Protoevangelium of James

[Will_Pick]

What is the protoevangelium of James and what do we know about this, I think it was written about 120ad any HELP.

 

[Aureole]

I don’t know a whole lot, but I’ll take an attempt at it:

The Protoevangelium of James is the “Gospel of James”, an apocryphal book not included in the canon of Scripture. It was written in the 2nd century AD and is commonly attributed to James the Just.

Though it is apocryphal, it’s still widely read. The Protoevangelium of James is one of the earliest surviving documents covering the life of Mary, her life, and the infancy of Jesus.

You can read the Protoevangelium of James at New Advent.

 

[RyanL]

The Protoevangelium of James is not of Apostolic origin (i.e., James didn’t write it), and was thus excluded from the NT canon. It has some pretty kookie stuff, like the child Jesus killing people out of anger and then resurecting them, which obviously doesn’t fit well with someone who is a Person of the Holy Trinity and was completely sinless.

However, not all of the account is to be automatically rejected on this basis. Some of it is suitable history, like the names of Mary’s parents, for example. Basically, it’s an historical writing that sometimes skips the bounds of factual accounting. It was rightly excluded, but it’s not to be completely ignored.

You can find it and many other early Christian writings here:
www.earlychristianwritings.com

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[threej_lc]

RyanL:

It has some pretty kookie stuff, like the child Jesus killing people out of anger and then resurecting them, which obviously doesn’t fit well with someone who is a Person of the Holy Trinity and was completely sinless.

That’s the protoevangelism of Thomas, not of James. Don’t get them confused

Josh

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Scholars have established that, based on the style of the language and the theological concerns, and the fact that the author is apparently not aware of contemporary Jewish customs, the work is pseudepigraphical (written by someone other than the person it claims to be written by). The echoes and parallels of the Old Testament appear to derive from its Greek translation, the Septuagint, as opposed to the hebrew Masoretic Text, which is noticeable due to several peculiarities and variations present in the Septuagint.

The Gospel of James depends on hints in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), and embellishes on what is told of events surrounding Mary, prior to, and at the moment of, Jesus’ birth, in the Gospel of Matthew, and in the Gospel of Luke.

As for its estimated date, the consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen, who adduces the text to demonstrate that the ‘brethren of the Lord’ were sons of Joseph by a former wife. So the text was already old enough in the second quarter of the 3rd century to be taken as authentic by Origen.

Some indication of the popularity of the Infancy Gospel of James may be drawn from the fact that about one hundred and thirty Greek manuscripts containing it have survived. The Gospel of James was translated into Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Georgian, Old Slavonic, Armenian, Arabic, Irish and Latin. Though no early Latin versions are known, it was relegated to the apocrypha in the Gelasian decretal, so must have been known in the West. As with the canonical gospels, the vast majority of the manuscripts come from the tenth century or later. The earliest known manuscript of the text, a papyrus dating to the 3rd or early 4th century, was found in 1958; it is kept in the Bodmer Library, Geneva (Papyrus Bodmer 5). Of the surviving Greek manuscripts, the fullest surviving text is a 10th century codex in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris (Paris 1454).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

 

[RyanL]

threej_lc:

That’s the protoevangelism of Thomas, not of James. Don’t get them confused

Josh

https://www.oneposter.com/UserData/Poster/Poster_17602.jpg

 

[Presence]

Why does Catholic Answers refer to it as true in it’s online tracts then?: catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

 

[NotWorthy]

Why does Catholic Answers refer to it as true in it’s online tracts then?: catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

It represents Catholic Tradition. In other words, it is, in a nutshell, a compilation of what Catholics believed and taught in the first and second century about Jesus’ childhood, as well as Mary’s time in the Temple and her betrothal to Joseph (who was 1 of 4 widowers chosen to be a potential husband for Mary, who was a consecrated virgin of the Temple, if I remember correctly.

 

[ahs]

Why does Catholic Answers refer to it as true in it’s online tracts then?: catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

I think some confusion revolves around the word “apocrypha”. The word did not have the negative meaning that many people assign it today. A book could/can be “apocryphal” and still be true, accurate, and good for learning…just isn’t included in the Canon of Scripture.