The Catholic Epistles have long been in the backwater of New Testament research. This is especially true of the Epistle of James, which has had difficulty recovering from Luther's judgement of it as an ‘epistle of straw’.Footnote 1 Much of the research on James has been devoted to its relationship to the Pauline epistles, as its exposition of the relationship between faith and works is not easily reconciled with the Pauline use of these terms. In recent years, some scholars have attempted to establish a ‘New Perspective on James’ in which James is read as a text in its own right and freed from its Pauline bondage.Footnote 2 Whereas I sympathise with the general intention of reading the Epistle of James on its own merits, I find it highly problematic to disconnect the text from its historical background, in which Paul and his epistles are certainly components of utmost significance. Yet I contend that James must be studied in dialogue with Paul rather than in conflict with him.
The traditional isagogic questions regarding James have been answered in a multitude of ways. With the majority of contemporary scholars, I view James as a pseudonymous composition of the late first century.Footnote 3 The discrepancy between James and Pauline theology has led some to suggest that James was originally a Jewish text from a Hellenistic synagogue, which was later Christianised.Footnote 4 This suggestion has largely been abandoned today, and the language of James is in line with the typically Christian style that arose in the late first and early second century.Footnote 5 Yet the epistle is often considered to be of Jewish-Christian origin.Footnote 6 James is connected to the Jerusalem church in both Galatians and Acts, so the connection to Jewish Christianity is natural.Footnote 7 The autobiographical details of the letter are kept to a minimum. James refers to himself as slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ (θɛοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος; 1:1) and includes himself among the teachers (διδάσκαλοι; 3:1).Footnote 8 In this sense, the letter is not very ‘Jacobian’, that is, it does not further elaborate on the characteristics of James known from other New Testament literature and early Christian traditions. The purpose for choosing James as pseudonym thus does not relate to the theological heritage of James as such, but rather associates a teaching of perceived urgency to a significant and recognised leader of the early Church.Footnote 9
The Lutheran legacy of James as an anti-Pauline writing, which according to the influential commentary of Martin Dibelius is a parenetic patchwork with ‘no continuity in thought whatsoever’, and which ‘has no theology’, has often placed the epistle in something like solitary confinement in expositions of New Testament theology and reconstructions of early Christian developments.Footnote 10 In this article, I wish to rehabilitate the Epistle of James from being the odd bird of the New Testament and place it instead as a unique contribution among the Catholic Epistles. I will argue that James is not only in dialogue with Paul, but also shares significant features with (for example) 1 Peter and Hebrews, whose relationships to Paul are also widely discussed.
James and Paul
The relationship between James and Paul is an issue that cannot be ignored. As mentioned in the introduction, this relationship has often been viewed as a significant crux interpretum in previous scholarship. The discussion on James and Paul has mainly focused on the relationship between James 2:14–26 and the Pauline teaching on justification.Footnote 11 Whereas Paul claims that justification comes by faith apart from works of the law (Rom 3:28), James states that one is justified by works and not by faith alone (Jas 2:24).Footnote 12 Martin Hengel argues that James is in fact derived from the circle of James the Just during his lifetime and is a ‘Meisterstück frühchristlicher Polemik’ against Paul.Footnote 13 He suggests that James does not know the Pauline epistles, but attacks what he has heard by oral tradition. Gerd Theißen, who prefers a late dating of James, suggests that James is appropriated as a symbol of Jewish Christianity and wishes to defend it against misconceptions that have evolved due to the portrayal of it in the Pauline epistles, rather than a critique of Paulinism itself.Footnote 14 Andreas Lindemann, on the other hand, argues that the Epistle of James is in fact an attack on Paulinism.Footnote 15 Richard Bauckham suggests that both Paul and James can be understood against their Jewish background without necessarily being antagonists.Footnote 16 However, if James was written toward the end of the first century, by which time Pauline theology was widespread, it is naïve to assume that the terminologies of James and Paul are parallel systems with no points of contact. I agree with Lyder Brun that the obvious Pauline connection in James 2:14–26 must be taken seriously, although it is not necessarily directed against Paul and Paulinism as such, but rather against conditions at the time of the composition of the text.Footnote 17 Philipp Vielhauer makes the important observation that James does not portray his teaching as the opposite of Pauline justification, despite the terminological discrepancies in relation to Paul.Footnote 18 Manabu Tsuji notes that it is in fact not only James 2:14–26 that connects to the teachings of Paul, but the entire self-understanding of the epistle resembles patterns found in the Pauline and deutero-Pauline writings.Footnote 19 Similarly, the abundance of Pauline connections has led Kari Syreeni to suggest that James was actually written in Corinth as part of the aftermath of the conflict there.Footnote 20 Although I find Syreeni's argument concerning the provenance of James exceedingly speculative, I believe that Tsuji and Syreeni are correct in placing James in a clearly post-Pauline context. Regardless of how one wishes to construct the history and social profile that is associated with the Epistle of James, it is clear that the theological terminology of James is highly influenced by Paul.
Before further discussing how the Epistle of James relates to Paulinism, we must note that the idea of tensions between James and Paul is not unwarranted. Paul is negative about what he refers to as τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου (‘some from James’; Gal 2:11), despite being in general agreement with James in theory (Gal 2:9; cf. Acts 15:13–21). However, the crucial issue in Paul's dealings with James is not the relationship between faith and works, but rather the relevance of Jewish customs for gentile converts, especially circumcision. This issue is not discussed in the Epistle of James, which appears to be fully in agreement with Paul on this issue. Scholars who read James as a Judaising polemic against some form of Paulinism must (consciously or unconsciously) interpret the Epistle of James in light of Galatians, since the epistle itself contains no Judaising content. There are no references to circumcision, purity regulations or other ‘Judaising’ practices discussed elsewhere in the New Testament. It is also significant to keep in mind that similarities to that alleged contradiction between the attitude toward faith and works in Paul and James can also be found in a number of other early Christian works.Footnote 21
Before dealing with the problematic passages in James, it is of importance that we recall that James was by no means unknown to Pauline Christianity. In Galatians he is mentioned as the only one apart from Peter that Paul met during his first visit in Jerusalem after becoming Christian (Gal 1:18–19). James is identified as τὸν ἀδɛλφὸν τοῦ κυρίου (‘the brother of the Lord’; 1:19), but also as one of the στῦλοι (‘pillars’) of the Jerusalem Church (2:9). This rather positive presentation is somewhat tainted by the fact (noted above) that Paul's opponents in Antioch are identified as ‘from James’ (2:12). Since Paul presents James as a brother of the Lord in Galatians, it is likely that he has James in mind also in 1 Corinthians 9:5, when he portrays the apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas as adhering to a married norm from which Paul voluntarily defers. James is also mentioned in the list of resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:7.Footnote 22 However, Paul never refers to James in his own right, but always in relation to someone else.Footnote 23
Let us for the moment leave aside the problematic passage in James 2:14–26 and first consider other points of contact between James and Paul. There are a number of passages in James and Romans that express a fundamental agreement between James and Paul.Footnote 24 Both letters speak of the necessity of being doers rather than mere hearers of the word (Jas 1:22, 25 || Rom 2:13) and speak of fulfilling the law through love of one's neighbour (Jas 2:8–11 || Rom 13:8–10). A more remarkable parallel is the shared use of Abraham as an example of faith. Both state that ἐπίστɛυσɛν Αβραμ τῷ θɛῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ ɛἰς δικαιοσύνην (‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’; Gen 15:6, LXX). However, James points out that Abraham was justified through sacrificing Isaac on the altar (Jas 2:21–4), whereas Paul is satisfied with the literal meaning of the quotation that Abraham was justified by faith (Gal 3:6; Rom 4). As contradictory as this may seem, it is significant to note that James speaks of works in a general sense, whereas Paul speaks of works of the law and especially circumcision. Jack T. Sanders argues that the occurrence of faith/works and Abraham together must be due to more than a coincidental usage of common Jewish material: James is obviously commenting on Paul in some way.Footnote 25 The discrepancy in the use of Abraham as an example necessitates a further discussion of the significant passage James 2:14–26.
Despite the significance of this passage, it is important not to isolate it from its context. As pointed out by Andrew Chester, the discourse must be put into the context of the connection between hearing and doing (Jas 1:19–26; 3:12–18).Footnote 26 Furthermore, the immediately preceding passage (2:1–13) deals with the significance of compassion and speaks of the νόμου ἐλɛυθɛρίας (‘law of freedom’; 2:12). If James knew Pauline theology, he would be acquainted with the Pauline concept of freedom (ἐλɛυθɛρία). In fact, it is quite probable that Galatians 5:13–15 serves as background for James 2:8–13. Paul speaks of ἐλɛυθɛρία as the basis of the Christian lifestyle of serving one's neighbour. He states that the entire law is summed up in the commandment to love one's neighbour as oneself (Gal 5:14).Footnote 27 James uses the exact same argument as preface to the disputed section James 2:14–26. Shortly before James quotes what he calls the ‘royal law’, he speaks of the law of freedom (Jas 1:25). This is hardly a coincidence. James is alluding to Paul's ethical teaching and enforcing it – not questioning it. Paul speaks of τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ (‘the law of Christ’; Gal 6:2), which in James has become ‘the law of freedom’ (2:12) or ‘the royal law’ (2:8). Paul makes clear in Galatians that everyone must examine his own works (τὸ δὲ ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ δοκιμαζέτω ἕκαστος; Gal 6:4), and that one will reap what one sows (Gal 6:7–10). He clearly opposes gentile circumcision (Gal. 6:12–15), but also acknowledges that works are a natural part of living according to the law of Christ. Also in Romans Paul makes clear that works have a significant place in Christian soteriology (Rom 2:6–16). On these points James is not in opposition to Paul, but rather in continuity with him. Circumcision is not an issue in James, but the works of which he speaks are present already in Galatians. The greatest difference between James and Paul is not directly theological but pertains to the time and context of composition. When James writes, circumcision is not a major problem.Footnote 28 What is significant for James is the construction of a Christian ethic that prescribes good works. Whereas Paul addresses justification from a theoretical perspective, circumcision being the practical point of conflict, James addresses a specific phenomenon in his own time.Footnote 29
A problem with much of previous scholarship on James is that it more or less only allows for two possible scenarios: either James is criticising Paul or his later followers, or he has no knowledge of Paul and the many parallels are coincidental. We have found no direct criticism of Paul despite the rather different use of Pauline terminology in the epistle. It is unlikely that James developed a parallel (totally unrelated) terminology of his own, and this suggests that James knows of Pauline traditions in some form.Footnote 30 The fact that he does not give verbatim quotations from Galatians or Romans does not mean that he is not acquainted with their basic message and terminology. James does not seek to engage in the debate of Paul's day, but addresses relevant issues in his own time.Footnote 31 Sanders argues that James has misunderstood Paul, but he is not alone since the deutero-Paulines and 1 Peter do the same; I do not agree.Footnote 32 The issue is not that James has misunderstood Paul, but rather that he writes significantly later than Paul in an environment where early Christian writers address different needs. The discrepancy between Paul on the one hand and James and the deutero-Pauline writings on the other hand is not based on a misunderstanding, but on changed circumstances that require doctrinal development.
Giving James a context
The examination above suggests that there is some kind of relationship between James and Paul. James represents something of an implicit reception of Paul that testifies to the influence of the Pauline writings. However, in order to enhance our understanding of the epistle it is important to examine whether there are in fact other early Christian writings that show similar tendencies and thereby help us contextualise James. Todd C. Penner aptly describes the Epistle of James as the ‘Melchizedek’ of the Christian canon, who appears without precedents and descendants and is incomprehensible in a number of ways.Footnote 33 Nevertheless, the isolation of James in reconstructions of early Christianity is mainly due to its claimed anti-Paulinism,Footnote 34 but also because the influential commentary of Martin Dibelius claims that James has no theological message.Footnote 35 And yet the fact that James was at some point included in an early Christian letter collection is in itself an indication that James is not automatically predestined to be read as a non-theological and anti-Pauline tract.Footnote 36 Once these misleading preconceptions concerning James are dismissed, it can be noted that James has a number of affinities with other early Christian writings. Apart from Paul, the most significant similarities can be found in 1 Peter and Hebrews.Footnote 37 These similarities will be touched upon briefly, not with the purpose of establishing a literary or sociological relationship, but in order to analyse the Jacobian text-type.
The relationship between James and 1 Peter is not easily evaluated, since most connections are allusions or thematic similarities.Footnote 38 Whereas there are a number of striking parallels between the letters, it is unlikely that these are due to a direct literary dependence between the two texts.Footnote 39 The first similarity appears already in James 1:1 || 1 Peter 1:1, where both texts are characterised as diaspora writings. Parallels continue concerning rejoicing in the midst of suffering (Jas 1:2–3 || 1 Pet 1:6–7) and an urge to do away with wickedness (Jas 1:21 || 1 Pet 2:1–2). Both letters note that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble (Jas 4:6–7 || 1 Pet 5:5–6).Footnote 40 It is also possible that both letters allude to being named ‘Christians’ (Jas 2:7 || 1 Pet 4:16). Yet none of these parallels are verbatim quotations, and Dibelius is in some regard correct in concluding that the relationship between the texts is often overestimated.Footnote 41 Still, a number of scholars have noticed that the themes that are parallel to the two texts are somewhat more developed in 1 Peter.Footnote 42 In contrast to James, 1 Peter turns exhortation in a christological direction.Footnote 43 If there exists a literary connection between the two texts, it is 1 Peter that uses James, since 1 Peter elaborates further on the common themes.Footnote 44
Although the parallels between the texts are too inexact to suggest a literary relationship between the texts, the common themes should not be dismissed too quickly. Matthias Konradt argues that James and 1 Peter are in fact different witnesses of the same branch of tradition.Footnote 45 Although I disagree with this conclusion, I agree that there are a number of significant similarities. For example, presbyters appear to serve a central leading function in both of the communities (Jas 5:14 || 1 Pet 5:1). Likewise, James's self-designation as one of the teachers (Jas 3:1) somewhat resembles the depiction of Peter as a co-elder (1 Pet 5:1). The eschatological section with its focus on enduring sufferings (Jas 5:7–11) also resembles 1 Peter to some degree, although the sufferings in 1 Peter are primarily paralleled by trials in James (cf. Jas 1:2–4).
The Epistle to the Hebrews, very much like James and 1 Peter, is of ambiguous origin and is related to Paul in some secondary sense.Footnote 46 Outside the Pauline Hauptbriefe, the connection between Abraham and faith as an example for Christians can only be found in the New Testament in Hebrews 11:8, 17 and James 2:21, 23. It is likely that both Hebrews and James are dependent on Paul for their use of this analogy.Footnote 47 Moreover, Hebrews also refers to the faith of Abraham in relation to the act of bringing forth Isaac as an offering (Heb 11:17 || Jas 2:21). Hebrews resembles James in mentioning Rahab as an example of faith (Heb 11:31 || Jas 2:25).Footnote 48 On a more general level, Hebrews shares the idea of faith being manifested through works, as well as the theme of eschatological suffering (Heb 11–12).Footnote 49
Although the similarities between these texts might point toward common traditions, the differences between them make it implausible that they originate from the same milieu. The main gain of pointing out the similarities between them is not that one can establish a ‘school’ of Catholic Epistles, but rather that these texts together witness to different ways in which Paul was appropriated in the late first century. In relation to other early Christian pseudonymous works, we may note that the Pastoral Epistles also place some emphasis on good works.Footnote 50 However, the Pastoral Epistles place more emphasis on submission to various hierarchies. In this regard, 1 Peter can be seen as occupying a kind of middle ground between James and the Pastorals, since it also contains Haustafeln. Footnote 51 The Epistle of Jude is also of some interest, since it claims to be written by ‘Jude, servant of Christ, brother of James’ (Jude 1). Since Jude is written later than James, it is possible that the author of Jude had in mind not only the legacy of James the Just, but also the Epistle of James when using this designation for creating legitimacy for his text.Footnote 52 It is also a remarkable coincidence that the generally acknowledged dependence of 2 Peter on Jude leads to the result that both canonical epistles claiming Petrine authorship may be partially dependent on early texts that claim to be written by Jesus’ siblings.
Conclusion
The Epistle of James deserves a more prominent place in scholarly reconstructions of early Christian thought. Once the text has been freed from its Lutheran bondage, it emerges as an example of reception of Paul that is no less significant than the rest of the Catholic Epistles. James, just like 1 Peter, Hebrews and even the deutero-Pauline epistles, is a document that illustrates the reception and development of Pauline theology. Far from being anti-Pauline, James presupposes Paulinism in his argument. The background to the epistle should not be sought in its choice of pseudonym. In the same manner as 1 Peter, James contains nothing that links it to its alleged author, whereas it presupposes Pauline theology in some form.Footnote 53 The Epistle of James is a document that illustrates a post-apostolic practice of attributing an urgent text to a prominent figure in early Christianity without necessarily claiming a certain theological profile on this basis. James is a writing with ambiguous connections to Paul that gives us insight into the development of Pauline Christianity in the late first century.
