James 1.1 and 2.1.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Regardless of my hypothesis in this thread that James may have been the source of some of the sayings found on Jesus' lips in the gospels, I have to contend with a bit of implied directionality which may complicate the picture from that point of view:

Matthew 7.7-8: 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.

Luke 11.9-10: 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.

James 4.3: 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

Refer also to Matthew 21.22 = Mark 11.24.

James 4.3 certainly looks like a reaction to Matthew 7.7-8 = Luke 11.9-10, and not the other way around. It sounds like Matthew 7.7-8 = Luke 11.9-10 was written or spoken first; then people tried to follow its simple principle, and that principle failed (because that is not how life works); and then, finally, James 4.3 was written as an explanation for why the principle failed. Does it not? This observation, if sound, would rule out any such simplistic scenario as James -> Matthew (though of course it does not rule out Matthew -> James).
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by Secret Alias »

Good point
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
James 4.3 certainly looks like a reaction to Matthew 7.7-8 = Luke 11.9-10, and not the other way around. It sounds like Matthew 7.7-8 = Luke 11.9-10 was written or spoken first; then people tried to follow its simple principle, and that principle failed (because that is not how life works); and then, finally, James 4.3 was written as an explanation for why the principle failed. Does it not? This observation, if sound, would rule out any such simplistic scenario as James -> Matthew (though of course it does not rule out Matthew -> James).
If the letter of James was written by James "the brother of the Lord" (and he is also "the brother of Jesus" in the gospels and Josephus and the church leader in Acts, all of which I'm on board with), then he would not have needed to know the gospel of Matthew because he knew Jesus and they came from the same milieu. In that scenario, maybe they both just consequently talk the same talk. Maybe no one is borrowing from anyone (whether James from Matthew or vice versa), but both are simply documents written about and by similar people from similar places with similar agendas. Is that at least a viable option?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:07 pm Ben wrote:
James 4.3 certainly looks like a reaction to Matthew 7.7-8 = Luke 11.9-10, and not the other way around. It sounds like Matthew 7.7-8 = Luke 11.9-10 was written or spoken first; then people tried to follow its simple principle, and that principle failed (because that is not how life works); and then, finally, James 4.3 was written as an explanation for why the principle failed. Does it not? This observation, if sound, would rule out any such simplistic scenario as James -> Matthew (though of course it does not rule out Matthew -> James).
If the letter of James was written by James "the brother of the Lord" (and he is also "the brother of Jesus" in the gospels and Josephus and the church leader in Acts, all of which I'm on board with), then he would not have needed to know the gospel of Matthew because he knew Jesus and they came from the same milieu. In that scenario, maybe they both just consequently talk the same talk. Maybe no one is borrowing from anyone (whether James from Matthew or vice versa), but both are simply documents written about and by similar people from similar places with similar agendas. Is that at least a viable option?
If the highlighted portion is correct, then no connection between Jesus and (the author of the epistle of) James is necessary: all that is required is a common milieu behind Matthew 7.7-8 = Luke 11.9-10 and James 4.3. The scenario then becomes one in which the milieu supplied the original saying ("ask and you shall receive"), Matthew copied this saying pretty much as it stood, and James reacted to it in a different manner. And sure, this is perfectly viable. What I would like to know, however, is whether it is best. Is it not also possible that (the author of the epistle of) James, as well as some of his readers, found the saying in Matthew, Q, or the Logia (however the spirit moves you on that whole question) and then reacted to it? In this case, however, we are brought back to the original reason for my inquiry: none of the sayings in James are attributed to Jesus, and the mention of Jesus in 2.1 is very awkward. The combination of these two observations is what leads me to at least want to consider the possibility that words by somebody else are being put on Jesus' lips, while at the same time an originally Jewish sectarian letter was made explicitly Christian by the addition of lines in 1.1 and 2.1. Richard Bauckham and John Kloppenborg have written essays arguing that James could have been making use of Jesus' sayings, without attributing them to him, in much the same way that ben Sirach made use of the Hebrew scriptures, also often without attribution; I admit the scenario is possible, and I am honestly not sure why I resist it, but I do. Maybe my brain just wants that awkwardness in 2.1 to mean something.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:59 pm
John2 wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:07 pm Ben wrote:
James 4.3 certainly looks like a reaction to Matthew 7.7-8 = Luke 11.9-10, and not the other way around. It sounds like Matthew 7.7-8 = Luke 11.9-10 was written or spoken first; then people tried to follow its simple principle, and that principle failed (because that is not how life works); and then, finally, James 4.3 was written as an explanation for why the principle failed. Does it not? This observation, if sound, would rule out any such simplistic scenario as James -> Matthew (though of course it does not rule out Matthew -> James).
If the letter of James was written by James "the brother of the Lord" (and he is also "the brother of Jesus" in the gospels and Josephus and the church leader in Acts, all of which I'm on board with), then he would not have needed to know the gospel of Matthew because he knew Jesus and they came from the same milieu. In that scenario, maybe they both just consequently talk the same talk. Maybe no one is borrowing from anyone (whether James from Matthew or vice versa), but both are simply documents written about and by similar people from similar places with similar agendas. Is that at least a viable option?
If the highlighted portion is correct, then no connection between Jesus and (the author of the epistle of) James is necessary: all that is required is a common milieu behind Matthew 7.7-8 = Luke 11.9-10 and James 4.3. The scenario then becomes one in which the milieu supplied the original saying ("ask and you shall receive"), Matthew copied this saying pretty much as it stood, and James reacted to it in a different manner. And sure, this is perfectly viable. What I would like to know, however, is whether it is best. Is it not also possible that (the author of the epistle of) James, as well as some of his readers, found the saying in Matthew, Q, or the Logia (however the spirit moves you on that whole question) and then reacted to it? In this case, however, we are brought back to the original reason for my inquiry: none of the sayings in James are attributed to Jesus, and the mention of Jesus in 2.1 is very awkward. The combination of these two observations is what leads me to at least want to consider the possibility that words by somebody else are being put on Jesus' lips, while at the same time an originally Jewish sectarian letter was made explicitly Christian by the addition of lines in 1.1 and 2.1. Richard Bauckham and John Kloppenborg have written essays arguing that James could have been making use of Jesus' sayings, without attributing them to him, in much the same way that ben Sirach made use of the Hebrew scriptures, also often without attribution; I admit the scenario is possible, and I am honestly not sure why I resist it, but I do. Maybe my brain just wants that awkwardness in 2.1 to mean something.
Regarding the part I underlined in your response above, I think the "same milieu" idea could explain why James doesn't attribute anything to Jesus; as I said, given their relationship and shared background, maybe they both just talk the same talk. James doesn't need to attribute anything he says to Jesus anymore than Jesus needs to attribute anything he says to James.

In my view what we should keep our eye on with respect to the letter of James is what Jesus says in Mt. 5:19:
So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Isn't this exactly what the letter of James does, including in the context of 4:3?

4:1-6:
What causes conflicts and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from the passions at war within you? 2You crave what you do not have. You kill and covet, but are unable to obtain it. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask. And when you do ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may squander it on your pleasures.

You adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore, whoever chooses to be a friend of the world renders himself an enemy of God. Or do you think the Scripture says without reason that the Spirit He caused to dwell in us yearns with envy? But He gives us more grace. This is why it says: “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

And does James' use of the word "adulteresses" here mean that he is reacting to what Jesus says in Mt. 12:39 and 16:4, or are they just talking the same talk?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Out of curiosity, is there anything in the Dead Sea scrolls or similar Jewish texts that resembles the injunction to ask and receive?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:41 pm Out of curiosity, is there anything in the Dead Sea scrolls or similar Jewish texts that resembles the injunction to ask and receive?
Evans compares what Jesus says in Matthew, including 7:7-8, with 4Q525 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research:
Blessed are they who ask for her (2Q525 2:2)
Ask, and it will be given to you ... For everyone who asks receives (Matt 7:7-8; cf. Jas 4:2)

https://books.google.com/books?id=AJM9g ... ls&f=false
And I happened to come across another book earlier that mentioned some other examples, but I didn't make a note of it at the time and can't find it now.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:36 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:41 pm Out of curiosity, is there anything in the Dead Sea scrolls or similar Jewish texts that resembles the injunction to ask and receive?
Evans compares what Jesus says in Matthew, including 7:7-8, with 4Q525 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research:
Blessed are they who ask for her (2Q525 2:2)
Ask, and it will be given to you ... For everyone who asks receives (Matt 7:7-8; cf. Jas 4:2)

https://books.google.com/books?id=AJM9g ... ls&f=false
Excellent. Thank you.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by John2 »

Evans has the same article in another book that I can see more of on Google books and he goes on to say something interesting about James and 4Q525 (on page 143):
It is also of interest to note that there are parallels with the Jacobean tradition (itself recognized to have many affinities with the Sermon on the Mount). The admonition to "guard against the stumbling block of the tongue" and the danger of being "ensnared by a tongue [of evil?]" (4Q525 4:26-27) parallel similar warnings in James (1:26; 3:2-8).

https://books.google.com/books?id=DRcQ2 ... -8&f=false
4Q525 2:1 and 4:25-28:
(1) [Blessed is he who walks] with a pure heart and who doesn’t slander with his tongue.
(25) And with patience utter (your words) and answer truthfully before officers with a tongue of... (26) with your lips, and guard against the stumbling block of the tongue... (27) lest you be convicted by your lips and ensnared together with a tongue of... (28) impropriety... from it and they will be perverse...
James 1:26 and 3:1-12:
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to control his whole body.

When we put bits into the mouths of the horses to make them obey us, we can guide the whole animal. Consider ships as well. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot is inclined.

In the same way, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it boasts of great things. Consider how small a spark sets a great forest ablaze. The tongue also is a fire, a world of wickedness among the parts of the body. It pollutes the whole person, sets the course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles, and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, this should not be! Can both fresh water and bitter water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree grow olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Good stuff. Thank you.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply