Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle, “The Stoic Paradox of James 2.10,” NTS 31 no. 4 (Oct. 1985), 616.
Even if the recipients of [the epistle of James] were Jewish Christians rather than Hellenistic ones, as is commonly thought, they should not be supposed ignorant of the basic tenets of Stoicism, or incapable of appreciating their moral application. The dualism which is implicit in both the rabbinical teaching about the transgression of the whole law in one point and the Stoic paradox that he who has one vice has all does not require a similar dichotomization in the scholarly interpretation of James 2. 10. The choice need not be either/or. A Judaic derivation for this verse does not nullify its expression of a Stoic paradox. In an eschatological context that serves to plead a wholly virtuous benefaction in imitation of the divine mercy itself.
The Amateur Exegete 