Andrew M. Bowden, «The Fruit of Righteousness in James: A Study in Discourse Analysis.» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 26 (2013) 87-108 page 91

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.

TAGS

Page 91/108
‹
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
›

The Fruit of Righteousness in James: A Study in Discourse Analysis 91 could imply shame, since “Israel’s dispersion is strongly associated with the topic of ‘sin’ and this topic plays large throughout our letter”18. Thus, James’ reference to the twelve tribes in the diaspora must be view “as a highly charged address”19 and serves as an early hint by the author that certain sins are needing to be confronted and met with sorrowful repentance. 2.1.2 Letter Body (1,2 – 5,20) The body of the letter begins in 1,2 and is indicated by the Epistle’s first verb (ἡγήσασθε). The letter-body is introduced in 1,2-27, and contains three main sections (2,1-26; 3,1 – 4,10; 4,11 – 5,8). Extensive parallelism may be observed between the body intro (1,2-27) and body conclusion (5,9-20), which serves to cohesively link the discourse together: περιπέσητε (1,2) ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε (5,12) γινώσκοντες ὅτι (1,2) γινώσκετε ὅτι (5,20) ὑπομονὴ…τέλειον (1,4) τὴν ὑπομονὴν…τὸ τέλος (5,11) αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει (1,6) ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως (5,15) Μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν (1,12) μακαρίζομεν τοὺς ὑπομείναντας (5,11) πειράζεται … ἁμαρτία … θάνατον (1,14-15) ἁμαρτωλὸν … θανάτου … ἁμαρτιῶν (5,20) Μὴ πλανᾶσθε (1,16) πλανηθῇ (5,19) λαλῆσαι (1,19) ἐλάλησαν (5,10) δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ οὐκ ἐργάζεται (1,20) δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη (5,16) δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς (1,21) ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως σώσει (5,15); σώσει ψυχὴν (5,21) This connection has not gone unnoticed by interpreters20. Among these parallels, several occur only in the body’s introduction and conclusion, and nowhere else in the letter, including θάνατος, πλανάω, and ψυχή21. 2.2 The Major Subsequences of the Letter Body 2.2.1 Body Opening (1,2-27) Having identified the letter’s epistolary units, we can now take a detailed look at the body of the letter and examine precisely what James 18 W.H. Wachob, “The Languages of ‘Household’ and ‘Kingdom’ in the Letter of James: A Socio-Rhetorical Study”, in Mark Goodacre (ed.), Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James (LNTS 342; New York – London 2007) 159. 19 Quoted in Verseput, “Genre”, 100 (author’s trans.). 20 Cf. Baasland, “Der Jakobusbrief als neutestamentliche Weisheitsschrift”, ST 36 (1982) 122; Taylor, James, 69-70, and Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient Christian Letter (JSNT Supp. 121; Sheffield 1996) 258. 21 Taylor, therefore, refers to the connection between the opening and closing as “a ‘grand inclusion’ framing the composition as a whole” (James, 71).