Did Luke write the epistle of James?

[Ben C. Smith]

Right ok Ben
so what is being suggested here?

Well, Irish1975 is suggesting that the author of Acts also authored the epistle of James. Those two works look to me, on the other hand. as if they come from two different perspectives, and with two different styles, as it were. But Irish1975 has responded to some of my better arguments in that direction with good observations of his own, which I am considering.

None of this has all that much to do with the "real" Paul or James. It is all to do with how Paul and James are interpreted and represented in later literature. (Neither Irish1975 nor I think that the epistle of James is by the historical James.)

I would also add that, when I talk about “Luke” or the author of Acts, I’m referring to what might have been a circle of scribes or a school. A theological and literary agenda would have united the members of such a group, even if they differed individually in their literary talents. It took a certain type of mind to compose James, and perhaps another type to compose Acts. They’re different styles of text, but could be working in tandem.

This is a good qualification. Thanks.

I looked at your thread on the Praxapostolos, Ben, thanks. This comparison of the epistle w/ James in Acts relieves me of having to do it myself....

No problem. When it comes to comparing two canonical works, there is usually somebody who has already done the legwork. Noncanonical works are more hit and miss in that regard.

[davidmartin]

James can also be read as an anti-Pauline piece?

[Ben C. Smith]

James can also be read as an anti-Pauline piece?

Is this an assertion or a question?

[Secret Alias]

Is there ever much distinction between the two at this forum?

[Ben C. Smith]

Is there ever much distinction between the two at this forum?

There is?

[MrMacSon]

James can also be read as an anti-Pauline piece?

Is this an assertion or a question?

A premise and a question about its veracity?

[davidmartin]

James can also be read as an anti-Pauline piece?

Is this an assertion or a question?

A premise and a question about its veracity?

A question on what people think about the hypothesis that it's anti-Pauline
The description of the 'unstable man' in James bears a passing resemblance to Paul in a number of interesting ways
James also contradicts Paul on faith and works and seems to lack other Pauline concepts
It wouldn't be out of place among the Clementine writings which promote James as an authority
Maybe Luke knew of it when compiling Acts

[Ben C. Smith]

James can also be read as an anti-Pauline piece?

Is this an assertion or a question?

A premise and a question about its veracity?

A question on what people think about the hypothesis that it's anti-Pauline

It is very much a live option to me that the epistle of James deliberately opposes Paul. There are apparently deliberate agreements, though, too, and those need to be explained.

[perseusomega9]

One can find various interpolation theories, multipart letter hypotheses, lost letters (Laodikeans?) and even admitted forgeries (which is teh r34l Thessalonians?) in the Pauline Epistles. Are there any such 'partitioning' ideas for James' one and only letter?

[Ben C. Smith]

One can find various interpolation theories, multipart letter hypotheses, lost letters (Laodikeans?) and even admitted forgeries (which is teh r34l Thessalonians?) in the Pauline Epistles. Are there any such 'partitioning' ideas for James' one and only letter?

I just now skimmed through the introductions of two commentaries on James (those by Sophie Laws and James Hardy Ropes), and could find no mention of partition hypotheses. They both mention the old hypothesis (which I have explored here before) concerning James 1.1 and 2.1 being interpolated with the only two direct references to Jesus, but I can find nothing more extensive than that.

I did happen across this reference in Laws:

1 Clement 32.4-33.1: 32.4 So too we who have been called through his will in Christ Jesus are made upright not through ourselves, through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or the deeds we have done with a devout heart, but through faith, through which the omnipotent God has made all these people upright, from the beginning of the ages. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen. 33.1 What then shall we do, brothers? Shall we grow idle and not do what is good? Shall we abandon our acts of love? May the Master never let this happen to us! Instead, we should hasten with fervor and zeal to complete every good work.

Clement seems to fend off the same misunderstanding of faith that James does. Laws herself argues that Clement is fully dependent here upon Paul's own treatment of faith and works, however, and not upon James.