Andrew M. Bowden, «The Fruit of Righteousness in James: A Study in Discourse Analysis.», Vol. 26 (2013) 87-108
In this study, a discourse analysis of James is conducted with the goal of better understanding the structure, theme, and cohesion of the letter. By paying careful attention to the details of the text, James’ paragraphs are identified, as are the signals of transition between the various paragraphs. The conclusions reached based on a discourse analysis of James are illuminating. Far from being a randomly arranged work, James repeatedly uses present prohibitory imperatives in the overall organization of the Epistle. These imperatives are important in marking transitions between main sections. Furthermore, a discourse analysis reveals that James is a coherent epistle comprised of 16 paragraphs, with 3,13-18 providing the overarching macrostructure of the letter. Bearing the fruit of righteousness, a theme prominent in 3,13-18, is seen to be the letter’s overarching and unifying thought.
The Fruit of Righteousness in James: A Study in Discourse Analysis 97
rhetorical questions in vv. 4-7, each expecting affirmative answers (note
the particle οὐ), serving to forcefully emphasize the point. “Here the
audience is prompted to answer ‘yes’ to each question”, conceding that
they have usurped God’s role as judge, have acted contrary to His nature
by dishonoring the poor, and have committed the folly of revering the
rich — the very ones oppressing them and blaspheming their Lord34. “The
most disturbing question is saved until last to form a climax” — they not
only oppress those whom God has chosen as heirs, but uphold those who
blaspheme his name35.
The second major paragraph of this section (2,8-13) argues that
favoritism is a sin against one’s neighbors and means one is a lawbreaker
in danger of judgment. This paragraph concludes with the indicative
statement in v. 13 explaining that mercy triumphs over judgment. James’
argument progresses in this subunit with crippling logic. Having pointed
out their unrighteous favoritism in the previous paragraph, James can
now point out exactly what this means — a progression marked by the
inclusion of προσωπολημπτεῖτε in 2,9. The readers are in fact doers of
sin. They have become law-breakers (v. 11, παραβάτης νόμου). Their
speech and action should be reflecting the freedom they enjoy as God’s
children and they should thus be doers of ἔλεος. Thus, this paragraph
shows that righteous behavior consists in right speech and right behavior,
and such behavior is missing in the readers’ lives36.
This section’s third paragraph (2,14-19) explains that professions of
righteousness devoid of action are worthless. A series of chiasms and
rhetorical questions are present, and the author poses the questions to
show that he is expecting negative answers (μή, v. 14). James demonstrates
that righteous deeds do not consist merely in correct doctrines or religious
maxims. This is refuted with the sarcastic καλῶς ποιεῖς (v. 19), and by
reminding that demons have no problem with proper profession, but lack
righteous deeds.
Finally, the fourth paragraph of this section (2,20-26) provides two
illustrations to show that righteousness and action are inseparable.
Surprisingly, the vocative here is not the typical ἀδελφοί μου, but ὦ
ἄνθρωπε κενέ instead. This section contains two rhetorical questions
expecting positive answers (vv. 21, 25), and one final chiasm (v. 22) — both
of which serve to bind this paragraph with the preceding. The function of
34
D. Watson, “James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation”, NTS 39
(1993) 104.
35
Ibid.
36
For an excellent treatment of James 2,1-13 see Wachob (The Voice of Jesus in the
Social Rhetoric of James, R. Bauckham [ed.] [SNTS 106; Cambridge 2000, 59-113).