James 1:1

Ἰάκωβος : A very common name among Palestinian Jews, though its occurrence does not seem to be so frequent in pre-Christian times. Some noted Jewish Rabbis of this name lived in the earliest centuries of Christianity, notably Jacob ben Ḳorshai, a “Tanna” (i.e., “teacher” of the Oral Law) of the second century. The English form of the name comes from the Italian Giacomo. θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ : Only Κυρίου here can refer to Christ; in Galatians 1:1 the differentiation is made still more complete … διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. On the other hand, in John 20:28, we have ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου. But the disjunctive use of καὶ in the words before us does not imply a withholding of the divine title from our Lord, for the usage of Κύριος in the N.T., especially without the article, when connected with Χριστός, is in favour of its being regarded as a divine title, see e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:1-3, etc. Hellenistic Jews used Κύριος as a name for God; the non-use of the article gains in significance when it is remembered that ὁ Κύριος, “Dominus,” was a title given to the early Roman Emperors in order to express their deity, cf. Acts 25:26, where Festus refers to Nero as ὁ Κύριος. The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (containing, as generally conceded, the dialect which our Lord spoke), as well as the Peshittâ, read “Our Lord,” the expression used in the Peshiṭta in Matthew 8:25, Κύριε, σῶσον, ἀπολλύμεθα, and in Matthew 20:33, Κύριε, ἵνα ἀνοιγνῶσιν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν; both instances of divine power being exercised. Χριστοῦ : the use of this title, applied to Jesus without further comment, speaks against an early date for the Epistle; in a letter written to Jews during the apostolic age it is inconceivable that the Messiah should be referred to in this connection without some justification; Jewish beliefs concerning the Messiah were such as to make it impossible for them to accept Jesus as the Messiah without some teaching on the subject; this would be the more required in the case of Jews of the Dispersion who could not have had the same opportunities of learning the truths of Christianity as Palestinian Jews. The way in which the title is here applied to our Lord implies that the truth taught was already generally accepted. The absence of the article also points to a late date. δοῦλος : Generally speaking, to the Jew δοῦλος (עֶבֶד), when used in reference to God, meant a worshipper, and when used with reference to men a slave; as the latter sense is out of the question here, δοῦλος must be understood as meaning worshipper, in which case the deity of our Lord would appear to be distinctly implied. ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ : the “twelve tribes” was merely a synonym for the Jewish race (ἔθνος Ἰουδαίων), but there was a real distinction between the Jews of the Dispersion and the Palestinian Jews. The latter were for the most part peasants or artisans, while the former, congregated almost wholly in cities, were practically all traders (cf. James 4:13). In each case there was a restricted circle of the learned. The connection of the Diaspora-Jews with Palestine became less and less close, until at last it consisted of little more than the payment of the annual Temple dues; with very many one visit in a lifetime to Jerusalem sufficed, and this was of course entirely discontinued after the Destruction, when the head-quarters of Jewry became centred in the Rabbinical academy of Jabne. From the present point of view, it is very important to bear in mind, above all, two points of difference between Palestinian and Diaspora-Jews, (1) Language, (2) Religion. (1) Among the former, Aramaic had displaced Hebrew; Aramaic was the language of everyday life, as well as of religion (hence the need of the Methurgeman to translate the Hebrew Scriptures in the Synagogues); among the latter Greek was spoken. It is not necessary to insist upon the obvious fact that this difference of language brought with it a corresponding difference of mental atmosphere; the Jew remained a Jew, but his way of thinking became modified. (2) Their contact with other peoples brought to the Diaspora-Jews a larger outlook upon the world; at the same time, they could not fail to see the immeasurable superiority of their faith over the heathen cults practised by others. This resulted on their laying greater stress on the essentials of their faith; the ethical side of their religion received greater emphasis, the spirituality of belief became more realised, and it therefore followed of necessity that universalistic ideas grew, so that proselytism became, at one time, a great characteristic among the Diaspora-Jews; Judaism contained a message to all peoples, it was felt; and thus the particularistic character of Palestinian Judaism found no place among the Diaspora-Jews. But, at the same time, the Bible of these Jews, which exercised an immense influence upon their thought and literature, was Hebraic in essence though clothed in Greek garb; hence that extraordinarily interesting phenomenon, the Hellenistic Jew. In view of what has been said it is interesting to note that two outstanding characteristics of the Epistle before us are: Hebraic thought and diction expressed in Greek form, and the emphasis laid on ethics rather than on doctrine. The meaning of διασπορά is quite unambiguous, and there is no justification for restricting it to the Eastern Dispersion; it includes the Jews of Italy, Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor and, above all, Egypt, as well as of Asia. For further details see Esther 3:8; Esther 8:9; Esther 9:30; Esther 10:1; Acts 2:9-11; Syb. Orac., iii. 271; Josephus, Antiq. XIV., vii. 12; Contra Ap., i. 22, etc., etc. χαίρειν : Cf. Acts 15:23; Acts 23:26, the only other occurrences of this form of salutation in the N.T. “Historically there is probably no ellipsis even in the epistolary χαίρειν ” (Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek (1), p. 180). It is of interest to note that in the Epistle inspired by St. James (Acts 15:23) this form of salutation is used; it would, however, be precarious to draw deductions as to authorship from this, for the use of the infinitive for the imperative is quite common in Hellenistic Greek; as Moulton says: “We have every reason to expect it in the N.T., and its rarity there is the only matter of surprise” (Ibid.). The Peshiṭtâ and Syr lec have the Jewish form, Shalôm.