The author of the Letter of James accuses his readers (Jas 4,1-4) of being responsible for war, murder and adultery. How are we to explain this charge? This paper shows that the material in Jas 1,13-21; 2,8-11 and 4,1-4 is closely akin to
the teknon section in Did 3,1-6. The teknon section belonged to the Jewish Two Ways tradition which, for the most part, is covered by the first six chapters of the
Didache. Interestingly, Did 3,1-6 exhibits close affinity with the ethical principles of a particular stream of Rabbinic tradition found in early Derekh Erets treatises. James 4,1-4 should be considered a further development of the warnings in Did 3,1-6.
The Epistle of James has been considered one of the most practical pieces of writings in the New Testament, and yet it has been consistently neglected in the writings of both New Testament scholars and ethicists. This neglect most likely derives from a failure to understand the theological underpinning for the imperatives in James, perceived as ethics in a vacuum. Understood correctly, the three areas of James’ ethical concern: speech ethics, social justice, and moral purity, stem from God’s own character and his redemption of his chosen people, making his ethics among the most theologically developed of the New Testament.
This article examines the references to slips of the tongue in the speech ethics of Ben Sira. Against the background of Proverbs, this characterization of accidental speech errors represents a new development. Its origin can be traced to the confluence between sapiential metaphors for mistakes in life and the idea of a slip of the tongue in the Hellenistic world. Ben Sira’s references to slips of the tongue are generally coordinated with a lack of discipline, though at least two verses seem to suggest that slips are not always sinful and that they represent a universal phenomenon, found even among the wisest sages.
Intertextuality has been used to label a plethora of investigations into textual relationships. During the past few decades, the debate regarding the definition of intertextuality has largely been resolved, yet scholars continue to misuse the term to refer to diachronic and/or author-centered approaches to determining textual relationships. This article calls for employing methodological vocabulary ethically by outlining the primary differences between - and different uses for - intertextuality, inner-biblical exegesis, and inner-biblical allusion.