objections, again, can for the most part be upset by counter-arguments. In view of such a perplexing state of affairs it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to reach a satisfactory conclusion ; one thing is quite clear, and that is, that the advocates of either contention have a great deal to urge in support of their position, and that, therefore, dogmatic assertion regarding either is precarious, and belittling of the adversaries’ arguments uncalled for. Any conclusion reached must, for the present, be tentative; and, therefore, the view here held is provisional—the view, that is to say, that the name of St. James attaching to the Epistle is authentic, but that, in the first instance, the Epistle was a great deal shorter than as we now possess it ; sections being added from time to time, probably excerpts from other writings, or adaptations of these. Indeed, it is possible that we have here something in the shape of text and commentary, the latter being enlarged as time went on. If one remembers how, on an infinitely larger scale, of course, the comments of the words of Scrip- ture by degrees became the Mishna, the comments on these the Gemara, and how ultimately the ponderous mass known as the Talmud came into being, the possibility of this intensely Jewish Epistle having grown by a process of comments, which ultimately came to be regarded as part of the Epistle itself, will be realised. One or two tentative examples of the supposed process will be given in III. on the analysis of the Epistle. This view does not profess to be anything more than theory, it is probably incapable of proof ; but it has, at least, the merit of justifying the position both of those who advocate an early as well as those who believe in a late date for the Epistle.
If. Lirerary CHARACTERISTICS.—These have to a large extent been already dealt with; but a brief reference to three other points is demanded on account of their special importance.
(i.) One of the most striking features of the Epistle is the extended acquaintance with the Wisdom literature which it exhibits. Many instances of this will be found in the Commentary, here it must suffice to indicate by references some of the more important and striking examples ; the following passages should be compared together: i. 5, Sir. 1. 1, 26, Wisd. vi. 14, vii. 14, 15; i. 8, Sir. 1. 28, ii. 12, v. 9: i. 12, Wisd. v. 16; 1. 18, Sir. xv. 11-15 (especially in the Hebrew original), xv. 20; i. 19, Sir. v. 11 (the words ‘and let thy life be sincere,” which are inserted by A.V., are found neither in the Hebrew nor the Greek; their absence makes the agreement between the words in Jas. and this passage closer), i. 29, iv. 29, v. 13; i. 27, Sir. vii. 34-36, cf. iv. 10; 11. 6, Wisd. ii. 10 (in the Greek) ; iii. 2,