JAMES, EPISTLE OF

3. James, the Lord's brother (see Brethren op the Lord). Like the rest of the Lord's brethren, James did not believe in Him while He lived, but acknowledged His claims after the Resurrection. He was won to faith by a special manifestation of the risen Lord (1 Co 15'). Thereafter he rose to high eminence. He was the head of the Church at Jerusalem, and figures in that capacity on three occasions. (1) Three years after his conversion Paul went up to Jerusalem to interview Peter, and, though he stayed for fifteen days with him, he saw no one else except James (Gal V- "). So soon did James's authority rival Peter's. (2) After an interval of fourteen years Paul went up again to Jeru-salem (Gal 2'-'"). This was the occasion of the historic conference regarding the terms on which the Gentiles should be admitted into the Christian Church; and James acted as president, his decision being unanimously accepted (Ac IS*"). (3) James was the acknowledged head of the Church at Jerusalem, and when Paul returned from his third missionary journey he waited on him and made a report to him in presence of the elders (Ac 21"- 1').

According to extra-canonical tradition, James was sur-named 'the Just'; he was a Nazirite from his mother's womb, abstaining from strong drink and animal food, and wearing linen; he was always kneeling in intercession for the people, so that his knees were callous hke a camel's; he was cruelly martyred by the Scribes and Pharisees: they east him aown Irom the pinnacle of the Temple (cf . Mt 4*, Lk 4»), and as the fall did not kill him, they stoned him, and he was finally despatched with a fuller's club.

This James was the author of the NT Epistle which bears his name; and it is an indication of his character that he styles himself there (!') not 'the brother,' but the 'servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.' See next article.

4. James, the father of the Apostle Judas (LkB'SRV), otherwise unknown. The AV 'Judas the brother of James' is an impossible identification of the Apostle Judas with the author of the Epistle (Jude ').

David Smith.

JAHES, EPISTLE OP. — 1. The author claims to be ' James, a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ ' (1'). He is usually identified with the Lord's brother the 'bishop' of Jerusalem, not a member of the Twelve, but an apostle in the wider sense (see James, 3). The name is common, and the writer adds no further note of identification. This fact makes for the authenticity of the address. If the Epistle had been pseudonymous, the writer would have defined the position of the James whose authority he wished to claim, and the same objection holds good against any theory of inter-polation. Or again, if it had been written by a later James under his own name, he must have distinguished himself from his better known namesakes. The absence of description supports the common view of the author-ship of the letter; it is a mark of modesty, the brother of the Lord not wishing to insist on his relationship after the fiesh; it also points to a consciousness of authority; the writer expected to be Ustened to, and knew that his mere name was a sufficient description of himself. So Jude writes merely as 'the brother of James.' It has indeed been doubted whether a Jew of his position could have written such good Greek as we find in this Epistle, but we know really very little of the scope of Jewish education; there was every opportunity for intercourse with Greeks in Gahlee, and a priori arguments of this nature can at most be only subsidiary. If indeed the late date, suggested by some, be adopted, the possibility of the brother of the Lord being the author is excluded, since he probably died in 62; other-wise there is nothing against the ordinary view. If that be rejected, the author is entirely unknown. More will be said in the rest of the article on the subject; but attention must be called to the remarkable coincidence in language between this Epistle and the speech of James in Ac 15.

2. Date, — The only indications of date are derived

JAMES, EPISTLE OF

from indirect internal evidence, the interpretation of which depends on the view taken of the main problems raised by the Epistle. It is variously put, either as one of the earliest of NT writings (so Mayor and most English writers), or among the very latest (the general German opinion). The chief problem is the relations-ships to other writings of the NT. The Epistle has striking resemblances to several books of the NT, and these resemblances admit of very various explanations.

(a) Most important is its relation to St Paul. It has points of contact with Romans: 1^ 4" and Ro 2" (hearers and doers of the law); I'-* and Ro 5'-' (the gradual work of temptation or tribulation) ; 4" and Ro 2' 141 (the critic self-condemned); 1" 4' and Ro y 13'2; and the contrast between 2^' and Ro 4' (the faith of Abraham). Putting the latter aside for the moment, it is hard to pronounce on the question of priority. Sanday-Headlam ( Romans, p. Ixxlx. ) see ' no resemblance in style sufficient to prove literary connexion'; there are no parallels in order, and similarities of language can mostly be explained from OT and LXX. Mayor, on the other hand, supposes that St. Paul is working up hints received from James.

The main question turns upon the apparent opposition between James and Paul with regard to ' faith and works.' The chief passages are ch. 2, esp. vv."- ^''f-, and Ro 3^' 4, Gal 2". Both writers quote Gn 15', and deal with the case of Abraham as typical, but they draw from it ap-parently opposite conclusions — St. James that a man is justified, as Abraham was, by works and not by faith alone; St. Paul that justification is not by works but by faith. We may say at once with regard to the doctrinal question that it is generally recognized that there is here no real contradiction between the two. The writers mean different things by 'faith.' St. James means a certain beUef, mainly intellectual, in the one God (2"), the fundamental creed of the Jew, to which a beUef in Christ has been added. To St. Paul 'faith' is essentially 'faith in Christ' (Ro 3^. m etc.). This faith has been in his own experience a tremendous overmastering force, bringing with it a convulsion of his whole nature; he has put on Christ, died with Him, and risen to a new Ufe. Such an experience lies outside the experience of a St. James, a typically 'good' man, with a practical, matter of fact, and somewhat limited view of life. To him 'conduct is three-fourths of life,' and he claims rightly that men shall authenticate in practice their verbal professions. To a St. Paul, with an overwhelming experience working on a mystical temperament, such a demand is almost meaningless. To him faith is the new life in Christ, and of course it brings forth the fruits of the Spirit, if it exists at all; faith must always work by love (Gal 5'). He indeed guards himself carefully against any idea that beUef in the sense of verbal con-fession or intellectual assent is enough in itself (Ro 2'-'"i), and defines 'the works' which he disparages as 'works of the law' (S^"- ^s). Each writer, in fact, would agree with the doctrine of the other when he came to under-stand it, though St. James's would appear to St. Paul as insufficient, and St. Paul's to St. James as somewhat too profound and mystical (see Sanday-Headlam, Bomans, pp. 102 ft.).

It is unfortunately not so easy to explain the literary relation between the two. At first sight the points of contact are so striking that we are inclined to say that one must have seen the words of the other. Lightfoot, however, has shown (Galatians^, pp. 157 Cf.) that the history of Abraham, and in particular Gn 15', figured frequently in Jewish theological discussions. The verse is quoted in 1 Mac 2'^, ten times by Philo, and in the Talmudic treatise Mechilta. But the antithesis between 'faith and works' seems to be essentially Christian; we cannot, therefore, on the ground of the Jewish use of Gn 15, deny any relationship between the writings of the two Apostles. This much, at least, seems clear; St. James was not writing with Romans before him, and

424