Introduction 387

(4. 254 a.p.). His testimony is as follows: In his commentary on St. fohn xix. 6 he refers to our Epistle in the words, . . , ὡς ἐν τῇ depopevn ᾿Ιακώβου ἐπιστολῇ ἀνέγνωμεν, a phrase which obviously sug- gests doubt as to its authorship, though apparently it is quoted as Scripture. On the other hand, passages from our Epistle are quoted as the words of “James the Apostle” on at least five occasions ; and besides this, there area number of cases in which direct quotations from it are clearly regarded as Scripture. This is, moreover, definitely asserted in his Comm. in Ep. ad Rom., iv. 1, and in Hom. in Lev.,, ii. 4. On four occasions St. James is mentioned by name, once as the “ brother of the Lord”. Further, quotations, more or less distinct, from our Epistle are found in the Constitutiones Apostolicae (fourth century, but containing earlier material), and in Lactantius (ο. 300 a.p.). The next important writer who gives direct evidence on the subject is Eusebius (ο. 270-340 a.p.). In speaking of the Catholic Epistles, and after referring to the martyrdom of James the Just, he says: “ The first of the Epistles styled Catholic is said to be his. But I must remark that it is held to be spurious (νοθεύεται). Certainly not many old writers have mentioned it, nor yet the Epistle of Jude, which is also one of the Epistles called Catholic. But nevertheless we know that these have been publicly used with the rest in most churches” (H.E., 11.23). Then, again, in enumerating the list of New Testament books (H.E., iii. 25), he says: “ Among the contro- verted books (ἀντιλεγόμενα), which are nevertheless well known and recognised by many (γνωρίμων ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς), we class the Epistle circulated under the name of James”. In spite of this, however, Eusebius prefaces a quotation from the Epistle (v. 13) with the words, λέγει γοῦν 6 ἱερὸς ᾿Απόστολος (Comm. in Ps, i.), and later on in the same work he refers to another passage from the Epistle (iv. 2) as Scripture (. . . τῆς γραφῆς λεγούσης ...). At the same time it will be wise not to build too much upon these last two references. In a case like this, where the writer would, if anything, be biassed in favour of ascribing Apostolic authorship to the Epistle, a passage which casts doubt upon its genuineness is really more weighty evidence than one in the opposite direction ; moreover, a book which went by a certain name might well be quoted by Eusebius in accor- dance with the common acceptation, without his adding, each time he mentioned it, his doubts concerning the correctness as to its title. Upon the whole, the evidence of Eusebius, though uncertain, seems to point to our Epistle as being genuine Scripture, but not as having been written by St. James. This uncertain testimony is repeated by Jerome (born c. 330-350 Α.Ρ.), who says in his De Viris