Talk:Epistle of James

Archives
/Archive 1

lead

See WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the article and be able to stand on its own. The current lead is nothing like a good Wikipedia lead. Could someone please beef it up? Jonathan Tweet 17:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial book and thus this wikipedia article is subject to POV blanking and edit wars. Catholics and Orthodox claim it invalidates the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, Protestants claim it doesn't. Just read the Catholic Encyclopedia: Epistle of St. James: "Luther strongly repudiated the Epistle as "a letter of straw", and "unworthy of the apostolic Spirit", and this solely for dogmatic reasons, and owing to his preconceived notions, for the epistle refutes his heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation. ... For the question of apparent opposition between St. James and St. Paul with regard to "faith and works" see EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS." 75.15.199.148 18:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If the lead is supposed to show the reader why the topic is interesting, a neutral summary of the controversy belongs there. Jonathan Tweet 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, the problem is just what goes in the lead, because opinions vary over what are the key points to put in the introduction. To the pious Christian with little interest in Biblical disputes, it is an intensely practical book (no cite there, just a personal observation). To many Protestants and Catholics, it is a key book in the faith/works question, and also perhaps in questions on prayer and healing. To the conservative Bible scholar there is the question of which James wrote it, when, and why. To the more critical Bible scholar, there are also questions of pseudonymity. For a simple Bible dictionary type introduction, one might want to mention its audience and its Jewish character. So... writing a concise and NPOV introduction is tricky, and it looks like everyone's dodged doing it so far :) Peter Ballard 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter, you seem to have a good handle on what goes in the lead. It should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic. Everything you mentioned would fit. The point is to describe everything the book is, not decide which one thing it is. I look at it this way: write it as if the reader is going to read nothing but the lead, and we are going to give them a complete picture of the epistle just with the lead. Jonathan Tweet 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The lede is really taking shape. There are a lot of weak leads on WP, and it's nice to see one come into its own. The lede could still use a summary of the epistle's content. Jonathan Tweet 13:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So factual error is permisable as long as it has been published?

The opening comments should be changed to read: There are four views concerning the Epistle of James, that have been published and acceptable on Widipedia.

Because it is most certainly not the case that there are just four views concerning the authorship of James. There is a fifth. That James was written during the earthly ministry of Jesus, before the Crucifixion. rem486 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So is soneone trying to covertly transition to the idea that James was written before the crucifixion, by postulating that it was written before Paul's letters? Because before Paul's letters was the period of time before the crucifixion.rem486 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.21.53 (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

@unsigned - Did you mean to put a question mark at the edn of your statement? A Georgian (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Rem486 / Original Research

User:Rem486 consistently reinstates a paragraph of pure original research. I've left a 3RR warning on his talk page. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct use of Talk Page / Archive Created

I remind users of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

Since User Rem486 has written a lot of his personal views on this Talk page, I have put them (as well as old discussions) in the Archive page /Archive 1. I was tempted to delete them altogether, but I instead dumped them in the archive.

Please use this Talk page only for discussing the article, not for talking about pet theories*. Depending on how ruthless I feel, I may simply delete opinion pieces in future. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

James son of Zebedee the author?

The article has whole paragraph, uncited, saying "Authorship has also occasionally been attributed to the apostle James the Great, brother of John the Evangelist and son of Zebedee". Attributed by who? FWIW I have never heard that claim. I propose deleting it unless a decent cite can be found. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blast from the Past

The use of peirasmos in James Peirasmos means just that: Temptations, not tribulations. The over whelming use of the word in the New Testament has nothing to do with violence, as some commentators of the book of James have written. A typical example of the word is Matthew 26:41 where Jesus tells his disciples to watch and pray so they enter not into peirasmos. Did He think someone was going to start a brawl? Of course not, actually He was rebuking them for falling asleep! Even in the most possibly violent use of the word, Revelation 3:10, there is no guarantee that is the meaning. To date the book of James during the persecution and scattering of the Church in Acts using peirasmos is a great disservice. Peirasmos does not imply violence but spiritual challenge. Indeed, nowhere in the account of the persecutions in Acts does peirasmos even appear. Because that account details real physical violence, not just spiritual challenge. The 'divers temptations' of James 1 is not the physical violence of Acts, but the desire to sin found in every human heart. The effort to find a proper setting for the epistle of James is hindered when we contort the meaning of its words. rem486 (Oh don't worry, I've saved the Archive page to disk.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Never say just... For the sake of it: Explain what the word temptation signify. According to the authoritative Greek word study tool of the Perseus Project at Tufts University: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=peirasmo%2Fn&la=greek - Peirasmon may mean either 'trial', or 'temptation'... To my mind's capacity those two concepts are quite different.. So "just"... is not exactly a proper reaction... Or should I say: Just keep your temper... --Xact (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Xact, et. al. Why not so exacting about James 1:1? "To the twelve tribes of Israel in the dispersion." I take the verse exactly as it was written during the earthly ministry of Jesus. If you dont, You are just a flamming hypo...(Oopps, I've got to remember to hold my temper.)rem486

Hmmm, four months since my response and nothing.....Another critic bites the dust. rem486 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

comment moved here from article - + * (What? Say What? Jacob and James are the same name? In what galaxy? Jacob is Jacob and James ia an Elizabethan transliteration of an Old French name? Sorry it took me so long to spot this but I"ve moved on and only revisit this page occasionally.) rem486

James is also notable for its lack of content. None of the following New Testament subjects or doctrines appear in the Epistle of James: the Passion, the Crucifixion, the Blood, the Tomb, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Atonement, the Grace of God, the New Covenant, the Son of God, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the Substitution, the Deity of Christ, the Apostles, Eternal Life, Pentecost. rem486 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, then all you need is a reliable source saying that. But we can't, see WP:NOR (I'm sure you've been told that before). Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, so the Epistle of James, which contains none of the aforementioned subjects or doctrines, is not a reliable source? Read it and prove me wrong. (Although I'm sure I've mentioned that before) rem486 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not a reliable source. How many times do you have to be asked to read WP:NOR & WP:VERIFY. Seriously, this is getting WP:Disruptive. If you refuse to use or find reliable sources according to our criteria (see also WP:RS you simply don't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I am not a reliable source. How many times do I have to say that James is the reliable source. Right? rem486 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.21.53 (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And your analysis of James is what I am talking about. Find a reliable source that discusses James and says what you are trying to say. We can't use your analysis. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Citation

Literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia carry a warning banner about the need for further citation to establish a fact. In other words 'original research'. So how come the only original research that gets deleted is mine? Maybe I'm hitting a nerve? I only mention this in case your pain is blinding your hypocrisy. rem486 and yes, I AM signed in.

As someone who just stumbled across the article and happened to view the talk page, I don't believe that Dougweller's actions can be fairly called hypocrisy. For many statements that are not cited, we may simply assume good faith and let the statement remain in the article and leave a citation needed tag to allow the author time and opportunity to add the citation. However, I can see that it in this case it was somewhat more difficult for Dougweller to assume good faith as you've historically had a tenuous relationship with this article and various other editors: numerous warnings; repeated publication of original research; failing to add citations for each time you've reinserted original research after deletion by a fellow editor; and exegetical effort on the article's talk page to develop and explain ideas. Given this, Dougweller was certainly not being hypocritical when he opted to enforce WP:NOR and delete your contribution. Fundamentally, it seems that you're misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia: it isn't a medium to publish and develop our personal ideas about a particular topic, but rather its purpose is to present the ideas of individuals sourced from reputable sources. Sixteen85 (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)