The first of the Catholic Epistles in the original ordering of the canon, James has not managed well in the history of interpretation. One might assume that since James is currently in the canon, that canonicity has never been debatable for the epistle. This position is not the case. The canonicity of the Epistle of James has been the subject of dispute for centuries in church history. Scholars have called it everything from disputed and antilegomena by early church fathers, to a “right strawy epistle”  by Martin Luther.  These conclusions were not based on their subjective opinion but had a basis on limited corroborating evidence at the time. Take for instance the fact that James was not a part of the Muratorian Fragment, which is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of New Testament books. This first New Testament list of books is dated to about AD 180 and lists 22 of the 27 books that were later included in the New Testament.  It is worthy to note that the Muratorian Canon omits additional epistles that later won approval in the New Testament such as 2 Peter and Hebrews. However, for this early document James does not make the list.  So why is it included later and not always included? Moreover, what evidence is there for James’ inclusion in the canon? 
We must begin asking these kinds of questions because this is where the early church began. The early church practiced critical discernment in affriming which letters carried with them apostolic weight. They did not straight away accept any book or letter that claimed apostlic authorship. There were many false documents and letters floating around written by forgers who would sign an apostle’s name to their work. Pseudepigrapha is a falsely-attributed work, whose claimed the author is not the actual author. The early church practice of strict discernment concerning apostolic originality and exposing these forgeries is advantageous to James’ authenticity. Since James was slow to be awarded inclusion into the canon, it has been scrutinized and checked again and again. Moreover, James is not alone, the same holds true among five other books of the New Testament. Perhaps these questions of authenticity are best answered employing the science of Biblical criticism of the epistle which will include internal evidence of authorship, the background of the author, audience. 
The Epistle of Jame has been shrouded in controversy, and there are those who historically have argued canonical inclusion. This debate has left the Epistle a disputed book or antilegomena for centuries. A common presupposition would be that since James is currently in the canon that its canonicity has never been debatable. However, James was not a part of the Muratorian Fragment which is a copy of the oldest recognized list of most of the books of the New Testament. 
To demonstrate the epistle’s rightful inclusion into the Bible analysis will begin with employing higher criticism of the epistle including authenticity of authorship, audience, and dating of the composition. If James were written by someone other than the Apostle James a strong argument could be made against James' inclusion in the canon. Scholarly arguments against pseudonymity for the book of James will also be reviewed.  We should employ these methodologies not only for proper hermeneutical understanding but also to for the goal to become a better apologeticist of Scripture. Next, it will be helpful to study both the affirmations and reservations of factual statements made by the early church fathers concerning James. Echoes of James can is found in these early Apostolic Fathers. In a logical progression, this project must also examine the early the concerns Protestant reformers had regarding James. Most notably of these is Martin Luther, who questioned the epistle's inclusion in the Bible based on his perception of James’ lack of harmony with Paul on justification. The writing of James should be compared to other books of the Bible to be understood within its canonical context. An investigation of the most conventional views of the relationship between James and Paul will demonstrate that James writes from within Paulinism rather than opposition. A thorough exegetical comparison and examination of both Paul’s and James’ scriptural statements and positions must be conducted as well. The Bible can withstand our questions if we are asking them objectively. By studying and asking the same questions of those in early church history we can grow in our knowledge of the Bible’s salvific meaning and develop sound doctrine.
