Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 November 2018
The human capacity to sin and the location of evil are considered in James in light of ongoing research within the field of Qumran studies. This essay consists of two main parts. First, the association of ‘desire’ in Jas 1.14–15 with the Jewish concept of yēṣer is revisited by drawing upon occurrences of yēṣer from Cave 4 that had previously not been included in the assessment of James. Parallels from, especially, 4QInstruction provide new data suggesting that sapiential tradition may also reflect the apocalyptic view that human evil is provoked by spiritual beings, vis-à-vis an evil yēṣer, which opens up a more nuanced understanding of the self and how ‘desire’ may operate in Jas 1.14–15. Second, after arguing that the human capacity to sin cannot be relegated merely to a negative anthropology, the larger issue of evil beings (i.e. devil, demons) within James’ cosmology is considered. In conclusion, James’ sapiential discourse is seen to be located within a cosmological framework which includes active evil agents who lead human beings astray and cause suffering and death. Human responses to evil in James include petitioning God and asking for wisdom from above.
1 The delineation of internal/external in early Jewish literature, with marginal reference to 4QInstruction, is treated by Brand, M. T., Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature (JAJSup 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 For convenience, I refer to the author as ‘James’.
3 Sapiential compositions generally understand evil in relationship to the human capacity to sin, whereas in apocalyptic evil relates to external actors. Wisdom literature in the HB is often optimistic about the human capacity to make the right ethical choices; however, on occasion there is reference to the wickedness in the heart of man (e.g. Ps 51.10); cf. Qohelet's bleak view of humanity. On apocalyptic, see Collins, J. J., ‘The Origin of Evil in Apocalyptic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls’, Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic Roman-Judaism (JSJSup 54; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 287–99Google Scholar.
4 The SBL section on ‘Wisdom and Apocalyptic’ has especially advanced this topic in the last decade. Cf. Wright, B. G. and Wills, L. M., eds., Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism (Atlanta: SBL, 2005)Google Scholar.
5 See most recently Wischmeyer, O., ‘Zwischen Gut und Böse: Teufel, Dämonen, das Böse und der Kosmos im Jakobusbrief’, Evil, the Devil, and Demons: Dualistic Characteristics in the Religion of Israel, Ancient Judaism, and Christianity (ed. Dochhorn, J., Rudnig-Zelt, S. and Wold, B.; WUNT ii/412; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016) 153–68Google Scholar.
6 For more recent treatments of apocalyptic and James, sans ref. to 4QInstruction, see Kovalishyn, M. K., ‘James and Apocalyptic Wisdom’, Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought (ed. Reynolds, B. and Stuckenbruck, L. T.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017) 389–406Google Scholar; P. J. Hartin, ‘“Who is wise and understanding among you?” (James 3:13): An Analysis of Wisdom, Eschatology, and Apocalypticism in the Letter of James’, Conflicted Boundaries, 149–68.
7 4QInstruction's negative view of flesh, use of bridging concepts similar to divine logos, and universal outlook, may in fact suggest that this composition is much more Hellenistic than previously recognised; see Wold, B., 4QInstruction: Divisions and Hierarchies (STDJ 123; Leiden: Brill, 2018)Google Scholar, esp. 171, 192–5.
8 Penner, T., The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-Reading an Ancient Christian Letter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996)Google Scholar.
9 Lockett, D., ‘The Spectrum of Wisdom and Eschatology in the Epistle of James and 4QInstruction’, TB 56 (2005) 131–48Google Scholar.
10 Allison, D. C., James: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2013)Google Scholar does not mention 4QInstruction by name but makes a few marginal citations to individual manuscripts.
11 Dibelius, M., A Commentary on the Epistle of James (trans. Williams, M. A.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 123Google Scholar; Martin, R. P., James (WBC 48; Waco: Word Books, 1988) 31Google Scholar.
12 On James’ anthropology, see Klein, M., ‘Ein vollkommenes Werk’, Vollkommenheit, Gesetz und Gericht als theologische Themen des Jakobusbriefes (BWANT 139; Stuttgart/Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1995) 15–32Google Scholar; Wilson, W. T., ‘Sin as Sex and Sex with Sin: The Anthropology of James 1:12–15’, HTR 94 (2002) 147–68Google Scholar, who studies ‘desire’ as a seductive feminine power; Ellis, N., The Hermeneutics of Divine Testing: Cosmic Trials and Biblical Interpretation in the Epistle of James and Other Jewish Literature (WUNT ii/396; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015) 164–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Marcus, J., ‘The Evil Inclination in the Epistle of James’, CBQ 44 (1982) 606–21Google Scholar. McKnight, S., The Letter of James (NIC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011) 119Google Scholar n. 261 comments that the ‘singular study’ on yēṣer in James is that of Marcus.
14 Marcus, ‘Evil Inclination’, 608.
15 Wolfson, H. A., Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947)Google Scholar ii.288–90 connects Philo's use of the verb φαντασιόω (Praem. 63) with ἐπιθυμία, commenting that the noun φαντασία is a good rendering for יצר and the same component within the soul is used elsewhere to represent the earthlike soul which is the seat of ἐπιθυμία.
16 H. Frankemölle suggests parallels between the anthropologies of Sirach and James; see his ‘Gespalten oder ganz: Zur Pragmatik der theologischen Anthropologie des Jakobusbriefes’, Kommunikation und Solidarität (ed. H.-U. von Brachel and N. Mette; Münster: Liberación, 1985) 160–78; idem, ‘Zum Thema des Jakobusbriefes im Kontext der Rezeption von Sir 2,1–18 und 15,11–20’, Biblische Notizen 48 (1989) 21–49.
17 Marcus, ‘Evil Inclination’, 621, where he further comments that ‘it may have something to do with James’ unwillingness to ascribe to human beings an inherent inclination to good’.
18 A prevalent assumption in studies on Jas 1.14‒15 is that there is a ‘good’ and ‘evil’ yēṣer; cf. McKnight, James, 118–19; Klein, ‘Ein vollkommenes Werk’, 116.
19 Rosen-Zvi, I., ‘Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma’, JSJ 39 (2008) 1–27Google Scholar; idem, Demonic Desires: ‘Yetzer Hara’ and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2011).
20 Rosen-Zvi, ‘Two Rabbinic Inclinations?’, 27. Cf. Tigchelaar, E. J. C., ‘The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-Edition of 4Q468i (4QSectarian Text?)’, Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Pieter Willem van der Horst (ed. Houtman, A., de Jong, A. and de Weg, M. Misset-van; AJEC 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 347–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 347.
21 Konradt, M., Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) 85–92Google Scholar; Burchard, C., Der Jakobusbrief (HNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 72–3Google Scholar.
22 Jub 35.9, preserved in 1Q18 (1QJubb) 1–2 3 (‘for you k[no]w the yēṣer of Esau which is [evil from his youth]’) and 4Q223–4 (4QJubh) 2 i, 49, uses יצר similar to the HB; see Lichtenberger, H., ‘Zu Vorkommen und Bedeutung von יצר im Jubiläenbuch’, JSJ 14 (1983) 1–10Google Scholar.
23 For example, Murphy, R. E., ‘Yeser in the Qumran Literature’, Bib 39 (1958) 334–44Google Scholar really only discusses the Hodayot.
24 Tigchelaar, ‘The Evil Inclination’, 348.
25 Marcus, ‘Evil Inclination’, 607 n. 3 errs when he says that יצר סמוך in the Qumran literature is a synonym for the rabbinic notion of ‘the good inclination’.
26 This expression reflects the description of the human heart in Gen 6.5 and 8.21; cf. 4Q370 (4QAdmonition Based on the Flood) 1 i, 3 (‘and the Lord judged according to [al]l their ways and the thoughts of the inclinations of their hearts’) and 4Q422 (4QParaphrase of Genesis and Exodus) i, 12.
27 In the hymns the terms occur as: יצר חמר (‘vessel of clay’, 1QHa iii, 29; ix, 23; xi, 24–5; xii, 30; xix 6; xx, 29; xx, 35; xxi, 11; xxi, 38; xxii, 12; xxiii, 13; xxiii, 28; xxv, 31–2); יצר עפר (‘vessel of dust’, 1QHa viii, 18; xxi, 17: xxi, 25; xxi, 34; xxiii, 28); יצר אשמה (‘guilty creature’; 1QHa xiv, 35); יצר עולה (‘vessel of iniquity’, 1QHa xxi, 30); יצר נתעב (‘abhorrent vessel’, 1QHa xxiii, 37; xxiii, 38); יצר הוה (‘destructive intention’, 1QHa xv, 6–7); יצר רמיה (‘deceitful inclination’, 1QHa xxi, 29).
28 Rosen-Zvi, ‘Two Rabbinic Inclinations’, 17.
29 Esp. Martínez, F. García, Tigchelaar, E. J. C. and van der Woude, A. S., Qumran Cave 11. ii: 11Q2–8, 11Q20–31 (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998)Google Scholar; Alexander, P., ‘The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols.; ed. Flint, P. W. and VanderKam, J. C.; Leiden: Brill, 1999)Google Scholar ii.331–53; Lange, A., ‘Considerations Concerning the “Spirits of Impurity” in Zech 13:2’, Die Dämonen – Demons (ed. Lichtenberger, H., Lange, A. and Römhelf, K. F. Diethard; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 254–68Google Scholar, at 261; Stuckenbruck, L. T., ‘Prayers of Deliverance from the Demonic in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature’, The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (ed. Henderson, I. H., Oegema, G. S., Charlesworth, J. H. and Ricker, S. Parks; JSHRZ-St. 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2006) 146–65Google Scholar.
30 Cf. Aramaic Levi Document (‘let not any satan have power over me, to make me stray from your path … and let the shelter of your power shelter me from evil’). ALD probably dates to the late third or early second century bce; see Stone, M. E. and Greenfield, J. C., ‘The Prayer of Levi’, JBL 112 (1993) 247–66Google Scholar.
31 שטן is used indeterminatively, cf. 1QHa xxii, 25 (‘you will rebuke every destructive satan’); 1QHa xxiv, 19 (‘every destructive satan’); 4Q504 1–2 iv, 12–13 (‘without a satan or misfortune’); Num 22.22, 32; 1 Kgs 5.18; Job 1.6–12; 2.1–10; Zech 3.1–2; 1 Chr 21.1; Jub 23.29; 46.2; 50.5; 1 En 40.7; 53.3; 56.1; 62.11; 63.1; 65.6.
32 Tigchelaar, ‘The Evil Inclination’, 352; cf. Zech 3.2 and 1QM xiv, 10.
33 Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 47 concludes that the ‘context points indeed to yetzer’s identification with an evil tendency rather than a demonic being’.
34 See esp. Stuckenbruck, ‘Prayers of Deliverance’.
35 For a treatment of each of these occurrences, see Wold, B., and, ‘“Flesh” “Spirit” in Qumran Sapiential Literature as the Background to the Use in Pauline Epistles’, ZNW 106 (2015) 262–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36 Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 46 comments that this is ‘an active agent that can entice people to evil’.
37 Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 48.
38 Strugnell, J., Harrington, D. J. and Elgvin, T., Qumran Cave 4 xxiv: Sapiential Texts, Part 2: 4QInstruction (Mûsār lĕ Mēvîn): 4Q415ff. with a Re-Edition of 1Q26 (DJD 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999) 558Google Scholar in the concordance reconstruct: ‘[For] He (i.e. God) [creat]ed a fleshly inclination and the one understand[ing]’; Tigchelaar, E. J. C., To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ 44; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 176Google Scholar translates: ‘[incl]ination of the flesh is he/it. And from understanding (?).’
39 DJD 34.8.
40 Transcription from DJD 34.169; theoretical reconstruction of Hebrew in italics is from Qimron, E., מגילות מדבר יהודה. החיבורים העבריים / The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–14)Google Scholar ii.149 (Hebrew). Translation mine.
41 In DJD 34.170 the editors offer the translation, without transcribing מחשבת יצר רע, ‘[…] thou shalt faithfully seek. Let not the th[ought of an evil inclination] mislead thee[…]’ (emphasis original).
42 Not a frequently used term, it occurs several other times in mostly pual forms (e.g. 1QHa xii, 17; xiv, 22; xxii, 27).
43 See for example Baumgarten, J. M., ‘On the Nature of the Seductress in 4Q184’, RevQ 15 (1991–2) 133–43Google Scholar; M. J. Goff, ‘A Seductive Demoness at Qumran? Lilith, Female Demons and 4Q184’, Evil, the Devil, and Demons, 59–76.
44 Wilson, ‘Sin as Sex’; for a comprehensive overview on attitudes in Qumran discoveries, see esp. Loader, W. R. G., The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in Sectarian and Related Literature at Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009)Google Scholar.
45 4Q416 2 iii, 13–15 have exhortations to tend to ‘your thoughts’ (DJD 34.113 suggest ‘refine’ your thoughts) as part of understanding and seeking the mystery of existence.
46 MS B reads: הוא מראש ברא אדם וישיתהו […]ו אם תחפץ תשמר מצוה ואמונה לעשות רצון אל (‘from the beginning he created man and placed him […] his […]; if you desire keep the commandment and faithfully do God's will’). Beentjes, P. C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (SupVT 68; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 142CrossRefGoogle Scholar; translations mine.
47 Nonetheless, Hebrew Ben Sira is tamed by Greek Sirach in that the poetic parallelism of Heb 15.14 omits one stanza; יצר and חותף appear to be used synonymously. The verbal form of the root חתף means to ‘abduct’, ‘rob’, or ‘lie in wait’ for one's prey; the noun form does not occur in the HB or among DSS.
48 Davids, P. H., The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 84Google Scholar.
49 In Apoc. Mos. 19.3 the serpent pours the poison of wickedness upon the fruit before Eve gives it to Adam, a fruit which is described as the ἐπιθυμία and ‘head’ (κεφαλή) of all sin.
50 See the discussions about the ‘self’ by Newsom, C. A., ‘Spirit, Flesh, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot’, Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday (ed. Penner, J., Penner, K. M. and Wassen, C.; STDJ 98; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 339–54Google Scholar.
51 As demonic temptation, this may also reflect knowledge of the Matthean and Lukan Temptation narrative (see comments on Jas 4.7 below).
52 Whereas desire, when it matures, ‘gives birth’ (ἀποκύει) to sin (Jas 1.15), in 1.18 God has ‘brought forth’ (ἀπεκύησεν) James and his addressees as a kind of first fruits. Jas 1.18 may use creation terminology for acts of salvation similar to the Hodayot (1QHa xi, 20–4).
53 Pace Wischmeyer, ‘Teufel’, 163, who writes: ‘Das Dämonische hat hier auch keinen eigenen irgendwie lokal vorzustellenden Bereich, sondern ist Teil einer Sphäre, und zwar der Sphäre des Irdischen, des Kosmos (4,4), des “Psychischen”, das wie dargestellt zu den Aspekten der negativen Anthropologie gehört.’
54 Ellis, Divine Testing, 163 comments that ‘[t]he ‘demonic wisdom’ appears to be a statement on the origins of wisdom: God provides true wisdom, but demons bring false wisdom. This function aligns with the standard role of demons seen in the Enochic interpretation of Gen 6:1–4.’
55 Allison, James, 625. M. Morris, ‘Apotropaic Inversion in the Temptation and at Qumran’, Evil, the Devil, and Demons, 93–100; Henze, M., ‘Psalm 91 in Premodern Interpretation and at Qumran’, Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. Henze, M.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 168–93Google Scholar; and Koskenniemi, E., ‘The Traditional Roles Inverted: Jesus and the Devil's Attack’, BZ 52 (2008) 261–8Google Scholar.
56 Allison, James, 625 describes the devil here as a ‘wholly evil, demonic figure’.
57 Eshel, E., Eshel, H. and Lange, A., ‘“Hear, O Israel” in Gold: An Ancient Amulet from Halbturn’, JAJ 1 (2010) 43–64Google Scholar, at 48. Cf. Lange, A., ‘The Shema Israel in Second Temple Judaism’, JAJ 1 (2010) 207–14Google Scholar, at 212–14, who concludes that ‘[t]he Mezuzot from Qumran are hence the first hint to the idea of the Shema Israel as an apotropaic agent, which is well known from Rabbinic literature (see e.g. y. Pe'ah 15d)’.
58 On use of phylactery in ancient Judaism, see Harari, Y., ‘What is a Magical Text? Methodological Reflections Aimed at Redefining Early Jewish Magic’, Officina Magica: Essays on the Practice of Magic in Antiquity (ed. Shaked, S.; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 91–124Google Scholar; Cohn, Y. E., Tangled up in Text: Teffilin and the Ancient World (BJS 351; Providence: Brown University Press, 2008) 80–6Google Scholar.
59 Children keeping the commandments, reflective of teaching one's children the Shema, also results in Beliar fleeing (T. Dan 5.1; T. Naph. 7.4); cf. CD xvi, 4–5: ‘And on the day on which one has imposed upon himself to return to the law of Moses, the angel Mastema will turn aside from following him, should he keep his words.’
60 Twelftree, G. H., In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) 179–80Google Scholar; cf. Ellis, Divine Testing, 162–3.
61 Cf. the power of petitionary prayer re sickness in 11Q11 v; 4Q560 cols. i–ii; Jub 10.3–6.
62 I would like to thank Matthew Goff and Lawrence Wills for inviting me to present a version of this article at the Wisdom and Apocalypticism section, Annual SBL meeting, Atlanta, GA, 2015.
