tbat τ Hf hdniabe ry EY 8. sie a ΠῚ ἡ A ἃ νι δι eee eee bea tary 9 ΚΥΝῚ 4 we wey Was Wate a ΧΗ ΚῊΝ VA We hota ΣᾺ ἐν ὅν ΛΝ οὐ “ὦ ‘ erie whys, UW asac ged Vl MWe ted ᾿ : hs dy Re Corey y ὍΝ 4 iy ᾿ mn baa rey Sa Po Oh Ete ee ein tory ae ΟΝ ty Beare RY 3a aM hy ΡΝ ἫΝ ὃν, hale tated ta wid, Bey, Ale TN as PANS LN, hs ΣΝ, sa ae ΒΝ ἢ VEC: Pre ey Satta: ered wig λ σελ rsa Mpeg bate tig dehy Fa eae ae pa. ΜΝ τὰ ἐν μὴν ἢ A Bed τήρει μα ἐν LIne et a ear ey ΕΣ “Δ τς Yt tor WOOT Sy We Base Peat ee ra ΤῊ ΣῪ ἃ (ἣν ere ΟὟ awe nae nal Car Ane se) ΡΝ] Dhara τ, cad “τ ang rie Cay ee αν πεν 7) “ , «αἰ ἢ δ ἜΝ ey uur τ τὴ τα hd SON ete fee nS wthaths nu ae At nce whats bab ἢ Fiat aes pike ΣΤΟΥΣ say Bh ot ramet weak A Reads bn ἢν μοι Meal Rs ts Macias “balboa: ΕΝ "δον Matte ὅς ὁ νὰς be τον i a ee Seating “i nite P δι HALE Taha τυ ἡσῳγὰς. Mines lt ttosieelt ait thea ttonatear bad ae Ma ihayas ‘A the Sats Sa heatie= Anibal ele αι U Mabie aan, ΕΝ LAT ac ateaite hele Cas ri οἶνον art) 4K SIMs Aiiabhatewageaeseb en ΟΡ ΜΕΝ, ROS ἡκῆ ον, ΜῊΝ ἘΝῚ hehe: SUNS hageachat® Nahar e We a hot Ne! Rare dy ἐν τως ἰδεῖν έτος: ΟΣ abate quate age iq ¥ RYE? prgny Pa ας ΡΝ doer ete See “a Pe" meget yee ΔΗ ΚΗ αν a ΩΝ ey ais wea varia τανε τ" ge) sarong ies Ὁ grneneded® teen. Pe MeL he εἰδοχ να ΤῊΣ ΠῚ “ah tee e sd “asd APM gma tity ΝῊ Asatte tae cyte : Ph eater gs Eee rege Teer ar nent Fave wee veey ay oly Perr ea rae ἜΗΙ ἐς ΠΑΝ ΟΝ Fao UBL et τ Cte ea) po ἢ ip We σα} ae, fe ΠΝ ΠΣ ay, prions ty AD ΤΉ Ν᾽ St dei dae URC τὸ ee rita neve 4 death edu ΠΣ that Ye ay “ἢ ἡ why ΓΝ y 4 ΠΝ ΠῚ ἡ τά ἢ Ἧ Ἢ ῦ δὴν το ; Gq Fee ht iF τ “ὯΝ, Pin ae" ee a αὮ Phat sus τα τοι BW OPE EF ary sisi nana rues iy eH IG adem saa ote ΡΥ. rt bw vbah Ἡ: 2 Bue aay Lean ae ΓΟ ΜΝ ΜῊ RARY OF PRI ΝΕῸΣ we Ps YEO! OgicAL SEM A COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES: CRITICAL, DOCTRINAL, AND HOMILETICAL, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MINISTERS AND STUDENTS, BY JOHN PETER LANGE, D.D. IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF EMINENT EUROPEAN DIVINES. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, AND EDITED, WITH ADDITIONS ORIGINAL AND SELECTED, BY 4 PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D. IN CONNECTION WITH AMERICAN DIVINES OF VARIOUS EVANGELICAL DENOMINATIONS+ VOL. IX. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: CONTAINING THE EPISTLES GENERAL OF JAMES, PETER, JOHN AND JUDE. NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER, & CO., 654 BROADWAY. 1867. THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. BY J. P.. LANGE, D.D., PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BONN, AND J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE, D.D., PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF UTRECHT, TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND REVISED GERMAN EDITION, WITH ADDITIONS ORIGINAL AND SELECTED, BY J. ISIDOR MOMBERT, D.D., RECTOR OF ST. JAMES’S CHURCH, LANCASTER, PA. NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER, ἃ 60., 654 BROADWAY. 1867. ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867, by CHARLES SCRIBNER, In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Weeeeneceetaneereemenonsscs sence ~ Tue New York Printinc Company, 81, 83, and 85 Centre Street, New York, Stereotyped by JAS. B. RODGERS, PHILADELPHIA, rene none ceeenneceeeeweneeee τον ας TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. In the preparation of this Commentary on the Catholic Epistles no pains have been spared to make it useful to Anglo-American readers. More than three years of labour have been bestowed upon it; and the translation of several Epistles, originally made from the earlier Ger- man editions, has been carefully revised by the /atest. The addenda are numerous, and have entailed a vast amount of work. They will speak for themselves. It is hoped that the readings of the Codex Siniaticus, uniformly embodied in this Commentary, the constant reference to the best English and other divines, ancient and modern, and the extracts from their comments on this section of the New Testament, will place the reader in possession of every element necessary to the understanding of these Epistles. I have endeavoured faithfully to comply with the general principles regulating the transla- tion; and if the reproduction of the style of four different writers presented peculiar difficulties, it is gratifying to me that none of the Catholic Epistles in Lange’s Commentary have ever before been translated into English. The diversity of style, to which I have just referred, will be espe- cially apparent in the Introduction and the Critical and Exegetical portions of the Epistles of St. James, from the pen of Dr. Lange. He has an extraordinary genius for word-coining, and some of his combinations are so graphic, telling and original, that I have deemed it proper to reproduce them in English for the reason that these somewhat grotesque and strange-looking words have often the effect of stimulating the mental activity of the reader. The context is generally their commentary; where this was not the case in the original, due recourse has been had to periphrastic explanations, On many questions I differ from the authors, and the addenda are mostly made to remove onesidedness of statement. In numerous instances, however, I hesitated to express my dissent, because I did not think it fair to carry on a controversy with them in the pages of their own works. I am only responsible for the matter in brackets, [ 7, marked M. May the Divine blessing rest upon my humble endeavours to aid in the elucidation of this important and interesting section of the Inspired Volume! To the reader I would say: “ Zrrores pauci fuerint si forte libello,—errores paucos tollat amica manus |’? J. Istpor Momserr. Lancaster, Pa., April 1, 1867. ey Tey f eh “ oa hi a ᾿ Δ, αν # ΠΝ έεη Γ pies ον μι ΝΜ" ed ae ΝΣ f * yt Wp WW nie: ΜῈ, ἐξ oleae ly é fey F ao νι diy ay Ἷ ΙΑ ᾿ r f οἱ Ὶ Ὡ ἘΝ pow Ἢ " ae ' we A Lp fe Ἢ " δ Ton ? δὶ Ἔν ane Ὗ ia ‘ op Ν τ iT ye ne oes [No tne Masi i) ay wars 4; ἮΝ Av ee war ants: arth ἐν fleas ny Ἢ ἐλάαν ἡ Aaah Mahar atest PAM te 4 Wed: i, hy wh ipo τῳ ; π᾿ Ἂν a ns 7 ict ie ery a) pie ak ἫΝ , Py . heaton πῆς ᾿ μὴ» B aby oh eae ψ τ ον lili ΛΝ ΤῊ 5 regen duet. Ce ee er ΠΝ Sabin natn λδ ὡς ican! the ἣν jaya A it Vapi: i tevin! | sate i pe’ Jen ison δ, ii Nath! oo ad ae a sit ΣῊΝ A 3 bai ais alt es ΠΝ ἣν a a ses as rrr i i el hat ᾿ sigan ey i “αὶ ἀδιία τα “tg «ae etme of bul σὰ μὰν ee tite Na dae oy Aapnoose | νι γα μνμνν". Αι μιόψ tasdeagies + cee i see Se re Aleta a8 οὐ χα sha’ qe bive ‘ mae Lies he 4 ιν ὦ ἔν ’ et Sant ἢ f el ΕΣ ΤΥ i Ἂ ΠΣ πων οὐ Sid αϑάύανς iy nS νι Ah A ἢ τ ie ; ΝΣ be TAGs ᾿ de Α - “ δ ἐπ * ᾿ Ὃ » ἴ; sae’ i | sgt FE ONE as (int oA RE Men te eS er GE ra ἕω + γον ᾿ 9) dite aps Wi ΠΣ ᾿ ἊΨ» ᾿ ᾿ Ata, bry — ΝΥ ϊ ΝΣ ἤν τ ' ay ᾿ 4 “a ; ; ‘ 7 . 7 Ἢ 5 ( ὦ ᾿᾿ we - Φ = ᾧ i Ay r AN aki ᾿ ae J g “we . PALS > ᾿ " ~~ P ἢ gr; a = ; ἢ. A } a j s eon “ ὲ ἢ a0 ee εν: ie 1 } ᾿ ; 4 if id tS ew ae Γ ᾿ ᾿ “ 7 ‘ “ ΝᾺ Ῥ ou εἴ, γῆ 7 ; a iS or > nl lat er Jn “ἱ ; δ: ¥ et) call | ΠΡ a ey aL Dh LAWN G Es PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION OF JAMES. Tu1s Commentary on the Epistle of James is the joint work of my respected friend, Dr. van Oosterzee and myself. The Introduction, the translation and the Critical and Exegetical notes, are my work; the Doctrinal and Homiletical sections have been supplied by Dr. van Oosterzee. I heartily thank my friend and collaborator for the cheerful and valuable help he has thus far bestowed upon this Commentary. With respect to the sections undertaken by me, there were especially two reasons which made the work one of peculiar interest to me. In the first place, I was anxious to improve this oppor- tunity to testify against the old Ebionito-apocryphal fiction of non-apostolic brothers of the Lord, who were, at the same time, held in high Apostolic repute. In the second place I desired to express my conviction that the Epistle of James (like the First Epistle of Peter and the Epistle to the Hebrews) cannot be sufficiently appreciated unless the history of the world, at the time when it was written, be constantly referred to, viz., the beginnings of that great Jewish revolu- tion against the Romans, which, with its national sympathies, was, to the Jews in general, a great temptation to become hardened, and to the Jewish Christians an equal temptation to apos- tasy. This historical reference, hitherto neglected, in my opinion, can only prove advantageous to the exposition of this Epistle. In this sense I have been working; may the fundamental thought of my work be attested by blessed results. I only add that I did not expect that my honoured collaborator would forthwith apply in the Doctrinal and Homiletical sections the aforesaid points of view, which have still to fight for recognition among theologians. On the contrary I thought it most desirable that the universal side of the Epistle should be fully developed in the Doctrinal and Homiletical sections without special reference to its historical points; and, indeed, the independence of my friend, led me to expect an execution of his work carried out in this sense. The Commentary, as a whole, has doubtless gained in allsidedness by this recognition of the universal by the side of the historicai point of view. i at * Ὃ ae He Fel p aeedlinta ted yearn AP μ᾿ i bal oP ee a ι Mav? ἢ ᾿ μὴ am ; Why 2 a ἡ ἵ᾿ ‘ ee mow Pree ‘i eer Ἢ ΩΣ a ἘΠ A ee ate ὧν Wheto ooh hives Fie. ἣν bie Ἡ ἐν bgt bait Νὰ en stab ΣῊΝ eS hee ΓΝ DM ay ΠΡ $0 baw Sati [Raters ia! Ὁ aide tie et ala Oil twat ae ΠΡ ΤΥ, Ἂ δὰ “δ é Ν. rare a wis a4 ja 9 Ι > rt * ; τ ~~ iat ων , “ἢ δ ἧς “ἢ BARE ν᾽ "ἢ ὧν, " δι ΝΣ Δ aed ΤΥ δὰ rod νῶν Figura τὴ ie runke ἊΣ ° ᾿ 4 ch Bre ety Me wa ee VET Τὴ» ΩΣ dda head ᾿ φ- ἣν ΝΜ ἡ Pou 4 ΥΩ gs Wo babi | ' ΚΝ At ean’ Ws Seite | ᾿ ὃ aay ἮΨ ᾿ξ i Ὁ. mera ἢ emo re Che Ae if eee | * Sale: dingy yin Mires iy ἘΝ ad i sin wees adh aby te: Sit. {i any 0h A Pd ae yi tte ἡ A i τ aed) Lie τ ΓΝ ἜΜ ΤΠ ᾿ ; if τον ) 2 a va? ll bi cata δὶ Ἔν er 8 Ν ΝΥ. μ᾿; m5 , wid q ι ἢ “Ἰ mes ὌΝ Εν. 1 ν Ong Sekar aan. sash ῥὶ ied ἐν Way Pie de poe ap wi ἧι ; ort } i LAr | pened wD Ti tary a Prod rte ἢ al Rei | i \y > ν΄ με Ὁ Saha ᾽ν Fah 171: DAN GE's PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION OF JAMES. My respected friend and codperator, Dr. yan Oosterzee, has charged me to represent him also in this Preface to the second edition. The first thing to be said imports the assurance that each has carefully, revised, and here and there rectified or improved his respective part, without subjecting the orginal shape of the work to unnecessary changes. Since the publication of the first edition Dr. van Oosterzee has been called and translated to Utrecht in the capacity of Professor ordinarius of Theology; he himself has thus occasioned the first and very gratifying change on the title-page. Another call, namely, the removal cf our friend, the Rev. Chantepie de la Saussaye, from Leyden to Rotterdam, had, alas, the consequence that the note on page 5 of the first edition [not inserted in the translation for this very reason—M.] could not be fulfilled, according to which he had undertaken the preparing of the Johannean Epistles, hut found himself for an indefinite period prevented to carry his task into effect. But, by the help of God, said section of this Commentary passed from one compe- tent hand to another. Our whole work, moreover, has lately made considerable progress; the publishers, as well as tne authors, may look back upon the road already traversed, with cheerful gratitude, and forward to the goal with increasing hope. With reference to exegesis there have appeared since the publication of the first edition in 1862, four theological novelties m our field of labour, which deserve to be noticed: The second edition of the Commentary on James, from the pen of Dr. Huther, appeared in 1863; last year the third edition of the respective section of de Wette’s Handbook, prepared by Dr. Brickner; in the same year also a new commentary, of considerable extent, on this Epistle, from the pen of the lately deceased venerable Professor Bouman of Utrecht, published after his death by his sons under the title of “Hermanni Bowman, Theol. Dr. et in Acad. Rhenotraject. Prof. Ord. Com- mentarius perpetuus in Jacobi Epistolom post. mortem auctoris editus. Trajectiad Rhenum apud Kemink et Filium, 1865.” To these Commentaries must be added the publication of the Codex Sinaiticus. ; The second edition of Huther’s Commentary on the Epistle of James, having been concluded as early as October, 1862, has not led to reciprocal discussions between it and our exegetical work. Interesting is Huther’s discussion with his reviewer, Professor Frank of Erlangen, introduced into the preface owing to the circumstance that his reviewer misconstrued the statement that Paul also teaches a consideration of works in the final judgment. Dr. Brickner has referred to our work both in the Introduction and in his exposition. The circumstance, that we could not move that highly-esteemed theologian to pronounce in favour of the radical modifications of the exegesis of this Epistle, in consequence of the definite historical construction which we have put on it, does not disturb us or fill us with doubt; it must also be borne in mind that he had to deal with the revision of a book which, as the preparation of a mandatary work, imposed upon him the most rigid self-constraint. In opposition to our statement that the author designed to fortify the Jewish Christians against the already roused revolutionary spirit of the Jews, without in- cautiously drawing the impending revolution in over-distinct colours, Briickner simply contends x DR. LANGE’S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION OF JAMES. that then the “political fanaticism” ought at least to have been touched in the Epistle. In reply we have to observe, that it is characteristic of the apostolical wisdom of the author to oppose political fanaticism only in its religious motives and roots. These motives and roots, however, appear plain enough by replies to the following questions: 1. Which was the greatest common cause of all the twelve tribes of the Jews in part believing, in part still receptive of belief, during the sixth decade after the birth of Christ? 2. Which could be the manifold com- mon temptations which through patience and steadfastness they were to change into all joy? Or, to be still briefer, which was at that time the common great trial of faith of the twelve tribes ? And wherein had, consequently, the common proof to consist? 8. Why does the Apostle, after the general warning against representing the general temptation as a temptation from God, 7. 6. as a provocation, pass at once to the condemnation of wrath? 4. And what, in particular, is the import of the warning in chapter iii. 13 sqq., which even progresses to the naming of ἀκαταστασία as the result of ζῆλος and ἐριθεία Similar questions arise from each separate section of our Epistle in opposition to the non-historical construction of our Epistle as being merely a collection of edifying exhortations to good moral conduct, but where it is anything bat edifying that the author straightway assumes that the poor were disregarded at worship ard otherwise neglected in all the twelve tribes of the dispersion, and that the rich Christians were guilty of conduct that he felt justified or rather constrained to utter a woe on them. We reiterate the expression of our conviction, that the non-appreciation of the historical motives and prophetico- symbolical phraseology of the Kpistle leaves its great one fundamental thoug)t well-nigh un- opened, and this is proved by the extraordinary misconstructions which have been put upon it. Bouman, the venerable veteran of Dutch theology, who left his Commentary in manuscript, like a testament, to the care of his sons, has first of all gladdened us by the decisiveness and scientific force with which he represents in the Introduction the view taat the author of our Epistle could have been none other than the Apostle Jacobus Alphaci. May this example be a sign that theological science begins to turn away from the all-confounding and self-confused pre- judice, that a non-apostolical James had risen to the highest apostolical repute in the apostoli- cal Church, because he was a brother of the Lord according to the flesh, who at a late period became converted to the faith. We discover also a welcome agreement of the author with this Commentary in the assumption that the Epistle, though primarily addressed to Jewish Chris- tians, had also the secondary design of converting the receptive Jews to the faith; and that this circumstance accounts also for the prophetical colouring of the Epistle. His attaching particular importance to the parallelism between the Apostle as the head of the Church at Jerusalem and the High priest with reference to the Jewish dispersion, appears to us as not unfounded; but the hypothesis that the Epistle dates from the earliest time of the propagation of Christianity, does not induce us to change the view expressed by us in this respect in this Commentary, or to fortify it by the production of new arguments. The exposition itself resembles variously the Scholia- form, and moves in the track of the customary general and abstract construction of the Epistle, takes, however, in a learned and independent manner, cognizance of modern exegetes, and mani- fests also with reference to the Codex Sinwaiticus a free critical judgment. The readings of the Sinaiticus, wherever they appeared to be important, have mostly been added to the critical notes. May the joint preparation of this Epistle continue to be blessed in promoting the vital appreciation of the glorious totality of the Scripture as the Word of God, which appreciation must be consummated in the belief that all the writings of Paul and of James are in perfect agreement with one another, and with the whole Scripture, THE EDITOR, . Bonn, January 6, 1866. THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. ΠΝ ΠΟ UC ΤΙ ΟΝ: THE EPISTLE OF JAMES BEING THE FIRST AMONG THE SO-CALLED CATHOLIC EPISTLES, IT IS NECESSARY TO FOUND THE PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE OF JAMES ON A MORE GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. J. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN GENERAL. 1. THE TERM “CATHOLIC EPISTLES” AND THEIR STATUS (GERM. Bestand). The term “Catholic Epistles” embraces the seven Apostolic Epistles, which, besides the Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews added to them, are found in the Canon of the New Testament; namely the Epistle of James, the two Epistles of Peter, the three Epistles of John and the Epistle of Jude. According to the primary and original meaning of ἐπιστολὴ καϑολικῆ, it denotes an encyclical writing, which as such was primarily addressed not to individual Churches or persons, but to a larger ecclesiastical sphere, to a number of Churches. In this sense Clement of Alexandria (Stromat. iv.) calls the Epistle of the Apostles and of the Church at Jerusalem addressed to Christian congregations according to Acts xv. 22-29 an ἐπιστολὴ καϑολική. So Origen (contra Celsum i. 63) calls the Epistle of Barnabas, the contents of which characterize it an encyclical writing, καϑολική. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 18) reports that Apollonius reproached Themison, the Montanist, with having written in imitation of the Apostle (probably John) an ἐπιστολὴ Ka- ϑολική. This shows that the universal character of the First Epistle of John was designated by the term ‘Catholic’ as early as the time of Apollonius, that is: in the beginning of the third cen- tury. Even Origen applies this designation in this sense to the First Epistle of John (in the Commentary of John), to the First Epistle of Peter (according to Euseb. vi. 25), and to the Epistle of Jude, but in passages which are found only ina Latin translation (Comment. in epist. ad Roman.). In the time of Eusebius, the term ‘Catholic’ was already applied to the whole group of Epistles, which we call Catholic. “James,” he says “Gg said to have written the first of the Catholic Epistles” and then adverts to “the seven Epistles called Catholic.” (Hist. Heel. ii. 23). The meaning “Epistles more general as to their contents and object,” which Guerike considers to be primary, could only be secondary, because it generally resulted from the nature of the encyclical writing; for the very first Catholic Epistle (Acts xv.) was not general as to its object and contents. There was but one step from changing the originally somewhat general character of these circular letters which assigned to them a more enlarged sphere of the Church, into one altogether general. Thus the Apostolical Epistle (Acts xv.) was already destined to apply to the whole Gentile-Christian Church, while the Epistle of James and probably that to the Hebrews were designed for the whole Jewish-Christian Church. In this sense, Oecumenius (Prolegom. in Epist. Jacob.) declared that they had been called ‘Catholic,’ inasmuch as they had 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. not been addressed to a particular people or city, like the Epistles of Paul, but to believers in general (as a whole, καϑόλου), whether to Jewish Christians of the dispersion or even to all Chris- tians, as members of the same faith. In the Western Church the term ¢pistole canonice instead of catholice obtained great currency from the time of Junilius and Cassiodorus (see Credner, Jntrod. p. 570). That this could not have been the original sense follows decisively from the fact that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. ii, 23) applies the term ‘Catholic’ also to the Epistles of Dionysius of Corinth to the Churches at Lacedzemon, Athens, etc. But Eusebius probably combined also here with the idea of the encyclical character the idea of the universal, for he remarked concerning said Dionysius and his Epistle, “that he was most useful to all (ἅπασιν absolutely) in the Catholic Epistles which he addressed to the Churches.” Yet Eusebius gave already occasion that the idea of general reception or canonicity was com- bined with the idea of partial or entire universality by saying of the First Epistle of Peter: “The First Epistle of Peter is universally acknowledged, but the Acts of Peter, the Gospel according - to Peter, the Preaching and the Revelation of Peter are not among the Catholic writings.” [ Hist. Eccl. iii, 3—M.].—It is evident that neither the idea of universality nor that of canonicity could be applied absolutely to the Catholic Epistles as contrasted with those of Paul. If they were called universal, the reference was to their more general tenor, if they were called canonical, the reference was at once to their more general contents and to their direct general authority, without any intention of seeking thereby to weaken the less direct universality and canonicity of the Pauline Epistles. Besides this definition of the term ‘Catholic Epistles,’ another has arisen in modern times, Hug in his Introduction to the Writings of the New Testament ii. p. 429 observes as follows: “ After the Gospels and the Acts had been referred to one division and the writings of St. Paul to another, there were still remaining the writings of different authors which might again be collected under one head and had to be distinguished by a name of their own. They might most aptly be called καϑολικὸν σύνταγμα of the Apostles and the writings contained in it κοιναί and καϑολικαί, these two words being frequently used as synonymes by Greek writers.” In proof of this statement, Hug brings forward the declaration of Clement of Alexandria concerning the Apostolical Epistle, Acts xv. 23, namely, the Catholic Epistle in which all the Apostles took part. But τῶν ἀποστόλων πάντων has not the meaning which Hug discovers in it. He then cites the judgment of Eusebius that the “First Epistle of Peter is universally acknowledged, but the Acts of Peter, the Gospel according to Peter, the Preaching and Revelation of Peter are not among the Catholic writings.” This, according to Hug, denotes the class to which the Apostolical writings in general were then referred. But the citation from Eusebius established rather the contrast between writings acknowled and writings not acknowledged. The circumstance, finally, that the Epistle of Barnabas is called Catholic, he tries to account for by the assertion that Barnabas also was sometimes called an Apostle. But the true explanation must be sought in its contents, for in the time of Origen, the Epistle of Barnabas was neither acknowledged as Apostolical nor as Canonical. In the sense of Hug, it has also been attempted to draw a parallel between the origin of the Canon of the Old Testament and that of the Canon of the New. For it is maintained that as in the formation of the Canon of the Old Testament, after the Thorah and the Prophets had been collected under their respec- tive heads, the remaining sacred writings, in general, were collected under the head of Hagio- grapha, so, in the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, after the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles (εὐαγγέλιον and ἀπόστολος) had been collected, the remaining sacred writings of the New Testament were collected under the head “Catholic Epistles,” ὁ, e. writings of the New Testament in general (καθόλου) .---- Αραγὺ from possible objections to that view of the Old Testament, it is self- evident that in that case the reference ought to have been to Catholic writings and not to Catholic Zpistles, and that then both the Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews ought to have been included in the last-named class, Credner gives the following natural account of the old arrangement of the Canon of the New Testament: “ First historical notices of Jesus (the Gospels); then such notices of the Apos- tles; then general (catholic) Epistles of the Apostles; then Epistles to separate congregations I. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN GENERAL. 5 eee ee ee and to individuals (the Epistles of Paul). This primary arrangement originated in a clear per- ception of what was collected and why it was collected.” But the ideal principle of division has evidently been modified by historical relations. A division purely made with reference to subject-matter, would require the Epistle to the Ephesians and that to the Hebrews to be included among the Catholic Epistles, the second and third Epis- tles of John to be excluded from them. The latter, however, were considered as supplemental to the first Epistle of John, and the former retained by the great mass of the Pauline Epistles, as it were, by attraction. 2. THE IMPORT OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ~The Catholic Epistles, comprehending only a small part of the New Testament Canon, are of the utmost importance on account of the completeness and fulness of that part. As the four Gospels are designed mutually to complement each other, so here the types of the doctrine of James, Peter and John, complement the type of the doctrine of Paul. By this com- plementing they preserve the Christian consciousness from a one-sided culture of the Pauline expression; by the variety and fulness of their modes of treatment and expression, they guarantee the fulness of Christian cognition and the full vitality and motion of the churchly spirit. Paul has been called the Apostle of faith; John the Apostle of love, Peter the Apostle of hope. This is a very imperfect mode of distinction, because, to name only one reason, it is exclusively Pauline; it denotes, nevertheless, the riches of the Apostolical complements furnished by the Catholic Epistles. These Epistles, moreover, are highly important as mirroring the condition of the “ Church during the latter period of the Apostolic age. In this respect they constitute an indis- pensable connecting-link between the Acts and the Pauline Epistles (excepting the Pastoral Epistles to which they are intimately related) on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and the Apostolical Fathers on the other—While in the Book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles, we have the exhibition of the external diversity of the Churches which were springing up every where, as yet predominating over the certainly existing internal unity, the encyclical character of most of these Epistles (as also of that to the Hebrews) gives already greater prominence to the con- sciousness of a full, and moreover, of an external unity of the Church. ‘This holds also good of the Epistle of James, for he addresses Christendom of Jewish origin not as an Ebionite Jewish- _ Christian but as an Apostle. These Epistles moreover acquaint us with the further develop- ments of Church-life in the Apostolic age; with the springing up of the Ebionite and Gnostic weeds among the wheat of pure doctrine, and on the other hand, with the development of the more distinct, the dogmatically more conscious Apostolic and church-testimony. Ebionitism is perfectly drawn in symbolical characters not sufficiently appreciated—in the Epistle of James (ch. ii. 2, etc.), in the first Epistle of John (ch. ii. 22, ete.), and probably also in the third of John (v. 9); Gnostic libertinism, on the other hand, is condemned in the Epistle of Jude, in the second of Peter (ch. ii.), and in 1 Jno. iv. 1, etc. With respect to ecclesiastical constitution, our Hpistles confirm the identity of the Presbyterate and the Episcopate; but the dignity of the presbyter-bishop becomes more distinct in the position taken by Jude, James, John (2 dno. 1) and Peter. That is, we have to deal with Apostolical men who, as leading presbyters, had even then entered upon close relations with specific ecclesiastical circles; this applies at least to James and John. We also obtain hints of the form of worship (Jude 12; 2 Pet. 11. 13), and of a certain method and gradation in the presentation of Christian doctrine (1 Jno. 11. 12, etc.). With respect to the relation of the different New Testament types of doctrine, so richly represented in the Catholic Epistles, we take for granted that in this field a conflict of doctrine is impossible but that differences of doctrine, various types, ὁ. 6. individual views, conceptions and modes of statement are necessary. All the Apostles are agreed in that they see in Christianity the New Testament, that is: 1, the fulfilment and therein the harmonious contrast of the Old Testament, the completed religion of revelation; 2, the fulfilment and contrast of all incomplete religions in general, the perfect religion absolutely; 3, consequently they see in the New Testa- ment the primeval, even the everlasting Testament, the everlasting religion which, while it must branch out into the two zons of struggling development and of glorious consummation, can 6 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. nevermore be followed by another religion. In these respects James is not by a hair’s breadth less evangelical (German: neutestamentlich) than Paul and John. The New Testament, according to all the New Testament types of doctrine, is the fulfilment, the real form, therefore, of the religion which the Old Testament had traced in the symbolical shadow. Christianity is the fulfilment of the law of the Old Testament, hence the royal law of love, the law of liberty, of spiritual life, of unity; such is the teaching of James. Christianity is the fulfilment of the theocracy of the Old Testament, hence the real kingdom of God, the real royal priesthood, which, first a kingdom of suffering, finds its consummation in a kingdom of glory; such is the teaching of Peter. Christianity is the fulfilment of the old Covenant, of the sacraments of the Old Testament, hence the real circumcision and regeneration, hence the real passover, the real redemption and the real new human life as the principle of a real new world of the resurrection, the New Covenant of faith and the new covenant-jubilee of the communion of faith; such is the teaching of Paul. Christianity is the fulfilment of the worship of the Old Testament, hence the real eternal Divine worship of the completed word, of the completed Sabbath, of completed sacrifice and of the completed festive-church (Germ: Fest-Gemeinde.); such fas following Paul—the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Christianity is the fulfilment of all the symbolism of the Old Tedtamnent, and of all the sym- bolism of primitive monotheism (Germ.- Urmonotheismus) in general, on which the Old Testament is founded, hence the real new world in the development of its glorification (Germ. Verkldrung) by the Personal Word in the threefold lustre of real light, real love and real life; such is the teaching of John. The Epistles of Peter (on the character of Peter see my Apostol. Age, I., p. 354, and the Article “ Petrus,” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedia,) are connected with the speeches of Peter in Acts, and the Petrine Gospel of Mark. They form a connecting link between the doctrine of James and that of Paul. The fundamental idea of the First EpistLe oF Peter is ch. i. 3, 4, the regeneration of Chris- tians out of suffering unto an incorruptible inheritance (Land of inheritance and kingdom of inheri- tance). The division is as follows: Introduction: The new hope of the spiritual Israel flowing from the resurrection of Christ from the dead, ch. i. 1-3. The theme already specified, ch. i. 4. I. Believers destined for this blessedness of the inheritance, ch. i. 5-9. Il. The Old Testament pointing to this inheritance, v. 10-12. III. The pilgrimage of the spiritual Israel to this goal. Their sanctification. Their re- demption. Their brotherly love on the ground of their common heavenly descent by means of regeneration, eh, 1. 13-25, IV. The New Covenant. The preparation of the New Testament. Christ the living stone, antitype of Sinai. Christians, the new theocracy ch. ii. 1-10. Y. The wilderness-pilgrims (v. 11) and their behaviour towards pagans; a. according to the relations of the pagans, v. 12-17; ὃ. according to the relations of the Christians. The beha- viour of enslaved men (males); that of wives, especially in mixed marriages, ch. ii. 18— iii. 2. VI. The behaviour of Christians among themselves, ch. iii. 3-8. VII. Their behaviour towards persecutors, ch. 111. 9-22. VIII. Readiness and blessedness of suffering, ch. iv. IX. The proper relation of the leaders of the flock of God and those who are led, especially as the proper preparation against the adversary, ch. v. 1-9. Conclusion, Benediction and Salu- tation, v. 10-14. But compare the First Epistle of Peterin this commentary. As to its literature, we have still to mention Schott’s commentary, which has recently appeared. Erlangen 1861. With respect to the Seconp Epistte or Perer, we refer to our work, “The Apostolical Age” (Das Apostolische Zeitalter, Vol. 1., p. 156). We continue to maintain the hypothesis there advanced, that the Epistle of Jude according to its contents was at a later period inserted in I. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN GENERAL. 7 the original Epistle of Peter." The fundamental idea of the Second Epistle of Peter is this: Christians are promised to become partakers of the Divine nature by the knowledge of Christ’s glory and virtue; hence they are charged to make their godliness [evoéBeca—M.] sure by persever- ance, ch. 1. 8, 4. Conformably thereto is the Introduction, which serves the purpose of wishing and recommending them to grow in the knowledge of God andin Christ, ch. i. 1-3. Why this is necessary is shown by the argument.—The above mentioned theme, ch. 1. 3, 4. DevetopmeEnt: I, They are to grow therein practically by the development of their Chris- tian life, ch. 1. 5-9, II. Their growth in knowledge is necessary, because otherwise they would fall through stumbling, v. 10-12. III. Such a stumbling might be occasioned to them by his impending departure (his martyr- death) and lead to their doubting the promise of Christ’s advent, v. 13-19. (But prophecy is established as the word of the true prophets of God contrasted with the false prophets who shall arise, ch, 1. 20—i11. 2). IV. The coming of those who deny the advent of Christ, ch. ili. 3, 4. Y. Refutation of their denial, v. 5-13. Conclusion, with a reference to misinterpreted say- ings of Paul, concerning the advent of Christ, v. 14-18. Tur EpistLe or JupE (on the character of Jude, see my Life of Jesus, II., 149, 699; Apostolical Age, I., p. 364.—Compare the Epistle of Jude in this work) may be regarded as the forerunner of the apocalyptic descriptions of Gnostic Antinomianism (2 Pet. 11.; Rev. 11.6; vv. 14 15). The type of its doctrine and the symbolical mode of its expression connect it with the Epistle of James. Its more definite analogies in the Old Testament as revelations of the judg- ment are the books of Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. On the Apostolicity of its Author compare our special introduction to James. The fundamental idea of the Epistle of Jude: contending for the true faith against the false belief or unbelief of the (Gnostic) Anomists, v. 3. The introduction pursuant to this theme: a word addressed to those who continue preserved in Christ vv. 1, 2. The theme, vy. 3. Division of the short Epistle. I. The real character of the Anomists: turning the grace of God into wantonness, v. 4. II. The ancient types of these Anomists and of their judgment; a, the people of Israel in the wilderness; 0, the rebel-angels; c, the Sodomites, vv. 5-7. III. More definite characteristics. Fanaticism unfolding on the one hand into voluptuous- ness, on the other, into contempt of authority, vv. 8-10. The development of their ruin, y. 11. Their pseudo-Christian and anti-Christian character, vv. 12, 13. IV. Their coming foretold as to the fundamental trait of their character, viz., murmuring against revelation; a, by Enoch, the most ancient prophet (according to Jewish tradition, to which the book of Enoch also must be supposed to have been indebted); ὃ, by the Apostles of Christ, v. 14-20. V. Exhortation to proper behaviour towards them; a, defensive, vv. 20, 21; ὁ, polemical, v. 22,23. Conclusion. Benediction for the preservation of the readers and doxology, vv. 24, 25. THE EpistLEs oF JoHN join with the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the last type of the deve- lopments of Pauline doctrine. They form in conjunction with his Gospel and Apocalypse the last and most completed type of New Testament doctrine. On the unity of this grand trilogy, compare my History of the Apostolic Age, 11., p. 571. The much misunderstood unity of the three Epistles of John, flows from the relation of the second and third Epistles to the theme and division cf the first. For the theme of the first Epistle is not, as is commonly supposed, communion with God through Christ, but the mutual com- munion of Christians based upon that communion. The true communion of the Church: based upon walking in the light, ch. i. 7. The Introduction leads to this. The end of all Apostolical preaching is to bring about Apostolic communion as a medium of communion with the Father and the Son. For historically the communion with God is made to depend on communion with 11 did not know at the first advancing of my hypothesis, that Bertholdt had already considered the second chapter as an interpolation. 8 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. the Apostles; but then the communion of Christians among themselves as a communion of perfect joy (the κοινωνία-επἐκκλησία) is made to depend on communion with the Lord. Hence: I. The communion of God and Christ on which the communion of Christians is made to depend: a, permanent reconciliation; 6, confession of sins; ¢, faith in the Advocate; d, the keeping of His commandments; 6, that is, of His word; f, ¢. e. of the commandment of brotherly love; g, formation of this behaviour in fathers, young men and children; ὦ, the rooting of this behaviour in the love of God, as contrasted with the love of the world, ch. i. 7—ii. 17. II. The communion of Christians as contrasted with the Ebionito-Antichristian denial of _ Christ and hatred of the brethren, evidenced by the abandonment of communion, ch. ii. 18—iii. 24. The Antichristians; a, seceded; b, denial that Jesus is the Christ, the Son; c, exhortation to perseverance in faith; d, the protection of the anointing (with the Holy Ghost); e, the dignity’ of adoption [ Kindschaft=state of being the children of God—M.]; ἡ, the demonstration of adop- tion: righteousness, brotherly love. III. Maintenance of purity of communion as contrasted with Gnostic spirits who deny Christ having come in the flesh, ch. iv. 1-6. IV. The vitalizing of the communion of Christians among each other, ch. iv. 7—yv. 12; a, The source of brotherly love: God is Love; ὃ, Maintenance of this love by brotherly love, by the Holy Ghost, by the confession of Christ; ¢, the perfecting of this love in joyfulness before God; in rejoicing in the brethren as God-born; d, Test of true brotherly love by the love of God as evidenced by faith in the Son of God. Conclusion. Exhortation to faith; to prayer; to intercession for erring brethren; to confidence; to watchfulness against deifying the world, ch. y. 12-21. Now since the First EpistLe oF JonN manifestly sets forth the law of the life of Christian communion, his two lesser Epistles are clearly corollaries of the first, the second (to the κυρίᾳ) warning against a lax loosing of the limits of communion, and the third (to Gaius) contending on the other hand against a fanatical narrowing of its large-hearted and wide-reaching sphere. Tue EpistLE To THE HEBREWS, being so variously connected with the Catholic Epistles and more particularly with the Epistle of James, we also add a brief notice on its .construc- tion. Its fundamental idea is: Christ, the fulfiller of the revelation of the Old Testament as the Son of God, is as such the eternal Mediator of the real atonement-religion (Germ. Versohnungs- kultus, the real worship of the religion of atonement—M.], and therefore the eternal and hea- venly Centre thereof, ch. i. 2, 3. I. As such He is superior to the mediators of the Old Testament economy; a, to angels, even as God-Man, ch. i. 4—ii. 18; 6, to Moses, the servant of the house, as the Son preparing the house, ch. iii. 1-19; ¢, to Joshua, the mediator of Sabbath-rest in Canaan, ch. iv. 1-13; “ἃ, to Aaron, the Highpriest, as a Priest forever, who has offered obedience, ch. iv. 14—v. 14; ὁ, to Mosaism in its entireness, to which the readers of the Epistle cannot return without falling away, ch. vi.; f, to Abraham even, as the real Priest of God, typified by Melchizedek, ch, vii. 1-11. II. As the priesthood of Christ is superior to the status of the Old Covenant, so is also the New Covenant with its services superior to the Old Covenant. a, The superiority of the new law and covenant, ch. vii. 12-22; δ, the superiority of the new priesthood, vv, 23-28; ὁ, the supe- riority of the new sanctuary and its services, ch. viii. 1—x. 39. (1, The new tabernacle, 2, the New Testament, 3, the new entrance of the new High-priest into the holiest of holies. The new covenant-blood and sacrifice. 4. Warning against the new or the New Testament apostasy). III. Hence the New Testament faith is also the sublime completion and fulfilment of the old faith, ch. xi. 1-40. Warning against apostasy from this faith, ch. xii. 1-17. IV. Hence also the new congregation on the spiritual Mount Zion, is superior to the old congregation at Mount Sinai, ch. xii, 18-24. Warning against disobedience. Exhortation to thank-offering; to the manifestation of this living service in brotherly love, ch. xii. 25—xiii. 7. Conclusion. The application, ch. xiii. 9. Caution against false teachers, Exhortation to bear- ing the reproach of Christ, to the life of prayer, to churchly disposition [¢. 6. with reference to ch. xiii, 17—M.]. Appropriate benediction and salutation, ch, xiii. 10-24. IJ. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 9 ----.ἔ «ὉΠ τττττΤτοέοῥυἝσἘΠ 4ὁἔλέἜἍιἍἔὁὃἝὮἘὁ ὁὃϑ ἙΈ {π{ἶ:ιοιἝὃΝοὀ88ὃς-. Φ ἕἮῃτῸ 3. LITERATURE ON THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES, See the GENERAL CoMMENTARIES. Those on the New Testament Hnvsyenr, (Vol. IV., has since been published), HerpeacEr, ELnchiridion, p. 617. Dawnz, Universal Dictionary, p. 513; Supplement, p. 60. Winer, Manual of Theol. Literature, 1, p. 270; Supplement, p. 42. LinrenTHAL, Bibl. Archivarius, p. 734. Reuss, Introduction, p. 182. WIEsINGER, The Epis- we of James (Olshausen’s Commentary, Vol. VI., part 1., p. 45). On the Caruotic EpIsTLEs IN GENERAL OR IN PART: CLEMENT OF AuEx., Dipymus, Ven. Brepr, Grynavus, ARETIUS, JusTINIANUs, Hornesvs, Herper, Epistles of two brothers of Jesus im our Canon, Lemgo, 1775. ON SEPARATE EPISTLES: ScHRODER, SEEMILLER, SEMLER. Roos, Morus, Horrrnaer, ZacHariH, Paraphrase Exposition. Gottingen, 1776. Bunern, Explanatory Paraphrase of the Catholic Epistles and the Revelation of John, Tiabingen, 1781. Commentary by G. Scuin- GEL, 1783.—Carpzov, Epist. Cathol., Halle, 1790. J. L. W. Scuerer, the Catholic Epistles Vol. I., James, Marburg, 1799. Avausrti, the Catholic Epistles, Lemgo, 1801-1808. Port, Lpist. Cathol., 2 vols., 1786-1810. Goprert, the so-called Catholic Epistles, Lemgo, 1801-1808, Grasuor, the Epistles of the Holy Apostles James, Peter, John and Jude, translated and ex- plained, Essen, 1830. JacumMann, Commentary on James, Leipzig, 1838. Scuarurne, Jacobi et Jude Epistole, etc., Copenhagen, 1841. TREATISES ON THE CaTHoLic Episrues:—Sraupuin, Comment. de fontibus Epistol, Cathol. Gottingen, 1790. Srorr, de Cathol. Epist. occasione et consilo, Tubingen, 1789. J. D. Scuvuze, on the Sources of the Epistles of Peter, etc. The literary character and value of Peter, Jude and James, Weissenfels, 1802. F. LiickE ἐπιστολαὶ καθολικαΐ, and Epistolee Canonice in Theol, Studien und Kritiken, 1836, p. 643-650. Muyer’s Commentary (Parts XII. XIV., XV., Com- mentary by Hurner); De Werte, Eveget. Handbuch, I Vol. 3; III. Vol. 1. [Besides the General Commentaries of MattHEw Henry, Scort, Ginn, CLarKE, WuirTBy, ΟΥ̓ anp Mant, Barnegs and the Greek Testaments of BLooMFIELD, ALFORD and Worps- WortTH, there are also the following: AposronicaL EpIstiEs: CaJETANUS, Folio, Venet., 1531. TITELMAN, F., Elucidatio in omnes epistolas apostol., 8vo., Anto., 1532.—GuaLTHERts, R+ floruie in omnes epist. apostol., Folio., Tiguri, 1599.—Hremuinatius, WV. Comment in Omnes Epist. Apostol., Foiio, Lips., 1572—Esrrvus, Gurrenmus, Jn omnes Lpist., item in Cathol. Com- ment, Moguntie, 1841-45. Dickson, D., Expos. analyt. omnium Apostol. Epistol., Glasg., 1645.—Pyux, Tuomas, A paraphrase, with notes upon the Acts, and all the Epistles, 2 vols. 8vo., London, 1737.—Macxnteur, Jamzs, A new literal translation Jrom the orig. Greek of all the Apostolical Epistles, etc., London, 1816. On THE CATHOLIC EpisruEs: THEOPHYLACT, OrcuMENIvs, Aquinas, Hvs, Faser, CAL- vin, Coccerus, Crir. Sacr., CornELIUs A LAPIDE, Rictor, Dom Louris, Paraphrase des LEpitres Canoniques, 12vo0., Metz 1727. (Much commended by Catmer). Contet, Samvrn, Pract Paraphr. on the seven Catholic Epistles, etce., Lond., 1834. Brnson, G., Zhe seven Catholic Epistles. Sumner, App., Pract. Hupos. of the general Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude 8vo., Lond. 1840,—M.]. 1. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 1. THE AUTHOR. James, who describes himself as Author of this Epistle, must be either the Apostle James the Less (Mark xv. 40), or the son of Alpheus, Jacobus Alphezi (Matth. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 18), or also “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. i. 19; ch. ii, 9), who is altogether identical with Jacobus Alphei (Acts i. 13; xii. 17; xv. 13: xxi 18). This definite hypothesis does not follow solely from the Introduction of this Epistle, in which he calls himself “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” But it does follow from it, that James claimed to possess a prominent position in the Church, and felt conscious of being known to the whole Jewish-Christian Church as J ames, the servant of God and of Jesus Christ in at exclusive sense, which rendered it impossible to confound him with any other James, 10 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. But that the tradition of the Church ascribed to him (with a preponderance of testimony) Apos- tolical authority follows from the reception of his Epistle into the Canon, although it was enumerated among the Antilegomena; indeed it is matter of inquiry, whether during the third century it was not by confounding data and opinions first included for awhile among the Antile- gomena, It is settled, however, that James the Elder, the son of Zebedee, cannot have been the author of this Epistle, because he suffered martyrdom as early as A. D. 44 (Acts xii. 1, 2), while the internal allusions and statements of this Epistle belong to a much later period. The subscrip- tion in the Peschito and that in an old Latin translation ascribe without any reason the author- ship to him, and Luther took him for the pretended author. The question of the authorship of our Epistle would thus be settled, had not an old error diffused the opinion current in ancient tradition and modern theology, that it is necessary to dis- tinguish the Apostle Jacobus Alphei from the Lord’s brothers. Jt is the old Ebionite apocryphal legend of the Lord’s brothers. Adhering to the simple statements of the New Testament all doubt concerning the identity of James with “the Lord’s brother ” must vanish; although we do not at once see why James the son of Alphzus should be called the Lord’s brother. For James, the son of Alphzeus, passes at once from the lists of the Apostles, given in the Gospels (Matth. x. 2; Mark iii. 16; Luke vi. 14), into the list of the Apostles given in Acts (ch. i. 13). Here he appears as yet as James the son of Alphzus, by the side of his prominent name-sake, the son of Zebedee, who is therefore called simply James. But immediately after the death of this prominent James (Acts xii. 2) there is mentioned another James, who bears that name without all further qualification (Acts xii. 47); and the assumption is highly impro- bable that James, the son of Alpheus, should in so short a time, have vanished from the stage past all tracing, without being thought worthy of having even his death noticed by Luke, the historian, and that there should suddenly have sprung up some non-apostolical James, who actually occupied a prominent position among the Apostles. We are thus forced to maintain that if after the death of James the son of Zebedee, who was simply called James, there arose forthwith another James who went simply by that name, that James must have been the son of Alpheus. And thus he is mentioned all through Acts, ever the same and ever in the same position of a mediator of the new Christian faith and the historical national consciousness of his people (ch. xv. 13; xxi. 18). But while the last meeting of Paul the Apostle, and this James of the Acts, who is called James without any further addition to his name, occurred about 59- 60, A. D., it is to be noticed, that Paul made mention of James, as the Lord’s brother (Gal. i. 19; ii. 9) several years before that time (about A. D, 56-57); so also the appellation “the Lord’s brother,” simply, or “James” simply (1 Cor. ix. 5; ch. xv. 7 about A. Ὁ. 58). Here, again we have to call attention to the circumstance that Paul, in the first chapter of Galatians, conjoins the same James, whom in the second chapter he describes as one of the pillars among the Apos- tles, with the rest of the Apostles, as the Lord’s brother, In the first place, then, we must hold fast the hypothesis that James the son of Alpheus, and the Lord’s brother, are identical. The question now comes up, what is the relation of this supposition to the most ancient tradition of the Church? The oldest tradition is represented by Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria. Hegesippus, according to Eusebius, iv. 23, reports as follows: “James, the brother of the Lord received the government of the Church conjointly with the Apostles, who from the time of the Lord until our own was surnamed the Just by all; for many were called James, but this one was consecrated from his mother’s womb.” Then follows an account of his holiness, the character of a pious Nazarite and a faithful Christian martyr. He undertook the government a the Church with the Apostles, that is, he was not the exclusive bishop, but the coéperation (in the office) was reserved to the Apostles as such. As bishop in the Apostolical sense, according to which every overseer of the Church was subject to the joint Apostolate of the Church, he was distinguished from the Apostles although he was at the same time an Apostle, just as Peter was distinguished as spokesman from the other Apostles, although a τ τ ιιπι΄΄ῇ΄ῇ΄’΄ῇ“ῇῇ“ῇῇ΄““ ῇ ὍἝὍὅοῆΠόῸᾶῸΟΎΠΎῆ-ῖ05οιεῆἙΣξρ͵ξααίΥἯἁοα,..-"ἝἨἨ ἕμ,ἅῖ ..- 1 Huther (p. 4, Note 3) thinks that the prominent position of James at Jerusalem could not haye been owing to his Il. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 11 .- πω ΕΤΟΥΣ κτ τ΄ ς - -- -- ----. .ὅΞῸ.ὕ00ἐεἰ-- - he belonged to their number, Acts v. 29 (ὁ Πέτρος καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι). If we here press the letter in the sense of a distinction of the son of Alpheus from the brother of the Lord, Hegesippus in another passage (Kuseb, III., 22) on the descent of James declares himself in favour of the identity. He says that Simeon the son of Cleophas succeeded James the Just as bishop, this one again being a descendant of the same uncle of the Lord (ϑείου αὐτοῦ referred to the next following ὁ κύριος), and that all gave him this preferetce, as being the second relative of the Lord (aveydc)." Cleophas, or what amounts to the same thing, Alpheus (cf. Bretchneider’s Lexicon) was conse- quently our Lord’s uncle, James and Simeon (the same as Simon) his sons, James and Simon brothers, both the sons of Alphzeus, both cousins of the Lord, but the former, as appears from what has gone before, revered by the surname “the brother of the Lord.” Still more important is the testimony of Clement of Alexandria (Huseb. IL, 1): “The Lord imparted the gift of knowledge (the gnosis) to James the Just, to John and Peter after His resurrection. These delivered it to the rest of the Apostles.” He then adds expressly, “there were, however, two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from a battlement of the temple and beaten to death with a fuller’s club, and another, who was beheaded.” To this must be added the testimony of Origen in his Commentary on Matthew, ch. xvil. But the testimony of the Gospel according to the Hebrews that Christ, after His resurrection, had appeared to James the Just, the brother of the Lord must be taken in conjunction with the testimony of Paul (1 Cor. xv. 7), that “Christ was seen of James, then of al/ the Apostles.” The same appearing therefore is called once an appearing to James the Apostle, and again an appearing to the brother of the Lord. The list of the brothers of Jesus, given in the Gospels, specifies James, Simon and Judas (Matth. xiii. 55). The list in Acts also specifies James, Simon and Judas, but it distinguishes the James there introduced as the son of Alphzus, from James the son of Zebedee, the Peter there introduced, as Zelotes or the Canaanite from Simon Peter, and the Jude there introduced, as Leb- beeus or Thaddeus from Judas Iscariot.? In the Apostolical Epistles we find after the death of the elder James, the name of a James who is an Apostle and also a brother of the Lord (Gal. 11.; Gal. 1)8, who is also a brother of Jude, and to whom we are indebted for an Apostolical Epistle. The most ancient tradition (that of Hegesippus) informs us therefore that James the brother of the Lord, was the brother of Simon, and that both were the sons of Cleophas=Alphzus. But from Clement we actually learn that there existed no other James of any importance than James the Elder and James the Just, who was one of the most distinguished Apostles (so distin- guished that Clement, indeed, erroneously confounds him with James the Elder). Lastly concerning Jude, Hegesippus reports likewise a Jude who was called the brother of our Lord, according to the flesh (Euseb. IIT., 19, 20). Eusebius after his uncritical manner, or as an erring exegete, turns the phrase “he was called a brother of the Lord” into, “he was a brother of the Lord.” For in like manner he makes Simeon the son of Cleophas,whose death is reported by Hegesippus (Euseb. III., 32), the grandson of Cleophas, because he understood the phrase “ Maria Cleophas” to denote “ Mary the daughter of Cleophas.” This identity, which is everywhere transparent, follows also from the most striking particular evidences. Mary, the mother of James the Less or of James the son of Alpheus, 15 also the mother of Joses (Matth. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; v.47, ch. xvi,1). This proves that four brothers of the Lord bore the same names as the four sons of Alphaus, viz.: James, Simon, Jude Apostleship “ which pointed rather to missionary activity than to the episcopal government of a congregation” But where was the Apostle of the Jews to reside, if not at Jerusalem? If Christ did charge the Apostles “ Go ye into all the world,” He surely did not mean to exclude the centre of Judaism. 1 On the view of Neander, who makes Ἰάκωβον the subject of αὐτοῦ, cf. my article “Jacobus” in Herzog’s R. E. p. 407, and my Apostolicdl Age, I. p. 194. Nor does the note of Huther (p, 5) affect our explanation, especially as it proposes to leave undecided the account of Hegesippus, that Simeon the son of Clopas was ἀνεψιός: οὗ the Lord. 2 Huther will not admit that this Jude is a son of Alpheus, but the son of a James, because he is called Ἰούδας ᾿Ιακώβου in Luke vi. 16 and Αοἰβ i.13. But Jude 1 proves that a Jude might be thus designated with reference to his honoured and universally known brother. Lebbzeus also is placed in juxtaposition with James in Matth. x. 3 and we must not press the circumstance that he is not expressly called his brother. In the case of this Jude it was contemplated to distinguish him as much as possible from Judas Iscariot (see Jno. xiv. 22), and this was accomplished by designating him as the brother of the well-known James. 3 Stier’s and Wieseler’s proposed distinction between the James of Gal. 1 and Gal. 2 is so forced as to render all refu- tation unnecessary. 12 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. and Joses. On the numerous complications of both lines, see this commentary on Matth. xiii. 53-58,1 . The opposite view, that the brothers of the Lord constitute a line of the same name to be distinguished from said Apostles is a development which through different stages must be traced back to the Jewish-Christian consciousness; treated with respect to the real point of observation, we may designate it as a view of Ebionite-apocryphal origin. Its first stage is the New Testa- ment emphasis on the sons of Alphzus as being the brothers of the Lord. The Jewish-Chris- tians gave peculiar prorminence to the respective Apostles of the Jews, especially to James, par- ticularly as contrasted with the authority of Paul. Paul admits this emphasis as to its historic value and recognizes as a climax of authority in which we have first the Apostles in general, then the Apostolical brothers of the Lord and then Peter, the Apostle (1 Cor. ix. 5). But his language in Gal. 2 shows how far he is from according to this historical authority any thing like Apostolical priority. The continuance and growth of this Jewish-Christian em- phasizing follows especially from the report of Hegesippus. But he still insists upon the identity of the brothers of the Lord with the sons of Alphzus, he still designates their brother- hood as an original cousinship, he still holds fast to the coérdination of the Apostles.—All this was changed with the full development of Ebionitism. The first Ebionite fanatics, who brought about a decided schism, denounced the aged bishop Symon, doubtless because he opposed their heresy, as a descendant of David, consequently as a relative of Jesus, doubtless after immoderate veneration had changed into immoderate hatred (Euseb. III. 32). But the later Ebionites (according to the Clementines) highly exalted James as the Lord’s brother even above Peter. Now since Peter was unmistakably the most distinguished member of the whole Apostolical College, the distinction of the brothers of the Lord from the like-named Apostles became inevitable. In the case of the common Ebionites was superadded the natural interest that this facilitated the view which made Jesus the actual son of Joseph, and Mary the mother of a number of children —This spurious, apocryphal tradition imposed upon and misled the un- critical Eusebius, who was wont to huddle every thing together, who was consequently either greatly at variance with himself or uncertain in himself. As by misunderstanding Papias, in the interest of Theology against the Apocalypse (see Apostol. Age I., p. 215) he conjured up the phantom of a presbyter John, and made Judas Lebbzeus Thadzeus one of the seventy disciples (i. 12, 13), so he made also James, the brother of the Lord one of the seventy, that is: distin- guished from James the Apostle (i. 12), although in every instance he takes refuge behind tradition. This laid the foundation of the vacillations of the later fathers concerning the brother of the Lord, among whom Gregory of Nyssa and Chrysostom favoured the distinction, Epiphanius and Augustine the identity, while Jerome is undecided (see Article Jacobus in Herzog, p. 408). Since all these fathers depend on Eusebius, their opinion, as opposed to the original tradition in this matter, is devoid of all independent weight. In modern and most modern times the majority of theologians beginning with Luther (that the author of the Epistle “was some good, pious man”) have decided for the distinction; but they are opposed by a great number of eminent theologians (see Winer, Art. Jacobus; Wiesinger, The Epistle of James, Introd. p. 4 and others). The only question, however, relates to the merit of the arguments advanced in support of the two opposing views. But first of all must be settled the question how it was possible that the sons of Alpheus and of a Mary different from the mother of Jesus, could be or become the brothers of the Lord. According to Hegesippus (Euseb. III., 11) Alpheus or Clopas the father of Symeon the second bishop of Jerusalem, was the brother of Joseph and consequently Symecn the cousin of Jesus, by origin. But Mary the wife of this Alpheus is commonly and erroneously considered to have been the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. For Wieseler (in Studien und Kritiken 1840, Vol. IIL, p. 648) has shown that Jno, xix. 25 ought to be rendered: “ But there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and the sister of His mother (Salome; after the manner 1 Huther who characterized this presentation of the remarkable complications of said names as exaggerated (p. 4) sup- ports his statement mainly by the assertion that it is erroneous to maintain the identity of James the Just and James the son of Alphwus. But this is just what follows from the report of Hegesippus (Euseb. IV‘, 22). δεύτερον evidently belongs to the immediately preceding ἀνεψιόν and sustains the exposition that “Simeon the son of Cleophas our Lord’s uncle, next was appointed bishop.” II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 13 of John only to indicate personal relations without specifying names), Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.’’ Hence the sons of Alphzeus were at the most cousins of the Lord in the legal sense through their father Alpheus and Joseph the foster-father of Jesus, while the sons of Zebedee were at all events His cousins in a stricter sense, as the sons of Salome, the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. Hence the reference to a wider sense of the term brother as de- noting a relative or cousin (ἀνεψιός) is altogether insufficient to account for the constant appel- lation of James as the brother of the Lord. “But in this place arises the most simple hythosesis, supported by the custom of the Jews everywhere (see John xix. 26, 27). Cleophas was dead, Joseph the foster-father of Jesus was his brother, (Hegesippus in Huseb. xi. 3); he now became also the foster-father of the sons of his brother Cleophas and thenceforth the family of Joseph and the family of Alphzus-Cleophas, the other Mary, therefore, and her sons James and Joses, Simon and Jude, with several daughters formed one household (Matth. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3). Now after the decease of Joseph also, the oldest brothers of Jesus, who most probably were older than Jesus, especially James, gradually became the heads of this household and this circumstance would account for the disposition of these brothers even at a later period, to assume some kind of guardianship over Jesus (Mark ΠΙ. 31; Jno. viz. 3—See my article Jacobus in Herzog’s Lexicon),”— The sons of Alpheus were then according to Jewish law the brothers of 6585. Schneckenburger on the false hypothesis of Mary Cleophas having been the sister of the mother of Jesus conceived that upon the early decease of Joseph, Mary the mother of Jesus went to live with her sister the wife of Alpheus.— We now purpose giving (with reference to the Article Jacobus in Herzog’s Real-Encyclo- pedia already quoted repeatedly) a brief account of the reasons and counter-reasons of the dis- tinction between James the son of Alpheus and James the brother of the Lord. Reasons: 1. James the son of Alpheus, being only the cousin of Jesus, could not be called the brother of the Lord. This difficulty is set aside by the above discussion of the subject. 2. The most ancient tradition of the Church does not make mention of James, the brother of the Lord, as of an Apostle. We have seen that the most ancient tradition affirms the opposite. 3. In the title of the Epistle of James the author simply calls himself the servant of Christ. But Paul also describes himself by the same title in the Epistle to the Philippians, John in the two lesser Epistles calls himself presbyter, and James had reasons of humility, wisdom and faith for calling himself the servant of Christ especially as he might well notice the abuse to which the appellation “brother of the Lord” had given rise. 4, Jno, vii. 5, we read that “the brethren of Jesus did not believe in Him,” at a time when James the son of Alpheus had been received already among the Apostles. But John doubtless refers to the same unbelief or want of resigned obedience of faith? according to which his mother also did not believe in him, Mark ui. 31, or Peter, Matth. xvi. 23 and Thomas, Jno. xx. 25. 5. The passage Acts i. 19, 14, besides enumerating the Apostles, mentions the brothers of Jesus. The primary reference may be to Joses and his sisters; but just as Mary, who certainly belonged to the women, is introduced besides the women by the special designation of Mary the mother of Jesus, so also the Apostolical brothers of Jesus, besides having been included in the list of the Apostles, may be introduced by the special designation of the brothers of Jesus. 6. 1 Cor. ix. 5, introduces the brothers of the Lord alongside of the Apostles. To be sure; but Peter also is mentioned in particular according to the climax: a, Apostles in general, b, the brothers of the Lord as distinguished Apostles in the estimate of the Jewish-Christian opponents of Paul, c, Peter as the most distinguished Apostle. se rE ee a0 ὕῤ ΞὀΞι Θ ΤΡ τ 1 Huther says p. 7 that this hypothesis is devoid of all solid reason but he substantiates his assertion only by the statement that tradition is ignorant of the early death of .Clopas and the adoption of his children by Joseph. History knows that the sons of Alphzus and Mary the mother of Jesus formed one household in which the former wielded some authority. Huther (p. 8) thinks it more probable that Mary and the brothers of Jesus believed (according to Mark iii. 21, 31), Jesus to be beside Himself, than to have had recourse to a pretext in order to extricate Him from supposed imminent danger. Mary is to have believed the report that Jesus was out of His mind!! We use here fcr once two marks of atten- tion against the one of Huther, who, after the manner of Meyer expects it to produce a sensation and for the rest remind our readers of Luther’s well-known flight to the Wartburg. 2 “Altogether arbitrary,” says Huther, although thé matter may be elucidated by the analogous cases in the conduct of Mary, of Peter, of the sons of Zebedee and of Thomas. 14 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. Cbunter-reasons. 1. It is hardly conceivable that Luke (Acts xii. 2) should suffer James the son of Alphseus to vanish from the stage without all further mention and to let some other James, until then not an Apostle, forthwith (Acts xii. 17) enter the circle of the Apostles and. enjoy peculiar distinction, without offering any explanation of the fact. 2. It is purely inconceivable, considering the importance attached by the Apostles to a duly authenticated call to the Apostleship (Acts i. 21, etc.), that they should have agreed to acknowl- edge as a man of Apostolical vocation, James a recently converted non-apostle, although he was a brother of the Lord; and especially that Paul, who was obliged so emphatically to defend his apostolicity against Judaizing Christians, should have accorded so prominent a position among the Apostles (Gal. ii.) to a non-apostle. 3. If any thing, it is still more inconceivable that the names of three real Apostles should have been extinguished without all trace by the names of three non-apostles who had acquired Apostolical authority, viz.: James, Simon, Jude. 4, Equally inconceivable is this threefold dualism of three names of equal dignity, equal de- scent and relationship, and of equal fraternity, that is, a. James, Simon and Jude were Apostles. Another James, another Simon and another Jude acquired Apostolical distinction in their stead. b. James the Apostle was the son of an Alpheus, the non-apostle James and his brothers were also the sons of an Alphzeus. c. In like manner James the Apostle and Joses were brothers, being the sons of Maria Alphei. The non-apostles James, Simon, Jude and Joses being the sons of Alphzeus probably would be also the sons of the same Mary. 5. In the passage 1 Cor. xv. 7, a distinction is drawn between the appearing of Christ, to James and His appearing to all the apostles indicating that he had been mentioned before as a single Apostle. 6. The passage Gal. i. 19: “But another of the Apostles saw I not save James the Lord’s brother,” can only by finesse be construed to mean that James was not counted among the Apostles, as has been done by Hess and Neander, but each in a way of his own. To this must be added: 7. Moreover the codrdinate authority of the same James with Peter and John Gal. ii. to which Paul offers not the least objection although he had taken the watchword “to know no- body after the flesh.” We have still to superadd: 8. The above-mentioned most ancient church-tradition with its decisive testimony. 9. The demonstrability of the obscure Ebionite-apocryphal origin of the legend of the Lord’s brothers taken in conjunction with the insecurity of Eusebius and the false security of the fathers who sustain their opinion by his. 10. The agreement of the characteristic traits of the brothers of the Lord according to the Gospels with the characteristic traits of the like-named Apostles with reference to the cau- tion of James (Mark iii; Acts xv. xxi. 18; the Epistle of James), to the fiery vivacity of Judas Lebbmwus Thaddeus (Jno. vii. 3; Jno. xiv. 22; the Epistle of Jude), which may also have been the charactenstic trait of Simon Zelotes at an earlier period of his life; οὗ my Life of Jesus, p. 148; Apost. Age 1, p. 364. We have elsewhere repeatedly affirmed the identity of James and the brothers of the Lord with great decisiveness (Life of Jesus; Apost. Age, Article Jacobus in Herzog’s Encyclopedia, in this Commentary on Matthew); but here it was impossible to avoid repeating ἃ short resumé of the process and it is necessary to use every effort towards the re- moval of the groundless and unreasonable Apoeryphon of false learning from the field of theology. After what has been said we may briefly sketch the life-portrait of James. 1¢ follows from the foregoing statement that James also must have been among the brothers of Jesus, who after His first appearance at Cana in Galilee accompanied Him to Capernaum. The Evangelist desig- nates these companions of Jesus to have consisted of His mother, His brothers and His disciples, We have seen that there was good reason for the continuance of the two categories, His brothers and His disciples, at a later period, because the two lines did not fully cover each other, that is, because Joses and the sisters never belonged to the circle of the Apostles. But while we assume II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 15 that the sons of Alpheus at that time were not yet disciples, their inclination to believe seems to follow from their having joined the company of Jesus.! Soon after, after the first festive journey, Jesus appeared at Nazareth (Luke iv. 22; Matth. xii. 55), and on that occasion His brothers are mentioned as follows, James, Joses, Simon, Judas. Matthew according to his ar- rangement has assigned the respective event to a later period, probably because he connects it with a subsequent appearance of Jesus at Nazareth. Even then only the sisters, probably mar- ried, appear to reside at Nazareth (Math. xii. 56; Mark vi. 3). Again at a somewhat later period took place the first sending of the twelve disciple-Apostles and among them we find the name of James the son of Alphzus and the names of his brothers Lebbeus Thaddeus or Judas and Simon Zelotes or the Cananite. But the surname the son of Alpheus distin- guishes our James from James the son of Zebedee. The separation of the Apostles had oc- curred some time before the visit of Jesus to the feast of Purim in the second year of His official life. At that feast Jesus had incurred the hatred and persecution of the Jewish hierarchy by the performance of a cure on the Sabbath day; hence He soon after was put to great straits in Galilee and His mother and brothers (Mark i. 21-35), conceived it their duty to restrain Him from His bold attitude towards His enemies and to save Him from their hand by stratagem. There is as little difficulty in supposing James the son of Alpheus to have participated in this rashness as there is difficulty in admitting the rashness of the sons of Zebedee (Luke ix. 54), of Peter (Matth. xvi. 22), and in the unbelief of Thomas. Indeed we may go even so far as to suppose that James was the chief prompter in this matter, which exhibits a sinful caution, whose purified and spiritualized counterpart we meet again in his later conduct (cf. Acts 15, and ch. xxi.). For the same reason we may suppose that in the second exhibition of rashness in the opposite direction, on the part of the brothers of Jesus, which took place in the autumn of the same year before the feast of Tabernacles (Jno. vu. 3, 4), it was not James who was prominent . but his brothers, especially Judas, who although silenced did at a later period revert once more to the idea of inciting Jesus to manifest Himself to the world (ch. xiv. 22), although it is to be noticed that Jesus had again greatly raised the.courage of the disciples on the mountain of transfiguration and at the foot of the same. -The degree to which the family of Alpheus emu- lated the sons of Zebedee (Matth. xx. 20), in their sympathy with our Lord m His end at Jerusalem, is apparent from the fact that Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses was among the women that were spectators of the crucifixion. Yes, it was she only, who on the evening of the burial of Jesus in company with Mary Magdalene, sat over against His tomb (Matth. xxvii. 61); in the same manner, she and Mary Magdalene were among the first of those women who on Easter-morning hastened forth to the tomb of Jesus (Matth. xxviii. 1). Mean- while James quietly matured into one of the much distinguished Apostles. After the martyr- dom of the elder James, who seems already to have stood in a nearer relation to the government of the Church at Jerusalem, because Herod Agrippa laid hands on him first, James the Less, ac- cording to a tacit presupposition, seems to step into his place; for Peter charges those, to whom he showed himself after his deliverance from prison, to tell James and the brethren. At the Apostolic Convention at Jerusalem (Acts xy.) James is one of the most distinguished speakers; and here we perceive clearly that he deemed it his task to be the mediator of the religious liberty of the Gentile Christians and the national customs of the Jewish Christians. He stands on precisely the same platform of faith as that of Peter and Paul; what he proposes in order to pacify the Jewish Christians is not a religious but an ethical dogma; a measure of missionary wisdom, which accordingly meets the approbation of all the Apostles. That he did not Judaize, and indeed as an Apostle he could not judaize, is evident from the decided ground he took against judaizing demands, which was also fully accorded to him by Paul (Gal. ii.). On the other hand, in his cautious consideration for the Jews, whom in their national totatility he would gladly have saved for the Christian faith, he went to the utmost limit, as is evident from the counsel which he and his immediate associates gave to Paul on his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts xxi.). Paul was to give proof to the Jews that he did not despise the customs of the fathers by accom- 1 According to Huther they went with Him from Cana to Capernaum, not because they were inclined to believe, but because they belonged to their mother. He seems to conceive them to have been young children, but Mark iii. clearly shows that such was surely not the case. 16 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. plishing the vow of a Nazarite in the temple at Jerusalem. We cannot consider this counsel in the light of an inspiration; it miscarried and actually produced the very opposite effect that had been contemplated. But Paul, who also before this entertained a high esteem for James (Gal. 1, ii.), saw nothing to object to it, although he could offer the most decided resistance to every ἡ yudaizing tendency, even when Peter was guilty of it. But this cautious position of James, this keeping sacred the nationa: custom of his people enables us to understand how the judaizers might make such manifold abuse of his name (as is apparent from Gal. 11, 4, 12, and similar indi- cations). James, then, is above all things an Apostle, a witness of Christ, everyways the equal of the other Apostles; Christianity is to him the fulfilment of the Old Testament, a new, abso- lute, eternal principle of religion and in this respect he, Paul and John occupy the same plat- form. But,in the next place, he is also the Apostle of the Jews ‘par excellence;’ that is, he conceives of Christianity in its close connection with the Old Testament, as the new perfect law of spiritual life and of liberty, because on the other hand he apprehends Judaism as passing into Christianity [Germ. werdendes Christenthum] and feels conscious of a special call for his peo- ple. As to the form of James’s ideas, it is to be noticed that he addresses Jewish Christians (for it is settled already that our Epistle can belong to only one James) to whom the mediating dialectical form would be a heterogeneous element. The purity of his Greek style indeed has been to some an enigmatical phenomenon, But it characterizes also the Apostle of holy care- fulness. Baumgarten (Acts iy. 127) has treated at large of the grandness of the ecclesiastical position of James. The following sentence however requires to be examined. “James refuses to acknow- ledge any other liberty than that formed within the measure of the law and in this sense he calls the law, the law of liberty.”—In that sense the law has always been a law of liberty; but here the reference is rather to a liberty, developing and manifesting itself as a new law of life, and which preserves holy Jewish custom in Jewish-Christianity but patriarchal custom with (along- side of) Jewish-Christianity. ‘James represents the Christian dogma in the form of the Jewish Ethos [#@oc—custom—M.]. He has removed the Old Testament law, as such, from the sphere of religion into the sphere of national custom. And this was the very task assigned to him, be- cause he had to put forth the best effort of love with a view to gain the Jewish nation to Chris- tianity. This effort is recorded by historical tradition.” (See Herzog’s Real-Lewicon, Art. Ja- cobus). Three reports are in perfect agreement on the characteristics of James and also with the sketch of his character found in Holy Writ. The Gospel according to the Hebrews narrates of him, that James after the death of Jesus took the vow, that from the time he had shared the last meal with Jesus he would not eat any thing until he saw Him risen from the dead; that the risen Saviour soon afterwards appeared to him and told him, “Go eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from the dead.” This report sounds rather apocryphal; but its subject-matter, although not its very words, are confirmed by the statements of Hegesippus, that James was a Nazarite, and by the fact that he also recommended Paul to fulfil the vow of a Nazarite (Acts xxi). This Nazarite vow on the part of James surely does not denote a wavering faith, as Neander thinks, but rather an over-bold form of his assurance of faith. In a general way, however, the account in the Gospel of the Hebrews concerning a special appearing of Christ to James agrees with the statement of Paul 1 Cor. xv. 7. Thesecond particular, for which we are indebted to Josephus (Antig. XX. 9, 1) consists of a general notice of the martyrdom of James. He reports “that the high-priest Ananus, a Sadducee, in the interval between the departure of Festus from Palestine, A. D. 62 [Josephus speaks of his death—M.], and the arrival of Albinus, the new Pro- curator, caused the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James and some others,’ whom he had accused as breakers of the law, to be stoned to the great dislike of the more moderate citizens, who therefore informed against him before Albinus.” Eusebius (II. 23), super- adds the words of Josephus that all the calamities of the destruction of Jerusalem did happen to the Jews to avenge James the Just who was brother of Him that is called Christ and whom the Jews had slain, notwithstanding his preéminent justice. To this we must add in the third place the detailed account of Hegesippus in Eusebius (II. 23). “With the Apostles James, the brother 1 On the doubt concerning the genuineness of the words in Italics expressed by Cloricus and others, see Huther Ρ. 2. Note. But the several notices of Eusebius seem to sustain Josephus. II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 17 of the Lord, succeeds to the charge of the Church—that James who has been called the Just and from the time of our Lord to our own day, for there were many of the name of James. He was holy from his mother’s womb (a Nazarite, one consecrated), he drank not wine or strong drink, nor did he eat animal food; a razor came not upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil; he did not use the bath. He alone might go into the holy place (εἰς τὰ ayca).”—This expression is falsely interpreted as designating the holiest of holies. The expression may admit of such an interpretation, but the Jewish law forbids it, The acknowledged Nazarite might probably go with the priests into the temple proper (Acts xxi. 26).—‘‘ For he wore no woollen clothes but linen. And alone he used to go into the temple and there he was commonly found upon his knees, praying for forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard-skinned like a camel’s, from his constantly bending them in prayer and entreating forgiveness for the people.” On ac- count therefore of his exceeding righteousness he was called “Just” and ‘‘Oblias” (according to Stroth OY boi), which means in Greek “the bulwark (pillar) of the people” and “righteous- ness,” as the prophets declare of him (in the opinion of the Jewish people). Some of the seven sects of the Hebrews inquired of him, ‘‘ What is the door (doctrine) of Jesus?” And he said that this man was the Saviour, wherefore some believed that Jesus is the Christ. Now the fore- mentioned sects did not believe in the Resurrection, nor in the coming of one (Christ, Mes- siah) who shall recompense every man according to his works; but all who became believers believed through James. When many therefore of the rulers believed etc. At last, reports Hegesippus, there arose a general conflict of opinions among the people and at the Passover they placed him on the gable of the Temple and bade him solemnly declare in the audience of all the people what he believed concerning Jesus, because he was the Just and would speak in con- formity with his convictions. From that lofty place he then cried with a loud voice: “Why ask ye me about Jesus, the Son of Man? He sits in heaven on the right. hand of great power and will come in the clouds of heaven.” And many were convinced and gave glory on the testimony of James, crying, Hosannah to the Son of David. But the Scribes and Pharisees cried “Oh! oh! even the Just is gone astray,” rushed up and threw him down. Below they then stoned him (symbolically, therefore, the whole act was of course a zealotical stoning and so Josephus, from his centre of observation, correctly reports the event) and slew him with a fuller’s club.”—This narrative affords also a full illustration of the forementioned statement of Josephus superadded by Eusebius that the wisest among the Jews agree with him in regarding the destruction of Jerusalem as the punishment of this crime. Josephus and the Jews who were of his mind seem to have had an obscure foreboding that James was the last preacher of repentance sent to the Jewish people as a nation, and that the murder of this witness of the truth was the decisive stubbornness of the people as a people, upon which the judgment had inevitably to follow. Neander and Schaff have discovered without reason much legendary matter and an Ebionite mode of thinking in the report of Hegesippus. Hegesippus was certainly a Jewish Christian but not an Ebionite. It must not be overlooked that his opinion of James momentarily commingles in his report with his opinion of the Jewish people. But this narrative is strongly authenticated in all its main features. That James was a Nazarite is supported by Acts xxi. 23 etc., and by the citation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The zeal of James in interceding for the Jewish people is reflected in every thing we know of him. Josephus also testifies to the vene- ration James enjoyed among the Jewish people. But most important, in the last place, is the account of that public crisis which was to determine the decision of the Jewish nation for or against faith in Christ; and the antecedents of similar analogous crises, particularly in Acts v. 13; vi. 7; xxi. 22, as well as its internal truthfulness, give decided support to this the main feature of the account of Hegesippus. The Nazarite character of James would also ex- plain the reason why, to judge from later indications, the Essenes in particular became con- verts to Christianity and were more especially attached to the person of James not only as Jewish Christians but also in the direction of the Gnostic Ebionitism. The veneration with which Jewish Christians were wont to regard “the brother of the Lord,” which had already before that period become extremely one-sided, would be heightened in their case and the Cle- mentines in particular supply evidence that this veneration had actually been thus heightened, 18 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. for they exalt James above Peter and all the Apostles and make him the supreme Bishop of all Christendom. James has here been made the symbol of judaistico-chiliastic claims to the government of Church and the world. According to Epiphan heres. XXX. δ 16 there were among the glorifications of James actually ἀναβαθμοὶ ᾿Ιακώβου, descriptions of his pretended as- cension. Epiphanius also notwithstanding his antagonism to the Ebionites, holds similar exag- τ gerations (Heres. XXIX. 4 and LXXVIII. 13). Probably it is only owing to Epiphanius mis- understanding Hegesippus that he states, “that James was like the highpriest permitted to enter once a year the holiest of holies because he was a Nazarite and wore the highpriest’s mitre (τὸ πέταλον). This myth is not on a level with the account of Polycrates respecting John (Euseb. V. 24). Polycrates doubtless accorded the highpriest’s mitre to John in a symbo- lico-ideal sense; which is hardly so in the case of Epiphanius. (See Herzog, Art. Jacobus). An ambiguous notice in Eusebius (VII. 19) states that the Church at Jerusalem in token of their veneration of James had preserved as a holy relic, his official seat. Owing to the mythical difference between James the Just and James the Apostle the myth took further occasion to decorate particularly the end of the latter, considered separately. Nice- phorus, IT. 40, reports him to have first appeared as a messenger of faith in South-Western Pales- tine, then in Egypt; and that he was crucified at Ostracina in Lower Egypt. (For particulars see Natalis Alex. Sec. I. p.59.) On the Church legends of the supposed two Jameses cf. Stichart, Ecclesiastical legend of the holy Apostles, Leipzig, 1861, p. 79 etc. The chronology of Eusebius fixes the death of the real and one James in the year A. 1). 63. Eusebius judiciously connects his death with Paul’s appeal to Rome (II. 23). Until then the hatred of the Jews had been directed mainly against Paul whom they tried to kill by all means. But by his appeal to Rome he escaped further persecution on their part. But since James had consorted with him at Jerusalem, it was natural that the hatred of many Jews should now be turned against: him, the most distinguished representative of Christianity among them. But from this it does not follow that Eusebius in- tended to say that James was killed as early as the time when the appeal took place; nor does it follow from Eusebius III. 11 that the death of James took place immediately before the destruction of Jerusalem. The notice of Josephus that James was killed after the departure of Festus and before the arrival of Albinus leads to about the time given in the chronology of Euse- bius, for Festus was called away in A. D. 62. “Among the Apostles James is, par excellence, the representative of Christian wisdom, gen- tleness, mediation and union; as apostolical presbyter-bishop of Jerusalem he is the representa- tive of Jewish nationality and custom in its Christian transformation and transfiguration. As the son of Alpheus he presents a contrast to the fiery, impetuous Judas Lebbeus Thaddeus, and exhibits the character of a sage and a sufferer matured, according to his charisma, in cau- tion by constant spiritual discipline. Thus he was the last and most engaging expression of the Gospel to the Jewish people; and after the stoning of this messenger of faith, the city and people were sealed unto judgment, which was acknowledged not only by Eusebius, but even resented by Josephus. Jerusalem rejected Christianity especially because it hated in it the union with Gentile Christians.” (From the article “Jacobus’’). On the literature of treatises on the supposed two Jameses see Winer’s Leal Worterbuch, Art. Jacobus, p. 525. Also Wiesinger’s Commentary p. 21 and the Jntroduction of Theile. [ExcursEs ON THE BrorHERs OF THE Lorp. [The family relations of Joseph and Mary demand more than a passing or one-sided notice. This interesting, but very difficult and complicated subject involves the question: Was Jesus the only child in the Holy Family, or were there other children, and ἐγ so, who were they ? The New Testament answers the first part of the question in the negative, and says con- cerning the second that Jesus had brothers and sisters. They are mentioned with or without their names twelve times in the Gospels (Matth. xii. 46,47; ΧΗ]. δ, 60 (adeAgotand adeAgai); Mark 111. 31, 32; vi. 3 (sisters also); Luke vii. 19, 20; Jno. vii. 3, 5, 10, once in Acts (i. 14), once in 1 Cor, (ix. 5) and once in Gal. (1. 19), where James of Jerusalem is called the Lord’s brother. St. Matthew (xii. 55) gives the names of the four brothers, viz. James, Joses or Joseph, Simon and Judas.—St. Mark (vi. 3) calls them James, Joses or Josetws, Simon and Juda. Il. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 19 τ ee ee ee Neither the names nor the number of sisters are mentioned, but they cannot have been less than two. It is to be noticed that in all the passages referred to they are also called Hits brothers and sisters, i. e. the brothers and sisters of Jesus, never His cousins (ἀ νὲ pcoé) or kinsmen (avy yev- εἴς), and that these brothers and sisters are always mentioned in connection with Mary. These are the simple facts of the case, and in any other case, the terms used would have been received in their natural sense, the brothers and sisters would have been regarded as brothers and sisters, nothing more or less. But dogmatical prejudices and ascetic extravagances concerning the sanctity of celibacy began at a very early period to apply a non-natural interpre- tation to the terms brothers and sisters with reference to our Lord. At least three leading theories have been advanced towards the solution of this question. I. The theory which makes the brothers and sisters of Jesus the children of Joseph by a former marriage, or the adopted children of Joseph. Il. The theory which makes them the children of Mary, the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, or the cousins-german of Jesus. As a variation of this theory, there is another which makes them His cousins both on the side of Joseph and Mary. III. The theory according to which they were the children of Joseph and Mary, or the ac- tual brothers and sisters of Jesus. : A condensed survey of these theories will enable us to form an idea of the difficulties con- nected with our subject.— I. The hypothesis that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a former marriage or his adopted children is founded on traditional notices drawn from the apo- cryphal gospels, which represent Joseph as a man of 80 years when he married Mary, the father of four sons and two daughters by his former wife Escha. The names of the children are variously given, This is the earliest tradition concerning the parentage of the brothers and sisters of the Lord, but need not detain us long, because even Jerome, the strenuous advocate of the cousin- theory, denounced it as “ deliramenta apocryphorum,” as “apocryphal nonsense.” But notwith- standing this strong censure of Jerome, and ample margin being left to the reputed age of Joseph at the time of his marriage, it contains nothing intrinsically improbable. It is indeed, and we think justly, pronounced by Stier and Greswell a mere fiction devised to save the ἀεειπαρθενία of Mary, and advocated on grounds of expediency by modern authors, but although the children of Joseph might and would be called the brothers and sisters of Jesus, the hypothesis is open to very grave objections, because it makes them the seniors of our Lord, which conflicts with their constant attendance on Mary and our Lord’s being the legal heir to the throne of David, a pre- rogative that could only have been enjoyed by the first-born, not by the last-born; for the people clearly knew nothing of His supernatural origin and here we have to deal altogether with popular impressions. A modification of this hypothesis is Lange’s adoption-theory. He supposes Joseph to have had a brother Clopas or Alpheus, who married a certain Mary, not the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. He died early and Joseph adopted his children who thus became the legal brothers and sisters of our Lord. Their mother also became an inmate of Joseph’s family. It is hard to realize such a state of things, if we consider that Joseph was a poor carpenter, and that Mary the supposed mother of those children should have relinquished her maternal rights over them. The hypothesis, although very ingenious, is purely speculative, countenanced neither by exegesis . nor tradition, and evidently the result of dogmatic and critical perplexity. Lichtenstein makes Joseph and Clopas, two brothers, marry two sisters both named Mary. At the death. of Clopas, Joseph took Mary, the widow of Clopas, into his family, and thus the children were doubly related to our Lord, legally on their father’s side and naturally on their mother’s side—and might therefore after their adoption be styled the brothers and sisters of the Lord. The Levirate hypothesis, according to which Joseph on the death of his brother Clopas, mar- ried his widow, and that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the fruit of this marriage, belongs under this head, but needs neither discussion nor refutation. 20 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. II. We come now to the cowsin-theory, which makes the brothers and sisters of our Lord the children of Clopas and Mary, the sister of Mary the mother of our Lord, and alleges that these children by a lax use of the words brother and sister were regarded to sustain the fraternal relation to our Lord. This theory rests upon the following assumptions, 1. That Alphzeus and Clopas are identical; 2. that Mary the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Jude was his wife and the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus; 8. that the lax use of the term “brother” is a fact. These assumptions are open to weighty objections. a. The identity of Alphzus and Clopas rests on the slender foundation that James the Less, one of the twelve is called the son of Alpheus (Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ ’AAgaiov Matth. x. 3; Mark ii. 14; iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13) and that one of the specta- tors of the crucifixion, called Mary (Clopa=Mapia ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ) was the mother of James the Less, because a Mary, the mother of two sons James and Joses is mentioned in Mark. xv. 40; and that the Hebrew ΘΠ and the Greek ᾽᾿Αλφαῖος are supposed to be different forms of the same name. This is probable but not certain. Matthew or Levi, moreover was also a son of Alpheus, and if the ellipsis in Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13) is to be filled up, as is commonly cone, by in- serting ἀδελφός, the Apostle Jude also was a son of Alpheus. Furthermore, if this Mary was also the mother of Simeon, another Apostle, we have the extraordinary fact that four Apostles, claimed by the advocates of this theory as the brothers of Christ, did not believe in Him, for John expressly informs us that His brethren did not believe in Him. (John vii. 3 sqq.). b. The assumption that Mary the mother of Jesus, and Mary the mother of James and Joses were séster's is founded on a solitary passage in John, which admits however of a very different and far more probable solution. It is Jno, xix. 25, which as punctuated and read by the advocates of the cousin-theory, enumerates the three Marys as spectators of the crucifixion. ‘Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene,” but the more cor- rect reading is “ Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother’s sister (Salome, the mother of John the Evangelist), Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Mag- dalene.’—We know from Matthew that Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s children was present at the crucifixion, and this indirect reference to his mother, accords with the usual delicacy of John. Instances of two sisters having the same name are indeed occasionally met with, but they are far from common; considered as a question of probability, it must be decided in the negative, and this decision will be corroborated by the other arbitrary and illogical’elements of this hypo- thesis. Let us look at it from another point of view. The Evangelists enumerate James, Joseph (for that is the true reading in Matthew) Simon and Jude as the four brothers of our Lord. The advocates of the cousin-theory allege that they were his cowsins, but were called his brothers. We read also of another Mary the mother of James and Joses, who is nowhere called the mother of Simon and Jude. Now because she had one son, or if you will, two sons, whose names were identical with those of the brothers of the Lord, it is inferred that she was the mother of the brothers and sisters of the Lord. But the most authentic codices and the most reliable critics pronounce Joseph to be the correct reading in Matthew, and this develops the extraordinary logic that because here is a mother of ἔσο sons one of whom has the same name as that of a son of a mother of fowr sons, THEREFORE she is the mother of the four. The acumen of Aristotle, surely, is not needed, to detect this fallacy —Add to this that the brothers of Jesus appear uniformly in the company of Mary, the mother of Jesus, that the Hebrew ΠΝ, the representative of the Greek ἀδελφός, is used only twice in a lax sense, and then only in the case of nephews, that the words ἀνεψιός, consobrinus, or cousin (Col. iv. 10 applied to Mark the cousin of Barnabas), υἱὸς τῆς ἀδελφῆς, sister’s son (Acts xxill. 26), and συγγενῆς, kinsman or relative form part of the New Testament vocabulary, that neverthless the Evangelists use the word ἀ δελφοΐ and II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 21 not any of the new terms, that the brothers did not believe in Christ before His resurrection, that therefore they could not have been Apostles, and that after His resurrection, even as believers they are expressly distinguished from the Apostles, and the inference is all but irresistible that this whole theory, from beginning to end, is involved in chaotic confusion and endless con- tradiction. Much stress is laid by the advocates of this theory on the celebrated passage Gal. i. 19: “ But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother.” Read and construed as the verse stands in E.V. it is argued that Paul here declares to haveseen at Jerusalem James, a brother of the Lord, who was an Apostle, that this must have been James of Alpheus or James the Less, because James the son of Zebedee was dead at that time, that here is a clear case of the word brother being used in the sense of cousin, and that consequently the Lord’s brethren are His cousins, the children of Alpheus and Mary. The passage bears however the very opposite interpretation and some of the best Greek scholars have shown, and we think conclusively, that we ought to ren- der “I saw none other of the Apostles (besides Peter to whom he had referred in the preceding verse) but I saw James, the Lord’s brother.” In other words Paul distinguishes James the Lord’s brother from the twelve. Still it is only fair to add that although James was not an Apostle, yet both on account of his exemplary piety and wisdom and on account of his relation to our Lord, and as first bishop of Jerusalem, he enjoyed apostolic dignity and authority. ‘That such was the case is evident from various passages in Acts, in the Epistle to the Galatians, from Josephus, Hegesip- pus and the tradition of the Eastern Church.” 111. The only remaining theory is that the brothers of Jesus were His actual brothers, that is: the children of Joseph and Mary. This view is the most natural, but beset by dogmatical dif- ficulties. We will first state the arguments in its favour and then consider the dogmatical dif- ficulties. 1. The language used by the Evangelists is such as to intimate that Joseph and Mary were man and wife. 2. The term ‘first-born’ although of technical value and importing certain privileges, may fairly be construed as implying the existence of children born subsequently, especially if it is considered that the Evangelists record events as historians after those events had become history, and that if they had intended to say that Jesus was Mary’s only- born, it was as easy for them to select that term, which forms part of the N. T. voca- bulary as the ambiguous ‘first-born,’ which although susceptible of a non-natural in- terpretation, imports generally the existence of later-born children. 3. The Evangelists mention brothers and sisters of Jesus. 4, These brothers could not have been Apostles, for they continued to disbelieve in Jesus during His life-time. 5. The hypothesis that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the children of Joseph and Mary simplifies the domestic relations of the holy family. 6. The objection which is sometimes brought against this hypothesis that Jesus would not have commended his mother to Jon, if she had other sons to take care of her (Jno. xix. 26). “But why,” asks Andrews if James and Judas were Apostles and Hs cou- sins, sons of her sister and long inmates of her family, and it was a question of kin- ship, did He not commend her to their care? The force of the objection remains then unbroken on the cousin-theory. The true reasons why our Lord confided His mother to John and not to His brothers, seem to have been the following: a. The brothers did not believe in Him, and consequently could not sympathize with Mary in her great sorrow. ὃ. Between John, the most intimate friend of Jesus, who understood and appreciated Him better than all the disciples, and Mary there was the strongest bond of sympathy in their love of Jesus, and John was therefore most likely to uphold and comfort her with filial tenderness in her sad trials. John, moreover, was the couszn of Jesus, being the son of Salome, the sister of Mary, and the brothers of Jesus were probably married, as the notice of Paul in 1 Cor. ix’5, seems to imply. 22 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. The last two points we do not urge as reasons, but merely state as matters of interest. These plain facts, drawn solely from Scripture, conflict however with the old and wide- spread view of the perpetual virginity of Mary and the feeling that it was lowering the dignity of the Saviour and that of Mary to admit the probability or even possibility of further descen- dants. To preclude the possibility of such an hypothesis was doubtless the ruling motive of those who gave currency to the apocryphal fiction that Joseph was eighty years old when he married Mary. The cousin-theory which may be traced back to Papias, although made current in the Church by Jerome, clearly originated in the desire to establish the superiority of the unmarried to the married state. Gnostic principles began early to prevail in the Church and to induce the desire to separate Christ as widely as possible from other men. To obliterate, if possible, any and everything He might be supposed to have in common with other men, was believed to add to His exaltation. This exaltation would naturally pass from Him to Mary, and with the devel- opment of Mariology and Mariolatry become an article of faith. Due allowance must also be made for the feeling “that the selection of a woman and that of a virgin to be the mother of the Lord, carries with it as a necessary implication that no others could sustain the same relations with her.” (J. A. Alexander). It is of course very difficult to account for the extent of this feeling, but there can be no doubt that it is not altogether free from an undervaluation of the honour and dignity conferred by our Lord on our common humanity by His Incarnation. The inspired writers of the New Testament seem to emulate each other in portraying the true hu- manity of Christ and in showing how He ennobled, glorified, and with reverence be it uttered, deified that nature which at the first came pure and holy from His creative Mind. It is surely an ineffably touching and consoling thought that the holy Jesus passed through every relation of human childhood and from having been a pattern of humility, modesty and forbearance to His brothers and sisters, from having borne with their impatience and want of sympathy, to evidence Himself in this respect also as our true Highpriest that He might be touched with a feeling of our infirmity.” And then as to Mary, her memory will not be less dear and sacred to us, as the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, than as the ever-virgin. Marriage is a divine institution and has been made doubly divine by the human mother of our Lord.— The question has from the earliest times been variously answered; the view that Jesus had actual brothers and sisters is as old as any of the other theories and we believe, with Neander, Winer, Meyer, Stier, Alford and Farrar that it accords best with the evangelical record, and barring dogmatical prejudice or feeling, is at once the simplest, most natural and logical solution of this otherwise hopelessly confused question, which fortunately is an open one in our Church and most of the Reformed bodies. Those who desire to stwdy this question are referred to ANDREWS, Life of Christ pp. 104- 116. Axrorp Greek Testament, Introduction to’ Epistle St. James, Dr. ScHaFr’s excellent Essay: “Das Verhiltniss des Jakobus, Bruders des Herrn, zu Jakobus Alphet, Berlin 1843, his annota- tion to Lange’s Matthew pp. 256-266, and to my Article in the Princeton Review for January 1865: “Are James the Son of Alpheus and James the Brother of the Lord identical?” —M.]. 2. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. A. Notices which presuppose the early existence and reception of the Epistles in Clemens Romanus Ep. 1. ch. x.; in Pastor Hermas, Simitit. vili.6; in Irenzus, adv, Heeres, iv. 16. Abra- ham amicus Dei (Jacob. ii. 23). Tertullian adv. Jud@os Cap. ii.: Abraham amicus Dei. See on it Guerike, Jsagogik, p. 441, and Huther p. 24. B. Zestimonies. The ancient Syriac Peschito contains this Epistle. Clemens Alex. knew it according to Euseb. Hist. Hecl. VI. 14. He also alludes to James ii. 8 in Stromat VI.—Origen mentions the Epistle of James in Tom. 19 on John and occasionally calls it divina Jacobi Apos- toli Epistola. Homil. 13 in Gen. ete.—Dionysius of Alexandria appeals to it in several places and Didymtfs of Alexandria wrote a commentary on it.—Cyril of Jerusalem and J erome, Cat. 3 con- sidered it to be genuine (Guerike p, 442). » Il. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 23 nnn en LESSEE C. Ancient doubts of its genuineness.—These were the natural outgrowth of the apocryphal Jewish Christian account of distinguishing James the son of Alphzeus from James the brother of the Lord. It is certainly not surprising (Kern supposes it 18) that the testimony of Hegesippus is wanting for the Epistle in Euseb. ii. 23, where he is only cited as the chronicler of the life and martyrdom of James. But Eusebius takes occasion to mention the Hpistle itself in order to add the observation that it was accounted spurious, as many of the ancients had neither mentioned it nor the Epistle of Jude; but that they were publicly read in most of the Churches. The reason adduced is clearly of little weight against the genuineness of the Epistle. Origen may at first have intended to give a faint intimation of existing doubt; but this is rather doubtful (see Guerike 443, note 4). Eusebius placing the Epistle among the Antilegomena simply proves that in his time its genuineness was not universally acknowledged; he himself appears to have essentially shared those doubts, owing to his indecision in his historical view of the person in question. The doubts stated by Jerome are now only regarded as historical references; the alleged contradiction of Theodore of Mopsuestia cannot be authenticated, but even if it could, it would only be the statement of a critical view belonging to a later period. D. Doubts at the time of the Reformation. Luther, in the preface to the Epistle of James A.D. 1522 says: “This Epistle of James, although rejected by the ancients (which is false) I praise and esteem good withal, because it setteth forth not any doctrine of man and drives hard the law of God (which is incorrect). But to give my opinion, yet without the prejudice of any one, I count it to be no Apostle’s writing, and this is my reason. First, because contrary to St. Paul’s writings and all other Scripture it puts righteousness in works (a misunderstanding ; and if it were so, how could he praise it and esteem it good withal?). “Lastly he thought that the Author was some good, pious man.” Yes, “some good pious man” who understood better how to warn Jewish-Christians of the insurrection of the Jews than Luther knew to warn: the Evangelicals of the insurrection of the peasants.—His opinion is couched in stronger terms in the preface to the Edition of the N. T. of 1524: “On that account the Epistle of James, compared with them (the Epistles of Paul and the remaining Epistles of the N.T.) is a veritable straw- Epistle. For it lacks all evangelical character.’ It is striking enough that Luther held also to the opinion that the early-deceased James, the son of Zebedee was the author of this Epistle. Similar opinions rejecting the Epistle found in the Table talk ( Zisch-Reden) proves that Luther retained this view to a later period although the respective passages were omitted in later editions of the New Testament. (See Huther p. 25). The opinion of Luther was followed by the Mag- deburg Centurvators, Hunnius, Althammer and others; among the Reformed by Wetstein. It is known that Luther’s view could not do justice to the book of Revelation and other books of Holy Writ; it was the enthusiastic prominence he gave to the doctrine of justification (the work to which he had been especially called), connected with his misapprehension of the general tendency of the Epistle and with the new born deep consciousness of evangelical liberty of thought as contrasted with exegetical tradition, that made him pronounce so embarrassed an opinion of our Epistle. In the Dorpat Magazine for Theology and the Church Vol. I. pt. 1. 1859, p. 152, von Oettingen reviewing Huther’s Commentary on the Epistle of James says concerning the fore- mentioned opinion of Luther: “This opinion of Luther not only has been recently adopted by the Tubingen school weiter for its tendencies but it has also been repeated by the Gnesio-Luthe- rans, as is proved by the following hasty statement of Strébel (in a review of Wiesinger’s Com- mentary in Guertke and Rudelbach’s Magazine for Lutheran Theology, 1857, II. p. 356. “No matter in what sense we take the Epistle of James, it is always in conflict with the remaining parts of Holy Writ.” Very justly von Oettingen expresses his censure of that opinion in the name of the Biblia Stroebeliana (see in Huther p. 28). In the Roman Catholic Church doubts were uttered by Erasmus and Cajetanus. E. Modern doubts. Forerunners: Faber, Bolten, Bertholdt: James wrote in Aramean, the Greek translation the work of another hand. De Wette, Introduction to the New Testament. It is difficult to see why James should have written an Epistle to all the Jewish Christians in the world. Its contents are ambiguous. It lacks personality. The missed contradiction of Paul is undignified. Ch. 11. 25 seems to refer to 24 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. > Hebrews xi. 31 and consequently to betray a later author. How could James write such good Greek? For counter-statements see Guerike, Contributions, p. 160 ete. Schleiermacher:—Jntroduction to the New Testament, edited by Walde. He finds the opinion of Luther confirmed, the style in part ornate, in part clumsy and as to the contents of the Epistle, he finds much bombast.— Kern:— Zhe character and origin of thé Epistle of James, Tibingen Magazine 1835, 11. Why Hegesippus did not mention the Epistle? Baur :—“ Paulus,” p. 677; “Christianity of the first three centuries, p.96.”—On the ground of the well-known Ebionite hypothesis and of the assumption that the Epistle teaches a righteousness of good works against Paul. Schwegler in the train of Baur: “Zhe Post-apostolic Age, vol. I. p. 413 ete. Reasons for the alleged spuriousness: 1, The want of individuality; 2, Christian anti- quity unacquainted with the Epistle and its later recognition as canonical; 3, the mild form of Ebionitism it sets forth; 4, the internal church-relations assumed in it; 5, its acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel according to the Hebrews.— Quite new, but also quite untenable.is here especialiy the discovery of Ebionitism. The very name of James, the address to the twelve tribes, the word synagogue for Church are adduced in proof of the Ebionitism of the Epistle; the rich tAobovoc-—are to denote the Gentile Christians. But in that case, ch. 11. 2 would make the congregations addressed by the author non-Ebionite, Notwithstanding the strong language used against the rich (Gentile Christians) the Epistle / is alleged to be irgnical, and said to aim at effecting a compromise between Jewish and Gentile Christians. For further counter-remarks see Huther p. 301 and Reuss 3146, Note. Huther p. 31 treats also Ritschl’s view of the Epistle of James (which has however been modified in the 2d edition) and mentions Rauch’s attack on the integrity of the passage ch. vy. 10-12, which has been repelled by Hagenbach and Schneckenburger (see Guerike p. 448). redner considers the Epistle genuine as the production of the brother of the Lord and denies the authorship of James the Apostle. But this point is decided by the right apprehension of the Author’s person (δ 1). Moreover it is to be noticed that Schott has revived the view of Bolten etc., that the Epistle is a free translation of the Aramean original; an assumption, devoid of all foundation. The circumstance of the Epistle not being generally known to the ancient Church at an early date may be accounted for by the following considerations : 1, It was addressed to Jewish Christians (hence it occurs already in the Peschito, because in Syria in particular there were many Jewish Christians; this circumstance is rendered prominent by Ritschl) ; 2, The Epistle, in its tendency, presented only few dogmatical points, whereas the ancient Church reverted especially to dogmatical points; 3, The absence of the apostolic designation in the title and similar matter. See Guerike p. 444, The chief reason lay probably in the circumstance that the consciousness of the concrete relation of the Epistle, which made it appear in its whole weight, became gradually less pro- minent. [Alford: “ On the whole, on any intelligible principles of canonical reception of early writings, we cannot refuse this Epistle a place in the Canon. That that place was given it from the first in some part of the Church; that in spite of many adverse circumstances, it gradually won that place in other parts; that when thoroughly considered, it is so consistent with and worthy of his character and standing whose name it bears; that it is marked off by so strong a line of dis- tinction from the writings and Epistles which have not attained a place in the Canon; all these are considerations which, though they do not in this, any more than in other cases, amount to demonstration, yet furnish when combined a proof hardly to be resisted, that the place where we now find it in the N. T. Canon is that which it ought to have, and which God in His Providence has guided His Church to assign to it.”—M.]. oink Il. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 25 i Ὁ οὐ -- ς ς ὦ δοι μα ὦ 3, OCCASION, DESTINATION AND OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE, ITS THEOLOGICAL AND STYLISTICAL CHARACTER. . We should be obliged to treat twice of the contents of this Epistle, were we to omit to con- sider first the question stated at the head of this section. For in order to gain a thorough appre- ciation of the full import and apostolical Yalue of this Epistle our exposition should be duly influenced by the character of James, by his relation to the Jews and to Jewish Christians, by Jewish affairs belonging to its date and by the Christian-prophetical stylistic which demanded an address to his people. To the circumstance, that the Epistle of James, in most instances, has been dissociated from all these vital considerations, is mainly to be ascribed the manifold misun- derstanding of the same. The consideration of the contents according to the leading thoughts and the total impression of the Epistle, to be sure, ought to precede the investigation relating to occasion, object etc., but the exposition of its historic genesis will enable us to understand it with reference to the whole of its glorious contents, that is, then also to set forth its contents in detail. , ' The title v. 1 shows that the Epistle of James was addressed to Jewish Christians in the widest sense of the term, for the whole people was only one diaspora (dispersion) viewed as a huge whole. The same remark applies to the First Epistle of Peter with reference to the Jewish Christians of Asia Minor and also to the Epistle to the Hebrews with reference to the Jewish Christians of Palestine—The date of the Epistle of James falls most probably (as we conclude from the developed condition of the Jewish Christian Churches) into the latest period of his life, about A. D. 62. The date of the composition of the first Epistle of Peter we fix with Thiersch (63-64) at about A. D. 64 (see my History of the Apost. Age, I. p. 148 and II. p. 574) not with Weiss and Fronmiiller A. 1). 54 or 55, because at the latter period the prolonged activity of Pe- ter at Babylon and the multiplication of Jewish Christian Churches in Pontius are entirely out of the question. To the same period, to A. 1). 62-64, belongs the Epistle to the Hebrews (see my Apostolic Age, 1.75; cf this Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, where for good reasons the date given is the interval between the death of James in A. D. 61 or 63, and the be- ginning of the Jewish war in A. D. 67). Said three Epistles addressed to Jewish Christians originated therefore in a period when the Jewish revolution against the supremacy of the Romans had already begun to germ and ferment in the minds of the Jewish people. The proper foundation of this revolution had already been laid by the erucifixion of Christ, but especially by the rejection of Christianity sealed with the execution of James (see my Apost. Age, Vol. Il. p. 427). Thereby the preserving and saving element had been separated from the Jewish nationality, which henceforth, developed into perfect pharisaism, stood arrayed in deadly enmity both against the pagans and the Christians. The pagan instinct, however, returned this antagonism also in its representatives, the Roman govern- ors and thus provocation and persecution increased on the part of the pagans, and fanatical commotions and tumults on that of the Jews. So already Felix, the proconsul, treated the Jews worse than his predecessors and the Jews in their turn resented his maltreatment by several in- surrections, especially under the leadership of an Kgyptian who took 30,000 men to the Mount of Olives. Similar jarrings and revolts were repeated under Festus. The Jews on the whole, restrained themselves as yet under the proconsulate of Albinus (A. D. 63-65). But the war broke out in A. D. 66 under Gessius Florus. The rupture among the Jews and Gentiles turned into open revolution first at Cesarea; immediately afterwards at Jerusalem and the flames of the most atrocious religious war spread on all sides, to Scythopolis, Damascus, Askalon, Ptole- mais, Hippo and Alexandria; everywhere the Jews were slaughtered by thousands. It must be assumed, that the same excited, enthusiastic and fanatical disposition flashed from Jerusalem through the entire Jewish diaspora and that the hope of miraculous deliverance and the impulse of revolutionary self-help and revenge conspired every where with their animosity against the Gentiles, who in their turn were filled with equal deadly hatred. Such was the situation. But now must be taken into account the powerful effect of such national sympathy and antipathy on the Jewish Christians. Nationally they were still Jews 3 26 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. and Jewish blood stirred and boiled in their veins. They were in common with the Jews at- tacked and tempted on the one hand, by the hatred, contempt and oppression of the pagans; and on the other by Jewish-national sympathy, by their yearning for deliverance and by their chili- astic, enthusiastic hopes. The national movementsof modern and quite recent times offer ap- propriate illustrations of the powerful influence of such a national revolutionary current on the individual members of the respective people. Thaf movement was consequently the great se- ductive alternative that lay before the Jewish Christians of that period. Standing aloof from the revolutionary movement, they were cursed and persecuted as apostates by their national breth- ren, We know from history how much the Christians had to suffer in this respect during the later insurrection of the Jews under Bar Cochba in the time of Hadrian. Bare sympathy on the otker hand with the chimerical enthusiasm of the Jews, was entering the road to apostasy (for they exchanged the faith in Christ for the hope of a pseudo-messianic deliverance), falling into unbelief of the justice of God in the judgment that was coming on their people and severing the bond of church-fellowship with the Gentile-Christians, while they were restoring religious fellow- ship with Christ-murdering fanaticism. Hence the Spirit of Christ on all sides warned them and confirmed their faith in this their situation; and the above-mentioned three Epistles are the documents of this guardian Spirit, and in this light alone can they be rightly understood. They are therefore the most appropriate se- quel to the prophetical warnings, cautions and exhortations of the eschatological speech of Christ in Matth. xxiv. 16 ete. Even if the revolutionary spirit had been less developed during the last days of James, his prophetical forebodings would sufficiently account for his hortatory Epistle (v. ch. v. 1); as ina similar manner a prophetical presentiment of the Church anticipated a dearth (Acts xi. 27); and foretold the imprisonment of Paul (Acts xxi. 10). James had the immediate and wide-reaching vocation to confirm the Jewish Christians, with- out incautiously delineating the impending revolution in colours too positive. Hence he issued a circular letter to the twelve tribes in the dispersiony This address has been variously interpreted: it is maintained that the Epistle addresses con- verted and unconverted Jews (Grotius, Wolf, Credner etc.), Jewish Christians and Gentile Chris- tians as divided parties (Kern), as a closed society (de Wette and others), Jewish Christians (Neander, Guerike, Wiesinger etc.). See Wiesinger’s Introduction. (The views, which assign to the Epistle a wholly particular destination, e. g. Noesselt: to the Christians at Antioch, see in Hertwig’s Tables p. 51). Huther (p. 12) lays stress on the consideration that the Author saw | only in Jewish Christians true Jews and that there did not then exist so sharp a separation of Judaism and Christianity. We rather think it necessary to lay stress on the circumstance that James, according to the relations he bore to his people, and as long as that people had not set the seal to their obstinacy in the last symptoms of their apostasy (viz.: the execution of their bishops and their chiliastic revolution against the pagan authorities which involved their renunciation of Christian salva- tion), not only saw in the Jews catechumens of Christianity by birth, but he also saw in the Jewish Christians the true Jews. Addressing therefore the twelve tribes, he did not address the Jews in a dogmatical sense as associates of the old religious communion, but he did address the Jews as his theocratico-national brethren, the noblest part of whom had already become his brethren in the faith and all of whom were cadled to become his brethren in the faith. His pri- mary object of course was to warn the Jewish Christians against taking part in the fanatical revolutionary spirit of the Jews, but surely his secondary purpose was to warn the Jews against being carried away by the hostility and oppression of the tyranny into revolt and the final falling away from the patience of Christ. We admit therefore the correctness of the following remark of Guerike (p. 435) “Strictly speaking the twelve tribes in the diaspora certainly denote only those living out of Palestine, but in a more general sense the term does not exclude the Jews living in Palestine and the contents of the Epistle show that the term is here used in the latter sense.” The point, therefore, on which James felt constrained to speak to all his brethren was to ad- vert to the fact that they were exposed to a great and manifold temptation and that they needed / II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 27 great perseverance in the spirit of Christ’s patience. ᾿ Especially he felt called upon to encourage believers (ch. i.); solemnly to threaten those who had thus far persevered in unbelief and self- righteousness (ch. v. 1); variously to instruct, warn and admonish the tempted and manifold- wavering brethren (ch. ii. etc.]. On the other hand he had to couch his warning against the chiliastico-political fanaticism of his time in terms sufficiently general and cautious in order to avoid the’suspicion of being mixed up with the political issues of the question, that is, he had to treat it on purely religious grounds. The further destination of his pastoral Epistle for all Jewish Christians, relatively including the Jews, accounts also for the careful Greek diction which is characteristic of the Epistle. It also explains the Hebrew-symbolical character of the Epistle whereby it is related to the prophetical style of the O. T. This character surely is wholly misunderstood, if the Epistle is made to yield the result that in the Churches, whom James addresses, the poor on account of their faith were oppressed by the rich, that the rich were flattered im their religious assemblies etc. As in ch. 1. | the twelve tribes represent the people of God in its present state of development of actual and | future Christliness,* as the ἀνὴρ δίψυχος denotes the man who doubtingly wavers between faith , and apostasy, so the poor represent the humble and those who believe through humility, but the rich denote the self-righteous and those who are unbelieving through self-righteousness. And again as in ch. ii. the synagogue describes the assembly of the congregation, and the rich man with a gold ring and a splendid garment denotes the proud, Ebionitising Jewish Christian para- ding his ring of the Jewish Covenant, while the poor man with a vile garment describes the Gen- tile Christian, so faith denotes here in the theocratic sense the Jewish theocratic rightness-of-be- lief (Thiersch, too strong: Jewish orthodoxy), while the work of faith on the other hand signifies the energy and consistency of life exhibited in faith-work, which is the evidence of living faith ; the New Testament faith, consistency of life, the work in grandi, which is the evidence of the vitality of the O. T. faith, but especially the N. T. faith as brotherly love towards Gentile Chris- tians (the poor brother, the poor sister). And as in ch. ii, the becoming teachers of many (πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε) denotes the doctrinal, propagandistic nature of the Jewish Christians and the Jews (v. Rom. 11. 17 etc.), so the fiery spark which grows into a great conflagration de- scribes Jewish fanaticism. In ch. iv. the wars and disruptions (E. V. fightings) probably denote not only disputes and sectarism, but the adulterers and adulteresses describe not such persons in a literal but in the O. T. religious sense, viz.: apostates or such as are inclined that way. As ch. iv. 13, 14 contains a prophetical allusion to the sad transformation of the gain-seeking Jewish diaspora, so ch. v. foretells the great judgment impending on the rich, on self-righteous Judaism. These hints may suffice to show that the character of the Epistle answers to its end and aim. For this very reason its specifically Christian character comes out only in general outlines. The wide-reaching destination of the Epistle would hardly admit of a too definite dogmatical treatment. That the receivers proper of the Epistle were really Christians is manifest from its fundamen- tal Christian tone: “Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ—brethren, beloved brethren,—he begat us with the word of truth—the good (E. V. worthy) name—the killing of the Just—the nearness of the Lord—” etc. see Huther, p.12.. That on the other hand these Christians were Jewish Christians is evident from “the synagogue” 11. 2; the prominence given to monotheism 11. 19; the enumeration of Jewish formulz of oaths v. 12 etc.; and still more from the characteristic features of Jewish improprieties which are denounced; such as pride of faith, fanaticism, conceit and such like ( Wiesinger, Schaff, Thiersch, Huther), As regards the place of writing, the Authorship of James determines also the place where he wrote the Epistle, viz. Jerusalem: ‘The conjecture of Schwegler that the real place of writing ‘was not Jerusalem but Rome, is nothing but a fiction mvented in favour of his hypothesis.” Huther. a * The German has “in seinem jetzigen Entwicklungsstande gewordener und werdender Christlichkeit ”—the literal meaning of geworden is “that to which it already has attained,” of werdender “ that to which it is attaining, or which it is in process of becoming ;” actual and future seemed the best equivalents we could find without a lengthy circumlocution. Christliness is a word of my coining—I had to coin it, because the German Christlichkeit has no English equivalent or rep- resentative.—M.]. ' 28 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. [Jerusalem was the centre of attraction to the Jews of the Diaspora; many of the Jewish Christians were doubtless in the habit of attending the feasts and thus centrally located, James had every facility of information as to the religious condition of those Jewish Christians and of oral or written intercourse with them.—The physical notices found in the Epistle support the supposition that the Epistle was written at Jerusalem. The author wrote not far from the sea, ch. i. 6; iii. 4; he lived in a land blessed with oil, wine and figs, 11]. 12; he was familiar with salt and bitter springs, 1ii. 11, 12; the land was exposed to drought, rain was a matter of great importance to the inhabitants, vv. 17, 18; the land was burnt up quickly by a hot wind (ch. i. 11, καύσων, a name especially known in Palestine); the author names the former and the latter rain, πρώϊμος and ὄψιεμος, as they were called in Palestine, ch. v. 7. See Hug. Einleitung, ed. 4, p. 438 etc. and Alford, Prol. to James IIT, 2, 3.—M.]. On the date of the Epistle opinions are much divided. Pfeiffer (Studien wnd Kritiken, 1852, Ch. L., p. 95), Schneckenburger, Theile, Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Schaff (and in less decided language also Huther) say that it was written before the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, but Schmidt, Guerike and Wiesinger maintain that it was written after it. Huther gives the ollowing reason: “After that time the Pauline doctrine that man is justified not ἐξ ἔργων but ἐκ πίστεως not only had become generally known but also had so profoundly moved the mind of Christendom, that it is inconceivable that James in view of this circumstance could ut- ter his ἐξ ἔργων ete. in perfect ignorance of it.” This reason may also be reversed thus: If James wrote this Epistle earlier in an anti-Pauline sense, he would not have declared at the Apostolic Council that he was in agreement with Paul. We ought rather to distinguish between the his- torico-theocratic sense (Monotheism) and the specifically-Christian sense of the word faith. The chief reasons for the later date of the Epistles, namely, shortly before the death of James, are these. The spread of Christianity through the entire Jewish diaspora, and the general recogni- tion of the authority of James by the entire-Jewish Diaspora in relation to the death of James (A.D 62-63) required to be fixed at the latest possible date ——Then we have the important conside- ration that a general temptation of all J ewish-Christendom to falling away from the faith arose for the first time with the first germinating beginnings of the Jewish revolution or with the more positive opposition of the hatred of the pagans to the fanaticism of the Jews. To this must be added the highly important consonancy in which our Epistle in this respect stands to the first Epistle of Peter and the Epistle to the Hebrews.* 4, THE RELATION OF OUR EPISTLE ‘TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES, THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES, TO THE MOST HOMOGENEOUS EPISTLES VIZ. THE FIRST OF PETER AND THAT TO THE HEBREWS. ITS NEW TESTAMENT PECULIARITY. A, JAMES AND PAUL. The apparent contradiction between the doctrine of James (ch. ii. 24) and the doctrine of Paul (Rom, iii. 28; iv. 2) concerning justification and the question connected with it as to the relation of faith and works, did already cause Luther to be greatly staggered, and because he considered the contradiction as founded on fact, to induce him to pass the above-mentioned un- favourable opinion on the Epistle of James. In modern times theology has been much engaged with the discussion of the question whether or not James and Paul contradict each other. The answer of this question has occasioned a group of different questions : 1. In fayour of a real contradiction are Luther and his immediate followers, and recently Strobel, Cyrillos Lucaris (see Neander’s History of the Planting etc., Bohn’s edition, Vol. I., p. 357), de Wette, Kern, Lutz (Bibl. Dogmatik, p. 170), Baur, Schwegler. 2. For a contradiction against the misinterpretation and the abuse of the Pauline doctrine on the ground of an essential agreement between Paul and James, are several ancient expositors, Augustine, Grotius (see his Annotationes ad N. T. 11. p. 973), Gebser, p. 214, and others. 8. There is no contradiction either of Paul himself, or of the abuse of his doctrine; this view starts on the supposition that the dogmatical tropus of James, which differs from that of Paul, * Only for the sake of noticing it, we have to add that Schwegler has removed the origin of the Epistle to a late period of the second century. 1. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 29 ON. SU Ns UA de a aera eS ἘΞ ΞΕ ΞΕ ΣῈ ἈἐΞἘΞΈ ΞΟ ΞΞΞΣΞΣΞΕΣ took shape sooner than the latter—so Schneckenburger, Theile, Neander, Schaff, Thiersch, Hof- mann, Huther (p. 35). 4. There is no contradiction, but an antithesis and difference of dogmatical tropus, Although according to its internal relations it is the first and earliest of the N. T., it does not follow that it must also have preceded the doctrine of Paul chronologically, Schmid, Wiesinger and others. ‘Ad. 1. It has been supposed that the illustration of Abraham ch. ii. 21 was chosen inten- tionally in opposition to the application of the same illustration in Rom. iv. 1 ete.; and the illus- tration of Rahab, the harlot ch. ii. 25 in opposition to the application of the same illustration in Heb. xi. 31. The following circumstances, apart from the otherwise perceptible unity of spirit in the two Epistles, militate against the supposed contradiction. a. The historically-proven assent of James to the doctrine of Paul, see Acts xv. and Gal. ii. b. The manifest and demonstrable difference of James and Paul in the definition of the terms πίστις, ἔργα, δικαιοῦσθαι. c. The actual agreement of doctrine which follows from an unprejudiced conception of the differing points of view and from the exposition of the respective passages. For while with James πίστις does not denote orthodoxism, because this faith may be animated by energy of life or the evidence of works (ch. i, 25), it does denote the historico-theocrati- cal orthodoxy, which is to evidence its efficient power in consistency of life, indefatigable activity (ἐντέλεχεια) and energy of Christian deportment. And it is this very energy, which St. Paul calls faith, the evidence of which is its working by love. ἔργα with James are not the dead works of the law (ch. ii. 10) but the living evidence of faith in works (ch. ii. 8). If it is alleged that James had developed a defective idea of faith, it may be alleged with equal force that Paul has developed a defective idea of works, But both would be false. With Paul living faith as the work of works ex- cludes dead works: with James the living work-of-faith as the evidence of faith ex- cludes dead faith. Faith without works is dogma-righteousness, orthodoxism. Works without the foundation of faith are work-righteousness, ergzsm. But James as well as Paul acknowledges the δικαιίδυν ἐκ πίστεως; only he calls it Aoyi- ζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην (see ch. ii. 23) while he understands by δικαιοῦσθαι Paul’s δοκιμά- ζεσθαι, σφραγίζεσθαι. See Calvin ad loc. Huther, p. 127, and others; my Apost. Age, L., Ῥ. 171; the Article Jacobus in Herzog, p. 417. But his point of view is not the work-righteousnes of the Jews, but the dogma-right- eousness of the Jewish-Christians and Jews, a tendency which Paul also has distin- guished from the tendency of ergism, as one at once J ewish-Christian and Jewish. See Neander, Plant., Vol. 1., p. 358., Brickner on de Wette, p. 199." Ad. 2. It is not probable, that an abuse of the Pauline doctrine should have spread just among the Jewish-Christians, to whom James wrote. Neander, Plant. Vol. I. p. 359; Brickner, p. 189; Huther, p. 32. Ad. 3. The supposition that James’ dogma-tropus as related to Paul’s must be taken as be- ing undeveloped as to its forms (Neander, Schaff and others), cannot be proved. a. Because the circular Epistle of James cannot be regarded as a complete development of his system of Christian dogma. b. Because the use of gnomical and tropical forms in James alongside of the dialectical forms in Paul does not constitute an inferior degree of completeness, but rather the co- ordination of a Jewish Christian mode of teaching with the Gentile Christian mode of teaching of Paul. In like manner the historical conception of this view which assigns a very early date to the Epistle of James, has not been proved (see section 3). Ad. 4. The view advanced under this head, as to its most important features, is sufficiently conclusive from the foregoing explanations. On the other relations of Paul and James, relations of affinity and contrariety, which have been explained as relations of dependence and polemics, cf. Briickner on de Wette’s Commentary, p. 188. [The treatise of Bp. Bull, Harmonia Apostolica, discusses this whole question very fully and learnedly, and the eminent author reaches the conclusion that our Epistle is not contradic- 80 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. tory, but rather supplementary to the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans and Galatians. Com- pare also on the same side Barrow’s Sermon on Justifying Faith, Works, Vol. IV., Serm. 5, p. 123,—M.]. B. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES AND THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN GENERAL. Besides its evangelical destination, which this Epistle has in common with most of the Cath- olic Epistles, it shares with all of them the Jewish-Christian type of doctrine which puts dialec- tics in the background and gnomical and symbolico-figurative forms in the foreground (see Hu- ther, p. 21). Its gnomical mode of statement establishes its chief affinity to the Epistles of John, its symbolical expression establishes its affinity to the Epistle of Jude, the second of Peter (ch. ii.), and besides, to the Epistle to the Hebrews which is closely connected with the Catholic Epistles. C. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER AND THE EPIS- TLE TO THE HEBREWS, A TRILOGY, Above we have already pointed out the sole significance of this trilogy. They have in com- mon the tendency of earnestly preparing the Jewish Christians in the impending outbreak of the Jewish war for the great temptation to apostasy, to which they were exposed by the hostility and oppression of the pagans and the fanaticism and revolutionary spirit of the Jews. They all aim at strengthening the Jewish-Christian people for that great temptation and at warning them of the great apostasy (see above). Here James the Apostle [?] starts with the harmony of the Jewish law itself as necessarily leading to its perfection in the Christian law of liberty, the first Epistle of Peter starts with the fulfilment of the promise of the Old Testament-kingdom in the New Testament-kingdom of inheritance, while the Epistle to the Hebrews starts with the gupe- riority of the cultus of the New Testament to the covenant-cultus of the Old Testament. The warning of James describes the principal danger of his brethren as a double-mindedness gravita- ting at once towards God and the world and the breaking out in impatience the warning of Pe- ter delineates it as indecision and visionary enthusiasm (ch. i. 18), while the warning of the Epistle to the Hebrews characterizes it as unbelief, apostasy and rebellion. But the spheres of their operation also are different. The first Epistle of Peter is addressed to the Jewish-Christians in Asia Minor written at Babylon, the Epistle to the Hebrews is probably addressed chiefly to the Jewish-Christians in Palestine written at Rome or in Italy, the Epistle of James is addressed to the Jewish-Christians throughout the world, written at Jerusalem. D. THE NEW TESTAMENT PECULIARITY OF JAMES. Besides the references of our Epistle to the Old Testament, to the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach and to the Gospels in general (ch. i. 17 to Matth. vii. 11; i. 20 to Matth. v. 22; 1. 22 to Matth. vii. 21; i. 25 to Jno. xiii. 17 etc.), its references to the Sermon on the Mount also have been particularly noticed. See Briickner on de Wette, p. 187; Huther, p. 18—James, to be sure, exhibits the glorification of the Old Testament law into the New Testament law of the Spirit, of the inner life (see Messner) in perfect analogy to the manner of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. And this then is also his peculiar dogma-tropus. It bears as much the character of the New Testament as does the dogma-tropus of Paul and that of John, but in respect of the development of the doctrine of Christ, it occupies the first place among the dogma-tropes of the New Testament, without ignoring however the specific features of the later dogma-tropes (see my Apost. Age, II. p. 577). And this is the peculiarity of James. The wisdom which had been personified individually in the Logos of Truth, is also to be personified in the life of believers by believing heart-decision and thereby to conduct them through the fearful ruin of apostasy into which the fanatical disciples of the double-hearted earthly wisdom plunge headlong (ch. iii. 15) ἡ it is to evidence itself in them as steadfast patience in the joyous expectation of the advent o Christ. To this mode of teaching answers the gnomical, New-Testament-Solomonic-calm ra- diance of his language, the festively sententious form of which exhibits an affinity to the language of John, although unlike the latter it is not the expression of a contemplative intuition, but that of a practical energy. II. THE EPISTLES OF JAMES. 31 5. THE CONTENTS OF OUR EPISTLE. The theme of the Epistle is evidently contained in the macarism ch. 1. 12, ‘ Blessed is the man that endureth temptation etc.” Here it is noteworthy that the reference is not to man in general but to man in a sexual sense and that we read immediately afterwards ‘The wrath of man (ἀνδρός) worketh not the righteousness of God.” We confidently assume that the reference is to a temptation to which Jewish-Christian men were peculiarly exposed; viz.: the thought cherished by the Jewish men that the righteous judgment of God on the pagans would have to be executed by an armed insurrection against them. This fundamental theme is resumed in the final theme, ch. v. 7: “Be patient (persevering in long-suffering) therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.” The Salutation and Introduction, in the first place, correspond to the leading thought. In the Salutation the Apostle introduces himself as a bondman of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, intimating thereby that in virtue of this servile relation he was freed from the bondage under which the Jews were groaning (Jno. vill. 36). He addresses the Epistle to the twelve tribes of the dispersion because he wants to include in one category the Jews as yet unbelieving and the believing Jews, the category, that is, of theocratico-historical catechumens of Christianity, inas- much as the final historical hardening of Israel had not yet taken place, His Salutation is couched in the Greek form χαίρειν, and apart from the example of toleration indicated by the se- lection of this expression, this word serves also the purpose of introducing his first idea. They should not yield to the gloomy and desponding disposition which was animating the rebellious spirits, but rejoice conformably to their Christian faith (v. 2). The Introduction states that they should also rejoice in their versicolowred temptation (ποικί- λοις probably more than divers, manifold), use them for their proof [doxiwov—M.] and not to run to ruin by wavering. The means he recommends is prayer, but prayer in faith without doubting; consequently a firm and undivided heart. Along with this the brother, who is crushed by his humble lot (surely with particular reference to his national position), is to glory in his Christian exaltation; but the Jewish-Christian, conscious of his theocratico-national riches, is to glory in his lowness, This can hardly mean his poverty in spirit or his humility before God but his his- torical lowness, the bondage-form of his Jewish and Christian life of faith. For the time of glory has already gone by, the grass is withered and the flower has fallen. The confident rich man (the Jew in the pride of his theocratic riches) will fade away in his occupation or schemes. Ch. i, 1-11. The Apostle now expatiates on the theme of the Epistle viz. the exhortation to perseverance in temptation from ch. i. 13—v. 6. I, The most important admonition, then, the Apostle names first. Let them not in the en- thusiasm of self-delusion pervert their temptation into the cause of God, which was really done by the Jewish fanatics. Here James delineates first the contrast between the false, hypocritically decorated phantom of temptation and temptation in its true, hideous and deadly form; secondly the actual providential rule of God in its most universal character, who had made them, as Christians, the first-fruits of His creatures. Ch. i, 13-18, II. The second admonition warns them against fanatical zeal itself. The wrath of man [sex- ually—=avdpéc—M.] does not accomplish the decree of the righteousness of God. Its development must be traced to the rashness and recklessness of self-complacency. Do they wish to avoid it, let them not think that they are pure and rich but laying aside their uncleanness and overflow- ing riches of malice let them meekly yield themselves to the efficient operation of the implanted word.. As doers of this word they will effectually guard themselves against self-deception. But they must steadily contemplate this word and enter into it, as into the perfect law of liberty. The Jew considers himself to be religious [@p7oxoc—=observant of God’s outward service—M.,] in that his zeal of wrath gives the reins to his tongue; but their Christian true service [9pycxeia—outward service—M.] should be evidenced in their care of the orphan and widow (especially of the crushed people in its orphanage and widowhood) and their self-preserva- tion from the pollution of the world. Ch. i. 19-27. ΄ 82 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. III. The third admonition opposes thetr contempt of the pagans, especially also their con- tempt of Gentile-Christians, On this account James starts with faith in Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory which admits of no respect of persons. Hence we see in the man with a gold ring on his finger, in a splendid garment, the portrait of the Jewish-Christian or the Jewish convert according to Jewish notions, in the poor man, on the other hand, in a vile garment the portrait of the Gentile-Christian or of the Gentile convert. [Lange understands by the Jewish convert and the Gentile convert those whose conversion is going on, in process of being, but not yet completed—M.]. They ought to consider both as equals in their syna- gogue (assembly); yea, they should remember that those poor of this world are rich in faith, while those really rich are the proud Jews, their persecutors and the defamers of their Chris- tian name. They are therefore to observe the royal law “Thou shalt love thy neighbour (co-religionists in a higher sense) as thyself” and to have no respect of persons. The law is a unit, Now in supposing that as true Israelites they avoid the adultery of apostasy, while with their un- merciful fanaticism they kill their Christian Gentile brother (cf. 1 Jno. iii. 15), they are transgressing the whole law. In this form the law itself becomes a law of liberty; its living totality delivers from the bondage of its singleletters. In connection with this thought,—faith contrasted with works—de- notes further the theocratic, Jewish-Christian orthodoxy, while the works denote the living, ener- getic proof of faith. The monotheism of the Jew, says James, is altogether insufficient, for the dev- ils also participate init. True faith must prove its vitality in the work of love, especially in broth- erly love. The examples chosen in illustration are most telling. Abraham, sacrificing Isaac his son is a type of the Jewish-Christian who sacrifices his national claims; Rahab, the harlot is a type of the Gentile Christian, who came by the work-of-faith into communion with the people of God. ye IV. The Apostle, in the fourth place, considers it matter of great moment, to dissuade the Jews from their fondness for fanatical teaching, which was their characteristic both in their intercourse with the pagans in particular and with those of a different turn of mind in general (cf. Matth. xxiii, 15; Rom. ii. 19). They transgressed particularly with their irrepressibly-busy, didactic tongue, inclined to condemn and curse. The consequence of such a tendency the Apostle shows to be an earthly, sensual and devilish wisdom, born of envying and strife; with this he contrasts hea- venly wisdom with the beautiful attributes of love and the blessing of peace. Ch. iii. V. The Apostle, in the fifth place, now indicates to the Judaistically prejudiced Jewish Christians and with them to the Jews the infallible mark whereby they may perceive that their stand-point is not true; fanatics, he says, live in strife and war among themselves as well as with others, The root of this quarrelsomeness, he says, are lusts and worldly desires, which in their sensual life are at war with one another; its fruit, disappointment and the failure of all their striving, contention and even of their prayer. Ch. iv. 1-3. VI. James now proceeds in the sixth place, to disclose the ground of those egotistical, pleasu- rable lusts. It is the apostasy of the (spiritual adulterers and) adulteresses from the living God by their worldly-mindedness; their friendship with the world (in a spiritual garb) is enmity with God. Here the portrait of Judaism appears in the foreground with increasing distinctness. It lacks the spirit which is opposed to hatred, the spirit of humility to which grace is accorded. Pursuant thereto are the exhortations which follow: Be true Israelites in relation to God; true subjects of God, truly praying and sacrificing to God (v. 8), truly purified and God-affianced (v. 8), truly poor and humble in the sense of the Old Testament (vv. 9,10). Be ¢rue Israelites in relation to the brethren; avoid slandering, condemning and cursing! Be ¢ruve Israelites in your dispersion-life (Diaspora-life, so German.—M.]! Do not yield yourselves in blind confi- dence to your planning, to go from city to city with a view to traffic and gain, but realize your transitoriness and dependence on God! Otherwise all your knowledge of good will turn to sin and judgment (vv. 11-17). Ch. iv. 4-17. “VII. These admonitions, the Apostle concludes, in the seventh place, by a powerful denun- ciation of woe on the rich, doubtless on the Judaizing Jewish-Christians and Jews who called themselves poor but thought themselves rich in their Jewish privileges, and here the affinity of his mode of statement with that of the prophets, becomes quite prophetical. It contains the prophecy of judgment, of a judgment which, with the destruction of Jerusalem, soon afterwards came upon II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 88 A ΕΘΕ ΠῚ τ Ὁ στιν ἘΞ 5. Ὁ ΡΞ Ξ ΕΘΕ ΞΟ Ὁ ΣΞΕΘ ΞΕΕΘ. Judaism, Let them weep, i. 6. be penitent. Their riches are corrupted etc., i.e. all their self- righteousness has turned to sin and disgrace. They confide in and boast of this treasure before the near day of judgment. But that which brings judgment rapidly near is the crying of the hire withheld from their labourers and reapers, the ingratitude to and the rejection of Apostles and believers, who had undertaken the harvest of Israel. The day of slaughter, which shall come on their pleasure-life, is nigh at hand, and has opened with the condemnation and murder of the Just, who now no longer arrests their running into destruction (ch. v. 1-6). Then follows the final theme and the conclusion. Once more he addresses the brethren. Let them in long-suffering patience persevere unto the coming of the Lord (v. 7). 1. Encouragement thereto: the example of the husbandman waiting for the harvest (vv. 7, 8). 2. Conditions of that patience. a. They must not murmur against one another in disaffection, 2. 6. they must not nourish in their hearts the spirit of fanatical hardness and alienation. Examples: the prophets; the patience of Job; the end of the Lord (vv. 9-11). δ, The excitement of swearing and complications by oaths they must avoid, and hallow their minds (v. 12). 6. They must cheer their minds by prayer, praise, the help of the presiding officers of the Church, and the confession of sins (vv. 13-16). 3. Elias the type of wonder-working [effective—M.] prayer, whose first prayer effected the miracle of chastisement and his second the miracle of mercy (vv. 17, 18). 4, Conclusion, Exhortation containing a promise of blessing on the effort of reclaiming an erring brother. Every one should engage in this work, and whoever succeeds, does thereby save a soul from death and prevent the multitudinous evil of sin (vv. 19, 20). Ch. v. 9-20. The existing tables of contents do not exhibit a perfect, organical structure of the Epistle, be- cause the idea which animates all its separate parts, has not been laid down as the foundation of the Epistle. The construction of the Epistle has been treated in extenso by Pfeiffer, On the connection of the Epistle of James, Stud. and Krit., 1850, Part 1; in Wiesinger’s division in his Commentary, p.46; in Huther’s division in his Commentary, p.15; de Wette and Schleiermacher see neither plan nor order in the Epistle. See Briickner, p. 182 (his own exposition, p. 184); Schleiermacher, p, 421. 6. LITERATURE. See Herpecerr, Enchiridion, I., p. 617. LinrentHar, Bibl. Archivarius, p. 784. WINER’s Handbuch der Theol. Literatur, I., pp. 268 and 271. Supplement, p. 42. Danz, Universal- Wer- .terbuch, p. 421. Supplement, p.51. Ds Werte, Jntrod. 6th ed. p. 362. Wiesinger’s Commen- tary, p. 45.—See General Works on the Bible. (Among the most recent works on the Bible is the Critical and Practical Commentary on the New Testament, by C. W. Nast, Cincinnati and Bremen, 1860) ;—also Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. Particular exegetical works. Roman CatHotic: Lorinus, 1622; Pricxvus, 1646. LUTHERAN: WINKELMANN, ALTHAMER, BROCHMANN, LAURENTIUs etc REFORMED: ZWINGLI, CALVIN, Coccetus and others. MopveErn: Benson, SEMLER, BAUMGARTEN, Herper, (Briefe Zweener Briefe Jesu in un- serm Kanon), Storr, Morus, Hensier, Horrineer, Port, ScHULTHEsS, GEBsER (Berlin, 1828), SCHNECKENBURGER (1832), THEILE (1833), Kern (1838), J.J. CELLERIER (μια et commentaire sur l Epitre de St. Jaques, Geneve, 1850), A. NEANDER, Pract. Exposi- tion, edited by Schneider (1850), WrestneErR (Vol. VI. Sect. 1 of Olshausen’s Commen- tary), HurHer (Sect. 15 of Mryrer’s Comment,, 2d ed., 1863), BriickNER’s edition of DE WETTE’s Commentary, Vol. III., Part.1, 3d ἐῶν 1865. ee De Brief van Jac., eee door J. CLaRrssx, Amsterdam, 1802; M. Stuart, Amsterdam, 1806; Proeve eener Verklaring etc. door G. VAN Kosten, Amsterdam 1821; Jacobus etc. VAN Friesema, Utr., 1842; G. van LEEUWEN, 1855; VinKeE, 1861; Dis- 94 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. ᾿ sertatio de Jacobi Epistole eum Syracide libro etc. convenientia, Griéningen, 1860; Re- cently appeared: H. Boumann, Comm. perpet. in Jacobi Epistolam, Utrecht, 1865. For THE PARTICULAR TREATMENT OF THE EPISTLE see ΗΈΙΒΕΝ, Fuacus, ΕΆΒΕΒ. Winer, I. p. 272; Danz, p. 421 ete.; Supplement, p.51. Wixstnaer, p. 46. Herrwia, Tabellen, p. 51.—We must also mention, Zhe Apocryphal Protevangelium of James, edited by Suckow (Breslau, 1841). FoR DOGMATICAL TREATMENT consult the works on Biblical or New Testament Theology in general, See the list in HagEnBAcH’s Zncyclopedia, 6th ed. p. 201. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE APosTLES: LUTTERBECK, die Weutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe, 1852; ΜΈΒΒΝΕΕ, die Lehre der Apostel und Neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, 1856; History of the Apostolic Age, NEANDER, Scoarr, LanaE.—Rrrscau, Origin of the Old-Catholic Church ;—Scuarr, das Verhiltniss des Jacobus, Bruders des Herrn, zu dem Jacobus Al- phei, Berlin, 1842. For sPECIAL PRACTICAL TREATMENT see BALTHASAR KERNER, Jakobsstab oder Erklirung der Epistel Jacobi in 60 Predigten, Ulm, 1639, Harrmann Crerpivs, Jakob’s Schatz, oder 91 Predigten iiber die Epistel Jacobi, Frankfurt, 1694; DANIEL GRIEBNER, Erkla- rung etc. in 79 Predigten, Leipzig, 1720. Goxrztus, de allgemene Sendbrief des Apos- tels Jacobus verklaart en toegeeygent, Amsterdam, 1698; Similarly J ANssontvs, Green- ingen, 1742.—K. Braunsg, die Sieben Katholischen Briefe-—Die Briefe des Jakobus und Judas, Grimma, 1847; Jaxost, der Brief des Jakobus, ausgelegt in 19 Predigten, Ber- lin, 1835; Srrer, der Brief des Jakobus in 32 Betrachtungen ausgelegt, Barmen, 1845; DrasEKE, Predigten iiber den Brief Jakobi, 1851; VirpEBanpt, der Brief Jakobi in Bibelstunden, Berlin, Schulze, 1859 ; Jakobus, der Zeuge vom lebendigen Glauben, Hine Reihenfolge von Predigten δον den ganzen Brief Jakobi, von G. Porubszky, evang. Pfarrer in Wien, Wien, 1861. [English Commentaries on James. TuRNBULL, RicHarn, Exposition on the Canonical Epistle of St. James in 28 lectures, 4vo., Lond., 1606; Mayer, Joun, Praxis Theologica, or the Epistle of the Apostle James resolved, expounded and preached upon, by way of doctrine and use, 4vo., Lond., 1629; Manton, THom., D.D., A Practical Commentary: or an Exposition with Notes on the Epistle of James, 4vo., Lond., 1653. Repr. imp. 8vo., Lond, 1840; 8vo, Lond., 1842. See also Stantey, Zssays and Sermons on the Apostolic Age, Lond., 1852; the General Commentaries, those on the Apostolical and Catholic Epistles.—M.]. COMMENTARY. THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES? ia NT ΘΟ ΘΕΟΊ. THE SALUTATION OF THE SERVANT OF GOD AND OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST TO μι μα μι ΞΟ ὦ σὺ OCH δ bo THE TWELVE TRIBES IN THE DISPERSION. REFERENCE TO THE VARIEGATED TEMPTATIONS TO WHICH THEY ARE EXPOSED, AND TO THE JOYFUL DESIGN OF THE SAME: THEIR CONSUMMATION. Cuaprrer. [. 1-11. JAMES, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad,* greeting. My brethren, count‘ it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations. Knowing ¢his, that the trying® of your faith’ worketh patience.* But let patience? have her perfect work,' that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." If any of you lack wisdom,” let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally," and upbraideth" not; and it shall be given him.” But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering: for he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For’ let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord. A doubleminded man" ‘s unstable in all his ways'*. Let the brother of low degree” rejoice?! in that he is exalted.* But the rich,* in that he is made low™: be- cause as ὑπο flower of the grass he shall pass away. For the sun is no sooner risen® with a burning heat”, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.” 29 [Tirtz. 1 Eusebius ends his account of James the Just thus: τοιαῦτα καὶ Ta κατὰ Ἰάκωβον οὗ ἡ πρώτη τῶν ὀνομαζομένων καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται. Hist. Eccl. ii.23. A.C. Sin. omit the {{{16.--Μ.] : Verse 1. [2é€v τῇ διασπορᾷ. In the dispersion—M.] (Sxatpecv. Lange “Freudengruss,” Freude zum Gruss—Salutation of joy, joy the burden of his saluta- tion; the English “ greeting” is sometimes used in the same sense; so de Wette, van Ess etc.—M.] Verse 2. [4 The Codex Colbertinus has ἡγεῖσθε. ποικίλοις, literally, versicoloured.—M.] [5 The whole verse in Lange’s version, “Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into divers (variegated) temptations.”—M.] Verse 3. [9γινώσκον τε ς-ϑῖ ποθ ye know. δοκίμιο ν-ε:ργοοῖ.---Μ.] 7 The omission of τῆς πίστεως according to Cod. B. has been dropped on good grounds by Tischendorf, according to the decided majority of MSS. A.C. G@. ete. [It is inserted in A. B. C. K. L. Cod. Colb. Cod. Sin. Vulg. Syr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. etc.—M]. ‘ [8 ¥70movyv—endurance. Lange’s version. “Since ye know that the proof of your faith worketh en- durance.”—M.] Verse 4. [9 v0” 0v y=endurance.—M.] bt ἔργον τέλειον-Ξα perfect work.—M.] 1 Lange’s version: “ But let endurance have a perfect work (the perfect operation of Christliness) that ye may be perfect and entire people (Christians), in nothing deficient (verkuemmert, stunted).—M.] Verse 5. Πβλείπεται copias=falls short of wisdom.—M. |] 3 am @s—a, liberally, ὃ, sincerely.—M.] μὴ OverdiGovtos—upbraideth not, z.e. who gives without exprobration.—M. ] Lange’s version: “ But if any of you is deficient in wisdom, let him ask it from the God who giveth to all men (also to the pagans) sincerely (without reservation and delusion) and upbraideth not with it (turns it not into the disgrace of the recipients, according to the notion of work-righteousness), and it shall be given to him.—M.] Verse 6. Πμηδὲν Staxptvomevos—nothing doubting, not in the least (Lange) doubting.—M.] 17a Lange’s version: “ But let him ask in faith, not in the least ( faltering) doubting, for he that doubteth is like a wave of the sea, agitated by the wind and tossed hither and thither.”—M .] Verse 7. [17> Lange renders y a4p—=also, but we prefer “mor let that man etc.”—M.] 36 THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. Verse 8. [1819 Lange’s version: “A double-minded (faltering) man: a seditious (excited) disturber of peace in all his ways.” But this rendering is too fanciful; we prefer therefore the strictly grammatical rendering : “ A two-minded man, unstable in all his ways,” takin 2lxkavxac8w=glory.—M.] the verse in apposition with νυ. 7.—M.] Rev τῷ ὕψει avtov=—in his exaltation. “But let the brother who is low glory in his exaltation.”—M.] Verse 9. : ὃ ἀδελφὸς ὁ Tametvos—the brother who is low.—M. Verse 10. [236 tAov¥avos=the rich man.—M.] [24 Lange understands asecond “ glory,” makes the passage ironical, and renders “ but the rich in his humilia- tion.”—M. ] [3 ὡς ἄνθος xoptov—=as a flower of the grass.—M.] Verse 11. 26 The Aorist with its narrative force should be retained.—M. [32 καύσων may mean the dry parching East wind, Kadim, but “the burning heat” of E. V. is very feli- citous.—M.] 2 πορείαις. A. and several lesser MSS. read πορίαις, an orthographical blunder, according to Schneckenburger, because there isno noun wopia witha fixed meaning. ἱπορείαις is stronger than ways; it denotes the eager pursuit of some business or pleasure.—M. | [39 Render the whole verse, ‘‘ For no sooner rose the sun with the burning ‘heat (wind) and dried up the grass and the flower thereof fell away and the beauty of its appearance perished; thus also shall the rich man wither in his ways” (journeyings something like Lange’s “Gliicksfahrten”).—M.] EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 1. Introduction. Analysis. The address and salutation; v. 1.—Reference to temptation as a proof of endurance tending to joy: vv. 2-4.—The means of endurance, wisdom; hence deficiency in wisdom to be met by the prayer of undoubting faith; vv. 5, 6.—Caution against instability; vv. 6, 7.—Particular advice to the lowly and to the rich (in their own opinion); vv. 8-10.—The fate of the rich; y. 11. Ver. 1. Address and Salutation. James, (on James, see Introduction above) servant of God, applied in the widest sense to Christians in general (1 Pet. ii. 16; Eph. vi. 6), denotes in the narrower sense, in the official use of the word, apostolical men (Phil. i. 1); but here the word in its fullest weight signifies not only the head of the church at Jerusalem, but also the Apostle whose special work lay among the Jewish Christian and the Jewish Dispersion (of which Jerusalem was the centre). Rom. i. 1; Tit. i. 1. [Oecumenius: ὑπὲρ πᾶν δὲ κοσμικὸν ἀξίωμα οἱ τοῦ κυρίου ἀπόστολοι τὸ δοῦλοι εἶναι χριστοῦ καλλωπι- ζόμενοι, τοῦτο γνώρισμα ἑαυτῶν βούλονται ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ λέγοντες, καὶ ἐπιστέλλοντες καὶ διδάσκοντεϑ8.----Ν].1. Of God and of the Lord.—0Of God not the attribute of Jesus Christ, as some expositors have rendered, but God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ répresented as wielding one dominion (cf. Jno. xvii. 3); thereby James also wisely takes together the Old Testament and the New. The Apostolical and Christian office is one service; however not service rendered to man but service rendered to God and Jesus Christ with undivided consciousness, obedience and operation. [ Oce. “Feov μέν͵ τοῦ πατρός" κυρίου δὲ͵ τοῦ υἱοῦ." Bengel: “ videri potuisset, si Jesum sepe appellaret, id ex am- bitione facere, cum esset frater Domini. Atque eo minus novit Christum secundum carnem.”’ Itis cer- tainly remarkable that James mentions Christ only here and in ch. 11, 1, while in his speeches (Acts xv. and xxi.) he does not name Him at all.—M. ] To the twelve tribes in the dispersion. —That is, in their Christian calling, and in be- ing called to Christ. To Jewish Christians pri- marily (so Laurentius, Hottinger, Schnecken- burger, Neander and others), but, secondarily also to the Jews, as far as their adoption of Chris- tianity had not yet been given up (sofern sie noch nicht aufgegeben sind als werdende Christen). See Introduction. As yet all were treated as the theocratico-ideal unity of the people of Israel called to (the reception of) thefaith. Of course they are distinguished from the Gentile Chris- tians (against Huther; see Wiesinger). The twelve tribes (τὸ δωδεκάφυλον Acts xxvi. 7) Matt. xix. 88; Rev. vii. 4-8, etc. The dispersion, see Deut. xxx.3; Nehem.i. 9; Ps. clxvii. 2; Jno. vii. 35, ete. Greeting.—yaipew, the Greek form of saluta- tion (χαίρειν se. λέγει 1 Mace, x.18; 2 Mace. ix. 19); used also in the Apostolical decree Acts xv. 23 (to which Huther, following Kern, rightly calls attencion), The Hebrew D) oy Is. xlviii. - 22 etc. Cf. the forms of salutation used by the other Apostles; as here, they always correspond with the fundamental ideas of the several Epis- tles. James desires to preserve to his brethren the true joy and to become instrumental in their securing it. Hence yaipew of v. 1 relates to χαρά v. 2, which we seek to express in the trans- lation, ‘‘Salutation of joy (Hreudegruss).” [See above in Appar. Crit. v. 1.—M.]. Ver. 4. Reference to the temptation and its de- sign. All joy.—aoca χαρά, not as some of the older expositors render ‘the highest joy,” but all joy, joy throughout (ὅλως Carpzoy., Huther ; entire joy) unless indeed the joy, as an all-sided one, is to correspond with the ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς [‘‘all sorts of joy,” ‘all conceivable joy,” Al- ford; ‘‘rem revera omnique ex parte letam,” Theile. —M.]. But this χαρά is not mere gaudendi ma- teria (Huther): rather, they are to convert the objective substance of joy into subjective riches of joy. ἡγήσασθε is therefore emphatic. [The repetition at the beginning of a verse or sentence, of the last word in the one preceding, called by grammarians duadiplosis is characteristic of the style of James; e.g. χαίρειν, χαράν v. | and follow- ing; ὑπομονήν, Vv. ὃ; λειπόμενοι, V.4; διακρινόμενος, v. 6; compare also y. 13, 19, 21, 22, 26.—M.]. My brethren.—Primarily used to denote community of faith, but here also community of theocratic nationality (see ch. i. 16, 19; ii. 5; iv. 11; v. 7, 9, 19). [Wordsworth remarks that ‘“‘this address is very suitable in an Epistle like the present, characterized by the language of stern rebuke; inspired like the reproof of St. Stephen, by the Spirit of Love. James, ‘the Lord’s brother,’ having the Spirit of the Lord, addresses even them as ‘brothers.’””—M. ]. When ye fall into divers temptations.— These πειρασμοί are the chief motive of the Epistle. And certainly they are not only in a general sense the θλίψεις which an unbelieving CHAP. I. 4-11. 37 world prepares for believers (Luke viii. 13; Matth. xiii. 21 (Huther); nor are they parallel to 1 Pet. i. 6. Still less are they in essential antithesis to πειράζεσθαι vy. 13 (as Wiesinger thinks), the antithesis is at the most that of objective incitement and its corresponding sub- jective irritability. It is a very definite, con- crete idea, the elements of which may be gathered in part from the circumstances of the time (see Introduction), and in part from the Epistle itself. The Jewish Christians were then tempted, on the one hand by the hatred of the pagais, on the other by the national fanaticism of the Jews (an alternate odiwm generis humani), and their ever-rising chiliastic desire of rebellion; they were tempted to participate in the antipathy to the pagans and to transfer it to the Gentile- Christians, to sympathize with the visionary Jewish national sentiment and thus to be again surprised by the old legal service. They were tempted to Ebionitism, which was already germi- nating (ch. ii), and beyond it to zealotry (ch. iii), to insurrection, (ch. iv.), and to apostasy (ch. v.). The temptation came therefore from every side and took the most variegated shapes of alluring and threatening, while their hereditary Judaistic lust presented a counter-impulse (v. 18.). Thus the one great πειρασμός resolved itself into the πειρασμοὶ ποικίλοι. Now since the adjective ποικί- Aocg denotes not only the diverse, but primarily the variegated, it probably contains an allusion to the manifold-dazzling glitter of colours in which the Jewish-Christian and Jewish temptations presented themselves and whereby they might even appear in the guise of Divine revelations and prophetical warnings urging them to be zealous for the honour of God. Into the midst of such temptations they had fallen; on all hands they were surrounded by them (on περιπίπτειν consult the Lexica and Huther), [περιπίπτειν to fall into the midst of anything, so as to be wholly surrounded by it. Luke x. 30; Acts xxvii. 41. So ὅστις ἄν τοιαύταις ξυμφοραῖς περιπέσῃ Plato, Legg. 9, 877. ὁ; μεγάλοις ἀτυχήμασιν ὑπ’ Αἰτωλῶν, καὶ μεγάλαις συμφοραῖς περιπεσόντες Polyb. p. 402, 1.5; πανικῷ περιπεσόντες, Ib. p. 670, 1. 63 λῃστᾶις περιέπεσε Diog. Laert. 4, 50; κακοῖς, 2 Mace. x. 4, etc.—M.]. believers to turn by proof (δοκιμῇ) into spiritual joy (Acts iv. 23; Rom. y. 3, etc.) was conse- quently in an eminent degree peculiar to this great temptation. But this temptation did doubt- less bring many an inconstant Jewish-Christian to ruin before the Jewish war, as did that under Bar Cochba. Ver. ὃ. Since ye know that the proof of your faith worketh endurance.—The Parti- ciple γινώσκοντες explains ἡγήσασθε and indicates by way of encouragement the manner how they might turn the heart-grief of the proof into joy (hence neither ‘“‘and know” (Luther), nor “for you know” Pott). Td δοκίμιον (found only here and 1 Pet. i. 7) may mean the medium of proof (the proper signification of δοκιμεῖον, which occurs as a different reading of this passage, also as opposed to δόκεμον), but also proof (δοκιμή) as the result of the test. Huther following Oecumenius insists upon the latter sense, Wiesinger with Semler, Theile and others, the former. And rightly so, although in 1 Pet. i. 7 the word The design of every affliction οἵ signifies proof; for this δοκίμιον is designed to effect the endurance consequent upon δοκιμῆ. Wiesinger rightly cites Rom. y. ὃ, 4, where θλίψις effects ὑπομονῇ, etc. Huther says that then we ought to have τοῦτο τὸ δοκίμιον. But the tempta- tion and the proof are not purely identical. The tempting element of the proof emanates from the evil one, while the proving element of the proof comes from God. Temptation is proof under the aggravating codperation of evil incitement to evil. This settles also the objection that tempta- tions may result in failure (of proof); for temp- tation as a test ever contemplates proof on con- dition of good behaviour. It explains also, how in the concrete manner of the Scriptures proof may be described as temptation (but with refer- ence to existing difficulties in the proof, Gen. xxii.), and temptation as proof. Οπ κατεργάζεσθαι, to work, effect, see Rom. v. 3 and other passages; ὑπομονή manifestly denotes here endurance.— Baumgarten, Theile, Wiesinger, Huther: The μένειν ὑπό standing one’s ground in temptation. Schneckenburger remarks that if ὑπό be empha- sized we get the idea of patiertia ac tolerantia malorum, if μένειν, that of constantia, firmitas, perseverantia. Ver. 4. But let endurance have a perfect work.—Wiesinger: The emphasis is on τέλειον. The majority of commentators understand the perfect work as the perfecting of ὑπομονή itself. So Huther, Wiesinger: the proof of ὑπομονή (cf. 1 Thess. i. 8). Huther: ὑπομονῇ is not only passive but also active. This active ὑπομονῇ is not only to persevere unto the end (Luther: Let patience abide firm unto the end: similarly Cal- vin, Jerome and many others); ὑπομονῇ is to be deficient in nothing, neither in joy (Bengel) nor in any essential point; especially, wisdom, confi- dence, etc.—But James evidently contemplates not only inward demeanour but also and chiefly the outward exhibition of the same, which he deplored to see manifoldly omitted. Hence that interpretation is right, which distinguishes the perfect work, viz., the accomplishing of endur- ance, as the proof of endurance from endurance itself. So Erasmus, de Wette and others; but these commentators err in limiting this outward proof of endurance to something general, viz.: the exhibition of morality, etc. (see Huther). But James in his Epistle looks at a definite object. The ἔργον τέλειον by which the Jewish Christians were to verify their endurance consisted accord- ing to ch. ii. in the unreserved acknowledgment of their Gentile Christian brethren, and accord- ing to ch. iii., iv., v. in their open rupture with judaistic faith-pride and fanaticism. Yes, James cherished the hope of gaining the Jewish Chris- tians and along with them even the Jews them- selves, to a greater or less extent, for this perfect work of submitting to the practical results of the Christian life. But if the more general sense is preferred, we have the meaning that Christian endurance must evidence itself in the full carry- ing out of the practical consequences of the Christian faith. An ἔργον τέλειον of the ὑπομονῇ in our day would consist in the thorough acknow- ledgment of Christian humanism and the thorough renunciation of the spirit of sectarianism and fanaticism. ’Eyérw is decidedly emphatic. To this endurance must hold, this it must receive, 38 THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. acquire and this it must have to show. It is therefore at once=xparteirw (Schulthess) and παρεχέτω (Pott). That ye may be perfect and entire ;—iva decidedly expresses the word [used in the telic sense.—M.], and is explained by ch. ii. 22. πέλειοι and ὁλόκληροι are not altogether synony- mous (Huther), although the LXX. use both for Don. The former expression denotes per- fection in the sense of completed development or vitality, the latter perfection in its completed manifestation. [Alford defines ὁλόκληρος as ‘‘that in which every part is present in its place,” and cites Plato, Zim., p. 44, ὁ. and Corp. Inscrip. 353, 26.—M.]. But it denotes here specifically : If you want to become entire Jews and close the entire Jewish development, you must become entire Christians; but if you want to sustain the character of entire Christians you cannot dis- pense with the mark of perfect fraternization with the Christians, also with Gentile-Christians, and that of being opposed to the world, and also to the judaistic world. For the τέλειος is one who has reached his τέλος, the ὁλόκληρος one, cui totum est, quod sorte obtigit (Wahl=nulla parte mancus). The Jew was by origin a symbolic κλῆρος ; asa Christian he was to become a real κλῆρος and thus ὁλόκληρος. The primary refer- ence here is manifestly neither to moral perfec- tion in general (Huther), nor to perfection here- after, but to the rudimental [German: princi- viell] perfection of the faith of Christians as Christians; but the expression of James involves also the rule of absolute Christian perfection. In nothing deficient ;---λείπεσθαι means primarily to stay behind, to be inferior to an- other, but also to be wanting, deficient in a thing Ne 5). The latter sense is advocated by Theile, e Wette, Wiesinger, Huther with reference to v. 5 and 1 Cor. i. 7, the former by Storr, Augusti and others, whose view we consider correct not- withstanding the modified sense of the word in v. 5. For the opposite of having reached the end, or of being τέλειος is just the having stayed behind. The decay consequent upon quiescence and retrogression, the very characteristics of Ebionitism developed at a later period, and of Nazarite-Christianity, is the primary idea which corresponds with the connection of the whole Epistle. The Jewish people itself became most emphatically the λειπόμενοι of the world’s history. James with a prophet’s eye foresaw all this growing (werdend) decay. It springs indeed from a guilty deficiency in spiritual things or at least from a deficiency that might have been avoided, a point to which James refers imme- diately after. The sequel moreover shows that he sees in a perfect outward proof of life the full expression of character. VV. 5, 6. Wisdom a condition of endurance ; orayer for wisdom in undoubting faith. But if any of you;—