So Much for Straw || A Blog about the Epistle of James

Jim Darlack at Old in the New has posted links to images of the Epistle of James in Codex Sinaiticus.

This post is a couple of years old, but since one of my goals is to aggregate good online info for research on James, I think it’s still timely. After all, we are talking about a document that’s 1600 years old, so what’s a couple of years, anyway?

In his insightful work on the Sermon on the Mount (Reading The Sermon On The Mount: Character Formation And Decision Making In Matthew 5-7), Charles Talbert claims that the teachings of Christ in Matthew 5–7 serve as verbal icons that allow the auditor to “see” into the will of God. Talbert remarks

“Like the painted icon, the verbal icon provides a window into divine reality, making possible the perception of the spiritual world. In the Sermon on the Mount the words of Jesus function as verbal icons enabling the disciples to see into the divine reality of God’s unconditional will. Character is then shaped as the disciple comes to see differently” (72).

In light of Talbert’s exposition (which he supports with examples from Greco-Roman literature), I wonder if James’ use of examples functions in a similar manner.  From what I can tell, the there are 4 uses of verbal icons in James that are similar to those found in Matthew: Abraham - 2:20–23; Rahab - 2:25;  The Prophets - 5:10; Elijah - 5:17–18.

James does use other examples, like the rudder and the bit, but the verbal icon typically involves the use of a prominent personality held in regard by the community.  Talbert mentions Xenophon, Memorabilia, 4.1.1, in which he speaks the disciple’s of Socrates imagining him in his absence, primarily as an aide to virtuous living. Seneca, Epistles, 52.7 and 11.8–10 encourages his audience to look to the great philosophers of old for guidance, and to hear them speak through books (Talbert, 40). The presence of a a virtuous person was thought to impart the ability to live rightly onto the disciples. Talbert offers the words of Plutarch: “great is his craving all but to merge his own identity in that of a good man” (Virt. prof. 84D) (Talbert, 40).

The four verbal icons in James stand apart from other examples, such as a rudder, because they offer a living breathing vision of ideal reality.  Faith in action looks like Abraham and Rahab. Patience in suffering looks like the Prophets. Righteous prayer looks like Elijah. These familiar characters provide not only. James never exhorts his audience to be like the verbal icons.

Rather they function similar to the icons in Matthew. Through them, “one sees the divine will and in the contemplation thereof is changed. . . . This type of language functions to form moral character” (Talbert 91). Whatever the specific intent of James, it is clear that some sort of behavior modification is at least one desired outcome and the use of verbal icons supports James’ goal of transformation.

Certainly this is only a brief incursion into a potential area of exploration, but James’ extensive use of the Jesus tradition in Matthew seems to warrant the exploration of parallel approaches to teaching. Any thoughts are welcome.

For another blog with info on James, click over to ΑΓΑΠΗΣΕΙΣ. While the author (who appears anonymous) covers much more than the Epistle of James, you might want to bookmark the site for future reference.  The author offers lots of information on New Testament Greek and translation that you might also find interesting.

The following is a list of ways in which one may understand the relationship between James and Paul. Number 8 is Mitchell’s unique contribution. Punctuation and emphasis all hers.

1. James and Paul were completely independent and any allegorical overlaps are mere coincidence.
2. James and Paul both reflect “Hellenistic Judaism” or “first generation Jewish [Christianity]” (without direct connection to one another).
3. Paul knew the Epistle of James and wrote against it in his letter(s), especially Galatians (and/or Romans).
4. James did not know Paul’s letters but had heard something (accurate) about Paul.
5. James did not know Paul’s letters but had heard something (inaccurate) about Paul.
6. James depends on the Pauline letters (especially Galatians, perhaps Romans) and writes against them because he understands how radical Paul’s teaching on justification was and wishes to combat it.
7. James depends on the Pauline letters (especially Galatians, perhaps Romans) and writes against them, but ‘misunderstands’ Paul’s true teaching on justification to combat it.
8. The author of the Letter of James knows some collection of Paul’s letters, and writes from within Paulinism (rather than in opposition to Paul), creating a compromise document which has as one of its purposes reconciling ‘Paul with Paul’ and ‘Paul with the Pillars.’

As mentioned in a previous post, I recently read Margaret Mitchell’s essay “The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism” in Reading James With New Eyes, edited by and Kloppenborg

The Main Idea
Mitchell pushes back against recent scholarship that “reads the Epistle of James on its own terms” and, as a result, ignores any possible relationship to Pauline thought. This approach is an academic cop-out that assumes no relationship rather than proving its absence

Not only was James aware of a corpus Paulinum, says Mitchell, but his writing actually emerged from within Pauline tradition as a “compromise document which has as one of its purposes reconciling ‘Paul with Paul’ and ‘Paul with the pillars’” (79).

The support
Mitchell then builds a characteristically thorough and detailed case that the author of James knew Galatians, Romans and 1 Corinthians and sought to rectify some seemingly contradictory thinking, especially between Galatians and 1 Corinthians.

Additionally, she provides testimony from early witnesses, John Chrysostom in particular, that reconciling Paul with Paul was of interest to many other preachers/teachers.

The takeaway
Mitchell’s argument represents the zenith, and probably the downswing, of the James vs. Paul pendulum as she offers a balanced and mediating viewpoint of the literary context of earliest Christianity. Responsible scholars can no longer ignore the questions of relationship between James and Paul, as Mitchell has shed light upon a plausible understanding the situation.

In addition, the essay is filled with fascinating linguistic parallels between James and Paul that deserve attention from student of the Epistle of James.

New Testatmanet Perspectives has posted an interview with Darian Lockett, author of Purity and Worldview in the Epistle of James. Lockett offers some interesting insight into his personal journey as well as into his approach to James.

Craig Blomberg has posted a list on Zondervan’s Koinania blog about his top seven non-commentary books on James this decade. See the post here.

Update: view Dr. Blomberg’s response in the comment section of the link above.

Of the 7 books, I’ve read number 6 and number 4.

#6 Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg, eds., Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James is a collection of essays representing works emerging from SBL’s emphasis on new methodological approaches to James (e.g. not historical-critical).

Each essay provides a fascinating treatment of James, and I recommend it as a helpful introduction to recent scholarship on the epistle.

#4 David H. Edgar’s Has God Not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James, which is a revision of his 1996 dissertation at the University of Dublin.

However, Blomberg’s summary appears inaccurate. He states that Edgar’s thesis claims that James was written “to encourage the poor Jewish-Christian tenant farmers persecuted by their rich, non-Christian landlords.” After working through the monograph, however, I can’t say I came across any such reference.

Edgar uses a socio-rhetorical method to discern the identity of the πτωχοι that James refers to on several occasions. Rather than tenant-farmers, Edgar claims that these poor ones are actually “wandering radicals” that depend on local communities for support as they travel the land proclaiming the word of God (see the conclusion in 3.4). The community to which James writes, however, tends to favor wealthy patrons over these wandering radicals.

I will post a more thorough summary of Edgar’s work soon.

“Therefore, St. James’ epistle is really and epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” (from Selected Writings of Martin Luther, ed. Theodore G. Tappert, 2007).

Many years have passed since Luther’s first translation in 1522, but his infamous derision of James lives on. It’s as if it is impossible to write anything about James without tipping the cap to Luther (and I acknowledge that this post perpetuates this trend).

However, the past several decades have seen a revived interest in scholarship on James as scholars probe this undermined work.

This blog represents a bit of my contribution to this effort as I begin to orientate myself to the world of James. James. Though no seems quite sure of its exact makeup, it appears that James consists of much more than straw alone.