I have added about 40 more titles to the Recent James Scholarship page. They are in chronological order there, so I list them below in alphabetical order. A few of the titles are not entirely related to James, but they do touch on James.

Andria, Solomon. 2006. “James.” Pages 1509-16 in Africa Bible Commentary. Ed. By Tokunboh Adeyemo. Nairobi: Word Alive Publishers.

Bond, Helen K. 2002. “Book Review: James the Just.” Expository Times 113: 278.

Bottini, Claudio. 1998. “Letter of James (1): Content and the Theological Message of the Letter of James.” Essay prepared by the faculty of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem.

Bottini, Claudio. 1998. “Letter of James (2): The Moral Message of the Letter of James.” Essay prepared by the faculty of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem.

Bottini, Claudio. 1998. “Letter of James (3): Confession of Sins and Intercession (I).” Essay prepared by the faculty of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem.

Bottini, Claudio. 1998. “Letter of James (4): Confession of Sins and Intercession (II).” Essay prepared by the faculty of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem.

Bowman, Christopher. 2000. “Review of Patrick J. Hartin’s A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James.” Review of Biblical Literature.

Byron, Gay L. 2007. “James.” In True to Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 461-75.

Cargal, Timothy B. 1999. “James.” In Full Life Bible Commentary to the New Testament, 1401-29. Ed. by French L. Arrington and Roger Stronstad. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Catchpole, David. 1991. “Book Review: The Enigma of James.” Expository Times 103: 26.

Cranfield, C. E. B. 1990. “Book Review: James.” Expository Times 102: 23.

Davids, Peter H. 2000. “Review of Todd C. Penner’s The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient Christian Letter.” Review of Biblical Literature.

Deppe, Dean B. 1990. The Sayings of Jesus in the Paraenesis of James: A PDF Revision of the Doctoral Dissertation The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James.

Eve, Eric. 2005. “Book Review: James and Jude.” Expository Times 117: 35.

Felder, Cain Hope. 1982. “Wisdom, Law and Social Concern in the Epistle of James.” Ph.D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, New York.

Felder, Cain Hope. 1998. “James.” In A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, ed. by William R. Farmer, 1786-1801. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Foster, Paul. 2006. “Book Review: Studies on James.” Expository Times 117: 481.

Green, Joel B. 2002. “Review of Matt A. Jackson-McCabe’s Logos and Law in the Letter of James: The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses and the Law of Freedom.” Review of Biblical Literature.

Hagner, Donald A. 2008. “A Response to John P. Meier’s ‘Did the Historical Jesus Prohibit All Oaths?” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6: 25-32.

Hill, David. 1981. “Book review of S. Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 13: 123-26.

Hockman, David. 2006. “Sanctification Day by Day.” Paper presented at the Conference on Baptist Fundamentalism. Watertown, WI: Maranatha Baptist Bible College.

Horbury, William. 1977. “Book Review: James.” Expository Times 89: 88.

Johnson, David Keith. 1971. “James’ Use of the Old Testament.” Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary.

Gwilliam, G. H. 1893. “Mayor’s ‘Epistle of St. James’.” Expository Times 4: 345.

Klawans, Jonathan. 2008. “The Prohibition of Oaths and Contra-scriptural Halakhot: A Response to John P. Meier.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6: 33-48.

Meier, John P. 2007. “Did the Historical Jesus Prohibit All Oaths? Part 1.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 5: 175-204.

Meier, John P. 2008. “Did the Historical Jesus Prohibit All Oaths? Part 2.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6: 3-24.

Meier, John P. 2008. “The Historical Jesus and Oaths: A Response to Donald A. Hagner and Jonathan Klawans.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6: 49-58.

Pahl, Michael W. 2006. “The ‘Gospel’ and the ‘Word’: Exploring Some Early Christian Patterns.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29: 211-27.

Penner, Todd C. 2000. “Review of Martin Klein’s ‘Ein vollkommenes Werk’: Vollkommenheit, Gesetz und Gericht als theologische Themen des Jakobusbriefes.” Review of Biblical Literature.

Reis, David M. 2005. “Book Review: The Letter of James: Historical and Theological Essays.” Expository Times 116: 173.

Robbins, Vernon K. 1996. “Making Christian Culture in the Epistle of James.” Scriptura 59: 341-351.

Robbins, Vernon K. 2002. “A Comparison of Mishnah Gittin 1:1-2:2 and James 2:1-13 from a Perspective of Greco-Roman Rhetorical Elaboration.” In Jack N. Lightstone, Mishnah and the Social Formation of the Early Rabbinic Guild: A Socio-Rhetorical Approach. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 11. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion: 201-216.

Scott, J. Julius, Jr. 1979. “Non-Canonical References to James, the Relative of Jesus.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. New York, NY.

Scott, J. Julius, Jr. 1982. “James the Relative of Jesus and the Expectation of an Eschatological Priest.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25: 323-331.

Scott, J. Julius, Jr. 1999. “Commas and the Christology of the Epistle of James.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Danvers, MA.

Spitaler, Peter. 2006. “Doubt or Dispute (Jude 9 and 22-23): Rereading a Special New Testament Meaning through the Lense of Internal Evidence.” Biblica 87: 201-222.

Spitaler, Peter. 2007. “Doubting in Acts 10:27?” Filología Neotestamentaria 20: 81-93.

Webb, Robert L., and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. 2007. Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James. Library of New Testament Studies 342. London: T&T Clark.

I just added nearly 100 new titles to the Recent James Scholarship page. About 40 of them are German titles and there’s also a handful of French titles. They’re in chronological order there, but I list the new titles below in alphabetical order. I basically tried to pick out the James titles from the recent bibliographies found in Niebuhr and Wall’s The Catholic Epistles & Apostolic Tradition and from Batten’s What Are They Saying About James? I was surprised that a lot of these weren’t already here. I know there’s still many more that I haven’t entered, but this is a good jump.

Adamson, J. B. 1993. The Epistle of James. 2d ed. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Adamson, J. B. 1989. James: The Man and His Message. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Avemarie, F. 2001. “Die Werke des Gesetzes im Spiegel des Jakobusbriefs: A Very Old Perspective on Paul.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 98: 282-309.

Baasland, E. 1988. “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jokobusbriefes.” Pages 3646-84 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung 2.25.5. Ed. by W. Haase and H. Temporini. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Baker, W. R. 1995. Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle of James. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Balz, H. 1993. “Der Brief des Jakobus.” Pages 1-59 in Balz and Schrage, Die “Katholischen” Briefe: Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Johannes und Judas. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Balz, H., and W. Schrage. 1993. Die “Katholischen” Briefe: Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Johannes und Judas. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973; 4^th ed., 1993.

Batten, Alicia. 2004. “God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor?” New Testament Studies, 50: 257-72.

Bede the Venerable. 1985. Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles. Translated by D. Hurst. Cistercian Studies 82. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications.

Bernheim, Pierre Antoine. 1997. James, Brother of Jesus. Trans. by John Bowden. London: SCM Press.

Beyschlag, W. 1874. “Der Jakobusbrief als urchristliches Geschichtsdenkmal.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 48: 105-66.

Bockmuehl, M. 1999. “Antioch and James the Just.” Pages 155-98 in James the Just and Christian Origins. Ed. by B. Chilton and C. A Evans. Leiden: Brill.

Boyle, M. O’Rourke. 1985. “The Stoic Paradox of James 2:10.” New Testament Studies, 31: 611-17.

Brooks, J. A. 1969. “The Place of James in the New Testament Canon.” Scottish Journal of Theology, 12: 41-51.

Brosend II, William F. 2004. James and Jude. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brückner, W. 1874. “Zur Kritik des Jakobusbriefes.” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 17: 530-41.

Burchard, Christoph. 1990. “Nächstenliebegebot, Dekalog und Gesetz in Jak 2,8-11.” Pages 517-33 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Ed. by Erhard Blum, Christian Macholz, and Ekkehard W. Stegemann. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.

Burchard, Christoph. 1991. “Zu einigen christologischen Stellen des Jakobusbriefes.” Pages 353-68 in Anfänge der Christologie. Ed. by Cilliers Breytenbach and Henning Paulsen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Carroll, K. L. 1961. “The Place of James in the Early Church.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 44: 49-67.

Catchpole, D. R. 1977. “Paul, James and Apostolic Decree.” New Testament Studies, 23: 428-44.

Chilton, B., and C. Evans. 1999. James the Just and Christian Origins. Leiden: Brill.

Chilton, B., and J. Neusner. 2001. The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Coker, R. Jason. 2007. “Nativism in James 2:14-26: A Post-Colonial Reading?” In Reading James with New Eyes. Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James, ed. by Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg, 27-48. LNTS 342. London: T&T Clark.

Cooper, R. M. 1968. “Prayer: A Study in Matthew and James.” Encounter, 29: 268-77.

Dautzenberg, G. 1981. “Ist das Schwurverbot Mt 5,33-37; Jak 5,12 ein Beispiel für die Thorakritik Jesu?” Biblische Zeitschrift NF 25: 47-66.

Davids, Peter H. 1988. “The Epistle of James in Modern Discussion.” Pages 3621-45 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung 2.25.5. Ed. by W. Haase and H. Temporini. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Davids, Peter H. 1985. “James and Jesus.” In The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels. Ed. by David Wenham. Vol. 5 of Gospel Perspectives. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 63-84.

Dibelius, Martin. 1984. Der Brief des Jakobus: Mit Ergänzungen von H. Greeven, mit einem Literaturverzeichnis und Nachtrag hg. v. F. Hahn. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921. 12^th ed., 1984.

Dillman, C. N. 1978. “A Study of Some Theological and Literary Comparisons of the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of James.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh.

Elliott, John H. 1993. “The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective: Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of Replication,” Biblical Theology Bulletin, 23:71-81.

Farmer, W. R. 1999. “James the Lord’s Brother, According to Paul.” In James the Just and Christian Origins. Ed. by B. Chilton and C. A Evans. Leiden: Brill, 133-53.

Feine, P. 1893. Der Jakobusbrief nach Lehranschauungen und Entstehungsverhältnissen. Eisenach: Wilckens.

Ferris, T. E. S. 1939. “The Epistle of James in Relation to I Peter.” Church Quarterly Review, 128: 303-8.

Frankemölle, Hubert. 1994. Der Brief des Jakobus. Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 17.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.

Frankemölle, Hubert. 1990. “Das semantische Netz des Jakobusbriefes: Zur Einheit eines umstrittenen Briefes.” Biblische Zeitschrift, 34: 161-97.

Gammie, John J. 1990. “Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre.” Semeia, 50: 41-77.

Gowan, D. E. 1993. “Wisdom and Endurance in James.” Horizons in Biblical Theology, 15: 145-53.

Gryglewicz, F. 1961. “L’Épître de St. Jacques et l’Évangile de St. Matthieu.” Roczniki Teologiczno-Kanoniczne, 8:33-55.

Hahn, F., and P. Müller. 1998. “Der Jakobusbrief.” Theologische Rundschau, 63:1-73.

Halson, B.R. 1968. “The Epistle of James: ‘Christian Wisdom?’” Studia Evangelica 4 = Texte und Untersuchungen 102. Berlin: de Gruyter, 308-14.

Harner, Philip B. 2004. What Are They Saying About the Catholic Epistles? New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist.

Hartin, P. J. 1989. “James and the Q Sermon on the Mount/Plain.” In Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers. Ed. by David J. Lull. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 440-57.

Hartin, P. J. 1996. “Who is Wise and Understanding Among You? (James 3:13): An Analysis of Wisdom, Eschatology and Apocalypticism in the Epistle of James.” In Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 483-503.

Hauck, F. 1926. Der Brief des Jakobus. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 16. Leipzig: Deichert.

Haupt, E. 1896. “F. Spitta, Der Brief des Jakobus.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 69: 747-68.

Heiligenthal, R. 1999. “‘Petrus und Jakobus, der Gerechte’: Gedanken zur Rolle der beiden Säulenapostel in der Geschichte des frühen Christentums.” Zeitschrift fürNeues Testament, 2: 32-40.

Hengel, M. 1987. “Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik.” In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. Ed. by G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 248-78.

Hengel, M. 1985. “Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste ‘Papst’?” In Glaube und Eschatologie. Ed. by Erich Gräßer and Otto Merk. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 71-104.

Hengel, M. 2002. Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften, 3. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 141. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Hoppe, R. 2001. “Der Jakobusbrief als briefliches Zeugnis hellenistisch und hellenistisch-jüdisch geprägter Religiositä.” In Der neue Mensch in Christus. Ed. by J. Beutler. Quaestiones disputatae 190. Freiburg: Herder, 164-89.

Hoppe, R. 1977. Der theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes. Forschung zur Bibel 28. Würzburg: Echter-Verlag.

Huther, J. E. 1870. Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über den Brief des Jacobus. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921. 3^rd ed., 1984.

Johnson, L. T. 1998. “The Letter of James.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible 12. Nashville: Abingdon, 117-225.

Kittel, G. 1942. “Der geschichtliche Ort des Jakobusbriefes.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 41: 71-105.

Kloppenborg, John S. 1998. “Status und Wohltägtigkeit bei Paulus und Jakobus.” In Von Jesus zum Christus. Christologischen Studien. Festgabe für Paul Hoffman zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by R. Hoppe and U. Busse, 127-54. BZNW 93. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Konradt, M. 2003. “Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus: Erwägungen zum historischen Kontext des Jakobusbriefes im Lichte der traditionsgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zum 1 Petr und zum Hintergrund der Autorfiktion.” Pages 16-53 in Der Jakobusbrief: Beiträge zur Aufwertung der “strohernen Epistel.” Ed. by P. von Gemünden, M. Konradt, and G. Theißen. Münster: Lit.

Konradt, M. 1999. “Theologie in der ‘strohernen Epistel’: Ein Literaturbericht zu neueren Ansätzen in der Exegese des Jakobusbriefes.” Verkündigung und Forschung, 44: 54-78.

Krodel, G. 1995. The General Letters: Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter, Jude, 1-2-3 John. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Kuechler, C. G. 1818. De rhetorica epistolae Jacobi indole. Leipzig: Glueck.

Kürzdörfer, K. 1966. “Der Charakter des Jakobusbriefes: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit den Thesen von A. Meyer und M. Dibelius.” Ms. diss., Tübingen.

Limberis, Vasiliki. 1997. “The Provenance of the Caliphate Church: James 2:17-26 and Galatians 3 Reconsidered.” In Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, 397-420. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Lohse, E. 1957. “Glaube und Werke: Zur Theologie des Jakobusbriefes.” Zeitschrift für di neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 48: 1-22.

Luck, Ulrick. 1971. “Der Jakobusbrief und die Theologie des Paulus.” Theologie und Glaube 61: 161-79.

Ludwig, M. 1994. Wort als Gesetz: Eine Untersuchung zum Verständnis von “Wort” und “Gesetz” in israelitisch-frühjüdischen und neutestamentlichen Schriften: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Jakobusbriefes. Europäische Hochschulschriften, 23, 502. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Marcus, Joel. 1982. “The Evil Inclination in the Epistle of James.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44: 606-21.

Martin, G. C. 1907. “The Epistle of James as a Storehouse of the Sayings of Jesus.” Pages 174-84 in The Expositor. Ed. by Samuel Cox, William Robertson Nicoll, and James Moffatt. Seventh Series 3. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Mayor, Joseph B. 1892. The Epistle of James: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Comments. London: Macmillan, 1892. 2d ed., 1897. 3d ed., 1913. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.

McKnight, S. 1999. “A Parting within the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity.” Pages 83-129 in James the Just and Christian Origins. Ed. by Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden: Brill.

Meyer, A. 1930. Das Rätsel des Jakobusbriefes. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für di neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 10. Gießen: Töpelmann.

Michl, J. 1968. Die katholischen Briefe. 2d ed. Regensburger Neues Testament 8.2. Regensburg: Pustet.

Mussner, Franz. 1964. Der Jakobusbrief: Auslegung. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 13/1. Freiburg: Herder, 3d ed., 1975. 4^th ed., 1981. 5^th ed., 1987.

Niebuhr, K.-W. 2004. “A New Perspective on James? Neuere Forschungen zum Jakobusbrief.” Theologische Literaturzeitung, 129: 1019-1044.

Niebuhr, K.-W. 2000. Review of M. Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief. Theologische Literaturzeitung, 125: 756-59.

Niebuhr, K.-W. 1999. “Tora ohne Tempel: Paulus und der Jakobusbrief im Zusammenhang frühjüdischer Torarezeption für die Diaspora.” Pages 427-60 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel—Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Ed. by B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Painter, J. 2006. “James as the First Catholic Epistle.” Interpretation, 60.3: 245-59.

Painter, J. 1999. Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2d ed. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2004.

Patry, R. 1899. L’Épitre de Jacques: dans ses rapports avec la prédication de Jésus. Alençon: Guy.

Popkes, W. 1986. Adressaten, Situation, und Form des Jakobusbriefes. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 125/126. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk.

Popkes, W. 1994. “The Law of Liberty (James 1:25; 2:12).” Pages 131-42 in International Theological Studies: Contributions of Baptist Scholars 1. Ed. by the Faculty of Baptist Theological Seminary Rüschlikon. Bern: Peter Lang.

Popkes, W. 1996. Paränese und Neues Testament. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 168. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk.

Porter, S. E. 1991. “Is δίψυχος (James 1,8; 4,8) a ‘Christian’ Word?” Biblica 71: 469-98.

Reese, James M. 1982. “The Exegete as Sage: Hearing the Message of James.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 12: 82-85.

Rose, V. 1896. “L’Épitre de saint Jacques est-elle un écrit chrétien?” Revue biblique, 5: 519-34.

Schlatter, A. 1932. Der Brief des Jakobus. Stuttgart: Calwer.

Seitz, O. J. F. 1944. “The Relationship of the Shepherd of Hermas to the Epistle of James.” Journal of Biblical Literature, 63: 131-40.

Spitta, F. 1896. Der Brief des Jakobus. Vol. 2 of Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristentums. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Syreeni, Kari. 2002. “James and the Pauline Legacy: Power Play in Corinth?” In Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity. Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen, ed. by Ismo Dunderberg, Christopher Tuckett and Kari Syreeni, 397-437. NovTSup 103. Leiden: Brill.

Theißen, G. 2003. “Nächstenliebe und Egalität: Jak 2,1-13 als Höhepunkt urchristlicher Ethik.” Pages 120-42 in Der Jakobusbrief. Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der “strohernen Epistel.” Ed. by Petra von Gemünden, Matthias Konradt, and Gerd Theißen. Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel 3. Münster: Lit.

Tiller, Patrick A. 1998. “The Rich and Poor in James. An Apocalyptic Proclamation.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 37: 909-20.

van der Westhuizen, J. D. N. 1991. “Stylistic Techniques and their Functions in James 2:14-26.” Neotestamentica 25: 89-107.

Vhymeister, Nancy. 1995. “The Rich Man in James 2: Does Ancient Patronage Illumine the Text?” Andrews University Seminary Studies 33: 265-83.

Ward, R. 1992. “James of Jerusalem in the First Two Centuries.” Pages 779-812 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung 2.26.1. Ed. by W. Haase and H. Temporini. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Wifstrand, A. 1948. “Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and Peter.” Studia theologica 1: 170-82.

Wilson, Walter T. 2002. “Sin as Sex and Sex with Sin: The Anthropology of James 1:12-15.” Harvard Theological Review, 95:147-68.

Windisch, H. 1911. Die katholischen Briefe. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 4.2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2d ed., 1930.

Wolmarens, J. L. P. 1994. “Male and Female Sexual Imagery: James 1:14-15, 18.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 5: 134-41.

Wuellner, W. H. 1978. “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetorik und Textpragmatik.” Linguistica Biblica, 43: 5-66.

There were 5 papers on James presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society last week. The Recent James Scholarship page on this site has been updated with these plus the 12 papers from the SBL Annual Meeting and the 8 articles in the recent SNTS volume. A total of 29 titles on James in 2009 so far.

From ETS…

Baker, William. 2009. “Global Christianity and the Gospel According to James.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society; New Orleans, LA, November 18.

Kamell, Mariam J. 2009. “Endurance unto Salvation: The Witness of 1 Peter and James.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society; New Orleans, LA, November 18 (also presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting; New Orleans, LA, November 22.

Lim, Do-Kyun. 2009. “Rhetoric Sensitive Sermon in the Epistle of James: Revitalizing Biblical Rhetorical Effects from James’ Protreptic Epistle.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society; New Orleans, LA, November 18 (also presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting; New Orleans, LA, November 22).

Savelle, Charles. 2009. “A Theology of God in the Epistle of James.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society; New Orleans, LA, November 18.

Sawilowski, Michael. 2009. “Who’s the Man? James 2 and the Jesus Tradition of Matthew 2.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society; New Orleans, LA, November 18.

Wayne Leman over at the Better Bibles Blog has posted on the translation of Greek articles here, focusing specifically on occurrences of “the house” in Matthew where a house has not previously been introduced in the text. One discourse pattern we often find is that definite nouns are used only after that noun has been introduced in the text in an indefinite manner. However, definiteness is not always dependent on the article in Greek. I have posted my response to Wayne in the comments of his post. I’ll only repeat part of that here…

When I read “the house” in the gospels about a house that I have not been introduced to yet, this communicates to me that there was a definite house that Jesus was going to. If the translation were to say “a house,” that would sound to me like Jesus was aimlessly meandering and randomly came across any house when he felt like it was time to stop. So in some of these cases, the ‘the’ doesn’t have to have the same discourse function that we often think of when it is used to refer back to a previously introduced noun. Rather, the article conceptualizes the noun in a certain way (perhaps even making it definite, although it is true that definiteness is not ultimately dependent upon the Greek article) for other reasons besides its previous occurence in the text.In Mt. 9:28, I like what the NLT has done here with “the house where he was staying.” That has the effect of communicating a certain definiteness, and it seems to be a very likely referent that is not too overly specific without other clues. Often times “going into the house” in Greek is the equivalent of our English “going home.” On the other hand, isn’t it possible that “the house” refers to Matthew’s house, the last house we hear of before Jesus was summoned to go to the synagogue leader’s house? Maybe not, since that interpretation would assume that Jesus stayed there for more than just dinner and was there for several days during which the disciples of John the Baptist came to him before the synagogue ruler came to him. Probably quite unlikely. Therefore, it seems that the best option is that Jesus is still in his own town (cf. 9:1), so “the house” is probably whatever house he’s staying in, perhaps even a family house, or ‘home’ as “the house” often means in Greek.

As for 13:36, it’s very possible that Jesus is back in his home town again, since 12:15 says that he left the area he had gone to after he left his home town. Also, his mother and brothers are back in the picture in 12:46. Mt. 13:1 refers to Jesus leaving “the house” and so 13:36 refers to him going into “the house.” It’s the same one he left, very definite even if we don’t want to go so far as to say it was his family home.

As for 17:25, this is Peter’s home town, (cf. Mt. 4:18) and we know that Peter’s mother-in-law had a house there (Mt. 8:14), so this is probably one of those places where “the house” is best understood as the definite idea of ‘home’.

Mt. 24:43 has “the house of him” because it has already referred to the ‘homeowner’.

Daniel Wallace discusses the uses and non-uses of the Greek article in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 206-290. I have summarized his discussion in 4 pages if anyone is interested.

As for the differences between the Greek and English uses of the article, it is best to try to identify why a Greek noun has the article in particular instances before deciding if the same meaning is communicated in English with or without the definite article.

Well, I see that Nick Norelli identified this blog here as having a focus on James, and it made me realize that although I have posted much on bibliographic resources for James, I haven’t posted much on James myself. So I thought I’d start making some short observations on James. I’ll start with verse 1.

Ἰάκωβος θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ χαίρειν.

James, a slave of God and of the Lord, Jesus, the Christ, to the twelve tribes in the diaspora: greetings!

Right away, you’ll notice an abundance of commas in my translation above. This is very intentional. Is “the Lord Jesus Christ” to be understood as one big proper name? I don’t think so. ‘Jesus’, of course, is a proper name, but what about ‘Lord’ and ‘Christ’? Certainly the authors of the New Testament wrote the name of Jesus in combination with ‘Lord’ and/or ‘Christ’ very frequently, and references to Jesus along with these titles became somewhat formulaic. However, even though the name of Jesus was commonly uttered along with ‘Lord’ and/or ‘Christ’, this in no way means that these titles lost their meaning, especially if there is evidence in the context that supports the possibility that the meaning of these titles is in view. So, in James 1:1, I see this as a statement by James that he is a slave of God and of the Lord. Who is the Lord? There’s only one Lord — Jesus. Jesus the Messiah (Christ).

I find myself being convinced of this by the argument that Julius Scott makes on this issue in his paper “Commas and the Christology of the Epistle of James.” This paper was presented in 1999 at the Evangelical Theological Society, National Meeting, in Danvers, MA. It used to be available on his webpage on the Wheaton College site, but that is no longer available since he is now retired. I can’t seem to find it elsewhere on the web. I reproduce the relevant portion here…

Punctuation, such as that which appears in our modern Greek texts and translations, is, of course, of recent vintage.  Hence, it is legitimate to ask if the authors, and much of early Christendom with them, may have assumed some relation between the terms other than that suggested by the lack of commas in our contemporary texts.  May they have intended “Lord, Jesus Christ,” “Lord Jesus, Christ (= [the] Messiah)”, or “Lord, Jesus, Christ (= [the] Messiah)”?

Paul gives us a glimpse into his world when he says,

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” — yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist (1 Cor 8:5-6).

It is interesting that in this context the RSV editors (but not those of the Nestle-Aland 26th edition of the Greek NT) insert a comma between “Lord” and “Jesus Christ,” thus placing “Jesus Christ” in apposition to “Lord” and defining which of the many lords is the intended reference.  Why, I ask, is specificity needed only here?  The situation to which Paul refers was rampant throughout the world of the NT.  There is, I suggest, evidence of just such an attempt for preciseness in the NT text itself.  Again, working from statistics gleaned from the RSV, six (17%) of the occurrences of “Lord Jesus” are prefaced with the  pronoun “our,” “our” precedes one of the two occurrences of “Lord Christ,” and the possessive pronoun is found forty-one times (or 65%) of the sixty three appearances of “Lord Jesus Christ”; the writers want to make clear that they refer solely to the Christian’s lord, “our Lord, [comma!] Jesus Christ.” Note that our statistical survey did not include such phrases with built-in specificity as “Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:39; Eph 3:11; 2 Tim 1:2), “Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 1:3), “Jesus our Lord” (Rom 4:24), “Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil 3:8), or “Christ Jesus the Lord” (Col 2:6).

Virtually all of the occurrences of “our Lord” are evidences of early, pre-punctuation precision in the Christian affirmation of belief that, in a world claiming “many lords,” it is none other than Jesus who is Lord.  Hence, I believe, the comma should follow kurios/lord in most cases where that title is followed by Jesus, Christ, or Jesus Christ; for the NT writers there was only one Lord (cf. Eph 4:5)!  A more accurate modern English translation would usually be “our Lord, [comma] Jesus Christ.”

Against this background we return to the Epistle of James. In the first verse we are confronted with the statement, “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1, RSV). Is it not legitimate, indeed mandatory, that we consider translating these words, “James, slave[1] of God and of the Lord, Jesus, the Messiah”? Such a rendering immediately transports us into a very different world than that often assumed for the epistle. It is a world of slaves and lords. And, for Christians, there is no Lord other than Jesus. In this Semitic world the Greek Christos is not merely part of a proper name but a reverential title, “The Anointed One.” Hence, James conveys the same affirmation as did Peter at Pentecost, “Jesus himself is both the Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:36).

Although we have preferred to translate “servant” (doulos) “slave,” it is noteworthy that Ralph Martin, rejecting a sociological sense, insists on “servant.” This, he notes, was a designation of honor and authority for such leaders as Moses, David, and the prophets. It may carry overtones of Phil 2:11 where the humiliated one received honor and glory.[2]

This introduction in 1:1 sets the stage for the epistle with phrases which, in a Jewish Christian setting, assume a high Christology. It erects the framework within which the epistle is to be understood.

---

[1] If the author was “James, the Lord’s brother,” a member of Jesus’ boyhood home, who during his public ministry did not “believe in him” (John 7:5), the self-designation “slave” (doulos) is all the more surprising.  It gives such terms as “Lord” and “Messiah” even more force.[2] James, 4-8.

 

So if the rest of the Letter of James is read in light of James having identified himself as “a slave of God and of the Lord, Jesus, the Christ [=Messiah], what happens?

This issue comes up again in James 2:1. We’ll look at that next time.

An updated PDF version of Dean Deppe’s doctoral dissertation, “The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James,” is now available online over at Jim Darlack’s blog, Old in the New. Deppe’s work includes an appendix listing the parallels that scholars have seen between James and the sayings of Jesus since 1833. The number ranges between 4 and 65. Deppe himself identifies 8 conscious allusions as well as themes from Jesus that form the “raw material” for James’s ethical teaching.

The conscious allusions in Deppe include…

ask and you will receive (James 1:5 = Matthew 7:7, Luke 11:9)

the kingdom belongs to the poor (James 2:5 = Luke 6:20b, Matthew 5:3)

ask and you will receive (James 4:2c-3 = Matthew 7:7, Luke 11:9)

those who laugh will mourn (James 4:9 = Luke 6:21, 25b)

the humble are exalted (James 4:10 = Matthew 23:12, Luke 14:11, Luke 18:14b)

woe to the rich (James 5:1 = Luke 6:24)

do not store up wealth (James 5:2-3a = Matthew 6:19-20, Luke 12:33b)

on oaths and truth-telling (James 5:12 = Matthew 5:33-37)

Notice here that there are two articles related to this topic of parallels in James to Jesus sayings by Patrick Hartin and John Kloppenborg in the recently published The Catholic Epistles & Apostolic Tradition. Also, see here three papers on this topic (Paul Foster, Patrick Hartin, Wesley Wachob) being presented this weekend at SBL in New Orleans.

Why can’t we translate the non-imperative clauses in Romans 12:9-13 as something other than imperatives? I don’t see any reason why not. In fact, I believe that translating these non-imperative forms as commands puts too much emphasis on our human effort that just isn’t in the text at this point. The introduction of 14 commands in this passage also has the effect of hiding the more relevant theme that must be continuing in this passage of the Spirit’s control of our minds (cf. Rom. 8:4ff; 12:2,6). The tension within the ethics of the New Testament is that we are frequently commanded to do what we are only able to do through the gift of the Holy Spirit in our lives. The pages of the New Testament do also give plain descriptions of what Spirit-regenerated life looks like, and these should not all be reduced to the rhetoric of direct instructions.

Understood descriptively, vv. 9-13 offer a detailed picture of what love looks like after the preceding discussion of gifts (analagous to 1 Cor. 12-13). It is not a series of orders, but it would have been heard as an attractive description of what love does. Certainly this should motivate us to those actions, but the real power behind any of these loving behaviors is the control of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. These aren’t just mitigated commands. The expository nature of the text leaves more room for figuring in the role of the Spirit.

The real difficulty is how to translate this passage into English when there are some surprising subject-verb agreement features of the Greek text that can’t be automatically carried over into English. The first phrase says “Love (singular) [is] unhypocritical (singular),” but the following supporting phrases are all plural verbal participles (e.g. “abhorring (plural) evil, clinging (plural) to the good…”).

I think the main reason all our English translations go the way of expressing all 14 of these clauses as commands where there isn’t a single imperative verb is this: in trying to do justice to the apparent discrepancy of the lack of number agreement between the first singular clause and the following plural participles, making them all commands apparently solves this problem in English.  By supplying an implied command (“let be”) for the first clause (“let love be unhypocritical”), there is no longer any lack of agreement between the subject of the first clause and the assumed plural “you” subject of all the following participles. The subject now is always ‘you’.

The big problem, however, is that the grammatical subject of this whole paragraph is ‘love’. The traditional English solution loses that and shifts the entire focus to ‘you’. A second person plural subject is not expressed in any form in any of these 14 clauses in vv. 9-13 (nor in the previous 5 verses).

A better understanding of the apparent mismatch in the Greek subject-verb agreement of vs. 9 is that Greek normally allows the semantics of the situation to dictate the forms of the subject and verb. This is regularly seen in various disagreements for person and number when there are compound subjects, and for a variety of semantic reasons (see my summary of the issues here). In Rom. 12:9 the disagreement comes about because the true initial subject of the paragraph is the singular notion of love, but Paul is talking about love that is expressed by the multiple members of the body of Christ. The mismatch in number agreement happens when the singular abstract concept of ‘love’ is introduced and then described by participles that are plural due to the multiple agents in view.

Here’s my first attempt at a translation. Notice that the first command does not occur until vs. 14…

⁹ Love is unhypocritical: it is people abhorring evil, clinging to the good, ¹⁰ affectionate to one another with brotherly love, leading the way in showing honor to one another, ¹¹ not shrunk back in eagerness, boiling over in the Spirit, serving the Lord, ¹² rejoicing in hope, enduring suffering, persevering in prayer, ¹³ sharing their possessions for the needs of the saints, pursuing love between strangers. ¹⁴ Bless the ones pursuing you; bless and do not curse.

After translating this passage to more carefully reflect what is happening in the original text, a few things stand out that are not so apparent when all the dependent clauses are translated as separate commands…

The single sentence that includes vv. 9-13 starts off with the broad thematic content of the paragraph, namely, that love is unhypocritical. This theme is illustrated by a broad movement in the following participles from showing love to the brothers in the community who are called saints to a love that endures suffering and is sought after even between strangers.

The transition from the string of participial and adjective phrases in vv. 9-13 to the commands in vs. 14 is marked by the double use of DIWKW ‘pursue’ in vs. 13 in the sense of ‘hospitality’ (or more literally “pursuing love between strangers”) and in vs. 14 in the sense of “bless the ones pursuing (i.e. persecuting) you.”

Understood as a description rather than a series of commands, it also becomes more reasonable to understand the TW PNEUMATI as “the Spirit” rather than as the human spirit that one can manipulate. And that, I believe, is the whole point of Paul using participles in this paragraph rather than imperative verbs. It’s the Spirit’s work, first of all, before it is our own.

I just got my new copy of The Catholic Epistles & Apostolic Tradition, a volume edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and Robert Wall that has come out of the SNTS Seminar on the Catholic Epistles in 2001-2006.

I’m pleased to see that it is dedicated to Professor Dr. Donald J. Verseput (1952-2004), the most prolific contributor of journal articles on James in the first few years of the new millennium. There is no doubt that his writings have had some significant influence on the New Perspective on James that we are now enjoying.

Of the 16 articles in the volume, I’m thrilled to see that 8 of them focus on James.

The dates in the following list are only found on the Contents page for this book on the Baylor University Press website. However, many of the titles in the book are slightly different than the titles found there. I’m guessing that means these are revised editions of articles originally delivered at SNTS meetings. If so, the dates below simply point us to the original papers.

One article that appeared on the Baylor page but is not found in the book…

C. C. Newman, “The Theology of the Apostles: The Convictional World Beneath the Catholic Epistles” (2003)

Here are the contents…

Part I
Introduction
1. Robert W. Wall and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “The SNTS Seminar on the Catholic Epistles”

Part II
Catholic Epistles as a Collection
2. Robert W. Wall, “A Unifying Theology of the Catholic Epistles: A Canonical Approach” (2003)

Part III
James
3. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “James in the Minds of the Recipients: A Letter from Jerusalem” (2004)
4. Patrick Hartin, “James and the Jesus Tradition: Some Theological Reflections and Implications” (2001)
5. John S. Kloppenborg, “The Reception of the Jesus Tradition in James” (2003)
6. Matthias Konradt, “The Historical Context of the Letter of James in Light of its Traditio-Historical Relations with First Peter” (2001)
7. Robert W. Wall, “Acts and James” (2002)
8. Robert W. Wall, “The Priority of James” (2004)
9. John Painter, “James as the First Catholic Epistle” (2006)
10. David R. Nienhuis, “The Letter of James as a Canon-Conscious Pseudepigraph” (2006)

Part IV
Petrine Epistles
11. Reinhard Feldmeier, “Salvation and Anthropology in First Peter” (2001)
12. Lutz Doering, “First Peter as Early Christian Diaspora Letter” (2003)

Part V
Johannine Epistles
13. John Painter, “The Johannine Epistles as Catholic Epistles” (2002)

Part VI
Jude
14. Jörg Frey, “The Epistle of Jude between Judaism and Hellenism” (2002)
15. Scott Hafemann, “Salvation in Jude 5 and the Argument of 2 Peter 1:3-11″ (2005)

Part VII
Conclusion
16. Ernst Baasland, “A Prolegomenon to a History of the ‘Postapostolic Era’ (Early Christianity 70-150 CE)” (2005)

Wow! I count twelve (12) papers on James at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans coming up November 21 – 24. The presentation of these twelve papers is dispersed among eight (8) different section units. How appropriate since James was addressed to the twelve tribes in the dispersion, and one proposal for the letter’s organization divides it into twelve sections. Well, I’m sure that has nothing to do with it.

Below is a listing of the papers with their abstracts organized under their respective program units. Oh, how I wish I could go!

Jewish Christianity / Christian Judaism
Joint Session With: Jewish Christianity / Christian Judaism, Didache in Context
11/21/2009,  9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Clayton N. Jefford, Saint Meinrad School of Theology, Presiding

Patrick J. Hartin, Gonzaga University
“Ethos and Ethics of the Didache: Affinity with Other Early Jesus Groups Within Judaism?”
The ethos of a people or a community points to its very identity and vision: this is who we are and this is what distinguishes us from other groups or communities. The ethos gives rise to the ethics of the community: those rules, values, guidelines to which members of the community adhere and which express their identity. This paper analyzes the Didache with a view to disclosing the ethos and identity of the community which it reflects. This analysis also leads to an examination of the ethical admonitions occurring as boundary markers that give expression to the identity of the community of the Didache. The ethical admonitions of the Didache all occur in a theological rather than Christological context. Among the ethical admonitions, attention is given to the Jewish Two Ways of Did 3:1-6; the Double Command of Love; and concepts such as “being perfect” (teleios) and “being double-minded” (dipsychein). The second part of this paper examines the ethos, identity and similar ethical admonitions within three other documents from Jesus groups within Judaism, namely the Letter of James, the Sermon on the Mount and the Two Ways teaching found in the Letter of Barnabas. Based on this investigation, possible affinities among these documents will emerge.

Q
11/21/2009,  4:00 PM to 6:30 PM,
Robert L. Webb, McMaster University, Presiding
Theme: James and Q

Paul Foster, University of Edinburgh
“Q and James: A Source Critical Conundrum”
This paper provides an overview of the major theories that seek to account for the similar traditions that exist in Q and James. First, the nature of the different types of parallels will be analyzed. Secondly, the major critical suggestions which account for these parallels will be assessed. Thirdly, the paper will discuss the significance of the existence of such parallel sources of tradition for accessing material which may be traced back to the historical Jesus.

Patrick J. Hartin, Gonzaga University
“Wholeness in James and the Q Source”
The sayings traditions of Jesus of Nazareth lie at the foundation of the moral exhortations in both the Letter of James are the Q Source. An examination of both James and Q reveals that they hold some of the moral exhortations in common. The purpose of this paper will be to examine these common links with the Jesus tradition by focusing on their vision of God and its consequence for action. This study demonstrates that faith in action captures the vision of James and the Q source. James’s vision embraced an understanding of works that occurred in the context of one’s whole life of faith (Jas 1:14) as does the Q Source (Q 6:46-49). Through an examination of concrete texts this study will further show that the traditions of Jesus that James and Q transmit are focused on the Israelite value of wholeness. At the same time a social-scientific examination of the value of wholeness will demonstrate how this value of wholeness is reflected equally in the traditions of James and Q. Patterns of all-or-nothing (characteristic of the Israelite value of wholeness) are common to James and Q. The value of wholeness is what links together the ethical traditions of Jesus in James and Q. Among some of the examples: God demands total allegiance; people cannot serve both God and mammon (Q 16:13). Friendship with the world is enmity with God (Jas 4:4); the need to keep the whole Law (Q 16:17 and Jas 2:10), etc. Through this analysis of the moral exhortations in James and Q, this paper will illustrate that the Q tradition as it developed further in the Sermon on the Mount is also reflected in the Jesus tradition at the heart of James’s ethical teaching. The common links in the traditions between James and Q are explained from the fact that James is aware of the Jesus tradition as it is being handed on within the Q community and its developing tradition as seen in the Q Sermon on the Mount.

Wesley Hiram Wachob, First United Methodist Church, Pensacola, Florida
“The Kingdom is Promised to the Poor”
The Epistle of James is an instance of written rhetorical discourse which appropriates a tradition of Jesus’ sayings in an effort to modify the social thought and behavior of its addressees. The focus of this essay is James 2:5, an allusion to a saying of Jesus that is performed in four other early texts: QMatt 5:3; QLuke 6:20b; Gos. Thom. 54; and Pol. Phil. 2:3. I should like to explore the links between these five performances of a Jesus-chreia from a socio-rhetorical perspective: treating of their form, reasoning, focus, and their rhetorical and theological functions.

John S. Kloppenborg, University of Toronto, will respond to the above three papers

Greek Bible
Joint Session With: Greek Bible, International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies
11/22/2009,  9:00 AM to 11:30 AM,
Cameron Boyd-Taylor, University of Cambridge, Presiding
Theme: Greek Minor Prophets

Karen H. Jobes, Wheaton College
“The Minor Prophets in James”
The writers of the New Testament certainly knew and were influenced by the Twelve. But where verbal parallels with the text of the Twelve are too short clearly to be quotations, it is difficult to determine if the parallel is truly a literary allusion or simply the common vocabulary of a shared tradition. Focusing on allusions to the Minor Prophets in the book of James, this paper will explore methodology involved in an attempt to demonstrate reference to the Greek text of the Twelve in this epistle.

Letters of James, Peter, and Jude
11/22/2009,  9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Peter H. Davids, St. Stephen’s University, Presiding

Jason Coker, Drew University
“(Sub)alternative: The Subaltern Identities of James and Paul in the Roman Empire”
In the field of Subaltern Studies, scholars attempt to construct a history from below that emphasizes the most marginalized people in a society. Gayatri Spivak is famous for problematizing the marginalized by showing how hierarchical structures exist within oppressed societies, i.e. the oppressed within the oppressed. Using this framework, I will read James and Paul as competing subaltern identities within the dominant Roman Empire. Each provides a “subalternative” identity within the marginalized early Jewishness of the first century. In an attempt to construct an identity in relation to the Roman Empire, both James and Paul negotiate cultural border lines. James argues for a more conservative, nativist position while Paul radicalizes and/or hybridizes Jewish identity. In this way, they offer (sub)alternative identities for their constituencies. This process of negotiation also reveals the palimpsest that was Jewishness and Christianness in the first century.

Jason Whitlark, Baylor University
“Emphutos Logos: A New Covenant Motif in the Letter of James”
Studies on the “implanted word” in the letter of James fall into two trajectories. One proposed trajectory sets this term against the background of Stoic philosophy as a reference to natural reason common to all humans. The other sets this term against the background of the Christian proclamation of the gospel internalized by the Christian community. The argument in this paper attempts to further the latter trajectory by arguing that the “implanted word” motif is an enablement motif grounded in new covenant thinking. To this end, this paper will argue that the Letter of James assumes a pessimistic anthropology and that emphutos in the pagan, Jewish, and, espeicially, the early Christian contexts was understood as an enablement motif for the moral and religious life.

Mariam J. Kamell, University of St. Andrews-Scotland
“Endurance unto Salvation: The Witness of 1 Peter and James”
Both First Peter and James speak about the link between endurance and salvation, and yet in deference to the Pauline epistles, rarely is this mentioned except as an aside in most theological writings. Their witness is seen as “secondary” in most systematic work. These two epistles, however, have a remarkable amount of overlap, even simply in their first chapters, regarding the theme of endurance and its central importance for salvation. In 1 Peter 1:6-9, the author concedes that his audience will “have to suffer grief” but assures them that they “are receiving the goal of faith, the salvation of your souls.” Trials, he states, have come so that faith might be “proved.” James encourages joy in the “testing” of faith that believers might become “mature and complete” (1:3-5). Those who persevere will “receive the crown which is life” (1:12). For both authors the reality of a “variety of trials” (1 Pet 1:6; Jas 1:2) leads to calls for endurance for salvation. Endurance relates to “holding fast” to the faith despite trials but also indicates obedience in holiness. 1 Peter 1:14-15 warns his readers not to conform to their sinful “desires” but rather reminds them of God’s holiness and subsequent commands to “be holy.” He describes their redemption (1:17-21) and from this reminds them of the reality of their purification (1:22) and calls them to restore their purity (2:1). Likewise James warns his audience against their desires as the path to death. Instead, he reminds them again of their redemption (1:17-18) as a result of which they should purify themselves (1:21) and seek to worship God in purity and service (1:27). The sheer congruence of vocabulary and ideas within the introductory chapter of each text validates a comparison of their theologies of endurance for salvation.

Redescribing Early Christianity
11/22/2009,  9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Barry Crawford, Washburn University of Topeka, Presiding
Theme: Comparison and Redescription in the Study of Early Christianity

Stephen Young, Brown University
“A Kind of Judean Specialist: Theorizing a Redescription of the Religiosity of James the Brother of Jesus”
We often cripple our ability to deploy sources for studying the religiosity of James the brother of Jesus through problematic assumptions about the proper goals of study. These assumptions often coincide with internal Christian categories and the types of intellectualist discursive-action concerns dominating the fields of studying early Christianity: i.e., religiosity ultimately concerns doctrines/beliefs and “actions” secondarily flowing from them; intellectualist manipulations of texts and doctrines constitute the essence of religiosity, etc. I propose some social-theoretical and historical spadework to make possible a redescription of the religiosity of James. First, I commence with the above concerns: (A) bypassing internal Christian categories we often anachronistically retroject back onto early “Christian” figures and (B) problematizing our implicit theoretical approaches that prioritize quests for doctrines, beliefs, intellectualist manipulations of texts and doctrines, and other such discursively-oriented practices of specialist cultural producers. Second, I pursue plausible cross-cultural categories to orient investigations of James and other Jerusalem Judeans of the 1st century CE. I introduce a typology relevant for categorizing kinds of Judean religiosity in Jerusalem, particularly focusing on what might be termed “everyday kinship-sacrificial religiosity.” As part of this I explore a typology of the kinds of specialists and leaders within these varying types of Judean religiosity. Third, I attempt a consciously theorized socially and historically plausible redescription of James’ religiosity as a form of Jerusalem Judean religiosity. Here I investigate my intuition of James as a specialist of some sort, but operating in relation to a kind of everyday Judean kinship-sacrificial religiosity. While the entire paper remains necessarily introductory, it hopefully demonstrates the productivity of such a consciously re-theorized methodology. This project strives to work out (not simply to “apply”) social theory, especially practice theories similar to those of Pierre Bourdieu and Theodore Schatzki, through redescription of early “Christian” sites.

Homiletics and Biblical Studies
11/22/2009,  4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Dawn Ottoni Wilhelm, Bethany Theological Seminary, Presiding

Do-Kyun Lim, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
“Rhetoric Sensitive Sermon in the Epistle of James: Revitalizing Biblical Rhetorical Effects from James’ Protreptic Epistle”
Biblical sermons have tended to deliver only propositional ideas or to explain the movement or structure of the text. Scripture, however, contains not only its message but also unique effects for communication. The science of rhetoric might aid contemporary preachers to discern persuasive elements in the biblical texts and, consequently, to revitalize the intended biblical effects in contemporary sermons. Belonging to the protreptic genre, the epistle of James comprises copious rhetorical devices. This presentation will spell out the protreptic features of the epistle of James and its rhetorical devices (i.e., rhetorical questions, directive expressions, repetition, diatribe, metaphor, imperatives, poetic expressions, biblical figures, and personal experiences), and then attempt to reanimate biblical rhetorical impacts in the construction of contemporary biblical sermons.

Construction of Christian Identities
11/23/2009,  9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Adriana Destro, University of Bologna, Presiding
Theme: Rituals, Texts, Individuals and Associations: Competing Ways to Construct Identities? (2)

Kathryn J. Smith, Azusa Pacific University
“Family Values: Priestly Constructions of Social Identity in the Jerusalem Assembly”
This paper will address two thorny questions regarding the development of the earliest Jesus groups: 1) what ideological shift occurred to cause the group described in Acts to move its geographic center from the Galilee to Jerusalem? and, 2) what caused this Jerusalem-based Jesus group to radically re-signify its valuation of kinship, a re-signification that resulted in the family of Jesus enjoying an unanticipated surge in status and authority which the author of Luke/Acts acknowledges but never explains? Both of the above changes reflect significant shifts in the group’s ideology and social identity. Both point to contested social space between that presented in Mark and Q, on the one hand, and that indicated in the later layers of Matthew and Luke and in Acts, on the other. Both repeatedly point us to the same two individuals: Mariam, the mother of Jesus, and her son, James. There is sound evidence for an ideological shift in that these changes coincide with evidence for a new set of values, specifically those associated with priestly interests. These values show up in those later literary layers and in Acts, values that the family of Jesus apparently was successful in instituting within the Jerusalem group. They appear in the development of a new veneration for the Temple as symbol, in the use of new literary genres within the texts, genres strongly associated with the tradition of the priests, and in the introduction of newly prominent individuals, characters, and ritual identities. This influence is much more substantial than previously acknowledged and is also deeply significant for gender constructions in that it points to a formative and foundational role for Mariam herself. It helps account for some of the puzzling shifts in the synoptic gospels and contributes to our mapping of the social identities of early Jesus groups.

Mapping Memory: Tradition, Texts, and Identity
11/23/2009,  9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Theme: Memory, Manuscript, and Oral Composition

David Rhoads, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
“Performance Memory Aids in the Letter of James”
This keynote paper will explore structural elements of the NT book of James that reflect an oral compositional environment and that assist in live performances of the text. Based on my experience of performing the Letter of James and various studies now available in ancient mnemotechnics, I will identify discourse patterns within James as a means to illustrate features that facilitate memorization and performance of this letter.

A new website is up and running called Papua New Guinea Scriptures at pngscriptures.org, or you can visit the Tok Pisin version of the site called Tok Ples Buk Baibel bilong Papua New Guinea at tokplesbaibel.org. These sites are managed by the Papua New Guinea Bible Translation Association (BTA), and the goal is to make as many PNG scriptures available online as they can get permissions for. The sites are brand new and there are scriptures from 5 languages so far. They are available to view online, or to download.