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

Chapter 1 - The SNTS Seminar on the Catholic Epistles (2001–2006)

1 The overarching purpose of this seminar has been to rehabilitate this Society’s interest in the Catholic Epistles (CE), which have largely been neglected by both the guild and the church. When they are considered, whether critically or kerygmatically, these letters are typically filtered through a Pauline lens rather than on their own terms or as a discrete canonical collection. In response, the original definition of our seminar’s work regards the use of different apostolic traditions reflected by the CE, quite apart from the Pauline canon, as one key to reconstructing the distinctive occasion and purpose of each epistle in turn. yet another interest has emerged along the way: consideration of the CE as a discrete collection of writings, with its own distinctive contribution to make and role to perform, when considered in relationship to the other parts of the biblical canon. Against the grain of modern criticism , which typically treats the CE as a collection of disparate, unrelated compositions, one of the seminar’s principal findings in this regard—the common result of different interpretive strategies—has been to understand the seven epistles as different parts of a coherent whole; that is, the CE form a discrete, purposeful collection within the New Testament biblical canon, with its own distinctive voice, history of formation, use of common traditions (Christian and not), and strategic role to perform as Chapter 1 THE SNTS SEMINAR ON THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES (2001–2006) Robert W. Wall and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr 2 ROBERT W. WALL AND KARL-WILHELM NIEBUHR sacred Scripture. Whilst finding connections within the CE (see the contributions of Feldmeier, Frey, Hafemann, Konradt, Newman, Nienhuis, Painter, and Wall) and with other New Testament writings/traditions (e.g., gospel/Jesus traditions—Hartin, Kloppenborg, Niebuhr; Acts— Konradt, Wall; Pauline—Newman, Nienhuis, Wall), the seminar papers have typically concluded that the CE, when considered as a whole, speak with a distinctive voice and with an independent theological and moral point to score. Because the co-chairs of this seminar are scholars of James, our seminar has often developed these findings by critical analysis of what K.-W. Niebuhr has called “a new perspective on James.” According to Niebuhr, the newness of this approach to this particular CE (at least for Protestant interpreters) is to resist the post-Reformation tendency to read James over and against historical constructions of Paul’s mission or his message found in the Pauline canon, and to privilege certain parts of James by so doing. The result is not only to read James on its own terms and in its own distinctive voice, but to place it within its own socio-religious world, its particular canonical setting within the CE collection, and by doing so to add layers of meaning to it. But then this project has also resulted, perhaps surprisingly so, in a new perspective on the CE collection, introduced by R. W. Wall, who not only has recovered a coherent theological argot from the collection but also interprets the important role this “unifying theology” performs within the New Testament canon. Different seminar papers on James have developed versions of this new perspective by drawing upon early traditions about a fictive or even historical James—the implied author of James. For example, M. Konradt argues that the predicate of the implied fictive “James” of James is the legendary pastor of Jerusalem—that is, the James of Acts (traditions of whom are also repristinated as the hagiographic “James the Just,” mentioned in second- and third-century sectarian writings as a member of the Holy Family, rather than of the apostolate). James is studied from the perspective of a priestly James, then; its use of common traditions and its definition of Christian existence presume a congregational setting apropos for a pastor’s address. For this reason, when traditions common to James and 1 Peter are compared, one recognizes that their redaction and intention are consistent with the office of their implied/fictive author, whether pastoral and congregational or missionary and international. K.-W. Niebuhr has introduced another new perspective on James in particular by avoiding any relationship with the “new perspective on Paul.” He argues that the James of James is the brother of the risen Lord, whose perspective toward Christian existence is framed and freighted by his Easter experience, rather than by an adversarial relationship with the THE SNTS SEMINAR ON THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES (2001–2005) 3 Pauline mission...