New Testament Study Helps:
    James

James

This is the first of the catholic or general epistles, so called because they lack indications of a specific address. It is consequently more difficult to reconstruct the historical situation to which they belong. Yet careful criticism can arrive at some indication of their circumstances. The epistle of James has suffered much through misunderstanding, the most notable example of which was Martin Luther's oft-quoted description of it as an epistle of straw. The course of nineteenth century criticism dealt a further blow against the epistle and has left a general inclination to regard James as a product of an inferior Christian outlook in contrast to the strong substance of Pauline theology. The epistle of James can be rightly understood only within the context of the whole New testament Scriptures. Its contribution is very different from that of Paul's letters and yet it was a true instinct that led the church to include it in its canon, for it represents an age of transition, without knowledge of which our appreciation of early Christian history would be much poorer and our grasp of ethical Christianity incomplete.

1. Authorship

The earliest Christian writer to mention this epistle as the work of James was Origen, who also clearly recognized the epistle as scripture. There is no mention of it in the Muratorian Canon (which also makes no mention of Hebrews or Peter's letters), and is also omitted by the African Canon. Eusebius' evidence is interesting, for although he classes it among the disputed books, he cites it as if it were genuine. He mentions that the Epistle of James was said to be by the Lord's brother, but that some regarded it as "spurious". (2.23). All that may be certainly deduced from this is that not all Christians of Eusebius' acquaintance regarded it as authentic. What hesitancy there was at this time may well be accounted for by uncertainty over the identification of "James". Jerome similarly voices some uncertainty over it and in one place regards it as published by another in the name of James, the Lord's brother (De Vir Ill, 2) and yet he also cites from it as from Scripture. Another evidence unfavorable to the authenticity of James is its omission from the early Syriac Canon. In the second century external evidence there is evident a great difference in the way the epistle is treated by the east and West chruches. The difference is explained from the fact that the epistle was probably written at Jerusalem and addressed to Jews of the East Dispersion. It did not profess to be written by an apostle or to be addressed to Gentile churches, and it seemed to contradict the teaching of the great apostle to the Gentiles. These would contribute to James' reception in the East as authentic and in the West with suspicion.

2. The Addressees

On this question there are several possibilities: that the readers were unconverted Jews, or else Christian Jews, or else Hellenists, or else Christians generally, both Jew and Gentile. At first sight, the epistles opening "to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations" (1:1) would seem to point quite conclusively to the Jews. Such an interpretation would be in full accord with the technical Jewish use of the term "dispersion" to describe those of their number living outside Palestine. In this case the addressees would be Jewish Christians scattered throughout the empire. But since 1 Peter attaches a spiritual meaning to the term "dispersion" which includes Gentiles, the possibility of a similar spiritual sense intended here by James cannot be excluded.

3. Date

The alternatives for dating James are easily stated. If the epistle was by James, the Lord's brother, it must have been written before 62 AD, the most likely date for James' martyrdom. If some other author produced the letter, it must have been done only after an interval of some years from James' death. Advocates of the traditional authorship may be subdivided into two groups in respect to dating: those who prefer a date before 50 AD (around the time of the Jerusalem Council) and those who date it towards the end of James' life. Those who take any other view of authorship vary between late first century and late second century, the majority preferring a date about 125 AD. With such wide variation in the results of different investigations, it must be expected that the processes by which these results are obtained will in themselves prove somewhat inconclusive.

4. Outline

In progress