“They Couldn’t Have Known Greek” : An Argument For Abandoning a Common Trope

When considering authorship of the New Testament, one fundamental question is repeatedly asked to those who purport traditional authorship – could Galilean Jews (and mostly peasants) know enough Greek to reasonably believe that they wrote the works of the New Testament? This question is of particular force when considering the authorship of James. Throughout my examination of this question, there is a considerable number of authors who use this as an argument challenging the traditional author. However, the problem with this question is that it thinks of authorship monothetically. Scholars use Paul’s letters as exemplar and assume all people had to be able to compose in Greek in the manner he did (quickly and probably with very few drafts). However, when one looks carefully at the compositional practices in the Roman world (and particularly among Jews in Palestine) it is not impossible that the Greek language could have been used by Jews who were of significant position (whether or not they were born in that position is less important than the fact that they eventually got there).

Before making the argument concerning this one aspect of authorship in James, I should note that this paper should not be interpreted as an apologia for the traditional authorship of the book of James – namely Jesus’ brother. On that particular topic, I remain an agnostic for a very specific reason – the text never claims that the author is Jesus’ brother. The only self designation in the text is found in 1:1a “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” One will note that this figure does not claim to be the brother of Jesus, the head of the Jerusalem church, or one who has a particular issue with Paul’s message. The only other self designation found in the letter is that the author – by means of a first person plural – includes himself under the designation “teacher.”[1] Therefore, all we know about this person is that it is a member of the Jesus movement who calls himself a teacher and whose name is Jakobos – a very common name in Jewish circles. Therefore, this paper is qualified as showing that the issue of impossibility of authorship due to knowledge of Greek is false – not that all challenges to traditional authorship are unwarranted.

To illustrate the argument for the traditional author of James not knowing enough Greek, I will use the argument in Bart Ehrman’s recent book Forgery and Counterforgery.[2] Unlike many of Ehrman’s books, this one was not written for a popular audience and is a sound work of scholarship.[3] I use his work as a foil due to its being not yet 12 months old and he presents a relatively standard view. I should point out that his argument is hardly new and it can be found in a variety of sources considering authorship of a variety of texts in the New Testament.

Ehrman begins by pointing to the book of James’s very good Greek. He argues that this style of Greek is beyond merely a passing knowledge but can work in relatively sophisticated Greek.

Whoever produced this letter was a highly literate native speaker of Greek, grounding in Hellenistic modes of discourse and able to use abundant rhetorical devices and flourishes. It is often noted that the book employs sophisticated use of participles, infinitives, and subordinate clauses.[4]

Ehrman argues that the text of James is good Greek and uses rhetorical flourishes. While I think he overestimates the value of James’s Greek (after all, it is hardly Demosthenes), the Greek of James is certainly not bad. Further, there are uses of some rhetorical functions in James.

Ehrman uses this argument of relatively good Greek to argue that one who grew up in the Galilee would not be able to write in Greek. He argues that it might have been possible (though seemingly unlikely) that the family of Joseph might have learned Hebrew – but no indication that they would have known Greek:

It seems unlikely than at Aramaic-speaking peasant from rural Galilee wrote this.... What applied to the fisherman Peter applies to the common laborer James as well (an apprentice carpenter? We don’t know how he earned a living), or even more so. As far into the backwoods as Capernaum was, the little hamlet of Nazareth was more so; excavations have turned up no public buildings, let alone signs of literacy. Even if James’s well-known brother could read – and so was considered highly exceptional by his townsfolk (Luke 4:16; cf. Mark 6:2) – it would have been Hebrew; nothing suggest that Jesus could write; if he could do so it would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek. And by all counts he was the star of the family.[5]

Ehrman therefore argues that even if the family could have sent someone to school, it would have been for Hebrew school. Further, he argues that it would have been the eldest who would have received said schooling.

Ehrman’s hypothesis that a craftsman’s son going to school at all would have been exceptional. In the ancient world, a “tradesman” was someone who did not have the stability of managing a farm. It is highly likely that a family built around this poverty level would not have sent their children to school. Further, he is also correct that the more common (though I would not say exclusive) schooling would have been in Hebrew to study Torah rather than in Greek rhetoric.

Ehrman argues that to study Greek rhetoric in a meaningful way would have been particularly difficult for a family such as this. He further argues that later education would not have been possible (though the reasons for such a prohibition are not clearly explained):

All of that would have taken many years of intensive education, and there is precisely zero indication that James, the son of a local tekton, would have had the leisure or money for an education as a youth. Moreover, there were no adult education classes to makeup the deficit after his brother’s death years later. One should reason that James could have picked up Greek after Jesus’ death on some of his travels. If he did learn any Greek, it would have been of a fumbling kind for simple conversation.[6]

Here, Ehrman, as mentioned above, is probably correct that as a child it would be unlikely for the family of James to send their children to school. He is also correct that studying as an adult was not the norm. However, it is not impossible that such could have happened. It would have been challenging to study a complete rhetorical education if not starting as a child, but it seems an assumption of Ehrman’s that the author of James must have been completely conversant in Greek literature – essentially wanting the author to be someone like Clement of Alexandria.

Finally, Ehrman makes clear his view by quoting two German scholars who make explicit the primary issue – that James’s Greek is better than Paul’s and therefore it must not be written by a Galilean, but rather, someone who was more Hellenized than Paul was:

The conclusion of Matthias Konradt is understated at best, ‘it remains questionable…whether one might expect the rhetorical and linguistic niveau of James from a Galilean craftsman’s son.” More apt is the statement of Wilhelm Pratscher: ‘Even if one assumes a widespread dissemination of Greek in first century C.E. Palestine, one will nevertheless scarcely consider possible the composition of James by the brother of the Lord, especially when one compares it to the markedly simpler Greek of the Diaspora-Jew Paul.[7]

Here, Ehrman illustrates the precise problem for the authorship of James – it is compared to Paul. It is suggested that Paul can be trusted for writing his own letters (at least the 7 unquestioned ones). Further, it is suggested that James’ Greek is better than Paul and thus it is unlikely that a Galilean son of a craftsman could do that.

The first problem with this analysis is practically it is not completely clear that the Greek is “better” in James than in Paul. Paul writes in a very different style for different purposes. It is not clear that a one to one comparison is fair. Paul wrote letters that were being sent to particular communities that knew him. James – if it is truly a letter at all – was sent seemingly to all Christians (though some would limit it only to Christian Jews – something I disagree with, but is not particularly important for this argument). Further, there is question if Paul really was so “unfamiliar” with rhetorical strategies.[8]

The more important challenge to this thesis is that Paul had a particular style of writing with a purpose in mind. Paul did not write letters that he had time to craft carefully. Rather, Paul wrote very quickly in order to address practical problems in his churches. It is relatively unlikely that he did that much editing – after all, he wanted to address the real situations on the ground. If his meaning could be expressed, he seemed to send the letter out. This type of composition in Greek would be very difficult for someone who did not a very intimate grasp of Greek who probably had training in it from an early date. He had to work on the fly and was able to put together clear enough arguments.

The problem with applying this concept to James is that it is not at all clear that this work was written in the same manner. It seems that most critics of authorship on the ground of competency in Greek are stuck in this monothetic concept of authorship. It had to be one person who wrote the piece over the course of a very short period of time, created an essential first draft, and published it in the form we see it today. I completely agree that if such were the case, then it would be relatively unlikely that someone who did not have formal training in Greek could accomplish that feat.

The problem, of course, is that there is no real indication that such had to be the case. The first note is that it certainly was possible for people to learn Greek. Ehrman (and again, he is simply a foil for many people with this type of argument) do not prefer the idea that an adult could learn; however, he takes the concept of “school” far too officially. Most people who had leisure (scholia) hired a tutor who then taught them. There is no particular reason James could not have hired such a figure to teach him Greek.

The reason adults tended not to do this was due to the fact that they had jobs. However, James the Just was not someone who necessary continued in the carpentry business. We know he was the leader of the Jerusalem church after the death of Jesus.[9] One might assume that he did not receive wages for this; however, there is no real reason to consider this. Acts suggests that the community in Jerusalem lived by sharing of the resources of the community and there is no real suggestion that they kept on working. It is only Paul who continues to keep a job while traveling. Therefore, it is once again that scholars put together a “James” in the light of Paul that causes the problems. There is no reason to think that James, being the head of the community, would still remain a “peasant.” He well could have had the means and the time to study as an adult. 

Some have argued that there was not access to Greek in the Galilee and as such, even if he wanted to, it was not possible to learn Greek at any time before 70 C.E.[10] However, it is first key that James did not remain in the Galilee, he resided in Jerusalem. Secondly, Josephus certainly believed that it was possible to learn Greek:

I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that the learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of freemen, but to as many of the servants as please them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted without laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.[11]

Here, Josephus suggests that learning Greek does take pains, but it is not seen as something outside the realm of possibility – instead, it is something that is actually seen as quite easy compared to what is actually valued – study of Torah. This suggests that such teaching was not accepted merely because it was not seen as important or necessary. This is a far cry from it being impossible to obtain – it was possible if one had the drive and the purpose. That one’s leader should create a written book might well give a community the drive to hire a tutor for him.

The second problem is that Paul must have known Greek well to produce such texts so quickly; however, there is no reason to think that this type of speed should transfer to the book of James. There is no clear situation behind the text that is obviously being addressed. Further, there does not even seem to be a clear single audience. The addressees as the “twelve tribes in the diaspora”[12] is hardly a specific group – indeed scholars disagree on what this precisely even means. Therefore, serious question should be asked as to how quickly this would be written. Josephus mentions that it took him quite some time to complete his Antiquities of the Jews:

But because this work would take up a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by itself, with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion; but in process of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary, and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed, language.[13]

Josephus, therefore, suggests that writing a piece was not something that happened quickly, but went on for quite a long time. If the book of James was not written on a deadline, then it is quite possible for someone whose Greek is not their first language to refine it and improve it over time.

The objection to this “speed” issue would be that the text seems to be responding to Paul when discussing “faith and works” in chapter 2.[14] If this were a response to Paul, the person, then it would be expedient for the text to have been written relatively quickly. However, most scholars have noted that James does not precisely understand Paul. Paul never argued for no role for ethics in the community (which is seemingly what James is responding to by saying “faith without works is dead). Rather, Paul argued for the works of the law to be unnecessary in contrast to the trust in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it does not seem that James is addressing the real Paul – he is instead addressing the misunderstanding of Paul. It has even been argued that James is arguing not so much against Galatians as he is trying to unify a theology of Paul. Margaret Mitchell has argued that James might well have a collection of Paul and is trying to create a median position that allows for 1 Corinthians: “And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but do not have love (here meaning communal obligation), I am nothing”[15] and Galatians: “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.”[16] If either of these cases are taken to be the case (and I happily acknowledge I find Mitchell’s argument the better one), it does not seem so necessary for this to be written in any kind of haste – it is possibly a long deliberation to analyze this puzzle; further, there is no reason it could not be a much later draft than when the actual controversies were occuring.

Finally, the idea of writing a single draft with minimal editing probably was the method Paul used – but that seems to be relatively rare in antiquity. Most authors at this time used their friendship networks to get advice on how to improve the situation. Raymond Starr describes this process aptly:

Once a work was drafted, authors commonly sent a copy to a close friend for comments and criticism. The copy was made in the author's home at his own expense by his slaves. He tacitly assumed that his friend would not show the draft to anyone else.[17]

Starr argues that not only were texts sent for ideas and edits but even after that first round of comments leading to edits, it was frequent for even further edits to a second round:

Once the author had received his friend's comments and initially revised the draft, he slightly widened the circle to which his work was accessible. This could be done by sending draft copies, again made in his home by his slaves at his expense, to several more friends. He could also invite a few friends to his home and recite the work to them in order to elicit their comments and reactions. Such private sessions were always small, since too large a gathering would obstruct the free flow of give and take between the author and his friends. Pliny comments, 'Recitaturus oratiunculam quam publicarecogito, advocavi aliquos ut vererer,paucos ut verum audirem'. In another letter he explains that the author who recites his work to his friends can make his decisions 'quasi ex consilii sententia' Many other authors tested the waters in this way, including Silius Italicus, Vergil, and Horace.[18]

Starr shows, then, that the idea of writing in haste in the Roman world was relatively infrequent. Most people who did writing went through several drafts, received feedback, and then edited it.

If it would be possible for the author to write several drafts and receive feedback, it is not at all impossible that someone who was not born speaking Greek could learn it well enough to get feedback and would change the work in order to clarify it. There is no question that this can take something that is only decent Greek and change it to be rather good Greek. In fact, from as soon as we have manuscripts, this is precisely what happened – scribes would improve the rhetoric of the piece. Why should we assume that this was the work of terrible later scribes but not original authors? It is far more likely, given that there probably was not a huge time crunch on the author, that the texts were carefully drafted and edited.

It seems the only real reason that a “peasant from Galilee” could not learn Greek well enough to write such a work as the book of James is because the author of James is expected to work in the same manner as Paul worked. This is an unnecessary leap and it is only that which demands that the brother of Jesus could not have known enough Greek to get by.

This essay has, therefore, shown that it was not impossible for the brother of Jesus to know Greek. This, by no means, exhausts the discussion of authorship on James. There is much to be discussed and will be forthcoming. In fact, there are serious issues which need to be addressed concerning whether the brother of Jesus could be the author. The point here is simply to remove one of the more noxious elements from the study – this seeming prohibition that anyone who was not trained in Greek rhetoric as a child could write well in Greek.  

---

[1] James 3:1.

[2] Bart Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (Oxford: OUP, 2013).

[3] See my review of this book in an earlier blog post.

[4] Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 285-286.

[5] Ibid., 286.

[6] Ibid., 286.

[7] Ibid., 287 Konradt is found in “Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus.” In Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in fruhchristlichen Briefen, ed. Jorg Frey et al., 578 and Pratscher in Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 211.

[8] See Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993).

[9] See nearly any work on James for this, but for an accessible picture of the historical James see John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999).

[10] See Mark A. Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (Cambridge: CUP, 2005).

[11] A.J. 21.11.2 (263-265) this reference was discussed in J. N. Sevenster Do You Know Greek: How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? (Leiden: Brill, 1968) 68-70.

[12] James 1:1b.

[13] A.J. Preface 2.7.

[14] See James 2:14-26.

[15] 1 Cor. 13:2.

[16] Mitchell, Margaret “The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism?” in Reading James with new Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James, ed. Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg (London: T&T Clark, 2007) 75-98.

[17] Raymond J. Starr “Circulation of Literary texts in the Roman Empire” Classical Quarterly 37(1) 1987, 213.

[18] Ibid., 217-218.

How the ghost of Martin Dibelius haunts the study of James: The proclivity of scholarship to maintain an unfair caricature

If one surveys the study of the New Testament book of James, one will find a wide variety of opinions and angles to studying the book found in scholarship. The study ranges from discussing it in a variety of terms such as eschatology,[1] its relationship with the Q source,[2] its use of speech-ethics,[3] its relationship with Stoic philosophy,[4] its use of the dynamic between purity and pollution to establish identity,[5] and even post-colonial theories applied to the text.[6] The approaches and conclusions concerning the book of James are nearly as diverse as the number of authors who write on the text. This is a common issue for the study of the New Testament – so many people have studied it that it seems every possible angle has been addressed in one way or another. While the texts aggressively disagree on the “main theme” or argument in the book of James, they all agree on one thing – opposition to Martin Dibelius’s paranaetic approach to the book of James.[7] Dibelius (1881-1947) argued that the book of James, being Paraenesis and organized by catchwords should not be considered a unified whole in the same way that a logical treatise would. His views were not surprising when they were presented in 1921 as most commentaries were atomistic in their approach.[8] The only difference with these and Dibelius is that Dibelius, in his introduction, spent the time to lay out his theoretical approach. Most all scholars have challenged this position as the form critical interests have waned in the past 40 years of scholarship. It is therefore not surprising that current studies do not agree with scholarship done before World War I. What is surprising is that in nearly every introduction to a discussion about James, scholars feel the need to bring up Dibelius by name and refute his claims before they continue on to make their own argument. What is troubling about this is not that scholars disagree nor that they use a seminal commentary on the book of James as a sounding board. What is very troubling is that in their introduction, they create a caricature of Dibelius based entirely on the first 20 pages of his introduction (not even the whole introduction) and try to show how his work is ridiculous. After this introduction, they go along quietly using his data in his actual commentary. Scholars then are more interested in a caricature for their own purpose of avoiding dialogue of disagreements with living scholars in order to show some kind of solidarity between themselves while at the same time honoring Dibelius’s actual work with the data of his commentary. Essentially, scholars seem to be interested in creating a giant up the beanstalk to show how ridiculous and silly such a figure is, only to steal his goose and enjoy its golden eggs.

Argument of Dibelius

Before discussing how Dibelius is used in modern commentators on James, it is first necessary to give a brief sketch of Dibelius’s own views. It is then possible to discuss how scholars characterize him in unfair ways.

Dibelius’s commentary begins by a discussion of the genre of the book of James. In discussing this, he argues that the text is best characterized as paraenesis:

Having examined the various parts of the document with respect to its literary character we may designate the “Letter” of James as paraenesis. By paraenesis we mean a text which strings together admonitions of general ethical content. Paraenetic sayings ordinarily address themselves to a specific (though perhaps fictional) audience, or at least appear in the form of a command or summons. It is this factor which differentiates them from the gnomologium, which is merely a collection of maxims.[9]

This text, then, for him is a collection of sayings that have ethical characteristics. This is not surprising given the content of James which are addressed directly to the reader in an ethical format. At times the reader is even addressed directly in James.[10]

Dibelius, then asks how these admonitions are organized. If the text is primarily ethical admonitions to the reader, there is not the necessity of the type of narrative thought necessary in the Gospels or the logical argument of a letter found in Paul. Rather, ethical admonitions can be taken as their own or in their context – as an ethical standard is something that is to be taken out and applied on its own.[11]

If, then, it is possible to organize these sayings in a variety of ways, then why is it that James[12] organized them in this way? Dibelius argues that it is organized via “catchwords.” This is the process in which a term is used in one saying and another saying is presented next to it that uses that same term. It is not a requirement for the term to be used in the same way – it simply is presented because the term is common:

Although there is no continuity in thought in such a string of sayings, there are formal connections. The best known device for an external connection in paraenetic literature is catchword: one saying is attached to another simply because a word or cognate of the same stem appears in both sayings. Originally, this was a mnemonic device. The memory finds its way more easily from one statement to another when aided by these catchwords. But this device has become literary and its use cannot serve as evidence that the statements in question were already juxtaposed in the oral tradition…One must reckon with the possibility that the author of the paraenesis may have slightly changed a traditional saying in order to adapt it for such a connection.[13]

The catchword is then a way of connecting two verses together and was a common strategy in ancient literature. To illustrate the catchword connection, consider James 1:4-5:

And let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete lacking in nothing.

If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given to you.[14]

The text then connects the two verses by means of the term “lacking.”

What is noteworthy, then, is that Dibelius sees the sayings of James as form critical units that were then organized together in a way that made sense in the context of first to second century paraenesis. This form critical view was quite common at the time and was seen as functionally pragmatic. Dibelius sought to reach the social world of the original audience and to do so, he needed to ask what the sources for the text were which he assumed were traditions known from the Jesus movement. It is worth noting that while people challenge this idea, they agree that James was written in this way. They simply have changed the discussion from “form criticism” to a discussion that James knew a tradition like unto the “Q” document from which James wrote his gospel.[15]

Dibelius, then, seeing James a collection of units allows more freedom in his interpretation. As a collection (rather than a narrative), it is not necessary that all aspects of the book make a logical argument logically. In fact, Dibelius argues that it does not:

The results of the analysis are indeed complex, but they do lead to the recognition of one consistent feature of Jas: the entire document lacks continuity in thought. There is not only a lack of continuity in thought between individual sayings and other smaller unites, but also between larger treatises.[16]

A second, often noted characteristic of Jas is the lack of continuity. This, too, is explained by the literary character of paraenesis. Often enough a continuity of thought cannot be demonstrated in the above-mentioned paraenetic literature of varied origins: chapters in the book of Tobit: Psuedo-Isocrates, Ad Demonicum: the paraenetic sections of Paul’s letters; and the “Two Ways.” Jas is no different. Of course, already the ancient editors have made emendations int eh text of Jas in an effort to provide connections between individual sayings. Older and more recent commentators, too, have repeatedly tried to point out a unified arrangement throught the document, or at least an intentional progression of thought…I hope to have demonstrated that large portions of Jas reveal no continuity in thought whatsoever.[17]

These selections show Dibelius’s interest in seeing the text as primarily one in which there was not a logical progression in the way that modern readers might prefer. The text was organized around catchwords rather than logical progression.

Dibelius goes farther and argues that James, being a collection of a variety of different ethical statements, has no single audience or unified theology. James argues for an eclectic organization that addresses many different groups:

Finally, there is one feature which Jas shares with other paraenetic literature: the admonitions in Jas do not apply to a single audience and a single set of circumstances; it is not possible to construct a single frame into which they all fit.[18]

Given that there seem to be a variety of interests in the book of James directed to different audiences, it is therefore not possible to present a single framework or theology for James. Indeed Dibelius makes the provocative claim, “First, James has no ‘theology’”[19]

Statements such as these are latched onto by modern commentators as his arguing that there is no need to attempt to see connections between sections of the text by Dibelius. However, Dibelius did argue for common themes in the text. If one reads Dibelius carefully, he never states that James is contradictory nor that all of the units could not correlate. Indeed he states that there are common themes that can be detected if one merely reads these quotes in context:

The results of this analysis are indeed complex, but they do lead to the recognition of one consistent feature of Jas: the entire document lacks continuity in thought…That is not to say that the letter has no coherence of any sort.[20]

First, James has no “theology.” For even though, in spite of his eclecticism, the world fo ideas and values to which his writing bears witness is relatively homogenous, still paraenesis provides no opportunity for the development and elaboration of religious ideas. At best they are only touched upon, and in most instances they are merely presupposed…Compare this with the paraenetic sections of the Pauline letters: it would be difficult for someone to distill form them any “theology” at all, and quite certainly the theology of Paul cannot be gathered from them.[21]

Dibelius, then, is not saying that there are no themes and no connections between the sections of James. He is further not saying that there are no developed themes in the book that make a coherent whole. He is merely saying that the text does not fully explain all of its claims logically. It is this, and only this, which Dibelius means when he argues the text lacks continuity in thought. It is not saying, as it is often interpreted, that he argued for a random collection that emphasized atomizing the text and avoiding the hard work of seeing rational connections.

Rather, Dibelius argues for a number of key themes that dominate the book. It for this precise goal that he sees the text as paraenesis:

The manner in which Jas is tied so closely to the tradition [of origin in Jerusalem before 62 CE] makes it difficult to recognize what he himself believed, intended and taught. And yet it is precisely when Jas is understood as the eclectic that he is that one can recognize his interests and intentions by observing the way he used, arranged, formed and composed the tradition.[22]

Dibelius then, goes on to show what he sees as the governing themes of the letter and major arguments that are made within it that illustrates the interests of the author.[23] This is a far cry from an atomized view of the letter with no coherence or ability to see anything in a larger world. Further, if one looks at his actual commentary, he continually addresses major themes that persist in the text and indeed does use one portion of the text to inform and clarify another – precisely what he is accused of abandoning because he is characterized as believing James has “no theology.”

Modern Commentators’ Use of Dibelius

Commentators in the past forty years have used Dibelius as a foil for their own arguments. First, the form critical backbone of Dibelius’s position that there were pre-existing units which the author used has largely fallen out of favor in scholarship due to the challenge of identifying those smaller units. It surely can still be found, but the majority position has looked less for this and more for essential continuity in thought in texts as texts. Scholars seem to have silently accepted that these texts were put together based upon pre-exising units, but also insist that the final collection that was presented does make sense on its own. Therefore, much of scholarship is dedicated to looking for this type of internal logic rather than looking for the original form critical units. Therefore, it is not surprising that scholars generally do not accept all of Dibelius’s views on James as he simply is asking a different question than most modern commentators are.

While there is a fundamental difference in opinion, a more intriguing question can be asked as to why so frequently this “outmoded” exegetical method is so frequently cited. It seems next to impossible for scholars not to use Dibelius as a foil for them to make their own argument about some “solution” to the “problem” of eclecticism in the text. For instance, Luke Timothy Johnson argues that James 3:13-18 best fits in the same context as James 4:1-10 by means of contrast. Johnson’s goal is explaining how the terms zelos, epigeos, psuchike, and daimoniodes in 3:14-15(tricky terms in context of the whole book) are best understood in contrast with pthonos, pneuma, and diabolos in James 4:5.[24] While his position is relatively convincing and original, what is interesting is how he sets it up. He accuses scholarship of not seeing this connetion because of Dibelius:

One might attribute this to the chronologically narrow focus of commentaries. But at least since the influential commentary of Dibelius, something else is at work. Dibelius raised a publishing vice to an exegetical virtue…Dibelius, of course, was not only convinced that James was paraenetic, but also that paraenesis was a genre which lacked all structure. Here, these general convictions dictate the method of interpretation, so that one may seek lexical help from Ignatius of Antioch, but not from eight verses away in James itself.[25]

While Dibelius did not see the connections of these terms as antitheses the way Johnson did[26] is it really fair to argue that the reason no one had seen these connections is due to his commentary? If that were so, one would expect that all other commentaries lauded Dibelius and completely followed his method – however, the opposite is the case. Rather, Johnson has come up with a new explanation for an old problem that is based upon an idea of antithetical opposites in the text explained by the concepts of Purity and Pollution presented by Mary Douglas. It seems likely that Dibelius does not have to be responsible for understanding a concept that would not be published until some twenty years after his death. The problem is not that Johnson disagrees, but he makes it seem that Dibelius could not see his connection (which no one saw before 1983) because of this caricature of him as someone who thought that the text had no theology and thence did not even try to see connections between sections in the text.

 A more striking example of the caricature of Dibelius is in Patrick Hartin’s interesting book on the relationship of James with the Q source. Hartin argues that Dibelius made a critical error in that he refused to set the text into the context of an audience which has caused a variety of problems due to Dibelius’s influence:

Ever since it first appeared in 1921 Dibelius’s commentary has had an influence on studies of James. In fact it is probably true to say that it has had more influence and has been more widely read than any other commentary on James. The views advanced by Dibelius have, in many instances, tended to be accepted without much challenge. One serious problem is that Dibelius tends to see paraenesis arising in isolation form the Sitz im Leben of the community. He wishes to maintain its generally oriented character.[27]

Hartin’s observation is that Dibelius ignored any type of community in order to maintain a type of “general” character. When one reads Dibelius, he is very clearly trying to place the text in a Sitz im Leben. He merely argues that the text was created for a diverse audience and therefore used diverse sources to present themes that would make sense to a late first/second century audience. Further, Hartin’s assertion that Dibelius’s assertions are taken without question is laughable. I defy him to find even 10 major scholarly books on James in the last 40 years that do not question him on some point. What is even more striking about Hartin’s claim is that while he harangues Dibelius for not finding a specific community, he never addresses in his own work what community the Q source comparisons create – is he addressing the community who wrote Q? The community who knew Q and influenced James? Or even possibly the community that precedes Q and James that both knew. His work is largely showing the striking similarites between the two documents which he does ably and convincingly. However, it is hardly fair to critique Dibelius for doing precisely what one is going to do oneself. One wonders if Dibelius is used as a smoke screen to say “well at least we are not doing form criticism” and then doing a similar thing on a larger scale by means of looking for the sources behind the text as compared with a hypothetical secondary document.

These two examples are case studies in what is a much larger trend. Scholars bring up Dibelius as a matter of course in their arguments. Some works are solely written to discredit the claim that the text was eclectic. Timothy Cargal, for instance, wrote a monograph to address how the text does fit together as a unified whole.[28] In continuity with this thought, there have been many relatively disinteresting articles with the sole purpose of arguing for a type of logical coherence in thought throughout the book of James.[29] While it is clear that James can be read as having a coherence of thought, Dibelius never said it could not. Scholars are therefore interesting in creating a straw man for their own introductions.

If there is a real critique of Dibelius it is that due to his interest in form criticism, he did not have as his primary interest a holistic reading of James and was more comfortable than a modern commentator in simply claiming that one section of James did not fundamentally agree in all its aspects with another section of James. While this is fair and I would agree that we should not take Dibelius simply point for point in modern scholarship (as I would argue that we shouldn’t for any scholarly work nearly 100 years old), why is it that Dibelius is singled out when Mayer, Ropes, Zahn, Spitta, Rendell, Mussner, Moulton, and Burkitt present the same style of commentary?[30] Most all commentators interested in form criticism could fall into the same trap. It is not that Dibelius is read so much more than the others as they are equally cited in modern commentaries on James.

The difference seems to be that Dibelius was willing to describe, in his introduction, his basic methodology. All the rest of the commentators did not describe their method in nearly as clear of terms. In order to describe other commentators tendencies, it would require an analysis of their actual comments on the text of James. This would certainly be possible, but it would not be as easy to caricature. So long as one only reads the first 20 pages of Dibelius’s commentary, it is easy to create an inaccurate caricature. His commentary, then, is not seriously used for what it says – it instead is merely a foil for modern scholars to set their discussion off in contrast. I should point out that his commentary itself is used in the meat of modern arguments concerning James. When those comments are discussed they are discussed in a respectful and helpful tone. Gone are the dismissive comments of a outmoded scholar of a bygone age.

Finally, I do not argue that Dibelius should have some type of Renaissance to become the preeminent authority in the study of James. Dibelius’s views are outdated both in methodology and in discussion of key sources. These are forgivable offences, but they make his commentary not as important as other more modern commentaries.[31] I merely argue that if his views are outdated, he be treated as such. Why bring him up only to dismiss him? One can read his text and use it where helpful and simply ignore it when it is not. This is precisely how Ropes’s International Critical Commentary is used and it is a boon for modern commentators. It seems that Dibelius is only brought up because authors act as if he is still at conferences and dominating the discussion. Martin Dibelius died in 1947 – let him die and let us take the best of his ideas and move forward into the complex world of modern discussion of James.

---

[1] Todd C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-Reading and Ancient Chrisitan Letter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).

[2] Patrick J. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).

[3] William R. Baker Personal Speech Ethics in the Epistle of James. WUNT 2/68, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995).

[4] Matt Jackson-McCabe Logos and Law in the Letter of James: the Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, and the Law of Freedom (Leiden: Brill, 2001).

[5] Darian Lockett, Purity and Worldview in the Epistle of James (New York and London: T&T Clark, 2008).

[6] K. Jason Coker, “Nativism in James 2.14-26: A Post-Colonial Reading” in Robert Webb and John S. Kloppenborg (eds.) Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James (New York and London: T&T Clark, 2007), 27-48.

[7] Martin Dibelius and Heinrich Greeven, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James Hermeneia trans. Michael Williams (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) originally published Der Brief des Jakobus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1921). 

[8] See for example James Ropes, The Epistle of St. James ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1916) and J.B. Mayor The Epistle of James (repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1990 [1897]).

[9] Dibelius, James, 3 (emphasis his).

[10] See for instance James 4:4 “Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”

[11] Dibelius, James, 5.

[12] I use the term James not as author but simply in reference to the book without any judgment on authorship. I remain an agnostic on who wrote the book.

[13] Ibid., 6-7 (emphasis his).

[14] James 1:4-5 (emphasis mine). Other catchwords have been noted in 1:12-13; 1:15-18; 1:26-27; 2:12-13; 3:11-13; 3:17-18; 5:9-12; 5:13-19.  

[15] See most strikingly Hartin, James and the Q Sayings.

[16] Dibelius, James, 2.

[17] Ibid., 5-6.

[18] Ibid., 11.

[19] Ibid., 21.

[20] Ibid., 2 (emphasis mine).

[21] Ibid., 21 (emphasis mine).

[22] Ibid., 47.

[23] Ibid., 47-57.

[24] Johnson, L.T. “James 3.13-4.10 and the TOPOS PERI PHTHONOU” Novum Testamentum 25 (1983), 326-347.

[25] Ibidl, 328-329.

[26] Dibelius, James, 210-211.

[27] Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus, 20.

[28] Timothy Cargal Restoring the Diaspora: Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of James (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992)

[29] See Robbins, Vernon K. 1996. “Making Christian Culture in the Epistle of James.” Scriptura 59: 341-351, Verseput, Donald J., "Genre and Story: The Community Setting of the Epistle of James," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 2000, Taylor, Mark E. and George H. Guthrie, "The Structure of James," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 2006.

[30] For a good overview of the historical sources on James see Peter Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).

[31] Sophie Laws Commentary on the Epistle of James (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980) being a particularly good one.

The disparity of synagogue and ekklesia as technical terms in the book of James

Scholars are divided on the “Christian” or “Jewish” character of the book of James. Late 19^th and early 20^th century commentators on the book of James questioned whether it was even a Christian text at all. Rather, it was argued that the two indications of Christianity (verse 1:1 and 2:1) were later additions to an otherwise Jewish text that preexisted the life of Jesus.[1] Most commentators these days have abandoned the idea of James as  Pre-Christian work as there are so many parallel passages with Jesus’ sayings. Jesus is never cited and the works are not quotations. Rather, they are approximations of Jesus’ sayings, but the content is so similar it has forced many to think that there must have been a connection.[2] However, a curious issue arises in the use of the terms synagogue and ekklesia in 2:2 and 5:14 respectively. Both terms literally mean “assembly” but both have religious connotations for technical terms of Jewish and Christian worship centers. However, an analysis of the two passages in James shows that synagogue is not a technical term for a Jewish worship center whereas ekklesia is a technical term for a Christian worship center. This has far reaching implications as to the provenance of the book of James and its relationship with Judaism.

Ekklesia

The term ekklesia in the text is used in 5:14 for the purpose of ritual prayer for the sick. The text in its context reads as follows:

Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. Are any among you sick? They should call the elders of the church (ekklesia) and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.[3]

This practice seems to be a ritual practice that is specific to Christianity. While there certainly were “elders” in Judaism in addition to an anointing with oil, the use of these as ritual devotions paired in this way is relatively rare.[4] The practice, however, is quite common in Christian communities as part of their standard worship practice.

The term “church” here paired with “elders” is a common one in the New Testament. The most obvious correlation is found in 1 Timothy, which describes the formal office of elders in the church. This group has, among its functions, a laying on of hands to empower the community: “Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands by the council of elders.”[5]  Further Acts speaks of elders as being key leaders of the community with ritual functions.[6]

The term “ekklesia” here seems deliberately used to discuss the religious community. This term is the most common term used for the Christian community in the New Testament. In fact, aside from the gospels (where only Matthew uses the term) every book in the New Testament uses the term with the exception of 1 and 2 Peter. While in theory, it could have been used to describe a Jewish gathering (as it simply means assembly), it usually was not as the term synagogue was the norm.

The concept of ekklesia as a technical term would indicate a distinctly Christian character to the passage. This can be found most notably in how few descriptors need to be used. There is no question who the “elders” were or how they functioned in the community. If, like 1 Timothy, these “elders” were the ones running the communal gatherings,[7] there is no question who the group is or how they ought to be functioning in this context.

Secondly, the term ekklesia seems to suggest a ritual context. This is the only time the term is used in James and it is paired with a seeming common ritual of prayer and anointment with oil which “will save the sick.” One should note that the text does not say that the sick will be healed physically. Rather, given the context of salvation in the text of following the implanted Logos by means of enduring trials,[8] it is far more likely that the text is not suggesting an excision of those trials (or sufferings) but rather a spiritual salvation of the implanted logos.[9]  If the practice is for the spiritual health of the individual (and thereby the community), the most likely setting of it is then in the worship service. Therefore, this technical term does not merely seem to indicate a community of Christians, but rather even more narrowly, that community at worship.

This does challenge Dibelius’s view that ekklesia was used for the ideal Jewish community wherein synagogue was used to describe the actual community that could be observed.[10] However, while this distinction is not unknown in second temple Jewish literature, it is very rare. Due to this, very few commentaries follow Dibelius in this view.[11] The concept of ekklesia was so dominated by Christian communities that it was almost completely abandoned in later Jewish literature.[12] This makes Dibelius’s view possible, but unlikely.

Synagogue

What is far more striking than the concept of ekklesia being a technical term for “church” in this text is the non-technical use of synagogue in this text. Readers should not read into this text a Jewish community gathering, rather, it should simply be translated as “gatherings together” or more colloquially “meetings.”

The text in its context concerns partiality among the community:

My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in  our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly (synagogue), and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Have a seat here, please,” while to the one who is poor you say, “Stand there,” or, “Sit at my feet,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?[13]

This text then uses the term in a discussion about judgment and partiality among the community.

Some translators have seen in the text this as a worship assembly that is Christian, but is at a stage of Christianity that is so early that synagogue and ekklesia are synonyms.[14] This reading however is neither necessary nor the simplest reading possible. If the terms were simply synonyms, why is it that the different ones are used in one work that is no more than five chapters? Further, their contexts seem rather different. One is a clear ritual of the elders saving the soul whereas the other is a chastisement for inequality of treatment of members of the community. Therefore, it is relatively unlikely that these terms could have simply been “interchanged” without affecting the meaning. The far simpler solution is that the two terms do indeed present two separate contexts.

The concept of these terms indicating separate settings is supported by Ward’s observation that the discussion concerning partiality might fit better into the context of judicial practice rather than cultic worship. Ward argues that there was good Jewish precedent for making the poor “sit under the footstool” of “stand” in judgment whereas the nobility or “rich” would stand and present their case. Therefore, there was good Jewish law to prohibit such distinction.[15] This would, therefore, pull the context of synagogue away from a worship center and simply mean a “meeting.”

Ward’s point concerning judicial practice is supported by Luke Timothy Johnson’s convincing argument that Leviticus 19 governs much of James 2. Johnson rightly points out that Leviticus 19:8 is quoted in James 2:8, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” However, Johnson convincingly argues that the whole of Leviticus 19 is known by the author and is used throughout to prove his point – particularly concerning partiality and judgment.[16] Among the parallels is one particularly helpful passage for this context, “You shall not render and unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor.”[17] This context is judicial rather than cultic and once again would pull the term synagogue away from a description of community worship and into a description of simple meetings.

Kloppenborg’s analysis of this passage as a critique of patronage further supports the concept of synagogue as a non-technical term. While Kloppenborg begins his article by attempting to show how patronage was present in Jewish synagogues based upon seating, it is by no means restricted to that.[18] Kloppenborg argues that the primary context for the passage of the two men who have to sit/stand is one of honor based upon the patronage language very common in the first century Roman world. This concept being far more common outside of Jewish communities than inside of them, does not by any means require a Jewish synagogue context. Kloppenborg likely shows how it could be found in Jewish synagogues merely so that he can convince readers that this was present in that context as well – so that no objections can be raised. It is indeed true that after showing how it could be discussed in the context of the Jewish synagogue all of his arguments are with non Christian sources – Pseudo-Cicero, Quintilian, Hermogenes, and Seneca.

Through this analysis, it seems that the simplest reading is that the term synagogue is not used a technical term for the Jewish synagogue in the text; whereas ekklesia does seem to be used as a technical term for the Christian worship assembly.

Conclusion

The implications for the distinction between the two terms could have some significance for the audience (and possibly author) of this epistle. The addressees of this epistle, “to the twelve tribes in the diaspora”[19] has been alternatively described as Jewish Christians, Jews (who were not Christians), Christian and non Christian Jews, and non-Jewish Christians who were the spiritual Israel. The purpose of this short essay is not to make a judgment on those distinctions, but rather to bring a piece of evidence that may aid in clarifying the position.

For the term synagogue not to be used technically as the Jewish assembly but the term ekklesia to be used technically to describe Christian worship would seem to challenge the concept that this text was written either to non-Christian Jews or solely Jewish Christians. Rather, it would seem more likely that this distinction would be made written to a group for whom “synagogue” did not create an automatic picture of the Jewish worship gathering in mind. Thus some aspect of gentile Christianity would seem to be present in the mindset of the believers hearing this epistle.

This one point, of course, does not solve the problem of the addressees completely, but it does seem to be an important piece that is thus far not primarily discussed.[20] It seems that the discussion concerning the addressees usually revolve around the meaning of “twelve tribes in the diaspora” and the use of the Jewish law in the text. I therefore, humbly provide this small detail as being one worth considering in the larger discussion.  

---

[1] L. Massebieau, “L’Epitre de Jacques est-elle l’oeuvre d’un chretien?” RHR 32 (1895), 249-283 and F. Spitta, “Der Brief des Jakobus” in Zur Geschichte und Litterature des Urchristentums (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 1-239 and A. Meyer, Das Ratsel des Jacobsriefes (Giessen: Topelmann, 1930).

[2] See for instance, The prohibition against oaths in James 5:12 corresponding with Matt. 5:33-37 or the royal law from Lev. 19:18 also quoted by Jesus in Mark 12:28-31 and parallels. Scholars have noted the similarity to sayings of Jesus which has led some to make strong correlations between James and the Q sayings source behind the Gospel. See, for example, Patrick J. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).

[3] James 5:13-15 (NRSV).

[4] There is a Jewish precedent that did occur as presented by Sophie Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980), 226-227.

[5] I Timothy 4:14.

[6] Acts 15:2,4; 21:18.

[7] 1 Timothy 5:17: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”

[8] James 1:21.

[9] For the full argument on how this ritual was most certainly a spiritual rather than physical healing, see Strange, James, The Moral World of James: Setting the Epistle in its Greco-Roman and Judaic Environments, Peter Lang, 2010.

[10] Martin Dibelius and Heinrich Greeven, James trans. Michael Williams (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 133.

[11] See Laws, James, 100.

[12] See James Hardy Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1916), 188-189.

[13] James 2:1-4.

[14] See Bo Reicke, The Epistle of James, Peter, and Jude (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1964), 27 and James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976), 105.

[15] Ward, Roy Bowen Jr. “Partiality in the Assembly, James 2.2-4” Harvard Theological Review (1969) 87-97.

[16] Johnson, L.T. “The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James” JBL 101 (1982), 391-401.

[17] Lev. 19:15.

[18] John S. Kloppenborg, “Patronage avoidance in James” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 55 (4), Nov. 1999, 755-794.

[19] James 1:1b.

[20] I hesitate to say that this discussion is not covered by scholarship as the study of the New Testament has been done so widely and deeply that whenever one proclaims something “completely new,” that one is almost always proved wrong. I instead make a far more cautious statement that I have not seen this as a primary discussion point for the study of James among modern commentators in the English language in the past several decades.