The Books of the New Testament Part 23

Pes.h.i.tta version, ? A.D. 410 * * *

Junilius, A.D. 550 . . . . . ? * ? * ? ? ?

John of Damascus, A.D. 750 * * * * * * *

Ebed Jesu, A.D. 1300 . . . . * * *

(b) _Palestine._ Eusebius, A.D. 330 . . . . . ? * ? * ? ? ?

Cyril, A.D. 348 . . . . . . * * * * * * *

(c) _Alexandria._ Clement, A.D. 190 . . . . . * * * *

Origen, A.D. 220 . . . . . . * * ? * ? ? *

Athanasius, A.D. 367 . . . . * * * * * * *

(d) _Asia Minor._ Polycarp, A.D. 110 . . . . . * *

Amphilochius, A.D. 380 . . . * * ? * ? ? ?

Gregory n.a.z.ianzen, A.D. 380 * * * * * * *

III. WESTERN LISTS-- (a) _Italy._ Muratorian, A.D. 180 . . . . * * *

Hippolytus, A.D. 220 . . . . * ( ) *

(b) _Gaul._ Irenaeus, A.D. 180 . . . . . * * *

(c) _Roman Africa._ Tertullian, A.D. 200 . . . . * * *

[1] _Inspiration_, p. 368.

{223}

CHAPTER XX

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES

[Sidenote: The Author]

In the 4th century this Epistle was reckoned among the authentic doc.u.ments of the apostolic period. It does not seem to have been universally known in the Church at an earlier period. It is not in the _Muratorian Fragment_. But it is plainly quoted by Irenaeus, though he does not mention the author's name. The same is true with regard to the _Shepherd_ of Hermas, which was written at Rome about A.D. 140.

Justin Martyr quotes the words "the devils shudder" (James ii. 19, _Trypho_, 49). Polycarp seems to quote James i. 27, and 1 Peter seems to show traces of its influence. The first writer who both quotes it and mentions the author is Origen.

It opens with the name of "James, a servant of G.o.d and of the Lord Jesus Christ." There can be no reasonable doubt that this is James "the Lord's brother." James the son of Zebedee was killed as early as A.D. 44, before which date it is unlikely that the Epistle was written.

We have no reason to attribute the Epistle to the Apostle James "the Little." He does not seem to have been of sufficient prominence to write an authoritative letter "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion." But such an action would have been exceedingly natural on the part of a saint who was bishop of "the mother of Churches,"

Jerusalem itself. It will be convenient to postpone the consideration of such evidence as we possess for the foregoing conclusion until we have discussed the exact relation of St. James to our Lord.

{224}

Three important theories must be mentioned as offering a solution of the difficult problem as to this relationship--

(a) That James, Joses, Simon, and Jude, mentioned in the Gospels as the "brethren" of our Lord, were His first cousins on His mother's side.

(b) That they were the children of Joseph and Mary.

(c) That they were the children of Joseph by a former wife.

The theory of St. Jerome (a) may be perhaps discarded without any further comment than that St. Jerome apparently invented it, that he claimed no traditional sanction for it, he did not hold it consistently himself in his later writings, and it is very difficult to reconcile it with Scripture. The theory of Helvidius (b), which called forth St.

Jerome's attempted refutation, answers some verbal requirements of the Gospel narrative, and has found some skilful modern advocates. But with the possible exception of Tertullian, no Christian seems to have held it before Helvidius, and the theory that Mary had other children besides Jesus gave a profound shock to Christian sentiment. No argument can be brought against (c), the theory defended, though not originated, by St. Epiphanius, that the brethren of our Lord were children of St. Joseph by a former wife. It is in keeping with the strong tradition which maintained the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin; it helps to explain the att.i.tude of unbelief recorded in the Gospels of Christ's brethren, and at the same time requires no distortion of the literalness of the pa.s.sages in which they are mentioned. There is hardly sufficient evidence to show that first cousins were ever called "brethren." But it would have been quite natural for those who called St. Joseph "the father of Jesus" to call St. Joseph's sons "the brothers of Jesus." And again, the supposition that the Blessed Virgin had no other son, seems strongly supported by the fact that at the crucifixion our Lord commended her to His beloved disciple, and not to one of St. Joseph's family.

{225}

This theory of St. Epiphanius is much older than the 4th century. It is sometimes urged against it that Origen derived it from the Apocryphal Gospels of the 2nd century, and that its popularity in the Church was owing to Origen's influence. But though the Apocryphal Gospels often contained fictions, we cannot argue that everything in them is fict.i.tious. The tradition agrees with the words of Scripture, and gains support from some fragments of Hegesippus, a cultured Palestinian Christian, born about A.D. 100. He states directly that Symeon, the second bishop of Jerusalem, was the _cousin_ of our Lord, because son of Clopas who was the brother of Joseph. He also calls James "the brother of the Lord," and in another pa.s.sage speaks of Jude as "called brother" of the Lord. He therefore plainly distinguishes the cousins from the so-called "brethren." We then get the following genealogy:--

Jacob | +--------------------+--------------------+ | | Joseph == Mary Clopas (or Alphaeus) | | | | | +------+------+ +-- James JESUS | | | +-- Joses James Joses Symeon +-- Jude (the Little) +-- Simon +-- Sisters

We conclude, therefore, that St. James was the son of St. Joseph.

The writer of the Epistle frequently colours his sentences with words from the Old Testament, and a.s.sumes a knowledge of it among his readers. He makes no allusion to the Gentiles. He writes in a tone of authority and without any self-advertis.e.m.e.nt. He briefly uses for ill.u.s.tration certain natural phenomena which would be familiar to the people of Palestine, such as allusions to "the early and latter rain"

(v. 7), the effect on vegetation of the burning wind (i. 11), the existence of salt or bitter springs (iii. 11), the cultivation {226} of figs and olives (iii. 12), and the neighbourhood of the sea (i. 6; iii.

4). From such a cursory view of the character of this Epistle, it would seem reasonable to admit that it was written by a Palestinian Jewish Christian for the edification of Christians of the same race and locality.

We get the same impression when we study what is said by the writer about the readers. He speaks as though they had been under a law of bondage, but are now under a law of liberty (i. 25; ii. 12). They are in touch with men who are unbelievers, who blaspheme Christ and persecute Christians (ii. 6, 7). The believers are mostly poor (ii.

5); the few rich who are Christians are in danger of falling away through covetousness and pride (iv. 3-6, 13-16). The rich appear as oppressors, who luxuriously "nourish their hearts in a day of slaughter," and had even "killed the righteous" (v. 5, 6). The Church is ruled by "elders" (v. 14) like the Jewish synagogues, and the Christian "synagogue" is occasionally frequented by rich strangers (ii.

2). All this is well suited to the conditions of Christian life in Palestine. And it is difficult to find any locality equally appropriate. Even as late as the first part of the 2nd century rich Gentiles were reluctant to persecute Christians, and to describe them as blaspheming the name of Christ at any time within or near the apostolic age would be almost impossible. They regarded Christianity with good-natured contempt, not with blasphemous hostility. We have only to read Acts to see that among the Gentiles it was the poor and ignorant rather than the rich who began the persecution of the Christians. On the other hand, if we turn to the Jews, we find that the rich were the leaders of persecution. It was the wealthy Sadducee party in union with the influential Pharisees which harried the Church.

The Gospels and Acts give repeated evidence on this point, and the evidence of the Jewish historian Josephus supplies the keystone of that evidence.

Against the Palestinian origin of the Epistle it is urged that {227} the Greek is too correct and rhetorical. The style is vivacious and forcible. It contains many rather unusual Greek words, including six which are neither in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament nor in the rest of the New Testament, a long list of words which are found in the Septuagint and not in the New Testament, and seven rare cla.s.sical or late Greek words. The whole question of the style of the Epistle requires the most delicate handling. But the style is distinctly unfavourable to the theory that the Epistle was written at a late date in a centre of Gentile Christianity. The Greek is neither the flowing Greek of a Greek, nor the rough provincial Greek which St. Paul spoke and wrote. It is slow and careful, with short sentences linked by repet.i.tions. One epithet is piled effectively on another (_e.g._ iii.

15, 17), and abstract statements are avoided. Galilee was studded with Greek towns, and in Jerusalem Greek was well known. The Epistle might well have been written by a Jew of Palestine who had made a good use of his opportunities. And the introduction of some rare words in the midst of a simple moral exhortation is by no means a proof of complete mastery over Greek. It points, not to a mastery over the language, but to a painstaking familiarity with it.

These facts seem compatible with the few details which we know about St. James. Their full significance can only be appreciated when we know the difficulties which have beset the commentators who a.s.sign to the Epistle a date outside his lifetime.

Before considering the question of the date more minutely, we may collect together some points of interest connected with St. James.

St. James, like the other "brethren" of our Lord, watched the development of our Lord's career, but was unconvinced of the truth of His mission. After the Resurrection, our Lord, St. Paul tells us, "was seen of James." Perhaps this was the turning-point of his life, he, like St. Thomas, "saw and {228} believed." The Gospel according to the Hebrews, one of the oldest of the Apocryphal Gospels, says that our Lord, after His Resurrection, "went to James and appeared to him--for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord, until he saw Him rising from the dead;--and again after a little while. 'Bring hither, saith the Lord, a table and bread.'" . . . "He brought bread, and blessed and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said unto him, 'My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man hath risen from the dead.'" There are other versions of the story which make the vow to be taken after the death of Christ. In spite of some absurdities in this Apocryphal Gospel, it is possible that the legend is true, and that the sublime death of the Redeemer began to effect the repentance of His brother. However this may be, before Pentecost, A.D. 29, we find him joined to the Christian community at Jerusalem, where he afterwards attained a foremost position. In Gal. i. we find that St. Paul visited St. James and St.

Peter at Jerusalem. In Acts xii. 17 St. Peter, on escaping from prison in A.D. 44, desires that news of his escape should be taken to St.

James. In Gal. ii. St. Paul speaks of "James and Cephas and John" as pillars of the Church at Jerusalem. From Acts xv. we find that at this time, A.D. 49, St. James acted as president of the Council which determined how far the Gentile Christians need conform to the customs of the Jews. It is remarkable that the speech of St. James in Acts xv.

and the circular despatched from the Council show several coincidences of style with the Epistle. If these coincidences are due to forgery, the forger has certainly used consummate self-restraint and skill.

Again, when St. Paul paid his last visit to Jerusalem, in A.D. 56, and the Jews accused him of advocating the abandonment of the Law of Moses and "the customs," it is St. James and his presbyters who advise him to go up to the Temple and purify himself with four n.a.z.irites, and so rea.s.sure the "myriads" of Christian Jews who were zealous for the Law.

{229} Once more we cannot help observing how well this anxiety of St.

James agrees with the very cautious tone of the Epistle with regard to distinctively Christian doctrine.

The end of St. James is recorded by Hegesippus and by Josephus.

Hegesippus represents him living as a strict n.a.z.irite, always frequenting the Temple, with knees as hard as a camel's because of his perpetual prayers.[1] He tells us that St. James was thrown from a pinnacle of the Temple, stoned, and clubbed to death at the order of the scribes and Pharisees for a.s.serting that Jesus was on the right hand of G.o.d. From Josephus we learn that his martyrdom took place when a vacancy in the procuratorship caused by the death of Festus (in A.D.

62) gave the Sadducees the opportunity which they desired. He was dragged before the Sanhedrim, condemned and stoned. Josephus also gives us to understand that the more moderate Jews were not in sympathy with such a thoroughly unconst.i.tutional proceeding, and that Agrippa deprived Ana.n.u.s, the high priest, of his office for invading the rights of the civil power.

[Sidenote: To whom written.]

"The twelve tribes of the Dispersion." We might suppose that the writer had in his mind all the Jews who were dispersed throughout the world, but came to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice when they were able, and who were all bound by the religious obligation to pay the yearly tribute to the temple. There had been several dispersions in the history of the chosen people, to a.s.syria under Shalmaneser, to Babylon and Egypt in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and to Rome under Pompeius.

But ch. ii. 1 shows that the Epistle was written to men who acknowledged Jesus as Lord. It is therefore natural to think that it was written only to men who were both Christians and of Jewish origin.

But there is another interpretation of the phrase "the twelve tribes."

Some think that it is merely a symbolical name for the Christian Church composed both of Jews and Gentiles, and {230} forming the new and spiritual Israel. Strong arguments have been brought forward in favour of each of these views, but the former seems to be the sounder. The argument that the Jews at this period could not have been called "twelve" tribes when only two had returned from the captivity, is disproved by the fact that the phrase is unquestionably used in this meaning in Acts xxvi. 7. We must frankly admit that St. Paul speaks of the Gentile Christians as forming part of the new Israel of G.o.d, but he never alludes to them as part of twelve tribes. In Rev. vii. the twelve tribes still mean Christian Jews in contrast with the "great mult.i.tude" of redeemed Gentiles. Justin Martyr speaks of "your twelve tribes" in addressing Trypho[2] the Jew, and several instances are to be found in early Christian literature where the words are used in this literal sense.

We may therefore rest content with this literal meaning. But we must maintain it with reserve in view of the fact that St. Peter applies the word "dispersion" to the new and ideal Israel. And we must beware of arguing that the word "synagogue" (ii. 2) proves that the readers were necessarily Jews. The word "synagogue" was for a long time occasionally applied to the Gentile Christian congregations, as we find in the _Shepherd_ of Hermas[3] (A.D. 140) and Theophilus[4] (A.D. 180).