Does the Book of James Attack the Teachings of Paul?

Summary

Podcast Summary: Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman
Episode Title: Does the Book of James Attack the Teachings of Paul?
Hosts: Bart Ehrman & Megan Lewis
Date: November 21, 2023

---

Episode Overview

This episode delves into a core theological debate: Does the Book of James contradict the Apostle Paul’s teachings on salvation? Bart Ehrman and Megan Lewis explore the origins, context, and interpretations of James and Paul, focusing especially on how each defines concepts like faith, works, and justification. The discussion sheds light on the historical, linguistic, and doctrinal dimensions of this apparent New Testament contradiction—a question with significant implications for Christian theology and church history, especially in light of the Protestant Reformation.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Introducing James and Paul: Context & Authorship

• James as a 'Catholic Epistle':
  • Not “Roman Catholic” — “Catholic” means “universal” (Greek: katholikos), addressing a broad Christian audience rather than a specific congregation. [03:43]
• Authorship Issues:
  • Claims to be written by James, the brother of Jesus, but likely composed by someone else in his name well after Paul's writings (late 1st century). [04:59], [22:33]
  • Written in sophisticated Greek, which would have been unusual for the historical James, a rural Galilean. [24:52]
• James' Focus:
  • Primarily ethical instruction, emphasizing how Christians ought to live rather than doctrinal points. [03:43]

Paul’s Teachings and Luther’s Reformation

• Paul's Doctrine (Romans, Galatians):
  • “Justification”—being “made right with God”—comes via faith in Christ, not by “works of the law” (i.e., specific Jewish practices). [06:04], [12:38]
• Luther’s Interpretation:
  • Martin Luther considered James contradictory to Paul, seeing the Catholic Church as perpetuating the necessity of works for salvation—a view he thought Paul strenuously refuted. [06:04]
  • “If you could earn it, Christ wouldn’t have to die…” (Bart Ehrman, [06:54])

Were Paul and James at Odds Historically?

• Personal Relationship:
  • Historical James and Paul knew each other but, based on Paul’s letters, were usually neutral or cordial.
  • Exception: Galatians 2, where associates of James cause a rift about Jewish-Gentile table fellowship, suggesting at least one major disagreement. [08:19]
  • "Paul went ballistic about that and reprimanded Peter publicly. And it was all because of these people representing James..." (Bart Ehrman, [10:03])

The Crux: Justification, Faith, and Works

• Key Verses:
  • Romans 3:28: “One is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”
  • James 2:24: “A person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” [11:01]
• Greek Lexicon:
  • Both use the same vocabulary: “faith” (pistis), “works” (ergon), and “justify” (forms of dikaios), but with differing meanings. [12:48], [13:07]
• Differences in Meaning:
  • Paul:
    • “Faith” as a relational trust in Christ’s death and resurrection.
    • “Works” specifically are Jewish law observances.
  • James:
    • “Faith” as assent to propositional truths.
    • “Works” as ethical deeds—general acts of goodness, not specifically Jewish law. [15:03], [17:27]
  • "James is attacking a view of Paul's view of faith without representing it the way Paul represents it." (Bart Ehrman, [16:53])

Are They Contradicting Each Other?

• Surface Contradiction:
  • They use similar grammatical structures and even cite Genesis 15:6 about Abraham, apparently reaching opposite conclusions. [21:26], [21:49]
  • However, according to Ehrman, each is addressing different misconceptions:
    • Paul opposes making Jewish rituals prerequisites for salvation.
    • James opposes the idea that mere belief, with no behavioral outcome, is sufficient.
  • "It doesn't look to me like they're contradicting each other because they mean different things by faith, they mean different things by works." (Bart Ehrman, [19:44])

Why Does James Attack This 'Pauline' View?

• James’ Target:
  • Probably responding not to Paul himself, but to a later, radicalized interpretation among Pauline Christians—that nothing you do matters to salvation, only what you believe. [19:48], [21:26]
  • "James is attacking the version of Paul that he's heard. He's not necessarily attacking what Paul himself said." (Bart Ehrman, [21:18])

Authorship and Early Christian Disputes over James

• Skepticism About Authorship:
  • Early church leaders, like Eusebius and Jerome, and canonical lists like the Muratorian fragment, expressed doubts about James’ authenticity. [22:53]
• Literacy and Cultural Context:
  • Highly unlikely the historical James had the educational background to write in such sophisticated Greek. [24:52]
  • The book lacks the hallmark arguments (such as a focus on the Jewish law) typical of the historical James. [26:04]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Luther’s rejection of James:
  “He cordoned onto Paul and he thought that James contradicted that.” — Bart Ehrman [08:07]

• On What ‘Justified’ Means:
  “Being justified means being made right with God...the basic word means that you have been made right with God.” — Bart Ehrman [12:29]

• On Faith and Works:
  “Paul is talking about the works of the law... James is talking about whether you have to do good things or not.” — Bart Ehrman [17:27]

• On James' Misreading of Paul:
  “James is attacking a view of Paul's view of faith without representing it the way Paul represents it.” — Bart Ehrman [16:53]

• On Authorship Doubts:
  “There are very good reasons for thinking that James, the brother of Jesus, did not write this book... This book is written in Greek, and in fact it's high level Greek with lots of rhetorical strategies being employed...almost certainly has to be somebody living in an urban elite setting.” — Bart Ehrman [24:52]

---

Important Timestamps

• [03:43] — Introduction to the Book of James, its audience, authorship, and purpose
• [06:04] — Luther’s concerns: Catholic works vs. Paul’s justification by faith
• [08:19] — Evidence for personal tensions between historical James and Paul
• [11:01] — Contradictory verses: Romans 3:28 vs. James 2:24, and the meaning of "justified"
• [13:07] — Greek terms for faith and works
• [15:03] — Do Paul and James truly contradict each other?
• [17:27] — Defining “works” for Paul vs. James
• [19:48] — Why James is attacking a Pauline position
• [21:49] — Mutual referencing of Abraham and Genesis 15:6; direct response from James to Paul’s argumentation
• [22:33] — Discussion of the authorship of James and early doubts among church fathers
• [24:52] — Arguments against the historical James' authorship based on linguistic, educational, and thematic grounds
• [27:22] — The absence of law-keeping focus in James’ letter

---

Flow and Tone

• Scholarly, Accessible, and Occasionally Playful:
  Ehrman’s responses are thorough, clear, and delivered with both academic rigor and an approachable tone, occasionally seasoned with humor and personal anecdotes. Megan Lewis poses thoughtful, clarifying questions that help keep the discussion grounded for a broad audience.

---

Concluding Synthesis

Summary by Bart Ehrman [43:11]:

• The Book of James is a five-chapter general epistle, likely not written by Jesus’ brother.
• The so-called contradiction with Paul—in Romans and Galatians—hinges on differing definitions of “faith” and “works.”
• Paul: Salvation is through faith (trusting relationship), not Jewish ritual observance.
• James: Propositional belief alone is insufficient; ethical action is required.
• Bottom Line: "They're arguing past each other," with James likely responding to later distortions of Paul's teachings rather than Paul's own views.

---

For Further Listening:

The episode closes with next week’s preview (“Can God do anything, or are there things even God can’t do?”), and a reminder to subscribe and check out Bart’s online courses with a podcast-specific discount.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey campers, it's Jan from Toyota. This summer we're headed to Camp Toyota and the fun starts now. We're kicking things off by kicking up mud. Jump in campers. We're going off roading in a 4Runner. Next we're heading to the hot springs in Arav 4. And finally park your tundras and Tacomas around the campfire because we're roasting marshmallows. This summer starts here.

[B]

Dealer inventory may vary so your participating Toyota dealer for details. Event ends June 1st.

[C]

Toyota let's go places.

[D]

Welcome to Ms. Quoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman. The only show where a six time New York Times best selling author and world renowned Bible scholar uncovers the many fascinating little known facts about the New Testament, the historical Jesus and the rise of Christianity. I'm your host, Megan Lewis. Let's begin.

[E]

Hello everyone and welcome back to Misquoting Jesus. Today we are talking about salvation. It's one of the key themes of Christianity, but exactly how one achieves salvation has been the matter of debate. Is it simply by having faith in Jesus as Lord and savior or is how you live your life important too? The book of James and Paul's letter to the Romans both have thoughts to offer on this, thoughts that seem to be in direct contradiction with one another. I'm going to be asking Bart why this disagreement is so important and whether it is even a disagreement in the first place. But before we get to all of that interesting stuff, Bart, how are you doing today?

[B]

Yeah, I'm doing pretty well. So we're recording this on a Friday and I've got a free weekend. I mean free, not free free, but a free as in like I don't have any obligations. And I'm just trying to think when did this happen last? I was like, I have no idea. It's like Sarah's away for shares off in England and so I basically it's me and dog and I don't sit on the couch and watch TV all day kind of thing. Although I might watch some football. But I mean, basically it's a chance to do my own work and I'm going to be able to like work on my next book. And it's like, wow, that's a novelty. So, but then again, I don't have five kids. How's your weekend looking?

[E]

Busy. I think we, we're right in the middle of, as everyone knows, flu season and my toddlers are asthmatic. So I spent some time in the ER last week with one of them and she's still on her Inhaler every four hours. So the weekend is going to be staying inside because going out into the cold air exacerbates it and giving her her inhaler and trying to entertain her. Okay, yes, not a free weekend, but it'll be fun because even if we're confined inside two toddlers and a five year old is hilarious. The little ones have just got to the age where they can actually play properly with their brother. So they run around the house chasing each other, make believe things, and it's really very fun.

[B]

You know, when my kids were young, I. I realized much later that there were two key points in my existence. One was when they were old enough on Saturday morning to get up and turn on the cartoons themselves.

[E]

Yep.

[B]

And the second was when they got driver's licenses. Those are the two points of freedom for me as a parent.

[E]

I can. Yes, absolutely. With the cartoons and we haven't reached driver's licenses yet, but that's in the works. Something like it's going ye going to be quite a difference. We should talk about the Book of James, though. As I said in the beginning, we're talking about salvation in the Book of James and Paul's letter to the Romans. So we've talked a bit about Paul on various episodes of the podcast before, but I'm not sure we've really touched on the Book of James. So what is it and do we know when it was written?

[B]

Well, so the Book of James, it's one of the, it's called the. One of the Catholic epistles in the New Testament or one of the general epistles. The word Catholic in this context doesn't mean Roman Catholic. The word Catholic in Greek means universal for the whole world. And so it's one of these letters. There are seven of them that are not written to a particular congregation, but broadly for Christians. More broadly, it claims to be written by James. This person does not say which James he is since James was such a common name. There are five James is in the New Testament by not identifying himself and by writing to like Christians everywhere. It's pretty clear he means them to understand. Oh yeah, he's that James, that James is the brother of Jesus in the New Testament. And so the book is claiming to be written by Jesus brother James. And it's a five chapter book, relatively short, and it's mainly concerned with giving ethical instructions for how Christians ought to behave, how they should behave and why they should behave. And so it's a set of ethical injunctions to Christians. Broadly.

[E]

Do we know when it was Written in terms of maybe the order of the canon. Was it obviously after the Gospels, before the Gospels, where does it come?

[B]

It's hard to say. It's definitely, as we're going to see, it was definitely written after the writings of Paul, which are our earliest writings, Paul's letters, Most of them are probably in the 50s of the common Era. And so it's after that. We don't have much other indication. We know it's after those because this author's reacting to Paul, or least an interpretation of Paul. And as I'll be arguing a little bit, it doesn't look like he's directly in contact with Paul. It looks like he's in contact with a later interpretation of Paul, such as is found in some of the deutero Pauline letters of the New Testament, like Ephesians. And those are usually dated toward the end of the first century. And so it would be sometime after that. It's usually dated toward the end of the first century.

[E]

I see. I mentioned at the beginning that there's some debate about whether or how far James contradicts the teaching of Paul. And that goes back as early as, I think, Martin Luther. So why was this an important issue for Luther and for the Protestant Reformation?

[B]

Yeah, it was really important. And it had to do with how Luther was understanding what the Catholic Church was saying about salvation. Luther himself started out, of course, as Catholic. He was a Catholic priest and was a professor as a Catholic and was highly trained in Catholic theology. But at some point he came to think that the Catholic Church was advocating the wrong understanding of how a person's made right with God through Christ. And the debate between Paul and James ended up being important for that. The Apostle Paul and the Book of James. Luther came to think that in the Catholic Church, the emphasis had become that a person, of course, had to have faith in Christ, but also had to do a number of things in order order to acquire salvation. And that what a person does affects salvation. Luther came to think that salvation is completely the act of God. It's not something you do. You can't gain it, you can't earn it. If you could earn it, Christ wouldn't have to die. And so the fact that Christ died shows that that's the way of God's salvation, is by believing in Christ's death and resurrection, and doing things has nothing to do with it. And so he turned to Paul for this. And in Paul's writings, in Romans and in Galatians and other places, Paul stresses that justification, in other words, being justified, being Made righteous, being made right with God comes only through the death of Jesus. Not, for example, by doing the works of the law, not by doing the things that God demands in the law of Moses. Those things don't matter for salvation. Ultimately, what matters is faith in Christ's death and resurrection. Because if you could be saved by keeping the Jewish law, to be saved, all you have to do is become Jewish. And so that was Paul's view. And Luther used that to say that the Catholic Church is sort of the modern embodiment of the thing that Paul's attacking, that they're saying, you've got to do things for salvation, you have to have good works, and if you don't, you can't be saved. And Luther said, this is completely against what Paul thought. He cordoned onto Paul and he thought that James contradicted that.

[E]

Is there anything to suggest, historically speaking, that James and Paul were at odds with each other? Or is this something that has been read into their communications by later scholars?

[B]

It may be getting a little bit confusing to listeners because when I'm saying James, you know, we're talking about two different things. We've got James the letter, which is what we're going to be talking about mainly. And then we've got James the man. There really was a James, the brother of Jesus and Paul, and that James, the real James did have knew each other. And so it's a really good question. Did the historical Paul and the historical James get along? It's a little bit hard to tell because the New Testament evidence is mixed. Most of the New Testament evidence, it comes from Paul. So we know we have letters from Paul. We don't know that we have anything from James. As we'll be seeing, the letter allegedly from James probably was not written by James. But we do know we have the letters of Paul. And Paul tells us that he knows James, and he mentions him on a number of occasions. Most of the times that he mentions James is completely neutral. He doesn't say anything negative about him at all. He mentions, for example, in First Corinthians 15, that James is one of the first people that Christ appeared to after his resurrection. For example, he says that James in Galatians, that James is one of the pillars, one of the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, for example, and that he conferred with James. So those times when he mentions James, he doesn't say anything negative about him, you know, mentions his name and his importance. But there's one passage in Galatians, chapter two, where it looks like they were at Odds on a particular issue. Paul is recounting an event that when he was in the city of Antioch, the large city of Syria, which had a large congregation of Christians, Peter was there too. And they were meeting with the Christians there and having meals together and so on. And that was no problem because they're all followers of Jesus. There are Jews there, there are Gentiles there. They're all followers of Jesus. They're having their meals together. But some people from James came, says Paul, and that's how he says the people from James, and they insisted that the Jewish followers of Jesus could not have table fellowship with the Gentile followers of Jesus. And the logic of that is almost certainly that if somebody is a Jew and has to keep kosher and they're eating food in the Gentile home, they won't be able to keep the kosher laws. So these people from James are saying, you know, the Jewish Christians can't associate with the Gentile Christians. Paul went ballistic about that and reprimanded Peter publicly. And it was all because of these people representing James. Paul doesn't say that James himself held these views, but it certainly looks like it. And so that would be a major point where they disagreed, not whether Gentiles could be followers of Jesus, but whether anybody who doesn't keep the law can associate with somebody who does keep the law as a follower of Jesus. Big falling out.

[E]

So the disagreement that is referenced by Martin Luther and that we're talking about today is seen in Romans 3:28 and James 2. 24. Romans says that we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. And James reads, you see that a person is justified by work and not by faith alone. So before we get into the passages, specifically, what does justified mean in this context?

[B]

So it's a little bit difficult in English because we use different English words for the same Greek root. The root of this word justified in Greek is dikaios. Dikaios means like something like justice or righteousness or righteous or just or fair or being justified means being made right with God. The reason it's complicated is because our English word righteousness translates the noun form of this word dikaiosune, and our word justify translates the verbal form. So you get the verb and the noun in Greek, and it's the same, basically the same word, one's noun, one in English, you use justify for one and righteousness for another. And so it gets complicated because you don't have. You don't have a noun and a verb in English. So you could say, like, you have righteousness, but you can't say that you've been righteous, if you see what I mean. And so you could say it would justify kind of like you have justice, I guess, and you've been justified. It doesn't really, really work. The basic word means that you have been made right with God.

[E]

So that's, that's the justified. What about faith and works? And do James and Paul use the same Greek words, or am I being led astray by English translations here?

[B]

No, they use the same words. The word for faith is pistis, and the word for works is ergos, like in ergonomic. Something's ergonomic if it works. Well, I guess these words are all the same between James and Paul when they're talking about is a person justified by faith or works?

[E]

Okay, thank you. Now, it seems that Paul is saying that faith in Jesus is all you need for salvation, no works necessary. Is that an accurate understanding?

[B]

Yeah, kind of. So one of the things that's going to work out here is that Paul and James are both talking about being made right with God. The term justification means basically the same thing between them, but they mean different things by faith and works. And this is going to be the key. It's a key because this verse and a couple of others in both James and Paul were used by Martin Luther and are continued to use by Protestants and Catholics. These verses to justify their positions, to show that their positions are right. I do have to say something about those two verses that you quoted. They both say a person, so it's just like a neutral. Just a person is justified. Passive in the passive is justified by either faith, pistis, or works. Those words and the passive construction are all in common in one sentence between both James and Paul's letter to the Romans. And it's the only two places in all of early Christian literature that you have those features combined. In other words, clearly James is modeling whoever wrote this letter is modeling his sentence on what Paul had said. So that Paul had said, a person is justified by faith, not by works of the law. And James says a person is justified by works, not by faith alone. So that's why it matters is because this is exactly one's responding to the other. So the question is, what is faith in works?

[E]

The passages that I quoted that you just said do seem to be in direct contradiction. James is saying you need the works. Paul is saying you need faith only. Are these contradictions or are they using these words to mean different things?

[B]

Luther thought they contradicted Each other. It's one reason he put James in the appendix of his translation of the New Testament. And many people still think that. But I think it's wrong. I don't think they're contradicting each other. And as you know, it's not because I'm afraid of contradictions in the Bible. I have no fear of contradictions, but I don't think this is one of them. And it's because I think they mean different things. By both terms, faith in Paul means something like it's a relational term. You have faith in Christ means that you trust that Christ's death and resurrection will put you into a relationship with God. And so you have trust that Christ's death fulfills God's promises. And so you stand in relationship to Christ's death in a way that makes you right with God. James does not mean that. By faith, James means accepting a certain set of propositional statements as being true. In other words, there are people today who, you know, who feel that they've got a, you know, they've got a relationship with Jesus. And so that's their faith in Christ, is the relationship with Jesus. There are other people who say they have faith because they believe certain things. They believe that there's only one God, that Jesus is his son, that Jesus died for their sins, that Jesus was raised from the dead. They accept these propositions as true. James has this idea that its propositions are true as faith. And Paul has the idea that it's a relational term, so they're meaning different things. The evidence for this is when James at one point in his letter says he's mocking somebody who says that you have faith and that's enough. And he says, the demons believe or they have faith that there's only one God. What good does that do them? I mean, yeah, you can acknowledge the propositional truth, but that isn't. And so, you know, propositional truth won't save you. And so James is saying that a propositional statement you agree with will not save you. And Paul doesn't disagree with that. Paul doesn't think faith is a matter of propositional terms. He thinks it's a trusting relationship. James is attacking a view of Paul's view of faith without representing it the way Paul represents it.

[E]

So if we look at other passages in the book of James and other sections of Paul's letters, did these speak to the author's views on faith and works to kind of help us more fully understand exactly what they're talking about here?

[B]

Very much so. And especially with this term works, because this is really where the rubber meets the road when it comes to the comparison between these two. Because Paul says that a person is justified by faith, not by works of the law. And James says a person is justified by works not by faith alone. And so it just sounds like they're saying the same thing, but they ain't saying the same thing. Paul is talking about the works of the law. By that he means doing the things that God commands in the law of Moses. He's talking about things that make Jews Jewish. So you circumcise your baby boy. So if you're male, you gotta be circumcised. And you've got to keep the Sabbath and you have to observe the kosher food laws and you have to keep the festivals. And you, you know, so there are these rules that just make Jews distinctive. And Paul's saying that these rules, these laws that make Jews distinctive have no bearing on salvation. So the works of the law are these things that the law Moses demands of Jews. And James is not talking about that. James is talking about whether you have to do good things or not. Do you have to do good deeds? James view is that if you agree on certain propositional statements, for example, you agree that Christ was raised from the dead, you agree that Christ was taken up into heaven, you agree with that. Intellectually, that doesn't make you right with God. You've got to show it in your life. And throughout the book of James, this is the dominant theme. You've got to show it, otherwise it's just empty talk. Paul isn't talking about that. Paul's not talking about whether your life has to reflect your faith. Paul very much believes that your life has to reflect your faith. When you read Paul's letters, a third of each letter, virtually or more, is about how you need to behave. And so Paul's not telling you that you can lead this crazy, licentious life and still be saved if you agree with a certain set of propositions. But that's what James is attacking. So it doesn't look to me like they're contradicting each other because they mean different things by faith, they mean different things by works. And then the big question is, why is James attacking a position that Paul doesn't have?

[E]

That is a good question. Do we know why that's going on?

[B]

Well, I think we know, but I don't think Martin Luther knew. But I think scholarship since then has shown what's going on. What's going on, I think, is that Paul advocated to his Gentile converts that they would be made right with God by their faith in Christ, by their trust in Christ's death and resurrection, without keeping the Jewish law. So Gentiles could be followers of Jesus without keeping the Jewish law. And the term he used then was works of the law. You don't have to do the works of the law. And eventually Paul's converts came to take this to mean that you're made right with God by your faith, not by anything you do. You can't earn your salvation. And so in the book of Ephesians, for example, there's a very, very big stress in Ephesians that you're not justified by anything you do, that it's only by the grace of God that you're made right with God. So now it's no longer talking about doing the things that make Jews Jewish. Now it's talking about you can't do anything. You have to accept the grace that God gives. And that's what James is attacking. Because the corollary of that is that you could do anything you jolly well please. Because it doesn't matter what you do, it just matters what you believe. And so you need to believe, and it doesn't matter how you live your life. And some Pauline Christians in the next generation or so are taking it to that extreme. They're saying that, look, it just matters what you believe. It doesn't matter how you live. And James is attacking that. So James is attacking the version of Paul that he's heard. He's not necessarily attacking what Paul himself said.

[E]

I see, thank you. Even though they're not actually, if you look at the wider context and the other writings, they're not actually contradicting each other. They're talking about different things. They do use, as you mentioned, the same vocabulary. If you read the passages, both of them refer to Abraham and quote Genesis 15:6. It's obviously not coincidental. This is because James is responding directly to Paul's writing.

[B]

This is the clear proof. There have been scholars, good scholars, who've said, yeah, James isn't really replying to Paul, but it is not an accident that you have, as I said, you've got these words and these grammatical structures in the same sentence in both of them, meaning allegedly saying opposite things. But then you also, to prove their position, both of them say that Abraham proves it, and they quote the same verse, Genesis 15:6, that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. In other words, he was justified. The fact that they quote the same verse both Appeal to Abraham, both use works, both use faith and talk about being justified in the passive. I mean, so, yes, it is clear that the author of James, whoever it was, is responding to Paul.

[E]

So we spoke about the historical James and the historical Paul, and you mentioned that the historical James quite probably did not write the book of James. The writer wanted you to think that he was the brother of Jesus, but that's not likely. What are the arguments for who actually did write the book of James? And do some people think it was the brother of Jesus?

[B]

Well, I'd say probably out of the 2 billion Christians in the world, they're probably about 2 billion believe it is the brother of Jesus. So it's only scholars who have seen the problems with that. Scholars have seen problems with that since the 19th century especially. I should say that in early Christianity, there were church fathers who doubted that this book should belong in the Scriptures. And going back to as far back as we have people talking about which books ought to be in, we have people saying, don't include James. Going back to our first canon list of the second century, the Muratorian fragment, and by the time we get to Eusebius in the fourth century, Eusebius says that some people doubt whether it should be long in Scripture, and Jerome says the same thing. And so there were doubts early on whether it was a apostolic canonical book or not. But then once it, you know, after the 5th century, basically everybody accepted was in the 19th century that scholars started realizing that there are big problems with James. And part of the problem is the authorship issue. Who actually wrote this thing? These problems have become pronounced in the 20th, now the 21st century. There are very good reasons for thinking that James, the brother of Jesus, did not write this book. I've got a couple books that deal with this issue of forgery, where people claim to be a famous author when they're someone else. And even a lot of scholars get upset when I use the term forgery, but it's not really my term. It's what we call works when somebody claims to be a famous person and they're someone else. And it's used of ancient writings generally. And the ancients used really quite negative terms for this phenomenon as well. And so my two books, one is just called Forged, something like why the Bible's authors are not who we think they are. And the other is a more serious academic book called Forgery and Counter Forgery, where I give an extended discussion about the book of James and show why it almost certainly was not written by the brother of Jesus. And so I'll just give you a couple things here. One is that James, as a brother of Jesus, would have grown up in a small hamlet, four or five hundred people, in a rural part of a backwoods area of the empire, and would have grown up as a manual laborer of some kind, a day laborer. There's no way he got an education. You know, there wasn't a school in Nazareth. The people got educations, were the urban elite. And so even if he could, in the New Testament, his brother can read. Jesus can read, but that astonishes the townspeople. It's the people he grew up with. How did he learn all this? And so he was the star of the family James, I think I don't see any way that he learned how to read. But if he did learn to read, you would have learned how to read Hebrew. And it took years and years to learn how to write after you learn how to read in the ancient world. And this book is written in Greek, and in fact it's high level Greek with lots of rhetorical strategies being employed. This is somebody who's highly trained with a Greek education that almost certainly has to be somebody living in an urban elite setting. And so I don't see any way that it could have been James.

[E]

So what other arguments are there that this probably wasn't written by James, brother of Jesus?

[B]

Well, the other main argument is that the kinds of things we know that the brother Jesus, James was an advocate for are precisely lacking in this book. And this book is emphasizing things that aren't really connected with James at all. So the thing about James that we know from Paul's writings, but also buttressed by the Book of Acts in the New Testament and by all the later traditions about James, is that he was quite a vehement proponent of keeping the Jewish law and that the followers of Jesus, even followers of Jesus, had to keep the Jewish law. And his concern was keeping the Jewish law. And you find this, you find this account of him going into the second century, an author named Hegesippus. And you people have this. They know that James, this is what he was all about. And there's nothing about that in the book of James. It's not about, look, you need to get circumcised, you need to keep kosher, you need to observe the Sabbath. It's like, it's nothing like that. It's general moral discourse, you know, keep control of your tongue, don't talk so much and don't favor the rich, you know, and you know, and help out who are in need and basic things that are great moral teachings but not, you know, specific to James. They're just moral teachings. And the things James is concerned about are completely lacking in this book.

[E]

Well, thank you very much. That was interesting. As always, we're going to take a quick ad break and then we'll be back with bart's weekly updates, followed by some listeners questions.

[D]

Have you ever wondered where the New Testament Gospels really came from? Were the books actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? As everyone seems to say, the answers to these questions may surprise you. In fact, what you discover may challenge everything you thought you knew about the Gospels. If you're ready to learn the historical truth, then you won't want to Ms. Bart Ehrman's free webinar. Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually Write Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? In this 50 minute talk with Q and A, you'll learn answers to some of the most intriguing questions surrounding the Gospel's authorship, such why did early Christians say the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? If they're anonymous, what's the best evidence that the Gospels were written by the apostles? Were the apostles of Jesus educated well enough to write books? And last, if the apostle if the apostles did not write the Gospels, who did? And where did they get their information? Don't miss your chance to uncover the truth behind the Gospels. Sign up now for free lifetime access to Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually Write Matthew, Mark, Luke and john? @barterman.com Authors thank you.

[C]

This is bart's weekly update where we get to catch up on all the latest about Dr. Ehrman's book releases, speaking engagements, ehrmanblog.org happenings and online course launches.

[E]

So Bart, this is in the US A holiday week. What are you up to? Do you have fun plans?

[B]

I do. And this is a memorable week for me always, every year because right. The weekend before Thanksgiving is the annual Society of Biblical Literature meeting where thousands of biblical scholars get together and read papers and, you know, listen to papers. And I go to meet old friends and hang out with my former students. I should go to more papers, but I don't. I figure if they're really good at those, somebody will publish them and I'll read them. But so but that's been great. And now we're Sarah and I are off to Thanksgiving with friends in in Austin. The meeting this year happened to be in San Antonio. And so this is great. I Thanksgiving's my favorite holiday of the year. It's time for family and Friends and football. I guess Those are all Fs and hanging out and, you know, without necessary religious connotations. It's just. I mean, it has a murky history, I'll. I'll say that. So it is like everything. It's fraught with problematic, but in its current celebration, it's fantastic, I think. How about you? Do you have big, big Thanksgiving plans?

[E]

No, we. We are staying home because. Traveling with 8 million children. Actually, that's the reason I'm not attending any of our conferences this year either, which is a shame. But it's one of those. When the children are bigger, there will be time for that kind of thing and catching up with people. But no, this year we're staying home. I think Josh is going to cook because he likes cooking and I get very, very stressed, so he does the cooking and I will run around chasing children and try and help tidy up. He doesn't let me do the washing up, though, so.

[B]

Well, good on him. But, you know, I gotta say, my. My British relatives, one year I went over to England and, And cooked them a Thanksgiving dinner. We were over there and, man, they thought it was fantastic. It was, it was. And you know, it's very similar to a traditional Christmas dinner in many ways, but there are some differences too. And so.

[E]

Yeah, yeah, my, My oldest adores sweet potato casserole, which is very, very American. And.

[B]

Yeah, but is it like with the marshmallows on top sort of stuff?

[E]

Yes, she likes the marshmallows and the brown sugar.

[B]

Yeah, that's how they like it. I know. No, sweet potatoes are fantastic. But yeah, Americans. Americans have funny recipes, let me tell you.

[E]

So, yes, we will. There will be sweet potato casserole. And I've introduced Yorkshire puddings to our Thanksgiving experience.

[B]

Turkey with turkey instead of beef.

[E]

I mean, no, we don't particularly like turkey. I usually try and get duck.

[B]

Oh, okay. But, you know, I used to, when my kids were young, I used to cook a Thanksgiving dinner where I would make Yorkshire pudding using the turkey drippings instead of beef drippings.

[E]

I save bacon fats through the year for our Yorkshire puddings over Thanksgiving, Christmas.

[B]

I tell you, Americans need to get onto Yorkshire pudding. And the other thing Americans need to get onto are parsnips. I'm telling you, I missed parsnips.

[E]

Oh, gracious.

[B]

Americans have no idea. I'm telling you, it's amazing that they aren't more popular in America because they are fantastic. Yeah, they add so much. Okay, well, I hope so. You're having duck and parsnips Is that it?

[E]

If I could find parsnips, we would, but I actually can't find them here for love or money.

[B]

Yeah, I get them here. I get them here in North Carolina.

[E]

So I need to take a trip down to see you, grab some parsnips, come back home again.

[B]

You absolutely need to.

[E]

Okay, well, that's probably enough of us reminiscing about food. As much as I've enjoyed it, it's possibly not the best listening for our audience, but we are going to go over to some listeners questions.

[C]

Now it's time for questions from listeners where Bart answers real questions submitted by misquoting Jesus fans. If you'd like to submit a question for future segments, Please visit bart erman.com Ask Bart

[E]

okay, we have, as always, an excellent, varied selection of questions from our wonderful audience. First up, Stoic philosophy was prevalent in Rome at the time of early Christianity. Did it influence early Christianity? And if so, how?

[B]

This is what I've been doing my research on for my next book is the effect the relationship between Roman moral philosophy, including Stoicism, but also other other kinds, Epicureanism and Plato and Aristotle and stuff in relationship to Christianity. And a number of people have noted a number of strong connections between Stoicism and Christianity. I mean, when you read Paul's letters, some of his moral exhortations are things that sound like a Christianized version of Stoicism but with a very different kind of Christian twist on them. So for example, Stoics are very much into the idea that you should not worry about the things that happen to you that you can't control. You should only worry about things that you can control, like difficulties you have in life and the pain and suffering you have in life. These need to be secondary to they can't really touch you. And Paul also agrees that these things cannot touch you. And in fact he welcomes suffering in many places. But for him it's because of Christ and for the Stoics it's because it's all about you. I mean, you're able to withstand these things and be a happier person. And so it's whether it's like some kind of internal resources as in Stoicism, or whether it's Christ as in Paul. Anyway, we could talk a long time about this, but yes, there are Stoic influences on the New Testament, but also very anti Stoic views because of the Christology, because of the understanding of Christ.

[E]

Excellent. Thank you. Next question. I heard an interpretation of the Philippines Hymn as an Adamic Christology which is Jesus as the new and improved Adam. Have you heard of this and what do you think of it?

[B]

Yeah. So this will take a long time to unpack, but I'll do it very quickly. The Philippians hymn, which is a misnomer, it's really probably better called the Philippians poem. Everybody calls it the hymn, but it's not a hymn. You can't scan it to be sung the way other stuff can be. So it's a poem in Philippians chapter two, where Paul celebrates Christ as the one who was in the form of God, but didn't regard equality with God was something to be grasped after. But he dampened himself and became a human being and then suffered death. And so then God highly exalted him. This is normally has traditionally been taken to mean that Christ was a pre existent divine being who gave up his rights as God in order to become a human being. He was in the form of God, but he gave it up to become a servant. An Adamic interpretation of that Adamic refers to Adam as in Adam and Eve. It's a view that's been around for a long time. It was especially promoted by a English New Testament scholar named James Dunn who said that when Paul says that Christ was in the form of God, that's a reference to the book of Genesis. Humans are made in the likeness of God. Adam is made in the likeness of God, and that's the form of God. What it's saying is that Christ was the second Adam. As Paul says in the book of Romans chapter 5, Christ actually came into the world as the second Adam. The first Adam tried for equality with God. He wanted to have the wisdom he could have by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. So he tried to be equal with God and it led to his fault. Christ, on the other hand, was obedient to God instead of disobedient. And so he's the one who brought salvation. And so it's a parallel between Adam and Christ rather than Christ as a pre existent being. It's a very interesting idea. It's one that I wrestled with strenuously already when I was a master's student in my master's program. I had to write a term paper on this topic. And I decided then what I really think now, which is that this is not a reference to the Genesis story about Adam. The term that used for the form of God is not the term used for Adam in the likeness of God. And the differences are too significant. So I think this really is talking about A pre existent divine being who becomes a human.

[E]

I see. Thank you very much for that explanation and evaluation. Jesus, in how he is portrayed in the Gospels, seems to be very knowledgeable about Scripture and is a man with a lot of insightful comments and ideas. So if he was raised in Nazareth, in a hamlet, as we were discussing earlier, as the son of a carpenter, where did he acquire this knowledge and worldview? Is it possible that he traveled to India or other places before beginning his ministry?

[B]

I'll answer the second question first. The answer is no. He certainly did not travel to India or Egypt. The places that you will find records of him doing that are in 19th century forged Gospels. That's where this idea started from. There were gospels that were forged in the 19th century that claimed that he went off and studied with the Brahmins in India, where he went down to Egypt and learned his magic, his ability to do miracles there. I talk about those in my book Forged. That book I mentioned earlier. My final chapter is dedicated to discussing these ideas and these Gospels and showing why they're later forgeries. But where did he get his information from? It's exactly the question that his townspeople are asking in Mark, chapter six. Where did he get all of this? I think historically it's very hard to know. So it's hard to know how much he knew and what he knew. He does quote the Bible in a number of places, but he doesn't quote a wide range of biblical passages. And the quotations on his lips, of course, are being recorded by authors living 50, 60 years later who weren't there. And so we don't really know what he was quoting or what he knew. If he did know Scripture as well as it appears that he does from the Gospels, then there must have been some kind of Jewish teacher in Nazareth. They would have gotten together for Sabbath services, and if they had a Torah scroll there, would have read the Torah scroll. And we've talked about it. And so it may be that he was one of these people who picked up on information quickly and remembered it and simply got it from his synagogue services. And possibly there was a rabbi of some kind in town that he learned from.

[E]

Thank you. I have to say I am very envious of people with those kinds of memories. I am married to someone with that kind of memory. And he can quote entire paragraphs and whole episodes of Seinfeld and that kind of thing.

[B]

Looks kind of like Jesus quoting Scripture, right?

[E]

I think so. Okay, final question before we wrap up for the day. Mark was written at the time of the Destruction of the temple and the evil Jesus refers to in Mark is probably associated with Rome's occupation of the Jewish homeland. So why is it that the Romans are only secondary actors in the decision to kill Jesus, with the Jewish crowd egged on by the Pharisees primarily being to blame for his crucifixion both in Mark and the later gospels? Was this done to encourage Gentiles, including Roman citizens, to convert to Christianity?

[B]

Yeah, so it's a good question. So it's a complicated question. The dating of Mark is debated, but most scholars do date it around 70. When the temple was destroyed, Jerusalem was destroyed. Mark himself didn't live in Israel. He was a Greek speaking person, lived outside of Israel, so he would have heard about it. In Mark, it is Pontius Pilate who orders Jesus death, but he does so at the insistence of the crowds. So the big question, one of the big questions is whether Mark is being historically reliable there or not. Were there Jewish crowds at the trial of Jesus urging Pilate to kill him? I think the answer is almost certainly no. That's not how Pilate would have conducted trials generally. Or in this particular case, they would have been small, private quiz events, you know, in a private room where he was ruling. And it would have been, you know, somebody would bring Jesus forward, accuse him of something, and Pilate might ask him a question or two or not, and just decide to have him crucified. And so there weren't thousands of people around. Mark portrays it though, that the crowds are demanding his death and that they're being spurred on by the chief priests and the scribes. So why is that? The questioner is asking, is it possible to kind of encourage Gentiles to follow Jesus because these Jews rejected him? That might be part of it. I think the bigger part of it is the first of our gospels is emphasizing the Jewish culpability in the death of Jesus. There are other elements of Mark that appear to be opposed to Jews and Judaism. And this opposition to Judaism gets heightened as you go into the later gospels. By the time you get to Matthew's Gospel, Pilate actually washes his hands and declares himself innocent of Jesus blood and the entire people, the Jewish people cry out, his blood be upon us and our children. That's not good. In Luke, Pilate declares Jesus innocent three times, declares him innocent three times, and the crowd cries out, no. Crucify him. So that's not good. In the Gospel of John, the chief priests and scribes stir up the crowds against Jesus. And the chief priests and scribes insist that Pilate kill him. And. And in the Greek it says Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. The chief priests and the scribes.

[E]

What?

[B]

And so what's going on is that over time, Jews are becoming more and more culpable for the death of Jesus in the eyes of Christians. And part of that is because Christians and Jews were at odds with each other when most Jews would not accept Jesus as the Messiah. That created tensions and created animosity and anger and reprisals, and they went after each other. And this is one way, at least in print, that Christians were going after Jews for rejecting their own Messiah.

[E]

I see. Thank you very much for your answer, listeners. Thank you all for your questions. They are always fantastic. But before we finish for the week, would you mind just summarizing what we spoke about today?

[B]

Yeah. In this episode, we've been talking about the Book of James, the letter of James in the New Testament, one of the general or Catholic epistles, a five chapter book allegedly written by Jesus, brother. We've been especially looking at whether or not it contradicts the teachings of Paul as found in the New Testament, especially in Romans and Galatians. And it does appear to be directed against Pauline's statements. The Book of James does seem to be opposing Paul's statements, but what I argued is that they're not actually contradicting each other. Because when Paul says that a person is made right with God by faith and not by doing works of the law, he means that a person is made right with God without being Jewish. James says a person is not saved by faith, but by doing works. He means a person isn't saved by simply agreeing with certain Christian propositions, but they have to live a Christian life. And I don't think Paul would disagree with that and I don't think James would disagree with what Paul said. So they're arguing past each other. But it's because James has heard a different version of Paul that developed after Paul's life. And I argued that in fact, James, who's writing this, whoever that was, was not really Jesus, brother. It was somebody living at a different time claiming to be James.

[E]

Bart, thank you very much. As always, audience, thank you for listening. I hope you enjoyed the show. If you did, please subscribe to the podcast and make sure you don't miss future episodes. Remember that you can use the code mjpodcast for a discount on all of Bart's courses over at www.bartehrman.com. misquoting Jesus will be back next week, but what are we talking about next time?

[B]

So next time we're talking about why it is that within the Christian tradition, there are many people who are Christians who have firm ideas about what it is God can and cann do. And often these kind of statements about what God can't do are used in order to defend their Christian faith. And we're going to be questioning whether it, in fact, is true that God can't do this, that or the other thing. And so that's what we'll be talking about.

[E]

Thank you all, and goodbye.

[D]

This has been an episode of Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman. We'll be back with a new episode next Tuesday. So please be sure to subscribe to our show for free on your favorite podcast listening app or on Bart Ehrman's YouTube channel so you don't miss out from Bart Ehrman and myself, Megan Lewis,

[E]

thank you for joining us.