The Gospel from the first had numbered amongst its adherents a Nicodemus, a Joseph of Arimathaea, a Joanna, and many others who ministered to our Lord of their substance, Luke viii. 2, but still its appeal would be felt most of all by the poor and simple folk, who were waiting in patient hope for the consolation of Israel. And dark days had fallen upon the poor in Palestine when the Epistle of St James was written, days in which the peasantry were distressed and the labourer oppressed in his wages'. It may be that social distress had been aggravated by the famine which was felt so severely in Palestine about 46-47 A.D., but Psalmist and Prophet had spoken for centuries of the wrongs of the poor, and our Lord's own words in the Gospels reveal to us a terrible picture of the wrong and robbery practised by the rich and the governing classes upon the needy and humble men of heart.

So far then as the social phenomena are concerned there is nothing to compel us to place the Epistle after the Apostolic Council.

Dr Zahn, who places the Council about the beginning of 52 A.D., would date the Epistle about the year 50 at the latest, before the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. At this period almost all the Churches would be composed of converted Jews and Jewish proselytes. In his argument Dr Zahn considers that the Acts affords many indications that a need was felt to unite these scattered communities, which all derived their origin from the mother Church at Jerusalem, by some firm and lasting bond, and that the Epistle written by St James was itself meant as a means to secure this end.

1 Reference may be made to the graphic description in Zahn's Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche, pp. 42 ff., and J. V. Bartlet, Apostolic Age, pp. 232 ff. 2 An interesting Rabbinical illustration of Jas. ii. 3 and the relative treatment of rich and poor is given in the Expository Times, April, 1904; 'B'nei Joseph on Deut. i. 19 says "ye shall not respect persons in judgment; when there cometh a rich man and a poor man to the Beth Din do not say to the rich man 'Sit on the seat,' whilst thou dost not lift up thine eyes on the poor man to look in his face, for then is thy judgment not a righteous judgment, and for this perverted judgment it is said a sword cometh upon the people.'

3 Dr Zahn admits that there were, even before the first missionary journey, not a few Gentile Christians in the Syrian Antioch, cf. Acts xi. 20. But even if there were many hundreds, he regards them in proportion to the many myriads of Jewish-Christians, Acts xxi. 20, as only 1 : 100, and he thinks that the way in which James incidentally considers these Gentile Christians, as in the introduction of the example of the faith of the Gentile Rahab, whilst on the whole he does not take them into account, corresponds exactly to the conditions up to 50 A.D. See also J. V. Bartlet, Apostolic Age, p. 233, on the position of Antioch. Before the first missionary journey it would seem that the Antiochene Church was a mere congregation,' but in Acts xiii. 1 a new stage in its development is marked; it became the Church' in Antioch (Ramsay, St Paul, p. 64).

While the Christian Church was thus composed, and before Antioch had become a second and independent metropolis of the faith, the president of the Church of the capital would naturally hold a position of high authority throughout all the Christian Churches, and such an authority this Epistle presupposes. This authority is wielded, as we have seen, by someone who was sufficiently well known by the name James, and that, too, in spite of the frequent use of that name.

But at what precise date this position of authority was accorded to the person thus spoken of we cannot say. Dr Zahn is prepared to follow Eusebius, H. E. II. 1, 2, and to place the appointment of James as president of the Church of Jerusalem soon after the death of St Stephen, as early as 35 A.D. At all events in Acts xii. 17 the words 'James and the brethren' would certainly seem to involve an allusion to a James who was then the head and representative of the Church in Jerusalem. James the son of Zebedee had been put to death shortly before the Passover of 44 A.D., Acts xii. 1, 2, and we have seen reason to believe that a James known as the Lord's brother, although not one of the Twelve, occupied a prominent place in the Jerusalem Church at St Paul's first visit to the Jewish capital after his conversion. After the death of James the son of Zebedee nothing was more probable than that this James, as the Lord's brother, should preside over the Church at Jerusalem; and if this was so, we may fairly suppose that the Epistle, which in the position of authority he might fitly issue, dates between 44 and 50 A.D. It could not have been later than the latter date for reasons mentioned above.

VI. Amongst recent English writers Professor J. V. Bartlet has advocated with much force and learning a similarly early date. Viewing St James as more Jewish than St Peter in the manner of his piety, although not more attached than Peter to the Law, as the Law was esteemed by men who regarded 'the tradition of the elders,' Professor Bartlet sees in St James a representative, and in his Epistle a literary monument, of a liberal Palestinian Christianity,

1 Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, pp. 359, 362; 1900. 'James,' says Hegesippus, Euseb. H.E. 11. 23, 'receives the Church in succession with the Apostles.' On the force of the words see Bishop of Worcester, The Church and the Ministry, p. 273. Dr Zahn, u.s. p. 361, insists that none of the Twelve Apostles could have been head of a local Church, as the Apostolic office was wider and more of a missionary character. But this is not in itself decisive, as the Church of the Metropolis could scarcely be placed on a level with a mere local Church. See further, however, the Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1900, pp. 535, 536.

liberal i.e. in comparison with the teaching of the legalists and Judaisers. Such a man distinguished both by his piety and by his position, and sharing with St Peter the attitude to Israel marked in such passages as Acts ii. 40, iii. 19-21, 26, v. 30-32, might well have written to his countrymen, whose needs he so fully knew, in preparation of the way of the returning Lord; and to Jews and Jewish-Christians alike he might well seem to speak in the Name of God. In the history of Israel a crisis was impending; the death of Herod, 44 A.D., was followed by a renewal of a strictly Roman government, and by the revolts under Theudas and the sons of Judas of Galilee. The bitter stress, moreover, which prevailed in social life, and the grievous recurrence of the sins condemned by the last of the prophets, Mal. iii. 5, 15, iv. 1–3, would indicate to a man like St James the approach of the Messianic kingdom, and of the Judge Who was even now at the doors. In such circumstances we can find an excellent situation for the Epistle of St James, and we can imagine that it might be sent by the hands of believing Jews, as they returned from the Passover, to other Jewish communities in Syria and in the adjacent regions'. But if 44 A.D. marks the terminus a quo, 49 (50) A.D. marks the terminus ad quem for the letter, since it could hardly be later, if that year saw the question of the Gentiles' position definitely raised and decided in the New Israel.

A date almost equally early is advocated still more recently by Dr Chase (Art. 'Peter,' Dr Hastings' B. D. III. 765). Dr Chase would hazard the conjecture that the messengers of James, Gal. ii. 12, were the bearers of his Epistle, and in this supposition he claims to find an adequate explanation of their mission. In his opinion, it would be very natural that after the Council of Jerusalem

1 At an earlier date Professor Bartlet thinks that believing Gentiles could still be ignored as simply a handful adhering to the skirts of the true Israel within Israel, Apostolic Age, p. 233; see also previous note on the position of Antioch, and Zahn, Einleitung, 1. pp. 64, 72.

2 Dr Chase does not mean that these messengers who are described as coming from James' represented the views of James. Perhaps in Jerusalem, as he thinks, the strong rule of the head of the Church had caused them to hide their discontent, but the spirit which they manifested at Antioch was disastrous in its effect on St Peter's conduct, and St Peter's example reacted disastrously upon the Jewish-Christians at Antioch (u.s. p. 765). The expression in Gal. ii. 12, certain came from James,' may possibly mean 'certain came from Jerusalem,' or that they were members of the Church at Jerusalem who came invested with powers from James which they abused. This was Bishop Lightfoot's view, but Dr Hort thinks that the language suggests some direct responsibility on St James's part, and that he may have sent cautions to Peter to guard against offending the susceptibilities of the Jews, a message conveyed

St James as the president of the Church there should send a letter to the Jewish converts in the Dispersion, and that he should speak of a recent trial of their faith without making any direct allusion to the cause of such trial. Two points in the Epistle are believed by Dr Chase to have an indirect reference to the temptations and anxieties of this particular time. The Epistle (1) has a special bearing upon sins of temper and speech, and these sins are specially characteristic of a keen controversial crisis. (2) In the Epistle we have a condemnation of a perversion of St Paul's doctrine of faith. St James, whilst refraining from touching on personal matters, would be anxious to reassure Jewish converts that to accept St Paul's position with regard to the Gentiles did not involve the acceptance of doctrines, which mistakenly had become associated with St Paul's

name.

It must, however, be remembered that sins of speech were generally characteristic of the Jews, and that the famous passage on faith and works in the second chapter of the Epistle is variously interpreted (see further below).

But against the acceptance of the early date, suggested by the three writers named above, the prevalence of vice and worldliness which the Epistle emphasises as existing within the Christian community is still strongly urged. The picture, however, which Acts gives us of the life of the Jerusalem Church in its earliest days, is quickly marred by the selfishness and hypocrisy of Ananias and Sapphira, v. 1 ff.; there is a murmuring, even while the roll of the disciples is increasing, of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, vi. 1 ff.; and if we are asked to believe that the writer of the early chapters of Acts was idealising the virtues of the early community of believers, it must at least be admitted that he was singularly honest in marking such flagrant corruptions of an ideal love and holiness. And if we may refer to the Churches founded by St Paul, e.g. the Church in Corinth, which was undoubtedly very mixed in its composition, we find that within a few years of their conversion all the sins mentioned by St James were rife amongst the Corinthian converts, combined with others of a more specifically heathen character; in the Roman Church the same character depicted by St James may be seen in Romans ii. iii., and xiv.; and if it be urged that this is one of the later by the people mentioned in Gal. ii. 12. But we cannot suppose that James would go further than this, or would sanction any violation of the Jerusalem compact.

Epistles, it must not be forgotten that in an Epistle, which is still commonly accepted as the earliest of all, 1 Thess., the Thessalonian converts, soon after their conversion, are exhorted to be at peace among themselves and to admonish the disorderly, whilst if, with some recent writers, we regard the Galatian Epistle as the earliest, it is evident that recent converts had incurred the severe rebuke and censure of St Paul.

If then we find these faults and failings in mixed Churches it may at least be urged that we should not be surprised to find them in Jewish Churches also, although we have no other example of an Epistle written to communities purely Jewish with which we can compare this Epistle of St James. But we have already seen reason to believe that the writer was placing his finger directly upon those faults, which were so notoriously characteristic of his nation, and so fatal, if continually indulged in, to the spiritual health of all who named the Name of Christ. Like the Baptist, and like One greater than the Baptist, he would warn his countrymen of the wrath to come, and his message like the message of the Baptist and of the Christ insists upon the doing of the will of God, and the exclusion of mere boastful acquiescence in an inherited privilege.

VII. But if we rightly keep in mind this practical bearing of the Epistle, then we can understand, as it seems to the present writer, the true meaning of the much controverted passage ii. 14 ff., although it is an impossible task to put into a few words the contents of a whole literature.

It is significant to note, in the first place, that St James never uses St Paul's favourite phrase 'works of the law,' and from this omission alone it would be possible to infer that he is not writing in the interests of a legal Christianity, or instituting a polemic against Paul, but rather that he is opposing a tendency characteristic of the persons whom he was addressing, and condemned alike by our Lord, the Baptist, and St Paul-cf. Matt. iii. 8, 9, vii. 21; Rom. ii. 17-24-a tendency to rest upon a faith which was a mere acquiescence of the lips, or at the best of the intellect, not a faith which worked by love: 'can that faith, such a faith as that,' asks St James, 'save a man?' cf. ii. 14'. The wise man of our Lord was he who not only hears but does His sayings, cf. Matt. vii. 21 ff., and

1 It is tempting to find here, with Zahn, a reminiscence of our Lord's familiar Thy faith hath saved thee,' but in this passage the thought is rather eschatological, of salvation from the impending Messianic judgment.