text:
Earley parser

In computer science, the Earley parser is an algorithm for parsing strings that belong to a given context-free language, though (depending on the variant) it may suffer problems with certain nullable grammars. The algorithm, named after its inventor, Jay Earley, is a chart parser that uses dynamic programming; it is mainly used for parsing in computational linguistics. It was first introduced in his dissertation in 1968 (and later appeared in an abbreviated, more legible, form in a journal ).

Earley parsers are appealing because they can parse all context-free languages, unlike LR parsers and LL parsers, which are more typically used in compilers but which can only handle restricted classes of languages. The Earley parser executes in cubic time in the general case $${O}(n^3)$$, where n is the length of the parsed string, quadratic time for unambiguous grammars $${O}(n^2)$$, and linear time for all deterministic context-free grammars. It performs particularly well when the rules are written left-recursively.

Earley recogniser
The following algorithm describes the Earley recogniser. The recogniser can be modified to create a parse tree as it recognises, and in that way can be turned into a parser.

The algorithm
In the following descriptions, α, β, and γ represent any string of terminals/nonterminals (including the empty string), X and Y represent single nonterminals, and a represents a terminal symbol.

Earley's algorithm is a top-down dynamic programming algorithm. In the following, we use Earley's dot notation: given a production X → αβ, the notation X → α • β represents a condition in which α has already been parsed and β is expected.

Input position 0 is the position prior to input. Input position n is the position after accepting the nth token. (Informally, input positions can be thought of as locations at token boundaries.) For every input position, the parser generates a state set. Each state is a tuple (X → α • β, i), consisting of

 * the production currently being matched (X → α β)
 * the current position in that production (visually represented by the dot •)
 * the position i in the input at which the matching of this production began: the origin position

(Earley's original algorithm included a look-ahead in the state; later research showed this to have little practical effect on the parsing efficiency, and it has subsequently been dropped from most implementations.)

A state is finished when its current position is the last position of the right side of the production, that is, when there is no symbol to the right of the dot • in the visual representation of the state.

The state set at input position k is called S(k). The parser is seeded with S(0) consisting of only the top-level rule. The parser then repeatedly executes three operations: prediction, scanning, and completion.

 * Prediction: For every state in S(k) of the form (X → α • Y β, j) (where j is the origin position as above), add (Y → • γ, k) to S(k) for every production in the grammar with Y on the left-hand side (Y → γ).
 * Scanning: If a is the next symbol in the input stream, for every state in S(k) of the form (X → α • a β, j), add (X → α a • β, j) to S(k+1).
 * Completion: For every state in S(k) of the form (Y → γ •, j), find all states in S(j) of the form (X → α • Y β, i) and add (X → α Y • β, i) to S(k).

Duplicate states are not added to the state set, only new ones. These three operations are repeated until no new states can be added to the set. The set is generally implemented as a queue of states to process, with the operation to be performed depending on what kind of state it is.

The algorithm accepts if (X → γ •, 0) ends up in S(n), where (X → γ) is the top level-rule and n the input length, otherwise it rejects.

Pseudocode
Adapted from Speech and Language Processing by Daniel Jurafsky and James H. Martin,

Example
Consider the following simple grammar for arithmetic expressions: With the input: 2 + 3 * 4

This is the sequence of state sets: The state (P → S •, 0) represents a completed parse. This state also appears in S(3) and S(1), which are complete sentences.

Constructing the parse forest
Earley's dissertation briefly describes an algorithm for constructing parse trees by adding a set of pointers from each non-terminal in an Earley item back to the items that caused it to be recognized. But Tomita noticed that this does not take into account the relations between symbols, so if we consider the grammar S → SS | b and the string bbb, it only notes that each S can match one or two b's, and thus produces spurious derivations for bb and bbbb as well as the two correct derivations for bbb.

Another method is to build the parse forest as you go, augmenting each Earley item with a pointer to a shared packed parse forest (SPPF) node labelled with a triple (s, i, j) where s is a symbol or an LR(0) item (production rule with dot), and i and j give the section of the input string derived by this node. A node's contents are either a pair of child pointers giving a single derivation, or a list of "packed" nodes each containing a pair of pointers and representing one derivation. SPPF nodes are unique (there is only one with a given label), but may contain more than one derivation for ambiguous parses. So even if an operation does not add an Earley item (because it already exists), it may still add a derivation to the item's parse forest.

 * Predicted items have a null SPPF pointer.
 * The scanner creates an SPPF node representing the non-terminal it is scanning.
 * Then when the scanner or completer advance an item, they add a derivation whose children are the node from the item whose dot was advanced, and the one for the new symbol that was advanced over (the non-terminal or completed item).

SPPF nodes are never labeled with a completed LR(0) item: instead they are labelled with the symbol that is produced so that all derivations are combined under one node regardless of which alternative production they come from.

Optimizations
Philippe McLean and R. Nigel Horspool in their paper "A Faster Earley Parser" combine Earley parsing with LR parsing and achieve an improvement in an order of magnitude.

Other reference materials

C, C++

 * 'Yet Another Earley Parser (YAEP)' – C/C++ libraries

Haskell

 * 'Earley' – an Earley parser DSL in Haskell

Java

 * – a Java implementation of the Earley algorithm
 * PEN – a Java library that implements the Earley algorithm
 * Pep – a Java library that implements the Earley algorithm and provides charts and parse trees as parsing artifacts
 * digitalheir/java-probabilistic-earley-parser - a Java library that implements the probabilistic Earley algorithm, which is useful to determine the most likely parse tree from an ambiguous sentence

C#

 * coonsta/earley - An Earley parser in C#
 * patrickhuber/pliant - An Earley parser that integrates the improvements adopted by Marpa and demonstrates Elizabeth Scott's tree building algorithm.
 * ellisonch/CFGLib - Probabilistic Context Free Grammar (PCFG) Library for C# (Earley + SPPF, CYK)

JavaScript

 * Nearley – an Earley parser that's starting to integrate the improvements that Marpa adopted
 * A Pint-sized Earley Parser – a toy parser (with annotated pseudocode) to demonstrate Elizabeth Scott's technique for building the shared packed parse forest
 * lagodiuk/earley-parser-js – a tiny JavaScript implementation of Earley parser (including generation of the parsing-forest)
 * digitalheir/probabilistic-earley-parser-javascript - JavaScript implementation of the probabilistic Earley parser

OCaml

 * Simple Earley - An implementation of a simple Earley-like parsing algorithm, with documentation.

Perl

 * Marpa::R2 – a Perl module. Marpa  is an Earley's algorithm that includes the improvements made by Joop Leo, and by Aycock and Horspool.
 * Parse::Earley – a Perl module implementing Jay Earley's original algorithm

Python

 * Lark – an object-oriented, procedural implementation of an Earley parser, that outputs a SPPF.
 * NLTK – a Python toolkit with an Earley parser
 * Spark – an object-oriented little language framework for Python implementing an Earley parser
 * spark_parser – updated and packaged version of the Spark parser above, which runs in both Python 3 and Python 2
 * earley3.py – a stand-alone implementation of the algorithm in less than 150 lines of code, including generation of the parsing-forest and samples
 * tjr_python_earley_parser - a minimal Earley parser in Python
 * Earley Parsing - A well explained and complete Earley parser tutorial in Python with epsilon handling and Leo optimization for right-recursion.

Rust

 * Santiago – A lexing and parsing toolkit for Rust implementing an Earley parser.

Common Lisp

 * CL-Earley-parser – a Common Lisp library implementing an Earley parser

Scheme, Racket

 * Charty-Racket – a Scheme-Racket implementation of an Earley parser

Wolfram

 * properEarleyParser - A basic minimal implementation of an Earley parser in Wolfram programming language with some essential test cases.

Resources

 * The Accent compiler-compiler

title: Earley parser


text:
Ethiopian cuisine

Ethiopian cuisine (የኢትዮጵያ ምግብ "Ye-Ītyōṗṗyā məgəb") characteristically consists of vegetable and often very spicy meat dishes. This is usually in the form of wat, a thick stew, served on top of injera (እንጀራ), a large sourdough flatbread, which is about 50 cm in diameter and made out of fermented teff flour. Ethiopians usually eat with their right hands, using pieces of to pick up bites of entrées and side dishes.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church prescribes a number of fasting periods known as tsom ( ṣōm), including all Wednesdays and Fridays and the whole Lenten season (including fifteen days outside Lent proper). Per Oriental Orthodox tradition, the faithful may not consume any kind of animal products (including dairy products and eggs) during fasts; therefore, Ethiopian cuisine contains many dishes that are vegan.

Overview
A typical dish consists of accompanied by a spicy stew, which frequently includes beef, lamb, vegetables and various types of legumes, such as lentils is traditionally consumed on the mesob. The cuisines of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People's Region and the Sidama region also make use of the false banana plant (, Ge'ez: እንሰት ïnset), a type of ensete. The plant is pulverized and fermented to make various foods, including a bread-like food called kocho (Ge'ez: ቆጮ ḳōč̣ō), which is eaten with kitfo. The root of this plant may be powdered and prepared as a hot drink called bulla (Ge'ez: ቡላ būlā), which is often given to those who are tired or ill. Another typical Gurage preparation is coffee with butter (kebbeh). Kita herb bread is also baked. Quanta (or Quwanta), is an air dried beef jerky with traditional spices, it's be eaten on its own as a snack, or as an ingredient in stews and other dishes.

Due in part to the brief Italian occupation, pasta is popular and frequently available throughout Ethiopia, including rural areas. Coffee is also a large part of Ethiopian culture and cuisine. After every meal, a coffee ceremony is enacted and coffee is served.

Restrictions of certain meats
Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, Ethiopian Jews and Ethiopian Muslims avoid eating pork or shellfish, for religious reasons. Pork is considered unclean in Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Most Ethiopian Protestants or P'ent'ay also abstain from eating food already prohibited from the Orthodox church. Many Ethiopians abstain from eating certain meats, eating mostly vegetarian foods, partially from the high cost of meat, eggs, dairy products.

Traditional ingredients
Berbere, a combination of powdered chili pepper and other spices (cardamom, fenugreek, coriander, cloves, ginger, nutmeg, cumin and allspice) is an important ingredient used to add flavor to many varied dishes like chicken stews and baked fish dishes. Also essential is niter kibbeh, a clarified butter infused with ginger, garlic, and several spices.

Mitmita (ሚጥሚጣ, ) is a powdered seasoning mix used in Ethiopian cuisine. It is orange-red in color and contains ground birdseye chili peppers (piri-piri), cardamom seed, cloves and salt. It occasionally has other spices including cinnamon, cumin and ginger.

In their adherence to strict fasting, Ethiopian cooks have developed a rich array of cooking oil sources—besides sesame and safflower—for use as a substitute for animal fats which are forbidden during fasting periods. Ethiopian cuisine also uses nug (also spelled noog, also known as "niger seed").

Wat
Wat begins with a large amount of chopped red onion, which is simmered or sauteed in a pot. Once the onions have softened, niter kebbeh (or, in the case of vegan dishes, vegetable oil) is added. Following this, berbere is added to make a spicy keiy wat or keyyih tsebhi. Turmeric is used instead of berbere for a milder alicha wat or both spices are omitted when making vegetable stews, such as atkilt wat. Meat such as beef (ሥጋ, səga), chicken (ዶሮ, doro or derho), fish (ዓሣ, asa), goat or lamb (በግ, beg or beggi) is also added. Legumes such as split peas (ክክ, kək or kikki) and lentils (ምስር, məsər or birsin); or vegetables such as potatoes (ድንች, Dənəch), carrots and chard (ቆስጣ) are also used instead in vegan dishes.

Each variation is named by appending the main ingredient to the type of wat (e.g. ). However, the word keiy is usually not necessary, as the spicy variety is assumed when it is omitted (e.g. doro wat). The term which simply means 'vegetable' is sometimes used to refer to all vegetable dishes, but a more specific name can also be used (as in, which translates to "potatoes and carrots stew"; but the word atkilt is usually omitted when using the more specific term).

Tibs
Meat along with vegetables are sautéed to make tibs (also tebs, t'ibs, tibbs, etc., Ge'ez: ጥብስ ṭïbs). Tibs is served in a variety of manners, and can range from hot to mild or contain little to no vegetables. There are many variations of the delicacy, depending on type, size or shape of the cuts of meat used. Beef, mutton, and goat are the most common meats used in the preparation of tibs. The mid-18th-century European visitor to Ethiopia describes tibs as a portion of grilled meat served "to pay a particular compliment or show especial respect to someone." It may still be seen this way; today the dish is prepared to commemorate special events and holidays.

Kinche (qinch'e)
Kinche (qinch’e), a porridge, is a very common Ethiopian breakfast or supper. It is simple, inexpensive, and nutritious. It is made from cracked wheat, Ethiopian oats, barley or a mixture of those. It can be boiled in either milk or water with a little salt. The flavor of kinche comes from the nit'ir qibe, which is a spiced butter.

Salads
Azifa is an Ethiopian lentil salad made with mustard seed, jalapeños, and onions, and it is a dish often served cold. Buticha is an Ethiopian chickpea salad which is often served cold, and is sometimes compared to hummus.

Oromo dishes
The Oromos' cuisine consists of various vegetable or meat side dishes and entrées. As part of a long-established custom, practice, or belief, people do not eat pork in Oromia.

 * Foon Waaddii – minced roasted meat; specially seasoned
 * Anchotte – a common dish in the western part of Oromia
 * Baduu – liquid remaining after milk has been curdled and strained (cheese)
 * Maarqaa – porridge like substance made from wheat, milk, chili and spices
 * Chechebsaa – shredded biddena stir-fried with chili powder and cheese
 * Ukkaamssa (Affaanyii) – Stewed ground beef with spices, minced onion, garlic, green chili pepper, and clarified butter.
 * Qoocco – also known as kocho, it is not the Gurage type of kocho but a different kind; a common dish in the western part of Oromia
 * Itto – comprises all sorts of vegetables (tomato, potato, ginger, garlic), meat (lamb)
 * Chukkoo – also known as Micira; a sweet flavor of whole grain, seasoned with butter and spices
 * Chororsaa – a common dish in the western part of Oromia
 * Hulbata- slow cooked thick stew, made up of organic fenugreek seed powder, potato, lamb rib or loin chops seasoned with chili, garlic and tomato spices served on top of Biddena; mostly cooked in East Hararghe Zone and West Hararghe Zone of Oromia
 * Dokkee – a common dish throughout Oromia state
 * Qince – similar to Marqaa but made from shredded grains as opposed to flour
 * Qorso (Akayi) – A snack made by roasting barley seeds
 * Dadhii – a drink made from honey
 * Hanida/Haneed– slow-roasted lamb dish usually served with rice
 * Shitney/Shatta sauce– a mixture of herbs and peppers used as a side for hanida
 * Farsho – Beer like beverage, made from barley
 * Buna – Coffee

Kitfo
Another distinctively Ethiopian dish is kitfo (frequently spelled ketfo). It consists of raw (or rare) beef mince marinated in mitmita (Ge'ez: ሚጥሚጣ mīṭmīṭā a very spicy chili powder similar to ) and. Gored gored is very similar to, but uses cubed rather than ground beef.

Ayibe
(or Ayeb) is a local cheese made from the curds of buttermilk that is mild and crumbly, close in texture to crumbled feta. Although not quite pressed, the whey has been drained and squeezed out. It is often served as a side dish to soften the effect of very spicy food. It has little to no distinct taste of its own. However, when served separately, is often mixed with a variety of mild or hot spices typical of Gurage cuisine.

Gomen kitfo
Gomen kitfo is another typical Gurage dish. Collard greens (ጎመን gōmen) are boiled, dried and then finely chopped and served with butter, chili and spices. It is a dish specially prepared for the occasion of Meskel, a very popular holiday marking the discovery of the True Cross. It is served along with or sometimes even kitfo in this tradition called.

Wassa
The enset plant (called wesse in the Sidamo language) is central to Sidama cuisine and after grinding and fermenting the root to produce wassa, it is used in the preparation of several foods.

Borasaame
Borasaame is a cooked mixture of wassa and butter sometimes eaten with Ethiopian mustard greens and/or beans. It is traditionally eaten by hand using a false banana leaf and is served in a ', a vase-like ceramic vessel. A common variant of borasaame uses maize flour instead of wassa and is called badela borasaame. Borasaame is typically paired with a seasoned yogurt drink called wätät. Both are common foods for funerals and the celebration of Fichee Chambalaalla, the Sidama new year.

Amulcho
is an enset flatbread used similarly to to eat wats made from beef, mushrooms, beans, gomen, or pumpkin.

Gomen ba siga
Gomen ba siga (ጎመን በስጋ, Amharic: "cabbage with meat") is a stewed mixture of beef and Ethiopian mustard served under a layer of bread.

Maize
A commonly grown crop in Sidama, maize (badela in Sidaamu; also known as "corn" in North America) is often eaten as a snack with coffee. It can be ground into flour to make bread, roasted on the cob, or the kernels can be picked off to make bokolo, which is served either boiled or roasted.

Breakfast
Fit-fit or fir-fir is a common breakfast dish. It is made from shredded  or kitcha stir-fried with spices or wat. Another popular breakfast food is, a large fried pancake made with flour, often with a layer of egg, eaten with honey.

Chechebsa (or kita firfir) resembles a pancake covered with berbere and niter kibbeh, or other spices, and may be eaten with a spoon. Genfo is a kind of porridge, which is another common breakfast dish. It is usually served in a large bowl with a dug-out made in the middle of the genfo and filled with spiced niter kibbeh.

A variation of ful, a fava bean stew with condiments, served with baked rolls instead of, is also common for breakfast.

Snacks
Typical Ethiopian snacks are dabo kolo (small pieces of baked bread that are similar to pretzels), or kolo (roasted barley sometimes mixed with other local grains). Kolo made from roasted and spiced barley, safflower kernels, chickpeas and/or peanuts are often sold by kiosks and street vendors, wrapped in a paper cone. Snacking on popcorn and traditional lentil samosa is also common.

Traditional alcoholic beverages
There are many different traditional alcoholic drinks which are home made and of natural ingredients.

Tella
Tella is a home-brewed beer served in tella bet ("tella houses") which specialize in serving only tella. Tella is the most common beverage made and served in households during holidays.

It is an alcoholic drink which is prepared from bikil (barley) as main ingredient and gesho (Rhamnus prinoides) for fermentation purpose.

In Oromiffaa, the drink is called farso and in Tigrinya siwa.

Tej (honey wine)
Tej is a potent honey wine. It is similar to mead, and is frequently served in bars, particularly in a tej bet or "tej house".

It is prepared from honey and gesho. It has a sweet taste and the alcoholic content is relatively higher than tella. This drink can be stored for a long time; the longer it is stored, the higher the alcohol content, and the stronger the taste.

Areki (katikala)
Areki, also known as katikala, is probably the strongest alcoholic drink of Ethiopia. It is a home distilled spirit that is often filtered through charcoal to remove off tastes or flavored by smoking or infusion with garlic.

Non-alcoholic beverages
Ethiopians have diverse traditional non-alcoholic drinks which include natural and healthy ingredients.

Kenetto (keribo)
Kenetto, also known as keribo, is a non-alcoholic traditional drink. It is mostly used as substitute for tella for those who don't drink alcohol.

Borde
Borde is a cereal-based traditional fermented beverage famous in southern Ethiopia.

Manufactured drinks
Just like the rest of the world, Ethiopians also enjoy several locally manufactured beers, wine and non-alcoholic products like Coca-Cola and other similar products. Ambo Mineral Water or Ambo wuha is a bottled carbonated mineral water, sourced from the springs in Ambo Senkele near the town of Ambo.

Atmet
Atmet is a barley- and oat-flour based drink that is cooked with water, sugar and kibe (Ethiopian clarified butter) until the ingredients have combined to create a consistency slightly thicker than eggnog. Though this drink is often given to women who are nursing, the sweetness and smooth texture make it a comfort drink for anyone who enjoys its flavor.

Coffee
According to some sources, drinking of coffee (buna) is likely to have originated in Ethiopia. A key national beverage, it is an important part of local commerce.

The coffee ceremony is the traditional serving of coffee, usually after a big meal. It often involves the use of a jebena (ጀበና), a clay coffee pot in which the coffee is boiled. The preparer roasts the coffee beans in front of guests, then walks around wafting the smoke throughout the room so participants may sample the scent of coffee. Then the preparer grinds the coffee beans in a traditional tool called a. The coffee is put into the jebena, boiled with water, and then served in small cups called si'ni. Coffee is usually served with sugar, but is also served with salt in many parts of Ethiopia. In some parts of the country, niter kibbeh is added instead of sugar or salt.

Snacks, such as popcorn or toasted barley (or kolo), are often served with the coffee. In most homes, a dedicated coffee area is surrounded by fresh grass, with special furniture for the coffee maker. A complete ceremony has three rounds of coffee (abol, tona and bereka) and is accompanied by the burning of frankincense.

Tea (shai)
Tea will most likely be served if coffee is declined. Tea is grown in Ethiopia at Gumaro and Wushwush.

Boiled coffee leaves
Across southern Ethiopia, many groups drink boiled coffee leaves, called kuti among the Harari in the east and kaari among the Majang in the west. This is often made with widely varying seasonings and spices, such as sugar, salt, rue, hot peppers, ginger. The Ethiopian Food Safety Authority has registered the safety of coffee leaf infusions with the European Union.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ethiopian cuisine


text:
Talk:Environmental organization

Comments
it is still an advantage to have page titles in singular, for example when you write about Greenpeace and want to mention that it is ... "an ((environmental organization))"

may I suggest you distinguish governmental or intergovernmental organizations (e.g. the IPCC) from non-governmental ones (e.g. Greenpeace). Then maybe the US EPA or the European Environment Agency could go here. -- Simon J Kissane

FWIW I agree with the above.

I moved the many external links in this "article" (right now, it's just a list of links) to a "Links" section. We will probably want Wikipedia articles on several of those--eventually, maybe all of them!

Obviously, some anti-environmentalist organizations should be listed as well. --LMS - What do you mean by anti-environmentalist organizations? Oil and chemical companies and various governments spring to mind, but I guess you have something else on your mind. --Pinkunicorn

Hidden page
Note that List of environmental organisations topics (before redirect) was redirected here, to Environmental organizations, after its AfD was closed 'no consensus', which defaults to Keep. Another editor may wish to restore it, but I think it needs work before being restored. As I noted in the AfD, it is superior to List of environmental issues in that it lists nearly four times as many articles. Anarchangel (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Add quote ?
Perhaps add this quote to the page: You know, when we started the World Wildlife Fund, its objective was to save endangered species from extinction, and I'm now near the end of my career and we've failed completely. We haven't saved a single endangered species. And if we'd put all that money we'd collected into condoms, we might have done some good. -Sir Peter Scott, co-founder of the WWF, in a personal conversation cited by Professor Roger Short-
 * absolutely, The quote I heard was “You know, I have often thought that at the end of the day, we would have saved more wildlife if we had spent all WWF’s money on buying condoms.” It shows that he was thinking about it a lot.  Gregkaye (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Weird assertion
Removed the weird assertion / generalisation that environment organisations have trouble managing their finances. Cited reference was dodgy. I believe the comment is too broad to be relevant and removes neutrality of the article particularly when other content is so sparse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethel the aardvark (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed history section
I removed the history section for the following reasons 1) Gave immensely undue weight to the Sierra club, even though the history of environmentalism is very complicated and had many important actors. 2) Made the history seem much simpler than it was. 3) Relied entirely on a self published source.

I believe entirely that this article should have a history section, but I think the one that existed didn't belong on Wikipedia. I won't be able to write this section without significant research, and would appreciate someone who is knowledgeable on the topic doing so, or at least dropping off some sources. Toad02 (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted politics section
I deleted the politics section for the following reasons. 1) Was unclear exactly how environmental groups interacted with political organizations. 2) Contained a lot of unrelated information. 3) Lacked any citations.

I propose creating a section called "methods" that talks about how environmental groups do things, (including lobbying). Toad02 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Many Definitions needed
The article is of course too short and not clear. What is meant by an Environmental Organization. Examples are good, but Definitions are better. This article from "The Conversation" is very useful, especially for International Governmental level. I have no time to include the useful information in the article, therefore I share it here. --Ai24 (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Environmental organization


text:
Epistle of James

The Epistle of James is a general epistle and one of the 21 epistles (didactic letters) in the New Testament. It was written originally in Koine Greek.

James 1:1 identifies the author as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" who is writing to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad". Traditionally, the epistle is attributed to James the brother of Jesus (James the Just), and the audience is considered generally to be Jewish Christians, who were dispersed outside Israel.

Framing his letter within an overall theme of patient perseverance during trials and temptations, James writes in order to encourage his readers to live consistently with what they have learned in Christ. He condemns various sins, including pride, hypocrisy, favouritism, and slander. He encourages and implores believers to live humbly by godly, rather than worldly, wisdom; he encourages prayer in all situations.

Martin Luther considered the epistle to be among the disputed books, and sidelined it to an appendix, although he cited it in his Large Catechism.

The epistle aims to reach a wide Jewish audience. During the last decades, the epistle of James has attracted increasing scholarly interest due to a surge in the quest for the historical James, his role within the Jesus movement, his beliefs, and his relationships and views. This James revival is also associated with an increasing level of awareness of the Jewish grounding of both the epistle and the early Jesus movement.

Authorship
The author is identified as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1). James (Jacob, יַעֲקֹב, Ιάκωβος) was an extremely common name in antiquity, and a number of early Christian figures are named James, including: James the son of Zebedee, James the son of Alphaeus, and James the brother of Jesus (reported to also be the son of Alphaeus). Of these, James the brother of Jesus has the most prominent role in the early church, and is often understood as either the author of the epistle, or the implied author.

The earliest recorded references to the Epistle of James highlight the contentious nature of the epistle’s authorship. Origen may be the first person to link the epistle to "James the brother of Lord" (Comm. on Romans 4.8.2), though this is only preserved in Rufinus’s Latin translation of Origen. Eusebius writes that "James, who is said to be the author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles. But it is to be observed that it is disputed" (Historia ecclesiae 2.23.25). Jerome reported that the Epistle of James "is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority" (De viris illustribus 2).

Traditional authorship
The link between James the brother of Jesus and the epistle continued to strengthen, and is now considered the traditional view on the authorship of the work. The traditional view can be divided into at least three further positions that relate also to the date of the epistle:

 * 1) The historical James wrote the letter prior to the Galatians controversy (Gal 2:11–14), and prior to the Jerusalem council (Acts 15);
 * 2) The historical James wrote the letter in response to Paulinism of some sort;
 * 3) The historical James wrote his letter after the events recorded in Galatians and Acts, but is not in dialogue with Paul or Paulinism.

Many who affirm traditional authorship think James had a sufficient proficiency in Greek education to write the letter himself. Some argue that James the brother of Jesus made use of an amanuensis, which explains the quality of Greek in the letter. Dan McCartney notes this position has garnered little support. Others have advocated for a two-stage composition theory, in which many of the sayings of epistle originate with James the brother of Jesus. They were collected by James’ disciples and redacted into the current form of the letter.

John Calvin and others suggested that the author was the James, son of Alphaeus, who is referred to as James the Less (often identified as James the "brother" of Jesus). The Protestant reformer Martin Luther denied it was the work of an apostle and termed it an "epistle of straw".

The Holy Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the Book of James was "written not by either of the apostles, but by the 'brother of the Lord' who was the first bishop of the Church in Jerusalem."

Pseudonymous authorship
A prevalent view within scholarship considers the Epistle of James to be pseudonymous. The real author chose to write under the name James, intending that the audience perceive James the brother of Jesus as the author. Scholars who maintain pseudonymous authorship differ on whether this was a deceitful or pious practice.

The following arguments are often cited in support of pseudepigraphy:
 * 1) The Greek in the Epistle of James is rather accomplished, leading many scholars to believe that it could not have been written by Jesus’ brother. While it has been noted that James’s hometown of Galilee was sufficiently Hellenised by the first century CE to produce figures such as the rhetorician Theodorus and the poet Meleager, there is no evidence (outside the Epistle of James) to suggest that James attained a Greek education.
 * 2) The Epistle of James appears to borrow from 1 Peter, and if this is the case, James must be dated after 1 Peter (often dated between 70–100 CE).
 * 3) If the Epistle envisages a conflict with later Paulinism, this would likewise presuppose a time after the death of James.

Dating and surviving manuscripts
The original manuscript of this letter is lost. The earliest extant manuscripts of James date to the mid-to-late 3rd century.

According to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 20.197–203), James the brother of Jesus was killed in 62 CE, during the high priesthood of Ananus. Those who hold to traditional authorship date the epistle to sometime before 62 CE, in the forties or fifties, making it one of the earliest writings of the New Testament.

Those who maintain that the epistle is pseudonymous generally date the epistle later, from the late first to mid-second century. This is based on a number of considerations, including the epistle's potential dependence on 1 Peter, potential response to Paul's writings or Paul's later followers, late attestation in the historical record, and the 3rd and 4th century disputes concerning the epistle's authorship.

The historiographic debate currently seems to be leaning to the side of those in favor of early dating, although not through irrefutable evidence but through indications and probabilities.

Some of the oldest surviving manuscripts that contain some or all of this letter include:
 * Papyrus 20 (early 3rd century)
 * Papyrus 23 (~AD 250)
 * Papyrus 100 (late 3rd century)
 * Codex Vaticanus (325-350)
 * Codex Sinaiticus (330-360)
 * Codex Alexandrinus (400-440)
 * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (ca. 450)
 * Papyrus 54 (5th century)
 * Papyrus 74 (7th century)

An ancient manuscript containing this chapter in the Coptic language is:
 * Papyrus 6 (~AD 350).

And in Latin:
 * León palimpsest (7th century)

Genre
The Epistle of James is a public letter (epistle), and includes an epistolary prescript that identifies the sender (“James”) and the recipients (“to the twelve tribes in the diaspora”) and provides a greeting (Jas 1:1). The epistle resembles the form of a Diaspora letter, written to encourage Jewish-Christian communities living outside of Israel amid the hardships of diaspora life. James stands in the tradition of the Jewish genre of "Letters to the Diaspora", including the letters of the members of the family of Gamaliel, the one preserved in 2 Maccabees 1:1-9, or some copied by Josephus, all of which are characterised by a double opening and an abrupt ending.

Many consider James to have affinities to Jewish wisdom literature: "like Proverbs and Sirach, it consists largely of moral exhortations and precepts of a traditional and eclectic nature." The epistle also has affinities with many of the sayings of Jesus which are found in the gospels of Luke and Matthew (i.e., those attributed to the hypothetical Q source, in the two-source hypothesis). Some scholars have argued that the author of James is familiar with a version of Q rather than Luke or Matthew.

Other scholars have noted the epistle's affinities with Greco-Roman philosophical literature. The author's use and transformation of Q materials resembles the Hellenistic practice of aemulatio, in which the author must "rival and vie [aemulatio] with the original in the expression of the same thoughts” (Quintilian, Inst. 10.5.5). Other studies have analysed sections of James in light of Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions.

Structure
Some view the epistle as having no overarching outline: "James may have simply grouped together small 'thematic essays' without having more linear, Greco-Roman structures in mind." That view is generally supported by those who believe that the epistle may not be a true piece of correspondence between specific parties but an example of wisdom literature, formulated as a letter for circulation. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "the subjects treated of in the Epistle are many and various; moreover, St. James not infrequently, whilst elucidating a certain point, passes abruptly to another, and presently resumes once more his former argument."

Others view the letter as having only broad topical or thematic structure. They generally organize James under three (in the views of Ralph Martin) to seven (in the views of Luke Johnson) general key themes or segments.

A third group believes that James was more purposeful in structuring his letter, linking each paragraph theologically and thematically: "James, like the gospel writers, can be seen as a purposeful theologian, carefully weaving his smaller units together into larger fabrics of thought and using his overall structure to prioritize his key themes." The third view of the structuring of James is a historical approach that is supported by scholars who are not content with leaving the book as "New Testament wisdom literature, like a small book of proverbs" or "like a loose collection of random pearls dropped in no particular order onto a piece of string."

A fourth group uses modern discourse analysis or Greco-Roman rhetorical structures to describe the structure of James.

The United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament divides the letter into the following sections:

Historical context
The exact historical circumstances that occasioned the epistle are unknown. Those who understand James 2 as a polemic against Paul or Paul’s followers suggest an occasion for the letter aimed at opposing Pauline justification. Others have argued that James' discussion on faith and works does not have Pauline categories in view.

Some scholars have suggested that the epistle was written to both Christian and non-Christian Jews, who continued to worship together before the parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism. The warning against cursing people (Jas 3:9–10) has been read in light of this historical reconstruction, and Dale Allison has argued that “James reflects an environment in which some Jews, unhappy with Jewish Christians, were beginning to use the Birkat ha-minim or something very much like it” to curse Christians.

Poverty and wealth are key concerns throughout the epistle, and these issues are likely to reflect the epistle's historical context. The author shows concern for vulnerable and marginalised groups, such as "orphans and widows" (Jas 1:27), believers who are "poorly clothed and lacking in daily food" (Jas 2:15), and the oppressed waged-worker (Jas 5:4). He writes strongly against the rich (Jas 1:10; 5:1–6) and those who show partiality towards them (Jas 2:1–7).

Justification
The epistle contains the following famous passage concerning salvation and justification: "14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!

20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

This passage has been contrasted with the teachings of Paul the Apostle on justification. Some scholars even believe that the passage is a response to Paul. One issue in the debate is the meaning of the Greek word δικαιόω (, 'render righteous or such as he ought to be'), with some among the participants taking the view that James is responding to a misunderstanding of Paul.

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have historically argued that the passage disproves simplistic versions of the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide).

The early Protestants resolved the apparent conflict between James and Paul regarding faith and works in alternate ways from the Catholics and Orthodox. One modern American Protestant explanation pre-supposes that James taught sola fide: "Paul was dealing with one kind of error while James was dealing with a different error. The errorists Paul was dealing with were people who said that works of the law were needed to be added to faith in order to help earn God's favor. Paul countered this error by pointing out that salvation was by faith alone apart from deeds of the law (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:21–22). Paul also taught that saving faith is not dead but alive, showing thanks to God in deeds of love (Galatians 5:6 ['...since in Christ Jesus it is not being circumcised or being uncircumcised that can effect anything – only faith working through love.']). James was dealing with errorists who said that if they had faith they didn't need to show love by a life of faith (James 2:14–17). James countered this error by teaching that faith is alive, showing itself to be so by deeds of love (James 2:18,26). 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."

According to Ben Witherington III, differences exist between the Apostle Paul and James, but both used the law of Moses, the teachings of Jesus and other Jewish and non-Jewish sources, and "Paul was not anti-law any more than James was a legalist". A more recent article suggests that the current confusion regarding the Epistle of James about faith and works resulted from Augustine of Hippo's anti-Donatist polemic in the early fifth century. This approach reconciles the views of Paul and James on faith and works.

Anointing of the sick
The epistle is also the chief biblical text for the anointing of the sick. James wrote: "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."

G. A. Wells suggested that the passage was evidence of late authorship of the epistle, on the grounds that the healing of the sick being done through an official body of presbyters (elders) indicated a considerable development of ecclesiastical organisation "whereas in Paul's day to heal and work miracles pertained to believers indiscriminately (I Corinthians, XII:9)."

Works, deeds and care for the poor
James and the M Source material in Matthew are unique in the canon in their stand against the rejection of works and deeds. According to Sanders, traditional Christian theology wrongly divested the term "works" of its ethical grounding, part of the effort to characterize Judaism as legalistic. However, for James and for all Jews, faith is alive only through Torah observance. In other words, belief demonstrates itself through practice and manifestation. For James, claims about belief are empty, unless they are alive in action, works and deeds.

"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.'"

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

"Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment."

The epistle emphasizes the importance of acts of charity or works to go along with having the Christian faith by means the following three verses in Chapter 2 of his Epistle:

-2:14. What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?

-2:18. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.

-2:20. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Torah observance
James is unique in the canon by its explicit and wholehearted support of Torah observance (the Law). According to Bibliowicz, not only is this text a unique view into the milieu of the Jewish founders – its inclusion in the canon signals that as canonization began (fourth century onward) Torah observance among believers in Jesus was still authoritative. According to modern scholarship James, Q, Matthew, the Didache, and the pseudo-Clementine literature reflect a similar ethos, ethical perspective, and stand on, or assume, Torah observance. James call to Torah observance (James 1:22-27) ensures salvation (James 2:12–13, 14–26). Hartin is supportive of the focus on Torah observance and concludes that these texts support faith through action and sees them as reflecting the milieu of the Jewish followers of Jesus. Hub van de Sandt sees Matthew's and James' Torah observance reflected in a similar use of the Jewish Two Ways theme which is detectable in the Didache too (Didache 3:1–6). McKnight thinks that Torah observance is at the heart of James's ethics. A strong message against those advocating the rejection of Torah observance characterizes, and emanates from, this tradition: "Some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to teach the dissolution of the law; as though I myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of its eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: 'The heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law.

James seem to propose a more radical and demanding interpretation of the law than mainstream Judaism. According to Painter, there is nothing in James to suggest any relaxation of the demands of the law. "No doubt James takes for granted his readers' observance of the whole law, while focusing his attention on its moral demands."

Latter Day Saint history
"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him." This verse has particular importance in the Latter Day Saint tradition. Joseph Smith claims that the reading and contemplation of this verse inspired him to ask God for wisdom, leading to his First Vision, and thus what his followers consider to be the Restoration—the creation of the LDS church.

Canonicity
The first explicit references to the Epistle of James are found in the writings of Origen of Alexandria (e.g. Comm. on John., 19.23) in the third century. Scholars have generally rejected the possible second-century allusions to James in the Apostolic Fathers and Irenaeus of Lyons' Against Heresies. Neither is James mentioned by Tertullian (c. 155–220 CE) or Cyprian (c. 210–258 CE), and its authenticity of the epistle doubted by Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428 CE). In Historia ecclesiae 2.23.25, Eusebius classes James among the Antilegomena or disputed works, stating ''it is to be observed that it is disputed; at least, not many of the ancients have mentioned it, as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles. Nevertheless we know that these also, with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches.''

Its late recognition in the Church, especially in the West, was a consequence primarily of its sparse attestation by earlier Christian authors and its disputed authorship. Jerome reported that the Epistle of James "is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority" (De viris illustribus 2).

The Epistle of James is missing from the Muratorian fragment (poss. 2nd to 4th century), the Cheltenham list (c. 360 CE), but was listed with the twenty-seven New Testament books by Athanasius of Alexandria in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle (367 CE), and subsequently affirmed by the Councils of Laodicea (c. 363 CE), of Rome (382 CE) and of Carthage (397 and 419).

During the Reformation era, Martin Luther took issue with the epistle on theological grounds, finding James' description of faith and works incompatible with his understanding of justification. Reportedly, he once went as far as to assert "I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove", a metaphor for his being tempted to remove the Epistle of James from the Bible. Luther nonetheless chose to include James from his German translation of the Bible, though he moved it (along with Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation) to the end of the Bible.

title: Epistle of James


text:
Epistle of Jude

The Epistle of Jude is the penultimate book of the New Testament as well as the Christian Bible. It is traditionally attributed to Jude, brother of James.

Jude is a short epistle written in Koine Greek. It condemns in fierce terms certain people the author sees as a threat to the early Christian community, but describes these opponents only vaguely. According to Jude, these opponents are within the Christian community, but are not true Christians: they are scoffers, false teachers, malcontents, given to their lusts, and so on. The epistle reassures its readers that these people will soon be judged by God. It is possible that the group being referred to would have been obvious to the original recipients of the letter, but if a specific group was being referred to, knowledge of the details has since been lost. The one bit of their potential ideology discussed in the letter is that these opponents denigrate angels and their role. If this was indeed a part of the ideology of this group the author opposed, then the epistle is possibly a counterpoint to the Epistle to the Colossians. Colossians condemns those who give angels undue prominence and worship them; this implies the two letters might be part of an early Christian debate on Christian angelology.

Authorship
The epistle introduces itself with a simple claim of authorship: "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James" (NRSV). "James" is generally taken to mean James, brother of Jesus, a prominent leader in the early church. Introductions would typically refer to a father in the era, so the use of a brother suggests that this would only be done if the brother was famous within the community. Little is known about Jude himself. As the brother of James, it has traditionally meant Jude was also a brother of Jesus, since James is described as being the brother of Jesus. This is why Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD) wrote in his work "Comments on the Epistle of Jude" that Jude, the author, was a son of Joseph and a brother of Jesus. However, there is a dispute as to whether "brother" means someone who has the same father and mother, or a half-brother, cousin, or more distant familial relationship. This dispute over the true meaning of "brother" grew as the doctrine of the Virgin Birth evolved. For example, Saint Jerome believed that not only Mary but also Joseph were virgins their entire lives, and thus James and by extension Jude were cousins.

Outside the book of Jude, a "Jude" is mentioned five times in the New Testament: three times as Jude the Apostle, and twice as Jude the brother of Jesus (aside from references to Judas Iscariot and Judah (son of Jacob)). Debate continues as to whether the author of the epistle is the apostle, the brother of Jesus, both, or neither. Scholars have argued that since the author of the letter has not identified himself as an apostle and also refers to the apostles as a third party, he cannot be identified with Jude the Apostle. Other scholars have drawn the opposite conclusion, which is that, as an apostle, he would not have made a claim of apostleship on his own behalf. Scholars who have defended the authorship of the brother of James as plausible include Richard Bauckham.

A reason to doubt that a relative of Jesus wrote the book is that they are unlikely to have been literate. Jesus's family were common laborers from Aramaic-speaking Galilee, and literary composition skills were overwhelmingly concentrated in the elite in antiquity. Few knew how to read, fewer how to write, and fewer still how to write complicated literary treatises. Jesus himself may have been able to read, presumably in Hebrew, but he was also exceptional and the star of the family. Even if somehow Jude had learned a little of how to read Hebrew, the epistle is written in excellent, complicated Koine Greek, with knowledge of common forms of rhetoric and argument of the era, as well as seeming knowledge of the scriptures in Hebrew. All this would be exceptional for a countryside Galilean. Scholars who support the authorship of Jude generally assume that he must have embarked upon extensive travel and missionary work among Hellenized Jews to master Greek as the author did. Ultimately, it is impossible to know more details of Jude's life for sure. One early Christian tradition states that Jude's grandchildren were brought before Emperor Domitian and interrogated; in the story, they defended themselves as not rebels and mere poor laborers eking out what they could from a single patch of land. While the story is clearly apocryphal – Roman emperors did not generally interrogate Galilean peasants – it does suggest that early Christians remembered Jude's family as lower-class laborers, not literate elites.

If the Jude writing the letter was not Jude the Apostle mentioned in the gospels, then he was possibly an unknown Christian who happened to share the name and coincidentally also had a brother named James. A final possibility is that the epistle is pseudepigrapha – that the author intentionally hinted to readers that it was from the more famous Jude, but only as a false attribution to give the letter more authority.

Date
The date of composition is not known, but is loosely speculated to be between the years 50 and 110. Among those who favor the authorship of the Jude mentioned in the gospels, the letter is generally placed before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Among those who favor the authorship of an unknown Christian, it is assumed to be a work of the last decade of the first century or the early second century. Scholars who consider the letter a pseudonymous work generally favor the later dates due to the letter's references to the apostles (as if they lived in the past) and to an authoritative tradition, and because of its competent Greek style. Bo Reicke suggests around 90 AD; Heikki Räisänen concurs and believes that it may have been written at the end of the first century. Bart Ehrman also agrees that toward the end of the first century is the most likely, due to use of certain terminology in ways similar to the pastoral epistles that match a late first century date.

Content
Jude urges his readers to "contend for the faith" against "certain intruders [who] have stolen in among you." He warns about false teachers who twist the grace of Christ as a pretext for wantonness. Jude asks the reader to recall how even after the Lord saved his own people out of the land of Egypt, he did not hesitate to destroy those who fell into unbelief, much as he punished the angels who fell from their original exalted status and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. He also paraphrases (verse 9) an incident apparently from the Assumption of Moses that has since been lost about Satan and Michael the Archangel quarreling over the body of Moses.

Continuing the analogy from Israel's history, he says that the false teachers have followed in the way of Cain, have rushed after reward into the error of Balaam, and have perished in the rebellion of Korach. He describes in vivid terms the opponents he warns of, calling them "clouds without rain", "trees without fruit", "foaming waves of the sea", and "wandering stars". He exhorts believers to remember the words spoken by the Apostles, using language similar to the second epistle of Peter to answer concerns that the Lord seemed to tarry: "In the last time there will be scoffers, indulging their own ungodly lusts," and to keep themselves in God's love, before delivering a doxology to God.

Jude quotes directly from the Book of Enoch, a widely distributed work among the Old Testament pseudepigrapha, citing a section of 1 Enoch 1:8 that is based on Deuteronomy 33:2.

Style and audience
Consisting of just 1 chapter with 25 verses, the Epistle of Jude is among the shortest books of the Bible. (The Epistle to Philemon also contains 25 verses, while the 21-verse Book of Obadiah, the 14-verse 3 John, and the 13-verse 2 John are shorter.)

The wording and syntax of this epistle in its original Greek demonstrates that the author was capable and fluent. The epistle's style is combative, impassioned, and rushed. Many examples of evildoers and warnings about their fates are given in rapid succession.

The epistle concludes with a doxology, which is considered by Peter H. Davids to be one of the highest in quality contained in the Bible.

It may have been composed as an encyclical letter—that is, one not directed to the members of one church in particular, but intended rather to be circulated and read in all churches. While addressed to the Christian Church as a whole, the references to Old Testament figures such as Michael, Cain, and Korah's sons, the Book of Enoch, and the invocation of James as head of the church of Jerusalem suggests a Jewish Christian main audience that would be familiar with Enochian literature and revere James.

Canonical status
The letter of Jude was one of the disputed books of the biblical canon of the New Testament. Despite some opposition, it seems to have been accepted by most churches around the end of the second century. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the Muratorian canon considered the letter canonical. The letter was eventually accepted as part of the canon by later Church Fathers such as Athanasius of Alexandria. The canon list at the Council of Carthage (c. 397) included the epistle of Jude.

The first historical record of doubts as to authorship are found in the writings of Origen of Alexandria, who spoke of the doubts held by some in the early third century. Eusebius classified it with the "disputed writings, the antilegomena" in the early fourth century. Eusebius doubted its authenticity partially because it was rarely quoted among ancient sources, although he acknowledges it was read in many churches. The links between the Epistle and 2 Peter and its use of the biblical apocrypha raised concern: Saint Jerome wrote in 392 AD that the book was "rejected by many" since it quotes the Book of Enoch.

Surviving early manuscripts
Early manuscripts containing the text of the epistle of Jude include:
 * Papyrus 72 (3rd/4th century)
 * Papyrus 78 (3rd/4th century; extant verses 4–5, 7–8)
 * Codex Vaticanus (B or 03; 325–350)
 * Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01; 330–360)
 * Codex Alexandrinus (A or 02; 400–440)
 * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C or 04; c. 450; extant verses 3–25)

Identity of the opponents
The epistle fiercely condemns the opponents it warns of and declares that God will judge and punish them, despite them being a part of the Christian community. However, the exact nature of these opponents has been a continuing question, as the epistle does not describe them in any more detail than calling them corrupt and ungodly. Several theories have been proposed. The most specific verse describing the opponents is verse 8: "In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings."

Reject "authority" (κυριότητα, kyriotēta; alternate translations include "dominion" or "lordship") could mean several things. The most direct would be rejection of civil or ecclesiastical authority: the opponents were ignoring guidance from leaders. Martin Luther and Jean Calvin agreed with this interpretation, and it is the most common one. Another possibility is that this specifically referred to rejecting the authority of Jesus or God, which would agree with verse 4 and be reinforcing the claim that these opponents are not true Christians. A third possibility is that this is the singular of kyriotētes (Dominions), a class of angels. This would fit with the final part of the sentence of "heap abuse on celestial beings", but it is unusual that the singular is used. Versions of Jude vary, and some manuscripts such as the Codex Sinaiticus indeed use the plural form.

"Heap abuse on celestial beings" is also a relevant statement, as it stands in some tension with the works of Paul the Apostle as well as the Epistle to the Hebrews. Paul's undisputed works indicate that believers are already on the same level as angels, that all existing powers are subject to Christ, and believers are the future judges of angels. Later writings attributed to Paul such as Colossians and Ephesians go even further, with Colossians decrying the alleged worship of angels. A hypothesis is thus that the author may have been attacking forms of Pauline Christianity that were not suitably deferential to angels in their opinion. "Rejecting authority" may be a reference to Paul's preaching that gentiles did not need to comply with Jewish Law. As James was known to be a major figure among Jewish Christians, this might indicate tension between the more Jewish strands of early Christianity represented by James and Jude set against Paul's message to the gentiles. However, the line about "heap abuse on celestial beings" might have essentially been just another insult, in which case this entire line of thought is rendered moot.

Another hypothesis is that the opponents may have been proto-Gnostics, argued for by scholars such as Hermann Werdermann. Proposed evidence in support of this includes that in verse 19, the opponents are called "worldly" (psychikoi), a term also used in relation to Gnosticism in other literature. While it does seem Jude may have been used to attack Gnostics in later centuries, other scholars think this was unlikely to be the original intent, as the opponents aren't described as having the signature doctrines of Gnosticism, and Gnosticism does not seem to have been a major force in first century Christianity. Richard Bauckham, arguing against such a connection, writes that "If [Jude]'s polemic is really aimed against Gnosticism it is singularly inept."

The inherent vagueness of the epistle means that the identities of these opponents may never be known.

Similarity to 2 Peter
Part of Jude is very similar to 2 Peter (mainly 2 Peter chapter 2); so much so that most scholars agree that either one letter used the other directly, or they both drew on a common source. Comparing the Greek text portions of 2 Peter 2:1–3:3 (426 words) to Jude 4–18 (311 words) results in 80 words in common and 7 words of substituted synonyms.

Because this epistle is much shorter than 2 Peter, and due to various stylistic details, most scholars consider Jude the source for the similar passages of 2 Peter. 2 Peter omits the reference to the non-canonical book of Enoch, or apocalyptic Jewish works in general; perhaps an indication of shifting attitudes of the early 2nd century, in the view where 2 Peter came later.

Advocates of the reverse are generally traditionalists who assign an early date to 2 Peter, such that it was published during Peter's lifetime. They argue that Jude 18 quotes 2 Peter 3:3 as past tense, and consider Jude to have come after 2 Peter.

References to other books
The Epistle of Jude references at least three other books, with two (Book of Zechariah & 2 Peter) being canonical in all churches and the other (Book of Enoch) non-canonical in most churches.

Verse 9 refers to a dispute between Michael the Archangel and the devil about the body of Moses. Some interpreters understand this reference to be an allusion to the events described in Zechariah 3:1–2. The classical theologian Origen, as well as Clement of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, and others, attributes this reference to the non-canonical Assumption of Moses. However, no extant copies of the Assumption of Moses contain this story, leading most scholars to conclude the section covering this dispute has been lost – perhaps a lost ending, since a story involving Moses's body would logically occur at the end. Some scholars disagree; James Charlesworth argues that the Assumption of Moses never contained any such content, and other ancient Church writers supported a different origin.

Verses 14–15 contain a direct quotation of a prophecy from 1 Enoch 1:9. The title "Enoch, the seventh from Adam" is also sourced from 1 En. 60:1. Most commentators assume that this indicates that Jude accepts the antediluvian patriarch Enoch as the author of the Book of Enoch which contains the same quotation. An alternative explanation is that Jude quotes the Book of Enoch aware that verses 14–15 are an expansion of the words of Moses from Deuteronomy 33:2.

The Book of Enoch is not considered canonical by most churches, although it is by the Ethiopian Orthodox church. According to Western scholars, the older sections of the Book of Enoch (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) date from about 300 BC and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC. 1 Enoch 1:9, mentioned above, is part of the pseudepigrapha and is among the Dead Sea Scrolls [4Q Enoch (4Q204[4QENAR]) COL I 16–18]. It is largely accepted by scholars that the author of the Epistle of Jude was familiar with the Book of Enoch and was influenced by it in thought and diction. The reference to fallen angels suggests the possibility the author was familiar with related literature to Enoch such as the Book of Jubilees and 2 Baruch as well.

The epistle also closely mirrors the Epistle of James, with many similar sentences and borrowed phrases.

Influence
In general, Jude did not have much influence in later Christianity, not appearing often in sermons preached to laypeople nor in treatises by Christian theologians. One author wrote "Only its benediction may be familiar to an average churchgoer" and that "New Testament theologians have ignored the book".

title: Epistle of Jude


text:
Talk:Epistle of James

lead
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)

 * It's a controversial book and thus this wikipedia article is subject to POV blanking and edit wars. Catholics and Orthodox claim it invalidates the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, Protestants claim it doesn't. Just read the Catholic Encyclopedia: Epistle of St. James: "Luther strongly repudiated the Epistle as "a letter of straw", and "unworthy of the apostolic Spirit", and this solely for dogmatic reasons, and owing to his preconceived notions, for the epistle refutes his heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation. ... For the question of apparent opposition between St. James and St. Paul with regard to "faith and works" see EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS." 75.15.199.148 18:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If the lead is supposed to show the reader why the topic is interesting, a neutral summary of the controversy belongs there. Jonathan Tweet 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

 * To me, the problem is just what goes in the lead, because opinions vary over what are the key points to put in the introduction. To the pious Christian with little interest in Biblical disputes, it is an intensely practical book (no cite there, just a personal observation). To many Protestants and Catholics, it is a key book in the faith/works question, and also perhaps in questions on prayer and healing. To the conservative Bible scholar there is the question of which James wrote it, when, and why. To the more critical Bible scholar, there are also questions of pseudonymity. For a simple Bible dictionary type introduction, one might want to mention its audience and its Jewish character. So... writing a concise and NPOV introduction is tricky, and it looks like everyone's dodged doing it so far :) Peter Ballard 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Peter, you seem to have a good handle on what goes in the lead. It should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic. Everything you mentioned would fit. The point is to describe everything the book is, not decide which one thing it is. I look at it this way: write it as if the reader is going to read nothing but the lead, and we are going to give them a complete picture of the epistle just with the lead. Jonathan Tweet 13:51, 19 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

Rem486 / Original Research
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)

Correct use of Talk Page / Archive Created
I remind users of 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)

James son of Zebedee the author?
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)

 * The whole authorship subject needs to be reorganized. There are comments all over the place in no specific order.Patrick Fisher 19:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishepat000 (talk • contribs)

 * Never say just... For the sake of it: Explain what the word temptation signify. According to the authoritative Greek word study tool of the Perseus Project at Tufts University: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=peirasmo%2Fn&la=greek - Peirasmon may mean either 'trial', or 'temptation'... To my mind's capacity those two concepts are quite different.. So "just"... is not exactly a proper reaction... Or should I say: Just  keep your temper... --Xact (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Fine, then all you need is a reliable source saying that. But we can't, see WP:NOR (I'm sure you've been told that before). Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 * No, you are not a reliable source. How many times do you have to be asked to read WP:NOR & WP:VERIFY. Seriously, this is getting WP:Disruptive. If you refuse to use or find reliable sources according to our criteria (see also WP:RS you simply don't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

 * And your analysis of James is what I am talking about. Find a reliable source that discusses James and says what you are trying to say. We can't use your analysis. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

 * As someone who just stumbled across the article and happened to view the talk page, I don't believe that Dougweller's actions can be fairly called hypocrisy. For many statements that are not cited, we may simply assume good faith and let the statement remain in the article and leave a citation needed tag to allow the author time and opportunity to add the citation. However, I can see that it in this case it was somewhat more difficult for Dougweller to assume good faith as you've historically had a tenuous relationship with this article and various other editors: numerous warnings; repeated publication of original research; failing to add citations for each time you've reinserted original research after deletion by a fellow editor; and exegetical effort on the article's talk page to develop and explain ideas. Given this, Dougweller was certainly not being hypocritical when he opted to enforce WP:NOR and delete your contribution.

 * While your statement concerning the lack of content in James was by itself innocent enough, the concerning point is that you are seemingly using it as a platform to air your belief that the Epistle was written during Jesus' earthly ministry (at which point the Crucifixion and post-Crucifixion events wouldn't have yet occurred, which you purport to explain James' lack of reference to them), which seems to be a dating for the Epistle that is held by an extremely small minority as I've yet to see this viewpoint presented in a reputable scholarly or theological resource. Fundamentally, it seems that you're misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia: it isn't a medium to publish and develop our personal ideas about a particular topic, but rather its purpose is to present the ideas of individuals published in reputable sources. As others have said, if you have a reputable source that espouses the pre-Crucifixion dating of the Epistle of James, you are more than welcome to reintroduce the relevant information with appropriate citations.

 * As a minor note, when you asked previously in the talk page whether an editor was "trying to covertly transition to the idea that James was written before the crucifixion, by postulating that it was written before Paul's letters? Because before Paul's letters was the period of time before the crucifixion", that editor was not. The cited source explicitly states the most likely earliest date for James being written is the mid to late 40s. Also you are incorrect in that Jesus' Crucifixion directly preceded Paul's first letter (1 Thessalonians) as by using traditionally accepted dates, from the Crucifixion (33 AD) to Paul's 1 Thes (52 AD), there would have been a period of 19 years which coincides with the cited source's statements. Sixteen85 (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 * You may misunderstand the purpose of this page. It isn't to discuss the Epistle of James (or any other Epistles) but to discuss the article. And a lot of original research gets deleted, I have no idea why you think it's only yours. It's been almost four years since you were first warned about original research yet you seem to either not understand our policy (have you read it) or are disregarding it. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My edits
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:

 * Authorship has also occasionally been attributed to the apostle James the Great, brother of John the Evangelist and son of Zebedee The letter does mention persecutions in the present tense (2:6), and this is consistent with the persecution in Jerusalem during which James the Great was martyred (Acts 12:1). If written by James the Great, the location would have also been Jerusalem, sometime before 45AD.

I am (not) Iron Man (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup
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)

 * I agree that this article poorly organized. Lets work to make it more consistent with the Wikipedia article on the Epistle to the Romans.Patrick Fisher 20:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

shoud present majority view first, rather than traditionalist view
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)

No Gospels to Follow
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]

Pro-Catholic POV
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)

 * Please try to sign your talk page posts. To do that, write four tildes at the end of your comments ( ~ ). That way people can tell when you said something, as well as what your username is. If you need further instruction on this, see WP:SIGN.Alephb (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have some concrete idea for making the article better, go right ahead and change it or describe how you want it changed on this talk page. But vague complaints about mysterious changes, without detail, don't do us any good at all. Alephb (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Please try to sign your talk page posts. To do that, write four tildes at the end of your comments (Alephb (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)). That way people can tell when you said something, as well as what your username is. If you need further instruction on this, see WP:SIGN.
 * If there is significant support for the pre-crucifixion position in reliable sources (WP:RS), then you are free to edit the article to add your idea. Alephb (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * There's nobody named Ικοβιυς anywhere in the Bible. Not one. You've gotten things mixed up. Anyhow, if you want the article to include the opinion that the epistle of James was written before the crucifixion, you'd need to find reliable sources confirming that James was written before the crucifixion. If you're not going to do that, there's no reason to keep complaining here on the talk page. Alephb (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes after your name ( ~ ). That will display the time you made your comment as well. That's a required thing on Wikipedia. Alephb (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 * "There's nobody named Ικοβιυς" No wonder, as the name is misspelled. The Greek version of the name is "Ἰάκωβος" (Iakovos). It is based on the name Jacob. Dimadick (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 * It influences other editors, allowing them to keep track of comments in any given talk page, without having to check your edit history. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes after your name ( ~ ). That will display the time you made your comment as well. That's a required thing on Wikipedia. Alephb (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Well, when you do check back, try and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes after your name ( ~ ). That will show us who made the post, and when, which is helpful. Alephb (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

 * The comment immediately above this one was made December 10th. In the future, please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ), so that we can see when you make your comments. Also, put your most recent comment below all the previously existing comments in a thread. Alephb (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Hello Rem, when you do your inevitable "checking in" to remind us all of your WP:FRINGE views on when the epistle was written, please remember to put your newest comments at the bottom of whatever thread your commenting in. Otherwise the whole conversation starts drifting out of chronological. Alephb (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm glad to have brightened your mood. Alephb (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 * This talk page is discussing ways to improve the article, not for advertizing Kindle Books. Alephb (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Third paragraph
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)

Fringe view
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)

Delusional, pure delusion
"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/Catholic Epistles
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)

title: Talk:Epistle of James


text:
Eusebius Amort

Eusebius Amort (November 15, 1692 – February 5, 1775) was a German Roman Catholic theologian.

Life
Amort was born at Bibermuhle, near Tolz, in Upper Bavaria. He studied at Munich, and at an early age joined the Canons Regular at Polling, where, shortly after his ordination in 1717, he taught theology and philosophy. The Parnassus Boicus learned society was based on a plan started in 1720 by three Augustinian fathers: Eusebius Amort, Gelasius Hieber (1671–1731), a famous preacher in the German language and Agnellus Kandler (1692–1745), a genealogist and librarian. The initial plans fell through, but in 1722 they issued the first volume of the Parnassus Boicus journal, covering topics in the arts and sciences.

An academy formed by him at Polling became in time the model on which was based the Academy of Sciences of Munich.

In 1733 Amort went to Rome as theologian to Cardinal Niccolo Maria Lercari (died 1757). He returned to Polling in 1735 and devoted the rest of his life to the revival of learning in Bavaria. He died at Polling in 1775.

Works
Amort, who had the reputation of being the most learned man of his age, was a voluminous writer on every conceivable subject, from poetry to astronomy, from dogmatic theology to mysticism. His best known works are:

 * A manual of theology in 4 vols, Theologia eclectica, moralis et scholastica (Augsburg, 1752; revised by Pope Benedict XIV for the 1753 edition published at Bologna)
 * A defence of Catholic doctrine, entitled Demonstratio critica religionis Catholicae (Augsburg, 1751)
 * A work on indulgences, which has often been criticized by Protestant writers, De Origine, Progressu, Valore, et Fructu Indulgentiorum (Augsburg, 1735)
 * The astronomical work Nova philosophiae planetarum et artis criticae systemata (Nuremberg, 1723).

A treatise on mysticism, De Revelationibus et Visionibus, etc. (2 vols, Augsburg 1744) was directed against the "Mystic City of God," by the Spanish Franciscan nun, Maria de Agreda, and brought him into conflict with several of her Franciscan defenders.

The list of his other works, including his three erudite contributions to the question of authorship of the Imitatio Christi, will be found in C. Toussaint's scholarly article in Alfred Vacant's Dictionnaire de theologie (1900, cols 1115-1117).

title: Eusebius Amort