James The Just - Modern Interpretation

Modern Interpretation

Modern historians of the early Christian churches tend to place James in the tradition of Jewish Christianity; where Paul emphasized faith over observance of Mosaic Law, which he considered a burden, an antinomian disposition, James is thought to have espoused the opposite position, which is derogatively called Judaizing. One corpus commonly cited as proof of this are the Recognitions and Homilies of Clement (also known as the Clementine literature), versions of a novel that has been dated to as early as the 2nd century, where James appears as a saintly figure who is assaulted by an unnamed enemy some modern critics think may be Paul. Scholar James D. G. Dunn has proposed that Peter was the "bridge-man" (i.e. the pontifex maximus) between the two other "prominent leading figures": Paul and James the Just.

Traditional Christian theologians have maintained likewise that the two held the same beliefs; evangelicals claim that James's talk of works referred to works that God produced in Christians as evidence of conversion (as Paul himself assumes that works will follow faith). On the other hand, Orthodox and Catholic theologians claim that Paul did not discount the importance of works (citing passages such as Romans 6 and 8) and that James was not referring to ceremonial works of the Torah (citing the fact that at the First Council of Jerusalem, James declared that only a small portion of the Torah should be applied to Gentile converts).