scattered abroad' suggests that the epistle was directed to Jews, and yet Christians were evidently addressed (ii. 1, v. 7). It is possible that the writing was intended for the general body of Christians, spoken of here, as probably also in I Peter i. 1, as the new diaspora, or perhaps for the Jewish Christians, but the sins which were rebuked seem to point to some special community. The locality of the community cannot, however, be fixed.

Date. Attempts have frequently been made to show by an analysis of style that the epistle was written after Galatians, I Corinthians, Romans, I Peter, Hebrews, and before the Shepherd of Hermas (circ. 140 A.D.). The arguments, however, are too subtle to serve by themselves as proofs that the composition cannot be assigned to the Apostolic age. The antithesis of works and faith, which is so marked a feature of the writing, led certain distinguished critics of the Tübingen school to look on the author as the bitter opponent of St. Paul with his theory of justification. Little value is now given to the arguments of these critics, as a careful examination of the words of James makes for the conclusion that he was the opponent, not of the Apostle of the Gentiles, but of certain antinomians who, professing that faith alone is necessary to salvation, marked a period of decadence of Christian conduct. That period may have been coincident with the Apostolic age, but again it may be said that, so soon after the Gospel had first been preached, the Christian community, or the congregation of a district, did surely not display such manifest signs of corrup tion. It is rather to be conjectured that this antinomianism showed itself in the wide period 80 or 90 to 130 or 150 A.D.

when Christianity, from some cause, such as the influence of Hellenism, was being secularised. A precise date cannot be determined, but the composition of the epistle may be placed in that period.

Characteristics. The writing, save for the greeting in the first verse, is not an epistle. It is rather a short treatise, in which no logical development is to be traced, consisting of sayings and discourses. These discourses deal with such subjects as the respect of persons and the relation of works to faith. The writing may be classed with the wisdom literature of the Old Testament-with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job; and it also illustrates the influence of two apocryphal writings of a later period, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, commonly styled Ecclesiasticus. The praise of 'the wisdom that is from above' (iii. 17), might indeed have issued from the lips of some Old Testament moraliser. The affinity with Jewish literature and the absence of almost all specific Christian doctrines have led to the theory that James was originally a Jewish work, and also to the suggestion that certain passages (iii. 1-18, iv. 11-v. 6) were interpolated from Jewish sources. There is, however, a certain Christianity apparent in the whole writing, though it is Christianity almost without the person of Christ. Obedience is to be paid to law, not to Christ (i. 25, ii. 8, iv. II), and it is affirmed that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (ii. 24). James, however, did not mean the works of the Jewish law, which is not named. He signified the works of righteousness, obedience to what with Christian insight he styled the perfect law of liberty. Luther, with his intense emphasis on justification by faith, styled James

'an epistle of straw.' The treatise, as already suggested, was intended as a check to lawlessness in some period when men justified their conduct by an assertion of faith as the one thing needful; and 'not once or twice' throughout the Christian ages the same cry which James uttered has been heard, that men should leave mere professions of faith and should cleave unto righteousness; and in the cry some have heard a note as of Protestantism. Eleven hundred years after James an illustrious man of a like kind appeared. In Italy, Francis of Assisi turned from systematised theology and religious speculation alike to the practice of the works of righteousness, and he too was the advocate of the poor.

FIRST PETER

Authorship. St. Peter is so prominently named in the first words of the epistle that controversy regarding the authorship might seem impossible. The writing was known to Polycarp and Papias in the earlier part of the second century, and in the later was assigned to the Apostle by Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria. The use, however, of phrases from Romans and Ephesians (compare, e.g., Rom. iv. 24, vi. 18, viii. 18, with 1 Peter i. 21, ii. 24, v. 1), (compare also Ephes. i. 3, 18-20, iii. 5, 10, ii. 18-22, with 1 Peter i. 3, i. 3-5, i. 10-12, ii. 4-6), the Pauline tone of the theology, the destination of the letter to districts where St. Paul had laboured, and the absence of personal reminiscences, are difficulties besetting the theory that St. Peter was the author. The Apostle, too, could not have written in Greek, the language of the epistle, if, as tradition

reports, he required an interpreter and had to employ Mark for his preaching. Further, it has been asserted that no persecution, such as that implied in the epistle, took place in Asia Minor during the lifetime of St. Peter, and that Christians did not suffer for their name so early as Nero's reign. It has been suggested accordingly that some unknown writer, after the death of the Apostle, adopted his name for purposes of his own; or that a scribe in perfect good faith introduced into the beginning of the writing words concerning St. Peter which he found on the margin. The difficulties based on internal evidence, while formidable, are not, however, sufficiently strong to overthrow completely the external evidence in favour of the Petrine authorship. Silvanus (v. 12), it may be urged, may have acted as interpreter and amanuensis, but it is not so easy to explain the use of Ephesians, to which epistle its Christology and conception of the Church have led many competent critics to assign a post-Pauline date. The Petrine authorship of 1 Peter implies that Ephesians could have been written by St. Paul. So little is known, however, of the later years of St. Peter's life that it is at best a conjecture that he wrote the epistle. Renan, who has not enjoyed the reputation of a conservative critic, spoke thus:-'If, as we readily believe, this epistle really belongs to Peter, it does great credit to his good sense, to his uprightness, to his simplicity. It is probable that, little versed in composition, and not hiding from himself his literary sterility, he did not hesitate to appropriate the pious phrases constantly repeated around him, which, although derived from different systems, did not contradict one another.'

Place of Writing. The salutation from Babylon (v. 13)

would seem to indicate that the epistle was written from the city on the Euphrates; but from the times of Papias and Clement of Alexandria many have interpreted Babylon as Rome, according to the symbolism of the Book of Revelation (Rev. xiv. 8, xviii. 2-10). The substitution of these names may have been common among the Jews, and for some prudential reason the writer may have followed this practice. St. Peter, it is possible, proceeded to Babylon, where many Jews resided; and he may have visited Rome. Nothing, however, is known of his life after the visit to Antioch, recorded in Galatians, and the travelling about with his wife, specified in 1 Corinthians (ix. 5); or of his death, apart from the reference in St. John's Gospel (xxi. 18, 19). By tradition, which became detailed as years and centuries passed, he did go to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom. Clement of Rome associated the Apostle's name with St. Paul's, but said nothing of a residence in the imperial city. Dionysius of Corinth (circ. 171), also associating the two Apostles, was the first to give specific information: 'Both came to our Corinth and planted us as a Church there, both taught in Italy, and bore Him witness at the same time.' History can furnish no proof of St. Peter's Roman visit; and too much importance may be attached to a tradition which, though constant after it emerged, was certainly late of appearing in literature, and which may, perhaps, be traced to the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, probably second century romances. This, however, may be affirmed, that if St. Peter composed the epistle we may suppose him to have been in Rome, and to have employed the name Babylon in the figurative sense in which he used the word dispersion. ("To the elect sojourners of the dispersion,' according to the Greek