Article

Journal for the Study of

the New Testament
An Early Reader of James? 2020, Vol. 43(2) 226­–247
© The Author(s) 2020
Ethical Parallels between the Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Epistle and 2 Enoch DOI: 10.1177/0142064X20961280
https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/
journals.sagepub.com/home/jnt

Timothy A. Gabrielson
Sterling College - Theology and Ministry, USA

Abstract
The letter of James remains an enigma in many ways, including its immediate reception.
Another enigmatic work, 2 Enoch, though vastly different in temperament and form,
contains numerous ethical parallels with the epistle. Most prominent among the ten
detailed here are the use of the imago Dei to prohibit slander, an absolute ban on taking
oaths and a warning to wealthy landowners not to exploit day laborers. Utilizing criteria
developed by Luke Timothy Johnson, a strong case can be made that 2 Enoch is to be
numbered among the earliest readers of James. If so, there are implications for the
date, geography and social context of both works. This proposal also sheds light on the
relationship between the oath-formulas in Jas 5.12 and Mt. 5.33-37.

Keywords
2 (Slavonic) Enoch, ethics, James, Matthew 5.33-37, reception history

Introduction
The letter of James remains an enigma. Some scholars date it to the 40s or early
50s ce, among the earliest writings in the NT, while others locate it a full cen-
tury later.1 As with the date, the evidence for the historical situation is murky.
Some decades ago, Peter Davids (1982: 28-34) fixed the Sitz im Leben as the
Palestinian church in the lead up to the first Jewish war with Rome. More
recently, Dale Allison (2013: 32-50) has proposed that an Ebionite-like author
downplayed his Christian commitments in order to build rapport with non-Chris-

1. See the thorough review of positions in Allison 2013: 3-32.

Corresponding author:
Timothy A. Gabrielson, Sterling College - Theology and Ministry, 125 W Cooper Street, Sterling, Kansas
67579, USA.
Email: tgabrielson@sterling.edu
Gabrielson 227

tian Jews, and Rainer Metzner (2017: 13-16) has placed it at an advanced stage
of Hellenistic Christianity, since typical Jewish concerns like halakha and the
temple are absent. Thus, while the ethics of the letter are readily discernable, its
origin remains shrouded in mystery.
Also shrouded in mystery is its early reception. Origen (c. 184–254) is the first
to cite the letter by name. Evidence before the third century is, as Luke Timothy
Johnson (1995: 126-29, at 129) has characterized it, ‘slender and disputed’.
Johnson (1995: 66-80, at 67) lays out four criteria for determining whether any
early writings utilize James:

1. ‘the presence of distinctive linguistic parallels’;

2. ‘an overall similarity in outlook and language between the writing and
James’;
3. ‘the density and interconnectedness of the parallels sufficient to argue
against coincidence’; and
4. ‘the incidence of the parallels from more than one part of James and in
more than one part of the second-century writing’.2

His yield is meager: only the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Clement ‘can make a
real claim’ to using James (Johnson 1995: 67), while other possibilities are more
slender. Although the 25 years since Johnson published his commentary have
seen further discussion of the topic, there have been few additional writings con-
sidered and no reason to alter his criteria.3 Besides two likely glimmers in Rome
around 100 ce, James’s early reception is shadowy.
Another work can make a ‘real claim’ to knowing James: 2 Enoch. This
pseudepigraphon, also known as the Slavonic Apocalypse of Enoch, is likewise
of obscure origin, both in terms of its date and author(s). It is often judged to
have its roots in a pre- or non-Christian form of Judaism in the Second Temple
era. In time, 2 Enoch was passed on, with various emendations and in two recen-
sions, within Christian circles, eventually entering Slavic literature.4 For some
time, commentators have noticed a smattering of parallels between James and
2 Enoch, but with little elaboration.5 Scholarship on 2 Enoch has returned the

2. This order proves convenient to present my case. Johnson’s sequence differs.

3. For example, McKnight (2011: 2-3, 23-28, 34-38), Allison (2013: 51-71) and Metzner (2017:
32-42) do refer to other works, but in general to discover James’s sources or compare its
themes. When Allison (2013: 94-98) considers some potential literary relationships (includ-
ing 1 Clement and Hermas), it is to suggest Rome as the origin of James.
4. The essays in Orlov and Boccaccini (2012b: 7-124) provide background.
5. Bauckham (1999: 33) makes a parenthetical comment, and Penner (1996: 233-34 and n. 1)
provides examples of this ‘intriguing comparison’ before turning elsewhere. Allison’s (2013)
commentary includes ample references to 2 Enoch, but not for James’s early history and
author (13-18, 20-24), sources (51-71) and reception (99-109). Many commentaries, in fact,
include no reference to 2 Enoch: e.g. Martin 1988: 222-23; Hartin 2009: 309-15. Those that
do have few: e.g. McCartney 2009: 331 (one); Johnson 1995: 391 (three).
228 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43(2)

favor, rarely mentioning James among literary parallels.6 Insofar as I am aware,

the only article that brings the two together with any sustained attentiveness is by
Rocco Scibona (2011: 43-58), who traces paradisiacal oil from James to 2 Enoch
to the Gospel of Nicodemus.
Mostly unnoticed, then, are a series of ethical similarities between this NT
circular letter and the Slavonic apocalypse. While some are merely allusive, sev-
eral are close in wording and imagery or entail relatively uncommon ethical
requirements. Cumulatively these indicate that 2 Enoch might be among the ear-
liest readers of James. I will use Johnson’s four criteria (above) to analyze the
case for literary dependence and end by reflecting on several implications.

Distinctive Linguistic Parallels

The first criterion is ‘the presence of distinctive linguistic parallels’. Five points
of contact are of particular interest, though one seems to be a later addition to
2 Enoch.

Similarity 1: Slander and the imago Dei

The most notable ethical parallel is seen in 2 En. 44.1-3:

The Lord with his own two hands created mankind; in a facsimile of his own face,
both small and great, the Lord created |them|. And whoever insults a person’s face,
insults the face of a king, and treats the face of the Lord with repugnance. He who
treats with contempt the face of any person treats the face of the Lord with contempt.7

6. Andersen’s (1983: I, 95 n. 13) omission of James among NT parallels (‘Apart from similari-
ties to Jude and 2Pet … 2En comes closer in language and ideas to Mt than to any other part of
the NT’) is representative. None of Forbes and Charles (1913: II, 425-29), Rost (1976: 112),
Nickelsburg (2005: 221-25) and Helyer (2002: 382-84) mention James. Böttrich (1992: 216-
25) lists Jas 3.9 // 2 En. 44.1, but graded at his lowest level of confidence (221). Macaskill
(2007: 204-207) dwells instead on Matthew in his chapter on 2 Enoch (but cf. 184-85, where
James arises secondarily). Of the collected essays in DiTommaso and Böttrich (2011), only
Böttrich (2011: 164 n. 16) mentions James, and only incidentally.
7. All quotations of 2 Enoch come from Andersen’s (1983: I, 101-221) OTP translation of MS
J, the longer recension, with MS A for the shorter. Macaskill (2013: 9-11) adds a ‘very short’
recension, but I will investigate the two customary ones. Decision on the priority of the recen-
sions has ebbed and flowed: from the shorter (Vaillant 1976: iii-xxvi) to the longer (Andersen
1983: I, 92-94; Böttrich, 1992: 59-144) and trending back to the shorter (Macaskill 2013:
19-33; most relevant essays in Orlov and Boccaccini 2012b: 7-101, 229-42, 387-410). I will
note any discrepancies, but in general the ethical material is common across MSS – including
MS B (shorter recension), which differs appreciably from A (see Macaskill 2013: 269-322).
Gabrielson 229

Here the ‘image and likeness of God’ of Gen. 1.26-27 is put to ethical use (cf.
2 En. 65.2), specifically to prohibit slander.8 This is the exact point of Jas 3.8-9:
‘no one can tame the tongue – [it is] a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With
it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in
the likeness of God [ὁμοίωσις θεοῦ].’ For one accustomed to later Jewish and
Christian theology, this might seem a moralistic commonplace, but in the first
century, it was not so.9 Elsewhere in the NT the image of God (εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ)
is developed christologically (Rom. 8.29; 1 Cor. 11.7; 15.49; Col. 1.15), and
in most other Jewish literature the question is ontological or functional: is the
‘image’ dominion, rationality, immortality (Allison 2013: 553-54)? A handful
of documents do draw out an ethical or ritual meaning, most often a petition
to God to show mercy (Allison 2013: 554 and n. 287).10 The moral import we
might expect is the protection of life, since Gen. 9.6 references the imago Dei
to support capital punishment for murder.11 Allison (2013: 554) observes that
2 En. 44.1-2 is ‘[p]articularly close to James’ on the matter.12 Indeed, this is an
understatement, because the only other near parallel is Gen. Rab. 24.7 (on Gen.
5.1): ‘If you [put your neighbor to shame], know whom you put to shame, for “in
the likeness of God he made him”’.13 Here then is one secure link between the
Slavonic apocalypse and James’s diaspora letter.14

Similarity 2: Blessing and Cursing

Slander is again ruled immoral in 2 En. 52.1-6, now because of the impropriety
of ‘blessing’ and ‘cursing’:

8. This, perhaps the single closest parallel, is part of 2 Enoch’s core. In fact, Macaskill (2013:
29-30) leverages it to argue that 2 En. 30 (J) is derivative.
9. Davids (1982: 146), for example, speaks of common ‘Jewish traditions’ that prohibit slander
based on Gen. 1.26-28, but most of his references (save for 2 En. 44; Gen. Rab. 24.7) are
about blessing and cursing (see Similarity 2) or link the imago with another moral principle
(as below).
10. His examples cover petitions for mercy (4 Ezra 8.41-45; Gk LAE 33.5; 35.2; Apoc. Sed.
13.1-3), against animal violence (Gk LAE 10.3), for proper burial (T. Isaac 6.33–7.1), against
murder (Mek. Exod. 20.13-14; t. Yebam. 8), and against slander (Gen. Rab. 24.7). Aiding the
poor (Sib. Or. 8.402-408) and prohibiting revenge (Sipra on Lev. 19.18, one of Davids’s refer-
ences) are additional uses.
11. See references in note above, as well as Gk LAE 29.10 and Jub. 6.8 (paraphrasing Gen. 9.6,
despite lacking ‘image’ language in 2.14, its counterpart to Gen. 1.26-27!).
12. So also McKnight (2011: 293-94). Conversely, both Forbes and Charles (1913: II, 458) and
Andersen (1983: I, 171) cite James as a parallel to 2 En. 44.
13. Dibelius (1976: 203 n. 111) and Moo (2000: 163) cite this parallel rather than 2 Enoch.
14. Andersen (1983: I, 97) waxes eloquent about the simple dignity of this principle, calling it
‘an ethical idea as sublime as any found in Jewish and Christian teaching, an idea equal to the
noblest doctrines of any ancient moralist’.
230 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43(2)

Happy is the person who opens his lips for praise |of the God of Sabaoth|, and praises
the Lord with his whole heart. And cursed is |every person| who opens his heart for
insulting, and insults the poor and slanders his neighbor, |because that person slanders
God|. (vv. 1-2, see further vv. 3-6)

Compare again to Jas 3, this time focusing on vv. 9-10: ‘no one can tame the
tongue … With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who
are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and curs-
ing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so.’ In this instance it is not
the imago Dei that binds the two together, but the association of blessing God
and cursing neighbor, and the correlate that the two actions are fundamentally
at odds.15

Similarity 3: Oaths
Another prohibition is against oaths. In Slavonic Enoch it is unique to the longer
recension. In MS A, 49.1-2 reads briefly, ‘For I, I am swearing to you, my chil-
dren, that before any person existed, a place of judgment was prepared for him’.
MS J adds parenthetically,

For I am swearing to you, my children – But look! I am not swearing by any oath at
all, neither by heaven nor by earth nor by any other creature which the Lord created.
For <|the Lord|> said, ‘There is no oath in me, nor any unrighteousness, but only
truth.’ So, if there is no truth in human beings, then let them make an oath by means
of the words ‘Yes, Yes!’ or, if it should be the other way around, ‘No, No!’ And I make
an oath to you – ‘Yes, Yes!’ – that even before any person was in his mother’s womb,
individually a place I prepared for each soul.

This is quite the qualification! In A, Enoch swears on oath to his sons the truth
of predestination, but in J this act of swearing must be explained in a tortured
way. Here is a very good candidate for a later insertion by a scribe troubled
with Enoch’s oath in the original version. Why the trouble? Beginning with
Lev. 19.12 (‘you shall not swear falsely’) there was a tradition of being careful
about swearing (as in 2 En. 61.4). But one must still explain the absolute ban J
assumes.16 Most scholars connect the prohibition against oaths with the Sermon
on the Mount, specifically Mt. 5.33-37.17 Indeed, it is an obvious parallel.

15. Allison (2013: 550-51) notes that the ‘contrast between blessing and cursing was conven-
tional’, but few (e.g. Allison himself; Burchard 2000: 149) note 2 En. 52.
16. Most ancient moralists remind of the gravity of oaths without prohibiting them. Many com-
mentaries on James provide Greco-Roman and Jewish parallels. Popkes (2001: 335 n.  236),
Allison (2013: 736 n.  96) and Metzner (2017: 294 n. 178) cite 2 En. 49.1, but Popkes adds
‘christlich?’ and Allison cautions that it is ‘likely under NT influence’.
17. Forbes and Charles (1913: II, 460) and Charlesworth (1985: 35) list Matthew as the only NT paral-
lel. Luther (2015: 259-64) references 2 En. 49.1-2 mostly to illustrate Mt. 5.33-37, less so Jas 5.12.
Gabrielson 231

James 5.12, however, is another option.18 The NRSV translates it, ‘Above
all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other
oath, but let your “Yes” be yes and your “No” be no, so that you may not fall
under condemnation’. This translation obscures somewhat the fact that James
is nearly as close as Matthew is to 2 Enoch’s ‘yes, yes’ and ‘no, no’ wording.19
But the pattern of what to swear by is actually quite a bit closer to the epistle.
For Matthew goes from heaven to earth to Jerusalem to one’s own head, and
with extra descriptors; James, from heaven to earth to any other oath, without
extra words intervening; and 2 Enoch, from heaven to earth to any creature,
again, without further comment, except on the last. It is best to hold both Mt. 5
and Jas 5 up as parallels for 2 En. 49, but if one had to choose, on balance
James is the better.

Similarity 4: Against Oppression

Thus far we have been in the realm of speech. With the fourth correspondence,
we come to societal concerns. In 2 En. 9–10, the seventh-from-Adam is on a tour
of the third heaven, which includes hell. Those found in perdition are typical for
Jews and Christians: liars, idolaters, magicians, murderers and so forth. Then
Enoch expands on a penultimate category. He sees those

who steal the souls of men secretly, seizing the poor by the throat, taking away their
possessions, enriching themselves from the possessions of others, defrauding them;
who, when they are able to provide sustenance, bring about the death of the hungry
by starvation; and, when they are able to provide clothing, take away the last garment
of the naked. (10.5)

Here the powerful exploit the weak, and it is characterized as violent robbery,
murder, even stealing the soul. Given that the text speaks of ‘defrauding’ them
and not ‘provid[ing] sustenance’, the particular sin seems to be miserliness,
withholding what is due a day laborer. That brings us directly to the start of
Jas 5.

Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to
you … Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept
back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord
of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your
hearts in a day of slaughter. (vv. 1, 4-5)

18. Listed by Andersen 1983: I, 177; Böttrich 1992: 117.

19. Matthew 5.37 is a bare ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ. James 5.12 adds three small words: τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ
οὒ οὔ.
232 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43(2)

Both the imagery and the crime are the same. Withholding money from workers
is, for James, tantamount to murder and portends eternal damnation.20 So also for
Slavonic Enoch, except that the picture given is on the far side of death.
Further, clothing the naked and feeding the hungry is ‘a touchstone of judg-
ment’ for heaven and hell in chs. 9–10 of 2 Enoch and again in 42.8 and 63.1-2
(quoting Nickelsburg 2005: 223). One could easily call it a ‘touchstone for judg-
ment’ in James’s letter, too, not least in the famous ‘faith and works’ passage,
where James’s mind turns particularly to the treatment of ‘a brother or sister
[who] is naked and lacks daily food’ (2.15).21 Both works also select orphans and
widows as objects of compassion (Jas 1.27 // 2 En. 9.1 (J); 50.6 (esp. P, A)), and
they proscribe partiality to the rich (Jas 2.1-13 // 2 En. 42.7-9 (esp. J)). The
wealthy elite are generally unjust, according to these works, and God will vindi-
cate the poor and oppressed.22

Similarity 5: Patience in Suffering

There is another side to this coin. If the obverse is the punishment of the power-
ful, despite their luxurious lives now, the reverse is comfort for those in need,
despite their suffering.23 Hence James follows his critique of the rich with con-
solation for the poor: ‘Be patient, therefore, beloved, until the coming of the
Lord’ (5.7).24 James gives the analogy of a farmer waiting for rain, warns against
grumbling, and holds out the prophets and Job as exemplars (vv. 7-11). This is
akin to 2 En. 50, wherein the righteous are asked to ‘endure for the sake of the
Lord’ (P) ‘[e]very assault and every persecution and every evil’ because the
Lord takes vengeance (vv. 3-4). The poor are asked to abide ‘in patience and
meekness’ so as to inherit the eternal blessing (vv. 1-2; also ch. 9).25 For both,
eternal reward comes through perseverance in suffering (Jas 5.8, 11; 2 En. 63.3,
esp. J, A similar).
All told, there are five ‘distinctive linguistic parallels’, some particularly tight,
that suggest a possible literary connection between James and 2 Enoch.

20. So, e.g., Blomberg and Kamell 2008: 214-26. Tamez (2002: 1) labels James’s words
‘subversive’. See her ‘angle of oppression’ (12-26).
21. This right after the fearful promise that ‘judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has
shown no mercy’ (2.13).
22. See further Jas 1.9-11; 2 En. 44.4-5; 51.1-5; ch. 61’s (somewhat misleading) heading in P.
23. Thus Tamez (2002: 27-59) follows up her ‘angle of oppression’ with an ‘angle of hope’ and
an ‘angle of praxis’. See also McCartney 2009: 293-300.
24. Some consider Jas 5.1-6 a mere rhetorical prelude to 5.7-11: so Moo 2000: 221.
25. The similarity has been noticed occasionally on both sides. Andersen (1983: I, 177) compares
to Jas 1.12, and McKnight (2011: 395) illustrates James’s view of wealth and judgment with
2 En. 50.2-6.
Gabrielson 233

Similarity in Outlook and Language

The second criterion is ‘an overall similarity in outlook and language between
the writing and James’. The five parallels above fill in this point substantially
already on topics like human dignity, economic oppression and the tongue. Three
further thematic correspondences underpin their moral reasoning.

Similarity 6: Ethical Monotheism

One of the dominant themes is an ethic derived from a belief in one God.26 The
effect of monotheism on morals is evident in Jas 2.14-26. In v.  19 he sarcas-
tically writes, ‘You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons
believe – and shudder.’ James takes for granted that the Shema is the center of
faith, and he mocks the would-be monotheist who does not live accordingly:
at least demons, who also believe in one God, shudder (Wall 1997: 137)! Most
describe the problem as mere intellectual belief versus a true faith that results in
actions (e.g. Martin 1988: 98-101). This is true, but one could also call 2.14-26
James’s practical commentary on Deut. 6.4: real monotheism, he urges, is enact-
ed.27 Then we might cast a glance at Jas 4.1-10, where ‘friendship with the world
is enmity with God’ (v. 4). This is, likewise, about practiced monotheism, for the
essential sin of the δίψυχοι, the ‘double-souled’ ones, is that their behavior belies
belief in one God (so also 1.2-8).28
Turning back to 2 Enoch, the same idea is evident.29 A common thread runs
through the work. We might begin with 2.2: ‘Do not turn away from God. Walk
before his face, and keep his commandments.’ So begins the first ethical cata-
logue. The list of those in hell ends with those ‘who do not acknowledge their
Creator’ (10.6). The sins in 34.1-2 all tie back to a prior rejection of God. Enoch’s
book of commands is epitomized thus in 36.1: ‘And they will read and under-
stand that there is no other God apart from myself, so that they may carry out all
your instructions and study the books in your handwriting’. The first benediction
in Enoch’s beatitudes is ‘Happy is the person who reverences the name of the
Lord, and who serves in front of his face always’ (42.6). ‘[T]here is no one bet-
ter,’ Enoch later says, ‘than he who fears God’ (43.3). Examples could be multi-
plied, but the point is clear. God’s oneness has moral import.

26. Allison (2013: 89) speaks of James’s theology proper as its ‘foundational fact’, and McKnight
(2011: 39-47) takes ‘God’ and ‘ethics’ to be the twin themes of the epistle.
27. McCartney (2009: 160-61) distinguishes ‘Believing that there is one God … is different from
believing in … the God who is one’.
28. Johnson (1995: 87-88) and McCartney (2009: 154) connect 2.14-26 and δίψυχοι; Laws (1980:
29-32) juxtaposes the singleness of God and the ‘doubleness’ of humans.
29. Andersen (1983: I, 97) devotes his two paragraphs on theology to God and ethics.
234 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43(2)

Similarity 7: Creation and Eschatology

The second dominant theme is a consequence of the previous one. Creation and
eschatology play a significant role in James and 2 Enoch precisely because one
God rules over all ages.
The very macrostructure of Slavonic Enoch indicates reliance on creation.
Enoch receives a tour of God’s cosmos (chs. 3–22) and records the process of
creation (chs. 23–33). The important message he brings back in light of this jour-
ney mostly concerns behavior (chs. 34, 44–46, 50–53, 59–63). Eschatology is
subsumed within this creational vision, because the eternal realms already exist
in the second, third and fifth heavens (chs. 7–10, 18) (Nickelsburg 2005: 222).30
Thus, proper morals flow from Urzeit and Endzeit.31 Indeed, in Enoch’s valedic-
tion to his sons, he moves seamlessly from creation (65.1-4) to the end (65.4-11)
to an appeal to live according to God’s justice (66.1-8) – an appeal which his
immediate descendants follow punctiliously (esp. 70.1).32 In 2 Enoch the regular
call to obedience derives from God’s mutually reinforcing roles as Creator and
Judge.
Likewise in James. Although this world as it currently exists is a rival to
God (Jas 3.15, 17; 4.1-10), this does not impinge on creation per se. Not only
does James regularly appeal to nature for metaphors (1.6, 10-11; 3.5-7, 11-12;
5.7), God’s control over human life (4.13-17) and the world (5.17-18) is
assumed.33 More common than creation is eschatology.34 Final Judgment is
recurrently in view (esp. Penner 1996: 121-213). Sometimes it is extended as
a promise (1.12, 21; 5.7-11, 19-20), sometimes as a warning (2.12-13, 14-26
(esp. v. 14); 3.1; 5.1-6).35 Either way, much of James’s ethics is grounded in an
appeal to the coming age, which reorients values in this age. Not unlike the
picture in 2 Enoch, looming over this letter is the alternatively comforting and
ominous reminder: ‘There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to
destroy’ (4.12a).

30. Macaskill (2007: 214-17) illustrates the same through chs. 25–26, 65.
31. So esp. Macaskill (2007: 207-20): the twin foci of revelation are creation and eschatology,
which together shape ethics.
32. A has less material than J, but the same structure. Similar: chs. 47–48.
33. Hartin (2009: 187) finds ‘creation [to be] the background to all the ethical injunctions in
James’. Other possible creation references: Jas 1.17-18 (Laws 1980: 73-78); 3.6 (Allison
2013: 539).
34. This eschatologically tinged sapientia is in keeping with forms of wisdom after Ben Sira (so
Bauckham 1999: 32-33).
35. Additionally, ὁ κύριος … τῆς δόξης in Jas 2.1 might designate Jesus as eschatological Lord (as
in 1 Cor. 2.8): so Davids 1982: 107.
Gabrielson 235

Similarity 8: Ethics with Little Halakha

Given that James is often considered particularly ‘Jewish’ in outlook, it is sur-
prising that halakha is never mentioned. This is why, as I noted at the outset,
Metzner believes that James is Hellenistic, rather than Jewish. The author’s
instruction in this letter is exclusively what we would call morals, not rituals.
Any broad conclusion based on this would be hasty, since this is a single writing
totaling a mere 108 verses. Still, in the sources most like James, there are legal
rulings or notes about ritual practices, at least here or there.36
The case is similar for 2 Enoch. In line with its strong emphasis on monothe-
ism (Similarity 6), there are warnings against idolatry, sometimes in the specific
sense of iconic worship (e.g. 10.6; 66.2 (P); 66.5 (J); 67.3 (P); headings to chs.
34, 66 in P), but more often it is against the worship of other gods. Otherwise,
interest in matters of halakha is muted, even where we might expect it to arise.37
Among the 67 and a half chapters before Enoch is translated, distinct halakha is
raised only at 2 En. 59.1-4, which includes an odd command for how to bind the
legs of an animal sacrifice.38 Yet even here, the very next verse returns to morals,
reproving mistreatment of animals. Thus, 2 Enoch aligns with those Jewish writ-
ings in which ritual receives scant attention.39
Without doubt, there are great disparities in the form and temperament of the
two works.40 Despite this, James and 2 Enoch align closely in their ‘overall out-
look’, at least in terms of ethics. Positively, both focus on monotheism and crea-
tion and eschatology. Negatively, they show little interest in halakhic concerns.

36. Even, say, 1 Corinthians has casuistic discussion of things like idol-meat (esp. Tomson 1990),
and Hebrews dwells at great length on priestly themes, if only to demonstrate Christ’s sur-
passing significance. Ben Sira gives occasional voice to ritual (7.29-31; 34.21–35.26; 38.9-
11; 45.6-22; 50.1-21), Philo critiques ‘extreme allegorizers’ (Migr. 86-93) and Wisdom mocks
idol-worship (13.1–15.19).
37. For example, no explicit application to Jewish festivals attends the astrology of chs. 11–17.
38. Odd, because the instructions go against those later codified in the Mishnah, leading some to
suggest that 2 Enoch is polemical. The practice was common in Egypt, however, so it may
betray ignorance of temple practice (Collins 2016: 308-10). Second Enoch otherwise only
encourages the general practices of a thrice-daily visit to the temple (51.4) and bringing obla-
tions to God (66.2). After Enoch’s ascent in 68.4, there are narratives of priests and sacrifices,
but never regulations, and some MSS (P, N, V, B2) lack these chapters entirely (Macaskill
2013: 10-11).
39. Similar to the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, for example, where cultic instruction is
exceptional (cf. T. Levi 9.11-14). Jubilees provides the starkest contrast, with Levitical regu-
lations throughout.
40. Perhaps this is why the parallels have been mostly unobserved or because ethics, where the
commonalities lie, has not been the focus of scholarship for 2 Enoch. A sampling of the two
most prolific scholars on the apocalypse indicates a preference for esoterica like cosmology,
Adam, Enoch and Melchizedek: Böttrich 1995, 1997 (but cf. 1992: 176-96); Orlov 2000b,
2005; and their back-and-forth: Orlov 2000a; Böttrich 2001; Orlov 2003.
236 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43(2)

Density and Interconnectedness

The third criterion, which can be handled more concisely, requires that ‘the
density and interconnectedness of the parallels [is] sufficient to argue against
coincidence’.

Similarity 9: Collection of Parallels in 2 Enoch 42

There is a particularly dense locus of parallels to James in 2 En. 42.6-14. In
Similarity 4, I have already mentioned clothing the naked and feeding the hungry
(v. 8 // Jas 2.15) and judging fairly (vv. 7-9 // Jas 2.1-13), including orphans and
widows (v. 9 // Jas 1.27). I have also already mentioned the affirmation of ethical
monotheism (v. 6 // Jas 2.14-26, passim). But there are other overlaps as well.
In v. 10, there is language of choosing the right path, akin to Jas 1.8 (so Johnson
1995: 181). In vv. 12-14, there are admonitions to speak truth to one’s neighbor
(// Jas 3.1-12; 4.11-12), to speak compassionately (// Jas 2.8, 12-13), to praise
God (// Jas 3.9) and to avoid blasphemy (J only // Jas 2.7). Thus, in the short
compass of nine verses, there are as many correspondences to James’s epistle.41

Similarity 10: Seven Looser Connections

There remain a handful of other less direct, but still important, correspondences.
Both writings are (a) rigorous in their moral standards (e.g. Jas 1.27; 2.8-11;
4.17 // 2 En. 60; cf. Jas 2.12-13). There is (b) a prohibition of flattery (Jas 2.1-
13 // 2 En. 46.2-3 (J)) and warnings against (c) moral impurity (Jas 1.27 // 2 En.
34.2 (P); 45.3 (J)) and (d) pride or contempt (Jas 4.6-10 // 2 En. 63.3-4). Both
have (e) a belief that true religion is defined ethically (Jas 1.27 // 2 En. 45),
and emphases on (f) prayer (Jas 5.13-18 // 2 En. 2.2) and (g) peacemaking (Jas
3.18 // 2 En. 52.11-14; 54.1). We can add, therefore, another seven looser con-
nections to Similarities 1–9.
Overall, the parallels are both dense and interconnected. Recurrently in view
are Jas 3.1-12 (Similarities 1, 2, 7) and 5.1-12 (Similarities 3–5, 7). For 2 Enoch,
the similarities are particularly pronounced in the later ethical discourse, espe-
cially chs. 44, 49, 50, 52 (Similarities 1–3, 5–7, 10), as well as the judgment
scene in ch. 10 (Similarities 4, 6–7). The densest, of course, is in the tour of
heaven in 2 En. 42 (Similarity 9). This does not seem to be the haphazardness of
coincidence. Rather, two sections of James were of special interest to 2 Enoch,
and they came to mind for the tours of perdition and paradise and the later ethical
discourse.

41. Suggestively, 2 En. 42 occurs in the ‘eternal’ (v. 5 (J)) or ‘immeasurable’ (A) light of paradise,
possibly recalling Jas 1.17 (‘Father of lights, with … no variation or shadow’).
Gabrielson 237

Broad Incidence of Parallels

We are now in a place to evaluate the remaining criterion, ‘the incidence of the
parallels from more than one part of James and in more than one part of the
second-century writing’. The previous criterion looks for a dense clustering of
parallels, indicating knowledge of specific passages rather than happenstance
similarities. This one looks for widespread parallels, reducing the chance that the
similarity comes from a shared source or tradition.
To begin with James, even if the bulk of the parallels are found in 3.1-12 and
5.1-12, nearly every section has some correspondence to 2 Enoch. The discrete
pericopes of the epistle are relatively easy to discern. John Painter (2012: 46-47)
is a fair representation with his breakdown: the salutation (1.1), epitome (1.2-
27), five thematic sections (2.1-13; 2.14-26; 3.1-12; 3.13–4.10; 4.11–5.6) and a
conclusion (5.7-20). Of my potential parallels, at least one falls into each of these
subsections, save for the salutation itself (1.1).42 So, although two moral topoi
from James are predominant in 2 Enoch, the entire epistle appears operative.
For 2 Enoch, Similarities 1–5 come over the course of chs. 44–52, with another
in ch. 10. Similarity 9 is centered in ch. 42. The seven ‘looser’ parallels (Similarity
10) add chs. 2, 34, 54, 60 and 63 to the list. Most of these fall within ethical dis-
courses, but some (chs. 10, 42) are during the tour of the heavens. Similarities
6–8 form the backbone of 2 Enoch, reaching from beginning to end. Again, we
see clustering in several places, but the potential influence of James on 2 Enoch
extends throughout.

Evaluation of 2 Enoch and Comparison to 1 Clement

In total, I have adduced five ‘distinctive linguistic parallels’, three further par-
allels that display a kindred ‘outlook and language’ and various indications of
both ‘density and interconnectedness’ and ‘broad incidence of parallels’. Having
analyzed these similarities between James and 2 Enoch using Johnson’s criteria,
we are in a position to evaluate the possibility of literary dependence.
A point of comparison would help. I will concisely lay out Johnson’s (1995)
argument that 1 Clement knows and utilizes James, in order to compare its likeli-
hood to that of 2 Enoch.43 Johnson finds that there is ‘a strong probability’ that
1 Clement is reliant on James (1995: 79). He begins with four parallels that he

42. Painter divides James into more sections than average, allowing for a more precise measure
of how widespread the parallels are. Still, there are potentially additional seams at 3.18, 5.11,
5.12 and 5.18. Even with these added units (3.13-18; 4.1-10; 5.7-11, 12, 13-18, 19-20), all
pericopes would be represented, except 5.19-20.
43. The next two paragraphs present his argument on pp. 72-75. I limit my citations to quotations.
238 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43(2)

judges to have ‘little independent value’ (1995: 73).44 To these he adds three
places where wording is generally similar, one of which adds thematic overlap.45
The ‘cumulative effect’ of his case thus far is ‘intriguing’, he writes, but its per-
suasiveness hinges on three sections in 1 Clement that have ‘a high density of
verbal and thematic similarities’ (1995: 73).
The first of those sections is 1 Clem. 3–7. This passage, which develops an argu-
ment against envy, has four particular points of contact with Jas 3.13–4.10, the last of
which is most important for his point: a call to conversion (1 Clem. 7.2 // Jas 4.7-
10).46 At first blush, this hardly seems noteworthy, but Johnson finds only the
Testament of Simeon to follow the same pattern: condemning envy, then calling to
repentance. Second, when Clement treats Abraham (ch. 10), overall he is closer to
Hebrews, but in several ways he seems dependent on Jas 2.21-24.47 The strongest
evidence comes third, comparing 1 Clem. 29–31 mostly to Jas 4. Johnson finds ‘thir-
teen items with the highest degree of thematic and verbal similarity’, particularly
when Clement lists vices from which to flee, cites Prov. 3.34, notes that God gives
grace, and turns again to virtues including modest speech (1995: 74-75). Many words
are shared, and the sequencing matches in several cases. Overall, Johnson provides
three strong, extended similarities between 1 Clement and James, three other verbal
connections, one of which is also thematic, and four general parallels.48 From these
he infers that Clement’s letter is more likely than not to utilize James.
The argument for 2 Enoch is as strong. I will compare the two cases in five
steps. (1) Johnson’s most telling evidence is a dense collection of 13 items found
in 1 Clem. 29–31. Similarity 9 catalogues nine points of contact in nine verses of
2 Enoch, a touch denser than 1 Clement, though not as extended. Here 1 Clement
has a narrow edge. (2) His second strongest argument is that – as expected as it
might seem – the condemnation of envy, followed by a call to repentance, is
unique to three ancient works: James, 1 Clement and the Testament of Simeon.
In much the same way, the prohibition against slander based on the imago Dei
might appear conventional, but it is found only in James, 2 Enoch and Genesis
Rabbah (Similarity 1). The scales are even on this point. (3) The remaining
strong example that Johnson gives is 1 Clement’s use of Abraham. Compare this

44. To wit, 1 Clem. 8.4 (// Jas 1.27); 23.2-3 (// Jas 1.8; 4.8); 33.5 (// Jas 3.9); 49.5 (// Jas 5.20).
He adds a fifth, too, 1 Clem. 30.2 (// Jas 4.6), but it reappears elsewhere, so I avoid double
counting it.
45. His thematic/wording parallel concerns arrogance and humility: 1 Clem. 2.1; 13.1; 61.3; and
esp. 59.3 (// Jas 4.10-12). His other two are 1 Clem. 38.2 (// Jas 3.13) and 46.5 (// Jas 4.1).
46. The other three: envy causes social unrest (1 Clem. 3.2; 6.4), death’s entrance into the world
(3.4) and murder (4.7).
47. Abraham is called ‘friend of God’; Gen. 15.6 is cited; hospitality is prominent and tied also to
Rahab; and (now at 1 Clem. 30.3; 31.2) similar discussion of righteousness through faith and
deeds.
48. Johnson’s case primarily uses ‘distinctive linguistic parallels’ and ‘outlook and language’, but
in concluding he briefly addresses the remaining two criteria.
Gabrielson 239

to three of my verbal parallels, Similarities 2 (blessing/cursing), 4 (against

oppression) and 5 (suffering). In this case, the single 1 Clement–James parallel
is probably closer, though Abraham is of widespread interest in Greek- and
Roman-era Judaism. By contrast, I have provided three examples from 2 Enoch
to counterbalance this one, and Similarity 4 is rather specific: the miserliness of
landowners toward day laborers is seen as potentially damning. While this is not
unprecedented, most other parallels are only partial.49 The case, then, tilts toward
2 Enoch for (3), to 1 Clement on (1) and is even on (2). On the more direct evi-
dence, 1 Clement and 2 Enoch merit equally weighty consideration.
Other evidence for both is weaker but corroborates the foregoing. (4) Johnson
gives one thematic parallel, the contrast of arrogance and humility. I have given
three, Similarities 6 (ethical monotheism), 7 (creation/eschatology) and 8 (mini-
mal halakha). Finally, (5) Johnson has two other verbal similarities and four gen-
eral parallels.50 These line up fairly well with my seven ‘looser’ connections in
Similarity 10, which vary in how closely they correspond to James. For example,
to pick one of his two stronger (‘verbal’) similarities, 1 Clem. 46.5 (‘why are
there conflicts and angers and divisions and schisms and war among you’) is lit-
tle closer to Jas 4.1 (‘whence are the wars and whence the battles among you’)
than are 2 En. 52.11 (which blesses the one ‘who cultivates … peace’) and 54.1
(which speaks of an ‘inheritance of peace’ for the righteous) to Jas 3.18 (which
promises that a ‘harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make
peace’). Once more, 2 Enoch commands as much attention as 1 Clement.
The weaker evidence for both, therefore, lines up with the stronger: the
Slavonic apocalypse and Clement’s letter have about equal claim to literary
dependence on James. Insofar as Johnson’s criteria and logic hold for 1 Clement,
the same is true for 2 Enoch. It is likely to be numbered among the early readers
of James.

Direction of Influence
I have thus far left to the side arguably my strongest piece of evidence, Similarity
3 (against oaths). I did this in part because it is likely a gloss, and I wanted
to weigh the evidence with matters common to both recensions of 2 Enoch.
Nevertheless, it is material to the case I have made. It demonstrates not only
that James and 2 Enoch eventually shared a readership, but moreover, that the
influence of James came at a formative stage of the longer recension. Even if it
entered the tradition extraneously, it became integral to this family of MSS.

49. E.g. Sir. 34.25-27 (‘The bread of the needy is the life of the poor … to deprive an employee
of wages is to shed blood’) is close. Yet there is no explicit threat of hell, and the context (vv.
21-24) locates the sin in falsely given sacrifices, rather than self-indulgence.
50. Again, he gives three verbal similarities, but one is the thematic correspondence mentioned in
(4). See n. 45.
240 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43(2)

I have also left Similarity 3 to the side until now because it helps reconstruct
the relationship between these two works. Heretofore I have been assuming that
2 Enoch used James. Since both evade clear dating (with 2 Enoch possibly pre-
70 and James possibly second century), in principle it could have been the
reverse. There remains debate, as well, whether the shorter (represented by MS
A) or longer (J) version of 2 Enoch is earlier.51 If we grant some literary connec-
tion among both recensions and James, there are six possible permutations of
influence.52
This is where Similarity 3 is telling. In the shorter recension, Enoch betrays no
moral compunction about swearing. In the longer recension, the straightforward
meaning must be heavily qualified, and it is qualified primarily using Jas 5.12.
Not only does the wording of J accord with James, but there is no reason for the
awkward proviso, except for the command in James (and in Matthew). In this
case, the reliance of J on James is unmistakable, eliminating any reconstruction
that sees the longer recension influencing James.53 It also seems evident that A is
more primitive than J at this juncture. There would be no reason for J to have
Enoch swear at all, then explain away the act in a contorted way, unless the oath
were already present in A.54 There are only two cogent reconstructions of the
direction of influence for this passage:

2 Enoch A → James → 2 Enoch J

James → 2 Enoch A → 2 Enoch J

The latter is the more likely. Since there is obviously literary dependence between
the two recensions of 2 Enoch, it is needlessly complex to insert James as middle
step between the shorter and longer forms of 2 Enoch. It is simpler (and conse-
quently more probable) to suggest that James’s ethics were absorbed into the
common core of the apocalypse.
Of course, the evidence provided by Similarity 3 is only one datum, and it
must be judged in relation to various other considerations, particularly for the

51. See n. 7 on recensions. As elsewhere, I use MSS A and J as shorthand for the two recensions.
The shorter recensions consistently have the oath without qualification, and the longer with it.
52. Namely, (1) J → A → James. (2) J → James → A. (3) A → J → James. (4) A → James → J.
(5) James → J → A. (6) James → A → J. It is possible to construct a more complex literary
relationship, such as adding a ‘proto-2 Enoch’ behind the two recensions, but the above is the
safest approximation given the manuscript evidence.
53. Eliminating options (1)-(3), above.
54. Assuming so, we can eliminate option (5), too. Andersen (1983: I, 176 n. 49a) and Böttrich
(1992: 117 and n. 271), who support the priority of the longer recension, find the evidence
ambiguous. Andersen characterizes the oath in A as ‘pointless’ as it stands. Böttrich suggests
that J initially had a different oath-prohibition formula that was revised to follow NT wording
and subsequently deleted in the shorter recension. Yet 2 En. 49.1-3 A reads naturally with the
oath, and 2 En. 61.4 (A and J) encourages faithfulness to a vow, without extra comment.
Gabrielson 241

priority between the two recensions. Insofar as this specific case contributes to
the overall reconstruction, however, it seems that James was composed first, and
its ethics were incorporated into the shorter recension of 2 Enoch, originally
without any blanket prohibition against oath-taking. A tradent of the apocalypse,
continuing to ruminate on James, noticed a flagrant violation of Jas 5.12 at 49.1
(but not at 61.4) and brought Enoch’s teaching into line. But this was a minor
refinement. James’s influence on 2 Enoch is extensive even in the shorter
version.55

Implications
The potential implications for both works are significant. They remain tenta-
tive, however. This is, first, because my case rests on probabilities. I argue that
it is more likely than not that there is a literary connection between James and
2 Enoch and that, if so, the direction of influence is apparently from James to
2 Enoch A to J. Nonetheless, these points are not beyond dispute. It is tentative,
second, because neither work has a secure date, location or social context, so one
writing cannot act as an anchor for the other. That said, the comparison shifts the
likelihood of four important matters.
1. It suggests an earlier date for James. If we could say definitely that 2 Enoch
does come from before the fall of the temple, that would establish the late 60s as
the terminus ad quem for James. As noted in the introduction, recent scholarship
on the Slavonic apocalypse has tended toward a date while the Second Temple
still stands. It is not, however, conclusive. Further, insofar as the sequencing of
James before 2 Enoch pushes toward an earlier dating for James, by the same
token it could push toward a later dating of 2 Enoch.56 Some might find a post-70
date for James more likely than a pre-70 date for 2 Enoch and infer that both
originate after the first century. Still, the parallels to James in the apocalypse
extend as far back as is traceable, woven as they are throughout its major sec-
tions and in both recensions. Insofar as we can speak of the ‘original’ composi-
tion of 2 Enoch, the influence of James seems to be present. So alongside
1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas, we can add an additional early (even pre-
70?) writing that seems to be aware of James.
2. There is geographic interest, as well. Second Enoch’s discernable reception
is exclusively in the eastern Mediterranean basin. Eventually it finds a home in
Slavic lands, and this implies a Byzantine provenance beforehand. Joost Hagen’s
(2012) discovery of a manuscript in Nubia makes Alexandria – already the

55. Again, J is closer than A to James only a couple of times (2 En. 63.3, Similarity 5; 42.7-9,
Similarity 4), and beside this case A lacks a corresponding point only once (2 En. 42.14,
Similarity 9).
56. This would only have to be a relatively later date; cf. 1 Clement (c. 95 ce).
242 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43(2)

leading candidate for the apocalypse’s origin (e.g. Böttrich 2012: 57-59) – all the
more attractive. There are varied postulated locations for James. Rome has been
a leading candidate, precisely because of its literary connections (Allison 2013:
94-98; Metzner 2017: 16-25). If Egypt is the right locale for 2 Enoch, however,
as seems best, this literary connection would incline instead toward an eastern
origin for James. This would fit other leading candidates for James’s place of
composition, such as Palestine or Syria (e.g. Bauckham 1999: 11-25; Burchard
2000: 1-9). It would also be in keeping with the first unambiguous reference to
James by Origen. The parallels between these works indicate that both derive
from the eastern Roman Empire.
3. One of the most tantalizing results concerns social context. Both works
have been hard to locate among three possible backgrounds: Roman-era
Hellenism, middle Judaism and emerging Christianity. Hellenistic influence is
evident in several ways. Both writings were composed (or translated into) Greek,
address an audience outside of Palestinian Judaism and articulate generalized
morals that avoid the specifics of Mosaic regulation.57 At the same time, both are
clearly indebted to the Jewish heritage. Not only do they explicitly rely on char-
acters from Israel’s scriptures, they adopt typical Jewish concerns like monothe-
ism (Similarity 6). Further, both seem to have affinities with more ‘Jewish’
writings such as Matthew, Jude or Qumran documents.58 Finally, they both have
links to early Christianity. Few now doubt that James was written by a Christian.
Second Enoch is harder. In time it was preserved in the church,59 but most schol-
ars of the apocalypse argue on internal grounds that it did not originate with a
Christian.60 Yet it does have ideas suggestive of other early Christian writings. Its
Melchizedek legend (chs. 71–72), with a high station attached to this priest-king,
is akin to Hebrews, and it includes an account of a virgin birth, which obviously
reminds a modern reader of Matthew (and Luke), though the stories diverge

57. Language for 2 Enoch: the anagram for ‘ADAM’ in ch. 30 (J) only works in Greek, and most
Slavic literature came from Byzantium. Outside Palestinian Judaism: James is directed to the
diaspora (1.1), at least metaphorically, and Enoch precedes Abraham and the Promised Land.
Mosaic regulations: see Similarity 8.
58. Matthew: it is easy to find comparisons for both. Jude: reference to ‘James’ in Jude 1 and
Enochic Watchers legend. Qumran: Johnson (1995: 36-37) discerns similar instruction in
James and 1QS and CD. Second Enoch preserves traditions similar to the Enochic lore in the
DSS and to 11QMelchizedek; Nickelsburg (2005: 221-25) even contends that it is modeled
on 1 Enoch.
59. Second Enoch may have transitioned into Christianity precisely because its ethics were famil-
iar, as Macaskill (2007: 204-207) has suggested with reference to Matthew.
60. Most contributors to Orlov and Boccaccini (2012b: 37-242; also Nickelsburg 2005: 224-25;
Collins 2016: 301-302) find Christian authorship unlikely, save for Schiffman (2012: 221-
28). He argues that its lack of halakha is a telltale sign of Christian authorship (see Similarity
8).
Gabrielson 243

considerably. These same two NT writings, Hebrews and Matthew, also bear
similarities with James.61
These three influences contribute to the ‘enigma’ discussed at the outset of the
article. James takes on significantly different coloring depending on its purported
background. Davids downplays its Hellenism, Metzner its Jewishness and
Allison its (overt) Christianity.62 Yet 2 Enoch, too, is a riddle. Even aside from
the debate of possible Christian origins, little consensus about its social context
has been reached. For example, Andrei Orlov (2005: 211-333) finds 2 Enoch to
be a polemic against forms of Judaism associated with Adam, Moses and Noah,
while Christfried Böttrich (2012: 59-63, at 61, 63) concludes that it as an ‘open-
minded’ and ‘integrative’ form of Judaism seeking synthesis with Hellenism and
other Jewish perspectives. Thirty-five years ago, F.I. Andersen (1983: I, 95)
lamented, ‘All attempts to locate the intellectual background of 2 Enoch have
failed’, describing it as outside the ‘mainstream’ of Judaism and Christianity.
Recently that judgment has been echoed by Orlov and Boccaccini (2012a: 4),
who admit, ‘we are aware that we have still “failed” to answer many questions
about the provenance and theology of this enigmatic text’.63
If indeed James exerts a formative influence on 2 Enoch, this provides at least
a small clue to the puzzle of their provenance. It provides support for Allison’s
(2013: 32-50) theory that James was intended to be read by non-Christian as well
as Christian Jews (assuming 2 Enoch’s non-Christian authorship). It would also
provide a piece of evidence in Böttrich’s favor, over against Orlov, that 2 Enoch
is ‘integrative’ of various traditions. Most importantly, locating the two writings
in the same complex of influences adds a stimulating juxtaposition. Both display
aspects of the ‘common Judaism’ of the day (to use the phrase of Sanders 1992),
but more than that, a particular brand of Hellenistic Judaism that included Jesus-
followers, one that had a generalized, humane ethic focused on the poor and on
everyday community relations. Yet that similar dynamic of influences led to
vastly different writings!
4. There is, finally, an implication regarding the oath-formula in Jas 5.12.
Because the absolute prohibition against swearing is unprecedented, and the
phrasing of Mt. 5.33-37 is so similar to Jas 5.12, most commentators have con-
cluded that they independently reference the same logion of Jesus.64 Many in the

61. Matthew: see above. Hebrews: not only are both Hellenistic Jewish writings, they (like Paul)
care greatly about faith and (unlike Paul) pair the figures of Abraham and Rahab in that
context.
62. Laws (1980: 2-6) rightly locates James at the intersection of these three ‘worlds’.
63. They add, optimistically, that ‘the process of “failing” can be instructive in itself’.
64. Usually seeing the simpler, Jacobian version as more primitive (so Dibelius 1976: 250-51;
McKnight 2011: 425-26; but cf. Laws, 1980: 222-24).
244 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43(2)

early church apparently knew both and blended them.65 In general, Christians
hybridized the Jacobian ‘yes’ and ‘no’ wording with Matthean-specific elements,
such as its sequence or dominical attribution (Justin, 1 Apol. 16.5; Clement of
Alexandria, Strom. 5.14.99; 7.11.67; Apos. Con. 5.12; Ps.-Clement, Hom. 3.55;
19.2; Eusebius, Dem. ev. 3.3).66 Conversely, the Christian gloss in 2 En. 49 has
the ‘yes, yes’ of Matthew within the structure of James. Epiphanius (Pan. 19.6.2)
represents a third iteration: he aligns with James’s sequence and ‘yes’/‘no’ word-
ing, but ends with a warning about the evil one (Mt. 5.37b).67
Without the evidence of 2 Enoch and Epiphanius, the departure from the
Matthean ‘yes, yes’/‘no, no’ formula in this literature might appear merely sty-
listic, a way to avoid awkward phrasing. Since, however, we have two clear
examples in which the comingling of James and Matthew is unmistakable, it tips
the balance toward an alternate conclusion. It is more likely that these early
Christians knew both versions and merged them (consciously or not) when pro-
hibiting oaths. If so, discernable, early reference to James is even more
widespread.

References
Allison, Dale C.
2013 The Epistle of James (ICC; New York: Bloomsbury).
Andersen, F.I.
1983 ‘2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch’, in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). I,
91-221.
Bauckham, Richard
1999 James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (New Testament Readings;
London: Routledge).
Blomberg, Craig L., and Kamell, Mariam J.
2008 James (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Zondervan).
Böttrich, Christfried
1992 Weltweisheit, Menschheitsethik, Urkult: Studien zum slavischen Henochbuch
(WUNT, 2/50; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
1995 Adam als Mikrokosmos: Eine Untersuchung zum slavischen Henochbuch (Juden-
tum und Umwelt, 59; Frankfurt: Peter Lang).
1997 ‘Astrologie in der Henochtradition’, ZAW 109: 222-45.

65. Dibelius (1976: 250-51), McKnight (2011: 426-27) and Allison (2013: 735-36) have col-
lected substantial lists of early Christian literature on oaths. The following paragraph utilizes
their research.
66. Other general references indicate Matthew alone: Irenaeus, Haer. 2.32.1; Origen, Princ. 4.3.4.
67. Second Corinthians 1.17 and Books of Jeu 2.43 have a ‘yes’/‘no’ formula like James.
Gabrielson 245

2001 ‘The Melchizedek Story of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reaction to A. Orlov’, JSJ 32:
445-70.
2011 ‘Die “Geschichte Melchisedeks” (HistMelch) im slavischen Kulturkreis’, in
DiTommaso and Böttrich 2011: 159-200.
2012 ‘The “Book of Secrets of Enoch” (2 En): Between Jewish Origin and Christian
Transmission. An Overview’, in Orlov and Boccaccini 2012b: 37-67.
Burchard, Christoph
2000 Der Jakobusbrief (HNT, 15/1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Charlesworth, James H.
1985 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Prolegomena for
the Study of Christian Origins (SNTSMS, 54; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Collins, John J.
2016 The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature
(3rd edn; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Davids, Peter H.
1982 The Epistle of James (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Dibelius, Martin
1976 James (trans. Michael A. Williams; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
DiTommaso, Lorenzo, and Christfried Böttrich (eds.)
2011 The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Slavonic Tradition: Continuity and Diver-
sity (TSAJ, 140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Forbes, Nevill, and R.H. Charles
1913 ‘2 Enoch, or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch’, in R.H. Charles (ed.), The Apoc-
rypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon
Press): II, 425-69.
Hagen, Joost L.
2012 ‘No Longer “Slavonic” Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia’, in Orlov
and Boccaccini 2012b: 7-34.
Hartin, Patrick J.
2009 James (SP, 14; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
Helyer, Larry R.
2002 Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Tes-
tament Students (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Johnson, Luke Timothy
1995 The Letter of James (AB, 37A; New York: Doubleday).
Laws, Sophie
1980 The Epistle of James (HNTC; San Francisco: Harper & Row).
Luther, Susanne
2015 Sprachethik im Neuen Testament: Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses
im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief (WUNT, 2/394;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
246 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43(2)

Macaskill, Grant
2007 Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 115; Leiden:
Brill).
2013 The Slavonic Texts of 2 Enoch (Studia Judaeoslavica, 6. Leiden: Brill).
Martin, Ralph P.
1988 James (WBC, 48; Waco, TX: Word Books).
McCartney, Dan G.
2009 James (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
McKnight, Scot
2011 The Letter of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Metzner, Rainer
2017 Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT, 14. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt).
Moo, Douglas J.
2000 The Letter of James (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans).
Nickelsburg, George W.E.
2005 Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary
Introduction (2nd edn; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Orlov, Andrei A.
2000a ‘Melchizedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch’, JSJ 31: 23-38.
2000b ‘Secrets of Creation in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch’, Hen 22: 45-62.
2003 ‘On the Polemical Nature of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reply to C. Böttrich’, JSJ 34:
274-303.
2005 The Enoch-Metatron Tradition (TSAJ, 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Orlov, Andrei A., and Gabriele Boccaccini
2012a ‘Introduction’, in Orlov and Boccaccini 2012b: 1-4.
Orlov, Andrei, A., and Gabriele Boccaccini (eds.)
2012b New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica, 4;
Leiden: Brill).
Painter, John
2012 ‘James’, in John Painter and David A. deSilva, James and Jude (Paideia; Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic): 1-174.
Penner, Todd C.
1996 The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient Christian Letter
(JSNTSup, 121; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Popkes, Wiard
2001 Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT, 14; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt).
Rost, Leonhard
1976 Judaism outside the Hebrew Canon: An Introduction to the Documents (trans.
David E. Green; Nashville: Abingdon Press).
Gabrielson 247

Sanders, E.P.
1992 Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 bce–66 ce (London: SCM Press).
Schiffman, Lawrence H.
2012 ‘2 Enoch and Halakhah’, in Orlov and Boccaccini 2012b: 221-28.
Scibona, Rocco
2011 ‘L’ “olio” dell’ “unzione” in Gc 5,14-15 e VNic 3,1(19)’, BeO 53: 43-58.
Tamez, Elsa
2002 The Scandalous Message of James: Faith without Works Is Dead (rev. edn; trans.
John Eagleson; New York: Crossroad).
Tomson, Peter J.
1990 Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles
(CRINT, 3/1; Assen: Van Gorcum).
Vaillant, André
1976 Le livre des secrets d’Hénoch: Texte slave et traduction française (2nd edn; Paris:
Institut d’études slaves).
Wall, Robert W.
1997 Community of the Wise: The Letter of James (New Testament in Context; Valley
Forge, PA: Trinity Press International).