We have seen, then, (1) that the resemblance between the two Epistles is such that it can only be explained by supposing one of them to have been written with a knowledge of the other ; (2) that a close comparison shows t liat, where there is a resemblance, the statement in St. James is in general more elementary, less exact and developed, than that in St. Paul ; (3) that, in the controversy on faith and works in particular, St. Paul is evi- dently anxious to guard against misunderstanding by carefully defining terms which are used by St. James in a vague general sense : thus, while the latter uses Triffns indefinitely, atone time of genuine Christian trust (!'■' 2'-' etc.), at another of an empty profession (2'''"^), St. Paul begins his dis- cussion by twice defining it as ' faith in Christ ' (Ro 3^-'') ; while St. James had used the ambigu- ous word tpiyoy with similar vagueness, St. Paul distinguishes between the tp/ya. ydfiov (Ro y>-^ 9^') and the Ipyoy rUrrem (1 Th 1», 2Th 1"), 'faith working through love ' (Gal 5'). There is a still more careful limitation in Gal 2", where St. James' dec\3.TI>,tion,^i Ipyuf SiKaioOrai ifBpuiros Kal ovk iK irlir- Teas fwpov, is qualified, not merely as to the principal terms (pyov and irio-ns, but also as to the extent of opposition, by the use of the hypothetical iir fi-fl, and as to the kind of causation attributed to faith, Sid being substituted for iK in the words oi SiKatovrai &v&pioiros i^ ?pyuv vdfiov, idv pii] Sid iriaTtui 'l7)iroC XpiffT-oD ; (4) that, whereas the argument of St. James has no reference to St. Paul or to the arguments used by him, St. Paul turns aside, in the most skilful and delicate way, whatever in the argument of St. James might be made use of by .Judaizers, while at the same time he reaffirms in more guarded language the truths which both apostles held in common. Nothing could be more courteous and nothing more ett'ective. On the other hand, if we imagine St. James to be answering St. Paul, we should have to charce him with di»
JAMES, EPISTLE OF
JAMES, EPISTLE OF
047
oonrtesy in addition to an entire misapprehension of the situation.
It remains now to show, in opposition to Spitta, that our Epistle was written alter A.D. 40. If it ■was written by the brother of the Lord, this is about the earliest date which would allow time for his authority to establish itself, as it evidently had done when the letter was written, and also for the growth of a Church of the Diaspora with the experiences described. The hypothesi.s, however, which we have to meet is that it is a Jewish writing of the 1st cent. B.C., interpolated and adopted by a f!hriatian, in the same way as the DidarM, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Sibylline Books, and the Fourth Book of Ezra were mter- jiolated. AU that is required to restore it to its original form is, to omit the words roC Kvplou'lTjaov XpiiTToO in 1', and ijfiuiv 'It/joC XpitrroC in 2', a chai)j;e which greatly simjilities the construction of r/jt Soirjs in the latter passages, leaving the familiar phrase tjjv irlaTtv toO Kvpiov rijs fio^Tjs, examples of which are quoted from the Bk. of Enoch (Spitta, p. iv).
The first thing which strikes ns is that a Chris- tian editor would not have been satisfied with such a slight revision. Jl'e may possibly explain the absence of any reference to Christ among the ex- amples of patience given in 5'°' ", on the ground that, before the existence of our Gospels, the Jews of the Dispersion would be less familiar with the story of our Lord, than they were with the OT Scriptures which were ' read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.' But this consideration was hardly likely to occur to a Christian (of the 1st cent. ! No date is suggested by Spitta) who was desirous to adapt a Jewish book for the service of the Church. (2) We must remember that the general Judaic tone is explained and indeed re- quired by the hypothesis that the autlior is the brother of the Lord, whicli is commended to us on go many other grounds. It is his ollice to interpret Christianity to the Jews. He represents and he addresses the many thousands who believe and are zealous for the law. He is the authority whom St. Paul's opponents profess to follow. Tradition even goes so far as to describe the unbelieving Jews as still doubting at the end of his life, whether they might not look to him for a declara- tion against Christianity (see quotation from Ilegesippus in the art. on James). (3) There is the fact of the resemblance of the language of the Epistle to tliat used by St. James in the Acts.
(4) There is the fact of the extraordinary resem- blaiice between the Epistle and our Lord's dis- courses, especially the Sermon on the Mount. Spitta labours to show tliat both borrow from older Jewish writings. Even if this were so, it would be far more probable that one of the two borrowed in- directly, taking these sayings straight from the other, than that they should both have collected them independently from a variety of obscure sources. But it is mere perversity to put forward such vague parallels as are adduceu from rabbinical writings on the subject of oaths, for instance, or the perishable treasures of earth, by way of accounting for the exact resemblance existing between Ja 6" and Mt S"'", Jar>--»and Mt 6'». Indeed this is true of almost all the resemblances which have been pointed out by the commentators.