No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The natural starting point for any interpretation of the Epistle of James is its praescriptio, where the author defines for his readers their own communal identity by addressing them as ‘the twelve tribes in the diaspora’. Whatever intentions may have lurked behind the attributive expression 
, the peculiar designation of the authorial audience as ‘the twelve tribes’ casts the readership with surprising clarity in the role of the true Israel. Although the author does not make further comment upon the relationship of his intended readers to the dominant Judaism of his day, it is surely correct to assume that an organizational separation had occurred. The community which James elsewhere refers to as the ⋯κκλησ⋯α (5.14) and which boasts its own teachers (3.1) and elders (5.14) had most certainly set itself apart in some degree from the entity whose title it is said to possess.
1 The clear assumption of the author that his audience was homogeneous in its belief in ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ (2.1) prohibits understanding -ταῖς δώδεκα ϕμλαῖς to refer to the Jewish community at large. Furthermore, the fact that a select group of believers-in-Jesus is defined in the opening formula by an appellation characteristic of the Jewish nation in its completeness (cf. e.g. As. Mos. 4.8–9; 2 Apoc. Bar. 1.2; 78.4; Acts 26.7) strongly suggests that the author in some sense delegitimates Jewish identity outside of his own religious group. The precise nuances of this relationship remain, however, hidden by the silence of the author who prefers to define his group over against ‘the world’ (1.27; 2.5; 3.6; 4.4).
2 For τῷ κóσμῳ as dativus commodi (cf. e.g. άστοῖσ τῷ θεῷ [Acts 7.20]) and έν πστει with a locative sense: Dibelius, M., James (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 138Google Scholar; Davids, P., Commentary on James (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 111.Google Scholar The reticence of the author to describe the poor as being ν τῷ κóσμῳ results in the usage of the dativus commodi (τῷ κób.sigma;μῳ) which is promptly subverted by the reality ν πστɛι. The grammatical asymmetry cannot, however, conceal the underlying collision of mutually exclusive value systems.
3 The ease with which interpreters fall into the non-Jacobean language of ‘true’ and ‘false’ faith which is predicated upon an assumed causal connection between faith and works can be seen e.g. in the following remarks from some of the leading commentaries: ‘Für Jakobus ist also wahrer, lebendiger Glaube nur jener, der “Werke hat”, d.h., der sich praktisch im Leben auswirkt’ (Muβner, F., Der Jakobusbrief [HTKNT 13; 4th ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1981] 132)Google Scholar; ‘A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation. True faith reveals itself in pious deeds of love’ (Davids, P., James, 119)Google Scholar; ‘Nur ein wirkkräftiger und ein durch Tun be-glaubigter Glaube ist nach Jakobus wahrer Glaube’ (Frankemölle, H., Der Brief des Jakobus [2 vols.; Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-kommentar zum Neuen Testament 17; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994] 2.472).Google Scholar In each case, faith is perceived to be an internal quality which results in external manifestations, i.e. works.
4 Heiligenthal, R., Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum (WUNT 2/9; Tübingen: Mohr, 1983) 1–53.Google Scholar
5 The insistence that James' discussion is inconceivable without Paul having first given faith its principal position in Christian theology is not only old (e.g. Holtzmann, H. J., Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament [3rd ed.; Freiburg: Mohr, 1892] 333)Google Scholar, it has been often repeated in recent literature: Lohse, E., ‘Glaube und Werke: Zur Theologie des Jakobusbriefes’, Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments (2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976) 291Google Scholar; Laws, S., The Epistle of James (HNTC; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980) 131Google Scholar; Schrage, W., Jakobusbrief, Der, ‘Die Katholischen’ Briefe: Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Johannes und Judas (Balz, H. and Schrage, W.; NTD 10; 2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 34–5Google Scholar; Pratscher, W., Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition (FRLANT 139; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987) 213–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hengel, M., ‘Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik’, Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. E. Ellis (ed. Hawthorne, G. and Betz, O.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 253–4.Google Scholar The ablest defender of this position remains without doubt Dibelius, M. (James, 174–80).Google Scholar
6 The attempt of W. Schrage (‘Jakobusbrief, 36) to dispose of the problem by insisting that positive references to faith in the epistle 'scheinen mehr der Tradition zu entstammen’ and thus are not indicative of the author's own perspective has relatively little to commend it.
7 Schlatter, A., Der Glaube im Neuen Testament (6th ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1982) 442.Google Scholar Schlatter himself attempts to find the key to the riddle in a causal connection between faith and works – against the intention of James.
8 Burchard, C., ‘Zu Jakobus 2.14–26’, ZNW 71 (1980) 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Burchard, C., ‘Jakobus 2.14–26’, 27 n. 3.Google Scholar Burchard acknowledges in a later essay (‘Nächstenliebegebot, Dekalog und Gesetz in Jak 2, 8–11’, Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: FS R. Rendtorff [ed. E. Blum et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990] 522)Google Scholar that ‘2, 1 ist formal ein Neuanfang, sachlich nicht ganz’, without, however, recognizing the special significance of this observation for the faith theme of 2.14–26.
10 E.g. Acts 26.5; Col 2.18; Halicarnassus, DionysiusAnt. Rom. 2.63.2Google Scholar; Philo, Spec. leg. 1.315Google Scholar; Josephus, Ant. 4.306Google Scholar; 12.271; 19.284; J.W. 1.146; 2.198; 4.324; 7.45; 1 Clem. 62.1; Lucian, Sacr. 10Google Scholar; Sextus, Pyrr. 3.220, 222,.Google Scholar The adjective θρησκóς, is so far unknown in the Greek language before James, . Cf. Spicq, C., Notes de lexicographie néotestamentaire (OBO 22; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 1.379–83.Google Scholar
11 E.g. Chariton, Chaer. 7.6.6Google Scholar; Josephus, Ant. 1.223–4, 234Google Scholar; 6.18; 8.279; 13.244.
12 On the following discussion note: Schmidt, O., Die Opferanschauung des späteren Judentums und die Opferaussagen des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr, 1910)Google Scholar; H. Wenschkewitz, Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe Tempel, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament (Angelos Beihefl 4; Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1932); V. Nikiprowetzky, La spiritualisation des sacrifices et le culte sacrificiel au temple de Jérusalem chez Philon d'Alexandrie', Semitica 17 (1967) 97–116; G. Klinzing, Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testaments (SUNT 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1971); E. Ferguson, 'Spiritual Sacrifice in Early Christianity and Its Environment', ANRWII 23.2 (1980) 1151-89. All quotations from appropriate texts will be quoted from the LCL.
13 Note in addition, Philo, Det. 21Google Scholar; Plant 107–8; Spec. Leg. 1.201, 253, 290; Somn. 2.71–4; QE 2.98.
14 This fundamental distinction between moral purity and divine service is evident even in the frequently quoted passage in Philo Det. 20–1: ‘this man … has gone astray from the road that accords with piety, deeming it to be ritual instead of holiness [θρησκεαν άντ όσιóτητος]’. Here όσιóτητος describes moral virtue over against the worship of God; no distinction between external ceremony and internal piety is intended.
15 Both the sudden abruptness with which the care for the widows and orphans is introduced in 1.27, as well as the fact that this motif occurs in the OT in connection with the ‘spiritual sacrifice’ cluster of themes only in the opening chapter of Isaiah and that under the rubric of the initial demand ‘Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean’
Isa 1.16], cf. ἂσπλλον έαν T τηρεîν άπò το κóσμου [Jas 1.27]), make it conceivable that the author of the epistle is not only appealing to an earlier authoritative text but that this text is indeed Isa 1.16–17.
16 Laws, S., James, 93.Google Scholar
17 See e.g. Hort, F. J. A., The Epistle of St James (London: Macmillan, 1909) 57Google Scholar; Reicke, B., The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude (AB 37; Garden City: Doubleday, 1964) 32Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., ‘The Message of James’, SJT 18 (1965) 338CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laws, S., James, 119Google Scholar. The λέγ in 2.14, like δοκεγ in 1.26, is not meant, however, to cast doubt upon the existence of the supposed quality, nor does it imply that the faith must be ‘claimed’ because it cannot be empirically demonstrated (so Muβner, F., Jakobus, 129Google Scholar) – the issue at hand is the validity of faith without works coram deo not coram hominibus. Rather, έiγῃ merely places the presumption of man over against the judgment of God, who decides the acceptability of the offering.
18 Dibelius, M., James, 152.Google Scholar
19 I have been unable to find a single parallel to justify reading καθ' έαντήν together with νεKρ in the sense of ‘inwardly dead’ (so Mayor, J. B., The Epistle of St James [3rd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1910] 99Google Scholar; cf. Ropes, J. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St James [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1916] 208Google Scholar; Vouga, F., L'EpÎtre de saint Jacques [CNT 13a; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1984] 87Google Scholar; Martin, R., James [WBC 48; Waco: Word, 1988] 85)Google Scholar – an interpretation which presumably arose from the Vulgate's ‘in semetipsa’. The true sense of the Greek expression is ‘alone, by itself’, being frequently used to contrast the independent value, quality, or function of a thing with its value, quality, or function when placed in conjunction with other related objects (e.g. Philo, Mos. 2.194Google Scholar; Plutarch, Mor. 722C; 764DGoogle Scholar; Josephus, Ap. 2.284Google Scholar) – which is certainly the case here following έν μ ἔρῃῃ ἔργα. Thus καθ9' έaντν is best interpreted as highlighting the consideration of faith apart from works parallel to μóvov in v. 24. So also Muβlner, F., Jakobus, 132Google Scholar; Walker, R., ‘Allein aus Werken: Zur Auslegung von Jakobus 2,14–26’, ZTK 61 (1964) 168–9.Google Scholar Walker, however, continually violates the language of James in his insistence that faith without works is ‘nicht-existent’.
20 Against, e.g. Mayor, J. B., James, 99–100Google Scholar; Muβner, F., Jakobus, 136–8Google Scholar. The τις in v. 14 does not himself advance an argument, but is merely the party about which James' rather aggressive assertion in vv. 14–17 is made, rendering it highly improbable that the words of the interlocutor in v. 18 are directed against the τις of v. 14, rather than against the author. The alternative solution proposed by J. Zmijewski (Christliche, ‘Vollkommenheit': Erwägungen zur Theologie des Jakobusbriefes’, Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 5 [1980] 59–63)Google Scholar, which reads the entirety of vv. 18–21 as the objection of a works-advocate against the τις in v. 14 runs aground not only on this point but also on the extreme unlikelihood that the βλπɛις of v. 22 marks the resumption of James' voice.
21 The work of Donker, C. (‘Der Verfasser des Jak und sein Gegner: Zum Problem des Einwandes in Jak 2.18–19’, ZNW 72 [1981] 227–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar), a refinement of Hort's, F. J. A.(James, 60–1Google Scholar) reading of v. 18a, has not been received with the widespread sympathy experienced by Neitzel's, H. repunctuation of the text (‘Eine alte crux interpretum im Jakobusbrief 2.18’, ZNW 73 [1982] 286–93Google Scholar; followed by Schnider, F., Der Jakobusbrief [RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1987] 70–1Google ScholarSchnackenburg, R., Botschaft, 2.217Google Scholar; Karrer, M., ‘Christus der Herr und die Welt als Stätte der Prüfung: Zur Theologie des Jakobusbriefes’, KD 35 [1989] 170 n. 18Google Scholar; Ruegg, U., ‘A la recherche du temps de Jacques’, La mémoire et le temps: Mélanges offerts à P. Bonnard [ed. Marguerat, D. and Zumstein, J.; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991] 252Google Scholar; Cargal, T., Restoring the Diaspora: Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of James [SBLDS 144; Atlanta: Scholars, 1993] 125Google Scholar; Frankemölle, H., Jakobus, 2.439Google Scholar). While Neitzel is certainly right in pointing out occurrences where κγώ alone without the verb could introduce direct discourse, it is doubtful if this shortened form could be used immediately following the σ of v. 18a with the expectation that the reader would naturally connect the κγώ to the ρɛῖ τις as Neitzel desires – especially in view of the fact that the resulting challenge to the author's faith is totally unprovoked.
22 The use of the pronouns σὺ … κ;γώ as a vivid way of representing two separate persons in the sense of ‘the one … and the other’ is in itself not linguistically improbable (e.g. Ropes, J. H., James, 209Google Scholar; Dibelius, M., James, 156Google Scholar); the problem lies, however, in the awkward reversal of the pattern in v. 18b. Given the nature of v. 18a as an objection to the thesis of vv. 14–17, the most plausible explanation of the otherwise curious distribution of the pronouns is still the suggestion of Huther, J.(Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch über den Brief des Jakobus [MeyerK 15; 3rd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1870] 125–6Google Scholar) and Weiss, B.Was Neue Testament Handausgabe [3 vols.; 2nd ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902] 3.275Google Scholar) that James composes the objection in indirect discourse: ‘You (the apostrophized reader [cf. Jas 4.12]) have faith, and I (the author) have works.’ For other examples of λλ ‘b.rho;ɛ τις introducing indirect speech, see: Sextus Adv. math. 3.53 (λλ μν δɛξαμɛν, ρɛῖ τις, τι παντɛλς στέρησς τо πλάτоυς ναρɛσς στι κα τо b.muήκоυς); Origenes, Comm. Matt. 14.12.36Google Scholar (λλ’ ρɛῖ τις ὅτι μήπоτɛ σɛβоμεν). The attempt of Watson, D. (‘James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation’, NTS 39 [1993] 111–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar) to refer σ to James and κγώ to his opponent, leaves v. 18b not only a rhetorical dilemma but a truly strange construction.
23 Dibelius, M., James, 156Google Scholar. Cf. Lohse, E., ‘Glaube und Werke’, 288Google Scholar; Walker, R., ‘Allein’, 171Google Scholar; Schrage, W., ‘Jakobusbrief’, 32.Google Scholar
24 Note the following selected examples: Isocrates, Or. 12.124, 204Google Scholar; Demosthenes, Third Philippic 16Google Scholar; Philo, Abr. 208Google Scholar; Virt. 51, 76, 95; Siculus, DiodorusBib. Hist. 6.8.11Google Scholar; 7.12.7; 12.20.3; Halicarnassus, DionysiusAnt. Rom. 2.62.5Google Scholar; Strabo 16.2.37; Josephus, Ant. 7.384Google Scholar; 9.236; 16.42; 18.117; J.W. 2.139; 1 Clem. 62.1. A more comprehensive treatment of the ɛὐσέβɛια/δικαιоσνη language in pagan Greek literature as well as in Hellenistic Judaism can be found in Berger, K., Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament (WMANT 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1972) 1.142–60.Google Scholar
25 Ropes, J. H., James, 210Google Scholar; Dibelius, M., James, 160Google Scholar; Davids, P., James, 124.Google Scholar
26 Similarly, Burchard, C., ‘Jakobus 2.14–26’, 38Google Scholar; Lautenschlager, M., ‘Der Gegenstand des Glaubens im Jakobusbrief’, ZTK 87 (1990) 176Google Scholar. Cf. e.g. the close parallel in Epictetus, Diss. 1.6.43Google Scholar (κατоι πρòς μɛγαλоψυχαν μν κα νδρɛαν γὼ σо δɛξω ὅτι ϕоρμς κα παρασκɛυν ἔνɛς, πρòς δ τò μέμϕɛb.sigma;θαι κα γκλɛῖν πоας ϕоρμς ἔχɛις σὺ δ’ μо δɛκυɛ), where the intention is not to present a logical argument implying that the addressee could not conceivably show the demanded object, but rather to belittle the debating partner's inferior position.
27 Muβner, F., Jakobusbrief, 139Google Scholar. Cf. Jeremias, J., ‘Paul and James’, Exp Tim 66 (1954–5) 370Google Scholar; Via, D. O., ‘The Right Strawy Epistle Reconsidered: A Study in Biblical Ethics’, JR 49 (1969) 256Google Scholar; Schrage, W., ‘Jakobusbrief’, 36–7Google Scholar. The insistence upon defining πστις of 2.14–26 from the content of the example in v. 19a increases the tension with the faith-language in other parts of the epistle (e.g. 1.3, 6; 2.5), as Schrage appears to recognize. But where does James indicate that he has suddenly switched registers? Vv. 14–17 are hardly comprehensible if the reader must wait until v. 19 to discover what James is railing against.
28 In this respect Lehnhardt, T. (‘Der Gott der Welt is unser König: Zur Vorstellung von der Königsherrschaft Gottes im Shema und seinen Benediktionen’, Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt [ed. Hengel, M. and Schwemer, A.; WUNT 55; Tübingen: Mohr, 1991] 288–90)Google Scholar cites particularly m. Ber. 2.2 and 2.5 as well as the judgment of Heinemann, J.(Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns [SJ 9; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1977] 134CrossRefGoogle Scholar) regarding the use of the formula 
in response to the recitation of Deut 6.4 in the liturgy of the Second Temple.
29 Note Sir 44.20–1; Bib. Ant. 18.5; 32.5; 1 Mace 2.52; Josephus Ant. 234; Philo Abr. 273. In each case there appears a new depth to God's commitment to Abraham after the incident of the Akedah. See Berger, K., ‘Abraham II. Im Frühjudentum und Neuen Testament’, TRE 1.373–1.Google Scholar
30 Dibelius, M., James, 161Google Scholar. On this point Dibelius enjoys widespread support: note e.g. Hahn, F., ‘Gen 15.6 im Neuen Testament’, Probleme biblischer Theologie: FS G. von Rad (ed. Wolff, H. W.; Munich: Kaiser, 1971) 92–3Google Scholar; Lorenzen, T., ‘Faith without Works Does Not Count before God!: James 2:14–26’, ExpTim 89 (1977–8) 232Google Scholar; Lindemann, A., Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der früh-christlichen Literatur bis Marcion (BHT 58; Tübingen: Mohr, 1979) 245–6Google Scholar; Zmijewski, J., ‘Vollkommenheit’, 64Google Scholar; Lautenschlager, M., ‘Gegenstand’, 180.Google Scholar
31 Dibelius, M., James, 161.Google Scholar
32 Dibelius, M., James, 163.Google Scholar The italics are my own.
33 ‘The improbability of Dibelius’ reading of the text is revealed above all in the unmitigated tension between his understanding of w. 22–3 as an effort on the author's part to place faith and works on equal rank in the attainment of salvation and the clear declaration of the text in vv. 21, 24 and 25 that a person ‘is justified from works’. Indeed, Dibelius himself acknowledged this ‘apparent self-contradiction’ (James, 163).
34 Dibelius, M., James, 163Google Scholar. In this observation, Dibelius was preceded by Beyschlag, W.(Kritish-exegetisches Handbuch über den Brief des Jakobus [MeyerK 15; 6th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897] 138)Google Scholar and Ropes, J. H.(James, 219–21Google Scholar). Unfortunately, the point is still occasionally overlooked in the rush to establish a causal relationship between faith and works: note e.g. Cranfield, C. E. B., ‘The Message of James’, SJT 18 (1965) 341CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schnider, F., Jakobusbrief, 73.Google Scholar
35 As Laws, S. (James, 135Google Scholar) correctly observes, the plural τоῖς ἔργоις αὑτо in v. 22a derives from the preceding context (vv. 14, 17, 18, 20) and not from the immediate example (against Ward, R. B., ‘The Works of Abraham: James 2:14–26’, HTR 61 [1968] 283–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davids, P., Tradition and Citation in the Epistle of James', Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation: Essays Presented to E. F. Harrison [ed. Gasque, W. and La Sor, W. S.; Grand Rapids, 1978] 113–16Google Scholar). Since James occupies himself generally with deeds done in conformity to the divine word (1.22) and not exclusively with charitable acts of mercy, the obedience of Abraham in Gen 22 does not appear to be an awkward example.
36 Against e.g. Muβner, F., Jakobus, 142Google Scholar; Burchard, C., ‘Jakobus 2.14–26’, 42Google Scholar; Davids, P., James, 128Google Scholar; Schnider, F., Jakobusbrief, 73.Google Scholar
37 Dibelius, M., James, 163–5.Google Scholar