E
Exporter
Guest
Can someone tell me why the Protoevengelium of James was not made part of the Cannon of Scripture?
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Because the Church Fathers who extensively developed the Canon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit found that the work was not divinely inspired. That’s why.
It doesn’t mean the work is a BAD work; there are letters ascribed to Paul which were not considered part of Scripture in the way that Corinithians 1 & 2, Romans, or Galatians (to name a few) are.
Other “books” may be entertaining, they may be informative, they may contain many wonderful and even true things–but they aren’t the inspired Word of God, merely the human works of men.
That being said, Exporter, I’ve heard various reasons as to why the Fathers MAY have rejected the Protoevangelium, but I don’t myself know if any one, or combination, of those reasons is the actual one (s) that led to the book’s not being part of the Canon. For myself, I’d heard that one of the stories in the Proto had Jesus killing someone or something out of temper, and then bringing it back to life. . .surely very out of character for the Son of God. The Proto to me reads kind of like Parson Weems’ stories of George Washington–most of them no doubt based on some kernel of truth, but overall either exaggerated or completely false.
It doesn’t mean the work is a BAD work; there are letters ascribed to Paul which were not considered part of Scripture in the way that Corinithians 1 & 2, Romans, or Galatians (to name a few) are.
Other “books” may be entertaining, they may be informative, they may contain many wonderful and even true things–but they aren’t the inspired Word of God, merely the human works of men.
That being said, Exporter, I’ve heard various reasons as to why the Fathers MAY have rejected the Protoevangelium, but I don’t myself know if any one, or combination, of those reasons is the actual one (s) that led to the book’s not being part of the Canon. For myself, I’d heard that one of the stories in the Proto had Jesus killing someone or something out of temper, and then bringing it back to life. . .surely very out of character for the Son of God. The Proto to me reads kind of like Parson Weems’ stories of George Washington–most of them no doubt based on some kernel of truth, but overall either exaggerated or completely false.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Tantum ergo:
A part of the Gospel of Nicodemus is read this time of year, I can not recall exaclty if its during Lent or Holy Week, but it is read during one of the Liturgies in the Byzantine Church. This part confirms Church Tradition, that the Wise Thief entered paradise with the Lord.
Actually there are some works that the Church Fathers thought that a protion of the work was divinely inspired but they were not added to the canon of scripture because the whole work was not.
A part of the Gospel of Nicodemus is read this time of year, I can not recall exaclty if its during Lent or Holy Week, but it is read during one of the Liturgies in the Byzantine Church. This part confirms Church Tradition, that the Wise Thief entered paradise with the Lord.
D
DianJo
Guest
For myself, I’d heard that one of the stories in the Proto had Jesus killing someone or something out of temper, and then bringing it back to life. . .surely very out of character for the Son of God.
This was actually out of the Gospel of Thomas not the Protoevangelium of James. It was a Gnostic gospel and condemned centuries ago.
People tell me that the Protoevangelium of James is “spurious” writing - whatever that means. I think some of the details are questionalbe but don’t which ones. I think the date of the writing and the actual author are questionable. I’m sure someone else can give you some insight. MaggieOH can probably give you some info on this. I hope she sees this question.
This was actually out of the Gospel of Thomas not the Protoevangelium of James. It was a Gnostic gospel and condemned centuries ago.
People tell me that the Protoevangelium of James is “spurious” writing - whatever that means. I think some of the details are questionalbe but don’t which ones. I think the date of the writing and the actual author are questionable. I’m sure someone else can give you some insight. MaggieOH can probably give you some info on this. I hope she sees this question.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
DianJo said:
Your right Dianjo. So if the term;”spurious" was used to describe the Protoevangelium of James; the word ”spurious" is pretty explanatory and it answers the question posted by Exporter.
is from the Late Latin word *spurious- *false.
· Latin, of illegitimate birth
· outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities
· of falsified or erroneously attributed origin
· of a deceitful nature or quality
God Bless
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
DianJo said:
The Protevangelium was condemned as apocryphal in 495 by a Roman Council
There is no tradition of its having been written by an apostolic man or Apostle - which was a test for canonicityIt was not read in the public worship of the Churches - another test for canonicity.
It betrays no familiarity with Palestine in the time of Christ. The notion that Mary was offered to the Temple to live there for any length of time is as historically preposterous as suggesting that there is a custom according to which aspiring politicians spend several years of their childhood at 1600, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington (D.C.). It’s rubbish, because it happens to be untrue. The notion of any such offering seems to be an application of details from the life of Samuel in 1 Samuel.
bible-history.com/HighPriests/NTHIGHPRIESTSList_of_Jewish_High_Priests.htm
- Ananel, 37-36 B.C. (Appointed by Herod the Great)
- Aristobulus III, 35 B.C.
- Jesus, son of Phiabi, ? -22 B.C.
- Simon, son of Boethus, 22-5 B.C.
- Matthias, son of Theophilus, 5-4 B.C.
- Joseph, son of Elam, 5 B.C.
- Joezer, son of Boethus, 4 B.C.
- Eleazar, son of Boethus, 4-1 B.C. - (Appointed by Herod Archelaus)
- Jesus, son of Sie, 1 - 6 A.D.
- Annas, 6-15 A.D. (Appointed by Quirinius)
- Ishmael, son of Phiabi I, 15-16 A.D. (Appointed by Valerius Gratus)
- Eleazar, son of Annas, 16-17 A.D.
- Simon, son of Kamithos, 17-18 A.D.
- Joseph Caiaphas, 18-37 AD.
2 And when she was twelve years old, there was a council of the priests, saying: Behold Mary is become twelve years old in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her ? lest she pollute the sanctuary of the Lord. And they said unto the high priest: Thou standest over the altar of the Lord. Enter in and pray concerning her: And whatsoever the Lord shall reveal to thee, that let us do.
3 And the high priest took the vestment with the twelve bells and went in unto the Holy of Holies and prayed concerning her. And lo, an angel of tile Lord appeared saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go forth and assemble them that are widowers of the people, and let them bring every man a rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went forth over all the country round about Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all men ran thereto.
So, where is this Zacharias the High Priest ? He doesn’t exist.
IOW, the POJ is interesting as evidence of how the BVM was viewed in 150 or so, but is otherwise historically worthless. ##
M
MaggieOH
Guest
DianJo said:
MaggieOH has now seen the question and is responding
. She has been busy setting up a blog covering Terri Schiavo and the whole euthanasia question. Plus there has been some better news for her because she started a temporary role on Wednesday this week .The date of the Protoevangelium of James has been set somewhere between 120 and 150 A.D. When the Church Fathers who were present at the council that decided the canon of the New Testament got together, they decided upon the criteria that Public Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. Since John died somewhere between 95 and 100 A.D. it is only reasonable to assume that one very good reason for not accepting this literature is the dating of the work.
The comment about Jesus killing a child and bringing him back to life, needs some clarification. It was the Infancy Gospel of Jesus in Egypt that had that story, not the Protoevangelium. There are other reasons for the rejection of the Protoevangelium of James as a part of the Scripture. If you do examine the work you will find that there is a lot of embellishment within the work. There are some facts that have been mixed with fantasy and it is the fantasy that makes the work totally spurious. For example, in the Protoevangelium there were midwives present at the birth of Jesus, yet the Gospels do not mention the presence of the midwives. If you want my opinion on that part of the story I would have to say that it was quite “yucky” because of the way that the stories have been worded. This is a real problem with all of the books that have been labelled as apochrypha in the New Testament.
MaggieOH
- Status