/ Topic >  Re: Who is James?? (#1) / 10Feb00 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
] On 25Jan00 TurboMike wrote: We are starting to study the Book of James in my church this wednesday.
] I thought I would start by learning who James is.
.
 erasmian say: Dear TurboMike, that is indeed a very good place to start. Alas, I think it highly unlikely that you (or your study group) will *ever* have any solid conception of who the author of this book really was (let alone what he is trying to say).
.
] Most of us have been told that James was Jesus's half brother.
.
 This is not only a cute and pious delusion, but one that is *entirely* without biblical support
*and* historical foundation!
.
] I stumbled across some scripture that sorta makes me think he was Jesus's cousin.
.
 Oh yeah? Geez, I can hardly wait to see your "evidence" ...
.
] Take a look at what I have found. Two MAIN James in the Bible 1. James: The son of Zebedee
] and Salome; an elder brother of John the apostle.  2. James: The son of Alphaeus, or Cleopas.
] Known as "James the Little".
.
 Where in the Bible does it say that one or the other of these two *must* be the author of the Book of James?
.
] Joh 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary
] the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. (Jesus's Mother had a sister named Mary that
] was married to Cleophas aka Alphaeus)
.
 Are you studying the book of James or the gospel of John? ... You really should make up your mind *first*!
In other words, this verse is *utterly* irrelevant to the study of Jm ...
.
] Mar 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene,
] and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; (Mary the wife of Cleophas
] referred to as the mother of james)
.
 Dear TurboMike, what makes you think that the 'James' mentioned here is the author of Jm?
.
] Mat 27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee,
] ministering unto him: Mat 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
] James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children (who was the wife of Celophas)
.
 Dear TurboMike, what makes you think that the 'James' mentioned here is the author of Jm?
.
] Mat 27:61 <snip quote due to utter irrelevance>
.
] Mar 3:32-35 <snip quote due to utter irrelevance>
.
] 1Co 15:6 <snip quote due to utter irrelevance>
.
] Thoughts????
.
 Yes. One thought is that you started with the claim that you would like to study the Book of James, and wish to begin by knowing who the author was, but then you at once promptly toss the Book of James aside and go waltzing through the NT collecting verses that have no bearing whatsoever on the book of James *or* its author. My other thought is that you and your study group will *never* even have the first clue as to who the author of Jm was ... Hint -> Jacob was a prophet.
.
>> On 25Jan00 T. Matthew wrote: James was the eldest brother of Jesus, according to
>> Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55,
.
 Dear TM, certainly Jesus had a brother called Jacob, but the question is where do you get the idea that *this* James is *also* the author of the book of James? Is it because there was no other 'James' who was also a writer in the ancient world? Or is it because it is categorically impossible for anyone other than Jesus' brother to have written Jm?
Please explain your reasoning in detail ... *IF* you can!
.
>> and the full brother of Jude.
.
 In the epistle of Jude, the prophet Judas says that he is the "brother" of James (ie. he is referring to the prophet Jacob who wrote the Book of James, NOT to the Lord's brother of the same name). Thus he does NOT say that he is the "blood-brother" of James; and also clearly means to use the word in its Christian meaning. This should not be *too* difficult to accept, as the epistle of Jude *is* a *Christian* document!
.
 In the same way, you have yet to demonstrate that the people mentioned in Mark and Matthew are *necessarily* the authors of James and Jude. Or do you suppose that the mere fact that the names are the same is sufficient proof in and of itself? ... That would seem to be the favorite fundy assumption. Too bad there is *NO* evidence (in Jm *or* Jude) to back up this absurd claim! ... Oh, but let's not let the facts get in the way of our pious (and incredibly feeble and arrogant) interpretation of Jm.
.
>> He was an unbeliever prior the the resurrection John 7:3-10. He became the first pastor of the
>> Jerusalem church Acts 12:17, 15:13, Galatians 2:1,9,10,12. He was possibly married. I Cor 9:5.
>> See also Acts 12:17, 15:13-29, and 21:18-26 regarding his bishoprick and interactions with Paul.
.
 Ah, so then the 'James' you are talking about was the "pillar" of the Jerusalem church. Well and good. Now kindly tell us how it is that *this* James of the first century is *also* the author of the second century document called the Book of James.
.
 Yes, fundies love to show forth their great knowledge of the scriptures, but whenever anyone asks them to demonstrate the validity of their pious assumptions and a-priori conclusions, they promptly clam up; doubtless thinking it beneath them to answer difficult questions that they have no answer for!
.
> On 26Jan00 rb36 wrote: I have heard that there was as many as Three James'. Interesting study though.
.
 Dear rb36, 'James' was a common name in the ancient world (as today). Therefore it ought to be apparent that in the first century CE there was actually many more Jacob's/James' than just three. Gee, that's not too difficult a concept to grasp, is it? Well, maybe it *is* for those who find it impossible to think rationally and coherently about the Word of God (ie. fundies and evangelicals in general).

/ Re: Who is James?? / (#2) / 14Feb00 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 14Feb00 Dwayne wrote: Erasmian - U R weird,
.
 erasmian replies: Dear Dwayne, thanks for noticing ...  :)
.
> illogical,
.
 You mean 'more illogical than Fundies'? ... I think *NOT*!
.
> unChristian, hypocritical and stupid.
.
 Thx a bunch.
.
> I wont even list U’r bad points.
.
 Yer much too kind, good sir.
.
> - The one who despises lack of thinking. – Dwayne ; )
.
 Is that why you won't bother yourself to think about the matter regarding the identity
of the author of the Book of James?

/ Re: Who is James?? / (#3) / 14Feb2000 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 14Feb00 Q replied: Does James 1:1 have anything to do with this "overwhelmingly important
> and significant question"?
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Q, it has a lot to do with it, yes indeed!
.
> Do you think that the identity of the author of James has any ramifications on James 1:1?
.
 You bet your booties it does!
.
> "James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered
> abroad: Greetings" - James 1:1
.
 I notice that you highlighted in boldface the words "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad". Presumably you think that the significance of these words lies in the supposed fact that only James the Pillar could have wrote them. That is woefully incorrect. Any Christian with strong ties to the Hebrew scriptures (such as the second century prophets of Egypt had; including Jacob, Judas, and the author of Second Peter) could have spoken in this way; yes,
even in the second century C.E.
.
 Thus verse one *is* important to the question of the author's identity, but I think it most significant that you should focus your attention on the second half of the verse while ignoring the all-important beginning of the epistle, where Jacob tells us *exactly* who and what he is. Of course, all this is obscured by your *grossly* inaccurate translation. Let us therefore examine a more adequate translation of Jm.1:1 and see if that helps any:
.
"From: Jacob, a slave of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ.
To: the Twelve Tribes in the Dispersion ... Grace to you!" -- James 1:1 / Prophet Version
.
 Ah so, this is *very* different from what your translation claims that Jacob wrote. What then is the significance of the author calling himself a "slave"? The significance is that "slave" here means nothing other than *prophet*! 'Jacob, a prophet of God' ... That is *who* and *what* the author of Jm is ...
.
 Would you now like me to demonstrate that the use of "slave" as a synonym for "prophet" is fully and completely in union with biblical traditions going back to the very beginnings of the sacred scriptures? Prophets have always been willing to identify themselves as 'slaves of God' (see your Bible for details). There is no mystery in this, since that is *precisely* what the (Hebrew OR Christian) prophet is. It is only our gross ignorance about the biblical prophetic traditions (OT & NT) that allows translators to get away with substituting the anemic and inoffensive 'bondservant' for the pungent and offensive 'slave'.
.
 If we could all be true to the original Greek scriptures, and learn to truly *listen* to what the text says (rather than placing our own biased assumptions upon the unresisting text), then we just *might* be able to figure out what the Word of God *actually* intends to say!
.
> In the service of THE LIVING GOD - Q
.
 I'm sure he's right thrilled with the quality of your service so far ... 

/ Topic >  Re: Who is James?? / (#4) / 16Feb00 / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
] Some Fundy swine wrote: Do you think that the identity of the author of James has any ramifications on Jm 1:1?
.
>> erasmian replied: You bet your booties it does!
.
> On 14Feb00 Zachary Haston wrote: Hello Erasmian.
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Zachary, hi ho.  :)
.
> I'm new around here (BTW, I'm not the "Zak" that I saw in another post. I'll go by "Zachary" to try to
> help keep people straight).
.
 Good idea. I use several different names myself, but this should cause no confusion as the cyber-prophet remains the same regardless.
.
> Could you clear some things about what you're trying to say?
.
 It's what I live for, Zachary.
.
> To start with, am I correct that you believe this epistle was written not early,
> but late (not 45-49AD, but 2nd century)?
.
 That is correct. My best estimate places the date of origin somewhere in the area of 100-110CE. Any earlier than that would be too early, and any later than that would be too late.
.
> And not by the familiar James we're all thinking about but by some other?
.
 Yes. This Jacob who authored the Book of James was a very well educated man, both a scholar and a prophet. For various reasons I place him at Alexandria (eg. they had an amazing library there). In any case, he was a very different sort of man than the James who was the "pillar" of the Jerusalem church (by virtue of his blood relation to Jesus yet). Thus it ought to be apparent to anyone reading the book that the authority of *this* James was NOT
derived by virtue of an accident of birth!
.
> Also, I don't know if it matters, but do you think this letter was written in Hebrew first and we have
> a Greek translation of that?
.
 No. It was written in Greek; and a very exceptional Greek at that!
.
> Now going back to your first statement:
.
] Do you think that the identity of the author of James has any ramifications on James 1:1?
.
>> erasmian: You bet your booties it does!
.
> ZH: Why?
.
 Because Jacob clearly identifies himself here at the very beginning of the book:
"Jacob, a slave of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ."
.
> Thinking out loud here ... the James in Acts would naturally write it at that time to "the twelve tribes."
.
 The James in 'Acts of Apostles' is a figment of that author's imagination, and has no bearing on any *serious* attempt to study the book of James. Nor do I agree with you that it would be "natural" at that time (presumably you mean sometime in the fifties or sixties of the first century) to write to 'the twelve tribes'. Why then should you suppose that it would be natural "at that time"? Because most believers were still Jewish then, perhaps?
.
> If it were some later James, then are you trying to say that this was written to only the Jewish subset
> and does not apply to myself? Or is it another big-time ramification?
.
 "the twelve tribes" is simply a powerful symbolic image. Jacob uses it to indicate *all* the People of God (including the new 'gentile' believers). Thus it does *not* refer to any Jewish subset, and can hardly be used to accurately date the book. We must never forget that the Book of James is a profoundly *Christian* book. Certainly the prophet is well-rooted in the Hebrew scriptures, but this does NOT mean that Jm is a Jewish book with a light Christian veneer (as some commentators stupidly suppose).
.
] "James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered
] abroad: Greetings" - James 1:1
.
>> erasmian: I notice that you highlighted in boldface the words "To the twelve tribes which are scattered
>> abroad". Presumably you think that the significance of these words lies in the supposed fact that only
>> James the Pillar could have wrote them. That is woefully incorrect. Any Christian with strong ties to the
>> Hebrew scriptures (such as the second century prophets of Egypt had; including Jacob, Judas, and the
>> author of Second Peter) could have spoken in this way; yes, even in the second century C.E.
.
> ZH: But after the Council of Jerusalem wouldn't they have addressed it to the Gentiles too?
> Or are we all messed up on what was going on?
.
 You seem to be confusing the book of James with the letter mentioned in Acts. The Book of James is NOT really a letter at all (although it does have some features of the letter form). But actually the Book of James is a collection of prophetic homilies. This is why I always refer to the Book of James rather than to the Epistle of James. In any case,
such confusion is obviously not helpful to the study of James. If you wish to study Acts, you're talking to the wrong guy. If you wish to study the Book of James, take my advice: Forget 'Acts'!
.
>> Thus verse one *is* important to the question of the author's identity, but I think it most significant
>> that you should focus your attention on the second half of the verse while ignoring the all-important
>> beginning of the epistle, where Jacob tells us *exactly* who and what he is. Of course, all this is
>> obscured by your *grossly* inaccurate translation. Let us therefore examine a more adequate
>> translation of Jm.1:1 and see if that helps any:
.
> "exactly"?
.
 Yes, exactly (as in precisely and specifically)!
.
>> "From: James, a slave of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ.
>>  To: the Twelve Tribes in the Dispersion ... Grace to you!" -- James 1:1 / Prophet Version
.
>> Ah so, this is *very* different from what your translation claims that Jacob wrote. What then is the
>> significance of the author calling himself a "slave"? The significance is that "slave" here means nothing
>> other than *prophet*! 'Jacob, a prophet of God' ... That is *who* and *what* the author of Jm is ...
.
> Paul would call himself a slave.
.
 Of course! Paulos of Damascus was one of the greatest prophets (Christian or otherwise) to ever walk the earth. Christians today never think of him as a prophet because they are all quite sure that he was an apostle; conveniently forgetting that an apostle is nothing other than a *Christian* prophet. Check it out.
.
> So would James (of Jerusalem).
.
 I don't think *that* James had the nerve to call himself a prophet. He was quite content to ride on the authority that his blood provided. 'James the Pillar' a prophet? No, I don't think so, Zachary. It just wasn't in his blood, if you take my meaning.
.
> So could others.
.
 Sure. There were many more prophets then than now.
.
> That doesn't tell us what James we're talking about.
.
 It tells us what James we're NOT talking about!
.
>> Would you now like me to demonstrate that the use of "slave" as a synonym for "prophet" is fully
>> and completely in union with biblical traditions going back to the very beginnings of the sacred
>> scriptures? Prophets have always been willing to identify themselves as 'slaves of God' (see your
>> Bible for details). There is no mystery in this, since that is *precisely* what the (Hebrew OR
>> Christian) prophet is. It is only our gross ignorance about the biblical prophetic traditions (OT &
>> NT) that allows translators to get away with substituting the anemic and inoffensive 'bondservant'
>> for the pungent and offensive 'slave'.
.
> I have no problem saying that some Hebrew Jacob
.
 Why should you suppose that our Jacob was Hebrew, eh? There is precious little evidence to support that view. Rather, the facts (as given in the text of Jm) are clear: our Jacob was Greek to the core!
.
> in the 2nd century might write "James, a slave of God, to..."  But that certainly doesn't mean
> that _this_ was_written by him (or that this was written by _him_).
.
 I'm sorry. You lost me there. ... [Insert much scratching of head] ... Are you suggesting that the text was somehow corrupted? That the word 'doulos' was later inserted into the text? Who would do such a silly thing? And why? And to what end?
.
> Who specifically is this Jacob and why do you think this was written by him?
.
 My dear Zachary, you do not strike me as being particularly dense, but this question makes me wonder. This Jacob is *specifically* a second century prophet of Alexandria. And I think he wrote the book of James because all the evidence that I have gathered comes exclusively from the Book of James. In other words, *this* Jacob is the author of Jm because the Book of James reveals the nature and character of the man who authored it.
.
>>  If we could all be true to the original Greek scriptures,
.
> I guess that answers one of my above questions.
.
 If you say so ...  :)
.
>> and learn to truly *listen* to what the text says (rather than placing our own biased assumptions
>> upon the unresisting text), then we just *might* be able to figure out what the Word of God
> *actually* intends to say!
.
> Could you give me a brief picture of what you think we're all missing?
.
 Certainly! Please proceed to the First Cyber-Church of Jacob & Judas: https://cybrwurm.tripod.com/smap.htm
.
 Can't get much briefer than that, eh? ...  :)
.
> Thanks for your help, Zachary
.
 Don't thank me now, Zachary. We're not done yet. Not by a long shot!

/ Re: Who is James?? / (#5) / 20Feb2000 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
> On 14Feb00 Dwayne wrote: Erasmian – Alllllllrighty then. I agree it is important.
.
 erasmian replies: Dear Dwayne, great! That's a right fine place to begin a serious study of the Word of God. Much better than many amusing (but also gratuitous) insults, wouldn't you say?  :)
.
> Forgive "my" digression concerning your digression.
.
 Huh? [timeout for much puzzled scratching of head] ... OK
.
> Interested Observer - Good question. Jesus and the 12 identified themselves as first and primarily
> serving Israel. "To the 12 scattered tribes" is a positive indication that the author was of the
> "circumcision" writers and believers.
.
 This *could* be true IF the book of James was written prior to the great 'Parting of the Ways' between Judaism and Christianity (ie. sometime before the end of the first century). However, to use this phrase as evidence of an early date is illegitimate since it *could* also be used meaningfully within the context of second century Gentile/Greek Christianity. In other words, you are making a methodological blunder: "To the 12 scattered tribes" is NOT a positive indication that the author was of the "circumcision" writers and believers. You are assuming what first needs to be
established; a common failing in Fundy exegesis.
.
> Certainly James, the brother of Jesus, was in that group.
.
 I quite agree. But I have yet to see *ANY* evidence FROM THE TEXT OF JM suggesting that the author Jacob is none other than "James, the brother of Jesus"! ... Show me the money, Dwayne.
.
> However, if there are 2 or 3 James in question, I do not know how this would limit the field.
> <snip remainder>
.
 According to Lehman Strauss (in 'James Your Brother: Studies in the Epistle of James') there are *SIX* possible candidates (ie. biblical James') for the authorship of Jm:
.
>> The Scriptures speak of not less than six persons called James. These are: (1) the son of Zebedee
>> (Mark 1:19); (2) the son Alphaeus (Mark 3:18); (3) "James the less" (Mark 15:40); (4) one referred
>> to as one of Jesus' brothers (Mark 6:3); (5) "James the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:19); and (6) the
>> brother of Jude (Jude 1). Upon checking the above Scriptures, one can clearly see that these six
>> can actually be reduced to three if we regard two and three as the same person, and four, five, 
>> and six as the same person.
.
 Now it may be legitimate to regard 2 and 3 as the same individual, but as this James has no apparent connection to the book of Jm, the matter is largely irrelevant to us. In the same way, it is certainly logical to regard 4 and 5 as referring to the same man, but here again there is no immediate or apparent connection with Jm (ie. the author nowhere suggests (or even hints at) any blood-relation with Jesus). In other words, the ONLY thing suggesting that these two (ie. Jesus' younger brother) could be the author of Jm is the simple fact that they share the same name. Hardly what I call over-whelming or conclusive evidence.
.
 Thus the biggest error in the above reasoning is the illogical and unfounded assumption that 6 refers to the same person as 4 and 5. The inability to make the necessary distinction that 4&5 and 6 refer to two men stems from a false reading of the word 'brother' in Jude 1. In 4&5 the context makes it clear that 'brother' means 'blood-brother',
but in Jude there is no indication that Judas means 'blood-brother'. On the contrary, the context clearly suggests that Judas uses 'brother' in the Christian sense (ie. spiritual-brother). Look here, Paul uses 'brother' many times this way, and there is no confusion here with blood-brother. 4X: "From Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes, our brother ..." (1Cor.1:1).
.
 So why is there an unshakable assumption that Judas does NOT use 'brother' in just this very same Pauline way? It arises from two factors (both of which are methodologically doubtful): (1) The epistle of Jude is "Jewish", and therefore the author could not possibly have intended the Christian meaning. (2) The gospels speak of two blood-
brothers of Jesus named Jacob and Judas. The first factor is manifestly false, while the second resides *solely* on the pious preconception that it is well and fitting (and authoritative) that the blood-brothers of Jesus should be inspired authors of New Testament books. In other words, no effort whatsoever is made to link these non-biblical
sentiments with evidence gathered from the texts of James and Jude!
.
>> Three men called James remain; James, the son of Zebedee; James, the son of Alphaeus; and
>> James, the Lord's brother. Now the> question arises as to which of the three wrote the epistle.
.
 By thus (illogically and irrationally) reducing the question of authorship to just these three, there is no possibility of using the evidence provided by the texts to help us determine the identity of the author. But rather, through dishonorable methodological trickery, Fundies are led to ignore the evidence of the texts, and impose upon the texts the meanings and implications that support their prior assumption that "James, the Lord's brother" is the author of Jm!
.
 Thus Strauss correctly observes the intimate connections that abide within the Christian prophetic tradition while being utterly ignorant of the fact that it is *THE CHRISTIAN PROPHETIC TRADITION* that is the substance and essence of these intimate connections:
.
>> The writer of this Epistle, as do Paul, Peter, and Jude, identifies himself immediately
>> as to his name and position
.
 And what position is that, you say? . . . Why, the position of *servant*, of course! 
.
>> "A servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." Like Paul (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1) and Peter (2 Peter 1:1),
.
 *AND* Jude 1:1 as well! ... Oh how soon we forget the essentials!!!
.
>> James refers to himself, not as an apostle, but as a bondslave.
.
 This is entirely and completely false. Jacob does NOT refer to himself as a "bondslave", but rather as a "slave". And within the context of the biblical (and Christian) prophetic tradition 'slave' means 'prophet'. And since an apostle is nothing other than a Christian prophet, Jacob's use of 'slave' is very clearly a deliberate and undeniable claim that the author *IS* an apostle!
.
>> The word "servant" denotes this.
.
 The word 'servant' is NOT the word that Jacob uses! Thus we see that Fundies pile one methodological error upon another and another and another, so as to arrive at their pious preconceived "conclusions"!
.
>> Any truly great man of God, regardless of how high his position in the church,
>> regards himself as a servant of Christ.
.
 This is known as the 'humble-pie theory of self-identification'. So Jacob does not explicitly tell us that he is the Lord's blood-brother because he was a *humble* man. In the same way, Judas does not explicitly tell us that he is the Lord's blood-brother because he also was a *humble* man. Of course, the word 'slave' is NOT a humble-pie term, but rather a prophetic term. Thus we are left with the choice between identifying the author on the basis of an alien and imported word entirely inconsistent with the prophetic nature and tone of the book of Jm as a whole, or on the basis of the Christian prophetic tradition that links and harmonizes Jesus, Paul, and Tanakh with the second century Christian prophets of Egypt (eg. James, Jude, 2Peter).
.
 I leave it to the Reader to decide for yourself whether or not Lehman's lies and illusions are more logical and respectful of scripture than the cyber-prophet's insights into the prophetic texts of the early Greek churches ...
.
> On 15Feb00 Dwayne added: Erasmian - You are really annoying, in an illogical and strifeful kind
> of way. Perhaps you already knew that.
.
 Perhaps ... 
.
> You know, by your own logic and reasoning, someday, some philosophical idiot will look at
> your own writings, and with great Erasmian logic, attest them to someone else!
.
 Given the amazing possibilities inherent in human stupidity in general, I would say that your suggestion is, at the very least, feasible. Off topic - no doubt - but feasible nevertheless.
.
> I know you think that is funny, that's because U R strange and contrary. -- Dwayne
.
 Fundies are funny, strange, and contrary too, Dwayne. That's why the Lord and his cyber-prophet just LUV all these stubborn and thick-headed fundy-evangelical types here in cyber-space!

/ Re: Who is James?? / (#6) / 24Feb2000 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
> On 20Feb00 mjw wrote: Who cares whether or not he was a brother of Jesus or any other kind of blood relative?
.
 erasmian answers: Dear mjw, well, if you could perhaps rouse yourself from your apathy and lethargy long enough to actually pay attention to what the participants in this discussion are actually saying, then maybe you'd know that the point we are here examining is who the author of James was, and NOT the question of what degree of closeness the blood-relation was. In other words, Cats argue that James was a "cousin" of Jesus, while Fundies argue for "brother" (ie. same mother). To me this question is utterly irrelevant since the James that they are thinking of is most certainly *NOT* the author of the Book of James!
.
> I don't understand the significance is or what ramifications it would have on anything if he was not.
> Thanks, -- one who despises irrelevant discussions, Matt
.
 Well, Matt, that is obviously a serious problem, but not (I think) an unreasonable one. This is because the implications and consequences of acknowledging the fact that the author of James is a second century prophet of Alexandria is not at all apparent to the average believer or bible-student. However, these implications *are* deep and profound, and *that* is why I insist on the "overwhelming importance" of this question of authorship.
.
 Now one reason why the question of authorship is important is that it allows us to place any given text within its original setting. This gives us access to the world around the text; the social, political, religious, etc, worlds out of which these texts emerged. Thus the text mirrors the author, the original readers, and the entire social-historical environment around it. Certain words have certain meanings within certain contexts; and *not* in others.
.
 So if we wish to understand the text of James from something other than the false and traditional view that claims Jm to be "perhaps" the earliest NT document to be written (ie. in the 40's of the first century), then we *must* discard the pious (but erroneous) opinion that the author of Jm is 'James, the Lord's brother'. THEN, for example,
we can begin to appreciate that the reason why the text of Jm is not openly "evangelical" (or so Luther supposed) is that it everywhere *assumes* the existence of the gospels and the pauline epistles.
.
 Think about that for a minute. It means, for one thing, that the book of James was written well after the gospels and epistles had first entered the developing traditions of the early Greek churches. This suggests a date for composition a good half century or more after the "c.45-49AD" date so popularly proposed. And the date of c.100CE would also rule out the Lord's brother as author. It would also explain why the three NT books James, Jude, and 2Peter were so late in entering the still developing canon of the most popular Christian scriptures.
.
 Viewing the book of James from the rigorously historical vantage-point thereby frees us to see that James, Jude, and 2Peter all belong to the same, one and common, tradition (namely, the Christian prophetic traditions of the early Egyptian churches). We can also place them, not at the very beginnings of the Written Word (which honor belongs
to Paulos and Silvanus), but rather at their end; where they properly belong (as a fitting little prophetic cap upon the body of the sacred scriptures).
.
 And there are, of course, many *many* other fine implications and ramifications involved in approaching the texts reasonably and rationally and sensibly (as befits any good true believers who would follow the Lord with all their heart, all their mind, and all their spirit). Therefore the *way* we approach scripture in general is just as important to the bible-student as the decision to study the Word in the first place. ... Reading the scriptures is an art-form, you see. Reading the Word is a skill that requires constant practice and endless patience. No believer should suppose that reading the Bible is easy and uncomplicated. Hermeneutics is complicated because the act of reading is (of necessity) a complicated process. Woe unto those arrogant Readers who would ingest the Acts of Apostles after the manner of reading their morning newspaper!

P.S. "Hermeneutics seem to me to be animated by this double motivation: willingness to suspect, willingness to listen" (Paul Ricoeur, 'Freud and Philosophy', p.27).

/ Topic >  Re: Who is James?? / (#7) / 24Feb2000 / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
>> erasmian previously wrote: <snip> My best estimate places the date of origin somewhere in the area
>> of 100-110CE. Any earlier than that would be too early, and any later than that would be too late.
.
> On 17Feb Zachary Haston replied: I would estimate 45-49AD, but that goes along with the James I'm thinking of.
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Zachary, in other words, you base your estimate of the date of the Book of James not on the evidence offered by Jm, but rather as a logical consequence of your prior assumption that the author must be James the Pillar. Is that correct? Do you see the methodological problems raised by such an illogical procedure? I do.
--> FIRST we must establish the date on the basis of the evidence provided by the text of Jm, THEN we are in a much better position to determine possible authors.
.
> I checked out "The When of James?" on your web site and couldn't really gather why you date it this late.
.
 Briefly, my position is that the book of James simply doesn't make sense within the original context you suggest (ie. the so-called "Hebrew" believers in Jerusalem in the late 40's of the first century). For example, the book of James assumes the prior existence of the Pauline epistles (ie. it demonstrates clear knowledge of Paul's theology as given in his epistles). Yet in the mid-40's Paul had not even begun the process of creating the Christian epistle as a vehicle
for the kerygma. Thus you are making the methodological blunder of 'putting the cart before the horse'!
.
>>> Zachary previously wrote: <snip> And not by the familiar James we're all thinking about but by some other?
.
>> e: Yes. This Jacob who authored the Book of James was a very well educated man, both a scholar and a
>> prophet. For various reasons I place him at Alexandria (eg. they had an amazing library there). In any case,
>> he was a very different sort of man than the James who was the "pillar" of the Jerusalem church (by virtue
>> of his blood relation to Jesus yet).
.
> This sound's like a stretch, but I don't know what those various reasons are.
.
 Of course not. How could you know that the Faith was already live and well in Alexandria well before the end of the first century? Church history in general has a tremendous blind spot regarding the greatest city of the Ancient World. Church historians and bible scholars both seem to like pretending that the Faith didn't arrive there until just before Clement of Alexandria (who single-handedly makes it impossible for them to force the Faith out of second century Egypt entirely). And yet the scriptures themselves testify to a thriving Faith there, even in Paul's day, in the person of an apostle/ambassador from that city; ie. IF Luke's 'Apollos' is the same man Paul refers to as "brother Apollos" (in 1Cor.16:12):
.
 "Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephesus. He was an eloquent speaker, well-versed in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus ... " -- Acts 18:24-25
.
>> Thus it ought to be apparent to anyone reading the book that the authority of *this* James
>> was NOT derived by virtue of an accident of birth!
.
> I don't think anyone claims that this book has authority because of that.
.
 Nonsense. People *want* our good prophet Jacob to be "James, the Lord's brother" because they automatically assume that Jm has more apostolic authority that way. I shall not comment on the serious lack of logic of this position, but I would point out how unstated preconceptions such as these hinder and impede an honest search
for the truth about these matters.
.
> The authority claimed is that it's of James the Just, the head at Jerusalem, the pillar, etc.
> You're not a pillar of the church by blood.
.
 You are in error, sir. How is it that "James the Just" assumed authority over the Jerusalem believers (including Simon-Peter, the supposed head of all the original disciples) if it was *not* by virtue of the fact that he was directly related to Jesus by blood? Remember that after the radical, Greek-speaking Jewish-believers were expelled from Jerusalem (c.40CE), the only remaining believers left in the Holy City were the conservative Aramaic-speaking believers for whom things like circumcision and blood-relationships were still normative for their thinking and practice of the Faith.
.
>> <snip> Because Jacob clearly identifies himself here at the very beginning of the book:
>> "Jacob, a slave of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ."
.
> Okay, I've gotta get past this first word. If Greek, then why are you saying "Jacob?"
.
 That's what the Greek text says, Zachary. It says 'Jacob'. It does *NOT* say 'James'. Therefore I call the prophet by his stated profession (ie. slave=prophet) AND name -> 'Jacob'. Check it out.
.
>>> Thinking out loud here...the James in Acts would naturally write it at that time to "the twelve tribes."
.
>> The James in 'Acts of Apostles' is a figment of that author's imagination, and has no bearing on any
>> *serious* attempt to study the book of James.
.
> Huh? Are you saying there was no James in Jerusalem?
.
 Certainly not. What I am saying is that Luke's portrait of him may not be entirely accurate in every detail. In the same way, we have to make a critical distinction between the authentic Paulos of Damascus as revealed through his letters, and the Lukan portrait of 'Saul of Tarsus' who is *not* a historical person as such (but rather an idealized hero based on the apostle Paul).
.
> "Figment of the imagination"? All of the sudden it's very hard to take you seriously.
.
 What you have to understand about the cyber-prophet is that I take church history *very* seriously. I think it indispensable to any serious (and faithful!) attempt to read the New Testament. For that reason it is necessary to maintain a critical attitude toward the "theological-history" of the one-book-in-two-parts called Luke-Acts. Again, if we wish to study James, we must first concentrate our attention exclusively on Jm (and not on other texts we fancy *may* be related or relevant (such as the bible-byte above :) .
.
>> <snip> "the twelve tribes" is simply a powerful symbolic image.
.
> A possibility worthy of consideration.
.
 I should hope so; especially in light of the fact that powerful symbolic imagery IS a characteristic feature of prophetic literature in general!
.
> It doesn't sound right to me though (at least not at this time).
.
 A good example of the use of powerful symbolic imagery by a Christian prophet can be found in the book of Revelation by the prophet John of Patmos. If you can read that book, and *then* tell me that powerful symbolic imagery is *not* a part of prophetic speaking, I shall be *most* surprised at you ...
.
>> The Book of James is NOT really a letter at all (although it does have some features of the
>> letter form). But actually the Book of James is a collection of prophetic homilies.
.
> A string of thoughts sent in a letter or put together in a book seem like the same thing to me.
.
 The scriptures are made up of a wide variety of literary types and forms and genres. If you are not sensitive to ALL the subtle nuances that the sacred text is so skillfully capable of, then it is no wonder that your aware-less mindset hurries to the easy (and yet oh so pious) "answers" (actually illusions and delusions) offered by conservative bible teachers and commentators.
.
> I got what you're saying though, it's not exactly like Philemon. "Book" is certainly fine with me.
.
 That's not the point. The point is that the book of James is composed of a collection of prophetic homilies that were previously delivered "live" to various assemblies and synagogues (ie. gatherings) by a real live prophet speaking with the authority of an apostle. Again, Jm is more like Hebrews in having some superficial attributes of the classic
epistle, but NOT being letters in the strictest sense of the form.
.
>> If you wish to study Acts, you're talking to the wrong guy
.
> We're not studying Acts. We're talking about the James of Acts.
.
 This is a direct and extremely illogical contradiction, Zachary. In order to arrive at the truth of things, it is necessary to study the Jacob of the Book of James, NOT the James of Acts. If you are unable to make this vital and necessary distinction, then I fear that there may be no hope for you!
.
> You say it's not this James, but I have to identify who I assume it is somehow.
.
 "assume" is the operative word here. Why don't you try reading Jm with the assumption that it was written by a second century Egyptian-Christian prophet, and see if the text still makes any sense to you?
.
>> If you wish to study the Book of James, take my advice: Forget 'Acts'!
.
> I'm not sure if it will ever come up again after verse 1.
.
 Of course it will. It lurks silently in the background just waiting to spring forth and devour the unwary Reader!  :(
.
] Thus verse one *is* important to the question of the author's identity, but I think it most significant
] that you should focus your attention on the second half of the verse while ignoring the all-important
] beginning of the epistle, where Jacob tells us *exactly* who and what he is.
.
>>> "exactly"?
.
>> Yes, exactly (as in precisely and specifically)!
.
> If it was this specific, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
.
 Sure we would. The prophetic meaning of 'slave' was perfectly obvious to the original audience of readers and auditors, but after 2000 years of obscurity and the deliberate eradication of the Christian prophetic tradition, the meaning is (sadly) no longer as obvious to believers as it certainly ought to be!
.
> I think this is from one James, you from another.
.
 Yeah, but the most significant difference here is that you are wrong about this, while I am right.
Trust me on this. :)
.
>>> Paul would call himself a slave.
.
 Paul *did* call himself a slave in some of his authentic epistles. Who do you think started the Christian prophetic tradition (and its love of words and texts)?
.
>>> So would James (of Jerusalem).
.
>> I don't think *that* James had the nerve to call himself a prophet. He was quite content to ride
>> on the authority that his blood provided. 'James the Pillar' a prophet? No, I don't think so, Zachary.
>> It just wasn't in his blood, if you take my meaning.
.
> Ah, now I'm getting to the root of it. I have no disdain for James.
.
 Neither do I.
.
> Quite the contrary, I think quite highly of him.
.
 Just so. And *that* is why you wish him to be the author of Jm!
.
> You've got an uphill battle with "This wonderful book is not from him, he's a jerk."
> Please explain your contempt.
.
 There is no contempt here. Merely the clear historical recognition that the prophet Jacob and James the Just are two very different sorts of people. Indeed I find it quite impossible to confuse the two; as the quality of their faith is surely worlds apart.
.
>>> So could others.
.
>> Sure. There were many more prophets then than now.
.
> If lots of people could have said it, then it's not precise and specific about who.
.
 I don't know what you're getting at here.
.
>>> That doesn't tell us what James we're talking about.
.
>> It tells us what James we're NOT talking about!
.
> Only if we agree that the James in Jerusalem is a bum.
.
 No. Only if we agree that the James in Jerusalem is not a prophet; which, for me, is perfectly obvious in any case. It seems to me that it is you who has the problem. Surely you are well aware that there is nothing whatsoever in the traditions about James of Jerusalem even remotely suggesting that he was a prophet. Why then are you so eager to make him out to be something that he never was?
.
>>> I have no problem saying that some Hebrew Jacob
.
>> Why should you suppose that our Jacob was Hebrew, eh? There is precious little evidence to
>> support that view. Rather, the facts (as given in the text of Jm) are clear: our Jacob was
>> Greek to the core!
.
> Beautiful Greek, but it's hard to not think Hebrew here.
.
 Why? Because you can't get past the idea that a Judaizer wrote Jm?
.
> And gee, we haven't even got past verse 1 ;-)
.
 I know. There's a lot of good (prophetic) stuff in those five chapters. And a lot of evidence that the author thought, spoke, and wrote the language of a scholar's refined and polished Greek. This is certainly NOT the language of an uneducated country bumpkin! Again, the distinction between these two men is vast and profound.
.
> Actually I'm working on the assumption that we'll largely agree about the rest of the book,
> but please inform me if you expect otherwise.
.
 Oh I do, I do!  :)
.
>>> in the 2nd century might write "James, a slave of God, to...". But that certainly doesn't
>>> mean that _this_was written by him (or that this was written by _him_).
.
>> I'm sorry. You lost me there. ... [Insert much scratching of head]
>> ... Are you suggesting that the text was somehow corrupted?
.
> No, no talk of corruption. This is just more of the "which James" stuff. You keep talking like "James,
> a slave of God, to..." means that it was written a specific 2nd century James. It does not. It just
> means it could have been. The James you're thinking about might not have written this. This could
> have been written by another James.
.
 No, Zachary. You are not paying attention. The James I am talking about *is* the author because everything I know about him comes directly from the Book of James. The prophet Jacob is not merely one possible author among other possible authors. He *IS* the author, and there is no other "possible" candidate!
.
>>> Who specifically is this Jacob and why do you think this was written by him?
.
>> My dear Zachary, you do not strike me as being particularly dense, but this question makes me
>> wonder. This Jacob is *specifically* a second century prophet of Alexandria. And I think he wrote
>> the book of James because all the evidence that I have gathered comes exclusively from the Book
>> of James. In other words, *this* Jacob is the author of Jm because the Book of James reveals the
>> nature and character of the man who authored it.
.
> "all the evidence that I have gathered comes exclusively from the book of James" about answers
> my question. When I ask who, I mean what church, what do we know of him.
.
 The church of Alexandria was his 'home church' I suspect. And all that we know of him is what the evidence of the text of Jm tells us about him (4X: It tells us that he was both a scholar and a prophet).
.
> "Who is this guy?" I don't know of any James or Jacob in Alexandria so I'm asking basic
> questions. Who talks about him?
.
 Other than the cyber-prophet, you mean? Why, no one, of course!
.
> etc. etc. Which James are you saying wrote this?
.
 The same one prophet called Jacob who wrote these words:
.
"From: Jacob, a slave of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ.
To: the Twelve Tribes in the Dispersion ... Grace to you!" -- James 1:1 / Prophet Version
.
> If I received a letter from James in 48 AD, we would instantly think of James in Jerusalem.
> Well, if I received a letter from James in 110 AD, who would I think of?
.
 The then famous prophet of Alexandria.
.
>> Don't thank me now, Zachary. We're not done yet. Not by a long shot!
.
> I can still thank ya.
.
 If you must ...  :)
.
> Until now I've just assumed it was the James in Jerusalem that wrote it.
.
 No one has ever bothered to challenge this assumption before. Lack of interest in the Christian prophets doubtless has much to do with the general neglect (and even outright abuse) of James, Jude, and 2Peter.
.
> You present something else and I think about something I haven't thought about before. That
> deserves thanks. However, for my interest to continue, the "James is a figment of Luke's
> imagination" and "James is a jerk" lines cleared up pretty quick. I take my Bible pretty seriously. -- Zachary
.
 I never called James a "jerk". You did that, Zachary. You put your own words into my mouth, and then berate me for it. Not very nice, sir!

/ Re: Who is James?? / (#8) / 4March2000 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
>> On 29Feb00 mjw wrote: erasmian: Please apply some Preparation-H to your unnecessarily
>> inflammatory personality.
.
 erasmian sayeth: Dear mjw, actually, I tried that once ...
.
 It didn't help! 
.
>> I simply wanted to know what significance the blood relationship between "James the
>> brother of Lord" and Jesus was.
.
 The significance lies in the fact that, in the ancient world, blood relationships were taken very seriously. 4X: the Jewish priesthood retained continuity by virtue of being handed down from father to son. In other words, the vocation was a family affair. The significance of this for the Jerusalem 'pillar' is apparent.
.
>> After all, most of the posts here were referring to the nature of
>> this relationship - not the authorship of the book of James. - Matt
.
 I see. You and the others would much rather discuss meaningless and trivial things that have little or no value to sincere students of the sacred scriptures. Ok, fine. I just thought *maybe* someone just *might* be slightly interested in acquiring some small portion of substantial knowledge that would greatly assist our common goal of
wrestling with the unruly and mysterious Word of God. If you want no part of this great responsibility, then I would not dream of forcing you to participate in this exciting adventure.
.
 Please excuse me while I go crawl under my rock for a year or two ...
.
> On 2Mar00 rb36 replied: There is no "blood" relationship, for Christ had perfect blood,
> and his half brother had imperfect blood.
.
  "perfect blood" indeed! Oh brother!

textman
*