Rick Sumner

Apologies, I'd missed this last time.

Nobody made any effort to "broadly characterize" anything. What I said is that it's not something we find often in Jewish texts of that era. That isn't a characterization, it's a point of fact.

In the instances that we do find it (such as in the DSS), it is flagrantly polemical, hence my suspicion that this is likewise a polemic, who that polemic against is, of course, debatable. I've provided reasons to suggest it's against Paul. I haven't seen any to suspect it's anyone else.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Julian

There were a number of Christian sects at the time, many of them differed on how 'Jewish' they were. Jewish Christians were common. That this epistle is polemical against Paul, possibly directly, is one point in favor of it being written by James, the 'pillar' of Jerusalem. Since Paul thought that Peter was a complete fathead and James was the leader of that church it is not inconceivable that James would write an epistle such as this. That theory would probably put it before 70CE.
Your bible explanation is correct, the diaspora (διασποÏ?α) Jews are the Jews not living in their homeland. The word in greek is not servant but slave (δουλος or doulos). Otherwise the translation is correct.
There is no problem with Jesus being the logos or go between and monotheism. Monotheism seems to involve all manner of semi-divine beings and/or aspects of the ultimate divinity. Overall, the salutation is quite standard and typical of the epistles.

Julian

Julian

I have not read ben Sirach, could someone point me towards some online writings of his?

Thanks,
Julian

Amaleq13

You can find it and some commentary on Peter's Early Jewish Writings. The link will take you directly to Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach.

Chris Weimer

Think, man, think. Do you remember spin's post about the my father/the father distinction in John. It is present here also. We have reduplication in 1:12 & 13, and also in 5:13-14.

Chris Weimer

I still don't see it. I think you're entirely wrong on this point, but then again, it's all interpretation anyway.

Fallacious arguement. I'm getting pretty tired of these.

Literature changes. Period. English writings at the time of Shakespeare and today are very different.

In fact you did when you automatically equated my position with Doherty's mythicism position. Shall I quote:emphasis mine

Because Abraham was considered the keeper of the whole of the law, which here gives an example from the Midrash. No one would deny that Christian theology had an impact on later Jewish theology, but you seem to be inescapable from your boxed thinking that Judaism has homogenous at all times every time.

No, Sirach is telling how Abraham kept the Law, and James is showing that one is righteous by keeping the law like Abraham did.

Oh right, Christian opinions were wide and varied, but all Jews thought the same. :down:

What are you talking about? I said for James the Law was more important than faith. I said nothing about Paul in this instance.

Except if it was early enough, a letter written to Jews alone might well indicate the presence of Christianity and that this portion is combatitive of it. It's not that Christians were a distinct religion, especially if you put an earlier date on it than you're willing to assign.

Rick Sumner

Think, man, think. You stated, unequivocally, that all references to a deity prior to ch.5 used theos. This is false. What you are doing now is attempting to ad hoc your way out of your error.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I'm getting weary of chasing this around. I gave you five points in which James differs markedly from Jewish literature. You have addressed none. Do you have a rebuttal?

In fact I said not a word about Doherty's mythicist position. I commented on his position regarding James, because I am aware of no one else who suggests that James was written originally as a Jewish Wisdom Text.

Speaking of "fallacious."

This is the second time you've accused me of saying this. Despite the fact that I haven't suggested anything of the sort.

Read what I type, not what you'd like me to be. The only thing I am classifying is a genre. Jewish Wisdom literature has specific characteristics. It isn't just "Oh, this sounds wise, let's call it Jewish Wisdom literature."

See, for example:

http://www.cresourcei.org/wisdom.html
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Wisdom/wisdom.htm

Or Bauckham's book, James: Wisdom of James. Is James Wisdom literature, sure we can classify him as such (though there are those who oppose even that), but he [i]does not[/it] meet the description of Jewish Wisdom Literature.


Exactly. James is wondering how one is made righteous. Sirach isn't. Sirach is using an example that Abraham is appropriate for. James isn't, because Abraham wasn't righteoused by works.

You're flaming now.

You stated that for Paul the Law hath ceased, and were using him against James, as an example of Christianity opposing Judaism.

Why would James feel the need to write the letter to Jews? Do you really think non-Christian Jews were concerned with what Paul told Gentiles about how to become righteoused?

I haven't assigned a date to it. You are, once again, putting words in my posts that aren't there.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Chris Weimer

No, because their simply false. And you're in denial about your position.

This is the second time you've accused me of saying this. Despite the fact that I haven't suggested anything of the sort.[/quote]

Hrm, let's back track a bit. First you claim "that it's not something we find often in Jewish texts of that era. That isn't a characterization, it's a point of fact." Your words exactly. Quite clearly, we don't find it. (Load of bs to begin with). Then "In the instances that we do find it" - oh yeah, so it does occur. You're way off track here, Rick. Way. No one's saying it wasn't polemical, even Proverbs constantly warns against certain things. And by suggesting that what you're suggesting would claim that it wasn't able to be found in Judaism at that time, which again is entirely fallacious. And the DSS is a bad example because they were pre-Christian doccuments.

Of course he was! What do you think the sacrifice of Isaac was all about?

Oh get off of it, Rick. You're just mad because you can't defend this. And you're in denial.

And this is contradictory how?

Of course they were! Why else would there be centuries of debate and dialogue between the two religions! And Paul was accusatory towards Jews, not just out there for the Gentiles, so that statement is entirely wrong-headed.

If you can't bring yourself to reason, I refuse to further this debate.

regards,

Chris Weimer

Rick Sumner

What I said is that we don't find it often. Not that it isn't there, not that no Jews felt that way, not it was never said. I said it wasn't found often.

Read what I type, don't read into it. This, right here, epitomizes the futility of dialogue on this matter with you. You have put words in my mouth no less than five times, invariably creating a convenient strawman to the actual argument.

I would also suggest you review what, exactly, typifies Jewish Wisdom Literature. I provided two links above. You are arbitrarily defining it, and then simply chanting that I'm wrong when I define it otherwise. This is nonsense. Jewish Wisdom literature has specific characteristics that James lacks.

I would also suggest re-reading the story of Abraham, the only man in the entirety of Jewish literature explicitly righteoused by faith.

Regards,
Rick Sumner