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

[John2]

andrewcriddle wrote:
One issue with James is the limited evidence of any early knowledge of it. Not by Paul alone by David R. Nienhuis argues that James is late 2nd century. I'm not convinced, but the fact that the case can be made shows how obscure the work was in the early Church.

Very true. It requires some kind of explanation.

Perhaps a certain provenance (ostensibly written from pre-war Jerusalem) and prejudice (pro-Paul ... and, if not that, simply pro-Gospel ... such that James almost didn't make it in the canon) kept it 'obscure' to the writers we know from the second century.

I agree with Peter on both counts. This seems to be the nature of all Jewish-Christian material we have (e.g., the Gospel of the Hebrews), that they were preserved by (pro-Paul) "writers we know from the second century."

But isn't this more or less the situation for all Christian writings, i.e., that they are unattested until after 70 CE? So in my view all early Christian writings are more or less in this same boat. And let's take Hegesippus for an example. He was alive more or less at the same time as other second century CE Christians (c. 100 to c. 180 CE), and he is said to have known the gospel of the Hebrews and also appears to me to know the Letter of James (or at least he says things that are in accordance with the Letter of James). So the Letter of James arguably existed as early as more or less everything else in early Christian literature (and it at least certainly did by Origen's time, 184 CE to 254 CE, which in my view isn't really that late either in the big picture).

[Peter Kirby]

It's a fairly popular suggestion (that these parts were interpolated), but I am not really a big believer in the problem as something to be solved.

Especially in something this size, I think it's very typical to find only a few oblique references to Jesus. Rather than ask about their content or density, to determine whether it's "Christian," I think I'd focus on the rest of the contents and whether they are closer to the Christian milieu than typical Jewish literature. In that respect, I would point to the Perrin quote above, about the ethical teachings shared with the other NT epistles and about the interaction (apparent) with Paul's doctrine of salvation through faith.

Setting Paul aside for a second, let me ask you, could not those overlaps in ethics and whatnot (between James and Christianity) not be a result of this epistle belonging to the particular kind of Judaism from which Christianity emerged? IOW, might not what you are reading as this epistle's indebtedness to Christianity be read instead as Christianity's indebtedness to a certain branch of Judaism? If not, why not? What are the signs that tell against it?

If it is a certain branch of Judaism, at the very least it's already begun branching distinctively. There are certain verbal markers and specific sayings that are characteristic of Christian writings, when taken cumulatively. Individually, it might not mean much, but there is an effect taken together.

(A)
"my brothers" (1:2), "my beloved brothers" (1:16), "my beloved brothers" (1:19), "my brothers" (2:1), "my beloved brothers" (2:5), "my brothers" (2:14), "a brother or sister" (2:15), "my brothers" (3:1), "my brothers" (3:10), "my brothers" (3:12)

(B)
"Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds" (James 1:2)
"In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials" (1 Pt 1:6)
"But rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly." (1 Pt 4:13)

(C)
"Blessed is the man who perseveres in temptation, for when he has been proved he will receive the crown of life that he promised to those who love him." (James 1:12)
"Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one." (1 Cor 9:25)
"And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory." (1 Pt 5:4)

This is after setting aside not a little:

(1) The "letter of James" attribution
(2) The references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
(3) The discussion of "faith and works" in intersection with Paul
(4) The ethical teaching and its emphasis (speaking in general) in intersection with Christianity

I think in fact that James contributed a great deal to the emergence of Christianity. I also think that there were "Judaisms" without a "Jesus Christ" that contributed to the rise of Christianity. I'm just not convinced that there is any real problem solved by removing these references to a "Lord Jesus Christ" in this letter.

Regardless of my opinion, though, it's a popular suggestion, and very hard to disprove.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

An option which has occurred to me is that the phrases "and of the Lord Jesus Christ" in James 1.1 and "in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" in 2.1 are Catholic interpolations. Those are the only two verses which mention Jesus at all. What looks like the second advent of Jesus in 5.7-11 is probably the coming of Yahweh ("the Lord") promised by the Hebrew prophets, especially since the Lord appears to be called "the Judge" in verse 9, and 4.11 explicitly says that there is one Lawgiver and Judge.

Yeah, but....

The more I read Boyarin the more I'm becoming persuaded that early (Jewish) Christians were binitarian and that Jesus Christ (and/or angels) are more or less equivalent to God/the Lord. Yes, there are examples from the OT that say God would come at the End of Days without any reference to a messiah figure, but do you think anyone read the OT selectively like that by the first century CE (when Josephus says all Jews were willing to die for the OT)? Wouldn't anyone living after Isaiah and Daniel logically envision the End of Days with some kind of messiah figure? Are there (other) examples of this from the first century CE besides (arguably) James? (Philo, perhaps?) Do you believe in any event that the author of the Letter of James did not believe in a messiah figure?

For me, taking James as it is, with the two references to the Lord Jesus Christ, I have to conclude that it is messianic and that Jesus must have something to do with the "coming of the Lord" at the End of Days. 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!

Hegesippus:

Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him [James], ‘What is the gate of Jesus?’ and he replied that he was the Saviour. On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on account of James.


'...declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.' And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.’

And when they [the grandsons of Jude] were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

So since the Letter of James mentions the "Lord Jesus Christ," I have to think that Jesus Christ has something to do with the "coming of the Lord" at the End of Days. And James' reference to Elijah at the end of the same chapter supports a messianic context as well given Mal. 4:5-6.

And both the reference to the coming of the Lord and the one about Elijah are connected by the context of rain and farming.

James 5:7-8:

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.

James 5:17-18:

Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.

[Ben C. Smith]

If it is a certain branch of Judaism, at the very least it's already begun branching distinctively. There are certain verbal markers and specific sayings that are characteristic of Christian writings, when taken cumulatively. Individually, it might not mean much, but there is an effect taken together.

(A)
"my brothers" (1:2), "my beloved brothers" (1:16), "my beloved brothers" (1:19), "my brothers" (2:1), "my beloved brothers" (2:5), "my brothers" (2:14), "a brother or sister" (2:15), "my brothers" (3:1), "my brothers" (3:10), "my brothers" (3:12)

Tobit 5.10-13: 10 Then Tobit said unto him, Brother, shew me of what tribe and family thou art. 11 To whom he said, Dost thou seek for a tribe or family, or an hired man to go with thy son? Then Tobit said unto him, I would know, brother, thy kindred and name. 12 Then he said, I am Azarias, the son of Ananias the great, and of thy brethren. 13 Then Tobit said, Thou art welcome, brother; be not now angry with me, because I have enquired to know thy tribe and thy family; for thou art my brother, of an honest and good stock: for I know Ananias and Jonathas, sons of that great Samaias, as we went together to Jerusalem to worship, and offered the firstborn, and the tenths of the fruits; and they were not seduced with the error of our brethren: my brother, thou art of a good stock.

1QS, column 6, line 10: No one should talk during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking.

1QS, column 6, lines 21-22: And when this second year is complete he will be examined by command of the Many. And if the lot results in him joining the Community, they shall enter him in the order of his rank among his brothers for the law, for the judgment, for purity and for the placing of his possessions.

1Q28a, column 1, lines 16-18: And every {chief}/head of clans of the congregation, for whom the lot comes out, to take his pl[ace] in the duties, [to go ou]t and to come in before the congregation, in accordance with his intelligence and the perfection of his behaviour, shall gird his loins to remain steadfa[st, d]oing his allotted duty among his brothers.

(B)
"Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds" (James 1:2)
"In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials" (1 Pt 1:6)
"But rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly." (1 Pt 4:13)

1 Maccabees 2.52: 52 Was not Abraham found faithful under trial, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?

1QS, column 8, lines 1-4: In the Community council (there shall be) twelve men and three priests, perfect in everything that has been revealed from all the law to implement truth, justice, judgment, compassionate love and unassuming behaviour of one to another, to preserve faithfulness in the land with firm purpose and repentant spirit in order to atone for sin by doing justice and undergoing trials, and to walk with everyone in the measure of the truth and the regulation of the time.

(I will readily grant that James and 1 Peter are thematically closer here, but there is a very close relationship between these two epistles overall, and scholars have long debated "whether literary dependence exists, or whether common traditional material was processed," as Matthias Konradt puts it in his chapter of Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition. The relationship is, in other words, more than just a shared milieu. The strength of your other examples lay, for me, at least partly in that their scope extended beyond James and 1 Peter alone; it extended to Paul, for instance.)

(C)
"Blessed is the man who perseveres in temptation, for when he has been proved he will receive the crown of life that he promised to those who love him." (James 1:12)
"Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one." (1 Cor 9:25)
"And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory." (1 Pt 5:4)

1QS, column 4, lines 6-8: And the reward of all those who walk in it will be healing, plentiful peace in a long life, fruitful offspring with all everlasting blessings, eternal enjoyment with endless life, and a crown of glory with majestic raiment in eternal light.

1QH, column 17, lines 24-25: Your rebuke has been changed into happiness and joy for me, my diseases into ev[erlasting] healing [and] unending […,] the scoffing of my rival into a crown of glory for me, and my weakness into everlasting strength.

This is after setting aside not a little:

(1) The "letter of James" attribution

I thought part of the purpose here was maybe not to set this aside.

(2) The references to "Lord Jesus Christ"

Yes, these are the phrases under investigation.

(3) The discussion of "faith and works" in intersection with Paul

Yes, I am temporarily setting this aside.

(4) The ethical teaching and its emphasis (speaking in general) in intersection with Christianity

Which ones are distinctive to Christianity, unable to be found, say, at Qumran?

I think in fact that James contributed a great deal to the emergence of Christianity. I also think that there were "Judaisms" without a "Jesus Christ" that contributed to the rise of Christianity. I'm just not convinced that there is any real problem solved by removing these references to a "Lord Jesus Christ" in this letter.

You may be right. That is what I am trying to ascertain.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben wrote:

An option which has occurred to me is that the phrases "and of the Lord Jesus Christ" in James 1.1 and "in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" in 2.1 are Catholic interpolations. Those are the only two verses which mention Jesus at all. What looks like the second advent of Jesus in 5.7-11 is probably the coming of Yahweh ("the Lord") promised by the Hebrew prophets, especially since the Lord appears to be called "the Judge" in verse 9, and 4.11 explicitly says that there is one Lawgiver and Judge.

Yeah, but....

The more I read Boyarin the more I'm becoming persuaded that early (Jewish) Christians were binitarian and that Jesus Christ (and/or angels) are more or less equivalent to God/the Lord.

I completely agree that this is a live option (it is, after all, one that I presented, ungoaded, in that other thread). But here I am exploring another option.

Yes, there are examples from the OT that say God would come at the End of Days without any reference to a messiah figure, but do you think anyone read the OT selectively like that by the first century CE (when Josephus says all Jews were willing to die for the OT)? Wouldn't anyone living after Isaiah and Daniel logically envision the End of Days with some kind of messiah figure? Are there (other) examples of this from the first century CE besides (arguably) James? (Philo, perhaps?) Do you believe in any event that the author of the Letter of James did not believe in a messiah figure?

If the Lord Jesus Christ in James 1.1 and 2.1 is, to be exact, Yahweh himself, then Yahweh himself is the Messiah (Christ), correct? If so, then which of those authors you ask me about held that the Messiah would be none other than Yahweh himself? (Honest question here.)

[John2]

If the Lord Jesus Christ in James 1.1 and 2.1 is, to be exact, Yahweh himself, then Yahweh himself is the Messiah (Christ), correct? If so, then which of those authors you ask me about held that the Messiah would be none other than Yahweh himself? (Honest question here.)

Well, it appears that this concept exists in Daniel, given that 7:9 says there were two thrones in heaven and 7:13-14 says "there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

It then appears to have influenced the idea of the heavenly Son of Man in 1 Enoch and then the idea turns up in Christianity. This connection is supported by Jude 1:14-15, which appears to cite 1 Enoch (and note the reference to judging and "the Lord").

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

1 Enoch 1:9:

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

And 1 Enoch 46:1-5: clearly ties this to Daniel's one like a son of man (and compares him to "holy angels"):

And there I saw One who had a head of days, and His head was white like wool, and with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days And he answered and said unto me: This is the son of Man who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteousness, and who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever.

And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats, [And the strong from their thrones] And shall loosen the reins of the strong, And break the teeth of the sinners.

[And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms] Because they do not extol and praise Him, Nor humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them. And he shall put down the countenance of the strong, And shall fill them with shame.

And this is what Hegesippus (via James and the grandsons of Jude) says about Jesus, that he is Daniel's Son of Man who will come on the clouds of heaven and judge people and that his kingdom is angelic. So Daniel, 1 Enoch (which was known to Jude) and Hegesippus (not to mention the NT gospels) espouse the idea that one like a son of man/the Son of Man was coming at the End of Days to execute judgment, etc. And somewhere in this mix we have the Letter of James which mentions the coming of the Lord at the End of Days, refers to Elijah, mentions the Lord Jesus Christ and ended up in the Christian canon, so it's hard for me to not see it in the same light.

[Peter Kirby]

If it is a certain branch of Judaism, at the very least it's already begun branching distinctively. There are certain verbal markers and specific sayings that are characteristic of Christian writings, when taken cumulatively. Individually, it might not mean much, but there is an effect taken together.

(A)
"my brothers" (1:2), "my beloved brothers" (1:16), "my beloved brothers" (1:19), "my brothers" (2:1), "my beloved brothers" (2:5), "my brothers" (2:14), "a brother or sister" (2:15), "my brothers" (3:1), "my brothers" (3:10), "my brothers" (3:12)

Tobit 5.10-13: 10 Then Tobit said unto him, Brother, shew me of what tribe and family thou art. 11 To whom he said, Dost thou seek for a tribe or family, or an hired man to go with thy son? Then Tobit said unto him, I would know, brother, thy kindred and name. 12 Then he said, I am Azarias, the son of Ananias the great, and of thy brethren. 13 Then Tobit said, Thou art welcome, brother; be not now angry with me, because I have enquired to know thy tribe and thy family; for thou art my brother, of an honest and good stock: for I know Ananias and Jonathas, sons of that great Samaias, as we went together to Jerusalem to worship, and offered the firstborn, and the tenths of the fruits; and they were not seduced with the error of our brethren: my brother, thou art of a good stock.

This isn't really close. There appears to be some concern for actual kinship in this passage, for example. (We really just want to get a text that uses it to address the audience regularly this way, as the Christian letters do. The "verbal marker" is the use of it as a persistent address to the audience.)

1QS, column 6, line 10: No one should talk during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking.

1QS, column 6, lines 21-22: And when this second year is complete he will be examined by command of the Many. And if the lot results in him joining the Community, they shall enter him in the order of his rank among his brothers for the law, for the judgment, for purity and for the placing of his possessions.

1Q28a, column 1, lines 16-18: And every {chief}/head of clans of the congregation, for whom the lot comes out, to take his place in the duties, to go out and to come in before the congregation, in accordance with his intelligence and the perfection of his behaviour, shall gird his loins to remain steadfast, doing his allotted duty among his brothers.

This is not the same as what we find in Christian writings. There is some precedent for this in the way that monastic societies could call each other brother, but the literary expression in the Christian epistles is not of the same nature of these descriptions of the members of the congregation as brothers (third person) to each other.

This may not be unique, but so far as I can tell, it very well might be. If not, it's certainly distinctive of early Christian literature.

(I will readily grant that James and 1 Peter are thematically closer here, but there is a very close relationship between these two epistles overall, and scholars have long debated "whether literary dependence exists, or whether common traditional material was processed," as Matthias Konradt puts it in his chapter of Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition. The relationship is, in other words, more than just a shared milieu. The strength of your other examples lay, for me, at least partly in that their scope extended beyond James and 1 Peter alone; it extended to Paul, for instance.)

“Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject you as evil on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and jump for joy, because your reward is great in heaven. For their ancestors did the same things to the prophets."
--Lk 6:20-23
“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things about you falsely on account of me. Rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven, for they persecuted the prophets before you in the same way."
--Mt 5:3-11
Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance,
and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope,
and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us.
--Romans 5:3-5
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
--Rom 12:14-21
So they left the presence of the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name.
--Acts 5:41

I do think the theme has value in helping to confirm the point.

1QS, column 4, lines 6-8:[/b] And the reward of all those who walk in it will be healing, plentiful peace in a long life, fruitful offspring with all everlasting blessings, eternal enjoyment with endless life, and a crown of glory with majestic raiment in eternal light.

Okay, this works. I have to drop that item. The other two, though, seem only stronger by the comparison (IMO).

This is after setting aside not a little:

(1) The "letter of James" attribution

I thought part of the purpose here was maybe not to set this aside.

I guess there are a lot of James's out there. It's hard to know what to say, sight unseen, regarding the alternative.

If it is the James in Paul's letters? I can't see any reason they'd be talking about each other, if they weren't both talking about Jesus. Paul had no use for them otherwise. If Paul was peddling a Christ Jesus and James was not talking about Jesus, then James could be safely ignored, just as every other Jewish group without a Jesus Christ was ignored in Paul's polemic and struggles. It is a prior claim to the preaching about Christ Jesus that made the existing apostles and the Jerusalem community things to which Paul needed to pay any deference.

Which ones are distinctive to Christianity, unable to be found, say, at Qumran?

It's not distinctive individually. There are parallels to the ethical teachings of Christians, often in the Old Testament. It is compatible and co-extensive (taking up a large part of James and also of Christian texts), and part of the overall impression given off by the epistle. It's an emphasis.

(Since it's hard to argue about things like that, we don't have to. But if you could show any Qumran text that had an equal or higher density of parallel ethical teaching with James than the Gospel of Matthew does, or 1 Peter, or Paul, then I would have to concede.)

I think in fact that James contributed a great deal to the emergence of Christianity. I also think that there were "Judaisms" without a "Jesus Christ" that contributed to the rise of Christianity. I'm just not convinced that there is any real problem solved by removing these references to a "Lord Jesus Christ" in this letter.

You may be right. That is what I am trying to ascertain.

I think you may mean (more precisely) that you're trying to find the balance of evidence here...

We're talking a lot about the problems that could be created and not very much about the problems solved. I could be wrong about all the problems created, but still be right that there is not any real problem solved by the proposal.

If we're doing the problems solved thing, the shoe would be on the other foot. There was mention of how it could explain a lack of quotation of the epistle in the second century. That can't be it, though, right?

[Ben C. Smith]

If it is a certain branch of Judaism, at the very least it's already begun branching distinctively. There are certain verbal markers and specific sayings that are characteristic of Christian writings, when taken cumulatively. Individually, it might not mean much, but there is an effect taken together.

(A)
"my brothers" (1:2), "my beloved brothers" (1:16), "my beloved brothers" (1:19), "my brothers" (2:1), "my beloved brothers" (2:5), "my brothers" (2:14), "a brother or sister" (2:15), "my brothers" (3:1), "my brothers" (3:10), "my brothers" (3:12)

Tobit 5.10-13: 10 Then Tobit said unto him, Brother, shew me of what tribe and family thou art. 11 To whom he said, Dost thou seek for a tribe or family, or an hired man to go with thy son? Then Tobit said unto him, I would know, brother, thy kindred and name. 12 Then he said, I am Azarias, the son of Ananias the great, and of thy brethren. 13 Then Tobit said, Thou art welcome, brother; be not now angry with me, because I have enquired to know thy tribe and thy family; for thou art my brother, of an honest and good stock: for I know Ananias and Jonathas, sons of that great Samaias, as we went together to Jerusalem to worship, and offered the firstborn, and the tenths of the fruits; and they were not seduced with the error of our brethren: my brother, thou art of a good stock.

This isn't really close. There appears to be some concern for actual kinship in this passage, for example.

I think there is a similar concern in James, as well:

James 1.2b-1a: 2b To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. 1a Consider it all joy, my brethren....

Tobit 5.10: 10 Then Tobit said unto him, Brother, shew me of what tribe and family thou art.

To my mind, it seems possible that this fraternal language between literal members of the nation of Israel might have spread to Christianity as gentiles began to come in as "honorary" brethren.

This is not the same as what we find in Christian writings. There is some precedent for this in the way that monastic societies could call each other brother, but the literary expression in the Christian epistles is not of the same nature of these descriptions of the members of the congregation as brothers (third person) to each other.

I take this as a matter of genre: epistle versus community rule. Rule books often use the third person, letters the second person. Or so it seems to me. (I guess I have trouble imagining 1QS insisting, say, that a person ought not to interrupt his "brother" if nobody refers to anybody else in the community as "brother"... unless they were either literal brothers or using "brother" in the national identity sense, in which case we are back to the Tobit example.)

“Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject you as evil on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and jump for joy, because your reward is great in heaven. For their ancestors did the same things to the prophets."
--Lk 6:20-23
“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things about you falsely on account of me. Rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven, for they persecuted the prophets before you in the same way."
--Mt 5:3-11
Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance,
and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope,
and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us.
--Romans 5:3-5
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
--Rom 12:14-21
So they left the presence of the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name.
--Acts 5:41

I do think the theme has value in helping to confirm the point.

Point granted. This one is specific to texts otherwise known as Christian.

The rest of what you wrote had good points, too, which I am still considering and may return to.

[Peter Kirby]

I think there is a similar concern in James, as well:

James 1.2b-1a: 2b To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. 1a Consider it all joy, my brethren....

Tobit 5.10: 10 Then Tobit said unto him, Brother, shew me of what tribe and family thou art.

To my mind, it seems possible that this fraternal language between literal members of the nation of Israel might have spread to Christianity as gentiles began to come in as "honorary" brethren.

That seems plausible to me.

I take this as a matter of genre: epistle versus community rule. Rule books often use the third person, letters the second person. Or so it seems to me. (I guess I have trouble imagining 1QS insisting, say, that a person ought not to interrupt his "brother" if nobody refers to anybody else in the community as "brother"... unless they were either literal brothers or using "brother" in the national identity sense, in which case we are back to the Tobit example.)

We're not understanding my argument in the same way, then (that's my fault, as I haven't been very clear). The above abstracts away the concerns of the matter of genre, in order to look at the range of usage (in a philological way) of the word "brother." In that context, the above makes sense; why should grammatical person (2nd or 3rd, addressing an audience or speaking in a descriptive way about a community member), or the genre of the text, or any other such details (other than the range of meaning of the word used, "brother") be relevant?

That's not how I understand the argument, and it's not the strongest way to frame the argument. What matters is that we have a body of Christian texts. They have particular genres. One of these genres is epistolary. Within the epistolary genre, we have a widespread practice of addressing the audience of the text in the second person as "brothers" (and "beloved brothers"). This is a peculiar fact of the use of the epistolary genre within this cult. It is even picked up by the satirist Lucian ("they are all brothers"). There's not a claim here that it is fictive kinship that is the real novelty but rather (and furthermore) also its setting in the epistolary genre as a kind of repeated, remonstrative refrain. It's at least distinctive for being that. If some other text has this same distinctive verbal marker, in the same way, as it is so frequently found in the early Christian epistles (and also in James), then I am completely unaware of it.

I do understand why the other side of the argument is appealing and why this argument could be seen as frustrating what might otherwise be a very interesting lead. The "Essenes,"[*] according to Josephus, "welcome members from out of town as coequal brothers, and even though perfect strangers, as though they were intimate friends." Likewise, according to Philo, "They live together in brotherhoods, and eat in common together." And you've quoted some sections of the DSS where they call others in the community "brothers." 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. Perhaps, there is the possibility, that James itself is that example. But without the same usage, we aren't able to get rid of the argument for Christian authorship entirely. Arguing that the relevant DSS people could have written a letter much like the Christians did, with the same kind of repeated address, is different from having an example where they did so. We have many examples where the Christians did so. While the some kind of Jewish group like the people evidenced by this DSS text is a plausible fit on this account, the Christian group is a better and more probable fit, if only going by this criterion.

A visible literary habit in the hand is worth two reasonable conjectures in the bush, so to speak.

Point granted. This one is specific to texts otherwise known as Christian.

The rest of what you wrote had good points, too, which I am still considering and may return to.

I'm sure I kicked a hornet's nest with the brief comments on this in my OP, as there is a long tradition of reading a "Jewish original" behind James that can't be neatly settled in just a few short words. I was originally just giving a quick outline of my reasons for not taking that road, as it would be an alternative to the OP's argument that a James and Peter (of the "Jesus Christ" people known to Paul) wrote the letters attributed to them.

[*] I am not claiming to have solved the age-old mystery of the Essenes or the DSS or any non-connection or connection or anything like that.

[Ben C. Smith]

A visible literary habit in the hand is worth two reasonable conjectures in the bush, so to speak.

Okay, I see what you are saying now (more specifically than the generalization I thought you were making). And no, I am not immediately aware of epistolary literature in which the "my beloved brethren" verbal tic manifests itself like what we find in Christianity, though I have never really searched for such literature in those terms, either. So, according to the level of knowledge I currently possess, James might well share that characteristic with Christian literature alone. 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.

Not to push matters too far afield, but there may be another possible source for the Pauline usage; as I understand it, "all Mithraists were brothers" (fratres). Or, of course, the notion of fraternity or sorority may just be so culturally common that it needs no particular source....

I am not claiming to have solved the age-old mystery of the Essenes or the DSS or any non-connection or connection or anything like that.

Well, then, what are you good for?