James among the Classicists: Reading the Letter of James in Light of Ancient Literary Criticism [1 ed.] 9783666564840, 9783525564844

Citation preview

Format: Bez.155x230, Aufriss: HuCo

31 mm

The author Sigurvin Lárus Jónsson studied theology and New Testament at the University of Iceland and gained his PhD at Aarhus University. He is employed as a postdoctoral researcher in New Testament at the University of Münster.

SANt | Vol. 8

Sigurvin Lárus Jónsson

James among the Classicists Reading the Letter of James in Light of Ancient Literary Criticism

Translating the ‘discursive turn’ in classical scholarship, Jónsson contributes considerably to the study of early Christianity by analysing the letter of James from the perspective of ancient literary criticism. This is the first monograph to compare a New Testament letter with the Critical Essays of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Jónsson shows that the author of the letter of James adopts stylistic categories at play in contemporary literature and that language and ethos are inseparable in antiquity. Thus, the letter of James builds educational ethos as a balance against the educated rich and powerful.

Jónsson  James among the Classicists

Studia Aarhusiana Neotestamentica

Vol. 8

Studia Aarhusiana Neotestamentica (SANt) Edited by Eve-Marie Becker, Ole Davidsen, Jan Dochhorn, Kasper Bro Larsen and Nils Arne Pedersen

Volume 8

Sigurvin Lárus Jónsson

James among the Classicists Reading the Letter of James in Light of Ancient Literary Criticism

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. © 2021, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: 3w+p, Rimpar Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2364-2157 ISBN 978-3-666-56484-0

In loving memory of my father Jón Lárus Sigurðsson (20. 04. 1931–21. 01. 2019)

Preface

This monograph gives attention to the language and style of the letter of James, presenting a hypothesis about its rhetorical purpose. It focuses on what we can learn about the author of James, by reading the text in light of a guiding research question: How does the author establish and assert authority? The letter writer builds literary authority for a number of purposes, one of which is to address socio-economic disparity – a major concern for the author. The author presents a speech-in–character in the shape of a letter to establish his ethos (Chapter 2); employs vocabulary and style to signal his education implicitly (Chapters 3 & 4); and includes himself in the categories of sage, teacher and exegete explicitly (Chapter 5). From this standpoint, the author of the letter of James can address the rich as equals, rebuke them and admonish both rich and poor to receive God’s wisdom (Chapter 6). The comparison with ancient literary criticism shows that the categories at play are the same. The insight that language and ethos are inseparable categories in antiquity provides us with renewed ways to interpret the literary production of early Christianity. Both James and ‘the Classicists’ present a competing epic in the context of the early imperium, the former with Israelite piety that is superior to contemporary economic and moral categories and the latter with the supremacy of Greek culture as a foundation for Rome. In this light, the letter of James emerges as a document that builds educational ethos as a balance against the rich and powerful, a strategy that calls for a revision of both its rhetoric and socio-economic situation. The monograph is a revised dissertation submitted at the University of Aarhus in 2019 under the supervision of prof. Eve-Marie Becker. I am grateful to the School of Culture and Society at Aarhus University for their generous support, both financial and academic. For this research, I spent two semesters at Emory University, Atlanta, Ga., where the faculty and staff at Candler School of Theology, Graduate Division of Religion and Pitts Theological Library made both stays fruitful. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary engagement with classical studies and this would not have been possible without the support of

8

Preface

scholars from that field. I am grateful to my co-supervisor George Hinge (Aarhus), as well as to Nicolas Wiater (St. Andrews), Sylvie Honigman (Tel Aviv) and Casper C. de Jonge (Leiden). Scholarship is a team effort and the arguments presented here were constructed in discussion with colleagues in the field of New Testament. This includes my readers, John S. Kloppenborg (Toronto), Oda Wischmeyer (Erlangen) and René Falkenberg (Aarhus); colleagues in Aarhus, Kasper Bro Larsen, Jacob P.B. Mortensen and Brent Nongbri (Oslo); my teachers at Emory, Carl Holladay, Susan Hylen and especially Vernon K. Robbins. Finally, I am grateful to Ingunn Ásdísardóttir for proofreading, to student assistant Rebecca Meerheimb for help with indexing, and to Westfälische WilhelmsUniversität Münster for giving me the leisure (σχολή) to complete revisions.

Abbreviations

Abbreviations for primary sources follow the The SBL Handbook of Style (2nd ed.; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2014). AASF AB AGJU

Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Anchor Bible Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AHR American Historical Review AHRhet. Advances in the History of Rhetoric AJEC Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity AJP American Journal of Philology ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt APACRS American Philological Association Classical Resources Series Arch. Gesch. Philos. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie ASE Annali di storia dell’esegesi ASP American Studies in Papyrology ATS Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien AYBRL Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library BAK Beiträge zur Altertumskunde BBC Blackwell Bible Commentaries BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BBRSup Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement BCCR Brill’s Companions to Classical Reception BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series BibOr Biblica et Orientalia BMCR Bryn Mawr Classical Review BN Biblische Notizen BNP Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World BSGRT Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana BT The Bible Translator BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

10 BTS BVB BZ BzA BZNW CahRB CBET CBQ CBQMS CBR CCS CEJL CNT ConBNT CP CQ CR CSCO CSCT CSHJ CW DCH DCLS ECM EJL EKK ESCJ ESEC FAT II FC FRLANT GCRW GCS GRBS GSIA HCS HNT HRC HSCP HTR HUCM HUT ICC IECOT

Abbreviations

Biblical Tools and Studies Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel Biblische Zeitschrift Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Cahiers de la Revue biblique Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Currents in Biblical Research Cambridge Classical Studies Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Classical Review Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism The Classical World Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Clines) Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Editio Critica Maior Early Judaism and Its Literature Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Studies in Christianity and Judaism Emory Studies in Early Christianity Forschungen zum Alten Testament Reihe 2 Fathers of the Church Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Greek Culture in the Roman World Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches Hellenistic Culture and Society Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Humanities Research Centre Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Theological Review Monographs of the Hebrew Union College Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie International Critical Commentary International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament

11

Abbreviations

Int JAJSup JBL JCTCRS JGRChJ JHS JSJ JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSRC JSS KHA L&N LCL LEC LNTS LSJ LSTS LW MnemosyneSup MNTS NA28 NDEJ NET NETS NIGTC NovT NovTSup NRSV NSHL NTL NTOA NTS NTTS NTTSD OBO OCA OCD OCM OED OTM PAST PCPSSup PGL PNTC

Interpretation Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture Journal of Semitic Studies Kölner Historische Abhandlungen Lexicon of Semantic Domains (Louw & Nida) Loeb Classical Library Library of Early Christianity Library of New Testament Studies A Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell, Scott, Jones) Library of Second Temple Studies Luther’s Works Mnemosyne Supplements McMaster New Testament Studies Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle Aland) 28th ed. Notre Dame English Journal Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie New English Translation of the Septuagint New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum New Revised Standard Version New Synthese Historical Library New Testament Library Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents Oxford Bibliographies Online Orientalia Christiana Analecta Oxford Classical Dictionary Oxford Classical Monographs Oxford English Dictionary Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs Pauline Studies Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Supplement Patristic Greek Lexicon (Lampe) Pillar New Testament Commentary

12 PVTG PW RB RevExp RevQ RhetR RhM RHPR RHR RMCS RRA RSQ RUSCH SAC SANt SBG SBLDS SBLSBS SBLSP SBLSymS SBLTT SDSS SEPT SFAC SHCT SJLA SNTSMS SPNT SR SSEJC ST StBibLit STDJ StPB SVF SVTP SWC TB TDNT TDOT TENTS THKNT TK TLG TLOT TSAJ

Abbreviations

Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Revue biblique Review and Expositor Revue de Qumran Rhetoric Review Rheinisches Museum für Philologie Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses Revue de l’histoire des religions Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity Rhetoric Society Quarterly Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities Studies in Antiquity and Christianity Studia Aarhusiana Neotestamentica Studies in Biblical Greek Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations Studies in Dead Sea Scrolls & Related Literature Septuagint Commentary Series South Florida Academic Commentary Series Studies in the History of Christian Traditions Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies on Personalities of the New Testament Studies in Religion Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity Studia Theologica: Nordic Journal of Theology Studies in Biblical Literature Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia Post-biblica Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Commentare Theologische Bu¨ cherei Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Texts and Editions for New Testament Study Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Texte und Kommentare Eine altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum

Abbreviations

UaLG UB UCPH WATSA WGRW WSC WUNT WUNT II YCS ZNW

13 Untersuchungen zur Antiken Literatur und Geschichte Urchristliche Botschaft University of California Publications in History What Are They Saying About Series Writings from the Greco-Roman World Wisconsin Studies in Classics Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Reihe 2 Yale Classical Studies Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The Modern Study of James . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Ancient Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Letter of James and Ancient Literary Criticism

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

17 21 27 31 38

2. Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character 2.1 The Genre of James . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Quest for Authorship . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Quest for Audience . . . . . . . . . 2.4 The Letter of James as Ethopoeia . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

42 42 54 66 74

3. Exploring the Language of the Letter of James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 The Structure of James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Repetitive Texture of the Opening Chapter . . . . . . . . . . .

93 93 96

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

4. Reading James in the Context of Greco-Roman Literary Culture 4.1 Classical Tendencies in James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 James and Poetic Prose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Evaluating the Style of James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Dionysius’ Criteria for Evaluating Authors . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Purity of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Lucidity and Clarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Vividness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.5 Imitation of Traits of Character and Emotion . . . . . 4.3.6 Qualities of Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

114 115 120 132 132 134 139 156 164 186

16

Contents

. . . .

193 193 210 218

6. Wealth and Community in the Letter of James . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 The Topic of Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Wealth, Violence and the Rhetoric of James . . . . . . . . . . . . .

258 260 274

7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

283

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Primary Sources, Editions and Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

289 289 294

Subject index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

327

Primary sources / ancient texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

330

Selected modern authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

352

5. The Authority of James . . . 5.1 Education and Authority 5.2 James as Teacher . . . . . 5.3 James as Exegete . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1.

Introduction

Ἰάκωβος θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ χαίρειν.1

The letter of James is a fascinating document in that it seems to fit in most contexts of Greek speaking Judaism and early Christianity. Exegetes have seen resonances with most streams of the New Testament: It resembles Paul,2 reflects Jesus logia from Q3 and the synoptic gospels,4 shows relations with the Catholic Epistles,5 and seems to inspire the style of the Apostolic Fathers.6 Moreover there is little in the letter that cannot be found in Jewish sources,7 so much so that it has been forcefully argued that it has non-Christian origins with superficial glosses

1 Jas 1.1. The Greek text follows the Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), unless otherwise stated. 2 Rainer Metzner, Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT 14; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2017), 163–66; Dale C. Allison, James: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (ICC; New York, N.Y.: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 62–67; Margaret M. Mitchell, “The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism,” in Reading James with New Eyes (ed. Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg; New York, N.Y.: T&T Clark, 2007), 75–78. 3 John S. Kloppenborg, “The Reception of the Jesus Tradition in James,” in Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition: A New Perspective on James to Jude (ed. Robert W. Wall and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2009); John S. Kloppenborg, “The Emulation of the Jesus Tradition in the Letter of James,” in Reading James with New Eyes (ed. Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg; New York, N.Y.: T&T Clark, 2007); Wesley Hiram Wachob, The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James (SNTSMS 106; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Patrick J. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (JSNTSup 47; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991); Dean B. Deppe, “The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James” (Ph.D. diss., Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, 1989). 4 Allison, James, 56–57. 5 Allison, James, 67–71; David R. Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon (Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press, 2007). 6 Albert Wifstrand, “Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and Peter,” in Epochs and Styles: Selected Writings on the New Testament, Greek Language and Greek Culture in the PostClassical Era (ed. Lars Rydbeck and Stanley E. Porter; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 46–58. 7 Allison, James, 51–54.

18

Introduction

added to fit a new audience.8 The language and style of James has been compared to paraenesis9 and Cynic diatribe10 and the topics reflect Hellenistic moral philosophy11 and Stoic ideology.12 These similarities and more have led to an impressively wide range of hypotheses of its origins: Dating proposals range from the oldest13 to the youngest document of the New Testament,14 and authorship hypotheses from an authentic letter of the brother of Jesus to a pseudepigraphic, canon-conscious conclusion to the emerging New Testament.15 In short, the letter of James lends itself to confirmation bias or eisegesis, so scholars should be especially wary of drawing concrete conclusion regarding its origins. This thesis will give primary attention to the language and style of the letter of James, albeit with a hypothesis about its rhetorical purpose in mind. The study focuses on what we can learn about the author of James, by reading the text in light of a guiding research question: How does the author establish and assert authority? The working hypothesis is that the letter of James is best understood as a speech-in–character that seeks to build ethos implicitly via language com8 Louis Massebieau, “L’Épître de Jacques est-elle l’oeuvre d’un chrétien,” RHR 32 (1895): 249– 283; Friedrich Spitta, Der Brief des Jakobus (Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums vol. 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896). 9 The defining commentary of the 20th century is Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James (ed. Heinrich Greeven; trans. Michael A. Williams; 11th; Hermeneia; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1920; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1976). 10 James Hardy Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1916), 10–16. 11 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37A; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1995), 27–29; James Riley Strange, The Moral World of James: Setting the Epistle in its Greco-Roman and Judaic Environments (StBibLit 136; New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang, 2010). 12 Matt A. Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law in the Letter of James: The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses and the Law of Freedom (NovTSup 100; Leiden: Brill, 2000). 13 The hypotheses of pre-Christian origins, presented independently by Massebieau and Spitta (see note 8 above) dated James from before the turn of the century. Two views dominate today, those that argue for authentic authorship (see bibliography in Allison, James, 4 n. 18) generally date the letter before his death (62 CE according to Josephus, Ant. 20.200-3) and those that propose a later pseudepigraphic origin. 14 The latest proposal I am aware of is Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone, who dates it around the middle of the second century. See overview of scholarly proposals in Allison, James, 28–29. The earliest clear reception is found in Origen, Ibid, 14 n. 57: “Origen (185–253) not only quoted or borrowed from James on multiple occasions, but for him the book was authoritative and written by James the brother of Jesus. […] Note e. g. Origen, Exod 8.4 SC 321 ed. Borret, 254 (‘the apostle James says’); Josh 10.2 SC 17 ed. Jaubert, 276 (‘the apostle James declares’); Ps 30.6 PG 12.1300B (‘according to James’); 65.4 PG 30.1500A (‘as the apostle says’); 118.153 PG 30.1621B (‘for James says’); Prov 18.51 PG 17.244C (‘James says’); Jn frag. 126 GCS 10 ed. Preuschen, 570 (‘the apostle James says’); Rom 4.8 FC 2.2 ed. Heither, 252 (‘the apostle James says’).” 15 Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone, has a canon-conscious approach. For bibliography of authors who consider James pseudepigraphic, see Allison, James, 4 n. 19.

Introduction

19

petency and references to scripture. The author employs this educational or literary authority for a number of purposes, one of which is to address socioeconomic disparity – a major concern for the author. While many aspects of James remain a Rätsel,16 the author leaves little doubt that the categories of ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ are a major concern for the author17 and that references to scripture (γραφή) form an important element in his argumentation.18 Less obvious is what can be surmised about the historical circumstances that lead to his rhetoric and what educational background the author in question has. Scholarship on the employment of scripture in early Christianity has shifted in recent decades towards an acknowledgment of the Jewish background of the New Testament writings. Two paradigms have been especially influential, the literary creativity of Jewish authors described by Géza Vermes as “Rewritten Scripture”19 and the continuity of thought between early Christian authors and the rabbinical writings of the Tannaitic period, termed the “New Perspective” by the students of E. P. Sanders.20 These paradigms share a use of Aramaic and Hebrew writings to interpret Jewish Greek texts. Whether James was bilingual21 or familiar with proto-rabbinical tradition22 is a current scholarly debate, but there is no doubt that he was skilled in the Greek language.23 This thesis does not engage with or reject the above mentioned approaches, but examines the language of the letter of James from the opposite direction, that of Greek literary criticism. For Jewish Greek authors of the Hellenistic and early imperial eras, the literary worlds of the Bible and the Greek literary tradition were not mutually exclusive sources of inspiration. Examples abound of authors employing Greek literature to facilitate Jewish teaching and to propagate the biblical epic over and against Greco-Roman ideology.24

16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24

Arnold Meyer, Das Rätsel des Jacobusbriefes (BZNW 10; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1930). See section 6.1 The Topic of Wealth, 260. See section 5.3 James as Exegete, 218. Géza Vermes, Scripture and tradition in Judaism: Haggadic studies (StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961); József Zsengellér, ed., Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes (JSJSup 166; Leiden: Brill, 2014). E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1977). Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm, eds., Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2015). Heinrich Rendtorff, Hörer und Täter: Eine Einführung in den Jakobusbrief (UB 19; Hamburg: Furche, 1953), 13. Allison, James, 54–55. Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James: (3rd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1913), ccxliv. See Chapter 4.3.3, p. 139. See section 4.1 Classical Tendencies in James, 115.

20

Introduction

While it may be impossible to determine the education of the author of James,25 there is a growing acceptance of reading Jewish and early Christian writings against the background of Greek education.26 This includes material sources identified as produced by school-hands,27 the gymnastic textbooks of literary composition (progymnasmata)28 and the rhetorical treatises of the Hellenistic and early Roman imperium, from Aristotle to Quintilian. There is a growing consensus that the ability to write in Greek and thus produce the documents that have been handed down to us presupposes Greek education and there is abundant evidence that education was in the ancient world a marker of authority.29 A number of recent studies on Paul have highlighted his use of educational categories to establish authority and argue that Paul signals his education, e. g. by using educational vocabulary.30 This thesis will argue that the author of James engages in such signalling as well, yet instead of using educational vocabulary he signals it predominantly via his use of language. A central focus of this investigation concerns authority building and the following chapters map the ways in which the letter of James establishes the authority of the author. James is an authoritarian document, seen e. g. in the predominance of the imperative mood and the unwavering confidence with which the author writes, yet exegetes have noted that he does not rely solely on categories known to us from Paul. If James signals divine inspiration, this is veiled and implicit, and the author does not describe James’ ethical superiority, his connection to Jesus or his status as leader of the Jerusalem congregation to build his authority. Instead the author presents a speech-in–character in letter form to establish his ethos (chapter 2), employing vocabulary and style to signal his 25 See section 5.1 Education and Authority, 193. 26 See e. g. Matthew R. Hauge and Andrew W. Pitts, eds., Ancient Education and Early Christianity (LNTS 533; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016); Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman, eds., Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (EJL 41; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017). 27 Raffaella Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt (ASP 36; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars’ Press, 1996); Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (CCS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001). 28 George A. Kennedy, ed., Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (WGRW 10; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). 29 See section 5.1 Education and Authority, 193. 30 Robert S. Dutch, The Educated Elite in 1 Corinthians: Education and Community Conflict in Graeco-Roman Context (JSNTSup 271; London: T&T Clark, 2005); Adam G. White, Where is the Wise Man?: Graeco-Roman Education as a Background to the Divisions in 1 Corinthians 1– 4 (LNTS 536; New York, N.Y.: Bloomsbury, 2015); Devin L. White, Teacher of the Nations: Ancient Educational Traditions and Paul’s Argument in 1 Corinthians 1–4 (BZNW 227; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017); Allen Hilton, Illiterate Apostles: Uneducated Early Christians and the Literates Who Loved Them (LNTS 541; New York, N.Y.: Bloomsbury, 2018).

The Modern Study of James

21

education implicitly (chapters 3 and 4) and includes himself in the categories of sage, teacher and exegete explicitly (chapter 5). The purpose of this building of authority is made explicit in his concern for the status of the poor in his community that suffer from conflict and injustice for which the rich are blamed. This socio-economic divide in James is described throughout the letter, yet there is little to guide us in reconstructing an actual historical situation for his correspondence, compared to the Pauline letters that are addressed to a specific congregation and/or city. A working hypothesis is that the building of ethos via education in James, establishes common ground between the author and those that enjoy the economic privilege of having education and wealth. From this standpoint, James can address the rich as equals, rebuke them and admonish both rich and poor to receive God’s wisdom and embrace the communal peace that she brings (chapter 6).

1.1

The Modern Study of James

Recent decades have seen increased scholarly interest in the letter of James, so the truism that James is a neglected document in New Testament studies has perhaps been corrected.31 In the English-speaking world, the most thorough recent investigation is Dale C. Allison’s ICC commentary,32 which stands both in the historical-critical tradition of its predecessor33 and the more recent trend of reception history.34 The result is a tour de force that rehearses the scholarly discussion on James and gives an extensive bibliography of important topics, ranging from well-known positions to marginal yet important insights.35 For this study, Allison’s attention to stylistic detail is most insightful – especially the way in which he highlights poetic features, such as alliteration, assonance, rhyme and rhythm by spreading them out in an accessible way.36 His presentation shows the 31 Alicia J. Batten, What Are They Saying About the Letter of James? (WATSA; New York, N.Y.: Paulist Press, 2009). 32 Allison, James. 33 Ropes, St. James. 34 David Gowler, James Through the Centuries (BBC; Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014). 35 Examples of this are his engagement with 16th century commentaries, about which he says “much that we think of as new is really old. Reading through the sixteenth-century commentaries of Aretius and Diodati, for example, reveals that rhetorical criticism, which one might reckon to be a new method, has forerunners in much older works”. Allison, James, 2. Another example is his engagement with Samuel D. Giere’s M.Div. thesis at Wartburg Theological Seminary, neither published nor digitised, which discusses an important and under-explored topic: “The Midrash of James: A Study of the Connections between Leviticus 19 and the Epistle of James”. Ibid., xxv, 73, 256, 325, 381, 413, 635. 36 An illustrative example of this is his discussion of Jas 1.19–21, where he lays out the “[a]lliteration, assonance and consonance [that] run throughout” on half a page. Ibid., 292.

22

Introduction

stylistic abilities of the author that is connected to his rhetorical agenda of persuasion.37 The most notable recent commentary in German is Rainer Metzner’s Der Brief des Jakobus, where he argues for authorship of the letter by an early Christian teacher named Ἰάκωβος, thus rejecting both authorship by a known figure and pseudepigraphic authorship referring to one.38 His interpretation relates to our discussion in a number of ways. Metzner proposes that the genre of James is best understood as a paraenetic-letter (παραινετική),39 that the content is oriented towards specific issues within the communities addressed,40 that the disparity between rich and poor reflects a date of composition when wealth has become a genuine concern41 and that the author presents himself as an educated teacher to the communities.42 Finally, while some of Metzner’s proposals need clarification,43 his attention to the connection between language, education and social status are insightful.44 As James is unusually sparse in providing historical clues, exegetes have traditionally focused on language and intertextuality to argue for their proposed authorship and context of the letter. While both are the subject of inquiry in this thesis, no firm hypothesis is adopted concerning authorship and date.45 The question remains open, but approaching James’ historical context from the perspective of ancient literary criticism can clarify some aspects of James’ use of language and style as well as shed light on his engagement with sources. Intertextuality,46 a term that describes a variety of methodological approaches,47 has in

37 See section 3.2 The Repetitive Texture of the Opening Chapter, 96. 38 Metzner, Der Brief des Jakobus, 3–13. See also Rainer Metzner, “Der Lehrer Jakobus: Überlegungen zur Verfasserfrage des Jakobusbriefes,” ZNW 104 (2 2013). 39 Metzner, Der Brief des Jakobus, 29. See section 2.1 The Genre of James, 42. 40 Ibid, 27. See section 2.3 The Quest for Audience, 66. 41 Ibid, 72–73. See section 6.2 Wealth, Violence and the Rhetoric of James, 274. 42 Ibid, 170–71. See section 5.2 James as Teacher, 210. 43 See Oda Wischmeyer, review of Rainer Metzner, Der Brief des Jakobus, Review of Biblical Literature (2018). See section 5.1 Education and Authority, 193. 44 Metzner, Der Brief des Jakobus, 13: “Das Selbstverständnis eines weisen und verständigen Lehrers sagt auch etwas über den sozialen Status des Autors aus. Da die Kombination von »weise und verständig« oft eine Elite bezeichnet […] liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass auch der Lehrer Jakobus der christlichen Oberschicht angehört. Dafür sprechen seine hohe Sprachkompetenz (literarisches Griechisch) und seine Weltgewandtheit.” See section 5.1 Education and Authority, 193. 45 Throughout this thesis I use ‘the author’ and ‘James’ interchangeably. This does not reflect the position that a particular James is the author of the letter of James, but describes the actual author (whom we do not know) and implied author depending on context. 46 The term intertextuality, coined by Julia Kristeva, has a broad meaning in literary studies and Graham Allen notes that while it is “one of the central ideas in contemporary literary theory, [it] is not a transparent term and so, despite its confident utilization by many theorists and critics, cannot be evoked in an uncomplicated manner”. Graham Allen, Intertextuality (The New Critical Idiom; London; New York, N.Y.: Routledge, 2000), 2.

The Modern Study of James

23

early Christian studies explored how authors engage with and utilise scripture,48 as well as their Greco-Roman literary context.49 Scriptural citations and allusions form the argumentative basis for James,50 and Allison notes that “[g]iven its brevity, the extent to which our book manages to cite, refer to, allude to, or otherwise borrow from books that belong to our Bibles is striking”.51 There have been a number of intertextual studies on James’ use of scripture,52 mainly focusing on individual books but as of yet there is no comprehensive monograph on the topic.53 An interesting discussion concerns the access the author had to scripture and his exegetical competency. Wiard Popkes conjectures that James used a ‘Zettelkasten’ where he kept the fragments of scripture he engaged with, sometimes with negative results.54 Allison argues for the more traditional position, that 47 For an overview of approaches see B. J. Oropeza and Steve Moyise, eds., Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2016). 48 Recent collections include Craig A. Evans and Danny Zacharias, eds., ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity (2 vols.; LNTS 469; London: T&T Clark, 2012); Ibid., Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality (2 vols.; SSEJC 14–15; London: T&T Clark, 2009). 49 See e. g. Margaret Froelich et al., eds., Christian Origins and the New Testament in the GrecoRoman Context: Essays in Honor of Dennis R. MacDonald (Claremont Studies in New Testament & Christian Origins 1; Claremont, Calif.: Claremont Press, 2016); Loveday Alexander, Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (LNTS 289; London: T&T Clark, 2005); Dennis R. MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003); Ibid., ed., Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (SAC; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2001); Ibid., The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000); David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1985). 50 See section 5.3 James as Exegete, 218. 51 Allison, James, 51. 52 The most recent is Nelson R. Morales, Poor and Rich in James: A Relevance Theory Approach to James’s Use of the Old Testament (BBRSup 20; University Park, Penn.: Eisenbrauns, 2018). Morales provides a current bibliography, 14–19. See also Robert J. Foster, The Significance of Exemplars for the Interpretation of the Letter of James (WUNT II 376; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); D. A. Carson, “James,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 997–1013. 53 This was lamented in 1983 by Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, Living Utterances of God: The New Testament Exegesis of the Old (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983), 146; repeated a decade later by Wiard Popkes, “James and Scripture: An Exercise in Intertextuality,” NTS 45 (2 1999): 215–16; and still true today despite monographs on delimited topics. 54 Wiard Popkes, Der Brief des Jakobus (ThHK 14; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 2001), 28–29: “Man gewinnt den Eindruck, Jak habe sich eine Art Zettelkasten angelegt, aus dem er sich dann bedient – zuweilen auch mit nicht gerade glücklicher Hand”. See also Wiard Popkes, “The Composition of James and Intertextuality: An Exercise in Methodology,” ST 51 (2 1997): 101.

24

Introduction

James “heard important texts again and again […] [and concludes that s]urely James could readily have quoted Proverbs and alluded to Genesis without having had a copy”.55 Individual studies, such as of his use of Leviticus 19 seem to suggest that “in addition to the direct citation from Lev 19:18b in 2:8, the letter of James contains […] further verbal or thematic allusions to Lev 19:12–18 [a]rranged according to the order of Leviticus”.56 This process of incorporating scripture into the composition, which L.T. Johnson sees as comparable with Pseudo-Phocylides,57 suggests an engagement with the source(s) that demands literary competency. While insights from literary criticism cannot solve these problems, they do provide us with a parallel literary culture that discussed literary imitation explicitly and where quotations and allusions served a comparable rhetorical purpose.58 Among the most debated topics of the letter of James is its relationship to the Pauline letters and in Protestant scholarship primarily the antithesis of ‘justification by faith’ in Paul.59 An important aspect of recent study has been to break the hegemony of this perspective and read James as either independent of Paul60 or a voice in its own right. Johnson claims that “[t]he most important gain from breaking the Pauline fixation is that it liberates James to be read in terms of 108 verses rather than 12 verses, in terms of its own voice rather than in terms of its supposed muting of Paul’s voice”.61 Comparison with Paul led scholars to conclude that James was not a ‘real letter’ in the same sense as Paul’s correspondence,62 but advances in the study of Greek and Roman epistolography has freed James from such conclusions.63 While the agenda of reading James in its own right is both admirable and important, there are difficulties with reading the letter as wholly independent of Paul. James both stands in the epistolary tradition

55 56 57 58 59

60 61 62 63

Allison, James, 53. Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James,” JBL 101 (3 1982): 399. Ibid., 392–93. See section 5.3 James as Exegete, 218. The research history of James has been characterised by the comparison between James, chapter 2, and the discussion of faith and works in Paul. Allison, James, 426 notes that “the secondary literature on Jas 2.14–26 seemingly exceeds that dedicated to the rest of James put together”. Richard Bauckham, James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (ed. John Court; New Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 1999), 127–31. Johnson, Letter of James, 114. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Lionel R.M. Strachan; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1908; repr., London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), 228–30. An important contribution was Fred O. Francis, “The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John,” ZNW 61 (1 1970). See section 3.1 The Structure of James, 93.

The Modern Study of James

25

of early Christianity instigated by Paul64 and shares vocabulary and thought with Romans, Galatians and 1 Corinthians.65 Margaret Mitchell has proposed that James be seen a ‘document of Paulinism’66 and draws important parallels with the ‘rhetoric of reconciliation’ in 1 Corinthians.67 The approach taken in this thesis, with regard to the rhetorical purpose of James in relation to Paul, is in part inspired by her work.68 Another current debate concerns the intertextuality of Jesus logia in James, as exegetes have sought to explain tradition shared with the Gospels and to interpret their differences.69 Those connections have been recognised for centuries, but current scholarship has refined the methodology behind the comparison. A major study of the sayings of Jesus in the letter of James is by Dean B. Deppe,70 who lists an astounding “184 parallels that have been suggested by sixty writers on James from 1833 to 1985”.71 Using allusions to the Septuagint for comparison, Deppe proposes a list of eight conscious allusions to synoptic sayings, all of which (save one) belong to Q and all but one to the Sermon on the Mount.72 A more recent attempt to test the hypothesis that James makes use of Jesus sayings is that of Wesley Wachob and L.T. Johnson,73 who through a minimalist approach argue that James contains four attestable Jesus logia,74 supporting the search for further allusions. Finally, John S. Kloppenborg has turned to the rhetorical methods of paraphrasing and emulating texts as described in the Greek educational curriculum.75 Kloppenborg examines recitations or restatements (ἀπαγγελία), as

64 See section 2.1 The Genre of James, 42. 65 For an overview of these correlations and bibliography, see Allison, James, 62–67. 66 Mitchell, “James as a Document of Paulinism,” in Webb and Kloppenborg, Reading James with New Eyes, 79: “The author of the Letter of James knows some collection of Paul’s letters, and writes from within Paulinism (rather than in opposition to Paul), creating a compromise document which has as one of its purposes reconciling ‘Paul with Paul’ and ‘Paul with the pillars’”. 67 Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (HUT 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 296–97. 68 See discussion below, 206–7. 69 For an overview of these correlations and bibliography see Allison, James, 56–62. 70 Deppe, “The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James”; see also Hartin, James and Q. 71 Richard Bauckham, “James and Jesus,” in The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission (ed. Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 116. 72 Deppe’s list is composed of Jas 1.5 / Q 11.9; Jas 2.5 / Q 6.20; Jas 4.2 / Q 11.9; Jas 4.9 / Q 6.21; Jas 4.10 / Q 14.11; Jas 5.1 / Luke 6.24; Jas 5.2–3a / Q 12.33; and Jas 5.12 / Matt 5.33–37. 73 Wesley Hiram Wachob and Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Sayings of Jesus in the Letter of James,” in Authenticating the Words of Jesus (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; NTTS 28; Leiden: Brill, 1999). 74 Jas 1.5 / Q 11.9; Jas 2.5 / Q 6.20b; 4.2c–3 / Q 11.9; Jas 5.12 / Matt 5.34–37. 75 Kloppenborg, “Reception,” in Wall and Niebuhr, Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition.

26

Introduction

described by the progymnasmata of Aelius Theon,76 and emulation (aemulatio) in Quintilian,77 to argue for an intertextual model that can be tested.78 The study of Jesus logia in James is not a central focus of this thesis, but Kloppenborg’s work was the inspiration for studying ancient literary criticism, as Dionysius of Halicarnassus is the best known author to address literary imitation in antiquity.79 The language of James plays a key role in the evaluation of James and exegetes have argued for or against its authenticity based on language. James’ language has been described as not being Hebraic enough to be authentic80 and too Greek to be authentic,81 and while modern proponents of authenticity claim that “[t]he letter’s fairly accomplished Greek is no longer an argument against James’s authorship”82 the problem is very much valid for those that argue for pseudonymity: The Greek of the text is among the most sophisticated of the NT, and though it includes various Aramaisms, Hebraisms, and Semitisms, its complex catchword organization requires a Greek original document. […] E]ven if we can account for the widespread use of Greek in James’ day, the letter was written by a writer for whom Greek was clearly Muttersprache. Further, the letter was produced by a true literary stylist, someone who had quite likely received secondary rhetorical education. Especially when one notes the comparatively simple Greek of Paul’s letters, it seems unlikely that James of Jerusalem could have produced such a document. […] Despite recent arguments to the contrary, it is still the case that the language of the epistle is supporting evidence in favor of pseudonymity.83

This evaluation is based on style and the author’s language competency and depends on a comparison to Paul. An evaluation of the author writing good or bad Greek is inherently subjective, but exegetes have argued for their positions with varying detail. The commentary of Joseph Mayor, which probably has the most detailed philological examination of grammatical, syntactical and stylistic

76 Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 1–72. 77 Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria. 78 Kloppenborg, “Reception,” in Wall and Niebuhr, Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition, 88; Ibid., “Emulation,” in Webb and Kloppenborg, Reading James with New Eyes. 79 See discussion below, 219–21. 80 Desiderius Erasmus, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: Galatians to the Apocalypse. Facsimile of the Final Latin Text with All Earlier Variants (ed. Anne Reeve; SHCT 52; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 744: Erasmus compares James to Paul and concludes that James “doesn’t measure up to [Paul’s] apostolic majesty and gravity”. 81 Wachob, The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James, 28–29. 82 Morales, Poor and Rich in James, 20. 83 Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone, 110–11.

Ancient Literary Criticism

27

features of any commentary since, argues for autography.84 This central role of James’ language in placing it in the context of early Christianity calls for a clarification about what language competency and style fits each context and what tools are used for evaluation. The former concern lies mostly outside the scope of this thesis, but an engagement with contemporary literary criticism can further our understanding of how style was evaluated and imitated in antiquity.

1.2

Ancient Literary Criticism

The present work is interdisciplinary in the sense that it lies at the intersection of New Testament exegesis and classical philology. This author does not have a background in classical studies and while the study is limited in that capacity, it has enjoyed guidance from more than one philologist.85 Exegetes have drawn insights from classics since antiquity and many fields of New Testament interpretation are based on the discipline, such as historical-criticism,86 grammar and lexicography,87 and most recently rhetorical-criticism.88 This last category has engaged extensively with the works of Aristotle, especially On Rhetoric, and with the progymnasmata.89 Ancient literary criticism is a wide subject that encompasses how “[t]hroughout Antiquity, Greeks and Romans interpreted, analysed, and evaluated the texts of poets and prose writers”.90 This wide scope is in this thesis limited primarily to those literary critics after Aristotle, who wrote in Greek in the period preceding or roughly contemporary with the composition of the New Testament writings. This includes engagement with Aristotle, Demetrius,

84 Mayor, The Epistle of James, ccvi–cclxviii. Mayor like many contemporary exegetes was a philologist by training. 85 I am grateful esp. to my co-supervisor George Hinge (Aarhus University) and Nicolas Wiater (St. Andrews University), who read parts of this work. I also acknowledge insightful comments from Sylvie Honigman (Tel Aviv University) and Casper C. de Jonge (Leiden University). 86 Early examples include Johann August Ernesti (1707–1781) and Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827). William Baird, From Deism to Tu¨bingen (vol. 1 of History of New Testament Research; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1992), 108–9, 149. For late 19th to early 20th century see William Baird, From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann (vol. 2 of History of New Testament Research; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2003), 396–470. 87 Ibid., 412–17. 88 George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism (SR; Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984). 89 For recent discussion, see Troy W. Martin, ed., Genealogies of New Testament Rhetorical Criticism (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2015) and Carl Joachim Classen, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament (WUNT 128; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 90 Casper C. de Jonge, “Ancient Literary Criticism,” OBO. Online: doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.10 93/obo/9780195389661-0179.

28

Introduction

Libanius, Longinus and Philodemus and primary attention to the Critical Essays of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Aristotle requires no introduction, but his reception in Antiquity is a persistent problem91 if we assume that his works influenced early Christian authors. The evidence suggests a decline of Aristotelian philosophy in the Hellenistic period,92 with some exceptions such as indirect influence on Epicurean93 and Stoic circles,94 and a resurgence of Aristotelianism in the first century BCE.95 Aristotle’s On Poetics96 is arguably the most important work of literacy criticism from antiquity and as D. A. Russel describes, it is “the fountain-head of most later criticism”.97 While many of the themes discussed in this work correspond to our discussion of James, such as poetics98 and imitation,99 the work was hardly known in antiquity and only achieved its seminal status in the Renaissance.100 The same is not true for On Rhetoric, as Epicurus (according to Philodemus) likely criticised the work101 and Stoics “borrowed Aristotle’s description (Rhetoric 91 The problem of Aristotle’s paucity and lack of influence on Hellenistic philosophy was argued by F. H. Sandbach, Aristotle and the Stoics (PCPSSup 10; Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1985). Andrea Falcon, introduction to Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity (ed. ibid; BCCR 7; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 7: “Sandbach famously used the relative paucity of explicit references to Aristotle to challenge the thesis of an Aristotelian influence on Stoic philosophy and, more generally, on Hellenistic philosophy. His conclusion was largely negative: Aristotle’s influence on Stoic philosophy was probably not significant, and we should not approach the extant evidence on the assumption that the early Stoics knew and responded to Aristotle. Both the method Sandbach adopted and the thesis he defended have been challenged”. For criticism see David E. Hahm, “Aristotle and the Stoics: A Methodological Crux,” Arch. Gesch. Philos. 73 (3 1991): 297–311. 92 David Lefebvre, “Aristotle and the Hellenistic Peripatos: From Theophrastus to Critolaus,” in Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity (ed. Andrea Falcon; BCCR 7; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 13. 93 Francesco Verde, “Aristotle and the Garden,” in Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity (ed. Andrea Falcon; BCCR 7; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 35–36. 94 Thomas Bénatouïl, “Aristotle and the Stoa,” in Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity (ed. Andrea Falcon; BCCR 7; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 56. 95 Andrea Falcon, “Aristotelianism in the First Century BC,” in Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity (ed. Andrea Falcon; BCCR 7; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 101–2. 96 Aristotle. Poetics in vol. 23 of Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Stephen Halliwell. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995). 97 D. A. Russel, “Literary Criticism in Antiquity,” OCD Online: DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/ 9780199381135.013.3730. 98 See section 4.2 James and Poetic Prose, 120. 99 See section 5.3 James as Exegete, 218. 100 Russell, “Literary Criticism in Antiquity”. 101 Verde, “Aristotle and the Garden,” in Falcon, Companion to the Reception of Aristotle, 49: “if there is one text where the Epicurean polemic against Aristotle is clear and direct, this is the well-known passage from (what is likely) Book 8 of Philodemus’ Rhetoric (PHerc. 832/1015 […]). By drawing upon what is probably a passage from Epicurus’ work On the Kinds of Life (10.4 Arrighetti), the text preserves a critique by Epicurus of Aristotle on rhetoric and its teaching.” PHerc. 832/1015 is available online at http://litpap.info/dclp/62429.

Ancient Literary Criticism

29

1.1, 1354a1) of dialectic and rhetoric as ‘counterparts’ of one another”.102 Its influence on Cicero’s (Or. Brut. 32 [114–5]) and Quintilian’s (Inst. 3.14–15) discussions of rhetoric is made explicit by them. Recent decades have seen advances in the study of ancient epistolography, which have deepened our understanding of the genre in early Christianity.103 The discussion of genre in the following chapter104 relies in part on Abraham Malherbe’s edition of Ancient Epistolary Theorists,105 which collects discussions of letter types and compositional purpose from antiquity. Among them are two treatises that list different types of letters, one falsely attributed to Demetrius and the other to Libanius. Malherbe dates the Tύποι ἐπιστολικοί,106 listing 21 types of letters based on social function, between 2nd century BCE and 3rd century CE.107 The attribution is a reference to Demetrius of Phaleron, a contemporary of Theophrastus,108 to whom is also attributed the treatise On Style that discusses letter writing as well.109 Neither ascription is accurate, but traditionally the former is designated as Pseudo-Demetrius and the latter only as Demetrius. The origin of this list is unknown, other than it is likely Egyptian110 and may have developed in stages.111 The later list, Ἐπιστολιμαῖοι χαρακτῆρες, is ascribed to Libanius112 who was a prolific letter-writer and teacher of rhetoric in the 4th century CE.113 It is dated somewhere in the following two centuries (4th–6th CE) and seems to be an elaboration of the Tύποι ἐπιστολικοί.114

102 Bénatouïl, “Aristotle and the Stoa,” in Falcon, Companion to the Reception of Aristotle, 65. See Sopater, On Hermogenes’ On Stasis. 103 For a bibliography of recent studies see Runar M. Thorsteinsson, “Epistolography (Ancient letters),” OBO Online: DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195393361-0137. 104 See section 2.1 The Genre of James, 42. 105 Abraham J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists (SBLSBS 19; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars’ Press, 1988). 106 Pseudo-Demetrius, Formae epistolicae. 107 Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 31. 108 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Din. 2 8–11 (Usher, LCL): “Dinarchus […] came to Athens at the time when the philosophical schools were in their heyday, and attended the classes of Theophrastus and Demetrius of Phalerum. 109 Demetrius, Eloc. 223–235. 110 Pseudo-Demetrius, Formae epistolicae 18 5–6: “at the time that they say I did this, I had already sailed for Alexandria”. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 41. 111 Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (trans. Daniel P. Bailey; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 195: “[I]t may have reached its final form […] in the third century CE […], [h]owever some of the materials included in this work show signs of great antiquity, and the preliminary phases of its current version may reach as far back as the second century BCE”. 112 Pseudo-Libanius, Characteres epistolici. 113 Raffaella Cribiore, The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007). 114 Klauck, Ancient Letters and the NT, 193.

30

Introduction

Style and composition are the subjects of Demetrius’ Περὶ ἑρμηνείας or On Style115 and Longinus’ Περὶ ὕψους or On the Sublime,116 yet they stand in many ways as two ends of a spectrum. This disparity is described by Stephen Usher in his introduction to the third treatise, Dionysius’ On Literary Composition, which stands somewhere in the middle of two extremes: By a happy chance, the three most important extant post-Aristotelian treatises on literary technique and criticism are more or less complementary to one another. In the greatest of them, the treatise On the Sublime, an unidentifiable critic of rare perception describes the characteristics of inspired writing. […] Although the critic describes various features which may be present in a sublime passage, the reader is left with the overwhelming impression that such writing is possible only for someone of high intelligence writing with genuine conviction on a subject of vital interest to his sensitive reader. […] There are admittedly several injunctions to would-be orators, but the treatise must have seemed discouraging to all but the gifted, or the most pretentious of these. To the student of literature without creative ambitions, however, it is a unique gallery-cum-guide of the high-points of classical verse and prose.

At the other end of the critical spectrum is the treatise On Style (Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας) by Demetrius. It is firmly embedded in the sophistic tradition of the early practical handbooks of rhetoric, and discusses individually the devices of the four “characters” of style, “grand polished plain” and “forceful”. […] [E]xamples from the great classical writers are used […] to illustrate rules and principles, which are spelled out in practical and physical terms – specific rhythms, periods of defined length, figures of speech, metaphors, and other devices which, if accorded proper study and application, can be imitated with complete success. Dionysius’ treatise On Literary Composition lies somewhere between these two extremes in spirit and purpose.117

Both of these treatises are difficult to date, but the consensus is that On Style is older, dated somewhere from the 3rd century BCE to 1st CE.118 On the Sublime is dated in the 1st to 3rd centuries CE but stands in a tradition of reflections on the 115 Demetrius, On Style, in vol. 23 of Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Doreen C. Innes. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995). 116 Longinus, On the Sublime, in vol. 23 of Loeb Classical Library. Translated by W.H. Fyfe and Donald Russel. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995). 117 Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone, 110–11. 118 Doreen C. Innes, introduction to De elocutione, by Demetrius (LCL), 313: “For much of this century (20th) scholars favoured a date in the first century A.D. (especially Roberts and Radermacher), but more recently scholars have argued for an earlier date; so ca. 270 B.C. (Grube), second century B.C. (Morpurgo Tagliabue), late second or early first century B.C. (Chiron), and a reworking in the first century A.D. of contents reflecting the second or early first century B.C. (Schenkeveld). I (Innes) would agree with this growing consensus that the contents at least do not preclude and may best reflect the second century B.C.”

Ancient Literary Criticism

31

sublime in Antiquity.119 Both of these works are important for our study of James, On Style to complement our information of stylistic categories120 and On the Sublime to understand how literary imitation was appreciated.121 Of the writings discussed so far, Longinus is the only author who shows direct contact with Jewish tradition as a well-known section cites Genesis 1.9–10 focusing on the literary sublimity of Moses.122

1.2.1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Dionysius of Halicarnassus is the central discussion partner in this thesis and that decision is in large measure inspired by two monographs on his Critical Essays.123 The former is Nicolas Wiater’s examination of the Ideology of Classicism124 and the latter Casper C. de Jonge’s study of language and literature in Dionysius, entitled Between Grammar and Rhetoric.125 Dionysius emerges as an interpretative key to reading James for a number of reasons, the most important of which is his extensive discussion of literary imitation. Ancient Greek literature abounds with quotations from and references to authoritative writings, but explicit discussions of methodology and ideology are rarer. Using Dionysius as an interpretative optic for the New Testament is limited by the cultural differences between Dionysius’ literary circle and early Christian authors, but while the frame of reference and ideology differ – there is much we can learn from Dionysius’ writings. Wiater’s book explores the classicist ideology that pervades his works and the engagement with Roman imperial culture that it entails. To Wiater a ‘linguistic approach’ is insufficient if it does not address the socio-cultural context126 and his central question is “why Dionysius and his readers are such 119 James I. Porter, The Sublime in Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), xvii. 120 See sections 4.3.4 Vividness, 156; 4.3.6 Qualities of Composition, 186. 121 See section 5.3 James as Exegete, 218. 122 Longinus, Subl. 9.10 (Fyfe and Russel, LCL): “So, too, the lawgiver of the Jews, no ordinary man, having formed a worthy conception of divine power and given expression to it, writes at the very beginning of his Laws: ‘God said’ – what? ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light, ‘Let there be earth,’ and there was earth.” See discussion in Porter, The Sublime in Antiquity, 107– 16. 123 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Critical Essays in vol. 465–466 of Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Stephen Usher. (2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974– 1975). 124 Nicolas Wiater, The Ideology of Classicism: Language, History, and Identity in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (UaLG 105; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011). 125 Casper C. de Jonge, Between Grammar and Rhetoric: Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature (MnemosyneSup 301; Leiden: Brill, 2008). 126 Wiater, Ideology of Classicism, 2–3.

32

Introduction

ardent supporters of classical Greek literature”.127 The answer lies both in the worldview that Dionysius shares with his “community of elite critics”128 and his engagement with Augustan culture, separating129 (or building bridges between)130 Greeks and Romans. Oda Wischmeyer has asked whether James can be “characterized as Scriptural Classicism,”131 at least metaphorically in line with Wiater’s definition that “moves beyond matters of style and touches the issue of cultural identity”.132 Wischmeyer’s conclusion is positive in the sense that it “leads our interpretation beyond mere listing of parallels and intertextuality and […] opens up new ways of understanding texts […] as pieces of literature for building the religious and moral world of educated Greek speaking members of the new communities of Christ confessing persons”.133 Dionysius has received less attention than other ancient historiographers and only recently have his works been examined in their own right.134 A previous generation of classicists saw his historiography as inferior to his contemporaries: “Wilamowitz135 nannte ihn einen ‘armen Gesellen’, E. Schwartz136 eine ‘kleine Seele’, E. Norden137 gar einen ‘blöden Stubengelehrten’”.138 Emilio Gabba gives an 127 Casper C. de Jonge, review of Nicolas Wiater, The Ideology of Classicism: Language, History, and Identity in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, BMCR 06 (2012). 128 Wiater, Ideology of Classicism, 348. 129 Ibid, 117–19. 130 De Jonge, review of Wiater. 131 Oda Wischmeyer, “Scriptural Classicism: The Letter of James as an Early Christian Literary Document Between Classicistic Emulation and Invention,” in Who Was James? Edited by Eve-Marie Becker, Susanne Luther, and Sigurvin Lárus Jónsson. (WUNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021). 132 Ibid, 12. 133 Ibid, 30. 134 See Emilio Gabba, Dionysius and The History of Archaic Rome (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1991). There are numerous recent articles on the subject, e. g. collected in Richard Hunter and Casper C. de Jonge, eds., Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Augustan Rome: Rhetoric, Criticism and Historiography (GCRW; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018); and James Ker and Christoph Pieper, eds., Valuing the Past in the Greco-Roman World: Proceedings from the Penn-Leiden Colloquia on Ancient Values VII (MnemosyneSup 369; Leiden: Brill, 2014). Dionysius is also valuable as a critic of historiography, treated e. g. in W. Kendrick Pritchett, Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Thucydides: English Translation with Commentary (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1975). For bibliography see Eric M. Orlin, “Greco-Roman Historiography,” OBO Online: doi: 10.1093/obo/ 9780195393361-0254; and Christopher A. Baron, “Greek Historiography,” OBO Online: doi: 10.1093/obo/9780195389661-0078. 135 U. v. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Asianismus und Atticismus,” Hermes 35 (1 1900): 51. 136 Eduard Schwartz, “Dionysios von Halikarnassos,” PW 5 (1905): 934. 137 Eduard Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1898), 1:266. 138 Thomas Hidber, Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass: Die Praefatio zu De oratoribus veteribus: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (BzA 70; Leipzig; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1996), ‘Vorwort’.

Ancient Literary Criticism

33

overview of these negative assessments,139 among them attitudes about the purpose and value of his historiography, and argues that while modern study has not sought to elevate Dionysius above his peers – he does seem “more faithful to his sources than, for example, Livy”.140 The same is true for his works of literary criticism, which past scholarship mined for fragments of lost writings (Quellenforschung) but failed to give Dionysius credit for his own merits.141 De Jonge’s work is fundamental to our reading of James, as he analyses Dionysius’ linguistic, stylistic and pedagogical elements that we apply to the letter. This includes verbal aesthetics, such as onomatopoeia, alliteration etc.,142 the question of how prose and poetry differ stylistically,143 and methods of rewriting texts for pedagogical purposes.144 The strength of applying Dionysius’ criteria is his consistent emphasis on the practical aspects of using language to persuade an audience: “Dionysius’ language experiments are in no way theoretical exercises. They have a very practical aim, namely to teach the reader how to write in a correct and convincing style”.145 This application does not presuppose that our author is familiar with Dionysius’ categories, but proposes that Dionysius explicitly describes elements of persuasion that are implicitly found in a multitude of Greek writings that seek to persuade, including the letter of James. A number of exegetes have engaged with Dionysius’ Roman Antiquities146 in the context of historiography in early Christianity.147 Dionysius’ historiography is an important background for studying the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus, and while the exact relationship between them is a matter of scholarly debate,148 Thackeray succinctly stated the issue in 1930: 139 140 141 142 143 144 145

Gabba, Dionysius and History, 5–9. Ibid., 10. De Jonge, Between Grammar and Rhetoric, 12. Ibid., chapter 2. See section 4.3.4 Vividness, 156. Ibid., chapter 6. See section 4.2 James and Poetic Prose, 120. Ibid., chapter 7. See section 5.3 James as Exegete, 218. Casper C. de Jonge, “Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Method of Metathesis,” CQ 55 (2 2005): 480. 146 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities in vol. 319; 347; 357; 364; 372; 378; 388 of Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Earnest Cary and Edward Spelman. (7 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1937–1950). 147 See e. g. Eve-Marie Becker, The Birth of Christian History: Memory and Time from Mark to Luke-Acts (AYBRL; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2017); David L. Balch, Contested Ethnicities and Images: Studies in Acts and Arts (WUNT 345; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). 148 “In the time since Thackeray’s work, essentially three distinct positions on the relationship between the two authors have emerged: (1) many have maintained that Josephus used Roman Antiquities as a model for his own work; (2) a few have developed the claim that Josephus viewed Roman Antiquities as a foil and intended to demonstrate the superiority of the Jewish tradition relative to that of Rome; (3) others have argued that the case for a direct relationship between the two works is overstated or inconclusive”. J. Andrew Cowan, “A Tale

34

Introduction

Besides the Greek Bible, which Josephus names as in part a precursor of his own work, there was another unacknowledged model, which would have found still less favour in Palestinian circles. In the year 7 b.c. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, like Josephus a migrant from the east to the western capital, had produced in Greek his great Roman history, comprised in twenty books and entitled Ῥωμαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία (Roman Antiquities). Exactly a century later Josephus produced his magnum opus, also in twenty books and entitled Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία (Jewish Antiquities). There can be no doubt that this second work was designed as a counterpart to the first. If, in his Jewish War, the author had counselled submission to the conqueror, he would now show that his race had a history comparable, nay in antiquity far superior, to that of Rome. Dionysius had devoted the larger part of his Archaeology to the earlier and mythical history of the Roman race: Josephus, on the basis of the Hebrew Scriptures, which were ‘pure of that unseemly mythology current among others,’ would carry his history right back to the creation. The influence of the older work may also be traced in a few details …149

Thackeray’s position needs refining150 but their relationship points to Dionysius’ reception in Jewish circles in the latter half of the 1st century CE. While the focus of this thesis is near exclusively on Dionysius’ essays, it should be noted that they are inseparable and complimentary bodies of work.151 The application of insights from his Critical Essays is outlined in the chapter descriptions below,152 but their context is also an important background to our study. Dionysius was Halicarnassian, like his predecessor Herodotus, and moved to Rome in 30 BCE,153 where he became an influential teacher of rhetoric.154 We

149 150 151

152 153

154

of Two Antiquities: A Fresh Evaluation of the Relationship between the Ancient Histories of T. Flavius Josephus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” JSJ 49 (1 2018): 3, see notes 5, 6 and 7 for bibliography on the different positions respectively. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities I–III in vol. 242 of Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1930–69), viii–ix. Louis H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (HCS 27; Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1998), 7–8. Gabba, Dionysius and History, 4: “Dionysius’s literary activity and his teaching in Rome must be seen as a unified whole. Not only is The History of Archaic Rome contemporary with the treatises on literary criticism, but in fact the two projects are inseparable aspects of the same approach and comprise a single cultural undertaking. This oft-repeated statement is true, for his writing of history reflects and in effect carries through the critical and theoretical principles elaborated in his rhetorical pamphlets”. See section 1.3 The Letter of James and Ancient Literary Criticism, 38. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 1.7.2: “I arrived in Italy at the very time that Augustus Caesar put an end to the civil war, in the middle of the one hundred and eighty-seventh Olympiad, and having from that time to this present day, a period of twenty-two years, lived at Rome, learned the language of the Romans and acquainted myself with their writings, I have devoted myself during all that time to matters bearing upon my subject”. De Jonge, Between Grammar and Rhetoric, 1–3.

Ancient Literary Criticism

35

neither know the exact year of his birth nor his death, but most scholars assume that he was born in 60 BCE or shortly thereafter.155 The first book of his 20 volume Antiquities was published in 8/7 BCE and we can assume that he stayed in Rome for some years after that to write and publish the remaining volumes: I arrived in Italy at the very time that Augustus Caesar put an end to the civil war, in the middle of the one hundred and eighty-seventh Olympiad [30 BCE], and having from that time to this present day, a period of twenty-two years, lived at Rome, learned the language of the Romans and acquainted myself with their writings, I have devoted myself during all that time to matters bearing upon my subject.156

His timing, “at the very time that Augustus Caesar put an end to the civil war”157 is important, because “Halicarnassus, situated as it was, did not escape these disturbances unscathed”.158 This places Dionysius at the heart of the imperium from its inception and Wiater stresses the importance of this with regard to what has been termed a “discursive turn [in classics where w]e have given up the idea of a uniform image of society and culture in Augustan Rome”.159 This is replaced with a model that looks at Augustan culture “less in terms of a relationship between society and power (auctoritas) than a flexible construct that applies to authors and their works regardless of whether they were Greek or Roman; wrote poetry, scholarly literature, or historiography; were acquainted with the princeps or not; or even lived in Rome or abroad”.160 In Classics, this means a re-evaluation of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and his classicism161 within a broader cultural movement that engages with and appropriates morality162 and language163 from Greek culture. In the context of early Christianity and Jewish studies, this development is promising as it allows for renewed collaboration with classical

155 156 157 158

159 160 161

162 163

Ibid, 1 n. 1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 1.7.2 3–9 (Cary, LCL). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 1.7.2 3–4 (Cary, LCL). Gabba, Dionysius and History, 2, see bibliography note 3. For a recent appraisal of the war see Richard W. Westall, Caesar’s Civil War: Historical Reality and Fabrication (MnemosyneSup 410; Leiden: Brill, 2018). For studies on Halicarnassus see e. g. the series Halicarnassian Studies by Syddansk Universitetsforlag (6 vol. 1994–2016). Wiater, Ideology of Classicism, 8 citing Alessandro Barchiesi, The Poet and the Prince: Ovid and Augustan Discourse (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1997), 8. Wiater, Ideology of Classicism, 16–17. Ibid., 15: “[A]lthough we can trace classicizing tendencies in Greek literature at least as far back as the third century BCE, it is only with Dionysius, as far as we can judge, that classicism turned into a Weltanschauung, a world view, and classical Greek language became a model of identity of Greek intellectuals under Roman rule”. Anthony J. S. Spawforth, Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution (GCRW; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). As seen e. g. with the Second Sophistic. Daniel S. Richter and William A. Johnson, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Second Sophistic (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2017).

36

Introduction

studies, where exegetes not only borrow insights from classics but also contribute towards an understanding of the Hellenistic and imperial periods. Scholarship on Dionysius of Halicarnassus has been strikingly divided between genres, according to de Jonge and Hunter, and while most scholars acknowledge that “Dionysius’ rhetoric and historiography are really inseparable, it is still largely true that one group of scholars works on the Roman Antiquities and another group on the rhetorical-critical works”.164 This inseparability of genres is e. g. seen in three related factors: First, his critical essays contain numerous references to the practice of writing historiography165 and similarly there are sections in his Antiquities that shed a light on his analysis of Herodotus and Thucydides.166 Second and most important for our purposes, is the principle of imitation (μίμησις), which in his historiography takes on both moral and political dimensions167 and is in the rhetorical works a guiding principle with both literary and ethical implications:168 Rome from the very beginning, immediately after its founding, produced infinite examples of virtue in men whose superiors, whether for piety or for justice or for life-long self-control or for warlike valour, no city, either Greek or barbarian, has ever produced.169

The third and final factor is what Hunter and de Jonge call the “juxtaposing [of] lifestyle and writing style” where both genres are connected by the ideal of “moral education and civilization, closely connected with Isocratean παιδεία”.170 The exegetical application of this interconnection between ethos and language is to connect sections where ethical imitation is explicitly related to individuals171 and

164 Hunter and de Jonge, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Augustan Rome, 2. 165 Ibid, 3: “Three of his essays are obviously of essential importance here: The Letter to Pompeius, which contains an extensive comparison of Herodotus and Thucydides; the treatise On Thucydides, a critical discussion of the content and style of Thucydides’ Histories; and the Second Letter to Ammaeus, an analysis of Thucydides’ often obscure language.” 166 See e. g. Nicolas Wiater, “Experiencing the Past: Language, Time and Historical Consciousness in Dionysian Criticism,” and Daniel Hogg, “How Roman Are the Antiquities? The Decemvirate according to Dionysius,” in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Augustan Rome: Rhetoric, Criticism and Historiography (ed. Richard Hunter and Casper C. de Jonge; GCRW; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018). 167 For the politics of imitation in Greek imperial literature see Tim Whitmarsh, Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). 168 Hunter and de Jonge, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Augustan Rome, 4. 169 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 1.5.3 (Cary, LCL). 170 Hunter and de Jonge, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Augustan Rome, 5. See Hidber, Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass, 44–57. 171 Such as in 1 Cor 4.16; 11.1; Phil 3.17.

Ancient Literary Criticism

37

where the implication is implicit through signalling language competency and education. Early Christianity is a literary culture and the production of texts, canonical and deutero-canonical, Greek and in neighbouring tongues, calls for a model for understanding literary production.172 These models can be fleshed out implicitly from close reading of the texts, but Dionysius provides us with an explicit model of literary imitation where Greek literary culture guides his students to become successful authors and orators: [W]e can only understand Dionysius’ works when we pay due attention to his practical (rhetorical) aims. Although Dionysius […] blurs the borders between prose and poetry, and even those between music and oratory, we should not ignore the fact that Dionysius is primarily focusing on those readers who wish to become successful orators.173

Dionysius addresses a community of literati that refer to a commonly shared corpus of authorial texts and this socio-rhetorical phenomenon defines in-group and out-group based on education and social status. Such expertise imply both education and high social standing and the practical aim for this social elite was in the end political and public: “For a future member of the social elite in Dionysius’ day an essay On Literary Composition is much more useful than [e. g.] a wedding garment”.174 This aspect of education-based authority is the strongest connection between the writings of Dionysius and the letter of James and we will argue that James signals his education and literacy to rebuke the rich in his community that share this social marker.175 No direct connection between these authors is proposed, as their social backgrounds, implied audiences and rhetorical purposes are substantially different. Wiater makes a distinction between “literary authority”, which involves e. g. the author’s (explicit) self-presentation,

172 Margaret M. Mitchell, “The Emergence of the Written Record,” in Origins to Constantine (ed. Frances M. Young and Margaret M. Mitchell; vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Christianity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 178: “early Christianity […] was a religious movement with texts at its very heart and soul, in its background and foreground. Its communities were characterised by a pervading, even obsessive preoccupation with and habitus for sacred literature. In the pre-Constantinian period, Christians succeeded in composing, collecting, distributing, interpreting and intimately incorporating a body of texts they found evocative enough to wish to live inside of. But how did a movement whose founder’s only recorded act of writing was a short-lived and unread finger etching on wind-swept soil, within a century create, and in turn depend for its life upon, a vibrant literary culture?” 173 De Jonge, Between Grammar and Rhetoric, 42. 174 Wiater, Ideology of Classicism, 276. 175 See section 6.2 Wealth, Violence and the Rhetoric of James, 274.

38

Introduction

and “literary effect” that is subtler and lies partly in the reading experience.176 The working hypothesis of this thesis is that Dionysius explicitly describes literary and rhetorical phenomena that we implicitly find in Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity. The largest section of the Critical Essays is a collection of treatises On the Ancient Orators that begins with his classicist manifesto.177 Then follow discussions On Lysias, On Isocrates, On Isaeus, On Demosthenes, On Thucydides and finally On Dinarchus. In addition to these rhetorical treatises, Dionysius wrote a treatise On Literary Composition, a “synthesis of ancient language disciplines”178 and prose composition. His work On Imitation (Περὶ μιμήσεως), that discussed in three tomes authors suitable for imitation, and the proper manner of imitation179 is regrettably only preserved in fragments. Our sources for its content come to us collected in an epitome,180 probably from the 3rd century, and through references in his other works.181 Finally, Dionysius wrote three preserved literary letters, two addressed to Ammaeus and one to Gnaeus Pompeius.

1.3

The Letter of James and Ancient Literary Criticism

The following chapters will explore the letter of James from the standpoint of ancient literary criticism and as will become clear, Dionysius’ Critical Essays contribute to our understanding in multiple ways. In chapter 2, we will discuss the formal features of the letter, the genre, superscription, adscription and salutation from the perspective of ancient epistolary theory to argue that James is a paraenetic letter,182 written as a speech-in–character.183 Dionysius of Halicarnassus is an early attestation of the nomenclature of speech-in–character and he emphasises the inseparability of language and ethos in antiquity. He represents the earliest preserved use of the concepts ἠθοποιέω and ἡ ἠθοποιία as well as 176 Nicolas Wiater, “Expertise, ‘Character’ and the ‘Authority Effect’ in the Early Roman History of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” in Authority and Expertise in Ancient Scientific Culture (ed. Jason König and Greg Woolf; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 258. 177 Hidber, Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass. 178 De Jonge, Between Grammar and Rhetoric, 179 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pomp. 3.1–19. 180 Greek text published by Hermann Usener, ed., Dionysii Halicarnassensis librorvm de imitatione reliqviae epistolaeqve criticae dvae (Bonn: M. Cohen, 1889); see also Germaine Aujac, L’imitation: (fragments, épitomé) (vol. 5 of Opuscules rhétoriques; Collection des Universités de France; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1992), 26–40. 181 Gavin Weaire, “The Relationship between Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ ‘De imitatione’ and ‘Epistula ad Pompeium’,” CP 97 (4 2002); Malcolm Heath, “Dionysius of Halicarnassus ‘on Imitation’,” Hermes 117 (3 1989). 182 See section 2.1 The Genre of James, 42. 183 See section 2.4 The Letter of James as Ethopoeia, 96.

The Letter of James and Ancient Literary Criticism

39

προσωποποιέω and ἡ προσωποποιία. These phenomena of speech-in–character are described by e. g. Aristotle and the progymnasmata and applied to historiography, novels and pseudepigraphic letters in Greek and Roman literature. The most important point made in this chapter is that ethos and authority are always dependent on language. If the building of ethos does not fit the language of the speech-in–character, it fails184 and if ethos cannot be built up in other ways, then language becomes the primary medium for establishing ethos.185 The structure of James has been the subject of intense debate, yet there is growing consensus that the opening chapter holds the key to understanding the argumentation of the letter. In chapter 3, we focus on the letter’s carefully constructed introduction, which states (Jas 1.2–11), restates (Jas 1.12–25) and summarises (Jas 1.26–27) the ethical teachings that are further developed in the letter body. We then examine the repetitive texture of the language, looking specifically at vocabulary and style. Through a close reading of James chapter 1, we will investigate the letter’s extensive vocabulary, which is in part dependent on the Septuagint and in part attested in a variety of Greek sources, such as Homeric scholia and astronomical treatises. James varies his word-selection to relieve monotony,186 famously coins neologisms that add to his repertoire and displays his competency via pleonastic repetition, alliteration, assonance and rhyme. These poetic elements, in addition to metrical constructions – such as a dactylic hexameter in Jas 1.17187 – are according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus an important tool of persuasion when used in moderation.188 In chapter 4, we compare our reading of James in chapter 3 to the context of Greco-Roman literary culture. First, we investigate the language of James in the framework of classical tendencies in Jewish literature, where Dionysius of Halicarnassus is an extreme example of emphasising Atticism as an ideal.189 Then the above mentioned poetic elements are read in the context of poetic prose, where Dionysius’ treatise On Composition is an important acknowledgement of the role of the poetic in writing persuasively. Finally, we explore Dionysius’ summary of the virtues of style190 (ἀρεταὶ λέξεως), where he stands in a tradition of stylistic virtues that originate with Aristotle and Theophrastus and are received in different ways by ancient literary critics.191 Special attention is given to the categories 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 36–41. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lys. 19. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp. 12.59–61. See discussion below, 124–34. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp. 25.9. See section 4.2 James and Poetic Prose, 120. See 4.1 Classical Tendencies in James, 115. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pomp. 3. TH.SCH., “Virtutes dicendi,” BNP Online: doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e 12205680.

40

Introduction

of conciseness and clarity,192 vividness,193 and the role of ethos and pathos in the letter of James.194 What emerges from our study is that the qualities of composition that the literary critics discuss are the same literary devices we find in the letter of James.195 Having explored the language and style of James, we turn in chapter 5 to the explicit markers of authority in the letter. First, we investigate the connection between education and authority in antiquity, with the hypothesis that the letter signals authority via the author’s use of language and style.196 While we cannot determine exactly the author’s level of education or its content, we will argue that the author of James signals his education to establish authority in a way comparable to Paul. Secondly, we will examine the role of teachers in ancient writings, as James includes himself explicitly in the category of διδάσκαλος – a position of respect and responsibility in his community.197 Finally, we explore the portrait of James as exegete that emerges from a study of his engagement with and presentation of scripture. James argues from scripture and when we compare his use of scripture to the discussion of literary imitation in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Longinus, he fulfils the categories of successful literary mimesis.198 The final chapter asks to whom is the letter of James addressed and why does has such an authoritative tone? One answer lies in the privileged status of education in antiquity and the connection between wealth and literary authority. The letter of James explicitly gives the ‘poor’ pre-eminence in the community (Jas 2.5) and gives stark warnings to the rich concerning their wealth. The problem of the wealthy, according to our author, is that they are shown favouritism at the expense of the marginal (Jas 2.1–7) and they dishonour the poor (Jas 2.6), with their injustice and violent behaviour (Jas 2.6; 4.2–3; 5.4–6). By establishing himself as an educated figure of authority, the author of James can rebuke the rich from a position of authority, while maintaining distance from their injustice. Our discussion is twofold. First, we investigate the topic of wealth in the letter of James in its literary context, comparing it to Greco-Roman educational documents, philosophical criticism of wealth and Jewish writings.199 Next, we explore wealth and violence in the letter, to argue that socio-economic disparity and violence were major catalysts for writing the letter. Our knowledge of the letter’s historical

192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199

See section 4.3.3. Lucidity and Clarity, 139. See section 4.3.4 Vividness, 156. See section 4.3.5 Imitation of Traits of Character and Emotion, 164. See section 4.3.6 Qualities of Composition, 186. See section 5.1 Education and Authority, 193. See section 5.2 James as Teacher, 210. See section 5.3 James as Exegete, 218. See section 6.1 The Topic of Wealth, 260.

The Letter of James and Ancient Literary Criticism

41

situation is limited by its lack of historical specificity, but that does not inhibit us from taking seriously the socio-rhetorical concerns of the author.200 In conclusion, the following thesis contributes to our knowledge of James in a number of ways. First, a comparison between Jewish literary culture and ancient literary criticism shows that the categories at play are the same – although the context and audience differ. Second, the insight that language and ethos are inseparable categories in antiquity provides us with renewed ways to explore and interpret the literary production of early Christianity. While James relies almost exclusively on language to build ethos and authority, the same applies to authors such and Paul and the author of Luke-Acts who build authority in explicit ways, yet rely on language as well to establish literary authority.201 Third, the comparison between Dionysius of Halicarnassus and early Christianity is apt because both present a competing epic in the context of the early imperium. Dionysius with the supremacy of Greek culture as a foundation for Rome and James with an Israelite epic that is superior to contemporary economic and moral categories. Finally, James emerges as a letter that builds educational ethos as a balance against the rich and powerful – a rhetorical strategy that calls for a revision of his rhetoric and socio-economic situation. Such a strategy indicates both a certain level of education for the author and considerable wealth in the community he addresses.

200 See section 6.2 Wealth, Violence and the Rhetoric of James, 274. 201 This includes e. g. poetic elements in Paul’s letters and Luke’s preface.

2.

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

Πλεῖστον δὲ ἐχέτω τὸ ἠθικὸν ἡ ἐπιστολή, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ διάλογος· σχεδὸν γὰρ ει᾿κόνα ἕκαστος τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῆς γράφει τὴν ἐπιστολήν.202

In the following chapter, we discuss the genre of James from the standpoint of ancient epistolary theory, focusing on genre as a social category. First, we will interpret the opening verse (Jas 1.1) with the implied author and implied audience in mind, arguing that both are metaphorical. The implied author is described plainly as ‘James’ and while the author presupposes that this requires no clarification, it can be read against a number of backgrounds – from the biblical patriarch to the brother of Jesus. The same is true for the address to ‘the twelve tribes in the dispersion’, which can be seen as a Jewish address, a Christian metaphor, or a category that describes Jews and non-Jews as equally dispersed members of the community. Secondly, we will argue that the letter of James is a speech-in–character (ethopoeia), the purpose of which is to build ethos and authority for the author. Dionysius of Halicarnassus provides us with important information regarding both genre and speech-in–character, with the latter transcending genre boundaries to include even authentic speeches.

2.1

The Genre of James

Defining the genre of James has been a major interpretative crux for understanding the document in modern biblical scholarship.203 The most influential definition by far has been Dibelius’ classification of James as paraenesis and its descriptive force remains a starting point for most scholarly discussion.204 Genre definitions are a helpful hermeneutical tool to identify patterns of composition 202 Demetrius, Eloc. 227 (Innes, LCL): “Like the dialogue, the letter should be strong in characterisation. Everyone writes a letter in the virtual image of his own soul”. 203 See Allison, James, 71–76. 204 Dibelius, James.

The Genre of James

43

and thematic elements in texts and the recognition and employment of genre was a part of the process of literate education in Antiquity.205 Dionysius of Halicarnassus compares two examples of historiography in his Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius, compositions that are very different, yet are held to the same standards as relevant to their genre.206 Similarly Dionysius defends his reading of Plato on the basis of genre, admitting that for eulogy (ἔπαινος / ἐγκώμιον) it is the duty (νομίζω) of an author to only praise his subject, but since his writing (On Demosthenes) belongs to the genre of comparative examination (σύγκρισις) he therefore has not “transgressed the laws which we have established (ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐπαίνοις νόμους) for eulogies”.207 Although genres were in some way fixed in purpose and form in antiquity, they were also fluid as Harold Attridge has shown with his concept of genre bending208 (or genre Mosaic)209 in the Gospel of John. Contemporary genre studies focus primarily on social functions, in contrast to the more formalist taxonomy of the rhetorical criticism of the 1970’s and early 80’s,210 and acknowledge that all social action is based on generic patterns of habit.211 Genre definitions of letter writing in antiquity were based on social functions as the extant descriptions of letter writing show. The earliest preserved rhetorical handbooks do not contain such descriptions,212 although importantly for pseudonymous writings Aelius Theon discusses letter writing in his treatment of speech-in–character (προσωποποιία).213 The treatise of Demetrius, On Style, is the earliest extant systematic description of letter writing and he gives important 205 “The variety of literary texts in schoolhands may reflect the taxonomy of Greek literature outside education. It is now widely accepted that there was no fixed canon of Greek (or Latin) authors in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Though a number of authors present lists of the ‘best authors’ in various genres, many different names appear on them and no list is presented as ‘standard’ or universally accepted […]. On the other hand, there was clearly a good deal of interest in trying to limit and rank the corpus of well-known authors, and there was a measure of agreement about the outstanding examples of each genre”. Morgan, Literate Education, 79, n.56. 206 Dionysius compares Herodotus’ Histories to Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War on the basis of subject matter, scope, inclusion/omission of material, arrangement and attitude before assessing the authors’ command of language and style. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pomp. 3 (Usher, LCL). 207 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pomp. 1 (Usher, LCL, p. 354–55). 208 Harold W. Attridge, “Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 121 (1 2002). 209 Harold W. Attridge, “The Gospel of John: Genre Matters?,” in The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic (ed. Kasper Bro Larsen; SANt 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015). 210 Carolyn R. Miller, “Genre as Social Action,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 151. 211 Sune Auken, “Contemporary Genre Studies: An Interdisciplinary Conversation with Johannine Scholarship,” in The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic (ed. Kasper Bro Larsen; SANt 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 50, 54. 212 Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 2. 213 Theon, Prog. 8. Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 47–52.

44

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

interpretative keys. After distinguishing between letter writing and dialogue (διάλογος), “since the latter imitates improvised conversation (μιμεῖται αὐτοσχεδιάζοντα), while the former is written and sent as a kind of gift” (γράφεται καὶ δῶρον πέμπεται),214 Demetrius emphasises that a letter should reveal the character of the writer: Like the dialogue, the letter should be strong in characterisation (ἠθικός). Everyone writes a letter in the virtual image of his own soul (ει᾿κόνα […] ψυχῆς). In every other form of speech (λόγος) it is possible to see the writer’s character (ἦθος), but none so as in the letter.215

Letter writing thus has both mimetic and ethical elements, the purpose of which is to replicate the presence of the addressee to the recipient. This is made explicit by Cicero who says that “the cornerstone (causa inventa) of the [letter] genre (epistularum genera) is that we inform persons who are absent about anything which it serves their interest or ours for them to know”.216 Cicero’s letters are informative about the reception and usage of ancient letters, as they not only serve the purpose of conveying information, but when read in a social setting they attempt to inject the presence of the author into the dynamic of the occasion.217 Also ascribed to Demetrius are the descriptions of 21 letter types, Tύποι ἐπιστολικοί, that recount occasions for writing letters and the type(s) of correspondence to “fit the particular circumstance (to which they are addressed)”.218 The author gives insight into the purpose of this training, as while they ought to be written skilfully (τεχνικώτατα) they “are in fact composed indifferently (ἔτυχεν) by those who undertake such services for men in public office”.219 Letter writing thus has an explicit public function, an element M. Luther Stirewalt has argued is vital to understanding the Pauline letter-corpus.220 The list of 21 letter types is according to Demetrius near complete, although he admits the possibility that “time (ὁ χρόνος) might produce more than this, since it is a highly gifted inventor of skills (τεχνῶν) and theories (θεωρημάτων)”.221 This prediction came 214 Demetrius, Eloc. 224 (Innes, LCL). 215 Demetrius, Eloc. 227 (Innes, LCL). 216 Cicero, Fam. 2.4.1. Peter White, Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 21–22. 217 Examples of this are Cicero, Att. 11.9.2, 13.45.1, Fam. 9.1.1, 10.12.2 et al. Ibid., 21 n. 31. 218 Pseudo-Demetrius, Formae epistolicae 1–2. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 30–31. 219 Pseudo-Demetrius, Formae epistolicae 3–4. Ibid. 220 M. Luther Stirewalt, Paul the Letter Writer (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003). 221 The 21 types of Pseudo-Demetrius are: friendly (φιλικός), commendatory (συστατικός), blaming (μεμπτικός), reproachful (ὀνειδιστικός), consoling (παραμυθητικός), censorious (ἐπιτιμητικός), admonishing (νουθετητικός), threatening (ἀπειλητικός), vituperative (ψεκτικός), praising (ἐπαινετικός), advisory (συμβουλευτικός), supplicatory (ἀξιωματικός), inquiring (ἐρωτηματικός), responding (ἀποφαντικός), allegorical (ἀλληγορικός), accounting (αι᾿τιολογικός), accusing (κατηγορικός), apologetic (ἀπολογητικός), congratulatory (συγχαρητικός),

The Genre of James

45

true it would seem, as a later source containing letter classification, the Ἐπιστολιμαῖοι χαρακτῆρες ascribed to Libanius, lists 41 different types of letter writing and explains them so that letters can be written “with the greatest precision (σύν ἀκριβείᾳ) and skill (τέχνῃ)”.222 These classifications of letter types do not use formal or literary categories to distinguish between types, but social occasions and correspondingly focus on the honour based interactions of ancient society and the communication of praise and blame. A similar taxonomy of letter writing is found in educational texts and papyri preserving school exercises, which suggests a widespread classification of Greek and Latin letters on the basis of social interactions.223 The first and last styles of Libanius are especially valuable for understanding James, the last because listing a mixed letter separately suggests that the author was conscious of the fact that such categories are not unilateral or final. His example of a mixed letter is a letter of both praise and blame, one that begins by praising the recipient’s piety (εὐσεβής) and adornment of philosophy, then accuses him of slandering his friend (τούς φίλους κακῶς λέγεις), which is unfitting of a philosopher.224 Importantly, the first letter listed is the paraenetic letter (παραινετική). Dibelius understood paraenesis as “a text which strings together admonitions of general ethical content” and stands “as [a] part of a long and significant history [of] Greek and Jewish paraenetical traditions”.225 This classification is most convincing as a descriptive designation, since all of James can be seen as directions of ethical nature, excluding the first verse. With some generalisation

222

223 224 225

ironic (ει᾿ρωνικός), thankful (ἀπευχαριστικός). Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 31–31. For a discussion of the connection of these letter types to the New Testament see Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (LEC 5; Philadelphia, Pa.: The Westminster Press, 1986). Pseudo-Libanius, Characteres epistolici 1. The 41 styles are: αʹ paraenetic (παραινετική), βʹ blaming (μεμπτική), γʹ requesting (παρακλητική), δʹ commending (συστατική), εʹ ironic (ει᾿ρωνική), ϛʹ thankful (εὐχαριστική), ζʹ friendly (φιλική), ηʹ praying (εὐκτική), θʹ threatening (ἀπειλητική), ιʹ denying (ἀπαρνητική), ιαʹ commanding (παραγγελματική), ιβʹ repenting (μεταμελητική), ιγʹ reproaching (ὀνειδιστική), ιδʹ sympathetic (συμπαθητική), ιεʹ conciliatory (θεραπευτική), ιϛʹ congratulatory (συγχαρητική), ιζʹ contemptuous (παραλογιστική), ιηʹ counter-accusing (ἀντεγκληματική), ιθʹ replying (ἀντεπισταλτική), κʹ provoking (παροξυντική), καʹ consoling (παραμυθητική), κβʹ insulting (ὑβριστική), κγʹ reporting (ἀπαγγελτική), κδʹ angry (σχετλιαστική), κεʹ diplomatic (πρεσβευτική), κϛʹ praising (ἐπαινετική), κζʹ didactic (διδασκαλική), κηʹ reproving (ἐλεγκτική), κθʹ maligning (διαβλητική), λʹ censorious (ἐπιτιμητική), λαʹ inquiring (ἐρωτηματική), λβʹ encouraging (παραθαρρυντική), λγʹ consulting (ἀναθετική), λδʹ declaratory (ἀποφαντική), λεʹ mocking (σκωπτική), λϛʹ submissive (μετριαστική), λζʹ enigmatic (αι᾿νιγματική), ληʹ suggestive (ὑπομνηστική), λθʹ grieving (λυπητική), μʹ erotic (ἐρωτική), and μαʹ mixed (μικτή). Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 66–81. Stanley Stowers, “Social Typification and the Classification of Ancient Letters,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (ed. Jacob Neusner et al.; Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress Press, 1988), 78. Pseudo-Libanius, Characteres epistolici 92. Dibelius, James, 3.

46

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

James can be seen as composed wholly of admonitions (negative encouragement) 226 and exhortation (positive encouragement),227 with resulting threats228 and promises229 as well as direct blame,230 while praise is conspicuously missing. Discussions of paraenesis after Dibelius have focused on the one hand on its formal, stylistic and linguistic features and on the other hand on parallel material found in Hellenistic writings.231 As a distinct genre in antiquity the term is problematic and some clarification is necessary for it to be helpful, since its use in modern scholarship has often been too broad encompassing all literature with ethical elements.232 The classification of paraenesis as a distinct (secondary)233 genre is mainly based on Isocrates, who connects the term with the training of philosophy: Now, those who compose hortatory discourses (προτρεπτικούς λόγου) addressed to their own friends are engaged in a laudable employment; yet they do not occupy themselves with the most vital part of philosophy … [to] improve their moral conduct. Therefore, I have not invented a hortatory (παράκλησιν) exercise, but have written a moral treatise (παραίνεσιν); and I am going to counsel (συμβουλεύειν) you on the objects to which young men should aspire and from what actions they should abstain.234

Troels Engberg-Pedersen argues that at the time of Isocrates, paraenesis was not a type of text nor a literary genre, but a practice standing in the tradition of poetical wisdom (ὑποθήκαι): “[T]he activity of giving injunctions […] the logical form [of which] was that of the imperative”.235 Importantly his description fits both Dibelius’ designation of James as (traditional)236 paraenesis and his identification of paraenetic texts in the New 226 Jas 1.5a, 6b–11, 13–16, 19b–21, 22b–24, 26–27; 2.1–4, 6b–7, 9–25; 3.1–16; 4.1b, 4b–6; 11–16; 5.9, 12. 227 Jas 1.2–4, 5b–6a, 12, 17–19a, 22a, 25; 2.5, 8; 3.17; 4.7–8a, 10; 5.7–8, 10–11, 13–19. 228 Jas 1.7, 15; 3.1; 4.4; 5.9, 12. 229 Jas 1.3, 5, 12, 18, 25; 2.5, 3.17; 4.6, 10; 5.8, 11, 15–16, 19. 230 Jas 2.6; 4.1a, 2–4, 8b–9; 5.1–6a. 231 Leo G. Perdue, “Paraenesis and the Epistle of James,” ZNW 78 (1981): 241. 232 Wiard Popkes, “Paraenesis in the New Testament,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen; BZNW 125; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 24–25. 233 John G. Gammie, “Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre,” Semeia 50 (1990): 41ff. Gammie proposes that ‘paraenetic literature’ is a ‘secondary-genre’ of the ‘primary-genre’, ‘wisdom literature’, alongside ‘reflective essays’. The secondary genre is then divided into two major ‘composite sub-genres’, ‘instructions’ and ‘paraeneses’ with a host of ‘component sub-genres’, such as protreptic, admonitions, exhortations, et al. 234 Isocrates, Demon. 3–5 (Norlin, LCL). 235 Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “The Concept of Paraenesis,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen; BZNW 125; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 53. In 108 verses James contains 54 imperative verbs as well as a number of subjunctives (and futures) with imperative meaning. 236 Ibid., 64.

The Genre of James

47

Testament.237 Engberg-Pedersen goes on to distinguish between ‘traditional’ and ‘philosophical’ paraenesis, the latter of which is found most distinctly in Seneca’s letters, but importantly also in Paul: “What distinguishes Stoic, philosophical paraenesis from traditional paraenesis in the Isocratean tradition is precisely the explicit recognition of the intrinsic relationship between the individual (παραινέσεις) and some overarching grasp of the good (the philosophy’s doctrine or decreta)”.238 Whether this distinction holds true for discussing James or not,239 it seems clear that the epistolary aspect of Paul’s paraenesis is shared by our author: As “we must admit […] that Paul displays a distinctly Greek awareness […] of epistolary exhortation,”240 so must we admit the same for James. A landmark study of the paraenetic letter in the context of early Christianity is Abraham Malherbe’s discussion of epistolary paraenesis and its features in connection to 1 Thessalonians.241 Malherbe begins by identifying characteristics of paraenesis that are important for our purposes and states that by “the first century A.D. the paraenetic letter was established [and studied] as a form of hortatory address”.242 Its features include material that is (a) “traditional and unoriginal,” (b) “is generally applicable,” (c) is didactical and (d) is based on ethical examples.243 These descriptions are interconnected, as the nature of paraenesis is “moral exhortation in which someone is advised to pursue or

237 1 Thess 4.1–2; 5, Gal 5.13ff; 6, Rom 12–13; Col 3–4; Jas 1; 3.13ff; 4–5, Heb 13, Barn., Did., Herm. Mand. Dibelius, James, 3. 238 Engberg-Pedersen, “The Concept of Paraenesis,” in Starr and Engberg-Pedersen, Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, 57. 239 Engberg-Pedersen admits that these are not mutually exclusive categories: “The issue within technical Stoicism that gave rise to discussion of paraenesis was that of the relationship between having a grasp of the ultimate good and acting correctly [Troels Engberg-Pedersen, The Stoic Theory of Oikeiosis: Moral Development and Social Interaction in Early Stoic Philosophy (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 2; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1990), 126–40]. Stoics generally insisted that having the grasp was not always sufficient to make ordinary people act correctly. Ordinary people, who are at some remove from the ultimately insightful person (the sage), will need to have their attention directed towards act-types that are in general the appropriate ones to do. These are the Stoic ‘duties’ (Greek καθήκοντα, Latin officio), and the injunctions that mention the duties are precisely παραινέσεις (Latin praecepta or monitiones). […] Isocrates was unconcerned about the overarching grasp. That was precisely what the conflict between him and the philosophers (from Plato’s Socrates onwards) was all about. Aristo was only concerned about the overall grasp. Middle-of-the-road Stoics, like Chrysippus, wanted to combine the two. That is what defines philosophical paraenesis”. Ibid., 55, 57. 240 Ibid., 67. 241 Abraham J. Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament,” ANRW II.26 (1 1992): 278ff. 242 Ibid., 284. 243 Ibid., 281–82.

48

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

abstain from something,”244 but they require clarification. First, (a) traditional and unoriginal are not synonymous and one can argue that a text presenting and preserving traditional material can still be original and creative. Malherbe quotes Isocrates where he says: “[I]n what I have said there are many things which you know (γιγνώσκεις) as well as I,”245 to emphasise the aspect of familiarity on the part of the implied audience in paraenesis.246 The same is found in Seneca’s letters where he repeatedly defends the validity and usefulness of giving continual advice (de quibus admonendi sunt), to both the poor and rich (pauper et dives):247 People say: “What good does it do to point out the obvious?” A great deal of good; for we sometimes know facts without paying attention to them. Advice is not teaching; it merely engages the attention and rouses us, and concentrates the memory, and keeps it from losing grip. We miss much that is set before our very eyes. Advice is, in fact, a sort of exhortation (genus ad hortandi).248

There is an important point to be made here in that the traditional nature of paraenesis is accepted as knowledge shared by the author and the implied reader, which can be explored as a sociological marker. James is both an original author, seen e. g. in his use of language, inventive vocabulary and stylistic features, as well as an author that expects expert literacy of scripture (γραφή) of his ideal readers, combining explicit citations with implicit allusions and reworking biblical narratives and traditions.249 Examples of this expected literacy are quotations from Septuagint (Jas 2.8; 2.23; 4.6), allusions to Septuagint personae and narratives (Jas 2.21–25; 5.11, 17–18; et. al) and appeals to shared knowledge via verbs (γινώσκω, Jas 1.3; 2.20; 5.20 / οἶδα, Jas 3.1; 4.4, 17 / ἐπίσταμαι, Jas 4.14 / ἀκούω, Jas 5.11) and rhetorical questions.250 The second feature (b) pertains to the general applicability of paraenesis and Malherbe argues against Dibelius’ view that paraenesis does not reflect the situation addressed,251 by his “one-sided emphasis on certain aspects of the form of paraenesis”.252 Modern genre studies and ancient discussions coincide in their 244 Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (LEC 4; Philadelphia, Pa.: The Westminster Press, 1986), 124. 245 Isocrates, Ad. Nic. 40 (Norlin, LCL). 246 Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists,” 280. 247 Seneca, Ep. 94.22–23 (Gummere, LCL); Engberg-Pedersen, “The Concept of Paraenesis,” in Starr and Engberg-Pedersen, Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, 55ff. 248 Seneca, Ep. 94.25 (Gummere, LCL). 249 James’ use of language is the subject of the following chapter (4) and its socio-rhetorical implications in the subsequent chapter (5), followed by a chapter on the concept of scripture in James (6). 250 Jas 2.4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 20, 21, 25; 3.11, 12, 13; 4.1, 4, 5, 12. 251 Dibelius, James, 45ff. 252 Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists,” 280 n. 51.

The Genre of James

49

description of genre as social action,253 and both Demetrius and Libanius argue from a specific social context that letter writing arises from: The admonition type (νουθετητικός) is […] the instilling of sense (νοῦν (νόος)) in the person who is being admonished, and teaching him what should and should not be done …254 It is the advisory type (συμβουλευτικός) when […] we exhort (προτρέπωμεν) (someone to) something or dissuade (ἀποτρέπωμεν) (him) from something …255

The paraenetic style (παραινετική) is that in which we exhort (παραινοῦμεν) someone by urging him (προτρέποντες) to pursue something or to avoid something. Paraenesis is divided into two parts, encouragement (προτροπήν) and dissuasion (ἀποτροπήν). Some also call it the advisory style (συμβουλευτικήν), but do so incorrectly, for paraenesis differs from advice. For paraenesis is hortatory speech (λόγος παραινετικὸς) that does not admit of a counter-statement (ἀντίρρησιν) …256 All of these category descriptions are followed by specific examples that reflect social context, whether personal or communal, and the same is true for James. While we may not be able to reconstruct precisely its origin on the basis of content, we have in James repeated allusions to the implied readers (e. g. ἀδελφοί) 257 as well as references to social situations (ἐν ὑμῖν258 / ει᾿ς συναγωγήν ὑμῶν, Jas 2.2 / τούς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας, Jas 5.14). The third element Malherbe mentions (c) is the didactic aspect of paraenesis and this is explicitly alluded to in James. Sextus Empiricus in his dialogue Against Logicians derides Aristo the Stoic for “proscrib[ing] some branches of Ethics (ἠθικοῦ), such as the hortatory (παραινετικόν) and admonitory (ὑποθετικόν); for these, he held, are the business of nurses (τίτθας) and pedagogues (παιδαγωγούς)”.259 While Sextus Empiricus is dismissive in his claim, we might ask if the didactic nature of paraenesis reflects a solely paideautic context, which in the framework of early Christianity would serve as a catechism for new converts. We have examples of such paraenetic material in the Didache that is aimed at new Christians,260 but an overview of paraenetic material in pagan and early Christian 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260

Miller, “Genre as Social Action,” et al. Pseudo-Demetrius, Formae epistolicae 7. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 34–35. Pseudo-Demetrius, Formae epistolicae 11. Ibid., 36–37. Pseudo-Libanius, Characteres epistolici 5. Ibid., 68–69. Jas 1.2, 9, 16, 19; 2.1, 5, 6, 14; 3.1, 12; 4.11, 5.7, 9, 10, 12, 19. Jas 3.13; 4.1; 5.13, 14, 19. Sextus Empiricus, Math. I.12 (Bury, LCL). Alistair Stewart-Sykes, “Ἀποκύησις λόγῳ ἀληθείας: Paraenesis and Baptism in Matthew, James, and the Didache,” in Matthew, James and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings (ed. Huub van de Sandt and Jürgen K. Zangenberg; SBLSymS 45; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 345ff.

50

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

literature by James Starr suggests that this is not generally the case: “As regards the social function of Paraenesis […] it was intended to foster the working out over the course of a lifetime of the moral adherence inherent in a given theology or philosophy”.261 The importance of teachers for the community addressed by James is apparent in Jas 3.1ff, where the author warns that teachers (διδάσκαλοι) will be subject to a stricter judgment (μεῖζον κρίμα), followed by an exhortation that he who does not stumble in teaching (ἐν λόγῳ) achieves perfection (τέλειος ἀνήρ).262 The author implicitly falls under this category and can be seen as both the teacher of the community and to carry on the teaching he received from the Jesus tradition.263 Hellenistic psychagogy and paraenesis are overlapping categories,264 as Malherbe argues: “In writing [the] first Christian pastoral letter [1 Thessalonians], Paul was creating something new, but in Epicurus he had a predecessor265 and in Seneca a contemporary who used letters as means by which to engage in pastoral care”.266 A final aspect of paraenesis in Malherbe’s discussion (d) is the emulation of ethical examples and this is connected to Hellenistic psychagogy as “the teacher […] exemplif[ied] the principles he taught and […] the students respected their teacher and emulated him”.267 Libanius in his description of the παραινετική, emphasises this as the main purpose of such letter writing: The paraenetic letter. Always be an emulator (ζηλωτής) of virtuous men. For it is better to be well spoken of when imitating (ζηλοῦντα) good men than to be reproached by all men while following evil men.268

In James this emulation takes place on at least two levels, implicitly in the emulation of James and Jesus logia, and explicitly in the presentation of LXX exempla of virtuous personae. Abraham is an example of faith and works (ἡ 261 James Starr, “Was Paraenesis for Beginners,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen; BZNW 125; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 111. 262 See section 5.2 James as Teacher, 210. 263 See e. g. John S. Kloppenborg, “James 1.2–15 and Hellenistic Psychagogy,” NovT 52 (2010). 264 Although different as Engberg-Pedersen affirms: “[N]ot all of Hellenistic psychagogy is a matter of paraenesis […] [w]e could stick to the ancient use of the terms for paraenesis (παραίνεσις, monitio, praeceptio with cognates) and then say that the giving of examples belongs – together with a host of other psychagogic practices – under a broader category than paraenesis. That broad category we could call “exhortation”. The Greek term for it would be παράκλησις”. Engberg-Pedersen, “The Concept of Paraenesis,” in Starr and Engberg-Pedersen, Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, 60. 265 For a discussion about Paul and Epicurian psychagogy see, Clarence E. Glad, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (NovTSup 81; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 266 Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists,” 304. 267 Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists,” 302 n. 16. Malherbe cites Musonius Rufus, Fr. 11; Seneca, Ep. 6,5f.; 11,8–10; 25,5f.; 52,8 10; 94,55–59; Lucian, Nigr. 6f. 268 Pseudo-Libanius, Characteres epistolici 52. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 74–75.

The Genre of James

51

πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ, Jas 2.22), the prophets of suffering and patience (ὑπόδειγμα […] τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας, Jas 5.10) and Elijah an exemplary man of prayer (προσευχῇ προσηύξατο, Jas 5.17) to name a few.269 The implicit aspect of emulation is presented as teachings written in the name of the author (as a δοῦλος of Jesus) and is as such connected to the topic of Hellenistic moral philosophy of the ‘wise man’,270 another theme made explicit in the letter (Τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων ἐν ὑμῖν …, Jas 3.13). The author is not described explicitly in James as a model of imitation, as we frequently find in the letters of Paul,271 but only implicitly through the author’s use of language and teachings associated with the sender. The importance of letter writing for the emergence of Christian literary culture can hardly be overstated and the New Testament attests to this with a full 21 of 27 writings being presented as letters. The earliest collections of Christian writings contain the letters of Paul, although there was considerable diversity in which letters were included in such collections.272 Already in the Pauline corpus there is evidence of the reception and continuation of Paul’s legacy of letter writing and in modern scholarship seven letters are predominantly seen as authentic,273 while a number of letters are of contested authorship (Deutero-Pauline)274 and the Pastorals275 are generally seen as works of a later generation (Trito-Pauline).276 The Catholic Epistles can also be viewed as a continuation of this Pauline legacy, although in differing ways, ranging from vocabulary and argumentation to the explicit acknowledgment that Paul can easily be misunderstood in 2 Peter (3.14–16). Paul stood in a long tradition of Hellenistic letter writing and current research on ancient letters have significantly furthered our understanding of the context 269 See dicussion below, 242–56. 270 Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists,” 293ff. 271 See 1 Thess 1.6–7: “you became imitators (μιμηταί) of us [Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy] and of the Lord”; 2.14: “you […] became imitators (μιμηταί) of the churches […] in Judea”; 1 Cor 4.16: “I appeal to you (παρακαλῶ), then, be imitators (μιμηταί) of me [Paul]”; 11.1: “Be imitators (μιμηταί) of me, as I am of Christ”; Phil 3.17: “join in imitating (συμμιμηταί) me [Paul], and observe those who live according to the example (τύπον) you have in us,” NRSV. 272 The earliest collection lists, the canon of Marcion, the Muratorian canon and P46 have considerable variation in both number and order of Paul’s letters. Ian J. Elmer, “The Pauline Letters as Community Documents,” in Collecting Early Christian Letters: From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity (ed. Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 39–40. 273 Rom, 1–2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Thess, Phlm. 274 2 Thess, Col, Eph. 275 1–2 Tim, Titus. 276 Bernhard Heininger, “The Reception of Paul in the First Century: The Deutero- and TritoPauline Letters and the Image of Paul in Acts,” in Paul: Life, Setting, Work, Letters (ed. Oda Wischmeyer; trans. Helen S. Heron; Stuttgart: UTB Verlag, 2006; repr., London & New York, N.Y.: T&T Clark, 2012).

52

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

in which Paul writes.277 The research history of James has been characterised by the comparison between James chapter 2 and the discussion of faith and works in Paul and Dale Allison notes that “the secondary literature on Jas 2.14–26 seemingly exceeds that dedicated to the rest of James put together”.278 In terms of genre as well as religious stratigraphy, the closeness of James to Pauline epistolography remains a matter of debate and Allison again notes that “perhaps most [scholars] have doubted that James knew any of the Pauline epistles, even scholars who have thought of him as responding to Pauline theology”.279 Behind the debate lies the question of whether the apparent connections between them reflect a common background,280 anti-Pauline polemic,281 a reaction to Pauline antinomian interpretation282 or as Margaret Mitchell has recently argued, a perspective from within Paulinism.283 The closest parallels with James 2.14–26 are found in Romans and Galatians, and Mitchell argues in addition that the author knew 1 Corinthians.284 Whether the connection between James and the Pauline epistles are one of direct dependence or cross-pollination, James stands in the epistolary tradition of early Christianity instigated by Paul.285 James shares vocabulary and argumentation with Paul and more importantly receives from Paul the innovation of writing paraenetic pastoral letters that aim at attaining peace in the community through divine aid.286 Paul’s combination of didactic and paraenetic elements in his letters must be recognised as an innovation in antiquity, although our judgement is limited by the preserved data, and the closest parallels

277 A recent bibliography is found in Runar M. Thorsteinsson, “Epistolography (Ancient Letters),” OBO. Online: doi:10.1093/obo/9780195393361–0137. 278 Allison, James, 426. 279 Ibid., 62. 280 Recent proponents of this position are e. g. Hubert Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus (2 vols.; Würzburg: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994), 473. Johnson, Letter of James, 249–50. Bauckham, James, 113–14. For a fuller bibliography see Allison, James, 426 n. 8. 281 E. g. Hengel, “Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik,” in Hawthorne and Betz, Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law in the Letter of James, 243–53. See Allison, James, 427 n. 11. 282 E. g. Dibelius, James, 179–80; Popkes, Der Brief des Jakobus, 36–39. See Allison, James, 428 n. 14. 283 Mitchell, “James as a Document of Paulinism,” in Webb and Kloppenborg, Reading James with New Eyes; Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone, 215–24. 284 Mitchell, “James as a Document of Paulinism,” in Webb and Kloppenborg, Reading James with New Eyes. 285 The possibility of Pauline dependence on James, although intriguing, has no modern proponents as far as I am aware, even among those that argue for authentic authorship. For older proponents see Spitta, Der Brief des Jakobus, 202ff.; Mayor, The Epistle of James, xcii. 286 1 Thess 5.13, 19: Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists,” 304. See Jas 3.18–4.12.

The Genre of James

53

are private correspondence that have much shorter and less developed paraenesis and lack the didactic elements of his letters.287 The oldest textual witnesses to an inscription of James unanimously designate the writing as a letter attributed to ‘James’, ΙΑΚΟΒΟΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ, with variations in order and case.288 James opens with a formulation that is typical of ancient Greek letters: A designation of the sender or superscription, Ἰάκωβος with an apposition designating him as θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος; the recipient(s) or address, ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ; and the customary salutation expressing the wish of joy, χαίρειν. The greeting χαίρειν is a near universal feature of Greek letter writing, as is the syntactical structure of following a sender and recipient with an infinitive, omitting a finite verb (λέγει) from the first sentence.289 Despite its textual tradition and conformity to epistolary convention, many exegetes have doubted that James is a real letter, and have interpreted its genre accordingly. Adolf Deissmann made a clear distinction between the personal letters (Brief) uncovered at Oxyrhynchus, which represented to him “the liveliest instantaneous photographs of ancient life”,290 and epistles (Epistel) that are artistic and forced reconstructions of reality. Paul for Deissmann represented an author of real letters, a personal writer passionately responding to church crisis, in contrast to the Catholic Epistles that are ecumenical literary constructs: Compare the Epistle of James, for instance, with the Letters of Paul, in regard to this [ecumenical] point. From the latter we construct the history of the apostolic age; the former, so long as it is looked upon as a letter, is the enigma of the New Testament. Those to whom the ‘letter’ was addressed have been variously imagined to be Jews, Gentile Christians, Jewish Christians, or Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians together; the map has been scrutinised in every part without any one having yet ascertained where we are to seek – not to say find – the readers. But if Diaspora be not a definite geographical term, no more is the Epistle of ‘James’ a letter. Its pages are inspired by no special motive; there is nothing whatever to be read between the lines; its

287 Andrew W. Pitts, “Philosophical and Epistolary Contexts for Pauline Paraenesis,” in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (ed. Stanley Porter and Sean A. Adams; PAST 6; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 302–3. 288 A major tradition of course does not include such secondary inscription, including P74, ‫א‬, A et al. Barbara Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece – Editio Critica Maior IV (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997), 1. Allison notes that such uniformity should not be taken for granted, and cites the manuscript tradition of the Testament of Abraham as an example where there is considerable variation of genre designation or description of a document: “The Greek mss. of the Testament of Abraham variously call the book a ‘testament’, a ‘narrative’, an ‘account’, an ‘apocalypse’, or a ‘bios’”. Allison, James, 71. 289 Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (trans. Daniel P. Bailey; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 18. 290 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 219.

54

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

words are of such general interest that they might, for the most part, stand in the Book of Wisdom.291

Modern biblical studies still regard James an enigma in many ways but Deissmann’s clear dichotomy is problematic since no letter belongs strictly in either category, intimacy and literary convention are not mutually exclusive categories.292

2.2

The Quest for Authorship

James (Ἰάκωβος) was a common name among Jews in the Hellenistic era and the New Testament mentions at least four personae with that name,293 yet there is near consensus that the designation refers to the brother of Jesus.294 The arguments in favour of attributing the letter to the brother of Jesus are both his stature in early Christianity and the implicit Jerusalem context in the address. James ‘the Just’295 was a towering figure, a pillar of the Jerusalem congregation alongside Peter and John,296 an apostle297 and brother of Jesus, whose reputation was received in patristic circles, the Nag Hammadi library and Jewish-Christian writ-

291 Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity (trans. Alexander Grieve; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903), 52. 292 For a response to Deissmann see Heikki Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr (AASF 102; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1956), 88–95. et al. 293 These are: James (the greater) son of Zebedee and brother of John (Matt 10.3; Mark 3.17; Luke 6.14; Acts 1.13), James son of Alpheus (Matt 10.3; Mark 3.18; Luke 6.15; Acts 1.13), James the younger (Matt 27.56; Mark 15.40; 16.1; Luke 24.10), James the father of Jude (Luke 6.16; Acts 1.13), James the brother of Jesus (Matt 13.55; Mark 6.3; Acts 12.17; 15.13; 21.18; Gal 1.19; 2.19, 12; 1 Cor 15.7) and the authors of the letters of James (Jas 1.1) and Jude (the brother of James, Jude 1). 294 Allison, James, 3ff. For dissenting opinions see 4 n. 15 and 114 n. 6. 295 The designation is common in early Christian literature referring to James. In Gos. Thom. §12 James is given special status among the disciples of Jesus: “The disciples said to Jesus, we know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader? Jesus said to them, wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being”. Bentley Layton, ed., Gospel According to Thomas (NHS 20; Leiden: Brill, 1989). 296 Gal 2.9. 297 Gal 1.19: ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον ει᾿ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. The wording ει᾿ μὴ can be read both inclusively and exclusively, i. e. that Paul regarded James as an apostle among those in Jerusalem or alternatively that he did not enjoy such stature. Support in favour of James’ stature as apostle can be drawn from 1 Cor 15.7, where James is counted among “all the apostles”: ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ εἶτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν· For discussion see Matti Myllykoski, “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship,” CBS 5 (2006): 89.

The Quest for Authorship

55

ings.298 James’ importance can be seen through references to him in Josephus, who tells of his life and martyrdom recounting that James: “[I]s the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others,” and that the high priest Ananus the younger “accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned”.299 In line with the ideal philosopher, James takes on the garb of the wise man in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea who describes James as an example of righteousness because “of the height which he had reached in a life of philosophy and religion”.300 Citing Hegesippus he elaborates: The charge of the Church passed to James the brother of the Lord, together with the Apostles. He was called the ‘Just’ by all men from the Lord’s time to ours, since many are called James, but he was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh; no razor went upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not go to the baths. He alone was allowed to enter into the sanctuary, for he did not wear wool but linen, and he used to enter alone into the temple and be found kneeling and praying for forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel’s because of constant worship of God, kneeling and asking forgiveness for the people. So from his excessive righteousness he was called the Just and Oblias that is in Greek, ‘Rampart of the people and righteousness,’ as the prophets declare concerning him.301

None of these titles or elaborations, later bestowed upon James, are found in our letter and the superscription is strikingly understated, Ἰάκωβος with the apposition θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος. Despite his dominant presence in multiple traditions of early Christianity, James has a marginal yet significant role in the New Testament. Our most reliable sources of the historical James are found in the letters of Paul and Galatians is the oldest witness where Paul describes his confrontation with the pillars of the Jerusalem church James, Peter (Cephas) and John (Gal 2.9).302 Paul begins by asserting his independent authority, which is based on revelation and not on going “up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before”,303 referring to Peter and “James the Lord’s brother”.304 He then describes

298 Matti Myllykoski, “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part II),” CBS 6 (2007). 299 Josephus, Ant. 20.200 (Thackeray, Marcus, and Feldman, LCL). 300 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.23.2, (Lake and Oulton, LCL). 301 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.23.4–8, (Lake and Oulton, LCL). 302 Sigurvin Lárus Jónsson, “James the Just, Brother of Jesus and Champion of Early Christian Faiths: Portraits of James in Early Christian Sources in Light of Claims to His Authority and Masculinity” (MA thesis, University of Iceland, 2014), 10ff. 303 Gal 1.17–18, NRSV.

56

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

his stay with Peter in Jerusalem (Gal 1.18–20), yet it is unclear from his letter what the exact status of James was in the Jerusalem community. Matti Myllykoski presents an overview of the different positions scholars have taken in interpreting this text: … did he prefer Peter to all the rest because Peter was the acknowledged leader of the community,305 or because Paul assumed that Peter was more sympathetic to his cause than James?306 Or, should we assume that Paul turned to Peter because, among the apostles, he was the one most interested in mission;307 or, because he was ‘the chief apostle in the mission that brought into being the church that Paul (Saul) had persecuted’?308 There seems to be something right in all of these assumptions; at least Paul thought that communication with Peter would be most useful for his future activities.309

Paul’s second visit is often named the Apostolic Council and was an effort by the Antiochian church to establish unanimity with the Christians in Jerusalem and apparently to silence those false believers (Gal 2.4) who sought to enslave Christians by enforcing circumcision and might claim in their defence the law observance of James and the Jerusalem community. Paul’s aim was to attain unity among Jewish and gentile believers, which he thought possible despite the differences with respect to observance of the law. Myllykoski concludes that “[t]he touchstone of the agreement was the question whether the uncircumcised Gentile convert Titus […], would be accepted as a brother in Christ without first being circumcised”.310 In Paul’s mind, the meeting was a success since Titus was not asked to be circumcised (Gal 2.6) and the two churches agreed to respect each other’s missionary activity, the Jerusalem church to the circumcised and Paul to the gentiles (Gal 2.9). “They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I [Paul] was eager to do”.311 The consensus did not last though and when Peter visits Antioch (soon thereafter),312 division is sparked by

304 John Painter, Just James: The brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (SPNT; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1997), 59. 305 Wilhelm Pratcher, Der Herrenbruder Jacobus und die Jacobustradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 56. 306 Painter, Just James, 60. 307 H. von Campenhauen, Kirchliches Amt und geistliche Vollmacht in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (BHT 14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963), 20 n. 17. 308 William R. Farmer, “James the Lord’s Brother, according to Paul,” in James the Just and Christian Origins (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; NovTSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 143. 309 Matti Myllykoski, “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship,” CBR 5 (2006): 89. 310 Myllykoski, “James in History and Tradition,” 112. 311 Gal 2.10, NRSV. 312 Most scholars agree that Paul means that the Antioch incident follows the Apostolic Council, but an exception is Gerd Lüdeman, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology

The Quest for Authorship

57

an apparent double-standard of Peter regarding dietary practice (Gal 2.11–14). The exact nature of the conflict is hard to determine but apparently table fellowship within a gentile framework was unacceptable to the strict Jewish Christians of James.313 The Jerusalem church likely consisted mainly of JewishChristians that were law-abiding and attended the Temple gatherings. Jerusalem also had a special place among Jews as the centre of their religion and place of pilgrimage to those living in the Diaspora.314 The centrality of the Jerusalem church is evident from Paul’s attitude, not only in Galatians, but in the other Pauline epistles as well.315 The common opinion among the first Christians was that Jerusalem was the centre of the rapidly growing movement due to the city’s role as “the salvation-historical centre of the church […] [and] owing its role as the Holy City and theologico-juridicial centre of Judaism”.316 We know little about the Jerusalem church, apart from what the Pauline letters and Acts can tell us, but a majority of scholars maintain the view that it played a central role in the first century and that James was in a key leadership position.317 Two references in 1 Corinthians are relevant to the study of the historical James, the first is a discussion of financial support for itinerant missionaries in 1 Cor 9.5–6 and the second is a list of resurrection witnesses in 1 Cor 15. In the former Paul complains about the circumcised being able to travel with their wives, where the issue at stake was apparently a conflict between those members of the Corinthian church that were more affluent and the poorer majority.318 Paul’s referral to “the brothers of the Lord and Cephas” in 1 Cor 9.5 is part of his defence for receiving support and it is, as in Galatians, secondary in his argumentation. In the latter text, 1 Cor 15, Paul lists a number of resurrection

313 314 315

316 317 318

(trans. F. Stanley Jones; London: SCM Press, 1984). For discussion and refutation of the view see Myllykoski, “James: Perspectives,” 103. Heikki Räisänen, The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The Thought World of Early Christians (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2010), 61. Helmut Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity (vol. 2 of Introduction to the New Testament; 2nd ed.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 94–102. Examples of this abound. In 1 Thessalonians Paul compares the plight of the Thessalonians to that of the Jerusalem church rather than that of the nearby church of Beroea (Acts 17.13). “For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews” (1 Thess 2.14, NRSV). In 1 Corinthians Paul corrects the congregation on matters of correct practice (συνήθεια) with regard to the Jewish Christian church (see 1 Cor 11.16; 14.34–36) and in Romans the Gentile churches are said to be “in debt or under obligation (ὀφειλεται) to the “poor among the saints” (i. e. Jerusalem)”. Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980), 50–51. Holmberg, Paul and Power, 20. Myllykoski, “James in History and Tradition,” 89. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983), 118–19.

58

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

witnesses in support of his claim that he himself is an apostle of the Lord. The reference to James in verse 7, Ἰακώβῳ, εἶτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, is probably a fixed formula Paul uses in order to force the reader to think of himself as equal to Peter, James, and all the other apostles who were called by Christ.319 From these references, we learn that the historical James assumed a significant role in the Jerusalem community, from which Paul distances himself while respecting his place as a figure of authority (Gal 2.9). The gospel of Mark contains three sections that refer to the relatives of Jesus: Mark 3.20–35, 6.1–6 and references to Mary the mother of James in the Passion narrative (Mark 15.40, 47; 16.1). The textual arrangement of Mark 3.20–35 is a rhetorical method known as sandwiching, where a discussion of Jesus’ family is interrupted by an accusation against Jesus from “scribes who come down from Jerusalem”.320 Jerusalem is for Mark a source of threat to Jesus and apart from a single positive usage where Jerusalem appears in Mark 3.8, all references to the city are negative in the gospel.321 John Painter stresses that the saying in Mark 3.35, where the true family of Jesus is defined as those that do the will of God, only takes a negative meaning when read in the framework of Mark.322 The same is true of Mark 6.1–6, where Mark inherits a reference to Jesus’ relatives that speak of them with respect and appends to a list of those who greeted Jesus without respect, thus hindering him from performing miracles.323 The saying that a prophet is not acceptable in his hometown is found in the Oxyrhynchus papyri324 and in the Gospel of Thomas,325 and in changed form in Luke and John,326 but Mark alone has ‘ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν αὐτοῦ’ to indict the family with rejecting Jesus.

319 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 234–36. 320 See e. g. James R. Edwards, “Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives,” NovT 31 (1989). 321 John Dominic Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” NovT 15 (2 1973): 88–90. The source of threat in the parallels in Matthew (9.34 = 12.24) and Luke (11.15) are the Pharisees and the crowds respectively. 322 Painter, Just James, 30. According to Painter the expression οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ in Mark 3.21 does not refer to the family, but to the disciples, and therefore Mark offers no evidence against the assumption that James was a disciple. 323 Ibid., 104–5. The traditional datum is Mark 6.2b–4a. 324 Pap. Ox. I, 31–36: “A prophet is not acceptable in his own country, neither does a physician work cures on those who know him”. Schneemelcher, ed., NT Apocrypha: vol 1, 102. 325 Gos. Thom. §31: “No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him”. Helmut Koester and Thomas O. Lambdin, “The Gospel of Thomas,” in The Nag Hammadi Library: The Definitive Translation of the Gnostic Scriptures Complete in One Volume (ed. James M. Robinson; New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins, 1990), 130. 326 See Luke 4.23 and John 4.44.

The Quest for Authorship

59

This polemic with Jerusalem is neither apparent in the Gospel of Matthew nor in the Gospel of Luke where the city of Jerusalem is given pride of place. Luke’s version of the Markan references to Jesus’ family is more redacted than Matthew’s and he changes the order of events. In Luke 4.16–30 the wording distances Jesus’ next of kin from the narrative and the proverb in verse 24 is about prophets not being accepted “in [their] home town” (ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ, Luke 4.24). Luke has no mention of the family’s attempt to restrain Jesus and transfers the charge that he is possessed to a later stage in the narrative (Luke 11.14–23). This new context reflects a positive attitude towards Jesus’ family and in chapter 8, the parable of the seed (Luke 8.11–15) creates a parallel with Luke 8.21, which includes his family among those who “hear the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patient endurance” (Luke 8.15). The book of Acts is fundamental to our study of the letter of James as will be argued, for it contains a speech-in–character or ethopoeia of James. James is not mentioned by name in Luke’s gospel and only after James “the brother of John” is killed in Acts 12.2, do James and his leadership in the Jerusalem community become a topic. The family of Jesus is mentioned in the opening chapter (Acts 1.14) as among those that belong to the highly idealised community in Jerusalem and there is no suggestion that their presence is surprising. The introduction of James in Acts is comparable to the letter of James, in that James seemingly needs no introduction, suggesting that his identity and status were common knowledge.327 James is first introduced by Peter in chapter 12, as among the brothers who should hear of God delivering him from prison (ἀπαγγείλατε Ἰακώβῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ταῦτα, Acts 12.17). James is then a protagonist in Paul’s conflict with the Jerusalem church debating with him and Barnabas in a narrative that significantly downplays the disagreement described by Paul (Acts 15.13–21). The result of his speech-in–character is that an agreement is reached, where James retracts all claims on gentiles to be circumcised or follow dietary regulations, except the well-known ban on foods polluted by idols, fornication, strangulation or blood (Acts 15.29). The final reference to James is in chapter 21, where Paul returns to Jerusalem to meet with James and as a result is made to prove his loyalty to the Temple cult (Acts 21.17–26). There are a number of points to be made that are relevant to our reading of the letter of James. First, Paul and Acts are in agreement that James held a leadership position in the Jerusalem church, although Luke’s narrative tries to smooth out the friction between Paul and the Jerusalem Pillars.328 Second, James’ decision 327 Painter, Just James, 42. 328 The Cornelius story in chapter 10 is in direct contradiction with the apostolic council of Acts 15, where Peter’s visions in Acts 10.9–16 present all Gentiles as clean and accepted into the people of God and in Acts 15 they are subjected the apostolic decree. His descriptions of

60

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

ends the discussion, which shows the importance for Luke to connect his community to the leadership of James and the Jerusalem church, again displaying James’ leadership role.329 Third, James’ speech presents him as an exegete who based his authority on interpretation of Septuagint,330 instead of revelation, status or kinship to Jesus, much like the letter of James does.331 The narrative framework of the Jerusalem council is theological and Luke first presents a Pharisaic interlocutor, who states the theological problem that it is necessary for gentiles (τό ἔθνος) to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses (ὁ νόμος Μωϋσέως, Acts 15.5). James also ends his speech with a reference to mosaic adherence in cities (Μωϋσῆς γὰρ ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων κατὰ πόλιν τοὺς κηρύσσοντας αὐτόν) and synagogues (ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς, Acts 15.21). This leads us to the fourth point, that although the speech is placed in Jerusalem, Luke has in mind a diaspora setting, made explicit through the references to cities and synagogues, a context expressed in the address of our letter (ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, Jas 1.1). Finally, the Amos quotation in James’ speech anticipates the (eschatological) restoration of Israel (ἀνοικοδομήσω τήν σκηνήν Δαυίδ, Acts 15.16), another context made explicit in the address of the letter of James (ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς, Jas 1.1). Outside the New Testament, James’ legacy is found in individual writings of Jewish and Christian authors, in the Nag Hammadi corpus and in JewishChristian writings, most notably the Pseudo-Clementines. In a rare external description of Christian events, Josephus relates in modest terms the martyrdom of James, who was stoned by the order of the Temple high priest.332 The reference to James is made in connection with the succession of the high priesthood in Jerusalem to Ananus in 62 CE, and describes James’ execution in passing. The passage is as follows:

329

330 331

332

Paul’s role in the events are also conflicting, as he is present at the apostolic council in chapter 15 but is then presented with the decree by James in Acts 21.25. Milton Moreland, “The Jerusalem Community in Acts: Mythmaking and the Sociorhetorical Functions of a Lukan Setting,” in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (ed. Todd C. Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele; SBLSymS 20; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). τούτῳ συμφωνοῦσιν οἱ λόγοι τῶν προφητῶν καθὼς γέγραπται· … Acts 15.15. See section 5.3 James as Exegete, 218. Acts 15.16–18 refer first implicitly to Jer 12.15 (see NA28 margin for 15.16) and then explicitly to Amos 9.11–12. The quotation: “καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυὶδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν καὶ τὰ κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς ἀνοικοδομήσω καὶ ἀνορθώσω αὐτήν, ὅπως ἂν ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸν κύριον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ’ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ’ αὐτούς, λέγει κύριος ποιῶν ταῦτα” Acts 15.16–17, NA28 is based on the Septuagint text: “ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἀναστήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυιδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω τὰ πεπτωκότα αὐτῆς καὶ τὰ κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς ἀναστήσω καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω αὐτὴν καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ αι᾿ῶνος, ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα, Amos 9.11– 12, LXX. The Hebrew text differs significantly enough to ascertain that Luke is using the Septuagint, not a Hebrew text. Josephus, Ant. 20.197–203.

The Quest for Authorship

61

Upon learning of the death of Festus, Caesar sent Albinus to Judea as procurator. The king removed Joseph from the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to this office upon the son of Ananus, who was likewise called Ananus. […] He followed the school of the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless than any of the other Jews, as I have already explained, when they sit in judgment. […] [He] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned. Those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were in strict observance of the law were offended at this. They therefore secretly sent to King Agrippa urging him, for Ananus had not even been correct in his first step, to order him to desist from any further such actions. Certain of them even went to meet Albinus […] and informed him that Ananus had no authority to convene the Sanhedrin without his consent. Convinced by these words, Albinus angrily wrote to Ananus threatening to take vengeance upon him. King Agrippa, because of Ananus’ action, deposed him from the high priesthood which he had held for three months and replaced him.333

This description should of course not be read without caution,334 but scholars have generally been less sceptical of its authenticity than the well-known Testimonium Flavianum, describing Jesus in theological categories.335 The issue at stake is the high priesthood of Jerusalem and Josephus’ emphasis is on the heartless nature of the Sadducees and the illegality of the calling of the Sanhedrin without the procurator’s permission. Ananus’ character is condemned as “heartless” in line with his view of the Sadducees, but importantly James’ execution was considered offensive by the “fair-minded” and law abiding (περὶ τοὺς νόμους ἀκριβεῖς) inhabitants of the city.336 James’ martyrdom account developed and gained increasing importance in patristic writings and Origen attributes to Josephus the idea that James’ execution led to the Jewish War, but this is nowhere to be found in the preserved manuscripts of Josephus.337 Eusebius claims Josephus, Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus as his sources on the death of James, but an unattributed section in his writings also bears similarity to Origen, where James’ righteousness is connected to his martyrdom.338 Quoting Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius introduces James as “the just bishop of Jerusalem” and describes his death so that he was “thrown down from the pinnacle of the temple and beaten to death with a 333 Josephus, Ant. 20.197–203 (Thackeray, Marcus, and Feldman, LCL). 334 Steve Mason, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 7–43. 335 Josephus, Ant. 18.63–64. James C. Vanderkam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2004), 477. 336 Josephus, Ant. 20.201 (Thackeray, Marcus, and Feldman, LCL). 337 Origen, Comm. Matt. 10.17, Cels. I.47, II.13. 338 Eusebius, Dem. ev. 2.5.122 (A. F. J. Klijn and G. J. Reinink, eds., 1973).

62

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

fuller’s club”.339 This method of execution is also reflected in Eusebius’ quote from Hegesippus, which F. Stanley Jones has argued may be the source behind Clement of Alexandria and the later accounts of James’ martyrdom in the Second Apocalypse of James and the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions.340 The tradition from Hegesippus begins by elaborating on the “excessive righteousness” and piety of James341 and then describes how an angry crowd throws James down from the Temple roof and when he survives the fall, he is stoned, clubbed and finally buried by the temple.342 James’ legacy is prominent in two traditions outside of patristic circles, firstly in the Nag Hammadi writings where three texts are named after him and the Gospel of Thomas presents him as a figure of authority (although perhaps ironically), and secondly in Jewish-Christian writings where he is presented as a defender of the Jewish law against Paul. James’ martyrdom is described in the Nag Hammadi Second Apocalypse of James in a fashion reminiscent of Hegesippus, where James is first thrown down from the temple and then rolled over with a stone and trampled on, before being buried alive and stoned.343 The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions also share traits with the Hegesippus narrative and there an unnamed enemy, who is clearly to be understood as Paul, throws James down the temple stairs after he had (almost) converted the temple priests by his interpretation of the Old Testament epic.344 The martyrdom of James was thus a well-known and widely attested narrative that generally displayed elements reminiscent of Jesus’ passion, such as Hegesippus’ description of James’ last words: “I beseech thee, O Lord, God and Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”.345 The importance of his death was not only a matter of exemplary martyrdom, but as Origen attests and ascribes to Josephus, the cause of Jerusalem’s downfall.346 Luke does not mention James’ martyrdom in Acts, but the narrative contains a number of elements that play on early martyrdom traditions. Stephen is the prime example in Acts of the first Christian martyr (Acts 6–7), but Paul is also made to suffer persecution (ἐπήγειραν διωγμὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Παῦλον, Acts 13.50) and 339 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.1.5 (Lake and Oulton, LCL). 340 F. Stanley Jones, “The Martyrdom of James in Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Christian Apocrypha, Including Nag Hammadi: A Study of Textual Relations,” SBLSP (1990). 341 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.23.4–8. 342 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.23.9–18. 343 2 Apoc. Jas 61.15–62.12. 344 Ps.-Clem. R 1.70.1–4. F. Stanley Jones, An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71 (SBLTT 37; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars’ Press, 1995). 345 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. II.23.9–18. (Lake and Oulton, LCL). 346 Origen, Comm. Matt. X.17.

The Quest for Authorship

63

stoning (λιθοβολῆσαι αὐτούς, Acts 14.5) at the hands of the Jewish and gentile authorities,347 so that he is presumed dead (λιθάσαντες τὸν Παῦλον ἔσυρον ἔξω τῆς πόλεως νομίζοντες αὐτὸν τεθνηκέναι, Acts 14.19). Shelley Matthews has argued for the Stephen narrative to be read as a rhetorical device within Luke-Acts and that his martyrdom account is prototyped on the martyrdom traditions of James.348 Stephen is not known outside of Acts’ narrative universe and is only attested in early patristic sources in connection to Acts,349 but there is good reason to suppose that the author knew Josephus and traditions about James’ death. Stephen is only mentioned in the narrative description of his martyrdom, which deliberately emulates the passion narrative in Luke. Stephen is brought before the Sanhedrin (Luke 22.26 / Acts 6.12), he proclaims the son of man at the right hand of God (Luke 22.69 / Acts 7.56) and prays to the Lord to receive his spirit at death (Luke 23.46 / Acts 7.59). Importantly Stephen is attacked by the temple after giving a speech to the high priest that summarises the epic of Israel from the patriarchs to the prophets in light of the “coming of the righteous one (περὶ τῆς ἐλεύσεως τοῦ δικαίου), and now you have become his betrayers and murderers (Acts 7.52, NRSV)”. Stephen is subsequently stoned to death. Matthews compares elements from Josephus, Hegesippus and the PseudoClementine Recognitions to the Stephen narrative in Acts and finds that all narratives share important elements, but that Acts and Hegesippus have most in common.350 In the same way that Matthews has argued for Luke’s knowledge and employment of James’ martyrdom in Acts, the letter of James may betray such knowledge if the ‘righteous one’ named in James 5.6 is interpreted to refer implicitly to James. At least two modern commentators have argued for the ‘righteous one’ being a veiled reference to the martyrdom of James. Hubert

347 Acts 14.5: ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο ὁρμὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων σὺν τοῖς ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν. 348 Shelly Matthews, Perfect Martyr: The Stoning of Stephen and the Construction of Christian Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). 349 Outside of the Acts account, there is no further mention of Stephen’s martyrdom until the time of Irenaeus and it is clear that Irenaeus relies on Acts for his information. Ibid., 19–20. 350 Ibid., 132: “While Hegesippus’ James narratives conforms to Acts’ narrative of Stephen, both the earlier version of James’ execution penned by Josephus and the later version of James’ “near-death” experience in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions plot violence and allegiance differently. These two texts evoke alternate webs of relationships, suggesting that not every interaction among Jews who confessed Jesus as messiah, and Jews who did not, conformed to the mold of the Acts’ narrative. In Josephus, we see strict observers of the Jewish law “burdened with grief,” at the death of James, the brother of Jesus – a far cry from “the Jews” who gnash their teeth at Stephen (Acts 7.54) or take pleasure in Herod’s killing of James, the brother of John (Acts 12.1). In the case of the Recognitions, which depends on Acts while radically altering the story line, we see an instance of an ancient resistant reading one that refuses to accept the starkness of Acts’ line dividing all Jesus believers from other Jews and that removes Stephen from the story altogether.”

64

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

Frankemölle by connecting the title James the Just to his legacy discussed above351 and David Nienhuis who argues that the vocabulary of a shameful death based on the Wisdom of Salomon352 deliberately hints at the unlawful execution of James.353 The importance and widespread attestation of James’ designation as ‘the Just’ can hardly be overstated. In the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas, James is introduced as “the righteous (ⲡⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ), for whose sake heaven and earth came into being”,354 in Jewish-Christian circles Jesus alone breaks bread with James the ‘Just’ in the Gospel of the Hebrews,355 and finally the patristic authors consistently call him Ἰάκωβος δίκαιος, so that Hegesippus finds himself compelled to explain why: “He was called the ‘Just’ by all men from the Lord’s time to ours, since many are called James, but he was holy from his mother’s womb”.356 It is thus perhaps not incidental that the adjective δίκαιος, referring to a specific person is found in the letter attributed to James. The authenticity of James is a matter of scholarly debate, although a majority of scholars argue for pseudonymous authorship.357 The subtlety of the letter’s superscription can be seen as an indication that the legendary status of James is assumed and he therefore needs no introduction. Such a proposition is however inherently conjectural, since we cannot ascertain which traditions the author was familiar with. The study of ancient epistolary fiction relies on a number of characteristics that are shared by pseudonymous letters, such as “explicit identification of the writer in the body of the letter, rather than in the heading” and references to the “physical nature of epistolarity: acts of writing or reading, the method of sending, enclosed or embedded letters, and epistolary formulas”.358 Interestingly none of these traits are found in James, but this can also be said for other pseudepigrapha.359 What the letter explicitly says about the author is that he

351 Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus, 663–64. 352 Wis 2.10, 20, LXX: καταδυναστεύσωμεν πένητα δίκαιον […] θανάτῳ ἀσχήμονι καταδικάσωμεν αὐτόν. “Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow […] Let us condemn him to a shameful death”, NETS. 353 Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone, 152–53. 354 Bentley Layton, Gos. Thom. §12. 355 Gos. Heb. 7. 356 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. II.1.5, (Lake and Oulton, LCL). 357 See discussion in Allison, James, 4 n. 18 for a list of proponents of authentic authorship and n. 19 for the view that it is a pseudepigraphon written in his name, along with undecided scholars. Notable proponents of authenticity include Johnson, Letter of James, 92–106 and Bauckham, James, 13–14. 358 Patricia A. Rosenmeyer, Ancient Epistolary Fiction: The Letter in Greek Literature (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 207, 209. 359 See Allison, James, 8.

The Quest for Authorship

65

is a θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος and this formulation has parallels both in Septuagint360 and Paul.361 The identification of James as a slave of God serves the purpose of establishing authority as his “agent and spokesperson,”362 and stands in a rhetorical tradition of the enslaved leader: “As people are enslaved to kings, so are kings enslaved to the gods”.363 This hierarchical rhetoric has social consequences, as Dale Martin has argued,364 but also ethical implications as J. Albert Harrill has shown: Early Christian writings reflect, participate in and promote the literary imagination about slaves and the ideology of mastery widely diffuse in the ancient Mediterranean, which supported what the Romans called auctoritas. Auctoritas denoted the quality of actual power in the individual person (the auctor) granted by the willing compliance of subordinates and the esteem of one’s colleagues […] The value was deeply moral, belonging to the cultural milieu of masculinity and competition in Rome’s conflict culture. By ideology I mean language that colludes with, supports, and makes sense of the current structures of authority and domination that a particular society uses to construct and maintain its social “reality” and in which writers can participate even if the collusion is not altogether conscious.365

James is presented as the enslaved leader of the community the letter is addressed to, one that claims authority via submission to both “God” and “the lord Jesus Christ” and this ideological language has both social and ethical implications. The two-part submission could ideally be read as an indicator that our text presents a dichotomy of terms, where θεός refers to the God of Israel and κύριος to 360 3Kings 18.36 LXX on the lips of Elijah (cf. Jas 5.17): καὶ ἀνεβόησεν Ηλιου ει᾿ς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ εἶπεν Κύριε ὁ θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ισραηλ, ἐπάκουσόν μου, κύριε, ἐπάκουσόν μου σήμερον ἐν πυρί, καὶ γνώτωσαν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ὅτι σὺ εἶ κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ κἀγὼ δοῦλός σου καὶ διὰ σὲ πεποίηκα τὰ ἔργα ταῦτα; 2Esd 20.30 LXX about Mose: ἐν νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ; ὃς ἐδόθη ἐν χειρὶ Μωυσῆ δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ; Ps 85.2 LXX as a prayer of David: σῶσον τὸν δοῦλόν σου, ὁ θεός μου, τὸν ἐλπίζοντα ἐπὶ σέ; Isa 49.5–6 LXX on the suffering servant and Jacob the patriarch: καὶ νῦν οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ πλάσας με ἐκ κοιλίας δοῦλον ἑαυτῷ τοῦ συναγαγεῖν τὸν Ιακωβ καὶ Ισραηλ πρὸς αὐτόν […] καὶ εἶπέν μοι Μέγα σοί ἐστιν τοῦ κληθῆναί σε παῖδά μου τοῦ στῆσαι τὰς φυλὰς Ιακωβ καὶ τὴν διασπορὰν τοῦ Ισραηλ ἐπιστρέψαι; Ezek 37.23–24 LXX on David: ἐγὼ κύριος ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς ει᾿ς θεόν. καὶ ὁ δοῦλός μου Δαυιδ ἄρχων ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν; Dan 3.93 LXX about the four in the furnace: προσελθὼν ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς τὴν θύραν τῆς καμίνου τῆς καιομένης τῷ πυρὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτοὺς ἐξ ὀνόματος Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω οἱ παῖδες τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν θεῶν τοῦ ὑψίστου, ἐξέλθετε ἐκ τοῦ πυρός; et.al. 361 Rom 1.1: Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; 2 Cor 4.5: οὐ γὰρ ἑαυτοὺς κηρύσσομεν ἀλλὰ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν κύριον, ἑαυτοὺς δὲ δούλους ὑμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦν; Phil 1.1: Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; Col 4.12: ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς Ἐπαφρᾶς ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ [Ἰησοῦ]; Tit 1.1: Παῦλος δοῦλος θεοῦ, ἀπόστολος δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 362 Dale B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1990), 147. 363 Ibid., 86. 364 Ibid., 117ff. 365 J. Albert Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social and Moral Dimensions (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2006), 2–3.

66

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

Jesus Christ; such a neat distinction does however not hold. God (θεός) is referred to 17 times,366 but κύριος refers twice explicitly to Jesus (Jas 1.1; 2.1) and arguably twice implicitly (Jas 5.7–8),367 while the other 10 occurrences refer to God.368 The text of James 2.1 is likely corrupt and this leads Dale Allison to remark: “[I]f we leave aside 1.1, James fails to ground a single proposition in the person and work of Jesus […] Jesus’ crucifixion is neither mentioned nor clearly alluded to. Nor is anything said about his resurrection or exaltation. His deeds merit no mention, and one searches in vain for any remark upon his character or status as a moral model […] James is theocentric, not Christocentric”.369

2.3

The Quest for Audience

The letter of James is addressed to the twelve tribes in the dispersion (ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, Jas 1.1) and this requires some discussion. The address αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί is in the Septuagint a designation for the twelve tribes of Israel (τάς δώδεκα φυλὰς τοῦ Ισραηλ),370 but the phrase as a whole ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ is without precedent.371 The epic narrative behind the idea of twelve tribes forming an elect people of God, is intrinsically connected to the biblical patriarch Jacob and this play on persona would be recognisable to the implied readers. The name of the biblical patriarch is synonymous with monotheism in Exodus: “Ἐγώ ει᾿μι ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου, θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ”,372 a connection made explicit in numerous Jewish texts,373 as well as in synoptic tradition.374 The allusion is also ethnic or geographic, since the twelve 366 Jas 1.1, 5, 13, 27; 2.5, 19, 23; 3.9; 4.4, 6, 7, 8. The word strikingly does not appear after Jas 4.8. 367 The phrase παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου is not found in LXX, nor in Jewish sources. It is however found in Paul, 1 Thess 2.19: ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ; 3.13: ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ, [ἀμήν]; 4.15: οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ει᾿ς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου; 5.23: ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τηρηθείη; 2 Thess 2.1: Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and in 2 Pet 2.16. 368 Κυρίου in Jas 1.7 is equivalent to θεοῦ in 1.5; 3.9 connects κύριον with πατέρα and θεοῦ; κυρίου in 4.10 is equivalent to θεῷ in 4.7–8; 4.15 is a proverbial phrase ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ and 5.11 is a LXX citation to the patience of Job. That leaves 5.10 and 14: ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου, which could be argued to refer to the name of Jesus but is very common in LXX (TLG word search of ὄνομα + κύριος, -α, -ον, incl. lemma and proximity of 3 words gives 171 results). 369 Allison, James, 34–35, 89–90. 370 Exod 24.4, LXX. See Exod 36.21; Num 1.44; Deut 1.23; Josh 4.5; 3 Kgdms 18.31; 2 Esd 6.17; Ezek 47.13, et al. 371 A TLG search, φυλή, -ῆς, ἡ + δώδεκα + διασπορά, -ᾶς, ἡ within a 15-word proximity incl. lemma, returns only James 1.1 and patristic authors referring to James. 372 Exod 3.6, LXX. 373 TLG, in LXX, intertestamental literature and Philo. 374 Mark 12.26, Matt. 22.32, Luke 20.37, Acts 3.13, 7.32.

The Quest for Audience

67

tribes stem from his sons (Gen 35.22) who are given the land by God (Gen 28.13),375 and eschatological as in Gen 49.1–2, where Jacob speaks as Israel.376 Behind the designation lies the hope of restoration for the nation of Israel, scattered since the fall of the northern kingdom in 722 BCE. That “Israel will be reassembled […,] the ten tribes scattered by the Assyrians will be brought back to the land. This hope is expressed by speaking of ‘Jacob’, the father of the twelve tribes.”377 The New Testament has similar references, αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί is referred to at the end of the synoptic double tradition as an eschatological promise to the disciples, Q 22.30: “you who have followed me will sit […] on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”.378 The Revelation of John individually names all the tribes as the elect (ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, Rev 7.4–8), at the eschaton in the apocalypse and then envisions the restoration of Israel (and Jerusalem) as adorned with gates representing τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ (Rev 21.12). Luke-Acts again becomes important for our study, as the narrative in the composite work aims at the restoration of Israel, more than e. g. the letters of Paul or Matthew.379 This is made explicit in the opening chapters, where the Benedictus of Zechariah opens with this hope, “Blessed (Εὐλογητός) be the Lord God of Israel, for he has looked favourably on his people and redeemed (ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν) them”,380 and is a 375 Gen 28.13, LXX: ὁ δὲ κύριος ἐπεστήρικτο ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Εγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς Αβρααμ τοῦ πατρός σου καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ισαακ· μὴ φοβοῦ· ἡ γῆ, ἐφ᾽ ἧς σὺ καθεύδεις ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς, σοὶ δώσω αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου. And the Lord leaned on it and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraam your father and the God of Isaak; do not be afraid; as for the land which you are sleeping on, I will give it to you and to your offspring, NETS. 376 Gen 49.1–2, LXX: Εκάλεσεν δὲ Ιακωβ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν Συνάχθητε, ἵνα ἀναγγείλω ὑμῖν, τί ἀπαντήσει ὑμῖν ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν· ἀθροίσθητε καὶ ἀκούσατε, υἱοὶ Ιακωβ, ἀκούσατε Ισραηλ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν. Then Iakob summoned his sons and said: “Gather together in order that I may tell you what will happen to you at the last of the days. Assemble, and hear, O sons of Iakob; hear Israel your father”, NETS. 377 E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM Press, 1992), 290ff, see Isa 49.6a. 378 James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds., The Critical Edition of Q (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2000). Q 22.28, 30: ὑμεῖς … οἱ ἀκολουθήσαντές μοι … καθήσεσθε ἐπὶ θρόνους κρίνοντες τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. IQP Matt 19.28: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ὑμεῖς οἱ ἀκολουθήσαντές μοι ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ, ὅταν καθίσῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ, καθήσεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους κρίνοντες τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. Luke 22.28–30: Ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε οἱ διαμεμενηκότες μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐν τοῖς πειρασμοῖς μου· κἀγὼ διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν καθὼς διέθετό μοι ὁ πατήρ μου βασιλείαν, ἵνα ἔσθητε καὶ πίνητε ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης μου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου, καὶ καθήσεσθε ἐπὶ θρόνων τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς κρίνοντες τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. 379 David Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel (JSNTSup 19; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 172–246. 380 Luke 1.68, NRSV. Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel, 37–38: “The opening line of the Benedictus is almost identical to 1 Kgs 1.48 and the second line is closely related to Ps. 110.9 (LXX), and there may be a further reference to the psalm in 1.72. […] The allusions to 1 Kgs

68

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

recurrent theme throughout. Another example is the presentation of the Israelite epic in Stephen’s speech in Acts, where the historiography ends with Solomon,381 anticipating the restoration of a united Israel under its new lord.382 The prepositional phrase ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ literally refers to Jews living outside of Judea, but the concept has a rich semantic range in Jewish writings. James is the first example of the preposition + definite article, but ἐν διασπορᾷ has two attestations in Septuagint and one in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.383 In all of these examples, the diaspora is a result of divine retribution, a theme e. g. also found in Josephus with his perception of history as a process of divine reward and punishment, based on moral precepts and a Deuteronomistic conception of Jewish history.384 The Hebrew equivalent ‫ בגולה‬is well attested and variably translated in the Septuagint,385 but in recent scholarship, increasing attention has been given to the diaspora correspondence found in Jewish writings in connection to James. Instrumental in this regard is Irene Taatz’s monograph on letters in early Judaism, where she designates a number of Jewish letters from

381 382

383

384 385

1.48 (a son to sit on David’s throne) and to Psalm 110 are not in the class of ‘prophecyfulfilment’ citations but reminders of past examples of God’s salvation of Israel. Once more we detect Luke taking a backward glance to Israel’s past while speaking of the present. For Luke, redemption (λύτρςσις, 1.68; 2.38) has special characteristics that bring out his concern for Israel”. Acts 7.45–47, NRSV: “And it was there until the time of David, who […] asked that he might find a dwelling-place for the house of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him”. Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel, 37–69: “The speech therefore looks back to a time when Israel, like the church of Luke’s day, lived without the divisive presence of the temple. […] Luke’s scarcely veiled dislike of Solomon reflects […] that it was in his reign that the seeds of national division began to grow. Luke is deeply concerned for the restoration of a united Israel under its new Lord, the prophet like Moses and the Davidic king”. TLG. Deut 28.24–25: May the Lord render the rain of your land as powder, and dust from the sky shall come down upon you until it wipes you out and until it destroys you. May the Lord give you slaughter before your enemies; you shall go out against them by one way and flee from them by seven ways. And you shall be in dispersion in all the kingdoms of the earth (ἔσῃ ἐν διασπορᾷ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς βασιλείαις τῆς γῆς), NETS. Jer 15.5–7: Who will be sparing over you, O Ierousalem, and who will be in dread over you, or who will double back for peace for you? […] I will stretch out my hand and destroy you, and I will let them off no more. And I will disperse them in a dispersion in the gates of my people (διασπερῶ αὐτοὺς ἐν διασπορᾷ· ἐν πύλαις λαοῦ μου ἠτεκνώθησαν), NETS. T.12 Patr. 10.7: Do not become, children, as Sodom that did not know the angels of the Lord and perished for ever For I know that you will sin and will be delivered in the hands of your enemies and your land Will be made desolate and your holy place Will be destroyed and you Will be scattered to the four comers of the earth and you Will be in dispersion set at naught … until the most high will visit the earth. H.W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, eds., The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 358. See e. g. Jospehus, Ant 1.14: John M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 356–57. Allison, James, 129: “ἐν ἀποκία (Jer 48.7; 49.3), ἐν ἀποικισμόν (Jer 48.11), ἐν μετοικεσίᾳ (Ezek 12.11), ἐν αι᾿χμαλωσίᾳ (Ezek 25.3; Amos 1.15; Zech 14.2) […] some LXX witnesses have, as the title for Ps 138, τῷ Δαυὶδ ψαλμὸς Ζαχαρίου ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ”.

The Quest for Audience

69

antiquity as written to the Diaspora386 with the purpose of strengthening the bonds of the Jewish people between diaspora and homeland.387 Studies in the connection of James388 (and 1 Peter)389 to these letters have revealed important similarities in both form and content, including an address to Jews in the diaspora from a recognised authority: Jer 36.1, LXX (29.1): And these are the words of the book (οἱ λόγοι τῆς βίβλου), which Ieremias sent from Ierousalem (ἐξ Ιερουσαλημ) to the elders of the exile (πρὸς τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἀποικίας) and to the priests and to the pseudo-prophets, as a letter to the exile in Babylon (ἐπιστολὴν ει᾿ς Βαβυλῶνα τῇ ἀποικίᾳ) and to all the people (NETS). EpJer 1: A copy (᾿Αντίγραφον) of a letter (ἐπιστολῆς) that Ieremias sent to those who would be led as captives into Babylon by the king of the Babylonians to proclaim to them just as it was commanded to him by God (NETS). 2 Macc 1.1–2: The fellow Judeans in Hierosolyma (οἱ ἀδελφοὶ οἱ ἐν Ιεροσολύμοις Ιουδαῖοι) and those in the land of Judea, to their Judean brothers in Egypt (Τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς τοῖς κατ᾽ Αἴγυπτον Ιουδαίοις), greetings and true peace. May God do good to you, and may he remember his covenant with Abraam and Isaak and Iakob, his faithful slaves (…καὶ Ιακωβ τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ τῶν πιστῶν) (NETS). 2 Macc 1.10–11: The people of Hierosolyma (Οἱ ἐν Ιεροσολύμοις) and of Judea (οἱ ἐν τῇ Ιουδαίᾳ) and the senate (ἡ γερουσία) and Ioudas (Ιουδας), to Aristobulus, who is of the family of the anointed priests, teacher of King Ptolemy, and to the Judeans in Egypt, greetings and good health (NETS). 2 Bar 78.1: These are the words of that epistle which Baruch son of Neriah sent to the nine and one half tribes.390 4 Bar 6.16–18: But Baruch sent to the market of the Gentiles, got papyrus and ink, and wrote a letter reading as follows: “Baruch the servant of God (Βαροὺχ ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ) 386 These include the introductory letters to 2 Macc (1.1–9; 1.10–2, 18); letters of the JeremiahBaruch tradition (Jer 29, EpJer, 2Bar 78–86[87], 4Bar 6,19–25, 7,24–34), rabbinical letters, letters from the Elephantine colony (Aramaic Papyri No. 21; 30) and letters of the BarKochba period from the desert of Judah. Irene Taatz, Frühjüdische Briefe: Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der offiziellen religiösen Briefe des Frühjudentums (NTOA 16; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). 387 Ibid., 104. 388 Manabu Tsuji, Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung: Eine Untersuchung zur literarischen Gestalt und zur inhaltlich en Kohärenz des Jakobusbriefes (WUNT II 93; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht früjudischer Diasporabriefe,” NTS 44 (1998). 389 Thorsten Klein, Bewährung in Anfechtung: Der Jakobusbrief und der Erste Petrusbrief als christliche Diaspora-Briefe (NET 18; Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 2011). Lutz Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography (WUNT 298; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 429–63. 390 2Bar 78.1, Daniel M. Gurtner, Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text With Greek and Latin Fragments, English Translation, Introduction, and Concordances (JCTC 5; New York, N.Y.: T&T Clark, 2009), 125.

70

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

writes to Jeremiah, who is in the captivity (ἐν τῇ αι᾿χμαλωσίᾳ) of Babylon: rejoice and exult since God did not allow us to depart from this body grieving for the city that has been laid waste and suffered outrage. Therefore the Lord had compassion on our tears and remembered the covenant that he established with our fathers Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.391

The letter openings listed above have different origins, but they share an address to the diaspora and Jerusalem is in the background in all of these correspondences. Notable elements in this epistolary tradition are both the sender(s) and recipient(s), as they share vocabulary with James. Jacob (ὁ Ἰακώβ) the patriarch is named along with his forefathers in 2 Macc 1.2 as a faithful slave of God (τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ τῶν πιστῶν) and 4 Baruch 6.17–18 designates the author as a slave of God (Βαρούχ ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ) based on the covenant made with Jacob. The epistle of Jeremiah is addressed to the elders of the exile (πρεσβυτέρους, see Jas 5.14) and 2 Macc is a letter from brothers (οἱ ἀδελφοί οἱ ἐν Ιεροσολύμοις) to brothers (Τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, see Jas 1.2, 9, 16, 19; 2.1, 5, 14–15; 3.1, 10, 12; 4.11; 5.7, 9, 10, 12, 19). To readers familiar with this tradition the address Ἰάκωβος θεοῦ […] δοῦλος ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ would resonate an expectation of Torah-based paraenesis as is a distinctive feature of diaspora letters.392 Historically interpreters have understood the addressees of the letter of James to refer to Christian Jews living outside of Palestine393 and a majority of modern scholars read the “twelve tribes in the dispersion” figuratively as referring to the church as a new Israel.394 This reading is commonly based on 1 Peter 1.1–2,395 where the ‘exiles of the dispersion’ (ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς, 1 Pet 1.1) are addressed, referring metaphorically to ‘diaspora’ as Christ believers scattered in the world.396 Despite the apparent similarities between the addresses of James and 1 Peter, there are significant differences in that James does not again refer to diaspora language (δώδεκα, ἡ φυλή and ἡ διασπορά are only found in Jas 1.1). If 1

391 4 Bar 6.16–18. Jens Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) (WGRW 22; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 22–23. 392 “Die Autoren der Diasporabriefe haben daher die Aufgabe, den göttlichen Auftrag, das in der Diaspora lebende Gottesvolk in seiner Identität zu stärken. Diesen Auftrag erfüllen sie, indem sie situationsbezogen und rezipientenorientiert den Willen Gottes zur Sprache bringen, an dem sich Glaube und Leben orientieren sollen. Nach den Erfordernissen und der Situation der Adressaten in der Diaspora richten sich Gestalt und Gehalt ihrer Toraparänese. Dies gilt auch für den Jakobusbrief.” Niebuhr, “Diasporabriefe,” 442. 393 For an extensive bibliography see Allison, James, 115 n. 20. 394 For bibliography, see Allison, James, 116 n. 22. 395 See e. g. Dibelius, James, 66–67. 396 Troy W. Martin, Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter (SBLDS 131; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1992), 144–61. Duane F. Watson and Terrance Callan, First and Second Peter (Paideia; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2012), 19–21.

The Quest for Audience

71

Peter 1.1–2 is an example of diaspora referring to all Christians as exiles,397 it is the only example from early Christianity398 and he still retains a literal element with the geographical specificity (Πόντου, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ἀσίας καὶ Βιθυνίας, 1 Pet 1.1). There are also problems with interpreting 1 Peter’s reference to παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς as being a metaphor for the church, because diaspora is univocally understood as a form of punishment by God in Jewish and patristic texts, also in reception of 1 Peter: “The Church is Christ’s; that is why she cannot be diaspora”.399 Allison400 and Kloppenborg401 have recently argued that the address in James is best understood as referring to Jewish (diaspora) recipients and that the ‘twelve tribes in the dispersion’ is not a metaphor for Christians.402 Both exegetes base their argument on the corruption of Jas 2.1 (ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης), the only explicit reference to the recipients being Christian,403 with the problem being the string of genitives and to which term the final modifier τῆς δόξης refers, πίστιν, κυρίου or Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Ryan D. Wettlaufer lists the ways in which scribes modified this awkward syntax, by either moving τῆς δόξης to follow πίστιν or omitting it entirely.404 Allison and Kloppenborg argue that ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is an emendation and this would leave the traditional Hebrew title “Lord of Glory” in the original text. This insertion of ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ would then be an example of “title creep,” a colloquial describing a scribal activity where additional terms are added to a divine title. Wettlaufer’s 397 Paul J. Achtemeier, A Commentary on First Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1996), 82–83. 398 Allison, James, 131. 399 W.C. van Unnik, “‘Diaspora’ and ‘Church’ in the First Centuries of Christian History,” in Patristica, Gnostica, Liturgica (ed. C.K. Barrett, A. F.J. Klijn, and J. Smit Sibinga; vol. 3 of Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W.C. van Unnik, NovTSup 31; Leiden: Brill, 1983), 105. Van Unnik points out that not even Origen interpreted diaspora as referring to the church in connection with 1 Peter, cf. Gen frag. PG 12.92 A. Dale Allison picks up this point and remarks that “[f]or Origen, as for Eusebius, H.E. 3.4.2, 1 Peter was written to Jews in the diaspora. Perhaps modern scholarship has often not considered this a serious option because (as with James) it has confused the fictional readers of the address with the likely real readers. Allison, James, 131 n. 127. 400 Allison, “The Fiction of James and its Sitz im Leben.” 401 John S. Kloppenborg, “Diaspora Discourse: The Construction of Ethos in James,” NTS 53 (2 2007). 402 For similar ideas from Bede the Venerable to modern scholarship, see bibliography in Allison, James, 116–17 n. 23. 403 John S. Kloppenborg, “Judeans or Judean Christians in James,” in Identity and Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean: Jews, Christians and Others. Essays in Honour of Stephen G. Wilson (ed. Philip A. Harland and Zeba A. Crook; New Testament Monographs 18; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007). Allison, James, 382–84 ‘Excursus’. 404 Ryan Donald Wettlaufer, The Use of Conjectural Emendation in the Restoration of the Text of the New Testament, the Epistle of James as a Case Study (NTTSD 44; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 161– 62.

72

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

preliminary investigation reveals that this is a relatively rare phenomenon in the New Testament (in 2,89 % of 4321 investigated cases) and is in Jas 2.1 not supported by the evidence from manuscripts.405 While possible, the designation πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου τῆς δόξης would be an unprecedented use of an objective genitive, whereas if τῆς δόξης is seen as a genitive of quality this is in line with the author’s style, since there are seven other examples of such genitive use in James.406 Their reading does not mark a return to the hypothesis of a Jewish origin of James, famously argued by Massebieau407 and Spitta408 who believed the Christological references of Jas 1.1 and 2.1 to be Christian glosses to a Jewish document, since both accept the authenticity of the ascription Ἰάκωβος θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος.409 The result is a reading that for Allison deliberately downplays Christian elements in order to address a two-fold intended audience, “those who share the author’s Christian conviction and those who do not”.410 Kloppenborg stresses the importance of this rhetorical strategy of the letter being (fictively) addressed to diaspora Jews, not to fellow Christ believers, which means that the actual addressees are meant to “overhear” or “read over the shoulder” of the author as he presents his ethopoeia of James.411 This speaks into the longstanding debate about the almost complete omission of Christology in James;412 to Allison and Kloppenborg this is a deliberate rhetorical strategy and reading the whole letter as discourse aimed at Jews solves numerous exegetical problems.413 Pushing back against their reading, Joel Marcus agrees with Allison that James 1.1 should be read “against the backdrop of Jewish traditions about the return of the Ten Tribes,” but argues that James 2.1 can be fixed, i. e. the awkwardness and obscurity reduced, by moving τῆς δόξης back to form κυρίου τῆς δόξης ἡμῶν and the verse should thus not be seen as corrupt.414 Marcus also points out that the comparison to Diaspora letters is problematic, since “most […] are clearly addressed to the exiles of the second dispersion […] in 587 BCE and did not lead to a loss of Jewish ethnic identity, [with the exception of] 2 Bar. 78.1, a letter 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413

Ibid., 161–62. Ibid., 178–79. The other examples are Jas 1.12, 18, 25; 2.4, 12; 3.6; 5.13. Massebieau, “L’Épître de Jacques est-elle l’oeuvre d’un chrétien,” 249–83. Spitta, Der Brief des Jakobus. Kloppenborg, “Diaspora Discourse,” 251. Allison, James, 37ff. Allison, “The Fiction of James and its Sitz im Leben,” 570. Kloppenborg, “Diaspora Discourse,” 260, 267. Deppe, “The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James,” 397–400. James 1.18 (ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας ει᾿ς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀπαρχήν τινα τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων) is then not a baptismal reference, but a reference to Torah (Λόγος ἀληθείας is used both in the Tanak and in the Τ. 12 Patr. to designate the Torah); Jas 2.14–26 addresses the Pauline distinction of faith vs. works in a Jewish context; 5.7–8 (ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου) a reference to God’s presence and 5.14 (οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῆς ἐκκλησίας) a reference to the elders of a Jewish religious community. Kloppenborg, “Diaspora Discourse,” 246–50. Allison, James, 36–38. 414 Joel Marcus, “The Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora (James 1.1),” NTS 60 (2014): 436.

The Quest for Audience

73

directed to the Nine-and-a-Half Tribes of the first dispersion”.415 With this in mind Marcus asks, “does the author of James, in contrast to all other Jewish thinkers that we know of from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, conceive of the Lost Tribes as reachable [and] where does he think they are?”416 His answer is based on a reading of Roman 11.25–27 about the fullness of nations (τό πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν) as an allusion to the tribal epic of Gen 48:19,417 and referring to the “ingathering of the Gentiles into Israel, but in their new identity as the reconstituted ‘Ephraim’, […] simultaneously proclaiming the salvation of the Gentiles and the return of the northern kingdom – as the same event”.418 In line with this understanding, Marcus proposes that James “thinks that the Ten Lost Tribes are […] very near, in the person of some of the Gentiles among whom he himself lives – specifically those who have been drawn into the Christian movement. Gentile proselytes to Christianity, in other words, are the Ten Lost Tribes.”419 I concur with Allison and Kloppenborg that the letter is best understood as addressed to a Jewish audience (explicitly), although the writer expects fellow δοῦλοι of κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to overhear the conversation.420 Joel Marcus’ reading of James expecting a gathering of gentiles into the twelve tribes of Israel is however intriguing in connection to the author’s ethopoeia, which is in large part built on Greek education and display of language competency as will be shown. His conclusion that this necessitates that “the phrase is a reference to a Christian entity that includes both Jewish Christians (the Two Tribes of Judah) and gentile Christians (the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel)”421 is however unnecessary. This would allow for a three-part rhetorical strategy behind the unadorned opening verse, addressing explicitly a Jewish (diaspora) audience that metaphorically includes gentiles and only implicitly Christ believers. Such a reading

415 “This epistle, however, was ostensibly written in the time of Baruch in the early sixth century BCE, though it is actually a second-century CE pseudepigraphon. Second Baruch, in other words, purports to be written much closer to the time of the first dispersion than James does, and thus the writer can more plausibly claim to know the exact whereabouts of the Nineand-a-Half tribes and consequently (in the world of the text) trust that his letter will reach them.” Ibid., 436–37. 416 Ibid., 438. 417 Jacob (as Israel) blesses his grandson Ephraim with the words “his offspring shall become a multitude of nations (τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἔσται ει᾿ς πλῆθος ἐθνῶν),” Gen 48.19, NRSV (LXX). 418 Jason A. Staples, “What Do the Gentiles Have to Do with ‘All Israel’? A Fresh Look at Romans 11:25–27,” JBL 130 (2 2011): 387–88. 419 Marcus, “The Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora,” 438f. 420 Kloppenborg, “Diaspora Discourse,” 267. 421 Marcus, “The Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora,” 447.

74

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

would be responsive to the caution against a distinction between two religions,422 Christianity and Judaism, in the earliest literature of Christ believers.423 Finally, one should ask what James means by the address that the twelve tribes (of Israel) are placed in the dispersion. As we have no parallels of the pairing δώδεκα φυλαί with διασπορά424 and James does not refer to these terms again, we can only speculate as to what the author had in mind, apart from the obvious that such an address is possible to the author. Our options include: 1) A metaphoric reference to Christ followers “called […] out of darkness into his marvellous light […] as aliens and exiles (παροίκους καὶ παρεπιδήμους),”425 which if plausible means that it is an in-group address;426 2) a reference to all members of Judaism that live outside of Judea; or 3) that it reflects a new situation after the Jewish war, where all of Israel has been relegated to diaspora. This last option is of course based on a post-70 CE reading of James, and although there has been intense debate about dating James there is nothing in the letter that demands such a reading.427 There are however metaphors of conflict in James that I would argue reflect a historical reality, again without there being markers in the text that can guide to a precise Sitz im Leben.428

2.4

The Letter of James as Ethopoeia

The debate about the authorship of the letter James has roots in the earliest reception of the letter in patristic circles.429 Origen is the first to explicitly cite James as scripture430 and in the Homilies on Leviticus he quotes Jas 5.20 with the 422 The term itself is anachronistic when discussing antiquity as Brent Nongbri has argued, Brent Nongbri, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2013). 423 Stanley Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994). Caroline Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2007). 424 A TLG search, δώδεκα + διασπορά, -ᾶς, ἡ within a 15-word proximity incl. lemma, returns only James 1.1 and three references to James 1.1: Epiphanius, Index apostolorum 109.4 {2021.023}; Athanasius, Synopsis scripturae sacrae XXVIII.292.20 {2035.071}; Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate LXXV.509.24 {4090.109}. 425 1 Peter 2.9–11, NRSV. 426 “There is […] little reason to question the identification of 1 Peter as a circular letter addressed to Christian communities scattered over the northern half of Asia Minor.” Achtemeier, First Peter, 62. 427 See Allison, James, 3–32. 428 See section 6.2 Wealth, Violence and the Rhetoric of James, 247. 429 Jerome wrote: “[James] was after the Lord’s passion at once ordained bishop Jerusalem by the apostles. He wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles, and even this is claimed by some to have been published by someone else under his name, and gradually as time went on to have gained authority.” Jerome, Vir. ill. 2.1–2 (Halton, FC).

The Letter of James as Ethopoeia

75

preface, “[f]or thus divine Scripture (Scriptura divina)431 says”.432 Widespread reception in the west is more contested and James is not found in the much debated Muratorian fragment433 that lists Jude and 1 John, but neither the Petrine letters nor James. Eusebius lists James “as it is called (λεγομένη)” among “disputed books (τῶν δ’ ἀντιλεγομένων), which are nevertheless familiar to the majority”.434 Eusebius himself cited James as scripture,435 but the criteria that for him determine between recognised books (ἐνδιάθηκος) and disputed (ἀντιλεγόμενα) are threefold, references by earlier ecclesiastical (ἐκκλησιαστικός) authors, language that conforms to the ethos of the apostles (ὁ τῆς φράσεως παρὰ τὸ ἦθος τὸ ἀποστολικὸν ἐναλλάττει χαρακτήρ) and evident forgeries by heretics (ὅτι δὴ αἱρετικῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀναπλάσματα τυγχάνει, σαφῶς παρίστησιν).436 Eusebius’ discussion does not indicate that there were doubts about the third criteria (heretic content),437 but he is explicit that the paucity of reception posed a problem: “It is observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it […] nevertheless [it has] been used publicly […] in most churches”.438 For our purposes the second criteria is most important in that language, reflecting the ethos of the author, is a recognised criteria of evaluation, but the extent to which “apostolic ethos” was an issue regarding James in Eusebius’ time is less clear.439 The oldest irrefutable western references to James are Hilary of Poitiers, quoting James as an apostle (Iacobus apostolus dixerit),440 and Ambrosiaster, who refers 430 E. g. Origen, Hom. Exod 8.4; Hom. Josh 10.2; Sel. Ps. 30.6, et al. For more citations see Johnson, Letter of James, 64–65 and Allison, James, 14 n. 57. 431 Origenes, Origenes Werke VI. Homilien zum Hexateuch (ed. W. A. Baehrens; GCS 29; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1920), 296. 432 Origen, Hom. Lev. 2.4 (5) (Barkley, FC). 433 The debate concerns the dating of the list. An influential argument for a fourth century dating is developed in Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (OTM; Oxford: Claredon Press, 1992), following the proposal of Albert C. Sundberg, “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List,” HTR 66 (1973): 1–41. This later dating has however not reached consensus and many still consider the text from the second century, see Joseph Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute,” in The Biblical Canons (ed. J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge; BETL 163; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003). 434 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.25 (Lake and Oulton, LCL). 435 Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 56.2, 100.5. Johnson, Letter of James, 172. 436 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.35.6–7. 437 Matt Jackson-McCabe, “The Politics of Pseudepigraphy and the Letter of James,” in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in früchristlichen Briefen (ed. Jörg Frey et al.; WUNT 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 607–8. 438 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.25 (Lake and Oulton, LCL). 439 Jackson-McCabe, “Politics of Pseudepigraphy,” in Frey et al., Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion, 608. 440 Hilary of Potiers, De Trinitate, 4.8.26, quoting Jas 1.17: “et Iacobus apostolus dixerit: ‘Apud quern non est demutatio.’ Hunc iustum iudicem, quia scribtum est: Deus iudex iustus et fortis et patiens” Hilary of Potiers, De Trin. 10–11. Jonathan P. Yates, “The Reception of the

76

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

to the apostle James as the letter’s author (Iacobo apostolo in epistola sua).441 The doubt raised by Eusebius is made explicit by Jerome, “[James] wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles, and even this is claimed by some to have been published by someone else under his name, and gradually as time went on to have gained authority”.442 James’ inclusion in the western canon was sealed by the combined acceptance of the letter as authentic by Augustine and Jerome, but this acceptance was preceded by the influence of Alexandrian figures such as Origen and Athanasius.443 The modern debate has precursors in the reformation and although Martin Luther’s objection to James was primarily theological,444 he also had doubts about its authenticity based on Erasmus’ philological judgement that “For neither does it seem to bear anywhere that majesty and apostolic dignity, nor the large number of Hebraisms that one would expect from James, who was bishop of Jerusalem”.445 In modern scholarship, opinions are divided between proponents of authentic authorship of James by the brother of Jesus446 and (later) pseudepigraphic authorship.447 The debate in the 19th and early 20th centuries centred on

441

442 443 444 445 446

447

Epistle of James in the Latin West: Did Athanasius Play a Role?,” in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (ed. J. Schlosser; BETL 176; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004), 276 n. 10. “The relevant portion of Ambrosiaster’s commentary [citing Jas 5,2 on Gal 5,10] reads: “Quomodo qui errantem converti facit remunerandus est dicente Iacobo apostolo in epistola sua: ‘Qui converti fecerit peccatorem salvabit animam eius et operiet multitudinem peccatorum suorum,’ ita et qui recta incedentem via iter in devium cogit flectere, damnationem consequitur, quicumque fuerit.” Yates, “Reception of James in the Latin West,” in Schlosser, The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, 277 n. 13. Jerome, Vir. ill. 2.1–2 (Halton, FC). Yates, “Reception of James in the Latin West,” in Schlosser, The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Luther’s famous dictum that it was a Stroern Epistel, was based on its supposed opposition to Paul and lack of references to Christ. Timothy George, “A Right Strawy Epistle: Reformation Perspectives on James,” RevExp 83 (3 1986): 372–73. “nec enim referre videtur usquequaque maiestatem illam et gravitatem apostolicam, nec Hebraismi tantum quantum a Iacobo, qui fuerit episcopus Hierosolymitanus, expectaretur.” Erasmus, Annotations on the NT, 744. Notable champions of authentic authorship are Mayor, The Epistle of James, i–lxxxiv; Gerhard Kittel, “Der geschichtliche Ort des Jakobusbriefes,” ZNW 41 (1942); Franz Mußner, Der Jakobusbrief (5. Auflage; Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1987), 1–8; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (4th rev. ed.; Leicester: Apollos (Inter-Varsity Press), 1990), 723–45; Pedrito U. Maynard-Reid, Poverty and Wealth in James (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1987), 5–11; Johnson, Letter of James, 108–21; Bauckham, James, 14ff; Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James (PNTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 9–22; Patrick J. Hartin, James (SP 14; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003), 16–25; Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter Varsity Press, 2007), 395–400; James D.G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem (vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 1122ff. For a fuller bibliography, see Allison, James, 4 n. 18. See Allison, James, 4–5 n. 19.

The Letter of James as Ethopoeia

77

the letter’s lack of historical specificity448 and Allison recounts five features that have divided commentators in more recent study: Those are i) the simple address in Jas 1.1; ii) the Jewish (Judean) tone of the letter; iii) overlaps with James’ speech in Acts 15; iv) reception of Jesus logia without apparent dependence on the Gospels, and v) underdeveloped theology and Christology.449 In an attempt to summarise the discussion, Wesley Wachob states: Basically there are two different historical assessments of the Epistle of James, and these stand as opposite extremes in the discussion. One theory, which is supported by an increasing number of scholars, asserts that the letter is early, perhaps the earliest document in the NT (ca. 40 € 62 CE). Here the prescript (1.1) is taken literally: the purported author is James the Just, who writes from Jerusalem to Jewish Christians who have scattered after Stephen’s death (cf. Acts 8.1 […]); As evidence supporting this position scholars stress the letter’s lack of reference to Paul’s letters, its eschatological fervor, and close continuity with the pre-literary synoptic tradition of the teaching of Jesus and the Jewish wisdom traditions. […] The second theory, which is now the majority opinion, holds that James is pseudonymous, that its provenance is other than Jerusalem, and that it was written at a later date (70 € 130 CE). Evidence for this hypothesis includes arguments that the period reflected in James is after the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE); that its Greek is too good, and its obvious use of rhetorical conventions too advanced, for James the Just; that its familiarity is with the LXX rather than the Hebrew Bible; that its paraenetic style reflects the history of transmission of Christian teaching which has its closest parallels in 1 Peter and in the Didache, rather than in direct, personal remembrances; that the portrait of James in Acts and Galatians lacks harmony with James’ content; and, that its late appearance and acceptance by the early church does not cohere with a text written by the brother of the Lord. An additional hypothesis […] provides a compromise solution that has genuine merit: traditions from James the Just (40 CE and the Jerusalem Council) were redacted and augmented in and for a later period (between 55 € 65 or possibly 75 € 85 CE) by a Jewish Christian.450

The issue of reception in Antiquity is a discussion that Eusebius (οὐ πολλοὶ γοῦν τῶν παλαιῶν αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσαν)451 and modern evaluations of the letter’s au448 Johnson, Letter of James, 151: “By the end of the nineteenth century, the battles within the historical-critical approach had reached a stalemate. Using the same methods and identical evidence, scholars came to diametrically opposed conclusions. No one convinced anyone else. Criticism was less a matter of incremental progress than of proclaiming allegiance. Commentaries became more and more self-referential, citing strings of earlier commentators agreeing with the author’s position on debated points.” 449 These features can be used to argue for both an early (authentic) and later date of composition and thus the discussion is unresolved. Allison, James, 5–29. 450 Wachob, The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James, 28–29. 451 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.23.25.

78

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

thenticity have in common, as David Nienhuis confidently claims: “Scholarship has offered no compelling explanation for the lack of external attestation for James before the early third century”.452 The evaluation of James as heretical (αἱρετικός)453 in content in protestant scholarship has more to do with Lutheran theology,454 than the reflections of Eusebius and the church fathers on James, which were near universally positive regarding its content.455 Most important for our purposes is the discussion regarding language, which is a common feature of the reformation discussion and modern scholarship. Martin Luther’s repetition of Erasmus’ judgement456 argued for pseudonymity on the basis that “the style of this epistle is far inferior to the apostolic majesty, nor is it in any way comparable to Paul”.457 In modern scholarship the opposite is true458 and a major argument proposed by exegetes against authenticity is the “question of how likely it is that the brother of Jesus could have written fairly accomplished Greek, possessed such a large Greek vocabulary, employed the LXX, and adopted Hellenistic literary topoi […] the extent of his literacy […] remains an unsolved problem”.459 If the attribution to James is pseudonymous, then the letter can be seen as an exercise in speech-in–character, προσωποποιία or ἠθοποιία, and this insight gives us important tools to study the text. These related terms are distinguished between in the later progymnasmata, where “ἠθοποιία is the imitation (μίμησις) of the character (ἤθους) of a person supposed to be speaking […] [and] προσωποποιία when we personify a thing, […] a not existing person”.460 This distinction is 452 Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone, 121. 453 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.25.7. 454 Martin Luther, Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (ed. E. Theodore Bachman; LW 35; Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress Press, 1960), 396–97: “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However […] I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow. In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works […] This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle. In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. […] Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, […] Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” 455 Johnson, Letter of James, 130–35. 456 Erasmus, Annotations on the NT, 737–44. 457 George, “A Right Strawy Epistle,” 371. Martin Luther, Resolutiones Lutherianae super propositionibus suis Lipsiae disputatis, (1519). The original quote is: Stilus epistolae Ulius longe est infra apostolicam majestotem nec cum Paulino ullo modo comparandus. Ropes, St. James, 25. 458 As underlined in Wachob’s summary above: “its Greek is too good, and its obvious use of rhetorical conventions too advanced, for James the Just,” Wachob, The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James, 29. 459 Allison, James, 25. 460 Hermogenes, Prog. 9 (Kennedy, WGRW).

The Letter of James as Ethopoeia

79

not clear in the earlier discussions and Aelius Theon uses προσωποποιία for all kinds of speech-in–character, although his examples are exclusively ethopoietic: Personification (προσωποποιία) is the introduction of a person to whom words are attributed that are suitable to the speaker and have an indisputable application to the subject discussed […] Under this genus of exercise fall the species of consolations and exhortation (προτρεπτικῶν) and letter writing (ἐπιστολικῶν). First of all, then, one should have in mind what the personality (ἐνθυμηθῆναι) of the speaker is like, and to whom the speech is addressed […] then one is ready to try to say appropriate words. Different ways of speaking belong to different ages of life, not the same to an older man (πρεσβυτέρῳ) and a younger one; the speech of a younger man will be mingled with simplicity and modesty, that of an older man with knowledge (συνέσει) and experience (ἐμπειρίᾳ). Different ways of speaking would also be fitting […] by status […] and by their origin the words of a Laconian, sparse and clear, differ from those of a man of Attica, which are voluble. We say that Herodotus often speaks like barbarians although writing in Greek because he imitates (μεμίμηται) their ways of speaking. […] Now since the distinction among persons and subjects is a varied one – for we demand something or we exhort (προτρέπομεν) or we dissuade (ἀποτρέπομεν) […] This exercise is most receptive of characters (ἠθῶν) and emotions (παθῶν).461

These instructions give us insight into the training ancient authors had in presenting the message of an authority figure and the importance of language in that regard. Theon names three distinctive categories where speech-in–character falls, although he names more in the preface,462 two of which have direct bearing on our letter: Exhortation (προτρεπτικῶν) and letter writing (ἐπιστολικῶν). Seen as an example of speech-in–character, one must concede that the author did in fact find the language of the letter fitting for the character of James, based on the criteria presented in the progymnasmata curriculum of age, status and ethnicity et al. The explicit purpose of such an exercise according to Theon can coincide with our description of the paraenetic letter, to exhort (προτρέπομεν) or dissuade (ἀποτρέπομεν) the readers in line with the ethical ideals suitable to the character of the sender. Theon’s discussion ends with the point that speech-in– character is most receptive of “characters (ἠθῶν) and emotions (παθῶν)”463 and this is made explicit in the later distinction of ἠθοποιία, where “some personifications are ethical, some pathetical, […] [and] [e]thical are those in which the characterization of the speaker is dominant throughout”.464 Viewing James as an example of ἠθοποιία does not exclude the possibility of James being authentic, 461 462 463 464

Theon, Prog. 8 (Kennedy, WGRW). Theon, Prog. 1 (Kennedy, WGRW). Theon, Prog. 8 (Kennedy, WGRW). Hermogenes, Prog. 9 (Kennedy, WGRW).

80

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

since the term appears in ancient discussion in four related meanings: As the construction of ethos,465 as a progymnasmata exercise, as a speech-in–character in a writing466 and finally as the ability of an author to depict himself in speech as authoritative and righteous.467 This last meaning is e. g. found in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ evaluation of the language and style of Lysias, where he ascribes to him “that most pleasant quality, which is generally called characterisation (ἠθοποιΐαν),” which in this sense refers to a speech delivered by him.468 Importantly he goes on to clarify that there are “three departments or aspects in which this quality manifests itself: [those being] thought, language and composition”.469 The connection between speech-in–character and letter writing, made explicit by Aelius Theon in his discussion of προσωποποιία, is significant because it assumes that the genre of historiography and pseudepigraphy are related phenomena.470 Demetrius emphasises that a letter should reveal the character of the writer: Like the dialogue, the letter should be strong in characterisation (ἠθικός). Everyone writes a letter in the virtual image of his own soul (ει᾿κόνα […] ψυχῆς). In every other form of speech (λόγος) it is possible to see the writer’s character (ἦθος), but none so as in the letter.471

This ethical aspect is key to understanding letters and speeches in historiography as well, and both sub-genres serve the purpose in prose to give characters an authentic voice. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of speech in Greek and Roman life and this is reflected in the educational curriculum, which places rhetoric and oratory as the central disciplines in preparation for public life.472 Ancient historiographies are full of speeches and although there were discussions 465 Koen De Temmerman, “Ancient Rhetoric as a Hermeneutical Tool for the Analysis of Characterization in Narrative Literature” Rhetorica 28 (1 2010), 34: “In its broadest sense, ἠθοποιία refers to the construction (ποιία) of ethos in general (direct or indirect characterization through action or speech). In this sense, it appears as a synonym of notation […] Quintilian also adopts the term in this sense, defining it as (informative) mimesis of ethos (mos) through action and speech (“et in factis et in dictis”)”. Quintilian, Inst. 2.15.34, 9.2.58. 466 Ibid., 35: This meaning “refers to a rhetorical figure of thought (σχῆμα τὴς διανοίας / figura sententiae) in which the orator / author represents the words of another person / character in direct speech. As an emotive figure, ethopoeia is one of the techniques adopted to express fictitious emotions. In this sense, it is defined as one of the six types of metathesis (transmutatio) by Phoebammon, who thus emphasizes its ability of transposing (μεθίστησιν) an utterance to the level of another speaker”. 467 Ibid., 35. 468 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lys. 8 (Usher, LCL). 469 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lys. 8 (Usher, LCL). 470 Theon, Prog. 8. 471 Demetrius, Eloc. 227 (Innes, LCL). 472 Morgan, Literate Education, 190.

The Letter of James as Ethopoeia

81

about aesthetics, length and appropriateness in antiquity, their presence and importance were considered universal.473 The imitation of speech has a philosophical background in the discussions of Plato and Aristotle, but develops into a literary methodology in the Hellenistic age with the emphasis on rhetorical imitation. Imitation for Plato was connected to the (artistic) representation of reality, and posed as such a threat to the ideals of justice and reason in the Republic.474 Plato’s discussion of μίμησις helps him distinguish between the author (poet) and the character speaking in a text and this has ethical implications, both with regard to representation and as ethical examples:475 Then let that be an end of what we have to say about the stories. But following that, as I [Socrates] think, we must consider style (λέξεως) and examine thoroughly what is to be said and how it is to be said […] Therefore every time he [the poet (Homer)] presents a speech, and what comes between the speeches, is the narrative (διήγησις)? […] But whenever he makes a speech (τινα λέγῃ ῥήσιν) as if he were another person, are we going to say that he will then model his speech (ὁμοιοῦν αὐτὸν φήσομεν) as far as possible on that of the individual himself who he announces is about to speak? […] Then isn’t modeling himself on someone else, either his voice (κατά φωνὴν) or his appearance (κατά σχῆμα), imitating (μιμεῖσθαί ἐστιν) that person on whom he is modeling himself ? […] But if the poet were not to conceal his identity anywhere, the whole of his poetry and narrative would have been created without imitation (ἄνευ μιμήσεως).476

Socrates’ warnings about poetry have deep ethical and moral implications and the imagery drawn relies on a class of guardians that are educated to protect the inhabitants of the city against narrative and speech that corrupts, through mastery of good literature.477 The connection between Plato’s description of Homeric speech-in–character and the use of language appropriate to the speaker in the narrative is the most important factor for our purposes, to the point where the poet not only imitates the character’s voice (κατά φωνήν), but his actual physical character (κατά σχῆμα) within the composition.

473 John Marincola, “Speeches in Classical Historiography,” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (ed. John Marincola; Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World; Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 118–19: “It would never have occurred to any historian to write a narrative history wholly without reported speech.” 474 Matthew Potolsky, Mimesis (The New Critical idiom; New York, N.Y.: Routledge, 2006), 17. 475 Stephen Halliwell, The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts & Modern Problems (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002), 51. 476 Plato, Resp. 3.4, 392C-393D (Emlyn-Jones and Preddy, LCL). 477 Potolsky, Mimesis, 17–21.

82

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

The field of rhetorical criticism has looked extensively to the works of Aristotle for exegetical tools to understand e. g. biblical texts,478 and such approaches remain fruitful.479 The Art of Rhetoric attempts not only to describe the technicalities of Greek speech writing, but to describe human communication as a universal facet,480 dividing artistic proof (ἡ πίστις) into three categories: Of the pisteis provided through speech there are three species; for some are in the character of the speaker (ἐν τῷ ἤθει τοῦ λέγοντος), and some in disposing the listener in some way, and some in the speech (ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ) itself, by showing or seeming to show something. [There is persuasion] through character [τὸ ἦθος] whenever the speech is spoken in such a way as to make the speaker worthy of credence (ὅταν οὕτω λεχθῇ ὁ λόγος ὥστε ἀξιόπιστον ποιῆσαι τὸν λέγοντα); for we believe fair-minded people (ἐπιεικέσι) to a greater extent and more quickly [than we do others], on all subjects in general and completely so in cases where there is not exact knowledge but room for doubt. And this should result from the speech (διὰ τοῦ λόγου), not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person; for it is not the case, as some of the handbook writers propose in their treatment of the art, that fair-mindedness (ἐπιείκειαν) on the part of the speaker makes no contribution to persuasiveness; rather, character is almost, so to speak, the most authoritative form of persuasion (κυριωτάτην ἔχει πίστιν τὸ ἦθος). [There is persuasion] through the hearers when they are led to feel emotion [τὸ πάθος] by the speech; for we do not give the same judgment when grieved and rejoicing or when being friendly and hostile. […] Persuasion occurs through the arguments [ὁ λόγος] when we show the truth or the apparent truth from whatever is persuasive in each…481

These three modes of persuasion or proof are discussed at length in the work, but most important for our purposes is the emphasis laid on persuasion through character (ethopoeia), which is the most authoritative form of persuasion. Aristotle makes clear that such ethos-based proof cannot be presented via reputation or description of traits, but via the language of the speech itself (διά τοῦ λόγου). In book 2, Aristotle discusses the zeal to imitate, a positive counterpart to the moral defect of envy (φθονέω or φθόνος)482 a moral topos taken up in the New

478 Pioneering works include Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress Press, 1989) and George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism (SR; Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984). 479 For more recent discussions see Classen, Rhetorical Criticism of the NT and Martin, Genealogies of NT Rhetorical Criticism. 480 Kennedy, NT Rhetorical Criticism, 10. 481 Aristotle, Rhet. 1.2.3–5, 1356a (Kennedy). 482 Aristotle, Rhet. 2.10.

The Letter of James as Ethopoeia

83

Testament.483 In chapter 11 the discussion of emotion is continued by focusing on emulation ζηλόω or ζῆλος and Aristotle explicates the positive “effort to attain good things for [one]self (διὰ τὸν ζῆλον τυγχάνειν τῶν ἀγαθῶν)”.484 The concept of ζῆλος or ζήλωσις becomes in the Hellenistic era the literary zeal on the part of an author to emulate and surpass the quality of the great writers of the past.485 It is significant in that respect that the following chapters, 12 through 17 systematically go through the ἦθος of different types of individuals in order to emulate them in speech: Next let us go through the kinds of character (ἤθη ποῖοί τινες), considering what they are like in terms of emotions (κατὰ τὰ πάθη) and habits and age of life and fortune. By emotions I mean anger, desire, and the like, about which we spoke earlier, and by habits virtues and vices, which have also been discussed earlier, including what sort of things each type of person chooses and does. The ages of life are youth, prime, and old age. By fortune I mean good birth and wealth and powers and their opposites and in general good fortune and misfortune.486

The purpose of this extended discussion about the moral characteristics of different character types is then made explicit in the following chapter,487 where Aristotle again emphasises the importance of language: “Such are the characters (ἤθη τοιαῦτα) of the young and the older; as a result, since all people receive favorably speeches spoken in their own character (τούς τῷ σφετέρῳ ἤθει λεγομένους λόγους) and by persons like themselves, it is not unclear how both speakers and speeches may seem to be of this sort through use of words (οὐκ ἄδηλον πῶς χρώμενοι τοῖς λόγοις τοιοῦτοι φανοῦνται καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ λόγοι)”.488 The terminology for speech-in–character has important witnesses in the writings of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The terms ἠθοποιέω and ἡ ἠθοποιία, which literally mean to create (ποιέω) ethical character (ἦθος), are attested early in his writings. The verb ἠθοποιέω has according to TLG two earlier attestation than Dionysius,489 but a case can be made that they are later. The first is a fragment of the Life of Sophocles490 that reads: “Sophocles generally used the language of Homer and fashioned his plots in the footsteps of that poet (ἠθοποιεῖ τε καὶ 483 Φθονέω in Gal 5.26 and φθόνος in Mt 27.18, Rm 1.29, Gal 5.29, Phl 1.15, 1 Tim 6.4, Jas 4.5, 1 Pet 2.1. 484 Aristotle, Rhet. 2.11 (1388a) (Kennedy). 485 Russel, “De imitatione,” in West and Woodman, Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, 10. 486 Aristotle, Rhet. 2.12 (1388b–9a) (Kennedy). 487 William M.A. Grimaldi, Aristotle Rhetoric II: A Commentary (New York, N.Y.: Fordham University Press, 1988), 183. 488 Aristotle, Rhet. 2.13 (1390a) (Kennedy). 489 A TLG search, ἠθοποιέω, incl. lemma and sorted by date lists Ion, Fragmenta {0308.007} and Posidonius, Fragmenta {0308.007} as the oldest results. 490 TLG, Ion, Fragmenta {0308.007}, Vit. Soph. in F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrH) #392, Leiden: Brill, 1923–1958 (repr. 1954–1969): 3B:278–83.

84

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

ποικίλλει (scil. Σοφοκλῆς) καὶ τοῖς ἐπινοήμασι τεχνικῶς χρῆται, Ὁμηρικὴν ἐκματτόμενος χάριν)”.491 The Life of Sophocles is dated somewhere in the first centuries CE492 and even though the source cited may be trustworthy, a certain Ionian or Ionikus (†Ἰωνικόν τινα†),493 the use of ἠθοποιέω more likely reflects Hellenistic nomenclature. The second is a fragment attributed to Posidonius,494 preserved in Plutarch’s treatise On Moral Virtue and collected among the fragments of Posidonius.495 The text discusses the importance of letting reason rule and not the passions, that “with age becom[e] small and weak, whereas reason increases […] as the passionate element fades away together with the body. And this, of course, is what determines the natures of wild beasts also as regards the passions (τοῦτο δ’ ἀμέλει καὶ τὰς τῶν θηρίων ἠθοποιεῖ πρὸς τὰ πάθη φύσεις)”.496 The discussion here is neither rhetorical nor is it universally considered from Posidonius, Plutarch does not attribute it to him and the language seems Plutarchian.497 Dionysius of Halicarnassus uses the verb only once, in his discussion of Lysias who is first among the Ancient Orators.498 The relevant discussion revolves around the proof of facts (ἐν τῷ πιστοῦσθαι τὰ πράγματα), the first of which are the well-known rhetorical proofs (ἀπὸ τῶν καλουμένων ἐντέχνων πίστεων) that are divided into the Aristotelian categories of the factual (τό πρᾶγμα), the emotional (τό πάθος) and the moral (τό ἦθος).499 Lysius is according to Dionysius ‘second to none’ when it comes to presenting arguments (19.4–5): He often makes us believe in his client’s good character (ἐκ τῶν ἠθῶν … ἀξιολόγως) by referring to his life and his parentage, and often again by describing his past actions and the principles governing them. 491 Wm. Blake Tyrrell Tyrrell, “The Suda’s Life of Sophocles (Sigma 815): Translation and Commentary with Sources,” n.p. Online: https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ElAnt/V9N1/ TyrrellSuda.pdf. Greek text, TLG. 492 Seth L. Schein, “Sophocles and Homer,” in A Companion to Sophocles (ed. Ormand Kirk; Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World; Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 427. 493 The text is corrupt where the Hellenistic author cites his source, Christopher Pelling, “Sophocles’ Learning Curve,” in Hesperos: Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry. Presented to M. L. West on his Seventieth Birthday (ed. P.J. Finglass, C. Collard, and N.J. Richardson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 206. See Stefan Radt, ed., Sophocles (vol. 4 of Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta; ed. Brunoni Snell; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 39, 86. 494 TLG, Posidonius, Fragmenta {1052.001}. 495 Willy Theiler, ed., Poseidonios: Die Fragmente (TK 10,1; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1982), 354–57. 496 Plutarch, De Virtute Morali in Mor. VI.450F (Helmbold, LCL). 497 “The only recent attempt, that of Hartman, to show that it is not, relies on the looseness of the reasoning, the tediousness of the argumentation, and the absence of anything that might be called structure. But all three of these are by no means unusual in admittedly genuine works. The language and phraseology appear to the present editor, at any rate, to be Plutarchean.” Introduction to On Moral Virtue by W.C. Humbold in LCL 337 (1939), p. 16. 498 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Critical Essays (Usher, LCL). 499 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lys. 19.1–3 (Usher, LCL).

The Letter of James as Ethopoeia

85

And when the facts fail to provide him with such material, he (Lysias) creates his own moral tone (αὐτὸς ἠθοποιεῖ), making his characters seem by their speech to be trustworthy and honest (κατασκευάζει τὰ πρόσωπα τῷ λόγῳ πιστὰ καὶ χρηστά). He credits them with civilized dispositions and attributes controlled feelings to them; he makes them voice appropriate sentiments (λόγους ἐπιεικεῖς ἀποδιδούς), and introduces them as men whose thoughts befit their status in life and who abhor both evil words and evil deeds.500

The act of writing a speech-in–character has in this context the aim of portraying a character of respectable ethical comportment (μέτριον ἦθος φανείη)501 in order to establish authority, i. e. to prove something. Language again is the most important factor. An interesting distinction is found in Dionysius’ discussion about ethos, where he seems to prioritise extrinsic characteristics to intrinsic languagebased ethos, which in forensic rhetoric is only relied upon by necessity.502 The two cannot of course be separated, since an oration following a suitable reference would need to reflect the extrinsic ethos via language, but this distinction challenges a long-held view of James’ ethos. The consensus view is that James needs no introduction, that “he is sufficiently well known to require no further introduction [which] lends authority to the book,”503 but seen in this light the letter could be viewed as a rehabilitation of James in light of a negative portrayal, such as we find i.a. in Galatians and Mark.504 The earliest attestation of ἠθοποιέω is as I have argued Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the same is true for the noun ἡ ἠθοποιία. The oldest example according to TLG is a fragment from Lysius himself in a Latin translation by Rutilius Lupus (1st century CE).505 The translator introduces the text as an “ἠθοποιία Lysiae”506 and then begins his translated citation with, “Rure rediens …,” so the word is not assigned to Lysias. The second oldest result is

500 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lys. 19.16–26 (Usher, LCL). 501 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lys. 19.22–23. 502 To highlight this dichotomy Carol Poster claims that “for Dionysius, intrinsic ethos was a poor second to extrinsic ethos, just as the facts of the case were the best possible source of argument, and all the intrinsic tricks of rhetoric useful mainly to put the best possible spin on the facts or to defend a position for which the facts offered little or no support.” Carol Poster, “Ethos, Authority and the New Testament Canon,” in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse (ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson; ESEC 11; New York, N.Y.: T&T Clark International, 2005), 123. 503 Allison, James, 120. 504 Gal 2.12. For Mark as reflecting polemic against Jerusalem, see Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus”. 505 TLG, Lysias, Fragmenta orationum deperditarum apud scriptores recentioris aetatis servata {0540.075}, 443. 506 C. Carey, ed., Lysiae: Orationes cum Fragmentis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 529. See Rutilius Lupus 1.21.

86

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

attributed to the poet Aratus (Ἄρaτος ὁ Σολεύς)507 from the Vita Arati in the Byzantine Suda collection.508 The Vita begins by describing his parentage and place of origin and then lists his works, among which there are smaller works of unknown origin (carmina minora; opera incerti generis).509 The list includes titles and genre descriptions and our term appears right on the cusp of the switch between the two, with a capital letter: “ει᾿ς Θεόπροπον, ει᾿ς Ἀστίγονον, Ἠθοποιίας, ἐπιστολάς, ἐπιγράμματα”.510 We have numerous ways of interpreting this title, it can refer to an ethopoeia (genre) or it can refer to a writing called Ethopoeia (title), the plural form would suggest the former and the capitalization (in J. Martin’s edition) reflects the latter. If it is a title, it would supposedly contain speech(es)-in–character, but either way it seems unlikely that this reference to works of incerti generis reflects terminology used by Aratus himself. The third and final result is a text from a treatise of Philo, De Agricultura, which is attributed to Chrysippus511 in the Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (SVF) collection.512 Philo explicitly cites Chrysippus in De Aeternitate Mundi in an openly hostile way513 and introduces the quote with the phrase “Χρύσιππος […] φησίν·”.514 In De Agricultura, however, the discussion is entirely implicit and Chrysippus is never named, instead the relevant section begins with a LXX quote (Deut 20.20) citing Moses with the formula “λέγει γάρ·”515 and no other quotation formulas are given. The section taken up in the SVF is introduced by “τόν γοῦν κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λόγον,”516 translated as “they tell us that the men of old likened philosophic discussion with…”,517 indicating that the following section is a paraphrase and not based on a named source. Philo’s use of ἠθοποιία in this context is not a literary concept describing speech-in–character, but a philosophical one where “τούς τε φυσιολογίας καὶ τοὺς ἠθοποιίας”518 refers to “the science that explores existence and that which aims at building character”519 and is synonymous to his earlier distinction between “φιλοσοφίας […] ἠθικοῦ τε καὶ

507 TLG, Aratus, Fragmenta et tituli {0653.005}, 107. 508 Hugh Lloyd-Jones and Peter Parsons, eds., Supplementum Hellenisticum (TK 11; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1983), 39. 509 Ibid., 38. 510 Jean Martin, ed., Sholia in Aratum Vetera (BSGRT; Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner, 1974), 22.15. 511 TLG, Chrysippus Phil. Fragmenta logica et physica {1264.001}, 39. 512 Hans von Arnin, ed., Chrysippi Fragmenta Logica et Physica (vol. 2 of Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta; SWC 3; 1903; repr., München: K. G. Saur Verlag, 2004), 16. 513 David Sedley, “The Stoic Criterion of Identity,” Phronesis 27 (3 1982): 267–68. 514 Philo, Aet. 48. 515 Philo, Agr. 12. 516 Philo, Agr. 14. 517 Philo, Agr. 14 (Colson and Whitaker, LCL). 518 Philo, Agr. 16–17. 519 Philo, Agr. 16–17 (Colson and Whitaker, LCL).

The Letter of James as Ethopoeia

87

φυσικοῦ”.520 Finally the adjective ἠθοποιός has a single attestation earlier than Dionysius in the Problems attributed to Aristotle,521 where the temperature of one’s ‘black bile’ is said to be character forming: “[B]ecause the power of the black bile is uneven […] it is character-forming (ἠθοποιὸς) (for of the things in us, the hot and cold are especially character-forming (ἠθοποιὸν))”.522 Dionysius uses the term twice in the Ancient Orators, in the discussion On Lysias and On Isocrates. Dionysius’ praise for Lysias is unreserved, “he was the best of all the orators at observing human nature,”523 and this quality allowed him to excel at characterisation (ἠθοποιία): I also ascribe to Lysias that most pleasing quality, which is generally called characterisation (ἠθοποιΐαν). I am quite unable to find a single person (πρόσωπον) in this orator’s speeches who is devoid of character (ἀνηθοποίητον) or vitality (ἄψυχον). There are three departments or aspects in which this quality manifests itself: thought (διανοίας), language (λέξεως) and composition (συνθέσεως); and I declare him to be successful in all three. For not only are the thoughts he ascribes to his clients worthy, reasonable and fair, so that their words seem to reflect their good moral character (δοκεῖν τῶν ἠθῶν τοὺς λόγους), but he also makes them speak in a style which is appropriate to these qualities (ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν λέξιν ἀποδίδωσι τοῖς ἤθεσιν οι᾿κείαν), and which by its nature displays them in their best light – clear (σαφῆ), standard (κυρίαν), ordinary speech (κοινήν) which is thoroughly familiar to everyone.524

The guiding elements of speech-in–character are according to Dionysius, thought, language and composition and of those he prioritises composition,525 to which he devotes an entire treatise (Περί Συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων).526 The second attestation is found in his discussion of Isocrates, where he compares Lysias and Isocrates on the basis of speech-in–character. “In the portrayal of moral qualities (ἐν ταῖς ἠθοποιίαις) I found both equally skilful, but I had no hesitation in giving the prize for charm (χάριτος) and grace (ἡδονῆς) to Lysias”.527 The final attestation for ἠθοποιία is found in Dionysius’ lost treatise on imitation, where he says that “among the authors to be imitated (Ζηλωτός) are Pindar, for his vocabulary and his ideas, […] for [e. g.] characterisation (ἠθοποιίας) […], but especially for his 520 Philo, Agr. 15–16. 521 A TLG search, ἠθοποιός, -όν, incl. lemma and sorted by date, lists Aristoteles, Problemata {0086.036} 955a, 32 as the oldest result, followed by Philo. 522 Aristotle, [Prob.] 30.1 (955a 32) (Mayhew, LCL). 523 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lys. 7.13 (Usher, LCL). 524 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lys. 8.1–14 (Usher, LCL). 525 The syntax suggest that thought and language are on an equal footing (διανοίας τε καὶ λέξεως) and composition is emphasised (καὶ τρίτης τῆς συνθέσεως). 526 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp. 527 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Isocr. 11.16–18 (Usher, LCL).

88

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

orientation towards the moral (ἠθῶν) in prudence (σωφροσύνην), piety (εὐσέβειαν) and grandeur (μεγαλοπρέπειαν)”.528 As with other models of imitation, Pindar is presented as a moral authority from which one can learn, primarily via his language competency and speech-in–character. It is likewise true for the verb προσωποποιέω that there is one earlier attestation than Dionysius of Halicarnassus according to TLG,529 but one that is based on a later textual tradition. Collected in the SVF there is a reference to Chrysippus530 in a letter On Eloquence to Marcus Aurelius from the Roman orator Marcus Cornelius Fronto, dated to ca. 162 CE.531 Fronto discourages Marcus Aurelius from studium philosophiae532 and exhorts him by alluding to Chrysippus: “Wake up and hear what Chrysippus himself prefers,” that is to employ rhetorical tools of language among them the introduction of fictitious characters (personas fingit), which are “the meanings of [e. g. the word] προσωποποιεῖν”.533 The verb is not attested again until with Celsus534 and later Origen. Dionysius uses the verb in his discussion on the historian Thucydides, where he says: “Thucydides begins by stating in his own person that what each side said, but after maintaining this form of reported speech for only one exchange of arguments, he dramatises the rest of the dialogue (προσωποποιεῖ τὸν μετὰ ταῦτα διάλογον) and makes the characters speak for themselves”.535 His treatment of Thucydides is meant to supplement his discussion of authors worthy of emulation in On Imitation536 and his focus is on “the character of his style (τοῦ χαρακτῆρος τῶν λόγων) in all its aspects”.537 The relevant portion compares the speeches of the Lacedaemonian king Archidamus538 with speeches in the described hostilities between Athenians and Melians,539 on the basis whether language fits character. Regarding the former he notes that they “are suited to the characters of the speakers (τοῖς προσώποις πρέποντας), […] furnished with language which is pure, clear and concise and

528 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Imit. 31.2.5–6: “Ζηλωτὸς δὲ καὶ Πίνδαρος ὀνομάτων καὶ νοημάτων εἵνεκα, καὶ μεγαλοπρεπείας καὶ τόνου καὶ περιουσίας κατασκευῆς καὶ δυνάμεως, καὶ πικρίας μετὰ ἡδονῆς· καὶ πυκνότητος καὶ σεμνότητος, καὶ γνωμολογίας καὶ ἐναργείας, καὶ σχηματισμῶν καὶ ἠθοποιίας καὶ αὐξήσεως καὶ δεινώσεως· μάλιστα δὲ τῶν ει᾿ς σωφροσύνην καὶ εὐσέβειαν καὶ μεγαλοπρέπειαν ἠθῶν”. 529 TLG, Chrysippus Phil. Fragmenta logica et physica {1264.001}, 27. 530 Arnim, ed., SVF II.27, 11. 531 Marcus Cornelius Fronto, De eloquentia I, 53 (Haines, LCL). 532 Fronto, De eloquentia 1.14. 533 Fronto, De eloquentia 1.15, 68–69 (Haines, LCL). 534 TLG, Celsus Phil., Ἀληθὴς λόγος {1248.001}, 1.28; 4.20; 6.66. 535 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 27 (Usher, LCL). 536 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 1. 537 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 3 (Usher, LCL). 538 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 36., see Thucydides, Hist. 2.71–75. 539 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 37–40., see Thucydides, Hist. 5.84–111.

The Letter of James as Ethopoeia

89

possesses all the other virtues,”540 a contrast to the latter where “the wisest (οἱ φρονιμώτατοι) of the Greeks adduce the most disgraceful arguments (αἴσχιστα … ἐνθυμήματα), and invest them with the most disagreeable language (ἀηδεστάτῃ … λέξει)”.541 His objection is that language does not fit the ethos of the speaker and this needs to be explained on the part of a competent author such as Thucydides.542 The substantive ἡ προσωποποιία is first attested in Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the epitome fragments from On Imitation,543 where he compares Thucydides to Herodotus on the basis of style. This comparison of historiographers is also found in his Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius which Dionysius bases on On Imitation,544 although scholars have pointed to some discrepancy in subject matter between the letter and the epitome.545 Herodotus is e. g. praised for better keeping true to (συντετήρηκεν) events (τὸ πρέπον πραγματείαν) and characters (προσωποποιίαν),546 a point of comparison made in the letter as well. There Dionysius says that both are successful in “the imitation of traits of character and of emotions (συνίσταται τὴν ἀρετὴν [τῶν] ἠθῶν τε καὶ παθῶν μίμησις) […], [where] Thucydides is the better at portraying emotion (τὰ πάθη δηλῶσαι), while Herodotus is the cleverer at representing character (ἤθη παραστῆσαι)”.547 Reading these texts together reveals the ethical implications of Dionysius’ use of προσωποποιία, where the point is to build a fitting representation of a character’s ἦθος via language, which is the context in both passages. There are contemporary examples of ἡ προσωποποιία and a fragment of Philodemus’ De poematis is a contender for an earlier attestation.548 Fragment rolls of book IV were found at Herculaneum and although the portion is badly damaged the context indicates that this is the word in question: “λέξεως […] διανοί[ας …….] καὶ πράξεις καὶ [προσω]|ποποιί[ας]”.549 The drawings of ˙˙ P.Herc.1425 col. 15 show that following the ΚΑΙ there are 5–8 letters missing compared to the drawn manuscript margins and the following line begins with 540 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 36 (Usher, LCL). 541 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 41 (Usher, LCL). 542 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 41 (Usher, LCL): Dionysius speculates that “perhaps it was because the historian bore his city a grudge for the sentence passed on him that he has deluged her with these reproaches”. 543 A TLG search, ἡ προσωποποιία, -ας, incl. lemma and sorted by date, lists De imitatione (fragmenta) {0081.014} as the oldest result. 544 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pomp. 3. 545 Malcolm Heath, “Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Imitation”. 546 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Imit. 31.3.16–17: ὃς καὶ μετὰ τούτων τὸ πρέπον πραγματείαν καὶ προσωποποιίαν μᾶλλον συντετήρηκεν. 547 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pomp. 3.18 (Usher, LCL). 548 Philodemus Phil., De poematis liber quintus {1595.291}. 549 Philodemus, Il quinto libro della poetica: (PHerc. 1425 e 1538) (ed. Cecilia Mangoni; Scuola di Epicuro 14; Napoli: Bibliopolis, 1993), XV, 142.

90

Interpreting James as Speech-in–Character

ΠΟΠΟΙΙ before a lacuna of about two letters.550 Another possibility is that Philodemus here uses the word ἡ ἐποποιία, which is strengthened by there being three other examples of that word in the Herculanean fragments of his works.551 This would however need to be explained semantically and with regard to the missing letters, i. e. which word would fit both the space and context. A second contemporary example has already been touched upon with regard to letter writing, Demetrius’ treatise On Style which is likely from the 1st century CE in its final form.552 Dionysius’ discussion provides tools to evaluate the ethopoeia of James from a contemporary perspective. The application of this rhetorical term to the letter relies on two factors, both of which relate to the progymnasmata yet differ in their application, namely ethopoeia as the creation of persuasive ethos and ethopoeia as epistolary fiction. The semantic range of ἠθοποιία in Antiquity is a matter of debate553 and Kristine S. Bruss argues that there is a difference between the progymnasmata emphasis on ethopoeia as a “faithful portrayal […] to the person imagined” and Dionysius’ concern with persuasion, where he “associates ethopoeia with the first variety of Aristotelian ethos — persuasive proof through character”.554 Of the four options discussed above,555 this study relies primarily on Dionysius’ understanding of ethopoeia as the ability of an author to depict himself in speech as authoritative.556 For Dionysius, persuasion is connected to the employment of rhetorical and poetic devices557 and adherence to the virtues

550 Papyrological Indexing Network, “P.Herc. 1425 col. 15: De poematis V,” n.p. Online: http ://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=q-000-00-- -0PHerc--00-0-0--0prompt-10-- -4-- - -de2-0-1l--1-en-50-- -20-about-1425--00031-001-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=PHerc&cl=search&d= HASH014fe4b21c2729273a1e1168. 551 TLG, Philodemus Phil. Περὶ ποιημάτων (lib. i) (P. Herc. 444, 460, 466, 1073, 1074a, 1081a) {1595.002}: Fragment 15.22: ἔστι [δὲ] [ἦθος] καὶ τῆς ἐποποΐας κ[ατὰ ] [τὰς ὀ]νομασίας; 151.17: τ[ο]ῦ ἑξαμέτρου πο[…(.) ] [..(.)] τὴν ἐποπο[ΐ]αν […. ] [.(.) τὸ σύν]ολον ἄ[λ]υπ[ον.]; 159.24: ˙ ˙