Replies

>>I personally am inclined to put a question mark next to >>James.

>If you cast a doubt on part, you cast a doubt on all.

Not at all. It is criticle to keep in mind the reason why doubt is cast, and on what it is cast. In my first post to you, I built up the canon piece by piece, judgeing the books one by one. Catholics are correct when they point out that just simply an up or down on the exact 27 books in the so called NT is a bit arbitrary. An up or down decision on the whole 27 is in reality an up or down decision on the group that selected those 27. In point of fact, that group did a very good job.

However, the only way to logically go about justifying the canon, especially as people put forward other candidates in addition to the 27, without a barefaced appeal to the origional authority, is to examine the books one by one. I have cast a bit of doubt, it is true, on one of those books, but at the same time I have asserted the others more strongly, by suggesting that the process of sorting them works, that the divisional process between clear scripture and others is effective in an objective sense.

The argument for striking James is specific. The main 24, (which do not include Hebrews, James, Jude), cannot seriously be attacked. They stand in a class by themselves, in a strong self-supporting rigid structure, with an incredible legacy of ancient manuscripts clearly showing that they have been faithfully passed down. What makes James different, is that, for one thing, James, like Jude, was not one of the twelve. We learn very little about him from Luke, unlike Paul who is clearly portrayed as an Apostle sent by God. Nothing from the other 24 gives any clue about what we should think about the book of James.

So we look inside the book, and try to judge the book based upon what it says. This is where I follow Martin Luther in saying that the book of James seems very legalistic. It is unlikely that the book of James alone could give a man a proper understanding of Redemption, which is criticle for salvation. Though it is quite right in much of what it says, its lack of grace, forgiveness, and the plan of salvation raise questions. Could a book truly inspired by God lack the most important message of all, especially one written after the accomplished fact of salvation? James fails to give us the message that Jesus died and rose again, and we can be justified if we confess him!

You see, applying arguments like that to, say, Romans is absurd.