Who do you think wrote the book of James? The book identifies the author only as “James, the servant of Jesus Christ.” The prevailing opinion, if one discounts a pseudonymous author, is that the epistle was written by the brother of Jesus. I don’t find the evidence compelling.
There are four James mentioned in the New Testament. Besides Jesus’s half-brother, two were apostles and one was the father of an apostle (Judas, not Iscariot). Since we know nothing about him, I think it is unlikely that Judas ‘ father wrote the letter. It also seems safe to discount James the son of Alphaeus, since he is essentially unknown. But it appears to me that James the son of Zebedee is too quickly dismissed as a possibility.
Here’s how it happened in one (good) commentary I read and virtually the same scenario replayed in the class discussion this week. James the son of Zebedee is considered, but because he was martyred so early (Acts 12), he is rejected. Then James the brother is considered and deemed to be possible because he died much later (in AD 62). But because the book talks about being “justified by works,” it is (rightly) concluded that it must have been written before Galatians and the Jerusalem Council, as James surely would have been more sensitive in his wording had he been aware of Paul’s letters and battles. Thus James was written around 46-48. No one stops to consider that this is not much later than the date of James Z’s death in 44. In other words, if James may have been written by the brother in 46, why could not it have been written by James Z in 44?
The nice thing with a doctoral seminar is that you have many students who have recently studied the subject who can compare notes. My query received two responses, both of which are reasonable but not, in my view, convincing. First, tradition identifies the author as the Lord’s brother. From what I can tell, though, the tradition is very limited. Second, there are similarities in wording between the book and the words of James in Acts 15:13-23. This includes the use of chairein (“greetings”) in James 1:1 and Acts 15:23 (nowhere else in NT), the passive use of “call” with “name” in James 2:7 and Acts 15:17, and the phrase, “listen, my brothers” in both James 2:5 and Acts 15:13. These are better arguments than the quick brush-off that James Z was “too early,” but it’s not enough to get me thinking about another subject.
I think that James Z deserves further consideration for a few reasons. First, everyone recognizes the massive influence of Jesus’s teaching upon the author of the book. This fits better with one of the inner three disciples than it does for a brother who rejected Jesus’s claims until after the resurrection and presumably was not privy to much of Jesus’s teaching (John 7:5; 1 Cor 15:7). Second, James Z was an apostle. In my (widely-rejected) view, there was one criterion for an inspired work of Scripture: it had to be written by a spokesman of God. In the OT, these were called prophets; in the NT, they were called apostles. James Z is eminently qualified in this regard. [FN1] His brother, John Z, wrote one gospel, three letters, and Revelation. Peter, the other inside man, wrote two letters. Third, the book employs terminology which would be quite appropriate for a fisherman, as James Z was before following Jesus (Luke 5:10-11). This includes the references to the “wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind” (1:6), “enticed” (a technical term used by fishermen; 1:14), “ships guided by a very small rudder” (3:4), “sea creature” (3:7), and “fresh and salt water” springs (think of Heptapegon; 3:11).
I’m not saying this proves the case. But I think it merits more consideration than it seems to receive. As I thought through this tonight, I recalled a friend arguing something similar. A quick Google search has revealed an article of his on the web for those interested in pursuing this further. Perhaps the majority view is wrong.
FN1: The Lord’s brother is apparently called an apostle in Gal 1:19; this is surprising to me given the qualifications given in Acts 1:21-22. In any case, James Z is not an inferior apostle to the Lord’s brother.
A couple of thoughts, off the top of my head.
First of all, I don’t have a problem with it being James Z. I think you raise some good points and that issue probably should be thought through again. So this is just food for thought.
An additional argument that you didn’t bring up for it being “James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus” ;-) is that the only helpful self-identification the author provides is that his name is “James.” (He also calls himself “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” but that doesn’t help us answer our question.) So the argument is that he would have to be a “James” who was familiar enough to the church at large that he did not need any further identifying remarks. And since James the brother of Jesus was one of the pillars of the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:9), it makes sense that he could just say, “This is James,” and everyone would know which James.
Could the same have been true for James Z? Maybe or maybe not. You probably could make a case that he was well-known enough since he was in the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples, but it would probably be an uphill battle since the only mention of James Z in the book of Acts is in 1:13 (where he is listed with the other 11 disciples) and in 12:2 (where he is killed). Was his ministry and position in the early church significant enough that he could write an open letter and just refer to himself as “James”? If so, why doesn’t Acts mention him more often?
The other argument for James the brother of Jesus is one that you touched on: “everyone recognizes the massive influence of Jesus ‘ teaching upon the author of the book.” I believe it was Professor Bookman who once described the book of James as “bleeding” the Sermon on the Mount. In other words, the style of the book (the way that the author puts thoughts together) is reminiscent of the way Jesus phrased things in His teachings. You state, “This fits better with one of the inner three disciples than it does for a brother who rejected Jesus ‘ claims until after the resurrection.” However, the epistles of Peter do not “bleed” Jesus’ style in the same way. And John seems to have his own way of putting things as well. (His quotations of Jesus’ speech in his gospel are in a very different style than how they are in the Synoptic Gospels.)
So if the author is James Z, he could have picked up his style from Jesus, but if so, it seems that he was the only one out of the three inner disciples who did. Alternatively, if it was James the brother of Jesus, he could have picked up Jesus’ style from spending an entire childhood and young adulthood living in the same house with Jesus, playing with him in the backyard, working with him in the family business … not to mention sharing some genetic traits with him. So based on the style of the epistle, I think that James the brother of Jesus is still a valid (and even attractive) option, even though he came to faith after the earthly ministry of Christ was over.
I guess we’ll have to ask James and James who the real author is when we meet them.
I have to side with the traditional theory and give my vote for His bro. I do think it’s still a bit of a mystery of how he came to his position in the Jerusalem church, but Acts is very clear that he was a key leader – if not the leader – of the church in Jerusalem, by the time of the Council.
As to Acts 15, I think we tend to overestimate what it really accomplished. After it, some Christians still preached adherence to the law. I doubt anyone in Jerusalem read Galatians and I suspect there was still some tension with Paul and his message. I doubt what James taught changed at all.
Besides, Romans makes it clear that Paul didn’t fully keep his end of the agreement when it came to what you could/should eat.
I would also suggest that James the book is a collection of the teachings of James, not a letter per se. Not pseudopigraphia, but not directly from his hand. More like what we probably have in many of the OT prophets. I think it’s hard to see it as a pure letter.
I recall reading a commentary that did something similar, Todd–the author ruled out James Z because he was martyred early, and then went on to argue for an early date for the epistle, a date early enough that James Z could have written it.
As far as lexical connections between James and Acts 15, that seems like an awfully weak argument to me. Some of those words are way too common to be useful as indicators of a common speaker–they are not idiosyncratic. How else would he say, “Greetings”? It’s just not the kind of evidence I would want to argue one way or the other.
A.D.
James Z is my grandpa.
Todd,
This is an interesting post, but I would still hold to the more commonly held conclusion that James the Lord’s brother is the most likely author.
The use of the rather bare designation points to a person of prominence. The fact that the letter/sermon is addressed to the diaspora in general also point to a well-recognized individual. The evidence for prominence, at least for the early church, better fits James the Lord’s brother. This James is mentioned by Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, and Jude.
As far as similarities to Jesus’ teaching (which I acknowledge) is concerned, I am not sure that this is particularly persuasive. One could just as easily attribute the similarities to James the Lord’s brother’s assimilation of his Brother’s teaching. After all, over ten years would have passed between the resurrection and the writing of James. One could also make a psychological argument that James was motivated even more fervently to appreciate Jesus’ teaching because he had earlier rejected it.
The argument from the use of fishing/nautical terminology is interesting, especially deleazo. But one could just as easily argue that the agricultural terminology In Jmaes suggests that the author was a farmer (see 1:11; 3:12; 5:4, 7, 17-18).
None of the above of course is definitive. However, I would suggest that in such cases we are dealing with possible and probable. In my opinion, James the Son of Zebedee is possible, but James the Lord’s brother is more probable.
I’m interested in this assertion that the book must have been written before the Jerusalem council, otherwise it would have been more sensitive in it’s wording re: justification. Where is that coming from??
Todd’s assertion of James Z seems likely considering that he was one of the three who were included in Jesus’ inner circle (Peter, James and John, sons of Zebedee). These three were present during the transfiguration and were always referred to as a select group. Peter was later ordained as the pillar apostle and foundation stone. John authored multiple books in the canon, including Revelation. It seems likely that Jesus would have ordained James Z for a special purpose, as well, such as the pillar of the Jerusalem church.
Jesus identified his family in Mark 3:33-35: “And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
James Z would have been considered more of a brother to Jesus than his blood brother, James, who did not believe until after the proof of the resurrection. James Z, a witness of the Transfiguration (which confirmed the deity of Christ) and a close companion and trusted servent of Jesus, seems a much more likely candidate for such an honor.
James, the blood brother of Jesus, would have been ill-prepared for such a high call to father the Jerusalem church. But such a call would explain why James Z was included in the inner circle of Christ. His name is always mentioned before John’s name in Scripture which suggests his intimate fellowship with Jesus who would have likely prepared him for significant leadership after his resurrection.
So based on Scripture’s portrayal of James Z as an intimate, trusted apostle of Christ, I vote for James Z as the author of the book of James.
Kay,
While you may be correct that “James, the blood brother of Jesus, would have been ill-prepared for such a high call to father the Jerusalem church,” the fact of the matter is that James the Lord’s brother was one of the (if not the) most important leaders in the early Jerusalem church. This is the consistent testimony of the biblical and extra-biblical evidence. There is really little debate on that matter. On the other hand, the references to James Z outside of the Gospels is scant. Even in the Gospels, James Z seems to be less prominent than his brother John. James Z might have had an outstanding post-resurrection ministry, but very little is known of that ministry.
I appreciate your feedback, Charles. But I still wonder… Could James the brother of Jesus possibly be a reference to James Z? Jesus identified his disciples as his brothers, and renounced the idea that his blood mother and brothers had a greater call on his life. At the cross, he entrusted his mother, Mary, to John instead of to his blood brothers who would have seemed the most likely candidates to take care of Mary. Perhaps Jesus did not distinguish his brothers by blood as much as he did by obedience.
Matthew 12:49
And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
Matthew 28:10
Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” [He was referring to His disciples, not to his blood brothers.]
John 19:26-27
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”
Jesus clearly identified his brothers, sisters and even mother as those who do the will of His Father, in contrast to biological relatives. And in regards to discipleship, He rejects those who do not hate his own blood relatives.
Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
So apparently, Jesus ‘ definition of family is quite different than our traditional distinction. Given Jesus ‘ perspective, wouldn ‘t James Z be a more likely reference to the brother of Jesus than his biological brother, James, who failed to believe until after the resurrection? None of Jesus ‘ other blood brothers were ever distinguished from the crowd of Jesus ‘ followers. But James Z is consistently referenced to as being intimate with Christ, and therefore, prominent.
In regards to your comment that there is little reference to James Z outside of the Gospels and this, therefore, weakens his probable prominence . . . Isn ‘t there also little reference to Jesus ‘ earthly ministry outside of the Gospels beyond the essential Gospel truths? But this does not lessen the weight of Jesus ‘ influence and prominence. Jesus ‘ life revealed the Father and His death redeemed humanity, but little detail is expanded upon outside of the Gospels.
Finally, since Peter and John both wrote multiple books that were included in the canon of Scripture, isn ‘t it likely that James Z, whose name was always included when the three were referenced, would have written at least one book, especially a book referred to as James?
Could it be that we err in attributing more weight to assumptions drawn from extra-biblical evidence than the testimony of inerrant, inspired Scripture itself? In the case of the author of the book of James, I still believe that Scripture would point to James Z as the most likely author.
Sorry Kay, but this is pretty obvious.
James, son of Zebedee, brother of John, is killed in Acts 12:2. He is not called Jesus’ brother.
After that we still see a James as one of the leaders (really, the leader) of the Jerusalem church. So, they could not be the same person.
In Gal 1 Paul talks about James being the “Brother of the Lord” and talks about the times he met him. As he talks more about James in the chapter, it is clear he talks about events that happened after James Z had been killed.
Later on, even Josephus talks about James as Jesus’ brother, long after James Z is dead. I don’t know if you can say anything in NT studies is setteled, but there is little debate about this.
There’s more to respond here than I am capable of. A few points for now:
1. The lack of identifier by James the writer of the epistle strongly argues against a pseudonymous author, who would certainly have added a title (either apostle, church leader, or brother). I don’t agree with the notion that James the brother was necessarily more prominent than James Z in AD 44.
2. I think Charles makes a great point about the brother being motivated to assimilate Jesus’ teaching. So perhaps neither James has the advantage on this point. (This, by the way, would strengthen my beliefs about the oral circulation of Jesus’ teachings.)
3. A major point of contention around AD 50 was the relationship of faith and works (as evidenced in Galatians). James and Paul seem to agree on these matters when they are together (Acts 15, 21). If James knew of the Galatian controversy, then his wording in chapter 2 would seem to be directly against what Paul is teaching. This would create a huge chasm among the early church leaders, for which we do not have evidence. (If James was written contra Galatians, one would expect to see Paul respond later and he does not.) Most scholars today believe that they are addressing two different issues, but the failure to recognize this caused Luther great problems with James. Thus scholars tend to go in one of two directions on this: a) James was written before the Galatian controversy, thus early; b) James was written well after the Galatian controversy was forgotten, thus late and pseudonymous (that is, written by someone else after James’ death). Stratkey – let me know if this is not sufficient to answer your question and I develop this further.
4. I think we should be careful about basing too much on an absence of evidence. We know very little about the church before James’ martyrdom (AD 44). In the gospels, James was a prominent disciple. I think we can assume he was prominent in the early church based on the fact that he was the first apostle killed. Like Peter, who was next on the chopping block, James probably was a prominent leader of the church. Jesus certainly seemed to prepare Peter, James, and John for special leadership.
5. James, the Lord’s brother, was prominent by AD 49, but we don’t know how much earlier he had this status. If the letter could have been written as early as 44 (which is where this whole discussion began – my frustration with the unwarranted automatic dismissal of such a possibility), then I think we really lack sufficient evidence to decide which James was more prominent at that time. (Again, “prominence” matters because the author of the epistle does not identify himself. If one believed that the brother was well known in 44, that could argue against James Z being the author b/c he does not distinguish.)
6. Certainly Jesus called his disciples “brothers” in a collective sense, but since there is not evidence that the early church called any of the disciples “the Lord’s brother” apart from his blood brother, I think it is best to not make that assumption.
To come back to where we started, I think my main point still stands: James Z should not be dismissed on the basis of the date of his martyrdom.
Practically, I think that thinking through issues like this is good not necessarily because the issue is crucial (it is not), but because it is yet another angle to think through matters of Scripture. The more familiar we are with the characters, dates, and issues of Scripture, the fewer stumbling blocks we have in understanding the whole.
Given the disagreements, it’s pleasing to see my use of “James Z” gaining widespread acceptance here.
Hi Kay,
It appears to me that both Al and Todd have addressed most of your questions, so I will offer only brief remarks only because you addressed me directly. Basically, I do not believe that your suggestions are sustainable and I can assure you that I for one give the utmost priority to inspired Scripture. Thanks for interacting with me.