In his essay on the mixture of wisdom, prophetic, and apocalyptic forms in the letter of James, Patrick Hartin suggests that James primarily fits within the genre of wisdom with some influence from apocalyptic discourse [see bibliographic info below - read most of the essay on Google Books]. Since his very recent commentary on James looks so wonderful, I had high hopes for this article. I am saddened to say that I was disappointed. It felt like the article tried to do too much in too little space. In Hartin’s defense, the essay is a shortened version–though, I think you would need an entire book to accomplish Hartin’s task with any satisfactory evidentiary support. I will be reviewing his book and commentary on James this summer, which I expect are better venues for Hartin’s approach.
One section in particular modeled some of the problems I saw in this article:
Without doubt James is aware of the apocalyptic imagination since it is part of the thought patterns that he shares with his contemporaries and in particular with his readers. However, James tends to distance himself from apocalyptic thinking in two ways. In the first instance, James is convinced that the eschatological age has arrived since the “Judge is standing at the doors” (5:9); yet, those formal elements that belong to truly apocalyptic discourse are absent. This leads James to reinterpret the apocalyptic signs. The ordinary sufferings of the present are reinterpreted as signs of the end, such as the tribulations afflicting the widow and the orphan, as well the trials faced by every brother and sister (1:2). Second, despite the view that the coming age brings judgment, the ethos of the whole letter is that this coming age is to be approached not with fear and trepidation, but with joy and happiness: “Count it all as joy” [1:2]) [sic]. Adopting James’s wisdom exhortations will bring hope, joy, peace, and perfection. The focus rests on the future hope, “the Lord of glory” (2:1) who provides the “crown of life” (1:12), rather than on dread and fear of judgment. [pp. 161-2, emphases mine]
Allow me to respond to this quote by looking separately at the “two ways” in which James distances himself from apocalyptic thinking, according to Hartin:
- First of all, we need a definition of what is “truly apocalyptic discourse.” Later, Hartin seems to suggest at least two ways that James differs from typical apocalyptic discourse: (1) James lacks a detailed description of the coming judgment (164); (2) James lacks a sense of special revelation (165 – probably, but what about the “wisdom from above”?). I can see how these missing elements might set James apart from the genre of “apocalypse,” but I don’t know that they are necessary for all “apocalyptic discourse.” Secondly, we need a better definition of what “ordinary sufferings” are. What is it about James 1:2 that suggests the πειρασμοῖς are simply your run-of-the-mill sufferings as opposed to whatever extraordinary sufferings are meant to be (martyrdom?). Are not present sufferings often given eschatological significance in apocalyptic thought? Just because sufferings are in the present does not disqualify them from apocalyptic significance.
- On the second point, the fact that the righteous should have joy about their coming rewards seems to me a common feature of apocalyptic discourse, not a way in which James differs from apocalyptic thought. As I understand it, the joy awaiting the righteous one after the judgment is part of the purpose of apocalyptic thought. On this point, though, it seems that Hartin contradicts himself in the same article: in a paragraph arguing that James does share “aspects of some thought patterns” of apocalyptic thought, Hartin includes the fact “that there is a ‘crown of life’ (1:12) in store for those who show their love of God” (166). On one page, the “crown of life” is an example of how James departs from apocalyptic thought and a few pages later it is an example of how James includes apocalyptic thought in his letter.
- The overall paragraph quoted above also models another confusing feature of Hartin’s article: I cannot tell whether he is arguing James’ primary focus is the present or the future. Things are a little muddy on this point–understandably so, given James’ statements. I am with Hartin when he makes these comments: “The present is on the threshold of the end of history” (159) and “the future does operate in James as a call to the present” (165). But I am confused when he uses the word “focus.” In the quote above, Hartin suggests that for James, “the focus rests on the future hope.” A few pages later, Hartin states that James’ “focus” is “providing exhortations and advice to the readers about how they are to lead their lives in the present” (166; emphases mine). It seems worth considering what precisely we mean by “focus” and whether the term is even appropriate when discussing the letter.
It bothers me to write a negative review of this article. I do feel there are several nuggets worth chewing on for awhile, but the article just covers too much and the logic feels a little loose. At present, I am not exactly certain what Hartin’s thesis is nor what purpose his use of the Epistle of Enoch serves (takes up a couple pages). I do still look forward to reading his other works this summer. If someone has read this essay and would like to counter my assessment of it, please do. I would be quite happy to be “converted” on this work.
________
Patrick J. Hartin, “Who Is Wise and Understanding among You? (James 3:13): An Analysis of Wisdom, Eschatology, and Apocalypticism in the Letter of James,” in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom And Apocalypticism (Atlanta: SBL, 2005) 149–68.
