Not in a Vacuum: Intertextual Dialectics

Some scholars contend that the books of the New Testament were written in dialogue one with another, such that no book was written in a vacuum, but dialectically in contradistinction one with another: each book was written to contend with, correct, or dialogue with some other book. In a word, this is intertextual dialectics, which is simply a fancy way of saying that the authors of the books of the New Testament were in dialogue or debate or discussion with one another.

For example, James wrote thus to prove that, and so, in response, Paul wrote thus to prove this, contrary to or in alignment with the previous author. For instance, Mark wrote his gospel to correct or dialogue with the gospel as presented by Paul, and Luke sought to establish the gospel, as presented by Paul, in contradistinction with the gospel as set forth by Mark. Such an analysis would only begin to unveil the layers of hidden alliances behind the pages of the New Testament.

Additionally, books of the New Testament were not only composed in intertextual dialectics but also in response to events or happenings of the times in which they were written. This would be, say, the historical dialectics of the books, interacting with and responding to the historical contexts in which they were written.

Other New Testament scholars contend with the assertion that the books of the New Testament are comprised of intertextual dialectics, as it seems to indicate a disunity or discontinuity within the early church. Indeed, as much as homogeneity might be an apparently attractive avenue to follow, it is not the reality of lived experience. Even today, the church, being so many different denominations, factions, and sects, is hardly homogenous. If even today homogeneity is basically impossible, though unity is not, why would we expect anything less from the early church?

Additionally, it would behoove us to consider that when a word is spoken or written, that word must accord with reality or truth of some sort or kind, and that word must be weighed, to determine whether it actually accords with reality or any truth at all. While it may seem uncomfortable and unorthodox to consider the Word of God as the words of men, that is, in fact, what the Word of God is, being a production of many human authors, whose very words, though aligning with the Word, in and of themselves, may seem very contrary and contradictory.

Absolute certainty aside, as we but peer through a glass darkly, what can be known is known to us: the secret things belong to the Lord, but the things revealed belong to us forever and to those who follow us thereafter. What is revealed is not so much the contextualized words of men but the ultimate truths of God, which we might extrapolate from the text of Scripture. 

When God endeavored to write a book, he did not do so without involving humanity, which includes many sociohistorical contexts. God has so deigned to inscribe his divine Word by means of human hand and pen, thereby and therewith losing in the method some of the form, but preserving all that which is necessary for our small, glass-darkly laden minds to commence to grasp.

Such discussion might cause some consternation, as the Bible is the Word of God. The fact, however, that there was dissension and were factions amongst biblical authors in no way diminishes the fact that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction. In fact, the very fact that God can and does work with warring factions to compose a work as his Word, which cannot be broken and is sustained by his power, indicates not a flaw in Scripture, but a flow in Scripture, a beautiful continuity through even the apparent discord. For if God could not write a book using humans and all their failings and foibles, what power would he wield or manifest?

Thus, do I contend, along with those scholars thus asserting the intertextual dialectics as well as the historical dialectics of Scripture, that the books of the New Testament were not written without conflict bearing down upon the authors of those books, that is, that the New Testament was not written in a vacuum.

James as First

James, the brother of Jesus and author of the Book of James as well as head of the Jerusalem Council, was martyred by stoning circa 62 AD. Some scholars hold that the Book of James was written at the turn of the first century, thus indicating that James himself did not write the Book of James but that it is pseudepigraphical, having been written under the name of James so as to gain authority for its message. 

This later dating, however, ignores the fact that the three prominent church leaders (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp) at the turn of the century had been disciples of Peter and John, but not James; James, it seems, had faded into the background, all but forgotten. Thus, to assign James to such an epistle would seem not simply out of taste but also out of touch with the times, for the point of choosing a pseudepigraphical author was to choose someone prominent and well-known.

In terms of being well-known, the name of James was in such wide use in first century Palestine that to author an epistle with that name would require greater identification than merely stating that it was written by “James, a slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Such an introduction does not distinguish which James it is that is supposed to be indicated. Is it James, the son of Zebedee, or James, the son of Alphaeus, or James, the brother of Jesus? Or some other James? The very fact that the James indicated is not so clearly indicated indicates one important fact, namely, the author of the Book of James was already widely known to the audience of the book as a particular James.

Additionally, the lack of any titular introduction, as “apostle” or “brother of Jesus,” other than “slave,” indicates that the author was not only humble but also was not an apostle, as were James, the son of Zebedee, and James, the son of Alphaeus. If the author of the Book of James were an apostle, he would have rightly stated as much. If the author of the Book of James were pseudepigraphical, he would likely have assigned James the title of “brother.”

The timing, then, in which the Book of James might have been written would likely be some time between 33 and 49 AD, as it would have need have been written post the death and resurrection of Jesus and prior to the Jerusalem Council. Since there is no mention of the Jerusalem Council or its decision and directive, it seems that the Book of James was not written after the Jerusalem Council, circa 48-50 AD.

Indeed, as the leader of the Jerusalem Council, it would seem that James would have written about its ruling, had he written the book by his namesake thereafter. Conservative scholarship dates the Book of James as having been authored between 45-49 AD. Furthermore, both the dispersion of the Jews from Jerusalem following the stoning of Stephen circa 33-35 AD and the expulsion of the Jews from the city of Rome in 49 AD, it seems that the Book of James was written to the Jews expelled and dispersed into the Diaspora to encourage them in their difficulties during the dispersion of the Jews sometime between 35-49 AD (the Council of Jerusalem then being circa 49-50 AD).

Additionally, an early dating of the Book of James accounts for the kind of addressees mentioned, that is, Jews of the Diaspora, as well as the kind not mentioned, namely, Gentiles. This hints that the letter is to an early church that was primarily, if not wholly, comprised of Jews or proselytes thereof. Dare I say, it might have even been before the witness of Peter to the conversion of Cornelius, a God-fearer, who was not a Jewish proselyte, but was endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit nonetheless. Regardless, it assuredly presumes that the addressees are all Jewish and thus of the very early Christian movement, prior to the Gentile inclusion.

Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the Book of James has exemplary Greek in use. This, it is presumed, discounts it from having been composed by James, a humble carpenter from the backwards town of Nazareth near Galilee! However, this line of thinking unravels when one considers the fact of the Roman imposition of Hellenism upon all its subjects, Jewish or otherwise, and the fact that a Jewish carpenter as James would have been forced to labor for and deal with Rome and its constituents in the common trade language of the time, namely, Koine Greek. Not only that, Nazareth was but two miles from Sepphoris, a major Roman city in the area, whereat James likely performed work and would have rubbed shoulders with GrecoRoman culture. 

Additionally, it has been pointed out that simply because James makes use of specialized Greek words unknown to us, who are learning and studying ancient Koine Greek from afar, distanced by time and space, that does not mean that James was thereby some educated elite; he may well have been simply utilizing language and terminology apropos to his context, as a plumber makes use of terms such as “trap,” “auger,” and “aerator,” which do not outright make him Ivy-League educated, even if such terms are unknown to us in their usage within the field of plumbing.

Indeed, in the course of having had dealings with Rome and GrecoRoman society, James would have surely picked up on GrecoRoman references and even its rhetoric as well. Additionally, when James authored his letter, he likely penned it not himself but with the use of an amanuensis, who may have smoothed over James’ language as he dictated his epistle. Furthermore, the addressees, being Jews of the Diaspora, would also have been familiar with and appreciated the GrecoRoman flourishes, having themselves been Hellenized.

In addition to the GrecoRoman nature of the Book of James, it has been pointed out that the letter itself is very Jewish in nature, steeped in Old Testament references. This would seem to fit the nature of the character of what we know of James, the leader of the Jerusalem Council, who admonished Paul to exhort his converts in no idolatry or practices thereof and who also had followers who were of a kind as to be known as what Paul would term “Judaizers.” An early church leader writing to an early church of Jews would likely write in such a way as to capture their minds and imaginations with what they were most familiar with, namely, the Old Testament. Indeed, the paucity of Christian references in the book makes the Book of James more at home in the Old Testament than the New.

The nature of the text itself as hortatory as well as the authoritative use of references to Jesus’ words without directly quoting them indicates the authority assumed by the author to exhort his readers with the words or teaching of Jesus, though not directly quoting him. The lack of quotations of Jesus, too, indicates an early dating of the book, as the Gospel accounts had yet to have been compiled or written, and, as James was late to following Jesus, he himself likely would not have been too familiar with the words of Jesus.

The Book of James as a Charter

As the first book of the New Testament, the Book of James might be considered the early Christian charter of the church, being the first word of the early church from an early church leader. Of course, the formation of the thought of Christianity evolved over time, but the fundamental instruction of Christianity began seemingly with the word of James, the brother of Jesus. As the charter of the New Testament and the church, the Book of James might illuminate what the foundational meaning and teaching of the early Christian gospel really was.

Indeed, in the opening salutation of the book, we find titles as “God,” “Lord,” “Christ,” and “Twelve Tribes.” These indicate a oneness and continuity with the Jews of the day, with Judaism, namely, that the monotheism or monolatry of the author of the book was consistent with that of the Hebrew people, as well as expressly identifying with the Twelve Tribes of Israel, which, of course, is expressly Judaic. 

This use of the “Twelve Tribes” is a particularly unique identifier, in that the northern Ten Tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel had been lost, dispersed abroad among the nations by the Assyrians some 700 years prior, thus leaving only Judah and Benjamin in the south in the Land of Promise, who were removed some 130 years later by the Babylonians. By addressing his readers as the “Twelve Tribes” of the “Diaspora,” James is indicating that they are the fulfillment of all that was promised to Abraham, they are the new or true Israel of God, the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The titles “Lord” and “Christ” are pointed in their identification in reference to Jesus, who is not merely “lord” as a proper title, like “sir,” but is “Lord” both in contradistinction to the lordship of Caesar and in conjunction with the Lordship of Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews. Furthermore, as “Christ,” Jesus is thereby identified as the Messiah, the King of the Jews, a title ascribed to him all throughout the pages of the New Testament, as is “Lord.” Thus, we might conclude that the early Christians of the early church did, in fact, believe that Jesus was some kind of divine, in some way one with God, though, perhaps, not having fully worked out all the details of such belief.

The title that James gives himself of doulos or “slave” is picked up by other authors of the New Testament, particularly, Paul, and presents a standard by which New Testament authors identify themselves as well as by which all Christians might so identify themselves. It is also a title in juxtaposition with “God” and “Lord Jesus Christ,” thereby elevating both God and Jesus and subordinating the author, James. As has been aforementioned, James might well have identified himself as the “brother” of the Lord Jesus Christ, but he does not, which not only evidences humility on his part, but also a great awareness of the ever dividing distinction between himself and Jesus.

Furthermore, in the pages of the Book of James itself, we find admonitions to persevere under persecution and in the face of suffering, trials, and tribulations, reminiscent of the Book of Job. We find admonitions to go beyond talking the talk to walking the walk, particularly by taking care of the underprivileged, the weak and vulnerable, orphans and widows, reminiscent of the Old Testament prophets. We find admonitions to avoid worldliness and living a life apart from God and his guidance, reminiscent of the Old Testament wisdom literature, as Proverbs. In addition to this, we find ample references to the Old Testament as well as latent, though not precisely explicit, references to the words and teachings of Jesus.

Thus, was the Book of James a charter by which the early church might have found its way, as the rest of the New Testament was being flushed out in the writings of Paul, Peter, and John, along with a few others. The early church may have relied upon the wisdom and words of James, a leader of the mother church in Jerusalem, who was also a brother of the Savior, as well as the text of the Old Testament. As the early church evolved and grew, developing along the way newfound insights and beliefs, then came along radical ideas, as Paul’s free grace theology and John’s abundant love doctrine and Christology.