Protoevangelium of James

[DavidB]

Thal59:

As someone pointed out earlier, the POJ does not claim to be written in 4 B.C. We have no idea when the first POJ may have been written. We only know that the oldest extant version is from around 120 AD. It was customary, and quite acceptable at the time, for someone to write another person’s oral testimony, even many years after they had died, in the “first person” as if that person were writing during their lifetime and had attached their name to it. Therefore, your claim that the author and date are obviously false and therefore the entire work is fraudulent has no merit. You obviously simply don’t understand the nature of the way the people of that time wrote.

But motives are important. Your expression… “agenda-driven fraud” and your assertion that it eventually shaped “dogma” betrays your inner motive which is to attempt to discredit Catholic teachings about Mary by inferring it was predominately based on an unreliable text.

Now that your motive is known, your argument carries no weight as it is obviously based on bias and prejudice. Suffice it to say that Catholics simply look at the POJ as an historical document which, though it was never held as canonical, may have at least some truths in it and is therefore a useful refference to be considered with an open mind and nothing more.

Thal59

Interesting attitude. This would make for a classic case study, if one were so inclined. Yet, perhaps it does explain a lot more than what appears on the surface. The more I think about it, the more helpful this post appears to me. Thanks . . . so we deny the obvious facts cause it threatens our belief and attack the . . . mmmm . . . OK, think I got it Thanks for your contribution to my understanding.

David

 

[DavidB]

Tom:

WAY over simplification. Did you know that the much of the Gospels, which were written in the name of the Apostles, were in fact written by the Apostles disciples, and not necessarily written by the Apostle himself? Does this mean they are “fraudulent”? Now don’t get me wrong, I personally don’t use the PoJ as a reference, but it is an historical document, but that doesn’t mean it is totally false. Why use it? Does it make or break any faith you hold? It isn’t the basis for my faith in Marian doctrines. It simply doesn’t matter.

Don’t you think there’s a big difference between someone helping an apostle write something as an assistant with the apostle speaking to them and instructing them what to write and quite another to do so 80-100 years after their death as is the case with POJ?

 

[thistle]

DavidB:

Don’t you think there’s a big difference between someone helping an apostle write something as an assistant with the apostle speaking to them and instructing them what to write and quite another to do so 80-100 years after their death as is the case with POJ?

Why are you so hung up on this?
We have all told you that the POJ is not an inspired writing and that NO Church doctrine or discipline is in any shape or form based on that paper.
It is simply a writing that may or may not contain interesting information.

 

[DavidB]

thistle:

Why are you so hung up on this?
We have all told you that the POJ is not an inspired writing and that NO Church doctrine or discipline is in any shape or form based on that paper.
It is simply a writing that may or may not contain interesting information.

I prefer the term “unconvinced”. The letter may be officially listed as uninspired, but based on it’s early date and it’s influence in that era and of subsequent writings that built on this letter, it has actually, in fact “inspired” much, particularly several Marian dogmas. And I’m convinced that this letter should actually be on a banned list as a complete fraud and not given any weight at all in theological discussions. I thought that’s what the Gelasian decretal was to have accomplished when it said the letter should be “avoided”, but apparently not.

I’ll wrap up the thread then, because it has actually served to instruct and explain, even if in a way I hadn’t expected. I can no more convince a Catholic that this letter is a total fiction than I can convince a Protestant that the Foxes Book of Martyrs is an exaggeration. Some beliefs are too entrenched to even discuss in an intellectually honest way.

David

 

[wpr]

DavidB:

I prefer the term “unconvinced”. The letter may be officially listed as uninspired, but based on it’s early date and it’s influence in that era and of subsequent writings that built on this letter, it has actually, in fact “inspired” much, particularly several Marian dogmas. And I’m convinced that this letter should actually be on a banned list as a complete fraud and not given any weight at all in theological discussions. I thought that’s what the Gelasian decretal was to have accomplished when it said the letter should be “avoided”, but apparently not.

I’ll wrap up the thread then, because it has actually served to instruct and explain, even if in a way I hadn’t expected. I can no more convince a Catholic that this letter is a total fiction than I can convince a Protestant that the Foxes Book of Martyrs is an exaggeration. Some beliefs are too entrenched to even discuss in an intellectually honest way.

David

Hello David,

Did you not set out here to undermine Marion Dogma?

Is the PoJ “total fiction”. Is it total fiction solely because the author claims to be James, but in reality is not James?

You made the claim the the PoJ is a major source of Catholic Dogma. It “inspired” much particulary several Marion Dogmas.

All right, which several? That she was ever virgin? Immaculate conception? Assumption? How so?

Is it Dogma that Joachim and Anne are the parents of Mary? Is it dogmatically required that I as a Catholic beleive this? Be honest, you have no idea. You do not know the difference and it is obvious because you mix the two as if they are one in the same.

Second, you betray yourself as one who is not versed in history. You should be more carefull. The post that most undermines your view is #18. Rather than a kneejerk response, why not study the matter a bit more?

Who wrote Hebrews? Did Paul know the person? Why did the early Eastern Churchs hold to Pauline authorship? What about 1 & 2 Peter? Who wrote those epistles? This is your homework assignment. Are you sure you want to relegate all writings to “total fiction” due to the author claiming to be an Apostle?

That the PoJ is not Canonical is not at issue. The Fathers witnessed that it is not. The same Fathers provide witness that the Canon of the NT is of Apostolic origen.

How do you know the Canon of the NT is valid? How do you know that which is taught within is of Apostolic Origen?

David, your attitude betrays you as one not serious in these matters. Your argument fell flat. Take a more serious attitude and you may find the truth.

 

[David_Zampino]

Lazerlike42:

I would begin by pointing out that the document does not claim to have been written in or around 4 BC.

It does not clearly indicate that it was written at any particular time. It really only says that the author wrote it in Jerusalem and that he withdrew from their at Herod’s death. It does seem to say that it was written before his death, but this is not completely clear. In either case, the Herod to whom, the document refers may just as likely be the Herod who killed John the Baptist as the Herod who died in 4 BC.

Or even any of the Herods who are mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.

A claim of 4 BC is certainly difficult to sustain.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

DavidB:

This, on the other hand, appears not only not to be historically accurate, but a deliberate attempt at fraud.

David

“Deliberate attempt at fraud” is a bit strong for me.

Very few scholars – Catholic or Protestant, liberal or conservative – believe that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. How many different authors were behind Isaiah?

We have no idea who wrote Hebrews – and, frankly, the authorship of II Peter is questionable. Which James in the NT wrote James? Which Jude wrote Jude?

The point is, it was not at all uncommon in the ancient world for a disciple of a famous person to ascribe that person’s name to other works. (Frankly, are Plato’s dialogues the words of Socrates – or of Plato).

No, the book is not canonical (though there were some in the Alexandrian school in the 3rd century who toyed with the notion); yes it contains much that is apocryphal – but by the same token, is an extremely important early text – because of its early date; the numerous copies (in several languages) which have been found; and its use by Early Church Fathers.

Just because a book is apocryphal, it does not necessarily follow that all the information it contains is untrue. Another example is the apocryphal “Acts of Andrew”. This volume has never been even remotely considered scriptural – but its account of the martyrdom of Andrew is considered quite possibly historical.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

Greetings,

Disagreement is not necessarily intellectually dishonest. The Protevangelium (and a great deal of other sub-canonical early literature) has been a particular interest of mine, in my seminary days, long before I became a Catholic. The uses the Early Church made of such writings is a fascinating study, recognizing kernels of value amongst Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.

Frankly, didn’t the author of Jude do the same thing, citing from two non-canonical sources?

Blessings,

 

[DavidB]

wpr:

Did you not set out here to undermine Marion Dogma?

Not at all. My post was not intended as some sort of surreptitious way of infusing doubt into Catholic minds. I honestly posted it to discuss your views of the POJ. While I personally do not accept the Marian dogmas at this point, I am actively researching the foundation of those beliefs because I am trying to be open to those dogmas – I came to accept the 7 sacraments as being valid taking this same approach (it took 5 years of study). My research here indicates one of the key building blocks for the dogma of Mary’s sinlessness and the belief of her being ever-virgin reside in this letter, as does the belief regarding the names of her parents (but this is an inconsequential belief, not carrying an anthema condemnation if one choses not to believe it). Other dogmas such as her assumption into Heaven rely on the foundation of her being sinless. In trying to drill back to find the origin of those beliefs, it’s clear that canon scripture is mostly void of any clear indication, thus one must look to Tradition and whatever early sources appear there. The POJ stands out as the beginning point, at least from what we have in writing, which is the only thing we have to go on.

But the POJ has a number of problems with it. In addition to the author and dating issues that I’ve mentioned. Catholic author Rene Laurentin, in A Year of Grace with Mary, p 29, points out a few that I’ve seen when stating, “[T]he *Protoevangelium of James [is] an apocryphal gospel without historical value. *I do not say…without *value. *The *Protoevangelium of James *testifies not only to great fervor towards Mary, but also to a profound insight into her holiness and her virginity. Yet, in spite of its antiquity (the middle of the second century), it shows (unlike our gospels), a tremendous ignorance regarding the Jewish customs and laws which were operative in the temple in Jerusalem. It is totally unlikely that a little girl of three years of age could have been reared there, let alone in the holy of holies, reserved for priests on solemn occasions."

It surprised me to find such valid questions about this letter expressed by someone who none-the-less supported it as having value. I find it hard to understand how one can view something favorable even though knowing the author committed fraud and that some of the key claims of the story couldn’t possibly be true and many of the others highly doubtful. Where does one draw the line between what to believe and what to dismiss when viewing something like this letter? With such serious issues to it’s truthfulness, I can’t understand why anyone would take any of it seriously. So I figured I’d survey you folks on this forum to gain some insight.

As to why I’m convinced this document is important, I’ve found a number of references that indicate the influence the POJ had on early Christian thinking, rather than simply capturing what was already generally believed – here’s one quote from Catholic author Luigi Gambero from Mary and the Fathers of the Church, p 40-41, he states “Obviously, works such as the *Protoevangelium *cannot claim the seal of divine inspiration. However, in some way they helped the first generations of Christians to intuit the truth of certain mysteries whose dogmatic formulation would later become more and more clear in the light of divine revelation; these writings also traced an itinerary through which believing people sought to draw near to the unfathomable mystery of the virgin mother.”

Who wrote Hebrews? Did Paul know the person? Why did the early Eastern Churchs hold to Pauline authorship? What about 1 & 2 Peter? Who wrote those epistles? This is your homework assignment. Are you sure you want to relegate all writings to “total fiction” due to the author claiming to be an Apostle?

I am quite versed in canon scripture issues and questions regarding authorship and have even read about each from the Catholic encyclopedia as one of my primary sources. None come close to this – not even close. I’ll reverse this homework assignment and you explain to me how the POJ parallels ANY canon letter. Show me a canon letter that states it’s authority is an Apostle and the Apostle wasn’t even aware it was written, didn’t authorize it’s content and had a 150 year gap between it’s stated date of authorship and it’s actual date. Just name me one and I’ll back off the issue.

David

 

[DavidB]

David Zampino:

Greetings,

Disagreement is not necessarily intellectually dishonest. The Protevangelium (and a great deal of other sub-canonical early literature) has been a particular interest of mine, in my seminary days, long before I became a Catholic. The uses the Early Church made of such writings is a fascinating study, recognizing kernels of value amongst Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.

Frankly, didn’t the author of Jude do the same thing, citing from two non-canonical sources?

Blessings,

Do you have any good references you could point me to based on your studies of that document? I would appreciate any insight you could recall.

Thanks.

David

 

[David_Zampino]

DavidB:

Do you have any good references you could point me to based on your studies of that document? I would appreciate any insight you could recall.

Thanks.

David

Greetings, David,

The best material available in English on the subject is

“The New Testament Apocrypha” volumes one and two. They are an English-language translation of the German work by Wilhelm Schneemelcher and published by Westminister John Knox Press.

The best of the available translations and textual variants are presented, along with detailed editorial commentary. Volume one deals with Gospels and related writings; volume two deals with Acts of various apostles and apocalyptic literature. I used these extensively in seminary in two elective courses I took – one on the development of the Canon and the other on sub-New Testament literature.

They are available (along with my reviews) on Amazon.com at

amazon.com/gp/product/066422721X/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/102-4692588-8456139?%5Fencoding=UTF8

and

amazon.com/gp/product/0664227228/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/102-4692588-8456139?%5Fencoding=UTF8

To the best of my knowledge, this is the absolute best scholarship currently available on the subject.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

DavidB:

Do you have any good references you could point me to based on your studies of that document? I would appreciate any insight you could recall.

Thanks.

David

With regard to Jude:

Jude 9 refers to the Assumption of Moses, of which only fragments remain extant.

Jude 15 refers to the Book of Enoch for which there is considerable text.

The best resources in English for these are probably Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1 and 2) (Anchor Bible).

Gotta run now . . . more later if you’re interested.

Blessings,

 

[DavidB]

David Zampino:

Greetings, David,

The best material available in English on the subject is

“The New Testament Apocrypha” volumes one and two. They are an English-language translation of the German work by Wilhelm Schneemelcher and published by Westminister John Knox Press.

The best of the available translations and textual variants are presented, along with detailed editorial commentary. Volume one deals with Gospels and related writings; volume two deals with Acts of various apostles and apocalyptic literature. I used these extensively in seminary in two elective courses I took – one on the development of the Canon and the other on sub-New Testament literature.

They are available (along with my reviews) on Amazon.com at

amazon.com/gp/product/066422721X/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/102-4692588-8456139?%5Fencoding=UTF8

and

amazon.com/gp/product/0664227228/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/102-4692588-8456139?%5Fencoding=UTF8

To the best of my knowledge, this is the absolute best scholarship currently available on the subject.

Blessings,

Thanks very much, David. I’m ordering volume one now.

By the way, are you any relation to a man named Philip Zampino? He’s a bishop in the Charismatic Episcopal Church in Maryland - he’s my bishop.

David

 

[RCCDefender]

DavidB:

While I personally do not accept the Marian dogmas at this point, I am actively researching the foundation of those beliefs because I am trying to be open to those dogmas – I came to accept the 7 sacraments as being valid taking this same approach (it took 5 years of study). My research here indicates one of the key building blocks for the dogma of Mary’s sinlessness and the belief of her being ever-virgin reside in this letter, as does the belief regarding the names of her parents (but this is an inconsequential belief, not carrying an anthema condemnation if one choses not to believe it). Other dogmas such as her assumption into Heaven rely on the foundation of her being sinless. In trying to drill back to find the origin of those beliefs, it’s clear that canon scripture is mostly void of any clear indication, thus one must look to Tradition and whatever early sources appear there. The POJ stands out as the beginning point, at least from what we have in writing, which is the only thing we have to go on.

While the POJ is more explicit in these areas, I would have to say that it is not the beginning point for these beliefs, the Old Testament Canon prefigures Mary, her sinnlessness, and her perpetual virginity.

**Catholic author **Rene Laurentin, in A Year of Grace with Mary, p 29, points out a few that I’ve seen when stating, “[T]
he *Protoevangelium of James [is] an apocryphal gospel without historical value. *I do not say…without *value. *The *Protoevangelium of James *testifies not only to great fervor towards Mary, but also to a profound insight into her holiness and her virginity. Yet, in spite of its antiquity (the middle of the second century), it shows (unlike our gospels), a tremendous ignorance regarding the Jewish customs and laws which were operative in the temple in Jerusalem. It is totally unlikely that a little girl of three years of age could have been reared there, let alone in the holy of holies, reserved for priests on solemn occasions."

And what authority does Rene Laurentin have with the Magisterium?

DavidB:

As to why I’m convinced this document is important, I’ve found a number of references that indicate the influence the POJ had on early Christian thinking, rather than simply capturing what was already generally believed – here’s one quote from **Catholic author Luigi Gambero ** from Mary and the Fathers of the Church, p 40-41, he states “Obviously, works such as the *Protoevangelium *cannot claim the seal of divine inspiration. However, in some way they helped the first generations of Christians to intuit the truth of certain mysteries whose dogmatic formulation would later become more and more clear in the light of divine revelation; these writings also traced an itinerary through which believing people sought to draw near to the unfathomable mystery of the virgin mother.”

Again, with what authority does Luigi Gambero speak?

DavidB:

Show me a canon letter that states it’s authority is an Apostle and the Apostle wasn’t even aware it was written, didn’t authorize it’s content and had a 150 year gap between it’s stated date of authorship and it’s actual date. Just name me one and I’ll back off the issue.

David

So, are you saying you have personal documentation from James the Just saying he was unaware of the book being written? As others on here have tried to show you, the POJ does NOT explicitly state that it was written in 4 B.C. and since it also does not state exactly which Herod it refers to, one cannot place that date on it with the utmost certainty.

 

[DavidB]

RCCDefender:

While the POJ is more explicit in these areas, I would have to say that it is not the beginning point for these beliefs, the Old Testament Canon prefigures Mary, her sinnlessness, and her perpetual virginity.

Could you please provide specific scripture verses you’re referring to? Thanks.

And what authority does Rene Laurentin have with the Magisterium?

Again, with what authority does Luigi Gambero speak?

I never claimed they had authority. What authority to you have? If authority is required before an opinion is valued, then hey, I should just ignore this post, eh?

So, are you saying you have personal documentation from James the Just saying he was unaware of the book being written? As others on here have tried to show you, the POJ does NOT explicitly state that it was written in 4 B.C. and since it also does not state exactly which Herod it refers to, one cannot place that date on it with the utmost certainty.

That entire letter flows in sequence describing in detail how Herod pursued the babies Jesus and John the Baptist so he can kill them and then the letter concludes stating that Herod was unsuccessful, then Herod died, at which time the letter was written according to the writer claiming to be James. So which Herod do you think this refers to (hint - it’s obvious, but it requires you admitting your wrong)?

Thus, I can state with great confidence that James the Just was NOT aware of the letter that was written in 150 AD in his name, long after his death.

David

 

[David_Zampino]

DavidB:

Thanks very much, David. I’m ordering volume one now.

By the way, are you any relation to a man named Philip Zampino? He’s a bishop in the Charismatic Episcopal Church in Maryland - he’s my bishop.

David

He’s my dad!

 

[DavidB]

David Zampino:

He’s my dad!

Wow!! Talk about a small world. I just spoke with him about a month ago.

David

 

[RCCDefender]

And I James that wrote this history in Jerusalem, a commotion having arisen when Herod died, withdrew myself to the wilderness until the commotion in Jerusalem ceased, glorifying the Lord God, who had given me the gift and the wisdom to write this history. And grace shall be with them that fear our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory to ages of ages. Amen.

David B,

Let’s see. This is at the end of the book. James does not indicate that he is James the Just, and this doesn’t indicate exactly how long after the commotion died down that he began writing his book. So, like I said, one cannot succinctly say that he claims 4 B.C. as the date of this manuscript and thus that he is a liar. Although the letter speaks about Herod the Great, it is not unfathomable to believe that James may be speaking of another Herod in this last paragraph. Archelaus, to which Luke 19 possibly refers; Antipas, who lived with Herodius, who killed John the Baptist; or, Agrippa II, who died in 71 or 72 A.D. So, I don’t think I can readily admit that I am wrong as much as you can admit that you are positively correct.

As, for authority, you, my friend are the one questioning anyone who says anything about Mary using the POJ as a reference, since you don’t believe it has an ounce of authority. So, I am asking you to point the finger at yourself and ask why, then, are you allowed to use references that are based upon one man’s opinion?

As for the scriptural references, I can promise you I will get those to you tomorrow! I’m am elated to see that you are open to seeing the truth in the Marian dogmas, and I am praying that our further discussion here will be fruitful and charitable.

:getholy:

 

[Tom]

DavidB:

My question for the forum involves the Protoevangelium of James. This is a document that claims to have been written by James the Just (the Lord’s brother) around the time of Herod’s death around 4 BC. As such, it claims to have predated all New Testament scripture.

Please read the conclusion of the letter:
POJ:

And I James that wrote this history in Jerusalem, a commotion having arisen when Herod died, withdrew myself to the wilderness until the commotion in Jerusalem ceased, glorifying the Lord God, who had given me the gift and the wisdom to write this history. And grace shall be with them that fear our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory to ages of ages. Amen.

I have read it several times and can’t find where you come up with this date that it “must” have been written in. The letter indicates quite clearly that it was NOT written in 4 B.C., as you say, unless you think the baby Jesus was, at that time, known to be the Christ! He of course was not, this was obviously written well after His death and resurrection, not in 4 BC.

 

[Tom]

DavidB:

It was also the basis of several other “Infancy of Jesus” stories which used some of it’s story features and built on them, some of them including the heretical legend of Jesus turning clay birds to real birds and killing a children friend in anger after being bumped into. Such Gnostic heresies proliferated at the time and unfortunately infused much falsehoods even among the faithful sorta like our modern maxim of repeat the lie often enough and soon it becomes the perceived truth - something we see in the news everyday.

you say that this “was also the basis of several other “Infancy of Jesus” stories”, any documentation that this is true? perhaps a Church document? other than someones opinion? I have read several of the these books, although they have some similar ideas, I would not say they are the “basis of several other “Infancy of Jesus” stories”. the point is the Church did not accept these into Scripture, there is no proof that they are the basis of anything.