Talk:Epistle of James
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
It's great that we've found a new source of free information here, but these articles are obviously written for a turn-of-the-century Christian audience--and are, hence, of course, totally biased. But Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from the neutral point of view. I'm not sure what to do here, but if I were you, o anonymous uploader, I would stop uploading these articles and start editing the ones you've uploaded so that they are unbiased (or much less biased). --LMS
The problem with it is that not only is it conservative in content (which is not a bad thing at all - many theories of Biblical authorship have risen and fallen since 1900) but that it is combative in tone! The entry for Matthew starts out with a "without a doubt", which is rhetorically much more defensive than the wikipedia-discouraged-"obviously" -- the author of the Easton Bible Dictionary "obviously" knew that the tide had turned in the late 19th c. against Matthean authorship or early date (by the way, the manuscript evidence since 1985 has turned in a strange way back to a very early date, though it's still too controverted for an encyclopedia entry). --MichaelTinkler
It looks like a lot of these articles still haven't really been edited much. Clearly a lot of work is needed on them. soulpatch
Here's a question. As these articles get edited, can the bottom text citing the Easton Bible dictionary as a source be deleted from the article? soulpatch
- Yes. When (in the editor's best judgment, of course) it's been edited significantly, so it's mostly modern rather than Easton, take out that ref.Vicki Rosenzweig
The traditional name for James the brother of the Lord is James the Just. James the Less is the James mentioned in Mark 15:40. In this context, Mark names three women: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome. Matthew 27:56 names three women: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. John 19:25 mentions four women: Mary the mother of Jesus, her sister, Mary wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Thus, it would seem that Mary mother of James the Less is Mary the wife of Clopas. It is also possible that she could be someone else entirely, since Matthew and Mark only claim that the three women there among the women watching. While it is theoretically possible that this Mary could be Mary the mother of Jesus, one would have to explain why she is listed second in Matthew and Mark instead of first. Stephen C. Carlson
It's clear now that there never has been any internal, textual, literal basis for positing James as a post resurrection epistle. It has only been external social or political perspectives that have led to this idea. The early church fathers got the ball rolling, in the wrong direction, with their assumptions that this epistle should be grouped with the others. There was no direct 'chain of evidence' for them to work with so they naturally assumed it was like the others and then crafted an exposition to fit their assumptions. Internally, the book of James is a pre-resurrection epistle. For instance, Jesus states in Matt. 10:6, "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Which is exactly what James 1:1 desires to accomplish. It also ablsolutely states that works accomplished by the reader are a necessry part of the initiation and continuation of their relationship with God. (The effect of this fact on the vicarious death of Christ is cataclysmic.) James 1 states "be ye doers of the word" (whatever this 'word' was, it was not the message of the Resurrection) and in saying this downsizes the sufficiency of Christ. Hwoever Jesus earthly ministry was about nothing bur demostrating faith by performing miricales. rem486
According to Fox's Book of Martyrs, Chapter 1 [1], James the Less was the brother of Jesus (meaning that this was an alternate name for James the Just). The first century Church fathers, Josephus, John Calvin and others refer to him as Oblias, which means "bulwark" or "protector" or something like that in Greek. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, however, James the Less is James Alphaeus. I'll get rid of the reference to James the Less altogether, since to whom that refers is a subject of debate, and write that it was traditionally attributed to James the Just, but many scholars suspect that it may be the work of James Alphaeus. kpearce
So one day you happen to look out your window. And you see the mailman putting a letter into your neighbors box. You think to yourself “hmmm I wonder what that letter could be.” So when the mailman is out of sight you sneak across the lawn and rifle open your neighbors mail box. Stealing back into your house your tear open the letter. And immediately you begin to complain “What's that supposed to mean?” “Where’s that at?” “Who’s that supposed to be?” and finally you angrily jam the letter into your shredder. Now is it the Post Office’s fault that the neighbor didn’t get his letter? Is it the authors fault that you don't understand the letter? Well that is exactly the circumstances surrounding the Epistle of James. The “Church” has denied it’s intended recipient from receiving the letter, while totally frustrating itself with the meaning of the letter. Because the letter is addressed to the twelve tribes of Israel. rem486
[edit] The Diaspora
The Jews were dispersed during the time of the Babaloynian Captivity. Large Jewish communities continued to exsist outside of Israel during the first century. It is therefore possible for the line "to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations" to have been written prior to the Roman dispersion AD 70. I deleted the line that said James the Just could not have written the book because he died in AD 62. —This unsigned comment was added by Bmal (talk • contribs) .
The "Epsitle" is address to the "12 tribes scattered abroad"...and that was to the Jewish/Christians that fled Jerusalem after Steven was stoned..See Acts 8 and Acts 11.. The fact James mentions that they already know about Jesus proves it wasn't addressed to the Jews of the "diaspora"..who would have no knowledge of Jesus..! Therefore James was writing this Epistle to his own followers.
The Epistle of James was written during the earthly ministry of Jesus. James, the disciple is writing to Jews who accepted Jesus as their Messiah, and returned to their respective homes. The book of James is therefore a "real-time" snap shot of Jesus before his glorification. The doctrines covered in James are doctrines that were being articulated during the time Jesus was reaching out to Israel, not after his crucifixion and resurrection. For instance, the many times Jesus rebuked his disciples for their "wavering". He also rebucked them for their inability to do what He did because of their lack of "fervent" prayer. When we assume that the book was written during the earthly ministry of Jesus, we see many more parallels in James, than when we assume it was written later. rem486
Please be very cautious of using circular logic when expositing the book of James. The clear meaning of "twelve tribes scattered abroad" is just that: the 'diaspora'. Those who were scattered during the Assyrian/Babylonian exile. There is nothing in the text of James that indicates he is referring to anything other than the traditional, historical meaning of the word. The dispora's previous knowledge of Jesus, as indicated in the greeting, could come from their pilgramiges to the city of Jerusalem, or people who had returned and carried the news of Jesus ministry. It is only when we assume the book was written after His death and surrection that we have to imply 'Jewish Chirstians'. Circular logic is also used when determining the author of the book. When we assume that the author is James the half brother of Jesus, we then reinforce those assumptions from the book of Acts. However, the internal evidence shows that this servant of Jesus is reflecting Jesus' desire to obey the law, not his own. A condition that exists only during Jesus' earthly ministry. Any author who advocates Jesus' desire to fulfill the law after His crucifixion is actually contradicting Jesus, as is the James in the book of Acts. Particularly, in Acts 21. rem486
[edit] Justification
I haven't changed anything, but I don't much like the extra fuss about justification. There is a seperate article on both justification, and the protestant doctrine concerning it. This letter ought not to get into the debate, in my view. It should just mention it and then refrence the proper site. Lostcaesar 17:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
After reflection I removed much of the additions, added the links to the proper articles where that is to be discussed. I encourage whoever contributed the material to add it in the proper area. I removed the comment that the Letter of James "doesn't contradict Paul's clear teaching" - sounds too interpretive to me without a refrence. Also, I replaced the comments on the word "dikaioo" with the proper Greek verb used by James, and then removed the argument that followed form it. Lostcaesar 15:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The Epistle of James was written during the earthly ministry of Jesus. James, the disciple is writing to Jews who accepted Jesus as their Messiah, and returned to their respective homes. The book of James is therefore a "real-time" snap shot of Jesus before his glorification. The doctrines covered in James are doctrines that were being articulated during the time Jesus was reaching out to Israel, not after his crucifixion and resurrection. Anything you could do to correct the errors in the main article would be appreciated. rem486
Please be very cautious about using circular logic when discussing Justification in the book of James. The assumption that James is refuting Paul is then used to reinforce the idea that the book was written after Jesus death. On a head to head comparison, Paul is obviously reacting to James. Whereas James is naturally referring to the father of Israel to help reinforce a point he is making, Paul is obviously seeking to refute a preexisting argument. His generalized "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh hath found?' instantly turns to refuting a point that he knows already exists in James. Of course, both teachings are true! Abraham was an example for those living during the earthly ministry of Jesus, as someone who proved his faith by his works, and he was an example afterwards to those who are justified by faith. Since these two cannot co-exist, works is works and grace is grace, the book of James best fits during the earthly ministry of Jesus. rem486
[edit] Controversial
The very first sentence says it is a controversial book of the New Testament. I agree there may be some difference of opinion on the author and date, but is it any more controversial than any other book of the bible? Is there controversy in the content? Does the content contradict any other portion of the Bible? Please enlighten me. Jameywiki 02:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
