^{page 386 note 1} Dockx, S. essaie de prouver que S. Paul aurait écrit Philippiens vers 50, depuis Corinthe (pp. 89–105)!Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 2} Robinson, J. A. T. place aussi avant la période 54–7Google Scholar l'épitre dejacques, qu'il situe en 48. Mais personnellement je n'oserais le suivre sur ce point et je considère comme plus probable une date awc environs de 60, pour les motifs que j'ai exposés dans Recherches sur le J'Notre Pěre, pp. 365–6 (Letouzey et Ané Paris, 1969).Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 3} Sirach xv. 11–13 quoted from Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. I Apocrypha (Oxford, 1913)Google Scholar. There is, however, a difference between the two, for critical vocabulary differs as Spitta, F., Der Brief des Jakobus untersucht (Göttingen, 1896)Google Scholar, notices when he comments, ‘Aber es ist viel weniger klar herausgearbeitet [im Jakobusbrief]. Dieses liegt auch daran, daβ statt des unmissverständlichen, πλαν⋯ν Sir 15, 12 das mehrdeutige πεıράεıν gebraucht ist’ (pp. 31–2). This is significant, for we believe that James, unlike Ben Sira, speaks from an apocalyptic testing-context and thus must use differing vocabulary.

^{page 387 note 1} Along with Windisch, H., Die Katholischen Briefe in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, vol. xv (Tübingen, 1951)Google Scholar, loc. Cit., we believe that such a background is possible. On the meaning of this passage itself see Carmignac, J., Recherches sur le ‘Notre Père’ (Paris, 1969), especially p. 289.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 2} This grouping has already eliminated one option taken by the Vulgate, some other versions, and a few older commentators, but universally rejected by modern commentators. This translation gives άπείραστος an active meaning and translates the clause, ‘God does not tempt to evil’ (Vulgate: Deus enim intentator malorum est). This translation, however, would make the second statement about God a tautology joined to the first by δέ. Not only is such a tautology stylistically unlikely, but also the quality of the Greek in the epistle is good enough to render such a use of δέ unlikely. See Cantinat, J., Les Épîtres de Saint Jacques et de Saint Jude (Paris, 1973), p. 86Google Scholar, for a typical modern response to this option.

^{page 387 note 3} Mußner, F., Der Jakobusbrief in Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg, 1967 ed. 2), p. 87Google Scholar, and Dibelius, M., Der Brief des Jakobus in Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Göttingen, 1964 ed. 10), pp. 121–2Google Scholar. Others who support this translation include Cantinat, Chaine, Knowling, Marty, Mayor, Meyer, Michl, Mitton, Moffatt, Ropes, Schrage, Seesemann, and Tacker.

^{page 388 note 1} The clearest example is θνητός in Rom. vi. 12, but see also παθητός in Acts xxvi. 23. Cf. Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek vol. 1 Prolegomena (Edinburgh, 1908 ed. 3), pp. 221–2.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 2} Perhaps the best collection of these negative statements appears in Mayor, J. B., The Epistle of James (London, 1910 ³), pp. 52–3Google Scholar. But see also Dibelius, M., op. cit. pp. 121–2.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 3} Marty, J., L'Épître de Jacques (Paris, 1935), p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 4} We would, then, correct Mußner and Dibelius by saying that we find ‘unversucht’ or ‘unge-prüft’ rather than ‘unversuchbar’. For example, John of Damascus in De Fide Orthodoxa III claims that God tested Adam because he was an άνήρ…άπείραστος, άδόκıμος and therefore lacking in worth. For other examples see Philodemus, , Volumina Rhetorica 1Google Scholar; Clement of Alexandria, , Stromatum 7, 12Google Scholar; Gregory of Naziazenus, , Epistles 214Google Scholar; Dorothei Abbotis, Epistolae ad Diversos 5Google Scholar; and perhaps Josephus, , Wars 7, 8, 1Google Scholar (depending on the reading accepted). Naturally, because this literature is later than James–some of it much later–one cannot rule out either influence from James or a further development in the range of meanings of the word, but at the same time it collectively forms the best external control available.

^{page 388 note 5} Hort, F. J. A., The Epistle of St James (London, 1909), p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 6} Ibid.

^{page 389 note 1} Confessor, S. Maximus, Quaestiones ad ThalassiumGoogle Scholar and Alciphron, , Letters to Farmers 35Google Scholar in Brenner, A. R. and Fobes, F. H., eds., The Letters of Alciphron, Aelian and Philostratus (London, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 389 note 2} Naturally, one might be tempted to reply that James is really a collection of unrelated traditions and thus the only significant thing about the context of our verse is that it provides the link-words to give our verse a place. But to say that is to forget the lessons which we have learned from gospel criticism, to forget that string-of-beads theories have long been abandoned for redaction-critical studies. James also had a final redactor, and we do not believe that he was ignorant of the traditions he was putting together to form a whole. The Abraham tradition is a case in point. Consistent with i. 13 the citation in chapter ii does not mention God's testing Abraham. Nor, however, does it mention a demonic force's testing Abraham (which was the normal defence of God in later Jewish works such as Jubilees), although the author undoubtedly knows this tradition as well (for these are the works which cite Abraham as an example of charity and hospitality which fit the example both to the context in James which precedes and the example of Rahab which follows). Yet to call testing evil would be to go beyond any of the Jewish traditions and would necessitate an extraordinary apologetic, for even the traditions which most stress the role of Satan (e.g. the Qumranic literature) keep God in the background (and the Gospels may play down the role of the Spirit in the temptation of Jesus, but they do not eliminate it). Furthermore, we do not believe that our author is only discussing a special type of πεıρασμός in i. 13 in contrast to a wider category found in i. 12 (temptation in contrast to testing), for he introduces no qualification in i. 13 to inform the reader of this radical shift in thought, a surprising state of affairs if the redactor took any care with his work. For a further discussion of the plan of the book see Francis, F. O., ‘The form and function of the opening and closing paragraphs of James and I John’, Z.N.W. 61 (1970), 110–26Google Scholar. For an extended discussion of the themes discussed here and how the author has redacted them, see our ‘Themes in the Epistle of James that are Judaistic in character’ (unpublished dissertation, Manchester, 1974).Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 1} Spitta, op. cit. pp. 33–4Google Scholar. He paraphrases ‘Gott werde von Bösen versucht and durch solches Versuchtwerden gekränkt, er selbst aber versuche keinen.’

^{page 390 note 2} English translation from Hennecke, E., New Testament Apocrypha (London, 1965), II, 242–3Google Scholar. Greek from M. Bonnet in Lipsius, R. A., Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (Hildesheim, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 3} English translation from Roberts, A. and Donaldson, J., The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1Google Scholar in The Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh, 1867), p. 480Google Scholar. Greek from Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers (London, 1889 ²), II, 199.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 4} Another example, which also refers to Christ, occurs in Gregory of Nazianzus, , Oratio 24 In Laudem S. CyprianiGoogle Scholar. We have not been able to trace for further examination a final example cited in Moulton, J. H. and Milligan, G., The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1929), p. 56Google Scholar, although it is intrinsically interesting, for it comes from papyri rather than the church fathers. Naturally, one ought not to be surprised that one can document a wide range of possibilities for άπείραστος, for, as Moulton, J. H. states (supra p. 388, n. I)Google Scholar, the relatively free use of the -τος adjectives means that their meaning can only be determined from lexical study, that is, context.

^{page 391 note 1} Exodus contains four explicit references to this testing (xv. 25, xvi. 4, xvii. 2, and xvii. 7), Numbers has one (xiv. 22, which claims that the people failed ten times), and Deuteronomy cites the concept five times (vi. 16, viii. 2, viii. 16, ix. 22 and xiii. 3). Psalms lxxviii, xcv and cvi reflect upon the experience, and Isaiah vii. 2 uses the theology stemming from the tradition.

^{page 391 note 2} Obviously we cannot do full justice to such a rich tradition in such a small space. For a fuller development see the article by Seesemann, H. (‘πεīρα’ in T.D.N.T., vol. 6)Google Scholar and especially the fine discussion by Gerhardsson, B. in The Testing of God's Son (Lund, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 3} Gerhardsson, , op. cit.Google Scholar, makes a major point of the fact that Jesus in the temptation is God's son who, unlike Israel (God's son as well), stands firm in the test. This concept is especially evident in Matthew's presentation of the temptation. It was not a major step, then, for James to apply this still-living theology to the situation of the Christian, but at the same time he narrows the focus from the collective to the individual (which has a limited precedent in the testing of Abraham–if one does not think of him as representing Israel – and Isaiah vii. 2).

^{page 392 note 1} Besides the reinterpretation of the temptation of Abraham to replace God with a Satan-figure (found, for example, in Jubilees xvii-xix), which is part of a general apologetic reworking of such traditions (e.g. I Chron. xxi. I ff.), one finds a general tendency to assign the testing of humans to demonic forces (e.g. IQM xvi. 11–xvii. 9, I QS i. 16–18, IQS iii. 21–4, T. Benjamin iii. 3, B. Berakoth 16b, Enoch xix. 1)–see J. H. Korn, ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΣ: die Versuchung des Gläubigen in der griechischen Bibel (Stuttgart, 1937)Google Scholar. James certainly has a place for the demonic in human affairs, as iv. 7 and perhaps iii. 15 show, and his citation of Abraham and Job (both probably because of later development of the traditions, such as The Testament of Job, which stress not only the place of the demonic, but also the charitable activities of the two men) indicates a knowledge of traditions in which a Satan-figure plays a large part (on James's use of the Abraham tradition see Ward, W. B., ‘Works of Abraham: James 2:14–26’, H.T.R. 61 [1968], 283–90)Google Scholar, but he chooses not to assign the test to the demonic (at least the external demonic) here, going beyond this tradition.

^{page 392 note 2} The role of the evil yēşer in James has been widely recognized, as a survey of the leading commentaries would quickly reveal. Unfortunately we do not have space here to discuss the fascinating implications of this and other conflations of tradition in James; we have, however, done so in our work cited in note 2 on page 389.