James v. Paul

Paul called James (known as James the Just), the brother of Jesus, an "apostle." (Gal. 1:19, "Other of the apostles I saw none, except James, the brother of the Lord.")

Jesus made James one of the pillars of the church. Clement, an early Christian leader, in his book Hypotyposes said that "the Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the Apostles, and the rest of the Apostles to the 70, of whom Barnabas was one." (Eusebius, Church History II, i. 2-4, quoting Clement in the 4th Century.)

Also, Peter and John chose James the Just to lead the 12. Clement said in the same work: "For they say that Peter, James and John after the Ascension of our savior, as if also preferred by our Lord, did not strive after honor, but chose James the Just the Bishop of Jerusalem." Eusebius, id. See also Mark Kern, The Life of the Apostle Paul (2014) at 25.

Did James, Jesus' brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem, to whom Jesus imparted important knowledge after the Resurrection that was then spread among the 12 and then the 70, write his epistle to address flaws in Paul's writings, as we said in Jesus Words Only?

Augustine in 412 AD wrote that James' epistle, along with 1 John and 2 Peter were aimed to refute the faith alone doctrine found in Paul's writings, which Second Peter attributed to Paul's writings being "hard to understand" "nonsense" or "unintelligible" -- the three meanings of the Greek word dysnoetas in 2 Peter 3:16. So Augustine, after explaining that criticism of Paul by Apostle Peter, explained:

"Apostolic Epistles of [Second] Peter, John, James and Jude direct their aim chiefly against it" [i.e., faith alone doctrine from Paul's "difficult to understand" words] so as to maintain with vehemance that faith without works profits not."  (Augustine, Faith and Works (republished 1847) at 57.)

There was nothing subtle about this point in James' Epistle. Luther wrote:

“Many sweat hard at reconciling James with Paul, but unsuccessfully. ‘Faith justifies’ [Romans 3:28] stands in flat contradiction to ‘faith does not justify’ [James 2:24.] If anyone can harmonize these sayings, I’ll put my doctor’s cap on him and let him call me a fool.”

Quoted in Jason Van Vliet, Ed., Living Waters from Ancient Springs: Essays in Honor of Cornelis Van Dam (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011) at 103.  

In F.F. Powell's Robbing Peter to Pay Paul (2009) at 67, Powell aptly says: "James obviously believes that Paul is adding an erroneous tenet to the gospel."

Hence, there is good reason to believe James' Epistle is directed at Paul's writings, and at least that is how it was being typically construed in that much earlier era, the same as today.  

STUDY NOTES 

Some think they have solved the contradiction between James and Paul by claiming Paul had two senses of the word works. For example, Daniel Fuller in The Unity of the Bible (Zondervan: 2010) at xcviii smugly says “But Luther (and Calvin) did not enjoy the benefits of the rather recent movement in Biblical theology and so were apparently unaware that Paul used ‘works’ in two different senses,” and thus Luther “unfortunately repudiated James as subcanonical.” 

However, Fuller’s claim is besides the point. Paul says “faith justifies” (Romans 3:28.) James says “faith without works does not justify” (James 2:17). Because Paul does not use the word works in the verse at issue, Paul’s usage of the word works elsewhere does not matter. It is James’ usage that matters. James is saying that such a claim that “faith justifies” is certainly deficient in something: works. He then uses Abraham’s work of obedience with Isaac as the kind of work he has in mind that justifies. I am certain works in Paul means at least the kind of work that James had in mind. And so does every evangelical pastor of renown. Hence, if Paul had a second meaning of works, it is irrelevant. The question is did James have a reasonably correct understanding, and did James intend to contradict that. The answer is obvious.