The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (162 page)

__________________

¹
J. Calvin, “Commentary on the Epistle of James,” in
Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles
, trans. J. Owen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 227. Calvin conjectured that it was unlikely that a nonapostle would be considered a “pillar” of the church (Gal 2:9).

Arguments against James's authorship are essentially fourfold. First, the writer of the letter is quite skilled in Greek. His style is described by R. Martin as “fluent and elegant” and rich in the Hellenistic linguistic virtues.
⁵
Moreover, the writer often used the LXX. It is deemed impossible for a Galilean peasant to pen such elegant Greek and unlikely that he would use the LXX.
⁶
This can be countered on two fronts. (1) The Greek in James is, as D. Moo stated, “far from literary Greek.” (2) The use of the words and concepts in James are within mainstream use.
⁷
As the leader of the church in Jerusalem, James dealt with many Hellenists (see Acts 6), and a great number would be dependent on Greek.
⁸
The classic refutation is J. N. Sevenster's work
Do You Know Greek?
Sevenster investigated how deeply Greek had penetrated Palestinian Judaism, specifically regarding James, and has concluded that the letter is certainly not beyond the ability of a Palestinian Jew. He stated, “[T]he
possibility can no longer be precluded that a Palestinian Jewish Christian of the first century A.D. wrote an epistle in good Greek.”
⁹

The related issue is the letter's use of the LXX. As it turns out, the question is complicated. James does not use simple strings of exact citations from the LXX.
¹⁰
The text forms are mixed at best and difficult to isolate. Davids concluded that only one citation in the letter is clearly from the LXX.
¹¹
The most that can be said, therefore, is that James knew the LXX but was not limited to it.
¹²
This is not at odds with what one would expect from a Palestinian Jew living in cosmopolitan Jerusalem, including James the Just.

Second, the letter lacks specifics expected from James the Just. Some propose that this James, had he been the author, would certainly have mentioned his relationship to Jesus. In contrast, the letter only mentions the Lord Jesus two times (1:1; 2:1). This is said to be evidence of a further problem, the lack of specifically Christian material. These objections, however, turn out to be invalid upon closer scrutiny. The veneration of the family of the Lord is clearly a phenomenon beyond the lifetime of James.
¹³
The restraint exercised in the letter is best explained by its authenticity.

Regarding the objection that there is little overt Christian content in James, it should be noted that he is demonstrably immersed in the teachings of Jesus.
¹⁴
Moreover, P. Davids noted that references to salvation (1:18) and church structure (5:14) and oblique references to Jesus as “judge,” “Lord,” and “the name” lead to the conclusion that “only with great difficulty can one fit these examples—and the larger whole of which they are example—into a purely Jewish context.”
¹⁵

Table 17.1: The Teachings of Jesus in James

The third objection to Jacobean authorship is that the church fathers were late in canonizing the book. By the fourth century, the letter was recognized by both the Eastern and Western churches.
¹⁶
However, before then the book endured a somewhat checkered career.
¹⁷
Rather than questions of authorship or the orthodoxy of the book, the pressing issue among the church fathers of the third and fourth centuries was the lack of citation by the early
church fathers. The
Shepherd of Hermas
likely refers to James (mid-second century),
¹⁸
and 1
Clement
(c. 96) apparently cites James.
¹⁹
These, however, are the exceptions rather than the rule. Origen (c. 185—254) is the first known father to cite the book as from James the Just, although it is said that Clement (c. 150—215), Origen's predecessor at Alexandria, wrote a commentary on the book.
²⁰
Eusebius (c. 260—340) placed James among the
antilegomena
(the disputed works), although he himself had no doubts about the book.
²¹
Those who dispute its authenticity included the Syrian church because Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428) rejected James as part of his rejection of all the General Epistles.
²²
The Western church was equally ambiguous about the book but eventually embraced it under the influence of Jerome (c. 345—420).
²³
The way Jerome put it, James gained acceptance “little by little.”
²⁴
Most likely owing to the influence of Augustine, the book was fully accepted in the West, as evidenced by the Councils of Carthage and Hippo.
²⁵

The book, then, has a curious history of a pronounced absence in the writings of the church fathers up until the late fourth century. Martin may be correct in noting that the Gnostics venerated James as the receptor of true knowledge, thus creating a mistrust of the letter.
²⁶
Yet, as Moo observed, the evidence is that the book was “not so much
rejected
as
neglected.
²⁷
Apparently, this neglect did not stem from a belief that the book was spurious. Rather, it appears that a combination of factors led to the above-described state of affairs in the third and fourth centuries. Most likely, the book was first neglected in the second century, probably due to the nature of second-century debates surrounding Gnosticism and the nature of Christ.
²⁸
Subsequently, the book apparently became suspect in the minds of a few because of this lack of reference.

The fourth argument against James's authorship is that some suggest that the outlook concerning the Torah in the book is in contrast with what is otherwise known about James and his commitment to Jewish tradition. For Dibelius, this is the “decisive argument.”
²⁹
That the law is “the royal law” (2:8) and the “law of liberty” (1:25; 2:12) suggests a
downplaying of the ritual matters of the law in favor of its ethical demands.
³⁰
The author of James makes no mention of food laws, circumcision, Sabbath observance, or Gentile inclusion, making it impossible, it is argued, for James the Just to have written the book. Scholars such as Dibelius have alleged that this is problematic on two fronts. First, since James was placed in the canon after Paul's letters were included, the fact that no particularly Jewish matters such as food laws or circumcision are mentioned in the book points to a late time of composition beyond James's lifetime when these matters were no longer an issue. Second, the NT elsewhere depicts James as an advocate of legalistic piety and of a ritualistic preference for Jewish tradition over innovation (see Gal 2:12), which would have been incompatible with the ethics of the letter.
³¹

This line of reasoning, however, is built on questionable interpretations regarding James and equally questionable judgments concerning the date of the letter. Regarding the latter, an early date for James has long been suggested, and the issues related to the law are arguments from silence that are easier to explain from the standpoint of an early rather than a later date. Lack of mention of food laws, circumcision, and other similar issues is more likely from a date before these practices became controversial, and thus assumed rather than forgotten. Second, the picture of James that is presented is more developed from tradition than from the NT. James (especially in Acts) certainly practiced a Jewish form of Christianity. But in the NT, James settled the issue of Gentile inclusion (Acts 15:13—21), rejoiced in Paul's ministry (Acts 21:18—20), and seems to be more concerned about Jewish evangelism than about preserving rituals (Acts 21:20—25).
³²
He is certainly no pure ritualist.

Finally, the most persistent complaint against James's authorship is the thorny issue that 2:14—26 creates in connection with justification by faith as taught by Paul. Paul is usually seen as the stimulus to which James is the response.
³³
Generally, today, James's response is seen not as a direct response to Paul but, at the very most, a response to a misunderstanding of Paul. The author is therefore said to respond to Paul's letters and to presuppose a clear understanding of Paul. Chronologically, this puts the letter beyond the lifetime of James the Just, who died in the year 63.
³⁴

But this assessment is based on some questionable presuppositions about James, Paul, and early Christianity.
³⁵
Johnson was quite right in noting that “where they [James and Paul] appear (from our perspective) to disagree (Jas 2:14—26), the disagreement is at least
partially due to the presupposition we bring that they are debating a single issue.”
³⁶
As shown below, the “James versus Paul” view is neither necessary nor compelling.
³⁷

If the book is not from James the Just, then who wrote it? Many think the letter is merely a pseudepigraphical document, written by someone other than James while attaching the document to him for some unknown reason.
³⁸
Some who hold this view consider the book of James an intentional forgery. Others believe the letter was originally an anonymous work that was only later attributed to James. Perhaps, they conjecture, James was originally a Jewish document to which Christian references were added at a later point.
³⁹

However, apart from the problems noted above, the austerity of the author's description at 1:1 deflates any notion of intentional pseudepigraphy The author described himself merely as “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” It is more than unlikely that a pseudepigrapher would be so bland in his personal description. Most of the pseudepigraphical works attributed to James (and one addressed to him) cannot resist the descriptions “brother of the Lord” and “Bishop of Jerusalem.”
⁴⁰
The description in the canonical sources is inexplicable if a forgery. J. A. T. Robinson was no doubt correct when he wrote that “the argument for pseudonymity is weaker here than with any other of the New Testament epistles.”
⁴¹
The same difficulties arise with those who conjecture that the letter was originally anonymous but that the name “James” was added later.
⁴²

A mediating position understands that the letter has its origins in James the Just but has been edited and presented by one of his (presumably Hellenistic) disciples. Martin defended this view since he found the idiomatic difficulties compelling and noted (regarding Jerome's statement) that “some say” the letter was “published [Lat.
edita
] by another under his name.”
⁴³
But Jerome in no way endorsed the idea, and the theory that James the Just could not have employed this level of Greek is doubtful as well. Guthrie rightly noted that this view cannot explain the shaping of the material in James into a letter rather than
another literary form.
⁴⁴
Also, an editor who added material late in the first century surely would have identified the author more clearly.

Yet another view posits a different James as the author, usually James the son of Alphaeus.
⁴⁵
Both Luther and Erasmus suggested a now unknown “James.”
⁴⁶
These identifications are not readily followed in modern circles. Any other candidate must be well known enough and wield enough authority to be simply identified as “James.”

Having found the various alternative proposals wanting, the following evidence supports the view that James was the author—James the half brother of Jesus, or “James the Just,” as he came to be identified by the early church. First, the reference to “James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” at the beginning of the letter (1:1) suggests that this James was a person with considerable name recognition and equally great authority. Otherwise, it would have been necessary for the author to provide additional information and distinguishing characteristics about himself. James the Just, as the leader of the church in Jerusalem, fits both of these descriptions unlike any other person by that name in the first century. For another James to be so important but quickly to fade into obscurity is highly unlikely.