The view which will be held about the date of the Epistle of James will depend very largely upon the interpretation of the passage about faith and works. James 2:14-26. In that passage, some of the same terms appear as are prominent in connection with the great Judaistic controversy in which Paul was engaged from the time of the Apostolic Council to the time of the third missionary journey. Three views have been held with regard to the date of the Epistle of James. The epistle may be regarded as written (1) before the Judaistic controversy arose, (2) during that controversy or while it was still fresh in men's minds, or (3) long after the controversy had been settled.
(=1=) =The Intermediate Date.=--The second of these three views may be eliminated first. This intermediate view has the advantage of placing the epistle within the lifetime of James. It can treat the epistle as authentic. It has furthermore the advantage of explaining the coincidences between James 2:14-26 and Rom., ch. 4. For if the epistle was written at the very close of the lifetime of James--say about A. D. 62, or, following Hegesippus, A. D. 66--the author may have become acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans.
But the difficulties of this view far overbalance the advantages. If James was writing with Galatians and Romans before him, then apparently in ch. 2:24 he intends to contradict those epistles. As a matter of fact, however, as is shown in the Student's Text Book, he does not really contradict them, but is in perfect harmony with them. He has therefore gone out of his way in order to introduce a formal contradiction of the great apostle to the Gentiles although there is no real contradiction of meaning at all! What could he possibly gain by such useless trouble-making? If James really wanted to combat Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, he would have done so very differently; and if he did not want to combat it, he would certainly not have uselessly created the appearance of doing so.
Perhaps, however, James 2:14-26 is a refutation not of Paul but of a misunderstanding of Paul. This also is very improbable. If the passage was a refutation not of Paul but of a misunderstanding of Paul, why did James not say so? Why did he not distinguish Paul clearly from his misinterpreters? Instead he has indulged uselessly in a formal contradiction of Paul, and has in refutation of a misunderstanding of Paul not even used the abundant materials which Paul himself could offer! And where was such a misunderstanding of Paul possible in Jewish Christian circles of A. D. 62?