In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

101 If James is “authentic,” then it was written in Jerusalem before 62 ce, the year of the death of the Lord’s brother. If it is not,1 as the exegetical majority—in my opinion correctly—assumes, then the question of the historical location of James is open, and difficult to answer. “Lokalkolorit fehlt.”2 The traditio-historical relations of James to other writings of its time present a possible point of access to this question. This would most especially apply if it were possible to differentiate between varying strains within a certain piece of tradition, and to then assign the formulation of the tradition found in James to one of them. Since oral tradition is dependent upon (groups of) tradents, one might continue from here with the inquiry into whether the traditio-historical findings can be set in relationship with known data about the history of early Christianity. A side aspect of the historical localization is the question of the pseudepigraphic background of the letter: why did the author choose to portray his arguments and admonitions as a writing of James, the brother of the Lord? Did he profess to a form of Christianity that honored James as the ecclesiastical authority? Is there a relationship between the traditional material taken up in James and the leader of the congregation in Jerusalem on a material level? Or can other reasons be cited for ascribing the epistle to James? Chapter 6 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE LETTER OF JAMES IN LIgHT OF ITS TRADITIO-HISTORICAL RELATIONS WITH FIRST PETER Matthias Konradt 102 MATTHIAS KONRADT The discussion of the traditio-historical background of James generally concentrates on the (positive) relations to the Jesus tradition on the one hand,3 and the (negative) relations to the Pauline tradition on the other.4 Affinities with the Apostolic Fathers, especially with Shepherd of Hermas, also occasionally receive attention.5 Although scholars have long taken note of the close resemblances to 1 Peter,6 which is also pseudepigraphic ,7 the discussion only moves between two alternatives—whether literary dependence exists,8 or whether common traditional material was processed9 —and finds an end with the resolution of this question. With the triumph of Formgeschichte, the latter option has prevailed—justly, in my opinion—as the view of the majority. In some cases, however, the resemblances are so close that the traditio-historical correlation must be pursued more exactly, instead of generally pointing to the wide ocean of the occurrence of individual motifs elsewhere. To put it another way, the question must be posed whether a starting point for the historical localization of James (and of 1 Peter) can be found here. That the close relationship between James and 1 Peter, which shall be demonstrated in the remarks to follow, has not been given more attention to date may also be due to the fact that from a theological standpoint, the assessments allotted to both writings have been diametrically opposed. As is well known, Martin Luther compared everything with Paul theologically . While 1 Peter met with a positive estimation, James was degraded to a “strawy epistle.”10 In modern exegesis, the postulate of the theological proximity of 1 Peter to Paul has been flanked traditio-historically by the hypothesis that 1 Peter is deeply rooted in the Pauline tradition.11 Most recently, however, James has experienced a theological upgrading over against Luther’s judgment, and perception of James has broadened over against a narrowed viewpoint through the receptional filter of Pauline statements on justification. This has gone to the extent that the consensus of an antithetical reference to Paul—or more precisely, to a Paulinism that distorts Paul himself—in James 2:14-26 has been put in question in some recent publications.12 Simultaneously, with respect to 1 Peter, its “Paulinism” has been assessed more reservedly or even denied altogether by some scholars.13 A new round of discussion has been opened, to which the following remarks intend to make a contribution. The emphasis shall thereby be laid upon James. My hypothesis is that the close resemblances between James and 1 Peter offer a starting point for historically localizing James on the map of early Christianity. For that purpose, I will attempt to set the traditiohistorical findings in relationship with historical data on early Christianity , especially with data on James’ and Peter’s activities and impact. At the same time, linking both perspectives builds a foundation for being able to [18.219.22.169] Project MUSE...

Share