Something I did not include in my James commentary: David Nienhuis of Seattle Pacific Univ has argued that James was a pseudepigraph composed to head up the non-Pauline collection called the Catholic Epistles. Origen is the first to cite James by name and it was not part of the Muratorian Canon. He neglects to adequately interact with the fact that Canon Muratori is incomplete and that there is abundant evidence of James being used in the Shepherd of Hermas. Not only this, but Clement of Alexandria was credited by Eusebius with writing an exposition of James. He wrote the following about Clements lost work, Hypotyposes, which he must have had a copy of in the extensive library at Caesarea. “In the Outlines (Ὑποτυπώσεσιν) … he has done expositions of all canonical Scripture, even including the Disputed (αντιλεγομενα) Books, namely the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 6, 14.1). Notice “all scripture including the other Catholic Epistles.” Elsewhere Eusebius includes James among the books that are disputed but have been received as part of the Catholic Epistles.
Posted on: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:00:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015