David B. Gowler
Pierce Professor of Religion
Emory University (Oxford College)
I. Introduction
St.
John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans,
Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show
you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know,
even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ epistle is really an
epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of
the gospel about it.
– Martin Luther
For
that faith which bringeth not forth repentance but either evil works or no good
works, is not a right, pure and living faith, but a dead and devilish one.
– John Wesley
As Luke Timothy Johnson recently noted: “An adequate account of how James was first
received and subsequently interpreted has yet to be written.” What makes this task especially interesting,
however, is the fact that James has, as Todd Penner observed, “an unusual place
in the history of interpretation.” James has been labeled as an “oddity,” the “Melchizedek” of the
Christian canon,
the “junk mail” of the New Testament, and the “stepchild of New
Testament scholarship.” In the early Christian church, James was
received differently in the west than in the east. In a similar way, James has been received
differently in the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox traditions. In Protestant traditions and scholarship in
particular, one of the primary obstacles to a more complete appreciation of the
Letter of James has been the significant influence of Martin Luther. His denigration of James as an “epistle of
straw” became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ironically, a more recent “hindrance” to the appreciation of the
significance of James was the influential commentary by Martin Dibelius. In effect, Dibelius’s particular
understanding of paraenesis restricted the study of James to ethics, not the specific historical or theological
contexts. James was considered to be a
loose, eclectic collection of “unoriginal” ethical admonitions, that is, not an
“original construction” of an author but a product of traditional instruction
in the Christian church that stemmed from the Jewish and Hellenistic Roman
literary environments. It was not until the early 1980’s that
scholars began to (re)affirm that James has a coherent rhetorical structure, an
“argument,” and a theological framework. This fairly recent recognition allows us to
have a more complete understanding of how James was first received and how it
subsequently was received over the centuries.
Thus the commentary on James in the
Blackwell series will address the urgent need for a Wirkungsgeschichte of James, and it will do so in an even broader
way than Luke Timothy Johnson himself envisioned, by incorporating not only
commentaries, sermons, and other Christian materials, but also by addressing
“social and political developments and [James’s] influence on literature,
music, and the arts. An essential element of this endeavor is to
allow a wide variety of responses to James to be heard—not just those voices
who echo the presuppositions or biases of the voices who have dominated most
discussions, such as Luther or Dibelius.
St. James, brother of Our Lord
Anonymous Russian
icon
The Russian Orthodox
Cathedral of St. John the Baptist
Washington, D.C. USA
II. The Commentary: Structure and Philosophy of Approach
“Truth
is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it
is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of
their dialogic interaction.”
– Mikhail Bakhtin
When I first saw the commentary on Revelation in the
Blackwell Bible Commentary Series, my initial reaction was that this series
would make a significant contribution to biblical scholarship. I also quickly realized that I share a deep
philosophical affinity with the aims of this series, not only because of the
interdisciplinary nature of my work over the past 20 years, but especially
because of my dialogic philosophy—a philosophy indebted to the “Dialogism” of the philosopher and
classicist Mikhail Bakhtin. As the quote
from Bakhtin above indicates, he stressed the importance of the “dialogic
interaction” of numerous voices. Perhaps
the best descriptive term for this dialogical interaction is polyphony. Polyphony is an expression derived from
music, where it denotes a combination of two or more independent, melodic
parts. Bakhtin, however, applies it to
what he sees in Dostoevsky’s novels, where Dostoevsky unfolds “a plurality of
consciousnesses, with equal rights and each with its own world.” The voices of the characters, alongside the
author’s voice, are “full and equally valid voices.” Polyphony thus can be seen as any environment
devoted to the idea that all voices should receive a fair and equal
hearing. Many contesting voices
representing a variety of ideological positions can engage equally in dialogue,
free from authorial constraints; the author’s voice is one of those “full and
equally valid voices,” but it does not exert monologic control over the other voices.
This goal of polyphony is exactly the aim of “The Interpretations”
sections of the BBC Series. As
Christopher Rowland notes concerning the commentary on Revelation that he and
Judith Kovaks produced, they attempted to allow “different interpreters to
speak for themselves without being subjected to editorial judgment” while still
maintaining “a distinctive point of view.” This is dialogism and polyphony at its best,
and the commentary on James will have the same approach and goal.
I should add parenthetically, that although this philosophical approach
undergirds why I believe the commentary series is so critical to our current
dialogues in the discipline, informs how various voices should be included in
the commentary, and coheres perfectly with the philosophy and goals of the
Blackwell series, dialogism would not
be an overt part of the commentary (except, perhaps, brief comments in the
preface).
The structure of this proposal will follow the basic structure of the
commentary on Revelation: I will discuss
the “Ancient Literary Context” and “The Interpretations.” Both discussions will include preliminary
“philosophical presuppositions” sections which are included for heuristic
purposes, in case the editors and others are interested in some further musings
about why the goals and approaches of this series are so important.
Beginning of James
The Emser New
Testament
By Hieronymus Emser
III. James:
Ancient Literary Context
A. Ancient Literary Context: Philosophical Presuppositions
Language is produced out of social interaction among people;
every text is a socially symbolic act and assumes certain social and cultural
norms. From a Bakhtinian perspective, this means
that the author/speaker’s orientation toward the reader/hearer is an
orientation toward a specific conceptual horizon. The dialogue between the
conceptual world(s) of the author/speaker and the reader/hearer establishes a
series of complex interrelationships, consonances, and dissonances, and
therefore enriches it with new elements. The author/speaker strives to get a
reading/hearing of his/her word and the conceptual system that helps to
determine his/her word. In doing so the author/speaker must be oriented toward
the conceptual horizon of the reader/hearer, enters into a dialogical
relationship with certain elements of the (real or assumed) readers/hearers,
and in this way various points of view, conceptual horizons, and social
“languages” interact with each other. In brief, the significance of any discourse
must be understood in the context of other discourses on the same
theme—contexts consisting of numerous and contradictory opinions, points of
view, conceptual horizons, and value judgments.
Since discourse is a social
phenomenon, there are no neutral words, and no utterance is created ex nihilo. Any text, speech, or work of art is in
essence a rejoinder, an active participant in social dialogue. The Epistle of James, for example, was
created and preserved in conversations with its cultural environment(s), and it
partakes, vigorously at times, in that dialogical social discourse. Thus the significance of any discourse such
as James must also be understood in the context of other discourses. Speakers and authors do not utilize
“pristine” words—”untainted” and straight out of a dictionary—but rather these
words have already existed in the mouths of others and thus already belong to
others. Each words “tastes” of the
social contexts in which it has lived its socially-charged life in previous
speakers’ and writers’ personal, cultural, social, and ideological contexts. For these reasons it is essential that the
commentary display the ancient literary context of the Letter of James.
B. Ancient
Literary Context: Dialogical
Interactions
Because of the
nature of language and texts noted above, it is critical that this volume on
James should have a similar structure as the commentary on Revelation. It should include, for example, an initial
section: “Ancient Literary
Context.” I will strive to keep this
section both cogent and succinct. The
material in the “Ancient Literary Context” will not only provide a brief
historical context, but it will also note important, when appropriate,
dialogical relationships with the following texts and contexts:
The Hebrew Bible – James engages numerous aspects of the law
(e.g., James 1:25; 2:8, 12;
etc.), such as an extensive interaction with such passages as Leviticus
19. The prophetic tradition plays a
significant role in James as well—explicitly, such as when it offers the “prophets
who spoke in the name of the Lord” (5:10) as exemplars of patience/suffering
and implicitly, such as when it utilizes the symbol of the broken marriage
covenant as indicative of the relationship between God and the people. Clearly James also is in dialogue with the
wisdom traditions of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 1:53:13-18; 4:6, cf. Prov
3:34—although there is significant debate about where James fits within the
wisdom tradition (eschatological elements suggest some eschatological
affinities with such Jewish writings as Sirach and 1 Enoch; some scholars even
suggest that the eschatological elements shape and even control the sapiential
traditions).
Other Jewish Literature – such as sections of the Pirke Aboth, Qumran’s Community Rule and Damascus Document, the Letter
of Aristeas, 4 Maccabees, Philo,
the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
(I will not argue dependence one way or the other with James and the Testaments, but the dialogues are
striking).
Hellenistic-Roman Literature – As a document of community instruction,
James shares a number of topoi of
moral instruction and is in dialogue with the moral teachings found in
Hellenistic-Roman literature (cf. Seneca, Epictetus, Cicero, Plutarch, and Dio
Chrysostom). An important element of
this analysis is that it will also include some insights into the rhetoric of
James and what ideological insights that may illuminate. The continuity and discontinuity with current
readings of James will be significant.
Cultural and Social Contexts – I also intend to indicate important social
and cultural elements that are critical to our understanding of and the
reception history of James. For example,
as part of its emphasis on oppression/suffering, praxis, and moral instruction, James critiques the system of
patronage in the first century and portrays God in the role of an ideal
benefactor. These elements will be
instrumental to understanding how James was received, often ignored,
domesticated, and/or “intercepted” throughout the centuries. The
connections to contemporary theologies of liberation and other types of
“Radical Christianity” are striking and will be illustrated in “The
Interpretations” sections of the commentary.
In addition, James’s connections to (primarily deliberative) rhetoric
illuminate aspects of the difference that James seeks to make in its recipients
through the various rhetorical forms of exhortation and dissuasion in order to
persuade its readers to take a particular course of action in the future.
New Testament Writings – The dialogic relations with other NT
writings sometimes will be noted. Brief
mentions might be made of affinities with, for example, the Johannine writings
(e.g., James 1:22-25; 4:4;
5:9) and 1 Peter (James 1:1, 10-11, 18, 21; 5:20). I
intend to keep the discussions of James and Paul to a necessary minimum,
because of the way in which that topic has been belabored elsewhere. Special attention must of course be paid to
the dialogic relations between James and the Synoptics, especially Matthew and
the Sermon on the Mount. A significant
amount of research in the past twenty years has focused on the relationship
between James and the Q tradition.
Although James does not attribute these sayings to Jesus or evoke the
authority of Jesus for them, the relationships between James and Q (or as some
scholars argue James and Matthew and/or Luke) are significant (e.g., James
1:5-6, 17; 2:5, 8 10, 11, 13, 15-16; 3:12, 18; 4:2-3, 4, 8, 10, 11; 5:1, 2-3,
12, 17, 19-20).
IV. The Interpretations
If our hearts are lifted where devotion soars
High
above this hungry, suffering world of ours,
Lest our hymns should drug us to forget its
needs,
Forge
our Christian worship into Christian deeds.
– Fred Pratt Green
“When the Church of Jesus” (1968)
Based on James 2:14-17
The
United Methodist Hymnal
A. The
Interpretations: Philosophical
Presuppositions
As noted above, a
dialogical view of the nature of language demonstrates the essential nature of Wirkungsgeschichte. The Epistle of James was in a dialogical relationship
with its contexts, one that incorporated, in different ways, the words of
others that had preceded it, whether from the Hebrew Bible, other Christian
voices, traditional repertoires, or the polyglossia
of the first-century Mediterranean world. In a similar way, the Epistle of James calls
for a dialogic response from its hearers/readers. In essence, through our participation in this
dialogue, we “write” our own rejoinder to the Epistle of James; we are
participating in the concrete creation of “scripture.”
Thus the “meaning” of the Epistle of James does not reside alone in the
creative genius of its author; it is a specific relation between creator and
contemplators.
There is a complex correlation between text and contexts: the “original” context and the contexts in
which James has been read and reread.
Thus a reading of James does not allow a passive role; the interlocutor
participates in the formation of meaning as have, broadly speaking, the whole
complex of people and social situations in which the Epistle of James has been
read and heard over the centuries. James
can never be properly understood or explained outside the link to the concrete
situations of its creation and its recreations in the responses of
hearers/readers. The hearer/reader is
not like a telegraph operator who must decode and receive the “original”
message that is transmitted one to another.
It is a construction, like an ideological bridge, that is constructed in
the process of interactions with the Epistle of James over the centuries. These ongoing conversations began in a
radically new way when the Epistle of James was created, and they continue
because the Letter of James still calls for dialogic responses on the
part of hearers/readers—they become participants in that greater dialogue. It is that complex chain of reactions and greater dialogue which this BBC series
seeks to illuminate.
Therefore, I am acutely aware that we stand on the shoulders of centuries
of conversations; our own positions are never independent of the reception
history of these texts—ancient and modern—and our own work is woefully
incomplete without a dialogic presentation of or response to those other
responses. As Dan Bialostosky describes
Bakhtin’s perspective: “As a
self-conscious practice, dialogical criticism turns its inescapable involvement
with some other voices into a program of articulation itself with all the other
voices of the discipline, the culture, or of the world of cultures to which it
makes itself responsible.”
B. The
Interpretations: Voices in Dialogue with
James
Similar to the
structure of the commentary on Revelation, the James commentary will have a
section entitled “The Interpretations” after the brief “Ancient Literary
Context” section. Because of its unique role
within the canon and the vagaries of its reception by various groups (e.g.,
within certain parts of the church), the amount and depth of response to James
is rather meager in comparison to the reception of the Gospels, Paul, or
Revelation. Nonetheless, some major
participants in this dialogue will be:
Noncanonical Early Christian Literature – The Shepherd of Hermas (I am convinced that Hermas used James, but I am not convinced of other relationships,
such as with 1 Clement or the Didache). According to Dibelius, the earliest
incontrovertible citation of James (3:12) is in the (Pseudo) Clementine homily De Virginitate.
Origen and the Alexandrian Church – Origen cited James numerous
times (36 times; 24 verses), and other members of the Alexandrian tradition
used James extensively as well. I intend
to utilize these resources, including the first extant commentary of James by
Didymus the Blind (I also will include some of Didymus’s other works). Athanasius cited James 20 times (12 separate
verses); Cyril referred to James 124 times (39 separate verses). Another important resource is the work of
Euthalius the Deacon. I also will
include materials from churches in Palestine, such as Procopius of Gaza, Hesychius of
Jerusalem, and others. After reviewing the
citations, I will narrow the list and focus on the most significant people and
dialogues with James.
John Chrysostom and
others – Chrysostom utilizes James 48 times (from 20 separate verses). Before deciding who else to include, I will
examine citations from a number of monks who used James extensively, including Antony (Egypt), Palladius, Niles the Abbot, and others. There also are anthologies of Scriptures that
were used as topoi for preaching and
teaching that will be important materials to consider, such as the ones by
Maximus the Confessor (7th century) or John Damascene (8th
century).
Jerome, Augustine, and Bede – Jerome used James extensively, and his
observations discussed by other commentators.
Augustine also cites James frequently (especially James 1:17; 2:10, 19-26), and two of his sermon expositions
on James are extant (1:19-22 and 5:12).
Bede’s commentary on James is especially helpful, because it not only
provides a full treatment of James, but it also dialogues with earlier authors.
Other (pre-Luther) Sermons – I will include selections from sermons on
James from such sources as Haymo (9th c.), Radulphus Ardens (12th
c.), Abbot Godfridus (13th c.) and writers such as Bernard of
Clairvaux, Meister Eckhardt, and Thomas à Kempis.
The Reformation – The commentary must include, of course,
selections from Martin Luther, but other participants in the conversation
include Erasmus, Tyndale, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Calvin (and the responses
from Cornelius à Lapide and Estius).
Responses from the 17th and 18th
Centuries – Engagement with
James in the 17th and 18th centuries continued the
discussions of the 16th century.
A most helpful resource is James Darling’s Cyclopaedia Bibliographica (1859), which includes a collection of sermons
and tracts from the 17th and 18th centuries. Other resources include selections from the
sermons and lectures of Thomas Manton and John Wesley. The contrasts between the commentary of J. J.
Wettstein with that of J. A. Bengel will prove enlightening, as well as the
Roman Catholic commentary by Augustin Calmet.
Responses from the 19th Century – The historical-critical approach to James
became dominant in the 19th century, an approach which included
attempts to place James into its historical context. One of the most influential commentaries of
this era was Der Character und Ursprung
des Briefes Jacobi by F. H. Kern. Kern’s work set the stage for a major debate
by agreeing with Luther’s view of the incompatibility of James and Paul in
their views of faith and works. Kern
argued (although he later changed his mind) that the letter was not written by
James the brother of Jesus. Instead the
letter is indicative of the conflict between two streams of Christianity: James is a second century work that stems
from the marginalized “Ebionite” Jewish Christian communities and is a reaction
against the dominant Gentile Christian churches. This view obviously is close to F. C. Baur’s
model of early Christianity, so it is not surprising that Baur incorporated
Kern’s work into his own. Three years
later, however, Kern decided that James the brother of Jesus had written the
Letter of James shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. Kern’s two varying conclusions were the
essential points of scholarly argument for the next hundred years: Was James written by James the brother of
Jesus and thus one of the earliest extant Christian writings? Or was James a late and pseudonymous work? Adolf Jülicher, for example, prefigured
Dibelius’s view (see above) that James was an eclectic collection of
loosely-connected ethical admonitions. One of the more important voices in the
reception history of James during this period, however, is that of Soren
Kierkegaard. His “defense” of James
included a sermon entitled, “The Unchangeableness of God.”
The 20th and 21st
Centuries – The debates
concerning the authorship and dating of James continued into the 20th
century, and the opinion that James was a late first-century, Post-Pauline,
pseudonymous writing became established as the dominant position. The classic commentary on James by Dibelius,
of course, serves as the foundation for most of the academic discussions about
James. These debates need to be
addressed in a cursory way, but those conversations are more fully addressed in
other commentaries. Yet Dibelius’s
extensive legacy on the reception of James in the modern era is both deep and
wide, so it should not be ignored.
Current discussions, as noted above, are often reactions against and
rejections of significant aspects of Dibelius’s positions, such as his view of
the nature of paraenesis. Recent
discussions have also focused on the genre of James—whether it was an actual
letter to specific recipients, a Jewish “Diaspora Epistle,” or a letter format
in form only (i.e., a the format is “fictional”). Dibelius’s legacy has most clearly been
rejected in the current insistence that James does indeed have a structure and
coherence. Recent rhetorical
investigations of James have been most helpful in this regard; scholars are
once again attempting to situate James within specific historical, cultural,
and intellectual contexts.
It is here that we return also to specific Wirkungsgeshichte issues.
Significant works recently have investigated the dialogic relationships
between James and the Jesus tradition (others still focus on the alleged
“anti-Pauline rhetoric” in James). What I find particularly intriguing in
current discussions, however, is how the impact of James in recent
social-scientific, liberationist, and feminist works—I think particularly of
the mujerista theologian Elsa Tamez—echoes and indeed in many ways comes full
circle with the ancient literary contexts of the letter. Over the centuries James has often been marginalized. Some current postmodern approaches, however,
have recaptured in a dialogic way James’s radical critique of the rich, the
elite’s exploitation of a community of believers, and the words of
encouragement offered to those who suffer such exploitation. But James also offers more than hope and
encouragement; as Tamez notes, James “asks of these Christians a praxis in
which they show a militant patience, a consistency between words, belief, and
deeds, a prayer with power, an effective wisdom and an unconditional, sincere
love among the members of the community.” One of the most exciting aspects of this
commentary is that voices like Tamez’s will have “full and equally valid
voices” within the commentary.
I should address the availability of the resources needed to complete
“The Interpretations” section. Emory University has substantial holdings in the areas in
which I will be investigating, as well as an excellent interlibrary loan
program. Emory also has agreed to devote
a significant amount of funds to support my research, should the need arrive to
travel to see other collections or meet with other scholars. More germane, perhaps, are my own
limitations. I do not foresee any
difficulties investigating the reception of James within pieces of
literature. There are, however, some
areas of the reception and impact history of James of which I cannot yet write
in detail—specifically in art and music.
I have a significant amount of research to do in those two areas. I have located already—using Emory University resources, such as the digital image
collection of Pitts Theology Library of Emory University—around twenty works of
art connected with the Letter of James.
Most of them, however, are images of James the brother of Jesus. I also have an art historian colleague, Dr.
Camille Cottrell, who has agreed to be one of my resources in that area. I also will need to do a similar amount of
work to investigate the impact James has had in music. In addition, I want to spend some time in
another field outside my area of expertise:
researching whether James has had any impact within the Islamic
tradition. I have yet to find any
dialogue with James in Islam, but I consider that possibility worth pursuing.
V. Outline of Possible Chapters
For
Seneca saith, ‘He overcometh in an evil manner, that repenteth him of his
victory.’ Wherefore I pray you let mercy
be in your heart, to the effect and intent that God Almighty have mercy upon
you in his last judgement; for Saint James saith in his Epistle, ‘Judgement
without mercy shall be done to him, that hath no mercy of another wight.’”
When Meliboeus had heard the great skills [arguments, reasons] and reasons of
Dame Prudence, and her wise information and teaching, his heart gan incline to
the will of his wife, considering her true intent, he conformed him anon and
assented fully to work after her counsel, and thanked God, of whom proceedeth
all goodness and all virtue, that him sent a wife of so great discretion.
– Chaucer’s Tale of
Meliboeus
The commentary would begin with a brief (approximately 15
pages) introduction before proceeding to the reception history of James. Although I could follow the format in the
Commentary on Revelation—where
chapters in the commentary are aligned with chapters of Revelation—because of
the smaller number of chapters in James, a slightly different approach could be
taken. If I were to follow the basic
rhetorical structure of James, this might create a more balanced amount of material
per chapter, as well as shorter chapters.
I envision the chapters being arranged in the following way. The “titles” below are merely some major
themes in these sections. I would need
to rework them to create more concise titles for the chapters:
I. Introduction
II. 1:1-11
– Trials, Endurance, Wisdom, and the Exalted Poor
III. 1:12-27
– Trials, Endurance, and Doers of the Word
IV. 2:1-13
– Deeds of Faith, the Chosen Poor, and the Law of Liberty
V. 2:14-26
– Faith, Works, and Doers of the Word
VI. 3:1-12 – The Power and Danger of Speech
VII. 3:13-4:12
– The Fruits of Wisdom versus Friendship with the World
VIII. 4:13-5:6
– The Arrogance of and Judgment upon the Rich
IX. 5:7-11
– The Patience of the Faithful and the Compassion of the Lord
X. 5:12-20
– Speech and Actions in the Community of the Faithful
VI. Timetable for Completing the
Commentary
I have cleared my schedule of all other writing and editing
projects save one, my current project, What
Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus?
That book, in the WATSA series from Paulist Press, will be approximately
35,000 words (~150 pages). In order to
speed up the completion of that project, I have received a grant from Emory
University for a reduced teaching load in spring 2005, which will give me
additional research time to finish the book.
I will start the James commentary immediately after I finish the book on
the Historical Jesus. A positive
by-product of this timetable is that while writing the Commentary on James, I
most likely will be able to include some of the work of John Kloppenborg in his
forthcoming Hermeneia commentary on
James. That should make the BBC
commentary even stronger.
One element that will speed the
writing of this commentary is that I will have a sabbatical during the
2006-2007 academic year. Currently I am
scheduled for a one-semester sabbatical, but if a contract is offered for this
commentary, I will apply for an Emory University Research Grant that would
extend the sabbatical to a full year.
This sabbatical will allow me to finish writing the commentary in an
expeditious and timely fashion.
VII. Preliminary Bibliography
Many of the primary texts that are required for this
commentary are already listed on the BBC webpage. In addition, since I listed probable people and
sources for primary texts in the body of the proposal itself, I will not list
primary texts here. All of these
resources would be available through Emory University.
Secondary Texts
Adamson, James B. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Baker, W. R.
Personal Speech-Ethics in the
Epistle of James. Tübingen: Mohr,
1995.
Batten, Alicia. “An Asceticism of Resistance in James.” Pages 355-70 in L. E. Vaage and V. Wimbush
(eds.), Asceticism and the New Testament. New York: Routledge, 1999.
______.
“God in the Letter of James:
Patron or Benefactor?” NTS 50:2 (2004) 257-72.
Bauckham, Richard J. James:
Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage. London: Routledge, 1999.
Davids, Peter H. The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
______.
“The Epistle of James in Modern Discussion.” ANRW
II.25/5 (1998) 3621-45.
______.
James. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989.
Dennis, Mark, Renny Golden, and Scott
Wright. Oscar Romero: Reflections on His Life and Writings. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000.
Deppe, D. B.
The Sayings of Jesus in the
Epistle of James. Chelsea, Mich.:
Bookcrafters, 1998.
Dibelius, Martin. James. Revised by Heinrich Greeven.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.
Dormeyer, D. The New
Testament among the Writings of Antiquity.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Elliott, J.
H. “The Epistle of James in Rhetorical
and Social Scientific Perspective: Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of
Replication.” BTB 23 (1993) 71-81.
Hartin, Patrick
J. James
and the Q Sayings of Jesus. JSNTSup
47. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.
______. A
Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in
Action in the Letter of James.
Collegeville: Liturgical, 1999.
Hutchinson Edgar,
David. Has God not chosen the poor?: the
social setting of the Epistle of James. Sheffield: Sheffield, 2001.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The
Letter of James. New York:
Doubleday, 1995.
______.
Brother of Jesus, Friend of God. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2004.
Laws, Sophie. The Epistle of James. New York: Harper & Row, 1980.
Martin, Ralph P. James. Waco:
Word, 1988.
Maynard-Reid, Pedrito. Poverty
and wealth in James. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 1987.
Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. James. 3rd. ed. London: Macmillan, 1913.
Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. TNTC. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1985.
Painter, J. Just
James: The Brother of Jesus in History
and Tradition. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997.
Penner, Todd C. The
Epistle of James and Eschatology.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
______. “The Epistle of James in Current
Research.” CR:BS 7 (1999) 257-308.
Popkes, W. “James and Scripture: An Exercise in Intertextuality.” NTS 45
(1999) 213-29.
Rhoads, David. “The Letter of James: Friend of God.” CurTM 25
(1998) 473-86.
Robbins,
Vernon K. “Making Christian
Culture in the Epistle of James.” Scriptura 59 (1996) 341–51.
Sleeper, C.
Freeman. James. Nashville: Abingdon,
1998.
Soards, Marion. “The Early Christian Interpretation of
Abraham and the Place of James within that Context.” IBS
0 (1987) 18-26.
Stegemann,
Wolfgang. The Gospel and the Poor.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Tamez, Elsa. The Bible of the Oppressed. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1982.
______. The
Scandalous Message of James: Faith
Without Works is Dead. New York:
Crossroad, 2002.
Tiller, P. A. “The Rich and Poor in James: An Apocalyptic
Perspective.” Pages 909-20 in SBLSP 37. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998.
Vaage, Leif E. Subversive
Scriptures: Revolutionary Readings of the Christian Bible in Latin America. Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity, 1997.
Wachob, Wesley H. The
Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Wall, Robert W. Community of the Wise: The Letter of James.
Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1997.
Wuellner, Wilhelm. “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht Rhetorik und
Textpragmatik.” LB 43 (1978) 5-66.
