Letter of James, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2002 by Ray, Charlie

The Letter of James. By Douglas J. Moo. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, 288 pp., $28.00.

The letter of James has its share of hermeneutical conundrums, and Douglas Moo has done an admirable job in dealing with them. This volume is an expansion and reworking of Moo's 1985 work on James published in the TNTC series. Even a cursory comparison of the present work with the 1985 work demonstrates that Moo has not just republished the prior work. For example, the introduction contains an expanded discussion of the theme of James, a general discussion of the implications of pseudepigraphical authorship, an excursus on the kinship relationship between Jesus and his brothers, as well as an updated bibliography. The intervening years of reflection have also led Moo to tweak his outline of the letter, both in the number and location of the major breaks as well as the relationship among the sections. Moo's conservative conclusions related to such issues as authorship, readers, and location have not changed, nor has his conviction "that the heart of the letter is a call to wholehearted commitment to Christ" (p. x).

The structure of James is one of those hermeneutical conundrums that has puzzled interpreters through the years. Moo resists the temptation to force an artificial structure on the letter, opting instead for what he calls a series of "key motifs" that are "often mixed together with other themes in paragraphs that cannot be labeled as neatly as we might like" (p. 45). Rejecting Dibelius's contention that the letter has no unifying factor, Moo argues that the central concern ("theme" is too strong) of the letter is spiritual wholeness (p. 47).

The format of the commentary is user-friendly. Having the NIV text printed at the beginning of each minor section is helpful, as are Moo's introductions to both major and some minor sections. Dividing the book into chapters based on the chapters of the canonical text is less helpful, because those chapter divisions seldom correspond to Moo's outline. The use of transliterated Greek words will help those who do not read Greek.

The major strength of the commentary is Moo's insightful analysis of the text. Especially noteworthy are the word studies and the scope of references to secondary literature. Moo is generally careful to present the full range of possible uses of words with context being the final arbiter of meaning. His discussions of words are not overly technical but are informed by solid linguistic principles. Moo's use of secondary literature is also very helpful; works cited range from Homer to Philo, to the Apocrypha, to Calvin, and to contemporary scholars.

Perhaps the best indicator of a good commentary is its helpfulness to students. In two classes where multiple commentaries on James were required, Moo's commentary consistently received the highest rating by my students. The Pillar editors are to be commended for allowing Moo the opportunity to share with us 15 years of additional reflection on the letter of James.

Charlie Ray

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans, LA