Andrew M. Bowden, «The Fruit of Righteousness in James: A Study in Discourse Analysis.», Vol. 26 (2013) 87-108
In this study, a discourse analysis of James is conducted with the goal of better understanding the structure, theme, and cohesion of the letter. By paying careful attention to the details of the text, James’ paragraphs are identified, as are the signals of transition between the various paragraphs. The conclusions reached based on a discourse analysis of James are illuminating. Far from being a randomly arranged work, James repeatedly uses present prohibitory imperatives in the overall organization of the Epistle. These imperatives are important in marking transitions between main sections. Furthermore, a discourse analysis reveals that James is a coherent epistle comprised of 16 paragraphs, with 3,13-18 providing the overarching macrostructure of the letter. Bearing the fruit of righteousness, a theme prominent in 3,13-18, is seen to be the letter’s overarching and unifying thought.
The Fruit of Righteousness in James: A Study in Discourse Analysis 103
an encouragement after such poignant and strong rebukes. “The image of
the farmer in steadfast patience waiting upon the Lord for his provision
is set in sharp contrast with the boasting of the arrogant merchants and
the exploitative rich awaiting the judgment of the Lord upon them”56.
Here the readers are again reminded that they are still brothers (5,7),
and that the fruit of righteousness will come in their lives if they have
patience.
Having examined the body of the letter, we may now make some
observations before moving on to the body’s conclusion. Several
interpreters argue for a form of chiasm in this Epistle. The chiasm is
identified in various ways, but in general a parallelism is noted between
chapters 2 and 4 of James. Other interpreters, such as Taylor and Guthrie,
have noted significant inclusio between the two chapters, which they
diagram in this way:
2,12-13 4,11-12
λαλεῖτε (2,12) καταλαλεῖτε (4,11)
ποιεῖτε (2,12) ποιητὴς νόμου
νόμου κρίνεσθαι (2,12) νόμον κρίνεις
κρίνεσθαι/κρίσις/κρίσεως ὁ κρίνων (2x), κρίνει, κρίνεις, κριτής (2x)57
It must be noted how our identification of the letter’s three main
sections (2,1-26; 3,1 – 4,10; 4,11 – 5,8) sheds light on this question of
chiasm/inclusio. An examination of the language seems to indicate (1)
that Taylor and Guthrie noticed one inclusio, but failed to notice the
numerous other parallels between chapters 2 and 4; and (2) that there
is not an exact chiasm between the sections. Instead, numerous parallels
and inclusios may be noted between the first and third section:
2,1-26 4,1 – 5,8
χρυσοδακτύλιος (2,2) ὁ χρυσὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος (5,3)
λαμπρᾷ (2,2) τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν (5,2)
πτωχοὺς/πλουσίους (e.g., 2,5) οἱ πλούσιοι (5,1)
καταδυναστεύουσιν (2,6) κατεδικάσατε (5,6)
καλῶς ποιεῖτε (2,8.19) καλὸν ποιεῖν (4,17)
Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον (2,8) ὁ κρίνων τὸν πλησίον (4,12)
ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε (2,9) ἁμαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν (4,17)
γέγονεν (2,10) γέγονεν (5,2)
μοιχεύεις (2,11) μοιχαλίδες (4,4)
56
Cheung, Genre, 80.
57
For this diagram, and for my references in the following paragraph to their article, see
Taylor and Guthrie, “The Structure of James”, CBQ (2006) 681-705.
FOLLOW US