Introduction to James The Author To apprehend who the author of this book would seem on the surface to be a simple process. Like all of the Epistles, save for the book of Hebrews, the name of the person writing the letter is mentioned. With this book, however, the name alone does not point exactly to the author. In the New Testament there are at least two and most think three James’ mentioned. There is James the brother of John the sons of Zebedee who were apostles of the Lord (Matt. 4:21, Mk 1:19; 3:17, Lk 5:10; 6:14, Acts 1:13 et.al). Their mother was Salome (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40). There is also another James that is an apostle the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3, Mk 3:18). His mother was named Mary and he had a brother named Judas or Jude (also Labbeus or Thaddeus) who was also an apostle (Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1, Lk 6:13-16, Acts 1:13). Then there’s a third that most believe is distinct from the other two, namely James “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19, Matt. 13:55). It seems very evident that James the son of Zebedee did not write this book for he suffered martyrdom very early in the history of the church (Acts 12:1-2). However, there have been scholar’s that have ascribed unto him the authorship of this book. I tend to not believe he is the writer for three reasons: 1) The recipients of this book were the “twelve tribes scattered abroad”. At the time of James’ beheading the gospel was mainly confined to Palestine. Although persecution had certainly already begun it would seem incredible that so many Christians resided outside of Palestine and were in the habit of assembling (James 2:2) that a letter could be written to them. 2) The disciples were commonly called Christians (James 2:7) because James alludes to the profane speaking against this name. The term Christian began in Antioch in Acts 11:26 and “about this time” is when James the brother of John was beheaded (Acts 12:1-2). 3) There seems to have already begun a perverted view of justification by faith that James addresses in this letter that would not seem to fit within the time constraints of James the brother of John being the author. The argument that the letter was written by James the less (Mark 15:40) the Apostle, the son of Alpheus, boils down to the theory that the second Apostle named James, James the less, was the “Lord’s brother” of Galatians 1:19. Here is how that argument is developed: The brothers of Jesus mentioned in Matt. 13:55 are actually cousins. Thus reckoning the word “brethren” in its loosest sense in the Greek, as is done in the Hebrew (Gen.13:8), of near kinsmen. James was the son of Mary (Mark 15:40). Mary is accounted then to be the sister of Mary the mother of our Lord via John 19: 25 “There stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” In seemingly parallel passages, Mary the mother of James is called out in lieu of “Mary the wife of Clopas”. Matt. 27:56 “ Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.” Mark 15:40 “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;” The term “Mary the wife of Clopas” is then attributed to being the mother of James the less and Joses. However, the bible says that the apostle James was the son of Alpheus (Matt. 10:3, Mk 3:18). Most who hold this theory point to the fact that Alpheus and Cleopheus (Clopas) are derived from the same Hebrew name Hhalphi and that this is the same man. The arguments against this theory are as follows: 1. Mary’s sister’s name was Mary. How unusual would this be? Names are used to distinguish one person from another and this seems highly unlikely. 2. It is charged that this theory has its roots from the Roman Catholic Church and was thus created to foster their theory of the perpetual virginity of Mary. 3. That the derivation of Alpheus and Clopheus (Clopas) is too vague. 4. The word “adelphos” means “brother” and a brother is one of the same parent. And that there is a Greek word for cousin “anepsios,” used in Col. 4:10, that could have been used if these four men were Jesus’ cousins. 5. In John 7:5 it states that “ For neither did his brethren believe on him” . This would seemingly cause a problem with James and Jude being brethren to Jesus since the two were apostles. Many of the commentators, including those written by our brethren, conclude that this letter was written by James “the Lord’s brother.” This theory by necessity states that the writers of James and Jude were physical brothers (sons of Mary and Joseph), not the apostles (Acts 1:13). In Matt. 13:55 four brothers are listed “James, Joses (Joseph), Simon, and Judas (Jude)”. (The first and last being the authors of the books that have their name.) Arguments made for this theory are as follows: 1) Paul distinguishes James as “the Lord’s brother” in Galatians 1:19. Why would Paul use such an appellation if he wasn’t literally a brother? Why not just say “James” if he was the apostle James? 2) Paul does seem to differentiate between apostles and the Lord’s brethren. I Cor. 9:5 “ Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” Acts 1:14 “And these all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brethren.” The negatives to this theory are multiple as well: 1) The scripture says in John 7:5 “ For neither did his brethren believe on him.” When did this change? If this James is someone other than James the apostle then he became a convert after Jesus’ death. Who converted him and when? 2) James has a tremendous amount of influence in the early church, in so much as he is leading the discussion with the Apostles and actually draws the Jerusalem meeting to its final conclusion (Acts 15:13-21). Could a new convert have been, even one who is supposedly related to Jesus, able to wield such command and influence? 3) If Jesus has or was going to have a faithful fleshly brother, why did Jesus command her to go unto John the son of Zebedee’s care from henceforth (John 19:26-27)? 4) The fact that Paul separates “the Lord’s brethren” from the “other Apostles” in I Corinthians 9:5 does not necessarily infer that his brethren, James and Jude, could not be the apostles listed in Acts 1:13, for Cephas (Peter) is also separated from the “other Apostles.” Conclusion: Well who is it? I don’t think anyone can say for sure. The bottom line is that it was written by a brother named James and he was inspired by God to write these things down (II Timothy 3:16-17) If I had to make a stand, I would tenuously stand on the author being James the apostle and that he was a cousin to Jesus. As I explain my reasoning I want the reader to completely understand that much of my reasoning is just that, my reasoning. Here goes: That there appears to be a fleshly brother that comes of such influence out for Galatians 1:19 just doesn’t sit well with me. No where in consistent secular church history do I find any credible evidence that Jesus had fleshly brothers that became Christians and then began to be leaders of the early church on par with the Apostles. In Matthew 13:55 the bible clearly states the “brethren” (brothers), of the Lord were “James, Joses, Simon and Judas” The following just seems too coincidental to me: 1) That two of the Lord’s apostles were named James and Judas (Jude) (Matt. 10:3, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:13-16, Acts 1:13) 2) That their (The apostles) mother’s name is Mary (Matt 27:56, Mk 15:40), and that she has sons named James, Judas and Joses (Matt 27:56, Mk 15:40, 47). It would appear to me that this Mary had three son’s named exactly the same name as the Mother of our Lord if Matt. 13:55 lists actually fleshly brothers. Impossible? No. However it seems to me to be an awful big coincidence in light of other evidence. In John 19:25 some would argue that Jesus’ mother Mary is now added and only two other ladies are mentioned and in the parallel accounts (Matt 27:56, Mk 15:40) there are three ladies mentioned without Mary the Lord’s mother being mentioned. This, they conclude, means that there were four women present and that “his mother’s sister” is actually a fourth woman mentioned but not named. There are a couple of problems with this theory. First, grammatically “his mother’s sister” certainly modifies Mary the wife of Clopas.