"But the cumulative effect argues for a date no later than 49 CE. But as we suggested earlier (and will develop later), there is a good possibility that Herods persecution of Christians, which began with James (the son of Zebedee) execution, is in the background of, and provides part of the occasion for, this epistle. If this is true, then a date no earlier than 44 CEand probably not much laterwould be most fitting. It is our tentative conclusion that James was written, therefore, c. 44-45 CE, making it the earliest writing in the New Testament canon."
www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1361
gnsb: Wallace also lists words of Jesus in the Gospels found in James.
"4) Similarities with the teaching of Jesus: there are more parallels in this Epistle than in any other New Testament book to the teaching of our Lord in the Gospels.10 The parallels to the Sermon on the Mount are especially acute:11
1:2 Joy in the midst of trials Matt. 5:10-12
1:4 Exhortation to perfection Matt. 5:48
1:5 Asking for good gifts Matt. 7:7ff.
1:20 Against anger Matt. 5:22
1:22 Hearers and doers of the Word Matt. 7:24ff.
2:10 The whole law to be kept Matt. 5:19
2:13 Blessings of mercifulness Matt. 5:7
3:18 Blessings of peacemakers Matt. 5:9
4:4 Friendship of the world as
enmity against God Matt. 6:24
4:11-12 Against judging others Matt. 7:1-5
5:2ff. Moth and rust spoiling riches Matt. 6:19
5:10 The prophets as examples Matt. 5:12
5:12 Against oaths Matt. 5:33-37
www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1361
gnsb: If we accept Wallace's date of c. 44-45 CE as the date of the composition of James, then this could push the date of Matthew and Mark before 44 A.D. possibly even to 40 A.D. Of course, Wallace believes the tradition was oral at this time. I reject that view. I see no reason why the gospels of Matthew and Mark could not have been written down at that time. Especially from the fact that Jesus originally spoke his sayings in Hebrew/Aramaic and the parallels between the epistles and gospels are so close in Greek that it seems that the gospels of Matthew and Mark had to have been already written down in greek by this time.
eurythumis: Again, it remains inconclusive, and at best you (or anyone else) can state a theoretical preference, but not much else.
gnsb: You are right in the sense that I can't prove my point with infallible proof. However, I do not understand the insistence of certain scholars that the Gospel tradition at that time was "oral tradition" and not written. What "proof" do they have that it was "oral?" If the sayings of Jesus were just "oral tradition" at that time I would imagine translating those sayings from Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek "orally" for 20 years or more would have produced so many different forms of the sayings of Jesus that it would simply "boggle" our minds. The true words of Christ would never be known even as some of the Neo-orthodox and Liberal theologians have been arguing for for decades now. I say, no, a thousand times no!!!!!!!!1
However, if the sayings of Jesus [Gospels of Matthew and Mark] were in written form at that early time as I believe they were this would much better explain the close parallels between say Mk.16:15 and Col. 1:23, etc, etc, etc. Then Paul & James would be quoting, alluding to, and reproducing "written" Gospel accounts in their epistles. The "written" accounts would "preserve" the integrity, accuracy, and truth of the Gospel for all generations.
