THE
PULPIT COMMENTARY, EDITED BY TilE
VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D., DEAN OF GLOOCESTltl<;
AND BY THB
REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A.
JAMES. @xpositfon anb Ji1omfletics BY REV. E. C. S. GIBSON, M.A., i'l\lNCll'AL OF WEJ.LS THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE, ANlJ l'REBENVARY IN WELLS OATHEDRAL,
l!"!omilies b12 1-iatious ~utbots. REV. 0. JERDAN, M.A., LL.B. REV. T. F. LOCKYER, B..A.
NEW EDITION.
FUNK & W AGN ALLS COMPANY LONDON AND NEW YORK 1907 THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF
JAMES. INTRODUCTION.
I. THE WRITER OF THE EPISTLE. CH. i. 1, " James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." The following is a list of all those of this name mentioned in the New Testament:- 1. James the brother of John, the son of Zebedee and Salome: put to death by Herod, A.D. 44 (Acts xii. 2). 2. James the brother of the Lord (Matt. xiii. 55; Markvi. 3; Gal. i.19). 3. James the son of Mary (Matt. xxvii. 56; Luke xxiv. 10, equivalent to James the Little; Mark xv. 40). 4. James the son of Alphreus (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13). 5. James the father of Jude (Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13. The ellipse in the expression, 'Iov8av 'laKw/3ov, is rightly supplied in the Revised Version, " Judas the son of James," not as A.V. " brother "). 6. James (Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 7; Gal. ii. 9, 12). 7.' James the brother of Jude (Jude 1). 8. James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ (eh. i. 1). Of these eight, (1) numbers 2 and 6 are certainly the same (cf. Gal. i. 19 with ii. 9, 12). (2) 3 and 4, and perhaps 5, may a.lso be identified; as may be (3) 7 and 8. Next, there can be little doubt that (4) 7 and 8 may be further identified with 2 and 6. It is true that the oldest mannscripti, simply ascribe the Epistle to "James." ~. A, C, have no superscription. B has 'IaKw/3ov E71"LCTToA:q. In the subscription, B has simply 'laKw/3ov: ~. E7Tt!TToA:q 'laK1i./3ov: A, 'IaKw/3ov E7TLCTTOATJ. But no other James was of sufficient importance in the early Church, after _the death of the son of Zebedee, for there to be any hesitation about this identification. The view that the Epistle was the work of the son of Zebedee scarcely requires serious consideration. It rests on the subscription in the Codex Corbeiensis (ff), JA?cJEtl, b ii INTRODUCTION TO
a Latin manuscript of the ninth century: "Explicit Epistoln. Jacobi filii Zebedei." It has la.tely been advanced, with arguments which e.re ingenious rather than solid, by Mr. Bassett (' The Catholic Epistle of St. James,' 1876). A refutation of this theory (if such be needed) may be found in Den.n Plumptre's volume in the Cambridge Bible for schools, 'Epistle of St. James,' pp. 6-10. We have now reduced the list to three- I. James the son of Zebedee. 2. James the son of Alphams, one of the twelve. 'O 3. James the brother of the Lord, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and wi·iter of the Epistle, one of the most prominent figures in the early Church. Shall we proceed a step further, and identify 2 and 3 P This brings us to a very difficult question, and one with regard to which much may be urged on either side. On behalf of the identification, reference may be made to Dr. Mill's volume on the 'Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels,' p. 219, seq. Against it, it will be sufficient to direct the reader's attention to Bishop Lightfoot's dissertation on "The Brethren of the Lord" in his' Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians,' p. 247, seq. The identification rests mainly on John xix. 25 as compared with Matt. xx.vii. 56 and Mark xv. 40; e.nd requires us (1) to take" Mary the wife of Clopas ''as" his mother's sister;" (2) to identify Clopas with Alphreus; and (3) to give &Bu..<j,oi; a. wide mean- ing, so as to include first cousin. None of these things is impossible; indeed, they can scarcely be said to be improbable; and in favour of the identifica- tion it may be urged (1) that if the two Jameses are distinct, then one of them, James the son of Alphieus, one of the twelve, disappears altogether from the New Testament after Acis i. 13, his place being silently taken by another "James," whose relationship is not specified in the Acts, and who at once takes a prominent position in the Church. This is an important con- sideration, and has scarcely had sufficient weight attached to it. Elsewhere St. Luke is very careful in specifying and distinguishing characters ; e.g. the two Philips are distinguished ; the other James is "the brother of John," etc. It is, therefore, most improbable that, after having mentioned "James the son of Alpbrens" in Acts i. 13, he should introduce an entirely new character in Acts xii. 17 without any clue to his identity. Again, (2) if the two are distinct, we have certainly two, and in all pro- bability three, pairs of cousins bearing the same names: James, Joseph, and Simon, the Lord's brethren; and James, Joses, and Symeon (see Euse- bius, iv. 22), the sons of Clopas (equivalent to Alphmus). The names, however, being all common ones, not much stress can be laid upon this argument. On the other hand, in favour of the distinction of the two Jameses, it may be urged- (1) That it enables us to give the term" brother" its natural meaning. (2) That if the two are identified, James the Lord's brother must have been one of the twelve; whereas we are expressly told in John vii. 6 THE GENERAL EPIS'fLE OF JAMES. iii