104 Andrew M. Bowden φονεύεις (2,11) ἐφονεύσατε (5,6) λαλεῖτε καὶ οὕτως ποιεῖτε (2,12) λέγειν … καὶ ποιήσομεν (4,15) λαλεῖτε (2,12) καταλαλεῖτε (4,11) ποιεῖτε (2,12) ποιητὴς νόμου/ ποιήσομεν (4,12.17) νόμου κρίνεσθαι (2,12) νόμον κρίνεις (4,11) κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως (2,13) πᾶσα καύχησις (4,16) σῶσαι (2,14) σῶσαι (4,12) μὴ ἔχῃ (2,14) οὐκ ἔχετε (4,2) λειπόμενοι τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς (2,15) ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας (5,5) εἷς θεός ἐστιν (2,19) εἷς ἐστιν νομοθέτης καὶ κριτής (4,12) ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ (2,20) (vocatives) μοιχαλίδες/ἁμαρτωλοί/δίψυχοι (4,4.8) δικαιοσύνην (2,23) ἐφονεύσατε τὸν δίκαιον (5,6) φίλος θεοῦ (2,23) ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ (4,4) ἡ πόρνη (2,25) πονηρά (4,16) This lengthy list demonstrates that the language between the two sections is mirrored in significant ways. In light of such extensive and deliberate parallelism between the two sections, it is understandable that interpreters have sought to identify a chiasm between the units. And, while Taylor and Guthrie noted inclusio between a couple of the verses, the parallelism should be seen as pervasive throughout the sections. Indeed, it seems short-sighted to limit the parallelism to λαλεῖτε (2,12), ποιεῖτε (2,12), νόμου and κρίσις (2,12), as they have done58. 2.2.3 Body Conclusion: Receive God’s Gracious Offer of Forgiveness for Failing to Bear the Fruit of Righteousness (5,9-20) Having thoroughly looked at the three major sections of the body of James, we may now examine the body’s conclusion. The conclusion begins in 5,9 with the prohibitory present imperative plus the vocative (μὴ στενάζετε, ἀδελφοί) and a warning of judgment — a pattern that also marked each of the letter’s three main sections. The body-conclusion proceeds to 5,20, where James ends with the idea of turning wandering sinners. There is much disagreement about the precise location and theme of the conclusion. Many interpreters identify 5,7 as the start of the conclusion, rather than 5,9, as we have done59. Their reasons for identifying this as the start of the conclusion include (1) the apparent transitions in v. 7, including the vocative coupled with the imperative and the switch from 58 Porter has also criticized several of the inclusios identified by Guthrie; see Porter, “How Can Biblical Discourse Be Analyzed?: A Response to Several Attempts,” in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (ed. S. Porter and D. A. Carson; Sheffield 1995) 111–12. Porter states that this constitutes “the major issue in Guthrie’s approach” (p. 111). 59 E.g., Davids, James, 24; Taylor, James, 84; Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus 1/2, E. Gräßer and K. Kertelge (eds.) (ÖTzNT 17; Würzburg 1994) 668.