/ Topic ->  Re: On Getting Lost Among the Details /
/ Forum: TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 15Dec2001 /
.
> On 13Dec01 Carl Smuda wrote: Textman, God Bless
> you in the name of Jesus the Christ! I've read that
> maybe the letter from 'James' and Paul's letter to the
> Galatians may have been written about the same time.
> Is this your finding also?
.
 textman answers: Oh no, far from it. Galatians witnesses to the mid-first century, while James is about a half-century later. Just as important as when, is the place of origin. For example, did you know that the earliest NT document written was the first of the four Thessalonian letters? And did you also know that it was actually written (co-composed by Paulos and Silvanus) in Socrates' very own beloved and democratic city of Athens? I find that little detail to be both astonishing and wonderful! The New Testament began not in Holy Jerusalem, not in Glorious Rome, not in the city of mighty Alexander, but in the foolish and idealistic city of the giants of Greek thought and philosophy. Now this little fact just has to mean something more than mere geographical circumstance, wouldn't you say?
.
> I'm assuming James and Jude were both written by
> the half-brothers of Lord Jesus, do you agree?
.
 Not at all. The authors of James and Jude are well-educated Greek-speaking believers who are very well acquainted with the early Christian scriptures (this includes most of the pauline literature and the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John). In other words, the texts show a knowledge of certain NT books that could not have existed prior to the Fall of Jerusalem. And that little detail means that none of the Lord's kin (brothers, half-brothers, cousins, or third uncles from the left) can claim "ownership" of these two books. Amen!
.
> What do you think the letters of James and Jude are?
> respectfully, Carl
.
 I think that they are essentially prophetic sermons presented in the form of a universal epistle. These homilies were once delivered to many and various churches throughout the Roman Empire, and later set down on sheets of papyrus in Greek characters by the same prophet and writer and scholar that spoke the Living Word to believers who knew very well the early Greek scriptures. In other words, James and Jude are classic examples of Christian prophetic literature. Any other definition is not only inadequate and misleading, but also does violence to the persons of the authors, as well as harming the integrity of the Word as a whole.
x

+
>> textman previously wrote:
>> As to how defensible they are <snip>
.
> On 13Dec01 geoff sayeth: Well ... you havent
> convinced the experts that you are right, not one.
.
 textman agrees with friend geoff: Yes, but this does not mean that my methods and conclusions are wrong. It only means that the scribes and pharisees do not even bother to inquire whether or not I know whereof I speak. No doubt they are justified in ignoring the cyber-prophet because everybody knows that textman is a crackpot. Right, geoff? But even if they did sample one or two articles, it's unlikely that my bizarre notions would make much of an impression since their pious arrogance and theological preconceptions and assumptions would surely prevent them from recognizing the truth of these things of which we speak. This is because they are unable to think about the scriptures outside of the narrow and rigid definitions of the prevailing hermeneutical paradigm (which, in one sense, defines their identity and function within the People of God).
.
> And neither have any of the other crackpots who pop
> up with this stuff through out the centuries.
.
 Ummm ... Right. Real relevant observation there, geoff.
.
>> So in other words, I have to prove everything I say,
>> while you need never bother to explain or defend
>> *any* of your claims or beliefs? . . .
.
> If you come up with a claim that causes me to have
> to defend my views, then I will. So far... you havent.
.
 Oh of course not. I don't expect that I'll ever be able to say anything that will cause you to give a rational account of your understanding of the New Testament's prophetic literature. This is because I can't cause you (or anyone else) to do anything. You have to want to understand the meaning of the texts, and the intentions of the authors in expressing their souls with just these particular words in just this particular way. Otherwise we're just talking at two different directions, and getting nowhere fast.
.
> Still, yours is the view that challenges orthodoxy, so
> you must demonstrate why we should believe you.
> So far... you havent.
.
 How can I convince you, geoff, when you so resolutely refuse to listen to anything I say? Why should the cyber-saints believe me instead of the countless priests, bible scholars, and evangelical preacher types who say otherwise? That's easy. They should believe me because my exegesis is better than theirs. That's the only legitimate reason that I can offer as a slave of the Word. Demonstrate that my ideas are better than all the many and varied established traditions, you say? Sure thing, geoff! I'm doing exactly that right now (with a little help from friends Carl and geoff). . . . Amen!
.
 "For where two or three are assembled in my name,
there am I among them" (Jesus of Nazareth, Mt.18:20).
.
>> Ow! ... yer such a meanie!
.
> Leave the joke making to Drew Carey.
.
 He's not funny . . . Futurama is funny!
.
>> Thus, for example, the bible scholars *know* that
>> James was the first NT book written because it is
>> Jewish and makes no mention of the Fall of Jerusalem.
.
> So far a failure. Paul is considered the first writer of
> the NT. Probably 1 or 2 Thess, closely followed along
> by Mark (the gospel of.... and written by.) If your
> going to make ridiculous assertions, make sure you
> get the facts right.
.
 Okay geoff. It's true that *most* scribes and pharisees *now* recognize the priority of the Thessalonian letters (or *some* of them, as the case may be), but this is largely because of the realization that Jm could not have been written *before* Paul's letters (written in the 50's). Hence most scholars today push the date of Jm to just beyond this point - thus ignoring Jacob's awareness of the gospel traditions (and, 4X, 1Peter) - so that they can maintain the illusion that James the Righteous is the author, while reluctantly accepting that Jacob may have some small knowledge of at least some of Paul's epistles.
.
 But the older view of James' priority has hardly gone away. In the 'Handbook for Biblical Studies' by Nicholas Turner (1982) Jm is listed first in the order of composition. The date given is "40s AD" right along side the mythical and non-existent Q. Which not only shows that I've got my facts right, but also demonstrates just how silly the scribes and pharisees can be when they put their minds to it!
.
>> Want to know what pisses a cyber-prophet off? Want
>> to know why the cyber-prophet can't say enough bad
>> things about these thoughtless and illogical "bible-
>> loving" post-modern Christian scribes and pharisees?
>> ... Grrrrrrrr
.
> I'm not post modern.
.
 That's what most pomo Christians say. You're all in denial. The plain fact is that we are all of us post-modern believers by virtue of the fact that we are all living in the present post-modern era. It's true that much of the current Christian thinking and commentary has hardly moved much away from the flavor of Reformation thinking and attitudes, but this only means that these believers are of the primitive and reactionary type of post-modern Christian. PoMo Christians come in all flavors and denominations.  :)
.
> Want to know what hacks off those who *really* seek
> the truth? Idiots who come along making unfounded
> claims in the name of Christianity ...
> *no i didnt have sex with monica lewingsky*
.
 It seems to me that you must *enjoy* making
unfounded claims, geoff, since you can hardly manage
a dozen words without popping off at least one
(without even breaking a sweat yet)!
.
>>> Otherwise we shall continue to consider you a
>>> crackpot making untenable claims.
.
>> Thx a bunch there geoff.
>> And a very merry Christmas to you too!
.
> Lets see.. So far.. one claim, which is so completely
> and utterly out of touch with reality that its living on
> krypton with Supermans folks.
.
 So now I'm a space cadet too? :)
.
> Merry crackpot to you too!
.
 Take it easy, geoff. Our readers may get the impression
that you're foaming at the mouth right about now. You
don't want them to suspect that you're in need of a
nice even Christian temper, do you?
.
>> Jacob and Judas are the authors of James and Jude
>> because they *ARE* the authors of those texts. ...
>> Is it just me? Why is this simple fact so difficult to
>> understand?
.
> So, let me get this straight (lames was a typo for
> JAMES btw). We should believe that 2 NT epistles,
> which are universally accepted (except by a few
> crackpots) as being genuine 1st C Epistles by all the
> people who have the knowledge and skills to know
> (and dont make stupid assertions like "james is
> thought to be first"), are written by a couple of
> EGYPTIAN Christian prophets, using graecised Hebrew
> names in the 2nd C?   *gaffaw*
.
 Perhaps 'believe' is the wrong word here. Let us say rather that I would like believers to accept this notion as a working hypothesis. A set of ideas that can be used to compare and test the so-called "established facts" of the Jerusalem origin. 4X: A brute fact about the text of Jm is that the autograph was written in Greek characters according to the Greek way of writing sacred and inspired scripture. My early second century Alexandrian prophet has no problem with this fact, since he has been fluent in Greek all his life, and both knows and loves the LXX. But what about the Lord's brother? From his life in Galilee we may suppose that James could speak some Koine Greek, but it's highly unlikely that he could have had the opportunity to soak himself in the Greek scriptures. Indeed, it's most likely that he would have had no passion to do so anyway. James was an Aramaic believer to the core. When he later went to Jerusalem and more or less took the Aramaic-church for his own, he focused all his energies on prayer and the welfare of the Aramaic-speaking believers. James was pious and consistent to the end, and he only left Jerusalem when they carried him out feet first.
.
 The Greek-speaking believers however, did not last long in the Holy City, and we may safely assume that the absence of that radical and troublesome lot was no small cause of relief for the peace-loving and conservative- minded pillar of the first church of Jerusalem. So then how is it that this man, this blood-brother of Joshua of Nazareth, should happen to write the text of Jm? When did he find time to make himself so fluent in Greek literature? Was he magically inspired to know the LXX and many NT documents that would not be written for years or decades to come? And where did this sudden concern for the welfare of the Hellenistic-believers come from? From what Paul tells us, James was entirely concerned with receiving donations so as to feed the 'PoorBelievers'. Did God force a concern for people he did not know upon his gentle spirit? Did the Holy Spirit render him a dancing puppet by making him preach in Greek to his Aramaic flock about Greek things far away in time and space; things of which they knew nothing, and cared for even less? Yet how else can the literary features of the text be explained if the Pillar was the author?
.
 But perhaps James was merely a secretary, and simply wrote down what the majestic voice told him in the middle of the night. If so, poor old James must have been very confused and mystified by some of things he was writing down. We may imagine that he would be constantly asking himself 'Why am I doing this?' or perhaps even 'Please God make it stop!' Can you picture this situation, dear reader? Can you see the text eternally and absolutely removed from the world of time and space and history and human passions and mundane realities such as the price of a high quality scroll? All of this and much more is needed to support the assertion that Jesus' brother is the author of this Greek epistle. Not even a thousand Occam's Razors could make a dent in this tangled mess of contradiction and absurdity that bends and twists and breaks history, nature, and all manner of human realities in order to FORCE authorship upon the Pillar of Jerusalem.
.
 Ultimately, that's what it all comes down to, dear reader. The scribes and pharisees will force authorship upon this James, and nothing will stop them from doing so. No violence or abuse of the text is too big or too small as long as we are all agreed that Jm is an early JEWISH-christian letter that has long since been superceded by Paul and the Gospels, and (of course) the unsurpassable wisdom of the scribes and pharisees, and can therefore be safely ignored. My author, on the other hand, is the passionate prophet who flows smoothly and powerfully from the text. His person, his energy, his eager faith unite and transcend each and every word as the soul of the prophet challenges every post-modern believer that dares to wonder what it means to live the Faith that is everywhere talked about but seldom realized. That is who I say wrote the book called James. You can decide for yourself which of these two men is the more plausible candidate for author.
.
> What POSSIBLE reason could we have for believing that?
.
 How about respect for the sacred text? How about confidence in the providence of God as it expresses itself through and within the historical process, rather than as some foreign power that invades and disrupts the measured treads of natural and cosmic realities? How about a willingness to learn from the Lord? How about the need to let the author tell us who and what he is in his own words and in his own way?
.
> The very notion of it is laughable.
.
 You see that, dear reader? The pomo scribes and pharisees think it is *funny* for anyone to try to hear the author, or to let the text speak for itself by NOT forcing "understandings" upon it!
.
>> For me, the historical reality of Jacob and Judas is
>> established in and by the fact that the texts of
>> James and Jude are direct extensions of their
>> concrete personalities.
.
> Personalities of people who you cant prove existed.
.
 Talk about not paying attention. The texts themselves
constitute concrete historical *proof* that they existed.
.
> We can, by the way, give NON biblical evidence
> to prove the existence of the other NT authors,
> including James and Peter.
.
 Sure you can. IF you want us to suppose that hearsay
and empty talk counts as evidence.
.
>> *That* they existed is therefore already an
>> established fact and not something that can
>> be doubted or questioned.
.
> You can assert it as much as you like. You can not
> prove it, or even demonstrate that it is likely, so we
> apply Okhams Razor.
.
 I don't know how you apply it, but here's how I apply it: Here we have before us the texts of James and Jude. The simplest explanation that accounts for these two letters is that they were written by two men who were believers literate in Greek. The letters give us the names of these author's as 'Jacob' and 'Judas'. Therefore Jacob and Judas were real historical individuals who actually existed, because if they did not, there would be no letters called 'James' and 'Jude'.
.
 This is how one applies the principle of Occam's Razor
to the requirements of biblical exegesis.
.
>> *Who* they are, and *when* they are, are not
>> such brute facts, but rather are things that must
>> be carefully coaxed and squeezed out of the texts
>> (without doing undue violence to the person of the
>> author, or to the integrity of the Word).
.
> *read* "use your imagination because we cant
> find any facts".
.
 Good point, geoff. Imagination is, in fact, one of the tools in the cyber-prophet's hermeneutical toolbox. It is a necessary and vital tool, because without a solid sense of historical imagination the "facts" as such would be meaningless, and therefore worthless. Without a *disciplined* imagination we would be utterly incapable of making any sense at all of the sacred texts. I dare say that imagination is one of the key features that distinguishes the cyber-prophet's hermeneutics from that of the arrogant ones. Indeed, for the scribes and pharisees, a chronic case of constipation of the imagination is actually considered a virtue!
.
 Yes, we thank the Lord daily that our values, methods,
and priorities are so radically, and so fundamentally,
different from those of the pomo scribes and pharisees!
. . .  Amen!
.
>> There is no 'James' in the Greek New Testament!
>> 'James' and 'Jude' rule *solely* and *entirely* by
>> common consent alone. It's like saying that 'Bob' is
>> the equivalent of 'Robert' because we say so, and
>> who would be so foolish as to dispute this, eh? ...
.
> James is the GREEK way of saying 'Jacob'. Just like
> Jesus is a graecised version of joshua. Its more like
> saying 'robert' is the anglicised version of Roberto.
> This is hardly a proof of your view, in fact, it takes
> very little research to find out that you are completely
> wrong. Your whole *cyberchurch* is founded on a
> false premise.
.
 And which false premise might that be exactly?
.
> It demonstrates that you have very very little,
> if any, understanding of greek, less of hebrew,
> and zero of culture.
.
 Really? Well geoff, show me where in the Greek NT
the word 'James' can be found, and maybe I'll agree
with you. Until you can do that, your authoritative
quotes prove nothing.
.
> <snip a LOT of rubbish> ... That aside.
.
 Second thing you said all day that I agree with  :)
.
> Even if they are the same name, it does not show that
> James (Jacob) the half brother of Jesus is not the same
> James' (jacob) who wrote James (jacob). It rather
> enhances our view, and shows yours up for the load
> of tripe that it is.
.
 I don't see how it enhances anything, let alone anyone's views concerning the identity of the author. My view is that the person of the author can only be established on the basis of the evidence provided by the *entire* text of Jm. Your view is that the author is a non-entity unless and until it can be "proved" from external sources. Now I ask the reader to decide which of these two ways of treating the sacred text is more consistent with established rational procedures that derive facts and information from the raw data of the texts? Which of these two methods does more violence to the integrity of the Word? Which of these two approaches makes a mockery of the spirit and intent of Occam's Razor?
x

+
> On 14Dec Carl Smuda wrote: Morning Geoff and
> Textman. I take knowledge from your dialogue
> together. Textman. Do I follow correctly that you
> believe that the letters of James and Jude were
> written by 2nd century Egyptians? respectfully, Carl
.
 Actually, Jacob was a leader of the church in Alexandria. This church began with the expulsion of the Hellenistic Jewish-Christians from Jerusalem prior to the middle of the first century. The church of Egypt is therefore second in age and authority only to the mother church of Jerusalem. It is difficult to pin down precise dates, but I suspect that Jacob was actively ministering to the churches in and around Egypt (and elsewhere) roughly in the time period of 90-110CE. Judas was a disciple and student of Jacob's, about a generation younger, so his epistle dates to about 120CE. 2Peter, which is an expanded revision of Jude, is a decade or two later still. All three epistles can be considered as closely related texts from the same Christian tradition. A Christian tradition that was based on a strong love of, and dependence upon, the early Christian prophets (including Paulos and Silvanus). This is why Jm demonstrates so many parallels with the text of 1Peter (which was written in Asia Minor by Silvanus around about 80-90CE).
.
 If you would like to know more about these things, I highly recommend you read my essay entitled: 'The Face In the Mirror: A Re-Interpretation of James 1:19-27'. It is undoubtedly the best introduction to the book of James that the cyber-saints will find anywhere on the WWWeb. It can be accessed at the following url: http://cybrwurm.tripod.com/fm/fmenu.htm
.
          - one who shaves face with Occam's Razorr - textman ;>
.
P.S. "A happy life must be to a great extent a quiet life,
for it is only in an atmosphere of quiet that true joy can
live" (B.Russell, The Conquest of Happiness).
x