JAMES, EPISTLE OF
JAMES. EPISTLE OF
5«
for the murder of James ; but this does not occur in his extant writings.
Clement of Alexandria (up. Euseb. HE ii. 1) says that Peter and James and John, who were most honoured by the Lord, clio.se James the Just to be bi.shop of Jerus. after the Ascension, and that the Lord imparted his esoteric teaching (ttiv yvuaiv) to James the Just and Peter and John after his resurrection, and again that this was imparted by them to the other apostles, and by the latter to tliu Seventy.
In the Clementine Homilies (written early in the 3rd cent.) James is represented, in the letter ad- dressed to him by Clement, as the chief ruler of the Church at large, KXi^iijt 'laKwfiif rep Kvpit^ koX iTri(TK6Trtx:y itnaKbiri^^ SUttoi'ti Si ttiv <.iv'> 'le/joucaXTj/i a.'^La.v KjJpaiuv ^KnXrjfftav Kal tcls iro»TaxJ? OcoO Trpopoi^ Idpvdeiaa^^ «.t.X.
Eusebius [HE viL 19) reports that his episcopal chair was still shown at Jerus. at the time when he wrote.
Besides the canonical Epistle of St. James, his name is attaclied to the apocr. Protevangelitun Jacobi and the so-called Liturgy of St. James. See Diet. Chr. Antitf. p. 1019 f., art. 'Liturgy,' and Diet, of Chr. Bwg. under ' Gospels, Apocry- phal,' p. 701 f. J. ii. Mayor.
JAMES, THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF. —
i. Authorship.— Tlie writer describes liimself (1') as ' James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.' As the name was very common, and the description one which is applicable to all Chris- tians, it is evident that he must have been dis- tinguished from otliers wlio bore the same name by position or otherwise, so as to justify him in addressing the Twelve Tribes of the Dispersion with the tone of authority whicli is so marked a feature of the Epistle. This inference receives support from the Kp. of Jude, the v\Titer of which styles himself ' brother of James,' evidently assum- ing that his brother's name would carry weight with those to wliom he writes.
The Epistle itself is strongly contrasted, not only with Ko and Gal, against wliicli .some have supposed it to be directed, but also with 1 P, wliicli, in some points, it closely resembles. In stjde it reminds one now of Pr, now of the stern denunciations of the propliets, now of the parables in the Gospels. It has scarcely any direct reference to Christ, who is indeed named only twice. In commending the duty of patience (5'"") the writer refers to tlie example of tlie husbandman, and to Job and tlie proiiliets of the OT : if lie alludes to our Lord at all, he does so only ob- scurely in the words ' ye killed the just ; he doth not resist you' ; while St. Peter, on the contrary, dwells exclusively on the example of Christ (1 P 2'»" 4'--'''). In urging llie duty of prayer, reference is made, not (as in He 5') to the pro- mises or prayers of Christ, but to the prayer of Elijah ; the exhortation to kindness, and the warning against evil-siieaking in cli. 3, are based, not on tlie examjile of Christ and the thought of our coinnKm liiothcrhooil in him (as in 1 P 2^, Ro P2', I'.ph 4"), hut on the parables of nature, on tlie fact that man was created in the image of God, and on general reasoning ; and again (in 4") speaking evil of a brother is conileiiincd a.t putting a slight on the law, not as causing pain to Christ. No mention is made of the crucilixioii or resurrec- tion, or of the doctrines of the iiuarnation and atonement. To a careless readrr the tone seems scarcely to rise above that of the OTj Christian ideas are still clothed in Jewish forms. Thus the law, called for the sake of distinction ' the law of liberty ' or ' the royal law,' .seems to stand in place of the g08p«l, or even of Christ himself Ci""" 4") ;
the love of the world is condemned in the language of the or as adultery against God. This contrast rises to its highest pitch in treating of the relation between faith and works (2'''"*). While St. Paul writes (Ko 3*) ' We reckon, therefore, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,' the language of St. James is (2") ' Ye see then that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.' And whUe the case of Abraham is cited in Ko 4'- "•'" in proof of the doctrine of justification by faith, and the case of Kahab is cited for the same purpose in He 11", St James makes use of both to prove that man is justified by works (2"). Speaking generally, we may say that this Epistle has a more Jewish cast than any other writing of the NT, and that the author must have been one who would be more in sympathy with the Judaiz- ing party, and more likely to exercise an inlluence over them, than any of the three great leaders, Peter, Paul, or John.
Comparing what is said of James the brother of the Lord in the preceding article, we find in him one w ho exactly fulfils the conditions required in the writer of the Epistle ; and if we examine the speech attributed to him in Ac 15 and the circular letter there given, which wa-s probably drawn up by him, we find in these a remarkable similarity to the language of the Epistle. That St. Luke has recorded the actual words of the speaker, either in the original lang\i;ige or in a translation, seems probable from his use of the form ' Sj-meon ' (v."), which is not found elsewhere in Ac, as well as from the resemblances, noticed by Alford (vol. iv. Prologumena), between 1 P and the speeches ascribed to liim in the Ac. It is surely a remarkable coincidence that, out of 230 words con- tained in the speech and circular, so many should reappear in our Epistle, written on a totally ditterent subject.