Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (88 page)

22
. “Paulus vertritt ja keineswegs den von Jak attackierten Glaubensbegriff.” Wilhelm Pratscher,
Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), p. 214.

23
. And so, I am obviously arguing against those who continue to read James through Lutheran eyes as standing in conflict with Paul himself, as for example, Lindemann,
Paulus in ältesten Christentum:
“James 2:14–26 in this regard must be understood as an explicit disagreement with Paul. James does not reject a ‘degenerate’ Paulinism … he simply rejects the assertion that humanity is justified by faith alone” (“Jak 2, 14–26 ist insofern zu verstehen als expliziter Widerspruch gegen Paulus. Jak wendet sich nicht gegen einen ‘entarteten’ Paulinismus … er wendet sich einfach gegen die Behauptung, daß der Mensch aus Glauben allein gerechtgesprochen werde,” p. 248). Lindemann does acknowledge that James’s “misreading” of Paul corresponds to what is found in post-Pauline authors who favored his teaching (Eph. 2:8–9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5–7; 1 Clem. 32:4; Pol. Phil. 1:3). But that is just the point. James is attacking a later understanding of Paul embodied in forged Pauline traditions by later Paulinists.

24
.
James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James
, tr. Michael W. Williams (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976).

25
. David R. Nienhuis,
Not by Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon
(Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2007).

26
. Irenaeus does not directly quote James, but he does, like James, follow a quotation of Gen 15:6 with the comment that Abraham “was called a friend of God”
(Adv. Haer
. 4.16.2). Nienhuis discounts this evidence on the simple grounds that Abraham is called the “friend of God” in Jewish literature as well (p. 36). But the point is the quotation and the epithet are combined in precisely the same way in both James and Irenaeus. That is hard to imagine as a historical accident.

27
. It is too easy for Nienhuis to claim that the author hid his anti-Marcionite agenda so as not to be guilty of anachronism; one could just as well argue that the author was anti-Valentinian, anti-Thomasine, or anti-Sethian.

28
. Matthias Konradt, “Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus,” in Petra V. Gemünden et al., eds.,
Der Jakobusbrief: Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der ‘strohernen Epistel’
” (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2003), pp. 16–53. Thus the parallels of James 1:2–3 with 1 Pet. 1:6–7 in particular show that the relationship was probably on the literary level
“[begegnet man] in der gesamten antiken Literatur nur an den genannten beiden Stellen.” Konradt, “Jakobus, der Gerechte: Erwägung zur Verfasserfiktion des Jakobusbriefes,” in Jörg Frey et al., eds.,
Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion
, p. 579. Cf. also James 4:6–10 with 1 Pet. 5c–9 (both replace LXX
with
) and James 1:18, 21 with 1 Pet. 1:22–2:2 (conversion as rebirth).

29
. An issue raised, for example, in Jörg Frey, “Autorfiktion und Gegnerbild im Judasbrief und im Zweiten Petrusbrief,” in Frey et al. eds.,
Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion
, pp. 683–732.

30
. J. Daryl Charles,
Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude
(Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press, 1993), p. 77. Charles goes astray only in trying to explain these similarities as deriving from the circumstance that the two authors were writing in the same Jewish Galilean milieu, as if both would have had similar training in Greek composition. Given what we have seen about literacy rates in rural Galilee, Frey “Autorfiktion und Gegnerbild” is much more convincing in seeing in these linguistic parallels evidence for literary dependence.

31
. Anton Vögtle,
Der Judasbrief. Der 2 Petrusbrief
(Düsseldorf: Benzinger Verlag, 1994), p. 17.

32
. For a list of scholars on both sides since 1880, see Richard Bauckham,
Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church
(London: T&T Clark, 1990), p. 174 n. 261. Bauckham himself makes a spirited defense for authenticity.

33
. See, for example, Peter H. Davids,
The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude
, who instances Paul’s usage in 2 Cor. 13:5 (“your faith”), and Gal 1:23 (“preaching the faith he once tried to destroy”). But neither reference means what Jude means by “the faith.” The first is a reference to “your faith”—which is not a body of knowledge or truths to be confessed; the latter reference uses the term to refer to a group of believers who put their trust in Christ. Again, that is different from “the body of knowledge that we call the faith.” Even Davids admits that the use of the term in Jude compares most favorably with the Pastorals.

34
. On Jude as a “peasant,” see p. 219, n. 54.

35
. The unreflective claims of R. Bauckham notwithstanding (see Richard J. Bauckham,
Jude, 2 Peter
, WBC, 50, Waco, TX: Word, 1983, pp. 6–16, esp. pp. 15–16). Writing literacy did not come from hearing others speak the language and picking up conversational Greek for oneself. It took substantial training in a school setting, requiring years of hard work. See pp. 242–47.

36
. Bauckham,
Jude, 2 Peter
, p. 6.

37
.
Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude
, pp. 62–63.

38
. So Bauckham, who argues that in two quotations (vv. 12, 13) the author bases his argument on wording found in Hebrew, not Greek, text; in three references to the OT (vv. 11, 12, 23) his vocabulary does not correspond to that of the LXX; p. 7. This assumes, of course, that the LXX text available to us today was a stable entity then as well.

39
. So Bauckham, p. 7.

40
. As I have repeatedly stated, becoming reading-literate in just one language took years and considerable resources; becoming writing-literate—at the level required to compose a book—took still more years. And that was in one’s native tongue. To become writing-literate in a second language required intensive training. Where would Jude have found the time or resources to manage this training? It is true that his brother, Jesus, may have been extraordinary among his townspeople for learning to read (Hebrew), but that is a far cry from being able to compose a book in Hebrew, let alone in Greek. And everything suggests that Jesus was the outstanding exception in the family. Anyone who suggests that a person like the historical Jude could have learned Greek composition simply by traveling the world as a missionary has not taken seriously the scholarship on ancient literacy and on the educational systems of antiquity. Contrast Bauckham: “if his [Jude’s] missionary travels took him among strongly Hellenized Jews there is no reason why he should not have deliberately improved his command of Greek to increase his effectiveness as a preacher”; p. 15.

41
. Frederik Wisse, “The Epistle of Jude.”

42
. Ibid., p. 136.

43
. Gerhard Sellin, “Die Häretiker des Judasbriefes,”
ZNW
77 (1986): 206–25.

44
.
Jude, 2 Peter
, pp. 11–13.

45
. Sellin, “Die Häretiker,” goes too far in thinking that the
of Jude 4 (“this condemnation”) is inexplicable as a reference to the judgment described in v. 15, since there it is
rather than
In his view it is a cross-reference back to Rom. 3:8. But it is hardly conceivable that a reader would make that link rather than the other, especially since the two words can be used synonymously, and in 15 it is found in a quotation (it obviously is not referring to the judgment of v. 6, as that refers to the angels, or of v. 9, which is about Michael and the Devil; only vv. 4 and 15 refer to the judgment of humans).

46
. Sellin, “Die Häretiker,” p. 211, n. 17.

47
. Ibid.; Jörg Frey, “Autorfiktion und Gegnerbild im Judasbrief und im Zweiten Petrusbrief,” in Jörg Frey et al., eds.,
Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion
, pp. 683–732.

48
. Sellin “Die Häretiker,” argues that vv. 6–7 are part of the polemic against the opponents, but this is taking the case a step too far. These two verses indicate past instances of judgment against the disobedient, not charges against the false teachers.