Protoevangelium of James

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Click to expand...
I did not find it anywhere in mine.
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.
Click to expand...
I do not see the PoJ as the outstanding document for the establishment of Marian doctrine. The Patristic writings show us other evidense.

There is also indirect Scriptural evidense.
Virgin Birth, Mother of God: Lk 1:26~56, Mt 1:23, Gal 4:4,
Assumption: Gn 5:24, 2 Kg 2:11, 1 Thes 4:17, Heb 11:5
Immaculate Conception: Lk 1:37, Gn 3:15, Ex 25:11~21

Look also to the defense of Heresy in Patristic writings.

I checked the indexed version of “The Teachings of the Church Fathers” and the doctinal index of Jurgens “Faith of the Early Fathers”, I found no reference by any Church Father to the PoJ.
Catholic author Rene Laurentin, in A Year of Grace with Mary, p 29, points out a few that I’ve seen when stating, “
Click to expand...
In your quote from Laurentin, you affirm everything a typical Catholic would say about the value of the document.
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.
Click to expand...
The PoJ seems only to lend credance to the reverence of Mary by early Christians in some specific ways. It does not establish whether such specific beleif was Apostolically correct in it’s totality. Is this favorable treatment? I don’t know. The characterization stands alone.
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.”
Click to expand...
I don’t see how you made your conclusion. The quote does not assert that the PoJ established the beleif from thin air.

Gambero says “works such as”. This is the “they” in the next line. He only refers to similar writings in general. His point seems to be limited to the establishment that such documents may lend proof to a beleif among Christians, yet one that was not refined nor necessarily correctly Apostolic.

For this reason we look to the Church Fathers for more authoritative views on such matters.
I am quite versed in canon scripture issues and questions regarding authorship and have even read about each from the Catholic encyclopedia…
Click to expand...
I make no defense of the PoJ. I actually think we agree in part on it’s value. However, I do not think you can charge the author with fraud. Nor do I think you properly place it as the basis for Marian doctrines.

A few points on the authorship of the Epistles…
  1. You seem to think that the Epistles that were not written by Apostles none-the-less had their personal approval, as if penned by a secretary. This is not the case. Pauline authorship of Hebrews is not beleived by anyone, yet it was held by early Eastern Churches. The point is, we do not know who wrote Hebrews.
  2. That the Apostle Peter wrote 1 Peter even with a secretary is questioned by Scholars. No dogma concerning it’s exact Petrine authorship secretary or not exists other than it is Canonical.
  3. That the Apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter even with a secretary is nearly universally accepted as false. Yet, the letter claims Petrine origin. So, did the author attempt to commit fraud? No! This was a literary style of the times.
The author of the PoJ may have been writing using such a style and not be fraudulent. This, however, changes nothing in my opinion of its value.
 
40.png
DavidB:
This story is the basis for a number of Marian beliefs, even dogmas, today. It’s even the sole source for knowing Mary’s parents names.
Click to expand...
Proof please. Some Church document which states this would do.
40.png
DavidB:
Yet it’s complete fiction. There’s no indication anywhere that Mary, her relatives or even John (who watched over her 'til her death) had any (name removed by moderator)ut into this.
Click to expand...
And this would be need… why? we now need proof that they had (name removed by moderator)ut or it must be false? Listen, as I said earlier I don’t use the POJ as a reference, but, you are making some strong claims which cannot be supported.
 
40.png
DavidB:
When I have a discussion with a Catholic who uses the Protoevangelium of James as a source for credibility of his argument, I’m thinking you might as well claim Grimm’s fairy tales, cause it has about as much credibility.
Click to expand...
Well that’s fair, you don’t accept it as proof. o.k., neither do I.
 
40.png
wpr:
I1. You seem to think that the Epistles that were not written by Apostles none-the-less had their personal approval, as if penned by a secretary. This is not the case. Pauline authorship of Hebrews is not beleived by anyone, yet it was held by early Eastern Churches. The point is, we do not know who wrote Hebrews.
Click to expand...
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which seems to disagree with you since they do affirm Paul’s authorship, though my point isn’t even an issue here since no one signed that document, it can be a fraud then can it?:

"From what has been said it follows that the most probable solution of the question as to the author is that up to the present time the opinion of Origen has not been superseded by a better one. It is, consequently, necessary to accept that in the Epistle to the Hebrews the actual author is to be distinguished from the writer. No valid reason has been produced against Paul as the originator of the ideas and the entire contents of the letter; the belief of the early Church held throughout with entire correctness to this Apostolic origin of the Epistle.
The writer, the one to whom the letter owes its form, had apparently been a pupil of the Apostle. It is not possible now, however, to settle his personality on account of the lack of any definite tradition and of any decisive proof in the letter itself. Ancient and modern writers mention various pupils of the Apostle, especially Luke, Clement of Rome, Apollo, lately also Priscilla and Aquila. "
  1. That the Apostle Peter wrote 1 Peter even with a secretary is questioned by Scholars. No dogma concerning it’s exact Petrine authorship secretary or not exists other than it is Canonical.
Click to expand...
Again, here’s what your own encyclopedia says:
"The authenticity, universally admitted by the primitive Church, has been denied within the past century by Protestant or Rationalist critics (Baur and the Tubingen School, Von Soden, Harnack, Jülicher, Hilgenfeld, and others), but it cannot seriously be questioned. It is well established by extrinsic and instrinsic arguments. . . .

In the epilogue the Apostle himself declares that he has employed Sylvanus to write the letter and affirms that the Divine grace possessed by his readers is the true grace (12); he addresses to them the salutations of the Church in Rome and those of Mark (13), and gives them his Apostolic blessing."

With respect to 2 Peter, it says that despite much controversy, they affirm that it was an authentic Petrine letter.

I realize that the Catholic encyclopedia is not necessarily the last word on all matters of your faith and doctrine, but it certainly is a good starting point for learning about the official Catholic view of things.

David
 
40.png
DavidB:
I guess my question goes the next step then. I recognize the difference between inspired, meaning scripture and God’s Word versus uninspired, but historically accurate such as the Didache. This, on the other hand, appears not only not to be historically accurate, but a deliberate attempt at fraud. Yet I constantly here it referenced as proof of any number of things such as Joseph being a widower with children from a prior marriage (this document is the source of that).

Is it simply that those Catholics were are making statements based on this document and/or using it as a reference source are in error?
David
Click to expand...
The Church has never claimed to know for sure what Joseph was like. It is true that people can believe Joseph was an older man and a widower, and it is supported by the fact that he was dead by the time Jesus was crucified. But they can also believe what Anne Catherine Emerich, as well as other mystics, saw in her visions of Biblical times: A young man, a virgin, and not a widower.
Patrick
 
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which seems to disagree with you since they do affirm Paul’s authorship, though my point isn’t even an issue here since no one signed that document, it can be a fraud then can it?:
Click to expand...
Paul’s penning of Hebrews is not established, nor is his use of a secretary. I see from the passage that the use of the word “authorship” has a different meaning from that which I used in my previous post. So please be careful. By authorship, I meant "actually wrote it himself either physically or via a secretary.

That Paul personally approved the letter is not necessary. That the ideas are from Paul is the basis for it’s Canonicity and the strong witness it was given by early Churches as being of Apostolic origen (Pauline).

Nothing in the Cath Ency citation contradicts what I said.
With respect to 2 Peter, it says that despite much controversy, they affirm that it was an authentic Petrine letter.
Click to expand...
My source is the Catholic NAB Commentary. That it is not an authentic Petrine letter I have not argued. Otherwise, it would not be in the Canon!
I realize that the Catholic encyclopedia is not necessarily the last word on all matters of your faith and doctrine, but it certainly is a good starting point for learning about the official Catholic view of things.
Click to expand...
I think it an excellent source. I use it frequently.
 
40.png
DavidB:
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which seems to disagree with you since they do affirm Paul’s authorship, though my point isn’t even an issue here since no one signed that document, it can be a fraud then can it?:

I realize that the Catholic encyclopedia is not necessarily the last word on all matters of your faith and doctrine, but it certainly is a good starting point for learning about the official Catholic view of things.

David
Click to expand...
David,

What edition of the Catholic Encylopedia are you using?

Blessings,
 
I would not say that the Church uses apochyphal writtings as a basis for any of it’s Dogmas. These writtings are god for historical background if understood correctly but not for formulating doctrine. That there are church Doctrines also reflected in some of these writtings does not mean that this writtings were the basis for the belief.
 
David B,

Here are some scriptural verses as I promised you… Although this might be pretty long. I think I should split it up into several threads based upon topic…

Mary is prefigured by the Old Testament. The old Covenant was the Word of God as contained in the scriptures. The old Covenant was carried in the Ark of the old Covenant. The New Covenant is the Word of God embodied in Christ Jesus. The Ark the carried the New Covenant is Mary. As such, Mary had to be pure and spotless .
Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.
2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.
1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.
1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.
Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.
Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.
 
Mary’s ability to intercede for us…
John 2:3 - this is a very significant verse in Scripture. As our mother, Mary tells all of us to do whatever Jesus tells us. Further, Mary’s intercession at the marriage feast in Cana triggers Jesus’ ministry and a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic celebration of the Lamb. This celebration unites all believers into one family through the marriage of divinity and humanity.
John 2:7 - Jesus allows His mother to intercede for the people on His behalf, and responds to His mother’s request by ordering the servants to fill the jars with water.
Psalm 45:9 - the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God’s kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God.
1 Kings 2:17, 20 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.
1 Kings 2:18 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King’s followers. She is the Queen Mother (or “Gebirah”). Mary is our eternal Gebirah.
1 Kings 2:19 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.
 
Mary’s perpetual virginity…
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.
Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.
Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.
John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.
John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen…
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”
Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.
Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.
Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.
Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.
Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.
Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.
 
Mary’s Assumption into Heaven
Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?
2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.
Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.
Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.
 
40.png
RCCDefender:
I hope this helps!
Click to expand...
Thanks RCCDefender. I’ll take a look at these verses over the next few days so I can give them proper consideration. I appreciate the efforts you’ve made!

David
 
40.png
DavidB:
Thanks RCCDefender. I’ll take a look at these verses over the next few days so I can give them proper consideration. I appreciate the efforts you’ve made!

David
Click to expand...
You are quite welcome! Feel free to ask me any other questions!
 
40.png
DavidB:
The online version 🙂 www.newadvent.org

David
Click to expand...
OK – that’s good stuff. But at the end of the day, it is still a secondary source.

Authorship questions for Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and Revelation were debated in the Early Church for centuries, and were the last to be widely accepted. II Peter was the toughest – you can’t find a Church Father quoting from it until the early 3rd century.

At the end of the day, these seven books were declared canonical and the Protevangelium of James was not, based not on authorship (real or presumed) but because the Church said so!

I remember in the seminary when these issues were being debated in New Testament class. We’d gone through all the arguments and issues about who wrote what to whom and why, etc. Once all the material was presented, the professor said; Now – who actually wrote II Peter? We don’t know. Is this important? NO! Why? Because the Church defines II Peter as the Inspired Word of God – end of story! He made his point!

Blessings,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top