James, Luther, Canonicity, and historical musings...

James, Luther, Canonicity, and historical musings…

Part 1:
This isn’t meant to be a ‘scholarly’ article, so I’ll try to keep the footnotes & technical jargon to a minimum. However, several people have asked just what was Luther’s hang-up with James? In a nutshell (and in my personal opinion) it boils down to a few main things, but first let’s get a Luther quote. Barclay in his excellent “Daily Study Bible” series is as good of a place as any for this:

“In his printing of his German New Testament Luther had a contents page with the books set out and numbered. But at the end of the list there is a little group, separate from the others, and with no numbers assigned to them. That group comprised of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. These were books which Luther definitely held to be ‘secondary.’ …It is in the concluding paragraph of his Preface to the New Testament that there stands Luther’s famous verdict on James: ‘In sum: the gospel and the first epistle of St. John, St. Paul’s epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians; and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books which show Christ to you. They teach everything you need to know for your salvation, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or hear any other teaching. In comparison with these the epistle of James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.’”

In addition to this, and given Luther’s fixation on the Apostle Paul, James 2:23-24 had to be particularly difficult for him to swallow:

“23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” This SEEMS to directly conflict with what St. Paul writes in Romans 4:2-4: “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4 Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5 But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.”

So, these are the issues. My response is as follows:

---First, we must remember that Luther was a man of his time/era, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, he was not infallible. Luther, his writings and his opinions do not constitute doctrinal positions that MUST be believed by Lutherans or any other Christian group. He's not our "Pope-of-the-past." He was capable of error, and like most great men, when he erred, he usually really screwed up. (his position on the Jews & Anabaptists comes to mind).

---Second, it is very evident that even though Paul and James are using the same word (justify, or dikaioutai in the Greek), these men are NOT using the word in the same way. In a nutshell, when Paul uses the word (especially in Romans) he’s talking about what GOD SEES. God looks at a sinner and sees RIGHTEOUSNESS on account of the sinner’s faith in the Savior. Even the Patriarch Abraham had this faith. James isn’t talking about what God sees, but rather what ALL SEE. The righteousness that comes via faith that God sees gets seen by ALL when this faith shows itself in good works. Luther’s problem is that he couldn’t fathom the same word being used in two different ways. So then, justification is accomplished by grace through faith, but it is shown or made evident through our actions. Paul and James are not in disagreement.
Closely related to this discussion is the meaning of the word “works.” Paul says in Romans 3:28:

“For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from WORKS of the Law.”

Yet, James says in chapter 2:

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? …So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”

This is yet another example of the same word being used in different ways by Paul and James. James seems clearly to have everyday ordinary “good deeds” in mind when he speaks of works. When the sinner is justified, this shows itself in a CHANGED LIFE…a life lived now out of love (for God first, and then neighbor). When Paul speaks of “works of the Law,” however, he is speaking particularly of those things prescribed by Torah that make a person JEWISH (circumcision, keeping of the Sabbath, dietary rules)….at least in the context of Romans 3. Interestingly enough, Paul expresses agreement WITH JAMES in Ephesians chapter 2. After declaring in vss 8-9 that we are saved by grace through faith, not works, so no one can boast, Paul says in vs 10: "He, that is God, has created us in Christ Jesus to live LIVES FILLED WITH GOOD WORKS.” (GW translation).

In the end, Paul did not know of a saving faith that didn’t produce good works, nor did James know of a way to be declared righteous in the SIGHT OF GOD apart from faith. Luther, as the Great Reformer and advocate of justification by faith alone, had a ‘hammer’ and wanted to see everything as a nail. When he got to James it just didn’t work. It wasn’t James’ fault. Thankfully Lutheran Bible scholars since his time have more tools in their toolbox than just hammers.

More later...

Cheers,

TM

James, Luther, Canonicity, and historical musings…

Part 2:
In part one of this little article I addressed the major ‘issues’ Luther had with the Epistle of James. Now I’d like to take a broader look at the issue(s) surrounding James and canonicity. Again, using Barclay’s excellent little volume: “The Daily Study Bible,” we read:

In the Latin-speaking part of the Church it is not until the middle of the fourth century that James emerges in the writings of the Fathers at all. The first list of New Testament books ever to be compiled is the Muratorian Canon, which dates to about 170 AD, and James is absent from it.... One would have thought that the Syrian Church would have been the first to accept James, if it was really written in Palestine, and if it was really the work of James, the brother of our Lord; but in the Syrian Church there is the same oscillation. [there appears to be no mention of James in the Syrian Peshitto prior to 412 AD]...Although James emerged sooner in the Greek-speaking church than it did in the Latin and Syrian church, it was nonetheless late in making its definite appearance. The first writer to quote it by name is Origen...but the decisive turning point in the Greek Church came in 367 AD, with the issue of the famous Easter Letter by Athanasius listing the books he considered to be canonical....So, then, in the early Church no one really questioned the value of James; but in every branch of the Church it was late in emerging.

I’ve vastly abbreviated Barclay, but I think you get the point. The Early Church [led by the Fathers] was slow in accepting the canonicity of James.

If we accept that the *core* of the Epistle of James was taken from actual material written by James the Brother of Jesus and Bishop of the Jerusalem church--with perhaps later editing and additions made by a second generation editor (see Ralph Martin’s excellent commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series)--then I have a theory as to what happened along the way that made for slow acceptance of the Epistle of James.

FIRST: We must remember that James was martyred in the early 60s just prior to the near-complete destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army. Tell-tale signs within the letter indicate that it was written by James not long before his death. This bodes well with what we know about other church writings. When leaders/authors sensed their time running short, they committed their teachings to writing for the sake of coming generations.

SECOND: From 66 AD onward, Jerusalem and its surrounding environs are embroiled in civil unrest. Several revolutionary factions vie for power even before the first “shot” is fired with Rome. But at some point the “writing” would clearly be seen on the wall--Jerusalem and its revolutionary factions were on a collision course with Rome. An old tradition (from the time of Eusebius the early church historian) states that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem/Judea fled to Pella, an area across the Jordan, taking NO PART in the war. (note: This fits well with the advice of Jesus that we read in Mark 13:14 “When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong-let the reader understand-then let those who are in Judea FLEE to the mountains...”). Eusebius, however, is writing nearly 200 years after the fact, and furthermore, has no proof for his claims. Many modern scholars doubt the ‘flight to Pella’ theory. It is just as possible that Jewish/Christian men of fighting age took part in the struggle against Rome.

THIRD: So, what if it went down this way....the Jewish/Christians of the area stayed to fight for what they saw a Jewish nationalistic cause, sending away only their women, children, old and infirm. Sacred texts may or may not have been sent off with them. Whoever stayed behind to fight was of course obliterated. Following the war it would be a generation AT LEAST before someone within what used to be the “Jerusalem Church” would be of sufficient age and stature to not only find and edit the writings of James, but also begin circulating them again. (Jews were banned from the Jerusalem ruins following the war). In short, due to the war with Rome the church at Jerusalem went from being The Mother Church to being non-existent. Their voice among the other Christians of the Empire was SILENCED, nearly forever. In the ensuing generations, the Church became a largely Gentile institution. Any sacred writings supposedly emanating from the old Jerusalem Church would quite naturally be slow in being recognized and accepted. (note: by the time the Church Father Cyril of Jerusalem is on the scene, mid 300s, even the Jerusalem Church is a Gentile institution).

In short, the way I see it, the Epistle of James languished on the slow track to canonicity and universal acceptance primarily because there was no prevalent Jewish-Christian voice speaking on its behalf in the largely Gentile Church from the late first century onwards. Indeed, from the time of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 100AD), already the very idea that one could be a practicing Torah-observant Jew **AND** a Christian, was in great doubt. James the brother of Jesus, and indeed the Lord himself, would perhaps have seemed like ‘odd ducks’ to the newer Gentile-only version of the Christian Church.

cheers,

TM