New Books 393

Dale C. Allison, James: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (International

Critical Commentary; London; New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 848 pp.,
ISBN 978 – 0567077400.

The appearance of the second ICC commentary on James, almost 100

years after the publication in 1916 of the first by James Hardy Ropes1 is
an event worthy of comment. After all, ever since their first appearance
in the 1890s, the ICC commentaries have come to be seen by many as
the gold standard of critical biblical scholarship; and when they come
at a hefty price and in the case of this commentary, in the form of a volume
over 790 pages, that can seem almost literally true. In seeking to mark this
event, the present review aims, first, to make a few observations on com-
mentary writing in general, and then to highlight some aspects of Allison
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

on James which seem of significance within this more general context. The
review will end with some piecemeal reflections, not least upon the ques-
tion of what one might term progress in commentary writing.
Delivered by Publishing Technology

The ICC series was originally conceived as an Anglo-American re-

sponse to the dense and scholarly German commentary tradition,
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

which had flourished from the middle of the 19th century. So in the editors’
preface to George Foot Moore’s Judges, the first volume in the series to be
published in 1895, we are told that commentary series written by British
and American divines (they mention The Cambridge Bible for Schools,
Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The Speaker’s Commen-
tary, The Popular Commentary [edited by Phillip Schaff, himself of Ger-
man origins]) exist but that they do not enter into the field of critical bib-
lical scholarship occupied by such series of commentaries as Kurzgefasstes
exegetisches Handbuch zum AT; Nowack’s Handkommentar zum AT or
Holtzmann’s Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (others are mentioned as
well). While the editors state that there have been translations of these se-
ries, they argue that there is now a need for an international response in
English, in spite of the efforts of some (Lightfoot is mentioned, together
with Ellicott, Cheyne and Westcott). As they note, “The time has come,
in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, when it is practicable
to combine British and American scholars in the production of a critical,
comprehensive Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical schol-
arship, and in a measure lead its van.”2 What was termed ‘the enterprise’

1 J.H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James (Edinburgh
1916).
2 G.F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (Edinburgh 1895).

Early Christianity 5 (2014), 393–416 DOI 10.1628/186870314X14138770536034

ISSN 1868-7032 © 2014 Mohr Siebeck
 394 New Books

was conceived on a particular German model, which prioritized histori-

cal-critical questions, and whose validity was assumed.
But a lot has changed in biblical studies since 1895, and since Ropes
wrote his own commentary on James in 1916. First, and perhaps uninter-
estingly, a great deal has been written. Allison’s bibliography runs to some
40 pages of close type and this does not cover all the secondary references
which appear in his main text.3 It is depressing that the same man can write
about the profound sense of the limitations of his work, attributing these
not simply to genuine modesty, but also to his inability to cover all the lit-
erature published on the matter. This fact might raise questions both
about how we might now conceive of our 19th-century forebears’ under-
standing of ‘comprehensive’, but more importantly, about whether we
conceive of a commentary as a kind of tabulation of other peoples’ opin-
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

ions with our own judgments appended, a sort of encyclopaedic enter-

prise, or whether we think of it in other terms. I shall return to this below.
The second point is more important. When the editors of ICC penned
Delivered by Publishing Technology

their preface in 1895, when Ropes came to write his own commentary on
James a little more than 20 years later, writing a commentary meant writ-
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

ing a historical-critical commentary and there was no need to justify the

presuppositions which came with that method. It is not necessary to re-
mind the reader how much the landscape of biblical studies has changed
since then, particularly since the 1970s. The empire of historical-criticism
has come under attack, new methodologies have been applied to the bib-
lical texts, and the discipline has become much more contested.4 We now
have series of feminist commentaries, narrative commentaries and even a
post-modern Bible. This raises the question about what one is doing when
one writes a commentary, and whether when one writes a commentary,
one is simply redoing what was done before, but doing it with apparently
more information and a store of more opinions of one kind or another, or
whether one is forced to do something else. Interestingly, against this
background, Allison is unapologetic about “continuing the ICC tradition
of pursuing historical interests” (3). But he does not seek to justify that ap-
proach. One might think this odd, not only because of the background
outlined above, but because when Allison himself and W. D. Davies pen-
ned their own introduction to the first volume of their three volume ICC
commentary on Matthew in 1988, they noted that changed landscape, pin-

3 There is no bibliography in Ropes, just a set of abbreviations relating to some biblio-

graphic sources.
4 See M. Bockmuehl, “The Troubled Fortunes of New Testament Scholarship”, in id., See-
ing the Word. Refocusing New Testament Study (Grand Rapids 2006) 27–74.
 New Books 395

pointing in particular the rise of literary and canonical criticism. This

caused them to address some of the problems with the historical-critical
approach, after which they felt justified in writing that, although their
commentary was informed by a “principled eclecticism”, the more tradi-
tional historical-critical approach would be dominant.5
That is not to say that Allison does not show awareness of the limita-
tions of such an approach, at least implicitly. As he notes: “Recent decades
have seen much discussion of what a commentary should be, and many
have expressed discontent with traditional historical-critical approaches
to a text. In this writer’s judgment, there is no moral imperative here,
no right or wrong. There remains rather room for manifold approaches.
Commentators probably do best to write about what interests them, and as
long as there are readers with similar interests … their books will continue
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

to see the light of day.” (3) This might seem like a reasonable response – it
acknowledges the new set of circumstances which prevail, the kind of ec-
lecticism to which I have referred, and the need for a healthy catholicity of
Delivered by Publishing Technology

approach in the discipline. Indeed the tone is almost post-modern – it ac-

cepts the legitimacy of the existence of a diversity of approaches, and
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

against that background, asserts the right to follow a particular preference

shared by others. I still wonder, however, whether that is a sufficient re-
sponse. It barely addresses the question of the authority of the kind of
commentary Allison has written, that is, a historical-critical commentary,
and of the place of such a commentary in an eclectic setting or issues re-
lated to that. These are complicated questions, of course, and one could
hardly expect Allison to expatiate on them at length but they remain ques-
tions worthy of reflection precisely because of the eclecticism of contem-
porary biblical studies.
Related to this observation is Allison’s interest, in part reflecting an in-
terest found in the writers of ICC commentaries before him, and more
particularly a recent tendency in scholarship, in what has come to be called
reception history. Such an approach has often been bound up with the aim
of undermining the assumed hegemony of historical criticism but this is
not the case with Allison. In justifying such an interest, he notes that there
is an intrinsic interest in surveying the history of reception; how surveying
past interpretations can show up the degree to which we stand on the work
of our predecessors, both ancient and more recent; and how there may not
be, as some assume, so much of a distinction between pre-modern ap-

5 W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh
1988) 2–5.
 396 New Books

proaches and those of the modern era – indeed such work can recover
helpful exegetical suggestions and profitable lines of enquiry.6 Finally,
he argues, such work reveals what he terms the plasticity of texts: “Readers
make meaning and awareness of this circumstance should move consci-
entious exegetes to ponder how their interests and goals affect their work.
Such awareness should equally make one mindful that all interpreters, in-
cluding modern historical critics, belong to a centuries-long, unfinished
history of effects. We do not somehow stand outside of that history; and
we are no more its end than its beginning.” (2) The last remark, which is
reiterated in Allison’s more detailed account of the history of the reception
of James (99–109, esp. 106), might be thought to imply a relativistic im-
pulse but that is not the case if one considers Allison’s justification for
an interest in this subject, as outlined above, and if one looks at the way
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

in which Allison makes use of the reception-historical sections of his com-

mentary.7 But one wonders whether his observations on the plasticity of
texts raise questions of a hermeneutical kind, not least to do with the on-
Delivered by Publishing Technology

going role of historical criticism, which are not addressed.

I want to make one further observation about commentaries before I
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

move on to consider Allison’s work in more detail. This emerges from

what I have said about the extent to which commentaries, particularly
commentaries of a historical-critical nature, have as their primary role
that of tabulation, and how that role should be related to the question
of a commentator’s obligation to have some overarching view of the ori-
gins and purpose of the text. I mention this because it raises the question of
what the function of a commentary might be, particularly in an age of sec-
ondary surfeit. It also raises the related question of how we use commen-
taries – as repositories of information, exegetical encyclopaedias or guides
to overarching views of a text – and these questions are related to the prob-
lem of how we read them. So, for instance, some might want to argue that a
commentary like R. E. Brown’s on the Gospel of John suffers from the fact
that Brown himself has such a particular view of the origins of the text,
which colours much of what he writes;8 and some might assert this
even more for Robert Jewett’s Hermeneia commentary on Romans,
where his specific opinions about the origin of that epistle are more inva-
sive than is the case in Brown’s commentary.9 On the other hand, it might

6 For further discussion see D.C. Allison jr., “What I have learnt from the history of in-
terpretation”, PRS 35 (2008) 37–50.
7 On this see below.
8 R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 2 vols. (London 1966).
9 R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis 2006).
 New Books 397

be thought that mere tabulation is equally inadequate – long hours over

sometimes many years, examining a particular text inevitably will lead
commentators to take a view about issues relating to origins; and it
might be contended that there will always be a complex relationship be-
tween their work as an exegete of a text, with all that entails, and their de-
sire to interpret that material through a particular historical prism, the two
informing each other in often complex ways. Commentaries, of course,
are not monographs in which particular theses about specific subjects
are presented, and it is not the primary role of a commentator to present
a thesis about the origins of a text. But equally, precisely because commen-
taries must address questions of origins and related matters, it would be
odd if their authors did not present monograph-like conclusions about the
text, which have emerged from their engagement with it, and which will
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

properly influence their reading of it. This issue will arise when we come to
consider Allison’s commentary.
And all of this to some extent touches upon the equally interesting
Delivered by Publishing Technology

question of how we see the place of commentary in the wider discipline

of New Testament studies. In the preface to Moore’s commentary on Judg-
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

es, quoted above, the claim was made that commentary should in some
measure lead the van of “modern biblical scholarship”, though little at-
tempt was made to show how; and an answer to this question will differ
from person to person, dependent to some extent on how they view com-
mentary writing’s purpose. If New Testament studies is anything it is the
study of 27 texts and so commentary might be seen as absolutely central.
But books emerge out of contexts and so their reading must be informed
by an understanding of that. Again the issues are complex but worthy of
reflection.
In what follows I intend, first, to indicate the main fault lines of Allison’s
understanding of the epistle of James. Secondly, I shall pinpoint what I
think to be the major contribution of the work, concentrating especially
upon Allison’s discussion of the issue of Paul and James, asking to what
extent Allison’s commentary might have changed our understanding of
James more generally. Is there, picking up on the content of the previous
paragraph, a sense in which his achievement lies in a presentation of orig-
inal insights, or does it lie more in the ordered and interesting way in
which he has presented the variant and conflicting positions which com-
mentators have adopted on this epistle and its interpretation? This will
then lead to a discussion of the degree to which Allison’s commentary rep-
resents progress in the study of James, not least in relation to the work of
Ropes.
 398 New Books

I. Allison’s James

The Epistle of James is perhaps the most enigmatic document of the New
Testament. As Allison himself notes (1, reflecting the words of Ropes and
many others), opinions regarding the epistle are strikingly diverse. Some
attribute the letter to James, the brother of Jesus, and make it one of the
earliest of the New Testament documents; others think that it is a pseud-
epigraphon, written in the middle of the second century or even later than
that. Some deem the letter a clearly structured piece containing a devel-
oped argument; others see it as a disordered chaos, betraying little sign
of the presence of a coherent mind. Some hold it to be addressed to a spe-
cific set of circumstances; others to be parenesis with a general ethical
message, applicable to no specific context. Some see it as an originally
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

non-Christian Jewish document, which has then subsequently been

Christianised; some espy the presence of Christian ideas and assumptions
in every verse. Related to this some hold the text to be an anti-Pauline
Delivered by Publishing Technology

tome, seeking to correct the perceived antinomian thrust of the latter

or possibly his errant followers, while others argue that it betrays no
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

knowledge of Paul at all, and that any kind of Pauline perspective on

the text fails to allow the text to be read in its own terms, echoing a frequent
refrain in James scholarship.10 And one could continue, not only by show-
ing the variants within the poles of opinions I have just outlined, but by
indicating the existence of still more controversies.
Writing a commentary for this text, then, can seem a formidable task in
which the commentator, like a pony in a Dartmoor swamp, groping in
vain for any solid ground, finds him or herself drowned, in a diversity
of opinions.
Allison’s commentary has the benefit of taking firm positions on many
of these issues, and as I shall show, in at least some areas, presenting the-
ories, which could be held to be distinctive.

1. Authorship
Allison is clear that James is a pseudepigraphon (3–28). Such a judgment
involves the dismissal of a set of arguments which would support the au-
thenticity of the letter but also emerges from a number of positive argu-
ments. These relate to the fact that it is only with Origen that we first have
evidence of attestation; its slow entry into the canon (it is not found in the

10 See Allison, James, 335, here discussing 1.25, where we read, “When the book is instead
interpreted in its own terms …”
 New Books 399

Muratorian Fragment; nor in Mommsenianus [359], or the Cheltenham

canon [360]. It is not in the principal mss. of the Old Latin; nor is it a part of
the early Syriac canon; and it is only by the 4th century that it appears to
have won canonical status in the west [Sinaiticus; Vaticanus; Codex Claro-
montanus]), Moreover, there appears to have been a tradition in the east of
thinking it pseudonymous.11 Allison is by and large sympathetic to the ar-
gument from James’ style; and argues that the ascription to James makes
sense against the background of developing pictures of the apostle in the
second century and earlier e. g. the picture of James in Hegesippus as re-
corded in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 2.23.3–9), where he is remembered as liv-
ing a life of poverty, upholding the law, as being a man of prayer, and as
having suffered, issues which in one way or another are important in
James. Allison has little time for those who argue that the presentation
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

of James in the epistle ill comports with James the legalist. He is clear,
as we shall show, that James upholds the Mosaic law and that his letter
is not a full and systematic account of his theology (26 f).
Delivered by Publishing Technology

2. Date
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

Allison dates James between 100 and 120 (28–32). The terminus a quo aris-
es, in part, from the view that James shows knowledge of Paul and 1 Peter,
and so, I assume, the reasoning goes, his epistle had to have been written
some time after these texts were written. Other arguments are used to sup-
port this – a possible knowledge of the Birkath ha-minim at 3:9; a view that
5:13–20 shows knowledge of a church order like the Didache. But it is es-
tablishing a terminus ad quem that is so difficult. Here Allison relies on
what one could describe as the atmospherics of the text – it betrays a re-
ligiosity akin to what we find in the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Clement,
though it is unlikely that James was known by either. But this might
seem to some a rather vague way of establishing a terminus ad quem,
and Allison provides no developed arguments against a later date,
which has been suggested, for instance, by, inter alios, Nienhuis in his ca-
nonically oriented account of the epistle, to which Allison refers but not at

11 See Jerome in Vir. Inlustr. 2: “James, who is called the Lord’s brother … wrote only one
epistle, which is one of the 7 catholic epistles, which, it is asserted, was published under
his name by another, though little by little as time went on it went on to obtain author-
ity.” Such sentiments are reflected in Eusebius’ words: “The first of the catholic epistles
is said to be by James the brother of the Lord, but some see it as forged.” (Eus., Hist.
Eccl. 2.23.25).
 400 New Books

length.12 One of the most interesting points which Neinhuis makes in this
context is the failure of any of the numerous texts which speak about James
or attribute texts to James in the second century to mention a letter written
by him.13 In fact it remains the case that Origen is the earliest writer clearly
to cite James.

3. Provenance
Allison dismisses the traditional place of composition as Palestine, argu-
ing that 5:7, with its mention of early and late rains is hardly compelling
evidence of origins as there are plenty of references to this phenomenon in
the LXX.14 Rome is a better bet, Allison maintains, because we know that
the text reflects close links to writings like 1 Clement, Hermas and 1 Peter.
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

4. Genre
Allison holds James to be a parenetically-oriented early-Jewish diaspora-
Delivered by Publishing Technology

letter similar to other such letters witnessed at Jer 29; Epistle of Jeremiah; 2
Macc 1:1–9; 1:10–2:18; 2 Bar 78–87 (see 73 f). Allison is clear that such a
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

judgment is not without consequence for one’s interpretation of the text:

“It (the decision to class James as a paranaetically-oriented diaspora letter)
underlines the religious authority of the author. It encourages one to an-
ticipate prophetic consolation and warning. It moves one to anticipate
words for a broad audience as opposed to a small, well-defined commu-
nity. And it positions the reader not as a dialogue partner but as a listener :
one expects to hear exhortations that disallow discussion and instead call
for obedience.” (76) Such an observation is important, as we shall see, for
Allison’s overarching view of the purpose of the epistle.

5. Structure and style

Here Allison follows what has come to be a conventional view. He argues
that 1:1 is the prescript; 1:2–27 is the introduction in which many of the
major themes are introduced; and 2–5 the exposition. Allison argues that

12 See D.R. Nienhuis, Not by Paul alone: the formation of the Catholic epistle collection and
the Christian canon (Waco, TX 2007) 99–161.
13 These, which consist of first and second Apocryphon of James, Hegesippus’ account of
James’ death, Pseudo-Clementine material, a tradition in the Gospel of Thomas and the
Protevangelium of James, are discussed by Nienhuis in Nienhuis, Paul (see n. 12),
128–150.
14 Cf. Deut 11:14; Ps 84:7; Prov 16:15; Jer 3:3; 5:24.
 New Books 401

there is no developed argument but that coherence exists within individ-

ual sections.
Related to this observation is Allison’s view of the style of the letter.
This, he maintains, possesses a laconic, imperatival quality. As he
notes: “(O)ur letter assumes that author and reader share a tradition,
that tradition being Jewish moral instruction rooted in Torah. So, most
of the imperatives, to the extent to which they reverberate with Tanak, re-
quire no justification and James can formulate apodictically rather than
expansively. The implied reader recognizes that what is being demanded
has its warrant in a divine source.” (82)

6. Setting
So far Allison has said little that would surprise his reader but it is in his
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

discussion of the Sitz im Leben of the text that we encounter an original

proposal. As anyone who has studied James in any detail will know, an
array of purposes have been suggested for the epistle, from the very par-
Delivered by Publishing Technology

ticular (the proposal that the letter is a copy of James’ response to the crisis
in Antioch as described in Gal 2:10f, which his followers carried to the
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

event as a way of calming the situation), to the immensely general,

which would deny that it addressed any concrete occasion or that there
were any personal relationship between the author and the recipients.15
Allison’s own proposal, which develops earlier suggestions by Moulton16
and McNeile,17 tends towards the more specific in the spectrum I have just
presented. His starting point is 1:1, which he takes literally to refer to an
address to the twelve tribes, understood as Israel, in the Jewish Diaspora,
that is, he rejects any idea that the Diaspora in this passage has a metaphor-
ical meaning or that the twelve tribes should be understood to refer to the
Christian church. The address, though fictional in the sense that it belongs
to a pseudepigraphon, is addressed to Jews. Some of this reasoning is based
upon the fact that there is no sign in the epistle that Diaspora is meant met-
aphorically, at least when one compares it with the opening address of 1
Peter, a text which Allison believes James knows and uses; and moreover
there is no sense in which the metaphor is carried forward in the text. Some
of it is based upon what Allison takes to be the almost complete absence
from contemporary Christian literature of a straightforward alignment of

15 Alternatives are set out in Allison, James, 32f.

16 J.H. Moulton, “Synoptic Studies II. The Epistle of James and the Sayings of Jesus”, Ex-
positor 7.4 (1907) 45–55.
17 A.H. McNeile, New Testament Teaching in the Light of St. Paul’s (Cambridge 1923).
 402 New Books

Christians with the twelve tribes (Rev 7 and Herm. Sim. 9.17–12 are un-
derstood as exceptions) – the term is in fact almost always associated with
Israel, not the church as Israel.18 Allison further supports this understand-
ing of the addressees as Jews by arguing that the text assumes a Jewish
readership (references to Abraham as our father at 2:21, the reference
to the meeting place of Christians as the synagogue [2:2]; a summary of
the faith of the addressees by reference to the Shema at 2:19; and reference
to the Lord Sabaoth at 5:4 without explanation; and the fact that all the
moral exemplars come from Jewish history). He also notes the absence
of any reference to gentiles. Allison draws attention to other examples
of Christian pseudepigrapha apparently addressed to Jews (5 Ezra; Testa-
ment of 12 Patriarchs with which James has much in common). To these
observations, he appends others: the text clearly refers to those who are
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

not in the Christian community, especially in chs. 4 and 5, but elsewhere

as well (e.g. 2:1–7). Especially notable is a feature of the text, which has
elicited much comment from Luther onwards,19 the absence of references
Delivered by Publishing Technology

to Christ. Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection and exaltation are not explicitly

referred to, his deeds merit no mention and there are no attempts to make
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

use of him as a moral model, in spite of references to other Jewish figures in

this regard like Abraham, Elijah, Rahab and Job. There is no reference to
baptism, the Lord’s supper or the fulfillment of prophecy. Attempts to ex-
plain this phenomenon by reference to the view that James was an orig-
inally Jewish work do not convince because in Allison’s opinion James
is well acquainted with a number of Christian sources including the Syn-
optic Gospels and 1 Peter. To explain away the phenomenon by reference
to genre is equally problematic – if the work is a piece of parenesis should
we not expect some reference to Jesus, if we have references to other moral
exemplars? Moreover, the degree of absence is not explained by such an
argument. Even Philemon’s 25 verses have more Christology in them than
James. Allison rejects the argument that the phenomenon he emphasizes is
explained by reference to the fact that James represents a ‘Q’ Christology;
and he notes that time and time again where James shows knowledge of
Christian sources, he omits, intentionally, the Christological element of
the material upon which he is dependent (cf. 1:21 and Heb 12:1;
Col 3:8; 1 Pet 2:1).20 In the same vein Allison notes that all those passages

18 See Allison, James, 131 n. 125, for a string of references.

19 Luther comments in his “Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude” that James
“teaches nothing about him (Jesus), but only speaks of general faith in God”. Cf. Allison,
James, 34.
20 See Allison, James, 70, for discussion of parallels with 1 Peter.
 New Books 403

which are taken to be Christian in the text, aside from 1:1, are not. So the
oft-discussed and grammatically clumsy 2:1 is dismissed as an interpola-
tion, and 1:18, 1:25, and 5:7f and 5:14, verses often thought to be have a
Christian referent, either soteriological or Christological, are shown not
to. Interestingly, in the context of the discussion of these verses, Allison
shows that all of them have, in the history of interpretation, elicited
non-Christian interpretations. “The very strange truth is that, aside
from 1.1, and the textually dubious 2.1, James, although written by a be-
liever in Jesus, offers nothing that requires Christian presupposition on
the part of readers.” (37) The fact that this is often missed by readers of
the epistle arises from the fact that they tend to read the text canonically
assuming that James must be saying what the NT says elsewhere about
Jesus.
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

So what Sitz im Leben makes best sense of these phenomena? Here All-
ison takes up a suggestion of A. H. McNeile made in 1923 and develops it
in his own way. McNeile had proposed that James, though a Christian
Delivered by Publishing Technology

writer, had wanted the widest possible audience for his epistle and so
had selected language acceptable to Jew and Christian alike. His aim
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

was not to proselytize nor prove doctrinal points but to “shew that the
highest standard of ethics for Jew and for Christian could be one and
the same” (43)21. Speculating on what kind of a context would have elicited
such a text, Allison suggests that the epistle would have emerged “from a
Christ-oriented Judaism, from a group that still attended the synagogue
and wished to maintain irenic relations with those who did not share
their belief that Jesus was the Messiah” (43). “He (James) seeks not to pros-
elytize but to promote tolerance for and understanding of his own group,
to gain sympathy for Christians in a context where there is growing antip-
athy – the sort of antipathy which at some point led to the birkat ha-minim
… This is why James’ polemic is not against false teaching but against ‘ar-
rogance … anger, and the criticizing and insulting of others in the com-
munity …’” (45). It also explains why there is so much emphasis on the
proper functioning of the community.22 “The suggestion of this commen-
tary is that James seeks, among other things, a sympathetic Jewish audi-
ence. That is, our book hopes to reduce hostility among Jews not yet ad-
amantly set against the participation of Jewish Christians in the syna-
gogue.” (596) Allison sees the work then as having two addressees – a
Christian community which still resides in the synagogue and non-Chris-

21 Allison here cites McNeile, New Testament Teaching (see n. 17), 95.
22 Note what he says on this matter on p. 595 in his discussion of the setting of 4:1–12.
 404 New Books

tian Jews in that community who are either indifferent to or suspicious of

the presence of Christians in their midst but are potential sympathizers.
James seeks to edify the former and clarify matters for the latter, while
also currying favour with them by attacking those members of the syna-
gogue community who are rich and oppressive.23 “On this view”, he writes,
“we can understand why James is so Janus-faced, why it seems so Christian
yet is so resolutely mute on peculiarly Christian themes, and why it con-
tains so many passages that could be taken one way by a Christian or an-
other by a non-Christian. James reflects a Christian community still bat-
tling for its place within the Jewish community, a group that wishes to re-
main faithful members of the synagogue …” (49). Allison compares James
with 4QMMT, generally held to be a document addressed by its author to
those beyond the community at Qumran, in terms that are non-sectarian,
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

at a time when reconciliation with a non-institutionalised opposition was

thought possible. The work might well be the composition of an Ebionite,
similar to that found in the so-called Ascents of James in the Pseudo-Clem-
Delivered by Publishing Technology

entine Recognitions, in which the law is upheld and James regarded as its
hero (cf. 44 f).
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

It is difficult to engage here in a complete analysis of Allison’s theory but

below are a few preliminary comments.
In its favour might be thought to be that fact that: it takes account of the
striking absence of a developed Christology;24 it takes seriously the Jewish
character of the text, arguing strongly for the possibility that the text is ad-
dressed to Jews, at least within its fictitious setting (1:1); it draws attention
to the distinct possibility that the epistle concerns itself on occasion with
outsiders; it accounts for the lack of a conversionary ethos, which is often
thought to be problematic for the Jewish thesis. Moreover, it forces the
reader to take seriously the existence of Christian Jews within the syna-
gogue and imagine the circumstances in which they may have lived.
Such individuals have often been thought a reality, possibly until quite

23 See Allison, James, 666, where Allison notes that James’aim at 5:1–6 is not to convert but
rather to make common cause with or to gain sympathy from non-Christian Jews who
are not so wealthy.
24 Allison does not deal at length with other explanation such as Bauckham’s (Wisdom of
James. Disciple of Jesus the sage [London 1999]) where James is treated as an example of
wisdom paranesis, interpreting the Jesus tradition as though it were part of accumulated
Jewish wisdom which was regularly taken up and developed by each new generation of
sages. Allison refers to Nienhuis’ view that James is written to a second century-Chris-
tian readership in order to promote the essentially Jewish underpinnings of Christian
faith and practice in partial response to the Marcionite crisis, but again, as noted, does
not discuss it in detail.
 New Books 405

late in the church’s history25 and there is no reason to think that the New
Testament should not give evidence of their existence. It may, inadvert-
ently, account for the slow reception of James as its original purpose
was specific and relevant to a diminishing number of Christians.
But there are problems with the case being made. Much of what Allison
has to say is speculative and must be read out of what, to be frank, is a very
general sounding text. It is important to Allison’s thesis, though not cru-
cial, to rid the text of almost all its Christian referents and here one won-
ders to what extent the tail of the mooted Sitz im Leben is wagging the ex-
egetical dog. So are we really justified, for instance, in emending 2:1 so that
it reads “the faith of the Lord of glory”? There is no textual warrant for this
emendation and even Allison admits its weaknesses, citing an unpub-
lished dissertation by Wettlaufer,26 who noted that title creep is not that
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

common in the textual tradition of James, that it is more frequent in

later witnesses, and that such title creep rarely changes the referent of a
text, criticisms to which he responds, but not convincingly, in my opinion
Delivered by Publishing Technology

(see 384).27 Should 1:18 only be understood in terms of the birth of Israel or
the world? And in a Christian text can we dismiss the possibility that 5:7
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

and 8 refer to Jesus?28 More importantly, we might wonder why it is that

the author of James has not been clearer than he has about the Christian
willingness to observe the law to its full extent. As Nienhuis writes, Alli-
son’s theory “fails to account for the ethicized view of the law present in the
letter. If the readers were all observant Jews there would be no reason to be

25 One should reflect upon the possible reality of the 12th Benediction of the Eighteen Ben-
edictions, which could only have operated from within the synagogue and have had an
effect upon those within the synagogue.
26 R.D. Wettlaufer, “Unseen Variants: A Study of Conjectural Emendations in New Tes-
tament Textual Criticism with the Epistle of James as a Case Study” (unpubl. PhD Dis-
sertation, University of Toronto 2011).
27 Allison notes that there is title creep in James, e. g. in the textual witness of 5:7, 8 and 14
(but all such additions could be taken as genuinely elucidatory of an ambiguity); that the
comment about the absence of such title creep in earlier mss. is not relevant as such title
creep would have occurred in second century mss. of James for which we have no ev-
idence (but this seems to be an attempt to appeal to an unknown, and in any case pre-
sumes a very swift dissemination of James, a text, which on Allison’s reckoning, was sent
to Christian Jews in Jewish synagogues and is not referred to at all in extant second cen-
tury Christian texts); and he notes that the interpolator may well have thought the orig-
inal text simply referred to Jesus and sought to elucidate that (but would he have sought
such a cumbersome elucidation?)
28 Although it should be noted, as Allison seems to imply, that in these texts the ambiguity
may be intentional and the words received differently by the two different readers of the
epistle.
 406 New Books

ambiguous on this point”29. Allison would respond by asserting that it is

only we, the current readers of the text, who see the ambiguity – in fact to
the readers of the epistle the references to the law would not have been
conceived as ethicized, or implying anything other than a full observance
of the law (and it is a strength of his commentary that he shows up how
often commentators have bent over backwards to contrast what James
says about the law and related matters to Jewish attitudes, implicitly pro-
moting an anti-Jewish, and therefore, entirely misleading, reading of the
text). But surely we are left wondering, if Allison is right, why has the au-
thor failed unambiguously to mention the ritual laws etc., especially when
by the time of the writing of this text, (on his reckoning) we know that
many gentiles (and indeed some Jews) had entered the Christian commu-
nity and were not law-observant, that is, those in the Jewish community
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

would have known that their Christian Jewish contemporaries were part
of a movement in which views about the place of the Jewish law was at best
problematic, and at worst straightforwardly deviant.30 Would they not
Delivered by Publishing Technology

have needed assurance on this point, especially give the circumstances

to which Allison argues the letter was addressed? Related to this point,
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

we need to ask whether the contents of the epistle are straightforwardly

appropriate. True, one could argue that the call for harmony, the emphasis
on the dangers of the tongue, on division and zeal, make some sense in this
context, but can one say the same of the emphasis on riches and poverty?
Here Allison emphasizes the extent to which such references are ways of
currying favour with those apparently neutral members of the Jewish syn-
agogue he wants no longer to view the Christians with suspicion – indeed
he wants them to recognize in their opposition to Christians the unjust
oppression of the poor so fervently condemned by the Hebrew prophets.
But does that explain the extent of these social referents, and can we justify
such a figurative reading of them?31 Allison would no doubt repeat his
view that what we have here is no more than a sampler of what he
wants Jews to know about Christians – it is a partial presentation, not a
comprehensive argument. But this assertion may do no more than beg
the question. Moreover, one has to wonder how convincing such a text
would have been in the context suggested given its failure to mention
Christ at all, or only refer to him once. It may well be a good strategy in

29 Nienhuis, Paul (see n. 12), 157.

30 See Ropes, James (see n. 1), 29, for some of the same points made in the context of the
slightly different discussion of the origins of the author and the party to which he be-
longed.
31 Nienhuis, Paul (see n. 12), 157.
 New Books 407

certain contexts to play up what unites rather than divides different

groups, but surely there must be more than a nod to what divides, an at-
tempt perhaps to explain away the sources of such division, rather than
simply ignoring these? Certainly there is no indication in the texts of
the second century which refer to James and might be deemed Jewish
Christian that Christology was not a real issue between James and the
non-Christian Jews he is presented as interacting with. Indeed, the state-
ment in Ps.-Clem., Rec. 1.43.2 to which Allison refers, where it is stated
that all that distinguishes non-Christian Jews from Christian Jews is the
latter’s assertion that Jesus is the messiah, rather than helping Allison’s
case, as he argues it does, may hinder it. Is it not precisely the point of dif-
ference which needs to be addressed?
Two further points need to be made. First, Allison brings into his dis-
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

cussion of the type of Christianity he is positing for James so-called crypto-

Christians, similar to those posited by J. L. Martyn as recipients of John’s
Gospel,32 and gives more evidence for their existence, here citing Epiph-
Delivered by Publishing Technology

anius’ story of Count Joseph (Pan. 30.9.4–6) and the reference in Ps.-
Clem., Rec. 1.65.2 to Gamaliel 1. Allison is not quite clear about who is
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

the crypto-Christian (recipients of James, its author or both) but aside

from that the fact that they are apparently concealing their affiliations
to Christ raises questions about the purpose of James as proposed by All-
ison. If such Christians are concealing their Christianity, how can James’
letter operate apologetically?
Secondly, as part of his case, Allison presents a number of Christian
texts which fail to make much of Christology (e.g. 5 Ezra, the Sentences
of Sextus and Theophilus’ Ad Autolycum). But such examples may not
help his case, for in none of them can one explain the absence of Christo-
logical reference in the same way as Allison explains its absence in James,
that is, what these examples show is that one might choose to play down
Christological references for a number of reasons.

7. James and Paul

To some this may be the defining aspect of the epistle, as the history of its
reception might indicate. To others, an ever-increasing number of schol-
ars, it is a regrettable distraction from what is the major concern of the

32 J.L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (rev. ed.; Louisville 1978).
 408 New Books

text.33 Allison joins the former group of scholars and I turn to this part of
his commentary because again he adds, I think, some new and interesting
arguments.
First, Allison makes much of the history of interpretation in which the
question of the relationship between James and Paul has played such an
important role and where it has generally been held that James knew
Paul in one form or another, however understand their relationship.34
As Allison writes: “This (the fact that the history of interpretation is almost
unanimous on this point) matters because it is a sensible principle that the
history of interpretation can be a fairly reliable guide to discerning delib-
erate intertextuality. The more text A has reminded readers of text B, the
more likely it is that text A was in fact designed to do that.” (445)
Secondly, he lays out the verbal similarities between the language of
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

Paul and the language of James, showing how many of these parallels
have to do with phrases first found in Paul or regularly witnessed in
him – the use of dijaiºy in the passive with instrumental 1j; the use of
Delivered by Publishing Technology

1n 5qcym (here a characteristic of Pauline language and a phrase barely wit-

nessed before him), noting that before Origen and John Chrysostom the
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

greatest density of such usage is found in James (2:21, 24, 25); the use of 1n
5qcym with dijaiºy, which is only found in Pauline literature or literature
influenced by Paul; %mhqypor dijaioOtai – only found in Paul at Gal 2:16
and then in Jas 2:24; 1j p¸steyr, which appears nowhere else aside from
Jas 2:24 and Hab 2:4 and once in Hebrews (10:38), but 21 times in Paul. He
also points to the words wyq·r 5qcym which only appear in Paul
(Rom 3:28; 4:6) and James (2:18, 20, 26).
Allison proceeds to introduce a comparison with the use of Jesus tra-
dition in James, which is generally taken for granted by scholars. There
verbal similarities are less precise and compelling than those with Gala-
tians and Romans, he argues. “The point for us is that, leaving aside the
saying about oaths in 5.12, none of the relevant lines in James shares
with its Synoptic counterpart the number of distinctive and extensive par-
allels that the section on faith and works shares with Romans and Gala-
tians.” (446) Indeed James’ use of the Jesus tradition shows that the author
could rework tradition without mentioning its originator, precisely as he
appears to have done with material relating to Paul.

33 See esp. L.T. Johnson, The letter of James: A new translation with introduction and com-
mentary (London 2005); and Bauckham, Wisdom (see n. 24), but many others could be
mentioned.
34 Allison presents the reader with six different ways in which that relationship has been
understood.
 New Books 409

Allison goes on to argue that no other section of the epistle poses the
question of integrity, love or action in terms of faith and deeds. Why
should this only be the case in this section of the epistle? Why for only
a few set of verses does this way of speaking become dominant?35 He con-
tinues: “The manner of the argument is unexpected. James distinguishes
faith from works precisely in order to contend that they cannot be sepa-
rated. What explains this?” (447) It is unlikely that that his background as a
Jew does. True, there are a few relevant Jewish sources like SibOr
3.584–586; 4.151f and 4 Ezra 9.7 but these assertions remain undeveloped.
Paul, it seems, is the first extant author who turns the subject into a matter
of discussion. This observation becomes stronger when we note that this
section of James is taken up more with denial than affirmation. James, it
seems, is not trying to change bad behavior but to correct defective opin-
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

ion (448).
Allison follows up this observation by noting the fact that Gen 15:6,
which plays such an important part in this discussion, mentions only be-
Delivered by Publishing Technology

lief. The inference to be drawn perhaps is that someone before James had
been drawing on this passage to support a conclusion with which he dis-
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

agrees. Some attempt partially to counter this by arguing that Gen 15:6
played an important part in Jewish thought and that that chapter, as in
James, was often linked with Gen 22, that is, Abraham’s faith was linked
with his work (see 1 Macc 2:52; Sir 44:20). But the difficulty here, and
one admitted even by those who would argue for a non-Pauline presence
in James,36 is that nowhere in these texts or anywhere else are faith and
works distinguished or seen as opposites. When this is combined with
the observation that James and Paul alone share the language already re-
ferred to the argument for a Pauline presence becomes weightier.
Allison adds to these observations one which emerges from the history
of tradition. Gal 2:11f demonstrates that whatever James himself may
have thought about Paul’s teaching about faith, some, namely those
who came to Antioch and spoke against Paul, thought that he opposed
Paul on this matter. Such views of the relationship between Paul and
James can be seen to be carried forward in later church history, as seen,
for instance in epistula Petri of the Pseudo-Clementine literature. As All-
ison writes: “Given that some Christians in the first and later centuries
thought of James and Paul as theological rivals, and given that James

35 See v. 14, 17, 18 (twice), 20, 24, 26.

36 See Bauckham, James (see n. 24), 125f.
 410 New Books

2.14–26 appears to contradict Paul, can it be nothing save coincidence that

our passage belongs to a pseudepigraphon ascribed to James?” (451)
Allison then addresses the question of the character of James’ opposi-
tion to Paul. He argues on the basis of Rom 3:8 and 6:1f that some Chris-
tians believed Paul to teach a dangerous lawlessness, a point whose impor-
tance is strengthened by the fact that both passages are discussed in places
dealing with justification by faith. He is clear, however, that scholars who
argue that James is attacking a bankrupt Paulinism, on the basis that James
must have understood that Paul is not an antinomian, are wrong. “Paul is a
very difficult author, his thoughts sometimes dense, his arguments never
pellucid. Some understandably still wonder whether his teaching about
faith and works is really coherent. But given his tendency for forming
stark polarities (Gal. 2.16), it would not be unreasonable to think that
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

James might have been troubled by the polarities between faith and
work.” He continues: “The correct understanding of Paul here is beside
the point, because we know that the apostle’s self-understanding did
Delivered by Publishing Technology

not correlate with the perceptions of everyone else; and if some of his con-
temporaries found his teaching about justification by faith to be implicitly
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

antinomian, why not also the author of our epistle?” (453)

Allison continues by making the interesting point that James’ associa-
tion with the Jesus tradition with its strong sense of the importance of
works as a guide to one’s fate at judgment (cf. Matt 7:24–27; 12:37;
25:31–46 etc.) would have made him doubly sensitive to Paul’s teaching
on the role of works, not least as this occurs in a passage like Rom 10:9f.
The function of 2:14–26 is read in relation to the different audiences
posited in Allison’s discussion of the purpose of the epistle. Christian
Jews would have understood the passage to be polemical; non-Christian
Jews would have taken it as an attempt to distance Christianity from the
kind of rumours about its teachings associated with Paul. Such a proposal
helps explain the absence in contrast to Paul of any Christian referents in
the discussion (e.g. Christ’s death and resurrection; faith in Christ etc.).
“He instead conducts his argument in purely Jewish terms, not making
use of a single distinctive Christian idea.” (456)
Allison has considerably bolstered the anti-Pauline interpretation of
Jas 2:14–26 without making it the guiding principle of his interpretation
of the letter. Some might contend that he has not successfully argued for
the view that James is in fact opposing Paul, rather than a bastardized form
of Paulinism. Few would doubt that Paul was misunderstood in the way we
 New Books 411

find represented by James.37 The real issue in all of this may lie in the type
of knowledge James has of Paul. Much of that knowledge, though not all of
it, seems to relate to Rom 3:28 and Gal 2:16, implying a distant familiarity
with the apostle’s work, manifesting itself in slogans more than detailed
textual knowledge. Moreover, I think most would agree that it would be
difficult to read Galatians and Romans and arrive at the view of Paul ap-
parently manifest in James. Interestingly, Allison does argue, albeit tenta-
tively, for a wider and more expansive knowledge of Paul on behalf of
James, an observation which might be thought by some to weaken his
case for James as an opponent of Paul rather than a form of Paulinism
(61f). It is worth also adding the observation, made more pertinent by All-
ison’s late dating of James, that the distinction between Paul and Paulinism
might appear a tad artificial – in a sense after Paul’s death there is only Pau-
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

linism, that is, interpretations of Paul and discovering what form of that
James may be opposing becomes a very difficult matter. After all, there is
ample evidence of negative interpretations of his writings through whose
Delivered by Publishing Technology

prism James may have first encountered Paul’s writings, a prism which
may have affected the way he read Paul’s sometimes opaque (2 Pet
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

3:16) letters.
These, then, in broad outline are some of the major points to emerge
from the commentary, some of which are discussed at length in the intro-
ductory section, others of which form part of the section devoted to com-
mentary.

II. Some concluding thoughts

The first issue relates to the role of Allison’s overall interpretation of the
purpose of James within the commentary itself. By and large Allison is
scrupulous in making his reader aware of where his own understanding
of the setting of the text is key to his interpretation of a particular crux.
So at p. 285, in a typically thorough discussion of Jas 1:18, while clear

37 Those who contend that the absence of any reference to the gentiles in the context of
James’ arguments, such an important part of the contexts in which Paul discusses faith
and works, make it unlikely that James is referring to Paul, do not convince. It seems to
me that the argument about antinomianism in Rom 6:1f (and ostensibly this is the case
in Rom 3:8, too; see also Rom 4:4f) has nothing to do with gentiles and it is easy to see
the argument of faith and works becoming detached from that context, whatever one
thinks of Allison’s appeal to the double audience of James (cf. also Eph 2:10; Titus 3:4f;
and Barn. 4.14).
 412 New Books

that there is something to be said for all three interpretations of the refer-
ence to giving birth to us as the first fruits of all creatures, he notes that “In
this case the commentator will prefer the reading that best fits his or her
understanding of James as a whole (namely the two non-christological in-
terpretations in which the phrase refers either to the birth of Israel or the
birth of humanity).”38 And similar examples of interpretations of individ-
ual verses influenced by Allison’s overarching view of the context of the
epistle can be found at p. 306 (here concerning the interpretation of
1:21); 565 (here concerning the function of 3:13–18); and 647 (here con-
cerning the view that 5:1–6 should not be understood as an apostrophe).
But one rarely has the sense when reading this commentary that if one
has not accepted Allison’s distinctive view of the context of James, the
commentary becomes less helpful. This is related both to the fact that All-
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

ison indicates where his interpretation is affected by his overarching view

of the epistle,39 and to another point, namely that he is a strikingly assid-
uous tabulator of the opinions of others, a point seen not only in the com-
Delivered by Publishing Technology

mentary proper but also in his account of the history of interpretation and
reception, which precedes the commentary section. And in all of this All-
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

ison is also alive to the problem of being too assertive. On some occasions
he simply accepts that there is no clear way of determining the meaning of
a phrase or verse. So in the interpretation of 2:18, he writes: “Not one of
these (12 have been listed) explanations satisfies, and as the commentator
is unable to offer anything better in their place, he reluctantly concludes
that the text is corrupt, the original beyond recovery, or that James ex-
pressed himself so poorly that we cannot offer any clear exposition of
his words.” (471)
This lack of a peremptory or didactic tone (not to be confused with a
lack of opinion) is to some extent reflected in the sections of the commen-
tary devoted to the history of interpretation and reception to which refer-
ence has been made. The precise purpose of these sections, which vary
considerably in length, is not unitary. As the reader will recall from an ear-
lier part of this review, Allison enumerates a number of reasons for such an
interest and these are reflected in the commentary. So on occasion such
history helps order or coordinate a debate (this is perhaps especially the

38 Although he does not dismiss the idea that there is intentional ambiguity here.
39 There is always a complex relationship between the exegesis of an individual passage
and the context assumed for the text in which it appears – that context is to some extent
the end result of exegetical endeavor but exegesis may itself be affected by an assumed
setting of the epistle. Here one might speak of the hermeneutical circle, which is an issue
for all interpreters of texts.
 New Books 413

case with 2:14–26), can simply by weight of testimony give support to a

particular interpretation, or provides the reader with the odd piece of in-
teresting information.40 These sections evidence wide reading and in their
variegated function reflect honestly to some extent the intellectual malaise
inherent in the flourishing business of reception history where attaining a
clear view of its unifying rationale is very difficult.41
My final observation relates to the question of progress. Narrowly con-
ceived, we could express such a concern in the form of a question. Is it the
case that we now know more about James than we did in 1916 when Ropes
published the first ICC commentary on James? I would aver that after
reading this commentary James remains as much of an enigma as it
was at the time of Ropes, that, for all Allison’s erudition, acuity of obser-
vation and even occasional originality, there is little that he has said which
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

clearly indicates an advance on Ropes, advance understood narrowly as

movement towards certitude or greater certitude than was the case before.
Certainly, Allison has added some further weight to long-established, if
Delivered by Publishing Technology

contested, positions (e. g. the anti-Pauline character of James). Moreover,

he has sought to reflect a changed landscape in the understanding of
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

Christianity and its relationship to Judaism, to some extent informed

by new discoveries since the time of Ropes (though in this context the ex-
tent to which the discoveries at Qumran make a clear and obvious differ-
ence to a reading of James, is open to question42) but also by changes of
attitude to ancient Judaism, inspired by wider cultural and theological
shifts. Of course, James has always been seen as a strongly Jewish docu-
ment, leading Massebieau and Spitta,43 in 1895 and 1896 respectively,

40 Amongst the many interesting tidbits in this section of Allison’s commentary is the fact
that Jas 1:5 played a central role in the biography of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mor-
monism [163]; that Alcoholics Anonymous almost called itself the ‘James Club’ bea-
cause of their emphasis on the fact that faith without works is dead (109); the fact
that 2:19 played an important role in the history of the 18th and 19th-century Sandem-
inians, who preached that bare belief was enough to be saved (437); and that fact that
3:13–18 was very important for the abolitionist, Frederick Douglas (563]).
41 On this see J. Carleton Paget’s review of A.C. Thiselton, 1 and 2 Thessalonians through
the centuries (Chichester 2011), in JEH 64 (2013) 121–123; and R. Kueh, “Reception
History and the Hermeneutics of Wirkungsgeschichte: Critiquing the Use of Gadame-
rian Hermeneutics in Biblical Reception History” (unpubl. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cam-
bridge 2012).
42 Though cf. 4QMMT, and relationship of 3:13–18 and 1 QS 4.2–8. The absence, no
doubt for reasons of space, of an index of primary sources makes a clear assessment
of this matter more difficult.
43 L. Massebieau, “L’ Épître de Jacques: est-elle l’oeuvre de chrétien?”, RHR 32 (1895)
249–283; F. Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristentums. Zweiter Band:
Der Brief des Jakobus: Studien des Hirten des Hermas (Göttingen 1893).
 414 New Books

to argue that the work was originally Jewish and then suffered interpola-
tions from a Christian hand; and Ropes himself, though rejecting this the-
ory, was keen to emphasize the Jewishness of the epistle, even apologizing
at one point for his lack of knowledge of rabbinic literature. But Allison’s
sensitivity to the Jewish character of the text, indeed his insistence on the
Jewish context of interpretation, is conducted within an atmosphere,
which is more accepting of this aspect of Christianity, and seen in part
in Allison’s keenness to lay bare the anti-Jewish tendencies within the crit-
icism of James of an earlier generation.44
But many of the old chestnuts remain, whether at the level of the so-
called introductory questions of date, origin, context or authorship; or
more particular questions about the relationship of James to Jesus tradi-
tion or the interpretation of particular verses. In this context let me focus
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

on one issue, the one of letting James be James, or the question of the ap-
propriate context against which to read the epistle. For Bauckham letting
James be James means casting aside any sense that this is a text which
Delivered by Publishing Technology

should be read against a Pauline setting, and reading it against a broadly

wisdom setting in which James becomes the updater and adaptor of Jesus
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

wisdom; for Allison, by contrast, letting James be James means reading

James against a strongly Jewish background (not contested by Bauckham
but understood in terms of an almost inner-Jewish discussion), which ex-
cludes strong Christian references, especially Christological ones, but in-
cludes Pauline ones; and for others like Nienhuis, letting James be James
means reading it against a canonical background, of seeing its construc-
tion in strongly inner-Christian terms, bound up with the creation of a set
of catholic epistles, which sought to present an orthodox Paul in agree-
ment with the other pillar apostles in the late second century. Letting
James be James may sound like an objective cry but it elicits very different
responses.
To some extent this simply reflects the kind of research New Testament
scholars (and indeed others in the humanities) engage in. The lack of new
archival data, so much a feature of later periods of history, means that it is
less easy to measure advances in the discipline, understood narrowly as
advances in knowledge rather than its interpretation. Scholarship can
sometimes even appear to have a cyclical quality. After all, Allison’s under-

44 A good example of this occurs on p. 321 in a discussion of the way in which Christian
exegetes have understood Jas 1:22–25, but many other examples from the commentary
could be given. See also 349. Ropes’commentary is generally free of cultic-Jewish com-
ments, even where he distinguishes the Christian Jewish character of James from that of
what he terms “Jewish Christians”. See Ropes, James (see n. 1), 28f.
 New Books 415

standing of the Sitz im Leben of James draws especially upon opinions

found in articles published in 1907 and 1923, even if the expression of
the views of an earlier time is always couched in different language,
often based upon different presuppositions and used in different ways.
Against this background one might want to assert that the greatest
achievement of a commentator may lie in the effectiveness with which
he or she updates the reader on the story so far, that is, the extent to
which he or she collates and arranges what has preceded, and how what
may emerge from this in the way of firmer conclusions, however specu-
lative, stimulates further discussion.45 Allison has certainly succeeded in
doing this and, moreover, has given ample expression to the multiple skills
a successful commentator requires, whether philological, historical, or in-
terpretative, all of which built upon a range of knowledge and a sensitivity
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47

to the wider religious setting.

But some might say that such observations, and I have already hinted at
this in my previous comments, depend upon an understanding of prog-
Delivered by Publishing Technology

ress more suited to a hard scientific model based upon the gradual accu-
mulation of knowledge, and that such a model is not really an appropriate
Copyright Mohr Siebeck

one by which to measure progress in a discipline like theology or indeed

many humanities subjects. If we attempt to move away from this model
and accept that interpretation is ongoing, related to socio-cultural con-
texts, and perennially open to contest and debate, then the means by
which we measure progress may be different, indeed we may not want
to talk about progress at all. In this context questions of stimulation,
the opening up of new areas of discussion and related matters may
come to the fore, and here there are definitely grounds for saying that All-
ison has succeeded.
The issues raised are broad ones requiring much more discussion than
is possible here, and may lead to expressions of despair or indeed of op-
timism, depending to some extent upon how one regards progress or con-
ceives of what one is doing. What would seem to me to be clear is that com-
mentaries, the specific subject of this review, however they might be con-
ceived, whatever place they might be given in the wider discipline of New
Testament studies, become like so much else in academic study, markers
to some extent of the concerns of the time in which they were written rath-
er than evidence of a kind of incremental progression in our understand-

45 Something of this is captured in the opening comments of Ropes’ preface to his com-
mentary, where he talks about the sifting of opinion and mentions, as if this might be an
unlikely event, the possibility of what he terms “new illustrations”. (Ropes, James [see n.
1], vii).
 416 New Books

ing of a text, which has some assumed endpoint. This may be an obvious, if
sobering, even Sisyphean, conclusion, but it raises interesting questions
about the purposes of commentaries and why we seek to replace them.

James Carleton Paget

University of Cambridge
Faculty of Divinity
West Road
Cambridge CB3 9BS
United Kingdom
jncp1@cam.ac.uk
University Laval 68.178.168.92 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:46:47
Delivered by Publishing Technology

Copyright Mohr Siebeck