Can We Trust the New Testament?
THE EPISTLES AND APOCALYPSE
In any case it is this same James who is evidently claiming to be the author of the Epistle of James―and the very way in which he in no way flaunts his credentials as the brother of Jesus or as leader of the Jerusalem Church suggests that he is no impostor. Whether he could personally have written it has been much disputed, largely on the ground of its good Greek. But the mounting evidence going to show that at all social levels Palestine, and especially Galilee and Jerusalem, was bilingual makes this objection look less cogent than it did. Unlike the Epistles of Jude and 2 Peter, which belong to the 'silver age' of the early Church, the Epistle of James has a very primitive air about it. There appears to be no antagonism or even division between the Church and the Synagogue, all Christians, from its opening address in James 1.1 being assumed to be Jews. It shows no signs of developed Christian doctrine or Church order or of the arguments, such as mark the Epistles of Paul, about the terms on which Gentiles could be full members of the Church. It therefore seems to fit best before the great crisis which led to the Council of Jerusalem, when, we read, 'certain persons who had come down from Judea began to teach the brotherhood that those who were not circumcised in accordance with Mosaic practice could not be saved' (Acts 15.1). Indeed these people may have claimed that they were drawing 'all or nothing' implication from what James himself had written (cf. James 2:10: 'If a man keeps the whole law apart from one single point, he is breaking all of it'): hence the need for an official disclaimer from him and the Council (Acts 15.24). In this case the Epistle is likely to have been written not long before, perhaps in about 47. It would then be the first finished piece of Christian writing to have survived.
Chapter 4: THE GENERATION GAP
THE EPISTLES AND APOCALYPSE
In any case it is this same James who is evidently claiming to be the author of the Epistle of James―and the very way in which he in no way flaunts his credentials as the brother of Jesus or as leader of the Jerusalem Church suggests that he is no impostor. Whether he could personally have written it has been much disputed, largely on the ground of its good Greek. But the mounting evidence going to show that at all social levels Palestine, and especially Galilee and Jerusalem, was bilingual makes this objection look less cogent than it did. Unlike the Epistles of Jude and 2 Peter, which belong to the 'silver age' of the early Church, the Epistle of James has a very primitive air about it. There appears to be no antagonism or even division between the Church and the Synagogue, all Christians, from its opening address in James 1.1 being assumed to be Jews. It shows no signs of developed Christian doctrine or Church order or of the arguments, such as mark the Epistles of Paul, about the terms on which Gentiles could be full members of the Church. It therefore seems to fit best before the great crisis which led to the Council of Jerusalem, when, we read, 'certain persons who had come down from Judea began to teach the brotherhood that those who were not circumcised in accordance with Mosaic practice could not be saved' (Acts 15.1). Indeed these people may have claimed that they were drawing 'all or nothing' implication from what James himself had written (cf. James 2:10: 'If a man keeps the whole law apart from one single point, he is breaking all of it'): hence the need for an official disclaimer from him and the Council (Acts 15.24). In this case the Epistle is likely to have been written not long before, perhaps in about 47. It would then be the first finished piece of Christian writing to have survived.
Comment