He claims to be James, and so the book is not anonymous. It is either genuine or pseudonymous. He does not claim to be the brother of the Lord Jesus, as one might expect. James the brother of John was put to death by Herod Agrippa I about a.d. 44 (Act 12:2). But James the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:19) was still alive and became a leader of the church in Jerusalem (Act 12:17), presiding over the Conference in Jerusalem (Act 15:13-21) and apparently writing the message from the Conference to the Gentile churches (Act 15:22-29), and was still the leading elder in Jerusalem on Paul’s last visit (Act 21:18-25). James does not claim here to be an apostle and he was not one of the twelve apostles, and the dispute about accepting it of which Eusebius spoke was about its apostolicity since James was only an apostle by implication (Gal 1:19) in the general sense of that term like Barnabas (Act 14:14), perhaps Silas and Timothy (1Th 2:7), certainly not on a par with Paul, who claimed equality with the twelve. James, like the other brothers of Jesus, had once disbelieved his claims to be the Messiah (Joh 7:6.), but he was won by a special vision of the Risen Christ (1Co 15:7) and was in the upper room before the great pentecost (Act 1:14). It is plain that he had much to overcome as a zealous Jew to become a Christian, though he was not a mere cousin of Jesus or a son of Joseph by a former marriage. He was strictly the half-brother of Jesus, since Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. There is no reason to believe that he was a Nazirite. We know that he was married (1Co 9:5). He came to be called James the Just and was considered very devout. The Judaizers had counted on him to agree with them against Paul and Barnabas, but he boldly stood for Gentile freedom from the ceremonial law. The Judaizers still claimed him at Antioch and used his name wrongly to frighten Peter thereby (Gal 2:12). But to the end he remained the loyal friend to Paul and his gospel rightly understood (Act 21:18-25). Clement of Alexandria (Hypot. vii) says that, when he bore strong testimony to Jesus as the Son of man, they flung him down from the gable of the temple, stoned him, and beat him to death with a club. But Josephus (Ant. XX. ix. I) says that the Sadducees about a.d. 62 had James and some others brought before the Sanhedrin (Ananus presiding) and had them stoned as transgressors of the law. At any rate he won a martyr’s crown like Stephen and James the brother of John.

The author addresses himself “to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion” (Jam 1:1). Clearly, then, he is not writing to Gentiles, unless he includes the spiritual children of Abraham in the term Diaspora as Paul does for believers (Gal 3:29; Rom 9:6.). The word diaspora occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only in Joh 7:35; 1Pe 1:1. It apparently has the spiritual significance in 1Pe 1:1, but in Joh 7:35 the usual meaning of Jews scattered over the world. The use here of “the twelve tribes” makes the literal sense probable here. Clearly also James knew nothing of any “lost” tribes, for the Jews of the Dispersion were a blend of all the twelve tribes. It is probable also that James is addressing chiefly the Eastern Dispersion in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia as Peter writes to five provinces in the Western Dispersion in Asia Minor. It is possible that James has in mind Christian and non-Christian Jews, not wholly non-Christian Jews as some hold. He may have in mind merely Christian Jews outside of Palestine, of whom there were already many scattered since the great pentecost. The use of synagogue as a place of worship (Jam 2:2) like church (Jam 5:14) argues somewhat for this view. He presents the Mosaic law as still binding (Jam 2:9-11; Jam 4:11). As the leading elder of the great church in Jerusalem and as a devout Jew and half-brother of Jesus, the message of James had a special appeal to these widely scattered Jewish Christians.

If James is writing solely to non-Christian Jews, the purpose is to win them to Christ, and so he puts the gospel message in a way to get a hearing from the Jews. That is true, whether he has them in mind or not, though he does not do it by the suppression of the deity of Jesus Christ. In the very first verse he places him on a par with God as “the Lord Jesus Christ.” In Jam 2:1 he presents Jesus as the object of faith: “as you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory” (Moffatt’s Translation), where Jesus is termed the Shekinah Glory of God. It is true that there is no discussion in the Epistle of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus, but there is an allusion to the murder of Jesus in Jam 5:6 and the second coming in Jam 5:8. The chief aim of the Epistle is to strengthen the faith and loyalty of the Jewish Christians in the face of persecution from rich and overbearing Jews who were defrauding and oppressing them. It is a picture of early Christian life in the midst of difficult social conditions between capital and labor which also exist today. So then it is a very modern message even if it is the earliest New Testament book. The glory of the New Testament lies precisely at this point in that the revelation of God in Christ meets our problems today because it did meet those of the first century a.d. Christian principles stand out clearly for our present-day living.

James assumes the doctrinal features of Christianity, but he is concerned mainly with the ethical and social aspects of the gospel that Jewish followers of Christ may square their lives with the gospel which they believe and profess. But this fact does not justify Luther in calling the Epistle of James “a veritable Epistle of straw.” Luther imagined that James contradicted Paul’s teaching of justification by faith. That is not true and the criticism of Luther is unjust. We shall see that, though James and Paul use the same words (faith, works, justify), they mean different things by them. It is possible that both Paul and Peter had read the Epistle of James, though by no means certain. M. Jones (New Testament in the Twentieth Century, p. 316) thinks that the author was familiar with Stoic philosophy. This is also possible, though he may have learned it only indirectly through the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo. What is true is that the author writes in the easy and accurate Koiné Greek of a cultivated Jew (the literary Koiné, not the vernacular), though not the artificial or stilted language of a professional stylist. Principal Patrick (James the Lord’s Brother, p. 298) holds that he “had a wide knowledge of Classical Greek.” This does not follow, though he does use the manner “of the Hellenistic diatribe” (Ropes, Int. and Crit. Comm., p. 19) so common at that time. Ropes (pp. 10-22) points out numerous parallels between James and the popular moral addresses of the period, familiar since the days of Socrates and at its height in Seneca and Epictetus. The use of an imaginary interlocutor is one instance (Jam 2:18.; Jam 5:13.) as is the presence of paradox (Jam 1:2, Jam 1:10; Jam 2:5; etc.). But the style of James is even more kin to that seen in the Jewish wisdom literature like Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon, etc. It is thus both tract and Epistle, a brief Christian sermon on a high plane for a noble purpose. But it is all natural and not artificial. The metaphors are many, but brief and remind one constantly of the Master’s use of them in the Sermon on the Mount. Did not Mary the mother of Jesus and James make frequent use of such homely parables? The author shows acquaintance with the lxx, but there are few Hebraisms in the language, though the style is Hebraic, as is the whole tone of the book (Hebraic and Christian). “The style is especially remarkable for constant hidden allusions to our Lord’s sayings, such as we find in the first three Gospels” (Hort).