The Letter of James

Who was James?

James (= Jacob) was the name of a good 6 or 7 persons in the early Church that we know of. Which one wrote this letter? If it was ‘James the Lord’s brother’, was he Jesus’ elder brother? Jesus’ younger brother? A cousin of Jesus? Or was the author rather James, one of the Twelve? Or could it have been someone else? Another question is whether the letter is authentic or pseudonymous?

Factors to be considered:

The author does not call himself ‘the Lord’s brother’, which one might have expected if this were someone writing pseudonymously at a later time.
The Greek is polished and the Bible used appears to be the LXX. Although a Galilean Jew could easily have been bilingual, it is the closeness to the LXX that most strongly suggests that if the author was indeed James, the Lord’s brother, then he had help in writing and perhaps used a secretary or amanuensis.
We have next to no clear indication concerning where the letter was written from, although one might easily assume Jerusalem is James the Just is the author. If he is writing as the leader of the Jerusalem Church to the Diaspora, then it would not be surprising to find him using someone skilled at writing in Greek to make sure his letter is up to the task.
Unless one thinks the slight jibe at Paul’s teaching on faith and works fits the bill, there is nothing in the letter that would seem to be a response to post-apostolic situations, in relation to which those who wrote pseudonymously generally composed their works.
Since James be Zebedee was martyred relatively early according to Acts 12:2, the only other strong candidate is James the Lord’s brother. The content of the letter would certainly seem to fit what we know of him from other sources.

The role and importance of James in early Jewish Christianity

James is the only figure in the history of early Christianity, other than John the Baptist and Jesus himself, to be mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus (see his Antiquities 20.200). This should give some indication of the importance and prominence of James in Jerusalem in the decades after Easter. James is the ‘hero’ of early Jewish Christianity. While there are numerous different traditions about how James came to have the position of leadership that he did, there is widespread agreement (already attested in 1 Corinthians 15:7) that James received a resurrection appearance from the risen Jesus. The Gospels (both the Synoptics and John) appear to agree on the fact that during his earthly ministry, Jesus’ family were not at all impressed, and Mark bluntly states that they though he was out of his mind. However, after Easter, Mary and Jesus’ brothers are said in Acts to have been part of the early Christian community, and so if this is historically accurate, it appears that James is not the only one to have had a change of heart. However, one is still left wondering how James got so quickly from unbeliever to leader of the Jerusalem church without any sense that someone might have challenged or even questioned this. Perhaps it was the denial of Jesus by Peter, who otherwise would have been an obvious candidate to lead the church, that left a gap in the Church’s leadership that needed to be filled urgently after Good Friday. This, combined with James’ experience of a resurrection appearance (and perhaps also his position as Jesus’ older step-brother?), would all have contributed to his rise to prominence. If Peter was active in missionary activity and thus was regularly absent from Jerusalem, this too would have been a factor. Perhaps also significant was his name, Jacob, which would have fit him serving as the elder over the council of the Twelve, just as Jacob/Israel had priority over his twelve children, and the twelve tribes descended from them. Perhaps it was felt that the pattern Jesus had established was for there to be Twelve with someone over them (see the quotation from the Gospel of Thomas below). At any rate, the speed with which all this happened is clear from Galatians, in which James the Lord’s brother is reckoned an apostle and a key leader in the Jerusalem church along with Peter and John (see Galatians 1:19; 2:9,12).

(The Gospel of Thomas, logion 12, has Jesus name James as the leader after his departure, which is surprising in view of its emphasis on the preeminence of Thomas. There we read: “The disciples said to Jesus: ‘We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?’ Jesus said to them: ‘Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being’.” This designation of James as ‘the righteous/just’ is also used by Clement. Later Jewish Christianity (such as is evidenced by the Pseudo-Clementine literature) looked back to James, and to Peter as well, as the source and authority of their form of Christian belief, which stood against Paul as an enemy.)

What kind of literature is James?

Wisdom collection, encyclical/circular letter

For the types of wisdom sayings in James and their similarity to other writings in the ‘wisdom’ genre, see Richard Bauckham, James, London & New York: Routledge, 1999, pp.35-60.

James and the Teaching of Jesus

The letter of James has strong links to both the teaching of Jesus as found in the Synoptic Gospels in general, and more specifically to the Gospel of Matthew and its particular emphases. John Painter (in his book Just James, University of South Carolina, 1997, pp.260-261) presents the following list of parallels, based on a similar list compiled by Adamson:

James Matthew

“perfect” 1:4 5:48; 19:21

“righteousness” 1:20; 3:18 3:15; 5:6,10,20; 6:1,33; 21:32

beatitudes on the poor 2:5 5:3

the merciful 2:13-14 5:7

ambitious teachers 3:1 23:8

the peacemakers 3:18 5:9

anxiety for tomorrow 4:13-14 6:34

“church” 5:7 16:18; 18:17

“parousia” 5:7 24:3,27,37,39

“oaths” 5:12 5:33-37

Painter (pp.261-262) also combines lists put together by Ralph P. Martin and by P. J. Hartin on the relationship of teaching in James to the Jesus tradition in the Gospels more generally:

James Matthew Source & Luke

1. Joy in trial 1:2 5:11-12 Q (Luke 6:22-23)

2. Call to perfection 1:45,48 M

3. Asking & being given 1:5,17; 4:2-3 7:7-8,11 Q (Luke 11:9-10,13)

4. Faith & doubting 1:6 Mark 11:23

5. Enduring & being saved 1:12 24:13 Mark 13:13 (Luke 21:19)

6. Against anger 1:20 5:22 M

7. Doers of the word 1:22-23 7:24,26 Q (Luke 6:46-47,49)

8. Blessing of the poor 2:5 5:3,5 [11:5] Q (Luke 6:20; [7:22])

9. Warning against the rich 2:6-7 19:23-24 Q (Luke 19:24)

10. Law of love 2:8 22:39-40 Mark 12:38-44 (Luke 10:27)

11. To work sin (lawlessness) 2:9 7:23 Q (Luke 13:27)

12. Royal law 2:10-12 22:36-40 Q (Luke 10:25-28)

of love of neighbor

13. Obligation to keep 2:10 5:17-19 M, Q (Luke 16:17)

whole Law

14. Do not kill… 2:11 5:21-30 M

15. Merciless will be judged 2:13 5:7; 6:14f; 7:1 M, Q (Luke 6:36)

16. Against lip service 2:14-16 7:21-23 M

17. Help to the poor 2:15-16 25:34-35 M

18. Fruit of good works 3:12 7:16-18 Q (Luke 6:43-44)

19. In praise of meekness 3:13; 5:3,5 M

contrast 4:6,16

20. Meek…peacemaking 3:17-18 5:5,9 M

21. Against divided loyalty 4:4 6:24 Q (Luke 16:13)

22. Pure in heart 4:8 5:8 M

23. Mourn & weep 4:9 L (Luke 6:25)

24. Humility & exaltation 4:10 18:4; 23:12 Q? (Luke 14:11; 18:14)

25. Against slander 4:11 5:22; 7:1-2 M, Q (Luke 6:37-38)

26. Weep 5:1 L (Luke 6:24-25)

27. Against hoarding 5:2-3 6:19-21 Q (Luke 12:33-34)

28. Do not condemn 5:6 (7:1) Q (6:37)

29. Eschatological 5:9 24:33 Mark 13:29 (Luke 21:31)

imminence

30. Example of the prophets 5:10 5:11-12 Q (Luke 6:23)

31. Prohibition of oaths 5:12 5:33-37 M

32. Elijah as example 5:17 L (Luke 4:25)

33. Relation to sinful brother 5:19-20 18:15 Q? (Luke 17:3)

[See also Raymond Brown, Introduction to the NT, pp.734-5]

The question of the source of James’ knowledge of Jesus’ teaching is an important one for a number of reasons:

1) James the brother of Jesus was not an eyewitness of much or most of Jesus’ ministry.

2) James, if not directly dependent on the Synoptic Gospels, may provide an independent testimony to some teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels.

3) Like Paul, James does not for the most part preface the teaching of Jesus with ‘Jesus said’ or the like.

We must also acknowledge the possibility of James’ influence on Matthew’s Gospel, rather than vice versa.

Faith and Works in the Letter of James

Understanding Paul and early Judaism – The ‘New Perspective on Paul’

1.      Luther’s influence; unlikelihood that 1^st century situation was exactly the same as that in 16^th century Catholicism. It is worth noting that Luther did not call James ‘an epistle of straw’ in an unqualified way, but an epistle of straw as compared to other New Testament writings. Be that as it may, Luther’s attitude and conclusions regarding James have long influenced the thinking of both the Church and NT scholarship.

2.      Focus on circumcision – least appropriate ‘work of the Law’ to represent self-justification and self-righteousness!

3.      Circumcision in early Judaism:

Jubilees 22:16: Separate yourselves from the Gentiles: Do not eat with them, and do not do the things that they do, and do not have fellowship with them. For all their deeds are defiled, and all their ways are corrupt, and depraved, and disgusting.

Letter of Aristeas 139,142: In his wisdom the Lawgiver (i.e. Moses)…surrounded us with unbroken fences and with walls of iron, so that we might not be permitted to mix with any other people in any respect…Thus, in order to protext us from corruption through contact with others or through association with bad influences, he surrounded us on all sides with strict traditions relating to eating, drinking, hearing, touching and seeing, in the manner of the Law.

4.      Deuteronomy 9:4-6  Is the Law itself opposed to grace?

5.      Was early Judaism completely legalistic (there were surely legalists then, but there are legalistic Christians today; the question is about the overall character of the religion as a whole). See the hymn from Qumran which says: “I know that righteousness does not belong to men nor perfection of path to the sons of men. To God Most High belong all righteous deeds.”[1]

6.      Legalistic individual self-righteousness vs. corporate, election-based nationalistic righteousness.

7.      Relevance for today (story about a pastor’s question for Richard Hays): focus on boundary markers rather than on fundamentals; how do we identify a true Christian?

Relationship between James’ letter and Paul’s theology:

Was James reacting to Paul’s teaching? Or only to a misinterpretation of it? Was it a misinterpretation that others were promulgating, or did James himself misunderstand what Paul was trying to say? While the latter is not at all impossible, it leads quickly to the previous option, since if James misunderstood Paul’s teaching then he is unlikely to have been the only one!

A comparison between the exegesis of Genesis in Galatians, Romans, and James

In Galatians 3, Paul makes the point that Abraham believed God, and this was reckoned to him as righteousness. In addition, the Law promises that in Abraham all nations (which in Greek as in Hebrew also meant ‘Gentiles’) will be blessed. The covenant with and promise to Abraham was thus based on faith, and had the Gentiles in view. The coming of the Law could not supercede the promise and the ground-rules already established for its fulfillment. Since the Law separated Jews from Gentiles, the Law could not be the means whereby Gentiles would be reckoned as Abraham’s seed and still be Gentiles (as the promise seemed to imply, at least as Paul interpreted it).

In the letter of James, 2:14-26, it seems likely that the author has heard of Paul’s teaching. Whether he (or those who had told him about it) had really understood Paul is another matter. But it seems clear that James is interacting with an interpretation of the Genesis narrative about Abraham that was not wholly unlike that found in Galatians. Abraham was most famous not for simply ‘believing God’, but for trusting God to such an extent that he was willing to offer Isaac on the altar. This willingness to give his only son was considered by many to be the basis for God’s unwavering commitment to Abraham’s descendents. It also provided the paradigm for God giving his ‘only Son’ as well, and it was probably felt in early Jewish-Christian exegesis that the two were inextricably linked. And so James is not really dealing with the issue of God ‘reckoning’ Abraham’s faith as righteousness in Genesis 15:6, but with the fruit of that faith demonstrated in Genesis 22:9. If Abraham had disobeyed God when called upon to offer his son, his earlier so-called faith would have been meaningless. And so James argues that a theoretical faith, in the sense of say a belief that God exists, is not enough, but must be coupled with action in accordance with God’s will as the outworking of that faith.

Up to this point, it may be that the two sides are talking past each other. Paul does not deny in his letters that Christians must live a certain way. He sets aside the Torah as the basis for the covenant for one reason only: it excludes Gentiles who do not convert to Judaism from full membership in the people of God. However, James is aware that anyone who sets aside works altogether (as some of Paul’s arguments can be taken to imply) will end up with a faith that is empty and meaningless, and not the sort of faith Abraham had. In the end, Paul has not denied that how one lives matters, and James is speaking about the importance of good works and obedience/faithfulness to God rather than circumcision or the food laws, which he presumably kept, but may have agreed with Paul that they were of secondary importance, if still essential. Perhaps James is arguing against the conclusion to which Paul’s teaching might be taken if followed through to its logical extreme, an extreme to which Paul himself does not go. Yet Paul must, to be consistent, set aside the whole of Torah, and cannot simply negate the importance of ‘ritual’ or ‘ceremonial’ commandments as opposed to ‘moral’ ones. Apart from the fact that the two overlapped (the Sabbath being a case in point), the Torah was the basis of a covenant, and one could not simply ‘pick and choose’ from among its commandments. And so Paul seeks to set aside the whole Law of Moses, while including the Gentiles in a new covenant that aims to uphold the same (if not indeed a greater) moral standard.

James D. G. Dunn (Romans, p.197) notes the parallels between Paul's argument in Romans 3:27-4:22 with that which James uses in 2:18-24:

Romans James

Issue posed in terms of faith and works 3:27-28 2:18

Significance of claiming 'God is one' 3:29-30 2:19

Appeal to Abraham as test case 4:1-2 2:20-22

Citation of proof-text - Gen.15:6 4:3 2:20-22

Interpretation of Gen.15:6 4:4-21 2:23

Conclusion 4:22 2:24

Once again it should be emphasized that in James' exposition, 'works' are in fact 'good works', the practical outworking of faith, and not 'works of the law' in the sense that Paul probably understood them. Dunn outlines Paul's argument here as follows (op.cit., p.198):

Romans 4:

1-2 Introduction (in continued diatribe style)

3 The text to be explained:

Abraham believed God & it was reckoned to him as righteousness

4-8 The meaning of ‘reckoned’

4-5 from the logic of divine-human relations

6-8 from its use in Ps.32:1

9-21 The meaning of ‘believed’

9-12 from the order of events in Abraham's case

13-17 from the link between faith & promise in Abraham's case

17-21 from the character of Abraham's faith

22 Conclusion - the text explained

23-25 Corollary - its wider application as thus understoood

Paul here goes on to back up his assertion that his Gospel was attested to beforehand by the Law and the Prophets; unless Paul can demonstrate the truth of this from Scripture, he cannot hope to win his argument with his Jewish opponents. Peter Stuhlmacher (Paul's Letter to the Romans. A Commentary, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994) regards the issue between Paul and his opponents here (as in Galatians) as being whether Gentile Christians are to be regarded as only 'God-fearers', "merely in the outer court of the people of God", and need to be circumcised in order to be fully part of God's people (p.69). Paul’s argument here is much stronger, and perhaps reflects not so much a knowledge of James’ letter, as the use of James’ exegesis by Paul’s opponents in their arguments with him. Paul does not attempt to deny the importance of Abraham offering his only son, since he does not deny that those who have faith obey God and bear fruit. The only question he has is how Abraham’s acceptance by God relates to his circumcision. According to the text of Genesis itself, Abraham is circumcised two chapters later, but this represented the passing of many years, during which time no Jewish reader would have considered Abraham to have been ‘unjustified’. And so Paul is aiming first and foremost to undermine, not the argument of James, but the general Jewish assumption that Abraham “kept the Law of the Most High” (Ecclesiasticus 44:20-21; see also the Book of Jubilees; Apocalypse of Baruch 57:2; and the later Rabbinic writings). In contrast with contemporary Jewish beliefs, Paul is able to make a good case from Scripture that God fulfilled his promises to Abraham not because he ‘kept the Law’ (which had not been given yet) but because of his faith, a faith which Paul and James would both have agreed expressed itself in action and in faithful obedience to God.

Question for discussion: What do you think? Are Paul and James like two people who, in arguing, talk past each other? Did the differences of opinion between them seem greater in their time than they do to us with the benefit of hindsight? Are their interpretations of Genesis compatible or contradictory?

See further:

Felix Just, “Paul & James on Faith & Works”

John McDade, “The Epistle of James for Jews and Christians”

Brendan Byrne, Interpreting Romans Theologically in a Post-"New Perspective" Perspective Article in Harvard Theological Review, 2001.

Michael Cranford, “Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe” in New Testament Studies, 1995.

Michael Cranford, “The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and An Implied Premise in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3” in Novum Testamentum, 1994.

Web site created by Jerry Barrax, who finds Paul and James irreconcilable:

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/GBarraxJr/

Search for other relevant pages

Unity and Diversity in the New Testament in Light of the Letter of James

What was the relation between Paul, Peter, James, Matthew, and their followers? John Painter (pp.73-102) suggests that there were two missions (to the Jews and to the Gentiles) but many factions within each. Some would have collaborated, some would have tolerated one another, some would have opposed one another. There were those who felt that anyone who came to faith from among the Gentiles must be circumcised and essentially convert to Judaism (cf. Acts 15:1,5; Galatians 2:4). Others accepted that Gentiles did not have to keep the whole Law, but only a few basic requirements (either the ‘laws of Noah’ which applied to the whole of humankind, or the laws in Torah that applied to resident aliens, or a few points reflecting Jewish scruples, just as a bare minimum to avoid offence and make occasional table fellowship a possibility). Still others felt that Gentiles did not need to keep any of the Law, although Jewish Christians were free to do so, provided they did not impose the Law on non-Jews. And still others went to an extreme of rejecting any importance for the Law whatsoever. [Question: Where would you situate James and Paul (among others) within this spectrum?]

At any rate, Paul might have been able to have fellowship with some or all of the renowned Jewish-Christian leaders mentioned earlier, but his followers and theirs might not have felt the same way. Something of this is shown in 1 Corinthians 1:11-13; 3:4-23, where Paul opposes divisions in the church along ‘party’ lines associated with different leaders. Also significant is 1 Corinthians 15:11, where Paul feels confident in arguing that regardless whether he or others preached the Gospel to them, it was the same message. This helps us to get a handle on the fact that there was indeed a unifying core in early Christianity, and thus also helps us to get a clearer idea of wherein the diversity lay.

The resurrection was a common element in the preaching of both Paul and others (although as we saw, Hebrews has little room for it in its theological system, and may have understood the resurrection in more spiritual terms than even Paul did). Beyond that, what were the common denominators or points of agreement between Paul and others? If we compare Paul with Matthew as well as with James, we find there to be agreement on the fact that Christians must fulfill (rather than merely ‘keep’) the Law. They also agree that disobedience of one commandment makes one a law-breaker even if one has kept the others. They further agree in prioritizing the commandments, with love as the first and greatest commandment. Both Paul and Matthew agree in emphasizing the need for a greater righteousness than the Pharisees had. They all agree in focusing on righteous living in terms of fruit. All of these things can be traced back with confidence to the historical figure of Jesus. In other words, the point of agreement and unity between the early Christians whose writings are included in the New Testament was the person and teaching of Jesus. Where Jesus’ teaching was clear, they all agreed.

And so the differences between them may thus be seen to lie in those areas where Jesus did not provide clear commands and teaching during his earthly life. The most obvious example is that of the incorporation of Gentiles into the Church. There seems to have been universal agreement that this was acceptable and appropriate, but the terms and conditions for their becoming part of the people of God was not a matter that Jesus’ teaching had settled beforehand. Certainly he praised Gentiles for having greater faith than many or all of his Jewish contemporaries, but did this mean that they could be part of God’s people without converting to Judaism? Such issues seem irrelevant to us, but to the early Church these were issues that would and did define the directions that Christianity would take in the future. Christianity was essentially a form of ‘messianic Judaism’, but the possibilities within this definition were numerous: there could be separate communities of Jewish and non-Jewish believers, or there could be a single body in which Gentiles converted to Judaism, or a united Church in which Gentiles kept only those laws that applied to resident aliens, or…or…or… The fact that the matter seems to us clear-cut and settled is simply the result of Paul’s arguments and the benefit of 2,000 years of hindsight. This should not lead us to underestimate the importance of the issue and the real concern and consternation it provoked within early Christianity.

And so perhaps we can say that, in contrast with much postmodern Christianity which focuses on the canon at a literary level as its authority, it seems that early Christian writings like the letter of James and the letters of Paul point not to themselves as the ultimate authority, but beyond themselves to the figure of Jesus. The problem we face in our time is that we do not have direct access to the historical Jesus, but we can only reach him and see him through the lenses provided by the New Testament authors. Be that as it may, it seems that the letter of James (like other NT documents) does not encourage bibliolatry, but points us beyond itself to the teaching of Jesus as both the ultimate authority for Christians and as our primary focus.