Charlie Kirk and Tyler Robinson are two young men who were sucked in to someone else’s nightmare. Charlie’s nightmare is over; Tyler’s nightmare is still very much in charge of his world. As I write, the same nightmare lords it over the the rest of us. We are all helpless spectators. But my hope is that we are not entirely helpless. This is important because Kirk’s death has been weaponized against the Left.
Problems With the Official Story
Many convincing videos have called into question the weapon that killed Charlie Kirk. I’ve linked two of the videos below and I hope you will watch them. However, I don’t want to focus on the videos. (I deleted one of the videos. I appreciated the work he did on the ballistics, but his other content is unpredictable. I’m sure we can all handle these ideas when necessary, but if I can’t guarantee his content I can’t leave his link on my website. If you want to learn about the Tyler Robinson saga there will be plenty of updates on your favorite platform. Who knows, maybe this guy will mellow out with time.)
I want to focus on a few parallels with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The first parallel is the overall messiness of the scenario as presented to the public. No one has bothered to clear up the official story.
Bolt-Action Rifles
The police found Tyler Robinson’s rifle in the woods wrapped in a towel. Sheriff Eugene Boone found Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle in an upper room of the Texas School Book Depository. They were both older model bolt-action rifles.
In Robinson’s case, they say he disassembled the rifle in order to climb off the roof, and then he reassembled it before leaving it in the woods. But the videos that show him climbing off the building don’t indicate that he had the rifle at that time.
Oswald told reporters he was a patsy.
Ballistics
People who know about guns say that the report of this shot did not sound like the rifle that Tyler Robinson supposedly used. And that’s not the only problem. Judging by the sound of it, the gun that killed Charlie Kirk was not far from the camera that recorded his death. If the shot had come from the building on the other side of the grounds, as law enforcement personnel claim, it would have had a different sound. And then there is the wound in the front of Charlie’s neck. It appears to be an exit wound, based on the size of it and the amount of blood. Therefore, it seems likely that the shot came from behind him and to his right. That would make more sense. He fell to his left.
The direction of the shots that rained down on the Kennedys were not consistent with the story the authorities provided. They said JFK was hit in the back of the head. That’s the only thing that would have been consistent with their story that Oswald was firing out of a window above and behind the Kennedys’ car. But the bullet that killed JFK actually exited from the back of his head. Those who saw his body afterward said he had an exit wound there. Strangely, it was no longer there when his body arrived back in Washington D.C.
Please Don’t Repeat the Assassination of the Accused Killer
The parallel I am most worried about has not happened yet. It’s the main reason I’m writing this article. Jack Ruby shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald at close range before Oswald could be tried. This took place in the basement of a police station. Oswald’s guilt is now a permanent part of the official story.
I hope this article will dissuade anyone who might be thinking of doing the same to Tyler Robinson.
See the following video:
Israeli News Live: Sound Signature Pinpoints Charlie Kirk’s Shooter’s Location
I was going to summarize an article on the history of right-wing violence. I actually spent quite a lot of time on it, but I decided that I don’t want to include all of the information. As bad as things are now, they have been worse in the recent past. I believe the right will find new ways in it to torture people.
All I really wanted to do was show the Left how closely the administration is following the right-wing playbook on taking power. People on the Left suffer when the Right accuses us of assassinations, or of celebrating when someone on the right dies. But there’s no need to take it personally. They don’t really think we are responsible. They just want to get people riled up. They may be responsible for the deaths themselves.
How Do We Know if Violence is From the Right?
Movements can be identified as right wing when they accept human inequalities and when they act as if violence is a legitimate way to defend hierarchies. Right-wing violence is violence that supports right-wing goals.
Right-wing violence generally has two targets: the primary target is an ‘inferior community’; the secondary target is the government.
Why Does Right-wing Violence Happen?
Right-wing violence goes hand-in-hand with democratic mass politics. The problem from the Right’s point of view is that public opinion becomes more important when the public can vote. And mass communication influences public opinion with information about the government and the candidates. So, wherever there are mass publics there will be radical movements around the edges trying to drag public opinion in their direction.
The United States
In the American north, industrialists have always been able to hire private bodies to keep workers in line. Organizations like the Pinkertons and the National Guard have acted like their private militia. The system in the Deep South has been even more brutal. After the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan terrorized the black population until they had built a new caste system. This system lasted for another hundred years.
World War I
After World War I there were waves of violence across Europe. Elites used both high and low roads to take power. The violence was either elitist or mass-action. High roads involved coups, assassination, and strategies of tension. A strategy of tension is an attempt to ride chaos to power.
The low route to power is the conquest of the streets or mass mobilization. Bombing (or shooting) attacks might continue under this strategy.
Conclusion
There’s more. Much more. And believe it or not, it only gets worse from here. The main point is that we are in the world of rightist tactics. Lies and accusations of the Left are not meant to be true or accurate. They are meant to stir people up.
Wilson, Tim. Rightist Violence: An Historical Perspective. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 2020. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep23578. Accessed 15 Sept. 2025.
c. As comforting the lowly poor and chastening the haughty rich (James 1:9-11)
9 (in the equality of Christian brotherhood) let the brother of humble degree exult in his being made high, 10 and the rich (brother) in his being made low: for he (in his being-only-rich) shall pass away like the flower among the grass. 11. For the sun arises, with the scorching wind, and parches the grass, and the flower among it falls off, and the beauty of its appearance perishes: so he who is (only) rich shall wither in his ways (Translation: Adamson p. 61)
Adamson begins by focusing on James’s intended meaning of the terms. His analysis is based on the Greek language version, and both New Testament and Old Testament verses.
Brother
Concerning verse 9, Adamson says the wording in Greek is significant for understanding who is meant by the word, ‘brother’. He argues that we must read ‘brother’ with the rich (v. 10) as well as with the lowly (of humble degree). This is contrary to another view which assumes that the phrase the rich refers to the non-Christian man in general. Adamson agrees with the argument provided by Ropes.
My Approach to Adamson’s Bibliography
Ropes is one of the entries in Adamson’s ‘select bibliography’, which begins on page 40. Adamson sometimes disagrees with the authors on this list. Or he agrees with them and uses their works to illustrate his own view. In the discussion of ‘brother’ he depends completely on Ropes’s argument that ‘brother’ does not refer to the non-Christian man in general. So, I included the citation. If the reader is not comfortable with this approach, please compare my summary against Adamson’s book.
Ropes’s Rebuttal of the View that ‘Brother’ means the Non-Christian Man1
The refusal to supply ‘brother’ is unnatural.
The addition of ‘let him exult’ would require excessive irony.
[‘Brother’ has a] loose connection with the context and especially with the initial and continuing idea of peirasmoi.
Exalted
For ease of reading, I’ll repeat Adamson’s translation of verse 9: ‘let the brother of humble degree exult in his being made high‘. In this section, Adamson lists several verses to demonstrate the use of the verb exult.
The Old Testament
In the Old Testament, the verb ‘exult’ is used for any ‘proud and exulting joy’. (Hover or click on the citation to read the verse. The verses are not visible on mobile view. I’m trying to fix it.).
Psalms 5:11
Psalms 32:11
Jeremiah 9:23
Ben Sira 39:8
The New Testament
The verb is used frequently in the New Testament, especially by Paul who uses it more than thirty times.
2 Corinthians 7:14
Romans 5:3
2 Corinthians 12:9
2 Corinthians 11:12 (Ropes p. 145)
According to Adamson, the way the verb is used here harks back to the exhortation to joy of James 1:2 and it stresses the opposition to double-mindedness. The moral quality of this joy depends on the occasion.
To exult is bad in James 4:16. Adamson offers the following verses for comparison, and leaves it to the reader to decide if these verses support his view that they refer to the moral quality of exulting joy:
Romans 2:17
Romans 2:23
Romans 3:27
Romans 4:2
1 Corinthians 1:29
1 Corinthians 4:7
2 Corinthians 11:18
Galations 6:13
1 Corinthians 5:6
In the following verses the exulting is good:
Romans 5:2
Romans 5:11
Philippians 3:3
Romans 15:17
1 Corinthians 1:31
‘Lowly’ as Referring to the Outward Social Status
Adamson argues that when James used ‘lowly’ he did not have in mind the Christian grace of humility. That would be to ‘spiritualize’ the word. He was referring to outward social status, like the status of a slave or a beggar. In other words, ‘poverty in relation to glorying and contempt, a state despised by the mass of mankind’ (Hort)2.
Here Adamson refers us to Luke 1:52 and Romans 12:16.
Luke 1:52
Romans 12:16
The Greek word means ‘low’. This is not a virtue in mind or status, as in classical thought, but rather it is like our ‘poor-spirited’. In the LXX (the Septuagint), the word may mean literally ‘poor’ (1 Samuel 18:23).
Lowly can also have a religious connotation
But it sometimes has a special religious connotation when contrasted with the ‘rich’:
Psalms 10:2
Psalms of Solomon 2:35 (a collection of ancient Jewish religious poems)
James also used ‘lowly’ in an inward spiritual way (4:6). The two uses were sometimes associated in Jewish literature (Ben Sira 10:30f).
Among Christians, humility is the virtue of voluntary acceptance or confession of a low or subordinate status in esteem or function; (compare) Phil. 2:1-13, the locus classicus on Christian, and Christ’s, humility.
Even under Christianity, the metaphor implicit in the word ‘humility’ is not very pleasing in an equalitarian age. In Jas. 1:9 the meaning is literal, referring to a man’s mean social station in life. ‘Highness’, ‘exaltation’, refers to the present spiritual status which, by virtue of his relation to Christ, the Christian now enjoys. (Adamson p. 62)
Philippians 2:1-13 2:1 If there is any solace in love, any participation in the Spirit, any compassion and mercy,
2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking of one thing.
2:3 Do nothing out of selfishness or our of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves,
2:4 each looking out for his own interests, but (also) everyone for those of others.
2:5 Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus.
2:6-11 6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. 7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, 8 he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. 9 Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
2:12 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
2:13 For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work. (The Catholic Bible NABRE)
Abasement
In verse 10, Adamson focuses on the word ‘abasement’. Here it means self-abasement. This refers to a new mind of humility which Christians adopt. James urges this adoption on some of the brothers in 4:10, 13-16.
The Flowers of Palestine
Adamson likens James to Peter in his use of Isaiah 40:6,7. Its theme: ‘all flesh is grass’. He translates it as ‘the flower among the grass’ and emphasizes that flowers are profuse in Palestine. He names anemone, cyclamen, and lily.
Cyclamen Credit: Gideon Pisanty (Gidip)
Adamson also cites Matthew 6:28, 30. In my opinion, it is painful to read these verses with present-day Palestine in mind:
28 Why are you anxious about clothes? Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin.
30 If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?
It is also painful to read Hort’s description of the flowers of Palestine:
By ‘the flower of the field’ the prophet doubtless meant the blaze of gorgeous blossoms which accompanies the first shooting of the grass in spring, alike in the Holy Land and on the Babylonian plain (Hort p. 15).
According to Adamson, in the Mediterranean region the spring is brilliant but very brief. The flowers only live for a short time every year. H. B. Tristram is quoted next:
Al Najah University, Palestine Credit: CC by 2.0
The downs of Bethlehem in February are one spangled carpet of brilliant flowers…In May all traces of verdure are gone.
The Flower and its Implications for the Rich
In verse 11, the implications for the rich are described poetically by means of ‘the flower’. Adamson’s focus in this section is the intricacies of the Greek words. For example, he informs us that the Greek ‘aorist‘ is used here.
Needless to say, aorist has a complex meaning, not to mention the various words chosen by the other scholar’s listed in his bibliography. Much of this section explains the translations that Adamson rejects and his reasons for his own choices. In my opinion, including every word of this part of the text would be fruitless for those of us who don’t read Greek. Normally my main interest is in making his conclusions as clear as possible for all readers. However, the importance he gives this verse demands attention–his commentary takes up three pages. In this case, I summarize it as accurately as I can.
Regarding the word aorist, Adamson thinks it may represent the Hebrew perfect in order to emphasize the suddenness and completeness of the withering. Here is a reminder of what the verse says:
11 For the sun arises, with the scorching wind, and parches the grass, and the flower among it falls off, and the beauty of its appearance perishes: so he who is (only) rich shall wither in his ways.
The Scorching Wind
Rather than using obscure tribal references as some do, or the comparison of Christ to the rising of the sun, Adamson chose ‘scorching wind’. He thinks it is a better description of the vividness of the country life.
No one who has ever lived in Palestine can forget the sirocco (sharqiya)–the blasting, scorching southeast wind which blows there in the spring; once begun it blows incessantly night and day. (Adamson p. 63)
The temperature hardly seems to vary. Flowers and herbage wilt and fade, lasting as long as ‘morning glory’. Anemones and cyclamen, carpeting the hillsides of Galilee in spring, have a loveliness that belongs only to the past, when the hot wind comes. Drooping flowers make fuel. The fields of lupins are here today and gone tomorrow.
Adamson was certain that James must have seen the flowers that bloom on the Galilean hills as they wilt in the scorching wind.
Appearance
The word ‘appearance’ also rates its own examination. Adamson prefers the ‘easier’ meaning of appearance or show, and he illustrates its use with verses from the Old Testament. He credits Ropes for these references.
Genesis 2:6
2 Samuel 14:20
Job 41:13
Beauty
As for the word beauty, Adamson prefers Ropes’s ‘goodly appearance’. He doesn’t think it should be allegorized too far. He says that we don’t think of the ‘pride’ of flowers, but of their short-lived beauty. The point is mainly that they perish. That’s why grass is often included in such Old Testament comparisons. And when we speak of the glory of flowers, or the sunrise or sunset, it is not the glory of pomp and pride as in plutocrats.
The Withering of the Unbelieving Rich
These verses are describing the fate of the unbelieving rich. Their withering is a simile.
The picture of the rich ‘withering’ continues the simile of the fading flower: the verb, found only in the NT, is picturesque and may be used of the dying out of a fire.4 (Adamson p. 64)
The verb is also used for many kinds of gradual enfeeblement (Wisdom 2:8)
It is found in Philo, in connection with wealth5, and in 2 Talmud.
The children of man are like the grasses of the field, some blossom and some fade.6
Ways
Adamson’s choice of the translation of ‘way’ is summed up in his view of James as an artist. This refers to the way James organizes his composition.
Which passes away, the rich man or his riches?
Hort poses this question, and he answers it by saying that the point is in the separation of a man from his wealth at death. Then follows a discussion of the state of the dead in Hebrew thought, and the problem of wealth without righteousness. Adamson concludes that the common fact of mortality has a special lesson for the rich, because they have a special temptation to forget it. He quotes Pindar:
If any man who has riches excels others in beauty of form and has proved his strength by victory in the Games, let him remember that he puts his raiment on mortal limbs and in the end of all is clad with earth.7
If any man fosters his wealth with honesty, abounding in possessions and winning good fame, let him not seek to be a god.8
Conclusion
Yet Hort perceives the truth. James indeed, as Hort says, has in view ‘not death absolutely but death as separating riches from their possessor and showing them to have no essential connection with him’. The pride of wealth ‘substituted another God for Jehovah and denied the brotherhood of man’. Speaking of his friend, a poor Christian, a wealthy unbeliever remarked: ‘When I die, I shall leave my riches. When he dies he will go to his’.9 In effect, this is what James is saying: Remember you are mortal and wealth per se does nothing for your soul: so be glad that by humbling yourself in Christ and the brotherhood you are likely to win the treasure of life everlasting. The old Hebrew thought of the premature end of the wicked and rich appears in James’s statement of his principle, which in fact is equally valid if the the man lives in wealth to the age of a hundred; besides, James is convinced that the end is at hand (see James 5:3, 8) (Adamson p. 66).
J. H. Ropes, The Epistle of St. James. ICC (1916). ↩︎
F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James, i. 1-iv. 7 (1909) ↩︎
See J. Blanchard, Not Hearers Only 1 (1971), p. 68. Cf. K. Menninger, Whatever Became of sin?, on ‘the sin of affluence’ (pp. 149ff). ↩︎
Our YouTube pundits still think the great question of our time is, Does Donald Trump know Putin is using him? But I think it’s clear that Donald Trump is a willing errand boy for the entities who purchased his presidency and continue to enrich him. In other words, the worst has already happened. The coup is complete.
Yet we continue to hope. Therefore, it’s important to think in detail about what this means. The evidence suggests that the United States has been sold to the highest bidder. Trump’s bowing and scraping to Putin is evidence of this. When Trump whinnies to his MAGA followers about how they’re not going to have a country any more unless… he’s telling lies on two levels. Trump was never concerned about saving the country for MAGA. He wants it for the new rulers of the universe.
If the Coup is Compete, Can We Get the Country Back?
What we should be asking is whether we can get the country back from its new owners: Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu, and various others.
To answer this, we need to consider how the coup happened in the first place. It took time and planning. The entire enabling structure was already in place before the 2024 election, including the Supreme Court and corrupt members of Congress. However, it is now much worse than we realize thanks to collusion by the legacy press. They make it hard to see the whole picture.
Trump is the Immediate Danger
Trump didn’t orchestrate this. He is merely the final piece of the puzzle. However, his presence in the White House is the immediate danger. His very presence in that office is our undoing. Each moment he remains in power we sink deeper into the abyss.
Why? It’s a Question of Who Trump Serves
Why do I say this? Let’s look at who Trump serves. He does not serve the people. We know Elon Musk literally bought the presidency for Donald Trump, but we fail to think beyond that point. No one mentions for example that Musk has had regular meetings with Vladimir Putin since 2022, and probably earlier.
Elon Musk’s Starlink in Ukraine
Musk demonstrated what he’s capable of doing and for who when he shut down Starlink during a pivotal push by Ukraine to retake territory from Russia in late September 2022. This cut coverage in areas including Kherson, a strategic region north of the Black Sea that Ukraine was trying to reclaim. The Ukrainian army’s operation failed as a result, although it eventually reclaimed some of the territory. This is the first known instance of Musk shutting off Starlink coverage over a battlefield during a conflict, and it potentially allowed him to control the outcome of a war.
Elon Musk’s Russia-Centered Geopolitics
Also in 2022, Musk proposed a peace plan that echoed Moscow’s positions. Crimea should be formally recognized as part of Russia and votes should be held in Russian-occupied regions under UN supervision. More recently, Musk criticized the provision of US aid to Kyiv and suggested that Ukraine can’t win the war.
Elon Musk’s Technological and Financial Barricade
Of course Ukrainian leaders strenuously object to this, but the US isn’t listening. There have been calls for investigations into Musk’s contacts with Russian officials, but according to the BBC, Musk has too much value as a contractor and too much control over critical technologies.
And it continues. Since the August 2025 summit between Trump and Putin, Trump has been plastering the airwaves with messages about Putin’s dislike of mail-in ballots. This is obviously in line with Trump’s efforts to manipulate U.S. elections.
Elon Musk, Israel, and Gaza
The Israeli entity is another influence that contributed to Trump’s success in the 2024 election. Naturally, Musk has been meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu at least since September of 2023. Although Netanyahu is a war criminal and Musk openly performs Nazi salutes, they have discussed antisemitism on X, among other topics.
Musk met Netanyahu again in November of 2023 and visited a kibbutz that was raided by Hamas fighters on October 7. After this trip Musk backed Israel’s war on Gaza.
While it may be relevant to mention that Musk’s trip to Israel was self-serving, the selfish motives of an oligarch don’t improve the odds that democracy will survive. Musk went to Israel because of a post on X that triggered withdrawals of advertisements by corporate giants like Apple and IBM. Musk was also allowing advertisements from major corporations to appear next to Neo-Nazi and white nationalist content. Finally, the European Union was probing X because of disinformation and violent content about Israel’s war on Gaza.
But regardless of Musk’s reasons for this visit, it had real consequences for Israel and Gaza. Musk reached an agreement with Israel ‘in principle’ that internet access to Gaza may only be provided to Gaza with units operated by Israel and with the approval of the Israeli Ministry of communications.
Additional Enemies
The Kochs are another part of the coalition that has brought the United States to its knees. The Kochs and the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have had a long relationship. When Mormon apostle Ezra Taft Benson was thinking about running for president in 1968, he had the backing of the 1976 Committee, of which 14 of its officers and members were on the National Council of the John Birch Society. This committee included Fred C. Koch.
More recently, Mike Lee, Congressman from Utah, raged over Trump’s loss in 2020. Then, when a man impersonating a police officer killed Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Lee chortled on X that this is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way. The assassin was not a Marxist. He was not even a Democrat.
The Federalist Society
Mormon leadership was instrumental in establishing the Federalist Society. This is the organization that has filled the Supreme Court with right-wing justices who indulge Trump. They have aided his destruction of American immigration law, election law, education, and medicine. Yet the Church continues to enjoy tax-free status.
To the Oligarchs and Their Minions
This article is not a condemnation. It is a reckoning. I have no doubt that those of you who are tearing down our institutions and terrorizing our citizens are on the wrong track. For one thing, you are unrealistic about the nature of leadership and authority. The ideal leader, whether king or president, rules with the consent of the people under his rule. Barking orders and causing physical harm are the actions of brutes, not leaders. Your behavior is not admirable and it won’t inspire the loyalty of those you rule.
You seem to be trying to emulate dictators of times gone by, but all you communicate, other than your own fury, is fear and loathing. What is your ideal world? We see no light at the end of the tunnel. Do you? You seem to have no vision other than your own supremacy. Meanwhile, in your determination to be supreme, you violate the creeds you claim to live by and encourage your loved ones to follow you in this behavior. There is no justification in law or religion for your actions.
Do you have in mind a common, mean, cruel, stingy, sordid, ugly existence that will require your constant vigilance to stay in control? If so, this vision has no redeeming qualities. Even if you carve out a privileged haven for yourself in the midst of this strange creation, the harm you have done will hover over it like a dark cloud.
Stop this now. Work to undo the harm you have caused and ask the people to forgive you. You can still reverse your course and earn the trust and gratitude of your fellow citizens. Work to foster the new world that is being born. Don’t bring it all crashing down. Give it a chance to bloom.
James 1:5-8 as translated by James B. Adamson, p. 55:
5 But if any of you is lacking knowledge (of God's way and will), let him ask of God, who gives it to all as a simple (unconditional) gift and chides not (the petitioner for previous ignorance). 6 But let him ask in faith, with no halting between two opinions: for the man who halts between two opinions is like a sea of waves, the way it is blown and beaten under the winds. 7 Let not that (sort of) man imagine that he will get anything from the Lord. 8 A man who is of two minds is unsteady in all his ways.
The title Harold Kaplan gives to the first section of his critique of James Joyce is Stoom: the universal comedy of James Joyce. As we have seen with Gustave Flaubert, this brand of comedy is as serious as it gets.
It is necessary to discuss some terms before we begin Adamson’s commentary on James 1:3-4. Otherwise we will have to define the terms in the middle of the discussion. The first term is approbation.
Approbation is a formal noun meaning approval or praise. Adamson compares approbation in Christianity to a scholastic examination course. It requires endurance under trial and temptation.
The second term is peirasmos.
According to an online source: “The matter of significance about peirazo (the verb form) is that it is used in both a good sense and a bad sense. It can have the idea of testing with the purpose of bringing out that which is good, or it can have the idea of testing with the purpose of bringing out that which is bad.”
Deem it nothing but an occasion for joy, my brothers, whenever (on each occasion when ) you encounter trying assaults of evil in their various forms (The Epistle of James 1:2, translated by Adamson, p. 52).
James includes verses 2 through 4 in this section but this article will only discuss his commentary on verse 2. I think it’s important to include the citations and notes relevant to his arguments. If I include all three verses in this article it will be too long. I’ll discuss Jame 3-4 in the next article.
Peirasmos
According to Adamson, the dominant ideas of the Epistle are the duty and the reward of endurance under peirasmos, a ‘certain and not distant victory’. The words and example of Jesus inspire this approach. He cites Luke 6:22.
According to James B. Adamson, the word salutation is the usual greeting with which Greek letters of all periods opened. (He cites Acts 15:23 and 23:26.) In Hebrew (and ancient Syriac and modern Arabic) the regular greeting is “Peace!” In Latin it is “Health!” (Salve or Salvete, in Letters Salutem, i.e., salutem dicit). In Greek it is “Joy be to you.”
James, a bond slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes of the Dispersion, salutation. (James 1:1)
James B. Adamson begins his commentary with the assumption that James is the brother of Jesus. He argues this point in detail in his introduction. I have chosen not to include that detail because I prefer to start right away with the text of the Epistle and Adamson’s related commentary. However, if anyone is interested in the arguments presented in the introduction, please let me know and I will write about them. Alternatively, readers can order the commentary.
