Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James.

Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James. By Luke Timothy Johnson. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2004. 290 pages. Paper. $30.00.

The subtitle Studies in the Letter of James suggests the content of this book: a series of articles that Johnson wrote between 1982 and 2000. He also authored the Anchor Bible commentary on James. Since the discovery of the so-called James Ossuary, interest in James and his letter has grown considerably. Johnson found it a good opportunity to collect and publish his essays, some written for scholarly discussion, others for lay people, in book form. Essays written before 1994 were used in his commentary.

In such a collection one expects to find some repetition, differences, perhaps inconsistencies. However, there is a remarkable consistency throughout the book, almost as if Johnson had never changed his mind. The only inconsistency I could find is that in some essays Greek is printed in Greek type, in others it is transcribed into an excellent form (however, without an English translation). It would seem that for this collection of essays a unified form should have been used.

Johnson recognizes, of course, that there is disagreement about the authorship of the epistle. However, he is convinced that James, the brother of Jesus, himself wrote the letter in the early period of the Christian church. Those who look for good and manifold arguments for this early authorship and authenticity will find Johnson a supportive voice and a rich source of data. After reading Johnson, I reread Dibelius's introduction to his commentary in the Hermeneia series, and I find Dibelius still more convincing. Johnson frequently refers to Dibelius. On p. 43 he mentions Dibelius's commentary, with a date of 1976. This gives the impression that the Dibelius commentary was written so recently. While the English translation did appear in that year, Dibelius wrote the first edition in 1920.

Johnson offers a rich survey of the interpretation of the letter and of its reception in the early church, discussed in a clever way in the essay "Journeying East with James: A Chapter in the History of Interpretation," like a travelogue through the Eastern church. Correctly, Johnson emphasizes that one must look not only at commentaries but also at other writings. In German literature this is called Wirkungsgeschichte, "History of Influence." It demonstrates a tremendous amount of research, because Johnson examined the whole Migne Greek Patrology to find where James is used and cites a large number of references. He is aware that not every similarity might come from James, because James shares traditions with 1 Peter, other writings of the NT, and other early writings.

The next essay also has an amusing title: "How James Won the West: A Chapter in the History of Canonization."

The chapter on "The Social World of James" discusses again the question of authorship but does not offer much on the social world of James. The close relationship that Johnson sees between James and Leviticus 19 is not completely convincing, but the similarity to sayings of Jesus is drawn out well. Johnson thoroughly investigates the mirror image in 1:22-25. He spends considerable effort in demonstrating the unity of 3:13-4:10 under the theme of envy, drawing connections to Hellenistic literature and especially the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, but I wonder if it is worth the effort. According to Johnson, it is a call to conversion, with the indictment in 3:13-4:6 and the call to conversion in 4:7-10, but it is not clear what conversion he has in mind.

In his discussion of the relationship of James to Paul, he emphasizes that they are not in contradiction; faith in the letters of Paul also requires action, while works in James are not without faith. In this connection, he stresses that he understands the phrase [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as subjective, that it is the human faith of Jesus. While I am not even convinced that this is correct for Paul anywhere, it certainly does not fit the occurrence in James 2:1. Showing partiality would compromise the faith of the believers, not of Jesus.

Johnson does not neglect the difficulties that exist in assuming an early origin of the letter but believes that some early writings, such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, I Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas are well acquainted with James. While this does not prove that the letter was written by the brother of Jesus, it also does not contradict such a belief, Johnson says.

The last chapter is titled "Epilog: The Importance of James for Theology." Here, Johnson points out that James mentions God so often that it is really a theology and not a christology. He criticizes so-called theologies of the New Testament for their almost complete neglect of James in constructing a theology of the New Testament. This emphasis on God, Johnson believes, enables the letter to serve as a bridge to Jews and Muslims in discussing theology. However, this also demonstrates that the letter does not concentrate on Christ despite the two references to Christ in the epistle. Here, Johnson says very fine things about the ethics of the epistle and its significance for the contemporary church, but this is ethics and not theology.

The book is interesting to read. However, Johnson has not convinced me that the letter is really early, written by James, the brother of Jesus. One would expect different issues discussed at that early period and more significant references to Jesus, especially to his death and resurrection.

Wilhelm C. Linss

Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago