JAMES. See also JACOB.


  1. The Apostles and the Brother of Jesus.
    1. James the Son of Zebedee.
    2. James the Son of Alphĉus.
    3. James the Just.

        Brother, Step-brother, or Cousin of Jesus (§ 1).
        New-Testament Idea, Brother (§ 2).
        His Life and Work (§ 3).

  2. The Epistle of James.

      The Readers (§ 1).
      Aim, Contents, and Style (§ 2).
      Date, Canonicity, and Reception (§ 3).

I. The Apostles and the Brother of Jesus:

In the New Testament two, or better three, notable men bear the name of James.

1. James the Son of Zebedee: In the Synoptic Gospels this James appears only in close connection with his brother John. Their father pursued the calling of a fisherman on the Lake of Galilee (Mark i. 19; Matt. iv. 21-22), perhaps near Capernaum (cf. Luke v. 10 with iv. 31, 38), with his sons and with the help of hired servants (Mark i. 20). His wife, Salome, was one of those companions of Jesus who cared for the needs of his daily life (Mark xv. 41; Luke viii. 3). It is uncertain whether Salome was in any way related to Jesus, for it is doubtful if the sister of Jesus' mother (John xix. 25) can be identified with Salome (Mark xv. 40). Certain only is her pious devotion to Jesus, whom she faithfully followed in his wanderings through Galilee, on his last journey to Jerusalem, and also on his way to crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40). Her firm faith in the Messianic destiny of Jesus and her impetuous nature are shown in her somewhat rash prayer to the Lord that, in his kingdom, he should seat her sons on his right hand and on his left (Matt. xx. 20 sqq.). These characteristics she transmitted to her sons; of these, James seems to have been the elder, since in the lists of the Apostles and usually elsewhere he is named before John (Matt. x. 2; Mark ii. 17; cf. Luke vi. 14). It can not be determined from John i. 40 whether James had already come into contact with Jesus in the following of the Baptist at the Jordan;


the summary way, however, in which both brothers were called by Jesus to become his disciples, and the readiness with which they obeyed (Mark i. 19-20), make it appear probable that they were prepared for this summons. From that time they remained disciples of Jesus with all the burning zeal which characterized them. This zeal was not without its drawbacks; it could lead them into heartless fanaticism (Luke ix. 54) and also inspire unbridled ambition (Mark x. 35 sqq.); but it enabled them to endure resolutely the hardest sufferings with Jesus (Mark x. 35 sqq.). How highly Jesus appreciated their fervent nature is apparent in his applying to them the epithet "sons of thunder" (Mark iii. 17) and in his receiving them, with the equally impetuous Peter, into the inner circle of the twelve apostles (Mark v. 37, ix. 2, xiii. 3 sqq., xiv. 33 sqq.). After the departure of the Lord, however, James seems to have become less prominent. Nevertheless, he soon took precedence over the other apostles as the first who gave his life for the faith, since he was executed by order of Herod Agrippa I (Acts xii. 1, 2).

2. James, the Son of Alphĉus: This James is mentioned with this name in the four lists of the apostles (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13), but no other passage of the New Testament can be brought into connection with him or his family. Especially groundless is everything that has been asserted regarding a relationship of James Alphĉus (see ALPHĈUS) and his house to Jesus, based on the identity of the names Alphĉus and Cleophas. The statement of Hegesippus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III., xi.) that Cleophas was a brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus, can not be accepted, and the identification of the names Alphĉus and Cleophas can not be established. Possibly James Alphĉus is alluded to in Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xvi. 1, xv. 40; Luke xxiv. 10; if so, it may be inferred from these passages that James's mother was called Mary and belonged to the followers of Jesus, and that he had a brother called Joses, and that the epithet of "the little" was applied to him. Possibly this passage refers to another James of whom nothing further is known. It is altogether improbable, however, that in Luke vi. 16 and Acts i. 13 the designation "Judas of James" [R. V. "Judas the son of James" marg. or, "brother," as in A. V.] signifies that Judas was the brother of James Alphĉus, since this designation can only mean "Judas the son of James," and a combination of these passages with those in which a Mary is named as the mother of James and Joses is quite impossible. But neither the apostle Judas Lebbĉus (see JUDAS) nor Simon Zelotes is to be regarded as a brother of James Alphĉus. Nothing further is heard of James Alphteus, except the legend that he was active in the southwest of Palestine and in Egypt, and was crucified in Ostrakine, in Lower Egypt (Nicephorus, ii. 40).

1. Brother, Step-Brother or Cousin of Jesus.

3. James the Just: A James who was the Lord's brother, head of the community of Jerusalem, is mentioned as a different person from both the apostles in Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; Acts xii. 17, xxi. 18; I Cor. xv. 7; Gal. i. 19, ii. 9-12, as well as James i. 1; Jude 1. Also, outside of the New Testament, by Josephus (Ant. XX., ix. 1), Hegesippus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., II. 23), and other Church Fathers. The view of the early Church was that Jesus and this James were brothers, and James was distinguished from the two apostles of the same name. Clement of Alexandria expressly states that this view, which he himself rejected, was general in his time (Strom. vii. 93 sqq.). Tertullian refers to the marriage of Mary after the birth of Jesus and to the mention of his brothers in connection with her, as a proof of the reality of the humanity of Jesus (De monogamia, viii.; De carne Christi, vii.; "Against Marcion," 19). In the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 55, vi. 12, 13), besides the twelve apostles and Paul, James, the Lord's brother, is mentioned as one of the advocates of catholic doctrine, and he is reckoned among the seventy disciples. Eusebius counts fourteen apostles; the twelve, Paul and James (on Isa. xvii. 5; Hist. eccl., I., xii., II., i., VII., xix.), and when he once writes of James as the "so-called" brother of the Lord, the context shows that he is not suggesting a more distant relationship. When, however, the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary gained ground in the Church, the brotherly relationship between Jesus and James was transformed into the more distant one of stepbrother, this view appearing in several popular writings such as the Proto-Gospel of James (ix. 2), the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of pseudo-Matthew (viii. 4), the Gospel of Thomas (xvi.). and the History of Joseph (ii.). In the period after Epiphanius, the recognition of James as a son of Joseph and Mary is seldom met. On the other hand, the view of Origen, that James was a stepbrother of Jesus, was followed in the East by Ephraem, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, and later by Euthymius; in the West by Hilary, Ambrose, and Ambrosiaster. Alongside of this, however, arose the other opinion that the brothers of Jesus were cousins and were identical with the men of the same name among the apostles. It is possible that Clement of Alexandria entertained this view as well as the hypothesis that James was a stepbrother of Jesus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., II., 1). The first assured defender is Jerome, who, in his writings against Helvidius, expounds it, but practically abandons it in his Commentary on Isaiah (xvii. 6), in that he counts fourteen apostles: the twelve, Paul, and the Lord's brother, James. Ambrose and Augustine express themselves even more doubtfully. Gradually, however, the hypothesis of identification was more and more widely accepted in the West. In the Middle Ages it was the predominant theory. On the other hand, it found so little favor in the East that two different festival days, one for James the Just and the other for James Alphĉus, remained traditional.

2. New-Testament Idea, Brother.

The statements of the New Testament favor the view that James was a full brother of Jesus and the son of Mary. Matt. i. 25 and Luke ii. 7 imply that, after the birth of Jesus, a conjugal relation existed between Joseph and Mary and that they had children. Whenever in the Gospels brothers of Jesus are mentioned, they appear in such a


connection with Joseph and Mary, or with Mary alone, that they are clearly regarded as their children (John ii. 12; Matt. xii. 47; Mark vi. 3; Acts i. 14). The designation of Mary as the mother of Jesus, employed in these passages, implies that the word brothers is used in the same proper sense. They could not therefore have been stepbrothers of Jesus, sons of a former wife of Joseph or of a former husband of Mary, or foster-children of Mary (thus J. P. Lange); and just as little only cousins of Jesus and identical with the apostles James Alphĉus, Judas Lebbaeus, and Simon Zelotes. Moreover, nowhere in the New Testament is James the brother of the Lord called James Alphaeus, and nowhere is the word brother used in a sense of distant relationship. That James Alphĉus is a brother of the apostles Judas Lebbĉus and Simon Zelotes is absolutely excluded by the way in which they are named together, to be distinguished from other brothers who are alluded to in the same way. Besides this the brothers of the Lord are not only named alongside of the apostles as distinct from them (ut sup.), but they appear also as a circle, separate in every way from the disciples of Jesus (Matt. xii. 46; John vii. 5). Only after the departure of the Lord does there arise a closer companionship of the brethren of the Lord with the apostles, and James gains apostolic rank as head of the mother-church in Jerusalem, while still remaining distinct from the apostles (Gal. i. 19, ii. 9; I Cor. xv. 7).

3. His Life and Work.

The story of the material and spiritual life of James, the brother of the Lord, is quite clearly defined in its outlines. During the public ministry of Jesus, his brothers adopted a skeptical attitude, probably because they could not reconcile his lofty claims with the commonplace conditions in which they had lived together in their home. Jesus complains of a lack of recognition on the part of his own relatives (Mark vi. 4), and he could not count them as his spiritual kindred (Mark iii. 31-34) After the miracle of the loaves and fishes in the desert it seems that then the idea of his Messianic task may have dawned upon them, but the humility of his attitude prevented them from confidently believing in him. Even at the time of his Passion, the brothers seem to have separated themselves from his mother, who now believed in him (John xix. 27). Nevertheless, the superhuman patience with which Jesus went to his death may have won their hearts, especially that of James; for to him was vouchsafed an appearance of the risen Christ (I Cor. xv. 7), which affirmed his faith. He therefore appears after the ascension of the Lord as a member of the Christian community, wherein he won a leading position after the death of James, the son of Zebedee, and the flight of Peter. In general, his activity was confined to Jerusalem (Gal. i. 17). He took part in the council of the apostles with Peter and John as one of the three pillars of the Jewish-Christian Church (Gal. ii. 1 sqq.; Acts xv. 1 sqq.). There he showed himself free from the pharisaical and strictly legal views of the Judaizing opponents of Paul who desired to impose upon Gentile Christians the full observance of the Mosaic laws. At the same time he gave the hand of fellowship to Paul in proof of their thorough agreement on the basis of the Gospel. Nevertheless he considered it important that Jewish Christians should strictly observe the laws of their fathers and should require for these laws a certain respect on the part of the Gentile Christians. The standpoint of James also appears in the influence exerted by his friends in Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sqq.) upon Peter. The Ebionite party in the post-apostolic age endeavored to cover itself with the authority of James and to envelop him with a legendary atmosphere of glory. According to Epiphanius (Haer. XXX., xvi.), there were legends even of his ascension to heaven. Concerning the death of James there are two contradictory accounts. Hegesippus relates (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., II. 23) that he was thrown from the tower by the Pharisees, not long before the beginning of the Roman-Jewish war (cf. Zahn, Forschungen, vi. 235, Leipsic, 1900), therefore, about 66 A.D. According to Josephus (Ant. XX., ix. 1), however, the party of the Sadducees made use of the change in the proconsulship in 62 or 63 A.D. to have James stoned to death, against the will of the Pharisees. It is, however, strongly suspected that this passage of Josephus is an interpolation (Zahn, ut sup. vi. 301 sqq.). On the other hand, the date given by Hegesippus is supported by the pseudo-Clementine literature, according to which James survived Peter, and also by the Chronicon Paschale (p. 592), and therefore is to be preferred.

II. The Epistle of James:
1. The Readers.

This bears a title in the opening verse which names the writer and those for whom it was destined. To see in this only the dedication to a dogmatic writing, or a homily, is counter-indicated by the formal salutation common in Greek letters. Neither should it be assumed that this epistolary form only served the literary fiction of an unknown writer, nor that it is a title added to the writing about 200 A.D., since in both cases the author would probably have been called an apostle. Therefore, the words in the title "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" may well be used to determine the first readers. This expression, however, "the twelve tribes" is so specifically national and Israelitic that it can not be referred even figuratively to all Christianity. According to the title, therefore, the Epistle is addressed to the whole Jewish people outside of Palestine. This designation of the readers is limited, however, by the statement that the writer calls himself "a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ"; therefore he assumes that his readers recognize the authority of Jesus. Those readers are therefore neither Jewish and Gentile Christians nor Christians of Jewish and Gentile descent nor principally Gentile Christians; and just as little are they Jewish Christians within or without Palestine: they are Jewish Christians living outside of Palestine. They can, therefore, only be called the twelve tribes in the dispersion in the sense that they were the true Israel so far as it existed outside the Holy Land. These Jewish Christians living outside of Palestine


are not to be sought only in one place or in one limited district; indeed, the generalness and fulness of the expression "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" render it certain that all Jewish Christians living outside of Palestine were meant, and make it extremely probable that there already were such far and wide. The inferences from the title are not refuted by the letter itself, but partly confirmed. It is not justifiable to cite the silence of the author regarding the Law, the temple, and the unbelieving members of his race against the Jewish origin of the readers, because he is not altogether silent concerning the Law (ii. 8 sqq.) and had no occasion to speak of the temple and unbelieving Jews. That the readers are Christians and not Jews is to be seen from ii. 1, and the whole tone of the Epistle is opposed to a narrow local limitation of the circle of readers. In this epistle, not only is there no personal relation whatever between the writer and the readers, no special salutation, etc., but the conditions referred to are of a very general character. It is not, therefore, justifiable, because the conditions treated of in the Epistle of James appear to point more to Palestine than to the diaspora, to assume that the Epistle was originally addressed to the community of Jerusalem and was later sent to communities outside of Palestine. The Epistle of James is therefore not in the true sense of the word a letter, but rather an address in the form of a circular letter to all Jewish Christians within the pale of Christianity, which was already quite widely disseminated.

2. Aim, Contents, and Style.

What, however, the author recognizes as fundamental in the spiritual condition of his readers is the worldliness and superficiality of their Christianity. With the multifarious sufferings (i. 2) and the delay in the second coming of Christ (v. 7-8) they began to lose patience and their hearts were divided between God and the world (i. 7). Alongside of flattery to the rich, there is contempt for the poor (ii. 1 sqq.), there is also bitterness against the former (iv. 11, v. 9). Alongside of the prayer for means to satisfy their pleasures (iv. 3), there is impious security on the part of the well-to-do (iv. 13 sqq.). Stress is laid upon the profession of faith (ii. 14), which was a subject of wrangling and dispute, and every one was eager to impart instruction (chap. iii.); but there were few signs of application of faith to practical life. These conditions are not to be derived from Judaism so much as from a stagnation of the spiritual life succeeding to a period of loving enthusiasm. The aim and contents correspond to these spiritual conditions of the readers. After an exhortation to be steadfast and prudent in trials, there follows the lesson that the temptation to fail in the hour of trial proceeds from man's own sinful inclinations, not from God, the giver of all good, the author of regeneration by the word of truth (i. 13-18), and to this is attached the admonition to assimilate this word of truth in a humble and obedient spirit (i. 19-27). Later on there are special warnings against the errors and faults named above. The conclusion consists of various brief admonitions, v. 12-20. The simple style of the letter suits its practical contents admirably, following the method of the didactic writings of the Old Testament, in which the single proverbs are strung together in groups like rows of pearls. Instead of the precision of Paul's keen, logical thinking, there is found more rhetorical amplification. The Greek is comparatively pure, although there are not a few Hebraisms. While this Gospel is designated as a law, it is yet the perfect law of liberty (i. 25), not, like the law of the Old Testament, a heavy yoke but to be engrafted in the heart (i. 21), so that man, by his own initiative, responds to the divine will. Inasmuch as the Gospel is essentially identical with the law of the Old Testament, everything that concerns the person of the mediator of the new revelation is placed in the background, even the name of Christ is mentioned only twice, and the synoptic concepts of the Son of Man and the kingdom of heaven are lacking. Nevertheless, the moral teachings of Jesus, principally those of the Sermon on the Mount, are much more freely used than in any other writing of the New Testament. Therefore this epistle is somewhat in disaccord with the Apostle Paul, whose attention is directed more to that side of the Gospel which is in opposition to the Law. It has even been held that ii. 21, 24 (cf. with Rom. iii. 28, iv. 2; Gal. ii. 16) is in irreconcilable opposition to Paul; indeed, that it shows a conscious polemic against him. This difficulty can not be avoided by assuming that the Epistle of James was earlier than the Pauline epistles which contain the divergent propositions, which would not affect the objective difference; indeed the suspicion of conscious contradiction would merely be transferred from James to Paul. But this view of the chronological relation of the writings of Paul and James is untenable, for there is no indication that the formula "to be justified by faith" or the use of the passage Gen. xv. 6 in support of this, was common, as is assumed in this epistle, on the part of its readers. Indeed it remains doubtful whether the Epistle of James is intended to combat the standpoint of the Pauline epistles. In any case this epistle is in accord with Paul in what it really endeavors to prove, that is, that faith without works can not bring salvation (cf. II Cor. v. 10), and that a faith which does not find expression in moral conduct is utterly worthless (I Cor. xiii. 2). Paul regards works as unimportant for justification, while James looks upon works as a condition of justification. While Paul would not have said that there was a justification by the works of faith in the sense of the Epistle of James, because he has a stricter conception of what constitutes conduct well-pleasing to God, his idea of a moral righteousness of believers is approximately that of the Epistle of James. Therefore, there is, if not perfect agreement on this point between James and Paul, at least only an unessential and not an irreconcilable opposition in principle. It is generally recognized that the polemic of the Epistle of James is only directed against a distorted and one-sided Paulinism. The opinion that this epistle was designed to attack Paul's teaching, though unsuccessfully, is without foundation. What is combated is not any doctrine in itself, but only a false standard of


conduct. It denounces a lack of moral application of faith, dependent upon a formalizing of Christianity and palliated by a misuse of Pauline doctrine.

3. Date, Canonicity, and Reception.

These results show that the epistle should be placed in a relatively late period of the Apostolic Age when the Church had attained a considerable extent and Christian life had lost something of its first fresh vigor. It is not the earliest or even one of the earliest of the New-Testament writings. The synagogue [so the Am. R.V., i. 2] is not a Jewish one, as though a common use of the synagogue still existed with Jews and Christians; it is a meeting-place for Christians, which they control (ii. 3). The conception of the imminence of the Parousia (v. 8) appears even beyond the Apostolic Age. That the Epistle of James only addresses Jewish Christians does not prove that there were not also Gentile Christians, and if it contains more passages recalling the sayings of Jesus than any other of the Apostolic epistles, that is to be attributed to its theological character, and perhaps to the employment of written sources. Its use in the Church begins at an early period. It is probably cited in I Peter, in I Clement, in the Shepherd of Hernias, and by Justin Martyr. It was certainly used by Irenĉus, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus, and Ephraem, and it was also included in the Peshito version. Origen, who is the first to cite it expressly as a writing of James, the Lord's brother, looks upon it as uncanonical; Eusebius counts it among the antilegomena, and Theodore of Mopsuestia rejected it. Jerome says it was regarded as pseudonymous in the Latin Church, but he includes it among the canonical books, and his influence and Augustine's assured i ts acceptance as canonical. This view was not disputed until Erasmus expressed certain doubts. Luther thought it a "right strawy epistle" (recht stroherne Epistel), written by a certain pious man, and Cajetan expressed doubts as to its authenticity. Calvin defended it, but Luther's views were accepted by the Magdeburg Centuriators and by some Lutheran dogmatists, as well as by the Calvinist Wetstein. In modern times the opposition to its authenticity was begun by De Wette and Schleiermacher. Naturally no use could be made of the title in the debate as to the origin of the epistle on the assumption that it was added at a later period in order to gain for the epistle (really the work of an unknown author) acceptance in the canon through a title bearing the name of an apostle. Still less tenable is the hypothesis that the epistle, apart from the two (assumed as interpolated) mentions of Christ (i. 1 and ii. 1), was the work of an unknown Jew. The method of interpolation assumed is devoid of motive and without analogy. The introduction of Christian ideas into Jewish writings bearing the name of highly revered Jews is often met, but is entirely different from the attempt assumed here, to make the author of a Jewish writing appear to be a Christian. Besides this, much in the Epistle of James is clearly Christian, apart from the two supposed additions (i. 18-21, 25, ii. 8, 12, 14-26). If, then, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," was originally named as author of the epistle, there can be no doubt who is to be understood thereby. James, the son of Zebedee, of whom Jäger (Zeitschrift für lutherische Theologie, 1878) thinks as the author, was no longer living in the period after the beginning of Paul's mission (Acts xii. 2); James Alphĉus withdraws entirely into the background in this time, and either of them would have been designated as an apostle. The only James who is prominent in this period and needed no more precise designation is James, the Lord's brother, the head of the community of Jerusalem. And there are no imperative grounds for refusing to ascribe the epistle to him. The vacillation in the traditions of the early church as to the canonical acceptance of the epistle is explained by the facts that James was not an apostle; that he became the patron-saint of the Ebionites, and that the epistle seemed to contain a polemic against Paul. The author appears rather to have been a man of a practical turn of mind, pious and prayerful, who does not fail to recognize the essential superiority of the Gospel over the Law, but who, nevertheless, emphasizes the relationship of the morality of the former to that of the latter. All this perfectly suits James, the Lord's brother, as known through the New Testament and Hegesippus. It may therefore be assumed that James, the Lord's brother, wrote this pastoral letter in Palestine for the Jewish Christians outside of Palestine, at a time when the activity of Paul had ceased, either because of his captivity, or his death. For the Protevangelium of James see APOCRYPHA, B, I., 1.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the general topic consult: DB, ii. 540-548; EB, ii. 2317-26. On the three Jameses consult the histories of the Apostolic Age, e.g., Schaff, Christian Church, i. 199 sqq., 265 sqq., 272 sqq., et passim; A. C. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, Passim, New York, 1897. The question of the relationship of the third James to Jesus is discussed in DB, i. 320-326; by J. B. Lightfoot in his Commentary on Galatians, in a special section; in the Introduction to Mayor's Commentary on James (see below); in F. W. Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, chap. xix., London, 1884; in Schegg's commentary (see below); and often in the other commentaries. Consult also W. Patrick, James the Lord's Brother, Edinburgh, 1906. For the questions concerning the authenticity, date, contents, etc., of the epistle consult in general the works on Introduction to the New Testament--especially those of Jülicher, 1894 Eng, transl., Edinburgh, 1904; T. Zahn, 1900; and B. W. Bacon, 1900--and those on New Testament theology, especially that of Beyschlag, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1896. Works on special topics are: W. G. Schmidt, Léhregehalt des Jakobusbriefes, Leipsic, 1869; P. J. Gloag, Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, Edinburgh, 1887 W. C. van Manen, in ThT, xxviii (1894), 478-496; A. H. Cullen, Teaching of James; Studies in the Ethics of the Epistle of James, London, 1904; M. Meinertz, Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser, Freiburg, 1905.

Of commentaries on the epistle the best for English readers is by J. B. Mayor, London, 1897. Others which may be mentioned are: W. Augusti, Lemgo, 1801; J. W, Greshof, Essen, 1830; M. Schneckenburger, Stuttgart, 1832; G. W, Theile, Leipaic, 1833; C. R. Jachmann, ib. 1838; F. H. Kern, Tübingen, 1838; C. A. Scharling, Copenhagen, 1841; C. E. Cellérier Geneva, 1850; A. Neander, Eng. transl., New York, 1852; A. Wiesinger, Königsberg, 1854; De Wette, Leipsic, 1865; F. Graupp, Breslau, 1861; R. Wardlaw, Edinburgh, 1862; H. Boumann, Utrecht, 1865; A. H. Blom, Dort, 1869; H. Ewald, Göttingen, 1870; J. C. C. Hoffmann, Nördlingen, 1875; H. Alford, Greek Testament, vol. iv., London, 1877; E. H.


Plumptre, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1878; J. T. Demarest, New York, 1879; D. Erdmann, Berlin, 1888; K. F. Keil, Leipsic, 1883; P. Schegg, Munich, 1883; W. Beyschlag, Göttingen, 1888; A. F, Manoury, Bar-le-Duc, 1888; C. F. Deems, New York, 1889; E. T. Winkler, Philadelphia, 1889; A. Plummer, in Expositor's Bible, London, 1891; B. Weiss, in TU, viii. 2 (1892); P. Feine, Eisenach, 1893; J. Adderley, London, 1900; W. H. Bennett, in Century Bible, ib. 1901; C. A. Bigg, ib. 1902; C. Brown, ib. 1906; F. J. Taylor, Fourteen Addresses, ib. 1907.


CCEL home page
This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at
Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL.
Calvin seal: My heart I offer you O Lord, promptly and sincerely