James, The Lord's Brother

JAMES THE LORDS BROTHER - PREFACE.- THIS book is an attempt to treat the life of James the Lords brother with the fulness and thoroughness which its importance demands, and thus to make a contribution to the settlement of some of the most difficult problems belonging to the history of the primitive Church. I do not know any work which covers the same ground. It will be seen that I am convinced of the genuineness of the Epistle of James, and of the trustworthiness of the notices concerning him which occur in the Acts, and that I regard these as substantially the only true sources for his opinions and career. In many of the ablest works on the apostolic age, whether in our own or in other languages, the Jan es delineated is the James of legend and romance rather than the Jalnes of history and hence the James drawl1 in these pages, who is neither a Nazirite nor an ascetic, will wear an unfamiliar aspect to many. But I can form no conception of a James who is at once the James of the Epistle and the Acts and the James of Hegesippus. The chapter on the Congress at Jerusalem is that which has cost me most pains. The subject has been before my mind more or less for thirty years, and I am not aware of any treatise which solves all the difficulties connected with it. Nor do I regard my own account as final. But I have tried to look at the actors in that Assembly as I would look at ecclesiastical statesmen in the same position to-day. It is to me simply inconceivable that men of the capacity and judgment of Peter, James, and John on the one hand, and of Paul and Barnabas on the other, should have failed to frame a measure adapted to the case of the Church of Antioch in which the question of thenecessity of circumcision was first raised. Yet many scholars of note, especially on the Continent, assert that the decision of the Congress had no reference whatsoever to the case of the Church of Antioch. Surely it is the duty of any historical criticism worthy of the name to give the leaders of the Christian Church at least some credit for the possession of ordinary foresight and wisdom. The conclusion reached in these pages, that the Christianity of James was in essence identical with that of Paul, and that the relations between these great leaders were frank and cordial, will hardly be disputed by anyone who duly appreciates the contents of the Epistle. That there were vital differences of conviction betweell Jarues and Paul, is a dream of the historical imagination. At the same time, each had his own characteristic modes of thought and language, and neither can be measured by the thoughts or language of the other. It is a pleasure to confess my obligations to the writers who have preceded me in the treatment of one branch or another of my subject. My chief aim has been to understand the authorities and their significance, and so to reconstruct the world of thought and action in which James moved and with this end in view I have examined them again and again, and have tested my results by those of others. I have sought help from every available quarter, and have learned much from authors whose view of the apostolic age seems to me defective and misleading, like Weizsacker, Harnack, Holtzmann, and McGiffert to name later scholars only, as well as from those whose opinions stand nearer to my own, as Lightfoot, Farrar, Hort, Zahn, Ramsay, and Bartlet. The commentaries of Beyschlag andMayor have proved of the highest utility...