Origen (d. 253) is apparently the first who cites the Epistle as Scripture, ami as written by St. James ; see Comm. in Juh. xi.\. 6 ; in Jiom. iv. 1, 8, ix. 24 ; Horn. in. Ex. iii. 3, viii. 4 ; in Lv. ii. 4, xiii. 3; Sel. in Ps. 31. 5, 37. 24, 118. 153; Comtn. in Prov. (Mai, Noi'. Bibl. vii. 51) ; but Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) is said by Eusebius (HE vi. 14) to have Included in his Outlines (iv rah 'TTOTuTuffeo-i) short explanations of all the sacred books, ^n)^i rd? 6.vTL\€yo^liva.i TrapcX^uJi', tt]v 'loi^Sa \^7a> KoX rdj Xoiird; KaQoKiKii^ ^)rt(rTo\ds TTjf re Ba/)fd^a Kai Tijv Ilh-pov \€yo^vT)v 6.TroKa\v^tv. Cassiodorus {Inst. div. lit. 8) limits this by saying that Clement commented on the canonical Epistles, i.e. on 1 P, 1 and 2 Jn, and Ja. The notes on the first three, and on Jude, but not on Ja, are still extant in a Latin translation, and some have doubted whether the reading in Cassiodorus should not be altered accordingly ; see, however, Zahn, Neulest. Kan. \. 322, Forscnungen, iii. 153 ; Sanday in Stud. Bibl. iii. 248.
iii. Date. — If we are right in our view of the authorship of the Epistle, it must have been written not later than A.D. 02. This view, how- ever, although approved by the great majority of scholars and divines up to the end of last century, is regarded with suspicion by some modern scholars. We will give oriefly their con- clusions, and then state the reasons for belie\'ing that it was written between A.u. 40 and 50. Von Soden, in the Introduction to his IJawlkom- flicniar (1890), allows that in thought and e.tpres- sion there is considerable resemblance between our Epistle and the writings of Clement of Rome, and especially of Hennas, but considers that there is no reason to suppose any literary connexion. They resemble one another simi)ly because they were produced under the same conditions. No trace of our Epistle is to be found in the 2nd cent. Nothing in the letter suggests Jewish readi rs. The title may bo genuine because Christians had learnt to regard llieniselves as strangers and pilgrims. It was probably written for Christians ^ciierully, in the reign of Domitian. W. HriicUner, in his Chronolog. Jicihcn/olge d. N.T. Uriefe (Haarlem, 1890), considers that it cannot bo assigned to an earlier date than A.D. 150, as it borrows from 1 P, which was written during the persecution of Trajan. The Judaiziiig tone implies a late stage of <Ui(trinal development, ina.smuch as it attacks Paulinism as the seed of an existing Gnosticism. The true address reveals itself in the plira.se ' your synagogue ' (2-), by which we are to understand a littls conventicle of Essene Cliris- VOL. II. — 35
tinns at lionie. The phrase 'Diaspora' denotes similar scattered conventicles, in which alone the true Israel, the poor, are to be found. By ' the rich ' is meant Christians outside the conventicle. Pfleiderer, in his Urchristent/uim (1887), regards the Epistle as representing the catholicized Paul- inism of the latter half of the 2nd cent. He thinks it is an abbreviation of the Shepherd of Hermas. The polemic is not directed against St. Paul, but against the later Gnostics who appealed to his authority. There is nothing Judaistic in the writer's tone; he simply enforces the truths of [practical Christianity as understood by the Cath- olic Church. The latest wTiter on the subject ii F. Sjjitta {Zur Gcsrhichte u. Litterntur dcs Ur- christcyithutns, vol. ii. 1S90), who, while allowing the references to our Epistle in St. Paul's Epistle to the Roni.ans, avoids the reproach of coming to a commonplace conclusion by starting the theory that it is a Christian adaptation of a Jewish book, written before the Christian era.* He draws this conclusion from the considerations stated in the earlier part of this article, and explains away the resemblance to the Sermon on the ^Iount by quoting parallels from the Apocrypha and other Jewish writings.
There is certainly much more to be said for this theory than for those which have been just described. Postponing its examination for the pre- sent, we proceed to state the grounds (independently of what has been already said under the head of authorship and canonicity) for believing that the Epistle was written before A.D. 50. In the present writer's Introduction to St. James, ch. ii., will be found proof that it was known to Irenanis, Theo- j)hilus, Justin MartjT, the writer of the Ep. to Diognetus, Ignatius, Polycarp, and, above all, Hermas, in tlie 2nd cent. ; that it was known to Clement of Home, to IJarnabas, to the authors of the Didacht and the Testament.^ of the Twelve Patriarchs during the 1st cent. We can, however, aflord to dispense with these witnesses, if it can be proved that it was known to more than one of the writers of the NT ; and if we are not mistaken, it has been shown in the above Introduction (ch. iv.) tliat traces of its inlluence may be seen in the Epistles of St. John, in the Ep. to the Hebrews, in those to Timothy, above all in the 1st Epistle of St. Peter, and in St. Paul's Epistles to the Romans and G.ilatians.
Our space will not allow us to deal with more than the last two, merely premising (1) that if the Epistle of James was written by the Lord's brother, it must ]irobabl3- have been written before the year 51 [Turner, 49], the date of the Apos- tolic Council, as otherwise it must have contained some reference to the question, which was then agitating the Diaspora, as to the admission of Gentiles into the Church ; (2) that if such an Epistle were in existence, containing phra-ses which could be turned against the doctrine of justification by faith, it was likely to lie eagerly made use of "by Judaizers, and would thus be brought under St. Paul's notice. It has been re- marked that the words ' whosoever shall kecii the law and yet oU'end in one point, ho is guiltj- of all ' (Ja 2'°), might easily Ikj twisted .so as to represent St. James as insisting on the observance of the whole Mo.saie code, and that this may jw.ssilily l«e alluded to in the words (Ac 15**), ' We have heard that certain irhich went out from us troubled you, saying. Ye must bo circumci.-<e<l and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment.' On the other hand, there is less likelihood of St. Paul's