RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
James
conduct. It denounces a lack of moral application of faith, dependent upon a formalizing of Christianity and palliated by a misuse of Pauline doctrine.
These results show that the epistle should be
placed in a relatively late period of the Apostolic
Age when the Church had attained a
3. Date, considerable extent and Christian life
°and ReCcey' had lost somethinS of its first fresh ti " vigor. It is not the earliest or even
one of the earliest of the New-Testament writings. The synagogue [so the Am. R.V., i. 2] is not a Jewish one, as though a common use of the synagogue still existed with Jews and Christians; it is a meeting-place for Christians, which they control (ii. 3). The conception of the imminence of the Parousia (v. 8) appears even beyond the Apostolic Age. That the Epistle of James only addresses Jewish Christians does not prove that there were not also Gentile Christians, and if it contains more passages recalling the sayings of Jesus than any other of the Apostolic epistles, that is to be attributed to its theological character, and perhaps to the employment of written sources. Its use in the Church begins at an early period. It is probably cited in I Peter, in I Clement, in the Shepherd of Hermas, and by Justin Martyr. It was certainly used by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus, and Ephraem, and it was also included in the Peshito version. Origen, who is the first to cite it expressly as a writing of James, the Lord's brother, looks upon it as uncanonical; Eusebius counts it among the antilegomena, and Theodore of Mopsuestia rejected it. Jerome says it was regarded as pseudonymous in the Latin Church, but he includes it among the canonical books, and his influence and Augustine's assured its acceptance as canonical. This view was not disputed until Erasmus expressed certain doubts. Luther thought it a " right strawy epistle " (recht stroherne Epistel), written by a certain pious man, and Cajetan expressed doubts as to its authenticity. Calvin defended it, but Luther's views were accepted by the Magdeburg Centuriators and by some Lutheran dogmatists, as well as by the Calvinist Wetstein. In modern times the opposition to its authenticity was begun by De Wette and Schleiermacher. Naturally no use could be made of the title in the debate as to the origin of the epistle on the assumption that it was added at a later period in order to gain for the epistle (really the work of an unknown author) acceptance in the canon through a title bearing the name of an apostle. Still less tenable is the hypothesis that the epistle, apart from the two (assumed as interpolated) mentions of Christ (i. 1 and ii. 1), was the work of an unknown Jew. The method of interpolation assumed is devoid of motive and without analogy. The introduction of Christian ideas into Jewish writings bearing the name of highly revered Jews is often met, but is entirely different from the attempt assumed here, to make the author of a Jewish writing appear to be a Christian. Besides this, much in the Epistle of James is clearly Christian, apart from the two supposed additions (i. 18-21, 25, ii. 8, 12, 14-26).
If, then, " James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," was originally named as author of the epistle, there can be no doubt who is to be understood thereby. James, the son of Zebedee, of whom Jager (Zeitschrift fur lutherische Theologie, 1878) thinks as the author, was no longer living in the period after the beginning of Paul's mission (Acts xii. 2); James Alphseus withdraws entirely into the background in this time, and either of them would have been designated as an apostle. The only James who is prominent in this period and needed no more precise designation is James, the Lord's brother, the head of the community of Jerusalem. And there are no imperative grounds for refusing to ascribe the epistle to him. The vacillation in the traditions of the early church .as to the canonical acceptance of the epistle is explained by the facts that James was not an apostle; that he became the patron-saint of the Ebionites, and that the epistle seemed to contain a polemic against Paul. The author appears rather to have been a man of a practical turn of mind, pious and prayerful, who does not fail to recognize the essential superiority of the Gospel over the Law, but who, nevertheless, emphasizes the relationship of the morality of the former to that of the latter. All this perfectly suits James, the Lord's brother, as known through the New Testament and Hegesippus. It may therefore be assumed that James, the Lord's brother, wrote this pastoral letter in Palestine for the Jewish Christians outside of Palestine, at a time when the activity of Paul had ceased, either because of his captivity, or his death. For the Protevangelium of James see Apocrypha, B, I., 1. F. Sieffeet.
Bibliography: On the general topic consult: DB, ii. 540- 548; EB, ii. 2317-26. On the three Jameses consult the histories of the Apostolic Age, e.g., Schaff, Christian Church, i. 199 sqq., 265 sqq., 272 sqq., et passim; A. C. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, passim, New York, 1897. The question of the relationship of the third James to Jesus is discussed in DB, i. 320-326; by J. B. Lightfoot in his Commentary on Galatians, in a special section; in the Introduction to Mayor's Commentary on James (see below); in F. W. Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, chap, xix., London, 1884; in Schegg's commentary (see below); and often in the other commentaries. Consult also W. Patrick, James the Lord's Brother, Edinburgh, 1906. For the questions concerning the authenticity, date, contents, etc., of the epistle consult in general the works on Introduction to the New Testament — especially those of Julicher, 1894, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1904; T. Zahn, 1900; and B. W. Bacon, 1900— and those on New- Testament theology, especially that of Beyschlag, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1896. Works on special topics are: W. G. Schmidt, Lehregehalt des Jakobusbriefes, Leipsic, 1869; P. J. Gloag, Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, Edinburgh, 1887; W. C. van Manen, in ThT, xxviii (1894), 478-496; A. H. Cullen, Teaching of James; Studies in the Ethics of the Epistle of James, London, 1904; M. Meinertz, Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser, Freiburg, 1905.
Of commentaries on the epistle the best for English readers is by J. B. Mayor, London, 1897. Others which may be mentioned are: W. Augusti, Lemgo, 1801; J. W Greshof, Essen, 1830; M. Schneckenburger, Stuttgart, 1832; G. W. Theile, Leipsic, 1833; C. R. Jachmann, ib. 1838; F. H. Kern, Tubingen, 1838; C. A. Scharling, Copenhagen, 1841; C. E. Cellener, Geneva, 1850; A. Neander, Eng. transl., New York, 1852; A. Wiesinger, Konigsberg, 1854; De Wette, Leipsic, 1865; F. Graupp, Breslau, 1861; R. Wardlaw, Edinburgh, 1862; H. Boumann, Utrecht, 1865; A. H. Blom, Dort, 1869; H. Ewald, Gottingen, 1870; J. C. C. Hoffmann, Nordlingen, 1875; H. Alford, Greek Testament, vol. iv., London, 1877; E. H.
James Jansen