Christian congregations was formed by those who were Jews by race. Secondly, there is the analogy of the Epistle inspired by him at the Council of Jerusalem , this fact proves that the Apostle recognised it to be within his province to inspire—if nothing more—communica- tions to distant Churches, this particular epistle was addressed to Gentiles, whose conversion lay more particularly within the province of St. Paul, the more reason, therefore, that Jewish converts should also be written to by the head of the Church of Jerusalem, the city which these had always looked upon as their “ Mother”. And then, thirdly, although, as we have already seen, the early patristic evidence is not in favour of St. James’ authorship, we are bound to recognise the fact that there was a tradition as early as the beginning of the third century which brought the name of St. James into connexion with this Epistle.
It is fully realised—and the point needs emphasis—that weighty arguments can be adduced against both sets of considerations men- tioned above; it is just the most perplexing thing regarding this Epistle that whether an early or a late date be contended for, whether the authorship of St. James be insisted on, or that of some other, unknown, writer, no conclusive argument can be put forth on either side ; nothing has yet been said on either side which has forced con- viction on the other. It must be allowed, further, that the objections raised against the contentions on either side are, in almost every instance, strong, and are not to be brushed aside offhand. Con- siderations of space forbid even an enumeration of the many argu- ments which are urged on either side, recourse must be had to the more comprehensive Commentaries for this ; but the fact is certainly noteworthy that, no matter how strong the arguments put forth on either side, valid objections can be urged against one and all; either position taken up seems so strong from one point of view, and is yet so weakened from another point of view. The one positive conclu- sion to be drawn from this seems to be the paradoxical one that both are right ; that is to say, that an Epistle, which is embodied in our present one, was originally written by St. James, and that to it were added subsequently other elements. This is a procedure which could be paralleled by other examples, spurious additions made to authen- tic documents, in perfect good faith, being not unknown—z.g,, the Longer Ending of St. Mark’s Gospel. Proof for this contention is as little forthcoming as for the various other theories that have been suggested, but it would at least account for the conflicting evidence of Origen, Eusebius and Jerome ; and when we come to deal with the internal evidence of the Epistle, it will be seen to account for