The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition: A New Perspective on James to Jude

Chapter 7 - Acts and James

127 This paper argues for two related claims, both cued by consideration of the canonical process as a phenomenon guided by hermeneutical factors rather than purely sociological forces.1 The first claim, made in the first two sections of the paper, is a constructive claim about the theological unity of the Catholic Epistles (CE). For this reason, my argument is more programmatic than exegetical in focus and is suggestive of future work in relating the theological conceptions of the Catholic and Pauline corpora, in my view, as constitutive of an internal apparatus of checks and balances , perhaps to correct an epistolary theology that remains more Pauline in perspective. For the sake of argument, I have drawn the Pauline theological conception sharply and in an overly Protestant fashion, and would admit on exegetical evidence that there is more thematic continuity between the Pauline and CE corpora than I have allowed. But my programmatic point is to introduce into conversation an interpretive calculus that arranges and relates these themes together as elements of a coherent whole that are at once different and complementary. Especially in the appendix (see p. 142), I attempt to illustrate this constructive project. What seems important to clarify is that here, I make a more implicit claim for a criterion by which to account for the theological unity of the CE and then relate it to a Pauline perspective: the Chapter 7 ACTS AND JAMES Robert W. Wall 128 ROBERT W. WALL church’s rule of faith. That is, unlike the various quests for a unifying center of Pauline theology, whose source is the historical Paul or Pauline tradents and which therefore defend the integrity of a particular tradition (Pauline) or founder (Paul), the theological unity of the CE lies outside the individual writings and in the church’s grammar of theological agreements—Creator, Christ, community, consummation.2 Further, I would argue (I think) that this same external source—the church’s rule of faith—is a more useful device for scoring the intracanonical conversation between the theological conceptions envisaged by both Pauline and CE corpora. Rather than seeking some thematic consistency between them through selective and creative exegesis, I commend a different approach that is rooted in a particular idea of canon: that its various parts are roughly analogous to the church’s rule of faith. A second claim more narrowly concentrates upon the relationship between Acts and the CE, which were found together from the earliest stage of the canonical process. More specifically, I am interested in the evident privileging of James within the CE, and what Acts might be able to tell us about the priority of James in the New Testament canon. I doubt this interest will be fully satisfied by historical investigation,3 but the question of James’ importance is rather more adequately inflected by theological or religious construction. For example, Bede is one of the church’s earliest interpreters of the CE as a whole collection; he suggests it is because of James’ stature within Christianity’s “mother” church in Jerusalem. My strategy is to read this problem from context of Acts, where James performs a pivotal role at the narrative’s central moment at the so-called Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:4-21; cf. 15:22-30; 21:21-26). His verdict and commentary on Scripture actually proffer the essential hermeneutic by which the entire narrative is understood and, within the New Testament canon, by which the two epistolary corpora are related together toward the end of theological understanding. Introduction Acts was combined with the CE from the earliest stage of the canonical process. In fact, we know of no period in the reception of these compositions within the ancient church when they were not read together, and their working relationship continues to be an established interest of biblical criticism to this day—typically spurred on for reasons born of common sense more than of criticism, and in presumption of authorial rather than ecclesial intent. That is, the Acts of the Apostles narrates a story whose central characters are the same authors (e.g., Peter, Paul, James) and audiences /sources (e.g., Jerusalem, Timothy, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome) referenced or alluded to in the subsequent New Testament letters.4 New ACTS AND JAMES 129 Testament readers naturally make associations between these common elements, noting as well a common concern for important topics of Christian existence (e.g., sharing goods, purity...