Rick Sumner

First of all, for the record, kyrios is used in both 1.12 and 4.15, while Theos is found in 1.13, 2.5, 2.13 and 4.6. Your proposed lexical break is imagined, not actual.

And yet prior to that we are still left the polemic of the merciless God, the problem of why exactly James uses Abraham for a paradigm that Abraham serves very poorly as--in fact, he's the worst choice in all of scripture, since he's the only person ever explicitly described as righteoused by faith (pointing to Ben Sirach, who uses Abraham far more apropriately, does nothing to combat this problem--in fact it simply ignores it)

You haven't given me grounds to presume that "anyone else" would have it directed to them to denote Jewish elders. This is presuming your conclusions--no matter what group it was directed to, "elders" would denote the elders of that group. This can hardly be declared evidence of anything substantial.

And yet it is dealing with problems faced by Christians from end to end, there is no other format.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Other points against James as a Jewish Wisdom text

1) Wisdom texts traditionally see wealth as a sign of God's favor. James does not.

2) James lacks the teachings on etiquette standard in Wisdom literature. Not a word is said on how to keep a proper household, or how to live day to day life--the pragmatic teachings of the normative Wisdom literature. Rather James' ethical teachings are solely moral, rather than practical, in nature.

3) Again, the evil world. This flies flagrant to the underlying principle of traditional literature--that Wisdom and truth can be found in all of God's creations. Could Wisdom literature, influenced by Graeco-Roman philosophy, have evolved that way? Sure. But here we're multiplying entities. The simplest route is from Christianity, where such thought is already found. William of Occam seemed to think that was the best route to take.

4) Wisdom literature traditionally derives its teachings (presumably) from experience, or from aphorisms. James draws almost exclusively from scripture. Does he read like a Wisdom text? There's certainly a comparison. Because he's copying from them. Almost verbatim.

Could we suggest that James was trying to write a Wisdom text? Probably. But he falls short, if he's attempting to write one in the normative sense. Instead what we find is a Christian effort at writing Wisdom Literature. All four of the above points are unusual for Jewish Wisdom. Not one of them is unusual for Christianity.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

In fact, all four are entirely consistent with the depiction of Jesus even though he appears to have been considered, at least by some (especially if one accepts Q), as the incarnation of God's Wisdom!

If we move the focus to Jesus rather than James' Epistle, shouldn't we add a fifth difference in that God's Wisdom was referred to as female?

Thanks for pointing out these differences, Rick.

Does this suggest that a fundamental difference between early Christianity and Judaism was this apparent reconception of God's Wisdom?

Julian

I also think it is worth noting that Ï€Ï?εσβυτεÏ?ος was a standard and well-known christian church title at the time.

Julian

Chris Weimer

As it was for Jewish elders also.

Rick - I'm not avoiding you, I'm formulating :P

Chris Weimer

Wouldn't a general layout very similar to wisdom texts be your first key here? If you want it to be point-on-point with Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, of course it wouldn't line up! It was written well afterwards and as I already pointed (and will show again) that it better resembles Sirach.

My definition of wisdom literature? What was that exactly? I don't believe I gave a definition for wisdom literature. And the fact that you concede it bears close resemblance to the genre very well supports my case. If I write a letter, no matter how horrible that letter may be, it's still a letter. And when dealing with late Jewish works that may or may not have been edited by Christian authors, but written in such a way as to praise wisdom, it is, by default, wisdom literature. The question now is whether or not it was written by Jew or Christian, and since you are so concerned with mythicism (which I still rule out, i.e. I don't agree with Doherty), if it was by a Christian, did that person hold to a Christ having been born.

It wasn't a valid point to begin with. You broadly characterized an entire religion in a certain century and said that everyone then believed that way. Entirely fallacious.

Two birds with one stone here.

Sirach 44.19-21 (KJV) "Abraham was a great father of many people: in glory was there none like unto him; Who kept the law of the most High, and was in covenant with him: he established the covenant in his flesh; and when he was proved, he was found faithful. Therefore he assured him by an oath, that he would bless the nations in his seed, and that he would multiply him as the dust of the earth, and exalt his seed as the stars, and cause them to inherit from sea to sea, and from the river unto the utmost part of the land."

James 2:21-23 (KJV) "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God."

Sirach is implying that Abraham proved to God that he can hold his covenant by keeping the Law and passing his "test" which was the sacrifice of Isaac. Likewise, James is saying the same thing, that when Isaac was upon the alter, he succeeded in proving that he can keep the covenant with God.

No, you missed the point. I added that as further evidence for a Jewish work, not Christian, since "faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

Not according to James though. For James, the Law is more important than faith, a marked distinction between Jewish and Christian relations.

Rick Sumner

It doesn't resemble Sirach on the point you raise, and you don't show it again. James and Sirach are using entirely different lines of argument.

The question is whether or not it is "Jewish Wisdom Literature," not whether or not it's Wisdom Literature. Just because you write in Iambic Pentameter doesn't make it a Shakespearean play.

That was always the question I was addressing. I, in fact, said so explicitly. The notion that it was a pre-existent Wisdom text usurped by Christians.

I couldn't, for our present purposes, care less. Nobody has said a word about mythicism in this thread.

You have poor aim. Sirach is emphasizing the importance of keeping the law and the birth of the Abrahamic covenant. James is addressing how one is righteous. James is arguing that one is righteoused by works, while using the only person in the entirety of scripture who is righteoused by faith. That cannot be emphasized enough, and it's a point you still aren't addressing. Why is James using the worst of all possible examples?

No, Sirach is addressing the covenant. James is addressing how one is made righteous.

Did all Christians think that faith made on righteous? Why, exactly, did Paul have to argue the point to begin with then?

I didn't miss your point. I reiterate, you don't have one with this. It is not evidence of anything.

Goalposts seem to have moved. Before the Law had ceased for Paul. Now it hasn't, except as an entry requirement, which you're contrasting against James again.

Except the contrast is now worthless. This was one of the most hotly debated points in Christian origins, at least according to surviving evidence. That James does not share Paul's view on the matter does nothing to evidence it not being Christian. That he addresses the issue at all, particularly, again, using Abraham, does quite a bit to point to a Christian origin.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Jedi Mind Trick

Because James is writing with Romans 4 in mind? He is directly attacking Paul's position and even refers to "O vain man" in 2:20 (possibly a dig at Paul himself).

Californian

My Bible says that the Epistle of James is Christian, but was it originally? We know now there was creative editing circa the 2nd and 3rd centuries on many early texts.

My translation starts with this weird greeting:
"James, the servant of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the 12 tribes that are in the Dispersion: greeting."

(My Catholic Bible explains that he means Christians outside of Palestine. My Bible has the strangest footnotes that change the meaning of perfectly clear words.)

What makes it questionable to me is the emphasis on ethics, and nothing on redemption and salvation through Christ's death. I'm guessing they needed one book on ethics for appearances sake and made a few changes. Someone left the "12 tribles" in - at least in my version. Also James the servant of God and of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as in 2 separate beings. Or God and a human, since James was a Jewish Christian and would be fiercely monotheistic. The editors by their time would have been into the trinity and probably missed it. My version guesses James wrote around 60 ad.

Rick Sumner

I'd suggest that's exactly why. James is writing in response to Paul. If he's answering Paul, Abraham isn't only the best choice, it's his only choice. If he's unaware of Paul, it's about the poorest choice he could make.

Regards,
Rick Sumner