Since the time of the Reformation, the book of James has been controversial.
At one point in his career, Martin Luther famously stated, “St. James’s epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (German New Testament, “Preface,” 1522 ed.).
Luther removed this statement from later editions and even had good things to say about James, but his attitude toward the book, like that of many in the Protestant community, was ambivalent.
Much of the reason is the seeming conflict between James and Paul on the issue of “works” and their relationship to salvation. It has often been thought that James is criticizing and contradicting Paul.
But a close look at the text—and at how the book came to be—suggests something else.
Who wrote James?
The book begins: “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greeting” (1:1).
This is the way letters were usually addressed at the time: They stated the sender, the recipient, and a greeting.
This letter identifies its author as James. But which one? James was one of the most popular male names in first-century Palestine, and there are multiple men in the New Testament who bear it.
“The twelve tribes in the Dispersion”
A clue to which James this is may be found in the letter’s address. It’s being sent to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion.” Taken literally, that would be members of any of the twelve tribes of Israel, wherever they are living in the Roman world. (“Dispersion” refers to Hebrews not living in Palestine.)
It could be questioned whether “the twelve tribes” is meant literally, but the reference to the Dispersion indicates an international audience. That tells us something very important about this James.
He’s famous
The fact that he was famous is also indicated by the brief way he introduces himself, as “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” There were many first-century Christians named James who would have fit that description, so this suggests that he was a particularly well-known one who didn’t need to identify himself further.
This lets us figure out which James is writing because, although there are multiple Jameses, only two had such prominence.
The first was James the son of Zebedee, who was famous because he was one of Jesus’ core disciples. But he was martyred by King Herod Agrippa I, sometime between A.D. 41 and 44, and so it’s likely that the author of the epistle is another famous James.
James the brother of Jesus
After Herod Agrippa had James son of Zebedee killed, he arrested Peter and tried to have him killed as well. But Peter miraculously escaped and fled Jerusalem (Acts 12:3-17). Before he did so, he recounted how an angel brought him out of jail, and then said, “Tell this to James and to the brethren” (12:17).
This is a reference to the second famous James, who played an important role at the Council of Jerusalem in A.D. 49 (Acts 15:13-21) and when Paul returned to Jerusalem for the final time in A.D. 55 (Acts 21:17-26).
We also read about this James in Paul’s epistles, where he notes that Jesus made a special post-Resurrection appearance to this James (1 Cor. 15:7), that he was “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19), that he was one of the pillars of the Jerusalem church (Gal. 2:9), and that he was connected with the controversy about whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law (Gal. 2:12).
This is the same controversy that resulted in the Council of Jerusalem, where this James played a prominent role, and it is the controversy that motivates much of what Paul says in Romans and Galatians. The controversy also resonates with the discussion of faith and works in James 2:14-26, suggesting James the brother of the Lord—the other famous James—is the one who wrote the letter.
What kind of brother?
Matthew and Mark both record Jesus as having four “brothers”: James, Joseph (Joses), Simon, and Jude (Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3).
These were not half-brothers born to Joseph and Mary, for Mary remained a virgin.
The earliest explanation of their relationship to Jesus is that they were stepbrothers; that Joseph was a widower who became the caretaker of Mary after having another family by a prior wife. This explanation appears in the mid-100s (cf. Protoevangelium of James) and has always been the most popular view in Eastern Christendom.
St. Jerome popularized another view, which is that they were Jesus’ cousins (cf. Against Helvidius). This view became common in Western Christendom. Advocates of the “cousins” view often identify James the brother of the Lord with one of the twelve apostles, known as “James the son of Alphaeus” (Matt. 10:3).
However, Pope Benedict XVI noted: “Among experts, the question of the identity of these two figures with the same name, James son of Alphaeus and James ‘the brother of the Lord,’ is disputed” (General Audience, June 28, 2006).
One reason for the dispute is that the “brothers” of Jesus do not seem to have been followers of his during his earthly ministry, which would preclude them from being among the twelve apostles. Jesus himself noted that a prophet has no honor “among his own kin, and in his own house” (Mark 6:4). And John states: “[E]ven his brethren did not believe in him” (7:5; cf. Matt. 12:46, Mark 3:31-34, Luke 8:19-20, John 7:3, 10). They did, however, come to faith afterward (Acts 1:14).
Whether James the brother of the Lord is also to be identified with James the son of Alphaeus is an interesting question, but one too technical to go further into here. We do, however, have good reason to identify James the brother of the Lord as the author of the letter.
Why doesn’t he say he’s Jesus’ brother?
If James the brother of Jesus is the author of the letter, why doesn’t he identify himself as such? Some have suggested that the reason is modesty, and this may be true. It also may be that to assert his familial relationship to Jesus would be counterproductive to his ministry.
Once, when Jesus was told that his mother and brothers were outside wanting to talk to him, he made a forceful statement that those who hear and obey the word of God are his true family (Matt. 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35, Luke 8:19-21).
Although James and other members of the Lord’s domestic family undoubtedly gained prominence in the early Church partly because of this relationship, they could not flaunt it. For James to introduce himself as the brother of the Lord, in the letter or otherwise, would come across as flaunting his relationship to Jesus and invite people to view what he had to say askance.
The life and death of James
James had a great reputation for piety and so came to be known as “James the Just.” He also was made the first bishop of Jerusalem when the apostles began to institute bishops.
He was martyred in a remarkable way. According to the second-century historian Hegesippus, James was asked to announce, from the pinnacle of the temple, that Jesus was not the Christ. He did the reverse, and this led him to being thrown down, stoned, and finally struck in the head by a fuller’s club (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:23:13-18).
Hegesippus records that James’s death took place shortly before the siege of Vespasian—i.e., the first Jewish war, which began in A.D. 66. James would thus have written before that time. We are fortunate, though, that the death of James the Just is also recorded by the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, who gives additional detail.
Josephus reports that the death took place in the period between the Roman governors Festus and Albinus. Festus had died and Albinus had not yet arrived. In the gap, the new high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, took advantage of the occasion to order the stoning of James. Ananus needed Roman authorization for this, but he didn’t have it, and so he was stripped of the high priesthood after only three months (Antiquities of the Jews 20:9:1).
This detail helps us locate the death of James more precisely in A.D. 62, when the transition from Festus to Albinus took place.
When did James write?
It thus appears that James would have written his letter sometime between his rise to prominence (c. A.D. 42) and his death (A.D. 62). But we can narrow that down further.
One of the striking things about the letter of James is how Jewish it is.
It isn’t just that the book is written to a Jewish audience and reflects Jewish concerns. Matthew’s Gospel fits that description, but Matthew shows clear traces of the kind of debates that occurred once Gentiles began to be admitted to the Church.
The letter of James doesn’t. It is so Jewish in outlook that some commentators have suggested that the two mentions it makes of Jesus Christ (1:1 and 2:1) were actually later additions to an otherwise thoroughly Jewish document.
There is no support for that in the manuscript evidence, but James is still remarkably Jewish in outlook and does not display an awareness of the existence of Gentile Christians. Indeed, it envisions believers in Jesus as still worshiping alongside other Jews in the synagogue. Thus James speaks of what happens “if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in” (2:2).
In Greek, the word for “assembly” here is the word for synagogue (not ekklesia). If that’s a reference to a purely Christian assembly, it’s the only place in the New Testament where the word is used that way.
It is more natural, in light of the context, to take it in its ordinary sense and assign James to an age when it was still the normal experience of Christians to be Jewish believers worshiping in a synagogue—before the split between the Jewish and Christian communities became sharp.
If so, then there would be reason to date the letter of James earlier (closer to A.D. 42) rather than later (closer to A.D. 62), because by the A.D. 50s Paul was already beginning to make large numbers of Gentile converts, and the Jew-Gentile issues that are missing from James came to the fore.
James and Paul
It is no secret that James talks about faith and works in a very different way than Paul does. It’s hard not to see what James says in chapter 2 of his letter and what Paul says in Romans and Galatians as unrelated.
But what is the connection between them?
It is easy, given the greater prominence of Paul and the fact that his books are placed before James in the New Testament, to think James is reacting to Paul—trying to correct things James was hearing about Paul’s preaching and writing.
Yet the connection could be just the reverse: Paul could be reacting to what James taught and trying to correct a misapplication of it. In fact, there is reason to think that this is what is happening.
James not an innovator
If we look only at what James says about faith and works, he isn’t saying anything innovative. He’s saying the same thing as John the Baptist and Jesus. Both stressed the importance of repenting and obeying God’s commandments for salvation (Matt. 3:7-10, 19:16-19, Mark 10:17-19, Luke 3:7-14, 18:18-20, John 15:1-11). In other words, merely believing is not enough; you have to live your faith.
James may be seen as doing the same thing. He does not raise the question of Gentile converts to Christianity and is simply stressing the need to live one’s faith by putting it into action: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead” (2:26).
“Unless you are circumcised”
If his epistle was written when there were few, if any, Gentile converts, then the question of their relationship to the Law of Moses would not arise. But that would change as soon as Gentiles started coming into the Church in large numbers.
Thus Luke reports that when Paul was in Antioch, “some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’” (Acts 15:1).
Such men might have thought that they were on firm ground. They might have even appealed to the teaching of James (in the letter or otherwise) as support for their position.
They may have felt particularly justified in doing so because, just before his discussion of justification (2:14-26), James emphasized the need to keep the whole of God’s law (2:10-11). That could easily be understood as a requirement to be circumcised.
Surprise!
If this was their reasoning, they were in for a big surprise, because when the Council of Jerusalem was held, James sided with Peter, Paul, and Barnabas on the question of Gentile converts: They did not need to be circumcised or to become Jews to be Christians (15:13-19). James did recommend certain pastoral provisions to enable Jewish and Gentile Christians to live harmoniously (15:20-21), but he did not insist on circumcision.
The letter that the Council sent incorporated James’s pastoral suggestions and added the stinging note that the people who caused the controversy did so on their own initiative and “we gave them no instructions” (15:24). This means, among other things, that they were not acting as agents of James, though they might have thought that they were applying his teaching (and that of John the Baptist and Jesus).
The controversy continues
Despite the results of the Council, the controversy continued and spread to other churches, leading Paul in the A.D. 50s to write his letters to the Romans and the Galatians.
Paul points out both the need for faith in Christ and the importance of avoiding sin and doing good works, but he is sharp in rejecting the need for “works of the Law.” By this he clearly has in mind the Law of Moses, for he repeatedly brings up the subject of circumcision.
James, in his epistle, had linked the question of faith and works to the example of Abraham, pointing out that Abraham was deemed righteous when he offered Isaac on the altar (2:21). In Romans, Paul links faith and works to the example of Abraham as well, pointing out that Abraham was also deemed righteous by faith before he was circumcised (Rom. 4:1-12).
The conjunction of faith, works, and Abraham in the discussion is significant. So is the fact that Paul’s argument is detailed and specifically focused, while James’s argument is casual, brief, and general. This is what you would expect if James were writing before there were a significant number of Gentile converts and Paul were writing afterward.
Paul can thus be seen as correcting a misunderstanding of James that would extend the general need to obey God for salvation to the need to obey the Mosaic Law in particular.
Post-conciliar James
If this is the case, then James could well have been written before the controversy over Gentile converts.
Certainly it is hard to imagine James writing the way he does after the Council of Jerusalem in A.D. 49. By that point the question of Gentile converts had arisen, and it is difficult to imagine James discussing the issue of faith and works and how they relate to Abraham’s example without bringing up the question of circumcision.
Had he been writing after this date, he presumably would have put matters much the way he did in his final appearance in the book of Acts, when Paul visits the city for the final time. On that occasion, he promoted the principle of Jews maintaining their observance of the Mosaic Law. But he immediately brought up the Council’s letter indicating that Gentiles only need observe certain pastoral provisions (Acts 21:20-25).