Protoevangelium of James

[Marocchino]

How reliable is the Protoevangelium of James?

 

[COPLAND_3]

Personally I believe it is very reliable, but I am not always in the same company with all the scholars when it comes to the apocrypha. I accept a lot of the apocryphal writings to be reliable and trustworthy, not canonical but good traditional accounts. When it comes to making your own decision, just read them and if you find things that are contrary to Catholic teachings then you know that either it is a forgery or simply a pious writer who was mistaken. Josephus wrote very reliable and helpful accounts as well as Eusebius, but they both were not perfect, they made mistakes, same goes with some of the apocrypha.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Protoevangelium is simply a reflection of what Catholics believed in the middle of the 2nd century. I think it is far more reliable than “experts” 1800 years later!

 

[thistle]

The Church does not consider it an “inspired” writing. However it is very interesting.

The issue of Joseph being a widower with children from his first marriage is interesting for a few reasons:

It could account for why he is not around for a long time in the Gospels. If was was old when he married Mary then by the time Jesus had grown up he could well have been dead.

Having children from a previous marriage could account for the talk about the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

None of the above is contrary to Church teaching or scripture. We know Mary was ever virgin but that does not exclude Jesus having step siblings. I understand the Orthodox Church accepts Joseph was married before and had children.

On the other hand if Mary did have step children then why, on the Cross, would Jesus not have entrusted Mary to them instead of John?

 

[Marocchino]

On the other hand if Mary did have step children then why, on the Cross, would Jesus not have entrusted Mary to them instead of John?

In my humble opinion, Jesus entrusted the Blessed Virgin to John because John was present at the crucifixion. John the Beloved proved himself to be closer to Jesus than even his blood relatives, whether step-siblings or cousins. Moreover, Jesus’ entrusting of Mary to an apostle was a symbolic gesture, signifying Mary’s motherhood over the Church (“Behold your mother”). So it was fitting that Jesus entrusted his Mother to an apostle even if he had step-siblings.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

It’s not trustworthy at all, it conflicts with scripture. For instance, it has the wise men show up at the birth place of Jesus, unlike the Bible which has the wise men come to Herod, then they go to Bethlehem but the star appears and again leads them to the child. Herod sends soldiers where he thought the wise men went and kills every boy under two. Makes no sense if Jesus was just born.

For some reason though, it is accepted over scripture and all over this month Christmas pangents will follow it and have the wise men come to the stable.

If you see Orthodox icons of our Savior;s birth, they depict the grotto outside Bethlehem instead of the stable by the inn that scripture tells us is the birth place of Jesus.

So for some reaon, it seems to actually be elevated above scripture.

 

[thistle]

It’s not trustworthy at all, it conflicts with scripture. For instance, it has the wise men show up at the birth place of Jesus, unlike the Bible which has the wise men come to Herod, then they go to Bethlehem but the star appears and again leads them to the child. Herod sends soldiers where he thought the wise men went and kills every boy under two. Makes no sense if Jesus was just born.

For some reason though, it is accepted over scripture and all over this month Christmas pangents will follow it and have the wise men come to the stable.

If you see Orthodox icons of our Savior;s birth, they depict the grotto outside Bethlehem instead of the stable by the inn that scripture tells us is the birth place of Jesus.

So for some reaon, it seems to actually be elevated above scripture.

Show me where it conflicts with scripture:

1. And, behold, Joseph was ready to go into Judæa. And there was a great commotion in Bethlehem of Judæa, for Magi came, saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him. And when Herod heard, he was much disturbed, and sent officers to the Magi. And he sent for the priests, and examined them, saying: How is it written about the Christ? where is He to be born? And they said: In Bethlehem of Judæa, for so it is written. And he sent them away. And he examined the Magi, saying to them: What sign have you seen in reference to the king that has been born? And the Magi said: We have seen a star of great size shining among these stars, and obscuring their light, so that the stars did not appear; and we thus knew that a king has been born to Israel, and we have come to worship him. And Herod said: Go and seek him; and if you find him, let me know, in order that I also may go and worship him. And the Magi went out. And, behold, the star which they had seen in the east went before them until they came to the cave, and it stood over the top of the cave. And the Magi saw the infant with His mother Mary; and they brought forth from their bag gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned by the angel not to go into Judæa, they went into their own country by another road.

 

[NotWorthy]

If you see Orthodox icons of our Savior;s birth, they depict the grotto outside Bethlehem instead of the stable by the inn that scripture tells us is the birth place of Jesus.

So for some reaon, it seems to actually be elevated above scripture.

OK, I’m feeling lazy this morning, so can you show me where Scripture says it was a stable by the inn? Caves were often used as stables. As a matter of fact, Bethlehem is riddled with caves.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Show me where it conflicts with scripture:

1. And, behold, Joseph was ready to go into Judæa. And there was a great commotion in Bethlehem of Judæa, for Magi came, saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him. And when Herod heard, he was much disturbed, and sent officers to the Magi. And he sent for the priests, and examined them, saying: How is it written about the Christ? where is He to be born? And they said: In Bethlehem of Judæa, for so it is written. And he sent them away. And he examined the Magi, saying to them: What sign have you seen in reference to the king that has been born? And the Magi said: We have seen a star of great size shining among these stars, and obscuring their light, so that the stars did not appear; and we thus knew that a king has been born to Israel, and we have come to worship him. And Herod said: Go and seek him; and if you find him, let me know, in order that I also may go and worship him. And the Magi went out. And, behold, the star which they had seen in the east went before them until they came to the cave, and it stood over the top of the cave. And the Magi saw the infant with His mother Mary; and they brought forth from their bag gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned by the angel not to go into Judæa, they went into their own country by another road.

It has the wise men coming to Bethlehem, then going to Herod, then coming back to the cave outside Bethlehem. Obviously the writer knew of the story, he just didn’t get it together right.

In the Bible the Wise Men went directly to Herod and asked where Jesus would be born. Then Herod asked those under him and they said Bethlehem so Herod sent the men to Bethlehem but they didn’ go there, the star appeared and led them to Jesus.

Mat 2:1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,
Mat 2:2 saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
Mat 2:3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him;
Mat 2:4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.
Mat 2:5 They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:
Mat 2:6 “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
Mat 2:7 Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared.
Mat 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.”
Mat 2:9 After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was.
Mat 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.
Mat 2:11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Notice the different order of things and they go into a house not a cave. One thing a lot of people miss is they think it says the Wise Men went to Bethlehem, the text never says that, it says they were sent to Bethlehem but the star appeared and lead them to Jesus who happened to be at a house.

Notice also it says clearly the Wise Men came to Jerusalem first, and then Herod sent for them, they weren’t in Bethlehem and then sent for, and then sent back.

 

[thistle]

It has the wise men coming to Bethlehem, then going to Herod, then coming back to the cave outside Bethlehem. Obviously the writer knew of the story, he just didn’t get it together right.

In the Bible the Wise Men went directly to Herod and asked where Jesus would be born. Then Herod asked those under him and they said Bethlehem so Herod sent the men to Bethlehem but they didn’ go there, the star appeared and led them to Jesus.

Mat 2:1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,
Mat 2:2 saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
Mat 2:3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him;
Mat 2:4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.
Mat 2:5 They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:
Mat 2:6 “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
Mat 2:7 Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared.
Mat 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.”
Mat 2:9 After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was.
Mat 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.
Mat 2:11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Notice the different order of things and they go into a house not a cave. One thing a lot of people miss is they think it says the Wise Men went to Bethlehem, the text never says that, it says they were sent to Bethlehem but the star appeared and lead them to Jesus who happened to be at a house.

Notice also it says clearly the Wise Men came to Jerusalem first, and then Herod sent for them, they weren’t in Bethlehem and then sent for, and then sent back.

I don’t see any conflict at all. Slightly different ways of telling the same story. This happens a number of times in the Gospels as well. What’s the problem?

 

[benedictgal]

I have read the Protoevangelium of St. James, mostly because of a program called “Banned from the Bible” on the History Channel. I found it fascinating because it covers the conception and early life of the Blessed Mother and it fills in the blanks regarding St. Joseph.

Yes, I am aware that the Church does not recognize this document, as she didn’t include it in the canon of Sacred Scripture. However, aside from a few descrepancies, it doesn’t seem to contradict the Church teaching at all.

Now John Dominic Crossan (I don’t know if he is Catholic or if he is censured), said that the reason why it wasn’t included in the canon was that, had the book been the first one in the New Testament and the emphasis would have been on the Blessed Mother rather than Jesus.

Something else to consider is the fact that Protestants still claim that Mary had children other than Jesus. However, when the Gospel accounts say something to the effect of “the son of Mary and are not his brothers … and his sisters”, they seem to isolate his relationship with his Mother and leave the “siblings” as separate entities without mentioning who their mother is. Interestingly enough, from what I understand according to the History Channel, this story also appears in the Koran.

Also, according to the History Channel, this Protoevangelium had been around for centuries.

 

[thistle]

I have read the Protoevangelium of St. James, mostly because of a program called “Banned from the Bible” on the History Channel. I found it fascinating because it covers the conception and early life of the Blessed Mother and it fills in the blanks regarding St. Joseph.

Yes, I am aware that the Church does not recognize this document, as she didn’t include it in the canon of Sacred Scripture. However, aside from a few descrepancies, it doesn’t seem to contradict the Church teaching at all.

Now John Dominic Crossan (I don’t know if he is Catholic or if he is censured), said that the reason why it wasn’t included in the canon was that, had the book been the first one in the New Testament and the emphasis would have been on the Blessed Mother rather than Jesus.

Something else to consider is the fact that Protestants still claim that Mary had children other than Jesus. However, when the Gospel accounts say something to the effect of “the son of Mary and are not his brothers … and his sisters”, they seem to isolate his relationship with his Mother and leave the “siblings” as separate entities without mentioning who their mother is. Interestingly enough, from what I understand according to the History Channel, this story also appears in the Koran.

Also, according to the History Channel, this Protoevangelium had been around for centuries.

I don’t think the Church rejects it. It simply does not accept it as an inspired writing. This document is where the Church gets the names of Mary’s parents from.
I would assume one of the reasons for excluding it is that it is not apostolic being written in mid to late second century.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, the Protoevangelium is said to be written around the year 150AD, making it much too late to be considered Scriptural. That doesn’t make it a false Gospel, though, just not Scriptural.