James and the Jesus Traditions
(avg. read time: 14–27 mins.)
Scholars have often noted that James’s letter shows awareness of the Jesus/Gospel traditions. Interestingly, this is not because of any references to the major gospel events. If you read through my series on the three-stage gospel narrative in the NT, you will notice that I do not go over James, and that is precisely because there were no direct references to Jesus’s crucifixion, resurrection, or exaltation to ground the analysis. Jesus’s exaltation may be implicit in James referring to him as “Lord Jesus Christ” in 1:1 and 2:1; and based on the rest of the NT one could say the narrative is assumed in the references to the Parousia of the Lord in 5:7–8. But the fact remains that, unlike Hebrews, we do not have direct references to the major gospel events or any other event to work with.
However, the links of James to the traditions recorded in the Gospels primarily concern the sayings. Of these links most of them are with the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew or the Sermon on the Plain in Luke. Still other sayings can be plausibly linked to James as well. But what is even more curious about these links is that they do not consist of any discernible quotes of the sayings of Jesus. In many cases, they are allusions of varying degrees of plausibility. In other cases, there is no clear lexical link, but links between texts can go beyond the lexical and we may have similar ideas at play.
The question of what gives rise to this interesting blend of similarity, distance from actual wording, and lack of direct reference is fascinating, but it is ultimately beyond my scope (at least for now; I may consider returning to this someday). What is within my scope here is, first, to explore the lexically grounded allusions of James to the sayings of Jesus. Second, we will consider the more distant links and how plausible they are. Third, we will examine whether there are any signals James gives beyond the words themselves to indicate that he is appealing to the Jesus traditions.
Lexically Grounded Allusions to Jesus Sayings in James
In terms of “lexically grounded allusions,” I am referring to the presence of some verbal similarity between a text in James and a saying of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, whether it is the most significant link between them or not. As a prefatory remark on this, I will say that where I differ from many scholars who comment on this matter is that I am a Q skeptic. For reasons I will address another time, I do not think there was ever a document referred to today as “Q” that was the common textual source of Matthew and Luke. And so where James has a commonality with both Matthew and Luke, I will not say it is a link to “Q.” Whether James was ever aware of Gospel texts per se prior to writing this text is a mystery that remains unresolvable, and answers given to such questions are dependent on what scholars think on other bases about the dating of James or the various Gospels. But I am inclined to agree with others that we cannot establish literary dependence as such here. The similarities are the result of shared tradition.
There is also a possibility that should be noted that we do not adequately address here due to its inherently speculative quality. It could be that James somewhere alludes to sayings of Jesus that exist in none of the Gospels. It could be that they were written down, but the record was not preserved, or it could be that they were never written down and were simply passed on orally. As it is, though, we are in no position today to confirm with any degree of confidence that this is actually the case anywhere in James. There is nothing like Acts 20:35 here.
With that said, let us first look at what various scholars have identified as possible overlaps between James and the Gospels through the connections of this letter to the Sermon on the Mount or the Sermon on the Plain. After that, we will consider other connections to the Gospels.
Sermon on the Mount/Plain
James 1:2–3 has the nominal equivalent “joy” (χαρά) for the verb for “rejoice” (χαίρω) in Matt 5:12 // Luke 6:23, uses “whenever” (ὅταν) like both Matt 5:11 // Luke 6:22, and is thematically linked with the suffering described in both Matt 5:11–12 // Luke 6:22–23 by reference to pressure/testing/temptation. This appears to count as an allusion, but not an especially close one compared to others. By itself, it is not especially suggestive, and could simply be similar to other teachings. (While Jas 5:10 is possibly connected to the same teaching through the lexical link of referring to “the prophets” in the context of suffering, I am rather inclined to think that James and Jesus are drawing on the same popular references.)
James 1:4 uses two forms of “complete” (τέλειος) like Matt 5:48. In James’s context, it refers to perseverance having its complete work so that the audience may be complete, which is like what Jesus speaks of in Matthew, though it is lacking the reference to being complete like the Father is complete. This may be more of an incidental link. Although, it is an interesting one in light of how infrequent the adjective is in the NT (nineteen total appearances with three in Matthew and five in James, including the four total uses noted here). Perhaps James is referring to the same goal as Jesus does in Matthew, particularly as the rest of Jas 1:4 uses similar terminology of completion/wholeness. But, again, this is not the strongest of links if we should identify it as anything but a case of shared vocabulary.
James 1:5 instructs the audience to ask for wisdom from the God who gives unwaveringly, and he says it will be given to them. The statement “it will be given” is a verbal match for Matt 7:7 // Luke 11:9 (δοθήσεται) and the same verb for “asking” (αἰτέω) appears in all three texts, though unsurprisingly in a different form in James than in Matthew or Luke (the latter of which is not part of the Sermon on the Plain). This is not closer to either text, but the promise here is predicated on the same sort of teaching as represented in both. (More distantly, one could also note Jas 4:2–3.)
James 1:17 increases the volume of the connection with this teaching by its verbal link to Matt 7:11 // Luke 11:13. The terminology for gifts is not identical, but the terms are clearly associated. But they also specifically use the term “good” (ἀγαθός) related to the gifts. Otherwise, the links are more thematic and synonymous. James refers to gifts “from above” that are “from the Father,” while Jesus refers to gifts from the Father who is in heaven/the heavens. If James is closer to either text, it is slightly closer to Matthew, since Jesus in that text refers to God giving “good things” to those who ask, whereas the “good things” are not repeated in the parallel in Luke, where the gift is the Holy Spirit.
James 1:22–23 resonates with Matt 7:24 // Luke 6:47 and Matt 7:26 // Luke 6:49 particularly well. The illustrations of the one who hears the word and does not do it diverge, and the terminology in referring to hearing and doing varies by being synonymous rather than identical, but both texts stress doing and not only hearing “the word(s).” Even James’s description of the illustrated man as being “like” is similar to the Gospels, though the terminology is peculiar to James in the NT (εἴκω rather than ὁμοιόω in Matthew and ὅμοιος in Luke). If there is one version to which James is closer, it is Matthew because he uses the term for “man” that is identical to Matthew (ἀνδρὶ) rather than Luke’s (ἀνθρώπῳ). But the terms are often synonymous, so it is not some significant divergence.
As we move into ch. 2, we find that v. 5 is reminiscent of Jesus’s beatitude to the poor in Matt 5:3 // Luke 6:20. In both the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus blesses the poor (in spirit or simpliciter) and says theirs is the kingdom. Likewise, James reminds his audience of this promise by asking rhetorically if God has not chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he promised to those who love him? The words I have italicized are either the same terms found in both versions from Matthew and Luke (“the poor” and “the kingdom”) or, in the case of “heirs,” there is a nominal equivalent to a verb from the Gospel teaching, in this case Matt 5:5. Of course, the use of inheritance language could be a paraphrase, as the idea is conveyed well enough without the terminology, but it could also be that James is merging the promises together in this statement, since it is not as if the categories of the blessed are compartmentalized in watertight fashion. Although James does not repeat Matthew’s descriptor of the “poor in spirit,” his notion of the poor being “rich in faith” serves as an obverse of that declaration. Interestingly, this is also the only case in all of James that he uses the term for “kingdom,” which makes more plausible that he is drawing on something taught previously. This is thus one of the closest allusions thus far to Gospel teaching, and there are more points of contact with the form of the tradition recorded in Matthew, but it is again not a wide margin.
James 2:10 is not quite as close a connection with Matt 5:18–19. Both have overlap, even at the lexical level, by virtue of their reference to the law. More significantly, both texts stress the need to keep the law rather than to violate it or to teach others to do so. James’s teaching that one who is guilty of breaking part of the law is guilty of breaking the whole is an extension of the sanctity upheld by Jesus’s warning against breaking the least of the commandments.
Some teachings in this chapter may or may not be connected to the Gospel teachings by virtue of common links to the OT. That is, 2:8 refers to the “royal law” that is Lev 19:18, which Jesus invokes in his teaching on the greatest commandments (Matt 22:34–40 // Mark 12:28–34 // Luke 10:25–28). It could be that in referring to this commandment in this fashion that he is invoking also the way “the king” showed its prominence alongside the greatest commandment. Likewise, the references to the commandments not to murder or to commit adultery in 2:10–11 are reminiscent of the fact that Jesus also taught about the extension of these commandments in addressing anger/hate and lust (Matt 5:21–30), the former of which is being presented as the more proximate threat for James’s audience if they should be callous to the poor among them. There may even be an extra layer of suggestiveness in James referring to “the one who said” these things in 2:11.
James 3:12, which is part of the teaching on the tongue, resonates with Jesus’s teaching of “by their fruits you will know them” (Matt 7:16–18 // Luke 6:43–44). The point is not explicit in James, but it is well enough inferred from the context. All texts refer to figs (σῦκον), but the contrasts after that go in different directions for the Gospel texts and James, particularly since the former refer to gathering fruit and the latter refers to the production of fruit. But the notion that fruits do not come from an improper source remains the same. Once again, James is slightly more similar to Matthew’s version in that he also refers specifically to this not being possible by saying one cannot (δύναται preceded by μὴ instead of οὐ).
One borderline case appears in Jas 4:8 with the instruction to “purify your hearts.” It is borderline because there is a single connection with the term for “heart” in Matt 5:8 and James uses the verbal equivalent of the noun in Matthew. The connection is not as strong as some others, but the similarity is important for helping to illuminate what is meant by purity of heart in terms of its contrast with being double-souled/double-minded.
There is also a lexical link of “mourning” between Jas 4:9 and Matt 5:4. This link also exists with Luke 6:25 in the Sermon on the Plain (and another synonym appears in 6:21). While James may be drawing on either/both teachings for the force of his instruction by calling them to mind for his audience, he is not simply dependent on either. In vocabulary, the instruction to mourn now is closer to Matthew, but there it is said that those who mourn now are blessed because they will be comforted. Here, James is not providing any sort of comfort to the mourners, as he is telling those who are not mourning now to mourn. In any case, he also shows that, as in Jesus’s teaching, mourning in the present is related to repentance. On the other hand, the fact that this is directed against those who are rich, exalted, and satisfied in the present age makes it potentially more of a conceptual match for Jesus’s “woe” in Luke 6:25. Yet the distinction from that teaching is the mourning is said to be a future condition, where it is an expression of regret from irretrievable loss in the eschatological context. As such, James represents something in between. Like Jesus in the Sermon on the Plain, he admonishes those who are too comfortable in this world order (anyone who has become or is enticed to become a “friend with the world” [4:4]), but also like Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, his promise in 4:10 is built on the promise of blessing for those who mourn now. He is calling for those he is addressing to move from the station of those Jesus pronounces woes against to the station of those Jesus promises comfort for. Much the same could be said for Jas 5:1, which is more connected with Luke’s teaching in its context with the reference to the rich.
James 4:11 and its teaching against slander may also owe something to Jesus’s teaching in Matt 7:1–2 // Luke 6:37–38, though the lexical links are only the verb for “judge” and the reference to one’s brother or sister in the same context. James does not make the same point about how the measure with which one measures will be the same measure used against oneself. But that may be implied with his reference to the person who judges the law, as if to put one’s own standard above what James has elsewhere referred to as the law. One can similarly connect Jas 5:9 to this teaching.
James 4:13–14 is sometimes identified as an allusion to Matt 6:34, but I am not convinced. It does have a slight lexical link with reference to “tomorrow.” But the points made diverge because Jesus and James are addressing completely different mindsets. Jesus tells his audience not to worry/have anxiety about tomorrow and to trust in God. James rebukes an attitude that is overconfident about tomorrow and the effectuality of their plans for the same. One teaching stresses trust in God and the other stresses the frailty of life and the uncertainty of the future. As such, I do not see a reason to list it among the allusions. I simply address the claimed connection here.
James 5:2–3 is one of the closest allusions when one takes synonyms into account. Specifically, it is connected with Matt 6:19–20 and its parallel in Luke 12:33–34. The terms for their wealth being “corroded” in 5:3 and their garments/cloaks becoming “moth-eaten” in 5:2 are not exactly paralleled in Matthew or Luke, but the former term is similar to the term translated as “rust” (in terms of something that eats away) in Matt 6:19–20, and the latter term is the activity of the moth, which is referred to with the nominal equivalent of the adjective in Matthew and Luke (and nowhere else in the NT). More directly, James and Matthew both use the verb for storing up/hoarding treasure. Whereas Jesus in Matthew warns against doing this, James condemns this action as having already occurred.
James 5:12 is the closest allusion of all, and it is connected to Matt 5:34–37. The command not to swear an oath uses the same vocabulary as in the text in Matthew. Though the list of things not to swear by is shorter in James, and the nominal cases are different (since Matthew uses an ἐν + the dative and James uses the accusative that is known as “the accusative of oaths”), he still says like Jesus does not to swear by heaven or earth, and then he simply wraps up “nor with any other oath/vow [cf. Matt 5:33].” Instead, his instruction is like Jesus’s, “let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’” This allusion could almost be a quote, but it is not explicitly marked as such in any case.
Other Gospel Connections
Outside of the links to the Sermon on the Mount or Sermon on the Plain, besides the occasional ones I have noted (like the uses of Scripture and the parallels to Matthew outside of the Sermon on the Plain), the first plausible allusion in James appears in 1:6. The notion of “asking in faith” is similar both in concept and vocabulary to what Jesus says about asking in prayer with faith in Matt 21:21–22 // Mark 11:23–24. James’s text, with its specific reference to asking for wisdom, is a specific application of the more general teaching of Jesus.
James 5:8–9 may be alluding to Jesus’s Olivet Discourse, in terms of describing the Lord/Judge as “at the door.” This parallels Matt 24:33 // Mark 13:29. However, apart from that lexical link, there is not much to recommend this supposed allusion. One could, of course, point to the shared vocabulary of referring to the arrival of the Lord as the “Parousia” (5:7–8), but this would only connect to Matthew’s version, and it is not clear that the use of this term, which appears in seven other books besides James and Matthew, is indicative of an allusion to this specific teaching. Nor, indeed, am I inclined to think that the Olivet Discourse is about the Second Coming in the way the text in James appears to be, as you can see here, here, and here.
Based on my analysis, there are at least fifteen of these lexically grounded allusions to the Gospels spread throughout James (1:2–3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 22–23; 2:5, 10; 3:12; 4:9, 11; 5:1, 2–3, 9, 12). There are two other borderline cases one might add (4:2–3 and 8), and three cases I do not think properly qualify (4:13–14; 5:8–9 [specifically in terms of the Olivet Discourse], and 10). Depending on how one wants to count them, one might also add two or three others from 2:8 and 2:10–11, but that would be on the bases of James alluding to Jesus’s references to the same Scriptures in his teaching, which one would need to argue for. The greatest number of connections are with the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, and James hews slightly closer to Matthew in vocabulary than the (typically) Lukan parallels when they arise.
It is also notable that these allusions are broadly distributed across the letter. Chapter 3 is the lightest because of the subject James addresses there not having as much overlap with Jesus’s teaching. But even there we have found one. We will also find others elsewhere in the letter that are not lexically grounded allusions so much as possible more distant links through thematic similarity.
Possible More Distant Links with the Gospels
James 1:13 is only indirectly related to Matt 6:13 // Luke 11:4, as these texts each refer to pressure/testing/temptation, to which God is negatively related. In the case of the latter, the statement is part of a prayer to not lead into pressure/testing/temptation. In the case of the former, James says when someone is being tempted, they should not claim that God is tempting them. There is no direct verbal connection between James and the Synoptics, but he does feature the verb form of the key noun. It is unclear whether this one should count as a Gospel connection or simply as signifying agreement between teachings.
James 1:19–20 does not feature a direct lexical link to Matt 5:22, but he does use the noun equivalent of the verb used there. More importantly, the fundamental point that the anger/wrath of man does not produce the righteousness/justice of God is in agreement with what Jesus teaches in that text about how anger/wrath leads to judgment. Likewise, both texts reinforce the value of attentiveness in relationships, but where Jesus in Matthew’s text stresses taking active steps in reconciliation when one has wronged another, James stresses the same dynamic at a preventative level by advising to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger (1:19). I am inclined to think that James is deliberately building on teaching he has conveyed to his audience previously in reiterating Jesus’s teaching, which includes applying it in other ways.
Similarly, there are synonymous terms linking Jas 2:13 with Matt 5:7. Both texts are concerned with mercy and the merciful being shown mercy. In James’s text, it is clearer that being shown mercy (by God) is in the prospect of judgment, though the eschatological framework of the Sermon also supports this link.
There is nearly a lexical link in Jas 3:18 when James says that the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. “Those who make peace” is the more conventional way of saying what Jesus said through his compound “peacemakers” in Matt 5:9 (εἰρηνοποιοι vs. ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην in Jas 3:18). Since we have already seen other connections to the Beatitudes, and another allusion to the Sermon on the Mount in v. 12 of this same chapter, I am inclined to think that this is signaling that James is drawing from the same well that he has shown to his audience before.
The contrasts of humbling and exaltation, that the exalted will be humbled and the humbled will be exalted, that we see in Jas 1:9–10 as well as 4:10, technically have lexical links to the traditions contained in the Gospels, but it is unclear which specific text to link them to. It seems more like the teaching is intended to evoke the general themes we see across the teachings of Jesus, and indeed the NT. We see it in the parallels of Matt 20:25–28 // Mark 10:42–45 // Luke 22:24–27, as well as Matt 18:4; 23:12; Luke 14:11; and 18:14 (cf. Luke 1:52). This counts as a broad thematic link, but it is not a peculiar one.
James 2:14–26 is not directly linked with any particular saying preserved in the Gospels. However, one can see its conceptual similarity to Matt 25:31–46 in its emphasis on works and particularly on works of provision and mercy. Of course, there is not a judgment scene in James, but the prospect is there in reference to justification. One could also argue that the logic is consistent with the teaching we have noted earlier of “by their fruits you will know them,” which supports the emphasis on bearing “fruits” in terms of works.
James 4:17 is also conceptually connected with Luke 12:47, and possibly other texts. There is a lexical link in terms of “doing” or rather “not doing,” but it is not clear that it is to be connected to a specific text, and so I include it here instead. More significant is the thematic link, as both texts refer to those who know what to do but do not do it.
Finally, Jas 5:19–20 may have thematic links to the Gospels. Specifically, the call to restore a wayward brother or sister is similar to what we find in Matt 18:15 and Luke 17:3. But even in this category, it is among the more distant. Still, it is arguably closer to the Matthean text because it refers to the initiative of the one who takes steps to restore the brother, whereas the Lukan text focuses on forgiveness of the repentant.
Does James Signal These Allusions?
As we can see, James’s allusions to the Jesus traditions are typically sparse in lexical links. A question that may arise, then, is if there are any indications James uses to signal to his audience that these words are being drawn from the Jesus traditions. We have already seen that he does not introduce any of these, not even the allusion that is closest to a quote, in the fashion that we sometimes see Scripture quotes introduced in the Gospels or elsewhere. But such is hardly necessary in the case of an allusion, and even many Scripture quotes in the NT do not have explicit introductions to indicate that a quote is coming or where it comes from.
Thomas J. Parker recently argued that James does use some introductory formulae for these allusions.1 Indeed, he must suggest a number of formulae because anyone who goes through the cited texts will note that there are no elements common to all of them. First, he suggests a correlation between the uses of “hearing/listening” or associated terminology and the references to Jesus’s teachings in 1:19, 22, 23; and 2:5.2 Second, he suggests the vocative use of the phrase “my beloved brothers and sisters” (ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί) following an imperative may signal the subsequent presence of Jesus’s teachings in 1:16, 19; and 2:5.3 Third, he suggests most vocative uses of “brothers and sisters” signal the presence of Jesus’s teachings in 1:2; 3:1, 10, 12; 4:11; 5:12, and 19.4 Fourth, drawing from John Kloppenborg, he notes that ἄγε νῦν (“come now”) may be such a signal in 4:13 and 5:1.
To respond to these suggestions, first, I want to examine the texts I have noted for myself, specifically the lexically grounded allusions, as these would seem to be more intentionally connected to Jesus’s teaching than the more distant links, and see if I can find similar patterns. Second, I will address Parker’s suggestions themselves. Third, I will summarize with what seems most plausible as a provisional conclusion.
First, the three cases I do not think qualify each have one of the proposed elements appearing before them. 4:13–14 is introduced with ἄγε νῦν, 5:8–9 follows an ἀδελφοί appearing in 5:7 and 5:10 is also introduced with an ἀδελφοί. For those I do consider to qualify, “my brothers and sisters” or “my beloved brothers and sisters” appears before the allusions in 1:2–3, 17; 2:5; 3:12; and 5:12. “Brothers” by itself also appears in 4:11 and 5:9. The command to “listen” also appears in 2:5. And “come now” appears in 5:1. However, there are no introductory indications in 1:4, 5, 6, 22–23; 2:10; 4:9; 5:2–3. Almost half of the cases have no apparent introductory signal. If we added in the two borderline cases, neither of which have introductory signals, the scales would tip in the favor of those having no possible introductory signal (nine to eight). And that is not even to consider the more distant links with the Gospels, which would tip the scale further in that direction. Moreover, as Parker himself notes at multiple points in his article, these signals are not themselves strictly for the purpose of introducing allusion even in his proposal, which further weakens the probability that they serve in this capacity. In somewhere in the area of half of the cases James could have signaled by one of these ways that a teaching of Jesus was going to be referenced, he used none of them, which seems akin to putting a “stop” sign at every other intersection of a stretch of road, even though the intent is for drivers to stop at every intersection.
Second, let us review Parker’s references. While he makes much of the significance of where James uses the “listen” terminology, the issue with Jas 1:19 is that there is no lexical link with Jesus’s teaching as such. It is one of the more distant links with the Gospels. At most, the call for attention would be pointing to something that agrees with Jesus’s teaching. The more significant problem with him attempting to use this terminology for introductory formulae in 1:22–23 is that this terminology is itself part of the linking of this teaching with Jesus’s teaching, as they both address hearing and doing. I am not sure why the strength of the linkage should be weakened to uphold the theory. It is most plausible that it could function as a signal in this way for 2:5, but if that is the only time in which it does so, one must wonder how clear and useful such a signal would be.
The use of the vocative references to the brothers and sisters is more prevalent, but not decisive either. His case is weakened by once again referring to 1:19. While 1:16 and 2:5 could fit with his theory, since they do both come before what we have identified as links to the Jesus traditions, the fact that the case is diluted by 1:19 means that the expanded phrase is, once again, not the best signal. Two out of three ain’t bad, but it doesn’t stop there (even if we do not take into account the uses of “brothers and sisters” that Parker notes do not correlate with his theory). James 3:1 hardly recommends itself as a reference to Jesus’s teaching. I did not note it earlier because, from what I read before this article, it was not identified as a possible link. The only lexical link consists of the notion that someone “will receive greater judgment,” with the term for “greater” in Jas 3:1 being a rather loose synonym for where the rest of the phrase appears in Mark 12:40 // Luke 20:47 (an incidental similarity also shared with Rom 13:2). However, unlike other cases of sparse lexical links that we have seen in James and still identified as allusions, nothing else about the teaching resonates with the point here, and thus it hardly seems informative of James’s text beyond the incidental similarity. Nor does 3:10 recommend itself, as nothing I or Parker have identified of Jesus’s teaching follows thereafter. There is a case we have noted in 3:12 (which also appears in Parker’s analysis), but that has its own use of the vocative reference. And that highlights another problem. If each case is supposed to work separately to signal distinct allusions, one must wonder why it signals nothing in 3:10 and why such repetitive usage is completely absent in the first part of ch. 1 after 1:2 when there are plausible allusions in 1:4, 5, and 6. The problem with adding 5:19 to this list is the same as what we have noted for 1:19, as both are too distant of links for this signal to be reliable for this purpose. One could also ask more generally why such a signal would be made out of a term that is so common in the NT epistles, especially in its vocative form.
That leaves the signal he derives from Kloppenborg. The phrase only appears twice, both of which I have already analyzed. But one of the two cases is not plausibly an allusion to Jesus’s teaching as presented in the Gospels. And if it only works as a signal in one of the two cases, one must wonder what sets it apart in the one case as opposed to the other, as there are no other verbal signals.
And that, finally, leads us to what we can conclude, at least provisionally, on this matter. In the case of any of these potential signals that I have not undermined on other bases, there is nothing that sets them apart as signals in those cases as opposed to the other cases, except for the sheer fact that they are plausibly identifiable as allusions to Jesus’s teachings. But since there is a major plurality, if not a majority, of cases that are not signaled at all in such fashions, one must wonder if these are not just coincidental noise. They cannot all be validated by the presence of allusions to Jesus’s teachings after them, nor can all identifiable allusions to Jesus’s teaching be linked to such signals. As such, the only signals we have are the allusions themselves. There is no preparation for them in introductory formulae. James simply alerts his audience to the links to the Jesus traditions by making the links. And if he was relying on these links despite the sparsity of lexical links in some cases, he must have been relying on some degree of shared background knowledge of Jesus’s teachings, which he himself would have helped in conveying in the past.
Thomas J. Parker, “Introductory Formulae and Jesus’s Teaching in James,” EvQ 93 (2022): 20–39.
Ibid., 31–32.
Ibid., 32–33.
Ibid., 34–36.