Mary ever virgin and Protoevangelium of James

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theCardinalbird

Guest
Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the “brethren of the Lord.” As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).
Click to expand...
My question is, isn’t the Protoevangelium of James considered bad and to be avoided? Or no?
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that while not inspired it’s not heretical. The traditional names of Mary’s parents are taken from there.
 
Just because something isn’t in the Bible, doesn’t mean it is to be avoided. Just that it is not considered inspired.
 
Joe1 said:
My question is, isn’t the Protoevangelium of James considered bad and to be avoided?
Click to expand...
It is not on the level of inerrant Scripture, so we cannot take the contents as True on the same level, but it is an important historical document, as are all the writings of the Early Fathers of the Church. It is certainly a logical explanation for how it was that Mary came to live with Joseph, and explains the possibility that some of her “stepchildren” may have been older than she was.
 
Joe1 said:
My question is, isn’t the Protoevangelium of James considered bad and to be avoided? Or no?
Click to expand...
It was read and respected by Christians in the early Church. However, it did not rise to the level of inclusion in the canon, so it’s not in the Bible. Nevertheless, for two millennia, Christians have appreciated it as spiritual reading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top