Among the "Catholic epistles" we now come to a work called by Luther an epistle of straw ("right strawy epistle"), but which has established itself in our time as the writing with the greatest social conscience.

1. The Background

   Leaving the historical question of the author of the epistle to a subsection below, we are concerned here with the identification of the character presented as the author: "James, servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." In the NT, we find several men named "James" (Greek Jakōbos, derived from the Hebrew for "Jacob," the patriarch from whom the twelve tribes are descended). At least two of them, both members of the Twelve, can be dismissed as extremely unlikely candidates for authorship: John's brother and son of Zebedee, James ("the Great"), who died in the early 40s; and James (son?) of Alphaeus, about whom we know nothing. A totally unknown James, not mentioned elsewhere in the NT, has been suggested (to explain why the book has not been widely accepted); in later tradition, he is thought to have been confused with James the brother of the Lord.

   A shortcut to this last suggestion brings us to the only truly plausible candidate: James, listed first among Jesus' "brothers" in Mk 6:3 and Mt 13:55, not as a member of the Twelve, but as an apostle in the broadest sense of the term (1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19). There is no indication that he followed Jesus during his public ministry (Mk 3:21, 31-32; 6:1-4); rather, he remained in Nazareth with the other family members. Yet the risen Jesus appeared to him (1 Cor 15:7; Gospel of the Hebrews 7), and it seems that from that point on he became an important figure (Gal 1:19). This is reflected in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas 12, where Jesus tells the disciples that after his departure they should go to James the Just, "for whose sake heaven and earth existed." Once the Jerusalem church was structured, James (accompanied by the elders) is presented as the leader and spokesman. He was executed by stoning in the early 60s at the instigation of the high priest Ananus II who, in the absence of the Roman prefect, convened a Sanhedrin and accused James ("the brother of Jesus who was called the Messiah") of transgressing the Law (Josephus, Judaic Antiquities 20. 9.1; #200). Several apocrypha bear James's name (Gospel of James; Apocrypha of James; and two Apocalypses), but none betray knowledge of the letter we are discussing.

   The most important contextual element for our letter is the image of James as a conservative Jewish Christian who was very faithful to the observance of the Law. He was not an extreme legalist, for Acts 15 and Galatians 2 agree that he sided with Paul in declaring that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised when they came to believe in Christ. Yet the speech that appears on his lips in Acts 15:13-21 offers the most traditional reason for this acceptance of Gentiles by applying to them elements of Lev 17-18 applicable to foreigners living within Israel. Paul interpreted the decision in Jerusalem as meaning the release of the Law for Gentile converts, but in Antioch "some men came from James" and objected to the mixing at table of Jewish and Gentile Christians who did not observe the dietary laws. According to Acts 21:18-25, when Paul arrived in Jerusalem around 58, James told him how many Jews had been converted in Jerusalem and asked him to purify himself and go to the Temple. In the later tradition (the pseudo-Clementine writings), James was considered the bishop of bishops by the Jewish Christians who despised Paul. He was given the nickname "Righteous," which Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4-7) explains by the fact that he had lived as a Nazirite (an ascetic especially devoted to God) and prayed so often in the Temple that his knees had become as calloused as a camel's. It is not surprising, then, that whether or not it was written by James, the NT letter that bears his name echoes in many ways traditional Jewish belief and piety.

2. General Analysis of the Message
   1. Opening Formula Or Greetings (1:1)

      The letter of James (James) devotes little time to Christological reflection; some have even thought that it was a Jewish writing only slightly adapted to Christian use. Nevertheless, the coupling of "God" and "Lord Jesus Christ" in the first line shows the author's traditional Christian faith. Interpreted in the context of the OT, "To the twelve tribes of the diaspora" should mean that the recipients were Jews scattered outside the Holy Land. Yet Christians considered themselves the renewed or new Israel; and 1 Pet 1, addressed to Gentile Christians, is written (1:1) "To the exiles of the Diaspora." Many scholars would therefore argue that James was or could be addressed to Gentile Christians. Nevertheless, in James there is no correction of the vices which, in Jewish eyes, were characteristic of Gentiles (idolatry, sexual impurity); the "twelve tribes" are more Jewish than the address of 1 Pet; the recipients meet in a "synagogue" (2:2); and the leading Jewish Christian authority is presented as the author. We would therefore be well advised to consider the addressees as Christians strongly identified with the Jewish heritage.

      Abraham, Moses and various Old Testament prophets were called "servants of God"; and all believers in Jesus could be so designated (Rev 1:1). Thus, in James 1:1, the head of the Church in Jerusalem and the brother of the Lord modestly refers to himself as Jesus commanded (Mt 23:8-12).

   2. Trials, Temptation, Words, Deeds (1:2-27)

      The "grace and peace" greeting of Paul's letters (also 1 Pet 1:1) is absent from Jas, as is the element of thanksgiving in the format of the letter. Indeed, after 1:1, James hardly resembles an ordinary letter, for the author immediately launches into a series of exhortations. The attitude and subject matter strongly echo the late OT wisdom books, adapted to an eschatological perspective and combined with the emphases of the teaching attributed to Jesus in the Q Document, e.g., the material of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) and scattered in Lk 6 and elsewhere. On the other hand, the format resembles that of the Greco-Roman diatribe.

      Jesus had warned his disciples that they would face trials and temptations in which they would need faith in God's ability to meet their needs (Matt 5:11; 24:9-13). The presence of a similar passage at the beginning of 1 Pet (1:6-7) may mean that encouragement in the face of trials was an integral part of the baptismal instructions, and thus does not indicate that the recipients were particularly persecuted or harassed. On the other hand, the alternating address (Jas 1:9-11) to those of lowly condition and those of wealth, contrasting their plight, is striking. Here James is close to the Lucan form (6:20,24) of bliss for the poor, accompanied by woe for the rich. Several other passages in James (2:1-9; 5:1-6) attack the rich, so the question of the poor and the rich most likely reflects a social situation known to the author in his own church and from which he extrapolates for others (James' name evokes the image of the Jerusalem church, which emphasized the sharing of goods: Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-37; 5:1-11; 6:1; Gal 2:10). With regard to responsibility for evil, following the tradition of Sirach 15:11-13, James 1:13 is firm: "God tempts no one." On the contrary, in language worthy of the dualism of the Dead Sea Scrolls between light and darkness, God is the Father of lights (Jas 1:17). God gives birth to Christians through the word of truth and wants them to be like the firstfruits which, in the Israelite liturgy, belong to God (James 1:18). But for this to happen, Christians cannot simply listen to the word (of the gospel); they must manifest its action in their lives - a practical moral theme to which James returns in 2:14-26. From the outset, however, it should be noted that good works flow from the power of the gospel word that has been implanted. There is nothing theoretical about the religion advocated by James 1:27: a religion that manifests itself in caring for needy widows and orphans and keeping oneself apart from the world.

   3. Rich And Poor, And The Whole Law (2:1-13)

      Although wisdom literature abounds in similes and metaphors introduced merely for the sake of illustration, it is difficult to think that the picture painted here in James is purely theoretical. One gets the impression that James and his addressees live in Christian communities that meet in what is still called a synagogue (literal translation of 2:2, often translated as "assembly"), and that there the wealthy members tend to be received with favor and special distinctions. The inevitable institutionalization of a community created by the preaching of the Gospel has taken place, and James (2:5) rightly reminds us of what they were taught in the past about the poor inheriting the kingdom. Particularly striking is the statement that the rich Christians "oppress" you and "drag" you into court (in 5:6, James accuses the rich of condemning and putting to death the righteous). Was the author confronted with a real situation similar to that criticized by Paul in 1 Cor 6:1-8, where Christians resorted to secular courts to settle their disputes, or is this simply a generalized echo of OT language (Amos 8:4; Wisdom 2:10)? As before for Jesus (Mt 22:39-40, after Lev 19:18), so now for Jas 2:8-10, love of neighbor sums up the Law and the commandments; and offense on this point makes one guilty of breaking the Law as a whole. The surprising expression "law of freedom" in Jas 2:12 (taken from 1:25) challenges the dichotomy between law and freedom.

   4. Faith And Works (2:14-26)

      The author begins in the style of the Greco-Roman diatribe with an imaginative example of his own creation, illustrating the disastrous results of indifference to good works. He then offers (2:21-25) biblical examples of the importance of works from the stories of Abraham in Gen 15:6 and 22:16-17, and of Rahab in Joshua 2. The scholarly discussion of this passage has been dominated by the contrast between James' insistence on the insufficiency of faith without works and Paul's rejection of the salvific value of works (of the Mosaic law). Let us emphasize for the moment that James puts into practice Jesus' warning that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven (Mt 7:21). In any case, outsiders would certainly judge Christians according to the common sense standard of 2:26 that faith without works is dead; for them it would be a matter of "walking the talk".

   5. Faults That Divide A Christian Community (3:1-5:6)

      In a series of paragraphs, James deals with one example after another of sins and failures that are particularly threatening to the harmony required by the commandment to love one another. Like an Old Testament wisdom teacher, the author in 3:1-12 piles up examples (bit in the mouth of a horse, rudder of a ship, fire, poison, bitter water), eloquently describing the damage that a loose tongue can cause, especially on the part of teachers. His irony in 3:9 is reminiscent of Ps 62:5; Sirach 5:15(13): the tongue is used both to bless God and to destroy human beings created in God's image! Just as faith must be manifested by works, so must wisdom (3:13-18 - James still seems to be thinking of teachers). If Jesus said: "By their fruits you will know them" (Mt 7:16), wisdom from above is recognized by its fruits (pure, peaceful, moderate, etc.). We are not far from the beatitudes here, as we will see when we compare James and the Sermon on the Mount, or from the fruits of the Spirit of Paul in Gal 5:22.

      This emphasis on how the wise should live leads to a condemnation of the various desires and wants that divide people and make them so unhappy (4:1-10) - desires that are the opposite of the spirit of the beatitudes. The quotation from Prov 3:34 in James 4:6 ("God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble") sums up the thought. (The same passage is quoted in 1 Pet 5:5, and both James and 1 Pet use "God" rather than the Septuagint "Lord"; apparently, a common Christian use of certain OT passages had developed, perhaps as part of "catechetical" training.) Judging one's brother or sister is condemned in James 4:11-12 as arrogance in relation to the Law of God, the supreme legislator and judge. The attack on arrogance continues in 4:13-17, where the readers are reminded that they are not masters of their own lives. (The theme of the rich, already dealt with twice (1:9-11; 2:1-9), returns in the form of a scathing attack in 5:1-6, recalling the curses hurled at them by the prophets (Amos 8:4-8) and the preaching of Jesus. The call for patience until the coming of the Lord in James 5:7-11 is linked to the little hope that the poor will obtain justice in this world from the rich. The emphasis on the parousia in this section refutes the idea that James does not have a Christian perspective.

   6. Particular Admonitions About Behavior In The Community (5:12-20)

      Oaths, prayer, and correction of the lost are the last topics treated, again apparently in the context of the coming final judgment. The decidedly negative attitude toward oaths in 5:12 (see Sirach 23:9-11) again brings James closer to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (5:33-37). In addition, there was a liturgical prayer for the sick (powerful like Elijah's), as well as a special anointing of oil by the presbyters, healing both sin and disease. This is a community life with appointed officials. Given the atmosphere of much of James, which is heavily weighted toward warning, one might think that the author is harsh and even unforgiving. The last lines (5:19-20) are then surprising: he is very concerned to bring back (and implicitly to forgive) those who have gone astray (Here James could be compared to Heb 10:26-31). If for 1 Pet 4:8 charity covers a multitude of sins, for James the activity of seeking the lost does.

3. Jas 2:24 and Paul on Faith and Works

   In Galatians 2:16, Paul says: "A person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in/of Jesus Christ. A little later, in Rom 3:28, he states: "By faith a man is justified, regardless of the works of the law." On the other hand, James 2:24 states: "By works, not by faith alone, is a man justified." The wording is remarkably close, and in context both authors appeal to the example of Abraham in Gen 15:6,23. It is therefore very difficult to think that the similarity is accidental; one view is a reaction to the other. The question of faith and works is a major element for Paul in Galatians and Romans, whereas it is more incidental in James. Few would argue that Paul shaped his position in reaction to James, so it would seem that the author of James is correcting a Pauline formula. Or, to be more precise, he is correcting a misunderstanding of a Pauline formula. Paul argued that observance of the ritual works prescribed by the Mosaic law, especially circumcision, would not justify the Gentiles; what was needed was faith in what God had done in Christ - a faith that involved a life commitment. The writer of James is thinking of people who are already Christians and who believe intellectually in Jesus (as the devil may believe: 2:19), but who have not translated that belief into life practice; and he insists that their works (not the ritual works prescribed by the Law, but behavior that reflects love) must match their faith - something with which Paul would agree, as can be seen in the "imperative" sections of his letters that emphasize behavior. If the author of James had read Romans, he should have been able to see that he and Paul were not dealing with the same issue: Paul was not proclaiming justification by faith that did not involve living as Christ would have his followers live. For this reason, it seems more logical to think that, in the writing of James, a Pauline formula had been repeated out of context and misinterpreted in a way that needed to be corrected.

   Paul probably repeated the faith/works formula often in his preaching, so we cannot say where and when the author of James encountered the misuse of this formula. (Of course, the author of James may not have known that it was Paul's formula that was being misrepresented or misunderstood.) It is tempting to think that it was the (misunderstood) repetition of the precise formula in Gal 2:16 or Rom 3:28 that James was correcting. When we discussed Rom, I suggested that Paul wrote the letter to the Roman Christians in part to correct misrepresentations of his position that were in circulation there, perhaps from Jerusalem, the mother church of the mission that had brought Christianity to Rome. What Paul had written in Ga (including his criticism of the pillars of the Jerusalem church) may have been brought back to Jerusalem by the preachers in Galatia whom Paul was attacking. If James' letter was written in the late 50s in Jerusalem, it could contain a reaction to what was reported (with bias) about Paul's thinking expressed in Gal. Presumably, this letter was passed on to communities that were in danger of being corrupted by such Pauline ideas. If one assumes that this letter was composed later, the reaction may have been shaped by reports of what Paul had written in Romans - we mentioned earlier the possibility that Paul sent a letter to Roman Christians in part because they had some influence on the authorities in Jerusalem.

4. Jas and Matt on the Jesus Tradition

   James	Matthew
   1: 2 My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy,	5: 11-12 "Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
   1: 4 and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing.	5: 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
   1: 5 If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you.	7: 7 "Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you.
   1: 19-20 You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not produce God's righteousness.	5: 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire.
   1: 22 But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves.	7: 24 "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
   2: 5 Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him?	5: 3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
   2: 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.	5: 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
   2: 13 For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.	5: 7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.
   3: 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh.	7: 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
   3: 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.	5: 9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
   4: 4 Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.	6: 24: "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
   4: 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.	5: 5 "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
   5: 2-3 Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are motheaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days.	6: 19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.
   5: 9 Beloved, do not grumble against one another, so that you may not be judged. See, the Judge is standing at the doors!	7: 1 "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.
   5: 10 As an example of suffering and patience, beloved, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.	5: 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
   5: 12 Above all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your "Yes" be yes and your "No" be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.	5: 34-37 But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be 'Yes, Yes' or 'No, No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one.

   It should be noted that despite the proximity of the theme, neither the formulation of the parallels nor the order in which they appear are the same. As a result, most scholars believe that the author of James did not know Matthew but a Jesus tradition of the type known to Matthew, similar to the Q Document.

5. Anointing the Sick (5:14-16)

   The passage is introduced in 5:13 by suggesting prayer as a response to suffering and praising God in song as a response to feeling joy. Our main concern is the response suggested for the one who is sick:

   14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.

   In later church usage, the healing of the sick by the anointing of a priest was evaluated as a sacrament; and inevitably, James 5:14-15 figured in the debates between the reformers and Rome over the number of sacraments. Session XIV of the Council of Trent defined extreme unction as a sacrament instituted by Christ and promulgated by James, and that the presbyters of the church, whom James asks to be called, are not simply senior members of the community, but priests ordained by the bishop. A number of points regarding this statement need to be clarified to facilitate dialogue.

   1. Trent made his statement in light of the 16th century debate and the understandings established at that time. Trent defined extreme unction as meeting the criterion of "sacrament" that had developed in the Middle Ages. It did not define that the anointing of the sick was understood as a sacrament in the first century; indeed, we have no evidence that the term sacrament was used that early. Nor did it define that this sacred action was to be administered by those in the 16th century Church (and well before) who constituted the clergy, namely, ordained priests, and not simply senior members of the lay community. Trent did not define (although those present at the Council may have assumed) that at the time Jas was written, the roles of bishops, priests, and ordination rites were clearly established. An ecumenically sensitive investigation of first-century practice, both by Roman Catholics who accept the authority of the Council and by other Christians, might frame the sacramental question in the following way: at that time, was prayer over the sick and anointing for healing and forgiveness by recognized authorities (called presbyters) considered a specially holy action continuing the work of Jesus?

   2. Presbyters should be called to help the sick. Traditionally, both Peter and Paul were known to perform healings (Acts 3:6; 5:15; 14:8-10; 28:8). In the 50s, in the church at Corinth, there were those who were recognized as having a charism of the Spirit for healing (1 Cor 12:9, 28, 30). We have seen that in the development of the structure of the church, especially in the last third of the first century, those who were appointed or chosen as presbyters in the community assumed some of the roles that formerly or elsewhere were filled by those who were recognized as having a charismatic gift. It is quite understandable, then, that the role of healing through prayer could be entrusted to presbyters.

   3. The anointing with oil in the name of the Lord is the first in the sequence of what presbyters are to do. Olive oil was used medicinally in ancient times. Lev 14:10-32 gives the anointing of oil a place in the confirmation of cleansing from leprosy; Isa 1:6 speaks of wounds softened or lessened by oil; Jer 8:22 presupposes the healing power of the balm of Gilead. (In addition to its medicinal value, oil was considered to have magical value, especially in exorcisms). In the NT era, Mark 6:13 records one aspect of the work of the Twelve whom Jesus sent in 6:7: "They anointed many sick people with oil and healed them." Would Mark have us believe that this was part of what Jesus sent them to do? Mt 10:1 indicates that the healing of diseases and infirmities was commanded. Throughout James, there are echoes of Jesus' tradition, so the practice described in James 5:14-15 may have been seen as a continuation of something Jesus had once commanded. Is this implicit in anointing "in the name of the Lord"?

   4. The presbyters' prayer of faith over the sick will save (heal?) the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up; and if the person has committed sins, they will be forgiven (5:15). (The description is phrased as a sequence, but a composite action is probably intended). Visiting those who are sick and praying for their sick friends was encouraged in the OT, e.g., Ps 35:13-14; Sir 7:35. Praying to God for healing from illness often had a particular tone because sin was seen as the root and cause of illness. For example, the friends who visited Job wanted to pray for him and with him by getting him to acknowledge his sin, and then God would heal him. Such a belief is attested to in the 2nd century BC in Sir 38:9-15: "My child, when you are ill, do not delay in praying to God, who will heal you. Flee from wickedness, let your hands be just; purify your heart from all sin... He who sins against the Creator will be defiant towards the physician." The Prayer of Nabonides in the Dead Sea Scrolls describes the king afflicted with a malignant disease, praying to the Most High God, and having his sins forgiven by an exorcist. A continuation of the link between sin and sickness can be implied in 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 where the desecration of the Eucharist is linked to the situation where many are sick, weak and dying. In the Gospels, Jesus presents himself as a physician (Mt 9:12; Lk 4:23); and for those he has healed, being "saved" sometimes means being healed of one's illness and having one's sins forgiven. In this context, James 5:15 makes sense: the prayer of faith will save the sick in a double way: it will raise them from their sickbed and forgive their sins.

   5. The relationship of 5:16 ("Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another that you may be healed") to what precedes it is much disputed. Since the time of the Reformation, in opposition to the Trent doctrine that extreme unction was administered by ordained priests, some have seen v. 16 as an interpretive specification of vv. 14-15: presbyters were simply senior members of the community, and prayer (and anointing) was simply the activity of members of the community - not authorities or the ancient equivalent of "clergy," if an anachronistic term is allowed. Other biblical scholars, recognizing that v. 16 contemplates a different activity from that authorized in vv. 14-15, insist that the two are irreconcilable: v. 16 is an interpolation. Still others, rejecting the hopeless solution of an interpolation, have seen v. 16 as complementary: there was a special sacred action of presbyters intended to heal, but there was also community confession, prayer, and healing. (The Didache 4. 14 gives the instruction, "You shall confess your offenses in the church, and you shall not go forward to your prayer with an evil conscience.") The last interpretation mentioned seems to have the greatest number of supporters and does justice to an early attitude where the emergence of appointed authorities had not yet rendered sacred actions shared by the community unnecessary.

6. Literary Genre

   In 1:1, James has an opening formula, but it lacks information about the sender, extended greetings, and any semblance of a closing formula. The content implies certain features of church life, for example, synagogue meetings where rich and poor are present, and a structure in which certain people are designated as teachers and presbyters. Yet nothing specific identifies the recipients. It can be said, therefore, that James is closer to an epistle than to a letter. Some interpreters argue that James was not intended for a specific group of Christians, but was simply an eclectic collection of moral instructions applicable to all. This analysis, however, does not do justice to the context and importance of these instructions. For example, as noted above, the address "To the twelve tribes of the diaspora," when combined with the content, suggests a certain "brand" of Christians who were quite faithful to the heritage of Israel and not as "liberal" as the Jewish/Gentile Christians represented by Paul's adherents who had renounced many of the attachments to the Law - in other words, the type of Christianity represented in his lifetime by the historical James, the Lord's brother. Many object that, if this were the case, James would have to include passages emphasizing dietary laws or Jewish feasts, etc. This objection assumes that James is a Christian. However, this objection assumes that James was written to adherents who needed to be corrected on these points. On the contrary, Jas' silence on these matters and tone of encouragement suggest that the recipients were in the same frame of mind as the author, not needing admonition on doctrinal matters, but only on those points where they were affected by the harmful influence of secular society (unjust partiality, preference for the rich) and distorted Pauline thinking (faith, not works). It would make sense if James was sent from Jerusalem or Palestine, specifically addressing those in churches originally converted or influenced by missionaries from the Jerusalem church. We will return to this possibility in the next subsection.

   What genres and styles can we detect in Jas? This collection of moral observations and instructions, often in the form of maxims and proverbs, presented with a strong tone of exhortation, resembles in content and style a whole body of OT wisdom literature, as we have pointed out above in the general analysis. After the OT period, a Jewish vein of wisdom continued both in Greek (e.g., the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocyclides, probably written by a highly Hellenized Jew after 100 BC) and in Hebrew (e.g. Pirke Aboth, which collects material from before the year 200). The pagan Greco-Roman philosophical literature (Epictetus, Plutarch, Seneca) also offers treatises of ethical teaching; and in some of his conglomerations of maxims, Jas agrees with the convictions and sentiments found there. As for the Christian influence, it is remembered that Jesus sometimes played the role of a man of wisdom, as the collection of teachings from Q Document preserved in Matthew and Luke testifies. We have seen above how close James is to Matthew precisely in this area. In addition to his fidelity to the Didache, or teaching of Jesus, James shows a strong eschatological perspective, typical of the early Christian expectation of the parousia (5:7-9). Paul's writings also contain wisdom/moral teaching (often in the imperative section of the letters), but in James this constitutes the whole epistle. While in developing Christology almost to the point of doctrine, the NT departs considerably from the writings and thoughts of Israel, let alone Greco-Roman literature, James presents us with an uncompromising emphasis on morality that is in line with Israel and would also be approved of by many pagans.

   Like some Jewish writings of the Hellenistic period, James does not hesitate to use genres known in the Greco-Roman world to convey his teaching. Aspects of the diatribe are prominent in James. For example, a thesis is established by a series of examples in 2:14-26; the "you...I/we" conversation between the author and the hearers/readers runs through much of the letter; there is also a constant series of imperatives; direct address to theoretical opponents, e.g., 4:13; 5:1; and refutation of objections, e.g., 1:13; 2:18. However, elements of argument typical of the diatribe are found in many forms of literature, and one can hardly equate James with some of the more formal diatribes of the Greco-Roman school. Jas also uses parenesis in both style and content, for example, appeals to well-known memorized exhortations and models to imitate. Yet in his transmission of traditional moral exhortations in the form of maxims, parenetics is almost a secondary genre since it appears within works that are primarily of another genre and reflect different social contexts. Jas has also been identified as a protreptic (encouraging) discourse, an exhortation to follow one way of life as superior to another, as it defends the superiority of the Judeo-Christian moral life reflecting the Law. This genre does more justice to this epistle as a deliberate rhetorical writing and not as a mere random collection of maxims. If one thinks about how all of this is combined with the opening of the epistle, one will probably end up with a hybrid classification of Jas.

7. By and to Whom, Where, and When?
   1. By Whom?

      Was the work really written by James of Jerusalem before his death in the year 62? Let us examine the arguments used to support an affirmative answer. Wouldn't a later attempt at pseudonymity have used the honorific title "brother of the Lord" rather than "servant of God" (1:1), or would it have made specific references to Jesus and provided some fictional biographical data? Similarly, the Jewish atmosphere of the letter is consistent with a composition by the head of the Jerusalem church. Yet such arguments do not refute the possibility of a disciple or knowledgeable admirer of James, using a modest title that the historical James applied to himself and writing in a way that pursued his thought. James of Jerusalem was one of the most important figures in NT Christianity, and a pseudepigrapher might not have found it necessary to introduce him to his recipients (especially if they were in churches evangelized from Jerusalem). The Greek used by James is fluent, even eloquent, and shows a careful style; it is unlikely that it was translated from Hebrew/Aramaic and that the author's native language was Semitic. The scripture used is the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible. It is therefore unlikely that a villager from Nazareth wrote it personally. The use of a scribe could be invoked, but as we shall see, other factors favor the thesis that the letter was written after James' lifetime by someone who respected his authority. Speculation about the exact identity of the author becomes unnecessary.

   2. When?

      As external evidence, the Pseudo-Clementine literature (the earliest source of which dates to the 150-220s) honors James as the bishop of bishops and posits a much more advanced hostility between James and Paul than appears in Jas. This epistle seems to have been known to the author of the Pastor of Hermas, which was probably written in Rome around the year 140. It would therefore have been written sometime before that date. As internal evidence, as we have seen in comparing Jas to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, the author knows, but in a different formulation, the kind of teaching of Jesus found in the Q Document and in the Gospels. Therefore, reliance on the written Gospels is not likely. The writer is also familiar with the Pauline tradition on faith and works preserved in Gal and Rom, written in the 50s, but apparently through inaccurate popularization. These connections with the Jesus and Paul traditions may have been possible before 62, but a more likely date would be the last third of the first century. An ecclesiastical structure of the type implied in 3:1, where there is a teaching function (not merely a charism), and in 5:14-15, where presbyters have a specific, even quasi-liturgical role, also suggests a late first century date. A much later date is not plausible. In the first half of the second century, it is likely that the author of James would have known the Gospels and Epistles were written.

   3. From Where? To Whom and Where?

      There is little evidence to decide these questions. A particular sensitivity for the poor, knowledge of the tradition of Jesus, and reference to the early and late rainfall typical of the Palestinian climate (5, 7) have suggested Jerusalem or Palestine as the place of origin. According to Hegesippus (mentioned in Ecclesiastical History 3.19-20), descendants of Jesus' family (called the Desposyni), especially the grandsons of Jude, "his brother according to the flesh," led the churches in Palestine until the time of Trajan (98-117). Although James was venerated more widely, it is certain that the Christians in the Palestinian churches would have had a special veneration for James, the original leader of the Jerusalem community. The earliest source of pro-James Pseudo-Clementine writings is said to have been composed at Pella, about 100 kilometers northeast of Jerusalem, across the Jordan River, where the Christians of Jerusalem would have gone before the destruction of the city in 70.

      The moral exhortation in James is clearly directed at one or more communities (not individuals or a single household) to make its voice heard against a dominant culture. Yet, James is not sectarian in the sense of attacking only outsiders; he is primarily concerned with correcting Christians on the inside who should be better informed. The use of the Greek of the Septuagint, and the reference to the diaspora (1:1) suggest an audience beyond Palestine. The strongly Jewish tone suggested a Jewish Christian author and audience. Yet Christians of Gentile origin generally took on the coloring of the Jewish missionaries who had converted them, and so there was also a vein of Jewish/Gentile Christianity that was very faithful to Judaism. If James was sent from Jerusalem (or from the remnants of the Christian community in Palestine after AD 70) "to the twelve tribes of the Diaspora," this could be intended for the Jewish and Gentile Christian communities that were originally evangelized from Jerusalem - communities marked by James's loyalty to Judaism. One of these communities could have been Rome, for James was known in Rome in the early second century. If he was received there, he may have served to correct the exaggerations of Paul's view of works in Romans. Was he quoted in Rome (Hermas, and perhaps 1 Clement) because he corresponded to the pro-Jewish viewpoint still dominant in that city? By the mid-2nd century, however, Jewish Christians considered heretical (the Pseudo-Clementine writings) were championing the figure of James, and enthusiasm for works bearing his name may have waned, hence the absence of Jas from Rome's canonical enumeration in the late 2nd century. This proposal involves too much conjecture, but it argues against the idea that Jas was a very general composition with no defined purpose or pastoral intent.

8. Canonicity of Jas

   Jas is not mentioned in the Muratori Fragment, which is thought to represent the scriptures of Rome in the late 2nd century. The Old Latin translation of Jas found in the Codex Corbeiensis (9th century preservation) and placed with the extra-canonical writings raises the possibility that Jas was translated into Latin in the 3rd century (and perhaps later than other Catholic epistles). Thus, the evidence suggests that in the West, around 200 AD, Jas was not considered canonical, even though it had been known fairly early in Rome, as we saw in discussing the Pastor of Hermas. In the early third century, in the Greek-speaking East, Origen recognized the letter, though it was among the disputed books, quoted it twenty-four times, and attributed it to the apostle James, the brother of the Lord. In the early 4th century, Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 2.23.24-25; 3.25.3) still lists it as one of the disputed books of the NT; however, by the end of the 4th century, Athanasius gives evidence of the acceptance of Jas in the Greek-speaking churches of the East. Jerome's not entirely enthusiastic inclusion in the Vulgate and Augustine's authority meant acceptance in the West. At the same time, however, he was not accepted in the Syriac-speaking church. Finally, in the early 5th century, Jas appears in the official Syriac translation, the Peshitta, although some of the contemporary leaders of that church do not seem to be aware of it.

   We do not know why James was so slow to be accepted. Didn't some of those who knew him recognize that the "James" of 1:1 was the leader of the Jerusalem church? Did others dispute the attribution in 1:1 as fictitious? Or did its circulation primarily in Christian circles faithful to the Law make it suspect in the wider Church? Did its lack of Christology make it unacceptable as a general (Catholic) epistle?

   The old disagreements about Jas contributed to new doubts at the time of the Reformation. Erasmus accepted it but questioned its attribution to the Lord's brother, as did Cardinal Cajetan. In the (September) 1522 edition of his German translation, Luther attempted to place Jas with He, Jude, and Ap at the end of the NT as being of lesser quality than "the main, true and certain books of the New Testament." The main factors in the Reformation's opposition to James, in addition to disputes over antiquity, were his support for extreme unction as a sacrament and his assertion that "faith without works is useless" (2:20), which was at odds with Luther's exaltation of faith. Although Luther found many good words in it, James was an epistle of straw compared to the golden jewel of the Gospel. In the 1540s he still wished, in his "Table Talk," that Jas would be left out of the discussions at the University of Wittenberg, because it was not worth much. Luther's reorganization of the canon was later abandoned, and thanks to Melanchthon, the apparent contradiction between James and Paul was harmonized. Yet in the following centuries, especially within Protestantism, James was often considered an inferior witness to the NT, especially when compared to Paul's letters. He has sometimes been dismissed as the late product of Ebionite or extreme Jewish Christianity.

   In the second half of the 20th century, however, with the rise of a Christian sense of social morality, Paul's reluctance to change social structures (e.g., his toleration of slavery) was increasingly criticized, while Jas became popular. The maxim "What good is it, brothers, to say that one has faith if one has no works?", exemplified by providing daily clothing to the poorly clothed, food to the hungry (Jas 2:14-16), was seen as an important corrective to a socially insensitive Christianity. The lack of Christological affirmation in James remains a problem ("Jesus Christ" only twice: 1:1; 2:1); but for a generation raised on liberation theology, social concern was more important. (More insightfully, one could say that James shows a deep understanding of how to translate Christology into meaning for the Christian life, as Jesus himself did; for although presented in the synoptic gospels as the Son of God, Jesus did not preach this identity explicitly, but explained the good news of the kingdom to the poor, hungry, and persecuted.) Many, therefore, in resonance with Jas 1:27 that true religion consists of visiting orphans and widows in need, would strongly disagree with the claim that Jas is an epistle of straw. This shift in perspective is a lasting warning against depreciating any NT work as inferior. What one generation despises, another generation may value as the heart of the Gospel.

9. Issues and Problems for Reflection
   1. The question of structure is not unimportant. For example, how much of what follows 3, 1 refers primarily to teachers? Are they still in mind throughout chap. 4? Some biblical scholars describe James as a parenesis, that is, a gathering of ethical material from many sources with little or no continuity, except perhaps through "stitch-words" or "chain-words" that link a number of subunits. Closer study, however, points out that the parenesis may have form and development; and the majority of recent commentators do not regard Jas as devoid of structure, even if they do not agree on the details of that structure. Some argue that the structure was externally controlled, for example by a midrash or a homiletical interpretation of Ps 12(11); or by the length of the verses used in the preaching. The most likely of these hypotheses would be that the choice of topics was dictated by patterns already established in baptismal homilies or catechetical instruction on expected morality, as illustrated by the many parallels with 1 Pet.

   2. We can see a growth in the reflections of the OT on the question of the responsibility of people for the evil they do. The statement that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not do what he commanded through Moses (Ex 4:21; 7:3-4; etc.; also 2 Sam 24:1; Isa 6:9-10) is a formula that does not adequately distinguish between God's foreknowledge and God's causality. The theological progression is found in the perception that a figure other than God pushes people toward evil: first, an angelic figure who in himself is not evil (the Satan of Job 1:6-12; Zech 3:1-2) and then an evil angelic tempter or devil (1 Thess 2:18; Mt 4:1-11). Nevertheless, modern society blames many things on heredity, which is a substitute for blaming God, and among religious people there may be an exaggeration of the "the devil made me do it" motif. Jas 1:13-16 is challenging on both counts, as it emphasizes personal responsibility for responding to temptation or trial. However, the complete rejection of the existence of an intelligent principle of evil, although also encountered today, flies in the face of much NT evidence and traditional Christian teaching.

   3. At the height of the civil rights crisis in the United States, it was often said of some churches that one could read James 2:1-7 and replace "rich" and "poor" with "white" and "black" and have a sermon of immediate relevance. With the integration of churches, however, we should not think that James' challenge has lost its relevance. Imagine a Christian parish that is very socially aware and cannot be accused of indifference to the poor. Can the parish administrator refrain from paying special attention to the generous rich? The possibility of further gifts of money will quickly disappear if major donors are not publicly recognized (whether in the bulletin, by a plaque, or by an annual list of gifts). Is it possible to live in this world without showing bias? Like Jesus in the Gospels, is James issuing a challenge that will never be fully met until the kingdom comes?

   4. A section has been devoted to Jas 5:14-16 and the division in Christian thought about whether the anointing of the sick is a sacrament. Leaving aside for the moment a particular priestly anointing of the sick, it cannot be denied that James has taken up and pursued a major concern for healing that flows from Jesus. Paul knew about charismatic healers, and some today would still insist on their presence in the church. Most Christians do not believe they have received a special charism for healing. What responsibility do they have to continue the early Christian emphasis on healing or caring for the sick, especially in a culture that increasingly entrusts healing to the medical profession and health agencies?