cannot come from an informed contemporary. A minimal awareness of modern political discourse should suffice to sink that idea. To sum up the previous pages: although not all of the arguments marshaled to deny authorship by the brother of Jesus have merit, (ii)–(v), taken together, tip the scale. Hence this commentary adopts the thesis that James is a pseudepigraphon. As for the date of James, opinion is here, as on so much else, remarkably diverse. Here is a sampling: Harnack 120–50 Spitta before