Another marked feature of our Epistle is the
clcso connexion between it and the Sermon on the Mount, in which our Lord laid down the principlea of the kingdom whicli he came to establish upon eartli. It must sulfice to refer here to the general harmony between the two as to the spiritual view of the law (Ja 1" 2''- '^ ", Mt 5"-"), tlie blessings of adversity (Ja P- » 2» 5'- «• ", Mt 5»-'2), the dangers and the uiicertnintv of wealth (Ja l'"-" '«■ ' 4^ *• u-iu 51-6^ i^it (jiB-.il. w-M)^ ti,e futility of a more pro- fession of religion (Ja I'*--'', Mt G'"'), the contrast between saying and doiu'' (Ja l^-"^ 2'<-»' 3'>- '», Mt 7""), the true nature of prayer (Ja l»-8 4» 5i»- '8, Mt 6''"), the incompatibility uetween the love o( the world and the love of God (Ja 2" 3" 4*-», Mt 6"), the need to forgive others if we would be forgiven ourselves (Ja '!"■ ", Mt 6'*- "), the tree known by its fruits (Ja 3"- ", Mt 7"-*), the interdiction of oaths (Ja 5'*, Mt 5"'''') and of cen.soriousness (Ja 4"- '-, Mt 7''°), the praise of singleness of aim (Ja 1' 4', Mt 6^' ^). Nor are these reminiscences con- fined to the Sermon on the Mount, or to our Lord's words as report<;d by St. Matthew ; there is much to remind us both of St. Luke and St. John. It is worthy of note that, close as is the connexion of sentiment and even of language in many of these passages, it never amounts to actual quota- tion, but is rather the reminiscence of thoughts often uttered by the original speaker and sinking into the heart of the hearer, who reproduces tliein in his own manner.
It may be asked, if St. James was thus deeply influenced by his Brother's teaching, how are wa to explain the fact that at one period of his life ' he did not believe on him ' ? Perhaps we may "alher from the Epistle that the writer would have found a <lifficulty in some of the sayings of Christ. ' Before Abraham was, I am' ; ' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you,' — these must have been ' hard sayings ' to the brother of Jesus even more than to strangers. This state of mind was doubtless combined with an intense love and reverence for the elder Brother, and was perhaps not incom- patible with the belief in Christ's mission as a preacher of righteousness, and a willingness to accept him as the anointed King of the Jewish people : but it might easily lead to an anxious solicitude as to his sanity and the prudence of the measures which he took for extending the number of his adherents. (See the subject more fully treated in Mayor's Introduction to St. Jat)f:s, ch. i. on the Author, ch. iv. on its relation to other Books of NT).
ii. Cano.vicity. — Eusebius in a well-kno%vn passage {HE iii. 25) distinguishes between the dis- puted and the undisputed liooks which made up the is'T, and were publicly read in the church at the time when he wrote {I.e. iii. 31), i.e. in A.D. 314 (see Lightfoot in i»ic«. ofChr. Biufj. ii. n. 323). To- gether they contain all the books included in our present Canon and no others ; those which were disputed, though generally known, being the Epistle which goes under the name of James and that of Jude, as well as the 2nd of Peter and the so-called 2nd and 3rd of John. The Apoc. he had before doubtfully classed among the undisputed, but questions whether it should not rather be classed with the spurious, like the Revelation of Peter. Elsewhere he says (ii. 23), 'The first of the Epistles styled Catholic is said to be by James the Lord's brother, which is held by some to be spurious. Certainly not many old writers have mentioned it, as neither have they the Epistle of Jude.' His own practice, however, betrays no suspicion of its genuineness, as in one pass.age he quotes .lames as Scripture [Comm. in Psalm, p. 648, Montf. ), and in another quotes Ja 5'' M spoken by the holy apostle {ib. p. 247).
JA.MES, EPISTLE OF
JAMES, EPISTLE OF
o4b
The same doubt as to the canonicity of the Epistle is shown by its omission from some of the early versions and catalogues of sacred books, e.g. the Muratorian Fragment (of which Westcott Bays that it may be regarded as ' a summary of tlie opinion of tiie Western Church on the Canon Bhortly after the middle of the 2nd cent.'), and the Cheltenham list, which is supposed to have been written in Africa about the year 3o9. On tlie other hand, it was generally recognized in the East, being included in the Peshitta, wliicli omits 2P, 2and3Jn, Jude,andRev. The Pesh. used to be ascribed to the 2nd cent., and is probably not later than the 3rd, but the date la still in dispute. Ja is also found in the lists given by Origen {Horn. in Jos. vii. ]), Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others, and was iinally ratitied by the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Its late reception in the West may probably be explained by the fact that it was addressed to Jews of the Ea.stem (?) Dispersion, that it did not profess to be written by an apostle, and that it appeared to contradict the teaching of the great Apostle to the Centiles,