Romans Before or After James
- Thread starter Before
- Start date
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure what manuscripts would have to do with the matter, since all are from decades or centuries after the epistles were written.
I agree that the mss evidence can have little to nothing substantive to demonstrate wrt temporal priority.
As to origin, the two epistles are roughly contemporaneous--up to a 20yr gap 2000yrs ago is practically a next-day delivery. The amount of time needed for the correspondence circulated in one city to propagate (with normal distribution) throughout the world--once such a letter has been recognized as specially worthy of sharing--may be measured in years, even decades.
They were written to two different audiences, at the antipodes of the distance-spectrum of NT addresses. The needs of the two audiences are different, as are the writers.
One author (James) is a metropolitan ministerial figure writing for congregants to whom he probably ministers more-or-less directly; his style is bound to be more parochial, colloquial, and reflect a common ethnic and religious history with his audience.
The other author is a missionary pastor familiar with, at most, a small fraction of the congregation to whom he writes, where he has never yet visited; he is a Jew writing to a mixed (Jew/Gentile) collective, knowing only some people who have moved from here and there to a new locale (Rome); his style is bound to be generally appealing accompanied by a technical precision to avoid so far as possible misunderstanding.
James didn't read or hear Paul, and feel the urge to caveat Paul's "faith vs. works" paradigm. Paul didn't read or hear James, and feel the urge to contest the Jerusalem "Legal-Mafia" for his Gentile faction. They are both early leaders of the NT church who share a common heritage and vocabulary with which to speak their concerns to their audiences. I think it unlikely one man attended what the other had written before he wrote his own statement, though it is not unlikely one or both might have encountered the other's writing in his lifetime. I think it certain (based on NT record) that each man heard the other speak, but it doesn't strike me as probable one felt he had to write a word of clarification because of the other's emphasis.
When we get to the time that sets both literary labors side-by-side, we have a choice to make for interpreting the remains: despite their joint background in Judaism and connection to Jesus Christ, did the two men teach contrary doctrines in the NC era; or do their divergent concerns joined to a common vocabulary lead to complementary doctrines for NC believers that are not actually in any conflict?
It is the latter interpretation the faithful church has maintained over all the centuries from the 1st to the 21st.
As to origin, the two epistles are roughly contemporaneous--up to a 20yr gap 2000yrs ago is practically a next-day delivery. The amount of time needed for the correspondence circulated in one city to propagate (with normal distribution) throughout the world--once such a letter has been recognized as specially worthy of sharing--may be measured in years, even decades.
They were written to two different audiences, at the antipodes of the distance-spectrum of NT addresses. The needs of the two audiences are different, as are the writers.
One author (James) is a metropolitan ministerial figure writing for congregants to whom he probably ministers more-or-less directly; his style is bound to be more parochial, colloquial, and reflect a common ethnic and religious history with his audience.
The other author is a missionary pastor familiar with, at most, a small fraction of the congregation to whom he writes, where he has never yet visited; he is a Jew writing to a mixed (Jew/Gentile) collective, knowing only some people who have moved from here and there to a new locale (Rome); his style is bound to be generally appealing accompanied by a technical precision to avoid so far as possible misunderstanding.
James didn't read or hear Paul, and feel the urge to caveat Paul's "faith vs. works" paradigm. Paul didn't read or hear James, and feel the urge to contest the Jerusalem "Legal-Mafia" for his Gentile faction. They are both early leaders of the NT church who share a common heritage and vocabulary with which to speak their concerns to their audiences. I think it unlikely one man attended what the other had written before he wrote his own statement, though it is not unlikely one or both might have encountered the other's writing in his lifetime. I think it certain (based on NT record) that each man heard the other speak, but it doesn't strike me as probable one felt he had to write a word of clarification because of the other's emphasis.
When we get to the time that sets both literary labors side-by-side, we have a choice to make for interpreting the remains: despite their joint background in Judaism and connection to Jesus Christ, did the two men teach contrary doctrines in the NC era; or do their divergent concerns joined to a common vocabulary lead to complementary doctrines for NC believers that are not actually in any conflict?
It is the latter interpretation the faithful church has maintained over all the centuries from the 1st to the 21st.
Before
Puritan Board Freshman
Staff, please move this thread to the appropriate forum (if needs be). I just wanted something more substantial than personal opinion and figured a manuscript evidence Forum would be ideal.
I moved it to NT epistles, though the original location may have been just as good a spot. Posting on the thread like you did is a good way to request that kind of help or you can contact a moderator directly.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Considering that the authors didn't sign the things with the date they were written, no eyewitness accounts speak to the dating of the epistles, and the original manuscripts (likely) no longer exist, I think it's pretty amazing that we have it narrowed down with pretty high confidence to "sometime between 55 AD and 62 AD" for each one.
Knowing exactly which one was written first and which one was written second is, I think, a highly unrealistic expectation.
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Junior
Besides what Sean has mentioned, it's worth pointing out that the point of the Scriptures is to instruct us concerning God and the duties he requires of us, and knowing the exact dates of the composition of individual books isn't much help in that. They tell us what we need to know and nothing more.
Before
Puritan Board Freshman
Aren't there usually clues, like Paul's missionary trips or the Jerusalem Council etc.?
Last edited:
Before
Puritan Board Freshman
I wasn't actually looking for an 'exact date', but rather simply, 'which came before which'? I guess we don't know.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Yes there are. Which is why we are able to come up with dates like "between 55 AD and 62 AD".
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
True. But not exactly helpful in this discussion since the Books of the Bible aren't arranged chronologically, exactly..
We can peg Paul's letter to Rome to approximately A.D. 57-58. But how can we date James? There isn't much in the way of internal markers or external references (Acts) to variety in James' itinerary or agenda. The best we can do is locate him in Jerusalem from the time of Jesus resurrection (exp. A.D. 33, though some say A.D.30) that is from around the time of his conversion (see 1Cor.15:7) through his death (sources alt. between A.D. 62 or 69, either near the beginning or the end of the final Judean war with Rome).
James probably didn't write his letter when he was still a neophyte Christian. In time he came to be highly regarded in the Jerusalem church, even to being moderator of the Jerusalem Council, around A.D. 48. This still gives us at least a 20yr period of time (38-58) when he might have written before Paul's letter, and possibly another decade in time after Paul's letter--one that was sent (sup. from Corinth) originally in the opposite direction away from Jerusalem.
Paul was occasionally in Jerusalem (for instance at the Jerusalem Council, and on a prev. visit, Gal.1:19), and was even imprisoned (first in Jerusalem, then Caesarea) from 59-62, all which shows us that the two men had substantive contact over a long period of time, from sometime after Paul's conversion (mid-late 30s) up to Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, Act.21:18. Jerusalem HQ was "kept in the loop" from start to finish as far as Paul's missionary endeavor went, and he was bringing the church there a monetary relief-gift from the Gentile church when he was arrested.
Perhaps, some think James' letter must predate the Jerusalem Council, and be among the earliest NT epistles, because Paul's ministry to the Gentiles represents a "shift" in emphasis, both of a target demographic (from Jew to Gentile) coupled with a new appeal that downplays Christianity's Jewish connection. Dating the letter from James in the aftermath would seem like too much of a "throwback" to an older, stale marketing campaign. This idea owes a lot to modern concepts about how to make traction for a product, leaving little room for a principled approach that transcends times of popularity, and is driven by the inscrutable designs of the Holy Spirit.
The reality is that the Epistle of James isn't written with Paul's ministry hovering noticeably in the background, or not yet highly visible anywhere. Nor does Paul seem anxious to temper James' and "Jerusalem's" alleged Jew-centric proclamation. Paul stood against the Judaizers, and once against Peter who was carried away by men who Paul reports "came from James" (Gal.2:12) bringing false teaching into the Antioch church. For those who attempt to play up the notion of two distinct, competing visions for the NT church between rival apostles or Paul vs. James, this verse together with a few texts taken from Paul's and James' letters form the crux of a reconstructed argument supposed to exist between these significant figures. It is an argument read-into the unknown space between the two men, in an effort to gin up some controversy beyond what we read about in Acts and Galatians.
Paul's contention with the Judaizers may, and I think should be paralleled with a contention James would have had as well with the same Judaizers. The only difference is the ministry context each of the two ministers had to himself. Paul watched and wrote to congregations he helped start to help them fight off the infection of the Judaizers who crept in behind him hoping to transform his work. James served the Judean church surrounded by a majority religious culture still oriented to the Temple and the Law, which could have tolerated yet another sect of Judaism so long as it maintained the primacy of Moses.
There is the idea represented by the Judaizers: Christianity is Judaism of the noblest sort, but it is still Judaism, along with Phariseeism, Sadduceeism, Essenes, perhaps notably the Ebionites and Nazarenes (sects), and modern sects like the Hassidim or Karaitim. I cannot imagine James or any Jerusalem based apostle ultimately compromising in a way Paul once boldly anathematized. Part of the reason why the separation of Christianity and Judaism came successfully about most definitely has to do with the Gentile mission spearheaded by Paul, coupled with the severe persecution of Jewish Christians in the homeland. That's Providence at work, on the way to bringing a remarkable end to the visible Old Covenant community (A.D. 70, the Fall of Jerusalem). There is no reason to posit a contemporary jousting match within the church, that was settled inadvertently by Rome's legions.
I don't think the Epistle of James carries water for the Judaizers. I don't think the Jerusalem church let Paul and his Gentile buddies get carried away, and so lost the reins of that stagecoach--so we got Plan-B Christianity with which we're still living today. I don't think there's anything in the Epistle of James that Paul could not assent to, or that Paul wrote in his many letters that would give James heartburn. James' letter may be the earliest NT epistle of all (some think written in the 40s), or one of the latest, 15-20yrs later. I think the issue is most vital not to internal interpretive concerns, but for them with an a priori commitment to the idea of a tug-of-war between Paul and James. Call me a Pollyanna, but I prefer to think in terms of essential grace and agreement between Paul and James, as witnessed by the gift he brought to Jerusalem from the Gentile believers.
Before
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you for that lengthy write-up. On your last paragraph, I suppose one could take a short cut and say, 'since all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit (2Tim 3:16; 2Pet 3:16), we shouldn't expect any contradiction between James and Paul.