_________________________________________________________________

   Title: The Epistle of St James: Greek Text with Introduction, Commentary as
   Far as Chapter IV, Verse 7, and Additional Notes
   Creator(s): Hort, Fenton John Anthony (1828-1892)
   CCEL Subjects: All; Bible
     _________________________________________________________________

                            THE EPISTLE OF ST JAMES

THE GREEK TEXT

  WITH INTRODUCTION, COMMENTARY AS FAR AS CHAPTER IV, VERSE 7, AND ADDITIONAL
  NOTES

BY THE LATE

F. J. A. HORT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.

SOMETIME BULSEAN PROFESSOR AND LADY MARGARET’S READER IN DIVINITY
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

  MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED ST MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON

    1909

   All rights reserved

   Cambribge:

   PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
   AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
     _________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS

   Pages
   PREFACE                                ii-vii
   INTRODUCTION                           ix-xxxiii
          Value of the Epistle            ix ff.
          Authorship                      xi-xxii
          The Readers                     xxii ff.
          Circumstances and Date          xxiv f.
          Reception                       xxv—xxxi.
          Purpose and Contents            xxxi ff.
          Style                           xxxiii
   TEXT AND NOTES                         1—101
   ADDITIONAL NOTES.
          I. On “Brother” improperly used 102 f.
          II. On tēs doxēs                103 f.
          III. On hulēn                   104 ff.
          IV. On ton trochon tēs geneseōs 106 f.
          V. On espatalēsate              107 ff.

   VI. Peculiarities of vocabulary in the Codex Corbeiensis of St James
   109 ff.
   INDEXES                                113-119
     _________________________________________________________________

PREFACE

   THE circumstances connected with the origin of this book have already been
   related by Dr Westcott in the preface to the companion edition of Dr Hort’s
   Commentary on St Peter i.-ii. 17, published in 1898. It was designed to take
   its place in a Commentary on the whole N.T. planned by the three friends,
   Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort in 1860.

   Dr Hort’s share included the Synoptic Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles of
   St James, St Peter, and St Jude. After a brief period of work on the
   Gospels, of which only a few unimportant fragments remain, Dr Hort set to
   work on St James. If we may judge from the condition of the MS. the
   Commentary on Chapter I was complete when he came back to Cambridge, as a
   Fellow of Emmanuel College, in 1871. His notes were, however, worked over
   and written out afresh when he chose St James as the subject for his first
   three courses of Lectures as Hulsean Professor in 1880, 1881. It is idle now
   to regret that his attention was called away to lecture in 1882 on Tatian’s
   Apology, leaving the Commentary incomplete, but within sight of the end.
   When at length he returned to the Epistle in the Summer Term of 1889, he
   dealt mainly with questions of Introduction. The introductory matter printed
   in this volume was prepared for that course of Lectures. It was supplemented
   by condensed notes on select passages from the earlier chapters of the
   Epistle. No further progress was made with the Commentary on the Text.

   The Introduction and Commentary have been printed substantially as they
   stand in the MS., except that for the sake of uniformity English renderings
   have in some cases been supplied at the head of the notes. This however has
   only been done in cases where the note itself gave clear indication of the
   rendering which Dr Hort would himself have proposed.

   No one who reads this book with the attention that it requires and deserves
   will feel that any apology is needed for its publication, in spite of its
   incompleteness. In the Introduction no doubt the scholarship appears to a
   certain extent in what Dr Sanday, in the Preface to Dr Hort’s notes on Apoc.
   i.-iii. published last year, aptly describes as ‘undress.’ And some points
   would naturally have received fuller treatment, if the author himself had
   been spared to prepare his own work for publication. But there is no reason
   to suppose that his conclusions would have been seriously modified by
   anything that has been written on the Epistle since his death. His
   Introduction has, it will not be superfluous to point out, an advantage from
   the appended Commentary, inevitably but none the less unfortunately lacking
   in the still more compendious introduction provided, e.g. in such a
   recognized Text-book as Jülicher’s. For after all the ultimate appeal on
   most of the vexed questions of Introduction lies to the Text itself. And on
   one point at least Dr Hort’s patient and minute examination of the Text
   supplies a conclusive answer to the charge of incoherence [1] not uncommonly
   brought against the Epistle on the ground of the obvious abruptness of its
   style. No one can study these notes consecutively without becoming conscious
   of a subtle harmony underlying the whole Epistle, due partly to the
   consistent application of a few fundamental principles characteristic of the
   author [2] , and partly to the recurrence in different forms of the same
   fundamental failing in the people to whom his warnings are addressed [3] .

   In regard to the evidence to be derived from the language in which the
   Epistle is written it is clear that Dr Hort worked habitually on an
   hypothesis, the possibility of which many modern critics either ignore or
   deny. Everything here turns on the extent to which a knowledge of Greek may
   be presupposed among the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine in the First
   Century A.D. Jülicher, for example, regards the excellence of the Greek of
   the Epistle as in itself conclusive against the traditional attribution.
   This seems arbitrary in the case of a man whose father according to an early
   tradition (St Matth. ii.) spent some time in Egypt. Dr Hort on the other
   hand regarded a knowledge of Greek as anything but exceptional in Palestine.
   He thinks it possible to identify dialectic peculiarities of Palestinian
   Greek [4] . He is prepared to believe in the currency [5] of ‘Greek
   paraphrases of the O.T. resembling the Hebrew Targums.’ The influence that
   he everywhere ascribes to the LXX in moulding N.T. vocabulary presupposes a
   considerable familiarity with the Greek Version of the O.T. in Apostolic
   circles [6] . And he finds the Epistle of St James full of implied
   references to the words of the Lord in their Greek form [7] . This point is
   one of far-reaching importance, and if there are good reasons for supposing
   that a man in St James’ position could not have had a thorough knowledge of
   Greek, it would be well that they should be produced.

   The Commentary itself, as far as it goes, is finished work in every line.
   Each word and phrase and sentence has been examined in the light of the
   whole available evidence with characteristic freshness, and with a
   singularly delicate sense both of the meaning of words, and of subtle
   variations of grammatical structure. At times, no doubt, in Dr Hort’s work
   as in Dr Westcott’s, the investigation of a particular word or form of
   thought seems to be carried beyond the limits strictly necessary for the
   interpretation of the passage immediately, under discussion. It is however
   only fair to recal the fact that each separate Commentary was meant to form
   part of an inclusive scheme. Both scholars combined a keen sense of the
   variety of the several parts of the N.T. with a deep conviction of the
   fundamental unity of the whole. Their field of view was never limited by the
   particular passage on which they might happen to be commenting. No single
   fragment, they felt, could be fully understood out of relation to the whole
   Revelation of which it formed a part. Conciseness and, as regards the rapid
   apprehension of the salient points in individual books, something of
   sharpness of focus were sacrificed in consequence. But for students of the
   N.T. as a whole, the result is pure gain. The labour entailed in following
   out the suggested lines of thought is amply repaid by a growing sense of
   depth beyond depth of Wisdom hidden under familiar and seemingly commonplace
   forms of expression. And even the several books stand out in the end in more
   clearly defined individuality.

   This characteristic of Dr Hort’s method minimizes the disadvantages arising
   from the fragmentariness of the finished work. The discussion of
   representative sections of different writers has given him wider scope for
   the treatment of the various departments of N.T. Theology than would have
   been afforded by a Commentary formally complete on a single Epistle. The
   First Epistle of St Peter occupies no doubt a peculiarly central position in
   N.T. The relation in which it stands to the Epistles to the Romans and to
   the ‘Ephesians’ led Dr Hort to treat many of the characteristic problems of
   the Pauline Gospel, and its relation to the Epistle of St James is
   remarkably illustrated by the fact that in commenting on St Peter Dr Hort
   not infrequently summarizes the results of investigations recorded in full
   in this volume. Yet even 1 St Peter would not have given him the scope
   afforded by these chapters of St James for treating of the fundamental
   problems of individual (as distinct from social) Ethics, and of Psychology.

   In spite therefore of its apparent fragmentariness Dr Hort’s work is marked
   by a real unity, and possesses a permanent value for all serious students of
   N.T. In details no doubt both of vocabulary and syntax his results will need
   to be carefully checked in the fresh light which is coming from the Papyri.
   But in work so broadly based, fresh evidence we may well believe will
   confirm far more than it will upset.

   But, some one may say, granted all this, what is meant by the permanent
   value of a Commentary? Are not Commentaries like all scientific text-books,
   only written to be superseded? In every other department of study, however
   gifted a scholar may be, he must be content that his particular contribution
   to the advancement of knowledge shall be merged and lost in the general sum.
   Is there any reason to think that the case is different in Theology?
   Strangely enough there is.

   The subject-matter of the science of Theology is provided by the Bible.
   ‘That standard interpretation [8] ’ of the primary Gospel ‘was ordained to
   be for the guidance of the Church in all after ages, in combination with the
   living guidance of the Spirit.’ Each age must go back for itself to the
   fountain head. Yet for the thinkers in each age there are abiding lessons to
   be learnt from the labours of their predecessors. It is not surprising,
   therefore, that all the outstanding leaders in Theological thought, the men
   of creative insight, who have moulded the minds of their fellows throughout
   the Christian centuries, e.g. Origen, Theodore, and Augustine, have been
   great primarily as interpreters of Scripture, content to sacrifice any glory
   of ‘originality,’ all licence of unfettered speculations, that they might be
   the servants of a Text. And the work to which they gave their lives is
   living work to-day. Their Theologies have still a message for us, in spite
   of antiquated method and defective intellectual equipment: full of light
   which we can ill afford to neglect. Though ‘they must remain a dead letter
   to us, till they are interpreted by the thoughts and aspirations of our own
   time, as shone upon by the light of the Spirit who is the teacher of
   Christ’s disciples in every age [9] .’

   The fact is that just as in the original communication of the Divine
   Revelation the personality of the writer is an integral part of the message
   which he was chosen to convey, so the personality of each interpreter of
   these ‘living oracles’ is a vital element in all the fresh light that he is
   able to perceive in them. Any contribution that he makes to their fuller
   understanding remains to the end of time recognisably his, for those who
   have eyes to see. Here, as in the case of all other builders on the one
   foundation, the fire tries, and the day will declare each man’s work of what
   sort it is: though it is only the few here and there who are called out by,
   and exercise a dominant influence in, the successive crises in the
   development of Christian thought, whose names survive upon the mouths of
   men, and whose work is studied for its own sake in later generations.

   Now Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort have not left behind them a body of
   systematic Theology. The treatise on Christian Doctrine which was to have
   been the crown of Dr Westcott’s work was never completed. They founded no
   school marked by common adherence to any characteristic tenets. Their
   message to their age lay rather in the attitude and method than in any
   specific results of their work. The crisis in Christian thought which they
   were called to face affected primarily the Authority, the Inspiration, and
   the Interpretation of the Bible. And it is impossible to over-estimate the
   debt which English Christianity has owed in this perilous period of
   transition to the steadying influence exerted over the minds of their
   contemporaries by the simple fact of their lifelong devotion to the study of
   the sacred text, their fearless faith in Truth, their ‘guileless
   workmanship,’ and their reverent humility. At the same time it is hard not
   to believe that the actual results of work done in such a spirit will . be
   found to possess a value in the eyes of other generations besides that which
   witnessed its production.

   It only remains for me to express my heartiest thanks to my colleague, the
   Rev. P. H. L. Brereton, Fellow of St Augustine’s College, without whose
   scholarly and ungrudging assistance I should have found it impossible in the
   pressure of multifarious distractions to see this book through the press and
   verify the references: to Professor Burkitt for his kind help in the note on
   the Latin renderings of erithia: and to the printers and proof-readers of
   the University Press for their patience and thoroughness.

   J. O. F. MURRAY.

   ST AUGUSTINE’S COLLEGE,

   CANTERBURY.

   St Peter’s Day, 1909.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [1] On this point it is well worth while to compare A Discussion of the
   General Epistle of St James by R. St John Parry, published by the Cambridge
   University Press in 1903.

   [2] See notes on i. 18, 21, iii. 9 for St James’ doctrine of Creation: on
   the true Law i. 25, ii. 12: on his conception of the World i. 27, iii. 6,
   iv. 4.

   [3] E.g. formalism i. 22, 26, 27, ii. 19: censoriousness i. 19, iii. 1, 9,
   12.

   [4] See p. 46 b, 84 a.

   [5] See p. 94 b.

   [6] See esp. p. 97 b.

   [7] See p. 91 a, p. xxxiii. etc.

   [8] p. ix.

   [9] Hort on The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 138.
     _________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION.

   THE Epistle of St James is among the less read and less studied books of the
   N.T.; and this for obvious reasons. With one partial exception it has not
   supplied material for great theological controversies. But moreover it is a
   book that very few Christians on consideration would place among the most
   important books. No one wishing to refer to the written records which best
   set forth what Christian belief and even Christian practice is would turn to
   it as they would turn to the Gospels or to some, at least, of St Paul’s
   Epistles. Nay, as we all know, even distinctively Christian language in one
   sense of the phrase, i.e. such language as no one but a Christian could use,
   is used in it very sparingly. Thus no wonder that it has been comparatively
   little valued by Christian readers, and comparatively little examined and
   illustrated by Christian commentators.

   Yet on the other hand it has an important place and office of its own in the
   Scriptures of the N.T. Its very unlikeness to other books is of the greatest
   value to us, as shewing through Apostolic example the manysidedness of
   Christian truth. Our faith rests first on the Gospel itself, the revelation
   of God and His redemption in His Only begotten Son, and secondly on the
   interpretation of that primary Gospel by the Apostles and Apostolic men to
   whom was Divinely committed the task of applying the revelation of Christ to
   the thoughts and deeds of their own time. That standard interpretation of
   theirs was ordained to be for the guidance of the Church in all after ages,
   in combination with the living guidance of the Spirit. But it could not have
   discharged this office if it had been of one type only, moulded by the
   mental characteristics of a single man, though he were an inspired Apostle.
   It was needed that various modes of apprehending the one Truth should be
   sanctioned for ever as contributing to the completeness of the faith. And
   that mode of apprehending it which we find in St James stamped the
   comprehensiveness of Apostolic Christianity in a marked manner, being the
   furthest removed from that of the Apostle of largest influence, St Paul.

   That special type of Christianity which is represented by St James had a
   high intrinsic value apart from its testimony to the various because partial
   character of Divine truth as apprehended by men. One of the most serious
   dangers to Christian faith in the early ages, perhaps we may say, in all
   ages, was the temptation to think of Christ as the founder of a new
   religion, to invert His words “I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.” St
   Paul himself was entirely free from such a view of Christianity: but the
   part which he had to take in vindicating Gentile freedom against Jewish
   encroachments made him easily appear to be the herald of a new religion. The
   Divine judgement of the fall of Jerusalem and the Jewish State, and also the
   bitter hatred with which the Jews long pursued Christians, would all tend to
   produce the same impression. Thus many influences prepared the way for the
   influence of Marcion in the second century and long afterwards, and made him
   seem a true champion of the purity of the Gospel. When he cast off the
   worship of the Creator, of Jehovah the Lord of Israel, the merely just God
   of the O.T., as he said, and set up the God of the N.T. as a new God, alone
   in the strict sense good, alone to be worshipped by Christians, he could not
   but seem to many to be delivering the faith from an antiquated bondage. And
   so again and again the wild dream of a “Christianity without Judaism” has
   risen up with attractive power. But the Epistle of St James marks in the
   most decisive way the continuity of the two Testaments. In some obvious
   aspects it is like a piece of the O.T. appearing in the midst of the N.T.;
   and yet not out of place, or out of date, for it is most truly of the N.T.
   too. It as it were carries on the line of intermediate testimony which
   starts from John the Baptist, and is taken up by the hymns in Lk. i., ii.
   (Magnificat, Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis). As they reach forward towards the
   Gospel, so the Epistle of St James looks upon the elder dispensation as
   having been in a manner itself brought to perfection by the Gospel.

   This distinctive value of St James’ Epistle is closely related to the
   distinctive value of the first three Gospels. The relation is not merely of
   affinity, but almost of direct descent. The Epistle is saturated with the
   matter of those Gospels (or narratives akin to them). No other book so uses
   them. And though the completeness of Christianity would be maimed if the
   teaching of the Gospel of St John were away, yet the three Gospels give in
   their own way a true picture. Many perversions of Christianity could not
   have arisen if they had in practice as well as theory been taken with the
   Gospel of St John; and so the combination of St James with St Paul is a
   safeguard against much error.

   Besides this general value of the Epistle as a whole, its details are full
   of matter of high interest and importance, often by no means lying on the
   surface. It is also far from being an easy Epistle. Many verses of it are
   easy, but many are difficult enough, and even in the easier parts the train
   of thought is often difficult to catch. Much, though not all, of the
   difficulty comes from the energetic abruptness of style, reminding us of the
   older prophets. Thus for various reasons the Epistle is one that will repay
   close examination and illustration.

   Authorship.

   Two questions arise: (1) What James is intended by Iakōbos in [1]i. 1. (2)
   Whether the James so intended did really write the Epistle: is it authentic
   or supposititious?

   There is no need to spend much time on this second question, which is almost
   entirely distinct from the general question of the date of important N.T.
   books. Some critics of ability still uphold a late date, but on very slight
   and intangible grounds. One has urged similarity to Hom. Clem., a late book:
   but such little similarity as there is proceeds from the fact that both are
   by Jewish Christians, though in quite different generations. Others refer to
   the judicial persecutions, or to the presbyters. Others, with less reference
   to date, say that though Jewish it is not Jewish enough for the James whom
   they rightly suppose to be intended: but then this image of James they have
   constructed out of problematical materials. Again it is said that it
   contains Orphic language, strange in a Palestinian Jew ( ton trochon tēs
   geneseōs in [2]iii. 6): but this interpretation of the words cannot stand.

   A somewhat more tangible ground is the supposed reference to Hebrews and
   Apocalypse, books apparently (Apoc. certainly) written after St James’
   death. In [3]ii. 25 there is a reference to Rhaab hē pornē as with Abraham
   an example of justification by works. It is urged that as Abraham is taken
   from St Paul, so Rahab is taken from the Pauline Hebrews xi. 31 (cf. Bleek
   Heb. I. 89 f.). It is quite possible that Rahab may have been cited by St
   Paul or disciples of his as an example of faith: but the reference to Heb.
   is unlikely, for there is no question of justification there. She is merely
   one of a long series (ou sunapōleto). But at all events it is enough that
   she was celebrated by the Jews as a typical proselyte (Wünsche, Erläuterung
   der Evangelien, 3 f.). As Abraham was the type of Israelite faith, so Rahab
   was of Gentile faith. In [4]i. 12, ton stephanon tēs zōēs is referred to
   Rev. ii. 10; and ii. 5, klēronomous tēs basileias to Rev. i. 6, 9; v. l0.
   “Crown of life” is a striking phrase, not likely to arise independently in
   two places: but probably of Jewish origin, founded on O.T. (see further, in
   loc.). Klēron. t. basil. comes straight from our Lord’s words Mt. v. 3, 10;
   Lk. xii. 32, etc. as regards basileia (the poor, as here) and both words Mt.
   xxv. 34; 1 Cor. vi. 9, etc. These supposed indications, practically all
   isolated, crumble into nothing.

   A striking fact is that Kern, who initiated the more vigorous criticism of
   the Epistle in modern times by his essay of 1835, then placed it late: yet
   himself wrote a commentary in 1838 in which he retracted the former view,
   and acknowledged that he had been over hasty.

   It is not necessary at present to say more on authenticity, which will come
   under notice incidentally. But how as to the James intended? Practically two
   only come into consideration: James the son of Zebedee and James the Lord’s
   brother. Who James the Lord’s brother was is another question.

   Was it the son of Zebedee? For this there is hardly any external evidence
   [10] . Cod. Corbeiensis, an interesting ms with an Old Latin text, has
   Explicit epistola Jacobi filii Zebedaei. The date is cent. X (Holder ap.
   Gebhardt Barn.^2 xxiv f.) ; but the colophon is probably much more ancient.
   The Epistle is not part of a N.T. or of Epistles, but is in combination with
   three other Latin books all ancient, the four together forming the end (true
   end) of a vol. of which the first three-quarters (69-93) are lost (Bonnell
   ap. Hilgenf. in Zeitsch. 1871, 263). Philaster on Heresies (soon after the
   middle of cent. IV); Novatian (called Tert.) de cibis judaicis (cent. III);
   and an old translation of the Ep. of Barnabas, next to which (i.e. last) it
   stands. Thus it is highly probable that the Corb. Ms was copied from one
   written late in cent. IV, or not much later, i.e. at a time when the Epistle
   of St James was treated in the West as a venerable writing, but not as part
   of the N.T. This could hardly have been the case after cent. IV, owing to
   the authority of Jerome, Augustine and the Council of Carthage (prob. 397).

   Another probable trace of this tradition in the West is in Isid. Hisp. de
   ortu et obitu patrum 71: Jacobus filius Zebedaei, frater Joannis, quartus in
   ordine, duodecim tribubus quae sunt in dispersion, gentium scripsit atque
   Hispaniae et occidentalium locorum gentibus evangelium praedicavit etc. It
   has been suggested that “scripsit” is an interpolation. Apparently the only
   reason is because (in some MSS (?) not noticed by Vallarsi) Jerome de vir.
   illust. after Matthew has: J. Zebedaei filius duodecim tribubus quae sunt in
   dispersione omnibus praedicavit evangelium Dni. nostri J.C. etc. (Martianay,
   Vulgata, p. 191: cf. Sabat. III. 944). But this may just as easily be a
   shortened abbreviation of Isidore. This addition in Jerome is by Martianay
   referred to some Greeks (a Graecis nescio quibus); but what Greeks are
   meant? The motive probably was to make him an apostle, the identification
   with the son of Alphaeus not being known to those who gave the title; also
   the connexion of Peter, James and John. Practically the same motive still
   exists; but it is not an argument. Plumptre (pp. 7-10) quite sufficiently
   answers Mr Bassett’s reasons. They all are merely points in which words said
   in the Epistle are such as might easily have been said by one who saw and
   heard what the son of Zebedee did, but suit equally the other James in
   question. Besides Apostleship the other motive is to obtain an early date,
   on which more hereafter. At all events it is obvious that the existence of
   recipients such as the Epistle presupposes would be inconsistent with all
   that we know of the few years before St James’ death. Indeed if he had
   written, it is most strange that no better tradition should exist; most
   strange also that there should be no record of such a special position and
   activity as would lead to his writing in this authoritative tone.

   We come therefore as a matter of course to James the Lord’s brother. About
   him a large literature has been written: it is worth while here only to take
   the more important points. To take first what is clear and accepted on all
   hands, he was the James of all but the earliest years of the Apostolic age.
   Three times he appears in the Acts, all memorable occasions:—(i) xii. 17.
   When Peter is delivered from the imprisonment which accompanied the death of
   James the son of Zebedee, he bids his friends go tell the news to “James and
   the brethren,” which shews that already he was prominent, to say the least.
   (2) xv. 13. At the conference or council at Jerusalem, arising out of the
   Judaizers’ attempt to enforce circumcision at Antioch, when Peter has spoken
   in favour of liberty, and Barnabas and Paul have recounted their successful
   mission in Asia Minor, James likewise recognises Gentile Christianity, but
   proposes restrictions which were virtually a compromise; finally he refers
   to the Jews and their synagogues in different cities. (3) xxi. 18. When Paul
   comes to Jerusalem (for the last time, as it proved) and is welcomed by the
   brethren, he goes in next day to James, all the elders being present: he
   greets them and recounts his missionary successes. They (James and the
   elders) glorify God for what had happened, and then mentioning the great
   number of Christian Jews at Jerusalem, all zealots for the law, and
   ill-disposed towards St Paul, suggested his performance of a Jewish rite of
   purification in the temple to shew that he himself had not abandoned Jewish
   practice though it was not to be imposed on Gentiles. Thus, again,
   substantially accepting Gentile freedom, but urging subordinate concession
   to Jewish feelings.

   Now as regards St Paul’s Epistles:—(1) 1 Cor. xv. 7 (to which we must
   return). Christ was seen by James, then by all the Apostles. (2) Gal. i. 19.
   Referring to the first visit to Jerusalem after the conversion, “other of
   the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” (3) Gal. ii. 9. The
   second visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians, but apparently the third
   altogether, and probably identical with that of Acts xv. (see Lightft.
   Gal.^10 pp. 123 ff., 303 ff.). Here James, Cephas, John, of hoi dokountes
   stuloi eînai, recognising the grace given him, give them the right hand of
   fellowship, that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Gentiles, they to the
   circumcision, with a proviso that they should remember the poor (brethren of
   Judaea), which, he says, for this very reason I made it a point to do. (4)
   Gal. ii. 12. Certain came from James (from Jerusalem to Antioch). [See Jud.
   Christ. pp. 79 ff.] Doubtless we must add Jude 1, adelphos de Iakōbou: but
   this is of less consequence. Here then we have James as the leading person
   at Jerusalem from the time of Peter’s imprisonment to Paul’s last visit.
   Here the N.T. leaves him. More we learn from Hegesippus (Eus. ii. 23; cf.
   iv. 22) about his way of life (“the Just”), his reputation among the people,
   and his martyrdom. His death is also mentioned by Joseph. Ant. xx. 9. i, for
   there is no sufficient reason to suspect the passage to be interpolated.

   We now come to matters of question and debate. Was he one of the Twelve?
   i.e. Was he the son of Alphaeus? Why was he called the Lord’s brother?
   Without attempting to trace out all the intricacies of the scriptural
   argument [11] a word must be said on the cardinal points.

   First Gal. i. 19: heteron de tōn apostolōn ouk eidon, ei mē Iakōbon ton
   adelphon tou kuriou. Here, according to the most obvious sense, St Paul
   implies that James was one of the Apostles, while he directly calls him the
   brother of the Lord. Is this obvious sense right? i.e. Can heteron ei mē
   reasonably bear another meaning? On the whole, I think not. For the very
   late exchange of ei mē and alla in N.T. there is no probability whatever. In
   three other books of the N.T. in less good Greek (Mt. xii. 4; Lk. iv. 25 f.;
   Rev. ix. 4) the meaning looks like this, but fallaciously. Either the ei mē
   goes with the preceding clause as a general statement, dropping the
   particular reference, or (more probably) there is a colloquial ellipse of
   another negative (cf. Mt. xii. 4, oude tini ei mē t. hiereusin monois; Lk.
   iv. 26, oude pros tina ei mē eis Sarepta; Rev. ix. 4, oude ti ei mē t.
   anthrōpous). The force is thus not simply “but,” but “but only.” St Paul
   himself has some rather peculiar uses of ei mē. Rom. xiii. 8, ei mē to
   allēlous agapan; 1 Cor. ii. 11, tis gar oiden . . . ta t. anthrōpou ei mē to
   pneuma k.t.l.; (probably not Gal. ii. 16, ou dikaioutai . . . ean mē). Again
   with an initial ellipse 1 Cor. vii. 17, ei mē hekastō k.t.l. (“only”); Rom.
   xiv. 14, ei mē tō logizomenō; Gal. i. 7, ei mē tines eisin k.t.l.. Thus it
   is not impossible that St Paul might mean “unless you choose to count” etc.
   But in a historical statement on a delicate matter he would probably with
   that meaning have hinted it by a particle, as by ei mē ara, ei mē ge. Thus
   it is much more probable that he did simply accept James as “an apostle,”
   while yet his mentioning so important a person (see ii. 9) only as an after
   thought, not with Peter, does suggest some difference of authority or
   position between them.

   Next what did he mean by an apostle? Was it necessarily one of the Twelve?
   Here we must walk cautiously, and observe carefully the limits of usage. The
   range of the term in the N.T. is very peculiar. In Mt. and Mk. it is
   confined to the first mission and return of the Twelve, and is so introduced
   as to suggest that the previous narratives had it not (Mt. x. i, 2, 5; Mk.
   iii. 14; vi. 30). In Jn. it is only used in its general sense of envoy
   (xiii. i6), oude apostolos meizōn t. pempsantos auton. In these three “the
   Twelve” or “ the disciples” take its place. But in Lk. it comes in more
   freely, though still not so commonly as “disciples.”

   In Acts (from i. 2) it is the frequent and almost (contrast vi. 2) exclusive
   designation of the Twelve and of them alone, with one remarkable exception.
   From xi. 20 Antioch begins to be a centre of Christian life and activity
   external to Jerusalem. Barnabas is sent (xi. 22) by the Church at Jerusalem
   to investigate what was going on. He approved it, fetched Paul from Tarsus,
   and they worked at Antioch together; and together they carried a
   contribution to the brethren in Judaea (xi. 28 ff.). Then (xiii. 1-4) in a
   very marked way they are described as set apart by a special command of the
   Holy Spirit, having hands laid on them and being formally sent forth. This
   was the first Missionary Journey: on the course of it they are twice (xiv.
   4, 14) called “the apostles,” but never after. This usage in xiv. is often
   urged to shew the latitude of usage. It seems to me to have quite the
   opposite meaning: it shews that the apostolate of the Twelve was not the
   only office that could bear the name: but the application is to one equally
   definite, though temporary, a special and specially sacred commission for a
   particular mission of vast importance for the history of the Church, being
   the first authoritative mission work to the heathen (in contrast to sporadic
   individuals), the first recorded extension of the Gospel beyond Syria, and
   by its results the occasion of bringing to a point the question of Gentile
   Christianity and the memorable decision of the Council or Conference of
   Jerusalem.

   1 Pet. i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 1: “an apostle of Jesus Christ” (as in St Paul). 2
   Pet. iii. 2; Jude 17: “the apostles” used in a way which neither requires
   nor excludes limitation. Rev. xxi. 14: twelve names of twelve apostles of
   the Lamb on the twelve foundations of the wall of New Jerusalem; xviii. 20
   (more indeterminately). But ii. 2, the angel of the Church at Ephesus has
   “tried them that say they are apostles, and are not, and found them
   false,” which seems to imply both a legitimate and illegitimate use outside
   the Twelve. Heb. iii. 1, Christ Himself “apostle and high priest of our
   profession,” equivalent to “envoy” as in Jn.

   St Paul emphasizes his own apostleship in salutations etc., and the energy
   with which he asserts his own claim as connected with a special mission from
   Christ Himself on the way to Damascus is really incompatible with looseness
   of usage. The Twelve were confessedly apostles: so was he: but this was not
   worth saying if the title might be given to others not having as definite an
   authority. This comes out clearly when we consider the passages in which he
   acknowledges the priority of the Twelve in time (1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 17;
   cf. 2 Cor. xi. 5; xii. 11). How then about the apparent exceptions in his
   use? Among these we must not reckon Rom. xvi. 7 (hoitines episēmoi en t.
   apostolois). The next clause speaks of them (Andronicus and Junius) as
   having become Christians earlier than himself, so that doubtless they had
   been at Jerusalem, and so would be, as the words would quite naturally mean
   [12] , “men of mark in the eyes of the apostles,” “favourably known to the
   apostles.” The only real passages are 2 Cor. viii. 23 (Titus and others),
   apostoloi ekklēsiōn between adelphoi hēmōn and doxa Christou; and Phil. ii.
   25 (Epaphroditus), t. adelphon kai sunergon kai sustratiōtēn mou, humōn de
   apostolon; both marked by the added words as used in the limited sense of
   “envoys of churches,” somewhat as in Acts xiv. This throws no light on
   “other of the apostles,” apparently absolute and equivalent to apostles of
   God or of Christ.

   Thus far we find St Paul’s use not vague at all, but limited to (I) the
   Twelve, (2) himself, (3) envoys of churches, but in this case only with
   other words (defining genitives) added. Yet it does not follow that he would
   refuse it to St James unless he were of the Twelve. Supposing he had some
   exceptional claim like his own, he might allow the name. 1 Cor. xv. 5-8
   seems to shew that it really was so:

   “seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve,

   seen of James, then of all the apostles.”

   The use of all implies the Twelve and something more, and it is not unlikely
   that the relations correspond of single names and bodies.

   Whether St James was the only additional apostle, we cannot tell: but
   probably he was. His early and peculiar authority would be accounted for if
   he had some exceptional Divine authorisation analogous to St Paul’s. Not to
   speak of confused traditions about this, St Paul’s mention of Christ’s
   appearance to him (1 Cor. xv. 7) points to a probable occasion, and the
   Gospel according to the Hebrews had a story referring to this event (Jerome,
   de vir. illustr. 2). Such an event as the conversion of a brother of the
   Lord by a special appearance after the Resurrection might easily single him
   out for a special apostleship.

   Thus Galatians i. 19 is compatible either with his being one of the Twelve,
   or an additional member of the apostolate by an exceptional title; and 1
   Cor. xv. rather suggests the latter.

   The details of the “brotherhood” question must be left to the books on the
   subject. Speaking generally there are four theories:

   (1) Helvidian: brothers strictly, sons of Joseph and Mary.

   (2) Palestinian or Epiphanian: brothers strictly in scriptural sense, though
   not the modern sense, sons of Joseph but not Mary.

   (3) Chrysostom (confusedly) and Theodoret: cousins, as children of Clopas.

   (q.) Hieronymian: cousins, as children of Alphaeus.

   The third is of no great historical importance or intrinsic interest: it is
   apparently founded on a putting together of Mt. xxvii. 56 || Mk. xv. 40 with
   Jn. xix. 25 (contrast Ltft. Gal.^10 pp. 289 f.). But in modern times it is
   usually combined with the fourth by the (in itself probable) identification
   of Clopas with Alphaeus.

   The Hieronymian, largely accepted in the Western Church, and with rare
   exceptions in England before Lightfoot, is probably, as Lightfoot shews,
   historically only an ingenious scholar’s theory in century iv. Intrinsically
   it gives an unnatural and for any but patriarchal times unexampled sense to
   “brethren” [13] . It occurs in the Gospels, Acts, and St Paul: nay (Mt. xii.
   46-50 || Mk. iii. 31-35 || Lk. viii. 19-21) the original narrative puts it
   into the mouth of those who told Him that His mother and His brethren sought
   to speak with Him. It makes the “unbelief” of the brethren unintelligible,
   and involves various petty difficulties in subordinate details. I mention
   only one of the details, as deserving more attention than it has received,
   Jn. xix. 25. The cousinhood theory turns on Mary wife of Clopas being sister
   to the Virgin, and this on there being only three persons here, not four.
   Both arrangements are possible: two pairs more natural, “mother” the common
   word of the first, “Mary” of the second. But more striking is the antithesis
   of soldiers and women. As Ewald pointed out, the soldiers would be four, or
   a combination of fours (see Wetst. on Acts xii. 4). Thus St John would
   evidently have had dwelling in his mind the two contrasted groups of four,
   the four indifferent Roman soldiers at sport and gain, the four faithful
   women, two kinswomen, two disciples.

   On the whole the biblical evidence, which alone is decisive, is definitely
   unfavourable to the cousinhood theory; and, as far as I can see, it leaves
   open the choice between the Helvidian and the Palestinian. Some might say
   that “brethren,” if less inapplicable than to cousins, would still be
   unlikely on the Epiphanian view. But the language of Mt. and Lk. is decisive
   against this predisposition. Joseph was our Lord’s not genitor but pater.
   Lk. ii. 33, ho patēr autou kai hē mētēr; 48, ho patēr sou kai egō; 27, 41,
   43, hoi goneis [autou]]; and both Mt. and Lk. carry the genealogy to Joseph.
   Yet both assert the miraculous conception, and it is impossible on any
   rational criticism to separate the two modes of speech as belonging to
   different elements. The birth from the Virgin Mary exclusively and the (in
   some true sense) fatherhood of Joseph are asserted together; and if Joseph
   could rightly be called father, his children could rightly be called
   “brethren.” Still this leaves neutrality only.

   On the other hand the traditional authority is by no means undecided. For
   the Helvidian we have only the guess of the erratic Tertullian and obscure
   Latin writers of century iv. For the Epiphanian we have in the earlier times
   some obscure writings probably connected with Palestine as the
   Protevangelium Jacobi, the Alexandrian Fathers, Clement and Origen (sic),
   and various important writers of the fourth century. It was of course
   possible that such a tradition should grow up, before Jerome’s solution was
   thought of, by those who desired to maintain the perpetual virginity of
   Mary. But still the absence of any trace of the other, even among Ebionites,
   is remarkable, and the tradition itself has various and good attestation.
   The evidence is not such as one would like to rest anything important upon.
   But there is a decided preponderance of reason for thinking the Epiphanian
   view to be right.

   Hence the writer of the Epistle was James the Just, bishop or head of
   Jerusalem, brother of the Lord as being son of Joseph by a former wife, not
   one of the Twelve, a disbeliever in our Lord’s Messiahship during His
   lifetime, but a believer in Him shortly afterwards, probably in connexion
   with a special appearance vouchsafed to him.

   Before we leave the person of James, we must speak of his death and the time
   of it. According to Josephus (Ant. xx. 9. I) the high priest Ananus the
   younger, “a man of peculiarly bold and audacious character” (thrasus t.
   tropon kai tolmētēs diapherontōs), a Sadducee, and accordingly, Josephus
   says, specially given to judicial cruelty, took advantage of the interregnum
   between Festus and Albinus to gather a sunedrion kritōn, at which “James the
   brother of Jesus, who is (or, was) called Christ, and some others” were
   condemned to be stoned to death as transgressors of the law. He adds that
   the best men of the city were indignant, some wrote to King Agrippa, others
   met Albinus on the way to point out the illegality of the act, and the
   result was that Ananus was deposed. An interpolation has been supposed here;
   but the whole story hangs together, and Lightfoot with good reason supports
   it, pointing out that in a real interpolation the language is by no means so
   neutral. The date of these events can be accurately fixed to 62, which must
   therefore be the date of St James’ death if the passage about him is
   genuine.

   Hegesippus’ account is much more elaborate (see Ltft. Gal.^10 366 f.). Dr
   Plumptre makes a good fight for some of the particulars, on the ground that
   St James was apparently a Nazarite. But on the whole Lightfoot seems right
   in suspecting that the picture is drawn from an Ebionite romantic
   glorification of him, the Anabathmoi Iakōbou, part of which is probably
   preserved in the Clementine Recognitions. Hegesippus ends with the words kai
   euthus Ouespasianos poliorkei autous, which is commonly understood to mean
   that St James suffered only just before the siege, say in 68 or 69. If so,
   no doubt this must be taken as an error as compared with Josephus. But a
   writer of a century later might very well speak of the judgement as
   immediate even if eight years intervened. At all events we must hold to 62
   as the date.

   The Readers.

   These are distinctly described as the Twelve Tribes in the Dispersion.
   Nothing is apparently clearer. Some say to the Church at large, as referring
   to the true Israel. But this comes in very strangely at the head of a letter
   with no indication of a spiritual sense, and coupled with en t. diaspora;
   and especially so from St James. If Gentile Christians are intended at all,
   then they are considered as proselytes to Jewish Christians. This however is
   not likely. Gentile Christians were very numerous, and are not likely to be
   included in so artificial a way. Nor do the warnings of the Epistle contain
   anything applicable to them distinctively.

   On the other hand with much more plausibility the Readers have been taken as
   either Jews alone, or Jews plus Jewish Christians. That Jewish Christians
   were at least chiefly meant seems proved by “the faith of our Lord Jesus
   Christ” ([5]ii. 1), probably also by “the good name” ([6]ii. 7), and perhaps
   “the coming of the Lord” ([7]v. 7); and it is confirmed by the circumstances
   of those addressed It is neither unnatural nor wrong that St James should
   regard Jewish Christians positively as the true Israel, the true heirs of
   Abraham. With Gentile Christians he was not concerned. Jewish Christians
   were to him simply the only true and faithful Jews. His own position as head
   of the Jerusalem Church gave him a special right to address Jewish
   Christians, but no such special right to address others; though doubtless he
   would not refuse to speak to such as were associated with Christian Jewish
   communities.

   The only question therefore is whether he meant to include unbelieving Jews.
   If the story in Hegesippus is true, he was honoured by all the people, and
   even Josephus’ account shews that his death might cause offence to men who
   were not Christians. Still the Epistle contains no evidence that he had them
   in view (neither the dōdeka phulais, nor the slightness of definitely
   Christian teaching prove anything), and it is fairly certain that he wrote
   to Christian Jews and to them alone. [Yet see on iv. 4.]

   Next to what Christian Jews? “Those in the dispersion.” Cf. 1 Pet. i. 1; Jn.
   vii. 35. Certainly therefore not those of Palestine, nor including them. No
   others probably are excluded; but it does not follow that he sent copies of
   his Epistle broadcast over the world, to wherever Christian Jews might be
   found. The distribution might have been by means of returning visitors to
   feasts. Neither method is unlikely. Perhaps we may go further and say that
   he would naturally chiefly have in view those of Syria beyond Palestine, and
   possibly Babylonia. And in Syria especially those of Antioch. Josephus, B.J.
   vii. 3. 3, speaks of the Jews as sprinkled among the nations kata pasan t.
   oikoumenēn, but especially mingled with Syria on account of the
   neighbourhood, and peculiarly numerous at Antioch on account of the size of
   the city. The Acts shew how important Antioch was in the early Church. In
   writing in the first instance to Antioch he would be writing to the chief
   centre of Hellenistic Judaism, from which what he wrote would go forth
   elsewhere. At the same time he might have a good deal in view the city
   itself and its circumstances, which he would know by the yearly visitors.
   This supposition (of course it is not more) agrees with the fact that the
   Epistle was read in the Syriac Canon at the time when 1 Pet. and 1 Jn. were
   the only other Catholic Epistles so received. Various explanations of this
   fact are possible [14] , but a very natural one would be that Antioch was
   itself the primary recipient.

   Circumstances and Date.

   These must be inferred from the contents, and do not admit of certainty. The
   two points which have attracted most attention are the paucity of Christian
   language and the passage about justification.

   The first seems to me to afford nothing tangible. The character and position
   of St James make it quite conceivable that a state of feeling and language,
   which with the other leaders of the Church would naturally belong only to an
   early stage of growth, would with him be comparatively permanent. The
   amplest recognition of St Paul’s work and of Gentile Christianity would be
   consistent with a preservation of a less developed type of Christian
   doctrine than St Paul’s. Hence the immature doctrine must be treated as
   affording no evidence one way or the other.

   Next as to the justification passage. This has given rise to endless debate.
   (1) Was it written independently of St Paul? If so, probably before St Paul
   wrote on the subject, and therefore at a very early date. Or (2) was it
   written to correct St Paul? Or (3) to correct a perverse misunderstanding of
   St Paul? (2) and (3) of course imply a date subsequent to Galatians and
   Romans, i.e. after 58.

   (2) may be set aside as highly improbable. Apart from the language of the
   Acts, the Epistle itself cannot be so understood. Laying side by side St
   Paul’s Epistles on this matter and St James, in spite of resemblances and
   contrasts it is difficult to believe that one was aimed at the other. A real
   antagonist would have followed St Paul more closely, and come definitely
   into collision, which St James never does.

   For (i) there is much to be said (see Plumptre). Its great difficulty is to
   shew how language so similar in form about dikaiousthai ek pisteōs could
   spring up independently in the two sources. It is not a question of a mere
   phrase, but a controversy. There is no substantial evidence as yet that it
   was a Jewish controversy, and St Paul’s language does not look as if it was.

   For (3) may be urged the facts which throw doubt on (1) and (2). There is a
   similarity of phrase such as makes indirect derivation of one from the other
   probable, and the error which St James combats was not at all unlikely to
   arise from a misuse and misapplication of St Paul. More will be said when we
   come to the passage. If (3) be true then the Epistle must belong to the
   concluding years of St James’ life, and this is probable for other reasons.
   The Epistle implies not only a spread of Christianity among the Diaspora,
   but its having taken root there some time. The faults marked are those of
   lukewarmness, of what would arise after a time in settled communities that
   were losing their early freshness and vigour. The persecutions to which it
   refers might doubtless have occurred early without our knowing anything
   about them. But the tone of St James on this head reminds us of 1 Pet. and
   Heb. No year can be fixed with any certainty: but 60 or a little after seems
   not far wrong. The essential point is not the year but the period, later
   than the more important part of St Paul’s ministry and writings.

   Reception.

   Two things are to be distinguished, use and canonical authority. The
   earliest Bible of the Christian Church was the O.T. The books of the N.T.
   were only added by degrees, and variously in different places; sometimes
   also with various degrees of authority. The Catholic Epistles came more
   slowly to their position, 1 Pet. and 1 Jn. being the earliest. The first
   traces of St James, now recognised almost on all hands, are in 1 Clement
   about 95. He apparently combines Paul and James (Westcott, Canon N.T. p.
   25). Next in Hermas, also Roman, probably a little before 150. In these two
   there is no distinctly authoritative use; but the whole way in which they
   use N.T. books leaves it uncertain how they regarded the Epistle.

   Next Irenaeus, towards the end of the second century, representing partly
   Asia, partly Rome. His use of James has been often denied, and quite rightly
   as regards authoritative use; but I feel sure he knew the book, though only
   as an ancient theological writing. He never cites it, but uses phrases from
   it, which taken singly are uncertain, but they confirm each other. Thus it
   is nothing in itself that he says (iv. 13. 4) that Abraham “amicus factus
   est Dei.” But it is something that it occurs in a passage contrasting the
   Law of Moses and the Word of Christ as an enlargement and fulfilment of the
   Law, speaking of “superextendi decreta libertatis, et augeri subjectionem
   quae est ad regem,” which looks very like the nomon teleite basilikon of
   [8]ii. 8 and nomon teleion ton t. eleutherias of [9]i. 25. And this becomes
   certainty when not long afterwards (iv. 16. 2) we get the consecutive words
   about Abraham “credidit Deo et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus
   Dei vocatus est”; i.e. the justification from Genesis is instantly followed
   by the “Friend” clause, exactly as in [10]Jam. ii. 23. There is no reason to
   suppose that the last words as well as the former were borrowed by St James
   from a traditional form of text. Subsequently (iv. 34. 4) he uses the
   peculiar phrase “libertatis lex,” explaining it thus: “id est, verbum Dei ab
   apostolis . . . adnuntiatum.” Again (v. 1. 1) we get within 7 lines
   “factores autem sermonum ejus facti” (cf. i. 22) and “facti autem initium
   facturae”(cf. i. 18); neither being likely to suggest the other except as
   being very near in the Epistle. These instances give some force to what
   would otherwise be problematical: (iii. 18. 5) “Verbum enim Dei . . . ipse
   hoc fecit in cruce,” and shortly afterwards (19. 1) “non recipientes autem
   verbum incorruptionis” (cf. i. 21). As regards authoritative use, we have a
   definite statement from Cosmas (in cent. vi.), Topogr. Christ. vii. p. 292,
   that Irenaeus declared 1 Pet, and 1 Jn. alone to be by the apostles; and it
   is highly probable that, taking apostles in the Twelve sense, he would
   accordingly exclude St James. The Epistle is also absent from the Muratorian
   Canon, probably a Roman document of the age of Irenaeus.

   Crossing the Mediterranean to the Latin Church of North Africa, we find no
   trace of the Epistle in Tertullian or Cyprian. One allusion to “unde Abraham
   amicus Dei deputatus” (Tert., adv. Jud. 2) proves nothing. The early or
   African old Latin version omitted it.

   Moving eastward to the learned Church of Alexandria, Clem. Alex. is
   difficult. Certainly he did not use the book as Scripture; but I feel sure
   that he knew it, though he does not name it. In Strom. vi. p. 825 (Potter):
   “except your righteousness multiply beyond the Scribes and Pharisees, who
   are justified by abstinence from evil, together with your being able along
   with perfection in these things to love and benefit your neighbour, ouk
   esesthe basilikoi, for intensification (epitasis) of the righteousness
   according to the Law shews the Gnostic.” Here basilikos is coupled with love
   to neighbour just as in [11]ii. 8, and the tone of the passage is quite in
   St James’ strain. In Strom. v. p. 650 we have the peculiar phrase tēn pistin
   toinun ouk argēn kai monēn, agreeing with the true reading of [12]ii. 20.
   There are several allusions to Abraham as the “Friend.” to nai occurs three
   times as in [13]v. 12, but perhaps from Evangelical tradition. Other
   passages may come from 1 Pet. Cassiodorus, late in cent. vi., says (de
   instit. div. litt. viii.) that Clement wrote notes on the Canonical ( =
   Catholic) Epistles, i.e. 1 Pet., 1 and 2 Jn., Jam. What is certainly a form
   of these notes still exists in Latin, but there are none on Jam., while
   there are on Jude. So that evidently there is a slip of author or scribes,
   and practically this is additional evidence against Clement using Jam. as
   Scripture.

   It is somewhat otherwise with his disciple Origen, who very rarely, but
   still occasionally, cites Jam., speaking of it as “the current Epistle of St
   James,” and again referring to it as if some of his readers might demur to
   its authority. In the Latin works there are more copious references, but
   these are uncertain. On the whole a vacillating and intermediate position.
   Origen’s disciple Dionysius Alex. once cites [14]i. 13 apparently as
   Scripture. Another disciple, Gregory of Neocaesarea, if the fragment on
   Jeremiah (Ghislerius i. p. 831) be genuine, refers though hardly by way of
   authority to [15]i. 17.

   These are all the strictly Antenicene references. But there is one weighty
   fact beside them: Jam, is present in the Syriac Version which excluded some
   others. The present state of this version comes from the end of cent. III or
   early IV, and Jam. may have been added then: but it is more likely that it
   had been in the Syriac from the first, i.e. in the Old Syriac. The early
   history of the Egyptian versions is too uncertain to shew anything.

   Eusebius places it among the Antilegomena, practically accepted in some
   churches, not in others. In speaking of Jam. (ii. 23. 25), he says that “the
   first of what are named the Catholic Epistles is his. Now it should be known
   that it is treated [by some] as spurious (notheuetai men); and indeed not
   many of the old writers mentioned it, as neither did they what is called
   that of Jude, which itself also is one of what are called the seven Catholic
   Epistles; yet we know that these two with the rest have been in public use
   (dedēmosieumenas) in very many churches.” Thus Eusebius, cautious as always
   in letting nothing drop that had authority, is yet careful not to commit
   himself.

   From this time forward the book had a firm place in the Greek Churches. It
   was used very freely by Didymus and Cyril Alex.; and the Antiochene Fathers
   (like Chrysostom), who kept to the Syrian Canon and did not use books
   omitted by it, did use Jam. The only exception is a peculiar one. Theodore
   of Mopsuestia was one of the greatest of all theologians and specially as a
   critic of the Bible, whence he became the chosen interpreter of the
   Mesopotamian Churches. He was somewhat erratic and rash in his ways, and
   lies under a kind of ban more easily to be explained than justified. Most of
   his works have perished except fragments, so that we have to depend on the
   report of a bitter antagonist, Leontius, nearly two centuries later. After
   noticing his rejection of Job, and referring to the testimony to Job in
   Jam., Leontius proceeds (c. Nest. et Eut. iii. 14): “For which reason
   methinks he banishes both thisvery epistle of the great James and the
   succeeding Catholic Epistles by the other writers (tōn allōn).” This loose
   statement occurring in a violent passage needs sifting. It was not likely
   that he would use any Catholic Epistles but Jam., I Pet., and 1 Jn., and
   this absence of use of 2 Pet., 2 and 3 Jn., and Jude would account for
   Leontius language, while leaving it exaggerated. But Jam. is specially
   mentioned, and doubtless rightly. The Instituta regularia (commonly called
   De partibus divinae legis) of an African Latin writer Junilius, long
   believed to be connected with the Syrian school of Nisibis, have lately been
   shewn to be a more or less modified translation of an Introduction to
   Scripture by Paul of Nisibis, a devoted admirer of Theodore, and it is full
   of Theodorian ideas. Its account of the books of the O.T. corresponds with
   Theodore’s, and in the N.T. it excludes Jam. but not 1 Pet., 1 Jn. This was
   doubtless Theodore’s own view. What was the motive? It might have been
   knowledge of the imperfect early reception of Jam. But in the case of the
   O.T. omissions, Job, Canticles, inscriptions of Psalms, Chronicles, Ezra and
   Nehemiah (and Esther), there is direct evidence that in at least some cases
   be acted on internal evidence (Job, Canticles, Inscr. Ps.): and it is quite
   likely that it was the same here too as with Luther.

   Outside Theodore’s own school we have no further omission of Jam. in the
   East. Late in cent. VI Cosmas, having had urged against him a passage of 2
   Pet., speaks disparagingly of the Catholic Epistles in general, and mentions
   various facts as to past partial rejections (Top. Christ. vii. p. 292). His
   language is altogether vague and confused: but he limits himself to urging
   that “the perfect Christian ought not to be stablished on the strength of
   questioned books (amphiballomena).”

   In the West reception was not so rapid. Towards the end of cent. IV Jam. is
   cited by three or four Italian Latin writers, as the Ambrosiast (= Hi1.
   Rom.) on Gal. v. 10 (dicente Jacobo apostolo in epistola sua); perhaps from
   Jerome’s influence. Also Chromatius of Aquileia and Gaudentius of Brixia,
   but without “apostolus”; Jerome himself, and abundantly Augustine, whose
   quotations equal all others put together; also the Corbey MS., which may
   have an even earlier original, the style being very rude. But not the
   earlier Latin writers of the century, as Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose (though in
   one place a sentence of Jam. appears among the texts which he notices as
   cited by Arians).

   The most striking fact is the language of Victorinus Afer, converted at Rome
   late in life, and seen there by Jerome and Augustine. His Comm. in Gal. i.
   13 ff.: “From James Paul could not learn”; James “admixto Judaismo Christum
   evangelizabat, quod negat id faciendum.” Elaborately on “Jacobum fratrem
   Dei”: “The Symmachians make James as it were a twelfth apostle, and he is
   followed by those who to our Lord Jesus Christ add the observance of
   Judaism.” “When Paul called him brother (of the Lord), he thereby denied him
   to be an apostle. He had to be seen with honour. Sed neque a Jacobo aliquid
   discere potuit, quippe cum alia sentiat; ut neque a Petro, vel quod paucis
   diebus cum Petro moratus est; vel quod Jacobus apostolus non est, et in
   haeresi sit.” He goes on to account for the mention of the seeing of James.
   It was to shew that he did not reject the Galatian doctrine from ignorance.
   “Vidi ergo nominatim quid Jacobus tractet et evangelizet: et tamen quoniam
   cognita mihi est ista blasphemia, repudiata a me est, sicut et a vobis, o
   Galatae, repudianda”; and more in the same strain. Something here is
   probably due to the writer’s late and imperfect Christian education. It is
   not likely, in the absence of all other evidence, that such language would
   have been used by ordinary well-instructed Christians anywhere. But neither
   could it have been possible if the Epistle had in Victorinus’ neighbourhood
   been received as canonical. It attests a feeling about the book very unlike
   that after Jerome and Augustine.

   To resume, the Epistle of St James was known and used from a very early
   time, at least at Rome, but without authority, It was used also, but with
   rather indefinite authority, at Alexandria by Clement and Origen and
   Dionysius. It formed part of the Syriac Canon, and was probably used in
   Syrian Churches. There is no trace of it in North Africa. It is placed among
   the antilegomena in Eusebius. In the west it was neglected till late in
   cent. IV, and then adopted through Jerome and Augustine. In the East from
   Eusebius onwards in all Greek writers except Theod. Mops. and his disciples,
   who probably rejected it on internal grounds.

   Purpose and Contents.

   The purpose is practical not controversial, mainly to revive a languishing
   religious state, a lukewarm formality, and correct the corruptions into
   which it had fallen. Persecution had evidently fallen, and was not being met
   with courage, patience and faith. This last word Faith occurs at the
   beginning, near the end, and throughout chap. 2, and expresses much of the
   purport of the whole. In various forms St James deals with the manner of
   life proceeding from a trustful sense of God’s presence, founded on a
   knowledge of His character and purpose.

   There are three main divisions:

   I. (i.) Introduction, on Religion.

   II. (ii. 1-v. 6.) Against (1) Social sins, (2) Presumption before God.

   III. (v. 7-end.) Conclusion, on Religion at once personal and social.

   (I.)

   The Epistle begins with the greeting, which closes with the word chairein.

   The next paragraph, [16]i. 2-18, may be called “Religion in feeling:
   experience (trial—temptation), God’s character, and the Divine aspects of
   human life.” It takes up chara from chairein, and deals with peirasmoi, the
   special trials (cf. 1 Pet. i. 6; iv. 12; also Heb. ii. 18 etc.) which serve
   as examples of all peirasmoi.

   First [17]2-4, on patience (cf. Lk. xxi. 19 = Mt. x. 22; xxiv. 13 || Mk.
   xiii. 13). But in this section there are digressions, the chief being
   [18]5-11; first [19]5-8, on asking without doubting (Mt. xxi. 21 || Mk. xi.
   23), and then [20]9-11, on the humble and the rich (cf. Sermon on the
   Mount). [21]12, The crown of life, the result of patience (sōthēsetai Mt.,
   Mk. = ktēsesthe t. psuchas humōn Lk.; cf. Heb. x. 34). [22]13, Trial not a
   temptation by God, but ([23]14 f.) by a man’s own desire. [24]16-18,
   Digression on God’s character, as altogether good, and perfect, and the
   Author of man’s high dignity. These verses are implied in the rest of the
   epistle.

   [25]i. 19-27. Religion in action. The moral results of this faith are
   ([26]19-21) quickness to hear, slowness to passionate speech. [27]22-25,
   Hearing, not however as against doing. [28]26 f., Freedom from defilement
   not ceremonial, but temperance of speech, beneficence to others,
   guilelessness of self.

   (II.)

   ii. Insolence of wealth (towards fellow men). [29]1-4, The miscalled
   Christian faith which dishonours the poor in synagogue. This is a violation
   of the principle which follows. [30]5-9, The poor as blessed (cf. Sermon on
   the Mount), and human respect of persons. [31]10-13, The integrity or unity
   of the law as a law of liberty, and its import mercy. What follows is the
   positive side of [32]1-13. [33]14-26, The miscalled faith which dispenses
   with works.

   iii. License of tongue, springing from pride. [34]1, Not “many teachers.”
   [35]2-6, The great power of the tongue, though a small member. [36]7 f., Its
   lawlessness and wildness. [37]9-12, Its capacities of good and evil,
   [38]13-14 (in contrast to bitter teaching), Wisdom to be shewn in works (cf.
   [39]17 f.) of gentleness. [40]15-18, The difference of the two wisdoms
   exhibited in bitterness and peace.

   [41]iv. 1-12. Strife springing from love of pleasure (polemoi contrast to
   eirēnē [42]iii. 18). [43]1–3, Wars due to evil desire. [44]4–6, God and the
   world as objects of love. [45]7–10 (digression), Subjection to God. [46]11
   f., Evil-speaking of others a breach of a law (cf. 1 Pet. ii. 1. Probably
   “love thy neighbour as thyself”).

   [47]iv. 13-[48]v. 6. Presumption of wealth (towards God). Prophetic warnings
   to the confident merchants ([49]iv. 13-17) as to stability of the future; to
   the rich ([50]v. 1-3) as to impunity, specially ([51]4-6) as oppressors of
   the poor. This leads back to persecution as at the beginning.

   (III.)

   [52]v. 7-end. Trustful patience towards God and towards man (one aspect of
   the inseparableness of the two commandments. Cf. Mt. xxii. 37 ff.).
   [53]7-11, Patience before God (as [54]i. 1-4, [55]12) now with patience
   towards men. [56]12, Reverence towards God, probably as part of patience.
   (Negative.) [57]13-20, The same, positive. The true resource Prayer, itself
   to be social, i.e. intercessory, whether ([58]14 f.) in physical or ([59]16)
   moral evil. ([60]17 f., Digression on prayer in general.) [61]19 f. resumes
   [62]16.

   [St James is full of unities, e.g. the unity of the O.T. and N.T.:

   (a) The logos alētheias ([63]i. 18) is at once the original gift of reason,
   and the voice of God in the Christian conscience enlightened by the Gospel,
   doubtless with the intermediate stages of instruction (cf. Ps. cxix.).

   (b) The Law is at once the Mosaic ([64]ii. 11), the Deuteronomic ([65]ii. 8,
   actually Leviticus, but in spirit Deuteronomic; [66]i. 12; [67]ii. 5), and
   the Evangelic ([68]ii. 5).

   (c) The principle of mercy as against judgement ([69]ii. 13).]

   Style.

   The Greek is generally good; the style very short and epigrammatic, using
   questions much. There is great suppressed energy, taking shape in vigorous
   images. Much of the old prophetic spirit (Deuteronomic and later Psalms,
   esp. cxix.), but uniting with it the Greek Judaism found in the Apocryphal
   Sapiential Books and to a certain extent in Philo. But the style is
   especially remarkable for constant hidden allusions to our Lord’s sayings,
   such as we find in the first three Gospels.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [10] Syr. often cited, on account of a Syriac note common to the three
   Epistles: Of the Holy Apostles
   James Peter John
   Spectators of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
   The several Epistles
   printed in the Syriac tongue and characters. But this is now understood to
   be due to Widmanstadt.

   [11] Excellently given in Ltft., and summarised (rather too shortly) by
   Plumptre pp. 10 ff.

   [12] For this use of episēmos en, and the opposite asēmos en, there is good
   classical analogy. It is analogous to 1 Cor. vi. 2, ei en humin krinetai ho
   kosmos.

   [13] See Additional Note, p. 102.

   [14] It is possible that the language of the Epistle reflects in great
   measure the circumstances of the Church at Jerusalem.
     _________________________________________________________________

IAKŌBOU

   ^1IAKŌBOU theou kai kuriou Iēsou Christou doulos tais dōdeka phulais tais en
   tē diaspora chairein.

   I. 1. Iakōbos] For the person intended see Introd., pp. xi ff. The name is
   Iakōb in LXX., but has been doubtless Graecised as a modern name, as so many
   names in Josephus. Probably it was common at this time: three are mentioned
   by Josephus, and curiously one the brother of a Simon (Ant. xx. 5, 2),
   another coupled with a John (B. J. iv. 4, 2). The third is an Idumaean (B.
   J. iv. 9, 6). [James brother of Jesus Christ is also mentioned (Ant. xx. 9,
   1) (if the passage be genuine). See pp. xv, xxi f.]

   theou kai kuriou I. Ch. doulos] The combination theou kai kuriou I. Ch.,
   though grammatically possible, is against Scriptural analogy, and would
   involve a very improbable want of balance. The absence of the article is due
   to abbreviation and compression of phrase. See note on 1 Peter i. i (p. 15
   b). An unique phrase as a whole, it unites the O.T. theou doulos (-oi) (Acts
   iv. 29; 1 Pet. ii. 16; Apoc. saepe and esp. i. 1; and, in greeting, Tit. i.
   1 Paulos doulos theou, apostolos de I. Ch.) with St Paul’s doulos I. Ch. (I.
   Ch.) (fully in Rom. i. 1; later Phil. i. 1, douloi Ch. I..; as also Jude 1;
   cf. 2 Pet. i. 1).

   This coupling of God and Christ in a single phrase covered by doulos is
   significant as to St James’ belief. Without attempting to say how much is
   meant by it, we can see that it involves at least some Divineness of nature
   in our Lord, something other than glorified manhood. This is peculiarly true
   as regards a man with Jewish feelings, unable to admit lower states of
   deity. It thus shews that he cannot have been an Ebionite. Even St Paul’s
   salutations contain no such combination except in their concluding prayers
   for grace and peace. An analogous phrase is in Eph. v. 5, en tē basileia tou
   Christou kai theou..

   The conception is not of two distinct and co-ordinate powers, so to speak;
   as though he were a servant of two lords. But the service of the one at once
   involves and is contained in the service of the other. Christ being what He
   is as the Son of the Father, to be His servant is impossible without being
   God’s servant; and the converse is also true. kuriou I. Ch. is the full
   phrase illustrated by the early chapters of Acts; esp. ii. 36: God had made
   Jesus both Lord and Christ. This true sense of christos is never lost in
   N.T.; it is never a mere proper name like Iēsous, which though a significant
   name is still a proper name like any other. “Christos” has indeed, as a
   title, a little of the defining power of a proper name, because it.
   represents not merely its etymology “Anointed” but מָשִׁיחַ. I Ch. is not
   merely “Jesus the Anointed” but “Jesus, He who has been looked for under the
   name ‘the Anointed,’ having therefore the characteristics already associated
   with the name, and more.” Accordingly, though we often find Ch. I. where Ch.
   is intended to have special prominence, we never have k. Ch. I. but only k.
   I. Ch., as here, I. standing between k. and Ch. and thereby declared to have
   the character of both, but specially linked with Ch., k. being prefixed to
   both together.

   doulos, servant] Probably in the widest sense, answering to Kurios,
   equivalent to “doing His work in His kingdom, in obedience to His will” (cf.
   Acts iv. 29). It is misleading to call doulos “slave,” as many do, for it
   lays the whole stress on a subordinate point. It expresses in the widest way
   the personal relation of servant to master, not the mere absence of wages or
   of right to depart. But St John in Apoc. (x. 7) uses the O.T. phrase “His
   own servants the prophets,” from Amos iii. 7; Dan. ix. 6, 10; Zech. i. 6,
   and probably has this in mind in calling himself “the servant of God”
   ([70]i. 1). And it is not unlikely that St James also has it in view, not
   necessarily as implying himself to be a prophet, as Jn probably does, but.
   as standing in an analogous relation to God and His kingdom.

   tais dōdeka phulais] . Equivalent to Israel in its fulness and completeness.
   It has nothing to do with the return or non-return of the different tribes
   from captivity. Josephus believed the ten tribes to have remained in great
   numbers beyond the Euphrates, and in 4 Esdras xiii. 45 they are said to be
   in Arzareth, which Dr Schiller-Szinessy (Journ. of Philology, 1870, pp. 113
   f.) has shewn to be only the אֶרֶץ אַחֶרֶת (“another land”) of Deut. xxix.
   28, referring to Sanhed., shewing that that verse was referred to the ten
   tribes. They are also the subject of later traditions. But whatever may have
   been thought about the actual descendants of the twelve tribes, and their
   fate, the people was thought of as having returned as a whole.

   After the return, when Judah and Benjamin apparently alone returned to any
   very considerable extent, the reference to tribes, as a practically existing
   entity, seems to have come to an end, except as regards the descent of
   individuals through recorded genealogies, and the people that had returned
   was treated as representing the continuity of the whole nation, Judah and
   Israel together. (See Ezek. xlvii. 13; Ezra vi. 17; viii. 35.) This would
   have been unnatural if the tribes had been previously the primary thing, and
   the people only an agglomeration of tribes: but in reality the true primary
   unit was the people, and the tribes were merely the constituent parts, the
   union of which expressed its unity.

   Accordingly our Lord Himself chose twelve Apostles, and spoke of them as to
   sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And in the
   Apocalypse 12,000 are sealed from each of twelve tribes. Cf. xxi. 12-14.

   Hence t. d. ph. is equivalent to to dōdekaphulon (hēmōn), Acts xxvi. 7,
   which occurs also Clement i. 55 (cf. 31, to dōdekaskēptron tou Israēl,
   answering to Test. xii. Patriarch. Napht. 5, ta dōdeka skēptra t. Israēl
   from 1 Kings xi. 31 ff.; see LXX.), and Joseph. Hypomnesticum (Fabricius
   Cod. Pseud. V.T. ii. p. 3) tous dōdeka phularchous ex hōn to dōdekaphulon
   tou Israēl sunistatai. Both forms of speech in Lib. Jacobi i. (1, 3).

   By keeping up this phrase St James marked that to him the designation of the
   Israel which believed in Christ as the only true Israel was no mere
   metaphor. To him a Jew who had refused the true Messiah had ceased to have a
   portion in Israel.

   en tē diaspora] The term comes from Deut. xxviii. 25 (LXX.), and also
   sparingly from later books; also from the more frequent use of the word
   diaspeirō, which in this connexion is freely used, as well as diaskorpizō,
   for זָרָה, to scatter, or blow abroad. The cognate זָרַע, to sow, is used in
   this sense only, Zech. x. 9 (LXX. kai sperō autous en laois). Even here the
   notion is merely of scattering, not of sowing seed destined to germinate,
   and probably this was all that the LXX. anywhere meant. The idea of the Jews
   among the nations being a blessing to them and spreading light is found in
   the prophets, but not, I think, in connexion with the image of seed. The
   corresponding Hebrew word is simply גּוֹלָה, exile (lit. stripping), and
   hence the exiles collectively.

   From the original seat at Babylon, which still continued a main home of the
   Dispersion, it spread under Alexander and his successors westward into the
   Greek world, Syria, Egypt (Alexandria and Cyrene), Armenia, Asia Minor, and
   at last Rome. It was like a network of tracks along which the Gospel could
   travel and find soil ready prepared for it in the worship of the true God,
   and the knowledge and veneration of the ancient Scripture.

   chairein] See Otto in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1867, pp. 678 ff. The
   common greeting in Greek letters. The Semitic was of course שָׁלוֹם or
   (Chald.) שְׁלָם. In letters in the Apocrypha chairein often occurs, as also
   eirēnēn or eirēnē (together, ch. and eirēnēn agathēn, 2 Macc. i. 1). Hence
   it must have been freely used by Jews as well as heathens. In N.T. it occurs
   three times: Acts xxiii. 26, Claudius Lysias to Felix (heathen); xv. 23,
   Jerusalem letter to Gentile Christians at Antioch, etc.; and here. It has
   been pointed out that the Jerusalem letter was also not improbably written
   by St James, but nothing can be built on a coincidence in itself so natural.
   Here, the Greek form is probably preferred to eirēnē, etc. for the sake of
   the next verse.

   ^2Pasan charan hēgēsasthe, adelphoi mou, hotan peirasmois peripesēte
   poikilois,

   2. pasan charan, all joy] Not “every (kind of) joy,” as from the variety of
   trials; nor yet “joy and nothing but joy” negatively, but simply “all” as
   expressing completeness and unreservedness. Hence it includes “very
   great,” but is not quantitative, rather expressing the full abandonment of
   mind to this one thought. Thus Aristides i. 478 (224), to de mēd' ex hōn
   heōrakamen axioun pepaideusthai pasa an eiē snmphora; also Epictetus (ap.
   Gebser Ep. of James p. 8) 3, 22 eirēnē pasa; 2, 2 pasa soi asphaleia, pasa
   soi eumareia; 26 pasa euroia; and Phil. ii. 29; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Eph. iv. 2.

   charan] Joy, from ground of joy, by a natural figure. The charan catches up
   chairein. “I bid you rejoice. And this I say in the most exact sense, though
   I know how much you have to bear that seems anything but matter of
   rejoicing. Just circumstances like these should you account occasions of
   unreserved joy.”

   On the sense, see 1 Peter i. 8 with v. 7. But virtually it comes from Lk.
   vi. 23, and the Beatitudes altogether.

   hotan with aor. subj.] Although suggested by present circumstances, the
   exhortation does not take its form from them. It is not “now that you are
   encountering,” but “when ye shall,” and probably also, by the common
   frequentative force of hotan, “whensoever ye shall.”

   peripesēte] Not “fall into” but “fall in with,” “light upon,” “come
   across.” First used of ordinary casual meetings, as of persons in the street
   or ships at sea; then very commonly of misfortunes of all kinds, sickness,
   wounds, a storm, slavery, disgrace, etc. So the two other N.T. places: Lk.
   x. 30; Acts xxvii. 41. The idea then is that, as they go steadily on their
   own way, they must expect to be jostled, as it were, by various trials.

   peirasmois, trials] An important and difficult word, entirely confined to
   O.T., Apocr., N.T., and literature founded on them; except Diosc. p. 3 B,
   tous epi t. pathōn teirasmous, experiments, trials made, with drugs in the
   case of diseases, i.e. to see what their effect will be.

   But the word goes back to peirazō, which is not so closely limited in range
   of authors. First, “tempt” is at the utmost an accessory and subordinate
   sense, on which see on [71]v. 13. It is simply to “try,” “make trial of,”
   and peirasmos “trial.”

   Nor on the other hand does it, except by the circumstances of context, mean
   “trial” in the vague modern religious and hence popular sense, as when we
   say that a person has had great trials, meaning misfortunes or anxieties.
   Nothing in Greek is said peirazein or called a peirasmos except with
   distinct reference to some kind of probation.

   Young birds are said peirazein t. pterugas (Schol. Aristoph. Plutus 575).
   But more to the point, Plutarch (Cleom. 7 p. 808 a) says that Cleomenes when
   a dream was told him was at first troubled and suspicious, peirazesthai
   dokōn, supposing himself to be the subject of an experiment to find out what
   he would say or do. And still more to the point Plutarch Moralia 15 p. 230
   a, Namertes being congratulated on the multitude of his friends asked the
   spokesman ei dokimion echei tini tropō peirazetai ho poluphilos; and when a
   desire was expressed to know he said Atuchia.

   The biblical use is substantially the same. In O.T. peirazō stands almost
   always for נַסָּה (also ekpeirazō) and peirasmos for the derivative מַסָּה.
   נַסָּהis used for various kinds of trying, including that of one human being
   by another, as Solomon by the Queen of Sheba, but especially of man by God
   and God by man. Of man by God for probation, under the form of God
   exploring; of God by man always in an evil sense, “tempting” God, trying as
   it were how far it is possible to go into disobeying Him without provoking
   His anger; with this last sense we are not concerned. The trying or
   “proving” (A.V.) of man by God is sometimes, but not always, by suffering.
   In one chapter (Deut. viii. 2) it is coupled with עִנָּה, kakoō, “humble” or
   “afflict”; but the context shews that “proving” is meant, as it is also in
   Judg. ii. 22; iii. 1, 4. The cardinal instance is Abraham (Gen. xxii. 1).
   Peirasmos chiefly refers to temptations of God by men, also probations of
   Pharaoh (Deut. iv. 34; vii. 19; xxix. 3). There only remains Job ix. 23,
   very hard and probably corrupt (LXX. altogether different, Vulg. poenis),
   where “probations” may possibly be said in bitter irony, but “sufferings” is
   most improbable, considering the derivation.

   In Judith, Wisdom and Ecclus. peirazō similarly has both uses, viz. of God
   by man, and man by God; also peirasmos in Ecclus., not only of Abraham
   (xliv. 20; as also 1 Macc. ii. 52), but more generally; but in ii. 1; xxxvi.
   1, on the one hand the context implies affliction, on the other the stress
   lies on probations. These two are interesting passages as preparing the way
   for St James. (1) xxxvi. 1, tō phoboumenō Kurion ouk apantēsei kakon; all'
   en peirasmō (whatever comes will come by way of trial), kai `alin exeleitai.
   Still more (2) ii. 1, Son, if thou settest thyself to serve the Lord God,
   prepare thy soul eis peirasmon etc. Cf. ii. 5, en puri dokimazetai chrusos
   k.tl.

   In the N.T. other shades of meaning appear. Besides the ordinary neutral
   making trial, and God’s trial of man, and man’s evil trial or tempting of
   God, we have men’s evil making trial of one whom they regarded as only a
   man, the Scribes and Pharisees “trying” or tempting our Lord, not tempting
   Him to do evil, but trying to get Him to say something on which they could
   lay hold.

   But further a peculiar sense comes in at what we call our Lord’s temptation
   (Mk i. 13, peirazomenos hupo tou Satana; Mk. iv. 1, peirasthēnai hupo t.
   diabolou; Lk. iv. 2, peirazomenos hu. t. d.). In Mt. (iv. 3) the devil is
   then called ho teirazōn.

   For poikilois, divers, see note on 1 Pet. i. 6 (p. 41).

   ^3gnōskontes hoti to dokimion humōn tēs pisteōs katergazetai hupomonēn;

   3. gnōskontes, taking knowledge, recognising] Not necessarily a new piece of
   knowledge, but new apprehension of it.

   dokimion, test] In N.T. only here and, in similar connexion, 1 Pet. i. 7, a
   very hard verse. In LXX. only in two places, both rather peculiar. (1) Prov.
   xxvii. 21, representing מַצְרֵף, a “melting-pot”; but the change of order
   shews that “test” was meant by LXX., “there is a dokimion for silver and a
   purōsis for gold.” (2) Ps. xii. 7, צֲלִיל, probably a “furnace,” a difficult
   and perhaps corrupt passage. Similarly the cognate words dokimos, dokimazō
   in LXX. mostly refer to silver or gold tried and found pure, to a trial by
   fire. [See Deissmann Bib. Stud. sub voc., and Expositor 1908 p. 566.]

   The rather rare word is always the instrument of probation, never the
   process. Similar places are Herodian ii. 10. 6, dokimion de stratiōtōn
   kamatos: Iamblichus Vita Pythag. 30 p. 185 fin., tautēn (t. lēthēn) dē moi
   theōn tis enēke, dokimion esomenēn tēs sēs peri sunthēkas eustatheias.

   katergazetai, worketh] A favourite word with St Paul.

   hupomonēn, endurance] The word hupomonē (A.V. patience) is hardly used by
   classical writers (an apophthegm in Plutarch Moralia 208 c, and an
   interpolated clause in his Crassus 3) to describe a virtue, though
   frequently for the patient bearing of any particular hardships. It stands
   for קָוָה and its derivatives in the sense of the object of hope or
   expectation (as Ps. xxxviii. 8, kaii nun tis hē hupomonē mou; ouchi ho
   kurios;), and perhaps hope itself in the LXX. and Ecclus. (Fritzsche on xvi.
   13). But late Jewish and Christian writers use it freely for the virtue
   shewn chiefly by martyrs: thus 4 Macc. i. 11, tē andreia kai tē hupomonē,
   and often; Psalt. Solom. ii. 40; Test. xii. Patriarch. Jos. 10; in the N.T.,
   Lk. xxi. 19 (cf. Mt. xxiv. 13); St Paul often; Hebrews; 2 Peter; and Apoc.;
   later Clement 1. 5; Ignatius ad Polyc. 6; etc.

   No English word is quite strong enough to express the active courage and
   resolution implied in hupomonē (cf. Ellicott on 1 Thess. i. 3).
   “Constancy” or “endurance” comes nearest, and the latter has the advantage
   of preserving the parallelism of the verb hupomenō. The resemblance of this
   verse to Rom. v. 3 f. should be noticed, though probably accidental.

   ^4hē de hupomonē ergon teleion echetō, hina ēte teleioi kai holoklēroi, en
   mēdeni leipomenoi.

   4. ergon teleion echetō, have a perfect work or result] The sense, obscure
   in the Greek, is fixed almost certainly by the context. The phrase is
   suggested by, and must include the meaning of, katergazetai in [72]v. 3.
   Endurance is represented as having a work to do, a result to accomplish,
   which must not be suffered to cease prematurely. Endurance itself is the
   first and a necessary step; but it is not to be rested in, being chiefly a
   means to higher ends. Here the Stoic constancy is at once justified, and
   implicitly pronounced inadequate, because it endeavours to be self-sufficing
   and leads the way to no diviner virtue. The work of the Christian endurance
   is manifold (elicited by divers trials, [73]v. 2) and continuous, not easily
   exhausted; it remains imperfect (so the connexion of the two clauses
   teaches) while we are imperfect. This use of ergon is illustrated by the
   common negative formula ouden ergon, generally translated “no use,” as in
   Plutarch Lysander 11, ēn de ouden ergon autou tēs spoudēs eskedasmenōn tōn
   anthrōpōn: Publicola 13, ouden ēn ergon autou (tou hēniochou) katateinontos
   oude parēgorountos. The combination of teleion with to ergon occurs Ignat.
   Smyrn. but it is not a true parallel.

   teleioi, perfect] This word in St James, as applied to man, has apparently
   no reference, as in St Paul, to maturity, and still less to initiation. It
   expresses the simplest idea of complete goodness, disconnected from the
   philosophical idea of a telos. In the LXX. it chiefly represents תָּמִים, a
   variously translated word, originally expressing completeness, and occurring
   in several leading passages as Gen. vi. 9 (teleios); xvii. 1 (amemptos);
   Deut. xviii. 13 (teleios); Job i. 1 (amemptos); Ps. cxix. 1 (amōmos). The
   Greek teleios in a moral sense, rare in the LXX. and virtually wanting in
   the Apocrypha, recurs with additional meanings in Philo, e.g. Legum
   Allegoriae iii. 45—49 (in contrast with ho prokoptōn. ho askētēs).

   It regains its full force and simplicity in Christ’s own teaching, Mt. v. 48
   (“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
   perfect”); xix. 21 (“If thou wilt be perfect” contrasted with “What lack I
   yet?”). These passages are probably the chief sources of St James’ usage.

   holoklēroi, entire] The principal word teleios is reinforced by the almost
   synonymous holoklēros, the primary sense of which seems to be freedom from
   bodily defect either in a victim for sacrifice or in a priest; that is, it
   is a technical term of Greek ritual. In extant literature we do not find it
   before Plato, and he may well have introduced it into literature. It soon
   was applied in a wider manner to all freedom from defect (cf. e.g. the Stoic
   use in Diogenes Laert. vii. 107) being opposed to pēros, kolobos, chōlos.
   But the original sense was not forgotten, and can be traced in the usage of
   Josephus and Philo, though not in the LXX.

   Thus teleios and holoklēros (which are used together somewhat vaguely at
   least once by Philo, Quis rerum div. heres? 23 p. 489) denote respectively
   positive and negative perfection, excellence and complete absence of defect
   (cf. Trench N.T. Synon. § 22). It is quite probable however that St James
   uses holoklēros with a recollection of its original force in Greek religion,
   and wished his readers to think of perfection and entireness not; merely in
   the abstract but as the necessary aim of men consecrated to God.!

   en mēdeni leipomenoi, coming behind in nothing] Leipomai with the dative
   means not mere deficiency but falling short whether of a standard or of
   other persons, the latter when expressed being in the genitive. Essentially
   it is to be left behind, as in a race, and it comes to be used for the
   defeat of an army, strictly for its ceasing to resist the enemy and throwing
   up the struggle. There is thus a suggestion of acquiescence in shortcoming
   as a thing to be striven against (cf. Gal. vi. 9; Heb. xii. 3; 2 Thess. iii.
   13). Compare the use of husterō and husteroumai in St Paul and Hebrews (e.g.
   1 Cor. i. 5, 7, en panti eploutisthēte en autō, en panti logō kai pasē
   gnōsei. . . . hōste humas mē hustereisthai en mēdeni charismati).

   The object of comparison is usually expressed, rarely implied (as Diodorus
   Sic. iii. 39; Plutarch Nicias 3); but leipomai is also used quite
   absolutely, as here, in Plutarch Brutus 39 (errōmenous chrēmasin hoplōn de
   kai sōmatōn plēthei leipomenous); cf. Sophocles Oed. Col. 495 f. En,
   commonly omitted, occurs Herodotus vii. 8; Sophocles l.c.; and Polybius
   xxiv. 7 (legat. 50); see also Herod. vii 168.

   This final clause, added in apposition (cf. [74]i. 6, [75]8, [76]14, [77]17,
   [78]22, [79]25; [80]ii. 9; [81]iii. 2, [82]8, [83]17), not only reaffirms
   negatively what has been already said positively, but suggests once more the
   idea of continual progress (a “race” in St Paul’s language, as Phil. iii.
   14; cf. “the crown of life” in [84]v. 12) implied in the earlier clauses.

   The spiritual force of this and similar verses cannot be reduced within the
   limits of “common sense.” An “ideal” interpretation can be excluded only by
   “frittering away a pure and necessary word of Christ Himself. The perfection
   in all good, after which every Christian should strive simply as a
   Christian, is infinite in its nature, like a heavenly ladder the steps of
   which constantly increase the higher we climb: but woe to him who would make
   landings in it out of his own invention and on his own behalf” (Ewald,
   Jahrbücher iii. 259).

   ^5Ei de tis humōn leipetai sophias, aiteitō para tou didontos theou pasin
   haplōs kai mē oneidizontos, kai dothēsetai autō;

   5. ei de tis humōn leipetai sophias, But if any of you lacketh wisdom] If
   any, i.e. whoever. The preceding leipomenoi suggests leipetai with a
   somewhat different sense and construction. Leipomai with the genitive
   meaning to “be wanting in” is rare, this sense being an extension of the
   commoner to “be bereaved of”; it occurs Sophocles Elect. 474 (gnōmas
   leipomena sophas); Plato Menex. 19, 246 E; Pseud: Plato Axiochus 366 D
   (repeating amoiron); Libanius Progymn. p. 31 A (l. tēs tōn poiētōn entheou
   manias); besides Jam. ii. 15.

   sophias] The context fixes, without altogether restricting, the sense of
   wisdom. “True perfectness cannot be where wisdom still is wanting; and
   wisdom, the inward power to seize and profit by outward trials, cannot be
   supplied by the trials themselves: but it may be had of God for the asking;
   He will send it direct into the heart.” It is that endowment of heart and
   mind which is needed for the right conduct of life. “All salutary wisdom is
   indeed to be asked of the Lord; for, as the wise man says (Ecclus. i. 1),
   ‘All wisdom is from the Lord God, and hath been with Him for ever.’ . . .
   But here there seems to be a special reference to that wisdom which we need
   for use in our trials, etc.” (Bede).

   This human and practical idea of wisdom is inherited from the meditative
   books of the O.T. and the later works written on their model. Compare “the
   fear of the Lord that is wisdom” (Job xxviii. 28), where wisdom is the
   knowledge of the most essential facts and the power to walk instinctively by
   their light. It is remarkable to find wisdom holding this position in the
   forefront of the epistle, quite in the spirit of the elder theology. See
   further the notes on [85]iii. 13-18.

   haplōs, graciously] The combination with giveth early led to the assumption
   that haplōs requires here the sense of “abundantly,” but without authority
   (cf. Fritzsche Rom. iii. 62 ff.) and against the true context. On the other
   hand, a large body of evidence forbids us to admit only the meanings
   “simply” or “with singleness of heart,” and establishes a nearer approach to
   “bounteously” than most good critics have been willing to allow (see below).

   In the best Greek authors the guidance of etymology is strictly followed,
   and haplous as a moral epithet denotes only the absence of guile or
   duplicity. Later writers comprehend under the one word the whole magnanimous
   and honourable type of character in which this singleness of mind is the
   central feature. Kindred and associated epithets are gennaios (cf. Plato
   Repub. i. 361 B, andra haploun kai gennaion . . . ou dokein all' einai
   agathon ethelonta), eleutherios. (Aeschines, p. 135, Reiske), and
   megalopsuchos. Truthfulness, liberality, and gentleness variously appear as
   manifesting the same high sense of honour.

   The transition may be seen in Xenophon Cyropaed. viii. 4, 32 ff., where
   Cyrus blames alike those who magnify their own fortune (so thinking to
   appear eleutheriōteroi) and those who depreciate it, and adds, haploustatou
   de moi dokei einai to tēn dunamin phaneran poiēsanta ek tautēs agōnizesthai
   peri kalokagathias. But the usage became clearer subsequently. Scipio
   (Polybius, xxxii. 13, 14) resolved pros men tous allotrious tēn ek tōn nomōn
   akribeian (i.e. his strict legal rights) tērein, tois de sungenesi kai
   philois haplōs chrēsthai kai gennaiōs kata dunamin. One of Timon’s friends
   (Lucian Tim. 56) professed that he was not one of the flatterers, greedy of
   gold and banquets, who paid their court pros andra hoion se haploikon kai
   tōn ontōn koinōnikon. David is said by Josephus (Ant. vii. 13, 4) to have
   admired Araunah tēs haplotētos kai tēs megalopsuchias, when he offered his
   threshing-floor and oxen. M. Antony’s popularity is attributed by Plutarch
   (c. 43) to his eugeneia, logou dunamis, haplotēs, to philodōron kai
   megalodōron, hē peri tas paidias kai tas homilias eutrapelia. Brutus, having
   tempered his character by education and philosophy, seemed to Plutarch (c.
   1) emmelestata krathēnai pros to kalon, so that after Caesar’s death the
   friends of the latter attributed to Brutus ei ti gennaion hē praxis ēnenke,
   considering Cassius haploun tō tropō kai katharon ouch homoiōs (cf.
   Philopoem. 13). The Persians desired Ariaspes for their king, as being praos
   kai haplous kai philanthrōpos (Plutarch Artaxerx. 30). Ho men haplousteros,
   though opposed to ho panourgoteros, is the high-minded friend who, when
   admitted indiscreetly to a knowledge of private affairs owing to his too
   complaisant manners, ouk oietai dein oud' axioi sumboulos einai pragmatōn
   tēlikoutōn all' hupourgos kai diakonos (Plutarch Moralia 63 B). Wine is said
   to quench polla tōn allōn pathōn (besides fear) aphilotima kai agennē), and
   aoinos aei methē kai skuthrōpē tais tōn apaideutōn enoikei psuchais,
   epitarattomenē hupo orgēs tinos ē dusmeneias ē philoneikias ē aneleutherias;
   hōn ho oinos amblunōn ta polla mallon ē paroxunōn oik aphronas oude
   hēlithious all' haplous peoei kai apanourgous, oude paroratikous tou
   sumpherontos alla tou kalou proairetikous (ib. 716 A, B). We are reminded of
   this passage of St James by the following: “So I think that the gods confer
   their benefits in secret, it being their nature to delight in the mere
   practice of bounty and beneficence (autō tō charizesthai kai eu poiein).
   Whereas the flatterer’s work ouden echei dilaion oud' alēthinon oud' haploun
   oud' eleutherion” (ib. 63 F).

   There are traces of a similar extension of meaning in Latin, as Horace Ep.
   ii. 2, 193, “quantum simplex hilarisque nepoti Discrepet, et quantum
   discordet parcus avaro” (cf. “the cheerful giver” of Prov. xxii. 8, LXX.,
   and 2 Cor. ix. 7); Tacitus, Hist. iii. 86, “inerat tamen (Vitellio)
   simplicitas et liberalitas, quae, ni adsit modus, in vitium vertuntur”; and
   perhaps Vell. Paterc. ii. 125, 5, “vir simplicitatis generosissimae.”

   Himerius (Ecl. v. 19) affords the nearest verbal parallel to St James: ei de
   haplōs didontos labein ouk eulogon, tōs ou pleon, hote mēde proika k.t.l.
   Here however haplōs is not ethical at all, but retains its common classical
   meaning “absolutely,” that is (in this connexion) “without a substantial
   equivalent.” In St James the need for adopting this meaning is removed by
   the sufficient evidence for “graciously”; and it is excluded by the contrast
   with “upbraideth.”

   In Jewish writings haplous is generalised in a different direction to denote
   one who carries piety and openness of heart before God into all his
   dealings. So the LXX.: 1 Chron. xxix. 17 for ישֶׁר; Prov. xix. 1 (cf. x. 9;
   2 Sam. xv. 11); Aq.: Gen. xxv. 27; Job iv. 6; Prov. x. 29; Sym.: Job xxvii.
   5 for תָּם ,תֹּם, and תֻּמָּה; Wisd. i. 1; 1 Macc. ii. 37, 60; 3 Macc. iii.
   21; and the whole Test. vii. Patriarch., esp. the Test. of Issachar (e.g.
   3), not without reference to the original meanings, as in opposition to
   periergos.

   In St James (as in Rom. xii. 8; 2 Cor. viii. 2; ix. 11, 13) the late Greek
   usage and the context certainly determine the chief shade of meaning, but
   with clear reference to singleness. “Liberally” (A.V.) would be the best
   translation, if we could preserve exclusively its proper ethical sense; but
   by “liberally” we now usually mean “abundantly,” and that is not the
   particular aspect of God’s bounty indicated here by the following words,
   whatever may be the case in the passages of St Paul. On the whole
   graciously, coupled as it is with giveth, seems the nearest equivalent.

   kai mē oneidizontos, and upbraideth not] The opposition is clearly to
   graciously, not to giveth: to upbraid is not to refuse, or even to vouchsafe
   “a stone for bread,” but to accompany a gift with ungenerous words or deeds.
   Oneidizō often has this sense in classical writers from Aristotle (Rhet. ii.
   6. 10; cf. Demosth. de Coron. § 269) onwards (see exx. in Wetstein). In
   Ecclus. it is a favourite word (with oneidismos), and occurs more than once
   in strictly parallel passages: “My son, give not reproach with thy good
   deeds, neither painful words with every gift. Will not dew assuage the hot
   wind? So is a word better than a gift. Lo, is not a word more than a good
   gift? And both are with a gracious man (kecharitōmenō). A fool will upbraid
   ungraciously (acharistōs oneidiei), and a gift of the envious dissolveth the
   eyes” (xviii. 15-18). “The gift of a fool will profit thee not, for his eyes
   are many, instead of one. He will give little and upbraid much, and open his
   mouth as a crier: to-day he will lend, and to-morrow ask back; hated is such
   a man” (xx. 14, 15). “Have respect . . . unto thy friends concerning words
   of upbraiding, and upbraid not after thou hast given” (xli. 17, 22).

   By this contrast of mean and ignoble benefactors, St James leads on from the
   naked idea of God as a giver to the more vital idea of His character and
   mind in giving (cf. [86]i. 13, [87]17 f.; [88]iv. 6; [89]v. 7), answering by
   anticipation a superstitious thought which springs up as naturally in the
   decay of an established faith as in the confused hopes and fears of
   primitive heathenism. The subject is partly resumed in [90]v. 17.

   didontos . . . dothēsetai] Giveth what? Wisdom doubtless in the first
   instance; but, as the immediate occasion of prayer becomes here the text for
   a universal lesson, St James’ meaning is best expressed by leaving the
   object undefined. In like manner the “holy spirit,” promised in Lk. xi. 13
   to them that ask, is replaced in the parallel Mt. vii. 11 by “good things”
   without restriction.

   This verse has much in common with some of Philo’s most cherished and at the
   same time most purely biblical thoughts on God as a free giver and on wisdom
   as specially the gift of God. But his language, beautiful and genuine as it
   often is, suffers much from being overlaid with a philosophical contrast
   between this wisdom (virtually “intuition”) and the knowledge and
   discernment which come by processes of education. The wisdom of St James,
   for all its immediate descent from heaven, excludes no lesson of experience
   in thought or life.

   ^6aiteitō de en pistei, mēden diakrinomenos, ho gar diakrinomenos eoiken
   kludōni thalassēs anemizomenō kai rhipizomenō;

   6. aiteitō de en pistei, mēden diakrinomenos, but let him ask in faith,
   nothing wavering] Taken from our Lord’s words in Mt. xxi. 21, Mk xi. 23; cf.
   Jam. v. 15. Not the mere petition avails, but the mind of the asker, the
   trust in God as One who delights to give. Wavering is no doubt the right
   translation of diakrinomenos in this verse (as Mt. Mk, ll. cc.; Acts x. 20;
   Rom. iv. 20; xiv. 23), though singularly enough this sense occurs in no
   Greek writing, except where the influence of the N.T. might have led to its
   use. It is supported by the versions, the Greek commentators on the N.T.
   from Chrysostom and Hesychius, as well as by the context of all the
   passages. It is probably derived from the common meaning to “dispute” (Jer.
   xv. 10; Acts xi. 2; Jude 9; cf. Ezek. xvii. 20 codd.; xx. 35 f.; Joel iii.
   2), of which there is a trace in the passages of Romans. Compare the use of
   dialogizomai, to “dispute with oneself,” in the Gospels.

   eoiken kludōni thalassēs, is like a rough sea] Kludōn appears never (not
   even Polyb. x. 10. 3) to mean a “wave,” but always “rough water” (“the rough
   sea” A.V. Wisd. xiv. 5) or “roughness of water”; it is frequently coupled
   with salos.

   anemizomenō kai rhipizomenō, blown and raised with the wind] This appears to
   be the nearest approach to the meaning of the Greek allowed by the English
   idiom. Anemizō, occurs nowhere else in Greek literature, and might by its
   etymology express any kind of action of the wind. The equally rare analogous
   verb pneumatizō is used where fanning is intended (Antigonus Caryst. ap.
   Wetst.). The compound exanemizō is preserved only in the Scholia on Homer
   Il. xx. 440 (ēka mala psuxasa, interpreted tē kinēsei tēs cheiros hērema
   exanemisasa: Steph. s.v.), where likewise it denotes the gentle air made by
   a wave of the hand. The cognate anemoumai is to “be breathed through (or,
   swelled out) by the wind” (whence a singular derivative use peculiar to
   writers on Zoology), except in one passage; and its compound exanemoumai has
   the same range, with the further meaning to “be dissolved into wind.” An
   epigram in the Anthology (A. P. xiii. 12) applies hēnemōmenos to the sea,
   described as roaring (bromos deinos) and causing a shipwreck. With this
   exception the evidence, such as it is, implies a restriction of anemizō to
   gentler motions of the air: and in St James the improbability of an
   anticlimax forbids it being taken as a stronger word than rhipizō.

   Still more definitely, rhipizō means strictly to fan either a fire or a
   person. It is formed not from rhipē, a “rushing motion” (as applied to air,
   a “blast”), but from the derivative rhipis, a fire-fan; and consequently
   expresses only the kind of blast proper to a fan. This restriction appears
   to be observed in a few passages of a rather wider range. Thus rhipizomai is
   applied to dead bodies allowed to sway freely (?) in the air (Galen. x. 745
   ed. Kahn); to sea foam carried inland (Dion Cass. lxx. 4); to spacious and
   airy chambers (huperōa rhipista, Jerem. xxii. 14); to water preserved by
   motion from the “death” that would follow stagnation (Philo, de incor. mundi
   24). Lastly an unknown comic poet (Meineke iv. 615) calls the people an
   unstable evil thing (dēmos astaton kakon), which altogether like the sea is
   blown by the wind (hup' anemou rhipizetai) and from being calm raises its
   crest at a trifling breeze (kai galēnos . . . pneuma brachu korussetai.
   These leading words are clear, though the line is corrupt). The compound
   anarripizō always means to “fan a flame” literally or figuratively.

   The prima facie notion of billows lashed by a storm is therefore supported
   by hardly any evidence; and indeed the restless swaying to and fro of the
   surface of the water, blown upon by shifting breezes, is a truer image of a
   waverer (cf. Dion Cass. lxv. 16, Vitellius emplēktōs anō kai katō ephereto,
   hōsper en kludōni). In the tideless Mediterranean even a slight rufflement
   would be noticed in contrast with the usually level calm, and the direct
   influences of disturbing winds are seen free from the cross effects of other
   agencies.

   ^7mē gar oiesthō ho anthrōpos ekeinos hoti lēpsetai ti para tou kuriou [15]
   ^8 anēr dipsuchos, akatastatos en pasais tais hodois autou.

   7, 8. We have to choose here between three constructions, each marked by a
   different way of punctuating between the verses. (a) With a colon, making
   two separate sentences (A.V.); “let not that man think that he shall receive
   anything from the Lord: a man of two minds is unstable in all his ways.” (b)
   With a comma making [91]v. 7 a complete sentence, with [92]v. 8 added in
   apposition (R.V. text); “let not that man think that he shall receive
   anything from the Lord, a man of two minds, unstable in all his ways.” (c)
   Without a stop, making [93]v. 7 incomplete without part of [94]v. 8 (R.V.
   marg.); “let not that man think that a man of two minds, unstable in all his
   ways, shall receive anything from the Lord.”

   In (a) and (b) it is “that man” that is said not to receive from the Lord,
   and so that is blamed. Now who is “that man” — “he that wavereth” or “if any
   of you etc.”? The whole context excludes him that merely “lacketh wisdom”
   from blame: blame here attaches not to the absence of wisdom, but to the
   failure to ask for it, or to the asking without faith. Therefore the
   constructions (a) and (b) require “that man” to mean the waverer. As an
   independent proof that he is meant, it is urged that “that man” is itself a
   reproachful designation. Undoubtedly it might be so employed; but St
   James’ usage does not favour the supposition. He has the same word for man
   (anthrōpos) in six other places, but nowhere with a trace of reproach and
   apparently always in emphatic opposition to other beings. Thus the
   opposition is to God’s other “creatures” in [95]i. 19; to “the devils” in
   [96]ii. 20 and probably [97]24; to “every kind of beasts etc.” in [98]iii. 8
   f.; to beings not “of like passions” [99]v. 17; and so here to “the Lord.”
   Likewise there is no force in a cumbrous reproachful description (ho
   anthrōpos ekeinos) thus closely preceding an explicit rebuke: in Mt. xii.
   45; xxvi. 24 the weight of the words is in harmony with the peculiar
   solemnity of the subjects. If no reproach is implied, the phrase is still
   more inexplicable by Greek usage as applied to the person last mentioned.

   On the other hand, if he that “lacketh wisdom” be intended, all difficulty
   vanishes. The obvious way of setting aside the last person and pointing back
   to the person mentioned before him would be in Greek the use of the pronoun
   “that” (ekeinos); and the insertion of “man” we have already seen to be
   explained by the opposition to “the Lord.”

   Since then “that man” must naturally mean him that merely “lacketh
   wisdom,” and so cannot be identified with the subject of rebuke, the
   constructions (a) and (b) (of which (b) is certainly the more natural) are
   excluded, and the two verses become one unbroken sentence. I am not aware of
   any intrinsic advantage of the constructions (a) or (b) that would lead us
   to set aside this conclusion, though habit makes us assume a pause at the
   end of [100]v. 7. Perhaps a feeling that the words “unstable in all his
   ways” must denote a punishment, not a sin, may have introduced the
   construction (a) into late MSS. of the Vulgate (inconstans est), and so into
   A.V.: in reality this instability is strictly neither sin nor punishment,
   but in some sense the transition from the one to the other. The position of
   the verb (in the Greek) at the beginning of the clause is explained by the
   length and elaborateness of its subject.

   Although the man deficient in wisdom is not directly rebuked, the form of
   the sentence implies that he is concerned in the words spoken of others.
   Though not assumed to be a waverer, he is virtually warned that he may
   easily become liable to the reproach, and reminded of the nature of his
   relation as a “man” to “the Lord” of men.

   8. anēr, man] A different word from that used in [101]v. 7, and wholly
   without emphasis.

   dipsuchos, of two minds] The image of dipsuchos (lit. “two-souled”)
   represents either dissimulation (suggested to modern ears by
   “double-minded” in A.V.), or various kinds of distraction and doubt. Here
   faithless wavering is obviously meant, the description in [102]verse 6 being
   made more vivid by an additional figure. Perhaps, as Calvin suggests, there
   is an intentional contrast with the manner of God’s giving; “graciously”
   (aplōs) being according to the primitive meaning of the Greek “simply”: Ita
   erit tacita antithesis inter Dei simplicitatem, cujus meminit prius, et
   duplicem hominis animum. Sicut enim exporrecta manu nobis Deus largitur, ita
   vicissim sinum cordis nostri expansum esse decet. Incredulos ergo, qui
   recessus habent, dicit esse instabiles etc. There may also be an allusion to
   “loving God with all the soul” or “the whole soul,” en holē tē psuchē sou
   (Deut. vi. 5; Mt xxii. 37). The idea was familiar to the Greeks (dicha
   thumon or noon echein etc.) from Homer and Theognis (910 Bergk); cf. Xenoph.
   Cyropaed. vi. 1. 41. It appears less distinctly in 1 Kings xviii. 21, and
   perhaps 1 Chr. xii. 33 (Heb. “a heart and a heart,” not LXX.). We are
   reminded of St James by Ecclus. i. 28, “Disobey not the fear of the Lord,
   and approach Him not with a double heart” (en kardia dissē).

   The word itself dipsuchos dipsuchia, dipsucheō) occurs here and [103]iv. 8
   for the first time. It is sprinkled over the early Fathers rather freely,
   and is found occasionally in later times in the novelist Eustathius (viii.
   7; xi. 17 f.), as well as in ecclesiastical writers. Probably all drew
   directly or indirectly from St James (Philo, Fragm. ii. 663 Mangey, uses
   dichonous epamphoterēs, where St John Damascene has the heading peri deilōn
   kai dipsuchōn). The early references are Clem. I. 11, 23; in both cases
   distazontes is added as if to explain an unfamiliar word: the latter passage
   (talaipōroi eisin hoi dipsuchoi, hoi distazontes tē psuchē k.t.l.) seems
   quoted from an earlier writing (as it is likewise in Ps.-Clem. II. 11); the
   reference in this passage is conjectured by Lightfoot to be to the
   prophecies of Eldad and Medad referred to in Hermas, Vis. ii. 3, and
   therefore current early at Rome: they are said to have prophesied to the
   people in the wilderness, so that it is probably a Jewish, though possibly a
   Christian, book; Ep. Barnab. 19 (cf. dignōmos, diglōssos ib.; diplokardia
   20); Const. Ap. vii. 11 (“Be not of two minds in thy prayer (doubting)
   whether it shall be or not (cf. Herm. Vis. iii. 4. 3); for the Lord saith to
   me Peter upon the sea, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou
   doubt?”); Ps.-Ignat. ad Heron. 7; Hermas passim; and Didache Ap. iv. 4 ou
   dipsuchēseis poteron estai ē ou (whence the usage in Barnabas, Hermas, and
   Const. Ap.). The reproof to Peter literally “on the sea” (oligopiste, eis ti
   edistasas; Mt. xiv. 31) may have been present to St James’ mind, as he had
   just drawn a comparison from the sea,

   ak. en pasais t. hodois autou] As “a man of two minds” is a slightly varied
   repetition of “he that wavereth,” in like manner “unstable in all his
   ways” answers to “like a rough sea etc.” This parallelism is in itself
   enough to prove that the absence of the conjunction after “two minds” is
   expressive, and denotes not simple co-ordination but sequence: “a man of two
   minds and so unstable in all his ways.”

   akatastatos, unstable] Things properly are called akatastata, when they do
   not follow an established order of any kind (kathestēkota: cf. Aristot.
   Probl. xxvi. 13). The word is rarely applied to persons. Polybius (cf.
   Demosth. de fals. legat. p. 383) seems to mean by it “fickle” or “easily
   persuaded” (vii. 4. 6); he couples the substantive with madness (mania) a
   few lines further on. Other examples are Epictetus (Diss. ii. 1. 12:
   phobēsetai, akatastatēsei, tarachthēsetai) “in a state of trepidation”;
   Pollux “fickle” (vi. 121), and also “disorderly,” i.e. “stirring up
   disorder” (vi. 129); the translators of the O.T. “staggering” or “reeling”:
   Gen. iv. 12 (Sym.) anastatos kai akatastatos with varr., saleuomenos kai
   akatastatōn (stenōn kai tremōn LXX.), Lam. iv. 14 (Sym.), akatastatoi
   egenonto LXX.) tuphloi en tais exodois, Isa. liv. 11 (LXX.), “tossed with
   tempest” (A.V.), of Zion compared to a ship, and apparently Hos. viii. 6
   (Sym.) where the “Quinta Editio” has rhembeuōn; Plut. II. 714 E, says that
   wine makes t. gnōmēn episphalē kai akatastaton; cf. Skotomaina nux estin en
   hē mainetai kai akatastatei ta ourania in Etym. Magn. 719, 34. The verbal
   resemblance of Tob. i. 15 (ebasileusen Sennachērim ho huios ant' autou, kai
   hai hodoi autou [al. hai hod. tēs Mēdias] hēkatastatēsan [so B; A katestēsa,
   א apestēsan], kai ouketi hēdunasthēn poreuthēnai eis tēn Mēdian) is curious
   but hardly more: the meaning seems to be “his roads” (possibly “his ways of
   government”) “were full of disorder and therefore unsafe.”

   On the whole it can scarcely be doubted that St James intended, or at all
   events had in view, the physical meaning of akatastatos employed by the
   translators of the O.T.; so that the two leading words of the phrase make up
   a vigorous metaphor, “staggering in all his ways.” But the English word
   “staggering” hardly suits the tone of the verse; and “unsteady” has other
   disturbing associations. “Unstable” (A. V.), though somewhat feebler than
   the Greek, must therefore be retained, and has the advantage of covering the
   alternative meaning “fickle.” Compare Ecclus. ii. 12, “Woe to cowardly
   hearts and faint hands, and a sinner that walketh upon two paths.”

   en pasais tais hodois autou, in all his ways] Hodois retains its original
   force as “roads” or “journeys” more distinctly than the English equivalent.
   “In all his ways” is perhaps, as Bede says, in prosperity and adversity
   alike; whether suffering trial or not, he has no firm footing. The formula
   occurs Ps. xci. 11 and elsewhere.

   The last two sentences may be thus paraphrased: “A prayer for wisdom, to be
   successful, must be full of trust and without wavering. Wisdom comes not to
   him that asks God for it only as a desperate chance, without firm belief in
   His power and cheerful willingness to give. Such a one is always tossed to
   and fro by vague hopes and fears; he is at the mercy of every blast and
   counterblast of outward things. While he allows them to hide from him the
   inner vision of God’s works and ways, he cannot go straight forward with one
   aim and one mind, and therefore lacks the one condition of finding wisdom;
   he is a stranger to that converse with God, in which alone the mutual act of
   giving and receiving can be said to exist.”

   A passage of Philo deserves to be appended; much of the context is
   necessarily omitted. “Whatsoever things nature gives to the soul need a long
   time to gain strength; as it is with the communication of arts and the rules
   of arts by other men to their pupils. But when God, the fountain of wisdom,
   communicates various kinds of knowledge (tas epistēmas) to mankind, He
   communicates them without lapse of time (achronōs); and they, inasmuch as
   they have become disciples of the Only Wise, are quick at discovering the
   things which they sought. Now one of the first virtues thus introduced is
   the eager desire of imitating a perfect teacher, so far as it is possible
   for an imperfect being to imitate a perfect. When Moses said (to Pharaoh,
   Ex. viii. 9) ‘Command me a time that I may pray for thee and thy servants
   etc.,’ he being in sore need ought to have said, ‘Pray thou at once.’ But he
   delayed, saying, ‘To-morrow,’ that so he might maintain his godless
   feebleness (tēn hapalotēta tēs atheotētos) to the end. This conduct is like
   that of almost all waverers (epamphoteristais), even though they may not
   acknowledge it in express words. For, when any undesired event befalls them,
   inasmuch as they have had no previous firm trust in the Saviour God, they
   fly to such help as nature can give, to physicians, to herbs, to compound
   drugs, to strict regimen, in short to every resource of perishable things.
   And if a man say to them, ‘Flee, O ye wretched ones, to the only Physician
   of the maladies of the soul, and forsake the help which mutable (pathētēs)
   nature can give,’ they laugh and mock with cries of ‘To-morrow,’ as though
   in no case would they supplicate the Deity to remove present misfortunes”
   (De Sacrif. Ab. et Caini, 17-19).

   ^9Kauchasthō de [ho] adelphos ho tapeinos en tō hupsei autou, ^10 ho de
   plousios en tē tapeinōsei autou, hoti hōs anthos chortou pareleusetai. ^11
   aneteilen gar ho hēlios sun tō kausōni kai exēranen ton chorton, kai to
   anthos autou exepesen kai hē euprepeia tou prosōpou autou apōleto; houtōs
   kai ho plousios en tais poreiais autou maranthēsetai.

   9-11. A return to the original theme of [104]v. 2, bringing in the
   characteristic contrast of rich and poor as a special application of the
   principle of rejoicing in trials. There is probably a reference to the
   Beatitudes such as they appear in St Luke (vi. 20, 24). An indirect
   opposition (marked by But and also by the brother) to the waverer of [105]v.
   8 is doubtless also intended. Poverty, riches, and the change from one to
   the other may be among the “ways,” in all of which the waverer is found
   unstable.

   9. The order in the Greek is important. ho adelphos belongs equally to ho
   tapeinos and ho plousios, so that “let the brother boast” is common to both
   verses. As St James bids his “brethren” count it all joy when they fell in
   with trials, so he here points out the appropriate grounds of boasting to
   each member of the brotherhood, the body who might be expected to take a
   truer view of life than the outer world.

   kauchasthō, glory] In the O.T. and Ecclus. “glorying” or “boasting” drops
   altogether its strict sense, and signifies any proud and exulting joy: so
   הִתְהַלַּל (epainoumai) Ps. xxxiv. 3; lxiv. 11 etc.; and kauchōmai Ps. v.
   11; cxlix. 5; Ecclus. xxxix. 8 etc. In the N.T. the word is confined to the
   Epp. and common there; but rarely loses its original force, probably out of
   St James only in the parallel Rom. v. 2, 3, 11 and in Heb. iii. 6; in other
   apparently similar cases the effect is produced merely by obvious paradox.
   Possibly the extension had its origin in Jerem. ix. 23 f., quoted 2 Cor. x.
   17. Here kauchasthō repeats the charan of [106]v. 2 with a slight change,
   meaning joy accompanied with pride.

   tapeinos, of low estate] Poverty is intended, but poverty in relation to
   “glorying” and contempt, a state despised by the mass of mankind. Tapeinos
   means indifferently “poor” and “poor in spirit” i.e. “meek,” two notions
   which the later Jews loved to combine: it is often used in both senses in
   Ecclus.

   tō hupsei autou, his height] Not any future elevation in this or the other
   world, but the present spiritual height conferred by his outward lowness,
   the blessing pronounced upon the poor, the possession of the Kingdom of God.
   Continued poverty is one of the “trials” to be rejoiced in.

   10. tē tapeinōsei autou, his being brought low] Suffering the loss not of
   wealth only, but of the consideration which wealth brings. Tapeinōsis might
   mean “low estate,” as in the LXX.(and Lk. i. 48 from 1 Sam. i. 11); but St
   James’ language is not usually thus incorrect, and the classical sense is
   borne out by the context. The correlation with [107]v. 9 is not meant to be
   exact. The rich brother is to glory in his being brought low whenever that
   may be, now or at any future day (see [108]v. 1). If the “trials” of the
   times included persecution, the rich would be its first victims. This is a
   marked feature in the persecution of the Jews by the mob of Alexandria under
   the Emperor Gaius (Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 18; e.g. penētas ek plousiōn kai
   aporous ex euporōn gegenēsthai mēden adikountas exaiphnēs kai anoikous kai
   anestious, exeōsmenous kai pephugadeumenous tōn idiōn oikiōn k.t.l.).

   hoti, since) This introduces not an explanation of being brought low, but
   one reason why the rich brother should glory in it, or more strictly why he
   should not be startled at the command to glory in it. Perfection ([109]v. 4)
   is assumed to be his aim: our Lord taught that riches are a hindrance in the
   way of perfection (Mt. xix. 21 ff.): and this doctrine loses no little of
   its strangeness, when the separable, and so to speak accidental, nature of
   riches is remembered.

   hōs anthos chortou, as the bloom of grass] Taken from the LXX. rendering of
   Isa. xl. 6: pasa sarx chortos pasa doxa anthrṓpou hōs anthos chortou.
   chortos, properly “fodder,” means in the LXX. such grass, or rather herbage,
   as makes fodder. It stands rightly for חָצִיר (cf. Job xl. 15), in the first
   place here as in the two following verses. But anthos chortou is put for
   צִיץ הַשָּׂדֶה, which is rightly translated anthos tou agrou, “the flower of
   the field,” in the parallel Ps. ciii. 15. The LXX. nowhere else translate
   שָׂדֶה by chortos, nor will it bear that meaning: hence chortou is merely an
   erroneous repetition. The unique image taken from the flower of grass had
   therefore an accidental origin, though it yields a sufficient sense.

   Grass is frequently used in the poetical books of the O.T. to illustrate the
   shortness of life, or the swift fall of the wicked. To understand the force
   of the image we must forget the perpetual verdure of our meadows and
   pastures under a cool and damp climate, and recall only the blades of thin
   herbage which rapidly spring up and as rapidly vanish before the Palestine
   summer has well begun. By “the flower of the field” the prophet (and the
   LXX. translator) doubtless meant the blaze of gorgeous blossoms which
   accompanies the first shooting of the grass in spring, alike in the Holy
   Land and on the Babylonian plain (Stanley Sin. and Pal. 138 f.; Layard
   Nineveh i. p. 78).

   pareleusetai, pass away] Parerchomai and “pass” answer strictly to each
   other in their primary and their metaphorical senses: the Greek word here,
   as often in classical writers, means to “pass away,” i.e. pass by and so go
   out of sight; it is employed in precisely similar comparison, Wisd. ii. 4;
   v. 9.

   Which passes away, the rich man or his riches? Notwithstanding the form of
   the sentence, we might be tempted by the apparent connexion with [110]v. 9
   to say his riches (ho ploutos included in ho plousios). But in that case the
   only way to avoid unmeaning tautology is to take the comparison as
   justifying the mention of impoverishment rather than the exhortation to
   glorying in impoverishment; “let the rich man glory in his being brought
   low, for brought low be assuredly will be, sooner or later.” This gives an
   intelligible sense; but no one having this in his mind would have clothed it
   in the language of vv. [111]10, [112]11. St James must therefore mean to say
   not that riches leave the rich man but that he leaves his riches. This is
   the interpretation suggested by the natural grammar of [113]v. 10, and no
   other will suit the last clause of [114]v. 11.

   But a difficulty remains. St James would hardly say that the rich man is
   more liable to de