II. ON THE TEACHER’S CALLING (3:1-18)

CHAPTER 3

Ch. 3 relates to the Teacher and Wise Man. That the two are treated as substantially identical is significant. It is interesting to compare the directions for leaders of the Christian community given in the Pastoral Epistles or in the Didache.

The main thought in vv. 1-12 is the greater responsibility of teachers and the extremely dangerous character of the instrument which they have to use. In vv. 9-12 the noble possibilities of the tongue are presented as a motive for checking its lower propensities. This passage naturally connects itself with 1:19 f. 26, 2:12.

In vv. 13-18 the discussion springs from the same abhorrence of sham which gives rise to so much of ch. 1 (vv. 6-8, 22-27), and controls the thought throughout ch. 2.

1-3. Against overeagerness to be teachers; in view of the great responsibility involved, and of the difficulty of controlling the tongue.

1. μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, “Do not many of you become teachers.” πολλοί is to be regarded either as subject or as in apposition with the proper subject (in that case ὑμεῖς); διδάσκαλοι is predicate; cf. Hebrews 7:23.

πολλοί] L by a not unusual corruption reads πολλύ. This does not point to a reading πολύ, and has no relation to the mistranslation of m nolite multiloqui esse (cf. Matthew 6:7).

διδάσκαλος means rabbi (cf. Matthew 23:8, Luke 2:46, John 1:38, John 1:20:16, John 1:3:10; see references in Lex.. s. vv. διδάσκαλος and ῥαββί), and the teachers here referred to, if in Jewish Christian churches, would naturally have occupied a place not unlike that of rabbis in the synagogues. This would apply both to the dignity of the position and to a part of the duties of the rabbis. Among Christians the term was used both for a teacher resident in a church (Acts 13:1, Antioch) and for a travelling missionary (Didache 11:1 f. 13:2, 15:2). Nothing in the text indicates whether James’s reference was limited to one or the other of these classes. The position of teacher was the function of a specially gifted person, not a standing office, and it was plainly possible for a man who believed himself competent for the work to put himself forward and take up the activities of a teacher. James is himself a teacher (λημψόμεθα, v. 1), and points out the moral dangers of the teacher’s life, with special insistence on the liability to opinionated disputatiousness (vv. 13-18). A good concrete impression of the nature of the meetings at which they spoke may be gathered from 1Co_14. The Epistle of James itself will give an idea of one of the types of early Christian “teaching.” Teachers were important from the earliest times (Acts 13:1, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11) and were found in the Christian churches of many lands. The references of this epistle would seem applicable in any part of the world and during any part of the period which is open for the date of the epistle.

An interesting expansion of this exhortation of James found in the first pseudo-clementine Epistle to Virgins, i, 11, is probably from Palestine or Syria in the third century, and vividly illustrates the same situation even at that late time (text in Funk, Patres apostolici, vol. ii; Eng. transl. in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Buffalo, 1886, vol. viii).

On teachers in the early church, see articles in DD.BB., and especially Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, 21906, pp. 279-308; Eng. transl. 21908, i, pp. 333-366, where a great amount of interesting material is collected and discussed.

ἀδελφοί μου, introducing a new section, cf. 1:2, 19, 2:1, 14, 5:7, 12.

εἰδότες, “for you know,” presenting a motive.

μεῖζον κρίμα, “greater condemnation”; cf. Mark 12:40 (Luke 20:47) οὗτοι λήμψονται περισσότερον κρίμα, Romans 13:2. The teacher’s condemnation (or, as we should say, his responsibility) is greater than that of others because having, or professing to have, clear and full knowledge of duty, he is the more bound to obey it, cf. Luke 12:47 f.

λημψόμεθα, i. e. at the last day. Notice that James includes himself as a διδάσκαλος.

The Vulgate (sumitis) and the Bohairic version have altered this to the second person.

To this warning no good earlier or Jewish parallel has been produced. The sayings about the dangers of speech apply, indeed, to the teacher, but they are in most cases of an entirely general cast.

2-12. The Hellenistic associations of the following passage, vv. 2-12, are shown in the references in the notes. The more striking parallels have been effectively put together by J. Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes, 1909, pp. 45-53. Geffcken thinks that James here betrays dependence on a written tract on calumny, or some such subject, which he has adapted and expanded. This is not impossible, but the infelicities in the sequence of James’s thought in the passage, on which Geffcken’s theory rests, are not quite sufficient to prove anything more than dependence on ideas which had been worked out for a different purpose by others, and were familiar commonplaces of popular moral preaching.

2. πολλὰ γὰρ πταίομεν ἅπαντες. This gives the reason (γάρ) for the warning of v. 1. All men stumble, and of all faults those of the tongue are the hardest to avoid. Hence the profession of teacher is the most difficult mode of life conceivable.

On the universality of sin, cf. Romans 3:9-18, 1 John 1:8, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Ecclus. 19:16, 2 Ezra 8:35, and the similar observations of Greek and Latin writers collected by Wetstein, Schneckenburger, and Mayor, e. g. Seneca, De clem. i, 6 peccavimus omnes, alii graviora alii leviora.

The besetting danger of sins of speech and of the misuse of the tongue was clearly seen and often mentioned by ancient moralists. Noteworthy O. T. passages (among many others) are Proverbs 15:1-4, Proverbs 15:7, Proverbs 15:23, Proverbs 15:26, Proverbs 15:28, Ecclus. 5:11-6:1, 22:27, 28:13-26.

εἰ οὐ, see note on 2:11.

οὗτος, cf. 1:23.

τέλειος ἀνήρ, cf. 1:4 and note. Used of moral perfection, “blameless,” cf. Matthew 5:48, Matthew 19:21, Colossians 1:28, Colossians 4:12, Wisd. 9:6, Genesis 6:9, Ecclus. 44:17. The same Hebrew word תָּמִים, used in the same sense, is translated in Genesis 6:9 by τέλειος, in Genesis 17:1 by ἄμεμπτος.

δυνατός κτλ. Expands the idea of τέλειος.

χαλιναγωγῆσαι, “hold in check,” cf. 1:26 and note.

ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, i. e. the whole man. The contrast of the tongue and the body, as of a part and the whole, has led here to a mode of expression which seems to imply that sin does not exist apart from the body. But the writer shows himself to be fully aware that sin resides in the inner man, although on the whole its more conspicuous manifestations are prominently connected with the body. The body is thought of as providing the man with his organs of expression and action. It is a natural and popular, not a philosophical or theological, mode of expression. Cf. v. 6 ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν, 4:1, Romans 8:13.

3. It is with men as with horses: control their mouth and you are master of all their action.

ἰδέ, “behold,” introduces an illustration, cf. ἰδού vv. 4, 5, 5:4, 7.

On ἰδέ, ἰδού, see Moulton’s Winer, pp. 318 f. note 5; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 11, note.

ἰδέ] CR minnplus 40 sah syrhcl arm.

ἰδού] minnut vid pauo.

εἰδὲ γάρ] א* syrpesh.

εἰ δέ] BAKL minn25 ff vg boh (if).

Of these readings ἰδού (cf. 3:4, 5, 5:4, 7) and the addition of γάρ may be at once rejected as emendations; the latter, however, is significant because it implies that εἰδέ was understood as equivalent to ἰδέ. As between ἰδέ and εἰ δέ, the external evidence is strong for the latter, although P when it departs from KL is an excellent witness. But in this instance the variant reading is likely to be due to a misspelling and not to deliberate emendation, whereas the excellence of B’s text depends solely on its freedom from emendation, not in any accuracy of spelling. In such a case “intrinsic evidence” from the sense is the only guide; and this speaks strongly for ἰδέ, which is therefore to be accepted.

τῶν ἵππων. Depends on τοὺς χαλινούς, but is put first because it contains the new and emphatic idea.

χαλινός is used of the “bridle” proper (or “reins”), of the “bit,” and, as perhaps here, of the whole bridle, including both. The figurative use of “bridle” in English does not extend in the same degree to “bit,” and hence “bridle” (A.V., R.V.) is preferable as the English translation here.

βάλλομεν, “put,” cf. Philo, De agric. 21 χαλινὸν ἐμβαλόντες; Xen. De re equestr. vi, 7; ix, 9; Ael. V. h. ix, 16 ἵππῳ ἐμβάλλειν χαλινόν.

If εἰ δέ is read (with WH.), καὶ has to be taken as introducing the apodosis, as often in Hebrew.

μετάγομεν, “guide,” “direct” (E.V. “turn about”).

Cf. Philo, De opif. mundi, (29) 88 (the charioteers) ᾗ ἂν ἐθέλωσιν αὐτὰ ἄγουσι τῶν ἡνιῶν ἐνειλημμένοι; Aristippus in Stobæus, Anthol. (ed. Hense), iii, ch. 17, 17 κρατεῖ ἡδονῆς οὐχ ὁ ἀπεχόμενος ἀλλʼ ὁ χρώμενος μὲν μὴ παρεκφερόμενος δέ, ὥσπερ καὶ νεὼς καὶ ἵππου οὐχ ὁ μὴ χρώμενος ἀλλʼ ὁ μετάγων ὅποι βούλεται.

The comparison turns on the importance which the tongue has because control over the whole creature can be exercised through it, as through the horse’s mouth. The smallness of the member hardly comes into consideration here.

4-12. The dangers of the tongue

4-6. The tongue, though small, is as powerful as a little rudder on a great ship, and as dangerous as a little fire in a great forest.

4. καὶ τὰ πλοῖα, “ships also,” like horses. The article is generic. The parallel of ship and horse is emphasised by the repetition of μετάγειν, a repetition characteristic of Jam 1:13 f. 2:14, 16, 2:21, 25.

σκληρῶν, “harsh,” “stiff”; hence here of winds, “strong”; the adjective heightens the contrast with the little rudder.

For the phrase, cf. Dio. Chrys. De regno. iii, p. 44 κλύδωνος ἀγρίου καὶ χαλεποῦ ὑπὸ ἀνέμων σκληρῶν μεταβαλλομένου, Proverbs 27:16 σκληρὸς ἄνεμος (where the difference from the Hebrew is instructive), and other references in Wetstein, Mayor, and Schneckenburger.

ὁρμή, “impulse,” “desire.” Used in N. T. only here and Acts 14:5, and not in this sense in O. T., but common in classical Greek writers. See Trench, § lxxxvii, and see L. and S. for full references, e. g. Xen. Anab. iii, 2:9 μιᾷ ὁρμῇ; Plato, Phil. 35 D, where ὁρμή is parallel to ἐπιθυμία..

Others take this of the pressure of the steersman on the helm, but without any sufficient reason.

τοῦ εὐθύνοντος, “the one who directs it.” Cf. Philo, De conf. ling. 23 φιλεῖ γὰρ ἔστιν ὅτε χωρὶς ἡνιόχων τε καὶ κυβερνητῶν βερντῶν ὅ τε πλοῦς καὶ ὁ δρόμος εὐθύνεσθαι; also Proverbs 20:24, Ecclus. 37:15.

The twin figures of the control of horse and of ship are frequently found together in later Greek writers, as the following passages show. In some of the instances the point of the comparison is the smallness of the instrument which controls so great a body. James is evidently acquainted with the forms of current Greek popular thought.

In the following the figures of ship and horse are characteristically combined:

Plutarch, De aud. poetis, 12, p. 33 F “Τρόπος ἐσθʼ ὁ πείθων τοῦ λέγοντος, οὐ λόγος·” καὶ τρόπος μὲν οὖν καὶ λόγος· ἢ τρόπος διὰ λόγου, καθάπερ ἱππεὺς διὰ καλινοῦ καὶ διὰ πηδαλίου κυβερνήτης.

Plutarch, De genio Socratis, 20, p. 588 E.

Aristippus, in Stobæus, Anthol. iii (ed. Hense), 17, 17 (quoted supra).

Philo, De opificio mundi, 29 μάρτυρες δʼἡνίοχοι καὶ κυβερνῆται· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ὑστερίζοντες τῶν ὑποζυγίων καὶ κατόπιν αὐτῶν ἐξεταζόμενοι ᾗ ἂν ἐθέλωσιν αὐτὰ ἄγουσι τῶν ἡνιῶν ἐνειλημμένοι καὶ τότε μὲν ἐφιέντες πρὸς ὀξὺν δρόμον τότε δʼ ἀναχαιτίζοντες, εἰ φορᾷ τοῦ δέοντος πλείονι θέοι· οἱ δʼ αὖ κυβερνῆται πρὸς τὸ τῆς νεὼς ἔσχατον χωρίον πρύμναν παρελθόντες πάντων ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν εἰσιν ἄριστοι τῶν ἐμπλεόντων, ἅτε τῆς νεὼς καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τὴν σωτηρίαν ἐν χερσὶ ταῖς αὑτῶν ἔχοντες.

Philo, Leg. alleg. iii, 79; De agricult. 15; De confus. ling. 23; In Flacc. 5.

For the figure of the ship’s rudder, cf. Lucretius, De rer. nat. iv, 863-868

quippe etenim ventus subtili corpore tenuis

trudit agens magnam magno molimine navem,

et manus una regit quanto vis impete euntem

atque gubernaclum contorquet quolibet unum,

multaque, per trocleas et tympana, pondere magno

commovet atque levi sustollit machina nisu.

The often-quoted passage from Ps.-Aristotle, Mechanica, 5, is not apt. since there the rudder is mentioned not as a literary figure, but as one example of the principle of the lever.

For the figure of the horse, cf. Sophocles, Antig. 477 f.

σμικρῷ χαλινῷ δʼ οἶδα τοὺς θυμουμένους

ἵππους καταρτυθέντας.

5. μεγάλα αὐχεῖ is equivalent to μεγαλαυχεῖ, “be haughty,” which has here been separated into its component parts in order to make a good parallel to μικρὸν μέλος ἐστίν. The phrase is here used in the sense not of an empty boast, but of a justified, though haughty, sense of importance; cf. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 94.

The usual associations, however, of μεγαλαυχεῖν are bad, as here. A boasting compatible with proper humility would probably be expressed by καυχᾶσθαι. Cf. Zephaniah 3:11, Ezekiel 16:50, Eccles. 48:18, 2 Macc. 15:32, 4 Macc. 2:15.

Perhaps the alliteration μικρόν, μέλος, μεγάλα is intentional, cf. v. 7.

μεγάλα αὐχεῖ] BAC*P ff vg boh.

μεγαλαυχεῖ] אC2KL minn. This seems to be emendation to a more familiar word.

5b-6. The tongue is as dangerous as a fire. Cf. Ecclus. 28:12, 22.

ἡλίκον, “how small.”

ἡλίκον] BאA2CP vg.

ὀλίγον] A*C2KL minnomn vid ff m syrutr boh sah. Emendation.

ἡλίκην, “how much.” For the double question, cf. Mark 15:24, Luke 19:15, and see Winer, § 66. 5. 3.

ὕλην. The abundant references in ancient literature to forest fires, sometimes with direct reference to the smallness of the spark which leads to vast destruction, and the repeated use of this comparison in ethical discussions make it likely that ὕλην here means “forest” rather than “fuel.”

In Homer, Il. ii, 455

ἠὒτε πῦρ ἀΐδηλον ἐπίφλέγει ἄσπετον ὕλην

the comparison is to describe the glitter of the armour of a great host; in the similar verse Il. xi, 155, it is the rout of a fleeing army.

Pindar, Pyth. iii, 36-37

πολλὰν τʼ ὄρει πῦρ ἐξ ἑνὸς

σπέρματος ἐνθορὸν ἀΐστωσεν ὕλαν.

Euripides, Ino, fragm. 411

μικροῦ γὰρ ἐκ λαμπτῆρος Ἰδαῖον λέπας

πρήσειεν ἄν τις.

Ps.-Phocylides, Poema admonitorium, 144

ἐξ ὀλίγου σπινθῆρος ἀθέσφατος ἀθεται ὕλη.

Philo, De decal. 32, M. p. 208 [ἐπιθυμία] οἷα φλὸξ ἐν ὕλῃ νέμεται δαπανῶσα πάντα καὶ φθείρουσα.

The above quotations refer to a forest fire. The following are significant in using with similar purpose the figure of a great conflagration in a city or in general.

Philo, De migr. Abr. 12, M. p. 455 σπινθὴρ γὰρ καὶ ὁ βραχύτατος ἐντυφόμενος, ὅταν καταπνευσθεὶς ζωπυρηθῇ, μεγάλην ἐξάπτει πυράν.

Seneca, Controversiarum excerpta, v, 5, nesciebas quanta sit potentia ignium ….

Diogenes of Oinoanda (Epicurean philosopher, second century after Christ), fragm. xxxviii, 3 (ed. William, Leipzig, 1907, p. 46) καὶ σπινθῆρι μεικρῷ πάνυ τηλικόνδε ἐπεξάπτεται πῦρ, ἡλίκον καταφλέγει λιμένας καὶ πόλεις.

Among Hebrew writers, Isaiah 9:18, Isaiah 10:18, Psalm 83:14 use the figure of a forest fire; and Ecclus. 11:32 uses the figure of the small spark which kindles “a heap of many coals.” The tongue is compared with a fire in Psalm 120:3 f., and in Midrash, Leviticus rabba, 16: R. Eleasar in the name of R. Jose b. Zimra: “What fires it [the tongue] kindles!” (see Schöttgen, Horae hebraicae, pp. 1021 f.). But the specific parallels make it seem plain that this comparison is drawn from a standing simile of current Greek popular philosophy.

6. καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ sc. ἐστιν. This applies the comparison made in the preceding sentence.

ἡ γλῶσσα 2o] P minnpler syrhcl c. * prefix οὕτως καί; L min prefix οὕτως. Conformation to v. 5.

ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας. As the text stands, no satisfactory interpretation is possible for this phrase in this context.

For the expression taken by itself “the iniquitous world” is the most probable sense. ἀδικίας is then genitive of quality, cf. 1:23, 25, 2:12, Luke 16:8, Luke 16:9, Luke 16:18:6, Enoch 48:7, “this world of iniquity.”

On κόσμος, cf. Jam 1:27, Jam 2:5, Jam 4:4, and see note on 1:27.

Other meanings have been suggested; on the history of the exegesis, see Huther’s and Mayor’s notes. Thus Vg translates “the whole of evil,” universitas iniquitatis. But the sense “the whole” for ὁ κόσμος is attested only Proverbs 17:6 ὅλος ὁ κόσμος τῶν χρημάτων; and, moreover, the meaning does not suit our passage well.

Another interpretation is “the ornament of iniquity.” This is capable in itself of an intelligible sense, as referring to the use of rhetorical arts by designing speakers (Wetstein: malas actiones et suadet et excusat), but that seems foreign to the circle of thought in which the writer is here moving. This sense was, however, a favourite one with Greek interpreters. From Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. iv, 10, who gives it as one possible meaning, it is taken into Cramer’s Catena, p. 21, and it is also found in “Œcumenius,” on vv. 2-4, and in Matthäi’s scholia (ἐπικοσμεῖ γὰρ ῤήμασιν ἐσθʼ ὅτε ἀδικίαν.)

As the text stands, κόσμος cannot easily be connected with what precedes, whether as appositive of πῦρ or as a second predicate, parallel to πῦρ and after ἐστιν understood, for neither of these constructions yields a recognisable sense. If connected with what follows, a colon being put after πῦρ instead of a comma, we get the best sense of which the passage seems capable, viz.: “The tongue stands as (i. e. represents) the unrighteous world among our members; it defiles the whole body, itself having direct connection with hell” (so E.V.). ὁ κόσμος is then taken as predicate after καθίσταται. So the free Latin version in the Speculum: ita et lingua ignis est: et mundus iniquitatis per linguam constat in membris nostris quae maculat totam corpus.

Even this interpretation, however, is awkward and unsatisfactory, and it is probable that the text is corrupt. The context calls for some word in place of ὁ κόσμος which should yield the meaning “productive of,” or “the tool of,” or “representative of” wickedness. The phrase would then aptly explain in what way the tongue is in fact a fire.

The Peshitto inserts ὕλη after ἀδικίας and thus makes of ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας an independent sentence parallel to ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ; “the wicked world is a forest.” This is a possible conjecture; it seems to rest on no Greek evidence. A simpler and better conjecture, often made, is to exclude ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας from the text altogether as a gloss.

Spitta, following others, conjectures that ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας is all a gloss. He holds that the words were written as the title of 3:1-4:12 (which form the Euthalian chapter), and then wrongly introduced from the margin into the text, while, as a result of this interpolation the words ἡ σπιλοῦσα ὅλον τὸ σῶμα were also added. These are appropriate to the idea of ὁ κόσμος (cf. 1:27), but not to that of a fire; and are not very naturally suggested by the idea of the tongue, breaking the forcible simplicity of the original context which Spitta thus reconstructs. Exegesis by leaving out hard phrases is an intoxicating experience.

καθίσταται, “presents itself”; see on 4:4.

ἡ σπιλοῦσα, “which defileth,” “staineth”; justifying the preceding statement. The tongue defiles the body by lending itself to be the organ of so many sins.

Cf. 1:27 ἄσπιλον ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου, Test. XII Patr. Aser 2:7 [ὁ πλεονεκτῶν] τὴν ψυχὴν σπιλοῖ καὶ τὸ σῶμα λαμπρύνει.

ἡ σπιλοῦσα] א boh read (by emendation) καὶ σπιλοῦσα.

ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, cf. v. 3, which is here in mind.

φλογίζουσα, “setting on fire,” “kindling”; cf. v. 5 ἀνάπτει.This returns to the figure of fire and completes the interrupted application of that comparison.

σπιλοῦν and φλογίζειν are each used a very few times in the Bible, and are not common (φλογίζειν being mainly poetical) in secular Greek.

τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως, “the wheel of nature.”

τῆς γενέσεως] א minn vg syrpesh add ἡμῶν; probably emendation.

The grammarians distinguish between τρόχος, “course,” and τροχός, “wheel,” but in view of the derived senses of the latter word the distinction is unimportant.

γένεσις is here to be taken (cf. 1:23 and note) as substantially equivalent to κτίσις, “creation.” As a spark can set a great forest fire, so the tongue kindles the whole world into flame. The description of nature as a “wheel” is made comprehensible by some of the parallels given below under 2 (a). Here it is used to suggest the continuousness, and so the far-reaching vastness, of the damage done, but the whole phrase is native to other contexts, and the writer’s idea is not to be too precisely defined. Of course, what is actually enkindled by the tongue is mankind and human society, in which the evil results of wrong speech are manifest and universal; the actual phrase is more inclusive, but in such a rhetorical expression the exaggeration is pardonable.

For full accounts of the various commentators’ guesses at the exact meaning, see Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 819-880 (with great collections of illustrative material, mostly not apt); D. J. Pott, Novum Test. grœce, editio Koppiana, Göttingen, 1810, vol. ix, pp. 317-329; Huther, ad loc. Much material is given in Mayor3, ad loc. pp. 114-116; Windisch, ad loc.; and Hort, St. James, pp. 72-74, 106 f. The only critical discussion of the evidence is that of Hort, whose own interpretation, however, is impossible to accept, being based on Ezekiel 1:15-21.

The translations are as follows:

syr the successions of our generations, which run like wheels.

boh the wheel of the birth.

ff rotam nativitatis.

vg rotam nativitatis nostrae.

m rotam geniturae.

Cf. Priscillian, ed. Schepss, p. 26 (deus) sciens demutationem firmamenti et distruens rotam geniturae reparatione baptismatis diem nostrae nativitatis evicit. The phrase rota geniturae is here used in the sense of astrological fatalism, and is equivalent to ὁ τροχὸς τῆς ἀνάγκης. The relation of m to Priscillian’s text of James makes it probable that in this version of James rota geniturae was intended to have that sense, and hence geniturae substituted for an earlier nativitatis.

The interest of the phrase lies not so much in the determination of its exact meaning as in the fact that it cannot be accounted for from Jewish modes of expression and implies contact with (though not understanding of) Greek thought. It does not, however, betray knowledge of any particular system of thought (Orphic or other), or any closer contact with Hellenism on the part of the writer of the epistle than can be inferred from other ideas and expressions which he uses. This is true in spite of the occurrence in Greek writers of the exact phrase ὁ τροχὸς τῆς γενέσεως and its equivalent ὁ κύκλος τῆς γενέσεως.

The two characteristics of the wheel which mainly attracted the attention of the ancients were (1) its constant change of position and (2) its circular figure and motion. In tracing the meanings it should be noticed that “wheel” (τροχός) and “circle” (κύκλος) are frequently used with little or no distinction.

1. That any revolving motion is full of change caused the wheel to be a symbol of the changeableness of human fortune, now up, now down. Thus τροχὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα· ἤτοι εὐμετάβολα was a proverb (Leutsch and Schneidewin, Corpus parœmiographorum, ii, Göttingen, 1851, p. 87, with many references, cf. also ii, p. 223 (Macarius Chrysoc. cent. viii, 58); and from Cicero’s time the wheel became a regular attribute of Fortune.

So Anacreon, iv, 7 τροχὸς ἄρματος γὰρ οἷα βίοτος τρέχει κυλισθείς.

Orac. sibyll. ii, 87 (Ps.-Phocyl. 27) κοινὰ πάθη πάντων · βίοτος τροχός· ἄστατος ὄλβος.

Herodotus, i, 207 ὡς κύκλος τῶν ἀνθρωπήιων ἐστὶ πρηγμάτων περιφερόμενος δὲ οὐκ ἐᾷ αἰεὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς εὐτυχέειν.

For other illustrations, see Gataker’s notes on Marcus Aurelius, ix, 28; Mayor3, pp. 116-118; Hort, St. James, p. 107. But nothing in James (not even 1:10, 4:14) indicates that the writer had in mind here this aspect of the “wheel of nature.”

2. Another aspect of the turning of a wheel is that it goes round and round on its own axis, making no real progress and finding no given termination of its motion; or, to state the same thing from a different point of view, that its figure is circular, and so continuous, returning on itself, without beginning and without end. Hence arose various derived senses for both “wheel” and “circle.” Thus the rhetoricians and grammarians speak of the “circle of the period,” much as we might say the “rounded period,” and of the closed “circle” of an argument; a verse beginning and ending with the same word was called a “circle,” and so was a continuous series of myths (especially the “epic cycle”).*

For instance, Ocellus Lucanus (neo-pythagorean), Libellus de universi natura, i, 15 (Mullach, Fragmenta philosophorum grœcorum, i, p. 394), ἥ τε γὰρ τοῦ σχήματος ἰδέα κύκλος· οὗτος δὲ πάντοθεν ἴσος καὶ ὅμοιος. διόπερ ἄναρχος καὶ ἀτελεύτητος.

In physiology the continual cycle of breathing in and out is described by Plato (Tim. 79 B) as οἷον τροχοῦ περιαγομένου (cf. also Galen, De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis, p. 711). More important to be considered here are the following uses:

(a) In general, “wheel” and “circle” are used of the round of human life, the cycle of successive generations which endlessly are born and disappear; and the same mode of thought was applied to the whole universe, all parts of which are subject to endless succession of formation and decay.†

Thus Euripides, Ino, fragm. 415, fragm. 419, ed. Nauck (in Plutarch, Consol. ad Apollonium, 6, p. 104 B):

κύκλος γὰρ αὑτὸς καρπίμοις τε γῆς φυτοῖς,

θνητῶν τε γενεᾷ· τῶν μὲν αὔξεται βίος,

τῶν δὲ φθίνει τε καὶ θερίζεται πάλιν.

A good statement of the same idea (but without the word κύκλος) is that of Plutarch (Consol. ad Apollonium, 10, p. 106 E) in a neighbouring context to that in which he cites the above fragment (p. 104 B). He refers to the doctrines of Heraclitus, and compares the progress of the generations—our grandparents, our parents, ourselves—to the continuous flow of a river (ὁ τῆς γενέσεως ποταμὸς οὗτος ἐνδελεχῶς ῥέων οὔποτε στήσεται), while in the opposite direction flows the corresponding river of death (καὶ πάλιν ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτῷ ὁ τῆς φθορᾶς). But here the contrast of γένεσις and φθορά shows that γένεσις has its proper sense of “coming into being,” not the meaning which we have to assume for it in James.

Simplicius (c. 500 a.d.) Comm. in Epicteti enchiridion, ed. Didot, ch. 8, p. 42, uses the phrase “the endless circle of becoming” (ὠφέλιμος …τῷ ἀπεράντῳ τῆς γενέσεως κύκλῳ, διὰ τοῦτο ἐπʼ ἄπειρον προϊόντι, διὰ τὸ τὴν ἄλλου φθορὰν ἄλλου γένεσιν εἷναι), and similarly, ed. Didot, ch. 27, p. 76 (quoted by Hort, St. James, p. 73).*

These passages well illustrate that conception of the circle itself which is probably the basis of James’s use of τροχός, but in them γένεσις means not “nature,” in the sense of ἡ κτίσις, but “becoming,” “origination,” as the context shows. Thus the close similarity of expression to that of James turns out to be mainly accidental, and the passages are not directly available for the interpretation of the phrase in the epistle.

In accordance with this general method of thought Isidore of Pelusium († c. 440), Ep. ii, 158, interprets the phrase in James (which he misquotes τὸν τροχὸν τῆς ζωῆς) to mean “time” and says ὄτι τὸν τροχὸν τὸν χρόνον ἐκάλεσε διὰ τὸ τροχοειδὲς καὶ κυκλικὸν σχῆμα, εἰς ἑαυτὸν γὰρ ἀνελίττεται.† His general interpretation is on the right track, but the phrase in the epistle does not mean “time.”

(b) In connection with the Orphic and Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls to new bodies after death, the term “wheel,” or “circle,” was naturally used to describe the unending round of death and rebirth. Metempsychosis, which in its primitive Thracian form had been a means of gaining after death a full life, such as was inconceivable apart from a body, became for Greek religious thought a form of purifying punishment, from whose dismal cycle salvation could come only from the god and to those alone who had pursued the ascetic practises of the “Orphic life.”‡ To “cease from the Wheel and breathe again from ill” (κύκλου τʼ ἂν λήξαὶ καὶ ἀναπνεύσαι κακότητος, Orph. fragm. 226, Proclus, In Plat. Tim. comm. v, p. 330 B) was the goal of the religious life of the Orphic initiate, and in the ritual a wheel seems to have played a part. “The first article in the creed or confession of the Orphic soul is κύκλου δʼἐξέπταν βαρυπενθέος ἀργαλέοιο, ‘I have flown out of the sorrowful weary wheel.’ ”*

This Orphic round of birth, death, reincarnation, over and over again repeated, is described as “the wheel of fate and birth” (ὁ τῆς εἱμαρμένης τε καὶ γενέσεως τροχός)† and “the circle of birth” (ὁ κύκλος τῆς γενέσεως).‡ The phrase “compulsory circle” (κύκλος ἀνάγκης) is also found in a statement of the kindred transmigration doctrine attributed to Pythagoras.§ But the phrases, although almost identical with that of Jam 3:6, do not throw any light upon it. To think of the tongue as enflaming the “wheel” of metempsychosis is nonsense; and, on the other side, nothing could be more opposed to James’s robust doctrine of moral responsibility than the idea of a fatalistic circle.

It is therefore impossible to draw the inference that the author of the epistle had direct contact with Orphic mysteries and ideas. The resemblance of language may well be a mere accident, and even if we suppose that he had picked up and misused a chance phrase, that would be fully accounted for by acquaintance with Cynic popular preachers, or Stoic-cynic writers of diatribes, who must have given currency to such catch-words incidentally to their satirical attacks on the ideas which the phrases conveyed.""

(c) Similar expressions are used of fatalistic necessity. So Philo, De somn. ii, 6, p. 664, κύκλον καὶ τροχὸν ἀνάγκης ἀτελευτήτου. In the magic literature are found such expressions as κύκλα τῆς ἀνάγκης; see O. Gruppe, Griech. Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, 1906, p. 1086, note 1.

In this connection it may be observed that γένεσις in later philosophical use means “necessity” (for instances, see Clementine Recognitions, viii, 2, 4, 6, 7, etc.). But this whole field of fatalistic thought is diametrically opposed to everything that James held dear.

ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης. Gehenna, a term elsewhere used in the N. T. only in the Synoptic Gospels, here means the place of punishment of the wicked. It was naturally associated with fire, cf. Matthew 5:22, Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:45, and see HDB, “Gehenna.” Observe the sudden intrusion of a purely Jewish idea into a notably Greek context.

7-12. The tongue is untamable; its use in blessing God gives no security against its abuse later for cursing men; this is wrong and contrary to nature.

7. γάρ, explains how the extreme statement of v. 6 is justified. The dreadful character of the tongue comes from its untamableness.

θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων, “beasts and birds, reptiles and fishes.” Cf. Deuteronomy 4:17, Deuteronomy 4:18, 1 Kings 4:33, Acts 10:12, Acts 11:6, which all, like the present passage, have more or less direct reference to Genesis 1:20, Genesis 1:24, Genesis 1:26.

ἐναλίων, i. e. fishes. This word is not found elsewhere in the Bible, but is common in secular Greek, both poetry and late prose.

δαμάζεται καὶ δεδάμασται, “is from time to time, and has actually been, tamed.” Cf. Schmid, Atticismus, ii, p. 276.

τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ. The dative is used in the sense of “in subjection to.” The term itself means “human kind” (cf. L. and S. s. v. and references in Wetstein), and is used here instead of the more natural τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in order to make a little play with πᾶσα φύσις.

The control of animals by man was a familiar Hebrew observation, cf. Genesis 1:28, Genesis 9:2, Psalm 8:6-8, Ecclus. 17:4; it was also a common subject of Greek and Roman comment and moralising, see references in Mayor.

8. οὐδεὶς δαμάσαι δύναται. Notice the alliteration with δ, cf. v. 5, and 4 Macc. 15:31, where κ is repeated six times.

ἀνθρώπων. Belongs with οὐδείς; alludes to ἀνθρωπίνῃ.

This is not meant to be, as Augustine (De nat. et grat. ch. 15) and others since have thought, in contrast with the divine power which can do all things, but is a popular way of saying that complete control of the tongue is not to be expected; cf. v. 2 τέλειος ἀνήρ.

The Pelagian interpretation, which took this as a question, in order to avoid a proof-text for universal sinfulness, is unacceptable because opposed to the context.

ἀκατάστατον κακόν, “a restless, forthputting, evil”; best taken (because of μεστή) as nominative absolute; cf. Mark 12:38. ἀκατάστατος is the opposite of δεδαμασμένος; see on 1:8, and cf. 3:16 ἀκαταστασία. Cf. Hermas, Mand. ii, 3 πονηρὰ ἡ καταλαλιά, ἀκατάστατον δαιμόνιόν ἐστιν.

ἀκατάστατον] CKL minnpler m syrutr Cyr read ἀκατάσχετον; more commonplace, hence probably an emendation.

ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου, “deadly poison,” probably with allusion to the poison of the serpent’s tongue. Cf. Psalm 140:3, quoted in Romans 3:13. Cf. Lucian, Fugit. 19 ἰοῦ μεστὸν αὐτοῖς τὸ στόμα. The figure of poison was a common one among the Greeks, used for various hateful things (references in Mayor).

9. Continues thought of v. 8. Even good use of the tongue now gives no security against misuse later.

ἐν αὐτῇ, “by it,” cf. Romans 15:6. This might be the Hebraistic instrumental ἐν (see Blass, § 41. 1, J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 11 f., 61 f., 104), but is more probably an extension of Hellenistic usage for which good parallels are found only in very late, Byzantine, writers (see Stephanus, Thesaurus, ed. Hase and Dindorf, s. v., coll. 963 f.).

This twofold use of the tongue is frequently mentioned. Philo, De decal. xix, p. 196 οὐ γὰρ ὅσιον, διʼ οὗ στόματος τὸ ἱερώτατον ὄνομα προφέρεταί τις, διὰ τούτου φθέγγεσθαί τι τῶν αἰσχρῶν.

Plutarch, De garrulitate, 8, p. 506 C ὅθεν ὁ Πιττακὸς οὐ κακῶς, τοῦ Αἰγυπτίων βασιλέως πέμψαντος ἱερεῖον αὐτῷ, καὶ κελεύσαντος τὸ κάλλιστον καὶ τὸ χείριστον ἐξελεῖν κρέας, ἔπεμψεν ἐξελὼν τὴν γλῶτταν, ὡς ὄργανον μὲν ἀγαθῶν, ὄργανον δὲ τῶν κακῶν τῶν μεγίστων οὖσαν. Substantially the same story is told in Levit. rabba, 33 pr. on Proverbs 18:21 (Schöttgen, Horae heb. i, p. 1024) of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who sent his servant to market to buy first good and then bad food, and found himself both times supplied with tongues. See other references in Mayor and Windisch, and cf. the passages in which δίγλωσσος occurs, Proverbs 11:13, Ecclus. 5:9, 14, 6:1, 28:13, Orac. Sib. iii, 37.

εὐλογοῦμεν. Doubtless with reference both to the Jewish custom of adding “Blessed be He,” whenever the name of God was mentioned (cf. Romans 1:25, Romans 1:9:5, 2 Corinthians 11:31), and to other liturgical ascriptions of praise. For the latter, cf. 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3, Psalm 145:21, and the Shemone Esre (Schürer, GJV, § 27, Anhang).

τὸν κύριον καὶ πατέρα. Both words refer to God. See on 2:1; cf. 1:27. The expression has no complete parallel; cf. 1 Chronicles 29:10, Isaiah 63:16, Matthew 11:25, Ecclus. 23:1, 4.

καταρώμεθα, cf. Job 31:30, Psalm 10:7, Psalm 62:4, Psalm 109:28, Luke 6:28, Romans 12:14.

Test. XII Patr. Benj. 6 ἡ ἀγαθὴ διάνοια οὐκ ἔχει δύο γλώσσας εὐλογίας καὶ κατάρας.

τοὺς καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ γεγονότας. Cf. Genesis 1:26, Genesis 9:6, Ecclus. 17:3, Wisd. 2:23. Cf. Bereshith r. 24 (Wetstein), quoted by Hort.

10. οὐ χρή. Used only here in N. T.

11-12. The contrary example of springs and trees. What takes place with the tongue would be impossible in nature. For the same thought, cf. Enoch 2-5:4.

11. ἡ πηγή. πηγή has the article as the representative of its class; see Winer, § 18. 1.

βρύει, “gush.” “Send forth” (E.V.) is an exact, but prosaic, rendering of this mainly poetical word, which is not used elsewhere in O. T. or N. T. It means “teem,” “be full to bursting,” and is ordinarily used intransitively, with dative or genitive, of the swelling buds of plants and so, figuratively, of various kinds of fulness. Here the context shows that the thought is of the gushing forth of the water.

τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ πικρόν.

Cognate accusatives, as in Justin Martyr, Dial. 114 πέτρας … ζῶν ὕδωρ βρυούσης. Mayor gives many other references, in some of which, as here, the cognate accusative occurs. γλυκύ means “fresh,” πικρόν (cf. v. 12 ἁλυκόν), “brackish.” Cf. Exodus 15:23-25 (πικρόν, ἐγλυκάνθη), Jeremiah 23:15.

This occurrence is prophesied as a portent in 4 Ezra 5:9 in dulcibus aquis salsae invenientur. “Only in the times of the End, in the days of the sinners, when all nature reverses its order and shows itself ripe for destruction, does such a phenomenon appear” (Spitta, p. 104).

12. ἀδελφοί μου. Here inserted to add emphasis, not, as more often, to mark a transition; Song of Solomon 1:16; Son 2:5.

συκῆ, ἐλαίας, ἄμπελος.

The fig, the olive, and the vine are the three characteristic natural products of warm countries about the Mediterranean. For the figure, cf. Matthew 7:16, Matthew 7:12:33; Plutarch, De tranquill. anim. p. 472 F τὴν ἄμπελον σῦκα φέρειν οὐκ ἀξιοῦμεν οὐδὲ τὴν ἐλαίαν βότρυς; similarly, Seneca, Ep. 8725, De ira ii, 106; Epict. Diss. 2, 2018.

οὔτε seems to be an error for οὐδέ, but the constant interchange of these words in the Mss. by textual corruption makes it hard to be sure that good ancient writing did not exercise more freedom in the use of them than the grammarians would sanction; see Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik, p. 172.

ἁλυκόν, sc. ὕδωρ, “salt water”; i. e. a salt spring. There were salt springs or brine-pits on the shore of the Dead Sea, and the hot springs of Tiberias are described as bitter and salt; see Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1856, ii, p. 384.

γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ, sc. δύναται (as is shown by the parallel first half of the verse).

No application of these illustrations is made, and James turns abruptly to another aspect of the matter. The passage well illustrates his vividness and fertility of illustration, as well as his method of popular suggestiveness, rather than systematic development of the thought.

οὔτε ἁλυχὸν γλυχύ] BAC minn.

οὕτως οὔτε [οὐδὲ א minn] ἁλυκὸν γλυκύ] אC2 minn ff vg syrpesh boh Cyr.

οὕτως οὐδεμία πηγὴ ἁλυκὸν καὶ γλυκύ] KLP (οὔτε) minnpler syrhcl c.* (syrhel txt ομ οὕτως).

13-18. The true Wise Man’s wisdom must be meek and peaceable; such wisdom alone comes from above, and only peaceable righteousness receives the divine reward.

13. The Wise Man must by a good life illustrate the meekness which belongs to true wisdom.

τίς. For similar rhetorical questions, see Psalm 33:12, Psalm 107:43, Isaiah 50:10, Ecclus. 6:34, etc. These short interrogative sentences (frequent in Paul) are characteristic of the diatribe; Bultmann, pp. 14 ff.

It is not necessary here, although it would be possible, to take τίς in the sense of ὅστις. See Buttmann, § 139 (Thayer’s translation, p. 252); Blass, § 50. 5; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 93; Winer, § 25. 1.

σοφός. The technical term for the Teacher (cf. v. 1); in Jewish usage one who has a knowledge of practical moral wisdom, resting on a knowledge of God. The words of James relate to the ideal to be maintained by a professional Wise Man and Teacher, not merely to the private wisdom of the layman.

ἐπιστήμων, “understanding,” with a certain tone of superiority, like our “expert.” Cf. Ecclus. prol., Daniel 1:4 νεανίσκους … ἐπιστήμονας ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ.

σοφός and ἐπιστήμων are used as synonyms in Deuteronomy 1:13, Deuteronomy 1:15, Deuteronomy 1:4:6, Daniel 5:12, cf. Philo, De prœm. et pœnis, 14 σοφὸν ἄρα γένος καὶ ἐπιστημονικώτατον.

δειξάτω ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐν πραΰτητι σοφίας, “let him by his good life show that his works have been done in the meekness appropriate to wisdom.”

The relation of the parts of the sentence must be interpreted by the aid of 2:18, δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίστιν. The wise Man is here called on to prove not (as many commentators suppose) his wisdom (which would require δειξάτω τὴν σοφίαν), but his meekness. For Jewish examples of the tendency of learned discussion to excite passion, see J. Friedmann, Der gesellschaftliche Verkehr und die Umgangsformeln in talmudischer Zeit, 1914, pp. 58 f.

It is better to take ἐν πραΰτητι σοφίας in this way than as if it were used in deprecation of the possible ostentation implied in δειξάτω (“Let him point to his good works, but let him do so with due meekness such as befits wisdom”). This would have to be indicated more clearly, as by inserting ἀλλά before ἐν.

The reason for rejecting the (at first sight simpler) interpretation, “Let him prove his wisdom by his good life” (Clem. Rom. 38:2 ὁ σοφὸς ἐνδεικνύσθω τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐν λόγοις ἀλλʼ ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς), which many commentators have adopted, has been indicated above. It does not do justice to the text of v. 13 and does not give to “meekness” the emphasis that is needed in order to prepare for v. 14.

ἐν πραΰτητι, cf. 1:21 (of the hearer, as here of the teacher).

“Meekness” is the opposite of arrogance and of the qualities referred to in v. 14; see Trench, Synonyms, § lxii. Pirke Aboth, iv, 11, “He that is arrogant in decision is foolish, wicked, and puffed up in spirit,” is a maxim which refers to this besetting danger of rabbis; see Taylor’s Sayings of the Fathers2, p. 69, notes 13 and 14, with quotation from R. Jonah, and cf. Pirke Aboth, iv, 12, 14.

14. And if your heart enkindle with fierce, obstinate, and divisive zeal for your own views, do not let such passion come to expression.

δέ, “and,” in continuation of v. 13, not in contrast.

WH.’s period before εἰ δέ is too strong a punctuation; a colon is sufficient.

ζῆλον πικρόν, “harsh zeal.” Because of ἐριθίαν this meaning for ζῆλον is better than the meaning “jealousy” (in the ordinary sense of personal jealousy), and corresponds well to the general thought. The idea is of a fierce desire to promote one’s own opinion to the exclusion of those of others.

This sense of “fanatical zeal” (as distinguished from “emulation” and “jealousy”) is not wholly foreign to Greek usage, but has been made specially common by the influence of the LXX, where ζῆλος stands in all cases for קִנְאָה, “jealous devotion to a cause,” “fanatical ardour,” as ζηλοῦν does in nearly all cases for the verb קָנָא.

It is the virtue of the religious “zealot,” cf. 1 Kings 19:10, 1 Kings 19:14, Ecclus. 48:2 (Elijah), 1 Macc. 2:54, 58, 4 Macc. 18:12 (Phinehas), Php 3:6 (Paul), Galatians 1:14, Acts 21:20. But it also becomes the vice of the fanatic; and hence its special danger for the religious teacher.

In secular use ζῆλος generally means “heat,” as expressed in “emulation,” “rivalry”—whether good or bad; see below, note on 4:2. The Biblical sense brings it near to the Hellenic σπουδή, which, starting from another side (“haste,” “exertion”), acquired a wide range of meanings including “zeal” and “rivalry.”

See Trench, Synonyms, § xxvi, Lightfoot on Clem. Rom_3. Note the connection of ζῆλος and ἀκαταστασία in v. 16, and cf. Clem. Romans 3:2.

ἐριθίαν, “selfish ambition.” The word denotes the inclination to use unworthy and divisive means for promoting one’s own views or interests, cf. Romans 2:8, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:20 (and Lightfoot’s note), and references in Mayor, together with Hort’s valuable note, ad loc. pp. 81-83; “ἐριθία really means the vice of a leader of a party created for his own pride: it is partly ambition, partly rivalry” (Hort).

ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν has a certain emphasis, in contrast with κατακαυχᾶσθε. The meaning is: “If you have these qualities in your heart, do not let them come to expression.”

μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε (sc. τῶν ἄλλων) καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας. “Do not boast and be arrogant, and thus prove false to the Truth.” That would be the natural fruit of the spirit of ζῆλος and ἐριθία in the heart; and it must be suppressed. κατακαυχᾶσθε (cf. note on 2:13) seems here to relate to the browbeating on the part of the Wise Man who haughtily forces his own views on others.

Others connect μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε directly with κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, see Winer, § 54. 5, note (Thayer’s transl. p. 470, note 3). The sense then would be: “Do not boast over, and lie against, the truth.” But the idea of “boasting over (or against) the truth” is out of place in the context, and is itself unnatural. κατακαυχᾶσθαι κατά τινος is a construction which nowhere occurs.

καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας. “And thus play false against the truth,” i. e. by your conduct (κατακαυχᾶσθαι) prove false to, and belie, the truth which you as a Wise Man profess to have and utter.

Cf. 4 Macc. 5:34 οὐ ψεύσομαί σε, παιδευτὰ νόμε, 13:18; see L. and S. s. v. for examples of ψεύδομαι with accusative, meaning “prove false to” an oath, a treaty, a marriage, an alliance, a threat, a promise.

See also Zahn, GnK, i, p. 792, note, and J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, p. 354, note, for examples of καταψεύδεσθαι, “speak falsely to the injury of someone.”

τῆς ἀληθείας. Cf. 1:18 λόγῳ ἀληθείας, 5:19 πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας. This means the Christian truth which the Wise Man knows—truth of both practical morals and religion. See the fuller discussion in the note on 5:19. The conduct here censured is contrary to and forbidden by this truth; hence, if the Wise Man is guilty of that conduct, he is false to the truth of which he is the representative.

If the phrase ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας stood alone, a simpler interpretation would perhaps be “do not lie, violating the truth” (cf. Ecclus. 4:25 μὴ ἀντίλεγε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, Test. XII Patr. Gad 5:1 λαλῶν κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας), but that would be alien to the context here, and it is in itself not wholly acceptable since it makes κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας a mere redundancy.

μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας] א syrpesh read μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε [אc + κατὰ] τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ψεύδεσθε. Doubtless an emendation due to the apparent incompleteness of κατακαυχᾶσθε alone.

15. αὕτη ἡ σοφία, “that wisdom,” i. e. the professed wisdom which is accompanied by ζῆλος πικρός, ἐριθία, κατακαύχησις, and lacks πραΰτης.

ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη, i. e. divine, from God, cf. 1:5, 17; cf. Philo, De prof. 30 σοφίαν ἄνωθεν ὀμβρηθεῖσαν ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ, De congr. erud. grat. 7, De prœm. et pœn. 8; Hermas, Mand. ix, 11, xi, 5; and Schöttgen, Horae hebraicae, ad loc., for many rabbinical instances of what was plainly a common Jewish expression. The phrase is contrasted with the following three adjectives.

For the divine origin of true wisdom, cf. e.g. Proverbs 2:6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Wisd. 7:25, 9:4, 9 f., Ecclus. 1:1-4, 24:3ff., Enoch 42, Philo, as above, 1Co_1:19-6.

ἐπίγειος, “earthly,” cf. Php 3:19, Colossians 3:2, 1 Corinthians 15:47, John 3:31, John 8:23.

ἐπίγειος seems to mean here “derived from the frail and finite world of human life and affairs.” Cf. Philo’s contrast of οὐράνιος and γήϊνος, Leg. all. i, 12, and the far-reaching dualism on which it rests.

ψυχική, “natural” (Latin animalis, E.V. “sensual”), i. e. pertaining to the natural life (ψυχή) which men and animals alike have; 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:44-46, Judges 1:19.

Cf. Revelation 8:9 (ψυχή of animals). See Philo, Leg. all. ii, 7 and 13, Quis rer. div. her. 11, and E. Hatch, Essays, p. 124, cf. pp. 115-120.

The word was intelligible and familiar in this sense to Paul’s readers, and does not imply later gnostic usage; see J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 1910, pp. 69 f., 371-373; R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 1910, pp. 42-47, 109, 112, 151 f.

The curious resemblance to the gnostic designation of the two lower grades of men as χοϊκοί and ψυχικοί is probably not significant. Yet see Pfleiderer, Urchristentum2, ii, p. 546. Useful references will be found in Mayor.

δαιμονιώδης, “resembling,” or “pertaining to” (“proceeding from”), an evil spirit, cf. 2:19, 1 Timothy 4:1. This word has been pointed out elsewhere only Sym., Psalm 91:6, and Schol. on Aristophanes, Ran. 293, φάντασμα δαιμονιῶδες ὑπὸ Ἑκάτης ἐπιπεμπόμενον.

These three words, “earthly, sensual, devilish,” describe the so-called wisdom, which is not of divine origin, in an advancing series—as pertaining to the earth, not to the world above; to mere nature, not to the Spirit; and to the hostile spirits of evil, instead of to God. Hermas, Mand. ix, 2, xi, 8, show a variety of resemblances to this passage of James, but there is no evidence of literary dependence.

The church speedily and permanently used this conception of Satanic origin to account for the gnostic “wisdom”; cf. e. g. Justin, Apol. i, 58. In James, however, it is not the substance, but the temper, of the “wisdom” that makes it false. James is not attacking systems of false teaching. See Weinel, Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geiste, pp. 13 f., 16-18, 20 ff.

16. γάρ. Introduces proof that v. 15 is true. “For such a temper, even on the part of one who claims to be a Wise Man, leads to every evil.”

ὅπου … ἐκεῖ. For this rhetorical turn, cf. 1 Corinthians 3:3 and Epict. Diss. iii, 22:61 (Mayor).

ἀκαταστασία, “disorder,” “disturbance,” “trouble.” Cf. 1:8, 3:8 ἀκατάστατος.

The word seems to have something of the bad associations of our word “anarchy,” and has to bear much weight in this sentence. Cf. Proverbs 26:28, 1 Corinthians 14:33, 2 Corinthians 12:20 ζῆλος, ἐριθίαι, καταστασίαι; and the similar list of evils, Galatians 5:20, which has ζῆλος, ἐριθίαι, διχοστασίαι; Luke 21:9, Clem. Romans 1:3. See Hatch, Essays, p. 4: “The political circumstances of Greece and the East after the death of Alexander had developed the idea of political instability, and with it the word ἀκαταστασία, Polyb. 1. 70. 1.”

φαῦλον, “vile,” see Trench, Synonyms, § lxxxiv. φαῦλος is found only ten times in the LXX, five instances being in Proverbs, the others in Job, Ecclesiasticus, and 4 Maccabees.

17. Cf. Wisd. 7:22-25.

πρῶτον μὲν ἁγνή, “first pure,” i. e. “undefiled,” free from any faults such as the ζῆλος and ἐριθία above mentioned. Nothing which shows itself as half-good, half-bad, can be accounted wisdom, Wisd. 7:25.

See Trench, § lxxxviii and references in Lex.. s. v. ἅγιος. Cf. Php 4:8, 1 Peter 3:2. In the LXX ἁγνός is found eleven times, of which four instances are in Proverbs and four in 4 Maccabees. See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 5.

ἔπειτα introduces the following adjectives, which, thus grouped, stand over against ἁγνή, the quality from which they all proceed.

εἰρηνική, “peaceable,” cf. Matthew 5:9.

ἐπιεικής, “reasonable,” “considerate,” “moderate,” “gentle” (E.V.). See Trench, Synonyms, § xliii: “We have no words in English which are full equivalents of the Greek.” See Light-foot on Php 4:5, and Mayor’s note, p. 131.

This is a distinctively Greek virtue; the word ἐπιεικής and its derivatives are found but a few times in LXX, e. g. Psalm 86:5, Psalm 86:2 Macc. 9:27. In the N. T. 2 Corinthians 10:1, Php 4:5, 1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 3:2, 1 Peter 2:18, Acts 24:4.

εὐπειθής, “obedient,” “ready to obey”; here perhaps “willing to yield,” the opposite of “obstinate” (Philo, De fortitud. 3).

Only here in the N. T. In O. T. only 4 Maccabees, and in strict sense of “obedient.”

μεστή, cf. Romans 1:29, Romans 1:15:14, 2 Peter 2:14. The word is not common in LXX.

ἐλέους, “mercy,” a compassion which leads to practical help, not the mere emotion of pity, cf. 2:13. See Trench, Synonyms, § xlvii; and Lex.. s. v. ἐλεεῖν.

καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν, i. e. good works, cf. Matthew 21:43, Galatians 5:22, Ephesians 5:9, Php 1:11.

ἀδιάκριτος, “undivided,” i. e. unwavering, whole-hearted, with reference to the evil situation described in vv. 9-10.

Cf. 1:6 ὁ διακρινόμενος, 2:4 διεκρίθητε. Only here in N. T.; in O. T. cf. Proverbs 25:1 (ἀδιάκριτοι), and there the sense is doubtful. See Ign. Trall. 1:1 ἄμωμον διάνοιαν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ ἔγνων ὑμᾶς ἔχοντας, Rom. inscr., Philad. inscr., Magn. 15; Clem. Alex. Pœd. ii, 3, p. 190 ἀδιακρίτῳ πίστει.

The Latin translations (Vg. non judicans; Cod. Corb. sine dijudicatione) seem to have missed the meaning of this word, as have many interpreters. Thus Luther translates “unparteiisch”; so A.V., R.V. mg. “without partiality.”

ἀνυπόκριτος, “without hypocrisy.”

In O. T. only Wisd. 5:18, 18:16; in N. T. Romans 12:9, 2 Corinthians 6:6, 1 Timothy 1:5, 2 Timothy 1:5, 1 Peter 1:22, in sense of “sincere.” Elsewhere only as adverb (ἀνυποκρίτως), e. g. 2 Clem. Romans 12:3.

These characteristics of true wisdom are selected in pointed opposition to the self-assertive, quarrelsome spirit characteristic of the other sort. Apart from the fundamental ἁγνή they fall into three groups:

εἰρηνική, ἐπιεικής, εὐπειθής·

μεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν·

ἀδιάκριτος, ἀνυπόκριτος.

18. καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης, “the fruit of righteousness,” i. e. the reward which righteous conduct brings, cf. Hebrews 12:11 καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν δικαιοσύνης, Php 1:11 πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης.

That the expression “fruit of righteousness” has the sense “product of righteousness” is shown by those O. T. passages which seem to have given it its currency, and in which it is used with a variety of applications. Cf. Proverbs 3:9(LXX), 11:30 ἐκ καρποῦ δικαιοσύνης φύσεται δένδρον ζωῆς, i. e. “righteousness brings long life,” 13:2 (LXX), Amos 6:12. In all these cases δικαιοσύνης indicates the source of the “fruit.” Similarly Isaiah 32:17: “And the work of righteousness (τὰ ἔργα τῆς δικαιοσύνης) shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and confidence forever.” For the figure of sowing, cf. Proverbs 11:21 (LXX), ὁ δὲ σπείρων δικαιοσύνην λήμψεται μισθόν, Hosea 10:12, Job 4:8, Test. XII Patr. Levi, 13:6, etc.

ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται, “sown in peace,” and in peace only; i. e. a righteousness capable of gaining its due reward must be peaceable; cf. 1:20. The sower is, of course, the righteous man.

For the slightly inaccurate expression “sow the fruit, or crop” (instead of the seed), cf. Apoc. Bar. 32:1, “Sow the fruits of the law,” Plutarch, De vitando œre alieno, 4 σπείροντες οὐχ ἥμερον καρπόν, Antiphanes, Fab. inc. iv, 4 σπείρειν καρπὸν χάριτος.

τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην.

To “do peace” (cf. Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 1:20 εἰρηνοποιέω; Matthew 5:9 εἰρηνοποιός) means not merely to conciliate opponents, but to act peaceably. It is the complete opposite of ζῆλος and ἐριθία.

The interpretation of v. 18 here given may be paraphrased, with a change of figure, thus: “The foundation which righteousness lays for eternal life can be laid only in peace and by those who practise peace.” This is equivalent to saying that righteousness includes peaceableness.

Another common interpretation takes καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης as meaning “the fruit which consists in righteousness.” The source will then be the true wisdom, of which righteousness is the product. The evidence for this would be Hebrews 12:11, where righteousness seems to be itself the fruit, and the parallelism of Jam 3:16, where the product of ζῆλος and ἐριθία is said to be ἀκαταστασία and πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα. Php 1:11, to which appeal is often made, is ambiguous, and cannot be taken as meaning that righteousness is the fruit except by giving to δικαιοσύνη its peculiar Pauline sense.

But the O. T. passages referred to above create a strong presumption against this interpretation; the simple meaning of the phrase speaks against it; and, further, righteousness is more naturally thought of (apart from Pauline theology) as the condition of receiving divine reward, not as the reward itself. The general drift of the verse would be the same under either interpretation.

Lex. J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1886.

Mayor J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, 1892, 21897, 31910.

Winer G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Thayer’s translation, 21873.

J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol I. Prolegomena, 1906, 31908.

L. and S. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 71883.

Vg Vulgate.

Heisen H. Heisen, Novae hypotheses interpretandae epistolae Jacobi, Bremen, 1739.

Pott D. J. Pott, in Novum Testamentum Grœce, editio Koppiana, Göttingen, 31816.

* See Stephanus, Thesaurus, or Liddell and Scott, s. v. κύκλος.

† Of a different order is the mechanical conception of the revolving universe, used with great ingenuity by Plato, e. g. Polit. 12-14, pp. 269-271; Leg. 10, 8, p. 898.

* See also, for similar phrases, the index to Proclus Diadochus, In Platonis Timœum comm. ed. Diehl, 1906, s. v. κύκλος.

† This has gone into Cramer’s Catena, pp. 20 f.

‡ See E. Rohde, Psyche3, 1903, ii, pp. 121-131, 133-136, 165, note 2, 217-219 f.; Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena (as cited below); Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 1829, ii, pp. 795-806.

* The verse is from the Compagno tablet, Kaibel, Inscr. Ital. et Sicil. 641, p. 158. See Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, Cambridge, 1903, pp. 586, 589-594, 668-671; and note the similar use of στέφανος in other verses of the same inscription.

† Simplicius, In Arist. de cœlo comm. ii, p. 168 b (ed. Heiberg, p. 377).

‡ Proclus, In Plat. Tim. comm. v, p. 330 A; cf. also Orphica, fragmm. 222, 223, 225, ed. Abel, 1885, pp. 244-246.

§ Diogenes Laert. viii, 14, Vita Pythag. πρῶτόν φασι τοῦτον [Pythagoras] ἀποφῆναι τὴν ψυχὴν κύκλον ἀνάγκης ἀμείβουσαν ἄλλοτε ἄλλοις ἐνδεῖσθαι ζώοις.

""

See A. Dieterich, Nekyia, Leipzig, 1893, p. 141.

In any case a mere accidental coincidence seems to be involved in the fact that Simplicius’s “wheel of fate and birth” is an allegorical interpretation of Ixion’s wheel, and that Ixion’s wheel was sometimes represented as fiery. As a rationalising interpretation of James’s language, parallel to this, may be mentioned the idea of a wheel catching fire from a “hot box” at the axle, which is seriously offered by many commentaries!

HDB J. Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, 1898-1902.

Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 21902.

Schürer, E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 41901-1909.

Bultmann R. Bultmann, Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, xiii), 1910.

Buttmann A. Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, Thayer’s translation, 1876.

Trench, R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 121894.

GnK Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons, 1888-1892.

Hatch, Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889.