James the Just and Christian Originsby Bruce Chilton; Craig A. Evans

James the Just and Christian Origins by Bruce Chilton; Craig A. EvansReview by: John PainterNovum Testamentum, Vol. 42, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 397-406Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561400 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 11:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:27:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561400?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


BOOK REVIEW

BRUCE CHILTON & CRAIG A. EVANS (eds.), James the Just and Christian Origins (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 98), Leiden: Brill, 1999; pp. xi + 299; ISBN 9004107460. NLG 119, USS 70.

For a number of reasons this is a timely book. It comes after a spate of publications on James. In recent times interest in James can be traced back to E. Stauffer's, 'Zum Kalifat des Jacobus', ZRGG 4 (1952) 193-214. Then there is something of a lull in publications until Robert Eisenman's flow of publications in 1983, 1986, 1991, 1997. From 1983 Eisenman has continued to draw attention to the role of James in the early church. In German there is the solid and careful study by Wilhelm Pratscher, Der Herrenbruder Jacobus und die Jacobustraditio- nen, FRLANT 139, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1987. Another contribution came from James B. Adamson, James: the Man and his Message, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1989. We then have to wait until the mid 1990's for a renewed flow of articles and books on James, including my own Just James (1997).

The present book provides a watershed assessment of recent work aiming to open up new lines of research. It does so from a position of some advantages. First, the 1998 consultation on James at the Orlando SBL Meeting, which produced the papers in this volume, built on discussions, beginning in 1996 at Bard College, on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity in their format- ive periods. Consequently these studies of James flow out of a concentration on the Jewish sources. This is a real strength which exposes weaknesses in some earlier studies. The influence ofJacob Neusner, who, amongst other things, is Professor of Religion at Bard College, is evident beyond the boundaries of his own contribution. Bruce Chilton is also well known for his concentration on the Jewish roots of early Christianity and his work is evident in many of the contributions also.

Second, the contributors represent different interests and perspectives. At the same time, two scholars make their contributions from the context of a long stand- ing study of James. Richard Bauckham has published widely on the relatives of Jesus (1990), includingJames and Peter Davids has a commentary on the Epistle of James (1982). All of the other contributors draw on their related interests to throw light on some aspects of the study ofJames. No single scholar could bring such a diversity of outlook to a study of James. Nevertheless what holds the volume together is a determination to take account of all relevant Jewish sources.

A collaborative volume also has some limitations. The contributions do not hang together in a tight unity because each contributor has been given his head to deal with his chosen topic in his own way. While there is no obvious overlap in title, there is inevitable repetition across various contributions. There are also gaps in the treatment of James. Of course this is just one of a number of pro- jected volumes on James and the whole panorama of issues may well be covered by the time the last volume appears.

Other aspects of this volume are more problematic. Hidden beneath the surface are differing views on the way to read Acts and the way other evidence, such as the letters of Paul, relates to Acts. Markus Bockmuehl's contribution would have been clearer had he made clear whether or not he accepts the identification of Acts 15 with Galatians 2:1-10. Although this is a serious issue there is no sub- stantial discussion of it. Contributors who hold one or other view simply work with it and the reader is left to work out what the position is. Interestingly too, in this volume there is evidence of a group, amongst the contributors, emerging as something like a school, adopting common approaches, holding similar views and promoting the works of members.

The book is in two parts each having five chapters: 1. Issues of background and context; 2. James and Jewish Christianity. It is hard to see the parts as

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2000

397

Novum Testamentum XLII, 4



BOOK REVIEW

distinct because James is looked at in terms of background and context and the discussion of James and Jewish Christianity does not avoid the context ofJudaism.

Bruce Chilton opens part one with an Introduction. He sets the scene for the following contributions, emphasising that the sources depicting James are dispa- rate and fragmentary. None of the major sources takes the point of view ofJames. He recognises that the Gospels show no sympathy forJames and marginalise him. In spite of this Acts 15 attributes the decision about whether Gentile believers need to be circumcised to James. Galatians indicates that James directed separate meal-fellowship in the mixed Jewish and Gentile church at Antioch. Yet how James attained such leadership is indicated by neither Paul nor Acts. For such reasons Chilton argues that the recovery of the historical James is impossible. Other perspectives are necessary if advances are to be made in the study ofJames. In this volume James is used as a way of entering the problem of the relationship of earliest Christianity to Judaism. From this perspective, perhaps the most important question concerns whether Christianity was, in its generative moment, a species of Judaism. To answer this question another arises concerning the relationship (both physical and ideological) of James to Jesus.

Philip Davies, 'James in the Qumran Scrolls' deals with the thesis of Robert Eisenman. He notes that the theory thatJames is to be identified with the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness is exclusive to Robert Eisenman. Eisenman has advo- cated this position in a series of publications from 1983. His theory involves a rewriting of much of the history of early Judaism and early Christianity. It works with literature in a distinctive linguistic method appealing to allusions based on the use of common or apparently common words. Davies notes that the argument is hard to follow but that some elements are quite plausible. Here he identi- fies the leading role of James and the Jewish character of earliest Christianity. Although Davies concludes that the dating of the scrolls, the history of the Qum- ran community and the role of the Teacher of Righteousness rule out any direct link with James, he argues that Eisenman should be acknowledged for drawing attention to the leading role ofJames and the Jewish character of earliest Christianity.

Peter Davids, 'Palestinian Traditions in the Epistle of James', argues that the Epistle of James is culturally and linguistically at home in Palestine. It is a letter to the Diaspora shortly after the martyrdom of James, issuing from the church in Jerusalem and preserving words of James. In the letter the one God is central and the continuing place of the law is assumed. James is interested in the purity that comes from repentance. The many allusions to the teaching of Jesus show that Jesus is the source of the correct interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, a veritable Righteous Teacher, the leader of the messianic community. Davids concludes that in the Epistle the authentic voice of James is heard or, more likely, the voice of the community James led.

Jacob Neusner's, 'Vow-taking, the Nazirites, and the Law: Does James' advice to Paul accord with Halakhah?' connects Paul's vow at Cenchreae (Acts 18:18) and the vow in Jerusalem (Acts 21:23-24) by placing these quotations at the beginning of his essay. A Nazirite vow is identified (see Numbers 6). The question is asked about James' advice to Paul to join four others in paying for their vow (Acts 21:23-26). The aim was to deal with the concerns of those who doubted that Paul was a law observant Jew. The question Neusner seeks to answer is: Does James' advice accord with Halakhah? Neusner argues that the rabbis of the Mishnah had become critical of vows. Thus they would not have advised Paul to make such a vow. Had Paul already undertaken such a vow in Cenchreae, James' advice that Paul complete the vow would have been another matter. Neusner, aware that the evidence of the Mishnah is too late to enable a straightforward application to the situation of James, appeals to the position of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, affirming that 'Jesus said exactly the same thing'. Thus the Mishnaic posi-

398



BOOK REVIEW

tion can be assumed in the time of James also. Not all contributors to this volume are as careful as Neusner in this matter. The issue of the vow is taken up again by Chilton in the final chapter of the book.

Scot McKnight, 'A parting within the way: Jesus and James on purity and Israel', notes that by the mid-second centur5 two separate faiths had developed. James, embracing the vision of his brother (Jesus) and the faith of ancient Judaism, provides evidence of a movement within Judaism which showed no sign of parting from it. To illuminate his position McKnight looks at James' relation to Jesus on the themes of Israel and purity. Because little has been done on James and purity, drawing especially on the work of Jacob Neusner, he begins with a brief summary of the scriptural tradition. He notes Bruce Chilton's view that 'The land, in Leviticus, is not for Israel; Israel is for the service of God in the land'. (85). Thus the laws of purity concern keeping Israel worthy of the presence of YHWH in his worship and service. With less priestly focus, McKnight finds a similar view in Deuteronomic traditions. He notes that, in Hag. 2:10-14, impurity is contagious but purity is not. On the other hand, Ezekiel (40-48) envisages a new temple providing purity and holiness in the restoration to the land while Zechariah expands the vision of the new purity to the whole earth. This purity, as Chilton has argued, is not based on sacrifice but on the action of YHWH. Zechariah's words, 'and there shall no longer be traders in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day' (14:21), are relevant to Jesus' action in the temple (see John 2:16).

Drawing on the PhD thesis of Jonathan Klawans, McKnight argues that, in addition to ritual impurities, the Hebrew bible recognises moral impurities, that sin, at least certain sins such as sexual sins, idolatry and bloodshed are impurities and cause defilement. The source of ritual impurity is from bodily flows, while the source of moral impurity is sins. Ritual impurity is temporary but contagious, while moral impurity desecrates the sinners, the land and the sanctuary. Ritual impurity is cleansed by bathing, but moral impurity must be dealt with by atone- ment, punishment and exile from the land.

The distinction between ritual and moral impurity opens the way for deve- loping a shift from ritual to moral purity in the teaching and practice of Jesus and the Jesus movement. McKnight notes that, in Acts 15:9, Peter sees the conversion of Gentiles in terms of the purification of the heart by faith. Using Mark 7:14-23 he argues that Jesus' strategy of calling for repentance involved the heart, not an external rite. This was not a rejection of torah but a new hermeneutic based on it (Lev. 18 etc.). Because Jesus healed the unclean by physical contact with them, he argues that Jesus asserted the contagion of purity. This accounts for Jesus' reputation for mixing with those who were, from the perspective of purity, unclean. In an unpublished paper Neusner draws on his earlier work to develop the view of two understandings of Israel, one based on sanctification and the other on salvation. The former finds focus on maintaining purity while the latter is concerned with the salvation of the world. McKnight's recognition of the contagion of purity fits the model of the latter.

McKnight also argues that the early leadership of James makes unlikely that he was not a believer in Jesus' life time (99). His leadership in Acts 15 is ex- pressed definitively in 15:19 "I judge...' (106). His use of Amos 9:11-12 leads McKnight to conclude that James saw the Judaism he led as the restored Israel so that the conversion of Gentiles involved inclusion in Israel (103). A law observant James did not require Gentiles to observe the whole law but only those elements required of aliens living in the land (see Acts 15:20-21). Their conversion is to God, not Christ (15:19). Nevertheless James did not express any mission to the Gentiles (109). Here McKnight reasserts his position that the Judaism of this time was not a missionary religion. While this seems now to be the new

399



BOOK REVIEW

orthodoxy, he notes the alternative view of L.H. Feldman. Further, it seems likely that the diversity of the Judaism of the time is more consistent with a diversity of practice here also and Roman sources support the view of Jewish proselytism. Here, as elsewhere, later positions have obscured the first century situation. McKnight quotes Chilton who argues that Paul used Scripture against Scripture to maintain the unity of believers while James insisted on the unity of Scripture and separated believers (110).

Interestingly it is Paul who reports the agreement to a separation of the two missions (Galatians 2:7-10)! Clearly Paul did not envisage some of the consequen- ces of this decision (see Galatians 2:11-14). Although McKnight approvingly quotes Martin Hengel's reference to the 'church of the Jews' and the 'Church of the Gentiles' (101-102), he does not see this implied in Galatians 2:7-8 and even less in Acts 15:14. My comment would be, 'whose reading of the texts are we talk- ing about?' On the basis of Galatians 2:11-14 it seems likely that James did envisage this and McKnight agrees with Chilton that James asserted the unity of Scripture even if this separated Jewish and Gentile believers (110). It is not clear how McKnight reconciles this understanding of James with his view that, for James, the belief of Gentiles meant inclusion into Israel (103).

When writing Romans Paul speaks of the churches of the Gentiles (Rom. 16:4). But Acts 21:18, 20, 24) implies, as McKnight recognises (105-106), that in the mission to the nations Paul encouraged Jewish believers not to keep the law and not to circumcise their children. This is consistent with Paul's insistence on the unity of the fellowship of believers. Consistent with James' unity of Scripture is the split of the two communities. For Paul, the churches of the Gentiles (the nations) lived in the terms of the gospel for the nations, free from the specific demands of the Mosaic law.

McKnight concludes with a treatment of Israel and purity in the Epistle of James. He argues that 'church' (James 5:14) is 'synagogue' (2:2), the eschatologically restored Israel. He notes that there are 54 imperatives in just 104 verses and that James commends doing torah in a way Paul would not and in so doing turns Genesis 15:6 on its head. Nevertheless he argues thatJames deals with matters of the heart, seeing the law fulfilled in the love command (see Lev. 19:18). If Jesus softened the demands of torah, James hardened them, showing no concern for Gentiles or awareness of the apostolic decree. Nevertheless McKnight thinks that James may well have seen the 12 tribes, the eschatologically restored Israel, as a contagion of purity (salvation) as Jesus had (124,129). He concludes that in James we see a form of Christian Judaism which continued the vision of Jesus. His conclusions here seem to be consistent with those of Davids in this volume, that the Epistle is what we might expect from James, or the community of James, to Jews in the diaspora.

William R. Farmer, 'James the Lord's Brother, according to Paul', asks what can be learned of James from the brief references to him in Galatians (1:19, 2:7- 10; 2:12) and 1 Corinthians (9:5; 15:7). In this treatment Farmer makes a case for seeing Peter, Paul and James in a much closer relationship than is nor- mally the case. He says that 'Peter functions as Paul's alter ego.... James appears to be a secondary character. As such he functions as an alter ego to Peter'. (134)

Three years after his 'conversion' Paul went to Jerusalem to question Peter (1:18). Farmer makes a case for understanding this as going to the source of the stream of church tradition (136). He argues that this meeting was prearranged and must have been approved by James (152). This implies the early leadership of James in Jerusalem. He thinks too that James' approval implies that, in this early period, Paul must have adopted the Jerusalem approach to food laws. It was in the following fourteen years that differences emerged.

Paul, as an independent apostle, stands in a close relationship to Peter. There

400



BOOK REVIEW

was advantage for Peter in this because Paul was a missionary ally expert in Pharisaic argument (137). There was an advantage for Paul because, in Peter, the tradition went back to source. The Pauline tradition of resurrection appearances brings together Peter, James and Paul as witnesses, naming Peter as the founda- tion witness. Farmer's understanding of this is relevant to the witness of Ignatius to the effect that Peter and Paul were the chief apostles of Antioch and Asia Minor and their twin martyrdoms were 'fused into a single and normative witness for the whole church'. (150) He raises the question of whether a profound reconciliation followed the incident at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14) and asks what role James might have played in this. This is largely speculation and it accords with the emerging tradition of the Great church.

In his epilogue Farmer defends his approach of giving priority to Paul's letters where they overlap with Acts. Evidently his approach caused criticism from some quarters at the colloquy. It seems to have been the one point where serious difference between contributors was allowed to surface. Farmer argues that Paul's evidence is first hand in the matters he is reporting and should be given priority over Luke's hearsay. One is a primary source, the other is secondary. On this Farmer is surely right. The question of the tendentious nature of Paul's letters as well as Act is another issue. Here Farmer needs to state his case a little more carefully. How is the scholar to deal with the tendentiousness of Paul?

Markus Bockmuehl, 'Antioch and James the Just', aims to show how Antioch with its Jewish community was viewed by Jerusalem in the first century and in particular to shed light on James' view of Antioch. He aims to shed light on the incident at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14). He begins by noting the fragmentary nature of the archaeological and epigraphic evidence. Thus we know very little about the Jewish and Christian communities there in the first century (159). In spite of this, an illuminating account follows. Antioch was a major Hellenistic city, second only to Alexandria in the East. Of the 300,000 residents of Antioch Bockmuehl con- curs with Hengel and Schwemer that 30,000 to 50,000 were Jews. They were more numerous and prosperous than the Jews of Jerusalem. In relations with Gentiles, the law observant Jew might adopt one of four positions:

1. refuse to enter a Gentile house or share table fellowship with Gentiles; 2. invite Gentiles to a Jewish meal; 3. take own food to a Gentile's house; 4. dine with Gentiles on the understanding of torah observance.

An important contribution concerns the way Antioch was perceived in relation to the land of Israel. A case can be made for three positions: outside the land; a kind of liminal border land; an essential part of the land of Israel. The question is important. If Antioch were considered part of the land of Israel it would explain the interest of Jerusalem in what was going on there, distinguishing it radically from places like Alexandria. Bockmuehl quotes Tosefta's assertion that 'everything from Taurus Amanus downwards is the land of Israel' but sums up by saying, 'many first-century Palestinian Jews regarded Antioch as the gateway from the Exile to the Holy Land' (178-179).

He concludes by proposing four theses. 1. The mission of James is exclusively addressed to Jews but is not to be identified with the implacable opposition to Paul's mission to the Gentiles. This thesis is well grounded in its general terms.

2. James' motivation was in part political. Again in general terms this is per- suasive though I doubt that a major part of this was to avoid persecution. Rather I think that the aim was to maintain a position that was credible to other Jews, thus keeping open the mission to Israel. At the same time I would have preferred the third point to have preceded this so that James appeared less as a political opportunist.

401



BOOK REVIEW

3. 'James' religious motivation can be construed in the light of the teaching of Jesus'. Interestingly, the essays of Davids, McKnight and Bockmuehl all draw attention to the use of Matthew and McKnight mentions my thesis that the 'M' tradition of Matthew flows from James the Just (110 n. 67). Here it is useful to note the views of Jacob Neusner who understands James in relation to Israel's vocation of sanctification in which purity remains the primary obligation. The 'M' tradition makes good sense in this context. Theologically this underpins James' political strategy of directing his mission wholly to Jews.

4. The argument that 'The differences between James and Paul were primarily halakhic rather than theological' (189) is problematic. That it is halakhic is not in question. But why may the halakhic not be equally theological? Differ- ences at Antioch are not settled by the question of whether Antioch is in the land of Israel or not (188). Acts 21:25 implies that the decree was addressed to all Gentiles, not only those living in the land. Thus the requirements of the Jerusalem decree apply in Rome or anywhere else. Even with these observances there is no indication that James' position allowed for full fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. For James, Gentile believers remained Gentiles, as Chilton's argues in his final contribution (260, 263).

Bockmuehl's essay is learned and illuminating on many questions, but it falls into the use of emotive language when dealing with the views of those who differ from this author. Barrett's argument is set aside by noting an association with F.C. Baur and M.D. Goulder (155 n. 3), an association taken further by assoc- iating these scholars (and M. Hengel) with 'a peculiarly intractable history of scho- larly and confessional dispute'. The 'present-day heirs of F.C. Baur' are now identified with the 'developmentalist Hegelian view of early Christian history' (156). Even if this characterisation happened to be correct, it deflects attention from the need to deal with the evidence and arguments these scholars use to establish their positions. In the light of the use of emotive polemic here I had cause to wonder what was implied by the description of 'James' intervention, Peter's accom- modation and Paul's rigid refusal despite being in a minority of one,...' (191). The term 'rigid', when used of people, generally denotes disapproval. May it not be that Paul was, against all odds, steadfast for truth? That is not to say that James was not also steadfast for the truth as he understood it. But he was not a minority of one at this point. Had he been, would James have changed his position? My impression of the evidence concerning James the Just is he maintained his convictions even when the odds were stacked against him. Martyrs are often made of this stuff.

Richard Bauckham, 'For what offence was James put to death?', seeks to answer this single historical question. To answer it he turns to the sources, recognising that Josephus preserves the most reliable account. He argues for a Jewish Christian source underlying Hegesippus' account, preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 2.23.8-18) and the Second Apocalypse of James. He rejects the view that the latter is dependent on the former. Recognising differences in the accounts, he notes ten points of correspondence which he explains by means of a common Jewish Christ- ian source. That the Second Apocalypse is not dependent on Hegesippus is shown by three points. 1. In Hegesippus it is the scribes and Pharisees who put James to death while the second Apocalypse is closer to Josephus, naming the priests. 2. The context of the stoning of James in the Second Apocalypse conforms more closely to Jewish procedure. 3. The account of the death of James in Hegesippus has been strongly influenced by the exegesis of Psalm 118. Thus these three points suggest that the Second Apocalypse is dependent on a source less legendary in development than Hegesippus.

While these two accounts are dependent on a common source, Bauckham argues that Clement's brief account is dependent on Hegesippus. But why would

402



BOOK REVIEW

Clement omit the stoning? Bauckham's rejection of any influence of the account byJosephus on the Christian traditions is not demonstrated by the assertion 'nor is there any need to postulate dependence on Josephus at any stage'. (205) That the early Christians knew and used Josephus is widely recognised so that oppor- tunity of influence is clear. Clement provides evidence of a tradition of James being thrown down from the parapet of the Temple and then beaten to death with a club. Josephus gives an account of the judicial stoning of James. Hegesip- pus can be understood as a combination of these two traditions. Bauckham recognises that Josephus provides the account that is likely 'to be the most historically reliable' (199). He also notes the legendary character of the account given by Hegesippus. It seems more likely to me that an independent tradition found in Clement was combined with the tradition of stoning found in Josephus.

Bauckham provides an interesting account of the development of the legend of the death of James. He examines the development of the tradition of Oblias and 'Rampart of the People' as designations of James. Here he calls on the imagery of the eschatological temple known from Qumran (207-208). He notes Hegesip- pus' use of Psalm 118:19-21, 'This is the gate of YHWH; the righteous shall enter through it'. 'James interprets "the Lord" as Jesus, and explains that the gate is Jesus in his role as saviour'. (210) An extended account is given of the role of Psalm 118 in the legendary development of this tradition.

In this context Bauckham sets his question 'For what offence was James put to death?' He distinguishes two often confused questions: Why did Ananus want James dead? What was the legal charge? To determine the charge he examines offences for which the torah prescribed the punishment of stoning: giving offspring to Molech; being a medium or a wizard; blasphemy; breaking the sabbath; secretly enticing the worship of other gods; idolatry; certain sexual sins.

Bauckham notes that, according to Josephus, the execution of James by stoning on the initiative of Ananus was met by the protest of a group Josephus does not specifically identify but which Bauckham recognises as 'undoubtedly mean- ing Pharisees' (222). One reason why this identification might be accepted is Josephus' positive description of the group. But the case is weakened if Josephus' positive attitude to the Pharisees is put in question as it is by Bauckham (199 n. 3). Given the identification of this group with the Pharisees, he suggests that the disagreement between the Sadducaean High Priest and the Pharisees arose from different interpretations of the law. What the Pharisees objected to was the method of execution by stoning, the most severe form of execution. The offence was not in dispute. The dispute probably concerned the Sadducaean interpretation of blasphemy, perhaps involving the charge of leading the people astray. The two charges may be indistinguishable ifJames identified the gate of YHWH (Psalm 118:20) with Jesus, the gate into the eschatological Temple. For such an offence, stoning is the scriptural punishment. Bauckham thinks the Pharisees disputed, not the offence, but a broader classification of blasphemy than they recognised.

This interpretation is innovative and appealing. One problem is that it is neither explicit nor implicit in Josephus' account. Further, if the Pharisees agreed with Ananus concerning the correctness of the charge and the death penalty imposed, it is difficult to think that protest would have been made to King Ag- rippa and the incoming governor (Albinus) if the disagreement concerned only the mode of execution. Bauckham earlier distinguished the reasons for the execution of James from the legal charge. If this is a significant distinction it would have been useful to hear more of those reasons.

Craig Evans, 'Jesus and James Martyrs of the Temple', examines the connec- tion between Temple and Psalm 118 to clarify the ministries of Jesus and James and the factors that brought each into deadly conflict with the Temple authorities (Caiaphas and Ananus). Evans notes that brothers Jesus and James were in

403



404 BOOK REVIEW

conflict with brothers in law, Caiaphas and Ananus and that charges of blasphemy and Temple traditions are involved with each of them. But while Caiaphas followed due process with the Roman authorities Ananus did not, with the result that he was deposed (249).

Evans (245) accepts the common view that James assumed leadership of the Jerusalem church only after Peter fled from Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). But if this were the case, why did Peter not reassume leadership on his return and, in particular, at the Jerusalem assembly (Acts 15)? Both Jesus and James are linked with the Temple in the accounts of their deaths. The significance of this is drawn out in a discussion of martyrs of the Temple. In Jerusalem Jesus took action against the regime of the Temple, recalling the words ofJeremiah 22:4-5 concerning mak- ing the 'house desolate'. Jesus spoke of its destruction and was charged with threat- ening to destroy the Temple. James was also in conflict with the regime of the Temple (Ananus) and is associated with the Temple in the Christian accounts of his death where he is said to have been thrown down from the pinnacle of the Temple, a description that could be associated with one of the temptations of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke.

The Christian accounts also make use of Psalm 118 in relation to the death of James. This is compared with Mark's use of the Psalm in 11:9-10; 12:10-11. A Davidic interpretative element grew up with the use of Psalm 118, its devotion to the Temple and criticism of the Temple regime of the ruling priests. Evans argues that the development of the tradition of understanding James as 'the Just' or 'Righteous' arises from Psalm 118:19-20 (247). Those verses are also said to lie behind the account of Hegesippus in which he refers to 'the gate of Jesus'. Reference in the Psalm is to the gate of the Lord through which the righteous (James and Just) enter. According to Hegesippus, before his martyrdom James was asked 'what is the gate of Jesus'. It is implied that Jesus is the gate through which the righteous enter.

Evans also accepts the view that, according to Galatians 2:9, James, Cephas and John were thought of as pillars of the new Temple. He compares 1 QSa 1.12-13 which speaks of 'pillars of the holy 13 congregation' (246). In the Second Apocalypse of James he predicts 'This [house] I will doom to destruction...' so that both Jesus and James are associated with sayings concerning the destruction of the Temple at their martyrdoms. Evans concludes 'that Jesus and James may very well have advanced the same agenda over against the Temple estab- lishment, and both suffered the same fate at the hands of essentially the same people'. (249)

Here Evans has developed a case for seeing strong continuity between James and Jesus. In this he is surely right. There is still room, and indeed the need, to discuss at what points James and Jesus differ.

Bruce Chilton, 'Conclusions and Questions' draws together some of the important insights in the contributions to the volume. He notes the important contribution of Maas Boertien from 1971 noting that he 'has crafted a skilful association between Acts 18:18 and Acts 21:23-26' (253). This association is implied by Neusner at the beginning of his contribution by quoting Acts 18:18 and 21:23-24 before setting out his own discussion of Paul's haircut at Cenchreae. Part of Boertien's contribution was to demonstrate that the shaving and the sacrifice in the Temple could be separated. This allows for the reading of the two texts in Acts as the continuation of Paul's Nazirite vow.

Chilton also takes up James' use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17 (see McKnight on 102-103, 106-108). He argues that, for James, the belief of the Gentiles does not achieve the redefinition of Israel as it does for Paul. The use of Scripture is important to show that the church does not act out of pragmatism but in line with the language of the prophets. Thus, what the belief of the Gentiles achieves



BOOK REVIEW 405

is 'the restoration of the house of David' (260). Here the Davidic lineage of Jesus (and James!) is assumed. Chilton notes that J.J. Collins has identified two references to Amos 9:11 at Qumran. The first is a messianic use in 4 Q174 3.10-13 (Florilegium) which links 2 Sam 7:13-14 with Isaiah 11:1-10 (cf. Pss Sol. 17:21-43) while in the second (CD 7.15-17), 'the hut of David' is not a messianic figure but the law restored (cf. Amos 2.4; 5.6-15). In Acts 15 James also has a dual focus on the Messiah and the law.

According to Chilton, James saw in Jesus the restoration of the house of David and this was vindicated by the belief of Gentiles (Acts 15:13-17). This did not change the status of Gentiles in relation to Israel. James' concentration on the purity of God's house meant the exclusion of Gentiles from its inner courts. The requirements of the decree (Acts 15:19-20) separate believing Gentiles from their pagan environment but the reference to continuing Jewish practice (Acts 15:21) warns against the assumption that Jewish and Gentile believers now form a single community (262). That Gentile believers accept the requirements of the decree shows that they honour the law but without changing their status as Gen- tiles. Thus Chilton returns to his theme, already noted by McKnight (110), that Paul divided Scripture to maintain a single fellowship of Jews and Gentiles, while James maintained the unity of Scripture, separating Jewish and Gentile believers (263). For Chilton, this means that the interpretation of Scripture involves a social policy.

This need not mean, however, that the interpretation of Scripture is driven by a social policy. Here Chilton is not explicit. The question is whether both Paul and James were driven by the way they had been grasped by the gospel. This seems likely to me and I would draw attention to the way understandings of the gospel drive the interpretation of Scripture. Neither James nor Paul argues simply from the basis of what best suits their respective missions, James to the circumcision and Paul to the nations. Paul's decision to go to the nations was not arbitrary, nor can it be read as an attempt to break out into 'the big time'. For neither of them was the decision concerning their missions simply a preju- dice. It arose from the way the gospel illuminated their understandings.

Chilton argues that the twin pillars ofJames' policy and practice were Gentile recognition of torah in the acceptance of the Jerusalem decree (Acts 21:25) and Nazirite purity on the side of Jewish believers. Hence the development of the tradition of James as a Nazirite. There is nothing to suggest that James envisaged Jewish believers accommodating their practices in relation to Gentiles. Recogni- tion of Gentile believers need not imply an equality with Jewish believers.

A contrast between James and Paul is again seen in Acts 24:17. This text pre- cludes the reading of Acts 18:18 as a simple Nazirite vow. Paul was returning to Jerusalem with the offerings of the Gentile churches, even if this action is combined with a Nazirite vow to be completed in Jerusalem (Acts 21:23-24).

Chilton concludes by noting the influence of James on Paul so that even he entered into a Nazirite vow. Yet within a decade ofJames' death the Temple and the Nazirite vow were no longer a focus for the followers of Jesus. If Paul had been part of a radical minority to this point, as Chilton argues, these events allowed his shadow to be cast over both James and Peter. Thus Chilton asks if they might not best emerge together from that shadow. With these words he signals the next stage of the consultation with a focus on James and Peter.

Clearly this volume makes a significant contribution to the study of James and Christian origins. Attention to the relationship between James and Peter may well redress some of the gaps in the present volume. This could be the opportu- nity to discuss the role of James during Jesus' ministry. His relationship with Peter ought also to raise the question of what evidence there is for Peter's leadership of the earliest church. Does the evidence concerning James's leadership



BOOK REVIEW BOOK REVIEW

outweigh whatever we have concerning Peter in Jerusalem? At another level, the discussion needs to address the different, even conflicting approaches of those involved in the discussion concerning James. For the moment we should be grate- ful to the contributors to this volume for the collaboration which has produced such a stimulating set of essays on James and the origins of Christianity.

JOHN PAINTER

THOMAS C. ODEN, General Editor, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament II, Mark, Edited by CHRISTOPHER A. HALL and THOMAS C. ODEN (Downers Grove, Ill, InterVarsity Press, 1998), xxxv + 281 pp., US S 39.99, ISBN 0-8308-1487-6; New Testament VI, Romans, Edited by GERALD BRAY (Downers Grove, Ill, InterVarsity Press, 1998), xxvii + 404 pp., US S 39.99, ISBN 0-8308-1491-4; CHRISTOPHER A. HALL, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, Ill, InterVarsity Press), 223 pp. US $ 11.99, ISBN 0-8308-1500-7.

This ambitious series, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, in which twenty- seven volumes are promised, has begun with the publication of an introductory volume (Hall) and two books on the New Testament, Mark (Oden) and Romans (Bray). The series seeks to make available to the general reader, as well as to teachers and scholars, the best of comments on the scriptures from Eastern and Western writers of the first eight centuries of the church's life.

The purpose of the project, as explained by Hall in the introductory volume is to help the church hear afresh the earliest commentators on scripture. The project itself was born out of a frustration with the moder, post-enlightenment method of exegesis, and the assumptions that lay behind it. That frustration is telescoped in the career of the General editor of the series, Prof. Thomas Oden of Drew University. Hall tells the story of Oden's own pilgrimage. For Oden 'modernity's well had run dry.' And he began drinking deeply from the fathers of the church (pp. 15-17). In Oden's own words, he learned to 'listen in such a way that my whole life depended upon hearing, listen in such a way that I could see teles- copically beyond my moder myopia, to break through the walls of my modem prison.' (p. 18) Thus the whole enterprise claims to 'open up a long-forgotten passage through the arid and precipitous slopes of post-enlightenment critical interpretation and bears us along to a fertile valley basking in the sunshine of theological and spiritual interpretation.'

This last claim, from the dust jacket of the volumes, is bold indeed. No doubt many will find a rediscovery of the fathers, not least through this series, a rich and refreshing experience. But there is a danger in placing the ancient commentators over against the moderns in this way. Sometimes the Fathers hear music to which the modern commentators are deaf. But at times the moderns are hearing notes missed by the fathers. For example, on Rom. 5:2 (Bray, p. 130) Augustine is certainly wrong and the moders right. The Love of God here is not objective but subjective. Perhaps the best of modem commentators are those who make full use of the modern critical tools, but also the wealth of interpretations in the church's history: Westcott on John, Selwyn on 1 Peter and Fitzmyer on Romans are three outstanding examples of the use of ancient insight and moder tools.

Hall's volume provides a valuable introduction, and it is primarily intended for those who would echo his own words, 'I had little contact with the Church Fathers. I had read Augustine's Confessions and The City of God... I had heard of Chrysostom... That was about it' (Hall, p. 199). This important tool for the

outweigh whatever we have concerning Peter in Jerusalem? At another level, the discussion needs to address the different, even conflicting approaches of those involved in the discussion concerning James. For the moment we should be grate- ful to the contributors to this volume for the collaboration which has produced such a stimulating set of essays on James and the origins of Christianity.

JOHN PAINTER

THOMAS C. ODEN, General Editor, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament II, Mark, Edited by CHRISTOPHER A. HALL and THOMAS C. ODEN (Downers Grove, Ill, InterVarsity Press, 1998), xxxv + 281 pp., US S 39.99, ISBN 0-8308-1487-6; New Testament VI, Romans, Edited by GERALD BRAY (Downers Grove, Ill, InterVarsity Press, 1998), xxvii + 404 pp., US S 39.99, ISBN 0-8308-1491-4; CHRISTOPHER A. HALL, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, Ill, InterVarsity Press), 223 pp. US $ 11.99, ISBN 0-8308-1500-7.

This ambitious series, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, in which twenty- seven volumes are promised, has begun with the publication of an introductory volume (Hall) and two books on the New Testament, Mark (Oden) and Romans (Bray). The series seeks to make available to the general reader, as well as to teachers and scholars, the best of comments on the scriptures from Eastern and Western writers of the first eight centuries of the church's life.

The purpose of the project, as explained by Hall in the introductory volume is to help the church hear afresh the earliest commentators on scripture. The project itself was born out of a frustration with the moder, post-enlightenment method of exegesis, and the assumptions that lay behind it. That frustration is telescoped in the career of the General editor of the series, Prof. Thomas Oden of Drew University. Hall tells the story of Oden's own pilgrimage. For Oden 'modernity's well had run dry.' And he began drinking deeply from the fathers of the church (pp. 15-17). In Oden's own words, he learned to 'listen in such a way that my whole life depended upon hearing, listen in such a way that I could see teles- copically beyond my moder myopia, to break through the walls of my modem prison.' (p. 18) Thus the whole enterprise claims to 'open up a long-forgotten passage through the arid and precipitous slopes of post-enlightenment critical interpretation and bears us along to a fertile valley basking in the sunshine of theological and spiritual interpretation.'

This last claim, from the dust jacket of the volumes, is bold indeed. No doubt many will find a rediscovery of the fathers, not least through this series, a rich and refreshing experience. But there is a danger in placing the ancient commentators over against the moderns in this way. Sometimes the Fathers hear music to which the modern commentators are deaf. But at times the moderns are hearing notes missed by the fathers. For example, on Rom. 5:2 (Bray, p. 130) Augustine is certainly wrong and the moders right. The Love of God here is not objective but subjective. Perhaps the best of modem commentators are those who make full use of the modern critical tools, but also the wealth of interpretations in the church's history: Westcott on John, Selwyn on 1 Peter and Fitzmyer on Romans are three outstanding examples of the use of ancient insight and moder tools.

Hall's volume provides a valuable introduction, and it is primarily intended for those who would echo his own words, 'I had little contact with the Church Fathers. I had read Augustine's Confessions and The City of God... I had heard of Chrysostom... That was about it' (Hall, p. 199). This important tool for the

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2000 ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2000

406 406

Novum Testamentum XLII, 4 Novum Testamentum XLII, 4



Documents

James the Just and Christian Originsby Bruce Chilton; Craig A. Evans