ex-tended reference to the faith of Abraham (ad Cor. X. 1 ff.) Clement quotes Gn 15^ in its proper context, following St. Paul ; and, though he refers to the sacrifice of Isaac, he speaks of it as offered 5l VTraKoijs and not 5id irlaTeuis.
3. Date and authorship. — As might perhaps have been expected from the character of the external evidence, the internal evidence is enigmatic. This will appear from a statement of some of the various theories, with the difficulties which each involves.
A. Take first the theory which, accepting the traditional authorship,* makes the Ep. prior to the main Epp.of St. Paul and unrelated to his teaching. Against this the following objections are alleged.
(a) There is strong evidence, it is held, that the passage in 2'-*^- has in view St. Paul's teaching in Ro_3 and 4, and is therefore subsequent to that Epistle. _ The arguments advanced in favour of this position are as follows. (1) In denying that a man is saved by faith without works, James is attacking a paradox; but no one is at pains to attack a paradox unless someone else has previously maintained it. Now there is no evidence that this paradox had been maintained previous to St. Paul. Faith had been praised and works had been praised, and, if we may accejat 2 Esdras (whatever its actual date) as a witness to pre-Clu'istian Jewish beliefs, the combination of faith and works had been praised (13^; cf. 9^), but the antithetic opposition of faith and works, to the apparent disparagement of the latter, originated, so far as our evidence goes, with St. Paul. (2) The Scripture example to which both writers appeal is much more favour- able to St. Paul's argument than to James's. In Gn 15® 'Abraham beheved God,' etc., refers specifi- cally to belief in God's promise; James by an exegetical tour deforce gives it a prospective refer- ence to Abraham's 'works' in the sacrifice of Isaac. Tliis is the procedure, not of a writer who is choosing his illustrations freely, but of one who must at aU hazards wrest from an adversary a formidable weapon. (3) The passage is written in a technical phraseology : diKaioDcrdat. iK Trtcrrecos, diKaiovcrdai i^ epycav, Tlaris X^P^^ '^'^^ ^pyoov^ peKp6s (apphed to faith, where St. Paul apphes it to works). It is less probable, it is urged, that this terminology was invented by James, who only employs it in this controversial passage, than by St. Paul, for whom it is the necessary expression of some of his fundamental doctrines.
(6) In a number of other passages there are points of contact, and in some of them the sugges- tion of hterary priority is distinctly on the side of St. Paul. For example, if we compare St. Paul's statement in Ro 8''^, ' the law of the Spirit of hfe ni Christ Jesus hath made me free (riXevdipwa-i fie [v.l. a-e]) from the law of sin and death,' with James's references to the law of liberty {v6fios rrji iXevdeplas [1'" 2^'^]), the latter succinct, technical-looking ex- pression has the air of an aheady coined and current phrase, while St. Paul seems to be stating a fact of experience, t
(c) With the exception of the language of Hebrews, the Greek is the most accomphshed in the NT. There is a certain amount of rhetorical elaboration ; there is an unusual proportion of non-LXX classical words ; there are many allu- sions to the Hellenistic Wisdom literature, and apparently some to Greek classical hteratiue. This is not exactly the style we should have ex-
* The term ' genuineness ' is strictly inapplicable, since theEp. inakes no explicit claim to be by James the Lord's brother. It has occasionally been attributed to James the son of Zcbcdce. Pllcidcrer (Primitive Christianilij, Eng. tr., London, 1900-11, iv. 311) thinks of some unknown James.
t ( )ther parallels which have been noted are Ja !"• || Ro 5^^ ; ,Ia l=-'-=5 Jl Ro 2" ; Ja 41 II 1 Co 3' 1-433, Rq 7^3 ; Ja 4^ || Ro 8' ; Ja4'"- 11 Rol4»; Ja 3" 1| CaXr^K
ja:mes, epistle of
JA^IES, EPISTLE OF
631
pected from the James of tradition, who was of intensely Je'n-ish sjonpathies and presided over the Aramaic-speaking church of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the possibiUty of its being a transla- tion is denied by the great majority of those com- petent to speak on the point (whatever their opinion as regards the authorship).
(d) The constitution of the membership of the Church, including a considerable proportion of rich people, does not point to an early date.
(e) While it would be rash to affirm that a de- clension of Christian life such as the Epistle imphes could not have taken place within two or three decades, the vices of avarice and worldUness which are most prominent suggest a more settled and prosperous community than we should have ex- pected.
(/) In the rebuke of the rich merchants for the irreUgious temper in which they laid their plans, we should have expected, in these early decades, a reference to the imminence of the Parousia, rather than merely to the uncertainty of the individual life.
(g) We should also have expected some reference to the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and to Messianic doctrine, which, as all the evidence seems to show, formed the staple of early Christian preaching.