Introduction The Epistle of James has for some time languished in relative neglect when compared to the amount

of scholarly interest paid to the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. Perhaps Martin Luthers disparaging remarks about the Epistle had some pronounced impact upon the Protestant theological imagination, resulting in a turn towards the more Christologically complex Pauline corpus, if indeed it ever turned away from it at all. It could also be the case the Epistles relative brevity - some one-hundred and eight verses over five chapters - and its unfortunate position tucked in behind the theologically rich Hebrews also contributed to its obscurity in both scholarship and ecclesiastic use. The fact that Epistle says nothing of the life or teachings of Jesus at an immediate level may also have contributed to disinterest in the Epistle, not just in scholarly circles, but in liturgical and lay settings. However, the latter half of the twentieth century saw a renewed interest in the Epistle of James that helped prevent it from being further brushed aside. The year 1964 saw the release of two widely influential commentaries, H. Greevens revision of M. Dibelius Der Brief des Jakobus1 and F. Mussners Der Jakobusbrief 2 Since then works by

Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James. rev. by H. Greevens. trans. M. Williams (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1976).
2

Franz Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 13:1, (Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1965). 1

B. Reicke3 , R.R. Williams4 , C.L. Mitton5 , J. Michl6 , W. Schrage7 , J. Cantinat 8, J.B. Adamson9 , S. Laws 10, P. Davids 11 and L.T. Johnson12 have also contributed significantly to the amount of attention and lively discussion that has focused upon James. The recent upsurge in journal articles and theses on the subject also attest to this renewal of interest. All of the recent scholarly attention paid to James has opened avenues of new exploration and reopened those questions that have surrounded - and perhaps dogged - the Epistle since ancient times. While considerable intellectual effort has been devoted to understanding the structure, purpose, and theology of the epistle, questions such as the date of its composition and by whom was it composed remain of critical - yet unanswered historical importance. We simply may not discuss much of what a book contains unless we first understand from when, who and ultimately where it came from. It should be clear that date and authorship are never separate fields of enquiry but rather a singular pursuit in which both criteria play an intrinsic and inseparable importance, likewise with the issues of provenance and social location though neither will be deeply considered herein.
3 4

B. Reiccke. The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude. 2nd ed. Anchor Bible. (New York: Doubleday, 1964).

R.R. Williams. The Letters of John and James. Cambridge Bible Commentary. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965)
5 6 7

C.L. Mitton. The Epistle of James. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966). J. Michl. Die Katholischen Briefe. RNT 8 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1968).

W. Schrage. Der Jakobusbrief in Die Katholischen Briefe. 11th ed. eds. H. Balz and W. Schrage. NTD 10 (Gttingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1973).
8 9

J. Cantinat, Les ptres de Saint Jacques et de Saint Jude. Sources Bibliques. (Paris: Gabalda, 1973).

J.B. Adamson. The Epistle of James. New International Commentary of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976).
10 11 12

S.S. Laws. A Commentary on the Epistle of James. (London: A&C Black Publishers, 1980). P.H. Davids. The Epistle of James. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). Johnson, L.T. The Letter of James. Anchor Bible Commentary. (New York: Doubleday, 1995). 2

For example, if we accept the traditional view that the work was composed by James the Just, brother of Jesus during his lifetime, then we are constrained by the time we may assume the historical figure existed, likely dying sometime in 62CE at the hands of the High Priest Annas the Younger.13 If we assume pseudepigraphical authorship for James or some combination of authenticity and pseudepigraphy, then the bracket with which we may date James becomes significantly wider. It becomes wider still if the work pre-dates James altogether as Massebeiau14 and Spitta15 have suggested. As with nearly all books in the New Testament, the author of James made no great pain to identify himself and little seems to have been done by his contemporaries to shed any further light upon him. Beyond the identification in 1.1 we know little more than the author purports his name to be +IavkwboV and that from the quality of his grammar and syntax he was highly skilled in Greek and apparently grounded in both Jewish and Hellenistic philosophical traditions. We may also infer that he may have been an adherent to some strain of the early Jesus traditions, or at least conscious of Christian literature and theology, based upon the references to Jesus (1.1, 2.1) and the apparent intertextuality to other early Christian sources such as Q, The Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Peter. While all of these questions will be more fully explored below, it is prudent to first examine the history of interpretation that have surrounded James since ancient times. In

13

Eusebius gives us the testimony of Hegesippus (Hist. Eccl. 2.23.18) who states that James died shortly before Vespasians invasion of Palestine in 67CE. It is difficult to rectify the conflicting dates, especially when we consider that Hegesippus depiction of Jewish saints is in Kummels word legendary. W.G. Kummel. Introduction to the New Testmant. rev. ed. trans. by. Howard Clark Kee. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 412. Since it appears 62CE is the more widely accepted date for James death, this is the date assumed herein.
14 15

L. Massebieau. L ptre de Jacques est-elle louevre dun Chrtien. RHR 32 (1895): 249-283. F. Spitta, Der Brief des Jakobus untersucht. (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896). 3

doing so, we may map out the status quaestionis, to determine the central issues addressed by scholarship and how prevailing attitudes have affected interpretation of the Epistle of James. Upon determining the relevant issues, we may further examine them in light of the wider body of scholarship in order to offer a responsible appraisal of the potential date and authorship of the text.

The Ancient Historical Positions Just as the origins of the Epistle of James are obscure, so is the history of its reception in the early Christian churches. Among many of the issues surrounding the history of the Epistle are questions such as the authors identity being that of the brother of the Lord mentioned by Paul in Galatians 1.19. Did this James then write for Jewish Christians? Were these Jewish-Christians the fictive or realized audience of the diaspora in James 1.1? Did the author of James write early or late? If we identify the author of the work as James the Just, brother of Jesus then we must assume an earlier date for the composition or at least its contents. The history of positions on James is somewhat problematic, but it necessitates an investigation to determine what we may learn in regard to the Epistles date and authorship.

Eastern Attestation The traditional position on the authorship and date for the Epistle of James appears somewhat late, and as a result complicates the task of precisely dating and authenticating the work. The Epistle is first quoted with attribution to James the Just by Origen of
4

Alexandria (ca. 185-254CE) who may have known of its existence and association in his native Alexandria or in Palestine where he later settled.16 Origen certainly referred to James as an apostle and explicitly quoted from the Epistle as scripture.17 Given that James is quoted - without attribution - in the pseudo-Clementine Epistles to Virgins which are believed to be of third century Palestinian origin, and that the Jerusalem Church made deliberate effort to preserve its links with James, it is entirely likely that Origen would have encountered the Epistle there, if he had not already done so in Alexandria. Following Origen, we see evidence that Epistle came into use in the Alexandrian churches: Eusebius (ca. 260-339CE) describes it as one of the disputed books of the New Testament not in universal acceptance by the young Church. (Hist. Eccl. 3.25.3, 2.23.24-25) Clement named James as one of founders of Christian gnosis (Hist. eccl. 2.1.3-4) in his Hypotyposes, a commentary on all the canonical scriptures, including the disputed ones. (Hist eccl. 6.14.1.) According to Cassiodorus De Institutione Divinarum Litterarum 8 (PL 70.1120), Clements Greek commentaries included James though the only extant Latin copies of the work do not contain it. Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 350) also affirms James place within the canon in his Catechetical Lectures. Likewise the Council of Loadicea attests to its

16

In the extant works of Origen in Greek, the Epistle is cited by Origen as coming from simply James. This James is only identified as the brother of the Lord in Rufinius translation of Origens Commentary on Romans iv. xiii. In his Commentary on Matthew Origen identifies Jude the brother of Jesus as the author of the Epistle attributed to him, though does not offer an affirmation of James being a brother also. cf. Joseph B. Mayor. The Epistle of James. 3rd ed. (London: MacMillan, 1910), lxxxif.
17

The most extensive evidence for Origens scriptural identification of James can be seen in his; Commentary on John xix, PG 14, 569; Homilies on Leviticus 2,4 PG 12:41; and the Commentary on Romans iv, 8, PG 14: 989. 5

canonical status in 363-364CE. The Epistle is also qualified by Athanasius in the canon list in his 39th Festal Letter of 367CE without a hint of indecision.18

Western Attestation It is clear that James appeared earlier in the eastern Church than in its western counterpart. The Muratorian Canon Fragment dated to approximately 170-200CE does not include the Epistle as part of its canon list. Since it is widely believed that the Muratorian Fragment represents those books used in the Roman Church by the third century, its absence is rather conspicuous. Similarly in the Cheltenham Canon List of 359CE19 , which is believed to represent the canon of the Church of Africa, James is also noticeably absent. It is not until later in the fourth century that the Epistle of James begins to draw reference in the western Church. Augustine, Jerome, Hillary of Poitiers and the Ambrosiaster all refer to the Epistle with Jacobean attestation and its place within the Western Canon is then affirmed in 393CE by the Council of Hippo and in 397CE by the Council of Carthage. It is difficult to determine just how the Western Church remained ignorant of, or ignored, the Epistle until such a late date. It may be that the Epistle came into use and circulation through the contact of western Church leaders with leaders from the Churches of Egypt and Palestine. Such a suggestion may only remain speculative; as it may well be that the Epistle gained something of a grassroots following in the east and slowly found its way westward as readership and circulation
18

Ehrman, Bart D and Andrew S. Jacobs, eds., Christianity in Late Antiquity 300-450CE: A Reader. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 422-427.
19

W. Sanday "The Cheltenham List of the Canonical Books of the New Testament and of the Writings of Cyprian," Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, III (Oxford: Oxford Press, 1891) 6

increased. Jeromes testimony that the Epistle gained authority little by little may well be accurate. (De Viris Illustribus 2, PL 23: 639) It may also be that concerns of the Epistles pseudepigraphical nature had subsided allowing tradition to correct opinions to belief that the Epistle was in fact written by James the Just. Even more peculiarly however was the position of the Syrian Church which also appears to have ignored the Epistle until it appears in the authorized translation of the Peshitta in 412CE. Surprisingly, contemporary writers such as Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret surprisingly make no mention of it as will be discussed below. The commentary tradition on James is somewhat sparse. Didymus the Blind who was the leader of the catechetical school at Alexandria composed the first Greek commentary on James sometime in the mid fourth century.20 Didymus however was a loyal follower of Origien and his interest in James may likely have been a result of his teachers influence. Fragments from Didymus and Chrysostom are also found in the

Catena Graecorum Patrum21 and in some brief scholia by Cyril of Jerusalem, Apollinaris and some others dating to the fourth century. The Catena likely dates to the seventh of eight centuries as there is some overlap between the work and the tenth century commentaries of Oescumenius of Tricca and the eleventh century Bulgarian bishop Theophylact.22 Complexiones Cassiodorus made a brief summary of the Epistle in his Latin Canonicarum in Epistolas Apostolarum and the Venerable Bede

Henry Wace and William C. Piercy, eds., Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century AD, with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 252.
20 21 22

J.A. Cramer. Catena Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1840)

L.T. Johnson. Brother of Jesus Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 40-41. Johnson provides a clear and succinct discussion of the interpretive history of James. 7

(672-735CE) produced a commentary in which he listed James as being first among the Catholic Epistles.23 Martin of Legio (ca. 1021), Nicholas of Lyra and Dionysius the Carthusian (1402-1451CE) contributed to a Latin commentary tradition on the Epistle of James. There are also two extant Syriac commentaries which are very important for understanding the historical acceptance of James within the canon. Ishodad of Merv (ca. 850) composed a short work that expressed skepticism over the identification of the the identity of James being the author of the Epistle. Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428CE) who wrote innumerable books according to Facundus knew nothing of the Catholic Epistles.24 The patristic and medieval commentaries on James are in the words of L.T. Johnson, sparse, interdependent and remarkably uniform.25 The uniformity of sources from this period offer us only limited insight into how the Epistle was treated in liturgical or didactic contexts. The Rule of Benedict 64 written sometime in the sixth century quotes from James 2.13, as does Augustine of Canterbury from James 2.10 in his Letter 167. (ca. 604) It is clear that Jacobean authorship was

never contested in this period. This fact however makes it problematic to explain why the patristic and medieval authors took such passing interest in the Epistle. Perhaps the apparent conflict between James and Paul in 2.14-26 made interpreters shy away from the

23

D. Hurst. Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles of Bede the Venerable. Kalamazoo, Cistercian Publications, 1985. or Gerald Bray ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude. New Testament vol. XI. (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 2000)
24

Henry Wace and William C. Piercy, eds., Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century AD, with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies, 252.
25

Johnson, Brother of Jesus Friend of God, 41. 8

text and focus upon the more richly theological - and agreeable - Pauline corpus. Such a tendency can certainly be observed in the later medieval and reformation periods.

Contemporary Historical Positions From the Council of Carthage until the 16th century, James became widely accepted into church canons, albeit with inconsistent interest on behalf of early writers. During this period little done to challenge the historical claim to authorship by James the Just the brother of Jesus who it was assumed composed the work sometime between 40-62CE. It was not until Martin Luther that the established historical position on the Epistles date and authorship came under legitimate scrutiny. Luther - like Erasmus before him26 - suggested that the Epistle was not composed by James the Just, but rather by another pious Christian named James who was associated with some early Christian church. In the preface to his 1522 New Testament, Luther famously pronounced the work a right strawy epistle on the basis that James represented a rejection of Pauline justification by faith. Luther was even said to have offered his doctors beret to anyone who could reconcile the theological disparity between Paul and James.27 To further convey his disdain for James - along with Hebrews, Jude and Revelation - Luther relegated the Epistle from its canonical place to the very end of his New Testament. John Calvin meanwhile wrote sympathetically on James in 1551. He rejected Luthers reasons for

Erasmus did not simply raise concern over the authorship of the Epistle, but treated it as any other ancient work. He asked questions about troubled readings, providing alternative text critical solutions through examination of the manuscript traditions such as reading fqoneite for foneuete in James 4.2 Erasumus did not however spend much time on the theology of James and its implications in liturgics. Perhaps his reservations about the works authorship led him to abstain from using the epistle.
26 27

R. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. (New York: Mentor Books, 1958), 260. 9

doing away with the Epistle and argued that was nothing un-apostolic about the Epistle. Calvin also accepted Erasmus alternate reading of 4.2 but denied there was any inherent conflict between James and Paul in 2.14-26. Despite Luthers aversion to the epistle, it remained firmly in place in both Catholic and Protestant Bibles. The intellectual legacy of Luther simply would not die out, as some three hundred years later Protestant scholarship would again raise historical questions about the legitimacy of James authorship and its place within history. In 1826 German scholar W.M.L. DeWette published his Einleitung in das Neue Testament28 which was the first major scholarly work to call into question the authorship of the Epistle of James. After DeWette, three distinct lines of thought appeared; the first began to date the Epistle after the lifetime of James the Just. This position was perhaps best articulated and most influential in the work of Harnack29 , Jlicher30 and the Tbingen School who declared the work a product of the late second century due to its apparent synthesis of Jewish, Christian and Pauline concepts. F. Kern31 viewed James being written by a contemporary of Pauls that took side with the JewishChristian position in opposition of Paul. In nearly all streams of interpretation, James 2.14-26 serves as the interpretive fulcrum for how James understood. The radical position held by the Tbingen school has been almost entirely abandoned in modern study, many scholars have still suggested a date for James somewhere in the late first or early second centuries and composed by some
28

W.M.L. DeWette. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1826.

29 Adolf

von Harnack. The Origin of the New Testament and the Most Important Consequences of the new Creation. trans. by. J.R. Wilkinson, (London: Williams & Norgate, 1925)
30 Adolf 31

Jlicher. An Introduction to the New Testament. trans. by Janet Penrose Ward. (London: Smith Elder, 1904).

F.H. Kern. Der Brief Jakobi. Utersucht und Eklaert. (Tbingen: Fues, 1838) 10

pseudonymous author.32 Scholars that maintain a position along these lines generally refer to the good Greek of the Epistle, its reliance upon distinctly Hellenistic form of thought and its apparent dependence upon some form of Paulinism best personified by Galatians and Romans. The second major line of thinking, following Windisch, argues that certain elements of the thought, tradition and teaching in the Epistle may be sourced back to James the Just. Most commentators who hold this position suggest that the Epistle is a later reworking of both oral and written material that came from James during his lifetime with some elements added in later in the compositional process. Burkitt has suggested somewhat problematically that the entirety of James is in fact a translation of an original Aramaic document that has been somewhat clumsily rendered into Greek.33 W.L. Knox better articulates this position by more precisely separating the layers of tradition contained within the document and assigning them to both Hellenistic and Palestinian

32

Moffatt suggested that a James composed the epistle, but not James the Just while Windisch does not suggest that the material comes directly from James but allows for the possibility that some intellectual basis for the teaching and traditions in James may stem from the historical figure. cf. J. Moffatt. The General Epistles: James, Peter and Judas: The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928), Hans Windisch. Die katholischen Briefe. 23nd rev. ed. (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951).
33

F.C. Burkitt. Christian Beginnings. (London: University of London Press, 1924). While Burkitts position has found little if no support with modern commentators, it may be interesting to note something of his hypothesis. If we assume that James was composed in aramaic sometime between 40-62CE, the Epistles existence in Aramaic may account for the lengthy delay in transmission to the west where Aramaic was not in wide use. The document may well have circulated among Palestinian (Egyptian?) churches for sometime before being translated into Greek. Somewhat problematic is the Syrian Churches apparent ignorance or lack of interest in the epistle until the late fourth or early fifth centuries. Though it should be noted that composition in aramaic would likely not have guaranteed the interest of the Syrian Church anymore than the Greek composition of the Gospel of Thomas would have interested the Roman Church. At the same time it is also worth noting that in the Apocryphon of James found at Nag Hammadi, James - as the specified author- states that he has composed the work in the Hebrew alphabet (Ap. Jas. I,2,15). It may be problematic to argue that this reference does in fact refer to its composition in Aramaic, but in either case Greek is not the pre-supposed language that James was expected to have written in. It may well be the case that the author of the Apocyrphon included the detail of the work being composed in Hebrew as a means to reinforce the claim of Jacobean authorship, as it would be expected that James would have composed in that language. 11

Jewish origin.34 Scholars who follow this second line of thinking appear somewhat divided between accepting a purely Hellenistic source behind James and a more primitive Jewish Christian/Palestinian Jewish origin. F.C. Baur meanwhile viewed the work as second century meditation on the conflict between James and Paul.35 The third major line of enquiry into the Epistle of James is one that argues for a purely Jewish origin for the document with considerable Christian re-working and reimagination. In its most elementary articulations, F. Spitta36 and L. Massebieau argue first the case that James is a pre-Christian Jewish composition that was taken over and embellished upon by later Christians. The two most obvious places where interpolation may be identified are in 1:1 where the author identifies himself as being a dou:loV of )Ihsou: Cristou: and in 2:1 where the readers are exhorted to show no partiality by holding pistin tou: hmw:n Ihsou: Cristou: thV: dovzhV. Arnold Meyer, followed by Eason and Thyen offer the intriguing hypothesis that James is actually an address of the patriarch Jacob to his twelve sons, each represented by a characteristic vice, virtue or action.37 This hypothesis however has found little support, though it has done much to reinforce the possibility of a Jewish origin for James.
Table I*

34

W.L. Knox. The Epistle of St. James JTS 46 (1945), 10-17. Knox suggests that most of the epistle has Jacobean origin, though the current document is divided between sections of Hellenistic expansion and commentary. He is unable to fully source all of the perceived traditions contained in the letter.
35 36 37

F.C. Baur. The Church History of the First Three Centuries. 3rd ed. (London: Williams, 1878) F. Spitta. Der Brief des Jakobus untersucht. (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896)

Davids suggests that Meyer is somewhat disappointing in the identifications he offers of the twelve tribes. The strongest identifications he makes are for Isaac, Rebecca, and several non-Israelite nations, regrettably none of them sons of Jacob. Peter H. Davids. The Epistle of James. New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 5. 12

Representative Opinions on the Date and Authorship of the Epistle of James Jewish Origin pre-James the Just L. Massebieau 1895 F. Spitta 1896 James the Just early (40-50CE) R.J. Knowling 1904 T. Zahn 1909 J.B. Mayor 1910 G.H. Rendall 1927 G. Kittel 1942 W.W. Wessel 1953 A. Ross 1954 D. Guthrie 1964 J.A.T. Robinson 1976 no preference (40-62CE) J.H. Moulton 1907 A. Schlatter 1932 J. Schneider 1961 F. Mussner 1964 J. Michl 1968 J. Adamson 1976 P. Davids 1980 L.T. Johnson 1995 Post-Jacobean partial authorship W.O.E. Oesterley 1910 F.C. Burkitt 1924 W.L. Knox 1945 H. Windisch 1951 E.C. Blackman 1957

post-James the Just A. Meyer 1930 H. Thyen 1955 R. Bultmann 1955? B.S. Easton 1957

pseudonymous authorship (70-130CE) B.W. Bacon 1911 J.H. Ropes 1916 J. Moffat 1928 B.H. Streeter 1928 J. Marty 1935 E.J. Goodspeed 1937 F. Hauck 1937 F. Young 1948 H.J. Schoeps 1949 H. Windisch 1951? A.H. McNeile 1953 R. Bultmann 1955 M.H. Shepherd Jr. 1956 M. Dibelius 1964, 1976 B. Reicke 1964 S.S.C. Marshall 1968 W.G. Kmmel 1973 W. Schrage 1973 J. Cantinat 1973 S. Laws 1980 U. Schnelle 1994

non-Jacobean but early L.E. Eilliott-Binns 1956

late (51-52CE) W.H. Bennett 1901 R. St. J. Parry 1903 S. J.A. Hort 1909 J. Chaine 1927 R.V.G. Tasker 1956 C.L. Mitton 1966 E.M. Sidebottom 1967 F.F. Bruce 1969

* table is freely adapted from Davids, The Epistle of James, 4. 13

The traditional position for the authorship and date of James has not been without its defenders, though opinions here are divided into two specific lines of thought. Parry and Tasker perhaps best personify one of these positions; that James the Just composed the work later in his lifetime (approximately 55-62CE) and that the conflict espoused by 2:14-26 is an argument against some form of Paulinism. This position is best described as the conservative viewpoint in scholarship, and is shared by many of the more recent conservative commentaries in introductions to the New Testament. Conversely, Mayor38 and Kittel39 argue that James the Just composed the work sometime early into his leadership of the Jerusalem Church, most likely prior to the Jerusalem Council (50CE?). These scholars maintain that James is a work that pre-dates the rise of Paulinism and represents an early stage of the Christian Church in which Jewish practices were not defended, but assumed as compulsory. In the twentieth century, M. Dibelius composed his well respected commentary on James which brought to bear the majority of earlier scholarship and provided a breadth of examples from Jewish, pagan and Christian sources that framed the Epistle squarely in the tradition of paraenetic literature.40 Much of later twentieth century scholarship such as that by L. Perdue41 or L.T. Johnson42 is either indebted to or a reaction to Diebelius magisterial work. Other work such as that by Cargal
38 39 40

Joseph B. Mayor. The Epistle of James. 3rd ed. (London: MacMillan, 1910). G. Kittel. Der Geschichtliche Ort des Jakobusbriefes ZNW 41. (1942): 71-105.

Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 1-11. Dibelius argument is outlined throughout his work, though it is summarized in part here.
41 42

L.G. Perdue. Paraenesis and the Epistle of James. ZNW 72 (1981): 241-256. L.T. Johnson. The Letter of James. Anchor Bible Commentary. (New York: Doubleday, 1995). 14

takes a semiotic rhetorical approach.43 While a great deal of work has been poured into understanding issues such as the rhetorical structure or James, its intended audience and its relation with other early Christian literature, little has been done to contest the existing notions of authorship and date. The majority of major critical historical scholarship in the twentieth century has seen a preference for a pseudepigrapical James written sometime between 70-130CE while conservative viewpoints claim some form of authorship by James preferably at an earlier date. This view is best personified by the work of L.T. Johnson, F.F. Bruce44, J. Adamson and P. Davids.45 Each of the above mentioned positions carries with it an ample amount of evidence and supporters who are able to ably defend their viewpoints. Thus, deciding upon a single hypothesis for the date and authorship of James is not easily achieved. In order to arrive at such a possibility, all the existing hypotheses and textual evidence, both internal and external must be considered and evaluated in order to arrive at a working conclusion.

Direct Claims of Authorship We have already established that James appears rather late in the history of the canonization of the New Testament. As a result, we are not afforded one of the most valuable of means to date an ancient work; the testimony of a contemporary author, ideally identifying the author of the work and quoting from it directly. We are not
43

T.B. Cargal. Restoring the Diaspora : Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of James. SBLDS 144. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).
44 45

F.F. Bruce. The General Letters in A New Testament Commentary. ed. G.C.D. Howley. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969).

Each of these authors opinions is somewhat nuanced. Davids for instance is tentative in assigning the work to James the Just entirely. He claims instead that some degree of the Epistles thought content can be traced back to James to Just. In his view the ideas of the Epistle are Jacobean though the current Greek idiom of the work is the product of a later editor/redactor. This view is not unrelated to earlier suggestions of a secretary hypothesis. 15

presented with such evidence until the writings of Origen, likely sometime in the early third century, and even then he only relates his identification with reluctance. Thus, we need to read the Epistle with critical eyes in order to understand whatever slight detail of authorship or date that may be discerned. Regrettably, we are left with little to go on. The prescript of 1:1 clearly states that the epistle is composed by =IavkwboV with no further honorific titles, such as the Just included. If we are then to assume the Epistles author as James the Just, it would appear that his proper name alone, not his reverential title, were sufficient enough to convey his identity and authority. But James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is but one of five men in the New Testament who are named +IavkwboV: +Iakwbon to;n tou: Zebedai/vou (Mark 1.19; 3.17par, Acts 12:2), +Iakwbon to;n tou: Alfaiou (Mark 3.18par), Iakwbon to;n avdelfo;n tou/: kurivou (Gal 1.19, 2.9, Mark 6.3par, 1 Cor. 15.7, Acts 12.17, 15.13; 21.18; Jude 1)/ +Iakwvbou tou: mikrou:/ (Mark 15.40par), and +Iouvdan +Iakwvbou (Luke 6.16, Acts 1.13). Given that James is addressed and written without any appeal to apostolic authority or any reverential status on behalf of its author, we must assume that of all the Jamess listed above, only James son of Zebedee and James the Brother of the Lord can be reasonably supposed. The remaining Jamess simply vanish too soon from history leaving no trace from which we may attribute authorship with any degree of likelihood. However, Acts 12.2 recounts that James son of Zebedee was executed in 44CE under Agrippa I. Thus, he would be a highly unlikely candidate to have composed the Epistle as it appears to presupposed some form of conflict within the later Christian Church. It would then appear that by process of elimination James the brother of the Lord would be the only likely person with which to identify the prescript in 1.1. James is not
16

listed as a member of the twelve apostles and appears only to have joined the Jesus movement sometime after the execution and purported resurrection of his brother. (cf. Mark 3.21, 31ff,; John 7.5) James late association with the Jesus movement however does not appear to have prohibited to the development of his authority within the Jerusalem Church. As proof of his authority, Paul saw it prudent to meet with James, likely on his first visit to Jerusalem and that such a meeting would be necessary in receiving apostolic ascent for his own enterprise. Galatians 2.9 describes James - along with Peter and John as being one of the stu:loi of the Jerusalem Church. However, extensive persecution of the early Church led to a shakeup in ecclesiastic authority which saw Peter flee from Jerusalem. This evidently resulted in James assuming sole leadership of the Jerusalem Church until his death. Likewise the apparent incident in Antioch and the arrival of evlqein tinaj avpo. +Iakwvbou (Gal 2.12) indicates the strict Jewish-Christian praxis and wide reaching claim to leadership that James maintained. Josephus, who devotes more attention to James than on Jesus himself, tells us that James was executed in 62CE by the high priest Annas the Younger on the charge of violation of the Torah. (cf. Josephus Ant. 20.199-203) But how does what we know about the historical James the Just relate to what we may read in the text of the Epistle? Herein we are faced with a new set of problems. First, there is a conspicuous silence in the Epistle with regard to Christology and such early Christian kerygma as the suffering on the cross or the resurrection. On this apparent silence Dibelius notes that: [James] has no theology.46 This however appears to

46

Dibelius, James, 21. 17

presuppose a programmatic inclusion of Christian kerygma in order to sustain a distinct theological character. Rather we may assume that both James and his intended readership were well enough versed in such kerygmatic concerns that they need not be addressed or even mentioned in every communication. The same may be said about James authority, it need not be reaffirmed with each communication, but assumed by virtue of the recipients cognizance of the sender. While the letter may not be replete with rich Christological material, it still appears to echo several elements of the early Jewish Christian traditions of the early Jesus movement. For example sayings in James seem to bear some proximate resemblance to material that is found in Q/Matthew/Luke. The relationship among the material is illustrated below: Table II Parallel Traditions in the Epistle of James and the Synoptic Gospels47
Subject James Parallel

Perfection Asking for Wisdom Doing the Word, not just Hearing It The Kingdom of God/Poor in Spirit Reward of Mercy Promise to peacemakers Plans for the future Woes against the rich Moths devouring riches
47 A more

1.2-4 1.5 1.22-23 2.5 2.13 3.18 4.13-15 5.1 5.2

Matt. 5.48par. Matt. 7.7par. Matt. 7.24-26par. Matt. 5.3par. Matt. 5.7 Matt. 5.9 Matt. 6.34 Luke 6.24 Matt. 6.20par.

complete treatment of the relationship between James and Q/Matthew/Luke can be see in P. Hartin. James and the Q Sayings of Jesus. JSNTSsup 47. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 140-172. 18

Subject

James

Parallel

Prophets as exemplars of suffering Prohibition on swearing oaths

5.1 5.12

Matt. 5.12par. Matt. 5.33-37

The above table illustrates the clearest affinities shared between James and the Synoptic Gospels. In particular, we see a great deal of agreement between James and the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. Though the common thought between James and the Sermon on the Mount/Plain is striking, there is no need to speak of literary dependency as a primary means of explaining the relationship. Instead, it would be more likely that both James and the compilers of Q - from which Matthew and Luke drew the basis of the sermons - are referencing a pre-existent and shared tradition that may well be a very early stratum of Jesus tradition. This early stratum of tradition found in James may be interpreted as evidence that it is James the Just who composed the epistle, as he would have had intimate and early knowledge of Jesus traditions.48 While this supposition maintains some degree of theoretical plausibility, it would stand to reason that had James been privy to such traditions we would possess a wider body of literature from him than one problematic epistle.

External Evidence

48

This position has been argued in: Martin Hengel. "Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik." In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, ed. by G. F. Hawthorn and O. Betz. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). Hengel assigns the sayings in James to be an authentic transmission of Jesus sayings. 19

Without any clear direct evidence to suggest a specific date or claim to authorship, we must then examine what external evidence is available to better understand the situation. Here, we are faced with even more tenuous evidence than that which derive from internal considerations. We have already seen that Origen makes the first reference to James sometime before 254CE, claiming it to be written with some reservation by James the Just and identifying it as scripture. The western Church however did not accept the work as scripture until the Synod of Hippo 393CE and the Third Council of Carthage 397CE, though both Jerome - again with some reservation - and Augustine accepted it prior to those councils. In the east, the Catechism of Cyril, Gregory of Nazianzus and Athanasius cite the work as canonical, though Theodore of Mopsuestia rejected it and it is not accepted in the pre-Peshitta Syriac. Eusebius while using it himself as Scripture, cites it as being among the a;ntilegovmena. The attestation evidence concerning James does not offer us any profound insight into dating the work or identifying its author. It lacks early attestation; and it is clear that the East accepted the work well before the west. Such evidence would seem to suggest late non-apostolic authorship in order to account for the relative silence on the work prior to Origen. However, it may be the case as Guthrie has argued that a lack of interest and poor circulation account for its relative obscurity.49

Internal Evidence Examining the internal evidence with regard to date and authorship brings us back to the claim of authorship in 1.1. The most pressing question with regard to this claim is
49

D. Guthrie. New Testament Introduction. 3rd ed. (Downers Grove: Illinois, 1970), 737-739. 20

whether or not we could expect such a greeting to made by James the Just, brother of Jesus or if it is more easily attributed to a later pseudonymous author. Immediately we may observe the lack of any reverential titles in the prescript; brother of the Lord, elder in Jerusalem or apostle of Christ. For evidence of such a practice, we need only observe the prescripts of 1 and 2 Peter and the Epistle of Jude. If James composed the Epistle, then he did so without any reference to his relationship to Jesus, or his standing within the Jerusalem Church. Also, James seems to break literary convention from other supposed apostolic authors. The same may be said for a pseudonymous author, whom we would expect to make some more clearly articulated claim of Jacobean authorship. The simplicity of the greeting also complicates theories of partial authorship, lest we suggest the simplicity of designation is a memory of tradition that goes back to literary convention established by James the Just, and that the prescript reflects his normal method of self-designation.50 This can only be considered as conjectural, as we possess no other works that can be legitimately considered to be written by James the Just to compare on the basis of style and formulation. The opening verse may offer us some clue as to the author of James but we must also consider several other aspects of the epistle; 1) the apparent Hellenistic influence on the work, 2) the JewishChristian culture of the epistle, 3) the theological/doctrinal character of the work and 4) the apparent debate between James and Paul.

50

Windisch has argued that the simple prescript argues in the favor of James the Just due to die Berechtigung des Herrenbruders, and die 12 Stamme in der Zerstreuung zy schreiben. Windisch, 3. Meyer counters this assumption stating that the prescript lacks seinem Titel Herrenbruder, Meyer, 110-111. Kittel counters Meyer by suggesting the prescript rules out pseudonymous authorship after the death of James, since the relationship between Jesus and James was only stressed after his death. Kittel, 73-75. 21

Hellenistic Influence in the Epistle Chief among the issues regarding Hellenistic influence on the Epistle of James is the problem of the Epistles language and style. Save for Hebrews, Luke and 1st Peter the Greek of James is among the best of the New Testament and poses a significant problem for identifying its author as James the Just. It is usually believed that the sophisticated style of James, and its composition in Greek preclude the possibility that it could have been written by a marginal Galilean Jew whose first language would certainly have been Aramaic.51 Also problematic is that James appears to quote the Septuagint and not the Masoretic Text, though this is far from certain.52 It is also remarked that James seems to echo the thought of Philo and other Hellenistic Jews. Thus Kennedy remarks: It seems difficult for any unprejudiced enquirer to evade the conclusion that the Jewish writer of the Epistle moved with more than ordinary freedom in the region of Hellenistic culture. 53 The first major question that we must address is the Greek ability of James the Just. On this question Moulton claims: ...that Jesus and his disciples regularly used Aramaic is beyond question, but that Greek was also at command is equally certain. There is not the slightest

51

Since we do not have any information about James prior to his appearance in Acts, we may only assume that he came from a similar socio-economic world as Jesus. There is no reason to preclude the possibility that he may have been exposed to a level of education that would accord with the Epistles style and grammar, but there is also no good reason to argue for it. Given the mythological character of the Gospels and the figures in the later Chrsitian tradition, it seems without merit to discuss aspects of education and literacy. We can however use the New Testament as a means of comparison to see if the text justifies or corroborates what evidence we would need to suggest James the Just composed the Epistle. Such a process cannot be seen as historical but as an exercise in comparative literature.
52

Kennedy states The quotations from the OT in the Epistle agree with the text of the LXX, even when that differs from Hebrews. H.A.A. Kennedy, The Hellenistic Atmosphere of the Epistle of James, Ex ser. 8:2 (1911), 37-52. Davids however refutes this claim in several instances, stating that of all the relevant OT citations only Prov. 3.34 differs markedly from the LXX as compared with the MT. However since James, 1 Peter and 1 Clement cite this passage in a similar form, it is likely that their respective authors are drawing upon some paraenetic tradition in which Prov. 3.34 is associated with the themes of subjection and humility. Davids, Epistle of James, 33.
53

Kennedy, Hellenistic Atmosphere, 51. 22

presumption against the use of Greek in writings purporting to emanate from the circle of the first believers. He adds that Galileans would likely have spoken Greek as those who had from childhood, with varying degrees of quality according to education.54 This assertion is somewhat strong as we do not have any empirical means by which to account for the degree of Greek literacy among native Galileans, and certainly not the New Testament figures. There would undoubtedly have been contact between Galileans and Hellenistic culture, it could scarcely be avoided, but there is no conclusive reason to believe that Greek literacy was not just in widespread use in the area, but of a consistently high degree of quality.55 Moultons assertion that the Greek literacy of the circle of the first believers is beyond doubt appears to take for granted that the majority of early Christian literature likely emanates from locales where Greek was the first and official language and not from Jewish Palestine where Greek could best be understood as a necessary language of commerce and education. Closely related to this matter is the issue of Hellenistic influence within Palestine. Could we expect James the Just to write in the form of a Hellenistic letter often citing

passages from the Hebrew Bible more current in Hellenistic circles? This does not appear entirely improbable; Acts 6 indicates that the Jerusalem Church was made up of some
54 55

J.H. Moulton. The Epistle of James and the Sayings of Jesus, Ex. ser 7:4 (1907): 45-55.

Chancey has convincingly argued against the wide spread influence of hellenism in the Galilee, and the reasons as to why New Testament scholars hold such views. He suggests that there is virtually no evidence of gentile influence, in particular textual evidence, and extensive evidence for the Jewishness of the Galilee in the first century. Mark Chancey. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. SNTS 118. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Chancey has even reaffirmed this position in a recent article which makes use of further archaeological evidence that supports this claim. He also describes in brief that it would be incorrect to assume that Hellenism manifested itself in Jewish education. Mark Chancey. How Jewish Was Jesus Galilee?, BAR 33, no. 4 (July/August 2007): 42-50. This assertion however, does not account for the fact that Greek would have been in much more frequent usage in a place such as Jerusalem where Hellenistic influence was certainly more deeply rooted. 23

number of Hellenized Jewish Christians and we may easily conclude that Galilee contained some number of Hellenized Jews.56 Thus, we may conclude that it would not be beyond the realm of possibility that James would at least be exposed to more Hellenistic traditions, though this conclusion is ultimately based on probability which cannot be empirically verified. Davids meanwhile questions the extent to which James is dependent upon the Septuagint, stating that though the author of James does quote from it he is not limited to that version.57

The Palestinian/Jewish-Christian Influence in the Epistle The question of Hellenistic influence in the Epistle leads us to question of the Jewish-Christian influence, as it is Judaism thats serves as the connector and theological middle ground between the two cultures. What we are faced with initially is how to define Jewish-Christian within the 1st century and later. A definition applied to one JewishChristian community (ie. Matthews) cannot eloquently map on to another

contemporaneous community such as James. Thus, we are best served by investigating the more strictly Jewish of Palestinian aspects of the Epistle in order to garner what information we can in relation to its date and authorship. From a cursory reading of the Epistle it becomes apparent that its author is well versed and grounded in a Jewish theological and ideological background. Apart from the

56

In his excellent study of Galilee, Freyne has argued that Galilee was thoroughly Hellenized, and evidence of non-Gentile Galilean literacy is indicated by the increase of Official Decrees that were written in Greek as well as the fact that Greek could simply not be avoided. However, as he suggests there is no indication of any compulsory language policy that made Greek a necessary language for Galileans. As such the degree of Greek literacy would likely have been entirely contingent upon a learners necessity for the language and his or her time pursue its study apart from more pressing concerns such as work. cf. S. Freyne. Galilee: From Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323BCE to 135CE. (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 2000).
57

Davids, The Epistle of James, 11. 24

invocations of known of noted Jewish wisdom figures such as Abraham who is described to the group as +Abraa;m o; path;r h;mw:n (2.21), Job who is invoked as an exemplar of

suffering and of Gods purpose in doing so, Elijah as an exemplar of the efficacy of prayer and Rahab who is used to illustrate the justification of works. (2.25) Though these citations do not explicitly attest to its Jewish character it does illustrate that there is some degree of continuity of thought, theology and history between the author James his community and the Hebrew scriptures. We may observe similar literary habits with the authors frequent use of the interjection ivdou58; (3.4, 3.5, 5.4, 5.7, 5.9, 5.11) an imitation of the Hebrew hNh and the theological important placed on the unity of God. (2.19) What may best help us locate the Epistle however is the authors apparent familiarity with Palestinian weather phenomena. The evidence of the authors Palestinian affinities can be observed in several verses, but most vividly in 5.7 where we the author mentions the ewV lavbh/ provi&mon kai o[yimon. These early and late rains are best understood as characteristic of the spring and fall rains (March and October) of the Palestinian climate not Alexandria, Rome, Italy or elsewhere in Asia minor, where the Epistle has often been located. This phrase however does not bind the Epistle to Palestine, as the phrase may be used by the author as a reminiscence of his homeland that was lost upon his audiences. What is most important to

The most frequent usage of idou in the New Testament is seen in The Gospel of Matthew where it is used 59 times in 1071 verses. In The Gospel of Luke it is used some 56 times in 1151 verses. A brief statistical analyses shows that the author of James uses the interjection just as frequently as Matthew and Luke, the latter with some deviation. Given the general acceptance that Luke was not composed by a Jewish author, it would be hard to suggest that idou was of distinctly Semitic coinage. What this suggests is not that James reflects a Semitic syntax but that Matthew, Luke and James are all rooted in a Septuagintal background. In the case of James, the paraenetic or exhortative nature of the Epistle seems to lend itself to an appropriate stylistic usage of idou. 25
58

recognize is that the author seems to have some a priori knowledge of the Palestinian climate, a fact that seems endorsed by 1.11. Here the author references the h[lioV su;n tw:/ kauvswni 59, an apparent reference to hamsin, the dry hot easterly wind that brings dust from the Arabian desert much to the disdain of native Palestinians.60 Laws has suggested that James is simply developing Isaiahs image of the wilting meadow flower blowing in the wind by the breath of the Lord. As such James need not be working with first hand knowledge of hamsin as experience in a Palestinian setting, but through the literary medium of the Septuagint. This may well be possible, but given the reference to the early and late rains a similar suggestion would need to be made to account for the authors apparent knowledge of the Palestinian climate, and for 3.11 where the author asks: mhvti h; phgh;; ejk th:V authV ovph:V Bruvvei to;; gluku;; kai;; to;; pikrovn. Hadidian suggests that this passage refers to the fresh and salt springs by the Dead Sea, though offers no elaboration. It would seem however that James question would indeed be invalidated should he or his audience know of a place where the opposite suggested coexisted.61 It seems however that the author intends something more metaphorical, as there is no place by the Dead Sea that produces both fresh and bitter water from the same opening. Instead the author is likely proposing an oddity of nature that could not exist, and thus does not invalidating his

The noun kauvswn. is used twice elsewhere in the New Testament, Matthew 20.12, Luke 12.55, though in both cases it is used to describe the burning heat of the sun. It is used in a similar context in Isaiah 49.10, Genesis 31.40 (Alexandrian LXX), Judith 8.3, Sirach 18.16. It is also commonly used in the Hebrew Bible to describe, Eurus, the hot dry easterly Palestinian winds. cf. Job 27.21, Jeremiah 18.17, Hosea 12.1, 13.15, Ezekiel 17.10. The usage in James 1.11 is somewhat problematic as it appears the evils mentioned are ascribed to the hlioV and not the kauvswn.
59 60 61

Hadidian, Palestinian Pictures, 227-228. Sophie Laws. A Commentary on the Epistle of James. (London: Adam & Charles Black, London), 157. 26

question. The reference to the fresh and bitter could still stand as a reference to the Dead Sea springs. The final allusion to Palestinian geography can be seen in 3.6 where the tongue is described as being set on fire by geevnnhV. Here the Greek word is derived from the Hebrew

~NOhi-ygE) which can be found in Joshua 15.8, 18.16, Nehemiah 11.30, Jeremiah 7.31, 19.4-5,
32.35, 2 Kings 16.3, 21.6, 2 Chronicles 28.3, 33.6. In each of these instances the references refer to the valley currently known as the Wadi er-Rababeh which runs S-SW of Jerusalem. In the Hebrew Bible, the valley is described as the boundary between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and the place where the Caananites offered sacrifice to Molech and Baal. As a result of the sacrifices the location achieved something of an unsavory reputation, and was defiled by Josiah during his reforms programs. Jeremiah prophesied that it would no longer be called the Valley of Hinnom but the valley of Slaughter on account of the numerous Judeans thrown into it by the Babylonians. (Jeremiah 7.29-34, 19.1-15) During the intertestamental period and through the New Testament the influence of Hellenism helped developed a concept of the afterlife and the notion of a fiery judgement. (1 Enoch 10.13, 48.8-10, 100.7-9, 108.4-7, Judith 16.17, 2 Baruch 85.13) It is likely that the reputation of the valley of Hinnom was transformed into a place of fiery judgement by the fact that the area supposedly continued to burn as a refuse dump.62 The New Testament authors also agree in using geevnnhV as a metaphorical abstraction for the place of fiery judgement, except possibly for the author of James. In
62

Duane F. Watson Gehnna Pages 926-928 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. 2. ed. David Noel Friedman. (New York: Doubleday, 1992). 27

observing the previous Palestinian affinities that James demonstrates, we may be able to understand the nouns appearance in its context. If we understand the reference to geevnnhV in 3.6 as not to a theological abstraction for hell or a fiery place of judgement but as a geographical reference we may better locate James both in terms of provenance and with regard of its date and authorship. Whether or not the recipients of the Epistle would have understood the reference as geographic remains unclear, but it may be the case that its author very much did so. All biblical references to gehinnom understand the term as denoting Jerusalem geography, a valley S-SW of Jerusalem to which an ill reputation had been associated. The clearest evidence of the nouns usage in Jewish circles in the 1st century is seen in 4 Ezra 7.36 and 2 Baruch 59.10 where gehinnom is used unequivocally as an apocalyptic place of fiery judgement, divorced yet still related from the apocalyptic conception of geevnnhV. If we locate James within the 1st century, as is commonly suggested, then it is entirely possible that the author of James was not entirely dependent upon an understanding of gehinnom as a strictly apocalyptic designation. The definition of words did not simply change overnight, and words could retain pluriform meaning for sometime after their common acceptance. If we locate James within the 1st century, it is entirely possible that geevnnhV could be understood as a geographic reference and as an apocalyptic reference. The New Testament writings that include the noun (Matthew 5.22, 29-30, 10.28,, 18.9, 23.15, 33, Mark 9.43 45, 47, Luke 12.5, Hebrews 10.27, 2 Peter 2.4, Jude 7, Revelation 19.20, 20.10) use the noun explicitly in an apocalyptic or punishment context. With the possible exception of Luke 12.5, the New Testament distinguishes a[/dhjV from geevnnhV, thus if we are to suggest that geevnnhV in James is to be understood primarily as
28

geographically, we must do so so apart from the prevailing usage of the word in a strictly apocalyptic and judgement context. Given the apparent Palestinian affinities noted above, a reading of geevnnhV as referring to Jerusalem geography is all the more probable, though far from conclusive. While the Palestinian character of the Epistle is somewhat uncertain, few interpreters dispute the Jewishness of the work. Spitta and Meyer however take this assertion a step further by claiming that there is nothing Christian in the work at all beyond minor Christian editing.63 This claim has found little support, and may be rejected on the following grounds: 1) James contains embedded ideas that are non-Jewish, 2) James shares affinities with Q64 and other New Testament literature, and 3) James may allude to the words of Jesus.65 There are only two explicit passages in James that may be understood as Christian: 1.1 and 2.1, though they are likely Christian interpolation and thus should not be considered as evidence by themselves. However, if we suggest that the Epistle contains other Christian ideas and content then we may interpret both passages as genuine. Passages that cannot be seen as interpolation are: 1) tou;V presbutevrouV th:V ejkklhsivaV (5.14), 2) The parallels listed in Table II between James and Q/Matthew/Luke, 3) the concept of being an ajparchv and being saved by the word (1.18ff) and 4) The use of

63 A.

Meyer. Das Rastel des Jakobusbriefes. BZNTW 10. Giessen, 1930. F. Spitta. Der Brief des Jakobus untersucht. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896.

64

The most thorough treatment of the relationship between the wisdom tradition in James and Q can is: P.J. Hartin. James and the Q Sayings of Jesus. JSNTSsup 47. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).
65

J.H. Ropes. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1916, 32-33. 29

the terms judge, Lord and the name to refer to Jesus.66 None of these examples would easily fit into a strictly Jewish context, and dictate that we view the Epistle in whatever slight refraction of Christian light we may view it in. With regard to the New Testament allusions James contains, Mayor illustrates a thorough list of all possible allusions though no clear literary relationships.67 Nevertheless, Davids has been a staunch advocate of the relationship between James and 1 Peter, one that he views as more positive than Hermas. He concedes however that there is still no distinct literary relationship between the texts, though their similarities are enough for him to conclude that both draw upon a similar tradition and that the authors lived in the same location for some significant part of their lives (although not necessarily while the other author was in that place) or that they were part of the same church. 68 It appears that James would be the more primitive of the two works, though determining whether or not something is more primitive is based largely on historical, theological and linguistic presuppositions that are largely subjective. What we may conclude nonetheless, is that on the basis of similarity of thought and vocabulary, some relationship exists

Ropes, Epistle of St. James, 32 suggests that judge (James 4.12, 5.9) is the least likely reference to Jesus. Contrary arguments can be seen in Spitta, Der Brief des Jakobus untersucht, 47, S.S.C. Marshall. The Character, Setting, and Purpose of the Epistle of St. James. PhD Diss. Oxford, 1968.
66 67 68

Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, lxxxv-cix. cf. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus, 140-199.

Davids, The Epistle of James, 15. cf. R. St. J Parry. A Discussion of the General Epistle of St. James. (CJ Clary & Sons, 1903), 99-100 who argues that James was used by the author of 1 Peter. Mayor, Epistle of St. James, clxix, stats Where it is agreed that there is a direct literary connexion between two writers, A and B, treating of the same subject from apparently opposite points of view, and using the same illustrations, if it shall appear that the argument of B meets in all respects the argument of A, while the argument of A has no direct reference to that of B, the priority lies with A. Again where is it agreed that there is a connexion between the two writers, treating of the same point of view, and using the same quotations, it is probable that the writers who gives the thought in its most terse and rugged form, and takes the lease trouble to be precise in the wording of his quotations, is the earlier writer. Mayors second argument here only establishes probability, not dependency and thus is not as conclusive as he appears to believe. 30

between James and Hermas that allow us to more firmly anchor the text within the 1st century. One of the most problematic aspects of the Christian character of the Epistle is its apparently underdeveloped or non-existent Christology. Several arguments have been offered to defend authorship by James the Just in this regard, 1) James the Just was not a follower of Jesus until after the resurrection, 2) the greater familiarity of the author and his audience with the Hebrew Bible and not the life of Jesus as examples of moral and ethical conduct, 3) James the Just might deliberately play down his physical relationship to Jesus and 4) the acceptance of the affinities to Q and the New Testament preclude these historical problems. Each of these assertion is problematic and will be addressed in order: 1) It would be hard to imagine that if James the Just came to be of reverential status in the Early Church, such that he was able to compose letters to distant Jewish-Christian diasporic communities without any elaboration on his identity, that none of the other earlier adherents of the Jesus movement would have filled him in on the biographical and historical details of his brother. We would need to assume that James authority would have derived from a knowledge of brothers life, teachings and death. That he only became a follower of Jesus after the resurrection, and only possessed knowledge of events that came after that is no excuse for the poor articulation of Christology in the Epistle.69 2) It is difficult to suggest that James the Just would only have drawn upon figures from the Hebrew Bible to demonstrate exemplary morality, ethics an piety and not the life or teachings of Jesus. One could also argue that James could have drawn from the exceptional moral character of Jesus while at home in Nazareth to illustrate his teachings or some other personal reminiscence.

Windisch, Die katholischen Briefe, 3 and W.E. Oesterley. The General Epistle of James. Expositors Greek Testament 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 399. Both authors hold that the reference to Jesus in 1.1 and 2.1 are insufficient to propose the author of James has any messianic belief. 31
69

3) It is difficult still to propose a reason as to why the author of James would play down his relationship with Jesus. It is possible that James the Just would not have wanted to discuss the relationship with Jesus that he appears not have had until after his brothers death. Perhaps questions had arisen in the early Jesus movement as to why he had not followed Jesus earthly ministry and as a result historical or familial relationships were played down in favor of spiritual relationship. There is no such evidence to support this though, as it appears James was a critical authority in the Jerusalem whom Paul saw necessary to visit in order to discuss his own apostolic mission. The James/Paul Debate in the Epistle The issue of the Epistles continuity with the presumed historical debate that existed between James the Just and the Apostle Paul can be summarized in three major issues: 1) the legalism of James the Just, 2) James reception of Gentiles and 3) the apparent anti-Pauline polemic of 2.14-26. The issue of James the Justs historical position with regard to legalism is one of the most critical concerns for investigating the date and authorship of the Epistle. The Epistle sees no mention of circumcision, purity, ritual and cultic piety. The reference to the novmou ejleuterivaV can best be understood as a form of Mosaic Law, realized and improved upon by Jesus, and then applicable to the Christians on James horizon. Kummel and Windisch have suggested that since it is believed James the Just as a strong Pharisaical ritualist, the text must originate from a time after James death.70 However, assumptions of James legalism need to be tempered to some degree. Hegesippus account has often been used to demonstrate James legalistic piety, this account however is likely an

70

Kmmel, Introduction, 290; Windisch, Die katholischen Briefe,3. 32

Ebionite glorification of James and largely mythological.71 If we accept Hegesippus account, then we are left with a portrait of James as a strict ascetic legalist who could certainly not have written the Epistle. This portrait is not reconcilable with that of Acts which sees James as a mediating influence who tried to strike a balance between the legalistic Jewish segments of the Church and the Gentile supporters of the Pauline mission. In Acts he is a Jew who observed the law who was dedicated to the Jewish community and who agreed with Pauls position over the legalists. (Acts 15.13-21) From Acts we would then not expect James the Just to articulate an overly legalistic position in the Epistle. The controversy over the reception of Gentiles is related to the issue of James the Justs legalism. No mention of James the Just in the New Testament, save for Galatians 2.9, indicates that James resisted the reception of Gentiles, but rather that James assumed a mediating role amenable to Paul in Acts 15 and 21. That the author of the Epistle of James did not mention this controversy represents two possible conclusions: 1) The Epistle was written before the Jerusalem Council mentioned in Acts and thus it was not a topic that needed to be addressed or 2) that the Epistle was written after 70CE when the controversy over the inclusion of Gentiles was all but settled. In either case it should be acknowledged we are faced with arguments from silence, and should be evaluated only on the basis of a sincere examination of the other issues in the Epistle.

71

Hegesippus relates that James the Just was a strict legalistic Pharisee, a Nazarite who was respected by all Jews. His account also describes James entering the Jerusalem Temple which would have been extremely unlikely. The account also sets up James as Jewish witness against the Christians. cf. G. Kittel. Die Stellung des Jakobus zu Judentum und Heidenschristentum ZNW 30 (1931): 145-157. 33

Someone who agreed with Paul, or at least mediated his position, could not have composed 2.14-26 as a anti-Pauline polemic. How interpreters read this passage has a strong bearing upon the date and authorship of the Epistle, and the issues surrounding cannot be thoroughly addressed herein. Those who understand the Epistle as being written by James the Just see 2.14-26 as dependent upon or a refutation of Galatians or Romans, must date the James as much later than both those works, in order to account for the circulation and inculturation of Pauls letters and ideas. A number of modern interpreters have tended to believe that 2.14-26 is not intended to refute Pauls ideas or Paul directly. Ropes states: While James and Paul thus stand in the sharp contrast, no hint appears in James of controversy with Pauline Christianity over the validity of the Jewish law, nor of attack on Paul personally. In 2.14-26 James is not engaged in doctrinal controversy, but is repelling the practical misuse which was made, or might be made, of Pauls doctrine of j u s t i f i c a t i o n by faith alone in order to excuse moral laxity. James shows no comprehension of what Paul actually meant by his formula; but the formula itself is foreign to him and he heartily dislikes it.72 Ropes is correct in his analysis, to say that James 2.14-26 is a direct attack upon Paul is to argue that James has profoundly misunderstood Pauls arguments and not addressed his concerns at all. The result in the words of Davids is that James instead produces a work with which Paul would have agreed! 73 The issue then becomes more complex because in James we are then faced with the proposition that 2.14-26 represents a misunderstood form of Paulinism that the author felt the need to address. If this is the case, the Epistle would then likely date to sometime after the life of James when
72

J.H. Ropes. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James. International Critical Commentary. (London: T&T Clark, 1916), 35.
73

Davids, Epistle of James, 21. 34

Paulinism had become accepted doctrine though still faced the threat of corruption or misunderstanding.74 Davids suggests that a date later than Pauls missionary activity in Syria and earlier than either the wide circulation of Pauls letters or Pauls meeting or Pauls meeting with James the Just.75 While the proposition of a misunderstood Paulism does seem to be appealing, it is without any further evidence beyond the Epistle of James. Alternatively, it may be possible that 2.14-26 reflects a Jewish doctrinal position and not a Pauline one. Connections between the testing tradition of Genesis 15.6, 22.1 in 1 Maccabees 2.52 and James 1.12-18 do not presuppose any Pauline precedent for the example of Abraham. Furthermore, James 2.14-26 ultimately demands charity which is not similar to Pauls concern with legalism. Houlden states that: the ethics of the Epistle of James are, from the point of view of conceptual pattern, the simplest in the New Testament: no theological impulse overtly provides them with backing and the writer embraces a simple belief in practical charity, humble endurance and control of the tongue as the keys to moral life.76 While Houlden is in fact correct, postulating no overt theological precedent for the ideas in James ultimately complicates the process of dating the text, since it removes external datable precedents. If this is the case, we may then only glean what evidence the text allows to suggest a possible date and then attempt to relate our findings to a pre-existent social situation or concern in the early Churches.

Date

74 75 76

Kittel, Jakobusbrief, 56-68. Davids, Epistle of James, 21-22. J.L. Houlden. Ethics and the New Testament. (London: Mowbrays, 1975), 66. 35

When attempting to date the composition of an ancient work, it is prudent to attempt and bracket the time in which we may reasonably try to place it in. As with most ancient literature - and certainly the writings of the New Testament - this is seldom a simple task. At best we may only suggest a smaller bracket as precise dates are difficult to conclude. With the Epistle of James we are ultimately faced with the same problems with regard to dating that affects nearly all of the New Testament, and bound to similar methods and tools by which to deduce a possible date of composition. To form our bracket in dating James we may first conclude that the works terminus ad quem is the quotations of the work made by Origen sometime before his death in 254CE. Since we have no more precise means of dating when Origen composed his work, we must accept that he could have composed it in his final year, thus forcing us to accept a terminus ad quem of 254CE. Setting a terminus a quo is decidedly more complicated as doing so is affected by several variables. If we entertain that the work was composed by James the Just during his own lifetime, then we are presented with a date of anywhere between 40-62CE, the latter date being the year in which Josephus recounts James death by stoning, the former when we may likely conclude James assumed authority of the Jerusalem Church. If we entertain pseudonymous authorship, then we can reasonably surmise that the author would not have made a pseudonymous claim during James own lifetime but during a time after James death when his authority and legend were still on high. This essentially leaves us with a date from 40CE as our terminus a quo to a terminus ad quem

36

of 254CE, a bracket of some 214 years.77 However, it may be possible to further narrow this bracket. While Origen may be the first author to quote verbatim from James, considerable parallels in language and ideas can be observed between James and the popular Christian work The Shepherd of Hermas where parallels are easiest seen in Mandates 5, 9 & 12.78 While there is no explicit quotations that may be suggested, the similarities in thought are strong enough to investigate this claim more closely. Dating the Shepherd of Hermas is similarly problematic, but not to the extent as we are faced with in James. The works apparent author Hermas is presented in the work as being a contemporary of Clement of Rome who died in 100CE. This would suggest a date sometime in the latter decades of the first century, when Clement was bishop and later the fourth pontiff of the Roman Church, following Anecletus.79 In the Muratorian Canon however the author of Hermas is identified as the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome from 139-154CE. Current opinions are varied as to a precise date of composition, but it appears a date sometime in the early 2nd century is preferred.80 The linguistic evidence for a
F. Spitta and L. Massebieau suggest that James is a Jewish work that pre-dates James the Just and the Jesus movement. If we are to accept this hypothesis then we are faced with an even larger - and more difficultly defined - bracket for dating. This hypothesis has found virtually no support after the late 19th century. cf. F. Spitta. Der Brief des Jakobus untersucht The majority of lexical study between James and Hermas has had to deal with the occurrence of the word diyucoV which is used in James twice (1.8, 4.8) and some 19 times in Hermas and the cognate verb diyucei:n is found some 20 times, and the substantive diyucia 16 times. The basis for a literary dependence of Hermas is largely based upon the presumption that James provides the first usage of the word in Christian literature. For more detailed analysis see: Oscar J.F. Seitz, Relationship of the Shepherd of Hermas to the Epistle of James, JBL 63:2 (1944), 131-140. James H. Moulton and George Miligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930), 166, Joseph B Mayor. The Epistle of St. James: The Greek text with introduction, notes and comments. (London: Macmillan, 1910), lxxiv-lxxviii.
78 79 77

The identification of Anacletus or Cletus as the same person somewhat complicate this matter. Likely they are different persons with Cletus peing the third pontiff of Rome and Anacletus the fourth. J. Chapman states: At the present time no critic doubts that Cletus, Anacletus, Anencletus, are the same person. Anacletus is a Latin error; Cletus is a shortened (and more Christian) form of Anencletus This does not greatly affect dating, as it still points towards a date later in the 1st century. J. Chapman. Pope St. Clement in The Catholic Encyclopedia. vol. IV. (New York: Robert Appleton and Company, 1908)
80

Jospeh Verheyden, The Shepherd of Hermas, ExpTim 117:10 (2006): 397-401, Carolyn Osiek. The Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999). 37

literary relationship is somewhat complicated, but it appears likely that some connection, especially if we locate James in Rome. Using the evidence of Hermas, we may then more precisely define our bracket for dating James. The conflict espoused by James 2.14-26 indicates some response was being offered to Paulinism. If so, it is more likely that James would date to a time when the debate over justification by faith/works was still fresh and not to one where Pauline doctrine had become widely accepted. As a result, it would seem that with both internal and external evidence, James was likely composed sometime in the latter decades of the 1st century. It would make more sense to push James towards an earlier date, not on account of a legitimate claim to Jacobean authorship but due to the apparent conflict between faith and works that was ultimately championed by Paul.

A Possible Conclusion We may now make some possible conclusions in regard to the date and authorship of the Epistle of James. The biggest question that needs to be addressed is of course the suggestion that the work was composed by James the Just, brother of Jesus. On examination of the internal and external evidence of the Epistle and the breadth of scholarship that has helped contribute to our understanding it seems that the suggestion of Jacobean authorship is untenable. The most important arguments against Jacobean authorship can be outlined below. Nowhere in the text of the Epistle is it claimed that James the Just, Brother of Jesus was the author. The suggestion of Jacobean authorship is the result of a process of
38

elimination the disqualifies all other men named =IavkwboV who appear in the New Testament save for James the Brother of Jesus who is mentioned in Mark 6.3 and its parallels, 1 Corinthians 15.7, Galatians 1.19, 2.9, 2.12, Acts 12.17, 15.13, 21.18 and Jude 1.1. It would seem that by volume of reference that this James would be the likeliest figure to have composed the work, but only in considering the appearance of the name =IavkwboV in the New Testament. However, the name =IavkwboV was one of the most common male names in the Ancient Near East as was its Semitic equivalent Jacob. The identification as the Epistles purported sender =IavkwboV as James the Just seems to take for granted that any other person with that name could have composed the work, without making a clear appeal to the authority of the historical James the Just. The simple prescript of 1.1 offers no elaboration upon the identity of the Epistles author, and the contents of the text offer no further evidence as to his identity. Recent commentators such as F.F. Bruce and J. Adamson have argued that the lack of identification on behalf of the author and the fact that no attempt has been made to delineate his audience suggest that the work must have conveyed a degree of authority and familiarity. In this view, James the Just would have been a figure whose authority and identity were self-evident enough to explain the lack of identification. However, in order to determine if James the Just composed without any elaboration of his identity or authority we would require other Jacobean texts to responsibly compare on the basis of style, formula and syntax. Unlike with the Pauline corpus, we possess no Jacobean

39

corpus with which to engage a cross-textual examination.81 More to the point, we have no evidence that James the Just composed anything at all, or at least anything more than the present Epistle. As a result we may not construe anything of the Epistles prescript as evidence of the historical epistolary conventions of James the Just. In the authentic letters of Paul we see clear evidence that Paul took great pains to identify and embellish his own authority and to identify his recipients. 1 Peter is also good evidence of a clear epistolary prescript that does not take for granted Peters authority and pre-eminence. Jude meanwhile is evidence of author appealing to or at least pointing out his relationship with James as an endorsement of its authority. The language, style and thought of the Epistle have been consistently cited by commentators such as Dibelius and Cantinat as being prohibitive for authorship by James the Just. In many respects the arguments against the apostle Peter authoring 1 Peter are the same as those against James the Just authoring the Epistle of James. At the forefront of the issue is whether or not we could expect a Galilean fisherman of humble origins whose mother tongue was Aramaic to have composed a richly textured and intelligently structured work in fluid Greek. The answer to this is complicated, but appears to be negative. The good Greek of James does not reveal to us if the author was born a Greek, though it does reveal that he enjoyed some degree of formal education; if not an

81

The Nag Hammadi James texts (The Apocryphon of James I.I, The First Apocalypse of James V.III, The Second Apocalypse of James V.IV) cannot be considered as deriving from James the Just as they have been demonstrated as later gnostic compositions. The Apocryphon text which takes the form of an imagined letter from James to an unknown recipient shares nothing in common with the introductory structure seen in the canonical epistle. The Apocryphon even suggests that James composed the work originally in Hebrew, though there is little evidence to suggest that both documents were composed in anything other than Greek. The style of the Apocryphon and its concerns do not seem to bear any ideological, stylistic or theological resemblance to the Epistle of James. Epiphanius records that the Ebionites used a document called the Ascents of James (Haer. xxx, 16) though this document apparently does not survive, if it is indeed different from the preserved Epistle. 40

advanced education in rhetoric or philosophy. We may more safely suggest that the author had some form of middle education that would have included study of subjects like geometry, arithmetic, music and reading of such classical authors as Homer. While it is not beyond the pale of reason that Galilean fishermen in the first century may have found entrepreneurial necessity in learning conversational Greek, the level of Greek in James is more complex than conversational Greek. Examinations of the structure and form of the Epistle have identified careful creation of rhetorical arguments such as the Rhetorica ad Herennium. If we are to suggest that James the Just was literate enough to compose the Epistle then we must also say he was educated enough to infuse its text with distinctly Hellenistic thought and form. It would seem this suggestion would need to be based on a complete lack of historical evidence that would account for the literacy, education and thought of James the Just. As such, it would be extremely impossible to project any of these qualities onto James and then presume he composed the Epistle with any certainty. If James the brother of Jesus were the author of the Epistle, then it is amazing that in 5.10-11 it is Job and not Jesus who serves as an example of willingness to suffer. It is equally amazing that the author makes no reference to the life of Jesus at all, nor his death and resurrection. The brother of Jesus would undoubtedly have been able to offer some unique insight into the life of Jesus. While we should not expect lengthy sections of biographical material in every communication we could imagine from James the Just, we would at least expect some guarantee or endorsement of the legitimacy of his tradition. The Epistle presents with no attempt on behalf of the author to legitimize or actualize his
41

connection with Jesus, nor as mentioned above, does it even claim to have been written by James the Just at all. The situation presupposed by 2.14-26 points to a historical situation at the end of the first century. The social conflict espoused by James can also be seen in the writings of Luke, the Pastoral Epistles, and in Revelation. These texts are all representative of a social sea-change that affected some of the early Christian communities. More and more wealthy adherents had entered the Church increasing the disparity between the rich and the poor members, and intensifying the debate between them. In James 2.14-26 the conflict over faith and works appears to point to a post-Pauline period as those Churches that had previously been a product of the Pauline mission saw the unity of new being and new action come theologically and philosophically untethered. The polemical object of 2.14-26 cannot be seen as Paul himself, so we must either assume that James the Just was largely ignorant of Pauline theology82 or that the conflict apparent in the Epistle stems from a post-Pauline situation.83 The Deuteropauline letters and 2 Peter 3.15-16 illustrate that the debate in James 2.14-26 was continued on different theological levels and with different emphases well into the first and second centuries. If the Letter of James was

82

For argument, it could be suggested that James presupposes a very early stage in the faith/works debate. James lack of detail concerning Pauline theology and the content of his arguments could be the result of a lack of detailed information on James behalf. Thus, the Epistle of James could be seen as James opening salvo against Paul and an argument against James abstraction of Pauline theology. Thus the Epistle may have anticipated the backlash of Pauls ideas within his own Churches. An associate of James could have encountered Pauls new theology and transmitted it to James or James could have received his information from Paul himself in Jerusalem. In any case, the issue of Jacobean authorship would still need to rectify the issues of language, style, the lack of a specific claim of authorship, the lack of uniquely distinct Christian content and the problematic canon and manuscript history of the text.
83

F. Musner considers James to have been written at the high point of the debate initiated by Paul on the issue of faith and works. He however tries to get around the problem of language and style by suggesting: Perhaps the linguistic and stylistic clothing of the letter derives from a Greek-speaking coworker; this assumption still has nothing to do with a secretary hypothesis. Mussner, Jakobusbrief, 8. Martin Hengel also understands James as being a anti-Pauline polemic written during James lifetime: The author stands so close to his physical brother that he does not find it necessary constantly to appeal to his authority or to quote him. Hengel, Jakobusbrief, 264. 42

written by James the Just than it is remarkable that the Deuteropaulines reflect no evidence of James sharp criticism of Paul. Moreover, James is not mentioned at all in the Deuteropauline letters. If the suggestion that James the Just authored the Epistle is untenable, who then can we suggest authored it? The majority of modern scholarship seems to favor a pseudonymous identification. Whether or not the authors name was =IavkwboV is unclear, if he writes in the character of James the Just then we may conclude that it was not. We may also suggest that the letter was written by another =IavkwboV who is unknown to us beyond this Epistle. In either case, postulating the identity of pseudonymous author is rarely fruitful, though understanding something of his identity may be possible. As stated above, the author is clearly skilled in written Greek and was likely educated to some degree in matters of rhetoric and Jewish philosophy and theology. He displays a knowledge of the Septagint though he is not entirely bound to quoting from this text. He also appears to have been conscious of early Christian discourse particularly Q/ Matthew, The Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Peter. References in Epistle to hamsin (1.11), geevnnhV (3.6), ewV lavbh/ provi&mon kai o[yimon (5.7) and the juxtaposition of fresh and bitter spring water (3.11) seem to suggest that the author was either Palestinian in origin or had some intimate knowledge of the geography and climate of Palestine. It is not easy to distinguish what the case may be as the Epistle is so thoroughly, and fore-mostly, replete with Hellenistic ideas. It is however not improbable to suggest that the author lived or wrote in Palestine, preferably in a place where Hellenistic culture was prominent and the influence of Hellenistic ideas co-existed richly with existing Jewish traditions. The most
43

obvious suggestions for such a place are Alexandria and Jerusalem, though any location along that axis would not be unreasonable. Allusions in James to texts such as Q/Matthew are easily explained by Palestinian provenance and similarity with 1 Peter , which likely originated in Asia Minor, is also possible due to the proximate relationship of the texts. The orientation of the prescript can also assume a literal and not metaphorical impart if we locate James within Palestine, or Jerusalem in particular, though this is far from clear. The date of the text cannot be determined with much precision, though a narrower window can be suggested. Much of the scholarship that has refuted Jacobean authorship has also suggested a date for the Epistle sometime between 70-130CE. Since the dating of the Epistle prior to 70CE is is largely contingent upon positive identification of its author as James the Just such a dating seems unlikely. The pseudepigraphical character of the Epistle of James would indicate that the work emanated from a time after the presumed death of James in 62CE. It is likely that the Epistle dates to the final decades of the first century or early decades of the second where it better reflects the theological concerns of the Church during that time (rich poor conflict; disputed interpretation of Paul).

44

Table III The Epistle of James: Summary of Possible Date, Authorship and Potential Provenance.

Author

An anonymous JewishChristian author, educated in Greek prose and rhetoric and grounded in a predominantly Hellenistic construction of Judaism. He was also conscious of other early Christian texts such as Q/Matthew, The Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Peter. Most likely sometime between 70-110CE, though a later date is possible. A Hellenistic influenced city somewhere along a Palestinian-Alexandrian axis. The city was likely a place where the influence of new wealthy Christian converts had divided the existing assemblies and where questions had arisen amongst members of how to respond to the encroachment of Paulinism.

Date

Provenance

45

Works Cited Bainton, R. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Mentor Books, 1958. Bray, G., ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude. New Testament vol. XI. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 2000. Cargal, T.B. Restoring the Diaspora : Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of James. SBLDS 144. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Chancey, M. How Jewish Was Jesus Galilee? Biblical Archaeology Review 33, no. 4 (July/August 2007): 42-50. Chancey, M. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. SNTS 118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Cramer, J.A., ed. Catena Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1840. Davids, P.H. The Epistle of James. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. DeWette, W.M.L. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1826. DeWette, W.M.L. Kurze Erklrung der Briefe des Petrus, Judas und Jakobus. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1865. Dibelius, M. A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Hermeneia. Revised by H. Greevens. Translated by M.A. Williams. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. Ehrman, Bart D and Andrew S. Jacobs, eds. Christianity in Late Antiquity 300-450CE: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Guthrie, D. New Testament Introduction. 3rd ed. Downers Grove: Illinois, 1970. Hadidian, D.Y. Palestinian Pictures in the Epistle of James. ExpTim 63 (1951-2): 227-28. von Harnack, A. The Origin of the New Testament and the Most Important Consequences of the new Creation. trans. by. J.R. Wilkinson. London: Williams & Norgate, 1925. Hartin, P.J. James and the Q Sayings of Jesus. JSNTSsup 47. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.
46

Hengel, M. "Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik," in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, ed. by G. F. Hawthorn and O. Betz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Hurst, D. Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles of Bede the Venerable. Kalamazoo, Cistercian Publications, 1985. Johnson, L.T. Brother of Jesus Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Johnson, L.T. The Letter of James. Anchor Bible Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Jlicher, A. An Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by Janet Penrose. London: Smith Elder, 1904. Kern, F.H. Der Brief Jakobi. Utersucht und Eklaert. Tbingen: Fues, 1838. Kennedy, H.A.A. The Hellenistic Atmosphere of the Epistle of James, Ex ser. 8:2 (1911): 37-52. Kittel, G. Der Geschichtliche Ort des Jakobusbriefes ZNW 41. (1942): 71-105. Kittel, G. Die Stellung des Jakobus zu Judentum und Heidenschristentum ZNW 30 (1931): 145-157. Knox, W.L. The Epistle of St. James. JTS 46. (1945): 10-17. Kmmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament: Revised and Enlarged. Translated by Howard Clark Kee. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975. Laws, S.S. A Commentary on the Epistle of James. London: A&C Black Publishers, 1980. Massebieau, L. L ptre de Jacques est-elle louevre dun Chrtien. RHR 32 (1895): 249-283. Mayor, J.B. The Epistle of St. James. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishing, 1990. Mitton, C.L. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1966. Moffatt, J. The General Epistles: James, Peter and Judas: The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928.

47

Moulton, J.H. The Epistle of James and the Sayings of Jesus Ex. ser 7:4 (1907): 45-55. Moulton, J.H. and G. Miligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930. Mussner, Franz Der Jakobusbrief. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 13:1. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1965. Oesterley, W.E. The General Epistles of James. Expositors Commentary vol. IV. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. Greek Testament

Osiek, Carolyn. The Shepherd of Hermas. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999. Parry, R. St. J. A Discussion of the General Epistle of St. James. London: CJ Clary & Sons, 1903. Perdue, L.G. Paraenesis and the Epistle of James. ZNW 72 (1981): 241-256. Sanday, W. "The Cheltenham List of the Canonical Books of the New Testament and of the Writings of Cyprian," Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica III. Oxford: Oxford Press, 1891. Schrage, W. Der Jakobusbrief in Die Katholischen Briefe. 11th ed. eds. H. Balz and W. Schrage. NTD 10 Gttingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1973. Seitz, O.J.F. Relationship of the Shepherd of Hermas to the Epistle of James, JBL 63:2 (1944), 131-140. Spitta, F. Der Brief des Jakobus untersucht. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896. Verheyden, J. The Shepherd of Hermas, ExpTim 117:10 (2006): 397-401. Wace, H., and William C. Piercy, eds. Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century AD, with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999. Watson, D.F. Gehnna Pages 926-928 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. 2. ed. David Noel Friedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Windisch, Hans. Die katholischen Briefe. 3rd rev. ed. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951.

48

49