Is Epistle of James wrong and unreal?

[jcrichton]

Here’s the link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James. It said something called “Muratorian fragment” which is the earliest list of Bible that is the earliest and James isn’t in there.

…but does that make it the only source/authority (The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th or 8th century codex: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment ), specially in light of:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James
The Epistle was first explicitly referred to and quoted by Origen of Alexandria, and possibly a bit earlier by Irenaeus of Lyons[20] as well as Clement of Alexandria in a lost work according to Eusebius,

…all three (Origen, Irenaeus and Clement) preceded the “Marutorain fragment” by hundreds of years–which places them closer to the original source/practice of the early Church.

…further, the list is said to have been made by an “anonymous original compiler” which could have missed or not be aware of the use of the Epistle of James by the Church (as I understand it the Writings were circulated among the Believers but not compiled as a single volume book).

Merry Christmas!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[x1980x]

I have never met a Protestant who rejects the Epistle of James. The apparent “contradiction” is resolved by observing that a person is saved by faith, but not just any faith. Intellectual faith is not sufficient- Satan knows that the Bible is true but that doesn’t save him from his impending doom. Faith that is sufficient to save a person is faith that by its very nature causes the believer to do good works. If someone claims that they believe but their life shows no good works, then that is evidence that the person does not have a saving faith.

There is simply no controversy anywhere today in mainstream Protestantism, either liberal or conservative, over the canonicity of James.

 

[JRKH]

It seems that in the rush to reject the authority of the Catholic Church, the baby was in danger of being thrown out with the bath water (actually, He was). The reformers did not like James, then Hebrews, then Jude, then Revelation. And, never mind the exclusion of the Deuterocanon, which necessitated the man-made concoction of the “inter-testamental period” where, they allege, God was mysteriously silent in the two centuries preceding Christ. Ha!

Actually if I recall correctly it was only Luther who wanted to toss James and the other NT books. It was the other reformers who prevented it. Same with the Deuteros which is why they were initially placed in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. They were later dropped completely for (as I understand) reasons of cost (cheaper to print).

Fortunately, the Church spoke on this long ago. For example, Hebrews does not have to be 100% of Pauline provenance - its content has been tested and found to be inspired.

And this is the key. It always comes back to the matter of authority…The Church has the authority - the responsibility - to settle these matters and she has done so…

Peace
James