This epistle, with those of Peter, John, and Jude, is termed catholic, καθολικη , from κατα, through, and ὁλος, the whole; for the application of which term Ecumenius, in cap. i. Jacobi, gives the following reason: Καθολικαι λεγονται αυται, οἱονει εγκυκλιοι· ου γαρ αφωρισμενως εθνει ἑνι η πολει, αλλα καθολου τοις πιστοις· “These epistles are called catholic, universal, or circular, because they were not written to one nation or city, but to believers everywhere.”

Who the writer of the epistle in question was, is difficult to say; all that we know certainly is, from his own words, that his name was James, and that he was a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus. Two persons of this name are mentioned in the New Testament; James the son of Zebedee, called also James the elder; and James του μικρου, the less or the little one, called the son of Alpheus, and brother of our Lord: but whether one of these, or if one of them, which, or whether one of the same name different from both, are points that cannot be satisfactorily determined. Michaelis, who has examined the subject with his usual ability, leaves the matter in doubt; but leans to the opinion that James the son of Zebedee was the author, and that this epistle was written before any of those in the New Testament. Other great authorities ascribe it to James, called the brother of our Lord, who was president, or bishop, of the Church in Jerusalem. Even allowing this opinion to be correct, it is not agreed in what sense James is called our Lord’s brother, there being four or five different opinions concerning the meaning of this term. From Mat 13:55, Mat 13:56, we learn that there were four persons called brethren of our Lord: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” Now, it is generally allowed that the James here is the author of this epistle, and the Jude or Judas, mentioned with him, the author of that which stands last in this collection. But with respect to the meaning of the term brother, as here used, it will be necessary to state the opinions of learned men: -

“In the catalogue of the apostles, Mat 10:2; Mar 3:17; Luk 6:14; Act 1:13; we find two persons of the name of James; the first was the son of Zebedee, Mat 10:2; the second in all the catalogues is called the son of Alpheus: one of these apostles is called, Gal 1:19, the Lord’s brother. Wherefore, as there were only twelve apostles, and as James the son of Zebedee, so far as we know, was in no respect related to our Lord, the apostle called James, the Lord’s brother, must have been James the son of Alpheus, called also James the less or younger, whose relation to Christ will appear by comparing Mar 15:40, with Joh 19:25. In the former passage, Mark, speaking of the women who were present at the crucifixion, says: ‘There were also women looking on afar off, among whom were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.’ In the latter passage, John, speaking of the same women, says: ‘There stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen:’ wherefore, our Lord’s mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, mentioned by John, is in all probability the person whom Mark calls Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joses; consequently, her sons, James and Joses, were our Lord’s cousins-german by his mother. And as the Hebrews called all near relations brethren, it is more than probable that James the son of Alpheus, who was our Lord’s cousin-german, is James the Lord’s brother, mentioned Gal 1:19. Three circumstances confirm this opinion:

Jerome likewise thought James the Lord’s brother was so called because he was the son of Mary, our Lord’s mother’s sister; Art. Jacobus. Lardner, Canon., vol. iii. p. 63, says: ‘Jerome seems to have been the first who said our Lord’s brethren were the sons of his mother’s sister; and this opinion was at length embraced by Augustine, and has prevailed very much of late, being the opinion of the Romanists in general, and of Lightfoot, Witsius, Lampe, and many of the Protestants. On the other hand, Origen, Epiphanius, and other ancient writers, both Greeks and Latins, were of opinion that James, the Lord’s brother, was not the son of the virgin’s sister, but of Joseph, our Lord’s reputed father, by a former wife, who died before he espoused the virgin. Of the same opinion were Vossius, Basnage, and Cave, among the Protestants; and Valesius among the Romanists. Epiphanius and Theophylact supposed that Joseph’s first wife was the widow of Alpheus, who, being Joseph’s brother, Joseph married her to raise up seed to him; and therefore James, the issue of that marriage, was fitly called the won of Alpheus, and brother of our Lord.’ But these suppositions might have been spared, if the ancients and moderns had recollected that near relations were called brethren by the Hebrews, and that Alpheus and Cleophas are the same names differently written; James the less, the son of Alpheus, being not only the Lord’s near relation, but an apostle, whom, as is generally supposed, he honored in a particular manner, by appearing to him alone, after his resurrection; 1Co 15:7. These circumstances, together with his own personal merit, rendered him of such note among the apostles that they appointed him to reside at Jerusalem, and to superintend the Church there. This appointment, Lardner says, was made soon after the martyrdom of Stephen; and, in support of this opinion, observes, ‘that Peter always speaks first, as president among the apostles, until after the choice of the seven deacons. Every thing said of St. James, after that, implies his presiding in the Church at Jerusalem.’ Canon., vol. iii. p. 28. For example, when the apostles and elders at Jerusalem came together to consider whether it was needful to circumcise the Gentiles, after there had been much disputing, Peter spake, Act 15:7, then Barnabas and Paul, Act 15:12. And when they had ended, James summed up the whole, and proposed the terms on which the Gentiles were to be received into the Church, Act 15:19-21; to which the whole assembly agreed, and wrote letters to the Gentiles, conformably to the opinion of James, Act 15:22-29. From this it is inferred, that James presided in the council of Jerusalem, because he was president of the Church in that city.

“Chrysostom, in his Homily on Acts 15, says: ‘James was bishop of Jerusalem, and therefore spoke last:’ In the time of this council, Paul communicated the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles to three of the apostles, whom he calls pillars; and tells us that, when they perceived the inspiration and miraculous powers which he possessed, they gave him the right hand of fellowship, mentioning James first, Gal 2:9 : ‘And knowing the grace that was bestowed on me, James, Cephas, and John, who were pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.’ This implies that James, whom, in the first chapter, he had called the Lord’s brother, was not only an apostle, but the presiding apostle in the Church at Jerusalem. In the same chapter, Paul, giving an account of what happened after the council, says, Gal 2:11 : ‘When Peter was come to Antioch, before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.’ This shows that James resided at Jerusalem, and presided in the Church there, and was greatly respected by the Jewish believers. The same circumstance appears from Act 21:17, where, giving an account of Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, with the collections from the saints in Judea, Luke says, Act 21:18 : ‘Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.’ Farther, the respect in which James was held by the apostles appears from two facts recorded by Luke: the first is, when Paul came to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, Barnabas took him, and brought him Peter and James, as the chief apostles. Compare Act 9:27 with Gal 1:19. The second fact is, after Peter was miraculously delivered out of prison, about the time of the passover, in the year 44, ‘he came to the house of Mary - where many were gathered together praying; (Act 12:12); and when he had declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison, he said, Go, show these things to James, and to the brethren;’ Act 12:17. These particulars are mentioned by Lardner, and before him by Whitby and Cave, to show that James, the Lord’s brother, was really an apostle, in the strict acceptation of the word; consequently, that Eusebius was mistaken when he placed him among the seventy disciples; E. H., lib. vii. c. 12.

It is little wonder, therefore, that this epistle was not received generally by the converted Gentiles; consequently that it was not often quoted by them in their writings. But afterwards, when it was considered that this epistle was from the beginning received by the Jewish believers, and that it was translated into the Syriac language for their use; and that Paul, though an apostle, sometimes contented himself with the appellation of a servant of Christ, Phi 1:1; Phm 1:1; and sometimes took no appellation but his own name; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; and that the apostle John did not, in any of his epistles, call himself an apostle; the title which the author of the Epistle of James had to be an apostle was no longer doubted, but he was generally acknowledged to be James, the son of Alpheus, and the Lord’s brother; and his epistle, after an accurate examination, was received as an inspired writing. So Estius tells us, who affirms that after the fourth century no Church nor ecclesiastical writer is found who ever doubted of the authority of this epistle; but, on the contrary; all the catalogues of the books of Scripture published, whether by general or provincial councils, or by Roman bishops, or other orthodox writers, since the fourth century, constantly number it among the canonical Scriptures.

The epistle itself is entirely different in its complexion from all those in the sacred canon; the style and manner are more that of a Jewish prophet than a Christian apostle. It scarcely touches on any subject purely Christian. Our blessed Lord is only mentioned twice in it, Jam 1:1; Jam 2:1; but it has nothing of his miracles or teaching, of his death or resurrection, nor of any redemption by him. It begins without any apostolical salutation, and ends without any apostolical benediction. In short, had it not been for the two slight notices of our blessed Lord, we had not known it was the work of any Christian writer. It may be considered a sort of connecting link between Judaism and Christianity, as the ministry of John Baptist was between the old covenant and the new. There is neither plan nor arrangement in it; but it contains many invaluable lessons which no serious person can read without profit.

James the less was martyred at Jerusalem about a.d. 62: and the epistle is supposed to have been written a short time before his death. Though I believe it to be the work of an unknown author, not long after the ascension of our Lord, I shall follow the usual chronology, and date it in the year 61; not because I think that to be the true date, but because it is what is generally adopted.