James B. Adamson. The Epistle of James. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Adamson studied under both C. H. Dodd and C. F. D. Moule, and his commentary reflects the careful study expected of one with this pedigree. Adamson argues that the style, content, and structure of the letter reflect the teaching of Jesus as transmitted through James, his brother. The letter betrays not only the environment of Palestine, but also “the home bond between James and Jesus.” This is a good commentary, but is beginning to feel dated.
Peter H. Davids. The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NICGT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. This is a stimulating commentary, bristling with insights, particularly concerning the Jewish backgrounds relative to the thought of James. Davids argues that the letter reflects the conditions of Palestine before the Jewish War of A.D. 66–70. It was composed of homilies and maxims that originated with James, the brother of Jesus. He is less certain than most that James is trying to combat a Pauline or misunderstood Pauline position. Davids sees the letter organized around three great themes introduced in the double opening: rich and poor; tongue and speech; trials and wealth. While there is much to commend this view, we must admit that much of what Davids claims relates to the tongue in 3:1–4:12 is of a far more varied nature. Nonetheless, this is a splendid commentary.
Peter H. Davids. James. Good News Commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983. A shorter, more popular commentary than his 1982 publication. Given its limitations, it is a fine work; if only one of Davids’ commentaries can be chosen, the other is preferable.
D. E. Hiebert. The Epistle of James: Tests of a Living Faith. Chicago: Moody, 1979. Hiebert’s fine commentary is intended for the student who does not know Greek but who is nonetheless serious. Hiebert sees James’s chief emphasis as the testing of faith. He argues that the letter was written by James, the brother of Jesus, about A.D. 46.
Sophie Laws. The Epistle of James. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1980. While hardly brief (273 pages), this spare commentary conveys an enormous amount of helpful information and observations with a minimum of extraneous material. Laws argues for a relatively late date and pseudonymous authorship. She believes the letter was written from Rome and is reacting to a misunderstood Pauline position on the matter of faith and deeds. Laws provides no outline for the letter, following Dibelius in seeing it as a collection of ill-fitting units of material. She does argue for a theological basis upon which its rigorous ethical teaching rests, and sees a chief contrast between the doubleness of human beings and the singleness of God. In general this is an insightful and fair-minded resource.
Ralph P. Martin. James. WBC. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1988. This commentary from a distinguished scholar and former professor at Fuller Theological Seminary is richly knowledgeable and luxuriantly detailed. Martin is taken with the theory that James represents a tension involving the poor (with whom he has great sympathy) and the rich (whom he condemns); but James does not go far as to embrace the violent revolutionary plans of the Zealots. Martin has surveyed all of the relevant material and offers the benefit of his shrewd and balanced judgment. This is a first-class commentary.
C. L. Mitton. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966. This dated commentary is nonetheless able to yield worthwhile observations. Mitton points out that James has been subjected to dismissive treatment and seeks to rehabilitate the letter. He does so by pointing out connections between the teaching of James and that of Jesus, Paul, and even John. He also believes that the letter was written by James, the brother of Jesus, and for the benefit of Jewish Christian visitors to Jerusalem. Like others who wish to be responsible for the evidence in James that supports an early composition as well as that which supports a late composition, Mitton argues for a two-stage development.
J. A. Motyer. The Message of James: The Test of Faith. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1985. Motyer offers the intriguing observation that the control of the tongue is introduced in 1:26 and then expanded in 3:1–12, and the care of the needy is introduced in 1:27 and then expanded in 2:1–26, thus forming a chiastic structure. This is a serviceable commentary, but one that places too much emphasis on the role of biological metaphors in James.
Douglas J. Moo. The Letter of James: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. This is a brief but helpful commentary based on the NIV text. Moo teaches at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
J. H. Ropes. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1916. This commentary remains a good resource for investigations of the Greek text of James. Commentary on the argument and thematic content of James, already sparse, is now out of date. Ropes argues for late pseudonymous authorship.
E. M. Sidebottom. James, Jude, 2 Peter. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. This commentary by a well-known scholar takes the position that James was written in the context of the flood tide of Pauline Christianity. Sidebottom argues that James, the brother of Jesus, is responsible for the letter, and that it was written in the decade before the Jewish War of A.D. 66–70.
George M. Stulac. James. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993. This recent effort by the pastor of Memorial Presbyterian Church in St. Louis is both fresh and helpful, although it is directed towards those who have not mastered Greek. The series is intended for use in the church by “pastors, Bible teachers, and small group leaders.”