hatsoff

I've been reviewing the evidence, and I have to say, I'm unimpressed with the arguments that the Epistle of James is pseudonymous. They seem to be based entirely on what scholars think James should have said contrasted against what is contained in the Epistle, yet we know next to nothing about the man.

Obviously, there must be a certain degree of doubt, given that the New Testament world was rife with forgery. However, is that enough to reject James the Just as author of this work?

Dominus Paradoxum

No, but as far as I can remember the author of James never claims to be James the Just. Couldn't it be by a different James? It wouldn't be pseudonymous in that case, and early Christians could simply have attributed it to James the Just by an honest mistake. I guess one would have to find out how common the name "James" was to get a proper perspective on the issue. Also, to me the epistle seems a little distant for it to have been written by someone who was supposed to be Jesus's brother.

Iasion

Greetings,

Well, we do know the most important fact about this man is that he was allegedly the brother of Jesus. Although of course it could have been another James - certainly what we read in the latter argues against it being by anyone who knew anything about the life of Jesus.


Yes, I agree.

Now if James was the brother of Jesus we would expect his letter to be chock-full of personal details about Jesus. But, the letter of James only even mentions the name "Jesus" twice in the whole letter. Not one shred of historical information about Jesus can be found in the letter allegedly from a member of his family. The person who wrote the letter of James had apparently never even heard of a historical Jesus.

Let examine the letter to see what I mean -

The only 2 places to use the name "Jesus" are here :

1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are in the Dispersion: Greetings.

The introduction of the letter, mentions he is a "servant" of God and of Lord Jesus Christ (ie. a typical faithful phrase invoking their highest names) - fails to mention he is brother to Jesus.

2:1 My brothers, don't hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory with partiality.

Another faithful phrase telling us nothing about Jesus. No mention James is his brother.


What DON'T we see in James :

NO mention of Jesus' family at all - NO Mary or Joseph or siblings.
NO mention of the birth stories - NO Bethlehem, Nazareth, Magi, Herod, the flight...
NO mention of teachings Jesus - NO sermon, Lord's prayer, food regulations
NO mention of miracles - NO Lazarus, feeding the multitude, healing the sick...
NO mention of any Gospel event - NO Teaching at the Temple, Temple Cleansing, Triumphal Entry, Temptation, Baptism in Jordan etc, etc...
NO mention of the trial of Jesus - NO Pilate, Sanhedrin, Judas etc...
NO mention of the empty tomb, the crucifixion, the resurrection !

I can not find a single piece of information about Jesus in the whole epistle of James. From a person who was supposedly in Jesus' very family and probably would have experienced many of these events if they had really happened.


Even when expected

Even worse, if you do read James, there are many places where you would expect him to mention Jesus or his teaching -

Chapter 1 talks about resisting temptation - NO mention of the temptation of Jesus !

Chapter 2 starts like this in some versions - "do you .. really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?" (a different translation of the phrase which in the Greek goes something like this: "do not with partiality believe in Jesus Christ the glorious").

Here is James trying to convince them to believe in Jesus Christ, and he totally fails to even mention he knew Jesus, let alone was his brother - instead all he gives to try and prove Jesus is some preaching about the poor and the rich without mentioning anything Jesus said about the poor.

James quotes "Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself" - but not from Jesus, just "scripture".

James preaches about adultery - no mention of Jesus' teachings.

James argues that faith without works is useless - when he provides examples, it's from the OT - Abraham, Rahab - no mention of Jesus.

James reminds people not to curse or speak evil - no mention of Jesus' teachings on that.

James preaches about suffering and patience - no mention of Jesus as example, just Job and the prophets.

James talks about the church elders bringing healing and forgiving sins - no mention of Jesus doing that.

James even invokes Elijah who was a "human being like us" - no mention of Jesus.


James never knew any Jesus

In dozens of places, James preaches something that cries out for a mention of Jesus or his teachings - but it looks like James has never even heard of Jesus of Nazareth - just the risen Christ, a spiritual being.

Note that James uses the phrase "my brothers (and sisters)" dozens of times - not the slightest hint that he is the brother of Jesus anywhere in the letter.

The writer certainly was not the brother of Jesus, and there simply is nothing about Jesus in the letter of James to indicate the writter had ever even heard of a historical Jesus.


Iasion

Malachi151

See this post:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=200746

Whoever wrote the Epistle of James, he certainly wasn't a brother of Jesus.

I suspect that the person who wrote James WAS the person initially called "James the Just" or "the Lord's brother", and that these were simply titles for a prominent community leader, who was not a literal brother of the Jesus.

The fact that this person was sometimes called "the Lord's brother" got confused by later Christians who then thought that this James really was a literal brother of Jesus.

Visionary7

Yes, the epistle and letter of James is authentic.

Doug Shaver

I need no reason to reject any hypothesis about who wrote it. Whoever has a hypothesis needs to give me a good reason to accept it. Until they do, I am justified in believing that nobody knows who wrote it.

Niall Armstrong

The MJ-theory means we can again look at these Epistles (James', John's and Peter's) and wonder if they might be authentic after all, as they no longer are supposed to have been written by Gallilean fishermen, but by people possibly as hellenized as Paul himself. Unfortunately there's relatively few of them, so there's not as much to go by as with Paul's epistles (though I believe that few would claim that Peter II was written by the same person as Peter I, and ditto for the three epistles of John).
I like the idea of Peter I being written by the Peter described in Paul's letters, because we then get a description of that first vision of JC. (And the problem with no great persecutions in Asia Minor at the time of Peter has always seemed insufficient to me. Why would a pseud have written it?)

post tenebras lux

Hi V7. This is a 'discussion board'. So, would you care to discuss what evidence or logic you have to your claim, or is personal revelation your only 'proof/evidence'?

Solo

Very few people believe that the letter was written by James the Just. Its Greek is said to be too polished for a presumed Aramaic speaker with limited tolerance of Hellenistic influence (implied in Acts 8:1, Galatians 2:12). The style also speaks of his acquaintance with LXX (Elliott-Binns). The writer likely comes from a Palestinian Hellenistic Jewish community, and it is an early script; the Day of Judgment is coming. Whether it is meant as "parousia" stands disputed. Some hold that the two references to JC were interpolated later. The next question is whether this James has Paul's teaching on faith wrong, and whether despite contradicting Paul, it shows some dependency on him. I think it does show proximity to Paul eg. in the style of pastoral instruction and in 'revenge psychology' (the latter measured against the gospel graphic vistas of brutal annihilation).
My own reading of the "Diaspora" in the letter opening references the Jewish-Christian flock after the flight to Pella, (or some such place) rather than the Jewish Diaspora in general. This would place the origin of the epistle after James' death and the fall of Jerusalem.

Jiri

Malachi151

This seems perfectly reasonable as well. The only question then is, was this pseudonymous in the name of "James the Just" or was this simply someone named James, who is a James that we simply don't know anything about?