of the law. ^ Some of his teachings go beyond what the Mosaic law required. The cuiTent Jewish inteipretations and applications of the law have 1988:55-56; Luz 1989:265-66. Taking the “everything” as “commandments” (as Banks 1975:217; BaiXh 1982:70; Strecker 1988:56) would contradict the meaning o f the first clause in 5:18. Moreover, the most common meaning o f the word yevriTaL is “to happen,” not “to do.” Thus the “everything” more likely refers to the final eschatological events that are to come to pass; as Moo 1985:27; Hagner 1993:107. I also reject taking “until heaven and earth pass away” as referring to the time o f the death and resurrection o f Jesus. This interpretation seems to be an artificial harmonization with Paul. ^ There is little ground for seeing that there a contrast between the word o f God and the word o f Jesus, as Meier 1976:133-35. The contention that the “antitheses” are not real oppositions needs serious consideration, as Daube 1956:55-62; Lapide 1986:44-46; Davies and Allison 1988:481, 507. 143 been internalized (1st, 2nd; cf. 15:1-20;^ 23:1-36), intensified (1st, 2nd, 6th), radicalized (1st, 2nd, 6th; cf. 19:16-21), elaborated (6th), their original intention recovered (3rd, 4th), and transcended (5th). His interpretation of the Mosaic law sets up a new standard of righteousness, a new halakhah, and is expected to be kept till the end of this age. The love command becomes the centre of the rest of the commandments. The arrangement of the “antitheses” suggests that the last “antithesis” is not only a final example of the greater righteousness demanded of the disciples, but the five culminate in the last “antithesis” that forms the climax of the section with the underlying principle of them all (Patte 1987:82; Snodgrass 1996:108; pace Mohrlang 1984:94). All these “antitheses” concern broken human relationships, that is, relationships with one’s own neighbour. Lev. 19:18 thus plays a significant part in M t 5:17-18 in two ways: as a separate commandment in the last “antithesis” (w. 4348) and as the climax of a series of commandments that functions as a hermeneutic principle for the choice and interpretation of the individual commandments (Gerhardsson 1976:143; Snodgrass 1996:108). In Mt. 5:43a, Jesus provides the inadequate interpretation of Lev. 19:18 as understood by some Jews of his time. “You shall hate your enemy” is an interpretative comment of Lev. 19:18 (see, e.g., Betz 1995:304). matter. Love is a limited The Community Rule teaches love for the sons of light but hatred for the * A person becomes unclean not from anytliing outside but from the uncleanness o f the “heart,” and only that o f the heart, iliough the Decalogue is maintained, it is internalized as a demand for a pure heart. 144 sons of darkness (IQS 1.10)/ According to the rabbis, only the Israelites are counted as VI (Piper 1979:47f). According to Jesus, however, the correct interpretation and application of Lev. 19:18 (vv. 44-48) includes loving one’s enemies. The traditional understanding of Lev. 19:18 has been redefined to include everyone, even those who least deserve it. Jesus’ demand to love one’s enemy goes beyond all Jewish tradition of his time (Flusser 1991:173). According to Pryzbylsld (1980:82, 83), Jesus intends “an extremely meticulous obsei-vance of the law” which is strongly influenced by the principle of “making a fence around Torah” (cf. m. Ab. 1.1). not refer to God’s gift in the Pauline sense.^ Here in 5:20, “righteousness” does It is “Christian character and conduct in accordance with the demands of Jesus — right intention, right word, right deed” (Davies and Allison, 1988:1.499). The hypocrites are not “perfect” because their hearts are divided; while trying to please God they are actually craving only human approval. The greater righteousness involves seeking only God’s approval. This righteousness is tied in closely with the concept of perfection. The demand for righteousness is summarized by the maxim in v. 48 that ^ There is much wisdom in Kiassen’s comment (1992:12); “Rather than look in vain tluoughout Jewish sources, including Qumran, for these exact words, we should simply treat them as a part of general folk wisdom wliich Jesus’ listeners had heard and wliich were well known to Matthew’s audience as well.” Some interpret the commandment to love one’s enemy as directly against the zealots. See, e.g., Hengel 1989:378-79; Klassen 1984:45-48, 94-100. ^ There is a continuous debate on whether all the occurrences o f ÔLicaioauvri in Matthew should be understood as demand rather than gift. Those who argue for demand exclusively, see Pryzbylski 1980:99; Mohrlang 1984:114; Davies and Allison 1988:1.327; Luz 1989:177-79, 237f; Snodgrass 1996:116-17 who allow for an exception in 5:6. Those who conclude that sometimes it refers to a gift and others a demand, see Barth 1982:139f: “this righteousness is not only a demand but at the same time an eschatological gift, 5.6; 6.33.”; Ziesler 1972:130-36, 142-43; Meier 1976:77-80; Guelich 1982:84-87; Hagner 1992. The predominant number o f scholars who opt for the latter see Mt. 5:6 and 6:33 as gift. 145 concludes the section: one should be perfect, that is, undivided, with integrity, irreproachable, and holy, as the heavenly Father is, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” is a variation of the holiness code: “Be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 18:2b). God is himself perfect, as is evident in his benevolence and love towards humanity, so it should be for those who are liis children sharing the same familial characteristics (5:45). imitatio Dei comes to the fore. Again the motif of It is possible that the repeated statement “I am Yahweh” in Lev. 19, as in later Jewish tradition, can be interpreted as a reference to the action of God and as an implicit exhortation to imitate him (Neudecker 1992:508). Obedience to the Torah, as inteipreted by Jesus, and imitation of God do not contradict each other, but are part of the same doctrine. The ofv in Mt. 5:48 points back to the kind of love that includes one’s enemies, which the disciples are supposed to have. This is the true meaning of Lev. 19:18 as cited in Mt. 5:43a. The disciples’ scope of love should match that of the heavenly Father. As the disciples live out this righteousness centred in love, they confirm their identity as “children of the heavenly Father.” To become a child of God and to enter into God’s kingdom are closely related events (5:9). In this respect, the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees will be exceeded (Mt. 5:20). As in James, perfection should not be understood on the basis of hellenistic ethics of virtues. Rather, to be perfect is to be undivided, single-minded, wholehearted in relation to both God and humans, as in Jewish tradition. perfect manifests itself in concrete behaviour. In the present context, it means to be perfect in one’s love, bringing even one’s enemies within its compass. 146 Being It is the fulfillment of all the demands of the law as interpreted by Jesus. Perfection is basically the same as righteousness, the greater righteousness required at the last judgement (5:20). God (6:33), It is to submit oneself entirely to the demand of the kingdom of All Christians are called to be perfect in absolutely obeying the demands of the law. The whole of the Sermon on the Mount can be seen as summarized by the “golden rule” (7:21) with the reference to "the law and the prophets” as it begins in 5:17 (Davies and Allison 1988:1.689; Luz 1989:255, 425-26, 430; Betz 1995:518). The positive formulations of the “golden rule” can be found explicitly in Mt. 7:12: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.” The negative fonn is the predominant one of the “golden rule.”^ It is probable that, particularly its positive form, is under the influence of Lev. 19:18 (Alexander 1997:374-78).^ The rare occurrence of this fonn suggests that Matthew and Lulce (cf. Lk. 6:31) are dependent upon a common source, which is likely to be Q. Jesus seems to be using this general henneneutical principle to encompass the requirement of the scripture with reference to human relationships. This so called "golden mle” is another fonn of the love command as stated in Lev. 19:18 (Flusser 1985:227; Sanders 1993:224; Alexander 1997:374-75; c f Targ. Ps.-J. Lev. 19:18: “You shall love your neighbour, so that what is hateful to you, you ^Cp. Tob 4:15; Arm. Ahiqar 8:88; Ep. Arist. 207; Ps.-Philo 11:12; Acts 15:20, 28; G. Thom. 6; Did. 1:2; Iren. haer. 3.12.14; Clem. sir. 2.23. Since the rule is found in various forms in different cultures, it is precarious to say that it was borrowed from the Greek culture. See esp. Alexander 1997:371-74. ^ Alexander (1997:378-82) argues against the notion that the negative form is in any way inferior to the positive form, or that Jesus was the first to use the positive form. The positive form, though rare, can be found mEp. Arist. 20; 2 En. 61:2; m. Ab. 2.10, 12. 147 shall not do to him”). As in 5:48 with the call to perfection grounded upon God’s benevolence and perfection, here the “golden rule” is also grounded upon the heavenly Father’s initiative of generosity, providence and goodness. “The disciples are to imitate this divine initiative in the hope that the people who they thus treat will respond in kind” (Betz 1995:518), The Sermon on the Plain (Lk. 6:27-38) may, as in Matthew, have derived its materials from Q, but shaped the traditions in a different way. The ultimate motivation of behaviour is the imitation of the benevolent and merciful God by his own children (6:35c-36), the same as we find in Matthew. This mercifulness will be connected to one’s future judgement (6:37): “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. forgiven.” Forgive, and you will be This is not much different from the maxim in Jas 2:13: “For judgement will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgement” (cf Sir 28:1-5). In sum, obeying the Torah is not just obeying any interpretation, but Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. interpretation has its centre in the love command. His Obedience to specific commandments as interpreted by Jesus is the fulfillment of the love command in that concrete situation. This new demand comes with the inauguration of God’s kingdom in the person and ministry of Jesus. The binding nature of this new interpretation of the Torah upon all Christians is also emphasized in Mt. 16:19 with their authority in “binding and loosing.” 148 Jesus’ disciples will pass on that new interpretation and extend it (Hagner 1995:473). The threat of eschatological judgement pervades the entire Sermon on the Mount, where it reinforces the demand for radical obedience to the law as interpreted by Jesus. This is prominent both in die “antitheses” (5:22; 29-30; cf. 18:8-9) and in the final appeal of obedience in terms of the “two ways” (7:13-29). In 25:31-46 with the parable of the sheep and goats, the final judgement is seen as judgement according to one’s acts of love and mercy. Christians should keep watch on their behaviour in view of the final consequences of their actions. Passages Related to Mercy im Matthew In Matthew, not only does the commandment to love one’s neighbour demonstrate the true requirements of the law, the call for mercy is also central to the fulfillment of the Torah. ^ Twice Hos 6:6 (LXX: "EA.eoç OéXco ical of) Ooaiav) is used as the basis for showing the intention of the law (9:13; 12:7). Matthew. It is paradigmatic for In 23:23, “justice (icpCoLc;), mercy (eXeoç), and faith (ïïCotlç)” are identified as the weightier matters of the law. They are more important than tithing yet not displacing them (“It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting [à(f)Lév()ci] the others.”). accordance with Scripture. Jesus’ own actions are characterized by mercy in By stressing that God is merciful, the Matthean Jesus has subordinated the Sabbath commandment to the principle of mercy (12:1-14). Again in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, the attitude of the king, that mercy ^ Similarly, in Luke, the Parable o f the Good Samaritan (10:25-37) concerns the interpretation of the law with the love command with its expression in mercy as the overriding principle in fulfilling the requirement o f the law. See esp. Bauckham 1998A:485. 149 should also be that of the governor, the unforgiving servant (18:33). As Borg (1984:127) well summarizes the twofold message of the parable: “the fitting response of the people who live under the mercy of God was mercy; simultaneously, it warned of the threatening consequences of the failure to act mercifully.” The way of mercy is not an exception but the norm in one’s dealing with others. to the parable is again an imitatio Dei, with mercy as its content. Central Though the demand for mercy is not explicitly mentioned in 25:31-46, the verdict at the final judgement is based upon whether one practises acts of mercy. ConclusioHi James shows many similarities to the Gospel of Matthew in the love command. This can be summarized as following: (1) The Double Commandments of Love: Love of God and love of neighbour stand out as two leading concepts in the entire work of James. 1:2-26 basically outlines the main concern of the book divided between the two concepts: 1:2-18 on themes derived from Shema^ and 1:19-27 on keeping the perfect law of liberty. This will become clearer in the study of the concept of perfection in James later in this thesis. As in Mt. 22:34-40 (and parallels), the second command finds its significance in the context of obedience to the first. Loving God perfectly must demonstrate itself in the keeping of the perfect law of liberty (Jas 1:4,25). This is the way to perfection and righteousness required by God (1:3, 20). This parallels particularly Mt. 5:17-48 in which the interpretation of the Torah by Jesus is focused on the love command achieving perfection (5:48) and 150 righteousness (5:20). (2) The Command of Love of One’s Neighbour as Summary and Interpretative Principle of the Torah: As in Matthew, the perfect law of liberty (1:25) or the royal law (2:9) in James, which is understood as the Mosaic law, can be epitomized as the command to love one’s neighbour (2:9). Like the hermeneutical principles set out in Mt. 5:17-20, James clearly shows that faith in Christ by no means abrogates the Torah, but fulfills it in a unique way (2:8). The interpretation of Jesus on the Moasic Torah is binding to all Christians (Mt. 5:19//Lk. 16:17). The Torah will abide in the new era though in a different way — the Torah rightly interpreted in line with the Jesus tradition. Yet it must also be noted that except in the Synoptics and James, the love command is not presented as an interpretative principle through which the Mosaic law is to be interpreted. (3) Love and Mercy as the Key to Christians’ Moral Behaviour: Perfection and righteousness as demanded by God, either in the Torah or in the teaching of Jesus, can be achieved by fulfilling the love command. The emphasis of the discussion tends to fall on the meaning and significance of the command to love one’s neighbour. Our author is in line with Matthew in seeing a common bond in humans created after the image of God (Jas 3:9; cf. 1:5). As in Matthew, the demand to obey the royal law according to the love command can alternatively be understood as requiring people to perfonn acts of mercy (Jas 2:13). (5) The Motivation of Imitatio Dei or Imitatio Christi: The principle of imitatio Dei 151 seems to have its ground in the Holiness Code. God’s perfection, benevolence, and mercy become the yardstick of human behaviour with special reference to the love of one’s neighbour. Since God’s grace and love towards humanity are revealed fully in the ministry and death of Jesus, imitatio Dei sometimes gives way to imitatio Christi. In James, the benevolence and wholeness of God sets the standard for one’s being whole or perfect (Jas 1:3-4, 17; 5:11). In the context of judgement, this principle can be turned around with God acting towards humans according to the way followed by humans in their dealings with each other (cf. M t 6:12; 18:23-35; Lk. 11:4). ^ This is what we found in Jas 2:13. However, imitatio Christi is absent in James? (6) The Eschatological Context of Ethical Exhortation: In Matthew, the love command is set in the context of the new era with the coming of Christ, fulfilling the Torah. As noted above, the threat of God’s reciprocal action is often stressed in such a context. mercy to others. God will bring judgement upon those who show no The imminent coming of Christ marks the importance and urgency for obeying the love command. The future judgement plays an important role in James'" instruction to obey the love command (2:9-13). We will see later that this future judgement is tied in with the last days culminating in the Day of the Lord (Jas 5:3, 8).^ ’ Such understanding can also be found in later Rabbinic Judaism, b. Sola, 14a reads: “As the Holy One, blessed be He, clothes the naked, visits the sick, comforts the sorrowful and bury the dead.” And again: “He who has mercy on his fellow, heaven has mercy on him.” {b. Shab., 151b). ^ I disagree with Wall (1992:260-61; 1997:107-10) that the phrase “ r q v w l o t l v t o O KupCon fjgwy Tqoon XpLOToO xf\Q ôo^tiq” in 2:1 points to Clirist being the model o f mercy for the eschatological community. See discussion o f the phi ase in Part 5A in this thesis. ^ See esp. Dillman 1978:202, 206-08 for detailed comparison of the expectation o f judgement 152 (7) James (1:25; 2:13), as in Matthew, the meticulous concern for ritual purity in early Judaism has given way to the concern for actions in love and mercy. This does not mean that early Jewish Christians have rejected the ritual law entirely. It does mean, however, that what matters now is that this new form of religion they envisage is no longer dominated by concerns of ritual purity, but by one’s love for God expressed also as love of one’s neighbour in acts of compassion and mercy. Mere linguistic or thematic similarity is insufficient for concluding that our author depends on the moral teaching of Jesus. Jesus’ use of the love command as a hermeneutical principle in interpreting Torah, however, is unique with the Jesus tradition. This is without real parallel in contemporary Judaism. James'" understanding of the love command is virtually the same as that of Jesus. In addition, the linking together of love, law, perfection, judgement and the motif of imitatio Dei both in Matthew and James further strengthens the view that James is actually dependent on the Jesus tr adition in his understanding of the hermeneutics of the Torah. The use of the love command as the summary of the law can also be found in Pauline writings. Both in Galatians (5:14) and Romans (13:8b, 10b), Paul shows parallels with Mt. 5:17 regarding the law as fulfilled in Christ. ^ His use of the love command shows the significance of it in the early Christian paraenesis. between Matthew and James. ^Betz (1995:205) remarks that the six “antitheses” amount to “the law o f Christ” in Gal 6:2, though the Sermon on the Mount and Galatians approach the principle from different directions, the former positively and the latter negatively. In Romans (12:9-21; 13:8-10), Paul comes to be very close to the interpretations o f the Seimon with paraenesis quite similar to that in the Sermon. See esp. Thompson 1991:90-160. 153 The love command is part of the early Christian proclamation. The gospel message contains within itself the call to repentance and to act in love and righteousness, perhaps more obvious in Johannine and Pauline writings, though not entirely absent from the Synoptics. The theological indicative contains within itself the moral imperative. This is also true in James, where the imperative aspect of the word of truth (T.18) is the perfect law of freedom grounded upon the love command ( 1:21). E. The Unity and Wholeness o f the Law The second conditional (el TTpoowTTolqinTTetTe) in 2:9 is set in contrast (ôé) to the first one (2:8: el vopov relelre paaiXucov icatà TT]v ypa^qv) regarding the fulfillment of the law in loving one’s neighbour as oneself. Whoever shows partiality sins (àiiapilay epyaCeoGe; cp. ôiKaLoowqy 6eoO cuic epyccCemi in 1:20). Such is the same as breaking the royal law and would be “convicted by the law as transgressors (Trccpccpctmi)” (cf v .ll). The word group for “transgress” (verb: TOpapoiLeLv [3X]; noun: napapaaLç [7X] and Trapapcctriç as here [5X]) is used consistently in the NT, except in Acts 1:25, as violation of the law of God.* In 2:10, our author gives justification (yap) for the above statement in 2:9, underlying the seriousness of the matter involved. The gender of evl should be taken as neuter meaning “in one point” (Ropes 1916:199) instead of as masculine in agreement with vopoç. ndvtcov would then be at all points where the sum would be ^ See esp. Rom. 2:23, 25, 27; 4:15. Cf. Kilpatrick 1967:433. 154 the oXoQ 6 yo[ioç. Thus the “one” here does not refer to the love command {pace Lohse 1991:172), but refers to one commandment of the royal law, the precept against partiality. Anyone who wants to observe the whole law yet sins (Tn:aLOT|; Rom. 11:11; Jas 3:2. Sir. 37:12) in one precept of it is guilty of (evo%oç; 1 Cor. 11:27; LXX Isa. 65:17; I Macc. 14:45; Pss. Sol. 4:2) violating the whole, condemned by the law as guilty (cp. Gal. 3:10; 5:3). This wholeness of the law is ftirther supported by 2:11 (ydp). One does not have to commit every crime to be a transgressor of the law (TrapapdtTiç vopoi)). It is the whole law that sets the standard of judgement. The commandments of the decalogue are quoted here in James not as constitutive elements of the Law, but as examples of the outworking of the singular claim of God. The prohibition of murder is selected probably because it is in direct opposition to love and is often associated with oppression against the poor (Jer .7:6; 22:3; Sir. 34:25-27; T. Gad 4:6-7; cf. 2:6). The command against adultery is chosen possibly because of its proximity to murder (see 4:1-4). The organic unity and wholeness of the law is found in its author and guarantor as stated in 4:12. Slander is one of those vices that destroys communal harmony and causes conflicts and disputes (4:1; cf. 1 Pet. 2:1). judging one’s neighbour. Œ uroL ç Slander implies This accusation is reminiscent of 2:4 (oi) ÔLeKpL0r)ie kv ical èyéveoOe Kpixcd ôialoyLopwy TTovqpcSv;). The use of the word T rX qatov in 4:12 in place of a5eA.({)6c; in 4:11 shows that the author has the love command in mind (2:8-9). Slander against one’s neighbour is tantamount to slander against the 155 royal law (as epitomized in the love command) by denying its validity in gioss disobedience to it. This is the veiy opposite of being a 'iroL'nifiq vopou (cf. 1:22: TToiriml A,6you; 1:25: TTOLTiTTiç epyoi)). It is to judge the royal law, setting oneself up as God in declaring the abrogation of it. Such is to intrude upon the singular prerogative reserved for God alone, an attitude of sheer arrogance (4:6). God is the exclusive sovereign one (eig, emphatic in position) qualified to be the judge of the law since he is the lawgiver (vopoGexrig). This “oneness” of God maries not just his singleness but also the consistency of God in dealing with humans (cf. 1:5). alone is God who deserves all of human loyalty and obedience. sanction for obedience to the law (see Laws 1982:300). He His oneness is the The word vofio9éxr|ç occurs only here in the NT and once in LXX Ps. 9:21 referring to a legislator appointed by God for the nations. It can be used of a legislator as in Plato {Rep. 429C). can change this law except the only lawgiver and judge (cf. Isa. 33:22). assumption in the Sinai tradition. No one It is a basic Both the quotation of Lev. 19:18 in 2:8 and the explicit statement here confirm that God stands behind the royal law as its ultimate authority. The reference to the whole law is again associated with the Jewish ShemcT emphasizing the singleness and uniqueness of God as the Lawgiver and Judge. Lüdemann (1989:142-43) argues that Jas 2:10 is an allusion to Gal. 5:3 (3:10) or to oral Pauline tradition because the concept is unique in the NT and Judaism. However, the concept is also found in Matt. 5:18-19. documented in Jewish writings. The unity of Torah is well In 4 Macc 5:18, Eleazar, a man of priestly decent and an expert in the Law, when challenged by Antiochus to eat of the swine’s meat. 156 replied publicly that “you must not regard it as a minor sin for us to eat unclean food; minor sins are just as weighty as great sins, for in each case the Law is despised.” Ropes (1916:200) cites b. Shab. 70, 2 which reads: “If he do all, but omit one he is guilty for all severally.”* Nonetheless, they used the concept differently. For Paul, the circumcised are under obligation to keep the whole law and there is no room for the grace of Christ. whole law. For James, love and mercy should entail the keeping of the Both of them would agree that the law functions as the regulation of covenant life. According to our author, the whole law is still valid for the messianically renewed community. It is the law that God, the lawgiver and judge, has instituted. Substantially, this whole law is not in any way different from the Mosaic law, but as to its significance and application, it is the royal law or the perfect law of liberty as summarized, interpreted and fulfilled through the love command. must be seen in the light of the true religion stated in 1:27. Moreover, it There, true religion as rising out of the perfect law of liberty is described in purity terms, yet in an ethical sense. It is, however, inaccurate to say that the perfect law of liberty only refers to the ethical aspect of the law and the cultic law has been abrogated based on the silence of the text {pace, e.g, Klein 1995:137-44; Tsuji 1997:112-14). Neither do we know anything about the role of the cultic law in “Jacobean Christianity” {pace Konradt 1998:204-05, 305). ^Cf. Shemoth Rabba 25 end: ‘“the Sabbath weighs against all the precepts’; if they kept it, they were to be reckoned as having done all; if they profaned it, as having broken all.”; also Rashi on Numbers 15:38-40; Bemidkar Rabba 9 on Numbers 5:14. There is no need to appeal to Stoic influence for the concept as O’Boyle 1985. 157 F. The Perfect Law o f Liberty and Religiosity In 1:27, our author summarized his concern as “GpqaiceLa icaBapoc ical apiavToq TTccpà Tcp 06CÔ Kcd TTccxpL.” respectively. The word BpqoKeia occurs 4 times in the NT and LXX To say that the word may carry negative and positive connotations is misleading {pace Schmidt, TDNT: 3.155-57). In the LXX, it is used twice in the Wisdom of Solomon (14:18, 27); both have to do with worship of idols (cf 11:15; 14:17; Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.315). The other two times are found in 4 Maccabees from the mouth of Antiochus (5:7: Bpfloiceia TouSodcov, 5:13: BpqmceLa upcov) both referring to the “religion” of the Jews. Together with its cognates, this is also the way it is often used in the works of Josephus {Ant. 1.13.1: BripoiceCa ïïpoç xov 0e6v; 19.5.2: mTpLoç 0pr)oic€La; 20.1.2). In the NT, it is used in Col. 2:18 for “worship of àyykXùiv). * In Acts 26:5, Paul used this word with reference angels” (OpTiaiceia to Jewish worship of God, as in Josephus {Ant. 9.13.3). The other two times are found in James (1:26, 27) where the adjective Bphoicoç is also found in 1:26. In 1 Clem. 62:1, BpqoicEia pertains to Christianity. The meaning of the word Bprjaiceia should not be limited to the cultic aspect of worship but the total outward expression of a religion {pace Verseput 19976:101-04). The adjective 0phoicoç in 1:26 is not found elsewhere in the NT. Here, our author uses the word BpïjOKeCa and its adjective OpqoKOQ to express the totality of belief and practice of the messianically renewed community which centre its worship upon God ^The ph ase “worsliip o f angels” may mean “worshipping o f angels” or “angels’ religion. 158 the Father (1:27) through faith in Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory (2:1). This religion upholds values that are diametrically opposed to that of the world (1:27; 2:5). Obedience to the perfect law of liberty will result in the kind of religion that is acceptable to God. Thus Kee (1984:324) is right in pointing out that the importance of the law is basic to Jameses imderstanding of true religion. As we have noticed before, for our author, working God’s righteousness, acting in accordance with God’s word and being religious are one and the same concern in his work, which is associated with the theme of perfection. This concern for true religion in obedience to the law forms the backdrop for the understanding of the relationship between faith and works (cf. Verseput 1997B). The kind of religion that our author does not approve of is one that does not have any ethical consequences. The verb ÔoiceLv in 1:26 is often used in the NT for false assumption (see Mt. 3:9; 6:7; 26:53; Mk 6:49; Lk. 8:18; 13:2; 24:37; Acts 12:9; Jn 5:39). The image of %aA.Lvaywyw is again used in 3:2-3 for the controlling of oneself. One who can “bridle his tongue” completely, without any mistake in speech, would be a perfect person (xkXeioç avqp), able to keep one’s whole body in check (3:2). That may be why our author uses this as a test for one’s religiosity. The phrase “dcÀÀà arraxwv icapôiav auxoi)” is giammatically difficult in two ways: (1) it makes better sense if the phrase is joined to the apodosis; and (2) it is more appropriate to use the conjunction icat than clXXgl. Such irregularity in construction may be due to our author’s attempt to introduce a double antithesis: “religious”—“not bridling” (0pr|aic6c; — \xx\ xocXivaywywv) and “thinlcs”—“deceiving” 159 (ôoicei — aTTaxwv), as Dibelius and Greeven (1976:121) argue. Davids (1982:101) states that this construction shows rhythm or euphony, yet fails to point out how is it rhythmic. The conjunction a lia may be used in an emphatic sense here (cf Robertson 1934:1185; Dana and Mantey 1955:par. 211). Thus the sentence can be translated literally as: “If anyone thinks to be religious, yet does not bridle his tongue and in fact (or indeed) deceiving his heart, this religion is worthless.” There is no need as Johnson (1995A:210-11) to understand the word airaxwu in the less usual sense of “give pleasure to.” This person’s thinking is involved in self-deception. Similar self-deception is also found in the metaphor in 1:23-25. By failing to put what one hears into practice, one shows that one’s religion is in vain. As we will see later, self-deception is an expression of doubleness, in contrast to perfection. The word paTaioq in the LXX is used specially of idol and idol-worship (e.g. Jer. 2:5; 10:3; cf. Acts 14:15; 1 Pet. 1:18) as sometliing worthless. Such worthlessness is not only found in faith that does not produce work unable to save, but is idolatrous in allying oneself with the world (1:27). The 0pr|OK€la acceptable to God is described as “pure and undefiled” (icaGapa ical apiavTog). In the LXX and NT, the tenn ica0ap6ç can be used of physical (often associated with cultic as what is physically clean is fit for cultic use), cultic (e.g. Lev. 7:19; 10:10; 13:17 etc.; Mt. 23:26, 35; Heb. 10:22) and moral purity (e.g. Ps. 51:10 [50:12]; Hab. 1:13; Prov. 12:27; Job 8:6; Tob. 3:14; T. Benj. 8:2; Mt. 5:8; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 Tim. 3:9; 2 Tim. 2:22 cf. Pss. Sol. 17:36). It can also mean “morally free” from wrong (cf. Gen. 24:8; 2 Sam. 22:24, 25; Mt. 23:26; Jn 13:10). As Hauck (TDNT:4.647) rightly notices that in diaspora Judaism, there is a trend towards 160 spiritualizing the cultic concept of purity to favour the ethical and spiritual connotations. For Josephus, the emphasis is on the purity of soul and conscience {Bell. 6.48). This purity is achieved through uprightness (ôiicocLoawri; Ant 18.117). Such trend is also found in Philo {Deus 1mm. 132; Ebr. 143; Plant. 64). The word àpLavToç can also be used in a physical, cultic (Lev. 5:3; 11:24; Deut. 21:23; 2 Macc. 14:36) and moral sense (Wis. 3:13; 4:2; Heb. 7:26; 1 Pet. 1:4). When used together with iccc0ap6ç in classical Greek, it means “perfect and inviolate purity” (cf 2 Macc. 14:36; Hauck, TDNT: 4.647). In 1 Pet. 1:4 on heavenly inheritance and Heb. 7:27 on Christ the heavenly high priest, it is probably used as pure in every sense, without distinction. The two words together give the positive and negative side of the kind of religion of which God approves (irapa tw 0€c3). It should be noted that on a few occasions C’sn/on is translated as icaOocpoç in the LXX (Gen. 20:5, 6). Another word of similar meaning to KccOapoç is apepirxot;, often translated as “blameless” in a moral sense. in Job 4:17; 11:4; 33:9. It is found together with Koc0ücp6ç This word translates Q*’fân in Gen. 20:5, 6; Ps. 19:13[18:14]. The word apepiricç goes together with àirÀwv that translates the verb sn (“make perfect”) in Job 22:3 (cf Gen. 17:1; Job 1:1,8; 2:3). It is used together with ôCicklgç in Job 9:20; 22:19; Wis. 10:5. There is no explicit evidence that here we have a contrast with the concept of ritual puiity in common Judaism. of first century Jews. Ritual purity played an important part in the life It is a distinctive element in their national identity that distinguishes them from the gentiles. For common Judaism, the Temple, Sabbath, 161 circumcision and purity are the four crucial marks of Jewish identity (Wright 1996:384-87). Different Jewish groups often distinguished one from another in the different interpretations of the purity laws. These differences often reflect their different attitudes to the Temple and the worship associated with it. Our author here is insisting that the Christian shape of religion also concerns purity, based on the perfect law of liberty as interpreted through the Jesus tradition. One must note that the practical piety expressed m James in terms of charity is also traditional in Judaism. The contrast is not between the ritual element in the Torah and the moral element, as some maintain (see, e.g, Knowling 1904:34; Mitton 1966:75-77), Nor is the distinction between the two religions or pieties that Judaism concerns only the outward and Christianity the inward. Rather the distinction lies in the fact that in Christianity, the worsliip of God the Father is through faith in Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory (2:1) and, in addition, the law is interpreted through the Jesus tradition. This is highly significant, since as Borg (1994:53) rightly points out: “[Purity] was both a hermeneutic and social system: it fonned the lens through which they saw sacred tradition and provided a map for ordering their world.” A different concept or emphasis on purity would bring about different social relationships and an entirely different way of life. Though our author may not be defining the Christian shape of religion in contradistinction to Judaism, his concern for purity only in moral terms is significant Our author employs cultic language (see also 3:6; 4:8) yet uses it exclusively in an ethical sense. The tendency to put ethical over ritual elements in the Torah can already be found in the prophetic tradition (e.g. Isa. 1:1-11; 58:3-7; Jer. 7:21ff.; Hos. 162 6 :6 ; Amos 5:21ff.; Mic. 6 :6 ff.; Ps. 51:1-17), thus prioritizing the moral aspect over the “ritual.” 7:14-23). This is also the tendency in the Jesus tradition (see Mt. 7:7; 23:23; Mk For James and also for early Christianity, the shape of religion that professed Jesus Christ the Lord of gloiy (2:1) is one with distinctive moral emphasis. Purity has to do more with one’s devotion to God that issues in moral behaviour. His critique is of a form of religion that has no moral or practical consequences. The cultic language in the OT is customarily used in the NT in an ethical sense in Christian paraeneses (e.g., Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:5). Pure and undefiled religion would manifest itself in caring (eiriaiceTrxeoOaL) for orphans and widows in their distress. The obligation to care for the orphans and widows reflects the emphasis in Jewish piety. Another manifestation of pure and undefiled religion is that one is kept “unstained (ccoïïlâov) from the world.”* The word aaTTLÀoç is synonymous with ctpcopoç^ and é|i(0[iqToç (see 1 Pet. 1:19; 2 Pet. 3:14) which can be used both in a cultic and a moral sense. à|i(6pr|T0 ç, never occurs in the LXX. aoiTLÀov aveTTLA.qiiTTTov. The word aoiTLloi;, like 1 Tim. 6:14 reads: Tqpqo&i ttiv èvToA,qv This links keeping the commandment with living a spotless, blameless life (cf. 2 Clem. 8:6). It goes together with icaOapoç in Hennas, Vis. 4.3:5 ^The reading o f the majority o f MSS has “âaiîLXov èautov xqpeLv”. While Roberts (1972:215-16) argues that the original reading should be “uirepaoTiLCeLv aûxouç” (“to protect them”) as preserved in He argues that this reading is more in keeping with the thought o f James, particularly with 2:1. This reading has also been suggested earlier by Black 1964:45. Yet he concedes that it is a secondary reading. Roberts fails to see the connection with 4:4. See esp. Johanson (1973:118-19) who argues against Roberts. ^ The word Sptopoç is used to translate □'’D n /sfl in the LXX in the cultic sense in Lev. 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; Ezek. 43:22; etc. and in the moral sense in 2 Kgdms 22:24, 26; 22:33; Pss. 14[15]:2; 17:24, 31, 33[18:23, 32, 34]; 63:5 [64:4]; 100 [10l]:2, 6; 118 [119]:80; Prov. 11:5; Job 9:20-22; Ezek. 28:15. 163 in description of God’s elect chosen by God for eternal life, and with apLocvrcç in Hennas, Sim. 5.6:7 which describes those dwelt by the Holy Spirit, not defiled upon the earth (épL&uQq tfjç yf^ç), and who will receive a reward. In general, icaôapoç, àpCavtoç, ap6p,TrToç, aTriÀoç, a-nlo- and ÔLiccti- ail belong to the stock of vocabularies that relate to the concept of perfection. Moral purity is achieved not by keeping to ritual laws as if this would keep oneself from being defiled by the world. “unstained from the world” does entail is unfolded in 4:1-5:6. What It is a determined refusal to comply with the way of life that is inconsistent with God’s values. This understanding is confinned in 4:8-9. The phrase “ëyyioaxE tcp 8ew” is first used with respect to the priestly office (Exod. 19:22; Lev. 21:21; Ezek. 44:13). It is then used in a wider sense of approaching God in worship (Exod. 24:2; Lev. 10:3; Isa. 29:13; Hos. 12:6; Jdt. 8:27; cf. T. Dan. 6:2; 1 Clem. 29:1). Here, it denotes a general sense of entering into communion with God as acceptable worshippers (cf. Heb. 4:16; 7:19). Sinners and the double-souled are associated with impurity and uncleanness (cf. Hernias, Man. 9.7). They are admonished to cleanse their hands (icaôapLaaxe %6lpaç) and purify their hearts (ayviaaxe icapôiaç). “Cleansing” is used for priestly purity in the OT and ritual cleansing in Jewish tradition (Exod. 30:19-21; Mlc 7:3). Then, it comes to be used of moral purity (Ps. 26:6; Job 22:30; Isa. 1:16; Jer. 4:14; cf. 1 Tim. 2:8; 1 Jn 3:3). “Purifying” is also used of ceremonial purification in the OT (Exod. 19:10), but figuratively, as here, in 1 Pet. 1:22 and 1 Jn 3:3. employed here in a moral sense (cf. 2 Cor. 7:1). 164 Both terms are The juxtaposition of hands and heart can also be found in the OT to denote both deed and disposition (Pss. 24:3-4; 73:13; cf 1 Clem. 29:1). The way of purifying and cleansing is not undertaken literally by the purification of water, as in ritual cleansing, but by a return to God with a heart of sincere penitence, realizing the seriousness of their sins, expressed in deep remorse (4:9; cf. Jer. 4:8; Joel 2:12-13). In suiumaiy, hearing and doing the perfect law of liberty will lead to a religion characteristized by moral purity, righteousness and perfection. This will issue in speech (1:26), works of mercy and keeping oneself from contamination by worldly values (1:27). This is the shape of the religion of those who believe in Jesus Christ as the Lord of Glory and abide by the perfect law of liberty. G. Be Hearers and Doers o f the Perfect Law o f Liberty Jas 1:23-25 tell why (oxl) it is not enough to be hearers and the importance of being doers of the word. Verse 23 begins with the protasis of a first class conditional (ei tlç) “be a hearer of the word not a doer,” repeating conversely for emphasis the exhortation of v. 22 “become doers of the word not just hearers.” The section then concludes with v. 25 on one who “becomes not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts.” The contrast between the two is not on how they look into their respective objects. Katavoetv means not “glance carelessly at” as opposed to “look carefully at” {pace Mayor 1913:72; Mussner 1981:106). It means “perceive,” “observe carefully,” and “understand” (cf. LXX Pss. 9:35; 36:32; Isa. 57:1; Sir. 23:19; 33:18; 2 Macc. 9:25). In the LXX, it has been used with reference to the word of 165 God (Ps. 118:15, 18). 10:24.* It is also thus used in Mt. 7:3; Lk. 12:24, 27; 20:3; Heb. 3:1; The original meaning of the word mpaKUTreiv in v. 25 is “to bend over,” “stretching forward the head to catch a glimpse” (Hort 1909:40; see Lk. 24:11 Jn 20:5, 11). In the LXX, it is often used as “looking through a window” (see Gen. 26:8; 1 Kgs 6:4; Prov. 7:6; Cant. 2:9; Sir. 14:23). looking (see 1 Pet. 1:12). verses 23,24. The word suggests attentive It is simply used as a stylistic variation of KatavoeLv in Our author probably does not intend to see any difference between the use of the two verbs. Baker’s suggestion (1995:95) that there may be a contrast between “the possible effective results of even a quick glance at the law versus the lack of results from a long look in a mirror” has no warrant from the text. The use of this verb may be suggested by the parallel in the prefix of the two substantival participles in coordination: lapaicu^ccç and rapapeivaq. Johnson (1988; followed by Townsend 1994:29-30) examines in detail the use of the minor as metaphor within the context of hellenistic moral exhortation. He finds in the writings of Seneca and Plutarch’s treatise, that the image can be used metaphorically as a tool for contemplation of one’s character for self-improvement (p. 637). In 1:22-25, what the mirror provides, he argues, is not an accurate image, but an ideal one, a model for proper behaviour (p. 638). The model’s example could be likened to the image in the mirror one has to look into in order that one may ^There are disputes whether 1:22-25 are alluding to some Jesus tradition. Almost all the key words in 1:22: troLTiTctC, dcicpoataC and mpaA.oyLC6p€woi are not found in the Jesus tradition but belong to a common Jewish tradition in emphasizing hearing and doing the Word. Yet, on the other hand, our author is closer to the Jesus tradition in his understanding of the relationship between hearing and doing. In rabbinic parallels, the emphasis is more on the right inner disposition, wliile in James and the Jesus tradition, Jesus’ interpretation o f the Torah gives the right basic orientation in both the understanding and practice o f the Torah (Viviano 1978:86). 166 imitate (pp. 638-40). The use of the metaphor “mirror” is another way of reminding the recipients of the good behaviour of Jewish figures in the past, Abraham, Rahab, Job, and Elijah, with whom they were very familiar. As in the use of the mirror metaphor in hellenistic moral exhortation, the necessity of self-lmowledge in our author’s use of the metaphor here is apparent (Mussner 1981:105-06). Yet contrary to Johnson’s understanding, it is exactly the accurate image (“natural face,” “what he is like”) in the mirror, not the ideal one, that is being forgotten. The parallel Johnson has drawn with other hellenistic writings breaks down at this point. Furthermore, the use of moral models of the past does not depend on the use of the metaphor. It was also widely used in Jewish wisdom instructions without the use of the mirror metaphor.* With Dibelius and Greeven (1976:116) the expression TipoawTrov xîjç yevéoewq (lit. “face of the origin”) in v. 23 should be understood as “natural appearance” (cf. Wis. 7:5; Jdt. 12:18), taking yéveoLç as “nature” not “birth” (cf. 3:6). It should not be taken as a contrast between physical appearance versus spiritual, or as what one is versus what one was meant to be, but simply as part of a metaphor {pace Hort 1909:39; Laato 1997:51-52). V. 24. It refers to nothing other than “himself’ (eocnxov) as in If here we have an understanding similar to Sir. 19:29-30 where the external appearance is revelatory of one’s inward character and “teli[s] all about him,” it may be saying that what we need to look into is not just oui* outward natural appearance. ^The mirror is not a metaphor o f wisdom, as Wall (1997:80) argues. Sir. 14:23 and 21:23 do not support his contention. The first passage refers to searchers of wisdom peering through the window o f her house and the second one has nothing to do with wisdom at all! 167 but inner reality as seen in the light of God’s word. Yet, it is again uncertain whether we have such an inference here. The main contrast (Ôé, v. 25) is found in àireXqÀDOev and with TTotpapeCvac; in v. 25. in v. 24 The use of the perfect tense with the verb aTr6lr)A,n0ev may not be expressing the permanent state of “departedness,” but a dramatic perfect, occurring sometimes in parables or illustrations (BDF § 344; pace Mayor 1913:72; Ropes 1916:177). The point is that the person after looking into one’s own face in the mirror, departs and forgets entirely what sort of appearance one has. no abiding effect of such activity at all upon one’s life. There is The situation is one of sheer absurdity: how can one forget so easily and quicldy one’s own appearance after studying it in a mirror? (Baker 1995: 93). Since both TTapaiciJi|rcic<; and iTccpapeivccç are never used with reference to the studying of text in any known writings, our author is probably using these terms in view of the mirror metaphor. The word Trapapeveiv means “remain,” “continue” or “keep on,” but not as continuing to look {pace Knowling 1904:33-34). The idea is abiding in the perfect law of liberty, not continuing to look at it nor abiding beside it. While “looking into” corresponds to what a hearer would just do,* the word that “abides” is in contrast not only with “go away” as almost all commentators assume, but also to “forget” in v. 24. neglect the law of liberty. This means that this person would not depart and A slight change in meaning of the two words “go away” The correspondence can be seen in the use of sense organs: eyes and ears. 168 and “forget” to “depart” (taken figuratively; cf Jer. 5:23) and “neglect” ^ would fit perfectly well with respect to one’s response to the law of liberty. The word èirLÀccvGocveLV which is used in 1:24 has been used frequently in the LXX in exhorting the people of Israel not to forget the Lord, his covenant, and God’s law or commandments (see, e.g.. Dent. 4:23; 6:2; 26:13; P s.ll9 [118]: 16, 61, 93, 141, cf. in. Ab. 3:8). Israel has also been condemned for forgetting in the sense of willfully neglecting God’s word (Hos. 4:6; cf. 1 Macc. 1:49; 2 Macc. 2:2). “Abiding,” set in contrast to depart and neglect, would then imply adhering to the perfect law of freedom in terms of observing or doing its requirements. The result of the activities of “looking into” and “abiding” is “becoming not a hearer of forgetfulness but a doer of work.” hearer.” The phrase dicpoatfiç Wilqopovqg is a Semitism equivalent to “forgetful “Doer of work” (ttoitittic; epyou; cp. èv irouqoeL vopou in Sir 51:19; Jas 4:11) is parallel in form with “hearer of forgetfulness.” It means a doer who practices or performs work. Looking carefully at the mirror corresponds to studying carefully the law of liberty. The emphasis is not on whether one studies the law or not, but on one’s response to such detailed studying. about oneself. Through such studying, one knows the reality Studying the law is the preliminary step, being hearers. response should be to act in obedience to what the law requires. The proper Therefore, the entire process involves two steps: studying/hearing and remaining/practicing the law. The second step is the purpose of the first one. It is eventually the doer who makes ^Note that the word “forget” taken figuratively can also mean “neglect,” or “care nothing for” (Heb. 6:10; 13:2, 16). This meaning is quite inappropriate with respect to the metaphor o f the minor, but is appropriate with respect to the law o f liberty. 169 evident that the law of liberty has been truly heard. It is ultimately one’s speech and acts by which humans will be blessed (1:25c) or condemned (2:12; 4:11). K Concluding Summaiy The above study on the theme of word/law demonstrates what I have pointed out earlier that 1:19-27 is programmatic in the understanding of the hermeneutical concern of James. To receive the implanted word in the sense of learning and understanding it is the only way that works righteousness and eventually leads to one’s salvation (1:19-20). The perfect law of liberty is understood as an essential part of the word of truth that brought the renewed community of God into existence. Devoting oneself to the word also involves practicing the perfect law of liberty which can bring about liberty and perfection (1:21-25). The embodiment of such hermeneutics would be a religion characterized by righteousness and perfection that issues in purity in speech, works of mercy, and keeping oneself from the contamination of worldliness (1:26-27). The importance of practicing the law is again highlighted in both 2:8-13 and 4:11-12, with the former emphasis on the work of mercy and the latter on the purity of speech.^ Besides, 2:8-13 spells out more clearly that the perfect law has to be understood by the command to love one’s neightbour, in view of the coming of the kingdom inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ. This is also implied in 4:11-12 with the repetition of the term “neighbour” in 4:12. Both 2:8-13 and 4:11-12 emphasise the organic unity and wholeness of the ^Purity o f speech and the abstinence from the impurity o f the world are the immediate concerns o f 3:13-18. 170 law with the authority that lies behind it, a point that has not been articulated in 1:1927 (but 1:18). Contrary to the understanding of those who regard the theme of the law as having no or minor significance in James, the study above also shows that it is crucial to the understanding of other major themes in the instruction: purity, speech ethics, charity, world, evil inclination and perfection. The perfect law, the law of liberty and the royal law all refer to the same reality. It is true that law in James is theocentric, as Franlcemolle (1986:217) emphasizes, yet in the sense that God stands behind the royal law as its ultimate authority. This “oneness” of God as confessed in the Jewish Shema^ is fundamental to the understanding of obedience to the law. God is the lawgiver, guarantor and enforcer of the law. human loyalty. He demands exclusively all Contrary to Frankemolle who regards the law as only theocentric, it has also a distinctive messianic/christological ring: the royal law is part of the proclamation of the kingdom. It is “an eschatological Torah, or Torah of the messianic age or kingdom that has eschatological effect” (Chester 1998:323). also the law of liberty. It is Its obedience would allow one to be free from the power of evil desire and eventually free to be perfect. This royal law is not to be identified with the love command as many scholars do, but is substantially the same law given to Israel through Moses but now summarized as well as fulfilled in the love command as inteipreted through the Jesus tradition. Our author is applying the love command as an overarching principle above other instructions. This results in a particular shape of religion characterised prominently not by cultic confinements but by moral expressions grounded upon faith in Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 171 This law is to be obeyed, not just heard. Obeying the law demonstrates implicitly one’s right as members of the messianic community, that one has been transformed by the power of the renewing word. To say that James'’ theology centres on the word (Konradt 1998:310) means also that it centres on the law. 172 Chapter Two Wisdom and Its Relationship with Law in James As with the theme of law in James, it has also been suggested that the theme of wisdom does not occupy a prominent role in James because it occurs in only two texts and does not seem to have developed the Jewish wisdom tradition in any profound way (Mussner 1981:249; Moo 1985:53; Tsuji 1997:110; Verseput 1998:706). On the other hand. Luck (1967, 1971, 1984) and Hoppe (1977) argue that the “wisdom-theological” view defines the character of James and regard wisdom as the overarching theological concept in the understanding of the entire work. They, however, seem to have overstated their case as the study below shows. ^ The role of wisdom has to be understood in the context of the interpretation and application of the law. In my study on the structure of James, I argued that 1:5-8 speaks of the need for wisdom to achieve the programme set out in 1:2-4. Wisdom is needed to face testings and is closely associated with perfection, the intended outcome of testings. It is essential for acquiring perfection/righteousness. If perfection is what our author wants his readers to achieve, then wisdom does play an important role in James. I would argue that wisdom’s significance lies also in its relationship with the study and practice (i.e., hermeneutics) of the law in James. ^ Such an overstated presentation is also found in Martin’s work (1991). 173 A. The Need for Wisdom That the origin of wisdom is God is a familiar concept in Jewish thought, both in wisdom and apocalyptic traditions (Prov. 2:6; 8:22-31; Wis. 7:25; 9:4, 9f; Sir. 1:14; 24:3-12; 1 En. 5:8-9; 14:3; 49:1-2; 51:3). According to the Jewish wisdom tradition, wisdom has its source in God himself. Wisdom ultimately is not a human achievement. This is not to say that in Jewish wisdom tradition, wisdom has never been represented as human achievement. Yet this must be seen as a response to God’s wisdom manifested in the orderly world both in the moral and cosmic sphere he has created. As Sir. 1:1 succinctly puts it: “All wisdom is from the Lord, and with him it remains forever” (also Prov. 2:6; Qoh. 2:26; Sir. 17:11; 39:6; IIQ 5.3 [Ps. 154]; cf. Dan. 1:17; 2:21,23). The first class conditional in Jas 1:5 assumes that the present readers have fallen short of (XeLuetocL) wisdom. The acknowledgment of such deficiency and inadequacy on the part of the readers is essential in their pursuit of perfection. prayer for wisdom recalls the prayer of Solomon for wisdom (1 Kgs. 3:7b, 9). The In the face of the difficult task of governing the entire kingdom, Solomon acloiowledged his inadequacy without God’s guidance. In Wis. 7:7-12, Solomon’s prayer for wisdom is amplified by the author as a desire to acquire wisdom as a bride. Wis. 7:7 states concisely: “Therefore I prayed, and understanding was given me; I called on God, and the spirit of wisdom came to me.” The promise of answers to prayer for wisdom is commonplace in Jewish wisdom traditions (Prov. 2:3, 5-6a; Sir. 51:13b-14; Wis. 6:12,14; 8:21-9:4). 174 A certain disposition is necessary for acquiring wisdom from God. One must have the desire to attain it before God will grant it (Sir. 6:37; cf Wis. 6:13-14; Philo, Congr. 122-23; Dens Imm. 160). In Wis. 1:2, wisdom comes only to those who “do not put him to the test, and ... to those who do not distrust him.” He will not come to those who are “deceitful” (Kocicorexyov), a word applied by Philo to the apostates as “malicious critics of the law” (Agr. 157). God will bestow the gift only “upon his friends” (Sir. 1:10b), that is, those who keep his commandments and love/fear him (1:10,26; 15:1; 43:33b). Similarly in James, it is not mere prayer that makes wisdom possible (cf. 4:3). God is always willing to give (l:5bc), but one must ask with faith (ev t t lo t € l; 1:6). Faith here refers to a wholehearted commitment to God, a complete trusting attitude toward him. It is “loving God with all your heart,” as one confesses in Shema^. Such an attitude is in sharp contrast to the double-souled, one of divided commitment and loyalty (l:5ff). The need for wisdom is not that it delivers one from trials nor is the passage here about gaining wisdom through testings (pace Luck 1967:253-55; Cargal 1993:65). The petition for guidance in the face of testing provides a general background for the sayings here. In line with the general understanding of the role of wisdom in Jewish wisdom instructions, wisdom in this context is seen as “understanding the nature and purpose of trials and loiowing how to meet them victoriously” (Burdick 1981:168-69). It also functions as the “counterforce” to evil desire (Davids 1974:443; 1982:55), a point to which I will return in the study of evil 175 inclination. The importance of wisdom is underlined by the fact that without wisdom, wholeness or perfection of character is impossible. Gilbert (1984:308) rightly observes that it is the reason why in Wis. 9, the encomium on wisdom ends with a prayer. Winston also (1993:392) tells of the significance of prayer for wisdom: “The significance of prayer for the attainment of wisdom lies in the sage’s firm conviction that all human accomplishments are in reality only the obverse side of effective divine action, and that the fundamental error that must be avoided above all is the self-conceit of one who thinlcs that human power is completely autonomous.” In the absence of wisdom, human beings are in a helpless situation (Wis. 9:13-18; cf. IQH 4:30-32). Wisdom-Myth in 1:17-18? A number of scholars see in 1:18 an interchange of the “word of truth” with wisdom (Hoppe 1977:50-52; Hartin 1991:106-07, 111; Bindennann 1995:193-95). This understanding gains its support from the structure of 1:2-18, with 1:12-18 a further development of 1:2-11. Moreover, since in 3:17, wisdom is described as avcoGév, it must surely be one of those perfect gifts fi'om God (1:17a). on wisdom may be continued, at least implicitly, in 1:17-18. His thinking In addition, the gift of wisdom is interpreted as resulting in the “rebirth of new salvation” (Hartin 1991:107). Already in Wis. 9:1-18, Xàyoç (9:1) and Trveujicc ccyi-ov (9:18) stand side by side with ao{{)La. That both proceed from the mouth of God probably provides the association of the two together (cp. Prov. 2:6 with Isa. 45:23; 48:3; 25:11), not unlike that between wisdom and spirit. The A,6yoç-oo{|)ioî; is seen not only as an agent of 176 creation, but also as having salvific power bestowing the gift of immortality (8:1718). However, there is no evidence that Jas 1:17-18 describes the cosmological function of wisdom. As I have argued earlier, oui' author’s concern there is soteriological, rather than cosmological. Moreover, the word of truth which is instrumental for one’s begetting is what the readers have already received, while wisdom is something they have to ask for continuously (present tense). distinguishes one from the other. This clearly Their relationship will be clarified later in our later discussion on the relationship between word/law, wisdom and spirit. However, the linking together through a network of “catchwords” of f| avcoGev oocjiLa (3:17) with m y ôwpqpoc r&eioy ccycoOey (1:17), then with 6 Xoyoc, aA,q0eLctç (1:18) and 6 epijiuToc; Xoyoc; and regarding them as equivalent items (as Hoppe 1977:50-52) is unjustifiable. B. Earthly and Heavenly Wisdom Contrasted In delineating the structure o î James, we have already noticed that 3:13-18 is a completely unified section of its own but is also closely related both to the preceding and following sections as a hinge passage. The phrase ïïpaurric; o o cj)L aç in 3:13 is probably a semitism (genitive constiuct) better rendered in English as “wise meelcness” rather than “meek wisdom” {pace Dibelius and Greeven 1976:209). The genitive “ao(|)Laç” is one of sout'ce or description. characterized by meekness or humility. 177 True wisdom is The prepositional phrase kv ïïpauir|TL, which recalls its earlier occurrence in 1:21, qualifies one’s works (xà epya a6xoO). Here those virtues that characterized wisdom from above come about in the “controlling spirit” (Hort 1909:81) of meekness, just as the implanted word received with such an attitude would bring about (fruits of) righteousness (1:21). True wisdom will demonstrate itself (ôeLKvupt) in the good or proper lifestyle (èic xfjç icaXqç ftvaoxpo(j)fiç) bringing forth good works in the spirit of meekness (cp. 1 Clem. 38:2). As in Jas 1:20-21 which sets meelaiess in contrast with “opyij”, here in 3:14 meelmess is set in contrast with the spirit of “CqXoy TTlkpov” and “èpiGeiav”. Impulsive anger, bitter jealousy and selfish ambition are all workings of evil inclination that cause dishannony within a community (cf. Teach. Silv. 95.1-96.19). The proof for one being a teacher or leader would be one’s wisdom. If the wisdom one claimed to have issued in jealousy and faction, what shows forth would not be a proper lifestyle issuing in works of (heavenly) wisdom. Such attitudes of jealousy and faction are no cause for boasting (pq KocxcticccuxaoGe; 3:14).’ These are evidences that those who claim to possess wisdom are only presumptuous, as those who claim to have faith in 2:18. These people are practically lying or deceiving themselves (cf. 1:24), not living according to the truth, but against the truth (ijjeuôeoGe Kocxà xfjç àXqGeLocç; cf. 1 Jn 1:6). “Lying” is often set in contrast to speaking the truth in the NT (cf. Rom. 9:1; 1 Tim. 2:7; also Sir. 4:23; T. Gad. 5.1). Here we may ^ Some (see, e.g., Hort 1909:83; Dibelius and Greeven 1976:210; Laws 1980:160) take Kara rq; ccXriOeiaq with both verbs KaxaicauxaoOe and i|jeûô€o0e. However, I agree with others (Mayor 1913:127; Davids 1982:151; Martin 1988:130-31) that the prepositional phrase goes only with the latter. 178 have an implicit contrast of words with deeds. The contrast of two kinds of wisdom is not unloiown in Jewish tradition. fits in well with the two ways tradition. It It is surprising that some deny that a contrast between two types of wisdom is in place here (see, e.g., Wanlce 1978:494-95; Laws 1980:163; Hartin 1991:104). Wanke’s argument is threefold: (1) the only place in LXX where a virtue catalogue is found is in Wis. 7:22-23 where there is no vice list attached as in James', (2) the expression “from above” is only an alternative reference to God, not the only predicate of wisdom; and (3) for contrast, the corresponding concept should be “wisdom from below” which is not found here. With regard to objection (1), Sir. 19:22-25 provides a precedent for contrasts of two kinds of wisdom, though the word “wisdom,” as here in James, is reserved only for true wisdom. For objections (2) and (3), it is true that “from above” can be regarded as from God. This finds exactly its contrast in the origin of the wisdom that is earthly, soulish and demonic. The contrast in Proverbs is seen in the Lady Wisdom set in antithesis with the Dame Folly (see esp. 1:20-33; 9:1-6, 13-18). Ben Sira also warns that there are two kinds of wisdom: true and false (19:22-25), Wisdom apart from fearing the Lord (w. 20a, 24a) and observing the law (v. 20b) is no true wisdom at all (cf. Weber 1996). Ben Sira there may be criticizing those Jews who were tempted to compromise their faith for hellenistic laiowledge and culture (DiLella 1993:146). The later rabbinic contrast between wisdom of other nations and the Torah-wisdom in Israel is more apologetic in nature (cf. Lam. R. 2.8-10). 179 Israel’s Torah-wisdom is seen as a superior kind of wisdom, in contr ast with worldly wisdom of whatever type (Fischel 1975:71). In Jas 3:15-18, two kinds of wisdom are contrasted in terms of their respective origins, manifested characteristics, and results or outcomes. The Origin of the Two Kinds of Wisdom In 3:15, the series of adjectives ^LyeuoQ, i|u)XLKq, ôccLpovLGSôqç seems to form a climax, each one indicating greater alienation from God. not at all appear in the LXX. The word &iy€LO(; does In the NT, it is often used in contrast to the heavenly (Jn 3:12; 1 Cor. 15:40; 2 Cor. 5:1; Phil. 3:19-20), as also in Philo {Cher. 101). In such a contrast, the earthly is always inferior to the heavenly, though its exact nuance may be different. Here it is set in strong contrast to avcoGev perhaps with the connotations of belonging to this-worldly order as earthbound. The parallel in language with Hennas, Man. 9:11 (“double-mindedness is an earthly spirit from the devil”) is striking. The second adjective ij/uxixq is used in contrast to what is “spiritual” (iryeupaTucoç) in 1 Cor. 2:14-15 (cf. 2 Cor. 1:12: ao(|)La oapicLicq). Its occurrence in NT is rare and it is used consistently to oppose anything associated with TTveiipa (1 Cor. 2:14; 15:44,46; Jude 19). natural life.’ It means belonging to the physical or The third adjective ÔaipovLoSôqç does not appear at all in the LXX ^Dibelius and Greeven (1976:210-12) argue that it means “sensual,” providing the “bridge” from the earthly to the demonic. They believe that the word is from a gnostic background in a non-technical manner but finds tliat there is no reason to see the work in any way related to or directed against Gnosticism. It is debatable whether our author is borrowing from Pauline terminology here, as Pearson (1973:14) argues. See esp. Bauckliam (1983:106) against drawing any definitive conclusions on Jude’s relationship in liis use o f the term with Paul. Such can also be said o i James. 180 but only here in the NT. Its suffix -Ôqç may suggest the meaning “demon-like,” doing things similar to demons (Hort 1909:84; Davids 1982:153; Martin 1988:132). Hort (1909:85) aptly remarks that “the wisdom shared by demons answers to the faith shared by demons of ii.l9.” It surely refers to its origin as from the demons. It is to this extent that such wisdom is demon inspired (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1). Such wisdom is a source of pollution or defilement, as a demon is a source of impurity (cf. 1:27c; 4:8). It is in sharp contrast to the wisdom from above which is characterized by purity (àyvr\; 3:17). In contrast to the wisdom which is earthly, unspiritual and devilish, the true wisdom is one from above (ccvcoGev; emphatic in position). The understanding that the wisdom of God is heavenly may be suggested by Prov. 8:2. alone compasses the vault of heaven. In Sir. 24:5, wisdom Sir. 24:8-12 describes how wisdom comes out of his resting place in heaven and settles in Israel. 1 En. 42:1-2 portrays an opposite situation with wisdom, finding nowhere to dwell on earth, withdrawing to heaven to be with the angels. Wisdom can be found nowhere (is hidden) and can only be obtained by special revelation. This illustrates distinctively the different perspective on wisdom between the wisdom and apocalyptic traditions. However, here in James, the wisdom from above echoes 1:17, where every perfect gift is said to be avco06v. The emphasis is not on the pre-existence of those gifts but on the downward motion as from God. There is no evidence that we have a Christological reference here {pace Preisker, TDNT. 2.590 n.4). 181 The Characteristics of the Two Kinds of Wisdom CqXoç TTLKpoç (bitter envy) and epiGeCa (selfish ambition) are the attitudes or motives that characterize earthly wisdom (3:14,16). The adjective TTiKpoç in 3:14 is used literally in 3:11 of spring water that is bitter or brackish to the taste (cf. Rev 8:11). Its noun form Triicpicc, which tops the short list of vices in Eph. 4:31, is found also in Heb. 12:15 (the only other time in the NT) in the phrase “ptCa TTlicplocç ” . It is alluding to the bitterness that exists among some of the members of the coimnunity. The result is one of defilement (piKvGwoLy). The cultic metaphor is then further specified in Heb. 12:16 with the example of Esau as one who is “adulterous and worldly” (ïïôpvoç q pépqXoç). A similar description is found in James where those who fight against each other in the community are “adulteresses” (4:4). The use of the adjective ttlk po ç in 3:14 ensures that (qXoq,’ the major theme in 3:13-4:10 (Johnson 1983), is understood in a negative sense (cf. Prov. 27:4; Isa. 11:13; Sir. 40:5). Together they show that envy, like impurity, can be spread and become destructive to the entire community.^ The word èptOeLoc is often used in a negative sense in the NT. It carries with it the meaning of baseness, self-interest, and strife (Biischel, TDNT: 2.661). 2:8, those who are self-seeking (xoîç In Rom. èpiGeCaç) are set in parallel with those who disobey the truth (àTreiGouoL xq dXqGeta). In 2 Cor. 12:20, it is listed together with CqXoç as Paul describes the divisions within the Christian community in his absence. ^ For CnloQ as envy in a negative sense, see Acts 5:17; 13:45; Rom 13:13; Gal. 5:20; 1 Cor. 3:3; 2 Cor. 12:20. I also regard it as negative in Jas 4:5, see later discussion. ^ Strictly speaking, jealousy is different from envy. One is envious o f what one does not have but jealous (jealously guarding) what one has. See, e.g., Malina and Seeman 1993:55-59. 182 Again in Gal. 5:20 it is listed with (qXoq as works of the flesh. Ignatius, Phld. 8:2 reads “Do ye nothing after a spirit of factitiousness [icat’ èpiGeLcty], but after the teaching of Christ.” Hort (1909:83) points out that all the evidences points to the “personal ambition of rival leadership..., èpiGeicc really means the vice of a leader of a party created for his own pride: it is partly ambition, partly rivalry.” Such rivalry, however, is not being confined to leaders, but potentially affecting all members of the community (4:1-3). ) The prepositional phrase “4v xq icccpôia cpwv” in 3:14 may be a backward reference to 1:14-15 with evil desires haboured inwardly resulting in an outward expression of sin (cf. 1:26). characterized by these two anti-social qualities. Earthly wisdom is It is the source of dissension and strife within a coimnunity. The description of wisdom from above in 3:17 is not a praise of wisdom as such {pace Martin 1988:126). 3:13 makes it clear that these descriptions are the virtues of one who “is wise and understanding,” a collocation of terms which is used of Israel’s judges (LXX Deut. 1:13-15),’ which may become a technical term for teachers (Ropes 1915:244). Thus we can regard the description as a list of virtues characterized by those who have wisdom from above. The list is typically asyndetic.^ The first element “pure” (ayvq) is the overarching quality (rrpwxov; cf. 1:27; 4:8). This single general quality of purity issues itself in three sets of more ‘ The discussion o f Deut. 1:13 in Sifre Deuteronomy revolves around the difference between the “wise” and the “understanding,” now not simply as two intellectual qualities but two types of sages. Also see CD 6.2-3. ^ Vogtle (1936:13) distinguishes between two kinds of ethical lists: the asyndetic and the polysyndetic. The predominant fonn found in the NT is asyndetic. See esp. Wibbing 1959:81. 183 special qualities introduced by ’éireLta: (1) eipqvLicij, èfrieLicriç, ei)TT6L0qç; all begin with the letter “e”; (2) peoxf) èXéocç icctC icocpTrcSv dyaOcSv; and (3) àôLaicpLToç and dvuTroKpiTOç with both beginning with the letter “ct” and ending with “-icpLxoç.” They have the alpha-privative fonn not uncommon in ethical lists (cp. Rom. 1:31: dauvexoui;, dauv0éxoi)ç, doxopyouç, dveXEqpovaq). These last two sets seem to refer to the practical doing of good works as explicated in 2:1-26. These qualities are all related to the paraenetic context.’ The adjective dyvq occurs only 11 times in the LXX. objects in 2 Macc. 13:8 (ir û p , otoôoç) Prov. 15:26, it is used of divine words. to the guilty (Prov. 21:8). only 8 times. and prayer in Prov. 19:13. In Ps. 11:7 and The way of the righteous is pure in contrast It was used of the heart in Prov. 20:9 and in 4 Macc. 18:7f. of the chastity of virginity. described as pure. It is applied to cultic The fear of the Lord (LXX Ps. 18:10) can be The adjective is also not widely employed in the NT; it occurs It appears as a moral quality in 1 Jn 3:3 (as Christ himself is), 1 Pet. 3:2 (for being a Christian wife). Tit. 2:5 (for being a Christian young woman), and 1 Tim. 5:22 (for one who is in Christian office) in the sense of moral innocence. In 2 Cor, 11:2, it is an expression of wholehearted devotion to Christ (cf. 4 Macc. 18:7, 8). Here, as in 1:27, this cultic term is used in a moral sense reflecting the purity required by God. LXX. KaGapoç and àpLKvxoç are proper terms for cultic purity in the In 1:27, these two adjectives are applied together to the religion that is acceptable to God. The wisdom from above will bring about the same kind of ^Easton (1932:8) has over generalized in stating that these virtue lists are often conventional and the elements have generally little to do with the context. 184 religion acceptable to God. As my study shows, pure and undefiled religion can only be achieved by abiding in the law of liberty. Here, the description of wisdom from above in similar terms shows that our author links wisdom from above closely with keeping the law of liberty. The description of wisdom being pure also links it with the theme of perfection. The first set of virtues begins with etpqvLicq. It means peaceable or peaceful. It is used of peace offering in the LXX (1 Kgdms 11:25; 13:9; 2 Kgdms 6:17, 18; 24:25; 3 Kgdms 3:15; 8:63, 64; 4 Kgdms 16:13; Prov. 7:14). It is used of a peaceable man as a friend (Jer. 45:22), peaceable words or message in 1 Maccabees (XoyoL eipqiKot; 8X; cf. Gen. 37:4; Num. 21:21; Deut. 2:26; Ps. 34:20; Mic. 7:3; Jer. 9:8; Jdt. 3:1; 7:24) and in Sir. 4:8, with peaceable words associated with kv irpautriTL. It is used in Philo as one of the qualities of the life of the wise (Spec. Leg 2.45; cf. Spec. Leg. 1.224). Another time it occurs in the NT is in Heb. 12:11 in description of the fruit of righteousness (icapirov etpiivLicov... ÔLicotLoauvqç.). Here it may carry with it the connotation of promoting peace, seeking to prevent and remove dividedness in a community (cf. Mt. 5:9). The adjective WiELKq; appears 5 times in the NT and its noun fonn &L€LKeLcc twice (Acts 24:4; 2 Cor. 10:1). In the LXX, it may carry the connotation of benevolence of the sovereign (cf. Ps. 85[86]5; Est. 3:13; 8:12; 2 Macc. 11:27; 3 Macc. 3:15; 7:6). It can also mean “gentleness” (2 Macc. 2:22; 10:4) and hence leniency in judgment or forbearance, unwillingness to exact strict claims (Wis. 12:18; Hennas, Man. 12.4.2). In 2 Cor. 10:1, Paul appeals to the TrpauTqç kccX èirieticeLcc tou 185 XpLOToO for his apparent humility (xaireivoc). The èirieiKeCa Tou XpioTou is not a royal majesty, as the parallel with TrpaiJiqc shows (pace Preisker, TDNT:2.5S9-90). In Paul’s wealoiess, he is actually following the example of Christ. Being gentle is a praiseworthy quality approved even by non-Christians (Phil. 4:5). It goes together with “not quarrelsome” (ap(%%o;) in 1 Tim. 3:3 and Tit 3:2. The word eèireiGqç occurs only here in the NT and does not appear at all in the LXX. Its noun form, 6i)ireL06La, occur s several times in 4 Maccabees in relationship to obedience to the law {4 Macc. 5:16; 9:2; 15:9). accommodate to the community (EDNT: 2.81). It means compliant, willing to All the above three are community- building qualities. The second set of virtues has to do with charitable works, pointing back to 2:14ff. on works of mercy in taking care practically of those who are in need. The phrase “peorq èXéouç” (lit. “full of mercy”) can be translated as “entirely merciful.” The phrase Kotpïïdov ayccGwv (lit. “good fruits”) can be taken together with “peoTT) èXéouç” as a hendiadys denoting “full of good fmits of mercy.” In 2:13, the one who has shown no mercy is regarded as one who does not abide by the law of liberty summarized in the love command. Just as the implanted word is expected to bear fruit in one’s obedience to the law of liberty, the wisdom from above is one that brings forth the fhiit of works of mercy. The parallel between fulfillment of the law of liberty with the manifestation of wisdom from above again comes into view. The last set of virtuous characteristics is related to double-souledness. word àÔLaicpLtoç appears only here in the NT. 186 The It may mean “indistinguishable” and “uncertain” in classical and post-classical Greek, but is inappropriate here, as also is the meaning “without hesitation.” Ô L o c K p iG e iv In view of the usage of its negative counter-part (doubting) in 1:6, it is better to understand it as “simple” in the sense of “single-minded” or “whole-hearted,” as most commentators see it. This singleness or wholeheartedness is reflected in “not making distinctions” or “being impartial” in one’s relationship with others (2:4). The two meanings can be related together [pace Johnson 1995A:274f). The last quality àvuiroKpLToç means sincere, free from pretense or hypocrisy, as in Rom. 12:9; 2 Cor. 6:6; 1 Tim. 1:5; 2 Tim. 1:5. In Sir. 1:28-29, being hypocritical (WoKpiGeLv) is the result of duplicity of heart. “Impartiality and sincerity are two aspects of the same thing” (Hartin 1991:111). All these qualities are conducive for community building. their manner of life. They are shown in These qualities are often compar ed with the fruit of the spirit in Gal. 5:22. Yet as Moo (1985:135) rightly points out, similarity does not mean equivalence. The relationship between wisdom and spirit will be explored later. It may be significant that here we have seven qualities. “Seven” is a sacred number to Semitic and other peoples including Egyptians, Assyrians and Persians (see EnclJud, 1258). Prov. 9:1 reads: “Wisdom has built her house, she has hewn her seven pillars.” In Wis. 7:22-24, wisdom is described by a series of twenty-one epithets (7 x 3) which signifies a triple perfection. Wis. 10:1-11:4 gives seven historical illustrations of the saving power of wisdom. perfecting power of the number 7 {Op. Mund. 101-07). that this number {Quaest. in Exod. 35a on Exod. 26:2). Philo speaks of the Nothing is more perfect IQS 4.3-6 also lists 14 (7x2) qualities of the spirit (in two groups of equal numbers) that are instilled in one’s 187 heart because of one’s fear of the laws of God. Here the use of seven characteristics of the wisdom from above may also be intentional in bringing out the perfection that heavenly wisdom would bring about. The Outcome of the Two Kinds of Wisdom The outcome or result (yap; 3:16) of earthly wisdom characterized by jealousy and selfish ambition is disorder (aicataoTaoLa) and wickedness of every kind ('rrocv cj)auXov Trpâypa). The adjective fonn (âicaTaoTaxoç) of the noun àicaTaoTaoCa has been used twice in this work: 1:18 where the double-minded person is described as “unstable” and 3:8 where the tongue is described as “restless” evil. It is the very opposite of etpqvq in 1 Cor. 14:33. It appears in the vice list of 2 Cor. 12:20 with other fonns of antisocial behaviour. It goes side by side with “wars” (irolépoL) in Lk. 21:9. Jealousy and selfish ambition are the cause of all social unrest, and thus of disorder and disharmony in a community. essential for any community. They disrupt the inner orderliness The adjective (|)ai)Xov connotes “lowliness, cheapness, and meanness even more than moral wickedness” (Johnson 1995A:273). It is in contrast to àyaOoç in Jn 5:29; Rom. 9:11 and 2 Cor. 5:10 (cf. Prov. 13:6; 3 Macc. 3:22; Wis. 4:12) and aXqOeiK in Jn 3:19, 20. Apart from here, it is linked twice with praxis (Jn 3:20; Jn 5:29) and once with speech (Tit. 2:8). As I have shown earlier, 3:18 is probably originally an isolated aphorism summing up the virtues of heavenly wisdom and concludes the section. The entire sentence translated literally would be: “Fruit of righteousness is sown in peace to those who malce peace” (icapïïoç ÔiicKLOouvqç èv elpqvq OTT€ipexaL toîç 188 TTo lo û o lv elpqvqv). The expression “icapiroq ôLicaLoonvqç” appears several times in the LXX (see Amos 6:12; Prov. 11:30; 13:2; cf. Isa. 32:16,17) and twice in the NT (Phil. 1:11; Heb. 12:11). It is best to understand the genitive ôLiccdLoawqç as epexegetical meaning the fruit which is righteousness (as Mayor 1913:133; Martin 1988:135; Johnson 1995A:275)’ rather than descriptive or subjective (as Ropes 1916:250f; Reicke 1964:42; Sidebottom 1967:50).^ This fits in well with the thought expressed in 1:20 that human anger does not produce God’s righteousness. In the biblical traditions, “sowing” is frequently connected with “fruit” (e.g., Prov. 11:21; 22:8; Hos. 10:12; 1 Cor. 9:11; 2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7-8; cf. Sir. 7:3) but never is the fruit something being sown. It is better to talce the expression as a prolepsis, refemng to the fruit which will result from the sowing (as Hort 1909:87; Mayor 1913:133; Johnson 1995A:275; cf. 2 Bar. 32:1). There is therefore an implicit emphasis on the process from sowing to the final harvest. The sowing imagery is also closely related to the implanted word, the obedience to which will bring about the righteousness of God (1:20-21). 72:7). In the OT, peace and righteousness are closely linlced (e.g., Pss. 85:10; Peace is seen here as the condition where the harvest of righteousness springs up. Peace is the seed-bed for righteousness (NEB). This is in sharp contrast to human anger which does not produce the righteousness of God but results in ^The epexegetical use o f this phrase is common in other contexts, see LXX Amos 6:12; Prov. 11:30; Ep. Arist. 232; Phil. 1:10-11; Heb. 12:11; Hennas, 57/». 9.19:2. ^ Ropes (1916:251), Meyer (1930:263) and Laws (1980:166) suggest that since in Prov. 11:30, the “fruit o f righteousness” is described as “a tree o f life” and in Prov. 3:18, wisdom itself is “a tree o f life,” the “fruit o f righteousness” is in fact wisdom. Yet the identification here is too indirect and vague. 189 disharmony (1:20-21). Probably the dative in tolç T T o l o ijo l v etpqvqv is not just dative of agent (as Knowling 1904:92; Davids 1982:155; Zei-wick 1988:698),’ nor dative of advantage (Dibelius and Greeven 1976:215; Laws 1980:165; Hartin 1991:112), but both (Hort 1909:87; Johnson 1995A:275). beneficiaries and the agents,^ It includes both the Those involved in the Christian community and willing to live in peace with others, doing deeds of peace, will be blessed in bearing the fruit of righteousness, walking in the way of righteousness. This is the ultimate manifestation of wisdom in a community guided by wisdom from above. Prov. 3:17 reads: “Her [Wisdom’s] ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.” Peace is seen as the fruit of wisdom as well as the result of keeping the commandments (Prov. 3:2). (1:18). The first fruit of wisdom Ben Sira mentions is peace Heavenly wisdom is found in those who are themselves peaceful and willing to make peace, and will eventually manifest itself in righteousness. C Wisdom and Spirit/Divine Power Kirk (1969-70; also Bieder 1949:111-12) argues from his study of other NT sources and the relationship of wisdom and Spirit in the OT and Qumran that wisdom in James is an interchange of terminology with the Holy Spirit. Wisdom from this perspective is seen as a moral force to overcome temptation and testing in life. His argument is reinforced by the study of Gowan (1993) on the role of ^ Deppe (1989:104-05) however, argues that dative of agent is only used with verbs in the perfect tense, see Robertson 1934:534. ^ For God as the subject o f peace-making, see 2 Macc. 1:4; 3 Macc. 2:20; Eph. 2:15. 190 wisdom as divine power to allow one to overcome passions and endure sufferings in 4 Maccabees. Their conclusion has been thoroughly embraced by some (see Davids 1982:52, 55; Martin 1988:133; Hartin 1991:102-04, 114-15). Wisdom has been closely related to God’s Spirit in the OT. Both wisdom and the Spirit were conceived to have an important part to play in creation (cp. Gen. 1:2; Job 34:14; Ps. 104:30 with Prov. 8:22-31). The wisdom given to the craftsmen was the gift of the Spirit (Exod. 28:3; 31:3-4). Joshua (Deut. 34:9) and the Messiah (Isa. 11:2) are said to be endowed with the spirit of wisdom (nQ3n rrn). In Sir. 1:9, the “pouring out” of wisdom echoes that of the Spirit in Joel 3:1-2. There seems to be a close parallelism between wisdom and the Spirit, as both belong to the divine world, only available to humankind as a gift. In Sir. 39:6, the “spirit of understanding” (ïïveijpa ouvèoewç) is parallel with the “word of wisdom of his own (pq|iaTC£ oQ{j)Locç ai)toi)).” Torah and spirit. Complex inter-relationships are set up between wisdom, Davis (1984:23-24; cf. also p. 43) well summarizes this as follows: The theme which unites all three concepts in the thought of ben Sira, however, is the search for wisdom. At the foundation of this quest lies a facility for understanding that is common to humanity, and is displayed in human endeavor. The potential for attaining wisdom is actualized, however, by the scribe who recognizes that wisdom has taken up residence within the law of Israel, and takes advantage of the insight, devoting himself to study, practice, and prayer. The culmination of sapiential achievement, however, as Sir. 39.6 makes plain, occurs with the amval of the divine spirit of understanding, for with the reception of this spirit comes a greater understanding of the law.... 191 Wisdom and Spirit as both proceeding from the mouth of God at the beginning of time perhaps provide the link for their identification, as in the case between wisdom and word. Both of them play an important role in creation. wisdom is identified with the Holy Spirit from on high. In Wis. 9:17, The “spirit of wisdom” enters the souls of those ask for it and makes them friends of God and prophets (Wis. 7:7,27-28). In Wis. 10:18, wisdom is used in place of the Breath of God in the OT as the agent that brought the Israelites safely across the Red Sea (cp. Exod. 15:8). According to Philo, the spirit that God has breathed into the human soul at creation is divine in nature and allows one to receive the knowledge of God {Spec. Leg. 1.36-38). However, virtue, puiity, and the renunciation of fleshy desire are the continuing conditions necessary for one to free the spirit within, in order to receive the inspiration fi*om God’s Spirit {Plant. 23-24; Dens Imm. 2), As I have mentioned before, this can only be achieved as one follows the way of wisdom. Elsewhere, the divine spirit is also closely associated with practical wisdom {Quaest. in Gen. 1.90, Gig. 22-25). The revelation of wisdom within the Qumran community is as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit (IQH 20[12].11-13; 6[14].12-13; 8[16].6-11). This is achieved through the illumination of the human spirit that God has placed within them (IQH 12[4]31-32). It is thus through the worldng of the Spirit in the human spirit that the sectarian community may come to know the hidden significance of wisdom in the Torah. Kirk (1969-70:29-30) notices that in Eph. 1:17, the Holy Spirit is referred to as 192 the spirit of wisdom. In Col. 1:28, wisdom there which is parallel to the spirit of wisdom in Eph. 1:17, having moral rather than an intellectual connotation, has an important role in leading one perfect (x&eLov) in Christ (cf. Eph. 4:13). Spirit and wisdom are also closely associated elsewhere in the NT (Acts 6:3, 10; 1 Cor. 2:13; 12:8). Such interchangeability of and irveûpa can also be found in Hennas, Mand. 11:8 where the spirit is again described as from above (avcoGev) with characteristics not unlike what we found here: gentleness, quietness and humility, keeping one from the evil and futile desires of this age. As we will see later, in James wisdom is essential for one to resist evil desire, a function similar to the Spirit in Rom. 8 (also Hennas, Mand. 11:8). in Col. 1:28, also essential in attaining perfection. Wisdom is, as The seven virtues associated with wisdom from above stand closely with the fruit of the Spirit in Gal. 5. To be “spiritual” (ïïveupcttLKoç) according to Paul (Gal. 6:1; 1 Cor. 2:13, 15; 3:1; cf. Col. 1:9) corresponds to being “wise and understanding” in James. As a whole, it seems plausible that our author attributes to wisdom the function which other writers assign to the Spirit. Yet it must also be noted that the use of an ethical list is a common feature in Christian paraenesis.’ It is not unusual that they have descriptions in common. Moreover, in addition to the fact that our author never mentions the Holy Spirit explicitly, there are also differences between the NT portrayal of the Spirit and the wisdom in James, In contrast to Johannine and Pauline understanding of the ^In the NT, the longest ethical list is in Rom. 1:29-31. Others include Gal. 5:19-21, 22-23; 2 Cor. 6:6; Eph. 5:3-5; Col. 3:5, 8; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; 4:12; 6:4-5; 2 Tim. 3:2-5; Tit. 3:2-3; 1 Pet. 2:1; 3:8; 4:3, 15; Rev. 21:8; 22:15 (cf. D id 5:1). A list o f vices is also found in the sayings o f Jesus (Mk 7:21-22//Mt. 15:19). Both virtue and vice catalogues are later associated with the two ways motif as set forth in the Didache and Barnabas. 193 Spirit, in James it is the word of truth that brings about the new creation (1:18), not wisdom. The prayer for the coming of the Spirit in the gospel traditions refers to the once and for all salvation-historical event at Pentecost (cf Lk. 11:13), and the Spirit is assumed to indwell all who are the children of God (Rom. 8). This is different from the praying constantly with faith to God for wisdom as in Jas 1:4. It is therefore dubious to say that James has a “wisdom pneumatology” (Adamson 1976:39; Chester 1994:39; Wall 1997:87; pace Davids 1982:56; Martin 1988:133; Hartin 1991:115). It is still less likely that our author has a “wisdom christology,” as Hartin suggests.^ Nevertheless, the use of the concept of wisdom rather than Spirit in James needs explanation. The answer is found in the centrality of obedience to the law of liberty in relationship to the concept of wisdom in bringing about perfection. Paul prefers to use the concept of the Spirit perhaps in order to avoid the controversy of a “righteousness through adherence to the wisdom, guidance, direction, and stipulations of the law of Judaism” (Davis 1984:146-47). he is antinomistic. This does not mean that He also knows of a love from the Spirit (Rom. 5:5) “which provides the believer with knowledge, insight and wisdom (Phil 1:9-10; Col. 3:18)” (Schnabel 1985:337). Such love is the summary of the law (Rom. 13:8; Gal. 5:6, 13-14). ^Based upon 1 Cor. 2:6-9 (also 1 Cor. 1:26-31; Mt. 11:25; Lk. 10:21), Hoppe (1977:72-81, 98-99; also Luck 1984:22) argues that the phrase KupLOQ...T% ôo^tiq suggests the association of the figure o f Jesus with the wisdom o f God. Such understanding is also problematic. For our understanding o f the meaning o f the plirase, see Part 5A in tliis thesis. 194 D. Torah as (he Source o f Wisdom relationship between law and wisdom in James is far trom The straightforward. We need to examine the patterns of their relationship in early Jewish traditions and compare them with what we find in James, As we have noticed above, in Jewish thought wisdom is a gift from God. Nevertheless, this does not mean that human beings have no part to play in acquiring knowledge and wisdom (Sir. 3:25). Without proper discipline, it is impossible to obtain wisdom (Sir. 6:18-22; also w . 24-27, 32-36). In Bar. 3:29-31, wisdom is said to be in heaven, inaccessible to human beings but has come down as a gift from God (cf 3:36-37). (4:1). It was then given to Jacob (3:36) and is equated with the Torah In the so-called Torah-psalms or wisdom psalms, especially Pss. 1,19 and 119, wisdom is presented as torah. Wisdom in the “original, all-embracing sense of the nurture of Yahweh, coalesceswith happiness to introduce a dramatic contrast between the righteous, who listen, and the evildoers, who rebel ([Ps. 1] w.4-6)” (Terrien 1993:60). wisdom. The Torah is regarded as the locus as well as the source of true It makes people wiser (119:98). “The fountains of wisdom” in 1 En. 48:1 may refer to Torah as a source of wisdom. However, in the apocalyptic tradition, wisdom is seen predominantly as only accessible through divine revelation rather than through human searching, whether through creation or through the Torah. The linldng together of obedience to the law and the attainment of wisdom can already be seen in the OT. In Deut. 4:6, in contradistinction to the direct and 195 charismatic gift of wisdom in the case of Solomon as we mentioned earlier, it is the Torah that is the source of wisdom/ In Proverbs, wisdom will keep one from the strange woman (7:4-5), and the commandments will keep one from the evil woman (6:23-24). In Ben Sira, God gives wisdom to those who keep the commandments of God (1:26; 6:37; 15:1b, 15).^ Obedience to God’s law naturally leads to all (comprehensive) wisdom (19:20 Gk: iraoa oo(})(cc). constitutes wisdom. wise.” The fulfilment of the law thus Sir. 33:2 (Heb) reads “One who hates the Torah will not be While in Greek, it reads: “The wise will not hate the law.” Rejection of the law is incompatible with wisdom. This close association is confirmed further by the understanding of Ben Sira’s grandson in the prologue of the work. He treats both instruction and wisdom as the results of Ben Sira’s study of the law. Those who study Ben Sira’s book will make progress in living according to the law. Weinfeld (1972:256) notices that the apparent contiadiction found in Deut. 4:6, inasmuch as “laws and statutes which are given by God are regarded as being indicative of the wisdom and understanding of Israel,” was finally resolved by identifying wisdom with the Torah, “as a result of which both were conceived together as a heavenly element which descended from heaven to take up its abode among the children of Israel (Ben-Sira 24).”^ Such identification can also be found ^ Cf. McCarter 1990. Weinfeld (1972:150-51, 255-56) locates such identification during the seventh century b .c .e ., the period in which scribes and sages began to take part in the composition of legal materials. ^ The word Torah is used 23 times, 6 each with wisdom (19:20; 21:11; 33:2; 34:8; 39:1; 44:4) and with covenant (24:23; 39:8; 42:2; 44:20; 45:5), 4 times with “commandments” (32:34; 35:1; 45:5, 7) and three times with “fear o f Yahweh” (19:20, 24; 21:11; 42:2). The three important Jewish thoughts are tied together by the Torah. ^ For a detailed analysis o f the identification o f law and wisdom in Ben Sira, see esp. Schnabel 1985:71ff. 196 in 17:11-14 where “loiowledge” (è'moT'niiîi) is set in parallel with “the Torah of life” (vopoc; Cwfjc; cf. Sir. 45:5). Wisdom from tins perspective is an understanding of the will of God available only through special revelation, especially through the Torah. Collins (1997A:54) sees such identification as “introducing the Torah of Moses into the wisdom school, and thereby attempting to combine two educational traditions [i.e. Torah and wisdom traditions]” (see also Blenkinsopp 1995:152-53). Following the lead of Ben Sira, the author of the poem in Bar. 3:9-4:4 also identifies wisdom with “the book of the commandments of God, the law that endures forever” (Bar. 4:1). Ben Sira is the first known author who identifies wisdom with the Torah, a notion which later became standard in rabbinic literature.^ Thus in Ben Sira, the identification of Torah with wisdom is “both a promise and a hemeneutical statement. The Torah can be read as a guide to wisdom and resides as a unique possession of Israel” (Sheppard 1980:68). available to all who pursue it. will never go astray. become the This identification means that wisdom is Thus those who are diligent in the study of the law Davis (1984:16) concludes that for Ben Sira, “the law has definitive locus, the consummate embodiment of wisdom. Consequently, the search for wisdom proceeds in his advice and work through the study and interpretation of the law.”^ Wisdom that took residence among God’s ^For various proposals on the development of the identification of Torah and wisdom, see Küchler 1979:40-45; Nel 1982:92-97; Collins 1997A:50-51. ^ A distinction should be made between the Torah as a canonical category and the Torah as a theme in Ben Sira. The former concerns how Ben Sira used the books o f the Torah such as the Pentateuch while the latter concerns how Ben Sira relates wisdom to the concept o f the Torah. Though they are closely related, they must not be mixed indistinguishably as often found in Davis. The way Ben Sira claims that law should be related to wisdom may not be the same as how he actually uses Torah. Such confusion is also found in von Rad (1972:244-47) where he says that the Torah plays an important role in Ben Sira (p.244), yet concludes later that the Torah is not a subject o f particular interest to it (p.247). The former is concerned with the Torah as a canonical category and the latter as a subject. I would, however, contest strongly against von Rad’s understanding that the Torah is not an important concern 197 people is made concrete in the Torah. Sheppard’s study on Sir. 24:3-29, 16:24- 17:14 and Bar 3:9-4:4 confirms the understanding that Ben Sira actually starts with some OT texts or traditions and then applies the teachings in wisdom teims. It is in this sense that “wisdom functions for these post-exilic wiiters as a hermeneutical construct to interpret the Torah as a statement about wisdom and as a guide to Israel’s practice of it.” He further concludes that “these wisdom interpretations legitimate the Torah and its claim to pervasive authority by demonstrating in practical terms how Torah narrative directly informs the concerns of wisdom.”^ Despite the close association of Torah with wisdom, it must be maintained that they are not totally identified. Commenting on Sir. 6:32-37, Collins (1997A:48) aptly points out: “Wisdom is a gift of God, over and above what one can acquire by study. It is a disposition of the mind and character, and as such it cannot be equated with any collection of saying or laws, although these are indispensable aids in the quest for wisdom.” On the other hand. Sir. 39:1-11 tells of the scribe as one diligent in the study of traditions including the Torah. Sir, 19:20 well summarizes the relationship between the two: “in all wisdom there is the fulfillment of the law (ev iraoT] oo(f)Ca iroLqoLç vopon).” True wisdom manifests itself in those who fear the Lord and keep the law (19:20-30). In the Psalms of Solomon, wisdom as observance of the law is more indirect. In the messianic Psalm 17, the Davidic King and the Messiah, over against those unrighteous rulers and sinners, destroy and expel them “with wisdom and to the sage. ^Quotations from Sheppard 1980:118, 119 respectively. 198 righteousness” (èv ao(|)LO' [èv] ÔLKaLooiJvr|[ç]; v. 23; cf. 18:7). The close relationship between wisdom and righteousness is evident in the description of the Messiah as “wise in the counsel of understanding, with strength and righteousness (v. 37).” He will bless the Lord’s people with wisdom and happiness (v. 35) and they will be led into holiness (v. 41). In the Psalms of Solomon, righteousness is achieved in obedience to the law or commandments (14:1-2). As we have noticed before, for the Qumran community, the path of preparation for the age to come is the study of the Torah (IQS 8:14-15). Its members are those who “observe the Torah” (IQpHab 8.1; 12,5; cf. CD 15.9, 12; 16.1-2,4-5). The community is referred to as the “house of Torah” (ri'T’nn ma, CD 20.10, 13) and the “community of Torah” (nmna ITP; IQS 5.2). Wisdom for them is equivalent to the sectarian understanding and interpretation of the law (CD 6.2-11). The “staff’ in the above mentioned passage is the “interpreter of the law,” a man of understanding and wisdom, who has dug into the well which is the Torah. This wisdom or knowledge had been previously concealed from people and is revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness, the interpreter of the law par excellence, who passed it on to the community (IQS 11.5-6; IQH 10[2].9-10; cf. IQpHab 2.1-3; 7.1-5; CD 1.1-12).^ Schnabel (1985:173) notes that in legal texts, this revelation linlcs more to an exposition of the Torah, while in the Hymns it appears more in the form of direct inspiration. The “sons of Zadok,” the priests, are a group of leaders who were ^ There is a certain hierarchy o f achievement in the acquisition and possession o f wisdom. Within the community, those who have a higher status are those who had come to a liigher degree o f wisdom (cf. IQS 10.27; 8.1). 199 entrusted with teaching and interpreting Torah to others (IQS 5.8-10). The maskil (^"*300), probably a term influenced by Daniel 12, translated literally as “enlightener,” appears to be an important teaching position in the community. is a master and guardian of the Torah and the sectarian legal tradition. He He is expected to put a fence around the community, share his laiowledge with his fellow members, and to set an example by his own way of life (IQS 3.13-15; 9.12-14; see esp. Schiffman 1994:123-25). It is this community which engaged itself diligently in the study of the Torah that has exclusive access to that wisdom. The wisdom of the sect, its insight into the hiddenness of the law and prophets, lies with the divine revelation within the community. 11Q5.12-14 [Ps. 154] portrays the celebration of wisdom as extending to the community’s meal and associates wisdom closely with the meditation of the Torah of God. wisdom (Harrington 1996B:28).^ The Torah here is seen at least as one kind of 4Q525.3-4 reads: “Blessed is the man who attains Wisdom, and walks in the law of the Most High, and dedicates his heart to her ways....” Harrington (1996B:68) notices that “[tjhe linlc between wisdom and the Torah is so close that it is hard to know whether the feminine suffixes [her ways] refer to one or the other (or both!)” (see also Woude 1995:250-51). Schnabel (1985:207-22; see also Woude 1995) lists impressively 11 passages (IQS 3.1; 3.15-17; 9.17; CD 6.2-5; IQM 10.9-11; IQH 9[l].l-20; 13[4].9-11; IQDireMoshe 2.8-9; 4QMessAr 1.3-11; llQ Ps“ 18.10-13; 24.8) that show explicit connection and identification of law and wisdom and 12 other implicit ones (IQS ‘ Harrington (1996B:38-39) also sees that the connection between wisdom and Israel’s Torah lies in the fragmentary text o f 4Q185 with the “words o f the Lord” providing guidance for those who wish to pursue the way o f wisdom and righteousness. 200 1.11-13; 2.2-3; 4.2-6; lQH9[l].34-36; 10[12].32; IQpHab 2.8-10; 4QS1 39 fl; 4Q184 f l.14-17; 4Q185 fl-2 1.13-2.1; 4QDibHatn" fl-2 2.12-15; 4QShir'’ fl.7-8; 11QPs^DavComp 27.2-11). Particularly significant are the following three passages: IQM 10:10 places law and wisdom in close proximity by putting “learned in the law” in synonymous parallelism with “wise in knowledge.” wisdom as study of the law (“dug the well [=the law]”). CD 6.2-5 relate In IQDM (=1Q22) 2.8-9, the people who should be appointed to expound the Torah are designated as wise men (caon). Torah. On the one hand, wisdom is required of those who expound on the On the other hand, wisdom is the result of the study of the Torah. I concur with SchnabeTs conclusion (1985:224) that, “for the Community, wisdom was both the prerequisite for, and the result of, the study of the law, while the law could be studied, interpreted, and taught properly only by wise people” (cf. Wilckens, TDNT\1.505). In the form of a sorites, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon talks about wisdom’s law (6:17-20), The wisdom of which the author speaks is a cosmic principle, the Stoic cosmic Logos, to which the biblical laws owe their source.^ As Winston (1979:43) observes, “She [Wisdom] is clearly the Archetypal Torah, of which the Mosaic Law is but an image.” Wis. 9:9 speaks of the presence of wisdom at the beginning of creation (cf. Prov. 8:22-31). Wisdom also Icnows the will of God expressed in the Torah and thus is capable of guiding one in doing God’s ’ The Stoic law o f nature as a cosmic principle may facilitate the identification of the Torah with wisdom. The Jewish concept o f wisdom is similar to the Stoic Logos, and the Jewish notion o f a law given at creation to the Stoic law o f nature. Apart from Wisdom o f Solomon and the writings o f Philo, such influence can also be found in diaspora Jewish writings such as 4 Macc. 1:16. 201 will. This gift of wisdom is necessary for all to know God’s will and to act in accordance with it (9:17). Winston (1979:43) rightly remarks, “he is certainly implying that the Torah is in need of further interpretation for the disclosure of its true meaning, interpretation which Wisdom alone is able to provide.” Instead of the study of Torah that leads to wisdom, for the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, it is the Cosmic Wisdom that provides people with correct interpretation of the Torah. Thus the activity of the Cosmic Wisdom here is not unlike the working of the Holy Spirit as found in Qumran writings. This is also what we found in Wisdom of Solomon, that Wisdom comes to be identified with the Spirit (9:17). Philo’s outlook on the relationship of law and wisdom is similar to that of Wisdom of Solomon, though he goes far beyond Wisdom of Solomon in the appropriation of Greek philosophy. Taking wisdom (ooc|)La) and prudence (4»p6vriaLç) as representing theology and ethics respectively, he sees both as embodied in the laws of Moses {Praem. Poen. 14,81-84). Blessedness results from keeping the Torah, and this is the truest wisdom and prudence {Praem. Poen. 14.81). Taking the Stoic definition of philosophy as “the practice of wisdom,” he brings up the close association of wisdom and Torah again as he says that “what the disciples of the most excellent philosophy gain from its teaching, the Jews gain from their laws and customs” {Virt. 10.65). The allegorical interpretation of the Torah which Philo adopted provides the wisdom-seeker, such as Philo himself, with a path to the laiowledge of God or ecstatic communion with God (cf. Dec.V, Leg. Spec. 3.6). His interpretation of Scripture is prompted by the suggestion of the invisible spirit {Somn. 202 38.252).' A similar sentiment can also be found in 4 Maccabees. The author of the book defines wisdom as “a knowledge of things divine and human, and of their causes” (1:16) which is a current Stoic understanding. Yet he goes on to define the wisdom as “the culture we acquire from the Law, through which we learn the things of God reverently and the things of men to our worldly advantage” (1:17). Philosophy is, for the author, equivalent to the Torah (7:7: c5 (|)LÀ6ao(jDe Geion P lod; cf. 7:21-23). vopon icccl In the Letter of Aristeas, Moses is the “lawgiver” (6 vopoGétriç) because he is wise or he is a wise man (oocj)6ç dSv; 139). The Law is of divine origin and it is full of wisdom and free from blemish (v. 31). Josephus, wisdom is the content of the Torah (oof^ia Tc 5v For vopcov; Ant., 18.59, 81). The wise are those who know the Torah and expound it {Ant., 18.82; 20.264). The wisdom of God is placed in close proximity with the justice of God {Ant., 11.268). In the Similitudes of Enoch, Enoch was granted a vision to see that which is to come. A close association is found between wisdom and righteousness (48:1; 49:1). Such a close relationship is found throughout the corpus of Enochic literature (1 Enoch 5:8; 91:10). According to Collins (1989:146), righteousness to the author “is rather an attitude of rejecting this world and having faith in the Lord of Spirits and the Son of Man.” The keeping of the law is probably assumed throughout the book, yet contrary to W. D. Davies’ (1952:42-43) understanding, there is no evidence that wisdom is in any direct way associated with the Torah. ^For further discussion, see Wolfson 1948:1.147-50; 183-84; Davies 1984:50-54. 203 The faith of the righteous entails wisdom and imderstanding. The kind of wisdom concerned is not readily available to all, but hidden and can be known only thi'ough special revelation which is never related to the Mosaic Torah, since Enoch is supposed to exist before the giving of the law. It is the Similitudes themselves that contain the revelation of wisdom, a new revelation from God (cf. 2 En. 48:6-9; 4 Ezra 14). A somewhat different picture is found in 2 Apoc. Bar. man is set in parallel with a son of the Law. In 46:4, a wise In line with the wisdom tradition, the primary function of the wise man is to instruct the people to observe the Torah (44:23; 45:1-2) for “we have nothing now apart from the Mighty One and his Law” (85:3). On the other hand, the author did receive new revelation through apocalyptic visions.^ The relationship between word/law and wisdom in James is a complicated one. The two adjectives oo^o; and eTrLotrjpcov in Jas 3:13 occur together only here in the NT. A strict distinction of the two adjectives is unnecessary. In the LXX, they are used together in Deut. 1:13a, 15a depicting the qualifications of tribal leaders in Israel. They are to judge impartially and without fear of people as representatives of God’s judgment (Deut. 1:13-17). These are also the qualities of Daniel as described by the queen of the Babylonian King Belshazzar (Dan 5:11; cf. Sir. 21:15). In Deut. 4:6 (cf. Hos 14:9[10]), the greatness of the nation of Israel lies in the wisdom (ao{j)6ç) and understanding (eirLorqpwv) that was the fruit of its obedience to the law of justice (cf. Deut. 4:8: ô L K a io c ;). This points to the understanding that in ^ In rabbinic writings, the identification o f wisdom with Torah is frequently found. The index volume o f the M idimh Rabbah lists no less than 12 instances of such identification in Lev. R.\ also Gen. R. 17.5; b. Qid., 49b. 204 James, as in Deut. 4:6, the one who keeps the law is considered to be wise. ^ This understanding is supported by the connection of Jas 3:13 with 3:1 where our author shows his concern for those who aspired to be teachers in the messianically renewed community of God. Presumably, the teacher is responsible for the interpretation and application of the Torah together with the various traditions associated with it. If 3:13-18 concludes 3:1-12, as I have argued before, then the description of “wise and understanding” veiy probably refers to the aspired teacher of the law. Our author seems to be making an intertextual link with Deuteronomic understanding of wisdom as the result of keeping the law. Such understanding is strongly supported by this study of such a connection in traditional Jewish thought. In James, law and wisdom are found to serve the same goal in the following six ways: (1) The overarching characteristic of wisdom from above is purity (3:17; ayvq). The religion that is acceptable to God is also described as “pure and undefiled” (1:27; icaGapa ical àpiavrcç). A parallel is set up between those who have the wisdom from above who will be pure and those who keep the law of liberty who will be seen in their religion being pure and undefiled (cf. 4:8). They share the same purpose. (2) Another parallel is that the ultimate manifestation of the wisdom from above is seen to be the same as keeping the law of liberty. righteousness (3:18). For wisdom, it is the fruit of The intended result of hearing and doing the implanted ^ Johnson (1995A;270) fittingly remaiks: “James’ very choice o f words... suggests the context of Torah: who is wise according to God’s measure o f reality?” 205 word of God is to perform the righteousness of God (1:20-22). Again, both the implanted word, the law and wisdom have the same goal in bringing about the righteousness that God demands. (3) The second and third sets of characteristics of wisdom from above (“full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy”) point back to chapter two on impartiality and works of mercy. The exhortation to be impartial and to do works of mercy is directly related to the keeping of the law of liberty. (4) The earthly, soulish and demonic wisdom is set in contrast to wisdom from above. This is set in parallel to the world/devil in contrast to God. The context clearly shows that those who cause disharmony in the community for their own selfinterest are enemies of God, and makes evident that their wisdom is not heavenly but earthly. In 2:23, Abraham is called a friend of God because he performs works of faith in accordance with God’s requirement in his law. In comparison, it is not difficult to see that the friend of God is not only one who perfonns works of faith but also one who has wisdom from above. (5) Those who are wise and understanding can be seen by their concrete deeds (%& epya ai)ToD) and by a good or proper lifestyle (èic rfjç icaA.fiç évKOTpo#;) showing such qualities (3:13; cf. / Clem. 38.2). Their works with “meekness of wisdom” (ïïpcôJtiiTi ao(t)ia<;) can be demonstrated tôeiE&TW: cp. Sir. 3:17: kv TTpailTTitL m €pya aov ôté^aye). The need to demonstrate one’s work is also found in 2:18 (icdyoS aoi ÔeiEw etc t w v ’épycov poi) rqv ttlotlv). 206 In the case of faith. the work concerned is with works of mercy or love towards one’s neighbour, as stated in the law of liberty epitomized in the love command. The evidence for one having heavenly wisdom, that is, being wise and understanding, is through one’s lifestyle, which is consistent with one’s obedience to the law. (6) Wisdom is needed for one to acquire perfection (1:2-5), while the law of liberty is described as “perfect” (1:25), which according to our understanding, leads to perfection. Again they are seen to achieve the same goal. There are three ways that law and wisdom can be related: they can be perceived as entirely independent from each other; the law can be seen as the source of wisdom and one who keeps the law is considered to be wise (OT, Ben Sira, Qumran, Philo); or wisdom can be seen as necessary for interpreting and keeping the law (Qumran, Similitudes of Enoch). It is quite unlikely that they are entirely independent, as the above study of the relationship between them in Jewish traditions shows. In James, the strong practical orientation of wisdom in terms of deeds and lifestyle (see esp. 3:13-18) seems to suggest that the wisdom here concerns not with the inspiration in understanding the law but rather keeping the law demonstrates that one is wise. For the above six connections between them I find in James, it makes perfectly good sense that obedience to the law leads to wisdom. This is particularly true for the first five connections that are associated with 3:13-18. It is by keeping the law that shows them to be wise and understanding, and that they have have wisdom from above. Yet the problem still remains as to how can wisdom can then be a gift from God in response to those who pray for it with faith, and at the same time a result of one’s studying and keeping the law. 207 E, Wisdom, MeeJmess, and the InierpreiaUon o f the Law In James, the connection between wisdom as a gift and as something that can be acquired in studying the law seems to be found in the attitude of meelmess. Meekness is the attitude one needs for keeping the implanted word (1:21). Since the implanted word contained within itself the perfect law of liberty, the attitude of meekness is also required in the understanding and application of the law. On the other hand, if the wisdom from above is seen as the source of meelmess as I argued in 3:13 (see p. 176 above), then the meelmess that is required to receive/keep the implanted word/law of liberty is the working of wisdom. Meekness out of the working of wisdom allows one to counteract impulsive anger out of the working of the evil inclination (1:20), so that one can truly understand and keep the implanted word/law of liberty. It is the very opposite of the boastful attitude that “judges” the law (4:11). In classical Greek, the word TTpauTric is opposite to roughness, bad temper and sudden anger (Hauck and Schulz, TDNT: 6.646). be with the humble. In Prov. 11:2, wisdom is said to God will lead the hmnble in the right way characterised by steadfastness to covenant loyalty (Ps. 25:9). Ben Sira highly values this virtue: God lifts up the ïïpaeiç (10:14); it is a quality of Moses (45:4; cf. Num. 12:3), the proper way of evaluating oneself (10:28); it adorns a woman (36:23, LXX only), wins the love of one’s fellows (3:17), and is of God’s delight (1:27). The virtue of meekness is among those praised in the NT: Gal. 6:1; Eph. 4:2; 2 Tim. 2:25; Tit. 3:2; 1 Pet. 3:15 (cf IQS 2.24; 3.8; 4.3). Moses is the classic biblical model who is “very 208 humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). According to one Tannaitic tradition, Moses was allowed to draw near the cloud of glory because of his meekness {Meh ba~Hodesh 9.99-116). Aldba is supposed to have said that “the teachings of the Torah can be kept only by the one who humbles himself’ {Sifre Deut. § 48). (Moore 1997:2.245). Meelmess is seen as “the condition of true learning” It is one of the forty-eight qualifications necessary for the proper acquisition of the Torah {m. Ab, 6.6). humble man. According to t. Sot. 9.48b, Hillel is a It is the humility of him and his disciples that makes the definitive halakhah of Beth Hillel rather than Beth Shammai (b. Erub. 13b; y. Suk 2.8; Yeb. 6.6). “Torah scholarship and authority were directly related to humility and meelmess” (Deutsch 1987:97). In another words, it is one’s meekness that gives one credibility in the interpretation of scripture. Meekness in oui* present context refers to one’s submissiveness to the authority of God, and a readiness to listen, to accept and to put into practice the word of God. It is hardly surprising that in Jewish traditional instructions, humility is closely associated with the fear of the Lord (Prov, 15:33; 22:4; Sir. 1:27) which is the classic definition of wisdom. openness to God is only possible through the working of wisdom given by God. Such As we have noticed, in some Jewish understanding, wisdom provides people with a correct interpretation of the Torah. If meekness is the very working of wisdom, this fits in well with such an understanding with special emphasis on the willingness to submit to God. Such openness and submissiveness is indeed a gift of God. Meekness is not only the cardinal virtue for life (as Davids 1982:150; Hartin 1996:489), but essential for one’s pursuit of understanding and for obeying the 209 Torah. As my study on the relationship between law and wisdom in Jewish traditions above has shown, these two motifs can be related in two different ways: (1) Law can be seen as the source of wisdom, and (2) wisdom can be seen as necessary for the understanding of the law. These two patterns can coexist in a single work such as Ben Sira without any attempt to reconcile them. can be found in James. Similarly, both of these patterns For James, the worldng of wisdom as the hermeneutic for interpreting the Torah lies in the special grace of humility. Tlie true interpreter of the Torah must be a humble teacher as Jesus himself is (Mt. 11:29). This however does not mean that meekness is the only virtue inspired by the wisdom from above. As in my study on Jas 1:5 has shown (see p. 174 above ), wisdom is also seen as helping one to realise the situation one is in and to loiow how to cope with it. 210 The perfect law of liberty, which is an integral part of the word of truth through which the renewed people of God come to be, is essentially the Mosaic law interpreted by the command to love one’s neighbour as found in the Jesus tradition. Keeping the law would lead one into freedom and perfection. This is grounded on the coming of the kingdom inaugurated by Jesus, bringing a renewed coimnunity of God’s people into his kingdom. Hence, this law is also called the royal law. The importance of studying and keeping the law in James can be seen in our author’s use of Lev. 19, a central summary of Torah, applied to his audiences/readers. This covers many of the major concerns found in the work such as charity, impartiality, perjiny, slandering and peace. What characterises wisdom from above is again the similar kind of concerns such as purity, mercy, impartiality, honesty and peace found throughout the work (3:17). Wisdom can be seen as being acquired through the studying and keeping of the law. understanding. Keeping the law shows that one is wise and On the other hand, the wisdom from above, through the special grace of meelmess, allows one to accept and obey the law wholeheartedly and gives one credibility in the interpretation of the law. Both wisdom and word/law serve the same purpose in bringing about the perfection/righteousness demanded by God, the religion that is pure and undefiled. It is to this paraenetic purpose of James that I will turn to in the next section of this thesis. 211 PART FOUR Perfection, Doubleness and their Relationship to Word/Law and Wisdom I have pointed out earlier that the purpose of studying, applying and practicing the law and the worldng of wisdom coincide in their bringing about the perfection/righteousness demanded by God. seen as the goal of hermeneutics. Therefore, attaining perfection can be The understanding of the concept of perfection in James will help to clarify what is demanded of the messianically renewed people of God and its precise relationship with the royal law of liberty. On the other hand, doubleness which stands in opposition to perfection tells how and why the goal of perfection can be frustrated.^ This frustration, as we will see, comes both in the understanding and the application of the law. It is thus not surprising that many scholars have noticed that the concept of law and wisdom is closely tied with two important opposing themes James: in perfection/wholeness and doubleness/dividedness (Zmijewski 1980:68-70, 76; Franlcemôlle 1985:163-64; Boccaccini 1991:223-25; Tsuji 1997:101; Konradt 1998:272, 309), though none has offered a detailed analysis of their relationship. ^ Johnson (1985; 1995), Frankemolle (1990; 1994:1.172-80), Cargal (1993), Elliott (1993) and Tollefson (1997) have, in different ways, all highlighted the element of oppositions in our author’s mind-set. 212 Csall to Perfection The importance of the perfection/wholeness theme in James has been grossly neglected among English-speaking scholars, but has been well articulated by many German scholars. ' In order to understand what the “call to perfection” involves, I will explore the concept in early Jewish and early Christian traditions. This will allow us to have a wider scope of what perfection involves and will help us to identify and understand the theme in James. A. The Call to Perfection in Early Jewish and Early Christian TraditioJis The understanding of the “call to perfection” in James should not be limited to occurrence of the rel-related words; James Barr (1961) rightly warns against such an approach.^ The concept should be understood in the context of the OT, early Jewish and Christian writings. Due to limitation in space, the following study is ^Hoppe 1977; Zmijewski 1980; Frankemolle 1985, 1989, 1990, 1994; Popkes 1986:45-46; Mussner 1989:58-59, 422-23; Klein 1995; Tsuji 1997:53-54; Konradt 1998:267-86; cf. Obermoller 1972:238. In English, I can find a few only that articulate this important theme in James, see e.g.. Laws 1980:2832; 1982; Maitin 1988:lxxix-lxxxii; Hartin 1991:199-217; Tamez 1990:56-68; Elliott 1993; Bauckliam (forthcoming). Adamson (1989:321-24) subsumes the theme of perfection under the topic “The Rewards o f Trial.” It is surprising that Davids in his survey article “The Epistle of James in Modem Discussion” (1988) entirely neglects this important theme, Chester (1994:16ff.) gives the topic only veiy limited treatment, though he admits that it is important (p. 19). Baiter (1995:20-21) states perfection is the unifymg ethical tlieme without supporting argument. ^ For tliis reason, I regard both du Plessis (1959) and Klein (1995) as inadequate in their respective treatment o f the “perfection” theme in James. Though Klein may be right in seeing hellenistic influence in the understanding o f perfection in James, his claim that the expression telei,on e;rgon has to be understood exclusively in the hellenistic sense of moral perfection (1995:56-63) is untenable. In general, liis outdated clearcut distinction between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism is a major weakness o f his dissertation. 213 bound to be selective, choosing materials that are more relevant to our study. Old Testament In the OT, Noah is the first person whose moral character is described as both righteous (pna) and blameless (Q'’sn) in his generation (Gen. 6:9b; cf. Teleio;: Sir. 44:17; Philo, Deus Imm., 117, 118; Abn 31, 34, 36, 47, 117). person so described (2 Sam. 22:24, 26). (cf the noun David is another Job is described as on, a synonym of □’’on non), meaning blameless, innocent, pious, sincere and upright, a life guided by the fear of the Lord (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3, 9; 9:20-22; 12:4; cf. 8:20; 27:5). Such descriptions do not mean that one is totally without sin but point to “a person’s integrity of character;... a person who is singlemindedly obedient to God’s will as expressed in His commandments” (Opperwall, ISBE:3.764). be blameless (Q*’?3n; Gen. 17:1; cf. Philo, Virt. 217). Abram was called to Such is also the calling of all Israel (Deut. 18:13; cf. Ps. 119:1, 80; Prov. 2:21; 11:5; Ezek. 28:15). Joshua charged Israel to serve God “in sincerity (D%n) and in faithfulness (nax)” (Jos. 24:14). Often the word is used in the context of “way” and “walking” (Gen. 6:9b; 17:1; Pss. 15:2; 18:33; 119:1; Prov. 11:20; 28:18). The word Qnn is used synonymously with uprightness (10% Prov. 2:7, 21; Job 1:1; Ps. 37:37), with righteousness (pn%; Gen. 6:9b; 2 Sam. 22:24, 25; Prov. 2:7-9; 13:6; Pss. 15:2; 18:23, 25), with moral cleanliness (13; 2 Sam. 22:24-26), and with faithfulness or loyalty (DQ^: Deut. 32:4; Jos. 24:14; Pss. 15:2; 26:1-3; ion: Ps. 18:26). Thus the word has a very wide scope of coverage with respect to moral requirements. 214 B-'DM can also be used among human relationships that are sincere and loyal (Jdg. 9:16; Amos 5:10; cf. Ezek. 43:22). The substantive Bh is used of the state of the heart in the sense of integrity of heart (1 Kgs. 9:4) and a pure or upright conscience (Gen. 20:5, 6; Ps. 78:72; cf. 1 Clem. 60:2). Like Bi:n, it is also used in the context of “way” and “walk” to indicate blameless and innocent behaviour (2 Sam. 15:11; Pss. 26:1, 11; 101:2, 6; 119:1; Prov. 2:7; 10:9; 28:6). It is also used complementarily with uprightness (10% Ps. 25:21). Another word related to the concept of perfection is word a ■ ’Bn is rendered in Targ. Onq. In Deut. 18:13, the As an adjective oW is used frequently with 3^ (heart) to desciibe a person who is totally true with undivided loyalty to Yahweh (1 Kgs. 8:61; 11:4; 2 Kgs. 20:3; 1 Chron. 28:9; 12:39; 2 Chron. 15:17; 19:19; 25:2; Isa. 38:3). The adjective B^0 is often translated as t€A,6loç in the LXX. Du Plessis (1959:100) well summarizes the significance of such description: David, Solomon, Asa and Hezekiah pledged their loyalty to God in this way: their ‘perfectness of heart’ was ... a stable integrity not contaminated by divergent motives or conflicts between thoughts and deeds. the entire personality. It encompassed Hezekiah cries: ‘Remember now, O Lord, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in thy sight’ (2 Kings 20.3). His devotion could not be whole without ‘faith and works’. Man reacts to God as a unity, or not at all. In LXX Dan. 3:40, wliich finds no parallel in the Hebrew text, the phrase TeXeLwoocL ôïïLoOév 001) (“may we wholly follow you”) refers to believers walking in a wholehearted relationship with God. 215 In Leviticus, the tenu Q'^Bn is used frequently to indicate cultic purity. The requirement for the offering is specified by the stereotyped priestly formula: “to be acceptable it must be perfect (D'»Bn); there shall be no blemish in it” (Lev. 2 2 :2 1 ). The offerings acceptable to God must be healthy, without defect, and free from any blemish (Lev. 9 :2 ; cf. Exod. 1 2 :5 ; Num. 6 :1 4 ). apply to humans cultically.^ Yet, the adjective does not seem to In the LXX, the verb xeÀeiv is used in this sense in a very limited way (e.g.. Num. 2 5 :3 ). Only in the technical expression xelcLow xccq X€Îpocç and its various variations (Exod. 2 9 :9 ; Lev. 4 :5 ; cf. Lev. 2 1 :1 0 ) with reference to the installation of the levitical priesthood does the verb clearly carry a technical, cultic meaning (Peterson 1 9 8 2 :2 6 -3 0 ). Du Plessis ( 1 9 5 9 :1 0 0 ) draws to our attention the fact that the cultic use of the word □'’Bn has strong affinity with the word 0 i p and is reflected in the NT: a y to g 1 Pet. 1 :1 9 ; Heb. 9 :1 4 ). kccI ap w p o g (Eph. 1 :4; 5 :2 7 ; Col. 1 :2 2 ; cf. All the concerns for purity and cleanness (Lev. 1 1 -1 5 ; Num. 1 9 :1 1 -2 0 ; Deut. 1 4 :1 -2 1 ) can be reduced to one overarching motive: Yahweh is holy, and his people should be holy (Lev. 1 9 :2 ; cf. 1 1 :4 4 ). Apart from cognate words of TEÀ-, KCiGapoQ, K)iLctvTOç, apEpwTog, aoTTLlog, KirXo- and Ôlkou- all belong to the stock of vocabularies that relate to the concept of perfection. Du Plessis (1 9 5 9 :1 0 1 -0 2 ) points out that the descriptions of God’s people as “perfect,” “righteous,” “holy”, or “pure” all owe their source to the understanding that one should strive to be in accordance with what he should be in the eyes of Yahweh, Who is holy and pure and Who is Himself the image of what He commands. If a man is ^Milgrom (1991:147) draws our attention to the fact that the Deuteronomic source that emphasizes spiritual and moral aspects o f the law, in two pericopes that deal with the imblemished requirement o f sacrifices, omit the word Q'’?3n. 216 firmly rooted in this relationship, he is ‘whole’, ‘sound’, ‘complete’, ‘perfect’.... Men of this stamp were Noah, Abraham, Joshua, David, Solomon and others. For all their failings they excelled in unity of heart and treaded the trail blazed by the commands of Yahweh. Wisdom of Solomon and Ben Sira Wisdom will dwell in those who “love righteousness ..., thinlc of the Lord in goodness and seek him with sincerity of heart (èv àïïÀotr|tL 1:1-4). icapôlaç)” (Wis. 1:1; cf. True perfection can only be the outcome of godly wisdom (Wis. 9:6). To fix one’s thought on wisdom is perfect understanding ((})povrioLç TeÀeLoxrig; Wis. 6:15). The righteous man who dies an untimely death has, despite the brevity of his life, “been perfected” (xelELwOeLg; Wis. 4:13). Sir. 31:8-11 on how a rich man should behave begins with a makarism: “Blessed is the rich person who is found blameless (apwpog), and who does not go after gold.” Then it goes on to say that it will be to his honour if he is being tested by wealth and found perfect (v.lO; LXX èXEX€L(O0T]). Philo Philo employs extensively a perfection terminology in his religious pedagogy.^ For him, in line with the Platonic cosmology, the heavenly realm is perfect and one may attain perfection by entering it. the heavenly region. His main emphasis lies in the soul’s ascent to This is done on the one hand by God’s drawing the sage upward, and on the other hand, virtue leads some up to it. Dey notices that in Philo, See du Plessis 1959:105-20; Dey 1975:31-72; Carlston 1978; Peterson 1982:30-33. 217 there is a pattern of perfection rising from the intermediary world of Logos {Conf. Ling. 145-48; Fug 102; Somn. 1.117; Quaest. in Exod. 2.39-40), Sophia {Somn. 1.64-66), Angel {Spec. Leg. 3.176-77; Migr. Abr. 174-75; Quaest. in Exod. 2.13; Somn. 1.232, 238) and Anthropos {Spec. Leg. 1.92-95; Quaest. in Gen. 1.8; Mut. Nom. 24, 30; Gig. 60-61) to the presence of God himself (unmediated access; see Dey 1975:34-45), the perfect way to God {Deus Imm. 142). These different levels of perfection are illustrated by different examples from the OT such as Aaron, the Levitical priesthood, Melchizedek and Moses. These examples represent different dispositions of the soul, characters, types and virtues. In Philo, the perfect person is a sage, the perfectly wise (xEÀEiog oo(j)6g), seen as one who can eradicate angry feelings, to make it manageable, peaceable and gentle to everyone, both in word and deed {Spec. Leg. 3.130, 132, 140; Ebr. 103). Such a person is also able to have complete freedom from passion (teIeloc àïïaOELa), not out of command, but in accordance with his/her own unbidden inclination {Spec. Leg. 3.131-32, 140-44). Abraham is a typical man who has gained victory over evil passions to achieve perfection {Abr. 10. 47-48). Abraham is said to have been perfected both by teaching and by God’s filling him with wisdom {Mut. Nom. 270; Praem. Poen. 49). The perfect person is one whose perfecting begins with the physical body and senses but ends in the wisdom of God {Rer. Div. Her. 315). to the achievement of aoc}>Ca (cf. Migr. Abr. 46). The idea of perfection is tied The ethical emphasis on perfection is found in the expressions “perfect virtue(s)” {Spec. Leg. 1.61; 3.244,249; Deus Imm. 154; Agr. 157; etc.), “perfect in virtue” {Abr. 26), “perfect ordinances of virtue” {Spec. Leg. 3.55), “perfect offspring of virtues” {Cher. 43) and “good and 218 perfect character” {Somn. 162). Those who are perfect must be both “lovers of humans” ((()iAav8 pwiT0 L) and “lovers of God” (({)lXo6€ol), keeping the decalogue, the summary of the Torah. Qumran Literature As in the OT, perfection is often used in connection with “way” and “walk” (see, e.g., IQS 1.8, 13; 2.2; 3.9-10; 4.22; 9.6, 8 ; CD 1.20-21; 2.15; IQSb 1.2; 5.22; IQH 9[1].36; 12[4].31-32; IQM 14.7).^ IQS 1.8 reads: “to walk perfectly before his face (according to) all” (^13 B'^Dn "j^nnn*?')). The sectarians of the Qumran community are those who have chosen God’s perfect ways (TBBl BB; 1.13). The sect understands itself as a community set apart as “a holy house for Aaron, in order to enter the holy of holies, and (like) a house of community for Israel, (for) those who walk in perfection ("]“n B'’Bn)” (9.9). In 8.9, the establishment of the council of the community is seen as providing a “house of perfection” (□‘’fânfâ fT'a). men of perfect holiness (yf"** These Q'’Bnn)^ should conduct themselves in accordance with the regulations of the sect, walking along the path of perfection (IQS 8.20-21; cf. CD 7.5; 20.2, 5, 7; IQS 8.20). Perfection is virtually synonymous with righteousness or uprightness (CD 1.20b-21a; 20.lb-2; IQH 12[4].30). The community is holy because of its close communion with a holy God (IQS 11.5-9). Those who chose the way of perfection are members of the sect. Whoever joins the ^ Rigaux (1957-58) finds that in the community’s understanding of perfection, tlnee aspects predominate: a moral element o f obedience to the way of the community, a mystical element with the Spirit’s special guidance, and a gnostic element in which God’s will for humanity is revealed. ^ Perfection and holiness are so closely related in the IQS that Deasley (1972:61) can say that “holiness is thus perfection and perfection holiness.” 219 community enters the covenant of God. Such a person should swear to revert to the Law of Moses with “whole heart and whole soul” (WB3 bisai 2h in compliance with the interpretation through revelation to the sons of Zadok (IQS 5.8, 9; cf. IQS 3.9-10). They are to sei've God in “wholeness of heart” (a^^y IQH 8[16]7, 17). In the context of IQS col. 1, there is a constant stress on the totality of one’s commitment in using the adjective bia repeatedly (1.4[2x], 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14; also 3.10; 9.10, 19). As we have noticed earlier, the Sheina^ -like phrases in 4QDibHam® frgs 1-2 col.2: “with all (our) heart and with all (our) soul,” linlcs God’s implanting his law “in our heart” with wholehearted repentance. The Qumran community understands their way of life as the way of perfection that demands total loyalty. The means of perfection is through separation by inward cleansing, loiowledge by the spirit of holiness, ritual purification with contrition and discipline (Deasley 1972:104). They perceived their community as characterized by “proper meekness, compassionate love and upright purpose towards each other” (2.24-25). Those who walk in perfection will be endowed with “a// good and preservation from all evil”, as well as illumination of the heart with wisdom (^3#) of life and eternal loiowledge (a^abm rmi; 2.2-3). The maskil, who had special access through the Spirit to the mysteries and knowledge of the will of God was given the responsibility to guide those who chose the path of perfection “so that they walk perfectly, each one with his fellow, in all that has been revealed to them” (IQS 9.19; cf. IQH 12[4].31-32). This special loiowledge of the Law is an eschatological gift from God who gives them wisdom hidden from others (IQS 11.5-7). Each member of the sect is assessed according to 220 his confonnity to the rule year after year “in order to upgrade each one to the extent of his insight and the perfection of his path, or to demote him according to his failings” (IQS 5.24). Anyone who fails to turn to God is considered to be “unclean” (IQS 3.5) and cannot “be reckoned among the perfect” (IQS 3.3; Vermes’ translation). Restitution into the community requires that “his deeds have been cleansed from every depravity, walking on the perfect path” (IQS 8.18). and removal of sin are directly related. Perfection The ritual and legal aspect of perfection, the sprinkling with cleansing waters and waters of repentance, seen as the external acts of atonement, has to be matched with the inward and spiritual attitude in compliance to the laws of God. Only in this way atonement can be truly secured (IQS 3.10-11; cf. 8.2-3 alluding to Mic. 6:8). Deasley (1972:330) concludes that perfection for the Qumran community “consisted in a fusion of the ritual and the moral, the legal and the spiritual, the outward and the inward, so intimate that neither was complete without the other.” The inward cleansing is made possible by the holy spirit (IQS 3.13-4.26 esp. 4.21; IQH 20[12].12). comes from the hand of God (IQS 11.2). their community. Eventually, perfection Such perfection is already realized in For the sectarian coimnunity, the goal of religion is to maintain perfection to the end in order to maintain salvation. It can be argued that only the messianic age will bring perfection in its fullness (IQS 9.11; Deasley 1972:62; Schiffman 1989:69). According to the Damascus Document, the reward of perfection is “eternal life” (3.20), or “the life of a thousand generations” (7.5-6; cf. 19.1). In the JVar Scroll, those who participate in the final war must be “perfect in spirit and body” (7.5). 221 “No lame, blind, paralysed person nor any man who has an indelible blemish on his flesh, nor any man suffering from uncleanness in his flesh” is allowed to go out to the war (IQM 7.4-5). Test. XII Pair. T. Ash. describes two kinds of persons, the single-faced (jaovoTrpoocoiToç) and the double-faced (ôLirpoocoTrcç), representing respectively those who follow the commandments of the Lord and those who are controlled by Beliar. MovoirpoowTToq denotes “the complete surrender and obedience to God, and God alone” (Hollander and de Jonge 1985:340). Its cognate adverb is found in T. Ash 5:4 and 6:1. In 5:4, it is associated with wholehearted commitment to do what is good. This is the way one can keep the commandments of God with all one’s strength.^ The use of the participial phrase “with all your strength” is sufficient to recall the Shema^ with which the readers were familiar (cp. T. Iss. 7:6a; T. Zeb. 10:5). 6:1 is an exhortation to give attention to the Lord’s command, pursuing the truth wholeheartedly (povoTTpoaaSiTcog). They are righteous before God (ôLicatoL elai irapà T<3 0ew) and imitators of God. It is also within this context that we find the exhortation “to walk in perfection/integrity of heart.” Instead of using telelv and its cognates. Test. XII Patr. uses predominately àTrÀOTT]ç. In the LXX, airA,oi)<;, àïïÀoxiiç and àïïA,(Oç are equivalents of apcopcç and KctGccpà icccpÔLcc. The word-group is used to express the idea of “free from inner discord,” “innocent,” “upright,” and “pure” (Bauerfeind ^Kee (1983:1.818) has glossed over a participial phrase in 5:4. 5:4b should read: “I have searched out the commandments o f the Most High according to all my strength, walldng single-facedly to M>hat is good (TTopcuoiievoç jj.ovotrpoao3tTCûç etç xo àyaGov)” (translation my own). 222 TDNT: 1.386). In typical two-ways language, Prov. 10:9 reads: “whoever walks in integrity (sna/àirlcôç) walks securely, but whoever follows perverse ways will be found out.” The word-gioup is never used in describing God. T. Reub. 4-6 warns against sexual promiscuity, and exhorts people to wallc “in the integrity of heart (èv àiTÀoT'ntL icccpÔLccç) xfi ôiavoL^; 6:1,2). in fear of the Lord (4:1) and to be pure in their minds (ic c c 0 a p € \)e iv 'A ttX6 xt| ç is synonymous to complete fidelity to God’s will. T. Sim. 2-4 warns against jealousy (Ch^oc/<l>0ovo(;), and exhorts people to walk “in the integrity of soul” (èv airXoxTixi (4:7). 4:5), loving the brother with a “good heart” T. Levi warns against the spirit of promiscuity that would defile the sanctuary (9:9), and exhorts people “to fear the Lord your God with your whole heart (e^ oXt|ç icccpÔLaç), and walk according to all his Law ( ic a x à (4v à'iïÀoxqxL)” (13:1; T. Judah 23:5). ttccvxk, xo v vopov aùxoû) in integrity The main theme of T. Iss. is àirÀox'nç, translated as simplicity, singlemindedness or integrity (Hollander-de Jonge 1985:233-34). In T. Iss. 3:2, 6, the patriarch both praises himself and is praised by his father as one who walks in integrity (4v aTTÀoxrjXL). The expression of such integrity involves not defrauding nor desiring gold, food, fine clothes, and long life (4:2-3), which God will surely provide for those with integrity (4v airXoxrixL; 3:7). Those with integrity would not envy (4:5; cf T. Gad 7:7), “making no places for an outlook made evil by this world’s error” and with “no turning aside from any of the Lord’s commands” (4:6). the world. Integrity can thus be seen as separation from the deceit of They will keep the law of God, achieve integrity, walk without malice (5:1), love God and their neighbour, have compassion on the poor and weak, practice husbandry, and walk “in the integrity of your father” (x ^ 223 kttA-oxtixl xoc m x p ô ç ùpw v; 5:2-8). Those who abandon integrity and the law of the Lord will align themselves with insatiable desire, allying themselves with Beliar (6:1). Yet the very spirit of Beliar will flee from those with integrity of heart (4v àïïloTTjtL icapôict; 7:7), those who love God with all strength (ev ircto^ xQ loxul) and love every human being (7:6). It is fulfillment of the double commandments of love as found in the Jesus tradition.^ Test. XII Patr. shares with the OT connections between perfection and ritual purity. The sexual transgressions of incest and intennarriage or, generally, fornication are as much ethical issues as ritual ones (cf T. Reub. 14-16; T. Levi 9:711; T. Benj. 9:1; T. Jud. 23:1-5; T. Dan 5:5). Illicit sexual behaviour is also associated with idolatry {T. Reub. 4:6, 11; T. Sim. 5:3; T. Iss. 4:4; T. Jos. 4:6). Both of them belong to the realm of the “unclean” (see, e.g.. Lev. 18,20). Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Epistles The idea of totality, from apxq to xéAoç, is basic to Paul’s use of xeÀetoç (du Plessis 1959:204). In 1 Cor. 14:20, one who is “perfect” is set in contrast to a child (TraiôLK;) who is immature in thinldng. Here perfection implies a progress in development, morally and spiritually, to maturity. Maturity or perfection in 1 Corinthians means those who know God’s intention and will have “Christ’s mind” (2:16; cf. 2:6ff; 3:1-2).^ Col. 4:12 also carries such an idea of “perfect” as set in ^In T. Job 26:6, Job’s integrity or complete devotion («TrXotriTa) to the Lord is what preserves him from being deceived by the devil to abandon God, and gives him strength to persevere in suffering (Haas 1989:150). ^ Paul, in 1 Cor, engages in polemic against his opponents who claim to be wise and perfect. Paul attacks their wisdom as a àvGpCjStrcjùv, not a wisdom of God as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Their 224 parallel with “fully assured in everything that God wills.” Rom. 12:2 employs cultic imagery to convey that what is total conformity to the will of God. “to ical ei)ccp€otov ical téÀ eiov” is in That is also Paul’s concern in Col. 1:22 to present the readers “&yLoi icctl dpcopoL Kcd dvEyK lqioL” before God. The goal of the apostle’s strivings, proclamation and exhortations is the perfection of eveiyone (Col. 1:28; cf. 4:12). Along the same vein, Paul prays that the love for God that the Philippian Christians have may be increased beyond all measure, so that they might be fully prepared for the future coming of Christ as those who are both “pure and blameless” (eiÀLKpLvelç ical dupooK oiroi; Phil. 1:9-10). All the references here and in Colossians carry an eschatological note: the final perfection will come at the parousia. This is also God’s purpose in the election of his people (Eph. 1:4). Christians in this world are to live as perfect (dpcupa) children of God, being “dfiepïïToi kk I dicépaioL” at this age in the midst of a corrupt and sinful world. Sincerity and purity of heart in one’s dedication to Christ is assumed for those belonging to him (2 Cor. 11:3: diro ifjç âTTÀoTriTGç [ical xfjç dyvoTriTOc] xfjc e lç xov XpLOxov; cf. Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22). All those who judged themselves to be perfect or mature must be of one mind with the apostle (Phil. 3:15). On the other hand, Paul himself has not yet been perfected (xexeXeLcoiiocL) and that final perfection still lies before him too as xcc €|iTrpoo0ev, the goal which is the prize of the heavenly call. 1 Cor. 13:10 which contrasts the perfect (xo xéÀeLov) knowledge of the age to come which has the same claim to being perfect is contradicted by their behaviour showing that they are but “mere infants” (3:1), for “there is jealousy and quarrelling among them” (3:3). 225 character as God’s knowledge for us, with the partial (to eic [lépooç) loiowledge of this age points towards the final eschatological stage of perfection. In Eph. 4:13, the “ccvôpot xeXeLov” which is after the measure of the whole stature of Christ is a metaphor for the corporate maturity and unity of the Christian community achieved only in unity of faith and love. Col. 3:14, describing love as binding everything together in perfect harmony (t^ç TeXeLotrjToç), also points to complete wholeness and unity as the goal of the Christian community. Christ’s goal for the church is that she, as his bride and his body, may be %yia Kctl apwpoç” (Eph. 5:27; cf. 2 Cor. 11:2). In the household code of Eph. 6:5 and Col. 3:22, slaves are exhorted to fear their earthly masters/God with singleness of heart (4v wirloTTiTL icapôLocç). Paul has pointed out to the Thessalonian church that he and his colleagues have been behaving “ôolcûç Kcd ôlicccloc; Kcd &p4p,iTTWQ” both in inner attitude and outward behaviour, towards the readers (1 Thess. 2:10). Then in 3:13, he exhorts them to establish their hearts “àpéjjnrTooc; 4v ayLwauv^” in God’s sight. It is their love for each other that leads to such stiengthening in holiness (3:12). Peterson (1995:80-81) comments in the relationship between love and holiness on these two verses: “Love and holiness are two related ways of viewing the Christian life. Holiness will be pre-eminently expressed in love, and love will be the essential means by which holiness is maintained.... In effect, holiness abounds when love abounds.” As in Phil. 2:15, Paul urges the Christians of Philippi to live “without blemish (apwpa) in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.” God’s will 226 and call for his people is that they be holy (1 Thess. 4:3), in contrast to being impure (4:7; dicccGapoLa), and be in control of the evil inclination (4:5; èv TTccOei eTTLGupLac). Such call to holiness is also found in Rom. 6:19, 22, In 2 Cor. 7:1, Christians are again called to complete the holiness (EiriTeiouvce; ayLcoauvriv) in the fear of God in the sense of pursuing and expressing holiness so that they may increase in the qualities pleasing to God. The completion of the process is at their appearance before God at the parousia: their spirit, soul and body be kept “oloKlqpov àpépTTTcoç” (1 Thess. 5:23). Bruce (1982:131) well summarises the thought here: “This attainment of perfect glory is the completion of their sanctification, which is prayed for here; it marks the climax of God’s purpose for his people, and he can be counted upon to accomplish his own purpose.” The word here is also used in Jas 1:4. Phil. 1:6). ôiloKÀripov translated “whole” God alone can sanctify them “wholly” (ôÀ oteX elç; cf. He will make perfect and restore that which is incomplete, divided or damaged (Popkes 1992:319-20). Synoptic Traditions The xei-words occur only in Matthew (see our study on the love command in Matthew). Perfection is related closely to righteousness achieved thi'ough obedience to the law as interpreted by Jesus. of healthy in Mt. 6:22//Lk. 11:34. The word àiTÀoTTiç is used in the sense However in the variant reading D of Mt. 10:16, the word àicépaicç (“innocent”) is substituted by aTT/LommroL. Epistle to the Hebrews TeA.-words in Hebrews are numerous. 227 There are the less important ones: àkMoix^Xkç (“unprofitable”; 13:17), ouvreXELa (“end”; 9:26), auvTEA,ELv (“establish”; 8:8); Teàeutelv (“die”; 11:22) and mvieA-qç (“completely”; 7:25) to the more significant ones in the theology of Hebrews: etilteXelv (“finish” or “perform”; 8:5; 9:6), T É X oç (“end”; 6:8; 7:3), te I e l o w (“make perfect”; 5:9; 2:10; 7:19; 9:9; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:23), té Xeloç te ^ elcoolç (“perfection”; 7:11), TEÀELCûTqç (“perfecter”; 12:2), and (“perfect”; 5:14; 6:1). In Hebrews, Christ’s perfection as sinlessness is assumed throughout (4:15; 7:26; 9:14). He is said to have been perfected ( tete Xelw |ie v o v ; 7:28). Such perfecting can be understood in a cultic sense as a vocational process by which he is made complete or fit to serve as the consecrating highpriest (2:10,17; 5:9). Christ’s perfecting through suffering provides a model for Christians who share with him the struggle in faith-obedience as Christ endured (2:11). The provisions under the old covenant are unable to bring worshippers perfected to the presence of God in a vocational sense. This has to do with the definitive cleansing of the conscience which can only be achieved through the unblemished sacrifice of Christ himself (9:910, 14-15; 10:14). Christ’s perfection as consummated in his exaltation into glory guarantees those who follow him that they will share a similar glory if they, like Christ before them, faithfully enduie to the end (2:10-11; 5:8-9; 9:11-12; 12:2). he who will bring the faithful into perfection. It is Peterson (1982:164) rightly points out that “the spirits of the just made perfect” (uvEunccta ôlkklcov tete A-elco^ é v q v ) in 12:23 that gathered with the innumerable angels refers to “the saints of all ages as those who have been perfected by the work of Christ”. Believers are perfected “by the very actions and accomplishments that perfect Christ” (p. 186). 228 This perfecting for believers refers to the past with respect to its accomplishment, to the present with respect to its enjoyment and to the future with respect to its consummation in living directly in the presence of God (10:14; 12:22-24; Peterson 1982:167). The mature ones (te A -e lo l) are described as having the ability to understand difficult teachings, having experience in the “word of righteousness” and been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil (Heb. 5:12-14). perfection is achieved by experience and training. Christian Cliristians are urged to move towards perfection (TeA-eLotriToc; 6:1), to pursue sanctification (àYLaoja6ç;12:14) so that they may share God’s holiness (Kyiotriç; 12:10). God, through Christ, will make them perfect or ready (icctTOpiLoocL) to do his will (13:21). Johannine Writings In the Fourth Gospel, xel- words when used in relation to the work of Jesus often carry the meaning of bringing something to completion that he has been commissioned to accomplish by God (4:34; 5:36; 17:4; 19:28, 30; cf. 13:1), as with fulfilment according to scripture (19:28). Such formal usage is also found in 1 John. 1 John uses leXeLouv (perfect passive) four times with reference to the “love of God” being “perfected” (2:5; 4:12, 17, 18), and the adjective (4:18). Te/IeCgç What the “love of God” means is a matter of much debate. on love once It can be taken as “human love for God” (objective genitive; C. H. Dodd, I. H. Marshall), “God’s love for humans” (subjective genitive; R. Bultmann, J. B. Westcott), “God’s land of love” (genitive of quality; R. Schnackenburg), or it can be regarded as impossible to 229 decide (R. E. Brown). “Being perfected” is used in a fonnal way as reaching its stated goal, hence completion. Such completion is possible only if one keeps God’s word, that is, his commandment (2:5). There is an extension from God’s love for humans to humans imitating divine love (as seen in Christ’s sacrificial death; 4:16) in loving one another (intramural love) and so demonstrating human love for God (4:10, 19-21). (4:10). This process is made possible only through Christ’s atoning death “Perfection” refers to the completion of this process, achieving mutual love between God and his childien, and among members of God’s family. This understanding has its root in the Gospel of John. ^ Mussner (BEBT: 2.666) rightly observes that: “According to Jn 17:23, the eschatological end of the union of the disciples with God and Christ is to be their ‘perfection’ in the indivisible ‘union’ of love.” Such perfect love would allow one to have the confidence to face the day of judgement without fear (4:17-18). On the other hand, simply claiming to love God but in fact hating one’s brother is a fonn of self-deception; such love is far from being perfect (1 Jn 4:19-21). The perfection in love is connected inseparably with performing righteousness (ÔLicaLcouvri; 3:10; cf. 3:7) and keeping God’s commandments (5:2). All who perform righteousness are bom of God, as are those who love their brothers (2:29; 5:1,2). Christians are longing to be like Christ as he is pure (3:3). ^Bogart (1976:25-39) argues that by the time 1 John was written, there were two opposing groups within the Johannine community: one upheld a gnostic type of perfectionism and another maintained the orthodox type. He finds that those who advocated the orthodox perfectionism had their support in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 1:12; 8:46; 20:22-23). Brown (1979:124-27), however, though he agrees that there are two opposing camps with divergent attitudes toward perfectionism, argues that both types owed their origin to the Fourth Gospel. 230 Other Catholic Epistles In 1 Pet. 1:15, 16, the author exhorts his readers that instead of conforming to this world/age, they should confonn to God, by alluding to the holiness code in Lev. 19:2 (LXX). In 1 Peter, as in the Scripture which it quotes or alludes to (esp. Exod., Lev., Isa.), the concept of holiness (1:2, 14-20; 2:4-10; 3:5, 15) or purity (1:22) is a strategic means for defining the unique character and conduct of the community of God’s people. The reminder in 1:17 of the father-children theme points also to the nature of children as wanting to imitate their parents. In the final exhortation of 2 Pet. 3:14, the author reminds the readers that they are waiting for the coming of the new heavens and the new earth, a new world of righteousness. They should strive to live righteously so that they be found “ c c o t t là o l iccd àjiCûpTiTGi” by the Lord at his coming judgment. Earlv Apostolic Writings Ignatius prays that as he is in chains and suffering, he is suffering with Jesus Christ who is the perfect man (TeÀeLoç àvGpwiTGç) empowering him to endure everything {Smyrn. 4:2). perfect (te I e lo c ;), {Eph 15:2). The one who truly possesses the word of Jesus may be acting through what he says and being known through his silence The work which is “perfect” on earth and heaven is the same as a deed worthy of God, as the parallel shows {Snryrn. 11:2, 3). one’s intention should also be perfect ( t e X e i g l The Didache seems to associate ô v t e ç t é I e l o ; ic a l 4 > P g v e lt e ) . té X e lg ç 231 As for being perfect, also with special moral achievement through keeping the Torah according to the teachings of Christ (1:4; “if someone gives you a blow on your right cheek, turn to him the other as well”; 6:2: “to bear the whole [oÀov] yoke of Christ”; see Draper 1996C:357-59). If Christians are gathered together seeking the benefit of their souls, ^ they are supposed to be found perfect (teXeLcaGfiTe) at the end time {Did. 16:2), when they become heirs of the Lord’s covenant (cf. Barn. 6:19). 1 Clem. 49:5 reads: “In love all the elect of God were made perfect (èxeA.EicoG'noav), without love nothing is pleasing to God.” immediate context concerns love within the Christian community. The All the godly in pre-Christian times have also been made perfect (TeleLcoGévieç) in love by the grace of God (50:3). It thus seems that perfection is a process of moral development, both individually and corporately, which involves keeping God’s coimnandments in the harmony of love (50:5), Clement urges his readers to move on to the goal of peace (oicoTrov tfjç Eipqvri;; 1 Clem. 19:2), like God the great creator and master of the universe who ordered things to exist in peace and hannony by doing good to all Barn. 4:11 also exhorts the readers to be the perfect temple things (20.11; cf. 60:4). for God (vaoç te X e lo c ; tc ô G e c ô ). Yet it is ultimately the Lord who is building and completing (ouvxEXoDpÉVTiG) that temple {Barn. 16:6-10). The sorites in Hennas, Vis. 3.8, begins with faith, with sincerity (àTrA-otriç) as the third element, and climaxes with love. Hennas is said to be saved, inspite of his negligence of his family which is sinning against God, because of his sincerity (f) ^Draper (1996C:360) argues that “seeking the benefit of their souls” refers to keeping the instruction of the Cliristian halakah. He concludes (p. 362) from his study on Did. 6:2 and 16:2 that: “The instruction in the Didache would then remind the community that they are saved by the very thing which they find brings a curse on them, namely the Torah. It is to this tliat they must hold fast if they are to be perfect on the last day.” 232 airloTTiQ) and self-control (Vis. 2.3:2). Practising sincerity and self-control is the same as practising righteousness (Vis. 2.3.3; cf. 3.9:1). One who is full of sincerity and great innocence will abstain from every evil desire (Fw. 1.2:4; cf. Man. 2.1; Sim. 9.24:3). By keeping God’s commandment (Man. 2.7), his repentence and his family will be found to be sincere (4v àTrÀotqxL) and his heart clean (icaG apa) and unstained (â\itccvxoç). According to Hennas’ teaching of repentance, “forgiveness brings with it the command of perfection.... For Hermas, repentance is the dialectic between the perfection of man in the kingdom (church, tower) and God’s mercy for man caught between the kingdom and the world” (Snyder 1968:70-71). In Barn. 19, a chapter that has a lot of intertexual links with James, the command to be sincere in heart (àïïÀoûc; tf | icap ô ia) consists in a series of injunctions including loving, fearing and glorifying God, obeying his commandments, loving one’s neighbour, and forsaking hypocrisy, envy, sexual promiscuity, partiality, greediness, etc. In Hermas, Vis. 4.2:5-6, the double-souled are exhorted to turn to God in repentance with all their hearts (èÇ o X x \ q icapôtaç; 2 Clem. 8:2; 17:1; 19:1). divert the wrath of God and serve God blamelessly (àpEpiTTcoc;). In this way, one can In 2 Clem. 11:1-2, to serve God with a pure heart (4v icaGapâ icapôCa) is in contrast to those who are double-souled. For the one who serves God with a whole heart (4^ o l q ; KapÔLccç), there will be hope (2 Clem. 17:7). Polycarp exhorts young men to be blameless (apepTTTOL) and concern themselves with purity (dyvELccc). The young women must also maintain a pure and blameless (4v apwpcp ical àyvh) conscience (Phil. 5:3). 233 B. The Concept o f Perfection in James As the study above has shown, the understanding of the concept of perfection should not be limited to the occurrence of xél- root words. apepTTToç, KaGapoç, âpiavToç, and Ôiicai- all belong to the stock of vocabularies that relate to the concept of perfection. In this section, I will analyse this concept in James in this light and will compare the result with that found in the OT, the early Jewish and Christian traditions. The Pursuit of Perfection The adjective téIelcç has been repeated five times in James out of a total of 19 times in the NT: epyov t e Xelov (lit. “perfect work”) and qxE téàelol (“you be perfect;” 1:4a, b); Ôcùpqpa t e Xelov and te,leiqj avnh,r (3:2). (“perfect gifts;” 1:17); vopov The verb form te X e io u v te Xelov (“perfect law;” 1:25) occurs in 2:8 (vopov te Xe it e paoiXiicov [“you fulfil the royal law”]) and 2:22 (ETEXEiwGr) [“bring to completion”]). The noun te,loj occurs once in 5:11 (to t e Xoç icupioi) [lit. “the end of the Lord”]). 1:4, te,leioj is in parallel with the synonymous expression ôXoKXTjpoç. In On the other hand, the word oXoç having the same root as ôXoicXripoç occurs four times in James (2:20; 3:2, 3, 6) with the first time referring to the whole law (oXov others to the whole body (oXov to to vopov) and the o(Spa). * ^ "OXoç is a perfection related word but, strictly speaking, is not synonymous with TéXeioç, as Zinijewski 1980:52; Franlremolle 1994:1.158; and Klein 1995:57 claim it to be. 234 Zmijewski (1980:73) conectly recognises that the idea of perfection is linked with some of the key words in James: 4pyov (“work;” 1:4; 2:22); oo(j)La (“wisdom;” 1:5, 17); ttCotlq (“faith;” 2:22; cf. 1:6); and vopoç (“law;” 1:25; 2:8, 10). The word of truth, the law of liberty and wisdom are all perfect gifts (1:17) given to those who love God wholeheartedly. As we have noticed earlier, the law of liberty is perfect (1:25) in the sense that it is the means through which one can attain perfection. It is achieved by obedience to the whole law (oXov to vopov) as interpreted by the love command (2:10; cf. Gal. 5:3). Wisdom, which is both a gift from God in response to prayer and a result of studying and practicing the perfect law, is necessary for one to achieve perfection (1:4-5). The final goal of the Christian life is to be a “perfect man” (teXeicç avqp; 3:2), one who has perfect control over oneself as demonstrated in the control over one’s tongue, which one seems unable to achieve at the present age. For all humans make mistakes, either in speech or in deed (3:2; 5:16). The meaning of the unusual expression 4pyov léXeiov (“perfect work”) in 1:4a (q ÔÈ inropovT} Epyov xeXeLov 4%6tco) is a matter of dispute. Some regard it as equivalent to “endurance must attain its end,” understanding teXelov fonnally. Thus, the perfect work means the complete outcome of endurance, “its full effect.”^ Nevertheless, the use of Epyov as “effect” is very unusual for James. Some understand it as the full and proper fruits which make up completeness of character.^ ^Knowling 1904:7; Hort 1909:5f.; Mayor 1913:36; Reicke 1964:13; Johnson 1995A: 178; Townsend 1994:8; Wall 1997:49, ^ Ropes 1916:137; Hiebert 1979:67. 235 Still others see it as referring to the perfect character described in 1:4b/ The “perfect work” is understood as the climax of the sorite introduced by “ôé”: endurance is not the goal, but the necessary requirement for attaining the goal, the “perfect work,” in which one is “completely complete.” If we consider 2:17 (f| T T l o t ic . 4&v pq eyn lovcc. VEicpa compare that with the ethico-theological sorite in l:3-4a TTLOTEwc KaTEpyaCETKL W o p o v q v . f| ÔE OTropovT) ’ÉovDv (t o stated in l:3-4a. icccG’ èa a tq v ) ô o ic L p L o v tp w v and Tqç tiXcLov EYETw. . . ! our author is saying that there should be a progression from faith to works. is the same: worlc/s. eotlv The essential product 2:17 can be regarded as derived from the general principle So faith must come to perfection through works (2:22: q ow qpyE L TOLÇ E p yoïç auTOu ical ek tqv e o v c jv q t t lo t lc heXeicSdnX t t lo t lç In 1:4, through the intermediary virtue of endurance, the perfect work produced thus probably refers to the perfection or wholeness in character (singular manifested in good works (plural Epya). Jewish thought. E pyov) of a Christian, Character and behaviour are inseparable in The understanding of the perfect work being the Christian himself/herself is made clear by the final clause in 1:4b: oXoKXqpoL Ev pqôE vl X e l t t o p e v o l Lva qtE t e Xe l o l ical (Dibelius and Greeven 1976:64; Hartin 1991:85). The relationship between faith and works in James is best understood in terms of wholeness/perfection (Frankemolle 1985:165; Tamez 1992:62-68; cf. Lodge 1981:199; Mussner 1981:142; Bauckham 1999).^ Faith conceived simply as ^Dibelius and Greeven 1976:74; Laws 1980:53; Davids 1982:69; Martin 1988:16-17; Moo 1985:61; also du Plessis 1959:235, 240. ^ For comparison with the Pauline concept of faith and works, see Excursus A. 236 confessing God’s oneness as professed in the Shemcf is not enough to secure one’s salvation. Such professing faith, taken alone by itself, if one truly understands its significance and implications, would only lead one to extreme fear ($pLGOEiv), as in the case of demons (2:19). People are surely deceiving themselves in relying on mere profession for their salvation. Faith must actively collaborate (ouvfjpyEL; imperfect tense)^ with works, for faith to reach its end and fruition (etEXELcoGq), that is, one’s justification.^ Since for James, “works” in the wider context means obedience to the Mosaic law as interpreted thiough the love command (2:9-16), here our author is implicitly stating the unity of the double commandments as in the Jesus tradition. Such unity can also be seen in the author’s approval of both believing in God as one and practicing the royal law with the expression: icaX w g ïïg ie l ç . ^ To the same effect, Verseput (1997:115), understands the distinction between faith and works in Jas 2 as not that between an inner quality and its outward manifestatioins, but between the individual’s vertical relationship to God and his horizontal behaviour among men. In this framework the author of our epistle insists that one’s godward service - i.e., faith - cannot be divorced from righteous deeds for obedience is the most holy form of faith (italics original). ^ ^ The verb auvpyet does not mean that faith assists in the production of faith (pace Schnider 1987:73). ^ The 4T€XeLQ0T] o f 2:22b does not mean faith without works is immature or incomplete and in need o f strengthening (pace Adamson 1976:130; Laws 1985:112; Martin 1988:93) but faith being brought to its proper goal. ^ The expression is not necessarily ironic, see Mayor 1913:101; Hiebert 1979:167; pace Davids (1982:125) who regards it as semi-ironic (also Mussner 1981:139; Moo 1985:106; Martin 1988:89,241) and Johnson 1995A:241 who takes it as sarcasm. A detailed study on the loiotty passage 2:14-26 is beyond the scope o f this thesis. excellent studies, see Fung 1992; Verseput 1997. 237 For two Like the word T É le io Q , ôXoicXqpoç in Jas 1:4 is used for the unblemished victim of sacrifice (cf. Josephus. Ant. 3.12.1). designating moral integrity. They are both used here in the sense of It occurs also in 1 Thess. 5:23 in the NT (cf. Wis. 15:3: ôXoicXqpoç ÔLicaLoowq [“complete righteousness”]; 4 Macc. 15:17; eiioépeLav oXoicXqpov [“complete devotion”]; Philo, Abr., 34 describing Noah as perfect acquiring all virtue and^^r., 47: 6 T é Xe i o ç ôXoicXqpoç ap% qQ [ht. “the perfect man is complete from the beginning”]) refemng to quantitative completeness in terms of being unaffected by evil in every aspect (Foerster, TDNT: 3.766L), and thus acceptable to God. The pair t e Xe i o i and ôXoKÀqpoi then may denote both qualitative and quantitative completeness, that is, “completely complete.”^ The positive expression is further reinforced by the negative kv pq ôev l “falling short of nothing.” Xe l ï ï o p e v o l , Such pattern of supplementing the positive with a negative is again seen in 1:5-6. The perfection referred to here may be taken as full maturity (cf. Eph. 4:13)^ and also as morally blameless (Martin 1988:16). They are inseparable. The perfect gifts from God, the word of truth, the perfect law and the wisdom from above will bring about the perfect work as a perfect person if one responds to them “perfectly”. However, the parallel of 1:4 with 1:12 suggests that the final perfection still awaits the time when Christians will be awarded the “crown of life.” It will be achieved at the Lord’s coming for those faithful who endure to the end. ^Mayor (1913:37) reads too much into the word in seeing here a contrast with a partial keeping of the law (2:9, 10). ^ Mayor 1913:36; Hiebert 1979:77; Burdick 1981:168; Kistemalcer 1986:35. 238 As Mussner (1981:67) rightly concludes, “perfection” in James is eschatological. Christians are moving in the present age towards the final perfection in the age to come. ^ Such perfection is a cause for joy (1:2). As we noticed earlier, icocGapoç, apLccvTot;, apepirrog, àîfXo- and ôlk k l - all belong to the stock of vocabularies that relate to the concept of perfection. The Christian religion according to James is thus also defined by his understanding of perfection (1:26-27). In Jas 1:5, God is described as the one who gives “àTrXcSç,” a description nowhere used with reference to God in Jewish tradition. Its meaning will be further clarified below. Perfection as Wholeness of Commitment in Divine and Hnman Relationships Though in the OT the word c o n is never applied to God and his attitude to humans,^ other closely related descriptions own character. MBK, and ion are part of God’s As we noticed above (Part 3 Chap. 1C, D), the Jewish concept of imitatio Dei based on Lev. 19:2 lies behind the exhortation to be perfect in Mt. 5:48 (cf. Lk. 6:36; 1 Pet. 1:15, 16). faithful as God. To be perfect is to be holy, to be righteous, to be Such an idea seems to lie behind the motif of perfection in James. In the light of the above background study, I will examine the meaning of perfection with respect to the divine-human and human-human relationships. ^Followed by Davids 1982:70; Maitin 1988:17; Wall 1997:49-50; also Chester 1994:19. ^ God’s working is described as perfect (Deut. 32:4) and so is his way (2 Sam. 22:31, 33; Pss. 18:31, 33; 101:2, 6; Prov. 28:18). His knowledge (Job 37:16), Ms word (A^ios 5:10) and Ms law are also perfect (Ps. 19:13). Yet God himself is never described as perfect. 239 God's Wholeness and His Total Commitment to Humanity In Jas 1:5, God is described as one who gives to all “generously and ungrudgingly” (àîrXcùç k«1 pq ôvELÔCCoPtoç; cf. Did A.l=Barn 19:11). The adverb àïïXwç, which belongs to the language of perfection, occurs only here in the NT. is never used with respect to God in any known contemporary literature. It Its basic meaning is “simple,” or “single”. In our present context, it may mean “graciously” or “generously” (Hort 1909:9; Burdick 1981:169). Yet the meaning of “singleness” fits in well with the negative “without reproaching” which follows and gives a clear contrast with the “double-souled” in w . 7-8 (Moo 1985:63). Along similar lines, Bauemfeind {TDNT\13%6) remarks: “the sense of ‘wholehearted’ is perhaps nearer the mark” (cf. Hermas, Mand. 2.4). Without excluding the sense of generosity, the author is saying that God gives without any hesitation or second thought. God is singularly concerned with the well-being of humanity (cf. Mt. 5:45 ). Not only is God willing to give wholeheartedly, his giving is also “without reproach.” seems to have its counterpoint in some wisdom sayings. This In Sir. 20:14-15, the “fool” is said to give a gift to someone and the “little” which he gives entitles him to criticise much about the person receiving it. gives repaid. Our author is saying here that God is not like that land of giver. does not grumble or criticise. humanity. He always seeks to have any gift he He He gives unreservedly and sincerely for the benefit of Our author describes God without any precedence as arrXw; so that “he may attribute to God by implication a virtue which should also characterize the petitioner, the one who approaches this God with a claim” (Davids 1974:430). 240 God’s total commitment towards his people is seen in his giving them gifts from above. Through his gift of the word of truth, the instrument of one’s “begetting”, one can become the firstborn of God’s creation and possess the power to deal with the evil inclination (1:18). The gifts of the implanted word (1:21), the perfect law of liberty (1:25) and wisdom (1:5) are all parts of the perfect gifts from above that he graciously grants to his people. These gifts are all necessaiy for their perfection (1:4) and their inheriting the crown of eternal life (1:12). One only has to humble oneself before God; his grace will be sufficient for anyone to overcome the testings of the world without and the evil inclination within. As 4:6a reads: “he gives all the more grace.” His grace is greater than the temptation one faces and the enticing power of one’s evil inclination. draw near to him (4:8). He will always draw near to those who As Moo rightly observes: “God is also merciful, gracious, all-loving, and willingly supplies all that we need to meet his all-encompassing demands.” His promise to answer the prayer of faith in forgiveness of sins and healing (5:13-18; cf. 1:5) shows once again his commitment to save those in trouble. The designation of God as the “Father of lights” in 1:17 has no known precedents in Jewish literature. The closest resemblances are the “God of Lights” in 4Q503 (Frg. 13-16 6.1) and the “Father of Light” in T. Abr. (B 7:6) It probably refers to God as creator of the heavenly bodies, cf. Gen. 1:14-16; Ps. 136:7; 148:3; Jer 4:23 (LXX). God the Creator is seen as the giver of life as well as the Judge. His permanence and consistency constitute the ground for his dealings with humanity. Some argue that the description of God here is influenced by Philo, depicting God as some immutable being (Franlcemôlle 1994:1.305-20). 241 Yet the emphasis here is not on God’s ontological immutability but on the unwavering character of his faithfulness. an allusion to Shemd". Light,” The idea is not derived from Greek percursors, but is In the beginning of the first “benediction” (the “Creator of or “Benediction of the Luminaries”) of the morning service before the Shem é liturgy {m. Ben 2.2), the Creator God is described as the King of the world, the one who formed the lights or heavenly luminaries, comparable to a renewal of the act of creation.^ This is followed by the second “benediction” (“With great love,” nan nartH; or “Benediction of the Torah”), offering thanks for God’s elective love for Israel with the Torah as a gift of revelation. In the concluding “benediction” (“True and certain,” a"'%"''i riBR; or “Redemption”) after the recitation of the Shentd^, God is praised for his redemption of Israel. Ideas similar to these benedictions can be found in Jas 1:17-18. Greeven (1958) has pointed out that the qfj irXavccaGe (“do not be deceived”) of 1:16 introduces a definitive statement in epigrammatic form (cf. Josephus, Ani. 14.166; 1 Cor. 6:9; 15:33; Gal. 6:7; Ignatius, Eph. 5:2; Smyrn. 6:1). Though Greeven’s own reconstruction of an unloiown proverb introduced by the above expression is very unlikely, 1:16-17 seems to be introducing a well accepted truth (Verseput 1997:189). It is plausible that our author is alluding to the Shema^ together with its familiar Jewish benedictory motif. The imperative lote of v. 19a functions to confirm what ^For the entire text o f the benedictions in English, see Edersheim 1994:246; for a commentary, see Elbogen 1993:16-23. For the way the Shemcf and its benedictions were recited, see esp. Elbogen 1993:24. I come to a similar conclusion independently as a recent article by Verseput (1997A: 179-91) that our author’s concept o f God here is influenced by the Shemd . Verseput also demonstrates convincingly that the Jewish morning prayers in the Second Temple period reflect the common theme in acknowledging the lovingkindness o f God who both created and governs the heavenly lights (cf. 4Q 503). 242 the readers have already been taught in 1:16-18 (Martin 1988:44; cf. Johnson 1995A: 199; Verseput 1997:189). In James, God is called ïïatqp also in 1:27 and 3:9. The Father of Lights is also the Lord of redemption, the one who brings about new birth with his gift of the word (1:18). It is out of his soverign determination (pouXq06Lç), his elective will, that the renewal of his creation through the word of truth can take place. A contrast is set up in 1:17b (mp' tS) between the steadfastness of God and the changeableness of creation, as seen in the constant change of the shadow cast by the alteration of the heavenly lights (cf. Philo, Spec. Leg. 2.33; Cher. 88-90).^ Unlike the changeableness of creation and the instability of humankind in particular, God is perfectly reliable. An implicit contrast between God and the double-souled is also found with Jas 1:6 where those who doubt are like “a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.” His promise to those who love him will never fail (cf. 1:12; 2:5). God’s consistency in dealing with humanity will also be seen in his judgement of humankind (2:13; 4:5; 5:9, 12). He stands behind the unity of the law by which everyone will be judged (4:12). Loving God and the Call to Perfection Because God is whole and deals undividedly, God’s people should also, both individually and socially, be perfect and undivided, and act accordingly. As a result of God’s commitment to his people, human perfection becomes a possibility. Yet human beings must also respond in total commitment to him for perfection to be realised even in part in this present age. ^ There is a considerable textual confusion on the phrase oÙK ’évi irapaXAccyp p Tpotrfic ccTToaKLaopa. See esp. the discussion in Johnson 1995A: 196-97; 243 A righteous person, wholly committed to God, is also described as aTrloD;, or TéA,€Loç. Thus faith here signifies a wholehearted commitment to God (Laws As T. Levi 1 3:1 exhorts, “Fear the Lord 1 9 8 0 :5 7 ; Davids 1 9 8 2 :3 0 ; Wall 1 9 9 7 :5 3 ), your God with your whole heart icapôiaç), and walk according to his Law in integrity (ev àTrA-OTTixi)” (cf. Wis. 1 :1 -2 ). Thus as found in 1 :4 and 5 :1 5 , the prayer of faith mentioned in both places is “an expression of man’s integrity,” he is “wholehearted in his approach to God” (Laws 1 9 8 0 :5 7 ). This integrity and wholehearted attitude towards God has its foundation in one’s loving relationship with God. The call to perfection is closely linlced with obedience to God’s commandments. Fundamental to the call to obey God’s commandments is the inner disposition o f loving God wholeheartedly. obedience. 2 :5 ). Loving God is the basis of Twice in James, believers are identified as “those who love God” (1 :1 2 ; In the NT, the precise phrase (j)CA,oç Gecû (“friend of God”) occurs only in Jas 2 :2 3 with reference to Abraham. God conferred this title to Abraham on account of the works of faith done by Abraham in being willing to sacrifice his son. His loyalty in action to God issues in his being justified (èôLKctiw0r|; a perfection related word) by God (cp. 1 :2 0 -2 1 ). In 4 :4 , the linking together of the phrases f) cjjiXtcc to û icoopoi) (“the friend of God”) and (|>lA,oç to û icoojiou (“friend of the world”) strongly suggests that the title 0€oh carries with it the thought of Abraham’s love for God (objective genitive).^ In Jub. 1 2 :1 9 , Abraham’s loyalty to God is highlighted ^ Cp. Gen. 22:12. In Isa. 41:8, Abraham is called the friend o f God. Targ. Neof. Gen. 18:17 has “And I to liide from my friend (■’ûn“i)...?” Philo {Abr. 32.170) interprets Abraham’s decision to sacrifice Isaac as: “Mastered by his love for God, he mightily overcame all fascination expressed in the 244 in his confessing in prayer that “My God, the Most High God, you alone are God to me.” Both Philo (Vir. 216) and Josephus (Ant. 1.155) regard Abraham as the first person to believe or declare that God is one (cf. Apoa Abr. 1-8). Jub. 17:18 concludes the unsuccessful testing of Abraham by Mastema with: “And in everything he tested him, he was found faithM. And his soul was not impatient. not slow to act because he was faithful and a lover of the Lord.” And he was In Targ. Neof. Gen. 22:14, Abraham confesses that when the Lord asked him to offer Isaac, he has no division in his heart. Philo (Abr. 10.48-50) describes all three patriarchs as lovers of God: loved by God and loving the only God, with Abraham as the prototype. CD 3.2-3 records that Abraham, not following after his desire, kept God’s precepts and was counted as a friend of God (cf. also Gen. R. 61; y. Ber. 9:14b; y. Sota 5.20c; b. Sota 31a; Mek. Exod. 14:15). In Ben Sira, God will bestow the gift of wisdom only upon “those who love him” (xolc, &YKiTwoLv ccuxov; 1:10b), that is, those who keep his commandments and fear him (1:26; 15:1; 43:33b). Thus Abraham, the friend of God, who obeyed God and his commandments, is one endowed with heavenly wisdom. This is set in contrast with those “adulteresses” (poLxalLÔe;) who only love the world. In the language of the Hebrew prophets, “adultery” is frequently employed in accusing Israel of convenantal infidelity, an infidelity often associated with idolatry or “heathenism” (h"it minsi), of worshipping any deity except the one true God (cf. Isa. 54:1-6; Jer. 2:2; Hos 2:5-20). Yielding to the effect of the evil impulse, in the words of Moore (1997:1.469), is ‘"ipso facto idolatiy.” As Johnson fond teims o f family affections.” Sifre Deut. § 32 cites Abraham as an example o f one who loves God. Abraham is addressed by God, angels and Death alike as the “friend o f God” in T A 8:2, 4; 15:12, 14; 16:9. He is crowned for his righteous deeds, hospitality and greatness o f his love for God (17:7). Also b. Sot. 31a; Gen. R. 56:7. See esp. Jacobs 1976:460. 245 (1985:169) rightly observes, the attitude characteristic of idolatry is “to regard God solely as the fulfiller of our desires.” It is a violation not only of the first commandment of the Decalogue and also the fundamental profession of faith as daily pronounced by the Jews in the Shema^. allegiance. Divided loyalty creates conflicts of Mauser (1991:262) aptly remarks: the aclmowledgement by a human community of this singular God who rules in the midst of many competitors must necessarily enforce the conclusion that this God alone is to be given total allegiance to the exclusion of all other claims. The oneness of God and the totality of devotion expected from his human witnesses are only two sides of one coin. There is a strong connection between loving God and keeping his coimnandments throughout the Jewish tradition (e.g., Deut. 6:5-9; 10:12-13; 11:22; Neh. 1:5; Sir. 2:15; 14:1; Pss. Sol. 14:1-2; with the Decalogues: Exod. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; cf. 1 Jn 4:21; 5:2). commandments. In Ps. 119:47, it is possible to speak of loving God’s Thus loving God means following the summons of God as revealed in his commandments. During the Second Temple period, the Decalogue was read by the priests before the recitation of the Shema^, Israel’s summarising confession of faith, when the daily morning whole-offering was about to be placed on the altar {m. Tam., 5:1). In a liturgical text of the Nash Papyrus (plates 2 and 3) found in Egypt, the Decalogue is also followed by the Shema^. Some of the phylacteries found at Qumran also have the Decalogue alongside the Shema^ (8QPhyl; cf. 4QPhylJ). According to Jerome, this liturgical practice persisted in Babylonia until a rather late period (see also Sifre Deut. § 34 on 6:7-8; cf. Weinfeld 1990:29-30). Leviticus 19 contains the priestly author’s version of the Decalogue, a 246 point we have already examined earlier. The example of Abraham is given in the context of the application of Lev. 19:18 (2:8), and after the rejection of expressing one’s faith merely in confessing that “God is one” (2:19: el; èoxLV 6 0e6ç), the first part of the Sheina^} In Jub. 20:2, love of neighbour is an important aspect of the “way of the Lord” followed by Abraham. Thus the illustration from the faith of Abraham can be understood in the context of the contemporary use of the Shema^. The unity of God is again emphasised in 4:12: eîç èaxiv [ô] vopo0€xr|ç ical Kpixqç ô ôuvapevoç oûoaL ircd aTroXeoccL. The description here amounts to seeing God as the Lord of heaven and earth, the owner of the cosmos, which may reflect the original meaning of the confession in Deuteronomy (Weinfeld 1991:338, 350). Those who will receive the crown of life are those who show by their response to the testings that they love God wholeheartedly (1:12; cf. 2:5). wholeheartedly finds its evidence in the prayer of faith for wisdom (1:5). Loving God There is a parallel in IQH 6[14].26b: “I love you liberally, with (my) whole heart, [with (my) whole soul to look for] your wisdom,....” who love God. Sir. 1:10 speaks of wisdom given to those The coupling of faith and love reflects the covenantal loyalty (non) that God requires of his covenantal community.^ It escapes the notice of most commentators that the association of the Jewish Shemd^ with the love command as explicated in Lev. 19:18c in the gospel tradition is also found in our present context. Particularly relevant is the Greek wording of ^Cp. LXX Deut. 6:4 b 0eoç fipcSv icupLoç elç eaxtv. ^ This is in line with the meaning o f love in Deuteronomy as loyalty, as in the vassal loyalty oaths. See Weinfeld 1991:338, 351-52. 247 Deut. 6:4:6 06oç ripcSv Kupioç etc èotiv (Heb. IHN Ant. 3:91; Philo, Op. Mund. 171; Dec. 65).^ cf. Ep. Arist, 132; Josephus The early Christians shared with Judaism this fundamental belief (Mt. 19:7; Mlc 12:29; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5). A Shemcf -like statement occurs twice in James', in 2:19 (ai) iriaxeueLq otl etc èoTiv 6 0e6ç [“You believe that God is one”]) and 4:12 fetc ècxiv [ô] yopoOéxriç teal icpiTijc; ô ôuvapevoç ocogocl kccI àîroÀéactL able to save and to destroy”]). commands. [“There is one lawgiver and judge who is At both occurrences, they are linked with the love It is also possible to demonstrate that 1:4-18 echoes themes traditional to the pharisaic-rabbinic interpretation of the Shema^ ^ An early rabbinic exposition of Shema"^ can be found in m. Ber. 9.5 which reads as follows: As it is said. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might (Dt. 6:5). With all your heart— means] with both of your inclinations, with the good inclination and with the evil inclination. With all your even if He takes your soul. And Mnth all your might—with all of your money. The rabbinic expositors were certainly aware that the three elements of the command taken together constitute the involvement of the whole person (cf. Berger 1972:20927). Here they were concerned with defining the specific meaning of each element ^The basic texts o f the Shemd^ are Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21 and Num. 15:37-41. ^ The origin o f the Shem d prayer and the development of its components is a matter o f dispute. The detailed discussions o f it in Mishnah (»;. Ber 9.5), its discussion by the two rabbinic schools o f Shammai and Hillel and the description o f its use by the priests in the temple (m.Tamid 4.3; 5.1) all show its early use. 248 (Gerhardsson 1966:74). For the first element, the undivided love of one’s heart is expressed in tenns of loving God with both good and evil inclinations (Targ. Ps.~J. 6:5).^ If the good inclination leads one towards loving God and the evil inclination the other way round, this means that the evil inclination must be restrained and disciplined. This can be achieved by obeying the Word of God. In Sifi’e Deut § 32 (on 6:5), loving God with all your heart means to love him undividedly. Loving God with all one’s soul means to love God even in face of suffering and martyrdom (cf. Targ. Ps.-J. 6:5: “even if he takes your soul”). It is the readiness to surrender one’s life for covenantal loyalty (y. Ber. 9:7, 14b). The command to love God “with all the soul” triggered a martyrological tradition in Judaism. Jewish martyrs died reciting the words of the Shema^ (cf. the martyrdom of Akiba, see b. Ber. 61b). There is a point of contact with the concept of perfection in diaspora Judaism. described as his “perfection.” In Philo, Spec. Leg., 3.45, Aaron’s death is There seems to be a tradition in Jewish Diaspora literature that associates perfection with death as seen in Wis. 4:7-13, and with the righteous dying young. 4 Macc. 7:15 is even clearer in stating that the seal of death in the sense of martyrdom “completed” a life of fidelity to the Torah. Loving God with all one’s might means to love him with all one possesses, with all one’s physical resources and capacity. It can mean with all your money (b. Ber. 54a), possessions {Targ. Onq.; Pesh.), wealth {Targ. Ps.-J.', Neof.', Syr.) or strength (LXX; NT). In Deut. 8:11, 14, 17, Israel has already been warned about ^ Some LXX text has ôiavoia “mind” instead o f Kapôicc “heart.” “Heart” often connotes mind in late Hebrew literature (cf. IQS 1.12; CD 14.11). In LXX Gen. 8:21, the word ôtavoia translates the 249 forgetting God’s commandments, and exalting itself in ascribing its wealth to its own power and strength In Sifi'e Deut § 32 (on 6:5), R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos answered with respect to the question why the two elements “with all your soul” and “with all your might” are necessary that because some consider life more precious than goods and vice versa. Therefore both elements stand side by side in the Scripture. His interpretation stands in identical form in Talmudic tractates {h. Pes, 25a; b. Yom. 82a; b. Sank. 74a).' Allusions to these three elements stand at the beginning of the book, with loving God with all one’s heart in 1:5-8, loving God with all one’s soul in 1:2-4 and loving God with all one’s might in 1:9-10. 1:13-18 seems to be a further elaboration of loving God with all one’s heart. The reversal in sequence of the elements of loving God with one’s heart and with one’s soul may reflect an emphasis on the theme of perfection as the overall concern of our author. It must be said that the call to perfection is not seen as martyrdom in James; rather it is a call to life eternal (1:12). However, the call to be loyal to the end in the face of testings even to the point of martyrdom is not far from the author’s expectation. The elaboration of the element “with one’s heart” reflects the corrective nature of this work, tracing human problems to the root of evil inclination. Evil inclination needs to be restrained and controlled thr ough the power of the word. The reversal motif in 1:9- 10 reminds the readers of their attitude towards God, boasting not in their power and status, but being like the poor who rely entirely upon God. '1^'* o f the Hebrew text (cf. LXX Gen. 6:5 where the verb form is used). ^ Sir. 31:10 refers to the rich man who has been “tested” by riches and “been found perfect. 250 The connection of 1:17-18 with the Shema^ has already been noticed above. The command in 1:22 is reminiscent of the Pentateuchal dictum urging Israel to hear, to study and to do the Mosaic laws as in Deut. 5:1 (cf. Deut. 15:5). Significantly, the Shema^ in Deut. 6:4 begins with the call to hear (m ^) and then proceeds with the command to act in love. This finds its parallel in Jas 1:22-25. Moreover, the phrase irpoipov Kal crjupov (“the early and the late rains”) in 5:7 is also likely to be reminiscent of the Shema^ (Deut. 11:14; see Dibelius and Greeven 1976:244; Laws 1980:212; Mussner 1981:202). All these strongly suggest that the Jewish Shema^ plays a far more significant role in the argument of James than previously recognised.' To be double-souled or to be enticed by one’s own desire is running against the loyalty demanded by God. On the one hand, one must have the disposition to love God in order to have the wisdom to achieve perfection; on the other hand, it is only by obeying the very commandments of God that one can maintain loyalty to God and love for God. Most significantly, as noticed above, the response of the author to the one who does the royal law in accordance to the command to love one’s neighbom* (2:8) and confesses the Shem é (2:19) is: icaXwc TroLeÎTç. ^ There is ^ Though James is a wisdom paraenesis, the expression “fear of the Lord” is never used. In Ben Sira, “fear o f the Lord” (and its equivalents which occur some fifty times), law and wisdom are closely linlced (2:15, 16; 6:36; 15:1). This expression, however, is set in synomynous parallelism with “love the Lord” in 2:15-16 and 7:29-30. Also in m. Sot. 5:5, Job’s fear o f God is understood also as his love for God. Tins is also said o f Abraham in b. Sot 3 la. James may be deeply influenced by the double commandments in the Jesus tradition and thus uses “love o f God” instead o f “fear of the Lord.” According to Flusser 1991:171, citing Sifi'e Deut. 6:5, many rabbinic writings set love for God liigher than fear, "for it was in haimony with the new Jewish sensitivity to serve God out of unconditional love rather than out o f fear o f punishment.” ^ The expression that occurs in 2:19 is not necessarily ironic, see Mayor 1913:101; Hiebert 1979:167; pace Davids (1982:125) who regards it as semi-ironic (also Mussner 1981:139; Moo 1985:106; Martin 1988:89, 241) and Johnson (1995A:241) who takes it as surely sarcastic. 251 nothing wrong in confessing that “God is one”, the fundamental tenet of Judaism. It becomes a problem when such confession is inconsequential to one’s behaviour. The connection of the two commandments reflects the influence of the Jesus tradition. It must also be noticed that in James, “loving God” is never used as a coimnand, but a designation of those who belong to God, those who will inherit the promise of eternal life and the kingdom from him. “identity marker” of God’s people. It is an assumed disposition, an Such a description aims to give motivation to treasure their privileged position before God and to persevere in the face of testings. This is particularly relevant for the renewed people of God living in the diaspora with emphasis on worshipping the one true God as opposed to pagan idols (Niebuhr 1998:434-35), The Use of the Shejtia^ in the Jesus tradition The use of the Shema may well be influenced by the Jesus tradition. No one has done as much study on the use of the Shema'' in earliest Christianity as Birger Gerhardsson. Here I will only summarise the results of his findings. The Parable of the Sower (Mlc 4:l-20//Mt 13:l-23//Lk. 8:4-18), according to Gerhardsson, is a key to the entire Jesus tradition, particularly in Matthew. The word of the kingdom is none other than the “yoke of the reign of heaven,” the summarising credo, the weightiest commandment of the law—the beginning of the Shema". According to the parable, the word of the kingdom is proclaimed in vain to those who do not love God with all their heart (represented by the seeds that fell on the path), with all their 252 soul (seeds that feel on rocky ground), and with all their strength (seeds that fell among thorns). Only those who “hear and understand” (aicoueiv ical ouvietvai) the proclamation of the kingdom will “have abundance” (ïïepioaeuety) presumably in righteousness (Gerhardsson 1967-68).' However, Gerhardsson’s suggestion that the harvests of “hundredfold,” “sixtyfold” and “thirtyfold” conespond respectively to those who love God with the three elements, those with the first and third elements, and those with only the first element is farfetched.^ Jesus is portrayed as the model who kept the Shema" perfectly. temptation in the wilderness is again tbreefold (Mt. 4:1-11//Lk. 4:1-13).^ His According to the Matthean order, the tempter tries to induce him (1) to give way to his animal instincts of hunger; (2) to force upon God to intervene miraculously to save his life, and (3) to bow down to the world with its power and glory and hence to Satan. This corresponds again to the threefold emphasis of loving God with all one’s heart, soul and strength (see Gerhardsson 1966), Finally, the Matthean crucifixion narrative of his sacrifice on the cross (27:33-50; cf. 1:21; 20:28; 26:28) shows a similar triplet pattern with the order of the last two elements reversed (Gerhardsson 1969): (1) He is deprived of all food (27:33-34); (2) He is deprived of power and property with the soldiers taking away his clothes (27:35-37); and (3) He is deprived * Hagner (1993:379) regards such understanding as credible, intriguing and suggestive but short of proof; Gundry (1982:261) finds it possible, yet Davies and Allison (1988:353) deem it speculative. ^ Gerhardsson’s argument that the rest o f the six parables in Mt. 13 (1972-73) also deal with the same basic commandment o f the Shemd lacks persuasion. ^ Both Matthew and Luke depend on the non-Markan source, probably Q, that omits the reference to wild animals. See, e.g., Davies and Allison 1988:351; Fitzmyer 1981:507. The reversal in order of the second and tlnrd temptation most likely is due to Luke’s reaiTangement with his particular emphasis on the conclusion o f the temptations in the temple. See Creed 1930:63; Marshall 1978:66-67; Fitzmyer 1981:508; pace Manson 1949:42-43. 253 of protection and deliverance from violent death (27:38-50). It is important to notice that, as the presentation of the Shema" in James, in all the above examples in Matthew, the demand of the Shema" in its threefold elements is presented in the context of testings to overcome. One’s loyalty towards God has to be proven and demonstrated in the face of all kinds of testings. “Lovsag Your Neighbour’’ and the Call to Perfection Since the perfect law of liberty is defined in James as embodying a set of commandments focused on the connnandment to love one’s neighbour, the fulfillment of the love command will amount to the way towards perfection. It is by receiving in obedience the implanted word with the law of liberty that the righteousness (Ôiicaioauvî]; another perfection related word) of God can be produced (1:20-21; cp.2:21). It is therefore of paramount importance how the love command is understood and applied in the (testing) situations the readers encountered. As we have already seen. Lev. 19:12 prohibits peijury by which God’s name is profaned and associates it with defrauding, stealing, and withholding a labourer’s wages. Taking an oath is related to one’s allegiance to the god by whom one swears. Jameses prohibition of swearing oaths is very likely under the influence of Jesus’ saying to speak the truth without relying on an oath (cf. Mt. 5:33-37; 23:16-22; see esp. Deppe 1989:134-49).' Oui' author is advocating simple truthfulness and trustworthiness. To have integrity is to be entirely honest with one’s neighbour; in ^There are many precedents to hesitancy in swearhig oaths in Jewish tradition (see, e.g., Philo, Onm. Prob. 1,76.84; CD 15:1; m. N ed 1-9). 254 this way one’s allegiance to God can be demonstrated. Prohibition of taking oaths is not only the way to protect the sanctity of God’s name, but the way to build up a community of honesty and integrity. As I have stated earlier in our discussion on the composition of James (p. 87), 5 :13-18 relates to the concept of perfection where the renewed community of faith will respond with integrity according to different circumstances: if any of them is suffering, the community should pray; if any of them rejoices, the community should sing; if any of them is sick they should call the elders of the church to pray for healing. To be healed is to be whole again. As in 1:5, our author repeats again that prayer of faith is essential for the individual as well as the entire community to achieve integrity. It means opening up honestly to God individually as well as to each other in mutual confession of sins that result in healing and purification. C Concluding Observations James shares with the OT, the early Jewish and Christian traditions in many ways the meaning of the call to perfection: (1) To be perfect means to live an upright, righteous, truthful, trustworthy, honest, and pure life in faithfulness and loyalty to God and his will, seeking him with sincerity of heart (OT; Wis.; Philo; Qumran; Test. XII Pair. ; NT). See Jas 1:20- 22; 2:25; 4:8. (2) True perfection/integrity consists in obedience to the Torah and is the outcome or achievement of godly wisdom (OT; Wis; Philo; Qumran; Test. XII Patr.). 255 It is particularly related to the love command in the early Christian traditions. See Jas 1:5,20-22; 2:25,9 and our discussion of the use of Lev. 19 in James. (3) Lev. 19:2, the holiness code on imitatio Dei, lies behind the call to holiness and perfection (OT; Qumran; NT). See Jas 1:5 and our discussion of the use of Lev. 1 9 'm James. (4) Perfection/wholeness involves a process of growth or maturing in a person or a community (Philo; Qumran; NT). See Jas 1:4; 5:13-18. (5) Full perfection can only be achieved at the final eschaton. This is eventually the work of God that brings his people to the completion of his divine will (Qumran; NT). See Jas 1:4, 5,12,18. (6) True perfection issues in character as well as good works, in contrast to the various vices (OT; Philo; Qumran; Test. XII Patt\; NT). See Jas 2:14ff; 3:17- 18. (7) The perfection or holiness of the covenant community gives it its unique shape of religion (OT; Qumran; NT). See Jas 1:26-27; 5:12-20. It becomes obvious that the call to perfection is tied closely with the themes of law and wisdom. Human perfection solely depends upon God’s completeness or perfection. Human dependency is found not only in being re-created by God through the word of truth (1:18), but also in the inability to keep God’s will as revealed in the Torah apart 256 from God’s grace (4:6a) and his gift of the wisdom fiom above (1:4). Law and wisdom are thus seen as the means by which one would be able to move forward in the way of perfection/wholeness. testings. The process of perfection will be frustrated by The way of perfection starts with faith, a faith that has to face testings of all kinds (1:3; cf. 2:1). The demonstiations of faith are the love of God and love of one’s neighbour expressed in concrete actions. Perfection is the goal of such faith. On a personal level, it means a total commitment to God manifested in personal integrity, resisting the inner divisions of loyalty. Ethically, it becomes evident in good works and perfect character acceptable to God, as prescribed by the law of liberty, manifesting the wisdom from above. It is by obedience in action to this love that one can have a righteousness acceptable to God (cf. 1:20-21; 2:21). Perfection has a personal dimension in one’s relationship with God as well as a corporate dimension in one’s relationship with others. At the centre of the pursuit is the motive of love, both loving God and loving one’s neighbour, set within the frame of eschatology with the coming and judgement of the Lord at the end. this extent, perfection is linked with final salvation. To The obstacles on the way to perfection are not testings as such, but evil inclination within oneself, the world and the devil working together through those testings to create doubleness within oneself and dividedness within the community of faith. subject of my study in the next section. 257 What this doubleness means is the Excursus A: Faith and Works in James and Paul The hypothesis that James is engaging in polemics against Paul on the issue of justification by faith has often been interpreted along two main lines. Leaving aside the issue whether the author is the historical or an imaginary James, the author may carry on a polemic directly against Paul (e.g., Hengel; Lindemann). Or he may oppose a distortion of Paul’s belief or a degenerate Paulinism which appeals to Paul to justify their libertinism or antinomianism (e.g., Bultmann; Kümmel; Lohse; Dibelius and Greeven; Schrage; Goppelt; Laws; Davids; Lüdemann; Ropkes; Martin; et al). Yet, as Verseput (1997:99-100) rightly notices, if James was written in response to the concept of “faith alone” of a deviant group, it is rather strange that “faith” is used as an identity marker of the Christian community (2:1; cf. 1:6; 5:15). Rather, James is concerned with the pursuit of perfection, with faith coming to its completion through works (of love). The faith that James attacks is mere intellectual assent, while Paul never speaks of faith in that sense. agree that such faith would not justify. Paul would surely For Paul, not unlike James, there is only one kind of faith that justifies, that is one that leads to obedience (“obedience of faith,” Rom. 1:5; 16:26; cf. Gal. 5:6; Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 3:4-8). The “works of the law” that Paul opposes are those that marked Israel’s exclusive privilege as God’s people. His fundamental concern is that since salvation comes to both Jews and Gentiles by means of participation in Jesus’ death and resurrection, salvation cannot come by way of obedience to the law, because if it did, Gentiles will be excluded. Paul seldom speaks of works-righteousness/perfection (see Rom. 2:13; 6:13-20; 1 Thess. 258 1:3) presumably to avoid misunderstanding. Gentiles is a non-issue in James. On the other hand, the inclusion of the “Works” for James, does not mean “works of the law” in the Pauline sense, but deeds of love and compassion out of one’s faith.' James and Paul are simply addressing different issues from different perspectives.^ To suggest that James is an intentional polemic against Paul is to go beyond the evidence, unless one assumes it a priori. Though it is still possible that oui' author fails to understand Paul properly, or deliberately distorts Paul’s view, or is against some fonn of distorted Paulinism, in any case it would be the only example in early Christianity that this fonn of misunderstanding or distortion has ever taken place. ^ Much more difficult is the apparent contradiction with James's assertion that Abraham is justified by works (Gen. 15:6) which is evident in his sacrificing Isaac (2:21; cf. Gen. 22:16-17), with Paul’s notion of Abraham being justified by faith apart from works also on the basis of Scripture (Gal. 2:6-9, 16; Rom. 4:2-3). Moreover, significant verbal agreements are found between Jas 2:21-24 and Rom. 4:2-3 and Gal. 2:16 (also Rom. 3:28; see esp. Lüdemann 1989:143-44). However, that both James and Paul have Abraham as exemplar of faith in God is not surprising since Abraham was popularly portrayed as such in Second Temple Jewish literature * It is possible that the by which Abraham was justified referred to his works of hospitality, as the plural form in 2:21, 22 seems to suggest (Ward: 1968; followed by Prockter 1997:320-25). Moreover, the verb ouvTjpyeL, an imperfect, also implies the coexistence of faith and works over a period o f time, not Just at the time o f the Aqedah. Abraham was often depicted as a charitable person in the Jewish tradition. See Gen. 18; Philo, Abr. 167; Josephus, Ant. \.loh;M idr. Ps. 37:1; T. Abr. 1; also ] Clem. 10:1-7. Such an understanding fits perfectly into the immediate context on the necessity o f deeds o f love to fulfil the requirement o f the law. al. ^ Arguing along similar lines, see e.g., Windisch; Jeremias; Walker; Childs; Johnson; Bauckham; et ^ See esp. the excellent discussion by Penner 1996:47-74. 259 {Jub. 12:1-21; Apoc. Abr. 1-8; Josephus, Ant. 1.154-57; Philo, Virt. 212-16). Allusions to Gen. 15:6 in characterising Abraham’s relationship with God are also frequent (Neh. 9:8; Jub. 14:6; 1 Macc. 2:52; Philo, Leg. All. 3.228; Rej\ Div. Her. 9095; Migr. Abr. 43-44; Deus Imm. 4; Mut. Nom. 177-78, 186; Abr. 273; Virt. 216). Moreover, in the Jewish tradition, the Aqedah (Gen. 22) is considered the supreme test Abraham encountered in his life {Jub. 17:15-18; m. Ab. 5:3). It is thus not surprising that both James and Paul appeal to Gen. 15:6 and the Aqedah in support of their respective arguments. It is possible that James and Paul are dependent on a common Jewish exegetical tradition on Abraham’s faith, each developing them in their own ways (see esp. Moberly 1990:129-30). This seems the best way to account for the similarities as well as differences between them.' ^For their respective ways in appropriating the exegetical tradition, see esp. Bauckham [forthcoming; chapter 3]. 260 Chapter Two The Predicament of Doubieness Here I will explore the meaning of doubleness, the opposite of perfection, with respect to its cause, characteristics, and effects, and how it is related to obedience to the law and the working of wisdom. In order to understand the concept of doubleness adequately, we need also to look into its meaning in its early Jewish and Christian milieu. A. Doubleness as Divided Loyalty The ©ouble-SoiiIed The description ofdvijp ôCijjuxoç in 1:8 as “àicaTàoraToç èv iraoaLç xoâç ôôoîç aiiToîi” is in apposition to “ô avQpcùTroç èicclvoç” in 1:7 who in turn is identified with “Ô ÔLaicpLvoiievoç” in 1:6b. The word ÔLocKpLveaOai in middle voice, which means “to dispute with oneself,” “to waver,” “to doubt” is also used in Mt. 16:3; 21:21; Mk 11:23 (cf. Rom. 4:20; 14:23; Jude 22) in contrast to faith. Faith in the present context is not merely trusting one’s prayer will be answered, but, far more important, it is trusting in the God who gives to all with whole-hearted generosity and ungrudgingly. The attitude of God towards his people is set in marked contrast to the attitude of the doubting person towards God, related to that of doubt. In 1:5-8, the nature of faith is Doubt is not so much intellectual doubt as uncertainty in one’s loyalty, between God and the world. 261 In Midr, Tank 23b, Rabbi Tanchuma comments on Deut. 6:5 and 26:17(16): “Let not those who wish to pray to God have two hearts, one directed to Him and one to something else.” Such doubt is also the source of division within the community (Jas 2:4). To doubt is in turn related to being “double-souled.” The tenn ÔLi|m%oQ in 1:8 and 4:8, which better translates as “double-souled” than “double-minded” (Porter 1990A:474), does not occur in any known literature before James. background of the word ôC\jmxoç is a matter of much debate. ' “ ÔL-” are not lacking. The semantic Words with the prefix For example, ôLylwoooq in Sir. 5:9; 28:13; Philo, Sact\ 4.269; Did. 2:4 (cf. Barn. 19:7); ô l ïï p o o c û tt g ç in T. Ash. 2:5; (5uo yXwooK;) ô L irÀ flv, ÔLTTÀOW in T. Ben. 6:5-7; bixovovQ in Philo, Sacr, 4.269 (cf. ôLÀoyoq in 1 Tim. 3:8; ôLYvoopcov in Did. 2:4; Barn. 19:7); and ôtirloicapôLa in Did. 5:1. The word ôL\lfD%oç and its cognates are widely used in the writings of the apostolic fathers. it is one of the sins of the “way of death.” In Hennas alone, the adjective ôLi)fu%OG appears 19 times, the cognate verb ôLi|fb%€Lv 20 times and the substantive times. In Did. 4:4, It is something to be removed from one’s heart {Vis. 2.2). 16 To be double- souled is to question in one’s heart whether God’s revelation is so or not {Vis. 2.4), to abandon the true way and go astray {Vis. 3.7; cf. Man. 5.2.1), and not to set one’s heart towards the Lord {Vis. 3.10). Not to be double-souled is to work righteousness and endure patiently {Vis. 2.2), trusting in God’s promise (cf. Vis. 4.1, 2) especially his promise to answer one’s prayer {Man. 9.5-8). When one prays. ^ E.g., Lightfoot (1989:2.80-81) believes that the Book o f Eidad cmd M odad is the source o f the word; Seitz (1944:131-140) argues that James, 1 and 2 Clement and Hennas are all dependent on a single lost literary source. 262 one should “turn to the Lord with all your heart and ask of him unhesitatingly” {Man. To be double-souled is to ask God hesitantly (of. Man. 9.6). 9.2). opposite of being double-souled {Man. 9.10-12). This chapter provides a good commentary on Jas 1:6-8 (Dibelius and Greeven 1976:80). from the devil {Man. 9.9, 11). Faith is the very Double-souledness is The double-souled are those who are in need of repentance because they are in danger of death. Some of them are those who are “no longer hoping to be saved because of the deeds that they had done” and others “caused divisions among themselves” {Sim. 9.4; cf. 10.2). an independent imperative in Barn. 19:5. It also occurs once as The substantive ol ÔLijiuxoL is also found in 1 Clem. 11:2 with Lot’s wife having changed her mind and being turned into a salt of pillar as a sign of warning for the “double-souled.” In 1 Clem. 23:3 and 2 Clem. 11:2, the substantive ol ôii|n)xoi is included in a quotation from some supposed scriptural source(s). Similarities in the context of the latter two passages in 1 and 2 Clement with James show that they may be heavily influenced by James (cf. Johnson 1995:73-75). 1 Clem. 23:3 defines ol ôLij/uxoL as those who doubt in their soul (ol ÔLomCovTÉÇ tfj \}î\)xti; cf. 11:2; 2 Clem. 11:2), not trusting in the second coming of Christ. It is set in contrast with singleness of mind (àïïA,q ôLocvoCa; 23:1). 2 Clem. 11:5 defines the opposite of double-souled as to “patiently endure in hope” (èlTTLaocvreç UTTopeCvcoiiey). Another word that is comparable to ôiijnjxetv is the word ÔA-Lyoïlruxelv, found in Sir. 4:9b and 7:10a. In 4:9b, it means hesitant. 263 Perversion of justice will result from such hesitancy (4:9a).' prayer.” 7:10a reads: “Do not ‘hesitate’ (6A.iYo$uxqo^{(;) in your It is translated differently as “grow weary (NRSV),” “fainthearted (RSV),” or “impatient” (Skehan’s translation). It is paralleled with “do not neglect almsgiving.” Persistence without hesitancy in prayer and working for social justice go together. It must be noted that in the LXX, ilfuxq can occasionally be used to render in Hebrew (e.g. Ps. 68:21, 33; Isa. 7:2, 4; 24:7; Jer. 4:19). It is possible that the word double-souled is used because in Greek ideas, the word ijfuxtj represents the composite self (Laws 1980:61). The term is probably an idiom current in Greek­ speaking Judaism (Laws 1980:60,61; Martin 1988:20)^ or a coinage o f James (Porter 1990). The idea of doubleness is not new to hellenistic writers. It is unlikely that the use of the word here is drawn from some hellenistic or even gnostic concept of division between body and soul, or the Platonic theory of divisions in the soul itself.^ More fruitful is the evidence from the Jewish milieu. In Ps. 12:2, the Hebrew abn is translated as èv icapôtç^ iccd kv icapôiq:, while in 1 Chron. 12:33 and Sir. 1:28, it is rendered kv Kapôioc ÔLaofj. one’s speech. In Ps. 12:2 and Sir. 1:28, the phrase is linked with The relationship between heart and tongue is well summarised by Skehan and DiLella (1987:146): ^In Did 4:3-4, double-souled is connected with dissension and impartiality. ^ Whether it is o f a Roman provenance as Laws (1980:60-61) and also her earlier work, Marshall (1969) argues is speculative. ^ For references o f the idea o f doubleness in person in hellenistic writers, see Porter 1990:474-75. 264 In OT thought, the heart is the source of a person’s interiority (intelligence and free will), and the tongue is the symbol of a person’s external actions. Put differently, the heart is the root of choice, and the tongue is the expression of choice. Accordingly, heart and tongue are closely related, so that the expressions ‘evil heart’ and ‘evil tongue’ are similar in meaning. In Ben Sira, the double-hearted has its correspondence in “double tongue” in 5:9 (Gr.), 14; 6:1; 28:13 (Gr.). This linlc can also be found in James (see 3:10-11). Moreover, in Sir. 1:28, the double-heartedness is in parallel with faithlessness (aTrei0€Lv). 30). It is associated with insincerity, pride and a heart full of deceit (1:29- In Ps. 12:2, the phrase is again associated with deceitfulness and insincerity. It is also linked with the boastful claim, the ultimate claim of saying: “Who will be our master?” (12:5). The answer is expected to be “No one!” (Craigie 1983:138). Their refusal to acknowledge the mastery of God shows their double-heartedness. In Hos. 10:2, Israel is accused of having a divided heart (Qsb pbn/èpépLoccv icapôCccç ccuTQv). Double-heartedness is opposite to wholeheartedness (oÀrj xf\Q Kapôictç and o X t\ Tf]ç # % h G ) , the demand of God’s people set out in the Jewish Shema" (Deut. 6:5; 26:16; 30:6; Ps. 119:2, 10; Jer, 24:7). As we will see later, double-souled in James also associates closely with deception, pride, insincerity and inconsistency. Wolverton (1956:168) points out that in the Qumran Community Rule (IQS 3.17, 18; CD 20.9, 10), the concept of double-souledness is expressed in the form of a divided will: keeping “the idols of his heart,” “walking in the stubbornness of his heart,” and at the same time appearing to be serving God. IQH 12[4].13-18 portrays those who turn back as seeking God with a double heart (714), walking in stubbornness of heart and seeking God among idols (715). 265 They do not follow the path of God’s heart (//.17,18,21). In Apoc. Elij. (a composite work from first to fourth century c .e .) 1:25-27, the double-minded is opposed to the single-minded in the Lord. The double-minded is not trustworthy because his/her mind is darkened, without wisdom. S/he has no access into the holy place (presence) of God. In Jas 4:8, the word ÔLijnjxoc; is paralleled with apccpTcoloC. According to Sir. 2:12, a sinner is one who walks a double path (èirl ôuo tpCpouç), and who is “ambivalent in whether closer to God or to the devil” (Porter 1990:483). As Laws (1980:184) points out: “The double-minded are the archetypal sinners; for James doubleness is of the essence of human sin, seen in the divisive desires of the individual (iv.l) and the ‘adulterous’ attempts to combine prayer to God and a quest for the friendship of the world (iv.3f.).” Those double-souled are exhorted to cleanse their hands and purify their hearts (4:8). Thus double-souledness is associated with impurity and uncleanness, the veiy opposite of perfection. avTjp ÔLijfuxoç is the opposite of the xeleioQ dvfjp (3:2). The Repentance is to turn fiom double-souledness to purity and perfection. Our author describes the one who doubts as likened to a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind (1:6). It is a popular image used in moral exhortation for the inner tunnoil of a person who has no virtue (Philo, Gig. 51). In Isa. 57:20, the wicked one is described as likened to the tossing sea that cannot keep still (cf. Sir. 33:2; Eph. 4:14; Jude 13; 4 Macc. 7:1-3). In Prov. 5:6, the path of the loose woman that leads to death/Sheol is described as “wavering (S13),” even without her 266 awareness (loiowledge) of that (McKane 1970:315). what we find here in James. all his ways” (aicctT aaT aT oq Such description is not unlike The double-souled person is one who is “unstable in èv iràocciç character rather than one’s fate. tüclç ôôolç a u x o h ), which denotes one’s The prepositional phrase èv moKi; taXç ôôoîc; cciixoi) occurs four times in LXX Deuteronomy (10:12; 11:22; 19:9; 30:16) all referring to the command to keep the law of God “in all his ways.” areas of one’s life. It means in all In Isa. 54:11 (LXX), the word àicaxccaTaToç is used to translate the verb ‘nUD meaning storm-tossed.' The illustration for the one who doubts as a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind is parallel to the description of the double-souled person as restless or storm-tossed. The closest parallel to ÔLi|fu%oç both semantically and conceptually is the description of ôiirp cow iro; in T. Ash. This is set in contrast with the single-faced 3:1-2; 4:1; 5:4; 6:1-3). The ÔiirpoacoTroi are those who do both good (p o v o ïïp o a w ïïo i; and evil, but as a whole evil (2:9). They only appear to be good. certain incongruity between outward appearance and basic attitude.^ There is a They “are not of God, but they are enslaved to their evil desires (xcda è'iïLGupCocLç auxwv ôocXeiJOLv), so that they might be pleasing to Beliar and to persons like themselves” (3:2). In 2:2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 4:3, 4, the word refers to a certain “doubleness,” “having two aspects,” in human actions and motivations, which is as a whole unacceptable to God. ^ The only other time the word dKataaiaxoç occurs in the NT is in Jas 3:8 in description o f the tongue being “restless” evil, being untamed, likened to a raging fire. The noun form aicaxaaxaaia appears in 3:16 refeiring to the social unrest caused by envy. ^ In Sir. 19:20-30, there is an acknowledgement that though the evildoer can be distinguished from the wise by liis outward appearance, wliich somehow reveals his inward character, it talces constant effort to distinguish between true and false wisdom. See particularly Weber 1996. The concern reflected in Ben Sira is not unlike that which we find here in T.Ash. 267 Hollander and de Jonge (1985:340) notice that povoirpoowirog and ôLïïpoacùïïoç run parallel to àïïÀouç and ÔLTrÀoûç elsewhere in the Testaments. T Benj. 6:5-7 describes the distinction between the two: The good set of mind (&ya8q ôtavoLa) does not talk from both sides of its mouth (Ô1J0 ylwaooc;): praises and curses, abuse and honor, calm and strife, hypocrisy and truth, poverty and wealth, but it has one disposition, uncontaminated and pure, toward all men. its perception or its hearing. There is no duplicity (ÔLïïXfji^) in Whatever it does, or speaks, or perceives, it loiows that the Lord is watching over its life, for he cleanses his mind in order that he will not be suspected of wrongdoing either by men or by God. The works of Beliar are twofold (ôiirlow), and have in them no integrity (à'iïÀOTTlTOi). Those who are ôLirpoacoiroL are marked by hypocrisy and untruthfulness. 4:7, anger and falsehood are seen as double-edged evil (ôiirpoacoirov disturbs one’s mind (ôiapouXtov).' In T Dan kkkov) that This can result in the Lord withdrawing from one’s soul and Beliar talcing control of it instead. The antidote is again to keep the Lord’s commandments, then the Lord will dwell among them and Beliar will flee from them (5:1). The section climaxes with the exhortation to obey the two great commandments as the essence of the law/commandments of the Lord mentioned in 5:1. There are several points of contact between the concept of ôLTrpoow^oç with ^ Siimlai’ development can also be found in Heiwas in tenns of the two spirits in human. “Quick temper” will lead those “empty-headed” (àirotcéuoL) and double-minded (ôhI/uxol) astray (Ma«. 5.2:1). It is tlie very opposite o f patience (paicpoGupoi;). They are diametrically opposite to each other: “For the Lord lives in patience, but the devil lives in an angry temper” (Man. 5.1:3c). He who is dominated by anger will be filled with the evil spirits and ruled by them, blind to good intentions (JJan. 5.2:7). 268 ôLi|fD%0 (;: (1) ôLTTpoawTToç similar to ôiijjuxoc; means uncommitted to the good; (2) in Jas 1:5, ÔLi]ji)xoç is set in contrast with airlcSç, the commitment of God; so in Test. XII Patr. elsewhere, ôLTTpoowiro; is in parallel with ôLTrÀoûq, the very opposite of àiTÀûç; (3) the opposite of ôCijmxoç in James is faithfulness and loving loyalty; the opposite of ô i ï ï p o a c o î r o ç is p o v o i r p o a c o T r c ç which means wholeheartedness in one’s commitment to God, that is, keeping the commandments of God (cf T. Ash. 6:1); (4) the close association of ôli|ji)xoç with the concept of evil inclination can also be found in ô iT T p o o c o ïïo ç , as one being controlled by the evil inclination. regarded as allying oneself with Beliar. (5) The ô iT r p o o w ir o g is This can also be said of the ôCiJfuxoç who allies oneself with the world and the wisdom from the devil (Jas 3:15). will flee from those who keep God’s commandments, the antidote to (6) Beliar ô L ïïp o a c o T r o ç . In Jas 4:7-8, by submitting themselves to God (in obeying his commandments) and repenting, the devil will flee from them. (7) The context of T. Ash. 3-6 is the exposition of the two ways motif, while in Jas 1:4-18 a moral dualism can be detected. There is no evidence that T. Ash. 3-6 is dependent on James or other Christian writings. It is undeniable that the concept of double-soul and double-face belong within the context of this similar kind of thinking. The Relationship o f the Douhle-Souled with the World and Devil Sasse {TDNT: 3.891) has shown that “[t]he idea that the world is the abode of sin, that it is under the dominion of evil and that it has thus fallen victim to divine judgment, is certainly found in Judaism, but not by a long way does it play the role which it is given in the NT.” This understanding of the “world” as something 269 morally negative, as opposed to God, is also found in Paul (Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 2:12; cf. Eph, 2:2), 2 Peter (1:4; 2:18-20), and the Johannine writings (Jn 12:31; 15:18-19; 16:33; 17:14-16; 1 Jn 2:15-17). In T. Iss. 4:6, those with integrity would make “no places for an outlook made evil by this world’s error.” The world’s error (f) irA-avri TOÛ KoopoO) characterises the real nature of all the wickedness in T. Iss. 4: covetousness, envy, malice, money-getting with insatiable desire. In rabbinic literature, the present world is depicted as an aeon in which the evil impulse rules. Hence this world is a world of sin and impurity, of lying and falsehood (cf. Str-B, 4.847). The word icoopoç occurs in James four times, all in a negative sense. In 1:27 and 4:4, the world is seen as something from which the readers are to dissociate. is something that causes pollution (1:27). It As in other NT writings, the “world” is a “fallen, rebellious state of a sinful world-system” (Moo 1985:124). The “world” in James denotes “in general the values of human society as against those of God, and hence the man who pursues pleasui e aligns himself with the world and compromises or actually denies his relationship with God...” (Laws 1980:174). “God” and the “world” are opposed as “measures of valuation” (Johnson 1985:173). The double- souled is one who is divided in one’s loyalty, trying to please both God and the world. The contrast between “God” and the “world” is thiown into sharpest focus by putting the phrase cj)LÀLa Toû icoopou side by side withèx0p6ç tou 0eo\) in 4:4. The double- souled, who is not the friend of God (2:23b) but the friend of the world ((})lX g ç tou icoopou: 4:4) and thus the enemy of God (4:4; cf. Rom. 8:7) is one who is conforming to the values which the world endorses, and at the same time rejecting the call to 270 obedience to God’s law. As in 1 Jn 2:15-17, love of God and love of the world are mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed to each other (cf. Mt. 6:24, the contrast of God and Mammon; also 2 Clem. 6; Ignatius, Rom. 2:2; 7:1). God would surely bring judgement upon his enemy, or the friends of the world are bringing judgement upon themselves. quarrelsome. It is no trivial matter for them to be selfish and The double-souled are those who appear to be friends of God in praying to him, yet are actually disloyal to him, trying to manipulate divine power in prayer, and actually allying themselves with the world. This is in sharp contrast to Elijah, who also was only a human, yet prayed in the simplicity of faith. The “world” in 2:5 should also be understood negatively. are “o l tttw x o I xcS Koopo^” chosen by God. are set in contrast with “o l Here, those who trlounioL ev TTLotei” as being The “rich in faith” should not be understood as “rich in virtue of faith” (as Laws 1980:103, taking the dative as dative of respect) since this would break the contrast with “poor in the world.” Rather, the dative should be taken as dative of dis/advantage and the phrases understood as “poor in the judgement or standard of the world” and “rich in the sphere of faith,” that is, in the eyes of God. The meaning of the “world” in 3:6 with the tongue as “6 jcoopoç tf\ç âôLKLaç” is harder to determine. Dibelius and Greeven (1976:193-96) find that the phrase “6 icoopoç... r|pc3v” is a scribal gloss. inteipretation is possible. In Ropes’ opinion (1916:233), no satisfactoiy The word “world” has been talcen to mean “whole” as in LXX Prov. 17:6, perhaps under the influence of the translation of Vulgate univers itas 271 iniquitatis (see, e.g., Carr [1909]).^ It has also been understood as “the ornament” of iniquity that “put an outward show on injustice” (Knox 1945:15). However, Dibelius and Greeven (1976:194) bluntly object: “No reader would have heard either of those two meanings in this expression.” Adamson (1976:158) finds the answer in the emendations on the text.^ The best interpretation has long been suggested by Mayor (1913:115): “In our microcosm, the tongue represents or constitutes the unrighteousness world” (also Ropes 1916:233; Laws 1980:91; Johnson 1995A:259). Just as the world can defile the readers (1:27), the tongue can defile “the whole body” (3:6). Since no one can control oneself perfectly as exemplified and represented in one’s failure to control one’s tongue completely (3:2), the tongue is then likened to the world of unrighteousness that sins against God (irrcdeLv; cf. 2:20) and is the source of pollution. The description of the world as unrighteous finds its parallel in 1 En. 48:7 where this world is characteristised as the world of unrighteousness, of ungodliness, in opposition to God. The righteous and the holy ones are those who reject this world together with its ways of life. Those who love God should regard themselves as a mere passing breath, who loved not the good things which are in the world {1 En. 108:8).^ In James, there is no explicit linlc between the world and the devil, nor with either of them and earthly wisdom. Yet in the context of the ethical dualism of Test. ^ Moo (1985:124), however, finds that the meaning kooiioç as “totality” “is poorly attested, the article before Icosmos is not adequately explained, and the force of the verb kathistatai... is lost.” ^ Adamson regards the text as corrupt and looks to the Syriac Peshitta for the coixect reading: “The tongue is fire, the sinfiil world [is a] wood.” ^ Cf. Lev. R . 267 describe this world as “a world of untruth.” 272 XII Patr., those who pursue their evil inclination, rejecting the law of God, are allying themselves with Beliar, the leader of all evil spirits {T. Ash. l:3-6:7; T. Iss. 6:1). In the NT, the devil is the ruler of this world (Jn 12:31 ; 14:30; 16:11: 6 ccpxcov Tou Koopou; also 1 Jn 5:19; 2 Cor, 4:4). He is the external power behind the world.^ Since the devil together with the world under his control is diametrically opposed to God, whatever aligns itself with them in attitude and action is the enemy of God. The wisdom that causes wars and moral wickedness is described as “demonic” (3:15; ôccipovLoSôriç), belonging to the sphere of influence of the devil. ^ Eventually, the contrast between the two lands of wisdom is a contrast between God and the world/devil, with their respective system of values. Doubleness tells the condition of one who is supposed to love God yet sides with the world and the devil. choice. It is the person who is responsible for their own The world and the devil may affect one’s choice. Yet ultimately it is the choice of those in the face of testings, who are being enticed by their own desire that results in sin and eventually death (1:14-15). It is the working of the evil inclination within them in response to the seduction of the outside world that is the efficient cause of one being in the state of doubleness (being a sinner; 4:8-9). connection between doubleness and evil inclination will be studied later. The Next I will explore other expressions of doubleness found in James. ^ The devil is not the external power beliind the evil inclination, as Davids (1974:380) suggests. ^ The reference to f) yekwa. in 3:6 does not refer to the dangerous power of the devil or the forces o f evil (see, e.g., Moo 1985:126; Baker 1995:128), as assumed by most commentators. The extensive study by Bauckham (1998B) argues convincingly that Gehenna actually refers to the place o f punisliment with buiTiing fire ready for those who are damned (cf. Lk. 16:24). See also Sclilatter 1956:223-24. 273 B. Doubleness as Inconsistency, Insincerity and Deception In James, doubleness is also expressed in terms of inconsistency and insincerity (see discussions above on T. Benj. 6:5-7; T. Dan. 4:7). Doubleness is found in one’s claim to have faith/mercy without acting in faith/mercy (2:14-20). The empty words of comfort instead of practical works of relief in 2:16 and the supposed argument of the fictitious interlocutor in 2:18 (“‘You have faith and I have works’”) are examples of such duplicity. Such deception is also found in one’s pretense to be a friend of God in praying to him yet in reality being a fiiend of the world (4:1-4). Our author warns against doubleness of speech: “let your ‘Yes’ be yes and youi ‘No’ be no” (5:12; cf. 2 Cor 1:17), not saying one thing yet meaning another. To do so is hypocrisy (cf. 3:17).^ Doubleness of tongue is also expressed as blessing the Lord and cursing humans who are made in his image (3:9-12). This person’s claim to be good and even “bless the Lord” is inconsistent with his/her speaking evil and cursing others. A similar idea of inconsistency and insincerity is also found in the suimnarising aphorism in 4:17: it is possible to know the right thing to do but fail to do it. Such then becomes sin to that person (àpctpria aurco èotiv). As Baker (1995:285) notices, “it is generally recognized that there are those who attempt to disguise their evil intentions with their tongues.” A form of self-deception can be seen in 1:24 where one “looking into the mirror” immediately forgets what one is like. “[T]he person who hears the ‘word’ ^ It is interesting to notice that where Mt. 24:51 has ÙTroicpLxaL, the parallel o f it in Lk. 12:46 has à-iTLoxoL, untruthful or unbelieved. 274 and experiences it internally but does not act on it is self-deceived, divided against herself, living in forgetfulness of who she really is (1:18-24)” (Via 1990:2). 1:26 also speaks of the same kind of self-deception: “thinldng” (Ôoiceî) one is religious yet not having the kind of expression approved by God. is “aïïccTQV icapôLKV antoî)” (1:26). will is oriented to what it values. evil system of value. The false assumption one has The heart as the seat of understanding and the In this case, the heart follows a distorted and even Such self-deception is, as Via (1990:92) describes, an “intentional not-knowing the truth about oneself.” It is a dividedness within oneself. As we noticed earlier, ôLccicpiveaGaL can mean exactly that: “to dispute with oneself.” Those whose actions are motivated by jealousy and greediness yet claim that they have true wisdom are arrogant liars (3:15-16): their wisdom is nothing less than demonic, the very cause of dividedness. In 4:11-12, those who slander each other are accused of putting themselves in the place of judges, placing themselves over the law given by God. you?” Our author exposes such deception with the question “who are One who assumes that things will always go according to plan, like the confident merchant mentioned in 4:13, is also presumptuous. All these deceptions are nothing less than “fTÀavTiO^ airo tfjc àA.Ti0eCccç” (5:19; cf. 1:16). To be totally honest and truthful, not relying on oath (connected with fraud in Lev. 19:12), is the very opposite of such deception and duplicity (5:12). Deception is often associated with Satan/devil in Jewish tradition (see, e.g., T. Job 3:3). The sense of hypocrisy, deceitfulness, disloyalty to God, and inconsistency in word/knowledge and deed are repeated throughout the book as expressions of doubleness. This is the very opposite to the concept of perfection which is integrity, 275 consistency, and loyalty to God. Such doubleness or “splitting” finds its consequence not only with the individual, in one’s relationship with God, but is also evident in the “splitting” of the Christian community, with members fighting against one another (2:1-16; 4:1-3, 11; 5:9; see esp. Franlcemolle 1985:164-65). C Doubleness and the Working o f the Evil Inclination Tsuji (1997:103) is surely right to see doubleness as absence of loyalty to and trust in God; he contends, however, that there is no coimection between doubleness and the working of the evil inclination.^ I agree with him that the rabbinic doctrine of the two inclinations is late, yet the concept of the working of the evil inclination can be found much earlier in Jewish tradition. An examination into the concept of evil inclination in the early Jewish and Christians will allow us to see the prevalence of the concept in the Second Temple period as well as in the NT times, and how doubleness, law and wisdom are related to evil inclination. The Concept of the Working and Control of Evil Inclination in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions Ben Sira On the surface, Jas 1:13-18 resembles closely Sir. 15:11-20. Like Ben Sira, James engages in argument on theodicy by employing the ancient debate form, refuting any implication that God is the cause of evil. In response to the challenge ^ Though he admits that the concept o f èiriGupLa in Jas 1:13 owes its idea to the concept o f evil inclination in early Judaism, as also attested in Rom 7:7 (p. 106). 276 of the antagonist that God is the author of human wickedness (Sir. 15:11a, 12a; cf Jas 1:13), Ben Sira responds by attributing the source of evil to the presence of inclination in humans. Sir. 15:14 reads: “It was he [God] who created man [BIK] in the beginning, and he left him in the power of his own inclination (RSV). The word "ly or “inclination,” whose basic Semitic meaning is “shape,” or “form,” translated as ôtapouÀtov in the LXX, is best understood in a neutral sense as “free choice” (NRSV). In the OT, its overtones can be negative as in Gen. 6:5; 8:21 and Deut. 31:21 and also positive as in Isa. 26:3; 1 Chron. 28:9; 29; 29:18. something innate in humans (Ps. 103:14). It is Porter (1901:109) summarizes the situation as follows: The word had gained therefore, already in the OT, a certain independence as meaning the nature or disposition of man, and this could be regarded as something which God made (Ps. 103:14) or as something which man works (Deut. 31:21). The argument in Ben Sira then is that the good Creator created humankind with a faculty of free choice capable of doing good and evil. concept. 1%'' thus for him is a positive The presence of evil is due to the abuse of human freedom, a classic free will defense in response to the problem of evil. obey the commandments. One can avoid sin by choosing to This understanding has its support from the context where the emphasis falls on the moral responsibility of the human agent (Skehan and DiLella 1987:272).^ Yet the Hebrew explanatory gloss of 15:14, which is a later \S e e also the detailed study in Hadot 1970:209. Thus, Marcus (1982:608-10) seems to have read the later rabbinic understanding o f “evil inclination” into the text of Ben Sira. So also Murphy 1958:335-36; Collins 19970:33. This morally neutral understanding o f the inclination also has its support in Sir 27:4-7. The general principle summarised by the aphorism in 27:7: “Do not praise anyone before he speaks, for tliis is the way people are tested (LXX: TreLpaa^ioç).” was illustrated in 277 interpolation, not found in the Syriac or Latin version: “and he puts [him] into the hand of his kidnappers.” iniquity. This seems to ally the “inclination” with the spirit of In the LXX text, though the word corresponding to is not used, the concept of evil desire {kuiQv\xia) within humans that needs to be restrained is found in 5:2 (“Do not follow your inclination and strength in pursuing the desires [6TTL0i)jiLaç] of your heart.”), 18:30 (“Do not follow your base desires [&L0upLwv], but restrain your appetites.”) and 23:4-5 (“Lord, Father and God of my life, do not give me haughty eyes, and remove evil desire [eTri0i)|iLav] from me.”). Thus, though the interpretation of Sir. 15:14 may be debatable, the concept of evil desires in humans is undoubtedly found in Ben Sira. In Sir. 15:11-20, Ben Sira goes further than just insisting God is not responsible for human transgression. He also charges people to keep His commandments which are the way to life (Sir. 15:15c). Moreover, he also judges that those who say that “God made me sin” are “men of deceit” (15:20, Greek text; cf. Jas 1:16). Humans are supposed to choose life not death (cf. Sir. 15:17). Hence his point is that the law of God is the best guide for one’s inclination, rather than obeying the commandments against one’s inclination, as Marcus (1982:609) maintains. According to Ben Sira, it is the keeping of the law that controls one’s thought (Sir. 21:11; 4 Macc. 5:23).^ 27:4-6 by tliree comparisons. In v. 6, Ben Sira uses an agricultural metaphor: “Its fruit discloses the cultivation o f a tree; so a person’s speech discloses the cultivation of his mind ” The parallelism shows the clear neutrality o f ^In Sir. 21:11, only the Greek text is extant: 6 cjjuXdoacov vopov KataicpocxeL xoO 4vvoii|xaxoç aùxoO. Syr reads ynijS/'e/j for xoO èvvopjiaxoç auxou, suggests the Hebrew original may be 278 Qumran Literature occurs primarily in the Hodayot. Murphy (1958:339-45) points out that, in keeping with the OT usage, IQH uses in the In Qumran literature, sense of “creature” and “nature, disposition, tendency.” The former is used in the phrase “creature of clay” that occurs frequently (9[1].21; 12[4].29-30; 20[12].26; 21[18].12-13, 25-26) and always in the context which implies human frailty and sinfulness except in 11.3. When used in the latter sense, it can occur in a neutral context or even with reference to good deeds (15[7].13; 7[15].13) but predominantly with inclination to sin (13[5].5-6, 31-32; 15[7].3-4, 16; 19[11].20-21; cf. IQS 5.5). CD 2.15-16 clearly sets “walking perfectly on all his paths” against “following after the thoughts of a guilty inclination (1%"') and lascivious eyes.” also be found in IQS 5.1-6 (see esp. 5.5). the paraphrase of Genesis in 4Q422. A similar pattern can The evil inclination also plays a part in Elgvin (1994:185) translates 4Q422 1 7 as: “[... He set mankind on the ear]th, He set him in charge to eat the fruit[s of the soil,...] that he should not eat from the tree that gives laiow[ledge of good and evil.] ...] He rose against Him and they forgot [His laws...] in evil inclination and deed[s of injustice”. In 4Q416 1 1.15-16, in the context of a coming judgement, the evil inclination is again related to the distinction between good and evil (cf. Gen. 2-3): “so that the just man may distinguish between good and evil [...] all [...] the inclination of the flesh, and those who understand.. .” The word is used in a positive sense in 4Q417 2 1.11: “to walk in the inclination of its knowledge.” In 4Q417 2 2.12-13, the author warns: “Do not be deluded with the thought of an evil 279 inclination... investigate the truth.”^ It seems that in 4QSapiential Work A, can be either good or bad. The prayers of 4QDibHam^ (4Q504) frgs 1-2 col.2 are probably preQmnranian hasidic writings. The author sets the prayer in the context of the Exodus event and the Sinai covenant. In //. 12-14, the author prays to God: “Remember your marvels which you performed in view of the peoples, for we have been called by your name. [...]... with all (our) heart and with all (our) soul and to implant your law in our heart ( nan'T’n nats^?), [so that we do not stray] either to the right or to the left. heart].” For, you will heal us of madness, blindness and confusion [of The Shema^ -like phrase “with all (oui) heart and with all (our) soul,” which is linked with God’s implanting his law “in our heart,” probably refers to total repentance (see Vermes’ translation). In IQS 3-4, the two spirits do not seem to be referring to some cosmic spirit alone, but a counterpart of them within humans. There may have been an early development of the interrelationship between the inner human dispositions with the outer angelic beings. The Angel of Darkness works with the spirit of wickedness and the evil inclination to lead one astray (3.21-22,24). Philo and 4 Maccabees Association of wisdom and evil inclination is rare. For Philo, progress in wisdom implies advance in virtue and the concomitant freedom from the desires of ^In 4Q417 2 1.11, 17, the tenu 1%"' is used in a positive sense. o f the Jewish doctrine of the two inclinations. 280 There seems to be a beginning here the flesh {Plant 96-98). Abraham in his process of perfection has achieved victory over his adverse passions and is a lover of the only God {Abr. 10.47-50). Davis (1984:58) notices: “It is through the wisdom of the law, that one is freed, according to Philo, from fleshly passion and desire, and prepared, as a result, to receive the inspiration of the divine spirit.” In 4 Maccabees, the philosophically trained Jewish author in first century C.E. announces at the beginning of the book that his work is primarily philosophical setting out to prove that “devout reason (6 euaepijç loyLo^ioq) is absolute master of the passions” (1:1). One of the major theme in the book is endurance (Woiiovq), a word that occurs 25 times. He defines reason (loyiopog), a word that occurs 115 times in the book, as “the mind making a deliberate choice of the life of wisdom” (1:15). Wisdom, in turn, is “Icnowledge of things divine and human, and of their causes” (1:16). the Law” (1:17a). This wisdom is “the culture we acquire from It is manifested as “prudence, justice, courage and temperance,” the foul' Platonic virtues inherited by the Stoics and talcen over by our author (Anderson 1985:2.544 note d). passions (1:17). It is through wisdom that reason controls the This can be well illustrated by reference to Jewish martyrdom (1:8-9) with the classical example of stories of Jewish martyrs endured under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. Eleazar, in a lengthy speech in confrontation of Antiochus, explains the heart of the issue: “we must lead our lives in accordance with the divine Law” (5:15) and “under no circumstances whatever do we ever deem it right to transgress the Law” (5:17). The narrator concludes from Eleazar’s martyrdom (7:16-18): If, therefore, an old man despised tonnents unto the death on account of his 281 piety, we must admit that devout reason is leader over the passions.... Only those who with all their heart make piety their first concern are able to conquer the passions of the flesh,.... Then he brings it to an end with the final assessment: “Only the wise and courageous man is ruler of the passions” (7:23). Here wisdom is closely associated with obeying the Torah, with wisdom as the means through which the evil desires can be under control. Psalms o f Solomon In 4:8-13, the words of sinners are said to accomplish their evil desires (v.lO) or criminal desire (eiriQu^iia, irapavo^iou v. 11). agitating (v. 12). Their words are deceitful (v. 10) and They are pious hypocrites who quote the Law deceitfully and, like the serpent, destroy the wisdom (oocpLoc) of their neighbour'. Fourth Ezra In 4 Ezra, there is a synthesis of the sapiential and apocalyptic traditions in dealing with the problem of evil (see esp. Thompson 1977:20-82, 295-338). Along with the sapiential tradition, the author of 4 Ezra developed the evil inclination tradition as part of the argument for theodicy. Thompson (1977:337) notes the following basic characteristics of evil inclination in 4 Ezra. his observations with some modifications. Here I basically follow (1) God is ultimately responsible for the evil inclination in humans because he did not remove the evil heart (3:20), but the author has avoided attributing the creation of the evil inclination directly to God (yet see 7:29); (2) The evil inclination is located in the heart, but may also be seen as being the heart itself. He uses the image of sowing and harvest for the existence of 282 the evil inclination: “For a grain of evil seed was sown in Adam’s heart from the beginning...” (4:30a; cf. 4:27-31). In 3:21-22, the “evil root” is said to reside in the heart (cf. 8:52; LXX Deut. 29:17; llQPs"155:13-14; Sir. 3:28; 1 En. 91:5, 8). (3) The evil inclination is said to be part of human existence from the beginning as an inherited wealaiess as a result of Adam’s sin (3:21-22, 25-27; 4:30; 7:118) and is something inborn (7:92; cf. 8:53). (4) The function of the evil inclination is to tempt and lead one astray (3:20-26; 4:4, 27-31; 7:48, 92; 8:53). responsible for the control of the evil inclination. Humans are They are to strive “with gi eat effort to overcome the evil thought [i.e. evil inclination] which was formed with them, that it might not lead them astray from life into death” (7:92). Humans keep the ways of the Most High (7:88) by obeying the law of the Lawgiver perfectly (7:89). Yet humans as descendants of Adam are unable to keep the law and have even been banished by the evil root (3:20-22). Despite the fact that the law which has been sown (again the sowing imagery) in humans has not been effective, the gloiy of the law still remains (9:31-37). The author appeals to God in prayer to give seed for the heart, presumably that the law may be made effective in the person (8:32-36).^ God himself who will eventually remove the evil root (8:53). It is He will change the heart of humankind (6:26). Particularly significant to our study here is the correlation between the evil inclination and the Torah as set forth in 3:19-22 and 9:31-37. well summarises their relationship as follows: ^For prayer to remove the evil inclination, see 1 lQPs“19.15-16. 283 Stone (1990:308) Torah is a divine gift: it has a heavenly being, yet it is disobeyed, because of which humans will perish. God gave Torah, yet left the evil inclination in the heart of the people, so that the Torah was unable to produce its fruit of eternal life. These ideas had been sharply formulated in 3:19-22.... The anomalies inherent in the concept of Torah are set forth strikingly by the use of the analogy of 9:35. The eternal life-giving Torah survives the vessel that contains it. Moreover, in 9:29, 31, the disobedience of the Israelites (“our fathers”) to the law is compared to that of the unfruitful wilderness. Jeremiah. The same literary imageiy is used in In Jer. 2:2, the desert is described as “a land not sown,” while Israel is “the firstfruits of his harvest” (Jer. 2:3). Test XII Patr.. In T. Ash. l:3-6:7, the two ways motif is expressed in tenns of the two ÔLapouXtcc (1:5-9). In other places in the Test XII Patr. (see, e.g., T. Reub. 4:9; T. Jud. 13:2; 18:3; T. Dan 4:2, 7; T. Gad 5:3; 7:3; T. Benj. 6:1), the word ôtapouA-iov is used predominantly in a similar way as in the Greek version of Sira 15:14 to denote “the centre of the personality, the will where actions find their origin” (Hollander and de Jonge 1985:339). Yet 1:3, 5 explicitly states that there are two ôLocpoulLa. There are also references to the evil inclination {T. Iss. 6:2: tolç iTovripoLç ôLapouXC oLç cfUTwv) and the good inclination {T. Benj. 6:4: to ayotOov bia^ovXiov) elsewhere in the Test. XII Patr. Hollander and de Jonge (1985:339) seem to have the best explanation for the apparent discrepancy: “Every person has one ôlocPouàlov which has two options and is, after the choice has been made, either good or bad.” Rather than two inclinations, the single inclination is described as either good or evil in 284 accordance with the outcome of one’s action. fundamental choice between good and evil. Humans are faced with the The two inclinations are not in any way personified or seen as compelling forces within human. However, if one surrenders to one’s inclination towards evil, one is seen as overmastered by Beliar (icupieuOelç Wo 5:7; cf. T. Benj, 6:1). tou peliap, T. Ash. 1:8; cf. 3:2b; also T. Gad Readers are exhorted to “flee from the evil tendency, destroying the devil by your good works” {T, Ash. 3:2a). Those who pursue their inclinations towards evil are abandoning the law of God and allying themselves with Beliar (T. Iss. 6:2). The entire section on the two ways motif concludes with the Ô1J0 Telri (6:4-6) with the exhortation to “keep the Law of the Lord; do not pay attention to evil as to good, but have regard for what is really good and keep it thoroughly in all the Lord’s commandments, taking it as your way of life and finding rest in it” (6:3). New Testament In the synoptic tradition, Mk 7:21-23 may reflect the idea of evil inclination with evil intentions (o l ôiK À oyL O |ioi o l possible varieties of evil.^ k k k o l; cf. Jas 2:4) which issue in twelve Paul’s idea of “(jjpovîipcc aapicoç” (Rom. 8:7) and sometimes “sin” alone may owe its origin to the concept of evil inclination (Davies 1955:26; Davids 1974:93).^ He who walks according to the flesh has an inclination towards “tot tfjç oapicoç cl)povoî)aLv.” ^ See also the Gethsemane saying o f the Contrary to the Jewish understanding that àoGevriç” (Mk 14:38; Mt. 26:41). ^ See also the recent commentaries on Romans: Dunn 1988:380; Moo 1996:458 n.49. 285 studying the Torah is a remedy for the evil inclination, Paul claims that humans are powerless to deliver themselves from the evil desire within. On the contrary, the law which intends to give life, provokes the evil inclination and brings about a process heading towards death (7:8-11). For Paul, it is through the risen power of Christ in the working of the Spirit of life that the power of sin can be broken (8:1). Life may be achieved through obedience to the law by means of the spirit. In Rom. 1:24, the reference to cd WiQupLccL xcSv icapôtcSv may be another allusion to the evil desire in humans. The radical dualism of actp^ and Trvetjpa in Gal. 5:13-24 can also be understood in the light of the concept of evil inclination. The phrase “WiGuiiLa, actpicoç” (5:16) or just “oap^” (5:17) alone may well be another reference to the evil inclination. When the desire of the flesh is allowed to be carried out, the result is the “epya Tf\c, aapicoç” (5:19) as listed in 5:19-21 (Betz 1979:278). Again as in Romans 8, it is through the Spirit, the divine agent of good, that one can defeat evil.^ Only when one is led and guided by the Spirit can the Law of Christ be fulfilled in the Christian community. Besides Pauline writings, 1 Jn 2:15-17 on the injunction to resist worldliness together with its desires may also be a reference to resisting the evil inclination within (see esp. Malatesta 1978:175-77). 1 Pet. 2:11 also warns the readers that “od oapiaiccSv €iri8upL%L” wage war against the soul. ^ For the concept that accp^ is a psychological as well as a cosmic category, see Jewett 1971:115, 453-54. 286 Early Apostolic Writings In The Shepherd o f Hermas, “[f|] 4irt0i)ia,Loc [f|] irovqpcc” is said to be able to destroy those who are being mastered by it and will eventually put them to death {Man. 12.1:1-3; 2:2-3). When it arises from the human heart, with the human heart aiming at evil things, it will bring death and captivity upon that person (Vis. 1.1:8). Like double-souledness {Man. 9.9), the evil inclination is a daughter of the devil (ôLapoÀoç; Man. 12,2:2). Such desire includes the desire for the wife or husband of others, the extravagance of wealth, indulgence in feasting, and other luxuries {Man. 12.2:1). It can be overcome by putting on or submitting to “f| 4iTL0u}iLa f| &yoc0fi” or “n 4iTL0i)pLcc xfjç ÔLKaLoouvqç”, armed with the fear of the Lord, and by resisting the evil desires and the Devil {Man. 12.1:1; 2:4). by the good desire and be under control. The good desire can be served by keeping the commandments of God {Man. 12.3:1). humans. Thus, the evil desire can be mastered The devil will do all he can to master Yet 6 ayyeXoQ tîjç petavoCaç, who has power over the devil, will be with those who repent with all their heart and will help to strengthen their faith {Man. 12.4:7; 6:1). God will enable them to keep his commandments {Man. 12.6:4). In 1 Clem. 3:4, following “ c d 4iri0upiKL xy\q icapôLccç k W otj ifjç ïïovïipaç” is to assume the attitude of “Ch^ov aôiKov icccl aa€pfi” through which “death entered into the world.” This is in contrast to walking according to the laws of God’s commandments and living in accordance with one’s duty toward Christ (cf. 2 Clem. 17:3). The consequence of deadly envy is exemplified by Cain, in killing his brother Abel, and others in the biblical tradition (cc.4-6). 287 Clement exhorts his readers to fix their eyes upon those who served God perfectly (teXeCcoç; 9:2), such as Enoch (who was righteous in obedience; 9:3), Noah (who was found faithful; 9:4), Abraham (who was called the friend of God, being faithful in that he became obedient to the words of God; 10:1); and Rahab (who was saved because of her faith and hospitality; 12:1). The abominable lusts spawn evil works (28:1). One has to fear God (28:1) and love him (29:1), and pursue holiness by forsaking all these evil impulses (30:1; cf, 2 Clem. 16:2). Polycarp exhorts the younger men to cut off “arro TQV èinGupLWV 4v xcS icoapcp” (Poly. Phil. 5:3). Rabbinic Writings The precise development of the concept of in the doctrine of double inclinations in the later rabbinic literature does not concern us here. In these later writings, there is a tendency to personify “the evil inclination.”^ Humans are perceived as under the compulsion of the evil inclination to do unlawful acts (see, e.g., b. S u t 52b). The basic texts to which they repeatedly appealed are Gen. 6:5 and 8:21 (cf. Jer. 17:9) where the of the human heart is evil. God is the one who has created the evil inclination within humans.^ The “evil inclination” is not intrinsically evil, and without it humans would never marry, beget children or engage in trade (Gen. R. 9:7). out of hand that it becomes harmful. It is only when it gets It must be checked and controlled constantly. ^ Cf. the famous saying o f R. Simeon b. Laldsh; “Satan, the evil inclination, and the Angel o f Death, are all one” (b.B.Bat. 16a). Cf. b.Shabh. 105b; Exod. R. 30.17. ^ This would eventually amount to the implication that God is responsible for evil. 27.4. 288 See Gen. R. The “evil inclination” manifests itself in such traits as vengefulness and covetousness (Sifi'e Deut. § 33), anger {m. Ab. 4:1; è. Shab. 105b), and vanity (Gen. R. 22:6). t. B. Sab. 105b reads: “For this is the way of the Evil Inclination works; today he says to him ‘Do this’, and tomorrow he says to him ‘Do that’, until he tells him ‘Go, serve idols’, and the person goes and does this.” The doubleness in one's behaviour is seen to be the result o f the working o f the evil inclination. In Sifre Deut. § 45 which is traditionally associated with the school of Rabbi Aqiba, it reads: “Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel:‘My children, I have created for you the Evil Inclination, (but I have at the same time) created for you the Torah as an antidote. As long as you occupy yourselves with the Torah, he shall not have dominion over you....” It is a safeguard against the evil inclination {Sifra Lev. 35:5; also b. Qid. 30b). The role of the Torah in controlling the evil inclination can hardly be more emphasized. By keeping the commandments of the Torah, one can overcome the impulse of one’s evil inclination, and hence merit salvation. We have noticed earlier (pp. 117-18) that Ezek. 36 forms the background for our understanding of the meaning of the implanted word. The “heart of stone” in Ezek 36:26 means “evil desire” in later rabbinic interpretation {Exod. R. 41:7; b. S u t 52a; cp. Targ. Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; Sifra Lev. 35:5). Ezeldel’s prophecy of a new spirit was inteipreted by the rabbis as referring to the evil inclination being rooted out of the heart of God’s people at the coming age of salvation {b. Ber 32 a, b.Suk. 52a). 289 The WorMeg and Control of the Evil Inclination in James 1:13-15: Temptation and the Evil Inclination In chapter one of James, the concept of evil inclination is expressed in terms of the response of one’s own desire in the context of temptation. The TreLpccopoç in 1:2, 12 undoubtedly refers to external affliction or trials, which are neutral in themselves. ïï€Lpao[iolç Often people have no choice over those testings (cf. 1:2: btav TrepiTreoqxe ttolklXolç ) . Testings are part of life’s reality. The verb form TTGLpctCeLv, either in passive or active, appears in 1:13-15, and carries a negative connotation, meaning “tempting to evil.” If this is the case, then our author is saying that “testings” as external objective circumstances may become the occasions for subjective “tempting to evil” within. In the words of Deppe (1989:61-62), “by 'ïï€Lpaoii6ç James means the outward pressures of life (1:1-12) which test the inward character of people tempting [TretpccCeiv] to despair of God’s presence and working (1:13-16).” Such understanding fits in perfectly with the description that God TTELpKCEL ouÔévK (l:13c), though he did test Abraham by commanding him to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:1) and test the people of Israel in the wilderness (Deut. 8:2; 13:4). God never intends those being tested to choose evil. Thus no one can say that “I am being tempted by God,” that is, tempted by God to do evil (1:13a). Only those who are being deceived (1:16: ïïXavâo0e), uncertain in their faith and lacldng in loyalty would make such a claim. TrXavr|0tj Wo ifjc WrjGeiaç). They are being led astray from the truth (5:19: The ground of the argument (y&p) is founded upon the very nature of God: He is WeCpaotoc; kkkcov . 290 The expression can be variously understood (cf. Davids 1978:390-91): as “inexperienced in evils” (Martin 1988:35), “incapable of being tempted by evils” (Burdick 1981:172) or "ought not to be tested by evil” (Davids 1978:391; 1982:82-83). Though the word eiTL8up.ia can be understood as something neutral, not only does the negative sense predominate in hellenistic moral discourse (see e.g., Epictetus, Discourses, 2.16, 45; 2.18, 8; 3.9, 21), in Diaspora Jewish literature (see e.g., 4 Macc. 1:3, 22,31; 2:6; 3:2; Philo, Spec. Leg. 4.93-94; Vit. Cont. 74) and in the NT (see. e.g., Mlc 4:19; Rom. 1:24; 6:12; 13:14; Gal. 5:16, 24; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14; 2 Pet. 2:10; 1 Jn 2:16-17), but the negative connotation of ireLpaCeLV employed here confinns that it is used in the sense of “lust” or “evil desire.” The voluntary nature of the desire is underlined by the use of the adjective ïÔLct, “one’s own.” The idea is probably drawn from the well known Jewish tradition of the evil inclination. It is one’s evil inclination within that is the efficient cause of one’s sinning. However, our author has not speculated here on whether the desire or evil inclination is created by God. The origin of the 4irL0i)[iLa simply has not been raised. Nor does he mention anything parallel to the presence of “good inclination” in humans as found in later Rabbinic literature. The evil desire in Jas l:14f. is personified (as in some Rabbinic writings) as the one who lures and entices one into sin (cf. Wis 4:11), yielding to inner temptation out of the testing situation. (elm...64...) The process from evil desire to sin then finally to death is vividly portrayed using the imagery of procreation, from conception to gestation, then to birth. The imagery may have been influenced by the portiayal 291 of Dame Folly as a harlot enticing men to sin in Prov. 9:13-18 (cf. 5:3-6; 6:24-34). The harlot promises to fulfil their desires, but the destiny of those being led astray is nothing but death. Here, what stimulates the evil desire can itself be neutral. It is the evil desire responding to it that gives rise to sin, manifested both in word and deed. The final outcome of sin rWoTeXeoSeXacri is death, in contradistinction to the process of the testing of faith that gives rise to perfection of character (1:4; xeleioL Kcd ôloKÂTipoL €v pT|0€VL lELiTopEvoL) and to life (1:12). Our author does not speculate on the origin of the desire nor ascribe any influence of evil spirits in this process. The description of “ireipaCemL Wo tfjç iôCaç WtOopLaç” highlights individual responsibility for sin. This process of desire-sin-death is in contrast to the process of faith-endurance-perfection/life in 1:3,12. The gifts from above are the means through which the process of faithendurance-perfection/life can be actualised and the process of desire-sin-death can be inhibited (1:17). These gifts involve the wisdom from above (1:5) and the word of truth which brings God’s people into existence (1:18). The concept of the Torah and wisdom as means through which the evil inclination can be kept in check and under control can be readily found in the early Jewish literature (Ben Sira, Philo, 4 Maccabees, 4 Ezra), as I have already outlined above. Keeping the law and submitting to the evil inclination are incompatible (see Test. XII Patr. and early apostolic writings). 4:5b'.The Spirit and the Evil Inclination Another explicit reference to the evil inclination can be found in 4:5b. 292 The quotation in 4:5b can be understood in at least three different ways. (i) It is a quotation from an unknown source (cp. 1 Cor 2:9; Eph 5:14; 1 Clem. 46:2). The use of an introductory formula in this way is not uncommon in Qumran writings (Ropes 1916:262; Dibelius and Greeven 1976:222-24; Mussner 1981:183-84).^ (ii) The reference is to the general sense of Scripture on the subject (cp. Rom. 11:8; Eph 5:14).^ (iii) It refers to a specific passage in the OT. quotation refers to Gen. 4:7. paraphrase” of Gen. 49:19. Findlay (1926) thinlcs that the Meyer (1930:259) thinks that it is a “midrashic Laws (1973) suggests that it implies a reference to verses like Pss. 42:1 (41:2) and 84:2 (83:3). Prockter (1989; followed by Wall 1997:204-05) thinks that it is alluding to Gen. 6-9 (LXX) on the example of Noah. As a whole, it seems that the first option is the best. Against (ii), the introductory fonnula strongly suggests that our author is quoting from some literary source. Against (iii), all the passages suggested fail to satisfy the criteria for a quotation. To TTveDpa in the quotation can be taken in four different ways: (i) The human spirit is the subject of the verb WiiroQeLv. ways: This can be interpreted in two different (a) the statement is taken as declarative indicative which means that the human spirit tends towards envious lust (Kuhn 1958:268 n.33; Prockter 1989:626; Wall 1997:203-04). (b) The sentence is taken interrogatively. It means that scripture indicates that human longing is directed to God, not controlled by envy: “Is ^ Sidebottom (1967:, 52-53) and Townsend (1994:79) suggest the Book ofEldadatidM odad. it is nothing more than a conjecture. But ^ Kjiowling (1904:99-100; collectively to a combination of passages such as Deut. 32:10, 19, 21; Zech. 1:14; 8:2; Isa. 63:8-16; Ezek. 36:17; Gen. 6:3-5); Blackman (1957:129; perhaps with Gen 6:3; Exod 20:5 in mind); Moo 1985:146; Martin 1988:149. 293 the human spirit directed by envy? No, according to Scripture it is directed towards God” (Laws 1973:214-15; 1980:177-79; Johnson 1995A:282). is the predicate of the verb eTrLTToGetv. (ii) The human spirit It means that God jealously yearns for the human spirit he created in humans (cf. Gal 5:17; Hort 1909:93-94; Dibelius and Greeven 1976:224; Davids 1982:164). Dibelius and Greeven (1976:224) regard ïïveîjpa as equivalent to the “heart.” Hermas {Man. 3.1) seems to interpret the saying in tenns of the good spirit (or inclination) God placed in human {Man. 5.1:24);^ (iii) the Holy Spirit is the subject of the verb èTriiroGelv. The Holy Spirit is seen as dwelling in humans in the NT (cf. Rom. 8:11-12; 1 Cor. 3:16). This can be understood in three different ways: (a) The Holy Spirit jealously yearns for human love (Mayor 1913:141-45; 226-27). (b) The Holy Spirit in us expresses a longing against human envy (Martin 1988:150-51 ). (c) In question form, it implicitly denies that the Holy Spirit expresses envious desires: “Does the Holy Spirit in us envy lustfully? No” (Sidebottom 1967:53). (iv) The Holy Spirit is the predicate of the verb èïïLTroGeLv: God jealously desires the Holy Spirit which he caused to dwell to us (Jeremias 1959). Though the idea of God’s jealousy can be found in the OT, the words used here (j)06 voç and WiiroGeLv play no part in expressing such an idea. #G6vo(; is always used in a negative sense both in the LXX and the NT, especially in the vice lists (also Ps.-Phoc,10-15). It would be unsuitable to use this word in relation to ^According to Hermas, God is supposed to have given humans a clean spirit “icatc^KLoev 4v tfi oapKi tauxxi” and humans are supposed to return to him that same spirit uncontaminated. Yet humans can turn that to a lying spirit. 294 God/ ’ETTLïïoGeîv is never used in the LXX (11 times) to translate the Hebrew verb N3p for God being jealous. The only occasion where this verb is used with God as its subject is in the eagle image of Deut 32:11. times) as human longing. It is always used in the NT (13 Though (j)06voç and may overlap in their respective semantic domains, as is evidenced in 1 Macc. 8:16; 1 Clem. 3:2; 4:7; 5:2; T. Sim 4:5 where they appear to be used interchangeably with reference to human envy, and as those who support God as the subject of the sentence would like to argue, it still does not mean that (jîôovoç can be used in relation to God. On the other hand, there is no support for ïïveûpa here as referring here to the Holy Spirit, though the concept of the Holy Spirit dwelling in humans is common in the NT (see, e.g. Rom. 8:11-12; 1 Cor, 3:16). The only time Tryeupa occurs in James is in 2:16 where it clearly refers to the human spirit. Thus the spirit that God has caused to dwell (icatcpicLoev)^ in humans most probably refers to the human spirit. Though it is true that the passage here shares with the Qumran literature (IQS 3-4) and Test. XII Patr. (see T. Dan 5:1-3; 6:1-2; T. Jos. 10:2-3; T. Ben. 6:4) a similar symbolic framework on ethical dualism, it is doubtful that here we have any reference to the cosmological spirit found in the Qumran literature and Test. XII Patr. (pace Johnson 1995A:281). More likely, in the light of 1:13-15, it is referring to the presence of evil inclination in humans. It must be said that it does not mean that ^ Some recognise the difficulty, but simply accept it as an exception, see Mayor 1913:145; Hort 1909:94; Davids 1982:164. ^ The intransitive causative form icaxcoKLaev (p^^ A B T 049 104 etc.) is better attested than the intransitive form icaxcpKT)0 €v (K L P 056 0142) which is a more common word than the causative form. It is also more difficult theologically. Pace Adamson, 173 n.37. It is in accord with the Judaic reserve in using the divine name. 295 the full-blown doctrine of the double inclinations as found in rabbinic tradition is what occurs here, as Wall (1997:203) seems to suggest. Hennas {Man. 3.1-2) seems to be closer to its original meaning of the spirit as inclination than later commentators: “...allow only the truth to come from your mouth, in order that the spirit, which God caused to love in this flesh, may prove to be true in the sight of all men.... For they received from him a spirit uncontaminated by deceit. If they return this as a lying spirit, they have polluted the Lord’s commandment and become thieves”. The phrase Trpoç (|)06yov is admittedly difficult because of its rare construction, but is usually taken to be adverbial, meaning “jealously.” “oppose envy” here (pace Martin 1988:141 n.g.). ïïp oç It should not mean As noticed by Mayor (1913:143) can mean “against” only when joined with a word implying hostility. have this meaning when joined with the word èTuiroGeLv. It cannot Thus the quotation could be translated as: “Does the (human) spirit which He made to dwell in us yearn jealously?” In 4:6a, once again, as in 1:5 and 1:17, our author emphasises the generosity of God as a gift-giver. The peCCcov xccpiq does not refer to the offer of forgiveness, as Davids (1982:164) argues. the evil desire. Prov. 3:34. The primary thought here is counteracting the power of The phrase ôlôcùolv %&pLv is talcen from the following citation from If one is humble and willing to submit before God, his grace is sufficient to overcome the power of the evil inclination. The objection of Davids (1982:163) and Martin (1988:150), that it would be a 296 return to the description of human natuie in w . 1-3 and thus discontinuous with 4:4 which is a call to repentance is only apparent rather than real. The rhetorical question set up in 4:5 is answered by God’s grace in 4:6a (taking 0€ as adversative)^ that allows one to tackle the problem of evil inclination. basis for exhortation in 4:7-10. Together they form the As found in 4 Ezra, God eventually will be the one who has the power to remove the evil root (8:53). Evil Inclination in the Rest o f James The association of the evil inclination with various vices in early Jewish and Cliristian traditions suggests that in James anger (1:19-20), the alliance with the devil (cf. 3:15; 4:7), the indulgence in feasting (4:3), the pride of wealth (4:13-17), and greed (5:1-4) are seen as worldngs of the evil inclinations within. The word f|0ovq that occurs in 4:1 and 4:3 can be seen as a synonjnn for èiriGupia. They are put side by side as hendiadys in Tit. 3:3 À o L irà (e m G u p ia ig €TriÔupiat//Lk. 8:14: qôovcSv t o u piou). kccl fiô o v a lç 'rroLKiXociç; cf. Mk 4:19: xk Moreover, our author locates the origin of the fightings within the messianically renewed community in the “passions which are at war within your members” (4:1b). Some understand the “members” in 4:1b as different persons within the community (as Ropes 1916:253), while others regard them as referrring to divisions within the individual (as Laws 1980:168). Still others advocate a mediating position with the “conflicts and disputes among you” in 4:1a referring to "inner-community conflicts occasioned by the party spirit of ^Davids 1982:164; Moo 1996:146£; Johnson 1995A:282;pace Laws (1980:186f.) who regards the de, as continuative. 297 the teachers,” while the “war within you” of 4:1b reflects “a movement from external conflict in the community to its internal basis” (Davids 1982:156-57)/ Since the word riôovq in the NT (“craving;” see 4:3; Lk. 8:14; Tit 3:3; 2 Pet. 2:13; Hennas, Sim. 8.8:5; 9:4) is always understood in the negative sense as indulgence and lack of control over natural desire, it is better to see the “cravings” not as competing “passions” within the individual, some good and some bad, but the destructive passions that cause divisions within the community (cf. also 4:2: èïïLGupeîi-»). The evil inclination that manifests itself in various cravings is regarded as the cause of divisions within the community. The double-souled are those who are enticed by their own evil inclination to persist in those sensual pleasures (cf. Hennas, Sim. 8.8:5; 9:4). In turning away from the world/devil towards God, and resisting duplicity, one has to deal with the evil inclination within. This can only be done if one is willing to repent and keep the commandments of God. Eventually, the power of the evil inclination is seen to have been broken by the grace and gift of God through the working of the word of truth and the wisdom from above. Thus Lohse (1991:175) is mistaken in stating that James “loiows neither the profound lostness of the human condition nor the power of Christ’s redemption that alone is able to save.” James simply expresses it in a different way. ^ Davids (1974:375) is, however, wrong in talcing 4:1-10 as about the battle o f the good and evil impulse in humans. 298 D. Concluding Observations Perfection consists in loving God wholeheartedly and keeping his commandments, and doubleness means loving God halfheartedly and failing to keep his commandments. Though no direct linlc can be found in the relationship between doubleness and evil-inclination, its connection has been made clear in Rabbinic writings. Though presumably these writings are late, the understanding of the evil inclination as a cause of doubleness fits in well with the whole picture. The double-souled can thus be seen as one who yields to the persuasion of one’s own inclination to sin, and thus wavers in loyalty to God. The problems the community members were facing is expressed in terms of doubleness. Doubleness of behaviour can be seen in partiality (2: lb-5), inconsistency with professing faith without works (2:14-26), and doubleness of speech (3:9-12; 5:12). The evil inclination is manifested concretely in one’s anger (1:19-20), in envy and strife (4:13), in speaking evil against each other (4:11), in pride (4:13-17) and greed (5:1-5). Abraham, being a lover of God, is the prototype of one who has suppressed his evil inclination to fulfil God’s will with a perfect heart (“undivided heart”), as demonstrated in his sacrifice of Isaac. Though there is no explicit two ways imagery here, a moral dualism in terms of two contrasting processes with contrasting principles, moral statements of requirements and results is present. processes? What constitutes the differences in the two For the process of faith-endurance-perfection/life, it is the gift of wisdom coming through the prayer of faith; for desire-sin-death, it is one’s double- 299 souledness, the opposite of faith(fulness). One’s disloyalty to God eventually leads one down the road of deception (error), sin and death (1:14-15; 5:20). On the other hand, those who will receive the crown of life are those who show by their response to the testings that they love God wholeheartedly (1:12; cf. 2:5). Loving God wholeheartedly finds its evidence in the prayer of faith for wisdom (1:5; cf. 5:16-18). There is a parallel in IQH 6[14].26b: “1 love you liberally, with (my) whole heart, [with (my) whole soul to look for] your wisdom,....” This coupling of faith and love reflects the covenantal loyalty (ion) that God requires of his covenantal community. 300 By investigating the concept of perfection and doubleness in early Jewish and early Christian writings, their relationship with law and wisdom in James can be made clearer. Perfection consists in loving God wholeheartedly as stated in the Shema^ and keeping his commandments. The evil inclination, which is the cause of doubleness, can only be controlled by studying and keeping the law. The relationship between evil inclination, the world, and the devil is further clarified. The devil collaborates with the evil inclination to compel people to choose the values of the world. James seems to be familiar with those concepts at his time and puts the concepts together in his own unique way. The study above also helps to understand the nature of perfection and doubleness in James. The former consists of integrity, purity and righteousness while the latter consists of deception, hypocrisy, dividedness and sinfulness. The pursuit for perfection and the predicament of doubleness also show the major concerns of our author in his work. In James^ people who go along the way of error (irXavriç ôôoç; 5:19) are allying themselves with the world, the devil and the earthly wisdom. These people will eventually end up in severe judgement and death (5:20; cf. 1:15). This is our author’s heartfelt pastoral concern in his work. The only way to coimteract their influences is by the giacious gift of the Word of Truth from God through which a renewed people of God come to existence. Conversion, however, has not completely eradicated the evil inclination which is still 301 a constant source of trouble and needs persistent tackling. these renewed people of God will not be left helpless. With the implanted word, God is integral in the sense that he is entirely committed to help his people in giving them wisdom and his word. By adhering to this implanted word with wholehearted loyalty towards God (as confessed in the S h em d \ doing what the law requires (as understood through the love command), and reminding each other of their responsibility as God’s renewed people, they will be on the way to perfection and to life/salvation. Johnson (1985) may have overstated his case in seeing the choices between friendship with God and friendship with the world as the conceptual framework for the whole work. However, his suggestion corresponds to my understanding of the choice between perfection and doubleness, with the former informed by the axiomatic command of the ShemcT and the latter finding its origin in the evil inclination, the world and the devil. This choice is expressed concretely in whether one obeys the law. 302 PART FIVE The EscbaWogical Existence o f the Messianically Renewed People of God It is beyond doubt that Jesus’ preaching and ministry centred around the bringing about of God’s kingdom. In the lifetime of Jesus, despite his openness to the Gentiles, his attention was predominantly on Israel (Mt. 10:6; 15:24; cf. Me 7:27). He was concerned with the eschatological gathering of God’s people starting with Israel. With his appearance, the time is fulfilled with the ancient promises for the last days becoming reality. Israel had to take hold of this salvation offered to them in repentance and renewal. The eaily Jesus movement is a messianic one grounded on the assumption that the kingdom of God has broken in through the person and ministry of Jesus. With it is the creation of a messianically renewed community of God’s people that is transformed in all dimensions of its existence. It is a community transformed by the presence of the power of the kingdom, guided by the teaching of Jesus and God’s spirit, and waiting for the second coming of Christ with the final manifestation of the glorious kingdom. For James^ the interpretation and the embodiment of the Law is directed towards this eschatological community and shapes its identity and character. A. The Eschatological People of God as Restoration of the Twelve Tribes The Addressee as the Diaspora o f the Twelve Tribes Reference to the twelve tribes evokes a central point in Israel’s eschatological hope. The return of the twelve tribes associated with the hope for the future 303 restoration of Israel originates with the exilic and post-exilic prophets and can be found in the later apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings. According to Isa. 49:6, the servant of the Lord is “to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel.” 56:8). God will eventually gather his people with his great mercy (Isa. 54:7; The prophet begs God to regather the tribes of God’s heritage (Isa. 63:17). The understanding of the people in exile as the poor is also connected with the eschatological hope that God will eventually deliver them from captivity among the gentile nations. ^ Ezek. 37:15-28 predicts a time that the tribes of Israel and Judah will be reunited with David as their king and with God dwelling among them. Once again, the land will be divided among the twelve tribes as their inheritance (Ezek.. 47:13).^ In Sir. 36:13, 16, probably alluding to Ezek. 47:13, Ben Sira prays to God to “gather all the tribes of Jacob, and give them their inheritance as at the beginning.” However, whether the prayer in 36:1-17 is Ben Sira’s own composition remains uncertain. Yet, in 48:10, it is umnistakable that Ben Sira citing Mai. 3:23-24 with Isa. 49:6 is referring to a coming Elijah who will inaugurate a time to restore Israel. The Qumran literature shows particular interest in the number “twelve”: the community council which consists of twelve laymen along with three priests (IQS 8.1-2), the twelve chief priests and twelve representative Levites, “one per tribe” ^The reversal o f fortune o f the poor as the true people of God is also connected with the restoration motif In Isa. 61:1-2, e.g., the poor are a group with a definite eschatological destiny. See our discussion on the “poor” below. ^ See also Deut. 30:3; Isa. 11:11-12, 15-16; 27:12-13; Hos. 11:10-11; 1er. 23:3; 29:14; 31:8, 10; 32:37; Ezek. 11:17; 28:25; 34:13; 36:24; 39:27; c f Ps. 122:3-5. 304 (IQM 2.2-3), the twelve commanders of the twelve tribes, along with the “prince” (IQM 5.1-3), and twelve loaves of bread offered by the heads of the tribes (11Q19 18.14-16). In IQM 1.1-2, “the Sons of Levi, the Sons of Judah and the Sons of Benjamin” and “the Exiled of the Desert, ” that is, the exiled sons of light, will wage war against the sons of darlmess, the army of Belial, the company of Edom and Moab and the sons of Ammon. A pesher on Isa. 10:24-27 linlcs this return from the desert or wilderness with the arrival of the Leader (K'»ïï3) of the nation, probably the Davidic Messiah (4Q161 frgs. 2-6 2.14-25). The exiled sons of light are the members of the sectarian community and constitute the twelve tribes of Israel. Also 4Q164 interprets Isa. 54:11 as concerning “the chiefs of the tribes of Israel in the las[t djays.” Jackson-McCabe (1996:513) notices that IQSa, with its heavy reliance on Nmnbers, suggests “the sect expected an eschatological reenactment of the conquest.” A significant number of references are found in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings relating to the hope of the regathering of God’s people in the land of Israel.^ Tobit speaks of the gathering of the children of Israel by God from the exile (13:5) and how all will dwell in Jerusalem and live in safety forever in the land of Abraham (14:7). Sib. Or. 2.154-175 see one of the eschatological signs ^Tob. 13:5,13; Bar. 2:34; 4:37; 5:5; 2 Macc. 1:27; 2:7; Sol 8:28; 11:2; 17:26,28,44; 1:15; 1 En. 57; 90:33; T. Benj. 9:2; 4 Ezra 13:12-13, 39-49; Bar. 4:36-37; 5:5; Sib. Or. 3.282-94; T. Moses 4:: 1-9; 2 Apoc. Bar. 77:6; 78:7. In the Isaiah Targum, see 6:13; 8:18; 27:6; 35:6, 10; 42:7; 46:11; 51:11; 66:9; cf. Targ. Neof. Num. 24:7; Targ. Jer. 30:18; Targ. Hos. 2:2; 14:8; Tatg. Mic. 5:3. According to Halpem-Amaru (1997), the emphasis on restoration in Jubilees is more on restoration o f a lost purity rather than a return to the land as a signature of the imminent eschaton. It has also been suggested that both the Diaspora Revolt (115-117 G.E.) and the Bar Kokliba Revolt may have been fiieled by this eschatological hope o f the return o f Israel. For further details on the concept of exile and return in Jewish Apocalyptic literature, see VanderKam 1997. 305 as “the gathering together” when “a people of ten tribes will come from the east to seek the people, which the shoot of Assyria destroyed, of their fellow Hebrews.” Then the nations will perish after all these signs and the “faithful chosen Hebrews In Pss. Sol. 17:21-34, the psalmist will rule over exceedingly mighty men.” intercedes for a messiah who will gather a holy people and judge the tribes of the people (cf. 8:28). Like the Davidic king of Israel, he will also “distribute them T. Benj. 9:2 promises a time when “the upon their land according to their tribes.” twelve tiibes shall be gathered there [God’s temple] and all the nations, until such time as the Most High shall send forth his salvation through the ministration of the unique prophet.” This idea of the unique prophet finds its origin in Deut. 18:15 and figures importantly in messianic expectation. Some Qumran texts also refer to an eschatological prophet, possibly a messianic figure, someone similar to Elijah (IQS 9.10-11; IQS" 2.11-12; 4Q175; 4Q521). For 4 Ezra 13:1-13, the one like a son of man in the dream will bring about the ingathering of the exiles of Israel (esp. w . 1213). The northern ten (or nine and a half; in Syr., Eth., and Ar. translations) tribes will be regathered in peace {4 Ezra 13:29-39; see Stone 1990:404). In 2 Bar. 78:6-7, Baruch speaks to those who were carried away to captivity in his letter, saying that if they remove ft-om their hearts the idle errors, God “will not forget or forsake our offspring, but with much mercy will assemble all those again who were dispersed” (cf. 68:2-7; 85:3-9). In Philo’s exposition of Lev. 26 and Deut. 28-30, he seems to assume that Israel will eventually repent and return to the Land and enjoy greater prosperity than ever before {Praem. Poen. 162-172). This may be connected with his messianic 306 expectation of the coming of a “man” (cf LXX Num. 24:7) as the commander-inchief of Israel to win the victory over all its enemies (Praem. Poen. 79-97; cf VH. Mos. 1.290). Then there will be universal peace based on the keeping of the law of God(7/rf. 119-120).' The institution of the “Twelve” in the gospel traditions in all probability has to do with the hope of Israel’s restoration and probably goes back to Jesus himself (Sanders 1985:98-106; Horsley 1993A: 199-200, 206; Wright 1996:430-31). Lk. 22:30//Mt. 19:28 speak of the twelve disciples/apostles sitting on (twelve) thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The saying very likely is derived from Q.^ Jesus’ mission is to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 10:6; 15:24; cf. Isa. 53:6; Jer. 50:6; Ezek.. 34) which implies the regathering of Israel.^ Mlc 13:27 alludes to Zech. 2:10-16 (LXX:6-12)"^ that envisages a regathering and restoration of the exiles.^ In Revelation, the saints are identified as 144,000 evenly drawn from the twelve tribes of Israel (7:4-8; 14:1, 3; cf. 21:12-13).^ In Lev. R. 7:3, one of the merits of studying the Mishnah is that all the exiles ^For a detailed argument on the nationalistic eschatology of Pliilo, see Scott 1995. ^ For arguments supporting its authenticity, see Sanders 1985:98-106; Wright 1996:299-301. See esp. the analysis o f Lk. 22:24-30 in Evans 1993. For a study on the restoration motif in Matthew, see Charette 1992:64 ^ On the authenticity o f this saying, see Meyer 1979:167-68, 297-98 n.l29. The “lost sheep” does not refer to just the lost ten tribes, but to the nation as a whole, see Davies and Allison 1991:551. 4Q448B also alludes to Zech 2:10 and seems to imply a desire for the ingathering o f the exiles; see Scott 1997:568. ^ See esp. Allison 1989. He notices that in the biblical tradition, “east” often refers to Assyria or Babylon, while “west” points to Egypt. In a number o f OT passages, return from exile is taken as a return from Assyria and Egypt (cf. Isa. 27:13; Hos. 11:11; Zech 10:10). Cf. Mt. 8:11-12; Lk. 13:2829 where the ingathering possibly includes also Gentiles (also Tob. 14:5-7). ^ See esp. Bauckham (1991) on the interpretation of the twelve tribes in Revelation. 307 will be gathered. In 9.6, R-Eleazar is supposed to interpret “Awake, O north” as “when the exiled coiniminities stationed in the north will be awakened, they will come and find rest in the south” (cf. Jer. 31:8). This interpretation is paralleled with two others: when “the Messianic King whose place is in the north will come and rebuild the sanctuary which is situated in the south;” in this world, north and south winds do not blow at the same time, but in the time to come, the brightening, clearing wind will blow in which the two winds fimction. These interpretations associate the regathering of the dispersed with the coming of the Messiah or the age to come. A similar understanding can also be found in the Isaiah Targum with the Lord’s servant Messiah bringing the exiles back to Israel (6:13; 42:1-7; 53:8; 54:7; 66:9; cf. Targ. 1 Sam 2:5; Targ. Jer. 31:23). The hope of the regathering of the tribes is also expressed in the tenth benediction of the ’Amidah in the synagogue liturgy. Midr. Fs. 122:4 also looks forward to a time when God’s presence will rest on Israel and will testify to the twelve tribes that they are truly God’s people, in reply to the question of whether the twelve tribes had indeed been preserved through the time of exile. Such expectation of the twelve tribes is also found in t. Sank 13:10. This does not mean that “the twelve tribes in the diaspora” is only a symbol of the Christian church (pace Kom*adt 1998:64-66). literal sense here as the land outside Palestine. The word ôLaoiropà is used in a Such usage is different from 1 Pet. 1:1 where the word is used metaphorically to refer to the Christian people of God.^ ^ The word ÔLocoiropcc occurs 12 times in the LXX (Deut. 28:25; 30:4; Neh. 1:9; Jdt. 5:19; Isa. 49:6; 1er. 15:7; 41:17; Ps. 146:2; 2 Macc. 1:27; Dan. 12:2; Pss. Sol. 8:28; 9:2) all referring to the literal dispersion o f Israel and often associated with God’s scattering of liis people as punisliment o f their sins. That may be the reason why early Christian writers did not use the term to designate the church. See the definitive study by van Unnik 1983, 1993. Yet he is mistaken in not recognizing one exception to 308 As Bauckham has shown, the whole diaspora the west and the east, consists of the twelve tribes which were contemporaneous with the author of James} In addition, our author has not distinguished the addressees as Christians probably because He does not see it [the early Christian group] as a specific sect distinguished from other Jews, but as the nucleus of the messianic renewal of the people of Israel which was under way and which would come to include all Israel. Those Jews who acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah are the twelve tribes of Israel, not in an exclusive sense so as to deny other Israelites this title, but with a kind of representative inclusiveness. What James addresses in practice to those Jews who already confess the Messiah Jesus, he addresses in principle to all Israel (Bauckham 1997:154; see also Verseput 1998:702). Thus it makes little sense to speak of James" teaching of love as concerned more with loving the insiders (as Wall 1997:97). The Firstfruits o f God"s Creation In the OT, the firstfruits of the field, all produce (both raw and processed) and flocks are to be consecrated and offered to God according to sacerdotal prescriptions (Exod 22:28; 23:19; Deut. 18:4; 26:2,10; Num. 18:8-12; Neh. 10:37; cf. Jdt. 11:13). The offerings of firstfruits provides the redemption of the harvest, as the firstborn of people and animals also do (Exod. 13:2-16; Num. 3:12-16). In Neh. 10:36-37, the firstfruits of all the hai^vest is put side by side with the firstborn of the people and livestock that have to be offered to God as a thanksgiving offering and for the this rule in 1 Pet. 1:1. ^ See, e.g., Josephus who says nothing about the regathering of the twelve tribes, but believes that the ten tribes were not really lost, but still living “beyond the Euphrates” (Ant. 11.5.2 § 133). He also knows tlie names o f the twelve tribes inscribed on precious stones worn by the high priest (Wof’ 5.5.7 § 233-34). 309 support of the priesthood. In a special sense, the “first” is also supposed to be the best, the “choicest” (Rigsby, ABD\ 2,796). harvest. It is the harbinger and sample of the full Then it is used figuratively with Israel (Jer. 2:3; rr^mn). Philo speaks of Israel as “a kind of firstfruits to the Maker and Father” (Spec. Leg. 4.180). The idea, however, is not very common in Jewish tradition. The figure is used exclusively in a metaphorical sense in the NT. The presence of the Holy Spirit with believers is the firstfruit, an indication of that which is to come (Rom. 8:23). In this sense “first in a sequence” is Christ’s resurrection as the “firstfruits of those who have died” (1 Cor. 15:20; / Clem. 24:1). In the same way, Israel, in the hnage of the dough in Rom. 11:16, is also like the first piece whose holiness assures the holiness of the entire lump, a sample pointing to the greater yield. Epaenetus is the firstfiuits of the Christians in Asia (Rom. 16:5), and the household of Stephanus is also the firstfruits of the Christians in Achaia (1 Cor. 16:15) in the sense that they are the first converts in a sequence (cf. 1 Clem. 42:4; also 2 Thess. 2:13). In Rev. 14:4, the “followers of the Lamb” are redeemed from humankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb. In the same manner, in Jas 1:18, those reborn are “a kind of firstfruits,” the first in a sequence, in which other “creatures” (icTLoiiaia) will come to follow. Our author conceives of the renewed messianic people of God as the prelude to the new creation of the whole world, the representative beginning of the redemption of the world (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:10; 4:24). Such description also points forward to the time when God’s intention (cf. 1:18: pouXqGek) to redeem his whole 310 creation will be completed. Meanwhile, the eschatological community of God’s people as recipient of the word of truth has entered the new order where the powers of evil (or evil inclination) have been broken. The People who Hold to the 'Faith o f Jesus Christ ” The special identity of those our author addressed is given in 2:1 as those having “ ttiv ttlotlv t o u icupCou fipwv T t| o q u Xpiotob xfjç ôo^i^ç” (cf. 2:7).^ the exact meaning of the phrase is a matter of much dispute. However, Firstly, there is a problem concerning the text where some MSS (614 syr^) have tfiç immediately after “irCcrcLy,” which then translates as “glorious faith” (Reicke 1964:27). Yet such a reading is poorly attested and malces no sense in emphasising the faith as being glorious in our present context. The genitive “xfjç may qualify KupCou yielding the translation “faith in our Lord of glory (or glorious Lord) Jesus Christ” (as Moo 1985:88-89; Johnson 1995A:220-21; Wall 1997:108) which finds its parallel in 1 Cor. 2:8 {Barn. 21:9). such an understanding. The position of the genitive xq; Ôo^qç speaks against Some understand xqç Ôo^qç as a genitive of apposition, with "the Glory” becoming a title for the Lord Jesus Christ (Hort 1909:47-48; Mayor 1913:80-82; Laws 1980:95-97).^ That is surely possible. However, the simplest solution is to regard xqç ôo^qç as a Hebrew genitive of quality qualifying the entire phrase xou icupCou qpûv Tqoou XpLoxou meaning “our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (as. ' Some argue that this phrase is a later interpolation, see, e.g., Meyer 1930:118-21. is no textual evidence for such a hypothesis. However, there ^ Adamson (1976:103-04) rearranges the text to read “the Lord Jesus Christ our glory.” proposal is textually groundless. 311 His e.g., Mussner 1981:116; Davids 1982:106-07; Hartin 1991:95). It does justice to both the word order of the entire expression and understands “our Lord Jesus Christ” as a title for Jesus which is also found elsewhere in the NT (Gal. 6:18; Eph. 6:24). It is, however, better to translate the text as: “our Lord Jesus Christ of glory” retaining its close resemblance to the “Lord of glory. Another difficulty concerns whether the genitive of xou icupLou should be taken as objective or subjective. Most take the genitive construction in the objective sense as referring to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ of glory (Ropes 1916:187; Dibelius and Greeven 1976:127-28; Martin 1988:59). scholars thinlr otherwise. However some recent Johnson (1995A:220) offers two arguments against the objective use: (1) It is unnatural to have “faith in Christ” in James and faith is directed to “God who is father” (2:19, 23); and (2) “faith of Jesus Christ” should be understood as “the faith that is from Jesus Christ,” that is, the body of teachings “declared by Jesus.” In this way, 2:1 can connect well with the Jesus saying 2:5 as well as to the “royal law” (2:8). in In reply, it is presumptuous to say what is possible and what is not possible with our author. In James, with the use of the word “Lord,” God and Jesus Christ are put into very close proximity (see below). In 1:1, our author calls himself “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Moreover, ttioxlç is never understood as a body of belief or teaching in James. However, faith in Jesus would involve faith-obedience to Jesus’ teaching. way, 2:1 can still be connected with the Jesus saying in 2:5, 8. In this Wall (1997:109-10; ^ Burchard (1991:358) argues that the terminology is deliberately ambiguous and multivalent referring to different aspects o f the concept o f glory as related to Christ. 312 also Dimn 1991:732; Wallis 1995:175-76), on the other hand, contends that “faith of Jesus” means the same as in Pauline witness (Gal. 3:22; Rom. 3:22) as the obedience or faithfulness of Jesus with emphasis on his faithfulness to God’s law in his life time in caring for the needy (1:27). belonging to him. This faith is exemplary for the community Wall is reading a certain interpretation of the Pauline understanding of “faith of Jesus” into James. There is no indication at all in James that our author is pointing to the example of Jesus. The messianic people of God are those who hold on to the faith in “our Lord Jesus Christ of glory.” The expression exeiy ïïiatLv is also found in 2:14, 18 meaning “in tmsting obedience to” or “faithful commitment to.” According to our author, to have faith in Jesus Christ would mean to be obedient to the royal law, the “kingdom law” proclaimed by Christ. dealing with people. Such a person would not be partial in one’s Everyone is treated equally before the court of justice.^ The word “glory” has close association with kingship in the OT. king of glory (Pss. 24:7-10; 29:3). 24:11; cf. 2 Macc. 2:8). God is the God himself is the Lord of glory (LXX Num. There will be a time when the whole world will see God’s glory in creation as well as in his achieving salvation for and with his people (Isa. 60:Iff.; Hab. 2:14; Ps. 57:6-12). In Jas 2:5, faith is also associated with the kingdom in which Christians are its heir. It is possible to see a connection with the expression of “holding on to the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ of glory”: Jesus is the ^ For the partiality issue here as referring to a court situation rather than worship, see Ward 1966A:23-107; 1969:41-107. Note that the messianic community already used the word “church” with reference to themselves. 313 Lord of glory who brings about the eschatological kingdom and those who believe in him will be included as heirs of the Idngdom/ Christ is the one who has been glorified and enthroned, having supreme power and authority overall. The phrase €v TcS ovopccTL xo\) icupCoi) which is used twice in James (5:10, 14) points to that power which is accessible to his people for their perfection in faith (cf. Acts 3:6, 16; 4:10, 30; 16:18). Christians are those who invoke this excellent name (2:7; Henn. Sim. 8.6:4; cf. 9.14:6). The renewed people of God is characterised by its faith in “our Lord Jesus Christ of glory”: a faith that sees from the perspective of God in contrast to the perspective of the world (2:5) which is “not participating in the reversal of values taking place within the sphere of faith” (Verseput 1997B:88). It is no exaggeration to say with Verseput (1997B:88) that the expression “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” functions “as the single most essential identifying feature” of this community of the renewed people of God. ^ Following the lead o f Hoppe (1977:72-78; also Luck 1984:22), Hartin (1991:95-97) argues that since in Pauline writings, the phrase “the Lord o f glory” is connected with the person of Jesus in a wisdom context (Eph, 1:17; 3:10-12; 1 Cor. 2:6-8), it is justifiable to understand Jas 2:1 against such background and see Jesus as the eschatological Lord o f glory who is the wisdom of God. Yet the existence o f the “gloiy” and “wisdom” language alone in a single document does not justify the identification o f the Lord o f glory with the wisdom o f God. There is no explicit nor implicit association o f them in James. In reality, Hartin’s assertion is based more on a perceived trajectory of development to a fully developed wisdom cliristology stemming from Q (Jesus as the envoy o f wisdom), through James (the identification o f exalted Jesus with wisdom), to Matthew (earthly Jesus as the incarnation o f wisdom). However, its circularity is revealed when the assertion is used to show that there is a gradual progression in the personification o f wisdom. See esp. the incisive critique o f Bauckham 1993:299 and Peimer 1996:116-20. 314 B, Eschatology as Motivation of Behaviour The Final End: The Parousia o f the Lord Most significantly, the eschatology of James is closely connected to the one who is the Lord. It is, however, far from clear to whom the icopioq is referring, whether God or Christ. The word icnp loç occurs fourteen times in James. is used as part of the designation of the Lord Jesus Christ (1:1; 2:1). Twice it Once it is used in conjunction with Tratqp which most scholars understand as referring to God as indicated by the one article governing both icuptog and iraTrjp (3:9). juxtaposition of Lord with God in 1:5-7 clearly shows that KijpLoç refers to God. we have noticed before, Kupioç occurs only four times before 4:10. is used fifteen times in James but never after 4:10. The As The word ôtoç The concentration of its occurrence coincides with the work’s intensifying emphasis on eschatology. In 4:10, it is the activity of the Lord to lift up those who humble themselves before him at present in the eschatological reversal. found in the mpouaLa xou ictjpLoi) (5:8). judgement upon all (5:9). The time for such lifting up is The Lord is the one who is to come to bring In 5:4, it is qualified by the word 0cc(3aco0. The entire phrase represents the Hebrew nirr» (Lord of hosts) in the OT emphasising not only the majesty and transcendence of God, but particularly in Isaiah the imminent judgement upon the wicked. He is the Almighty One who hears the plea of the oppressed, comes to their rescue and reverses the situation. that show icupLot; as refemng to Christ. 315 There are indications Westennann (1982:58-60) rightly points out that in the OT, the future is contained in God’s coming. It must be said that not all comings of God constitute eschatology, but they are often related to God’s saving intervention for one’s aid (Exod. 15:21; Judg. 5:4-5; Ps. 18:8-16; Hab. 3:3-15; Mic. 1:3-4; and etc.). come to rescue as well as to judge (Ps. 96:1-2; Isa. 2:12, 19). not only what is to come but who is coming to do what. God will The future concerns Later, the anointed one sent by Yahweh performs the same function with God (Zech. 9:9-10; cf. Dan. 7:13). During the second temple period, such a role is also assigned to various mediator figures such as Enoch, Michael, Elijah and the Son of Man. ■ïïctpouoL a However the word (5:7) is never used in the LXX with reference to the coming of God or any divine figures. In the NT, the expression TrapouaCa to u icupLou becomes a technical expression for the second coming of Christ (Mt. 3:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8; 2 Pet. 1:16; 3:4; 1 In 2:28).* Most scholars therefore agree that in Jas 5:8, the Lord refers to Christ (Dibelius and Greeven 1976:242-43; Mussner 1981:201; Martin 1988:190). The reference to the Lord as Christ can also be said of 5:14-15, where by calling upon the name of the Lord, one can be healed of one’s sickness (cf. Mk 9:38; 9:39; Mt. 18:5; Acts 3:6; 4:7; 14:10; 16:18). However, all other references after 4:10 are rather ambiguous and can refer to either God or Christ. The ambiguity is created as a result of attributing the divine functions to Christ particular ly with reference to the final judgement in the primitive teachings of the church.^ The “Day of the Lord” in the OT becomes “that ^ For the referential shift o f the Day o f the Lord from God to Christ in Pauhne writings, see esp. Kreitzer 1987:113-28 ^ Such attribution o f divine functions to a coming messiah is also seen in 4 Ezra 12:31-33; 13:1-58; 2 316 day” (Mk 13:24-29; M t 24:26-33; 25:31-46; Lk. 17:22-31; Jn 14:18-20; 16:22-26; 2 Tim. 1:12, 18; 4:8; cf. Rev. 16:14), the day of the coming of Christ (Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Cor.. 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2:1-3; Jude 14). Our author here seems not to be interested in malting a clear distinction between the two. However, as Klein (1997:163-76) rightly points out, James" s Christology is tied closely with its eschatology, with Jesus being conceived primarily as the coming Judge. The emphasis on the imminence of the coming of Christ (Jas 5:8: q TrapouaLa TOÛ KupCoD qyyiKey) is also characteristic of early Christian preaching (Mt. 3 :2; Lk. 21:31; Rom. 13:12; Heb. 10:25; 1 Pet. 4:7; Rev. 1:3; 22:10). Laws (1980:209) rightly points out: “A declaration of the nearness of the End seems often to be associated with the experience, or expectation, of suffering, and therefore with the assurance that this will not have to be long endured.” Our author describes it graphically as “the judge is standing at the doors” (5:9). ‘ The judge here probably refers to Christ (as in Mlc 13:29), rather than God (Mussner 1981:205; pace Laws 1980:213).^ He is ready to act on behalf of his people. damnation for the oppressors. It is their “qpepa That day will be the day of o c jja y q c ” (5:5) ^ when God takes Bar. 3:53-76; 40:1; 72:2; 1 En. 45:3; 46; 55:4; 69:27-29. For detail, see Kreitzer 1987:29-91. also Bauckham 1990:288-302 for the exegetical tradition in the NT o f such a transference. ^“The early and the late rain” mentioned in 5:7 is often seen as the gift o f God. used as an image for the coming o f God. See In Hos. 6:3, it is ^ Our author referring to God as judge in 4:11-12 poses no serious problem. NT writings sometimes refer to God as judge and then shift to speak o f Christ as judge (see, e.g., 2 Tim. 4:1; Jn 5:30; 8:16). ^ There is a close parallel to this expression in LXX Jer. 12:3 which depicts God’s judging action upon his “enemies.” Jer. 7:32; 19:6 prophesy that the wicked will be slaughtered in “the valley of slaughter” and are to become food for the birds and animals. Ezek. 39:17 talks o f the rich fattening themselves as sacrificial food in tlie eschatological feast. It is very probable that our author is alluding to Jer. 12:3 in connection with 7:32; 19:6 and Ezek. 39:17 by the Jewish hermeneutical principle of “equivalent regulation.” See Bauckliam 1995:102. The imagery o f “slaughtering” o f the rich is also foimd in 1 En. 94:17-18; cf. 96:8; 97:8-10; 99:6, 15). A similar expression is also found in IQH 317 action against them. The phrase to teXog ico p L o o ^ in 5:11 does not refer to the Parousia of Christ {pace Gordon 1975) nor the results of Christ’s sufferings and death. The former is ruled out by the aorist eLÔexe and the latter as purely speculative. however two contesting interpretations. There are It may mean the purpose of the Lord (Martin 1988:195) or the result which the Lord produced (Laws 1980:216; Davids 1982:188; Klein 1995:80). These two perspectives, however, are not mutually exclusive because the purpose is the intended result. That which God intended for Job to achieve is exactly the result God expected out of his life. There is a purpose in suffering and that is to produce perfection in God’s people (1:4). God who is compassionate and merciful will surely help those who endure in achieving perfection (cf. 1:5, 17). The use of the word xéXoç reminds the readers of the purpose of our author’s instruction: that they may reach perfection at the end. Since the first coming of Christ, people are now living in the last days (eoxaxat qiiepuL; 5:3b), the time before the second coming of Christ. The last days are not the day of judgement {pace Ropes 1916:287) but lead to it. ^ This period underscores the nearness of judgement for the oppressors and the urgent need to repent from one’s wickedness. The separation of the just and the unjust has already 15[7].17 as “the Day o f Massacre” (Vermes). It is the day of vengeance (Isa. 34:8; 61:2; 63:4). In the judgement passage in IQS I0.16b-2I, there is a promise o f reward for the suffering, the poor, the righteous, and a threat o f eschatological torment for the rich, the mighty and the pagan Gentiles as well as the apostate Jews. ^ The suggestion o f Fitzmyer 1979:176-77 n.l6 in emendating the text from téXoç to ’éXeoç is text critically unfounded. ^ Taking the last days as the days o f judgement strains the meaning o f the preposition 4v. 318 begun. This is the time of testings of one’s loyalty to God in the face of all kinds of adversities in life (1:2-3), The Eschatological Reversal The motif of the reversal of status has its root in the OT. Here I will look at the reversal motif in the context of judgement. * With the economic prosperity in the period of the monarchy, social distinctions widened to a considerable extent. The prophet Amos speaks in the mid-8th century against the social injustice of his time: taking the poor as debt slaves (2:6; 8:6), dishonest trading (8:5-6); and bribing judges to exploit the poor (2:7; 5:10, 12). advantage of the rich against the poor. LXX: m'ueivoL). Justice is often compromised to the The poor become the humiliated (2:7: w w ; The rich spend most of their time feasting with luxuriant parties in temples (2:8) or private houses (6:4-6). Their extravagant way of life is marked by their separate residences for winter and summer (3:15), built of fine ashlar stones (5:11); their furniture is decorated with beautiful carved ivory (3:15; 6:4). The people at that time are far from the ideal (5:24): “let justice roll down like waters. ^ In some Jewish wisdom writings, the reversal o f fortunes is only part of the realities o f this life without particular reference to die judgement o f God on account o f one’s behaviour (cf. Sir. 7:11; 33:12; Syr. Men. 113-17; Ps.-Phoc. 119-20). Stories o f reversal o f status are also told by the historian Dionysius, see esp. Baich 1995:221-26, again not in any eschatological context. For the concept reversal o f fortunes found m Greek literature that shows similarities with Luke, see esp. Danker 1987:47-57. However, York (1991:174) criticises such Graeco-Roman comparisons as “too quickly stopped with Greek tragedy and comedy, and the plot device o f irepLtrexeLa. Both tragedy and comedy have, as a part o f the plot, a single-sided reversal — either from good to bad or bad to good. The reversal in tragedy, as described by Aristotle, was that of a person o f high renown — but neither virtuous nor inherently evil — whose misfortune was brought about by some great error or frailty.” Such characterisation is different from the double reversal found in the Jesus tradition. However, the attribution o f human reversals o f fortune to the gods is not uncommon in the Greco-Roman literature o f the first century (see pp. 173-82). This would allow the gentile audience o f Luke to relate the reversal theme to the similar concept found in their own culture. 319 and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” This leaves Israel with no hope but only the prospect of judgement and destruction. In 2:6 and 5:12, the poor and the needy are identified with the righteous. ethically humble. The socially humiliated become the They have no intention to strive for wealth and status, to become rich and powerful at the expense o f others (Wengst 1988:20). The humiliated behave humbly in seeking refuge with God, and refusing to collaborate with the powerful in unrighteousness, lies and deceit (Zeph. 3:1 lb-13). It is this attitude of humility that is paradigmatic of God’s people. In 1 Sam. 2:7-8, it is characteristic of God to reverse status. In the context of the impending judgement, the prophet Isaiah speaks of the coming reversal of status (see esp. Penner 1996:154-65). Along similar lines as Amos, Isaiah accuses those with power in 1:23: “Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Eveiyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not defend the orphan, and the widow’s cause does not come before them.” Everything can be achieved by bribery (5:2023). The rich live an extravagant life of drinking and feasting (5:11-12; 56:12). The concern for justice is seen in Isaiah’s call for repentance in 1:17: “learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow” (cf. Mic. 6:8). Isa. 2:9-12 reads: “And so people are humbled (n@V ’ricDijj€v), and everyone is brought low (‘^asjV'uccTreLvwGijaeTaL).... The haughty (mnaa) eyes of people shall be brought low (^sta), and the pride (on) of eveiyone shall be humbled (nd); and the LORD alone will be exalted (3303) in that day.^ ^ The LXX renders the text: “o l yap ocj^QocXpol K u p io u ùi|fqA.0 L 6 ôè For the LORD of ctvGpcoiroç xaT reivoç K a l Taïï€LV(jù0qo6TaL TÔ ui{/o<; t ( 3 v àvG p coïïw v K a l ùi)fw8TioexaL K u p toç p o v o ç ê v xt) q p É p a èK€LVf|.” 320 hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty ( a il nH3/i)ppiatTjv icctl uTrepijiliavov), against all that is lifted up and high 10:33; 25:11; 26:4-6). Iî03/i)\jrrilôv ical perécopoy )” (cf. 5:15-16a; ll:3b-5 speaks of the coming messiah who will secure justice for the impoverished (D'’*?n/TaTreLv6ç) and the meek (Q'’'i3y/Taïï6ivoL) of the land. He will not judge by what his eyes see or what his ears hear, that is, by the popular opinion dictated by the powerful. He will punish the wicked (aoeprjc;). Such language also emerges in Dan. 4:37; Ps. 94:1-7 and Zeph. 3:11. In Ps. 75 (LXX 74), in the context of judgement of the wicked and the proud, God is described as the Judge, “humbling (b'’a0VTccTT6Lvot) some and exalting (□'’T’/uilfot) others” (75:7; LXX 74:8). The “proud” are often identified with the “wicked” and the “unrighteous.”^ The “humble” are under the oppression of the “proud” at present. This situation, however, is only temporaiy. God will eventually come in judgement to bring forth justice in reversing their fortune. In the Second Temple period, the reversal of fortune in the context of judgement from God can be found in the apocalyptic writings. Sib. Or. envisages a time when there will be no more poverty (3:378; 8:208; cf. T. Jud. 25:4). 1 En. 92- 105 (see esp. 94:8-97:10) speaks of the rich who trust in their wealth, committing blasphemy, acquiring wealth in unrighteousness, being extravagant in their enjoyment and abusing their power in oppressing the poor and humble.^ Yet their wealth will not abide forever and their confidence in possessions as signs of security ^ Also later, the LXX, e.g., inserts “rich” into Pss. 9:29 [10:8] and 33[34]:11 which deal with the wicked. ^ For persecution and oppression o f the righteous by the rich and powerful sinners, see, e.g., 95:7; 96:8; 99:11, 15; 100:8; 102:9; 103:9-15. 321 is ill-fomided. Their fortune will be reversed in the day of slaughter/ They will be condemned and put “into darkness and chains and a burning flame” (103:8). Meanwhile the present misery and oppression of the poor will be reversed in the life after death (104:2; cf. 102:4-103:4; 104:1-6). In the JVar Scroll, “the riches of the nations” are promised to the righteous (IQM 12.14; cf. IQSb 3.19). Speaking against the wicked priests of Jerusalem who “accumulate riches and their loot from plundering the peoples,” IQpHab 9.4-6 prophesises that “in the last days their riches and their loot will fall into the hands of the army of the Kittim” (cf. IQpHab 6.1). Such reversal between the righteous and their enemies is repeated in IQM 11.9-9; 14.7; IQpPs. 37 3.9-10; 4QpNah 11.^ Targ. Ps.-J. 1 Sam. 2:5 speaks also of economic reversal: “those who are proud in wealth and great in mammon will be impoverished,” and die righteous “who were poor will become rich.” The Identity of the Poor There is a tendency in the Jewish tradition to equate the poor with the humble, and the rich with the proud. In our modem usage, “poor” and “rich” belong to a social and economic category, while “proud” and “humble” to a moral one. however, not the case in the Jewish tradition. “TaireLvorriç” It is, In Sir. 13:20, for example, the is parallel with the “ ïïtco%6ç” and the “uïïepqcjiavoç” with the “ îrXoiJOLoç” . Some, like Dibelius and Greeven (1976:39-40), argue that the “poor” (OM]y) in the * For tlie tlireat o f judgement against the rich, see, e.g., 94:6-10; 96:4-8; 97:8-10; 98:1-3; 100:6, 1013; 101; 102:4-104. ^ The address “you are poor” (MMK ]r3K) is often found in 4QSap A (see, e.g, 4Q416 2 2.20; 3.2, 8, 12, 19) and so are words “poor/poverty” (WX'iAü'n; see, e.g., 4Q416 2 3.6, 11,15, 20). Different fi'om 1 Enoch, there is no mention o f the oppression o f the poor by the rich, but warnings against accumulation o f riches (4Q417 1 2.18-24). This may indicate a time of origin later than the Maccabean uprising; seeElgvin 1995A:444. 322 OT, especially in the Psalms (e.g., Pss. 86:1-2; 132:15-16; 146:7-9), are considered to be the pious and righteous, as a religious disposition rather than an objective state.^ The early Pharisees also appear as the poor in Psalms of Solomon (5:2; 10:6; 15:1). Dibelius and Greeven (1976:40; italics original) thus conclude: “The pious thought of themselves as the poor because poverty had become a religious conceptP^ However, this is not the only way to interpret the related psalms. The identification of the poor is fuilher complicated when it is used as a designation of Israel suffering in exile, the dispirited nation of the restoration (Isa. 42:22). The poor are identified with God’s people returning from captivity (Isa. 49:13; cf. 41:8-20). The Qumran members also see themselves as the “poor,” the remnant that will inherit salvation as the poor (4QpPs37 1.8-10; cf. 2.9-12).^ They are “the poor of the flock” (Zech. 13:7), the faithful people of God that will escape in the age of visitation to inherit salvation (CD 19.9-10)."^ ^ Some, however, identify the “poor” with the 'amme ha 'aretz (“people o f the law”) of rabbinical literature; as Str-B, 1:190. Their poverty is seen in their rejection o f the practice o f the Pharisaic law, not just in economic terms. The rich, however, are those who belong to the establishment. Dibelius and Greeven (1976:41) identify the 'catime h a ’aretz as the “sinners” in the Gospels, while others see them as the whole non-Pharisaic population o f Jesus’ time (see, e.g., Scroggs 1975; Betz 1995:113-14, 116), Such reconstruction is purely hypothetical; see the critiques o f such association in Oppenheimer 1977:218-29; Freyne 1980:305ff.; Seccombe 1983:28-31. Hamel (1990:202-06) dissatisfied with the previous approaches to the subject suggests that aw h a ’aretz who is defined in contradistinction with the Pharisees and the Sages has to do with the rules of purity which can be used to justify social hierarchies. They were those who did not have the material means to show that they were “brilliant” in their use o f the purity rules. They were not tlie same as the poor, but the poor were among them. ^ See esp. critique by Seccombe 1983:28. ^ The “poor” found in 4Q416 3 2.2, 8, 12, 19 is more a symbol for the limitation in human condition than a spiritual ideal, see Harrington, 1994A:145; 1996A:45, 46-47. The context seems to suggest, however, that material poverty is also involved; Collins 1996A:118. As distinct from Proverbs and Ben Sira which are primarily directed toward the well-to-do, these Qumian wisdom texts seem to assume that the addressees are poor. Cf. IQH 23[18]. 12-15 for eschatological theme o f salvation for the poor. It must be noted that the Qumran sectaries as a community may not necessarily be poor economically, see Sclimidt 1987:9097, 99. The individual members, however, are poor economically as they possess nothing personally. The expression “the poor” is not used as a self-designation o f the sect ; see Keck 1966:66-77. 323 The fundamental notion of the “poor,” whether it be social, economic or religious, is that these are people who are in great need and distress, those who are destitute of all resources. God is the redeemer and deliverer of the poor, the one who will eventually abolish all injustice, inequalities and inhumanity that are often associated with poverty, whether they be its causes or consequences. God is the one who will act on behalf of, and secure justice for, the poor (Ps. 146:7-9; Job 5:1516). Israel, in the state of exile, can therefore be addressed as the poor, suffering oppressive captivity among the gentile nations. Along the lines of Isa. 61:1-2, which a number of scholars see as background to the first beatitude in the Sennon on the Mount, the poor are seen as the recipient of salvation in the new age. choice for the poor is to be seen in this light. God’s Thus the “poor” is not entirely devoid of social connotation nor is it an entirely socio-economic term, but a social type that exhibits humility and dependence upon God for salvation. The “poor” is defined not only in socio-economic terms, but also in relationship to God.^ The “rich” represent the social types that boast of their wealth and status in exploitation of others and perverting justice. They seek honour from what is not rightfully theirs. Their attitude is typified as arrogant and ruthless in their pursuit of power, status and wealth. They indulge themselves in a luxurious way of life, in gross negligence of the needy. God’s choice for the poor is not partiality on his part but his paramoimt concern for justice and for establishing an ideal community in which status and wealth have no part to play. ^Green (1994:64) calls tliis the relational aspect of the notion o f “poor” where “the emphasis falls on the relationship between God and the poor, with the former extending grace to the latter, who find themselves increasingly at the periphery o f society.” 324 Jesus’ teaching of the double reversal of status^ appears most prominently in the Gospel of Luke/ The Magnificat, a song of exultation over the salvation of Israel, which is imminent because of the conception of the Messiah, reads: “He has brought down (KctOetiev) the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly (iiijfcoaev TCiTTeLvoiiq); he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich (irlouToûvTKç) away empty” (1:52-53). These verses show considerable affinity with the targum’s treatment of Hannah’s song in 1 Sam 2:5. Hannah prophesies that those who were full of bread, proud in wealth and great in mammon will be impoverished. The poor (ps-'Wri) will become rich and forget their poverty. This new order has already begun in Mary (1:48b: “Suiely, from now on all generations will call me blessed”). In the Sennon on the Plain, Jesus pronounces blessings upon the poor because the kingdom of God is theirs (6:20; cf. Gos. Thom. 54), while he pronounces woes upon the rich because they have already received their consolation (6:24). Those who are hungry now will be filled (6:21), while those who are filled now will be hungry (6:25). in tension with the present. These beatitudes and woes put the future In line with apocalyptic eschatological thought, this life is seen as being overturned in the age to come.^ This motif of reversal of status is often set in an eschatological context in early Jewish and Christian traditions. * Perrin (1974:52) finds that the theme o f eschatological reversal is one o f the best attested in the message o f Jesus. ^ Mealand (1981:16-20) argues against the understanding that Luke-Acts has particular interest in poverty and riches. However, he has been refuted successfully by Esler 1987:165-69, ^ For a detailed study, see particularly York 1991:55-62. 325 A similar motif of reversal is also found in several parables in Lulce/ The parable of the place of honour (14:8-14) about the importance of taking the lowest place for those who wish to be raised to an honourable place and about extending invitation to the poor, crippled, lame and blind for dinner instead of friends, relatives, or wealthy neighbours who can repay the favour; the parable of the great banquet for inviting the poor, crippled, blind, and lame in place of the invited guests (14:16-24; par. in Mt. 22:1-14);^ the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31) with their reversed fortune after death; and the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (18:914) about the Pharisee who relies on himself and the publican who relies upon God for Ms forgiveness. TMs motif is summarised in the maxim: TaTr€Lvw0tiaemi, kcCi 6 tott€lv(Sv kccmov ttccç 6 uijiwv èccutov (14:11; cf. 18:14). The series of critiques on the vanity of the Pharisees in Mt. 23:1-7 is complemented by teaching on humility in 23:8-11 and concludes with a similar maxim in v. 12. is found in the maxim: eLolv ’eoxcttoL ol A similar motif eoovTccL TrpcSioi iccd e io lv upWTOL o l eaovtotL eaxecTOL (Lk. 13:30; par. Mk 10:31; Mt. 19:30; 20:16).^ The announcement of the great reversal that the kingdom of God brings is good news to the poor, but a warning to the rich and the powerful to reassess their situation."^ Such would have * For the studies on the literary functions of parables o f reversal on their audiences, see esp. Crossan 1973:53-57; Doty 1974. For a detailed study on the parables relating to the theme o f reversal, see York 1991:62-75. ^ Gosp. Thom, is even more explicit in concluding the parable with Jesus saying: “Businessmen and merchants [wiU] not enter the places o f my father” (64:12). ^ We may also include the “losing by saving — saving by losing” aphorism; see Mk 8:35; Mt. 16:25; Lk. 9:24; 17:33. ^ For the employment o f this kind o f paradoxical proverb in challenging or even shattering one’s framework o f existence to re-evaluate one’s present circumstances, see esp. Beaidslee 1970:66-70. 326 considerable consequence on one’s understanding of material possession. Seccombe (1983:195-96) concludes in his study on the concept of the poor and possessions in Luke that with the coming of the kingdom inaugurated by Jesus, possessions “are of infinitesimal value in comparison with the riches of the Kingdom, and, with the approaching eschatological crisis, are about to lose even the little value they still have;” and “[t]hose who with an eye to the eschatological situation wisely employ their possessions in acts of mercy will be richly rewarded both here and in the age to come. Those who neglect the needy face the prospect of inevitable judgement.” Luke-Acts most resembles 1 En. 92-105 in its motif of a forthcoming reversal of fortunes of the rich and the poor.^ The motif of God’s choice for the poor also finds its way into Pauline writings in 1 Cor. 1:27-28. Particularly significant is the reversal pattern encapsulated by the life of Jesus: his death in humiliation on the cross is followed by his exaltation in resurrection and ascension into heaven. The rejected stone has become the “head of the comer.” In first-century Mediterranean society, both “rich” and “poor” as a socio­ economic status are only minority categories.^ In the pre-70 G.E. situation in Palestine, the rich refer to the ruling classes: the prefect or procurator, the kings and client kings, the Herodians, and the priestly aristocracy.^ % of the population. This constitutes only 1-2 To this we might add the retainer class who served the needs ^ See esp. Nickelsburg 1979; basically followed by Esler 1987:189-93. ^ Guided by the macro-model for social stratification based on status and power (rather than wealth) developed by G. Lensld, a number o f biblical scholars have constructed macro-social models o f first century Palestinian society. See the studies by Saldarini 1988:35-49; Waetjen 1989:5-11; Duling 1992. ^ Probably lay aristocracy should not be included as most scholars do. 327 of the ruler and the governing class, the administrative and financial bureaucrats, tax collectors, household stewards, judges, professional soldiers, educators, and perhaps, scribes. They consist of some 3-5% of the population. The vast majority of the people, perhaps about 90% of the entire population are between the two, closer to the bottom of the social ladder. Yet not all of them are identified as “the poor.” The poor in Mediterranean agrarian society refers to the 5-10% for whom the society has no place or need. They are expendables: peasants forced off the land to become hired labourers, widows and orphans, vagrants and beggais, and the degraded: lepers, the handicapped, prostitutes, porters, burden bearers, miners and others who engage in ritually unclean work and heavy manual labour. It must be noted that the categorization of social groups in solely economic terms of “class” that has to do with the level of one’s wealth and possessions can be very misleading when applied to ancient Mediterranean society.^ status. Wealth is significant only if it is translated into As Green (1994:65) rightly points out: “Status honor is a measure of social standing that embraces wealth, but also other factors, including access to education, family heritage, ethnicity, vocation, religious purity, and gender.” The eschatological reversal brought in by the coming of the kingdom involves bringing honour to the poor as they are being included as its people, and shame to the selfcentered rich as they are excluded from the kingdom. ^Pace, e.g., Hengel (1974, 79:175) in seeing Jesus as belonging to the “middle class”; Stegemann 1984:22-31. Maynard-Reid (1987) tends to define poor and rich in wholly economic terms. His constant references to “capitalistic organization” and the “policy o f laissez-faire” (pp. 14, 15, etc.) are doing what he warns against, in imposing “a twentieth-century Western model upon a first-century Eastern culture” (p. 3). He fails to see the non-capitalistic character o f a pre-industrial society. Popkes’ (1986:53-91) postulation that James is against some upwardly mobile middle class faces similar difficulties. All these seem to reflect more the social situation o f a modem Western interpreter than the actual situation o f a first-century Mediterranean society. 328 The motif of the reversal of status for rich and poor in first-century i Mediterranean society is “situation-specific” in the sense that it correlates with the i social stratification together with its social dynamics. | Popkes’ reconstruction (1986:53-91), for example, of the situation of the addressees as members in upwardly mobile middle class urban communities that have tendencies towards individualising, dualism, and spiritualisation as found in later Pauline mission churches is highly speculative and questionable. character of James. In doing so, he has to downplay the obvious Jewish Rather, our author is employing a socio-rhetorical strategy, using “rich” and “poor” and their respective traits as stereotyped polarities understood in tenns of “labelling.” According to Malina and Neyrey (1988:35), labelling is the “identification of a person and his/her personhood with some trait or behavior.” Both positive (titles) and negative name-callings (stigmas), together with blessings and woes, are forms of labelling which serve as a social weapon to stereotype a person or a group in approving and honouring or in condemning and putting to shame, which resulted in life-enhancing or lethal consequences on their respective social standing and location (Malina and Neyrey, 1988:37; Webber 1992:21). The negative labelling serves as a “social distancing device, underscoring the differences and thus dividing social categories into polarities...” (Malina and Neyrey 1988:37). In NT times, the “rich” are often suspected of being avaricious and greedy, who serve their own covetousness rather than God, while the “poor” are those who are unable to maintain their honour, often weak and defenseless, always at the mercy of others. In James, “the poor” is a fonn of positive name-calling, while “the rich” is negative, with the 329 I respective accompanying attitudes of humble and proud/ weapon in the conflict situation. It is a powerful social Our author employs such a sociorhetorical strategy to deter those “deviants” from their community-destructive behaviours and from associating themselves, either in deed or in attitude, with those typified as “the rich.”^ It is also a critique of the ethos of the culture based on a patron-client relationship. The Great Reversal in James The teaching of Jesus on eschatological reversal plays an important role in the development of James" thinking on the issue (see esp. Deppe 1989:119-131). In Jas 1:9-10, the reversal is seen as the exaltation of the lowly or humble brother/sister (6 àôeÀ(j)ôç 6 TttTreLvôç èv x(S u\jf€i ocutoû) and the humbling of the rich (ô wÀouoLOi; kv ifj TdCTTeLvcoaeL auToh). This may well be our author’s way of expressing Jesus’ beatitude of the poor (Mt. 5:3; Lk. 6:20).^ the poor. Humility is the corresponding attitude of The lowly or humble are exalted because they are “rich in faith” ('ïrÀoDOLOuç èv TTLoxeL), being chosen by God as heirs of the kingdom inheriting blessings both in the present as well as in the future (2:5; cf. “crown of life,” 1:12; ^ See esp. Malina 1987:354-58, 361-67. York (1991:102-03) points out that in Luke, “the rich are characterized by an attitude of self-reliance and indifference towards God. Those who are rich, foil, laughing, and esteemed by others will experience a great reversal because their present self-satisfaction prevents them from hearing and doing the will o f God” (cf. 1:51-53; 12:13-21; 14:15-20; 16:25-31; 18:18-25). ^ For the dynamics involved in the deviance process, see esp. Malina and Neyrey 1991:102-04. ^ Bauckham, (forthcoming). Deppe (1989:91) finds here no direct link with Matthean nor Lucan tradition but “a combination o f the church’s experience with a promise o f Jesus.” Some regard the characterization o f Mt. 5 :3a (“poor in spirit”) as “spiritualization” and a softening of Jesus’ original saying as reflected in Luke 6:20b. See, e.g., the extensive study by Dupont (1958-73 3.385-71) with his conclusion on pp.369-70. However, such understanding is open to dispute in view of a parallel usage in the Qumran texts (IQM 14.7; cf. 14.3; CD 19.9; IQH 13[5].21-22) in a self-designation n n 'USJ. See the discussion in Hamel 1989:173-75; Betz 1995:111-16. 330 also Rev. 2:9).^ The humble should boast (1:9; KOiuxctoOe) because they have been honoured by God as heirs of his kingdom.^ Such honouiing is veiy different from the self-exaltation of the proud merchants (4:15; Kau%cca0e)/ for the poor rely entirely upon God while the proud merchants tend to depend on themselves."^ The rich are seeking honour from what is not rightfully theirs (cf. 3:14; 4:2-3, 16). In the eschatological reversal, the rich will also be brought low and put to shame. Since the designation “the rich” carries with it all the negative connotations, their boasting can only be seen as ironic: the one thing in which the rich can boast is the certainty of being brought low (Dibelius and Greeven 1976:85; Laws 1980:63; Johnson 1995A: 190-91; cf. Mt. 6:2, 5, 16).^ There really is no reason for them to boast at all. The wealth and status the rich acquire in this life are only transitory and not worthy of boasting (1:11; quotation from Isa. 40:6b-7; cf. Ps. 103[102]:15). As Isa. 40 clearly portrays, the final ordering of human affairs is to be introduced by God. At their death, they will be stripped of all their riches and they will no longer be rich.^ ^ God’s sovereignty is seen both in Ins deliberation to give birth to a renewed people of God through his word o f truth (1:18) and in his choice o f the poor. ^ It is appropriate thus to see here KavxàoQai with an eschatological overtone; Mussner 1981:73; Martin 1988:26. ^ For boasting o f status/honour or boasting to seek status/honour, we have a significant parallel in 1 Cor. 1:28-29, 31 : “God chose what is low and despised in the world, tilings that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence o f God... in order that, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.’” The readers Paul addresses boast of worldly status, either o f wisdom or wealth, in order to gain it at the expense o f each other and those beneath them (cf. also 3:21-22). Paul speaks against such attitude and cites 1er. 9:22-23 in 1:31 in support o f liis polemic. Ultimately, it is God who deserves all the honour. See esp. Pogoloff 1992:197-214. The condition o f poverty is not in itself a blessing, rather it is the corresponding humble attitude o f the poor that is to be praised. ^ According to our understanding, whether “the lich” are Christians or not is not relevant. ^ Those who regard "the rich” as Cliristians can understand the reversal o f the rich in their 331 As we have noticed before (p. 100), the first half of text quoted from Prov. 3:34 (LXX with 6 0e6ç substituted for tc ü p L o ç ) in 4:6 (“God opposes the proud”) acts as “the thematic announcement” for 4:13-5:6 and the other half (“He gives grace to the humble”) for 4:7-lO/ This aphorism captures well the essence of the concept of reversal: “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” The merchants and the rich landowners are social groups known for their arrogance and extortion (4:16; 5:1-5). opposes. They are friends of the world (enemies of God) whom God They are arrogant both towards God, in neglecting the law of God, and towards humans in looking down on them. They have forgotten that life depends on God, whether it be in this age or the age to come. Humility, in the present context, means submission to God (4:7), and turning away from evil in repentance (4:8-9). This is echoed by the aphorism in 4:10: “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.” truly be exalted by God. Those who have the poor’s attitude of humility will The poor, with their accompanying attitude, are the paradigm for the messianically renewed community, the heirs of the kingdom (2:5)/ The social situation of the rich oppressing the poor is well illustrated in Jas 2:1-6 and 5:1-6. The former probably refers to a judicial assembly where partiality to the rich (who display their honour publicly in their clothing) often results in identification with the poor, being lowly and humble, yet chosen o f God as heirs of the kingdom. They should be boasting about that. Some (e.g., Mitton 1966:39) unconvincingly take humiliation as actual when one becomes a Christian in one’s loss o f wealth and status. Also Hort (1909:15) links humiliation with 1:2. * 1 Pet. 5:5 also quotes it to support an exhortation to humility. ^Bauckham (forthcoming). 332 perversion of justice against the poor/ In 2:6, those who drag the poor into court may refer to the creditor who deprived them of their liberty to become “debt bondsmen,” humiliating them by “legal” means (see Esler 1987:174). 5:1-6 refer to the large landowners who exploit the day-labourers of their wages. All these are not uncommon in first century Palestine. However, despite the efforts of many to ascertain whether the rich mentioned in 1:10-11; 4:13-15 (the merchants) and 5:1-6 are Christians, they fail to see the use of the “rich” and “poor” as stereotypes with characteristic life values and styles, behaviour patterns and attitudes.^ The rich landowners in 5:1-6 who live in luxury and in pleasure at present are only fattening themselves to be slaughtered at the day of judgement. unjust oppression of the righteous poor. This is because of their In 5:7-11, on the other hand, those who The allusion to Lev. 19:15 which forbids favouritism in judging, favours the understanding o f the situation as one o f legal proceedings rather than worship. “Synagogue” can be a place for both activities in the diaspora. See esp. Ward 1966A, 1969. He notices that almost all the rabbinic discussion on the problem o f partiality has to do with discrimination in judicial proceedings. His conclusion is generally accepted by recent scholars. See Maynard-Reid 1987:55-61; Martin 1988:58, 61; Johnson 1995:227; Townsend 1994:35-36; Wall 1997:112. ^ See, e.g., Stulac 1990; Crotty 1995. The identification of those in the aforementioned passages by various scholars is shown in the following table: Christian (at least primarily) Non-Christian (at least primarily) Both 1:10-11 Mayor; Knowling, Hort; Ropes; Mitton; Reicke; Sidebottom; Adamson; Moo; Johnson Dibelius & Greeven; Laws; Davids; Martin; Wall; Stulac 4:13-15 Knowling; Laws; Davids; Johnson Ungodly Jewish merchants: Mitton; Dibelius & Martin; Greeven; Sidebottom; Adamson Adamson Mayor; Knowling; Ropes; Mitton; Dibelius & Greeven; Laws; Davids; Johnson; Wall; Stulac; 5:1-6 333 suffer now but persevere to the end will be rewarded with perfection (cf. 1:4,12). The “great reversal” marks the beginning of the eschaton. For the messianically renewed people of God, they must look at wealth and status differently from the world, because there is a reversal of status that happens even now and will be manifested fully in the future. Our author depicts such reversal of status in terms of rich and poor, the proud and the lowly. It is not one’s present status nor what one possesses now that detennines one’s final destiny, but one’s attitude towards God in trusting humility. Those who love God with all their strength/power/wealth, i.e. those who humble themselves before God trusting not their own wealth and power, will be exalted by God. The Testings o f Life and Endurance to the End In the Jewish tradition, the motif of endurance of the suffering righteous^ can be found in both eschatological and non-eschatological contexts.^ Fundamental to the concept is the hope and expectation of God intervening on the behalf of the righteous. The present time of testings is, for the righteous, the testing of their ^ Different solutions have been proposed for the understanding of the suffering o f the righteous. Since they are righteous, the doctrine o f retribution does not apply to them. Suffering is understood as a discipline to produce moral excellence in this life (e.g., Prov. 3:11-12). It is sometimes seen as having redemptive value, either for others or for the sufferer (e.g., Job 5:17; 33:12-15; 36:9-12, 15; Jer. 27:12-13; the suffering servant in Isa. 40-55). Suffering is seen not only as a tool God used to deter people from sins, but to save them from worse dangers. The suffering o f the righteous may be seen as attack from some evil forces (as Job). Another solution is the look into the future that God wiU intervene to end the present state o f suffering and bring in a new age with final vindication for the righteous (e.g., Dan. 12:1-2). Finally, there are some who admit that the suffering o f the righteous is a life dilemma that can never be intellectually resolved (Qoh.; Job). See esp. Simundson, ÂBD: 6.21924. ^ For non-eschatological context, see, e.g.. Sir. 2:1-14; T. Jos. 2:7; 10:1-2; Jub. 17:15-18; 4 Macc. 1:11; 7:9; 8:8, 30 for steadfastness o f the martyrs; Pliilo, Cher. 78 for Rebekah as an allegoiy of btropovp. 334 faith(fulness) in God. Endurance is the highly prized virtue in such circumstances. Penner points out that already in the OT, there exists the motif of a refining or proving of God’s people which takes place on the day of the Lord’s judgement (e.g., Ps. 66:10; Zech. 13:9; Mai. 3:1-5; cf. 2 Bar. 48:39-41; Jdt. 8:25-27).^ In Daniel (11:35; 12:1-3, 10), preceding the final judgement is a period of time when the righteous are tested and purified to receive blessing at the “appointed time.” The wise who brought many to righteousness, together with the faithful righteous, will be exalted to heaven to special glory. In 2 Baruch, in reply to Baruch’s complaint about the unfairness of the righteous suffering because of the sins of the wicked, it is said that the righteous, though they struggle in this world are to look forward to the world to come, which will be a crown with great glory (15:7-8). The eschaton for the righteous men will be resurrection to eternal life (23:4-5; 30:1-5; 42:7; 50:1-52:7). They will be greatly rewarded, while the wicked will be judged with destruction (50:1-51:16; 73:1-74:4; 85:15; cf. 4 Ezra 9:1-13; 16:70-73). A similar motif is found in IQS 8.1-10 with the council of the community as the “tested wall, the precious cornerstone” (8.7) and the new temple of God as God’s community purified in the crucible of trial (cf. IQM 16.17-17.9). In the NT, apart from James, the idea of testings in an eschatological context is also found in 1 Pet. 1:6-7; 4:12; 1 Cor. 3:10-15 and Rev. 3:18 (cf. Hermas, Vis. 4.3:4). The testings of faith at present are occasions for endurance (2 Thess. 1:4-5; Rom. 5:3; Heb. 10:32, 36; Rev. 2:2-3, 10, 24-28; 3:10; 14:12). Endurance can be For references in a non-eschatological context, see, e.g., Ps. 66:10; Prov. 17:3; 8:10; 27:21; Sir. 2:5; Wis. 3:6. 335 seen as persistence in trusting and obeying God’s word in a life full of pressures, conflicts and bewildering circumstances. The present endurance is often connected with eschatological reward (Mk 13:13b//Mt. 24:13//Lk. 21:19; Col. 1:11; Eph. 4:2; 6:13.; Heb. 6:11-12, 15; 10:36-39; 1 Pet. 3:20; Rev. 2:10, 26-27; cf. Did. 16:5). The overlap in Jewish thought on endurance and hope can be indicated by the fact that the Hebrew word mpn (“hope”) is translated into Greek by both Wopovq and èlirCç. In Paul, the close association of endurance and future hope is found in 1 Thess. 1:3 (iiTTopovï) tfiç èlTTLôoç); Rom. 8:25; 12:12; 15:5, 13. As noticed before, the parallel of Jas 1:4 with 1:12 suggests that the final perfection still awaits the time when Christians will be awarded the “crown of life” (Ô oxécjïavoç tîjç than life itself. cf. T. Levi 8:2, 9; T. Benj. 4:1).^ The reward is nothing less Trials are occasions for rejoicing.^ Viewed in conjunction with 1:12 and 5:7-11, it is probable that our author intends to convey the notion of eschatological joy (Davids 1982:67-68; Martin 1988:15; cf. Rom. 5:3; 1 Pet. 1:6). The joy is in anticipation of future reward in the end-times. It is only in anticipation of God’s future reward, the crown of life, than one can hold on in faith against the testings of life.^ It is possible that the thought is based on sayings from ^ The genitive tfjç (wfiQ should be understood as epexegetical. For the crown as a figure o f honourable prize, see 4 Macc. 17:11-16. 4 Macc. 17:17 refers to the wreath o f a martyr’s victory. Cf. 2 Tim. 4:8 for 6 t t i q ô u c a L o o u v q ç a x é c l ) a v o ç and 1 Pet. 5:4 for % % ô o ^ t iç o T é ( { ) a v o ç (also Ac. Isa. 1 1:40); also 1 Cor. 9:25; Rev. 3:11. ^ Ilaaav %apdy is placed emphatically first in the sentence. The use o f Trfiç before the anathrous abstract noun %apd may mean “joy in the highest degree” or “pure (BDF § 275[3]), sheer (Dibelius and Greeven 1976:72 with n i l ; Davids 1982:67-68) or unraixed (EBebert 1979:71) joy”. The former emphasises the degree or quantity o f joy while the latter the quality. The translation “supreme joy” can have both meanings. The purity o f joy does not mean joy o f unmixed emotion but expresses “the full abandonment o f mind to tliis one thought” (Hort 1909:3). ^ Pace Dibelius and Greeven 1976:72 who deny this eschatological perspective and pit James against 336 I the Jesus tradition (Mt. 5:11-12; Lk. 6:22-23), but it is also reflected in Wis. 3:4-6; 2 Bar. 52:6-7 and Sib. Or. 5:269-70. The present testing in life is seen as inevitable, though the nature of the trials are never specified. In the context of James, it seems that, as distinct flom many other NT emphases, persecution on account of one’s Christian belief is not in view, but rather it is one’s faithfulness to God in situations of hardship, particularly with oppression under the rich as well as in the temptations of the world. ^ To this extent, it is closer to the traditions found in 1 En. 92-105 where the oppressions the righteous suffer are not specifically related to their piety but in a more general social framework: the rich and powerful rich abusing the righteous poor.^ The uTTopovT) word group together with its near synonym paicpoOupLa word group occurs again in 5:7-11. 'YTTopovrj is associated more with endurance in unfavourable circumstances, rather than patience with people as paicpoOupCa.^ In the LXX Job, the noun form uTTopovt) occurs only once in 14:19 while its cognate verbs occur 14 times. For the Testament of Job (esp. chs 1-27), which is likely to be composed in the first century C. E., endurance is the major theme, with Job engaged in an active struggle with Satan (and idolatry; Collins 1974). The terms of other NT writings on their understanding o f the suffering. ^It is possible to infer from this that our audience was not facing any large scale persecution because o f their Christian faith. ^ See Nickelsburg 1972:112-30 for the motif in I Enoch. ^ See Hauck, TDNTA.5%1. Apart from the use of paKpoOuixLa of God which is related to his wrath in judgement (Rom. 2:4; 9:22; 2 Pet. 3:4; cf. 1 Tim. 1:16), the word group often points to relationships with the Cliristian community (1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Tim. 3:10:with paKpoOupia as a virtue distinct from ÙTTopovp). It must be said that an overlap in their semantic field must be allowed, see Jas 5:7b with paicpoG uixetv used with respect to a circumstance (cf. Heb, 6:12, 15), So Falkenroth and Brown, {NIDNTT'.l.nV) find that it refers to both aspects. 337 ' his struggle are set forth in 4:4-10 and end with Job portrayed as “a sparring athlete, both enduring pains and winning the crown” (4:11). In chapter 27, again in an athletic image between two wrestlers, Satan admits defeat. Job is portrayed as the supreme example of endurance in suffering because of his faith in the true God (1:5; 27:7). In T. Job 26:6, his complete devotion to the Lord is what preserves him from abandoning God and strengthens him to persevere in suffering. one who would die in his/her struggle with evil.^ championed by Job. Job is like a martyr, This is the most important virtue His patient endurance is set in the framework of his ultimate (individual) eschatological victory (4:6: “if you are patient (œv uiropeCvriç), I will malce your name renowned in all generations of the earth till the consummation of the age”, also 53:8; 4:10: “you shall be raised up in the resurrection”),^ though no clear two ages eschatology can be found.^ As Abraham stands out as the example of faith in Jewish tradition,"^ so Job stands out as one of endurance. In the LXX, paKpoGDpia and its cognates are used predominantly of God’s long-suffering disposition towards humans, delaying his wrath or judgement (e.g.. ‘ For Job as a martyr, see esp. Jacobs 1970; 1-3. Also Haas (1989:152-54) who finds that the vision o f Job in 3:l-5:2a has close parallels with early Christian martyrology. He concludes that it is more likely that the vision is a hellenistic Jewish parallel to those found in the Christian writings. For suffering as an atliletic contest in martyrological literature, see, e.g., 4 Macc. 6:10; 9:23-24; 11:20; 12:14; 16:16; 17:11-16. ^ Kee 1974:1.61; Collins 1974:39. Although 43:8 may be a Christian interpolation (more so is the Vatican version with an additional phrase “to eternal life), yet see LXX Job 41:17a (“And it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord will raise up....”). ^ 33:4 talks about the passing away o f the world which is unmatched by the heavenly world, “the world o f the changeless one.” It is the heavenly city spoken to Inm by the angels (18:6-8). It seems that the eschatology is more o f a vertical kind than a horizontal one (cf. 36:3; 39:11-13; 40:3; 47:3). In the words o f Kee (1974:68): “The locale o f eschatological fulfillment has undeniably been transferred from earth to heaven, just as the wicked dead will be transferred to another sphere.” Abraham is portrayed as an example o f patience in trial m jub. 17:15-19:9. 14, steadfast forbearance is seen as an expression o f faitli. 338 In fact, as in Heb 6:12, Exod. 34:6-7; Ps. 7:12; 2 Macc. 6:14). It is also used of human long-suffering or patience, restraining one’s angiy feelings (e.g., Prov. 14:29; 15:18; 17:27; 25:15). There is also the meaning of patience because of the length of time period. For Job in T. Job, he has suffered for a long time: forty-eight years according to 21:1, eleven years, seventeen years and twenty years respectively in 22:1; 26:1 and 28:1. In T. Job 27, the chapter ends with Job’s admonishing his children to be patient in whatever happens and the aphorism: “For patience (paicpoGupLa) is better than anything” (27:7). Job’s patience is set in contrast with his wife (24:1, 10; 25:10) and his friends (28:5). It is grounded upon God himself (37:2), who is the hope of his salvation (24:1b). As Job said to his wife: “If we have received good things from the hand of the Lord, should we not in turn endure (ÙTropévopev) evil things? Rather let us be patient (paKpoQupiiowpev) till the Lord, in pity, shows us mercy (airXaYxvLoccelc; eiefjoi] iiiiâç)” (26:4-5). In Jas 5:7-10, paicpoGujiLa and its cognate verbs are used, since the emphasis is more on human relationships. As Horst {TDNT: 4.385) points out: “Awareness of His nearness... quenches all angry feelings against opponents and all overhasty fightings and murmuring against brothers... since both parties will stand before the Judge.”^ The prophets also suffered under the threat of opponents. Suffering, together with its sources, whatever they are, will one day be removed. That day is the time when God intervenes to bring the present world order to an end. The God who is merciful, and who hears the cry of those in need, will bring in the final Tt must be said that an overlap in their semantic field must be allowed, see Jas 5:7b. 339 victory over all things and set things right. A prosperous, secure life is no proof of divine favour. security in life that detennines one’s final destiny. any sign of God’s disfavour. It is not the present Nor are one’s sufferings now Those who love God with all their life, as exemplified particularly in the concrete example of Job (as portrayed in traditions like that in T. Job), will look to the future and endure to the end, even unto death as maityrs. God is indeed the merciful one who will rescue them in the final salvation (5:11; cf. T. Job 26:5). Those who love God with all their lives will be rewarded with life itself. The Final Judgement by Works o f the Law Judgement is linked with the law twice in James. In 2:12-13, it is by the law of liberty that one’s life is to be judged (ôta vopou èÀ€P0epCaç... KpiveoGat). This judgement will certainly come (pÉÀieLv), whether it be far distant or near future (cp. 5:9). The one who has shown no mercy is regarded as one who does not abide by the law of liberty summarised in the love command (2:13). Such a person will be under the judgement without mercy (âvéXeoç). Again in 4:11-12, anyone who judges (où ôè tlç el ô icplvcov tov TrlrjOLov;) his/her neighbour or speaks against another (icKTKÀocleLxe àÀÀtjÀcov) will be subject to the judgement of God. The final rhetorical question in 4:12b sarcastically marks the powerlessness of humans (où, emphatic in position) in contrast to the sovereign God who is both lawgiver and judge of all. As we have noticed above, it also calls attention to the royal law by which one’s conduct is to be measured (2:12). 340 The royal law, as summarised by the command to love one’s neighbour, is being violated when one criticises or slanders another. God will surely judge because he alone is the lawgiver, guardian and the one who enforces the law of justice and holiness. His judgement will be impartial because he is holy. In the words of Laato (1997:56): “The innumerable instructions therefore have one and the same origin, viz. his iimnutable holiness (cf. 1:17 and 4:12). On the firm conviction of monotheism rests in a certain sense the ‘formal’ principle of the Law.” Behind all injunctions encapsulated in the love command stands the fundamental belief that there is only one God, the judge and saviour of all. Demons (xà ôocLpovia) know that God is one but yet shudder in terror ((j)pCoaeiv; 2:19) precisely because they laiow that God will judge and crush them eventually (cf. Mt. 8:29). The kind of faith the demons have is not a faith that “can save,” since they will be destroyed at the End (Dibelius and Greeven 1976:160).^ Büchsel {TDNT: 3.935) notices that the concept of judgement is one of the cardinal beliefs in Judaism and is “inseparably related to the Law, and was transmitted with it.” Such understanding fits in well with our author’s concept of judgement, while the law here is referring to the law of liberty. “Divine approval (2:8) and judgement (2:12-13) is conditioned upon observance of the law of liberty” (Wall 1997:87). ^ Some believe that here we have a background in the practice of exorcism. The idea of demonic terror before the holiness o f God is common in Jewish apocryphal writings; see, e.g., 1 En. 13:3; 69:1, 14. The statement “God is one” or the appeal to “the one God” could be used as an exorcist formula to cast out demons. The demons express great horror when faced with such spells. See Laws 1980:126-27. 341 Judgement according to works of the law is firmly rooted in the OT ^ and is one of the fundamental assumptions of early Judaism/ Sanders (1977) finds that obedience is the condition of remaining in the covenant—not for “getting in” but for “staying in.” Sanders’ concern is to show that Palestinian Judaism is not a legalistic religion and for them, salvation is not earned through works. It is because of this particular agenda that he tends to downplay judgement according to works (pp. 141,146-47). However, it is also a belief of the NT that in the final judgement God will judge according to works (Mt. 12:37; 16:27; 25:31-46; Rom. 2:12; 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:15; 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; cf. 1 Cor. 1:8; Col. 1:22; Phil 1:10; Heb. 6:9-10). surely in line with such an understanding. James is The works to which our author refers are works arising out of faith in Jesus Christ (2:1), works in obedience to the royal law which are constitutive of the proclamation of the kingdom. Those who love God with all their hearts in obedience to the commandments of God will be blessed in all their doings (1:25). Conclusion The “diaspora of the twelve tribes” as the messianically renewed people of God is the fulfilment of Israel’s eschatological hope of restoration. They are ^ See, e.g., Pss. 9:8-21; 58:12; 62:10, 13; Prov. 10:16; 24:12; Isa. 3:10-11; 59:18; Jer 17:10; 32:19; Lam. 3:64; Hos. 4:9, etc. ^ See, e.g., IQS 4.6-7; 10.16-18; CD 7.9-10; IQH 18.12-13; IQpHab 8.1-2; 12.14-13.4; Pss. Sol 2.17-18, 38; 9:4; 2 Bor. 13:8; 44:4; 85:15; 4Ez}-a 6:19; 7:17, 33-44, 104-105; 12:31-32; 6. 5:13-18; 21:4; 33:18; 1 En. 1:7-9; 16:2; 25:4-5; 50:10; Philo, Praem. Poen. 126; also T. Levi 3:2; 4:1-2; T. Gad 7:5; T. Benj. 10:7-8; Sib. Or. 4:183 etc. For judgement according to works o f Torali in rabbinic materials, see esp. Roetzel 1972:56-58. 342 viewed as the concrete expression of God’s gift through the renewing power of his word, the firstfruits of God’s creation representing the beginning of the redemption that is to come. The community is characterised by its faith in Christ, expressed in its total loyalty towards God in humility before him, endurance of testings and works of love for neighbours.^ The eschatological reversal has already begun with the eschatological community as a new society which values not the honour one possesses now in the eyes of this world, but one’s attitude towards God. Though they are still waiting for the coming TTctpouaCa, the power of Christ is even now made available to them as they invoke his name, aclcnowledging his lordship and presence (2:7; 5:14). It is a community that is not only committed to the “way of truth” as opposed to the “way of error,” but a community that seeks to restore its members from their sins (5:19-20) and eventually leads the way to the final restoration of God’s creation (1:18). ^Thus Burchard (1980:27-30) sees such confession of faith in Clirist as parallel to the confession that God is one in 2:19. 343 Concluding Summary The present thesis has set out to detennine the genre and the compositional structure of the letter of James. In investigating the hermeneutics of James, I aimed to discover from our author how the Mosaic law should be understood and applied to the messianically renewed people of God, and in what way it should function among them. Part one first examined the various proposals in the past for the genre of James and comes up with the two best contenders: hellenistic paraenesis and Jewish wisdom paraenesis. After a full analysis of the characteristic features of both, the book was then compared to them to see to which it is closer. James reflects the features of both, but its contents seem to owe more to traditional Jewish wisdom instruction. The presence of the eschatological element, on the other hand, is no objection to identifying James as a wisdom instruction. Such confluence of wisdom and eschatological elements can also be found in 4QSap A. James can be regarded as a “counter cultural” wisdom instruction containing various aphorisms, aiming to challenge the hearers’ world-view and to reorient them to the values acceptable to God. Our author’s use of this particular genre fits in with his paraenetic purpose in exhorting his audiences. Part two examined the previous attempts to uncover the compositional structure of James. Here I adopted discourse analysis with special emphasis on the semantic-syntactic-thematic delimitation. 344 Particular attention was paid to the formal features of Jewish wisdom instructions. My analysis showed that the concern for perfection comes at the prologue and the epilogue of the work. In line with the characteristic featmes of wisdom instruction, this concern provides the framework through which the entire work is to be understood. The units 2:8-13, 3:13-18 and 4:11-12 which link the adjacent sections together reflect similar arguments. The importance of these units can also be seen in the light of their relationship with 1:19-25 in tlie prologue. The perfect law of liberty, the wisdom from above and ultimately God as the Lawgiver and the Judge are the yardstick by which one’s speech and action have to be measured and judged. All these units are related to either law (1:19-25; 2:8-12; 4:11-12) or wisdom (3:13-18). A work that does not follow a logical linear structure does not mean that it has no structure at all. Moreover, the compositional structure reveals not only its primary concern for perfection as stated in the prologue and epilogue, it also shows the importance of the theme of law and wisdom. Part three explored the importance of law and wisdom to the understanding of the hermeneutics of James. First I examined the meanings of the word of truth, implanted word, the perfect law of liberty, and the royal law, as well as the relationship between word and law. Then the hermeneutics of James in using the love command as a hermeneutical principle in understanding the Torah was compaied to that in Matthew. They reflect a similar understanding. The linking together of love, law, perfection, judgement and the motif of imitatio Dei both in Matthew and James strengthens the view that James is actually dependent on the Jesus tradition in his understanding of the hermeneutics of the Torah. The preeminent concern of our author in his instruction is the importance of the perfect law with its fulfihnent bringing about perfection, freeing one to love God perfectly and free from the power of the evil desire. This results in a particular shape of religion characterised preeminently not by cultic confinements but moral expressions grounded upon faith in Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. Through the working of the wisdom from above in the special gift of meekness, one can submit to God and be willing to do his will. This gives credentials to one’s interpretation of the law. Wisdom also manifests itself in one’s studying and keeping of the law of liberty. Both wisdom and word/law serve the same purpose in bringing about the purity / perfection / righteousness demanded by God. Part four investigated in detail the meaning of the call to perfection and the predicament of doubleness and their respective relationship with law and wisdom in the context of early Jewish and Christian thought. In James, perfection consists in loving God wholeheartedly and keeping his commandments, while doubleness means loving God halfheartedly and failing to keep his commandments. The double-souled is one who yields to the persuasion of one’s own inclination to sin, and thus wavers in loyalty to God. The problems the community members were facing is expressed in terms of doubleness with its cause in the evil inclination within, and the influence of the world and the devil without. The only way to counteract their influences is by adhering to the gracious gift of the word of truth, the gospel message, from God through which a renewed people of God comes into existence. By devoting themselves to this implanted word, with wholehearted loyalty towards God, and by doing what this word/law requires, they will be on the 346 way to perfection and to life / salvation. All these concepts show considerable parallel with a wide variety of Jewish and Christian writings around that time. James, however, is unique in bringing all these concepts together in its own way. Part five looks at the importance of eschatology in James. For James, the interpretation and the embodiment of the Law is closely connected to the identity and characteristics of the coimnunity he addressed. Particularly significant is the eschatological existence of the renewed people of God. This is a community that is committed to the word of truth, to restore its members from their sins (5:19-20) and eventually lead the way to the final restoration of God’s creation (1:18). James^ understanding of Christian existence as the embodiment of the Mosaic law interpreted by the love command is unintelligible without the eschatology that infonns it. It is because the readers are the eschatological people of God as restoration of the twelve tribes, the first-fruits of the new creation that uncompromising perfection is demanded of them. It is through the word of truth and their faith in Christ that such perfection is possible. The eschatology is typically christological, with Christ the Lord coming at the end of this age to judge the world. Its presence in James is not limited to its prologue and epilogue but undergirds the entire work as the motivation of behaviour for the messianic community. This christological shape of eschatology provides the framework through which the existence of this messianic coimnunity is to be understood. The concern for perfection in Christian existence is eventually the concern for final salvation or redemption. It is thus obvious why studying and keeping the law is of 347 paramount importance to the existence of the messianically renewed community of God. James as a sage not only adapts the wisdom teaching of Jesus to what is relevant to his readers but also produces his own. My research above has shown that this understanding is consistent with his use of wisdom instructions in conveying his message. His overall paraenetic purpose is for his readers to achieve perfection and eradicate doubleness. This concern is closely connected with the foundational creed of the Shema^ in Jewish tradition. The present study has demonstrated the importance of the role of the law together with wisdom in achieving this aim. This consideration is reflected in his way of structuring the work with 2:9-13, 3:13-18 and 4:11-12 as transitional passages highlighting the importance of law and wisdom. These passages are in turn closely related to 1:19-25 in the prologue. The concerns of our author found in the prologue of the work reflect themes traditionally associated with the Sheind" (1:2-18). This coupled with the emphasis on the study and practice of the Torah (1:19-27) shows considerable parallel with the emphasis of the double commandments of love in the Jesus tradition. Most significantly, in line with the Jesus tradition, our author adopts the love command as the hermeneutical principle in the understanding and application of the Mosaic law, particularly using the holiness code in Leviticus 19 as a means of focusing the interpretation of the Torah upon ethical considerations. Like Ben Sira and Jesus before him, he interprets Torah in wisdom terms rather than as legal codes as in the Mishnah.^ ^Jolinson (1995A:36) rightly notices that “[w]hat James and the Pirke Aboth share is a commitment to the moral life mediated by Torah; what distinguishes them is the framework for reading Torah and, therefore, the primary focus o f ethical instruction.” This is right in seeing James as involved in 348 Thus our author, in adopting the genre of wisdom instiuction, is re-expressing creatively the insight he has learned from the teaching of Jesus to reorient his readers to a new and different meaning system grounded on the faith of Jesus Christ the Lord of glory (2:1). His concern for faith and works does not seem to have any relationship with Paul’s concern for “works of the law” arising out of the Gentile mission on the role of the law in the inclusion of Gentiles into the church. Here our author, in the language of E. P. Sanders, is more concerned with the ""staying m” rather than the ""entering into’" the new covenantal community. His consideration of the relationship between faith and works is out of his concern for the pursuit of perfection against doubleness. halachic activity, but incorrect to identify it as a halacha after the manner o f Pirke Aboth. 349 Abbreviations All the abbreviations for references follow The Sheffield Manual for Authors and Editors in Biblical Studies, edited by David J. A. Clines (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). The following are additions to that compiled in the above manual. ArB The Aramaic Bible. BEET Johannes B. Bauer (ed.) Bauer Encyclopedia o f Biblical Theology (ET; 3 vols.; London and Sydney: Sheed & Ward, 1970) NIDOTTG Willem A. VanGermeren (ed.) New International Dictionary o f Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (5 vols.; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997) DSD Dead Sea Discoveries SupNovT Supplements to Novum Testamentum SVC Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae TSAJ Texte und Studien zmn Antiken Judentmn 350 Bibliography A. Prim ary Sources and Translations (1) Bible, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Editio fimditus renovata. Eds. K. Elliger, W. Rudolph. Stuttgart 1967-77. BHS Hebrew OT. 4th Corrected Edition. 1990. BibleWorks^^ fo r Windows 5,5. Michael S. Bushell. Big Fork, Henneneutika Computer Bible Research Softward, 1996. The Septuagint Version: Greek and English. Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1970. GNT Scrivener’s Beza TR LXX Rahlfs’ with Variants. BibleW orks^ for Windows 3.5. Michael S. Bushell. Big Fork, Henneneutika Computer Bible Research Softward, 1996. The Testament o f the Twelve Patriarchs. A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. Edited by M. De Jonge. PVTG 1:2. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978. The Greek New Testament. Edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and Allen Wikgren. 3rd Edition (Corrected). Stuttgard: United Bible Society, 1983. The Ethiopie Book o f Enoch. A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments. Edited by M. A. Knibb in consultation with E. Ullendorff. 2 Vols. Oxford, 1978. The Hebrew Text o f the Book o f Ecclesiasticns. Edited by Israel Levi. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book o f Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition o f all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis o f all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997. Charlesworth, James H. Ed. The Old Testament Pseudeipigrapha, 2 Vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983,1985. Horst, Pieter W. van der. The Sentences o f Pseudo-Phocylides. SVTP 4. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978. (2) Dead Sea Scrolls The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth with F. M. Cross et al. Volume 1: Rule o f Community and Related Documents. Volume 2: Damacus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press / Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1994-1995. DJD. Volume 4: The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11. Edited by J. A. Sanders. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1965. 351 Volume 5: Qumrân Cave 4, I (4Q158-4Q186). Edited by J. M. Allegro. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1968. Volume 20. Qumrân Cave 4. Sapiential Texts. Part 1. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1997. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. Edited by Florentine Garcia Martinez. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2nd Edition. Leiden: E. J. Brill / Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English: Revised and Extended. Edited by Geza Vermes. 4th Edition. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1995. Harrington, Daniel J. Wisdom Texts from Qumran. London: Routledge, 1996. (3) Jewish-Hellenistic Literature Philo. 10 Volumes. LCL. Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, R. Marcus. London: William Heinemann / Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929-62. Josephus. 9 Volumes. LCL. Translated by H. S. J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren, L. H. Feldman. London: William Heinemann / Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926-65. The Works o f Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Complete and Unabridged. New Updated Version. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987. The Works o f Philo. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Complete and Unabridged. New Updated Version. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993. (4) Rabbinic Literature and Targumim The Soncino Talmud: Mishnah and Talmud. Hebrew Text and English Translation. CD-ROM. Davika Corporation, 1991-95. Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinese MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 6 Volumes. Edited by Alejandro Diez Macho. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1968-79. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan o f the Pentateuch. Text and Concordance. Edited by E. G. Clarke with collaboration by W. E. Aufrecht, J. C. Hurd, and F. Spitzer. Hoboken, 1984. The Mishnah: A New Translation. Edited by Jacob Neusner. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988. The Babylonian Talmud. 35 volumes. Edited by I. Epstein. London: Soncino, 193548. Sifra: An Analytical Translation. Neusner, Jacob with G. G. Porton. 3 Volumes. BJS 138-140. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Sifre to Numbers. Neusner, Jacob. Vols. 1-2. BJS 118-119; W. S. Green. Vol. 3. BJS 120. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986-87. 352 Midrash Rahbah. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices. 9 Volumes. Edited by H. Freedman andM. Simon. 3rd Edition. London, 1983. McNamara, M. Targum Neofiti I: Genesis. Translated, with Introduction and Notes. ArB la. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992. Maher, M. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Translated, with Introduction and Notes. ArB lb. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992. Grossfeld, B. The Targum Onqelos to Genesis. Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus and Notes. ArB 6. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988. The Targum Onquelos to Leviticus and The Targum Onqelos to Numbers. Translated, with Apparatus, and Notes. ArB 7. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988. The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy. Translated, with Apparatus, and Notes. ArB 9. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988. Harrington, D. J. and Saldarini, A. J. Targum Jonathan o f the Former Prophets. Introduction, Translation and Notes. ArB 10. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987. Cathcart K. J. and Gordon, R. P. The Targum o f the Minor Prophets. Translated, with a Critical Inhoduction, Apparatus, and Notes. ArB 14. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989. (5) Early Christian Literature The Apostolic Fathers. Edited by J. B. Lightfoot. 5 Volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. The Apostolic Fathers. Edited by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Hanner. Greek Texts and English Translation of Their Writings. Edited and Revised by Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Early Christian Fathers. Edited by Cyril C. Richardson. New York: Mcmillan, 1970. (6) Greco-Roman Literature Isocrates. Translated by George Norline. Volume 1. CLC. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1928. Seneca. Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. Translated by Richard M. Gummere. 3 Volumes. CLC. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917-25. The New Revised Standard Version (=NRSV) of the Old and New Testaments including OT Apocrypha is used unless otherwise stated. The English translation of the Martinez’s translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that of OTP for OT pseudepigrapha, that of Mishnah, Sifi'a, Sifre by Neusner and that of Babylonian Talumd by Epsein are used unless otherwise stated. The Greek texts and English translation of Lightfoot and Hanner on the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers are used. 353 B. Secondary Literature Achtemeier, P. J. 1990 “Omne verbmn sonat; The New Testament and the Oral Enviromnent of Late Western Antiquity.” JBL 109: 3-27. Adamson, James B. 1976 The Epistle o f James. NICNT. Grand Rapids; Eerdmans. 1989 The Man and His Message. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Agoiuides 1963 “The Origin of the Epistle of James.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 9: 67-78. Alexander, Philip S. 1991 “Orality in Pharisaic-rabbinic Judaism at tlie Turn of the Eras.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Pages 159-84. Edited by Hemy Wansbrough. JSNTSup 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1997 “Jesus and the Golden Rule.” In Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons o f Two Major Religious Leaders. Pages 363-88. Edited by James H. Charleswoiih and Loren L. Johns. Minneapolis: Fortress. Allison, Dale C, 1989 1993 1994 “Who win Come fiom East and West? Observations on Mt. 8.11-12—Lk. 13.28-29.” JBS 11: 158-70. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Claik. “Maik 12.28-31 and the Decalogue.” In The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel. In The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel. Pages 270-78. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner. JSNTSup 104. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Clnistianity 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Amphoux, C. -B. 1978A “Une relectuie du chaptire I de PÉpître de Jacques.” Bib 59 (1978): 55461. 1978B “Vers une description linguistique de Fépître de Jacques.” NTS 25: 5892. 1981 “Systèmes anciens de division de l’épîtie de Jacques dt composition littéraire.” Bib 62: 390-400. 1982 “L’emploi du coordonnant dans PÉpître de Jacques.” Bib 63: 90-101. Anderson, H. 1985 “4 Maccabees.” OTP: 2.531-64. Andersen, 0 . 1991 “Oral Tradition.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Pages 17-58. Edited by Hemy Wansbrough. JSNTSup 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 354 Attridge, Harold W. 1989 The Epistleto the Hebrews. Heimenia. Philadelphia: Foitress. 1990 "Paiaenesis in a Homily (Xdyog mpaicA,fio6c*)ç): the Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’.” Semeia 50: 211-28. Audet, J-P. 1958 La Didaché, instruction des apôtres. Paiis: Gabalda. 1966 “Literaiy and Doctrinal Affinities of the ‘Manual of Discipline’” In The Didache in Modern Research. Pages 129-47. Edited by J. A. Draper. AGJU 36. Leiden: BiiU. Translated fiom “Affinités littérahes et doctrinales du Manuel de discipline.’ RB 59 (1952): 219-38. Aune, David E. 1987 The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity 8. Philadelphia; Westminster. 199IB “Romans as a Logos Protreptikos." In The Romans Debate. Revised and Expanded Edition. Pages 278-96. Edited by Karl P. Donfiied. Peabody: Hendrickson. Baasland, E. 1982 1988 “Der Jacobusbiief als Neutestamentliche Weischeitsschrift.” ST 36: 11939. “Literarische Form, Thematik und gescliichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes.” ^ARIFII. 25.5: 3546-684. Bailey, James L. 1995 “Genre Analysis.” In Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Pages 197-203. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans /Carlisle: Paternoster. Bailey, James L. and Vander Broek, Lyle D. 1992 Literary Forms in the New Testament. London: SPCK. Baird, J. Arthur . 1972 “Geme Analysis as a Method of Historical Criticism.” SBLSP: 385-91. Baker, William R. 1994 “‘Above All Else’: Contexts of the Call for Verbal Integrity in James 5:12.” 7SV7'54: 57-71. 1995 Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle o f James. WUNT 2/68. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Balch, David L. 1995 Baltzer, Klaus. 1971 “Rich and Poor, Proud and Humble.” hr The Social World o f the First Christians: Essays in Honor o f Wayne A. Meelis . Pages 214-233. Edited by L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough. Minneapohs: Fortress. The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings. Translated by David E. Green. Oxford: Basil Blaclcwell. 355 Banks, Robert. 1975 Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barclay, John M. G. 1996 Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,Barker, 1987 The Older Testament: The Survival o f Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity. London: SPCK. Maigaiet. Bailett, D. L. 1979 “The Epistle of James as a Jewish-Christian Document.” SBLSP: 173-86. Ban, James. 1961 The Semantics o f Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press. Barth, Gerhard. 1982 “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law.” In Tradition & Interpretation in Matthew. Pages 58-164. Translated by Percy Scott. London: SCM. Barton, John. 1992 “Form Criticism (OT).” ^50:2.838-41. 1997 The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon. London: SPCK. Bauckham, Richard. 1983 Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Waco: Word. 1984 “Tire Study of Gospel Traditions outside the Canorrrcal Gospels: Problems and Prospects.” In Gospel Perspectives. Vol.5. Pages 369-419. Edited by David Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1988 “James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude.” hr It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honoirr of Barnabas Lindars. Pages 303-17. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990 Jude and the Relatives o f Jesus in the Early Church. Edinbmgh: T.& T. Clark. 1991 1993 “The List of the Tribes in Revelation 7 Again. ” JSNT 42:99-115. “Review of P. J. Haitin’s James and the Q Sayings o f Jesus.” JTS 44: 298-301. 1995A “James and the Jerusalem Chinch.” In The Book o f Acts in its First Century Setting. Vol.4: The Book o f Acts in its Palestinian Setting. Pages 415-80. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Carlisle: Paternoster/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1995B “The Relevance of Extracanonical Jewish Texts to New Testament Study.” hr Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Pages 90-108. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 356 1997 "James, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter.” Iuv4 Vision fo r the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet. Pages 153-66. Edited by Maikus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson. Edinburgh; T. & T. Clark. 1998A “The Scrupulous Priest and the Good Samaritan: Jesus’ Parabolic Interpretation of the Law of Moses.” NTS 44: 475-89. 1998B “The Tongue Set on Fire by Hell (James 3:6).” In The Fate o f the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. SupNovT 93. Leiden: E. J. Brill. forthcoming James: Wisdom o f James, Disciple o f Jesus the Sage. London: .Routledge. Bauckmarm, E. G. 1960 “Die Proverbien imd die Spriiche des Jesus Sira,” ZAW 72:33-63. Bauder, W. 1976 “Humility, Meekness.” NIDNTT 2.256-59. Bauemfeind, Otto. 1964 ““AttA.oi)ç, èTîXoxTiç.” TDNT 1.386-87. Beauchamp, P. 1975 “Épouser la Sagesse - on n’épouse qu’elle?.” In La Sagessa de l ’Ancien Testament. Pages 347-69. Edited by M. Gilbert. Leuvain and Gembloux: Leuvain University Press. Beardslee, William A. 1967 “The Wisdom Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” JAAR 35: 231-40. 1970 “Uses of the Proverb in the Synoptic Gospels.” Int 24: 61-73. Beck, David Lawrence. 1973 “The Composition of the Epistle of James.” Unpublished Ph D. Thesis. Princeton Theological Seminary. Behrn, Johannes. 1966 “KapÔLK.” TDWT 3.605-13. Berger, Klaus. 1972 Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Jiidentum und im Alten Testament. WMANT 40. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. 1977 Exegese des Neuen Testaments: neue Wege vom Text zur Auslegung. 1984 Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. UTB. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Bernheim, Pierre-Arrtoine. 1997 James, Brother o f Jesus. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM. Betz, Hans Dieter. 1979 Galatians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1985A Essays on the Sermon on the Mount. Translated by L. L. Welborn. Philadelphia: For tress. 357 1985B 1995 “Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain.” SBLSP: 343-50. The Sermon on the Mount. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Foitress, 1995. Betz, Otto. 1956-57 “Die Geburt der Gemeinde durch den Lehrer.” NTS 3: 314-26. Beyer, Hennann Wolfgang. 1964 “ ’ETTLaicCTiopai, ktX .” TDNT 2.599-622. Bieder, W. 1949 “Chiistliche Existenz nach dem Zeugniss des Jakobusbiiefe.” TZ 5: 93113. Bindemann, von Walther. 1995 “Weisheit versus Weisheit: Disions.” Z W 86: 189-217. Der Jakobusbrief als innerkirchlicher 1906 “To xCkoQ K u p to u .” ZN W l: 274-79. Bischoff, Black II, C. Chiton. 1988 “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills.” HTR 81: 1-18; Black, Matthew. 1964 “Critical and Exegetical Notes on Thr ee New Testament Texts, Hebrews x i.ll, Jude 5, James i.27”. InApophoreta; Festschrift fur Ernst Haenchen. Pages 42-48. Berlin: Topelmann. Blackman, E. C. 1957 Blatz, Beater. 1991 The Epistle o f James. London: SCM. “The Coptic Gospel of Thomas.” In New Testament Apocrypha. Vol.l: Gospels and Related Writings.” Pages 110-33. Edited by WiUiehn Schneemelcher. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. Ltd / Louisville: Westenirinster/John Knox Press. Blenldnsopp, Joseph. 1981 “Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second Temple History.” hr Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Vol.2: Aspects o f Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period. Pages 1-26. Edited by E. P. Sanders vrith A. I. Bamngarten and A. Mendelson. London: SCM. 1995 Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering o f Life in Israel and Early Judaism. Revised Edition. The Oxford Bible Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blondel, J. -L. 1980 “Theology and Paraenesis in James.” TD 28: 253-56. Boccaccini, Gabriele. 1991 Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 C,E, Minneapolis: Foitress. 358 Bogart, John. 1976 Orthodox and Heretical Perfectionism in the Johannine Community^ as Evident in the First Epistle o f John. Missoula; Scholars Press. Boggan, C. W. 1982 “Wealth in the Epistle of James.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. The Southern Baptist Theological Semmaiy. Borg, Marcus J. 1984 Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teaching o f Jesus. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 5. New York: Edwin Mellen Press. 1994 Meeting Jesus fo r the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart o f Contemporary Faith. New York: HarperSaiiFrancisco. Boinkamm, Gunther. 1957 “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe.” In Neutestamentliche Studien Jur Rudolf Bultmann. Pages 85-93. Edited by E. Dinkier. Berlin. BZNW 21. Berlin: Topelmann. 1982 “End-expectation and Church in Matthew.” In Tradition & Interpretation in Matthew. Pages 15-51. Translated by Percy Scott. London: SCM. Bottini, G. C. 1986 “Sentenze di Pseudo-Focihde alia luce deUa Lettera di Giacomo.” SBFLA 38: 171-81. Boyle, M. O’R. 1985 “The Stoic Par adox of James 2:10.” WT9 31: 611-17. Braumann, Georg. 1962 “Der Theologische Hintergrund des Jakosbusbriefes.” TZ 18: 401-10. Brown, G. and Yule, G. 1991 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Raymond E. 1979 The Community o f the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates o f an Individual Church in New Testament Times. London: Geoffery Chapman. 1982 The Epistles o f John: Translated with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 30. London: Geoffrey Chapman/New York: Doubleday. 1983 “Not Jewish Christiarrity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity.” CBQ 45: 74-79. Bruce, F. F. 1982 1 & 2 Thessalonians. WBC 45. Waco: Word. Biichsel, Hermann Martin Friedrich. 1964 “Tevvaio, ktà.” TDNT 1.665-666, 668-75.. 1964 “'EpLOeia.” TDWT 2.660-61. 1966 “Kpivco, KTÀ.” TDNT 3.921-23, 933-54. 359 Bultmann, Rudolf. 1963 History o f the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. New York; Harper & Row. Burchard, Christoph. 1970 “Das doppelte Liebesgebot in der fiühen christlichen Überliefenmg.” hr Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. Pages 39-62. Edited by E. Lohse, et al. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1978 “The Theme of tlie Sermon on the Mount.” In Essays on the Love Commandments. Pages 57-91. Translated by Reginald H. and Use Fuller. Philadelphia: Foitress. 1980A “Zu Jalcobus 2, 14-26.” Z N W ll: 27-45. 1980B “Gemeinde in der strohernen Epistel. MutmaBurigen über Jakobus.” In Kirche: Fest. G. Bornkamm. Pages 315-28. Edited by G. Strecker. Tübingen. 1991 “Zu einigen christologischen Stellen des Jakobusbriefes.” hr Anfange der Christologie. Pages 353-68. Edited by C Breytenbach & H Paulsen. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Burdick, D. W. 1981 “James.” In Expositors Bible Commentary 12. Pages 161-208. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bmge, Gary M. 1977 “‘And Threw Them Thus on Paper’: Recovering the Poetic Form of James 2:14-26.” Studia Bib et Theologia 7: 31-45. Buss, Martin. 1980 “Principles for Morphological Criticism; with Special Reference to Letter Form.” hr Orientation by Disorientation: Studies in Literary Criticism and Biblical Literary Criticism. Pages 71-86. Edited by Richard A. Spencer. Presented in honor of William A. Beardslee. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press. Byrskog, Samuel. 1994 Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community. ConBNT 24. Stocldiohn: Ahnqvist & Wilcsell International. Cabaniss, Allen. 1975 “A Note on Jacob’s Homily.” EvQ 47: 219-22. Cadoux, Arthur- T. 1944 The Thought o f St. James. London: Clarke. Camp, Ashby. 1994 “Another View on the Structur e of James.” ResQ 36: 111-19. Camp, Claudia V. 1985 Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book o f Proverbs. Bible and Literatur e Series. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 360 Cannon, G. 1983 The Use o f Traditional Materials in Colossians. Macon: Mercer University Press. Cantinat, Jean. 1973 Les Épître de Saint Jacques et de Saint Jude. SB. Paris: Gabalda, 1973. Caigal, T. B. 1993 Restoring the Diaspora: Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle o f James. SBLDSS 144. Atlanta: Scolars Press. Carlson, Charles E. 1978 “The Vocabrrlaiy o f Perfection in Philo and Hebrews.” In Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor o f George E. Ladd. Pages 133-60. Edited by Robert A. Guelich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. 1980 “Proverbs, Maxims, and the Historical Jesus.” JBL 99: 87-105. Carinignac, J. 1961 “La théologie de la souffrance dans les Hymnes de Qumrân.” RevQ 3: 365-86. Carter, Warren. 1994 What are They Saying about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? New York: Paulist. 1996 “Some Contemporary Scholar ship on the Sermon on the Mount.” CRBS 4; 183-215. Catchpole, D. R. 1991 “Review of P. J. Hartin’s James and the Q Sayings o f Jesus.” ExpTim 103: 26-27. Cliaine, Joseph. 1927 L ’Épitre de Saint Jacques. Études Bibliques. Paris: Gabalda. Char ette, B. 1992 The Theme o f Recompense in Matthew’s Gospel. JSNTSup 79. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Chester, Andrew. 1994 “The Theology of James.” In The Theology o f the Letters o f James, Peter, and Jude. Pages 1-62. Andrew Chester and Ralph P. Martin. New Testament Theology. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. 1998 “Messianism, Torah and Early Christian Tradition.” In Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity. Pages 318-41. Edited by Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stromnsa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Childs, B. S. 1979 Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. London: SCM. 361 Chilton, Bnice and Evans, Craig A. 1994 “Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures.” In Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations o f the State o f Current Research. Edited by Bmce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden: E. J. Biill. Cladder, H. J. 1904 “Die Anlage des Jakobusbriefes.” ZKT 28: 37-57. Classen, C. Joachim. 1993 “St Paul’s Epistles and Ancient Graeco-Roman Rhetoric.” In Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Pages 265-91. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Clines, David J. A. 1989 Collins John J. 1974 1977 “The Wisdom Books.” In Creating the OT: The Emergence o f the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Stephen Bigger. Oxford; Basil Blackwell. “Structure and Meaning in the Testament of Job.” SBLSP 1: 35-52 “Cosmos and Salvation: Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the Hellenistic Age.” iTR 17: 121-42. 1979 “Introduction: Towar ds the Morphology of a Geme.” Semeia 14: 1-20. 1983 “The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On Hmnan Bondage” hi Theodicy in the Old Testament. Pages 119-40. Edited by James L. Crenshaw. Philadelphia: Fortress. Reprint oîJBL 94 (1975): 47-64. 1989 The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix o f Christianity. New York: Crossroad. 1990 “The Sage in the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literatme.” In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pages 343-54. Edited by John 1993 1996 G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake: Eisenbrarms. “Wisdom, Apocalypticism, and Generic Compatibility.” In In Search o f Wisdom: Essays in Memory o f John G. Gammie. Pages 165-86. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Johnston Wiseman. Louisville: Westminster, 1993. “Wisdom, Apocalypticism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit...” Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit. Diethelm Michel zum 65. Geburtstag. Pages 19-31. Edited by A. A. Diesel. BZAW 241. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1997A 1997B 1997C Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. “Wisdom Reconsidered, in Light of the Scrolls.” DSD 4: 265-81. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London and New York: Routledge. Cotterell P. and Tmuer, Max. 1989 Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. London: SPCK. 362 Cmsemann, Frank. 1996 The Torah: Theology and Social History o f Old Testament Law. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Crargie, P. C. 1983 Psalms 1-50. WBC 19. Waco: Word. 1974 1976 “The Message o f James.” SJT 18: 182-193, 338-45. “The Influence of the Wise upon Amos.” Z4 W 79: 42-52. “Method in Deteimining Wisdom Influence upon ‘Historical’ Literatme.” JBL 88: 129-42. “Wisdom.” hr Old Testament Form Criticism. Pages 225-64. Edited by John H. Hayes. San Antonio: Trinity University Press. “Prolegomenon” In Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Pages 1-60. Edited H. M. Orlinsky. New York: Ktav Publishing House. 1980 “hnpossible Questions, Sayings, and Tasks.” Semeia 17: 19-34 1981A Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. 198 IB “Wisdom and Authority: Sapiential Rhetoric and its Warrants.” hr Congress Volume Vienna 1980. VTSup 32. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1983 “The Problem of Theodicy in Shach: On Hmnan Bondage.” JBL 94 (1975): 47-64. Reprinted in Theodicy in the Old Testament. Pages 119-40. Edited by J. L. Crenshaw. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1992A “Ecclesiastics, Book of.” ABD 2:271-80. 1992B “Prohibitions in Proverbs and Qoheleth.” In Priests, Prophets and Scribes. Pages 115-24. Edited by E. Uhich et al. JSOTSup 149; Sheffield: JSOT press. 1995 “The Restr aint of Reason, the Hmnility of Prayer.” Brown Judaic Studies. Reprinted in Urgent Advice and Probing Questions. Pages 206-21. Macon: Mercer University Press. Crossan, John Dominic. 1973 In Parables: The Challenge o f the Historical Jesus. New York: Harper & Row. 1983 In Fragments: The Aphorisms o f Jesus. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Crotty, R. 1995 “Identifying the Poor in the Letter of James.” Colloquium 27: 11-21. Crtrsemaim, Frank. 1996 Torah: Theology and Social History o f Old Testament Law. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Edinbmgh: T. & T. Clark Dahl, N. A. 1976 j i Crenshaw, James L. 1967 1969 j | Cranfield, C. E. B. 1965 \ “Letters.” IDBSup. Pages 538-41. 363 Dalmaa, H. Gustaf. 1902 The Words o f Jesus: Considered in the Light o f Post-biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language. English Translation. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark. 1929 Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels. Transated by Paul P. Leveitoff. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Dana, H. E, and Mantey, Julius R. 1955 A Manual Grammar o f the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan. Danker, Frederick W. 1987 Luke. Proclamation Commentaries 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Fortress. Daube, W. David. 1956 The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: University of London. Davids, Peter H. 1974 1976 1978 1978A “Themes in the Epistle of James that are Judaistic in Character.” Unpublished Ph.D. Diesis. University of Manchester. “The Poor Man’s Gospel.” Themelios 1: 37-41. “The Meaning of ’ATreLpaicç in James 1.13.” NTS 24: 386-92. “Tradition and Citation in the Epistle of James.” In Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation: E. F. Harrison Festschrift. Pages 113-26. Edited by W. W. Gasque and W.S. LaSor, Grand Rapids. 1980 1982 1985 “Theological Perspectives on the Epistle of James.” JETS 23 ; 97-103. The Epistle o f James. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. “James and Jesus.” In Gospel Perspectives V: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Pages 63-85. Edited by David Wenham. JSNTSup 64. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1988 1989 1993 1996 “The Epistle of James in Modern Discussion.” ANRWH. 25/5 : 3621-45. James. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson. “The Use of the Pseudepigrapha in the Catholic Epistles.” hr The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Pages 228-45. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans. JSPSS 14 / SSEJC 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press. “Controlling the Tongue and the Wallet: Discipleship in James.” In Patterns o f Discipleship in the New Testament. Pages 225-47. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Davis, J. A. 1984 Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation o f 1 Corinthians 1.18-2.20 against the Background o f Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the Greco-Roman Period.. New York: University of Anerica. 364 Davies, W. David 1952 1955 Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come. JBLMS 7. Philadelphia; SBL. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. London; SPCK. 1962 1964 Christian Origins and Judaism: A Collection o f New Testament Studies. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. The Setting o f the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Davies, W. David and Allison, Dale. 1988 The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 1. Commentary on Matthew I-VIIL ICC. Edinbmgh: T. & T. Clark. 1997 The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol.3. Commentary on Matthew XIX-XXVII. ICC. Edinbmgh: T. & T. Clark. Deasley, A. R. G. 1972 “The Idea o f Perfection in the Qumran Texts.” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Manchester, Manchester. Deissmann, Adolf. 1901 Biblical Studies. Translated by A. Grieve. Edinbmgh: T. & T. Clark. 1978 Light from the Ancient East. Translated by L. R. M. Strachan. Grand Rapids: Balcer. DeUing, Gerhard. 1964 “AmpxTi'.” TDNT 1.484-86 1972 “TéÀoç, ICTÀ.” TDNT 8.49-87 Deppe, Dean. 1989 The Sayings o f Jesus in the Epistle o f James. Chelsea: Bookcrafters. Derron, Pascale. 1986 Pseudo-Phocylide Sentences: Texte Établi, Traduit et Commenté. Collection des Universités de France. Paris: Société D’Édition «Les Belles Letters ». Deutsch, Celia. 1987 Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah and Discipleship in Matthew 11.25-30. JSNTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar1975 The Intermediary World and Patterns o f Perfection in Philo and Hebrews. SBLDS 25. Missoula: Scholars Press. DiLeUa, Aexander A. 1966 “Conservative and Progressive Theology.” CBQ 28: 139-54. 1993 “Die Meaning of Wisdom in Ben Sha.” In In Search o f Wisdom: Essays in Memory o f John G. Gammie. Pages 133-48. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Johnston Wiseman. Louisville: Westminster. 365 1996 “The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Resources and Recent Research.” CRBS 4: 161-81. Dibelius, Martin with Greeven, Hehiricli. 1976 A Commentary on the Epistle o f James. Revised by Heinrich Greeven. Translated by Michael A. Williams. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortr ess. Dühnan, C. N. 1978 “A Study of Some Theological and Literary Comparisons of the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of James.” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Edinbur gh. Dodd, C. H. 1959 “The Primitive Catechism and the Sayings of Jesus.” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory o f Thomas Walter Manson. Pages 106-18. Edited by A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester: Mancester University Press. Donaldson, Terene L. 1995 “The Law that Hangs (Matthew 22:40): Rabbinic Formulation and Matthean Social World." CBQ 57: 689-709. Donfiied, Karl P. 1974 The Setting o f Second Clement in Early Christianity. NovTSup 38. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Doty, William G. 1969 “The Classification on Epistolary Literature.” CBQ 31: 183-99. 1972 “The Concept of Gem e in Literary Analysis.” SBLSP: 413-48. 1973 Letters in Primitive Christianity. New Testament Series. Philadelphia: 1974 “The Parables of Jesus, Kafka, Borges, and Others, widi Strnctmal Observations.” S'enre/ûr 2: 152-93. Fortress. Draper, Jonathan Alfred. 1996A “The Didache in Modern Research: An Overview.” hr The Didache in Modern Research. Pages 1-42. Edited by Jonathan A fied Draper. AGJU 37. Leiden: E. J. BriU. 1996B “The Jesus Tradition in the Didache.” In The Didache in Modern Research. Pages 72-91. Edited by Jonathan A fied Draper. AGJU 37. Leiden: E. J. BriU. 1996C “Torah and Troublesome Apostles in tlie Didache Community.” In The Didache in Modern Research. Pages 340-63. Edited by Jonathan Afired Draper. AGJU 37. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Dryness, WiUiam. 1981 “Mercy Triumphs over Justice: James 2:13 and the Theology of Faith and Works.” Themelios 6: 11-16. Duling, D. C. 1992 “Matthew’s Plmisignificant ‘Son of David’ in Social Science Perspective: Kinship, Kingship, Magic, and Miracle.” BTB 22: 99-116. 366 Dunn, James D. G. 1988 Romans 1-8. WBC 38A. Dallas; Word. 1991 “Once More HISTIS XPISTOY.” SBLSP 730-44. Du Plessis, P. J. 1959 TEAEIOS. The Idea o f Perfection in the New Testament. Kampen: J. H. Kok. Dupont, J. 1958-73 Les béatitudes. 3 Vols. Paris: J. Gabalda. Dupont-Sommer, A. 1961 The Essene Writings from Qumran. Translated by G. Vermes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Easton, Burton Scott. 1932 “New Testament Ethical Lists.” JBL 31: 1-12. 1957 “The Epistle of James.”/5 12. New York: Abingdon. Eckart, Kail-Gottfiied. 1964 “Zui" Terminologie des Jakobusbriefes.” ThL 89 : 522-26. Edershehn, A. 1994 Sketches o f Jewish Social Life. Updated Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson. Edgar, David. 1995 “The Literaiy Composition and Social Setting of tlie Epistle of James. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Trinity College. Edsman, Cail-Maitin. 1939 “Schopfeiwille und Gerburt. Jac. 1.18: Eine Studie zur altchiistlichen Kosmologie.” ZNW 38:11-44. Edwai'ds, Ruth B. 1996 The Johannine Epistles. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Eisenbrauns.Gemser, B. 1960 “The Instructions of ‘Onchsheshonqy and Biblical Wisdom Literature.” VTSup 7: 102-28. Eisenman, R. 1990 “Eschatological ‘Rain’ hnageiy in the War Scroll from Qumran and in the Letter of James. JNES 49: 173-84. Elbogen, Ismar. 1993 Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History. Translated by Raymond D. Scheindlin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society / New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of Anerica. 367 Elgvin, Toiieif. “Admonition Texts from Qumran Cave 4.” In Methods o f linvestigation o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Present Realities and Future Prospects. Pages 179-94. Edited by M. O. Wise, N. Golb, J. J. 1994A Collins, D. G. Paidee. New York: Academy of A ts and Sciences. 1994B “The Genesis Section o f 4Q422 (4QPaiaGenExod).” DSD 1: 180-96. 1995A “The Reconstruction of Sapiential Work A.” RevQ 64: 559-80. 1995B “Wisdom, Revelation, and Eschatology in an Early Essene Writing.” SBLSP'. 440-63. 1996 “Early Essene Eschatology: Judgment and Salvation according to Sapiential Work A.” In Current Research and Technological Developments o f the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995. Pages 126-65. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Vol. 20. Leiden, E. J. Brill. Elliott, John H. 1993 “The Epistles of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective: Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of Replication.” 5 7 5 23: 71-81. Elliott-Biims, L. E. 1955A “James i,21 and Ezekel xvi.36: An Odd Coincidence.” ExpTim 66: 273 1955B “The Meaning ofhlr\ in Jas. m.5.” NTS 2: 48-50. 1956 “James 1.18: Creation or Redemption?”. NTS 3: 148-61 Esler, Philip F. 1987 Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations o f Lucan Theolog)>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Esser, H. -H. ‘Humility, Meekness.” NIDNTT 2.259-64. Evans, Craig A. 1992 Noncanonical Writings and Ne^v Testament Interpretation. Peabody: 1993 "The Twelve Thrones of Israel: Scripture and Politics in Luke 22:24-30.” In Luke and Scripture: The Function o f Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts. Pages 154-70. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Mineapolis: Augsburg Fortress. 1997 “Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus.” In Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Doctrines. Pages 299-328. Edited by James M. Scott. SJSJ 56. Leiden: E. J. BriU. Hendrickson. Evans, M. J. 1983 ‘The Law in James.” Vox Evangelica 13: 29-40. 1977 Legge della libertà in Giacomo. RivBSup 8. Brescia: Paideia. Fabris, R. FaUcemoth U. and Brown, C. “Patience.” NIDNTT 2.764-76. 368 Fay, S. C. A. 1992 “Weisheit—Glaube--Praxis: Zm Diskussion uin den Jakobusbiief.” In Theologie im Werden: Studien zu den theologischen Konzeptionen im Neuen Testament. Pages 397-415. Edited by J. Hainz. Paderbom: Veiiag Ferdinand Schoningh. Feldei', Cain Hope. 1982 “Wisdom, Law, and Social Concern in the Epistle of James.” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Columbia University. Fensham, F. Charles. 1962 “Widow, Oiphan and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature.” JNES 21: 129-39. Füson, Floyd. 1941 “The Christian Teacher in the First Century.” JBL 60: 317-28. Findlay, J. A. 1926 “James iv.5.6.” ExpTim 37: 381-82 Fiore, Benjamin. 1986 The Function o f Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles. AnBib 105. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. 1992 “Paienesis and Proti'eptic” ABD 5.162-65. Fischel, Hemy A. 1974 “The Uses of Sorities {Climax, Gradatio) in the Tannaitic Period.” HUCA 44: 119-51. 1975 “The Transformation of Wisdom in the World of Midrash.” In Aspects o f Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity. Pages 67-101. Edited by Robert L. Wilken. University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 1. Notre Dame: University of Notr e Dame Press. Fitzgerald, John T. 1990 “Paul, the Ancient Epistolary Theorists, and 2 Corinthians 10-13.” In Greeks, Romans and Christians. Pages 190-200. Edited by B. L. Balch, I. Ferguson, W. A. Weeks. Mirmeapolis: Fortress. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1979 A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. SBLMS 25. Chico: 1981 The Gospel According to Luke. AB 28. Garden City: Doubleday & Co. 1985 The Gospel According to Luke. AB 28A. Garden City: Doubleday & Co. Flusser, David. 1985 Scholars Press. “The Ten Commandments and the New Testament.” In The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition. Pages 219-46. Edited by BenZion Segal. Jérusalem: Magnes Press. 369 1991 “Jesus, His Ancestry, and the Commandment of Love.” In Jesus' Jewishness: Exploring the Place o f Jesus within Early Judaism. Pages 153-73. Edited by James H. Charleswoith. New York: Crossroad. Focke, F. 1913 Die Entstehung Der Weisheit Salomos. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Foerster, Werner. 1966 “mdicA.Tipoç.” TDNT 3.766-67. Fohre, Georg. 1961 “Remarks on Modem Interpretation of the Prophets.” JBL 80: 309-19. Fontaine, Carole R. 1982 Traditional Sayings in the Old Testament. Bible and Literature Series 5. 1993 “Wisdom in Proverbs.” In In Search o f Wisdom: Essays in Memory o f John G. Gammie. Pages 99-114. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Johnston Wiseman. Louisville: Westminster. Sheffield: Ahnond Press. Forbes, P. B. R. 1972 “The Structure of the Epistle of James.” EvQ 44: 147-53. Fraade, Steven D. 1990 “Tire Early Rabbinic Sage.” In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pages 417-36. Edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Francis, F. O. 1970 “The Form and Fimction of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John.” Z7VPF61: 110-26. Frankemolle, Hubert. 1985 “Gespalten oder ganz. Zm Pragrnatik der theologischen Anthropologie des Jakobusbiiefes.” In Kommunikation und Solidaritat. Pages 160-78. Edited by H. -U. von Brachel & N. Mette. Münster: Edition Liberacion. 1986 “Gesetz im Jakobusbrief: Zm Tradition, contextueUen Verwendung und Rezeption eines belasteten Begriffes.” In Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament. Pages 175-221. Edited K. Kertelge. Quaestiones Disputatae 108. Freiburg: Herder. 1990 “Das semantische Netz des Jalcobusbriefes: Zm* Einheit eines mnstrittenen Briefes,” BZ34: 161-97. 1994 Der Brief des Jakobus. Verlag/Würzbmg: Echter. ÔTKB 17/1-2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Freeman, G. M. 1986 The Heavenly Kingdom: Aspects o f Political Thought in the Talmud and Midrash. New York: University Press of America. 370 Freyne, Sean. 1998 Galilee: From Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 BCE to 135 CE: A Study o f Second Temple Judaism. Edinburgh: T & T Claik. Fiy, Euan. 1978 “The Testing of Faith: A Study of the Structure of the Book of James.” BT 29: 427-35. Fuller, Reginald H. 1978 “The Double Commandment of Love: A Test Case for the Criteria of Authenticity.” In Essays on the Love Commandment. Pages 41-56. Translated by Reginald H. and Use Fuller. Philadelphia: Foiri ess. 1989 “The Decalogue in the New Testament.” Int 43: 243-55. Fung, Ronald Y. K. 1992 “Justification in the Epistle of James.” In Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World. Pages 146-162, 277-87. Edited by D Carson. Carlisle: Patemoster/Grand Rapids: Baker. Funic, Robert W. 1966 Language, Hermeneutic, and Word o f God: The Problem o f Language in the New Testament and Contemporary Theology. New York: Harper & Row. Finnish, Victor Paul. 1968 Theology and Ethics in Paul. Nashville: Abingdon. 1972 The Love Command in the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon. Gammie, John G. 1990A 1990B “From Prudentialism to Apocalypticism: The Houses of the Sages amid the Varying Forms of Wisdom.” In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pages 479-97. Edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. “Par aenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Geme.” Semeia 50: 41-77. 1990C “The Sage in Sirah.” hr The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pages 355-72. Edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lalce: Eisenbrauns. Gench, Frances Taylor. 1995 “James.” In The General Letters: Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter, Jude, 1-2-3 Pages 24-41. Edited by Gerhard Krodel. Proclamation Commentaries. Revised and Enlarged Edition. Mirmeapolis: Fortress. John. Gerhardsson, Birger. 1964 The Origins o f the Gospel Traditions. London: SCM. 1966 The Testing o f God's Son (Matt 4:1-11 & Par): An Analysis o f an Early Christian Midrash. Lund: CWK Gleerup. 1967-68 “The Parable of the Sower and its Interpretation.” NTS 14: 165-93. 371 1969 “Jésus livré et abandonné d’après la passion selon Saint Mattliieu.” RB 76: 206-27. 1972-73 “The Seven Parables in Matthew XIII.” NTS 19: 16-37. 1976 “The Hermeneutic Program in Matthew 22:37-40.” In Jews, Greeks and Christians. Festschrift W. D. Davies. Pages 129-50. Edited by Robert Hameiton-Kelly and Robin Scioggs. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1981 The Ethos o f the Bible. Translated by Stephen Westerhohn. London: 1984 “The Matthaean Version of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9b-13): Some Observations.” In The New Testament Age. Festschrift B. Reicke. Vol. 1. Pages 207-20. Edited by William C. Weinrich. Macon: Mercer. "’’Eleutheria (Freedom) in the Bible.” In Scripture: Meaning and Method. Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday. Pages 3-23. Edited by Bariy P. Thompson. Hull: HuU University Press. 1987 1992 1998 Darton, Longman and Todd. “The Sherna*^ in Early Christianity.” hi The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift F. Neirynck. Pages 275-93. Leuven: Peeters. Memory & Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity. Translated by Eric J. Sharpe. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Livonia: Dove, 1998. Originally published in two voliunes by C. W. K. Gleerup, Lund and Ejnar' Munksgaard Copenhagen under the titles Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, 1961 and Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity, 1964. Gerhart, Mary. 1977 “Generic Studies: Their Renewed Importance in Religious and Literary Interpretation.” JAAR 45: 309-25. Gerhart, Mary. 1988 Gertner, M. 1962 1964 ‘Gemic Competence in Biblical Hermeneutics.” Semeia 43: 29-44. “Midrashim in the New Testament.” JSS 7: 267-92. “Midrashic Terms and Techniques in the New Testament: the Epistle of James, a Midrash on a Psahn.” SE 3 - TU 88: 463. Geyser, A. S. 1975 “The Letter of James and die Social Condition of His Addressees.” Neot 9: 25-33. Gibbs, J. G. 1971 Creation and Redemption. NovTSup 26; Leiden: E. J. Brill. Gilbert, Mamice 1984 “Wisdom Literature.” hr Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period. Pages 283-324. Edited by Michael E. Stone. Philadelphia / Assen: Fortress / Van Gorciun. 372 1991 “The Book of Ben Sira: Implication for Jewish and Christian Traditions.” In Jewish Civilization in the HeUenistic-Roman Period. Pages 81-91. Edited by S. Tahnon. Philadelphia; Trinity Press. Gitay, Jehoshua 1980 “Deutero-Isaiah: Oral or Written.” JBL 99: 185-97. Goldstein, Jonathan. 1981 “Jewish Acceptance and Rejection of Hellenism.” In Jewish and Christian Seîf-Dejinition. Volume Two: Aspects o f Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period. Pages 64-87. Edited by E. P. Sanders. London: SCM. Goppelt, Leonhar d. 1982 Theology o f the New Testament. Edited by Jürgen Roloff. Translated by John E. Alsup. 2 Volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gordis, R. 1968 Koheleth—the Man and His World. Schocken. A Study o f Ecclesiastes. New York: Gordon, R. P. 1975 “icat TO T € X o ç t o u icuptou € lô 6 T e (Jas.5.11).” J7’5'26: 91-95. Gowan, D. E. 1993 “Wisdom and Endurance in James,” H B T 15: 145-53. Grant, Robert M. 1947 1965 “The Decalogue in Early Christianity.” HTR 40: 1-17. “Commentary on First Clement.” In The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary. Vol.2 First and Second Clement. By Robert M. Grant and Holt H. Graham. Edited by Robert M. Grant. London/New York/Toronto: Thomas Nelson & Sons. Green, J. Harold. 1993 An Exegetical Summary o f James. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Green, Joel B. 1994 “Good News to Whom? Jesus and the ‘Poor’ in the Gospel of Luke” hr Jesus o f Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Pages 59-74. Edited by Joel B. Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster. 1995 “Discourse Analysis and NT Interpretation.” In Hearing the NT: Strategies fo r Interpretation. Pages 175-96. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Greeven, Heinrich. 1958 “Jedes Gabe ist Gut, Jalc. 1,17.” TZ 14: 1-13. Gryglewicz, Feliks. 1961 “L’Epitre de St. Jacques et l’Évangile de St. Matthieu.” RTK 8:33-35. 373 Guelich, Robert A. 1982 The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. Waco: Word. Gundiy, Robert H. 1982 Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand 1993 Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Rapids: Eerdmans. Eerdmans. Gutbord, Walter. 1967 “Nopoç.” TDWr4.1022-85. Guthrie, Donald. 1990 New Testament Introduction. Rev. Ed. Leicester: IVP. Guthrie, G. H. 1994 The Structure o f Hebrews: A Text Linguistic Analysis. NovTSup 73. Leiden: BiiU. Haas, Gees. 1989 “Job’s Perseverance in the Testament of Job.” In Studies on the Testament o f Job. Edited by Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst. SNTSMS 66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hadidian, D. Y. 1952 “Palestinian Pictures in the Epistle of James.” ExpTim 63: 227-28. Hadot, Jean. 1970 Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira. Brussels: Presses Universitair es de Bruxelles. Hagner, Donald A. 1984 1993 “The Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr.” In Gospel Perspectives. Vol.5. Pages. 233-68. Edited by David Wenharn. Sheffield: JSOT Press. “Righteousness in Matthew’s Theology.” In Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor o f Ralph P. Martin.Pages 101-20. Edited by Michael J. WiUdns and Terence Paige. JSNTSup 87. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Matthew 1-13. WBC 33A. Dallas: Word. 1995 Matthew 14-28. WBC 33B. Dallas: Word. 1992 Hahn, Ferdinand and Müller, Peter. 1998 “Der Jalcobusbrief.” TRu 64: 1-73. Halpein-Amaru, Betsy. 1997 “Exile and Return in Jubilees.” Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Doctrines. Pages 127-44. Edited by James M. Scott. SJSJ 56. Leiden: E. J. BriU. 374 Halson, B. R. 1968 “The Epistle of James; ‘Christian Wisdom?’” SE 4; 308-14 - TU 102. Hamel, Gildas H. 1989 Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, First Three Centuries G.E. University of California Publications: Near Eastern Studies 23. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hammerton-Kelly, R. G. 1972 “Attitudes to the Law in Matthew’s Gospel; A Discussion of MsiUhQw Biblical Research 17: 19-32 Hanson, A. 1979 “The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle of James.” NTS 25: 526-27. Haie, R. M. 1961 The Language o f Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Harrington, Daniel J. 1994A “Sirach Research since 1965: Progress and Questions.” hr Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor o f Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion o f his Seventieth Birthday. Pages 164-76. Edited by John C. Reeves and John Karnpen. JSOTSup 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1994B “Wisdom at Qumran.” hr The Community o f the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead. Sea Scrolls. Pages 137-52. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series. Vol. 10. Notre Dame: University of Notr e Dame Press. 1996A “Tire Raz Nihyeh in a Qiuiuan Wisdom Text.” RevQ 17: 550-53. 1996B Wisdom Texts from Qumran. London: Routledge. 1997A “Ten Reasons Why the Qumr an Wisdom Texts ar e Important.” DSD 4: 245-54. 1997B “Two Early Jewish Approaches to Wisdom: Sirach and Qurman Sapiential Work A.” JSP 16: 25-38. Harrington, Hannah K. 1993 The Impurity Systems o f Qumran and the Rabbis: Biblical Foundations. SBLDS 143. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Hartin, Patrick J. 1989 “James and the Q Sermon on the Mount/Plain.” SBLSP 28: 440-57. 1991 James and the Sayings o f Jesus. JSNTSup 47. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1993 “‘Come Now, You Rich, Weep and W ail. . .’ (James 5:1-6).” Journal o f Theology fo r Southern Africa 84: 57-63. 1996 ‘“Who is Wise and Understanding among You?’ (James 3:13. An Analysis of Wisdom, Eschatology and Apocalypticism in tire Epistle of James.” SBLSP : 483-503. 375 Hartley, J. H. 1992 Leviticus, WBC 4. Dallas: Word. Hartinaim, Gerhard. 1942 “Der Aufbau des Jakobusbiiefes.” ZTK 66: 63-70. Harvey, Jolm D. 1981 “Toward a Degree of Order in Ben Sira’s Book.” ZAW 93: 52-62. Hauck, Friedrich. 1964 “'Ayuoç, i c t A ..” TDNT 1.122-24. 1967 “’Aiiittvxoç.” TDNT 4.647 1966 “KaGapoç.” TDNT 3.413-17. 1967 “Mévcù i c t A ..” TDWT4.574-88. Hayman, A. P. 1976 “Rabbinic Judaism and the Problem of Evil.” SJT 29:461-76. Heinemann, Jospel. 1971 “The Proem in the Aggadic Midrashim—A Fonn-Critical Study.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22: 100-22. Head, Peter M. 1997 Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Marlcan Priority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Held, Heinz Joachim. 1982 “Matthew as Interpreter of the Miiacle Stories.” In Tradition & Interpretation in Matthew. Pages 165-299. Translated by Percy Scott. London: SCM. Hengel, Maitin. 1974 Judaism and Hellenism. 2 Vols. London: SCM/Philadelphia: Fortress. 1974,79 Earliest Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM. Containing Acts and the History o f Earliest Christianity. London: SCM, 1979 m à Property and Riches in the Early Church. London: SCM, 1974. 1988 1985 “Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik.” In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor o f E. E. Ellis. Pages 248-278. Edited by Grand Rapids. “Jakobus der Herrenbmder - der erste ‘Papst’.” In Glaube und Eschatologie: FS W. G. Kiimmel. Pages 71-104. Edited by Erich Grafter and Otto Merk. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Hiebert, D. Edmond. 1979 The Epistle o f James. Chicago: Moody. Hiers, Richard H. 1992 “Day of the Lord.” ABD: 2.82-83. Hilton, Michael with Marshall, Gordian. 1988 The Gospels and Rabbinic Judaism: A Study Guide. London: SCM. 376 Hil'sch, E. D. 1967 Validity in Interpretation. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Hogan, Maurice. 1998 “The Law in the Epistle o f James.” SNTU22: 79-91. Hollander, H. W. and de Jorrge, M. 1985 The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP 8; Leiden: E. J. Brill, HoUenbach, Paul W. 1987 “Defining Rich and Poor Using Social Sciences.” SBLSP: 50-63. Hooker, Morna D. 1991 The Gospel According to St Mark. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: A & C Black. Hoppe, Rudolf. 1977 Der theologische Hintergrund des Jalcobusbriefes. Forschung zur Bibel, no. 28. Würzburg: Echter. Horbury, W. 1986 “The Twelve and the Phylarchs.” NTS 32: 503-27. Horsley, Richard A. 1993A Jesus and the Spiral o f Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1993B “Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Mark.” In In Search o f Wisdom: Essays in Memory o f John G. Gammie. Pages 223-44. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Johnston Wiseman. Louisville: Westminster. Horst, Johannes. 1967 “MaKpo0U(iLa, ictA..” TDNT 4.374-87 Horst, Pieter W. van der. 1978A “Pseudo-Phocylides and the New Testament.” ZNW 69: 202. 1978B The Sentences o f Pseudo-Phocylides. SVTP 4. Leiden: E. J. BriU. 1988 “Pseudo-Phocylides Revisited.” JSP 3: 3-30 1985 “Pseudo-Phocylides: A New Translation and Introduction.” hr The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol.2. Pages 565-82. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Longman & Todd. Hort, F. J. A. 1909 The Epistle o f St James. London: Macmillan. Hmvitz, Avi. 1988 “Wisdom Vocabulary in the Hebrew Psalter: A Contribution to the Study o f ‘Wisdom Psahns.” FT 38: 41-51. 377 Jackson-McCabe, Matt A. 1996 “A Letter to the Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora: Wisdom and ‘Apocalyptic’ Eschatology in the Letter of James.” SBLSP: 504-17. 1970 ‘Literary Motifs in the Testament of Job.” JJS 21: 1-3. 1976 ‘The Midrashic Background for James 11.21-23.” NTS 22: 457-64 Jacobs, I. Jefford, Clayton N. 1989 The Sayings o f Jesus in the Teaching o f the Twelve Apostles. SVC 11. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Jeremias, Joachim. 1954-55 “Paul and James.” ExpTim 66: 368-71. 1959 “Jac. 4:5: 1971 Paul’s Anthropological terms. AGJU 10. Leiden: Brill. CTiiroGeL.” ZNW 50: 137-38 Jewett, R. Johanson, B. C. 1973 “Tire Definition of ‘Pine Religion’ in James 1:27 Reconsidered.” ExpTim 84: 118-19. Johnson, E. Elizabeth. 1989 The Function o f Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9-11. SBL Dissertation Series 109. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1993 “Wisdom and Apocalyptic in Paul.” hr In Search o f Wisdom: Essays in Memory o f John G. Gammie. Pages 263-84. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott and William Johnston Wiseman. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. Johnson, John E. 1987 “An Analysis of Proverbs 1:1-7.” BibSac 144: 419-32. Johnson, Lulce T. 1982 “The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James.” JBL 101: 391-401. 1983 “James 3:13-4:10 and the Topos irepi, (j)9ovoi).” NovT 25: 327-47. 1985 “Friendship with the World/Friendship with God: A Study of Discrpleship in James’“ hr Discipleship in the New Testament. Pages 166-83. Edited by F. F. Segovia. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1988 “The Minor of Rememberance (James 1:22-25).” CBQ 50: 632-45. 1990 “Taciturnity and True Religion James 1:26-27.” In Greeks, Romans and Christians. Pages Pages 329-39. Edited by B. L. Balch, I. Ferguson, W. A. Weeks. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1995A The Letter o f James. AB 37A. New York: Doubleday. 1995B “The Social World of James: Literary Analysis and Historical Reconstruction.” In The Social World o f the First Christians: Essays in Honor o f Wayne A. Meeks. Pages 178-97. Edited by L. Michael White and O. Lany Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Fortress. 378 Jones, F. Stanley. 1992 “Freedom.” ABD 2.855-59. de Jonge, M. 1953 The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study o f Their Text, Composition, and Origin. Brill: E. J. Brill. Kasemann, Ernst. 1969A Jesus Means Freedom. Translated by F. Clarke. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1969B “On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic.” In New Testament Questions o f Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. Pages 108-37. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1969C “Sentences of Holy Law m the New Testament.” In New Testament Questions o f Today. Translated by W. J, Montague. Pages 66-81. Philadelphia: Fortress. Keck, Leander E. 1965 “The Poor Among the Saints in the New Testamerrt,” ZNW 56: 100-29. 1966 “The Poor Among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran.” ZNW 57: 54-78. 1974 “The Son who Creates Freedom.” Concilium 3: 67-82. Kee, Howard C. 1974 “Satan, Magic, and Salvation in the Testament of Job.” SBLSP 1: 53-76. 1983 “Testaments of tire Twelve Patriarchs.” In OTP 1.775-828. 1984 Understanding the New Testament. 4th Edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Kelber, Werner H. 1985 “From Aphorism to Sayings Gospel and from Parable to Narrative Gospel.” Fon/w 1: 23-30. Ketmedy, George 1963 The Art o f Persuasion in Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kerferd, George B. 1990 “The Sage in Hellenistic Philosophical Literature (399 B.C.E.-199 C.E.).” In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pages 319-28. Edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Kilpatrick, G. D. 1967 “Übertreter des Gesetzes, Jak 2:11.” TZ 23: 433. Kingsbiuy, Jack D. 1986 Matthew as Story. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1987 “The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Moimt within Matthew. ” /«/ 41: 131-43. 379 Kilic J. A. 1969 “The Meaning of Wisdom in James: Examination of a Hypothesis.” NTS 16: 24-38. Kittel, Gerhard. 1931 “Die Stellung des Jakobus zu Judentum und Heidenschiistentmn.” ZNW 30: 145-57. 1942 “Der geschichtiiche Oit des Jakobusbiiefes.” ZNW 41: 71-105. 1950 “Der Jakobusbrief und die apostolischen Vater.” ZNW 43: 54-112. IClassen, William. 1984 Love o f Enemies: The Way to Peace. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1992 “‘Love Your Enemies’: Some Reflections on the Cuirent Status of Research.” In The Love o f Enemy and Nonretaliation in the Nev> Testament. Pages 1-31. Edited by Willard M. Swartley. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. Klein, Maitin. 1995 "Ein vollkommenes Werk”: Vollkommenheit, Gesetz und Gericht als theologische Themen des Jalcobusbriefes. Beitrage zm Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament; H.139=Folge 7, H.19. Stuttgart: W. KoMhammer Drackerei GmbH. Klijn, A. F. J. 1983 “(Syiiac Apocalypse of) Baiuch.” In OTP 1.615-52. Kloppenborg, John S. 1992 “Review of P. J. Hartin’s James and the Q Sayings o f Jesus.” CBQ 54: 567-68. 1995 “Uie Transfoimation of Moral Exhortation in Didache 1-5.” In The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History and Transmission. Pages 88-109. Edited by Clayton N. Jefford. SNT77. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Knowling, R. J. 1904 The Epistle o f St. James. Westminster Commentaries. London: Methuen & Co. Knox, W. L. 1937 “The Divine Wisdom.” JTS 38: 230-37. Koester, Hehnut 1982 Introduction to the New Testament. Vol 2: History and Literature o f Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Foitress. Komadt, Matthias. 1998 Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief: Eine Studie zu seiner soteriologischen und ethischen Konzeption. SUNT 22. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 380 Koskenniemi, H. 1956 Studien zur Idee and Phraséologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. chr. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia Annales Academiae Scientiaruin Fennicae, Saija-Sei-. B Nide-Tom 102, 2. Helsinki: Suomalaien Tiedeakateinia. Kiaft, R. A. 1965 Barnabas and the Didache. The Apostolic Fathers. Vol.3. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons. Kreitzer, L. Joseph. 1987 Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology. JSNTSup 19. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Kiichler, Max. 1979 Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des jrühjüdischen Jahweglaubens. OBO 26. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kugehnan, Richard. 1980 James & Jude. New Testament Message 19. Wihnington: Michael Glazier/Dublin: Veritas Publications. Kuhn, K. G. 1958 “New Light on Temptation, Sin, and Flesh in the New Testament.” In The Scrolls and the New Testament. Pages 54-64, 265-70. Edited by K. Stendahl. London: SCM. Kiimmel, Werner Georg. 1975 Introduction to the New Testament. 17th Edition. Translaed by Howard Clai'k Kee. London: SCM. Laato, Timo. 1997 “Justification According to James: A Compaiison with Paul.” Translated by Mark A. Seifiid. Trinity Journal 18: 43-84. 1986 Wisdom and the Book o f Proverbs. New York: Pilgrim Press. Lang, B. Lange, Aimiti. 1995A Weisheit und Pradestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Pradestination in den Textfimden von Qumran, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 18. Leiden, E. J. Brill. 1995B “Wisdom and Predestination in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 2: 340-54. Lapide, Pinchas. 1986 The Sermon on the Mount. MaryknoU: Orbis. Lapoite, Jean. 1975 “Philo in the Traditon of Biblicalical Wisdom Literature.” In Aspects o f Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity. Pages 103-41. Edited by Robert L. Willcen. University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of 381 Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 1. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Laws, Sophie. 1973-74 “Does Scripture Spealc in Vain? A Reconsideration of James IV.5." NTS 20:210-15. 1980 1982 A Commentary on the Epistle o f James. BNTC. London: A.& C. Black. “The Doctrinal Basis for the Ethics of James.” SE 7: 299-305. Leaney, A. R. C. 1963 “Eschatological Significance of Human Suffering in the Old Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” SJT 16: 286-96. Liebennan, Saul. 1977 “How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?” In Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Tahimdic Literature. Pages 325-343. Edited by Henry A. Fischel. New York, KTAV. Originally published in Biblical and Other Studies. Pages 123-141. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963. Lieu, Juditli. 1991 The Theology o f the Johannine Epistles. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lightfoot, J. B. (Ed.) 1989 The Apostolic Fathers. 5 vols. Reprint. Peabody: Hendrickson. Lindemaim, Andreas. 1979 Paulus im altesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption derpaulinischen Theologie in der ftiihchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion. BHT 58. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Lirmemann, Eta. 1966 Parables o f Jesus: Introduction and Exposition. Translated by John Sturdy. London: SPCK. Lips, H. von. 1990 Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament. WMANT 64. München: Neukirchener Verlag. Lipscomb, W. Lowndes with James A. Sanders. 1978 “Wisdom at Qumran.” In Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary. Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien. Edited by John G. Gammie, Walter A. Brueggemarm, W. Lee Humphreys and James M. Ward, 277-285. New York: Union Theological Seminary. Lodge, J. G. 1981 “James and Paul at Cross-pmposes? James 2.22.” Bib 62: 195-213. Lohse, Eduard. 1957 “Glaube und Werke: Zm Theologie des Jakobusbiiefs.” ZNW 48: 1-22. 1991 Theological Ethics o f the N bm> Testament. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress. 382 Louw, J. P. 1973 1992 “Discomse Analysis and the Greek NT,” The Bible Translator 24: 10118. “Reading a Text as Discomse,” in Linguistics and NT Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Pages 17-20. Edited. D. A. Black with K. Barnwell and S. Levinsohn. Nashville: Broadinan. Luck, Uhich. 1967 “Weisheit und Leiden: Zum Problem Paulus und Jakobus.” ThLZ 92: 253-58. 1971 “Der Jakobusbrief und die Theologie des Paulus.” ThGl 61:161-79. 1984 “Die Theologie des Jalcobusbriefes.” ZTK 81:1 -30. Lüdemann, Gerd. 1989 Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Translated by M. E. Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress. Lund, N. W. 1992 Chiasmus in the N T . Reprint of 1942 Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson. Luz, Ulrich, 1989 Matthew 1-7: A Commentary. Translated by Wilhelm C. Linss. Edinbiugh: T. & T. Clark. Mack, Bmton L. 1985 Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise o f the Fathers. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Mack, Burton L. and Murphy, Roland E. 1986 “Wisdom Literatme.” In Early Judaism and Us Modern Interpreters. Pages 371-410. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg. The Bible and its Modem Interpreters. Atlanta: Scholars Press. MacKenzie, R. A. F. 1983 Sirach. Old Testament Message 19. Wihnington: Michael Glazier. Magonet, Jonathan. 1983 “The Structur e and Meaning of Leviticus 19.” HAR 7: 151-67 Malatesta, E. 1978 Interiority and Covenant. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Malherbe, Abraliarn J. 1977 “Ancient Epistolary Theorists.” Ohio Journal o f Religous Studies 5: 3-77. 1983 “Exhortation in First Thessalonians.” N ovT 25: 238-256. 1986 Moral Exhortation: a Greco-Roman Sourcebook. Library of Early 1992 “Hellenistic Moralist and the New Testament.” In ANRW II 26,1: 267333. Christianity 6. Philadelphia: Westminster. 383 Malina, Brace J. 1969 1987 “Some Observations on the Origin of Sin in Judaism and St. Paul.” C B Q 31: 18-34. “Wealth and Poverty in the New Testament and its World.” /ni 41: 35467. Malina, Brace J. and Neyrey, Jerome H. 1988 1991 C a llin g Jesu s N a m es: The S o c ia l V a lu e o f L a b e ls Foundations and Facets: Social Facets. Sonoma: Polebridge. in M a tth e w . “Conflict in Luke-Acts: Labelling and Deviance Theory.” In T h e S o c i a l W o r l d o f L u k e - A c t s : M o d e l s f o r I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Pages 97-122. Edited by Jerome N. Neyrey. Peabody: Hendrickson. Malina, Brace J. and Seeman, Chris. 1993 “Envy.” In B i b l i c a l S o c i a l V a l u e s a n d t h e i r M e a n i n g : A H a n d b o o k . Pages 55-59. Edited by John J. Pilch and Brace J. Malina. Peabody: Hendrickson. Manson, T. W. 1949 T h e S a y in g s o f J e s u s . London: SCM. Marconi, G. 1988 “La ‘sapienza’ nelF esegesi di G c 3,13-18.” R i v B 36: 239-54. Marcus, J. 1982 “The Evil Inclmation in the Epistle of James.” C B Q 44: 606-21. Marmorstein, A. 1929 “The Backgroimd of the Haggadah VI: Diatribe and Haggada [^rc].” In Pages 48-69. Edited by Henry A. Fischel. New York, KTAV. Originally published in C l a s s i c a l P h i l o l o g y 24 (1929): 258-252. E s s a y s in G r e c o - R o m a n a n d R e l a te d T a lu m d ic L ite r a tu r e . Marshall, I. Howard. 1978 The G o s p e ls o f Luke: A C o m m e n ta r y on Exeter/Grand Rapids: Patemoster/Eerdrnans. th e G r e e k T e x t. NIGTC. Marshall, S. S. C. 1969 “Ali|a)Xoç: A Local Term?” S E 6: 348-351- T U 112 (1973). Martin, James D. 1986 “Ben-Sira—a Child of His Time.” Inv4 W o r d i n S e a s o n . E s s a y s i n H o n o u r o f W i l l i a m M c K a n e . Pages 143-61. Edited by J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Mar tin, Ralph P. 1988 Ja m es. WBC 48. Waco: Word. Martin, Troy W. 1992 M e ta p h o r a n d C o m p o s itio n in I P e te r . Press. 384 SBLDS 131. Atlanta: Scholars Massebieau, L. 1895 “L’Épître de Jacques est-elle roaivre d’un chiétien?” R H R 32: 249-83. Matera, Frank J. 1996 N ew T e s ta m e n t E th ic s : T h e L e g a c ie s o f J e s u s a n d P a u l. Westminster/John Knox Press. Louisville: Mauser, Uhich. 1991 “One God Alone: A Pillar- of Biblical Theology.” P S B 12: 255-65. Maynard-Reid, Pedrito U. 1987 P o v e r ty a n d W e a lth in J a m e s . MaryknoU: Orbis Books. Mayor, J. B. 3rd Edition. Originally New York: MacrniUian, 1913. Reprinted. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1913 T h e E p is tle o f S t. J a m e s . McCarter, P. K. 1990 “The Sage in the Deuteronomistic History.” In T h e S a g e i n I s r a e l a n d t h e Pages 289-93. Edited by Jolm G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. A n c ie n t N e a r E a s t. McCreesh, Thomas P. 1985 “Wisdom as Wife: Proverbs 31,10-31.” R B 92: 25-46. McDonald, James, I. H. 1980 K e r y g m a a n d D id a c h e : T h e A r tic u la tio n a n d S tr u c tu r e o f th e E a r lie s t C h r is tia n M e s s a g e . Press. SNTSMS 37. Cambridge: Cambridge University McKane, William. 1970 P ro verb s: A N e w A p p ro a ch . OTL. London: SCM. McKnight, Scot. 1990 “James 2:18a the Unidentifiable Interlocutor.” W T J 52: 355-64. Mealand, David L. 1981 P o v e r ty a n d E x p e c ta tio n in th e G o s p e ls . London: SPCK. Meier, John P. 1976 L a w a n d H is to r y in M a tth e w 's G o s p e l: A R e d a c t io n a l S tu d y o f M l 5 : 1 7 4 8 . AnBib 71. Rome: Pontifical BibUcal Institute. Metzger, Bruce M. 1969 The N ew T e s ta m e n t: Lutterworth. B ackground, G r o w th and C o n te n t. London: 1975 A T e x tu a l C o m m e n ta r y o n th e G r e e k N e w T e s ta m e n t C o r r e c te d E d itio n . 1983 “The Fomth Book of Ezr a.” In O T P . Pages 517-59. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies. Meyer, Arnold. 1930 D a s R a ts e l d e s J a c o b u s b rie fe s . 385 BZNW 10. Giessen: Topelmaim. Meyer, Ben F. 1979 T h e A im s o f J e su s . London: SCM. Meyers, Eric M. and Strange, James F. 1981 A r c h a e o lo g y , th e R a b b is & E a r ly C h r is tia n ity . London: SCM. Middendorp, von Ur. 1973 D ie S te llu n g J e s u B e n S ir a s z w is c h e n J u d e n tu m u n d H e lle n is m u s . E. J. Brill. Leiden: Millar-, C. J. S. 1971 “The Primitive Christology in the Epistle of James.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley. Milgrom, Jacob. 1991 L e v itic u s 1 -1 6 : A N e w T r a n s la tio n a n d C o m m e n ta r y . Doubleday. AnB 3. New York: Mitchell, Margaret M. 1991 P a u l a n d th e R h e to r ic o f R e c o n c ilia tio n : A n E x e g e tic a l In v e s tig a tio n o f th e L a n g u a g e and C o m p o s itio n o f 1 C o r i n t h i a n s . Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. Mitton, C. Leslie. 1966 London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. T h e E p is tle o f J a m e s . Mlakuzhyil, George. 1987 AnBib 117. T h e C h r is to c e n tr ic L ite r a r y S tr u c tu r e o f th e F o u r th G o s p e l, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Moberly, R. W. L. 1990 “Abraham’s Righteousness.” hr S t u d i e s i n t h e P e n t a t e u c h . Pages 103-30. Edited by J. A. Emerton. SupVT 41. Leiden: Brill. Moffatt, James 1928 T h e G e n e r a l E p is tle . MNTC. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Mohrlang, Roger-. 1984 M a tth e w a n d P a u l: A C o m p a r is o n o f E th ic a l P e r s p e c tiv e s . Cambridge: Cambridge Uiriversity Press. SNTMS 48. Momigliano, A. D. 1975 A lie n W isd o m : University Press. The L im its o f H e lle n iz a tio n . Cambridge: Cambridge Montefiore, Hugh. 1962 “Thou Shalt Love the Neighbour- as Thyself.” N o v T 5: 157-70. Moo, Douglas. J. 1984 “Jesus and tire Authority o f the Mosaic Law.” J S N T 20: 3-49. 1985 Ja m es. 1996 T h e E p is tle s to th e R o m a n s . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 386 Moore, George Foot. 1997 Judaism: In the First Centuries o f the Christian Era: The Age ofTannaim. 2 vols. Repmit. Peabody: Hendrickson. Morgan, D. F. 1981 Wisdom in the Old Testament Traditions. Oxford: Blackwell.Motyer, 1985 The Message o f James. The Bible Speaks Today. Leicester, IVP. Alec. Moule, C. F. D. 1962 The Birth o f the New Testament. BNTC. London: Adams & Charles Black. Mullins, Terrence Y. 1949 “Jewish Wisdom Literature in the New Testament.” JBL 68: 335-39. Murphy, Roland E. 1958 “Yeser in the Qurman Literature.” Bib 39: 334-44. 1962 “A Consideration o f the Classification ‘Wisdom Psahns’.” VTSup 9: 15667. 1965 Introduction to the Wisdom Literature o f the Old Testament. Old 1967 “Assumptions and Problems in Old Testament Wisdom Research.” CBQ 29: 407-18. 1981 Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. FOTL 13. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1996 The Tree o f Life. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Testament Reading Guide 22. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Mussner, Franz. 1970 “Perfection.” BEBT\ 2.658-67. 1981 Der Jakobusbrief. 4th Edition. Freiberg: Herder. Nel, Philip J. 1982 The Structure and Ethos o f the Wisdom Admonitions in Proverbs. BZAW 158. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Neudecker, R. 1992 “‘And You Shall Love Your Neighbour as Yourself — I Am the Lord (Lev 19, 18) m Jewish Interpretation.” Bib 73: 496-517. Newsom, Carol A. 1990 “The Sage in the Literature of Qumran: The Functions of the Masldl.” In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pages 373-82. Edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake: Eisenbraims. 387 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1972 R e s u r r e c tio n , Im m o r ta lity , a n d E te r n a l L ife in In te r te s ta m e n ta l J u d a is m . 1979 “Riches, the Rich, and God’s Judgment in 1 Enoch 92:105 and die Gospel according to Luke.” N T S 25: 324-44. 1981 J e w is h L ite r a tu r e b e tw e e n th e B ib le a n d th e M is h n a h : A L i t e r a r y I n t r o d u c t i o n . London: SCM. 1994 “Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Early Judaism: Some Points for Discussion.” SFLAF: 715-32. Harvard Theological Studies 26. Cambridge: Harvard University/London: Oxford University Press. H is to r y a n d Nida, Eugene A. and Taber, Charles R. 1969 T h e T h e o r y a n d P r a c tic e o f T r a n s la tio n . J. Brill. Helps for Translation. Leiden: E. Niebuhr, Kari-Wilhelm. 1987 G e s e tz u n d P a r a n e s e : jr ü h jü d is c h e n L ite r a tu r . Siebeck). 1998 K a te c h is m u s a r tig e W e is u n g s r e ih e n in der WUNT 2/28. Tübingen: J. C. B, Mohr (Paul “Der Jakobusbrief im licht Frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe.” N T S 44: 42043. Noack, Bent. 1964 “Jakobus wider die Reichen.” 5 T 18: 10-25. Obeiinüller, Rudolf. 1972 “Hermeneutische Themen im Jakobusbrief.” B i b 53: 234-244. O’Boyle, M. 1985 “The Stoic Par adox of James 2:10.” N T S 31: 611-17. O’Brien, Peter T. 1977 1992 I n tr o d u c to r y T h a n k s g iv in g s in th e L e tte r s o f P a u l. E. J. Brill. NovTSup, 49. Leiden: “Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades.” In R i g h t w i t h G o d : J u s t i f i c a t i o n i n t h e B i b l e a n d t h e W o r l d . Pages 69-95, 263-68. Edited by D. A. Carson. Carlisle: Patemoster/Grand Rapids: Baker. Gepke, Albrecht. 1967 “napouoLa, TTaperpi.” T D N T 5:858-71 Olivier, J. P. J. 1997 “v m .” N I D O T T G : 1.986-89. Ong, Walter J. 1982 O r a lity a n d L ite r a c y : T h e T e c h n o lo g iz in g o f th e W o r d . York: Metiiuen. 388 London and New Oppenheiiner, Aharon. 1977 T h e 'a m H a - a r e tz : A S t u d y in th e S o c i a l H i s t o r y o f th e J e w i s h P e o p l e in th e H e lle n is tic - R o m a n P e r io d . Leiden: E. J. Biill. Translated by I. H. Levine. ALGHJ 8; Oppeiwall, N. J. 1986 ‘Perfect, MalcePerfect, Perfecter.” /SBF: 3.764-69. 1990 “n r.” T D O T \ 6.257-65. Otzen, B. Parnnak, H. Van Dyke. 1981 “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure.” B i b 62: 153-68 1983 “Transitional Techniques in the Bible.” J B L 102: 525-48. Patte, Daniel. 1987 The G o s p e l A c c o r d in g M a tth e w 's F a ith . to M a tth e w : Philadelphia: Fortress. A S tr u c tu r a l C o m m e n ta r y on Patterson, Stephen J. 1990 “The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction.” In Q - T h o m a s R e a d e r . Pages 77108. Jolm S. Kloppenborg, Marvin W. Meyer; Stephen J. Patterson, and Michael G. Steinhauser. Sonoma: Polebridge, 1990. Pearson, Birger Albert. 1973 T h e P n e u m a tik o s - P s y c h ik o s T e r m in o lo g y in 1 C o r in th ia n s : A S tu d y in th e T h e o lo g y o f th e G n o s tic is m . C o r in th ia n O p p o n e n ts o f P a u l a n d Its R e la tio n SBLDS 12. Missoula: Scholars Press. to Penner, Todd C. 1996 T h e E p is tle o f J a m e s a n d E s c h a to lo g y : R e - r e a d in g a n A n c ie n t C h r is tia n L e tte r . JSNTSup 121. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Perdue, L. G. 1981A “Liminality as a Social Setting for Wisdom Instruction.” Z A W 9 3 : 114-26. 1981B “Paraenesis and the Letter of James.” Z N W 72: 241-56. 1986 “The Wisdom Sayings of Jesus.” F o r u m 2: 3-35. 1990A “The Death of the Sage and Moral Exliortation: From Ancient Near Eastern Instructions to Greco-Roman Paraenesis.” S e m e i a 50: 81-109. 1990B “The Social Chaiacter of Paraenesis and Paraenetic literatme.” S e m e i a 50: 5-39. 1994 W isd o m & Abingdon. C r e a tio n : T h e T h e o lo g y o f W isd o m L ite r a tu r e . Perkins, Pheme. 1982A “Expository Articles: James 3:16-4:3.” I n t 36: 283-87. 1982B L o v e C o m m a n d s in th e N e w T e s ta m e n t. 389 New York: Paulist. Nashville: 1995 F ir s t a n d S e c o n d P e te r , J a m e s , a n d J u d e . 1972 “Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the Message of Jesus.” S B L S P 2: 543-72. 1974 J e s u s a n d th e L a n g u a g e o f th e K in g d o m . Knox Press. Inteipretation. Louisville: John Peiiin, N. Philadelphia: Forhess. Peiïin N. and Duling, D. C. 1982 The N ew T e s ta m e n t: A n Jovanovich. In tr o d u c tio n . New York: Harcomt, Brace, Peuch, E. 1991 “4Q525 et les péiicipes des béatitudes en Ben Sua et Matthieu.” R B 98: 80-106. Peterson, David G. 1982 H e b r e w s a n d P e r fe c tio n : A n E x a m in a tio n o f th e C o n c e p t o f P e r fe c tio n in t h e E p i s t l e t o t h e H e b r e w s . SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995 P ossessed b y G od. Leicester: Apollos. Pfeiffer, Ernst. 1850 “Der Zusammenhang des Jakobusbiiefes.” T S K 23: 163-80 1992 “Notes on the Twelve Tribes in Qumran, Early Christianity and Jewish Tradition.” In M e s s i a h a n d C h r i s t o s : S t u d i e s i n t h e J e w i s h O r i g i n s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y . Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His SeventyFifth Biithday. Pages 151-54. Edited by Ithamai' Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked and Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa. TSAJ 32. Tiibmgen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Pines, S. Pipei*, John. 1979 'L o v e Y o u r E n e m i e s J e s u s ' L o v e C o m m a n d in t h e S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s a n d in th e E a r l y C h r is tia n P a r a e n e s is , A H is to r y o f th e T r a d itio n a n d I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f I t s U s e s . SNTSMS 38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piper, Ronald A. 1991 “Review of P. J. Hartin’s J a m e s a n d t h e Q S a y i n g s o f J e s u s . ” E v Q 65: 8486 . Pogoloff, Stephen M. 1992 L o g o s a n d S o p h ia : T h e R h e to r ic a l S itu a tio n o f IC o r in th ia n s . 134. Atlanta: Scholars Press. SBLDS Popkes, Wiard. 1986 A d r e s s a te n , S itu a tio n u n d F o r m d e s J a lc o b u s b r ie fe s . 1992 “New Testament Principles o f Wholeness.” E v Q 64: 319-32. Katholisches Bibelwerk. 390 SBS125/26. Stuttgart: 1995 “James and Paraenesis, Reconsidered.” In T e x t s a n d C o n t e x t s : B i b l i c a l T e x ts in T h e ir T e x tu a l a n d S itu a tio n a l C o n te x ts . F S to L a r s H a r tm a n . Pages 535-41. Edited by T. Fomberg and D, HeUholm. Oslo: Scandinaivian University Press. 1998 “The Composition of James and Intertextuality: an Exercise in Methodology.” ST 51: 91-112. Porter, F. C. 1901 “The Yeçer Kara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin.” In B i b l i c a l a n d S e m i t i c S t u d i e s . Pages 93-156. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Porter, Stanley E. 1990A “Is d i p s u c h o s (James 18; 48) a ‘Christian’ word?” B i b 71: 469-498. 1990B “’CoTe YLywoKomeg in Eph.5.5: Does Chiasm Solve a Problem?” Z N W 81: 270-76. 1993 “The Theoretical Justification for Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Literatme.” In R h e t o r i c a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t : E s s a y s f r o m t h e 1 9 9 2 H e i d e l b e r g C o n f e r e n c e . Pages 100-22. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. 1994 “Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee.” In S t u d y i n g t h e H i s t o r i c a l J e s u s : E v a l u a t i o n s o f t h e S t a t e o f C u r r e c t R e s e a r c h . Pages 123-54. Edited by Brace Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 19. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Powell, C. H. 1950 “‘Faith’ in James and its Bearing on the Problem of the Date of the Epistle.” FxpDm 62: 311-14. Preisker, Herbert. 1966 “’E-ïïL€LK€La, èiT iencriç.” T D N T 2.588-90. Prentice, W. K. 1951 “James, the Brotlier of the Lord.” In S t u d i e s i n R o m a n E c o n o m i c a n d S o c i a l H i s t o r y : F S . A . C . J o h n s o n . Pages 144-151. Edited by P. R. Coleman-Norton. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pretorius, E. A. C. 1994 “Coherency in James: A Soteriological Intent?” N e o t 28: 541-55. Prockter, Lewis J. 1989 “James 4:4-6 Midrash on Noah.” N T S 35: 625-27. 1997 “Faith, Works, and the Christian Religion in James 2:14-26.” E v Q 69: 307-32. Przybylsld, B. 1980 R ig h te o u s n e s s in M a tth e w a n d h is W o r ld o f T h o u g h t. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SNTSMS 41. Puech, Emile. 1991 “4Q525 et les péricopes des Béatitudes en Ben Shiia et Matthieu.” R B 138: 80-106. 391 Rabinowitz, Louis Isaac. 1972 “Freedom.” J u d E n c l 7.118-19. Rad, Gerhard von. 1965 O l d T e s t a m e n t T h e o l o g y . Vol. 2. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York; Harper & Row. 1972 W i s d o m i n I s r a e l . Translated by James D. Martin. London: SCM. Reed, Jeffrey T. 1993 1997 “Using Ancient Rhetorical Categories.” In R h e t o r i c a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t : E s s a y s f r o m t h e 1 9 9 2 H e i d e l b e r g C o n f e r e n c e . Pages 292-324. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press. “Discourse Analysis.” In H a n d b o o k t o E x e g e s i s o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . Pages 189-217. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. NTTS 25. Leiden: Brill. Reese, James M. 1970 H e l l e n i s t i c I n f l u e n c e o n t h e B o o k o f W i s d o m a n d I t s C o n s e q u e n c e s . AnBib 41. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Iristitute Press. 1982 “The Exegete as Sage: Hearing the Message o f James.” B T B 12: 82-85. Reiche, Bo. 1964 T h e E p is tle s o f J a m e s . P e te r a n d J u d e . AB 37. Garden City: Doubleday. Rendall, Gerald H. 1927 T h e E p is t le o f S t. J a m e s a n d J u d a ic C h r is tia n ity . University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge Rendtorff, Rolf. 1985 The O ld T e s ta m e n t: A n In tr o d u c tio n . London: SCM. Translated by John Bowden. Rengstorf, Kari Heinrich. 1964 “Ftwdo).” T D N T 1.666-68. Riesner, Rainer. 1991 “Jesus as Preacher and Teacher.” I n . J e s u s a n d t h e O r a l G o s p e l T r a d i t i o n . Pages 185-210. Edited by H. Wansbrough. Jomnal for the Study o f the New Testament Supplementary Series 64. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Rigaux, B. 1957-58 “Révélation des mystères et perfection a Qmnrân et dans le Nouveau Testament.” N T S 4: 237-62. Rigsby, Richard O. 1992 “First Fruits.” A B D 2.796-97. Robbins, Vemon K. 1985 “Picking Up the Fragments: From Crossan’s Analysis to Rhetorical Analysis.” Fon/777 1: 31-64. Roberts, David J. 1972 “The Definition of ‘Pure Religion’ in James 1:27.” E x p T i m 83: 215-16. 392 Roberts, J. H. 1986 “Pauline Transitions to the Letter Body.” B E T L 73; 93-99. 1986A “Transitional Techniques to tire Letter Body in the Corpus Paulinurn.” In A S o u th A f r i c a n P e r s p e c tiv e in th e N e w T e s ta m e n t: E s s a y s b y S o u th A fr i c a n N e w T e s ta m e n t S c h o la r s P r e s e n te d to B r u c e M a n n i n g M e t z g e r d u r i n g h i s V i s i t t o S o u t h A f r i c a i n 1 9 8 5 . Pages 187-201. Edited by J. H. Petzer and P. J. Hartin. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Robertson, A. T. 1934 A G r a m m a r o f t h e G r e e k N eM > T e s t a m e n t i n R e s e a r c h . l A a s h v i W Q : Broadrnan. th e L ig h t o f H is to r ic a l Robinson, James M. 1971 “LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q.” In T r a j e c t o r i e s t h r o u g h E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y . Pages 71-113. Edited by James M. Robinson and Hehnut Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress. Roetzel, C. J. 1972 J u d g e m e n t in th e C o m m u n ity : A S tu d y o f th e R e la tio n s h ip E s c h a t o l o g y a n d E c c l e s i o l o g y i n P a u l . Leiden: E. J. Brill. b e tw e e n Rohrbaugh, R. L. 1984 “Methodological Considerations in the Debate over the Social Class Status of Early Christians.” J A A R 5 2 : 519-46. Ropes, James Hardy. 1916 E p is t le o f S t. J a m e s . ICC. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark. Roth, Wolfgang. 1980 “On the Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirah.” S e m e i a 17: 5980. Rousseau, F. 1981 “Structure de Qoheleth 1,4-11 et Plan du Livre,” V T 31: 200-17. Rylaarsdom, J. Coert. 1946 R e v e la tio n in J e w is h W is d o m L ite r a tu r e . Chicago: University of Chicago. Safrai, Shmuel 1978 1978 “Halakha.” In T h e L i t e r a t u r e o f t h e S a g e s . First Part: O r a l T o r a , H a l a k h a , M i s h n a , T o s e f t a , T a l m u d , E x t e r n a l T r a c t a t e s . Pages 121-210. Translated by J. Schwartz and P. J. Tornson. CRINT 2/3. Assen: Van Gorcmn/Phrladelphia: Fortress. “Oral Tora.” In T h e L i t e r a t u r e o f t h e S a g e s . Fhst Part: O r a l T o r a , Pages 35-120. Translated by J. Schwartz and P. J. Tomson. CRINT 2/3. Assen: Van Gorcum/Philadelpliia: Fortr ess. H a la k h a , M is h n a , T o s e fta , T a lm u d , E x te r n a l T r a c ta te s . Saldarini, Anthony J. 1988 P h a r is e e s , S c r ib e s a n d S a d d u c e e s in P a le s tin ia n S o c ie ty . A S o c io lo g ic a l A p p r o a c h . Wilmington: Michael Glazien. 393 1994 Sanders, E. P. 1977 '5 C h r i s t i a n - J e w i s h C o m m u n i t y . Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago and London: University of Cliicago Press. M a tth e w P a u l a n d P a le s tin ia n J u d a is m . London: SCM, 1985 J e s u s a n d J u d a is m . 1990 J e w ish 1993 T h e H is to r ic a l J e s u s . 1994 “Jesus and the First Table of the Jewish Law.” hr J e w s & C h r i s t i a n s S p e a k o f J e s u s . Pages 55-73, 164-66. Edited by Arthur E. Zannoni. Mineapolis: Augsbur g Fortr ess. Law London: SCM. fr o m Jesu s to th e SCM/Philadelphia: Trinity Press. M ish n a h : F iv e S tu d ie s . London: Allen Lane: Penguin. Sanders, Jack A. 1975 E th ic s in th e N e w T e s ta m e n t. London: SCM. Sanders, Jack T. 1962 “The Transition fiom Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus.” J B L 81: 348-362. 1978 “A Hellerristic Egyptian Parallel to Ben Ska.” J B L 97: 257-58. 1983 B e n S ir a a n d D e m o tic W isd o m . Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 28. Chico: Scholars Press. Sandmel, Samuel. 1957 A J e w is h U n d e r s ta n d in g o f th e N e w T e s ta m e n t. 1962 “Parallelornania.” JBL 81: 1-13 New York: Ktav. Sasse, Hermann. 1966 “Kdqioç.” TDM" 3.868-95. Schenlce, Hans-Mattin. 1983 “The Book of Thomas (NHC H.7): A Revision of a Pseudepigraphical Epistle of Jacob the Contender.” In T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t a n d G n o s i s : E s s a y s i n H o n o r o f R o b e r t M c L . W i l s o n . Pages 213-28. Edited. A. H. B. Logan and A. J. M. Wedderbmn. Edingbmgh: T.& T. Clark. Schiffinan, Lawrence H, 1989 T h e E s c h a to lo g ic a l C o m m u n ity o f th e D e a d S e a S c r o lls . 1994 “The Jewish of Jesus: Commandments Concerning Interpersonal Relations.” In J e w s & C h r i s t i a n s S p e a k o f J e s u s . Pages 37-53, 162-64. Edited by Artinu" E. Zannoni. Mineapolis: Augsbmg ForPess. 1995 R e c la im in g th e D e a d S e a S c r o lls : T h e ir T r u e M e a n i n g f o r J u d a is m a n d Press. C h r is tia n ity . ABRL. New York: Doubleday. Schlatter, Adolf. 1956 D e r B r i e f d e s J a k o b u s . Calwer Verlag Stuttgart. 1959 D e r E v a n g e lis t M a tth a u s . Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag. 394 Atlanta: Scholars Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. 1966 “0pTiaK€La, ktX.” T D N T 3 . 1 5 5 - 5 9 . Schmidt, Thomas E. 1987 H o s t i l i t y t o W e a l t h i n t h e S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s . JSNTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Schnabel, E. J. 1985 L a w a n d W is d o m f r o m B e n S ir a to P a u l. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). WUNT 2.16. Tübingen: J. C. B. Schnackenbmg, Rudolf. 1992 T h e J o h a n n in e E p is tle s : In tr o d u c tio n a n d C o m m e n ta r y . Reginald and Use Fuller. Tunbridge Wells: Bums & Oates. Translated by Schneider, Johannes. 1961 D ie B r ie fe d e s J a k o b u s , P e tru s , J u d a s u n d J o h a n n e s . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. NTD 10. Gottingen: Schnider, von Franz. 1987 D e r J a k o b u s b rie f Regensbmg: Friedrich Puster. Schokel, L. Alonso. 1973 “James 5,2 [ s i c ] and 4,6.” B i b 54: 73-76. Schoedel, William R. 1975 “Jewish Wisdom and the Formation of the Christian Ascetic.” hr A s p e c t s o f W i s d o m i n J u d a i s m a n d E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y . Pages 169-199. Edited by Robert L. Wilken. University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 1. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press Schrage, Wolfgang. 1973 1988 “Der Jakobusbrief.” hr D i e K a t h o l i s c h e n B r i e f e . Edited by H. Balz and W. Schrage. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. T h e E th ic s o f th e N ew Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark. T e s ta m e n t. Translated by David E. Green. Schubert, Paul. 1939 T h e F o r m a n d F u n c tio n o f th e P a u lin e T h a n k s g iv in g . Alfred Topehnarm. BZNW 20. Berlin: Schtirer, E. 1973-87 T h e H i s t o r y o f t h e J e w i s h P e o p l e i n t h e A g e o f J e s u s C h r i s t ( 1 7 5 B . C . A . D . 1 3 5 ) . Revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. MiUar', M. Black and M. Goodman. 3 volmnes. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Schweizer, Eduar d. 1975 T h e G o o d N e w s A c c o r d in g to M a tth e w . 395 Atlanta: John Knox. Scott, Bernard Brandon. 1990 “Jésus as Sage; An Innovating Voice in Common Wisdom.” In T h e S a g e i n I s r a e l a n d t h e A n c i e n t N e a r E a s t . Pages 399-416. Edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 1993 “The Gospel of Matthew: A Sapiential Performance of an Apocalyptic Discomse.” In I n S e a r c h o f W i s d o m : E s s a y s i n M e m o r y o f J o h n G . G a m m i e . Pages 245-62. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Jolinston Wiseman. Louisville: Westminster. Scott, J. J. Jr. 1982 Scott, James M. 1995 1997 “James the Relative of Jesus and the Expectation of an Eschatological Priest.” 25:323-31. “Philo and the Restoration of Israel.” S B L S P : 553-75. “Exile and the Self-Understanding of Diaspora Jews in the Greco-Roman Period.” In E x i l e : O l d T e s t a m e n t , J e w i s h , a n d C h r i s t i a n D o c t r i n e s . Pages 173-218. Edited by James M. Scott. SJSJ 56. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Scott, R. B. 1971 T h e W a y o f W isd o m . New York: Macmillan. Seccombe, David Peter. 1983 P o s s e s s io n s a n d th e P o o r in L iik e -A c ts . von Prof. DDr. Albert Fuchs. SNTU B/6. Linz: Herausgegeben Segovia, Fernando F. 1982 Love R e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t h e J o h a n n i n e T r a d i t i o n : A g a g è / A g a p a n i n 1 J o h n a n d t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l . SBLDS 58. Chico: Scholars Press. Seitz, Oscar J. F. 1944 “The Relationship of the Shepherd of Hennas to the Epistle of James.” J B L 6 3 : 131-40. 1947 “Antecedents and Signification of the Term ‘’D i p s y c h o s ' ' ' ' ’ J B L 66: 213-23. 1957-58 “Afterthoughts on the Term ^D i p s y c h o s . ’” N T S 4: 327-34. 1959 “Two Sphits in Man: An Essay in Biblical Exegesis.” N T S 6: 82-95. 1964 “James and die Laws.” S E 2=TU 87: 472-86. Selwyn, Edward Gordon. 1981 T h e F ir s t E p is tle o f S t. P e te r : T h e G r e e k T e x t w ith I n tr o d u c tio n , N o te s , a n d E ssa ys. Baker. 2nd Edition. Thornapple Cormnentaries. Grarrd Rapids: Senior, Donald. 1983 W h a t a r e T h e y S a y in g a b o u t M a tth e w ? New York: Pauhst. Sevenster, J. N. 1968 D o Y o u K n o w G r e e k : H o w m u c h G r e e k c o u ld th e F ir s t J e w is h C h r is tia n s h a v e Ic n o w n ? NovTSup 19. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 396 Shepherd, M. H. 1956 “The Epistle o f James and the Gospel of Matthew.” J B L 75: 40-51. Sheppard, Gerald T. 1980 W is d o m a s a H e r m e n e u tic a l C o n s tr u c t: A S tu d y in th e S a p ie n tia liz in g o f th e O ld T e s ta m e n t. BZAW 151, Berlin: Walter de Giuyter. Sidebottom, E. M. 1967 J a m e s, J u d e a n d 2 P e te r . NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Sigal, Philip. 1981 “The Halalchak of James.” In I n t e r g e r m i P a r i e t i s S e p t u m ( E p h . 2 : 1 4 ) : E s s a y s P r e s e n t e d t o M a r k u s B a r t h . Pages 337-54. Edited by Diki'an Y. Hadidian. Pittsburgh: Pickwick. Simundson, Daniel J. 1980 F a ith 1992 “Suffering.” A B D : 6.219-24. u n d e r F ir e : B ib lic a l In te r p r e ta tio n s o f S u ffe r in g . Augsbmg. Minneapolis: Skehan, Patrick W. CBQMS 1. Wasington: Catholic 1971 S tu d ie s in I s r a e lite P o e t r y a n d W is d o m . 1979 “Structures in Poems on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Shach 24.” C B Q 41: 365-79. Biblical Association of America. Skehan, Patrick W. and DiLella, Alexander A. 1987 T h e W isd o m o f B e n S ir a . The AnBib 39. New York: Doubleday. Sloyan, Gerhard. 1977 “James.” In H e b r e w s , J a m e s , I a n d 2 P e t e r , J u d e , R e v e l a t i o n , 28-49. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress. Smalley, Stephen S. 1984 I, 2, 3 J o h n . WBC 51. Waco: Word. Smend, Rudolf. 1995 “Wisdom at Qumran.” In W i s d o m i n A n c i e n t I s r a e l : E s s a y s i n h o n o u r o f J . Pages 257-68. Edited by J. Day, R. P. Gordon & H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A . E m e r to n . Smith, D. Moody. 1995 Smith, M. 1971 The T h e o lo g y o f th e G ospel o f John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. New Testament Theology. P a le s tin ia n P a r tie s a n d P o litic s T h a t S h a p e d th e O ld T e s ta m e n t. & New York: Colmnbia University Press. 397 London Snaith, John G. 1995 “Ecclesiasticus: a Tract for the Time.” In W i s d o m i n A n c i e n t I s r a e l : Pages 170-81. Edited by J. Day, R. P. Gordon & H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. E s s a y s in h o n o u r o f J , A , E m e r to n . Snodgrass, Klyne. 1996 “Matthew and the Law.” hi T r e a s u r e s N e w a n d O l d : R e c e n t C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o M a t t h e a n S t u d i e s . Pages 99-127. Edited by David R. Bauer and Mark Allan Powell. SBL Symposium Series 1. Atlanta: Scholar s Press. Snyder, Graydon F. 1968 T h e S h e p h e r d o f H e r m a s . In T h e A p o s t o l i c F a t h e r s : A N e w T r a n s l a t i o n and C o m m e n ta r y . Vol.6. Edited by Robert M. Grant. London/Camden/Toronto: Thomas Nelson & Sons. Snyman, A. H. 1991 “Discourse Analysis: A Semantic Discourse Analysis of the Letter to Philemon.” hr T e x t a n d I n t e r p r e t a t i o n : n e w A p p r o a c h e s i n t h e C r i t i c i s m o f t h e N T . Pages 83-99. Edited by P. J. Hartin and J. H. Petzer. NTFS 15. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Soards, Marion L. 1989 “The Early Christian hiterpretation of Abraham and the Place of James within that Context.” I B S 9: 18-26. 1896 D e r J a k o b u s iin te r s u c h t. Spitta, F. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Spittler, R. P. 1983 “Testament of Job.” hr O T P . Pages 829-68. Stahlin, Gustav. 1974 KTl.” T D N T 9.113-71. Stanton, Graham N. 1992 A G o s p e l f o r a N e w P e o p le : S tu d ie s in M a tth e w . Clark. Edinburgh: T. & T. Stauffer, E. 1952 “Das ‘Gesetz der Freiheif in der Ordensregel von Jericho.” T L Z 77: 52832 Stegemarm, W. 1984 T h e G o s p e l a n d th e P o o r . Philadelphia: Fortress. Stegner, William Richar d. 1988 “The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily.” In G r e c o - R o m a n L i t e r a t u r e a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . Pages 51-70. Edited by David E. Aruie. SBLSBS 21. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 398 Steinhauser, Michael G. 1990 “The Sayings Gospel Q: Introduction.” hi Q - T h o m a s R e a d e r . Pages 3-27. John S. Kloppenborg, Marvin W. Meyer; Stephen J. Patterson, and Michael G. Steinhauser. Sonoma: Polebridge, 1990. Stendahl, Krister. 1968 T h e S c h o o l o f S t. M a tth e w a n d its U s e o f th e O l d T e s ta m e n t. 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: ForPess. Reprint of Stevenson, J. B. 1924 “St. James’ Sermon Notes.” E x p T i m 35: 44. Stirewalt, Martin Luther. 1991 “The Greek Letter-essay,” In T h e R o m a n s D e b a t e . Pages 147-71. Edited by Karl P. Donfiied. Revised and expanded edition. Peabody: Hendrickson. 1993 S tu d ie s in A n c i e n t G r e e k E p is to lo g r a p h y . Press. SBLRBS, 27. Atlanta: Scholars Stock, A. 1984 “Chiastic Awareness and Education in Antiquity.” B T B 14: 23-35. Stone, Michael Edward. 1990 F o u rth E zra : A C o m m e n ta r y o n th e B o o k o f F o u r th E z r a . Mineapolis: ForPess. Hermeneia. Stowers, Stanley K. 1988 “Social Typifications and the Classification of Ancient Letters.” In S o c i a l W o r ld o f F o r m a tiv e C h r is tia n ity a n d J u d a is m : E s s a y s in T r ib u te to H o w a r d C l a r k K e e . Pages 78-89. Edited by J. Neusner, e t a l . Minneapolis: Fortress. 1986 L e tte r W r itin g in G r e c o - R o m a n A n tiq u ity . Philadelphia: Westminster. 1981 T h e D ia tr ib e Scholar s Press. a n d P a u l's L e tte r to Library of Early Christianity 5. th e R o m a n s . 1992 “DiaPibe.’MBD: 2.190-193. 1992 “Greek and Latin Letters.” A B D 4.290-93. SBLDS 57. Chico: SPecker, Georg. 1988 T h e S e r m o n o n th e M o u n t: A n E x e g e tic a l C o m m e n ta iy . C. Dean. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Stteeter, Burton H. 1925 T h e F o u r G o s p e ls . New York: Macmillan. Stulac, George M. 1990 “Who are ‘the Rich’ in James.” P r e s b y t e r i o n 16: 89-102. 399 Translated by O. Suggs, M. Jack. 1970 Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew's Gospel. Cambridge: Har vard University Press/London: Oxford University Press. Tamez, Elsa. 1992 The Scandalous Message o f James: Faith without Works is Dead. Translated by John Eagleson. New York: Crossroad. Tasker. R.V.G. 1946 The Old Testament in the New Testament. London: SCM. 1956 The General Epistle o f James. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Terrien, Samuel. 1993 “Wisdom in the Psalter.” In In Search o f Wisdom: Essays in Memory o f John G. Gammie. Pages 51-72. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and WiUiam Johnston Wiseman. Louisville: Westminster. Terry, R. B. 1992 “Some Aspects of the Discourse Shucture of the Book o f James.” Journal o f Translation and Textlinginstics 5: 106-25. Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Armette. 1998 The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM. Thompson, John Mark. 1974 The Form and Function o f Proverbs in Ancient Israel. The Hague: Mouton. Thompson, A. L. 1977 Responsibility fo r Evil in the Theodicy o f IV Ezra. SBLDS 29. Missoula: Scholars. Thompson, M. 1991 Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching o f Jesus in Romans 12.1-15.13. JSNTSup 59. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Thuién, Lauri, 1990 The Rhetorical Strategy o f I Peter with Special Regard to Ambiguous Expressions. Abo: Abo Academy Press. 1995 “Risl<y Rhetoric in James?” NovT 37: 262-284. Thyren, Hartwig. 1955 Der Stil der jüdisch-hellenistischen Homilie. FRLANT N.F. 47. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Tobin, Thomas H. 1990 “4Q185 arrd Jewish Wisdom Literatine.” In O f Scribes and Scrolls. Pages 145-52. Edited by H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, T. H. Tobin Lanham: University Press o f America. 400 Tollefson, Kenneth D. 1997 “The Epistle of James as Dialectical Discourse.” B T B : 62-69. Townsend, Michael J. “James 4:1-14: A Warning Against Zealots?” E x p T i m 87: 211-13. 1975 1981 1994 “Christ. Cormnunity and Salvation in the Epistle of James.” E v Q 53: 115- 23. T h e E p is tle o f J a m e s . Epworth Commentaries. London: Epworth. Tsuji, Manabu von. 1997 G la u b e z w is c h e n V o llk o m m e n h e it und V e r w e ltlic h u n g : e in e U n te r s u c h u n g z u r lite r a r is c h e n G e s ta lt u n d z tir in h a ltlic h e n K o h d r e n z d e s J a k o b u s b r i e f e s . WUNT 2/93. Tübingen; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Unnik, W. C. van. 1983 “‘Diaspora’ and ‘Chinch’ in the First Centuries of Christian History.” hr S p a r s a C o l l e c t a . Part 3. Pages 95-105. NovTSup 31. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1993 D a s S e lb s tv e r s tà n d n is d e r jiid is c h e n D ia s p o r a r o m i s c h e n Z e i t . AGAJU 17. Leiden: E. J. Brill. in der h e lle n is tis c h - Urbach, E. E. 1975 T h e S a g e s — T h e ir C o n c e p ts a n d B e lie fs . 2 Vols. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. 1986 “Hie Role of the Ten Commandments in Jewish Worship.” hr T h e T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s i n H i s t o r y a n d T r a d i t i o n . Pages 161-89. Translated by Gershon Levi. Edited by Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. VanderKam, James C. 1986 “The Prophetic-Sapiental Origins of Apocalyptic Thought.” Inv4 W o r d i n S e a s o n : E s s a y s i n H o n o u r o f W i l l i a m M c K a n e . Pages 163-176. Edited by James D. Martin and Philip R. Davies. JSOTSup 42. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1997 “Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” In E x i l e : O l d T e s t a m e n t , J e w i s h , a n d C h r i s t i a n D o c t r i n e s . Pages 89-125. Edited by James M. Scott. SJSJ 56. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Vanhoye, A. 1976 L a s tr u c tu r e litté r a ir e d e V É p îtr e a u x H é b r e u x . Brouwer. 2d ed. Paris: Desclée de Veruer, D. C. 1983 T h e H o u s e h o ld o f G o d : T h e S o c ia l W o r ld o f th e P a s to r a l E p is tle s . SBLDS 71. Cliico: Scholars Press. Verseput, Donald J. 1997A “James 1:17 and the Jewish Morning Prayers.” N o v T 39: 177-91. 1997B “Reworking the Puzzle of Faith and Deeds in James 2:14-26.” N T S 43: 97-115. 401 1998 “Wisdom, 4Q185, and James.” J B L 1 7 : 691-707. Via, Dan Otto. 1969 “The Right Strawy Epistle reconsidered: A Study in Biblical Ethics and Hermeneutic.” J R 49: 253-67. Viviano, Benedict Thomas. 1978 Studies in Judaism in S tu d y a s W o r s h ip : A b o th a n d th e N e w T e s ta m e n t. Late Antiquity 26. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1992 “Beatitudes Found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.” B A R e v 18: 53-55, 66. 1997 “The Sermon on the Mormt in Recent Study.” B i b 78: 256-65. Vogtle, A. 1936 D ie T u g e n d - u n d L a s te r k a ta lo g e im N e iie n T e s ta m e n t Abhandlungen 16. Münster: Aschendor*ff. Neutestamentliche Vokes, F. E. 1986 “The Ten Commandments in the New Testament and in First Century Judaism.” S E 5: 39-48. Vouga, François. 1984 L ’É p i t r e d e S a i n t J a c q u e s . C o m m e n t a i r e d u N o u v e a u T e s t a m e n t Genève: Labor et Fides. XIITa. Vries, S. J. de 1978 “Observations on Quantative and Qualitative Time in Wisdom and Apocalyptic.” In I s r a e l i t e , W i s d o m , T h e o l o g i c a l a n d L i t e r a r y : E s s a y s i n H o n o r o f S a m u e l T e r r i e n . Pages 263-76. Edited by John G. Gammie, Walter A. Brneggemaim, W. Lee Hmnphreys, and James M. Ward. Missoula: Scholars Press. Vriezen, Th. C. 1958 A n O u tlin e o f O ld T e s ta m e n t T h e o lo g y . Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Waetjen, Herman C. 1989 A R e o r d e r in g o f P o w e r : A Minneapolis: ForPess. S o c io - P o litic a l R e a d in g o f M a r k 's G o s p e l. Wall, Robert W. 1990 “James as Apocalyptic Paraenesis,” R e s Q 32: 11-22. 1995 “Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context.” hi H e a r i n g t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t : S t r a t e g i e s f o r I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Pages 370-93. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1997 C o m m u n ity o f th e W ise : T h e L e tte r o f J a m e s . The New Testament in Context. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International. Wall, Robert W. and Lemcio, E. E. 1992 The N ew T e s ta m e n t a s C anon: A R eader in JSNTSup 76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 402 C a n o n ic a l C r itic is m . Wallis, Ian G. 1995 Walker, R. 1964 Walters, J. R. 1995 T h e F a ith o f J e s u s C h r is t in E a r ly C h r is tia n T r a d itio n s . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SNTSMS 84. “AUein aus Werken: Zur Auslegung von Jakobus 2,14-26.” Z T K 61: 15592. P e r fe c tio n in N e w T e s ta m e n t T h e o lo g y . Lampeter: Mellen Biblical Press. Wanlre, Joachim. 1978 “Die urchristlichen Lehrer nach dem Zeugnis des Jalcobusbiiefes.” In D i e Pages 489-512. Edited by R. Schnackenbmg, Josef Ernst, and Joachim Wanke. Freibmg: Herder. K ir c h e d e s A n fa n g s , f u r H e in z S c h iir m a n n . Ward, Roy Bowen. 1963 “James and Paul: Critical Review.” R e s Q 7: 159-64, 1966A “The Communal Concern of the Epistle of James.” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Harvard University. 1966B “Review of Dibelius-Gieeven.” J B L 85: 255-256. 1968 1969 1973 “The Works o f Abraham: James 2:14-26.” H T R 61: 283-90. “Partiality in the Assembly: James 2:2-4.” H T R 6 2 : 87-97. “James of Jerusalem.” R e s Q 16: 175-190. 1992 “James of Jerusalem in the Fir st Two Centuries.” ^iVRIFII 26,1: 779-812. Watson, Duane F. 1993A 1993B “James 2 in Light of Gr eco-Roman Schemes of Argmnentation.” N T S 39: 94-121. “The Rlretoric of James 3:1-12 and a Classical Pattern of Argmnentation,” 48-64. N o vT 35: 1995 “Review of Timothy B. Cargal’s R e s t o r i n g t h e D i a s p o r a : D i s c u r s i v e 114: 348-51. S tr u c tu r e a n d P u r p o s e in th e E p is tle o f J a m e s .” J B L Webber, R. C. 1992 “‘Why Were the Heathen so Arrogant?’ The Socio-Rhetorical Süategy of Acts 3-4.” BTB 22: 19-25. Weber, K. 1996 “Wisdom: False and True (Sir. 19:20-30).” B i b 77: 330-48. Weinfeld, Moshe. 1972 D e u te r o n o m y a n d th e D e u te r o n o m ic S c h o o l. Oxford: Clarendon. 1990 “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue and its Place in Jewish Tradition.” In T h e T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s i n H i s t o r y a n d T r a d i t i o n . Pages 1-44. Edited by Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. 1991 D e u te r o n o m y 1 -1 1 . AB5. New York: Doubleday. 403 Weiss, Meii . 1985 “The Decalogue in Prophetic Literatine.” In T h e T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s i n Pages 67-82. Edited by Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. H is to r y a n d T r a d itio n . Wengst, Klaus. 1988 H u m ility : S o lid a r ity o f th e H u m ilia te d — The T r a n s fo r m a tio n A ttitu d e a n d its S o c i a l R e le v a n c e in G r a e c o - R o m a n , J e w ish a n d E a r ly London: SCM. C h r is tia n T r a d itio n . o f an O ld T e s ta m e n t- Translated by John Bowden. Wessel, W. W. 1953 “An Inquiry into the Origin, Literary Character, Historical and Religious Significance of the Epistle of James.” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Edinburgh. Westeiinann, Claus. 1967 B a s ic F o r m s o f P r o p h e tic S p e e c h . London: Lutterworth. Translated by Hugh Clayton White. 1982. E le m e n ts o f O ld T e s ta m e n t T h e o lo g y . 1995 R o o ts o f W isd o m : T h e O ld e s t P r o v e r b s o f Is r a e l a n d O th e r P e o p le s . John Knox Press. Translated by D. W. Stott. Atlanta: Edinbmgh: T. & T. Clark. Westhuizen, J. D. N. van der. 1991 “Stylistic Techniques and Then Fimctions in James 2:14-26.” N e o t 25: 89-107. White, John L. 1971 “Introductory Formulae in the Body of the Pauline Letter.” J B L 90: 91-97. 1972 T he F o rm a n d F u n c tio n o f th e B o d y o f th e G r e e k L e tte r . Missoula: Scholars Press. SBLDS 2. 1981A “The Ancient Epistolography Group in Retrospect.” S e m e i a 22: 1-14. 1981B “The Greek Documentary Letter Tradition Third Century B.C.E. to Third Century C.E.” S e m e i a 22: 89-106. 1984 “New Testament Epistolary Literature in tire Framework of Ancient Epistolography.” AATRIFII 25,2; 1730-56. 1986 L ig h t fr o m 1988 “Ancient Greek Letters.” hr G r e c o - R o m a n L i t e r a t u r e a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . Pages 85-105. Edited by David E. Arme. SBLSBS 21. Atlanta: Scholars. ForPess. A n c ie n t L e tte r s . Foundations and Facets. Philadelphia: Whybray, R. N. 1965 1974 W is d o m in P r o v e r b s . Studies in Biblical Theology 45. London: SCM. T h e In te lle c tu a l T r a d itio n Walter de Gruyter. in th e O ld T e s ta m e n t. 404 BZAW 135. Berlin: 1982 “Prophecy and Wisdom.” In I s r a e l ’s P r o p h e t i c T r a d i t i o n : E s s a y s i n H o n o u r o f P e t e r R . A c l c r o y d . Pages 181-199. Edited by Richard Coggins, Anthony Phillips and Michael Knibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1989 E c c le s ia s te s . 1994 T h e C o m p o s itio n o f th e B o o k o f P r o v e r b s . Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Sheffield Academic Press. 1995A JSOTSup 168. Sheffield: T h e B o o k o f P r o v e r b s : A S u r v e y o f M o d e r n S tu d y . Interpretation Series. Volume 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1995B History of Biblical “The Wisdom Psalms.” In W i s d o m i n A n c i e n t I s r a e l : E s s a y s i n h o n o u r o f Pages 152-160. Edited by J. Day, R. P. Gordon & H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J . A . E m e r to n . Wibbing, S. 1959 D ie T u g e n d - u n d L a s te r J m ta lo g e im N e u e n T e s ta m e n t Verlag Alfied Topehnarm, 1959 BZNW 25. Berlin: Wiebe, Ben. 1992 M e s s ia n ic E th ic s : J e s u s ’ P r o c la m a tio n o f th e K in g d o m o f G o d a n d th e C h u r c h in R e s p o n s e . Scottdale/Waterloo: Herald Press. Wifstrand, Albert. 1948 “Stylistic Problems in the Epistle of James and Peter.” S T 1: 170-182. Wilckens, Uhich. 1968 “SQ(l)La, icrl.” T D N T : 7.465-76, 496-528. Wilken, Robert D. 1985 “The Restoration of Israel in Biblical Prophecy: Christian and Jewish Responses in the Early Byzantine Period.” hr To S e e O u r s e l v e s a s O t h e r s S e e U s ’: C h r i s t i a n s , J e w s , ‘O t h e r s ’ i n L a t e A n t i q u i t y . Pages 443-71. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Studies m tire Humanities. Chico; Scholars Press. Willett, Tom W. 1989 E s c h a to lo g y in th e T h e o d ic ie s o f 2 B a r u c h JSOT Press. & 4 E zra . JSPSup 4. Sheffield: Williams, James G. 1980 “The Power of Form: A Study of Biblical Proverbs.” S e m e i a 17 (1980): 35-58. 1981 T h o s e W h o P o n d e r P r o v e r b s : A p h o r is tic T h in ld n g a n d B ib lic a l L ite r a tu r e . 1990 “Paraenesis, Excess, and Ethics: Matthew’s Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount.” S e m e i a 50: 163-87. Biblical and Literature Series 2. Sheffield: Ahnond Press. Wills, Lawrence. 1984 “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity,” H T R 77: 277-99. 405 Wilson, W. T. 1994 T h e M y s te r ie s o f R ig h te o u s n e s s . T h e L ite r a r y C o m p o s itio n a n d G e n r e o f t h e Sentences o f P s e u d o - P h o c y J i d e s . Tübingen; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Windisch, Hans and Herbert Preislcer. 1951 D ie K a th o lis c h e n Siebeck) B r ie fe . HNT 15. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Winston, David. 1975 “Wisdom and Apocalyptic.” R e l i g i o u s S y n c r e t i s m i n A n t i q u i t y : E s s a y s i n C o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h G e o W i d e n g r e n . Pages 157-171. Edited by Bhger A. Pearson. Missoula: Scholars Press. 1979 T h e W isd o m o f S o lo m o n . 1992 “Solomon, Wisdom of.” A B D 6:120-27. AB 43. Garden City: Doubleday. Witherington, Ben. Ill 1994 J e s u s th e S a g e : T h e P ilg r im a g e o f W isd o m . MinneapoHs: Fortress. Edinbmgh: T. & T. Clark / Wolfson, Hairy Austryn. 1948 P h ilo . F o u n d a tio n s o f R e l ig io u s P h ilo s o p h y in J u d a is m , C h r is tia n ity , a n d I s l a m . 2 Volumes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wolmarans, J. L. P. 1992 “The Tongue Guiding the Body: The Anthiopological Presuppositions of James 3:1-12.” N e o t 26: 523-30. Wolverton, Wallace J. 1956 “The Double-Minded Man in the Light of Essene Psychology.” A T R 38: 166-75. Woirell, J. E. 1968 “Concepts of Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Claremont Graduate School. Woude, A. S van der. 1995 “Wisdom at Qmman.” In W i s d o m i n A n c i e n t I s r a e l : E s s a y s i n h o n o u r o f J . Pages 244-256, Edited by J. Day, Robert P. Gordon & H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A . E m e r to n . Wright, Addison G. 1968 “The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth.” C B Q 30:313-34. Wright, Benjamin G. 1989 N o S m a ll D iffe r e n c e : S ir a c h 's R e la tio n s h ip to its H e b r e w P a r e n t T e x t. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Wright, Nicholas Thomas. 1996 J e s u s a n d th e V ic to r y o f G o d . 406 Mineapolis: Fortress. Wuellner, Wilhelm. 1970 “Haggadic Homily Genie in I Coiinthians 1-3.” JBL 9 : 199-204. 1978 “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetoiik und Textpragmatik.” LB 43: 566 . 1991 “Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfiied-Laiiis Debate over Romans.” In The Rom ans D ebate. Pages 128-46. Edited by Karl P. Donfiied. Revised and Expanded Edition. Peabody: Hendiickson.Yadin, Yigael. 1962 The Scrolls o f the War o f the Sons o f Light again st the Sons o f D arlm ess. Translated Batya and Chahn Rabin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yang, Yong-Eiii. 1997 Jesus an d the Sabbath in M atthew 's G ospel. JSNTSup 139. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. York, John O. 1991 The L ast Shall Be the First: The R hetoric o f R eversal in Luke. JSNTSup 46. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Young, Franldin. 1948 “The Relation of 1 Clement to the Epistle of James.” JBL 67: 339-345. Yri, Noivald. 1992 “Seek God’s Righteousness: Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew.” In R ight with G od: Justification in the B ible a n d the World. Pages 96-105, 268-70. Edited by D. A. Carson. Carlisle: Patemoster/Grand Rapids: Balcer. Zerwick, Maximihan. 1988 A G ram m atical A nalysis o f the G reek N ew Testament. Translated, Revised and Adapted by Maiy Grosvenor. Rome: Editrice Pontificial Biblical Institute. Ziesler, J. A. 1972 The M eaning o f Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic an d Theological Enquiry. SNTSMS 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zimmeiii, Walter. 1976 “Concerning the Structure of OT Wisdom.” Originally published in. Reprinted in Studies in A ncient Israelite Wisdom. Pages 245-66. Edited by Harry M. Oriinsky. New York: Ktav Publishing House. Zrnijewsld, Joseph. 1980 “Christiche ‘Vollkoimnenheit’: Jakobusbriefs.” SN T U 5: 50-78. 407 Erwagungen ziu Theologie des