Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassidy
"This is the issue with the WL version of the Book of James. They cannot read this book without mixing into it the account of him in Acts."
ZNP,
Guilty as charged.
But why is it a problem to include James' epistle, the acts of James in the book of Acts, and the account mentioned in Galatians to get a complete rounded view of James' teaching and practice?
|
You only used half of the quote. I continued with the next sentence "So". As a result you make the erroneous conclusion that since Acts records James being zealous for the Law that his epistle does the same. There is nothing wrong with using Acts as background, just as we also use the account of Paul persecuting christians or Peter denying the Lord.
For example, WL talks about James being zealous for the Law in Acts, then refers to the epistle being written to "the twelve tribes in the dispersion" and concludes that James was not clear on the NT economy. This conclusion is not confirmed. If I write to someone who is confused it doesn't mean that I am. If I am burdened for Jews having trouble making the transition from the OT economy to the NT economy it doesn't mean that I am also having that problem.
WL then uses the account in Galatians and Acts to support his thesis. Again, clear support would come from verses within the book of James. All you have really proved is that at one point in James life he was confused, and that at the time he wrote his epistle he was now burdened for others that were confused. You have not provided any evidence that the epistle itself is a mixture.
Should I disparage the epistles of Peter because he denied the Lord? Should I shun the epistles of Paul because he persecuted the church? People get burdens because they themselves were in the very same situation. Paul said that once we overcome we can comfort others with the very same comfort that we received.