but unfortunately the vices of worldliness and lax living censured by Hermas have been common faults in all ages of the Church, and we have already seen how quickly they gained an entrance into the circle of Christian believers.

Reference has already been made to the parallels between Philo and our Epistle, but it cannot be said that they prove any acquaintance with Philo's writings on the part of St James. In many cases, as we have noted, the likeness consists in the use of a number of common figures and imagery, and often enough this imagery is employed in a totally independent manner by the two writers. Moreover, much of this common language may be fairly explained by a mutual acquaintance not only with the Old Testament, but with the Jewish Wisdom-literature, and all the tenets of Jewish theology, as e.g. the unity of God, and the value attached to wisdom, as a gift from above to be specially sought in prayer. It would at least seem that the greatest caution should be used in deducing a dependence upon Philo, even when his language closely reminds us of St James. Philo e.g. says, 'but as many as live in harmony with law are free' (Quod omnis probus liber, Mang. II. 452), cf. James i. 25, ii. 8, 12. But Philo is thinking of the Stoic view that he who follows his fancies is a slave, while he who lives in obedience to law is free; St James on the other hand has in mind a law, which is not regarded as a yoke as the O.T. law was regarded in Rabbinical literature, but which is fulfilled freely and joyfully'.

In the Pseudo-Clementine literature we do not find perhaps so many points of contact with our Epistle as we might expect, when we consider the high and authoritative place assigned in that literature to St James of Jerusalem, the Lord's brother. But references may fairly be found to James i. 13, v. 12 (and perhaps to i. 18, ii. 19), in spite of the bold assertion of Pfleiderer that James is unknown even to the Clementines. The Ebionite tendency which, as we have seen, was attributed to St James, is said to be supported by the Clementines, but the alleged parallels rather show how widely separated St James was in his point of view from any Ebionite tendency. In Clem. Hom. xv. 9, e.g., we read that for all men possessions are sins, but there is nothing of such teaching in the Epistle of St James.

1 Grafe, Die Stellung des Jakobusbriefes, p. 18; 1904.

2 Zahn, Einleitung, 1. p. 105. No parallels are examined in the case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs owing to the uncertainty of the date of that document,

In the same manner with regard to the alleged Essene colouring in the teaching concerning mercy, oaths, riches, trade, the government of the tongue, which is so much emphasised by many writers (see e.g. Art. 'Epistle of James,' Encycl. Bibl. II. 2325), we must be careful not to exaggerate such general points of contact. Thus W. Brückner' would have us believe that the Epistle proceeded from a little conventicle of Essene Christians at Rome not earlier than 150 A.D. (in accordance with the late date which he assigns to 1 Peter). No doubt an Essene might have spoken much as St James has spoken on the subjects just mentioned, but on the supposition that St James was acquainted with the Sermon on the Mount, or with the general spirit of our Lord's teaching, there is no need to have recourse to Essenism. Moreover, whilst there is nothing strange in the fact that the teaching of the Essenes and that of St James should have some points in common, seeing that they both had their origin in Jewish sources and in the life of a Jewish community, the stress laid upon silence and upon poverty, to say nothing of other matters, is unduly accentuated by the former. St James, on the other hand, is not teaching these points as part of a religious system, but is rather endeavouring to check special faults of his countrymen around him.

As we look back over the various points of contact existing or supposed to exist between our Epistle and the writers we have mentioned, we may at least conclude that in no one instance has the literary dependence of St James been proved, even if we are not prepared to endorse the judgment of Reuss, viz. that the numerous cases of use of the Pauline Epistles, of the Hebrews, of Hermas, of Philo, exist only in the imagination of the critics, and wholly overlook the highly unique personality of the writer of this Epistle (Geschichte der N.T. p. 233, 6th edit.).

X. But if the priority and the originality of the letter may be affirmed, it is no doubt surprising that the evidence on the whole as to its early existence and authorship is not more decisive. In the first place, however, it may be fairly urged that in the West at all events there may have been special reasons for the obscurity attaching to the letter.

The fact that the Epistle is addressed to Jewish-Christian circles, and that the circumstances with which it is concerned relate to Churches so composed, to say nothing of the fact that the writer, whoever he was, does not claim Apostolic authority, may have con

1 Die chronologische Reihenfolge, p. 295.

tributed to this. Nor is the evidence of its use by the early fathers so small, or so entirely wanting, as is sometimes maintained. Tertullian's use of it is doubtful, but although Irenaeus does not mention the Epistle, we are told from a somewhat unexpected quarter that 'the earliest trace of an acquaintance with it is found in Irenaeus, who refers to Abraham as "the friend of God" (Encycl. Bibl. 'Epistle of James,' II. 2326), cf. Adv. Haer. iv. 13, 14, and 161.

No doubt it is true that Origen is the first writer to refer to this Epistle by name, and he speaks of it in one place as 'the Epistle current as that of James,' in Johann. xix. 6, as if, although aware of its currency, he was himself uncertain as to its authorship. But in another place, in Psal. xxx., he speaks of James as the author without expressing any doubt, and in the Latin translation of some of his other works we find the term Scriptura divina used of the Epistle, and that it is referred by Origen to James, who is spoken of as an Apostle, and once definitely as James the brother of the Lord. The evidence might possibly be carried further, but it seems very arbitrary that without any reference to the above facts Pfleiderer should still persist in saying that Origen expressly regards the Epistle as doubtful. Dr Grafe sides with Pfleiderer on equally precarious grounds. He refers to Origen's Commentary on Matt. xiii. 55, in which it is said that Jude (the brother of James) wrote a letter, while of James it is merely said that he is mentioned in Gal. i. 19. From these remarks Grafe concludes that Origen does not seem to have ascribed our Epistle to James. But Origen, in the above comments on Matthew, is speaking of the four brethren of Jesus' in relation to their general bearing and character, as the whole passage shows us. He treats e.g. at some length of the righteousness and reputation of James, and then adds, 'And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of

1 Dr Zahn considers that whilst James was probably known to Irenaeus, and perhaps also to Hippolytus in the West, it appears to have been regarded amongst the Greeks of the East as belonging to the most generally recognised writings. He considers that it was undoubtedly known to Clement of Alexandria, who says, e.g., of Abraham, that he is found to have been expressly called the friend of God (James ii. 23), and that the Epistle could not have been placed first amongst the three recognised Catholic Epistles, or first amongst the seven recognised in the West, unless it had gained an assured place of regard; see further below, and also for the testimony of Origen and Eusebius, Zahn, Grundriss der Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, p. 21, and Plummer, St James, p. 21.

2 Mayor, St James, p. cxlv., and Zahn, Grundriss der Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, pp. 42, 56; 1901.

3 Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, 11. p. 540; 1902.

James." He next passes to the other 'brethren' and says, 'with regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell: but the saying "and His sisters are they not all with us?" seems to me to signify something of their nature-they mind our things, not those of Jesus, and have no unusual portion of surpassing wisdom as Jesus has.' In a consideration of the whole passage it would seem that there is nothing to justify Dr Grafe's inference from statements which ought not to have been unduly separated from the whole context; and it must also be remembered that Grafe makes no reference whatever to the counter-testimony mentioned above.

But whatever doubts may be raised against the testimony which we have been considering, it is most significant, as Ritschl long ago pointed out (Die Enstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, p. 109), that the Epistle should have a place in the Syrian Peshitto, because in Syria we have specially to seek for the readers, in a country, that is, where numerous Jews dwelt, whose intercourse with Jerusalem must have been very close'. Further significance is added to this fact when we remember that only three of the Catholic Epistles find a place in this version, James, 1 Pet., 1 John. The other four Catholic Epistles are still excluded from the Canon of the Syrian Church. So far back as this version can be traced, the Epistle of St James is included in it, although it would appear that there is an earlier stage in the history of the Syriac Canon when none of the Catholic Epistles were included.

The testimony of Eusebius, like that of Origen, has been much exaggerated in its supposed bearing against the Epistle. Eusebius speaks of certain writings, and the Epistle of St James amongst them, as 'disputed,' but he does not mean that these writings were universally regarded with suspicion; on the contrary he distinctly asserts that these 'disputed' books were nevertheless familiarly known to most people although denied by some (H. E. III. 25. 3). Moreover, he distinctly speaks of this Epistle as Scripture in his Commentary on the Psalms, and as written by 'the holy Apostle'.'

1 With these remarks of Ritschl we may compare those of Beyschlag to the same effect in Meyer's Commentar, p. 22, 6th edit.

2 Dr Sanday, Studia Biblica, III. p. 245; Nestle, Textual Criticism, p. 321, E.T.; and Carr's note, Cambridge Greek Test. p. xlvi. Dr O. Cone, Encycl. Bibl. II. 2326, refers to the admission of the Epistle in the Peshitto, as also to its acceptance by Ephrem as the work of James the Lord's brother.

Zahn, Grundriss der Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, p. 56, 1901; and Encycl. Bibl. 1. 2326. The Epistle with the other 'disputed' books won its way to general acceptance, and we find it accorded its rightful place in the Council of Laodicea, c. 363, and the Third Council of Carthage, 397.

If, however, the external evidence was less weighty than it is, this could not fairly counterbalance the internal evidence in favour of the early date of the Epistle and of its authorship as the work of James the brother of the Lord. Ritschl laid stress upon this consideration in the reference just given, and it has been strongly enforced by more recent writers of various schools of thought.

XI. We naturally ask for what reasons the Epistle is still so persistently attacked'. Some of these reasons have been already noted in the foregoing remarks, but it may be well to dwell a little more fully upon some of the most important of them in current literature. Pfleiderer in the recent new edition of his Urchristentum still stands out as one of the most strenuous advocates of a late date for the Epistle. He cannot allow that it belongs to the Pauline times, and he finds it equally difficult to assign it to a pre-Pauline date; the only question in his mind is how far down in the Apostolic age we can possibly place it. How late this would be from Pfleiderer's point of view we have already seen, but it is quite evident that he ignores in his anxiety for a late date very obvious difficulties which the contents of the Epistle raise. He admits e.g. that no Epistle in the N.T. is less dogmatic, and that the special contents of the Christian revelation which exist in contemporary literature are altogether wanting. This lack of dogmatic interest points in Pfleiderer's judgment, not to a time when the Church was concerned in laying firmly the foundations of its faith, but to a time when a firm foundation was already assured.

But why should this Epistle of St James be the one exception, as Pfleiderer admits, to all other literature which he considers as in any way associated with it in point of time? To this question no answer is given. Pfleiderer and Grafe with him lay great stress upon the expression iii. 6, which they connect with Orphic beliefs. And we are then asked to explain how it is conceivable that the traditional

It is noticeable that in the Canon of the latter Council the Catholic Epistles are placed immediately after the Acts and before the Pauline Epistles; and this is the place assigned to them in most ancient мs. versions and catalogues.

1 Amongst older questionings as to the Epistle its rejection by Luther as ‘a right strawy Epistle' demands a word. It is quite true that the preface to his translation does not now contain this statement, although it would seem that Luther himself remained firm in his rejection. Calvin refused to follow Luther and acknowledged the Epistle, and the Lutheran Church has restored it to its proper place in the N.T. 'But Luther not only started from the mistake that the Epistle was the work of James the son of Zebedee, but that every N. T. book was to conform to his standard of Apostolic teaching.' Plummer, St James, p. 23; Beyschlag, Der Brief des Jakobus, p. 22, 6th edit.