On Mark's 'Bible Study' Web Page

/ Subject: Mark's Web Page??? / Date > 10 May 1998 / Newsgroups > talk.religion.misc /
.
 To give the curious reader some idea of the high quality of the biblical scholarship that can be found at Mark Hampton's bible-study website at:   http://www.bigfoot.com/~mhampton   just take a quick peek at his short article entitled 'New Testament Languages'. Here one may find an answer to that age-old question: 'What Language did James speak?' This is Mark's answer: "James Spoke Aramaic, a Greek Dialect -- the common language of the day (though he wrote the book that bears his name in Koinonia [i.e. 'common'] Greek.)". And where is the evidence to support this assertion? Well now I just don't know, since the only 'evidence' that is offered is an unrelated and largely irrelevant quote from 'Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary'! In other words, Mister Hampton offers NO evidence whatsoever for his so-called 'answer' to the question: 'What language did James speak?'
.
 Therefore (since we have nothing else), let us examine Mark's answer in some detail. He claims that Aramaic is a Greek dialect, and that it was the common language of the day (we assume he is here referring to the latter half of the first century of the Common Era, when MOST of the NT writings were first put to papyrus). Both of these assertions are false. Aramaic was, in fact, a Hebrew dialect, and it WAS 'the language of the day' under the Persian empire. Once Alexander the Great conquered the world, however, it was the Greek language that became increasingly dominant, such that by the first century CE the 'common tongue' in both the East and West was a simplified Greek dialect called 'koine'. The Greek term that Mark mentions actually means 'communion' or 'fellowship'. [You can check it in your nearest Greek lexicon if you don't believe me.]
.
 Mark is right about one thing, however. He says that James wrote his book in Greek; and this is correct - up to a point. What he fails to mention is that James' Greek is of very high quality, such that it is closer to the 'pure' classical Greek than it is to the 'barbaric' Greek of the other NT authors (with the one exception of the 'epistle' to the Hebrews, which is of similar high quality). In fact, James' Greek is unique in some ways. He even uses one Greek term (for 'double-mindedness') that appears nowhere else. So if James wrote (and presumably spoke and thought) in scholarly Greek, why should anyone suppose that he spoke Aramaic? The reason for this is that most Bible scholars today *assume* that the book of James was written early on in the apostolic age (ie. somewhere between 50-80CE) by a Jewish-Christian living in Palestine (where many natives still spoke Aramaic).
.
 So if we believe that, then, of course, it's logical to "conclude" that the author spoke Aramaic. But the truth of the matter is that the bible scholars are wrong on both counts. James was, in fact, a second century Alexandrian Christian. He was NOT a Jewish-Christian. Nor is his theology 'primitive' in any way, shape, or form! His theology
actually depends rather heavily on the fourth gospel (which was not even widely known in the first century). The sad thing is that the vast majority of bible scholars are (like Luther) violently biased against the book of James, and really do not have the first clue as to what James is on about! Therefore, placing your trust in them is very like unto the blind leading the blind. The evidence for all that I have said here is contained in the book of James itself ...  but only IF you have the insightfully critical eyes to see it!

WHO ARE THE RICH AND THE POOR?

  The ongoing relevance of The Epistle of James depends entirely on a consistently Christian interpretation that is fully focused on the basic realities that define the lives of today's People of God. R. Schnackenburg (in The Moral Teachings of the New Testament) clearly recognizes the importance of this point: "Materialism and the craving for pleasure are a threat in every class and any situation" (364). Thus we can say that in every generation, and in every assembly, there are those who are rich and those who are poor. Out here in God's Country it is all but impossible to identify the rich and the poor solely on the basis of money or material wealth. The kind of disabling poverty that infects the third world is a serious problem for only a small minority of Canadians. This is not to say that all are wealthy here, but rather that the basis of the distinction between rich and poor must be located elsewhere. Mother Teresa once pointed out that physical hunger is easy to address; a loaf of bread is enough to dispel it (at least for the day). But spiritual hunger - what she calls "the hunger of the heart" - is an altogether more difficult problem. Indeed there is no easy cure for THIS global famine. This, then, is our best means of discovering who is rich and poor among the many Canadians who call themselves Christian.

  Now there are some within our assemblies who surely lack for nothing. They are rich in admiration, deference and respect. They have many friends who will support them (even in error), and defend them (whenever they are perceived to be threatened). They are charming, intelligent, pious; and in every way known to be 'outstanding Christians'. They are free to live their lives as they please; and even have considerable influence over the lives of others. On the other hand, the poor are those whose friends are few and far between; who have not beauty, influence, charm, freedom, etc. They are the ones who are suspected and rejected; who are met with hostility and contempt, who are unwanted and censored. Because they are thus  powerless in the Church, they are easy targets of sadistic abuse and malicious attack. Because they are powerless, they are unable to defend themselves, and so are easily enslaved by the unjustified fears of others. Heartbreak and loneliness are the only rewards that their faith brings them; yet they endure all these pains and tribulations because they know that only Christ can save them. For the rich, discipleship brings many comforts and gains. For the poor, discipleship is a burdensome yoke that brings neither peace nor joy. If we understand 'the rich and the poor' in this way, then the prophetic voice of James rings out with an altogether different tone:

 Now this sorry story of scholarly silliness begins right here: "Due, dear friends, to the sudden and successive misfortunes and accidents we have encountered ..." (1Clem 1:1). Thus the Reader should understand that in this mere handful of words we have, more or less, the sum total of all the evidence that leads scholars to conclude that the date of this epistle can be precisely fixed at 96CE. In other words, the claim is made that this reference points straight to the persecution of Christians which took place under the emperor Domitian in 95-96CE. However, it ought to be apparent to the Reader that the sheer flimsiness of the evidence in no way supports the overwhelming confidence that the scholars place in their dating of the letter.
.
 In point of fact, this evidence (such as it is) from the opening of 'The So-Called First Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians' can just as easily refer to any of the later sporadic outbursts of persecution in the 2C. Thus the determination of the date is here not based on the evidence so much as it is based upon the pressing need of the scholars and scribes to have at hand a fixed point of reference around which the dates of other books can be placed. This is an important point to appreciate because this error is but the first in a long series of erroneous distortions obscuring our vision of the true meaning and significance of this horribly abused sacred book.
.
 Moreover, the remaining abundant evidence offered by the letter as a whole in no way supports a 1C setting. If we want to know what was happening to the churches at that particular moment in church history, it is to the Apocalypse of the prophet John, and to the letters and gospel of 'the beloved apostle' John, that we must turn; and there are few NT books more dissimilar than Revelation and 1Clement! Indeed, even a casual comparison of those two books will show how incredibly unlikely it is that both could have been composed at the same exact moment.
.
 And indeed it is also apparent that 1Clement is far more at home with the other like-minded 2C documents than with the original and ground-breaking 1C documents. But these facts are willingly and conveniently overlooked by scholars who prefer their illusory certainty to allowing the evidence of the text to suggest that they might be wrong about the date which they all too eagerly offer for *this* particular book.
.
 You see, the thing about this long and rambling letter to the church in Corinth is that the "established" date and alleged author are far far more important than something so mundane as fixing the date and author on the basis of *all* the information provided by the letter. So if one were to proceed in this way, other conclusions would be reached. Consider the following statement: "Similarly, Clement refers to the Gospels, to Epistles of Paul, to the teaching of the Epistle of James, and again and again to the teachings of the Epistle to the Hebrews" (S.Neill, 'The Interpretation of the New Testament:1861-1961', p.54).
.
 But this statement is rather misleading. In the first place, the list of documents that the author of 1Clement knows can be expanded considerably to include: Acts of Apostles, 1Peter, Titus, Wisdom, Tobit, 1Timothy, and even Ephesians. In other words, the author clearly had a deep and comprehensive knowledge of all the sacred documents that would later go into the Emperor's 50 Great Bibles; as well as considerable familiarity with the classical pagan literature.
.
 It is this characteristic that the author of 1Clement shares most with the author of the Book of James. And when we further combine this detail with the author's highly developed Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity (eg. his ease and expertise in the Greek language and the LXX), and his powerful literary style, and his prophetic authority, etc, we can begin to see that the links between the two epistles (1Clem, Jm) are neither minor nor incidental; but are, rather, even more important than the author's use of the Epistle to the Hebrews!
.
 Now the importance of placing 1Clement in its proper 2C setting is that it immediately brings up the question of authorship. Thus if the letter was not written in 96CE, but at sometime in the first third of the second century, then the one thing that we *can* say with certainty is that Clement of Rome didn't write it! This is because this is a case
where the identity of the author falls directly from its (supposed) date. In other words, the wrong date here means the wrong author also. So if Clement did not write it, who did? I submit that the answer to this question must be discovered (first and foremost) from the evidence provided by the text itself. The problem here is that the epistle does not explicitly name its author. And this problem is further compounded by an unfortunate history of problematic textual transmission, etc ...
.
 Now you may be wondering, if that is the case, how it was that Clement came to be credited as the author. Three main factors led to this determination: (1) the authority of the author; (2) the date; and (3) the place. These three "facts" point straight to the first century hero and martyr called Pope Clement of Rome (or so they would have us believe). The only problem is that both the date and the place are wrong! In our present text, the first and last lines give Rome as the place of origin; but given the blatant political use and abuse to which this book was subjected, it is almost an established fact that the first and last lines (as we now have them) are NOT a part of the original autograph! ... And since the book was most highly regarded in North Africa (ie. it was collected with the other sacred Christian literature, and treated as such), I would say that replacing the word 'Rome' with the word 'Egypt' very probably brings us much closer to what the author originally wrote.
.
 So then if we wish to discover who the real author was, we have these three clues to guide us: (1) the "apostolic" authority of the writer; (2) the date (c.110-25CE); and (3) the place (ie. Egypt). Now these very suggestive clues (also) lead us to place 1Clement alongside the book of James, and the epistle of Jude, as belonging to the same
family of 2C Christian prophetic literature. Indeed, when we carefully compare James and 1Clement, it quickly becomes rather obvious that we are not dealing with two separate and distinct authors, but rather that the same one man wrote them both!
.
 Thus while the odd fact that both letters use the strange word "double-minded" has often been noted by various scholars, no one of them (as far as I am aware) has realized the full significance of this unique and important clue (ie. it is the author's 'signature'). And now that we have discovered who the real author of 1Clement is, we can clearly see that the apostolic authority of the Egyptian-Christian prophet called Jacob derives directly from his prophetic vocation, and not (as the priests and scribes would have us believe) from the ludicrous fantasy of apostolic succession. Thus in this very badly (and very wrongly!) named 'First Letter of Clement' we have a document that
not only has an exceedingly strong claim to be the 28th book of the NT, but also a very powerful prophetic letter from the hand of an authentic and inspired New Testament author!
.
 Now this is very exciting news for all True Believers, because it makes 1Clement unique and unparalleled among all the non-biblical books of ancient times: a sacred book written by a very important leader and teacher among the Egyptian churches of the early second century (ie. Jacob, the 2C Greek-Christian prophet of the church in Alexandria).
.
 btw: Jacob's 'lost' epistle also holds within itself the potential to wipe away all the illusory foundations upon which are built all the lies and powers and glories of the Mother of Harlots (as the prophet John calls Her) ... Being that great and mighty anti-church of the Latin tongue and ways; that stealeth away the works of the Spirit, that She may call them Her own!
.
P.S. The first thing that you must do, then, is to consider 1Clem, Jm, Jude, and 2Peter to be a closely knit family of documents all stemming from the same Egyptian-Christian traditions based upon the Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity that goes straight back to the earliest days of the church in Jerusalem; ie. before the expulsion which scattered the Greek-speaking Believers from out of Judea and into the Empire's greatest cities ...

The Cause of War!

WHAT CAUSES WARS; AND WHAT CAUSES FIGHTING AMONG YOU?
IS IT NOT YOUR PASSIONS THAT ARE AT WAR IN YOUR MEMBERS?

YOU DESIRE AND DO NOT HAVE; SO YOU KILL, AND YOU
COVET, AND CANNOT OBTAIN; SO YOU FIGHT AND WAGE WAR.

YOU DO NOT HAVE, BECAUSE YOU DO NOT ASK. YOU ASK AND DO NOT
RECEIVE, BECAUSE YOU ASK WRONGLY, TO SPEND IT ON YOUR PASSIONS.

UNFAITHFUL CREATURES!

DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT FRIENDSHIP WITH THE WORLD IS
ENMITY WITH GOD? THEREFORE, WHOEVER WISHES T0 BE A
FRIEND OF THE WORLD MAKES HERSELF AN ENEMY OF GOD!
[ James 4: 1-4 / Prophet Version ]

THE PROPHET'S CONFESSION
[Or: More Stuff on Jacob's Letter to Corinth]

/ Subject: Re: The Rubbish Dump By the River Tiber / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 15Sept99 /
.
>> Michael Townsend wrote: <snip> Self-praise is neither commebdation nor proof. And the roman-catholic
>> cult organisation is notorious for its flagrant manufacture of spurious "evidence" of its presumed "origins".
>> A typical example : the fraudulently-concocted so-called "Ididorian Decretals". <snip>
.
> On 3Sept99 js36 replied: <snip> What does historical documentation of early church beliefs have to do with
> "self praise"? As for being "notorious" for manufaturing "spurious 'evidence'", please provide some evidence
> that any of the early church father's writing which are easily available from both Catholic and non-Catholic
> sources are not authentic. <snip>
.
 Tondaar say: Dear js, here is a very important example of how the early Roman church manufactured spurious evidence. One of the most influential of the 'sacred books' of the early Christians is an epistle to the Corinthian church that is now known as Clement's First Epistle. How do we know that Pope Clement wrote this document? Well, since the author did not bother to identify himself (how very unlike a pope!) this conclusion is based on two alleged "facts":
.
 (1) the book was written in 96CE. This outrageous assumption is based on a brief and obscure reference to troubles recently experienced, and this is taken as evidence for the persecutions that took place in 95-96CE. In other words, the date is nothing more than wild and unjustified speculation; but it is important because it leads directly to this ...
.
 (2) In 96CE the "Pope" in Rome was Clement, and because the text states that the letter was written from Rome (in the first and last lines), this leads "logically" to the conclusion that Pope Clement wrote it! ... You see how all this works? It's all very nice and neat and tidy, and it "proves" that Rome is great and wonderful and marvelous beyond measure, and that all Christians *MUST* obey the great and wondrous Pope of Rome!
.
 The only problem with all this is that it is an illusion created by smoke and mirrors solely in order to bolster the authority of the Roman church. Those who know about the history of the text of 1Clement often complain about the problems regarding the text and its transmission. In other words, it is a well established fact that the text is corrupt, and that there are many very serious irregularities in the text as we now have it. Thus there is no question but that the text has been deliberately tampered with. The only questions arise as to exactly where the additions and changes are, and how deep the corruption goes. I will not bother the cyber-saints with all the details here; except to point out that the most significant change, by far, that was made to the text is the substitution of 'Rome' (in the first and last lines) for whatever place name existed there prior to the change (ie. very probably 'Egypt').
.
 And why am I so certain that 'Rome' was not a part of the original MS? It is simply a deduction derived from the fact that the author of 1Clement is actually the second-century Egyptian-Christian prophet called Jacob (who also wrote the NT Book of James). In other words, various clues and indicators in the text of 1Clement (eg. diction, method, style, theology, etc) strongly suggest that Jacob is the author. [For the details on all this, please see above article.] And if this be taken as an established fact, then it is easy to see that 1Clement was neither written by the first
century so-called "Pope" Clement; nor was it written in Rome ...
.
 But the importance of the great prophet's epistle was such that Rome quickly set out to appropriate it for its own ends; and this was easily accomplished by simply inserting 'Rome' at the start and finish, and then spreading the bald-faced lie that the author was a heroic first century Roman pope! ... And so successful was Rome in its deception that no one today is even aware of the crime that has been committed. No one, that is, except for a small handful of cyber-saints (ie. those very few who ever-so-graciously take the cyber-prophet seriously). Thus while Jacob's epistle to the Corinthians is undoubtedly valuable and authentic, the date and author assigned to it are most emphatically NOT!
.
>> MT: Correction: IF you know the meaning of the word "Straight", then get your facts straight.
>> I am neither a member of a "denomination" nor am I a promoter of "denominations".
.
 Me neither ...  :)
.
> js36: This is why I emphasized that by "denominational beliefs" I was referring to the basic
> non-catholic beliefs held by all non catholics (sola scriptura, etc.)
.
 Dear js, you are indeed an extremely silly person if that is what you believe to be true. In fact, not all non-Cats hold to the Lutheran doctrine of sola scriptura. The Quakers, for example, believe that the Spirit (or Light or Seed) within has a greater authority than the scriptures. The rank corruption that exists among so many post-modern Quakers stems directly from the consequences of their rejection of the authority of scripture. That is, they fancy that the imaginings of their own minds (what they call 'openings') supercede anything and everything that scripture might say. Because of this they are just as corrupt and apostate as the Romish bishops who certainly give much lip service to the Word of God, but do not allow the Truth to enter into their hardened and twisted Cat-hearts.
.
 As for the cyber-prophet, I do not hold to sola scriptura either. For me the Word of God is BOTH Jesus Christ and the sacred scriptures. The latter proceeds from the former, and speaks his mind and will for us; but only the former is infallible and inerrant. As far as I am aware, there is no denomination or church or cult today that speaks to my condition (ie. my beliefs, convictions, and faith) ...
.
 Thus I am a singular Christian. I am an individual believer who elects not to hand responsibilty for my moral, spiritual, and religious life over to priests or anyone else! I stand naked and powerless before my Lord and Savior; exposed in much fear and trembling (ie. there is no one to "mediate" between me and the Son of Man). And I am no part of any denomination; but I belong to all the People of God (ie. to all sincere and worthy True Believers).
.
>> As for beliefs, all of my beliefs are totally and all-exclusively based only on all of the
>> Truths of all of GOD's inspired and infallible Scriptures.
.
 Dear Michael, the scriptures are not infallible and inerrant. Only God is infallible and inerrant. To assign divne attributes to anything other than God is idolatry, pure and simple. Bible-thumpers claim that they do not worship the Bible, and so there is no idolatry in them, but when they claim that the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant and written at the dictation of God, idolatry is exactly what they are doing! Inspiration does not imply dictation nor inerrancy, and those who stupidly suppose that it does are fools of the highest degree ...
.
> Ok. Then you can show me where the bible teaches that only those books found in the bible
> should be used for discerning Gods will and no other source is ever valid.
.
 I, for one, do not hold this view. In the pre-Constantinian world many of the greatest teachers and prophets of the early Greek churches found a word of grace and truth in holy books that never did make it into the canon (eg. 1Clement, 2Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc etc). As I continue to study these (and other) early Christian literature, I am made accutely aware of just how much the People of God are losing by stupidly ignoring the tremendous resourses offered to them by this marvelous legacy of the early Greek churches ...
.
 Far too many Christians today wallow in their ignorance of these other Christian holy books; and likewise puff themselves up with the pride of their vanity by their pious and arrogant rejection of the true history of the early Greek churches. ... Yes, when I see some of the stupid and outrageous things that are spoken in these newsgroups
by those who claim to be faithful Christians, I am ashamed and very embarrassed to say that I am a Christian too!

textman
*