From: A Torah
Commentary on James 1-2 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2014
[Page 76]
Introduction
2:
Authorship
The writer of this epistle
identifies himself as a “James” who is “a bondservant of God and of the Lord
Jesus Christ” (1:1). The only other data
comes from his speaking of “we” who are “teachers” (3:1), which may suggest
that he defines his position of authority in terms of being a faithful and
reliable teacher of God’s will[1]
rather than in terms of being an apostle or even kinsman of Jesus (see
below). On the other hand, the “we” may
be the kind of accommodative “we” a person often inserts into a sermon so the
audience will know it applies not just to the audience but to the speaker as
well.
In its lack of elaboration, the
vagueness of description has been a thorn in the flesh to generations of
scholars and commentators. Yet in its
very brevity it sets up the implicit claim to be a well known James[2] and
an authoritative James. “An
unknown man without a history” can not be the author claimed by the epistle; it
has to be a James who was in a position and place to be regarded as automatically
authoritative.[3]
Virtually no one seems to challenge
the notion that this is the same James as mentioned in Galatians 2,
[Page 77]
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I
withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would
eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself,
fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And
the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas
was carried away with their hypocrisy.
Whether these men carried a legitimate
message from James or not, their ability to successfully invoke his prestige (=
authoritativeness) was sufficient to drive Peter to reverse his recent behavior
in
To us James seems a virtual nobody, but in his day he was so
influential that he got a leading apostle to change his public
behavior! When he wrote or taught—or
seemed to have—people listened. His
words and views carried immense clout within the believing community. Who then was this mysterious (to us)
figure of James?
The James of
The kinsman of Jesus identification. A
common belief is that the James is the
brother of Jesus, the James of the
Regardless of the exact relationship, it is generally assumed that he
is identical with the James of the
What is often forgotten is that the authority of prestige and respect
does not have to carry with it the connotation of holding a higher
official post. If the surrounding Roman
world had its “status rankings”—in which great influence did not have to
correlate with holding an official position—why would it be surprising if the
church acted similarly? What higher
status than physical brother of the Lord was anyone likely to ever have? It would surely automatically bring a degree
of deference that would not be given to others.
Possible echoes between the life of the James of
Acts 15 and Galatians 2 and the teaching of the epistle. There were four brothers of Jesus and at
least two sisters. Mark 6:3 provides the
names of the males but simply lumps the females together simply as “sisters” in
the plural. Hence, whether these are
literal biological kin of Joseph via Mary or not, the family group consisted of
at least six children plus Jesus.
[Page 79] Assuming that Joseph died
while they were still minors, that meant a family of seven were trying to make
do without an adult male in a society and time when the resources to help them
were minimal. Could the emphasis in
James 1:26-27 on helping widows in their distress grow out of any better
societal background than this, the testing by fire of personal experience?[8]
We see James at work at the
Does this not sound like the James of the epistle, calling for control
of what one says and avoiding inflaming situations between brethren? If the same James who wrote those pleas was
not behind this agenda of reconciliation in the book of the same name, it was
one who thought extraordinarily like him.[9]
If one accepts the common portrait of this James as an extremely
Torah observant Jew—and hence the personal example that inspired the protestors
mentioned by Paul in Galatians—this case clearly shows that in actual
practice he attempted to “cut slack” for others even if he himself would
not--or simply preferred not--to do certain things himself.
[Page 80] In short, a peacemaker in
the image of the desirable Christian painted in the book of James. And one whose preferences were being markedly
twisted out of shape in Galatians 2 to justify a more extreme approach than his
own.
Right name and city but wrong James? The option is far from unknown to make James
of
Certainly, there could have been such a third party—the name
“James” was common in Jewish society of that era.[10] But to rule out two obvious choices—blood
relationship or apostle—in order to conjecture someone without either
background, seemingly coming out of nowhere, to become de facto leader in the
Jerusalem church . . . and to have written this letter . . . does seem an
incredible “reach.” He did so without
leaving a shadow of substance for us to work with to establish his identity it
seems. Isn’t this simply pushing
conjecture too far?
Nomenclature for the brother of Jesus in
[Page 81] “Just” is normally taken in
the sense of “righteous”—a name which would argue for moral excellence of an
extraordinary degree. Yet if we take
“just” in the sense of being just toward others and demanding of all just
behavior, we could see from the surviving record how that use of the
term would be justified as well: note
his unwillingness to bind circumcision on non-Jews (in the book of Acts) and
his stern demand for just treatment of others in the book of James.
Hence any the moral and religious overtones of being “righteous” would
seemingly grow out of his demands concerning proper behavior in general
rather than obedience to the ceremonial demands of the Mosaical system in
particular—which many think was pivotal to him and which they define him in
terms of. However much that may or may
not have been the case, we can clearly document his demand for proper
and fair treatment of others—a principle of wide application both in Christian
Jewish and Christian Gentile societies.
Some have attempted to reinforce the argument for authorship by James
the kinsman of Jesus (and a pre-fall of
[Page 82] Arguments against the brother of Jesus being the author of
the book. Several lines of
argument have been developed to accomplish this goal:
(1) The author does not make a claim to any
physical relationship.[13] Indeed, there is nothing in the text that
would make one expect such a relationship to have existed.[14] This has led some to conclude that the
attribution was a later rationalization to justify accepting a non-apostolic
book into the canon.[15]
Furthermore, assuming that the James
was an actual kinsman of the Lord, upon what grounds would one explain the lack
of an explicit identification in the text?
2 Corinthians
On the other hand, being a close
relationship gave him a greater opportunity to serve and be recognized than
others would have had. Flip that over,
the close relationship also created the grave danger that more would be
expected out of him because of that close relationship than he could
ever live up to. Hence he would have no
reason to deny it, but no reason to go out of his way to stress it either. Those who heard him or received letters from
him, would already know the situation.
It would not need to be mentioned.
(2) The lack of clear cut, explicit personal
references to the life of Jesus are pointed to, which is counted odd as
coming from a literal kinsman of the Lord.[17] On the other hand, how much of His ministry
and teaching would we expect him to have personally observed? As a nay-sayer, would we expect him to have
observed much at all of the ministry?
[Page 83] (3) The lack of explicit quotations from Jesus’
teaching may also be counted as odd if the writer was a literal
kinsman. The same situation explains
this as the lack of biographical detail.
Since he had not followed Jesus during the ministry because of His lack
of faith (John 7:5), he would have heard little of the teaching first hand. Hence one might well expect vaguer allusions
to His teachings, such as are found in the epistle, rather than direct
quotation or citation of specific events.
He knew of them but was not in a position to speak of personal
knowledge or in the detail that personal knowledge would have permitted.
On the other hand, one must be
careful not to over-emphasize James’ lack of information. As James D. Yoder suggests, “We may reasonably
assume that Jesus shared His understanding of Scripture with other members of the
family in years prior to his public ministry.”[18] Furthermore, even if he did not hear many of
the individual parables and discourses, James was almost certainly familiar
with Jesus’ attitudes and doctrines through interaction with Him on the family
level.
In addition, there are
conceptual/doctrinal parallels between the teaching of James and Jesus which
argue strongly that he was well acquainted with them even though he never
explicitly quotes or cites them.[19] (We examine these in detail in the next
chapter.)
(4) Argumentation against the author of the book
being the same James as in Acts 15 and Galatians. (This is not quite the same thing as arguing
against his kinship with Jesus. It
would, however, require us to choose between the James of the epistle
and that of Acts 15/Galatians as the physical kin of the Lord. The other one would be the apostle
James—though, in all fairness, there were two such apostolic “Jameses”—one the
son of Zebedee [the one assumed to be the most prominent in the New Testament],
Matthew
[Page 84] It is argued that the picture of
James in the New Testament is that of a strict Torah observer and that emphasis
on this is missing in the epistle,[20]
where the emphasis is on practical morality[21]
rather than ritualism. Messengers from
James took the view that a Jew should not eat with a Gentile (Galatians
Furthermore the ascetic, ritualistic
James is an image certainly overdrawn by later commentators. James is also pictured as not demanding
that those of a different ethnic heritage than his observe the ritual demands--the
When James urged Paul to undertake a cultic practice apparently common
in the Temple, he specifically does so in order to dilute the suspicion of fellow
Jews that Paul was telling ethnically Jewish Christians to abandon the rituals
spoken of in the Pentateuch (Acts 21:20-26).
There is no demand that Gentile Christians follow them or any indication
that James personally felt it was necessary on any doctrinal basis; it was
simply a tactical maneuver to attempt to dissolve unjust criticism. This and the fact that (in our
judgement) the letter was of a very
early date--prior to the “Judaizer” controversies of Paul’s ministry--would
explain the epistle’s stress on observance of law as an abstract issue rather
than an emphasis on ritualism.
Furthermore the epistle, though it
repeatedly exhibits traditional Jewish concerns and ways of thinking,[23]
conspicuously omits those areas that would be stumbling blocks to
Gentiles: “circumcision, Sabbath
observance, dietary and ritual purity laws, and temple worship, are absent in
James.”[24] Although one can theoretically account for
this on the grounds that James took such for granted,[25]
even that would require that he valued these as of lesser importance
than those matters that he chooses to discuss.
Otherwise [Page 85] they would
have played a prominent role in his discussion as they did in so much of then
contemporary Judaism. On the other hand,
the omission is also what one would anticipate in light of other New Testament
epistles, which stress that these were things of the old religious order that
were no longer obligatory.
The James the Apostle Scenario of Authorship
The second major possibility is that
the James was James the apostle. (Apostolic authorship claims seem to always
go hand-in-hand with the assumption that this was the James who was the son of
Zebedee rather than the one who was offspring of Alphaeus.) This apostolic tie-in would explain
the presence of so many apparent passing allusions to the teaching of Jesus
being found in the letter. (Proving they
are such is not always so easy: see the
next chapter.) The presence of so much
is at a minimum unexpected (if not an outright oddity) when one works from the
assumption that the author was a kinsman of the Lord who was not even a
believer during Jesus’ earthly ministry.
He would not have heard the teaching in detail anywhere near as much as
an apostle would have.
The emphasis in the epistle on the
evil of bickering and seeking for leadership, as well as the need for patience,
would certainly be lessons the apostle James would have remembered well for the
rebukes aimed at the apostles over such matters during the earthly
ministry. The description of Jesus as
“Lord of glory” (2:1) could be an allusion to the Mount of Transfiguration; 2
Peter 1:16-18 speaks of Jesus receiving such “glory” upon that occasion. Likewise there are some interesting
conceptual parallels between James’ teaching and that Jesus gave on the
The case certainly deserves more
attention than it has traditionally been given, but concededly falls
significantly short of clear proof. Of
course, the case for Jesus’ kinsman as author isn’t all that much stronger
either except from the standpoint of the attribution being far more common in
the “church fathers.”
[Page 86] The identification of the
author with the apostle has been rejected on the ground that the writer does
not call himself an apostle[27] and
that the presumption of apostolic authorship would have avoided many of the
later questionings of the books canonicity.[28] On the other hand the author of First,
Second, and Third John never names himself yet is often believed to be
the apostle John--an identification that seems sound to this commentator as
well. If accepted in regard to even one
of these epistles, then it constitutes significant evidence that a person did
not have to explicitly identify himself as an “apostle” for a writing to be
validly accepted as such.
On the other hand these epistles (especially Second John and Third
John) enjoyed a less than enthusiastic acceptance in certain quarters.[29] Hence these writings could also be
introduced as evidence on the opposite side of the question, of the pitfalls of
not making the assertion explicit even when it was a fact.
A more significant (and quite common)
argument is that the chronology won’t fit an authorship by the apostle. As one student of the New Testament canon has
written, “James the son of Zebedee was martyred under Herod Agrippa I, not
later than the spring of AD 44; and that an apostle would write an encyclical
letter before this date is so unlikely that it does not need to be considered.”[30] On the other hand, if the internal evidence
is as strong as I perceive it to be for an early date, a composition in the
early 40s of the first century is quite feasible.
And if feasible, then there is no inherent objection to the writer
having been the apostle. Furthermore,
the relatively early execution of James combined with its noncontroversial
contents--within the context of the Judaizing and quasi-gnostic controversies--would
go far to explain the relative lack of direct impact upon post-apostolic
writings.
A variant of the chronological
argument is that James the apostle died too early “to have become an
authoritative figure for the churches outside of
Our line of reasoning has left out a
very important element, however. An
apostle was an inherent authority figure to anyone who (1) accepted the
legitimacy of Jesus’ teaching as found in such places as Matthew 18:18 and (2)
who recognized the specific individual as an apostle.
Paul’s authority was challenged, so far as we can tell from the
epistles bearing his name, due to his listeners’ being upset with his
teachings. Hence the repeated emphasis
on his being a true apostle: that
claim--once granted--was sufficient in its own right to establish his authority. The same would be true of James the
apostle. And since he does not deal with
the divisive issues of the type that tore the church between Gentile and
traditionalist Jewish factions, there is no need for the author to argue the
point.
There is no compelling reason that
decisively shifts the evidence in favor of either James the kinsman or James
the apostle. I personally suspect
apostolic authorship because it easiest explains why the individual would feel
he had the authority to write (and to be heeded) and due to the very early date
of the writing.
Blending the James of
into the Same Individual?
[Page 88] Some attempt to bridge the
two kinsman vs. apostle approaches by contending that at least one of Jesus’
kinsmen was an apostle and that this James was just such an
individual: kinsman of the Lord, leader
of the Jerusalem church, and apostle as well.
Few non-Catholic scholars embrace this approach. Although once enjoying general Catholic
scholarly support, the general consensus has come to either question or
outright reject the identification in that quarter as well.[32]
The claim that the brothers were
unanimously non-believers during His lifetime has been challenged and we will
discuss that later. (See the discussion
of the discipleship possibility in the next major section below.) Even if that were not uniformly true of all
his kin, there is the not exactly small problem of how a brother of Jesus
became known as the son of Zebedee or the son of Aphaeus—the parents of the two
apostolic Jameses! Hence if James were
an apostle, it is hard to see how he could possibly been such while Jesus was
alive—a disciple, possibly, but not an apostle.
What makes the apostolic scenario
worth considering at all is the possibility that he only became such later, that
he was not appointed to the office until after the resurrection. Paul certainly isolates “His being seen by
James” (1 Corinthians 15:7) from other sightings though that would not have
to mean he was an apostle any more than being “seen by Cephas, then by the
twelve” (15:5) proves the appearing to a Cephas who wasn’t already an
apostle.
On the other hand if this James was Jesus’ non-apostolic brother, this could
have been the occasion to qualify him for the post—just as Jesus later appeared
to Paul on the road to
[Page 89] Certainly
when a new apostle was appointed in Acts 1, the forfeiture of the post by Judas
was pointed to and the replacement is conspicuously not James. Although one might conjecture some later
addition of him to the apostolic rank, the lack of Biblical mention seems
nothing short of astounding if an additional appointment(s) was actually made.
On the other hand—as they say—there
is a “loose end” that must be considered.
Paul seems to offer support for the apostolic connection when writing to
the Galatians. After his conversion and
three years had passed, he writes of going “to
When he returned after fourteen
years (2:1), the only James that is mentioned in Jerusalem is also in the
context of discussing the apostles: “And when James, Cephas, and John, who
seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave
me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles
and they to the circumcised” (2:9).
Here two of them are clearly intended to be apostles; must we not put
James in that same category as well? The
text—neither here or in Acts--states or implies the arising to importance of an
additional James, a Lord’s brother who is non-apostolic and [Page
90] whom Paul sees no difficulty of
introducing as if on a par or equivalence with the apostles.
If we make this visit the Council of
Had he been replaced with a new
apostle James, the physical kinsman of the Lord? Although a discrepancy with later
ecclesiastical writings would not be impossible, those writings describe him as
James the Just (or Righteous) and also as a bishop. Conspicuously “apostle” is not the
epithet applied to him. If anything
these later writings have a tendency to elevate the importance of early church
figures rather than describe them with more modest titles and descriptions. Use of “apostle” would seem to have been an
irresistible if they had thought he actually occupied the office.
Hence we seem to be forced by the chronology to conclude that after the
death of James the apostle, another James rises to prominence of such
significance and importance in the eyes of the community that it seemed natural
to describe him in the same breath with the apostles Peter and John in
Galatians 2:9 even though he did not share with them that same position.
And if he wasn’t an apostle, who but a blood relative of the
Lord was likely to be able to accomplish this?
Who else would have the prestigious background that would [Page 91] enable him to move into such a prominent
place of respect and acceptance on a rapid basis? This doesn’t require that he sought a
leadership position, but that through force of personality and character it
flowed naturally to him.
Perhaps his success led to his own appointment as an apostle as
well? Again why don’t later descriptions
of him grant him the honor if this were the case? More important is that the Galatians 2:9
speaks of how “James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars” of the
church embraced Paul’s mission. It could
justly be argued that Paul conspicuously chooses to refer to their prestige and
leadership--as “pillars”--and not their office held because James of
Hence 2:9 is conspicuously silent as to any explicit apostolic post and
James being mentioned in the same breath as two apostles does not turn out to
be quite as significant as it initially seemed.
That possibility brings us back to Galatians
However, the word "other" is not
the Greek word "allos", meaning "other of the same kind".
It is the Greek word "heteros", meaning "other of a different
kind". If Paul meant to call James
an apostle, he at least meant an apostle of a different kind than Peter and the
other eleven. . . . A better translation
of Galatians
[Page 92] Some have appealed to the
old and once widely used American Standard Version (1901), “But other of the
apostles saw I none save [alternate reading: but only] James the Lord’s
brother.” Some see this as distinguishing
James from the apostles.
The New International Version, would
certainly concur in that judgement: “I
saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.” The God’s Word translation also clearly opts
for the alternative: “I didn't see any
other apostle. I only saw James, the Lord's brother.”
Another possibility puts the
emphasis on the meaning of the word “apostle” and how it can be used in both a
narrower and looser sense.[35] In the strict sense it meant one sent forth
and, in usage, the ideas of being a delegate, a representative of another. When the authoritative aspect of the person
is stressed (as in the “twelve apostles”) it has the practical connotation of
ambassador or fully authoritative representative—the inevitable result when one
combines the idea of a worldwide commission (Matthew 28:18-20) with the power
to bind and loose (Matthew 18:18) and inspiration from God (John
16:12-15).
In
[Page 93] Yet although the term was properly
applicable to both of them, Paul’s commissioning on the road to Damascus
still put him in a special category linked with the limited group of the original
twelve. Those apostles in
particular. For all the virtues Barnabas
clearly possessed, that was one he did not have. \
So it would not be unreasonable for James of
Were the Physical Brothers Believers
During Jesus’ Lifetime?
Overview. Whether we make the brother of the Lord an
apostle or not, there is still the question of whether he can be described as a
believer or non-believer in Jesus during the earthly ministry. How do we explain his apparent lack of faith?
Speaking of a time after the
apostles were selected, John 7:5 quite emphatically mentions, “even His
brothers did not believe in Him.”
Interesting interpretive “spins” have been placed on this passage, such
as that it refers to the inadequate quality of their belief rather than
the absolute lack of it.[36] Others deal with the text by emphasizing that
it does not mention either “indifference” or overt “hostility.”[37] They could have “great respect for Jesus” yet
still dissent from His “methods” because they had no understanding “of His
mission.”[38]
[Page 94] We
will shortly examine in detail whether John 7:5 is thoroughly misunderstood by
the bulk of interpreters, but if the traditional reading of the text holds
sound the unqualified remark of John 7:5 would be very odd if one of those
brothers soon became a prominent leader in the early church at the apostolic
level. Even more so if he were already
such! It becomes even more difficult to
accept if, like some, we insist that the apostles Simon and Judas were Jesus’
physical kinsmen as well—the assertion in John 7:5 is so broad that it seems
impossible to fit it in with such a scenario.[39] Indeed Acts
Acts 1:14, however, by noting their
presence with the apostles and early disciples certainly pictures them in an
environment that would encourage them in the direction of full faith, if it had
not already blossomed as they listened to the stories of the resurrected
Christ. Oddly enough, an appearance to
either His mother or the other family members is never directly asserted
although Paul refers to at least one mass appearance that might have
included her due to the pure size of the group (1 Corinthians 15:6). Certainly one would expect a
resurrection appearance to reassure Mary and prepare her for the future even if
none of His other physical kinsmen were included. If it happened this would, presumably, have
to have been the occasion.
The appearance to “James” (1 Corinthians 15:7)
has been cited to prove that the kinsman received a revelation of the Lord as
had the apostles,[41]
but this is assuming that “James” is different from James the apostle,
which may or may not be the case. There
is no more necessity of believing that this James is not one of “the apostles” mentioned in [Page 95] the same verse than to hypothesize that the
“Cephas” who saw Jesus before “the twelve” (1 Corinthians 15:5) was different
from the “Cephas” who was an apostle.
Furthermore, so far as we can tell, all of these initial
beholders of the resurrected Jesus were already believers. Hence it would be odd, indeed, if the
appearance were calculated to produce faith, as is the
assumption--stated or implied. The only
analogy would be with that of Saul on the road to
(We argued earlier that 1
Corinthians 15:7 did not have to carry the connotation that James was an
apostle. Here we simply argue that the reverse
is also true—that it does not have to bear the construction that he was not
an apostle. If one must choose between
the two approaches, the likelihood would seem firmly in behalf of the latter: he had not been and never became an apostle. James the apostle could have written the
epistle; James the kinsman could have written the epistle. But the two were not one and the same.)
The meaning
of John 7 in particular. Having
given the “Reader’s Digest” survey in order to show the background of the
debate, let us look at John 7 in detail, beginning with the broader text. Assuming James was an apostle he had
to have been a believer in Jesus; anything else is simply not credible. Here we deal with a significantly different
issue: whether James could have been a
believer without being an apostle.
If so, that would effectively neutralize much or all of our objection
about how a non-believer could rise so quickly to prominence in the
Jesus movement after His death and resurrection. Certainly John 7 itself indicates there is
significantly more at issue than just lack of faith:
[Page 96]
2 Now the Jews' Feast of Tabernacles
was at hand. 3 His brothers
therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into
“Even his brothers did not believe
in Him” certainly sounds like a highly relevant claim that they were
alienated from Him and His movement. Yet
note carefully how the text leads into this by concessions that they had faith:
Verse 3: “Depart from here and go into
Verse 4a: “For no one does anything in secret while he
himself seeks to be known openly.” If He
wishes to be “known” for what He claims—presumably of Himself and His
authority—then it makes no sense to avoid doing such miracles. Doing [Page 97] them in the comparative secrecy of Galilee
while those in Judea can not witness and be impressed by them, is to deny the
opportunity to use that extraordinary power He has—His miracle working power. If He wishes to be embraced by the world, He
must show Himself to that world.
Verse 4b: “If You do these things, show Yourself to the
world.” A denial that he worked
miracles? Wouldn’t that make it in
conflict with their admission of them in verse 3 and their annoyance in verse
4a that he is declining to use His most powerful weapon? Approached from what has already been said,
does not “if You do these things, show Yourself to the world” carry with it the
challenge to change His clearly intended policy: Work those same miracles in
In other words what they have lack
of faith in is His strategy. His
plans. Not lack of faith in His
power or even His claims. Does miracle
working even on His scale assure wisdom in its use? They thought not. And if Jesus had been a mere “normal”
prophet, they might even have been right. Who knows?
But He was more than that. Did they lack faith in such? Perhaps.
But if His twelve apostles clearly were uncertain about just “who” Jesus
was and what and how His ultimate aims would be carried out--and yet we do not
deny they had “faith”--can be deny it to these kin as well?
Nor does His response denounce them
for a lack of faith: He either rebukes
them (or explains to them—it can be read either way) concerning why He
is not acting the way they wished: “My
time has not yet come” (7:6). They’ve
done nothing to raise the rage of the world, but Jesus Himself has by denouncing
its “evil” (7:7). It is the
insistence on a different timing for Jesus’ action that has produced the description
of how they “did not believe in Him” (7:5).
They want Him to act now—period.
[Page 98] So
great is their determination to get Him to do things now that He does
not want to do, that He stays behind and goes to
They had, if you will, an “inadequate
belief”[42]
rather than one willing to conform itself to His plans. But in that sense, did not the
apostles themselves fall short? Hence it
does not really seem just to find in John 7 the kind of absolute rejection that
is often read into the passage.
Nor should we overlook the broader
context in deciding what is intended. In
chapter 6 we find that after He fed the 5,000, “Then those men, when they had
seen the sign that Jesus did, said, ‘This is truly the Prophet who is to come
into the world.’ Therefore when Jesus
perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him
king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone” (
It is in this context of the crowds
wanting their prophetic King and those seeking to kill Jesus in
[Page 99] In
short, are they not annoyed at Jesus’ intentional restraint when He had proved
popular enthusiasm was prepared to propel Him to the Kingship? Is not their lack of faith a lack of faith
that Jesus knew what He was doing—that they wanted Him to become King in
the physical, temporal manner they were expecting rather than in the spiritual
one Jesus intended . . . a triumph over souls and not armor?
Yes, they lacked faith—but was it not in His strategy and not in His
miracles, authority, or teaching?
John 2 as a
possible indication of discipleship—or something close to it? In
Our text omits any explicit
reference to the presence of His brothers and only says that after His
turning water into wine, “He went down to
The latter would argue that the kin had been about some other business
they deemed essential. Or are we to
assume that they were also present earlier but not mentioned? If both Jesus and His mother were invited,
would it not be extraordinary if the rest of the family were not? Hence the assumption here would virtually have
to be that they were present at the festivities as well. Any other business they had would surely had
been postponed to another occasion.
[Page 100] The
text does not explicitly say His mother believed in Him, but her insistence
that He do something about the wine shortage surely argues that she regarded
Him as having a miracle working ability.
Knowing that His future would “rile many feathers,” would it have been
odd if He even explicitly told her ahead of this what He could do and the broad
course of His future intentions?
Furthermore, there is the memory of His miraculous conception—a reality
she was hardly likely to share with her other children at this stage; cf. Luke
2:19. That alone would have compelled
her to put Jesus in a very special and unique category.
Could His role at the feast have
produced among His brothers anything short of an awe, a reverence, the belief
that He could do things others could not?
A shared faith or confidence, but nothing well developed at this stage,
for it was so early in the ministry.
This assumes His envolvement in the wine was known to the
brethren and to the disciples, yet is it at all likely that the wine
shortage and the sudden abundance would have gone unnoticed and—at least
afterwards—uncommented upon by Mary? (Or
the mysterious appearance of quality wine brought up the brothers themselves in
wonderment—producing an explanation?) The
knowledge could hardly have done anything except encourage faith that Jesus was
unique and different and deserved to be closely listened to among disciples and
brethren alike.
Hence the traveling together of the
two groups—disciples and family—would likely be, in part, because of a shared
respect / reverence for Jesus. Disciples
shading into family and vice versa.
Next in the chronology we note that
“they did not stay there [in
In short, the brethren of the Lord
virtually had to have been in
In this early period and at least up
to the trip to
The presence of the band of “disciples”
(learners at the feet of the new Rabbi) [in
Godet (on Luke 2:12) thinks that Mary and
the brothers came on to [Page 102] Capernaum
eager for more miracles like the one at Cana, and may have been keenly
disappointed because Jesus wrought none.
This is possible, but hardly as probable as the idea that it is a
friendly group in frank fellowship in
We are left in the dark as to the real
attitude of the brothers of Jesus when He begins His great work. They may have looked upon Him as a sort of
irregular rabbi or a mild enthusiast carried away by the new teaching of John
the Baptist. There would be natural
pride in His work, while it succeeded, without necessary belief in His claims.
Certainly Mary must have had at first the
utmost faith tremulous with expectation in the Messiahship of Jesus. Perhaps the brothers were at first only
mildly interested or even skeptical of the qualifications of one out of their
own family circle. The brothers may not
have been free from the jealousy sometimes seen in home life.
Then when local
An attempt to maintain at least a fragile and tolerable relationship
with the [Page 103] community would
surely have made any open fealty low key in order to preserve the peace.
The local environment would have put them all under pressure to
minimize the public obviousness of their commitment and if their
traditionally assumed opposition existed at all, this would be the
logical point for it to be strengthened:
As local skepticism and hostility became more pronounced, their own
hesitancy could easily harden into something more hostile and openly expressed.
Hence we
need to examine an often cited case of positive evidence of hostility--at least
extreme concern--by the family. The
incident is recorded in Mark 3:31-35 (cf. Mathew
“They
sent to Him, calling Him” (Mark
“His mother and
brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him (Matthew
“Your mother and Your brothers are standing
outside, desiring to see You” (Luke
So far as these verses go, they could indicate that they felt
excluded from what was going on and, as His family, felt they should be deeper
involved. Alternatively, they could feel
(as in John 7) that there were things He needed to be doing—that He
hadn’t. [Page 104] In other words they were there not to
silence Him, but to urge Him on beyond
what He was willing to do so far.
Alternatively--Or perhaps they did
(in a sense) wish to silence Him a tad:
He was getting well known for casting out demons (
Giving the degree to which His teaching was often at odds with the
traditionalists, was it really wise or prudent to so freely cast out
demons? An act that clearly inflamed His
enemies even worse. Might this not need
to be reined in at least temporarily?
Hence they could have been
there for this kind of reason instead.
Not to stop Him, but to get Him to temporarily exercise restraint in
such matters. Not doubt of what He was
doing, but tactical doubts as to how to proceed--something significantly
different from lack of faith in the usual sense of opposition and dismissal.
Even so, in light of John 7, it seems far more likely that what they
were concerned about was His not pushing His agenda as zealously as they
thought He should. That would
create a powerful linkage and consistency between the two texts.
Does Mark
[Page 105] Translations
render this in three fashions: In the
older translations, it tends to be “His friends” in the ASV, BBE, KJV, Young
In more recent versions it is
sometimes rendered, “His own people,” as in the NASB, NKJV.
The most common, however, makes it
family explicit: “Jesus’ family” is the
preference in the CEV or “His family” in the Holman, ISV, RSV, and TEV or the
vaguer “His relatives” (in
“It is generally recognized that
reference to the group [uses a Greek term] . . . that is not an explicit
reference to the family. Indeed, it is
more naturally translated as
‘associates,’ ‘adherents,’ ‘friends,’ and ‘followers.’”[44]
What makes the family tie-in
conclusive to many is that Jesus’ “people” have decided to intervene in verse
21 and in verse 31 it is the family that arrives; hence the two terms refer to
the same group of people. John Painter
argues that the immediately previous event Mark narrates before verse 21 is the
appointment of the apostles (
That doesn’t really make a lot of
sense. Having just appointed them as key
subordinates, they react with “He is out of His mind”? That boggles the imagination. The apostles were quite capable of
misunderstanding both Jesus’ teaching and goals, but to dismiss Him as
insane? That is surely ludicrous,
especially so quickly after their appointment.
The next most natural “fit” of
concerned individuals would be acquaintances from
They might, however, as suggested
above, have decided that what He was doing represented a flawed strategy: He was accumulating enemies when He needed
more friends and allies. But there is a
profound difference between this and thinking “He is out of His mind.”
Hence the townspeople argument represents the best interpretive option
in Mark
That leaves us with Mark
The only real potential difficulty here is that the departure to go and
restrain Him (“they went out to lay hold of Him”) is mentioned in verse 21, but
their arrival is not mentioned. Those
who we know arrived are mentioned in verse 31 and it is His family.
[Page 107] Or did they actually arrive before
the family? Note carefully the wording:
21 But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold
of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.”
22 And the scribes who came down from
Could not the textual point be that they did arrive and that
this explains the accusation of the scribes of successful exorcisms being made
possible via the Devil? The townspeople
found that their intervention was “one upped” by the Jerusalem critics who
argued that it wasn’t really a case of (just) insanity but of overt demonic
power—or even a merger of the two arguments, that His insanity was proved
because no sane man could be exercising such evil powers.
In short two lines of criticism coming together at the same place and
at the same time: Jesus pulled the rug
out of the townspeople’s concerns when he gutted their momentary scribal allies
who took the criticism even further than they had. In other words, the discussion presumes
the presence of both groups of critics.
The refutation of the one undermined the other group as well.
Direct
evidence of opposition from Jesus’ teaching in the
[Page 108]
54 And when He had come to His own
country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and
said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is
this not the carpenter's son? Is not His
mother called Mary? And His brothers
James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not
all with us? Where then did this Man get
all these things? 57 So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not
without honor except in his own country and in
his own house.” 58 Now He did not do many mighty works
there because of their unbelief.
It has been common to present this
as Jesus’ recognition of family hostility.
But His family has not raised a word of protest in the passage; it
comes from the other villagers. Indeed,
the words of protest distinguish between the protestors and the
family—they point to them as local residents and not as ones joining in
the rejection.
In that setting, the language is far more likely to be a reference
to country and place of residence. In
other words
Although some translations retain
the country / house distinction, more opt for an explicit “own town / own home”
(NIV) or “hometown / own household [or house]” (ESV, Holman, NASB). Accepting this as the preferred rendering,
then an application to His kin is inescapable.
Although even here we would still
have the question of the nature of their “dishonor.” Was it a lack of faith or something
else?
[Page 109] In some of our previous texts
we saw that there were situations where they were likely annoyed at him--not
because they lacked faith in Him--but because He was being insufficiently
aggressive—in their eyes--in pushing His cause.
Of course their annoyance was almost certainly rooted in the expectation
and desire for Him to become a reigning monarch of a temporal type and that was
never part of His agenda.
But lack of faith that He performed miracles and was ordained of God to
teach His gospel? That seems far less
likely to have been the case. Their
“dishonor” lay in expecting Him to be the kind of Messiah He never intended to
be.
Conclusion. From what we have seen, the lack of faith in
Jesus by His family is far from as assured a certainty as is usually
supposed. In a sense one can reasonably
argue that they had “too much faith”—a faith that expected too much, too soon,
and for His success to take temporal forms He never envisioned. If this reading of the evidence is correct
they did, indeed, “lack faith” but in a profoundly different sense than
that normally assumed.
Whatever lack of faith they may have
had was an irrelevancy by the time James—if he was, indeed, the brother of the
Lord—wrote his epistle. By that time not
only had his faith become profoundly deep, but he had become a key leader in
the early church as well.
The Pseudonymity Authorship
Option
[Page 110] The final alternative as to
authorship is that of pseudonymity.[46] (Already discussed in the previous chapter,
the topic deserves extra attention in the current context as well.) Advocates of this approach range from those
who consider that the entire epistle represents the beliefs of the fictional
James to those who believe that it was to some degree--great or small--based
upon the “real” James’ teaching, but composed at a much later date in the
language and rhetoric of a later period.
In the latter case one would have a hybrid work, quasi-historical yet
put in its current form by someone other than the purported author.[47]
There was nothing inherently
improper in a later writer reporting the teaching of someone he or she had
heard. What needs to be explained is why
it is not presented as such but simply presented as if the personal work of the
original James. The only situation in
which this commentator can conceive of an intellectually honest person having
done so was if the vast bulk--either all or nearly all--came from that
source. But in that case can we consider
it truly pseudonymous? Furthermore, the
same arguments utilized in favor of a totally pseudonymous work (see below)
would--if valid—quite easily argue against the inclusion of any
significant degree of genuine Jamesian material.
What, then, of the theory that it is
a “purely” pseudonymous work? Such works
certainly have survived. A careful study
of such documents has argued that when the purported writer was centuries in
the past or more, that he was considered fair game for attribution. In the cases of more recent individuals the
invocation of such an identification was avoided or, when suggested, considered
manifestly improper.[48]
In effect, when the author was
sufficiently close in time to the present where there was at least a moderate
chance that the book had been previously overlooked, the attribution was regarded
as an abuse of authorial privilege. When
a previously unheard of work popped up from someone so many centuries before
that it was impossible for it to have credibly been by him, it could be
received as an innocent pious fiction.
If this is an accurate evaluation of
the ancient mentality, then a fake Enoch was quite possible, while a faked
apostolic or first generation disciple of Christ text would [Page 111] have been regarded as abhorrent. How likely is it that the author of a faked
“James” would have violated the ethical norms expected of imitations?
The primary evidence for pseudonymity in the
current case is the literary quality of the
work. In particular its use of
“Hellenistic Greek literary rhetorical devices”[49] and
even “Hellenistic philosophical terms”[50]
that would have been presumably unknown to a provincial Jew. James’ repeated use of alliteration, wordplay
(including where a term may be used in two different senses), and a use of
classical Greek expressions not found in either the Septuagint or the New
Testament are examples of his extensive knowledge.[51]
This raises the broader issue of how pervasive was the knowledge and
use of Greek in the provinces and how skilled individuals could be expected to
be. A strong case can be made that many
possessed considerable Greek speaking and writings talents.[52]
The use of plays on words[53]
would certainly not seem to require any particularly deep skill. Nor does the use of alliteration[54]
seem beyond the ability of a moderately skilled provincial. It has been noted that even when he seems
most “Greek” in the expressions he uses, he typically imposes on them his own
“bend” rather than the traditional Greek connotations—making them more
congenial with Semitic thought of the time.[55] For that matter the use of “dialogue between
the writer and an imaginary interlocutor”[56] may
strike a particular individual as significant, but to others it would appear a
reasonable rhetorical tool in its own right.[57]
Furthermore, Paul the Hebrew of
Hebrews, utilizes these techniques[58]
even though he had undergone a strict orthodox, traditional Jewish upbringing
and education. This style--called the
“diatribe form” invented by the Greek Cynics and most well known to the modern
world in the writings of Epictetus--had a certain inherent effectiveness as a
teaching mode, as seen by the examples we’ve cited. Why then should it be surprising to find it
used (in a modified) form among non-Greeks?[59]
[Page 112] If
one is receptive to the concept of an amanuensis—an argument often introduced when New
Testament writers don’t quite “sound” like their other works would lead us to
expect—then that would certainly be a viable option in regard to James. This in no way asserts ignorance or
incapacity on James’ part, merely the desire to have the material presented to
the world in the most telling manner.
“Even the Jewish historian Josephus, who must have learned Greek in his
youth and spoken it quite competently, employed assistants to polish his Greek
style, while remaining unequivocally the author of his works.”[60]
Opportunities for the historic
James to have gained a more profound mastery of Greek. In the first chapter we argued in
behalf of James having had considerable access to Greek language speech in his
youth. Here let us begin by stressing that
in his years in
It should be noted that just as the characteristics of the epistle’s
Greek language has been used to argue against the possibility that the James of
the Jerusalem Conference wrote the letter, similarities have also been used
to argue the polar opposite--that the two individuals are one and the same.[62]
Furthermore, Greek was anything but an obscure language
in geographic
[Page 113] Come in contact with the
governing authorities and its official records and orders and you came in
contact with Greek. And unless you were
a naively trusting individual with next to nothing to lose, it behooved
you—whenever possible—to know enough of it to discover what was really written
rather than just what was being claimed.
(Or, at least, to have someone with you who could.) Especially since interaction with officialdom
was going to be in that language as well.
Furthermore culturally, Greek had the upper hand
as well. Everywhere else it was the
stock in trade of those who claimed to be educated and well versed in the
learning of the world. Would anyone who had
hopes to be so regarded themselves dare lack a decent grounding in the
language?[64] Remember that we are dealing
with a very “class orientated” society and in that world view you naturally embraced
whatever would reinforce your claim to “belong” to the upper stratas.
Competency
in Greek would be common as the result.
Not to mention among the far broader segment of society that had to deal
with such Jews—not to mention Gentiles.
These did not have to feel enthusiastic about the matter; it was simply
part of contemporary society. A theory
(and reality) of “trickle down Greek” seems inevitable under the existing
social situation.
Such factors
would be reinforced by the significant number of Hellenistic cities consciously
created throughout
[Page 114] Did
you seek a broader horizon for your talents?
Were you a trader that went further than a hundred or two hundred miles,
departing
Were you a religious official
wishing to communicate with Jews in other parts of the empire who were
brought up as Greek speakers from youth?[67] You had better be able to speak or write it
and, if you didn’t, elemental prudence required that you know enough to check
what was really being sent out in your name.
Just how great an acquaintance with
the language that the religious and secular aristocracy and power brokers of
And there would also be the urban-rural divide to take into
consideration, with the usage of Greek—and fluency in—far more likely to be
found in urban areas and only to a lesser degree in the rest of the land.
Within this wide variety of social and personal situations and
obligations, the result would surely have been widely differing degrees of fluency
even within a given city or region. Yet
it seems certain that, over time, there would have been a great tendency for
the familiarization to ever grow stronger and wider spread. As Catherine Hezser has wisely summed up the language
situation near the beginning and its gradual strengthening,[69]
[Page 115]
Some were familiar with a few words and
phrases only, some could understand Greek but hardly speak the language
themselves, some were able to lead simple conversations in the market, some
were perfectly conversant, some able to read and others write a Greek
letter. A person who knows only a few
words of another language, or one who knows a few phrases to lead a simple
conversation can hardly be called bilingual.
Yet such a rudimentary knowledge of Greek may have been the rule for
many (most?) Jews who did not live in cities which had a large Greek-speaking
population.
One may assume, though, that changes in
the geopolitical structure of Palestine, that is, the increased urbanization of
the province, and better relations between city and countryside will have
eventually lead to changes in the Jewish population’s familiarity with the
Greek language as well.
In other words, the urban roots of
Greek usage would gradually have become pervasive throughout the land. Even with a more than adequate knowledge and
ease in Greek, this did not rule out able usage of Aramaic as well. This was, if you will, the common people’s
language. To simplify: to communicate with a cross section of
society you needed to be able to communicate “upward” (with Greek) and
“downward” to the masses with Aramaic. (The
language they would have preferred to the “alien” Greek.) And if you were to take a public leadership
role in worship services, your ability to read the scrolls in Hebrew was not
exactly a minor help either.
[Page 116] Even in such a setting,
however, it is argued that it is difficult to explain, the (alleged) lack of
“Aramaisms,”[70]
since either the apostle or kinsman James would be expected to have used Aramaic
as a primary language in daily conversation.
Indeed, indications from the sixth through the third centuries B.C.,
argue that Aramaic had become widespread as a spoken language--from parts of
By the first century A.D. it was at least occasionally utilized for
written historical purposes (in Josephus’ first version of the War) and
religious documents as well (the varied Aramaic works found at Qumran, which
likely included volumes “imported” from other sources in the Middle East).[72] However much you utilized it, however, that
Greek knowledge was still vital.
But when all is said and done, James would surely have been fluent in Aramaic
as well, regardless of what other languages he might utilize—mildly or in
depth. Are there indications of such a knowledge in the epistle of James? For reasons we just mentioned, it would be
far more shocking if he didn’t speak it—and well, on top of that--due to the
society in which he lived. Beyond that,
some have claimed to detect indications that James knew an Aramaic form of
Jesus’ teachings.[73]
Alleged parallels with the thinking of the Qumran Dead Sea community
(as reflected in their writings) have been asserted as well[74]
and, if accepted even in part, would be difficult to conceive of being within the
knowledge a non-Palestinian resident. (Moving the author to Mesopotamia or
Egypt would require one to explain how such “echoes” had traveled that far to
influence writers whom we would never had thought could be involved in this
particular authorship controversy.)
[Page 117]
Why Not Provide
His True Identification
in the First
Place?
The pseudonymity theory suffers from a lack of motivation. If pseudo-James is attacking Pauline doctrine
concerning saving faith, why doesn’t he make the disagreement clearer and more
explicit? Paul certainly demanded proper
Christian morals and behavior and rebuked the lack of it in his various
epistles. He expected and implored for
the kind of “works” that prove one’s faith that James presents. Something far clearer would be required to
support a repudiation of Paul’s attitudes.
The closest one can come to proving
that Paul’s doctrine (or a misuse of this doctrine) is being considered is that
both Paul and James utilize the example of Abraham: Paul to prove salvation by faith (Romans 4);
James to prove salvation by works.[75] Yet if the Old Testament provides valid
evidence in both directions, why need we assume that the assertion of
either represents a repudiation of the other?
Indeed, the evidence for an early date would argue that if there
is a “reaction” involved at all, it is far more likely to be upon the part of
Paul to a misunderstanding of James’ earlier teaching.
Furthermore, why would one pick on the
name of “James?”[76] Does it really “lend authority to the work”?[77] True, Jude introduces himself as “brother of
James” (Jude, verse 1). But if we did
not have a book of James, would not that identification seem odd and
unexpected?
A false attribution to Peter or John
might make sense. But why single out James
of all people? It has been claimed that
he was “the hero of heterodox Jewish Christianity”[78] as
well as gnostic inclined Gentiles.[79] The problem is locating the “heresy” in James
that is sufficiently clear cut that it would “justify” in his own mind the
propriety of claiming that a pseudo-James is writing the epistle. If it’s there, he’s made it sufficiently
subtle that even the “mainstream” church of the following centuries did not [Page
118] root its doubts in the epistle’s
lack of doctrinal soundness. And if the
heresy advocated is to be presented that discretely, why write the
letter in the first place?
Nothing in the epistle presents him
as either an apostle or the kinsman of Jesus.
If written within the life-time of either James, the acceptance of the
epistle would be expected because the recipients would know who it was
from. Decades later--long after the
individual had died--the mysterious appearance from nowhere of an epistle from
a “James” (what James? when?) would have
been too easily dismissed as contemporary religious edification rather than
carrying any greater authority.
In addition, a pseudonymous work pretending to be an earlier writer
would normally be characterized by an explicit assertion of personal
authority so that the intended identification could not be missed.[80] He might have called himself “James, bishop
of
Of course there is always the
possibility that it was written by a genuine James at a later date and
it was never his intention to represent himself as an earlier writer.[82] The question would then arise: from where did he think he had the authority
to write an epistle to Jewish Christians at large? The situation would be much different if we
were discussing a personal letter to a specific individual, a case where such
self-assertiveness could be quite appropriate.
In most other New Testament writings
the new faith’s doctrines are front and center and quite marked; this is not
the case in James. In order to reconcile
the “quiet” Christianity of the epistle which accepts its principles rather
than argues for them[83] it
has been contended that the epistle is a reworked Jewish work. In terms of such a theory, our “James” has
to be pseudonymous.
In religiously “moderate to liberal”
circles, it was the dominant opinion for decades that the epistle, essentially,
fell into this category. In the 1980s
the consensus [Page 119] began to
shift: some conceded that genuine
Jamesian materials were preserved in the letter but weren’t actually committed
to writing until long after his death. When
one began to concede a genuine foundation in the teaching of the historical
James, the rationale for a later date, however, also began to fragment.
Today the dominant scholarly
judgment is either for late date preservation of early material or a relatively
early date composition of the work by the person claiming authorship. Either way the book reflects genuine
Palestinian Christian beliefs before the fall of
Among conservative scholars the
inclination, of course, has always been to assume such roots for the material
and the division has been between which of the Biblical Jameses composed
it.
A “Christianized”
Traditional Jewish Work?
Perhaps the most ingenious attempt
at pseudonymity is to consider it as having originally been an Old
Testament pseudeprigphal volume presented in the name of Jacob (= James in
Greek) and that it is an allegory on events of that Old Testament patriarch’s
life. By such techniques as describing
himself as a “bondservant” of both God and Christ (James 1:1), the Christian
modifier adapts the document to a new usage.
Even assuming their ethics would stretch so far, one must “push” in
order to pull out the parallels from Jacob’s life; an astute sermonizer can
certainly do it, but it takes a determined effort and is not an approach that
naturally springs from the text of the book itself.[85] It is, as one scholar concisely words it, a
theory that “demands as much eisegesis as exegesis.”[86]
[Page 120] Regardless
of the attribution ultimately selected from the above alternatives, his Jewish
ethnicity is a given among virtually all writers and commentators.[87] (For further evidence against the
“adaptation” scenario, consult the previous chapter.)
Notes
[1] Frances
T. Gench, “James,” in The General Letters, in the Proclamation
Commentaries, revised and enlarged edition (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1995), 24.
[2] Hartin, James, 21.
[3] Samuel
A. Cartledge, A Conservative Introduction to the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1938; 1941 reprinting), 156. For
the same attitude from a far more theologically liberal perspective see Werner
G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, translated from the
Fourteenth German Revised Edition (London:
SCM Press, Ltd., 1966), 289-290.
The most generous interpretation Kummel will grant, however, is that “an
unknown Christian placed his exhortatory writing” under the name of a
recognized authority figure rather than the epistle actually coming from that
(earlier) leader (291).
[4] Scot McKnight, The Letter of James, in the New
International Commentary on the New Testament series (
[5] Merrill
C. Tenney, New Testament Survey, rev. Walter M. Dunnett (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company/Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 265.
[6] Cf.
Ibid. on the subject.
[7] For
speculation on the formal position of James see Ralph Martin, New Testament
Foundations: A Guide for Christian
Students; Volume Two: The Acts,
The Letters, the Apocalypse (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1978), 358-360.
[8] Cf. McKnight, James, 16.
[9] Ibid., 18.
[10] John
Painter, “Who Was James? Footprints as a
Means of Identification,” in The Brothers of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, edited by
Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner (
[11]
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4, as quoted by Ibid., 11.
[Page 122] [12] Cf.
the remarks on this theme of E. M. Sidebottom, James, Jude and 2 Peter,
in the Century Bible commentary series (new edition) (Camden, New
Jersey: Nelson, 1967), 20.
[13] Gench,
28.
[14] Stevan
L. Davies, The New Testament: A
Contemporary Introduction (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988), 190.
[15] Vincent
P. Branick, Understanding the New Testament and Its Message: An Introduction (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1998), 334.
[16] Donald
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, one volume edition (Downers Grove,
Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970),
749.
[17] Connick,
356; Perrin, 255; A. H. McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of the New
Testament, Second Edition, rev. C. S. C. Williams (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), 203-204.
[18] Yoder,
1171.
[Page 123] [19] Leitch,
136-137. See the list of of fourteen
possible/probable parallels with the contents of the Sermon on the Mount in
Guthrie, 743, and the twenty parallels in John Stott, Men with a
Message: An Introduction to the New
Testament and Its Writers, rev. Stephen Motyer (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1994), 125. The validity of
specific parallels will be discussed in depth in the next chapter.
[20] Perrin,
256.
[21] Cornelius
Vanderwaal, Hebrews-Revelation, Volume 10 of Search the Scriptures series (St.
Catharines, Ontario, Canada: Paideia
Press, 1979), 24-25.
[22] Martin
Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature
([Hertford, Great Britain]: Ivor
Nicholson and Watson, 1936), 229; Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New
Testament, translated by G. Buswell (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968; 1980 printing), 129; Bo
Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter,and Jude, in the Anchor Bible
series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday
& Company, Inc., 1964), 4.
[23] For
themes also found in canonical Old Testament, Essenic, and Talmudic thought,
see Edwin D. Freed, The New Testament:
A Critical Introduction (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1986), 382.
[24] Ibid.
[26] Compare
(1) James 2:6-7 with Mark 13:9; (2)
James 4:1 with Mark 13:7; (3) James 4:13-14 with Mark 13:32; (4) James 5:9 with
Mark
[27] T.
Carson, “Letter of James,” in A New Testament Commentary, ed. G. C. D
Howley (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), 568.
[28] Henry
C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1943;
1989 reprint), 272.
[29] Ibid.,
307, argues that First John was written by the apostle John (307). Second John he regards as similarly apostolic
(311) and Third John as well (314) yet he refers to the reservations about the
last two in particular.
[30] Ibid.,
274. Cf. Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in
Hebrews-Revelation, Volume 12 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary
series, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan
Publishing House, 1981), 161.
[Page 125] [31] Martin
Dibelius, James, rev. Heinrich Treeven, trans. Michael A. Williams, in
the series Hermeneia--A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 12.
[32] Thomas
W. Leahy, “The Epistle of James,” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary;
Volume 2: The New Testament and
Topical Articles, ed.Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Raymond E. Brown (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1968), 369.
[33] For a
fine concise over-all survey, see Louis Rushmore, “James in Galatians
[34] David
A. Anderson, The
[35] For further reading, consult the analysis in Dewayne
Dulaney, “James the Lord’s Brother—An Apostle?”
Dated
[Page 126] [36] See
the analysis against this argument of Samuel Davidson, An Introduction to
the New Testament; Volume Three: The
First Epistle to Timothy to the Revelation (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1851), 304-305.
[37] Theodor
Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume One, translated from the
Third German Edition by Melancthon W. Jacobus et al., three volumes in one with
separate pagination for each volume, Second Edition, Revised (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917), 104.
[38] Guthrie,
745.
[39] Davidson,
305.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Stott,
120; Vanderwaal, 23; Howard P. Colson, The Practical Message of James
(Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press,
1969), 3-4; Eduard Lohse, The Formation of the New Testament, translated
from the third German edition by M. Eugene Boring (Nashville: Abingdon, 1981), 208.
[42] Richard
Bauckham. “James and Jesus.” In The Brothers of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, edited by
Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, 100-137.
[Page 127] [43] A. T.
Robertson, Practical and Social Aspects of Christianity (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1915), 23-24.
[44] John Painter, “James and Peter: Models of Leadership and
[46]The approach
of Perrin, 256, and Gench, 29, who calls this the view of “a majority of
scholars” in the late twentieth century.
Note that this involves the ultimate authorship and does not
separate those who regard that person as basing it on authentic Jamesian
material—a growing view in the late part of the century.
[47]For a
survey of various theories of how this might have come about see David P.
Nystrom, James, in the NIV Application Commentary series (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervant Publishing
House, 1997), 19-20.
[48] See
references in Blomberg and Kamell, n. 42, page 32.
[49] See the
examples as provided by Perrin, 255.
[50] For
examples see Gench, 26.
[52] See the
discussion in John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976),
132-135. Also consider the evidence
mentioned by Yoder, 1171.
[53] Perrin,
255.
[54] Ibid.
[55] For examples see McCartney, 7.
[56] Perrin,
255.
[57] On the
general theme of the possibility of James’ level of Greek skill existing in
[58]
[Page 129] [59] For
specific examples of the characteristics of the “diatribe” and the greater
moderation of the style in the hands of a writer such as James see Sidebottom,
2-3.
[60] Richard Bauckham, in The Brothers of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, edited by
Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner (
[61] Ibid.,
[62] For a
discussion by an individual who thinks both forms of argument are
over-rated, see Robinson, 130. For a
positive assessment of the linguistic linkage of the James of Acts and the
James of the epistle see Robert H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books/Zondervan Publishing House,
1981), 324-325.
[63] Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman
Palestine, in the series Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 81 (
[69] Ibid., 243.
[70] Lohse,
209. Lohse does concede, however. that
James uses “Hebraisms” but insists that those are due to acquaintance with the
Greek Septuagint rather than any personal knowledge of Hebrew (209).
[71] Hezser, 230.
[73] James
[74] Ibid.
[75] Joseph
F. Kelly, Why Is There a New Testament?
(Wilmington, Delaware: Michael
Glazier, Inc., 1986), 59.
[77] As
claimed by Francis B. Rhein, Understanding the New Testament, Revised
Edition (Woodbury, New York: Barron’s
Educational Series, Inc., 1974), 325. In
a similar vein see R. R. Williams, The Letters of John and James, in the
Cambridge Bible Commentary: New
English Bible series (Cambridge: At
the University Press, 1965), 95.
[78] For
examples see Sophie Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, in the Black’s
New Testament Commentaries series (London:
Adam & Charles Black, 1980), 41.
[79] For
examples see Ibid., 41-42.
[80] Barclay
M. Newman, The Meaning of the New Testament (Nashville, Tennessee: 1966), 270.
[81] For
various forms the elaboration on the name could have taken see Gloag, 27.
[82] Cf.
Martin, 363-364; Donald J. Selby, Introduction to the New Testament: “The Word Became Flesh” (New York: Macmillan Company, 1971) 431.
[83] Robinson,
119-120.
[85] For a
summary of one approach to the James as an allegory of Joseph’s life, see the
mildly skeptical summary of Barclay M. Newman, The Meaning of the New
Testament.
[86]
[87] One of
the extremely few exceptions is Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of
the New Testament, Augmented Edition (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc./Anti-Defamation
League of B’nai B’rith, 1974), 219, who provides no argumentation for the
claim, simply contenting himself with the assertion that “nothing in the book”
actually “preclude[s] it having been written about the year 100 by a Gentile
Christian” (219).