Scholarly Reading
6/11/26
Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 5: The Epistle of James." (pp. 118-139). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
The dating of James is challenging, as there is little to place it in context, and as the authorship is an additional point of debate (Robinson 1976, p. 118). Robinson notes that in 1897 scholars assigned dates nearly a hundred years apart. The relationship of Judaism and Christianity shows James as having strong Judaic influence. Yet Robinson doesn't consider this fact to be of much help (Robinson 1976, p. 119).
Though Robinson admits the danger of an argument from silence, he also considers James significant in terms of what it does not mention (Robinson 1976, p. 120). Unlike Matthew, James lacks any mention of a distinction between Judaism and Christianity. Though the text seems rooted in Palestine, the agrarian metaphors make no mention of the destruction of agrarian life from the war of 66-70. Arguments are based on the Old Testament, with no suggestion of awareness of any New Testament writings (Robinson 1976, p. 121). The address to the twelve tribes dispersed is a very Jewish type of address, showing no awareness of Gentile conversion to Christ (Robinson 1976, p. 122).
From a doctrinal standpoint, Robinson finds "no sign of christological sophistication or controversy" (Robinson 1976, p. 123). There is a hope for the coming of the Lord, but no mention of his death or resurrection. The doctrinal and ecclesiological issues which arose quickly in early Christianity, such as hierarchy and authority are absent (Robinson 1976, p. 124). Likewise, James shows no contact with the canonical New Testament documents (Robinson 1976, p. 125). All this suggests the earliest period of Christianity.
Robinson discusses the alleged dispute of James and Paul over salvation by faith or by works (Robinson 1976, pp. 127ff). He concludes that if James were wishing to contradict a Pauline concept the argument would be more detailed, especially since James affirms that "the just live by faith." The suggestion, then, is that James may well be writing before, or at least without knowledge of Paul (Robinson 1976, p. 128).
The introductory verse which identifies James as the author speaks to a high level of authority, and therefore to James, the brother of Jesus, who was the overseer at Jerusalem (Robinson 1976, p. 129). Robinson considers it worth noting that Jude introduces himself as "the brother of James," an endorsement of James' authority (Robinson 1976, p. 129).
Robinson discusses three major objections which have been made to James as the author of the letter (Robinson 1976, pp. 131ff). James is often alleged to have a view of God's Law which agreed with the legalistic Judaizers (Robinson 1976, p. 131). However, this view of the law finds no support in Acts. James is not a Judaizer.
A second objection to the authorship of James is the weakness of external testimony to its use in early Christianity (Robinson 1976, p. 132). The epistle was broadly used, with Origen and Eusebius being clear it belonged in the sacred texts despite doubts held in some parts of Christianity.
A third objection to James as the author is his erudite Greek style, which may be described as "high koine" (Robinson 1976, p. 132). There is no reason, based on our knowledge of literature and archaeology, to rule out Jesus, James, and the apostles being familiar with Greek and Aramaic (Robinson 1976, p. 133).
Having explored the data, Robinson again considers dating for James. He finds three main approaches. First, it could be "from an unknown Christian . . . from the first half of the second century or the end of the first" (Robinson 1976, p. 135). This view is weak, particularly due to the lack of reference to the historical, cultural, and New Testament developments discussed earlier.
It is, of course, possible to assume James of Jerusalem as the author. Since he died in 62, there would be no knowledge of the late first century, and it is reasonable that there might be little knowledge of the Synoptics or Paul (Robinson 1976, pp. 136-137). The lack of discussion of relationships between Jews and Gentiles urges a relatively early date.
Robinson suggests a date for James of prior to the rise of controversy about circumcision or the rise of a large number of Gentile converts (Robinson 1976, p. 138). For James to be known as a prominent leader who needed no apostolic claim, Robinson places James later than 35 (Gal. 1:19), and probably later than 42 (Acts 12:17) (Robinson 1976, p. 138). However, because of the lack of information about the relationship of circumcision and conversion, it should be no later than 47 or 48.
6/11/26
Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 5: The Epistle of James." (pp. 118-139). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
The dating of James is challenging, as there is little to place it in context, and as the authorship is an additional point of debate (Robinson 1976, p. 118). Robinson notes that in 1897 scholars assigned dates nearly a hundred years apart. The relationship of Judaism and Christianity shows James as having strong Judaic influence. Yet Robinson doesn't consider this fact to be of much help (Robinson 1976, p. 119).
Though Robinson admits the danger of an argument from silence, he also considers James significant in terms of what it does not mention (Robinson 1976, p. 120). Unlike Matthew, James lacks any mention of a distinction between Judaism and Christianity. Though the text seems rooted in Palestine, the agrarian metaphors make no mention of the destruction of agrarian life from the war of 66-70. Arguments are based on the Old Testament, with no suggestion of awareness of any New Testament writings (Robinson 1976, p. 121). The address to the twelve tribes dispersed is a very Jewish type of address, showing no awareness of Gentile conversion to Christ (Robinson 1976, p. 122).
From a doctrinal standpoint, Robinson finds "no sign of christological sophistication or controversy" (Robinson 1976, p. 123). There is a hope for the coming of the Lord, but no mention of his death or resurrection. The doctrinal and ecclesiological issues which arose quickly in early Christianity, such as hierarchy and authority are absent (Robinson 1976, p. 124). Likewise, James shows no contact with the canonical New Testament documents (Robinson 1976, p. 125). All this suggests the earliest period of Christianity.
Robinson discusses the alleged dispute of James and Paul over salvation by faith or by works (Robinson 1976, pp. 127ff). He concludes that if James were wishing to contradict a Pauline concept the argument would be more detailed, especially since James affirms that "the just live by faith." The suggestion, then, is that James may well be writing before, or at least without knowledge of Paul (Robinson 1976, p. 128).
The introductory verse which identifies James as the author speaks to a high level of authority, and therefore to James, the brother of Jesus, who was the overseer at Jerusalem (Robinson 1976, p. 129). Robinson considers it worth noting that Jude introduces himself as "the brother of James," an endorsement of James' authority (Robinson 1976, p. 129).
Robinson discusses three major objections which have been made to James as the author of the letter (Robinson 1976, pp. 131ff). James is often alleged to have a view of God's Law which agreed with the legalistic Judaizers (Robinson 1976, p. 131). However, this view of the law finds no support in Acts. James is not a Judaizer.
A second objection to the authorship of James is the weakness of external testimony to its use in early Christianity (Robinson 1976, p. 132). The epistle was broadly used, with Origen and Eusebius being clear it belonged in the sacred texts despite doubts held in some parts of Christianity.
A third objection to James as the author is his erudite Greek style, which may be described as "high koine" (Robinson 1976, p. 132). There is no reason, based on our knowledge of literature and archaeology, to rule out Jesus, James, and the apostles being familiar with Greek and Aramaic (Robinson 1976, p. 133).
Having explored the data, Robinson again considers dating for James. He finds three main approaches. First, it could be "from an unknown Christian . . . from the first half of the second century or the end of the first" (Robinson 1976, p. 135). This view is weak, particularly due to the lack of reference to the historical, cultural, and New Testament developments discussed earlier.
It is, of course, possible to assume James of Jerusalem as the author. Since he died in 62, there would be no knowledge of the late first century, and it is reasonable that there might be little knowledge of the Synoptics or Paul (Robinson 1976, pp. 136-137). The lack of discussion of relationships between Jews and Gentiles urges a relatively early date.
Robinson suggests a date for James of prior to the rise of controversy about circumcision or the rise of a large number of Gentile converts (Robinson 1976, p. 138). For James to be known as a prominent leader who needed no apostolic claim, Robinson places James later than 35 (Gal. 1:19), and probably later than 42 (Acts 12:17) (Robinson 1976, p. 138). However, because of the lack of information about the relationship of circumcision and conversion, it should be no later than 47 or 48.
RSS Feed