/ Topic > Re: "Faith vs Works" / Date > 9 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> Joseph P. Weatherell wrote: <snip> Although Luther was wrong in his admonition of the Epistle of James,
.
textman replies: You can say that again!
.
> the brother of our Lord, <snip>
.
Dear Joseph, the author of the wonderful and marvelous Epistle of James was NOT the same James that assumed leadership of the Jerusalem church in the days before the destruction of that city by the Roman legions (70CE). This James was the brother of the Lord, and was known to both Peter and Paul. He died round about 65CE. Since the Epistle of James was not written until mid-2nd century, it ought to be perfectly obvious that the dead brother James did NOT write the prophetic sermons that make up the Book of James. This James was a prophet and teacher of the church in Alexandria, and the text of the epistle makes it clear that he had the entire NT (almost) before him as he wrote. Let no one be fooled into thinking that the Epistle of James is a primitive jewish-christian collection of exhortations. Such an opinion clearly demonstrates that the reader is a moron with a terminal case of constipation of the imagination!
/ Re: "Faith vs Works" / 12June98 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman writes: Dear Joseph, the author of the wonderful and marvelous Epistle of James was NOT the
>> same James that assumed leadership of the Jersulalem church in the days before the destruction of
>> that city by the Roman legions (70CE). This James was the brother of the Lord, and was known to both
>> Peter and Paul.
.
> Padraic42 replies: Dear text, the James that was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, 'hosted' the First
> Council there (Acts) IS the same James who wrote the Scripture AND was the 'cousin' (brother according
> to treminology of the day) of Jesus.
.
textman answers: Dear arc-rc'ers, let the Reader take note that NONE of Padraic's assertions can be proved or
even supported by the Scriptures. For example, James was a leader and a pillar, but there were no bishops as such at that early point in church history. Pure anachronism here, folks! In the same way, the Epistle in question does not support that James as author; although many dum bible scholars obviously like to think so. As to the 'cousin' idea: this illusion was created by RomanCats solely in order to protect Mary's supposed virginity. So you see how even history is made to fit the contours of theological speculations. Padraic has NO RESPECT for history at all!
/ Topic > Re: "Faith vs Works" / Date > 12 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> James T. Savidge wrote: Greetings. textman you wrote:
.
>> tx: Since the Epistle of James was not written until mid-2nd century,
>> it ought to be perfectly obvious that the dead brother James did NOT
.
> According to one of the sources I have, it says that The Epistle of James was written sometime between 50
> and 60 A.D. <snip> Do you get your information about the dates from a different source?
.
textman answers: Dear James, any authority that mentions the 'Early Aramaic Gospel of Matthew' is very like unto those scholars who make much of the so-called 'Q document'. In other words, I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole; for the simple reason that such 'scholars' are baboons! Yes, it is common to suppose that James is 'primitive' and 'Jewish-Christian', and therefore MUST be very early, etc etc. The scholars who think like this never bother to examine the text in any detail, of course. Because if they did, they'd have a hard time trying to support such ridiculous notions from the NT itself. So yes, I certainly do get my information from a different source. I get it from the evidence of the text ... evidence that has been filtered through textman's depraved and twisted mind.
/ Topic > Re: "Faith vs Works" / Date > 12 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> Joseph P. Weatherell wrote: <snip> WRONG. I'm not sure of your source of biblical history, but it is erroneous
> to beat the band. James, the brother of our Lord, wrote the Epistle of James in about 49 AD (before the
> Jerusalem Council in 50 AD). He wrote. primarily to all Christians, but specifically to Jewish Christians living in
> non-Jewish communities throughout Palestine. He was concerned about those who were once part of the
> Church in Jerusalem and were being persecuted.
.
>> tx: Such an opinion clearly demonstrates that the reader is
>> a moron with a terminal case of constipation of the imagination!
.
> Obviously, you are not a Christian.
.
textman answers: Dear JW, obviously you are not a bible scholar! If your dating for James were correct, then that
epistle would be the earliest NT document we have. But it is well known that the earliest epistles came from the hand of Paul (and his associates). Moreover, there is no evidence to support the absurd notion that James was writing for so-called Jewish-Christians. This whole idea, and the ridiculous scholarship that is based on it, comes
from a seriously distorted mis-reading of the Epistle of James.
THE
WHEN OF JAMES?
/
Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Topic > Re: "Faith vs Works"
/ Date > 18 June 1998 /
> bam replies: The Acts of the Apostles Chapter 1 [20] For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their
> habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
.
textman say: Dear BAM, do the ancient songs of David really speak of Catholic bishops just because your favorite version of Luke's version of the Psalm says so?! ... I think maybe NOT! ... Check your translation at the door, pal!
.
> Chapter 20 [28] Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed
> you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
.
This too is a bad translation. The pastoral imagery alone suggests that 'shepherds' would be a far better word to use in this particular context (ie. 'bishop' sticks out like a shark in a pool of goldfish). :) ... But besides all that: Luke-Acts is an early second century book (c.115CE), and so witnesses more to that period than to the Church's first fifty years (30-80CE). ... Now this may seem a trifle odd to those who recall that I think of Lk-Acts as a single two- part history of the early church. It's hard to explain it quickly and painlessly except to remind you that historians are acutely aware of the necessary distinction between legend and cold, hard historical fact. To make a long story short: if you want to know what happened to the churches up to say, the Fall of Jerusalem (70CE), you have to first focus your attention EXCLUSIVELY on the documents from that period. ... Nuff said.
.
> The Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians Chapter 1 [1] Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ; to
> all the saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.
.
So I checked my handy-dandy Interlinear, and it says: "Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the saints being in Philippi with the overseers and deacons, grace to you ...". Now this is a much better translation of the meaning of the best Greek texts. ... btw BAM, did you notice that the Apostle refers to himself as a slave, and that he mentions the saints BEFORE the 'episkopois' who are closely paired with the 'servants'. Does any of this give you some hint - some meager clue - as to what Paul might have said about our so-called 'infallible bishops' ... eh? ... Yes? No? Maybe? ... That's strike two, BAM.
.
> The First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chapter 3:1-2 <snip> The Epistle of St. Paul to Titus Chapter 1:7
> <snip> The First Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle Chapter 2 [25] For you were as sheep going astray; but
> you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.
.
Here again is the same problem we saw in Acts 20:28 above. That is, the words 'and bishop' are unnecessary and superfluous; ie. they do not match the pastoral tone and mood of the surrounding text. This also suggests that these small and unobtrusive words were quietly smuggled into the text when no one was looking. :) ... In any case, I don't even need to double-check these three snippets, because they were not written by Peter & Paul (ie. they are classified as petrine and post-pauline literature). Rather, they come out of the late first century and early second century church. ... umm ... Still in the Apostolic Age; if you want to be very generous. But here we are already two generations removed from the time of Peter, Paul, and James. ... That's strike three and yer out, BAM! ...
You have failed to make your case!
>>> textman wrote: For example, James was a leader and a pillar, but there were no bishops as such
>>> at that early point in church history.
.
>> BAM1106016 answered: The Acts of the Apostles Chapter 1 [20] & Chapter 20 [28] <snip>
.
> Dooley replies: The NIV version of the bible that I borrowed from the Gideons changed "bishops" in Acts 20:28
> to "overseer." I'm not surprised.
.
Neither am I. They did so because 'overseer' is a far better and more accurate translation of the Greek text. Moreover Acts is an early second century document, and by that time there were a few genuine 'bishops' (as we now know them (more or less :) )) around, but they did not have the sort of absolute power that Padraic and other dummies think they had ... not by a long shot, pal! There were still plenty of free-wheeling teachers and missionaries and prophets spreading the Faith 'hither and yon', and they did not stop to kiss the bishop's royal hiney every time they blew into town. They knew what the Gospel was, and they knew how to proclaim it!
.
The first Christian century (ie. 30-130CE) was the most active age for the Spirit ... for the Living Spirit that is. Once the priests assumed almost total control of the church - giving the independent prophets and teachers the boot in the process - then the Spirit began its slow slide to oblivion. btw: the NIV is one of the best translations available to modern Christians who care about their Bibles. I heartily recommend it over almost all other English versions. It is
far better for any and all attempts at serious bible study (as is the RSV). ... You hear that, Padraic? The two best English versions of Scripture both come from the disreputable Protestants! ... Score TWO for the bad guys!
>> Dooley wrote: The NIV version of the bible that I borrowed from the Gideons changed "bishops"
>> in Acts 20:28 to "overseer." I'm not surprised.
.
> Joseph P. Weatherell answers: "Bishop" and "overseer" mean basically the same thing.
.
tx: Actually, this is incorrect. Most scholars 'think' that they are, or rather 'were', the same thing; but even then, most would be very very cautious about drawing any 'episocopal' conclusions from the word 'overseer'. Overseers were certainly not the high-falutin royal muffinheads that many bishops are today. They were far more like the approved ministers of a local congregation, authorized to act and speak on behalf of the assembly, but they were certainly NOT the lords and masters of the synagogue. ... No Way, Jose!
>> textman wrote: <much snippage>
.
> Alan Craft answers: Hmmm ... turns out the KJV's not so bad after all. :-)>
.
Dear Alan, the prophet saith: "Thou art full of shit!"
> Mr. Foot Grenade speaketh: Yes, BAM is correct: there is NT evidence for episkopoi, bishops, in the NT.
.
Dear Foot G., no one is arguing that here. The question before us seems to be whether or not James (ie. the brother of the Lord attested to in scripture; who is also a different James from the one who wrote the epistle bearing that name) ... uh ... whether or not THAT James (ie. bro) can validly be called a bishop. My contention is that it would be absurd to even call him a priest, let alone a bishop. ... ie. We are attempting NOT to confuse two early (but still distinct) periods in the life of the early Greek churches.
.
> My only difference with him is that Acts does not refer to Peter as episkopos, and does not assign
> him primacy (although a case can be made for his primacy from Matthew and John).
.
From the perspective of 'the priestly vision of all things', Matthew has primacy over all the rest of scripture ... precisely because it is so 'priestly'. ... Hell's Bell's, that's why it's the first thing you see when you crack open the NT! If the 27 New Testament documents were arranged chronologically - or even just logically - the first item up would be either the four Thessalonian letters or the Gospel of Mark. ... Think about the implications of that for a minute, why don't you!?!
>>> textman wrote: Such an opinion clearly demonstrates that the reader is a moron with a terminal case
>>> of constipaton of the imagination!
.
>> Joseph P. Weatherell answered: Obviously, you are not a Christian. God bless. - JW
.
> ralph replies: Who's the moron? Read how people are judged and on what basis in Matthew's acccount of
> the Last Judgment. Also read what the Book of Revelation says about being judged on "works", yes works.
> Luther was the first to tamper with the Bible because it did not agree with his position.
.
Ha! Fat chance! Luther was radical in his tampering, to be sure, but he was certainly not the first to mess with the text. On the contrary, every new copy or translation of the various books in the Bible tended to introduce a whole truckload of errors into the text. These mistakes and/or changes come in many varieties.
.
4X: additions (eg. commentary in the margins that is later copied as part of the passage); deletions (eg. a word or line or section omitted due to the oversight of a tired and cold monk who would much rather a nice mug of hot grog before retiring to a nice warm bed to dream of warm tropical islands with many naked dancing girls forgive me lord
it's been a long long day and my fingers hurt and my eyesight is poor in this murky smoky light ... etc); rearrangements (eg. there's a small passage in the Gospel of John that is actually a Lukan writing, and very probably originated from Luke's Gospel); etc. ...
.
So spotting all these various headaches is what makes textual criticism as much an art as a science! ... LOL ... In any case, Luther's German Bible was a great and marvelous thing for all the churches. Indeed, it was the Book that shook the World. Why, I do believe that the shockwaves are ringing still! ... Can't you hear it? ... Listen carefully.
.
> He also added "alone" to faith alone, in Romans.
.
How's that again? ... Please clarify.
.
> No ancient text ever had that--why did he do it?
.
Do what exactly?
.
> He also had the "hots" for Catherine. Read the book, Kitty, my
> Rib---some nice things about Luther--but facts are facts.
.
Dear Ralph, I think your just a smidge off topic here, pal. The issue is not who Luther had the hots for, but rather who and what James was (actually both of them) to the early church. ...btw: And you - Mr "Joseph P. Weatherell" - are also way out of line! Please behave yourself if you wish to participate ... thx
> James T. Savidge writes: Greetings,
.
>> textman wrote: So yes, I certainly do get my information from a different source. I get it from the evidence
>> of the text ... evidence that has been filtered through textman's depraved and twisted mind.
.
> I have no knowledge of what your scholarly training is, so I currently have no way of comparing it against
> the sources that I have on hand. I am willing to transfer my reliance from one source to another, if the latter
> can be shown to be more reliable or trustworthy. With all seriousness, could you please tell me your
> background or where you did your research? May God's peace go with you.
.
tx: Dear JTS, with all seriousness, please direct your attention to the article entitled "Strange Encounter" ... because that document is the only credentials you're ever likely to see ... LOL ... I sympathize with your dilemma, but when all is said and done, textman does not require a piece of paper to show the World that yes, textman does indeed know whereof he speaks. Moreover, textman writes not for scholars, but for all True Believers who want to explore the treasures of the sacred scriptures in faith, by faith, and for faith! ... As for all the rest; well, I shall leave it to the Beloved Reader to judge for his/her self whether or not textman can be relied upon to offer sound biblical commentary.
>> textman wrote: Since the Epistle of James was not written until mid-2nd century, it ought to be
>> perfectly obvious that the dead brother James did NOT
.
> Cfortunato answers: Where on earth did you get a late date for the Book of James? Everything I've read
> proposes that it may be the oldest book in the NT.
.
Dear Cfortunato, everything you've read on James isn't worth the paper it's printed on. That rather obvious fact aside, I'm quite sure that if you keep investigating the secondary literature on the Epistle of James you'll find that some little of the newer stuff is not so tied down to the early genesis approach that is so popular among Jamesian scholars. ... Once again, the entire convoluted edifice upon which the consensus approach to James is built is based wholly on the necessity of FORCING it to fit into the current perception of where, when and how the canon was formed, AND James' minuscule and irrelevant place within that process. All the scholarship begins from this assumption prior to ever examining the text to see whether or not James agrees with the current scholarly assessment and understanding of when and who wrote the prophetic sermons that where later collected into the 'epistle'. My contention is that the current scholarly view of the formation of the New Testament is BULLSHIT!!! ... Therefore you can quote all the high powered authorities you wish: Bullshit is still bullshit; no matter what else you may call it!
.
As to where the late date comes from: it is strongly suggested many and various things. Partial 4X list follows:
.
(1) The earliest witness to Jm is our fellow Alexandrian Origen (who is also a giant in biblical studies) round about c.300CE. Now I say that this mostly undisputed fact is extremely significant for the determination of date; but the consensus much prefers to ignore this vital piece of evidence! Or they simply explain it away, in one way or another.
.
(2) In the same way, the high quality of the Greek Koine used in Jm suggests that the author was an older, well educated man -> in short, a scholar and a prophet not of the early Apostolic period. ...
.
(3) Another clue indicating a mid-2C date is the rather obvious fact (at least to textman) that James knows and loves not only the LXX, but also the early Christian scriptures that were then being gathered together into various collections. This would include the Pauline epistles (and most of the post-pauline ones as well), and the Gospels (with Acts). In short, I suggest that the prophet James had available to him the bulk of the books that only later became the New Testament; and that he recognized them as inspired ... long before any pope ever declared them to be such. ...
.
Let me also add at this point, that (dating aside) the Epistle of James is very probably the most ignored and yet most important book in the Bible that American and Canadian Christians (of all denominations) NEED to know! In the book of James, the Reader will find brief homilies that were actually delivered to a real live assembly by a real live prophet, in various Greek cities throughout the Empire. This is the way preaching used to be done. Compare these prophetic gems with the lame story-telling of today's priests. Be careful though. The shock of the discrepancy may
well prove to be fatal!
/ Re: "Faith vs Works" / 19June98 / Ng: a.r.c.roman-catholic /
.
> BAM wrote: textman, you can talk all you want, but no one agrees with you, and you have no authority.
.
textman answers: Dear BAM, ... Good Grief! Are you suggesting that the truth about these matters is not nearly
as important as the most popular opinions or the prevailing wisdom? Aren't you even interested to see if maybe there is anything still to be learned about James? ... Or do you already know all that there is to know about that unfortunate epistle? If so, I might have a few questions yet for you ...
/ Re: "Faith vs Works" / 19June98 / Ng: a.r.c.roman-catholic /
.
> Stephen Patten wrote: Why do so many Protestants use CE or BCE instead of AD or BC?
.
textman answers: Dear Stephen, most reputable scholars use CE and BCE because they do not wish to be perceived as muffinheads. It is simply a convention, custom, or tradition that became necessary as scholarship became more international. Scholars of other nations and faiths can therefore date things without having to convert to Christianity. ... They do it to facilitate dialogue. Isn't that nice and tolerant of the scholars?
.
> Is it that they don't think the birth of Our Lord important?
.
Some scholars do, and some don't. This system accommodates all.
.
> Does the Incarnation mean so little to them?
.
To scientific historians there is no Incarnation as such. In the same way, whether or not a Protestant uses CE or not has no bearing on his/her faith in the Incarnation.
.
> BTB, who first introduced the abbreviations/terms CE and BCE?
> I'll hazard a guess it was an American.. > Stephen Patten 1998 AD
.
I don't know who first used them. I don't see that it is at all relevant in any case. Moreover, your rejection of CE and BCE because you think them 'Protestant' only demonstrates the enormity of your ignorance of modern biblical scholarship. Most scholars are well past the childish phase whereby scholarship is rejected because the author is 'one of those'!
/ Re: "Faith vs Works" / 21June99 / Ng: a.r.c.roman-catholic /
.
>>> Stephen Patten wrote: Why do so many Protestants use CE or BCE instead of AD or BC? Is it that they
>>> don't think the birth of Our Lord important? Does the Incarnation mean so little to them?
.
>> Christopher Beattie answered: I can think of two reasons. First of all, A.D. is Latin. Latin is bad. <G>
>> Second of all, A.D. is a prefix, BC. is a postfix and that's too complex for an average protestant.
.
> Joseph P. Weatherell answered: I am a non-Catholic Christian (Protestant sounds so negative) and I prefer
> AD and BC over the other. My Lord and Savior are more important to me than being "politically correct."
.
textman replies: Dear Joseph, it's not a question of preference, political correctness, or quality of faith! 'Preferring' the antiquated and unused 'A.D.' system does not make you any more Christian or orthodox or Catholic or pleasing in the eyes of the Lord ... Resisting the advances of modern scholarship, however, does demonstrate bias and inflexibility in one's approach to the Faith (and to Life in general as well). It's a good way, in other words, to show the entire world that the one zealous for A.D. is person utterly unable to see any value whatsoever in modern biblical scholarship!
/ date > 27 June 1998 / newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / topic > Re: "Faith vs Works" /
.
> <snip> On 11Jun98 James T. Savidge wrote: Greetings,
.
>> textman wrote: Since the Epistle of James was not written until mid-2nd century, it ought to be perfectly
>> obvious that the dead brother James did NOT <snip>
.
> According to one of the sources I have, it says that The Epistle of James was written sometime between
> 50 and 60 A.D.
> ...
> Date of Canonical Author Written
> Composition Writing in
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 51-52 1 and 2 Thess Paul Corinth
> 50-55 [Early Aramaic Gospel] Matthew Palestine (?)
> 50-60 Jas James Jerusalem
> 54 Gal Paul Ephesus (?)
> 57 (spring) 1 Cor Paul Ephesus
> ...
> This is in the Chapter "Introduction to the Books of the New Testament" subsection "When were the Books
> of the new Testament Written?" in the table on page 28 of: The Navarre Bible; St. Mark's Gospel; Printed
> by Color Books Ltd, Dublin; Second edition 1992; Nihil Obstat: Stephen J. Green, censor deputatus. Imprimi
> potest: Desmond, Archbishop of Dublin, 12 Aug 1998. ISBN 1-85182-095-5 Do you get your information
> about the dates from a different source? May God's peace go with U <snip>
.
textman answers: Dear James, about your authoritative table of composition dates: Ugh! The first item is close, as is the date for Galatians, but the rest is more than slightly erroneous. Note the wide spread given to Jas. This is because the majority of bible scholars have no solid clue as to when exactly Jm was written (ie. there is no timeline reference in the text). Therefore they figure that if James (the brother of the Lord) is to be author, it could not have been written after his death (you see how clever bible scholars are?), or before Paul wrote something. Hence the current 'guess' or 'determination' as to the date of Jm is based more on the need to make it early and 'apostolic', and less as a result of a careful examination of the textual evidence.
>> textman wrote: <snip> Let no one be fooled into thinking that the Epistle of James is a primitive jewish-christian
>> collection of exhortations. Such an opinion clearly demonstrates that the reader is a moron with a terminal case
>> of constipaton of the imagination!
.
> Dennis Gairdner answers: Does that make J.A.T. Robinson (*Redating the New Testament*) a moron? Aren't his
> qualifications somewhat better than that? Your claim of mid-second century is rejected by Raymond E. Brown
> (who otherwise agrees that it isn't primitive jewish-christian): "... a more likely date would be the last third of
> the 1st century. Church structure of the type implied in 3:1 where there is an office (not simply a charism) of
> teacher and in 5:14-15 where presbyters have a specific, indeed a quasiliturgical role also suggests a late
> 1st-century date. A date much later than that is not plausible.
.
textman say: Dear Dennis, does Brown anywhere bother to elaborate on this? That is, does he explain in detail why a later date is 'not plausible'?
.
> By the first half of 2d century the likelihood would increase that the writer of Jas would have known the written
> Gospels and Epistles" (An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 742).
.
Is this here the reason why a second century date is not plausible? What if I suggest to you that the text of James does show signs that the author was aware of the gospels and epistles? Could not this evidence therefore be taken to indicate a mid-2C date?
.
> Hopefully his qualifications are sufficient for your purposes.
.
It's not a question of qualifications or reputations or where one studied at. It's a question of providing reasonable answers to all the many questions that are raised by the text. ... Now I know this book that you quote. It is one of the few that I do not hesitate to recommend to all bible students. In the same way, Brown is generally a reliable guide, but not when it comes to James. When it comes to James, even the very best scholars are lead astray by the fantasies spun by the Jamesian scholars.
/ Re: More When of James / 30Jun98 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> BAM wrote: Pardon me, but there were no second century prophets...or third...or fourth...or fifth...etc.
.
Dear BAM, pardon me also, but the Lord has *always* sent prophets to his people, in almost every generation. It's true that they were not always recognized as such, but they were there just the same. ... So did the coming of the bishops mean that the prophets were no longer needed or necessary? Ah yes, the bishops; those great and magnificent spiritual supermen. Who needs prophets when we have thousands upon thousands of superior super clergy? ... Yes the bishops, being the egotistical self-serving scumbags that they are, think that they can do whatever it was that prophets did; but the sad fact it that they are all the very opposite of what a prophet is. The prophet serves the truth. The bishop serves the rich. The prophet serves the Lord. The bishops serve the Pope. The prophet serves the people. The bishops serve only to maintain the status quo (ie. they favor the rich). Therefore God is not fooled by the outlandish claims of the self professed super-holy-men, but instead sends prophets to his people whenever they most need it. In 19th England, the Lord sent unto the Church John Henry Newman, an outstanding prophet by any standard. The church has yet to catch up with him.
REPLY TO MWJ CRITICS
/ Newsgroup > a.r.c.roman-catholic / Topic > Re: More When of James / Date > 28 June 1998 /
.
>> textman says: That James was a prophet and teacher of the church in Alexandria, and the text of the
>> epistle makes it clear that he had the entire NT (almost) before him as he wrote.
.
> bam replies: Tell me more about this 2nd century James who allegedly tried to pass himself off as
> James the Less. references please - personal theories are valueless. -- BAM
.
Dear BAM, I don't know who this James the Less person you refer to is, but the author of the Epistle of James was a scholar and gentleman by the name of James. In the opening of the epistle he identifies himself as 'Jacob the Slave'. These three words alone are quite enough to distinguish him from James ben Joseph (Josuha's younger brother), who was a leader and pillar of the Aramaic Church of Jerusalem. Why then should anyone suppose that the prophet James is trying to pass himself off as something that he is not? 'James' was and remains a very popular name. In fact, I have a good friend by that name. ... Perhaps its just a simple matter of not giving the thing sufficient thought? Truly, a common failing among would-be bible scholars.
.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ .
Mr. Foot Grenade writes: Don't take the reasonable role in this debate, BAM. Your demand for cited facts
rather than personal theories is shameful coming from you, who have no regard for facts whatsoever.
.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ .
>> textman writes: This is because the majority of bible scholars have no solid clue as to when
>> exactly Jm was written
.
> cfortunato replies: Then why do you state with such certainty that it is mid-2nd-Cent.?
.
Dear Cfortunato, did you not read my previous article? In my answer to you there I gave three reasons that suggested a later date. Dig it out (if you were clever enough to have made a hardcopy of it) and re-examine it carefully. Or ... would you like me to re-post?
.
>> textman says: Dear BAM, I don't know who this James the Less person you refer to is, but the author
>> of the Epistle of James was a scholar and gentleman by the name of Jacob.
.
> BAM1106016 replies: That's one of the dopiest statements to date.
.
Dear BAM ... Why?
.
>> In the opening of the epistle he identifies himself as 'Jacob the Slave'
.
> As in, "James the servant of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
.
Check your translation please. Check the Greek text FIRST!
.
>> tx: These three words alone are quite enough to distinguish him from James ben Joseph (Josuha's
>> younger brother), who was a leader and pillar of the Aramaic Church of Jerusalem.
.
> BAM: 1) James did not call himself a slave
.
Yes he did. Please check the Greek text.
.
> and 2) there were two James' of the twelve Apostles - your statement proves less than nothing.
.
Huh? There were many James' in the first to 20th centuries ...
.
>> Why then should anyone suppose that the prophet Jacob is trying to pass himself off as
>> something that he is not?
.
> Why won't you provide some additional backup for your claim?
.
Like what, for example?
.
> It's because you have no claim - your statement is unfounded.
.
My views on James are based on what the text tells me. I don't get my info from second hand sources, thinking that just because some book has the proper credentials it must OF COURSE be 100% correct in every particular. Faith in the Lord is one thing. Faith in episcopal statements is an altogether different kind of faith!
.
> Cfortunato wrote: <snip> Repost, please. But my specific objection was you seemed to state with *certainty*
> that James was written in the mid-second century, and seemed to assume that the matter had been settled.
.
Dear Cfortunato, to my way of thinking about James, it is a certain and settled historical fact. Far FAR more plausible than the extremely silly notion that Jm was written before the Fall of Jerusalem; and still more plausible than the idea that it was written *sometime* between 70-100CE.
.
> I got no impression that it was merely a private opinion of your own. And I find that very curious, since you
> admit (see infra) that the majority of scolars would disagree.
.
Yes, of course. But then, as I never tire of pointing out, the majority of bible scholars are baboons who would serve the people of God much better by selling used cars and vacuum cleaners. So yes, most Jamesian scholars would disagree with me ... But the point is that they are wrong to do so!
/ Topic > Re: More When of James / Date > 30 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman say: James was a prophet and teacher of the church in Alexandria, and the text of the epistle
>> makes it clear that he had the entire NT (almost) before him as he wrote.
.
> Joseph Paul replies: I repeat the previous posters statement, please provide references.
.
textman answers: Dear JP, whatever do you require references for? Are you unable to think through the matter at hand without constant reference to what this or that authority may say about it? ... No, I'm afraid that I'm not at all hung up on the need for references. Sorry.
.
> Is this James written about by other writers of the day. St. Ignatius, St. Ireaneaus, St. Justin Marytr, St.
> Cyril, St Eusibeus, or the many others whose writings survive to the present.
.
No. As I pointed out earlier, the earliest witness to James is Origen; that is, the second half of the second century is the time, and Alexandria is the place, where we first find someone explicitly making reference to the Epistle of James. Is this a significant fact? . . . You bet your little blue booties it is!
.
> Is this James on the List of Bishops of Alexandria, which have come down to us?
.
No, he isn't. James the Slave was not a bishop of anything. He was, rather, a prophet and a teacher for all the churches. Can anything good be written by someone who was not a bishop? ... Yes, as a matter of fact, it can.
.
> If not I will say that the author of James is James, Bishop of Jersalem
.
Well, since there is no such thing as a 'Bishop of Jersalem', what you say remains rubbish. Since James the brother of the Lord was not a bishop, calling him a bishop is ridiculous. Let us bear in mind always that we are dealing here with two separate and distinct James'. Confusing the two men is great for the bishops, but does nothing to help the Reader understand the NT.
/ Topic > Re: More When of James / Date > 30 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] textman wrote: Dear JP, whatever do you require references for? Are you unable to think through the
] matter at hand without constant reference to what this or that authority may say about it? ...
] No, I'm afraid that I'm not at all hung up on the need for references. Sorry.
.
Joseph Paul replies: I need substantial evidence in order to turn from what I have always figured, right now it is your word against the many others, unless a lot of other documentation is provided, I will go with the many others
.
>> JP: Is this James written about by other writers of the day. St. Ignatius, St. Ireaneaus, St. Justin Marytr,
>> St. Cyril, St Eusibeus, or the many others whose writings survive to the present.
.
] tx: No. As I pointed out earlier, the earliest witness to James is Origen; that is, the second half of the
] second century is the time, and Alexandria is the place, where we first find someone explicitly making
] reference to the Epistle of James. Is this a significant fact? You bet your little blue booties it is!
.
>> Is this James on the List of Bishops of Alexandria, which have come down to us?
.
] tx: No, he isn't. James the Slave was not a bishop of anything. He was, rather, a prophet and a teacher
] for all the churches. Can anything good be written by someone who was not a bishop? ...
] Yes, as a matter of fact, it can.
.
JP: Yes I agree, But if he was on the list of Bishops it would be proof that a Christian James lived in Alexandria
.
>> If not I will say that the author of James is James, Bishop of Jersalem
.
] tx: Well, since there is no such thing as a 'Bishop of Jersalem', what you say remains rubbish.
] Since James the brother of the Lord was not a bishop, calling him a bishop is ridiculous.
.
JP: Yes there is such thing as Bishop of Jerusalem, a position which lasts to this very day. James was the first, He might have not been called Bishop at that time, but that was the role that he fulfilled. At least by 300AD they recongnized that James was the first BISHOP of Jerusalem (Eusibius)
.
] Let us bear in mind always that we are dealing here with two separate and distinct James'. Confusing the
] two men is great for the bishops, but does nothing to help the Reader understand the NT.
.
JP: I don't think you have demonstrated your point. I will look for the reference in Origen (I probably will not be able to find it, but I'll try). Is there anything in the text of the epistle of James that would prevent the possibility of it being written by James, Bishop of Jerusalem? Or is it only your need to discredit it, because it
teaches some difficult things?
--
<Joseph Paul><jpaul@engsoc.carleton.ca><Computer Systems Engineering> <Carleton University> <IVCF Treasurer> <St. Marys's Church> .... "Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks" 1st Thessalonians 5: 16-18 ** I wish I could do this **
/ Topic > Re: More When of James / Date > 1 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman wrote: Dear JP, whatever do you require references for? Are you unable to think through the
>> matter at hand without constant reference to what this or that authority may say about it? ...
>> No, I'm afraid that I'm not at all hung up on the need for references. Sorry.
.
> Joseph Paul replies: I need substantial evidence in order to turn from what I have always figured, right
> now it is your word against the many others, unless a lot of other documentation is provided, I will go
> with the many others.
.
Dear JP, are you in need of evidence, or in need of documentation? The two are not equivalent. I cannot give you reams of documentation in order to 'give weight' to my interpretations. But I can help you to think through the issues and problems involved in all this. The biggest advance you can make is to clear away all the unnecessary confusion
surrounding James. As for evidence; it's all there in the text ... make sure you have an accurate translation of the best Greek text, and start comparing commentaries. Note their ideas and arguments and check them against the text. Do they explain what they claim to explain? Do they leave questions unanswered? ...
.
When you're ready, come to textman for the right answers!
.
>>> JP: Is this James written about by other writers of the day. St. Ignatius, St.Ireaneaus, St.Justin Marytr,
>>> St.Cyril, St.Eusibeus, or the many others whose writings survive to the present.
.
>> tx: No. As I pointed out earlier, the earliest witness to James is Origen; that is, the second half of the
>> second century is the time, and Alexandria is the place, where we first find someone explicitly making
>> reference to the Epistle of James. Is this a significant fact? ... You bet your little blue booties it is!
.
>>> JP: Is this James on the List of Bishops of Alexandria, which have come down to us?
.
>> tx: No, he isn't. James the Slave was not a bishop of anything. He was, rather, a prophet and a teacher for
>> all the churches. Can anything good be written by someone who was not a bishop?
>> ... Why yes, as a matter of fact, it can.
.
> Yes I agree, But if he was on the list of Bishops it would be proof that a Christian James lived in Alexandria
.
Wut? The testimony of the Word of God is not good enough for you?
.
>>> JP: If not I will say that the author of James is James, Bishop of Jersalem
.
>> tx: Well, since there is no such thing as a 'Bishop of Jersalem', what you say remains rubbish.
>> Since James the brother of the Lord was not a bishop, calling him a bishop is ridiculous.
.
> JP: Yes there is such thing as Bishop of Jerusalem, a position which lasts to this very day.
> James was the first, He might have not been called Bishop at that time,
.
EXACTLY my point! In his day there were no bishops; so why say otherwise? This is pure anachronism; and nothing is more destructive of a historical understanding of the early Greek churches than projecting post-Constantinian realities back into previous centuries where they most emphatically DON'T belong! Thx.
.
> but that was the role that he fulfilled.
.
How the hell do you know what role he fulfilled? Is it the evidence of scripture that tells you who and what James was? Or is it some "authoritative" commentary on Jm that says so, and therefore MUST be true?
.
> At least by 300AD they recognized that James was the first BISHOP of Jerusalem (Eusibius)
.
Just because some hotshots later called James a bishop does not make it so. It only tells us that these people THOUGHT he was, and called him such. Historical evidence is different from hearsay.
.
>> tx: Let us bear in mind always that we are dealing here with two separate and distinct James'. Confusing
>> the two men is great for the bishops, but does nothing to help the Reader understand the New Testament.
.
> JP: I don't think you have demonstrated your point.
.
It should not be up to me to demonstrate that we are dealing with two different men here. The logic of history itself is enough to suggest that much. It is those who claim that THAT James is ALSO the author of Jm who have to demonstrate this outrageous proposal. How do they do that? 'Oh look', they say, 'there's the word 'synagogue' right there in the text plain as day. Obviously James was written in mid-first century. Obviously it's primitive and Jewish and has no lasting value for Christians. Obviously!' ... Oh yes, it's obvious all right; ... If you're a brain-dead baboon!
.
> I will look for the reference in Origen (I probably will not be able to find it, but I'll try).
.
Please don't hurt yourself combing through all of Origen's extant writings looking for the relevant statement. I think you're much better off just confining yourself to the main commentaries. Try Dibelius first. He may have the relevant citation right there in his commentary. If not, try the other major commentaries. I'm sure that one or another will have quoted it somewhere.
.
> Is there anything in the text of the epistle of James that would prevent the possibility of it being
> written by James, Bishop of Jerusalem?
.
Yes. The text suggests that it was written after the bulk of the NT documents had been written and were then being used by the churches. These documents where well known to 2nd cent. Christians, so James did not need to name them explicitly in order to refer to them and assume that the readers/hearers would understand what he meant. If you can accept the possibility that Jm was written after 100CE, then you are pretty much forced to agree that the Lord's brother could not have written it. Moreover, if Brother James wrote the "epistle" (actually it's not technically an epistle, but rather a collection of discrete prophetic sermons), would he not have clearly identified himself as the author (ie. 'Greetings. James, the Lord's Brother to all...'). In the same way, if Jm was written in the sixties (or earlier ... or even before 100CE), where are the witnesses to it? It is inconceivable that such an important document would be used and passed on and yet remain invisible to the churches many writers and commentators. If you wish to maintain that "James the Bishop of Jerusalem" wrote the thing, then you had better explain to me why Origen is the first witness to Jm!
.
> Or is it only your need to discredit it, because it teaches some difficult things?
.
I am well aware that it teaches some difficult things. That is one of the reasons that I so insist on pushing it to the max! All the Churches are intent on ignoring this book precisely because its message does not fit well with the watered down gospel that the modern churches are so expert at preaching! ... btw: wherever did you get the absurd idea that I am out to discredit the Epistle of James? ... That is the exact opposite of what I am trying to do!
