Jean-Noël Aletti, «James 2,14-26: The Arrangement and Its Meaning», Vol. 95 (2014) 88-101
The main goal of this essay is to demonstrate that the author of the Letter of James knows how to reason according to the rules of arrangement then in place in the schools and elsewhere, rules that he uses with originality. His rhetoric is not Semitic: for him, Greek is not only a language or a style but also what structures the development of his thought. The choice of a chreia as the pattern of arrangement allowed him to repeat an opinion that had become common in some Christian communities and criticize it, showing that it was erroneous. By presenting this common opinion as a maxim (gnoee), he did not need to cite Paul and thereby avoided attributing to him what was only an erroneous recapitulation of his doctrine of justification.
05_Biblica_Aletti_Layout 1 01/04/14 12:04 Pagina 95
95
JAMES 2,14-26
3. The Progression of the Passage
This arrangement requires a brief commentary. The chreia is not
solely identifiable by its initial question, even if that is what is often
determinative; the objection and the examples are further indicators
that alert the attentive reader to the literary genres of ancient texts.
Like several Pauline argumentations, Jas 2,14-26 is composed of
two parts: a first part that briefly states the thesis and follows it with
a primary reason (or ratio), which is very brief, so that the reader
immediately sees the author’s position 18, and a second that takes
up these elements and multiplies and develops the reasons that sup-
port the defended thesis:
vv. 14-17 brief first part first statement of the thesis and first ratio
vv. 18-26 long second part other statements of the thesis and rationes
If the chreia constitutes the disposition of the whole, it is not
the only rhetorical tool utilized by Jas 2,14-26. The bipartite divi-
sion is further identifiable thanks to the diatribe that begins in v.18,
as was seen by Dibelius. The prosopopoeia (v. 18, evrei/ tij), in
other words, the mention of a fictional interlocutor, and the
provocative apostrophe (v. 20, w= a;nqrwpe kene,) — the reason for
which Ruckstuhl speaks of Spottrede, of denigration — are some
of the indicators that are not misleading.
As we already noted above concerning the reading proposed by
T. Kot, it is clear that v. 18 cannot be a conclusion. Rather, v. 18 is
stating an objection and introducing the developments of vv. 19-25
as the two propositions in v. 18bc indicate:
announcement of the examples the examples
v. 18b dei/xo,n moi th.n pi,stin [sou] → v. 19 negative example
cwri.j tw/n e;rgwn
v. 18c kavgw, soi dei,xw evk tw/n e;rgwn → v. 21-25 positive examples
[mou] thn pi,stinÃ…
.
18
In the Pauline letters, the clearest example is Rom 1,16-17 in which
Paul states his position by furnishing a primary reason before the develop-
ments that will run throughout the letter.