Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Greek)

[Peter Kirby]

On the other hand, do you not see something in the fact that we know Paul's usage reflects a fictive kinship (Paul himself being a Jew writing to gentiles) but cannot be at all certain that James' usage reflects the same practice (since his letter is addressed to actual national kin, and therefore his use of "brethren" may be nationalistic, as we find in Tobit)? It seems to me that if James is calling his fellow Israelites "brethren", rather than fellow cultists, then that is a pretty big difference from how Paul uses the term. And it really does look to me like James may well be thinking of the twelve tribes when he uses that term.

It's plausible. I don't see any way to know for sure whether James is speaking to all the tribes, claiming some kind of authority to himself to speak in this familiar way to them (as an apparently important figure who ended up dead by the high priest but not without causing an upset)... it's possible. It's also possible (more than, given the scope) that this is an overly effusive address. Both may be true at the same time.

An overly broad address (or absent address) would also be one of the quirks of Christian epistolary literature, actually. Just look at Hebrews (no formal address) or the Epistle of Barnabas (which begins "Bid you greeting, sons and daughters") or 2 Peter ("To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours") or 1 John (no recipient named) or 2 Clement ("Brethren, we ought...") or Jude ("to them that are called, beloved in God the Father") or the Epistula Apostolorum ("unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south"). While the letter of James by contrast emphasizes that its recipients are Jewish ("to the twelve tribes in the dispersion"), it shares the address of a letter that can be considered an "open letter" for all who are in a like-minded community, or who at least are enough of like mind with James the Just to read his letter and consider themselves instructed by him.

I both agree that James may be using the term slightly differently than Paul and everyone else who supports the Gentile mission and at the same time find myself agreeing with you that the approach in James (dating back to some pre-literary origin in the usage of the Jerusalem community around James, perhaps) could be the precursor to the approach in Paul, yet I do not see any substantial support in either fact for the conclusion that this James and his letter weren't in a real sense "Christian." Indeed, in a real way, its "Christian" character explains the difference, inasmuch as Paul's letters tell us of a James who emphasized the mission of the good news of Jesus Christ to the Jews only.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

This suggests that James was in a way the ringleader of the "circumcision party," which had a negative influence (to Paul) on Cephas in Antioch. But this makes sense in the context of a "Jesus Christ" cult that was deciding the boundaries of whether to allow Gentiles. The Letter of James and its address (and indeed, perhaps, its choice of that address to limit the scope of "brothers") put James' letter as what seems to be the sole surviving witness on that side of the line in the sand. Yet at the same time, it is also characteristic of "Christian" literature in doing so and in other respects.

[Ben C. Smith]

Perhaps if we had more evidence, we'd have the letters or tractates in which a usage like the Christian one is found in the DSS.

Doing some searching.... Bezalel Porten often puts "brother" in quotes in his collection of Elephantine papyri because it the term can mean virtually any family member (including "father"!) and also colleagues or peers. On page 77 he describes one letter as follows:

A business letter from a Persian boatowner, instructing two Egyptian lessees or servants on the handling of the ship and the disposition of funds and grain, still addressed them as "brothers" and opened the letter with a salutation familiar from family letters but also found in an administrative letter.

The letter itself appears on pages 123-124, and begins and ends:

To my brothers Hori and Petemachis, your brother Spentadata. The welfare of my brothers may the gods, a[l]l (of them), seek after at all times.

....

To my brothers Hori son of Kamen and Petemachis, your brother Spentadata son of Fravartipata.

In a footnote Porten writes:

If they were servants, the rent would have been collected from people who hired the boat from them. If they were lessees, the rent would have been what they themselves owed. The instructions that they are given makes it more likely that they were in the employ of the Persians. At any rate, they were addressed as peers, "my brothers" (line 1).

The Passover letter from Elephantine to Jerusalem is printed on pages 125-126 begins and ends thus:

[To my brothers Je]daniah and his colleagues the Jewish T[roop], your brother Hanan[i]ah. The welfare of my brothers may the gods [seek after at all times].

....

[To] my brothers Jedaniah and his colleagues the Jewish Troop, your brother Hananiah s[on of PN].

There are other examples, though admittedly not as many, or with as great a concentration, as we find in the Christian epistles. Nor are there as many instances in the body of the letters; most seem to fall in the greeting and/or the closing. Also, of course, we are talking about a time period several centuries before Paul. Still, however, these are ancient epistles addressed to nonliteral "brethren", so there may be some relevance.

[Peter Kirby]

I tend to approach this from the angle of the "Table of Self-Identifications" in early Christian writings. I find it fascinating the way it is used as an in-group out-group marker and also the expansive, sometimes-almost-interjective repetition as an address to the reader and audience. When looked at from this perspective, it turns out to be the single most common self-descriptor for Christians (in these texts). "Believer" takes second place.

http://peterkirby.com/self-identifications.html

This just makes the usage in James all the more fascinating, while at the same time logical. If the twelve tribes shared a common lineage and were "brothers" thereby (recall the Gospel polemic regarding "sons of Abraham"), then for Christians the "sons of God" by adoption share a common relationship, established through Christ, who redeemed them by his blood (from satan / the god of this world...) so they could be claimed by God as his children. But James didn't need all that fancy footwork that we find in Paul and elsewhere, maybe... after all, if you are the party of circumcision, it's pretty easy to take the "brother" claim to be literal in a sense.

We get an echo of this in every text that takes seriously the idea that Christ did come for the twelve tribes of Israel (e.g. Matthew, Revelation).

Bonus: Therefore James (and maybe Didache, and maybe others) have much less need for all the blood, death, and theologizing that Paul loves. Less need for talking about it anyway (not sure what that means for belief).

[Ben C. Smith]

I both agree that James may be using the term slightly differently than Paul and everyone else who supports the Gentile mission and at the same time find myself agreeing with you that the approach in James (dating back to some pre-literary origin in the usage of the Jerusalem community around James, perhaps) could be the precursor to the approach in Paul, yet I do not see any substantial support in either fact for the conclusion that this James and his letter weren't in a real sense "Christian." Indeed, in a real way, its "Christian" character explains the difference, inasmuch as Paul's letters tell us of a James who emphasized the mission of the good news of Jesus Christ to the Jews only.

Fair enough. I am not convinced myself, either, but am still pursuing to see whether it might help elucidate matters.

You point out that James is similar to other Christian epistles so far as its repeated use of "brethren" is concerned, but one thing that piques my curiosity is precisely the difference from other Christian epistles so far as the use of "Jesus" is concerned. 3 John has no instances of the name "Jesus", but it seems addressed to a specific occasion calling for pastoral concern. All of the other NT epistles, however, seem to use "Jesus" quite frequently.

1. Philemon, only one chapter long, has it no fewer than six times; four of those times it is joined with "Christ", but then there are three additional instances of "Christ" on their own, as well.
2. Hebrews distracts itself with long, detailed expositions of Jewish ritual practice, yet still manages to use the name at the rate of once per chapter, as well as using "Christ" twelve times, only three of which overlap with "Jesus" (to make "Jesus Christ").
3. 1 Peter has five chapters, just like James, and has eight mentions of Jesus. Some of those mentions are joined with "Christ", but then there are 13 separate uses of Christ on its own.
4. 2 Peter has the same number of "Jesus" mentions as 1 Peter, some of which add "Christ", but with only three chapters.
5. 2 John has as many mentions of "Jesus" (both of them paired with "Christ") as James, plus an additional "Christ" on its own, but only one chapter.
6. Jude, only one chapter long, has six instances of "Jesus Christ".

James is by far the stingiest epistle, proportionally speaking (besides 3 John), when it comes to mentioning Jesus Christ. If it were an occasional epistle this would perhaps be understandable already. But it is full of ethics and wisdom and exhortations and encouragement and so on; it makes me wonder why the messiah is mentioned only twice, in an almost token sort of way. Maybe I am reading too much into the sparsity; that is perfectly possible. But it does attract my attention.

[Ben C. Smith]

I tend to approach this from the angle of the "Table of Self-Identifications" in early Christian writings. I find it fascinating the way it is used as an in-group out-group marker and also the expansive, sometimes-almost-interjective repetition as an address to the reader and audience. When looked at from this perspective, it turns out to be the single most common self-descriptor for Christians (in these texts). "Believer" takes second place.

http://peterkirby.com/self-identifications.html

A helpful table, one which I have used before. Thanks for the reminder.

This just makes the usage in James all the more fascinating, while at the same time logical. If the twelve tribes shared a common lineage and were "brothers" thereby (recall the Gospel polemic regarding "sons of Abraham"), then for Christians the "sons of God" by adoption share a common relationship, established through Christ, who redeemed them by his blood (from satan / the god of this world...) so they could be claimed by God as his children. But James didn't need all that fancy footwork that we find in Paul and elsewhere, maybe... after all, if you are the party of circumcision, it's pretty easy to take the "brother" claim to be literal in a sense.

We get an echo of this in every text that takes seriously the idea that Christ did come for the twelve tribes of Israel (e.g. Matthew, Revelation).

I think I am on board with virtually all of this.

Bonus: Therefore James (and maybe Didache, and maybe others) have much less need for all the blood, death, and theologizing that Paul loves. Less need for talking about it anyway (not sure what that means for belief).

Maybe.... Maybe. There may be something to this.

[Ben C. Smith]

What do you think of spin's point about the Pauline letters as it may or may not be applied to James?

We should be very worried when we attempt to extract historical indications from tradition texts that have spent centuries in the hands of tendentious scribes. We know that the christian texts have gained extra materials over time, especially in the earliest periods. We are fortunate to have the synoptic gospels to shed light on the fact that the texts were worked upon, tendentiously changed, enlarged, smoothed over, theologically reshaped (think of the Marcan adoptionist view in the hands of the others), language improved, and thought "clarified". Paul's letters are not safe from such changes. J.C. O'Neill, when he described the norms of letter writing in Paul's era, concluded that nearly all the letters were too long for the habits of the time, saying that "Paul Wrote Some of All, But Not All of Any" of the letters, as his article was called. We may have some insight into the earlier state of some of Paul's letters through Tertullian's polemic response to Marcion's Pauline collection.

Do you think that James is free of such additions? Just curious.

[Ben C. Smith]

And I also bear in mind Hegesippus, who is said to have used the gospel of the Hebrews and known earlier oral traditions, and he sees the End of Days as involving the coming of Jesus and also applies the "judge" and "door" terminology to him.

James 5:7-9:

Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!

What is it about this account from Hegesippus that leads you to take it as historically accurate (especially with regard to reporting what James said)?

[Peter Kirby]

I like the thrust of spin's speech as a rejoinder against a kind of conservative text critical impulse that would always attempt to defend the authenticity of any particular passage, right or wrong. It is unfortunately very common, since it serves the interests of most to be able to compromise on an overly cautious text criticism in order to free their critical efforts to be directed elsewhere.

In this case, I believe I have given the suggestions made so far a completely fair hearing and have articulated in specific ways why I find the suggestions I have seen so far to be less than compelling. This is all we can ever do and exactly as we should do, regarding these kinds of questions.

[Ben C. Smith]

In this case, I believe I have given the suggestions made so far a completely fair hearing and have articulated in specific ways why I find the suggestions I have seen so far to be less than compelling. This is all we can ever do and exactly as we should do, regarding these kinds of questions.

Goodness, I was not questioning your fairness. I guess, from my perspective, if I were assured that at least some parts of the epistle had been interpolated, those two phrases would be near the top of my list of candidates. Again, however, I am not at all committed to the view; I am just thinking things through.

[Peter Kirby]

I don't start from the assumption of significant interpolations (not in mss) and then go looking for the 'plurality of probability' candidate. (This may be a caricature, but if I understand correctly, also seems not far removed from what's essentially suggested.)

This may sound dumb, but nobody needed to make the interpolation unless the phrases were missing. Saying that these are likely interpolations is a bit circular, in the absence of evidence of interpolation.

I think we're stuck with making our best case and going on the balance of evidence, treating each suggestion on its own merits.

And I would suggest that the premise (if it is such) of uniform 'background interpolation probability' contradicts the expectations of experience with the distribution of frequencies like this.

You're naturally expecting more of a power law, with inequality in the distribution.

In popular economic parlance, this is sometimes called the Pareto law and colloquialized as the 70/30, 80/20, or 90/10. For example, instead of a uniform distribution of interpolations, we could instead see 70% of the interpolated text in 30% of the texts (hypothetically and illustratively).

There is just no force out there that ensures these things uniformly; and when something attracts attention for interpolation, it's going to vary dramatically in how severe it is, with some less and some more.