On the Production of a Pseudepigraphal Letter (Prof. Fewster)

Article

1. Introduction
2. There is a growing recognition among scholars of Mediterranean antiquity that pseudepigraphy is not a monolithic category but a literary strategy that plays by certain rules of genre. Richard Bauckham’s is an early voice: “The problem of pseudepigraphy in the NT has often been set within the very large context of the general phenomenon of pseudepigraphy in the ancient world, without sufficient appreciation of the fact that the pseudepigraphical letter is a genre with some special features of its own.” Richard Bauckham, “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters,” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): (469–494) 469. In addition, John W. Marshall connects genre to the construction of authorship within pseudepigraphy and Lewis R. Donelson resists psychological investigations of pseudepigraphy in favour of literary ones, thus situating pseude pigraphal letters as a genre within the literary practice of pseudepigraphy (situating pseude pigraphal letters as a genre within the literary practice of pseudepigraphy. John W. Marshall, “ ‘I Left You in Crete’: Narrative Deception and Social Hierarchy in the Letter to Titus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): (781–803) 787; Andrew B. Perrin, “Capturing the Voices of Pseude pigraphic Personae: On the Form and Function of Incipits in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls,” Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013): (98–123) 100; Annette Y. Reed, “The Modern Invention of ‘Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,’ ” JThS 60 (2009): 403–436).

James possesses a standard epistolary prescript (A to B, greetings), but additional epistolary markers are lacking and the actual writer of the document does not leverage his pseudepigraphal identity other than in that prescript. On the one hand, it is possible to follow Stephen R. Llewelyn in considering the prescript as a later addition (Stephen R. Llewelyn, “The Prescript of James,” Novum Testamentum 39 (1997): 385–393). Thus, James becomes an anonymous Jewish document that was later appropriated by Christians, and we should consider other generic alternatives based on a complete lack of epistolary features.

First, an understanding of literary production and consumption enables us to differentiate real letters and pseudepigraphical letters in a way that formal approaches to the letter genre cannot, since epistolary pseudepigraphy is precisely the imitation of the typical letter form. With this means of differentiation, I argue that James is pseudepigraphal. Second, the mechanics of literary production and consumption are fundamentally linked to the sociological values associated with literacy itself. James’ production and reception as a pseudepigraphal letter fits within a broader initiative within early Christianity to promote themselves and their early leaders as literate. This letter is part of a trajectory with other early Christian documents, including the Apocryphon of James, the Protevangelium of James, and the Epistula Petri, that represent James as highly literate and capable to promote authoritative transmission of Jesus tradition. In addition, the consumption of James within early Christian communities plays upon ancient social attitudes toward reading, affirming the literate status of their communities to outsiders and serving as a context within which the pseudepigraphal letter, along with its moral and social goals, could be valued and enacted.

1. Forms and Functions of Ancient Letters
2. Perhaps the most obvious way to talk about letters is on the basis of their formal features, especially with reference to documentary letters found in Egypt. These documents evidence a high frequency of letter opening formulas, closing formulas, illiteracy formulas, disclosure formulas, and various greetings and exhortations indicated in the body with keywords: Exler, Form (see note 4), provides a genealogy of epistolary development on the basis of many of these features. See also Terence Y. Mullins, “Formulas in New Testament Epistles,” Jour nal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 380–390; Christina M. Kreinecker, “The Imitation Hypoth esis: Pseudepigraphic Remarks on 2 Thessalonians with Help from the Documentary Papyri,” in Paul and Pseudepigraphy (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Fewster; Pauline Studies 8; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 197–220, on request formulae in the papyri and 2 Thessalonians; Thomas J. Kraus, “(Il)literacy in Non-Literary Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt: Further Aspects of the Educational Ideal in Ancient Literary Sources and Modern Times,” Mnemosyne 53 (2000): 325–328, on illiteracy formulas; Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closing (Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplementary Series 101; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), for letter closings in general; Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, “Τοῦτο πρῶτον γινῶσκοντες ὅτι in 2 Peter 1:20 and Hellenistic Epistolary Conven tion,” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 165–171, on the structure of disclosure for mulas; Jeffrey T. Reed, “Are Paul’s Thanksgivings ‘Epistolary’?,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 61 (1996): 87–99, one of many studies on Pauline thanksgiving formulas and the papyri.

Scholarship continues a pervasive interest in studying early Christian letters, especially the Pauline epistles, accord ing to their structural relationship to documentary letters (Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams, eds., Paul and the Ancient Letter Form ).

Some early twentieth-century commentators continued to discount the epistolary prescript in James on account of its lack of corresponding features (Bo Reicke, Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude: Introduction, Commentary, and Notes (Anchor Bible 37, 7). Concerning its odd reflection of standard epistolary forms, James is not alone among early Christian letters. Hebrews includes a letter-closing, and that feature has been used as evidence of being a Pauline pseudepigraphon ( Clare K. Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pau line Attribution of Hebrews, 215; Bryan R. Dyer, “The Epistolary Closing of Hebrews and Pauline Imitation,” in Porter and Fewster, Paul and Pseudepigraphy (see note 6), 269–287). Alternatively, 1 John self-consciously refers to its written form but lacks a letter opening, closing, thanksgiving, or other requisite forms. Fred O. Francis sought to demonstrate that both James and 1 John exhibit many epistolary characteristics (Fred O. Francis, “The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John,” ZNW 61 (1969): 110–125. Johnson, James (see note 5), 24; Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters (see note 5), 453; Klauck, Ancient Letters (see note 5), 339). However, further research into ancient letters has revealed that the letter-form is rather fluid. This fact alone allows many recent commentators happily to call James, in particular, a letter. It is hard to see what this accomplishes except to place James within a comparative body of literature.

1. Though this has not been pursued adequately and those who affirm James’ status as a letter propose additional generic and structural designations that shed more light on its rhetoric and goals (Batten, Friendship and Benefaction (see note 5), 91–93; Patrick J. Hartin, James (Sacra Pagina 14; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003), 10–16; Richard Bauckham, James: Wis dom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (New Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 1999), 12; Luke L. Cheung, The Genre, Composition, and Hermeneutics of the Epistle of James (Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2006); Doering, Ancient Jew ish Letters (see note 5), 452–455. Cf. Martin Dibelius, A Commentary on the Epistle of James (trans. Helmut Koester; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 2).
2. Stanley Stowers observes that in the epistolary handbooks, letter types were meant to correspond with and substitute for inter-personal social scenarios (Stanley K. Stowers, “Social Typification and the Classification of Ancient Letters,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (78–90) 81–82). But James resists such classification, given its lack of stereo-typed letter formulas. At best, Stowers lists James as a letter of exhortation and points out James’ “seemingly disjointed literary topoi without any apparent unifying model or models” (Stowers, Letter Writing, 97. Cf. Dibelius, James, 1–11). This classification not only gives serious attention to the explicit addressees of James but also comparatively relevant Jewish letters ostensibly sent to Jews scattered across the Mediterranean world. On diaspora letters and James as a diaspora letter see: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “Der Jako busbrief im Licht frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe,” New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 420–443; Verseput, “Genre and Story” (see note 5), 99–104; Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Com mentary on the Epistle of James (International Critical Commentary on Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament; New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 73–74; Hartin, James (see note 11), 15; Doer ing, Ancient Jewish Letters (see note 5), 154–156, 430–434, 454–459, has some reservations in comparison with, what he calls, the Jeremiah-Baruch type, which Doering sees as too restrictive on the basis of their distinct emphasis on trials while living in exile. As Dale C. Allison notes, the genre of diaspora letter extends beyond a formal designation but encourages a certain way of reading the document regarding the authority of the author, expectations of prophetic encouragement to a broad com munity, and positions the reader as a listener, not an interlocutor (Allison, James, 76).

James as a Letter, Pseudepigraphal or Otherwise

It is difficult to see how these well-worn perspectives on epistolography can illu minate very much about James as a letter ( David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 203–204). Lutz Doering refuses to distinguish between fictitious and non-fictitious letters because of their formal similarities (Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters (see note 5), 25). Accordingly, if we are only interested in the formal characteristics of James, then its generic designation as a letter has very little explanatory power, as scholar ship on James in fact shows:

Hartin, James (see note 11), 14; Johnson, James (see note 5), 16–24; Carol Poster, “Words as Works: Philosophical Protreptic and the Epistle of James,” in Rhetorics in the New Millennium: Promise and Fulfillment (ed. James D. Hester and J. David Hester, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; London: Clark, 2010), 235–256. Reicke accepts the letter greeting but prefers comparison to “Hel lenistic sermonic literature” over a “personal letter.” Reicke, James, Peter, and Jude (see note 8), 7. Cheung sees the prescript as an epistolary framing device. Cheung, Genre, Composition, and Hermeneutics (see note 11), 58–60. Granted, Aune, Literary Environment (see note 20), 170, notes that epistolary prescripts and postscripts were added to many discursive forms. Cf. Bauckham, “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters” (see note 1), 473–475

Scribes and Letter Composition

Scribal functionality was relative to the social economy of literacy as well as a scribe’s particular educational and religious background. Chris Keith situates Judean scribes within the complex tension between widespread illiteracy and widespread textuality in the ancient Mediterranean (Palestine in particular). He describes a literate population along a spectrum of “literary competency(ies)” between scribal literacy (or grapho-literacy) and craftsman literacy (Keith, “In My Own Hand” (see note 24), 47; Chris Keith, The Pericopae Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus (New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 38; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 53–117; idem, Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee Testament Studies 413; London: Clark, 2011), 71–116; see also Kraus, “(Il)literacy in Non-Literary Papyri” (see note 6), 322–342; idem, “ ‘Slow writers’—βραδέως γράφοντες: What, How Much, and How Did They Write?” in idem, ed., Ad Fontes: Original Manuscripts and Their Significance for Studying Early Christianity: Selected Essays, 131–148; William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy, 7–8). The ability to write with fluency and rhetorical skill would invariably coincide with expertise in significant literary texts, as Keith stresses, being “organized around a body of literature and its social power” (Keith, Jesus’ Literacy (see note 25), 113; H. Gregory Snyder, Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews and Christians (Religion in the First Christian Centuries; London: Rout ledge, 2000), 185–189; Richard A. Horsley, “Social Relations and Social Conflict in the Epistle of Enoch,” in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. Randal A. Argall et al.; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000), (100–115).

1. Recent scholarship in Greco-Roman education is keen to mark out the difference between copying and compositional competency: Cf. Rafaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 163–177; Chris Keith, “ ‘In My Own Hand’: Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul,” Biblica 89 (2008): (39–58) 49–53. Secretarial ability fits somewhat awkwardly within this distinction. Richards, Secretary (see note 18), 2–7, is adamant that a secretary had greater skill than a copyist (though a secretary could copy). That secretaries could edit highlights the range of secretarial skill that could include co-authorship and even compositional duties (ibid., 43–53). Poster proposes a three-tiered hierarchy of scribal technique and skill that she relates to 14 different potential scribal functions and 8 educational opportunities. Carol Poster, “The Economy of Letter Writing in Graeco-Roman Antiquity,” in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays Form the Lund 2000 Conference (ed. Anders Eriksson et al.; Emory Studies in Early Christianity 8; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2002), 112–124. See also Christine Schams’ outline of scribal posi tions in early Judaism as they shifted throughout the various occupations. Scribes could operate at various levels of administration in urban and later in more rural settings. They could develop reputations as intellectuals and sages, though the associated prestige did not necessarily follow their actual literate capacities and administrators likely had less expertise in the scriptures than did those who actively copied them. Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second Temple Period (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplements 291; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), esp. 309–327.

1. Delivering Letters and Receiving Letters
2. Official letters in the Roman Empire travelled by an official postal system. However, private letters were rarely so lucky and letter-writers had to depend on friends, merchants, and other travellers in order to ensure a letter’s delivery (Blumell, “The Medium and the Message” (see note 18), 46–49). The papyri reveal a notable anxiety about successful delivery, indicating a need for reliable transportation (Epp, “Manuscripts and Letter Carrying” (see note 18), 47–51; Head, “Named Letter-Car riers” (see note 18), 283–284; Blumell, “The Medium and the Message” (see note 18), 49). Letter-carrying was not limited to performing some social role, however. Successful delivery depended upon opportunities and reasons to travel throughout an Empire that made such travel physically possible. In many cases, the reception of the letter was coterminous with its delivery, especially if that delivery involved an oral performance. Early Jewish and Christian letters occasionally prescribe elements of their reception, which included deliv ery to a particular congregation as well as dissemination among nearby groups. This may incorporate instructions to circulate a letter with a single addressee (Col 4:16; Epistula ad Laodicenses 20 (ed. Joseph B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon [5th ed.; London: Macmillan, 1880], 289,5), or a letter with a more general addressee might imply delivery to a number of local groups as an encyclical (Gal 1:2; 1 Pet 1:1; Epistula Barnabae 1,1 (ed. Franz X. von Funk, Patres Apostolici 1] 38,2–3). See Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 96–98; Margaret M. Mitchell, “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 641–662).

On the other hand, the epistolary form was applicable to a variety of other literary endeavours as a framing device, as school exercises, as narrative elements in an epic or novel (Patricia A. Rosenmeyer, Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature, 5–11. See also Klauck, Ancient Letters (see note 5), 103–182).

Publishing Letters

Harry Y. Gamble defines the publication of a letter on the basis of its public reading to the particular individual or community to whom the letter was addressed (Gamble, Books and Readers (see note 30), 96). Publication may, in that case, describe an initial private reading of a literary draft, the recitation of a letter upon its delivery, the performance of a text at a meal (with various levels of intimacy in the group), or even the circulation of a text among friends and relations (William A. Johnson, Reading and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities, 32–62). Further, publication could refer to the compilation and then dissemination of letters as a collection. It is here, at the publication stage, that many of the documentary letters frequently discussed have their utility for comparison significantly reduced (Blumell, “The Medium and the Message” (see note 18), 24–25; William A. John son, “Toward a Sociology of Reading in Classical Antiquity,” American Journal of Philology 121 (2000): (593–627) 623).

Practices of collecting, disseminating, and reading ancient letters as literature are more useful for contextualizing the publication of James. With reference to literary works, Gamble observes that public reading and their sharing and copying occurred on the basis of social relationships, fostered by elite reading groups (Larry W. Hurtado and Chris Keith, “Writing and Book Production in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible 1: From the Beginnings to 600 (ed. James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), (63 80) 73–74; Harry Y. Gamble, “The Book Trade in the Roman Empire,” in The Early Text of the New Testament (ed. Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), (23–36) 29–32; William A. Johnson, “Libraries and Reading Culture in the High Empire,” in Ancient Libraries (ed. Jason König et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 347–363). Reading practice and the types of literature being read reciprocally influence one another. As William Johnson argues, reading is “the negotiated construction of meaning within a particular socio-cultural context” (Johnson, “Sociology of Reading” (see note 34), 603).

1. Who Wrote James?
2. Keith’s distinction between craftsman literacy and scribal literacy is useful for thinking about the composition of James, since this spectrum accounts for techni cal skill as well as establishing a relationship with culturally- and religiously-significant literature. It is true that one does not have to be scribal literate to compose a letter, given the availability of amanuenses of varying skill levels. However, the linguistic and rhetorical quality of James requires explanation.
3. On the linguistic quality of James: In his exhaustive treatment of the linguistic particularities of James, Joseph B. Mayor – a proponent that James was written by the brother of Jesus – judges the language of James “as approaching more nearly to the standard of classical purity than that of any other book of the N.T. with the exception perhaps of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” and further claims that the sentences are “better formed and more rhythmical than are to be found elsewhere in the N.T.” Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (3d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1910), ccxliv, cclvi. The former statement was shortly made problematic by works such as Moulton’s Prolegomena, which emphasized the widespread use of vernac ular Greek in the Hellenistic period, thus unseating scholars’ tendency to see Classical Greek as a literary standard and Hebraic Greek as something unique to the New Testament writings. See, James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek 1: Prolegomena (3d ed.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1908), 1–41. To claim that James’ Greek is “good” or “bad” directs us in unhelpful territory. A better direction has us inquiring into what type of person would have been capable of com posing in the type of Greek reflected in the letter. Mayor’s latter comments highlight the quality of James on the basis of rhetorical and philosophical sophistication, which is more commonly affirmed by commentators. As I comment below, James betrays use of rhetorical paraphrase or aemulatio, which operates as creative reformulation of source material on the basis of strict and devoted study. Kloppenborg’s study of Jas 1 treats James’ reformulation of Jesus tradition into a higher social register, which begins to incorporate conceptions of the soul common to Stoic philosophy. John S. Kloppenborg, “James 1:2–15 and Hellenistic Psychagogy,” Novum Testamen tum 52 (2010): 37–71.
4. Here we see the important connection between argumentation strategy and philosophical content, requiring of a notable level of education.—Additionally, in two separate articles, Duane Watson proposes that portions of Jas 2 and 3 follow schemes of argumentation found in the rhetorical handbook, particularly strategies of elaboration. See, Duane F. Watson, “James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation,” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 94–121; idem, “The Rhetoric of James 3:1–12 and a Classical Pattern of Argumentation,” Novum Testamentum 35 (1993): 48–64. The suitability of comparing letters of the first and second cen turies to argumentation schemes advocated in the rhetorical handbooks has received some crit icism, but Reed’s suggestion that the highest degree of rhetorical influence appears in literary as opposed to personal letters (i. e., those lacking standard epistolary forms) fits the profile of James well. Even if full-blown connection between epistolary and rhetorical sophistication is anachronistic, James still presents us with the profile of a writer who has competency in contem porary philosophical thought and compositional strategies. See, Jeffrey T. Reed, “The Epistle,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C.–A.D. 400) (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997), (171–193) 186–190, 192.

Our author fits toward the scribal literate end of the literacy spectrum, reducing the likelihood that James the brother of Jesus authored the letter. One of the implications of pseudepigraphy is the transmitting of the characteristics of the writer of the pseudepigraphon onto the name selected as a pseudonym. Since the writer of James demonstrates a high degree of scribal literacy, it would be possible for the earliest readers to attribute to James the same literary status. As such, the composition of the Letter of James participated in an effort to connect early Christian leaders to literate and rhetorical ability (Kloppenborg, “Literate Media” see note 38, 32–39; Sean A. Adams, “The Tradition of Peter’s Literacy: Acts, 1 Peter, and Petrine Literature,” in Peter in Early Christianity (ed. Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 130–145). Jesus’ extensive and diverse valorization as scribal literate serves as a more pointed example. In Luke 4:16–30, Jesus enters the synagogue, is asked to read, and demonstrates considerable skill as a lector, while in Mark 6:1–6 / Matt 13:54 58 conflict arises in Jesus’ hometown with the Jewish scribal elite on the basis of his literate activity. Later traditions similarly associate Jesus with literacy, includ ing Jesus’ letter in response to King Abgar’s appeal for healing (Eusebius, Historica ecclesiastica 1,13, PG 20:120,16–121,14). Keith suggests that Jesus most likely did not attain scribal literacy, but there was confusion and debate over this fact in his lifetime and in the social memory of subsequent followers, especially because of the social and religious power surrounding such status (Keith, Jesus’ Literacy see note 25, 187–188). That Jesus, in particular, enjoyed this type of remembering implies a motivation for doing the same with his brother—James. In fact, the close connection between James and Jesus (especially his sayings) has already been broached.

1. Was James Delivered?
2. Adolf Deissmann quips that the address of James renders its delivery difficult to imagine (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (see note 4), 242. Gamble, Books and Readers (see note 30), 106–107). However, pseudepig raphers did have a repertoire of available strategies. Diaspora letters were one of several types of letters embedded into narratives, thus appearing as a letter already received and circulated (Rosenmeyer, Ancient Epistolary Fictions (see note 31), 133–168). Philosopher’s letter collections could also be easily expanded with pseudonymous compositions. Examples of “discovery stories” of some pseudepigrapha—like the unearthing of the Apocalypse of Paul underneath Paul’s house (Apocalypsis Pauli 1–2 (ed. Theodore Silverstein and Anthony Hilhorst, Apocalypse of Paul Cahiers d’orientalisme 21; Geneva: Cramer, 1997], 66,17–23; 68,1–13)—also provide a suitable cover story (Hugo Duensing and Aurelio de Santos Otero, “Apocalypse of Paul,” in New Testament Apocrypha 2: Writings Relating to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. Robert McL. Wilson; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), (712–748) 716–717). However, James does not possess those characteristics; it explicitly mentions its intended recip ients. On the other hand, James possesses no final greetings, or instructions for circulation, and the lack of personal or situational detail (verisimilitude, if this is a pseudepigraphon) does not imply a particularly specific historical occasion. Both James Ropes and Davids suggest that James is a tract, rather than a real letter, indicating that it would have been published rather than sent. Yet, they vary on their respective conclusions about authorship.

How was James Published?

While the issue of delivery does not solve questions of authorship, it does direct attention to James’ circulation and publication. If James transparently reflects its sender, we would have to explain how it was not distributed as a letter of James that achieved widespread circulation (like Paul’s letters did), why it is lacking in the Western text, and how Origin in the East and Hilary in the West were the first to cite it. If James is a pseudepigraphal letter, its late attestation is more to be expected, but the potential for dismissal on the basis of false authorship is heightened. Gamble’s tentative parallel of elite reading circles in the Greco-Roman world with textual practice in early Christian com munities is instructive, implying a degree of imitation or mimicry on behalf of the Christian groups. Given this dialectic relationship between text and reading community, early Christian ambitions toward literate status may provide a context for both the production of James as a pseudepigraphal letter and its consumption as a piece of literature. By making use of the Letter of James through public reading and study, a community could participate in socially valued literate activities. As Mary Beard has argued, a “literate mentality” functions to determine and thus shift the char acteristics of a religious system with respect to organization, by imposing rela tions between humans and the deity, and in social hierarchy.

Commemorating a Scribal-literate James

James was widely commemorated as the brother and successor of Jesus, a leader in Jerusalem (where he was also killed), and a righteous, pious, and respected man, as recent scholarship on Jacobean reception has highlighted (John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tra dition (Studies on Personalities of the New Testament; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997); Patrick J. Hartin, James of Jerusalem: Heir to Jesus of Nazareth (Interfaces: A Michael Glazier book; Collegeville, Minn.: Glazier, 2004), 115–140; Matti Myllykoski, “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part I),” Currents in Biblical Research 5 (2006): 73–122; idem, “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part II),” Currents in Biblical Research 6 (2007): 11–98; Nienhuis, Not by Paul Alone (see note 71), 121–150; David B. Gowler, James Through the Centuries (Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Oxford: Blackwell, 2014), 27–62). However, the image of James as a literate hero is an important feature, being propagated in early Christian imagination through pseudepigraphal claims of authorship and narrative descriptions of James as possessing scribal literacy. The canoni cal Letter of James is probably the earliest example of Jacobean pseudepigraphy, but the late second-century Apocryphon of James (NHC I,2) positions James as its writer and includes an epistolary opening and some first-person reference in the epistolary portion (Apocryphon Jacobi 1,1–8 (NHC I,2) (NHS 22, 28,1–32,98 Williams). The epistolary opening, which Williams describes as “an expanded and somewhat flowery version of Hellenistic let ter form” (Francis E. Williams, “NHC I,2: The Apocryphon of James,” in Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex): Introduction, Texts, Translations, Indices [ed. Harold W. Attridge; 17), is highly fragmentary, lacking the addressee as well as the name of the sender.

1. The sender, James, can be reconstructed from later self reference, such as in Apocryphon Jacobi 1,35 (28,21 W.).—Most proposed dates fit somewhere in the second century. Willem C. van Unnik, Ron Cameron, and Dankwart Kirchner place the text in the first half of the second cen tury (125–150 C. E.). Willem C. van Unnik, “The Origin of the Recently Discovered ‘Apocryphon Jacobi,’ ” VigChr 10 (1956): (149–156) 156; Ron Cameron, The Other Gospels: Non-canonical Gospel Texts (Evangelia Apocrypha; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1982), 56; Dankwart Kirchner, “The Apocryphon of James,” in New Testament Apocrypha 1: Gospels and related writings (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. Robert McL. Wilson; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), (283–299) 287. But a mid to late second-century date is more commonly put forward in recent years, see Judith Hartenstein and Uwe-Karsten Plisch, “ ‘Der Brief des Jakobus’ (NHC I,2),” in Nag Hammadi Deutsch 1: NHC I,1–V,1 (ed. Hans-Martin Schenke et al.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), (10–17) 12; David Brakke, “Parables and Plain Speech in the Fourth Gospel and the Apocryphon of James,” JECS 7 (1999): (187–218) 216. Brakke, as we will see, dates the text on the basis of its use of Jesus tradition. Donald Rouleau dates the Apocryphon between the middle of the second century and the beginning of the third and Williams notes some rationale for pushing the text into the third or even fourth centuries, but this seems unlikely.
2. Donald Rouleau, L’épître apocry phe de Jacques (NH I,2) (BCNH Textes 18; Laval, Quebec: Presses de L’Université Laval, 1987), 22; Williams, “Apocryphon” (see above), 26–27). At the end of the Protevangelium of James (late second century), James claims authorship of the foregoing “history” (ἐγὼ δὲ ἰάκωβος ὁ γράψας τὴν ἱστορίαν ταύτην ἐν ἱεροσολύμοις) (Protevangelium Jacobi 25,1 (ed. Michel Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer V: Nativité de Marie [Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmerania, 1958], 126,1–3). Papyrus Oxyrhynchus L 3524 is a sixth-century frag ment of the Protevangelium, beginning at James’ authorial statement here. Thus James “wrote” (ἔγραψα) instead of being, like in Papyrus Bodmer V, “the one who wrote” (ὁ γράψας). P. Oxy. L 3524 also appears to use a nomen sacrum that does not indicate declension instead of the plene form ἱεροσολύμοις in P. Bodmer V. See Walter E. H. Cockle, “3524. Protevangelium of James 25.1,” in Graeco-Roman Memoirs 70: Nos. 3522–9222 (The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 50; ed. Alan K. Bowman et al.; London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983), 8–12.—The late second century appears to be the more secure date for the Protevangelium thanks to the discovery of P. Bodmer V and since it seems to be known by Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Ronald F. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (The Scholars Bible 2; Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 1995), 11; Oscar Cullman, “Infancy Gospels,” in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha 2 (see note 59), (414–469) 423–424.). In addition to pseudepigraphal claims, there are a number of narrative descriptions of James’ literary capabilities.
3. In Acts 15:13–21, James stands up and delivers an address to the apostles and elders, concluding that Gentiles should not be hindered as they turn to God. James is pictured as someone who demon strates literate ability as a reader and interpreter of the prophets when he para phrases Amos 9:11–12 using the introductory formula καθὼς γέγραπται to cor roborate his decision, after which he suggests that a letter be written to those Gentiles. In addition to its pseudonymous epistolary greeting, the Apocryphon of James depicts James’ literacy on the basis of scribal competency, describing him writing in books alongside the other apostles, one of them having been written specifically in the Hebrew language