THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
are not to be sought only in one place or in one limited district; indeed, the generalness and fulness of the expression " the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad " render it certain that all Jewish Christians living outside of Palestine were meant, and make it extremely probable that there already were such far and wide. The inferences from the title are not refuted by the letter itself, but partly confirmed. It is not justifiable to cite the silence of the author regarding the Law, the temple, and the unbelieving members of his race against the Jewish origin of the readers, because he is not altogether silent concerning the Law (ii. 8 sqq.) and had no occasion to speak of the temple and unbelieving Jews. That the readers are Christians and not Jews is to be seen from ii. 1, and the whole tone of the Epistle is opposed to a narrow local limitation of the circle of readers. In this epistle, not only is there no personal relation whatever between the writer and the readers, no special salutation, etc., but the conditions referred to are of a very general character. It is not, therefore, justifiable, because the conditions treated of in the Epistle of James appear to point more to Palestine than to the diaspora, to assume that the Epistle was originally addressed to the community of Jerusalem and was later sent to communities outside of Palestine. The Epistle of James is therefore not in the true sense of the word a letter, but rather an address in the form of a circular letter to all Jewish Christians within the pale of Christianity, which was already quite widely disseminated.
What, however, the author recognizes as fundamental in the spiritual condition of his readers is the worldliness and superficiality of 2. Aim, their Christianity. With the multifa- Contents, rious sufferings (i. 2) and the delay in and Style, the second coming of Christ (v. 7-8) they began to lose patience and their hearts were divided between God and the world (i. 7). Alongside of flattery to the rich, there is contempt for the poor (ii. 1 sqq.), there is also bitterness against the former (iv. 11, v. 9). Alongside of the prayer for means to satisfy their pleasures (iv. 3), there is impious security on the part of the well-to-do (iv. 13 sqq.). Stress is laid upon the profession of faith (ii. 14), which was a subject of wrangling and dispute, and every one was eager to impart instruction (chap, hi.); but there were few signs of application of faith to practical life. These conditions are not to be derived from Judaism so much as from a stagnation of the spiritual life succeeding to a period of loving enthusiasm. The aim and contents correspond to these spiritual conditions of the readers. After an exhortation to be steadfast and prudent in trials, there follows the lesson that the temptation to fail in the hour of trial proceeds from man's own sinful inclinations, not from God, the giver of all good, the author of regeneration by the word of truth (i. 13-18), and to this is attached the admonition to assimilate this word of truth in a humble and obedient spirit (i. 19-27). Later on there are special warnings against the errors and faults named above. The conclusion consists of various brief admonitions, v. 12-20. The simple style of the letter suits its
practical contents admirably, following the method of the didactic writings of the Old Testament, in which the single proverbs are strung together in groups like rows of pearls. Instead of the precision of Paul's keen, logical thinking, there is found more rhetorical amplification. The Greek is comparatively pure, although there are not a few Hebraisms. While this Gospel is designated as a law, it is yet the perfect law of liberty (i. 25), not, like the law of the Old Testament, a heavy yoke but to be engrafted in the heart (i. 21), so that man, by his own initiative, responds to the divine will. Inasmuch as the Gospel is essentially identical with the law of the Old Testament, everything that concerns the person of the mediator of the new revelation is placed in the background, even the name of Christ is mentioned only twice, and the synoptic concepts of the Son of Man and the kingdom of heaven are lacking. Nevertheless, the moral teachings of Jesus, principally those of the Sermon on the Mount, are much more freely used than in any other writing of the New Testament. Therefore this epistle is somewhat in disaccord with the Apostle Paul, whose attention is directed more to that side of the Gospel which is in opposition to the Law. It has even been held that ii. 21, 24 (cf. with Rom. iii. 28, iv. 2; Gal. ii. 16) is in irreconcilable opposition to Paul; indeed, that it shows a conscious polemic against him. This difficulty can not be avoided by assuming that the Epistle of James was earlier than the Pauline epistles which contain the divergent propositions, which would not affect the objective difference; indeed the suspicion of conscious contradiction would merely be transferred from James to Paul. But this view of the chronological relation of the writings of Paul and James is untenable, for there is no indication that the formula " to be justified by faith " or the use of the passage Gen. xv. 6 in support of this, was common, as is assumed in this epistle, on the part of its readers. Indeed it remains doubtful whether the Epistle of James is intended to combat the standpoint of the Pauline epistles. In any case this epistle is in accord with Paul in what it really endeavors to prove, that is, that faith without works can not bring salvation (cf. II Cor. v. 10), and that a faith which does not find expression in moral conduct is utterly worthless (I Cor. xiii. 2). Paul regards works as unimportant for justification, while James looks upon works as a condition of justification. While Paul would not have said that there was a justification by the works of faith in the sense of the Epistle of James, because he has a stricter conception of what constitutes conduct well-pleasing to God, his idea of a moral righteousness of believers is approximately that of the Epistle of James. Therefore, there is, if not perfect agreement on this point between James and Paul, at least only an unessential and not an irreconcilable opposition in principle. It is generally recognized that the polemic of the Epistle of James is only directed against a distorted and one-sided Paulinism. The opinion that this epistle was designed to attack Paul's teaching, though unsuccessfully, is without foundation. What is combated is not any doctrine in itself, but only a false standard of