This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
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)
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)
James does not simply list/rave against sins (though this is discussed throughout the text). This is why I believe that the content of the lead should not necessarily state this in this manner. Maybe this should be merged into a content section?Patrick Fisher 06:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishepat000 ( talk • contribs)
Andrew from Aberdeen: The paragraph uses the term "Jesus Movement" a number of times, this term has never been used in reference to the early Church. It also makes claims the letter was sidelined, on a number of occasions. This is false, the very fact it is included in the canon of Scripture highlights that it was considering important and valuable. I've tried to edit articles before but someone always reverts my changes. Andrew 26/10/2020
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)
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)
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)
With these two edits I removed a paragraph that contained an alternative theory that the epistle was written by James the Great. I don't have any problem with this theory per se, but it needs a source. The paragraph was also awkwardly placed, in that an earlier paragraph had already established that evidence points to James the brother [or half-brother] of Jesus. Therefore, I have no problem with someone reinserting the following text into the article if a reliable source can be located for the hypothesis:
I am (not) Iron Man ( talk) 03:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This article is a mess. It contains no clear organisation, and sadly, like a lot of the articles on the texts of Christianity, seems to contain a lot of OR from amateurs who are interpreting it from there own religious tradition and are not aware that that interpretation is not the global one. I am starting to clear out the obvious WP:OR. If you disagree with a chop, please re-include with a clear cite that makes the point (not four cites provided as evidence that you synthesise). The 'Alterative interpretation' section is the worst. The name does not make it clear what it is interpreting and what it is an alternative to. It seems to contain a lot of original research and gives undue weight to something that may be a minority interpretation. Ashmoo ( talk) 09:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as I see, the majority of scholars considers James to be pseudepigraphical, it could not possibly have been composed by an actual follower of Jesus. As of now, the article first presents speculations about which James from the gospels could have written it, but fails to mention that this view does not at all represent the majority view among contemporary scholars. -- Johannes Rohr ( talk) 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Other scholars, such as Luke Timothy Johnson, suggest an early dating for the Epistle of Jame
"The Letter of James also, according to the majority of scholars who have carefully worked through its text in the past two centuries, is among the earliest of New Testament compositions. It contains no reference to the events in Jesus' life, but it bears striking testimony to Jesus' words. Jesus' sayings are embedded in James' exhortations in a form that is clearly not dependent on the written Gospels."[14]
We've got a bit of pro-Catholic POV in the article here where. In the section "Doctrine," sub-section "Justification" we find this little gem: "However, this position [i.e. a Protestant position on justification] does not make Biblical, Traditional or Logical sense. Furthermore, the Bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (NABRE James 2:24)." It was added by an anonymous IP. I removed it, explaining that it introduced a particular POV and therefore had to go. It was added back in by the same anonymous IP. Since the IP address seems unwilling to discuss the issue, and because policy forbids me from edit-warring, I'm in a bit of a bind here. Any suggestions on how I should handle this? For the record, I have absolutely no problem with the article discussion Catholic interpretations, or any other interpretations, of the Epistle of James. I just want WP:NPOV followed, in that Wikipedia should describe theological positions without endorsing them, whether from a Pro-Protestant, Pro-Catholic, Pro-Muslim, Pro-Jewish, or Pro-anything-else standpoint. Alephb ( talk) 01:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The third paragraph says "Famously, Luther disliked the Epistle". Should it add that this is because the epistle seems to go against Luther's concept of "solafidianism" (justification by faith alone) and emphasises how faith needs works? Vorbee ( talk) 06:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The view that the epistle is orthonymous is
WP:FRINGE. The claim Dated consensually c. 40-45 AD
is fake. Perhaps it counts as true in evangelical colleges and universities, but it is not true from the
Ivy League to US state universities.
Richard Elliott Friedman and
Shaye J. D. Cohen would never teach as true that the epistle is orthonymous. Neither would
Bart Ehrman, nor
Dale Martin. The attempt to pass that as academic consensus is fanciful at best, disingenuous at worst.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 13:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
It is definitely a fringe view that James was a carpenter. There is not one word of scripture to indicate any secular skills of James'. {rem486] Rem486 ( talk) 15:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
"James and Paul both teach that salvation is by faith alone and also that faith is never alone but shows itself to be alive by deeds of love that express a believer's thanks to God for the free gift of salvation by faith in Jesus." James taught that salvation was by faith alone? Serioulsly? rem486 ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
General Epistles versus Catholic Epistles, they mean the same term should both be mentioned or use a word that goes around the wiki debate? Doremon764 ( talk) 03:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
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)
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)
James does not simply list/rave against sins (though this is discussed throughout the text). This is why I believe that the content of the lead should not necessarily state this in this manner. Maybe this should be merged into a content section?Patrick Fisher 06:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishepat000 ( talk • contribs)
Andrew from Aberdeen: The paragraph uses the term "Jesus Movement" a number of times, this term has never been used in reference to the early Church. It also makes claims the letter was sidelined, on a number of occasions. This is false, the very fact it is included in the canon of Scripture highlights that it was considering important and valuable. I've tried to edit articles before but someone always reverts my changes. Andrew 26/10/2020
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)
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)
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)
With these two edits I removed a paragraph that contained an alternative theory that the epistle was written by James the Great. I don't have any problem with this theory per se, but it needs a source. The paragraph was also awkwardly placed, in that an earlier paragraph had already established that evidence points to James the brother [or half-brother] of Jesus. Therefore, I have no problem with someone reinserting the following text into the article if a reliable source can be located for the hypothesis:
I am (not) Iron Man ( talk) 03:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This article is a mess. It contains no clear organisation, and sadly, like a lot of the articles on the texts of Christianity, seems to contain a lot of OR from amateurs who are interpreting it from there own religious tradition and are not aware that that interpretation is not the global one. I am starting to clear out the obvious WP:OR. If you disagree with a chop, please re-include with a clear cite that makes the point (not four cites provided as evidence that you synthesise). The 'Alterative interpretation' section is the worst. The name does not make it clear what it is interpreting and what it is an alternative to. It seems to contain a lot of original research and gives undue weight to something that may be a minority interpretation. Ashmoo ( talk) 09:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as I see, the majority of scholars considers James to be pseudepigraphical, it could not possibly have been composed by an actual follower of Jesus. As of now, the article first presents speculations about which James from the gospels could have written it, but fails to mention that this view does not at all represent the majority view among contemporary scholars. -- Johannes Rohr ( talk) 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Other scholars, such as Luke Timothy Johnson, suggest an early dating for the Epistle of Jame
"The Letter of James also, according to the majority of scholars who have carefully worked through its text in the past two centuries, is among the earliest of New Testament compositions. It contains no reference to the events in Jesus' life, but it bears striking testimony to Jesus' words. Jesus' sayings are embedded in James' exhortations in a form that is clearly not dependent on the written Gospels."[14]
We've got a bit of pro-Catholic POV in the article here where. In the section "Doctrine," sub-section "Justification" we find this little gem: "However, this position [i.e. a Protestant position on justification] does not make Biblical, Traditional or Logical sense. Furthermore, the Bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (NABRE James 2:24)." It was added by an anonymous IP. I removed it, explaining that it introduced a particular POV and therefore had to go. It was added back in by the same anonymous IP. Since the IP address seems unwilling to discuss the issue, and because policy forbids me from edit-warring, I'm in a bit of a bind here. Any suggestions on how I should handle this? For the record, I have absolutely no problem with the article discussion Catholic interpretations, or any other interpretations, of the Epistle of James. I just want WP:NPOV followed, in that Wikipedia should describe theological positions without endorsing them, whether from a Pro-Protestant, Pro-Catholic, Pro-Muslim, Pro-Jewish, or Pro-anything-else standpoint. Alephb ( talk) 01:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The third paragraph says "Famously, Luther disliked the Epistle". Should it add that this is because the epistle seems to go against Luther's concept of "solafidianism" (justification by faith alone) and emphasises how faith needs works? Vorbee ( talk) 06:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The view that the epistle is orthonymous is
WP:FRINGE. The claim Dated consensually c. 40-45 AD
is fake. Perhaps it counts as true in evangelical colleges and universities, but it is not true from the
Ivy League to US state universities.
Richard Elliott Friedman and
Shaye J. D. Cohen would never teach as true that the epistle is orthonymous. Neither would
Bart Ehrman, nor
Dale Martin. The attempt to pass that as academic consensus is fanciful at best, disingenuous at worst.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 13:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
It is definitely a fringe view that James was a carpenter. There is not one word of scripture to indicate any secular skills of James'. {rem486] Rem486 ( talk) 15:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
"James and Paul both teach that salvation is by faith alone and also that faith is never alone but shows itself to be alive by deeds of love that express a believer's thanks to God for the free gift of salvation by faith in Jesus." James taught that salvation was by faith alone? Serioulsly? rem486 ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
General Epistles versus Catholic Epistles, they mean the same term should both be mentioned or use a word that goes around the wiki debate? Doremon764 ( talk) 03:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)