From: A Torah
Commentary on James 1-2 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2014
[Page 133]
Introduction
3:
Use of
the Teachings of Jesus
That James utilizes a large number
of Jesus’ ideas and concepts can easily be proven. Indeed, the degree of similarity has
compelled commentators to commonly argue that these are the result of the
impact of either one or more of the gospels on James or the hypothetical
written documents they used as sources.
Alternatively, if one is an advocate of an extremely early dating of
James, that these are “the earliest available form of some of the sayings of
Jesus.”[1]
In my judgement, this makes a major interpretive error—even in the
clearest cases of reliance: even here it
often confuses clear usage and intended quotation. If intended as quotation why are these not
clearly identified as such? James is
quite capable of quoting “the royal law according to the scripture” and then
giving the words (2:8). Why, not once,
is there a reference such as “and Jesus said” and then providing the
words? Hence, in most cases, allusion or
summation--rather than full quotation--seems far more likely to be the proper
terminology in making the linkage between Jesus and the details of James’
arguments.
[Page 134] Following
is a survey of representative remarks by James and their quite possible /
probable roots in the teachings of Jesus as suggested by various commentators
and analysts. Though hardly
comprehensive, it provides an easily usable survey of the type of parallels one
is most likely to encounter.
Dean B. Deppe surveyed 60
commentators and scholars who wrote between 1833 and 1985. The largest number of parallels (184) were
found in 1833 by Thiele. The next
largest figures come from Mayor in 1892 (65), Davids in 1985 (52), and Spitta
in 1896 (50). The numbers drop to 39
parallels (Sidebottom, 1967), then to 30 and below.[2] We have noted the cases where 30 or more endorsed
parallelism—i.e., where at least half of those surveyed were convinced of clear
reliance or actual -quotation being involved.
We go into these at relative length because one more commonly runs into
an assertion of the linkage or a modest size list of parallels, but far
less often someone who actually presents the material in a quoted, easy
to follow alignment such as here. Our
discussion will also be orientated toward the English only reader.
It should be remembered that some remarks of Jesus may only be suggestive
of similar comments by James and nothing more.
There is a profound difference between grasping this fundamental truth of
a user-source connection and overstating it.
The evidence seems abundant enough without such “gilding of the lily.” These come into significance to the extent
that we recognize clear-cut ones and ones where the probability of a connection
seems likely.[3]
Hence James at least alludes
to such teachings repeatedly, whether they arise to the level of “quotation” or
not. The fact that there are so many,
however, is a powerful evidence of how deeply the memory of Jesus’ personal
teachings had penetrated the [Page 135]
minds of His followers and how it shaped not only their beliefs but how
they expressed them. Furthermore, the
large number of such similarities argues powerfully for an extremely early date
of the epistle when the direct personal memory of those words would be the most
common and widespread.
We readily admit to a considerable
skepticism of how much these parallels are direct evidence that James
consciously utilized the memory of Jesus’ words. On the other hand we must—as noted above—take
into consideration the very significant number of such cases. Even when, individually, we might hedge
conscious linkage of the two, do not the very number of them argue that there has
to be something far more significant working here than mere verbal
coincidence?
After presenting a list of some of the correspondences, David H. Edgar
comes to a similar conclusion as he writes,[4]
None of them is exactly identical with the
wording of the gospel traditions, and, taken singly, many, perhaps even most,
can plausibly be explained as simply sharing a common ethos. Taken as a whole, however, the resonances are
too frequent and consistent to be explained satisfactorily as accidents of a
common general outlook.
We should also keep in mind that
both James and Jesus were brought up in a culture where knowledge of the Torah
and prophets was prized. Hence it would
not be surprising that both based concepts on that source and that, in
individual cases, (1) James could be alluding to / citing / quoting Jesus, (2)
he could be quoting / referring to the Old Testament, or (3) he could be intending
his readers to consider the origin of the teaching in both sources.
[Page 136]
James, Chapter One
James 1:2
James: “My brethren, count it all joy when you fall
into various trials.”
Jesus: Matthew
you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and
be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they
persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
Luke
exclude you, and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, for the
Son of
Man's sake. 23 Rejoice in that
day and leap for joy! For indeed your
reward
is great in heaven, for in like manner their fathers did to the
prophets.”
In James’ teaching the reward
promised for successfully enduring “various trials” (1:2) is a fully developed
spiritual maturity on earth—“perfect and complete, lacking nothing” (1:4). In contrast Jesus was speaking of “your
reward in heaven” rather than on earth.[5]
In Jesus’ teaching the plea for
pride in enduring adversity is because the suffering is “for My sake.” In contrast, in James it is disassociated
from any religious cause. [Page
137] Although their Christian faith might
be an element, the way the mistreatment is described in the epistle sounds more
like the “rough knocks” that life often sends on the economically less prosperous
through abuse at the hands of the powerful.
James 1:4
James: “But let patience have its perfect work, that
you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.”
Jesus: Matthew
Father in heaven is perfect.”
Those seeing a parallel here speak
in terms of both texts making a plea for perfection. In James the subject, however, is “patience”
being perfected through the endurance of “trials” (verse 2). In Matthew the subject is gaining the
“perfect[ion]” through love (
That both embraced the same concept
seems clear, but did James’ teaching come from Jesus or from the Old
Testament? In a very real sense we could
rightly answer “both” since the importance of the Old Testament teaching would
have been reinforced by Jesus’ own stress on the subject. Hence the better way to express the root
problem is: Is there something
distinctively “Jesus” in the usage that can’t be attributed to the Old
Testament. That seems a clear reach.
[Page 138] In
Deuteronomy
Noah was pictured as meeting that
ideal of personal character: “Noah was a
just man, perfect in his generations” (Genesis 6:9); “a righteous man,
blameless in his time” (NASB).
Similarly, Job is described as “blameless and upright, and one who
feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1).
James 1:5
James:
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask
of God, who gives to
all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”
Jesus: Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given to you;
seek, and you
will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks
receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be
opened. 11
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children,
how
much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those
who
ask Him!”
Luke 11:9 “So I say to
you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and
you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks
receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be
opened. 13
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children,
how
much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who
ask
Him!”
[Page 139]
45 scholars out of 60 see this as
garnered from Jesus teaching.[6]
This is the application of a broader principle Jesus laid down
about “ask[ing]” in general. The subject
matter is clearly the same, that of prayer.
Wesley L. Wachob and Luke T. Johnson insist that James “has recited, in
his own words, the essence of both the fundamental exhortation . . . and the
fundamental conclusion” found in these verses.[7] But
are the idea of seeking God’s help and receiving a Divine gift / assistance so
unique to Jesus that that is the only place James could have found
it—especially since the concession is made that he doesn’t even use the same
words? Are not the twin concepts of
seeking and receiving fundamental to the very concept of prayer found in both
testaments? How then can it be so
uniquely rooted in Jesus’ teaching?
Jesus does not specifically mention God giving wisdom when one
prays for it; the Old Testament, however, does:
3 Yes,
if you cry out for discernment, and lift up your voice for
understanding, 4 if you
seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures; 5 then you will understand the fear
of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God. 6 For the Lord gives wisdom; From His mouth come
knowledge and understanding; 7 He
stores up sound wisdom for the upright; He is a shield to those who walk
uprightly (Proverbs 2).
[Page 140]
This text and similar remarks in Biblical and non-Biblical Jewish
“wisdom literature” have been appealed to, quite reasonably, as providing an
adequate solution to where James had learned the concept.[8]
On course, the theme can be found in a broader selection of passages as
well. For example, in Psalms 119
“understanding” is used repeatedly as if, in part, a synonym for wisdom and
insight. Prayer to God is involved in
the hope of obtaining it:
119:34:
Give me understanding [“wisdom,” BBE], and I shall keep Your law;
indeed, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
119:73:
Your hands have made me and fashioned me; give me understanding
[“wisdom,” BBE; “make me wise enough,” CEV], that I may learn Your
commandments.
119:125:
I am Your servant; give me understanding [“discernment,” NIV; “wisdom,”
BBE], that I may know Your testimonies.
119:144:
The righteousness of Your testimonies is everlasting; give me
understanding [“wisdom,” BBE], and I shall live.
119:169:
Let my cry come before You, O Lord; give me understanding [“wisdom,”
BBE] according to Your word.
[Page 141] Dean B. Deppe, in his massive
study of alleged Jesus statements in James, finds here not a direct quotation
but “a deliberate allusion to Jesus’ teaching as indicated by the common
wording, similar subject matter, and the weight of support from the history of
interpretation.”[9] The last claim is based upon the fact that he
found it number three in popularity of all the texts claimed to have a direct
origin in what Jesus taught.[10] The “common wording” essentially comes down
to the single word “ask” and the “similar subject matter” that prayer will be
answered. Is there anything uniquely
“Jesus” in these two themes?
It would be startling if James was unaware of what Jesus taught on the
subject. On the other hand, to single
Him out as if “the = unique” source of James’ teaching seems to push the
evidence far beyond what is required or even strongly encouraged by the texts. Both James and Jesus are echoes of their
shared Jewish spiritual heritage found in the Old Testament. Could James have said what he did without
having both in mind?
James 1:6
James: “But let him ask in faith, with no doubting,
for he who doubts
is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.”
Jesus: Matthew
‘Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will
not only
do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain,
‘Be
removed and be cast into the sea,’ it will be done.”
Mark
mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in
his
heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will
have
whatever he says.
[Page 142]
The verbal parallel between Jesus
“if you have faith and do not doubt” has a quite convincing verbal parallel in
James’ “ask in faith, with no doubting.”
In my judgement, this is one of the most probable of the
borrowings. Although one could find
demands for faith and condemnation of doubt in both testaments, one would need
a convincing mention of both in the same text as there is in the case of
Matthew 21:21.
One also has the case of the “sea”
being envolved—though in very different ways.
In James it is one of being personally whipped about by the winds at
sea; in Jesus the subject being the “mountain” being cast into the sea. Hence there are three verbal links between
the two speakers: “faith,” “doubt,” and
the “sea.”
This much verbal linkage would seem to be very odd when it occurs
within the confines of one single verse.
One or, maybe, even two of these might make one wonder if the linkage
has truly passed into the area of necessary inference, but surely three should.
On the other side of the matter, the
“sea” imagery is rejected as significant by some because it was so widely known
and because it is used in such a different manner in the two speakers.[11]
[Page 143]
James 1:9
James: “Let the lowly
brother glory in his exaltation, 10 but the rich
in his humiliation, because as a flower of the field he will pass
away.”
Jesus: Matthew
and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Luke
humbles himself will be exalted.”
This is essentially the same point
made in James
James 1:17
James:
“Every good gift and every perfect gift
is from above, and
comes down from the Father of
lights. . . .”
Jesus: Matthew
gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven
give
good things to those who ask Him!”
Luke
your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy
Spirit
to those who ask Him!”
[Page 144] In
Matthew the statement of promised gifts is as broad as in James, but in Luke it
is limited to one particular item—the Holy Spirit. Virtually by definition what else is God expected
to give but “good” gifts? The deduction
is seemingly inherent in the very definition of God’s nature and any
intervention in earthly affairs that He may make on behalf of His faithful
people.
Furthermore, the Old Testament
explicitly embraces the teaching as well.
In Psalms 84:11, the people are reminded that “the Lord God is a sun and
shield; the Lord will give grace and glory; no good things will He withhold
from those who walk uprightly.” In the
next chapter the theme is again raised, “Yes, the Lord will give what is good;
and our land will yield its increase” (Psalms 85:12).
Hence the ultimate derivation of both Jesus’ and James’ usage would
seem to be the Old Testament. Although
he was surely aware of what Jesus had said, there seems nothing in his words
that would argue that Jesus’ presentation of God’s “good gift nature” is
especially in mind.
James 1:21
James: “. . . Receive with meekness the implanted
word, which is able
to save your souls.”
Jesus:
Luke 8:8 “ ‘But others fell on good ground, sprang up, and
yielded a crop a
hundredfold.’ When He had said these
things He cried, ‘He
who has ears to hear, let him hear! . . . 15 But the ones that fell on
the good
ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good
heart,
keep it and bear fruit with patience.’ ”
[Page 145]
James B. Adamson argues that here “James is probably recalling
the same parable given and expounded in Luke.”[12] On James
1:5, 9, 17, he expresses no reservations as to usage.
In our current text, for both James and Jesus the idea is front and
center that the word has been sown / planted in us and that it both can and
will produce visible manifestations if we permit and encourage it. The result is “bear[ing] fruit” in Luke and that
covers all the positive and beneficial consequences of discipleship, but in
James the particular benefit in mind is the salvational result.
The linkage stands out even further when one notes how James puts the
responsibility for the success of the word on the hearer: “receive with meekness the implanted
word.” There is the implicit image of
the hearer being the “ground” the seed works within and without whose
concurrence nothing constructive will occur.
This image is certainly inherent in Jesus’ parable for it is only the “good
ground” that receives the seed and where growth results. In contrast, in the other “grounds” it all
comes to nothing. The reception
is different.
However, this is not imagery Jesus invented or is the only one known to
use it. For example, the concept of
being planted by God is not unknown of the collectivity of God’s people
in the Old Testament:
[Page 146]
Psalms
44:2: “You drove out the nations
with Your hand, but them You planted; You afflicted the peoples, and cast them
out.”
Psalms
80:8: “You have brought a vine
out of
Psalms
80:15: “And the vineyard which
Your right hand has planted, and the branch that You made strong for Yourself.
Jeremiah 2:21: “Yet I had planted you a noble vine, a seed
of highest quality. How then have you
turned before Me Into the degenerate plant of an alien vine?”
Some of these images are, strictly speaking, of transplanting
rather than growth from the seed stage, however: Psalms 80:8 (“a vine out of
Furthermore, Jesus’ use is—like James’—of the individual and not the
group. So it is significant that the Old
Testament also edges into something approaching an individual planting
by God—clearly indicating that it was not just the nation but those in
the nation being described. Isaiah 60:21
is especially relevant and perhaps the best example: “Also your people shall all be
righteous; they shall inherit the land forever, the branch of My
planting, the work of My hands, that I may be glorified.” Yet even here the “people” and the “they” are
collectively “the branch of my planting.” The collectivity is again the center of
attention.
[Page 147] Likewise in Ezekiel
The closest we have to the strictly individual and not corporate
emphasis of James and Jesus is likely Psalms 92:13, “Those who are planted in
the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God.”
Even here a major difference still exists: in both Jesus and James the emphasis is on
how individuals become what they should be morally and spiritually. In Psalms 92:13, the emphasis is on one who
is already part of God’s people for he is “planted in the house of the
Lord:” he has already grown from seed
into a growth large enough to be transplanted into the place of worship.
Hence we would seem to have the memory of Jesus’ individualistic “seed”
teaching as the most probable source—at least major source—of James’
imagery. The Old Testament refers to “[trans-]planting”
of the individual grown seed, while Jesus emphasizes the seed itself from the
initial planting stage. Hence James’
usage seems to be imitating that particular type of usage.
To say that Jesus had developed
it from verbal precedents in the Old Testament is reasonable enough, but the
teaching still stands distinctly enough on its own two feet. And how James uses the text (“the implanted
word”) far better fits that source than the Old Testament directly.
[Page 148]
James 1:22
James: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers
only, deceiving
yourselves.”
Jesus: Matthew
Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house
on
the rock.”
Luke
things which I say?”
49 out of 60 commentators list this
text as a usage of the teaching of Jesus.[13]
Adamson argues that “the thought
here is essentially that of Matthew and Luke” and that in these words “we may
well have another unrecorded saying of Jesus.”
He concedes “equally possible is common Jewish influence.”[14]
What is often forgotten about Jesus is that he was a preacher,
which meant that the same themes got cycled and recycled before different
audiences, varying verbally but not in core thought. Hence one might have an “unrecorded
saying of Jesus” but one is just as likely to be looking at a person who has
well digested the teaching and is using its thrust to make his own point.
Furthermore, as Dean B. Deppe
rightly argues, the doing / hearing contrast was well rooted in a wide variety
of Jewish Biblical and non-Biblical sources:
“the prophets [Page 149] (Ezekiel
33:32), the law (Deuteronomy 30:8 ff.), wisdom literature (Proverbs 6:3; Sirach
3:1), Jewish philosophical treatises (4 Maccabees ), Qumran, Philo, Josephus,
the Mishnah, the Talmud. . . .”[15]
As a follower (and possible kin of Jesus) it would be natural to filter
the other sources through the lens of the teaching of Jesus, but there would
still be the need to find evidence of a special reliance on that source
to raise it above the others. Is that
really possible here?
James 1:23
James: “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and
not a doer, he is
like a man observing his natural face in a mirror.’
Jesus: Matthew
and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on
the
sand.”
Luke
a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream
beat
vehemently; and immediately it fell.
And the ruin of that house was great.”
49
out of 60 scholars see this as derived from the teaching of Jesus.[16] The discussion of this text is so closely
tied in with James 1:22, that what was appropriate [Page 150] there is also applicable in this case, at
least for the first half of the verse:
Both Jesus and the Old Testament emphatically demanded that one not only
hear God’s word, but also conform oneself to it.
The illustrations to convey the point are different in James and Jesus
(mirror versus building a house). At the
most we would have here conceptual borrowing by James that seems
impossible to narrow down specifically to Jesus, while verbal borrowing
there is none.
James, Chapter Two
2:5
James: “Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not
chosen the poor
of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He
promised
to those who love Him?”
Jesus: Matthew 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven. 5 Blessed are
the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”
Luke
‘Blessed are you poor, for yours is the
Of 60 scholars surveyed, 43 saw a
clear dependence on Jesus’ teaching.[17]
[Page 151] Both
Luke and James speak of having the kingdom in terms not hedged by Matthew’s
“poor in spirit,” making it as if economic status alone were pivotal.[18] But would not that subtext be usually present
as well?
If one may permit a tad of realistic cynicism, would not--as a group--the
economically poor be “poor in spirit” as a result of their living conditions,
in contrast to the “arrogance of spirit” that would be expected among the richer? Hence they have already been humbled into an
acknowledgment that they are not masters of their own destiny.
In contrast, the weller-to-do would have to first have their delusions
smashed before they are receptive to God’s kingdom. Life has “broken” the pride of the poor
already; only when the pride of the better off is broken can they, too, be
willing to acknowledge their responsibility toward God—joining with the poor in
a humility of spirit toward the Divine.
Of course the point of Luke could well be very different than this and
we should consider that possibility as well.
Note the context:
20 Blessed are you poor, for yours is the
[Page 152] Could not Jesus’ point be that
“yours is the
Wesley L. Wacob and Luke T. Johnson see confirming evidence of literary
dependence by appealing to the context of James. They argue that this entire section in
defense of the poor begins with a plea to “not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality” (2:1). They observe that in 2:5 we find what
“the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” was on the subject: that the poor will be heirs of the kingdom”—and
their’s being the kingdom is exactly the point taught in Matthew 5:3 and Luke
What of a possible root in the Law and Prophets? The Old Testament speaks much of God’s desire
for the welfare of the poor—both physical and spiritual. The need would be to find a text that linked
them with being recipients (James, “heirs”) “of the kingdom.” We read of how “He has given to the poor”
(Psalms 112:9). “Has,” past tense. Although the deduction that He will continue
to do so is a logical one, the promise in no way requires the idea of the
“kingdom” being the gift.
We read that “the meek shall inherit the earth” (Psalms 37:11). “Those
blessed by Him shall inherit the earth, but those cursed by Him shall be cut
off” is the promise in verse 22. Is the
“earth” to be taken as synonymous with the “kingdom?” in that the Divine realm
is intended to be world wide? Even if so,
the implication is not developed of the two being one and the same.
[Page 153] In Jesus’ teaching the “kingdom”
promise, however, is made explicit and it is to the “poor” not the “meek,”
though I readily admit that it would be surprising if---in real world terms—the
two descriptions are anything but functional equivalents. With the lack of Old Testament precedents, a
reliance upon James seems inevitable.
As to differences between Jesus and James: “Our author [James] alone,” Adamson writes,
“explicitly makes the blessing a promise for the future.”[20] The key here may well be “heirs of the
kingdom.” One might well be the member
of a royal family for decades, for example, before becoming “heir” to the
crown, i.e., actually receive it.
Likewise a person might well be in Christ’s kingdom for decades
before “inheriting” (so to speak) the blessings that come at death and not
before. Although this is quite true, the
heir status is now, the receiving of the benefits of being heir
is what is future. By its inherent
nature that is always the case.
So is the future aspect that much of a “difference” between Jesus and
James at all? I think not. Jesus stresses its current reality; James its
future reward. The two concepts
interlock as if parts of the same puzzle.
[Page 154]
James 2:8
James: “If you really fulfill the royal law
according to the Scripture,
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well.’
Jesus: Matthew
neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On
these two commandments hang all the Law and
the Prophets.”
Luke
God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength,
and with
all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ 28 And He said to him, ‘You
have answered rightly; do this and you will live.’ ”
Mark
reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked
Him,
‘Which is the first commandment of all?’ 31 ‘And the second, like it, is this:
'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other
commandment
greater than these.’ 33 And to
love Him with all the heart, with all the
understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to
love one's
neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and
sacrifices."
Wachob and Johnson argue that James
continues his elaboration on what “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” means in
regard to “partiality” (2:1) and that the argument from Leviticus 19:18 makes
the most sense if it is recognized that Jesus Himself had argued the
same type of point from that very text.
Although they concede that other sources both Jewish and Christian
(Biblical age and post) made the same or similar deductions--which weakens the
power of the argument--it is still “hard to imagine” that the readers could
have avoided the tie-in with Jesus’ teaching.
[Page 155] Especially when they are
reminded that they are discussing “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ”
in particular.[21] In other words, Jesus is given as the
reference point for the allusion and not the Torah.
In contrast, Dean B. Deppe is
convinced that referencing the quote back to Jesus is fundamentally wrong for a
reason that lies transparently and easily visible on the surface of the
text: “James states himself that he is
quoting scripture; therefore he is recalling Leviticus 19:18, not any saying of
Jesus.”[22]
Of course this implicitly assumes that none of the Synoptics was
written by this time—not even Mark. Here
we hit a paradox: We have argued for a
very early date for James being written (mid-30s to mid-40s); that makes it
that much harder to argue for an even earlier composition of one of the
Synoptics. We simply seem to have run
out of time for there to have arisen a perceived need for a major detailed written account of
Jesus’ life.
Not to mention the question of whether these documents were originally
embraced “simply as” inspired and authoritative or were considered “scripture”
as well from the beginning. Paul is
certainly cited as scripture (2 Peter
However one resolves the comparative dating of James versus that of the
gospels, Deppe’s argument still seems the stronger of the two approaches. “Scripture” is still language we most
naturally connect with a description of the Old (rather than New) Testament as
of when James was written.
[Page 156]
James 2:10
James: “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and
yet stumble in
one point, he is guilty of all.”
Jesus: Matthew
earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the
law till
all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever
therefore breaks one of the least of these
commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom
of
heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in
the
kingdom of heaven.”
Luke
for one tittle of the law to fail.”
Although there is no verbal linkage
between James and Jesus, the conceptual linkage and reliance is
clear-cut. Indeed, Jesus provides the
reasoning that tells us why what James says has to be true: in breaking a Divine commandment and teaching
others there is nothing wrong with doing so, one has “literally” spit in the
face of the law. One has denied that
that provision--and who knows how much else--is actually binding. One has repudiated the power of law—in
effect, that of the entire law.
[Page 157] This is because by insisting
that one had the right to validly challenge one segment, the door was effectively
opened to challenging everything else that is in it. And thereby be “guilty” (James’ word) of
denying the authority of the entire Divine code. For all of it has been subjected to
your veto.
The closest Old Testament passage to
the concept of violating one law as equivalent to violating the entire law
(i.e., the system of law) is likely Deuteronomy 27:26, “Cursed is the one who does
not confirm all the words of this law.
And all the people say Amen.” The
word “all” is a translator’s addition to convey the idea under discussion but
is not part of the actual text.
Yet the pledge being made makes no sense if it means anything less
that all. The RSV is making an
interpretive addition in its translation, howbeit a valid one, because
“confirm” doesn’t really make much sense without it: “Cursed be he who does not confirm the words
of this law by doing them.”
Also consider the similar warning in Deuteronomy 28:15, “But it shall
come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord
your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes
which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and
overtake you.” It did not matter which
commandment one broke, the Code itself had still been violated and
punishment would come regardless of which specific provision was envolved.
One would not be violating the
command against adultery by murder for example, but either of these (and a
multitude of other actions) would violate the code in which both prohibitions
are found. In that sense one could
be described as “guilty of all” in breaking the Code of behavior at any point. Hence we can get to James 2:10 via this Old
Testament route, but it does not seem as direct a route as working from the
basis of what Jesus Himself taught.
[Page 158]
James 2:11
James: “For He who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’
also said, ‘Do
not murder.’ Now if you do not
commit adultery, but you do murder, you
have become a transgressor of the law.
Jesus: Matthew
'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the
judgment.' 27 You have heard
that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not
commit adultery.’ ” (Context
verses 21-30)
This strikes me as an oddity to
introduce: “He who said” in both
James and Jesus surely refers to God Himself and not to Jesus. This is not some occasion on which Jesus
inveighed against either murder or adultery independent of a reference
to the Ten Commandments.
Furthermore, in both cases Jesus and James elaborated on the two
commandments to make the point that, though good in their own right, far more
is sinful as well. It is not just murder
that is evil but also the hatred and contempt that leads to it (Matthew
[Page 159] When
Jesus provides a lengthy presentation of varied sins (not all of which are
directly discussed in the Ten Commandments), He refers to “murders, adulteries”
(Matthew
Hence it would seem far more likely that if Jesus Himself were to have
made the remark James did—or an equivalent one—He would have constructed it
verbally to mention murder first and then the adultery. Therefore it seems far safer to conclude that
James constructed his argument here directly on the basis of the Old Testament.
An aside: In the bulk of
Septuagint manuscripts, both the Exodus and Deuteronomy accounts of the Ten
Commandments mention the adultery before the murder—as in James. In the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew, however,
the order is reversed--murder is mentioned before adultery.[23]
Has Septuagint usage influenced James’ choice of word order? Has it affected him so much that he uses it
without thinking? This could lead to
conclusions in diametrically opposite directions.
On the one hand, it could be introduced as evidence for a
non-Palestinian setting and later date for the epistle. Alternatively, that the Septuagint tradition—delivered
through the influence of Diaspora Jews in and visiting the region--had
influenced usage [Page 160] to the
point that their order was just as acceptable in public religious discourse as
the reverse one. These “outsiders” would
certainly have had a maximum impact upon James of
On the other hand, the term order could be used simply because it
reflected the kind of world situation he was immediately dealing with and
trying to improve: that adultery was far
more common than legal and semi-legal “murder” and destruction of
livelihood. In other words, his priority
target was the behavior they would feel the guiltiest about and where they
would be the most vulnerable to correction.
Here they were betraying not just “somebody” they may have barely known,
but their very spouse. If correction
couldn’t be accepted here, where could it possibly be?
James 2:13
James: “For judgment is without mercy to the one who
has shown no
mercy. Mercy triumphs over
judgment.”
Jesus: Matthew 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for
they shall obtain
mercy.”
Luke
merciful.”
[Page 161] The
survey of 60 scholars found 40 embracing James’ usage of Jesus in this case.[24]
The concept of God showing mercy,
however, is certainly rooted in the Old Testament itself. David spoke of how, “"With the merciful
You will show Yourself merciful; with a blameless man You will show Yourself
blameless” (2 Samuel
As to the concept of merciless judgment for those who show no mercy, it
is hard to read verse 28 without believing that the implication of such is
included: “You will save the humble
people; but Your eyes are on the haughty, that You may bring them down.” The implication can also reasonably be found
in such other texts as Daniel 4:27, Isaiah 58:6-12, and Psalms 41:1-4. In short, why should these particular words
be viewed as uniquely Jesus rather than Old Testament references?
Rabbinic tradition had no problem with the concept of either Jesus or
James in this case. One rabbi expressed
it in words both would have found quite congenial, “Every time that thou art
merciful, God will be merciful to thee; and if thou art not merciful, God will
not show mercy to thee.”[25] In short, this was an understanding of God
that found wide support within Judaism, thereby minimizing the probability of provable
reliance on the words of Jesus. As
Wachob and Johnson sum it up, “The road from possibility to probability is a
long one, and cannot be traveled for James
That James would be encouraged to make the argument because
Jesus had emphasized mercy makes inherent sense. All James has done is to adopt the reasoning
of Jesus rather than using His words as a “quotation.” That would seemingly require something
significantly more explicit to make James’ readers detect it.
[Page 162]
On the other hand: Although mercy for mercy has strong Old
Testament roots, one might well find a significantly stronger case for reliance
on Jesus--rather than a quotation of Him--in the closing words of the verse, “mercy
triumphs over judgment.” In the Judgment
Day scene of Matthew 25:31-46, the people are judged on the basis of their
mercy by God’s regal agent, Jesus.
Those who exhibited it are rewarded
for their mercy to His followers:
34
Then the King will say to those on His right hand, “Come, you blessed of
My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the
world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you
gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I
was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.”
Likewise those who lacked
mercy are punished:
41
Then He will also say to those on the left hand, “Depart from Me, you
cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me
no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I
was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me,
sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.” 44 Then they also will answer Him, saying, “Lord, when did we
see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did
not minister to You?” 45 Then
He will answer them, saying, “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not
do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” 46 And
these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal
life.
[Page 163]
Although
the word mercy is not found, who can possibly deny that is the concept
being discussed? And how can that lead
to anything but, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy”
(Jesus) and “for judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment” (James)?
Furthermore Jesus Himself is the
King in this passage that sets mercy given and non-mercy bringing punishment within
a specifically judgment setting. In light of that setting, Jesus’ formulation
of the principle surely fits better for James’ inspiration than those Old
Testament texts: for here the concept
of judgment is explicitly envolved and mercy received or rejected is the obvious
result of that judgment.
[Page 164]
James 2:15
James: “If a brother or sister is naked and
destitute of daily food, 16
and one of you says to them, ‘Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,’
but you
do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it
profit?”
Jesus: Matthew 25:34 “Then the King will say to
those on His right
hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for
you from the foundation of the world:
35 for I was hungry and you gave Me
food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you
took Me
in.”
John the Baptist: Luke
has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food,
let
him do likewise.’ ”
The concept of helping the needy is
certainly rooted in these texts: from
the Baptist, from the standpoint of it being an obligation; from Jesus from the
standpoint of it playing a role in determining one’s eternal destiny. Hence James’ teaching would be a logical
deduction from these passages. On the
other hand, would it not also be a logical deduction from varied Old Testament
texts enjoining the responsibility of helping the down and out?
Isaiah 58 provides a fine example of
this theme, one that is especially relevant:
7 Is this not the fast that I have
chosen: To loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and that you break
every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and that you
bring to your house the poor who are cast out; when you see the naked, that
you cover him, And not hide yourself from your own flesh? 8 Then your light shall break
forth like the morning, your healing shall spring forth speedily, and your
righteousness shall [Page 165] go
before you; the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard. 9 Then
you shall call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and He will say, ‘Here
I am.’ If you take away the yoke from
your midst, the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, 10 If
you extend your soul to the hungry and satisfy the afflicted soul, then your
light shall dawn in the darkness, and your darkness shall be as the
noonday. 11 The Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy your soul in
drought, and strengthen your bones; you shall be like a watered garden, and
like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail.
Isaiah is emphasizing the same thing
as James: make sure the needy receive
assistance; no excuses—do it! Hence—if any text is specifically in James’
mind at all—Isaiah would make a better “match.”
James, however, moves even beyond Isaiah by stressing the futility of mere
good wishes for the destitute. (A theme
Isaiah does not raise.) Good wishes are
fine, but until something is done to deal with the situation the words
have accomplished nothing at all for the suffering.
[Page 166]
James, Chapter Three
James: “Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or
a grapevine bear
figs? Thus no spring yields both
salt water and fresh.”
Jesus: Matthew
gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good
tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot
bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.”
Luke
tree bear good fruit. 44 For
every tree is known by its own fruit.
For men do
not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble
bush.”
33 of the 60 surveyed scholars found
a Jamesian dependence on Jesus’ teaching.[27]
Jesus’ argument in both Matthew
7:16 and Luke 6:43 is that how we act reveals our fundamental inner nature, a
significantly different point than that made by James. Adding to the precedent Matthew 7:17-18, as
is done,[28]
does not seem to strengthen the linkage case because there the emphasis is on
the quality (good/bad) of the fruit that is borne and not on whether
something totally different can be borne as well.
Introducing Luke
Adamson considers both Matthew
Which brings us to a reality that must
be considered when studying the degree of “quoting” or “usage” of Jesus engaged
in by James. When Seneca or Plutarch or
others make this kind of remark, can we consider them as deliberately quoting
or relying upon each other or some unknown earlier writer?
That is hardly likely! Their
imagery grows naturally out of the agricultural conditions of the Mediterranean
basin. These are the kind of images that
would occur spontaneously to one writer after another when dealing with a
subject where it would fit.[32] For the same reason, more than just the use
of such imagery is needed before we can speak with confidence of a specific
case reflecting genuine borrowing from Jesus’ words.
This is not to deny that the words
of James and Jesus easily complement each other: Jesus says what you do reflects what you
are. He is forcing the listener to a
basic judgment on themselves: What is
my fundamental character—good or bad?
James argues from that assumption—that one is fundamentally good or
bad--but he approaches it from a significantly different angle: If my core nature is actually good, what is
evil doing coming out of my mouth and in my behavior? If I am fundamentally evil, why do I find
good in my actions and coming off my tongue?
Both speakers believe that what we do reflects what we are. Both are convinced that how we act reveals
our core nature. But is that sufficient
to prove that James uses the language and the argument specifically because of
what Jesus said? Or is the fact that
they both work from the same assumption adequate to explain the similarity?
[Page 168]
James 3:18
James: “Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in
peace by those who
make peace.”
Jesus: Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for
they shall be
called sons of God.”
Of those 60 scholars analysed, 38
saw a clear dependence of James on Jesus.[33] A similar thought but not intended as a
quotation, argues Adamson.[34]
Deppe argues against a connection on the grounds that what happens in
Matthew 5:9 refers to future rewards while James is concerned with the benefits
in the here and now.[35]
True, being “sons of God” can refer to being resurrected; in Luke
[Page 169] In light of this usage, an
“eschatological” reference by Jesus is clearly not intended to be the sole
proper context for such language.
Similarly, the mercy promised in Matthew 5:7 is obtained in eternity,
but is it not also imparted in the current world as well?
If one is to seek a contrast between James 3:18 and Matthew 5:9 it
would seem far better to stress that the first is talking about peaceful
behavior while the other is talking about going out and making peace
(hence “peacemaker”). The latter seems
far better as a term describing consciously resolving existing conflicts.
In contrast, the peaceful behavior of the other text represents what can
prevent conflicts from occurring in the first place. The two are fully compatible, but represent
two different emphases.
James, Chapter Four
4:2c-3
James: “Yet you do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do
not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your
pleasures.”
Jesus: Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given to
you; seek, and you
will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks
receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be
opened. 11
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children,
how
much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those
who
ask Him!”
Luke 11:9 “So I say to
you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and
you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks
receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be
opened. 13
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children,
how
much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who
ask
Him!”
[Page 170]
In different language, James 1:5 makes the same essential point about
the usefulness of prayer, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who
gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” There the emphasis is on the need to ask--as
in the first half of the current verse; here that is supplemented in the second
half by an emphasis on when He will refuse to answer at all.
The earlier objection on James 1:5 that there seems little to uniquely
attach this to the teaching of Jesus remains true here: the idea of seeking and receiving are core
elements in the very concept of prayer as presented in both Old and New
Testaments. Where is the uniquely “Jesus”
element that would justify us making Him the—or, at least, the exclusive--source
for what James has to say?
Furthermore, the teaching of the two
men emphasize distinctly different themes:
Jesus hits on, “Yes, your prayers will be answered!” and James,
“Here’s why your prayers won’t be answered.” They are flip sides of the same coin: Unless God is a “cosmic patsy” waiting and
willing to be abused by the entire human race, then the promise of answered
prayer has to have the caveat that there are exceptions.
[Page 171] Hence one could well argue
that James is developing Jesus’ premises to cover aspects He did not immediately
need but which those in James’ time required an explicit reminder about. (But can’t James be, just as much, developing
the implications of Old Testament teaching on prayer?)
Furthermore, James does begin
with the same premise as Jesus: “you do
not have because you do not ask” is a clear fit with Jesus’ “ask and it will be
given to you.” Both are different ways
of saying the same thing. Yet is the
promise of answered prayer so uniquely Jesus’ that James is referring
specifically to that instead of the Old Testament or, more probably, both
sources?
Although in the Old Testament
precedents section of chapter 4 we deal at length with James’ point of why
prayers go unanswered, we do not go into the initial (implied) part of his
argument that prayer will be answered (based upon certain implicit
conditions). We should, therefore, spend
a modest amount of space here pointing out Old Testament precedent for his
teaching.
Jeremiah 29 speaks of how God was
going to bless the people, “Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me,
and I will listen to you” (verse 12). A
few chapters later we read the admonition, “Call to Me, and I will answer you,
and show you great and mighty things, which you do not know” (33:3).
Isaiah 65:24 has it this way, “It
shall come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are
still speaking, I will hear.” Of those
who love God we read in Psalms 69:15, “He shall call upon Me, and I will answer
him; I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him and honor him.”
[Page 172] Hence
James could have found reason to say what he does on the basis of the Old
Testament and what Jesus taught rather than on the basis of either
alone. That the more recent Teacher of
the principle of answered prayer would be in the forefront of his thinking
would be quite natural and expected. On
the other hand, without clearer cut evidence that points to an aspect distinctively
that of Jesus, it seems extremely hard to give Him exclusive credit for what
James had to say. On this subject, both
James and Jesus were both ultimately using the same source, the Old
Testament.
James 4:4
James: “Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that
friendship with the world is enmity
with God? Whoever therefore wants to
be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
Jesus: Matthew
and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given
to it
except the sign of the prophet Jonah.’ ”
Luke
He began to say, ‘This is an evil generation. It seeks a sign, and no
sign will
be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.’ ”
(Others present these two texts instead:)
Matthew
the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and
despise the
other. You cannot serve God and
mammon.”
Luke
the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and
despise the
other. You cannot serve God and
mammon.”
[Page 173]
Tying the words of Jesus in Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 with those of James 4:4 can be seen at least
as early as Second Clement (middle/late second century A.D.) when that author
writes,[36]
1.
And the Lord says: “No servant
can serve two masters.” If we desire to
serve both God and Mammon it is unprofitable to us. 2. For
what is the advantage if a man gain the whole world but lose his soul?” 3. Now
the world that is, and the world to come are two enemies. 4.
This world speaks of adultery, and corruption, and love of money, and
deceit, but that world bids these things farewell. 5. We
cannot then be friends of both; but we must bid farewell to this world, to
consort with that which is to come.
Of this double set of passages
that have been introduced as proof of reliance by James on Jesus’ words,
the first set (Matthew 12:39 and Luke 11:29) describes the world as sexually
corrupt and James 4:4 does begin with such a reference, though it seems slim
pickings to prove actual dependence.
[Page 174] The second set (Matthew 6:24
and Luke 16:13) provide a closer “fit” though a conceptual one rather than a
verbal one: “friend of the world” is not
used by Jesus nor “an enemy of God" yet it is hard to believe that anyone
would deny that these are fully accurate applications of the assumptions
Jesus works from.
At least three elements of James 4:4 clearly echo Jesus’ sentiments
though never expressed in the way James does—however we need to broaden out our
selection of texts far above those just mentioned to establish the fact. The first conviction is that the “world”
is a distinct entity that can be distinguished from the supernatural world. The distinction is explicitly made in regard
to the existence of “the world,” but the implied alternative is surely intended
to be heaven or God. Matthew 18:7 speaks
of how there is “Woe to the world because of offenses!” In Luke 12:33 it is the opposite, the place
of rewards being mentioned and the world described but not the term itself
used, “Sell what you have and give alms; provide yourselves money bags which do
not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief
approaches nor moth destroys.”
“The world cannot receive” the Holy Spirit because they are totally
oblivious to understanding Him (John
The second parallel is that there is a fundamental enmity between
the “world” and being acceptable to God.
John 7:7 describes this realm of the “world” as having a special hatred of Jesus far in
excess of any that it dumps on His followers, “The world [Page 175] cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I
testify of it that its works are evil.”
In light of John
It is “the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches” of this
world that “choke the word” of God (Matthew
The third sentiment of Jesus that is found in James 4:4 is that one
can not be on identical terms with both.
As Luke
Hence it seems inescapable that
James is building upon the conceptual foundation laid by Jesus. What the reader has to decide is whether this
is a sufficient foundation to argue that James has “quoted” Jesus. Or might it not represent the regard and
respect the early Christians felt toward Him, that they freely built upon
His concepts without even the perceived need to directly quote His words? In short, they had internalized the
message and adapted it to differing and changed circumstances and
environments. Remaining loyal to
it, but making it more directly relevant to the immediate situation.
[Page 176]
James 4:8
James
4:8 “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse
your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.”
Jesus: Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see
God.
None of the three points made by James—(1) mutual drawing near, (2)
cleansing of hands, (3) purification of hearts—is directly mentioned by
Jesus. Only in regard to the last is
there a link at all: the purification of
the heart demanded by James results in the purity of heart that Jesus
tells us will enable us to “see God.”
Hence the assertion of James is a logical development of the prerequisite
required to meet the criteria of purity that Jesus demands. Hence the two texts are conceptually
interlocked.
Yet we find the key elements in James 4:8 easily enough in the Torah
and Prophets. For example, the need for
purity in heart: “Truly God is good to
Secondly, the instruction for
(morally, ethically) clean hands is also present. In Psalms 24 we read: “3 Who
may ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or
who may stand in His holy place? 4
He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted up his [Page
177] soul to an idol, nor sworn
deceitfully. 5 He shall
receive blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his
salvation.” Hence if one did not already
possess them, one needed to “cleanse” one’s hands to be acceptable to God.
Thirdly, a mutual drawing together
of man and God is taught. In the middle
of Malachi 3:7 is the plea, “Return to Me, and I will return to you, says the
Lord of hosts.” And in Zechariah 1:3
there is the admonition to the prophet, “Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the
Lord of hosts: Return to Me,’ says the
Lord of hosts, ‘and I will return to you,’ says the Lord of hosts.”
Hence each of the three segments of
thought are found in both testaments.
What we must ask ourselves is whether there is an element in James’
reference to purification to argue a special link to Jesus alone that
the teaching of the Old Testament is not adequate to explain.
Or one might make the linkage in this manner: that such matters were essential because they
were continued as authoritative in the teaching of Jesus—the acceptance
of the older authority being filtered through its embracing by the newer
one. But even this way, the teaching
existed long before Jesus came to earth and He embraced it as of continuing
necessity, not as new law.
Jesus still did not present the teaching as uniquely new or His
own. If He was embracing it
because of the Old Testament, why might not this play an equally important role
in James’ decision to stress it?
Especially in the absence of a distinctively “Jesus” element being added
to it that was different from that already existing in the Old Testament?
[Page 178]
James 4:9
James: “Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and
your joy to gloom.”
Jesus: Matthew 5:4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for
they shall be
comforted.”
Luke
Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.”
Luke
who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.”
It is argued that there are
significant connections here in the Greek:
the word for “laugh” is only found in James and Luke and the verb is in
the second person in both texts.[37] An impressive dissimilarity, however,
is found in regard to Matthew 5:4 and Luke
James calls for repentance with the
language; Jesus uses it to call for perseverance under suffering. These are, respectively, the only point in the
James and Jesus quotations.
[Page 179] Hence shared language is used
in opposite directions. It does not
indicate (here at least) that a quotation is actually being undertaken or any
direct reliance upon Jesus’ words is intended.
This may well bear witness to how deeply the actual words of
Jesus had penetrated the mind of James:
the language is adapted to James’ different priority because of his
familiarity with it. That is quite
possible, but does this rise to the level of probability or certainty?
Turning to Luke 6:25, we still find that where the language is the
closest it is still quite different in intent:
“Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom”
(James).
“Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep” (Jesus)
Even here James is discussing repentance and Jesus is talking about
retribution and how it will devastate emotionally when it hits. James speaks of the emotions as paving the
way to repentance and Jesus of them as the result of punishment. Again, a major split in how the language is
being utilized.
On the side of reliance on the
Old Testament as the foundation, the case seems weaker here. Efforts have been made to find Old Testament
precedents but it has been noted that they suffer from the defect that though passages
may mention weeping and mourning, they lack a mention of laughter in the same
text.[38] If “joy” is permitted to function as a near
synonym for laughter, then Psalms 126:5-6 and Jeremiah 31:13 come close to the combination
of images.
[Page 180] Perhaps the best judgment is
that James has so assimilated Jesus’ language that it has become part of his
own vocabulary, even to use in a very different sense than it was originally. In this case we would have a dependence,
but—oddly enough—lack either quotation or direct usage.
James 4:10
James: “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord,
and He will lift
you up.”
Jesus: Matthew
and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Luke
humbles himself will be exalted.”
Luke
rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled,
and
he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
This is an especially appealing
parallel because it is based upon not merely one usage by Jesus but two
different occasions, with the inherent probability that if He regarded the
teaching as that important that it surely appeared at other times in His ministry
as well. In itself, this made it even
more probable than normal that His teaching and words would be “recycled” by
His followers in their later teaching.
[Page 181] f
one judges “the Lord” in James 4:10 to be Jesus Himself, then the
likelihood of James having in mind the personal teaching of “the Lord” Jesus
increases accordingly. Nothing would be
more natural than to base faithfulness to “the Lord” on what “the Lord” Himself
had said.
If one, however, regards “the Lord” as a reference to the Father, then
the probability increases that both men are independently basing their teaching
on the shared tradition of Torah and prophetic precedent. Through synagogue attendance and the
religious practice of his own household, he would have been well acquainted
with this principle.
Although this would be true of James the apostle it would have been, if
anything, even more true if from James the brother of the Lord. The earliest reference—chronologically
speaking—to this teaching found in the New Testament is attributed to the
pregnant Mary, who was bearing Jesus, “51
He has shown strength with His arm; He has scattered the proud in the
imagination of their hearts. 52 He
has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted the lowly. 53 He has filled he hungry with good
things, and the rich He has sent away empty” (Luke 1).
Hence Jesus was raised in a family
where this fundamental principle was known and referred to. Is it not likely, especially in times of
hardship and stress, that it was referred to time and again by Mary when raising
her child? In that kind of
historical context—especially lacking anything distinctly of Jesus being
added to it—would not the probability shift to James the Lord’s brother
utilizing the same prophetic texts Mary herself had been basing her own statement
upon?
[Page 182] This
argument, at least partly, can be neutralized by the fact that he would also
have been aware of Jesus’ stress on it during His own ministry. That would seemingly be enough to
assure that he utilized it himself, walking in his brother’s teaching footsteps
so to speak.
Be that as it may, these are some of
the Old Testament texts that teach the same thing—putting the elements of
lowering and raising in the same verse :
1 Samuel 2:7: “The Lord makes poor and makes rich; He
brings low and lifts up.”
Proverbs 29:23: “A man's pride will bring him low, but the
humble in spirit will retain honor.”
(Many translations prefer to substitute for “retain” “gain/gains” [God’s
Word, Holman, NIV, WEB] or “obtain” [ESV, NASB], renderings that contrast the
“lowering” of the proud with the “elevation” of the humble.)
Ezekiel 17:24: “And all the trees of the field shall know
that I, the Lord, have brought down the high tree and exalted the low tree,
dried up the green tree and made the dry tree flourish; I, the Lord, have
spoken and have done it.”
Ezekiel 21:26” “Thus says the Lord God: ‘Remove the turban, and take off the crown;
nothing shall remain the same. Exalt
the humble, and humble the exalted.”
There are also places where the
concept of exalting and humbling is developed but not necessarily using those
precise words (Job
[Page 183] If
the author of the epistle is the Lord’s brother: Although James was surely well aware of the
Old Testament precedent, it is hard to believe that the concept of raising the
lowly could be present without his seeing the words, in significant part,
through the prism of how his own lowly family was blessed with the
Messiah. That and his Brother’s teaching
on the same subject would have assured his utilization of the argument where
appropriate, regardless of whether he has His teaching specifically in
mind.
If the authorship was by the apostle
James, instead, much of this would remain true.
As a theme Jesus raised upon more than one occasion, it would surely
have implanted itself in his mind.
Again, assuring his use of the imagery and allusion regardless of whether
he specifically has in mind Jesus’ remarks when he speaks.
James 4:11
James: “Do not speak evil of one another,
brethren. He who speaks
evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and
judges the
law. But if you judge the law,
you are not a doer of the law but a judge.”
Jesus: Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not
judged. 2 For with
what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you
use,
it will be measured back to you.”
Luke
and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give,
and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken
together,
and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure
that you use, it will be measured back to you.”
[Page 184]
This is another case of majority
sentiment holding that James is utilizing Jesus--33 of 60 Bible scholars embracing
that scenario.[39]
This
“judging” in the teaching of both James and Jesus envolves a play on words
using official / legal judicial proceedings as its underlying basis. The Old Testament provides repeated
injunctions for non-biased judging, truth telling, and lie avoidance in regard
to legal “judging.” In regard to
ethical “judging” of the behavior of others, those same principles are violated
when one unjustly attributes baseness to others. Jesus rejects such behavior with passion as
does James.
But has anything distinctively “Jesus” been added to mark James as
especially reliant on Jesus as his source?
The verbal formulation of both is not found in the Old Testament,
however much the reasoning behind it is ultimately based upon that source. Hence we would seem to have a clear case of
the latter being “filtered” through the media of Jesus’ own teaching.
The not judging—accusing another of
(unjustified) evil—is clearly found in both James and Jesus, but, in all
fairness, the additional element of speaking evil of law itself [Page
185] is conspicuously absent in the
latter, though it is hard to see that He would have had any problem with the
concept: Since legal judging is
(supposed to be) based on law as its standard, when one is engaged in improper
judging by attributing unjustified motives and evil to others, one is also
providing a parallel prejudicial judgment against law itself—the spiritual /
ethical law that prohibits such behavior.
One rejects the authority of the very law that bans one’s conduct. One has entered a “judgment” against its
adequacy and appropriateness.
Indeed His condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees envolved—clearly,
though implicitly—them speaking evil of God’s Law. He critiques them as binding as law (through
their traditions) what the Law did not require—indeed things directly contrary
to that Law. This was a judgment
against the adequacy of the Divine Law itself, which left these out.
Note that in making His condemnation of binding humanly invented
tradition, Jesus not only condemned it by His own authority but also invoked
the authority of the Old Testament to do so (Mark 6:5-8). Hence Jesus’ implicit condemnation of
“judging” (= rejecting) the law was based upon Old Testament teaching. Would it be that odd if James’ was as well? Or should we assume that this, also, is a
case of the Old Testament being filtered through the lens of Jesus’ usage of
that testament?
[Page 186]
James 4:17
James: “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and
does not do it,
to him it is sin.”
Jesus: Luke
did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten
with many
stripes. 48 But he who did not
know, yet committed things deserving of
stripes, shall be beaten with few.
For everyone to whom much is given, from
him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him
they will ask the more.”
One could take the words in Luke as
establishing the reason for what James says: since one will be punished for not doing the
right thing (Jesus) then knowing the right thing and not doing it has to
be sin (James). But this only
establishes what “could” be; do we have anything in the text stronger, to raise
it to the level of being a probable reference point?
Actually John
The other side of this
teaching is found in John 9:41, “Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you
would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.'
Therefore your sin remains.’ ”
[Page 187] What
of the Old Testament as a basis? The
threat of Ezekiel 33 comes close to this:
“They sit before you as My people and they hear your words, but they do
not do them” (verse 31) and when the prophesied disaster finally occurs “then
they will know that a prophet has been among them” (verse 33). Obviously their nonchalance and lack of doing
the right things they were taught were regarded as sinful since punishment came
upon them, but the explicit “sin” language is not used of them, as in
the words of Jesus.
The
usage in the gospel of John can be objected to on the grounds that John was
written long after James. On the other
hand, one can argue that the doctrinal tradition from Jesus—unless invented by
John—must have been around since Jesus’ life and, therefore, available in verbal
form even if not yet a written one.
Hence that James embodies in written form a tradition only later
preserved as part of a written gospel.
Taken from that standpoint, it would seem reasonable to argue that John,
as an eyewitness, has verified a James-John doctrinal linkage in regard to the subject
them both discuss.
[Page 188]
James, Chapter Five
5:1
James: “Come
now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that
are coming upon you!
Jesus: Luke
your consolation. 25 Woe to you
who are full, for you shall hunger. Woe
to
you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. 26 Woe to
you when all
men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”
Some have suggested that both
Jesus and James utilized the same source rather than one relying on the
other. The Psalmist, for example, refers
to the rich coming face to face with pain and injury in spite of their earthly
status:
2 But
as for me, my feet had almost stumbled; My steps had nearly slipped. 3 For
I was envious of the boastful, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. 4 For there are no pangs in their
death, but their strength is firm. 5 They are not in trouble as other
men, nor are they plagued like other men.
6 Therefore pride serves
as their necklace; violence covers them like a garment. 7 Their eyes bulge with abundance;
they have more than heart could wish. 8 They scoff and speak wickedly
concerning oppression; they speak loftily.
12 Behold, these are the
ungodly, who are always at ease; they increase in riches.
16
When I thought how to understand this, it was too painful for me-- 17 until
I went into the sanctuary of God; then I understood their end. 18 Surely
You set them in slippery places; You cast them down to destruction. 19 Oh, how they are brought to
desolation, as in a moment! They are
utterly consumed with terrors (Psalms 73).
[Page 189] Yes, far lengthier than either James
or Jesus put it, but surely equally powerful by the repeated hammering home of
their status and the absolute certainty that nothing can avert their fate. Then the gullet punch: “Oh, how they are brought to desolation, as
in a moment! They are utterly consumed
with terrors.” Is this not the very
point that James is making?
The problem one runs into, of course, is how many ways are there to
describe the gutting of one’s prestigious economic situation? Almost by the very nature of the event, one
would anticipate certain concepts to make so much inherent sense that virtually
anyone delivering this rebuke would utilize parallel language. Whether rooted in the Old Testament or
the personal teaching of Jesus, much the same imagery and argument would be
used. Anything else would be startling.
If, however, James had either a
personal knowledge of Jesus’ teaching—or even received it via one or more
written accounts—one would expect him to invoke similar imagery both because of
his loyalty to his Leader and because many of his readers would surely have
heard reports of similar language having been used by Him. James would be invoking familiar language
from a respected source to make his point.
Yet is there enough of a verbal similarity to convincingly argue
that James’ argument springs from Jesus or from the Psalms prediction?
[Page 190]
James 5:2
James: “Your riches are corrupted, and your garments
are moth-
eaten. 3 Your gold and
silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a
witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up
treasure in the last days.”
Jesus: Matthew
earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and
steal; 20
but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust
destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your
treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
Comparing
James with the Synoptics, 42 commentators see a definite dependence.[40]
And there certainly are parallels
here. Both mention the corruptibility of
riches: “Your riches are corrupted”
reiterated by “your gold and silver are corroded” in James and the similar double
affirmation in Jesus: “moth and rust
destroy” and “where neither moth nor rust destroys.”
James refers to how “your garments
are moth-eaten” while Jesus refers to the destructive power of “moths”
twice—the obvious destructive target of moths being “garments” though the word
is not used.
James speaks of how they had “heaped
up treasure” while Jesus speaks of “where your treasure is” and how one should “lay
up for yourselves treasures in heaven”—another double reference from Jesus.
[Page 191] The
imagery of failure being depicted as having moth eaten garments is found in the
Old Testament (Job
James 5:6
James: “You have condemned, you have murdered the
just; he
does not resist you.”
Jesus: Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not
judged.”
Luke
and you shall not be condemned.
Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”
First the linkage case:
Admittedly, the subject matter has shifted considerably between Jesus
and James. Jesus is concerned with inflicting
unjust and unjustified “judgment” upon others.
James is concerned with those who have suffered unjust decisions. These are, however, two sides of one
conceptual coin.
Jesus’ language is broad enough to include any unjustified censure
whether judicially related or not, though it is hard to avoid the conclusion
that the former is preeminently the emphasis even if, perhaps, not the sole
one. In contrast the reference of [Page
192] James to how they “have murdered
the just” could refer to character assassination—killing the man or
woman’s reputation, but that is far less likely. In contrast the outright abuse of the
judicial process . . . or ignoring it entirely and being guilty of private
violent revenge, seems surely the thrust of the passage. In either case it would certainly be
describing the violation of the principle Jesus had taught.
The condemnation by James is clearly
based upon the assumption that such behavior is unjust and a violation of God’s
will. The teaching of Jesus provides
explicit evidence that it violates the Divine will. Hence the texts interweave into a consistent
whole whether or not Jesus’ warning is explicitly in James’ mind.
We have presented the most favorable
case we can for linkage, but can we seriously argue that this rises much above
making improbable verbal parallels? The
teaching of Jesus certainly sounds like a condemnation of verbal abuse, the
critical, negative, inflammatory, defamatory ranting intended to hurt or
destroy the reputation of another. The
teaching of James sure does sound like it is aimed at outright violence and not
verbal rage.
We can “paper together” these by the
technique we have presented, but are we truly dealing fairly with the intention
of the texts if we do so?
If we limit James’ language to
physical violence, we certainly find the condemnation of such in the teaching
of Jesus. The Lord speaks of responding
to a slap of the face with the instruction of turning the other cheek (Matthew
[Page
193] In other words, the
one who makes possible the abuse of punitive authority will ultimately face
punishment for it. Surely that carries
the “freight” that those who carry out the actual violence will
similarly face hostile judgment as well!
And He was certainly aware that
judicial and extra-judicial murder had been sanctioned in the past and condemns
it (Matthew
Yet in such texts we still do not
reach James’ words, “You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does
not resist you.” None of these remarks
by Jesus is delivered in a manner to create a verbal parallel with James.
In addition, although Jesus warns
about the danger of judging, the consequence to be avoided—“that you be not
judged”—that is not introduced as a factor at all in James’ argument. Conceptually, James does
discuss a “judgment” coming upon them:
their excesses have prepared them for death (James 5:1-5). So some might consider this strong enough to
constitute a bridge between the two sets of passages.
Another difference between the
passages: Jesus warns only against
judging. James, in contrast, singles out
one having “condemned” others and having “murdered the just.” The Old Testament provides repeated examples
of this in how the prophets were often treated in this manner. As Stephen
insisted, “Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming
of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers” (Acts
[Page 194] Indeed,
the Old Testament itself makes such a broadly worded connection time and
again. “But they mocked the messengers
[plural] of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the
wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy” (2
Chronicles 36:16). As Elijah cried out
in prayer, “I have been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the
children of
In Nehemiah
One could attempt to avoid the power of these precedents by arguing
that only prophetic abuse is particularly in mind. True.
Yet if even prophets could be so freely abused, is there any doubt that
“average” people suffered as well? For
that matter, would any challenge that abuse of the powerless and weak is
repeatedly referred to in the Old Testament as well? Which really brings us back to the
reasonableness of referring to an Old Testament root for James’ teaching.
[Page 195]
James 5:9
James: “Do not grumble against one another,
brethren, lest you be
condemned. Behold, the Judge is
standing at the door! 10 My brethren,
take
the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord, as an example of
suffering
and patience.”
Jesus: Matthew 24:33 “So you also, when you see all
these things,
know that it is near--at the doors!”
Mark
that it is near--at the doors!”
The judgment concept has a different
center of emphasis, though clearly expressing the same idea. In James “the Judge is standing at the
door.” In Jesus “it”—the particular judgment
under discussion--is “at the doors.”
Since a judge brings a judgment, the two speakers obviously are working
from the same conceptual background, that the time for answerability is close.
Although the expression “at the
door” is repeatedly used in the Old Testament, neither it nor “at the doors”
appears to be used as a way of expressing imminent judgment.
The imagery of nearness is intermingled in Ezekiel 7:6-8 with the idea
that it is so close that “the end has come; it has dawned for you; behold it
has come. 7 Doom has come to you, you who dwell in the land; the
time has come, a day of trouble is near, and not of rejoicing in the
mountains. 8 Now upon you I will soon pour out My fury, and spend My
anger upon you; I will judge you according to your ways, and I will
repay you for all your abominations” (also consider the broader context
elaborating on these matters).
[Page 196] This certainly
is effective in conveying the idea of imminence but it is surely significantly
different than the imagery shared by Jesus and by James.
James 5:10
James: “My brethren, take the prophets, who spoke in
the name of
the Lord, as an example of suffering and patience.”
Jesus: Matthew
you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and
be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they
persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
Luke
reward is great in heaven, for
in like manner their fathers did to the
prophets.”
The element of prophetic suffering
is certainly shared between Jesus and James.
James adds the element of “patience” to the admonition which Jesus did
not, though He had certainly spoken of the need for it in other contexts (Luke
[Page 197] The
specific prophetic example James may have had in mind is Job, who is mentioned
in the following verse (
We saw earlier that the abuse of the
prophets was repeatedly referred to in the Old Testament itself: “killed Your prophets with the sword” (1
Kings
James 5:12
James: “But above all, my brethren, do not swear,
either by heaven
or by earth or with any other oath.
But let your ‘Yes,’ be ‘Yes,’ and your
‘No,’ ‘No,’ lest you fall into judgment.”
Jesus: Matthew
of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to
the
Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all:
neither by heaven, for it is
God's throne; 35 nor by the
earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem,
for it is the city of the great King.
36 Nor shall you swear by your head,
because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be
'Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For
whatever is more than these is from the evil
one.”
[Page 198]
Usually this is considered the
clearest and least ambiguous of all the varied apparent dependencies of James
upon the earthly teaching of Jesus.[41] 59
out of 60 scholars studied have listed it, which is as close to unanimous as
you are ever going to get it in the scholarly world.[42]
The strongest argument for a
dependence on Jesus lies in the uniqueness of the command to avoid oaths. Jesus recognized the need for them in certain
limited circumstances—His affirmation of Himself before Caiaphas as “the
Christ, the Son of God” was given as an “oath” (Matthew 26:63-64). Even so He was fundamentally displeased with
them and this marked a major departure from the Jewish tradition as recorded in
both the Old Testament and then contemporary Jewish practice.[43]
One group of Essenes explicitly prohibited oaths, but since we know
from both Josephus and
[Page 199] Wesley
L. Wachob and Luke T. Johnson find supportive evidence in the fact that, “A
comparison of James’ prohibition of oaths (James 5:12) with the one attributed
to Jesus in Matthew 5:34-37 shows that they have sixteen Greek words in
common,”[46]
which would seem a disproportionate number for the amount of comparative text
involved and best explained by the scenario of usage.
Given the reality of different audiences and circumstances, it is not
surprising that there are differences between the prohibitions. The most obvious to the English language
reader would be:[47]
(1) Matthew stresses the “theological” wrong involved.
(2) James puts this into “judgment” terms while Matthew stresses its
sinful nature as being inherently “evil.” (Those utilizing the traditional Greek text
will have “the evil one” in place of “evil”—still making a difference in the
reason being cited).
(3) Matthew mentions Jesus as the clear source of the teaching while
James does not—though, of course, he never does. This would be an argument against the validity
of any of the above texts being “quotes” (or even close summaries) just as
much as this one in particular.
James 5:17
James:
“Elijah was a man with a nature like
ours, and he prayed
earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for
three
years and six months.”
Jesus: Luke
the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six
months,
and there was a great famine throughout all the land.”
[Page 200]
The mention of “three years and six months” links James’ version of the
drought to that of Jesus, other ancient sources seemingly not having specified
that specific duration.
James 5:19-20
James: “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from
the truth, and
someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from
the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude
of
sins.”
Jesus: Matthew
and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have
gained your brother.”
Luke 17:3 “Take heed
to yourselves. If your brother sins
against you,
rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.”
[Page 201] Although
these texts share in common the idea of someone sinning and being convinced to
change their way, the central thrust is different. The teaching of Jesus is describing
reconciliation of two humans with each other (“sins against you”);
James is discussing reconciliation with God. Jesus sounds as if he were speaking of a
specific act; James sounds like a person following a lifestyle of evil.
Now both situations entail an
implicit or explicit repudiation of God’s will and, hence, sin against God as
well as the individual envolved, but is not the point of emphasis
distinctly different? Should therefore
one teaching be considered as the inspiration of the other?
Indeed, the assertion that a sin against our brother or sister in faith
is simultaneously an offense against God is not explicitly mentioned in Matthew
Notes
[1] James B. Adamson, James: The Man & His Message (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1989), 179.
[2] Dean B.
Deppe, The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James (Chelsa,
Michigan: Bookcrafters, 1989), 231-233.
[Page 202] [3]
Patrick J. Hartin, James and the “Q” Sayings of Jesus (Sheffield,
England: JSOT Press, 1990), 143.
[4] Edgar,
63.
[5] Deppe,
62.
[6] Ibid.,
237.
[7] Wesley L. Wachob and Luke T. Johnson, “The Sayings of
Jesus in the Letter of James,” in Authenticating the words of Jesus,
edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1999), 441. They are discussing both James 1:5 and 4:3
(with the primary emphasis on the first text in this part of their analysis,
though their reasoning would apply to both passages.).
[8] Deppe,
69.
[9] Ibid., 70.
[10] Ibid.
[13] Deppe,
237
[14]
Adamson, James: The Man, 180.
[15] Deppe,
86-87.
[16] Ibid.,
237.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Cf.
Adamson, James: The Man, 180.
[19] Wachob
and Johnson, “The Sayings of Jesus,” 444.
[20]
Adamson, James: The Man, 180.
[21] Wachob
and Johnson, “The Sayings of Jesus,” 447-448.
[22] Deppe,
96.
[24] Ibid.,
237.
[25] Jer.
Baba q. viii, 10, as quoted by Wachob and Johnson, “The Sayings of Jesus,”
448.
[26] Wachob
and Johnson. “The Sayings of Jesus,”
449.
[27] Deppe,
237.
[28] Such as by Hartin, Sayings of Jesus, 141.
[29]
Adamson, James: The Man, 181.
[30]
Plutarch, Tranq 13, as quoted by Deppe, 101.
[31] Seneca,
Ep. 87:25, as quoted by Deppe, 101.
[32] Deppe,
101-102.
[33] Deppe,
237.
[34]
Adamson, James: The Man, 181.
[36] Alicia Batten, Friendship and Benefaction in James,
from the Emory Studies in Early Christianity, volume 15 (Blandford Forum,
Dorset: Deo Publishing, 2010), 162.
[37] Of Luke
[38] Deppe,
109.
[39] Ibid.,
237.
[40] Ibid.
237.
[41]
Adamson, James: The Man, 183.
[42] Ibid.,
237.
[43] Wachob and Johnson, “The Sayings of Jesus,” 433.
[44] Ibid., 433.
[45] Deppe,
142-143.
[47] For
these objections and various technical Greek language differences see the
summary of Sophie Laws’ arguments in Adamson, James: The Man, 184-185.