# Is James IN or OUT?



## JM (Jul 10, 2007)

> Most writing from before 200 do not mention the Epistle of James. One significant text does quote James: The Shepherd of Hermas, written before 140. The theologian and biblical scholar, Origen, quotes James extensively between 230 and 250. He mentions that James was Jesus' brother, but does not make it clear if the letter is scripture. Hippolytus and Tertullian, from early in the third century, do not mention or quote James. Cyprian of Carthage, in the middle of the third century, also makes no mention. The "Muratorian Canon," from around 200, lists and comments on New Testament books, but fails to mention James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter.
> 
> Yet by 340 Eusebius of Caesarea, an early Christian historian, acknowledges that James is both canonical and orthodox, and widely read. However, he categorizes it, along with the other catholic epistles, as "disputed texts". Two Greek New Testaments from that time each include James, along with the other catholic epistles. In 367 Athanasius lists the 27 New Testament books we presently use as the definitive canon. Read Eusebius' Commentary.
> 
> ...


link
Just wondering what you folks thought.

j


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Jul 10, 2007)

Very interesting; the history of the canon is a subject that deserves more of my attention, especially in regards to previously disputed books like James. Although, many, many Christian scholars know much more than myself about the canon and do not reject James, so that makes me confident enough to not consider it a pressing issue...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 11, 2007)

I am more and more convinced, as years pass, that the WCF statement regarding our "full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, _*is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts,*_" is of vastly greater importance than 100 scholarly defenses and 10,000 evidences for the canon.

WHY was James _first_ included in the inspired corpus? Because God's people heard the Voice of the Shepherd speaking therein. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" (Jn. 10:27). And though some one, here and there, has raised this or that question about the book down through the years--for he had some personal difficulty hearing the clear Voice of the Shepherd in those Words--yet even most of them have been persuaded that the fault was more likely in them, and they submitted to the consent of the church.

The same could be said of the "pericope adulterae", the story of the woman caught in adultery, today found in most Bibles, Jn. 8:2-11. Is it John's? Luke's? Some other writer's? All those options have been suggested. But clearly it has defied any effort at its removal from the canon, whether that was because it stood alone at some point, or whether its removal was sought on the basis that "Jesus couldn't have done/said something like that!"

Ultimately why? Because for most of us, the Spirit of Jesus breathes in that passage, just as he does in James, and in the rest of the Scripture. One thing we don't have to do is SIFT the writings of the day for the Spirit's words. But back in the days of counterfeits and gnostics, the church had to do that very thing. Today, junk like the "Gospel of Thomas" is having a "resurrection" of popularity. But just try reading GT, and you will see immediately that to the Christian (and most honest secularists) the writings are nothing alike. (CS Lewis had something similar to say in his day about pseudo-scholars who knew next-to-nothing about ancient literature as a whole, but opining about the formation of the NT as though their opinions had an ounce of respectability). In the end, the NT was formed the same way the OT was: by acknowledging "Thus saith the Lord."

I would like to suggest an experiment, one that is seldom performed, largely because it really is so unnecessary. But play the "detective", and go back and gather a slew of ancient texts along with your Bible. Try to be "objective". Choose criteria such as _nothing written after the apostolic period can possibly be authentic._ Try to read these texts as though YOU have to do what the 2nd and 3rd century fathers had to do, namely preserve your biblical, apostolic heritage and resist the corruptions. Could you do it? Could you do it alone? Be a "conservative" and if you have any doubts, set the text aside. It cannot be authoritative unless you believe it is God speaking without a doubt. Etc. Etc.

I could be wrong, but I think you'd come up with either 1) Today's NT, or 2) some subset of the NT. After all, the history of canonics shows that the church east and west trusted substantially the same books, and in the end came to their own general consent over the last 5-6 books, Hebrews and Revelation prominent (the former universally accepted in the east, the latter universally in the west, and both were finally accepted by all).

My point: if we had to do it all over again, and thankfully we don't, but even if we did--so what? I tell you the truth, we would still end up with the same 66 books. Even if the whole history of canonics was lost in toto, in one fell swoop, and we were cut off from ANY meaningful interaction with the labors of the past. Why? Because we can't be cut off from Christ and his Spirit. It's impossible.


----------



## Theoretical (Jul 11, 2007)

Succinct and to the point. Thank you for posting this wonderful gem, Rev. Buchanan.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 16, 2007)

It better be in; I took a Bible study group in my church through the whole epistle .


----------

