James 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES
 
The epistle of James stands in the ancient arrangements of the New Testament under the “General (catholikoi) Epistles.” This designation is used as a kind of catchall for the letters not considered as coming from Paul. The designation signifies that the letters were written to the church at large or a larger segment or section of the church. The term is fairly accurate for all except III John (possibly H John also), which is perhaps included because of the natural grouping of the three epistles bearing the name of John. James is a good illustration of the way in which the term is employed. It is addressed to the “twelve tribes which are in the Dispersion.” Whatever this difficult term means specifically, it indicates that the book was written to a large segment of the church, to scattered groups of Christians throughout the Mediterranean world, rather than to an individual Christian or to an individual church as were most of Paul’s. The entire group of the Catholic Epistles (except I John and I Peter) were questioned at different times in the hisory of the early church. Eusebius and Origen both put them in the class of antelegomena or disputed books. The group won, however, a solid place in the canon. Except for rational critics who tend to date all possible books late, the decision of the early church in including these books in the canon has been defended in modern times with but few exceptions. In some of the earlier manuscripts of the N.T. the General Epistles were placed immediately after the book of Acts. Jerome was the first to place them in the present position immediately after the book of Hebrews. Since his time this has been their customary place.
 
AN ENDURING APPEAL
Though the Epistle of James is often considered one of the lesser books of the N.T., the writer has discovered that it is the favorite letter of many Bible students. Barclay confesses that he approached the study of the epistle as a duty in the process of writing his series and ended by finding it a joy. Several years of study and teaching James as one of the books in a course on the General Epistles have led the writer to appreciate the letter as a fine book. Its study has indeed been a joy to him. The closer study involved in preparing the analysis of the book for the Living Word Series and in writing this commentary has convinced him that James is one of the finest and richest works of the New Testament. I have been for many years impressed with the belief that the author is none other than the apostle James, one of the Lord’s chosen twelve, and all my study and reflection for a period of over sixty years confirms me in this belief. In my own plain way I shall proceed to give in brief some of my reasons for so believing.
 

1. The Author of the Christian faith selected twelve men whom he called his apostles, and upon them he conferred the authority of proclaiming the laws of his kingdom. The warrant of authority is couched in this language: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This was first spoken to Peter and afterward to all the apostles. After his resurrection from the dead he confirms his declaration by adding, “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you,” and to this he adds: “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” This power was subsequently conferred upon the apostle Paul. The twelve only, therefore, in the first instance, had the authority to exercise these great and exalted prerogatives. To these twelve men the Master had said: “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” I conclude, therefore, that the twelve were essentially ministers plenipotentiary. They spake for the King, and when they spake it was the same as if the King had spoken. None others could be so recognized. Any attempt to exercise these functions so conferred upon the twelve alone—Paul alone excepted—can be regarded in no other light than that of presumptuous usurpation. Now, these very prerogatives were undoubtedly exercised by the author of this Epistle at the council of Jerusalem. (Acts 15) The idea can not be entertained for a moment that the apostles to whom these powers were specially delegated would have tolerated the exercise thereof by one not clothed with like authority.
    
2. The internal evidence contained in this Epistle unmistakably indicates the bearing of one clothed with authority to speak in the name of the King. Citations would be useless. The Epistle can easily be read, and it will speak with no uncertainty and without the intimation of a doubt upon this point.
    
3. The Lord appeared to him alone, as mentioned by Paul in 1Co_15:7. This is a particular honor not likely to have been mentioned by Paul had it no special significance. But when we further reflect upon other language of Paul, its significance appears. He it was who said: “And when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision” (Gal_2:9). “Perceived the grace given unto me” indicates their acceptance of Paul as an apostle, which prior thereto they were not willing to concede. Who else could make this concession but those possessed of like authority?
    
4. The statement of the Holy Spirit: “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother” (Gal_1:19). It seems to me that this declaration ought to settle the matter with all men of faith. Certainly no useless words were uttered by the pen of inspiration, and still more certainly none would be used calculated to mislead. From the foregoing reasons I conclude that the author of the Epistle was none other than James, the son of Alpheus, sometimes called James the Less, and by Josephus James the Just. At all events, the foregoing reasons are sufficient to cause me to regard the author of this Epistle as an apostle, and such he is to me.
    
   As to the question of the relationship of the author of this Epistle to the Master, we reserve for consideration when writing the introduction to the Epistle of Jude.
    
   Author of Book of James
   The author of James is obviously “James” (see Jas_1:1); however, we have the duty of identifying who James is. There were many James in the Bible. We read of James the son of Zebedee as being one of the earliest apostles chosen by Jesus (see Mar_1:19) and the brother of John (Mat_4:21). It was this James whose mother had asked Jesus if her two sons may occupy a prominent place in the kingdom of God (Mat_20:20). This James was beheaded by Herod around the year 42-44 AD (see Act_12:1-5) (i.e., likely well before the writing of a letter to those of the dispersion). We also read about James the son of Alphaeus (Mat_10:2-4) and James the brother of Jesus (Mat_13:54-58; Gal_1:18-19). James the Lord’s brother appears to be one of the elders in the church in Jerusalem and a pillar in the church (see Act_15:13 ff; Gal_2:9). Most seem to agree that it must have been this James; i.e., the brother of Jesus, elder and pillar in the church of Jerusalem that wrote this epistle
    
   Here’s what J.W. Roberts has to say about the auhtorship of the book:
   The author of the epistle calls himself “James, servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” There are four persons of this name mentioned in the New Testament. (1) James the son of Zebedee and brother of John, one of the three “innercircle” of the Apostles of Jesus; (2) James the apostle, son of Alphaeus, the same as James the less, the son of Clopas (Mar_15:40); (3) James the father (or brother) of Judas (not Iscariot) (Luk_6:16); and (4) James the brother of the Lord (Mat_13:55; Gal_1:19) and brother of Judas (Jud_1:1). Of these four, two are hardly to be considered, for they are known only by their names and do not figure greatly in the early history of the church. The James who wrote this epistle was so well known that he expected to be recognized by his title. James the brother of John, son of Zebedee, died a martyr’s death under Herod Agrippa I before the year 44 A.D. (the year of Herod’s death). The story is told in Act_12:2. There have been a few scholars who thought that this James was the author of this epistle. But most students consider his early death to render this supposition unlikely. Thus it is most likely, and it has been so unanimously the decision of scholars of all ages that this is the correct conclusion that, as the author of the article on James in the Abingdon Bible Commentary says, “There can be little hesitation in claiming him as its author.”
    
   THE LIFE OF JAMES
   The name of James stands first among the names of the four brothers and at least two sisters of Jesus in the family of Joseph and Mary (Mat_13:54-56; Mar_6:3). Presumably he was the eldest, besides Jesus, followed by Joseph, Simon, and Judas. The exact relationship of these children to Jesus has been the subject of much discussion. Theories held throughout the history of the church may be summarized as follows.
5. That he was a son of Mary and Joseph. This view was that of Helvidius (identity unknown), whose work claiming that Joseph was the father of James and his brethren by Mary was contested by Jerome. It is argued that this thesis may be supposed from the relationship of Mary and Joseph and the implication of Mat_1:24-25 that Joseph knew her not until the birth of Jesus. Further it is argued that this is the natural conclusion from the description of these children as the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Tertullian later argued from these facts that the sanctity of marriage is hallowed by the mother of Jesus’ living in wedlock and bearing children after the birth of Jesus, thus showing that some leaders of the church held this view.
6. That he was a half-brother of Jesus, a son of Joseph by a former marriage (the Epiphanian view, after Epiphanius, who did not invent the theory but who strongly argued the thesis in the latter half of the fourth century). The idea goes back to the apocryphal book of James (Protevangelium), which tells of the miraculous birth and early life of Mary (daughter of a couple known as Joachim and Anna). She was presented to the temple and brought up there. At the age of twelve she was betrothed (according to the story) to an aged widower Joseph, who was chosen by a sign from heaven. There is no evidence for the theory except legend. Its real motivation was to supply a basis for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The argument is based on such inconclusive assumptions as that Jesus’ own brethren would not have questioned his sanity; that he would not have left his mother with John if he had had brothers to take care of her; and that Joseph must have been much older than Mary because he seems to have vanished completely from the gospel story.
7. That he was a cousin of Jesus (the Hieronymian view, so called from Jerome, whose Greek name was Hieronymos.) This belief, put forward in A.D. 383 and not previously documented, has become the stated opinion of the Roman Catholic church. Jerome’s argument (See Barclay, pp. 17ff where it is discussed in detail) proceeds from the erroneous assumption that the word “apostle” used to describe James in Gal_1:19 can only refer to one of the twelve apostles of Jesus. He reasons that he is thus to be identified with James the Less, the son of Alphaeus (since James the son of Zebedee is excluded). This James is also to be identified with one of the sons of Mary (James and Joses) at the cross (Mar_15:40 and compare Mar_6:3). Jerome then insists that the description “his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas” in the list of John of the women at the cross (Joh_19:25 and compare Mar_15:40 and Mat_27:56) refers to the same person (John names only three, not four women). He thus concludes that the Mary of Mar_6:3 is not Jesus’ mother, but her sister, the wife of Cleopas, thus making Jesus and James cousins. He then assumes that this James is the same as James the Less and that his father was Alphaeus.
   Against this contention it may not only be pointed out that Jerome began with an erroneous view of the word “apostle,” which may be and is used in the N.T. in different ways from one of the twelve (as in Act_14:14), but that James is repeatedly called Jesus’ brother (adelphos). Too, the view rests upon the questionable interpretation of the passages listed above, especially that of John’s list of women at the cross. Though it is not necessary to the thesis of authorship maintained by most conservatives of the genuineness of the book of James, it may safely be concluded that James is an actual brother to Jesus in the flesh through the common mother, Mary.
   Joseph the father of James is described as a “righteous” or “just” man, which probably means that James was reared in strict observance of the Law of Moses. It is interesting to note that all the children were named after illustrious Jewish ancestors. James was reared at Nazareth in Galilee, whence Joseph had returned after the trip to Egypt. Galilee during these years (B.C. 4-A.D. 39) was ruled over by Herod Antipas. During James’ life Galilee was a prosperous and peaceful province. The region had been deeply penetrated by Gentile influences so that it had received the name Galilee of the Gentiles (Mat_4:15). In later times Josephus estimated the population of Palestine at 3 million with many towns over 15,000 population, one of which would be Nazareth (Life, Section 45). Here in such a surrounding James and his brothers grew up. The. . . synagogue, the visits to Jerusalem for the feasts (Luk_2:41 ff), the carpenter’s shop are typical parts of the environment which molded his life and faith.
   During the public ministry of Jesus James as a part of the family viewed his Messianic claims with the suspicion that he was beside himself (Mar_3:21) and sought to restrain him (Mat_12:47; Luk_8:19). We are told that his brothers “did not believe on him” (Joh_7:5). At the cross, Jesus committed his mother to the beloved John rather than to the unbelieving brothers (Joh_19:26).
   After the resurrection Christ appeared to James (1Co_15:7) and this seems to have changed all, for immediately it is noted that he was among the number who waited during the interval before Pentecost (Act_1:13-14).
   For the first few years of the church’s history little is heard of James. But he gradually emerges as a figure of prominence in the Jerusalem church. Three years after Paul’s conversion he returned to Jerusalem and visited James along with Peter (Gal_1:18-19). In the account of the visit 14 years later (Gal_2:1 ff)
   James is referred to as one of the “pillars” of the church (Gal_2:9). After the breakup of the apostolic band his name stands out, though the later tradition which pictures him as “the bishop of the church in Jerusalem” is a reading back into the New Testament of later developments (see comments on “elders” in note on Jas_5:14).
   James took part in the recognition of the Gentile mission of Paul (Gal_2:9). The party which Peter and Barnabas joined, but which Paul rebuked respecting their separation or fellowship with uncircumcision, claimed James’ leadership–whether rightly we do not know (Gal_2:12). At the meeting to decide the question of Gentile circumcision James sides with Paul and Peter and suggests the writing of a circular letter making known the decision (Act_15:13 ff). He tempers the decision that the law is not enforced upon the Gentiles by suggesting that they defer to some of the deeply engrained ritual and morals of the Jews. Whether this is any more characteristic of James’ concept of the gospel and its relationship to the Jews and the law than of Peter or Paul is not clear.
   When Paul made his visit to Jerusalem bearing the gifts “remembering the poor” (Gal_2:10; Act_21:18 ff), James and the elders made the proposal to Paul that to counteract the influence of the zealous Jews Paul should become surety for the obligations of a group of poor worshippers who had taken a vow (Act_21:20 ff).
   James’ attitude in these glimpses of him has been interpreted as typical of Palestinian or Judaistic Christianity. First, his Hebrew or Jewish background is taken as basic. But he is also seen in the dual role of championing the freedom of the Gentiles from the law (as Paul contended) while at the same time being zealous for the observance of traditional Judaism for Jewish Christians. This is probably to be interpreted as a measure of statesmenship aimed at winning his nation to the claims of the gospel (See Randall, pp. 20ff). Some have questioned whether the view implied in the arrangements for Paul’s actions in Act_21:20 ff existed because the full light of revelation had not yet been thrown on the relation of the law and the gospel as it was later in the books of Hebrews and Ephesians (the view of J. W. McGarvey in his commentary on Acts) or whether it is to be explained merely as the prerogative of Jewish conscience (as in Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8) which is permissible on social grounds (compare Paul’s “to the Jew I became a Jew that I might win the Jews,” 1Co_9:20; Act_16:3), a prerogative which exists only as a liberty and must not be insisted on for others or thought of as a part of righteousness under the gospel (Cf. Col_2:16; Gal_4:1-10; Gal_5:4; Gal_2:4-5). This question has important bearing upon the interpretation of the epistle of James, for it is often represented as exhibiting a type of Christianity not yet freed of its Jewish shackles, so that it is mainly interested in an orientation of the church to Judaism.
   James’ later life is revealed to us only from Josephus and Hegesippus (Eccl. History, 2:23). Here he is seen as a man of great piety, commanding by reputation the respect of Jew and Christian alike and exercising great influence not only in Jerusalem among his nation and the church but also among Christians of the Dispersion who came to Jerusalem for the Jewish feasts. He is pictured as rigorous in his religious exercises, living the life of a Nazarite. His life ended in martyrdom at the hands of the enraged Jews, who threw him from the temple and stoned him to death in the year 62. He thus died in the same manner as Stephen and James the Apostle before him.
   The role thus described by the Scriptures and tradition fits perfectly the letter of James as we have it. Often it is difficult to tell if Jews or Christians are addressed, and it may well be that he wrote to Christians of his nation but still with an eye to his countrymen to whom he hoped to appeal by virtue of his reputation and esteem for holiness. But in the absence of an apologetic note for the claims of Christ and the gospel this must not be pressed too far. Thus there is nothing psychologically improbable about the relationship of James to the life situation which the letter presupposes.
    
    
   To whom was this epistle written?
   Jas_1:1 addresses the “twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion.” The apostle Peter also addressed his first epistle to specific brethren of the “dispersion” (see 1Pe_1:1). The word “dispersion” (diaspora) = “a scattering, as of seed; dispersion; in NT the dispersed portion of the Jews, specially termed the dispersion (cf. Joh_7:35; Jas_1:1; 1Pe_1:1)” (Moulton 95). Peter is clearly speaking of Christians in general (i.e., the elect of God / see 1Pe_1:1). The Greek diaspora is also found at Joh_7:35 in relation to Jesus leaving the Jews and going to the Gentiles to preach. James’ use of the Greek diaspora seems to refer to Christians in general who have been figuratively scattered as seed throughout the world.
    
   Why is James written?
   Christians were being dispersed throughout the world (away from their homelands). They were being exposed to intense trials (Jas_1:1 ff; 1Pe_1:6), they were falling in sin through weakness of the flesh (Jas_1:13-15; Jas_1:21), and they were guilty of preferential treatment toward the wealthy in their assembly (Jas_2:6-7; Jas_2:9). Furthermore there were brethren that were teaching a faith only doctrine (Jas_2:14 to Jas_3:12). James tells us that some Christians were fighting with each other (4:1ff), filled with pride (Jas_4:6), gossips (Jas_4:11-12), and some had left God completely out of their life plans (Jas_4:13-17). James reveals the fact that many Christians had put their faith in the things of this world (Jas_5:1 ff). This epistle is a wake up call to the faithful of God. They needed to change their sinful ways.
    
   Time and Place of Writing
   Dating James is very difficult. We know that the dispersion of Christians throughout the world occurred approximately 44 AD (see Act_8:1 ff). Clearly the destruction of Jerusalem had not yet occurred (i.e., 70 AD). A broad range of the writing would thereby be 44 to 70 AD.
   Various dates are fixed at which the Epistle was written. While it may not be of special importance, I have carefully gone over all the data within my reach, including such light as Eusebius and Josephus throw upon the question, and come to the conclusion that the latter is probably as reliable as any. I quote from his “Antiquities of the Jews,” Book XX., Chapter ix., Section I, this declaration: “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road, so he [reference is here made to Ananias the high priest] assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.” This was in A. D. 63. It is safe to say that the Epistle written by James had something to do with this outburst of passion against him. The letter must therefore have been written before this, certainly not later than A. D. 62, and this is probably the proper date. James was put to death in Jerusalem, and the last account we have of him from the sacred page was at that renowned city, and evidently from thence was written the document that bears his name.
    
   Character of the Epistle
   While it is not doctrinal, it is full of practical instruction in the duties of life, and contains many convincing arguments and soul-stirring exhortations. The letter abounds in brilliant illustrations as pleasing as they are brilliant. In all my reading, covering a period of more than sixty-five years, I have failed to find anything comparable in point of beauty with James’ description of the brevity and uncertainty of human life. The boldness and energy appearing in many
    
   Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) was a German monk and religious reformer. Luther was known for challenging the authority of the Roman Catholic Church by holding that the Bible alone stood as man’s source of guidance in spiritual matters. Luther believed that all baptized believers were recognized as priests rather than a select few in the Catholic Church. Luther believed that salvation was a free gift of God that would be realized only when the believer repented of sins and exercised faith in Jesus. Luther looked to Rom_3:28 as his proof text which states, “We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” The problem with Luther’s conclusion was that it conflicted with the writings of James. James said, “Even so, faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself” (Jas_2:17). Luther concluded thereby that the book of James was a “straw epistle” that really did not belong in the canon of God’s word. Unfortunately, Luther’s ideas and teachings have been accepted by many the world over. A thorough study of James will yield the fruits of understanding and wisdom in relationship to man’s responsibility to be obedient to all God’s commands. James brings the Christian to a divine approach to life that will help one through the most difficult and trying of times.
    
   James sets out to Reorient the Christians to their Hope and Objective
   Christians need to be reminded about Bible truths that they had previously learned. The apostle Peter said, “Wherefore I shall be ready always to put you in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and are established in the truth, which is with you” (2Pe_1:12). James’ audience needed to be refocused on the subjects of humility and patience. James’ sharp exposure of the people’s sins was intended to move them to shame that they may humble themselves before the eyes of God (Jas_4:6-10). The apparent intense persecutions that the disciples were undergoing were contributing to the brethren giving up their faith for sinful practices. James reminds the Christians that they are to patiently await the coming of Jesus (see Jas_5:7-8). Humility in the face of exposed sin and patience in the face of intense persecution was the only way one would see the end of their faith; i.e., a crown of life (Jas_1:12). The beauty of the book of James is that the author gives his readers a game plan to follow that they may overcome the trials of persecution, hardships, and sin. The Christian’s approach to life was to be with wisdom (Jas_3:13), humility (Jas_4:6), and patience (Jas_1:3; Jas_5:7-11). Said approach is deemed the “perfect” approach to life (see Jas_1:4; Jas_4:15-17 – see also Php_3:15). If any lacked this wisdom and approach to life James instructs them to pray for it (Jas_1:5). Secondly, when Christians found themselves unable to endure their pain any longer they were encouraged to look to the examples of the prophets and Job (Jas_5:10-11). The “crown of life” (Jas_1:12), “salvation” (Jas_1:21), “justification” (Jas_2:25), God’s “grace” (Jas_4:6), “exaltation” (Jas_4:10), the Lord’s “mercy and pity” (Jas_5:11), and spiritual “death” (Jas_5:20) are all at stake. Now is the time to pray, confess, and be forgiven of sins committed (Jas_5:15-20).
    
   OBJECTIONS TO JAMES’ BEING CONSIDERED THE AUTHOR.
   In modern times many critics have doubted that James the Lord’s brother could be the author of the epistle of James. This tendency started in the days of the Baur school, which attempted to date all the books of the New Testament late except the big four of Paul. Despite the fact that the climate of opinion among critics is vastly different today, the tendency to consider many of the later epistles of the canon as pseudonymous persists.
   The arguments against the genuineness of James are discussed in detail by Easton in the Interpreter’s Bible. His arguments may be taken as typical of the critics’ view. They may be summarized under four points: (1) The Greek of the epistle is too good to have been written by an Aramaic-speaking Jew such as James; (2) The style of the epistle shows a familiarity with certain stylistic features of Greek literature which would be quite unlikely for James; (3) There is an absence of mention of Jesus and his teaching such as would be expected if written by a brother of the Lord; (4) James had a difficult time of gaining acceptance into the canon. Easton argues that these objections are overwhelmingly against James’ writing the epistle, and he adopts the rather fantastic theory of Meyer that the book is a Jewish production written in imitation of Jacob’s address to the twelve tribes in Genesis 49. He thinks that some Christian writer took over the book and added some Christian sections and put the book out as a Christian document. We will examine these ideas in detail.
8. The Greek Style. It is argued that the epistle furnishes us with one of the two or three best examples of Greek idiom in the N.T. (along with Hebrews and parts of Luke’s writings). This is an acknowledged fact, though it needs some explaining. Considering that James the Lord’s brother was a native of Galilee where the native tongue would be Aramaic, it is thought impossible or at least most improbable that James could have written with the mastery of Greek that is exhibited in this epistle. Easton says,
   Could we by the wildest stretch of imagination, think of James in mature life as learning to write the Greek of this epistle–an epistle cast in the Hellenistic and non-Semitic form of prose paraenesis, using the equally Hellenistic and non-Semitic diatribe, characterized by familiarity with Stoic-Cynic ethical terminology, and the Greek hexameters in 1:17 and 4:5? Or that, as in 4:6, he would cite the Old Testament (Pro_3:34) from the Greek version (LXX), which is quite unlike the Hebrew?
   He concludes: “Our epistle was not written by James the Lord’s brother nor by any other James known to us by name in the New Testament” (p. 6). This argument has some weight, but one wonders if it is not actually an example of critical dogmatism. If the life of James were known in detail and if it were known that James did, in fact, never learn to write Greek in this fashion and if there is no possibility of the book’s being written by James and presented in its present shape in such a case, then there might be some reason for such a dogmatic and positive statement.
   But the facts are against these conditions. Nothing is known of James’ education, his language ability, or opportunity. Besides this epistle, no known writings from his pen exist by which one might point in contrast to his acknowledged style. It is well known, on the other hand, that there was a deep penetration of Greek influence into Palestine affecting Galilee especially. Bethsaida, for example, not far from Nazareth, was known for Greek as its native tongue. (Cf. Cullmann, Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, p. 22). So James probably spoke Greek from childhood. How polished he might have become over a long period of contact and communication with Greek-speaking Jews is a question no one can answer. Certainly, if, conscious of his leadership, he had studied to equip himself to communicate better, it is not unreasonable that he could have done so. It is noted in the account of his death by Hegesippus that visitors from afar (Jews and Gentiles) sought out his counsel. Thus the situation might naturally imply that James grew in the use of the language. Paul, reared a Hebrew of Hebrew parents (Php_3:5), learned to write good Greek. Another possibility is that James wrote in Aramaic and procured someone in the church who could write good Greek to translate the epistle for his audience. Such a theory has, in fact, been urged by Wordsworth and later revived by Burkitt (Christian Beginnings, pp. 69f).
   There is another factor, however. In addition to writing excellent Greek, James is still influenced by the Hebrew-Septuagint language background which was a part of his training. Several constructions as the instrumental use of the preposition en, (3:9), the use of the qualitative (or descriptive) genitive (possessive) (Cf. “hearer of forgetfulness,” “forgetful hearer,” 1:25 and see comment on 2:4), the use of the cognate dative (“pray with prayer,” 5:17); the use of the collective plural (in the term “respect of persons” 2:1); the expressions like “synagogue” and “respect of persons” which have their meanings largely from the LXX background–all these show that James did not write “pure Greek.” They fit perfectly the assumptions either that the book was written by a Palestinian Jew who first spoke both the Aramaic and Greek and went on from this to become proficient in the Greek tongue, or that an original document was translated into Greek by one with such a background.
   But other points mentioned by Easton need to be noticed. If it is asked whether a Palestinian Jewish leader would quote from the LXX instead of the Hebrew, one replies that the motive and audience would determine. It should be remembered that James wrote for a Hellenistic audience, the Jews scattered in the Dispersion. Such Jews did use the Septuagint. How natural, then, that James, even if his natural bent was to use the Hebrew (a conclusion of which we are completely ignorant), should use the Greek version in writing to them.
9. Use of Literary Devices. As for the charge that James copied the Greek Stoic diatribe style and made use of other Greek literary devices not ordinarily at the command of a Palestinian Jew, such claims are overdrawn. As is pointed out in the comment on Jas_4:13 to Jas_5:1 f, the direct address or apostrophe is more characteristic of the Old Testament prophet “burden” apostrophe than it is of the Greek diatribe. Metzger has shown that such style is common among the Jewish writings of the Talmud (Interpreter’s Bible, “The Language of the New Testament,” Vol. 7, p. 51). The coincidence of a sentence or two with a rhyme scheme may be a conscious quotation learned from an acquaintance, but more likely (as in other N.T. instances) it is pure coincidence (See Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, pp. 421ff): “as is common with speakers and writers of any language.” The same points are made with respect to Paul (Ibid, pp. 421, 1196).
10. Lack of Mention of Jesus. This argument is stated by McNeile as follows:
    It is difficult to think that a brother of the Lord, who had become a believer in Him, writing certainly before A.D. 69–some think at a much earlier date–could have written without speaking of His death or resurrection (unless a veiled reference to His death is to be seen in v. 6), and have contented himself with naming Him only twice (i. I; ii. I)–or only once, if, as is probable, the name in the latter passage is an interpolation. Although he refers to words of our Lord (see below), he shows little sign, such as we see in I Peter, of His “personal spell.”
    Actually this same charge is made against the genuineness of I Peter (see A. M. Hunter in the Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. XII, “Introduction” to the First Epistle of Peter, p. 77ff, who answers the charge effectively). But the question raised does not take into consideration the nature of the epistle. James is not writing a theological or Christological treatise. Other critics have seen in the reticence to parade his relation to Jesus as sign of James’ modesty and a note of genuineness. A n impostor, anxious to claim the authority of James for his work, would hardly have touched so lightly on the family tie.
    But this charge ignores one of the most significant things about the epistle, that of the detailed reflection of the actual words of Jesus especially from the speeches of Jesus like the Sermon on the Mount. If James does not reveal the “person spell” of Jesus, he does show a baptism into the thought and words of Jesus of his own ethical vocabulary. Notice how Easton minimizes this data:
    There is no book in the New Testament that tells us less about Christ. Nowhere in it is any saying of Jesus cited as such, and even indirect citations are very few (Jas_5:12 is really the only instance where there seems to be a definite quotation, with probable but less clear examples in Jas_1:6-8; Jas_2:8).
    Ropes (pp. 38ff) is fairer in his treatment, listing 1:8 = Mat_7:7; Luk_11:9; Luk_2:5 = Mat_5:3; Luk_6:20; Luk_3:18 = Mat_5:9; Mat_4:4 =Mar_8:38 (cf. Mat_12:39; Mat_16:4); 5:1-6 =Luk_6:24; Luk_5:12 = Mat_5:34-37. To this Ropes adds that it is much more significant that the epistle shows an inclination to follow some of the broad interests of the Gospels. He lists especially the emphasis on hearing as well as doing (Mat_7:21-29, Luk_6:46; Mat_7:24-27; Luk_6:47-49; Mat_25:31-46); the value set on poverty, the warnings to the rich, with the injunctions to prayer and devotion to God (1:9; 5:1ff, cf. Mat_6:19-34); the restraint in judging and unkind speech (5:9 with Mat_7:1 ff). To these details many more may be added such as mention of the length of the famine in Elijah’s time (5:17 with Luk_4:25); the parable of waiting for the harvest (5:7ff with Mar_4:26-29); “the judge standsat the door” (5:9 with Mat_24:33), etc.
    It is not that such ideas may not be found scattered throughout other literature; but it is difficult to explain, as Ropes says, “the special and strong interest in them found alike in the compilers of the Gospels (or of their source) and in James.” Of course there are missing terms and ideas (like Son of Man and kingdom of God), but one does not expect the whole vocabulary and gauntlet of thought of the Gospels in five short chapters. Such an astute critic as Mayor lists 59 resemblances between James and the Synoptic Gospels and stars 26 of these as being of “the most importance.” To these he adds 39 from the Johannine literature (written later but sharing the common debt to the remembrance of the teaching of Jesus), of which 16 are starred as of more importance. He concludes, “Close as the connexion of sentiment and even of language in many passages, it never amounts to actual quotation, but is like the reminiscence of thoughts often uttered by our Lord, and sinking into the heart of a hearer who reproduces them in his own manner.” (Commentary, lxxxv-xci) . Surely commentators like Easton are guilty of suppressing the evidence in the interest of their theories.
11. The Late Acceptance into the Canon. This objection is stated by McNeile as follows, “The lack of early evidence and the slowness with which the epistle was received as canonical are unfavorable to the idea that it was written by the head of the motherChurch of Christendom.” While there is some truth to the claim that James was somewhat late in emerging as fully canonical in the process of the church’s identification and collection of its books, the facts need to be spread out and looked at before they influence us to say that the church made a mistake in that process. James shared with Jude, Revelation, II Peter, and III John the fate of being not too well known and thus falling under suspended judgment until they could prove their claims. The early church defined its canon or list of Scriptural books in the process of debate with the Gnostics, an early group of heretics. Marcion’s acceptance of only a very limited cutting of the N.T. books led the church to examine its own thinking. Iranaeus pointed out that a book to be considered Scripture ought to meet four tests: (1) it should be apostolic; if not being written by an apostle, then it should be traceable back to a known companion or contemporary of the apostles so that its origin could be seen to lie in the first age of the church; (2) it must have been used universally, not having been known only by one segment of the church; (3) it must show itself worthy to be read in the churches; (4) it must prove that its contents were able to edify the churches.
    James easily met all these tests except that of universality. Here it was known in the Greek Church, but less well in the Syrian and especially the Latin. Origen at the end of the second century was the first to expressly quote it as being from James (On John, xix) Eusebius put it among the disputed books (as has been pointed out, E. H., III. 25) and he says of it, “Such is the story of James, who is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case of the Epistle called Jude’s, which is itself one of the seven called Catholic; nevertheless we know that these letters have been used publicly with the rest in most churches.” (E. H., II. 23). Some Latin writers (e. g., Rufinus) often quoted it but as from “the apostle James” (Hom. Viii, On Exodus). In this he may well have been influenced by Paul’s language in Gal_1:19, in referring to “other of the apostles save James the Lord’s brother.” Though it is not quoted in the extant writings of Clement of Alexander, he is expressly said to have given concise explanations “of all the Canonical Scriptures” and to have included James” (E. H., 6. xiv). Its first appearance in a Latin MS. is said (Barclay) to be in Codex Corbeiensis (Cir. 350). But its appearance in Jerome’s Vulgate assured it a place in the Latin tradition for all time. The epistle was included in the Syriac version of about 412 A.D. (Peshitto) though II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation are omitted; but whether it goes back to the older tradition is not clear. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech., 4. 5. 33) included it among the canonical books.
    It is fair to admit that this evidence is not overwhelming in favor of James, but this fact must not be weighed wrongly. Clearly in the absence of an official apostolic list of Scriptural books, some books would be less well known and have more trouble getting recognition. If James and some of the other books were to be discarded as non-genuine, there would then still exist other books less well known than the rest, and the process could be continued backward until the last. When this lack of specific attributing of the epistle to James is allowed to have so much weight, one cannot help feeling that James is suffering from the over skeptical attitude of its critics and from the general tendency of late-dating of the N.T. epistles. That this evidence is not considered decisive in regard to some other books is illustrated by the fact that some books which have strong positive external evidence are still rejected by these authorities.
    Evidence in the Apostolic Fathers. Of far more significance to this writer is the fact that the language and thought of James are so interwoven into the fabric of the earliest Christian writers (just as James does with the thought of Jesus, as shown above in regard to the Gospels) that it seems clearly to have been a part of the reading and hearing of the church from the beginning. It is not so much that it is quoted directly as being from James but that again the evidence consists of reminiscences of James’ words which have sunk into the hearts of the writers, who reproduce them in their own words.
    Easton says, “Apparent citations found in second-century writers are not clear enough to be convincing” (Ibid, p. 15). But the detailed evidence is quite impressive. Let us take a few examples. The epistle of I Clement (written around 96 A.D.) says, “Abraham the friend was found faithful in his obedience” (10:1) Jas_2:23; “Rahab the harlot was saved because of faith and hospitality (I Clement 12:1) Jas_2:25. Huther considers it certain that 38, “let the wise show forth his wisdom not in words but in good works” reflects Jas_3:13. The Shepherd of Hernias (Visions III. 6) speaks of “those rejoicing in wealth” and then ( like Jas_5:4) warns that “their groans go up to the ears of the Lord.” Again in Sim. 1:8 he echoes the specific “visit the widows and fatherless” of Jas_1:27. He warns with Jas_1:8 that he who prays should “ask in faith not doubting, not doubleminded,” (Mandate 9:3-9). Jas_4:7 is reflected in “Resist the devil and having been conquered he will flee from you in shame” (Mandate 12:5). Jas_4:12 is echoed in “fear him who is able to save and destroy” (Mandate 12:6, 3).
    The Epistle of Polycarp (died 155 A.D.) clearly conflates the qualifications of 1Ti_3:1 ff with the instructions of James to visit the sick and the widows and orphans. (Epistle to the Philippians. c. 6). Elders are to be compassionate converting the erring (Jas_5:19), visiting all the sick (1:27; 5:14), not neglecting the widows and orphans, abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons (same word as Jas_2:1).
    Irenaeus (Against Heresies, iv. 16:2) joins the words: “Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness” with “and he was called the friend of God,” just as James joins the passages from Gen_15:6 and Isa_41:8; 2Ch_20:7. It would be quite a coincident that different writers should do this independently.
    Huther gives the natural explanation for the epistle’s lack of early acceptance. James the Lord’s brother, though referred to by Paul as one of the pillars of the church, was not an apostle. After the fall of Jerusalem and the break of the church with most of Judaism, the Jewish church would naturally cling to James, and this would have lightened the hold which his memory would have on the rest of the church. Moreover the letter was directed to and had become the property of the Jewish churches of the Dispersion. Since these tended to hold aloof from the other churches, this created an obstacle to the epistle’s becoming generally known. It is possible that the seeming contradiction of James with Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith may have contributed.
    Arguments for James’ Writing. There are other arguments which favor the view that James the Lord’s brother was the author. They have been summarized by Barclay (pp. 24ff). (1) The fact that there is a Hebrew cast to the Greek of the epistle; (2) that it fits well into the background of the Jewish situation as known from Acts and Josephus (to be developed more fully later); (3) that, if James had written a letter, it would probably be a general letter, just such as we have in this one. (This is in consideration of his position as leader of the Jerusalem church.); (4) that it represents
    Christianity largely in its early Jewish state, dealing mostly with moral and ethical problems, often with little which even an orthodox Jew might not himself stress, but reflecting in detail the early teaching of the Lord Jesus in such sections as the Sermon on the Mount, (5)- the thesis helps to understand the likelihood that Peter and Paul knew the work (see below); (6) resemblances between the letter of James and the wording of the letter suggested by James in Acts 15 (two curious points: the greeting expressed by a Greek infinitive and the use of the words “name called upon you” from the O.T. Jas_2:7; Act_15:17).
    This writer would add a seventh point: that of the lack of a satisfactory alternative to the theory of James as the author. The prevailing alternative in extreme critical circles is that the book was written originally as a purely Jewish book and that it has been taken over by a Christian writer who has added a few sections and inserted the name of Jesus in the two places where it occurs (Jas_1:1; Jas_2:1). A radical example of this thesis is seen in Easton’s commentary where the older theory of Meyer is adopted that, since James in Greek is the same as the Greek name Jacob, the book as originally written was modeled after Jacob’s address to the twelve tribes or sons in Genesis 49. The book is then broken into twelve sections and these sections are combed for clues which call attention to the characteristics or traits of the individual tribes. The theory is that the Christian writer expunged the names of the tribes from the sections.
    Even Barclay, who examines this theory (pp. 35ff), considers it “too ingenious.” There is no evidence for it at all. It would be difficult to account for the interweaving of the material from the Christian Gospels into the document. And, finally, it is difficult to imagine the likelihood or a motive for a Christian writer’s borrowing from a known Jewish document and recasting it as a document for the church. Easton’s attempts to weed out the “Christian elements” and show the original form of its different sections are so subjective and arbitrary that they become ludicrous.
    We conclude that James the Lord’s brother is the writer of our epistle and that the church did not make a mistake in including it in the canon of the New Testament.
    THE JEWISH NATION IN THE TIME OF JAMES
    The book of James is set against the background of Palestinian Judaism in its relationship to the Jews of the Dispersion of the years A.D. 30-70. The ethics of the book are the produce of the Jewish church in Jerusalem during these troubled years. The problems dealt with are probably the problems of the Dispersion, but the admonition comes from Jerusalem and the dominant figure of the Jerusalem which was still the centre of the growing church. What was the situation in Palestine during these years? A survey of the main event of this period, especially the 20 years of James’ active leadership will help greatly in understanding many of the things touched on in the epistle.
    As Randall has pointed out (pp. 110-117), these were years of crisis for the Jewish nation. Two important developments reached their climax in this period: the final Jewish or national rejection of Jesus as the Messiah with the consequent separation of the church and synagogue and the end of the national life of the Jews with the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). The political and religious life of the country in these years is filled with corruption, strife, intrigue, and hatred. Seldom has a nation seemingly so deliberately provoked its own destruction.
    The year 30 A.D. marks the year of James’ conversion. Almost immediately the situation began to deteriorate and progressively worsened until the end. At Pentecost Pilate the Roman Procurator governed Palestine, and the other divisions were ruled by Herod Antipas (Galilee and Perea), Philip (Bashan or the region west of Galilee), and Lysanias (Abilene and the country around Damascus). Philip died in 34; Antipas was banished in 37; and Pilate was banished in 36. Pilate was not replaced, leaving the Sanhedrin and the High Priest to govern. The Emperor Tiberias himself died in 37, being replaced by the infamous Caligula, whose pretensions to deity were especially offensive to the Jews. Caligula’s appointment of Herod Agrippa I (41-44 A.D.) as King over all Palestine united the •country, but the continuity thus resulting lasted only a short time (Acts 12). At his death his son, Agrippa II (Acts 26), was for several years not allowed to enter his province which turned out to be only a small part of what his father had ruled (only Bashan and Abilene). Most of Palestine was put back under the Roman Procurators or Governors. The years from 44-70 saw a series of these rulers, but they were generally greedy and inexpert at leadership. The situation bred robbery, jealousy, and scandal. The Pharisees (and within their ranks the more reactionary Zealot group in Galilee) yearned for independence and courted disaster by hoping that the triumphs of the Maccabean revolt of the previous century might be repeated. But the Sadducees, who controlled the Sanhedrin and the temple with its rich income and who were in favor with the Romans, wanted to keep the status quo. The internal conflict was serious.
    In the governorship of Cuspius Fadus (A.D. 44-46) occurred the uprising of Theudas in Judea, and during that of his successor Tiberias Alexander (A.D. 46-48) Judas and his sons played an even more serious role of the same sort. It was during these years that the infamous Ananias was elevated to the high priesthood which he held A.D. 47-59. In A.D. 48 another governor Cumanus replaced Tiberias Alexander, and under his blundering occurred the riot in the temple in which Josephus says 20,000 Jews lost their lives. He tried to intervene between the Jews and Samaritans, who were on the verge of civil war because of attacks upon Galilean pilgrims, but created a situation from which he was rescued only by the Prefect of Syria. The High Priest Ananias and Cumanus were both summoned to Rome to give account, but Ananias won the contest of power through the influence of Agrippina, wife of Claudius, and he returned to his rule-and-ruin career in Jerusalem.
    The new Procurator was Felix (A.D. 52) (Act_23:26; Act_24:3). Under him conditions of “legalized extortion” (compare Jas_2:6) became the order of the day. The Jewish nation, already impoverished by the famine (Act_11:27 ff), reached a critical economic state. It is against this background that the “remembering of the poor” leading to the collections for the “poor saints in Jerusalem” at the suggestion of James took place. As Randall has suggested, nothing illustrates and illuminates the relationship of the Jerusalem church and the churches in the outlying districts better than this story.
    The greed of Ananias and the rich Jews of whom the Sanhedrin was typical is certainly mirrored by Jas_5:1 ff. Resentment against this situation and against Rome, who allowed it, became intensified in the 50’s by the growing Zealot bands of murderers and the armed Dagger Assassins (Act_21:38). These Assassins who appeared in the early reign of Felix began their work under the instigation of the Governor himself with the murder of the exhigh priest Jonathan in the Temple (Josephus, Antiquities 20. 8.5ff).
    The recall of Felix soon after the rule of Nero began brought the more able Festus to the troubled province. But his efforts to promote peace availed little. His predecessor, whom Tacitus in the well-known description had pictured as one “wielding in a career of cruelty and lust the powers of a despot with the instincts of a slave,” had brought the crisis to the burning point. Festus joined with James the Just and the party of moderates in counselling the wisdom of peace. But Festus died in A.D. 62, and in the three months before Albinos reached Jerusalem to succeed him, Ananus and the Sanhedrin reinacted the tragic scene of death under the charge of blasphemy formerly used against Jesus and Stephen, but this time with James the Brother of Jesus as the victim.’
    Hegesippus is almost certainly wrong in placing this event just before the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 68. But he is undoubtedly right in inferring that James’ murder was in the line of leading events which precipitated that fatal downfall of the nation. The high priest who had done the deed was deposed by the new Governor, but the Governor (Josephus Wars of the Jews, 20. 9. 1) organized his own pillage, set prisoners free for fees, and allowed the Sadducees free rein in Jerusalem; mobs ran riot (Josephus, Antiquities, 20. 9; Wars, 2. 14. 1ff). He was exceeded in the audacity of his misrule only by his successor Florus (A.D. 64-66). Meanwhile the Romans were growing tired of the bickering and the attacks upon the Roman supply trains. Vespasian was on his way to set the troubled province at peace. The rest is tragedy.
    It is against this period of official abuse by the rich Jews of Jerusalem and the suffering which it caused the common people of the nation, attended by the strife and bickering described above, that the book of James best fits. The course to pursue in the midst of such trials and sufferings for Christians (and those of the righteous number of non-Christians to whom James might still appeal) is the principal theme of the epistle. The traditional stedfastness of the Jewish faith, given added depth by the wisdom of Jesus, the Lord of Glory, is the formula of the just James. But this faith must be active, consistent, and fruitful. It must issue in self-control, righteous conduct, and above all the wisdom of peaceful living. James writes out of the background of his own local situation with an eye to the problems of the churches in the outlying districts, and especially as they are influenced by the conditions in the capital and the provinces of Palestine.
    RELATION TO OTHER BOOKS
    James has a close affinity to many other books both of the New Testament and of Jewish apocryphal books. The question is discussed at length in Mayor’s Commentary (Chapter III, pp. lxxxvcxxvii) where the evidence is set forth by parallel quotations in the original. Mention has already been made of the parallel in the early church fathers as evidence of the early knowledge of the book by Christian writers. Too, it has been emphasized that James’ thoughts are permeated with the very words as well as the thoughts of the Four Gospels. Mayor thinks that there are significant parallels in James and especially Galatians (which he would place in A.D. 57) and Romans (A.D. 58) which may indicate that Paul knew and had possibly read the epistle of James. He also thinks the evidence for the same conclusion in respect to I Peter is strong (Cf., for example, the recurrence in both of the phrases “manifold trials” and the “proving of your faith” in Jas_1:2 and 1Pe_1:6-7). Such conclusions are not within the possibility of proof, and, in fact, the data has often been interpreted just the other way around.
    Another point is the fact that James’ language in the original often has many parallels in the Jewish Apocrypha, especially the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. It should naturally be expected that such books from the heritage of the period between the Testaments would be familiar to a Jew such as James was. That James may have made use, either directly from the books or because they were “in the air” or speech of his environment, is not to be thought strange. The Holy Spirit certainly made use of the natural vocabulary and mode of expression of its different writers. That their styles differ is proof of this. It is often almost a commentary itself to check parallel uses of a Greek expression in other writers. This often helps us to understand what the writers mean. We have made some use of this material in the present work.
    MORE ABOUT THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE
    Josephus’ and Hegesippus’ accounts give us conflicting dates for the death of James. Josephus places it at the time of the death of Festus, which would be in 62 A.D. Hegesippus places it just before the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian, which would be about 68 A.D. It does not appear which of these is correct, though most are inclined to accept the earlier date. 62-68 becomes the latest possible date for the writing of the epistle. Our present epistle agrees in every respect with the conclusion that it was written before the events of the destruction of Jerusalem. The destruction of the temple provided the clean break of the Jews and the synagogue from Christianity, and it is most unlikely that the epistle with its implied address to the Jews at large would fit a later date. Assuming that James is the author, we come to a date in the early 60’s or earlier.
    When one thinks what the earliest date likely is, he must remember that the picture given of James in our documents shows James as coming to a position of leadership after the death of James the Son of Zebedee (Acts 12, A.D. 44). This date then became the earlier terminus from which the letter could have been written. Before this time would also hardly give time for the scattering and location of the Jewish Christians in the Dispersion or of the building up of congregations among them (Act_11:19 ff). A date much earlier would also not account for the persecutions mentioned in the Book. It has frequently been argued that the letter must have been written before the meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 15), which is variously dated around 47-49. This is on the grounds that the letter does not mention the controversy over Judaism (but see the comment on Jas_4:11). There is some weight to this, though it is an argument from silence. Plummer suggested that the letter was written during the period from 53-62 at a time when the controversy was not raging, though Mayor doubts that there was a time during this period when the question was not a burning issue (see p. cxlvi). The height of the strife and wars of the Jews characterized by the jealousy and warring faction which finally led to the destruction of Jerusalem may possibly favor a late date, not too long before the death of James.
    There is really nothing decisive to settle the question. There is an 18-year period from 44-62 A.D. when the letter was most likely written. But the choice between the middle of the 40’s and the decade of the 50’s is difficult. This writer would incline to latter date, but it is merely a feeling.
    THE FORM AND STRUCTURE OF JAMES
    “The main thread,” as McNeile has remarked, “upon which [many sections of the epistle of James] are strung is the obvious but important truth that a man’s faith, his attitude toward God, is unreal and worthless if it is not effective, if it does not work practically in life.” (Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, p. 201) The epistle consists largely of small sections, some of which themselves consist of a grouping together of “sayings” or “maxims.” The relationship of the different sections (and of the parts within the sections) to each other is often only apparent and must be adduced by the reappearance of the key ideas or words which are introduced in one place and picked up and expanded later (Cf. control of the tongue in Jas_1:26 with the section Jas_3:1 ff). James’ favorite device for tying his sections together is by repeating some idea or word brought in incidentally at the end of one paragraph and then made the subject of the next section (Cf. the word “lacking” in Jas_1:4, “lacking in nothing” with “If any man lacks wisdom” of the next verse.) This device, which is technically called duadiplosis, is perhaps the outstanding stylistic feature of the epistle (cf. “nothing doubting” and “for he who doubts” in Jas_1:6).
    This loose structuring of a document along practical and ethical lines without a dominant theme was common in Hebrew literature (especially in “wisdom” literature, that is, Proverbs, etc.). Its technical name is “gnomology” (from the Greek word gnome, meaning “proverb”). Parallels exist too in the practical sections of Paul’s epistles (e. g., Romans 12 ff; Col 3:1-5:4), in the Hebrew letter (especially chapter 13) and in the hortatory sections of I Peter. When the admonitions were given in the second person “You” (as in Jas_2:20; Jas_4:13; Jas_5:1), the advice is sometimes called “paraenesis” (from the Greek par-aiteo, “I advise”). This style is familiar from the Old Testament prophetic apostrophe sections (where a writer turns aside to address an opponent in direct language) and in rabbinical literature. Thus the efforts of Easton, Barclay, and others to find the main parallel and motif for the epistle of James in the sermonic style of the Greek Stoic preacher (the diatribe) are probably misplaced.
    Concerning James’ method of writing Farrar has said,
    The style of St. James is formed on the Hebrew prophets, as his thoughts are influenced by the Hebrew gnomologists. He has nothing of the Pauline method of dialectic; he is never swept away, like St. Paul, by the tide of his own impassioned feeling. His moral earnestness glows with the steady light of a furnace, never rushes with the uncontrolled force of a conflagration. The groups of thoughts follow each other in distinct sections, which never interlace each other, and have little or no logical connection or systematic advance. He plunges in medias res with each new topic; says first in the plainest and most straightforward manner exactly what he means to say, and enforces it afterwards with strong diction, passionate ejaculations, rapid interrogations, and graphic similitudes. He generally begins mildly, and with a use of the word “brethren,” but as he dwells on the point his words seem to grow incandescent with the writer’s vehemence (see Jas_2:1-13; Jas_4:11-12). In many respects his style resembles that of a fiery prophetic oration rather than of a letter. The sententious form is the expression of a practical energy which will tolerate no opposition. The changes–often apparently abrupt–from one topic to another; short sentences, which seem to quiver in the mind of the hearer from the swiftness with which they had been launched; the sweeping reproofs, sometimes unconnected by conjunctions (Asyndeton, or absence of conjunctions, Jas_5:3-6), sometimes emphasized by many conjunctions (Polysyndeton, or multiplicity of conjunctions, Jas_4:13); the manner in which the phrases seem to catch fire as the writer proceeds; the vivid freshness and picturesque energy of the expressions;–all make us fancy that we are listening to some great harangue which has for its theme the rebuke of sin and the exhortation to righteousness, in order to avert the awfulness of some imminent crisis. The power of his style consists in the impression which it leaves of the burning sincerity and lofty character of the author.
    Early Days of Christianity, p. 319.
     
    AN OUTLINE OF THE EPISTLE OF JAMES
    James is not a book which lends itself to detailed analytical treatment as does, for example, Romans or Galatians. It has often been asserted that James cannot be outlined but that only a listing of the subjects treated in succession may be drawn up. His letter is said to “consist mainly of moral precepts, added to each other without any obvious plan.”
    But the more this writer has studied James, the more the feeling has grown that there is more unity and cohesion than appear at first sight. The book opens with a consideration of the place of trials in the Christian’s life. This subject is extended through the subtopics of wisdom, poverty and riches, and the relation of trials to temptation to do evil. The assertion that God may he responsible for temptation leads to a denial and an exposition of the good gifts which God does give, especially the gift of salvation, through the word of truth. This leads James into a discussion of the power of the word to save those who receive it in the right way. But James insists that the word must be a vital factor. It must be active in both positive and negative ways in our lives, in good deeds, and in morality. Then beginning with Chapter 2, James discusses a number of sins or attitudes, which are mostly enlargements of things previously mentioned. He discusses the relation of faith and partiality (Jas_2:1-13), faith and works (Jas_2:14-26), wrong use of the tongue (Jas_3:1-18), and worldliness or “not keeping oneself unspotted from the world” (Jas_4:1-12). All these seem related to the theme of Jas_1:19-27. The remainder of the book picks up the thread of the difficulties and trials of Christians. Jas_4:13 to Jas_5:6 is an apostrophe addressed to the rich persecutors of Christians; Jas_5:7-12 teaches Christians their proper attitudes in the midst of persecutions, admonishing patience and forbidding to swear. The rest of the book continues the general treatment of attitudes in the midst of difficulties, especially sickness and sin. First, a general admonition to prayer in troubles is given (Jas_5:13), followed by instruction in illness to call for the elders of the church (Jas_5:14-15). Where the contingency exists that the sick one may be a sinner, instruction is given as to how to deal with the sin (Jas_5:15-16). Prayer is held out as the solution to difficulty, and assurance is given that prayer will avail (Jas_5:17-18). Finally, in view of the peril of the sinner, an exhortation encouraging the strong to rescue the erring closes the epistle (Jas_5:19-20). Thus without manufacturing connections which do not exist, it is possible to see an over-all unity of subject and design in the letter.
    The Contents
    Section One. THE GIFTS OF GOD MANIFESTED IN TRIALS. Jas_1:1-18.
12. Salutation and Greeting. Jas_1:1.
13. The Joy of Trials. Jas_1:2-4.
14. Wisdom in Trials. Jas_1:5-8.
15. The Trials of Poverty and Riches. Jas_1:9-11.
16. Patient Endurance in Trials Rewarded. Jas_1:12.
17. Temptations Negatively Considered: They Do Not Come from God. Jas_1:13-16.
18. The True Nature of God’s Giving. Jas_1:17-18.
    Section Two. ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WORD WHICH BEGETS. Jas_1:19-27.
19. Meekness in Hearing the Word. Jas_1:19-21.
20. Being Doers of the Word as Well as Hearers. Jas_1:22-25.
21. The Application: Pure and Vain Religion. Jas_1:26-27.
    Section Three. THE SIN OF RESPECT OF PERSONS. Jas_2:1-13.
    Section Four. THE RELATION OF FAITH AND WORKS. Jas_2:14-26.
    Section Five. ADMONITION TO TEACHERS. Jas_3:1-18.
22. Bridling the Tongue. Jas_3:1-12.
23. The Truly Wise Teacher. Jas_3:13-18.
    Section Six. WORLDLINESS IN THE CHURCH. Jas_4:1-12.
24. The Source of Wars and Strife. Jas_4:1-10.
25. Judging Our Brethren. Jas_4:11-12.
    Section Seven. DIRECT ADDRESS TO THE UNBELIEVING
    RICH. Jas_4:13 to Jas_5:6.
26. The Presumptuous Use of Time. Jas_4:13-17.
27. The Sin of Shameful Wealth. Jas_5:1-6.
    Section Eight. ATTITUDE TOWARD MISTREATMENT. Jas_5:7-12.
28. Admonition to Patience. Jas_5:7-11.
29. Swearing Forbidden. Jas_5:12.
    Section Nine. THE CHRISTIAN IN ILLNESS AND SIN. Jas_5:13-20.
30. Prayer and Singing. Jas_5:13.
31. Illness and the Efficacy of Prayer. Jas_5:14-18.
32. Converting Erring Brethren. Jas_5:19-20.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ON JAMES
Instead of copying a long list of the ancient and modern commentaries and works on James it seems better to list the books which have been of the best help in writing this commentary. In this way the reader will be directed to those works which he might wish to consult or obtain in his own further study of the epistle. The writing of this commentary has led anew to an appreciation of the debt which is owed to those who have made the study of the word of God a labor of love. We lay ourselves under tribute to all who have given to us the results of their study.

1. Lexicons and Grammars. Mention should be made first of the help of the lexicons and grammars. In addition to the older ones like Thayer’s and Abbott-Smith’s, Arndt and Gingrich’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (Chicago, U. Press, 1957), which is the English edition of the German Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu Neuen Testaments (4th Ed., 1952), has been used. Especially has Arndt and Gingrich been consulted on nearly every word in the original of James. One never ceases to be amazed at the wealth of information in this source. Frequent reference has also been made to the Classical standard lexicon of Liddell-Scott-McKenzie-Jones (9th Ed.) and to Bauer’s Theologische Woerterbuch (a few articles of which are available in English in Bible Key Words). Among the grammars the new R. W. Funk’s English edition of Blass-Debruner (A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Chicago, U. Press., 1961) has been consulted often, and use has been made of Robertson’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, Broadman, 1934). Especially helpful also have been the marginal notes in Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece. It is quite likely that the most original contribution of this commentary is the drawing together of material from these sources.
2. Translations. The debt owed to the many splendid translations of the New Testament is great. In addition to the King James, the American Standard Edition of the Revised Version (1901), the Revised Standard Version (1943, 1952), and the New English Bible have been studied and consulted as standard translations. The American Standard Revised has been chosen as the text for the comments. This perhaps needs some explanation. First, this text is now free of copyright. Secondly, as the American representative of the great English revision, it is based upon later manuscripts and evidence than the King James and reflects basically the textual conclusions of modern study. Use of it, therefore, saves much space which would have to be taken up needlessly in explaining the King James renderings. At the same time the ASV is a more literal translation than any of the newer translations. While this is often no great gain in the sense, it does lend itself to explanation. Many of the freer translations are difficult to relate to the original text. At the same time all the help possible from these later translations has been sought. Mention should be made especially of Moffatt’s, Goodspeed’s, Phillips’, Schonfield’s, and Williams’ translations. Others have been consulted but not to the extent of these.
3. Commentaries. Among the commentaries on the Greek text those of Carr (Cambridge Greek Testament), Oesterley (Expositor’s Greek Testament), Ropes (International Critical Commentary), Mayor (MacMillan Series), and the older commentary of Bishop Wordsworth have been used and have been consulted on almost all points. It has been the writer’s purpose to make the material in these sources available in English form in some degree. It has seemed to him that one of the best ways to establish and illustrate the meaning of the original language is to study the parallel uses of the Greek expressions in other writers. Such evidence is given in abundance in this type of commentary. Among the more popular English works those of Ross (New International), Knowling (Westminister Commentaries), William Barclay (Daily Study Bible), Tacker (Tyndale Series), and Blackman (Torch Commentaries) have been the most useful. In addition to these much help has been gained from G. H. Randall’s The Epistle of James and Judaic Christianity (Cambridge, 1927–perhaps the best modern English defense of the genuineness of the epistle), A. T. Robertson’s Studies in the Epistle of James (Nashville, Broadman) and from the older work The Early Days of Christianity by F. W. Farrar. Easton in the Interpreter’s Bible (Volume XII) has been consulted mainly for his radical critical position. The writer has also utilized his own short work in the adult study series The Living Word (Austin, Texas, Sweet Publishing Co., 1962).
   We have sought to give credit to the authors used for the ideas which he has adopted. But he finds this is often difficult to do, for there has been much dependence of the scholars upon each other’s works. Often credit has been given to one writer only to find that the information is actually taken from an earlier source and quite often without acknowledgement. We are all under obligation to all others who have worked in the same fields. How much original work is really the result of stimulation of what others have thought and worked out!
   APPENDIX
   The Sources for the Later Life and Death of James
   The stories of the later life and death of James are given mainly in the accounts of Josephus and of Eusebius the historian, especially the latter’s quotation of Hegesippus. These accounts are here quoted in full for the purpose of reference.
   Josephus relates that this deed displeased many of the most equitable of the citizens, who protested to the new governor. He, in turn, deposed Ananus after an administration of only three months.
   Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, II, 20, 1):
   But this younger Ananus, who took the high-priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees; who are very rigid in judging offenders above all the rest of the Jews: as we have already observed. When, therefore,
   Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had a proper opportunity to exercise his authority. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but on the road. So he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some of his companions. And when he had laid an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.
   Eusebius, a church historian, published in 311 A. D. the first edition of his history of the church from which the following references are taken:
   Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, Book II. 1. 2-5)
   At the same time also James, called the brother of the Lord because indeed the latter too was called the child of Joseph, and Joseph the father of Christ, to whom the virgin was betrothed. Before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit, just as the Sacred Scripture (The Gospels) teaches. Now this same James, whom the men of olden times used to call by the surname of “the Just” because of his excellence of virtue, is said to have been first appointed to the throne of the oversight of the church in Jerusalem. Clement in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes presents the following, “For Peter,” he says, and James and John after the ascension of the Savior, as though they had been given the honor before by the Savior, did not contend for glory, but selected James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” This same writer adds in the seventh book of the same work these things about him, “After the resurrection the Lord gave to James the Just, and to John, and to Peter knowledge; these gave it to the other apostles, and the other apostles to the seventy of whom one was Barnabas. There were then two Jameses, one “the Just”–the one thrown down from the turret of the temple and beaten to death with fuller’s club, the other the one being beheaded.” Paul also mentions the same James the Just when he writes, “And I saw none other of the apostles save James the brother of the Lord.”
   Book II. 23. 1-18. After Paul appealed to Caesar and was sent to the City of Rome by Festus, the Jews, disappointed in the hope with which they had plotted against him, turned against James the brother of the Lord to whom the throne of the oversight in Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. They dared such things as the following. Bringing him into the midst, they demanded a denial of the faith in Christ in front of all the people. But he, contrary to what all expected, with a loud voice to the entire multitude confessed that our Savior and Lord Jesus is the Son of God. They could no longer bear the testimony of the man who was believed by all them to be the most just person by virtue of his measure of attainment in the life of philosophy and piety, and so they killed him, taking anarchy as an opportunity to take over power because Festus had just died in Judea, leaving the country without rulership or guardianship. The words of Clement which have been quoted have already indicated the manner of James’ death, indicating that he was thrown from the turret of the temple and beaten to death with a club. But Hegesippus, who lived in the first generation after the apostles, has given the most accurate account of the things about him in his fifth book as follows, James the brother of the Lord along with the apostles succeeded to the (leadership of) the church. James was called “the Just” by all men from the time of Lord on down to us, inasmuch as there are many who are called “James.” But he was holy from his mother’s womb. He did not drink wine or strong drink; he did not eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil; and he did not use the baths. It was permitted to him alone to enter the Holy Place, for he did not wear wool clothing, but linen. He used to enter alone into the temple, and he used to be found upon his knees asking forgiveness for the people. Hence his knees had become hardened like a camel’s because he was always kneeling worshipping God and asking for forgiveness for the people. Because of his exceeding righteousness he was called the “Just” and the “Oblias” (which is in Greek the “bulwark” of the people) and “righteousness,” as the prophets make plain about him.
    
   Therefore certain of the seven sects among the people (mentioned already by me in the Memoirs) inquired of him as to what was the “gate of Jesus,” and he was repeating that it is the Savior. From this some of their number believed that Jesus was the Christ. Now the sects which have been mentioned did not believe in a resurrection or in one coming to render to everyone according to his deeds, but some believed on account of James. Since many of the rulers believed there was a tumult of the Jews, and the Scribes, and the Pharisees, who were saying that all the people were in danger of looking for Jesus the Christ. So assembling together they said to James, “We entreat you to hold the people back because they are going astray after Jesus as though he were the Messiah. We beseech you to persuade all who come for the day of the Passover concerning Jesus, for everybody obeys you. For we testify and the whole people testify to you that you are just and do not show partiality. Do you therefore persuade the crowd not to err concerning Jesus, for all the people and we all obey you. Now stand on the turret of the temple in order that you may be visible from above and in order that your words may be heard by all the people, for because of the passover all the tribes have come together along with the Gentiles.”
    
   Thus the Scribes and Pharisees already mentioned had James to stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and they cried out to him and said, “0 Just One, whom we all ought to obey, since the people are going astray after the Jesus who was crucified, tell us who is the door of Jesus?” And he answered with a loud voice, “Why do you ask me concerning the Son of Man? He is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power, and he will come upon the clouds of heaven.” And when many were convinced and glorified the witness of James saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” then the same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, “We were wrong to allow Jesus such testimony, but let us go up and cast him down that they may become afraid and not believe in him.” And they cried out saying, “Oh, oh, even the Just One erred.” And they fulfilled the scripture written in the book of Isaiah, “Let us take the just one for he is unprofitable to us. Nevertheless they shall eat the fruit of their works.”
    
   And so they mounted and threw down the Just. And they were saying to one another, “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him, inasmuch as he had fallen and had not died. But he turned and kneeling said, “I beg you, 0 Lord, God, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, of those whom Jeremiah the prophet had borne witness to, cried out saying, “Stop, what are you doing? The Just is praying for you.” And a certain one of them, one of the laundrymen, took a club which which he beats out the clothes and hit the Just on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the place by the sanctuary and his gravestone yet remains by the sanctuary. This one became a true witness both to the Jews and the Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.
    
   And immediately Vespasian began to besiege them.
   This account Hegesippus gives in length and agrees with Clement. Thus James was a marvelous man and indeed famous among all for righteousness, so that the wise men among the Jews confessed that this was the reason for the siege of Jerusalem immediately after his martyrdom and that it happened for no other reason than the crime which they had dared against him.