^{Page 24 note 1} The faith in this passage is defined more by its negative characteristics, διακρινóμενος, δíψυχος, άκατάστατος. It is used in the same sense in v. 15 in the healing of the believer through the action of the church in anointing with oil. There are other reasons given for not receiving an answer to prayer, cf. iv. 3 and v. 16.

^{Page 25 note 1} Ropes says, ‘here in James there is no special distinction intended, the repetition being solely for rhetorical effect, and very probably part of a poetic allusion or quotation’, The Epistle of James (I.C.C.), p. 159.

^{Page 25 note 2} On the relationship, literary or oral, between Matthew and James cf. Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (1964), pp. 403–5Google Scholar: ‘in the milieu from which James drew its materials, the words of Jesus were in the air, so that, as a living and formative tradition they moulded the life of the Christian community both directly by supplying, on occasion, specific halakah, as at Jas. v. 12, and indirectly by supplying a climate of and a norm for a “Christian” moral awareness‘.

^{Page 25 note 3} ó έξ ούρανοŨδόσει is a contraction of ó έν ούρανῷ έξ ούρανο⋯ δοσει, cf. Plummer, , The Gospel according to St Luke, I.C.C. (1907), p. 300.Google Scholar In comparison with Matthew the emphasis falls on έξ ούρανοŨ. Compare In. iii. 3, 5.

^{Page 25 note 4} We are not concerned here with the possible reasons for the differences between Mt. and Lk.; we only need to point out that if James is not dependent on a written tradition there is no reason why he could not have known the Lucan version as well as the Matthaean.

^{Page 26 note 1} Ropes, op. cit. p. 264 mentions two main possible interpretations: Either God is the subject of the sentence and τό πνεũμα (man's spirit) the object, or τό Πνενũμα (the Holy Spirit) is the subject. In thelatter case a phrase such as that which Mayor supplies needs to be understood, ‘the Spirit which he made to dwell in us jealously yearns for the entire devotion of the heart’, op. cit. p. 137. Surely, however, there could be a third alternative, namely that God is the subject and τό Πνεũμα (the Holy Spirit) the object, and the sense would be akin to I Cor. vi. 19–20. However, acting on a possible, although admittedly rare meaning of φθόνος as ‘indignation’ or ‘ a cause for reproach’ (cf. Liddell, and Scott, , A Greek-English Lexicon, new edition, 1961),Google Scholar I would suggest the translation, ‘He (God) yearns with indignation for the spirit which he has made to dwell in us’. It maybe objected that this gives a strange sense to έπιποθεί. However it is not a sense outside the picture painted of God in the Scriptures as at one and the same time angry at sin and yet longing for the sinner, cf. Lk. xiii. 34–5; xix. 41–4.

^{Page 26 note 2} Extraordinary content because as a general rule we are right to link the thought milieu of wisdom with knowledge, understanding and discernment rather than with a set of norms for ethical behaviour. Wilckens, Article, αοφ│α κτλ. 6. Jakobusbrief, Der, T.W.N.T. VII, p. 526Google Scholar agrees that the main emphasis in the concept of Wisdom in the Epistle is moral. It has to do with specific cases of ethical practice, and in no way takes on the form of gnostic speculation with its emphasis on learning and information. Writing on the concept of Wisdom in the OT, P. A. H. de Boer has this to say, ‘the preceding survey of the passage wherein “counsel” and “to give, take, counsel” occur enables us to determine some characteristics of the term. In the first place we notice a close connection with wisdom and understanding, a close relationship between the counsellor and the wise’, ‘The Counsello’ (Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Supplement to V. T. no. III), p. 56, edited by M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas (1955).

^{Page 26 note 3} Easton, B. S., ‘Word Studies, Ethical Lists’, The Pastoral Epistles, Ch. Scribner's Sons (1947), pp. 197–202.Google Scholar

^{Page 27 note 1} Ropes, op. cit. p. 249.

^{Page 27 note 2} Mk. vii. 20–3 is an obvious parallel to the general idea.

^{Page 27 note 3} It is true that James does not use the word or term σάρξ, but it is incontrovertible that the idea which Paul wishes to convey, namely the struggle and inconsistency of a Christian whose old nature is still with him, cf. Gal. v. 17; Rom. vii. 15–23, is present in James’ conception of διψυχος in general, the tongue in particular (iii. 9–10) and the fact that he uses a word designed to be the opposite to this, άδιάκριτος, in describing the true Wisdom.

^{Page 27 note 4} It does not seem too important that the words used in both contexts are somewhat different. As Easton, op. cit. p. 109 says, ‘too much stress should not be placed on exact similarities in form: there were naturally no precise “standard lists” ’. Moreover James. in many places, uses a very distinctive vocabulary, cf. Mayor, pp. ccxvii-ccxx.

^{Page 28 note 1} For this latter identification we adduce particularly the passage of I Cor. i. 18–ii. 16.

^{Page 28 note 2} Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 151.

^{Page 28 note 3} J.T.S. XXVII (01 1926), 160 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 28 note 4} op. cit. pp. 152–4.

^{Page 28 note 5} W. D. Davies, ibid. ch. 7, ‘The Old and New Torah: Christ the Wisdom of God’, pp. 147–76, especially note 49. Here we find an authoritative survey of the OT and Rabbinic background. However, he has not dealt with the possibility of the connexion between Wisdom and the Spirit through an identification with Christ.

^{Page 29 note 1} Cf. the parallel in Mt. xxiii. 34 where the words are recorded as from Christ himself and the past reference, είπεν, is transferred to the present.

^{Page 29 note 2} We prefer to consider the controversial passage Mt. xi. 25 ff. as evidence of a different type of Christology, i.e. it refers to the Sonship of Christ rather than to Christ as Wisdom. It has been pointed out recently that it has affinities with the Father-Son relationship to be found in the Fourth Gospel. On this identification cf. W. D. Davies, op. cit. p. 158 and Taylor, V., Jesus and His Sacrifice, p. 37.Google Scholar It is not our intention to discuss whether Christ used Wisdom of himself (the reference to Solomon suggests that he did), but whether the identification was so made in the NT. Cf. further Porteous, N. W., ‘Royal Wisdom’ (Wisdom in Ancient Israel, pp. 257–61).Google Scholar

^{Page 29 note 3} Cf. especially Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philippians i. 9–11, where the idea of Wisdom, if not the word, occurs.

^{Page 30 note 1} A Commentary on St Paul's Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon, Hodder and Stoughton (1902), p. 287.Google Scholar

^{Page 30 note 2} The Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, I.C.C. p. 28.

^{Page 30 note 3} If this is the correct understanding of the verse then one needs to note the close parallel with I Cor. i. 30. Christ and the Holy Spirit have the same function to be to the believer ‘Wisdom from above’.

^{Page 30 note 4} E. F. Scott comments: ‘It is difficult to say whether the reference is to the Holy Spirit or merely to a mind or disposition (“a spirit”). The absence of the article suggests the latter view, but in I Cor. ii Paul contends that the deep things of God can only be known by possession of the Spirit of God, and a similar thought seems to be implied here.’—The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, Moffatt N.T. Commentary (1930), p. 153.Google Scholar

^{Page 30 note 5} Cf. the note on τέλειος in Abbott, op. cit. p. 236.

^{Page 32 note 1} In the following discussion I am particularly indebted to the chapter, ‘Wisdom and the Spirit’ in Revelation in Jewish Wisdom Literature, by Rylaarsdam, J. C., Univ. of Chicago Press (1946).Google Scholar

^{Page 32 note 2} J.B.L. LXXXVI (03, 1967), 2.Google Scholar

^{Page 32 note 3} With this Murphy, R. E., ‘Problems in Old Testament Wisdom Research’, C.B.Q. XXIX, 3 (07 1967), 104Google Scholar is in broad agreement: ‘the phrase, wisdom literature, is too small an umbrella for all that has been brought under it’.

^{Page 32 note 4} Also made by W. D. Davies, op. cit. pp. 151–2 in connexion with the linking together of Gen. i. I and Prov. viii. 22.

^{Page 32 note 5} ‘Wisdom thinks resolutely within a framework of the theology of Creation’, Zimmerli, W., ‘The Place and Limit of Wisdom in the Framework of the O.T. Theology’, S.J. T. XVII (1964), 148.Google Scholar A little later in the same article he adds, ‘For his thinking ‘Eccl.’ the only thing that is important is that God has created the world. “He made it beautiful in his time”, says Eccl. in iii. 11, which unmistakably reflects Gen. i’, p. 155.

^{Page 32 note 6} OP. Cit. p. 103.

^{Page 32 note 7} It is obviously not the purpose of this study to go into the intricate philological and theological problems of this passage. The discussions in the relevant books will have to be consulted, e.g. Whybray, R. N., Wisdom in Proverbs, S.C.M. (1965), pp. 98–104.Google Scholar

^{Page 33 note 1} The Syriac version has, literally, ‘in the roots of Tehom’; cf. Charles, , Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O. T. I, 397Google Scholar; and Kitchen, K. A., Ancient Orient and Old Testament, pp. 89–90,Google Scholar where he argues that ‘tehom’ cannot be borrowed from the Babylonian form ‘Ti’amat’.

^{Page 33 note 2} Cf. Rylaarsdam, op. cit. p. 103. Dr Oesterley in his commentary on Sirach in Charles, op. cit. p. 397 says, ‘Wisdom is here evidently thought of as the Spirit of God: in later Jewish literature Wisdom is identified with the “Rual ha-qodesh” (The Holy Spirit). Here we have, therefore, the germ of the later teaching; but a great advance was made as early as the last quarter of the second century B.C. for in the Book of Wisdom the identification of Wisdom with the Holy Spirit is implicitly taught.’ Apart from the passages we have already looked at we ought to add i. 4–7 and ix. 17 which reads, ‘And thy counsel who hath known, except thou give wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from above’

^{Page 33 note 3} ‘In a sense its role is comparable to the Divine Wisdom because for the writer of Wisdom this also became the principle of all scientific investigation and interpretation’, Rylaarsdam, op. cit. p. 107.

^{Page 33 note 4} Ex. xxxi. 3 reads.

^{Page 33 note 5} There is a full, if not exhaustive, list in Rylaarsdam, pp. 103–15.

^{Page 33 note 6} The LXX omits the first part of the verse; but we cannot therefore necessarily infer that it is a gloss.

^{Page 34 note 1} In Wisdom vii. 26 wisdom is spoken of as an ‘ “άπαύΥασμα ” from everlasting light’, an interesting description in the light of Heb. i. 3 ôς ῷν άπαύΥασμα τ⋯ς δόξης. Perhaps an indication that the writer to the Hebrews also sees Christ in terms of Wisdom or at the least that the prologue is conceived of in terms of a muted Logos doctrine. Cf. Romaniuk, C., Le Livre de la Sagesse dans le Nouveau Testament, N.T.S. XIV, 4 (1968), 513–14.Google Scholar

^{Page 34 note 2} OP. cit. p. 114.

^{Page 34 note 3} E.g. Isa. lv. 1; Joel ii. 28; Ezek. xlvii. 1–12.

^{Page 35 note 1} Compare Isa. xi. 2 for the same three attributes.

^{Page 35 note 2} We may note that here the content of the gifts assigned to the Spirit is somewhat different, although the ‘spirit of wisdom’ does appear. The content is in fact much closer to, being basically the same as, Jas. iii. 17.

^{Page 35 note 3} The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation, Introduction, pp. 15–17.

^{Page 35 note 4} The translation is from Dupont-Sommer, A., The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes (1954), p. 123.Google Scholar

^{Page 35 note 5} ‘The Faith of Qumran’, Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 70.Google Scholar Cf. also Davies, W. D., ‘Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit’, Christian Origins and Judaism, pp. 160 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 35 note 6} Manual of Discipline, III. 13–iv. 26,Google Scholar part of which reads, ‘It is God that created these spirits of light and darkness and made them the basis of every act’. And a little earlier in the same passage, ‘Now this God created man to rule the world, and appointed for him two spirits…They are the spirits of truth and perversity’. Cf. Th. H. Gaster, op. cit. pp. 43–4 and Seitz, O.J. F., ‘Two Spirits in Man: An Essay in Biblical Exegesis’, N.T.S. VI (1960), 92–5.Google Scholar

^{Page 36 note 1} W. D. Davies, op. cit. p. 162.

^{Page 36 note 2} W. D. Davies, Ibid. p. 165, ‘they suggest not an inrush of specially given energy but, if we may so express it, two constant currents of good and evil forces in conflict’.

^{Page 36 note 3} Wemberg-Møller, , ‘A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community’, R.Q. (1961–1962), 413–14Google Scholar and Treves, M., ‘The Two Spirits of the Rule of the Community’, R.Q. III (1961–1962), 449–52.Google Scholar

^{Page 36 note 4} DSD IV, 18 ff. Cf. H. Ringgren, op. cit. p. 78, ‘it can hardly be denied that the language of the Manual of Discipline is so concrete and “mythological” that it suggests somewhat more than a psychological theory’.

^{Page 37 note 1} The surprising fact that this appears to be the only eschatological reference to the Spirit has been pointed out by Davies, W. D., Christian Origins and Judaism, p. 165.Google Scholar

^{Page 37 note 2} W. D. Davies, op. cit. pp. 172–4 has noticed the parallels with two passages in Paul, namely I Cor. ii. 12 and Eph. ii. 2, but not with the verse in James.

^{Page 37 note 3} A similar teaching can be found in rabbinic exegesis concerning the two yeşārim. Cf. O. J. F. Seitz, op. cit. p. 93 n. 11.

^{Page 37 note 4} I would suggest that this type of dualism, if such it can be called, is much closer to that of Paul, namely flesh and spirit, as we have already noted. Compare Jas. iv. 1 έν τοīς μέλεσιν ύμῷν with Rom. vii. 23 and also I Pet. ii. 11. On the whole relationship between δíψџχος and Qumran teaching cf. Wolverton, W. I., ‘The Double Minded Man in the Light of Essene Psychology’, A.T.R. XXXVIII (1956), 166–75Google Scholar; and Seitz, O. J. F., ‘Afterthoughts on the term “Dipsychos”’, N.T.S. IV (1957), 327–34.Google Scholar

^{Page 38 note 1} We might say that here James is identifying Wisdom and grace. From the context, Wisdom is a moral rather than an intellectual force which is needed to combat the fleshly passions which are in control of the community. In Paul, e.g. Gal. v, grace would be equivalent to the Holy Spirit, always the agent of God for the purification of sin-stained lives; cf. also Heb. x. 29; xii. 14–15 for close parallels.

^{Page 38 note 2} Cf. W. D. Davies, op. cit. p. 171 and Rylaarsdam, op. cit. p. 115, ‘all the special aspects (of the Spirit) are brought together and poured out on the single personality of the Messiah, who is the central figure of the new age’.

^{Page 38 note 3} Further on this cf. Johnston, G., ‘ “Spirit” and “Holy Spirit’ in the Qumran Literature’, New Testament Sidelights, Festschrft for A. C. Purdy (1960), pp. 27–42.Google Scholar For further references on the connexion between Wisdom and Spirit pp. 34–6 are the most helpful.

^{Page 38 note 4} It is perhaps surprising that Elliot-Binns, op. cit. does not attempt to use the Qumran literature to throw light on the later history of the Galilean Christians. On the likelihood of James being familiar with the Qumran community cf. Johnson, S. E., ‘The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline and the Jerusalem Church in Acts’, Z.A.W. (1954–1955), pp. 106–20Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., ‘Qumran and Early Christianity’, N.T.S. II (1956), 176–90Google Scholar; Golb, N., ‘The Qumran Covenanters and the Later Jewish Sects’, Journal of Religion, XLI (01 1961).Google Scholar

^{Page 38 note 5} Probably the ‘perfect gift from above’, i. 17, is Wisdom. Or is it the Holy Spirit but unnamed?