Did anyone else notice that the epistle of James, from beginning to end, is a refutation of Pauline theology?
Paul: “a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law” (Romans 3:28)
James: “faith by itself, if it does not have works [of the Law], is dead” (James 2:17); “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (James 2:24); “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (James 2:26)
Paul: “For the entire Law is fulfilled in one commandment…You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5:14)
James: “If you really keep the royal law according to the Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself”, you do well. But if you show partiality (if you only partially keep the Mosaic Law and not the whole thing), then you commit sin, and are convicted by the Law as Lawbreakers. For whoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet stumble on one point, he is guilty of violating them all.” (James 2:8-10)
Per the 1st century definition of the word sin, “sin is Lawlessness” (1 John 3:4) – to sin in Judaism means to violate the Mosaic Law.
“But be doers of the word [of God as recorded in the Torah], and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” (James 1:22) But he who looks into the perfect Law of liberty and continues, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work [of the Law], this one will be blessed in what he does” (James 1:25)
James: “But above all, my brethren, do not swear – not by heaven or by earth or by any other oath. But let your “Yes” be “Yes” and “No,” “No” least you fall into judgement.” (James 5:12)
Paul: “Therefore, when I was planning this, did I do it lightly? Or do the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No?” (2 Corinthians 1:17).
James: “My brethren, let not many of you becomes teachers, knowing that we shall received a stricter judgement” (James 3:1)
Paul: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham. So am I. Are they ministers of Christ? I speak as a fool – I am more” (2 Corinthians 11:22-23)
James: “You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without works [of the Law] is dead?” (James 2:14-20)
Paul: “I say again, let no one think me a fool” (2 Corinthians 1:16); “For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God [the Torah]”(2 Corinthians 2:17)
James: “Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?” (James 2:6-7)
Paul: “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to court before the unrighteous”(1 Corinthians 6:1); “But brother goes to court against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is an utter failure for you that you go to court against one another.” (1 Corinthians 6:6-7)
So interestingly, the Jewish Christians appear to use the word “rich” in the sense of false prophets whose prophecies are popular. You can see its usage in the Beatitudes: “But woe to you who are rich for you have received your calling (paraklésis)…woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Luke 6:24-26). Hebrew poems exhibit parallelism in ideology from one line to line to another because ancient Hebrew doesn’t have exclamation points or other grammatical techniques to emphasis a point apart from repetition, so a writer would just repeat the same idea over and over again in different ways until the point is made.
Vice versa, the Jewish Christians appear to use the terminology the “poor” to refer to true prophets: “Bless are you poor for yours is the kingdom of God…For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.” (Luke 6:23) James 5:1-6 takes on a very different meaning once you realize that the writer is speaking in parables (in Hebrew, maschal) where the parable “draws a series of parallels between the story recounted in the narrative and the “actual situation” to which the parable is directed. These parallels, however, are not drawn explicitly; the audience is left to derive them for themselves.”[1]
It’s fairly surprising that the early Pauline Christians in Corinth opted to “drag” (James 2:6) the Jewish Christians to a Roman court of law to have a Gentile judge settle internal – though obviously heated – disputes. In this case, it looks like they wanted the court to decide which Jesus is the correct Jesus and which gospel is the correct gospel, among other conflicts within early Christianity, with James taking the side that Paul’s congregants managed to blaspheme the noble name of Jesus during the trial with their denomination-specific interpretations of Christ. What kind of ruling could a Roman magistrate possibly give for theological disputes such as this? To be fair, Paul did roundly berate his Corinthian flock for doing so.
James: “Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things. See how great a forest a little fire kindles!” (James 3:5)
Paul: “I have become a fool in boasting, you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles” (2 Corinthians 12:11)
So here boasting has a negative connotation similar to Psalm 94 where the workers of iniquity prophesized “insolent things” that degrade the Mosaic Law. Paul obviously knew that James, the bishop of Jerusalem, was accusing Paul of a similar infraction, so within the body of the text of 2 Corinthians, Paul mostly restrained himself from boasting of the visions and revelations that he had received, in the Spirit, where he was “exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations” (2 Corinthians 12:7), opting instead to boast of another person’s prophecies received when that person was caught up to the third heaven. “It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to vision and revelations of the Lord: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago – whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows – such a one was caught up to the third heaven…Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast” (2 Corinthians 12:1-5).
Paul did devote time in his other epistles to divulge the contents of “the revelation of the mystery (mustérion – secret doctrine) kept secret since the world began” (Romans 16:25). The Gnostics, many of whom named Paul as their founder, would go a step further and argue that the letters preserved in the New Testament canon represented only a fraction of the prophecies that Paul received by revelation from the Lord and that the rest were passed on orally to his followers, pointing out that Paul said “I fed you with milk and not with solid food” (1 Corinthians 3:2), “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual [as spiritually mature followers] but as to carnal [as still earthly minded], as to babes in Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:1). The Gnostics would argue that their denomination of Christianity preserved the “solid food” that Paul had obtained while in the Spirit, along with additional revelations obtained by Paul’s followers, also in the Spirit: “For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged” (1 Corinthians 14:31).
Outside of the New Testament there is further evidence of this rift between James and Paul.
James: “Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he brings from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother, or of whosoever may come after him. For no one, unless he has gone up thither, and there has been approved as a fit and faithful teacher for preaching the word of Christ, – unless, I say, he brings a testimonial thence, is by any means to be received. But let neither prophet nor apostle be looked for by you at this time, besides us. (Clementine Recognitions XXXV)
Paul: “Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God” (2 Corinthians 3:1-3)
[1] Gowler, David B. The Contexts of Jesus’ Parables.
Romans, Corinthians 1&2, Galatians as deutero Pauline tradition. small step for Bart, big step for biblical studies. At last. Deutero Pauline letters are included in first Corpus. Now is time for good question. Did James know about original letters and deutero Pauline letters collected in the same corpus?
Those who maintain that the epistle is pseudonymous generally date the epistle later, from the late first to mid-second century.[28] This is based on a number of considerations, including the epistle’s potential dependence on 1 Peter, potential response to Paul’s writings or Paul’s later followers, late attestation in the historical record, and the 3rd and 4th century disputes concerning the epistle’s authorship. Wikipedia
Bart entertains the possibility that James is a counter-forgery, written in response to the deutero-Pauline tradition or perhaps even deutero-Pauline letters.
Everyone should read ‘Forgery and CounterForgery’. First, it demonstrates why Prof Ehrman is such a well regarded scholar in his field, his “claim to fame” so to speak, and second, it pretty conclusively demonstrates that much of the NT consists of literary forgeries. He finally convinced me that Ephesians and Colossians are forged. His argument about James is extremely clever. I’m still not absolutely convinced that James is intending to be identified with That James, but it’s hard to argue with Ehrman. His conclusions make sense. Also F & CF is one of the best written scholarly books I’ve ever read. Even when they’re informative they tend to be direly written.
Did James know about original letters and deutero Pauline letters collected in the same corpus?
Possible but not necessary. The author could have merely encountered such ideas circulating in Christian communities known to him.
Joining this beautiful laudation in honor of BDE as the author of F & CF (BTW good job Stephen) I still have the impression of a disturbing lack of logic in his proposal. If he considers James’s letter a counter-forgery written against forgeries, the question remains intriguing. Did James recognize original and deutero letters?
Where and what does it come from? Doesn’t James also combat the views of the original letters? Fights. Porphyry’s arguments are very good.
There is something else that is being overlooked in the discussion. 2 Thess. Well, in terms of language, it is a letter very characteristic of Paul’s style, almost a pattern of this style. But theology disagrees. Most biblical scholars reject the authenticity of 2 Thess.
I say that it was written by the same only the more important one, the one responsible for the briefing has been changed.
Who’s right?
I read F later F&CF. I don’t recall the conclusion of James’s letter as counter forgery to the deutero Pauline tradition.
But I do recall that Bart promotes Zuntz’s reconstruction in books and uses it in debates.
The letters are known from the Corpus. James wrote his letter when all deutero and authentic letters were available in one collection.
So writing that James writes in reaction to deutero is a logical fallacy because he writes in reaction to the entire collection. And Porphyry provides valid arguments from authentic letters.
And even if the author of James knew of both the Pauline letter(s) and deutero-Pauline letter(s) together, he could easily have interpreted these as having a unified deutero-Pauline point of view as have centuries of readers up until modern scholarship began to distinguish between them.
Precisely. Look at the history of Pauline interpretation, especially the Reformers and their descendants, and note how often it is not Romans, but Ephesians that forms the locus of their thought. Ephesians, which F&CF pretty conclusively demonstrates is a forgery. It convinced me.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the epistle of James may actually be original to the bishop of Jerusalem and that his letter may pre-date most of the epistles of Paul? If so, then the epistle of James was most likely written during the 1st council of Jerusalem (see Acts 15) which was convened in response to reports about Paul’s congregation not following the Mosaic Law. If that’s the case, then most of the epistles of Paul were written in response to accusations made by James in James’ epistle – accusations that alarmed Paul’s converts and prompted them to reach out to Paul for clarification. Paul’s epistles start sounding very combative around the time “certain men from James” (Galatians 2:12) – most likely emissaries from the bishop of Jerusalem following the 1st council of Jerusalem – arrived and started interfering with Paul’s ministry.
If you look carefully, there is a ton of conflict between the two men.
Beyond what has already been mentioned, Paul believed that the visions, revelations, and the gospel he received came directly from the Lord: “I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). James, on the other hand, accused the origin of Paul’s prophecies (and gospel) of being demonic rather than divine: “This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic” (James 3:15). Remember, Paul had already proclaimed his gospel in front of the Jerusalem council. James would have had a rough gasp of what Paul was preaching, and based on the epistle of James, it looks like James didn’t like what he heard.
Paul responds to James’ accusations of demon possession in 2 Corinthians: “since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me [of the Spirit of Christ dwelling within Paul as the origin of his revelations]…Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you [the Spirit of Christ is indwelling within you, instead of a demon] ? – unless indeed you are disqualified.” (2 Corinthians 13:3-5)
James demanded that Paul’s Gentile converts avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:29). Paul countermands this order. When converts in the Greek city of Corinth asked Paul about eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul wrote back saying, “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: we know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.… [thus] we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do” (1 Corinthians 8:4-8). Per that logic, he grants members of his congregation strong in his faith the “liberty” (1 Corinthians 10:29) to “eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake” (1 Corinthians 10:25), presumably questions about whether or not the animal had been sacrificed at the altar of a pagan god as meat markets were often stocked with meat leftover from temple sacrifices to local deities. “For one who believes, he may eat all things” (Romans 14:2). “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” (Romans 14:14). This would not have gone down well in Jerusalem and definitely did not sit well with the author of the Book of Revelations (Revelations 2:14) who couldn’t name Paul outright as Paul was too popular, but pointed enough fingers that you can make a positive identification.
Given the significant theological differences between Paul and James, one can conclude that the author of Acts heavily covered up what was in all likelihood a deeply theologically divisive meeting concerning whether or not it was “necessary to circumcise them [the Gentiles], and to command them to keep the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). Two letters may have been written by James following the 1st council of Jerusalem: one for the Gentiles (an edited version may have been partially preserved in Acts 15: 23-29) and another to the Jewish diaspora – “to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” (James 1:1). Paul was most likely in possession of a copy of the canonical epistle of James and the letter to the Gentiles as well and was responding to James’ accusations in Galatians, I & II Corinthians, Philippians, and Romans.
Paul was not writing his epistles in a vacuum. Someone had challenged Paul’s apostleship, someone had challenged Paul’s interpretation of the application of the Mosaic Law, someone had challenged the validity of Paul’s revelations, someone had challenged his congregations’ dietary practices, someone had challenged Paul’s gospel. That someone looks increasingly like James, the bishop of Jerusalem. James’ challenge forced Paul to respond in epistle after epistle that make up the New Testament.
I actually thought the epistle of James had a fairly solid grasp of Paul’s theology and style of teaching by prophecy in the Spirit (using just the 7 undisputed letters of Paul as the source). Porphyry can you provide textual examples of the epistle of James misunderstanding Pauline theology? They’re on opposite ends of the spectrum and refuting one another, for sure, but I don’t see obvious evidence of James misunderstanding Paul’s teachings, as claimed.
On the contrary, I would say the epistle of James was written first and that Paul was systematically responding to each of the bishop of Jerusalem’s accusations in his letters to the Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Romans.
The other Pauline epistles, authentic or not, also address this theological schism between the Jerusalem church and Paul’s congregation.
I would argue that James did advocate for circumcision of all converts, Gentile or Hebrew:
According to James 2:8-12:
“If you really keep the royal law according to the Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself”, you do well. But if you show partiality (if you only partially keep the Torah and not the whole thing), then you commit sin, and are convicted by the Law as Lawbreakers. For whoever shall keep the whole Torah, and yet stumble on one point, he is guilty of violating them all. For He who said, “Do no commit adultery,” also said “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you commit murder, you have become a Lawbreaker of the Law.” (James 2:8-12)
James is saying, if you keep the greatest commandment (to love your neighbor), good! But that’s not enough. You also have to follow the remaining 612 commandments. You need to keep the whole of the Mosaic Law, for if you violate even one commandment, you are a sinner who has violated all the commandments. If you follow the commandment to love you neighbor as yourself, but not the commandment to circumcise, then to James, that person was a Lawbreaker and a sinner of the Law, regardless.
One must note that the canonical epistle of James was written specifically for a Jewish audience: “to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” (James 1:1). “[T]he most eminent apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5) most likely wrote a separate letter addressed to Paul’s Gentile converts specifically advocating for circumcision, avoiding meat sacrificed to idols, observing the sabbath, among other requirements, in language better suited for Gentile ears. A redacted version of this 2nd letter probably survives in Acts 15: 23-29.
Well, Acts 15 does mention that a letter was written by the leadership in Jerusalem “to the brethren who are of the Gentiles” (Acts 15:23) at the various satellite congregations outside of Judea. I simply suspect that the author of Acts heavily redacted that letter to align with his own theology as Paul appears to be very busy defending his ministry against attacks from “the most eminent apostles” within the Pauline epistles.
I guess it’s possible “the most eminent apostles” marched all the way over from Jerusalem to Corinth, Galatia, Philippa, and Rome, but it’s more likely they simply wrote something and had that letter dispersed to the various churches. Paul would then be responding to accusations within the hypothetical letter to the Gentiles on top of accusations already presented in James’ canonical letter to the Hebrews – accusations Paul takes pains to address one by one. It is unlikely Gentile converts would have been interested in preserving a letter criticizing their beliefs.
Though I should point out that the canonical epistle of James is sufficient to counter Paul’s theology on its own even without an extant epistle to the Gentiles.
The epistle of James survived to be included in the New Testament canon only because James’ writing style used a lot of shorthand terminology (works instead of works of the Law) and parables (rich/poor/fig trees/olive trees) to make his arguments to the degree that Gentile readers couldn’t easily figure out that he was criticizing their beliefs.
They say that history is told by the winners. But in the case of Christianity, some of their canon of Scripture appears to be written by the losers.
For some Jews, a gentile is not a neighbor. A Gentile will never be a Jew, even if he is circumcised and keeps the Law. It is God who decides who belongs to the chosen people. If you don’t at least have a Jewish mother, you’re wasting your time. And you are unnecessarily putting yourself at risk by opting for a minor cosmetic surgery procedure. Infections are more dangerous than a knife.
For other Jews, a Gentile can become a Jew if he abandons his family and circle of acquaintances obeys the law. And here we have a kind of gradation of requirements. Adam’s laws. Noah’s laws. Decalogue. Halachic laws, i.e. 613 dos and don’ts. Circumcised or not.
There may be more interpretations of James’ letter than leaves on a tree. BTW Once I started reading 3000 comments on a short story of Isaac’s would-be sacrifice. I did not finish.
Judaism is a spectrum of behavior and interpretation. But in no way does it contain the idiotic inventions of Paul scaring Gentiles with James running around with a knife. The fictionality of the letter to the Galatians is simply striking. Paul is as Jewish as any of us. In a small genetic footprint.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the epistle of James may actually be original to the bishop of Jerusalem and that his letter may pre-date most of the epistles of Paul?
The objections to this pov are mainly textual. I am informed that the Letter of James contains some of the most refined and rhetorically sophisticated Greek in the NT. Difficult to square with the probable status of the historical James who would have grown up just like Jesus and his disciples.
In the letter the author presupposes a situation where rich believers are mingling with poor believers and addresses the problems associated with such class differences. Anachronistic in an early church environment where the Jerusalem community was known as “the poor”.
If the book was written as early as it would need to be for its source to be the historical James, then why did it take so long for the book to be accepted into the canon? The authority of the book was still being disputed as late as the 4th century.
Definitely see Ehrman, Forgery & CounterForgery.
Concerning Stephen’s commentary, the epistle of James probably initially circulated within the Jewish Christian circles of the Ebionites and Nazarenes as the letter was addressed specifically to the twelve tribes of the diaspora. By the time Paul wrote his epistles, the Gentile and Jewish branches of Christianity were already at loggerheads and probably not friendly enough to be sharing writings. In fact, the non-canonical Epistle of Peter to James outright states: “I beg and beseech you not to communicate to any one of the Gentiles the books of my preachings which I sent to you” (Epistle of Peter to James 1:1). Copies of the epistle of James (and the Book of Revelations along with other Jewish Christian writings) eventually did leak down to Pauline Christian circles at a later date, most likely long after they were first composed, even if their original authors may not have wanted them in Gentile hands.
Concerning the authorship of the epistle of James, even Paul used an amanuensis to write his letters: “I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.” (Romans 16:22). According to 2 Corinthians, Paul was clumsy with words: “For his letters,” they say, “are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible.” (2 Corinthians 10:10). Paul had to borrow Tertius’s wordsmithing skills to communicate his ideas – to great effect, I might add.
I’m assuming that “James, the lord, and the bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere” (Letter of Clement to James 1:1) had access to a halfway decent scribe. If Paul managed to find a ghostwriter of the caliber of Tertius even though he and Apollos were “to the present hour we both hunger and thirst, and we are poorly clothed, and beaten, and homeless” (1 Corinthians 4:11), I don’t see why the bishop of Jerusalem wouldn’t have the resources to find an even better one, especially for a letter as important as addressing theological contamination within the church.
A detailed analysis of the interpretation of the parable of the rich and the poor man will have to wait another day as it requires some degree of familiarity with the formatting of Hebrew mashals (parables). The epistle of James was not written with the intention of being viewed or interpreted by a Gentile audience.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)