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

David Edgar, Has God not Chose the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 206 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).

In this revision of his dissertation at the University of Dublin, Edgar applies rhetorical analysis to the Epistle of James, relying heavily on Wuellner, Theissen, and Bruce Malina.

Chapters 2 and 3 deal with the self-perception of the author and his depiction of his audience, with particular focus on the community’s treatment of the poor.  The poor, in Edgards view, are probably the “wandering radicals” of the early Jesus movement first envisioned by Theissen.  Rather than supporting the poor radicals, the young church instead is interesting in courting wealthy benefactors for its own personal gain.

Based on the assertion that the poor are early itinerants, Edgar suggests a date of authorship prior to the Jewish revolt in 66, but after 62, since, based on the letter’s excellent Greek, the work must be pseudonymous.

While the application of Theissen’s notions to the letter of James is interesting, it seems a bit to narrow as an exhaustive category.  In particular, it disregards in emphasis on the orphans and the widows in 1:27.  However, it is entirely possible that these wandering radicals are one of the marginalized groups with which James is concerned, but not the only group.

In chapters 4–6 Edgar applies rhetorical analysis to the text of James in a commentary-like fashion, making observations along the way.  While Edgar’s work blazes few new trails, his research is thorough and the application of rhetorical analysis to James deserves a look from anyone studying the letter.

William R. Baker, “Who’s your daddy? Gendered birth images in the soteriology of the Epistle of James (1:14-15, 18, 21),” EQ 79.3 (2007), 195–207.

In this article, Baker claims that the birth images in 1:14–15, 18, 21, provide a framework for understanding soteriology in James. “In salvation the father (God) conceives in his submissive wife (the unsaved person) the newborn child (the saved believer)” 196-97).

Baker first points to 14–15, where the birth allegory presents the opposite of salvation.  Drawing on the seductress of Proverbs 5 and 7, James tells a story of a seductress name Desire (which is, of course, feminine in the Greek) who beds the adulterous man. Their daughter is Sin (also feminine), who will herself beget Death.

These birth images, says Baker, derive from Philo who maintains the Platonic division of rational and irrational facets of the person. Desire and pleasure are both feminine aspects of man, and, like Eve, threaten the person’s ability to make rational decisions. Femininity, then, is evil.

The positive birth image is found in 18 and 21, wherein God implants his DNA into the submissive (feminine) will of the believer. Baker’s distinctions become a bit cloudy on this point when he claims that submission is a feminine act, opposed to masculine and therefore sinful self-assertion.  Femininity in 14–15, however, is portrayed as evil, so one wonders about the validity of masculine/feminine categories as determinants for salvation.

The “word of truth” in verse 18 is the implanted DNA—a metaphor he employs freely—found in every Christian.  Accepting the implanted word (21) is simply living in accordance with the divine DNA bestowed at the moment of conception between God and will.

In conclusion, Baker recommends reading the entire letter in light of the birth allegory of 1:13–14, 18, 21, with particular emphasis on viewing the Word as congenital to the believer and on the importance of continued submission to God’s will.  Applying the notion of gendered soteriology to the entire letter is, in my opinion, strenuous.  Additionally, I wonder about the validity of the DNA metaphor in light of Greco-Roman understandings of self-identity.