C. The hypothesis that the Ep. is an originally Jewish work adapted by a Christian 'svTiter has been maintained by Spitta and Massebieau (see Literature below) on the ground of (1) the scanti- ness of specifically Christian doctrine — an unmis- takably Christian reference is admitted only in 1^ and 2^ ; (2) close affinities Tvith Jewish literature ; (3) the suggestion of interpolation in the curious position of Tfjs SS^ris in 2^, where a simpKfication wouldbeintroduced by omitting V<^ J*' I^o'oOXpto-ToO.
To this it is repUed (1) that there is more specifi- cally Christian doctrine than these WTiters admit : e.g. in 1^* the combination of the ideas of 'beget- ting,' 'word of truth,' and 'firstfruits' is much more naturally referred to Christian doctrine than to the original creation (as Spitta) ; and phrases like 'the coming (Parousia) of the Lord' (5^"*), 'the
* Feine, who feels its force (Jakobusbrief, p. 58) , tries to evade it by the hjT)othesis that the Ep. was originally a homily addressed to the church at Jerusalem, which was only later, as a kind of afterthought, circulated in the Diaspora (p. 95). For criticism of Feine, see E. R. Kuhl, SK Lxvii. [1894], esp. p. 813fif.
632
JMIES, EPISTLE OF
JMIES, EPISTLE OF
perfect law of liberty' (1"), 'the eldera of the church' (5"), 'the goodly name by which ye are caUed' (2'), 'my beloved brethren' (l^^- ^^ 2^), cer- tainly suggest a Christian atmosphere. No evi- dence is produced that a faith-and-works contro- versy such as that imphed in 2^^'- had arisen in pre-Christian Judaism. (2) That the work should show close affinities with the OT and with Jewish Hellenistic literature is in no way surprising if the author was a Jewish Christian. (3) That a Christian mterpolator should have been content to interpolate only in 1^ and 2^ is hardly conceivable. Accepting the text of 2^ as it stands, there is nothing very violent in taking t^s 86^7]$ as an ap- pellation of Christ, in apposition with toD Kvpiov T)tiG}v 'ItjctoO Xpio-ToO ; cf . Lk 2^'^ and perhaps 1 P 4'^ (so Mayor and Hort, following Bengel ; see Mayor', p. 80ff.).
Two further considerations against this view have to be added : (a) that, if there is Uttle that is distinctively Christian, there is nothing distinct- ively Jewish. Harnack writes: 'Spitta has for- gotten to consider what the Epistle does not con- tain.' Christianity was a reformation of Judaism which discarded a mass of religious and ritual material. Now of this Jewish material which Christianity discarded the Ep. contains no trace {Chronol. 489 n.). (6) Again, the apparent echoes from the teaching of Jesus are hardly satisfactorily accounted for by the hypothesis of a common source.
D. A theory which shares with the last the hypothesis that the name of Jesus in l'^ and 2^ is not original is that of J. H. Moulton, who holds that the Ep. was written by James the Lord's brother, but for non-Christian Jews, and that therefore distinctively Christian phraseology was deliberately omitted. The mention of the name of Jesus came in by way of a gloss {Expositor, 7th ser. iv. 45-55). This theory has the advantage of accounting for the textual difficulty in 2^, for the Judaistic tone combined with the presence of (un- emphasized) Christian thoughts, and for the ulti- mate though late and disputed reception of the book.
Against this it is urged that (1) the curious subtlety of mind involved in the writing of the sup- posed veiled tract harmonizes ill with the sternness and vigour of the WTiter. (2) It is not clear what the WTiter could have hoped to accompUsh by it. (3) Moreover, some of the more definitely Christian phrases quoted above are not easy to dispose of, and the difficulty about 2^^^- remains, for those who cannot find its presuppositions entirely in Judaism.
E. There is the type of theory according to which the Ep. was written, not by James the Lord's brother and not in the ApostoUc Age, but by an unknown author, late in the 1st or early in the 2nd century. The attractions of this type of theory are that it gets rid of the difficulty arising from the knowledge of the Pauhne Epistles com- bined with absence of reference to the controversies about the Law, as also of that arising from the knowledge of Jesus' teaching combined with ab- sence of reference to His Ufe. It accounts for the moralism, the absence of Messianic doctrine, the shghtness of the reference to the Parousia. It accounts, better than the early date, for the con- dition of the Church, with its worldliness and hp- religion.
Of the theories of this type the most definite is that of Harnack. He finds a positive indication of date in the references to persecution in 2^'-. He understanrls this of the apo.stasy of worldly Chri.s- tians and their betrayal of their fellow-Christians. To this he finds an exact parallel in Hermas, Sim. ix. 19, whore the 'mountain black as soot' (ix. 1)
represents those who have revolted from the faith and spoken wicked things against the Lord, and betrayed the servants of God (cf. also chs. 21, 26, 28). Such delations, as frequent occurrences, can- not be placed earlier than about a.d. 120. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Ep. which would require us to bring it down beyond the first third of the 2nd century. He therefore dates it between 120 and 130. But it is not to be thought of as a forgery, for (1) anyone composing an os- tensible letter would have taken more pains to cast it into epistolary form ; (2) a forger would have made it clearer who he professed to be ; and (3) he would not have contradicted the generality of the address by the particularity of some of the references. The most probable hypothesis is, therefore, that it was a compilation from the writings of one of those prophetic teachers who, far down into the Post-Apostolic Age, still spoke with a sense of inspiration and an admitted author- ity. Shortly after his death this was issued by a redactor, anonymously. In its anonymous form it had a hmited circulation among Palestinian Christians. About the end of the 2nd cent, it found its way into 'the early CathoUc world,' and, in view of the conceptions then prevailing as to the primitive apostoUc type of doctrine, it is not surprising that it should have been attri- buted to James. (In addition to Chronol. ii. 1. p. 485 f., see the excursus on the Cath. Epp. in TU ii. 1, p. 106 f., where the general presuppositions of the hypothesis are more fully and lucidly set forth.)