Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (79 page)

There are other forgeries produced in the name of James from the early Christian centuries, including the Protevangelium Jacobi, which I will discuss in a later chapter, and three works discovered at Nag Hammadi: the Apocryphon of James and two separate Apocalypses of James. Later times saw the production of yet other forgeries in his name as well.
¹
No one thinks James wrote any of these other works. Why should we think he wrote the one that came to be included in the
New Testament? My view is that it, like the others, is forged in his name. One leading reason for thinking so is that like his compatriot Peter, as discussed in the previous chapter, James could almost certainly not write.

Questions about the authorship of the letter are ancient. As is often noted, the book is not included among the writings of Scripture listed in the Muratorian Fragment. In this case it is impossible to know, however, whether the author actually rejected the book or simply was not familiar with it. Eusebius, on the other hand, deals with the matter directly, indicating that the letter, which was “the first of the epistles that are called catholic” was (sometimes? often?) regarded as forged
since “many of the ancients do not mention it.” He, however, accepts the book as canonical since it was used “in most of the churches.”

Such is the story of James, to whom is attributed the first of the “general” epistles. Admittedly its authenticity is doubted
since few early writers refer to it, any more than to Jude’s.… But the fact remains that these two, like the others, have been regularly used in very many churches. (
H.E
. 2.23.25)

Jerome says something similar: “[James] wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles, and even this is claimed by some to have been published by someone else under his name, and gradually as time went on to have gained authority” (
Vir. ill
. 2).

Generally, of course, the book was accepted as canonical and attributed to James, the brother of Jesus. Even Luther, who denied that the book was “apostolic” because it “did not preach Christ,” did not deny that James had written it. The first to question authorship seriously was Wilhelm de Wette in his widely used
Einleitung
of 1826; but it was F. H. Kern who first pushed hard for pseudepi-graphic authorship, in 1835.
²

There are solid reasons for thinking that whoever wrote this letter, it was not James, the brother of Jesus. The first, as already mentioned, is that James of Nazareth could almost certainly not write.

Whoever produced this letter was a highly literate native speaker of Greek, grounded in Hellenistic modes of discourse and able to use abundant rhetorical devices and flourishes. It is often noted that the book employs sophisticated use
of participles, infinitives, and subordinate clauses. Even Luke T. Johnson, a supporter of authenticity, points out that the language consists of “a form of clear and correct
koine
with some ambitions toward rhetorical flourish … comparable in quality if less complex in texture, to that of Hebrews.”
³
Johnson also notes that the author makes vigorous use of rhetorical devices found in many Greco-Roman moral discourses, but associated especially with the diatribe.
⁴
Matt Jackson-McCabe concurs: not only does the author evidence a “relatively high proficiency in Greek grammar, vocabulary, and style”; he is “more generally at home in literate, Hellenistic culture,” using commonplaces of Greco-Roman moralistic literature (horses with bits, ships and rudders, controlling the tongue in order to control the body, etc.).
⁵

It seems unlikely that an Aramaic-speaking peasant from rural Galilee wrote this. Here I can simply refer the reader back to the discussion of literacy in antiquity, and in Palestine in particular, in the preceding chapter.
⁶
What applied to the fisherman Peter applies to the common laborer James as well (an apprentice carpenter? We don’t know how he earned a living), or even more so. As far into the backwoods as Capernaum was, the little hamlet of Nazareth was more so; excavations have turned up no public buildings, let alone signs of literacy. Even if James’s well-known brother could read—and so was considered highly exceptional by his townsfolk (Luke 4:16; cf. Mark 6:2)—it would have been Hebrew; nothing suggests that Jesus could write; if he could do so it would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek. And by all counts he was the star of the family.

This was a part of the world where literacy was likely 1–2 percent or even less. Where would James have learned to write Hebrew? Or to read Greek? To write Greek? To write literary Greek? Greek that shows knowledge of the diatribe? And that uses rhetorical flourishes known from Greco-Roman moralists? All of that would have taken many years of intensive education, and there is precisely zero indication that James, the son of a local
would have had the leisure or money for an education as a youth. Moreover, there were no adult education classes to make up the deficit after his brother’s death years later. One should not reason that James could have picked up Greek after Jesus’ death on some of his travels. If he did learn any Greek, it would have been of a fumbling kind for simple conversation; writing literacy was not (and is not) acquired by sporadic conversations in a second language—especially writing literacy at this level. And James certainly would not have mastered the Scriptures in Greek, as the author of this letter has done (see 2:8–11, 23; 4:6). And so, despite the remarkably sanguine claims of some scholars about the Greek-writing skills of uneducated rural peasants of Nazareth, it is virtually impossible to imagine this book coming from the
pen of James.
⁷
The conclusion of Matthias Konradt is understated at best: “it remains questionable … whether one might expect the rhetorical and linguistic niveau of James from a Galilean craftsman’s son.”
⁸
More apt is the statement of Wilhelm Pratscher: “Even if one assumes a widespread dissemination of Greek in first century
C.E.
Palestine, one will nevertheless scarcely consider possible the composition of James by the brother of the Lord, especially when one compares it to the markedly simpler Greek of the Diaspora-Jew Paul.”
⁹

Other arguments support the claim that James the brother of Jesus almost certainly did not write the letter.
¹⁰
Of key importance is the fact that precisely what we know about James of Jerusalem otherwise is what we do not find in this letter. The earliest accounts of James—one of them from a contemporary—indicate that he was especially known as an advocate for the view that Jewish followers of Jesus should maintain their Jewish identity by following the Jewish Law. This seems to be the clear indication of Gal. 2:12 in the famous Antioch incident: “Certain men from James” influenced Cephas no longer to eat with the gentiles, out of “fear of those from the circumcision.” The most sensible construction of the incident is that these “men” were representatives of James’s perspective, that he was a leader of the so-called circumcision party, and that this group of Christians, with him at the head, insisted on the ongoing importance of Jews maintaining their Jewish identity, which meant, in light of concerns stemming from rules of kashrut, not eating with gentiles.

So too, the book of Acts. Despite its concern for the gentile mission and its insistence that gentiles not convert to Judaism to be followers of Jesus, Acts portrays James as a Jew deeply concerned that Jewish followers of Jesus maintain their Jewishness. Nowhere is this more evident than in the incident in Acts 21:18–24, where James, after agreeing with Paul about gentiles, nonetheless wants Paul, as a Jew, to demonstrate to other Jews that he has not at all abandoned his own commitment to keeping the Law. The incident is obviously to be suspected historically, as an invention of “Luke.” But even as such, it confirms the traditional view that James, a Jewish follower of Jesus, was known to be intent not to violate anything in the rituals prescribed in the Jewish Law.

So too in the fragmentary report of book 5 of Hegesippus’ now lost
Memoirs
, quoted by Eusebius (
H.E
. 2.23), possibly dating to the early second century. Here James is said to have remained a Nazirite his entire life, to have had special access to the Jewish Temple, and to have prayed there so regularly that his knees became as calloused as a camel’s. Moreover, according to this account, James’s concern was entirely for the Jewish people, many of whom he converted to the consternation of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, leading to his martyrdom by the sanctuary. Hegesippus indicates that this happened immediately before the siege of Jerusalem; Eusebius claims that it is what led (theologically) to the destruction of Jerusalem.

What all of these early accounts suggest about James of Jerusalem is that he was known to be particularly invested in seeing that Jewish followers of Jesus maintained their distinctiveness, vis-à-vis the rest of the world, by holding fast to their Jewish identity culturally and cultically.

The book of James hints at a James-like audience, as it is addressed to “the twelve tribes.” What is striking is that none of the cultural or cultic concerns of James of Jerusalem is in evidence in the book. Just the opposite. The book is thoroughly concerned about the “Law,” but not about the aspects of the Law that James himself is reported to have been invested in. Here, in the book of James, the Law more or less involves the love commandment (2:8) and the Decalogue (2:10–12). There is nothing about ritual. Or cult. Or kosher food laws. Or Sabbath or feast days. Or circumcision. Or anything at all involving Jewish ethnic identity. The Law is a moral code given by God, applicable to all people. In other words, just those aspects of Law otherwise attested as of supreme interest to James of Jerusalem are absent here. It cannot be replied that this is to be expected in a letter written principally to gentiles; the address indicates that the intended audience is Jewish (-Christian).

One can go farther and argue that what is emphasized in this letter runs precisely counter to what we would expect from the pen of James, leader of the “circumcision party.” As we will explore more fully in a moment, this author is concerned not with the “works of the Law” in the sense used by Paul in opposition to “those of the circumcision”—that is, the aspects of the Law that established Jewish identity in a pagan world. The concern is with “good works,” that is, doing good deeds to benefit other people. There is no reason to think that the historical James would have objected to the notion that good deeds were an important aspect of the life of one following Jesus. But it is not the area of Law that
he is otherwise identified with. His own interests were the same as Paul’s, even if he took a position contrary to the apostle of the gentiles on those issues. He was interested in “works of the Law,” not “good deeds.”

In this connection it is interesting to notice which sins and failures occupy the author of the letter. They are by and large not explicit violations of the Torah but moral shortcomings such as showing favoritism, not controlling one’s speech, and failing to help those in need. So too, what is “true religion” for this author? It has little to do with specific requirements of the Torah per se. It involves “bridling” the tongue and “visiting orphans and widows in their affliction” (1:26–27). It also involves “keeping unstained from the world,” which would seem to open up the door for a discussion of cultural separatism. But instead of detailing the importance of maintaining Jewish identity in light of “the world’s” staining influence, the author speaks only of upright moral behavior. Again, this is not an “un-Jewish” concern; it simply is not the concern attested otherwise for James of Jerusalem. This author speaks of “fulfilling the entire Law” but says not a word about Sabbath, circumcision, purification laws, kashrut, or festivals.
¹¹