to kick start the planned joint NT/OT colloqium, let me start with an NT topic (for the sake of the budding NT scholar).
the issue of Paul and James has been a contentious issue. were the two guys poles apart in their thinking and theology? were each writing to counter the teaching/emphasis of the other? was James, as some people think, actually writing to support Paul? or is the traditional understanding (from luther downwards) correct that each was writing to a different audience and hence a different emphasis (yet contradictory)?
one rather ingenious scholar on the biblical studies list cut and pasted tetxs from paul's epistles and james' epistle to show a possible correlation between them) see the below quoted text:
Paul: We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified. 2:15,16
James: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active among his works, and faith was completed by works 2:31,32
Paul: "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness". So you see that it is men of faith who are sons of Abraham. 3:6,7
James: And the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness; and he was called the friend of God." You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 2:23,24
Paul: All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book, and do them." Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"; but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law..." 3:10-13
James: Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. (2:10) Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing. 1:22-25
Paul: Before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian. 3:23-25
James: As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. 2:26
Paul: Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? 3:2
James: If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain. 1:26 Do not speak evil against one another, brethren. He that speaks evil against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 4:11
so, the issue is simple: were Paul and James on opposite poles? or were they actually on the same end of the spectrum? what do you think? queries to the budding nt scholar can be redirected from this blog to his.
the issue of Paul and James has been a contentious issue. were the two guys poles apart in their thinking and theology? were each writing to counter the teaching/emphasis of the other? was James, as some people think, actually writing to support Paul? or is the traditional understanding (from luther downwards) correct that each was writing to a different audience and hence a different emphasis (yet contradictory)?
one rather ingenious scholar on the biblical studies list cut and pasted tetxs from paul's epistles and james' epistle to show a possible correlation between them) see the below quoted text:
Paul: We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified. 2:15,16
James: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active among his works, and faith was completed by works 2:31,32
Paul: "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness". So you see that it is men of faith who are sons of Abraham. 3:6,7
James: And the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness; and he was called the friend of God." You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 2:23,24
Paul: All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book, and do them." Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"; but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law..." 3:10-13
James: Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. (2:10) Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing. 1:22-25
Paul: Before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian. 3:23-25
James: As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. 2:26
Paul: Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? 3:2
James: If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain. 1:26 Do not speak evil against one another, brethren. He that speaks evil against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 4:11
so, the issue is simple: were Paul and James on opposite poles? or were they actually on the same end of the spectrum? what do you think? queries to the budding nt scholar can be redirected from this blog to his.
Comments
the tendency to harmonize the two views is just one way to deal with the discrepancy. most 'critical' scholars would disagree and say that it fails to take into account the inner tensions reflected in the stories in acts between paul and peter and paul and the jerusalem council headed by james.
there may be more than meets the eye!
"I think it is quite possible, that the original Twelve knew their religion through received oral traditions, e.g. family religious lessons, synagogue preachings, community sharing (like in a care group??) - the last example is especially in the case of the Zealots in the group."
http://jack.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/19/3168424.html#comments
Anyway, keep up the great work on the colloqium!! i look forward for more interaction, especially on the critical studies of the gospel and jesus history and maybe Isaiah, since i am replying on the reb's web than the NT guy.
Jack
To me, if either Paul or James is writing to counter the other person, it would have been more obvious. To "stoop so low" as to cover up their counters or attacks on the other person would be unthinkable in such a manner as they have written in Galatians and James. Actually, I would like to read from those who said they are countering each other. That will be interesting.
Paul's talk about justification through faith in Gal. is not talking so much about not doing good works. He did not say 'justified by works' but in Gal. he said "by works of the law". He hit out at the circumcision group, those who say that everyone require circumcision to be saved. Gal 4:10 talks about the Galatians observing special days, months etc... As to what is the definition of "works of the law" is anybody's guess. It seems like it is about the legalistic observation of certain Jewish laws/traditions.
James call for action, and rightly so for Christians who think they do not have to do anything good or worse, can continue living in sin and still be justified. He could be referring to perhaps Gentile believers here who have the idea that they don't have to do anything besides saying "I believe" with a non-convicted heart. Only half of chapter 2 is allocated to this faith and works topic.
Unless James definition of "work" is about circumsion and observing special dates,months etc, there is no need for Paul to counter him with the whole book of Galatians. It is the same the other way round. Gal 6:10 is clear about Paul's stand on work. About the men that came from James in Gal 2:12, it does not tell us that James sent them. They are Jews, and probably come from where James is living/preaching. If they are sent by James, i am very sure Paul would have mentioned it bcos Paul 'whack' Peter upside down for his role in the hyprocrisy. What more if James is the mastermind?
From some of the above explanation, I do not think their writing is contradictory. I would not say they are complementary too. It is written to a difference audience and with a different emphasis. The only 'complementary' thing would be that we know more about God through practising what His word says in both books or their writings which is part of His word(the bible).
cheers,
Jason
(sorry if I sound 'forceful'/'agressive', just my style of writing on certain topics)
yet, 'simple' explanations like these do not solve all the tensions found within the texts. for example, if paul hits out at the circumcison group for inisisting on circumcision as the 'sign' of one's salvation, suprising paul had timothy circumcised to avoid any accusations from the group (timothy was half-jew, his father being a gentile, so timothy need not go through circumcision as any other jew would). so, why would paul, so insistent in his galatians letter against circumcision, now had timothy circumcised?
Again, isn't this issue depending on the context of Acts rather than arguing on the surface ? Looks like we need to do exegesis here!! So far, I found your arguement was too simplistic (just quoting scriptures and without referring which modern scholars like JI packer who had prob with such issue) without explaining to us contextually and specifically on the issues that being raised. Anyway, from what I know, assuming galatians is written before Acts 15, wouldn't it making sense that after Acts 15-Jerusalem COuncil, Paul realised he needed to learn to foster unity for the sake of CHrist as like what James did - He agreed that Gentiles do not require to have a "sign" to be saved but they need to express their salvation by doing some good works that are abstain from eating animals blood, and abstain from commit sexual immorality so as not to stumble the Jews. Furthermore, since Luke's letter was advocating Paul's missions and the growth of church beyond Jerusalem, he was telling the story that Paul in view of missiological perspective, he wants to win the Jews and so in order to respect the Jews, he performed the circumcision on Timothy in Jewish land so that the Jews are not stumble by the message of the gospel. U also noticed that Paul often went to synagogue first before evangelising to Gentiles after Acts 15 as he has a strong believe of the gospel actually came to Jews first before the Gentiles and desiring to win them without any stumbling block (1 Cor 9-11). In a nutshell, there is no contradiction between James and Paul. I think I would like to hear detailly what other scholars' argument with also and they way they exegete on such issues. Unless they don't agree with literal criticism on passages where context is king, then I think the argument between James and Paul will never be resolved. I think also, it's not as simple as quoting scriptures to show contradiction without going through the process of exegeting the passage. So, ha ha ...it's more than meet the eyes;p
I think a critical reading of the NT and extra-NT sources seems to support the case that Paul and James were at odds almost from the beginning and all the way to the end. I know this view is not the prevailing "orthodoxy" (being normally associated with Baur and thus "tainted" by his Hegelian
dialectic understanding of history) but it has at least three prominent scholars supporting it. I am referring to Gerd Ludemann "Opposition to Paul
in Jewish Christianity" (1989) and Michael Goulder's "Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth" (2001). I believe CK Barrett -see his collection of articles "Essays on Paul" - held similar views. (Other scholars who seem to
share the same view include: Robert Eisenmann "James the Brother of Jesus" (1996) (leaving aside his speculative thesis on the Dead Sea Scrolls) and David Sim "The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism" (1998)).
Essentially the gist of their argument is as follows:
The Jerusalem "Council" described in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 worked out an uneasy and eventually unworkable truce, which came to a head in Antioch where Paul called Peter a "hypocrite" (Gal 2:11-14). They then parted ways. (Note that at no time during his epistle to the Galatians did Paul ever
mentioned that he was subsequently reconciled to Peter or James and indeed his tone was one that was disparaging to the Jerusalem "pillars" - protesting that his gospel was not mediated through any man but directly
from Jesus - Galatians 1:1, 1:11-12) The opposition to Paul that can be seen in his epistles to Galatia, Corinth and Philippi are best explained as being
opponents sent by the Jerusalem Church to counter his "law-free" mission.
Gerd Ludemann has argued quite persuasively ("Opposition" ; p. 52-61) that Paul's collection, referred to in I Corinthians 16:1-4, II Corinthians 8:1-4, 9:1-2 and Romans 15:25-26, was rejected by the Jerusalem church.
As for the letter of James, I think there is a very strong case to made for its opposition to the Pauline mission. (Whether the letter was actually written by James or someone from his "school" is not that important.) James
2: 14-20,24 is written in virtually direct opposition to Paul's idea of justification by faith alone (cf Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:27-28). Indeed the very Old Testament passage used by Paul to support his argument (Genesis
15:6) is used by the author of the Jamesian epistle to argue the exact opposite! (Romans 4:2-3 vs. James 2: 21-23)
I know there are "book length" arguments to be made either way - but my point is that the idea that Paul's mission was opposed by James and Peter cannot be easily dismissed.
Will give my comments soon...soon...soon....