pian = πο εκ 20 Se St ert “4.1... af: rere τ, τ το Re ᾿ ὙΠ Υ τιν Υ͂ ἜΝ me a ane ὝΕΣ ἢ 7 ἵν \ An! yap bi i ᾿ mM uh? ese ἢ i an Sea WV ua i ἡ ΤΑΝ ὌΝ ἣν ἩΔΎΣ τ ya & X/ THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES BY JAMES HARDY ROPES HOLLIS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 1916 CoPyRIGHT, 1916, BY CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS Published February, 1916 The Iuternational Critical Commentary on the Holn Scriptures of the Old and New @estaments UNDER THE PRESENT EDITORSHIP OF THe REV. FRANCIS BROWN, D.D., ‘DD: Litt, , LL.D, President and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York, AND THE Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. Sometime Master of University College, Durham. PLANNED AND FOR YEARS EDITED BY THE LATE REV. PROFESSOR CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.LiTT. THE LATE REV. PROFESSOR SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.LITT. THE REv. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. rhe * rae a} oh det) tae Was ito ΝῊ τ ταν ie λυ ΕΚ ᾿ ay γε. PREFACE. its predecessors, just as these in their turn used ma- terials quarried by earlier scholars, whom they do not name on each occasion. The right to do this is won by con- scientious effort in sifting previous collections and reproducing only what is trustworthy, apt, and instructive for the under- standing of the text. If new illustrations or evidence can be added, that is so much to the good. So far as I am aware, the solution I have given of the textual problem of 17, the “shadow of turning,” is strictly new. It is a matter of no consequence in itself, but acquires interest because it bears directly on the relation of the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, and because Dr. Hort candidly recognised this reading of δὲ and B, as hitherto understood, to present a grave, although unique, obstacle to his and Dr. Westcott’s theory. To some other discussions, of the nature of detached notes, in which material is freshly or fully collected, I have ventured to call the reader’s attention in the Table of Contents. It may also be not improper to remark that the account of extant ancient commentaries on James in Greek and Latin (pages 110-113) runs counter to some recent statements. The explanation offered of “thou” and “I” in 2:3, which seems to me to solve the problem of that passage, is not strictly new, but has been overlooked in most current works on the epistle. In the light of modern geographical knowledge the reference in 57 to “the early and latter rain” gains a greater importance than has generally been observed. The summary of the epistle (pages 4/.) may make more ν ι COMMENTARY like the present draws frankly from v1 PREFACE clear and intelligible than I have been able to do elsewhere the measure of unity which the epistle shows, and the relation of its parts. A marked defect of this commentary, although one not peculiar to it, is that its rabbinical illustrations ought to be fuller. The glaring technical inconsistencies in the mode of referring to such passages as are cited will betray at once that they are drawn from various secondary sources and not from original and systematic research. It would be a great service to New Testament scholars to provide them with a new and adequate set of Horae hebraicae, and nowhere is the need so great as in James and the Gospel of Matthew. These two writings are sources from which a knowledge of primitive Palestinian Christianity can be drawn, and they rep- resent a different line of development from that of the Hel- lenistic Christianity which finds expression in Luke, Paul, and John. The grounds of the distinction are other than those which the Tiibingen School believed to have controlled early Christian history, but they are no less clear or far-reaching. A just understanding of these tendencies requires a sound view not only of the origin and meaning of the Epistle of James, but of its history in the church. And here the critical question is that of the Shepherd of Hermas. The view stated below that Hermas betrays no knowledge of James and is not de- pendent on him was forced on me, I am glad to say, by the study of the facts, against a previous prejudice and without at first recognising where it led; but it is in truth the key to the history. If Hermas really read the Epistle of James so often that he knew by heart its most incidental phrases, now working them into his own writing and again making them the text for long expansions, the place of the epistle in early Chris- tianity becomes an insoluble riddle. The notes on textual criticism in the commentary are intended to treat chiefly those selected variants which make a difference in the sense; the materials employed do not ordinarily go be- yond the apparatus of Tischendorf. I hope later to treat the criticism and history of the text of James in the light of all the PREFACE vi evidence, including as nearly as may be the whole body of extant minuscule Greek manuscripts. To many friends who have helped me in countless ways and from great stores of thought and knowledge I would gratefully express the obligation that I owe them. James Harpy Ropes. Harvard University, October 15, 1915. ‘ ay Mien WA ν᾽ ἡ ἐπ ἵ ἢ ΑΜ “ἡ ere eh i ὶ ri Aw ak ὶ τι ip en Th δύ, ἢ Ψ Fe en 5" ἢ TR LO Sn τ, Vs | i ἼΥ ἠδ Ὅν ἘΠ δ Ν \ Noy | Rt ue Pee be πων Bie ὑπ ᾿ Ἢ Ν ihe" Ny bal, Mia he i ren a tied Ue CONTENTS. UNG | tel 2 ΒΡ ar Se a a A INTRODUCTION . I. THe EPISTLE II. § 1. THE PuRPOSE AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE . . (a) Purpose, p. 2; (6) Contents, pp. 2-5. § 2. THe LirERARY TYPE OF THE EPISTLE OF JAMES . Epistle, pp. 6-10; Diatribe, pp. 10-16 ; Wisdom-litera- ture, pp. 16-17; Protrepticus, p. 18. § 3. LireRARY RELATIONSHIPS (a) Wisdom-literature, pp. 18f.; (6) “Other tewih works; Apostolic Fathers, pp. 19-21; (c) New Testa- ment books, pp. 21-23. TA Be a oc Nam Ol ea tt §5. THE IpEAS AND HisToRICAL BACKGROUND OF THE EPISTLE (a) The ideas, pp. sha : ἰῷ The sidan Ὁ Pp. 39-43. § 6. THE ORIGIN OF THE EPISTLE . (a) History of opinion as to the austen! pp. pean (6) Conclusions, pp. 47-52. APPENDIX ON JAMES THE LorD’s BROTHER AND OTHER PERSONS NAMED JAMES § 1. New Testament persons named ie pp. Z: f a: The history of opinion, pp. 54-59. ὃ 3. The decisive considerations, pp. 59-62. § 4. The tradition con- cerning James the Lord’s brother. (a) The New Testament, pp. 62-64. (6) Other tradition, pp. 64-74. Test: §1. GREEK MANUSCRIPTS ..... § 2. VERSIONS . § 3. UsE oF THE AUTHORITIES . ix . 24-27 . 27-43 . 43-52 - 53-74 . 74-86 - 74-75 . 75-84 . 84-86 Χ CONTENTS PAGE III. History OF THE EPISTLE IN THE CHURCH .. . . 86-109 § 1. ABSENCE OF MENTION IN WRITERS BEFORE ORIGEN 87-92 § 2, ee Cage ΘἩΠΕΘΗ PO kel aires aie) at eee ΝΎ. FRE SYRIAN Ὁ ΠΕΠΙΒΌΤΙ se ee ee Re $4) (Par ΝΈΒΈΒΕΝ CHupcn . 6. oS ee ee in, Se a ΤΣ Oe § 5. ORDER OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES . .. . . 103-104 SO. LuAmeR Histone ie eR Sal Sl a ae TV. Commentaries, ANCIENT AND MODERN. ... . . IIO-II5 65) Parednc Ano MEpiavan τ ΕΑ ea tae EEO ee (a) Greek, pp. 110-112; (6) Latin, pp. 112f.; (c) Syriac, p. 113. Bac GEREN ΣΝ es ae Πρ as rad phe tal πττ- ὍΔΕ LE oy 22. a aS El ele ee ee enn eam Meee τπὴΞὶ|τῸ SOUP: BE By ie) aN de bags Go χα τ Sarita heart ae ἤξεετ πᾶς im the singular, pp. 129-131. The meaning of crowns, pp. 150-152. The text of 1", pp. 162-164. ΤῊ ΒΙΠΕῚΣ SEN ir Ge lg) τον revs) ers so) den UNA Gast ot hae’ Poot Mig) ha eee Caters PIT) eas Si ass eae Mebadsiorer BURA. eb thee et Oa een The wheel of nature, pp. 2 me 30. CHAPTER EV. . . . . 2 . . . Φ . . . . . 252-282 “Tf the Lord will,” pp. eh ie CHAPTER V . . . ο . . . . Φ . e . . . . ° . 282-316 The reprobation of swearing, pp. 301-303. Anointing with oil, pp. 305-307. INDEX . « . . . . . . . . . . . . e . e . . 3 Ι γ7-3 iz 9 ABBREVIATIONS. Blass = F. Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, *1902. Blass-Debrunner = A. Debrunner, Friedrich Blass’ Gram- matik des neutesta- mentlichen Griechisch, vierte vollig neugear- beitete Auflage, 1913. Bultmann = R. Bultmann, Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die ky- nisch-stoische Diatribe (Forschungen zur Re- ligion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, xiii), IgIo. Burton, Moods and Tenses = E. D. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 41900. Buttmann = A. Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, Thayer’s translation, 1876. = Dictionary of the Bible. = W. Smith and S. Cheet- ham, A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, 1893. EB = Encyclopedia Biblica, 1899-1903. DB DCA Gebser = A.R.Gebser, Der Brief des Jakobus, Berlin, 1828. = Gdttingische gelehrte An- zeigen. Goodspeed, Index = E. J. Good- speed, Index patristi- Cus, 1907. Hadley-Allen = J. Hadley, A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges, revised by F. D. Allen, 1884. Harnack, CaL = A. von Harnack, Die Chronologie der alichristlichen Luttera- tur bis Eusebius (Ge- schichte der altchrist- lichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, Zweiter Theil), 1897, 1904. Hatch, Essays = Edwin Hatch, Es- says in Biblical Greek, 1889. = J. Hastings, A Diction- ary of the Bible, 1898- 1902. Heisen = H. Heisen, Novae hypo- theses interpretandae epistolae Jacobi, Brem- en, 1739. Herzog-Hauck, PRE = A. Hauck, Realencyklopadie fiir protestantische Theol- ogie und Kirche, be- griindet von J. J. Her- zog, 1896-1913. GgA HDB ΧΙ] ABBREVIATIONS Hort, “Introduction,” ‘‘ Appendix” = B. F. Westcott and FE. yj. A. Hort, ‘The New Testament in the Original Greek: Intro- duction, Appendix, 1881, 71896. JE = The Jewish Encyclopedia, rgo1-6. JTS = The Journal of Theolog- ical Studies. K. W. Kriiger, Grie- chische Sprachlehre fiir Schulen, *1861-2. Leipoldt, GuK = J. Leipoldt, Ge- schichte des neutesta- mentlichen Kanons, 1907-8. = J. H. Thayer, A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1886. L. and S. = H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 71883. Mayor = J.B. Mayor, The Epis- ile of St. James, 1892, 21897, *1Q10. = Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament be- griindete von Heinr. Aug. Wilh. Meyer. J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena = A Grammar of New Tes- tament Greek. Vol I. Prolegomena, 1906, 31908. =Neue kirchliche Zeit- schrift. = The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers by a Committee of the Oxford Society of His- torical Theology, 1905. Kriiger Lex. Meyer NkZ NTAF ol. = olim (used to indicate Gregory’s former nu- meration of Greek Mss., in Prolegomena, 1894). = Old-Latin Biblical Texts, 1853-. Pauly—Wissowa, RE = G. Wissowa, Paulys Realencyclo- padie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft ; neue Bearbeitung, 1894-. = D. J. Pott, in Novum Testamentum Gr@ce, editio Koppiana, Géot- tingen, *1816. SB = Studia biblica et ec- clesiastica; Essays chiefly in Biblical and Patiristic Criticism, OLBT Pott 1890-. Schmidt, Synonymik = J. H. H. Schmidt, Synonymik der griechischen Sprache, 1876-86. Schiirer, GJV = E. Schiirer, Ge- schichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zettalter Jesu Christi, 41901-9. Taylor, SJF = C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 21807. Trench, Synonyms = R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 1894. ΤΟ = Texts and Studies, Con- tributions to Biblical and Patristic Litera- ture, 1891-. TU = Texte und Untersuchun- gen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litera- tur, 1882-. ABBREVIATIONS ΧΙ] Vg = Vulgate. Westcott, CVT = B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 71896. Winer =G. B. Winer, A Gram- mar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Thay- er’s translation, 71873. Zahn, Einleitung = Theodor Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, *1906-7. GnK = Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons, 1888-92. Grundriss = Grundriss der Geschichte des Neutes- tamentlichen Kanons, IQOI, 71904. The commentaries named on pp. 113-115 are frequently referred to by the author’s name. The page numbers sometimes given with citations from Philo are those of Mangey’s edition. The Psalms are regularly cited by the Hebrew numbers, both for Psalms and verses. a Na aoe ‘ ie: Ὗ Ἢ ΜῊΝ ΕΠ 7 i) * N ny ni " a/R ‘y a INTRODUCTION. I, THE EPISTLE. The Epistle of James is a religious and moral tract having the form, but only the form, of a letter. It contains counsels and reflections on a variety of topics relating to personal char- | acter and right conduct, but attains a certain unity from the ὁ writer’s own traits of sincerity, good sense, and piety, which are manifest in every paragraph. ‘The epistle has been as- signed to many dates and several places of origin, and is held by many to be a genuine writing of James the Lord’s brother; but it is probably the pseudonymous production of a Christian of Jewish origin, living in Palestine in the last quarter of the first century or the first quarter of the second. The precise limits of the period within which it was written cannot be determined. The epistle reflects the conditions of Jewish life in Palestine, and almost all the ideas have their roots in Jewish thought, but in much of the language, style, and mode of expression gener- ally, and in some of the ideas, Hellenistic influences are unmis- takable and strong. The interweaving of the two strains con- tributes much to the freshness and effectiveness of the epistle as a hortatory essay. Our first certain knowledge of the book is from two sources of about the same date; namely, Origen (c. 185-c. 254) and the pseudo-clementine Epistles to Virgins, written in Palestine in Greek in the early decades of the third century. After Origen the Epistle of James seems soon to have become widely accepted in the Greek church as a part of the N. T. In the West the translation into Latin, made before 350, gives the earliest evidence of acquaintance with the epistle by Latin- speaking Christians. In Syria the Greek original was known Ἕ 2 JAMES as early as the latter half of the fourth century, and it was first translated into Syriac (as a part of the Peshitto) in the early part of the fifth. δι, THE PURPOSE AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. (a) Purpose. The writer of the Epistle of James has in mind in his coun- sels the general needs of such Christians as he is acquainted with or of whose existence he is aware. The epistle does not treat of the special concerns of any particular church nor owe its origin to any specific occasion. The author addresses any Christians into whose hands his work may fall and touches upon subjects of wide and general interest. It cannot be said _ that the epistle has any more specific “purpose” than the gen- eral aim of edification. In the selection of topics the writer was governed partly by his own special interests at the mo- ment, partly by what he drew from his own experience of the life about him as to the needs of human nature in general. Doubtless here, as always, the impulse to expression arose from the consciousness of having something to say which by its freshness either of form or substance would interest readers and strike home. There is no attempt in the epistle to give a full or systematic account of the author’s ideas on any subject. (Ὁ) Contents. Like the ancient Wisdom-literature of the Hebrews, with which (in spite of entire difference of style) the writer probably shows some familiarity, much of the epistle is in aphoristic form. Such sentences, having their meaning complete in themselves, gain comparatively little illumination from the context; they are the well-rounded and compact results of whole trains of previous thought, and are successful in suggesting these to the reader’s mind. In trying to interpret by a paraphrase, or to show the connection of ideas, it is difficult to avoid ascribing to the writer what he has not said, and elaborating thoughts hinted at, rather than fairly implied, by the text (cf. the full and instructive Paraphrases of Erasmus, and the attempts to THE EPISTLE 3 summarise the epistle found in the commentaries and the books on Introduction). The aphorisms are not generally isolated, but are gathered in paragraphs; and these often have unity and show connec- tion and progress of thought. The paragraphs are grouped loosely under more or less definite points of view, and in chs. 2 and 4'-5° we find an approach to the fuller discussion of a topic from various sides. In some instances the connection be- tween smaller divisions is made by the skilful use of the same or a similar word at the close of one sentence and the opening of the next (thus, 11! χαίρειν, χαράν 14! λειπόμενοι, λείπε- Tat; 112! πειρασμόν, πειραζόμενος. 1! λόγον, λόγου; 516f- προσεύχεσθε, Sénow; cf. the connection made by 31418 be- tween the divergent subjects of chs. 3 and 4). It is notewor- thy that in the later chapters, where there is more continuity in the flow of thought, this method of “capping” sentences rarely occurs. Beneath the whole epistle plainly lie two pervading and strongly felt principles: (1) the hatred of sham of every kind; (2) the conviction that God and the world are incompatible as objects of men’s allegiance. Neither of these principles could serve as a title to the tract, but they bind its somewhat mis- cellaneous contents together in a sort of unity. These general characteristics recall the spirit of the Hellen- istic diatribes, among which the Epistle of James seems to find its fittest literary classification. There, as here, the aim to pierce through appearance and pretense to reality is a leading motive, and in the first two chapters of James we read what Christian earnestness thought it worth while to say on this favourite theme of the sometimes superficial or possibly flip- pant, but commonly serious even if unconventional, Greek pop- ular street preacher;* while James’s discussion, in his last two chapters, of the two incompatible aims of human striving also treats a familiar topic of these moralists.f *P. Wendland, Die hellenistisch-rémische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen 2u Judentum und Christentum?, 1912, p. 76 (Diogenes), p. 85 (later moral preachers). t Wendland, op. cit., p. 85; A. Bonhdffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testament (Religionsge- schichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, x), 1911, pp. 351f. 4 ‘JAMES These contacts make more intelligible the structure of the epistle. Familiarity with these great discussions, which had been given in public for centuries, would cause contemporary readers to see fitness in a series of topics which to us seem in- congruous, to recognise the naturalness of transitions which strike us as awkward and abrupt, and to detect a latent unity which for us is obscured by the writer’s habit of making no introductory announcement of his successive themes. It must, however, be emphasised that the writer’s method is hortatory, not expository (about 60 imperatives occur in the 108 verses) ; his goal is nowhere so definitely formulated in his mind as to forbid a swift and unexpected leap to inculcate some important object of Christian endeavour (soinch. 5). In such cases we can- not assume completely to trace the real sequence of his thought. The following summary of the epistle is an attempt to indi- cate for the several larger divisions the point of view which may have led to the grouping of the paragraphs. 1, Epistolary Salutation. I. 12-276, ON CERTAIN RELIGIOUS REALITIES. (1) 1248, In the formation of character. (a) 174. The real nature of trouble is as an aid to a well-rounded character. (Ὁ) 158, Real prayer requires unwavering faith. (c) 194, Poverty is real wealth. (4) 112. The endurance of trouble brings the crown of life. (e) 11318, The real cause of sin is not temptation sent by God, but lies within yourself. (2) 1226, Jn religious instruction and public worship. (f) 1-25, Hearing is indeed better than talking, but the real response to the word of God is not to listen only but to obey. (g) 12827, Real worship is inconsistent with reckless speech; the best worship is kindly service and inner purity. THE EPISTLE 5 (A) 2-7. To court the rich and neglect the poor in the | house of worship reverses real values. (z) 2843, For such conduct it is a futile excuse to urge that the law of Jove requires it. (7) 226. Equally futile is it to pretend in excuse that the possession of faith dispenses from works. II, 3118, ON THE TEACHER’S CALLING. (a) 3112, Against ambition to be teachers. The teacher is under heavier responsibility than others; yet the tongue (the teacher’s organ) is as powerful as the little rudder in a great ship, as dangerous as a little fire in a great forest, and is untamable. (Ὁ) 31318, The true wise man’s wisdom must be meek and peaceable; such wisdom alone comes from above, and only peaceable righteousness receives the divine reward. 11. 4'-5%. WORLDLINESS AND THE CHRISTIAN CONDUCT OF LIFE CONTRASTED. (1) 41-5%. Worldliness in rivalry with God as the aim of life. (a) 4112, The cause of the crying evils of life is the pur- suit of pleasure, an aim which is in direct rivalry with God and abhorrent to him. (Ὁ) 4117, The practical neglect of God seen in the trader’s presumptuous confidence in himself; and the futility of it. (c) 51-6 The practical neglect of God seen in the cruelty and luxury of the rich; and the appalling issue which awaits it. (2) 57. Counsels for the Christian conduct of life. (4) 57. Constancy and forbearance; and their reward. (6) 51248. The religious expression of strong emotion; and the efficacy of prayer. (f) 5%. The privilege of service to the erring. 6 JAMES § 2. THe Literary ΤΎΡΕ OF THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.* The character of James as an epistle is given it solely by τὶ, which (see note ad Joc.) has the conventional form usual in the opening sentence of a Greek letter. But the address (however interpreted) “to the people of God, in their dispersion” (ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ) implies that what follows is a literary tract intended for any Christian into whose hands it may fall, not a proper letter sent to a definite individual or even to a definite group of persons. With this corresponds the epistle itself. The author’s treat- ment of his themes is plainly governed by the conditions of life with which he is familiar, but nothing implies any definite or restricted circle within the Christian church as the persons to whom the letter is sent. The terms used are in part drawn from local conditions, but the exhortations themselves could apply anywhere where there were Christians. As a letter proper would be a substitute for a conversation, so such an epistle as this corresponds to a public address prepared for delivery to an indefinite number of audiences and equally suitable for all of them. A letter proper is written to be sent to the person or persons addressed. A tract is, in more or less formal fashion, published. ‘The same piece of writing might, indeed, be in itself fit for either use; in that case the author’s purpose could be learned only from the form of the epistolary address. But in the present instance neither contents nor address indicates that the letter was ever intended to be sent to any specific church or churches. | On the history of the epistolary form in classical and Christian lit- erature, see R. Hirzel, Der Dialog, 1895, esp. i, pp. 300-308, 352-358, ii, p. 8; H. Peter, Der Brief in der rémischen Litteratur (Abhand- lungen der phil.-hist. Classe der Kgl. Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, xx), 1901; K. Dziatzko, art. “Brief,” in Pauly-Wis- sowa, RE, 1899; A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 1895 (Eng. transl. rgor), art. “ Epistolary Literature,” in EB; H. Jordan, Geschichte der alichrist- lichen Literatur, 1911. *C. F. 6. Heinrici, Der litterarische Charakter der neutestamentlichen Schriften, 10908, brings out many noteworthy points of view with regard to the various aspects of these ques- tions, and was one of the first in recent times to call attention to their importance. THE EPISTLE 7 The Epistle as a form of literature, in distinction from its use as the convenient instrument of personal intercourse, seems to have its roots in the Greek literary history of the fourth and third centuries before Christ. Eminent men of a still earlier period had written letters, often long and weighty, and these had sometimes been collected. Such were those of Isocrates, of which some genuine representatives may perhaps be included in the extant collection bearing his name. Especially Aristotle, 1322 B.c., wrote letters, and his tracts of counsel to Alexander and to Themison, King of Cyprus, gained by virtue of their personal dedication something of the character of letters. Epi- curus, {270 B.C., sought to strengthen the fellowship of his dis- ciples by writing letters, of some of which the addresses at least are known to us (πρὸς τοὺς ἐν Αὐγύπτῳ φίλους, πρὸς τοὺς ἐν ᾿Ασίᾳ φίλους, πρὸς τοὺς ἐν Λαμψάκῳ φίλους, πρὸς τοὺς ἐν Μυτιλήνῃ φιλοσόφους), and the disciples followed the mas- ter’s example. Many letters of this type were by their nature of interest to others than the persons addressed, and when collected and more widely circulated became works of literature. In the same direction led the custom of dedicating books to individuals and so giving the whole book in some sense the character of an epistle.T The result of all this was that the epistle became a usual form for a treatise, taking a place like that held by the dialogue. The transition corresponded to the changed times and the ex- pansion of Hellenism. Once all higher culture had been con- centrated at Athens, and a group there gathered for grave con- versation presented the normal relation of author and audience which the book affected to record and perpetuate. Now edu- cated men were diffused in countless centres throughout a widely extended world of Greek civilisation, and the direct method of address was, naturally, by a letter.{t In the Hellenistic period all the world wrote letters, and many of them were intended for publication. Philosophers (especially the Epicureans and * H. Usener, Epicurea, 1887, pp. ΟἹ, 135- ΤΕ. Hirzel, Der Dialog, i, p. 173. t So Hirzel, op. cit. i, pp. 352f. 8 JAMES Peripatetics), moralists, rhetoricians, men of science, used this form for their essays, and we hear of epistles on topics medical, mathematical, grammatical, antiquarian, and even, perhaps, amusing. Literary letters of consolation and exhortation “‘grad- ually gained the position held by printed sermons and books of practical edification among modern Christians.” * The rhetorical writers found it necessary to occupy them- selves with the principles and rules of this epistolography, and discussed the nature of an epistle and the style proper to it. From this period proceed various treatises on the art of letter- writing,} with their classification of types of epistles (twenty- two kinds are given, later increased to forty-one), on which later works were based. The Romans, who constituted a part of this Hellenistic world, excelled in the epistolary form of composition, and became ‘“‘ the classic nation for the letter as the Greeks are for the dialogue.” ὦ Varro, Cicero, Horace, Seneca are the great names of a vast epistolary literature to which moralists, philologists, jurists, physicians made their contributions, and in which it is often hard to know whether a given letter carefully written on a seri- ous subject was originally intended for publication or only for the person addressed. From an early time pseudonymous letters were written, with the name not of the real author but of another—usually some famous leader of thought. When Menippus wrote letters of the gods addressed to the Epicureans,§ no one was deceived; in other instances the question of whether or not the author de- sired to deceive the public is less easy to answer. But in the dialogues of Plato the name of Socrates is used with entire freedom for the exposition of Plato’s own ideas, and a similar use of a great name in “the half of a dialogue” (to quote an ancient writer’s description of a letter||) was natural and equally innocent. Probably, too, the habit of free composition of let- ters, as well as speeches, incidentally to historical narratives * H. Peter, op. cit. p. 19; cf. E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa?, 1900, ii, p. 538, note 2. { R. Hercher, Epistolographi greci, pp. 1-16. 4 t Hirzel, op. cit. ii, Ὁ. 8. § Hirzel, op. cit. i, p. 358. || Hirzel, op. cit. i, p. 305. THE EPISTLE 9 tended to promote the pseudonymous composition of independ- ent examples of both forms. Teachers of rhetoric composed model letters, appropriate to historical characters in assumed situations, and gave out such problems for their pupils’ exer- cise in the epistolary art. A large proportion of the many hun- dred letters assembled in the great collection of R. Hercher, Epistolographi greci, Paris, 1873, are deemed to be such rhe- torical models or pupils’ exercises. But, whatever the causes, pseudonymous epistles became common. Among the Jews of the Hellenistic age, as would be expected, literary epistles were written. Such were the Letter of Aristeas, the Epistle of Jeremy which forms ch. 6 of the Book of Baruch in the Apocrypha, and the Epistle of Baruch to the Nine and a Half Tribes appended to the Apocalypse of Baruch.* All these are serious, but pseudonymous, writings. It is possible that certain of the letters bearing the name of Heraclitus and of Diogenes were of Jewish origin. T In the Christian church letters as literary works, not merely as private communications, were produced almost from the start. To name no other examples, the epistles of Paul to the Romans and the Ephesians were surely not intended to be read but once, or by one small group of Christians only; the Pastoral Epistles owe their origin to the epistolary tradition; and such a work as the (First) Epistle of Clement of Rome can hardly have been without a larger purpose than to edify the Corinthians to whom it is addressed. The custom of the time is illustrated in the name “‘Second Epistle of Clement of Rome,” early assigned to an anonymous homily, as well as in the pseudonymous Epistle of Barnabas and Second Epistle of Peter, and in the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus. With the further development of the church, Christian epistolary writings—both personal letters and literary works, both genuine and pseudonymous—multiplied rapidly, and many have been preserved.t The epistolary form which James has was thus altogether natural and appropriate for a tract, and is fully accounted for * A, Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 234. ¢ Schiirer, G/V%, iii, pp. 624 f. (ὃ 33, VII, 8). ¢ H. Jordan, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 1911, Dp. 123-172. IO JAMES by the literary custom of the time without the necessity of sup- posing either a real epistolary aim on the part of the author or the addition by a later and inept hand of an alien epistolary preface.* But it throws no light on the actual literary relation- ships of the document itself, which shows in its contents noth- ing whatever of the specific character of a letter. _ All the more striking is the abundant illustration which the Epistle of James receives from both the manner and the substance of Hellenistic popular moral addresses, or Diatribes. At least since the time of Socrates, who was at once the revered head of a circle of disciples and a public disputant ready to debate with, confute, and instruct every chance comer, Greek and Hellenistic cities everywhere must have known the public preacher of philosophy and morals as a familiar figure of the street and market-place. In the early fourth century B.c., Diogenes lived at Athens; and his followers (called Cynics from their master’s well-earned nickname of ‘“‘The Dog’’) de- veloped their ethical and social protest against the fetters of convention into a well-marked type of popular doctrine. This original Cynicism, united, as the predominant factor, with other more cultivated and rhetorical influences to produce Bion of Borysthenes (c. 280 B.c.), a pungent sermoniser of whose utterances a fortunate chance has preserved written record, quoted in the fragments of his otherwise unimportant follower Teles (c. 230 B.c.). Later generations (cf. Horace, Epist. ii, 2, 1. 60) looked back to Bion as the chief representative, if not the founder, of the style, and the fragments make it evident that an apt form for this preaching had already been created. In the following centuries it is certain that others besides Cynics adopted the same methods, and that the style of the early preachers was perpetuated by a long series of inconspicuous workers; but whatever literary precipitate in written form their discourses may once have had perished in ancient times. In those days, as now, popular moral tracts, although undoubtedly abundant, were generally commonplace and ephemeral. Our 5 This latter is the view of Harnack, CaL, i, 1897, pp. 485-491. THE EPISTLE II knowledge has to be drawn chiefly from later representatives of the type.* Paul Wendland, Die hellenistisch-riémische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum?, 1912, pp. 75-96, “ Die philosophische Propaganda und die Diatribe’”’; P. Wendland, “ Philo und die kynisch- stoische Diatribe,”’ in Wendland and Kern, Beitrége zur Geschichte der griech. Philosophie und Religion, 1895; J. Bernays, Lucian und die Kyniker, 1879; R. Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Forschungen zur Religion und Litera- tur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, xiii), 1910; Teletis reliquiae, ed. Hense?, 1909; C. F. G. Heinrici, Der litterarische Character der n. t. Schriften, 1908, pp. 9-12; S. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, 1904, pp. 334-383; T. C. Burgess, Epideictic Literature (Studies in Classical Philology, vol. iii), Chicago, 1902, pp. 234-241; E. Norden, Die antike Kunst prosa*, 1909, i, pp. 129-131; li, pp. 556-558. In Rome under the empire this popular preaching associated itself closely with literary training, and produced, or deeply in- fluenced, works which have survived. From the common char- acteristics of these later writers and their close resemblance to the meagre remains of earlier times, it is evident that the type early matured its noteworthy traits of popular effective- ness and retained them for centuries without substantial alter- ation. Stoic philosophy and morals had come to the front as the chief higher influence on the masses, and abundantly used this apt instrument. In Seneca and Epictetus the influence of the popular diatribe is at its height. “The key-note, the most striking colour, of the whole body of writing of the phi- losopher Seneca is the diatribe-style” :7 and the discourses of Epictetus, though spoken to a select circle of personal pupils, are cast in the style of the diatribe. How widely this preaching had pervaded ancient life may be observed from the traces of its large influence in the satires of Horace, Persius, Juvenal, in the orations of Dio of Prusa, the essays of Plutarch, and the treatises of the Jew Philo, as well as in the reports of the utter- ances of Musonius and other less well-known personages of the * On the traces of the continuous line of Cynic preachers in the late third, the second, and the first centuries B.c., see G. A. Gerhard, Phoinix von Kolophon, 1909, pp. 171 f., with many references to sources and literature. { Wendland, Hellenistisch-rémische Kultur?, Ὁ. 79. 12 JAMES same period. Paul at Athens (although not in the synagogues of the Hellenistic cities) must have presented himself to his hearers as just such a preacher as those to whose diatribes they were accustomed to listen: and such must have been very gen- erally the case with the early Christian missionaries. It is not strange that the diatribe had a profound and far-reaching effect on the forms of Christian literature for centuries,* that its in- fluence is clearly traceable in the epistles of Paul, and that it serves to explain much, both of the form and the content, of the Epistle of James. To the most characteristic traits of the style of the diatribe belong the truncated dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor (often introduced by ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐροῦνται, ἔροιντ᾽ ἂν ἡμᾶς, or the simple φησί) and the brief question and answer (6. g. Teles, p. το, lines 6 ff.: γέρων γέγονας ; μὴ ζήτει τὰ τοῦ veov, ἀσθενὴς πάλιν; μὴ ζήτει τὰ τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ... ἄπορος πάλιν γεγονας ; μὴ ζήτει τὴν τοῦ εὐπόρου δίαιταν). Good in- stances of both are found in Jas. 2!8f- and Jas. 513!-. These traits serve well to illustrate the aim of immediate impression, appropriate to popular hortatory address, which has largely con- trolled the formation of this literary type. On the style of the diatribe, see R. Bultmann, Der Stil der pauli- nischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, 1910, where will be found a very full collection of detailed illustrations of the character- istics of these writings drawn from Teles, Musonius, Dio of Prusa, Epictetus, Seneca, and other writers, together with references to the literature on the subject. A brief but good statement is that of Hein- rici, Der litterarische Charakter der neutestamentlichen Schriften, 1908, pp. 74 f. Origen, Contra Celsum, vi, 2, points out the effectiveness of this popular and hortatory quality in Epictetus’s style as compared with Plato: xat ef χρή γε τολμήσαντα εἰπεῖν, ὀλίγους μὲν ὥνησεν, et γε ὥνησεν, ἣ περιχαλλὴς χαὶ ἐπιτετηδευμένη Πλάτωνος χαὶ τῶν παραπλησίως ᾧρα- σάντων λέξις " πλείονας δὲ ἣ τῶν εὐτελέστερον ἅμα χαὶ πραγματιχῶς καὶ ἐστοχασμένως τῶν πολλῶν [7. 6. in a plain, practical, and popular style] διδαξάντων χαὶ γραψάντων. ἔστι γοῦν ἰδεῖν τὸν μὲν Πλάτωνα ἐν χερσὶ τῶν δοχούντων εἶναι φιλολόγων μόνον, τὸν δὲ ᾿Ε);πίκτητον καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν τυχόντων χαὶ δοπὴν πρὸς τὸ ὠφελεῖσθαι ἐχόντων θαυμαζόμενον, αἰσθομένων τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ βελτιώσεως. * Norden, Antike Kunstprosa’, ii, pp. 556-558. THE EPISTLE | 13 Of the other habitual phrases and modes of expression which give a well-marked and easily recognisable form to the diatribe, very many are observable in James. Thus, such formulas as μὴ πλανᾶσθε (11°), θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι (2%), βλέπεις (222), ὁρᾶτε (222), ἴστε (11°), τί ὄφελος (214 16), οὐ χρή to introduce a con- clusion (3%), διὸ λέγει with a quotation (4°), ἰδού (345 547,911), all have either exact or substantial parallels in the recurrent phrases of this literature. The transitions are often made in the same way as with the Greek sermonisers—by raising an objection (2%), by a question (2!4 41 513), by ἄγε (413 51), The imperatives are not only numerous (nearly sixty times in the 108 verses), but, as in the diatribes, are sometimes ironical (s!, perhaps 4°). Rhetorical questions (6. g. 24 5 1416 311f. 441.) are numerous, and 4!!- shows the characteristic form of state- ment by “catechism-like” question and answer. The apos- trophe to the traders and the rich (413-55) is quite in the style of the diatribe, and does not in the least imply that the persons addressed were expected to be among the readers of the tract. Even personifications are not lacking (115 215 41 5%!-), although they are less elaborate than in the Greek sermons, where they constitute a favourite ornament. Figures are abundant in all kinds of popular address, but in those of James there is direct resemblance to the diatribes. Some comparisons are conven- tional, traceable for centuries previous in Greek writers (espe- cially, with others, the rudder, the bridle, the forest fire, in 45:8) ; as in the diatribes, many are drawn from the works of nature, others from the common life of man (125 215 57), and they are sometimes double or with repetition (3?-* 1°12), Examples from famous individuals are found here, too (Abraham, Rahab, Job, Elijah), and they are, as with the Greek preachers,* stock in- stances, well-known representatives of the qualities mentioned. In general the Greek preachers were well aware that in their diatribes they were awakening sinners and inculcating familiar but neglected principles, not engaged in investigating truth or in carrying thought further to the conquest of the unknown. *See E. Weber, ‘‘De Dione Chrysostomo Cynicorum sectatore,” in Leipziger Studien, x, 1887, pp. 227 ff. 14 JAMES Not originality but impressiveness was what they aimed at. The argument is from what the readers already know and ought to feel. They appeal to analogy (cf. Jas. 21417), to experience (cf. 3°41%), and to common sense (cf. Jas. passim). Harsh address to the reader is not absent in James, and ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ (2%), μοιχαλίδες (44) are not unlike the ὦ ταλαίπωρε, μωρέ, stulte, of the diatribe. The writers of diatribes were fond of quotations from poets and sages, but these were used not for proof of the doctrine but incidentally, and often for ornament of the discourse. So is it usually with James (1% 17 45 511» 2 for ornament; 28 to state an inadequate excuse, which is overruled), in contrast to the frequent use in Paul and Mat- thew of the O. T. for proof. Other traits of style show resemblance. As in the diatribes, there is a general controlling motive in the discussion, but no firm and logically disposed structure giving a strict unity to the whole, and no trace of the conventional arrangement recom- mended by the elegant rhetoricians. The method of framing the sections in by a general statement at opening and close is to be seen in James. δὲ 17-12, 19-26 p17-26 411-15, 18.185. “The chiar acteristic methods of concluding a section are found: by a sharp.antithesis, 52 21% 26 31518 δα by a question, 47 ΞΡ ἘΣ a quotation, 5%; by ov χρή, 3% A key-word often runs through a passage, or is repeated so as to give a sense of reference back; so πειρασμός 1214, σοφία 315-18, ζῆλος 313-42, χαλιναγωγεῖν γλῶσσαν 176 3%, λόγος 118-23, νόμος ἐλευθερίας 125 215, κρίνειν Ail, 12, Like a diatribe, the epistle begins with a paradox (12) and contains others (1 2°). The general principle that popular esti- mates of values are false and must be reversed underlies James as it does the Greek sermons. Wherein true wealth consists was a favourite subject of their exposition and prompted many paradoxical turns; in James it has given rise to a passage not without its difficulties (119-12). Irony is not lacking (21:55 5-6), though it is of the serious, never of the flippant, order. Of course, any one of these traits of language, style, and mode of thought could be paralleled from other types of liter- THE EPISTLE 15 ature. What is significant and conclusive is the combination in these few pages of James of so many of the most striking features of a specific literary type familiar in the contemporary Hellenistic world. The inference from details is confirmed by the general tone and character of the whole epistle—direct, plain, earnest, sensible—lively, even on occasion descriptive and dramatic (cf. 2!%-), full of illustration and concrete appli- cation—not aiming at profundity of speculation, popular and hortatory throughout. The traits referred to in the above paragraphs are many of them observable in the epistles of Paul, who betrays large influence from the style of the diatribe. No writing of Paul’s, however, comes so close to the true type of this form of literature as does the Epistle of James. Paul, a many-sided thinker, also follows other, very different and not always readily identifiable, models, and in his general tone displays far more passion and far more boldness of thought than the admirable, but quiet, simple, and somewhat limited, writer of our epistle. For the resemblances and differences between Paul and the diatribe, see Bultmann, op. cit. pp. 64-107. It is, to be sure, true that some differences from the diatribes preserved and known to us can be observed in James, and in view of the strong and pervading resemblance these are of sig- nificance. They show how the specific character of this Chris- tian Jew led him to develop the type of these tracts. The most striking difference is the greater seriousness and restraint of tone. Nothing in James could entitle it to be described as σπουδαιογέλοιον. The characteristic diatribe had more of the laugh, and it was usually a bitterer laugh than would have been possible to the high-minded but friendly preacher who here speaks to us. The diatribes were abundantly humorous, often trivial, and sometimes verged on the coarse. Again, James, as a Christian preacher, addresses his readers as “‘ brethren,” “‘be- loved brethren,’ whereas the Greek preacher thought of indi- viduals, addressed them in the singular, and was not bound to them either by love or by the bond of a common brotherhood. The habit of scolding the audience and the world at large and of ridicule and abuse in general was a peculiarly vivid and per- 16 JAMES manent trait of the Cynic diatribe.* James shows a certain contact with it in his serious warning (4!) and in his apostro- phes (453-55), but his usual tone is mild, and one might almost suspect that the injunctions to emphasise the gentle nature of true wisdom (313 #:) were aimed in direct condemnation of the Cynic’s rough and censorious habit. In view of Jas. 51, it is worth notice that for the frequent oaths, which give a pic- turesque, if slightly vulgar, force to the language of the dia- tribes, we have here no substitute. Again, the comparisons used by James are more limited in range than those with which the diatribes are crowded. His seem conventional and, with few exceptions, slight, in compari- son with the fulness with which every side of human life—clean and dirty—is mirrored in the comparisons of the Greeks. In particular, the figures from ways and customs of organised so- ciety—the arena, the theatre, the market-place, war, handi- crafts—and from the practises of Greek religion are lacking. He seems to belong to a simpler world—although he is not ignorant of a wider reach beyond his own daily round. In ideas James, of course, breathed a different atmosphere. Of the familiar Cynic and Stoic commonplaces the chief one that ap- pears is the representation of poverty as exaltation and wealth as debasement, while the opening exposition of the moral uses of trouble has a certain similarity to Greek popular philosophy. But the true nature of freedom, the paradox that death is life, the doctrine that sin is ignorance, the right apprehension of exile, of the feelings, the general principle that evils are good— these are not James’s topics. The resemblance of James to the diatribes is made even more convincing by noting the contrast which the epistle shows in style and method to the Jewish Wisdom-literature, with which it is often classed, and with which, in the deeper roots of our writer’s thought, he has much closer kinship than with the Hel- lenistic diatribe. In the Book of Proverbs endless contrasted * On this trait of the Cynics, see G. A. Gerhard, Phoinix von Kolophon, 1909, pp. 35-39, where many illustrations are given. THE EPISTLE 17 sentences (in themselves clever and interesting, if only they were not so many) may well be found less tedious in the original poetry, whose rhythm finds its proper effect in this trick of paral- lelism ; but how unlike to the simple but varied prose of James! And the literary type assumed by Proverbs, with its constant address to “‘my son” and its imagined sage handing down an- cient wisdom, is utterly different from that of James’s exhorta- tion to his audience of “beloved brethren.” Jas. 1 might pos- sibly seem of the type of Proverbs, and 47 19 barely suggest it, but hardly another sentence will recall the haunting distich of the Hebrew book. Equally distant from James are the shrewd practical maxims and occasional real poetry of Ecclesiasticus. That book is too much written in parallels to suggest James, and its thinking is of a wholly different nature,* as may be seen by comparing either its prudential wisdom or its poetical feeling for Wisdom with what James has to say, for instance, in 31318, The maxims in Tobit, ch. 4, plainly translated from a Semitic poetical original, call to mind neither the diatribe nor James. And the Book of Wisdom, with its higher flights of poetry and more Hellenistic and modern character, does not often much remind us of James, although he may have read it and 5°15 can in some respects be compared with Jas. 3, while Wisd. 7??‘- (an especially unsemitic passage) recalls Jas. 31517, In the Wisdom-literature, as a literary type, it is impossible to place James. The epistle is, rather, a diatribe, showing how that highly serviceable type, now well known to us, could be handled by a Jewish Christian, who used what he knew of the Greek preacher’s sermons not to gain his ideas from them but for suggestions of effective ways of putting his own Christian and Jewish teaching. The diatribe was highly significant for Christian preaching, e. g. Chrysostom, Hom. in Joh. iii, 3, but it must not be forgotten that in fundamental ideas the Christians’ connection with Jewish thinking was far closer than with the Hellenistic moralism. Wilamowitz- Moellendorf tends to overlook this in his striking discussion of Teles in Antigonos von Karystos (Philologische Untersuchungen, iv), 1881, *This difference, at least, is noted by Zahn, Einleitung?, i, p. 80: ‘Ohne dass man von einer sonderlichen Geistesverwandtschaft des Jk mit diesem Jesus reden kénnte.” 18 JAMES pp. 313 ff., in which he opposes the notion of J. Freudenthal that the “sacred eloquence of the Jews’? was the immediate parent of Christian homiletics. See the important discussion by J. Freudenthal, Die Fla- vius Josephus beigelegte Schrift Ueber die Herrschaft der Vernunft (IV Makkabéerbuch), Breslau, 1869. A third type of Hellenistic literature, besides the epistle and the diatribe, might suggest itself as a possible source for the literary char- acter of James. The Protrepticus, or parenetic tract, was a form of hortatory writing of which the earliest examples are the two exhorta- tions of Isocrates, Ad Nicoclem and Nicocles. More ethical and less political is the παραίνεσις, or preceptio, of Pseudo-Isocrates, Ad De- monicum, also a product of the fourth century B.c. These tracts are largely composed of separate apothegms, many of these being widely current and often-repeated practical maxims, but both in form and spirit they are as far removed from the Epistle of James as Lord Ches- terfield’s Letters Written to His Son are from a sermon of John Wesley. They are later prose representatives of the poetical tradition of gnomic literature seen in Theognis and in the now lost Phocylides, and are the precursors of the useful florilegia and gnomic collections of a later time. This character is expressly intimated by Isocrates, Ad Nicoclem, 40f., when he declares the art of this kind of composition to lie in skilful selection of the fine thoughts of others. Later instances of the protrepticus seem to have been numerous. The earlier ones were often tracts recommending and inviting to the rhetorician’s studies and art. The moralists and philosophers, too, including Posidonius, wrote works of this kind, now mostly lost, which exerted considerable influ- ence. The Protrepticus of Aristotle was a defense of the significance of philosophy for life. Galen wrote a protrepticus to the science and practise of medicine. The type ran out at last into the “epideic- tic’’ literature of mere display. See P. Hartlich, “De exhortationum a Grecis Romanisque scriptarum historia et indole,” in Leipziger Studien, xi, 1889, pp. 209-333; T. C. Burgess, Epideictic Literature (Studies in Classical Philology, vol. iii), Chicago, 1902, pp. 229 ff. note 2; P. Wendland, Anaximenes von Lampsakos, 1905; F. Blass, Attische Beredsamkeit?, 1892, ii, pp. 111, 271 ff. § 3. LirERARY RELATIONSHIPS. (a) The relation of the Epistle of James to the Wisdom- literature of the O. T. has already been referred to, and it has been pointed out that in literary type and style the epistle breathes a different atmosphere. Some of the ideas, however, of Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom are found repeated in THE EPISTLE 19 James. It is not unlikely that the writer was familiar with these books, and a full list of the parallels is to be found in Mayor, Epistle of St. James, ch. 4. But direct influence on the language of James cannot be affirmed with any confidence, except in the case of Proverbs, from which (Prov. 335) a quo- tation is made in Jas. 4%. Some of the more striking parallels are to be found in Prov. 11* (“the fruit of righteousness,” cf. Jas. 318), τοῦ (against blaming God, cf. Jas. 11%), 271 (‘‘boast not of the things of to-morrow, for thou knowest not what the morrow will bring forth,” cf. Jas. 41316), 173 27%! (testing human qualities, cf. Jas. 13), 29” (“‘a man that is swift in his words,” cf. Jas. 119). The Wisdom of Jesus Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, offers better parallels, but it is doubtful whether the common view that James unquestionably used it can be maintained.* Many topics referred to by James appear in it; thus, the dangers proceeding from the tongue (Ecclus. τοῦ 12 2058, 18-20 2227 2813-26 20 [22] 7-9) . wisdom the gift of God (1°), prayer with a divided heart (17), pride (10718), the uncertainty of life (10! 1116 17), blaming God (1511-20), man as made in God’s image and ruling over the beasts (173!-), the eclipse of the sun and the changes of the moon (17%! 2711). Other passages remind us of the conditions im- plied in James; so 4”, the widow and orphan; 7**, visiting the sick; 13'°-, oppression of the poor by the rich; 1815, on grudging beneficence; 38°'-, prayer and confession by the sick. But these may attest a general similarity in the religious and intellectual environment rather than proper literary dependence, although the author of James may well have read Ecclesiasticus. The parallels from the Wisdom of Solomon are less striking. The most noteworthy are 1" (cf. Jas. 4 5%); 24 (cf. Jas. 414); 210-20, the oppression of the poor; 358, tribulation as a test sent by God; 5%, pride and wealth, and the transitory nature of wealth; 7°°'., comparison with light and the sun. No case implies dependence. (ὁ) The style and language of the Epistle of James can well be illustrated, as already shown, from those of the Hellenistic * For references, see Schiirer, GJV‘, iii, p. 220 (ὃ 32, III, 1). 20 JAMES diatribe with which the book belongs. Furthermore, parallels in phrases and vocabulary are abundant from Philo, the author of 4 Maccabees, Clement of Rome, and Hermas,* writers of the first and second centuries after Christ, who all joined some degree of Hellenism with fundamental Jewish, or Jewish and Christian, ideas, and who were members of a partly segregated Jewish or Christian community in some Hellenistic city (Alex- andria, Rome). H. A. A. Kennedy, “The Hellenistic Atmosphere of the Epistle of James,” in Expositor, eighth series, vol. ii, 1911, pp. 37-52, 15 a use- ful collection of some of the more striking parallels from Hellenistic writers. Another work which shows in language (not in structure, nor in the broader qualities of style) special affinity to James is the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.t This is of Palestinian origin, and was originally written in Hebrew about one hundred years before the beginning of the Christian era. Its literary quality is not lofty, and a good deal of legend and folk-lore crops out in it, but it represents in its ideas a high type of Palestinian Judaism—devout, earnest, spiritual, capable of lending itself directly to Christian use and of receiving Christian additions. The strict and plain moral teaching and the simple and devout piety of the Testaments are but little tinged with formalism or legalism, and they reveal an attractive type of popular religion such as can well have nourished itself on the O. T. Psalms, and in which many not unworthy parallels to the teach- ings of the Gospels are to be found. James is a far more highly educated man than the author of the Testaments, but the Jew- ish background of both was similar. The Testaments appear to have been translated into Greek not later, and perhaps earlier, than the early second century after Christ. The fact of Christian interpolation is undoubted, but the additions can generally be recognised, and the Greek version of these writings *For parallels from Philo, see Mayor, ch. 4; Siegfried, Philo vom Alexandria, 1875, pp. 310- 314; for the Christian writers, Mayor, ch.82. T See the collection of parallels in Mayor, ch. 4. THE EPISTLE 2I may fairly be accounted a monument of Hellenistic Judaism contemporary with James. The parallels are numerous and in many instances show close verbal resemblance. For instance: Test. Benj. 6° ἡ ἀγαθὴ διάνοια οὐκ ἔχει δύο γλώσσας εὐλογίας καὶ κατάρας, ὕβρεως καὶ τιμῆς, ἡσυχίας καὶ ταραχῆς, ὑπο- κρίσεως καὶ ἀληθείας, [πενίας καὶ πλούτου] ἀλλὰ μίαν ἔχει περὶ πάντας εἰλικρινῆ καὶ καθαρὰν διάθεσιν, cf. Jas. 3%; Test. Nephth. 81 καὶ ὁ διάβολος φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, cf. Jas. 47; Test. Dan 6? ἐγγίσατε τῷ θεῷ, cf. Jas 4°; Test. Zab. 83 ὅσον yap ἄνθρωπος σπλαγχνίζεται εἰς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ, τοσοῦτον καὶ ὁ κύριος εἰς αὐτόν, cf. Jas. 213: Test. Jos. 27 ἐν δέκα πειρασμοῖς δόκιμον ἀπέδειξέ με καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτοῖς ἐμακροθύμησα " ὅτι μέγα φάρμακόν ἐστιν ἡ μακ- ροθυμία καὶ πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ δίδωσιν ἡ ὑπομονή, cf. Jas. 174; Test. Benj. 4 ἴδετε οὖν, τέκνα μου, τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀνδρὸς τὸ τέλος, cf. Jas. 5. We find also, in passages of indubitable Jewish origin, strong similarity in the emphasis on sincerity (ἁπλότης), mercy (ἔλεος), peace, and humility, on envy (φθόνος), anger, and arrogance, and on other virtues and vices. And in the Testaments the chief interest in the law (which is called λόγος ἀληθείας, Test. Gad 3}, cf. Jas. 118) is on the side of the moral precepts. But all these resemblances do not go further than to exhibit a common background of high Jewish morality in which both the Testaments and James (and Hermas) share. ‘There is no reason to assume literary relationship; these ideas and phrases were part of the ever-repeated material of Jewish sermons. They show James’s origin, but do not permit the inference that he had read the Testaments, which are a valuable compend of Jewish moral ideas, not an originating centre of influence. (c) The relation of James to other books of the N. T. itself is of the same general nature as its relation to nearly contemporary Jewish writings and to the Apostolic Fathers. In no case (unless it be Romans and Galatians) is direct knowl- edge or influence on either side to be admitted. The material is conveniently collected by Mayor, Epistle of St. James, ch. 22 JAMES 3, “On the Relation of the Epistle to the Other Books of the New Testament.” In the epistle to the Hebrews the refer- ences to Abraham (Heb. 118 17-9) and Rahab (Heb. 11%) as heroes of faith, and the expression καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν . .. di καιοσύνης (Heb. 12", cf. Jas. 318), are the most important parallels, and they prove nothing. From the Apocalypse the most important is the promise of 2”, γίνου πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτου καὶ δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς, but this cannot be in- tended by James in 1”. A closer relation is observable between James and 1 Peter, and the question of priority has been strongly argued on both sides. The two books represent opposite poles of thought. The thought of 1 Peter is closer to the theology of Paul than any other non-pauline book of the N. T., although the style and language depart noticeably from Paul; James is perhaps the least Pauline book in the N. T. Yet the two are curiously akin in their phrases and some of their ideas. The following table exhibits some of the most striking instances: 1 PETER JAMES I! (διασπορά) ι1 τοῖ-, Gf. 413 111... 128 118 124 (Is. 408-*) 1101. ὦ 21 (ἀποθέμενοι οὖν) 71 43 (Prov. 101 [Heb.]) 57 55t. (Prov. 334) 451-- 59 (ἀντίστητε) 41 These major instances are supported by a large number of others, in themselves less significant, which add their evidence that the authors of James and 1 Peter have come under com- mon religious and literary influences. Beyond this the evidence does not carry us, and the established phrases and conventions which we must assume for Hellenistic Jewish synagogue ser- mons as well as for Christian preaching are a sufficient back- ground to account for all the facts. It is, indeed, remark- able that of the small number of direct allusions to O. T. language in James, three are found paralleled in τ Peter. But THE EPISTLE 23 in two cases (Is. 4059, Prov. 10!2) the utter difference in use makes dependence on either side highly improbable, while the third (Prov. 324) is a saying very naturally remembered and quoted (so also in Clem. Rom. 30).* It is hard to picture the mental processes of a writer who having read James should have thereby been affected in such a manner as to produce 1 Peter, or vice versa. In general it must be said that, even if literary dependence were admitted to exist, it would be wholly impossible to decide on which side it lay. Thorough discussions of the N. T. parallels are to be found in Spitta, Der Brief des Jakobus, 1896, pp. 155-236. For Spitta’s theory of the Jewish origin of the epistle it was essential to show that James is not dependent on any Christian sources. The parallels which the Epistle of James shows to the above- mentioned writers, both Jewish and Christian, do not in any case indicate acquaintance, still less borrowing, on either side. Just as the typical style of the Greek diatribe persisted in rec- ognisable form for centuries and was used by preachers and writers of diverse literary level, so likewise the phrases and vocabulary of Jewish Hellenistic religious writing and public speech at the time of the origin of the Christian church made up a common stock used independently by many writers in widely distant places for a long period. The phenomena and history of the religious language and homiletical phrases and courses of thought among English-speaking Protestants the world over during the past two centuries would provide a mod- ern instance of substantially the same situation. From the Jews the Christians took over a large section of this body of language and thought, and used and developed it as their own. This could not have been otherwise. The apostles began this process, and it continued until this Jewish stock had been fully naturalised and its origin forgotten. In the Epistle of James the currents represented by the Hel- lenistic diatribe and by the sermons and religious tracts of * All three citations depart from the LXX by substituting [Ὁ] deds for κύριος. f The relation of James to Clement of Rome, Hermas, etc., is discussed below, pp. 87-90, in connection with the history of the Epistle of James in the church. 24 JAMES Greek-speaking Jews cross and interlace. The nearest parallel to this combination among Jewish writers is the Alexandrian Philo,* among Christians the Apostle Paul. The literary per- sonality whom we learn to know in our epistle is in part ex- plained by these causes, but his writing also shows his own distinctive individuality, education, and experience. § 4. LANGUAGE. The language of the epistle is that of a writer of the Koiné who uses Greek fluently and accurately, although his style has a certain Biblical tinge; so far as we can judge, Greek was probably his mother tongue.t His forms and syntax are cor- rect, and appropriate to written discourse; there is less occasion than in Paul or in the Synoptic Gospels to turn from the ordi- nary grammars to the colloquial Greek of the papyri for illus- tration of strange expressions. Some instances occur of words and phrases characteristic of good Greek style and unique, or very rare, in the N. T.; so ἄγε viv (with plural), ἔοικεν, χρή, πρός with accusative (φθόνον) equivalent to the adverb (φθονερῶς), ἀπείραστος κακῶν, ἀπαρχή τις. Certain allitera- tions and plays on words are perhaps intentional, thus: 1? πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις, 1% ἀπελήλυθεν Kal εὐθέως ἐπελάθετο, 24 διεκρίθητε . .. κριταί, 35 μικρὸν μέλος ἐστὶν καὶ μεγάλα αὐχεῖ, 44 φαινομένη. . . ἀφανιζομένη (for oth- ers, see Mayor, pp. cclii ff.). Especially in his figurative lan- guage the writer shows his command of well-chosen and ex- pressive words. The vivacity, simple directness, and general attractiveness and effectiveness of his style are conspicuous even to the reader of the English version. The relation of the style, on its Hellenistic side, to the diatribe has already been dis- cussed (pp. 12-16). At the same time, long and difficult words are rather seldom used, no tendency appears to elaboration of grammatical struc- ture or to complication of sentences or periods, and there is * P. Wendland, “Philo und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe,” in Wendland and Kern, Beitrége zur Geschichte d. griech. Philosophie und Religion, 1895. t+ Mayor, chs. 8 and 9, treats fully of the grammar and style; note also his “Index of Greek Words.” THE EPISTLE 25 nothing to suggest acquaintance with the higher styles of Greek literature. The general tone is plainer and less literary than that of the preface to the Gospel of Luke (Lk. 11‘) or of the epistle to the Hebrews, or of Philo (although many of the single phrases can readily be illustrated from this last writer). Even as compared with Paul, there is less to recall the con- temporary rhetoric of the school, although, on the other hand, there is less to suggest the every-day talk of the street. We may conclude that the popular Hellenistic preachers and the written tracts, now lost, which corresponded to their sermons, have combined with the Greek O. T. to form this writer’s style and to give him his vocabulary. The judgment of Erasmus (Annotationes in epistolam Jacobi, 1516) on James’s style is interesting. After saying that the epistle is salu- bribus preceptis referta, he continues: Nec enim referre videtur usque- quaque majestatem illam et gravitatem apostolicam. Nec hebraismi tan- tum quantum ab apostolo Jacobo qui fuerit episcopus Hierosolymitanus expectaretur. This guarded statement was repeated by Luther in the following form (Resolutiones Lutherianae super propositionibus suis Lip- siae disputatis, 1519): Stilus epistolae illius longe est infra apostolicam majestatem nec cum Paulino ullo modo comparandus. The vocabulary of James consists of about 570 words. About 73, of these are not found elsewhere in the N. T.* This number may be compared with 63 for 1 Peter (of the same length as James), 34 for Galatians, and 43 for Ephesians (both some- what longer). Of James’s words all except about 25 are found in the Greek O. T. (including, of course, the Apocrypha). Only 6 words in the epistle appear to be found neither in the N. T. nor in the Greek O. T. (βρύω, ἐνάλιος, εὐπειθής͵ ἐφήμερος͵ θρῆσκος, κατήφεια). Not only through this hint from his vocabulary, but by re- peated direct allusion to the language of the Greek translation is it made clear that James knew the LXX.{ Thus 1! is based on Is. 40° !-; in 2%! he uses the language of Gen. 2279; in *So Thayer; Mayor’s list counts up only 63, in consequence of a different treatment of variant readings. τῷ. H. A. A. Kennedy, of. cit. p. 30. 20 JAMES 273 quotes Gen. 15°; in 4°, Prov. 3%; 5 suggests Ps. 103°; while many other single phrases occur in which the writer clearly be- trays his familiarity with the LXX (see Westcott and Hort’s list of “‘Quotations from the Old Testament,” p. 607). In several cases (notably 223 φίλος θεοῦ, 5”) there is a use of O. T. language in a translation at variance with the LXX, but these are brief phrases and do not in the least imply ac- quaintance with the Hebrew original. It may be added that one of the two or three formal quotations (45, the only quota- tion introduced by ἡ γραφὴ λέγει) is not found in the O. T. at all, and is of unknown origin. This acquaintance with the LXX gives a distinct Biblical flavour to the style in general. Actual grammatical Hebraisms are few. The genitive of quality, equivalent to an adjective, appears in ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς (125), κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν (24); perhaps also the less strange νόμος ἐλευθερίας ([125] 212), ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας (38), TO πρόσωπον τῆς γενέ σεως αὐτοῦ (12%) ought to be included. The use of ἐν in 49 may perhaps be a Hebraism. In 517 (προσευχῇ προσηύξατο) the writer is probably not imitating the Hebrew infinitive ab- solute; but the Christian ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι (51. 14) may perhaps be called a Hebraism, and ποιηταὶ λόγου (122) would probably have a different meaning in secular Greek. But there are many cases of the use of Biblical phrases, correct but slightly unhellenic.* Thus εἰς μαρτύριον (5%), ἔλο- γίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην (278), the frequency of ἐδού (six times, as against nine in all Paul’s epistles), ποιεῖν ἔλεος (213), ποιεῖν εἰρήνην (318), ὑπάγετε ἐν ἐἰρήνῃ (21°), ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ (18), μακάριος ἀνήρ (112), ὀρφανοὺς καὶ χήρας (127), προσω- πολημψίαις (21), προσωπολημπτεῖτε (2°), τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς (27), θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων (37), τοὺς καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ γεγονότας (59), μοι- χαλίδες (44), καθαρίσατε χεῖρας (48), εἰς τὰ ὦτα κυρίου Σα- βαώθ (54), ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς (55), πρόϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον (57), πολύσπλαγχνος (51), are some of the characteristic expres- sions of this sort. * On such expressions, see J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. tof. THE EPISTLE 27 The theory that the Epistle of James is a translation from an Aramaic or Hebrew original has from time to time been put forward (references in Mayor’, p. cclx, note 1), most recently by J. Wordsworth in his dis- cussion of the Latin Codex Corbeiensis (ff) in SB, i, 1885, pp. 142-150. The usual arguments have been a priori, on the ground that James the Lord’s brother must have written Aramaic. Wordsworth found note- worthy textual variants in ff together with some cases of very free translating, and tried to explain both phenomena by the adventurous supposition that the Greek and Latin texts give two independent ver- sions of the Aramaic original. But the textual variants are adequately, and more easily, explained on the ordinary principles of textual criticism, while the free translations do not at all imply any other original than the current Greek text in a form much like Codex Vaticanus. Words- worth’s theory is criticised by Mayor, ch. 10, and Zahn, Einleitung, § 6, note 6. On the other side, nothing in the epistle suggests that it was not written in Greek, and there is much, including plays on words (χαίρειν, χαράν, 11f-), alliteration (1? 38, and perhaps elsewhere), a probable Greek metrical quotation (117), the use of the LXX, and many Greek expressions not easily retranslatable into a Semitic language, which taken together make it morally certain that Greek was the original languagé in which the epistle was written. δ 5. THE IDEAS AND HistorIcAL BACKGROUND OF THE EPISTLE. On the ideas of the Epistle of James reference should be made (be- sides the commentaries and books on N. T. theology and the history of the apostolic age) to Woldemar G. Schmidt, Der Lehrgehalt des J aco- busbriefes, 1869; P. Feine, Der Jakobusbrief nach Lehranschauungen und Entstehungsverhaltnissen, 1893 ; E. Grafe, Die Stellung und Bedeutung des Jakobusbriefes in der Entwickelung des Urchristentums, 1904; B. Weiss, Der Jakobusbrief und die neuere Kritik, 1904; E. Kiihl, Die Stellung des Jakobusbriefes zum alttestamentlichen Gesetz und zur Pauli- nischen Rechtfertigungslehre, 1905; B. Bartmann, St. Paulus und St. Jacobus tiber die Rechtfertigung (Biblische Studien, ii), Freiburg, 1897. The most striking fact about this epistle is the paucity in it of allusions and ideas and interests which were peculiar to any particular phase of early Christianity and which would indicate the origin and date of the writing. The book is by no means colourless, either in its religious or its moral aspects, but it is, for the most part, of very general applicability, a trait which gives it its curiously modern sound. ‘This circumstance 28 JAMES has given rise to a great divergence of critical opinion about the book, and the task of the critic is to find the place and time at which the absence of such references can be best accounted for without doing injustice to the few positive indications which the book contains. It is, indeed, true that in a tract like this, not sent to meet the needs of any particular moment or crisis in a definite church, but aiming at the edification of any Christians into whose hands it might fall, a general treatment and but little allusion to specific conditions might be expected. Further, in any short tract of practical rather than systematic character not all sides of the writer’s thought will be represented. Yet in James the discussion relates to so great a number of eminently concrete matters, and takes in so wide a range of religious thought, that it can hardly fail to give us a tolerable notion of the main ideas which were most important to the writer’s religious life. In this respect it will bear comparison with many of the epistles of Paul or the Apostolic Fathers. We have a right to believe that the epistle offers a picture, not indeed complete, but yet fair and trustworthy, of the writer’s religious position. And for that, as well as for the outward circumstances in which he wrote, the silences of the epistle are highly significant and must be given full weight. The historical background of the epistle has two aspects: (a) the religious ideas which underlie the writer’s practical re- ligious exhortations, and (6) the general character and situation of the Christians, as known to the writer and implied in the book. (a) The Ideas. The writer’s religious position is fundamentally that of later Judaism. But it is to be observed that herein he shows no trait of specific “‘ Jewish Christianity,” such as would distin- guish him from early Christians generally, whether of Jewish or Gentile origin. He nowhere betrays any pride in or loyalty to the Jewish people (contrast Paul, Rom. 9!-5, Eph. 21-12, etc.), never hints at any duties to the temple or its sacrifices, gives no sign that he observes or values the Pharisaic ideals of puri- THE EPISTLE 29 fication or the Sabbath or the dietary regulations. This might, indeed, be explained as due to full agreement among the Jewish Christians who constituted his environment, so that these fun- damental things could be taken for granted and hence were not alluded to. And the same reason can be given for the absence of any reference to circumcision or to the exclusive privileges of the Jews in the favour of God. Yet even so, these omissions prove that the question of whether it was or was not necessary for Christians (or even for Jewish Christians) to be circumcised and observe the Mosaic law was not an important subject of dispute in those places at that time. The writer is simply not concerned about faithfulness in these matters; they do not occur to him (cf. chs. 4, 5) as points at which lack of complete devotion to God may naturally show itself. Either, then, he did not hold to those things which marked off “Jewish Christians,” properly so called, from other Christians, or else no controversy about them touched his circle. The latter pos- sibility is unlikely, because in a body of Jewish Christians who were so completely devoted to these aspects of Judaism as would in that case be supposed (cf. Acts 21%), it is unlikely that a “writing of this practical tendency would be wholly devoid of any reference to them. On the other hand, a strong Jewish substratum, such as we find here, was common to early Chris- tianity at Gentile as well as at Jewish centres. We may fairly conclude that the writer was not a partisan “Jewish Christian.” The writer’s main ideas of Jewish origin can easily be put to- gether from the epistle. They are by no means meagre, and touch on many sides of religion. He believes in one God, the creator and father of men (219 3%) and of the universe (117), who is holy (113), from whom only good gifts come to men, and who is the source of all good (1* 17), in whose hands are all our ways (415). God is merciful (511), hears prayer (157 4°*- 513-18) forgives sin (515 Ὁ), A Judgment is coming upon all men (212 42 559), and it is our duty strictly to observe God’s law (121-25 2812 41), of which a knowledge has been given us and by which we shall be judged (21%). A favourable issue for any man in this Judgment is called “justification” (2% 23 1). To 30 JAMES be “‘saved” and to be “justified”? seem to refer to the same experience (215 24, cf. 174 412 5%). The writer plainly thinks of this justification as given to a sincerely good man who loves God (112 2°). Such a man will be repentant for his imperfec- tions (516), and will receive the forgiveness (51°) of a merciful Lord and Father (3°). It is, of course, assumed that the persons in question are, or profess to be, men of faith (214 #-), members of the people of God (1!) ; the writer is not thinking of heathen, nor discussing the question of the eternal destiny of Socrates. Those who love God can look forward to life as their crown of reward (1!) and to the inheritance of a kingdom (25). To possess the Law of God, which is able to save our souls (121), is a privilege and joy (125 212). In this law the ten com- mandments and other precepts of the O.T. occupy a chief place (2°11), however much they may or may not be supple- mented by other teaching and by Christian interpretation. The devil (47) and our own wicked impulses (114 ‘-) bring us to sin, and all men do sin (32); unforgiven sin issues in death (115 52°), and the torment of a future punishment is mentioned (5?-®). God requires complete devotion (esp. 4!-), a faith in himself which does not waver in its determination to hold fast to him (1°8) in spite of trials (12-4 1). A sharp contrast exists between God and the world (44), heaven and earth (315), and with the world and the earth the writer associates the realm of demons (315). Wisdom is a gift of God, and that it is indispensable for men in general, and particularly for teachers (313-17), is taken for granted (1°). Among the duties prominent in the writer’s mind are care for the poor, sick, and needy (127 215 1- 514), attention to the erring (5!9'-), impartiality to poor and rich (2!-4), peace- ableness and gentleness (17 f- 413-18) manifold self-restraint in speech (126 3212 411:-2 59, 12) The writer has a strong sense of human personal responsi- bility, of the importance of man’s will, and of his power by God’s help to put forth moral effort and succeed in the achievement of _ character. Good works (there is no hint that among these he includes ritual or Pharisaic acts of piety, but, on the other THE EPISTLE 31 hand, no clear indication that he consciously rejects them) are necessary to please God (12 7° 212, 1426 318), A living faith can be recognised by the good works of the believer (21%). It does not exist where there are no accompanying works. Faith without works is dead. For a striking statement of the general attitude of the Jew in these matters, see C. G. Montefiore, Judaism and St. Paul, 1914, pp. 34-44. The whole description given by Montefiore of the religious attitude of the average rabbinical Jew would in most respects well sum up the fundamental ideas of the Epistle of James. The language of James can be illustrated at countless points from Philo, as the commentary shows, but not even the contrast of heavenly and earthly (3:5) shows any real contact with the specific ideas of Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism. The poor and lowly have been chosen by God for his own (25), and have high privilege (1°); the rich are fortunate only when they lose their wealth (1), they are selfish, lacking in the requisite complete devotion to God, and cruel (5°); and God hates the proud (4%). The desire for riches and pleasure leads to every evil (4!-*) and alienates from God (42). Certain Jewish religious ideas, it will be noticed, are absent here (besides the omissions already mentioned), including some, like the Spirit of God and angels, which had an important place in the Christian inheritance from Judaism. But the whole con- stitutes a substantial and inclusive system of religious thought, and it is noteworthy how many religious ideas are introduced in so short a tract. In discussing a moderate number of topics, the writer has found occasion to reveal with surprising fulness his positive religious conceptions and beliefs. In such a docu- ment, as will be seen later, conspicuous omissions are likely not to be accidental, but to indicate the absence of the ideas from the writer’s thinking or, at any rate, their relative unimpor- tance for his vital religion. In addition to this Jewish body of thought the epistle con- tains a few references to specifically Christian beliefs. The writer describes himself (1!) as ‘‘a worshipper of the Lord Jesus 32 JAMES Christ”; the faith which he shares with his readers is “in our Lord Jesus Christ of glory” (2'). As with Paul, it is not easy to be sure when “the Lord”’ refers to God and when to Christ, but the writer bids his readers continue in the hope of “the coming of the Lord,’’ evidently meaning Christ (57-8). That he also means Christ by “the Lawgiver and Judge” (412), and “the Judge” (5°) is perhaps not likely, but the fair name which they bear and which is blasphemed by the rich who oppress them (27) is undoubtedly that of Christ, and it is probably in his name (514) that the elders anointed the sick with oil. Jesus, then, is the Messiah, and is Lord; he abides in divine glory, and will come to judge all men and save those who love God. The Christians are probably meant by the first-fruits of God’s crea- tures (118), whom he begat by his word of truth, that is, by the complete revelation of his law in the form in which Christian understanding receives it. They have now taken the place, and received the attributes, formerly held by the Jews as the people of God (1!). These Christian references are not very numerous, but they are unmistakable, and relate to the most fundamental points of primitive Christian belief. As is natural, it is chiefly, though not exclusively, in Christian connections that the es- chatological side of the writer’s thought comes out. The Chris- tian elements are entirely germane to the ideas of Jewish origin and fuse with the latter in one consistent and comprehensible system. | That the Epistle of James was written not by a Christian at all but by a Jew, and that it has suffered interpolation at 11 and 21, is elaborately argued in the valuable book of F. Spitta, Der Brief des Jakobus, 1896; and the same idea was independently worked out by L. Massebieau, “L’épitre de Jacques est-elle l’ceuvre d’un Chrétien?” in Revue del’ His- toire des Religions, xxxii, 1895, pp. 249-283. Hardly a single scholar besides these two has been led to adopt the theory. The reasons which have seemed decisive against it are the following: (1) The interpolation of the words referring to Christ in τὶ is not suggested by anything in the sentence. In 2! the phrase is, indeed, awkward, but is not intolerable. (2) The passages of the epistle interpreted above as Christian are an integral part of the structure of the letter, and in the case of most THE EPISTLE BG of them Spitta’s attempt to show that the language was equally pos- sible for a Jew is unsuccessful. Note also the surely Christian refer- ence to “the elders of the church” (514). Again, if the discussion of faith and works in 214-25 implies a polemic against Paul or Paulinists, that is conclusive for the Christian origin of the epistle; and the position of recognised primary significance assumed for faith in 13 and 25 is both characteristic of Christian thinking and unlikely for a non-christian Jewish writer. (3) The epistle contains nothing whatever which positively marks it as distinctively Jewish. There is no sentence which a Jew could have written and a Christian could not; its Jewish ideas are without exception those that a Christian could hold. This peculiar stamp of thought would, if Jewish, be almost, if not quite, without example among Jewish writers; while to suggest that the strictly Jewish parts have been excised by the Christian interpolator supposes a degree of literary activity on his part not contemplated in the original theory and dangerous to its integrity. The idea of a Christian editor largely modifying a previous Jewish document is a theory which would have little to commend it as against the usual notion of a Christian writer freely using congenial Jewish material. Important criticisms of Spitta’s views are those of E. Haupt, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken, \xix, 1896, pp. 747-768; Harnack, CaL, i, 1897, pp. 485-491; Zahn, Einleitung, 1897, ὃ 8, note 7; Mayor, IQIO, pp. Cxcii-—cciii. In this system of thought, however, in which the fundamental ideas of primitive Christianity appear in union with a form of Judaism, simple, rational, and free from Jewish nationalist and partisan traits, we are struck by the absence of many elements which quickly became common, and some which are universal, in other early Christianity. First, and most noticeable, is the ab- sence of any mention whatever of the death of Christ. There is no reference to it either as constituting a problem (cf. Lk. 2418-27, Acts 273 318 773 2623, τ Cor. 1”), as the means of men’s salvation, or even as a significant event in the history of Jesus Christ. In this omission our author stands in contrast with practically every other writer of the N. T. and with the Apos- tolic Fathers save Hermas, and the substance of his epistle forbids the explanation that he had no occasion to make such a reference. That the writer thought of salvation as to be brought to believers through Christ at his coming (57) is evi- wees 34 JAMES dent, but it is equally plain that he had no vivid consciousness, and perhaps no clear thought at all, of any relation of Christ’s death to God’s saving grace. Here we have a striking contrast to Paul. And this contrast _ is borne out by other omissions. Paul’s doctrine held to a radical change produced by faith. The old man is put off, the Christian has become a new creature, he is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, and Christ dwells in him, he is free from bondage to sin, is already justified, and may count on complete salvation through the power of God, the supernatural forces meanwhile showing their presence in his new ability to do right. The realistic and literal meaning of all this in Paul’s thought is not to be minimised. But of this whole conception _ of miraculous entrance on a new mode of existence through - complete transformation by an initiation nothing appears in ; James. This whole method of viewing religion is alien to his ) way. He believes in God’s help, but without any mysticism whatever. And he probably makes no reference to the Holy Spirit (see note on 45). The omission of many of the individual ideas which find expression in Paul’s epistles would not be significant, but this broad contrast in the general view of the religious life is important, for (apart from the phraseology of James’s discussion of faith and works) all the positive ideas of James, taken individually, would have been highly satisfactory to Paul. The only exception to what has just been said of the absence of this essential side of Paul’s thought from James is the figure of birth for becoming a Christian (118). But this is expressed by a term (ἀπεκύησεν) not found in Paul and foreign to the technical use (avayévynots) of the early Gentile church. It implies only that the Christians have succeeded to the Jew- ish privilege of “sons of God,” and does not carry us into the circle of Pauline ideas referred to above. The use of the term Lord ({4] κύριος) for Jesus Christ (1: 21 5% 14), although characteristic of Paul, was not original with him, and marana tha (τ Cor. 1622, Didache 10*) shows that it had early become current with Aramaic-speaking Christians and must have been widely used. ‘THE EPISTLE 35 Its use does not imply other Hellenistic ideas. See W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 1913, Pp. 103, note 3; J. Weiss, Christus, 1909 (Eng. transl. 1911); H. Bohlig, “Zum Begriff Kyrios bei Paulus,” in Zé. fir neutest. Wissenschaft, xiv, 1913, PP. 23-37- While James and Paul thus stand in this sharp contrast, no hint appears in James of controversy with Pauline Christianity over the validity of the Jewish law, nor of attack on Paul personally. In 2!426 James is not engaged in doctrinal con- troversy, but is repelling the practical misuse which was made, or which might be made, of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone in order to excuse moral laxity. James shows no comprehension of what Paul actually meant by his formula; but the formula itself is foreign to him, and he heartily dis- likes it. The relation to Paul implied in 214-35 is the most discussed subject in connection with the epistle. Large references to the abundant litera- ture may be found in B. Bartmann, St. Paulus und St. Jacobus tiber die Rechifertigung (Biblische Studien, ii), 1897, pp. 1-17. That James wrote after Paul’s doctrine had become well known to the church must be admitted, for he quotes exactly Paul’s formula (23: 24, cf. Gal. 218, Rom. 328), and this formula was the outgrowth of the most original element of Paul’s system and is alien to earlier Jewishthought. Whether James shows signs of having gained his knowledge of Paul from actually reading Paul’s epistles cannot be determined. His language is probably capable of explanation on the assumption that he had not read them, and his entire failure to suggest that Paul’s formula could be dissociated from its misuse shows at least that he had paid surprisingly little atten- tion to Romans and Galatians. Most of the discussions of the relation of James to Paul err through the inability of their authors to separate themselves from modern the- ological issues and the method of modern theological definition. Cer- tainly James did not understand Paul’s motive for insisting that justi- fication is by faith alone and not by works, and he resists a doctrine which seems to him to mean that good conduct can safely be neglected by a Christian. But he has no idea of disparaging faith, which he everywhere assumes as present and which he highly values. His point is that faith and works are inseparable in any properly constituted Christian life, and he argues this clearly and effectively. That he sup- posed the false inference, which threatened morality, to be a necessary consequence of Paul’s formula is not certain, though not unlikely. Paul himself would have had no quarrel with James’s positive con- 36 JAMES tention about morality, although he might have preferred to describe good conduct as “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 522!-) rather than as the evidence of a living faith (Jas. 218); but he would have deplored as utterly superficial and inadequate James’s mode of stating the con- ditions of justification. There has been much discussion as to whether Paul and James meant the same thing by the terms “justification,” “works,” and “faith.” As to “justification,” the idea clearly is the same, although Paul’s pe- culiar use of it in his system, whereby it pertains to the initial moment of the Christian life and not merely to the day of judgment, is wholly foreign to James. In “works”? Paul would have included the good conduct to which James refers, but when he speaks of “works of the law’? he often has prominently in mind such ritual requirements as circumcision, which are not at all what James is referring to. As to “faith,” there is no difference of “concept,” for James has no special “concept’’ of faith, but is talking of the act or state popularly called faith ; it is not a question of definition, but of observation. If it be true that Paul would have denied the name of faith to the “dead” faith of which James speaks, that is because he had changed and en- larged the connotation, and so reduced the denotation, of the term. Paul and James move in this matter in different circles of thought, and the attempt to superimpose one circle on the other in order to deter- mine their agreement or disagreement in detail is futile. They can be compared only in the large. Then it appears that the two writers are at one on the moral question; and that the substance of James’s own theology is all contained in Paul’s, while he lacks everything that made Paul’s view distinctive and original. The same relation sub- sists here that appears in nearly every other comparison between James and kindred thinkers. As there is no contact, friendly or otherwise, with the Hellen- istic, or mystical, side of Paul’s thought and no controversy with Paul personally,* so there is naturally no suggestion either of gnostic tendencies or of polemic against them. In the Johan- nine literature gnosticising conceptions everywhere affect the method of thought, even though a vigorous argument is carried on against the results of their dangerous tendencies. James lives in a different atmosphere. Allusion to gnostic tendency has been found in the contrast of true and false wisdom (313-18), the word ψυχική (315), the use of τέλειος (14 17 25 32), the blame of God for temptation (11%), the disrespect for * Neither 2329 nor ch. 3 can possibly have reference to Paul. THE EPISTLE 37 and judging of the law (4", Cerdon and Marcion), the misuse of the Pauline doctrine of faith (214-26); but no one of these implies such no- tions. See Pfleiderer, Urchristentum?, 1902, ii, 545-547, for a statement of that view, which has exercised considerable influence; cf. Grafe, Stellung und Bedeutung des Jakobusbriefes, 1904, p. 44. There is no inclination to asceticism in the epistle, for the praise of the poor and condemnation of the rich and the re- quirement of a radical choice between God and the world are no more ascetic, in any proper sense of the term, than are the sayings of Jesus on these subjects. No sacramental tendency shows itself. No speculative interest appears in any direction. The eschatology is incidental and undeveloped. And the post- apostolic notion sometimes ascribed to James, of Christianity as a body of doctrine to be believed (“the faith,” “fides quae creditur’”’), and correspondingly of faith as an “‘intellectualistic”’ acceptance of propositions, is not at all the ‘‘dead” faith of which James speaks.* The demons’ faith in one God stands, in fact, at the opposite pole from this “‘intellectualism”’; for as a faith in God’s existence and power it is sincere and real; its fault lies in its complete divorce from love or an obedient will. When we make a comparison with the Apostolic Fathers the positive traits which give definite character to the thinking of every one of them are all lacking in James. Most of these have been included in the summary of things absent already given, but the entire absence of allegory is a striking addition that can be made to the list. Indeed, James exhibits not one distinctly marked individual theological tendency which would set him in positive relation to any of the strong forces either of the apostolic or of the post-apostolic period. His simple-minded and robust emphasis on the power and duty of a right funda- mental choice and of right action, and his way of describing his religion as God-given “‘law,”’ are the two most distinctive the- ological ideas in the epistle. The latter of these has, indeed, reminded critics of the doctrine of the new law and the new Lawgiver in the Apostolic Fathers and elsewhere.t But James * This error is common and has led to many unwise inferences about relative dates. ἡ For instance, cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, pp. 361, note 3, 368-373; F. Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, pp. 92 f. 118, 123 f. 38 JAMES does not make this the starting-point of a theology, or an im- portant principle of his christology. No more does he carry what might readily have become a doctrine of works and of the human will a step beyond the simple expression of sincere moral earnestness. The many parallels between James and the Apos- tolic Fathers* are due to the share that both have in the com- mon stock of moral and religious ideas which Christianity took over from Judaism; they are given a false prominence by the lack in James of distinctive religious ideas which would have sharply marked him off from these kindred thinkers. A large dependence on the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels has often been found in the epistle. An exhaustive list and full discussion of those parallels is given by Spitta.f Most of them, as Spitta rightly contends, have no bearing on the question, being merely verbal or else due only to common relation to Jewish ideas. The following, however, are worth noting; the context should be examined in each case. Jas. 15: αἰτείτω. ... καὶ δοθήσεται Mt. 7’, Lk. 11% αἰτεῖτε χαὶ δοθήσεται 3 αὐτῷ. ὑμῖν. Jas. 25: τοὺς πτωχοὺς... χληρο- Mt. 5%: μαχάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ «νεύματι, γόμους τῆς βασιλείας. ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἣ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, cf. Lk. 6% (οἱ πτωχοῦ. Jas. 318: tots ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην. Mt. 5°: μαχάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί. Jas. 44: μοιχαλίδες. Mk. 83: ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ μοιχαλίδι (cf. Mt. 1239 164), Jas. 518: ἄγε viv of πλούσιοι Lk. 6%: πλὴν οὐαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις, ὅτι κτλ. ἀπέχετε τὴν παράχλησιν ὑμῶν. Jas. 512 (oaths). Mt. 534-37, Some of these parallels (especially the last one) may well be cases of direct influence from a word of Jesus, and there may also be influence from his words hidden in some of the slighter parallels. But more significant than these single and disputable * Conveniently collected in Mayor, ch: 2. } Der Brief des Jakobus, 1896, pp. 155-183. THE EPISTLE 39 points is the broad fact that we find James following some of the larger interests of the Synoptic Gospels and entirely un- touched by others. His ever-recurring insistence on doing, both in itself and in contrast to merely hearing or saying, rep- resents the same type of religion which has so chosen the sayings in the Gospels (especially Matthew) as to emphasise exactly the same point. (Mt. 721-23, Lk. 646, Mt. 72427, Lk. 647-4, Mt. 25%!-46, etc.) So also with the value set on poverty and the warning to the rich, with the injunctions to prayer, to complete devotion to God (Mt. 635-34), to restraint in judging and in unkind speech, and with other topics. These are mostly ideas natural to devout Judaism; the point to be noted is the special and strong interest in them found alike in the compilers of the Gospels (or of their source) and in James. Yet equally conspicuous is James’s omission of some of the chief motives which have produced the Synoptic Gospels. Not only does he, like other early writers, but in more complete measure than they, fail to use the traits of Jesus’ life and character, even where they would have been particularly apt for reinforcement of moral and religious appeal, but the absence of the term Son of Man, and of the idea of the Kingdom of God as an important structural element in his thought, separate James from the Synoptic type on the side of the sayings, while the comparative absence of eschatological interest and the entire absence of in- terest in the death of Christ (those great commanding topics which so largely dominate the Markan side of the Synoptic tradition) forbid the supposition that from the same circle and age could have come both a gospel like Matthew or Luke (to say nothing of Mark) and the Epistle of James. James was in religious ideas nearer to the men who collected the sayings of Jesus than to the authors of the Gospels, but his religious in- terests are not identical with those of either group. (b) The Situation. We must now turn to the general character and situation of the Christians whose needs and tendencies guided the compo- sition of the epistle. Here we get no help from the address Perec imams, 40 JAMES in 11, The tract is not a letter sent to a definite group of in- dividuals, and by “the twelve tribes in the dispersion” were meant any Christians anywhere who might read the book. We have to suppose that the author has in view general Christian conditions, as he knew them where he lived and as he supposed them to exist elsewhere. The Christians who are in mind evidently consisted mainly of poor and humble folk, living along with other persons much better off who appear to have been large farmers (53) ; travelling traders are also a familiar class (4134-). These Christians are subject to troubles such as might shake their faith in Providence (x2), but are not represented as exposed to any direct religious persecution. The rich, indeed, are mostly hostile to Christian- ity, and are oppressors of the poor through the courts and by other methods (2°!- 54), but nothing indicates that their op- pression was religious persecution. In 1" the rich man is a brother, but apparently exceptional (cf. 2°) ; in 2! the rich man is not a Christian, and the rich of 25 blaspheme the Christian name, while the apostrophe of 51-6 is clearly addressed to non-christians. The traits of these Christians, so far as mentioned in the epistle, are easily comprehensible. The writer offers, indeed, ‘no praise of his readers such as would be found in a Pauline let- ter; but that is part of its character as a diatribe. They have certain moral dangers, they need encouragement and warning; but it would be a mistake to suppose that the conditions known to the writer were those of any conspicuous demoralisation or monstrous worldliness. If some relied on their Christian pro- fession to make up for defect in Christian practise, the crime which draws out that censure is, after all, nothing graver than an excessive civility and truckling to rich strangers who ap- peared at their church meeting. Their quarrelsome propensi- ties seem to have been strongly developed in both word and act (39f- 13-16 41-8, 11 59), but more is not implied than the ordi- nary frictions and wrong speeches of decent, but somewhat un- governed, people. THE EPISTLE 4I Nothing worse is indicated here than took place at Thessa- lonica, at Corinth, at Philippi, at Jerusalem, in the earliest years of those churches, and we have no right to infer from the faults of James’s readers a relatively late stage in their Christian his- tory. Nothing in the epistle, it is true, refers to them as if they had lately come from Judaism or heathenism, or breathes the fresh enthusiasm of a newly planted church, and the sense of the very recent conversion of the readers which is often found in Paul is lacking (so even 118). But it is wrong to say that a condition of Christian life is here indicated so secularised as to imply a very long lapse of time since these Christian churches were founded. That these Christians lived among Jews, not as mission out- posts among the heathen, and were themselves Jews, is the im- plication of the whole epistle. There is no reference to idolatry, to slaves, to a generally accepted lax standard of sexual mo- rality, to any surrounding heathenism. In a heathen city their difficulties would have been likely to come from the police, or from neighbours poor like themselves and jealous; here the oppression is from the rich, who maltreat their work-people. The apostrophe to the rich (5!-*) is in language full of allusion to the O. T., as if those who are attacked might be expected (if they would but read) to feel the force of an appeal to the impartial severity of the Lord of Sabaoth in the Judgment and to the torments of fire in the last days. The Christian assem- bly is called a “synagogue ’”—not, perhaps, a decisive piece of evidence, but yet significant in confirmation of the rest. The picture in 51416 of the visit of the elders to the sick man with oil and prayer and confession is a curiously exact reproduction of what Jewish writers tell of Jewish ways. The sense of the pressing duty of almsgiving and of visiting the unfortunate are traits of a Jewish community. The knowledge of the O. T. everywhere assumed proves, however, no more here than at Corinth (cf. Clement of Rome), and the writer’s familiarity with Jewish midrashic embellishment of the O. T. stories (5!”) is significant rather for him than for his readers. That the conditions were those of Palestine seems directly im- 42 JAMES plied by the reference (57) to “the early and latter [rain].” Only in Palestine among the countries that come in question do the seasonal conditions produce the intensity of anxious hope to which this verse refers. By reason of just that intensity of feeling (as well as because of the comparative inconspicuousness of the few O. T. passages where these rains are mentioned) the phrase has every appearance of being not a literary allusion but a reference to a familiar fact of daily life. If the word καύσων in 1! means the sirocco, that would suit the climate of Palestine, or of other Oriental regions, but the word may mean merely “heat” and so give no specific implication. These Palestinian Jewish Christians formed an established re- ligious body, with a regular meeting, doubtless both for instruc- tion and for worship (cf. 1-2’), of which no secret was made and which outsiders were more than welcome to visit. They were numerous enough to be a community (not necessarily, nor probably, segregated from the rest of the city or village) in which social vices and virtues could exist (so ἐν ὑμῖν 41-3 515-16), They had elders (514), but there is no mention of bishops or deacons. They also had “teachers” (31), a class to which the writer himself belonged, which is well known in early Chris- tianity, and which persisted in Palestine until the third century (of. Ps.-Clement, Epistles to Virgins). What ch. 3 indicates concerning the functions and character of these teachers, as well as about the ideals to be cherished by them, need not be here recited. The general state of the country and the relations of these churches with their Jewish neighbours (other than the rich) are but little touched on in the epistle. The impression through- out the tract is of a settled condition of affairs. There is no indication of war or of public disturbance or calamity; no allusion is made to the Jewish war or to the destruction of Jerusalem. Agriculture and trade appear to be carried on in peace; the uncertainties of life are those of ordinary peaceful times. ‘There has been opportunity for the Christian churches to grow and establish themselves—mainly through winning converts among the humbler classes. Nothing in the epistle THE EPISTLE 43 implies a time of very active missionary work. The rich who blaspheme are evidently for the most part out of reach of Chris- tian influence (25:7); if one of them comes to the Christian meeting a flutter of officious attention arises in the congrega- tion. Argumentative apologetics do not show themselves in any way, whether in the choice or the treatment of religious topics—the contrast here to the writings of Paul is striking. Nor does any acute crisis in the relations of Christians and non-christians appear to exist; one would infer that the Chris- tians, although very possibly disliked, were tolerated and free to maintain their own activity and inner life, with their own officials and constituency, under the instruction of their own teachers. The Christians’ relations to non-christian neighbours who worship the same God and Father appear to be peaceful ; they can well be ruled by the same counsels which are primarily given with reference to mutual relations among Christians. B. Weiss has advanced an ingenious but untenable view, which is clearly and fully stated in his Jakobusbrief und die neuere Kritik, 1904, esp. pp. 17 ff. He holds that ch. 3 of the epistle is intended to correct unwise missionary methods (“falscher Bekehrungseifer’’) on the part of the Christians. Out of these, he thinks, arose also the internal troubles of which ch. 4 speaks. Nothing in the epistle seems to me to be in accord with this notion. Weiss builds it on the singular argu- ment that since there is no indication in the epistle of doctrinal di- versities within the church there was nothing that the “teachers” could teach to their fellow Christians. Hence they must have been missionaries to non-christians ! Nothing in the epistle suggests that the writer is especially familiar with conditions at Jerusalem. § 6. Tue ORIGIN OF THE EPISTLE. (a) History of Opinion as to the Author. M. Meinertz, Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser in Schrift und Ueberlieferung (Biblische Studien, x, 1-3), Freiburg, 1905; see infra, pp. 86-1009, “‘ History of the Epistle in the Church.” The views of modern scholars will be found well summarised in J. Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 1911, pp. 44 ‘JAMES 468-475; Beyschlag, Der Brief des Jacobus* (Meyer‘), 1897, pp. 23-273 see also Holtzmann, Einleitung®, 1892, pp. 336-338; Zahn, Eznleitung, § 8, with notes; Mayor, ch. 7. The first word of the epistle declares it to have been written by ‘James.’ But nothing indicates directly and explicitly which James is meant, and it is not even clear that the author is an apostle or that he is a person mentioned elsewhere in the N. T. The earliest known opinion on the person of the writer is that of Origen (zufra, pp. 92 f.), who understood the author to be James the Lord’s brother. This identification may well have come to him from tradition, and may have been shared by Clement, who probably was acquainted with the epistle (infra, pp. 91 f.) ; but of all that we have no positive knowledge whatever. In any case, this view became the standing opinion, with but few exceptions, in the churches, Greek, Latin, and Syrian, which successively adopted the epistle into their N. T. Eusebius, in stating that the epistle is not accepted by some churches, doubtless had in mind the Syrians and perhaps the Latins, but he does not intimate that any one who held to its apostolic authorship attributed it to any other James than the Lord’s brother, and does not imply that he knew of any rival positive tradition. He himself seems to have accepted the epis- tle, as did Jerome, whose more definite statement is probably only a paraphrase of the remarks of Eusebius, H. e. ii, 23. Euseb. H. 6. ii, 2324! τοιαῦτα χαὶ τὰ χατὰ ᾿Ιάχωβον, οὗ ἣ πρώτη τῶν ὀνομαζομένων καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται" ἰστέον de ὡς νοθεύεται μέν, οὐ πολλοὶ γοῦν τῶν παλαιῶν αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσαν. Η. 6. ili, 253 τῶν δ᾽ ἀντιλεγομένων, γνωρίμων δ᾽ οὖν ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς, ἣ λεγομένη ᾿Ιαχώβου φέρεται χαὶ ἡ ᾿Ιούδα, 4H τε Πέτρου δευτέρα “ve χαὶ ἣ ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα χαὶ τρίτῃ ᾿Ιωάννου. Jerome, De vir. ill. 2, Jacobus qui appellatur frater domini, cogno- menio Justus, ut nonnulli existimant, Joseph ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariae, sororis matris dominit, cujus Johannes in libro suo meminit, filius, post passionem domini statim ab apostolis Hieroso- lymorum episcopus ordinatus, unam tantum scripsit epistulam, quae de septem catholicis est, quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita adseritur, licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem. Nearly all succeeding writers of ancient and medieval times, whether they follow the Epiphanian or the Hieronymian theory THE EPISTLE 45 of the personal relationship to Jesus of James the Lord’s brother, ascribe to him the epistle. In most instances, indeed, the au- thor is referred to simply as “James the apostle,” but many writers (6. g. Chrysostom, Andrew of Crete, Rufinus, Prosper of Aquitaine, Gregory of Tours, Bede, Bar-Hebreus) make it clear that James the Lord’s brother is intended. In a very few cases the author of the epistle is taken to be James son of Zebedee. Thus the tenth century (so Gebhardt) Latin Codex Corbeiensis has a subscription to the epistle: Explicit epistola Jacobi filii Zebedei ; and a series of Spanish writers, headed by Isidore of Seville, 1636, and running down to the seventeenth century, have been led by national patriotism to claim the epistle for their apostle and patron, St. James of Compostella (the son of Zebedee). This tendency is to be observed in the, Mozarabic liturgy ; and through some channel (perhaps popu- lar rather than learned) it has reached Dante (Paradiso, xxv, 13- 18, 29-33, 76-78, 94f.). But in general there was no departure from the traditional view; and down to the sixteenth century, *€ nothing to the contrary is indicated, a reference to “ James the apostle” as author of the epistle is to be taken as meaning James the Lord’s brother. Meinertz, op. cit. pp. 211-215, Zahn, Einleitung, § 5, note 3. The pref- ace to the Catholic epistles printed in the editio princeps of the Peshitto (ed. Widmanstad, 1555) has not been confirmed from any ancient Syriac Ms. and is probably no older than that edition. It reads: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ we print three epistles of James, Peter, and John, who were witnesses of the revelation of our Lord when he was transfigured before their eyes on Mount Tabor, and who saw Moses and Elijah who talked with him.” With the Reformation came criticism of the Epistle of James and corresponding variety in the views of its authorship. Eras- mus and Cajetan were in doubt, while many Lutherans wholly denied apostolic authorship, and Luther himself was disposed to ascribe the epistle to ‘some good pious man who had taken some sayings from the apostles’ disciples” (Sémmil. Werke, Erlangen ed., vol. lxiii, p. 157). The possibility that the epistle was written by James son of Alphzus (distinguished from the 46 JAMES Lord’s brother) also came into view. But in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Protestant opinion settled back into the traditional view, holding the epistle to be genuine and to be the work of the Lord’s brother. No Protestant writer of influ- ence has ever taken up the cause of the son of Zebedee, or of the son of Alphzus (as distinct from the Lord’s brother), for neither of which views, indeed, can anything be said. For Roman Catholic writers the decree of the Council of Trent merely determined that the epistle must be accepted as by an “apostle James,” and the obiter dictum (Sess. xiv, Doc- trina de sacramento extremae unctionis, ch. 1, De institutione sacra- menti extremae unctionis) which referred to extreme unction as per Jacobum autem apostolum ac. domini fratrem fidelibus com- mendatum ac promulgatum, did not restrict Catholics to a corre- sponding view of the epistle. This left room for the Spanish opinion in favour of the son of Zebedee, as well as for the uncertainty of Cornelius ἃ Lapide, +1637, and others; but these exceptions are rare, and in the nineteenth century it does not appear that any Roman Catholic writer on the epistle attributed it to any other author than James the Lord’s brother. Modern Protestant criticism of the epistle begins with the first edition of De Wette’s Eznleitung, 1826, in which its apos- tolic origin was roundly denied. Later scholars are mainly divided between those who accept the epistle as a genuine work of James the Lord’s brother (on Protestant ideas about his per- sonality, see infra, p. 59) and those who attribute it to an un- known writer of a later generation. Occasionally this rejection proceeded from orthodox Lutheran motives like those of the sixteenth century,* but in most instances the rejection of the apostolic origin of the Epistle of James goes with the critical rejection of other traditions as to the N. T. literature. The name of James son of Zebedee has found but few to support it; * So, perhaps, Kahnis, Die lutherische Dogmaitik, i', 1861, pp. 533 .f., who thinks the epistle written by a Jewish Christian in direct polemic against Paul, but does not explicitly deny that James the Lord’s brother was the author. For other instances, see Meinertz, pp. 255 7. THE EPISTLE 47 and the view urged by Spitta and Massebieau that the writer was not a Christian but a Jew has met with small favour. If the writer was not an apostle, three views are possible: (1) that the writer was an otherwise unknown James, (2) that the first verse is a later addition, (3) that the epistle was from the start pseudepigraphic. All these views are represented among Prot- estant scholars. Those who hold the author to be James the Lord’s brother assign the epistle either to a date before c. 50 (so Beyschlag, Zahn, Mayor, and many others) or to one shortly before the death of James (62 or a little later), and naturally think of Jerusalem as the place of composition. Among critics who reject the apostolic authorship, the dates given show wide variation, but are seldom earlier than go or later than 130, al- though a few carry the possible date down as late as 150. As to the place, these critics are for the most part divided between Palestine and Rome. (Ὁ) Conclusions. , From the study of the internal evidence given by the his- torical background and ideas of James must be drawn what we can know of the date and authorship of the epistle. Ex- ternal evidence carries us only to the point that the epistle was probably not written later than 150 A.D. That would seem certainly implied by the belief of Origen that it was the work of James an apostle, even though his testimony to the actual authorship be not accepted. It is, indeed, probable that the epistle bore from the first the name of James, and that thereby was intended the brother of the Lord, but nothing in the epistle or in the conditions of literary production of that age forbids the idea that such a tract was originally pseudonymous. The title and the tradition offer the name of a conceivable author; but they create no overpowering presumption that he was the real one. Harnack, Lehre der Zwolf A postel (Texte und Untersuchungen, ii), 1884, pp. 106-109, CaL, i, 1897, pp. 485-491, holds that the epistle, written 120-150 A.D. as an anonymous compilation of earlier sayings, began with 1? and was not made over into an Epistle of James by the addition of 1! until toward the end of the second century. For this view, which is part of a theory that this process was applied to several A 48 JAMES N. T. writings, there is no evidence in the case of the Epistle of James. The first verse, if properly understood, makes a suitable opening to the tract, and even if it be held, as Harnack holds, that James the Lord’s brother cannot have written the epistle, neither anything in the epistle itself nor the literary custom of the time makes any difficulty in supposing it a pseudonymous religious tract. Against the theory appeal is made to the apparent relation of χαράν (v.?) to χαίρειν (v.41); it is also said that an editor introducing at so late a date an attribution to James would have made it unmistakable which James was intended (cf. Zahn, Einleitung, ὃ 8, note 1). These counter-arguments are not conclusive, but Harnack’s theory is still less convincing. We may sum up the pertinent points in the internal evi- dence already discussed. The writer and the readers whom he expected to reach by his tract. were Greek-speaking Jewish Christians in Palestine. The churches are apparently past the earlier stages of their life; they had been formed not very re- cently and are living under settled conditions among Jewish neighbours as an accepted part of the whole Palestinian com- munity. Neither life nor thought in the church is dominated by passionate missionary effort. No crisis seems present in the internal affairs of these believers; and there is no indication of public disturbance or of recent or impending calamity in civil matters. The great controversy over the Law, of which we read in the Acts and the epistles of Paul, is no longer rife. The writer himself writes Greek with entire facility, and has become so familiar with the literary type of the Hellenistic di- atribe that he can freely use it (evidently not for the first time here) as the vehicle of his Christian admonitions. He is him- self, no doubt, a Jew, but accustomed to read the O. T. in the Septuagint version. His main ideas are Jewish, and his dis- tinctively Christian thinking primitive though unmistakable. Religion appears to him mainly in the guise of a noble spiritual Law. He is later than Paul, of whose formulas he disapproves without understanding their real purpose. Singularly devoid of contact with the progressive movements which were else- where developing toward second-century Christian thought, he does not descry within his horizon, still less contain in himself, THE EPISTLE 49 any of the germinant heresies of the age. Even the tenden- cies which led the exclusive and stagnant form of Jewish Chris- tianity to solidify itself into a heresy are alien to him. He represents an admirable type of Christianity, but one of ex- traordinary intellectual isolation. These internal indications are best satisfied by supposing that the epistle was written by a Christian teacher in some half- hellenistic city of Palestine, in the period of quiet after the de- struction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.* and before the disturbances which culminated in the rebellion of Bar-Cochba, 132-135 A.D. For a closer dating than 75-125 A.D. the epistle seems to pro- vide no aid. As to the place of origin the epistle is wholly without sug- gestion, and a number of towns in Palestine could show the required conditions. A good example is Cesarea, the Roman capital. Here was a Romanised city containing a population partly Jewish, partly heathen, in which the writer’s contact with Hellenistic moral preaching would be easily supposable, but where the Christians would not have found themselves out of relation to Jewish life. Christians existed at Cesarea from an early time (Acts 10 f. 21% 15), and its continued importance as a Christian centre is attested by the references in the Clem- entine Recognitions. No sufficient reason exists for thinking that the author of the Epistle of James actually lived here, but it happens that more is known about Cesarea than about most similar places, and it is instructive to find that its known cir- cumstances would well account for the origin of the epistle.f Much the same could be said of Tiberias, if there were any such tradition of Christians there. The general view here stated of the time and place of origin of the Epistle of James excludes the traditional authorship by *A date earlier than the Jewish war is unlikely because the epistle ignores the Pauline controversy over the law while it yet shows a knowledge of Pauline formulas. + On Czesarea, see Schiirer, GJV, ὃ 23, I, 9 (and other references in the Index); G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land’, pp. 138 ff.; JE, art. ““Cesarea”; EB, art. “ Cesarea.”’ 1 On Tiberias, see Schiirer, GJV, ὃ 23, I, 33. 50 JAMES James the Lord’s brother. Is this indirect result confirmed by any convincing direct evidence? Such proof is difficult to get because so little is known of James’s ideas or character; yet two special considerations tend to make it unlikely that the author was James. (1) The first is the writer’s contact with Hellenism. Not only is the epistle written in a Greek style better than that of most writers of the N. T., but the writer shows a contact with Greek modes of public preaching and with Greek ideas and illustrations which would not be expected in a Galilean peasant whose experience of the world, even in the period of his broadest activity, came through his leadership of the Christians at Jerusalem. And this remains true, even when all necessary deductions have been made for the later and legendary nature of the ascetic traits with which the description given by Hege- sippus has endowed the “bishop of Jerusalem.” (2) The second point has to do with what we know of James the Lord’s brother’s religious attitude. He was deeply engaged with the questions directly arising out of the controversy be- tween Paul and the Judaisers (Acts 15, 2118#-, Gal. 21-19 212); and although he took a mediating position at Jerusalem, yet he was fully trusted as a leader by the crowds of Christians, “‘all zealous for the law,”’ who lived there, while the allusion in Gal. 213 surely indicates that his ideas of Jewish Christian observance of the Jewish dietary regulations were strict. But in the epistle all these questions lie completely outside the circle of the writer’s interest, extensive as that circle is. And this becomes of greater significance because the writer has in mind and discusses Paul’s formulas. He disapproves of them, but on other grounds than that which chiefly moved the Judaisers of Paul’s day, and caused that well-known controversy to be the life-and-death struggle of exclusive Jewish Christianity. Then the question was whether such “works” of the Law as circumcision, the dietary rules, and the Sabbath were requisite to justification ; now, without a hint of that question, the objection to Paul’s statement is that it seems to imply that men can be justified THE EPISTLE ΒῚ without showing any of the ““ψοῦκβ᾽᾿ of Christian love. It seems, to say the least, unlikely that a representative leader who had taken a great part in the earlier controversy should, within fifteen years, in discussing the same forms of statement, betray no consciousness whatever of that controversy or of its vital significance for the section of the church to which he be- longed. The writer of the epistle is anxious for the spiritual welfare of Jewish Christians; he shows no sign of any concern about the interests of Jewish Christianity. If, then, this epistle probably bore from the start the name of “‘ James, servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,” and yet is not from the pen of James, the well-known leader of Jewish Christianity, might we not suppose it to be the work of some otherwise unknown Palestinian Christian sharing this -not uncommon name? ‘This is undoubtedly possible; in view, however, of the conspicuous position and wide, heroic fame of the Lord’s brother, it does not seem likely. A Christian epistle bearing his name, with no special indication of the identity of the author, could hardly have been put out in Palestine in the first or early second century without seeming to the Christian public of that age to claim the authorship of the great James, just as it did in the time of Origen, a century later. And the literary customs of the time make the publication of a pseu- donymous epistle well conceivable, even for an earnest and sin- cere writer, at a time when James himself had been dead cer- tainly for fifteen years, perhaps for more than fifty. The origin here supposed for the epistle seems to accord well with its earliest history in the church. Produced after the apostolic period, in a secluded part of Christendom, and having no immediate significance for current controversy, it was pre- served in Palestine alone for nearly or quite a century. Then, its pseudonymous character in the meantime forgotten, it came to the knowledge of the Greek church either through being brought to Alexandria in the second century or through one of the visits of Origen to Palestine. The use of it in the pseudo- clementine Epzstles to Virgins of the third century may have 52 JAMES been due to its currency among Greek-speaking Christians in Palestine, where those epistles were written. Since our epistle was known to be an ancient book when it first came to the at- tention of Origen (or of Clement of Alexandria?), and since it purported to be written by James, apparently the Lord’s brother of that name, and since it contained nothing unworthy of such an origin, it was gradually accepted, first in Alexandria, then, as it became known more widely and with high authority recom- mending it, elsewhere in the Christian world. This process went on slowly because the church leaders were aware that the book was a newcomer which had not been read and valued in the church at large in the second century. The often-quoted statement of Jerome (quae et ipsa ab alto quodam sub nomine ejus edita adseritur) must not be taken to imply more knowledge than Jerome gained from Eusebius, and the latter’s statement means only that in his time the Syrian and Latin churches had not yet taken up the epistle into their canon. We cannot infer from Jerome that a tradition of the real authorship, or even of the pseudonymity of the epistle, had survived through the second century and come with it to Greek theologians and so to Jerome himself; see above, p. 44. For the significance of the Epistle of James in the history of early Christian thought it makes not much difference whether it was written by James the Lord’s brother about the year 60, or by another Palestinian teacher fifty years later. In either case the place of origin and the kind of Christians whose life the epistle reflects are the same, and the epistle itself shows how little development of Christian thought took place there in those decades. The historical importance of that phase of Christian history lies not in what came out of it but in the traces it reveals of still earlier Palestinian Christianity, and in its testimony to one of the many legitimate forms which Chris- tianity (and in this case very early Christianity) has assumed in its long history. JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER 53 APPENDIX ON JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER AND OTHER PERSONS NAMED JAMES. Acta Sanctorum, Maii, vol. i, pp. 18-34, Antwerp, 1680. A. H. Blom, Disputatio theologica inauguralis de ΤΟῚΣ AAEA®OIS et ΤΑΙ͂Σ AAEA®AIS TOY KYPIOY, Leyden, 1830. J. B. Lightfoot, ‘“‘The Brethren of the Lord,” in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, 1865, 1890, pp. 252-291. Theodor Zahn, “Briider und Vettern Jesu,” in Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, vi, 1900, pp. 225-364. Max Meinertz, Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser in Schrift und Ueberlieferung (Biblische Studien, x, 1-3), Freiburg, 1905. δι. NEW TESTAMENT PERSONS NAMED JAMES, The N. T. persons bearing the name of James are as follows: (1) James son of Zebedee and Salome, (elder?) brother of John, included in all four lists of the Twelve, and frequently referred to in the Gospels. He was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I in or before the year 44 A.D. (Acts 127). (2) James son of Alpheus, one of the Twelve (Mt. τοῦ, Mk. 338, Bk, 6), Acts 1*), (3) James the Lord’s brother. So described in Gal. 1%, and mentioned in 2% #2; doubtless the person referred to, as having seen the risen Lord, in 1 Cor. 15’. Evidently the same as James who appears as a leading Christian at Jerusalem in Acts 12” 158 2138, Cie Mk. 6 = Mt.,13*. (4) James ‘‘the less” (ὃ μικρός). His mother was Mary, and he had a brother Joses (Mk. 15% = Mt. 27°56, Mk. 16! = Lk. 24”). (5) James father (or, very improbably, brother) of Judas, the latter being one of the Twelve (Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου), Lk. 616, Acts 113, Instead of this Judas another name (either Thaddeus or Lebbzus) appears in the list of Mk. 318, copied in Mt. τοῦ. (6) James, by whom the Epistle of James claims to have been written (Jas. 11). (7) James brother of the Judas (Jude ν. 1) by whom the Epistle of Jude claims to have been written. Of these several persons named James, No. 1 (James son of Zebedee) and No. 2 (James son of Alphzus) are certainly distinct individuals, both names being found together in the lists of the Twelve Apostles. Of the career of James son of Alphzus, however, nothing whatever is known, at any rate under that name; and the 54 JAMES same is true of No. 4 (James the less) and No. 5 (James [father] of Judas), so that the way is open for identifying one or more of these three with No. 3, James the Lord’s brother, a man of note re- peatedly mentioned in the Acts and in Paul’s epistles. Such a combination, by which Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were regarded as a single individual, was made by Jerome toward the end of the fourth century, and has prevailed in the western church and with modern Roman Catholic scholars.* § 2. THE HISTORY OF OPINION. The history of opinion with regard to the relationships of James the Lord’s brother is of considerable interest. The most natural interpretation of the terms “‘brother’” (Mt. 1245, 47 7355 2810 [Ὁ]. Mk. 33 32 63, Lk, 81% 29. Jn. 212 7% δ, 10 2011 [Ὁ], Acts αἰ τ Cor.'o", ‘Gal. x") dad “sister” (Mt. τοῦ ΜΕΝ undoubtedly to take them as referring to children of Joseph and Mary, younger than Jesus. This is apparently implied} by the statement of Lk. 27 (cf. also Mt. 17°), that Mary ‘‘brought forth her firstborn son (τὸν υἱὸν τὸν πρωτότοχον) ,᾿᾽ and this view, often called the “‘Helvidian,’’ was perhaps the opinion of most persons in the Christian church of the second century. Origen implies that it was so, since he refers to the opposite opinion, which he himself held, as that of ‘‘some,”’ in apparent distinction from the majority (Tom. x, 17, on Mt. 13°); and Tertullian probably held the Lord’s brethren to have been the sons of Joseph and Mary (Contra Mar- cionem, iv, 19; De carne, 7). Zahn, Forschungen, vi, p. 319, cf. pp. 309-313, argues that Clement of Alexandria, Strom. vii, 16, 93f., likewise implies that the mass of simple Christians held to the “Helvidian”’ view; and holds that that view was maintained by Hegesippus. But the implication of Clement’s language does not carry so far as this, and as to the view of Hegesippus there is, in fact, no positive evidence whatever. By the fourth century, however, this opinion had been reduced to the grade of aheresy. In 376-377, when Epiphanius fulminates against it in a pastoral letter, which he later incorporated in his great work against heresies (Her. lxxvili, pp. 1034-1057; cf. Xxviil, 7; xxix, 1 f.; li, το; Ixvi, 19), it is only to comparatively unim- portant or out-of-the-way Christians, such as those in Arabia (or * The identification of James the Lord’s brother with James son of Zebedee has occasion- ally been made, but, as in Iren. Her. iii, 1215, only by a sheer mistake. + A clear statement of the opposite interpretation of Lk. 27 and Mt. 125 may be found in Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 270 ff. JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER ΓΙ possibly Agaria west of the sea οἵ Azov*), whom he dubbed Anti- dicomarianitae, or Bonosus of Sardica, or Jovinian that he can refer as instances. The views of all these were condemned as heretical, while Apollinaris of Laodicea, many of whose followers at least are said to have held to this opinion (Epiph. Her. lxxvii, 36; Ixxviii, 1), was himself a theologian of doubtful repute.{ Helvidius himself is an obscure person, known to us solely through Jerome’s refuta- tion of a treatise, written at Rome about the year 380, in which he maintained the view that goes by his name. He seems to have been a bold spirit, disaffected toward the current monkish asceti- cism; using chiefly the statements of the Gospels, he found him- self able to produce as older theological authorities only Tertullian and Victorinus of Pettau. He won some followers, but the day for his view had passed and was not to come again until the eigh- teenth century. Opposed to this ancient, so-called Helvidian, view of the matter, with its support in the natural implications of Scripture, was an- other theory, which is first found in certain apocryphal writings, and which, being more in accord with the prevailing sentiment, dominated the church of the fourth century and remains the usual doctrine in the Greek church to the present day. It is often called the “‘Epiphanian”’ doctrine, from its most painstaking defender in the fourth century (Epiph. Her. lxxvii, 36; Ixxviii, 1-24), but its origin lies as far back as the early second century. According to this theory, Mary had no other children than our Lord; the “brothers” and “sisters” were the children of Joseph by a former wife, brought up in the household of Joseph and Mary and reputed Jesus’ half-brothers. For the theory no direct evidence is to be found in the N. T.; it seems to derive its origin, and certainly gained its rapid spread, from the feeling of veneration for the Virgin Mary which has produced so vast an overgrowth of legends about her life. This was here conjoined with the far-reaching asceticism which, foreign to Judaism, came with Hellenism into Christian thought and life. Ascetic doctrine speedily supplemented the vir- gin birth by the perpetual virginity of Mary; hence a first wife had to be assumed as the mother of Joseph’s children. The ear- liest extant statement of this is found in the romance now known as the Protevangelium Jacobi, a fiction of the middle of the second century, in which it is said (ch. 9) that at the time of his betrothal to Mary Joseph was a widower more than eighty years old, with a number of children. A similar statement is said by Origen * So Zahn, Forschungen, vi, Ὁ. 306, note 2. ¢ Hilary of Poitiers ({ 366), Comm. in Mait. 14, calls those who held this opinion homines pravissimi. ᾿ ὃ 56 JAMES (Tom. x, τῇ, on Mt. 13°) to have been contained in the Gospel according to Peter (of date not far from the Protevangelium). It may have been the view of Clement of Alexandria, and was definitely affirmed by Origen himself, although he seems to be aware that it is supported only by these legendary authorities (deliramenta apocryphorum, as Jerome calls them), and that it rests solely on dogmatic or even sentimental grounds. Most of the early writers had no occasion to state by what theory they har- monised the doctrine of the perpetual virginity with the existence of brothers and sisters of the Lord, and therefore cannot be quoted on this question, but when Epiphanius wrote (not long before 380), he was able to assume that his own view was universally held by orthodox Christians. It is, indeed, explicitly stated by Hilary of Poitiers (+368) and ‘“‘Ambrosiaster” (c.375), and was the view of Ephraem Syrus,* Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, and, in the main, of Chrysostom (who, however, seems later to have inclined toward the equally orthodox theory of Jerome). Later Greek writers, with few exceptions, held to this tradition, and the calendars of the Greek, Syrian, and Coptic churches, which distinguish James the Lord’s brother from both of the apostles named James, are evi- dently in accord with this doctrine of the Apocrypha, of Origen, and of Epiphanius. This is the view accepted by the theologians of the oriental Orthodox churches at the present day. For the following note on the brethren of Jesus in Russidn theological literature I am indebted to Dr. Aurelio Palmieri: Most of the Russian writers accept the opinion of /St. Epiphanius, and hold that Joseph had six sons before his marriage’ with the Virgin. Among the Russian writers who hold this view are: Bieliaev, O sobornom poslanit ap. Jakova (The Catholic Epistle of St. J Lads Ctenia, held in the Society of the Friends of Ecclesiastical Progress, 1872, vol. i; Bishop Alexis (Novoslov), Vuedenie v poslanie Jakova (Introduction to the Epistle of St. James), ibid. 1877, vol. 11, p. 341; Jaroscevsky, Sobornoe poslanie Sv. Ap. Jakova (The Catholic Epistle of St. James), Kiev, got, p. 36; Glubokovsky, Blagoviestie khristianskoi svobody v poslanii Sv. Ap. Pavia k Galatam (The Gospel of Christian Liberty in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians), Petrograd, 1902, pp. 67-69; Orlin, Sobornoe poslanie Jakova (The Catholic Epistle of St. James), Riazan, 1903, p. 2; Glagolev, in Pravoslanaia bogoslovskaia entziklopedia. (Orthodox Theo- logical Encyclopedia), Petrograd, 1901, vol. ii, pp. 1113-1126; Bogda- scevsky, ibid. vol. vi, pp. 42-43. One exegete only has accepted the view of Jerome: Theodorovic, Tolkovanie na sobornoe poslanie Sv. Ap. Jakova (Commentary on the Catholic Epistle of St. James), Vilna, 1897. Two Russian writers have proposed another explanation. They are Prof. Kibalcic, Sv. Ap. Jakov., brat Gospoden (St. James, Apostle and *jJ. R. Harris, Four Lectures on the Western Text of ithe New Testament, 1894, Pp. 37. AMES THE LORD’S BROTHER ΒΩ Brother of Our Lord), Cernigov, 1882; and the famous historian, Alexis Lebedev, in the review: Duscepoleznoe Ctenie, Moscow, 1903, i, pp. 38-82; ili, 407-425; vi, 215-228; vii, 363-370; x, 235-245; xi, 377- 396; xil, 542-552; 1904, i, 91-105; ii, 229-236, and in vol. vi, of Orth. Theol. Ency. According to Lebedev, the N. T. does not state that either the Virgin or Joseph had other sons except Jesus. Therefore the so-called brethren of Jesus were not brethren in the ordinary sense; neither do they belong to a supposed first wife of Joseph. They were only cousins on the side either of Mary or Joseph. The only woman whom the Gospels represent as their mother is Mary, mentioned in the Gospel of John, with the explanatory reference to Clopas, who would be their father. Mary is not the sister of the Virgin, who is not rep- resented as having sisters. She was therefore cousin of Joseph. The Gospels say almost nothing about Clopas; his name is only mentioned by Luke. Nevertheless, we can argue, he was well known in the age of the apostles. A tradition of the second century says that he was the only brother of Joseph. Therefore, Mary of Clopas was a cousin of Joseph and consequently of the Virgin, and she is the mother of the so-called brethren or cousins of Jesus. Prof. A. Lebedev has discussed his opinion in a special work, Bratja Gospodni (1 Cor. 9, 5), Moscow, 1908. In the western church the influence of Jerome has caused opinion on the subject to have a different history. This active-minded controversialist spent the years 382-385 in Rome, and early in that period, in reply to the then recent work of Helvidius, wrote his treatise, Adversus Helvidium de perpetua virginitate B. Mariae. In this he presented an entirely novel theory, by which he was able to identify James the Lord’s brother with James the apostle, son of Alphzus, and so reduce the number of persons named James in the N. T. to two. The theory can be most clearly ex- hibited by the following table of relationships, as understood by Jerome. | OCA ST PE | ore. Mary of Clopas, wife of Alphzus | Jesus James Joses Judas Simon sisters son of Alpheus, apostle, the less, brother of the Lord Under Jerome’s theory this Judas (Mk. 6%) can be identified with the apostle Judas Jacobi, the genitive then indicating the relation of brother, not son. A further possible combination is that which iden- tifies Simon brother of the Lord with Simon the Zealot, one of the Twelve. But neither of these combinations seems to have occurred to Jerome. 58 JAMES Jerome’s theory appears to have been wholly original with him, and both his own efforts and those of later Roman Catholic writers to find support for it in earlier ecclesiastical tradition must be deemed to have failed. By the theory the “brothers and sisters” of the Lord are made his cousins, being children of his mother’s sister. In order to hold this, it must be assumed that the word “brother” is in these contexts susceptible of such a meaning, an assumption linguistically highly unlikely, if not, as most Protestant scholars would hold, impossible. Apart from this essential foun- dation-stone the theory rests on the following considerations: (1) Gal. 11° implies that James the Lord’s brother was an apos- tle. Since James son of Zebedee died about 44 A.D., James the Lord’s brother must be the same as James son of Alphzus. (2) Jn. 1925 may be interpreted as meaning that Mary of Clopas was the sister of the mother of Jesus. (3) Mk. 15” (cf. 15% 16') mentions as a witness of the crucifixion a Galilean woman, Mary mother of James the less and Joses, and Jerome identified her with Mary of Clopas. (4) James the less is identified with James son of Alphzus; for, in the opinion of Jerome, the designation “‘the less”’ (minor, ὃ μικρός) is added in order to distinguish this James from the more prominent apostle of the same name, James son of Zebedee. In that case Mary of Clopas must have been the wife of Alpheus. What the designation “‘of Clopas”’ means, Jerome does not know. He does not suggest the explanation, later current but linguistically un- | sound, that Clopas and Alpheus represent the same Aramaic name (Chalphat). From the point of view of monkish asceticism, Jerome’s ingen- ious theory had an advantage over the previously current doctrine represented by Epiphanius. It preserved not only the perpetual virginity of Mary, but also that of Joseph (Adv. Helv. 19). Against it, in spite of its complete lack of traditional authority, could be urged only linguistic and historical objections, while in an age which was much occupied with strict definition of the limits of the canon, the Epiphanian view was subject to the discredit of its close association with antiquated apocryphal legends. Even in the East Jerome’s theory seems to have commended itself to Chrys- ostom (Comm. in Gal. 11°), and Theodoret expressly advocated it. In the Latin church it gained the powerful support of Augustine and made a rapid conquest. Cassiodorius (468-562) treats the theory as established, and the western liturgies imply it by provid- ing (unlike the eastern) only one day of commemoration for any James other than the son of Zebedee. The theologians of the Middle Ages and of succeeding centuries JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER 59 clung to this received view with but few exceptions.* Certain critics of the seventeenth century, indeed, Combefis ({ 1679), Hen- schen the Bollandist ({ 1681), and Richard Simon ({1712; His- toire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament, 1689, ch. 17) argued that James the Lord’s brother was not the same person as James son of Alphzus, but they do not seem to have reached a clear and complete theory. In later times also an occasional Roman Cath- olic writer has taken similar ground, but in general there has been complete adherence to the theory of Jerome, which is now the established tradition of Roman Catholic scholars. On the Protestant side,f in so far as the question was discussed by the men of the Reformation, the traditional view of Jerome seems to have been retained. Luther (who held fast to the per- petual virginity of Mary) and the Magdeburg Centuries both identi- fied James the Lord’s brother with the son of Alphzus; and in spite of some signs presaging the coming confusion of critical theo- ries, these sixteenth-century authorities were followed by the bulk of seventeenth-century Protestants. Striking exceptions were Gro- tius ({ 1645), who preferred the Epiphanian solution, and Hammond (71660). The eighteenth century shows less agreement. Various scholars rejected the Hieronymian tradition; while the eccentric Whiston (71752), and later, with vastly greater influence, Herder, in his Briefe zweener Briider Jesu in unserm Kanon, 1775, affirmed the Helvidian doctrine. In the critical inquiries of the nineteenth century the old opin- ions have been reaffirmed and ingenious new theories proposed. In the first half of the century the Hieronymian view was held by a large proportion of Protestant writers, at least of the more ortho- dox type, and from the latter part of the century also such voices were not lacking.t The Epiphanian doctrine is also maintained by a few writers, among whom stands the great name of Light- foot. But among Protestant scholars the Helvidian view has increasingly gained adherents, and it is now dominant. § 3. THE DECISIVE CONSIDERATIONS. The reasons for the tendency of modern Protestant scholars to adopt the Helvidian view are sound and do not require long dis- cussion here. * See for abundant detail on medieval and modern scholars Meinertz, Jakobusbrief, pp. 203-310. t Meinertz, of. cit. pp. 216, 288. ¢ Smith and Fuller, DB?, vol. i, part ii, 1893, p. 1517. § Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 270-272, adopted the Epiphanian view on the ground of Jn. 192% 27, He holds it unlikely that Mary, if she was the mother of James and the others, should have been “consigned to the care of a stranger of whose house she becomes henceforth the inmate.” 60 JAMES (1) Against the Epiphanian view no conclusive objection can be brought, save that no real evidence speaks for it. It is not intrinsically improbable, nor contrary to anything in the N. T., that Joseph should have married, lost his wife, and had a family of children before his betrothal to Mary, but the legends of the Protevangelium Jacobi afford no presumption of trustworthy tradi- tion, and nothing in the N. T. itself is capable of sustaining the weight of the story. The argument from Jn. 197°, on which Light- foot rests his case, is wholly insufficient. In fact, the Epiphanian view has its roots in the dogmatic assumptions of an ascetic the- ology, or at best in mere pious sentiments which have become alien to modern Protestant thought. (2) The theory of Jerome, although more frequently advocated among Protestants than the Epiphanian view, is subject to far greater objections. (a) In the first place it requires the admission that “brother” in the various contexts where it is used can mean “cousin.”? This is, in fact, impossible and is fatal to the whole theory.* (Ὁ) Jerome’s interpretation of Jn. 1975, whereby Mary of Clopas is made out to be the sister of the Virgin, is, on the whole, unlikely (see the commentaries, and Zahn, Forschungen, vi, pp. 338 f. 352). (c) Mary “οἵ Clopas” is more naturally taken as referring to the wife of Clopas, and in that case (since the identification of the names Clopas and Alpheus is not to be accepted) she cannot well have been the wife of Alphzus. (4) The necessity of inferring from Gal. 1139 that James the Lord’s brother, there referred to, was in Paul’s view an apostle is dis- puted (see the commentaries). But, evenif the inference be granted, it is now admitted that from early times and through all the early centuries others than the Twelve were called apostles. So, for instance, Epiphanius called James an apostle, but denied that he was one of the Twelve. See Zahn, Forschungen, vi, p. 7, note 2, pp. 307 f.; Lightfoot, ‘‘ The Name and Office of an Apostle,” in Galatians, Pp. 92-101. Whether in 1 Cor. 157, even if τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ᾿πᾶσιν means the Twelve only, James is or is not represented as included among them is so doubtful that no argument can properly be drawn from the passage. (e) The expression Ἰάχωβος ὁ μιχρός (Mk. 15%), on the use of which (Lat. minor) Jerome puts much stress, does not seem to be used of inferiority, in contrast to some “‘James the Great” among the apostles, but (note that it is positive, not comparative) refers to some personal characteristic, probably of stature. * Mayor?, pp. xxiv/., discusses the arguments adduced; see also Lex. 5. Ὁ. ἀδελφός, and Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 261-265. JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER 61 It thus appears that Jerome’s highly speculative combinations crumble under analysis. Against his view speak positively many of the references in the Gospels. The consistent distinction made between the apostles and the brethren of the Lord, and the failure of the evangelists to give any hint that one or two or even three of the Twelve Apostles are identical with certain more or less well- known persons elsewhere referred to in their histories are impor- tant arguments. It is difficult to believe, even if Jerome’s theory of cousinship were true, that the evangelists could have been aware of such a fact. The repetition of the name Mary for two sisters, the supposed union of two households while evidently the mothers of both were still living, and the complete ignoring, in the nar- ratives, of the second mother’s relation to her children, although she is expressly stated (Mk. τς) to have been a member of Jesus’ company in Galilee, all these improbabilities combine with the explicit statement of the Gospel of John that Jesus’ brethren did not believe on him (Jn. 7°) and the clear implication of lack of sympathy with his work found in Mk. 3” 3! to make it appear im- possible that James the Lord’s brother should have been one of the original Twelve Apostles. For an effective statement of how ill the cousinship hypothesis suits the Gospel narratives, see Mayor, p. xxix. The various difficulties which make Jerome’s view impossible are fully presented by Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 258-265. In order to maintain the theory of Jerome, which has had wider and longer prevalence among western Christians than any other view, it is necessary to escape the difficulties by supplementary hypotheses of various kinds, such as making an unwarrantable dis- tinction between the James of Gal. 11° and the James of Gal. 29, or understanding that the term “the brethren of the Lord” is used by the evangelists with tacit exclusion of the only “brother of the Lord” in whom the early church had any special reason to be interested.* In fact, we have no reason, apart from dogma or an untrust- worthy sentiment, to question that the brothers and sisters of the Lord were children of Joseph and Mary younger than Jesus, and that the impression as to them and their history naturally derived by unsophisticated readers from the four Gospels and the Acts is correct. We know nothing whatever about the relationship to one another of the several persons named James who are brought before * To these theories the full discussion of the subject itself, and of the history of opinion, by Meinertz is a valuable guide; see also Zahn, Forschungen, vi, pp. 326 f. 62 JAMES us in the Gospels and Acts and the epistles of Paul. There cannot have been fewer than three distinct Jameses; in all probability there were four or five. § 4. THE TRADITION CONCERNING JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER. (a) The New Testament. James son of Zebedee, the apostle, died a martyr’s death by order of Herod Agrippa I, about 44, and does not seriously come in question as author of the epistle. Of the other persons called James mentioned in the N. T. only James the Lord’s brother is sufficiently known to us in his personality and career to make the question of whether he may have been the author of the epistle capable of discussion. εἰ The information furnished by the N. T. about this James is important. In the Gospels he is named only in Mk. 6’, Mt. 1355, as well known to the inhabitants of Nazareth, but he is to be as- sumed as included with the other brothers in the attempt to re- strain the public activity of Jesus described in Mk. 374 1. = Mt. 1246, According to the Gospel of John the brethren of the Lord and his mother accompanied Jesus to Capernaum (Jn. 212), challenged him (Jn. 7*°) to go to Jerusalem and manifest himself to the world (they themselves not believing on him), and proved their own Jewish piety by making the pilgrimage to the feast of taber- nacles (Jn. 7°). On both these occasions we may fairly infer that James was with the others. At any rate, the evangelist was cer- tainly not aware that James at that time took any different atti- tude from the rest of the family. In the command to report the fact of the resurrection to “my breth- ren,” Mt. 281°, Jn. 201’, the word “brethren’’ is probably to be taken in the sense of spiritual relationship, but the interpretation is not wholly certain. After the resurrection we find the mother of Jesus and his brethren joined with the apostles and other Christians in the common life and common Christian faith of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 114), but of their transition to faith in Jesus Christ nothing is told us. James is nowhere expressly mentioned until Acts 121’, when he seems to be represented as of chief importance, next to Peter, among the Christians then resident in Jerusalem. In view of the regular custom in the Book of Acts of formally introducing to the reader the personages of the narrative as they are mentioned (Barnabas 4°; Stephen and Philip 6°; Paul 7°58; Agabus 1178; Silas 1522; Timothy 16!; Aquila, Priscilla 182; Apollos 1874), we may infer from the absence of any such introduction of James that JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER 63 the author knew him to be the Lord’s brother and deemed him sufficiently accounted for by Acts 1™. In Acts James appears again at 15" and 2138, At the confer- ence at Jerusalem concerning the admission of uncircumcised be- lievers into the church, he took with Peter a leading part, and is represented as offering the opinion (Acts 151%!) which was accepted and put into effect by the church of Jerusalem. This decision, fully concurred in by Peter, was joyfully recorded by the writer of Acts as an adequate charter of Gentile liberty (15%). Nearly ten years later, at the close of the main period of Paul’s missionary activity, James is the head of the church at Jerusalem, still, as before, fully trusted by the Christians of the city—who were “all zealous for the law”—and at the same time heartily well disposed toward the Gentile missionary Paul, to whom he gives a friendly welcome and prudent advice (Acts 21'***). After Paul has fallen into the singular difficulties which ultimately led to his journey to Rome, we hear in Acts no word more either of James or of the Jerusalem Christians. These notices in Acts are supplemented by certain allusions of Paul. James the Lord’s brother, whom Paul says (Gal. 11%) that he saw on his first visit to Jerusalem, can be no other than the James who united with Peter and John in assuring Paul of their recogni- tion and fellowship in Gal. 23, and this mutual understanding can hardly be referred to any other occasion than that described in Acts 1s. The intricate problems here involved cannot now be dis- cussed. The leading position of James at Jerusalem, and his full identification with the Jewish Christians of that city, are implied in Gal. 2” by the words “before that certain came from James.” The other references are 1 Cor. 15’, which mentions that James had a vision of the risen Christ, and οὔ, which implies that the brethren of the Lord were married. Beyond this the N. T. information does not go. We are justi- fied in referring all these notices to the same James, and our two sources agree in representing him as trusted by the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, while at the same time friendly to Paul and the Gentile mission. Of his own views, of the direction which his Christian thinking had taken and the distance it had travelled, and of his special type of character and temperament, of his precise attitude toward the problems then arising about the relations of Christianity to the law and customs of the Jews—of all that we learn hardly anything. We may infer that a man accepted by the Jerusalem Christians as their leader cannot have abandoned the practise of the Jewish law; and Gal. 2!2 seems to show James’s agreement with the Jerusalem Christians who (in Paul’s view) led Peter astray. On the other hand, we are directly informed (Gal. 2°) 64 JAMES that James admitted the right of Gentiles to become Christians without passing through the gate of circumcision. From the so- called “provisos of James” (Acts 15% 238. 217°) much the same in- ference is to be drawn; they mean that James did ot wish to impose the Law upon Gentile Christians.* (b) Other Tradition. Outside of the N. T. a considerable amount of tradition about James the Lord’s brother has been preserved, and, mingled with much obvious legend, some elements of fact are probably contained in it. The chief sources are the following: (1) Josephus, Antiquities, xx, οἷ: ἅτε δὴ οὖν τοιοῦτος ὧν ὃ ΓΑνανος, νομίσας ἔχειν καιρὸν ἐπιτήδειον διὰ τὸ τεθνάναι μὲν Φήστον, ᾿Αλβῖνον δ᾽ ἔτι χατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὑπάρχειν, καθίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν καὶ παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν ἀδελφὸν ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ λεγο- μένου Χριστοῦ, ᾿Ιάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καί τινας ἑτέρους, ὡς παρανομησάντων χατηγορίαν ποιησάμενος, παρέδωχε λευσθησομένους. “So Ananus, being that kind of a man, and thinking that he had got a good opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinus not yet arrived, holds a judicial council; and he brought before it the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,—James was his name,—and some others, and on the charge of violating the Law he gave them over to be stoned.” This passage is suspected of being an interpolation by Schiirer, GJV?, i, ὃ τὸ, 5, pp. 581 f. (E. Tr. I. ii, pp. 186 f.), and Zahn, For- schungen, vi, pp. 301-305. It is defended as genuine by Mayor’, p. lviii, note 2; Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 366, note 2; and E. Schwartz, Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, iv, 1903, pp. 59 f. The only ground for doubt of the genuineness is that the text of Josephus is known elsewhere to have suffered from Christian inter- polation (notably Antig. xviii, 3°, the passage about Jesus Christ), and that Origen refers (Tom. x, 17, on Mt. 13°°; Contra Celsum, i, 47; ii, 13) to a statement in Josephus, no longer extant, but plainly of Christian origin, to the effect that the murder of James was the occasion of the destruction of Jerusalem. This evidence for interpolation is not sufficient; and Josephus’s date for the death of James, A.D. 62, must stand, although it contradicts the nar- rative of Hegesippus. (2) Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius, H.e. i, 23: “To the government of the church in conjunction with the apostles succeeded the Lord’s brother, James,—he whom all from the time of the Lord to our own day call the Just, as there were many named James. And he was holy from his mother’s womb; wine and strong * J. H. Ropes, “Acts xv. 21,” in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. xv, 1896, pp. 75-81. JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER 65 drink he drank not, nor did he eat flesh; no razor touched his head, he anointed himself not with oil, and used not the bath. To him alone was it permitted to enter the Holy Place, for neither did he wear wool, but linen clothes. And alone he would enter the Temple, and be found prostrate on his knees beseeching pardon for the people, so that his knees were callous like a camel’s in consequence of his continually kneeling in prayer to God and beseeching pardon for the people. Be- cause of his exceeding righteousness (διά γέ tot τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς δικαιοσύνης) he was called the Just (ὃ δίκαιος) and Oblias, which is in Greek ‘Bulwark of the People’ (περιοχὴ tod λαοῦ), and Righteousness, as the prophets declare concerning him. “Therefore certain of the seven sects among the people, already mentioned by me, in the Memoirs, asked him, ‘What is the door of Jesus (τίς ἣ θύρα τοῦ "Incod)?’ and he said that He was the Saviour; —of whom some accepted the faith that Jesus is the Christ. Now the aforesaid sects were not believers either in a resurrection or in One who should come to render to every man according to his deeds; but as many as believed did so because of James. So, since many of the rulers, too, were believers, there was a tumult of the Jews and scribes and Pharisees, for they said there was danger that all the people would expect Jesus the Christ. Accordingly they said, when they had met together with James: ‘We entreat thee, restrain the people, since it has gone astray unto Jesus, holding him to be the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade (πεῖσαι) concerning Jesus all those who come to the day of the passover, for we all listen (πειθόμεθα) to thee. For we and all the people testify to thee that thou art just and that thou respectest not persons. Do thou therefore persuade the people concerning Jesus, not to go astray, for all the people and all of us listen to thee. Take thy stand therefore on the pinnacle of the Temple, that up there thou mayest be well seen, and thy words audible to all the people. For because of the passover all the tribes have come together, with the gentiles also.’ “So the aforesaid scribes and Pharisees set James on the pinnacle of the Temple, and called to him and said, ‘O thou, the Just, to whom we all ought to listen, since the people is going astray after Jesus the crucified, tell us what is the door of Jesus.’ And with a loud voice he answered, ‘Why do you ask me concerning the Son of Man? and he sitteth himself in heaven on the right hand of the great Power and shall come on the clouds of heaven.’ And when many were convinced and gave glory for the witness of James, and said, ‘Hosanna to the son of David,’ then again the same scribes and Pharisees said to one another, ‘We were wrong to permit such a testimony to Jesus; but let us go up and cast him down, that through fear they may not believe him.’ And they cried out saying, ‘Ho, ho! even the Just has gone astray,’ and they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, Let us away with the Just, because he is troublesome to us; therefore they shall eat the fruits of their doings. “Accordingly they went up and cast the Just down. And they said one to another, ‘Let us stone James the Just,’ and they began to stone him, since he was not killed by the fall. But he turned, and 66 JAMES knelt down, saying, ‘I beseech thee, Lord God Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ And so, as they were stoning him, one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabim, mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, ‘Stop! What are ye doing? The Just prays for you.’ And a certain one of them, one of the fullers, taking the club with which he pounds clothes, brought it down on the head of the Just; and so he suffered mar- tyrdom (ἐμαρτύρησεν). ‘And they buried him there on the spot, near the Temple, and his monument still remains near the Temple. A true witness (μάρτυς) has he become both to Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieges them (πολιορχεῖ αὐτούς).᾽ Hegesippus was a Christian probably resident in Palestine and of Jewish origin, but not a Judaiser. In the time of Eleutherus, bishop of Rome (174-189), he wrote his Memoirs (Ὑ πομνήματα) in five books, of which a few fragments have come down to us.* His work was probably used by Clement of Alexandria and by Epiphanius as well as by Eusebius. E. Schwartz, Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, iv, 1903, appears to doubt the use of Hegesippus by Clement (p. 57), and denies that Epiphanius has preserved from Hegesippus anything about James not contained in the fragments in Eusebius (p. 50, note 2). But it seems proved that the work of Hegesippus was accessible to Epipha- nius; cf. Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome?, i, 1890, pp. 328 ff.; Zahn, For- schungen, vi, pp. 258 f.; H. J. Lawlor, Eusebiana, Oxford, 1912, pp. 5-18. The long fragment given above, whether written by Hegesippus or taken over from his source, is plainly composed in order to do honour to James as an ascetic and martyr, who had shared with the apostles in the conduct of the church of Jerusalem. His influ- ence with the mass of the Jews of the city and his title of “‘the Just”’ imply that in his eminent piety he was not thought to have departed from Jewish standards, while his sorrow for the sin of his people in rejecting their Messiah recalls the words of Paul in Rom. g-11. The narrative itself, even when purged of its inner inconsistencies, is a legend, betraying no close contact with the events, and nothing can be drawn from it to add to the picture of James’s character and position derived from the N. T. In the bare tradition of a violent death Hegesippus agrees with the account found in Josephus, but nearly all the details of the two accounts vary. In particular Hegesippus’s reference to Vespasian seems to imply a date several years later than the year 62 A.D. definitely indicated in Josephus. t ᾿ς * The fragments are collected, with notes, in Zahn, Forschungen, vi, pp. 228-250; cf. also Pp. 250-273. {See Zahn, Forschungen, vi, pp. 234-235; Einleitung, i, § 5, note 4; he thinks 66 Α.Ὁ. would suit the statement in Hegesippus. JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER 67 The source of Hegesippus’s information is entirely unknown. The conjecture, often repeated, that he drew it from a violently anti-pauline work, the Steps (or Ascents) of James, said by Epi- phanius (Her. xxx, 16) to have been in circulation among the Ebionites, has almost nothing to commend it.* From other fragments of Hegesippus (Eusebius, H. e. iii, 11; iv, 22) we learn that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem; and by their aid the following genealogical table can be constructed: Jacob Panther (Ὁ Epiph. Her. lxxviii, 7) > daa i aan Clopas CREDA Eee Jesus pn the Judas the Symeon, second Lord’s brother Lord’s brother bishop of | Jerusalem ¥ grandsons Whether Hegesippus held that Mary was the mother of James and Judas is nowhere indicated. He gives (Eusebius, H. e. iii, I9, 20, 32) an interesting account of the arrest of the grandsons of Judas in the time of Domitian (81-96), on the charge of dangerous dynastic claims as being of the lineage of David, and apparently also on charges connected with their adherence to the “kingdom” of Christ. When the accused proved that they were poor farmers, and that the kingdom of Christ had to do wholly with religious ideas, they were released, and lived until the time of Trajan (98- 117), greatly honoured among the churches both as confessors and as kinsmen of the Lord. Symeon is said to have suffered martyr- dom in the reign of Trajan, at the age of 120 years. In an acute essay, “Zu Eusebius Kirchengeschichte. I. Das Mar- tyrium Jakobus des Gerechten,” in Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, iv, 1903, pp. 48-61, E. Schwartz has tried to relieve some of the problems of the long fragment of Hegesippus by removing inter- polated words and sentences. This critical process would leave the following : διαδέχεται τὴν ἐχχλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὃ ἀδελῴὸς τοῦ xvoelou Ἰάκωβος, 6 ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίχαιος ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ χυρίου χρόνων μέχρι xat ἡμῶν, ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ ᾿Ιάχωβοι ἐχαλοῦντο, οὗτος δὲ ἐχ χοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ἅγιος ἦν, οἶνον xat σίχερα οὐχ ἔπιεν, οὐδὲ ἔμψυχον ἔφαγεν, *H. Waitz, Die Pseudoklementinen, Homilien und Recognitionen (Texte und Untersu- chungen, xxv), 1904, pp. 164-169, 232, 386. 68 JAMES ξυρὸν “ext τὴν χεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ οὐχ ἀνέβη, ἔλαιον οὐκ ἠλείψατο, καὶ βαλα- γείῳ οὐκ ἐχρήσατο οὐδὲ ἐρεοῦν ἐφόρει ἀλλὰ σινδόνας, χαὶ μόνος εἰσήρχετο εἰς τὸν ναὺν ηὑρίσχετό τε χείμενος ἐπὶ τοῖς γόνασιν χαὶ αἰτούμενος ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ ἄφεσιν, ὡς ἀπεσχληχέναι τὰ γόνατα αὐτοῦ δίκην χαμήλου. διά γέ τοι τὴν ὑπερβολὴν αὐτοῦ ἐχαλεῖτο 6 δίκαιος χαὶ ὠβλίας, ὅ ἐστιν Ελλη- γιστὶ περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ. τινὲς οὖν τῶν ἑπτὰ αἱρέσεων τῶν ἐν τῷ λαῷ τῶν προγεγραμμένων μοι οὐχ. ἐπίστευον οὔτε ἀνάστασιν οὔτε ἐρχόμενον ἀποδοῦναι ἑχάστῳ χατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ὅσοι δὲ καὶ ἐπίστευσαν, διὰ ᾿Ιάκωβον. πολλῶν οὖν πιστευόντων ἦν θόρυβος τῶν ἀρχόντων λεγόντων ὅτι χινδυνεύει πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Χριστὸν προσδοχᾶν. ἔλεγον οὖν συνελθόντες τῷ ᾿Ιαχώβῳ᾽ “ παραχαλοῦμεν σε, ἐπίσχες τὸν λαόν, ἐπεὶ ἐπλανήθη εἰς ᾿Ιησοῦν ὡς αὐτοῦ ὄντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ σοὶ γὰρ πάντες πειθόμεθα ᾿ ἡμεῖς γὰρ μαρτοροῦμεν σοι χαὶ πᾶς ὃ λαὺς ὅτι δίκαιος εἶ χαι ὅτι πρόσωπον οὐ λαμβάνεις. στῆθι οὖν ἐπὶ τὸ «πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ, ἵνα ἄνωθεν ἧς ἐπιφανὴς χαὶ ἢ εὐάκουστά σου τὰ δήματα παντὶ τῷ λαῷ. διὰ γὰρ τὸ πάσχα συνεληλύθασι πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ μετὰ χαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν.᾽ ἔστησαν οὖν οἱ προειρημένοι τὸν Ἰάκωβον ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ναοῦ, χαὶ ἔχραξαν αὐτῷ καὶ εἶπαν ““Stxate, ᾧ πάντες πείθεσθαι ὀφείλομεν, ἐπεὶ ὁ λαὸς πλανᾶται ὀπίσω Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σταυρωθέντος, ἀπάγγειλον ἡμῖν τίς } θύρα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ." καὶ ἀπεχρίνατο φωνῇ μεγάλῃ “the ἐπερωτᾶτε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, χαὶ αὐτὸς κάθηται ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ex δε- ξιῶν τῆς μεγάλης δυνάμεως, καὶ μέλλει ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν γεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ;” χαὶ πολλῶν πληροφορηθέντων xat δοξαζόντων ἐπὶ τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ τοῦ Ιαχώβου καὶ λεγόντων, ““ὡσαννᾷᾶ τῷ υἱῷ Δαυίδ,᾽ τότε πάλιν οἱ αὐτοὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔλεγον, “καχῶς ἐποιήσαμεν τοιαύτην μαρτυρίαν παρασ- χόντες τῷ Ἰησοῦ" ἀλλὰ ἀναβάντες χαταβάλωμεν αὐτόν, ἵνα φοβηθέντες wy πιστεύσωσιν αὐτῷ." καὶ ἔχραξαν λέγοντες, “ὦ ὦ, καὶ ὃ δίκαιος ἐπλανήθη, xat ἐπλήρωσαν τὴν γραφὴν τὴν ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ γεγραμμένην, “ἄρωμεν τὸν δίκαιον, ὅτι δύσχρηστος ἡμιῖν ἐστιν τοίνυν τὰ γενήματα τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν φάγονται.᾽᾽ ἀναβάντες οὖν χατέβαλον τὸν δίχαιον χαὶ ἐπεὶ χαταβληθεὶς οὐκ ἀπέθανεν, λαβών τις ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, εἷς τῶν γναφέων, τὸ ξύλον ἐν ᾧ ἀποπιέζει τὰ ἱμάτια, ἤνεγχεν κατὰ τῆς χεφαλῆς τοῦ δικαίου, χαὶ οὕτως ἐμαρτύρησεν. χαὶ ἐυθὺς Οὐεσπασιανὸς πολιορχεῖ αὐτούς. Schwartz’s theory is that Eusebius found the passage already inter- polated, with additions partly due to ignorance, literary ineptitude, and pious love of embellishment, partly designed to combine the legend of Hegesippus and the tradition found in Josephus. To the interpolator is supposed to be due the confusing introduction of the scribes and | Pharisees as the chief enemies of James after the [Sadducean] “rulers” had begun to be affected by his preaching. The details of Schwartz’s analysis are worked out with great skill, and the theory in its main outlines is highly plausible, although in the nature of the case it is incapable of demonstration. (3) The Gospel according to the Hebrews, quoted by Jerome, De viris illustribus, 2: Evangelium quoque quod appellatur secundum Hebreos et a me nuper in grecum sermonem latinumque translatum est, quo et Origenes se@epe JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER 69 utitur, post resurrectionem salvatoris refert: “Dominus autem cum de- disset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit et; jura- verat enim Jacobus se non comesurum panem ab illa hora qua biberat calicem dominus (v. 1. domini) donec videret eum resurgentem a dormien- tibus.” Rursusque post paululum: “ Adferte, ait dominus, mensam et panem.” Statimque additur: “Tulit panem et benedixit et fregit et dedit Jacobo Justo et dixit ei: Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus.” This much-discussed fragment was probably taken over from some work of Origen, in spite of Jerome’s explicit claim to have translated it from the Hebrew.* The Gospel according to the Hebrews appears to have been current in Greek. Hegesippus is our earliest witness to its existence (Eusebius, H. e. iv, 22°); how much earlier it was written is unknown.+ It was the gospel used by the Ebionites (Eusebius, H. e. iii, 255 274), or Jewish Chris- tians, and may have contained trustworthy tradition, although the few extant fragments do not greatly commend it. Jerome seems to have confounded it with the Hebrew Matthew, which he says he saw at Bercea and also in the library at Czsarea, and he has thereby brought great confusion into modern study of the subject.t The appearance of the risen Christ to James the Just is to be identified with that mentioned by Paul (1 Cor. 1 5’); but in con- tradiction to Paul the Gospel according to the Hebrews claimed for James, the head of the Jewish Christians, the honour of the first resurrection appearance, which Paul says belonged to Peter. (4) Other Apocryphal Gospels. The Protevangelium Jacobi, 8, 9, 172, which claims (25!) to have been written by James soon after the death of Herod, represents Joseph as an elderly widower with sons (but no daughters) at the time when Mary, a girl of twelve, is committed to his protection. This agrees with what Origen says (Comm. in Matt. t. x, 17) as to the statement of “‘the Book of James” (ἡ βίβλος ᾿Ιαχώβου), and at least chs. 1-17 of the Protevangelium are therefore to be regarded as written in the second century. Other apocryphal infancy-gospels contain similar representations, in many or all cases doubtless derived from the Protevangelium or its source. So, among the documents collected by Tischendorf (Evangelia apocrypha, 1876), the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, 8* τ Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, 8 (here Joseph is grandevus, but * See the discussion by A. Schmidtke, Neue Fragmente und Untersuchungen zu den Juden- christlichen Evangelien (Texte und Untersuchungen, XXXVll), IQII, pp. 133-138. t Zahn, Forschungen, vi, Ὁ. 274, says not before the final removal of Jews from Jerusalem, 132 A.D. 1 Schmidtke, of. cit., and H. Waitz, art. “Apokryphen des NTs,” in PRE. xxiii (Ergan- zungsband, i), pp. 80-83. 70 JAMES not stated to be a widower); History of Joseph the Carpenter, 2, 4, 11; (Arabic) Gospel of the Infancy, 35. In several of the Apocryphal Gospels there is a story of how James, bitten by a viper, was miraculously healed by the boy Jesus.* (5) The Recognitions of Clement.f This work is extant in the Latin translation made by Rufinus c. 398, from a Greek original, certainly written not much earlier than the year 300 and probably the composition of a post-nicene Arian writer later than 350. The comparison of the Recognitions with the largely parallel material of the Greek work known as the Homilies of Clement (likewise Arian and post-nicene, of about the same date) shows that both are mainly derived from a common source, an edifying but fictitious Clementine romance compiled from earlier sources between 225 and 300. ‘This romance had the form, preserved also in the later compilations, of a report made by Clement of Rome (under instructions from Peter) to James, bishop of Jerusalem, concerning Clement’s experiences in the com- pany of Peter on a journey along the Syrian coast of the Medi- terranean from Cesarea to Antioch. To the romance may well have belonged the letter of Clement to James, now prefixed to the Homilies. Back of this lost romance lie its own sources, one of which was an anti-pauline Jewish-Christian gnostic account of the preach- ing of Peter (Κηρύγματα Πέτρου), written about 200 or earlier and purporting to have been sent by Peter to James. From this comes the letter of Peter to James also prefixed to the Homilies. The other main source belonging to this stage was perhaps a book of Acts of Peter, written early in the third century, in which James played no part. In all this literature the hero of the action is Peter, but both of the extant works are, as it were, dedicated to James, and the same was plainly true of more than one of their predecessors. James is represented as bishop of Jerusalem, and is called “bishop of bishops” and archbishop. He appears as the leading Christian authority of the East, by whom all teachers must be accredited (Rec. iv, 35), just as Peter was the leading Christian authority of the West. Indeed, even Peter stands in a certain subordination * The Apocryphal Gospels are conveniently accessible in English in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (American ed., vol. viii, Buffalo, 1886). t+ Harnack, CaL, ii, 1904, pp. 518-540; H. Waitz, Pisa tokieonmaie (Texte und Unter- suchungen, xxv), 1904; H. Waitz, art. “‘Clementinen,” in PRE, xxiii (Ergénzungsband, i), 1913, pp. 312-316. t This document does not appear to have had any connection with the Kerygma Petri, cur- rent in Alexandria in the late second century, see E. von Dobschiitz, Das Kerygma Petri (TU, xi), 1893. JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER 71 tohim. It is assumed (e. g. Ep. of Clement to J ames, preface; Rec. i, 43 7.) that James was not one of the Twelve Apostles. In Recognitions, i, 66-71, a protracted public discussion between James, standing at the top of the steps of the temple, and Caiaphas leads to a riot in which James is hurled from the steps and badly injured. The narrative occurs in a section which is distinguished in various ways from the surrounding material, and a certain re- semblance to the long fragment from Hegesippus quoted above has led to the theory that both drew from a common source. But the further theory that this source was the lost Ebionite Steps of James (᾿ Αναβαθμοὶ Ἰαχώβου) mentioned by Epiphanius (Her. xxx, 16) is not probable. The Clementine literature confirms and makes more vivid the other representations of the important and influential position occupied by James, but makes no positive addition to our knowl- edge about him. (6) Other Tradition. (2) That James was the first bishop of Jerusalem was expressly stated by Hegesippus, as noted above, but this writer did not in- dicate from whom the appointment to this office came. Hegesippus ap. Eus. H.e. ii, 234 διαδέχεται δὲ τὴν ἐχχλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ χυρίου Ἰάχωβος, see also Eus. Π. 6. ἷν, 224, where Hegesippus expressly describes Symeon, who was made bishop on the death of James, as second in the succession. Clement of Alexandria states that Peter, James (presumably the son of Zebedee), and John, being the apostles who had received special honour from the Saviour, chose James the Just to be bishop of Jerusalem. This representation is followed by Eusebius and Jerome. In the Recognitions of Clement and in Epiphanius the statement appears that James was ordained bishop by the Lord himself. Eusebius, Π. 6. ii, 13 Κλήμης ἐν ἔχτῳ τῶν Ὑ ποτυπώσεων γράφων ὧδε παρίστησιν - “Πέτρον γάρ φησι xat ᾿Ιάχωβον χαὶ Ἰωάννην μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν τοῦ σωτῆρος, ὡς ἂν καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος προτετιμιημένους, (μὴ ἐπιδιχάζεσ- θαι δόξης, ἀλλὰ ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον ἐπίσκοπον τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ἑλέσθαι. H.e. ii, 23! Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ κυρίου... ἀδελφόν, ᾧ πρὸς τῶν ἀποσ- τόλων ὁ τῆς ἐπισχοπῆς τῆς ἐν ἹἹεροσολύμοις ἐγκεχείριστο θρόνος. Ἐ Jerome, De viris illustr. 2, Jacobus ... post passionem domini statim ab apostolis Hierosolymorum episcopus ordinatus. .. . Triginta itaque annis Hierosolymae rexit ecclesiam, id est usque ad septimum Neronis annum. * Eusebius elsewhere repeatedly refers to James as having been bishop, H..e. iii, ς, 7. TEs iv, 5; vii, το. 72 JAMES Recog. Clem. i, 43, ecclesia domini in Hierusalem constituta copio- sissime multiplicata crescebat per Jacobum qui a domino ordinatus est in ea episcopus, rectissimis dispensationibus gubernata. Epiphan. Her. Ixxviii, 7, καὶ πρῶτος οὗτος [sc. ὃ ᾿άχωβος] εἴληφε τὴν καθέδραν τῆς ἐπισχοπῆς ᾧ πεπίστευχε χύριος τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς πρώτῳ. The Ν. T. says nothing about a bishop at that time in Jerusalem, and the attribution of the title to James is probably an anachronism, in spite of the episcopal throne which Eusebius (H. e. vii, 19) says was preserved at Jerusalem and shown to visitors down to his own time. (Ὁ) From Clement of Alexandria one other noteworthy state- ment about James is preserved by Eusebius, H.e. ii, 1*: “And he [viz. Clement of Alexandria] further says this about him [viz. James] in the seventh book of the same work [v7z. the Hypoty- poses]: “ΤῸ James the Just and John and Peter after the resurrection the Lord committed Knowledge (xapé3wxe τὴν γνῶσιν) ; they committed it to the other apostles; and the other apostles to the seventy, one of whom was Barnabas. Now there were two Jameses, one, the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle and beaten to death by a fuller’s club, and one who was beheaded.’ ” (c) The account of James given by Epiphanius in Har. xxix, 3-4, Ixxviii, 7-14, is derived mainly from the long fragments of Hege- sippus found in Eusebius (to whom direct reference is made, Her. xxix, 3-4) and from the Protevangelium Jacobi or some other apoc- ryphal gospel. A few touches, not of great importance, are added either from Epiphanius’s own invention or possibly from inde- pendent knowledge of the Memoirs of Hegesippus. Thus, besides stating that James was appointed bishop by the Lord, Epiphanius says that he was a priest and wore the “‘‘petalon” (the ornament of the high-priest’s mitre, Ex. 28°°f- 29°), and went once a year into the Holy of Holies (as if he were the officiating high priest).* He also adds to the description of his asceticism that he went bare- foot and was unmarried; tells how once his prayer for rain in a time of drought was immediately answered; and says that he died about twenty-four years after the ascension of the Saviour, and at the age of ninety-six. (d) The burial-place of James was said by Hegesippus (ap. Eus. Η. 6. ii, 2318) to have been still marked in his day by a monument near the temple (παρὰ τῷ ναῷ). In the time of Jerome another * This is evidently a mere expansion from the statement of Hegesippus ap. Eus. H.e. ii, 23° τούτῳ μόνῳ ἐξῆν εἰς τὰ ἅγια [Ὁ.]. τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων] εἰσιέναι. JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER 73 site for his grave was indicated on the Mount of Olives (Jer. De vir. ill. 2, quidam e nostris in monte Oliveti eum conditum putant sed falsa eorum opinio est). For later legends as to his grave, see Zahn, Forschungen, vi, pp. 233f. His body is said to have been trans- ferred by the Emperor Justin II (565-578) and his consort Sophia to the new church of St. James in Constantinople.* (e) Acts of James have not come down tous. Andreas of Crete ({ 720) wrote a tract, “On the Life and Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle James the Brother of God,” published by A. Papadopoulos- Kerameus, ᾿Ανάλεχτα Ἱεροσολυμιτιχῆς Σταχυολογίας, i, Petrograd, 1891, pp. 1-14, but it adds nothing to tradition otherwise known. It was the source used by Symeon Metaphrastes (tenth century) for his well-known memoir, Ὑπόμνημα εἰς τὸν ἅγιον ᾿Ιάχωβον, ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀδελφόθεον, Acta Sanctorum, May 1 (Migne, Patrologia graca, vol. cxv, cols. 199-218). (f) As mentioned above, the Protevangelium Jacobi claims James as its author. Also an Ebionite work, entitled Steps of James, referred to by Epiphanius (Her. xxx, 16), contained utter- ances of James against the temple and the sacrifice and the fire on the altar. The same book seems to have included false stories intended to throw discredit on the apostle Paul. What the term “Steps”? meant in the title of the book is not clear. The Naassenes, a syncretistic sect described by Hippolytus, had a book containing their doctrine as transmitted by James the Lord’s brother to Mariamne (Hippolytus, Philosophumena, v, 7; X, 9). (g) The ancient liturgy proper to the churches of Syria, now obsolete except on the feast of St. James, and then used in a few localities only, is known as the Liturgy of St. James. This name is first attested in 692, and applies to both the Greek and the Syrian form of the liturgy. See L. Duchesne, Christian Worship, Its Origin and Evolution*, 1904, pp. 65-69; F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, i, Oxford, 1896. St. James the Lord’s brother is commemorated in the Greek church on October 23, and the calendars of the Greek and other Oriental churches provide separate days for James the Lord’s brother and James (son of Alpheus) the apostle. In the western church various days have been observed, but all except May 1 have gradually been eliminated, while, under the guidance of Jerome’s theory of identification, the separate feast of James son of Alpheus (formerly celebrated on June 22) has also been dropped. For rea- *Georgius Codinus, De @dificiis constantinopolitanis, Ὁ. 56 (Migne, Patrologia greca, vol. clvii, col. 593). 74 JAMES sons which do not appear Philip and James were early associated together, and May 1 is now the day of St. Philip and St. James in the Roman and Anglican churches. May 1 is found assigned to “‘ James” in the Martyrologium Hiero- nymianum (sixth century). The Venerable Bede (7735) attests the date in his metrical martyrology: Jacobus frater domini pius atque Philippus mirifico Maias venerantur honore calendas, and it has been general in western calendars. Dict. of Christian Antiquities, 1893, art. ““James the Less, St., Legend and Festival of’; R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen A postelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, ii, 2, 1884, pp. 247-253; A. J. Maclean, art. “ Festi- val,”’ § 31, in Harford and Stevenson, Prayer Book Dictionary, 1912. HH. TEXT. J. H. Ropes, “The Text of the Epistle of James,” in Journal of Biblical Literature, xxviii, 1909, pp. 103-129. B. Weiss, Die katholischen Briefe, Textkritische Untersuchungen und Textherstellung (Texte und Untersuchungen, viii, 3), 1892. P. Corssen [review of Weiss], in GgA, 1893, pp. 573-602. B. Weiss, “Textkritische Studien,” in Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, \xiii, 1894, pp. 424-451. [F. J. A. Hort], “Introduction,” in Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, 1881, 21896. § 1. GREEK MANUSCRIPTS. The Greek text of James is found in the following Mss. In designating the Mss. the numbers established by Gregory, Die griechischen Handschrifiten des Neuen Testaments, 1908; Text- kritik des Neuen Testamentes, vol. iii, 1909, are used throughout this commentary. Cent. tit. i 21. Oxyrhynchus 1171; contains Jas. 219--.39. Cent. i. B. Codex Vaticanus. ᾿ δῆ, Codex Sinaiticus. #1 —. Oxyrhynchus 1229; contains Jas. 110-12 15-18, Cent. v. A. Codex Alexandrinus. C. Codex Ephraem; contains Jas. 11-4”. TEXT 75 048 (formerly 3). Codex Patiriensis; contains Jas. 4!4-5”, W. Sanday and P. Batiffol, “ Etude critique sur le Codex Patiriensis du Nouveau Testament,” in Revue Biblique, 1895, pp. 207-213. 0166. Heidelberg, University Library, 1357; Jas. 1". A. Deissmann, Die Septuagintapapyri und andere alichristliche Texte der Heidelberger Papyrussammlung, 1905, p. 85. q#i—. Oxyrhynchus fragment, Papiri greci e latini, i, 1912, mo. 5: 745: ΣΆ Cent. vit. ΝΑ series of corrections, made in accordance with some standard, in Codex Sinaiticus. Cent. viii or 1x. Cent. ix. Ps. Palimpsest, often defective. 33 (formerly 13*%*), The “queen of the cursives.” Cent. xv. 69 (formerly 319). The Leicester Codex. The readings of codices 33 and 69 are accurately given by Tregelles, The Greek New Testament, 1857-79. _ In addition about four hundred and seventy-five manuscripts dating from the tenth to the eighteenth centuries are enumer- ated in the lists of Gregory and H. von Soden. § 2. VERSIONS. The ancient versions which are, or might be, useful for the criticism and history of the text of James are the following: (a) Egyptian Versions. (Ὁ) Ethiopic Version. (c) Syriac Versions. 76 JAMES (4) Armenian Version. (e) Latin Versions. (a) Egyptian Versions. H. Hyvernat, “ Etude sur les versions coptes de la Bible,” in Revue Biblique, v, 1896, pp. 427-433, 540-569; vi, 1897, pp. 48-74. F. Robinson, art. ‘‘ Egyptian Versions,” in HDB, i, 1898. F. C. Burkitt, art. ‘Text and Versions,” in EB, iv, 1903. [J. Leipoldt], “The New Testament in Coptic,” in Church Quarterly . Review, lxii, 1906, pp. 292-322. (1) Sahidic. This version, widely used in Upper Egypt, is now held to be older than the Bohairic of Lower Egypt, and to have been made in the period 200-350 A.D. Existing Mss. of some portions are thought to date from the fourth century. The version con- tains an important infusion of “western” readings; the later Mss. show much textual corruption and alteration. Tischendorf gives for James some readings of this version, derived from Woide [-Ford], Appendix ad editionem Novi Test. Greci e codice MS Alexandrino, 1799, where (pp. 203-207) Jas. 1? 12 (510, 18) is printed from Paris, Bibl. nat. copt. 44 (Sahidic vocabulary, ¢. Cent, xii), and Jas. 17*-2% 83 3%¢ 4Bsy 97-0. tees Oxford, Bodl. Hunt. 3 (lectionary, later than cent. xi). Other fragments are known to exist as follows: Rome, Propaganda, Mus. Borg. (Zoega, Catalogus, LXIII), cent. vii, fragments of complete N. T., including Jas. 1-21. Text printed in J. Balestri, Sacrorum Buibliorum fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Muset Borgiant, iii, 1904, pp. 441-444; and doubtless the source of the text printed by E. Amélineau, Zeitschr. fiir Agyptische Sprache, xxvi, 1888, pp. 99 f. Rome, Propaganda, Mus. Borg. (Zoega, XCV), lectionary, cent. xi or xii, Jas. 2® 5133, Text printed in Balestri, Sacrorum Bibliorum fragmenta, iii, p. 444. Cairo, Museum, 8005, Jas. 1%°-2°; see Crum, “‘Coptic Mon- uments,” in Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Catre, iv, 1902. Petrograd, W. Golénischeff, cent. x, Jas. 22°-3!4. Text printed TEXT 77 in Bulletin de V Académie Impériale de St. Petersbourg, xxxiii, 1890, ΡΡ. 37.3-391- Vienna. Jas. 11 1 511-2, 13-16, 17-20 from Sahidic lectionaries are to be found in Wessely, Studien zur Paliographie und Papyrus- kunde, xii, 1912. (2) Minor Egyptian Versions. Akin to the Sahidic are: (a) Akhmimic. Perhaps made in the fourth century, but soon supplanted by the Sahidic. The oldest Mss. are attrib- uted to the fourth century. London, Brit. Mus. 5299 (1), formerly Flinders Petrie (Crum, 492; Gregory, 2), 300-350 A.D. (so Crum; Hyvernat assigns to cent. v or vi), Jas. 4! 18, Text in W. E. Crum, Coptic Manuscripts Brought from the Fayyum, 1893, pp. 2f.; see also Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1905. The text of this fragment corresponds to a Greek text as follows: χριτής. εἷς δέ ἐστιν ὃ νομοθέτης xal... πορευσώμεθα εἰς τήνδε τὴν πό- λιν χαὶ ποιήσωμεν ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα. It agrees entirely in text, and substan- tially in translation, with the Sahidic of Woide. Strassburg, University Library, cent. v or vii-viii, James, complete from 11%. Text in F. Résch, Bruchstiicke des ersten Clemensbriefes, 1910. (b) Middle Egyptian (Memphis and the Fayyum). Of this version the text of Jas. 12% 26 2! 3 ὅ is published by Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1905, p. 244, from Brit. Mus. or. 4923 (5); Crum, 509. (3) Bohairic (“‘Coptic”). This version, still in ecclesiastical use among the Coptic Christians, is probably the latest of the Egyptian versions. It was probably made not earlier than 400 A.D. (F. Robinson), perhaps after the year 518 (Burkitt), or even as late as 700 (Leipoldt, op. cit. p. 311).* The oldest Mss. (fragments of * Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament?, 1912, p. 185, inclines to a date at the end of the third or in the fourth century. 78 JAMES Eph. and 2 Cor.) date from the ninth and tenth centuries. The oldest continuous texts are of the twelfth century.* It came under the influence of the Byzantine Greek text, and has had no less extensive and eventful a textual history than the Latin and the Syriac translations (Leipoldt, op. cit. p.297). In James its text clearly belongs with that of BSAC and shows no kinship to the Antiochian group KLPS. But it betrays no special relation to any particular one of the older uncials of the group to which it belongs. Tischendorf drew his references to the epistles from the unsatisfactory edition and translation of Wilkins, 1716. [G. Horner], The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, iv, 1905, has printed a text of the Epistle of James drawn from a Ms. (Brit. Mus. or. 424; Gregory, 4°?) of 1307 A.D., copied from a copy of a Ms. of 1250 A.D. (b) Ethiopic Version. R. H. Charles, art. “Ethiopic Version,” in HDB, i, 1898. F. Priatorius, art. “‘Bibeliibersetzungen, dthiopische,”’ in Herzog- Hauck, PRE’, vol. iii, 1897. The Ethiopic version was made in cent. iv-v (Dillmann) or cent. v—vi (Guidi); whether originally translated from the Greek or the Sahidic is disputed, but in any case it was later corrected from the Arabic version. It is preserved in many Mss., some of which, containing the Catholic epistles, are as old as the fifteenth century. The editions, whether the Roman edition, 1548 (reprinted in the London Polyglot), or the still more unsatisfactory one edited by Thomas Pell Platt, London, 1830, are uncritical and unreliable, and the citations of this version in Tischendorf’s apparatus, being made from them, must be used with caution. (c) Syriac Versions. E. Nestle, art. “Syriac Versions,” in HDB, iv, 1902. W. Wright, art. “Syriac Literature,” in Encyclopedia Britannica, xxii, 1887, republished as A Short History of Syriac Literature, 1894. * Brit. Mus. Curzon Catena, dated 889 A.D., is probably translated directly from a Greek catena on the Gospels. TEXT 79 (1) Peshitto. This translation was probably made after 411 A.D., under the direction of Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (411-435),* and, so far as known, is the earliest Syriac translation of James. The British Museum has a Ms. containing James from the fifth or sixth century (Add. 14,470; Greg. 13°”), and several Mss. of the sixth century and of the sixth or seventh century ; but the analogy of Syriac Mss. of the Gospels indicates that the text will not be found to differ substantially from that of the printed editions, of which that by Leusden and Schaaf, 1708, was used by Tischendorf. (2) Harclean. A revision of the Peshitto in accordance with Greek Mss. of the ‘‘ Antiochian” type was made in 508 a.p. for Philoxenus, bishop of Mabug; but no Ms. has been identified as containing the Epistle of James in this version. The Philoxenian revision was again revised, with excessive literalness of translation, in 616 at Enaton, near Alexandria, by Thomas of Harkel, bishop of Mabug, who followed a different type of Greek text and supplied marginal variants from Greek Mss. Of the many Mss. of this Harclean revision one, containing James, is said to be of the seventh century (Rome, Vat. syr. 266; Gregory, 25°"). The edition of J. White, 1778-1803, prints James from a Ms. of the eleventh (?) century. (3) Palestinian (‘‘Jerusalem’’). F. C. Burkitt, “Christian Palestinian Literature,” in JTS, ii, 1901, pp. 174-185. This version, made directly from the Greek, but under the influence of the Peshitto, is in a dialect of Aramaic similar to that of the Samaritans and the Palestinian Jews, and was prob- ably made not earlier than the sixth century (reign of Justinian) *That the evidence which formerly led to the assignment of an earlier date for the Peshitto is without value has now been decisively shown by F. C. Burkitt, 5. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel (TS, vii), 1901. 80 JAMES for the use of certain communities of Malkite Christians in Palestine, some of whom were afterward settled in Egypt. The earliest Ms. is of the seventh century. The text on which the version rests is of a mixed character. Jas. 11 in this dialect has been printed from a lectionary of the twelfth (?) century, probably from Egypt, by Mrs. Agnes S. Lewis, A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (Studia Sinaitica, vi), 1897, PP. 34-35, ¢. Ρ. lxv. (4) Armenian Version. F. C. Conybeare, art. “Armenian Version,” in HDB, i, 1898. H. Gelzer, art. “‘Armenien,” in Herzog-Hauck, PRE’, vol. ii, 1897. Said to have been originally translated (c. 400) from the Syriac and revised after 431 by Greek Mss. brought from Con- stantinople. The best edition is that of Zohrab, Venice, 1805, from which the readings in Tischendorf’s apparatus are drawn. It is based chiefly on a Ms. dated 1310. Mss. of the whole N. T. of the twelfth or thirteenth century are preserved at Venice. (6) Latin Versions. P. Corssen, “ Bericht iiber die lateinischen Bibeliibersetzungen,” in J ahresbericht tiber die Fortschritte der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ci, 1899, pp. 1-83. (1) Old Latin. H. A. A. Kennedy, art. ‘Latin Versions, the Old,” in HDB, iii, 1900, with full references to literature. Two Mss. are known containing a Latin text of James sub- stantially earlier than the revision of Jerome. ff. Codex Corbeiensis, cent. ix or x. Text in J. Wordsworth, ‘‘The Corbey St. James (ff), and its Relation to Other Latin Versions, and to the Original Language of the Epistle,” in SB, i, 1885, pp. 113-150, also (with photo- graph) in A. Staerk, Les manuscrits latins du V* au XIII siécle conservés ἃ la Bibliothéque impériale de Saint-Petersbourg, 1910. This Ms. of James is remarkable because it forms a part of TEXT δὲ a codex containing treatises by Philastrius and Pseudo-Tertul- lian together with the epistle of Barnabas, but no other Biblical book. W. Sanday, “Some Further Remarks on the Corbey St. James (ff),” in SB, i, 1885, pp. 233-263. s. Codex Bobiensis, cent. v or vi. Palimpsest. Contains Jas. 11--Δ410 a3 ght ac ἘΝ f.. H. J. White, Portions of the Acts of the Apostles, of the Epistle of St. James, and of the First Epistle of St. Peter from the Bobbio Palimpsest (s), now Numbered Cod. 16 in the Imperial Library at Vienna (OLBT, No. IV), 1897, pp. xviii-xx, 33-46. J. Bick, Wiener Palimpseste, I. Teil: Cod. Palat. Vindobonensis 16, olim Bobbiensis (Sitzungsberichte der kais. Akad. der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.-hist. Klasse, vol. clix, 7), 1908, pp. 43-89. With these should be mentioned: τη. Speculum Pseudo-Augustint. Excerpts from the Scrip- tures, perhaps made in the fourth century, preserved in several Mss., of which the best is of the eighth or ninth century; ed. Weihrich (Corpus, vol. xii), Vienna, 1887. A little over one- fourth of James (29 verses out of 108) is preserved in this Speculum. The texts of ff and m are reprinted in Mayor, pp. 3-27. For the text of s, Mayor’s reprint of Belsheim’s edition is insufficient, and White’s or Bick’s edition must be consulted. Some Old Latin readings are perhaps to be found in the text of James in the Vulgate Codices Toletanus and Harleianus 1772. One quotation from James is found in the commentaries of Ambrosiaster, who on Gal. 51° cites Jas. 5%. The text is doubt- less Old Latin, but is substantially identical with that of the Vulgate; see A. Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster (Texts and Studies, vii), 1905, p. 197. On the Perpignan Ms. (p), now Paris, Bib. nat. lat. 321, see E. S. Buchanan, JTS, xii, 1911, pp. 497-534. 82 JAMES (2) Vulgate. S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siécles du moyen dge, Paris, 1893. J. Wordsworth and H. J. White, Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Latine secundum editionem S. Hieronymi, Pars prior, Quat- tuor evangelia, Oxford, 1889-98; Prefatio, pp. x-xv, Epilogus, pp. 672- 673, 705-724. H. J. White, art. “Vulgate,” in HDB, iv, 1902. The text of the Latin Vulgate in James is best preserved in the Cod. Amiatinus (A), c. 700, and Cod. Fuldensis (F), c. 540, from which the text as given in the authoritative Editio Clementina, Rome, !1592, 21593, *1598,* differs in many points. The text of A with the variants of F is to be found in a suffi- ciently accurate reprint in Mayor, pp. 3-27. (3) Textual Relations. The extraordinarily numerous variations found in the text of the Old Latin Bible were due largely to differences of local Latin usage and to caprice, but probably also in some measure to learned revisions effected with the aid of Greek copies and similar to that which produced the Vulgate. In James, ff is substantially a pure Old Latin text, not mixed with Vulgate readings.| That the copy which was corrected in order to make the Vulgate was closely akin to it is shown by the abundant agreement of ff and Vg, not only in vocabulary, but especially in the structure of sentences and the order of words.{ With this inference corresponds the fact that Chroma- tius of Aquileia (7.406), the friend of Jerome, uses the Latin version of James found in ff,§ and that the only probable allu- sion to James in the writings of Ambrose agrees with ff against Vg. The date of the version found in ff is thus not later than cent. iv. Sanday thinks ff a local recension of north Italian origin. || *See G. M. Youngman, American Journal of Theology, xii, 1908, pp. 627-636. ¢ Wordsworth, SB, i, pp. 126 f. t Sanday, SB, i, pp. 258 f. ὃ Chromatius, Tract. in ev. S. Maith. ix, τ; xiv, 7; quoted in full by Wordsworth, SB, i, Ρ. 135. || P. Thielmann, Archio fir lateinische Lexikographie, viii, 1893, p. 502, holds that ff is prob- ably of African origin. TEXT 83 Heer, Die versio latina des Barnabasbriefes, 1908, pp. xlv f., infers that the translation of Barnabas contained in the Codex Corbeiensis was made after Tertullian and before Cyprian and Novatian, and points out that in the version of James the use of salvare, together with other indications, suggests a somewhat late date. The Latin version found in m (Speculum Pseudo-Augustini) is substantially that of Priscillian (Spain, 38:5). It stands further removed from both ff and Vg than they do from each other, but presents complicated relationships to these two. It is believed by Sanday to represent “ἃ late African text,” that is, “δὴ African base . . . corrupted partly by internal devel- opment and partly by the admission of European readings.”’ f There is no sufficient evidence that ff and m rest upon two independent translations of James into Latin.{ On the con- trary, the same Greek text underlies the two, and we must assume a single original translation, which has been modified in the interest of Latin style and local usage, and not in order to conform it to current Greek Mss. Since sufficient time has to be allowed for the divergence of ff and m before the latter part of the fourth century, it follows that the original translation of James into Latin was made certainly not later than 350.§ That James was translated into Latin separately from other books (and probably later) is indicated by the peculiarities of the version itself,|| by the unique phenomenon of its inclusion with patristic treatises in Codex Corbeiensis (ff),** and also by the complaint of Augustine 7 at the unusual badness of the translation of James, and the fact that Cassiodorius, who in other cases took the Old Latin as the basis of comment in his Com- * Or of Instantius; see G. Morin, “Pro Instantio,” in Revue Bénédictine, vol. xxx, 1913, PP. 153-173. t Sanday, Classical Review, iv, 1890, pp. 414-417; SB, i, pp. 244 ff. ft Sanday, OLBT, No II, 1887, p.cclv; cf. SB,i, pp. 250, 259. Wordsworth’s view (SB. i, pp. 133 f.) that ff, Vg, m, and the quotations in Jerome’s writings represent four distinct translations is wholly untenable. § Hilary of Poitiers, De trin. iv, 8, writing in the Greek East in 356-358, seems to make his own translation of Jas. 117 (Zahn, Grundriss?, p. 60). || Westcott, CVT’, pp. 270 f. The case with 2 Peter is similar; cf. Westcott, pp. 269 7. ** Zahn, GnK, i, p. 324. Tt Augustin. Retract. ii, 32, adjuvant (sc. Augustine’s adnotationes, now lost) ergo aliquid, nist quod ipsam epistolam, quam legebamus quando ista dictavi, non diligenter ex greco habebamus inter pretatam. 84 JAMES plexiones in epistolas et acta apostolorum et apocalypsin, in James found it best to use the Vulgate form.* The Latin version found in s is so close to Vg that it is a question whether s ought not to be classed as a Vulgate Ms. (so Hort, ‘‘ Appendix,” p. 83). It differs from Codex Amiatinus of the Vg scarcely more than Codex Fuldensis does, but is nearer to A than to F. On the ground of resemblances to the Latin version used by Fulgentius of Ruspe (Τ 533) and Facundus of Ermione (fc. 570) White surmises that the elements in s which are divergent from the Vulgate ‘‘represent a stream of late African text.” f Jerome probably revised the Latin version of the Acts and epistles in 384-385, as he had that of the Gospels in 383, but his revision of the former books was superficial and imperfect ; it ‘‘does not represent the critical opinion of Jerome, even in the restricted sense in which this is true of the text of the Gos- pels.”{ It is noteworthy that in Jerome’s own quotations from James he does not follow the Vulgate.§ The Greek text underlying ff and m was of the same type as that of the older Greek uncials, and resembled B more closely than does any extant Greek Ms. (not excluding even 8). The Vulgate shows traces of the influence of Greek readings different from the text of ff, m, but hardly ever agreeing with KLPS. § 3. USE oF THE AUTHORITIES.|| Since most of the important variants were in existence as early as the fourth century,** it is evident that the value of the documents is not mainly to be determined by their date, or even by the date of the recension which they may represent. * Cf. Zahn, ibid. t OLBT, No. IV, 1807, p. xxi. t Westcott, art. “Vulgate,” in Smith, DB, p. 3470, of. p. 3460; of. Wordsworth, SB, i, p. 128; White, art. “Vulgate,” in HDB, iv, pp. 874, 883. ὃ Wordsworth, /. c. p. 134. || The following observations, it should be noted, are intended to apply only to the Epistle of James, where by reason of the late emergence of the epistle into use the problems have a peculiar character. Detailed evidence for the conclusions here stated will be found in J. H. Ropes, “‘The Text of the Epistle of James,” JBL, xxviii, 1909, pp. 103-129. ** The isolated variants of the minuscules (variants many of which, even when known, are very properly left unmentioned in Tischendorf’s apparatus) do not in most cases come seri- ously into question. TEXT 85 Ancient documents must be treated like modern editions; their worth depends on the materials available for making them and on the soundness of the principles or tastes which guided their formation. The main task of textual criticism is to discover the character of those principles or tastes. In the text of James the chief groups that can at present be treated as distinct critical entities are B ff, A 33, KLPS αἱ. (the ‘“‘Antiochian recension”). Of these the text of KLPS al. proves on examination to contain no distinctive readings which commend themselves as probably original. This is not due to its lateness, but to the systematic preference of its editor (or of a series of editors and copyists) for textual improvements already in existence, which had been made at various times in the interest of “lucidity and completeness.’”’ We are there- fore tolerably safe in refusing to accept its testimony in the comparatively few cases where its distinctive readings might in themselves have some degree of plausibility. The peculiar common element of A 33 is also due to emendation. On the other hand, the text of B ff, while not absolutely free from obviously emended readings, proves to be much freer from them than is that of any other document. Moreover, the text of B shows less trace of emendation than that of ff. Ac- cordingly, if due precaution is taken against admitting unsup- ported errors due to an eccentricity of B, it is a sound rule that in cases where “‘internal evidence of readings” is not de- cisive the reading of B should be followed. Since, however, B is by no means free from error and even emendation, positive evidence from “transcriptional” or other internal probability will outweigh the authority of B. The use of the witnesses other than B is thus twofold. First, when they disagree with B, their readings may sometimes com- mend themselves by their internal character as superior. Sec- ondly, when they agree with B, they serve as guarantee that the reading of B is not due to the idiosyncrasy of that Ms., and also, by affording evidence of the wider currency of the reading, they somewhat strengthen confidence in it. The statement of Hort (“‘Introduction,” p. 171), which seems 86 JAMES to mean that the authorities for the Catholic epistles stand in order of excellence B833CAP, is substantiated (at any rate for the uncials) in the Epistle of James. The rule above stated cannot be presumed to yield a perfect text. The result will probably include some undetectable errors. It will, however, certainly contain fewer emended readings than would be in- troduced by following the guidance of any other document or group of documents; and this is the chief requisite of a sound text, since in texts of the N. T. false readings, if supported by more than one docu- ment, are much more frequently due to emendation than to accident. F. C. Burkitt, The Rules of Tyconius (TS, iii), 1894, p. cxviii: “The general character of the ‘Neutral’ text so often represented by B alone stands on a sure basis, but B may here and there desert that text by an interpolation or by a substitution which may not necessarily be self-betraying. “These, however, are but secondary considerations compared with the general result, that in the Old Testament as in the New the text of our oldest Mss. as a whole is proved by the evidence of the versions to be immensely superior to the later eclectic texts commonly used in the Greek-speaking churches from the middle of the fourth century. These later revisions sometimes preserve valuable fragments of older texts which would otherwise have been lost altogether, but it is for such fragments alone that these recensions are valuable, and not for their continuous text.” Some further progress in the solution of the problem of the text of James is to be expected through the accumulation of new materials and the verification and digestion of the great work of H. von Soden. The textual notes printed in this Commentary on the several verses of James are based in the main on Tischendorf’s apparatus. The writer hopes to carry through an exhaustive study of the text of James at a later time. Ill. HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE IN THE CHURCH. The earliest express references to the Epistle of James are those found in Origen, and the epistle seems to have come into general use and esteem only after his time and through the in- fluence of Alexandria. No one of the Apostolic Fathers, of the Christian writers of the second century, or of the heretics of the same period betrays, in the present writer’s opinion, ac- quaintance with James. From the third century the epistle HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE 87 begins to be quoted, and to be included in the canon, first of all in the Greek church, then in the Latin, and finally in the Syrian church. Among the Greeks the process seems to have been complete before the time when Eusebius wrote his history (c. 324). In the West at the close of the fourth century, Jerome and Augustine mark, and did much to effect, the final accept- ance of the book as sacred Scripture. In Syria the official trans- lation of the N. T. included the Epistle of James after 412 (or a little later), and it was used by representative theologians of the Antiochian school somewhat earlier; yet for a long time, and even as late as the sixth century, influential church leaders, especially those in close relations with the Nestorians, refused to admit it into their canon. The extraordinary influence of Alexandrian thought on the world is instructively exhibited in this one small instance of a vast pervasive process. Much of the necessary material may be found assembled in Mayor, ch. 2; see also Charteris, Canonicity, 1880, pp. 292-300; Meinertz, Jakobusbrief (Biblische Studien, x), 1905; Zahn, Einleitung, i, #1906, § 7, notes 4-6; The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, Oxford, 1905; and the general works on the history of the canon. Zahn’s statements in the Einleitung are too much influenced by Mayor, and are less trustworthy than his earlier judgments. On the history of opinion as to the author of the epistle, see above, pp. 54-50. δι. ABSENCE OF MENTION IN WRITERS BEFORE ORIGEN. Clement of Rome.—A great number of passages from the epistle of Clement have been supposed to show acquaintance with James, and are conveniently gathered together by Mayor.* In some of these noteworthy coincidences of phrase occur, as in chs. 13, 23, 30, 38, 46, and in the references to Abraham in chs. 10, 17, 31, and to Rahab in ch. 12. But these are not ideas, nor forms of expression, which are original with James, and the likeness is not sufficient to prove literary dependence, but only similar literary associations. Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome?, 1890, i, p. 96, speaks somewhat guardedly of the recognition of James’s “type of Apostolic teaching,” *To these may be added Clem. Rom. 405 ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, cf. Jas. 5%, 88 JAMES although in fact he believed (i, p. 397, cf. ii, pp. 97, 100) that Clement knew and used our epistle. Westcott, ΟΝ ΤΊ, 1896, p. 49, thinks that Clement used James, as does Zahn, GuK, 1880, i, pp. 962 f. Holtz- mann, Einleitung?, 1892, p. 91, regards the question as indeterminable. Weiss, Einleitung?, 1889, pp. 36, 49, does not ascribe to Clement any acquaintance with James. That there is no sufficient evidence of use by Clement is also the decided opinion of the Oxford Committee, NTAF, 1905, pp. 137f. Of the other Apostolic Fathers there is no adequate evidence that 2 Clement of Rome, the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or the Epistle to Diognetus, used or knew James. ‘The same is true of Justin Martyr and of the Apologists of the second century. The Oxford Committee, VTAF, p. 128, while admitting a “general similarity . . . in the spirit of [2 Clement’s and James’s] teaching,” hold that the passages in 2 Clement “are insufficient to give positive evidence in favour of literary dependence.” Polycarp 6 καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι δὲ εὔσπλαγχνοι, εἰς πάντας ἐλεήμονες, ἐπιστρέφοντες τὰ ἀποπεπλανημένα, ἐπισχεπτόμενοι πάντας ἀσθενεῖς, wh ἀμελοῦντες χήρας ἢ ὀρφανοῦ ἢ πένητος... ἀπεχόμενοι πάσης ὀργῆς, προσω- ποληψίας, χρίσεως ἀδίχου, is noteworthy as combining a great many of the topics treated in James, but there is no sufficient indication of direct literary connection. The same is to be said of Epistle of Barnabas 20. Most of the parallels from the Apostolic Fathers and from Justin are conveniently collected in Mayor, ch. 2; see also NTAF. Hermas.—The Shepherd presents a great number of resem- blances to James, and in some cases the similarity extends to a series of parallels in a longer context. Close resemblance, however, is not found to any of those phrases and sentences of the epistle which are unmistakably original whether in thought or expression (e.g. Jas. 2!*26), and in most of the parallel assages the difference of spirit and language is noteworthy. Hence it is altogether likely that both writers are independently using a mass of religious and moral commonplaces, probably characteristic of the Jewish hortatory preaching with which both were plainly familiar. That these resemblances are so numerous, while yet no one of them is conclusive, does not pro- vide (as it has often been asserted to do) cumulative evidence HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE 89 of literary dependence; on the contrary, it makes the opposite explanation all the more probable. There may be, indeed, a common dependence on some single current book of practical religion, but the existence of such a book is not proved; a com- mon background would suffice to account for the facts, and that need not imply that the two authors lived in the same locality or in neighbouring places. The probability is that Hermas did not know the Epistle of James, and that there is no direct literary connection between the two writings. The view maintained in the text seems to me well established, but is not that of most scholars. Zahn (Der Hirt des Hermas, 1868, pp. 396-409; GnK, 1889, i, p. 962; Einleitung*, 1906, § 7, note 5) holds the dependence of Hermas on James to be certain, and with him agree Weiss, Einleitung?, 1889, p. 37, and Westcott, ΟΝ ΤΊ, 1896, pp. 204, 207. Conversely, Holtzmann, Einleitung*, 1892, pp. 92, 336, held, as have others, that James was probably dependent on Hermas. The Oxford Committee, 1905, p. 113, however, are in doubt, saying with regard to Hermas, “we should be hardly justified in placing the Epistle higher than Class C”’ (their “lower degree of probability’’) ; and Lei- poldt, GnK, i, 1907, p. 189, deems Hermas only “ perhaps’’ dependent. Harnack, CaL, i, 1897, p. 485, and Jiilicher, Einleitung*, 1906, p. 193, have perceived that there is no adequate evidence of literary dependence on either side. For references to many judgments of scholars, see Meinertz, Jakobusbrief, 1905, pp. 86-90. The parallels between James and Hermas are elaborately treated by Zahn, Der Hirt des Hermas, 1868, pp. 396-409; the more important are carefully discussed in NTAF, Oxford, 1905; and a very full, though not quite complete, series is cited in Mayor, ἰ. c. The parallel which is perhaps most striking is found in Hermas, Mand. ix, where the subject is a warning against διψυχία. The ex- hortation to pray to the Lord without διψυχία and ἀδιστάχτως ; the promise that God will fulfil such a request; the assurance that God beareth no grudge (οὐχ ἔστι γὰρ ὃ θεὸς ὡς of ἄνθρωποι of μνησικαχοῦντες ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἀμνησίχαχός ἐστι) ; the warning that οἱ Sipuyor . . . οὐδὲν ὅλως ἐπιτυγχάνουσι τῶν αἰτημιάτων αὐτῶν ; the exhortation to pray ἐν τῇ «πίστει; the generalisation that 4 διψυχία. .. πάντων ἀποτυγχάνει τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς ὧν πράσσει, all have their parallels, and to some extent in the same order, in Jas. 1&8. Further, the passage contains a number of single phrases (6. g. 4 πίστις ἄνωθέν ἐστι... ἣ δὲ διψυχία ἐπίγειον πνεῦμά ἐστι παρὰ τοῦ διαβόλου; καθάρισον οὖν τὴν χαρδίαν σου; σεαυτὸν αἰτιῶ χαὶ μὴ τὸν διδόντα σοι) which closely resemble language found in various parts of the epistle. go JAMES But there is no reason to suppose that the author of James coined the word δίψυχος, and the parallels do not, either individually or in their combination, go beyond the range of religious commonplaces, while the more original elements of expression and thought in these very verses of James are wholly neglected. Sermons and tracts from all ages show just such resemblances in countless instances where no possibility of literary dependence exists. Similar illustrations of the relation of the two documents can be mul- tiplied almost indefinitely, but nowhere else is there so near an approach to a parallelism in the development of a considerable context as in Mand. ix. A comparison of the elaboration in Mand. viii of what is compactly expressed in Jas. 1%” is also instructive; cf. Ep. Barnab. 20. Ireneus.—The following passages alone come in question: iv, 162 apse Abraham sine circumcisione et sine observatione sabbatorum credidit deo et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus dei vocatus est (cf. Jas. 233); iv, 134 Abraham . . . amicus factus est deo (cf. Jas. 23) ; v, 11 factores autem sermonum ejus facti (cf. Jas. 12°); facti autem initium facturae (cf. Jas. 118). In the first of these (iv, 162) the striking identity of language with Jas. 223 is wholly due to the last five words, and may well be a coincidence, for the combination of ideas is natural, and was current apart from James (cf. Clem. Rom. 10!, ᾿Α βραὰμ ὁ φίλος προσαγορευθείς, and τοῦ), and the form of expres- sion is the simplest and most direct possible. The other re- semblances are too slight to show any literary relationship. Westcott, CNT’, 1896, p. 391, and Harnack, Das Neue Testament um das Jahr 200, 1889, p. 79, see here no evidence that Ireneus knew James. On the other hand, Zahn, Forschungen, iii, 1884, p. 152; GnK, i, 1888, Pp. 325; Grundriss?, 1904, p. 213; Jiilicher, Einleitung’, 1906, p. 453; Leipoldt, GnK, i, 1907, p. 235, accept the evidence of use by Irenzus as probably valid. Weiss, Einleitung?, 1889, p. 72, inclines, though with more reserve, to the same view. For the opinions of other writers, see Meinertz, Jakobusbrief, 1905, p. 68, note 6. Iren. iv, 344 libertatis lex, iv, 391 Tov θεσμὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας, are fully accounted for from Irenzus’s own emphasis on the liberty of the Gospel, and do not indicate any acquaintance with James; cf. Iren. iii, 1214; iv, οὗ; iv, 371. HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE ΟΙ Tertullian.—No passage in Tertullian proves use of James, and his omission to quote Jas. 1!* in discussing the Lord’s Prayer, De orat. 8, seems to show that he was not acquainted with it, or at any rate that he ascribed to it no apostolic or sacred authority. So Westcott, CNT’, p. 379; Weiss, Einleitung?, p. 72; Ronsch, Das Neue Testament Tertullian’s, 1871, pp. 572-574. Zahn, Forschungen, iii, p. 152, held to Tertullian’s dependence on James in Adv. Jud. 2, De orat. 8; later, GnK, i, p. 325, he leaves the question undecided ; and finally, Grundriss?, p. 20, he ventures no statement. Jiilicher, Einleitung', p. 453, is uncertain; Leipoldt, GnK, i, p. 235, is inclined to accept the evidence of use as “perhaps” valid. Clement of Alexandria.—No passage is found where Clement of Alexandria shows acquaintance with James. Eusebius, how- ever, writes of Clement as follows: Hist. eccl. vi, 141 ἐν δὲ ταῖς Ὑποτυπώσεσιν͵ ξυνελόντα εἰπεῖν, πάσης τῆς ἐνδιαθήκου γραφῆς ἐπιτετμη μένας πεποίηται διηγή- σεις, μηδὲ τὰς ἀντιλεγομένας παρελθών͵ τὴν ᾿Ιούδα λέγω καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς καθολικὰς ἐπιστολὰς τήν τε Βαρναβᾶ καὶ τὴν Πέτρου λεγομένην ᾿Αποκάλυψιν. The statement about Clement made by Photius, Bzblioth. cod. 109 ἑρμηνεῖαι ... τοῦ θείου ἸΠαύλου τῶν ἐπιστολῶν καὶ τῶν καθολικῶν, is to the same effect, and the two testimonies would be accepted as attesting Clement’s knowledge of James, were it not that the Latin Adumbrationes Clementis in epistolas canonicas, which are accepted as the translation of the Hypo- typoses made under the direction of Cassiodorius in the sixth century, include only 1 Peter, Jude, 1 and 2 John. That these four pieces were only selections from a larger body of Latin translations is made less likely by the careful reference of Cassi- odorius to only four epistles in the following passage : De instit. div. lit. 8: In epistolis autem canonicis Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter, qui et Stromateus vocatur, id est in epistola sancti Petri prima, sancti Joannis prima et secunda, et Jacobi quaedam attico sermone declaravit. Ubi multa quidem subtiliter sed aliqua incaute locutus est, quae nos ita transferrt fecimus m latinum, ut exclusis quibusdam o fendiculis purificata doctrina 92 JAMES ejus securior potuisset hauriri. Since one of the pieces translated at the order of Cassiodorius was certainly a commentary on Jude, the conjecture is natural that an error in the text (or the memory) of Cassiodorius has here substituted “ James” for “Jude.” This conclusion and the lack of use anywhere in Clement’s extant writings of the three epistles (James, 2 Peter, 3 John) not included in the Latin Adumbrationes must be ad- mitted to throw some doubt on the inference which would other- wise be drawn from the statements of Eusebius and Photius, and the question must be left undecided. The general rela- tion of Clement to Origen would make it entirely natural that he as well as Origen should have had the epistle; but it cer- tainly made no appeal to his interest. So Jiilicher, Einleitung*, p. 454. Zahn, Forschungen, iii, pp. 133- 138, 150-153; GnK, i, pp. 321-323; Grundriss?, p. 21, is convinced (but in part on highly precarious grounds) that Clement used James. On the other side are Westcott, CNT’, p. 362-364; Harnack, Ν. T. um 200, p. 80; Weiss, Einleitung?, p. 72; Leipoldt, GnK, i, p. 233, and P. Dausch, Der neutestamentliche Schriftcanon und Clemens von Alexandrien, Freiburg, 1894, pp. 26-28. § 2. THe GREEK CHURCH. Origen makes many quotations from our epistle, sometimes naming James as the source; 6. g.: Comm. in Joan. t. xix, C. 23 ἐὰν δὲ λέγηται μὲν πίστις, χωρὶς δὲ ἔργων τυγχάνῃ, se ἐστιν ἡ τοιαύτη, ὡς ἐν TH φε. ρομένῃ ᾿Ιακώβου ἐπιστολῇ ἀνέγνωμεν. Other formulas used by Origen in quoting James are: ὡς παρὰ ᾿Ιακώβῳ (Select. in Ps. 30, ed. Lommatzsch, vol. xii, p. 129) ; φησὶν ὁ ἀπόστολος (ibid. 65, vol. xii, p. 395); φησὶ yap ᾿Ιάκωβος (ibid. 118, vol. xiii, p. 100); καλῶς γέγραπται (ibid. 118, vol. xiii, p. 70); φησίν (ibid. 118, vol. xiii, p. 106); ἐλέχθη (Select. in Exod. 15, vol. viii, p. 324); ὅπερ ἡγοῦμαι εἰρῆσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς (Comm. in Joh. fragm. 6, Berl. ed. vol. iv, p. 488): HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE 93 ὁ Ἰάκωβος γράφει (ibid. fragm. 38, p. 514, also ibid. fragm. Ab, 523); καθώς φησι Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀπόστολος (ibid. fragm. 126, p. 570). See Mayor’, pp. lxxxif. The Latin extracts given by Mayor, in some of which James is called “apostle” or “brother of the Lord,” are from the version of Rufinus, and cannot be trusted in this particular. Other similar Latin passages could be added to Mayor’s collection. Origen thus regarded the author of James as an “apostle,” and included the epistle in “‘Scripture’’; moreover, in his com- prehensive statements about the contents of the N. T., preserved, to be sure, only in the Latin of Rufinus (Hom. in Gen. xiii, 2, the “wells”; Hom. in Jos. vii, τ, the “trumpets”, he includes James with Peter and Jude among the authors of the N. T. This evidence is confirmed by his abundant use of passages from the epistle in his works. The fact that, in speaking of James the Lord’s brother in Comm. in Matt. x, 17 (on 13°°!-), Origen fails to mention any epistle by him may, however, indicate that he then believed the epistle to have been written by some other Apostle James. The omission of any reference to the Epistle of James (or to that of Jude) in the passage quoted by Eusebius, H. 6. vi, 251-19, from Origen’s commentary on John, book v, is noteworthy, but the purpose of the passage is to show that even the great apostles, Paul, Peter, and John, wrote but little, and mention of James was not necessary. The precise attitude toward the epistle indicated by the word φερο- μένη in the first extract quoted above has been much discussed. But the expression seems to mean “current,” and does not indicate any qualification of Origen’s acceptance of the writing in question. Cf. Comm. in Joan. t. i, c. 2 (with reference to the law of Moses) τῶν τοίνυν φερομένων γραφῶν xat ἐν πάσαις ἐχχλησίαις θεοῦ πεπιστευμένων εἶναι θείων οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι τις λέγων πρωτογέννημα μὲν τὸν Μωῦύσέως νό- μὸν ἀπαρχὴν δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον; t. i, c. 2 φάσχων μετὰ τὰ εὐαγγέλια τὰς πράξεις xat τὰς ἐπιστολὰς φέρεσθαι τῶν ἀποστόλων... . ἐν ταῖς φερομέναις ἐπιστολαῖς. The positive evidence that Origen counted James as a “disputed” book, and had scruples about including it in his N. T., seems to reduce it- self to an over-hasty inference from Comm. in Joh. xx, το οὗ συγχωρηθὲν 94 JAMES ἂν ὑπὸ τῶν παραδεχομένων τὸ ΠΙίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεχρά ἐστιν, where the context shows that there is no implication whatever that any class of recognised Christians deliberately rejected James. Zahn’s state- ment in GnK, i, p. 323 and note 1, was correct, and has been unfortu- nately modified in Grundriss?, p. 43; ¢f. Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1907, pp. 226 f. The extant writers of the Greek church contemporary with Origen or just after his time made somewhat sparing use of James, but there is no reason to think that any of them failed to include it in his N. T. The antiquity of the epistle, its practical religious and moral usefulness for edification, and the growing belief that it was written by the Apostle James (see Pp. 43-45) were motives which united to compel acceptance of it. A third-century papyrus and all Greek copies of the Catholic epistles (the earliest of which date from the fourth century) contain it, and it is found in the several Egyptian versions, which must have followed the custom of Alexandria. Frequent use and direct quotation of James, apparently as Scripture (i, 114), are found in the pseudo-clementine Epistolae ad virgines, probably written in Palestine or southern Syria in the early decades of the third century. In the same century perhaps Gregory Thaumaturgus* (fc. 270), probably Dionysius of Alexandria} (7 265), and certainly Methodius of Olympusf (1 δ. 311) show acquaintance with James. In the fourth century the evidence increases. Eusebius uses the epistle freely,§ and it seems to have formed part of his N. T. The fifty copies of the N. T. made under his direction by or- der of the Emperor Constantine no doubt included the seven Catholic epistles, and we may assume that this was true also of the copies prepared by Pamphilus (f 309). The statement of Eusebius that some did not accept James is to be understood of the Syrians. | * Westcott, CVT’, p. 302. t Harnack, Die Uberlieferung und der Bestand der urchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, 1893, Pp. 419, 421 f.; Bardenhewer, Geschichte der alikirchlichen Litteratur, ii, p. 175; Meinertz, Jakobusbrief, Ὁ. 112. { Leipoldt, GK, i, p. 250; Bonwetsch, “Die Theologie von Methodius von Olympus,” in Abhandl. der kgl. Ges. der Wissenschaften 2u Gottingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, N. F. vii, 1, 1903, Pp. 142; and Methodius von Olympus, I. Schriften, 1891, pp. 291, 293. § Westcott, CNT’, p. 432. ΞΟ Ἂ- HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE 95 Hist. eccl. ii, 23% τοιαῦτα χαὶ τὰ κατὰ Ἰάκωβον οὗ ἣ πρώτη τῶν ὀνομα- ζομένων καθολιχῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται ᾿ ἰστέον δὲ ὡς νοθεύεται μέν, οὐ πολλοὶ γοῦν τῶν παλαιῶν αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσαν. ὡς οὐδὲ τῆς λεγο- μένης Ἰούδα, μιᾶς καὶ αὐτῆς οὔσης τῶν ἑπτὰ λεγομένων χαθολικῶν - ὅμως δ᾽ ἴσμεν καὶ ταύτας μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν πλείσταις δεδημιοσιευμένας ἐχ- χλησίαις. Ibid. iii, 253 τῶν 8 ἀντιλεγομένων, γνωρίμων δ᾽ οὖν ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς, ἣ λεγομένη Ἰακώβου φέρεται καὶ ἡ ᾿Ιούδα ἥ τε Πέτρου δευτέρα ἐπιστολὴ χαὶ ἣ ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα χαὶ τρίτη ᾿Ιωάννου. From Eusebius’s statements a knowledge of these ancient doubts about James was kept alive among Greek scholars through the Middle Ages; cf., for instance, in the fourteenth century, Nicephorus Callistus, Hist. eccl. ii, 46. | The Catalogus Claromontanus (Ms. of sixth century; the list is believed to have been composed in Alexandria in the fourth century) includes it, as do the lists of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, and Chrysostom.* In many of these writers quotations or allu- sions are also found. 7 To these witnesses may be added Macarius of Egypt (Τ 391), the so-called 60th canon of the Council of Laodicea (fourth or fifth century), and from the fifth century Cyril of Alexandria, Isidore of Pelusium, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Marcus Eremita, Eusebius of Alexandria. The acceptance of James in the Greek church (not including certain Greek-speaking Syrians) is thus unbroken from the time of Origen, when the book first emerges into the light of history. Before the year 400 knowledge of it is attested for Alexandria, Palestine, Cyprus, Asia Minor, and Constantinople. Tue ARMENIAN CHuRcH. The Armenian N. T., in the only form known tous, was made to correspond to Greek Mss. brought from Constantinople after 431, and hence includes James with the other Catholic epistles; see the full references to Armenian writers of the fifth century given by Meinertz, Jakobusbrief, pp. 185-189. “τς Buthalius” included James and the other Catholic epistles in his edition; cf. J. A. Robinson, Euthaliana (TS, iii, 3), 1895, p. 27- + The reference to Basil given by Westcott, ΟΝ ΤΊ, p. 454, is to the Constitutiones monasticae, which are probably not genuine. The resemblances in the passages from the Clementine Homilies cited by Mayor’, pp. Ixxxiii f., are inadequate to show acquaintance with James. Gregory of Nyssa nowhere alludes to James. t For references to James in Greek writers of the fifth century, see Meinertz, J akobusbrief, pp. 159 f. 163-165, 177 f. 96 JAMES § 3. THE SyRIAN CHURCH. W. Bauer, Der Apostolos der Syrer, 1903; Zahn, ‘‘Das Neue Testa- ment Theodors von Mopsvestia und der urspriingliche Kanon der Syrer,” in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, xi, 1900, pp. 788-806. The history of the epistle among the Syrians is very different, but shows the gradual effect of the influence of Greek learned authority. The earliest translation of James into Syriac was that of c. 412 in the Peshitto version, which included also 1 Peter and 1 John. Previous to that time none of the Catholic epistles had gained complete acceptance into the Syrian canon. Zahn, GnK, i, pp. 373-375. Cf. Doct. Addai, 46. The Syrian canon published from a ninth-century Ms. by Mrs. A. S. Lewis, Studia Sina- itica, i, 1894, pp. 11-14, is believed to have been composed about 400 A.D.; it includes the four Gospels, Acts, and the epistles of Paul (with Hebrews and perhaps 3 Corinthians), but expressly excludes all the Catholic epistles as well as the Apocalypse. Hence Aphraates (c. 345) and the genuine works of Ephraem (+378) show no trace of acquaintance with James, and no clear trace is found in the scant remains of other literature in the Syriac tongue down to the great division of the Syrian church after the Council of Chalcedon (451). So Burkitt, “Text und Versions,” in EB, iv, 1903, col. 5004, note; cf. also Westcott, CNT’, p. 452; Jiilicher, Eznleitung’, p. 490; and Bur- kitt, S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel (TS, vii, 2), 1901. The contrary statements of Zahn, Grundriss', p. 53 (altered in 2d ed.), and of J. A. Bewer, ‘‘The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church,” in American Journal of Theology, iv, 1900, p. 349, are founded on the evidence adduced in the “Scriptural Index”’ in J. H. Hill, Dissertation on the Gospel Commentary of S. Ephraem the Syrian, 1896. Butinso far as the references to James there collected are drawn from works preserved only in Greek or Latin, they are worthless (cf. Zahn, Forschungen, i, p. 46); and the remainder, found in Syriac works, are shown by Bauer, op. cit. pp. 42-47, to be in every case inadequate to prove use of James. Bauer himself, p. 48, has added two instances of possible use, only one of which, however, deserves consideration, the phrase “father of lights,” abba d’ nahire, found in Opera, v, col. 489. The “Polemic Sermon,” No. 23, in which this occurs is undoubtedly genuine, but the context contains no hint of the passage in James, and HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE 97 the allusion is not clear enough to permit any inference whatever. Bauer, pp. 52f., has gone too far in saying that Ephraem probably knew James, and has unfortunately been followed here by Leipoldt, GnK, i, p. 245. The resemblance to Jas. 3% (Peshitto) in Isaac of Antioch (fc. 460), ed. Bickell, i, 1873, p. 132, pointed out by Bauer, p. 53, perhaps is due to acquaintance with James, but may be accidental. In the Doctrine of the Apostles, published by Cureton and Wright, Ancient Syriac Documents, p. 32, there is a singular reference to “‘ what James had written from Jerusalem.” If the document is from the fourth century (Harnack, Ueberlieferung und Bestand der altchristl. Lit- teratur, p. 535) this might form an exception to the above statement. See Westcott, CNT’, p. 251. Even among Greek-speaking members of the undivided Syr- ian church, a considerable group did not recognise James as a part of the N. T. The most notable of these is the Antio- chian, Theodore of Mopsuestia* (} c. 429), who accepted no one of the Catholic epistles. The same may have been the attitude of Titus of Bostra (fc. 371), and was probably that of Severi- anus of Gabala (c. 400, a Syrian by birth), and of the author of the Apostolic Constitutions. In one passage, Pseudo-Ignatius, Philipp. 11 πῶς πειράζεις τὸν ἀπείραστον, the author of the Apostolic Constitutions perhaps betrays his knowledge of Jas. 11%. Apart, however, from this possible allusion to James, this writer shows acquaintance with no Catholic epistle except τ Peter, and in his use of 1 Peter nowhere indicates that it was a part of his N. T.; cf. Bauer, op. cit. pp. 61 f. In later centuries, too, there is adequate evidence that by many of the leaders of the Nestorians in Eastern Syria James was not accepted, although they used the Peshitto. In 545 Paul of Nisibis, lecturing at Constantinople but doubtless rep- resenting accurately the opinion of the school of Nisibis, attrib- uted full canonicity only to 1 Peter and 1 John, and classed James with the antilegomena.t So Cosmas Indicopleustes (c. 545), who had become acquainted with East Syrian theo- * Bauer, op. cit. pp. 53-58; Zahn, “Das Neue Testament Theodors,” in NKZ, xi, 1900, pp. 788-793. Τ Junilius, Instituta regularia divinae legis,i, 6; see Westcott, ΟΝ ΤΊ, pp. 553 f.; H. Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten, 1880. 98 JAMES logians, says that there are various views about the Catholic epistles, and that some reject all of them; but it is not clear that he refers to contemporaries.* In the eighth century The- odore bar-Koni, the Nestorian, apparently rejected all the Catholic epistles.| About 825 Isho dad, bishop of Haditha on the Tigris, refers to others besides Theodore who reject all the Catholic epistles, and may have in mind contemporaries of his own.{ In the preface to the Catholic epistles by the Jacobite scholar, Bar-Hebreeus (1226-86), the doubts about James, 1 Peter, and 1 John are mentioned (although Bar-Hebreus himself accepted those epistles), and this preface is found in- cluded in Syriac N. T. Mss. as late as the fifteenth century. M. Klamroth, Gregorii Abulfaragit Bar Ebhraya in actus et epistulas catholicas adnotationes, G6ttingen, 1878. This preface of Bar-Hebreus, which is itself perhaps based partly on the statement of Isho‘dad, is found: (1) in part in the well-known Amsterdam Ms. (Library of the Fra- ternity of the Remonstrants, no. 184) of 1470 from Mardin (Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 836, no. 65), which contains the two pseudo-clementine epistles on virginity; cf. Wetstein, Duae epistolae S. Clementis, 1752, pp. 407 f. (2) in a Ms. now or formerly belonging to Robert S. Williams, of Utica, N. Y. (Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 845, no. 12) described by I. H. Hall, “A Syriac Manuscript with the Antilegomena Epistles,” in Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1884, pp. 37-49. This Ms. is dated 1471, and probably came likewise from near Mardin. In the latter Ms. the preface runs as follows (Hall, J. c. p. 41): “Three Catholic, that is, General, epistles were translated into Syriac from the beginning: one of James, the brother of our Lord, who was bishop in Jerusalem, and wrote to the believing people that were scat- tered in every place of captivities and persecutions, and to them was directed this first epistle; and the second, of Peter; and the third, of John. But men have doubted about them, because they were not like the [proper] style of speech, and because they were not written to any one person or people. But Eusebius assures [us] that they are theirs.’ On the other hand, after about 350 the movement to adopt some at least of the seven Catholic epistles recognised by the * Zahn, GnK, ii, pp. 230-233. ΤΑ. Baumstark, “Die Biicher I-IX des ke6484 Seskdlj6n des Theodoros bar Καὶ ὀπὶ," in Oriens Christianus, i, 1901, pp. 173-178. 1 Bauer, op. cit. pp. 54 f. ΡΨ ΜΝ HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE 99 Greek church is clearly seen among the Western Syrians, both of Antioch (where Greek was spoken) and of Edessa.* Thus Apollinarius of Laodicea in Syria (fc. 390), whose father, how- ever, was a native of Alexandria, is said to have commented on James.t Chrysostom (7 407) uses James freely, and in the so-called Synopsis of Chrysostom, which, whatever its origin, correctly represents that writer’s views, James is included with 1 Peter and 1 John (καὶ τῶν καθολικῶν ἐπιστολαὶ τρεῖς). Polychronius (7 428), the brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia, in- troduces a citation from James as from τὶς τῶν ἀποστόλων, Theodoret (7 c. 457) quotes Jas. 515 and makes at least one other allusion.f In Edessa the Peshitto version was made by the direction of Rabbula (bishop 411-435), and, in accordance with the then current canon of Antioch, it included James, 1 Peter, and τ John. In the case of Lucian of Antioch (f 311) it is likely, though it cannot be proved, that he accepted James, 1 Peter, and 1 John; cf. Zahn, Grundriss*, p. 54; Harnack, art. “Lucian der Martyrer,” in Herzog- Hauck, PRE, xi, 1902. From this time on the position of James in the Monophysite branch of the church grew increasingly secure, in accordance with the general tendencies of the time. The successive re- visions of the Syriac N. T., under Bishop Philoxenus in 508 and by Thomas of Heraclea in 616, even brought in the other four Catholic epistles and completed in Syriac the Greek canon of seven. The seven are included in the 85th of the apostolic canons appended to the Apostolic Constitutions, which is be- lieved to have been drawn up in Syria in the early part of the fifth century, and, having been translated into Syriac not later than 600, became a corner-stone of ecclesiastical law in the east.§ To the full Greek canon, with seven Catholic epistles, John of Damascus (c. 750) lent the influence of his great au- thority. * See Bauer, of. cit. pp. 62-68. t See Leipoldt, GnK, i, p. 248. t Meinertz, Jakobusbrief, p. 172, note 1. ὃ Zahn, GnK, ii, pp. 180-193; H. Achelis, art. “ Apostolische Konstitutionen und Kanones,” in Herzog-Hauck, PRE, i, 1896. 100 JAMES The history of the acceptance of James among the Nestorians is not known, but their great scholar Ebed Jesu of Nisibis ({ 1318), in his Catalogue of All the Books of the Church, in- cludes “three epistles which in every manuscript and language are ascribed to Apostles, namely to James and to Peter and to John.” * The history of the epistle in the Syrian church thus clearly illustrates a natural process. At first the canon of the Syrians - consisted only of the Gospels (i.e. the Diatessaron) and the epistles of Paul; but gradually other books were adopted from Greek neighbours, and this took place most rapidly in the western churches which looked to Antioch and Edessa for authoritative judgment. But even among the Antiochians James only won its place in the face of long-continued and in- fluential opposition, although progress was greatly aided by the wide use of the Peshitto. In the parts of Syria remoter from Greek influence the adoption of James into the canon was tar- dier, and down almost to modern times a vivid recollection was preserved of the doubtful position of James, as of the other Catholic epistles. § 4. THE WESTERN CHURCH. The western church shows the same tardiness in the accept- ance of James that we have traced among the Syrians; and here again it was the influence of Alexandria that ultimately brought the epistle into the Latin canon. Before the middle of the fourth century there is no clear trace of any acquaintance with James. The Canon of Muratort omits it; Irenzeus makes no certain use of it; Tertullian seems either not to have known it or to have rejected it. Among the innumerable quotations of Cyprian there is none from James, and Novatian (c. 252), De trin. 4, would almost certainly have quoted Jas. 1!’ if he had known it as a part of Scripture.f A hundred years later (c. 359) the African Catalogus Mommsenianus omits James, and it is worthy of note that even Ambrose (f 397) never directly quotes from it. | * Westcott, ΟΝ ΤΊ, p. 557. ἱ Westcott, CNT’, p. 384, note 2. HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE IOI The evidence adduced for use by Hippolytus (Zahn, Grundriss?, p. 21; cf. his earlier and more accurate statement, GnK, i, pp. 323 f.) is wholly inadequate. One passage often quoted (Hippol. ed. Lagarde, p. 122) is from a ninth-century treatise. The resemblances in the commentary on Daniel (Bonwetsch, Studien zu den Kommentaren Hippolyts (Texte und Untersuchungen, xvi, 3), 1897, p. 26) are too slight to have any weight, as are those in the Berlin Griechische christliche Schriftsteller, Hippolytus, ed. Achelis, vol. i, part ii, 1897, pp. 6, 60 f. The possible reference to Jas. 11, “‘the word of Jude in his first letter to the twelve tribes” (zbid. p. 231), is in a catena-fragment taken from an Arabic commentary on the Apocalypse made in the thirteenth century, and, wholly apart from the obvious questions of transmission and genuine- ness, is too confused and too slight for any affirmation to be founded on it (so Zahn, GnK, i, p. 323). On Ambrose, cf. Wordsworth, SB, i, p. 128, note 2. It is probable that the passage, Expos. evang. Luc. viii, 13, sive Lazarus pauper in seculo sed deo dives, sive apostolicus aliquis pauper in verbo, locuples in fide betrays acquaintance with Jas. 25. The probability is increased by the agreement with the version of ff (pauperes s@culi, locupletes in fide) against the Vulgate (pauperes in hoc mundo, divites in fide). The earliest evidence of knowledge of James in the Latin west is probably to be found in the Latin translation on which the texts of Codex Corbeiensis, the pseudo-augustinian Speculum, and the Vulgate all ultimately rest. This must have been made, at latest, by 350 A.D. But in Codex Corbeiensis the epistle is included in a collection of patristic tracts, and there is no evi- dence that it was a part of any Latin N. T. until a generation later.* The earliest Latin writer to quote from James is Hilary of Poi- tiers, De trin. iv, 8 (written 356-358, during his exile in Asia Minor and the east), who refers to it once only, and then in a catena of passages which, he alleges, are misused by the Arians in support of their heresy. Since the form of his quotation (demutatio ; cf., however, Priscillian, Tract. i, p. 26. 21) agrees with no known Latin version of James, it is likely that Hilary is making his own translation from the Greek. “‘Ambrosiaster”’ (366-382; like Jerome, with whom he seems in other ways to have had some relations, a supporter of Da- masus) once quotes Jas. 5”, in a form almost identical with * Cf. Zahn, GnK, i, pp. 323-325. 102 JAMES that of the Vulgate.* Priscillian (375-386), likewise closely connected with the east, repeatedly quotes James in a Latin translation substantially identical with that of the pseudo-au- gustinian Speculum (τ). Philastrius of Brescia (383-391) in- cluded James in his canon. The Vulgate revision of the epistles, including James, seems to have been prepared in 384-385, and wielded invincible au- thority.§ Jerome also makes many quotations from the epistle in his own writings,|| and in 392 wrote as follows: De viris illustribus, 2: Jacobus qui appellatur frater domini ...unam tantum scripsit epistulam, quae de septem catholicis est, quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita adseritur, licet paulatim tempore pro- cedente obtinuerit auctoritatem. The canon of Rufinus (c. 404)** included Jacobi fratris domint et apostoli unam, as would be expected from the many refer- ences to James in similar terms found in his translations of the exegetical works of Origen. Chromatius of Aquileia (f 406), the intimate friend of both Jerome and Rufinus, quotes James with a text closely like that of Codex Corbeiensis (ff).TT Augustine (354-430) is the first African to make use of the Epistle of James.{{ He adopted exactly the canon of Jerome, and under his influence this list of books was established, prob- ably by the Council of Hippo in 393 and the “third” Coun- cil of Carthage in 397, certainly by the Council of Carthage in 419.8§ The Donatists of this period also accepted the same Catholic epistles as the Catholic church.||||_ In 405 Pope Inno- cent I wrote a letter to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in which * A. Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster (TS, vii, 4), t905, pp. τοῦ f.; G. Morin, “ Qui est lAmbrosiaster? Solution nouvelle,” in Revue Bénédictine, vol. xxxi, 1914, Ppp. I-34. } The passages are given in Mayor, pp. 5-23. t Her. \xxxviii. § The Roman synod of 382 is a mere assumption to account for the so-called Decretum Gelasianum, containing a list of the books of the N. T. which was supposed to have proceeded from it. E. von Dobschiitz, Das Decretum Gelasianum (Texte und Untersuchungen, xxxviii), 1912, has now proved that the Decretum is a pseudepigraphic document of the first half of the sixth century. || Cf. Wordsworth, SB, i, p. 129, and notes. ἘΦ Expositio in symbolum apostolorum, 36. ++ Tract. in evang. 5. Matt. ix, 1; xiv, 7; quoted by Wordsworth, of. cit. p. 135. tt See De doctrina christiana, ii, 12; ¢f. Wordsworth, op. cit. p. 129. Augustine quotes James in a Latin version closely like the Vulgate. δὲ Zahn, GnK, ii, pp. 244-59. || || Westcott, CVT’, p. 422. HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE 103 he names these same books as constituting the N. T. Worthy of mention is the fact that when, about 544, Cassiodorius had a copy of the N. T. prepared, secundum antiquam translationem (i. 6. as it was before the revision by Jerome), this copy included James. The difference between the Greek and the Latin canon of the N. T., which lasted until the end of the fourth century, is nowhere more clearly seen (not even in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews) than in the Epistle of James; and in the west, as in Syria, it seems to have been men acquainted with the learning and custom of Alexandria who brought the Epistle of James into general use and made it an integral part of the N. T. But in the west, unlike Syria, authority promptly pre- vailed, and after the beginning of the fifth century no trace is found of any lingering prejudice against James. ὃ 5. ORDER OF THE CaTHoLic EPISTLES.* The order in which the Catholic epistles were arranged is not determinable earlier than Eusebius. His order is probably James, Peter, John, Jude; in any case he put James first. This order is that followed by Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epi- phanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Euthalius, the later Greek lists, nearly all Greek Mss., and the Bohairic version. In the Pesh- itto a similar order is found, James, 1 Peter, 1 John. Ina few instances from among the Greeks the epistles of Peter are put first, so, notably, in the 85th apostolic canon and Codex V (cent. viii or ix). In the west before Jerome a different condition is found, which reflects the fact that until that time the western church did not possess a complete and definitive canon of Catholic epistles. Nearly always, in honour to the Roman see, Peter is put first ; so in the usage of Rufinus, in all three of the codices prepared for Cassiodorius, and in the list of the Codex Claro- montanus. The place of James varies among the other three Stations; but there was a tendency to adopt the order Peter, John, James, Jude, and this order recurs later from time to * Mainly drawn from Zahn, GnK, ii, pp. 375-380. 104 JAMES time, and is followed in the decree of the Council of Trent of April 8, 1546.* In the Vulgate, on the other hand, the Greek order, James, Peter, John, Jude, was followed, and no Vulgate Ms. is known which departs fromit. The Codex Fuldensis (c. 540 A.D.) con- tains an older, pseudo-hieronymian, prologue to the Catholic epistles, which expressly states that the order of the orthodox Greeks differs from that earlier current in Latin Mss. and that the Greek order was introduced into Latin usage by Jerome. From the Vulgate the Greek order has come into the modern English Bible. § 6. Later History. Leipoldt, GnK, ii, 1908, where full citations will be found; Westcott, CNT, part iii, ch. 3; S. Berger, La Bible au seiziéme siécle, 1879; Mei- nertz, Jakobusbrief, 1905, who gives a full account of Byzantine and medieval Latin references; G. Kawerau, “Die Schicksale des Jakobus- briefes im τό. Jahrhundert,” in Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben, x, 1889, pp. 359-370; W. Walther, ‘Zu Luthers Ansicht iiber den Jakobusbrief,” in Theol. Studien und Kritiken, \xvi, 1893, pp. 595-598; M. Meinertz, ‘‘ Luther’s Kritik am Jakobusbriefe nach dem Urteile seiner Anhinger,” in Biblische Zeitschrift, iii, 1905, pp. 273-286; H. H. Howorth, ‘‘The Origin and Authority of the Bib- lical Canon according to the Continental Reformers,” in JTS, viii, 1906-7, Ppp. 321-365, ix, 1907-8, pp. 188-230; ‘‘ The Canon of the Bible among the Later Reformers,” 014. x,:1908-9, pp. 182-232. After the early part of the fifth century any doubt as to the right of James to a place in the canon disappeared from the west, and only Isidore of Seville (1 636) so much as refers to the ancient doubts.— In 1516 the first published edition of the Greek Testament in print appeared, with Amnotationes by its editor Erasmus. In these (p. 601), with clear internal in- dication of dependence on the statements of Jerome, Erasmus mentions the scruples of antiquity, and adds some reasons of his own, drawn from language and style, for doubting whether the epistle is from the hands of an apostle.{ Nevertheless, he heartily accepts it as a proper part of the canon. * Leipoldt, GK, ii, p. 46. { De origine officiorum, i, 12. tSee above, p. 25. HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE IO5 The influence of Erasmus’s learning was felt in both the Catholic and Protestant camps. On the Catholic side Car- dinal Cajetan, who had a knowledge of Jerome at first hand, allowed himself in some matters to adopt a criticism more radi- cal than that of Erasmus, but in the case of James he was satis- fied (1529) with pronouncing its apostolic authorship uncertain. At the Council of Trent these free views were vigorously rep- resented, and appeal made to the authority of Jerome, but in the decree of April 8, 1546, the Epistle of James was included in the list of sacred and canonical Scripture and its author de- clared to be an apostle.* This action has led to a distinction,} still current in the Roman Catholic church, between those books of the Bible which, it is believed, have always been accepted (sometimes called “proto-canonical”), and those which only gradually at- tained full canonical authority (“deutero-canonical”). ‘To the latter class belongs the Epistle of James. But this is purely an historical classification; no defect of canonicity is held to pertain to the “deutero-canonical” books, whether in O. T. or N.Y. On the Protestant side the canonical character of certain books, and notably of James, was earnestly contested. The doubts raised by the historical learning of Erasmus were strength- ened as the reformers undertook, on the basis of independent investigation, to separate the original substance of Christian doctrine from its later accretions of tradition. The ancient ex- ternal evidence from the first four centuries as to the apostolic origin of certain books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation) was seen to be by no means uniformly favour- able, and the question arose whether such books could be treated as safe bases of doctrinal authority. At the same time a new criterion of canonicity was introduced by Luther, who classified the books of the traditional canon according as they showed fidel- ity to the Gospel of Christ (“Christum predigen und treyben”’) as he understood it, that is, to the doctrine of salvation by faith, *See above, p. 46. This decree was reaffirmed by the Vatican Council, April 24, 1870. ¢ The distinction appears in Sixtus Senensis (1566), and was maintained by Bellarmin (1586); see Leipoldt, GuK, pp. 52 f. 106! JAMES most clearly expressed in John, Romans, and 1 Peter (these “‘the true kernel and marrow among all the books”). Luther’s objection to James is found as early as 1519,* but his judgments were most clearly expressed in the first edition of his German N. T. (Wittenberg, September, 1522). In the Introduction to this he says: “Tn fine, Saint John’s Gospel and his first epistle, Saint Paul’s epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Saint Peter’s first epistle—these are the books which show thee Christ, and teach . thee everything that is needful and blessed for thee to know even though thou never see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore is Saint James’s epistle a right strawy epistle (‘eyn rechte stroern Epistel’t) in comparison with them, for it has no gospel character to it.” The special preface to James presents his view in detail. He values the epistle because it emphasises the Law of God (“Goitis gesetz hart treybt”’), but denies its apostolic authorship, chiefly on the ground that it teaches justification by works. He con- cludes: “Therefore I will not have it in my Bible in the number of the proper chief books, but do not intend thereby to forbid anyone to place and exalt it as he pleases, for there is many a good saying in it.” In printing, Luther separated James, with Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation, from the other book of the N. T., putting them at the end of the volume and assigning them no numbers in his table of contents. In the first edition of the complete German Bible (1534), the section of the Introduction containing the remark that James is “‘a right strawy epistle”’ was for some reason omitted; but the preface to James is not substantially altered, and in many other utterances, public and private, and extending through the whole period of his life, Luther expressed the same judgment, with no lessening of decisiveness or vigour. In the successive issues * Resolutiones Lutherianae super propositionibus suis Lipsiae disputatis, Weimar ed., vol. ii, Ῥ. 425. { The phrase is founded on the “wood, hay, stubble” of τ Cor. 312, to which Luther also alludes in his preface to Hebrews. It means only that the epistle contains much straw, not that it is wholly composed of it. HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE 107 of the German Bible down to the present day, the order of the books of the N. T. remains that of Luther, although since 1603 it has grown customary to assign numbers to the four con- tested books with the rest. The view held by Luther, that James, in view of its inner character, ought not to be given full canonical authority, while yet, as a book profitable for edification, it ought not to be utterly rejected, is substantially the view of most of the earlier German Protestants. Dogmatic and exegetical writers formulated it with great variety of shades of emphasis. They frequently permitted themselves sharp criticism of the epistle, and ex- pressly denied its authority for the establishment of doctrine, and to Luther’s subjective grounds they added arguments drawn from the early history of the canon. Such attacks were stimulated afresh by the attempted compromise of the “Augs- burg Interim” (1548), in which Jas. 5 was used as authority for the sacrament of extreme unction. The most complete formal rejection is to be found in the so-called Wiirttemberg Confession (1552), in which is contained this article: “De sacra scriptura. Sacram scripturam vocamus eos canonicos libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti de quorum auctoritate in ecclesia numquam dubitatum est.” This was intended to exclude definitely from the canon the seven disputed books, some or all of which were frequently designated as “apocrypha of the New Testament ”’ or even (as in Wolder’s Polyglot, Hamburg, 1596) as “non-canonical.” On the other hand, Luther’s jealous personal opponent, Carlstadt, in his elaborate investigation of the canonical Scrip- tures, while recognising that James and the other disputed books are of lesser dignity and value, yet refused to admit that they lack full canonical authority. In favour of the Epistle of James was also thrown the powerful influence of Melanchthon, who believed that the statements of James about justification could be understood in such a way as to escape conflict with the doctrines of Paul. In the later years of the sixteenth century, with the establish- 108 JAMES ment of the stricter doctrine of inspiration, the doubts about the canonical authority of James tended to disappear among orthodox Lutherans, and after the year 1600 they are seldom heard except from the ranks of the rationalistic and critical theologians. ‘The German doctrinal standards do not contain lists of the books of the N. T., but the rightfulness of the posi- tion of James in the canon was assumed at the date when these documents were prepared, and was plainly deemed unassailable. The terms ‘‘deutero-canonical,” “libri canonici secundi ordinis”’ continued in use for many years, but were emptied of all sub- stantial meaning. Kawerau, op. cit. p. 360, “‘ Die Konkordienformel mit ihrem Riickgang auf die Apologie (p. 693) bezeichnet wol den Wendepunkt in der Beur- theilung des Jakobusbriefes. Die Inspirationslehre des nachfolgenden Dogmatikergeschlechtes hatte ein kritisches Urtheil nicht mehr ver- tragen kdénnen.”’ In the reformed churches outside of Germany Luther’s principle of discrimination between the different books of the N. T. did not meet with favour, and although the ancient doubts as to certain books were fully recognised, there seems to have been little or no disposition to set up a new canon. Zwingli, Calvin, Beza, and their followers all accepted James as canonical, although it was admitted that the authorship was disputable. The Gallican Confession (1559) and the Belgic Confession (1561) include James in their lists of Holy Scripture. After this time critics sometimes denied the genuineness and apostolic authorship of books, but they had no idea of altering the contents of the traditional N. T. In England the early translations show strong Lutheran in- fluence.* Tyndale’s New Testaments (1525) follow the ar- rangement of Luther in putting Hebrews, James, Jude, Revela- tion at the end, and giving them no numbers in the table of contents. This is in accord with the adoption by Tyndale of much matter from -Luther’s prefaces and with other marks of dependence on the German Bible. Tyndale’s prologue to James * H. H. Howorth, “The Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon in the Anglican Church,” in JTS, viii, 1906-7, pp. I-40. HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE I0g (1534) alludes to ancient doubts and later objections, but con- cludes: ‘‘Me thynketh it ought of ryght to be taken for holye Scripture,” and no movement for rejecting the epistle from the canon seems to have arisen in England. The Bibles of Coverdale (1535), ‘‘Matthew” (1537), and Taverner (1539) likewise preserve the Lutheran order. In the Great Bible (1539), published by ecclesiastical authority, the Vulgate order of the N. T. books is for the first time found in an English Bible.* This was naturally followed in the Bishops’ Bible (1568), and King James’s Bible (1611) ; but it had already become familiar to the Puritans through the Geneva N. T. (1557), in which the order of the books, as well as many other evidences, shows the transition in English Puritanism from Lutheran to Calvinistic influences. Dutch, Swiss, Danish, and Swedish Bibles of the sixteenth century are known, and even an Icelandic Bible published at Copenhagen in 1807, which follow Luther’s order; cf. Leipoldt, GuK, ii, pp. ror, 104; H. H. Howorth, “‘The Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon according to the Continental Reformers. II. Luther, Zwingli, Lefévre, and Calvin,” in JTS, ix, 1907-8, pp. 188-230, and “The Canon of the Bible among the Later Reformers,” ibid. x, 1908-9, pp. 182-232. The Thirty-Nine Articles (1562) declare (Art. VI): “All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.’”’ The Westmin- ster Confession (1647) expressly includes James in the list of Scripture. The Thirty-Nine Articles are inconsistent, for Art. VI also states: “In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.” This sentence was taken almost verbatim from the Wiirttemberg Confession of 1551 (where it was deliberately phrased so as to exclude from the canon the seven disputed books), and the con- tradiction with the specific statement, quoted above, which follows it in the English article was perhaps not noticed. See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, i, p. 628. * Coverdale’s Latin-English New Testament of 1538 necessarily follows the Vulgate order. IIo JAMES TV. COMMENTARIES, ANCIENT AND MODERN. Mayor’, 1910, ch. 11; M. Meinertz, Jakobusbrief, 1905; R. Cornely, Historica et critica introductio in utriusque Testa- menti libros sacros (Cursus Scripturae Sacrae), vol. i, Introductio generalis, 1894, pp. 630-763; vol. ii, Introductio specialis, 1897, pp. 686-688; J. G. Walch, Bibliotheca theologica, vol. iv, 1765. δι, ῬΑΤΒΙΘΤΙΟ AND MEDIZVAL. Of patristic and medizval commentaries but seven are extant and accessible: in Greek, the Catena of Andreas (ed. Cramer) and the wrongly named “(&cumenius”’; in Latin, Bede and Walafrid Strabo; in Syriac, Isho Dad, Bar-Salibi, and Bar- Hebreus. (a) Greek. Clement of Alexandria probably included comments on James in his Hypotyposes (see above, pp. 91 f.), but no fragment of them has been preserved. The numerous passages from Chrysostom in Cramer’s Catena of Andreas on James (collected in Migne, Patrologia greca, vol. lxiv) are not fragments of a commentary, but have been identified in nearly every case as coming from known writings of Chrysostom; cf. S. Haidacher, ‘“Chrysostomus-Fragmente zu den katholischen Briefen,”’ Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie, 1902, pp. 190-194. The five pas- sages of this catena from Hesychius of Jerusalem (f 433), collected in Migne, vol. xciii, and the ten from Cyril of Alexandria (f 444), collected in Migne, vol. lxxiv, bear no mark of coming from a commentary on James. | ' The Latin work, In epistolas catholicas enarratio, ascribed in the Mss. to Didymus of Alexandria ({ 398), includes James, and is probably the translation made in the sixth century by Epiphanius Scholasticus for Cassiodorius (cf. Cassiodorius, Just. 8). A large part, however, of the work (in James more than half) consists of extracts of various authorship taken from the same Catena of Andreas. The five brief catena-frag- ments expressly ascribed to Didymus show no sign of having been written for a commentary on the Catholic epistles, and Cassiodorius was probably mistaken in attributing such a work to Didymus. Bardenhewer, Gesch. d. altkirchl. Litteratur, iii, pp. 109 f.; E. Kloster- mann, Uber des Didymus von Alexandrien in epistolas canonicas enar- COMMENTARIES, ANCIENT AND MODERN ELL ratio (Texte und Untersuchungen, xxviii), 1905; F. Zoepfl, Didymi Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas brevis enarratio, Miinster, 1914. The Catena of Andreas was published by J. A. Cramer in Catenae grecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum, Oxford, 1844, vol. viii (1840) ; cf. von Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, i, pp. 278 f. The catena on the Catholic epistles here published has manuscript attestation from the ninth century (Codd. K and 1895); its present form (which includes fragments of Maximus Confessor (7 662) is not to be dated earlier than 675. If, how- ever, the Enarratio on the Catholic epistles ascribed to Didy- mus (as stated above) is in fact the translation referred to by Cassiodorius, then the Catena of Andreas, since it under- lies the Enarratio, existed in an earlier form in the sixth cen- tury. The Catena is made up of more or less relevant passages from many authors, among whom Chrysostom takes by far the most prominent place, Cyril of Alexandria standing next. Of the earlier writings used by the compiler for the Epistle of James no one appears to have been a commentary on the epistle. The Catena of Andreas on the Catholic epistles is also printed in part by Matthdi, SS. apostolorum septem epis- tolae catholicae, Riga, 1782, pp. 183-245, and again, substan- tially complete, under the supposition of being a work of Euthymius Zigabenus (ed. Kalogeras, Athens, 1887, vol. ii; but cf. p. a’). An anonymous commentary on the Catholic epistles (Migne, Patrologia greca, vol. cxix) was ascribed to @icumenius, bishop of Tricca in Thessaly (c.600) by the first editor (Donatus, Verona, 1532), but without good reason. It is found in many Mss. of the tenth century and thereafter, and is associated with commentaries on Acts and the Pauline epistles, which may or may not be from the same hand with that on the Catholic epistles but in which the commentary on Paul is certainly not by C£cumenius. The work is a continuous interpretation, partly based on the Catena of Andreas, and often presenting acute and well-phrased exegetical comments. Diekamp observes, p. 1056, that this commentary twice calls Basil τὸν ἡμέτερον, which seems to imply that the writer was either of the ἘΠῚ JAMES Basilian order or else a Cappadocian from Cesarea. This seems con- clusive against the wholly unsupported guess of Donatus that the real Cicumenius was the author. The year 990, formerly given as about the date of the bishop icume- nius, was a mere guess of W. Cave. The discovery of the true date (c. 600) is due to F. Diekamp, “ Mittheilungen iiber den neuaufgefund- enen Commentar des Oekumenius zur Apokalypse,” in Sitzungsberichte der Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1901, pp. 1046-1056. The commentary on the Catholic epistles printed under the name of Theophylact, archbishop of Bulgaria (fl. 1075), is merely another text of the commentary of ‘“‘(Ecumenius” (Migne, Pa- trologia greca, vol. Cxxv). Bardenhewer, art. “‘Oecumenius,” in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexi- kon?, 1895; A. Ehrhard in Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur?, 1895, pp. 131-135; H.von Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testa- ments, i, 1902, pp. 686-692. The scholia printed by Matthiai, Riga, 1782, at the foot of his text of the Catholic epistles, are drawn from the margin of Cod. 462 (ol. ror) of the eleventh century, and appear to be the private notes of a devout owner of this copy of the epistles. On an (unedited) commentary of Metrophanes of Smyrna (ninth century), see Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur*, pp. 78 f. 132; B. Georgiades in Ἐχχλησιαστιχὴ ᾿Αλήθεια, vol. iii, 1882-3. (ὁ) Latin. Augustine’s commentary on James, to which he refers in Retract. 11, 32, is lost, but it does not appear to have been an important work. The only extant Latin commentaries earlier than the thir- teenth century are the Expositio of the Venerable Bede (7 735), Migne, Patrologia latina, vol. xciii, and the Glossa ordinaria of Walafrid Strabo (7 849), Migne, vol. cxiv, which is in part dependent on Bede.* Other writers are frequently referred to as if they had written com- mentaries on James. But the Complexio of Cassiodorius ({ 575) on James (Migne, vol. lxx, cols. 1577-1580) is only a brief summary of the epistle; the Proemium of Isidore of Seville (1 636; Migne, vol. Ixxxiii, col. 178) consists of but four lines; Alulf’s industry (eleventh century; * On the character and influence of Bede’s expositions, see B. Gigalski, Bruno, Bischof von Segni, Abi von Monte Cassino, Minster, 1898, pp. 210 ff. COMMENTARIES, ANCIENT AND MODERN 113 Migne, vol. xxix, cols. 1381-1386) has been devoted merely to selecting nine appropriate passages from various works of Gregory the Great (1 604). Three homilies of Rabanus Maurus (f 856; Migne, vol. cx, hom. 34, 40, 42) treat of the Epistle of James, but, doubtless to the advantage of his hearers, were not original, since they consist merely of blocks copied bodily from the Expositio of Bede. Other pre-reformation Latin commentators on James were Martin of Leon (+ 1203; Migne, vol. ccix), Hugo of St. Cher (1 1262), Nicholas of Gorham (7 1295), Nicholas de Lyra ({ 1340), Gregory of Rimini (} 1358), John Hus (f 1415), Di- onysius Rickel ({ 1471), Laurentius Valla (7 1457). (c) Syriac. Isho Dad (c. 850), commentary on James, 1 Peter, 1 John, published by Margaret D. Gibson, The Commentaries of I. sho Dad of Merv, vol. iv (Horae Semiticae, x), 1913, pp. 36. Dionysius Bar-Salibi (fc. 1171), commentary on the Apoc- alypse, Acts, and Catholic epistles, Corpus scriptorum christt- anorum orientalium, Series syriaca, vol. ci. Bar-Salibi states that from earlier commentators he had found but brief exposi- tions of the Catholic epistles. Gregorius Bar-Hebreus (7 1286), The Store of Mysteries, written 1278. The commentary on James was published by M. Klamroth, Gregorii Abulfaragit Bar Ebhraya in Actus A pos- tolorum et Epistolas catholicas adnotationes, Gottingen, 1878. See J. Géttsberger, Barhebriéus und seine Scholien zur Heiligen Schrift (Biblische Studien, v), 1900. § 2. MOoDERN. Since 1500 many commentaries on James have been written.* At the head of the list worthily stands Erasmus, Novum In- strumentum omne... cum annotationibus, 1516; Paraphrases, 1521. The comments of the most important of the Roman Catholic expositors can be read in J. de la Haye, Biblia magna, Paris, * On the history of the detailed exegesis Huther (in Meyer), #1870, is better than the re- vision by Beyschlag, *1897. 114 JAMES 1643, and Biblia maxima, Paris, 1660; Critict sacri, London, 1660; M. Poole, Synopsis criticorum, London, 1669-96. Men- tion may be specially made of Vatablus ({ 1547), whose scho- lia, however, as published in Critict sacri, were deemed to be “alicubi doctrinis calvinianis aspersa,’ and of Est (f 1613), Cornelius ἃ Lapide (7 1637), and Calmet (7 1757). The chief Roman Catholic commentaries of the nineteenth century are those of Bisping, 1871; Schegg, 1883; Trenkle, 1894; Belser, 1909; Meinertz (in Tillmann’s Heilige Schrift des N. T.), 1912. An extensive and useful list of the Roman Catholic commentators is given by F. 5. Trenkle, Der Brief des heiligen Jacobus, 1894, pp. 56 f.; see also Cornely, Historica et critica introductio, vol. i, pp. 691-7323 vol. ii, pp. 687 f.; Meinertz, Jakobusbrief, pp. 216-219, 289-311. For the names of less noteworthy expositors, see H. Hurter, Nomenclator literarius recentioris theologiae catholicae, 1871-86 (covering the period 1564-1869); J. Quétif and J. Echard, Scriptores ordinis predicatorum recensiti, Paris, 1719-21, especially vol. ii, p. 947 (Dominican expositors to 1720). From Protestant theologians have proceeded innumerable commentaries on James. Of the older, Calvin (7 1564), Grotius ({ 1645), H. Hammond (7 1660), Bengel ({1751), deserve men- tion. The essential parts of Grotius and of many minor works are to be found collected in Critici sacri, 1660, and Matthew Poole’s Synopsis criticorum, 1669-96. In the important ser- vice of presenting the illustrative material, H. Heisen, Novae hypotheses inter pretandae epistolae Jacobi, Bremen, 1739, now a rare book,* contains vast but ill-digested collections on many passages of the epistle; J. J. Wetstein’s indispensable Novum Testamentum grecum, 1751-2, which gathers in convenient form the stores of previous writers, stands with but one later rival. M. Schneckenburger’s excellent little Annotatio ad epis- tolam Jacobi, 1832, is still of independent value. The most useful modern commentaries are those of J. E. Huther (in Meyer), 11857, #1870; revised, without thoroughgoing altera- *A copy, which has been courteously put at my disposal, is in the Library of Union Theological Seminary, New York. COMMENTARIES, ANCIENT AND MODERN II5 tion, by W. Beyschlag, *1897; Spitta, Der Brief Jakobus un- tersucht, 1896; H. von Soden (in Holtzmann’s Hand-Kommen- tar), *1899; Oesterley (in Expositor’s Greek Testament), 1910; and especially J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, 11892, 8rg10 (a thesaurus of learned material), and H. Windisch (in Lietzmann’s Handbuch zum Neuen Testament), 1911. Mayor’s bibliography gives a very complete list of modern works. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. CHAPTER I. EPISTOLARY SALUTATION (1!). 1. θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Cf. the similar language of 1 Tim. 13, 2 Tim. 12, Tit. τ΄. In 2 Pet. 11, Tit. 2! θεοῦ seems to refer to Christ, and this is possible in James, but is made unlikely by the absence of the article. Tit. 11 δοῦλος θεοῦ ἀπόστολος δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ seems to be inspired by the same motive as Jas. 11; both phrases call attention to the fact that the loyalty to Christ does not diminish the service due to God. δοῦλος, In the O. T. “servant” (T3Y, δοῦλος, θεράπων, παῖς) is regularly used for “ worshipper”’ (e. g. Ps. 3422); and the corresponding verb is used also of the worship of heathen gods (6. g. τ Kings 9°). Names compounded with ‘add (“servant”) and the name of God, or of a god, are found in Hebrew, and were common among the Pheenicians, Aramzeans, and Arabs (EB, art. “Names,” ὃ 37). In particular the prophets are called Jahveh’s servants (6. g. Amos 37), and the term is applied as a title of distinction to such worthies as Moses (e. g. 1 Kings 853), David (e. g. 2 Sam. 3!8), and many others. The “servant of Jahveh” of Is. 42-53 presents, however, a different problem, and is translated παῖς κυρίου. In the N. T. δοῦλοι is used in the sense of “attached wor- shippers” in Lk. 239, Acts 429 1617, Rev. 11. Paul describes him- self as δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in the address of Romans (Rom. 1!) and (with the inclusion of Timothy) in Philippians (Phil. 1! δοῦλοι X.’I.), and a similar expression is found in Jude vs.! and 2 Pet. 1!; cf. Tit. 1! δοῦλος θεοῦ. It is not a term of 1.1 118 JAMES special humility, nor is it to be understood as involving a claim to the rank of a prophet or distinguished leader. The writer simply declares himself to belong to Christ as his worshipper, and so commends himself to readers who are also Christians. Note that Paul uses this form of description in the address of Romans and Philippians only, two epistles in which he is con- sciously striving to avoid the assumption of personal authority and to emphasise the give and take of an equal comradeship in faith. The immediate origin of this use of δοῦλος is Semitic. A few Greek analogies are collected in Elsner, Observationes sacrae, 1720, on Acts 1617; cf. Reitzenstein, Hellenist. Mysterienreligionen, 1910, pp. 66, 78. The use of δοῦλος has no bearing on the question of the identity of the author. ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς, the Christian church conceived as the true Israel, inheriting the rights of the ancient people of God. The conception of the tribes of the Hebrew people as twelve in num- ber, both at first in the nomadic and later in the settled condition, arose very early, but seems at all times to have been a theory rather than a fact of observation. It may have had an astronomical origin, like some other sacred uses of the number twelve. In Canaan the tribes came to indicate mainly a territorial division, although the theory of an original hereditary classification was maintained. In and after the exile much stress was laid on the idea of the twelve tribes, as is to be observed in the pictures of the past presented by the priest code and the writings of the chronicler, as well as in Ezekiel’s ideal state (e. g. Gen. 3522-2, Num. 2, Ezra 617, Ezek. 481-7, 23-35), In later Jewish literature they are frequently referred to. Faithful Israelites within and without Palestine claimed and valued their mem- bership in a tribe (Tobit, Tob. 11; Judith, Jud. 82; Anna, Lk. 235; Paul, Rom. 11, Phil. 35; cf. Letter of Aristeas, §§ 32, 39, 46, 47-59, six scholars ἀφ᾽ ἑχάστης φυλῆς). The “twelve tribes” denoted the whole commonwealth of Israel, and a strong sentiment was associated with the phrase. Cf. Ecclus. 4423; Ass. Mos. 2‘f-; Apoc. Baruch 1? 625 633 643 772 784 848; Acts 267 τὸ δωδεχάφυλον ἡμῶν; on Test. XII Patr. Benj. 92, cf. Charles, in HDB, ‘‘Testaments of the XII Patriarchs”; the conception is implied in the plan of the Testaments. In Clem. Rom. 314 558 the emphasis on the salvation of the whole Jewish nation resi- dent in various parts of the dominions of Ahasuerus is unmistakable. The reunion of the twelve tribes in Palestine was a part of the Jew- ish Messianic hope. See references in Schiirer, G/V%, ii, pp. 537 f. ἘΠῚ 110 This aspect of the hope is suggested in Orac. Sibyll. ii, 171 ἡνίχα δὴ δεχάφυλος ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολίης λαὸς ἥξει (of uncertain date and origin), cf. ili, 249, λαὸς ὃ δωδεχάφυλος. The expectation lies at the basis of Mt. 1928, and appears again in the eschatological sealing of twelve thousand from each tribe in Rev. 74#-, and in the twelve gates of the twelve tribes in Rev. 211? -, where, however, the conception and phra- seology are derived from Ezek. 48%-35, The term “twelve tribes” thus stands for the integrity of the nation Israel, as it once actually existed, and as it still abides in idea and spiritual fellowship and common hope. The precise designation “the twelve tribes,” at δώδεχα φυλαί, is found only a few times in the O. T., Ex. 244 28%! 3914; Josh. 45; cf. Ecclus. 4428, More common, and with essentially the same meaning, are “the tribes,” at φυλαί, and “all the tribes,” πᾶσαι at φυλαί. To all these expressions, which give the sense of “all Israel,” πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ (cf. Ezra 611), a limiting genitive is always added unless it is clearly implied in the immediate context. This is usually “of Israel” (Ex. 244), but other genitives occur: “of the children of Israel”? (Ezek. 4713), “of Jacob” (Ecclus. 48:9), “thy” (Deut. 185), “your” (Josh. 234), “their” (Ezek. 458), “the Lord’s” (Ps. 1224), “of thine inheritance” (Is. 631”). The same rule, that a genitive of nearer definition is necessary, holds good in later usage. Thus Acts 267 tb δωδεχάφυλον ὑμῶν, Rev. 74 ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, 2112, Clem. Rom. 55, Protevangelium Jacobi, 1. 3, Cf. the similar expressions resulting from the familiar barbarism of the LXX by which σχήπτρον (wav’) is used for φυλή, Test. XII Patr. Nephth. 5 τὰ δώδεκα σχήπτρα τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ, Clem. Rom. 311 τὸ δωδεχάσχηπτρον τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ. The only known cases where an expression like αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί is used by itself of the nation Israel are the passages Orac. Sibyll. ii, 171 δεχάφυλος ἀπ’ ἀνατολίης λαός, and iii, 249 λαὸς ὃ δωδεχάφυλος. These are highly poetical allusions, and do not point to any common prose usage at variance with the rule. See Zahn, Einleitung, i, ὃ 3, note 4. The Christian church, according to the fundamental and uni- versal N.T. view, stands as the successor of the Jewish ἐκκλησία. Cf. Mt. 1618, where wou τὴν ἐχχλησίαν seems to be used in contrast with the ἐχχλησία (np) tod Ἰσραήλ, Mt. 2143, 1 Pet. 29 ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εὶς περιποίησιν, Gal. 37-% 29 616 τὸν Ἰσραὴλ tod θεοῦ (in contrast to which cf. 1 Cor. 1018 τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ κατὰ σάρχα), Phil. 33 ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή (cf. Col. 24 ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ). 120 JAMES Hence the attributes of the nation Israel may be applied directly to the church. Cf. Gal. 37°, where descent from Abraham is so ascribed to all believers, Col. 2", etc. This is one of the fundamental thoughts of Luke and Acts; as well as of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where everything pertaining to the old national religion is shown to belong also (only in the reality, not the shadow) to the new religion. So Barn. 45’ 13“, where the covenant is shown to belong to the new people. See Zahn, Einleitung, i, ὃ 3, note 9. The conception of the new Israel as made up of a symbolical twelve tribes is in accord with this underlying principle of the apostolic age and presents in itself no difficulty. Rev. 2112, where no thought of any Jewish- Christian particularism is present, approaches closely to such ause. ‘The positive reasons for assuming this meaning are dis- cussed below. A symbolical use of δώδεχα φυλαί somewhat different from that of Jas. 11 is found in Hermas, Sim. ix, 17, where of twelve mountains, from which come the stones used to build a tower (7. 6. the church), it is said: δώδεχα φυλαί εἰσιν at χατοιχοῦσαι ὅλον τὸν χόσμον. To them the Son of God has been preached through the apostles, while these twelve tribes are themselves further explained as δώδεχα ἔθνη with highly diverse characteristics. Here the twelve tribes, or nations, plainly signify all the nations of the world. The unusual designation is doubt- less chosen in order to indicate that as these have now become the field of God’s redemptive activity, they have come into the place of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. The whole world is the new δωδεχάφυλον of the Christian dispensation. ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ. διασπορά means “scattering,” “dispersion” (either act or state); cf. Jer. 157, Dan. 12? (LXX), Test. XII Patr. Asher, 7, τ Pet. 11. Hence, with the article, ἡ διασπορά is used concretely of the Jews so dispersed, or even of the dis- tricts in which they were dispersed. Thus Deut. 304, Neh. 19, Judith 5!°, Jn. 7%°, of either the dispersed or the land of dispersion; Ps. 147%, Is. 49%, 2 Macc. 127, Ps. Sol. 8%, of the dispersed. Here it is more naturally taken of the state of dis- persion, although the other view is possible. With the article the expression means “in the well-known state of dispersion,” not merely “in dispersion” in the abstract sense. Cf. Ps. 130, 1 ἢ 121 tit. (Cod. A) and in contrast Jer. τοῦ διασπερῶ αὐτοὺς ἐν διασπορῷᾷ, Test. XII Patr. Asher, 7 ἔσεσθε ἐν διασπορᾷ, τ Pet. 1! ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς. The noun διασπορά (Deut. 282) is used but a few times in the O. T. It is not a regular representative of any one Hebrew word, and is never used to translate any of the derivatives of np. The verb διασπείρω is more common (cf. also the simple oxefow, Zech. 10°), especially in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel; it represents a number of Hebrew verbs, most fre- quently some form of 715 (30 times out of 58). διασχορπίζω (in literary use chiefly late, see Lex.) is often used in much the same sense as διασπείρω to refer to the dispersion of Israel, but tends to denote more violent action, as the scattering of a dis- comfited foe (e. g. Ps. 5911, Jer. 5122). διασχορπισμός, found but five times, remained a descriptive word, and did not attain to the tech- nical significance of διασπορά. σχορπίζω is less common and weaker; σχορπισμός is found but once (in Aq. Sym. Theod. Jer. 2524 [32%]). The more common noun to denote the Jewish exile is ἀποικία, in eight cases ἀποιχεσία, a word peculiar to LXX (L. and S.), to which corresponds the factitive verb ἀποιχίζειν. The noun means “emi- gration,” ‘“‘colony,” “body of colonists,” with a range of meaning parallel to that of διασπορά ; it is used as a technical term to denote the captivity or the captives, usually representing 7a, “exile,” e. g. Ezra 4! υἱοὶ τῆς &rotxtac, Jer. 201’ 4. 332. 3, ἀποιχία seems to be synony- mous with μετοικία (μετοιχεσία Mt. 111), which is less common, but represents about the same group of Hebrew words. mapotxta, “sojourn,” “residence as a stranger,” is used a few times to represent 7911, Ezra 8535 υἱοὶ τῆς παροικίας, τ Esd. 57 éx τῆς αἰχ- μαλωσίας τῆς παροιχίας, where the parallel translation of Ezra 2: has ἀποιχίας. In Ecclesiasticus prol. τοῖς ἐν τῇ παροιχίᾳ, it is used in the same sense. It refers to the “sojourn” from the point of view of the land of temporary residence, while ἀποικία refers to the same fact from the point of view of the home land from which those sojourning abroad are absent. αἰχμαλωσία, “captivity,” represents in the main the group of words derived from 73. Of the words here considered, αἰχμαλωσία is obviously the most limited in application, referring to the captivity proper; ἀποιχία and μετοικία are applicable to any portion, as well as to the whole, of the body of Jews residing in foreign parts; διασπορά can only be used with reference to the general scattering of Jews. Thus the αἰχμαλωσία was (6. g.) in Babylon; the Jews in any one place could be called ἀποικία (Jer. 291, etc.); while 4 διασπορά means the scattered state, or the scattered section, of the Jewish nation. 122 JAMES Thus διασπορά, always standing in contrast with the idea of visible unity of the nation, calls attention, usually with a certain pathos, to the absence of that unity, whereas ἀποικία might refer to a colonisation wholly free from such associations. This is especially marked in 2 Macc. 127 ἐπισυνάγαγε thy διασπορὰν ἡμῶν, ἐλευθέρωσον τοὺς δουλεύοντας ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Here ἀποιχία would have been weak. Accordingly διασπορά is the appropriate word in Jas. 1}. The statement sometimes made (e. g. Carr, Camb. Gk. Test. pp. xxx, το; less unguardedly Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, i, pp. 6 f. 9; Mayor’, p. cxxxvii) that ἣ διασπορά, “when used with- out any qualifying words,” means the Eastern Hebrew-speaking part of the dispersion, seems to be wholly without foundation. The dispersion of the Jews over the world began through capture in war and emigration for trade as early as the ninth century B.c. (cf. 1 Kings 20%4). The forced emigration of many thousands from both the northern and southern kingdom to Assyria and Babylonia, the voluntary settlement in the Greek period of large numbers of Jews in Alexandria and other Egyp- tian cities, and in Cyrenaica, the planting of Jewish communi- ties of traders and peaceful residents in Antioch and other places of Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece, and the colony of Jews in Rome (partly owing its origin to the captives brought thither by Pompey in 63 B.c. and afterward liberated), as well as those in other cities of Italy, had created by the first century after Christ a vast Jewish population dispersed in all parts of the civilised world, and perhaps amounting to 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 souls. For a representative list of diaspora Jews, cf. Acts 293-11; see also Philo, In Flaccum, 7, and Legat. ad Caium, 36. EB, art. “Dispersion” (H. Guthe) ; Schiirer, GJV, ὃ 31; Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire, ch. 11. Although perhaps the majority of Jews in the diaspora had thus come to reside abroad through voluntary emigration under- taken out of motives of private interest, and although, apart from occasional disturbances with their neighbours and oppres- sion from the governments, the situation of the Jews seems to have been one of privilege and prosperity, yet the dispersion Bet 122 is uniformly represented by Jewish writers as a grave misfor- tune destined to be ended by the divine intervention. The cause of this was partly the fact that the first large emigration was the forced removal in the captivities, so that the tradition became established that exile was an evil, to be followed, when the punishment was over, by return (cf. Is. 4o'f-), This traditional feeling seems to be reflected in Ps. Sol. 92 ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει ἡ διασπορὰ τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ- ἵνα δικαιωθῇς, ὁ θεός, ἐν TH δικαιοσύνῃ σου ἐν ταῖς ἀνομίαις ἡμῶν. But the view was confirmed by the attitude of Palestinian Judaism, as it came to lay increasing emphasis on a national ritual purity, which could not be preserved in unclean lands, and on a restoration of national glory in Pales- tine under the Messiah, in which all faithful Jews would share. The dispersion was an evil because it interfered with the con- summation of Ta ἀγαθὰ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν συναγωγῇ φυλῶν (Ps. Sol. 174), These ideal interests must have been powerfully rein- forced by practical motives springing from the actual danger, observed ever since the beginning of the exile, that Jews ex- posed to the corrupting influences of foreign life would relax their strictness of morals, indulge in heathen abominations, and lose their religion—and their souls. (Ezek. 14!",, Dan. 1; note the disappearance of the ten tribes in the Assyrian captivity, attested, 6. g., by Jos. Amt. xi, 5°). In times of foreign oppression and distress the desire for restoration of the dispersed must have been strengthened by the sense of weakness felt by the pious community in Palestine (the ‘“poor”), suffering the lack of the help, both moral and material, which might be afforded by the return of the Jews of the diaspora. It then seemed evident that the glory of Israel could be finally manifested only through the concentra- tion in the Holy Land of the power and wealth of the sons of Israel, now scattered among the nations. So, 6. g., Tob. 134*. ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ. For the whole phrase there are two possible interpretations: (1) “To the dispersed People of God,” ἡ. 6. the Christian church at large; 124 JAMES (2) “To the Jews, residing in the dispersion.” Many different applications of these two senses, separately or in combination, will be found in the commentaries. The second interpretation given above is almost always qualified by a limitation to Christian Jews. This suits the general char- acter of the epistle, but is in no way suggested by the phrase itself, and cannot be regarded as legitimate. In this phrase, ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ applies not to a part but to the whole of ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς, and the only possible meaning is that all the twelve tribes are ‘“‘in the dispersion.” It is not legitimate, although common in the commentaries, to take the phrase as meaning ‘‘those tribes (of the twelve) which are in the dispersion” (as if it read ταῖς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ), or “those persons from the twelve tribes who are residing in the dispersion” (as if τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν διασπαρεῖσιν, so Ps.-Euthal. in his argumentum, Migne, Patrologia greca, vol. Ιχχχν, col. 676). The permissibility of the first interpretation has already been shown. According to it the Christian church is here not merely designated as the new Israel, but is further described by ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ as now dispersed in an alien world. For the ideas on which this latter conception rests the N. T. fur- nishes abundant illustration. It includes, perhaps, the sugges- tion of a temporary state with the hope of a future reunion. It is simpler to take ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ thus as a mere further de- scription of the church than to suppose (with Zahn, Einleitung, i, p. 53, and § 3, note 6) that it is added in order specifically to distinguish the new twelve tribes (the Christians), which were al/ in the dispersion, from the old (the Jews), which were partly in the home land of Israel. Other characteristics would have lain far nearer to hand if this had been the direct purpose. The new Israel has a heavenly metropolis (Gal. 42° ἡ δὲ ἄνω ‘Tepovoadnm . . . ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν, Heb. 12% προσ- εληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει καὶ πόλει θεοῦ ζῶντος, ᾿ερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ), where is the seat of its commonwealth (Phil. 530). But for the present it sojourns in exile, 1 Pet. 11 ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς, 117 τὸν τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνον, 24 ὡς παροίκους Kal παρεπιδήμους ; cf. also Jn. 171. 18. The contrast with the old Israel is explicitly drawn out in Heb. 13" ov yap ἔχομεν ὧδε μένουσαν πόλιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐπιζητοῦμεν. The idea is intimately connected with the phraseology, though not with the real meaning, of certain O. T. passages, Ps. 3013, ὅτι πάροιχος ἐγώ εἶμι ἐν τῇ γῇ καὶ παρεπίδημος καθὼς πάντες οἱ πατέρες μου, Ps. 1191, Lev. 2533, 1 Chron. 2015, Gen. 47°. The interpretation of the conception of men as strangers and sojourn- ers, given by Philo, De cherub. 34, is not parallel to the Christian idea in James, but it shows how the O. T. passages attracted attention and could lend themselves to such use. The thought of Hermas, Sim. i, resembles Philo, not James. In early Christian thought the idea gained great prominence. Cf. the classical expression in Ep. ad Diognetum 5 πατρίδας οἰκοῦσιν ἰδίας, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς TapoLKOL* μετέχουσι πάντων ὡς πολῖται, καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὑπομένουσιν ὡς ἕένοι - πᾶσα ξένη πατρίς ἐστιν αὐτῶν, καὶ πᾶσα πατρὶς ξένη: also 2 Clem. Rom. 5! ὅν δ; and note the usage by which the church, or the Christians, in any lo- cality are said not to reside but to “sojourn” (παροικεῖν) there, Polyc. Phil. inscr. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παροικούσῃ Φι- λίππους: Mart. Polyc. inscr.; Euseb. Π. 6. iv, 23; Ep. eccl. lugd. et vienn. in Euseb. Π. 6. v, 1%. The emphasis on this mode of thought in later times is famil- iar, and reaches its classical expression in the great poem of Bernhard of Cluny, De contemptu mundi. From this usage seems to have arisen the ecclesiastical sense of the word παροιχία, that is, “the body of (Christian) aliens” in any place, and so parochia, “parish.” The earliest cases of this use of the noun are Mart. Polyc. inscr., Irenzus in Eus. H. 6. v, 2415, and Apollonius in Eus. H. 6. v, 18°. παροιχία in the sense of the local body of Christians thus took a different turn of meaning from διασπορά, which in this Catholic epistle refers to the whole church; but the metaphor underlying the derived sense is the same in both cases, and up to a certain point the develop- ment was parallel. Each takes one side of the meaning of éxxAnota. See Lightfoot, note on Clem. Rom. inscr. The words, then, mean: “To that body of Twelve Tribes, the new Israel, which has its centre in Heaven, and whose members, 126 JAMES in whatever place on the earth they may be, are all equally away from home and in the dispersion!” ‘This interpretation implies in the writer a mind capable of conceiving clearly and expressing tersely a strongly figurative expression, but that is not too much to ascribe to the author of this epistle. Cf. 11% 18, 28 34, etc. It also assumes that the underlying conception was familiar to the readers. Of this “symbolical”* interpretation of the address of the epistle important recent advocates have been Holtzmann, von Soden, Jiilicher, and Zahn. The chief objection brought against it is that it is deemed inappropriate to the simple address of a letter. But, first, we have here not a real letter sent to a defi- nite group of readers, but a literary form for a tract, or diatribe. And, secondly, even in a real letter the greeting (as distinguished from the outside address intended to guide the carrier) natu- rally contains not only expressions of affection but descriptive phrases intended to suggest the writer’s relations and attitude to the person addressed, and to some extent even the thoughts with which the letter was to be occupied. This may be seen in all the epistles of Paul, and in the epistles of Ignatius, Clem- ent of Rome, and Polycarp. The same concern is not absent from the greetings and subscriptions of modern letters. In opposition to the interpretation here defended, the view of the address most widely held adopts the second of the two interpretations referred to above, taking ταῖς δώδεχα φυλαῖς as if merely equivalent to tots Ἰουδαίοις. The serious grammatical difficulties involved are usually ignored. The phrase is then (in part arbitrarily) limited so as to mean, “to extra-palestinian Jewish Christians” (Beyschlag). In- asmuch as the phrase itself is notably unlimited, this exegetical proce- dure seems too violent to be permissible. Moreover, if this were the meaning, we should expect to find, as we do not, in the epistle itself some specific allusion to the distinctive circumstances of readers so carefully limited in the address; in fact (see Introduction), the epistle best suits conditions in Palestine. This is felt by Beyschlag, who sug- * The interpretation here defended is not strictly ‘‘ symbolical,”’ for the Christians doubt- less believed themselves to be in a real, and not a symbolical, sense the true Twelve Tribes of Israel, who had succeeded by legitimate spiritual inheritance to the title of the People of God. Their attitude was not different from that which has, for instance, made the O. T. a Christian book, and has often expressed itself in the characteristic language of modern Prot- estantism. τ ἃ 127 gests, wholly without warrant, that διασπορά may refer to everything outside of Jerusalem. The various forms of this view of the address, intended to obviate one or another of the difficulties under which it labours, require highly artificial and improbable hypotheses. No kind of early, or of ingenious, dating can bring us to a time when a writer addressing Jewish Chris- tians in distinction from unbelieving Jews would have addressed them as “the twelve tribes,” if by the term he meant “‘ the Jews”’; and if the term is here used for ‘‘ the People of God,” then the limitation to Jewish Christians is not contained in it. To suppose, on the other hand, a time when Christian believers still regarded themselves as full members of the commonwealth of Israel, and had not yet broken their social and religious connection with it (so, 6. g., B. Weiss, Einleitung?, p. 398) gives no aid whatever in under- standing the phrase itself. No time after the crucifixion is known to us when a Christian teacher could expect a respectful hearing for a didactic tract from both converted and unconverted Jews in the dis- persion at large, or would have felt such responsibility forthe general moral instruction of all diaspora Jews alike as this writer shows. The promptness of the separation of Christians and Jews in the diaspora is illustrated by all the mission narratives of Acts. Nor can even the unsupported guess of a current limitation of the term % διασπορά to Southern Syria or Babylonia or elsewhere overcome the difficulty that the epistle itself nowhere hints at conditions in any way peculiar to or characteristic of any such district. On the view of Harnack, that the address was a later addition by a different hand, see Introduction, pp. 47 f. Under such a view the spurious address might have no definite meaning or might have the meaning advocated above. Spitta, who takes the phrase in the literal sense, ‘To the Jews in the dispersion,”’ avoids some of the difficulties by regarding the epistle as originally Jewish and not Christian, but he misses the grammatical structure explained above,:and has likewise no reason to give for the inexplicable limitation to the diaspora. The “symbolical”’ interpretation alone will account for that. χαίρειν scil. λέγει (cf. 2 John, vv. 19, "); the ordinary opening salutation of a Greeksletter, like Latin salutem, shown by the countless papyrus letters preserved to have been current in Greek letters of all periods; cf. Acts 1523 2326, and examples in Deissmann, Bibelstudien, pp. 209-216; Witkowski, Epistolae grecae privatae, 1907; J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, 1903, pp. 276 f.; Milligan, Thessalonians, 1908, pp. 127 f. See also G. A. Gerhard, “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des griechischen 128 JAMES Briefes,” in Philologus, lxiv, 1905, pp. 27-65 ; Dziatzko, “Brief,” in Pauly-Wissowa, RE; F. Ziemann, De epistularum grecarum formulis sollemnibus (Diss. phil. Halenses, xviii), 1911. It was in common use among Greek-speaking Jews; Esther 161 (Ξ 8:3), 1 Esd. 67, 1 Macc. τοῦ 128, 2 Macc. 1! , 3 Macc. 71, Ep. Arist. 41: (ed. Thackeray), (other references in Spitta, ad loc.). The writer does not here show influence from Pauline epistolary forms. The ordinary greeting of a Hebrew or Aramaic letter seems to have resembled, as among other peoples, the salutation of daily life. Thus (Aramaic) Dan. 41: (3°) xiv. Προ εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη, 625, Ezra 411 st NOD NDOW εἰρήνη πᾶσα (cf. 1 Esd. 61 χαίρειν as a translation of the same original). The Peshitto has etx for χαίρειν in Jas. 1. The same formulas appear in the three Aramaic circular letters of Rab- ban Gamaliel (first or second century after Christ; texts in G. Dalman, Aramiische S prachproben, 1896 ; preserved in the Mishna, jer. Sanh. 184 and elsewhere) x22) 71227", and in the N. T. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη «ἰληθυνθείη, τ Pet. 12, 2 Pet. 12, Jude 2 ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη. In 2 Macc. τ' εἰρήνην ἀγαθὴν and χαίρειν are combined, but the characteristic N. T. enlargements, 6. g. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Phil. 12,1 Pet. 12 are probably not due to a combination of the Greek and Hebrew greetings, but to the influence of the priestly benediction, Num. 62426; cf. J. C. T. Otto, “Ueber den apostolischen Segensgruss,” in Jb. f. deutsche Theol. 1867, pp. 678-697. For similar (probably Jewish) expansion cf. the letter to the nine and one-half tribes in Apoc. Bar. 78?: “Thus saith Baruch the son of Neriah to the brethren carried into captivity: mercy and peace” (cf. Gal. 61°). See Zahn, Einleitung, i, ὃ 6, note 7. In this general connection the following verses from the epitaph of Meleager, Anthol. greca, vii, 419 (Brunck, i, p. 37), are worth quoting: ἀλλ᾽ et μὲν Σύρος ἐσσί, Lardy, ef δ᾽ οὖν σύ γε Φοῖνιξ, Αὔδονις, εἰ δ᾽ Ἕλλην, Χαῖρε, τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ φρᾶσον. I. ON CERTAIN RELIGIOUS REALITIES (τ"-259. The paragraphs of chs. 1 and 2 are held together by the com- mon underlying purpose of denouncing shams and emphasis- ing various aspects of reality in religion. (See Introduction, supra, pp. 3-5). The first half of this division (1718) treats of matters relating to the development of character, the second ty TA2 129 half (119-228) of topics pertaining to religious instruction and public worship. 2-4. The moral use of Trial. Out of trial comes steadfastness and steadfastness makes perfect. The epistle begins as a didactic essay, and plunges at once into the subject without the introductory paragraph of congratulation, good wishes, assurance of prayerful interest in the person addressed, etc., which is a characteristic standing feature in Greek letters, both Chris- tian and secular; cf. the papyrus letters referred to above, pp. 127 f., to- gether with Rom. 13 #-, τ Cor. 14 #-, 2 Cor. 13 #-, Eph. 13 #., Phil, 13 #., Col. 13 #-, 1 Thess. 12 #-, 2 Thess. 13 #-, 2 Tim. 13 4-, Philem. 4 ff. 1 Pet. 1 Π. 2 Jn. 4,3 Jn. 2-4. It is noticeable that those N. T. “epistles” which have most the character of literary works rather than letters lack this opening paragraph. Thus1 Timothy and Titus (which for other reasons also are recognised as containing less genuine matter than 2 Timothy), Hebrews, 1 John, Jude, Revelation, and perhaps 2 Peter (where this purpose, however, may be intended by 18 5.). Thespurious epistles of Plato and others, which are literary pieces and not real let- ters, have likewise for the most part nothing corresponding to the open- ing paragraph common in letters of daily life. 2. πᾶσαν χαράν. πᾶσαν, “all,” is here used, not to denote strict completeness of extension, but as an intensifying adjective, in the sense either of “full,” “supreme” (swmmus) or (less naturally) of “nothing but,’ “unmixed” (merus, Ger. lauter). Cf. Eur. Med. 453, πᾶν κέρδος ἡγοῦ ξημιουμένη φυγῇ. πᾶς in the singular means (1) “every,” “every kind of” (ἕχαστος, παντοῖος), having this sense only with anarthrous nouns, 6. g. Phil. 431 πάντα ἅγιον, Mt. 42% πᾶσαν νόσον χαὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν, Col. 412 ἐν παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ θεοῦ ; (2) “whole,” “entire” (ὅλος, totus). In this sense it is used (a) with the article, and in either the attributive or predicate position, Mt. 839 πᾶσα ἣ πόλις, Acts 2018 τὸν πάντα χρόνον; (b) with anarthrous nouns, e.g. Plato, Leges 708 B ξυνάπασα πόλις, “a whole city.” The rule is that the noun lacks the article in cases where without πᾶς it would not have had it. (3) From this sense of “whole,” is derived the meaning “full,” “complete,” and so “utter” (swmmus). In this sense it is used with abstract nouns in cases where the idea of quantity or extension is not present, and is found both with and without the article. Thus Plato, Leges 646 B εἰς ἅπασαν φαυλότητα, “into utter degrada- tion” (Jowett); Leges 952 A πᾶσῃ σπουδῇ μανθάνειν, “with all (com- 130 JAMES plete) zeal”; Respub. 575 A ἐν πάσῃ ἀναρχίᾳ καὶ ἀνομίᾳ, “in all (com- plete) anarchy and lawlessness”; Thuc. i, 86? τιμωρητέα παντὶ σθένει, “with full strength,” iv, 11° προθυμίᾳ πάσῃ χρώμενοι χαί παραχελευσμῷ ; Polyb. i, 305 εἰς πᾶσαν ἦλθον ἀπορίαν, i, 15° τῆς πάσης ἀλογίας πλήρη, ili, 774 ἐν τῇ πάσῃ φιλανθρωπίᾳ, iv, 27? τῆς πάσης γέμει χαχοπραγμοσύνης, xi, 4[7]? τῆς πάσης ἀλογιστίας ἐστὶ σημεῖον, “a proof of complete folly” ; Epict. iii, 5° χάριν σοι ἔχω πᾶσαν. The Hebrew 52>, whose meanings had a development in general like those of πᾶς, does not appear to have advanced to this usage. 2 Macc. 222 τοῦ χυρίου μετὰ πάσης ἐπιειχείας ἵλεω γενομένου αὐτοῖς is one of the very few cases of this sense in the Apocrypha.* In the N. T. this usage is common, especially in Paul, where πᾶς be- comes a favourite intensifying adjective. Thus Acts 439 μετὰ παρρησίας πάσης, 533 174 μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας, 201° 23! πάσῃ συνειδήσει ἀγαθῇ πεπολίτευμαι, 2851, Rom. 78 1513 πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς πάσης χαρᾶς χαὶ εἰρήνης, 1514, 2 Cor. 13 87 πάσῃ σπουδῇ, 9% πᾶσαν αὐτάρχειαν (notice the various senses of πᾶς exemplified in this verse) 12:2, Eph. 18 ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ xat φρονήσει, 419 5%, Phil. 19 229 μετὰ πάσης χαρᾶς, Col. 1° 28. ἐγ πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, 315, 2 Thess. 2% 1, 1 Tim. 115 and 4° πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος, 211 53 61, 2 Tim. 42, Tit. 21° 32, 1 Pet. 218 51, 2 Pet. 15 σπουδὴν méoav. In some of these instances, as would be expected, it is not easy to decide certainly between the meaning “full” and the meaning “each” or « every.” It is evident that this usage is a Greek and not in any degree a Se- mitic idiom. ‘This sense is the probable one in Jas. 1°. (4) Still another use of πᾶς is found in cases where the word, through its position in the sentence, becomes translatable by “unmixed,” “wholly,” “only,” merus, tantummodo, Ger. lauter. Thus Plato, Phileb. 27 E, 28 A οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἡδονὴ πᾶν ἀγαθὸν ἦν... οὐδέ γ᾽ ἂν λύπη πᾶν xaxdy,f Protag. 317 Β ἐγὼ οὖν τούτων τὴν ἐναντίαν ἅπασαν 'δδὸν ἐλήλυθα, “the entirely opposite course,” Thuc. vi, 37? ἐν πάσῃ πολεμίᾳ Σικελίᾳ (7. 6. “Sicily which is wholly hostile”), Jos. Ant. iv, 51 διὰ πάσης ἐρήμου δέων, “flowing through nothing but desert.” In Prov. 1179 ἐπιθυμία διχαίων πᾶσα ἀγαθή, the Hebrew 48, éantummodo, is translated by xéca,t and the sense is ‘‘ The desire of the righteous is solely good” (z. 6. both in its character and in its results). The Latin omnis is used in this same way, as Cic. N. D. ii, 21, nulla in celo nec fortuna nec temeritas, nec erratio nec varietas inest: contraque omnis ordo, veritas, ratio, constantia. This method of heightening the effect of the noun is, in many cases, closely akin to the sense discussed under (3) and can be fully distin- * Possibly Ecclus. 1918 ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ is to be reckoned here. + This passage from the Philebus is specially significant because πᾶν agrees with the predi- cate, not, as the logical analysis might seem to require, with the subject (ἡδονή). ¢ Hatch and Redpath, 5. v. mas, have overlooked this fact. ns 131 guished from that only in extreme instances. It is likely that the Greek writer was often, perhaps usually, not conscious of the distinction which our analysis reveals. See Schleusner, Lexicon in Nov. Test. s.v. πᾶς (Glasgow, 1824, pp. 358 f.); Kriiger, Griechische Sprachlehre fiir Schulen, i, § 50, 11, Anm. 7-13; also Stephanus, Thesaurus, s.v πᾶς (especially ed. Hase and Dindorf, Paris, 1831-65, vol. vi, col. 568). χαράν “joy,” ἡ. e. “occasion of joy” (cf. Lk. 2, 1 Thess. 219), a predicate accusative, the sentence with ὅταν suggesting the real object of ἡγήσασθε. Probably an allusion is intended to χαίρειν, v.1. The writer sets forth one notable source of joy. For similar use of the greeting, of. Tob. 5 (Cod. δ) εἶπεν αὐτῷ - χαίρειν σοι πολλὰ γένοιτο. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς Τωβεὶθ εἶπεν αὐτῷ" τί μοι ἔτι ὑπάρχει χαίρειν ; Ps.-Plato,* Epist. viii, 352 Β Πλάτων τοῖς Δίωνος οἰκείοις τε καὶ ἑταίροις εὖ πράττειν " ἃ δ᾽ ἂν διανοηθέντες μάλιστα εὖ πράττοιτε ὄντως πειράσομαι ταῦθ᾽ ὑμῶν κατὰ δύναμιν διε- ξελθεῖν. This paronomasia is possible only in Greek, and is a strong argument against the theory of a Semitic original. Cf. Zahn, Einleitung, i, § 6, note 6. The Peshitto has {opas, which obliterates the play on words. ἡγήσασθε. The aorist is perhaps used because the writer is thinking of each special case of πειρασμός. For the distinc- tion, often significant, between present and aorist, in commands and in prohibitions, see Winer, § 43. 3, § 56. 1 b, Buttmann, § 139. 6, J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 173 f. ἀδελφοί μου. So 2114 541 19, 12. 512,19: ἀδελφοί alone 411 57% 10; ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί 115 19 25, Like the Hebrew M8, “brother,” adeddos was used by Jews (and apparently by Jews alone) to mean “fellow countryman,” mix, 24; Deut. 15% yadith, 7%) Tob. 22,2 Mace. ἀν Minas Acts 132%. Philo, De caritate, 6 (ii, p. 388), explains ἀδελφός as meaning ov μόνον τὸν ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν φύντα γονέων ἀλλὰ Kal ὃς ἀστὸς ἢ καὶ ὁμόφυλος ἢ, cf. Philo, De septenario, 9 init. * Probably written before the Christian era as a rhetorical exercise, perhaps at Athens. See Susemihl, Gesch. d. griech. Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, 1892, ii, pp. 581-585. 132 ἷ JAMES By Christians the word was used of fellow members in the new Israel, Jn. 21%, Acts 14, Rom. 18 1614, Eph. 62, Phil. 256. Heb. 3", 1 Pet. 52, 2 Pet. 1, Rev. 1°. This usage, charac- teristic of the early Christians, is to be deemed a natural out- growth of the Jewish usage, doubtless stimulated and confirmed, but not originated, by such sayings of Jesus as Mk. 4335, Mt. 238, of. Lk. 2233, It would also be made easier to some Gentile Christians through such usages as that of the technical language of the Serapeum of Memphis, where ἀδελφός denoted a fellow member of the religious community. See Deissmann, Bibel- studien, 1895, pp. 82 f., and the references there given; also let- ters in Witkowski, Epistolae grecae privatae, 1907; Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Test. 1914, 5. v. ἀδελφός, As an address, ἀδελφοί, with or without the additional words, is common in the O. T., 6. g. Judg. 19%, 1 Sam. 30%, 1 Chron. 283, Judith 7°, Tob. 73, of. Apoc. Bar. 78? 80!; and still more in the N. ΤῸ, ¢..g. Rom. 74, 2 Cor. 1, 1 ‘Thess. 14,1 1 Clem. Rom. 1! 4’, 2 Clem. Rom. τί τοῦ 141, Ign. Eph. 16% Hermas, Vis. iii, τοῦ, iv, 15 8, Ep. Barnab. 219, and see Good- speed’s Index patristicus for other references. It is especially characteristic of the speeches in Acts, cf. 116 229 317 63 7% 26 137% (46, 38.757. 18 991 991.6% 6 2817: and it may be Susiecuam that it belonged to the homiletical style of the synagogue and was brought thence into Christian hortatory language. It is a form appropriate to a member of a strictly defined society, such as the Jewish or the Christian brotherhood, addressing other members whom he recognises as equals. This character distinguishes the Christian parenetic literature from the O. T. Wisdom-literature. In the latter the conventional form is “My son,” υἱέ (Prov. 18 and passim), or τέκνον (Ecclus. 2! and pas- sim), and the situation is conceived to be that of an old man bequeathing his accumulated wisdom to his child or pupil. Cf. Toy on Prov. 13, πειρασμοῖς, ‘trials,’ On the uniformly neutral meaning of Hebrew ΠΡ), “try,” “test,” see Driver on Deut. 6%. This holds for πειράω, πειράζω, πειρασμός in LXX (including Apocrypha), except Ecclus. 2! 331. 2 133 In the N. T. (1) the noun πειρασμός, “ trial’? (which in secular writers is known only in Dioscur. Pref. 5 τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν παθῶν πειρασμούς, ‘experiments on diseases’’), has clearly the mean- ing “affliction,” that being one of the most common tests of character. Lk. 2238, Acts 20!9 μετὰ πάσης ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ δακρύων Kal πειρασμῶν, cf. Ecclus. 21 331, Lk. 813 (c. Mk. 4!”), Heb. 11°”, τ Pet. 1% See E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, pp. 71 f., Harnack, “Zwei Worte Jesu,” in Sitzungsbe- richte der kgl. Preuss. Akademie, 1907, pp. 942-947, both of whom give this meaning to πειρασμός in the Lord’s Prayer, Mt. 61°. (2) The whole group of words is used to refer to temptation to sin, since that, primarily an assault, is at the same time a test. This development of the meaning accords with the secu- lar use of πειράω, πειράζω, which may be illustrated from the derivative πειρατής, “pirate,” ἡ. 6. “attacker.” Thus in Jas. 114 the words are flatly used in the sense “seduce to evil.” So Mt. 41 613. the name ὁ πειράζων for Satan, Mt. 45, 1 Thess. 3°, x Cor. 7° r0!, τ Tim. 6%, etc.; cf. the Jewish prayer in Bera- choth, 60 b, translated by Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers?, p. 128. That both meanings can be employed by the same writer in neighbouring contexts may be illustrated by the use of the English ‘‘trial”’ in its several senses. In the passage before us πειρασμοῖς evidently means “‘trials,”’ 7.6. adversities, which befall us from without and against our will. According to James (vv. 13 5:) “temptations” spring mainly from within and could not be a subject for rejoicing. There is no reason, however, to think especially of religious per- secution; what James has in mind is the strain put upon faith in Providence and in a good God by the fact that God permits his people to fall into distress of various kinds and to be op- pressed by grievous poverty. The people here addressed are not a missionary outpost among the heathen; nothing in the epistle (not even 27 and 475.) implies the situation revealed by τ Pet. 412%-. They appear to be largely poor and struggling people, subject to the hardships of the poor, cf. 11° 21% & Note the prevalent eagerness to have, implied in 4*%. περιπέσητε, “fall in with,” “encounter,” ordinarily used of 134 JAMES unwelcome encounters, as with robbers (Lk. 10”), misfortunes, sicknesses (Prov. 11°, 2 Macc. 61%); see references in Lexx, Wetstein, and Heisen, pp. 258/. ποικίλοις, ‘ divers.” The classical and higher literary use employed ποικίλος in senses naturally derived from its original meaning of ‘many-col- oured,” “variegated”; thus it meant ‘“‘complex,” “elaborate,” “diversified,” “intricate,” ‘subtle,’ “‘ambiguous,” “unstable,” nearly always in contrast with ‘“‘simple” (Schmidt, Synonymik, iv, pp. 361 f.). In classical writers hardly any clear case can be found of the looser meaning, “various,” “ divers,’ παντο- δαπός, in which the word appears in later and less cultivated use, sO Mt. 474, Mk. τον Lk. 4%, Heb. 24, : Pet. 1°, 3 Maccr2% ποικίλαις Kal πολλαῖς ἐδοκίμασας τιμωρίαις, 4 Macc. 74 177 μητέρα ἑπτὰ τέκνων δι’ εὐσέβειαν ποικίλας βασάνους μέχρι θανάτου ὑπομείνασαν, 1871, Hermas offers many cases of this meaning; see Goodspeed, Judex, and note especially Mand. iv, 23 πολλαὶ καὶ ποικίλαι, Mand. x, 15 χερσοῦνται ἀπὸ τῶν ἀκανθῶν καὶ βοτανῶν ποικίλων, Sim. vii, 4 θλιβῆναι ἐν πάσαις θλίψεσι ποικίλαις. So Ep. ad Diogn. 12! ποικίλοις καρποῖς κεκοσμημένοι, Mart. Polyc. 24. For non-christian use, cf. Aelian, V. h. ix, 8 ὁ δὲ, πολλαῖς Kal ποικίλαις χρησάμενος βίου μεταβολαῖς, Synes. Ep. 114. The popular weakening of the strict sense of the word, and its employment merely to give greater fulness to the phrase, is seen at its extreme in 2 Tim. 3°, Tit. 3%, Heb. 13°, where ποικίλος seems wholly superfluous. The use here in James is probably of that general type, with little or no emphasis; it is less probable that the word is used here to intensify the idea of πειρασμοῖς, ‘trials however various,’ implying number and severity. 3. τὸ δοκίμιον, “test,” ‘proof,’ here of the act of proving. The word more properly refers to the means of testing (κριτήριον, cf. Prov. 27%: δοκίμιον ἀργυρίῳ, and references in Lex. and Mayor), but this does not give an adequate sense here, although adopted by Mayor and some older commentators. In the similar passage 1 Pet. 17, τὸ δοχίμιον cannot well mean “proof” ; δοχίμιον is there a neuter adjective from δοχίμιος = δόχιμος, “proved,” ““sood.”? See Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, 1897, pp. 86 ff. I, 2-3 135 In other usage also the word makes a natural advance from the idea of “‘test’’ to that of “purification” (as with metals) or of “training” (as Herodian, ii, τοῦ δοκίμιον δὲ στρατιωτῶν κάματος ἀλλ᾽ ov τρυφή. τῆς πίστεως. τῆς πίστεως om B? ff syrbel, The evidence against the words raises a bare suspicion that they were added by conformation to 1 Pet. 17. To omit them does not alter the general sense. The word πίστις clearly means in James that fundamental attitude of the man’s soul by virtue of which he belongs to the people of God, cf. 1° 2" 5 14. It is taken for granted that the natural effect of πειρασμοί is to imperil persistence in faith. See Introduction, p. 4o. κατεργάζεται, “works,” “achieves”; the force of κατα- is “‘perfective.”’ See Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 111 ff., Sanday on Rom. 7%. Cf. Rom. 53 ἡ θλίψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, χατεργάζεται is found only eleven times in LXX; while in the N. T., apart from this instance and 1 Pet. 43, it occurs only in Paul (twenty times). ὑπομονήν, “steadfastness,”’ “staying-power,”’ not “patience.” On the distinction, cf. Lightfoot on Col. 1", Trench, Synonyms, eee 111. ὑπομένω, ὑπομονή have in classical Greek a considerable range of meanings springing from the root-meaning “stay”? and including “endurance,” “firmness,” “submission,” ‘‘patience,”’ etc. In the Greek O. T. ὑπομονή is used chiefly for Hebrew ΠῚ ΠΡ, “hope,” “expectation,” 6. g. Ps. 715 ὅτι od ef ἣ ὑπομονῇ μου, κύριε" χύριος ἣ ἐλπίς wou éx νεότητός wou. So Theodotion, Job 1715, trans- lates mpn once by ὑπομονή, while Aquila repeatedly substitutes ὑπομονῇ in this sense for ἐλπίς of LXX. This meaning is found by some in 2 Thess. 35, Rev. 1° 31°, but the passages are all capable of different explanation. In Ecclus. 214 1724 412 ὑπομονῇ occurs in the sense “patience,” 5857 “diligence,” 1613 ὑπομονὴν εὐσεβοῦς, “the constancy of the pious.” In the last sense ὑπομονή and ὑπομένω are found many times in 4 Maccabees, where the virtue of religious constancy in spite of adversity and even torture (172% τὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς Backvotc ... ὑπομονήν) is celebrated in the great instances of Eleazar and of the mother of the seven sons. It is 136 JAMES there associated with ἀνδρεία (11: 153°) and χαχοπάθεια (98) and is the product of ἐλπίς (174). Cf. Test. XII Patr. Jos. 27 πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ δίδωσιν ἡ ὑπομονή (the whole section is noteworthy), 10! ὁρᾶτε οὖν, τέχνα wou, . «πόσα χατεργάζεται ἣ ὑπομονῇ, τοῦ, Ps. Sol. 24. ὑπομονή, meaning “constancy,” was thus a virtue highly prized by the Jews and frequently exemplified by cases from their history beginning with that of Abraham, notably those mentioned in 4 Maccabees. It is, indeed, a characteristic Jewish virtue of all time, and the Christian emphasis on it is a part of the inheritance from Judaism. Chrysostom calls it βασιλὶς τῶν ἀρετῶν. But heathen writers show that the virtue was also admired in the Greek and Roman world. The word ὑπομονή is hardly ever used for the virtue in general (yet cf. Plut. Apophth. lacon. Agesil. 2), but it is not uncommon with reference to the endurance of specific hardship. See the quotations given by Trench, especially Cicero’s definition of the Roman quality patientia in De invent. ii, 54 patientia est honestatis aut utilitatis causa rerum arduarum ac difficilium voluntaria ac diuturna per- pessio. In the N. T. ὑπομονή is chiefly used in this sense of unswerv- ing constancy to faith and piety in spite of adversity and suffer- ing. Thus Lk. 815 2119 ἐν τῇ ὑπομονῇ ὑμῶν κτήσεσθε Tas ψυχὰς ὑμῶν, Rom. τς’ “-, 2 Pet. 1°, Heb. τοῦὸ 121, Rev. 253: 319, The noun and its verb occur but rarely in the Synoptic Gospels, and not at all in John, but are characteristic of the vocabulary of Paul and the apostolic age. 1 Pet. 2%, where ὑπομένω is twice used in the sense of “‘endure uncomplainingly and pa- tiently,” is an exception to the more usual emphasis on loyal “firmness.” In Jas. 1% ὑπομονή means, then, not “uncomplaining pa- tience”’ (so, 6. g., Spitta), nor merely ‘‘endurance”’ as a single act or concrete state, but rather that permanent and underlying active trait of the soul from which endurance springs—‘“‘con- stancy,” or “steadfastness,”’ thought of as a virtue. Cf. 5", where the meaning is the same, and 112, A closely similar thought is found in Rom. 53! καὶ καυχώ- μεθα ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν, εἰδότες ὅτι ἡ θλίψις ὑπομονὴν κατερ- I, 374 137 γάξεται͵ ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ δοκιμήν, ἡ δὲ δοκιμὴ ἐλπίδα, ἡ δὲ ἐλ- mis οὐ καταισχύνει. It is not necessary, however, to assume literary dependence. For the rhetorical figure of climax, cf. 1 Ὁ Rom. ro!4, 2 Pet. 15 #-, Wisd. 6!” #-; see Blass-Debrunner, § 493, for other references. On joy in trial, cf. 2 Macc. 6117, 4 Macc. 722 1112, Mt. s!!f-, Acts 54, 1 Pet. 1°f-; on the whole theory of punishment as chastening, cf. Ps. 66°#-, Wisd. 11°, Prov. 31 12, Judith 825-27, On affliction as a test to be expected in the life of the pious, my ecclus,.2?-*, Judith $*°, 1 Pet. 417, 2 Tim. 3%. Spitta’s contention that James has in 174 the case of Abraham al- ready in mind is not made out. Abraham was indeed one of the great examples of constancy in faith in spite of searching trial, cf. Judith 825-27, τ Macc. 252, Ecclus. 44%, 4 Macc. 6% 22 031 1312 1420 1619f- 176 1820, 28, Jubilees 17, 19, Pirke Aboth, v.4. But there is no reason whatever for assuming in our verse reference to any specific case of constancy. 4, δέ, “and,” not “but.” This verse turns to remoter, but essential, consequences of πειρασμοί. ἔργον τέλειον éxéro. We must not rest satisfied with constancy, but must see that it produces those further fruits which make up completeness of character. The thought, here very summarily expressed, is the same as in Rom. 5?!-, 2 Pet. 15-7, For the phrase cf. Jn. 174 τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας. The constancy here referred to is constancy in faith, from which completed character may be expected to spring. This is closely similar to the characteristic Pauline doctrine of faith working itself out (or, made effective) in love, Gal. 5°, Rom. 61-23, cf. ν. 3 νυνὶ δὲ ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ THs ἁμαρτίας . ἔχετε τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν εἰς ἁγιασμόν. This inclusive and fun- damental thought well fits its position at the opening of the tract. “To have a perfect work” is taken by many to mean “be perfected,” in respect either to duration until the end or to other completeness. The verse would then urge merely that the constancy which trials pro- duce be made by voluntary effort a perfect constancy. This is a less natural meaning for the phrase itself, and it gives a weaker sense than the interpretation “produce its full and proper fruits,” which is, moreover, supported by the analogy of Rom. 5%t., 2 Pet, x*7, 138 JAMES τέλειοι Kal ὁλόκληροι. A perfect and complete character is recognised as the aim of the whole process. τελείος, “finished,” “‘perfect,” is a favourite word of James, figs 147: 5 32, of. 2% The idea of “maturity,” “adult growth,” either physical (Heb. 5%, 1 Cor. 14”) or spiritual (τ Cor. 25 1311, Col. 128 41), does not seem pres- ent in James’s use, which is rather akin to that of Mt. 548 194. For the use of τέλειος, referring to the natural aim of moral effort, the O. T. use of ΘΔ), “perfect,” “innocent,” and now, “perfect,” “single-(minded),” laid ample foundation. So OF, DOS), of Noah, Gen. 69; Job 14; Deut. 1813, Ps. 18% 3737, and often; 05u, 1 Kings 8 114. A similar Greek use grew out of the simple meaning of the word, cf. Philo, Leg. all. ii, 23 (of Moses in contrast to the ordi- nary immature man), and other passages quoted by Mayor, also the Stoic sayings in Stobeeus, Anthol. ii, 7, 11, g, πάντα δὲ τὸν καλὸν Kal ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα τέλειον εἶναι λέγουσι διὰ TO μηδε- μιᾶς ἀπολείπεσθαι ἀρετῆς, ii, 7, 5,b 8 (ed. Heeren, ii, p. 117). See HDB, “Perfection,” and J. Weiss, Erster Korintherbrief, 1010, Pp. 73-75: As τέλειος means “complete” in the sense of “perfect,” “finished,” so ὁλόκληρος means “complete in all its parts,” no part being wanting or inadequate. The distinction is well illustrated by Trench, Synonyms, xxii. ὁλόκληρος is not com- mon with a moral application, cf. 4 Macc. 1517 τὴν εὐσέβειαν ὁλόκληρον, Wisd. 153 ὁλόκληρος δικαιοσύνη. It was custom- ary to use the two words together merely to give a fuller phrase, as here, cf. Col. 42, τέλειοι καὶ πεπληροφορημένοι. Many examples of such use of τέλειος and ὁλόκληρος in com- bination, drawn from Philo, Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom, etc., will be found in Mayor, Trench, Spitta, and Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 312 ff. Compare English “meet and right,” “good and sufficient,” German “klipp und klar,” etc. 5-8. Divine aid to this perfectness is gained through Prayer. But blessings come only im answer to the prayer of steadfast loy- alty in faith. ‘ I, 4-5 130 The external connection is made here by λείπεται (ν. 4 λει- πόμενοι) ; cf. νν. 1" 2 yalpew, χαράν, v. 4 τέλειον, τέλειοι, Vv. 5» ὃ αἰτείτω, etc. The main topic of the section is prayer (not wis- dom), the point being that real prayer requires unwavering faith. The marked resemblance between these verses and Hermas, Mand. ix, shows that behind both lie current homiletical lan- guage and ideas. 5. σοφία (cf. Jas. 31% 15 17) is not to be taken in the popular Stoic sense of “Science,” ἐπιστήμη θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων καὶ τῶν τούτων αἰτιῶν (references in Lightfoot on Col. 1°), which is reflected in Paul’s use, e.g. 1 Cor. 19, 3 “Ἄλληνες σοφίαν ζητοῦσιν, 21: + 6 419. and (with reference to the Christian sub- stitute for the world’s wisdom) 1 Cor. 1% 25 1: 318, Eph. 18 3%, Col. 23, ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας Kal γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι. It is rather “Wisdom,” the supreme and divine quality of the soul whereby man knows and practises right- eousness.* Of this Hebrew idea of wisdom Solomon was the great exemplar,} cf.2 Chron. το, Wisd. 77% 87 9118, and of this Proverbs (6. g. ch. 2, see Toy on Prov. 174), Ecclesi- asticus (cf. ch. 1, especially vv. 4%, 5113-22), and the Wisdom of Solomon treat. Abundant passages in this literature refer to this wisdom as coming from God, and him alone, Prov. 2° κύριος δίδωσιν σοφίαν, καὶ ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ γνῶσις Kal σύνεσις, Ecclus. τὶ πᾶσα σοφία παρὰ κυρίου, 55. 6 5117, Wisd. 8521: οὐ τῆς ἀπὸ σοῦ σοφίας ἀπούσης εἰς οὐδὲν λογισθήσεται. The basis of the passage in James is thoroughly Jewish. πᾶσιν διδόντος. God’s readiness to give is a motive to prayer. On the idea of God as ready and desirous to give to all, cf. Ps. 1451519, Ps. Sol. 41315, Test. XII Patr. Gad 77, Philo, De cher. 34, Leg. alleg. i, 13 ὅτι φιλόδωρος ὧν ὁ θεὸς χαρίζεται τὰ ἀγαθὰ πᾶσι καὶ τοῖς μὴ τελείοις, Mt. 54° 77 πὶ ἁπλῶς. Properly means “simply,” but here clearly shown * The limitation of σοφία to the wisdom requisite for the state of mind recommended in ν. is not justified. + But there is no reason for thinking, with Spitta, that Solomon is in mind in the passage, or that in v.* πᾶσιν refers to “all” in contrast to Solomon alone. 140 JAMES by what follows to have a moral sense, ‘‘graciously,” ‘‘boun- teously,” “generously.” The adverb is found only here in the N. T., but the noun ἁπλότης is not uncommon. In Rom. 128 ὁ μεταδιδοὺς ἐν ἁπλότητι, 2 Cor. 8? go 13 τῇ... ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας εἰς αὐτούς, Jos. Antig. vii, 134 τῆς ἁπλότητος καὶ τῆς μεγα- λοψυχίας, it means “liberality,” “generosity,” “single-minded attention to the gift with no thought of self”; cf. Ecclus. 20%, “The gift of a fool shall not profit thee; for his eyes are many instead of one”; also Plut. De adulat. p. 63 F, τὸ δὲ τοῦ κόλακος ἔργον οὐδὲν ἔχει δίκαιον, οὐδ᾽ ἁπλοῦν, οὐδ᾽ ἐλευθέριον. Sanday, on Rom. 128, quotes the important passages from Test. XII Patr. Issach. (περὶ ἁπλότητος) in which the various qualities of the single-minded man are set forth; note especially Issach. 38, on generosity, and see also Charles’s valuable notes in his English translation, 1908, pp. 102-105. The adverb ἁπλῶς itself is used in this sense (“‘freely,” ‘lib- erally”) by Hermas, Mand. ii, 4 and 6. For various unacceptable senses given to ἁπλῶς here, see Beyschlag, and for full references, see Hort, ad loc. μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος describes God’s giving as full and free, in contrast to the meanness which after a benefaction calls it un- pleasantly to the mind of the one benefited. That this disa- greeable trait of human nature was prominent in ancient times is attested, 6. g. by Ecclus. 4122 μετὰ τὸ δοῦναι μὴ ὀνείδιζε, 1815-18 9014-16 (cf, also, for a slightly different aspect, 29?2%), Plut. De adulat. p. 64 A, πᾶσα ὀνειδιζομένη χάρις ἐπαχθὴς καὶ ἄχαρις, Schol. on Eur. Orest. 1238 ὀνείδη, τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν τὰς ὑπομνήσεις ; see further Wetstein and Mayor. 6. ἐν πίστει, cf. 515. Explained by μηδὲν διακρινόμενος as meaning “in constancy (ὑπομονή) of faith.” “Faith” is the fundamental religious attitude, not an incidental grace of char- acter, and the words mean here more than ‘‘in confidence that he will receive his request.” ὁ διακρινόμενος is a man whose allegiance wavers, not one torfnented by speculative intellectual questionings, which do not fall within James’s horizon. This is 5-6 141 indicated by v.?, which shows (as Beyschlag well remarks) that the kind of waverer whom James has in mind fully expects to receive some benefit from God. διακρινόμενος, “wavering,” “doubting,” literally “divided,” “Cat variance with one’s self”; cf. Mt. 217, Mk. 117%, Rom. 4” (cf. Sanday’s note) 14%, Jas. 24. This sense is found in Protev. Jac. 11, Clem. Hom. ii, 40 (see the passages in Mayor), but has not been pointed out in writings earlier than the N. T. For ἀδιάκριτος in the corresponding sense, cf. Ign. Tvall. τ διάνοιαν ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ. In Ign. Magn. 15, Eph. 3, Test. XII Patr. Zab. 72, the meaning is not certainly the same as here; see Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873, Ὁ. 429, note 1. On the general thought of the necessity of faith to success in prayer, cf. passages mentioned above, those given below on δίψυχος, v.18, and Ecclus. 7” μὴ ὀλιγοψυχήσης ἐν TH προσευχῇ σου, Wisd. ταν Enoch οἵ, Herm. Mand. ix, αἴτου ἀδισ- τάκτως (see ἜΑ. ΜΉΝ p. 89). But the God who would save sinners does not reject the prayer of the publican, nor the cry, “T believe, help thou mine unbelief.” yap explains, and enforces by a figure, the importance of not wavering. ἔοικεν. Not in LXX; in N. T. only here and 1%, κλύδωνι, “wave of the sea,” but with emphasis rather on size and extension than on separateness and succession (κῦμα), hence often used in a collective sense. It probably means here “the surge of the sea,” “the billowing sea”; cf. Lk. 8% ἐπε- τίμησεν TO ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος, Wisd. 14°. ἀνεμιζομένῳ, “wind-driven,” a very rare word for the clas- sical ἀνεμόω. ῥιπιζομένῳ, “blown,” literally, “fanned,” from puis, “fan.” Adds here nothing essential to the idea of ἀνεμιξζομένῳ. The two participles together explain the comparison. ῥιπίζω is frequently used in secular writers of the action of wind on the sea. See the passages quoted in Heisen, p. 444, and the full discussion in Hort, ad loc. Cf. the fragment in Dio Chrys. Or. 32, p. 368: δήμος ἄστατον χαχόν, χαὶ θαλάττῃ πάνθ᾽ ὅμοιον ὑπ᾽ ἀνέμου διπίζεται; 142 JAMES Philo, De gig. 11 ἰδὼν γάρ τις τὸν ἐν εἰρήνῃ συνεχῆ πόλεμον ἀνθρώπων, οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔθνη καὶ χώρας καὶ πόλεις αὐτὸ μόνον συνιστάμενον, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ᾽ οἰκίας, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ καθ᾽ ἕνα ἄνδρα ἕκαστον, καὶ τὸν ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἄλεκτον καὶ βαρὺν χειμῶνα, ὃς ὑπὸ βιαιοτάτης φορᾶς τῶν κατὰ βίον πραγμάτων ἀναρριπίζεται, τεθαύμακεν εἰκότως͵ εἴ τις ἐν χειμῶνι εὐδίαν καὶ ἐν κλύδωνι κυμαινούσης θαλάσσης γαλήνην ἄγειν δύναται, and other passages in Wetstein and Mayor. The point of comparison in James is the ordinary instability of the heaving sea, not the unusual violence of a storm. The sentence is made less forcible through the excessive elaboration of the figure. For the figure itself, cf. passages quoted above, Is. 57%, Ecclus. 332, ὁ ὑποκρινόμενος ἐν αὐτῳ [sc. νόμῳ] ὡς ἐν καταιγίδι πλοῖον, Eph. 414 with Robinson’s note and refer- ences, Jude, v.#%. Note also the elaborate metaphor of 4 Macc. 71-3, where the man of steadfast piety is described as a helms- man tenax propositi; and see references in Mayor, and Heisen, pp. 451 f. 7. yap. Introduces a second time, in another and more direct form, the reason for ν. 8. Cf. Hermas, Sim. 4° πῶς οὖν, φησίν͵ ὁ τοιοῦτος δύναταί τι αἰτήσασθαι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου Kal λαβεῖν͵, μὴ δουλεύων τῷ κυρίῳ : also Jas. 45 and note. ᾿ οἰέσθω. οἶμαι is found in N. T. only here and Jn. 21%, Phil. 11’, δοκέω having taken its place (cf. Mt. 3° μὴ δόξητε). It is often used, as here, “with collateral notion of wrong judg- ment or conceit” (LZ. and S.). So in Attic; and cf. Job 11°, © πη Ὁ 2: Mace. 5. ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος, with a suggestion of disapproval, or contempt, as Mk. 1474, Mt. 124. | τοῦ κυρίου, i.e. God, cf. ν. δ. In Paul always, or nearly al- ways, of Christ, except in quotations. 8. ἀνὴρ δίψυχος, either subject of λήμψεται, making the sentence a general statement (WH. éext, R.V. mg.), or else in apposition with the unexpressed subject (WH. mg. R.V.), which it further describes. The latter construction has analogies, 3” ὃ 412, and yields a much more forcible sense. It underlies the punctuation of Cod. B and the rendering of the Peshitto. I, 6-8 143 Hort argues for R.V. mg. on the ground that ἐχεῖνος naturally re- fers not to the waverer just mentioned, but to the more remote “man that lacketh wisdom.” But the phrase is highly effective with refer- ence to the person just described elaborately, and on the other hand it is impossible to see why the warning that follows, which is of universal application, should be addressed with such special emphasis only to “the man that lacketh wisdom.” The rendering of A.V. based on the late Vulgate text (not Codd. AF), vir duplex . . . inconstans est, is still less acceptable. ἀνήρ gives more emphasis to the idea (notice the emphatic position) than would be given by δέψυχος alone. The change from ἄνθρωπος (ν. 1) to ἀνήρ is probably merely for the sake of variety. Cf. Hermas, Mand. ix, 6 πᾶς yap δίψυχος ἀνήρ. δίψυχος, “double-minded,” “‘double-souled,” ἡ. e. “with soul divided between faith and the world”’ (cf. 44 ἡ φιλία Tod κόσμου ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν), “Mr. Facing-both-ways.” The word is not found in secular literature nor in LXX or Ν. T. ex- cept here and Jas. 45, but is correctly formed according to the analogy of διχόνους (Philo, De merc. meretr. 4, p. 269), δίγλωσσος (ibid.; Ecclus. 5°), δίγνωμος, δικάρδιος, δίλογος (1 Tim. 38), διπρόσωπος (Test. XII Patr. Aser 2, etc.), δίστομος, δισώματος, etc. It is not at all likely to be the coinage of this writer. In early Christian writings δίψυχος and διψυχέω (see Goodspeed, Index) are frequent, occurring in Hermas about forty times, especially in Mand. ix; Clem. Rom. 11? (of persons like Lot’s wife), 23% πόρρω γενέσθω ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἣ γραφὴ αὕτη, ὅπου λέγει ᾿ Τ᾽ αλαίπωροί εἰσιν οἱ δίψυχοι, οἱ διστάζοντες τὴν ψυχῆν, οἱ λέγοντες ᾿ ταῦτα ἠχούσαμεν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πα- τέρων ἡμῶν, χαὶ ἱδοὺ γεγηράχαμεν, καὶ οὐδὲν ἣμῖν τούτων συνβέβηχεν (cf. Lightfoot, ad loc.). In 2 Clem. Rom. 11? the same quotation is given as from ὃ προφητιχὸς λόγος, which Lightfoot conjectures to be “Eldad and Modad.” Cf. Didache 4!, Barn. τοῦ 20! (διπλοκαρδία), 2 Clem. Rom. το (διψυχίαν) ; see Mayor for some later instances. A. H. Clough’s poem, entitled Dipsychus, has brought the word into English. The idea so neatly put by δίψυχος has similar expression in a series of phrases found in classical Greek, such as δίχα θυμὸν ἔχοντες (Homer), ἐγένοντο δίχα at γνῶμαι (Herodotus), etc., all meaning “be at variance,”’ “be in doubt.” Somewhat closer are the O. T. passages, Ps. 12? (11%) ἐν χαρδίᾳ καὶ ἐν χαρδίᾳ, “with a double heart,” 1 Chron. 1233, Ecclus. 128 ἐν χαρδίᾳ δισσῇ, 21214 (where “go two ways,” and “lose ὑπομονῇ ᾽ are parallel, and are closely connected with οὐ πιστεύει), Hos. 10%. See also Enoch 144 JAMES ot‘, Mt. 624, and Tanchuma on Deut. 26% (quoted by Schéttgen), ecce scriptura monet Israelitas et dicit ipsis quo tempore preces coram domino effundant ne habeant duo corda, unum ad deum s. b. alterum vero ad aliam rem. In Test. XII Patr. Aser 3, Benj.6; a similar thought is as- sociated with the idea of the good and the evil “root’’; see Bousset, Religion des Judentums?, pp. 400 f. Classical references are given by Wetstein, Mayor, Heisen, p. 475. Singleness of soul was prized in the Gentile world (Plato, Epictetus), but the connection of single-minded- ness and prayer seems characteristic of Jewish or Christian thought. Cf. also the verb διστάζω (especially in Clem. Rom. 23%, above). ἀκατάστατος, “unstable,” “unsteady,” “‘fickle,”’ “incon- stant,” a disparaging predicate applied to ὁ dvaxpweépuevos, The word is found in N. T. only here and 38, in LXX once (Is. 54:1, as parallel to ταπεινή), Sym. three times; ἀκαταστασία is found twice in LXX, twice in Sym., and five times in N. T. The adjective and noun are used to describe character in Polybius, vii, 4° (of a youth). ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ, ἡ. e. his whole conduct is like his attitude toward faith. For the Hebraism “ways” in the sense of “habitual course of conduct,”’ see Ps. g1" 1451”, Prov. 3§ (πάσαις ὁδοῖς cov), and Prov. passim, Wisd. 215, Ecclus. 11% νι so. Jer, 16", Ezek. 7% °, Acts 141%, x Cor.’4'"; (of. wae below, ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὐτοῦ. The expression ἀχατάστατος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ might mean “unsettled (tempest-tossed) in all his experiences’’ with reference to the ill effects of such διψυχία in actual life. For ἀχατάστατος in this sense, cf. Is. 5411, and for 630f Ps. g114, Rom. 316 (where the quotation is taken as relating not to conduct but to experience). This is the view of many commentators, ancient and modern, but the sentence seems to call for a characterisation of the man rather than a prophecy of his fortunes. 9-11. Poverty no evil and wealth no advantage. The writer returns to the πειρασμοί of ν. 2. That these fall heavily on the poor man is not an evil for him but an elevation, of which he should boast as a privilege. Likewise let the rich man boast when brought low by adversity; for riches are transitory things, and he should be only glad to lose them in a way which conduces to his moral welfare, cf. Lk. 639-26, I, 7-10 145 9. καυχάσθω, “boast,” over a privilege or a possession, corre- sponding to χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε. The word is used in the O.T. of “any proud and exulting joy,” and so here (in secular Greek it did not have this development), cf. Ecclus. 10% 398, Jer. 923: τάδε λέγει κύριος " μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν TH σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυ- χάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ͵ ANN ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυ- χάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος, συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύ- ρίος ὁ ποιῶν ἔλεος καὶ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἐν τούτοις τὸ θέλημά μου, λέγει κύριος, Ps. 3211, 2 Cor. 11%, of. 23-29, 129 ὁ ἀδελφός, cf. v. 2, ἀδελφοί and note. 6 ταπεινός, “humble,” “lowly,” of outward condition, not (as 4) inner spirit. Cf. Ecclus. 111 298, 1 Macc. 1414, Ps. 93° (1018), 82 (81)? ταπεινὸν Kal πένητα, Prov. 30! (247), Eccles. τοῦ, Is. 114, Dan. 5357, Job 51! τὸν ποιοῦντα ταπεινοὺς εἰς ὕψος, Lk. 15%. See Trench, Synonyms, xlii. ἐν τῷ ὕψει. The lowly should find the elevation he so much craves in the moral gain achieved through trials, cf. 1 Cor. 7”. Others make ὕψος refer to the heavenly reward of the pious. This is, of course, included in the advantage of the lowly, but it is not said here that the elevation is only future. The actual moral dangers of wealth in the early church are well illustrated by Hermas, V7s. iii, 6. The exaltation of the humble was the promise of the prophets (e. g. Is. 54™!-) and the hope of Israel, Prov. 334, Ps. 187” 138°; of. Lk. 14% ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται καὶ ὁ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται. These are now realised. But note the moralistic turn given to apocalyptic ideas; in τ Pet. 1% the eschatological framework of Jewish and Christian thought is far nearer the surface of the writer’s consciousness. 10. The two interpretations of v. divide on the question whether or not ἀδελφός is to be supplied with ὁ πλούσιος. (1) It is more natural to supply it. In that case the rich man is a Christian, and ταπεινώσει refers to the external 146 JAMES humiliation and loss brought him by the πειρασμοί of ν. 1, which from the Christian point of view are a proper ground of boasting. τῷ ὕψει and τῇ ταπεινώσει both refer to the same or similar experiences, but are not quite parallel expressions, since ὕψος is used of a moral and spiritual exaltation, ταπείνωσις of external and material humiliation. Apart from this lack of parallelism the chief objections to this view, which is that of most commentators (to the names given by Beyschlag, add von Soden, Spitta, Scott, Zahn, Knowling, Hort), are (1) that else- where in the epistle the rich are spoken of (2*8 51°) as bad men outside the Christian society, and (2) that παρελεύσεται has to be taken as denoting ‘‘lose his wealth,” and v. 1: in a corre- sponding sense. (2) According to the other interpretation, ἀδελφός is not to be supplied with ὁ πλούσιος. Then, since the verb to be sup- plied is surely καυχάσθω (although Alford proposed καυχᾶται, “(Ecumenius” αἰσχυνέσθω, and Grotius ταπεινούσθω), that word must be taken ironically, and τῇ ταπεινώσει referred to the humiliation and shame of the Day of Judgment (cf. 51 ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ταῖς ἐπερχομέναις) set forth plainly in παρελεύσεται and μαρανθήσεται---“Ἰεῖ the rich man find his boast (if he can!) in his coming abasement from the lofty sta- tion he now occupies.” This involves serious difficulties: (1) the unnatural refusal to supply ἀδελφός, (2) the excess of fierce irony in the use of the understood καυχάσθω, (3) the lack of adaptation of the thought in any way to the idea of πειρασμοί, which still seems to govern the context. On the other hand, this interpretation would be in accord with 5!, and would in some respects well suit the following context, vv. 1". This latter view is held by many older commentators, and by Huther, Alford, Weiss, Beyschlag, but seems on the whole to involve greater difficulties than those of the view first stated. The rich man here contemplated is, therefore, to be understood as a Christian. τῇ ταπεινώσει. The bringing low of the rich through loss of property, standing, etc., cf. Lk. 148, Phil. 37. This might be I, 10 147 by reason of his Christian profession, for the rich man was pe- culiarly exposed to loss in time of persecution (ο΄. the result of anti-semitic persecution at Alexandria, as described by Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 18); but it might well come about through other causes, and would always be a πειρασμός that would put a severe strain on faith in the goodness of God. τῇ ταπεινώσει is taken by some as strictly parallel to τῷ ὕψει and so meaning Christian “humility.” “Let the rich man make his humble spirit, not his wealth, his boast,” cf. Ecclus. 3% 717, ταπείνωσον σφόδρα chy ψυχῆν cou... ὅτι éxdixnots ἀσεβοῦς πῦρ xat σχώληξ, and the saying of Hillel,* “My humility is my greatness and my greatness is my humility.” This is possible, but does not suit the connection with πειρασμοί quite so well, and one would expect ταπεινοφροσύνη (x Pet. 55). On the transitoriness of riches, cof. Job 2453 27%, Ps. 491*”, Wisd. 5° #-, Ecclus. 1138!-, Mt. 619, Lk. 12162! 1619-31, Philo, De sacrificantibus, το (M, ii, 258): “God alone, it says (Deut. 10%), shall be thy boast (αὔχημα) and greatest glory. And pride thyself neither on wealth nor on glory nor high position nor beauty of person nor strength nor the like things over which the empty-minded are wont to be elated; reckoning that in the first place these things have no share in the nature of good, and that secondly they are subject to speedy change, fading (μαραινόμενα), as it were, before they have well blossomed (ἀνθήσαι). For other ref- erences, cf. Spitta, p. 26, note 3. ὅτι ws ἄνθος χόρτου παρελεύσεται. Through the same in- terest in warning against high estimation of riches which ap- pears in 214- 6-8 51-6. the writer is led on in this clause and v. 4 to describe the certainty of loss to the rich. The passage sets forth the sure fate of the typical rich man. The passage is dependent on Is. 40°: πᾶσα σὰρξ χόρτος καὶ πᾶσα δόξα ἀνθρώπου ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου. ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος καὶ τὸ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσεν (also quoted 1 Pet. 1). ἄνθος χόρτου is the LXX rendering of Hebrew NIWT PS, “flower of the field.”” In Ps. τος (102)!5 the same Hebrew is rendered more correctly ἄνθος τοῦ ἀγροῦ. χόρτος is probably * Lev. rabba, c. 1; see Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten?, i, Ὁ. 6. 148 JAMES used here not only of grass proper, but of any green herbage (so of lilies, Mt. 6328, 80. of grain, Mt. 138), and the flower thought of is any flower growing in the field, just asin the Hebrew. The original comparison in Is. 40®f- relates to life in general, for which the spectacle familiar in the Orient of the grass and flowers suddenly withered by heat and drought is a common figure; thus Ps. 90°! 102!! ὡσεὶ χόρτος, 103°, Job 142 ὥσπερ ἄνθος, Is. 5112; and (of the wicked) Ps. 372, Job 15%-*%. παρελεύσεται. The rich man “will pass away,” “disappear,” 7. e. in any case his riches will pass away and he will cease to be arichman. (Thisis merely elaborated in vv." δηᾷ 13.) There- fore he should congratulate himself on the opportunity of moral gain described in vv.?-4 and on the ταπείνωσις which substi- tutes real values for transitory ones. παρελεύσεται includes the consequences of death, but also the work of moth and rust (Mt. 619, 3), This is better than, with some inter- preters, to take παρελεύσεται as meaning “die,” for the rich is no more sure to die than the poor. The rich needs to be reminded not of the certainty of death but of the transitoriness of wealth. 11. ἀνέτειλεν. The aorists are gnomic, as in v.%4; but cf. Is. 407 LXX. See Burton, Moods and Tenses, § 43, Blass, § 57, 9, Buttmann (Thayer’s translation), p. 202; Winer (Moul- ton’s translation), pp. 346 f.; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 3} Winer (Thayer’s translation), pp. 277 f., takes a different view, holding the aorists to be narrative, as in a parabolic story; cf. Mt. 13%4 #-. σὺν τῷ καύσωνι. καύσων means “burning heat,” Gen. 31%, Dan. 3°? (Theod. Codd. AQ), Is. 25° (Theod.), Lk. 1255, Mt. 20; or “sirocco,” Hebrew O°%P (Job 277, Hos. 1315, Jonah 45, Ezek. 17! 19}2), the southeast wind common in Palestine in spring and destructive of young growth by reason of its extreme and withering dryness. See Benzinger, Hebr. Archdologie, pp. 29 f., DD.BB. art. “Wind.” It is often, as here, difficult to decide between the two possible meanings (6. g. Ecclus. 188 433, Judith 8’). For the A.V., “a burning heat,” R.V. has substi- tuted “the scorching wind,” I, 10-12 149 ἐξέπεσεν, “faded,” “wilted,” from Is. 407, cf. Is. 284 4, Job 14? ΤῈ 85. The Greek word is used in the sense not only of “ fall off,’’ but also of fail,” “come to naught.” The specific meaning “fade” is contained in the Hebrew 523, and so in translation became attached to ἐχπίπτειν. ἡ εὐπρέπεια, “comeliness,” “goodly appearance.” Only here in N. T., cf. Ecclus. 2414 (of olive-tree). The word is common in LXX as in classical writers, with a suggestion of fitness to the object and its relations, and so sometimes gains a notion of stateliness or majesty, which καλός, κάλλος, do not have. Cf. Ps. 931 κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν, εὐπρέπειαν ἐνεδύσατο, Wisd. 7 εὐπρεπεστέρα ἡλίου, and other references given by Hort. τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ, “of its face,” ἡ. e. “form and appear- ance.” Under the influence of the extended meanings of the Hebrew 0°33 the word πρόσωπον proceeded in translation to the sense “surface.” Cf. Job 4118 (of stripping off the crocodile’s scales) τίς ἀποχαλύψει πρόσωπον ἐνδύσεως αὐτοῦ ; 2 Sam. 1439 τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ ῥήματος τούτου, “the situa- tion, attitude, appearance, of this affair’’?; Gen. 25 τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς. From this to the meaning “outward form and appearance”’ is not a long step. ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὐτοῦ is figurative, like ὁδοῖς, v. 8, and re- fers to the experiences and fortunes of the rich, cf. Prov. 27 427 Tas δὲ πορείας σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ προάξει. To take it of literal journeys is wholly inappropriate to the context. Hort’s interesting interpretation is probably oversubtle: ‘The com- mon interpretation of ‘goings’ as a mere trope for ‘doings’ seems too weak here. The force probably lies in the idea that the rich man per- ishes while he is still on the move, before he has attained the state of rest- ful enjoyment which is always expected and never arrives. Without some such hint of prematurity the parallel with the grass is lost.’ μαρανθήσεται, “wither,” “waste away.” So Wisd. 28, Job 2474, but outside the Bible more often of the decay of other things than plants. The reference is to the loss of riches and earthly prosperity, not to eternal destiny. 12, The Reward of Steadfastness. 150 JAMES This verse recurs to the thought of vv. #4. The sub-paragraph should end after ν. 12, not before it, as in WH.’s text. μακάριος ἀνήρ sc. ἐστιν. ἀνήρ] AW minn read ἄνθρωπος, probably an emendation in order not to exclude women. _ This form of praising a virtue is very common in the O. T., especially in Psalms and Ecclesiasticus, for Hebrew ὗν τ ws. ἀνήρ is natu- rally preferred to ἄνθρωπος in most cases. The article is omitted by LXX in most of the instances, probably because the statement is thought of as of general application (“blessed is any man who,’’ etc.). Cf. Ps. 11 845, Prov. 832, Ecclus. 141 2° 261, Is. 562, Job 517 μαχάριος δὲ ἄνθρωπος ὃν ἤλεγξεν ὁ χύριος, 4 Macc. 727 διὰ τὴν ἀρετὴν πάντα πόνον ὑπομένειν μακάριόν ἐστιν, etc., Dan. 1212 (Theod.) μακάριος ὃ ὑπομένων. This precise formula is not found elsewhere in the N. T. (except Rom. 48, quoted from LXX), although beatitudes are abundant, e.g. Mt. 511 στο Lk, 145 2329, Jn. 202°, Rom. 1453, 1 Pet. 34. Cf. Hermas, Vis. ii, 27 μακάριοι ὑμεῖς ὅσοι ὑπομένετε τὴν θλίψιν. Both in form and substance this verse in James is characteristically Jewish and Biblical. On the interesting difference from the abundant and familiar Greek and Latin congratulatory expressions, see E. Nor- den, Agnostos Theos, 1913, pp. 100 f.; G. L. Dirichlet, De veterwm ma- carismis (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, xiv), 1914, ὑπομένει, ‘“endureth”; ὁ. 6. ‘‘shows constancy under”’; ¢f. Zech. 614 LXX ὁ δὲ στέφανος ἔσται τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν. The word may also be taken as future, ὑπομενεῖ, πειρασμόν, “trial,” asin v.*. Inner enticement to evil would have to be resisted, not endured. δόκιμος γενόμενος, “having shown himself approved,” cf. Rom. 5‘. This is another way of saying ὑπομένει, not a further condition of receiving the crown. τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς. A crown ("1¥y.) was worn for ornament by the Jews, as by other peoples of antiquity, being sometimes a wreath of leaves or flowers (6. g. Judith 15%, cf. Wisd. 28, etc.) worn at feasts (Cant. 34, Is. 28% 8, Ecclus. 322, etc.), weddings, and occasions of joy, sometimes a crown of gold (6. g. Ezek. 1612 2342, Esther 815, Ep. Jer. 9, τ: Macc. 10” 1337, 2 Macc. 144; cf. 2 Sam. 12% = 1 Chron. 202, where the crown of gold was probably on the head of an idol, see H. P. Smith on 2 Sam. 12%). At least in the case of golden crowns it served asa badge of dignity and rank (cf. Philo, De somn. ii, 9), and could be used as a gift of honour (just as with the Greeks, cf. Epist. Arist. 320). I, 12 151 Such a crown (usually of gold) is sometimes spoken of as worn by a king (Ps. 218, Sir. 404, Zech. 61 14, Jer. 1318, Ezek. 2126 (30), but others also could wear it, and it was not intended as a symbol of dominion. Many gold chaplets in the form of leaves have been found in ancient graves and are to be seen in museums. The ordinary badge of royalty (βασιλείας γνωρίσματα, Lucian, Pisc. 35; imsigne regium, Tac. Ann. xv, 29) was not a crown (στέφανος) but a fillet (διάδημα, Hebrew 1n2), Esther 14, 1 Esd. 439, Wisd. 516, Ecclus. 115 478, Is. 628, τ Macc. 19, etc.). Not until the time of the later Roman emperors did the oblitera- tion of the actual distinction between crown and diadem take place which has determined the meaning of the words in modern usage. From the Greeks the Jews became familiar with the custom of giving a wreath as a prize to victors in games. This was an important, but incidental, result of the general employment of chaplets (στέφανοι) as ornaments and badges of honour. See EB and HDB and Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, “Crown”; DCA, “Coronation” and “Crown”; Trench, Synonyms, xxiii; Lightfoot on Phil. 41; J. Kéchling, De coronarum apud antiquos vi et usu (Religionsgesch. Versuche und Vorarbeiten, xiv), 1014. στέφανος is often figuratively used in the O. T. in the sense of “ hon- ourable ornament”’ or “mark of dignity ”’ (Prov. 19 στέφανον χαρίτων, 4° 124 γυνὴ ἀνδρεία στέφανος τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς, 16%! στέφανος χαυχήσεως γῆρας, 175 στέφανος γερόντων τέχνα τέχνων, Job 199, Is. 285 ἔσται χύριος σαβαὼθ & στέφανος τῆς ἐλπίδος, Lam. 515, Ecclus. 111 φόβος xupfou... στέφανος ἀγαλλιάματος, 631 15° στέφανον ἀγαλλιάματος... χαταχληρο- γομιῆσει (the symbol put for the rejoicing which it symbolises), 258 στέφανος γερόντων πολυπειρία. The corresponding verb στεφανόω is used of the bestowing of marks of favour and honour (Ps. 8° δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτόν, 1034 τὸν στεφανοῦντά σε ἐν ἐλέει, 3 Macc. 328, on which see Deissmann, Bzbel- studien, Ὁ. 261, Heb. 27 5), just as it is by late secular writers (Polyb. Diod. Plut. papyri; see Deissmann, /.c.) in the sense merely of “reward.” For the figurative use of the crown as a prize, see 4 Macc. 1711-16; cf. 9%, Wisd. 45. Similarly, of victory over pleasure, love of money, εἰς. Heraclit. Zp. iv; Philo, Leg. all. ii, 26, iii, 23. For rabbinical references to crowns, see Taylor, SJF?, p. 72, note 23. Test. XII Patr. Benj. 41 [Imitate the good man’s compassion] ἵνα xat ὑμεῖς στεφάνους δόξης φορέσητε, belongs to the same group as the similar N. T. passages discussed below. In the N. T. στέφανος is used of the thorn-chaplet put on the head of Jesus (Mt. 2729, Mk. 1517, Jn. τοῦ 5), of wreaths used as prizes (1 Cor. 97), of golden crowns as badges of dignity (Rev. 4% 190 62 οἵ 1414, also 12!), of a crown of stars, and in the figurative senses of a prize (2 Tim. 45 6 τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος ὃν ἀποδώσει μοι ὃ χύριος ἐν ἐχείνῃ τῇ 152 JAMES ἡμέρᾳ, of. τ Cor. 935) and of an honourable ornament, or badge of n dignity (Phil. 41, 1 Thess. 219 τίς γὰρ ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς ἢ χαρὰ ἢ στέφανος χαυχήσεως, Rev. 31). This last sense, of a figurative “ honourable ornament,” seems to be the meaning in 1 Pet. 54 καὶ φανερωθέντος τοῦ ἀρχιποί- μενος κομιεῖσθε τὸν ἀμαράντινον τῆς δόξης στέφανον (where lurks an implied contrast with a wreath of leaves), in Rev. 219 δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς, and in the passage of James under discussion. There is no reason whatever for thinking of a royal crown, and no need of introducing any reference to the use of wreaths as prizes in the Greek games. That metaphor, which implies competition and so exclusion, is not an adequate one as the basis of the N. T. use (cf. 2 Clem. Rom. 7, where this very difficulty is felt), and crowns were in fact acquired in other ways as well as by contending in the games. The idea is rather of a mark of honour to be given by the Great King to his friends. An excellent case of this figurative use is Ep. Arist. 280 καθὼς σὺ τοῦτο ἐπιτελεῖς, εἶπε, μέγιστε βασιλεῦ, θεοῦ σοι στέφανον δικαιοσύνης δεδωκότος. Righteousness here constitutes the crown, and it is a gift, not a prize. The metaphor of the crown for the blessed reward of the pious was evi- dently already familiar before the N. T. authors wrote. This is shown not only by Test. XII Patr. Benj. 41 already quoted, but also by the form of the several N. T. passages. Note the use of the definite article, the variation in the added genitive, and the acquaintance with the idea implied in ἡμεῖς δὲ ἄφθαρτον, τ Cor. 925. It may even be that στέφανος, like otepavéw, had already gained the simple meaning “re- ward.” τῆς ζωῆς, epexegetical genitive, as τ Pet. 54, Ep. Arist. 280. The blessed life of eternity constitutes the crown. Cf. Rev. 2”. ἐπηγγείλατο sc. ὁ θεός, cf. τ Jn. 51% There is no promise of the O. T. or of our Lord in just this form (cf. Deut. 3015), and a reference to Rev. 2% δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς is unlikely. Eternal life as the reward for the friends of God was a fundamental idea of later Jewish and of Christian escha- tology, cf. Ps. Sol. 13%, Enoch 583, 4 Ezra δ. Mk. 09%, Jn. ath cot) ond, 2") ον, 2", ete. I, 12-13 153 E. Zeller, however, argues in Zeit. f. wissensch. Theol. 1863, pp. 93-96, that Rev. 2" is the promise referred to. ἐπηγγείλατο! BNA minn ff boh. The addition of a subject is emendation, thus: + χύριος C min. + ὃ χύριος KLP minnpler syrhel, + ὃ θεός minn vg syrPesh, τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. Note the resemblance to 2 Tim. 48. Von Soden suggests dependence on some liturgical form, but this is unnecessary. The idea and phrase are strongly characteristic of Deuteronomy. Cf. Ex. 205, καὶ ποιῶν ἔλεος εἰς χιλιάδας τοῖς ἀγαπῶσίν με, Deut. γ9 τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν, Ps. 5" 145, Ecclus. 3119, Bel v.83, Rom. 828, See passages from O. T. and other Jewish liter- ature mentioned in Spitta, p. 30. Cf. the similar expression in Jas. 25 τῆς βασιλείας hs ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. The believer’s life is marked by constancy in faith and by love of God, and he may be designated by either attribute. 13-18. When under temptation, do not excuse yourself by say- ing that temptations proceed from God. They come from man’s evil passion. God sends only good gifts to us, for we are his chil- dren and the first-fruits of his creation. The passage has no doctrinal purpose other than to warn the readers against resorting to a current excuse for sin. The con- nection with the preceding is made by the aid of the ambigu- ity of the word πειραζόμενος, which means both “tried” and “tempted.”’ The temptations intended do not appear to be restricted to those involved in “trials.” 13. μηδεὶς ,, λεγέτω. Cf. μὴ εἴπῃς, Ecclus. 54 δ 1514, πειραζόμενος. Evidently means (cf. vv. 141) temptation to sin, not merely external trial. See on πειρασμοῖς, v. 2, and of. τ Tim. 69 εἰς πειρασμὸν Kal παγίδα. The excuse shows that the writer is not thinking of a state of religious persecution, with the consequent temptation to complete renunciation of faith in Christ or in God, but rather of ordinary temptation. In the case supposed the person tempted either has yielded, or is on the point of yielding; he is called ὁ πειραζόμενος, instead of ὁ ἁμαρτών, by a kind of euphemism. He excuses himself 154 ΤΑΜῈΒ by declaring that the temptation came from God. Paul in 1 Cor. 10! makes a similar exhortation in curiously different form: ‘‘Do not excuse yourselves by thinking that your temp- tation is greater than man can bear.”’ Warning against this natural and common impulse of frail humanity is found clearly expressed in Ecclus. 15!-®, μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Διὰ κύριον ἀπέστην κτλ. cf. also the references to Philo given below. Prov. 19% ἀφροσύνη ἀνδρὸς λυμαίνεται τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ, τὸν δὲ θεὸν af- πιᾶται τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ, Hermas, Sim. vi, 3 αἰτιῶνται τὸν χύριον, and similar passages, relate to complaints of misfortune, not to excuses for sin. That the idea was often expressed among Greeks of many periods is seen from the following instances: Homer, Odyss. i, 32-34 (Zeus speaks), ὦ πόποι, οἷον δῇ νυ θεοὺς βροτοὶ αἰτιόωνται. ἐξ ἡμέων γάρ φασι xan σφῇσιν ἀτασθαλίῃσιν ὑπέῤμορον ἄλγε᾽ ἔχουσιν. Il. xix, 86-87, ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὐκ αἴτιός εἰμι, ἀλλὰ Ζεὺς καὶ μοῖρα καὶ ἠεροφοῖτις ἐρινύς. Euripides, Tro des, 914-1032, Orest. 285, Phen. 1612-14. ZEschines, Timarch. i, 190, ph γὰρ οἴεσθε, ὦ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, τὰς τῶν ἀδιχη- μάτων ἀρχὰς ἀπὸ θεῶν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὑπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀσελγείας γίγνεσθαι. Plato, Respub. το, p. 617 E, αἰτία ἑλομένου - θεὸς ἀναίτιος, exactly ex- presses the idea, but seems irrelevant, because in the context the choice referred to is made by a pre-existent soul of a future condition of life; cf. also p. 619 C. Philo, Leg. alleg. ii, το, Mang. p. 80, “When the mind has sinned and removed itself far from virtue, it lays the blame on divine causes (τὰ θεῖα), attributing to God its own change (τροπή); De fuga et inv. (De prof.), 15, Mang. pp. 557 f.: “Of no secret, treacherous, and deliberate crime is it proper to say that it was done by the will of God (xat& θεόν), but they are done by our own will (χαθ᾽ ἡμᾶς αὐτούς). For in ourselves, as I have said, are the treasuries of evil, but with God the treasuries of good things only. Whoever, therefore, ‘flees for refuge,’ that is, whoever blames not himself but God for his sins, let him be punished. A blemish almost or quite incurable is the affirmation that the deity is the cause of evil. . . . And what slander could be worse than to say that not with us but with God lies the origin of evil?’’ Cf. also Philo, Quod deter. pot. insid. 32. > wv ἔμμεναι οἱ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ I, 13-14 158 Terence, Eun. v, 2. 36, quid si hoc quispiam voluit deus ? Plaut. Aul. iv, 10. 7, deus impulsor mihi fuit. See L. Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, 1882, i, pp. 230-240. The fact that this idea was so familiar helps to account for the attachment of vv." to a passage (vv. 3!) which deals with another sort of πειρασμός. The substance of the passage is not original; the freshness consists in the way in which the thought is worked out. The suggestion of Pfleiderer (Das Urchristentum?, ii, p. 546) that this is polemic against the gnostics has as little foundation as the older ref- erences to Essenes, Pharisees, or Simon Magus. The quotations given above prove this. It would be easier (and not unnatural) to think of a Greek popular habit of thought and speech which had affected a Jewish community. The idea of being ‘‘ tempted,” which is the root of the whole passage, also shows that the self-excusing sinner whom James has in mind is no gnostic. ἀπό. The preposition ἀπό, which expresses a “looser and more remote” relation of agency is perhaps used here out of rever- ence. Cf. Lex. s.v. p. 59°, Lightfoot on Gal. 11; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 102, 237. ἀπό] δὲ minn read ὑπό, by an unnecessary emendation to a more usual phrase. ἀπείραστος (class. ἀπείρητος, ἀπείρατος) can mean, when used of a person, (1) ‘‘untempted,” “untemptable,”’ or (2) “un- versed,” “having no experience.” In favour of the meaning “untemptable” (E.V.) is the sharp verbal contrast then afforded to πειράζει οὐδένα. κακῶν. On this good literary use of the genitive, see Winer, § 30. 4; Blass, § 36. 11; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 74 (‘the poetical phraseology of the Attic period had come down into the market-place’’). 14-15. The source of temptation is within the man; the process is from passion, through sin, to death. It is highly significant that James’s mind naturally turns for the true explanation of temptation not to the Jewish thought of Satan (cf. the explanation of the origin of sin in the Book of 156 JAMES Enoch 69!£-), or of the “evil root,” but to a psychological analysis, strongly influenced by Greek conceptions of human nature. 14, ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας. Belongs primarily with πειρά- ζεται, for otherwise the contrast of θεός and ἐπιθυμία is weak- ened; but it is, secondarily, the agent of the participles also. ἐπιθυμία, a word in itself applicable to any desire, whether in- nocent or wrong, is here used of desire for something forbidden, “lust”? (E.V.) in the broader sense of that word. The source of temptation is desire, and lies within, not without, the man. There is no emphasis here, as in Ecclus. 1514”, on free will; on the other hand, any conception of an outside, personified, Power, such as Paul employs in Rom. 78; ™ 13, 17, is foreign to this passage. The conception is far simpler and more naive than either of these. On ἐπιθυμία, see Trench, Synonyms, ὃ lxxxviii, and cf. τ ; erer,<7, 2 Tim. 856. Trt, 3°. Ecclus. 1890 ἢ. 52, 4 Macc. 12? πρὸ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἡδονῆς ἐστιν ἐπιθυμία * μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν χαρά, 4 Macc. 13 32 21, 4 6 23, 11,12 523, In these passages the word is used with various shades of meaning. Cf. Philo, Quod omn. prob. liber, 22 st μὲν yao [ἣ ψυχὴ] πρὸς ἐπιθυμίας ἐλαύνεται ἢ ὑφ᾽ ἡδονῆς δελεάζεται. On the significance of ἐπιθυμία in Philo’s sys- tem, see J. Drummond, Philo Judgus, 1888, ii, pp. 302-306, and note especially De concup. 1 f., M. pp. 348-350; De sacerd. honor. 3, M. p. 235, where ἐπιθυμία is vividly set forth as the source of sin. The background of James’s use is current popularised conceptions of Hel- lenistic philosophy. The Stoic discussion of the word in Stobzeus, ii, 7 (Wachsmuth’s ed. pp. 87-91) is instructive in this respect. See also on Jas. 41! There seems no sufficient reason for introducing the thought of the jezer ha-ra here, although the function is closely similar. See F. C. Porter, “The Yecer Hara,” in Yale Biblical and Semitic Studies, 1902, pp. 91-158. ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος, “when he is lured and en- ticed’’ (by it). These words were applied to the hunter or, especially, the fisherman, who “lures”? his prey from its retreat (é&Axetv) and “entices’’ it (δελεάζειν) by bait (δέλεαρ) to his trap, hook, or net. The two words T, 14-15 157 thus merely refer to different aspects of the same process. They are ἃ natural figure of speech for the solicitation of illicit desire, and the com- bination of one or both with ἐπιθυμία or ἡδονή is repeatedly found in Philo and in Greek writers. Cf. the sentence from Philo quoted above and the many illustrative passages given by Mayor and Hort; also 2 Pet. 214 18, The language thus has its analogies outside of the O. T., in Greek writers. This figure is not necessarily connected with that which is worked out in ν. 15; and there is no evidence that the words ἐξελχόμενος χαὶ δελεαζόμενος suggested in themselves the practises of the harlot, or that these are in mind in either verse. 15. Illicit desire leads to sin, and sin causes death. εἶτα introduces, with a change of figure, the practical result of the temptation arising from ἐπιθυμία. When indulged (cf. 4 Macc. 3!-5) desire bears its natural fruit, first sin, then, ulti- mately, death. This follows (εἶτα) the enticement of tempta- tion. For the metaphor (which is purely decorative), cf. Ps. 714 (Ὁ ἰδοὺ ὠδίνησεν ἀνομίαν, συνέλαβεν πόνον, xat ἔτεχεν ἀδικίαν; Philo, De sacr. Abel. et Cain. 31, Justin Martyr, Dial. 100, p. 327 C. συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει. Cf. Gen. 213 383, etc. The two ideas have no independent signifi- cance in the figure. That the issue is due to a union with the will (Beyschlag) is not indicated as in the writer’s thought. Such psy- chological analysis is found in Philo, but is beyond the range of James ; and the idea, when developed carefully, proves inconsistent with this context, see Spitta, p. 37. There is no reason for thinking of Adam and Eve, in spite of Justin Martyr, Dial. p. 327 (other references in Schneckenburger and Spitta); nor of the devil as father (Spitta). But the quotations from Philo and Test. XII Patr. (e. g. Benj. 7) given by Spitta, ad loc., attest the frequent use of this figure to express similar ideas. ἁμαρτίαν. “Sin,” collectively and in general; “pravae ac- tiones et cogitationes.” Desire for what is forbidden tempts the man, and thus is the source of sin. Cf. Apoc. Mos. 19 ἐπιθυμία γάρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία. Takes up ἁμαρτίαν: hence the article. ἀποτελεσθεῖσα, “when it has become complete, fully devel- 158 JAMES oped,” “has come to maturity.” The word (on which see Hort) is drawn from the figure of the successive generations, and it is not necessary to determine wherein in fact the complete ma- turity of sin consists; sin is “complete’’ when it is able to bring forth its inevitable baneful fruit, death. The “perfect work” (cf. v. 4) of sin is death. ἀποκυεῖ, cf. v.18. The verb is frequently used of animals, hence appropriate here; otherwise it is a medical rather than a literary word. Neither ἀποτελεῖν nor ἀποχυεῖν is a common Biblical word. ἀπο- τελεῖν is found elsewhere only τ Esd. 57%, 2 Macc. 1539, Lk. 1332; ἀποχυεῖν only 4 Macc. 15”, Jas. 118. θάνατον. Death as an objective state, brought upon man as the result of sin, and the opposite of blessed life with God (cf. v. 2 στέφανον ζωῆς, and 5%) and cf. Rom. 67! 6% τὰ yap ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας θάνατος, 85; Wisd. 1%-. Cf. Philo, De plant. Noe 9, M. p. 335. See also Mt. 71% 14, 16-18. God, on the other hand, sends solely and consistently good gifts, as befits the relation of a father to his first-born. 16. μὴ πλανᾶσθε. “Do not err,” “be not deceived.” As in τ Cor. 69 1533, Gal. 67, used to introduce a pointed utterance. Cf. Ign. Phil. 3, Eph. 16, which may, however, be dependent on 1 Cor. 6%. On ἀδελφοί, which here is used to add to the emphasis, see note on v.?, and cf. 25 33%. 17, πᾶσα͵ “every.” Various commentators assign to πᾶσα here the meaning “only,” “nothing but”’ (see note on πᾶσαν χαράν, v.*). But this is not neces- sary to the sense here, and is rendered almost, if not quite, impossible by the order of words πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθῇ. πᾶς with the sense of “only” (Ger. Jauter) should stand next to the adjective to which it logically belongs, and usually stands directly before it. δόσις, “gift,” either the act of giving or the thing given. Here the parallelism to δώρη μα makes the latter sense probable. Cf. Ecclus. 1117 2614 32%. The word is very common in Eccle- siasticus. I, 15-17 150 ἀγαθή. On this word lies strong emphasis, in contrast to the evil πειρασμός which ἡ ἰδία ἐπιθυμία and not God brings to man. ‘The omission of the writer to make the implied comple- mentary statement, that bad gifts do mot come from God, adds to the rhetorical effect. δώρημα, “present,” “donation,” “benefaction”; cf. Rom. 516 A mainly poetical word. Not quite happily rendered by R.V. “boon.” For the difference between δίδωμι and δωρέομαι with their cognates, see Mayor’s and Hort’s notes, together with the huge collection of material in Heisen, pp. 541-592. The latter series of words often has the idea of generous giving; but here in James there is no special dis- tinction intended, the repetition being solely for rhetorical effect, and very probably part of a poetical allusion or quotation. τέλειον, cf. 1% 35. 3%, “Perfect” in this case (note parallel to ἀγαθή) excludes any element of evil in the gift. Cf. 3? τέλειος ἀνήρ, Clem. Al. Ped. i, 6, p. 113 τέλειος ὧν τέλεια χαριεῖται δήπουθεν, Philo, De sacr. Abel. et Cain. 14 θέμις δὲ οὐδὲν ἀτελὲς αὐτῷ χαρίζεσθαι͵ ὥσθ᾽ ὁλόκληροι Kal παντελεῖς αἱ τοῦ ἀγενήτου δωρεαὶ πᾶσαι. That πάσὰ δὅ | ois aya | θή καὶ | πάν δὼ | ρήμᾶ τέ | λείδν makes an hexameter, the second syllable οἱ δόσϊς being length- ened under the ictus, may be an accident, although even so it might show a good ear for rhythm on the part of the writer. But the unusual and poetical word δώρημα and the imperfect antithesis to vv.!*15 make it more likely that we have here a quotation from an unknown source. ἄνωθεν, i. e. οὐρανόθεν, cf. 315 17, Jn. 33! 194, referring to that which is from God. So Philo, De somn.i, 26 διὰ τὰς ὀμβρηθείσας ἄνωθεν δωρεὰς ἀγαθὸς καὶ τέλειος ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγένετο [sc. ὁ Ioaadk]. The thought that God is the source only of good, here clearly ex- pressed, is found in Greek writers (see quotations in Mayor’, pp. 56f., and Schneckenburger, p. 30), as well as in Philo, e. g. De decem orac. 33 θεὸς ἦν, εὐθὺς δὲ χύριος ἀγαθός, μόνων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιος, κακοῦ δ᾽ οὐδενός, De prof. 15, De confus. ling. 36 (see other quotations in Mayor and Schneckenburger). 160 JAMES It was evidently a familiar commonplace of Jewish thought, cf. Tob. 419 αὐτὸς 6 χύριος δίδωσι πάντα τὰ ἀγαθά, also Beresh. r. 51. 5 dixit R. Chanina: non est res mala descendens desuper ; Sanhedrin 59. 2. καταβαῖνον expands ἄνωθεν, and so explains why the gifts are “good” and “perfect.” For similar phrases lagging after the first statement, cf. v.14 38 44% This gives better force to each word than to connect ἐστίν with καταβαῖνον, Hort (following Thos. Erskine, The Unconditional Freedom of the Gos- pel?, 1820, pp. 239 ff.) advocates the translation: “Every giving is good and every gift perfect from above (or from its first source), descending,” etc. This assumes that δόσις and δώρημα contain in themselves the idea of a divine gift, and in order to make ἄνωθεν fit the sentence re- quires for it the meaning “from their source,” “by reason of their origin,” which it can hardly have. It produces, however, the sense re- quired by the context, and if the words were to be regarded as forming a complete sentence, it would be hard to give them any other trans- lation than this. Ifthey are a quotation, the original application would probably have been in the direction of the Greek proverb δῶρον δ᾽ 6 τι δῷ τις ἐπαίνει and the Latin noli equi dentes inspicere donati (Jerome, Praef. comm. in Ephes.), “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth’’; see H. Fischer, in Philologus, 1891, pp. 377-370. ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων, i.e. God, here described as the creator of the heavenly bodies (cf. Ps. 1367 τῷ ποιήσαντι φῶτα μεγάλα μόνῳ, Jer. 423 ἐπέβλεψα... εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ οὐκ ἣν τὰ φῶτα αὐτοῦ), and thus as the ultimate source of all light and of all blessing, cf. Ps. 369 ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὀψόμεθα φῶς. This designation and the developed figure which follows, in which God as the Sun of Righteousness (cf. Mal. 4?) is con- trasted with the physical sun, seem to be suggested by the thought of the good gifts which descend from the heavens, at once the abode of God and the location of the sun. That it was natural to a Jew is shown by the benediction before Shema: “Blessed be the Lord our God who hath formed the lights.” Perhaps it hints at the thought of God’s nature as light. No astrological allusion is to be found here. For πατήρ in this sense, cf. Job 3828 (ὑετοῦ πατήρ and the whole verse), and note Philo’s constant use of ὁ πατὴρ τῶν Ἐ-- ἢ 161 ὅλων in sense of “the Creator.” Cf. Apocalypse of Moses, 36 (as read in Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana, v, 1) ἐνώπιον τοῦ φωτὸς τῶν ὅλων, τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων; Testament of Abraham (ed. Μ. R. James, 1892), Recension B, c. 7, πατὴρ τοῦ φωτός ; Ephraem Syr. Opera, v, col. 489 (see above, p. 96). Philo’s lofty thought of God as “archetypal Splendor”’ is mainly in- teresting here as showing the total absence from the mind of James of such metaphysical speculation, although he sees the ideal and poetical aspects of light. See Philo, De cherub. 28 (M.i, p. 156), De somn. i, 13 (M. i, p. 632), quoted by Hort. > a map ᾧ. For παρά c. dat. used in the mention of an attribute, cf. Job 1218, Eph. 69, Rom. οἱ", etc. Cf. also παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, Mk. 1077, Mt. τοῦθ, Lk. 1831, Rom. 2", Eph. 69; so Gen. 18" (Cod. A). Perhaps the indirectness of statement is due to a certain “instinct of reverence” (Hort), cf. ἀπό, ν. 13, The affirmation is that to send good gifts belongs to God’s unvarying nature. In this he is unlike the sun, which sends now the full light of noon, now the dimness of twilight, and which at night sends no light at all. God’s light ever shines; from him proceeds no turning shadow. So 1 Jn. 15 ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστὶν καὶ σκοτία οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ οὐδεμία. Closely similar are Is. 601% 20 χαὶ οὐχ ἔσται σοι ἔτι ὁ ἥλιος εἰς φῶς ἠμέρας, οὐδὲ ἀνατολὴ σελήνης φωτιεῖ σοι τὴν νύχτα, ἀλλ᾽ ἔσται σοι χύριος φῶς αἰώ- veov, καὶ 6 θεὸς δόξα σου. οὐ γὰρ δύσεται ὁ ἥλιός σοι, καὶ ἣ σελήνη σοι οὐχ ἐχλείψει ᾿ ἔσται γὰρ κύριός σοι φῶς αἰώνιον, Wisd. γ39 !- φωτὶ συνχρι- γομένη εὑρίσκεται προτέρα ᾿ τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ διαδέχεται νύξ, σοφίας δὲ οὐχ ἀντισχύει χαχία. For the contrast between God and the heavens, the moon, and the stars, cf. Job 1515 255 ἴ-. See also Enoch 41%, “For the sun changes oft for a blessing or a curse’; Ecclus. 17%! τί φωτεινότερον ἡλίου ; xat τοῦτο ἐχλείπει. Cf. Epictetus, Diss. i, 141°, where the limitation of the sun, which is not able to illuminate the space where the shadow of the earth falls, is contrasted with the power of God (ὃ xat τὸν ἥλιον αὐτὸν πεποιηχὼς χαὶ περιάγων). The comparison of God with the sun is a natural one under any monotheistic conception. See Mayor’s or Schneckenburger’s references to Philo and Plato, also 1 Jn. 15 with Westcott’s note. For the idea of the immutability of God, cf. Mal. 3° διότι ἐγὼ χύριος ὃ θεὸς ὑμῶν καὶ οὐκ ἠλλοίωμαι, Heb. 71%18, Philo, Leg. all. ii, 9; ii, 22 162 JAMES πάντα τὰ ἄλλα τρέπεται, μόνος δὲ αὐτὸς ἄτρεπτός ἐστι, and passages in Mayor’, p. 61. Cf. Clem. Al. Strom. i, 24, p. 418 τὸ ἑστὸς καὶ μόνιμον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ ἄτρεπτον αὐτοῦ φῶς χαὶ ἀσχημάτιστον. οὐκ ἔνι] ΝΡ minn have substituted the weaker and more familiar οὐχ ἔστιν. παραλλαγή, “variation.” This does not seem to be an astro- nomical terminus technicus, although in general senses (e. g. of the ‘‘ variation” in the length of the day and in the daily course of the sun through the heavens; cf. references in Mayor’, p. 60, and Gebser, Brief des Jacobus, p. 83) it is used by astronomers, and its resemblance to the term παράλλαξις, “parallax,” gives it a quasi-astronomical sound. The contrast intended is mainly with the sun and moon, as being the most important and most changeable φῶτα. παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα. This is the reading of all printed editions of the N. T.; with this reading τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα would mean “shadow that is cast by turning” (R.V.). The reading is, however, probably wrong (see textual note below), and for the last three words should be substituted ἡ τροπῆς ἀποσκιάσματος, the whole phrase meaning: “with whom is none of the variation that belongs to (‘consists in,’ ‘is observed in’) the turning of the shadow.” The general sense is the same as with the usual reading. ἣ τροπῆς ἀποσχιάσματος BS*Pap. oxyrhynch. 1229. ἢ τροπὴ ἀποσχιάσματος] 614 1108 ff (vel modicum obumbrationis) boh (nor a form of a shadow which passed). ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσχίασμα] S°ACKLP minn vg (vicissitudinis obumbratio) Jer (adv. J ov. i, 39 conversionis obumbraculum) Aug (momenti obumbratio). ἢ τροπὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσχίασμα 876 1518. ἀποσχίασμα ἢ παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπή sah. Editors appear all to have read ἢ (instead of 4), and have conse- quently been unable to find any meaning in the phrase as found in ΝΒ and recently (1914) confirmed by the discovery of the papyrus fragment (fourth century) published in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, x, no. 1229. They have, therefore, been driven to adopt the reading of N°ACKLP minn. Hort discusses the passage in “‘ Introduction,” pp. 217 f., as follows: “The only quite trustworthy evidence from internal character for Ἐν Δ 163 derivation from a common proximate original consists in the presence of such erroneous identical readings as are evidently due to mere care- lessness or caprice of individual scribes, and could not easily have escaped correction in passing through two or three transcriptions... SW and B have in common but one such reading”’ [viz. the one in Jas. 117 here under discussion]. In order to account for the origin of this reading of 8B, which he as- sumed to be obviously false, Hort made the following ingenious sugges- tions: (1) that ἀποσχίασμα was incorporated with a following αὐτός (actually found in one minuscule) ; or (2) that it was assimilated to the preceding genitive τροπῆς; or (3) that ἀπο- became mentally separated from -σχίασμα, and that the supposed solecism was then corrected ; or (4) that both the competing readings represent corruptions of an original ἀποσχιασμός not found in any Ms. (see “ Introduction,” p. 218, and Mayor, textual apparatus to the passage). Wordsworth, SB, i, p. 138, in part following Est, Commentarius in epistolam Jacobi, 1631, thinks that the modicum of ff and the momenti of Augustine imply porh, δοπῆς, “turn of the scale,” and that one or the other of these represents the original Greek. But neither δοπῇ nor δοπῆς makes good sense, and although (cf. Is. 4015) a “little thing” may cause a “turn of the scale,” the Latin word modicum is not a natural translation for the Greek gor. Hence modicum obumbra- tionis is probably only a loose and general translation of τροπὴ ἀπο- σχιάσματος, in which the specific meaning of τροπῇ is neglected. On the other hand, momenti would indeed be an exact rendering of ῥοπῆς, but, in the sense of “movement,” it is equally apt as a translation of ToOTHS.* Accordingly, the Latin versions merely show that Jerome and Augus- tine had the reading of ΑΓ, while ff represents a different text, identical with that of 614 1108 boh. The genitive ἀποσχιάσματος in 614 1108 ff boh gives important partial support to the text of B* pap, and makes it unlikely that the read- ing of these latter is due to an accidental error in a proximate com- mon ancestor. In fact, the reading of BN* pap ἡ τροπὴς ἀποσχιασματος makes ex- cellent sense, if only ἡ is taken as the article on which τροπῆς depends, the meaning being that given above (cf. Kiihner-Gerth, Grammatik d. griech. Sprache’, ii, § 464.3). The resulting phrase is apt and not with- out beauty, but the accumulation of long words makes it heavy, and it was broken up by taking ἡ as meaning “or” and dropping the geni- tive termination from one or the other of the two nouns.t * Possibly modicum has been substituted for an original translation, momentum, “‘move- ment.” This latter word may well have been misunderstood in the sense of “a little,” “a particle” ; and in that case modicum would be a correct and unambiguous synonym. ΤΑ similar misreading is found in the repeated quotation by Augustine of Rom. 713 ἁμαρτω- Ads ἡ ἁμαρτία in the translation aut peccatum ; so e. g. Ep. 82, ὃ 20 (Vienna ed. vol. xxxiv, p. 372.5), Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum, i, 14. See C. H. Turner in JTS, xii, p. 275. 164 JAMES It thus appears that the textual facts here do not indicate any close relation between B and δ᾽, but only that in this instance both are free from a process of emendation which, in one or the other direction, has affected all other witnesses except the papyrus. Thereading of §°AC and that of 614 1108 are two independent corrections of the original as found in ΒΝ pap. Both 614 and 1108 belong to von Soden’s group 15. To the same group seems to belong also 876 (er), which, according to Scrivener, reads παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσχίασμα. This is a conflation due to an unsuccessful attempt at conformation of one type of text to another; it is also found in 1518. 876, 1518, 1765, and 2138 have at the close of the verse a gloss οὐδὲ μέχρι ὑπονοίας τινὸς ὑποβολὴ ἀποσχιάσματος, “not even the least suspicion of a shadow.” Von Soden’s hypothesis (p. 1862) that the reading of ΒΝ was a trace of this gloss was unlikely in itself and is now seen to be unnecessary. The gloss itself has arisen from the comment of “(CEc- - umenius”: τὸ δὲ “τροπῆς ἀποσχίασμα;,᾽᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ, οὐδὲ μέχρις ὑπονοίας τινὸς ὑποβολή. τροπή, “turning,” “change,” is another semi-astronomical word. It is used technically for the solstice (hence English, “tropic”), so Deut. 3314 ἡλίου τροπῶν, Wisd. 718 τροπῶν ἀλλαγάς, see Sophocles, Greek Lex. s.v. for many examples; but it is also applied to other movements of the heavenly | bodies, so perhaps Job 38% ἐπίστασαι δὲ τροπὰς οὐρανοῦ, cf. references in L. and S. 5. v., especially Plato, Tim. 11, p. 39 Ὁ. The word is also used in the sense of change in general, and with reference to human fickleness and frailty; see Philo, Leg. all. ii, 9; De sacr. Abel. et Cain. 37, atid references given at length by Mayor’, p. 61. These various meanings make pos- sible the figurative use here, in which there is allusion to both senses. To exclude altogether the astronomical allusion, as some do, unduly weakens the passage and overlooks the sug- gestions of ὁ πατὴρ τῶν φώτων͵ παραλλαγή, and ἀποσκίασμα, but it is impossible to fix the meaning as a direct reference to any particular celestial phenomena, and there is nowhere any indication of contact with astrological language. The heavenly bodies are all, to popular notion, subject to change which affects their property of casting light on the earth. Spitta thinks that τροπή refers to the return of the sun (and other luminaries) by way of the north to their place of rising in the east, 1, fo 165 after they have set in the west, and adduces Enoch 418 and 72-5. 36, The general sense need not exclude these movements of the sun and other heavenly bodies, but there is no evidence of a technical use of τροπῇ which would permit it to be understood in this sense without explanatory context. The same is true in even greater measure of Spitta’s interpretation of παραλλαγή as the regular seasonal variation to north and south in the rising and setting of the sun and other bodies. ἀποσκίασμα, “shadow.” The word is found only here and in Christian writers. ἀποσχιάζω means to “cast a shadow,” ἀποσχίασμα therefore (like σχίασμα, Diod. Plut.) is either the “shadow cast”’ or the “act of casting a shadow.” Beyschlag, following Huther, wrongly insists that ἀποσχίασμα means “the state of being overshadowed” (“das Beschattetwerden”’), and so interprets it of a shadow cast on God. For discussion of nouns in -μα, see Lightfoot, Colossians, pp. 255 ff.; J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 255 ff. There is no thought here of a sun-dial. The word for shadow on a dial is ἀποσχιασμός, and even that word requires a context to define it in that meaning. The explanation (of the ordinary text) given by late Greek commen- tators and lexicographers, “not a trace of turning,” “not a shadow of fickleness’”’ (“CEcumenius,” Hesychius, Suidas, see the citations in Gebser, p. 86), and A.V. “neither shadow of turning,” is unlikely, even if the text were sound, because in that sense σχιά, and not the heavy and explicit compound ἀποσχίασμα, would be expected. The differ- ence may be imperfectly suggested in English by comparing the words “shadow”? and “shadowing.” Moreover, in a comparison with the sun, ἀποσχίασμα can hardly have been used without some thought of its proper meaning. 18. In contrast with the mistaken idea that God sends temp- tation is his actual treatment of us, making us sons, and giving us the highest place among his creatures. He is more to us than a consistent benefactor; he is a devoted father, and as such cannot tempt us to evil. βουληθείς, “deliberately,” and thus showing his real atti- tude and set purpose. On the specific meaning of βούλομαι (“volition guided by choice and purpose”’) in contrast to θέλω, see Hort on this verse, and Lex. 5. υ. θέλω, with references. Bede, Calvin, Grotius, etc. take this as marking a contrast to human merit; but this is as far as possible from the context. 166 JAMES ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς, refers either to mankind or to the Chris- tians. A specific reference to the Jews is sometimes found here, and can be supported by Jer. 2%, by Philo, De const. princ. 6 (ii, p. 366), where Israel is called ἀπαρχή, and by λόγον (but v. 1. λόγους) ἀληθείας as a description of the Law in Test. XII Patr. Gad 3.. But nothing in the context suggests this reference, and for the idea of God as becoming the father of Israel by means of the Law no parallel is adduced. The reference to Christians is entirely possible and makes a better connection with ν. 195. In that case ἀπεκύησεν refers to the new birth; λόγος ἀληθείας is the Gospel (cf. Odes of Sol- omon 8°); and κτισμάτων refers to all creation, but with par- ticular thought of men. The associations of ἀναγέννησις with Greek religious ideas do not seem to be implied here. If ἡμᾶς is taken to refer to Christians, it must be understood of be- lievers in general, not of the first generation only (Huther) or of Jewish Christians (Beyschlag). The objections brought against this view are (1) that the context (vv. 1217) has discussed the subject from general points of view, with no reference to Christians as distinct from others; (2) that for the Gospel ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας, with the article, would be expected (cf. Eph. 14, Col. 15, 2 Tim. 215; note, ina different sense, λόγος ἀληθείας, Ps. 11948, 2 Cor. 6”); (3) that instead of κτισμάτων some word expressly denoting “men” would have been expected. These objections do not seem conclusive. The other view, urged by Spitta and especially Hort, takes ἡ μᾶς of mankind, begotten by God’s word to be supreme among created things, cf. Ecclus. 1514. The objection which seems de- cisive against this is that the figure of begetting was not used for creation (Gen. 1% does not cover this), whereas it came early into use with reference to the Christians, who deemed them- selves “sons of God.” The idea of a divine begetting and of the entrance into Christian life as a new birth has its roots in Greek not in Jewish thought. So Clem. Alex. Strom. v, 2 (p. 653 Potter) καὶ παρὰ tots βαρβάροις φιλοσόφοις τὸ I, 18 167 χατηχῆσαί te xar φωτίσαι dvayevvijoat λέγεται. See W. Bauer’s note on Jn. 3% in Lietzmann, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament; A. Diete- rich, Eine Mithras-liturgie?, 1910, pp. 134-155, 157 ff. On the verb ἀπεχύησεν (no parallel in N. T.), see R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 1910, p. 114. Cf. Jn. 113 3%8, τ Jn. 229 39 47. 8 51, 4, x Pet. 13. 23 (cf. Hort’s note on 1 Pet. 1%), Tit. 35. λόγῳ ἀληθείας. The knowledge of God’s truth. and will makes us his sons (cf. vv. 31 22 23); the “word of truth” is for James mainly the Law (v. 35), which means the Jewish law as understood by Christians. In 2 Cor. 6’, Col. 15, Eph. 113, and perhaps 2 Tim. 21° it is the gospel of salvation. There is no connection between this verse and Philo’s figure, often repeated in one and another form, of the generative word of God (¢. Leg. alleg. ili, 51, ὃ σπερματιχὸς χαὶ γεννητιχὸς τῶν χαλῶν λόγος ὀρθός, and references in Spitta, pp. 45 f.); the idea is utterly different. ἀπαρχήν τινα, “a kind of first-fruits”; Tuva indicates a fig- urative expression, cf. Winer-Schm. ὃ 26. 1. a. The “‘first-fruits,” both of the body and of the field, were sacred, and were often offered to God. See EB, “Firstborn,” HDB, “ First-fruits,” Schiirer, GJV, § 24, II. The figure is found with reference to Israel in Jer. 23 (ἀρχὴ γενημάτων αὐτοῦ), Philo, De const. princ. 6 (διότι τοῦ σύμπαντος ἀνθρώπων γένους ἀπενεμήθη οἷά τις ἀπαρχὴ τῷ ποιητῇ χαὶ πατρί), and to the Chris- tians in 2 Thess. 2'* (Codd. BFG, etc.) and Rev. 144. But the figure does not seem very common in Jewish thought. With Greek writers the word is more frequent in a figurative sense, see L. and S. and the Scholiast on Eur. Or. 96 quoted in Lex. 5. v., which says that ἀπαρχῆ “was used not merely of that which was first in order but of that which was first in honor.” κτισμάτων, cf. τ Tim. 44 (Rev. 5! 8°); not used elsewhere in N. T., cf. Wisd. 13%. In O. T. found only in Wisdom, Ecclesi- asticus, 3 Maccabees; not used in this sense in secular writers, and to be associated with the Jewish use of κτίζω and its de- rivatives. Von Soden, misled by his failure to see any adequate connection of thought for v.18, wished to take χτισμάτων of God’s new creation (cf. 2 Cor. 517 καινὴ χτίσις, Gal. 615, Eph. 21° 424), within which these par- ticular Christians addressed are distinguished by reason of their sub- 168 JAMES jection to fiery trials. But (1) this does not suit ἀπεχύησεν, which must at least refer to all Christians; (2) it would require some clearer indication of the restriction, since the idea is not a common one; and (3) while suited to vv. 24, it is inappropriate at this point in the chapter. 19-27. Let your aim be not speech, but attentive hearing; not hearing only, but doing; not empty worship, but good deeds. The thought here turns to the need of reality and sincerity in religious instruction and public worship (119-2), 19-21. To hear is better than to speak; listen to the Word. 19. ἴστε] BS°AC minn ff vg boh syrhel.mg, ἴστω] N*. ἴστε δέ] A boh™s, ὥστε] KLP minnpler syrpesh hel.tzt, om] minn. ἔστω δέ] ΒΝ ΟΡ" minn ff vg boh. xat ἔστω] A 33. ἔστω] KLP2? minnpler syrpesh. hel, The Antiochian reading (ὥστε... ἔστω) is a characteristic emen- dation. ἴστε, “know/ this.’ The address ἀδελφοί μου shows that this belongs in the paragraph with the following. The sense alone would perhaps suggest that ἔστε is probably indicative (so R.V.), not imperative (A.V.); but the analogy of ὁρᾶτε, μέμνησο, and similar rhetorical appeals in the Greek diatribes (Bultmann, Stil der paulin. Predigt, p. 32) leads to the opposite conclusion. For this view it may also be urged that Jas. 44 has οἴδατε as the in- dicative. ἴστε is the sole form of the imperative, and the more literary form of the indicative. Note ἴσασι in Acts 264; Heb. 1217 has ἴστε (probably indicative), 10% οἴδαμεν; Eph. 55 ἴστε is probably indica- tive. πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, not limited to teachers, but cf. 5313. ταχὺς εἰς TO ἀκοῦσαι. In view of the reference to the Word in vv.“ (note διό), it is likely that ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι relates primarily to the hearing of the Word, and not merely to social intercourse gen- γ 16-20 169 erally. The same phrase is found in Pirke Aboth, v, 18, of the trait of the good pupil, who is “quick to hear and slow to for- get”) C7, Gal. 4™. εἰς τό, This can be justified in Greek as a development of the meaning “with reference to,” cf. Lk. 12%, Rom. 161%, Dio Chrys. Or. 32, p. 361 A ἐγὼ δὲ μᾶλλον ἂν ὑμᾶς ἐπήνουν βραδὺ μὲν φθεγγομένους ἐγκρατῶς δὲ σιγῶντας - γίνου πρὸς ὀργὴν μὴ ταχὺς ἀλλὰ βραδύς, but it is not attested as. common in ordinary secular Greek. Cf. e.g. Pirke Aboth, v, 18, ΠΩ yinw, “quick to hear,” yinw) ΓΦ, “slow to hear,” Aboth R. Nathan, 1, “‘be slow to judge.” ἀκοῦσαι, λαλῆσαι, ὀργήν. Ecclus. 51 γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει σου καὶ ἐν μακροθυμίᾳ φθέγγου ἀπόκρισιν is the closest parallel to this verse among the many precepts of the Wisdom-literature which relate to con- trol of speech and restraint of anger. Cf. Ecclus. ᾿ς, Prov. το ϑ (and Toy’s note) 13? 151 1632 1728 29”, Eccles. 79 9!8 See be- low on 3! Cf. Pirke Aboth, ii, 14, ‘‘Be not easily provoked,” also ν, 17, and note Mt. 5”. The interpretation of ὀργή given by Bengel (wt nil loquatur contra deum nec sinistre de deo), followed by Gebser, Calvin, Spitta, who take the anger as impatience against God, has little to commend it. On the other hand, Beyschlag’s interpretation of ὀργή as “passionate disposition (Jeidenschaftliche Gemiithsverfassung)” of every kind, show- ing itself in murmurings against God and in fanaticism, as well as in quarrels, goes too far. The writer is thinking of what men ordinarily know as anger, against whomsoever directed. Its opposite is good temper and self-restraint. 20. ἐργάζεται, more naturally taken to mean “do,” “practise,” than in the rarer sense, “effect,” “produce,” ‘bring about,” which properly belongs to κατεργάζομαι (cf. v.*). Hence δικαιοσύνην is to be taken as equivalent to τὸ δίκαιον, “right- eous action” (cf. 29 ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε). Cf. Acts τοῦδ, Heb. 11°83, Ps. 15? ἐργαζόμενος δικαιοσύνην, and the common O. T. phrase ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, e. g. Gen. 181°. The opposite of ἐργάξεσθαι δικαιοσύνην is ἐργάζεσθαι ἁμαρτίαν, 29. δικαι- οσύνην θεοῦ then means “righteousness which God approves” 170 JAMES (cf. Mt. 63%, 4 Macc. 10”), and the phrase is here due to the contrast with ὀργὴ ἀνδρός. The whole sentence means: “‘Wrath doeth not righteous- ness,” ἡ. 6. ‘Out of wrath righteous action does not spring.” It is doubtless intended as a warning against wrong use of the doctrine that anger is sometimes valuable as an engine of righteousness. Another interpretation, however, gives to ἐργάζεται the rarer sense “effect,” “produce” (cf. 2 Cor. 71°), and refers the phrase ‘produce righteousness” to the effect of the teacher’s anger on a pupil, cf. Zahn, Einleitung, i, § 4, note 2. οὐὖκ ἐργάζεται] BNAC®* minn. οὐ χατεργάζεται] CKLP minnpler, External attestation, possibility of conformation to 1%, and transcrip- tional tendency to strengthen the verb decide for ἐργάζεται. xatep- γάζεται may have been intended to have the sense “produce.” 21. διό, “acting on this principle.’ An exhortation to a meek and receptive spirit. The emphatic word is πραὕὔτητι. ἀποθέμενοι, “stripping off.” For the same collocation, διὸ ἀποθέμενοι used to introduce an exhortation, see Eph. 475. Cf. also τ Pet. 2! ἀποθέμενοι, with Hort’s note, Rom. 1332, Eph. 472 #-, Col. 3° #-, Clem. Rom, 13, Ps.-Clem. Episile to James, τι. The word is used of clothes, but also of the removal of dirt from the body (cf. τ Pet. 3?! σαρχὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου), and very commonly in Greek writers of the rejection of a mental or moral quality. For quotations from early Christian writers, see Mayor’, p. 66. putrapiav, “‘filthiness” (cf. 2%), probably carrying out the figure of clothes. Evil habits and propensities in general seem to be meant. ῥυπαρίαν is complete in itself and does not need to be con- nected with κακίας. The force of πᾶσαν, however, probably continues to 7epiocevav, which would otherwise have the article. For O. T. use of the figure of dirty clothes, cf. Zech. 434. Derivatives of δύπος are used in Philo (6. g. De mut. nom. 21) and in Greek writers to denote moral defilement (see references in Mayor). I, 20-21 171 περισσείαν κακίας, “excrescent wickedness,” “superfluity of naughtiness” (A.V.), cf. Rom. 517 τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος. κακίας is genitive of apposition, and the phrase calls attention to the fact that wickedness is in reality an excrescence on char- acter, not a normal part of it. Cf. Philo, De somn. ii, 9, where he uses the figure of pruning off sprouts, καθάπερ γὰρ τοῖς δένδρεσιν ἐπιφύονται βλάσται περισσαί KTr.; De sacr. 9 τὰς περιττὰς φύσεις τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, ἃς αἱ ἄμετροι τῶν παθῶν ἔσ- πειράν τε καὶ συνηύξησαν ὁρμαὶ καὶ ὁ κακὸς ψυχῆς γεωργὸς ἐφύτευσεν͵ ἀφροσύνη͵ μετὰ σπουδῆς ἀποκείρασθε and the figure of pruning used in Jn. 153. This is more forcible than to take the phrase to mean merely “abun- dance of evil,” 7. e. “the abounding evil,” “the great amount of evil,” which we find in our hearts, cf. 2 Cor. 82, Lk. 645. Still less natural is the interpretation of some who make περισσεία equivalent to περίσ- σευμα, “remainder” (cf. Mk. 88), ὁ. 6. from the past life.* For other unacceptable interpretations, see Mayor and Beyschlag. The fact*that the Aramaic np seems to be used to mean both “be foul” and “be abundant,” as well as “sin,” is probably of merely curi- ous interest. See Buxtorf, Lexicon, cols. 1549-1550. More significant is the use of δυπαρία in the sense of sordid meanness by Teles (ed. Hense?’, pp. 33, 37) and Plutarch, De adul. et amico, το. κακίας, “naughtiness” (A.V.), “wickedness” (R.V.). This more general meaning (cf. ῥυπαρίαν) is better here than the special sense of ‘“‘malice,’”’ which is not rendered appropriate to the context even by ὀργή, and is not the natural opposite of mpauTns; cf. Acts 8% See, however, Lightfoot on Col. 38, Trench, Synonyms, § xi. ἐν πραὕὔτητι, “meekness,” “docility.”” The contrast is with ὀργή rather than κακίας. Cf. 34%. Calvin: significat modes- tiam et facilitatem mentis ad discendum compositae. This is the centre of the whole disposition recommended in vv. 1-4. Cf. Ecclus. 317 48 10% 454 (ἐν πραὕὔτητι in each case). Cf. Lightfoot on Col. 32, Trench, Synonyms, ὃ xlii; Heisen, Novae hypotheses, p. 637, gives some good Greek definitions of meekness. * The emendator whose hand appears so often in A 33 seems to have substituted περίσσευμα in his text (so A 33 442). 172 JAMES δέξασθε, Jer. 9”, Prov. 13 2! 419, Ecclus. 511°. This seems to refer (like δέξασθαι εἰς τὴν καρδίαν σου in Deut. 201), not to the mere initial acceptance of the gospel, preached and heard, but (cf. ἔμφυτον) to attention to the knowl- edge of God’s will, cf. Mt. 1114, 1 Cor. 2!4. The Christian’s ideal should not be much talking (which leads to angry strife) but meek and docile listening to the voice of God. There lies the way to salvation. τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον. ἔμφυτος, from ἐμφύειν, “implant,’”’ may mean “implanted” (R.V.), “innate” (Wisd. 1.219), ‘‘intrinsic,” “deep-rooted.” ἔμφυτος often means the “natural”—in contrast to the “taught” (Plato, Eryx, 398 C διδακτὸν ἣ ἀρετὴ ἢ ἔμφυτον), to the “extraneous” (Herod. ix, 94 ἔμφυτον μαντικὴν εἶχε, 7. 6. “as a power arising within himself”), or to the “acquired” (Justin Martyr, A fol. ii, ὃ διὰ τὸ ἔμφυτον παντὶ yéver ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα τοῦ Adyou); it also means the “deep-rooted,” in contrast to the “superficial” (Polyb. ii, 45 διὰ τὴν ἔμφυτον ἀδιχίαν xat πλεονεξίαν φθονήσαντες). But, since the “implanted” or “inherent” is not necessarily innate, ἔμφυτος can be used of that which has been in fact bestowed, provided it is thought of as deeply rooted within the man. On the other hand, the rendering “engrafted” (A.V.), which has been recommended to many by the connection with δέξασθε, is unsuitable because it directly expresses the idea of “foreign,” “applied from with- out,” “not a natural growth,” a meaning for which a derivative of ἔμφυτεύειν, “engraft,’’ would be required. In the present context the sense “innate” is made inappro- priate by δέξασθε, by τὸν δυνάμενον κτλ., and by the absence of any special indication of this meaning. ἔμῴυτος seems to be used here to describe the “‘word” as one which has entered into union with the nature and heart of man, ‘“‘the word deeply rooted within you.” The attribute adds a certain solemnity and intensity to the appeal. Cf. Ep. Barnab. 12 οὕτως ἔμφυτον τῆς δωρεᾶς πνευματικῆς χάριν εἰλήφατε, “1 rejoice . . . at your blessed and glorious spirits; so deeply rooted within is the grace of the spiritual gift that ye have received,” οὐ οἶδεν ὁ τὴν ἔμφυτον δωρεὰν τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν, Pseudo-Ign. Eph. 17 διὰ τί ἀν σι 173 ἔμφυτον τὸ περὶ θεοῦ παρὰ Χριστοῦ λαβόντες κριτήριον εἰς ἄγνοιαν καταπίπτομεν. The ἔμφυτος λόγος itself is called in v. 25 νόμος τέλειος, and in vv. f- is described as something to be done. It seems to mean the sum of present knowledge of God’s will. It is in- wrought into a man’s nature and speaks from within, but this does not exclude that it should also exist for man’s use in written or traditional form, whether in the law of Moses or in the pre- cepts of Jesus. In v. 35, as was natural for a Jew, the writer seems to have turned in his thought to the external expression in the law. Cf. 4 Ezra οἱ, “For, behold, I sow my law in you, and it shall bring forth fruit in you, and ye shall be glorified in it for ever” ; 4 Ezra 85, Deut. 30-14 (v. 14, “But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it”). There is probably no allusion to the parable of the sower; yet cf. Mk. 4”, Lk. 8:3, The interpretation here given is substantially the one most common in modern commentaries. Similarly ““Cicumenius” takes the whole phrase as referring to conscience, ἔμφυτον λόγον χαλεῖ τὸν διαχριτιχὸν τοῦ βελτίονος χαὶ τοῦ χείρονος, καθ᾽ ὃ χαὶ λογιχοὶ ἐσμὲν χαὶ καλούμεθα. Hort’s note gives valuable material, and Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 640-699, has collected a great number of more or less apposite quo- tations, and fully presented the older history of the exegesis. Calvin, De Wette, and others take ἔμφυτον as proleptic, “Receive the word and let it become firmly planted” (Calvin: ita suscipite ut vere insera- tur); but the attributive position seems hardly to admit this. The ancient versions translate as follows: Bohairic, ‘newly implanted.” Syriac, Peshitto, “received in our nature.” Latin, Cod. Corb. (ff) genitum. Cod. Bob. (s) insitum. Vulgate insitum. The Latin insitus means “implanted”’ or “engrafted” or “innate”; see the instructive examples from Cicero and other writers in Harpers’ Latin Dictionary. The history of the English translation has been as follows: Wiclif, 1380, “‘insent or joyned ”; 1388, “that is planted.” Tyndale, 1526, “that is grafted in you.” 174 JAMES Great Bible, 1530, “that is graffed in you.” Geneva, 1557, ‘‘that is graffed in you.”, Rheims, 1582, “engrafted.” A.V. 1611, “engrafted.” R.V. 1881, “implanted,” mg. “inborn.” σῶσαι. Cf. 214 412 «Ὁ Rom. 116 οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι TO > / δύ Ν θ fa) 3 \ > f 32 εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις yap θεοῦ ἐστὶν εἰς σωτηρίαν, Acts 20%, τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν. Cf. 5%, τ Pet. 19 σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν, Heb. 10% εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς, Ep. Barnab. 19! μελετῶν εἰς τὸ σῶσαι ψυχὴν τῷ λόγῳ. Evidently, when this was written, not merely the idea of salvation but the phrase “salvation of the soul” was fully current. 22-25. But hearing only, without doing, is valueless. Cf. 214-26, “Faith without works is valueless”; 413, “Wisdom which does not issue in peace is of the earth.” 22. γίνεσθε. γίνεσθαι serves in many cases as a kind of aorist of εἶναι. Hence the imperative γίνεσθε is used like an aorist imperative to convey a “‘pungent”’ exhortation to “be,” not merely to “‘become.”’ ἔστε as imperative is not found in the WN. Ὁ. Jas.3', Mt. 6% 24", 1 :Cor. 14%) Eph: ee is no need of the elaborate translation ‘‘show yourselves” or “prove yourselves” (cf. Lex. s.v. γίνομαι, τ. a), nor of any other of the subtleties which the commentators offer. See Blass-Debrunner, §§ 335-337. That hearing the commands of a law, or a teacher, must be followed by doing them is an obvious precept of ethics, often overlooked in practise in all ages. Cf. Ezek. 3332, Mt. 724 πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀχούει μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους χαὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς, ὁμοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ φρονίμῳ, 721-28, Lk. 85: 1128 1247, The antithesis of hearing and doing is frequently found in the Tal- mud. Cf. Pirke Aboth, i, 16; i, 18, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel I.: “All my days I have grown up amongst the wise, and have not found aught good for a man but silence; not learning but doing is the groundwork; and whoso multiplies words occasions sin,” iii, 14, R. Chananiah b. Dosa: “Whosesoever works are in excess of his widsom, his wisdom stands; and whosesoever wisdom is in excess of his works, his wisdom stands not,” iii, 27, v, 20; also Sifre on Deut. 111%, quoted in Taylor, SJF?, p. 50, note 23; T. B. Shabbath 88 a, quoted in Mayor, p. 69, I, 21-23 175 note 1. Cf. also Philo, De prem. οἱ penis, 14 τὰς θείας παραινέσεις «νον μὴ χενὰς χαὶ ἐρήμους ἀπολιπεῖν τῶν οἰχείων πράξεων, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι τοὺς λόγους ἔργοις ἐπαινετοῖς, De congr. erud. grat. 9, and passages given by Elbogen, Religionsanschauungen der Pharisder, 1904, pp. 41 f. Cf. Seneca, Ep. 108. 35 sic ista ediscamus ut quae fuerint verba sint opera. ν ποιηταὶ λόγου, “doers of the word.” This sense, “carry out what is commanded,” for ποιεῖν and its deriva- tives ποιητής and ποίησις, is a Hebraism (cf. nvy) and peculiar to Biblical Greek. See Lew. s.v. ποιεῖν, and cf. τ Macc. 257 τοὺς ποιητὰς τοῦ νόμου. In classical Greek ποιητὴς tod νόμου means νομοθέτης. ἀκροαταί. Found three times in James (122: 38, 25); elsewhere in N. T. only Rom. 213, οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ποιηταὶ δικαιωθήσονται. The close resem- blance here is an excellent illustration of the common relation of both Paul and James to Jewish moral thought and precept. ἀκροαταί naturally suggests hearing the public reading of the Scriptures in Jewish or Christian worship, cf. Rev. 13 οὗ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας Kal τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα. μόνον ἀκροαταί] Β minn ff vg with other versions read ἀχροαταὶ μόνον. The decision as to which reading is the emendation must rest wholly on the weight assigned to B ff. That a few minuscules omit μόνον is not significant. παραλογιζόμενοι ἑαυτούς, ‘deceiving yourselves” by the notion that hearing is sufficient. Cf. v. 6, Gal. 63, Mt. 721-23, Rom. 217-25, ἑαυτούς for ὑμεῖς αὐτούς, cf. J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 87. 23. ὅτι, “because,” introduces, as a kind of argument, a brief illustrative parable. ov is the appropriate negative, because οὐ ποιητής, as a single idea, is opposed to ἀκροατής. οὗτος, cf. vv. 2% 3 (TovTOV), 3%. ἔοικεν. Only here and 1° in O. T. or N. T. ἀνδρί, cf. v. 8. κατανοοῦντι, “look at,” with no thought of a hasty or any other special kind of glance; so κατενόησεν, v. 33, 176 JAMES τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ, “the face that nature gave him,” seen in a mirror, is here used as a comparison for the ideal face, or character, which a man sees set forth in the law. As one may forget the former and have no lasting benefit from seeing it, so the mere ἀκροατής has no profit from the latter. τῆς γενέσεως is emphatic, to mark the distinction of the two kinds of ‘‘faces.”’ γενέσεως, gen. of attribute, or perhaps of source. γένεσις is here used, as in 3°, in the sense of “‘Nature,’’ much as in modern usage, to mean the created world (including man) as distinguished from God, and with a suggestion of its character as seen and temporal. So Plato, Resp. viii, p. 525 B; Plut. De gen. Socr. 24, p. 593 D; Philolaus ap. Stob. Ecl. i, c. 22 (ed. Wachsmuth, p. 197); and especially Philo in many passages, e.g. De post. Cain. 9 θεοῦ μὲν ἴδιον ἠρεμία καὶ στάσις͵ γενέσεως δὲ μετάβασίς τε καὶ μεταβατικὴ πᾶσα κίνησις. For abundant references to Philo, see Μαγοῖδ, pp. 117. The Romans trans- lated by rerum natura. More congenial to the Jewish point of view, and hence more com- mon in the O. T., is χτίσις, “creation,’’ which is often used collectively in the later books (6. g. Ps. 10424, Judith 1614, Wisd. 1624, Ecclus. 4915, 3 Macc. 2? 7), in much the same sense as γένεσις in Philo. Beyschlag states strongly certain difficulties of the usual interpreta- tion of τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως, but fails to discover an acceptable substitute for the meaning given above. The meaning “birth” (cf. 6. g. Gen. 32° εἰς thy γῆν τῆς γενέσεώς σου) is hardly adequate, since a man sees in the glass not merely the gift of birth but also the acquisitions of experience. ἐσόπτρῳ. The ancients, like the modern Japanese, had pol- ished metal mirrors of silver, copper, or tin. Cf. EB, “ Mirrors,” HDB, “‘ Mirror.” The figure of a mirror is frequently used by Greek ethical writers (see references in Mayor, pp. 71f.), but otherwise than here, with ref- erence to the reflection of the actual, not of the ideal, man. Philo, De vita contempl. το, compares the law (4 νομοθεσία) to a mirror for the rational soul (4 λογικὴ ψυχῆ), in a manner which recalls James’s figure. 94, κατενόησεν͵, ἐπελάθετο. Probably gnomic aorist, which is intrinsically a form of popular expression, not a literary T, 23-25 177 nicety. Cf. Buttmann (transl. Thayer), p. 201, and see 1 and note. For ἐπελάθετο, cf. Hermas, Vis. iii, 13%. ἀπελήλυθεν, perfect, because of reference to a lasting state (“is off,” “is gone”), not merely, like the other verbs, to a momentary act. See J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 144. For similar alternation of gnomic perfect and aorist, see Plato, Protag. 328 B. But cf. Buttmann (transl. Thayer), p. 197, where any “‘subtile distinction” is denied. 25. παρακύψας, “look ἴῃ. This compound has lost all trace of any sense of “sideways” (7rapa-), or of stooping (κύπτω) to fee. in. 20> 4, τ Pet. τ Ecclus.. 14% 27%. [Phe ture is of looking (“‘peeping,” “glancing’’) into a mirror, and is here brought over in a metaphor from the simile of v.*%. See F. Field, Otium norvicense, iii?, p. 80 (on Lk. 2412), pp. 235 f. (on Jas. 1*); cf. ἐγκύπτω, Clem. Rom. 401, with Lightfoot’s note. The word often implies “a rapid, hasty, and cursory glance,” see the good examples quoted by Hort; but that shade of meaning seems here excluded by the latter half of the verse. νόμον τέλειον τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας, shown by the context to be the same as τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον of v.%; cf. 21% νόμου édev- θερίας. : The omission of the article is frequent with νόμος (cf. 2% 13, and see Sanday’s note on Rom. 212); but this explanation is here unnecessary, since the term is further defined by an attrib- utive expression with the article, cf. Gal. 37"; see Blass-Debrun- ner, § 270; Winer, § 20. 4; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 74; L. Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammaitk, 1911, pp. 19, 89. τέλειον, cf. 117, Rom. 12? TO θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον. The epithet is not in distinction from some other, imperfect, law, but means simply (Spitta) such a law that a better one is inconceivable (cf. Pss. το and 119), ‘“‘the ideal perfection which is the goal of life’? (Sanday). Philo, De vita Mos. ii, 3, M. p. 136 οἱ νόμοι κάλλιστοι καὶ ὡς ἀληθῶς θεῖοι μηδὲν ὧν χρὴ παραλιπόντες. The perfection of the law in question is made plain by the further description of it as ‘the law of freedom.” 178 JAMES Tov τῆς ἐλευθερίας, “the law characterised by freedom.” This expression means “the law in the observance of which a man feels himself free.” It could have been used of the Mosaic law by a devout and enthusiastic Jew; cf. Deut. 2847, Ps. 12 1971 408 54° 119% 45 97, Cf. Pirke Aboth, ili, 8, R. Nechonyiah b. ha-Kanah (c. 80 A.D.): “‘Whoso receives upon him the yoke of Torah, they re- move from him the yoke of royalty and the yoke of worldly care”; vi, 2, R. Jehoshua b. Levi (c. 240 A.D.) : ‘Thou wilt find no freeman but him who is occupied in learning of Torah,” with Taylor’s notes on both passages; see the glorification of the law of Moses in contrast to other laws which were imposed, ὡς οὐκ ἐλευθέροις ἀλλὰ δούλοις, in Philo, De vita Mos. ii, 9. These references show that there is no ground for the common affirmation that this phrase implies a sublimated, spiritualised view of the Jewish law, which, it is said, would have been im- possible for a faithful Jew, cf. Jiilicher, Einleitung® δ, p. 190. It is also evident that the words τέλειον and τῆς ἐλευθερίας are not introduced in order thereby to mark the law which James has in mind as distinguished from, and superior to, the Jewish law. In the passages of Ireneus where /ex libertatis and similar phrases occur (cf. Iren.iv, 13? 34% 4 37! 39%) there is emphasis on the original divine gift of human freedom, with which the law stands in no conflict, but which it rather confirms. It is not possible to apply these passages directly to the interpretation of James. To a Christian ‘‘the perfect law of liberty”? would include both the O. T. (parts of it perhaps being spiritually interpreted, cf. Mt. 57-48, r Cor. 9”, Rom. 3” 82, Ep. Barnab. 10) and the precepts and truths of the Gospel; cf. 2*1%, where the ten com- mandments and the commandment of love are all explicitly said to be a part of the law. The use of the phrase by a Chris- tian implies that he conceived Christianity as a law, including and fulfilling (Mt. 517) the old one. This is not inconsistent with an early date, for even Paul cannot avoid sometimes (1 Cor. 9”, Rom. 32’, Gal. 62) referring to the new system as a law. Cf. Jn. 1334, τ Jn. 27 f-, τ Tim. 17 θέλοντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι I, 25 179 (used of persons who present themselves as Christian teachers). See Introduction, supra, pp. 37 f. The use of the term “law” in this inclusive sense is plainly of Jewish origin and illustrates the direct Jewish lineage of Christianity. But the tendency to conceive Christianity as essentially a system of morals (a “new law”) was not specifi- cally Jewish. It seems to have been present from primitive times in the common Gentile Christianity. ‘The Pauline con- ception of the Law never came to prevail, and Christendom at large did not know how, nor dare, to apply criticism to the O. T. religion, which is Law. (Without criticising the form they spir- itualized the contents.) Consequently the formula that Chris- tianity consists of Promise plus Spiritual Law is to be regarded as of extreme antiquity (wralt)” (Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dog- mengeschichte, i?, p. 250; i*, p. 317). Being the product of a permanent trait of human nature, to be seen in all ages, this moralism was not confined to any lim- ited locality or single line of tradition in early Christianity. The doctrine of Christianity as law is emphasised in the Shep- herd of Hermas, cf. Vis. i, 34, Sim. v, 5% 63, viii, 3? with Har- nack’s note. See also Barn. 2° (ὁ καινὸς νόμος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ͵ ἄνευ ζυγοῦ ἀνάγκης ov), with Harnack’s note and the references contained in it. In Justin Martyr (e. g. A pol. 43) and the other apologists the idea is of frequent oc- currence, and it was probably a part of the primitive theology of Asia Minor in which the more developed system of Irenzeus had its roots. With Irenzus and his contemporaries the “new law” took an important place. See Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche?, 1850, pp. 312-335 (with abundant citations), Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichtet, i, pp. 316f. note 1, pp. 548 f. § 3; Loofs, OU βῆ zum Studium der a § 21 4. The familiar Stoic idea expressed in the maxims ὅτι μόνος ὁ σοφὸς ἐλεύθερος χαὶ πᾶς ἄφρων δοῦλος, deo parere libertas est (Seneca, De vit. beat. 15) is expanded in Philo’s tract about slavery and freedom, Quod omnis probus liber, for instance, 7 παρ᾽ οἷς μὲν ἂν ὀργὴ ἢ ἐπιθυμία ἤ τι ἄλλο πάθος ἢ χαὶ ἐπίβουλος χαχία δυναστεύει, πάντως εἰσὶ δοῦλοι, 180 JAMES ὅσοι δὲ μετὰ νόμου ζῶσιν, ἐλεύθεροι. The combination of these ideas with the Jewish enthusiasm for the law is to be seen in 4 Macc.,e. g. 522-26 142 ὦ βασιλέως λογισμοὶ βασιλικώτεροι χαὶ ἐλευθέρων ἐλευθερώτεροι. A tacit claim that the Greek philosopher’s ideal of freedom charac- terises the Jewish and Christian law may possibly underlie the lan- guage of James, whether or not such is to be traced in the rabbinical sayings quoted above. Other interpretations given for the phrase are: (x) “Natural law in the soul,” “the light of nature.” But nothing suggests this. (2) That law which by the new covenant has become implanted in the souls of men, written in their hearts (Jer. 3151-84), so that the fulfil- ment of it springs from inner spontaneous impulse, not from enforced conformity to externally imposed precepts; in a word, the gospel on that side on which it is a rule of conduct (so Beyschlag). The chief difference of this view from the one adopted above is that the latter takes the “law of liberty” in the sense of Christianity con- ceived as law, while Beyschlag takes it of that element in Christianity which is law. The real difference is not great. Beyschlag’s main in- terest here is to show that the phrase does not imply the legalistic con- ception of Christianity of the Old Catholic period, and in this he is probably right. (3) The Christian law in distinction from the Jewish, because it consists of positive and not of negative precepts. On this, see supra. Philo enforces the same thought with a different figure, De sacr. Abel. et Cain. 25, ‘After having touched knowledge, not to abide in it (μὴ ἐπιμεῖναι) is like tasting meat and drink and then being prevented from satisfying one’s hunger.” ἔργου, the addition of ἔργου to ποιητής gives a certain em- phasis, “ἃ doer who does.” μακάριος, cf. v.12. See Jn. 131”, Lk. 124%, Seneca, Ep. 75, 7 non est beatus qui scit illa sed qui facit. τῇ ποιήσει αὐτοῦ probably means collectively the man’s whole conduct (Hebrew MWY), cf. Dan. 9! (Th.), but not without allusion to the preceding ποιητής: “he will be worthy of con- gratulation in these deeds of his.” μαχάριος does not mean “prosperous” (Huther, Beyschlag, and oth- ers), but is the opposite of “blameworthy.” 26-27. Careful attention to worship is no substitute for self- restraint, purity of life, and good works. I, 25-26 181 The connection with the preceding is here made in two ways: (x) by the advance from the more general precept of reality, “not hearing but doing,” to the more specific, ‘‘not mere wor- ship but doing good”; (2) by the reference in v. 35 to the sin of uncontrolled speech (cf. v. 19). 26. δοκεῖ, “thinketh,” 7. e. “seemeth to himself.” Cf. v. 13 μηδεὶς λεγέτω - and, for the same use of δοκεῖν, Gal. 63, τ Cor. Oe i ta θρησκός. This adjective is not found elsewhere excepting in lexicons, but derivatives are common, notably θρησκεία (vv. 35 27), which means “religious worship, especially, but not exclusively, external, that which consists in ceremonies” (Lex.). θρησκός means “‘given to religious observances.”’ ‘The Greek words have somewhat the same considerable range of meaning as the Eng- lish word ‘‘ worship,” with reference to the inner and the external aspects of religious worship. Mayor quotes a useful series of passages from Christian writers; see Trench, Synonyms, ὃ xlviii; E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, pp. 55-57; and Lex. In the present verse θρησκός doubtless refers to attendance on the exercises of public worship, but also to other observances of re- ligion, such as almsgiving, prayer, fasting (cf. Mt. 6118, 2 Clem. Rom. 164). The passage implies that a large and recognised field of religious observance was naturally and obviously open to the persons whom James has in mind. For both thought and language, cf. Philo, Quod det. pot. insid. 7: “Nor if anyone in his abundant wealth builds a temple with splendid contributions and expenditures, or offers hecatombs and never ceases sacrificing oxen, or adorns the temple with costly offerings, bringing timber without stint and workmanship more precious than any silver and gold, shall he be reckoned with the pious (μετ᾽ εὐσεβῶν ἀναγεγράφθω) ; for he also has erred from the path of piety, accounting worship a sub- stitute for sanctity (θρησχείαν ἀντὶ ὁσιότητος ἠγούμιενος).᾽ The English words “religion,” ‘‘religious,”’ used here and in v. 37, for θρησχεία, θρησχός, are to be understood in the external sense of “worship,” “religious rite,’”’ etc., in which formerly they were more used than at present. Cf. Milton: “With gay religions full of pomps and gold” (Paradise Lost, i, 372); Shakespeare: ‘‘Old religious man,”’ i.e. religieux, “belonging to a religious order” (As You Like It, v, 4, 166). 182 JAMES As used at the present day,“ religion” conveys the meaning of θρησχεία well enough in v. 2%, but is inadequate in v. 37, where the Greek word means specifically “worship.” See HDB, “Religion.” μὴ χαλιναγωγῶν γλῶσσαν, cf. v. 19 and 3118, For the meta- phor, cf. Lucian, Tyrannicida, 4 τὰς τῶν ἡδονῶν ὀρέξεις χαλι- vaywyovons; De saliat. 70; Philo, De mut. nom. 41, De agric. 15 f., Quod det. pot. insid. 8; Plut. De sol. anim. το, p. 967; Hermas, Mand. xii, 1; and the phrase ἀχάλινον στόμα in Aristoph. Ran. 862; Eurip. Bacchae, 386; Philo, De vita Mosis, ili, 25. There is no good reason for limiting either the unbridled speech here referred to or the ὀργή of vv. 19f- to extravagant and intemperate utterance in preaching and teaching (cf. 33); the precepts are of general applicability. ἀπατῶν καρδίαν ἐαυτοῦ. Cf. Test. XII Patr. Nephth. 3 μὴ οὖν omrovodeTe . . . ἐν λόγοις κενοῖς ἀπατᾶν τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ὅτι σιωπῶντες (v. 1. σκοπῶντες) ἐν καθαρότητι καρδίας συνή- σετε τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖν: and on the use of καρδία, ἤν cts 14". μάταιος, from μάτην, “in vain,” “failing of its essential pur- pose.” His very θρησκεία, in itself good, becomes useless, be- cause spoiled by this fault of character. Cf. ν. 39, and νεκρά, 411, 26. The fact that μάταιος in the Ο. T. is specially used of idols and idol-worship (6. g. Jer. 2° τοῦ, cf. Acts 141°, 1 Pet. 118) adds point to this sentence. Cf. Spitta, p. 57, notes 2 and 3. 27. θρησκεία. This is not a definition of religion, but a statement (by an oxymoron) of what is better than external acts of worship. James had no idea of reducing religion to a negative purity of conduct supplemented by charity-visiting. Cf. Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, Introductory Aphorisms XXIII (and Note [8]): “Morality itself is the service and cere- monial (cultus exterior, θρησκεία) of the Christian religion.” The thought is the same as that of the prophets, cf. Mic. 65:8, Is. 110-17, 58°, Zech. 741°, Prov. 14%. Cf. Clem. Al. Strom. vi, § 77, p. 778 P, οὗ (viz. he who keeps the commandments) δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ θρησχεύειν τὸ θεῖον διὰ 120-27 183 τῆς ὄντως διχαιοσύνης, ἔργων te χαὶ γνώσεως, and among Greek writers, Isocrates, Ad Nicocl. p. τ839 E, ἡγοῦ δὲ θῦμα τοῦτο κάλλιστον εἶναι χαὶ θεραπείαν μεγίστην ἂν ὡς βέλτιστον χαὶ διχαιότατον σαυτὸν παρέχῃς. In the higher forms of heathen Hellenistic religious thought “a spiritual idea of God is contrasted with anthropomorphic conceptions and naive worship of idols, while purity of heart, as the best sacrifice, and ad- hesion to the will of God, as the true prayer, are contrasted with foolish prayers and vows”; see P. Wendland, Hellenistisch-rimische Kultur?, 1912, p. 87, and note 8 (references). καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος, synonyms giving the positive and nega- tive side, cf. 1* 5, etc. The two words are often found in Greek writers in an ethical sense and together, Dion. Hal. A.R. viii, 435; Plut. Pericl. 39; also Philo, Leg. all.i, 15, De animal. sacrif. idon. 13; Hermas, Mand. ii, 7, Sim. v, 7, Test. XII Patr. Jos. 4°, etc. For ἀμίαντος, of. Heb. 726, 1 Pet. 14; in the O. T. only found in Wis- dom and 2 Maccabees. The words are naturally used with θρησκεία, because ritual purity and spotlessness was required in all ancient worship, Jewish and heathen, and was never more insisted on among the Jews than by the Pharisees in the first Christian century (cf. Mk. 73 #-, Mt. 2375). There is no special contrast meant (as Spitta thinks) to heathen worship. παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, “in God’s judgment,” “such as God approves,” cof. Lk. 1%, τ Pet. 2% 39, Rom. 218, 2 Thess. 1°, Prov. 1412, Wisd. 9° 127, etc. This is a good Greek use of παρά (see Winer, ὃ 48, ἃ. 6.; L. and S. s.v.), which, with other expressions (Lk. 249 ἐναντίον, Lk. 11° ἐνώπιον, etc.), is the equivalent of the Hebrew ἌΣ, 52. a , θεῷ καὶ πατρί. θεῷ xat πατρί] SC2KL minn. τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί] BC*P minn. τῷ θεῷ χαὶ τῷ πατρί] A. τῷ θεῷ πατρί] minn. The usage in the N. T. is to write either θεὸς πατήρ (6. g. Rom. 1’, Gal. 13, and often) or 6 θεὸς καὶ πατήρ (6. g. 1 Cor. 15%4 and, with ἡμῶν added, Gal. 14, etc.). The only instance of θεὸς χαὶ πατήρ, excepting the present one, is the easily explicable case Eph. 4°; the only cases of 184 JAMES ὃ θεὸς πατήρ are Col. 13 (tH θεῷ πατρί in Codd. ΒΟ" and versions; τῷ θεῷ τῷ πατρί in Codd. DFG), 31’, and possibly 112. Hence probably the article is a conformatory emendation and the formula here unique in the N. T. The phrases ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατήρ and θεὸς πατήρ are found at the opening and elsewhere in Paul’s epistles and other N. T. writings, but nowhere in the Gospels,* Acts, 1 John, or Hebrews. They evidently belong to the common semi-liturgical religious language which at once grew up among the early Christians, but not at all to the tradition of Jesus’ sayings. ‘This designa- tion of God is possibly used here because it is the care for God’s fatherless ones (cf. Ps. 68°) which is enjoined. ἐπισκέπτεσθαι, used of visiting the sick, in Mt. 25%* 43, Ecclus. 735, and also in secular Greek, δ. g. Xen. Cyr. v, 4°; Plut. De san. prec. 15, p. 129 Ὁ, ὀρφανοὺς καὶ χήρας, the natural objects of charity in the community, cf. e.g. Deut. 2719, Ecclus. 4% γίνου ὀρφανοῖς ὡς πατήρ, Kal ἀντὶ ἀνδρὸς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτῶν, Acts 61, Barn. 20 (the Two Ways), Polyc. 6, Hermas, Mand. viii, το. For abundant further references, see Spitta, p. 57, note 5; Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geiste, p. 145, note; Gebhardt and Harnack on Hermas, Mand. viii, 10. ἐν TH θλίψει αὐτῶν͵ 1. ὁ. the affliction of their bereavement. Cf. Jn. 1119, and Edersheim, Jewish Social Life, pp. 172 f., for the Jewish custom. ἄσπιλον, “unstained.”’ For the same phrase, τηρεῖν ἄσπιλον, cf. uTim. 6", ἀπό, see Buttmann, ὃ 132, 5. Tov κόσμου. Cf. 44 ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου, 25. This twofold statement of a moral ideal, compactly expressed in the latter half of this verse, is elaborated at great length in Hermas, Mand. viii. The comparison is instructive and points clearly to current religious modes of expression among the Jews. κόσμος in the ethical sense in which it represents the world as opposed, or at least alien, to God is found only in Paul, *In Mt. 65 the reading 6 θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν of Codd. &*B and sah. vers. is probably an emendation for ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν of all other authorities, while Jn. 627 84: are different. 27M, Tt 185 James, 2 Peter, and the Gospel and First Epistle of John. In the writings of John this sense is pushed to an extreme of sharp opposition. The usage, which is evidently wholly familiar to James and his readers, must have its origin in Jewish modes of thought (cf. the use of poy and ΝΟΌΣ in later Jewish literature for κόσμος, not merely for αἰών), but the history of the ethical sense of the word has not been worked out. See HDB, art. “World”; PRE, art. “Welt”; Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, i, 1898, pp. 132-146 (Eng. transl. pp. 162-179). CHAPTER II. 1-7. To court the rich and neglect the poor in the house of wor- ship reverses real values. In 2!-7 the thought of the supreme importance of conduct, stated in 1-27, is further illustrated by an instance from a situa- tion of common occurrence. With this instance the writer con- nects his reply to two excuses or pretexts (vv. 8:13, 1426), which are perversions of true religion, and in so doing he is led to enter upon broader discussions. Ch. 2 is more original and less a repetition of current Jewish ideas than any other part of the epistle. 1. ἀδελφοί pov, marking transition to a new topic, cf. 19 2431 εἴ and see note on τῇ. ἐν TpocwTroAnpy (as “with acts of partiality.” προσωπο- λημψία (found also Rom. 2", Eph. 6°, Col. 325, Polyc. Phil. 6), together with the cognate words προσωπολημπτεῖν (Jas. 2°), προσωπολήμπτης (Acts 1034), ἀπροσωπόλη μπίος (ecclesiasti- cal writers), ἀπροσωπολήμπτως (τ Pet. 117, Clem. Rom. 13, Barn. 412), is a compound formed from the LXX translation of the O. T. phrase 225 NWI, λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον, Lev. 19", Ps. 82%, etc. (For an analogous compound, cf. ἐμοσχοποίησαν, Acts 7“). These words were of course used only among per- sons acquainted with the Greek O. T., that is, Jews and Chris- tians. This group of expressions has had a history not unlike that of English “favour,” “favouritism,” etc., and, having often had 186 . JAMES originally an innocent sense, came in the O. T. to mean “respect of persons”’ in the sense of improper partiality. The early uses related chiefly to partiality on the part of a judge. In later use any kind of improper partiality might be meant, whether judicial favouritism or, as here, selfish truckling to the powerful. For the meaning of the Hebrew expression, see Gesenius, The- SQUTUS, 5. Ὁ. ΝΣ, p. 916; cf. Lightfoot on Gal. 2°, and, for some similar O. T. expressions, Mayor on Jas. 21. The plural denotes the several manifestations of favouritism ; cf. Winer, § 27,3; Hadley-Allen, ὃ 636; cf. 2 Cor. 12”, Gal. 5”, t Pet. 43. ἐν denotes the state, or condition, in which the act is done; here the acts with which the action of the main verb is accom- panied. Cf. 2 Pet. 3" ὑπάρχειν ἐν εὐσεβείαις͵ Col. 33 ὑπακούετε .. . μὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλίαις, Jas. 121 ἐν πραὕὔτητι. Warnings against contempt of the poor are common in the Oat Lev. 16%, Prov. 22", Beclus. to*, ete. μὴ ἔχετε. Not interrogative (R.V. mg., WH.), but impera- tive (A.V., R.V. text), as is better suited to the gnomic style of the epistle (cf. 1% 3. 3! 4", etc.), and to the following context. The question “Do ye, in accepting persons, hold the faith of our Lord?” would express doubt whether a faith accompanied by this fault is true faith in Jesus Christ at all. But this makes a weak and unnatural opening to the paragraph, is too subtle and indirect for so straightforward a writer, and does not suit so well the transition to the following sentence with γάρ. This writer (6. g. in vv. » δ, 7) uses the question-form rather in argument than in exhortation. Note, too, the directness with which his other paragraphs open, 6. g. 13. § 3157. Moreover, such a surprisingly drastic denial that the readers were Christian believers would require a clearer form of statement. ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν. Cf. 21418 314 Mt, 17% 21%, Mk. 11%, Lk. 178, Acts 14°, Rom. 14”, τ Tim. 119, Philem. 5. ἔχω is used in its natural sense, with reference to “having” an inner qual- ity. This is a Greek usage, see L. and S. 5. υ. ἔχω A. 1. 8. Cf. τηρεῖν τὴν πίστιν, 2 Tim. 47, Rev. 1412. For the whole phrase, cf. Herm. Mand. v, 23 τῶν τὴν πίστιν ἐχόντων ὁλόκληρον. My 2 187 τὴν πίστιν. The “subjective” faith, not the later idea of a body of doctrine to be believed; so throughout this epistle, 1° 6 25, 14-26 515, Faith in Jesus Christ is the distinctive act which makes a man a Christian. See A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament’, 1896. τοῦ κυρίου. Objective genitive, cf. Mk. 11%, Gal. 21°; Her- mas, Sim. vi, 15, etc. The view of Haussleiter, Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der christliche Glaube, 1891, and James Drummond, Epistle to the Galatians, 1893, p. o1, that these genitives after πίστις are subjective, not objective, is unnatural, and seems disproved by both Mk. 1122 and Gal. 216. See Sanday on Rom. 322. Hort paraphrases: the faith “which comes from Him and depends on Him,” but this is unnecessary. τῆς δόξης, “Glory” is the majesty and brightness of light in which God dwells, and which belongs also to the Messiah; see Sanday on Rom. 3%, G. B. Gray, art. “Glory,” in HDB; A. von Gall, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, 1900. The interpretation now most commonly given for this diffi- cult expression is probably right. τῆς δόξης is genitive of char- acteristic (cf. Lk. 168 18°, Heb. 9° Χερουβεὶν δόξης), limiting the whole preceding phrase τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἢ. 6. ‘our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.”” The expression is a not altogether happy expansion of ὁ κύριος τῆς δόξης (τ Cor. 28), cf. ὁ θεὸς τῆς δόξης, Ps. 29%, Acts 72, ὁ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης, Eph. τι". By its solemnity the writer may intend to emphasise the in- consistency between the great privilege of Christian faith and this petty discrimination between rich and poor. No convincing objection can be made to this interpretation, although there is no complete parallel to it. Among the other interpretations the following deserve mention: (1) ταῖς προσωπολημψίαις τῆς δόξης, “partiality arising from your own opinion,” or “partiality arising from external glory” (admiratio hominum secundum externum splendorem, Michaelis). But the separa- tion of the words is too great, and the meaning “glory” for δόξα in this context too obvious, to permit this interpretation, and it is now held by no one. (2) thy πίστιν τῆς δόξης, “faith in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ’’ (Pesh.), or “Christ-given faith in the glory” (7. ὁ. the glory which 188 JAMES we are to receive, Rom. 818), or “the glorious faith in Christ.”” But the last two of these are forced, and the first involves too strange an order of words to be acceptable, in spite of such partial analogies as Acts 433, 1 Thess. 21%. Cf. Buttmann, ὃ 151, III; Winer, § 61, 4; for many illus- trations of hyperbaton from LXX and secular authors, see Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 768 ff. (3) Various interpretations separate off some part of the phrase τοῦ χυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is then connected with τῆς δόξης, and the two together taken as in apposition with the rest of the phrase. The least objectionable of these is perhaps that of Ewald, “our Lord, Jesus Christ of glory”; but this division is unnecessary, and it seems impossible that the writer should not have meant to keep together the whole of the familiar designation. (4) A.V. and R.V. supply τοῦ xvefov, and translate “‘the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory.” There are abundant parallels for this latter phrase, but none for such a singular omission. (5s) Bengel, Mayor, Hort, WH. mg., and others take τῆς δόξης as in apposition to the preceding and as referring to Christ (perhaps as the Shekinah) under the title of ‘the Glory.”’ But the evidence that this is a possible use of 4 δόξα (see the full note of Mayor’, pp. 79 ff., ς[. Lk. 2%, Eph. 117, Tit. 213, Heb. 1°) is inadequate. (6) Spitta and Massebieau think the words ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ an interpolation by the Christian editor. This would leave the expression “the Lord of glory,” referring, as in Enoch, to God. Beyschlag’s an- swer to this, that an interpolator would not have broken the phrase τοῦ χυρίου τῆς δόξης, is not quite satisfactory, since the natural words to follow tod χυρίου are ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. But the interpolation is not sufficiently obvious to justify itself apart from the general theory to which it belongs. See the long note in Mayor. 2. yap explains the warning by pointing out that respect of persons is easily recognisable as sin. γάρ introduces ov διε- κρίθητε κτλ. v. 4. εἰσέλθῃ, cf. τ Cor. 142-8, συναγωγήν means “meeting,” and it is not necessary here to distinguish between the “meeting” as an occasion and as an assembled body of persons. It is the proper word for a Jewish religious meeting, but is occasionally used, chiefly by writers having some Jewish or Syrian connection, for a Christian meet- ing; cf. Herm. Mand. xi, 9 ὅταν οὖν ἔλθῃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἔχων τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ θεῖον εἰς συναγωγὴν ἀνδρῶν δικαίων : Ign. Polye. 42; Iren. Her. iv, 313; Epiph. Her. xxx, 18 συναγωγὴν δὲ UTD ey 189 οὗτοι [the Ebionites] καλοῦσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκκλησίαν. The Christian Palestinian Aramaic dialect used a single word [NMw*33] as well for “synagogue” as for “church.” In view of this wide-spread occasional use, no trustworthy in- ference as to the place of writing of the epistle, still less any conclusion as to its Jewish-Christian authorship, or as to the nationality of the persons addressed, can be drawn from the occurrence of this word here. The material is fully collected and well discussed by Zahn, Einlettung, i, ὃ 4, note 1; Harnack in his long note on Hermas, Mand. xi, 9; Schiirer, G/V, ii, § 27, notes 11 and 12. The meaning “place of meeting,” ‘“meeting-house,” natural if this were a Jewish synagogue, is wholly unlikely for a Christian writing. The only parallel to be adduced would be the inscription (from a locality not far from Damascus) Συναγωγὴ Μαρκιωνιστῶν, κώμ(ης) Λε- βάβων τοῦ χ(υρίο)υ xat o(wth)e(oc) ᾿Τη(σοῦ) Χρηστοῦ, προνοίᾳ Παύλου πρεσβ(υτέρου), tod Ay’ ἔτους, Le Bas-Waddington, Inscript. grecques et lat. iii, no. 2558. The date is A.D. 318-3109. χρυσοδακτύλιος͵ cf. Lk. 15%, also Gen. 381% 5 4142, Is. 3%; and see note in Mayor’, p. 83, and “Ring,” in EB, HDB, and Dicit. Antt. for details of the custom of wearing rings. For similar description of a rich gentleman, cf. Epictet. i, 2218 ἥξει τις γέρων πολιὸς χρυσοῦς δακτυλίους ἔχων πολλούς, Sen- eca, Nat. quest. vii, 31 exornamus anulis digitos, in omni arti- culo gemmam disponimus. χρυσοδαχτύλιος is found only here, but is correctly formed, cf. χρυσόχειρ in the same sense, χρυσοστέφανος, χρυσοχάλινος, etc. ἐν ἐσθῆτι Nappa, cf. Lk. 23". The term λαμπρός seems here to refer to elegant and luxuri- ous, ‘‘fine,” clothes (cf. Rev. 184), but it can also be used of freshness or cleanness (Rev. 15°) without reference to costliness, and sometimes (Acts 10”) appears to mean “‘shining.” Its nat- ural opposite in all these senses is ῥυπαρός, “dirty,” “shabby,” as below, cf. Philo, De J oseph. 20, ἀντὶ ῥυπώσης λαμπρὰν ἐσθῆτα ἀντιδόντες,, Mayor gives other instructive references. See also Lex. 5. vv. λαμπρός and ῥυπαρός. For the same construction as vv. ” 3, cf. vv. 15:15, 190 JAMES 3. ἐπιβλέψητε, “look,” ἡ. 6. with favour, “have regard.” ἐπιβλέπειν has this sense also in Lk. 148 938, apparently through the influence of the LXX usage; cf. 1 Sam. 1! 916, Ps. 2516 6916, Job 3%, Judith 134, etc. The development of this sense in an appropriate context is a natural one; but in classical usage only Aristotle, Eth. Nic. iv, 2, Ὁ. 1120, is cited. εἴπητε. Doubtless the speaker is one of the dignitaries of the congregation, cf. τὸ ὑποπόδιόν μου. ᾿ς κάθου. This form of the imperative (for the more literary κάθησο), found uniformly in O. T. and N. T., was doubtless in ordinary colloquial use, as is attested by its occurrence in comic writers of the fifth and fourth centuries B.c. and in post- classical usage. See Lex. s.v. and Winer-Schmiedel, § 14, 3, note 3. καλῶς, Usually explained as meaning “in a good seat,” “comfortably.” But the usage does not fully justify this (see Mayor’s citations), and some polite idiom in the sense of “please,” “pray,” is to be suspected. In various Greek liturgies the minister’s direction to the worshipping congregation, στῶ- μεν καλῶς, presents the same difficulty and suggests the same explanation. See F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, Eastern and Western, vol. i, Oxford, 1896, pp. 43, 49, 383, 471. The Syrian liturgies sometimes merely carry this over, “Stimen kalos,” but also render by, “Stand we all fairly,” ibid. pp. 72, 74, 104. On the Jewish custom of distinguished places in the synagogue, cf. Mt. 23°, Mk. 1239, Lk. 1143 2048, and see “Syna- gogue,” in EB and HDB. A noteworthy commentary on these verses is offered by a passage found in various ancient books of church order. Its oldest form is perhaps that in the Ethiopic Statutes of the Apostles (ed. Horner, 1904, pp. τος f.): “And if any other man or woman comes in lay dress [t. 6. in fine clothes], either a man of the district or from other districts, being brethren, thou, presbyter, while thou speakest the word which is concerning God, or while thou hearest or readest, thou shalt not respect persons, nor leave thy ministering to command places for them, but remain quiet, for the brethren shall receive them, and if they have no place (for them) the lover of brothers or of sisters, having risen, will leave place for them. Il, 3-4 ΤΟΙ κε νος And if a poor man or woman either of the district or of the (other) districts should come in and there is no place for them, thou, presbyter, make place for such with all thy heart, even if thou wilt sit on the ground, that there should not be respecting the person of man but of God.” See also the Syriac Didascalia apostolorum, 12; A postolic Constitutions, ii, 58; E.v.d. Goltz, “Unbekannte Fragmente altchristlicher Gemein- deordnungen,” in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuss. Akademie, 1906, pp. 141-157. There is no sufficient indication that the passage is dependent on James. στῆθι, in contrast to κάθου. στῆθι ἢ χάθου éxet] B ff. στῆθι ἢ χάθου] sah. στῆθι éxet ἢ χάθου] A 33 minn Cyr vg Jer Aug syrbel, στῆθι éxet ἢ κάθου ὧδε] SNC2KLP minn boh syrvesh, στῆθι éxet χαὶ χάθου] C*. The reading of Β ff makes the rough words an invitation to stand or to take a poor seat. So the Sahidic, which thus on the whole supports B ff. The readings of A αἱ and δὲ al seem to be different emendations, both due to the wish to make ot#@tfexplicit and so to create a better parallelism. But since the indefinite éxet does not in itself imply any disrespect to the visitor, the effect is to lessen rather than intensify the rudeness of στῆθι, and the product is a weaker text than that of B ff (sah). The text of B ff is thus on both external (see p. 85) and internal grounds to be preferred. ἢ κάθου ἐκεῖ ὑπὸ TO ὑποπόδιόν μου, i.e. in a humble place. This is a sorry alternative to standing. Cf. Deut. 333 ὑπό ce “fat thy feet,” Lk. 835 1039, Acts 223 παρὰ τοὺς πόδας. These persons who come into the meeting are visitors, who may be won for the church, and the treatment of them at this critical moment reveals the real feeling of the members toward the relative worth of the different classes in society. The vis- itors seem clearly distinguished from the members of the con- gregation; and nothing indicates, or suggests, that they are members of sister churches. They are undoubtedly outsiders, whether Jews or Gentiles. 6x6] B: P 33 minn have emendation to the easier ἐπί. 4. οὐ] Omitted by B ff minn. The repetition of —oYy OY might suggest either the insertion or the omission of the word in transcrip- 192 JAMES tion. The attestation and the greater intrinsic vigour of the sense speak for the omission. KLP minn read xat οὐ, the καί being added to indicate the apodosis. διεκρίθητε. “Ye have wavered,” “doubted,” 7. ὁ. “practi- cally, by your unsuitable conduct, departed from and denied the faith of v.1, and thus fallen under the condemnation pro- nounced in 18 against the δίψυχος.᾽ Cf. τὸ and note, 317 ἀδιάκριτος. and, for the mode of argument, 18 δίψυχος, 48 ἁμαρτωλοί, δίψυχοι. Of the various meanings proposed for διεχρίθητε this one, which is common in the N. T. although not attested in secular Greek, yields in the present context the best sense, being especially recommended by the allusion to the “‘ waverer” of τό. Cf. Mt. 2121, Mk. 113, Rom. 14%, Jas. 1°, and the kindred sense “ hesitate” in Acts 10”, Rom. 4% Other interpretations which have been given are classified as fol- lows by Huther, whose elaborate note, as reproduced with additions by Beyschlag, pp. 103 f., should be consulted for the history of the exegesis. διαχρίνεσθαι = (1) separare ; (2) discrimen facere ; (3) judicare ; (4) dubitare (“hesitate’’). Under each of these senses several interpretations are possible accord- ing as the verb is taken as an affirmation or a question, and under sey- eral of them a choice between an active and passive meaning is possible. Most of the interpretations are too remote from the natural suggestion of the context, or any natural meaning of the verb, to be worth consid- ering, and none suits on the whole so well as the interpretation given above. The renderings of A.V., “Are ye not then partial?” and R.V. mg., “Do ye not make distinctions?” are based on (2), the verb being given an active sense. This corresponds to the view of Grotius and others, and is perhaps not impossible, even with the passive aorist, but at best it would be unusual, it runs counter to all N. T. usage, and it gives an inherently weak and tautologous sense. To R.V. text, “Are ye not divided?”’ no objection from the ordinary meaning of the verb can be brought, but it is less idiomatic and pointed than the rendering “waver.” κριταί means “judges”; it cannot mean “approvers” (as Wetstein takes it). 4-5 193 κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν͵ “judges with evil thoughts,” gen. of quality. Evidently, like διεκρίθητε, this describes in language already familiar an admittedly wrong attitude. There is a play on words in διεκρίθητε, κριταί, which cannot be imi- tated in English, and which goes far to account for the intro- duction of κριταί into a context to which the idea of “judging” in any proper sense is foreign. That προσωπολημψία is the characteristic sin of the bad judge may also have had its influ- ence. The sentence must be taken to mean: “You have passed judgments (ἡ. e. on rich or poor) prompted by unworthy mo- tives.” For διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν, cf. Mt. 1519, Mk. 721, and Ps. 56%. διαλο- γισμός (like 72v¥m>) is in Biblical usage a general word which includes purpose as well as deliberation. See Lightfoot on Phil. 214; Hatch, Essays, p. 8. 5-7. The poor are the elect heirs of God, whereas the rich are your persecutors. These verses are intended to reinforce the exhortation of v. 1 by pointing out how peculiarly heinous in the readers’ case is partiality in favour of the rich. 5. ἀκούσατε, as in diatribes, cf. Bultmann, Stil der pauli- nischen Predigt, p. 32, with foot-notes. ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί, inserted here for emphasis, cf. 116 413, ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο. Election is a Jewish idea, cf. e.g. Deut. 457, Ps. Sol. 9°; see Sanday, Romans, pp. 244 f. 248 ff. τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ, “the poor by the standard of the world,’ τῷ κόσμῳ is dative of reference, or “interest,” cf. Acts 7% ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ, 2 Cor. 104, see Hadley-Allen, ὃ 771; Winer, § 31,4, a. Cf. 1 Tim. 6111. on which Schéttgen quotes “3y ndiy, Baba bathra 8, 2; DOYS wy, ibid. 4, τ. Others (Weiss, etc.) take τῷ κόσμῳ as naming the possession which the poor lack. But the poor lack not “the world” but the world’s goods. The election of the poor to privileges is not here said to be due to any merit of their poverty, but, in fact, poverty and election coincide. This does not deny that an occasional rich 194 JAMES man may have become a Christian, nor affirm that all the poor have been chosen, cf. 1 Cor. 125, Mt. 1973-26, τῷ χόσμῳ] BRAC. ἐν τῷ χόσμῳ] minn. ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χόσμῳ] Min!. τοῦ χόσμου] A2?C2KLP minn. τοῦ χόσμου τούτου] minnPaue, om rain}. The reading of the older uncials easily accounts for all the others. πλουσίους ἐν πίστει, ‘rich in the sphere of faith,” ‘in the domain where faith is the chief good”’; 7. 6. rich when judged by God’s standards. Cf. Lk. 1271, 1 Cor. 15, 1 Tim. 1? 618, Eph. 24: and rabbinical ‘‘rich in the law” (z. 6. learned), Wajjikra r. 33 on Prov. 29! (Wetstein), Tanchuma 34, 3 (Schéttgen on 1 Tim. 6"). The contrast of poor and rich in different spheres is a natural one. See quotations in Mayor’, p. 86, and Spitta, p. 63; ¢f. Rev. 2°, Test. XII Patr. Gad 7°. Other modes of analysis of the meaning of ἐν πίστει do not affect the general sense of the phrase, but they seem less adapted to the con- text. Thus: (1) “rich by reason of faith”’; (2) “rich in having an abundance of faith,” cf. Eph. 24, 1 Cor. 1, τ Tim. 618, This unduly limits the range of the “ riches.” κληρονόμους τῆς βασιλείας. This expression corresponds to Mt. 2583, 1 Cor. 65".10 15 (κληρονομεῖν βασιλείαν), Gal. 5%, as well as to κληρονομεῖν ζωὴν αἰώνιον in Mt. 1929 2534, Mk. rol?7, Lk. 1075 1818 (cf, Dalman, Worte Jesu, i, pp. 102-104; E. Tr. pp. 125-127. “Heirs” are persons who are appointed to receive the in- heritance. The kingdom is here thought of as still future (as is shown by ἐπηγγείλατο). The kingdom is not further de- scribed, nor does James use the term again, and it is possible to say of the term here only that it denotes the great blessing which God offers to his chosen, being thus practically equivalent to salvation. Cf. Mt. 5% 1, Lk. 12% f. ἘΠ 5-6 195 See Westcott’s note on Heb. 6" for the history of the use of the term κληρονόμος. βασιλείας] AC read éxayyeAleltac. ἧς ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. On the expression, ey. 2 Vim. 4'*, Ep. ad Diogn. ro. Cf. 12, τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς κτλ., with note. Life and the kingdom are practically identical. ἐπηγγείλατο does not refer to any one specific occasion, and hence is better translated “has promised.” Cf. Burton, Syn- tax of the Moods and Tenses of N. T. Greek, δὲ 46, 52. The “promise” was implicit in the very conception of the kingdom. 6. ἠτιμάσατε, ‘dishonoured,” ἡ. 6. by your truckling to the rich. On ἀτιμάζειν, cf. Prov. 14% ὁ ἀτιμάζων πένητας ἀμαρτά- pee, 2272, Ecclus. 10”, Acts 5”. A.V. “despised”’ is a possible translation (cf. Field, Notes on the Trans- lation of the New Testament (Olium norv. 1112), 1899, p. 236, for good examples), but the context (v. *) makes the R.V. “dishonoured’’ pref- erable. Tov πτωχόν, generic. Mayor well recalls 1 Cor. 112% for an- other case of dishonour to the poor in early Christian life. καταδυναστεύουσιν, “oppress,” cf. Wisd. 2, Amos 84, Jer. κοῖς 18:5 For examples of such oppression, cf. Jas. 5 ®, and references in Spitta, p. 64, notes 9, 10, and 11; also Lucian, Nec. 20. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ, ᾿Επειδὴ πολλὰ Kal παράνομα οἱ πλούσιοι δρῶσι Ν \ / ἰ U \ / \ / / Tapa Tov βίον ἁρπάζοντες καὶ βιαζόμενοι καὶ πάντα τρόπον τῶν πενήτων καταφρονοῦντες κτλ. αὐτοί, “15 it not they who,” etc. Similarly, v.7. On αὐτός in nominative as personal pronoun with no intensive force, cf. Lex. s.v. αὐτὸς, ΤΙ, 2. ἕλκουσιν, so Acts 161°, of “dragging” into court, cf. Lk. 12% 7 \ bs / 7 κατασύρειν πρὸς τὸν κριτὴν, Acts 83 (σύρων), Acts 17°; a usual meaning, see Lexx. _ This does not seem to refer to religious persecution, which was at least as likely to proceed from the side of the poor as 196 JAMES of the rich, but to other oppression, with legal action, arising from the ordinary working of social forces in an oriental com- munity and having to do with wages, debts, rents, and the like. Many think, indeed, of religious persecution (as Acts 612). But this is not naturally suggested by xataduvactedoucty (instead of which we should in that case expect διώκουσιν, cf. Mt. 5%, Lk. 2112, Acts 752, Gal. 118), Nor is it made necessary by βλασφημοῦσιν, which seems to refer to a different act of hostility and is properly so punctuated by WH. εἰς κριτήρια, “before judgment-seats,” ‘into courts,” ζ΄. Sus. 49. On established courts throughout Palestine, see EB, “Government,” §§ 30, 31; Schiirer, GJV, § 23, II. 7. βλασφημοῦσιν. Blasphemy is injurious speech, especially irreverent allusion to God and sacred things. For blasphemy from the Christian point of view, 7. e. against Christ, cf. Acts 13*° 18° 26", 1 ‘Tim. 14,1 Cor..12*, Justin, Deas § 117 (Χριστοῦ) ὄνομα βεβηλωθῆναι κατὰ πᾶσαν THY γῆν καὶ βλασφημεῖσθαι οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ ὑμῶν καὶ διδάσκαλοι εἰργάσαντο, Pliny, Ep. x, 97°; Polyc. Mart. οὐ λοιδόρησον tov Χριστόν. Cf. Hermas, Sim. ix, τοῦ (of apostates). On blasphemy against God by the rich among the Jews, cf. Enoch 54 94° !- and other passages collected by Spitta, p. 65. It is not natural to take this of ‘those who profess to know God but by their works deny him” (Mayor), cf. Tit. 11°; Hermas, Sim. viii, 64. Rom. 2%4 (Is. 525) τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾽ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, and the cognate passages, 2 Pet. 2%, 1 Tim. 6:, Clem. Rom. 11, 2 Clem. Rom. 13, etc., are all of a different tenor, although the language is similar; the verb is there in the passive, and the blasphemy comes from the discredit which is thrown upon the Christian religion by the faults of those who profess it. TO καλὸν ὄνομα TO ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς͵ This means the name of Christ, to whom his followers belong, fot Pet et) Cf. 23am. 1278, Amos.o'4, Is.) 41, 2, Magee ἔνεκα τῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐπικλήσεως τοῦ σεμνοῦ Kal μεγαλοπρε- ποῦς ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, 4 Ezra 1022 οἱ nomen quod nominatum est super nos profanatum est, etc. For more references, see Mayor’, p. 88, Spitta, p. 65. In all these passages the reference is to Israel, dedicated to God by receiving his name. This idea was II, 6-8 197 naturally transferred to the Christians, with a reference in their case to the name of Christ. Cf. Hermas, Sim. viii, 64, τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, and other cases of the use of ὄνομα in Hermas, Sim. viii, ix, and xi, given in Heitmiiller, Im Namen Jesu, 1903, p. 92. The phrase does not necessarily refer to baptism, nor to any definite name (e. g. Χριστιανοῦ by which Christians were known. See Harnack’s note on Hermas, Sim. viii, 64. 6-7. It is very evident that “the rich” here are not Chris- tians. Those who maintain the opposite are driven to give to βλασφημοῦσιν the meaning rejected above. The rich are plainly neighbours who do not belong to the conventicle but may sometimes condescend to visit it. No word, however, hints that the two classes do not worship the same God, and the whole tone of the passage seems to imply a less complete departure from the dominant religion of the community than would have been the case in Rome or any heathen city. If the whole surrounding population were hea- then, the argument would have to be differently turned. Con- fast tne tone of Phil 215 5. Eph. 42’-!, Col. 3%, x Cor 6r% A settled and quiet state of things is indicated, in which the normal relations of the different classes of society prevail. The sense of missionary duty is not prominent. The situation is thus that of a sect of some sort living in a community whose more powerful members, though worshipping the same God as the sect, do not belong to it. 8-11. The law of Love is no excuse for respect of persons. The cancelling of one precept by another is not permissible, for the whole law must be kept. The royal law is therefore not a license to violate other parts of the law. These verses are a reply to a supposed excuse, viz. that the Christian is required by the law of love to one’s neighbour to attend to the rich man. This excuse by the pretext of “love” is parallel to the excuse by the pretext of “‘faith,’’ vv. 1426, Cf. also 11% 8. Like Mt. 5!7*-, this passage is opposing a wrong and self-indulgent use of the principle that the law of love cov- ers the whole law. 198 JAMES 8. εἰ μέντοι, “if now,” “if indeed.” The particle μέντοι, besides its common adversative force, “but,” “nevertheless” (so Prov. 54 16% 26 22° 2617, Jn. 427 718 1242 208 214, 2 Tim. 219), has a “confirmative” meaning, as a strengthened μέν, hardly to be translated. In such cases it indicates an implied contrast, which appears in the present instance in the correlative δέ of v.% Cf. Jude 8, and see Kiihner-Gerth, Grammatik der griech. Sprache’, § 503, 3, &- νόμον βασιλικόν, “the royal law.” νόμος means the Law of God, as known to the readers through the Christian interpreta- tion of the O. T. The article is probably omitted because νόμος is treated as a quasi-proper noun, as in 211 12 44; cf, λόγος, Jas. 22, 23 | Most take the “royal law” to be identical with the γραφή (legum regina) quoted immediately. But νόμος is not used in the sense of evToA7 (cf. Mt. 223° ποία ἐντολὴ μεγάλη ἐν τᾷ νόμῳ), and it is therefore better to take βασιλικόν as a deco- rative epithet describing the law as a whole, of which the fol- lowing precept is a part. The expression κατὰ τὴν γραφήν κτλ. implies, indeed, that the perfect observance of this pre- cept covers the observance of the whole law, as in Mk. 12%, Rom, 23°) teal. 6'4, cf, αν τοῦ, Jn. 15%. It is thus not necessary to make an unnatural distinction between γόμος here and in v. 9. βασιλικόν, i. 6. “supreme.” Cf. Philo, De justitia, 4 βασιλι- κὴν δὲ εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν Μωυσῆς ὁδὸν τὴν μέσην, De congress. erud. grat. το; 4 Macc. 14% The term either goes back to the tradition that kings are supreme sovereigns, or else is drawn from the use of βασιλεύς to mean the Roman emperor. At the.same time there may be here an allusion to the Stoic conception of the wise as “‘kings,”’ parallel to the lurking allu- sion in 125 to the conception of the wise as alone “free.” The Law of Christians is alone fit for “kings.” Cf. the similar appli- cation of the word βασιλικός in Clem. Al. Strom. vi, 18, p. 825; Vii, 12, p. 876, and the other passages quoted by Mayor’, p. 90; also r Pet. 2°. See Knowling’s good note, p. 49, Zahn, Ezmlei- II, 8-10 199 tung, i, § 6, note 1, and for the Stoic paradox the references in Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen', III, i, p. 2 56, note 5. As in 1”, so here, the attribute of the law is decorative and Suggestive only; it is not meant specifically to distinguish the true law from some other inferior one. The interpretation of βασιλικόν as “given by the King” (God or Christ) has nothing to recommend it. Equally little has Calvin’s in- genious reference to “the king’s highway,” “plana scilicet, recta, et e@quabilis.” τὴν γραφήν, i. 6. “passage of Scripture” (Lev. 19!8) ; cf. Mk. 12”, Jn. τοῦ, Lightfoot on Gal. 322. τὸν πλησίον, Properly “neighbour,” in LXX for Hebrew YW, “friend,” “fellow countryman,” or “other person’ ’ generally, and so, under the influence of the ΡΝ ΤΡ of Jesus (Lk. 1025-37), equivalent to ὁ repos (cf. especially Rom. 1 go: Wipe). 9. ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε, cf. τὴ and note. Such conduct is sin, directly forbidden by the law, and hence cannot be excused as a fulfilment of the royal law. f ἐλεγχόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου. Cf. Lev. ro!5 οὐ λήμψῃ πρόσω- πον πτωχοῦ οὐδὲ θαυμάσεις πρόσωπον δυνάστου, ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κρινεῖς τὸν πλησίον σου, Deut. 117 1619, 10. ὅστις . τηρήσῃ, with ἄν omitted. Cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses, 307, Blass-Debrunner, § 380. ohn) KEP minnone ἢ VE bob. πληρώσει] A minn. πληρώσας τηρήσει] 33. τελέσει] minn, cf. v. 8, The future is probably an emendation called out by the absence of ἄν The same thing has happened to πταίσῃ, for which KLP minnvler have πταίσει. The synonyms, and the conflation in 33, are interesting. πταίσῃ, in sense of “sin,” Rom. rr", Jas. 32, cf. Deut. 7°. See M. Aur. Anton. vii, 22 τ ἄνθρωπον φιλεῖν καὶ τοὺς mTaiovtas, Maximus Tyr. Diss. 26 τίς δὲ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς ὡς διελθεῖν βίον ὁ ἀπταίστως - ἐν ἑνί, “in one ME neuter, since νόμος is not used of single precepts. 200 | JAMES πάντων ἔνοχος. πάντων is neuter, and the genitive, as in classical Greek, denotes the crime. This is a rhetorical way of saying that he is a transgressor of “the law as a whole” (παραβάτης νόμου, ν. 11), not of all the precepts in it. For similar emphasis on the several individual precepts which make up the law, cf. Mt. 5%, and especially Test. XII Patr. Aser 25-10 (Charles’s translation): “Another stealeth, doeth unjustly, plundereth, defraudeth, and withal pitieth the poor: this too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. He who defraudeth his neighbour provoketh God, and sweareth falsely against the Most High, and yet pitieth the poor: the Lord who commandeth the law he setteth at nought and provoketh, and yet he refresheth the poor. He defileth the soul and maketh gay the body; he killeth many, and pitieth a few: this too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. Another committeth adultery and fornication, and abstaineth from meats, and when he fatteth he doeth evil, and by the power of his wealth overwhelmeth many; and notwithstanding his excessive wickedness he doeth the commandments: this, too, hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. Such men are hares; for they are half clean, but in very deed are unclean. For God in the tables of the commandments hath thus declared.” The roots of this verse evidently lie in rabbinical modes of empha- sising the importance of certain special precepts and of every precept. Thus Shemoth rabba 25 fin., “The Sabbath weighs against all the precepts”; Shabbath, 70, 2, “If he do all, but omit one, he is guilty for all severally.” Schédttgen and Wetstein give many sayings of sim- ilar tenor from rabbinical writings of various dates. Augustine, Ep. 167 ad Hier., draws a comparison with the Stoic doc- trine of the solidarity of virtues and vices. The Stoic doctrine is that virtue is an indivisible whole, a man is either virtuous or vicious. The wise (or virtuous) is free from fault, the foolish (or vicious) does no right act; hence ἴσα τὰ ἁμαρτήματα xat τὰ κατορθώματα. The character of every act depends on the controlling inner purpose and disposition. See Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen', III, i, pp. 251-263, with abun- dant references. This doctrine has plainly nothing to do with that of James. 11. μὴ μοιχεύσῃς.... μὴ φονεύσῃς. Ex. 2013 15, Deut. 517“ This order, in which the seventh commandment is mentioned before the sixth, is perhaps due to the order found in the LXX (Cod. B, not AF) of Ex. 20. So Lk. 18%, Rom. 13°, Philo, De decal. 12, 24, 32, De spec. leg. iii, 2; but not so Mt. 57): 2”. II, 10-13 201 C minnpavei syrhel arm have conformed the text to the usual order by putting murder first. In the following sentence this is done by minnpauei arm. ov μοιχεύεις. ov follows the regular N. T. usage in present simple conditions. Cf. Buttmann, § 148; Burton, § 469; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 170 f.; Winer, ὃ 55, 2, c (where it is said that εἰ οὐ makes the negative emphatic). Here, since the negative belongs only to a part of the protasis (μοιχεύεις) and not to the rest (fovevers), ov is in any case necessary. 12-13. General exhortation to remember the Judgment, which is the sanction of the law; together with special inculcation of the precept of mercy, violated by their respect of persons. 12. λαλεῖτε, ποιεῖτε, cf. 11% 38:25, 26, a section which seems to be in mind in this summarising exhortation. The collocation is very common, 6. g. Test. XII Patr. Gad 61, cf. Acts 11 7” ἐν λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις αὐτοῦ (and commentaries), τ Jn. 318, and Lex. 5. v. ἔργον, 3. διὰ νόμου ἐλευθερίας, “under the law of liberty.” Cf. 1%; διά here indicates the “state or condition in which one does or suffers something” ; see Lex. 5. υ. διά, A. I. 2; of. e.g. Rom. 213 διὰ νόμου κριθήσονται. 13. γάρ introduces the reason why the sin of respect of persons will be punished with special severity. It involves a breach of the law of mercy, and that has as its consequence unmerciful punishment. ἀνέλεος. Found only here for the usual ἀνηλεής,͵ ἀνελεής, but regularly formed from the noun ἔλεος; see Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. L minnperm read ἀγνίλεως. On the thought, cf. Mt. 57 6!4 7! 183-35, Ps, 1875 26, Ecclus. 28? κ΄ Test. XII Patr. Zab. 5 and 8. Jer. Baba q. viii, 10, “Every time that thou art merciful, God will be merciful to thee; and if thou art not merciful, God will not show mercy to thee,” Rosh hash. 17 a, ‘‘To whom is sin pardoned? to him who forgives injury.” κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως, “mercy boasts over (or against) 202 JAMES judgment.” ἔλεος is human mercy shown in practise, κρίσεως is God’s condemnatory judgment, cf. Jas. 52, Jn. 5%. This gives the converse of the previous sentence. As the unmerciful will meet with no mercy, so a record of mercy will prevent con- demnation. Cf. 5% and Ecclus. 3% 401”, Tob. 4°". The doc- trine (and need) of God’s forgiving mercy is 3 here assumed in regular Jewish fashion. On the great importance ascribed to mercy as a virtue in Jewish thought, see Bousset, Religion des Judentums*, pp. 162 f. The contrast of God’s opposing attributes of mercy and justice does not seem to be in mind here. The contrast of ἔλεος and χρίσις is a natural one, and is found in both Greek and Jewish sources, cf. Diog. Laert. ii, 3°, references to Bereshith r. in Wetstein, and the references in Spitta, p. 70, note 6. χαταχαυχᾶται is found elsewhere only in Jas. 314, Rom. 1118, Zech. tol, Jer. 50[27]"! χατεχαυχᾶσθε διαρπάζοντες τὴν χληρονομίαν μου, 50[2.]38, It does not occur in secular writers. 1 Cor. 1555 well illus- trates the meaning of this word. χαταχαυχᾶται] B (—te) ΝΕ ΚΙ, minnpler ff m vg Aug boh. χαταχαυχάσθω] A 33 minnpaue, χαταχαυχᾶσθε] C2 syrpesh, χαταχαυχᾶσθε is insufficiently attested and is probably due to an error. χαταχαυχάσθω is the harder reading, but the group A 33 points to an emendation. ἔλεος κρίσεως] CKL minn read ἔλεον χρίσεως. Since the accusa- tive yields no sense, this must have been understood as τὸ ἔλεον, attested by Ps.-Herodian, Epimerismoi, ed. Boissonade, 1819, p. 235, and not found elsewhere. 14-26. Neither does the possession of Faith give any license to dispense with good works. This touches another case of substitution of a sham for the reality ; cf. 122-25 361. 28f-, As an excuse, faith is worth no more than love. The fundamental idea of a warning against sham is common enough to all moralists. The special interest here is that James makes his contrast not between, e. g., sayings and doings, but between two terms important in Christian thought, wz., faith ΤΙ, 13-14 203 and works, and that in the course of his argument he uses other theological terms and reveals an acquaintance with many diverse theological conceptions and modes of thought. 14. Faith, if it does not lead to good works, is impotent to save. τί ὄφελος, cf. v. 15, τ Cor. 1532, and (τίς ὠφελία) Ecclus. 20% 4t'4, Job 2115, ὄφελος is found in LXX only once (Job 15°). Cf. τί yap (or οὖν, or δὲ) ὄφελος (note absence of the article, as here), Philo, De poster. Cain. 24, Quod deus immut. 33, De agric. 30; Teles (ed. Hense), p. 27 τί οὖν ὄφελος τὸ οὕτως ἔχειν; τί ὄφελος was a common expression in the vivacious style of the moral diatribe. See Bultmann, Stil der paulinischen Predigt, Ρ. 33. ὄφελος] BC* 102; ς΄. v. 15 (sine τό, ΒΟ ἢ), 1 Cor. 1532 (sine τό, DFG). τὸ ὄφελος] NAC2KL minnéfere oma, probably emendation. ἀδελφοί μου. Marks a new paragraph, cf. 21, etc. πίστιν. Introduced without the article as a new idea; cf. ἡ πίστις, v.15, and 13 4 15, Cf. 1% δ 21, 5, 14-27 515, Faith (cf. especially 21) is here assumed to be the fundamental attitude of the Christian adherent, which makes him a Christian. No ground exists for thinking that this assumption was, or could be, doubted by any one. All Christians (cf. πιστοί, “believers,”’ Acts 161, 2 Cor. 615, τ Tim. 51°) have faith, and James uses the term, without any attempt at the formation of an exact psychological concept of the con- tents of faith, merely as the ordinary term familiar to all for a well-known inner state. The cases of the demons, Abraham, and Rahab all present an analogy to Christian faith which, while inadequate, is yet valuable for argument—the more so that Abraham and Rahab were recognised on all hands to have been “justified.” λέγῃ, “say,” in presenting his claim to be approved of men and of God. So 113 μηδεὶς λεγέτω, cf. 28. This word is not to be too much emphasised, as if it meant “pretend,” and as if doubt were seriously thrown on the man’s actual possession of faith. The inadequate and empty “faith” which produces no 204 JAMES works may be hardly worthy of the name, but it is not necessa- rily a deliberate hypocrisy. The contrast is not between saying (λέγῃ) and doing (ἔργα ἔχῃ), as it was in 1 between hearing and doing; it is rather between mere adherence to Christianity and conduct, or between church-membership and life (πίστιν ἔχειν, ἔργα ἔχειν). ἔργα, cf. τ35. ἔργα seems here a recognised term for ‘“‘good deeds.” Cf. Mt. 516 233, Rom. 25, Jn. 3%, Tit. 115, etc., etc., where τὰ ἔργα means “conduct,”’ which is made up of an infinite number of separate ἔργα. For the use of the word in moral relations, cf. Prov. 24! ὃς ἀποδίδωσιν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, Ps. 6212, Apoc. Bar. 517 “‘saved by their works,’’ 4 Ezra 73°, Pirke Aboth, iii, 14; iv, 15, and many other passages referred to by Spitta, pp. 92-70; On the expression ἔργα ἔχειν, πίστιν ἔχειν, cf. 4 Ezra 777 852 1323 “even such as have works and faith toward the Al- mighty,” Apoc. Bar. 1412 (the righteous) “have with them a store of works preserved in treasuries.” The ἔργα here do not appear as specifically ἔργα νόμου; the word merely denotes conduct as contrasted with faith. This contrast cannot be original with this writer (cf. 4 Ezra 97 13%). The contrast of faith and works will appear wherever faith is held to be the fundamental characteristic of the true members of the religious community, while at the same time a body of laws regulating conduct is set forth as binding. It is inevitable that by some, whether in practise or in theory, the essential underlying unity of the two absolute requirements will be over- looked and one or the other regarded as sufficient. This will always call out protests like that of James, who represents the sound and sensible view that not one only but both of these requirements must be maintained. : In the discussions of the Apostle Paul the contrast is the same in terms, but its real meaning is different and peculiar. Paul’s lofty repudiation of ‘‘works”’ has nothing but the name in com- mon with the attitude of those who shelter their deficiencies of conduct under the excuse of having faith. Paul’s contrast was i, 14 205 a novel one, viz. between the works of an old and abandoned system and the faith of a newly adopted one. His teaching was really intended to convey a doctrine of forgiveness. Our author, on the other hand, with nothing either of Paul’s subtlety or of his mystical insight into the act of faith and glorification of faith’s contents, is led to draw the more usual contrast between the faith and works which are both deemed necessary under the same system. Hence, while faith is the same thing with both—an objective fact of the Christian life, the works of which they speak are different—in one case the con- duct required by the Jewish law, in the other that demanded by Christian ethics. That the two in part coincided does not make them the same. One was an old and abandoned fail- ure, impotent to secure the salvation which it was believed to promise, the other was the system of conduct springing from and accompanying a new life. But this distinction, while it makes plain that James is not controverting what Paul meant, yet does not insure the full agreement of James and Paul, for Paul, although he would have heartily admitted the inadequacy of a faith which does not show itself in works, would never have admitted that justifica- tion comes ἐξ ἔργων. James has simply not learned to use Paul’s theology, and betrays not the slightest comprehension. of the thought of Paul about faith and the works of the Law. The contrast between reliance on membership in the religious community and on conduct is as old as Amos and the Hebrew prophets, and comes out in the words of John the Baptist, and of Jesus in the Synoptics and John. All that James adds to these is the term “faith,” to denote the essential element in the membership, and then an elaborate discussion in which the terms and instances of later Jewish theology are freely employed. The use (see below) of the same formula which Paul seems to have created indicates that Paul had preceded James, but it is plain that James had made no study of Paul’s epistles, and these formulas may have come to his knowledge without his having read Paul’s writings, which, we must remember, the Book of Acts does not even mention. See Introduction, supra, pp. 35 f. 206 JAMES μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν. cf. 1% (and note) 4” ιν, 20. This question is presented as if it admitted of but one an- swer, and that a self-evident one. 15-17. Illustration from the emptiness of words of charity as a substitute for deeds. This is not, like the closely similar verses, 2? f-, a concrete in- stance of James’s contention, but a little parable; for another parable to the same purport, cf. 276% The illustration is ab- ruptly introduced, as in 311} τὲς The comparison has itself a moral significance, and the same thought is found in other literature, 6. g. Plautus, Epid. 116. nam quid te igitur rettulit beneficum esse oratione st ad rem aux- ilium emortuomst ? 15. ἐάν] BS 33 69 minn ff m. ἐὰν δέ] ACKL minnpler yg syrpesh. hel, ἐὰν γάρ] sah. γυμνοί, “naked,” in the sense of “insufficiently clad”; cf. Job 22° “stripped the naked of their clothing,” Is. 20% * 587, Jn. 217 (without the ἐπενδύτης), Mt. 253° #-, Acts 198; see ref- erences in L. and S. The plural after singular subjects connected by 7 is in ac- cord with the occasional usage of good Greek writers. See Hadley-Allen, § 608; Blass-Debrunner, § 135. Buttmann and Blass ascribe the plural here to the fact that the two nouns are of different genders, but this is not the case in all the examples from secular Greek. ἐφημέρου τροφῆς, “food for the day,” “the day’s supply of food.” The word ἐφήμερος is not in the O. T., but this whole phrase is found in Diod. iii, 32; Dion. Hal. viii, 41; Aristides, xlix, ed. Dindorf, p. 537. It is an expression natural to secular Greek, and used here, much like the English “‘daily bread,” to describe the poor person’s need as urgent; cf. Philo, Im Flacc. 17 πένητές ἐσμεν καὶ μόλις TO ἐφήμερον εἰς αὐτὰ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα πορίζειν δυνάμεθα, Ps.-Plutarch, An vitios. p. 499 C προσαίτησιν ἐφη- Il, 14-17 207 μέρου τροφῆς. Other extracts may be found in Mayor’, p. 97, and Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament, 1899, pp. 236 f. 16. ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, “good bye,” a Jewish expression ; cf. Acts 16°, Mk. 534, Lk. 7, Judg. 188 1 Sam. 11 20%7, 2 Sant. 15°; of. J. Friedmann, Der gesellschaftliche Verkehr und die Umgangsformeln in talmudischer Zeit, Berlin, 1914, p- 34. θερμαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάξεσθε. The context requires that these be taken as passive; and, indeed, in order to say “warm and feed yourselves” it would be necessary in the late usage of the N. T. to use the active with a reflexive pronoun, ὑμᾶς αὐτούς͵ ἑαυτούς. cf. 6. g. 122 παραλογιζόμενοι ἑαυτούς. Ce. Blass-Debrunner, § 310. That θερμαίνειν was commonly used of the effect of warm clothes is shown by Job 31, Hag. 18, but also by Plut. Quest. conviv. vi, 6, p. 691 D, and a curious passage (quoted by Wetstein) in which Galen (De vir. medic. simpl. ii) criticises the common neglect of writers to observe the distinction between that which warms and that which merely keeps off the cold. δῶτε, plural after Ts, which is treated as a kind of collective. See Hadley-Allen, § 609 a; Kriiger, § 58, 4, A. ἢ τὰ ἐπιτήδεια, “the necessaries of life.” Not elsewhere in the N. T.; occasionally in LXX, but with no corresponding Hebrew word. ὄφελος] sine τό ΒΟ"; cf. v.14. 17. οὕτως, making the application of the parable, cf. Lk. 1 510 τὴ), ἐὰν μὴ ἔχῃ ἔργα, cf. vv. 15 39, 26 ἡ πίστις χωρὶς [τῶν] ἔργων. Faith is said to “have” works, perhaps in the sense of “at- tendance or companionship” (Lex. 5. v. ἔχω I, 2, c). νεκρά, cf. v.*, The two things which are opposed are not faith and works (as with Paul) but a living faith and a dead faith. The dead faith is also called ἀργή (v.™); cf.12° μάταιος͵ It is not denied that faith can exist without works, but it is the wrong kind of faith. On the figurative use of νεκρός for “inactive and useless,” 208 JAMES Rom. 6" 78, Heb. 6! οἵ“, cf. Epict. Diss. iii, 23% καὶ μὴν ἂν μὴ ταῦτα (sc. a conviction of sin) ἐμποιῇ ὁ τοῦ φιλοσόφου λόγος, νεκρός ἐστι καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λέγων. καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν, “in itself” (R.V.), strengthens vexpa, “inwardly dead”’; not merely hindered from activity, but defective in its own power to act; see 2 Macc. 131%, Acts 28:5, Rom. 14”, and secular references in Lex. 5. Ὁ. κατά, II, τ, e, cf. Gen. 30% 43%. Of the various renderings proposed the only other one deserving mention is that of Grotius and others, who give it this meaning of “by itself,” “alone” (ff sola), but interpret, ‘faith without works is dead, being alone.” This involves a tautology, and in strictness would require the addition of the participle οὖσα. 18. A possible rejoinder in behalf of the censured persons, and its refutation. Supposed bringer of excuses: “One has pre-eminently faith, another has pre-eminently works.” James: “A live faith and works do not exist sepa- rately.” ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις. An objection or defense suggested, as in 113 28-11, For the half-dialogue form, cf. Rom. οἱ 111°, τ Cor. 1535 ἀλλὰ ἐρεῖ τις, 4 Macc. 274, Ep. Barn. 9°, and innumerable pas- sages in the Greek moralists. See Introduction, supra, p. 12. The future here “denotes a merely supposable case” (Lat. dicat), Winer, ὃ 40, b, p. 280; Buttmann, ὃ 139, 18; Viteau, Grec du N.T., Le verbe, ὃ 43. Cf. Heb. 1132. In reply to the censure upon those who rely on faith and neglect conduct, it is here suggested that one person has faith (cf. τ Cor. 12° ἑτέρῳ πίστις ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι), another works, doubtless not in either case with perfect exclusiveness but in pre-eminent degree. This is a defense which suggests antinomianism, but includes a curious tolerance. While ob- viously weak—a weaker position, indeed, than downright anti- nomianism—it has a certain plausibility, and very likely fairly expresses the underlying unformulated philosophy of not a few persons. The objector’s words are contained in one sentence; then TL £9=1S 209 James replies with δεῖξόν μοι κτλ. This sentence is evidently from the point of view of vv. !*17, and is intended flatly and comprehensively to deny that faith and works are separate gifts, like, for instance, prophecy and healing. ov, κἀγώ. The pronouns do not refer to James and the objector, but are equivalent to εἷς, ἕτερος, “one,” “another,” and are merely a more picturesque mode of indicating two imaginary persons. Very much the same is true of ‘“‘thou”’ and “I” in the second half of the verse, where James has no idea of emphasising his own superior uprightness. σύ cannot be made to refer to James (1) because James is contend- ing not for faith but for works, and (2) because James’s personality has up to this point been so little prominent (the first person has been only used in the conventional address ἀδελφοί wou), that some clear indi- cation of such a direct contrast between him and the objector would be expected, at least ἐρεῖ τις ἐμοί instead of ἐρεῖ τις. For a similar usage cf. the quotation from Bion in a fragment of the Cynic Teles (ed. Hense?, pp. 5 f., from Stobzus, Anthol. iii, τ, 98 [Mein. v, 67]), uh οὖν βούλου δευτερολόγος ὧν τὸ πρωτολόγου TedcwTov’ εἰ δὲ μὴ, ἀνάρμοστόν τι ποιήσεις. σὺ μὲν ἄρχεις καλῶς, ἐγὼ δὲ ἄρχομαι, φησὶ (sc. ὃ Βίων), xat σὺ μὲν πολλῶν, ἐγὼ δὲ ἑνὸς τουτουΐ παιδαγωγὸς γενόμενος, καὶ σὺ μὲν εὔπορος γενόμενος δίδως ἐλευθερίως, ἐγὼ δὲ λαμβάνω εὐθαρσῶς παρὰ σοῦ οὐχ ὑποπίπτων οὐδὲ ἀγεννίζων οὐδὲ μεμψιμιοιρῶν. Teles (c. 230 Β.6.), quoting his predecessor Bion, is urging that every man must play the part that Fortune assigns him, and says: “Tf, then, you are a second-class actor, don’t envy the réle of the first-class player. If you do, you will commit blunders. You are a ruler, I am a subject (says [Bion]); you have many under you, I, as a tutor, but this one; and you grow prosperous and give generously, while I cheerfully receive from you without fawning or degrading myself or complaining.” It is to be noted that in the first sentence from Teles σύ is the man with the inferior actor’s part, while in the rest of the passage σύ is the more prosperous man, in contrast to the speaker, who modestly pre- sents himself as the representative of lesser worldly fortune. This is not unlike the way in which James (see below) fails to preserve strictly the réles of his fragmentary dialogue. On the ‘‘ideal’’ second person in Greek (equivalent to τις), see Gil- dersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, i, 1900, p. 41, with many examples. ἔχεις. To be taken as an affirmation not a question. ἔχεις and ἔχω are manifestly parallel. 210 JAMES πίστιν means πίστιν χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, or, at least, with a minimum of ἔργα. ἔργα is ἔργα with a minimum of πίστις. δεῖξον, “show,” ‘‘prove,” “demonstrate,”’ cf. Jas. 31%. Here begins the reply addressed to the objector. James replies, first, by a challenge to the objector to produce a case of faith stand- ing by itself without accompanying works. ‘This challenge rests on the assumption that such a “dead” faith is really no faith at all. James, however, does not pursue that aspect of the mat- ter, but proceeds, secondly (κἀγώ σοι δείξω), with the converse of the first challenge, in the form of an offer to show that any case of works supposed to stand by themselves without under- lying faith is merely deceptive and really implies a co-existent faith. On the form of expression, by challenge and offer, cf. Theoph. Ad Autol. i, 2 δεῖξόν μοι τὸν ἄνθρωπόν cov κἀγώ σοι δείξω τὸν θεόν μου, Epictet. i, 6% ἐγώ σοι δείξω. σὺ δ᾽ ἐμοὶ δείκνυε and other references in Bultmann, p. 33. χωρίς] BSACP minn ff vg boh sah syrpesh. bel arm. ἐχ] KL minnlosee plu, An unfortunate conformation to the follow- ing clause, which spoils the sense. It is interesting that in the English A.V. the influence of the Vulgate (sine) led to the rendering “‘ without,”’ which is not a correct translation of the Received Greek Text, which reads éx. χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων] CKL minnpler add σου, doubtless part of the same emendation which produced éx. κἀγώ σοι δείξω. “From the very existence of righteous con- duct the fact of faith can be demonstrated, for without faith I could not do the works.”’ Note the elegant construction of this sentence in which the chiastic order πέστιν---ἔργων,͵ ἔργων --πίστιν well corresponds to the natural emphasis. χἀγώ σοι δείξω] BS minn. χἀγὼ δείξω σοι] ΑΓ ΚΙ, minn vg. A weakening conformation to order of preceding δεῖξόν μοι. é% τῶν ἔργων μου] ff vg syrbe! omit wou, by a conformation to their text of the preceding clause. II, 18 211 πίστιν 3°] BNC 33 minn ff. πίστιν wou] AKLP minnpler yg boh sah syrpesh. hel, Conformation to τὴν πίστιν σου. The interpretations of this difficult verse are very numerous and for the most part highly subtle and unsatisfactory. The interpretation presented above, which was given by Pott in Koppe’s Novum Testa- mentum*, 1816, and by H. Bouman, Commentarius perpetuus in Jacobi epistolam, Utrecht, 1865, differs from others in taking σύ and ἐγώ in the defense as referring merely to two representatives of different types of religion, not to the writer of the epistle and the objector himself. Thereby one of the chief difficulties of the exegesis is overcome, namely, the difficulty that σύ and ἐγώ in the objection (v. 185) do not suit well the corresponding ἐμοί, wou, and cou, cot, in the retort of James (v. 18>). With any other mode of interpretation it seems impossible to gain a satisfactory sense from the passage. The interpretations are divided into two main groups, according as ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις is taken (1) as interposing a reply in defense of the ten- dency censured in vv. 1.17, or (2) as introducing the reinforcement of an ally who adds his word in the same contention as that of James. I. τις as an objector. This interpretation (which I adopt) finds its support chiefly in the argument used above, that this is the only natural meaning of the phrase ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖ τις in such a context. Under this view the words introduced by ἐρεῖ will not extend beyond ἔχω, v. 155, for δεῖξον xtA. is evidently spoken in the interest of James’s main contention. As to how the words (185) can express an objection, and what that objection is, opin- ions have been various. The first and most obvious difficulty in this view has always been that the objector seems to declare that James has faith, while the objector himself has works. That would reverse their respective parts, and the difficulty has been met in three ways. 1. Since the objection is quoted by James, σύ is taken as if from James’s point of view and ἐγώ asif referring to James: “But someone will say, ‘Thou (7. 6. the representative of the class just censured) hast faith, while I (James) have works.’” This‘is taken either (a) as a de- fense of the class censured, on the ground that several types of religion are alike admissible, or (6) as an attack upon James, who is declared to have only works (which are inferior to faith), whereas the person attacked has faith, the superior quality (so Weiss). To this, under either form, (a) or (b), James replies that faith cannot exist alone. Both these explanations are exposed to the fatal difficulty that the objection of the defender is given in direct discourse (as, 6. g., in 2%) so that ἐγώ cannot possibly refer to James; the interpretation of Weiss is exposed to the further, equally fatal, objection that it is impos- sible to suppose that James could have introduced, in the mouth of a 212 JAMES supposititious defender, such an insulting personal attack on himself. The rhetorical device of the objector’s defense is very characteristic of Greek popular moral exhortation of this period, and is always adopted solely in order to state vividly a possible point of view, in itself not wholly unreasonable, but liable to the crushing rejoinder with which the author follows it. It must be assumed as intended to aid, not to hinder, the development of the main contention. To withdraw the reader’s mind from the main subject by raising the question of the author’s own character and principles would be a strangely inept turn. Moreover, for Weiss’s view the precise bearing of the attack (through the supposed inferiority of works to faith) would have to be more clearly expressed. James nowhere lays himself open to the accusation that he thinks works can exist without faith. 2. Asecond way of meeting the difficulty is that of von Soden, WH. mg., and others, who take ἔχεις as a question, by which doubt is ex- pressed of James’s possession of faith; thus: James: “Faith without works is dead.” Opponent: ‘Hast thou any faith?” James: “I have works. Show me thy faith without works, and I will prove that I have faith.” Apart from the fact that this interpretation gives the passage too much the character of personal debate, with an argumentum ad hominem, to suit the style proper to general hortatory moral writing, this theory fails because it does violence to the Greek. For (a), in order to call in question James’s faith, the opponent would have had to say μὴ od πίστιν ἔχεις ; (cf.e.g. v.14). The present form of the question would be wholly weak and unnatural. (Ὁ) The theory neglects the obvious parallelism of σὺ ἔχεις, κἀγὼ ἔχω, in which the presence of χαί and the lack of any sufficient introduction to the second part make it impossible to assume that we have a question and answer. 3. (a) In despair of any other solution, Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, 11887, p.874; #1902, ii, p. 547; Εἰ. Y. Hincks (Journal of Bibl. Literature, Xvili, 1899, pp. 199-201), Baljon, Katholieke Brieven, 1904, p. 42, have declared the text corrupt, and propose to read against all Mss. (except the Latin Codex Corbeiensis [ff], the reading of which is admittedly a secondary correction) σὺ ἔργα ἔχεις χἀγὼ πίστιν ἔχω. The meaning will then be, as in the explanation defended above, an appeal by the opponent to the equal value of various religious gifts, faith and works both being good in their own way. In the text as re- constructed each gift will be assigned to the right person, faith to the opponent, works to James. But (1) this reconstruction of the text is too violent a procedure to be acceptable so long as any other explanation can be found, and (2) the resulting text is unsatisfactory. For James’s own character and principles have not been in question, and to represent the defender as II, 18 218 here drawing a sharp contrast specifically between James and himself is to make the words amount to an attack on James. Thus this solu- tion is exposed to the same objections as that of Weiss already discussed. (Ὁ) Of the same violent sort is the suggestion of Spitta, followed by Hollmann, that the objection originally introduced by ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις has fallen out, so that originally od πίστιν ἔχεις constituted the first words of James’s rejoinder. But such a rejoinder, in which the writer declares that he possesses these highly prized works, would be very unnatural, to say nothing of the fact that James would not have admitted voluntarily and gratu- itously that his own faith required proof. And Spitta’s attempt to reconstruct the objection introduced by ἐρεῖ τις is weak (“Aus dem Fehlen gewisser Werke kénne nicht geschlossen werden, der Glaube sei nicht lebendig, und die Werke, auf welche Jakobus poche, kénnten den Mangel der πίστις nicht ersetzen,” p. 79). Hollmann’s attempt is equally unconvincing: “ Allein da wird jemand sagen: [Was niitzen Werke ohne Glauben? Ich aber habe Glauben!] Du hast Glauben und ich habe Werke? Zeige mir deinen Glauben” (in J. Weiss, Schriften des N. T. ii, 1908, p. το). 4. The interpretation defended above is not open to any of these objections. Il. τις as an ally. The unsatisfactoriness of the more usual of the interpretations above described has led a second group of interpreters to take the sentence introduced by ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις as coming not from an opponent but from a third party, who is an ally of James. The sentence od πίστιν ἔχεις χἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω is then taken to be merely the introduction, establish- ing a basis for argument, while δεῖξόν wor xtA. contains the real gist of the utterance of τις: ‘Nay, someone will say, ‘Thou (the person censured by James) hast, or art supposed to have, faith, while I (the ally of James now speaking) really have works; in fact thy faith (since it cannot be demonstrated by works) is not only dead but practically non-existent, while my recognized works prove that I have faith as well.’ ” Where the quotation from the imaginary ally stops is less easy to determine, and that is not very important, since in most forms of this theory the point of view of the ally and of James are identical. Some ‘make it stop with v. 18, others carry the interjected remarks on to the end of v. 33, This latter view has the great disadvantage of separating the example of Abraham from the parallel instance of Rahab. 1. Under the more common form of this view (De Wette, Beyschlag, Mayor) the interrupting τις is thought of as another Christian; ἀλλά is taken as like immo vero (cf. Jn. 162, Phil. 118, Lk. 1271621); od πίστιν ἔχεις is given the meaning “‘thou pretendest to have faith,” a pretense which is shown to be false in the sentence δεῖξόν μοι χτλ. 214 JAMES But the natural sense of ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις is too clear to permit here this meaning of ἀλλά; and it is not justifiable to make ἔχεις equivalent to λέγεις ἔχειν. Further, the introduction of an ally, representing the same point of view, is wholly uncalled for, and cannot be accounted for on the ground either of “‘modesty” (Mayor) or of “dramatic vivid- ness” (Beyschlag). It would have to be made more obvious by the context. James cannot thus boast of works, nor has he occasion to defend himself against any charge of lack of faith. This interpretation, although widely held, cannot be accepted. 2. A more plausible form of this theory, or rather an important ad- vance upon it, is the interpretation of Zahn (Hinleitung, i, § 4, note 4), based upon the view of Hofmann and Stier. Zahn accepts the view that τις is a kind of ally, but finds that the only ally that would suit the conditions is an unbelieving Jew, whose supposed words run through v.19: “Nay, if you maintain your practices, some Jew will say, ‘Thou, as a Christian, hast thy faith, and I, as a Jew, my works; but thy con- duct gives the lie to thy professions of faith, whereas my conduct shows that I have all the faith a man needs. Thy vaunted faith is no more than that of the demons.’ ” This is concrete and has advantages over most other interpretations. But the difficulty remains that ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις is more naturally taken as introducing not a reinforcement of James’s position, but an objection or defense of those censured. Further, in the general style of this epistle (which is not a true letter addressed to a definite body of readers) such a reference to Jewish Christian argu- ment would have to be made more explicit and clear. And, finally, there is noevidence that faith and works were ever the accepted party cries of Jews and Christians. On the contrary, faith characterised the Jew, and not ἔργα but νόμος and περιτομή were what he claimed as his distinction, cf. Rom. 9‘ ὅ, Phil. 43. And the content of faith, as indicated in v. 1%, is a monotheism which Jew and Christian shared. Tf faith, as such, were here thought of as that which distinguishes Christian from Jew, v. 19 could not possibly have been written. Similar is the view of E. Haupt (Studien und Kritiken, vol. lvi, 1883, Ρ. 187), who substitutes a non-christian moralist for the Pharisaic Jew. This is open to the same objections as Zahn’s view, and to the additional one that, especially in Palestine, the defender of “mere morality” seems less appropriate in such a tract than the polemical Jew. For criticism of various views, besides the commentaries see Holtz- mann, Lehrb. d. neutest. Theologie?, 1911, ii, p. 374, note 2. 19-26. Argument from the instances of the demons and of Abraham and Rahab. (a) v.19, Faith by itself can be exerted by demons. (Ὁ) vv. 3.- In Abraham’s case, faith had to be com- pleted by works in order to secure justification. II, 18-19 215 (c) ν. 35. Likewise Rahab was justified by works. (4) v. 8. Thus faith without works is dead. 19, Faith (even the supreme faith in One God) can be ex- erted by demons, who are not thereby saved. James, after refuting the excuse of the objector, proceeds with his main argument. The point made in v. 19 is in support of the original proposition of vv. 14:17, that faith without works is dead; v.19 is thus an argument parallel to that of vv. 1516 πιστεύεις, Perhaps better taken as affirmation than (Tdf. WH.) as question. ὅτι εἷς θεὸς ἔστιν. This, the existence and unity of God, is doubtless thought of as the chief element in faith, but it is going too far to represent it as including the whole of James’s conception of faith. Cf. the emphasis on monotheism (with reference to Christ added) in r Cor. 8* 6, Eph. 4°, 1 Thess. 13. The emphasis on monotheism as the prime article of the Jewish creed is to be seen in the Shema (Deut. 64), “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord” (cf. Mk. 127%), and may be illustrated from Philo, De opif. mundi, 61 ; De nobilitate, 5; Leg. ad Gaium, 16. See Bousset, Religion des Judentums, ch. 15. That a strong perception of the fundamental and distinctive significance of monotheism passed over into the early church may be illustrated from Hermas, Mand. i, πρῶτον πάντων πίσ- Tevoov ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός. it was not peculiar to Jewish Christians. Cf. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christen- tums, Buch ii, Kap. 9. ὅτι εἷς θεὸς ἔστιν] BC (ὃ θεός) minn? ff Priscill. ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὃ θεός] NA min! vg. ὅτι ὃ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν] ΚΙ, minnpler, Some other minor variations in a few minuscules are due to the omission of the article before θεός. The Latin versions are: ff quia unus deus ; Priscillian guia unus deus est ; Vg quoniam unus est deus. The text of KL has probably put ὁ θεός first in order to give it a more emphatic position. As between the other two readings, that of B is less conventional (see Mayor’s note, p. too), hence more likely to be original. The parallel 412 probably exhibits the same tendency, for 216 JAMES there also the reading of B (with P, which is here lacking) is probably right as against an emender who inserted the article. καλῶς ποιεῖς, cf. ν. 8, καλῶς ποιεῖτε. “This is good as far as it goes,” perhaps said with a slight touch of irony, asin Mk. 7°. τὰ δαιμόνια. The evil spirits whose presence and power is so often referred to in the Gospels; cf. 315. This is better than to think of the gods of the heathen, whom nothing here suggests. πιστεύουσιν. For illustration of this, cf. Mt. 829, Mk. 174. φρίσσουσιν, ‘shudder in terror.” This word properly means “bristle up,” cf. Latin horreo, horresco. The ‘‘shuddering awe” of demons and others before the majesty of God was a current idea, cf. Dan. 74%, Or. Man. 4, Jos. B. J. v, 103; Justin Martyr, Dial. 49, Χριστῷ ὃν χαὶ τὰ δαιμόνια φρίσσει (cf. Dial. 30 and 121), Test. Abrah., Rec. A, 16; Xen. Cyr. iv, 215; the Orphic fragment (nos. 238, 239) found in Clem. Alex. Strom. v, 14, p. 724 P. δαίμονες ὃν φρίσσουσι ; and passages quoted by Hort, ad loc. Here the thought is of a fear which stands in contrast to the peace of salvation. A faith which brings forth only this result is barren. Cf. Deissmann, Bzbelstudien, pp. 42 f., E. Tr. Ὁ, 288. 20-24. The argument from reason of ν. 19 is followed by an argument from Scripture. In the great case of Abraham faith and works co-operated to secure justification. 20. θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι. Introducing this new argument: ‘Do you desire ἃ proof?” Like the similar Rom. 13? (see Lietz- mann, ad loc. in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 1906), this can be taken as an affirmative sentence with little difference of meaning. ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, This address to a single person corresponds with v. 14, v.19, and ν. 3, In v. 24 the writer falls out of the singular into the more natural but less forcible and pungent plural, perhaps because he is there giving a summary statement in conclusion. Direct address in the singular, and in harsh tone, is characteristic of the diatribe, so ὦ ταλαίπωρε, τάλας, σαν- νίων͵ μωρέ, πονηρέ, infelix, miser, stulte; cf. Bultmann, p. 14. κενός means “empty,” ἡ. 6. “deficient,” and is used here much ΤΠ 10 21 217 like “fool”; ο΄. the Aramaic δ paxd, Mt. 5%, also Paul’s ἄφρων, “thou fool,” τ Cor. 1535, and ὦ ἄνθρωπε, Rom. 21 9, See Trench, Synonyms, ὃ xlix, and Mayor’, p. 102. It is used as a common term of disparagement in obvious senses in Hermas, Mand. xi, passim. The strong expression is called out by James’s abhorrence of this sham faith. The view of Hilgenfeld and others, that the Apostle Paul is meant as the ἄνθρωπος xevéc hardly needs to be referred to. apyn, “ineffective,” “barren” (R.V.), “unprofitable,” “un- productive of salvation,” cf. Mt. 1236, 2 Pet. 18, Wisd. 145 (with Grimm’s note); this sense is common in classical Greek, where ἀργός is connected with such words as χώρα, γῆ, χρή- ματα, δόρυ͵ χρόνος, διατριβή. Cf. νεκρός, vv. 11, 26, in much the same sense. There is possibly a little play on words here, between χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων and ἀργή (from ἀ-εργης). éoyn] ΒΟ minn ff sah. γεχρά] SAC2KLP minnpler boh syrresh. hel, (Conformation to v. 26 21. ᾿Αβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν, Cf. Mt. 39, Rom. 41, 4 Macc. 16” 17° (Codd. 8V, and better reading), Pirke Aboth, v, 4°, etc. On Abraham as the supreme example of faith, see EB and JE, art. “Abraham,” Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 154-164. The use of this phrase suggests that the writer was a Jew, but is not wholly conclusive, for the Christians held themselves to be the spiritual children of Abraham (cf. Gal. 37, Rom. 4151). Cf. τ Cor. τοι, Clem. Rom. 312, which were addressed to readers not of Jewish extraction. ἐδικαιώθη. Used here as a familiar and current term sub- stantially equivalent to σῶσαι, ν. 14, δικαιοῦν means “pronounce righteous,” “acquit” (e.g. Ex. 237), and hence is used of God with reference to the great assize on the day of judgment. Like σώζειν, however (cf. Acts 247, 1 Cor. 174) the word was used by anticipation, as it is here in James, to refer to the present establishment of a claim to (or "218 JAMES acceptance of the gift of) such acquittal (e.g. Lk. 184, Rom. 8%). The meaning of the word δικαιοῦν in Paul’s use does not differ from that which he found already current, although his theological doctrine of justification, which he set forth with the aid of the word, was highly original. Nor does the meaning in the present verse depart at all from the ordinary. The justi- fication here referred to is not anything said by God in Genesis, but is the fulfilment of the promises there recorded. See Lex. s.v. δικαιθω. HDB, “Justification”; Sanday, Romans, pp. 28-31. For an account of many attempts to give a different meaning to ἐδικαιώθη, see Beyschlag, pp. 132 f. ἐξ ἔργων. Cf. Rom. 4, especially ν.", εἰ yap ᾿Α βραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχημα - ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρὸς θεόν KTr., Rom. 3% 38, Gal. 215 οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου κτλ. The contention of James corresponds to the usual Jewish view and to a somewhat superficial common sense. Note how in Rom. 41, as here, the case of Abraham is brought in as the great test case to which the readers’ minds are likely spontaneously to turn and to which the opponent will appeal. In each case the writer has to argue against the established idea of his readers, Paul against the Jew, James against the Christian who is using the justifica- tion of Abraham as a cloak for iniquity. Hence the abruptness of the opening in both cases. ἀνενέγκας KTX., Gen. 22” 9. This was an ἔργον, and is here presented as the ground of Abraham’s justification. See note on ἐπίστευσεν, ν. 33, That Abraham was justified and saved was of course recog- nised by all; that his justification depended not merely on the initial act of faith, but also on his confirmatory manifestation of this faith under trial is the contention of James. This, he thinks, becomes clear so soon as reference is made to the great incident of the sacrifice of Isaac, whereby (Gen. 221) the vital reality of Abraham’s faith was tested, and on which followed (Gen. 2215-18) a renewal of the promise. Abraham’s failure to ΤῊ, 20-22 219 sustain this test would have shown his faith weak and doubt- less have prevented his justification; thus the inference from the great representative case of Abraham to the situation of the readers themselves was unavoidable. At the same time James’s real contention in vv. *-* is not so much of the necessity of works as of the inseparability of vital faith and works. Not merely are works needed in order to perfect faith, but faith likewise aids works. This is all said in reply to the suggestion in v. 15 that faith and works are sep- arable functions of the Christian life. In this connection note the singular, βλέπεις, v. 2, and con- trast, v. 24, ὁρᾶτε. The article with θυσιαστήριον has reference to the well-known altar of the story (cf. Gen. 22°). ἀναφέρειν, in the sense of “offer” (as a religious act), appears to be foreign to secular Greek (which uses προσφέρειν), and due to the LXX, where it is common, mainly as a translation for nbyn, less often for vup7. Inthe LXX προσφέρειν is mainly used for 2477. See West- cott’s note on Heb. 727. θυσιαστήριον, likewise, in the sense of “altar,” is not found in secular Greek writers; see Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 453-461. 22. ὅτι. The force of 67 probably runs through wv. 232 and "Ὁ. ἡ πίστις. The existence and efficiency of Abraham’s faith (which has not previously been mentioned) is assumed, but alone it is declared not to have been adequate to secure justi- fication. συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ. συνήργει] N*A ff read συνεργεῖ. The weight of ff is here diminished by the fact that it also renders ἐτελειώθη (for which there is no Greek variant) by the present tense confirmatur. “Faith helped works, and works completed faith,” sc. toward the end of justification, as v. #4 indicates. In this general state- ment the mutual relation of faith and works is made plain— the two are inseparable in a properly conducted life (cf. v. 18»). It is thus hardly true to say that the whole emphasis here rests on τοῖς ἔργοις. Bengel: duo commata quorum in priore si 220 JAMES illud, fides, in aliero operibus cum accentu pronunciaveris, sen- tentia liquido percipietur, qua exprimitur, quid utravis pars altert conferat. The change of tense (συνήργει, ἐτελειώθη) is due to the dif- fering nature of the two words (“linear” and “punctiliar,” cf. J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 108 f.). Tots ἔργοις, dat. of advantage. συνεργεῖν is a common enough Greek word, but is found in the LXX only in 1 Esd. 72 and 1 Macc. 12!, and in the N. T. only Mk. 16”, Rom. 828, 1 Cor. 16!6, 2 Cor. 64. It means “co- operate with,” “assist,” “help.” The E.V. “wrought with” is misleading, because it tends to put too much emphasis on “wrought” and not enough on “with.” Grimm (Lex. 5. Ὁ. συνεργέω) interprets: ‘Faith (was not inactive, but by coworking) caused Abraham to produce works,” and this view is held by many. V. 18 does, indeed, suggest that James had reached this conception of the relation of faith and works as source and product, but it is not expressed in v. 35, nor is it directly implied there. The persistent attempts to find it in v. * are ultimately due to Protestant commentators’ interest in the doctrine of the supremacy of faith. Not the power of vital faith to produce works, but the imseparability of faith and works is James’s contention throughout this passage. The argu- ment is directed against those who would excuse lack of works by appealing to their faith; faith alone, it is declared, is ineffective for securing salvation. That συνήργει is used in conscious contrast to ἀργὴ (ἀ-εργὴ) 15 com- monly affirmed, but this interpretation spoils the sense. James does not mean that Abraham’s faith, being accompanied by (συν-) works, was effective (-qeyer), but that faith and works co-operated. ἐτελειώθη, “was perfected,” not as if previously, before the works, it had been an imperfect kind of faith, but meaning that it “was completed” (almost ‘‘supplemented”), and so enabled to do its proper work. If, when the test came, the faith had not been matched by works, then it would have been proved to be an incomplete faith. The works showed that the faith had always been of the right kind, and so ‘‘completed”’ it. Schneckenburger and many others take the opposite view, “jides theoretica imperfecta est donec accedat praxis’’; but these plain people’s II, 22-23 221 faith was no such theologian’s theory. Huther and Beyschlag think of faith as “‘perfected,” in the sense of growing strong by exercise in works, but this is not exactly the writer’s thought here. Calvin and others try to give to ἐτελειώθη the unlikely sense ‘‘was shown to be perfect.” Others urge that the process was the complete development of what faith really was. The difficulties which the commentators find are due partly to dogmatic prepossession, partly to their error in sup- posing that James was a subtle theologian who did not write his practical maxims and swift popular arguments until he had thought out the exact definitions, psychological distinctions, and profound and elusive relations involved in the subject. 23, καὶ ἐπληρώθη. καί introduces the result of συνήργει καὶ ἐτελειώθη. ἡ γραφή, viz. Gen. 15°, quoted accurately from the LXX, ex- cept that all but two of the chief Mss. have καὶ ἐπίστευσεν for ἐπίστευσεν δέ. Paul’s quotation in Rom. 43 has δέ, but so do Philo, De mut. nom. 33; Clem. Rom. τοῦ; Justin Martyr, Dial. 92, so that the agreement need not be significant for the relation of James to Paul. See Hatch, Essays, p. 156, where the evidence is given in full. _ The passage Gen. 15% (ἐλογίσθη κτλ.) is taken as a prophecy. As such, it was really fulfilled by Abraham’s conduct set forth in Gen. 22. “And so, by the addition of conduct (whereby his faith was manifested) his faith was perfected, the Scripture promise that he should be justified was fulfilled, and he was called God’s friend.” ‘The same passage of Genesis is also used by Paul (Rom. 45, Gal. 3°) as proof of his doctrine of justifica- tion by faith; James, as if in reply, points out that what he has been saying in v. 3: shows that works had to come in and perfect this faith in order to bring about the desired end of justification. ἐπίστευσεν. In Gen. 15° the object οἵ Abraham’s faith is that God will fulfil the promise just given and grant him an heir. In τ Macc. 252, ᾿Αβραὰμ οὐκ ἐν πειρασμῷ εὑρέθη πιστός, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ δικαιοσύνη (Codd. 8V εἰς δικαιοσύνην), Gen. 15° is al- luded to, and the signal exhibition of this faith in the sacri- fice of Isaac (Gen. 22, note 221) appears to be in mind. So here in James the sacrifice of Abraham is the act which manifests 222 JAMES the faith, cf. Gen. 22118; and this seems to follow the ordinary Jewish understanding of the matter. In other passages of the N. T. the case is various. Rom. 4!’ #- refers to the belief of God’s promise of a son; Heb. 118 #- to the faith shown by Abra- ham’s departure for an unknown country; Heb. 11° to his residence in Canaan; Heb. 1117 #- to the sacrifice of Isaac. Clem. Rom. 31 connects the sacrifice of Isaac with Abraham’s righteousness and faith; Gen. τοῦ is quoted, but the precise nature of Abraham’s faith is not indicated. ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ eis δικαιοσύνην. From Gen. 15°. The same expression is found (of Phinehas) in Ps. 106% 3; cf. Gen. 15° (with Skinner’s note), Deut. 241%, “it shall be right- eousness unto thee before the Lord, thy God,” Deut. 65, Prov. 2714, Τί means that God accounted the act (here an act of faith) to be righteous, ἡ. 6. righteous in special and distinguished meas- ure. The developed use of δικαιοσύνη to denote the possession of God’s approval on the whole, and not merely with reference to a single act, necessarily enlarged the meaning of the expres- sion, which in the N. T. is treated as equivalent to ἐδικαιώθη. The name of God is avoided in the LXX translation by recasting the sentence and using the passive voice ἐλογίσθη for the active verb of the Hebrew (see Dalman, Worte Jesu, i, pp. 183 /f., Eng. transl., pp. 224-226). Similarly in Ps. 106% ἢ. 1 Macc. 252, καὶ φίλος θεοῦ ἐκλήθη. This sentence, which is not to be included as a part of ἡ γραφή, is parallel to ἡ πίστις ἐτελειώθη Kai ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφή, “Tn this fact (ἡ. 6. ἐκλήθη) the promise implied in ἐλογίσθη was fulfilled.” The reward was greater than in the case of the justification and salvation of ordinary men. “Friend of God,” 2. 6. “beloved by God,” appears to have been a designation commonly applied to Abraham. So Is. 418 (ABpadp ὃν ἠγάπησα, Aq. ἀγαπητοῦ μου, Sym. Tod φίλου μου); Philo, De sobr. 11, Μ. p. 401 (where in quoting Gen. 18!” φίλου μου is substituted for παιδός pov), Jubilees τοῦ 30%, Test. Abraham, passim. The same idea is expressed in different language in 2 Chron. 207 (ἠγαπημένος), Dan. 335, 4 Ezra 314, il, 23-24 223 Philo, De Abrahamo, το (θεοφιλής), and Abraham’s love to God is emphasised in Pirke Aboth, v, 4. Among modern Arabs the common designation of Abraham is “the friend of God,” el khalil Allah, or el khalil (cf. Koran, sura iv, 124), and the name is even given to Hebron, his burial-place; cf. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, 1885, p. 269. In view of this evidence it can only be said that Clem. Rom. ro! (Αβραάμ, ὁ φίλος προσαγορευθείς), 17?, Tertullian, Adv. Jud@os 2, unde Abraham amicus dei deputatus? do not furnish proof of the dependence of Clement of Rome and Tertullian on James. In Iren. iv, τό", ipse Abraham sine circumcisione et sine observatione sabbatorum, credidit deo, et reputatum est illi ad jus- titiam, et amicus dei vocatus est, the similar combination of Gen. τοῦ and this sentence is probably a mere coincidence. See In- troduction, pp. 87, 90 [. It seems more likely that James writes here with the title already commonly applied to Abraham in mind than that he uses φίλος as merely equivalent to δικαιωθείς, as many (6. g. Spitta, pp. 82 f.) hold. Yet the repeated use in the Book of Jubilees (chs. 19, 30) of the expression “written down as a friend of God,” in the sense of “‘ having been granted salvation,” and the connection in one instance (ch. 30) of this expression with the phrase, “it became righteousness to them,” gives some plausi- bility to such a view. In any case φίλος θεοῦ ἐκλήθη and ἐδικαιώθη relate to the same act of God, whether the former is a mere equivalent of the latter or has a larger meaning. But to assume that James was thinking of the “heavenly tablets” when he wrote ἐχλήθη is gratuitous. Jewish thought knew of other ways by which God could give a name besides inscribing it in a book. 24, ὁρῶτε, direct address in plural, as everywhere in the epistle except vv. 1828, of. 4 Macc. 124, Clem. Rom. 12°. KL minnpler add tofvuy. ἐκ πίστεως μόνον, i. e. without the aid and co-operation (ς΄. ν. 3) of works. This is a formal and conclusive reply to the question of v. 13. It is not to be inferred that James held to a justification by works without faith. Such a misunderstanding is so abhorrent to his doctrine of the inseparability of faith and works that it does not occur to him 224 JAMES to guard himself against it. And the idea itself would have been foreign to Jewish as well as to Christian thought. The fate of the heathen does not come into the question. 25. An additional argument from Scripture: Rahab’s jus- tification came from works. ‘PaaB ἡ πόρνη, so Josh. 617 2% 25; cf. Josh. 21-7! 61." 322-25 Heb. ττὖῖ, Mt. 15, Clem. Rom. 12. Older writers tried to soften the reference by taking πόρνη in some unnatural sense, as cook, landlady (here following Jewish guidance), or idolater; but the literal sense is the only possible one; see Lightfoot’s note on Clem. Rom. 12. In Jewish midrash of various ages Rahab was the subject of much interest. She was believed to have become a sincere proselyte, to have married Joshua, and to have been the ances- tress of many priests and prophets, including Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Her faith as implied in Josh. 2" was deemed notably complete, and was said to have evoked the express recognition of God himself; and she, with certain other proselyte women, was called “the pious.” See JE, ‘“Rahab.” This evidence of special Jewish attention to Rahab, although the actual rabbin- ical passages are some of them late, fully justifies the assump- tion that the references to Rahab in Hebrews and Clement of Rome are independent of this verse in James; cf. Introduction, pp. 22, 87. It is noteworthy that none of the words used to describe Rahab’s conduct are the same in Hebrews and in James. Clement of Rome may, of course, here as elsewhere, be dependent on Hebrews. ἐξ ἔργων. The works consisted in the friendly reception (ὑποδεξαμένη) and aid in escaping (ἐκβαλοῦσα) given to the spies, as described in Josh. 2. The faith to which an opponent might have pointed (cf. Heb. 1124, Clem. Rom. 12) is displayed in Rahab’s words, Josh. 2°", especially v. 1: ὅτε κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν θεὸς (so Cod. A) ἐν οὐρανῷ ἄνω καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κάτω. The choice of Abraham and Rahab as examples here is prob- ably to be explained by observing that the one was the accepted and natural representative of faith and justification, while the II, 24-26 225 other is an extreme case, where, if anywhere, James’s argument might seem to fail. Notice καί, and a certain emphasis on ἡ πόρνη, “even though a harlot.” These two instances thus cover the whole wide range of possibilities. This is better than the view, long ago suggested, that the mention of Rahab, a prose- lyte from the Gentiles, shows that the epistle was addressed to Christian communities containing Gentiles as well as Jews (Zahn, Einleitung, ὃ 4, Eng. transl. i, p. 91). ἀγγέλους] ΟἸΚΕΙ͂, minn ff boh syrpesh. bel read χατασχόπους, cf. Heb. 1141, ἐκβαλοῦσα, “sent out,” with no thought of any violence of aeuon, cf. Mt. 0% 12**, Lk. 642 10%. 26. Concluding statement. ὥσπερ. The deadness of faith without works is illustrated from a dead body. With works absent, faith is no more alive than is a body without the πνεῦμα. The comparison is sometimes said to halt, because, whereas the death of the body is caused by the departure of the spirit, the deadness of faith is not caused, but only recognised, by its failure to produce works; and it is suggested that faith, as the source of activity, could better be compared with the spirit, and works with the body. But to the mind of James faith and works co-operate to secure justification, and by works faith is kept alive. So the body and the spirit co-operate to secure continued life, and by the spirit the body is kept alive. When v. 22 is given its true meaning, the parallel is seen to be better than is often thought. γάρ] B syrresh arm omit. ff renders autem. πνεύματος. This is most naturally taken of “the vital prin- ciple by which the body is animated.” A less probable interpretation takes πνεῦμα as meaning “breath,” which the body is thought of as producing. This makes a more com- plete parallel to the relation of faith and the works which it ought to produce, but is forced. Cf. Ps. 10429, Tob. 36; Q. Curtius Rufus, x, 19 tlud scire debetis militarem sine duce turbam corpus esse sine spiritu. 226 JAMES II. ON THE TEACHER’S CALLING (318). CHAPTER II. Ch. 3 relates to the Teacher and Wise Man. That the two are treated as substantially identical is significant. It is inter- esting to compare the directions for leaders of the Christian community given in the Pastoral Epistles or in the Didache. The main thought in vv.! is the greater responsibility of teachers and the extremely dangerous character of the instru- ment which they have to use. In vv. *! the noble possibili- ties of the tongue are presented as a motive for checking its lower propensities. This passage naturally connects itself with 719 1. 26 212, In vv. 13-18 the discussion springs from the same abhorrence of sham which gives rise to so much of ch. τ (vv. &8 22-27), and controls the thought throughout ch. 2. 1-3. Against overeagerness to be teachers ; in view of the great responsibility involved, and of the difficulty of controlling the tongue. 1. μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, “Do not many of you become teachers.”’ πολλοί is to be regarded either as subject or as in apposition with the proper subject (in that case ὑμεῖς) ; διδάσκαλοι is predicate; cf. Heb. 7%. πολλοί] L by a not unusual corruption reads πολλύ. This does not point to a reading πολύ, and has no relation to the mistranslation of m nolite multiloqui esse (cf. Mt. 67). διδάσκαλος means rabbi (cf. Mt. 238, Lk. 24%, Jn. 138 2018 310; see references in Lex. 5. vv. διδάσκαλος and ῥαββῶ, and the teachers here referred to, if in Jewish Christian churches, would naturally have occupied a place not unlike that of rabbis in the synagogues. This would apply both to the dignity of the po- sition and to a part of the duties of the rabbis. Among Chris- tians the term was used both for a teacher resident in a church (Acts 13!, Antioch) and for a travelling missionary (Didache r1f- 13? 152), Nothing in the text indicates whether James’s reference was limited to one or the other of these classes. The III, I 227 position of teacher was the function of a specially gifted person, not a standing office, and it was plainly possible for a man who believed himself competent for the work to put himself forward and take up the activities of a teacher. James is himself a teacher (λημψόμεθα, ν. 1), and points out the moral dangers of the teacher’s life, with special insistence on the liability to opin- ionated disputatiousness (vv. *18). A good concrete impres- sion of the nature of the meetings at which they spoke may be gathered from 1 Cor. 14. The Epistle of James itself will give an idea of one of the types of early Christian “teaching.” Teachers were important from the earliest times (Acts 13!, 1 Cor. 1238, Eph. 4") and were found in the Christian churches of many lands. The references of this epistle would seem applicable in any part of the world and during any part of the period which is open for the date of the epistle. An interesting expansion of this exhortation of James found in the first pseudo-clementine Epistle to Virgins, i, 11, is prob- ably from Palestine or Syria in the third century, and vividly illustrates the same situation even at that late time (text in Funk, Patres apostolici, vol. ii; Eng. transl. in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Buffalo, 1886, vol. viii). On teachers in the early church, see articles in DD.BB., and especially Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, 1906, pp. 279-308; Eng. transl. ?1908, i, pp. 333-366, where a great amount of interesting material is collected and discussed. ἀδελφοί μου, introducing a new section, cf. 1219 2! 14 57, 12, εἰδότες, “for you know,” presenting a motive. μεῖζον κρίμα, “greater condemnation”; cf. Mk. 12” (Lk. 2047) οὗτοι λήμψονται περισσότερον κρίμα, Rom. 13%. The teacher’s condemnation (or, as we should say, his responsibility) is greater than that of others because having, or professing to have, clear and full knowledge of duty, he is the more bound to obey it, cof. Lk. 1247. λημψόμεθα, i.e. at the last day. Notice that James includes himself as a διδάσκαλος. The Vulgate (swmitis) and the Bohairic version have altered this to the second person. 228 JAMES To this warning no good earlier or Jewish parallel has been produced. The sayings about the dangers of speech apply, in- deed, to the teacher, but they are in most cases of an entirely general cast. 2-12. The Hellenistic associations of the following passage, vv. 2:12, are shown in the references in the notes. The more striking parallels have been effectively put together by J. Geffcken, Kynika und Ver- wandtes, 1909, pp. 45-53. Geffcken thinks that James here betrays de- pendence on a written tract on calumny, or some such subject, which he has adapted and expanded. Thisis not impossible, but the infelicities in the sequence of James’s thought in the passage, on which Geffcken’s theory rests, are not quite sufficient to prove anything more than de- pendence on ideas which had been worked out for a different purpose by others, and were familiar commonplaces of popular moral preaching. 2. πολλὰ yap πταίομεν ἅπαντες. This gives the reason (γάρ) for the warning of v.14. All men stumble, and of all faults those of the tongue are the hardest to avoid. Hence the pro- fession of teacher is the most difficult mode of life conceivable. On the universality of sin, cf. Rom. 3°"8, 1 Jn. 18, Eccles. 7”, Ecclus. το δ, 2 Esd. 83°, and the similar observations of Greek and Latin writers collected by Wetstein, Schneckenburger, and Mayor, 6. g. Seneca, De clem. 1, 6 peccavimus omnes, ali graviora alu leviora. ) The besetting danger of sins of speech and of the misuse of the tongue was clearly seen and often mentioned by ancient moralists. Noteworthy O. T. passages (among many others) are Prov: ἐν ὅν 23 28,28) Eicclus. s'-6! o4% 25t-24, εἰ οὐ, see note on 24, οὗτος, cf. 17%, τέλειος ἀνήρ, cf. 14 and note. Used of moral perfection, ** blameless,” cf. Mt. 54 τοῦ Col. 12° 412, Wisd.. 9% ΘΟ Ecclus. 4417. The same Hebrew word 0%35), used in the same sense, is translated in Gen. 69 by τέλειος, in Gen. 17! by ἄμεμπτος. δυνατός κτλ. Expands the idea οἱ τέλειος. χαλιναγῳωγῆσαι, “hold in check,” cf. 1256 and note. ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, i.e. the whole man. The contrast of the tongue and the body, as of a part and the whole, has led here to ΓΤ 229 a mode of expression which seems to imply that sin does not exist apart from the body. But the writer shows himself to be fully aware that sin resides in the inner man, although on the whole its more conspicuous manifestations are prominently con- nected with the body. The body is thought of as providing the man with his organs of expression and action. It is a natu- ral and popular, not a philosophical or theological, mode of ex- pression. Cf. v. 5 ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν, 41, Rom. 813. 3. It is with men as with horses: control their mouth and you are master of all their action. idé, “behold,” introduces an illustration, cf. ἰδού vv. 45, 5% 7, On ἰδέ, ἰδού, see Moulton’s Winer, pp. 318 f. note 5; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 11, note. ἰδέ] CP minnplus 40 sah syrbel arm, ἰδού] minnvt vid pauc, εἰδὲ γάρ] N* syrpesh, et δέ] BAKL minn?s ff vg boh (ff). Of these readings ἰδού (cf. 34 " 5% 7) and the addition of γάρ may be at once rejected as emendations; the latter, however, is significant because it implies that εἰδέ was understood as equivalent to ἰδέ. As between ἰδέ and εἰ δέ, the external evidence is strong for the latter, although P when it departs from KL is an excellent witness. But in this instance the variant reading is likely to be due to a misspelling and not to deliberate emendation, whereas the excellence of B’s text de- pends solely on its freedom from emendation, not in any accuracy of spelling. In such a case “‘intrinsic evidence” from the sense is the only guide; and this speaks strongly for ἰδέ, which is therefore to be accepted. τῶν ἵππων͵ Depends on τοὺς χαλινούς, but is put first be- cause it contains the new and emphatic idea. χαλινός is used of the “bridle” proper (or “‘reins’’), of the “bit,” and, as perhaps here, of the whole bridle, including both. The figurative use of “bridle” in English does not extend in the same degree to “bit,” and hence “bridle” (A.V., R.V.) is pref- erable as the English translation here. βάλλομεν, “put,” cf. Philo, De agric. 21 χαλινὸν ἐμβαλόντες. Xen. De re equestr. vi, 7; ix, 9; Ael. V. h. ix, τό ἵππῳ ἐμβαλ- λειν χαλινόν. 230 | JAMES If εἰ δέ is read (with WH.), καὶ has to be taken as introducing the apodosis, as often in Hebrew. μετάγομεν, “guide,” “direct” (E.V. “turn about’’). Cf. Philo, De opif. mundi, (29) 88 (the charioteers) f ἂν ἐθέλωσιν αὐτὰ ἄγουσι τῶν ἡνιῶν évetAnuuévor; Aristippus in Stobzeus, Anthol. (ed. Hense), iii, ch. 17, 17 χρατεῖ ἡδονῆς οὐχ 6 ἀπεχόμενος ἀλλ᾽ ὃ χρώμενος μὲν μὴ παρεχφερόμενος δέ, ὥσπερ χαὶ veg καὶ ἵππου οὐχ ὃ μὴ χρώμενος ἀλλ᾽ ὃ μετάγων ὅποι βούλεται. The comparison turns on the importance which the tongue has because control over the whole creature can be exercised through it, as through the horse’s mouth. The smallness of the member hardly comes into consideration here. 4-12. The dangers of the tongue. 4-6. The tongue, though small, is as powerful as a little rudder on a great ship, and as dangerous as a litile fire in a great forest. 4. καὶ τὰ πλοῖα, “ships also,” like horses. The article is generic. The parallel of ship and horse is emphasised by the repetition of μετάγειν, a repetition characteristic of James, Cf. τ18 τ; 414, 16 421, 26, σκληρῶν, “harsh,” “stiff”; hence here of winds, “strong” ; the adjective heightens the contrast with the little rudder. For the phrase, cf. Dio. Chrys. De regno. iii, p. 44 κλύδωνος ἀγρίου καὶ χαλεποῦ ὑπὸ ἀνέμων σκληρῶν μεταβαλλομένου, Prov. 2716 σκληρὸς ἄνεμος (where the difference from the He- brew is instructive), and other references in Wetstein, Mayor, and Schneckenburger. ὁρμή, “impulse,” “desire.” Used in N. T. only here and Acts 145, and not in this sense in O. T., but common in classical Greek writers. See Trench, ὃ lxxxvii, and see L. and S. for full references, 6. g. Xen. Anab. iii, 29 μιᾷ ὁρμῇ; Plato, Phil. 35 D, where ὁρμή is parallel to ἐπιθυμία. Others take this of the pressure of the steersman on the helm, but without any sufficient reason. τοῦ εὐθύνοντος, “the one who directs 11. Cf. Philo, De conf. ling. 23 φιλεῖ yap ἔστιν ὅτε χωρὶς ἡνιόχων TE καὶ KU- TET; 374 231 βερνητῶν ὅ τε πλοῦς καὶ ὁ δρόμος εὐθύνεσθαι. also Prov. 2074, Ecclus. 3715. The twin figures of the control of horse and of ship are fre- quently found together in later Greek writers, as the following passages show. In some of the instances the point of the com- parison is the smallness of the instrument which controls so great a body. James is evidently acquainted with the forms of current Greek popular thought. In the following the figures of ship and horse are characteristically combined : Plutarch, De aud. poetis, 12, p. 33 F ““Τρόπος ἐσθ᾽ ὁ πείθων τοῦ λέγον- τος, οὐ λόγος "᾽᾽ χαὶ τρόπος μὲν οὖν καὶ λόγος ἢ τρόπος διὰ λόγου, χα- θάπερ ἱππεὺς διὰ χαλινοῦ καὶ διὰ πηδαλίου χυβερνήτης. Plutarch, De genio Socratis, 20, p. 588 E. Aristippus, in Stobus, Anthol. iii (ed. Hense), 17, 17 (quoted supra). Philo, De opificio mundi, 29 μάρτυρες δ’ ἡνίοχοι καὶ κυβερνῆται - of μὲν γὰρ ὑστερίζοντες τῶν ὑποζυγίων χαὶ κατόπιν αὐτῶν ἐξεταζόμιενοι ἣ ἂν ἐθέλω- σιν αὐτὰ ἄγουσι τῶν ἡνιῶν ἐνειλημμιένοι καὶ τότε μὲν ἐφιέντες πρὸς ὀξὺν δρόμον τότε δ’ ἀναχαιτίζοντες, εἰ φορᾷ τοῦ δέοντος πλείονι θέοι- οἱ δ᾽ αὖ χυβερνῆται πρὸς τὸ τῆς vedo ἔσχατον χωρίον πρύμναν παρελθόντες πάντων ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν εἰσιν ἄριστοι τῶν ἐμπλεόντων, ἅτε τῆς νεὼς χαὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τὴν σωτηρίαν ἐν χερσὶ ταῖς αὑτῶν ἔχοντες. Philo, Leg. alleg. iii, 79; De agricult. 15; De confus. ling. 23; In Flace. 5. For the figure of the ship’s rudder, cf. Lucretius, De rer. nat. iv, 863-868 quippe etenim ventus subtili corpore tenuis trudit agens magnam magno molimine navem, et manus una regit quanto vis impete euntem atque gubernaclum contorquet quolibet unum, multaque, per trocleas et tympana, pondere magno commovet atque levi sustollit machina nisu. The often-quoted passage from Ps.-Aristotle, Mechanica, 5, is not apt, since there the rudder is mentioned not as a literary figure, but as one example of the principle of the lever. For the figure of the horse, cf. Sophocles, Antig. 477 f. σμιχρῷ χαλινῷ δ᾽ οἶδα τοὺς θυμιουμιένους ἵππους χαταρτυθέντας. 232 JAMES 5. μεγάλα avyel is equivalent to μεγαλαυχεῖ, “be haughty,” which has here been separated into its component parts in order to make a good parallel to μικρὸν μέλος ἐστίν. The phrase is here used in the sense not of an empty boast, but of a justified, though haughty, sense of importance; cf. Moulton and Mil- ligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 94. The usual associations, however, of μεγαλαυχεῖν are bad, as here. A boasting compatible with proper humility would probably be ex- pressed by χαυχᾶσθαι. Cf. Zeph. 3%, Ezek. 16%, Eccles. 4818, 2 Macc. 1532, 4 Macc. 2:5. Perhaps the alliteration μικρόν, μέλος, μεγάλα is intentional, ΡΥ ΔΕΒ μεγάλα adyet] BAC*P ff vg boh. μεγαλαυχεῖ! SC2KL minn. This seems to be emendation to a more familiar word. 5°-6. The tongue is as dangerous as a fire. Cf. Ecclus. 2812, 22. ἡλίκον, “how small.” ἡλίχον] BSA?2CP vg. ὀλίγον] A*C2KL minno™ vid ff m syre*t boh sah. Emendation. ἡλίκην, “how much.” For the double question, cf. Mk. 1574, Lk. 1915, and see Winer, § 66. 5. 3. vAnv. The abundant references in ancient literature to for- est fires, sometimes with direct reference to the smallness of the spark which leads to vast destruction, and the repeated use of this comparison in ethical discussions make it likely that ὕλην here means “forest” rather than “fuel.” In Homer, 7]. ii, 455 Hote πῦρ ἀΐδηλον ἐπίφλέγει ἄσπετον ὕλην the comparison is to describe the glitter of the armour of a great host; in the similar verse, 1]. xi, 155, it is the rout of a fleeing army. Pindar, Pyth. iii, 36-37 πολλὰν τ᾽ ὄρει πῦρ ἐξ ἑνὸς σπέρματος ἐνθορὸν ἀΐστωσεν ὕλαν. Hi 5-6 233 Euripides, Ino, fragm. 411 μιχροῦ γὰρ ἐκ λαμπτήῆρος Ἰδαῖον λέπας πρήσειεν ἄν τις. Ps.-Phocylides, Poema admonitorium, 144 ἐξ ὀλίγου σπινθῆρος ἀθέσφατος αἴθεται ὕλη. Philo, De decal. 32, Μ. p. 208 [ἐπιθυμία] οἷα φλὸξ ἐν ὕλῃ νέμεται δα- πανῶσα πάντα χαὶ φθείρουσα. The above quotations refer to a forest fire. The following are sig- nificant in using with similar purpose the figure of a great conflagration in a city or in general. Philo, De migr. Abr. 12, M. p. 455 σπινθὴρ γὰρ καὶ 6 βραχύτατος évtu- φόμενος, ὅταν χαταπνευσθεὶς ζωπυρηθῇ, μεγάλην ἐξάπτει πυράν. Seneca, Controversiarum excerpta, v, 5, nesciebas quanta sit potentia ignium...quemadmodum totas absumat urbes, quam levibus initiis ori- antur incendia. Diogenes of Oinoanda (Epicurean philosopher, second century after Christ), fragm. xxxviii, 3 (ed. William, Leipzig, 1907, p. 46) καὶ σπινθῆρι μεικρῷ πάνυ τηλικόνδε ἐπεξάπτεται πῦρ, ἡλίκον xataphéyer λιμένας χαὶ «πόλεις. Among Hebrew writers, Is. 918 1018, Ps. 8314 use the figure of a forest fire; and Ecclus. 11%? uses the figure of the small spark which kindles “a heap of many coals.” The tongue is compared with a fire in Ps. 120f-, and in Midrash, Leviticus rabba, 16: R. Eleasar in the name of R. Jose b. Zimra: “ What fires it [the tongue] kindles!”’ (see Schéttgen, Horae hebraicae, pp. 1021 f.). But the specific parallels make it seem plain that this comparison is drawn from a standing simile of current Greek popular philosophy. 6. Kal ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ sc. ἐστιν. This applies the com- parison made in the preceding sentence. ἡ γλῶσσα 2°] P minnpler syrbel c. * prefix οὕτως χαί; L min prefix οὕτως. Conformation to v. 5 ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας. As the text stands, no satisfactory interpretation is possible for this phrase in this context. For the expression taken by itself ‘the iniquitous world” is the most probable sense. ἀδικίας is then genitive of quality, of. 173 25 212, Lk. 16% 9 18% Enoch 48’, “this world of iniquity.” On κόσμος, cf. Jas. 127 25 44, and see note on 127, Other meanings have been suggested; on the history of the exegesis, see Huther’s and Mayor’s notes. Thus Vg translates “the whole of 234 JAMES evil,” universitas iniquitatis. But the sense “‘the whole” for 6 χόσμος is attested only Prov. 17% ὅλος ὃ κόσμος τῶν χρημάτων ; and, moreover, the meaning does not suit our passage well. Another interpretation is “the ornament of iniquity.” This is ca- pable in itself of an intelligible sense, as referring to the use of rhetorical arts by designing speakers (Wetstein: malas actiones et suadet et excusat), but that seems foreign to the circle of thought in which the writer is here moving. This sense was, however, a favourite one with Greek interpreters. From Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. iv, το, who gives it as one possible meaning, it is taken into Cramer’s Catena, p. 21, and it is also found in “‘CEcumenius,” on vv. *-4, and in Matthii’s scholia (ém- χοσμεῖ γὰρ ῥήμασιν ἐσθ’ Ste ἀδικίαν). As the text stands, χόσμος cannot easily be connected with what pre- cedes, whether as appositive of πῦρ or as a second predicate, parallel to πῦρ and after ἐστιν understood, for neither of these constructions yields a recognisable sense. If connected with what follows, a colon being put after πῦρ instead of a comma, we get the best sense of which the passage seems capable, viz.: “The tongue stands as (ἡ. 6. represents) the unrighteous world among our members; it defiles the whole body, itself having direct connection with hell” (so E.V.). ὃ χόσμος is then taken as predicate after χαθίσταται. So the free Latin version in the Speculum: ita et lingua ignis est: et mundus iniquitatis per linguam constat in membris nostris quae maculat totam corpus. Even this interpretation, however, is awkward and unsatisfactory, and it is probable that the text is corrupt. The context calls for some word in place of ὃ κόσμος which should yield the meaning “‘produc- tive of,” or ‘‘the tool of,” or “representative of’’ wickedness. The phrase would then aptly explain in what way the tongue is in fact a fire. The Peshitto inserts ὕλη after ἀδικίας and thus makes of ὃ χόσμος ths ἀδιχίας an independent sentence parallel to ἣ γλῶσσα πῦρ; “the wicked world is a forest.”” This is a possible conjecture; it seems to rest on no Greek evidence. A simpler and better conjecture, often made, is to exclude ὃ χόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας from the text altogether as a gloss. Spitta, following others, conjectures that ἣ γλῶσσα πῦρ ὃ χόσμος τῆς ἀδιχίας is all a gloss. He holds that the words were written as the title of 3-412 (which form the Euthalian chapter), and then wrongly introduced from the margin into the text, while, as a result of this in- terpolation the words ἣ σπιλοῦσα ὅλον τὸ σῶμα were also added. These are appropriate to the idea of ὃ κόσμος (cf. 127), but not to that of a fire; and are not very naturally suggested by the idea of the tongue, breaking the forcible simplicity of the original context which Spitta thus reconstructs. Exegesis by leaving out hard phrases is an intoxi- cating experience. It, 6 : 235 καθίσταται, “presents itself”; see on 44. ἡ σπιλοῦσα, “which defileth,”’ “staineth”; justifying the preceding statement. The tongue defiles the body by lending itself to be the organ of so many sins. Cf. 127 ἄσπιλον ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου, Test. XII Patr. Aser 27 [ὁ πλεονεκτῶν) THY ψυχὴν σπιλοῖ καὶ TO σῶμα λαμπρύνει. ἡ σπιλοῦσα] δὲ boh read (by emendation) καὶ σπιλοῦσα. ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, cf. ν. 5, which is here in mind. φλογίζουσα, “setting on fire,” “kindling”; cf. v. § ἀνάπτει. This returns to the figure of fire and completes the interrupted application of that comparison. σπιλοῦν and φλογίζειν are each used a very few times in the Bible, and are not common (φλογίζειν being mainly poetical) in secular Greek. τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως, “the wheel of nature.” τῆς γενέσεως] δὲ minn vg syrres add ἡμῶν; probably emendation. The grammarians distinguish between τρόχος, “course,” and τροχός, “‘wheel,” but in view of the derived senses of the latter word the dis- tinction is unimportant. γένεσις is here to be taken (cf. 128 and note) as substantially equivalent to κτίσις, “creation.” As a spark can set a great forest fire, so the tongue kindles the whole world into flame. The description of nature as a “wheel” is made comprehensible by some of the parallels given below under 2 (a). Here it is used to suggest the continuousness, and so the far-reaching vastness, of the damage done, but the whole phrase is native to other contexts, and the writer’s idea is not to be too precisely defined. Of course, what is actually enkindled by the tongue is mankind and human society, in which the evil results of wrong speech are manifest and universal; the actual phrase is more inclusive, but in such a rhetorical expression the exaggeration is pardonable. For full accounts of the various commentators’ guesses at the exact meaning, see Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 819-880 (with great collections of illustrative material, mostly not apt); D. J. Pott, Novum Test. grece, editio Koppiana, Gottingen, 1810, 236 JAMES vol. ix, pp. 317-329; Huther, ad loc. Much material is given in Mayor’, ad loc. pp. 114-116; Windisch, ad loc.; and Hort, St. James, pp. 72-74, τοῦ f. The only critical discussion of the evidence is that of Hort, whose own interpretation, however, is impossible to accept, being based on Ezek. 11°", The translations are as follows: syr the successions of our generations, which run like wheels. boh the wheel of the birth. ff rotam nativitatis. vg rotam nativitatis nostrae. m vrotam geniturae. Cf. Priscillian, ed. Schepss, p. 26 (deus) sciens demutationem firma- menti et distruens rotam geniturae reparatione baptismatis diem nostrae nativitatis evicit. The phrase rota geniturae is here used in the sense of astrological fatalism, and is equivalent to 6 τροχὸς τῆς ἀνάγχης. The relation of m to Priscillian’s text of James makes it probable that in this version of James rota geniturae was intended to have that sense, and hence geniturae substituted for an earlier nativitatis. The interest of the phrase lies not so much in the determina- tion of its exact meaning as in the fact that it cannot be ac- counted for from Jewish modes of expression and implies con- tact with (though not understanding of) Greek thought. It does not, however, betray knowledge of any particular system of thought (Orphic or other), or any closer contact with Hellen- ism on the part of the writer of the epistle than can be inferred from other ideas and expressions which he uses. ‘This is true in spite of the occurrence in Greek writers of the exact phrase ὁ τροχὸς τῆς γενέσεως and its equivalent ὁ κύκλος τῆς γε- νέσεως. The two characteristics of the wheel which mainly attracted the at- tention of the ancients were (1) its constant change of position and (2) its circular figure and motion. In tracing the meanings it should be noticed that “wheel” (τροχός) and “circle” (χύχλος) are frequently used with little or no distinction. 1. That any revolving motion is full of change caused the wheel to be a symbol of the changeableness of human fortune, now up, now down. Thus τροχὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα " ἤτοι εὐμετάβολα was a proverb (Leutsch Εν ὁ δ δὴν 237 and Schneidewin, Corpus paremiographorum, ii, Gottingen, 1851, p. 87, with many references, cf. also ii, p. 223 (Macarius Chrysoc. cent. viit, 58); and from Cicero’s time the wheel became a regular attribute of Fortune. So Anacreon, iv, 7 τροχὸς ἅρματος γὰρ ola βίοτος τρέχει χυλισθείς. Orac. sibyll. ii, 87 (Ps.-Phocyl. 27) κοινὰ πάθη πάντων" βίοτος τροχός" ἄστατος ὄλβος. Herodotus, i, 207 ὡς κύχλος τῶν ἀνθρωπήιων ἐστὶ πρηγμάτων περι- φερόμενος δὲ 00x ἐᾷ αἰεὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς εὐτυχέειν. For other illustrations, see Gataker’s notes on Marcus Aurelius, ix, 28; Mayor?, pp. 116-118; Hort, St. James, p. τοῦ. But nothing in James (not even τ" 41:4) indicates that the writer had in mind here this aspect of the “‘ wheel of nature.” 2. Another aspect of the turning of a wheel is that it goes round and round on its own axis, making no real progress and finding no given termination of its motion; or, to state the same thing from a differ- ent point of view, that its figure is circular, and so continuous, returning on itself, without beginning and without end. Hence arose various derived senses for both “wheel” and “circle.” Thus the rhetoricians and grammarians speak of the “circle of the period,’ much as we might say the “‘rounded period,” and of the closed “circle” of an argu- ment; a verse beginning and ending with the same word was called a “circle,” and so was a continuous series of myths (especially the “epic cycle”’).* For instance, Ocellus Lucanus (neo-pythagorean), Libellus de universt natura, i, τε (Mullach, Fragmenta philosophorum grecorum, i, p. 394), ἥ τε γὰρ τοῦ σχήματος ἰδέα κύκλος ᾿ οὗτος δὲ πάντοθεν ἴσος χαὶ ὅμοιος. διόπερ ἄναρχος καὶ ἀτελεύτητος. In physiology the continual cycle of breathing in and out is described by Plato (Tim. 79 B) as οἷον τροχοῦ περιαγομένου (cf. also Galen, De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis, p. 711). More important to be con- sidered here are the following uses: (a) In general, “wheel” and “circle” are used of the round of human life, the cycle of successive generations which endlessly are born and disappear; and the same mode of thought was applied to the whole universe, all parts of which are subject to endless succession of forma- tion and decay. Thus Euripides, Ino, fragm. 415, fragm. 419, ed. Nauck (in Plutarch, Consol. ad A pollonium, 6, p. 104 B): χύχλος γὰρ αὑτὸς χαρπίμιοις τε γῆς φυτοῖς, θνητῶν τε γενεᾷ ᾿ τῶν μὲν αὔξεται βίος, τῶν δὲ φθίνει τε χαὶ θερίζεται πάλιν. * See Stephanus, Thesaurus, or Liddell and Scott, 5. 0. κύκλος. + Of a different order is the mechanical conception of the revolving universe, used with great ingenuity by Plato, 6. 4. Polit. 12-14, pp. 269-271 ; Leg. x, 8, p. 808. 238 JAMES A good statement of the same idea (but without the word χύχλος) is that of Plutarch (Consol. ad A pollonium, to, p. 106 E) in a neighbouring context to that in which he cites the above fragment (p. 104 B). He refers to the doctrines of Heraclitus, and compares the progress of the generations—our grandparents, our parents, ourselves—to the con- tinuous flow of a river (ὃ τῆς γενέσεως ποταμὸς οὗτος ἐνδελεχῶς ῥέων οὔποτε στήσεται), while in the opposite direction flows the correspond- ing river of death (χαὶ πάλιν ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτῷ 6 τῆς φθορᾶς). But here the contrast of γένεσις and φθορά shows that γένεσις has its proper sense of “coming into being,’”’ not the meaning which we have to as- sume for it in James. Simplicius (¢c. 500 A.D.) Comm. in Epicteti enchiridion, ed. Didot, ch. 8, p. 42, uses the phrase “the endless circle of becoming” (ὠφέλιμος ... τῷ ἀπεράντῳ τῆς γενέσεως χύχλῳ, διὰ τοῦτο ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον προϊόντι, διὰ τὸ τὴν ἄλλου φθορὰν ἄλλου γένεσιν εἶναι), and similarly, ed. Didot, ch. 27, p. 76 (quoted by Hort, St. James, p. 73). These passages well illustrate that conception of the circle itself which is probably the basis of James’s use of τροχός, but in them γένεσις means not “nature,” in the sense of ἣ χτίσις, but “becoming,” ‘‘origi- nation,” as the context shows. Thus the close similarity of expression to that of James turns out to be mainly accidental, and the passages are not directly available for the interpretation of the phrase in the epistle. In accordance with this general method of thought Isidore of Pelu- sium ({ c. 440), Ep. ii, 158, interprets the phrase in James (which he misquotes τὸν τροχὸν τῆς ζωῆς) to mean “time” and says ὅτι τὸν τρο- χὸν τὸν χρόνον ἐχάλεσε διὰ τὸ τροχοειδὲς χαὶ χυχλιχὸν σχῆμα, εἰς ἑαυτὸν γὰρ ἀνελίττεται.7ἡὮ His general interpretation is on the right track, but the phrase in the epistle does not mean “time.” (6) In connection with the Orphic and Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls to new bodies after death, the term ‘‘ wheel,” or “circle,” was naturally used to describe the unending round of death and rebirth. Metempsychosis, which in its primitive Thracian form had been a means of gaining after death a full life, such as was incon- ceivable apart from a body, became for Greek religious thought a form of purifying punishment, from whose dismal cycle salvation could come only from the god and to those alone who had pursued the ascetic practises of the “Orphic life.” 1 To “cease from the Wheel and breathe again from ill” (χύχλου τ᾽ ἂν λῆξαι καὶ ἀναπνεύσαι χαχότητος, Orph. fragm. 226, Proclus, In Plat. Tim. comm. v, p. 330 B) was the goal of the relig- * See also, for similar phrases, the index to Proclus Diadochus, In Platonis Timeum comm. ed. Diehl, 1906, 5. v. κύκλος. t This has gone into Cramer’s Catena, pp. 20 f. t See E. Rohde, Psyche’, 1903, ii, pp. 121-131, 133-136, 165, note 2, 217-219 f.; Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena (as cited below); Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 1829, ii, pp. 795-806. ΤΠ 6 239 ious life of the Orphic initiate, and in the ritual a wheel seems to have played a part. “The first article in the creed or confession of the Orphic soul is κύχλου δ᾽ ἐξέπταν βαρυπενθέος ἀργαλέοιο, ‘I have flown out of the sorrowful weary wheel.’ ”’ * This Orphic round of birth, death, reincarnation, over and over again repeated, is described as “the wheel of fate and birth” (6 τῆς εἱμαρμένης τε χαὶ γενέσεως τροχός) and “the circle of birth” (ὃ χύχλος τῆς ye- γέσεως). The phrase “compulsory circle” (κύκλος ἀνάγκης) is also found in a statement of the kindred transmigration doctrine attrib- uted to Pythagoras.§ But the phrases, although almost identical with that of Jas. 3°, do not throw any light upon it. To think of the tongue as enflaming the “wheel” of metempsychosis is non- sense; and, on the other side, nothing could be more opposed to James’s robust doctrine of moral responsibility than the idea of a fatalistic circle. It is therefore impossible to draw the inference that the author of the epistle had direct contact with Orphic mysteries and ideas. The resemblance of language may well be a mere accident, and even if we suppose that he had picked up and misused a chance phrase, that would be fully accounted for by acquaintance with Cynic popular preachers, or Stoic-cynic writers of diatribes, who must have given currency to such catch-words incidentally to their satirical attacks on the ideas which the phrases conveyed.|| (c) Similar expressions are used of fatalistic necessity. So Philo, De somn. ii, 6, p. 664, κύκλον καὶ τροχὸν ἀνάγκης ἀτελευτήτου. In the magic literature are found such expressions as χύχλα τῆς ἀνάγχης ; see O. Gruppe, Griech. Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, 1906, p. 1086, note 1. In this connection it may be observed that γένεσις in later philo- sophical use means “necessity” (for instances, see Clementine Recogni- tions, viii, 2, 4, 6, 7, etc.). But this whole field of fatalistic thought is diametrically opposed to everything that James held dear. *The verse is from the Compagno tablet, Kaibel, Iuscr. Ital. et Sicil. 641, p. 158. See Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, Cambridge, 1903, pp. 586, 589-504, 668-671; and note the similar use of στέφανος in other verses of the same in- scription. ¢ Simplicius, In Arist. de celo comm. ii, p. 168 Ὁ (ed. Heiberg, p. 377). { Proclus, In Plat. Tim. comm. v, p. 330A; cf. also Orphica, fragmm. 222, 223, 225, ed. Abel, 1885, pp. 244-246. ὃ Diogenes Laert. viii, 14, Vita Pythag. πρῶτόν φασι τοῦτον [Pythagoras] ἀποφῆναι τὴν ψυχὴν κύκλον ἀνάγκης ἀμείβουσαν ἄλλοτε ἄλλοις ἐνδεῖσθαι ζώοις. || See A. Dieterich, Nekyia, Leipzig, 1893, p. 141. In any case a mere accidental coincidence seems to be involved in the fact that Simpli- cius’s ‘‘ wheel of fate and birth” is an allegorical interpretation of Ixion’s wheel, and that Ixion’s wheel was sometimes represented as fiery. As a rationalising interpretation of James’s language, parallel to this, may be mentioned the idea of a wheel catching fire from a “ hot box” at the axle, which is seriously offered by many commentaries ! 240 JAMES ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης. Gehenna, a term elsewhere used in the N. T. only in the Synoptic Gospels, here means the place of punishment of the wicked. It was naturally associated with fire, cf. Mt. 95 18°, Mk. 9, and see HDB, “Gehennay? Observe the sudden intrusion of a purely Jewish idea into a notably Greek context. 7-12. The tongue is untamable ; its use in blessing God gives no security against its abuse later for cursing men; this 15 wrong and contrary to nature. 7. yap, explains how the extreme statement of v. ὃ is justi- fied. The dreadful character of the tongue comes from its | untamableness. θηρίων τε Kal πετεινῶν ἑρπετῶν τε Kal ἐναλίων, “beasts and birds, reptiles and fishes.” Cf. Deut. 417 18, 1 Kings 4%, Acts 1o0!2 118, which all, like the present passage, have more or less direct reference to Gen. 1 74 26, ἐναλίων, i.e. fishes. This word is not found elsewhere in the Bible, but is common in secular Greek, both poetry and late prose. δαμάζεται καὶ δεδάμασται, “is from time to time, and has actually been, tamed.” Cf. Schmid, Alticismus, ii, p. 276. τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ. The dative is used in the sense of “in subjection to.” The term itself means “human kind” (cf. L. and 5. 5. v. and references in Wetstein), and is used here instead of the more natural τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in order to make a little play with πᾶσα φύσις. The control of animals by man was a familiar Hebrew obser- vation, cf. Gen. 178 9?, Ps. 85:8, Ecclus. 174; it was also a com- mon subject of Greek and Roman comment and moralising, see references in Mayor. 8. οὐδεὶς δαμάσαι δύναται. Notice the alliteration with δ, of. ν. ὅ, and 4 Macc. 1534, where Καὶ is repeated six times. ἀνθρώπων. Belongs with οὐδείς - alludes to ἀνθρωπίνῃ. This is not meant to be, as Augustine (De nat. et grat. ch. 15) and others since have thought, in contrast with the divine power which can do all things, but is a popular way of saying that complete control of the tongue is not to be expected; cf. ν. 2 τέλειος ἀνήρ. Ill, 6-9 241 The Pelagian interpretation, which took this as a question, in order to avoid a proof-text for universal sinfulness, is unacceptable because opposed to the context. ἀκατάστατον κακόν, “a restless, forthputting, evil”; best taken (because of μεστή) as nominative absolute; cf. Mk. 12°8. ἀκατάστατος is the opposite of δεδαμασμένος - see on 18, and of. 38 ἀκαταστασία. Cf. Hermas, Mand. ii, 3 πονηρὰ ἡ κατα- λαλιά, ἀκατάστατον δαιμόνιόν ἐστιν. ἀχατάστατον] CKL minnpler m ϑυσγαῦ Cyr read ἀχατάσχετον ; more commonplace, hence probably an emendation. ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου, “deadly poison,” probably with allusion to the poison of the serpent’s tongue. Cf. Ps. 140%, quoted in Rom. 3%. Cf. Lucian, Fugit. 19 ἰοῦ μεστὸν αὐτοῖς τὸ στόμα. The figure of poison was a common one among the Greeks, used for various hateful things (references in Mayor). 9. Continues thought of v. 8. Even good use of the tongue now gives no security against misuse later. ἐν αὐτῇ, “by it,” cf. Rom. 15°. This might be the Hebrais- tic instrumental ἐν (see Blass, ὃ 41. 1, J. H. Moulton, Pro- legomena, pp. 11f., 61f., 104), but is more probably an ex- tension of Hellenistic usage for which good parallels are found only in very late, Byzantine, writers (see Stephanus, Thesaurus, ed. Hase and Dindorf, 5. v., coll. 963 f.). This twofold use of the tongue is frequently mentioned. Philo, De decal. 19, p. 196 οὐ γὰρ ὅσιον, δι’ οὗ στόματος τὸ ἱερώτατον ὄνομα προ- φέρεταί τις, διὰ τούτου φθέγγεσθαί τι τῶν αἰσχρῶν. Plutarch, De garrulitate, 8, p. 506 C ὅθεν 6 Πιττακὸς οὐ καχῶς, τοῦ Αἰγυπτίων βασιλέως πέμψαντος ἱερεῖον αὐτῷ, καὶ κελεύσαντος τὸ χάλλιστον χαὶ τὸ χείριστον ἐξελεῖν χρέας, ἔπεμψεν ἐξελὼν τὴν γλῶτταν, ὡς ὄργανον μὲν ἀγαθῶν, ὄργανον δὲ τῶν xaxdy τῶν μεγίστων οὖσαν. Substantially the same story is told in Levit. rabba, 33 pr. on Prov. 18%! (Schéttgen, Horae heb. i, p. 1024) of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who sent his servant to market to buy first good and then bad food, and found himself both times supplied with tongues. See other references in Mayor and Windisch, and cf. the passages in which δίγλωσσος occurs, Prov. 1113, Ecclus. 5% 14 61 2818, Orac. Sib. iii, 37.' εὐλογοῦμεν. Doubtless with reference both to the Jewish custom of adding ‘‘ Blessed be He,” whenever the name of God 242 JAMES was mentioned (cf. Rom. 15 οὔ, 2 Cor. 11%), and to other litur- gical ascriptions of praise. For the latter, cf. 2 Cor. 13, Eph. 1°, τ Pet. 13, Ps. 145%, and the Shemone Esre (Schiirer, GJV, 3 27, Anhang). Tov κύριον Kal πατέρα. Both words refer to God. See on 2!; cof. 127. The expression has no complete parallel; cf. 1 Chron. 29", 1s, 637°, Mt. ἀα ἢ Bccius. 23% 4, καταρώμεθα, cf. Job 31°, Ps. τοῦ 624 10978, Lk. 628, Rom. ὙΠῸ Test. XII Patr. Benj. 6 ἡ ἀγαθὴ διάνοια οὐκ ἔχει δύο γλώσ- σας εὐλογίας καὶ κατάρας. τοὺς καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ γεγονότας. Cf. Gen. 126 98, Ecclus. 173, Wisd. 223, Cf. Bereshith r. 24 (Wetstein), quoted by Hort. 10. οὐ χρή. Used only here in N. T. 11-12. The contrary example of springs and trees. What takes place with the tongue would be impossible in nature. For the same thought, of. Enoch 2-54. 11. ἡ πηγή. πηγή has the article as the representative of its class; see Winer, § 18. 1. βρύει, “oush.” “Send forth” (E.V.) is an exact, but prosaic, rendering of this mainly poetical word, which is not used else- where in O. T. or N. T. It means “teem,” “be full to burst- ing,” and is ordinarily used intransitively, with dative or geni- tive, of the swelling buds of plants and so, figuratively, of vari- ous kinds of fulness. Here the context shows that the thought is of the gushing forth of the water. τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ TO πικρόν. Cognate accusatives, as in Justin Martyr, Dial. 114 πέτρας . ζῶν ὕδωρ βρυούσης. Mayor gives many other references, in some of which, as here, the cognate accusative occurs. γλυκύ means “fresh,” πικρόν (cf. v.12 ἁλυκόν), “brackish.” Cf. Ex. 152-25 (πικρόν, ἐγλυκάνθη), Jer. 2315. This occurrence is prophesied as a portent in 4 Ezra 5° in dulcibus aquis salsae invenientur. ‘Only in the times of the End, in the days of the sinners, when all nature reverses its order and shows itself ripe for destruction, does such a phenomenon appear” (Spitta, p. 104). Il, 9-13 243 12. ἀδελφοί μου. Here inserted to add emphasis, not, as more often, to mark a transition; so 116 25, συκῆ, ἐλαίας, ἄμπελος. Thé fig, the olive, and the vine are the three characteristic natural products of warm countries about the Mediterranean. For the figure, cf. Mt. 7!° 12° ; Plutarch, De tranquill. anim. p. 472 F τὴν ἄμπελον σῦκα φέρειν οὐκ ἀξιοῦμεν οὐδὲ THY ἐλαίαν βότρυς; similarly, Seneca, Ep. 87%, De ira ii, τοῦ ; Epict. Diss. i, 20%. οὔτε seems to be an error for οὐδέ, but the constant inter- change of these words in the Mss. by textual corruption makes it hard to be sure that good ancient writing did not exercise more freedom in the use of them than the grammarians would sanction ; see Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik, p. 272; ἁλυκόν͵ sc. ὕδωρ, “salt water”; i.e. a salt spring. There were salt springs or brine-pits on the shore of the Dead Sea, and the hot springs of Tiberias are described as bitter and salt; see Robinson, Bzblical Researches in Palestine, 1856, ii, p. 384. γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ, sc. δύναται (as is shown by the parallel first half of the verse). No application of these illustrations is made, and James turns abruptly to another aspect of the matter. The passage well illustrates his vividness and fertility of illustration, as well as his method of popular suggestiveness, rather than systematic development of the thought. οὔτε &Auxdy γλυκύ] BAC minn. οὕτως οὔτε [οὐδὲ δὲ minn] ἁλυχὸν γλυχύ] NC? minn ff vg syrPesh boh Cyr. οὕτως οὐδεμία πηγὴ ἁλυχὸν χαὶ γλυχύ] KLP (οὔτε) minnpler syrhel o.* (syrbel txt om οὕτως). 13-18. The true Wise Man’s wisdom must be meek and peace- able; such wisdom alone comes from above, and only peaceable righteousness receives the divine reward. 13. The Wise Man must by a good life illustrate the meek- ness which belongs to true wisdom. 244 JAMES τίς. For similar rhetorical questions, see Ps. 3212 1074, Is. so”, Ecclus. 634, etc. These short interrogative sentences (fre- quent in Paul) are characteristic of the diatribe; Bultmann, pp. 14 7. It is not necessary here, although it would be possible, to take τίς in the sense of ὅστις. See Buttmann, ὃ 139 (Thayer’s translation, p. 252); Blass, ὃ 50.5; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 93; Winer, ὃ 25.1. σοφός. The technical term for the Teacher (cf. v.!); in Jewish usage one who has a knowledge of practical moral wis- dom, resting on a knowledge of God. The words of James re- late to the ideal to be maintained by a professional Wise Man and Teacher, not merely to the private wisdom of the layman. ἐπιστήμων, “understanding,” with a certain tone of superi- ority, like our “expert.” Cf. Ecclus. prol., Dan. τ΄ νεανίσκους .. . ἐπιστήμονας ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ. σοφός and ἐπιστήμων are used as synonyms in Deut. 115 1 4°, Dan. 512, cf. Philo, De prem. et penis, 14 σοφὸν apa γένος καὶ ἐπιστημονικώτατον. δειξάτω ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐν mpai- τητι σοφίας, “let him by his good life show that his works have been done in the meekness appropriate to wisdom.” The relation of the parts of the sentence must be interpreted by the aid of 218, δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίστιν, The wise Man is here called on to prove not (as many commentators suppose) his wisdom (which would require δειξάτω τὴν σοφίαν), but his meekness. For Jewish examples of the tendency of learned discussion to excite passion, see J. Friedmann, Der ge- sellschaftliche Verkehr und die Umgangsformeln in talmudischer Zeit, 1914, pp. 58f. It is better to take ἐν πραὔτητι σοφίας in this way than as if it were used in deprecation of the possible ostentation implied in δειξάτω (“Let him point to his good works, but let him do so with due meek- ness such as befits wisdom’). This would have to be indicated more clearly, as by inserting ἀλλά before ἐν. The reason for rejecting the (at first sight simpler) interpretation, “Let him prove his wisdom by his good life” (Clem. Rom. 38? 6 σοφὸς évderxvicbw thy σοφίαν αὐτοῦ uh ἐν λόγοις ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς), which ΠῚ, 13-14 245 many commentators have adopted, has been indicated above. It does not do justice to the text of v. 13 and does not give to ‘““meekness” the emphasis that is needed in order to prepare for v. 14. ἐν πραὔτητι, cf. 174 (of the hearer, as here of the teacher). ‘““Meekness”’ is the opposite of arrogance and of the qualities referred to in v. 14; see Trench, Synonyms, ὃ lxii. Pirke Aboth, iv, 11, ‘He that is arrogant in decision is foolish, wicked, and puffed up in spirit,” is a maxim which refers to this besetting danger of rabbis; see Taylor’s Sayings of the Fathers’, p. 69, notes 13 and 14, with quotation from R. Jonah, and ¢f. Pirke Aboth, iv, 12, 14. 14. And if your heart enkindle with fierce, obstinate, and divisive zeal for your own views, do not let such passion come to expression. δέ, “and,” in continuation of v. 13, not in contrast. WH.’s period before εἰ δέ is too strong a punctuation; a colon is sufficient. ζῆλον πικρόν, “harsh zeal.’”? Because of ἐριθίαν this mean- ing for ζῆλον is better than the meaning “jealousy” (in the ordinary sense of personal jealousy), and corresponds well to the general thought. The idea is of a fierce desire to pro- mote one’s own opinion to the exclusion of those of others. This sense of ‘fanatical zeal” (as distinguished from “‘emulation” and “‘jealousy’’) is not wholly foreign to Greek usage, but has been made specially common by the influence of the LXX, where ζῆλος stands in all cases for 83), “jealous devotion to a cause,” “fanatical ardour,” as ζηλοῦν does in nearly all cases for the verb §3). It is the virtue of the religious “zealot,” cf. 1 Kings 19 14, Ecclus. 48? (Elijah), τ Macc. 254 58, 4 Macc. 1812 (Phinehas), Phil. 35 (Paul), Gal. 114, Acts 21%. But it also becomes the vice of the fanatic; and hence its special danger for the religious teacher. In secular use ζῆλος generally means “‘heat,” as expressed in ‘‘emula- tion,” ‘‘rivalry’—whether good or bad; see below, note on 4%, The Biblical sense brings it near to the Hellenic σπουδή, which, starting from another side (“‘haste,” “‘exertion”), acquired a wide range of meanings including “zeal”? and “ rivalry.” See Trench, Synonyms, § xxvi, Lightfoot on Clem. Rom. 3. Note the connection of ζῆλος and ἀκαταστασία in y. 15, and cf. Clem. Rom. 33. 246 JAMES ἐριθίαν͵ “selfish ambition.” The word denotes the inclina- tion to use unworthy and divisive means for promoting one’s own views or interests, cf. Rom. 28, 2 Cor. 12”, Gal. 5% (and Lightfoot’s note), and references in Mayor, together with Hort’s valuable note, ad loc. pp. 81-83; “ἐριθία really means the vice of a leader of a party created for his own pride: it is partly ambition, partly rivalry” (Hort). ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν has a certain emphasis, in contrast with κατακαυχᾶσθε. The meaning is: “If you have these qualities in your heart, do not let them come to expression.” μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε (sc. τῶν ἄλλων) καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας. “Do not boast and be arrogant, and thus prove false to the Truth.” That would be the natural fruit of the spirit of ζῆλος and ἐριθία in the heart; and it must be sup- pressed. κατακαυχᾶσθε (cf. note on 213) seems here to relate to the browbeating on the part of the Wise Man who haugh- tily forces his own views on others. Others connect μὴ καταχαυχᾶσθε directly with κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, see Winer, ὃ 54.5, note (Thayer’s transl. p. 470, note 2). The sense then would be: ‘‘Do not boast over, and lie against, the truth.” But the idea of “boasting over (or against) the truth” is out of place in the context, and is itself unnatural. χαταχαυχᾶσθαι κατά τινος is a con- struction which nowhere occurs. καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας. “And thus play false against the truth,” i.e. by your conduct (κατακαυχᾶσθαι) prove false to, and belie, the truth which you as a Wise Man profess to have and utter. Cf. 4 Macc. 534 οὐ ψεύσομαί σε, παιδευτὰ νόμε, 1318; see L. and S. s.v. for examples of ψεύδομαι with accusative, meaning “prove false to” an oath, a treaty, a marriage, an alliance, a threat, a promise. See also Zahn, GnK, i, p. 792, note, and J. Weiss, Der erste Korinther- brief, Ὁ. 354, note, for examples of χαταψεύδεσθαι, “speak falsely to the injury of someone.” τῆς ἀληθείας. Cf. 118 λόγῳ ἀληθείας, 519 πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας. This means the Christian truth which the Wise Man knows—truth of both practical morals and religion. See Til, 14-15 247 the fuller discussion in the note on 51°. The conduct here cen- sured is contrary to and forbidden by this truth; hence, if the Wise Man is guilty of that conduct, he is false to the truth of which he is the representative. If the phrase ψεύδεσθε xat& τῆς ἀληθείας stood alone, a simpler in- terpretation would perhaps be “do not lie, violating the truth’ (cf. Ecclus. 435 μὴ ἀντίλεγε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, Test. XII Patr. Gad 51 λαλῶν χατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας), but that would be alien to the context here, and it is in itself not wholly acceptable since it makes xat& τῆς ἀληθείας a mere redundancy. wt καταχαυχᾶσθε xat ψεύδεσθε χατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας] δὲ syrPesh read μὴ χαταχαυχᾶσθε [δ “- κατὰ] τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ψεύδεσθε. Doubtless an emen- dation due to the apparent incompleteness of καταχαυχᾶσθε alone. 15. αὕτη ἡ σοφία, “that wisdom,” i. 6. the professed wisdom which is accompanied by ζῆλος πικρός, ἐριθία, κατακαύχησις, and lacks mpairns. ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη, i.e. divine, from God, cf. 1517; cf. Philo, De prof. 30 σοφίαν ἄνωθεν ὀμβρηθεῖσαν ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ, De congr. erud. grat. 7, De prem. et pen. 8; Hermas, Mand. ix, 11, xi, 5; and Schéttgen, Horae hebraicae, ad loc., for many rabbin- ical instances of what was plainly a common Jewish expres- sion. The phrase is contrasted with the following three ad- jectives. For the divine origin of true wisdom, cf. 6. g. Prov. 25 822-1, Wisd. 725 9" 9f-, Ecclus. 11-4 243#., Enoch 42, Philo, as above, 1 Cor. 11°28, ἐπίγειος, “earthly,” cf. Phil. 31°, Col. 32, 1 Cor. 1547, Jn. 33! Be, ἐπίγειος seems to mean here “derived from the frail and finite world of human life and affairs.” Cf. Philo’s contrast of οὐράνιος and γήϊνος, Leg. all. i, 12, and the far-reaching dualism on which it rests. ψυχική, “natural” (Latin animalis, E.V. “sensual’’), 7. 6. pertaining to the natural life (ψυχή) which men and animals alike have; 1 Cor. 214 1544-46, Jude το. Cf. Rev. 89 (ψυχῆ of animals). See Philo, Leg. all. ii, 7 and 13, Quis rer. div. her. 11, and E. Hatch, Essays, p. 124, cf. pp. 115-120. 248 JAMES The word was intelligible and familiar in this sense to Paul’s readers, and does not imply later gnostic usage; see J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 1910, pp. 69 f., 371-373; R. Reitzen- stein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 1910, pp. 42-47, FO, 112, E5T 7) The curious resemblance to the gnostic designation of the two lower grades of men as χοῖχοί and ψυχιχοί is probably not significant. Yet see Pfleiderer, Urchristentum?, ii, p. 546. Useful references will be found in Mayor. δαιμονιώδης, “resembling,” or “pertaining to” (‘‘ proceeding from’’), an evil spirit, cf. 219, 1 Tim. 4. This word has been pointed out elsewhere only Sym., Ps. g1°, and Schol. on Aris- tophanes, Ran. 293, φάντασμα δαιμονιῶδες ὑπὸ “Ἑκάτης ἐπι- πεμπόμενον. These three words, “earthly, sensual, devilish,” describe the so-called wisdom, which is not of divine origin, in an advancing series—as pertaining to the earth, not to the world above; to mere nature, not to the Spirit; and to the hostile spirits of evil, instead of to God. Hermas, Mand. ix, 11, xi, 8, show a variety of resemblances to this passage of James, but there is no evi- dence of literary dependence. The church speedily and permanently used this conception of Satanic origin to account for the gnostic “wisdom”; cf. 6. g. Justin, A pol. i, 58. In James, however, it is not the substance, but the temper, of the “wisdom” that makes it false. James is not attacking systems of false teaching. See Weinel, Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geiste, pp. 1.3 20-18, 20 ἢ: 16. yap. Introduces proof that v. 15 is true. ‘For such a temper, even on the part of one who claims to be a Wise Man, leads to every evil.” ὅπου... ἐκεῖ. For this rhetorical turn, cf. 1 Cor. 33 and Epict. Diss. iii, 22°! (Mayor). ἀκαταστασία, “disorder,” “disturbance,” “trouble.” Cf. 18 38 ἀκατάστατος. The word seems to have something of the bad associations of our word ‘‘anarchy,” and has to bear much weight in this sen- tence. Cf. Prov. 2628, τ Cor. 1433, 2 Cor. 12% ζῆλος, ἐριθίαι͵ γῆ 1.1} 249 καταστασίαι:. and the similar list of evils, Gal. 5%, which has ζῆλος, ἐριθίαι͵ διχοστασίαι; Lk. 219, Clem. Rom. 1°. See Hatch, Essays, p. 4: ‘“‘The political circumstances of Greece and the East after the death of Alexander had developed the idea of political instability, and with it the word ἀκαταστασία, Polyb. 1.70: 1.” φαῦλον, “vile,” see Trench, Synonyms, ὃ Ixxxiv. φαῦλος is found only ten times in the LXX, five instances being in Prov- erbs, the others in Job, Ecclesiasticus, and 4 Maccabees. ἘΝ Wiad. 772-75. πρῶτον μὲν ἁγνή, “first pure,” ἡ. 6. “undefiled,” free from any faults such as the ζῆλος and ἐριθία above mentioned. Nothing which shows itself as half-good, half-bad, can be accounted wisdom, Wisd. 7°. See Trench, ὃ Ixxxviii and references in Lex. 5. υ. ἅγιος, Cf. Phil. 48,1 Pet. 32. Inthe LXX ἁγνός is found eleven times, of which four instances are in Proverbs and four in 4 Maccabees. See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p.. 5. ἔπειτα introduces the following adjectives, which, thus grouped, stand over against ἁγνή, the quality from which they all proceed. εἰρηνική, “peaceable,” cf. Mt. 5°. ἐπιεικής, “reasonable,” “considerate,” ‘‘ moderate,” “gentle” (E.V.). See Trench, Synonyms, § xliii: ““We have no words in English which are full equivalents of the Greek.’ See Light- foot on Phil. 45, and Mayor’s note, p. 131. 2) 66 2) (( This is a distinctively Greek virtue; the word ἐπιεικής and its deriva- tives are found but a few times in LXX, e. g. Ps. 865, 2 Macc. 9?7.. In the N. T. 2 Cor. τοῦ Phil. 4°, τ Tim. 3%, Tit. 32, 1 Pet. 218, Acts 244. εὐπειθής, “obedient,” “ready to obey”; here perhaps “will- ing to yield,” the opposite of “obstinate” (Philo, De fortitud. 3). Only here in the N. T. In O. T. only 4 Maccabees, and in strict sense of “obedient.” μεστή, cf. Rom. 12° 15", 2 Pet. 24. The word is not common in LX. 250 JAMES ἐλέους, “mercy,”’ a compassion which leads to practical help, not the mere emotion of pity, cf. 2%. See Trench, Synonyms, ὃ xlvii; and Lex. 5. υ. ἐλεεῖν. καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν͵ i.e. good works, cf. Mt. 214%, Gal. 522, Eph. Seven. x ἀδιάκριτος, “undivided,” ἡ. 6. unwavering, whole-hearted, with reference to the evil situation described in vv. *". Cf. τὸ ὃ διακχρινόμενος, 24 διεκρίθητε. Only here in N. T.; in O. T. cf. Prov. 251 (ἀδιάκριτοι), and there the sense is doubtful. See Ign. Trall. 11 ἄμιωμον διάνοιαν χαὶ ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ ἔγνων ὑμᾶς ἔχοντας, Rom. inscr., Philad. inscr., Magn. 15; Clem. Alex. Pad. ii, 3, p. 190 ἀδιαχρίτῳ πίστει. The Latin translations (Vg. non judicans; Cod. Corb. sine dijudi- catione) seem to have missed the meaning of this word, as have many interpreters. Thus Luther translates “‘uwnpartetisch’”; so.A.V., R.V. mg. “‘without partiality.” ἀνυπόκριτος, “without hypocrisy.” In O. T. only Wisd. 518 18'*; in N. T. Rom. 129, 2 Cor. 65, 1 Tim. 1°, 2 Tim. 15, 1 Pet. 12, in sense of “‘sincere.”” Elsewhere only as adverb (ἀνυποχρίτως), 6. g. 2 Clem. Rom. 123, These characteristics of true wisdom are selected in pointed opposition to the self-assertive, quarrelsome spirit characteristic of the other sort. Apart from the fundamental ἁγνή they fall into three groups: εἰρηνική, ἐπιεικής, εὐπειθής " μεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν - ἀδιάκριτος, ἀνυπόκριτος. 18. καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης, “the fruit of righteousness,” ἡ, 6. the reward which righteous conduct brings, cf. Heb. 121: καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν δικαιοσύνης, Phil. 111 πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιο- σύνης. That the expression “fruit of righteousness” has the sense “product of righteousness’ is shown by those O. T. passages which seem to have given it its currency, and in which it is used with a variety of applica- tions. Cf. Prov. 39 (LXX), 11° éx χαρποῦ δικαιοσύνης φύσεται δένδρον ζωῆς, ἡ. 6. “righteousness brings long life,’’ 132 (LXX), Amos 61% In It, 17-18 251 all these cases διχαιοσύνης indicates the source of the “fruit.’’ Similarly Is. 3217: “And the work of righteousness (τὰ ἔργα τῆς δικαιοσύνης) shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and confidence forever.” For the figure of sowing, cf. Prov. 1121 (LXX), ὁ δὲ σπείρων δικαιοσύνην λήμψεται μισθόν, Hos. ro!2, Job 4%, Test. XII Patr. Levi, 135, etc. / . Ω ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται, “sown in peace,” and in peace only; 1. 6. a righteousness capable of gaining its due reward must be peaceable; cf. 1%. The sower is, of course, the righteous man. For the slightly inaccurate expression “sow the fruit, or crop” (in- stead of the seed), cf. Apoc. Bar. 32!, “Sow the fruits of the law,” Plutarch, De vitando @re alieno, 4 σπείροντες οὐχ ἥμερον χαρπόν, Antiph- anes, Fab. inc. iv, 4 σπείρειν καρπὸν χάριτος. τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην. To “do peace” (cf. Eph. 215, Col. 1% εἰρηνοποιέω-: Mt. 5° εἰρηνοποιός) means not merely to conciliate opponents, but to act peaceably. It is the complete opposite of ζῆλος and ἐριθία. The interpretation of v. 18 here given may be paraphrased, with a change of figure, thus: “The foundation which righteousness lays for eternal life can be laid only in peace and by those who practise peace.” This is equivalent to saying that righteousness includes peaceableness. Another common interpretation takes χαρπὸς δικαιοσύνης as mean- ing “the fruit which consists in righteousness.” The source will then be the true wisdom, of which righteousness is the product. The evi- dence for this would be Heb. 121!, where righteousness seems to be itself the fruit, and the parallelism of Jas. 315, where the product of ζῆλος and ἐριθία is said to be ἀχαταστασία and πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα. Phil. 1, to which appeal is often made, is ambiguous, and cannot be taken as meaning that righteousness is the fruit except by giving to δικαιοσύνη its peculiar Pauline sense. But the O. T. passages referred to above create a strong presumption against this interpretation; the simple meaning of the phrase speaks against it; and, further, righteousness is more naturally thought of (apart from Pauline theology) as the condition of receiving divine re- ward, not as the reward itself. The general drift of the verse would be the same under either interpretation. 252 JAMES III. WORLDLINESS AND THE CHRISTIAN CON- DUCT OF LIFE CONTRASTED (445%). CHAPTER IV. 1-12. The cause of the crying evils of life is the pursuit of pleas- ure, an aim which is mm direct rivalry with God and abhorrent to him. 1-2”. Quarrels and conflicts are due to the struggle for pleasure and for the means of pleasure. The paragraph is written not so much to censure the quarrels as to set forth the evil results of aiming at pleasure; in nowise is it introduced in order merely to give an abstract analysis (πόθεν) of the ultimate source of the quarrelling. Some have taken 4: - of difficulties between the teachers (cf. 119-#t 315), but this is not indicated in the text, and is an unnatural limita- tion. We have here, doubtless, a glimpse of the particular com- munities with which the writer was acquainted, but the exhor- tation assumes that all communities show substantially the same characteristics. The addition of ἐν ὑμῖν, ν. 1, recalls the thought from the ideal pictures in the preceding verse to the actual situation in the world—and even in the Christian church. Cf. Philo, De gig. 11: “For consider the continual war which prevails among men even in time of peace (τὸν ἐν εἰρήνη συνεχῆ πόλεμον ἀνθρώπων), and which exists not merely between na- tions and countries and cities, but also between private houses, or, I might rather say, is present with every individual man; observe the unspeakable raging storm in men’s souls that is excited by the violent rush of the affairs of life; and you may well wonder whether any one can enjoy tranquillity in such a storm, and maintain calm amid the surge of this bellow- ing sea.”’ The opening of this paragraph and of the two following, 413-117 51-6, lacks the usual ἀδελφοί μου. IV, I 253 πόλεμοι, “feuds,” “quarrels”; μάχαι, “conflicts,” ‘“conten- tions.” The two words cover the chronic and the acute hos- tilities in the community. πόλεμος and μάχη are so frequently combined in Homer as to elicit comment from Eustathius more than once. See especially Eustathius on 1]. 1, 177. In later writers they became a standing combination; see references in Wetstein, 6. g. Epict. Diss. iii, 13°. Hence the combined phrase is naturally used here with no great distinction between the two terms. For πόλεμος used of private quarrel, cf. Test. XII Patr. Gad 5, Dan 52, Sim. 48, Ps. Sol. 124, Jos. Antig. xvii, 24, Ps.-Diog. Ep. 28, Clem. Rom. 465. For μάχη referring to private strife, cf. Neh. 13", Prov. 17}, Ecclus. 69 2714, 2 Tim. 22% 24, 2 Cor. 78, Plat. Tim. 88 A μάχας ἐν λόγοις ποιεῖσθαι, Epict. Diss. i, 1118, ii, 1214, ili, 1215, iv. 55. ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν, “because you make pleasures your aim,” δουλεύοντες ἐπιθυμίαις Kal ἡδοναῖς ποικίλαις (Tit. 35). Over against pleasure as the great end stands submission to God (v. 7). TOV στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μελεσιν, ‘which are at war with one another, having their seat in your bodily members,”’ and which so bring about conflicts among you. The war is between pleasures which have their seat in the bodies of several persons, not between conflicting pleasures throwing an individual into a state of internal strife and confusion. Since the pleasures clash, the persons who take them as their supreme aim are nec- essarily brought into conflict. στρατευομένων makes the con- nection between ἡδοναί and πόλεμοι. By some interpreters the warfare is thought of as merely directed toward the winning of gratification, by still others as a war against the soul (1 Pet. 2"), or against the νοῦς (Rom. 72; see passages from Philo cited by Spitta, p. 113, note), or against God. But it is entirely fit- ting, and makes much better sense, to understand it, as above, with ref- erence to the natural activity of pleasures—necessarily conflicting with one another, and so leading to the outbreak of conflict. The point of James’s attack is pleasure as such, not lower physical pleasure as dis- tinguished from higher forms of enjoyment. The passage from Plato, Phedo, p. 66, often cited, and given below (p. 258), is therefore not an apt illustration here. Pleasure is not here equivalent to, nor used by metonymy for, ἐπιθυμία, “desire.” But the two are of course closely related; e. g. 254 JAMES Philo, De prem. et pen. 3 καταπεφρόνηκεν ἡδονῶν καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν, 4 Macc. 122 πρὸ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἡδονῆς ἐστὶν ἐπιθυμία, 52°; Stobzeus, ii, 7, το (ed. Wachsmuth, p. 88) ἡδονὴν μὲν [ἐπιγίγνεσθαι] ὅταν τυγχάνωμεν ὧν ἐπε- θυμοῦμεν ἢ ἐχφύγωμεν ἃ ἐφοβούμεθα. The underlying conception is the same as in Jas. 1:4, although no explicit reference to ἡδονή is there made. On ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν, cf. 3°. James thinks of pleasure as pri- marily pertaining to the body. Cf. the frequent use of “mem- bers” for “body,” Rom. 61% 19 75 23, Col. 35, Apoc. Bar. 83°. The resemblance to 1 Pet. 2" is probably accidental; nor is there probably any direct allusion to Rom. 738. 2. Ν. 2 explains in detail the connection between ἡδοναί and πόλεμοι Kal μάχαι. Ungratified desire leads to φόνος : zeal for pleasure unable to reach its end, to μάχη and πόλεμος, οὖχ ἔχετε διά] BAKL minn vgf. χαὶ οὐκ ἔχετε διά] SP minn ff vg=™ boh syrtr, odx ἔχετε δὲ διά] minn. So Textus Receptus. The short reading is probably original. Under the reading adopted, the last clause, οὐκ ἔχετε διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς, belongs with v. 8 (so WH.). R. Stephen’s verse-divi- sion, which connects ν. 29 with the preceding instead of the following, and the punctuation of the A.V. are due to the Textus Receptus. ἐπιθυμεῖτε͵ Kal οὐκ ἔχετε" φονεύετε͵ καὶ ζηλοῦτε, Kal ov δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν - μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε. This punctuation alone (so WH. mg. and many commentators) preserves the perfect parallelism between the two series of verbs, which is fatally marred by the usual punctuation (povevere καὶ 'ἰζηλοῦτε, Kal ov δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν, so Tisch. WH. etc.). The ‘abruptness is then not greater than in 217 5% 13f.. For the asyn- ‘deton, cf. 2223. These passages mark the extreme of the abrupt- ness which in various forms is a quality of James’s style. The usual punctuation is made additionally unacceptable by the impossible anticlimax φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε (cf. Plato, Menex. (242 A). ἐπιθυμεῖτε, not a new idea but necessarily suggested by ἡδονῶν (v.1). Pleasure and desire are correlative; see on v. 1. govevere, “kill,” “murder.” No weaker sense is possible, Iv, I-2 255 and none is here necessary, for James is not describing the con- dition of any special community, but is analysing the result of choosing pleasure instead of God. The final issue of the false choice is flagrant crime. ἡδονή implies ἐπιθυμία. ἐπιθυμία is often unsatisfied; in such a case its outcome, if unrestrained, is to cause the murder of the man who stands in its way. ἐπιθυμεῖτε͵ ἔχετε, povevere are practically equivalent to a conditional sentence, in which ἐπιθυμεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε forms the protasis, povevere the apodosis; cf. 4313 5!3f-, Bult- mann, pp. 147. In the use of the second person plural the writer is taking the readers as representative of the world of men in general. On the “universal,” or “gnomic,”’ present, see Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, i, § 190; Winer, § 40. 2. a; on asyndetic sentences of the nature of a condition, cf. Buttmann, ὃ 139. 28; Winer, ὃ 60. 4. c. The same idea that murder is the horrible outcome to be expected from actually existing conditions, unless their natural tendency is somehow checked, is found in Didache 3? uh γίνου ὀργίλος ᾿ ὁδηγεῖ γὰρ ἣ ὀργὴ πρὸς τὸν φόνον" μηδὲ ζηλωτὴς μηδὲ ἐριστιχὸς μηδὲ θυμικός " ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων φόνοι γεννῶνται; cf. also Clem. Rom. 47, 9, quoted below, Test. XII Patr. Sim. 33 πάντοτε [ὃ φθόνος] ὑποβάλλει ἀνελεῖν τὸν φθονούμενον. It must not be forgotten that to cause a death in- directly is often called murder, and that even downright murders have not been unknown in otherwise respectable communities. Cf. Acts 928 203 2312ff., Jas. 5° ἐφονεύσατε, τ Pet. 415 φονεύς, Ecclus. 3422. καὶ ζηλοῦτε, καὶ ov δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν " μάχεσθε καὶ πολε- μεῖτε. Having established the connection between ἡδονή and φόνος, the writer presents another chain, still hypothetical and general, but showing that the origin of the prevailing state of πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι (v.1) is ζῆλος, which when it cannot attain its cov- eted prize regularly leads to fighting and strife. James, writing to no one community, but to the whole Chris- tian world, is speaking of general tendencies, not of the sins of any particular local group. Hence his strong language has no personal sting. The underlying principle is not the same as that of Mt. 521f-, although there is obvious resemblance. There, as in Mt. 52, the point is that 256 JAMES it is the inner passion of the heart which God considers, not merely the carrying out of an angry thought in murder. Here in James the wicked- ness and dangerousness of the end sought, viz. pleasure, is exposed by showing to what an awful issue, if uninhibited, it surely leads. I Jn. 3% πᾶς 6 μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωποχτόνος ἐστίν comes nearer, but is still different. To the mistaken idea that James is here giving a description of the particular communities which he addressed is due the conjecture φθο- vette for φονεύετε, which was printed in the second edition of Erasmus (1519), was supported by Calvin, translated by Luther (chr hasset), and has been adopted by many other commentators, both older and more recent. Various other instances of the textual corruption, φόνος for φθόνος, can, indeed, be adduced (see Mayor’, p. 136); but there is no manuscript evidence for the reading here. The conjecture is unnecessary, and it obliterates the careful parallelism of the two series. Interpreters who have been unwilling to emend the text, and yet have felt bound to see in govedete an actual description of the Chris- tian community addressed, have been driven to various expedients. The more usual methods have been either to reduce the meaning of govebete to “hate,” or else to assume an hendiadys, by which “murder and envy”? becomes “murderously envy”’ (Schneckenburger: ad necem usque invidetis). Both methods are linguistically impossible. καὶ ζηλοῦτε. καί connects the two series. ζηλοῦτε, “hotly desire to possess,” “covet,” cf. Ecclus. 5138, Wisd. 122, x Cor. 12%! 141 89, Gal. 417f-, Demosth. Ol. ii, 15 ὁ μὲν δόξης ἐπιθυμεῖ καὶ τοῦτο ἐζήλωκε. The meaning is different from that of ζῆλος in 5313. ζῆλος and ζηλόω start with the fundamental meaning of “ hot emo- tion.”” For the peculiar Hebraistic and Biblical meaning “zeal,” see note on Jas. 34. In secular use the meanings are developed on two sides, desire to surpass (“emulation,” “rivalry” and desire to possess (“envy,” etc.). In either sense the words may refer, according to cir- cumstances, to either a good or an evil desire. See Trench, Synonyms, § xxvi. In our verse ἐπιτυχεῖν shows that the desire is for possession; but ζηλοῦτε may then mean either “envy” (the possessor) or “covet” (his possessions). “Covet” (so R.V.; A.V. “desire to have”), as being the more general idea and a better parallel to ἐπιθυμεῖτε, is to be pre- ferred. The English word “jealousy” is derived from ζῆλος through French jalousie, Latin zelus, but in most of its meanings “jealousy” corre- Iv, 2 257 sponds rather to φθόνος, the “begrudging” to another, indicating pri- marily not the desire to possess, but the unwillingness that another should have. μάχεσθε kat πολεμεῖτε, 7. 6. against those who possess what you wish to take from them. The connection of either barren envy or ungratified covetousness with strife is so natural that it hardly needs to be illustrated; but cf. Clem. Rom. 3-6 (where the Biblical and secular meanings are not distinguished), with Lightfoot’s note on 32, Philo, De decal. 28; Iren. iv, 18%. This passage is made more intelligible by passages from Greek and Roman writers, which show that not only the connection of pleasure and desire, but that of desire, conflict, and war, was a commonplace of popular moralising in the Hellenistic age. See Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen', iii, τ, pp. 221-225. Thus Philo, De decal. 28, M. pp. 204 f.: “Last of all he forbids desire (ἐπιθυμεῖν), knowing desire (τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν) to be productive of revolu- tion and addicted to plots. For all the passions of the soul (τὰ ψυχῆς πάθη) are bad, exciting it and agitating it unnaturally, and destroying its health, but worst of all is desire. . . . The evils of which the love of money or of a woman or of glory or of any other of those things that produce pleasure is the cause—are they small and ordinary? Is it not because of this passion that relationships are broken, and thus natural good-will changed into desperate enmity? that great and pop- ulous countries are desolated by domestic dissensions? and land and sea filled with novel disasters by naval battles and land campaigns? For the wars famous in tragedy, which Greeks and barbarians have fought with one another and among themselves, have all flowed from one source: desire (ἐπιθυμία) either for money or glory or pleasure. Over these things the human race goes mad.” Ibid. 32, M. p. 208 πέμπτον δὲ [7.e. the fifth commandment of the second table] τὸ ἀνεῖργον τὴν τῶν ἀδικημάτων πηγήν, ἐπιθυμίαν, ἀφ’ ἧς ῥέουσιν αἱ παρανομώταται πράξεις, ἴδιαι καὶ χοιναί, μικραὶ χαὶ μεγάλαι, ἱεραὶ καὶ βέβηλοι, περί τε σώματα nal ψυχὰς καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα ἐκτός ᾿ δια- φεύγει γὰρ οὐδέν, ὡς καὶ πρότερον ἐλέχθη, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν, ἀλλ᾽ οἷα φλὸξ ἐν ὕλῃ νέμεται δαπανῶσα πάντα καὶ φθείρουσα. Philo, De Josepho, 11, M. p. 50; De posteritate Cain. i, 34, M. pp. 247 f.; De migratione Abr. 12; Lucian, Cynic. 15, πάντα γὰρ τὰ χαχὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις Ex τῆς τούτων ἐπιθυμίας φύονται, καὶ στάσεις χαὶ πόλεμοι χαὶ ἐπιβουλαὶ xat σφαγαί. ταυτὶ πάντα πηγὴν ἔχει τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τοῦ πλείο- γος; Cicero, De finibus, i, 13 ex cupiditatibus odia, dissidia, discordiae, seditiones, bella nascuntur ; Seneca, De ira, ii, 35 ista quae appetitis quia 258 JAMES exigua sunt nec possunt ad alterum nisi alteri erepta transferri, eadem affectantibus pugnam et jurgia excitant. Cf. Plato, Phedo, p. 66 ( καὶ γὰρ πολέμους καὶ στάσεις χαὶ μάχας οὐδὲν ἄλλο παρέχει ἢ τὸ σῶμα καὶ at «τούτου ἐπιθυμίαι. See note on 1!4, and cf. Wendland and Kern, Beitraége zur Geschichte der griech. Philosophie und Religion, pp. 36-37; J. Drummond, Philo Judeus, ii, pp. 302-306. In contrast to pleasure stands God. So Philo, Leg. all. ii, 23, M. p. 83, says that it is impossible to master pleasure except by complete submission to God. 4 Macc. 5? 655 represent, in more secular fashion, reason (λογισμός) and sound principles (φιλοσοφία) as able to control pleasure and desire; but Test. XII Patr. Benj. 6 shows true Jewish character in the sharp contrast which it draws: ‘“[The good man] delighteth not in pleasure . . . for the Lord is his portion.” This section of the Testament of Benjamin is full of parallels to James. 2°-3. By aiming at pleasure men cut themselves off from the only sure source of true satisfaction. οὐκ ἔχετε returns to the matter of the unsatisfied desire (ἐπιθυμεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε) in order to point out another as- pect of the futility of pleasure as a supreme end. So long as men allow their lives to be governed by ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ἡδονῶν, their desire is sure to be unsatisfied. The only sure source from which men can always receive is God. By choosing pleas- ure as their aim, men cut themselves off from this source, for they do not ask God for gratifications such as these, or, if they do, only find that their prayers, aiming at their own pleasures and not at his service, are unacceptable, and that they ought not to have offered them. James’s principle is: Make the service of God your supreme end, and then your desires will be such as God can fulfil in an- swer to your prayer (cf. Mt. 631-33). Then there will be none of the present strife. Pleasures war, and cause war. Desire for pleasure, when made the controlling end, leads to violence, for longings then arise which can only be satisfied by the use of violence, since God, from whom alone come good things (117), will not satisfy them. IV, 2-3 259 It should be needless to point out that οὐκ ἔχετε is not thought of as the result of μάχεσθε χαὶ πολεμεῖτε. διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς. The ὑμᾶς is unnecessary, but not emphatic. Cf. 118 415. αἰτεῖσθαι here means prayers to God. 3. αἰτεῖτε, cf. Jas. 15, Mt. 77 2122, ΜΚ. 114, Lk. 119, Jn. 1413 57,16 7623f. 26 7 Jn, 322 pitt. Here, as often in secular Greek (cf. L. and S.), no difference in meaning is perceptible between the active and middle of αἰτεῖν. Cf. τ Jn. 56 αἰτώμεθα, ἡτήκαμεν, αἰτήσει, Mk. 633, 24 αἴτησον͵ αἰτήσωμαι, and other examples quoted by Mayor. That there was once a distinction in use is likely, but even the state- ments quoted by Stephanus, Thesaur. s.v., that αἰτεῖσθαι means to ask μετ᾽ ἱχεσίας or μετὰ παρακλήσεως do not make the matter intelli- gible. See J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 160; J. B. Mayor, in Expos- itor, 8th series, vol. iii, 1912, pp. 522-527; Hort, ad loc. κακῶς, “wrongly,” cf. Wisd. 142% %, 4 Macc. 617, The fol- lowing clause explains this to mean: “with the selfish purpose of securing pleasure, not of serving God,” cf. Mt. 63%. For rab- binical ideas of bad prayers, see Schéttgen on Jas. 43. The promises are that the prayers of the righteous and the penitent will be heard; cf. Ps. 34%” 14518, Prov. 1074, Ps. Sol. Sk re ** Jas, 2°?) τ Jn’ 54, Hermas, Sim. iv, 6. ἵνα ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ὑμῶν δαπανήσητε. “ey marking the realm in rather than the object on” (Lex. s.v. δαπανάω). The distinction is thus not in the things prayed for, but in the pur- pose with which they are to be used, and for which they are desired—+. 6. whether pleasure or the service of God. Hence probably the unusual, though not unexampled, preposition. δαπανήσητε, “spend’’; not necessarily “waste,” nor “squan- der”; of. Acts 2174, 2 Cor. 121§, r Macc. 143%. The object of δαπανήσητε is the means of securing enjoyment for which they pray; throughout the passage money is especially in mind. δαπανήσητε] SSAKLP minno™ vid, δαπανήσετε] B. χαταδαπανήσετε] N*. B and WS have both fallen into error. 260 JAMES 4, μοιχαλίδες, ‘“adulteresses,” i.¢. “renegades to your vows.” God is the husband to whom the Christian is joined as wife. The figure arose with reference to Israel as the wife of Jahveh; cf. Is. 54°, Jer. 3%, Ezek. 16, 23, Hos. οὗ Wisd. 3% Mt. 123° 164, Mk. 838; and see Heb. Lex. s.v. Mt. To this corresponds the position of the church as the bride of Christ (2 Cor. τι" 2, Eph. 524-28, Rev. 19” 21°). The term is often, as here, applied to individual members of the people of God; cf. Ex. 341%, Num. 15%, Ps. 732? πάντα τὸν πορνεύσαντα ἀπὸ σοῦ, Hos. 4:2. The feminine μοιχαλές is alone appropriate in this sense, since God is always thought of as the husband. The harsh word comes in abruptly; it anticipates and sum- marises the thought expressed in the verse itself. For the sever- ity, and the direct address, cf. 18 413 51. The word is fully explained by the figurative sense: to take it liter- ally (Winer, Spitta, Hort, and others) is to violate the context and to introduce a wholly foreign and uncalled-for idea. Moreover the femi- nine used alone is then inexplicable. μοιχαλίδες] BS*A 33 ff (fornicatores) vg (adulteri) boh (adulterers) syrpesh, μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες] S°KLP minn syrtel. Plainly emendation. οὐκ οἴδατε. The idea which follows is at any rate familiar to the readers, whether or not these words (as Spitta thinks) introduce a quotation. φιλία, “friendship,” the usual meaning (cf. L. and S.) of this word, which is a common one in the Wisdom-literature and in 1, 2, and 4 Maccabees; cf. Wisd. 714. τοῦ κόσμου. Objective genitive, “friendship for the world.” Chor tend mote) 85. Jn) τοῖς. Jno. . To make pleasure the chief aim is to take up with ἡ φιλία Tov κόσμου. To be “a friend of the world” is to be on good terms with the persons and forces and things that are at least indifferent toward God, if not openly hostile to him. It does not imply ‘‘conformity to heathen standards of living” (Hort), and is entirely appropriate in connection with a Jewish com- munity. IV, 4-5 261 Cf. 2 Tim. 31 φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι, Philo, Leg. alleg. ii, 23, γέγονε φιλήδονος ἀντὶ φιλαρέτου. The precise sense of ἣ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου is much discussed in the commentaries. For summary of views, see Beyschlag, who himself takes it in the active sense of “love,” as given above. ἔχθρα τοῦ Geod, “enmity as regards God.” The accentuation ἔχθρα, not ἐχθρά, is required in order to preserve the sharp- ness of the contrast. Cf. Rom. 87 ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν, Rom. 5” 1138, Col. 171, in which passages, however, rather more of mutual re- lation is implied. It is to be observed that a state of enmity between men and God differs from a state of enmity in ordinary human relations in that the permanent attitude of love on God’s part is not thereby interrupted. ὃς ἐάν for ὃς ἄν is characteristic of vernacular Greek, and is shown by the papyri to have been “specially common” in the first and second centuries after Christ. See J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 42-44, 234, where references to other discus- sions will be found; also Winer, § 42 fin., Blass, § 26. 4, and the references in Mayor’s note, pp. 139 f. οὖν] om L 33 minn boh. The weakness of attestation here counter- balances the presumption in favour of the shorter reading. Possibly OYN fell out by accident after EAN. φίλος τοῦ κόσμου. Cf. 233 φίλος θεοῦ. καθίσταται, “stands,” cf. 3°, Rom. 5!°, 2 Pet. 18. The word suggests a lasting state. But see J. de Zwaan, in Theol. Stu- dién, 1913, pp. 85-94. 5-6. Remember the Scripture which declares that God is a jealous lover and suffers no rival for the loyalty of the human spirit; and observe that God gives grace to fulfil his require- ments, and that this grace is bestowed on the humble, not on those proud of their worldly success. 5. 7, introducing “a question designed to prove the same thing in another way” (Lex.); cf. Mt. 1229, 1 Cor. 615, etc. κενῶς, “emptily,” ἡ. e. “without meaning all that it says.” Cf. Deut. 3247 ὅτι οὐχὶ λόγος κενὸς οὗτος ὑμῖν κτλ. 262 JAMES ἡ γραφή. See 233 and note. The term must refer to “Holy Scripture.” The quotation which follows is not found in the O. T., and either the writer has quoted (perhaps by mistake) from some other writing or a paraphrase, or else the Greek O. T. in some one of its forms had a sentence like this. The sentence seems to be a poetical rendering of the idea of Ex. 205. λέγει. The formula is frequent; cf. Rom. 4 9!’ ro! 117. Various unsuccessful attempts are made to explain this sentence as_ not meant to be a quotation. (1) The usual method is to take the two sentences πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ χατῴκισεν ἐν ὑμῖν" μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν, as a parenthesis (Hofmann, B. Weiss, and others). Against such an idea speaks the technical introductory formula, which here prepares for the quotation with unusual elaboration. Such a formula is generally (cf. ν. 5) followed at once by the quotation (Rom. 11? is no excep- tion to this rule). Moreover, if what follows is not quoted, Aéyer would have to be given the somewhat unusual meaning “speaks” (as in Acts 24). Such a parenthesis would introduce confusion into the thought of an otherwise well-ordered and forcible passage and make the διό of v. δ unaccountable. (2) Equally futile is the theory that James is merely summarising the thought of the O. T. without intending to refer to any specific pas- sage, 6. g. (Knowling) Gen. 63-5, Deut. 321°f- 1% 21, Is. 63816, Ezek. 3617, Zech. 114 82, The following sentence would then become merely the utterance of the writer, and against this speaks conclusively the formula of citation (ἡ γραφὴ Aéyer).* (3) Neither can the sentence be accounted for as an inexact citation of such passages as Ex. 205 ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι κύριος ὃ θεός σου, θεὸς ζηλωτής; although the sense is akin. (4) The attempt to make λέγει refer vaguely to the substance of v. ‘is also vain. (s) Unacceptable are also the textual conjectures by which various scholars have tried to eliminate a supposed gloss: thus Erasmus and Grotius would excise διὸ Aéyet . . . χάριν (cf. τ Pet. 5°); Hottinger and Reiche, μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν διὸ λέγει (with the insertion of δέ before θεός). πρὸς φθόνον, “jealously,” or, more exactly, “begrudgingly.” πρός with accusative is a regular periphrasis for the adverb; so πρὸς βίαιαν for βιαίως, πρὸς ὀργήν, “angrily,” πρὸς εὐτέλειαν, “cheaply,” *The objection, however, that this interpretation makes it necessary to take ἡ γραφή to mean “the Scriptures” as a whole is not conclusive, cf. Lightfoot on Gal. 3, Hort on 1 Pet. 25. Iv, 5 263 πρὸς ἡδονὴν καὶ χάριν, “pleasantly and graciously” (Jos. Ant. xii, 10°). See L. and S. 5. υ. πρός C. III. 7; Lex. 5. v. πρός 1, 3.g. This idiom is not found elsewhere in the N. T.; see Schmid, Aiticismus, iv, Index. In the sense of “jealously,” πρὸς ζῆλον would have been more in accord with LXX usage, cf. Num. 514 πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως, Ex. 205, Prov. 634 274, Cant. 85, Ecclus. 91, so 2 Cor. 117; but this meaning, “ardent desire for complete possession of the object” as in the case of the husband (Hebrew 7837), seems to be foreign to ζῆλος in general Greek usage, which denotes that emotion by φθόνος, as here. πρὸς φθόνον is thus a phrase drawn from Hellenic models, not founded on the lan- guage of the LXX. φθόνος means primarily “ill will,” “malice,” due to the good fortune of the one against whom it is directed, λύπη ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίοις ἀγαθοῖς (Diog. Laert. vii, 63. 111; see other similar definitions in Trench, Synonyms, § xxvi). This begrudging spirit may be shown in the re- fusal either to give or to share (so especially the verb φθονέω) ; or in the jealous ill will of the gods toward overfortunate mortals; or in other ways corresponding to some of the meanings of English “envy” and “jealousy,” neither of which, however, is in meaning wholly co- terminous with φθόνος. See Trench, J.c.; L. and S. 5. w. φθόνος, φθονέω, ἄφθονος, ἀφθονία. So, like English “ jealousy,” φθόνος is used in a bad sense of the ill will felt toward another with whom one has to share a prized object, but it does not seem ever to be quite equiva- lent to the English term for the lover’s, or husband’s, “ jealousy” ; the object of the emotion seems always to have been found in the hated possessor, not (as often in the English word) in the prized object. The Latin equivalent of φθόνος is invidia, from which comes English “envy.” But the English word is in modern times often used in a milder sense, with reference only to the desire for equal good fortune with another and with no thought of ill will. It thus approaches more nearly the sense of ζῆλος, just as the English “jealousy” (see on 344 42), though derived from ζῆλος, zelus, has acquired much of the peculiar meaning of φθόνος. πρὸς φθόνον limits ἐπιποθεῖ. To connect it with λέγει yields but a poor sense. When connected with λέγει, πρός is usually taken in the sense of “with reference to,” or “against” (so Spitta). But there has been no previous mention of φθόνος in this paragraph to account for the intro- duction of such a quotation relating to it. If the phrase is connected with λέγει and taken in the sense “enviously,” as explaining xevéc, it lacks the proper, and indispensable, conjunction to connect it with χενῶς (inserted by ‘“ CEcumenius” in his paraphrase: οὐ γὰρ χενῶς ἤτοι ματαίως, ἢ πρὸς φθόνον), and the general sense is less satisfactory. 264 JAMES ἐπιποθεῖ, “yearns,” ‘yearns over,” of the longing affection of the lover. See Lightfoot on Phil. 18. Cf. 2 Cor. οἱ", Phil. 18, Deut. 13% 32, Jer. 1314. In Ezek. 235 1,9 (Aq.) it has the lower sense of “‘dote on.” As subject of ἐπιποθεῖ we may supply ὁ θεός, and then take τὸ πνεῦμα as object of the verb; or τὸ πνεῦμα may be taken as subject and ἡμᾶς supplied as object. In the former case τὸ πνεῦμα means the human spirit breathed into man by God (¢. Gen. 27, Is. 425, Eccles. 127, Num. 1622 2716, Zech. 12!, Heb. 12°). This has the advantage that ἐπιποθεῖ and κατῴκισεν then have the same subject, and seems on the whole better. κατῴ- κισεν contains a hint of God’s rightful ownership through creation. On the other hand, τὸ πνεῦμα as subject would mean the Holy Spirit, to whom this would be the only reference in the epistle. In favour of this is the fact that the conception of the Holy Spirit as dwelling in man is repeatedly found in the N. T. and in early Christian literature. (Cf. Ezek. 3627, Rom. 8"f-, 1 Cor. 315 τὸ πνεῦμα tod θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν otxet, Hermas, Sim. v, 61, Mand. iii, 1, v, 2, De aleatoribus, 3. Weinel, Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geiste, p. 159, suggests that ἐπιποθεῖ here (like Aunette, Eph. 439) refers to the idea of Hermas, Sim. v, 67, ix, 32, that God has given us as a deposit a pure spirit, which we are bound to return to him unimpaired. ‘God jealously requires back the spirit, pure as he gave it.” But this interesting interpretation is not supported by any clear indication in the context. If taken thus as a declarative sentence, the quoted passage means ‘‘God is a jealous lover.” This obviously suits perfectly the preceding context. By some the sentence is taken interrogatively. It will then mean, “Does the Spirit, set within us by God, desire to the extent of becom- ing jealous ν᾽ and will express the incompatibility of the Spirit with the sin of jealousy. But (1) this would require μή to introduce the question; (2) φθόνος is too weak a word after πόλεμοι, μάχαι, φονεύετε : and (3) the general meaning of the sentence becomes altogether far less suited to the context. Mayor’, pp. 141-145 gives a convenient and full summary of the various views held about this verse, relating to (1) the construction of πρὸς φθόνον, (2) the meaning of πρὸς φθόνον, (3) the subject of ἐπιποθεῖ. A large amount of material is to be found in Heisen, Novae hypotheses, Iv, 5-6 265 pp. 881-928, Pott, ‘“‘Excursus IV,” pp. 329-355, and Gebser, pp. 329- 346, who gives the views of commentators at length. See also W. Grimm, Studien und Kritiken, vol. xxvii, 1854, pp. 934-956; and Kirn, Studien und Kritiken, vol. \xxvii, 1904, pp. 127-133, 593-604, where the conjecture IIPOZ[TONON for IIPOZ®@ONON (first proposed by Wetstein, 1730) is elaborately, but unconvincingly, defended, and the quotation explained as a combination of Ps. 42! and Eccles. 127. P. Corssen, Géttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1893, pp. 596 f., defends the conjecture ἐπιποθεῖτε, and the sense: “In envy ye desire: but the Spirit which God hath put within you giveth greater grace; sub- ject yourselves, therefore, to God.” χατῴχισεν] BNA minnpsve, χατῴχησεν] KLP minnele ff vg boh syr«tr. The weight of external evidence leads to a (somewhat doubtful) decision for χατῴχισεν. 6. μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. God makes rigorous require- ments of devotion, but gives gracious help in order that men may be able to render the undivided allegiance which he ex- acts. The subject of δέδωσιν is clearly ὁ θεός (cf. κατῴκισεν). That the phrase is drawn from, and directly prepares for, the quotation from Proverbs which follows makes it unlikely that this sentence is part of the quotation of v. 5. μείζονα. The comparative is most naturally taken as mean- ing ‘greater grace in view of the greater requirement.” Another interpretation is that of Bede: “majorem gratiam dominus dat quam amicitia mundi”; so also many other commentators. χάριν. The context seems to require that this be under- stood of the “gracious gift” of aid to fulfil the requirement of whole-hearted allegiance. Cf. 1 Pet. 3’, Eph. 47. On the mean- ing of χάρις, cf. J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 221 ff. Those who take χάριν in the sense of “favour,” 7. 6. not the means of complying, but a reward for complying, have difficulty with μείζονα, which is then inappropriate; and the idea itself suits the context less well. διὸ λέγει, sc. ἡ γραφή or ὁ θεός. A regular formula of quo- tation, Eph. 48 5!4, Heb. 37; διό (cf. Gen. 109, Num. 214) means that the truth just affirmed has given rise to the sacred utter- ance to be quoted. On the formula, see Surenhusius, Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς, 1713, Ρ. 9. 266 ) JAMES The quotation from Prov. 3*4 illustrates and confirms the main position of the preceding passage, vv. 1-ὅ, viz. that God will not yield to Pleasure a part of the allegiance of men’s hearts, but that by his grace he enables men to render to him undivided allegiance. “80 says the Scripture: ‘God is opposed to the proud and worldly, it is the humble who receive his gift of grace.’ Hence (vv.7:) to gain his favour we must humble ourselves before him.”” The quotation thus has the important function of making the transition from the negative to the posi- tive aspects of the subject, cf. the use of it in Clem. Rom. 30%. The quotation is taken verbatim from the LXX of Prov. 333, except that ὃ θεός is substituted for κύριος. This is also the case in the same quotation in 1 Pet. 55 and Clem. Rom. 30, and is probably due to a common form of popular quotation. On the theory of Oort (1885) and Gritz (1892-94), that the ob- scure Hebrew ox in the passage quoted is a corruption of 07>, which has been preserved in James, 1 Peter, and Clem. Rom., see Toy on Prov. 334. ὑπερηφάνοις, “haughty persons,” here applied to those who, despising the claims of God, devote themselves to worldly pleas- ures and position, and insolently look down on others, especially on the humble pious. They are haughty both toward God and toward men, and are here identified with the ‘‘friends of the er Cee De, Bt, On ὑπερηφανία, cf. Ps. 3173, Ecclus. 107 12, 18, 2 Macc. 911 12, Ps. Sol. 23° (where Pompey is described as setting himself up against God), 428, and see Trench, Synonyms, ὃ xxix. ἀντιτάσσεται, “opposes,” cf. v.4 and Acts 18°, Rom. 132, Jas. 5°. ταπεινοῖς, “humble persons.” Here applied primarily to those who are humble toward God (cf. v.7 ὑποτάγητε, v. 19 ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον Kupiov), but not without thought of the same persons’ lowly position in the community, cf. 17° 2°. Spitta (pp. 117-123) has ingeniously argued that the unidentifiable quotation in v. ὅ is from the apocryphal book “‘Eldad and Modad”’ (¢f. Num. 1153. This work is referred to by Hermas (Vis. ii, 34), and iV, 077 267 Lightfoot suggests that the quotation given as γραφῇ in Clem. Rom. 23°?- and as 6 προφητιχὸς λόγος in 2 Clem. Rom. 1174, as well as the one in Clem. Rom. 17°, come from it. Spitta believes that, besides furnish- ing the quotation, it has also influenced the context here in James. The basis of his view is an exegesis which translates the passage thus: “Think ye that the Scripture says in vain concerning envy: ‘It (ἡ. ὁ. envy) longeth to possess the Spirit which He hath made to dwell in us; but He giveth (because of that envy) greater grace (to us)’?” This suggests to Spitta, following Surenhusius and Schéttgen, the situ- ation of Num. 1124-2°, where Eldad and Modad are complained of by the envious Joshua because they have the spirit of prophecy, which no longer rests on him and the others of the Seventy Elders. The haggadic development (Wiinsche, Midrasch Bemidbar Rabba, pp. 408 f.) em- phasised the greater grace granted to Eldad and Modad, which is ex- plained by R. Tanchuma (Bemidbar r. 15) as due to their greater humility, since they modestly declined to be included in the number of the Seventy. The resemblance is here striking, provided the underlying exegesis of James be once accepted. But that requires the conjecture φθονεῖτε for φονεύετε in v. 2, and the consequent understanding of the whole passage as dealing primarily with φθόνος as its topic. It would thus make necessary a wholly different apprehension of the author’s purpose from that presented above. Some of the confirmatory resemblances which Spitta finds between James and passages that may be supposed to have some connection with Eldad and Modad are curious. Thus, Hermas, Vis. ii, 34, cf. Jas. 48; Clem. Rom. 23 (2 Clem. Rom. 11), cf. Jas. 48! δίψυχοι, ταλαιπωρή- cate, 318 dxatactacta, 12 579-; Clem. Rom. 17%, cf. Jas. 414 ἀτμίς. Spitta would also connect with Eldad and Modad the unlocated quo- tation in Clem. Rom. 462, in which he finds some resemblance to the story of Korah, Num. 16. And he compares Hermas, Vis. ili, 6 Sim. vili, 8, which seem to him to allude to this passage. But the evidence collected is not sufficient to overturn the more natural interpretation of the general course of thought in the context. Spitta’s theory introduces a whole series of incongruous ideas, which have no good connection with what precedes and lead to nothing in what follows; and it must be pronounced fantastic. 7-10. Practical exhortation to the choice of God instead of pleasure as the chief end. These verses are addressed to the whole body of Christians, who are all subject to these moral dangers, and some of whom may be supposed to be liable to the reproach contained in ὑπερήφανοι, ἁμαρτωλοί, δίψυχοι. 268 JAMES It is interesting to notice how James’s religious ideal of penitent de- votion to God here diverges from the Stoic ideal of reason as ruler over all passion and desire, which is given as the teaching of the Jewish law in 4 Macc. 533. 7. οὖν, “in view of the relation of God and his service to the pursuit of worldly pleasures.” Cf. for similar grounding of practical exhortations, Rom. 1.312 1419, Gal. 51 6”, Eph. 425 (δι) 515, Col. 216 41, ὅν 12, ὑποτάγητε, “submit yourselves” (A.V.; better than R.V. “be subject’’), ἡ. 6. “become ταπεινοί᾽" (ν. ὃ), of. ταπεινώθητε, ν. 19, On this and the eight following aorist imperatives, the more “pungent” form, see note on 1. On the passive aorist with the significance of the middle voice, which is a common phenomenon of the late language, cf. Buttmann, § 113. 4 (Eng. transl. p. 51); Winer, § 39. 2; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 152-163, especially p. 163; note μαρανθήσεται 1", ταπεινώθητε 41. ὑποτάσσομαι is used elsewhere in the N. T. of voluntary submission to God only in Heb. 12°, where the analogy of submission to earthly fathers has occasioned the use of the word. It is also found in Ps. 377 621. 5, Hag. 218, 2 Macc. 913, in the sense of general submission of the whole soul to God. Submission is more than obedience, it involves humility (Calvin). ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ. “Take a bold stand in resisting temptations to worldliness sent by ‘the prince of this world’ (Jn. 14%), and you will be successful.” This idea seems to have been a commonplace of early Christian thought; cf. 1 Pet. 5% 9, where, as here, the quotation of Prov. 334 precedes, but where it is better not to assume literary connection with James. For the conception of a fight with the devil, cf. Eph. 6" f- and see Weinel, Wirkungen des Gestes und der Geiste, pp. 17 f. The following passages may be compared : Hermas, Mand. xii, 52 δύναται ὃ διάβολος ἀντιπαλαῖσαι, καταπαλαῖ- σαι δὲ οὐ δύναται. ἐὰν οὖν ἀντισταθῆτε αὐτῷ, νικηθεὶς φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν χατῃσχυμμένος. Test. XII Patr. Nephth. 84 ἐὰν οὖν χαὶ ὑμεῖς ἐργάσησθε τὸ χαλόν... ὃ διάβολος φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, Issach. 71 ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς, τέκνα μου, ποι- εἴτε, χαὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα τοῦ Βελίαρ φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, Benj. 52, Dan 5}. In these passages from Test. XII Patr., however, the thought is different ; good conduct is there the means by which the devil is driven Iv, 7-8 269 off, and the idea is that right action diminishes the chance of being tempted later on. James, on the other hand, is-merely saying that boldness will avail against the tempter. 8. ἐγγίσατε, as those who wish to be in the closest possible relation to God. It is assumed throughout that the ostensible purpose of the persons addressed is right. ‘They intend to be God’s servants, but by yielding to natural inclinations they are in practise verging toward a state of ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ. To draw near to God is used of the priests in the temple, Ex. 197%, Ezek. 4415. It is half figurative in Ex. 243, Is. 2913, and wholly so in such passages as the following: Hos. 12°, Wisd. 619 2), Judith 827, Heb. 719 (cf. 415); cf. Ps. 14518, Deut. 4, and Philo’s comment in De migr. Abr. 11, M. p. 445. Test. XII Patr. Dan 6? ἐγγίσατε τῷ θεῷ, is an instructive parallel. ἐγγίσει corresponds to μείζονα δίδωσιν χάριν, ν. δ; as well as to φεύξεται, ν. 1. Cf. Zech. 1%, on which James is very likely dependent, 2 Chron. 152, Mal. 37, Ps. 14538. καθαρίσατε χεῖρας, “make your outward conduct pure.” From the ritual washing to make fit for religious duties (e. g. Gen. 352, Ex. 30!7-4), which was perfectly familiar in Ν T. times (cf. Mk. 7°), sprang a figurative use of language, 6. g. Is. 116, Job 17° 2239, τ Tim. 28, Clem. Rom. 29. In Ps. 234 ἀθῷος χερσὶν καὶ καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, and in Ecclus. 38" the combina- tion found in James is already complete. χεῖρας, καρδίας. For the omission of the article, cf. Schmie- del-Winer, § 19. 7, where it is explained under the rule that pairs of nouns often omit the article. ἁμαρτωλοί, A sharp term is used to strike the conscience of the reader, and is then partly explained by the parallel δέίψυχοι. Half-hearted Christians, such as James desires to stir to better things, are in reality nothing but “world’s people’””—a reproach meant to startle and sting. δίψυχοι, “doubters,” is entirely parallel. 270 JAMES The word ἁμαρτωλός is very rare in secular Greek, but there, as in the O. T. and N. T., has the sense of ‘hardened sinner,” “θά man,” cf. Plutarch, De aud. poet. 7, p. 25 C, the standing phrase τελῶναι xat ἁμαρτωλοί, Mt. 9°f-, etc., and the application of ἁμαρτωλός to heathen, 1 Macc. 1*4, Gal. 215, etc. Cf. Enoch 58 38! 452 94" 95% 3% 7 961», % 4, Suidas defines ἁμαρτωλοί as of παρανομίᾳ συζῆν προαιρούμενοι xat βίον διεφθαρμένον ἀσπαζόμενοι. ἁγνίσατε καρδίας. ἅγνός means “clean,” “pure,” ceremo- nially (Jn. 115°), and so morally. The latter development had already been made (otherwise than in the case of ἅγιος) in secular Greek use. Cf. τ Pet. 122 τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνιχότες ἐν τῇ ὑπαχοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας, Is. 116, and especially Ps. 244 7313. δίψυχοι. It is here implied that διψυχία involves some de- filement from the world, cf. Hermas, Mand. ix, 7 καθάρισον τὴν καρδίαν σου ἀπὸ τῆς διψυχίας. Test. XII Patr. Aser 32, οἱ διπρόσωποι οὐκ εἰσὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτῶν δουλεύουσιν, is an excellent commentary on this verse. 9. “Make yourselves wretched, mourn, lament; that is a state of mind more suited to a Christian than worldly gaiety and joy!” This is primarily a call to repentance; but, more than that, it is a vehemently expressed recommendation of sober earnest- ness as the proper mood of a Christian, in contrast to a light and frivolous spirit. The writer was a sober man who felt the seriousness of living, and wished that others should feel and express it; in a word, a Puritan. The force of James’s exhortation must not be reduced by in- terpretation, nor its range unduly limited. There is positive emphasis on the sadness, and even anguish, which is appropri- ate to the readers’ actual situation, and which they ought to seek, not try to avoid, cf. Mt. 54. Yet neither must the words be misunderstood as representing that a cheerfulness founded on the joy of faith is wrong for a soul which knows itself at one with God (cf. 12!:). James is not giving a complete directory for conduct at all times, but is trying by the unexpected inten- sity of his language to startle half-hearted Christians into a Iv, 8-9 271 searching of heart and a self-consecration which he believes essential to their eternal salvation. For the same mood, due to a different cause, cf. Eccles. 72-*, cf. also Ecclus. 2139 271%. Jer. 4!*f- 918f- and some of the other prophetic par- allels, such as Joel 11°#-, Mic. 24, Zech. 112, have some resemblance, but differ in that in those passages the impending punishment is made prominent. They are nearer to Jas. 5! (cf. especially Zech. 112). ταλαιπωρήσατε “make yourselves wretched,” cf. 51. The word ταλαίπωρος and derivatives are employed both in secular and Biblical use of misery and wretchedness, whether strictly physical or general, often representing some form of Hebrew 11; cf. Tob. 13”, 2 Macc. 447, 4 Macc. 167, Ps. 125, Mic. 24, Ps. 387, Jer. 1212, Rom. 774, Rev. 317, Clem. Rom. 233 ταλαίπωροί εἰσιν οἱ δίψυχοι. ταλαιπωρέω in itself is not limited to mental anguish, nor to repentance. It is here used in order to make a sharp contrast with the pleasures which the persons addressed are seeking. They had better, says James, make wretchedness their aim, and so humble themselves in penitence and obedience before God. The paraphrase of Grotius, “affligite ipsos vosmet jejuntis et aliis cor- poris σχληραγωγίαις,᾽ which corresponds to the view of the Roman Catholic commentators (e.g. Est: opera penalia subite) goes further than the text. πενθήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε, “mourn and lament.” Cf. 2 Sam. το Web.)S*, Mt. 5*, Mk. 16”, Lk. 6%, Rev. 18% 4% 1% πενθεῖν “expresses a self-contained grief, never violent in its manifestations” (Lex.); see Trench, Synonyms, ὃ lxv. But the two words are here used merely to secure a forcible fulness of expression. There is no ground for taking πενθήσατε specifically of an outward garb of mourning. πενθήσατε xat χλαύσατε] NA omit xat; perhaps by accidental confu- sion of KAI with KAA—. The omission would connect πενθήσατε with the preceding, and separate it from xAadcate in a very unnatural way. ὁ γέλως ὑμῶν, pertaining to their present easy ways. This sentence makes the preceding words more intelligible. 272 JAMES eis πένθος, cf. Amos. 8, Tob. 25, Prov. 141%, 1 Macc. 199 94. μετατραπήτω, a poetical word which “‘seems not to have been used in Attic” (1. and S.). In the Greek O. T. it is used in 4 Macc. 65, and by Aquila in Ezek. 1°, Symmachus in Ezek. ro". μετατραπήτω] BP minn. μεταστραφήτωϊ SAKL minnvler, Apparently an emendation, sub- stituting a more familiar verb. κατήφειαν, “dejection,” ‘gloominess,”’ from κατηφής, “of a downcast look.” In accordance with its origin the word refers primarily to the outward expression of a heavy heart, cf. the publican in Lk. 18:3, The word (not found in LXX; nor else- where in N. T.) is frequently used of dejection due to shame, and this association may have governed the choice of it here. Cf. Lex., L. and S., Wetstein, for many examples; and see Field, Notes on the Translation of the N. T., p. 238. 10. ταπεινώθητε “humble yourselves.” James here returns to the starting-point of his exhortation (v. ὃ ταπεινοῖς), and sums up in ταπεινώθητε the several acts directed in vv. 7% This act implies single-hearted faith, and such a soul has a sure reward from God, cf. 1°. See references in Lex. 5. υ. ταπεινο- φροσύνη, and cf. Ecclus. 217 οἱ φοβούμενοι κύριον ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ταπεινώσουσιν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν, 318 717, ταπεινόω means “(ἴο confess and deplore one’s spiritual littleness and unworthiness” (Lex.). On the use of the passive aorist, cf. note on ὑποτάγητε, v. 7. ἐνώπιον κυρίου. κυρίου here means God; cf. vv. δ’ 7 8, ὑψώσει, i. 6. morally and spiritually, by his presence (vv. δ᾽ 78 and 1%); and in the glory of eternal life (12 58); cf. Lk. 1%, Mt. 2312, Lk. 14" 1814, 2 Cor. 117 ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑψωθῆτε. t Pet. 5° bears close resemblance in form, and is noticeable because of the complicated resemblance of the context in Jas. 4 and 1 Pet. 5. But the meaning is different. Here in James it is a humbling of the soul before God, with repentance, and is in contrast to ὑπερηφανία. τ Peter is exhorting to a spirit of submissiveness to God (thy χραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ θεοῦ), even when his providence appears in the hardships of persecution (v.7 τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρίψαντες ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν), cf. also τ Pet. 110 317 413 ff. Iv, 9-11 273 11-12. ‘Do not talk harshly of one another. He who judges his brother, sets himself above the law of love, and infringes on the prerogative of God, who alone is lawgiver and judge.” Vv. and 12 come in as a sort of appendix, much as 512° is attached as an appendix after the whole epistle has received a fitting conclusion in 5. The thought of the writer reverts (cf. 126 3!) to those facts of life which had given him the text for his far-reaching discussion and exhortation (4°), and be- fore passing to other matters he offers an example of how one particular form of μάχη is at variance with a proper attitude to God. The writer still has fully in mind the great opposition of the world and God, and hence probably arises the somewhat strained form in which the rebuke of vv. 11:12 is couched. Criticism of others is often occasioned by a supposed moral lapse, and it may well be, as Schneckenburger suggests, that this was what James had here specially in mind. If that were the case these verses would be a very neat turning of the tables, quite in the style of this epistle (cf. 22°), and the peculiar form of the rebuke, and its attachment as an appendix, would also be partly accounted for. To this would correspond the address ἀδελφοί, v.14, to which μοιχαλέδες, v. 4, ἁμαρτωλοί, δίψυχοι, v. 8, present a marked contrast but no real contradiction. This passage in James would then correspond closely with the mode of thought of Rom. 14", where the καταλαλιά rebuked is occa- sioned by laxity and by intolerance, and where, as here, the reader is told that such judgment may safely be left to God the Judge. 11. καταλαλεῖτε, “talk against,” “defame,” “speak evil” (A.V.), usually applied to harsh words about the absent. On the present imperative, cf. Winer, § 43, 3, § 56, 1, b; Buttmann, § 139, 6; Gildersleeve, Syntax, § 415. Contrast the aorists of vv. 7°. The present is here appropriate in the sense “desist from.’ καταλαλιά is habitual and should be stopped. The word is used in this sense in writers of the Koiné (Polyb. Diod. C.I.G. 1770; see L. and S.) and in the Greek Οὐ T.; cf. Ps. 101°, where toy χαταλαλοῦντα λάθρα τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ evidently refers to 274 JAMES a generally recognised type of evil-doer, also Ps. 50%. Cf. 2 Cor. 12% ἐριθίαι, καταλαλιαί, ψιθυρισμοί, τ Pet. 21, Rom. 1%, See Clem. Rom. 30! 3 35%, etc., 2 Clem. Rom. 45, Hermas, Sim. vi, 55, viii, 72, ix, 267; Mand. ii, 2; Barn. 20; Test. XIT Patr. Gad 3*'5* What is meant here is indulgence in unkind talk. Nothing indicates that anything more is intended than the harsh criticism common in ancient and modern daily life. It is not directed especially against the mutual backbiting of the teachers (414 #-). For such a view as, 6. g. Pfleiderer’s, that this is a polemic against Marcion’s attitude of superi- ority to the Jewish law, there is no more reason (note the address ἀδελφοί) than for the idea (Schneckenburger) of a rebuke of those who tore Paul’s character to pieces behind his back. ἀδελφοί marks a transition, but here, as in 119 25, a minor one. ἀδελφοῦ, τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, with a certain pathetic emphasis. 30 in 1 Jn. 2° 4”. κρίνων, cf. Mt. 71, and note that this is interpreted in the parallel Lk. 637 by the substitution of καταδικάζειν, ‘“con- demn,” cf. Rom. 21. For similar cases of two participles under one article, Ὁ. τὴν 70. κ΄ καταλαλεῖ νόμου καὶ κρίνει νόμον, i. 6. in so far as he thereby violates the royal law of love (28, note the context preceding the precept in Lev. 19!8), and so sets himself up as superior to it. Speaking against the law involves judging the law. νόμου, ἡ. e. the whole code of morals accepted by the readers, as 125 29, νόμος without the article does not here differ from ὁ νόμος. The particular clause in question is evidently the “second great commandment,” cf. the phrase τὸν πλησίον, ν. 15, ποιητὴς νόμου, cf. 122 (and note), Rom. 218, 1 Macc. 257. These are the only cases in the Bible of this phrase, which in secular Greek means “lawgiver,” not ‘‘doer of the law.” κριτής, thus claiming a superiority to the law such as belongs to God alone. The judge is here thought of, not as himself acting under law, but more as the royal judge, the fountain of right, 7. e. such a judge as God is—an idea of κριτής which in- cludes νομοθέτης. ΝΎ a as 2 205 χριτῆς is not to be expanded into χριτὴς νόμου, ‘critic of the law” (cf. νόμον κρίνεις), as is done by many commentators, for that idea has already been fully expressed, while in χριτῆς we have evidently a new idea and a step forward in the argument. V. 1 bears a close relation to the thought of Rom. 2! 144, but the resemblance does not imply literary dependence. 12. εἷς, “One is lawgiver and judge, He, namely, who is able,” etc. Cf. Mt. 1917 εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. els is the subject, νομοθέτης καὶ κριτής the predicate; ὃ δυνάμενος is in apposition with εἷς. God, not Christ, appears clearly intended here; ὁ κριτής in 5° is not decisive against this, and νομοθέτης is far more likely to be used of God, while εἷς ἐστίν unequivocally means God. εἷς is used in order to emphasise the uniqueness, not the unity, of the lawgiver. νομοθέτης. Elsewhere in the Bible only Ps. 9%. See 2 Esd. 78,9, Cf. νομοθετῶν, 2 Macc. 5315, 4 Macc. 525, Heb. 7 88, Very frequent in Philo. The word is here added to κριτής because the latter does not fully express the idea of complete superiority to the law. γομοθέτης] BP. ὃ νομοθέτης] all others. The reading without the article makes νομοθέτης predicate and is more expressive. The article was probably inserted to bring an un- usual expression into conformity with the more common type of sen- tence. χαὶ χριτῆς] om KL minn. External evidence here outweighs, on the whole, the authority of the /ectio brevior. ὁ δυνάμενος σῶσαι Kal ἀπολέσαι. Cf. Mt. 10%8. God’s al- mighty power, to which we are wholly subject, gives him the right to judge. Cf. Hermas, Mand. xii, 65 τὸν πάντα δυνάμενον, σῶσαι Kal ἀπολέσαι, Sim. ix, 234 ὡς δυνάμενος ἀπολέσαι ἢ σῶσαι αὐτόν. Cf. Ps. 6829, Deut. 323°, 1 Sam. 25, 2 Kings 57. This description of God must have been common in Jewish use. τίς et, Cf. Rom. 9” 144, Acts 117, Ex. 3". 13-17. The practical neglect of God seen in the trader’s pre- sumptuous confidence in himself ; and the futility of i. 276 JAMES After the discussion of the fundamental sin of choosing pleas- ure and not God as the chief end of life, two paragraphs follow illustrating by practical examples the neglect of God. Both paragraphs are introduced by the same words, and lack the address, ἀδελφοί, The persons in mind in vv. !*!7 may or may not be Christians. V. !7implies that these presumptuous persons know better. The type of travelling traders referred to was common among Jews. The ease of travel in ancient times is amply illustrated by the Book of Acts and the epistles of Paul. Cf. C. A. J. Skeel, Travel in the First Century after Christ, 1901; Zahn, “ Weltver- kehr und Kirche wihrend der drei ersten Jahrhunderte,” in Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche?, 1898. 13. dye viv, “come now,” “see here,” cf. 51. ἄγε, like φέρε, or Latin age, is usually an insistent, here a somewhat brusque, address. νῦν increases the insistency. ἄγε is wholly non-biblical in its associations, Judg. τοῦ, 2 Kings 474, Is. 43° being the only instances of the idiom in the QO: T. οἱ λέγοντες, i. e. in their hearts, cf. 115 214, ἢ αὔριον] BS minn ff vg boh syrresh Jerome. χαὶ αὔριον] AKLP minn syrbe! Cyr (cf. Lk. 133?!-), A decision is possible only on external grounds. πορευσόμεθα, ποιήσομεν, ἐμπορευσόμεθα, χερδήσομεν. The future in- dicative is the consistent reading of BN (except ποιήσωμεν) Ῥ minn ff vg boh Cyr. The aorist subjunctive (πορευσώμεθα, etc.) is read in each case by KLSY¥ minn. A has πορευσώμεθα, ποιήσωμεν, ἐμπορευσόμεθα, κερδήσομιεν. The context speaks on the whole for the future indicative. In such a case external evidence has little weight (cf. Rom. 5°). τήνδε THY πόλιν, “this city”; not “such a city” (A.V.; Luther: “in die und die Stadt”?; Erasmus: in hanc aut tllam civitatem). ποιήσομεν, “pass,” “spend.” See Lex. 5. v. ποιέω II. ἃ, for examples of this meaning, which is said to be confined to later Greek. ἐμπορευσόμεθα, “traffic,” “do business.” IV, 13-14 277 This word is not very common in the Greek O. T., and is found only a few times in this sense (6. g. Gen. 341° 4234). In secular Greek it is used in this sense: cf. Thuc. vii, 13, and other references in L. and S. κερδήσομεν. That travel is for the purpose of gain was ob- vious to Greek thought, cf. Anthol. palat. ix, 446 ἀγρὸς τέρψιν ἄγει, κέρδος πλόος. The word is used absolutely, as here, “to get gain,” in secular writers, e. g. Hdt. viii, 5, but is not found in LXX (once in Symmachus). 14, οἵτινες, with full classical meaning, “of such a nature that.” For the loose grammatical attachment, cf. 17!- ἀνὴρ δίψυχος. τὸ τῆς αὔριον. Cf. Prov. 271 μὴ καυχῶ τὰ εἰς αὔριον͵ οὐ yap γινώσκεις τί τέξεται ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, also Ecclus. 1118 “-, Lk. 1216 #-, For a good parallel from Debarim rabba 9, see Schéttgen or Wetstein on Jas. 41%. Many parallels are to be found in Philo and in Greek and Latin writers (see Wetstein), e.g. Philo, Leg. alleg. iii, 80, p. 132; Pseudo-Phocylides, 116 f.: 20 \ ΄ ΄ Bplay NENT κ᾽ ees 3 οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τί μετ᾽ αὔριον ἢ τί μεθ᾽ ὥῤαν ἄσκοπός ἐστι βροτῶν θάνατος, τὸ δὲ μέλλον ἄδηλον, Seneca, Ep. τοῖ, especially δὲ 4-6, quam stultum est, etatem disponere ne crastini quidem dominum... nihil sibt quisquam de futuro debet promitiere, etc., etc. Other passages on the uncertainty of life are collected by Plutarch, Consolatio ad A pollonium, 11, p. 107, and in Stobzeus, Anthol. iv, cap. 31, Ὅτι ἀβέβαιος ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εὐπραξία, μεταπιπτούσης ῥαδωίς τῆς τύχης, where especially the tragedians are drawn on. But in both the N. T. and Philo the commonplace is given a different turn: ‘“‘let the uncertainty of life remind you of your dependence on God.” ποία, “Οἵ what character?” 7. e. ‘“Is it secure or precarious?” The answer is: “It is a mere passing mist.” ἀτμίς, “vapour,” cf. τ. Cf. Clem. Rom. 17° (from “Eldad and Modad’’?) ἐγὼ (i.e. Abraham) δέ εἰμι ἀτμὶς ἀπὸ κύθρας (“steam from a pot”). For the comparison of the life of the wicked to smoke and vapour, cf. 4 Ezra 7%, Apoc. Bar. 82°. 278 JAMES Whether James meant “smoke” or “steam” is impossible to deter- mine. Inthe LXX the word is several times used of smoke, Gen. 19*8, Lev. 1618, Ecclus. 2224 (Ὁ) 2415, Hos. 133 (?), although it properly means vapour, in distinction from καπνός ; cf. Aristotle, Meteor. ii, 4, Ὁ. 359 Ὁ. The very similar passage Wisd. 24 uses ὀμίχλη, “mist.” Cf. Ps. 1028 ἐξέλιπον ὡσεὶ καπνὸς at ἡμέραι wou, Ps. 37%. Seneca, Troad. 401, compares human life to smoke (calidis fumus ab ignibus). γάρ introduces the answer to ποία κτλ,, and also the reason for the whole rebuke contained in vv. 33 !.. φαιτομένη, ἔπειτα καὶ ἀφανιζομένη, “appearing and then disappearing,” with a more delicate play on words than is quite reproducible in the English rendering. The same contrast and play is found in Aristotle, Hist. an. vi, 7, Ps.-Aristotle, De mundo, vi, 22, and evidently was a turn of expression common in Greek usage. The best text for this verse is the following: οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τὸ τῆς αὔριον: ποία ἣ ζωὴ ὑμῶν; ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε [ἡ] πρὸς ὀλίγον φαινομένη, ἔπειτα καὶ ἀφανιζομένη. The various readings here adopted are attested by either B or NN, or both. The following variants require comment: τὸ τῆς αὔριον] NKL minneler ff vg sah syrpesh, τὰ τῆς αὔριον] AP 33 minn syrbe! boh. τῆς αὔριον] B. The external evidence is strongly for τὸ τῆς αὔριον, in view of the ten- dency of B to omit articles and the demonstrably emended character of A 33 (cf. Prov. 271, which may have been in the emender’s mind). The “intrinsic” evidence of fitness also speaks for the retention of τὸ. In the text of Β (οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τῆς αὔριον ποία ζωὴ ὑμῶν) the writer would declare that the censured traders do not know what are to be to-morrow the conditions of their life—e. g. whether sickness or health, fair weather or foul. In fact, however, the latter part of this same verse (ἀτμίς χτλ.) and ν. 15 (ζήσομεν) show that the uncertainty of life itself is what he has in mind. Hence ποία cannot be connected with ἐπίστασθε to form an indirect question, but must be a direct in- terrogative introducing a direct question to which ἀτμίς χτλ. gives the answer. ποία] ΒΝ 1518 syrbe! boheod, ποία γάρ] S°AKLP minnpler vg boh syrpesh, quae autem] ff. The shorter and better attested reading is to be accepted. IV, 14-15 279 4 ζωῇ] B omits 4, doubtless by error. ἀτμὶς γάρ] A 33 vg boh omit γάρ. Doubtless emendation to avoid introducing the answer by γάρ. δὲ omits the whole clause ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε. . éote] B minn syrbe! Jerome. ἔσται] AKP minn. ἐστιν] L minn ff vg boh (was). Either ἔσται or ἐστε may well have originated in an itacistic corrup- tion of the other; the evidence for the two together far outweighs that for ἐστιν. As between ἐστε and ἔσται, external evidence (δὲ is lacking) speaks on the whole for ἐστε. ἣ πρὸς" ὀλίγον] BP omit 4. The question is difficult to decide and unimportant for the sense. An accidental agreement here between B and P is possible, but a little improbable.* 15. ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν properly belongs with λέγοντες, ν. 13, ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θέλῃ, “deo volente”; cf. Acts 18%, τ Cor. 419 10᾽, Rom, 1, Phil. 219, 24; Heb. 63. The expressions ἐὰν θεὸς θέλῃ, σὺν θεῷ, θεῶν βουλομένων, τῶν θεῶν θελόντων, or the equivalent, were in common use among the an- cient Greeks. For references to papyri, see Deissmann, Neue Bibel- studien, 1897, p. 80; see also Lietzmann on 1 Cor. 4%. Cf. Plato, Alcib. I. p. 135 D, Hipp. major, p. 286 C, Laches, p. 201 C, Leges, pp. 688 E, 799 E, etc., Theet. p. 151 D, Aristophanes, Plut. 1188, Xeno- phon, Hipparchicus, 9, 8 (Mayor quotes many of the passages). Similar expressions were also in familiar use by the Romans, from whom the modern deo volente is derived. Cf. Lampridius, Alex. Sever. 45 si dit voluerint, Minucius Felix, Octavius, 18 “‘si deus dederit” vulgi iste natu- ralis sermo est, Sallust, Jug. 14, 19 deis volentibus, Ennius ap. Cic. De off. i, 12, 38 volentibu’ cum magnis diis, Plautus, Caft. ii, 3, 94 si dis placet, id. Poen. iv, 2, 88 si di volent, Liv. ix, το, 15, absit invidia verbo. See other references in B. Brisson, De formulis et solennibus populi Romani verbis, rec. Conradi, Halle, 1731, i, 116 (pp. 63 f.); i, 133 (p. 71); viii, 61 (p. 710). The corresponding formula inshallah, “if God will,” has been for many centuries a common colloquial expression of modern Arabic, cf. Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, ch. 13. It is not unlikely that the Mohammedans derived it from the Syrians, and that these had it from the Greeks. The Jews do not seem to have com- monly used any such formula either in Biblical or in Talmudic times. * On this whole passage, see Corssen, Géttingische gelehrie Anzeigen, 1893, pp. 578 f.; B. Weiss, Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. xxxvii, 1894, pp. 434 f. The view taken above is substantially that of Corssen. The resulting text is the same as that underlying the translation of the English R.V. 280 JAMES The use of such formulas “was introduced to the Jews by the Moham- medans” (L. Ginzberg, JE, art. ‘‘Ben Sira, Alphabet of”’). The statement often found that the practise recommended was a part of Jewish customary piety in N. T. times goes back at least to J. Gregory, whose Notes and Observations on Some Passages of Scripture, first published in 1646, are reprinted in Latin in C7itici sacri, 1660, vol. ix. He quotes from the ‘Alphabet of Ben Sira” (written not ear- lier than the eleventh century; see JE, 1. 6.) a Jewish instance of the formula, and evidently based his statement (‘‘mos erat inter Jud@os”’) on this, with, perhaps, some knowledge of the ways of medieval and later Jews. For the passage from the “Alphabet,” see Schéttgen, Horae hebr. pp. 1030 f.; the earliest use of it to illustrate Jas. 415 is prob- ably J. Drusius, Questiones hebraicae, iii, 24, 1599 (reprinted in Critict sacri, vol. viii). The origin of this type of “‘apotropaic” formula among the Greeks and Romans is to be sought in the notions of divine vengeance for human presumption, to be averted by thus refraining from a positive assertion about the future. It thus appears that James is here recommending to Chris- tians a Hellenistic pious formula of strictly heathen origin. His own piety finds in it a true expression of Christian submission to divine providence. er) ted, “hath: τ and.” Others take the first χαί as introducing the apodosis. But the more natural suggestion of the repeated x«t speaks for the view given above. Ghoowev, ηοιήσομεν] BSAP minn ff. ζήσωμεν, ποιήσωμεν! KLSY 048 minnrler, Probably emendation due to a mistaken notion that these verbs were included under ἐάν. See Beyschlag for references to older discussion of this variant. The two Mss. (181, 328) alleged (by Wetstein and later critics) to contain the reading ζήσωμεν . . . ποιήσομεν both read —w— in both cases. 16. νῦν δέ, “but actually, in point of fact,” in contrast to what they ought to do. καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονίαις ὑμῶν, “glory in these your acts of presumption.” καυχᾶσθε is thrown into strong emphasis by νῦν δέ, Instead of humility toward God, their attitude is one of boasting. ἀλαζονίαις refers to the attitude described in v. 13 (οἱ λέγον- Tes), καυχᾶσθε (which carries the emphasis) signifies an aggra- vation of it, viz. the pride which they take in their own over- IV, T5727 281 weening self-confidence and presumption. ἐν indicates that ἀλαζονίαι are the ground of the glorying, cf. 1°. Another view takes χαυχᾶσθε of the arrogant talk itself, described in v. 13, and understands ἐν as merely giving the presumptuous manner of it (Mayor: “the manner in which glorying was shown, ‘in your self- confident speeches or imaginations’ = ἀλαζονευόμενοι᾽᾽), cf. Clem. Rom. 215 ἀνθρώποις eyxavywuévors ἐν ἀλαζονίᾳ tod Aédyou. This is possible, but is repetitious, and gives no such advance in the thought as the emphatic viv δέ seems to call for. adafovia, “braggart talk,” or, more inclusively, “presump- tuous assurance,” “‘vainglory” (so 1 Jn. 21° [R.V.]); much like ὑπερηφανία, with which it is frequently associated, cf. Rom. 1%, 2 Tim. 32, 2 Macc. οὗ (2. /.). It is stronger than καυχᾶσθαι, and has the idea of emptiness and insolence, cf. Wisd. 215 58, 4 Macc. 126 218 819 τὴν κενοδοξίαν ταύτην καὶ ὀλεθροφόρον adafoviay. See the full discussion in Trench, Synonyms, ὃ xxix. ἀλαζών and its derivatives are found twelve times in the Greek O. T. Cf. Test. XII Patr. Dan 1°, Joseph 178; Teles (ed. Hense?), p. 40. πονηρά͵ “wrong.” Cf. Jas. 24, Mt. 1519, Jn. 3!9 77, τ Jn. 322, Col. 17, Acts: 25%. There is no distinction drawn in vv.1*.17 between πονηρά and ἁμαρτία. 17. This is a maxim added merely to call attention to the preceding, and with no obvious special application. It is almost like our ‘‘verbum sap sat,’’ and means, ‘‘You have now been fully warned.” For the same characteristic method of capping the discussion with a sententious maxim, cf. 118 213 318, There is, however, a certain pointedness in ν. 17 by reason of its relation to James’s fundamental thought. ‘‘You Chris- tians have in your knowledge of the law a privilege, and you value it (cf. the reliance on faith in 214 #-); this should spur you to right action.”” Cf. Rom. 211-29. of the requirement of conduct imposed on the Jews by their superior knowledge. οὖν, “so then,” serving to introduce this summary conclud- ing sentence, which is applicable to the whole situation just described; see Lex. s.v. οὖν, d; cf. Mt. 117 774, Acts 262%. 282 JAMES kahov, “good,” opposed to πονηρός (cf. ν. 15). So nearly always in N. T. (only Lk. 21° in sense of “‘beautiful’’), cf. Jas. 27 413, Mt. 516 ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα. ἁμαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστίν, sc. τὸ καλόν, i. e. the good thing which he does not do. On αὐτῷ, cf. Clem. Rom. 444, and the similar expression ἔστιν ἐν got ἁμαρτία, which is a standing phrase in Deut., e.g. 15? 2331. 2418, CHAPTER V. 1-6. The practical neglect of God seen in the cruelty and luxury of the rich; and the appalling issue which awaits it. 1. aye νῦν οἱ πλούσιοι, cf. on 415. οἱ πλούσιοι, cf. 1 1. 26, The chief question here is whether “the rich,”’ who are attacked and warned, were Christians or not. In 1” f. the rich man referred to seems certainly to have been a Christian brother (see note) ; in 2? ‘- the rich visitor is appar- ently not a Christian, so “the rich” of 26. In the passage be- fore us the rich as a class are apostrophised, without reference to their religious profession, in order to make clear to the Chris- tian readers the folly of admiring or striving after riches. Those who possess riches, runs the argument, do not present an at- tractive example, so soon as the real character of their posses- sions and prospects is understood. Like pleasure (41°), so also wealth—which is sought after in order to gain pleasure— is a false aim. The tone is thus not of an appeal to evil-doers to reform (contrast 47 and even 4}*17), but of a threatening of judgment; and the attitude ascribed to the rich is that of 2°f., rather than of 1°f-. Some of the rich may be Christians, but it is not as Christians that they are here addressed. The pur- pose of the verses is partly to dissuade the Christians from set- ting a high value on wealth, partly to give them a certain grim comfort in the hardships of poverty (cf. 57"). The passage is highly rhetorical and in detail recalls the de- nunciations of the O. T. prophets. Many of the ideas are found IV ADVE 283 in Wisd. 2, where the customary arrogance and selfishness of the rich, the transitoriness of their prosperity, and their treatment of the righteous are set forth. Lk. 6541. also forms a close par- allel. Cf. Enoch 947 9648 973 98416 9911-16 00818 10358, The only important argument for supposing these ‘‘rich”’ to be Chris- tians is that they are in form directly addressed. For a full statement of the arguments, see Zahn, Eznleitung, i, ὃ 4. But the form is the same as that of the prophetic denunciations of foreign nations, e. g. Is. 13° (Babylon), 15 (Moab); cf. Mt. 23 (the apostrophe against scribes and Pharisees), and the regular form of Biblical ‘‘ Woes.” κλαύσατε, “lament.” Cf. 42; but there the lamentation is connected with repentance, here it is the wailing of those who ought to look forward to an assured damnation. Cf. Rev. 615-11 (note οἱ πλούσιοι, v. 15), Joel 15 κλαύσατε. ὀλολύζοντες, “with howls of mourning.” Cf. Is. 13° (against Babylon) ὀλολύζετε, ἐγγὺς yap ἡμέρα κυρίου, 15. 15% 3 (against Moab) πάντες ὀλολύζετε μετὰ κλαυθμοῦ, Amos 83 (note the following context), Zech. 112, Is. τοῦθ 14% (against Philistia), 167 (Moab), 23! (Tyre), 23! 14 (ships of Tarshish), Git Jer. 48%): Ezek.’ 2115; ὀλολύζω and ἀλαλάζω both mean ‘cry aloud”’ (onomatopoetic), and both refer in earlier secular Greek to joyful crying, or to a cry raised to the gods in worship, seldom to a mere wail of grief or pain. In the LXX ὀλολύζω is the ordinary representative of bb» and means “howl,” especially in distress or from repentance. It is used only in the prophetic books, and nearly always in the imperative. ἀλαλάζω is the regular representative of Hebrew y1, except in Jere- miah, where in all the four cases of its use, 48 29 (47)? 30 (49)* 32, it stands for 55»; cf. also ἀλαλαγμός, Jer. 2018, for nbd. It means “cry” —with joy, triumph, battle fury, by way of sounding alarm, or the like. Thus in the Greek O. T. there is a differentiation of meaning between the two words ὀλολύζω and ἀλαλάζω. In the N. T. ὀλολύζω only occurs once, while ἀλαλάζω is found but twice, Mk. 538 (χλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλά- Covtas, in the sense of a cry of grief), and 1 Cor. 13! (κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον). The explanation of the facts seems to be that in later Greek usage ὀλολύζω took the special sense of “cry in distress,” while ἀλαλάζω retained a wider range of meaning. 284 JAMES ταλαιπωρίαις, “miseries,” 7. 6. the sufferings of the damned, Ew. *, Rev. 18"! 21%) Ps. 140", ‘Enoch 63° 99% ‘103% For the denunciation of future punishment against oppressors, cf. 2-Macc, 714 1% 1935, 4 Macc. 9% 33 roll 118. 23 1212, 19 7318, The reference found here by many older, and some more recent, commentators to the destruction of Jerusalem is wholly uncalled for; it is equally wrong to apply this to the distress preceding the Last Judgment; and still worse to think merely of the loss of property by the rich. ἐπερχομέναις, “impending,” cf. Eph. 27, Lk. 2126, Hermas, Vas: ii; .9*s tv, τ 2-3. Your wealth is already, to any eye that can see reali- ties, rotten, moth-eaten, and rusted. ‘The rust of it will testify to you in the Day of Judgment how valueless it and your con- fidence in it are. And the worthlessness of your wealth will then be your ruin, for you have been storing up for yourselves only the fire of hell. 2. σέσηπεν, “has rotted,” “‘is rotten,” ἡ. e. of no value. The word is here used to apply (literally or figuratively) to every kind of wealth. On the general idea, cf. Mt. 61°. In James it is not the per- ishability but the worthlessness of wealth that is referred to. The property—no matter what its earthly value, or even its earthly chance of permanence—is worthless if measured by true standards. This and the following verbs in the perfect tense (γέγονεν, κατίωται) are picturesque, figurative statements of the real worthlessness of this wealth to the view of one who knows how to estimate permanent, eternal values. The perfect tense is appropriately used of the present state of worthlessness. Others take the perfect tense in these verbs as describing by prophetic anticipation (cf. Is. 60!) what will inevitably happen with the lapse of time. But this is unnecessary, and the change to the future in ἔσται makes it unlikely. Notice also that the mention of the “rusting” of gold and silver points to a figurative meaning. The view taken of these perfects carries the decision for a series of exegetical problems in vv. 2: * which are discussed in detail in the notes. be | 285 A different view can be made clear by the following paraphrase, based on Huther’s interpretation : “Your wealth will all perish in the Day of Judgment. The rust of it will testify to you beforehand of your own coming destruction, and the Judgment, when it has destroyed your possessions, will afterwards fall on you. You have been amassing treasure in the very days of the Judgment itself !” . The idea that σέσηπεν xth. gives the first specification of the actual sin of the rich, who show their rapacity by treasuring up wealth and letting it rot instead of using it to give to the poor or as capital to pro- mote useful industries (“‘CEcumenius,” Calvin, Hornejus, Laurentius, Grotius, Bengel, Theile), is needless and far-fetched. τὰ ἱμάτια. On garments as a chief form of wealth, cf. Mt. 619. Macc. 1124, Acts 20%, also Hor. Ep. i, 6, lines 40-44, Quint. Curt. v, 63. σητόβρωτα, cf. HDB, “Moth,” and EB, “Moth.” The word is found elsewhere in the Bible only in Job 1378 ὡς ἱμάτιον σητόβρωτον. In secular Greek it has been observed only Orac. Sib. ap. Theoph. Ad Απίοϊ. ii, 36 (fragm. 3, 1. 26), σητόβρωτα δέδορχε (of idol-images). Cf. Is. 518 50°, Mic. 74 (LXX), Job 327? (LXX). 3. κατίωται, “rusted,” “corroded.” The preposition κατα- has a “perfective” force, almost like “rusted out,” or “rusted through,” cf. the only other Biblical instance, Ecclus. 12" εἰς τέλος KaTiwoev, Hence R.V. “utterly rusted.” See J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 111 ff. The word is found in Epict. Diss. iv, 61:4, but is rare. In fact, silver does not easily corrode so as to become worthless (Gf. however, Ecclus. 2919 f-), and gold not at all. On ancient knowledge of the freedom of gold from rust, see references in Wetstein. In the ap- parent references to the rusting of gold in Ep. Jer. 11 and 24, tarnishing is probably meant. But James’s bold figure has nothing to do with such expressions. He means that even the most permanent earthly treasure has no lasting value. ‘Have rusted” is equivalent to “are worthless,” and the writer is thinking of the present, although the pres- ent is illuminated by what he knows about the future. Cf. Chaucer, Prologue to Canterbury Tales: “And this figure he addide yit therto, That if gold ruste, what shulde yren doo?” 286 JAMES εἰς μαρτύριον, used in various relations in the N. T., Mt. 84 (Mk. 144, Lk. 514), ro! 2414, Mk. 6" (Lk. 95), 139 (Lk. 2113), Heb. 3°. It seems to mean “for a visible (or otherwise clear and unmistakable) sign.” It is derived from an O. T. expression, found in Gen. 2139 3144, Deut. 311% 28, Josh. 2427, in all which cases it represents 1y) or my), which means “to be a sign,” or “pledge,” or “symbol,” usually with reference to some material object, a book, a stone, a group of animals. See also Job 16% (Job’s sickness as μαρτύριον of his guilt), Mic. 12. In Josh. 2227, 28 34, Ruth 47 μαρτύριον is used in a different grammatical rela- tion but in the same sense. In 1 Sam. 9*4, Prov. 2914, Hos. 212, Mic. 718, εἰς μαρτύριον is found, due to a mistranslation but probably intended by the translator in the same sense. So here the rust is the visible sign and symbol of the real state of the case—of the perishability of riches and hence of the certain ruin awaiting those who have no other ground of hope. Others take εἰς μαρτύριον to mean “‘for witness of your rapacity” (see above on σέσηπεν) or “of your own coming destruction.” The latter view corresponds with that which takes the perfects σέσηπεν χτλ. in a future sense as prophetic of the Judgment. 99 ΤΊ ὑμῖν͵, “to you,” “giving you proof of the facts.” This is better suited to the context than “against you,” vz. in the judicial process of the Last Day. Cf. Enoch 96‘ for parallel to this latter. φάγεται Tas σάρκας ὑμῶν, “shall consume your fleshly parts,” z.e. “the perishability of your riches will be your ruin,” “you and your riches will perish together.” The idea is of rust cor- roding, and so consuming, human flesh, like the wearing into the flesh of a rusty iron chain—a terrible image for the disas- trous results of treating money as the reliance and the chief aim of life. For a somewhat similar turn, cf. Ecclus. 34(31)* φάγεται is used as future of ἐσθίω in LXX and N. T. ἐσθίω is found in secular writers of the devouring of a fire (Hom. JI. xxiii, 182), the eating of a sore (Asch. Philoctetes, fragm.), the effect of caustics, and the like. V;.3 287 σάρκας. The plural is used from Homer down, also by Attic writers and Plato, in a sense not distinguishable from that of the singular. So Lev. 26%, 2 Kings οὐδ, 4 Macc. 15'*, Rev. 176 19!8- 21, Lk. 2439 (Tischendorf). ὡς πῦρ ἐθησαυρίσατε, “since you have stored up fire,” 7. 6. the fire of Gehenna. There is a play in the word ἐθησαυρίσατε (cf. vv. ##:), as in Mt. 619; cf. a curiously similar play in Ecclus. 29, Prov. 1627 ἀνὴρ ἄφρων ὀρύσσει ἑαυτῷ κακά, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ χειλέων θησαυρίζει πῦρ. On the fire of hell, cf. Is. 308, Judith 1617, Mt. 535, and see P. Volz, Jiidische Eschato- logie, pp. 280 f. 285 f.; W. Bousset, Die Religion des Juden- tums?, Ὁ. 320. On ὡς with the meaning “since,” see Lex. s.v., I, 4, b. (not quite adequate), L. and S. s.v., B, IV. ὡς πῦρ would more naturally be connected with the preceding (so WH. mg.), cf. Is. 3027 χαὶ ἣ ὀργὴ τοῦ θυμοῦ ὡς πῦρ ἔδεται. But this leaves ἐθησαυρίσατε without an object, which is impossible, unless, indeed, the text is defective and a word has dropped out. Windisch conjectures ὀργήν, cf. Rom. 25. Syr omits ὡς and connects πῦρ with the following sentence. Latin vt and vg connect with the preceding ; but a wide-spread alteration (Cod. Amiat., not Cod. Fuld.) has relieved the difficulty by adding iram after thesaurizastis. Cf. Mt. 61° 19%, Mk. 10%, Lk. 18%2, Rom. 25 θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς, Prov. 118 (LXX), 27, Tob. 4° θέμα γὰρ ἀγαθὸν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ εἰς ἡμέραν ἀνάγκης, 4 Ezra 65 777 “a treasure of works laid up with the Most High,” Apoc. Baruch 241, and Charles’s note, Test. XII Patr. Levi 135, and Charles’s note. ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, ἡ. 6. “which shall be in the last days.” The last days are the days of judgment, when punishment will be awarded. Cf. the same phrase in 2 Tim. 3! and (with the article) Acts 217, Didache 16%. For the omission of the article with a superlative, cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § το. 9. Other similar phrases are τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (Jn. 659 “-, etc.), ἐσχάτη ὥρα (x Jn. 218), ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (τ Pet. 15), ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου χρόνου (Jude 18, etc.); see Lex. 5. υ. ἔσχατος, τ and 2, ἃ. The same expressions are found in the O. T., cf. Num. 24", Deut. 4%, Is. 22 4123, Jer. 23%, Ezek. 3816, Dan. 228, Hos. 3°, 4 Ezra τ315. Other interpretations are possible for the last sentence of v. ὃ: 288 JAMES (1) With the punctuation, as above, by which ὡς πῦρ is connected with the following, ὡς can be taken in the sense, “‘as,” “as it were.” But this is less forcible, since the writer who wrote the preceding and following denunciation would not be likely to hold back from the out- and-out threat of “fire.” (2) ὡς πῦρ can be connected with the preceding sentence, and ἐθη- σαυρίσατε made to begin a new sentence (so A.V., R.V., WH. mg., fol- lowing Old Latin and Vg). In that case we must read: “The rust of them will be for a witness and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the Last Days,” etc. This makes a fairly suitable context for ὡς πῦρ. But the following sentence is left mutilated, for ἐθησαυρίσατε requires an object; and the sense is weakened. Under this interpretation the “‘Last Days” have to be understood as already here. 4. As an example of the way in which the rich have been treasuring up fire for themselves, James specifies injustice to farm labourers, a conspicuous form of oppression from early O. T. times down. Cf. also v. 5. Hermas, V%s. ili, 9°, has many points of similarity. μισθός, cf. Deut. 2415 αὐθημερὸν ἀποδώσεις τὸν μισθὸν αὐτοῦ ... ot... καταβοήσεται κατὰ σοῦ πρὸς κύριον͵ Lev. 1013, Mal. 3° τοὺς ἀποστεροῦντας μισθὸν μισθωτοῦ, Ecclus. 31 (34)25-27, Tob. 414, Ps.-Phocylides, 19 μισθὸν μοχθήσαντι δίδου" μὴ θλῖβε πένητα. ἐργατῶν, “labourers,’”’ especially used of farm labourers. In O. T. only Wisd. 1717, Ecclus. 191 4018, 1 Macc. 3°, Ps. 9415 (Sym.). The word has thus almost no LXX associations. In the N. T., beside this passage in James it is used freely by Matthew (six times) and by Luke and Acts (five times), and four times in the Pauline and Pastoral epistles. ἀμησάντων, “reap.” Only hereinN.T. Cf. Lev. 25", Deut. 2419, Is. 17° 37%, Mic. 61°. χώρας, “estates,” “farms,” cf. Lk. 12!6 2174, Jn. 435, Amos 3% 10,1 2 Macc. 8% E.V. “fields” suggests too small a plot of ground; χώρα means not a fenced subdivision but the whole estate under one ownership. ἀφυστερημένος, “kept back,’ an appropriate word, rare in Biblical Greek. Cf. Neh. 9”; used intransitively in Ecclus. 14". Ma Gir 289 ἀφυστερημιένος] B*N. ἀπεστερημένος]Ϊ BAP minnpler, ἀποστερημένος] KL. The rare word found in B*§ has been emended to a more familiar one, cf. Mal. 35, Ecclus. 41 295 31(34) 27. ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, “by you,” cf. 14%. See Lex. 5. υ. ἀπό, II, 2, d. bb. col. 59>. Cf. Winer, ὃ 47 (Thayer’s translation, p. 371), Butt- mann, ὃ 147. 6 (Thayer’s translation, pp. 325 f.). κράζει, cf. Deut. 241°; Gen. 419 (blood of Abel), 1839 1- 1938 (sin of Sodom), Enoch 47! (prayer and blood of the righteous). εἰς τὰ ὦτα κυρίου σαβαώθ, cf. Is. 5°, ἠκούσθη yap εἰς τὰ ὦτα κυρίου σαβαὼθ ταῦτα (i.e. the aggressions of the rich), Ps. 187. κυρίου σαβαώθ, “Lord of Sabaoth,” “Lord of Hosts,” HiSI¥ 77°. This term originally referred to Jahveh as the god of the armies of Israel, then as ruler of the “hosts of heaven,” 1. 6. the stars and heavenly powers. In LXX usually represented by παντοκράτωρ (see Lex. s.v.), but in all cases in Isaiah and in nine others transliterated, as here and Rom. 92°. See HDB, “Lord of Hosts,” EB, “Names,” Smith, DB, “Sabaoth,” San- day on Rom. 9*°. The term is here used (after Is. 5°) to sug- gest the almighty power and majesty of Him who will make the cause of the labourers his own, so in 3 Macc. 6!7f., 5. Your luxurious life on this earth is nothing in which you can take satisfaction, it is but the preliminary to a day of punishment. Cf. Lk. 1618! (Dives and Lazarus), Lk. 6241. 1216-21, Cf, Enoch 98" 102°. ἐτρυφήσατε, “you have lived in luxury,” “lived delicately” (R.V.). Derived from θρύπτω, to “break down,” “enervate” ; it denotes soft luxury, not necessarily wanton vice. Cf. Neh. 92> Kal ἐφάγοσαν καὶ ἐνεπλήσθησαν καὶ ἐλιπάνθησαν καὶ ér- ρύφησαν, Ecclus. 144; and for τρυφή Lk. 725, 2 Pet. 213, Ecclus. 1416, Cf. Hermas, Sim. vi, τὸ τρυφῶντα ἣν καὶ λίαν σπατα- λῶντα, Lk. τ619 εὐφραινόμενος καθ᾽ ἡμέραν λαμπρῶς. The aorist is “constative” or summary (cf. J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 109), and is properly translated by the English perfect (A.V., R.V.). 290 JAMES ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, in contrast to heaven, or the next world; ἐν ἡμέῤᾳ σφαγῆς is the day which introduces the next world. Cf. rt, OF. ἐσπαταλήσατε, “given yourselves to pleasure.” R.V. “taken your pleasure” is weaker than the original, and not so good as the antiquated “been wanton” of A.V. Cf. 1 Tim. 5°, Ecclus. 211, σπαταλᾶν is a less literary word than τρυφάω, having worse associa- tions in secular use, and suggesting positive lewdness and riotousness. This word and its cognates, σπαταλός, σπατάλη, χατασπαταλάω, are each used a few times in LXX, Sym. and “‘aliz.”” Cf. Barn. τοῦ, Varro ap. Non. p. 46. 12 spatula eviravit omnes Veneri vaga pueros. Hort, pp. 107-109, assembles many instances of the word from the LXX and other sources. ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς, “you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter.” This declares, with a hard, ironical turn, what has been the real nature of the τρυφᾶν and σπαταλᾶν, the life of luxurious pleasure; it is merely a fattening of the ox that he may be fit for slaughter. Cf. Jer. 465: ὥσπερ μόσχοι σιτευτὸι τρεφόμενοι, Xen. Mem. ii, 122 τεθραμμένη εἰς πολυσαρκίαν, Philo, In Flacc. 20 σιτία μοι Kal ποτὰ καθάπερ Tots θρέμμασιν ἐπὶ σφαγὴν didorat, καρδίας, i.e. the heart as the seat of pleasures, appetites, passions. See Lex. 5. υ. καρδία, 2.b. ὃ. Cf. Mt. 151%, Lk. 2134, Acts14*’, (Ps. cog", Judge. τὸ 5, Hermas, δ ἡ. v, 3%. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς, “for (i.e. so as to be fat in) the day of slaughter.” On this use of ἐν, cf. 1 Thess. 413. The rendering of A.V., R.V., “a day of slaughter,” is wrong, cf. Rom. 25, τ Pet. 21%. The article is omitted, as often in compact prepo- sitional expressions, Blass-Debrunner, ὃ 255. ΟἿ. Jer. 123 a6- ροισον αὐτοὺς ws πρόβατα eis ohayny, ἅγνισον αὐτοὺς εἰς ἡμέραν σφαγῆς αὐτῶν, κοῦ], Is. 343. 5, Ezek. 2115, Ps. 4423, Orac. Sib. v, 377-380. The Day of Judgment is meant. ΟἿ. Enoch 949, “Ye have become ready for the day of slaughter,” 95" .09°, Jer..25**. Many interpreters think that ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς must refer to the time in which ἐθρέψατε has been going on. Then the sense will be: “You ¥ 5-0 291 have been occupied with pampering yourselves in the very day when you will be finally cut off.” But this is unnecessary, and the words become less pregnant and significant, while it is not natural to speak of the present time as if the Day of Judgment itself (near though it may be) had already come. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ! BN*P 33 minn ff vg boh. ἐν ἡμέραις] A. ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ! S°KL 048 minnvler syrutr Cyr, A’s reading is unsupported error. The prefixing οἵ ὡς changes and weakens the sense because of failure to note the allusion to the Day of Judgment in ἡμέρα σφαγῆς. This reading with ὡς is correctly enough paraphrased by aeth (ed. Platt) ut qui saginat bovem in diem mactationis. 6. By your oppression you are guilty of the blood of right- eous men; do you not find them your enemies? κατεδικάσατε, “condemned.” Cf. Mt. 127 37, Lk. 637. The rich are judges, or at any rate control the courts. ἐφονεύσατε, “murdered.” Cf. 2% 42. Oppression which un- justly takes away the means of life is murder. Cf. Ecclus. 4! 31(34)?>?": ” 5 / \ A ἄρτος ἐπιδεομένων ζῳὴ πτωχῶν, ὁ ἀποστερῶν αὐτὴν ἄνθρωπος αἱμάτων " 7 ἣν, / oS 78 A |g φονεύων Tov πλησίον ὁ ἀφαιρούμενος συμβίωσιν, καὶ ἐκχέων αἷμα ὁ ἀποστερῶν μισθὸν μισθίου. Here, however, every kind of cruel conduct leading to the death of the poor and righteous is doubtless meant, including in some cases actual murder—whether violent or judicial (e. g. the execution of Stephen). Cf. Enoch 991° 1007 1031-15, Wisd. 2”, Ps. 3732, Is. 571, Mt. 2335, Tov δίκαιον, singular, representing the class. Cf. Is. 31% 4 571 (note v.4 ἐνετρυφήσατε), Wisd. 212, Enoch 957. The oppressed and the righteous are evidently the same persons. The rich here are not thought of as Christians. Cf. Amos 25; 7 512 84, where the poor, the oppressed, and the righteous are the same. In Lk. 2347, Acts 314 752 2214, τ Jn. 21 (cf. τ Pet. 318), ὁ δίκαιος is used of Christ, cf. Enoch 38? 53% It is not, however, likely that Christ would here be referred to so vaguely, although his death might natu- 292 JAMES rally be included in the writer’s mind under égovebcate. The attack is upon the rich as a class, and their misdeeds are thought of as character- ising their whole history. Mt. 235 is an excellent parallel; cf. also the reproaches in Acts 751-53, οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν ; “does not he (sc. ὁ δίκαιος) resist you?” ἀντιτάσσεται (cf. Jas. 45, τ Pet. 5°, Rom. 132, Acts 18°, Prov. 334) evidently relates to a highly formidable resistance, and probably the witness of the poor at the Day of Judgment is meant. Cf. Enoch g1! (and Charles’s note) 98!? 104%. In Hos. 1° ἀντιτάσσεσθαι is contrasted with ἐλεεῖν, to “show mercy”; in Prov. 33: with διδόναι χάριν, “be favourably inclined.’’ It seems to be used of active opposition or resistance, not of a merely hostile attitude. So Esther 34, Prov. 315, 4 Macc. 1623 (Cod. δ). Other interpretations of v. δ are to be rejected : (x) If, with many interpreters, οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται is taken as a positive statement instead of a question, it must probably refer to the deliber- ate non-resistance of the righteous on principle, as in Is. 537, 1 Pet. 22%. But (a) this sense is wholly unsuited to the context, (b) the asyndeton after δίχαιον then becomes well-nigh impossibly violent, and (c) to end this powerful passage of triumphant denunciation with a brief reference to the submissive non-resistance of the righteous would be strange in- deed. (2) For this last reason the view that the meaning is, “he offers you no effective resistance,” is almost equally unacceptable. (3) Hofmann and others take ἀντιτάσσεται as impersonal passive, “no opposition is made,” cf. v. % But (Mayor) “‘it is the middle, not the active, which means to resist.” (4) Some interpreters would supply ὃ θεός as the subject of ἀντιτάσ- σεται, taking the latter interrogatively. This would bein accord with the Jewish avoidance of the name of God wherever possible, and would form an allusion to 45; but it seems here unnecessary and un- natural. Puss In the interest of this last interpretation Bentley conjectured OKC for OYK; like most N. T. conjectures, it is unnecessary. (5) By those who take τὸν δίκαιον to refer to Jesus Christ, 0% ἀντι- τάσσεται is interpreted either interrogatively, as a warning of the Day of Judgment (cf. Mt. 25%! f-), or affirmatively, in the light of τ Pet. 233, 7-11. Encouragement to patience, and constancy, and to mu- tual forbearance, in view of the certainty and nearness of the Com- ν, 6-Ὁ 293 ing of the Lord, and in view of the great examples of the prophets and Job, and of their reward. With v.7 begin the Counsels for the Christian Conduct of Life, which occupy the rest of the chapter and are contrasted with the censure of Worldliness in 4!~5°, 7. μακροθυμήσατε, “be patient.” This word has more the meaning of patient and submissive, ὑπομένειν that of stead- fast and constant, endurance. But the two words are nearly synonymous. Cf. 1°f-4? 5", Col. τὴ 3! (with Lightfoot’s motes), Cor. 134’, 2 Cor. δ᾽" *, Hebsi64t: 8;'2 Tints ati) Ses Trench, Synonyms, ὃ liii. μακροθυμεῖν is rare in secular Greek, but is common (as verb, noun, and adjective) in the LXX, partly with reference to God’s attribute of long suffering (6. g. Ps. 8615), partly in passages commending the virtue to men, 6. g. Prov. 19", Ecclus. 298, Baruch 435 τέχνα, waxpo- θυμήσατε (suffer patiently) thy παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπελθοῦσαν ὑμῖν ὀργήν. Enoch οὔ" 3 97!-? 1031-5 are good parallels, combined, as they are, with the series of Woes to which vv.'-6 are so closely similar. It is to be noted that the evil and hardship which are to be borne with patience, and which call out groans (v. 5), are not necessarily persecution, or unjust oppression, but may well be merely the privations, anxieties, and sufferings incident to the ordinary life of men. Note the reference to the example of Job (whose misfortunes were grievous sickness and the loss of children and property), and the special precepts about conduct in sickness, vv. 14 %-. Notice also κακοπαθεῖ, v.13, a general word for being in trouble. ovv presents the exhortation as a direct corollary from the declaration in vv.1-° that judgment awaits the rich; but the paragraph as a whole is related to the main underlying thought of 4+-s5°, not exclusively to's!-*. Cf. 2 Thess. 1% 7, ἀδελφοί, possibly in contrast to οἱ πλούσιοι, v. 1. τῆς παρουσίας Tod κυρίου, “the coming of the Lord.” Cf. ἈΠῸ. 24% 2%, 81,895 7 Viness.. λιν 5282 hess ot, ol Pets tae. # Cor.ir577, 1) Thess. 219... Thess. 25. τ Jans o78) ΣΝ τ". Tov κυρίου refers to Christ, cf. 11 21 514, 2 Pet. 5413, 204 JAMES The word παρουσία is found but five times in the LXX (Neh. 28 (Cod. A), Judith 108, 2 Macc. 812 15%!, 3 Macc. 31”), and until the N. T. we do not find it used with reference to the Messiah at all. Nor does God’s coming to redemption and judgment appear to be referred to in Jewish sources by this term. Its natural associations in such use are with the “‘advent,” or visit (παρουσία), of Greek kings to the cities of their realm; cf. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten?, pp. 278 ff., Light from the Ancient East, pp. 372 ff-, and especially Brooke’s full note on τ Jn. 228, Test. XII Patr. Jud. 222, ἕως τῆς παρουσίας θεοῦ τῆς διχαιοσύνης is probably a Christian addition; it is not found in the Armenian ver- sion. It refers to Christ with the naive patripassianism characteristic of these interpolations. The quotations given by Spitta (p. 137) from the Testament of Abraham are of Christian origin, and refer to the παρουσία of Christ (cf. Schiirer, GJV, ὃ 32, V, 6). ἱδοὺ ὁ γεωργός. “The farmer has to wait, and to be patient” ; a comparison used as an argument, and introduced abruptly, as in 215 3% 5 This comparison does not bear any special relation to the occu- pation of the readers. ὁ γεωργός refers to the independent farmer, not to the ἐργάτης. We are here reminded of the parables of the Gospels, where the con- summation of all things is repeatedly compared to a harvest, e. g. Mt. 13%; cf. also Ecclus. 61°, Ps. 126% 6, For the thought, cf. (Wetstein) Tibullus, ii, 6. 21 f. and the apocryphal fragment quoted in Clem. Rom. 233-5 and 2 Clem. Rom. 117-4. τὸν τίμιον καρπόν, “the precious crop” for which he longs. τίμιος is added in order to make the comparison complete. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, “over it,” “with reference to it.” Cf. the use of ἐπὶ with παρακαλεῖν, “console,” in 2 Cor. 14, 1 Thess. 3’, and with μετανοεῖν, 2 Cor. 12%; also the more general use, Jn. 1215, Rev. 2215, ἕως λάβῃ sc. ὁ καρπός. So R.V. A.V. and R.V. mg., with some interpreters, supply “the farmer” as subject. πρόϊμον] B 048 (minnpsec) vg sah. δετὸν πρόϊμον] AK (LP minnpler) syrpesh syrhel.txt, χαρπὸν τὸν πρόϊμον] N*(N° om τόν) min ff syrbel-me boh. The shortest reading is to be preferred; the others represent two dif- ferent methods of completing a supposedly defective text. It should be stated that B*KL minnp!ler read πρώϊμον, the more usual form of the word. Vaid 295 Another possibility would be that the Syrian reading with ὑετόν, which clearly gives the best sense, is original; and either (1) that ὑετόν was accidentally omitted, so as to produce the text of B, and bya secondary conjecture (χαρπόν) that of δῷ, or else (2) that for ὑετόν; not understood outside of Palestine and Syria, χαρπόν was directly substituted, so that the editor of the text of B, having to choose between two rival readings, cut the knot by refusing to accept either. But against this stands the weight of the external testimony to the omission, together with the argument from the shorter reading. In any case the reading xaexéy is secondary. πρόϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον sc, ὑετόν, “the early and late rain.” On the ellipsis, to which there is no complete parallel, cf. 34. To fill the ellipsis, καρπόν is sometimes supplied from the preced- ing (so many interpreters from Cassiodorius to Spitta), and then the reference will perhaps be to the succession of barley and wheat, Ex. 9#1 !-; cf. Stephanus, Thesaur. 5. v. πρώϊμος ; Geoponica, i, 125% 31, with similar distinction of οἱ πρώϊμοι καρποὶ χαὶ of ὄψιμοι. . . of δὲ μέσοι; Xen. a. 27% The sentence would then mean, “until he receive it early and late,” and would emphasise the continuance of the farmer’s anxiety until all the harvests are complete. But this does not well suit the comparison with the Parousia, where it is the event itself, not the completion of a series of processes, that is significant. Moreover, the O. T. parallels tell strongly against this interpretation, and there is no evidence that such a distinction had any place in popular usage. The use of these terms for the two critical periods of rain is found in Deut. 1114, Jer. 524, Joel 235, Zech. 10! (LXX); cf. Jer. 33, Hos. 63. The comparison is drawn from a matter of in- tense interest, an habitual subject of conversation, in Palestine. The “early rain” normally begins in Palestine in late October or early November, and is anxiously awaited because, being necessary for the germination of the seed, it is the signal for sowing. In the spring the maturing of the grain depends on the “late rain,” light showers falling in April and May. With- out these even heavy winter rains will not prevent failure of the crops. Thus the farmer is anxious, and must exercise Maxpo- θυμία, until both these necessary gifts of Heaven are assured. The special anxiety about these rains seems to be character- istic of the climate of Palestine and southern Syria, as distin- 206 JAMES guished from other portions of the subtropical region of the Mediterranean basin. Elsewhere, although the dry season and rainy season are quite as well marked, the critical fall and spring months are pretty certain to secure a sufficient rainfall, as in Italy, or else there is no hope of rain in them, as in northern Egypt in the spring. But in Syria these rains are usual yet by no means uniform or certain; hence only there do they take so prominent a place in the life and thought of everybody. See J. Hann, Handbuch der Klimatologie®, ili, 1911, pp. 90-96, especially the instructive tables, pp. 12 f., 93; H. Hilderscheid, “Die Niederschlagsverhaltnisse Palastinas in alter und neuer Zeit,’ in Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palidstinavereins, xxv, 1902, especially pp. 82-94; E. Huntington, Palestine and Its Trans- formation, 1911; EB, “Rain.” It is instructive to observe that the Ὁ. /. δετόν belongs to the “Syrian” (Antiochian) text, the framers of which were familiar with a similar climate, while in Egypt χαρπόν (δὲ boh, etc.) or else the shorter reading with no noun at all (B sah) was prevalent. The reading καρπόν (or the corresponding interpretation) was likewise natural from the point of view of Italy and the western Mediterranean (ff Cassiodorius). The question arises whether this may be a purely literary allusion, drawn from the O. T. passages and made without any personal knowledge of these rains and their importance. That is made unlikely by the absence of any other relation here (apart from the names of the two rains) to the language or thought of any one of the O. T. passages. The author uses a current phrase as if he were himself familiar with the matter in question. To suppose that to him and his readers this was a mere Biblical allusion to a situation of which they knew only by literary study would give a formal stiffness and unreality to the passage wholly out of keeping with the intensity and sincerity of the writer’s appeal. The resemblance here to the O. T. is in fact less close than to the tract Taanith of the Mishna, where the date is discussed at which, if rain have not yet begun, it should be prayed for, The tract shows in many ways how deeply these seasons of rain entered into all the life of the people. See also JE, “Rain.” V, 7-10 207 The Apostolic Fathers and the apologists contain no reference to these terms for the rains of Palestine, and the names do not seem in any way to have become part of the early Christian religious vocabulary. 8. καί, as often in comparisons. Cf. Jn. 657, Mt. 6%, 1 Cor. 1549, Phil. 1%; οὕτως καί, Jas. 1% 35. στηρίξατε Tas καρδίας ὑμῶν, “make your courage and pur- pose firm.” Cf. 1 Thess. 415, Ps. 112°, Ecclus. 6%” 221%, Judg. τοῦ; 8, στηρίζειν is common in N. T., cf. τ Pet. 5%, 2 Thess. 277, Lk. 2232, Acts 187%, Rom. 1”, etc. ἤγγικεν, cf. 1 Pet. 47, Mk. 115, Mt. 3%. 9. μὴ στενάζετε κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων, “do not groan against one another.” στενάζειν does not mean “murmur,” but “groan,” “complain of distress,” cf. Heb. 13”. It is frequently used in the LXX for the utterance of various kinds of pain and grief. The more emphatic words here are κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων, and the sentence means: “‘Do not blame one another for the distress of the present soon-to-be-ended age.’”’ This, it is pointed out, is both wicked (ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε) and needless (ἱδοὺ ὁ κριτὴς πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἕστηκεν). We ought to cultivate patience in general, and we ought not to blame one another for our unmerited dis- tress, for we should recognise that it is part of the inevitable and temporary evil of the present age. The translation “grudge” (A.V.) means “complain”; ς΄. Ps. 59% (A.V.), Shakespeare, 1. Henry VI, iii, 1, 176. iva μὴ κριθῆτε. They are themselves in danger of judgment, if they commit the sin of complaining of their brethren. Cy. gi2f. 412 212 also Mt. 7! (but there is here in James nothing of the idea that judging brings Judgment). As in 4”, so prob- ably here, God is the judge, and with the coming of the Lord (i. ὁ. Christ), v. 7, God’s judgment appears; cf. Rom. 25. The sentence means hardly more than “for that is wrong,” ἘΠ 5.35. πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν, cf. ΜΚ. 1379, Mt. 2455. 10. ὑπόδειγμα λάβετε, “take as an example.” Cf. Ecclus. 298 JAMES 4416, 2 Macc. 62% 31, 4 Macc. 1723, Jn. 1315; 1 Pet. 2%, ὑπόγραμ- μον. τῆς κακοπαθίας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας, “of hardship coupled with patience,” ἡ. 6. “οὗ patience in hardship,” easily understood as a form of hendiadys. Cf. 4 Macc. 9% διὰ τῆσδε THs κακοπαθίας καὶ ὑπομονῆς, “through this patient endurance of hardship.” κακοπαθία and κακοπαθέω are somewhat rare words; they correspond well to English “hardship.” Cf. Mal. 11%, Jonah 4”, 2 Macc. 2351. Ep. Arist. 4926, also Sym. in Gen. 3”, Ps. 12° 164 1275. τοὺς προφήτας. Cf. Mt. 512 2334. 37, Acts 752, Heb. 1133, Ὁ hess) 24) ἀν 2 Chron.: 70". It is noteworthy that the example of Christ’s endurance of suffering is not here referred to, as it is in τ Pet. 27 #-. of ἐλάλησαν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου. Cf. Dan. 96 (Theod.) οἱ ἐλάλουν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου, Jer. 209 44:56. οἱ ἐλάλησαν κτλ, is added in order to point out that even the most eminent ser- vants of God have been exposed to suffering and hardship, go Mt 5). ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι] BP minn™ulti,. ἐν ὀνόματι] SN. ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι] min, τῷ ὀνόματι] AKL 048 minnpler, Difficult to decide; external authority is here against lectio brevior. 11. μακαρίζομεν τοὺς ὑπομείναντας. Cf. 1% 12, Dan. 12! μακάριος ὁ ὑπομένων, 4 Macc. 1° 722, εἰδὼς ὅτι τὸ διὰ τὴν ἀρετὴν πάντα πόνον ὑπομένειν μακάριόν ἐστιν, Mt. 2413. μακαρίζομεν refers to the prevalent habitual estimate of the worth of constancy. It sounds as if James had in mind some well-known saying like Dan. 1213. τοὺς ὑπομείναντας, ‘those who have proved themselves con- stant”—a general class, not specific individuals. τοὺς ὑπομείναντας] ΒΑΡ minn ff vg syrpesh-hel, τοὺς ὑπομένοντας] KL 048 minnpler sah. External evidence must decide; the meaning differs by only a shade. V, I0-II 299 τὴν ὑπομονὴν ᾿Ιώβ͵ This virtue was seen in Job’s refusal to renounce God, Job 1311. 29f- 7315 1619 1975 #.. It had evidently already become a standing attribute of Job in the popular mind; in Tanchuma, 29. 4 (Schéttgen, Horae hebraicae, pp. 1009 f.) Job is given as an example of steadfastness in trial and of the double reward which that receives. Cf. Clem. Rom. 17’ 26%, 2 Clem. Rom. 68; this verse is the only mention of Job in the N. T., and has doubtless given rise to the modern saying, “as patient as Job.” ἠκούσατε. Perhaps in the synagogue; cf. Mt. 5%: 27, 88, 38, 43, τὸ τέλος κυρίου, “the conclusion wrought by the Lord to his troubles.” Cf. Job 42-17, especially v.12 ὁ δὲ κύριος ev- λόγησε τὰ ἔσχατα ᾿Ιώβ. τὸ τέλος χυρίου is taken by Augustine, Bede, and many later inter- preters to mean the death of Christ. But in that case not the mere death, but the triumph over death, would have had to be made promi- nent. The suggestion is at variance both with what precedes and with what follows; and the death of Christ is not likely to be introduced so ambiguously. “If τέλος is supposed to refer to the Resurrection and Ascension, the main point of the comparison (suffering) is omitted: if it refers to the Crucifixion, the encouragement is wanting” (Mayor). τέλος sometimes means “death,” as Wisd. 319, cf. 215 μαχαρίζει ἔσχατα δικαίων. But it is not necessary to give it that meaning here. εἴδετε, i.e. in the story of Job. Cf. Heb. 3%, Test. XII Patr. Benj. 41 ἴδετε οὖν, τέκνα pou, τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀνδρὸς TO τέλος (v. J. ἔλεος). πολύσπλαγχνός ἐστιν ὁ κύριος καὶ οἰκτίρμων. Cf. Ps. 103% (note ν. οὐκ εἰς τέλος ὀργισθήσεται), 1114 1458, Ex. 34°, Ecclus. 27-11, Ps. Sol. τοῦ, Test. XII Patr. Jud. τοῦ, Zab. 9’. πολύσπλαγχνος means “very kind.” Apart from far later Chris- tian use (e. g. Theod. Stud. p. 615, eighth century) it is elsewhere found only in Hermas, Sim. v, 74, Mand. iv, 3. Cf. πολυσπλαγχνία, Hermas, Vis. i, 32, ii, 28, iv, 23, Mand. ix, 2, Justin Mart. Dial. 55; πολυεύσ- πλαγχνος, Hermas, Sim. v, 44; πολυευσπλαγχνία, Hermas, Sim. viii, 61, It seems to be equivalent to LXX πολυέλεος. Like other words from σπλάγχνα (Οὐ ὉΠ) it must be of Jewish origin. This group of words is rather more strongly represented in the N. T. than in the LXX, and seems to have come into free popular use in the intervening period. 300 JAMES οἰκτίρμων, “merciful.” In classical Greek only a poetic term for the more common ἐλεήμων (Schmidt, Synonymik der griech. Sprache, iii, Ὁ. 580). Frequent in the LXX for D°3M; nearly always used of God; in the majority of cases combined with ἐλεήμων. Cf. Lk. 635, 12-18. Do not break out into’ oaths. Instead, if in distress, pray; if well off, sing a psalm to God ;°é sick, ask for prayer and anointing, and confess your sins. Prayer is a mighty power ; remember Elijah’s prayer. ‘i The exhortation relating to oaths appears to be parallel with μὴ στενάζετε. “Do not put the blame for your hardships on your brethren: do not irreverently call upon God in your dis- tress.””’ Vv. 15:18. all relate to the religious expression of strong emotion. 12. πρὸ πάντων δέ, “but especially,” emphasising this as even more important than μὴ στενάζετε. For the use of this formula near the end of a letter, cf. 1 Pet. 4°, and see examples from papyri quoted in Robinson, Ephe- SUNS, P. 279. μὴ ὀμνύετε. A reminiscence of Mt. 53437 (note especially v. 37 and the reference to οὐρανός and γῆ in vv. 3:1:). Tov οὐρανόν. The accusative is the ordinary classical con- struction after ὄμνυμι; ἐν with the dative, as found in Mat- thew is a Hebraism. ἤτω, for ἔστω. See references in Lex. and Winer-Schmiedel, § 14.1, note; also Mayor’s note, p. 167, J. H. Moulton, Pro- legomena, p. 50. ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν TO val vai, “let your yea be yea” (and nothing more). This is simpler, and in every way better, than to translate, “Let yours be the ‘Yea, yea,’”’ ἡ. 6. the mode of speech commanded by the Lord in Mt. 537. It is not to be supposed that James had in mind any question of the lawfulness of oaths in a law-court in a Jewish or Chris- tian country. To any oriental such a saying as this, or Mt. 5%, would at once suggest ordinary swearing, not the rare and ν Τὺ 301 solemn occasions about which modern readers have been so much concerned. The commentators are divided on this point. Huther (Beyschlag) names many who hold that James meant to forbid all oaths, but a still larger number who think that only frivolous swearing was in his mind. Huther’s own argument is that if he had meant to forbid se- rious oaths he would have had to mention explicitly the oath by the name of God. The form here differs from that of the saying in Mt. 537 ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν val vai, and it is a singular fact that the words of Jesus are quoted substantially in the form found in James by many early writers, including Justin Martyr, A pol. i, τό, Clem. Alex. Strom. v, 14, 99, p. 707, Vil, 11, 67, p. 872. The form in James is simpler and seems to correspond to a current Jewish mode of describing truthfulness. Similar lan- guage is found in Ruth rabba 3, 18, “‘ With the righteous is their ‘yes,’ yes, and their ‘no,’ no,” ascribed to ΒΕ. Huna (f 297 A.D.), quoting his contemporary R. Samuel bar-Isaac, and doubtless independent of the N. T. The fact probably is that at an early date the text of Mt. 5%? was in the East either modified or misquoted by the influence of the more familiar current phrase, which also appears in James. In the later quotations, however, direct influence from Jas. 512 is very likely to have comein. The theory that we have here in James and in these early writers the traces of an oral form of the sayings of Jesus preserved independently of Mat- thew’s Greek gospel is unlikely, and unnecessary. For a con- venient presentation of the facts, see A. Resch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, ii, Matthaeus und Marcus, 1894 (Texte und Unters. x), pp. οὐ f. The commonness of oaths (often half-serious, half-profane) in daily speech in the ancient world, both Jewish and Gentile, does not need to be illustrated, cf. Eccles. 92. The censure of the moralists seems to have proceeded both from the tendency to untruthfulness which made an oath seem needed (and which it intensified), from the dishonest dis- tinctions between the valid and the invalid oath, and from the irrever- ence of profanity (Philo, De decal. 19 φύεται γὰρ ἐκ πολυορχίας ψευ- 302 JAMES δορχία xat ἀσέβεια). To these motives should be added the dread among the Greeks of an oath which might commit to unexpected ob- ligations perhaps tragic in their result. From Jewish sources there are consequently many sayings recom- mending either complete abstinence from swearing or at least the greatest possible restriction of the custom. Thus Ecclus. 23°" 27, Philo discusses oaths in De decal. 17-19, and De spec. leg. ii, 1-6. His principle is that oaths are to be avoided when possible, that oaths should be taken by lower objects (‘‘the earth, the sun, the stars, the universe”) rather than by “the highest and eldest Cause,” and he praises the man who by any evasion (cf. English, “Oh My!”) avoids the utterance of the sacred words of oaths. His abhorrence of oaths is due to their profane impiety and unseemliness, but he also lays stress on truthfulness and on the wickedness of false swearing and of swear- ing to do wrong. Rabbinical teaching was to much the same effect, with varying de- grees of rigour. Nedarim 20 a, “Accustom not thyself to vows, for sooner or later thou wilt swear false oaths’; Midrash Bemidbar r. 22, ‘Not even to confirm the truth is it proper for one to swear, lest he come to trifle with vows and swearing, and deceive his neighbour by oaths”; Midrash Wajjikra r. 6 (cf. Shebuoth 47 a), where all swear- ing is forbidden. See A. Wiinsche, Neue Beitrége zur Erlduterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1878, pp. 57-60, and E. Bischoff, Jesus und die Rabbinen, 1905, pp. 54-56. In particular the Essenes refrained from oaths; Josephus, BJ, ii, 8°: ‘“‘Every statement of theirs is surer than an oath; and with them swear- ing is avoided, for they think it worse than perjury. For they say that he who is untrustworthy except when he appeals to God, is already under condemnation,” cf. Ant. xv, 104. Philo, Quod omn. prob. liber, 12, mentions among the doctrines of the Essenes τὸ ἀνώμοτον, τὸ ἀψευδές. Similar reasons led to the discouragement of oaths by Greek moral- ists. Pythagoras himself is said (Diog. Laert, Pythag. 22, Jamblichus, Vita Pythag. 9 and 28) to have taught yd’ ὀμνύναι θεούς, ἀσχεῖν γὰρ αὑτὸν δεῖν ἀξιόπιστον παρέχειν, and this was certainly a principle of the Pythagoreans. See also Diodor. Sic. x, fragm. 9°. From the Stoic side comes the saying of Epictetus, Enchir. 335, ὅρχον παραίτησαι, et μὲν οἷόν τε, εἰς ἅπαν, εἰ δὲ μή, ἐκ τῶν ἐνόντων, and that of the Stoically influenced Eusebius, in Stobeus, Anthol. ili, 27, 13 οἱ πολλοὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποισι τὸ εὐόρχους εἶναι αὐτοῖς παραινέουσιν, ἐγὼ δὲ χαὶ τὸ ἀρχὴν wd’ εὐπετέως ὀμνύναι ὅσιον ἀποφαίνομαι. For other Greek sayings, cf. Chcerilus of Samos (fourth century B.c.), Soxov δ᾽ οὐτ᾽ ἄδιχον χρεὼν ὀμνύναι οὔτε δίκαιον (in Stobeus, Anthol. iii, 27,1); Menander, Sent. sing. 441 ὅρχον δὲ φεῦγε xat δικαίως χά- δίχως ; the statement of Nicolaus Damascenus (Stob. Anth. iv, 2, 25), Φρύγες Boxotg οὐ χρῶνται, οὐτ᾽ ὀμνύντες, οὔτε ἄλλους ἐξορχοῦντες; V} 12:13 303 Sosiades’ maxims of the Seven Sages, in Stobeus, Anthol. iii, 1, 173 ὅρχῳ μὴ χρῶ. See R. Hirzel’s excellent monograph, Der Eid, 1902; L. Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, 1882, ii, pp. 1-11; references in Mayor and Wetstein on Mt. 537; Stobzeus, Anthol. iii, c, 27 Περὶ ὅρκου. With early Christian writers the objection to oaths was further in- creased by reason of the necessary association with heathen worship and formulas. The subject is discussed by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Augustine. See references in Mayor, K. F. Staudlin, Geschichte der Vorstellungen und Lehren vom Eide, 1824, “Oaths,” in DCA. iva μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε, cf. v. °, with the same meaning. ὑπὸ χρίσιν] BSA minn ff vg boh sah syrvtr, εἰς χρίσιν] minn?. εἰς ὑπόχρισιν] KLP 048 minn™lKi, The reading of KLP is a superficial emendation. 13-15. The negative precepts for behaviour under the trials of earthly existence (μὴ στενάζετε Kat’ ἀλλήλων, μὴ ὀμνύετε) are followed by positive precepts for the conduct of life in the shifting scenes of this world. In trouble and joy, and in sick- ness, the first thought and the controlling mood should be Prayer. 13. κακοπαθεῖ Tis; “is any in trouble?” Cf. note on κα- κοπαθίας, v.; the word refers to calamity of every sort, and is not to be limited to the opposite of εὐθυμία. These short sentences, with question and answer, are characteristic of the diatribe; cf. Teles, ed. Hense?, p. το. See Introduction, p. 12. εὐθυμεῖ Tis; “is any in good spirits?” εὐθυμεῖν, εὐθυμία are not found in LXX, εὔθυμος only in 2 Macc. 1126 In the N. T. they are found elsewhere only in Acts 241 272 25 36—in both cases in passages of a distinctly Hellenic character. ψαλλέτω, “let him sing a hymn.” Cf. Eph. 5°, Rom. 159,1 Cor. 1415; ψαλμός, τ Cor. 1426, Eph. ee GOL, 3°, Properly “play the harp,” hence frequent in O. T., especially in Psalms (forty, times), for 791, “sing to the music of a harp,” 6. g. Ps. 717 984. But the word does not necessarily imply the use of an instrument. 304 JAMES 14, ἀσθενεῖ Tis; “is any sick?” Cf. Mt. τοῦ, Jn. 44%, Acts 937, Phil. 225 “-, τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους THs ἐκκλησίας, definite officers, not merely the elder men in general, cf. Acts 201”. Presbyters as church officers are mentioned in the N. T. in Acts 11% 1423 154 8, 2% 38 164 2017 2118, 1 Tim. 5% 2 17, 190) Tit. 15, r Pet. 51, 2 Jn. 1, 3 Jn. 1. Jewish villages also had presbyters. On the origin and history of the Christian office of presbyter, see EB, “‘ Presbyter,” “Bishop,” “ Ministry”; HDB, “Bishop,” “Church,” “Church Govern- ment,” “‘ Presbytery.” The solemn visit here described gives a vivid picture of the customs of a Jewish town. James recommends it not as anything new, nor as excluding all other therapeutic methods. Visiting the sick (cf. Mt. 2539) was enjoined by the rabbis: Nedarim 39, ‘‘He who visits the sick lengthens his life, and he who refrains shortens it”; ¢f. Sanhedrim τοὶ, (Wetstein), where R. Elieser is visited in sickness by four rabbis; Shab- bath 127 b; Sota14 a. See Edersheim, Jewish Social Life, pp. 167 f.; S. Schechter, Studies in Judaism, second series, Philadelphia, 1908, pp. 99 f. and note 42, p. 311. ; The following interesting passages have been brought to the atten- tion of N. T. scholars by the aid of Dr. S. Schechter (see Fulford, St. James, pp. 117f.): Samachoth Zutarti (ed. Chaim M. Horowitz, Uralte Tosefta’s, Mainz, 1890, pp. 28-31), ‘From the time when a man takes to his bed, they come to him and say, ‘Words neither revive one, nor do they kill.’ [After exhorting the sick man to set his worldly affairs in order, as Isaiah did Hezekiah, 2 Kings 20!, if he sees that the sick man is dangerously ill, the visitor says], ‘Confess before thou diest, for there are many who have confessed and died not; others who did not confess have died. Again perhaps on the merit of thy confession thou ‘wilt recover.’ If he can confess with his mouth, he does so. If not, he confesses in his heart. Both the man who confesses with his mouth and the man who confesses in his heart are alike, provided that he directs his mind to God and his understanding is clear.” T. B. Shab- bath 13 b, “‘He who comes to a sick man says, ‘May the Lord have mercy on you.’” ‘He who comes to pay a visit to a sick man must not sit on a bed or on a chair; but let him wrap his mantle round him, and pray the mercy of God for the man. There is a divine presence at the head of the sick man.” Closely like the verse in James is Baba bathra 116 a, “Let him into whose house calamity or sickness has come, go to a wise man (i.e. a rabbi) that he may intercede for him with God.” . ἐκκλησίας, cf. note on συναγωγήν, 22, and EB, “Church.” προσευξάσθωσαν. Cf. Ecclus. 38% 14, Vv, 14 305 ἀλείψαντες ἐλαίῳ, cf. Mk. 6:3, The aorist participle does not imply that the anointing is to precede the prayer; cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses, §§ 139-141 ; Blass-Debrunner, § 339; Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 130-132. The Jews, as well as other ancient peoples, used oil as a common remedial agent. In many cases, doubtless, the application had thera- peutic value; often, however, in the lack of scientific knowledge it must (like many other remedies, ancient and modern) have owed its efficacy wholly to influence on the patient’s mind. Cf. Is. τό, Lk. τοῦ", and the evidence collected by Mayor; and see ‘‘Oil” and “‘ Anointing,” in EB, and HDB. Galen, Med. temp. ii, calls oil ‘‘The best of all rem- edies for paralysis (τοῖς é&noapudévors καὶ αὐχμώδεσι comacty).” Talm. Jerus. in Berakoth 3. 1, ‘‘R. Simeon, the son of Eleazar, per- mitted R. Meir to mingle wine and oil and to anoint the sick on the Sabbath. And he was once sick, and we sought to do so to him, but he suffered us not.” Talm. Jerus. in Maasar Sheni 53. 3, “‘A tradition: Anointing on the Sabbath is permitted. Τί his head ache, or if a scall comes upon it, he anoints it with 01]. Talm. Bab. in Joma 77. 2, “If he be sick, or scall be upon his head, he anoints according to his man- ner.” Talm. Jerus. in Shab. 14. 3, “ΑΔ man that one charmeth, he putteth oil upon his head and charmeth.” With these Jewish ideas may be compared the notion of the oil which flows from the tree of life in paradise and bestows physical and spiritual blessings (Apoc. Mos. 9, Vita Adae et Evae 36, Evang. Nicod. 19). This use of oil for healing was combined with the appeal to spiritual forces, as we can see in Jas. 513 and as is hinted in Mk. 61%. The refer- ence in James is to an accepted popular custom, and the writer would hardly have been able to distinguish the parts played in the recovery by the two elements, or perhaps even to give any theory of the function of the oil. It is possible, as has often been suggested, that one motive for James’s exhortation is to counteract the habit of seeking aid from superstitious, often heathenish, incantations and charms. The verse is often quoted to that end by later Christian writers (see references infra). The same therapeutic use of oil (olewm infirmorum) in combination with religious rites continued in the earlier centuries of the Christian era, and is there, as among the Hebrews, carefully to be distinguished from that anointing (olewm catechumenorum, chrisma principale, etc.) which was the symbol of the conveyance of a character or grace. The story told by Tertullian (Ad Scapulam, 4) is often quoted: “Even Severus himself, the father of Antoninus, was graciously mindful of the Christians; for he sought out the Christian Proculus, surnamed Torpacion, the steward of Euhodias, and, in gratitude for his having once cured him by anointing, he kept him in his palace till the day of his death.” 306 JAMES Besides this case Puller, Anointing of the Sick, has collected a large number of narratives of cures through the administration of holy oil, written at various dates from the third to the seventh century, and at- tested by contemporary or nearly contemporary evidence. Many of them are cases of paralysis or blindness, and may well have been of an hysterical nature (see P. Janet, The Major Symptoms of Hysteria, 1907). During this period of church history it does not appear that the therapeutic anointing with oil was generally thought of as also hav- ing spiritual efficacy. Origen, Hom. ii in Levit. 4, uses the passage in James to illustrate the remission of sin through penitence, but seems to pay no attention to the reference to anointing. Likewise Chrysos- tom, De sacerd. iii, 6, quotes James to prove the authority of priests to forgive sins, but seems to take no thought of the anointing. Other writers also make it plain that they think of the oil merely as a means of securing bodily health. The value in the Christian church of such a popular substitute for pagan magic was felt at this time. Cyril of Alexandria, De adorat. in spir. et ver. vi, p. 211, urges his readers to avoid the charms and incantations of magicians, and fittingly quotes Jas. 515-15, and likewise Czsarius of Arles more than once quotes the verses on occasions when he is warning his people against the common recourse to sorcerers and superstitions, instead of which he recommends the consecrated oil. Cf. Append. serm. S. Augustini, serm. 265, 3, Migne, vol. xxxix, col. 2238, and serm. 279, 5, col. 2273; also the Venerable Bede, Exposit. super div. Jacob. epist., Migne, vol. xciii, col. 39. From the fourth century on there are Greek and other oriental litur- gies containing forms for blessing the holy oil, for instance in one of the oldest, the Sacramentary of St. Serapion (fourth century, Egypt), ed. Brightman, Journal of Theol. Studies, i, 1899-1900, pp. 108, 267 f. The Latin forms are to the same effect. During these centuries the therapeutic use of oil consecrated by a bishop or a priest or a wonder- working saint was permitted to any person without distinction. The letter of Pope Innocent I to Decentius (Zp. 25, 8, Migne, vol. xx, cols. 560 f.), dated March το, 416, says that sick believers ‘“‘have the right to be anointed with the holy oil of chrism, which, being consecrated by the bishop, it is lawful not for the priests only, but for all Christians to use for anointing in case of their own need or that of members of their household.” Before the end of the eighth century, however, a change came about in the West, whereby the use of oil was transformed into an anoint- ing of those about to die, not as a means to their recovery, but with a view to the remission of their sins, and in connection with the giving of the viaticum. How far the change in the church may have been in- fluenced by coexisting popular customs and ideas, which now forced themselves into legitimate usage, is not known. For instance, Ire- V, 14 307 nus, i, 215, says that the gnostic Marcosii anointed the dying with oil and water as a protection of their souls against the hostile powers of the spirit-world. In any case this history shows the transformation of a wide- spread popular practise, having religious associations but purely me- dicinal aims, into a strictly religious rite, limited to priestly adminis- tration and carefully ordered with fixed forms and established rules. The withdrawal of the rite from the sphere of popular medicine was doubtless fundamentally due to the advancing control of rational in- telligence in the affairs of the church and to a sound progress in re- ligious conceptions. It was felt that religious observances should have a spiritual purpose. But by retaining the physical element, and ascrib- ing to it spiritual efficacy ex opere operato, there was brought about a different and more far-reaching intrusion of the physical into the sphere of the religious. The sacrament of Extreme Unction is first mentioned by name as one of the seven sacraments of the church in the twelfth century. It was fully discussed by the schoolmen, and received authoritative defini- tion in the decree of the Council of Trent, which declares that holy unction of the sick was established as a sacrament by Christ our Lord, “implied (insinuatum) in Mark, and commended and promulgated to the faithful by James the Apostle and brother of the Lord” (Sess. xiv, Doctrina de sacr. exir. unct. cap. 1). Since that time such a view as that of Cardinal Cajetan, that James does not refer to the sacramental anointing of extreme unction (‘‘nec ex verbis nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de sacramentali unctione extremae unctionis,”’ Comment. in ep. S. Jacobi, dated 1539), has been illegal in the Roman church. In the Greek church the mystery of anointing (εὐχέλαιον) has re- tained in part its original purpose as a therapeutic process, and is ad- ministered to the sick while there is still hope of recovery. In the Russian use the recovery to health is the chief point, with the Greeks the main emphasis is on the forgiveness of sins. F, Kattenbusch, “Olung,” in Herzog-Hauck, PRE, 1904; F. W. Puller, The Anointing of the Sick in Scripture and Tradition, *1910; “Oil” and “Unction,” in DCA. ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίους Belongs with ἀλείψαντες, “anoint- ing with oil with the use of the name”; see Heitmiiller, Im Namen Jesu, 1903, pp. 86f. The use of ‘the name” made this anointing a partly religious act and not a merely medicinal application. τοῦ χυρίουΪ Bomits. This is probably an error, but on “the Name,” with no genitive, cf. 3 Jn. 7, Acts 541, Lev. 2411, 2 Clem.Rom. 13 (and Lightfoot’s note), Ign. Eph. 3 (and note), Pirke Aboth, iv, 7, cf. Jas. 21. 308 JAMES 15. ἡ εὐχή. The prayer is the more important part of the process, but of course is not thought of as exclusively oper- ative. Intercessory prayer was a familiar idea to Jews. εὐχῇ is elsewhere in the N. T. used of a vow. In secular Greek, vow and prayer are in many cases not easily distinguished; εὐχῇ has there the meaning “wish” also. In the LXX it means “‘ vow” in the vast majority of cases, but in Prov. 15% 39 has the sense of.“‘prayer.”’ εὔχομαι is regularly used for ‘‘pray” as well as “‘ vow.” τῆς πίστεως, cf. 1%. σώσει, z.e. restore to health, cf. Mt. 974!-, Mk. 656, Diod. Sic. i, 82 Kav [oi ἰατροὶ] ἀδυνατήσωσι σῶσαι τὸν κάμνοντα. Some interpreters, both Protestant scholars (as von Soden) and Catholic (as Trenkle), have given this the meaning “save to eternal life,” while others have tried to include both ideas. But the natural meaning of the word in this context is decisive, (so, among Roman Catholics, Belser). Tov κάμνοντα, “the sick man,” cf. ἀσθενεῖ, v. 14. χάμνειν is common in secular Greek in this sense, but is not found in LXX nor elsewhere than here in N. T. It is used, e. g. of gout and of disease of the eyes (κάμνειν τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς), and there is no reason whatever for taking τὸν κάμνοντα to mean “‘the dying” (von Soden). ἐγερεῖ. The word means “raise from the bed of sickness to health,” and is a virtual repetition of σώσει; cf. 2 Kings 451, Ps. 41%, Mk. 134, ἐγερεῖ cannot refer here either to the awakening of the dead to life or to the resurrection. ὁ κύριος. If Tov κυρίου, v.14, is genuine, and refers to Christ, ὁ κύριος may have the same meaning. It would be more natural that it should mean “God.” kav, “and if,” cf. Mk. 168, Lk. 13°, and many other passages quoted in Lex. 5. υ. κἄν. ἀμαρτίας, 7. e. sins which have occasioned the sickness. Sickness was generally held to be due to sin, cf. Mk. 25#., Jn. 9? δ. τ Cor. 1r®, Deut. 28%. 2] Ps. 38, Is. 38%, τρί 1819-21, Nedarim, fol. 41. 1, ‘No sick person is cured of his dis- V; 15-16 309 ease until all his sins are forgiven him,”’ Test. XII Patr. Rub. m5 ΡΝ. 212, Zab, 54, Gad 5°1-. ἀφεθήσεται, impersonal passive, cf. Mt. 72:7, Rom. 10”, Blass- Debrunner, § 130, Gildersleeve, Syntax, § 176. This seems to re- fer not to general forgiveness but to the special sins in question. 16. ἐξομολογεῖσθε, προσεύχεσθε. The confession is by the sick, the prayer by the well for the sick. The value of confession is as an expression of penitence, and as thus furnishing ground for the others’ prayers. On con- fession in Jewish piety, see S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rab- binic Theology, ch. 18, and on the history of confession, see DCA, “Exomologesis,” ‘‘Penitence,” EB, “Confess.” οὖν͵, since this is the method of securing healing (ὅπως ἰαθῆτε). ἀλλήλοις, not necessarily restricted to the presbyters. ὅπως ἰαθῆτε refers to bodily healing, as is clearly shown by the context (cf. v.14). The subject of ἰαθῆτε is “you who are prayed for.” The sick persons’ own prayers for themselves are not in mind. δέησις, “prayer,” with especial thought of petition, common in LXX and not infrequent in N. T., e. g. Phil. 1% Cf. Trench, Synonyms, ὃ li, Lightfoot on Phil. 45, Ellicott on Eph. 618, commentaries on τ Tim. 2!. δικαίου, cf. v.15 ἡ εὐχὴ THs πίστεως, 18 f-, ἐνεργουμένη, “when it is exercised,” “exerted,” “put forth.” The meaning is: “A righteous man’s praying has great effect when he prays.” The participle adds but little to the sense; for more significant participles in the same construction, see 114, On the verb ἐνεργεῖν, see J. A. Robinson, St. Paul’s Ep. to the Ephesians, pp. 241-247, Mayor, ad loc. The word is used intransitively to mean “‘be active,” and transitively (as here) in the sense of “effect,” “carry out,” “do.” In certain instances in Paul (notably 1 Thess. 218, 2 Thess 27, 2 Cor. 413, Gal. 55, Rom. 75, Eph. 3”, cf. 2 Cor. 18, Col. 12°) it is used in the passive, and the subject is an agent or power, which is “made active,” “set at work,” “made to work.” This is a step beyond the usual meaning, but such an explanation of these instances is 310 JAMES better than (with Lightfoot) to take them as middle, which neither accords with usage nor follows inner fitness. The Greek commentators on James take the word as passive, in the sense “being made effective.” This is thought of as accomplished either by the virtues of the one who prays or by the ensuing good conduct of him for whom the prayer is offered. Maximus Confessor, in Questiones ad Thalassium, 57 (Migne, vol. xc, cols. 589-592, also Cramer’s Catena) offers both ex- planations. ‘‘Cicumenius” gives only the latter, as does Mat- thaei’s scholiast, who writes συνεργουμένη ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ δεο- μένου [ἱ. 6. the needy man’s] γνώμης καὶ πράξεως. Modern commentators sometimes interpret: “‘when actuated by the Spirit,” but it is not legitimate here to assume this altogether later use, from which the term energumen, “possessed person,” comes. Others take it as meaning “‘made active,” ‘“‘energised,”’ and so as about equivalent to ἐνεργής, “effectual,” or ἐκτενής, “earnest.” But the writer would hardly have desired to re- strict the power of a righteous man’s prayer to exceptional cases where it showed more than ordinary intensity; the sen- tence owes its whole force to being an unqualified statement. Moreover there is no good evidence that the word was capable of bearing this sense. The Latin ff has frequens, vg assidua, Luther, wenn es ernst- lich ist. Of the English versions Wiclif and the Rhemish fol- low the Vulgate with “continual”’; Tyndale, the Great Bible, the Geneva version, and the Bishops’ Bible follow Luther with “fervent.” A.V. has the combination “effectual fervent,” * while R.V. (under the influence of Lightfoot) takes the parti- ciple as middle and translates ‘“‘in its working.” 17. Vv. 11 1- confirm by the example of Elijah the statement πολὺ ἰσχύει. Ἠλείας, cf. ἃ Kings 17! 18! 42#., The importance in Jewish popular thought of Elijah’s rela- tion to the famine is illustrated by Ecclus. 48'%, 4 Ezra 733. Vv. 11, 18 are dependent on midrashic tradition in the follow- * Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision’, 1891, p. 203, thinks the word “effectual” was introduced by inadvertence from a note in L. Tomson’s N. T. of 1576. V, 16-17 311 ing respects (cf. the similar dependence on Jewish tradition in jas; 255 ctl): (1) Elijah’s prayer that it might not rain. 1 Kings 17} speaks only of a prophecy. The idea of a prayer was an in- ference from the words, “ God, before whom I stand,” in 1 Kings 171; note also the prominence given to Elijah’s prayer in his other great miracle, 1 Kings 1717-4, cf. 4 Ezra 739. This embel- lishment followed regular Jewish methods of interpretation; e.g. the Targum to Gen. 18?? τοῦ translates “‘stood” by ‘‘min- istered in prayer.’”’ That Elijah procured the drought is di- rectly stated in Ecclus. 48%. (2) The period of “three years and six months.” The same statement is made in Lk. 425 ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνας ἕξ, and is found in Jalkut Shimoni, fol. 32, col. 2, on τ Kings: “In the thirteenth year of Ahab there was a famine in Samaria for three years and a half” (text in Surenhusius, Βέβλος καταλλαγῆς, Amsterdam, 1713, p. 681). The O. T. basis for this midrash was 1 Kings 18! (“many days,” “in the third year’). Various explanations for the precise definition of three years and six months are sug- gested by J. Lightfoot, Horae hebraicae on Lk. 475, and by” Surenhusius, pp. 680-682. For other Jewish estimates of the length of the drought, cf. Ruth rabba 1, 4 (Wetstein), “fourteen months,” and W. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten und Amoréer; Bibelstellenregister, on 1 Kings 17! 181, It is possible, but not demonstrable, that the apocalyptic number of the half-week, three and one-half, may have had influence on the num- ber here; cf. Dan. 725 127, Rev. 11% % 93 12% 14 135, (3) V.18 καὶ πάλιν προσηύξατο is perhaps justified by 1 Kings 18??. ὁμοιοπαθὴς ἡμῖν, “suffering the like with us,” ἡ. 6. “a man like us.” This should encourage us to take the example to heart, and is perhaps occasioned by the current tendency to emphasise superhuman traits in Elijah; cf. Ecclus. 481-22 for earlier, and JE, “Elijah,” for later developments in that direc- tion. προσευχῇ προσηύξατο, “prayed a prayer.”’ It was the prayer 312 JAMES of Elijah, not any magic wrought by a superhuman being, which brought about the noteworthy result. προσευχῇ throws into relief the important idea of the sentence, much as in the classical analogies γάμῳ γεγαμιηχώς, “marry in true wedlock,” Demosth. p. 1002,12, or the figurative and frequent φεύγειν φυγῇ, ‘“‘flee with all speed,” Plato, Symp. p. 195 B, etc. These and other examples of the figura etymologica (some of which are also given in the grammars) are to be found, together with valuable distinctions and classifications, in Lobeck, Paralipomena grammaticae grecae, 1837, pp- 523-527. Speaking of the LXX idiom, which he does not, however, trace to its source in the Hebrew infinitive absolute, Lobeck says, “haud aliena illa ab emphasis ratione, sed aliena tamen a Grecorum grecensium consuetudine,” that is (J. H. Moulton), they are “possible, but unidio- matic” expressions. In the LXX the idiom is much overworked, having been one of sev- eral convenient methods of representing the Hebrew infinitive absolute; cf. Gen. 217 θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθαι, Gen. 31% ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπιθυμήσεις (so Lk. 2215), etc., etc. Such a case as Jn. 329 χαρᾷ χαίρει is to be regarded as imitative. Acts 538 παραγγελίᾳ παρηγγείλαμεν is probably a transla- tion from Aramaic. See Blass-Debrunner, § 198, Buttmann, § 133. 22, Winer, § 4, § 44, Rem. 3, ὃ 54.3, J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 75 f. It may well be that James’s phrase is directly or indirectly affected by this familiar Biblical idiom, but the A.V. “prayed earnestly,” R.V. “prayed fervently,” although they would be legitimate transiations of a corresponding Hebrew phrase, introduce into this Greek verse what is not properly to be found there. Tov μὴ βρέξαι. The infinitive with τοῦ, like other expressions of purpose (cf. Phil. 12 προσεύχομαι ἵνα), is often, as here, reduced to the force of an object clause. Cf. 1 Kings 135, Is. 56, Acts 15%. See J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 216-218, Blass-Debrunner, ὃ 400, Winer, § 44. 4, Buttmann, § 140. 16. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, “on the earth,” cf. Lk. 425 ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, Gen. γ12 (of the flood) ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 1 Kings 18: ἐπὶ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆ». 18. καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν. For ὑετὸν διδόναι, cf. τ Sam. 1217, τ Kings 1τϑ', Acts 147, in all which cases the subject is ‘‘ God.” For similar instances of the efficacy of prayer in bringing a V, 17-19 313 severe drought to an end, cf. Jos. Antig. xiv, 2', in the case of Onias, δίκαιος καὶ θεοφιλής, and Epiphanius, Her. Wiii (Ixxviii), 14, in a story of James himself. 19, 20. Conclusion. Final saying on the privilege of being in- strumental in the restoration of an erring brother to the way of truth. This seems to be a general appeal, equally related to all the preceding discussions of specific tendencies and dangers. As such, it forms a fitting conclusion and gives the motive of the whole tract. With this conclusion Spitta well compares that of Ecclus. 51%. 19. ἀδελφοί μου. In the first place in the sentence, as else- where in 2! only. In both cases there is an abrupt change of subject. πλανηθῇ, “err,” “wander.” The figurative use of “wander” and “cause to wander,” with refer- ence to “erring from truth and righteousness,” is common in the O. T. especially in the prophets and Wisdom-literature. Cf. Wisd. 5% éx- λανήθημεν ἀπὸ ὁδοῦ ἀληθείας, Is. 915, Ezek. 344 τὸ πλανώμενον οὐκ ἀπεσ- τρέψατε (υ. 1. ἐπεστρέψατε), etc. Also in the Ν. T., cf. Heb. 52, 2 Pet. 215, 2 Tim. 313, Rev. 182%, and Polyc. Phil. 6! ἐπιστρέφοντες τὰ ἀποπετ- λανημένα. In Test. XII Patr. the evil spirits are called πνεύματα τῆς πλάνης, and Beliar, their chief, is ὃ ἄρχων ths πλάνης, cf. Charles’s note on Test. XII Patr. Rub. 21. ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας, cf. 118 314 and notes. “The truth” is here the whole code of religious knowledge and moral precept accessible to the members of the Christian church. To err from it means any departure from the right path in thought or conduct. Various examples of such erring have occupied the attention of the writer throughout his epis- tles; here, however, grave sin (v.”) seems to be chiefly in his mind, The use of ἡ ἀλήθεια in this comprehensive sense is not founded on the O. T. npx,aypx, which ordinarily mean “stability,” “faithful- ness,” or else “conformity to fact,” while in many cases in the O. T “truth” is hardly to be distinguished from practical “righteousness,” 314 JAMES e.g. Hos. 41. Yet in Dan. 813 913 xat τοῦ συνιέναι ἐν πάσῃ ἀληθείᾳ cou, and the Apocrypha, ἡ ἀλήθεια is occasionally employed in a sense more like that of Greek writers; so Ecclus. 428, 3 Macc. 415,4. Macc. 519, For the Greek usage, cf. Dion. Hal. De Thuc. jud. 3, τῆς φιλοσόφου θεωρίας σκοπός ἐστιν ἣ τῆς ἀληθείας γνῶσις, Plutarch, Gryll. p. 986 A χενὸν ἀγαθὸν xai εἴδωλον ἀντὶ τῆς ἀληθείας διώχων. In the N. T. this sense of “ἃ body of true principles” is found in Paul (e. g. 2 Thess. 219, Gal. 57, 2 Cor. 42, Eph. 424), often in John (6. g. 832 1613 1837, τ Jn. 31°), and elsewhere. Yet even here the influence of the O. T. is to be seen in the strong moral element included in the con- ception. The truth is not merely an object of knowledge, as in secular usage, but a moral and religious ideal, God’s revealed will, to which the loyalty of the heart must be given. Cf. Rom. 239 ἔχοντα τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως χαὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῷ, Jn. 37 ὃ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀληθείαν. See Cremer, Worterbuch der neutest. Grdcitdt®, 1902, 5. v. ἀλήθεια, Wendt, ‘Der Gebrauch der Worter ἀλήθεια, ἀληθής und ἀληθινός im Neuen Testament,” in Studien und Kritiken, 1883, pp. 511-547; V. H. Stanton, ‘‘Truth,” in HDB. ἐπιστρέψῃ, “turn,” ἡ. e. from error to the way of truth. The norm of departure and return is sufficiently shown by the con- text; there is here no necessary indication that the word itself had already acquired the technical religious meaning of the modern verb “convert,” although such passages as Mt. 1315 (Is. 6%), Lk. 116 2232, Acts 319 1415, 1 Thess. 1° show that that process had already begun See Mal. 25, Dan. 123, Ecclus. 181, Ezek. 344 (Cod. A), Polyc. Phil. 6, Apost. Const. ii, 6, cf. τ Pet. 235. It is used in the sense of ‘‘turn from an error” by Lucian, De hist. conscr. 5, cf. Plut. Alc. 16. Cf. Test. XII Patr. Zab. 9’, Dan 5, Benj. 4°; for other passages, see Charles’s index. The sense “‘turn back,” which the word seems to have here, is not wholly foreign to Greek usage (cf. Hippocr. 135 Εἰ, of a fever, “‘recur”), but it is rare, while in the LXX, following 2.1”, that sense is very common. Cf. Mt. 1244. 20. γινωσκέτω. If the alternative reading, yuwoxere, is adopted, it is to be taken as probably imperative, cf. 2! 3! 5%, etc. γινωσχέτω ὅτι] NAKLP minn vg boh. ινώσχετε ὅτι] B 69 1518 syrbel. om] ff sah. The omission by ff sah is mere freedom of translation. As between V, 19-20 as γινωσχέτω and γινώσχετε, the latter might have arisen from an attempt to eliminate the hard question, necessarily present with the reading γινωσχέτω, as to who (the converter or the converted) was the subject of the verb. The address ἀδελφοί justified the change to the unam- biguous, but colourless, γινώσχετε. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the influence of τις should have led to the change from the wholly unobjectionable γινώσχετε to γινωσχέτω. The reading of δὲ is accord- ingly the “harder” reading, and to be preferred. This is one of the rare instances of an emended reading in B. See P. Corssen, Géttingische gelehrte Anzeiger, 1893, p. 58 5, B. Weiss, Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. xxxvii, 1894, pp. 439-440. ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ, “from the error of his way,” cf. 1 Jn. 45 for contrast of ἀλήθεια and πλάνη. σώσει. For instances of σώζειν in this sense with a human subject, cf. Rom. 1114, τ Cor. 716, τ Tim. 416, σώσει] For this reading (supported by all Greek witnesses, and by vg= fu Ambrst Cassiodor) ff with certain Vulgate Mss and Origlst reads salvat. Similarly καλύψει is translated with the present tense by vg and Orig'*t (but not by ff). ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, i. 6. the erring brother’s soul, cf. 171 and note, ψυχήν] BEL minnpler ff sah. ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ] SA (τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ) P minn vg boh syrutr, In the same connection it is to be noticed that B ff read é% θανάτου αὐτοῦ for the éx θανάτου of nearly all other witnesses. In‘ both cases the shorter reading is to be preferred. ἐκ θανάτου. The force of the sentence depends on this word, which expresses the seriousness of the situation when a man wanders from the truth, a seriousness which may easily be over- looked and forgotten. This sentence is no platitude, provided θανάτου receives its proper emphasis. On θανάτου, cf. 115 and 3° γεέννης. Note how here, as in 1, death is the result of sin. καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν. καλύπτειν in connection with sins usually means “cause them to be forgotten,” “procure par- don,” and that is the meaning here. Cf. Ps. 321f- 85? (quoted Rom. 47), Neh. 45, Ep. ad Diogn. 9. ἁμαρτιῶν means the sins of the converter (so Roman Catholic commentators and some others); to refer it to the sins of the 316 JAMES converted person, as many do, makes a bad anticlimax. See Origen, Hom. in Levit. ii, 5 where converting a sinner is in- cluded as one method of securing forgiveness of one’s own sins. Cf. Sohar 92. 18, “Great is the reward of him who leads back sinners to the way of the Lord,” 2 Clem. Rom. 15 μισθὸς γὰρ οὐχ ἔστιν μιχρὸς πλανωμένην ψυχὴν καί ἀπολλυμιένην ἀποστρέψαι εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι, Pistis Sophia, ch. 104, Pirke Aboth, v, 26, “Whosoever makes the many righteous, sin prevails not over him.” τ Pet. 48 has a closely similar sentence, ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, introduced as if a familiar aphorism. It is also found in Clem. Rom. 49, 2 Clem. Rom. 16. See Light- foot’s notes on both passages. Both 1 Peter and James are usually held to be dependent on the Hebrew of Prov. 1012, “Hatred stirs up strife, but Love hides all transgressions” (Toy). There, however, the sense is not exactly “forgive” (as in the above-mentioned passages from the Psalms, etc.), but rather “hide,” ‘“‘turn attention away from,” other men’s sins, as kindly feeling would suggest, cf. x Cor. 13°, Similar is the meaning in the rabbinical passages quoted by Wet- stein, where it is a question of keeping quiet about another’s sin, of refraining from gossip, not of forgiveness. So Prov. 17° ὃς χρύπτε ἀδικήματα ἵητεῖ φιλίαν. Moreover, the LXX of Prov. 10!2 (πάντας δὲ τοὺς μὴ φιλο- νγεικοῦντας καλύπτει φιλία) is wholly unlike the N. T. passages, and the resemblance of James to even the Hebrew text is too slight to justify the idea of direct influence upon him from that source. The sentence in 1 Pet. 48 may possibly have been in- fluenced by Proverbs, but it is more likely that some familiar Greek aphorism (all the associations of which can no longer be traced) has been used by 1 Peter, while a part of the same form of words has been independently used, in a very different sense, by James. See Lightfoot on Clem. Rom. 49 and 2 Clem. Rom. 16, Resch, Agrapha, pp. 248 f., Ropes, Die Spriiche Jesu die in den kanon- ischen Evangelien nicht tiberliefert sind, pp. 75 f. INDEX. ----᾿-. ὠἈ ANDREAS OF CRETE, 73. Apocalypse, 22, 152f. Apocryphal gospels, 60 f. Apostolic Fathers, 37 f., 87-90. Armenian church, use of epistle, 95. Astrology, 164, 236. BEATITUDES, 150. C2SAREA, 49. Catholic epistles, order of, 103 f. Clement of Alexandria, 54, 56, 72, orf. Clement of Rome, 20, 87 f., 222-224. Clementine Recognitions, 70 f., 72. Commentaries on James, patristic and medieval, 110-113; modern, TI3Z-115. ἢ Crowns, 150-152. DANTE, 45. Deo volente, 279 f. Diatribe, 3, 17; history, 10-12; char- acteristics, 12-16. ECCLESIASTICUS, 17, 10. Eldad and Modad, 266 Κ᾿ Ephraem Syrus, 96 f. Epiphanius, 54, 58 f., 60, 71-73. Epistles, 6-10, 127 f. Eusebius, 44, 64, 71f., 94f., 103. ΒΆΑΙΤΗ, 30-32, 35 f., 135, 140f., 187, 203 ff., 218 ff. Gnosticism, 36 f., 155, 248. Greek church, history of epistle in, 92-05- I HEBREWS, Epistle to the, 22. Gospel according to the, 68 f. Hegesippus, 54, 64-68, 71, 72. Helvidius, 55, 57. Hermas, 88-90. TRENZEUS, 90, 179, 223. James, New Testament persons named, 53 f. James son of Alpheus, 45 f., 53. James son of Zebedee, 45 f., 53, 62. James, St., festival of, 73 f. James the Lord’s brother, 44-46, 50-52, 53-74- James, Epistle of: origin, 1; pur- pose, 2; contents, 2-5; literary type, 6-18; relationship to other writers, 18-24; language, 24-27; vocabulary, 25; relation to LXX, 25 f.; Aramaic origin, theory of, 27; ideas, Jewish, 28-31; ideas, Christian, 31-34; Spitta’s theory, 32-33; relation to Paul, 34-36; relation to Gnosticism, 36 f.; re- lation to Gospels, 38 f.; relation to Apostolic Fathers, 20, 37; rela- tion to Matthew, 39; situation, 39-43; authorship (views on), 43-- 47; authorship, 47-52; date, 43, 49; pseudonymity, 51; history in the church, 86-109. Jerome, 44, 52, 56, 57f., bof, 68f., 71, 72f., 84; 102 f., 160. Josephus on James, 64. Justification, 35 f., 217f., 222. 317 318 Law, 29, 30, 35, 37, 48, 50f., 167, 173, 198, 274; of liberty, 177 f., 201. Luther on James, 45, 59, 105-109. OaTHS, 300 ff. Oil, anointing with, 305 ff. Origen, 1, 51 f., 54, 56, 86, 92-94. Orphic doctrine, 238. PAavL, relation to, 34-36, 48, 204f., 217, 221. Persecution, not implied in epistle, 4, 40, 43, 133, 153, 105 [. Peter, First Epistle of, 22 /f. Philo, 20, 24, 31. Polycarp, 88. Protevangelium Jacobi, 55, 69, 73. Protrepticus, 18. Proverbs, Book of, τό f., το. REFORMATION, history of epistle in and after, 105-109. Rich, the, in the epistle, 31, 4o0f., 43, 145-148, 193-197, 282 ff. Russian literature on James the ᾿ς Lord’s brother, 56 f. INDEX STEPS OF JAMES, 71, 73. Symeon Metaphrastes, 73. Syrian church, history of epistle in, 96-100. TEMPTATION, 153 ff. Tertullian, 91, 223. Testaments of XII Patriarchs, 20 ἢ. Text of epistle, 74-86; Greek Mss., 74-75; Egyptian versions, 76-78; Ethiopic version, 78; Syriac ver- sions, 78-80; Armenian version, 80; Latin versions, 80-84; use of authorities, 84-86. 3 Tobit, 17. Trent, Council of, 46, 105, 307. VircIns, pseudo-clementine epistles to, 1, 42, 51 f., 94, 227. WESTERN CHURCH, history of epistle in, 100-103, 104 f. Wisdom of Solomon, 17, 19. Wisdom-literature, τό f., 18 f., 132. Word, word of truth, 167, 172 f. Works, 35f., 204 ff. II Notr.—A complete list of the Greek words occurring in the epistle may be found in Mayor’, pp. 239-258. ἀδελφός, 131 f. aitéw, 259. ἀχαταστασία, ἀκατάστατος, 144, 248f. ἀλαλάζω, 283. ἀλήθεια, 246 f., 313 f. ἀπαρχῇ, 167. ἁπλῶς, ἁπλότης, 130 f. ἀποσχίασμα, 165. βλασφημέω, 196. γένεσις, 176, 235 ff. Staxelvouat, 141, 192, 250. διασπορά, 120 ff. διδάσχαλος, 226 [. δίψυχος, 143 f. δόξα, 187. δοῦλος, 117 f. ἐχχλησία, I19. ἔμφυτος, 172 ff. ἐνεργέω, 309 f. ἐπιθυμία, 156, 253 ff-, 257 f. ἔργα, 204 f. ζῆλος, ζηλόω, 245, 255 γ,; 263. ἡδονή, 253 f. θρησχεία, θρησχός, 181 ff. καλῶς, 190. χαταχαυχάομαι, 202, 246. καύσων, 148. χαυχάομαι, 145. χόσμος, 184 f., 193, 233. μάχῃ; 253- ὀλολύζω, 283. παραλλαγῇ, 162. πᾶς, τ20 ff., 158. πειρασμός, 132 [., 153 ff. ποιχίλος, 134. πόλεμος, 253. πολύσπλαγχνος, 200. πρόϊμος xat ὄψιμος, 205 ff. προσωπολημψία, 185 f. διπίζω, 141 f. σοφία, 139, 247. σοφός, 244. στέφανος, 150 ff. συναγωγή, 188 f. συνεργέω, 220. τέλειος, 138, 159, 177, 228. τροπή, 164 f. τροχός, 235 f- ὑπομονή, 135 f., 200. φθόνος, 263. φίλος θεοῦ, 222 f. φογεύω, 254 ff. 319 2 oe ie [ ἢ ἮΝ Ἢ My p ὯΝ the nt δ Hu} ON EAL Le The International Critical Commentary ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS THE OLD TESTAMENT GENESIS. The Rev. JoHN SKINNER, D.D., Principal and Professor oi Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready. EXODUS. The Rev. A. R. 5. KENNEDY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. LEVITICUS. J. F. STENNING, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. NUMBERS. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. [Mow Ready. DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt, sometime Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready. JOSHUA. The Rev. GEorcE ApAm Smita, D.D., LL.D., Principal of the University of Aberdeen. JUDGES. The Rev. GeorcE F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of The- ology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. Smita, D.D., Librarian, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready. KINGS. The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. CHRONICLES. The Rev. Epwarp L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready. EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L. W. BaTTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Pro- fessor of Old Testament Literature, General Theolegical Seminary, New York City. [Now Ready. PSALMS. The Rev. Cuas. A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Ready. PROVERBS. The Rev. Ὁ. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Mow Ready. JOB. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXVII. The Rev. G. BucHaNnan Gray, D.D., Pros fessor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready. ISAIAH. Chaps. XXVIII-XXXIX. The Rev. G. BucHANAN Gray, D.D, Chaps. LX-LXVI. The Rev. A. S. PEAKE, M.A., D.D., Dean of the Theo- logical Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Biblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England. JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. Krrxpatricx, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England. EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. Cooxg, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Interpre- tation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. CHaRLEs F. Burney, D.Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John’s College, Oxford. DANIEL. The Rev. JoHN P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael’s Church, New York City. AMOS AND HOSEA. W. ΒΕ. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime President of the University of Chicago, Illinois. [Now Ready. MICAH, ZEPHANIAH, NAHUM, HABAKKUK, OBADIAH AND JOEL, Prof. Joun M. P. Smita, University of Chicago; W. Hayes Warp, D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New York; Prof. Jutrus A. BEWER, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [Vow Ready. HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, MALACHI AND JONAH. Prof. H. G. MrrcHELt, D.D.; Prof. Joun M. P. Smits, Ph.D., and Prof. J. A. BEwER, Ph.D. [Now Ready. ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. Paton, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Harte ford Theological Seminary. [Now Ready. ECCLESIASTES. Prof. GEorcE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli- cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [Mow Ready. RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rev.CHARLESA. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Graduate Professor of Theological Ency- clopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. THE NEW TESTAMENT ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. WiLLoucHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. [Mow Ready. ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. σου, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa- ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Mow Ready. ST. LUKE. The Rev. ALFRED PLummer, D.D., late Master of University College, Durham. [Now Ready. THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY ST. JOHN. The Right Rev. Jonn Henry Bernarp, D.D., Bishop of Ossory, Ireland. HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. Wituram Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. 1» LouGHBY C, ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. AGTS. The Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. Bate, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. ROMANS. The Rev. Wittiam Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. Heapram, M.A., D.D., Principal of King’s College, London. [Now Ready, 1. CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. Arca Rosertson, D.D., LL.D. Lord Bishop of Exeter, and Rev. ALFRED PLumMMER, D.D., late Master of University College, Durham. [Now Ready. Il. CORINTHIANS. The Rev. ALFRED Piummer,| M.A., D.D., late Master of University College, Durham. [Now Ready. GALATIANS. The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of New Testament Literature, University of Chicago. EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The Rev. T. K. Axsort, B.D., D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, now Librarian of the same. [Now Ready. PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. The Rev. Marvin R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. [Now Ready. THESSALONIANS. The Rev. James E. Frame, M.A., Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. [Now Ready. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. WALTER Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. HEBREWS. The Rev. James Morratt, D.D., Minister United Free Church, Broughty Ferry, Scotland. ST. JAMES. The Rev. JAMEs H. Ropgs, D.D., Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism in Harvard University. [Now Ready. PETER AND JUDE. The Rev. CHARLES BicG, D.D., sometime Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. {Now Ready. THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES. The Rev. E. A. Brooke, B.D., Fellow and Divinity Lecturer in King’s College, Cambridge. [Now Ready. REVELATION. The Rev. Rosert H. CHartes, M.A., D.D., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. The International Theological Library ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. By Cuartes A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTA- MENT. ByS. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Regius Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By the Rev. JoHn SKINNER, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Lit- erature, College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge, England, and the Rev. OWEN WHITEHOUSE, B.A., Principal and Professor of Hebrew, Chestnut College, Cambridge, England. OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By HENRY PRESERVED SmitH, D.D., Librarian, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready. CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By Francis Brown, D.D., LL.D., D.Litt., President and Profensor of Hebrew, Union Theological Seminary, New York. THEOLOGY OF THIE OLD TESTAMENT. By A. B. Davinson, D.D., LL.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTA- MENT. By Rev. James Morratt, B.D., Minister United Free Church, Broughty Ferry, Scotland. [Now Ready. CANON AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Caspar René Grecory, D.D., LL.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of Leipzig. [Now Ready. THE LIFE OF CHRIST. By Wittram Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Caurch, Oxford. THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY i -::λτ5ὕ0}ὦὮΥὲ:1᾽ ὺ6........--ἰ-΄΄-,,, ῸἘὈἸἬῦρ-ἢἢΝῈ»»τ::ο» --- A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. By Artuur C. McGirrert, D.D., Professor of Church History, Union Theo- logical Seminary, New York. [Now Ready. CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Frank C. Porter, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Georce B. STEVENS, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready. BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. By G. BucHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH. By RoserTt Rainey, D.D., LL.D., sometime Principal of New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready. THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES. By ANDRE LAGARDE. [Now Ready. THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES. By W. F. ApvEneEy, D.D., Principal of Independent College, Manchester. [Now Ready. THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY. By T. M. Linpsay, D.D., Prin- cipal of the United Free College, Glasgow. [Now Ready. THE REFORMATION IN LANDS BEYOND GERMANY. By T. M. Linpsay, D.D. [Now Ready. CHRISTIANITY IN LATIN COUNTRIES SINCE THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. By Pavt SazamieEr, D.Litt., Drome, France. THEOLOGICAL SYMBOLICS. By CHARLES A. Brices, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready. HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By G. P. FisHer, D.D., LL.D., sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. By A. V. G. ALLEN, D.D., sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. By GerorcE Gattoway, D.D., Minister of United Free Church, Castle Douglas, Scotland. [Now Ready. HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. I. China, Japan, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, India, Persia, Greece, Rome. By Grorce F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Pro- fessor in Harvard University. [Now Ready. HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. II. Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism. By GreorcE F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor in Harvard University. APOLOGETICS. ByA.B. Bruce, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa- ment Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. [Revised and Enlarged Edition, THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. By Wirt1aMN. Crarxe, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Hamilton Theological Semi- nary. [Now Ready. THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. By Witttam P. Paterson, D.D., Professor of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. hy Η. Ε. MacxinTosu, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Theology, New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready. THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. By GerorceE B. StrE- VENS, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University. [Now Ready. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. By Wittram Apams Brown, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York. CHRISTIAN ETHICS. By Newman Smvytu, D.D., Pastor of Congrega tional Church, New Haven. [Revised and Enlarged Edition, THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE WORKING CHURCH. By WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., Pastor of Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio. [Vow Ready. THE CHRISTIAN PREACHER. By A. E. Garvie, D.D., Principal of New College, London, England. HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. By CuHarrtes HENRY ROBIN- son, D.D., Hon. Canon of Ripon Cathedral and Editorial Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. [Now Ready. ve Wire Ὁ cae ender ΠΝ τὰ Ly ᾿ ὶ i? ᾿ ᾿ Ἀ "ἢ i ofl A ᾿ ‘ J ᾿ i iy ΠΝ Ἢ) ἀν Ai, OC wa, | ana ἦν δ ΤΣ ' Ora tl i Nath ἯΙ Νὴ ᾿ " Ἢ: AY Ἢ Νὴ y ὴ | CNR CAEN ὴ vy ᾿ ' ’ e fe | | | : Ἂ 7 - . ᾿ en he") * ioe ὙΠ ἮΝ Πὰν ἢ ἢ yi πὴ ΜΙ) ᾿ ἮΝ Νὰ ¥ Μὴ ὟΝ rye Ag Pay Ji, by ΙὟ ἡ ον } Δ ᾿ } yp, it NAN Wes it eee: Ma ἵ He . Dh ᾽ a iin ΠῚ , | ——= -Ξ ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ- TT ᾧῷ ἘΞ... σὲ = ΞΞΞ-- 5333: Ὦ ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ ——— o—————— —— “αν. a ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ Ξ“:--.----.---Ψ.-- - —_—— ad ————————S—S _ .-:...-τ-τ N pe ΘΟ = \ |