BOOK OF JAMES REVISITED:
1.
As to the Lord's Brother ...
> Studious say: Actually; on the book of James, the history of James' epistle
> is not known enough to set in stone.
.
textman answers: Dear Studious, I tend to agree. Indeed, I would say that as far as biblical scholarship in general goes, it is not known at all. btw: thx for writing. Your interest in the book of James is much appreciated. I'm glad to see that you did your homework before posting a reply. Such consideration goes a long way with me ...
.
> The author of the epistle is not certainly written by James the brother of Jesus;
> but there are several clues that point to this.
.
Oh yeah? And what might those be?
.
> Now; there are four men named James in the new Testament.
.
Are these supposed to be the "clues" you just mentioned? How so?
Shouldn't you maybe first explain this before proceeding?
.
> 1 - James, the father of Judas (not Iscariot) mentioned twice [Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13] this James was
> very old when the epistle was written and probably dead.
.
Well, I can certainly see how being dead would make it *rather* difficult to write anything.
.
> 2 - James, the son of Alphaeus [Mat 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, and Acts 1:3, and listed in Mark 15:40 as
> 'James the Less' ]. This James was listed with the Disciples, but nothing else is known about him; and it is
> unlikely that he authored the epistle because he was not known to be active in Jesus' ministry.
.
I see. So because we know nothing about him and his activities, this means that he didn't know how to write?
.
> 3 - James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John [Mt 4:21, 10:2, 17:1, Mark 3:17, 10:35, 13:3,
> Luke 9:54, and Acts 1:13]. This James was very active in Jesus' ministry, but since he was martyred
> in 44AD [Acts 12:2 ] he was probably not alive to author the epistle.
.
Unless he wrote it before he died? ... Assuming, that is, that your proposed dating is just a few years off maybe? I admit that my dating of various NT books could be off by a few years; but you will not do likewise? Who is 'setting things in stone' now?
.
> 4 - James, the Lord's brother [Mat 13:55, Mark 6:3, Gal 1:19].
> This James was one of the pillars of the church in Jerusalem.
.
So you begin with a list of the 4 James' mentioned in the Bible, and proceed to evaluate their likelihood as the author of our unfortunate 'epistle'. Apparently, you did not notice that you are making the same mistake as your critical predecessor. What mistake? The mistake of assuming that our author must be someone who is mentioned in the Bible. Why do you suppose this? You can accept that the scriptures mention people who never wrote anything? You can accept that not everyone of substance is mentioned therein (4X: Alexander the Great)? Surely you don't believe that in all the ancient world only these four men were gifted with the name of James, do you? No? Then whence comes this list of four James'? Don't you think it even remotely possible that our James is NOT mentioned in the Bible?
.
Look, you're not going to find this prophet mentioned elsewhere for the simple reason that Jm is one of the last NT books to be written (c.115CE). If Jm was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (70CE), or soon after, don't you think that someone, anyone, would have made note of the fact? Even in those hectic times, how could such a document simply 'remain hidden' for so many decades without just one literate believer making a footnote of it? Where are the witnesses? The earliest witness we have to Jm is Origen (the father of biblical studies who died in 254CE)! Doesn't this fact mean anything to you? It certainly doesn't mean anything to the bible-scholars!
.
And let me tell you something else: everything we need to know about the prophet-slave James is given to us in the book bearing his name. Nothing more is needed or required! I strongly suggest that you carefully consider all this before proceeding any further on false and ridiculous assumptions. I would also like to warn you, and all of our Readers, NOT to place your trust so easily in the Jamesian scholars. They are all of them, almost without exception, baboons! Read them, yes; but be damn sure to question everything they say... and don't say.
.
> [Acts 12:17, 15:13-21, 21:18, Gal 2:9&12] Tradition points to his authorship of the epistle,
> and this best fits the scriptural evidence.
.
What "evidence" are you referring to please? ... In any case, the mere fact that there was a "pillar" by the name of James certainly explains where the tradition came from, but neither the pillar nor the tradition, in and of themselves, can qualify as compelling evidence if the text of Jm does not support this possibility. ... The question then becomes:
Does Jm suggest that this pillar is, in fact, the author? ... My answer is a very clear and resounding 'NO FRAGGIN WAY, JOSE!'
.
> There are several clear parallels in the language and grammar used by this James
> and the James who also drafted a letter in Acts 15:23-29.
.
My dear Studious, your constant and predictable and tiresome use of Lk-Acts as 'evidence' impresses me NOT AT ALL. If you wish to discuss Luke, please take this article elsewhere, as I have no wish whatsoever to confuse two separate and distinct books. If you want to discuss the Book of James, then lets do so at once. Please do not drag Lk-Acts into someplace where it does NOT belong. It's just too much like using Luke as 'evidence' in pauline studies. That is, it's great for creating much confusion and error, but I really don't see how confuse and error helps us to understand Paul ... or James!
.
> The same very unusual word 'chairein' which means "greeting" is used only by James the brother of Jesus
> in Acts 15:23 and 23:26; and by James who wrote this epistle in James 1:1.
.
Let me get this straight now: the author of the letter in Acts is James (the Lord's brother), and this same author also wrote Jm because both books use the Greek word 'greeting'. Is that right? ... Oh brother! It's no wonder Jamesian scholarship is in such a dismal condition. There's only one thing we can do with logic like this: DUMP IT ON THE DOUBLE!
.
> Also; the Jewish character of the epistle of James lends itself to having been written by
> a member of the tribe of Judah,
.
OR the racial/ethnic heritage of the author is utterly irrelevant next to the far more significant fact that he is very self-consciously a Christian; and the supposed "Jewish character" of the book could stem from the fact that the prophet James was very well versed in the LXX (as only a passionate believer can be), and was a part of a Christian
community/assembly/synagogue that grew out of a strong and vibrant Jewish-Hellenistic culture; such as the one in Alexandria. Which produced such giants as Philo - who is perhaps the very author of the Book of Wisdom [which just happens to be the last of the holy books to be finished before Paul and Silvanus and Timothy first set foot on
Macedonian soil, and forever changed the course of church history by initiating the process that would soon land them in mighty Athens (the birthplace of the New Testament!) and the first draft of the first letter to a brand new pagan assembly in Thessalonika ... ]
.
> and references to the law and to the sermon on the mount [Jm 4:11-12, and 5:12 ] shows
> the probable direct influence of the living Christ.
.
OR it shows that the prophet James was well versed in the LXX, AND had a deep and thorough knowledge of the Gospels (and many other so-called canonical and non-canonical documents as well).
.
> The brevity and the doctrinal emphasis of James kept it from wide circulation, and by the time it came to be
> known to the church as a whole there was some confusion about the identity of James; the author of this epistle.
.
There can be no doubt that subsequent generations were confused about the author, but to explain this by proposing that Jm was stuck in limbo for a century or more is sheer fabrication that goes against everything we know about Jm. The mere fact that the book is included in the NT clearly demonstrates that Christians could easily see that this 'epistle' was inspired. This recognition was there right from the start. How could it possibly be otherwise? Moreover, your suggestion that brevity and doctrine hampered circulation is utter nonsense. The example of Paul alone is proof of that!
> Studious writes: There is some disagreement by Bible scholars on when the epistle
> was written; but the best estimates we have center around 45-66AD.
.
textman say: LOL. Yeah, right. Just before the beginning of the Jewish Wars that led to the destruction of the Holy City and the Temple. I guess that would account for the fact that James doesn't dwell on these things either?
.
> Some scholars even believe that it was the first epistle written because it makes no mention of the gentiles
> or their relationship with the Jews; which would have been expected in the later epistles;
.
Ah, well now, that all depends on where as much as on when. Thus in Alexandria the height of the conflict surrounding the 'parting of the ways' occurred c.100CE. The Gospel of John is our testimony to the bitterness of this feud. But for the following generations of believers, the Greco-Roman Christian churches will be well established in the major urban centers of the Empire, and the recent battlings with the rabbis like unto ancient history. Thus very few of the second century Christian documents dwell at length on the Jewish problem. So it is not at all surprising that Jm is not concerned with 'Jews & Gentiles' ... Neither is much of the other Christian writings that now explode into the second century. Besides various Scriptures, the most notable contributions are from the Gnostics and the so-called Greek Apologists. In any case, it was very exciting (and very abundant) times for faithful Christian writers, and soon the church in Alexandria could also boast of being home to 'the Aquinas of the Classical World' ...
.
> the view of Christianity as wholly Messianic Judaism;
.
Do you have any evidence from Jm to back up this claim that it is "wholly Messianic Judaism". It seems to me that such a distorted view of the book is sheer projection. ... Yes? No? Maybe? :)
.
> the teachings of Christ have little verbal agreement with the synoptic Gospels suggesting that
> it was written before the Gospels;
.
On the contrary, it suggests that James and his auditors knew and loved the Gospels so well that even the most casual paraphrase would be immediately understood by all. ... By all, that is, except modern Bible scholars! The problem stems from the fact that most Christians today are horribly ignorant of the Scriptures; and they certainly have very little, if any, spiritual passion for the Word of God. This was most definitely not the case for the early Greek churches! Even a passing reference to the 'glory of Christ' would immediately bring to mind the whole of John's magnificent Gospel. Today, however, it is not only necessary to explain the link, but almost impossible to even convince anyone that there really is a link there after all, by golly ...
.
> the preference of 'synagogue' to 'church';
.
This only proves that the former term had deep roots in the traditions of the Alexandrian Christians; which is precisely what one should expect from an assembly/synagogue that grew out of the Jewish-Hellenistic culture in Greco-Roman Egypt.
.
> and the fact that he doesn't mention the Acts 15 council in Jerusalem. (49AD)
.
I see no reason why James should make reference to such a distant event that meant nothing to his people. Do the other so-called 'catholic epistles' mention the Jerusalem Council? ... No? Does this mean that they too must have been written before 49CE? No? Then why change the rules of evidence just for Jm?
.
>>> YM1 wrote: In spite of the "higher critics", James, the brother of Jesus
>>> is the most likely writer of the Book of James.
.
>> textman replied: This is indeed the traditional view, but (it should be pointed out) it is NOT one shared
>> by the majority of competent Bible scholars today. Check it out.
.
> Studious: Actually, I have checked it out, and have been doing so for years; and the competant Bible scholars
> that I have contacted have shared the information with me that I shared above.
.
Your information appears to be slightly outdated. The most recent commentaries (4X: see the recent and highly regarded 'Interpretation' series of commentaries; the volume on 'First and Second Peter, James, and Jude' by Pheme Perkins, 1995) generally tend to push the date closer to 75-85CE. This is because most scholars now realize that *some* time is required to pass in order that Paul's epistles (which James obviously knew very well) get written and collected and well known to the churches in general. These things did not occur overnight, so to speak. In other words, the dates you gave above - 45-66AD - do not allow enough time for all this to happen, and therefore do great violence to the historical process.
.
>>> YM1: The Book of James was the first in a group of epistles generally called catholic epistles. Catholic in
>>> the sense that they are universal and written to the church as a whole.
.
>> tx: How one cares to group Jm has little bearing on its particular nature. Moreover, the fact that Jm was not
>> written for any one specific church strongly suggests that it was written in the second century rather than
>> the first, since the bulk of the so-called catholic epistles are the latest additions to the Christian scriptures.
.
> Studious: Actually; I would say that the reason it does not mention any specific church is reflected in the
> epistle itself, which is addressed to 'the Twelve Tribes scattered abroad' who would collectively belong to
> no particular church. If I were to write a letter addressed to all the Christians in the world; I certainly
> wouldn't address it to any particular church.
.
I agree. This phrase that James uses is both vivid and unique, and clearly refers to all the Greco-Roman Christian assemblies of the dispersion, now well scattered throughout the Roman Empire. Now John's church/synagogue (which James inherited, as it were) considered itself the heirs of God's promises, the true remnant of Israel. Thus it is
perfectly natural for James to speak in this way. Indeed, even your beloved Lk-Acts (c.115CE) uses this sort of 'Jewish' language on occasion to describe the Greek churches. In any case, this conception of a united community of churches is more at home with the new, and now independent, religion of Christianity (second century), than with the small and isolated Messianic reform-Judaism of the first century.
.
>>> YM1: so James was not writing to contradict pauls statement that man is saved, not by works but by faith.
>>> I know the "higher Critics" like to dismiss the "Book Of James" because they say it pushes works instead
>>> of faith but that's just not true. James says that you show your faith by doing something "works," just like
>>> Abraham showed that he believed God (faith) by offering his son as a sacrifice. <snip>
.
>> tx: I have no objection to any of this, but I will ask the Reader to ponder the fact that Jm clearly demonstrates
>> a strong awareness of Paul's thinking as expressed in his epistles. This means that the possibility that Jm was
>> written prior to 60CE is about as close to nil as you'd ever want to get. Moreover, Jm also demonstrates a
>> clear awareness of many other New Testament documents, including the Gospel of John. Consider the
>> implications of that, if you please!
/ Re: !book of james / 11Jan99 / Ng: alt.christnet.bible /
> Studious writes: I don't see from James that he knew Paul's teachings - or that he has a copy of John's
> Gospel. In fact; it appears to me that James had fewer documents to reference than any of the other epistles.
.
First of all, let us be clear as to what constitutes evidence in this important matter. If the only thing that will convince you that James knew Paul, John, and other NT writings are direct quotes from those documents, then - of course - no such evidence will be found in Jm, and you are thereby free to conclude that James was ignorant of the entire NT. However, such a position does grave violence to the wonderfully synthetic mind of the prophet James, and, moreover, demonstrates a profound disrespect for the fundamental integrity of the Word of God. My position is that in order to do justice to James we must enter into his mind and heart and spirit as much as possible, and try to see the Scriptures from his point of view. If we attempt to approach Jm with anything less, we will necessarily fail to discover the treasures buried within the text. If this methodology is unacceptable to you, then I must most humbly apologize, and beg for your patience in what now follows ...
.
As to John -> James' rich and profound Logos Christology is firmly based upon the Logos theology set forth in the Johannine writings; and this same Christology is the foundation of his subtle Christological anthropology, and also his views on Scripture (i.e. what it is, means, and does). In other words, for Jacob, the Logos/Word is a universal
reality that includes Jesus Christ ("the Lord of Glory" - Jm 2:1), the Sacred Scriptures, the individual believer, and the synagogue (where all these elements come together). [This is brought out most vividly and forcefully in the mirror parable at Jm 1:22-25.] Another phrase that hearkens back to John occurs immediately before the mirror parable
in James' short sermon on religion in word and deed (1:19-27). Please note that not all translations do justice to this verse: "Therefore lay aside all vulgarity and the great mass of malice, and humbly accept THE IMPLANTED WORD which is able to save your souls!" (Jm 1:21). See also "the Word of Truth" at 1:18. There are other indications as well, but a complete and detailed examination of all the links between James and John would require a book in itself!
.
As to Matthew -> Now F.T. Gench is one of my favorite Jamesian scholars; chiefly because he is one of the very few who is not entirely satisfied with the consensus view of Jm. Thus in his book on 'Hebrews and James' (1996), and in his outstanding essay "James" in 'The General Letters: Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter, Jude, 1-2-3 John' (1995) he boldly asserts that Jm is "also decidedly *Christian*" (26). Gench also provides a list of 14 parallels between Jm and the Gospel According to Matthew which effectively demonstrate that Jm is directly dependent on the text Matthew; although he does not actually say so. Nevertheless, he correctly discerns that Jm is "permeated by the thought and sayings of Jesus more than any other NT writing outside the four Gospels" (27). This amazing admission in and of itself places Gench miles ahead of the vast majority of Jamesian scholars.
.
As to Paul -> James' knowledge of Paul is apparent throughout the epistle, as he tends to take up the contrary position by way of correcting undue emphasis or misinterpretation of various elements in pauline theology. Thus where Paul says that Believers shall judge even the angels, James asks, "Who then are you to judge your neighbor"
(4:12). But the most obvious proof that James knew Paul's epistles is his pungent sermon on faith and works (2:14-26); where we also find this curious question: "But are you willing to know, O hollow man, that faith without works is unproductive?"
.
So the fact that James takes up a consistently contrary position to Paul brings us to another interesting item about James and Paul. This is their remarkable similarity as regards an important feature of their writings; which stems from the fact that they are both outstanding leaders, teachers, preachers, and prophets. You see, the prophetic tradition did not end with the latest OT books, but continued unabated through Maccabees, Enoch, Book of Wisdom (and other intertestamental literature) through J.B. and J.C., to Paul and Silvanus, to the prophet John (ie. the Book of the Apocalypse), and on to James in the second century CE. In Paul and James, the prophetic spirit led them to an astonishing emphasis on diction, on how they use words in general, and how they put them together such that the Gospel of Life & Truth shines through them with amazing clarity and force. ...
.
Now the scholars also admit the importance of certain special words. You may remember that Studious uses the words 'greeting' and 'synagogue' as evidence for the traditional view of James, while I stress the importance of 'word' and 'glory' as evidence of James' dependence on John. Yes, it all comes down to a matter of 'mere words'.
What does Paul mean to say when he uses words like 'righteousness', 'imitation', 'wrath'? What does James mean to tell us in words like 'glory', 'double-mindedness', 'slave'? Do prophets use such words in the same way that Bible scholars do?...
.
In his commentary on Jm ('The Letter of James: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary', 1995), L.T. Johnson also draws attention to the density and brevity of James' language: "Not only are his sentences short and often asyndetic; more impressively, with the short space of 108 verses, James manages to touch on an impressive variety of subjects with remarkable concision and insight." He then goes on to point out that the bad habit of "repeated and careless reading keeps us from appreciating the peculiar power of such language" (10). . . .
Yes indeed, and so does constipation of the imagination!
.
In sum -> Thus we see that Jm has many and various connections with the Gospel traditions, wisdom literature, other NT books (most especially 1Peter; one scholar even claims that there are up to 26 links! Check 'em out!), and other early Christian literature (eg. Shepherd of Hermas, Didache), but - of course - the scholars are unable to understand or explain these links in a coherent and compelling manner. Nevertheless, since the scholars are so *certain* that Jm is a first century product of a primitive Jewish-Christian community, the only conclusion that they are able to reach is that most of these documents are borrowing from Jm, or that the links are secondary borrowings from 'common traditions' (ie. not links at all). [See Chester and Martin, 'The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude', 1994.]
.
Needless to say, we are not at all impressed by the scholars absurd evasions of the apparent, nor by their pathetic and feeble attempts to 'explain' obvious discrepancies. [For example: If all these documents are 'borrowing' from Jm, why are there no certain witnesses to the book prior to Origen? Studious suggests 'poor circulation'. But if all these writers are using Jm, that clearly cannot be the case. The scholars thus seem perfectly content to hold two or more contradictory positions at one and the same time!]
.
> Just because James agrees with Paul means nothing in this context - because they were both writing under
> the inspiration of God; who always agrees with Himself.
.
LOL ... U godda be kidding! This would necessarily require that there be no contradictions whatsoever anywhere in the Holy Books! [Wut? Have you never ever read the Book of Jonah?] Is this really the position from whence you read Jm and Paul and the Gospels? Boy oh boy, I would surely hate to be in your shoes (if this indeed is the case); for it implies an intellectual dishonesty that no True Believer could ever easily live with. No indeed; for there are many contractions and errors of all kinds in the abundant harvest of holy books. Oh yes, you had better believe it! You need look no further than the various accounts of the early Resurrection scenes. ... In any case, it is James' disagreements with Paul that are more significant than his agreements, and *these* suggest the wide range of his reading and knowledge of the pauline epistles.
.
>>> YM1 wrote: The Devil Had A Meeting <snip story owing to lack of relevance>
.
>> tx: So let me ask you this: Would you buy a used car from a salesman who doesn't know a Rolls-Royce from
>> a Volkswagen? ... No? Why, then, should you seriously consider the feeble ramblings of someone who
>> obviously knows nothing about the Book of James?
.
> Studious: I could just as easily ask why; if you are a brother in Christ; do you come against a fellow
> brother and call him feeble simply because you disagree with him?
.
I do not call him feeble, but rather it is the sorely inadequate nature of his arguments and reasonings and general logic that I was referring to. ... Did I not make this point sufficiently clear in the quoted statement above? It seems to me that I did ...
.
>> Yes, while YM1 and many others suppose that Jm is a letter, it is quite apparent that this is not the case.
>> No indeed. Rather, the Book of James is actually a collection of prophetic sermons that were delivered to
>> various churches over the years by a passionate Christian prophet whose name just happened to be Jacob.
>> His sermons reflect the problems and concerns of a church that was well established in Greco-Roman society;
>> at a time, that is, after the initial growing pains caused by 'the parting of the ways' between Judaism and
>> Christianity. Yes, someday the Bible scholars will open their eyes to the truth about the Book of James, and
>> then they'll be feeling very foolish indeed!
.
> I don't see the disjoint - I see the epistle as one whole.
.
In other words, Studious doesn't believe that Jm is a collection of discrete and relatively independent sermons. In this he is very much in line with the scholars; many of whom are unable to see that, for example, 1:19-27 is a single coherent unit that in no way requires any of the surrounding text. I too see the 'epistle' as a whole; but it is a whole
made up of *originally* independent units (ie. discrete homilies).
.
> I see chapter one about faith obeying the Word. I see chapter 2 about faith removing discrimination; and
> proving itself by works. I see chapter 3 about faith controlling the tongue and producing wisdom. I see
> chapter 4 about faith producing humility and dependance on God. And I see chapter 5 about faith awaiting
> Christs return, faith praying for the afflicted, and faith confronting the errant brother.
.
This is simply a thematic breakdown of the various contents that make up the Book of James. In no way can this rather artificial 'list of themes' be taken as evidence against my contention that Jm is a collection of independent parts. In and of itself, the theme-list proves nothing either way.
.
> The whole thing is centered around a single subject - the tests of faith; and what works faith produces.
.
In other words, Studious contends that the idea of faith is the central controlling theme that dominates the entire book. Thus he sees Jm as a kind of scholarly essay built around the idea of faith. This perspective is, I maintain, wholly inadequate to the nature of James' prophetic thinking. The prophet does not reason logically this and way in order to convince the Reader that his views on faith are correct. No indeed. Rather, James uses vivid images and sharp statements to capture the Reader's imagination and heart. The Book of James is not a scholarly essay as much as it is a 'how-to' manual for Christians. ...
.
And besides all this, if there is any one central idea, it is the necessity of abiding in Christ, of being transformed into his image and likeness, and so to be worthy of "the Name" we bear (which is yet another indication of second century genesis). Observe carefully the following parable, bearing in mind that the face in the mirror is the Logos Jesus, the Word that dwells within the disciple: "For if anyone is only a Listener of the Word, and not a Doer, that one is like a Woman who takes a good look in a Mirror at the Face she was born-again with. For she considered herself carefully; and then went away and forgot what she was like!" [Jm 1:23-24 / Prophet Version]
.
> Also; the text of James lends itself to being a very early epistle -
.
Actually, no it doesn't. The first century genesis hypothesis in fact raises more problems and unanswered questions than the second century genesis does. Scholars resist the latter alternative simply because they are violently biased against Jm. In this regard they are all loyal disciples of Martin Luther who rejected Jm as Scripture, and even referred to it a "an epistle full of straw"; thereby indicating that there is nothing much of any value to be found therein. Inheriting this highly dismissive tradition, the scholars gladly and routinely violate basic methodological considerations (4X: respect for the text, Occam's Razor, the significance of the parallels to other literature, the meaning of the lack of witnesses, etc etc); and they do all this in order to force Jm to fit into their preconceived notions of the shape and course of early church history and the formation of the NT canon.
.
> with no direct references to any other NT works,
.
This is because the references are all *indirect* (as James assumes that his audience is already as well soaked in the scriptures as he himself is). Always remember that James put his letter together not to the benefit of post-modern bible scholars, but for the benefit of all True Believers in each and every generation.
.
> while directly quoting proverbs in the OT in Ja 4:6;
.
How does James' use of Proverbs 3:34, Abraham, Rahab, Elijah, etc, apply to the matter of dating? It can only be relevant here if you imply that quoting the OT, and not the NT, proves that James did not know the latter. Since I have already indicated that James had a very wide and deep knowledge of MANY holy books (old, inter, new), this
implication necessarily fails because it is nowhere based on the facts.
.
> and with the epistle being addressed to the Messianic Jews with no references to the existance of the gentiles.
.
Your interpretation of the opening verse of Jm is wholly inadequate, owing chiefly to the fact that the book is a profoundly *Christian* document. [A fact that is rarely acknowledged by the scholars.] So if you are unable to accept that fundamental datum, then there is simply no common ground between us from which we can build a consensus. No; I'm afraid that your vision of Jm is grossly distorted and horribly disrespectful toward the Word of God. Perhaps you would do well to dwell at length on James' quote: "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (Prov 3:34). ... Amen!
endit? I don't thimk so ... btw: Remaining Sane is Mainly Quite a Pain!
/ Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 19Jan99 /
.
> Joseph Garnier emailed textman in a most exasperated manner:
> Both of these posts, and this entire line of discussion are pointless!
.
textman say: Yes?
.
> One say, See, here is my evidence and here is my reasoning. The other says, But see, here is
> my evidence and here is my reasoning.
.
textman answers by: LOL ... Dear Joseph, I tend to agree. Can anyone say, "Socratic dialogue"? ... I'm afraid it's back to Introductory Philosophy 101 with you Jo! :)
.
> To be certain, one can know only that Jakobos wrote his Universal letter from a point of devout Christianity
.
So far your assumptions and conclusions about Jm bear somewhat more resemblance to my evidence and reasoning, as you say, than to those of Studious. The main point of difference therefore appears to be that you
do not consider the questions of authorship, dating, etc, to be of any consequence or significance whatsoever; whereas both Studious and I acknowledge the importance of such things. Ummm, chiefly because we both understand that the Faith does not rest in any set of holy books. That is, the Bible in and of itself is not the only source of Faith. Faith begins in Jesus with the Incarnation, and spreads out from there into the lives of generations of Believers. In other words, Faith enters into the historical process and changes the course of human history forever. This is why church history is so important: because the faith is firmly based on real concrete individuals who participated in amazing and unique events. That is the stuff of history. That is the stuff of Reality. We are all of us what the previous generations have made us to be. We inherit everything from those who went before us along these well-worn paths.
.
> and concern over the lack of control among many professed Christians who chose to speak without thinking,
> and chose to profess to believe without validating their supposed belief by actions indicative of belief, and
> those who classified fellow-believers by material possessions.
.
Granted. And that covers a lot of Jamesian ground, to be sure; but this succinct thematic summary hardly exhausts the message and meaning of the Book of James. Not by a *long* shot! Check it out. And then tell me again about 'speak without thinking'.
.
> All the rest is speculation and distraction from the message breathed by God into one particular Jakobos,
> who we so rudely rename James. In Jesus' name, Joseph Garnier at http://www.ccountry.net/~mre2me
.
There's nothing rude about it, Joseph. We argue over the real identity of 'James' simply because scholarship is better conducted in a language well-known than one not so well-known (ie. ancient Koine Greek). You can hardly fault us for this. Moreover, why should you want to? Because it is all so pointless? It's true that biblical scholarship often seems to hold nothing more substantial than "speculation and distraction", but you have to appreciate that despite the fanciful and unicornish quality of "the biblical sciences" *nevertheless* progress is being made. Are you aware that this very generation has access to more knowledge and related information about Scripture and early church history than any other?
.
Yes, we ought to be grateful for what we know about the early Greek churches; but there's still a lot of unanswered questions about what happened to Jesus, the disciples, and the early churches in Jerusalem. These things are important because they help us to understand the scriptures better than ever. Wouldn't you like to know what Paul and Silvanus and Timothy thought about Athens when they first walked through her history-laden streets? I sure would!
