Another excellent article, thanks. Regarding your paragraph on the letter of James. This is a topic I am especially interested in. I have read the argument that while James is the most Jewish part of the New Testament, it is at least in part Pauline and was unlikely to have been written by him. A couple of items raised are its sophisticated Koine Greek, and the fact that when it discusses the law, circumcision and dietary law are never mentioned. The parts of the law that are mentioned are those that Acts (I think?) consider to be acceptable for Christians.
I would love an article of the letter of James but probably too much in the weeds for most readers.
Thanks! The scholars say the Greek is too polished for a Galilean carpenter's brother, and the law stuff is the real tell: no circumcision, no kashrut, no Sabbath, just the ethical bits that happen to match the Acts 15 compromise. For the guy supposedly leading the faction Paul fought with in Galatians 2 over exactly those issues, that silence says a lot.
My guess is it's real early Jewish-Christian material that got rewritten later by someone with better Greek, slapped with James's name because it still carried weight.
And don't sell your readers short — the James/Paul split is one of the best ways to show that early Christianity wasn't one thing. I'll put it on the list.
A helpful, clear-eyed view, Tanner. Thank you.
Thank you, Steven!
Another excellent article, thanks. Regarding your paragraph on the letter of James. This is a topic I am especially interested in. I have read the argument that while James is the most Jewish part of the New Testament, it is at least in part Pauline and was unlikely to have been written by him. A couple of items raised are its sophisticated Koine Greek, and the fact that when it discusses the law, circumcision and dietary law are never mentioned. The parts of the law that are mentioned are those that Acts (I think?) consider to be acceptable for Christians.
I would love an article of the letter of James but probably too much in the weeds for most readers.
Thanks! The scholars say the Greek is too polished for a Galilean carpenter's brother, and the law stuff is the real tell: no circumcision, no kashrut, no Sabbath, just the ethical bits that happen to match the Acts 15 compromise. For the guy supposedly leading the faction Paul fought with in Galatians 2 over exactly those issues, that silence says a lot.
My guess is it's real early Jewish-Christian material that got rewritten later by someone with better Greek, slapped with James's name because it still carried weight.
And don't sell your readers short — the James/Paul split is one of the best ways to show that early Christianity wasn't one thing. I'll put it on the list.