JAMES, EPISTLE OF. The first of the general, or catholic, epistles of the NT.

Outline

1. Background. The Epistle of James is the most Jewish book in the NT. Except for two or three references to Christ, it would fit rather well in the OT. The life to which the epistle exhorts is that of a profoundly pious Jew who is fulfilling the law in every regard. Gospel, redemption, incarnation, and resurrection are not mentioned. The interest is in the fruits, not the roots. The author is indeed a Christian, writing to believers, but the focus is not on how to become believers. It is on the second stage—on how to advance along the way of holiness and to tr. the ethical implications of the new faith into practical realities (Tasker, James, p. 11). The Gospel fulfilled the law.

Though there are only five direct verbal quotations from the OT (James 1:11; 2:8; 2:11; 2:23; 4:6), the atmosphere of the OT dominates the book. Allusion is made to passages from all three divisions of the canon. Among specifically Jewish words used are “Lord of hosts” (5:4) and γέεννα, G1147, (“gehenna,” “hell,” 3:6). Oesterley (EGT, IV, 393ff.) remarks that a still more cogent Jewish factor is the accumulation of many small points that indicate Heb. methods of thought, expression, and phraseology. This Hebraic coloring is, he believes, one of the most pronounced characteristics of the epistle. Though the Gr. is often compared with the best in the NT, the expression of thought seems, occasionally at least, to be molded from a Heb. pattern. A strong tendency to assonance and pleonasm as well as a terse and forceful way of putting things are Hebraic qualities.

A still more striking fact is the number of parallels between this epistle and the words of Jesus. As Ross says, “this Epistle contains more verbal reminiscences of the teaching of Jesus than all of the other apostolic writings” (The Epistles of James and John, p. 16). Instead of quoting specifically from the gospels, it seems that the author is simply reflecting the words he heard from the lips of Jesus Himself, perhaps as they worked together as youths in Nazareth. He certainly knew and shared the insights and attitudes reflected in the Sermon on the Mount, in parables, and in other teachings about life, poverty, and values (cf. e.g., James 1:22 with Matt 7:20, 24; James 3:12 with Matt 7:16; James 2:5 with Matt 5:3; James 4:11, 12 with Matt 7:1; James 5:2 with Matt 6:19; and James 5:12 with Matt 5:34-37).

2. Unity. Opinions differ concerning the unity of this epistle. Some see no particular connection of thought in it (Jülicher, Introduction, p. 215). Various ideas of composite authorship have been suggested, often based on a core of materials coming from James in Jerusalem, perhaps in Aram., later rewritten in good Gr. (e.g., F. Burkitt, Christian Beginnings, 65-70). Cadoux, at the other extreme, finds the epistle “probably the most completely patterned book in the Bible” (The Thought of St. James, 6). He calls attention to its four divisions, each containing four subdivisions.

The truth may not be at either extreme. There is a tone of authority that hardly goes with a late and composite authorship. Fifty-four imperatives occur in one hundred eight vv. This seems to reflect the kind of certainty that belongs to a recognized leader and spokesman among the apostles. Likewise, the absence of the usual references to incarnation, atonement, and the death and resurrection of Jesus inclines toward unity of authorship. Late editors, overlooking the cause for the omissions, would almost certainly have supplied this lack. Furthermore, hortatory materials tend to have their own peculiar kind of unity. Wisdom lit., of which James is a part, is sometimes more like a string of beads—a series of loosely connected ideas. There may be some truth in Tasker’s suggestion (James, p. 9) that the epistle is more of a “collection of sermon notes” than a polished sermon. Even so, there is a unity and pattern of thought centering around the exhortation to constancy and holy living that could hardly have been the work of any but the original writer. (Note, under Contents, how the main body of the epistle is an elaboration of the three elements of 1:19.) The authority, freshness, directness, and intrinsic outline can hardly be explained other than by unity of authorship.

3. Authorship. The epistle, if not pseudepigraphic, must have been written by James, the brother of the Lord. Eusebius and Jerome mention the opinion of some in the Early Church that it may have been published by another under James’ name. This view has also appealed to those modern scholars who on general considerations assign it a late date and who regard it as a moral treatise instead of a letter. However, the absence of motive for a pseudonymous production is a strong argument against it. If it is merely a moralizing tract, why did it need James’ authority, and why should he be chosen? Furthermore, the epistle bears none of the marks usually claimed as indications of pseudepigraphy. In the one v. (1:1) that exhibits any strictly epistolary character, there is no mention of apostleship. Nor is there any autobiographical reference in the body of writing. In view of these facts and of the total absence of proof that any canonical book was ever written under an assumed name, it is better to believe that the recognition of the book involved a general agreement on its genuineness. Besides, would an unknown 2nd cent. writer really have gained a hearing for such a diatribe merely by taking the common name of James? Does not the meaning of the name depend on the well-accepted authority of this president of the Jerusalem church? Once this identity is established, does it not carry with it a sitz im leben quite impossible to counterfeit?

Certainly the author was a Jew (see section 5). Which Jew was he? He calls himself simply “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” If this had been the son of Zebedee or the son of Alphaeus, he would likely have called himself an apostle or would have given some added identification, as did Jude (v. 1) and as is common with all but one who bore the name of James. At any rate, the son of Zebedee died too early (about a.d. 44), and there is no evidence that the Early Church assigned the epistle to the son of Alphaeus. The James at Jerusalem who needed no further identification was unquestionably the Lord’s brother. He had the recognized authority that would permit him to speak so freely in the imperative mood. It was he who appeared in the unvarying role of leader in Jerusalem—when Peter escaped from prison (Acts 12:17), at the council in Jerusalem (15:13-21), when Paul made his final visit to Pal. (21:18), and whenever his name appears in Scripture or tradition.

Other factors support the identification. There are coincidences of phraseology between the epistle and both the speech of James at the council of Jerusalem and the letter from the council (cf. e.g., Acts 15:23 with James 1:1; Acts 15:13 with James 2:5; Acts 15:19 with James 5:19, 20, and Acts 15:17 with James 2:7). The epistle therefore is the work of the type of mind reflected in all that is known of this James. He was strict, careful, and zealous, possibly to the point of asceticism (see [http://biblegateway/wiki/4. James, “the Lord’s brother.” JAMES IV, THE LORD’s BROTHER]). Severe with himself, he commanded discipline on the part of others. Finally, there are the verbal reminiscences of the teaching of Jesus, to which attention has already been called. The abundance and naturalness of these do not indicate the work of a 2nd cent. forger. These are not formal quotations from a hardened tradition. They drop freely as from a mind saturated with the thoughts of Jesus from long association with Him.

Objections have been raised. Barclay, for example, marvels that such a book should have only two incidental references to Jesus, and none at all to the Resurrection, or to Jesus as the Messiah (The Letters of James and Peter, 38, 39). The good Gr. also seems strange to some as coming from a Jew. The answer to the first problem seems to be in the purpose of the book. James is not presenting the Gospel. He is defending the practical and ethical demands of God upon His people. The point at issue is not God’s provision, but man’s obligation. The epistle is a prophetic diatribe against man’s unfaithfulness and lack of discipline. Why should it be complicated with theological questions that would only divert the pressure from their smarting consciences? As to the excellence of the Gr., estimates vary. Is there any reason that a bilingual Jew from Galilee of the Gentiles could not polish his Gr. in thirty-two years of discussion and debate at a center like Jerusalem until he could handle it with skill, esp. in its simple terse forms? It should be remembered that James avoided complex sentences. Short, pungent commands served his purpose better.

4. Date. Those who accept James the Just, brother of the Lord, as author of the epistle are obliged to date it before a.d. 62, the year of the death of James, between the governorships of Festus and Albinus. Others tend to date it anywhere from late 1st cent. to late 2nd cent., with perhaps a.d. 125 a general favorite. Oesterley avoids the difficult choice by suggesting the possibility that the core of the epistle was a work of James, but was elaborated as time went on by commentary—much after the manner that, on a much larger scale, the comments on the words of Scripture became the Mishna, the comments on these the Gemara, and finally the Talmud (EGT, IV, 405). For reasons already discussed under Unity, this composite authorship should likely be rejected. If Lightfoot and others are correct in seeing James reflected in Clement, the epistle must belong to the 1st cent. James gives the thought in a more terse and rugged form than Clement, and he must have written first (Mayor, James, p. clxix). Once a 1st cent. date has been conceded, little reason remains for rejecting James as author and for objecting to the early date. The writing comes too close to the lifetime of James for one to borrow his name successfully.

A choice still remains for those who accept James as the author. Was it before or after the council in Jerusalem? The seemingly settled condition of affairs and the presence of wealth and perhaps intellectualism in the Christian communities tend to indicate as late a date as possible, therefore around a.d. 60. Josephus, at least, makes abundant mention of the oppressive rich in the period leading up to the rebellion against Rome (a.d. 67-70). However, none of these arguments are conclusive for the later period. Would not the foundations of the Jewish Christian church have already been well laid by a.d. 45 or 50? Were there not people of means among the followers of Jesus and even among the apostles (as, for example, the sons of Zebedee, Matthew, and the ladies who ministered of their means)? Did not Mary the mother of Mark have a large home with servants in the early days of the Jerusalem church? And might not the temptation to fawn on the rich be all the greater where their numbers were few?

It still seems possible, with Mayor and Robertson, to hold to an early date, even the earliest of any NT book. Indeed, the epistle reflects no knowledge of the existence of Gentile Christians. There is no whisper of the controversy relating to the council at Jerusalem. James was early in power (Acts 12:17). No man in the apostolic circle at this period had the ear of the Jewish Christians as did James. One does not have to wait many decades to find need for strong ethical preaching to those converted out of either heathen practices or the sins of the Jews. The extreme “Jewishness” of writer and reader in every way tends to confirm the probability of an early date—perhaps a.d. 45-48.

5. Place of origin. If the previous conclusions are accepted, there can be little doubt as to the place of origin of this epistle. There is no record of James’ absence from Jerusalem after his assumption of the leadership of the Jewish church, nor would there need to be. The influence of the Jerusalem church provided a natural support for the leadership of her president in matters that affected Jewish Christians, wherever they were found. As the Temple in Jerusalem had been the hub of the Jewish world to which worshipers traveled from afar, so the believing Jews gravitated to Jerusalem with their questions and problems. James was apparently a cosmopolitan figure without the necessity for travel. The thoroughly Jewish background of the writer has already been discussed (first section, this article). Though it must be admitted that he knew Gr. well and constantly associated with Hel. as well as Palestinian Jews, there is nothing in the epistle incongrous with the view that it originated in Jerusalem under the pen of James the brother of the Lord.

6. Destination. The epistle presupposes not only a Jewish author but also readers of the same background. The most natural understanding of “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1) would be that the epistle is addressed to Jews scattered throughout the Roman empire. The fact that they are repeatedly called “brethren” and “beloved brethren” perhaps implies that they are Christian believers. The matter is practically settled by reference to their holding “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (2:1). Further confirmation, if needed, is found in the appeal to the near return of the Lord (5:8). If the epistle was written before the Jerusalem council, the only generally recognized Christians would be Jewish Christians, meeting in synagogues and homes. Indeed, the word for “synagogue” is used in the Gr. (2:2). The distinctly Jewish references throughout appear to communicate rather than obstruct. The primary addressees are Jews scattered abroad but bound together in a common faith in Jesus Christ. However, unconverted Jews would find much that is familiar in the ethical treatise that demands fulfillment of the law. And Gentile Christians, when they appear, would certainly find in it the way of Christian living. If the epistle was written much later than here suggested, it might then be necessary to apply it to the spiritual Israel, the Christian believers of whatever background who were scattered for their faith.

7. Occasion. Some deny that the epistle is occasional; that is, they see no particular circumstance that specifically called for the book to be written. Several circumstances did, indeed, precede the writing. Some find reference to a period of persecution in the trials and temptation (ch. 1). However, the epistle reflects not a major peak of persecution but animosities aroused, losses endured, liability to insults, and interference with ways of life and religious services. Another circumstance, largely learned from other sources, is the strong position of leadership early achieved by James the Just. It is evident from the writing itself that sufficient time had elapsed for some of the original fervor of the converts to wane. This, of course, need not be many years. Possibly none of these circumstances was the occasion of the writing in any specific sense. All together, they perhaps constituted a situation in which the Spirit of God moved His messenger to rebuke the sins into which they were slipping and to call the believers into a disciplined life of holiness.

Alternative views have been held. Some see James engaged in an unlikely diatribe against Paul’s view of justification by faith alone. Others see him attacking those who perverted Paul’s teaching. Both of these ideas demand a late date of the epistle and tend to exaggerate the differences between Paul and James. Cadoux offers a better suggestion. There was need to send something back with Jewish Christians who visited Jerusalem so that they could encourage and establish the believers scattered abroad. This may have been the occasion for the writing (op. cit., 26).

8. Purpose. The purpose of the epistle is clearly practical and ethical. Doctrine is assumed more than enunciated. The thrust is for action and obedience. The law is to be lived. The ethical implications of the new faith need to be tr. into practical realities if the believers are to advance along the way of holiness. The mood is hortatory. The purpose is to correct faults, to instruct the wavering, to instill discipline, to rebuke backslidings, and to encourage genuine godliness throughout the redeemed fellowship, wherever believers could be found among the Jews who were scattered abroad.

9. Canonicity. Direct external evidence for the acceptance of the epistle is relatively late and sometimes ambiguous. This is not strange if its original thrust was toward a Jewish Christianity that soon withered and was displaced by a more viable universal mission. Unlike the writings of Paul and the gospels, this epistle had to work its way back into the general church as a secondary audience after its original audience had perished. Not written by one of the Twelve and not addressed to a single church that would preserve and defend it, the epistle’s comeback was slow. Origen is the first to cite James, speaking of it as “the current Epistle of St. James.” Again he spoke as if some would demur to its authority. The Syr. VS includes it, and Hort thinks it likely that it did so from the first, i.e., the Old Syr. (James, xxviii). Eusebius places James among the antilegomena, as practically accepted in most churches but not in all (Euseb. Hist., II, 23). He himself, however, quotes James 4:11 as Scripture and James 5:13 as spoken by the holy apostle. From Eusebius onward the book had a firm place in the Gr. churches. It was used freely by Didymus and Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzus, and Ephraem of Edessa. The Antiochene Fathers (like Chrysostom), who kept to the Syrian Canon, used James. In the W the reception was not so rapid. Neglected largely until late in the 4th cent., it was then adopted through Jerome and Augustine. The Third Council of Carthage, in a.d. 397, finally clarified the status for the Western church, and from that date forward its canonicity was unquestioned until the time of the Reformation, when Erasmus and Cajetan revived old doubts. Luther, finding much straw in it in comparison with his favorites, Romans and Galatians, assigned it a secondary place—not with the leading books. Luther’s judgment, however, has not been sustained by Protestantism in general.

Thus far, only the more formal evidences for the canonicity of the epistle have been discussed. The more casual references, quotations, and allusions may be even more revealing of the faith of the Early Church. Formal lit. often waits for doubts and questions to arise. Quotations and allusions follow normal use and acceptance from the first. It is remarkable that the earliest witnesses belong to the church at Rome, which was one of the latest to recognize the epistle formally. In the early days, the church at Rome had a large Jewish component. Having lost this, it had to rediscover James. At any rate, Clement of Rome, in the 1st cent., reflects knowledge of James. In the 2nd cent. the same appears to be true of Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, the Epistle to Diognetus, Irenaeus, and Hermas. Since canonicity depends not on decrees of councils but on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognized by believers, perhaps the evidence of an early wide use of the epistle speaks more loudly for canonicity than the temporary “official” silence could speak against it.

10. Text. Aside from a papyrus of James 2:19-3:9 (p. 21 Oxyrhynchus 1171), the earliest Gr. text of James is found in Codex Vaticanus (B), of the 4th cent. Other important uncials are Codex Sinaiticus (א, 4th cent.), Ephraem (C, 5th cent.) and Alexandrinus (A, 5th cent.), in this order of importance to the epistle of James. Relatively brief portions are also found from the 4th cent. in Oxyrhynchus 1229 and from the 5th cent. in 048 (Codex Patiriensis), 0166 (Heidelberg), and p—(Oxyrhynchus fragment, Papiri greci e latini, i, 1912, No. 5). From the 7th cent. comes א ^c, a series of corrections made according to some standard in Codex Sinaiticus. Several others are scattered through the 8th and 9th centuries, including 33, the “queen of the cursives.” Ropes says that “in addition about 475 manuscripts dating from the tenth to eighteenth centuries are enumerated in the lists of Gregory and H. von Soden” (Commentary, p. 75).

Since most of the important variants were in existence about as early as B, the value of the documents is not primarily based on date but on the soundness of the principles or tastes on which they are built. Of the groups that can be tested, only B_ff bears indication of relative originality and freedom from emendation; B shows less emendation than B_ff. Therefore, with due precaution, B should generally be followed except when positive evidence from “transcriptional” or other internal probability outweighs the authority of B. Thus, the other witnesses serve two purposes. When they disagree with B, their readings may commend themselves by internal character as superior, or when they agree with B, they guarantee that the reading was not due to an idiosyncrasy of B. The wider currency of the reading also increases confidence.

By following the above guidelines, Ropes believes (p. 86), one will not have a perfect text of the epistle but will have fewer emended readings than by following any other document or group of documents. The VSS prove that the oldest MSS as a whole are immensely superior to the later eclectic texts commonly used in the Gr.-speaking churches from the middle of the 4th cent. The recensions are valuable for the fragments of older texts which they contain and not for their continuous texts (see quotation by Ropes from Burkitt, Commentary, 86).

11. Special problems. The most publicized problem of the epistle is its seeming contradiction to Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. Luther in particular was greatly disturbed by the position of James (Colloquia, II, 202). Paul said, “A man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:28). James said, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). It is important to understand what each meant. Faith, to Paul, was a trust that cannot exist without obedience. It must be a vital, working faith, a faith that works by love (Gal 5:6). For this James also contended. Faith is not a magic formula. It must have works that demonstrate its genuineness and efficacy, otherwise it is dead. James and Paul were not fighting each other; they were opposing a common enemy.

Roman Catholics have also claimed the epistle as authority for the sacrament of extreme unction. Anointing with oil is not only reported but recommended in connection with prayer for physical and spiritual healing (James 5:14, 15). This injunction has been followed and this promise claimed many times in the history of the Church. Considerable shift occurred when this was divorced from the healing of the sick and made a sacrament for the dying. The problem is not in the text but in its distortion.

The word “elder” in an early epistle has puzzled some (5:14). Did the early Jerusalem church have that much organization? They did worship in “synagogues.” Jewish synagogues had elders, older men of influence, who directed the affairs. What would be so strange about calling by the same name those who performed a similar function, regardless of the stage of organization (cf. Acts 15:6)?

12. Content. Some have likened wisdom lit. in general and this epistle in particular to a string of beads. In this intensely hortatory situation, one might expect only a series of ideas instead of a logically developed pattern. However, even beads may be strung in a pattern; James did outline his thoughts.

The governing idea is patience, in terms of steadfastness, constancy, or endurance. The frequent use of the word “patience” in the KJV emphasizes the pattern (James 1:3, 4; 5:7, 8, 10, 11), though synonyms in the RSV and others may communicate better. James is exhorting the readers to endure, to overcome all opposition from within and without, and to remain with undeviating constancy on the course of the heavenly wisdom. Only thus can blessedness be experienced here or hereafter (1:2, 3, 12). In view of the goodness of God and the source of life in Him (1:16-18), three rules emerge that form the basic outline of the body of the book: Be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger (v. 19). Chapter 5 returns to the theme of patience or constancy, now in terms of the imminent coming of the Lord and of the efficacy of prayer.

Outline

13. Theology. The theology of the epistle is more implicit than explicit. The thrust is hortatory and ethical. It is addressed to people who already are familiar with the OT and who have been informed of the relevance of Jesus as the One who fulfilled the promises of redemption. They have already believed on Him, found life in Him, and suffered for their faith. It is not new doctrine that is needed. Rather, the necessary element is steadfastness in what they already know and experience. Theology is not discussed for its own sake in the epistle. It is introduced from time to time in support of practical exhortations.

Even so, James finds expression for his theology. Twice he uses the formula “Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1 and 2:1), as if the person of the divine Christ were beyond debate. The holiness of God does not even admit of temptation (1:13). Spiritual life comes to man by direct divine bestowal (1:18). God demands ethical righteousness of His people (4:4, 5). There is a personal devil who can and must be resisted (4:7). Nothing escapes the ears of the Judge, who is already at the door (5:9). The hope of the return of the Lord is sure (5:7, 8). Prayer is real and effective (5:13-18). Nothing is too hard for God.

Bibliography E. Plumptre, The General Epistle of St. James (1886), 5-45; A. Plummer, The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1891), 13-54; A. Jülicher, An Introduction to the New Testament (1904), 215-229; F. Hort, The Epistle of St. James (1909), ix-xxxiii; J. Ropes, “The Text of the Epistle of James,” JBL, xxviii, (1909), 103-129; W. Oesterley, “The General Epistle of James,” Expositor’s Greek Testament (1910), 385-417; J. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James (1913), ii-ccxci; J. Ropes, “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James,” ICC (1916), 1-115; D. Hayes, The New Testament Epistles (1921), 81-118; A. Cadoux, The Thought of St. James (1944), 5-47; A. Ross, “The Epistles of James and John,” NIC (1954), 11-24; S. Paine, Studies in the Book of James (1955), 9-22; R. Tasker, “The General Epistle of James,” TNTC (1956), 9-38; E. Blackman, The Epistle of James (1957), 13-33; B. Easton and G. Poteat, “The Epistle of James,” IB (1957), 3-18; A. Ross, “Epistle of James,” ChT 1 (1957), 18, 19; W. Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter (1958), 3-39; A. Robertson, Studies in the Epistle of James (1959), 1-32; D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Hebrews to Revelation (1962), 60-94; Z. Hodges, “Light on James Two From Textual Criticism,” BS 120 (1963), 341-350; C. Pickrell, “Works Count Too!” ChT8 (1964), 13-15; E. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (1964), 359-370; C. Cranfield, “Message of James,” Scot JT, 18 (1965), 182-193, 338-345; C. Mitton, The Epistle of James (1966), 1-255.