Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:22:35.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Duane F. Watson
Duane F. Watson
Affiliation:
(Department of Religion and Philosophy, Malone College, 515 25th St N.W., Canton, Ohio 44709, USA)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

J. H. Ropes has written of James: ‘As in the diatribes, there is 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’. Challenging Rope's assessment, the thesis of this study is that James 2 is constructed according to a standard elaboration pattern for argumentation discussed by the Greco-Roman rhetoricians.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 94 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St James (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1916) 14.Google Scholar

2 From the LCL editions these include Aristotle, The ‘Art’ of Rhetoric (trans. J. H. Freese; 1926) = Ar. Rhet.; Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (trans. H. Rackham; 1983) = Rhet. ad Alex.; Demetrius, On Style (trans. W. R. Roberts; 1932) = Demetr. Eloc; Longinus, On The Sublime (trans. H. Fyfe; 1932) = Long. Subl.; Cicero, De Inventione and Topica (trans. H. M. Hubbell; 1949) = Cic. Inv., Top.; Cicero, Orator (trans. H. M. Hubbell; 1962) = Cic. Or.; Cicero, De Oratore, Partitiones Oratoriae (trans. E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham; 2 vols.; 1942) = Cic. De Or., Part. Or.; Rhetorica ad Herennium (trans. H. Caplan; 1954) = Her.; Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria (trans. H. E. Butler; 4 vols.; 1920–2) = Quint. All subsequent quotations of the ancient handbooks are taken from these LCL editions.Google Scholar

3 ‘Anecdotes and Arguments: The Chreia in Antiquity and Early Christianity’ (Occasional Papers 10; Claremont: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont Graduate School, 1987) 15–28;Google ScholarRhetoric and the New Testament (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 41–7.Google Scholar

4 Rhet. ad Alex. 1.1422a.25–7 [I added the Greek text in brackets].

5 Her. 2.18.28. This pattern is elaborated in 2.18.28–29.46 and recapped briefly in 3.9.16.

6 Her. 2.29.46 [I added the Latin text in brackets]. This pattern is elaborated in 2.29.46.

7 Her. 4.43.56–44.56 [I added the Latin text in brackets]. This pattern is illustrated in 4.44.56–8.

8 Hugo, Rabe (ed.). Hermogenis Opera (Rhetores Graeci 6; Leipzig: Teubner, 1913) 148–50.Google Scholar

9 Rabe, Hermogenis Opera, 1–27. English translation by Baldwin, C. S., Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic (to 1400) (New York: Macmillan, 1928; reprinted, Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1959) 23–38;Google ScholarMack, Burton L. and O'Neil, Edward N., ‘The Chreia Discussion of Hermogenes of Tarsus’, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric 1: The Progymnasmata (ed. Hock, Ronald F. and O'Neil, Edward N.; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 153–71.Google Scholar

10 This figure is adapted from Mack, ‘Anecdotes and Arguments’, 21.

11 New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984) 33–8Google Scholar. This methodology is explicated with extensive references in Duane Watson, F., Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jade and 2 Peter (SBLDS 104; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 8–28.Google Scholar

12 See the works cited below in n. 116 which treat vv. 1–13 and vv. 14–26 as rhetorical units.

13 Bitzer, Lloyd, ‘The Rhetorical Situation’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968) 6.Google Scholar

14 For more on the rhetorical situation of ch. 2, see Rost, L., ‘Archäologische Bemer-kungen zu einer Stelle des Jakobusbriefes (Jak. 2,2f.)’, Palästinajahrbuch 29 (1933) 53–66Google Scholar; Martin, Ralph P., ‘The Life-Setting of the Epistle of James in the Light of Jewish History’, Biblical and Near Eastern Studies (FS W. S. Lasor) (ed. Tuttle, A.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 97–103.Google Scholar

15 Mitton, C. Leslie, The Epistle of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966) 83–4Google Scholar; Adamson, James, The Epistle of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 105Google Scholar; Martin, Ralph P., James (WBC 48; Waco: Word, 1978) 59, 60–1.Google Scholar

16 Dibelius, Martin, James (ed. Helmut, Koester; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 125, 129, 131–2Google Scholar; Sidebottom, E. M., James, Jude and 2 Peter (NCB; London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967) 38;Google ScholarWard, Roy B., ‘Partiality in the Assembly: James 2.2–4’, HTR 62 (1969) 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dyrness, William, ‘Mercy Triumphs over Justice: James 2:13 and the Theology of Faith and Works’, Themelios 6/3 (1981) 13Google Scholar; Davids, Peter, Commentary on James (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 28, 107Google Scholar; Felder, Cain H., ‘Partiality and God's Law: An Exegesis of James 2.1–13’, JRT 39 (1982) 52, 53Google Scholar; Moo, Douglas J., James (TNTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 89Google Scholar; cf. Maynard-Reid, Pedrito U., Poverty and Wealth in James (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987) 53.Google Scholar

17 Mayor, J. B., The Epistle of Saint James (3rd ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1913) 82–3Google Scholar; Ropes, James, 188–9; Dibelius, James, 132–4; Mitton, James, 83; Laws, Sophie, The Epistle of James (HNTC; San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1980) 101–2Google Scholar; Adamson, James, 105–6; Moo, James, 89–90.

18 First proposed by Ward, ‘Partiality’, 87–97.

19 BAGD, 186.

20 Non-Christians: Ropes, James, 191; Burchard, ‘Gemeinde’, 323; Moo, James, 89–90. Christians: Ward, ‘Partiality’, 95–7; Davids, James, 109. Dibelius (James, 134–5) warns against making such fine distinctions, but chooses the former (135 n. 63). Felder (‘Partiality’, 55) and Maynard-Reid (Poverty and Wealth, 58–9) do not think such a determination can be made from the evidence provided by James.

21 Ward, ‘Partiality’, 95–7.

22 Cf. Jas 1.9–11, 27; 4.14–5.6; Ropes, James, 195–6; Dibelius, James, 138–41; Laws, James, 104–5; Felder, ‘Partiality’, 58–9; Tamez, Elsa, The Scandalous Message of James (New York: Crossroad, 1990) 28–9Google Scholar; Martin, James, 66; Maynard-Reid, Poverty and Wealth, 63–4.

23 Ward, ‘Partiality’, 89–95, followed by Felder, ‘Partiality’, 54–6; Davids, James, 109; Martin, James, 57–9; 61; Maynard-Reid, Poverty and Wealth, 56–8.

24 LXX Jer 7.6; 22.3; Ezek 18.7,12,16; 22.7,29; 45.8; 46.18; Amos 4.1; 8.4; Micah 2.2; Hab 1.4; Zech 7.10; Mai 3.5; Wis 2.10; 17.2.

25 Ropes, James, 195; Felder, ‘Partiality’, 58; Martin, James, 65–6; Davids, James, 112.

26 Martin, James, 80, 84.

27 Ropes, James, 206; Dibelius, James, 152–3; Mussner, F., Der Jakobusbrief (2nd ed.; HTKNT 13/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1967) 131Google Scholar; Adamson, James, 122; Laws, James, 120–1; Davids, James, 121; Moo, James, 103; cf. Tamez, Scandalous Message, 31.

28 Dibelius, James, 153.

29 For a full discussion of deliberative rhetoric, see Lausberg, Heinrich, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (2nd ed.; 2 vols.; München: Max Hueber, 1973) 1.123–9Google Scholar, §§224–38; Martin, Josef, Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode (HbAltW 2.3; München: C. H. Beck, 1974) 167–76Google Scholar; Kennedy, George, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World: 300 B.C.-A.D. 300 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1972) 18–21.Google Scholar

30 For a full discussion of the three species of rhetoric, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.51–61, §53–65; 1.85–138, §139–254; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 9–10, 15–210; Kennedy, Roman World, 7–23. The rhetoric of a rhetorical unit may be of the same or of a different type than that of the overall composition (cf. Rhet. ad Alex. 5.1427b.31ff.; Quint. 3.4.16).

31 Ar. Rhet. 1.3.1358b.3; Rhet. Ad Alex. 1.1421b.17–23; Cic. Inv. 1.5.7; Part. Or. 24–7; Her. 1.2.2.; Quint. 3.4.6, 9; 3.8.1–6; cf. 3.8.67–70.

32 Ar. Rhet. 1.3.1358b.4; 1.4.1359a.l-2; 2.18.1392a.5; Quint. 3.4.7; 3.8.6; cf. Cic. Part. Or. 3.10; 20.69.

33 Ar. Rhet. 1.9.1368a.4O; 2.20.1394a.7–8; 3.17.1418a.5; Rhet. ad Alex. 32.1438b.29ff.; Quint. 3.8.34, 66; cf. 5.11.8.

34 Topoi are the sources of argument. For further discussion and references, see Laus-berg, Handbuch, 1.201–20, §§373–99; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 107–19, 155–7; 162–5; Brunt, John C., ‘More on the Topos as a New Testament Form’, JBL 104 (1985) 495–500.Google Scholar

35 At. Rhet. 1.3.1358b.5; 1.4–8; 2.22.1396a.8; Rhet. ad Alex. 1.1421b.21–1423a.ll; 6.1. 1427b.39ff.; Cic. Inv. 2.4.12; 2.51.155–58.176; Part. Or. 24–7; Top. 24.91; Her. 3.2.3–5.9; Quint. 3.8.1–6, 22–35; cf. Cic. De Or. 2.82.333–6; Quint. 3.4.16.

36 The stasis or basis of the case is the kind of question that arises from the first conflict of causes. Non-legal questions give rise to the three stases of fact, definition, and quality. For further discussion and references, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.64–85, §79–138; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 28–52; Hermogenes, ‘Hermogenes’ On Stases: A Translation with an Introduction and Notes', trans, and ed. Ray Nadeau, Speech Monographs 31 (1964) 361–424; Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style, 11–13.

37 Quint. 3.8.4; 7.4.1–3; cf. 3.7.28.

38 For full discussion of the stasis of quality, see Cic. Inv. 1.9.12–11.15; 2.21–39; De Or. 2.25.106; Part. Or. 12.42–3; 37.129–31; Top. 23.89–90; Her. 1.14–15; Quint. 7.4; cf. Cic. De Or. 2.30.132.

39 Cic. Inv. 1.11.14–12.16; 2.21–39; Part. Or. 12.42–3; 37.129–31; Top. 23.89–90. Cf. Quint. 3.6.88 which argues that the questions of the letter of the law are concerned with the stasis of quality.

40 Cic. Inv. 1.11.14–15; 2.23.69–39.115; Part. Or. 37.129–31.

41 Cic. Inv. 1.11.14; 2.21.62–22.68; Part. Or. 37.129–31.

42 Her. 2.18.28; 2.20.32–22.34; 4.43.56.

43 On the problem of translating the genitive τς δόξης, see the recent discussions of Davids, James, 106–7; Martin, James, 59–60. This and all other quotations from James 2 are taken from the RSV.

44 Deut 10.7; Acts 10.34; Rom 2.11; Gal 2.6; Eph 6.9; Col 3.25; 1 Pet 1.17.

45 Her. 2.18.28; 2.23.35–24.37; 4.43.56; Hermogenes, Progymnasmata, lines 42–4 (Mack and O'Neil, ‘Hermogenes’).

46 For similar definitions, see Rhet. ad Alex. 8.1429a.20ff.; Cic. Inv. 1.30.49. On the role of examples in proof, see Ar. Rhet. 2.20; Rhet. ad Alex. 8; Cic. Inv. 1.30.49; Quint. 5.11; Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.227–35, §§410–26; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 119–24; Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style, 16–17.

47 Ar. Rhet. 2.20.1393a.2; 1393b.4.

48 Rhet. ad Alex. 8.1429a.20ff; Cic. Inv. 1.30.49; Quint. 5.11.1–7.

49 For full discussion of antithesis, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.389–98, §§787–807; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 293–5, 312–14.

50 For full discussion of rhetorical questions, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.379–84, §§767- 79; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 284–8; Konopasek, Jaroslav, ‘Les “questions rhétoriques” dans le Nouveau Testament’, RHPR 12 (1932) 47–66, 141–61Google Scholar; Wuellner, Wilhelm, ‘Paul as Pastor: The Function of Rhetorical Questions in First Corinthians’, L'Apôtre Paul: personalité, style et conception du ministère (ed. Vanhoye, A.; BETL 73; Leuven: Leuven University, 1986) 49–77.Google Scholar

51 The ratio is ornamented with periphrasis, for the essence of ‘with gold rings and in fine clothing’ (χρυσοδακτύλιος έν έσθτι λαμρ) in v. 2 is ‘rich’. Paronomasia is also present in διεκρίθητε-κριταί in v. 4. The example is given vigour in style using epanaphora in the double use of είσελθη at the beginning of the descriptions of the two visitors (v. 2), and epiphora in the double use of επητε concluding the commands to the visitors in v. 3.

52 Rhet. ad Alex. 5.1427b.12–30 [bracketed words are mine].

53 It is also called the pronuntiatum (Her. 4.43.56). See Her. 2.18.28; 2.24.38–28.45; 4.43.56.

54 For more on rhetorical questions used in proof, see Ar. Rhet. 3.18; Top. 8.

55 ‘Ερώτημα, rogatio (Cic. De Or. 3.53.203 = Quint. 9.1.29; 9.1.11) or interrogatio (Her. 4.15.22; Cic. Or. 40.137; Quint. 9.2.6–16; 9.3.98).

56 Bammel, Ernst, ‘πτωχό, πτωχεία, πτωχεύω’, TDNT 6.885–915Google Scholar, esp. 911; Leander Keck, E., ‘The Poor among the Saints in the New Testament’, ZNW 56 (1965) 100–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Poor among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran’, ZNW 57 (1966) 54–78.Google Scholar

57 Her. 2.18.28; 2.29.46; 4.43.56.

58 Rhet. ad Alex. 1.1421b.21 ff.; 6.1427b.39–40.

59 Rhet. ad Alex. 1.1421b.21 ff.; 34.1439b.37ff.

60 Rhet. ad Alex. 1.1422a.25ff.; Her. 2.29.46; Hermogenes, Progymnasmata, lines 55–9 (Mack and O'Neil, ‘Hermogenes’).

61 Cf. Cic. Inv. 1.30.48 for a similar definition. For full discussion, see Quint. 5.11.37, 42–4.

62 Rhet. ad Alex. 1.1422a.25ff.; Quint. 5.11.42–4; cf. Cic. Inv. 1.30.48; Part. Or. 2.6.

63 Matt 22.34–40; Mark 12.28–34; Luke 10.25–8; Rom 13.8–10; Gal 5.14. Laws, James, 110; Felder, ‘Partiality’, 61.

64 See Johnson, Luke T., ‘The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James’, JBL 101 (1982) 391–401.Google Scholar

65 For full discussion of the probatio and for references, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.190–236, §§348–430; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 95–137.

66 Ar. Rhet. 2.22.1395b.l-3; Quint. 5.10.2; 5.14.2. For detailed discussion of the enthymeme, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.198–200, §371–2; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 101–7; Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style, 17–19.

67 Philo Leg. All. 3.241; 4 Mace 5.20; T. Ash. 2.5; b. Šabb. 70b; Pesiq. R. 50.1; Num. Rab. 9.12 on Num 5.14; Matt 5.17–20; Gal 5.3; cf. Str.-B 3.755.

68 Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle (‘The Stoic Paradox of James 2.10’, NTS 31 [1985] 611–17) has demonstrated the plausibility of an exegetical tradition of the early church supporting 2.10 having roots, not only in rabbinic teaching, but in a Stoic paradox. This paradox is expressed in Lucius Seneca's De beneficiis 4.27.1; 5.15.1 (and its converse elsewhere). In both James and Seneca, this judgment is made to support the claim that gods (God) are impartial in their gifts to humankind and so both rich and poor should be given equal deference, not just the rich for hope of gaining from their reciprocal benefaction.

69 Her. 2.18.28; 2.29.46; 4.43.56; Hermogenes, Progymnasmata, lines 60–3 (Mack and O'Neil, ‘Hermogenes’).

70 For further discussion of the epicheireme, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 194–5, §357; 198–201, §§371–2; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 105–6; Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style, 17–19.

71 Dibelius, James, 147–8; Mussner, Jakobusbrief, 126; Davids, James, 118; Martin, James, 71. Note the shift from the second person to the gnomic third person.

72 Sir 27.30–28.7; Tob 4.9–11; Matt 5.7.

73 The conclusion is embellished by personification in v. 13 of both judgment and mercy, antithesis between the two, and metonymy in the expression ‘speak and act’ which stands for ‘all behaviour’.

74 See also Cic. Or. 36.126–7; De Or. 3.52.202 = Quint. 9.1.27; Quint. 9.2.4; Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.414, §830,1.415, §835; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 135 n. 3.

75 Jakob Jónsson, Humour and Irony in the New Testament (Reykjavík: Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóts, 1965) 248.

76 The example is ornamented with metonymy, for ‘ill-clad and in lack of daily food’ is equivalent to ‘without necessities for survival’, as indicated in v. 16.

77 A reason may or may not accompany the restatement of the propositio in the confirmatio (Her. 4.43.56).

78 This summary is based on the excellent discussions in Ropes, James, 208–14; Dibelius, James, 154–8; and Martin, James, 77–9, 86–9. See especially Ropes, James H., ‘Thou Hast Faith and I Have Works (James 11.18)’, Exp 7th ser. 5 (1908) 547–56Google Scholar; Donker, Christiaan E., ‘Der Verfasser des Jak und sein Gegner: Zum Problem des Einwandes in Jak 2,18–19’, ZNW 72 (1981) 227–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neitzel, Heinz, ‘Eine alte crux interpretum im Jakobusbrief 2,18’, ZNW 73 (1982) 286–93.Google Scholar

79 Donker, ‘Der Verfasser’, 227–40; Martin, James, 77–8, 86–8.

80 Hort, F. J. A., The Epistle ofSt James (London: Macmillan, 1909) 60–1.Google Scholar

81 Mayor, James, 99–100; Adamson, James, 124–5; 135–7; Mussner, Jakobusbrief, 136–8.

82 BAGD, 38–9; MHT 3.329–30.

83 Moo, James, 104–5.

84 Ropes, ‘Thou Hast Faith’, 553–5; James, 208–14; Dibelius, James, 150, 155–6; Mitton, James, 108–9; Laws, James, 123–4; Moo, James, 105–6; Davids, James, 124; BDF §281.

85 Ropes, ‘Thou Hast Faith’, 552–3; James, 208–9; Dibelius, James, 154; Mitton, James, 108–9; Sidebottom, James, 44; Laws, James, 122 n. 1; Moo, James, 105–6; Davids, James, 124.

86 Mayor, James, 99–100; Adamson, James, 121, 124–5.

87 Donker, ‘Der Verfasser’, 235–40, Martin, James, 77, 78, 87–8; Lodge, John G., ‘James and Paul at Cross-Purposes? James 2,22’, Bib 62 (1981) 201.Google Scholar

88 1 Cor 15.35 uses the same formula, Άλλά έρεî τις, to introduce an imaginary interlocutor (cf. Rom 9.19; 11.19).

89 For full discussion of anticipation, see Rhet. ad Alex. 18; 33; 36.1443a.7–1443b.14; Quint 4.1.49–50; 9.2.16–18; Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.424–5, §§854–5; Martin, Antike Rhet-orik, 277–9.

90 For full discussion of personification, see Lausberg, Handbuch 1.407–13, §§820–9; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 291–3.

91 Cic. De Or. 3.53.205; Part. Or. 16.55; Her. 4.53.66.

92 For further discussion of the dilemma, see Cic. Inv. 1.29.44–5; 1.42.79; 1.45.83–4; Her. 2.24.38–25.39; cf. Cic. Inv. 1.32.53–4; Quint. 5.10.70. Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.215–17, §393; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 126–7.

93 Understanding v. 18b as at least a challenge is common to the literature. E.g. Ropes, ‘Thou Hast Faith’, 552–3; James, 110; Cranfield, C. E. B., ‘The Message of James’, SJT 18 (1965) 338–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dibelius, James, 158; Mitton, James, 109; Adamson, James, 124; Laws, James, 124; Davids, James, 124–5; cf. Moo, James, 106.

94 Rhetorical qustions in this section all expect an affirmative answer and are preceded by the particle ούκ. Even though v. 19 is not preceded by ού, some posit that it is a question (USBGNT 3rd ed.; Nestle-Aland 25th ed.). However, this would not challenge our thesis.

95 E.g., Dibelius, James, 154; Laws, James, 122 n. 1; Davids, James, 125. For further discussion of irony, see Rhet. ad Alex. 21; Cic. De Or. 2.67.269–71; Quint. 9.2.44–53; Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.302–3, §§582–5; 446–50, §§902–1; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 263–4.

96 1 Cor 8.4–6; Gal 3.20; Eph 4.6; 1 Tim 2.5.

97 Cic. De Or. 2.64.261–3 also discusses the use of irony with jest. Cf. 3.53.202.

98 He examines irony in jest in 6.3.65–71.

99 He examines humour in refutation in 6.3.72–83.

100 For full discussion of amplification, see Ar. Rhet. 1.9.1368a.38–40; Long. Subl. 11. 1–12.2; Cic. De Or. 3.26.104–27.107; Part. Or. 15.52–17.58; Quint. 8.4; Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.220–7; §§400–3; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 153–8; 208–10.

101 For further discussion of communicatio, see Cic. De Or. 3.53.204 = Quint. 9.1.30; Quint. 9.2.20–25; Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.384, §779; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 288.

102 Cic. De Or. 3.54.207 = Quint. 9.1.34; Cic. Or. 39.135 = Quint. 9.1.39; Her. 4.15.22; Quint. 9.2.26–7; 9.3.97; Lausberg, Handbuch, 399, §809; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 282.

103 Demetr. Eloc. 2.106–12; Quint. 8.5.9–14; Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.434, §879.

104 Moo, James, 107; Mussner, Jakobusbrief, 140.

105 For this argument and discussion of the pertinent Jewish literature, see Ward, Roy B., ‘The Works of Abraham: James 2:14–26’, HTR 61 (1968) 283–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davids, Peter H., ‘Tradition and Citation in the Epistle of James’, Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation: Essays Presented to Everett F. Harrison (ed. Gasque, W. Ward and LaSor, William Sanford; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 113–16.Google Scholar

106 Lodge, ‘James and Paul’, 195–213; cf. Burge, Gary, ‘“And Threw Them Thus on Paper”: Recovering the Poetic Form of James 2:14–26’, StudiaBT 7 (1977) 31–45.Google Scholar

107 See Rhet. ad Alex. 1.1422a.25ff.; Quint. 5.11.42–4.

108 Davids, James, 129; Martin, James, 93; contra Ropes, James, 221.

109 Jacobs, Irving, ‘The Midrashic Background for James 11.21–3’, NTS 22 (1975–1976) 457–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davids, James, 129; Martin, James, 93.

110 Heb 11.31; 1 Clem. 12.1, 8; cf. Matt 1.5. For further discussion, see Str.-B. 1.20ff.; Hanson, A. T., ‘Rahab the Harlot in Early Christian Tradition’, JSNT 1 (1978) 53–60Google Scholar; Davids, ‘Tradition and Citation’, 116–17; Frédéric Manns, ‘Jacques 2,24–26 à la lumière du judaïsme’, Bibbia e Oriente 26 (1984) 143–9.Google Scholar

111 Chadwick, H., ‘Justification by Faith and Hospitality’, Studia Patristica 4 (TU 79, 1961) 281–5Google Scholar; Hagner, D. A., The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome (NovTSup 36; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 251–6Google Scholar. Cf. 1 Clem 10–12.

112 For full discussion of similitude, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.419–22, §§843–7; Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 253–4; McCall, Marsh, Ancient Rhetorical Theories of Simile and Comparison (Loeb Classical Monographs; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

113 See Her. 4.45.59–47.60 for four varieties of similitudes; cf. Quint. 8.3.77–81.

114 Luther's Works (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann; 55 vols.; St Louis: Concordia/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955-) 35.397.Google Scholar

115 Dibelius, James, 2.

116 Besides those offered in the standard commentaries on James are Francis, F. O., ‘The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John’, ZNW 61 (1970) 110–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Forbes, P. B. R., ‘The Structure of the Epistle of James’, EvQ 44 (1972) 147–53Google Scholar; Amphoux, C.-B., ‘Langue de l'Épître de Jacques: Études structurales’, RHPR 53 (1973) 7–45Google Scholar; ‘Systemes anciens de division de l'épître de Jacques et composition littéraire’, Bib 62 (1981) 390–400Google Scholar; Burge, ‘And Threw Them Thus on Paper’, 31–45; Fry, Euan, ‘The Testing of Faith. A Study of the Structure of the Book of James’, BT 29 (1978) 427–35Google Scholar; Wuellner, Wilhelm H., ‘Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetorik und Textpragmatik’, LB 43 (1978) 5–66Google Scholar; Anonymous, ‘Parcours Épître de Saint Jacques: Chapitre II’, Sémiotique et bible 19 (1980) 25–31Google Scholar; Vouga, F., L'épître de s. Jacques (CNT 13a; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1984) 18–23Google Scholar; Marconi, Gilberto, ‘La struttura di Giacomo 2’, Bib 68 (1987) 250–7.Google Scholar

117 E.g., Davids, James, 22–8, 29; Martin, James, xcviii-civ.

118 Ropes, James, 10–18; Dibelius, James 1–2, 38, 124–5; Sidebottom, James, 1–2; Songer, Harold, ‘The Literary Character of the Book of James’, RevExp 66 (1969) 385Google Scholar; Stowers, Stanley, ‘The Diatribe’, Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (ed. Aune, David E.; SBLSBS 21; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 82Google Scholar; Aune, David E., The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 200, 202Google Scholar; Baasland, Ernst, ‘Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes’ (ANRW 11.25,5; ed. Haase, W.; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1988) 3649–54Google Scholar. Cf. the very limited attribution of diatribe to James in Wifstrand, A., ‘Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and Paul’, ST 1 (1947) 177–8Google Scholar; Adamson, James B., James: The Man and the Message (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) 103–4Google Scholar; Davids, James, 12, 23.

119 For these features of diatribe, see Bultmann, Rudolf, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (FRLANT 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), esp. 10–64;Google ScholarWendland, Paul, ‘Philo und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie und Religion (Paul Wendland and Otto Kern; Berlin: Reimer, 1895)Google Scholar; Die hellenistische-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum (2nd ed.; HNT 1; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Siebeck] 1912)Google Scholar; Thyen, Hartwig, Der Stil der jüdisch-hellenistischen Homilie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955) 40–63Google Scholar; Stowers, Stanley K., The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981) chs. 2–4Google Scholar; Stowers, ‘Diatribe’, 74–6; Aune, Literary Environment, 200–2; Berger, Klaus, ‘Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament’ (ANRW 11.25,2; ed. Haase, W.; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1984) 1124–32.Google Scholar

120 Formulas like τί ΄όφελος (2.14, 16); δεξόν μοι (2.18); θέλεις δέ γνναι (2.20); βλέπεις (2.22); όρτε (2.24). Ropes, James, 13.

121 Bultmann, Diatribe, 60–1.

122 For these features of diatribe, see Stowers, Diatribe, 85–93, 125–33, 138–47, 168–71; Aune, Literary Environment, 200–2.

123 The role of diatribe in rhetorical amplification is discussed in Kustas, George L., Diatribe in Ancient Rhetorical Theory (Center for Hermeneutical Studies, Protocol of the Twenty-second Colloquy; ed. Wuellner, W.; Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1976) 6–15.Google Scholar

124 Stowers, ‘Diatribe’, 81–2.

125 Aune, Literary Environment, 200.