he refers to the Jewish Law, ii. 9-11, iv. 11, 12, and to the primary article of the Jewish Creed, ii. 191.

But in addition to these instances, the cumulative force of which it is difficult to ignore, we may also lay stress upon the general representation which the letter gives us of the social conditions of those for whom it was intended. It is remarkable, for example, that no reference is made to the relationship between masters and slaves. A St Peter or a St Paul, on the other hand, in addressing mixed Churches constantly dwelt upon this social relationship. It is quite true that in a Jewish-Christian document, which is in many respects akin to this Epistle of St James, the Didache, reference is made to the bondservant and handmaid in iv. 10, 11, i.e. in a part of the work which may carry us back to a very early date. But it is evident from the context that both masters and servants are regarded as servants of the One God, and that no relationship such as that of Christian servant and heathen master is contemplated. In this connection, too, we may note the vivid picture, iv. 13, of the eager life of commerce and gain, and yet of the comparative homelessness of the traders, a life so characteristic of the Jews always, and specially of those of the Diaspora, facilitated as it was by the easy means of communication throughout the Empire in the days of the early Church3.

1 On the force of the expression 'do they not blaspheme?' ii. 7, as pointing most probably to unbelieving Jews blaspheming the Name of Christ, see note in loco.

Beyschlag draws attention to the fact that the expression 'Abraham our father,' ii. 21, is not explained in any spiritual sense as in Rom. iv. 1. See also on the possible Jewish liturgical formulae in i. 12, ii. 5, Dr Chase, The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church, p. 18.

2 This document was first published in 1883, although it had been discovered in Constantinople some ten years earlier. In the first part, Ch. 1-vI., in which it will be noted that most of the parallels to St James's Epistle are found (see note on p. xiv.), we have probably a series of moral instructions which were originally Jewish, but which with some additions were adopted for use in certain Jewish-Christian communities. The greater part of this portion of the work may have been in use probably in a written form as early as 70 A.D. amongst Christians (Art. 'Didache' in Hastings' D. B. v. pp. 444, 448, by J. V. Bartlet, and Apostolic Age, pp. 515, 517, by the same writer). In any case there is good reason for placing the Didache in its present form at the close of the first century, see Bishop of Worcester, Church and the Ministry, p. 417. For English readers an article on the Didache by Dr Harnack at the end of vol. I. of Schaff and Herzog's Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge will be of interest. Although inclined to date the document in its present form as late as 120-165 A.D., Dr Harnack allows that some of its sources are very old, and he sees in the first part, Ch. I-VI., a catechism of Jewish origin for the instruction of proselytes, which passed over into the Christian Church, and was used as an address at Baptism.

See Professor Ramsay, Expositor, 1903, on 'Travel and Correspondence among the Early Christians.'

It is, again, remarkable that in a letter so practical, no warning is uttered against idol worship, and that no reference is made to such questions concerning it as those which agitated the Church of Corinth, or which were discussed at the Apostolic Council. No doubt it may be said that the Didache refers to such sins, but it is quite possible that some of its statements with regard to idolatry may be simply connected with the Old Testament', and it would also seem that the same document refers to heathen sins of which St James knows nothing, and that in vi. 3 the contact with heathenism is clear, cf. Acts xv. 19 (although even here the rigidity of the Jewish-Christian is emphasised in comparison with 1 Cor. x. 25). But it will be noted that in the Epistle of St James no allusion whatever is made, as is the case with other of the New Testament writings, to the former idolatries of the readers. Moreover, in this same connection we may observe that no warning is uttered against sins of impurity and fornication, as is the case in those Epistles in which intercourse of the readers with the heathen world was part and parcel of their surroundings. If it is urged that here again the Didache takes note of sins of this character, it is evident that the list of such vices as are mentioned in that document marks a writer who had been brought into connection with the influence of Graeco-Roman civilisation.

But whilst the Epistle is distinguished by these remarkable omissions, the sins and weaknesses which the writer describes are exactly those faults which our Lord blames in His countrymen, and especially in the party of the Pharisees. And even if we consider some of the faults specified as too general in their character to belong to any one party, yet some of them are certainly characteristic of the Jewish leaders whom our Lord condemned, e.g. the excessive zeal for the outward observance of religious duties, the fondness for the office of teacher, the false wisdom, the overflowing of malice, the pride, the hypocrisy, the respect of persons. In spite

1 Cf. e.g. My child, be not an augur, for it leads to idolatry,' iii. 4, and Lev. xix. 26.

2 'But concerning meats, bear that which thou art able; yet abstain by all means from meat sacrificed to idols; for it is the worship of dead gods'; vi. 3.

3 Mr Parry in his Discussion, p. 89, admits that this argument would be forcible if it could be shown that St James had any personal experience of the needs of his hearers. But if St James was writing, as Mr Parry thinks, more than ten or twelve years after the Apostolic Council, it would be strange that he should make no reference in his Epistle to the dangers which must have been involved in any contact between Jewish and Gentile Christians, viz. 'pollutions of idols, and fornication,' or these dangers would not have found a place in the decree of the Council.

of all his zeal and scrupulosity the 'religious' Jew had forgotten that the first and second commandments were fulfilled in the love of God and his neighbour, and had fallen back, as it were, upon a fatal trust in religious privileges, in the promises made to Abraham, a false confidence which the Baptist and our Lord had alike condemned, and which St James was called upon still to combat.

And here we may pause to notice that one virtue upon which St James lays stress as indispensable for teacher and taught alike is the virtue of meekness, i. 21, iii. 13; the same virtue which is emphasised in Didache, iii. 7, 'be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth' (Ps. xxxvii. 11; cf. Matt. v. 8)'. In this latter document, as in the Epistle of St James, we have the picture of a meek, single-hearted, uncomplaining, and resigned piety. And this picture is drawn in that part of the Didache which is undoubtedly the oldest, which is marked by a Jewish tone and phraseology. If, therefore, we find a similar type and piety portrayed in St James, if we find similar thoughts and expressions, we may justly draw from this similarity an argument that both writings were designed for readers of Jewish nationality'.

And whilst these points of contact are observable with the Didache (some portion of which in a Judaeo-Christian form may have been in current oral use much earlier than 70 A.D., see note above, p xii.), it is noticeable that our Epistle may also be connected in some thoughts and expressions with a Jewish document, dating some fifty years before our Lord's Advent, the Psalms of Solomon3,

1 'In the Palestine of the first century there was no lack of religious teaching. The Scribe was a familiar figure in Galilee as much as in Judaea; he was to be met everywhere, in the synagogue, in the market-place, in the houses of the rich. With him went a numerous following of attached scholars. The first business of the Rabbi was "to raise up many disciples," and the first care of the good Jew to "make to himself a Master." It is not without a bitter reminiscence of the religious condition of Palestine that St James of Jerusalem counsels the members of the Christian communities to which he wrote, "Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment."' Dr Swete, Expositor, Feb. 1903.

Attention is drawn to some of these in the notes, but the following may be given as allowed by von Soden: James iii. 3–6, 8, 9, and Did. ii. 4; James iii. 14, 18, and Did. ii. 5; James i. 8, iv. 8, and Did. iv. 3; James v. 16, and Did. iv. 14; Hand-Commentar, III. p. 169, 3rd edit. A similar list is given by Mayor, and for a resemblance in the general picture of the pious Israelite drawn in James and the Didache, see J. V. Bartlet's Apostolic Age, pp. 250 ff., and also Hastings' B. D. v. p. 446.

These points of resemblance will be found in the notes, but they are referred to by Dr Moffatt in Exp. Times, Feb. 1902. God, in the Psalms of Solomon, is especially the protector and succour of the poor and lowly as in the Epistle; cf. also James iii. 5, and Psalms xii. 2, 3; James iii. 18, and Psalms xii. 6; James iv. 1, and Psalms xii. 4.

although the outlook in the Epistle is less narrow, and its teaching far deeper.

This Jewish character of the Epistle is still further emphasised by the ingenious attempt of Spitta and Massebieau to discover in it merely a Jewish document Christianised by the interpolation of two or more words in i. 1 and ii. 1 (‘and of the Lord Jesus Christ,' i. 1; our (Lord) Jesus Christ,' ii. 1'). This theory of interpolation is so entirely arbitrary that it is severely criticised and condemned by critics who in many other respects differ widely from each other?. It is quite incredible for instance that anyone who wished to pass off a Jewish work as a Christian document should have contented himself with the introduction of the two passages and of the few words mentioned above. Moreover, the phraseology of v. 7, 8, in its reference to the 'coming' or rather the 'presence' of the Lord, is unmistakably Christian, and although passages in Enoch are cited as parallels, yet this terminology is not to be found in them.

Spitta has certainly not proved his thesis, but he has helped to accentuate the fact that the writer of the Epistle was not only intimately acquainted with the Old Testament, and that in him the spirit of the old prophets, of an Amos or a Jeremiah, lived again, but that he was also acquainted with the Wisdom literature so well known amongst his countrymen of the Dispersion. The points of contact between St James and Ecclesiasticus have been fully illustrated by Dr Edersheim as also by Dr Zahn3. It is not too much to

1 Spitta omits the words 'and of the Lord Jesus Christ' in i. 1, whilst Massebieau omits only 'Jesus Christ.'

2 Amongst others by Zahn, Harnack, von Soden, Beyschlag, Belser, McGiffert, Adeney in Critical Review, July, 1896, O. Cone in Art. 'Epistle of James,' Encycl. Bibl., and Sieffert in the new edition of Herzog. It is only fair to say that Spitta and Massebieau arrived at their conclusion quite independently. Mr G. A. Simcox in the Journal of Theol. Studies, 11. July, 1901, p. 586, apparently approves of the violent method by which Spitta would get rid of the words so fatal to his thesis in ii. 1; and it is not at all surprising that the Church Quarterly Review, Oct. 1901, p. 8, should point out in reference to this approval that it is perfectly easy to evade and escape every difficulty, and to prove anything, if we are at liberty to treat any passage which conflicts with our own theories as a gloss.

3 References will be found to these in the notes, but for convenience the most important are given here: James i. 5=Ecclus. xli. 22, cf. xviii. 17, xx. 14; James i. 6, 8 Ecclus. i. 28, ii. 12, vii. 10; James i. 9, 11 = Ecclus. i. 30, iii. 18, xxxi. 5, 9; James i. 2-4, 12 Ecclus. i. 23, ii. 1-5; James i. 13 = Ecclus. xv. 11-20; James i. 19 Ecclus. iv. 29; James i. 19 Ecclus. v. 11; James ii. 1-6=Ecclus. x. 19-24, xiii. 9; James iii. 2=Ecclus. xix. 16; James iii. 9 Ecclus. xvii. 3, 4; James v. 3-6 Ecclus. xii. 10, xxix. 10; James v. 13 Ecclus. xxxviii. 9-15. For a list see Zahn, Einleitung, 1. 87; Edersheim in Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha, 11. 22; Plummer, St James, p. 72; and references in Spitta. Dr Salmon thinks (Introd. p. 465) that the coincidences are insufficient to prove that Ecclus. was used by St James.

=

xvi

CHRISTIAN LANGUAGE AND ALLUSIONS

say that St James is so Judaic in his language, allusions, and modes of thought that we can in many cases find exact Rabbinic parallels to his words, although we must not forget that if the result of our inquiry is to prove beyond reasonable doubt the acquaintance of St James with a widely circulated Jewish book, like Ecclesiasticus, it also illustrates in the most decisive manner the difference in spiritual standpoint between the writer of that book and the writer of the Epistle of St James.

If we turn to the Book of Wisdom it is quite possible to find many turns of thought and expression which seem to indicate an acquaintance with, and a high value of, this book by the writer of St James'; yet even in the Book of Wisdom, which is often regarded as in some respects the most valuable of the Apocryphal writings, we are again conscious of the same difference in spiritual standpoint noted above.

II. How may we account for this? The readers of the Epistle of St James are not only Jews, they are believing, i.e. Christian Jews. No one has accentuated more than Harnack the criticism that Spitta's theory, however tempting, does not cover all the facts of the case, and that some of the passages in the Epistle cannot be fairly referred to a Jewish document. Amongst these he would include especially ch. i. 18, 25, 27, ii. 12, v. 7 ff., and also the use of the word 'faith' in ch. i. 3. To these we may add the phrase 'my beloved brethren,' which occurs no less than three times, ch. i. 16, 19, ii. 5, a phrase to which Spitta can find no Jewish parallel except the formal word 'brethren,' whilst St James's language would naturally emphasise the intercourse of Christians 'loving as brethren,' and amongst whom the title 'beloved brethren' was evidently in common use. But whilst we fully recognise the

1 Cf. James i. 5, Wisd. viii. 21; James i. 17, Wisd. vii. 18; James i. 19, Wisd. i. 11; James ii. 6, Wisd. ii. 10, 19; James ii. 13, Wisd. vi. 6; James iv. 13-16, Wisd. v. 8-14; James v. 4-6, Wisd. ii. 12–20. See Plummer, St James, p. 74; Farrar, Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha, 1. 408; and the references in Spitta.

Both Dr B. Weiss and Dr Zahn are of opinion that the evidence is insufficient to prove that St James was acquainted with the Book of Wisdom, whilst on the other hand von Soden allows a close acquaintance both with it and with Ecclesiasticus.

2 Another wide difference is St James's recognition of a conception wanting in the two Jewish books, that of a personal Messiah.

3 Harnack rightly emphasises the fact that we have not only to note what the Epistle contains, but also what it does not contain, Chron. 1. p. 490; and this is observable in an entire absence of the Rabbinical conceits and puerilities so characteristic of Rabbinical literature.