The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (163 page)

Second, despite claims to the contrary, the writer showed some evidence of being a Palestinian Jew. He mentioned “early and late rains” (5:7), which was demonstrably a weather phenomenon in Palestine. More significantly, the author's language is immersed in the OT Scriptures.
⁴⁷

Third, there are striking verbal similarities to Acts 15. “Greetings”
(chairein)
occurs in Jas 1:1 and Acts 15:23 (and elsewhere in Acts only in 23:16). Strikingly, Acts 15:23 is part of the Jerusalem decree, in which James had a leading role. In both Jas 2:7 and Acts 15:17, believers are called by God's name. The exhortation for the “brothers” “to hear” occurs in Jas 2:5 and Acts 15:13. Uncommon words are found in both James and Acts in conjunction with James: “to inspect”
(episkeptomai)
in Jas 1:27; Acts 15:14; “to turn”
(epistrephō)
in Jas 5:19; Acts 15:19; and “to keep oneself” (
tēreō
+
heautou)
in Jas 1:27; Acts 15:29. While not constituting conclusive proof, these linguistic parallels corroborate James's authorship.

Finally, the man reflected in the letter comports well with James the half brother of Jesus as he is portrayed in the rest of the NT. This James is identified as the leader of the
Jerusalem church and viewed as the guarantor of a Jewish expression of Christianity (Acts 12:17; 21:18-25; Gal 1:19).

For these reasons recent years have witnessed a trend among scholars to recognize that the internal evidence from the letter is not incompatible with James's authorship. Even many scholars who are otherwise critical of traditional views now see this letter as indeed from James the Just.
⁴⁸
Without compelling evidence to the contrary, the best understanding of the author is in fact that the author of the book of James is James the son of Joseph, the half brother of the Lord Jesus.

Date

Given the absence of conventional indications of time such as references to specific individuals, places, or events, the letter is rather difficult to date. J. A. T. Robinson noted a wide spectrum of suggested dates offered in the scholarly literature, anywhere from 50 to 150.
⁴⁹
If the above discussion of authorship is correct, the book was written during the lifetime of James the Just, that is, sometime before c. 62 or 63 (Josephus,
Ant.
20.200).
⁵⁰
On the other end of the spectrum, the letter must have been written subsequent to James's conversion (see 1 Cor 15:7), that is, no earlier than approximately 33. This provides a range of possible dates spanning about 30 years.

To narrow the range yet further, the letter must have been written after James became the prominent leader in the Jerusalem church. This can be dated to around 41/42 (see Acts 12:17). Several factors suggest a date of composition subsequent to this time frame, such as that some economic difficulties suggested in the letter match the time of the famine in Palestine mentioned in Acts 11:28—30. Possibly, the recipients were dispersed because of the persecution of Herod Agrippa I mentioned in Acts 12:1—4 (c. 43). At the same time, the letter shows an acquaintance with the teaching of Jesus that does not seem to be a result of mere literary knowledge,
⁵¹
which suggests that the letter was most likely written prior to the canonical Gospels (and thus prior to the mid-50s).
⁵²
This narrows the most likely date of composition to between 42 and the mid-50s.

In addition, the letter does not seem to address any of the issues that arose subsequent to 48/49. There is no discussion or even acknowledgement of the question of Gentile inclusion in the church (e.g., Acts 11:1—18) or the controversy spawned by the Judaizers (e.g., Acts 15:5; Gal 2:11—13), much less the resolution of these issues at the Jerusalem Council in the year 49 (Acts 15:1—21). Thus it seems that the letter was most likely written prior to the Jerusalem Council and thus prior to Paul's letters and perhaps even prior to the Gentile mission.
⁵³
So the most likely range during which the letter was written spans from 42 until 49. For this reason J. A. T. Robinson was probably correct in stating that James's letter “can take its natural place, alongside other literature in the process of formation in the second decade of the Christian mission, as the first surviving finished document of the church.”
⁵⁴

Provenance

Those proposing a different author than James the Just have offered various locations for the source of the letter, including Rome. If our views of authorship, date, destination, and occasion are correct, then Jerusalem may be a possible place of writing, in particular since it is not known if James spent significant time outside of Palestine during the early years of the church. It must be conceded that the provenance is not known, but fortunately little rests on this identification.

Destination

The letter is addressed to “the 12 tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1). Most understand these recipients to be Jewish Christians. The term “12 tribes,” while elsewhere used figuratively of the people of God (see 1 Pet 1:1), in the present case most likely refers to a Jewish Christian audience. Several features point to a Jewish setting: (1) the reference to meeting in a synagogue (2:2 HCSB “meeting”); (2) the reference to “Abraham our father” (2:21); (3) the use of the OT in both direct quotations and allusions; (4) the letter's resemblance to Jewish wisdom literature; and (5) the prophetic tone.

This view is also confirmed by clear indications from the letter that the readers were expected to be familiar with conditions in Palestine. Johnson noted seven factors that point to this conclusion: (1) the effect of burning wind on vegetation (1:11); (2) proximity to a dangerous sea (1:6; 4:13); (3) salt and bitter springs (3:11); (4) agriculture featuring figs, olives, and grapes (3:12); (5) a specific Palestinian weather pattern, the early and latter rains (5:7); (6) daily workers deprived of pay (5:4); and (7) the use of the term
gehenna
(hell) in 3:6, a term found elsewhere in the NT only in the Gospels.
⁵⁵

But where are these Jewish believers? The term “Dispersion” (1:1) usually refers to Jews living outside of Palestine (e.g., John 7:35), describing the people of God who were scattered
due to divine judgment but who carried with them the hope of restoration (see 1 Pet 1:1,17; 2:11, with reference to believers in general). The fact that this is a letter demands a congregation at some distance from the author. Hence it is possible that the recipients were Jewish Christians somewhere in the area known as the Diaspora, perhaps in Syrian Antioch, possibly dispersed because of the persecution of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1—4; c. AD 43), while the author may have been in Palestine.
⁵⁶

Occasion

The letter seems to address specific individuals (the 12 tribes) but not one specific situation. It is best to see James as a general letter (warranting its inclusion among the General Epistles in the NT canon) written to give pastoral advice to the recipients, whatever their specific circumstances. There were precedents for such a letter among Jews and early Christians (see Jeremiah 29; 2 Macc 1:1-9; Acts 15:23-29).

Given the likely date of the letter, there does seem to be a specific group and occasion that would fit the letter's contents. After the stoning of Stephen, the Jerusalem believers (quite a large number by this time) were scattered outside of Jerusalem.
⁵⁷
The injunctions in the letter seem appropriate for both wealthy and poor, and in particular portray wealthy landowners as oppressing poor laborers. Those displaced by persecution would certainly find themselves working essentially as migrant workers (though some might flourish). The encouragement to live out their lives fully committed to Christ's lordship would certainly be appropriate for such a group.

LITERATURE

Genre

Given the epistolary opening of the work, the intent for the letter to serve as a substitute for the writer's presence, and the document's hortatory nature, it is best to consider James a letter of some kind.
⁵⁸
While most consider James to be a letter, this category does not adequately describe it in every respect. While the book opens like a letter, no occasion behind the letter is discernible, no individuals are mentioned, and there is no epistolary ending (cf. Phil 4:10—23). The book is purposefully general and intended for a wide audience (the 12 tribes in the Dispersion).
⁵⁹

Is it possible to identify more precisely what kind of letter James represents? From looking at other NT letters, it appears that the genre of James is much like that of Hebrews and
1 John, namely, an essay addressing a widely dispersed group of readers. J. H. Ropes labeled the letter a “diatribe” (i.e., a series of rhetorical arguments).
⁶⁰
Indeed, James displays several characteristics of this genre. He frequently addressed the readers directly (1:2,16,19; 2:1,5,14; 3:1,10,12; 5:12,19); employed an imaginary interlocutor (e.g., 2:18-22); poses short questions that are answered immediately (e.g., 3:13; 4:14; 5:13—14); and frequently used comparisons (1:6,10-11; 2:26; 3:5-6,11-12; 4:14; 5:2,3,18).
⁶¹
Yet despite these similarities, James does not neatly fit the scheme of a diatribe.
⁶²
First, properly defined, a diatribe is “a form of argumentation in which a clear thesis is argued within the (fictive or real) setting of a school.”
⁶³
Clearly, James does not fit this narrow definition. The author did not state an explicit thesis that he then argued, and his audience cannot be thought of as a “school.” Second, not everything in James even fits a broader definition of diatribe. The various literary subunits do not cohere as a series of demonstrations of a central thesis but are connected much more loosely.

Another popular understanding of the genre of James is to classify the letter as an examplar of wisdom literature. This has in its favor the fact that “wisdom” is a major theme in the letter (1:5; 3:13,15,17). In addition, certain topics commonly found in wisdom literature are also found in James, such as controlling one's speech (3:1—12) and issues related to wealth and poverty (5:1—6). However, the book does resemble the list of sayings in OT wisdom works such as the book of Proverbs. Although recent discussion about the connection of James to wisdom literature, investigating the connection between James and the type of wisdom found in Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, may account for the movement from topic to topic in James,
⁶⁴
only a broad definition of “wisdom literature” allows James to be identified within this genre category.
⁶⁵

Yet another proposal came from M. Dibelius, who described James as a series of exhortations (paraenesis). More than including mere teaching, Dibelius contended, James presented material “in the form of unconnected sayings which have no real relationship to one another.”
⁶⁶
But more recent research has abandoned the identification of James in these terms.
⁶⁷
Especially since paraenesis can be employed within other types of literature, a book does not necessarily qualify as paraenesis merely because it includes exhortations directed to its readers.
⁶⁸
Thus Watson critiqued the idea that James displays the formal
characteristics of paraenesis, noting that certain elements are missing: “The paraenesis in the Epistle of James in not a dominant, organizing feature, but is subsumed to the needs of broader argumentation and rhetorical strategy.”
⁶⁹
Others go even further, questioning whether paraenesis should even be considered a genre category.
⁷⁰

A growing preference among scholars is to classify James as an example of protreptic literature.
⁷¹
This kind of writing advocates what is true over against what is false, rather than expressing preference for one thing over another for other reasons. A commitment to a specific lifestyle with urgency and conviction within the broad category of paraenesis is one of the more obvious hallmarks of protreptic literature. In this sense James certainly qualifies.
⁷²
However, it is probably unwise to be unduly specific in identifying the genre of James.
⁷³
Thus it may be best to understand James as a literary circular letter with affinities to protreptic literature influenced by Jewish wisdom literature.

Literary Plan

There is little consensus on the structure of James. Opinions today vary from the minimalist to the maximalist end of the spectrum. Minimalists see no apparent literary structure in James,
⁷⁴
a view promoted primarily by the publication of M. Dibelius's commentary on James in 1921.
⁷⁵
While Dibelius denied even a loosely structured text, others suggest that James intended a loosely constructed composition. For example, Moo described James as an only somewhat connected text, centered on certain key motifs.
⁷⁶
Bauckham affirmed that James's thought was coherent but conceded that the letter lacked a tight logical structure.
⁷⁷
Both detected a basic epistolary structure but noted that within the body (chaps. 2—5) the development of thought is not obvious.

On the other end of the spectrum, maximalists identify a discernible structure. Often this structure is identified as chiasm (an ABB'A' pattern). F. O. Francis pioneered this proposal by positing that James introduced his topics in chap. 1 (joy, blessing, and testing) and then proceeded in the body to expand the first two topics while discussing the third
topic throughout the letter.
⁷⁸
P. Davids agreed partially with Francis but saw the topics introduced in the introduction in chap. 1 (testing, wisdom, and wealth) and treated in reverse order in three subsequent sections (wealth: 2:1—26; wisdom: 3:1—4:12; and testing: 4:13—5:6), with 5:7—20 serving as the “closing statement.”
⁷⁹

Probably the most densely defended and well thought-out chiastic proposal is made by M. E. Taylor.
⁸⁰
However, like Davids, Taylor's proposal is weak and breaks down in the details since he finds a twofold introduction in chap. 1 and a chiastic development in chaps. 2—5. His weakest argument is that 2:12—13 constitutes an inclusion with 4:11—12. This is problematic in two ways: it is artificial to separate passages such as 2:12—13 or 4:11—12 from their surrounding context, and the connections between the two passages are superficial at best. All chiastic arrangements proposed to date have similar weaknesses.
⁸¹