The letter attributed to James in the New Testament is thought by some to have been a forgery, written by someone other than James, the brother of Jesus and head of the church in Jerusalem. There are several reasons for this belief. Firstly, James of Nazareth was almost certainly illiterate and unable to write, whereas the letter displays a high level of literacy and a familiarity with Hellenistic modes of discourse, including the use of rhetorical devices and flourishes. Secondly, the letter does not address the cultural and cultic concerns that are attested to be of particular importance to James of Jerusalem, such as maintaining Jewish identity and following the Jewish Law. Instead, the letter focuses on moral issues such as showing favoritism and controlling one’s speech, and defines true religion as “bridling” the tongue and helping those in need. Thirdly, the letter appears to have been written at a relatively late date, after James had died, and addresses issues that would not have been relevant in the early years of Christianity, such as the debate over the importance of good works and the presence of wealthy members causing problems in the community. Finally, the letter contains polemical language and themes that seem to be directed against the views of Paul, even though Paul and James are not known to have had a contentious relationship. Some have argued that the letter is a counterforgery, written by someone who based their argument on “authentic” Pauline traditions but who read these traditions through the lens of later Pauline interpreters, attacking not Paul himself but a kind of Deutero-Paul.

James 2:21 and Rom. 4:2 (and Gal. 3:7)

1. The letter of James in the New Testament is believed by some scholars to be a response to the teachings of the apostle Paul, specifically his teachings on justification by faith. This belief is based on several pieces of evidence. One piece of evidence is the close verbal overlap between James 2:21 and Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians. In James 2:21, it states that “Abraham our father was justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar.” This is similar to Romans 4:2 and Galatians 3:7, which state that Abraham was justified by faith when he offered his son Isaac. This close verbal overlap suggests that the author of James was familiar with and responding to Paul’s teachings on justification by faith. Another piece of evidence is the sudden and out-of-context appearance of the concept of justification and the example of Abraham in James 2:21. The concept of justification has not been discussed in the letter prior to this point, and the example of Abraham appears to come out of nowhere. This suggests that the author of James was responding to someone who had made justification, specifically Abraham’s justification, a key point in a discussion of faith and works. A third piece of evidence is the use of Genesis 15:6 in James 2:23 and Romans 4:3 to support their opposing views on Abraham and justification. This passage is not used in any other early Christian or Jewish literature to discuss justification, and the fact that both James and Paul use it to support their opposing views suggests that they were responding to each other’s teachings. Overall, the evidence suggests that the letter of James was written as a response to the teachings of Paul on justification by faith. The letter argues that justification comes from works, not faith, and uses the example of Abraham to support this view. This stands in contrast to Paul’s teachings, which state that justification comes from faith.

James 2:24 and Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:28

The letter known as the Epistle of James in the New Testament is believed by some scholars to have been written by James, the brother of Jesus and a leader of the early Christian community in Jerusalem. However, other arguments suggest that James did not write the letter. One key piece of evidence for this is the fact that the letter does not reflect the concerns and beliefs that are otherwise attested for James in early accounts. For example, James is described as being particularly invested in maintaining the Jewish identity of followers of Jesus, including adhering to certain laws and customs such as those related to kosher food, circumcision, and the Sabbath. However, the letter of James makes no mention of these issues, instead focusing on general moral concerns such as showing favoritism, controlling one’s speech, and helping those in need. Additionally, the letter seems to be written at a relatively late date within the development of early Christianity, after James had died, and addresses concerns that would not have been relevant in the first decades of the Christian community, such as the presence of wealthy members causing problems.

1. Another argument that James did not write the letter is that it appears to be responding to the views of Paul, another leader in the early Christian community. The letter contains several verbatim agreements, conceptual formulations, and polemical constructions that are closely aligned with Paul’s writings, particularly his letters to the Romans and Galatians. The letter also quotes the same passage from the Old Testament, Genesis 15:6, as Paul does in his letters in order to make a point about Abraham and justification. However, the letter takes a seemingly opposite stance to Paul’s on the relationship between faith and works, with James stating that a person is not justified by faith alone but by “works,” while Paul asserts that justification comes through faith and not through works of the Law. This close alignment and opposition to Paul’s views suggests that the letter was written by someone who was familiar with Paul’s writings and wanted to engage in a debate with them. Overall, the evidence suggests that the letter of James was not written by James himself but by someone who wanted to use his authority and reputation to argue against what they understood to be the views of Paul. It is possible that this was done through an oral tradition that mediated Paul’s teachings rather than through direct literary dependence on his letters.

Other Indications of Dependence

1. The book of James in the New Testament is believed by some scholars to be a response to the writings of Paul, specifically his letters to the Romans and Galatians. The book of James contains a number of linguistic and conceptual similarities to Paul’s letters, including verbatim agreements, shared concepts, and polemical constructions that cannot be explained as coincidence. For example, both James 2:14-26 and Paul’s letters address the issue of justification by faith or works, and both use the example of Abraham to make their points. James argues that a person is justified by works, while Paul asserts that justification comes through faith. The close parallels between these passages suggest a literary relationship between James and Paul, although it is unclear whether this relationship was one of direct literary dependence or mediated through an oral tradition. Other indications that James may be reacting to or influenced by Pauline formulations include his reference to the Law as a matter of freedom (James 1:25; 2:12) in contrast to Paul’s view of the Law as a form of slavery (Galatians 4:24; 5:1) and a source of curse (Galatians 3:10). In addition, the only places in early Christian writings where the commandment to love others (Leviticus 19:18) is portrayed as the crown of the Law, but not included in the “two greatest commandments,” are James 2:8-11, Romans 13:8-10, and Galatians 5:14. These connections with Paul suggest that James was writing in the context of the development of Pauline missionary churches and may have had access to Paul’s key texts, whether through direct or mediated communication.
2. It is important to understand the polemic of James in relation to the tradition he is opposing. This means that to fully understand James, it is necessary to read it in light of Paul’s letters, as Paul was a key term in the debate addressed by James. Scholars such as N. W. Niebuhr, who argue that James should be read on its own terms without reference to Paul, overlook the fact that to truly understand James, it is necessary to place it in the context of the Pauline tradition.

It is suggested that there is evidence of a relationship between the writings of the New Testament figures James and Paul, with James potentially responding to or being influenced by Pauline formulations in his letter. This is supported by the presence of verbatim agreements, conceptual formulations, and polemical constructions that are too closely aligned to be coincidental. In addition, James’ references to the Law and the love commandment of Leviticus 19:18 are also found in Paul’s writings, leading some to conclude that James had access to Paul’s writings, whether directly or through oral or written communication. However, it is suggested that James’ position may not necessarily be contradictory to Paul’s, as they appear to mean different things by the terms “faith” and “works”. While Paul’s use of “faith” refers to a trusting relationship with God through Christ, James’ use refers to an intellectual acknowledgement of theological claims. Similarly, while Paul’s “works of the Law” refer to the demands placed on Jews, James’ “works” refer to good deeds. It is suggested that the Pauline tradition itself eventually transformed Paul’s teaching about the Jewish Law into a teaching about good deeds, and that James may be attacking this altered teaching rather than Paul’s own views. The author suggests that James’ letter may be a counterforgery, written to oppose a Deutero-Pauline position rather than the views of the historical Paul.

1. Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3):
2. 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.”
3. 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.
4. 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?
5. 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).
6. 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.

Udo Schnelle also argues against the authenticity of James (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, pp. 385-386):

1. Nonetheless, there are weighty arguments against James the Lord’s brother as author of the Letter of James. Central themes of strict Jewish Christian theology such as circumcision, Sabbath, Israel, purity laws and temply play no role in this letter. James is numbered among the few New Testament writings in which neither Israel nor the Jews are mentioned by name. The reception of Old Testament figures (cf. James 2.21-25; 5.10-11, 17-18) and also the references to the Law in an exclusively ethical context were general practices possible anywhere within early Christianity. In contrast to the Antioch incident, the problem of Gentile Christians/Jewish Christians does not appear at all in the Letter of James. The far-reaching differences in soterioogy (see below 7.1.9) indicate that the author of the Letter of James cannot be identical with James the Lord’s brother, who according to Gal. 2.9 gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and explicitly acknowledged his proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles. In 1.1 the author designates himself δουλος θεου και κυριου Ιησου Ξριστου (servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ), and in 3.1 indicates that he is an early Christian teacher. To be sure, a special position and dignity is associated with the term δουλος (servant) in James 1.1., but it remains worthy of note that the author neither introduces himself as the Lord’s brother nor claims the title στυλος (cf. Gal. 2.9). By including himself in the large group of early Christian teachers (cf. Acts 13.1; 1 Cor. 12.28-29), he disclaims the special authority of the Lord’s brother or the three ‘pillars’ of the Jerusalem mother church, which were used in the Antioch conflict. In addition, James 3.1ff. presupposes an attack on the teaching office and a critical situation associated with it, which again does not correspond to the exclusive position of James the Lord’s brother in the history of early Christianity.
2. If James the Lord’s brother were the author of the Letter, then it is amazing that in James 5.10-11 it is Job and not Jesus who serves as an example of willingness to suffer. Also, the presupposed church situation and the polemic in James 2.14-26 point to a later time. The social conflicts within the community that become visible are paralleled especially in the writings of Luke, the Pastorals, and in Revelation. They are evidence of a fundamental social change that happened within the Christian community at the end of the first century. More and more wealthy people entered the church, the gulf between rich and poor church members became greater, and the debate between them grew sharper. In any case, the conflict concerning the unity of faith and works points to the post-Pauline period, as in the churches previously belonging to the Pauline mission field the unity of new being and new actions that Paul had considered self-evident came apart. The polemic of James does not fit Paul himself (see below 7.1.9), so that one must assume either that James the Lord’s brother was completely ignorant of Pauline theology or that we are dealing with a debate in post-Pauline times. The deuteropaulines and 2 Peter 3.15-16 docuemnt the fact that these debates in fact took place on very different levels and with distinct emphases.(edited)
3. If the Letter of James were to have been writen by James the Lord’s brother, then it is remarkable that there is no reflection of the sharp criticism of Paul by James in the deuteropauline writings. Finally, the history of the canon speaks against James the Lord’s brother as author of the Letter of James. Prior to 200 CE there is no solid evidence of the literary use of James. In the Muratorian Canon (ca. 200) James is missing, just as in Tertullian, and Eusebius (HE 2.23, 24b, 25) reports of James: ‘This is the story of James. He is supposed to be the author of the first of the so-called “Catholic Letters,” but let it be noted that its authenticity is doubted, since not many of the Elders have referred either to it or the so-called “Letter of Jude,” which likewise has been counted among the ‘Catholic Letters.’ Still, we are aware that these two letters, like the others, have been read aloud in most of the churches.’ The Letter of James began to be generally accepted only after 200 CE, cited for the first time as Scripture in Origen (Select Ps 30.6 [PG 12.1300]). The canonical status of James continued to be disputed, however, and did not attain general acceptance as a canonical document until very late. This would be an extraordinary development if James had really been written by James the brother of the Lord and this had been known in early Christianity.

Norman Perrin offers the following comments on James (The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 255):
James shows knowledge of parenetical tradition that uses sayings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels: 5:12 (compare Matt 5:36-37); 1:5, 17 (compare Matt 7:7-12); 1:22 (compare Matt 7:24-27); 4:12 (compare Matt 7:1); 1:6 (compare Mark 11:23-24). There is, further, parenetical material also used in 1 Peter: Jas 1:2-3 (compare 1 Peter 1:6-7); Jas 4:1-2 (compare 1 Pet 2:11). It is not that James necessarily knows the gospels or 1 Peter, but rather that there is a Christian parenetical tradition into which sayings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels have been taken up, although not in the form of sayings of Jesus, and of which both James and 1 Peter make use. . .

Moral exhortation is very much the same throughout the various elements in a given culture. By the same token parenesis itself has little doctrinal concern, and James, a wholly parenetical work, has almost nothing distinctively Christian about it. Jesus Christ is mentioned only twice (1:1, 2:1), and both verses could be omitted without any harm to the flow of thought in the text. When the “coming of the Lord” is mentioned (5:7) there is nothing to denote the specifically Christian hope of the parousia; it could equally be a reference to the coming of the Lord God. “Faith” in this text is not specifically Christian faith but rather the acceptance of monotheism (2:19). These facts have led some scholars to suggest that the text is a Jewish homily lightly Christianized. But a number of features seem to speak of a Christian origin, especially the evidence of contacts with Christian parenetical tradition already noted and the discussion of “faith and works” in 2:14-26. The latter seems to presuppose an awareness of Paul’s teaching in Galatians 3 and Romans 4.

The fact that the author calls upon the authority of James the brother of the Lord, who died c. 62 CE, and the debate concerning faith and works suggest the period immediately after James and Paul, in the last third of the first century.

The reasons why most scholars believe James to be a pseudepigraph are explained by Kummel (Introduction to the New Testament, pages 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.” 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. 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? 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). 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.

The authenticity of James is also questioned/argued against by Udo Schnelle (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, pp. 385-386):

Nonetheless, there are weighty arguments against James the Lord’s brother as author of the Letter of James. Central themes of strict Jewish Christian theology such as circumcision, Sabbath, Israel, purity laws and temply play no role in this letter. James is numbered among the few New Testament writings in which neither Israel nor the Jews are mentioned by name. The reception of Old Testament figures (cf. James 2.21-25; 5.10-11, 17-18) and also the references to the Law in an exclusively ethical context were general practices possible anywhere within early Christianity. In contrast to the Antioch incident, the problem of Gentile Christians/Jewish Christians does not appear at all in the Letter of James. The far-reaching differences in soterioogy (see below 7.1.9) indicate that the author of the Letter of James cannot be identical with James the Lord’s brother, who according to Gal. 2.9 gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and explicitly acknowledged his proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles. In 1.1 the author designates himself δουλος θεου και κυριου Ιησου Ξριστου (servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ), and in 3.1 indicates that he is an early Christian teacher. To be sure, a special position and dignity is associated with the term δουλος (servant) in James 1.1., but it remains worthy of note that the author neither introduces himself as the Lord’s brother nor claims the title στυλος (cf. Gal. 2.9). By including himself in the large group of early Christian teachers (cf. Acts 13.1; 1 Cor. 12.28-29), he disclaims the special authority of the Lord’s brother or the three ‘pillars’ of the Jerusalem mother church, which were used in the Antioch conflict. In addition, James 3.1ff. presupposes an attack on the teaching office and a critical situation associated with it, which again does not correspond to the exclusive position of James the Lord’s brother in the history of early Christianity.
If James the Lord’s brother were the author of the Letter, then it is amazing that in James 5.10-11 it is Job and not Jesus who serves as an example of willingness to suffer. Also, the presupposed church situation and the polemic in James 2.14-26 point to a later time. The social conflicts within the community that become visible are paralleled especially in the writings of Luke, the Pastorals, and in Revelation. They are evidence of a fundamental social change that happened within the Christian community at the end of the first century. More and more wealthy people entered the church, the gulf between rich and poor church members became greater, and the debate between them grew sharper. In any case, the conflict concerning the unity of faith and works points to the post-Pauline period, as in the churches previously belonging to the Pauline mission field the unity of new being and new actions that Paul had considered self-evident came apart. The polemic of James does not fit Paul himself (see below 7.1.9), so that one must assume either that James the Lord’s brother was completely ignorant of Pauline theology or that we are dealing with a debate in post-Pauline times. The deuteropaulines and 2 Peter 3.15-16 docuemnt the fact that these debates in fact took place on very different levels and with distinct emphases. If the Letter of James were to have been writen by James the Lord’s brother, then it is remarkable that there is no reflection of the sharp criticism of Paul by James in the deuteropauline writings. Finally, the history of the canon speaks against James the Lord’s brother as author of the Letter of James. Prior to 200 CE there is no solid evidence of the literary use of James.
In the Muratorian Canon (ca. 200) James is missing, just as in Tertullian, and Eusebius (HE 2.23, 24b, 25) reports of James: ‘This is the story of James. He is supposed to be the author of the first of the so-called “Catholic Letters,” but let it be noted that its authenticity is doubted, since not many of the Elders have referred either to it or the so-called “Letter of Jude,” which likewise has been counted among the ‘Catholic Letters.’ Still, we are aware that these two letters, like the others, have been read aloud in most of the churches.’ The Letter of James began to be generally accepted only after 200 CE, cited for the first time as Scripture in Origen (Select Ps 30.6 [PG 12.1300]). The canonical status of James continued to be disputed, however, and did not attain general acceptance as a canonical document until very late. This would be an extraordinary development if James had really been written by James the brother of the Lord and this had been known in early Christianity.

James shows knowledge of parenetical tradition that uses sayings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels: 5:12 (compare Matt 5:36-37); 1:5, 17 (compare Matt 7:7-12); 1:22 (compare Matt 7:24-27); 4:12 (compare Matt 7:1); 1:6 (compare Mark 11:23-24). There is, further, parenetical material also used in 1 Peter: Jas 1:2-3 (compare 1 Peter 1:6-7); Jas 4:1-2 (compare 1 Pet 2:11). It is not that James necessarily knows the gospels or 1 Peter, but rather that there is a Christian parenetical tradition into which sayings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels have been taken up, although not in the form of sayings of Jesus, and of which both James and 1 Peter make use. Moral exhortation is very much the same throughout the various elements in a given culture. By the same token parenesis itself has little doctrinal concern, and James, a wholly parenetical work, has almost nothing distinctively Christian about it. Jesus Christ is mentioned only twice (1:1, 2:1), and both verses could be omitted without any harm to the flow of thought in the text. When the “coming of the Lord” is mentioned (5:7) there is nothing to denote the specifically Christian hope of the parousia; it could equally be a reference to the coming of the Lord God. “Faith” in this text is not specifically Christian faith but rather the acceptance of monotheism (2:19). These facts have led some scholars to suggest that the text is a Jewish homily lightly Christianized. But a number of features seem to speak of a Christian origin, especially the evidence of contacts with Christian parenetical tradition already noted and the discussion of “faith and works” in 2:14-26. The latter seems to presuppose an awareness of Paul’s teaching in Galatians 3 and Romans 4.

Oxford Annotated Bible: Scholars from ancient times to the present have questioned whether that James is the actual author. Jerome was aware of assertions the letter “was published under [James’s] name by another” (De Vir. Ill.: On Illustrious Men 2). The Greek literary style seems well beyond the capabilities of a Galilean villager. Between those who maintain direct authorship by Jesus’s brother and those who think the letter was only attributed to him, some have suggested that after James’s martyrdom (ca. 62 ce; Josephus, Ant. 20.200–203) his disciples reworked material originating from him to create the letter we know.