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 98
98 JEAN-NOËL ALETTI
Romans 4. In Jas 2,19 (kai. ta. daimo,nia pisteu,ousin kai.
frissousin), faith does not have the same meaning as in Romans
,
4 because the demons do not believe as Abraham believed in Ro-
mans 4, their belief being a correct utterance of the identity of Jesus
(cf. Mark 1,24 / Luke 4,34; Matt 8,29 / Mark 5,7 / Luke 8,28). For
in Romans 4 to believe does not consist in a series of statements but
in submitting oneself totally to God and to His word; as superior
spirits, the demons do not have this faith that is a total adherence to
the word and the will of God/Jesus, and what they say about Jesus
is not the result of an attitude of acceptance but, on the contrary,
clearly expresses a rejection.
The vocabulary of justice/justification appears only in Jas
2,21.23.24, and 25. One can immediately note that the progression
of the two biblical examples (Abraham and Rahab) is parallel to that
in Rom 4,1-8:
Jas 2,21-25 Rom 4,1-8
Abraham Abraham
Rahab David
But the manner of interpreting the Old Testament texts is not the
same. In Rom 4,5, Abraham is implicitly treated as impious (even if
the adjective is explicitly applied to David, mentioned in v. 6), while
in Jas 2,21-23, Abraham is justified because of his obedience to God.
And if David and Rahab are both sinners, what James elicits from
the case of Rahab is the opposite of what Paul elicits from David’s
in Romans 4. For in Romans 4, David is incapable of finding the
friendship of God by good works because of his adultery and homi-
cide; whereas Rahab, although a sinner, was able to be justified by
her generous behavior. If, moreover, Jas 2,25 speaks of Rahab’s faith,
it is because she believed in the God of Israel by declaring Him to
be the true God and because her positive attitude towards the two
spies from Israel is explained only by her faith (Josh 2,9-11).20
20
The same interpretation in Heb 11,31 (pi,stei `Raa.b h` po,rnh ouv
sunapw,leto toi/j avpeiqh,sasin dexame,nh tou.j katasko,pouj met’ eivrh,nhj). On
the Jewish parallels, see E. PUECH, “La Lettre de Jacques et Qumrân,†RivBib
59 (2011) 29-55.
FOLLOW US