quotations of Prov. iii. 34 and x. 12 in eh. xxx. and xlix. agree closely with St. Jamee'e version of these passages, differing from both Hebrew and LXX. There appear also to be reminiscences of Jas. i. 8 in eh. xi., a.nd of iv. 1 in eh. xlvi. (see farther Charterie, 'Ca.nonicity,' p. 292). So strong did these coincidences seem to Bishop Lightfoot, that he actna.lly spoke of them a.e "numerous and patent quotations" (' Commentary on Colossians,' p. 53), although he has since withdrawn the expression as" too strongly worded," while still maintaining that the references seem to be perfectly clear (ibid., p. 413). And yet Alford speaks of the allusions in both Hermas and Clement as "very doubtful indeed" ! To pass from the Western Church to the East. In the third century our Epistle was probably known to GregCYY"y Thaumatwrgw (A.D. 250. See Westcott on the ' Canon,' p. 353). It is directly quoted by Dionysius of .Alex- andria (.l.D. 260. Ibid., p. 333); and Origen'.in one passage refers to it as" the Epistle in circulation under the name of James" (this is apparently the first occasion on which it is directly assigned to St. James). Elsewhere he quotes it without further remark ~~ 'ff'apa. 'la.,cwf3".!, and, according to the Latin version of his 'Homilies,' he calls the writer" the apostle," and cites it as "divina scriptura" (Westcott, p. 331 ). It is"uncertain whether it was known to Origen's teacher, Olement of .Alexandria. Ensebins (Bk.VI. xiv.) says some- what vaguely that "Clement in his 'Hypotyposes' has given us abridged accconnte of all the canonical Scriptures, not even omitting the disputed ones, I mean the Book of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles." This state- ment is criticized and examined by Dr. Westcott (' Ca.non of the New Testament, p. 322), and the conclusion at which he arrives is that St. James was probably an exception, and that Clement had no knowledge of it. Against this we may, however, fairly set the fact that the Epistle is included in both the ancient Egyptian Versions, the Memphitic and Thebaic, which belong to the third or even possibly to the second century. While even earlier it finds a place in the Peschito Syriac, which undoubtedly dates from the second century. "Thie testimony," says Ruther, "is of the greater importance, as the country from which the Peschito proceeded closely bordered on that from which the Epistle originated ; and as that testimony was repeated and believed in by the Syriac Church of the following age." Melito of Bardis (A.D.180) has one strong coincidence with it (see Westcott, pp. 201,202), which exhausts the list of references in early writers. From the days of Eueebius down to the sixteenth century scarcely a. doubt was raised with regard to its authenticity. At the time of the Refor- mation its claims were again subjected to a close scratiny, and, on grounds of internal evidence and supposed opposition to "Pauline" teaching, some writers were inclined to reject it. Luther's hasty and unjust estimate is well known. In the preface to the New Testament (1522) he calls it "a. right strawy Epistle, for it has no trae evangelical character." This remark disappears from later editions, but was never formally retracted. Nor does it stand alone, Hnther quotes also statements to the effect that xiv INTRODUCTION TO
it is " no genuine apostolic Epistle" (' Sermons on the Epistle of St. Peter,' 1523) ; that it "was neither written by an apostle nor has the true apos, tolic ring, nor does it agree with the pure doctrine" (' Kirchenpostille,' delivered in 1527-8). So in his 'Table Talk,' "Many have endeavoured and laboured to reconcile the Epistle of James with Paul. Philip Melnncthon refers to it in his 'Apology,' but not with earnestness; for 'faith justifies ' and • faith does not justify' are plain contradictions. Whoever can reconcile them, on him I will put my cap, and allow him to call me a fool." This depreciatory verdict of Luther's rests on an entire misconception of apostolic teaching, and has not convinced many of tho non-apostolic origin of our Epistle. The "contradiction" between St. James and St. Paul is shown in the notes on eh. ii. to be purely imaginary. .And it is believed that the references to the Epistle in early writers which have been given above, taken together with the steady manner in which it won its way to general acceptance, are amply sufficient to prove it to be a genuine work of him whose name it bears; especially when we consider that it is not difficult to account for the hesitation felt in early days as to the recog- nition of its claims. "The Epistle was directed only to the Jewish-Christian Churches, and the more these, by holding to the original type, distinguished and separated themselves from the other Churches, the more difficult must it have been to regard an Epistle directed to them as the common property of the Church, especially as it appeared to contain a contradiction to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul" (Ruther, p. 24). That the Epistle was finally accepted bythe whole Church in spite of these adverse circumstances is surely a consideration to which great weight should be given,
VI. AUTHORffiEB FOR THE TEXT, I. The Epistle is contained in the following uncial manuscripts:- The four great Bibles of the fourth and fifth centuries. Codex Vaticanns (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (N ), of the fourth century; Codex Alexaudrinus (A) and Codex Ephrmmi (C), of the fifth century. (The last-mentioned manuscript is defective towards the close of the Epistle, and only contains eh. i. 1-iv. 2.) Besides these, it is found in three secondary uncials: Codex Mosqnensis (:K'), of the ninth century; Codex Angelicus (L, formerly G), of the ninth century ( quite a different manuscript from the very valuable L, Codex Regius, of the Gospels); Codex Porphyrianns (P), a palimpsest of the ninth century, published by Tischendorf (in this eh. ii. 12-21 are barely legible). 2. Besides these uncial manuscripts, it is contained in more tha:i two h'.mdred cursi rn manuscripts. ;3. V ersioos- THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES. xv