 Well, first of all, thank you very much for the invitation and for the opportunity to present to you the findings of my PhD dissertation tonight. The ethics of speech is a topic much in discussion these days. Again and again, politicians or TV moderators are found using derogatory terms or politically incorrect language. The case of Edward Snowden, who leaked national security agency documents, fueled a discussion about his motivation to speak out, his discussion about truthful speech in general, about the value and also the sheer impossibility of keeping silent, and about the power of speech. In the media, the debate was heated whether Snowden should be considered a hero for exposing the NSA or rather a traitor. Large newspapers quoted Snowden himself saying, quote, I'm neither traitor nor hero. I'm an American, end of quote, thus referring to the ideals that led to the motivation behind his action to speak out. As the extensive discussions reveal, our modern society is as divided concerning the evaluation of such speech acts and the ethics of speech as was the society in the first century AD. In wisdom texts of the ancient Near East, in Greco-Roman philosophical and ethical texts, in Old Testament and Jewish literature, and in the New Testament writings, the topic of the ethics of speech recur again and again. The respective authors argue that their point of view from the background of their worldview, their religious belief system, and ethical ideals presents the perfect point of view for speech ethics. In analogy to the newspaper headline concerning Edward Snowden, today's lecture could also be titled, I'm Neither Traitor Nor Hero, I'm Christian. This is the motto of the discussion of speech ethics within the New Testament writings. The question is now, how do we as Christians use our speech in everyday language? Which are the guidelines we have concerning the correct speech? Which answers do we get from the New Testament? The New Testament writings are indicative of a distinctive early Christian interest in ethical matters concerning the accurate use of speech. The focus thereby is on the use of speech in everyday situations of interhuman verbal communication. We come across passages like James 3, 3 to 10, where we read, if we put bits into the mouths of horses that they may obey us, we guide their whole bodies. Look at the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder, wherever the will of the pilot directs. So the tongue is a little member in boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire, and the tongue is a fire. The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird or reptile and sea creature can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind. But no human being can tame the tongue, a restless evil full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so. The first antithesis in Matthew 5, 21 to 27 addresses verbal offenses when Jesus commands that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. Whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says you fool shall be liable to the fire of hell. In Matthew 12, 36 following, Jesus issues the warning that men will render account for every careless word they utter, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. And James 5, 12 demands, but above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your yes be yes, and your no be no, that you may not fall under condemnation. A clustering of this kind of ethical instruction and reflection concerning the right way of speaking can be found in the New Testament. But at the same time, and let me stress this, it is found only in a very few New Testament writings. In order to refer to this early Christian discourse on ethics of speech, I prefer the term early Christian speech ethics. Here I am drawing on William Baker's book on personal speech ethics, where he introduces this term for the phenomenon he analyzes in ancient texts. The Paranetic Instruction on Verbal Communication, which on the one hand focuses on inter-human relations. On the other hand, on the relationship between man and God. Baker defines the term as follows. The term personal speech ethics is my own attempt to capture the idea of ethics or morality as applied to interpersonal communication. Simply put, it is the rights and wrongs of utterance. It involves when to speak, how to speak, and to whom to speak, as well as when, how, and to whom not to speak. It includes to a certain extent the process of human speech and its relationship to thoughts and actions, only to a very limited extent does formal speaking relate to it. With regard to the New Testament writings, this definition has to be amplified in the sense that the term speech ethics comprises not only the ethos and specific moral instruction. It is also concerned with the ethical reflection on preconditions and consequences of the use of language and its significance for the relationship between man and God. Hence, the term speech ethics covers ethical paradigms, concerning speech in interpersonal relationships, including the anthropological and theological preconditions and consequences. The term refers to the domain of inter-human, verbal communication and does not include references to public speaking or preaching, nor does it include other forms of speech referred to in the New Testament, like prayer or glossolalia. Speech ethics is also neither concerned with the relation between science, that would be grammar, nor with the relation between the signifier and the signified, which would be the philosophy of language, nor with the effective transmitting of a message, which would be rhetoric. Hence again, speech ethics covers ethical paradigms and moral advice concerning speech in interpersonal relationships, including the anthropological and theological preconditions and consequences. The discourse on speech ethics in early Christianity, as you can derive it from the New Testament writings, is embedded in the discourse on speech ethics in antiquity in general. Moreover, needless to say, if we look at a certain number of New Testament writings, we will also find a number of different positions concerning speech ethics, concerning the preconditions, the ability to use speech adequately, and the consequences of the right use of language. In order to identify the New Testament discourse on speech ethics, it is therefore necessary to describe and distinguish the discourse positions of individual New Testament authors, as well as the interrelatedness and interaction with each other and with a wider discourse on speech ethics as found in ancient literature. For instance, in Greco-Roman literature, especially in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Seneca, and Epictetus, in Old Testament and early Jewish, as well as Qumran writings, analyzing individual New Testament writings concerning their speech ethical instructions provides insight into their notion of the effects of speech, and that is the theological and anthropological aspects underlying the speech ethical conduct. And it may answer questions like, which consequences does unethical use of speech in interpersonal communication have for the speaker's relationship with God and for his prospects concerning the afterlife? How does unethical use of speech affect the speaker's everyday life and his relation with his contemporaries? Besides analyzing the discourse position of individual New Testament authors, another interesting aspect is to try and get a picture of the overall New Testament discourse on speech ethics based on the various discourse position of the analyzed New Testament writings and to position this New Testament discourse on speech ethics within the discourse of early Christianity and classical antiquity in order to identify the interaction of the New Testament discourse with the contemporary speech ethical discourse. Reading through the New Testament and searching for explicit speech ethical instruction, it becomes obvious that only a few aspects of the use of speech seem to be relevant and that only a few New Testament writings are interested in speech ethical instruction. Primarily, three New Testament writings are involved in the discourse on speech ethics. The Gospel of Matthew, the letter of James, and first Peter. The pastoral and the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians reveal an interest in the transmission of speech ethical topics but merely reflect marginally on the ethics of speech. This table indicates which New Testament texts are central to any analysis of speech ethical topics. They can be classified according to six primary aspects of speech. We find texts concerning anger, control of the tongue, blasphemy, oaths, the integrity of speech, and judgment or fraternal correction. This spectrum of texts, including narratives, parables, argumentative as well as perinetic passages, calls for a methodological approach that can unify the diverse texts on various aspects of speech. In my view, discourse analysis can offer a helpful methodological framework for text analysis. Let us define discourse as an entirety of those propositions which repeatedly address a specific topic in a uniform but not identical manner. Discourse analysis in this definition basically includes all those New Testament texts in the analysis which show an interest in the topic of speech ethics. Hence, the method of discourse analysis has the potential to create a unifying frame for analyzing argumentative as well as narrative texts with a special focus of the speech ethical topic, particularly historical discourse analysis as proposed by Achim Landwehr, which is interested in the analysis of discourses in historical literary documents and with the use of literary and exegetical methods is applicable to the New Testament texts. Very helpful in this context is also the terminology Siegfried Jäger introduced. Jäger stresses that discourses are integrated in other discourses, are intertwined with other strands of discourse, and that the aim of discourse analysis is to disentangle these intertwined strands and to extract the propositions and with regard to one topic to one discourse. However, the intertwining discourses which influence and direct the discourse analyzed, which overlap and cause certain effects on the progress of the discourse have also to be taken into consideration. Our special importance is the clear-cut terminology suggested by Jäger. He calls texts and fragments of texts which deal with a certain topic discourse fragments. However, text is not equivalent with discourse fragment. As one text usually covers more than one subject, and therefore each text reveals intertwined discourse fragments which need to be disentangled in order to reveal the proposition regarding the topic analyzed. Discourse fragments are produced by single authors with a view to New Testament texts. They are equivalent with the thematic propositions found in single New Testament text passages. Discourse positions signify the ideological position of the author who partakes in the discourse and they are derived from several discourse fragments. This would be the positions on speech ethics of the authors of the New Testament. Within one discourse, they are usually homogeneous, though not identical. Different propositions constitute the counter discourse. Strands of discourse are identified as the sum of the propositions of several discourse fragments, which comment on one subject. The New Testament strand of discourse is composed of the New Testament discourse positions. Often several strands of discourse concerning different topics can be found intertwined and have to be disentangled. All strands of the discourse concerning one topic constitute the discourse in society as a whole. The New Testament strand of discourse can thus be situated within the discourse on speech ethics and antiquity by comparing it to the strands of discourse found in the Old Testament, Greco-Roman literature, et cetera. According to Jaeger and his terminology, discourse of events are events which influence the discourse directly. In the New Testament, this would, for instance, be the Christ event as the basic discourse event. All speech ethical admonitions are based on the assumption that conversion requires a different comportment in accordance with the will of God. Thus the discourse on speech ethics is entangled with the discourse following from the Christ event. The focus of any discourse analysis hence starts out with the discourse fragments, tries to reconstruct the discourse positions of the New Testament authors and then the New Testament strand of discourse which then has to be positioned within the discourse of society as a whole. The aim is to allocate different discourse positions to strands of discourse and to position the New Testament strand of discourse within the ancient discourse on the topic of speech ethics. Discourse analysis therefore serves on the one hand to expose the discourse positions of a subject or group. And on the other hand, it accomplishes an interpretation and critical evaluation of the positions and positions as well as the means and strategies used to convey them. Let us first look at what the Gospel of Matthew has to say on speech ethics, on the preconditions and consequences of human interpersonal speech. In Matthew, ethical reflection on speech can primarily be found in the Matthew and Sondergut and in Pericope's which testify to a Matthew reduction. It may therefore be concluded that Matthew has inserted or at least emphasized the speech ethical aspects into his textual sources by reduction. Matthew refers to the topic of speech and emotions, especially anger, oath, judging, fraternal correction, and to the importance of integrity and the inner disposition of man for the use of language. Matthew and ethical reflection and admonition concerning speech focuses primarily on the formation of the addressee's disposition rather than on specific speech ethical regulations. Therefore, abstract programmatic presentation of the prerequisites and the consequences of the right use of speech dominate a specific speech ethical instruction. In Matthew 5, 21, 26, the first antithesis, anger and its verbal expression in the form of invectives is addressed. We read, you have heard that it was said to men of old, you shall not kill, and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. Whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says you fool shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled with your brother and then come and offer your gift. Make friends quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to the court. Lest your accuser hand you over to the judge and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. Matthew states that angry speech is deadly, and that the angry speaker will not be able to avoid judgment in the eschatological trial. Within the bounds of everyday conversation, everybody is bound to comply with this general rule. The mentioning of the invectives has to be understood as exemplary. As a specific form and content of angry speech are not condemned. Rather, it is the negative intention of the speaker which is presented as the aspect judged in the eschatological judgment. The words of Jesus in Matthew 23 are not situated in the context of anger. The intention with which he utters the words against the Pharisees is the intention of rebuke and a call to repentance which testifies to his love and care for his neighbor with a view to the eschatological salvation. Possible formal linguistic convergencies between angry speech and the speech of loving fraternal correction do not seem to cause a problem for Matthew. In the context of fraternal correction, there seems to be an exception to the rule of the first antithesis. If speech is used with the intention of fraternal correction, the use of invectives may be justified by the positive intention of the speaker. The prominent criterion for the right use of language according to Matthew, however, is neither the linguistic stylistic nor the rhetorical form, nor the effect of language on the adresy, nor the specific content of speech. Matthew 5, 21 to 27 states that speech is ethically acceptable or unacceptable only through its intention which itself is based on the theological ethical disposition, the integrity of the speaker and his relationship with God. In Matthew 7, 1 to 5, the parentheses referring to the splinter in the eye, the argument from Matthew 5, 21 to 26 is resumed. The difference as compared to Matthew 5 is that here not only invective and the emotion of anger, but every verbal expression of the evaluative judging degradation of another person is condemned. Versus 1 to 5, formulate an interdiction to judge others. However, as judging also implies discernment between right and wrong, Matthew 7, 1 and 2 do not condemn judging altogether but focus on the inner disposition of the judge. The critical evaluation of the neighbor is important but only with the intention of correcting him in order to save him from the eschatological judgment, not with the intention of condemnation. Matthew 7, 1 to 5 is to be regarded as a complimentary counterpart to Matthew 18, 15 to 18 where the fraternal correction with a positive intention is demanded and introduced in the three step process. Just as the Old Testament ascribes a pedagogical function to the wrath of God, which can cause conversion and lead to salvation, so Matthew 18, 15 to 18 transfers this aspect to human interaction. If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother but if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you lose on earth shall be lost in heaven. This passage demands fraternal correction in the sense of a critical evaluation of the brother which has the intention to correct and to discipline. In the correction, if the correction is not accepted, Matthew 18 even demands a missionary approach. The text describes a formally correct way of correcting one's brother. In the face of the impending eschaton, man has a great responsibility towards his brother as correction can save him from eschatological damnation. As the inner disposition determines whether man is able to discern right from wrong, the demand for fraternal correction depends on the inner disposition of him who corrects. In this context, the speech ethical proposition of Matthew 12, 36 has to be taken into consideration. This predicts the judgment of each worthless word and also the justification by words. This leads to the conclusion that the failure to render correction is equivalent to the acceptance of the possible eschatological condemnation of the brother due to verbal transgressions, a failure which would testify to a lack of brotherly love. This, however, means that invectives may have to be used in order to correct the brother, to correct him effectively, and thus to save him from eschatological judgment. Matthew 21, 28 to 32, the parable of the two sons who are asked to work in the vineyard recurs to the general topic of speech and action that characterizes a person. What do you think? A man had two sons and he went to the first and said, son, go and work in the vineyard today. And he answered, I will not. But afterward, he repented and went. And he went to the second and said the same. And he answered, I go, sir, but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father? They said the first. Jesus said to them truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you with a way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterwards repent and believe him. The text states that it is especially the correlation of speech and action that reveals the inner disposition of man. Inner divisiveness, which is reflected in human speech, will be judged in the eschatological judgment. The presentation in Matthew 21 is based on the assumption that man is deep psychos who stands between a Christian existence and the existence in the world, which is revealed in his way of speaking and acting. The central theological proposition of the pericope lies in the stress on repentance and the correlation between word and action, and hence the integrity of speech. In Matthew 15, 10, the debate concerning cultic and ethical purity is taken up. In verses 15 to 20, verses 15 to 20 propose another differentiation, the differentiation between the purity of the heart or the intention and the purity of the body. We read, and he called the people to him and said to them, here and understand. Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. But Peter said to him, explain the parable to us. And he said, are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into your mouth passes into the stomach and so passes on? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart and this defiles a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defiles a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. This pericope also focuses on intention. Whatever material thing enters a body does not have an intention and therefore cannot defile man. Only those things spoken out of the heart carry an intention and reveal the human disposition. Closely connected with the demand for the right intention is the demand for unconditional truthfulness of speech. As is expressed in the ban on oaths in Matthew 5, 33 to 37, which emphasizes the integrity of man and the truthfulness of his speech and proceeds from the disposition of his heart. The status of the adreses within the kingdom of God, the new creation renders lies unnecessary and therefore also the practice of oath taking, which commonly serves to curb lying and untruthfulness. Even emphatic formulaic assertions become redundant. The instruction in verse 37 is based on the assumption that the inner disposition of man grants his truthfulness. The speech ethical topoi of Matthew can be situated within the speech ethical discourse in ancient literature. But they show three characteristics. Firstly, speech ethics as presented in Matthew is interpreted on the basis of a Christian worldview and hope of salvation and the fear of the eschatological judgment. Secondly, although Matthew shows a decided interest in Jewish traditions and themes, speech ethics is not as predominantly in the Old Testament and the wisdom literature restricted to mere admonitions. Matthew's speech ethics is presented as explicit ethical reflection on a subject. And thirdly, ethics in Matthew as in the rest of the New Testament is neither restricted to the male upper class nor does it focus on individual ethics. Matthew's speech ethical admonitions address not primarily the individual, his disposition and relationship to God, but the conduct and disposition of the entire group. The relationship with God, the speech integrity and character of the individual are therefore always bound up with the integrity of the group. Four important aspects of ancient speech ethical discourse are not found in Matthew. The aesthetics of speech, obscene speech, the control of the tongue and the importance of silence. The topos of the control of the tongue, which is very important in ancient literature and often even leads to the propagation of an ethics of silence, may be alluded to in Matthew five in the prohibition of angry speech and of invectives or in the proposition that every word will be judged in Matthew 12. However, Matthew seems to allow for the possibility that through the formation of the disposition of man, he's enabled to a right use of speech, which is absolutely directed by the will of God that might be seen from Matthew 1019. Hence, it is not necessary to reflect on the control of the tongue. Neither is an ethics of silence of relevance. The evangelist is not concerned with formal rhetoric. The New Testament does not give instructions concerning rhetoric or the acquisition of eloquence. The primary focus is on the effect of speech, not on the adresy, but on the speaker himself, on his relationship with and his status before God. Matthew focuses on the transmission of instructions which aim at forming the disposition and thus the speech of the adresy in a way that grants them a positive evaluation in the eschatological judgment. Thus, speech ethics is not only a matter of ethics, as usually in the ancient literature, it rather assumes a central position in that the right use of speech has eschatological implications and sociological relevance. Speech ethical texts occur over the whole of the main part of the gospel, which is due to the fact that speech ethical instructions are inscribed to the teaching authority of Jesus. The former net of speech ethical instruction, which spans the whole main part of the gospel. Internally, they show close connections. For instance, Matthew 5, the chronologically first mention of the topic, introduces aspects which are taken up in Matthew 23, the last mention of the topic. In Matthew 5, instruction is given in the form of a programmatic presentation of Matthew and ethics. In Matthew 23, in form of an application of the teaching within the reproof of the Pharisees. The purpose of judging with negative intention is introduced in Matthew 7 and taken up again in Matthew 18. When judging with positive intention, fraternal correction is addressed. The ethical consequences of the new status of the adreses and the importance of the disposition as predisposition for right speech is thematized in argumentative form in Matthew 12 and recurred again in Matthew 21 in narrative form. The topic of the truthfulness of speech, which testifies to an inner wholeness and integrity, is taken up programmatically in the ban on oaths in Matthew 5 and extended in Matthew 15 in the context of argumentation on purity. The central factor of the right disposition, which is revealed in the right use of speech and the right intention of speaking, constitutes the final focal point of all speech ethical texts of the Gospel of Matthew. The speech ethical discourse is even more prevalent in the letter of James. The entire text is pervaded by the discourse. The authority conveying speech ethical instruction in the letter of James is James and not Jesus. The pseudepicrophil author of the text seems to assume a position of authority with regard to the adreses, allowing for authoritative teaching and parenthesis. Although the ethics of word indeed are treated as parallel strands of ethics throughout the text, it is possible to isolate the speech ethical components. A prerequisite for understanding the speech ethical instruction in James is a grasp of the underlying worldview and anthropology as it is used as a frame of reference throughout the letter and substantiates the argument that man is generally capable of right speech ethical conduct. The first important text of the letter is James 1, 17 to 27. Every generous act of giving with every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. In the fulfillment of his own purpose, he gave us birth by the word of truth so that we should become a kind of first fruit of his creatures. You must understand this, my beloved. Let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger, for your anger does not produce God's righteousness. Therefore, rid yourself of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness. And welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls. From this text, you can derive the following conception. Christian existence begins with the implanting of the logos aleteas, the word of truth, James 1, 18. From this point onwards, Christian existence is considered as an existence as the first fruits of the new creation. So in a way, first fruits of a new creation. In this state, man is capable of correct conduct but is always tempted and often fails. Last Christian existence is regarded as moving towards the eschaton, meandering between two poles of correct and wrong ethical conduct. The implanted logos may be associated with the gospel, the Christ event and its consequences, which has the power to save your souls, 121, which was given by God without any preconditions, 117 and 18, which adds man to the new creation, 118. However, faith does not necessarily lead to good words and correct ethical conduct. In James 1, 22 to 27, we read, but be doers of the word and not merely hearers who deceive themselves, for if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in the mirror, for they look at themselves and going away immediately forgot what they were like. But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty and persevere, being not hearers who forget, but doers who act, they will be blessed in their doing. If anything, they are religious and do not bridle their tongues, but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this, to care for orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world. This text assumes that correct conduct is possible, as believers have discarded wickedness of the wickedness of the old self in meekness, as we read in James 1, 21, and are freed from their former status amongst fallen creation. At least, as long as I have accepted the implanted word and belong to the new creation, and are hence able to act according to the law of creation, the gospel or the perfect law, the law of liberty, 125. In this world, both old and new creation exist alongside each other, as can be derived from the passages concerning temptations in James 1, 2 to 16 and concerning desires in James 4, 1 to 4. Therefore, the correct conduct is repeatedly challenged. The text speaks of believers who either passively do not do good works or actively act in the wrong way. The author of the epistle of James counts this as sin, sorry, that's James 4, 17. We read. I don't. We read. Anyone then who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it commits sin. He admonishes his readers to do and speak in the right way by reference to the eschatological judgment, that's James 2, 12, as you can read. So speak and act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. Hence, according to the letter of James, correct speech ethical conduct is only possible within the sphere of the new creation. The believer, however, lives in the world but is at the same time in the sphere of the old creation where the payrasmoy are influential. Hence, he fails again and again. In entering the new Christian existence, man does not undergo an ethical transformation but merely enters the sphere where right conduct is theoretically possible and the continual striving for the right conduct in word indeed continues but now with the perspective of success. Let us now go through the letter chronologically in order to establish the speech ethical position of the letter of James. Assuming the epistle is addressed to an early Christian congregation and addresses believers, speech ethical admonition begins with an exhortation to those who have transgressed too far from the word of truth, the logos aleteas and have reverted this fear of the old creation. They are addressed in James 121. You can see it there again. And they are admonished to discard all wickedness and to accept a new, the implanted word, the amphitheater's logos in meekness and humility. Then correct conduct and word indeed according to the law will once again be possible. Hence, James 1 19 to 27 drafts the fundamental statement that man has to align his speech with the logos in order to use speech in accordance with the law of God which is the essential criterion in the last judgment. That's verse 21. In James 1 19 to 27, the author assumes the situation that the speech is not aligned with the law. In verse 21, therefore, he conveys an exhortation to discard in meekness all evil and wickedness which is still manifest in words and deeds and to accept the implanted logos that is the word spoken in the gospel, like verse 19 and 21. Even in the structure of the letter, the implanted word precedes the demand to speak and act according to the logos which finds expression in the observance of the Christian law like the nomos. Anger is mentioned as an example for speech which is not in accordance with the logos. In verse 26, we find a reference to the unbridled tongue which will be elaborated on in James 3. Like Matthew, the author of James advocates a definite condemnation of human anger. Correct use of speech is speech without anger which is possible as long as human existence is lived within the sphere of the logos. Let us now have another look at another important text of the letter, James 3, 1 to 12. I'm not going to read it all because I've read it in the beginning. James 3 opens the discourse with a statement that all of us fail in words. Everybody except the perfect man. The teleos are near, 3, 2. The following anthropological and theological argumentation functions a substanciation for the ethical argumentation in James 1, 19 to 27 in explaining the possibility of influencing the use of speech in the light of the Christ event and creation theology. In an elaborate emphasis, the author presents four images or metaphors to illustrate the character of the untameable tongue and to end in the parenthesis that it must not be that blessing and curse originate from the same mouth as this conduct is unnatural. The examples are explicitly taken from nature to emphasize this unnaturalness. This implies the admonition to alter and to amend this conduct. The text conveys here two seemingly contradictory statements. On the one hand, the tongue is characterized as untameable. On the other hand, this state is identified as unnatural and admonished to be altered. A solution to this dilemma might be found on an anthropological level when reading the text within the context of James's statements about the old and new creation. As expounded, James explains the possibility of ethical speech, not explicitly but associatively, through the new creation, through the word of truth. The addresses are counted among the first fruits of the new creation and hence revert to an uncorrupted state. This is why they are capable of using speech in an adequate manner. At the same time, an inconsiderate unbridled speech is an empirical phenomenon, even to the author and even among the addresses of the letter. As you can conclude from the text, these contradictory or conflicting aspects are explicated in James 4, 1, 2, 3. In James 3, 1, 2, 18, the author only states that adequate speech ethical conduct is possible. How this conduct comes about is explained in James 1, 19 to 27 through the renewed acceptance of the Amphitos logos, the implanted logos, and a life in accordance with the logos aleteas, the word of truth. The believer hence is only part of a new creation and lives an ethical life according to the law when he is in an inner condition that the implanted word is present and applied. However, the author is realistic enough to open his argumentation to empirical observation, for even the perfect man is only attested to be able to bridle the tongue temporarily, but not to tame it. The influence of the world and the desires are too powerful. Therefore, the repeated conversion or return to the word of the law is necessary in order to ascertain the right ethical conduct. In difference to the linear conception of learning in the Old Testament wisdom, the letter of James presents a circular process. Through the word of truth, the logos aleteas, man is endowed with a power which allows the control over his emotions. James 3 explicitly mentions the human will, Homme, as a means of control, and yet there is no explicit commandment to the control of the emotions. The following part of the letter provides concrete speech ethical admonitions. James 512 elaborates on the truthfulness of man and the reliability of his word. In analogy to the passage in Matthew, the text demands clarity of speech and an unambiguous disposition. If speech is unconditionally truthful, both are redundant. In James 1.26, the topic of the correct ethical conduct is combined with a discourse on speech ethics. Speech can be evaluated as ethically or morally pure or impure, depending on whether it is aligned with the rules of the discourse. Speech can defile the speaker and can influence his relationship with God. The letter of James presents this in an argumentation and through defiling language, the speaker accepts the value of the world. In the same breath, the author admonishes the addresses to dissociate themselves from the world in order to avoid conduct that is out of place within the sphere of the new creation. The disparity between the Christian sphere and the world is mirrored in the dividedness of the personalities and hearts of men who believe that they are focused on God and his service but have their illusions shattered by the author who tells them that they are deceiving themselves. This self-deception and dividedness can only be overcome by prayer and God's gift of wisdom. That's James 1.529. This aspect of ethics may be turned ethics of disposition. It is an ethics that focuses not merely on action in word and deed, but on a deeper level on the inner disposition of man, which is the cause and origin of all action. James 3.9-12 takes up this top horse very explicitly. Man is portrayed as divided in heart between right and wrong conduct. His disposition is volatile and faltering and in dire need of transformation. The dividedness of man is mirrored in his conduct. The author shows that in the sphere of the new creation this conduct is inadequate and unnatural. The passage James 4.11-12 elaborates on the topic of inadequate speech by introducing the aspect of judging. Judging is equated with condemning. That is, the critical evaluation with negative intention. Implicitly, this text refers to the consequences of this speech ethical conduct in the eschatological judgment. This is followed by an explicit unconditional prohibition to surpass the human competencies and to condemn the neighbor. The text does not show any reference to interhuman admonition. In interhuman speech, the critical judgmental evaluation is condemned. Positive admonishing evaluation, on the other hand, is considered necessary. For instance, in the form of the epistolary parenthesis, as well as in interhuman contact with the Christian community. In James 5.19 and 20, we read, my brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and is brought back by another, you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner's soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. In these verses, the perpetuation of parenthesis is demanded. It can be expressed through the calling back of an erring member of the community in the context of interpersonal or epistolary communication. A man's propensity to evil is prevalent and constant control and admonition is necessary. But also, the speech of the one giving admonition is subject to control, as admonition is to be conducted in brotherly love. So also the speech of the one admonishing is closely connected with his inner disposition. The linguistic form, as well as the intention behind the uttered words, is therefore a central topic to James. The ethical admonitions of the letter are situated within an eschatological and sociological argumentation. Correct speech ethical conduct, as well as correct deeds, of course, according to the principles of the ethical parenthesis conveyed is of central importance with a view to eschatological salvation. In this context, we have to read the programmatic final parenthesis of the letter of James in James 5, 19 and following, where the author admonishes the addresses to teach and admonish each other with a view to the eschaton, an aspect we had already detected in Matthew 18. The speech ethical aspect found in the letter of James show clear overlaps with the discourse on speech ethics in antiquity, as well as with the Gospel of Matthew. James's speech ethics is also bound up with a Christian worldview and hope of salvation as a frame of reference, as it is motivated by Christian eschatological aspects. James emphasizes the importance of the inner disposition of man and does not focus primarily on concrete admonitions concerning correct ethical conduct. Moreover, ethics does not focus on the individual but on the group of addresses. The topic is in general not developed with the help of singular invented examples, but James addresses problems of the addresses community and focuses his ethics on these problems. It may be stated that the motivation for speech ethical teaching in the letter is the dismal state of the addresses community. For the addresses are moved to perfect their faith. This is to come to pass through the subjection of speech and deed ethical rules, which can be found in the law that is the Gospel. Ethics of speech is hence conveyed on three levels in the letter of James. Firstly, on a meter level in the form of a general argumentative parenthesis in James 1, 19 to 27, in which the author appeals to the addresses to live a life of right ethical conduct. Secondly, he applies a theoretically substantiating discourse in James 3, 1 to 18, in which possible objections to his admonitions in chapter one are countered. And thirdly, in a series of concrete speech ethical admonitions in chapters four and five, which motivate the addresses to the correct conduct by embedding the admonition within the eschatological framework. Due to the constraints of time, I shall not be able to go deeper into the texts of further New Testament writings, which present similar speech ethical discourse positions. To just give a short overview, the first letter of Peter and the first letter of Peter takes up the speech ethical matters, but with a decidedly different approach. The addresses are instructed to speak in a manner that represents the Christian community in a positive light to the surrounding world. The aspect of interpersonal consequences or of consequences for the speaker's relationship with God are not touched upon. The epistle to the Ephesians and the epistle to the Colossians and the pastures adopt single topoi of the ancient discourse on speech ethics. They especially focus on specific examples and admonitions of inadequate use of speech. Although they are apparently aware of the speech ethical discourse, they partake only partially in it, and the mere aspects of speech ethical discourse taken up do not allow to form a discourse position in these writings. A similar picture can be seen in the Didache, where instances of the reception of a speech ethical discourse can be observed. However, for the most part, the Didache formulates ethical admonitions without any ethical reflection. The reception of the broad spectrum of speech ethical topoi in the Didache, for instance, oath, truthfulness of speech, the importance of the disposition, lies, brotherly correction, angry speech, hypocrisy, et cetera, may indicate that the Didache originated within the same tradition as Matthew and James, the two writings in which speech ethics play a prominent role. What can we conclude concerning the New Testament's strand of discourse? The topoi received, and therefore found in the New Testament, show broad thematic overlap, angry speech, the aspect of the evil of the tongue, control of the tongue, examples of inadequate or wrong use of speech, truthfulness and integrity of the person in speech and action, as well as the complementary topoi of judging and fraternal correction are taken up repeatedly in the New Testament writings and form the pillars of the New Testament speech ethical discourse. In Matthew, James and First Peter, they are taken up in individual ways with accentuations and also intricately linked with each other within the writings. They characterize the respective discourse positions. At the same time, it becomes apparent that the New Testament writings only adapt certain speech ethical topoi from the contemporary discourse. For instance, the recurrence on the thematic reflection of obscene speech, on Jocular, a humorous language, on aesthetics of language, silence of speech and rhetoric are not taken up throughout the New Testament writings. The topoi adapted, however, are not only taken up, but are also reinterpreted within the Christian worldview, thus forming separate, distinctive, but uniform discourse positions within the contemporary speech ethical discourse. The New Testament writings demand a use of speech which through the reception within the Christian worldview and the Christian ethical context is opposed to the speech ethics of the ancient world. Gained specific reframing, radicalization, and reorientation. Speech can be considered under several aspects. For instance, on the communicative level concerning the aspect of content, form, or effect on the adresy, on the ethical level under the aspect of the intention of the speaker or the effect of speech on the speaker. Within the framework, New Testament ethics is developed under two aspects. On the one hand, speech ethical texts thematize and reflect on right verbal actions and give specific situational and topical instruction. On the other hand, speech ethical texts focus on the meter level of the intention and disposition of the speaker. The New Testament strand of discourse also shows differences from the contemporary discourse in the motivation of speech ethics. The eschatological perspective, which implies a direct link between the right use of speech and salvation in the eschatological judgment, as gripes comprehensive importance to the ethics of speech. As opposed to ancient pagan philosophy and Old Testament as well as early Jewish traditions, New Testament speech ethics acquire sociological importance. That is why the expansion of the circle of addresses is necessary. The entire group of Christian addresses, instead of only the male upper class as in Greco-Roman antiquity and in the wisdom school. Ethics is therefore not only individual ethics, but focuses on the individual as well as the group. By giving specific ethical instruction, speech ethics also play a part in forming group identity. With a view to power structures, the question concerning how discourses are directed like suppressed, enhanced, et cetera, and how effective the discourse positions were in relation to the overall discourse of antiquity have also be asked. Discourses are always related to power. On the one hand, discourses are subject to the powers of society, which create discourses and continually rewrite their rules. On the other hand, the discourse itself creates a reality which enables it to exert power over society. Discourse and power are mutually dependent for discourses exert power in that they collect, preserve, and organize knowledge. But at the same time, discourses modify, reinterpret knowledge, and ascribe new importance to it. The discourse is dependent on social powers in that speech ethical texts deal with the early Christian relation to the social and political situation of their world and provide norms of behavior, avoidance strategies, and instructions on specific conduct which are based on the Christian worldview which are opposed to the common conduct of the time. At the same time, the discourse exerts power in that the New Testament discourse on speech ethics contributes to the construction of a worldview which prescribes categories of perception, constructions of meaning, and foundations of identity with a view to the right use of language and its sociological relevance and also contributes to the formation of a community. The affiliation to which depends on the acceptance of the discourse and its consequences. However, power is exerted towards the addresses and the ethical power to instruct is based on the presumption that a certain verbal conduct is precondition to the affiliation with a group which forms the background of the origin of those writings. The power of instruction is closely connected with the power to interpret and to teach which allows for a new interpretation of the speech ethical topoi within the Christian symbolic universe and for their authoritative transmission. The power of instruction in all three writings analyzed is based upon the pseudonymous reference to names of imminent personalities of the first century, Jesus, James, and Peter. Although one may not assume or construct literary dependencies or direct references between those early Christian texts on speech ethics, the assumption seems reasonable that these writings have recursed to the same traditions and may even originate from the same or at least one Jewish Christian background but adapting the common tradition to the needs of their situation. In New Testament scholarship, James and Matthew are commonly said to have originated from a Jewish Christian background. The result of this analysis may corroborate the thesis of a common background of Matthew and James with perhaps even some influence on first Peter. In this context, one has to ask why exactly those writings which got back to the Jewish Christian background partook in the discourse on speech ethics. If we look at the discursive context of each of the topoi we find in the discourse on speech ethics in the New Testament, they are all prominent in all of ancient literature, in the Old Testament, in early Jewish literature, as well as in pagan philosophic writings. As pagan writings also partook in this speech ethical discourse, the question arises all the more prominently. Why all New Testament writings, especially those with the pagan Christian background, did not take up the aspects of the topic. This question, which cannot be answered easily, leads to a new evaluation of the New Testament writings with Jewish Christian background, which were open to the issues debated at the time and were probably more integrated into the framework of the contemporary discourse. They show a much higher ability to be open to connecting with the contemporary society than the rest of the New Testament writings. The reason for the reception of speech ethics in Matthew James and 1 Peter might be found in the fact that the topics of right speech and the right use of language was a prominent topic in the Old Testament and early Jewish wisdom literature. Maybe the authors of these writings, which seem to be characterized by the Jewish context and thought world, regarded the high significance of speech in their culture as relevant enough to transfer it to their early Christian writings. In this process, they were able to reinterpret it to combine the typical wisdom admonition with the extensive ethical reflection of pagan ethical writings. Another way of explaining the phenomenon can, in my opinion, only be found in assuming a common context of origin. Thank you very much.