Loading...In my previous three posts I’ve argued that the author of the book of James really does want his audience to think he is “James, the brother of Jesus,” but that in fact he was someone else. In modern parlance, that means the book is a “forgery.” Ancient Greek did not use the English word forgery, of course, but the terms they used for this kind of book were just as judgmental and, even, ugly.
But why would someone forge this book, claiming to be James knowing he wasn’t?
The first thing to notice is to reaffirm the one of the first things that we noticed (!): the book appears to appears to attack a form of Pauline Christianity that stresses the importance of “faith alone” for salvation. For this author, “faith without works is dead,” and if someone doesn’t live in ways that are beneficial to others and pleasing to God, they cannot be saved, however much faith they claim to have.
This is especially seen in what is arguably the most famous passage of the book, James 2:14–26, a text that has been much cited since the Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther made the unequivocal claim that it contradicts the gospel proclaimed by Paul and so should have only a secondary standing in the Scriptures.
The passage has numerous resonances with
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
The tension between Paul and James is resolved when one considers who their audiences were. Paul’s audience were those whom he believed were non-Jewish descendants of the ten northern tribes of Israel who were dispersed among the nations, also referred to as ‘Gentiles’ because they had stopped being Torah observant (weren’t under the law of Moses anymore) and had stopped practicing circumcision.
James’s audience were covenantally bound Israelites, specifically diaspora Jews (dispersed Israelites) who had accepted Jesus as Messiah and were still living within a Jewish socioreligious framework prior to the destruction of the Temple.
Paul encouraged his converts who were no longer under the Law to not return to the Law, which would put them back under its curse. Jesus and James promoted a continuation of the Law to those who were under the Law.
There is more to unpack about this, but I don’t have space here. It is fully unpacked in my book titled Concealed In Covenant: The Case For Israel-Only, available on Amazon. My question to you is… The internal evidence from New Testament texts show that they weren’t really meant for people outside of Israel’s covenantal structure. Doesn’t the public deserve to know why?
Dear Professor Ehrman,
I have a question. If the author’s intent was to write in the name of such a towering figure, why would they be so understated? If it were written by a later author, why wouldn’t the greeting have been more direct and clear by using ‘James of Jerusalem’ or ‘James the brother of Jesus’? And I feel that it is very different from more overt pseudepigrapha, like the Gospel of Peter or the Acts of Paul and Thecla, where the apostolic connection is heavily emphasized. Do you see this as evidence of a more sophisticated and subtle forging technique, designed to appear more authentic through its very humility?
For many authors, all they have to do is to claim they are a certain person and everyone believes them. Subtlety is sometimes far more convincing. No one would think 1 Peter was written by Peter (as I’ll be arguing) unless the name appeared at the very beginning; and no one would suspect a companion of Paul was the author of Acts if he had not simply used the first person plural in four passages.
Helli Bart/Dr Ehrman. I enjoy watching your discussion with the 3 Catholics on the youtube channel Reason & Theology . Iv watched that vid about 30 times and your whole dialogue with William Albrecht was fascinating also very funny giving your both contrasting personalities. Anyhow In the Clement of Rome book Clement called Judith likewise Paul and Moses “The Blessed Judith” and affirmed what was in the book of Judith and believed it to have been from god. So Is it wrong for people to believe Clement did not see the book of Judith as holy writ?
Hello Bart /Dr Ehrman.
I am aware of your views of the End times and Nuro and Armageddon and that you believe the Bible is talking about events that are going to happen during their time and not here 2000 years later. My question is what do you think the Bible and revelation is talking about when it says the mark of the Beast? Thanks.
There must be a family bloodline for the succession of powers in order to have a legitimate kingdom and not a tyranny.
James being the brother of Jesus gives him a legitimate position as leader (king) of the church in Jerusalem. They were waiting for the return of Jesus to assume the role as leader of the church.
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
In your wikipedia you are stated as being the leading scholar in texual criticism but would you say that you are on the same level on the histiority of Jesus?
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
When you were studing you focused on texual critisism, the Canon of the New testament and the letters that were not included in the new testament but did you also learn about the historicity of Jesus? Does it matter?
I studied the Gospels and the historical Jesus more in my masters and Phd coures than canon and textual criticism. I had only one seminar on canon and only half a course on textual criticism (and that was at the masters level; I had nothing at the PhD level)
Would you agree that James shows no awareness of the mature Gentile mission or the later theological disputes that dominated the post-Pauline era? He even speaks as though the coming of the Lord is near. Doesn’t this point to an early setting? Moreover, the letter’s emphasis on caring for the poor, its warnings against favoritism toward the wealthy, its stress on practical righteousness, and its distinctly Jewish tone and use of Old Testament imagery all reflect the concerns of the Jerusalem church. Doesn’t this suggesting not just an early, but also a Palestinian context?
In Romans, Corinthians and Galatians, Paul emphasises the importance of faith and works.