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.
No comments:
Post a Comment