The dating of the book of James

[InChristAlways]

Hi. I split this off from a thread that was closed before it could be commented on.

May I ask you about when you see James as having been written and what the consesus is among the Ecclesia of when it could have been written?

I just bring this up because all of the Epistles in the NT are "silent" on the destruction of Jerusalem, which, we must admit, was a catastrophic event for the jewish Nation, and James "possibly" could have been preparing that nation for the destruction, don't really know. Does silence of that event in those epistles mean none of the NT could have been written after it?[exluding the book of revelation, though I have no idea when that vision took place] Thanks.
Steve

http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-James.html

Date of Writing: The Book of James is probably the oldest book of the New Testament, written perhaps as early as A.D. 45, before the first council of Jerusalem in A.D. 50. James was martyred in approximately 62 A.D.
ractical Application:

We see in the Book of James a challenge to “walk the walk” and “talk the talk” of a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. While our faith walk, to be certain, requires a growth of knowledge about the word, James exhorts us to not stop there. Many Christians will find this reading challenging as James presents us with 60 obligations in only 108 verses. It is hard-hitting as he asks us in verse 1:23 to look at ourselves in the mirror and then straighten ourselves up. He focuses on the truths of Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount and motivates us to act upon what He taught.

[Robert R. Higby]

A fragment of the text constituting what is now called the book of James (dated around 69 A.D.) was discovered at Qumran; it is chapter 1:23-24. My personal view (based on internal evidence, we have no other) is that this fragment was from a collection of circulated sayings of Christ at that time and not from an already complete book of James. I also believe that the two snippets from the text of the current James quoted by Irenaeus were not then from the full book that we have now--but rather from circulated sayings and writings that he had available which were not always clear as to original authorship.

Origen is the first to mention a disputed book called James in circulation.

My personal view is that James is a compilation of sayings, 1st century wisdom literature, and various topical dogma (such as faith vs. works in 2:14-26 and the condemnation of the rich in chapter 5--which are independent writings probably not written by the same person).

[Robert R. Higby]

The Book of James is probably the oldest book of the New Testament, written perhaps as early as A.D. 45, before the first council of Jerusalem in A.D. 50.

Don't let anyone mislead you--this is the typical position of Protestant scholars! There is absolutely no external or historical evidence for this. It is based on an assumption of the internal evidence which is strictly this: James 2:14-26 would not have been written after the council at Jerusalem in A.D. 49--since it clearly would have been interpreted as a polemic against Paul if written after that date. Since Acts 15 and Paul's letter to the Galatians testify that Peter, John, James the non-apostle, and Paul reached agreement on the gospel--it is not possible that James would have written such words after that date.

The 'party of James' mentioned by Paul only flourished and grew after the council, as evidenced by Gal. 2. Even if James himself went a different direction in his thinking from his former loyalists. The James vs. Paul 'marching orders' of Judaistic pseudo-christianity finally blossomed into the Ebionite heresy. It was one which exalted obedience to the Jewish law as required for salvation, denied the full-deity of Jesus Christ, and certainly condemned Paul's doctrine of justification by faith alone. I have no doubt that the book of James in its final form was the product of the 'men from James' Judaizers mentioned by Paul in Galatians.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

The Book of James is probably the oldest book of the New Testament, written perhaps as early as A.D. 45, before the first council of Jerusalem in A.D. 50.

Don't let anyone mislead you--this is the typical position of Protestant scholars! There is absolutely no external or historical evidence for this. It is based on an assumption of the internal evidence which is strictly this: James 2:14-26 would not have been written after the council at Jerusalem in A.D. 49--since it clearly would have been interpreted as a polemic against Paul if written after that date. Since Acts 15 and Paul's letter to the Galatians testify that Peter, John, James the non-apostle, and Paul reached agreement on the gospel--it is not possible that James would have written such words after that date.

The 'party of James' mentioned by Paul only flourished and grew after the council, as evidenced by Gal. 2. Even if James himself went a different direction in his thinking from his former loyalists. The James vs. Paul 'marching orders' of Judaistic pseudo-christianity finally blossomed into the Ebionite heresy. It was one which exalted obedience to the Jewish law as required for salvation, denied the full-deity of Jesus Christ, and certainly condemned Paul's doctrine of justification by faith alone. I have no doubt that the book of James in its final form was the product of the 'men from James' Judaizers mentioned by Paul in Galatians.

If this be the case Brother, then we have a VERY Serious problem on our hands regarding today's upper echelon of "scholars" who produce the material we consider to be the bible.

Seeing how a lie can only perpetuated by one of two means;

1) Ignorance.

2) Purposeful deceit.

[samohtwerdna]

Bob,
I agree with you that the early date of 45 A.D. is most dependant on the Jerusalem council and not the text itself. Therefore I do Not hold to a pre - 50's Date emphatically - However, Steve's point about the destruction of the temple is a good one. It is no where mentioned and if James audience was indeed fellow Jewish brothers some mention would be expected. So I take a < 64 A.D. date as the most plausible.

The 'party of James' mentioned by Paul only flourished and grew after the council, as evidenced by Gal. 2

I'm guessing by this that you take a late date on Galatians as well? - It's seems that if anyone had the position to mention the Jerusalem council to his advantage it would be Paul in this epistle, and he does not. He does mention just about everything else that would help his case - convincing the Galatians that he is in step and fellowship with the true Gospel and the other apostles. So it would be down right bizarre for Paul not to mention such a powerful aid. There is no doubt in my mind that many Judizers continued to have prominent roles in the early Church - even after the Jerusalem council dealt it's heavy blow against their cause. But I do think that the majority of elders and deacons where not of that persuasion until perhaps the second or third generation of believers. Also the 'Party of James' should actually be the 'Party FROM James' - that was their claim, but Paul exposes them to be nothing of the sort. Had they been 'of' James - Paul would no doubt had railed hard against James for such a mistake (especially seeing how he treated Peter who only withdrew table fellowship!). Besides this Paul claims that he had been to Jerusalem only twice in Galatians - Acts record two visits prior to the Jerusalem council - So unless Paul lies to the Galatians he must have written the book prior to his third visit at the council.

So I grant that attempts to date the book prior to the Jerusalem council are based on internal evidence in an attempt to reconcile it words in many cases. Never-the-less, attempts to date the book post A.D. 66 are also based on internal evidence in an attempt to reconcile troubling passages. Both attempts are not good and miss the point that no reconciliation is needed. Therefore any date between ~45 and ~62 A.D. seem fine and likely.

To bad the churches did not receive the book by fax, then we could just check the date stamp

Andrew T. Adcock

[Robert R. Higby]

Based on internal evidence I would date Galatians sometime in the 50s A.D.

I do not accept any of the higher critical arguments on the core canon that was established by the mid-2nd century--because I have a high view of scripture. My acceptance of critical arguments on James is strictly based on:

1. Its wrong theology (which leads me to believe it is not apostolic).
2. The fact that snippets of the text turn up in history without reference to the book itself (Irenaeus).
3. The lack of any acknowledgement of the existence of the book until the third century.

[Robert R. Higby]

Also the 'Party of James' should actually be the 'Party FROM James' - that was their claim, but Paul exposes them to be nothing of the sort.

For me this is a real stretch; Paul does not expose them for their error in relation to James at all--he rebukes Peter for his hypocrisy in trying to please them. I do not believe that Paul accepted these other men from James as believers at all.

Had they been 'of' James - Paul would no doubt had railed hard against James for such a mistake (especially seeing how he treated Peter who only withdrew table fellowship!).

There is no assumption that the men were acting and teaching on James' authority--this is correct. However, I believe that the men not only claimed to be from James but actually were followers of him and in fellowship with him back in Jerusalem--Paul does not say they "claimed" to be of or from James but that they simply were.

In case I didn't make it clear earlier, I accept a late 2nd century date for James in its final form--so the issue of the destruction of Jerusalem would not have entered in.

Brethren, I'm going to bow out of this thread as it will eventually lead to all the same interaction that we had on the canon thread.

[InChristAlways]

In case I didn't make it clear earlier, I accept a late 2nd century date for James in its final form--so the issue of the destruction of Jerusalem would not have entered in.

Hi Bob. Except for some verses you may be at odds with, James was still talking to the same people of the Ecclesia as Paul was. I didn't mean for this thread to argue about the doctrine of James, just when it could have been written or circulated among the Ecclesia.

We ourselves know the whole Bible is to be taken as a whole, and I read the book of James for edification and joy of the Spirit, and if one declines to accept its divineness, that is fine and like you, I am done with this thread also, as it can really only lead to more confusion in the Body of the Ecclesia, which we surely do not need any more of.
I Thank those who have contributed, as readers themselves can decide about James as the Spirit leads them.
Blessings. Steve

James 4:1 Where do wars and fights [come] from among you? Do [they] not [come] from your [desires for] pleasure that war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. ............. 5 Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously"?


Titus 3:9 and foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about law, stand away from--for they are unprofitable and vain.

[wildboar]

Robert Higby:

I have no intention of going down the whole debate again here over the canonicity of James. However, my understanding was that although some fragments were found at Qumran which some thought to be NT fragments, that it was eventually determined that they were not.

[Robert R. Higby]

As documented in the book "The First New Testament" by David Estrada and William White Jr. (Thomas Nelson, 1978) the NT fragments found in cave 7 at Qumran are these: (p. 138)

Mk. 4:28--7Q6
Mk. 6:48--7Q15
Mk. 6:52,53--7Q5
Mk. 12:17--7Q7
Acts 27:38--7Q6
Rom. 5:11,12--7Q9
1 Tim. 3:16, 4:1-3--7Q4
2 Pet. 1:15--7Q10
Jas. 1:23,24--7Q8

I don't know how some of these texts could possibly be from any era other than the mid 1st century. Some of the most denied books by liberal skeptics are represented (the pastoral epistles, 2 Peter).

A few quotes from the book:

Among the fragmentary texts are some of the most important for Christian faith and life. In addition all types of contexts are represented: doctrine, discourse, description, and admonition--the very mixture stated to be impossible at so early a date by many critics. But how did this collection get into the tiny cave? At present we can only surmise that someone from the Christian community at Jericho or the environs hid the jar with its precious contents before the final onslaught of Titus against Jerusalem or during the seige that followed. (p. 138)

All critical theories and radical reconstructions of apostolic history and the origins of the New Testament must be called into question and held suspect, if not rejected outright. The believer in the doctrines of historic Christianity and in the message of salvation that calls men of all ages to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ can only wonder at God's providence in preserving upon one tiny scrap of ancient papyrus the traces of the words of Paul, which sum up forever the Christian's triumph ". . . we shall also joy in God through our Lord Jesus, through whom we have now been granted reconciliation" (Rom. 5:11) p. 139

If this finding has proven to be fradulent I'm certainly willing to examine the evidence.

[Mickey]

This will serve as an update to my stance on the issue of the book of James.

I have some opinions but I feel this issue needs more study on my part before I say for certain one way or another. I have changed my profile on the issue of James to: “I've been investigating or have investigated the canonicity of James and have not come to a firm conclusion either way.”


Here are some of my thoughts:

Up until today I have leaned strongly in the direction that James should not be included in the canon. To an extent I still believe this to be so. However, after reading through the scriptures and much meditation on the issue, it seems to me that IF the book of James is to be considered canon then it should only be looked at as a book written to the circumcision and not to gentile believers. This I believe would fall into the category of a lower canon. Previously I had the belief that it was either canon or it was not. Now I do not see it as such.

I see in scripture a difference in the ecclesiastical practices of the circumcision and the gentile believers. Some examples would be illustrated in Acts 15 and 21 (pay particular attention to James’ request of Paul in 21:15-25).

I think that much study should be given to the distinction in the things taught and embraced to the circumcision in relation to the Law and the things taught to the Gentiles. There is a clear difference and this MAY explain what is written in James. I still think it’s a stretch because the language has a works gospel tone to it, but if this were not to be an option I would have to then default to the book of James being written to the circumcision and not to gentile believers.

Any questions or comments are welcome. I know many may be tired if this issue, I just felt it was necessary as a moderator to let my dear brother and sister moderators and members know my position as of now.

Mike

[Brandan Kraft]

I see in scripture a difference in the ecclesiastical practices of the circumcision and the gentile believers. Some examples would be illustrated in Acts 15 and 21 (pay particular attention to James’ request of Paul in 21:15-25).

Mike,

There is no distinction in Scripture between Jews and Greeks after the revelation of Paul. In Acts, James is mistaken, and it is not until further revelation by Paul do we see this mistake corrected.

Paul's message is relevant to both Jews and Greeks. In Christ there is NO DISTINCTION.

Gal 3:28, (KJV), There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Mickey]

There is no distinction in Scripture between Jews and Greeks after the revelation of Paul.

I realize that there is no Jew or Greek according to Paul (and I agree with this), but there is a distinction in Acts and in Paul’s epistles that the circumcision were being taught different than the gentiles.

In Acts 21 James tells Paul to purify himself with the four men who made a vow and Paul does it just to ease the consciences of those who were afraid of him preaching against Moses. I believe what Paul did here is what he meant by:

1 Cor 9:20
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

It is clear that James and Peter were not telling Jews that the ceremonial Law was fulfilled in Christ as the practice of it continued in their midst (at least they did not tell the Jews that they no longer were obligated to practice it). It was also clear that Paul taught the gentiles that they were not obligated to practice the ceremonial Law; hence the reason why James told Paul to purify himself in Acts 21.

As I stated, I still lean towards James not being in the canon. But if I were to accept James as canon then it would be an epistle for the circumcision and not gentiles, placing it in the lower canon. I think that the book of James is a product of James' zeal for the Law and his teaching to the circumcision about the Law and outward ceremonial observances.

Hopefully that was clear...

Mike

[ray kikkert]

Hi Bob. Except for some verses you may be at odds with, James was still talking to the same people of the Ecclesia as Paul was. I didn't mean for this thread to argue about the doctrine of James, just when it could have been written or circulated among the Ecclesia.

We ourselves know the whole Bible is to be taken as a whole, and I read the book of James for edification and joy of the Spirit, and if one declines to accept its divineness, that is fine and like you, I am done with this thread also, as it can really only lead to more confusion in the Body of the Ecclesia, which we surely do not need any more of.
I Thank those who have contributed, as readers themselves can decide about James as the Spirit leads them.
Blessings. Steve

.

..... food for thought and with respect to the dating of the book John Calvin states in his preface to the book of James:

THE ARGUMENT
It appears from the writings of Jerome and Eusebius, that this Epistle was not formerly received by many Churches without opposition. There are also at this day some who do not think it entitled to authority. I, however, am inclined to receive it without controversy, because I see no just cause for rejecting it. For what seems in the second chapter to be inconsistent with the doctrine of free justification, we shall easily explain in its own place. Though he seems more sparing in proclaiming the grace of Christ than it behooved an Apostle to be, it is not surely required of all to handle the same arguments. The writings of Solomon differ much from those of David; while the former was intent on forming the outward man and teaching the precepts of civil life, the latter spoke continually of the spiritual worship of God, peace of conscience, God's mercy and gratuitous promise of salvation. But this diversity should not make us to approve of one, and to condemn the other. Besides, among the evangelists themselves there is so much difference in setting forth the power of Christ, that the other three, compared with John, have hardly sparks of that full brightness which appears so conspicuous in him, and yet we commend them all alike.
It is enough to make men to receive this Epistle, that it contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle of Christ. It is indeed full of instruction on various subjects, the benefit of which extends to every part of the Christian life; for there are here remarkable passages on patience, prayer to God, the excellency and fruit of heavenly truth, humility, holy duties, the restraining of the tongue, the cultivation of peace, the repressing of lusts, the contempt of the world, and the like things, which we shall separately discuss in their own places.
But as to the author, there is somewhat more reason for doubting. It is indeed certain that he was not the Son of Zebedee, for Herod killed him shortly after our Lord's resurrection. The ancients are nearly unanimous in thinking that he was one of the disciples named Oblias and a relative of Christ, who was set over the Church at Jerusalem; and they supposed him to have been the person whom Paul mentioned with Peter and John, who he says were deemed pillars, (Galatians 2:9.) But that one of the disciples was mentioned as one of the three pillars, and thus exalted above the other Apostles, does not seem to me probable. I am therefore rather inclined to the conjecture, that he of whom Paul speaks was the son of Alpheus. I do not yet deny that another was the ruler of the Church at Jerusalem, and one indeed from the college of the disciples; for the Apostles were not tied to any particular place. But whether of the two was the writer of this Epistle, it is not for me to say. That Oblias was actually a man of great authority among the Jews, appears even from this, that as he had been cruelly put to death by the faction of an ungodly chief-priest, Josephus hesitated not to impute the destruction of the city in part to his death.

.......... also in conjunction with what Calvin states here some interesting insight from the translator of Calvins commentary here:

The order in which the Epistles are arranged is not the same as in our version. There has not been a uniformity in this respect among the ancients. The reason for the arrangement here adopted was probably this, that the First Epistle of Peter, and the First of John, had, from the beginning, been universally acknowledged as genuine, while the Epistle of James, the Second of Peter, and that of Jude, had not from the first been universally received as canonical, though they were eventually so received. The Second and the Third Epistle of John were evidently not deemed by Calvin as "catholic;" and for this reason, as it seems, he omitted them.
The word "Catholic," or General, as applied to the Epistles here explained, has been differently understood. Some have thought that they have been thus called, because they contain catholic truths; but other Epistles might, for this reason, be also called catholic. Others have supposed that catholic is synonymous with canonical; but in this case also there is no more reason for applying the word to these Epistles than to any other Epistles. But the more probable opinion is, that they were called Catholic, or General, because they were not written to any particular Church, but to Jewish or to Gentile Christians generally. Moreover, the term was not given them at first, but in subsequent ages.
The most probable dates of the five Epistles here explained are the following : --

BOOK
DATE

The Epistle of James,
A.D. 61
The First Epistle of Peter,
A.D. 65
The Second Epistle of Peter,
A.D. 65
The Epistle of Jude,
A.D. 66
The First, Epistle of John
A.D. 68


This is the order according to the dates most approved by the learned. There is, for the most part, a unanimity as to the dates of the three first Epistles; but with regard to the Epistle of Jude, and the First Epistle of John, there is not the same agreement. There are many who fix later dates: to Jude, 90, and to John, 91 or 92. But this is a matter of no great consequence.
No doubt can be justly entertained but that James, called the Less, was the author of the Epistle. He was the son of Alphaeus or Cleopas, and of Mary, probably a cousin, not a sister, of Mary the mother of our Lord. Hence he is called our Lord's brother, (Galatians 1:19 that is, a near relative, as the Word brother is often taken in Scripture. He took a leading part in the council held at Jerusalem, mentioned in Acts 15; and, according to Jerome, he resided there thirty years, and presided over the Church. He was put to death, as Hegesippus relates, who flourished in the second century, by a tumultuous mob, excited by Jewish zealots, in the year 62.
The canonicity of James's Epistle has been a subject of dispute, though almost universally allowed in the present day. The facts respecting it, according to Basnage, are these, -- During the three first centuries it was not extensively known; in the fourth century its authenticity was by some disputed; but in the fifth century it was universally acknowledged as genuine; and it has ever since been so acknowledged, with a very few exceptions. What seems to be a sufficient evidence in its favor is the fact, that it is found as a part of Holy Scripture in the first Syriac Version, which was made early in the second century.
The occasion of writing the Epistle appears to have been the abuse made of the doctrine of free grace by professing Christians, -- a subject referred to also by Paul in Romans vi., and in his other Epistles. Abounding grace is at one time despised and rejected; at another time it is turned into licentiousness: these are evils which have ever prevailed in the Church. The Pharisee is too proud to receive grace; the Antinomian pretends to receive and magnify grace, that he may gratify the inclinations of his sinful nature. It was against the Antinomian that James wrote his Epistle.

The Editor must mention here, what perhaps he ought to have mentioned before, -- that in his translations he has not always retained what is called the historical present tense, which is often used by Calvin, according to the practice of Latin and Greek writers, and also of the Prophets and the Evangelists. This mode of writing does not accord with the usage of the present day.
Our translators have not been uniform in this respect either in the New or the Old Testament; for they sometimes departed from the original as to this tense, though, for the most part, they retained it. As, for instance, in John 11:39-40, the historical present is not retained in the 39th, while it is retained in the 40th verse. The anomalies as to the tenses often met with, especially in the Psalms, have arisen from overlooking this peculiarity. The future in Hebrew is very often used for the present; and this is the historical present, and ought to be rendered in our language in the past tense.

J.O.
Thrusslngton, Sept.. 29, 1855.

[Brandan Kraft]

I realize that there is no Jew or Greek according to Paul (and I agree with this), but there is a distinction in Acts and in Paul’s epistles that the circumcision were being taught different than the gentiles.

In Acts 21 James tells Paul to purify himself with the four men who made a vow and Paul does it just to ease the consciences of those who were afraid of him preaching against Moses. I believe what Paul did here is what he meant by:

1 Cor 9:20
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

Look at what Gill writes on this passage....

who became as one unto them in this sense, when he for their sakes circumcised Timothy at Derbe, or Lystra, purified himself at Jerusalem, shaved his head at Cenchrea, observed their sabbath, and abstained from some sorts of food forbidden in the law; and his end in so doing was, not to confirm them in such usages, but that he might hereby have the greater influence over them,

This is opposed directly to what the book of James is teaching because it is CONFIRMING them in their "jewishness" if that's what you want to call it.

It is clear that James and Peter were not telling Jews that the ceremonial Law was fulfilled in Christ as the practice of it continued in their midst (at least they did not tell the Jews that they no longer were obligated to practice it). It was also clear that Paul taught the gentiles that they were not obligated to practice the ceremonial Law; hence the reason why James told Paul to purify himself in Acts 21.

Later read what Paul wrote in Galatians.

As I stated, I still lean towards James not being in the canon. But if I were to accept James as canon then it would be an epistle for the circumcision and not gentiles, placing it in the lower canon.

But what value does it have to the circumcision?

I think that the book of James is a product of James' zeal for the Law and his teaching to the circumcision about the Law and outward ceremonial observances.

Hopefully that was clear...

Not really... The book of James is about justification by works. This teaching cannot be found in any other scripture written to greeks, jews, or others. The book is directly opposed to Christ and salvation by Grace, and I find it only worthy to be used as firewood to warm myself.

[Mickey]

Later read what Paul wrote in Galatians.

Good stuff isn't it?

But what value does it have to the circumcision?

The same value of what Paul did in Acts 21.

Me: Hopefully that was clear...

Brandon: Not really...

Sorry, I'm doing the best I can.

[Brandan Kraft]

The same value of what Paul did in Acts 21.

Which I must admit that I don't truly understand.... But what Paul did in Acts is not the same as what is written in the book of James. Paul does not tell the Jews they are justified by their works. Paul does not confirm them in their jewishness. James is written to confirm its readers in a works-based mentality. You cannot compare this to anything Paul ever did in my opinion.

Brandan

[Mickey]

Which I must admit that I don't truly understand.... But what Paul did in Acts is not the same as what is written in the book of James. Paul does not tell the Jews they are justified by their works. Paul does not confirm them in their jewishness. James is written to confirm its readers in a works-based mentality. You cannot compare this to anything Paul ever did in my opinion.

You are right Paul does not tell the Jews they are justified by their works. He actually says the opposite very clearly.

What Gill says about 1 Cor 9:20 is what I was saying concerning that passage. But, if we are truly freed from the Law and Paul went through with the Nasirite vow then Paul made a mistake along with circumcising Timothy, the Sabbath observances and food regulations. Seems a bit like 'pleasing men' to me...But as you said when you read Galatians you must conclude that his convictions became a lot stronger concerning these issues.

This does however seem like it creates a problem with how we would view the writings of Paul. We would then have to dismiss some of his comments on the weaker brother issues due to a lack of understanding on his (Paul's) part, which he latter came to an understanding of these things. If not how is it love to not rebuke someone for binding your conscience and practicing Law if they profess to be a believer in Christ? Otherwise it seems that Paul's observance of Ceremonial Law to 'win' the Jews as a NT believer might justify all types of unsound 'evangelism tactics' that are done today if they are permissible.

Anyway, I think James does contain SOME helpful teaching, but nothing that isn't stated anywhere else in the scriptures. Remember I did state in my first post in this thread that I have a problem with the language used by the writer of James. The language used on Justification in James IMO does indeed smack of a works-based salvation. I also do not like the part about 'God tempting.' The language used there is shady as well.

Mike

[Brandan Kraft]

What Gill says about 1 Cor 9:20 is what was saying concerning that passage. But, if we are truly freed from the Law and Paul went through with the Nasirite vow then Paul made a mistake along with circumcising Timothy, the Sabbath observances and food regulations. Seems a bit like 'pleasing men' to me...

Interesting... I wonder if it was because Paul was coming out of his "jewishness." But it does seem strange to me that his position looks like it changed.

But as you said when you read Galatians you must conclude that his convictions became a lot stronger concerning these issues.

Yes, it does appear that way.

This does however seem like it creates a problem with how we would view the writings of Paul. We would then have to dismiss some of his comments on the weaker brother issues due to a lack of understanding on his (Paul's) part, which he latter came to an understanding of these things. If not how is it love to not rebuke someone for binding your conscience and practicing Law if they profess to be a believer in Christ? Otherwise it seems that Paul's observance of Ceremonial Law to 'win' the Jews' as a NT believer might justify all types of unsound 'evangelism tactics' that are done today if they are permissible.

THat is an interesting observation.

Anyway, I think James does contain SOME helpful teaching, but nothing that isn't stated anywhere else in the scriptures. Remember I did state in my first post in this thread that I have a problem with the language used by the writer of James. The language used on Justification in James IMO does indeed smack of a works-based salvation. I also do not like the part about 'God tempting.' The language used there is shady as well.

Agreed!

[Robert R. Higby]

Mike:
I think that much study should be given to the distinction in the things taught and embraced to the circumcision in relation to the Law and the things taught to the Gentiles.

I agree, Mike! However, this distinction ceased to have relevance after the destruction of Jerusalem. James the brother of Jesus claimed to be in unity with the doctrine of Paul (according to Luke's testimony in Acts), yet he still remained absolutely devoted to the Jewish Law in practice and teaching! This is clear from the historical testimony of Josephus and others. I believe that James played both sides of the fence, so to speak, in order to try and influence the Jews for Christ. So he continued to be zealous for a 'Jewish' Christianity which was orthodox on the gospel but obeyed the entire Law of Moses. But I will never believe, until evidence is clearly presented to the contrary (which it certainly might be some day), that James authored the treatise on faith vs. works in the alleged epistle of James vs. 2:14-26. I believe currently that this was the product of someone in his Ebionite followers that loved his devotion to the Law but not the Gospel. No one can present legitimate evidence to the contrary and we know that no writer of the first two centuries of Christianity acknowledges that James wrote any epistle!