Did Luke write the epistle of James?
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:32 pm
Who wrote the epistle of James? Few seem to think it was the James of Galatians, of Josephus, or of later tradition.
A case can be made that it was the author or circle of authors who wrote Luke-Acts, and who probably wrote the Pastorals and one or more of the other general epistles. A primary reason I think this proposal has merit is that this author or circle, "Luke," expresses the point of view that defines the "editorial concept" of the whole New Testament (see Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament). And the epistle serves that concept very well. Very roughly, the concern of the NT is to reconcile various "Judaizing" interpretations of Jesus with the gospel of Paul (More on this later.)
The Greek of James is highly polished and educated, steeped in both LXX and Greco-Roman tradition. So is Luke's. Also, the general epistles were originally bundled together with Acts, and come down to us that way in the manuscript tradition. The sequence in our modern Bibles was established in the Byzantine era. Furthermore, Acts presents James writing an encyclical letter to various churches in the diaspora. These are relevant facts even though none of them point directly to Lukan authorship.
From Acts 15 and Galatians 1 & 2, an early reader of the NT would want to know more about James. He is a leading pillar of the church of God, and also "brother of the Lord." But he doesn't figure much, except negatively, in the Gospels. He also seems to represent a Jerusalem-based community of Jesus followers who maintained Jewish identity and Torah observance, with whom Paul seems to have struggled mightily about the necessity for believers in Jesus Christ to follow Mosaic traditions (and the Mosaic covenant itself). For Luke and his 2nd-century contemporaries, James is therefore a highly charged figure, both positive and negative, who represents the countervailing pull of the Jewish foundations of the new faith and indeed the Jewish origins of the savior himself. For the Jews were not a popular group in Luke's time!
The motivation to write an authoritative epistle "from James" is therefore strong for Luke.
1) Affirm James' witness to "the Lord Jesus Christ" (1:1, 2:1).
2) Re-package the teachings of Jesus that Luke has already published in his gospel (the well-known James/G parallels).
3) Present James as someone who, at the end of the day, was so completely over the controversies about the gentiles and Mosaic observance that he had nothing to say about them at all.
4) Voice a religiously pragmatic dissent from possible extreme interpretations of Paul's doctrine of salvation by faith alone, but not in ways that Christians would interpret as "Judaizing." Notice that James speaks positively and at length about "the law," just as Paul does, and about "works/deeds", but not about "works of the Law."
5) Show, by means of 4), that James recognized Paul's apostolic legitimacy, albeit indirectly.
6) Reaffirm Luke's concern for the poor.
7) Recapitulate in positive (and anti-Marcion) terms the ethical and theological simplicity of Judaic traditions (Leviticus 19, prophets, writings) that was so attractive to hellenistic pagans in the first place, long before Jesus and continuing into Luke's own time.
Luke would also want to present a believable portrait of James, warts and all. Hence this epistle's silence on Pauline ideas (atonement, resurrection, Holy Spirit) is consistent with other unflattering NT portrayals of James. gJohn flat out calls the brothers of Jesus "unbelievers" (7:5).
A case can be made that it was the author or circle of authors who wrote Luke-Acts, and who probably wrote the Pastorals and one or more of the other general epistles. A primary reason I think this proposal has merit is that this author or circle, "Luke," expresses the point of view that defines the "editorial concept" of the whole New Testament (see Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament). And the epistle serves that concept very well. Very roughly, the concern of the NT is to reconcile various "Judaizing" interpretations of Jesus with the gospel of Paul (More on this later.)
The Greek of James is highly polished and educated, steeped in both LXX and Greco-Roman tradition. So is Luke's. Also, the general epistles were originally bundled together with Acts, and come down to us that way in the manuscript tradition. The sequence in our modern Bibles was established in the Byzantine era. Furthermore, Acts presents James writing an encyclical letter to various churches in the diaspora. These are relevant facts even though none of them point directly to Lukan authorship.
From Acts 15 and Galatians 1 & 2, an early reader of the NT would want to know more about James. He is a leading pillar of the church of God, and also "brother of the Lord." But he doesn't figure much, except negatively, in the Gospels. He also seems to represent a Jerusalem-based community of Jesus followers who maintained Jewish identity and Torah observance, with whom Paul seems to have struggled mightily about the necessity for believers in Jesus Christ to follow Mosaic traditions (and the Mosaic covenant itself). For Luke and his 2nd-century contemporaries, James is therefore a highly charged figure, both positive and negative, who represents the countervailing pull of the Jewish foundations of the new faith and indeed the Jewish origins of the savior himself. For the Jews were not a popular group in Luke's time!
The motivation to write an authoritative epistle "from James" is therefore strong for Luke.
1) Affirm James' witness to "the Lord Jesus Christ" (1:1, 2:1).
2) Re-package the teachings of Jesus that Luke has already published in his gospel (the well-known James/G parallels).
3) Present James as someone who, at the end of the day, was so completely over the controversies about the gentiles and Mosaic observance that he had nothing to say about them at all.
4) Voice a religiously pragmatic dissent from possible extreme interpretations of Paul's doctrine of salvation by faith alone, but not in ways that Christians would interpret as "Judaizing." Notice that James speaks positively and at length about "the law," just as Paul does, and about "works/deeds", but not about "works of the Law."
5) Show, by means of 4), that James recognized Paul's apostolic legitimacy, albeit indirectly.
6) Reaffirm Luke's concern for the poor.
7) Recapitulate in positive (and anti-Marcion) terms the ethical and theological simplicity of Judaic traditions (Leviticus 19, prophets, writings) that was so attractive to hellenistic pagans in the first place, long before Jesus and continuing into Luke's own time.
Luke would also want to present a believable portrait of James, warts and all. Hence this epistle's silence on Pauline ideas (atonement, resurrection, Holy Spirit) is consistent with other unflattering NT portrayals of James. gJohn flat out calls the brothers of Jesus "unbelievers" (7:5).