Scholars are divided on the “Christian” or “Jewish”
character of the book of James. Late 19th and early 20th
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment