James 4,1-4 in the Light of the Jewish Two Ways Tradition 3,1-6 41 verbal argument, private violence or national conflict? How can one seriously accuse Christian members of the community or the community as a whole of actual murder (12)? Moreover, “you murder” neither fits well with the following “you are envious” (zhlou'te) which sounds slightly out of place after an accusation of an outrageous crime. Erasmus resolved the difficulty by offering a text-critical emendation. He proposed altering “you murder” (foneuvete) to “you are jealous” (fqonei'te) (13). This might seem an appropriate conjecture since the words fqovno" - zh'lo" are often found paired in biblical and early- Christian literature (1 Macc 8,16; TestXII.Sim 2,7; 4,5; Gal 5,21; 1 Clem 3,2; 4,7.13; 5,2) (14). On the other hand, appeals to textual emendation should always be a last option. There is no textual support whatsoever for this solution since all manuscripts attest to the present reading (15). The third difficulty regards the sudden address of the moicalivde" (“adulteresses”) in 4,4. How can this diction be explained? The abrupt transition to the feminine vocative describes the community as being an adulterous generation. Indeed, there are many OT references where Israel is presented as God’s unfaithful wife denounced in prophetic books (Ezek 16,38; 23,45) but a marriage of God metaphor is found (12) “Every attempt to make sense of ‘you kill’ (phoneuete) as it stands in the traditional text produces an intolerable climax…”; cf. J.B. ADAMSON, The Epistle of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI 1976) 167. (13) “Non video quid illud verbum occiditis ad sensum faciat. Forte scriptum fuit, fqonei'te et zhlou'te, id est ‘Invidetis et aemulamini, et non potestis consequi’, ut scriptor dormitans pro fqonei'te scripserit foneuvete; …” (“I do not see how this word you kill makes sense here. Perhaps there was written fqonei'te and zhlou'te, that is, ‘you are jealous and you seek, and you cannot obtain’, and so [I conclude that] a sleeping scribe wrote foneuvete instead of fqonei'te; …”); for text and translation, see J.L.H. KRANS, Beyond What Is Written. Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament (Diss.; Zutphen 2004) 112; for information about the conjecture’s reception history, see ibid., 113 and n. 118. (14) The terms fqovno" and zh'lo" are often used interchangeably as well; cf. JOHNSON, The Letter of James, 271; DIBELIUS, James, 217-218; DAVIDS, The Epistle of James, 158, 163-164; MOO, The Epistle of James, 145; HARTIN, James, 192; and M.A. JACKSON-MCCABE, Logos and Law in the Letter of James. The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, and the Law of Freedom (NTS 100; Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001) 203-204. (15) Cf. DAVIDS, The Epistle of James, 158; HARTIN, James, 197. Various other explanations have been offered: G. KITTEL, “Der geschichtliche Ort des Jakobusbriefes”, ZNW 41 (1942) 71-105; esp. 87; P.J. HARTIN, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (JSNTSS 47; Sheffield 1991) 165, n. 2; S. LAWS, A Commentary on the Epistle of James (BNTC 18; London 1980) 171; JOHNSON, The Letter of James, 277.