1

one of the brethren of Christ, of whom we | Thus it have spoken in our "Life of Jesus," p. 40.

Peter at Jerusalem. But as it afterwards occurred to him, that he had seen at Jerusalem James the brother of the Lord, who, though no apostle, was held in apostolic estimation by the Judaizers, on this account he added, by way of limitation, a reference to James. We must therefore add to the un, a complementary idea allied to that of anor TOAGS; on a construction of this kind, see Winer; p. 517. It may be asked whether Paul would have expressed himself in this manner, if he had reckoned James in the stricter sense among the apostles? Would he have expressed the negation so universally, and, after he had so expressed it, have here first introduced the limitation, if from the first he had thought of saying that he saw none of the apostles excepting two? When Schneckenburger, from the words in Acts ix. 27, infers that Paul must at that time have conferred with at least two apostles at Jerusalem, he attaches greater weight than can be allowed with certainty to single expressions in this short narrative.

appears how very much the course of his religious developement, was distinguished from that of the apostle Paul. The latter, during the life of Christ on earth, was at a distance from all personal outward communication with him, and learnt to know him first by spiritual communication. James, on the contrary, stood in the closest family relation to the Redeemer, and from the first was present with him during the whole of his earthly developement; but it was exactly this circumstance which contributed to his being more slow to recognise in the son of man, the Son of God; and while he clave only to the earthly appearance, he was prevented from penetrat ing through the shell to the substance. Paul, by a violent crisis, made the transi tion from the most vehement and unsparing opposition to the gospel, to the most zealous advocacy of it. James gradually advanced from a Judaism of great earnestness. and depth, which blended with a faith that constantly became more decisive in Jesus as the Messiah, to Christianity as the glorification and fulfilling of the law.

There is probably some truth in what is

Yet, if we compare on this point the oldest ecclesiastical traditions, the comparison of the account in the gospel of the Hebrews (see Hieronym. de V. I. c. ii.) with 1 Cor. xv. 7 appears to favour the identity of the one James, for in that gospel it is said that Christ, after his resurrection, appeared to James the Just, the brother of the Lord. But in the passage in the Epistle to the Corinthians, the same James seems to be mentioned as one of the twelve apostles. Still we find here nothing absolutely certain, for it cannot be of the Lord, it would follow that that James, as a shown that the reference in that gospel is to the nephew of the Lord, is called his brother. Yet if same appearance of Christ as in the epistle. And another interpretation is possible, according to if it be assumed that James, the brother of the which Hegesippus agrees with himself, in referLord, was then held in such great esteem, that ence to the words before quoted, such an interpre when this name was mentioned only one individual tation must be readily preferred. And this interwould be generally thought of, it is not perfectly pretation is that which agrees best with the words clear, from his being brought forward in this con- in their existing position. For, since James is the nexion, that he was reckoned by Paul among the principal subject in the first half of the sentence, apostles. Now, in reference to the tradition of the auroù must refer to him. Cleopas, accordingly, Hegesippus, in Euseb. ii. 23, when he says that is called the uncle of James, and his son Simeon James the brother of the Lord undertook with the cannot therefore be the brother of James, but is apostles, μera Tv TsTonav, the guidance of the his cousin; as Cleopas (= Alpheus) is the uncle church at Jerusalem, it is most natural to suppose of Jesus, (and, according to Hegesippus in Euseb. that he means to distinguish James from the apos. iii. 11, both on the side of Joseph as well as of tles, otherwise he would have said μera Tv Tv, Mary), Simeon the cousin of Jesus and the cousin although we would not consider the other inter- of James, which again favours the opinion that pretation as impossible, especially in writers of they were brothers. But Hegesippus might call this class, in whom we do not look for great pre- this Simeon a second nephew, since he looked upon cision in their mode of expression. Also the whole the apostle James, the son of Alpheus, who was narrative of Hegesippus leads us to believe, that no longer living, as the first nephew. We might he considered James as distinct from the apostles; also insert a stop after zugu, and connect Surg for although this representation bears upon it, at with gcedevro; by this construction, mention would all events, marks of internal improbability, yet it be made of only one cousin of the Lord, as the would not appear altogether irrational, on the sup- successor of his brother, as the second overseer of position that this James was an apostle appointed the church. But the position of the words is very by Christ himself. But we must compare with much against this construction. Certainly the this passage the words of Hegesippus in Euseb. testimony of Hegesippus must have great weight, iv. 23, μετά το μαρτυρῆσαι Ιακωβον τον δικαιον, ὡς on account of his high antiquity, his descent, and Hal κυριος ἐπὶ τῷ αυτω λόγω, παλιν ὁ ἐκ θειου his connexion with the Jews of Palestine. But it αὐτοῦ Συμπων ὁ τοῦ κλωπα καθισταται ἐπισκοπος, εν is undeniable, if we compare the two passages προέθεντο πάντες όντα ἀνεψιον τοῦ κυρίου δευτερον. If from the Hypotyposeis of Clement, quoted by Eus we understand by these words, that this Šimeon sebius, ii. 1, that he distinguishes James, who was called the second nephew in relation to the bore the surname of the Just, as an apostle in the aforementioned James the Just, as the first nephew stricter sense of the word.

narrated by the Christian historian Hege-tained constantly increasing respect in the sippus, that this James led from childhood church at Jerusalem. the life of a Nazarene. If we consider Every feature of his character which we what an impression the appearances at and can gather from the Acts, from Josephus,* after the birth of Christ, and the conviction and from the traditions of Hegesippus in that the first-born son of Mary was destined Eusebius,† well agrees with the image of to be the Messiah-must have left on the him presented in the epistle that bears his minds of the parents, it may be easily ex- name. By his strict pious life, which plained how they felt themselves compelled agreed with the Jewish notions of legal to dedicate their first-born son James,* to piety, he won the universal veneration, not the service of Jehovah in strict abstinence only of the believers among the Jews, but for the whole of his life. To this also it also of the better disposed among his counmight be owing, that the freer mode of liv- trymen generally: on this account, he was ing which Christ practised with his disci- distinguished by the surname of the Just, ples was less congenial to him; and from dixaios; and, if we may credit the P his strict, legal, Jewish standing-point he account of Hegesippus, he was viewed as could not comprehend the new spirit which one of those men of distinguished and comrevealed itself in Christ's words; many of manding excellence who set themselves these must have appeared to him as "hard against the corruptions of their age, and sayings." Proceeding from the common hence was termed the bulwark of the peoJewish standing-point, he expected that ple. According to the representations of Jesus, if he were the Messiah, would verify this writer, he must have led a life after himself to be such in the presence of the the manner of the strictest ascetics among people by signs that would compel the uni- the Jews. The consecration of his childversal recognition of his claims, by the es- hood had already introduced him to such tablishment of a visible kingdom in earthly a mode of life, and we might suppose, that glory. By the impression of Christ's he had already won by it peculiar respect among the Jews, if it were not surprising that no trace can be found of it in the gospels, no marks of special distinction awarded to him by his brethren. At all events, he might afterwards avail himself of this ascetic strictness as a means of attracting the attention of the multitude to his person, and thereby to the doctrine he published. This mode of life considered in itself, provided its value was not rated

ministry he became indeed excited to believe, but the power of early habit and prejudice always counteracted that impression, and he found himself in a state of indecision from which he could not at once free himself. Only half a year before the last sufferings of Christ we find him in this vacillating condition, for John does not in this respect distinguish him from the other brethren of Jesus, with whom this was certainly the case; John vii. 5. But after the ascension of Christ, he appears as a decided and zealous member of the company of disciples; Acts i. 13. We see how important the Saviour deemed it to produce such a faith in him by his honouring him with a special appearance after the resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 7), whether this was occasioned or not, by his having expressed doubts like Thomas.† This James ob

son,

* His being described by the appellation of the indicates that he was the eldest.

Man is risen from the dead." We must certainly minded James, who, in his epistle, has so vividly consider how important it was for the waveringdescribed the unhappiness of such a state (i. 5), to attain to the certainty on this subject, which such an occurrence would give him, and which such a of the Jewish Christian who bestowed so much vow led him to expect. But not only is the work pains in embellishing the history of James, not a credible source of information in itself, but there is also a palpable contradiction in the chronology of the history of the resurrection between this narrative and Paul's account.

*Joseph. Archeol. xx. 9.

+ Hist. Eccles. ii. 23.

which עב לְעַם or עֹפֶל עַם Perhaps :

עז לְעַם ,Fuller

+ The narrative in the Gospel of the Hebrews (see Leben Jesu, p. 720), is not an authority of sufficient credit_to allow of our following it here. It tells us that James, after partaking of the Last Supper with Christ, made a vow that he would not again taste food till he had seen him risen from the dead; that Christ appeared to him as the Risen One, and said, “Now eat thy bread, for the Son of goxn toũ xaov.

comes nearer the phraseology of Hegesippus; unless, which is indeed less probable, we read with which Hegesippus translates

too high, was by no means unchristian. | doctrine of justification by faith in and for What Hegesippus narrates of him perfectly itself, or a misunderstanding and an erronesuits his character, that he frequently pros-ous application of it. And it would not be trated himself on his knees in the Temple, difficult to support this opinion by many calling upon God to forgive the sins of his isolated passages in the epistle taken alone, people, (probably having a special refer- without a reference to their connexion with ence to the forgiveness of their sins against the whole :* for it seems as if the express the Messiah),—that the divine judgments reference to the Pauline formula of the jus on the unbelievers might be averted, and tification to be obtained by faith alone, and that they might be led to repentance and to which works can contribute nothing, faith, and thus to a participation of the could not be mistaken; especially as the kingdom of the glorified Messiah. same examples of faith as those mentioned by Paul, namely, those of Abraham and Sarah, are adduced. But this opinion, though plausible at first sight, if we exa. mine more closely the relation of particular passages to the whole tenor of the epistle, will soon appear untenable. The error in reference to faith which James combats in this epistle, is certainly not one altogether isolated: but it appears as an offset proceeding with many others from the root of one false principle: and this principle is quite distinct from that which would admit of an application, whether correct or incorrect, of the Pauline doctrine. It was the tendency of the Jewish spirit, refusing to acknowledge the life of religion as seated in the disposition, every where taking up the mere dead form, the appearance instead of the reality, in religion; this tendency, which substituted a lifeless arrogant acquaintance with the letter for the genuine wisdom inseparable from the divine life-which prided itself in an inoperative knowledge of the law, without paying any attention to the practice of the law-which placed devotion in outward ceremonies, and neglected that devotion which shows itself in works of love-which contented itself with the verbal expression of love, instead of proving it by works; it was this same tendency of the Jewish mind estranged from

But some important doubts may be raised against the credibility of this account of Hegesippus, taken in its full extent. That Ebionite party among whom an ascetic, theosophic tendency prevailed, and who circulated apocryphal writings under the name of James, had probably formed an ideal conception of his character in harmony with their own peculiarities, and Hegesippus might mistake the image delineated in their traditions for an historical reality. The epistle of James by no means bears decided marks of such a tendency, for every thing which has been supposed to be of this kind may very properly be referred to the simple Christian renunciation of the world, such as has its seat in the disposition. If the Jewish love of gain is here spoken against, if the earthly-mindedness of the rich, the homage paid to this class and the contempt of the poor, is condemned, and it is declared that the gospel has found the most ready access to the latter, and exalted them to the highest dignity, yet it by no means follows, that the author of this epistle entirely condemned, like the Ebionites, all possession whatever of earthly goods.

This epistle is especially important, not only for illustrating the character of James, but also for giving us an insight into the state of the Christian churches which were formed from Judaism, and unmixed with Christians of Gentile descent. According to an opinion very generally prevalent from ancient times, we should be led to believe that the peculiar doctrinal system of the apostle Paul had already been formed and disseminated when this epistle was written, and that those churches particularly to whom it was addressed, had been affected by the influence of this Pauline system. The opinion we refer to is, that James in this epistle either combated the Pauline

* We wish to remark in passing, that among those who have thought that they have detected a contradiction between James and Paul in the doctrine of justification, is the celebrated patriarch Cyrillus Lucaris of Constantinople, who was led to the opinion by reading the epistle. It also struck him that the name of Christ is scarcely mentioned above once or twice, and then coldly (anzi del nomo di Jesu Christo a pena fa mentione una o due volte e freddamente); that the mysteries of the incarnation of the Son of God and of redemption are not treated of, but only morality (solo a la moralita attende); see Letter vii. in Lettres Anecdotes de Cyrille Lucar. Amsterdam, 1718, p. 85.