56 Huub van de Sandt views occurring in the Greek tractate of the Two Ways (54). The pietistic Derekh Erets does not refer to such unique Jewish commandments as circumcision, dietary restrictions, clothing restraints or observance of the Sabbath and festivals. Nor does it display the style of halakhic discussion characteristic to most rabbinic literature or, by way of specific example, a letter from Qumran such as 4QMMT which meticulously discusses the specificities of the Torah or precisely spells out what each commandment requires in specific circumstances. It is not a strict legal, halakhic approach to the Law which is emphasized but a moral, personal and ethical attitude to life. In the following sections I shall make clear that paraenetic materials in James belong to this particular tradition as part of a developing Jewish stream of thought. 5. An Approach to the Law in Jas 2,8-11 in Line with Early Derekh Erets The main section on the law in James’ letter is 2,8-11 (55). The passage shows a similar ethical interest in the law as does the segment found in Did 3,1-6 and the ancient kernel of Derekh Erets literature as well. The text runs as follows: 8. If you really fulfil the royal Law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself”, you do well. 9. But if you show partiality, you commit a sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery”, also said, “Do not kill”. If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the Law. These verses are part of James’ powerful, coherent argument against all forms of partiality or favouritism. In Jas 2,1-5 readers are warned not to practice favouritism in their assemblies. The proof comes in two main sections, vv. 5-7 and vv. 8-11 and we find a renewed admonition in 2,12-13. The first section endorsing the argument consists of three rhetorical questions (vv. 5-6a, 6b, 7) each of which anticipates an affirmative response. The second section seeks to prove that a sin such as is represented by “partiality” (proswpolhmyiva), is a violation of the Torah (vv. 8-11). Apparently the readers of the letter did not experience it that way. (54) See VAN DE SANDT – FLUSSER, The Didache, 172-179. (55) According to Wachob (The Voice of Jesus, 127) Jas 2,1-13 “is the Jamesian argument that says more about the law than any other in the letter”.