First of all let me just say that James being written by James the brother of Jesus is in no way an article of faith to me. I do not view it is mandatory that he was the author for it to be authoritative. But I do not see anything compelling in this citation to force me to abandon the traditional view.
quote:
Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3):
1. The cultured language of James is not that of a simple Palestinian. Sevenster's evidence that the Greek language was much used in Palestine at that time and could be learned does not prove that a Jew whose mother tongue was Aramaic could normally write in literary Greek. Most of those who defend the thesis that James was written by the Lord's brother must assume that it achieved its linguistic form through the help of a Hellenistic Jew, but there is no evidence in the text that the assistance of a secretary gave shape to the present linguistic state of the document, and even if this were the case the question would still remain completely unanswered which part of the whole comes from the real author and which part from the "secretary."
This is just wild conjecture. We haven't got a clue whether James was profficient in Greek or not.
quote:
2. It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.
I don't see why not. James rigid adherence to the Law does not mean he by neccessity viewed practicing Christianity without it as heretical.
quote:
3. Would the brother of the Lord really omit any reference to Jesus and his relationship to him, even though the author of JAmes emphatically presents himself in an authoritative role?
Sure. Why does he have to mention Jesus?
quote:
4. The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).
Here's James 2:14.
quote:
What good is it, my brothers,
if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him?
I'm assuming the implication is that he thinks James is saying faith doesn't save. But it seems to me that James is simply pointing out that one can say they have faith but if there is never any fruit from it, than perhaps they really don't. Grammatically, his interpretation of the passage makes sense. But doesn't mine also? See the next few verses after this too and you'll see James expounding on what he's getting at in the passage above.
quote:
5. As the history of the canon shows (see 27.2), it was only very slowly and against opposition that James became recognized as the owrk of the Lord's brother, therefore as apostolic and canonical. Thus there does not seem to have been any old tradition that it originated with the brother of the Lord.
But what are the reasons for that? Look this guy has a well thought out logical argument, it's just not compelling. Nothing he says compels me to seriously consider that perhaps Jesus' brother didn't write James. I read the other citations on the website you provided too and it's the same for them.
™ Version 4.2
