Ancient Courts and the Letter of James

IAN TOWNSLEY / ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

The New Testament’s Letter of James has received much less attention than the letters of Paul. Questions linger about the short letter, such as who actually wrote it, when, where, and why. Although there is some consensus about certain aspects of the book, such as its urban background or the author’s indebtedness to Hellenistic Judaism, much of the work continues to garner debate among scholars.

One such debate centers on James 2:1–7, where the author describes two figures: a gold-ringed man dressed in “shining clothes” who enters the assembly, and another fellow in dirty clothes. James states that the well-appareled man receives good treatment from the audience and is graciously offered a seat, while the poorly dressed one is ordered to stand or sit at their feet. For James, such actions manifest preference or partiality for the finely clothed individual, while they dishonor the second man (2:6).

Some interpreters think this sce­nario, which would be a common enough occurrence in the honor- and status-conscious world of Mediterranean antiquity, reflects a meal setting, while others argue that a worship meeting is presupposed. I contend, however, that the author has in mind a courtroom scene, based on clues in the text itself.¹

First, it is worth remembering that courts in the Roman Empire were usually public. This means that legal disputes were on full display to the city’s population. A typical day out for an urbanite might include watching a trial for some time, depending upon how interesting and entertaining it was. A great range of people could therefore observe and become familiar with the various procedures and behaviors that took place in the context of legal disputes. There is no reason to think that someone deeply embedded in Hellenistic Judaism, as the author of James was, would not have watched the drama of a court case unfold before his eyes. And it is clear that those who identified with Judaism, including those who became Christ-followers such as the author of James, were active in metropolitan contexts throughout the Roman Empire.

Although today we might not think of courtroom dynamics as particularly entertaining, they could be in antiquity, because the participants would dress and behave in certain ways to impress or earn the sympathy of the judges or jurors. A well-clad person was advertising their power and status. A person in dirty clothes, such as the figure in James, may have deliberately donned such attire because wearing besmirched clothing was a means of advertising that they had been wronged in some way.

We know of other ancient examples of this practice, such as one described by Seneca the Elder (Declamations 10.1.2), where a young man dresses in soiled clothes and follows around after a rich man who allegedly murdered the youth’s father. The young man has been sued by the wealthy person for libel, and his dirty clothes reflect his defendant status. Similarly, Quintilian also counsels litigants to wear mourning clothes, which usually consisted of garments rubbed in ashes or dirt, as a means of garnering support for one’s cause at court (Institutes of Oratory 6.1.33). Of course, it is possible that dirty clothes might simply point to a person’s indigence, but it is clear that such garb, which could be worn by a wealthy person, could also communicate that an injustice had occurred. James 2:2 indicates clearly that the second man is in dirty clothing, which could therefore signal that he has been wronged in some way.

In Roman courts, benches for judges, jurors, defendants and their supporters, as well as for the audience, could be moved around. Often, the space between the person accused and the judges or jurors was not great, such that defendants could fall at the feet of magistrates and beg for mercy if necessary. One wonders, then, if James’s description of the audience’s poor treatment of the man in soiled dress, ordering him to stand or sit at their feet (2:3), reflects knowledge of the physical features of these courts. Such an order suggests that the audience has made a distinction between the well and poorly dressed men, and thus that they have become judges with evil thoughts (2:5). Taken in by the apparent power and influence of the gold-ringed man in shining clothes, they apparently command the other individual to supplicate at their feet even before he has had a chance to make his case. James condemns such outrageous behavior. Such corruption was commonplace in Roman courts, where preferential treatment of wealthy and high-status people was widespread. In fact, displays of partiality were the norm, not the exception, in ancient courts. In my view, James reflects an awareness of these pervasive injustices.

Some might object to a courtroom scenario on the basis that James refers to a “synagogue” as the place that the two men enter (2:2). However, a variety of activities took place in ancient synagogues, including legal proceedings, and there are indications that Roman and later rabbinic legal proceedings shared things in common. It could be that James has in mind a legal dispute that did not take place within an official court setting, but occurred among members of the audience, in the synagogue. Paul, for example, recommended that the Corinthian church try to resolve their disputes internally (1 Corinthians 6:1–8). But even if James is imagining a legal setting within the group to which he writes, its features, including the dress of the litigants and the physical characteristics of the courtroom (ancient synagogues usually had benches against the walls), could be modeled on the court scenes that he witnessed within the matrix of ancient public life more broadly.

This short discussion may address a minor issue among the many that puzzle interpreters of James. In antiquity, however, to show unjust favoritism within an ancient court, whatever the context, could have devastating consequences, including exile or death for litigants. If a courtroom is the setting for the scenario that James describes in 2:1–7, then it illustrates to what extent acts of partiality were not only a violation of the Torah, but also potentially deadly within such a world.