The commentary on James' epistle is written both with general information about James' time as well as consideration of who others have suggested was really the author and time of writing. Moo presents his own thesis that James is a response to a misinterpretation of Paul's teaching of salvation by faith alone (34).
Moo implements his purpose first by maintaining the canonicity of the Epistle of James (40-43). He then summarizes and evaluates the differing opinions of this epistle, trying to reconcile them by suggesting that when James spoke of "faith" he had in mind a slightly different definition of the word than Paul did. They also used the word differently, as Moo notes that James and Paul were addressing faith in different contexts (45); Paul was answering the question "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30) James was answering the question "What should we do now that we are saved?" Even the thief on the cross performed a good work and confessed Jesus Christ with his lips.
While Moo outlines the epistle, in his commentary he expresses doubt about it having any organization. He gives the actual Greek words James used and translates them, showing their connection to and use in other places in the Bible. He also notes occasions when James uses unique phrases or constructions, especially ones that are similar to James' speech in Acts 15:13-21. The importance of this is that it helps settle the question of authorship, since this speech is given by James the brother of Jesus after James the apostle is martyred.
One key element of the method Moo uses that is both unique and problematic is his use of apocrypha in comparisons. This is useful when, for example, he notes that the "implanted word" of James 1:21 has one other parallel, in Wisdom 12:10, which helps explain its meaning by context. He also qualifies his use of the apocrypha by noting that it is "dubious biblical support" (80).
Perhaps the major criticism o...