My Sunday school class started a new series a few weeks ago, on the Epistle of James. It has often been said that the letter focuses very little direct attention on Jesus. In terms of explicit mentions, there are surprisingly few. But the letter is permeated throughout with teachings and emphases that are recognizable from the Jesus tradition also recorded in the Gospels. And so it seems incorrect to say that the letter pays little attention to Jesus. It pays no attention to his having died or an exalted posthumous status. But it places a great deal of emphasis on the teachings of Jesus, which is where the Jesus depicted in the Synoptic Gospels placed most of his emphasis, too.
This letter certainly reflects a distinctive branch of the early Christian movement. And to the extent that it addresses itself to the “twelve tribes of the Diaspora” one can perhaps imagine the letter’s use as a starting point for discussion when read to Jewish communities in various locations, by an emissary of the Jerusalem church. The references to a “Lord Jesus the Anointed One” would certainly have led to requests for explanation, which the letter carrier presumably would have provided.
Soon we’ll get to the most famous part of the letter, in chapter 2, where the author says that faith without works is dead. But perhaps even more provocative is the statement in 1:26 that anyone who claims to be religious but doesn’t control his tongue is deceiving themselves, and their religion is worthless. I wonder how many Christians today, schooled almost exclusively in a Christianity patterned on the letters of Paul, Hebrews and the Gospel of John, would genuinely accept this as a true statement.
Anyway, the Letter of James is refreshing in it’s practicality. The very fact that it is not focused on advocating a distinctive doctrine or addressing any recognizable issue from a later period makes it seem unlikely that it is a late pseudepigraphal work. It certainly differs noticeably from the many works we have that clearly arelate pseudepigrapha. What do others think of this letter, whether it’s date or authenticity, or it’s marginalization in the canon in many Christian circles?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In