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

A different opinion on James the "Just" as author: The James of Acts 15 and 21, a.k.a. “James the Just” is a very poor candidate for authorship of the book of James. In Acts 15, he interrupts the proceedings to side with the Pharisees in imposing restrictions on the Gentiles which neither Peter or Paul thought necessary. In Acts 21 he is clearly neither leader nor teacher. He is merely one voice in a crowd of many, all of which use popular opinion, not scripture as their guide. Their only concern is placating the crowd, hence the ultimatum to Paul to worry about what the ‘myriad’ want rather than what God wants. Also, in Galatians 2, James' actions can lead one to believe he was less than truthful when he wrote he had nothing to do with the original apperance of the Judaizers in Acts 15. The fact that 'certain from James' appear in Antioch so soon after the Jerusalem Council indicates a very aggressive nature on his part. It is a Biblical truth that family relationships do not guarantee holiness, and that point is proven again with James. He makes a very poor candidate for an inspired work.rem486

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I agree (that it is not so controversial as to deserve that mention in the first sentence). I'll change it. Rocksong 06:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research on early date

I am deleting the entire paragraph asserting a very early dating of James. This view is attributed to Richard McLaughin of Altoona Rescue Mission, and the edit was done by User:Rem486, who is... Richard McLaughin of Altoona Rescue Mission. Therefore it is WP:Original Research and must be deleted. It should only be reinstated if other people subscribe to it. Rocksong 06:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query: How many other people have to subscribe to my idea before it gets re-instated? Seriously. rem486

I refer you to the policy pages Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. It seems to me the most pertinent paragraph is this one from the former:

There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability for exceptions.

Rocksong 04:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Isn't James 1:1 a reliable source? rem486

The Bible is a primary source: see WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources.

Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

In this case, it would be OK to use James 1:1 to say that James begins with a claim to be written by a servant of Jesus Christ named James (a "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge"), although even here it would be far preferable to quote a published scholar who makes this argument. It would not be OK to use it to support the claim that James was written by James the Just, James the Great, or any other historical James without backing from reliable secondary sources. If you wish to get your theories included in Wikipedia, first get them published in a reputable theological journal or a reputable publishing house. That's what Wikipedia's core NO original research policy is all about. Good luck! Grover cleveland 17:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of luck, it's a matter of skill. James 1:1 does not simply state who it is from, it states who it is to: and that is a totally different dynamic. rem486

OK, I'm soon going to edit back in the 'very early date' section into the main article. Based on the 'Consensus' policy of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus), the 'very early date' hypothesis has become accepted fact. rem486 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.86.240 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Early Date vs. Very Late Date

Here’s how the so-called very early date idea (an explanation of which was deleted from Wikipedia) counters the reasons for a ‘very late date’ of James mentioned in the article.

There is no mention of a familial relationship between James and Jesus because there was no familial relationship between Jesus and either of the two disciples named James.

James the son of Alpheus, obviously of Greek background could easily have written in ‘cultured’ Koine Greek, even if James the son of Zebedee couldn’t. (No matter how ‘cultured’, it was still Koine.)

The author does not mention circumcision because there is no need. The Jews of the Old Testament Diaspora he is writing to have been circumcised as a matter of course because they are Jewish. Also Jesus never stresses circumcision in His Kingdom teaching.

The author fails to mention any details of Jesus life because the details of Jesus life are unimportant to the theme of the letter which is: the details of the reader’s life. At this point in His ministry, the details of Jesus life are not going to save them. It is the details of their own life that are going to save them. So correctly the author stresses them most of all.

Of course the epistle was only gradually accepted into the Cannon. Wrenched out of its proper context of Jesus earthly ministry, and forced into context of the Apostolic period, it’s a 'miracle' the book was ever accepted at all. rem486

"Of course the epistle was only gradually accepted into the Cannon": I guess you allude to the Biblical canon?Dampinograaf (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of peirasmos in James

Peirasmos means just that: Temptations, not tribulations. The over whelming use of the word in the New Testament has nothing to do with violence, as some commentators of the book of James have written. A typical example of the word is Matthew 26:41 where Jesus tells his disciples to watch and pray so they enter not into peirasmos. Did He think someone was going to start a brawl? Of course not, actually He was rebuking them for falling asleep! Even in the most possibly violent use of the word, Revelation 3:10, there is no guarantee that is the meaning. To date the book of James during the persecution and scattering of the Church in Acts using peirasmos is a great disservice. Peirasmos does not imply violence but spiritual challenge. Indeed, nowhere in the account of the persecutions in Acts does peirasmos even appear. Because that account details real physical violence, not just spiritual challenge. The 'divers temptations' of James 1 is not the physical violence of Acts, but the desire to sin found in every human heart. The effort to find a proper setting for the book of James is hindered when we contort the meaning of its words. rem486

Parousia in James

Par-ou-sia, (sorry I don't know how to format the Greek letters) in James 5:7 and 8, is the original, literal use of the word. It referred to the presence of Jesus rather than the return of Jesus. As James writes, Jesus is currently with them. The word 'coming' in James 5: 7 and 8 has been much misunderstood. The original word of course, is par-ou-sia. (Sorry I don't know how to generate the Greek symbols). The word actually means presence, but it is often translated 'coming' because most of the New Testament was written after Jesus ascended to Heaven. Jesus would have to 'come back' before He could be present. Since the translators believed that James is a post resurrection epistle, they translated parousia as 'coming', and consequently reinforce the idea that it is a post resurrection epistle. But does parousia exist solely a post resurrection word. No it does not. In Matthew 24:3 the disciples ask Jesus "...what shall be the sign of thy coming,..." using the word parousia. This quotation is from the beginning of the 'Olivet discourse', two days before His crucifixion and while they were still in ignorance about the coming events. (Indeed John 20:9 makes it clear that it was not until they peered into the empty tomb they began to understand what He had been talking about all along the way to Jerusalem. (Mark 9:32, Luke 9:45, and John 12:16)) So parousia was a word known to the disciples without any of the connotations that we add today. James the Great or James the son of Alphaeus could have easily used the word in a cyclical to members of the twelve tribes who believed in Jesus as their Messiah. rem486

Hi rem486. All your theories are interesting: however I don't think they are appropriate to this talk page (or to the main article) since they violate No original research. You may want to check out the talk page guidelines, especially "Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies all apply to talk pages, although not as strictly as in an article page; there is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.". If you want to discuss your theological research online, I suggest a newsgroup, blog or other more appropriate forum. Thanks! Grover cleveland 04:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 'Mr. Cleveland' I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but all anyone has regarding the Epistle of James is theories. Regardless of how many other places they've been printed. rem486

True -- but Wikipedia only concerns itself with theories that have already been published in reliable sources. You may also want to check out Wikipedia's core policies on no original research and verifiability. Grover cleveland 05:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James and Eschatology

When Jesus cried out “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” He wasn’t referring to me or you. He was talking about the Jews in Israel at that time. To the very last, Jesus sole focus was on reaching His Father’s chosen people. Up to that minute there was no other plan than to reach the world through the Jewish nation. So Jesus was continuously seeking to reach out to Israel; to correct them and put them back in step with the Father. (Jesus knew what happened to those who would not serve God.) His prayer for forgiveness was to those most responsible for His death, the Jewish leadership. His prayer was that God would continue to reach out to them even after His death. This is why a correct view of the book of James is critically important to eschatology. A correct exposition of James is most important to the future not to the present. Jesus main goal was to be the best Jew he possibly could, and a correct understanding of the book of James confirms that. The book is obviously about living out the Law to be in a right relationship with God the Father. rem486

Faith vs works

I have always understood the meaning of James to be that if one has faith, it will be manifested in works, hence faith without works is dead. Is this some novel thing, or are there any theologians that have taken this point of view? Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's exactly the normal view, at least among Protestants. See for example this page http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1361 , the section "Principles and Comparisons from Jas. 2:14-26" (about 1/3 of the way down). Peter Ballard 01:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faith and Works

James discusses faith and works. (It is only when James is compared to Romans 4 that it should be characterized as Faith vs. Works.) His thesis is that true faith will always lead to works. The controversy over James is not the content, its the context. James' ideas are only valid during the earthly ministry of Jesus. The conflict about James is the mistaken idea that it was written after the Resurrection. The author has a knowledge of Jesus, but an ignorance of his Crucifixion and Resurrection, consequently the book is a pre-Resurrection epistle. rem486

Lord as pronoun in James

Lord as pronoun in James. Throughout the New Testament the word Lord is a synonym for Jesus, but in the book of James it is mostly a pronoun for the God the Father. Since James discusses both the Father and the Son, it is important to keep track of Who is being discussed at any point in the book. While Jesus is given the title of Lord in James when He is mentioned, the remainder of the uses of the word are a pronoun for God the Father. For instance after 1:1, verse 5 refers to God the Father and the following two uses of Lord in chapter 1 are pronouns for Him. Likewise in chapter 2 Jesus is the ‘Lord from Glory’, but by the next use of the word Lord (4:10), God the Father is the antecedent (verse 8). When we factor this into the overall word count in James we see the predominant part that God the Father is still playing in the life of the nation of Israel. This is fitting in that Jesus has not yet been crucified and resurrected. rem486

James and ‘the Father’

Ordinarily its hard to prove a negative, except in this case. The absence of God being the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is glaring in the book of James. Especially in the light of so many ‘near missses’

Take, for instance, the use in verse seventeen of chapter one..

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

So, God is the father of lights, Jesus is the Light of the world. So this verse is talking about the resurrected , glorified Jesus.Wrong.. What exactly does fwtwn mean? Since no one can unequivocally tell you, it seems unlikely that it is the unequivocal Lordship of Jesus..

Again the use in verse twenty seven is equally vacuous of any ‘Christianity’. The person alluded to in the verse is practicing their religion with out the presence of or need for Christ. The practitioner referenced in twenty seven is instead doing a spot on match of the Mosaic Law. The actions completed are for Jehovah, not Jesus, they are self motivated not Christ centered and they are material not spiritual. Also please consider the ‘near miss’ of Jesus name appearing in the next verse without any familial relationship between the two.

Lastly, in chapter three verse nine, you have the same structure as in the first chapter with the emphasis on God as Father. But, the Father of the Lord Jesus? You can’t prove it by James. Why would the author omit this core value of scripture? Unlike every other book of the New Testament, James was written before Jesus was crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven. rem486 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James and Money

Or should I say, James and our money.

Ordinarily math is my least favorite topic, but these are some fascinating calculations. Consider the cost to the average Christian publishing house if it acknowledged the fact that James was written prior to the Resurrection. Every annotated Bible, every bound matched commentary, every paperback evangelism guide, every textbook, every software package every blog and posting would have to be redone. Consider the cost to even a 'secular' university. of reorganizing the Religion department curriculum. Consider the cost to every monastery, convent, cloister, retreat, television and radio series that views James the traditional way. (Of course, it would be much more cost effective for them to follow Luther's dictum and just tear it out of the Bible.) Even the poor Sunday School student would not be immune: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Acts....

Now it might seem incredibly craven to factor money into a determination of Scriptural truth, but it is incredibly naive otherwise. thenewstandard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]