James 1:1 indicates that he is writing to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion.” Assuming that this line is to be read literally, we need to understand what a Jewish writer would have meant when he said “twelve tribes” and Diaspora. Simply put, a Jew “living in the Diaspora” was a Jew living outside of “the land.” But things are a bit more complicated than that.
The Judaism of the first century developed the way it did because of the exile. The exile could begin as early as 722 B.C. when Samaria fell to Assyria, but the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. is the usually beginning point for most scholars. The fall of Jerusalem was the event that shaped Jewish religion as we know it in the Second Temple Period because it stripped the Jews of all things which constituted ethnicity. They no longer had land, their language began to shift from Hebrew to Aramaic, and there was a significant threat from intermarriage. The Jews, as a people, were at risk of losing their ethnicity.
How did the Jews survive the exile? All other peoples of the ancient world integrated and disappeared from history. How many people claim to be Moabites these days? The primary factor is Jewish Religious tradition centered on the Torah. These traditions kept them from assimilating into a host culture. The story of Daniel is only one example of Jews working within a culture yet remaining distinct from it. Centers of Jewish cultures developed in Alexandria and Elephantine in Egypt and in Babylon. These places continued to develop well into the current era. It is likely that Babylon and Alexandria were superior centers of Judaism to Jerusalem for much of the Second Temple period.
Those who chose to live outside of the land rather than return to Jerusalem always face problems in living in accordance with their traditional customs. The main three which are typically identified: monotheism, Sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws. It is not a surprise to find these as the main points of controversy in the New Testament. While Paul does not shift on monotheism, he does not require gentiles to conform to the other three boundary markers and it is at least possible he may have been open to Jews not practicing food laws or worshiping on a day other than Sabbath.
The important thing to remember when discuss the Diaspora is that it was not as much geographical as cultural. Paul might encounter strongly traditional Jews in Ephesus or Rome, and relatively “liberal” Jews in Jerusalem. In fact, I suggest that the Jews who ran the Temple in the first century were far less traditional than the Jews who worshiped in the Greek-speaking synagogues in and around Jerusalem. The fact that the first violent persecution of the followers of Jesus came out of the Greek-speaking synagogue (Acts 7) is an indication that at least those Diaspora Jews were “conservative” with respect to the Temple.
So back to James. I think that he is certainly writing to Jews who are Christians, but they are people who may very well represent the more conservative form of Judaism before accepting Jesus as Lord. If this is true, it may explain James’ insistence on good works, for example, as a sign of true faith.
How might this understanding of Diaspora help us to read the Letter of James? How can this Letter be understood as addressing the needs of Diaspora Jews?
16 thoughts on “James and the Diaspora”
Reading the book of James thinking about Diaspora Jews helps me think through what this book is actually saying. I think that James is trying to get the Jews to focus back of living a Christian life. From reading the book of James I find that much of what the author has said is pleading with the people to act like Christians. Sounds like from the reading the people have been getting into arguments, accepting rich people over the poor, pride, favoritism and things like that.
Reading this in light of the Diaspora Jews helps me realize who exactly James is writing to. These people are going through things that they normally would not have had to worry about. They were in a new time and may have forgotten a lot of the basic things it meant to be a follower of Jesus. James is trying to get them to realize what it means to follow Jesus.
Important background info here, Phillip. Your points about exile and 2nd Temple Judaism could lead to a lot of interesting discussion points. But less extensively for now: I’d add to (for the lightly educated) your implication about forms of belief/practice. Indeed, Judaism was complicated all along (cf. the Prophets of the OT, e.g.)… hard to ID the “faithful” and what they really believed and did, changing over time. But we know of at least 4 distinct major sects at the time of Jesus, and there were probably many other variations (with implications for how most tend to understand the situation and use of “the Jews” in the Gospels). Indeed, at least the higher priests were quite compromised via collaboration with Roman rulers, for just one issue.
But to get to James (the letter): several q’s come to mind (which are often not even asked but certainly SHOULD BE).
1. Who really wrote James, and when? (To me, it doesn’t make sense without a LOT of straining of the little we know, that it was the brother of Jesus/head of the Jeru. “church”.)
2. How/why did it even make it into the canon? (Probably a wise move for the long term, to give Christianity additional flexibility and/or credibility, but at the time??)
3. If indeed written AFTER the destr. of Jeru., what does it imply about the rift between this much more Jewish-religious approach and the radical new propositions of Paul? (If it was by “James”, we can be almost sure it had to have been pre-62, the likely date of James’ death, and this presents real problems.)
4. Related to #3, Pauline theology, if not Paul himself (unlikely he was still alive), certainly seems to be in mind in much of its demonstrate-faith-by-works emphasis. But supposedly (per Acts) this all got amiably settled and agreed upon via the “Jerusalem Council” and/or the later visit by Paul to Jerusalem, during which he was arrested and taken to Rome. At least this is the typical Evangelical/conservative reading of Acts (whereas Acts is actually pretty evasive on important details and slanted to present such a picture, contrary to much of what Paul himself says).
James is an inspiring book as to ethical, compassionate behavior (whether Jewish, Christian or humanistic). It is “Christian” in the broad sense at least, while compatible with Judaism as well, it seems to me. But it is also a fascinating and important book historically in any attempt to understand the real processes of the formation of Christianity and its early relations with its parent, Judaism (i.e., issues of Christian origins)…. Helps to illustrate that our knowledge is very incomplete and our easy assumptions are not well founded, including critical ones like who was considered authoritative and on what basis (for ideas of a “revealed, authoritative” New Testament, for example).
I agree with Dan that understanding who the recipients were helps us to see that things were changing at that time, which is why James writes. The Diaspora Jews were struggling with what laws to follow because they were of the mindset of the Pharisees in which the Law was everything. But when they came to know the Gospel, they had a hard time figuring out what to do with their beliefs and practices that they’ve held for so long. So James addresses this problem. “James, following Jesus’ teaching, completely transposes the ethical basis of Christian faith from any form of legalism to the more demanding law of loving one’s neighbor as oneself” (Jobes 175).
James followed many of Jesus’ teachings, as there are so many different parallels between the book of James and Matthew’s Gospel. For example, James 2:14-16 is similar to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7:21-13 that speaks on faith without works being worthless. It seems that James is connecting for the Diaspora Jews that the Law and it’s practices are not to be totally forgotten but instead understood with a different light, as Jesus taught it. So James used some of the elements of the Law, such as loving your neighbor as yourself, and tried to expand their understanding of what Jesus taught. Perhaps that would have been something James could easily do because he himself did not understand Jesus’ ministry for a while. So reading the book of James in this light might help us understand why it is so focused on faith with works, among other things that would connect with Law following Jews.
I agree with Dan and Josh in that “…understanding who the recipients were helps us to see that things were changing at that time…” Gaining a better grasp of the context of a book always helps to illuminate the purpose of a text by putting ourselves into the shoes of the original audience. However, I am not sure how the differentiation between diaspora Jews and the Jews in the land makes much an impact on the interpretation and understanding of the text. It seems that the major themes discussed in James would apply to both types of Jews, unless I am vastly missing the separation between these two groups. James is definitely directed toward a Jewish audience because of its use of the law as central in God’s dealings with people, allusions to Old Testament metaphors, assumptions of Old Testament beliefs and knowledge of key Old Testament people such as Abraham and Rahab (Jobes 165). Keeping in mind that the audience is Jewish definitely gives clarity to the book, but the specification of diaspora Jews does not seem as vital.
Another thing I find interesting about this is that Paul’s letters would technically be written to an audience of diaspora Jews and Gentiles that are now Christian. So could the same implications that apply to James be given to all or most of Paul’s letters?
Reading through the book of James with a different mindset, and thinking about the Diaspora Jews helps me to reflect on the true meaning of the book. Jobes says in Letters to the Church “James is not teaching about Jesus, but is applying the teaching of Jesus as normative for the Christian life” (pg 198). I like to agree with Jobes with this that the book of James was written for people (Jews) to focus on the Christian life, and get on the right track. Having an understanding of the Diaspora Jews helps me to understand why it was written the way it is. They needed extra guidance getting back on track with being a follower of Jesus, and throughout the book James is trying to get the Diaspora Jews to understand what it means to follow Jesus and live life for him.
As always, it is important to interpret scripture in the context that it was written. Many times Christians today forget that scripture or the letters were written to a specific group of people that had a specific issue. Understanding the cultural context that these letters were written helps to reduce misinterpretations. Therefore, understanding the Diaspora will help readers to interpret James. There was a great persecution that happened which scattered Christians in Jerusalem. Karen Jobes writes, in her textbook, “Letters to the Church,” that there was a major famine during this time in the 50s of the first century (Jobes 157). “The issues of social justice concerning the needs fellow Christians had for food and clothing and the oppression of the poor by the rich would have been especially relevant given the circumstances in the last decade of James’s life as leader of the impoverished Jerusalem church” (Jobes 157). All of this knowledge will help a reader interpret the book of James. There is so much insight from the historical context that should be considered.
By reading the book of James with the Diaspora Jews in mind it forces us to remember the many cultural outliers the original audience may have been subject to. As Long described the Diaspora was more a culture experience than a geographical region (2018), Jobes argues that James was writing to scattered Jewish Christians living outside of Jerusalem in the broader eastern Mediterranean following the outbreak of persecutions, as described in Acts 8 (2011). These people would not have been able to worship in the Temple, or participate in religious activities in Jerusalem because there was a separation of the communities, so the need for specific encouragement and instruction was necessary. Jobes said the purpose of the book of James “… was to provide spiritual instruction and exhortation on matters critical to the unity and life of the Christian community” (2011). Even though the Jews were scattered over the years from different events and different purposes James sought to encourage and bring them all back to a common knowledge of the Gospel. While these scattered people would have probably had a working idea of who Jesus was and the miracles he was doing, they might not have been aware of or involved in the newly introduced theological concepts, such as the ruling at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. This is why it is important the James wrote specifically to the scattered people to unite them to the greater church and to catch them up on the truth of the Gospel and the new implications it offers for their life.
It is also interesting, under “received” views of the pre-war (66 to 70 AD) Jesus followers, that James’ teaching of or about Jesus is almost absent. Similar to the much more extensive writing of Paul.
Wow…a rare Howard Pepper sighting! Welcome back. Or maybe you never left…
I wonder if the possible allusions to the Sayings Source (Q, Matthew’s Sermoon the Mount) in James would “count” for for knowledge of Jesus’s teaching? You are right, though, no allusions to narrative (healing stories, etc.) in the epistles.
Those scattering out of the land because of persecution were vulnerable to losing their culture. It is easy to think that if something happened in the church, we would stay and keep believing without a bad taste in our mouth, but it is difficult. Here, the Jews fled and scattered far out. James’ job was to write to them, encouraging them to keep their practices, to keep their belief, to keep their culture. He had the experience, he had the wisdom and encouragement for these people as he was the leader of the persecuted church and remained in Jerusalem (Jobes, 157). James knew these people, he wrote to them where they were. This may not have been the Sunday school answer of Jesus. James focused on the practices of Christianity, like good works. It was not as easy as just writing one letter to them because they were scattered and facing different experiences. We also know that they held their practices close to the Torah. This kept those who scattered grounded in their beliefs. We all know that we as humans like to group up, to be with people with similar beliefs and practices. We see that people found each other again and became units to believe together. I think it is so important to realize God’s hand in this all and the community we desire as believers. A church is a building until believers are gathered. It is a holy and sacred place, but without people, its value is less. So those who scattered came together because of this community that God created us to desire because He too desires relationships.
As a reader of the book of James, who is not Jewish, I often get stuck on the verse that says that faith without works is dead (2:26). When this is contrasted by Paul in saying that it is not of our own doing (Eph. 2:8) and not by our own works (Gal. 2:16). There is this seemingly contrasting relationship but there seems to be no indication that James is disputing what Paul has said. The word “works” is used differently (Jobes, 172). The intended audience is also different. Probably both still Jewish Christians but of different traditional values. As the posts mentions, there may be some that were more liberal and some that were more conservative. Understanding the intention behind the letter, as a communal message to Jewish Christians, I can begin to see why this letter was written and accepted (Jobes, 166). By understanding the Diaspora, James chose his message of exhortation and good deeds accordingly. God’s message of deliverance would have held new meaning. They could relate to this message, because of their situation and be called to repentance and living life without reproach. Their “good deeds” were not in an attempt to gain salvation. As discussed, James is encouraging his readers for their faith to produce a life change, one that is manifested in good deeds and the fruit of the spirit (Jobes, 172). We see these same disagreements in theology throughout the New Testament. Some of the same things we deal with today, are some of the issues they dealt with back then. Are we really a Christian if our faith is not showing through our lives? Does the manifestation of good deeds in out lives mean that we are saved? These are similar questions to those James and Paul both discuss with their readers.
The Diaspora, as noted here, would be refer to the Jewish people who’d have been integrated/placed into other nations.
It is interesting to see the Jew’s history of being placed in other nations. Yet, they’ve remained intact as a culture – even a culture within a culture. If fact, the only time they really had their own nation was upon arriving to the promised land.
This makes me wonder if Judaism would be Judaism without the exile.
Would all Jewish Christians during this time period be considered part of the Diaspora?
1 John 2 speaks to the necessity for the church to not be “of the world”. Yes, they were in the world but they did not belong to it. They were not to take on the habits and sins and passions of the world.
Paul wrote something similar in the opening of Romans 12. He exhorts his readers to not be conformed to the world. But rather they are to submit their ways of thinking to God and be transformed.
Would it be a stretch then to say that Christians today are something akin to the Jews in the Roman world? Do Messianic Jews today consider themselves part of the Diaspora? And finally, how do we view Judaism today? Are they considered remnants of the nation of Israel or has that era or dispensation ended, leaving them as just another religious group?
I think it’s important to first note that Paul may have allowed Jews who converted to Christianity to still practice some Jewish customs such as dietary, sabbath, and circumcision, as noted by Professor Long’s blog post above. The reason why I believe this is important is because in James it also seems as if he’s allowing his target audience (likely conservative Jewish Christians) to still practice their religious customs while also maintaining monotheistic beliefs as Christians. Adding to that, In James 2:2, the author refers to the meeting of believers as a synagogue. (Long, 77) This shows that the intended audience was in fact to the Jewish Christians, which allows us to see the similarities between the writings of both James and Paul. So we can possibly also conclude that James was inspired by one or more of Paul’s letters. I believe that by knowing these facts, we can better understand first, who wrote the letter, and second, why James, half brother of Jesus, wrote the letter.
One way this letter addresses the Jews of the Diaspora is that when James addresses the letter to “the twelve tribes,” he is “calling attention to the fulfillment of the promised eschatological regathering of Israel’s tribes around faith in Jesus Christ” (Jobes, p. 164). This is essentially saying that although the Jews may not be all together physically and are no longer in the promised land, they can still be united through faith in Jesus Christ.
Jobes also says that “reading James as a covenantal diaspora letter may explain why he expresses himself with the rhetoric of persuasion and the authority of a prophet while invoking new covenant principles for faithfulness” (p. 166). The Jews would have been used to the idea of a prophet-type leader coming in and changing the rules, such as when Moses introduced the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). This would have given James authority in their eyes. It also explains why he would use people such as Abraham to communicate the idea of faith plus works (James 2). Only Jews would understand this reference and use it to help them live out their Christian lives.
James begins with standard Hellenistic letter opening and it has many personal aspects as if his recipients of the letter would have known the author on a somewhat personal level. However, it is also addressed to the “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations” as seen in James 1:1. It is interesting to think of how this letter could have reached all of its intended audience if they were all scattered. However, the concept that the intended audience in James may not have been geographically scattered, but instead theologically scattered through their struggles being apart from their homeland, is an interesting thought. Regardless of how the messages to the scattered tribes were delivered, the content of the message would have been essential for Jewish Christians as they were learning what life under the New Covenant looked like. Since the Old Covenant was one of the only things that kept the Jews surviving in the midst of the diaspora it makes sense that turning to the New Covenant from the Old Covenant would have been a difficult concept to believe let alone put into practice. James addresses this and many of the other ethical and social issues that his audience was facing by reminding his audience of events and heroes in their past such as Abraham and Rahab, referring to God in ways familiar with the Old Testament, and by alluding to metaphors such as “Israel’s marriage to Yahweah” while showing how those connected to the New Covenant and their current standing as Jewish Christians (Jobes, 2015). Even though the people were scattered James certainly had an understanding of his target audience and how to reach their hearts and persuade their minds.