Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:26 pm
I will not claim to know all of the historically plausible ins and outs of the "ten lost tribes" of Israel; all I can say is that, if those tribes were gone, the Jewish people seem not to have always been aware of it. Lots of people, of course, claimed to be of the tribes of Judah and Levi; no issue there. And of course others, like Paul, claimed to be of the other southern tribe, that of Benjamin (Romans 11.1; Philippians 3.5). But the northern tribes are also represented. Tobit claims to be of the tribe of Nephtali (Tobit 1.1, though I know this story is set immediately after the deportation). The prophetess Anna is said to be of the tribe of Asher (Luke 2.36). Judith is said to be of the tribe of Simeon (Judith 8.1 Vulgate; 9.2). A Messianic figure was still expected from the tribe of Ephraim. In Acts 26.6-7 Paul speaks on behalf of the twelve tribes as extant. In Antiquities 11.5.2 §133 Josephus, writing of entire political entities rather than of individuals, claims that the ten deported tribes remain in vast numbers even "till now" across the Euphrates. According to the Letter of Aristeas, the translators numbered 72 because there were six from each of the twelve tribes. And did not the Samaritans claim descent from Joseph?Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:18 pmIt is true that the opening of the letter addresses the twelve tribes in the dispersion and some of taken this to mean that James is addressing Jews. But as Sophie Laws observes, there hadn’t been twelve tribes since the Assyrian destruction of the northern kingdom in 721 BCE....
Well, to me the epistle of James bears resemblance to Jewish wisdom literature, of which there are examples (such as Ecclesiastes) which seem to fret no more about your list of typically Jewish concerns than James does. As John mentions, there are also resemblances to some of the Dead Sea scrolls (4QInstruction comes to mind, but I believe there are others). There are also overlaps with Essene practice (the prohibition against oaths, for instance).There is nothing in the letter about circumcision, dietary requirements, Sabbath keeping or observing holidays. There is no concern about the temple, sacrifice, or Jerusalem, nor with the land promised to the patriarchs and Moses.
....
There is no concern about the lineage of the priesthood, nor, for that matter, with the priesthood at all.
The “royal law” in 2.8 is “love your neighbor as yourself.” That, and the rest of the laws discussed are moral laws, there seems to be no concern about ritual and purity laws.
The issue James wants to dispute in 2.14 is whether one can be saved by faith alone apart from works. The people holding that position do sound like they hold a particular interpretation of Paul. But if James is a Jewish sectarian, why is that paramount among the disputes he needs to address? Isn’t he concerned with whether one should build a fence around the law or what renders vessels impure or who can serve as high priest or whether those who have nocturnal emissions ought to be punished? Why is the faith alone issue the only one that needs to be addressed in James’ community?
...if this is a function of genre, what kind of Jewish literature do you think James resembles?