in the Commentary whenever they occur. For other literary char- acteristics see 1. 6 2.
III, ANALysis oF THE EpistLeE.—The vast majority of commen- tators are agreed that no consistent scheme is presented in this Epistle, but that it contains rather a number of unconnected sayings which are for the most part independent of one another. The analysis of the Epistle shows the correctness of this view in the main.! In some cases it is possible that a thought-connection of a secondary character exists which is not at once apparent; by a thought-connection of a secondary character is meant, when in two succeeding sections a subordinate, not the main, thought of the earlier is taken up and dealt with in the later; an example may be seen in the two sections i. 2-4,i.5-8; the main thought in the former is the being joyful in temptations, the subject of patience is a subordinate thought, and still more so, that of lacking in nothing ; but it is this last which is taken up in the succeeding section and attached to the thought of lacking in wisdom ; so that, although it is perfectly true to say there is no genuine connection between these two sections, yet there is a secondary connection. It is improbable that the two sections come from the same writer, because they are lacking in real mental sequence ; and yet a semblance of sequence is apparent ; if both came from the same writer one would either expect a genuine sequence of thought if the two were intended to be con- nected, or else a clear indication of each being self-contained. As they stand, it looks as though the former were a text, and the latter a comment upon it, very much like the similar process which occurs incessantly in the Mzshna.2 The next section, i. 9-11, deals with the subject of rich and poor; it stands in an isolated position here, but is intimately connected with the later section, ii, 1-13. With 1. 12-16 we have another instance of what looks like text and comment ; the subject is that of temptation, and comes most naturally after 1. 4; the text is contained in ver. 12, the following verses then comment on the nature of temptation. This is an instructive instance illustrative of the theory of the authorship of the Epistle here tentatively advo- cated (see above) ; for on comparing the simple, straightforward char- acter of ver. 12 with the intricate chain of thought in the two following verses, it is almost impossible to postulate identity of authorship.
1 Parry’s attempt to show that the Epistle is ‘‘ a very careful and logical exposition of a single theme” (of. cét. p. 6) is ingenious, but much too artificial to carry convic- tion.
2 Catch-words, it would seem, played their part in the formation and grouping of sections,