The Protoevangelium of James (or Infancy Gospel of James)

[sola_scriptura]

Scholars have established that, based on the style of the language, and the fact that the author is apparently not aware of contemporary Jewish customs while James the Just certainly was, the work is pseudepigraphical (written by someone other than the person it claims to be written by).[1] 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. It apparently 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 in the early third century, who says the text, like that of a “Gospel of Peter”, was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the ‘brethren of the Lord’ were sons of Joseph by a former wife.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

I’m interested in the Catholic view of this work & its authorship since it seems to be at the basis of our disagreements regarding Mariology?

Thanks

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Scholars have established that, based on the style of the language, and the fact that the author is apparently not aware of contemporary Jewish customs

be careful. The Dead Sea Scrolls etc. has raised questions on the conventional wisdom of what was contmporary Jewish customs. Btw, the Talmud is NOT an infallible guide to that.

while James the Just certainly was, the work is pseudepigraphical (written by someone other than the person it claims to be written by).[1] 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 didn’t exist until the 7th cent. so no suprise here.

which is noticeable due to several peculiarities and variations present in the Septuagint.

yeah, like Isaiah saying a VIRGIN would give birth.

It apparently 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.

OK. Isn’t that what all discussion of scripture does?

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 in the early third century, who says the text, like that of a “Gospel of Peter”, was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the ‘brethren of the Lord’ were sons of Joseph by a former wife.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

I’m interested in the Catholic view of this work & its authorship since it seems to be at the basis of our disagreements regarding Mariology?

No, the Gospel of Luke is the basis of our disagreements regarding Mariology (though I thank you for not saying Mariolatry).

Thanks

 

[sola_scriptura]

Keep in mind these statements were copied from Wikipedia (verbatim) & they are not my own. However, I have had enough interest in this to find this document online & read it (it’s short, only seven printed pages).

IMO the Gospel of Luke does not support Mariology to the extent this document does (in fact for any who read this text so much is clear, it tells the story of Ann, the mother of Mary, it discusses the childhood of Mary, it talks about Joseph in detail, and so forth). The few passages from Luke (i.e. Hail Mary full of grace) only supports the idea that Mary was under divine grace, nothing more nothing less. Additionally, it leaves unanswered the duration of this grace (whether it existed since birth and continued throughout Mary’s life; or whether it was limited to the period between the annunciation and birth of Christ).

Moreover, grace does not necessarily imply either sinlessness or perfection. Paul was saved by grace and he admits his own imperfections in his epistles quite clearly.

This document, however, is wholly another matter. It supports the idea of a chain of grace (if you will) beginning with Ann, Mary’s mother. It tells us Ann was barren and the birth of Mary was an act of grace (in the tradition of Sarah and Rebekah).

It postulates a miracle child in Mary who began walking at six months old. Moreover, it directly references the preservation of Mary’s purity.

If I compare Catholic Marian dogma with this book, it seems to match up quite nicely? This is why my curiosity.

And btw you’re welcome, words like Mariolatry are not in my vocabulary. I enjoy scholarly debate, learning and teaching, not mud slinging.

 

[dmar198]

words like Mariolatry are not in my vocabulary. I enjoy scholarly debate, learning and teaching, not mud slinging.

Thank God!

Keep in mind these statements were copied from Wikipedia (verbatim) & they are not my own. However, I have had enough interest in this to find this document online & read it (it’s short, only seven printed pages).

I am not knowledgeable to comment on the authenticity of Wikipedia’s statements, except to note that 2nd century sounds like what I’ve heard from most sources. This is very, very early, considering the apostle John lived until the very end of the 1st. Nonetheless, there’s nothing reminiscent of the early heresies in it, which means it was probably within the grounds of Christian orthodoxy. And since it attributes itself to James (25:1, 4), the tradition may stem from that apostle in some way.

IMO the Gospel of Luke does not support Mariology to the extent this document does

The Gospel of Luke supports current Mariology very favorably, and the First-Gospel of James merely builds upon this. The same thing happened with the synoptic gospels vs. the Gospel of John: the latter develops the divino-Christology presented in the synoptics.

(in fact for any who read this text so much is clear, it tells the story of Ann, the mother of Mary, it discusses the childhood of Mary, it talks about Joseph in detail, and so forth).

Indeed.

The few passages from Luke (i.e. Hail Mary full of grace) only supports the idea that Mary was under divine grace, nothing more nothing less.

Of course, Catholics think that Mary, having been divinely graced, was sinless: we see that right in the fact of having been graced. You obviously do not. But that’s merely a matter of interpretation: we’re not saying that anything more happened to Mary than that she was divinely graced. We just interpret that to mean much more than you do.

Additionally, it leaves unanswered the duration of this grace (whether it existed since birth and continued throughout Mary’s life; or whether it was limited to the period between the annunciation and birth of Christ).

The angel greeted her with kecharitomene, which, as a perfect participle, refers to a past event that was completed – at the time of the Annunciation, in other words, Mary had already been completely under God’s grace. Since she had been graced before the Annunciation, it cannot have been “limited to the period between the annunciation and birth of Christ”.

Moreover, grace does not necessarily imply either sinlessness or perfection. Paul was saved by grace and he admits his own imperfections in his epistles quite clearly.

Not necessarily, no. However, when grace is completed in the Christian, he is “holy and blameless” according to Ephesians 1:4-6: in this passage, charitoo is used to describe Christians as ultimately becoming holy and blameless in God’s sight. This same word is the one used of Mary in Luke 1:28, where it is spoken of as a completed action. Thus at that point, Mary had already become, by God’s grace, “holy and blameless” in His sight, whereas the rest of us merely progress to that point, as to a goal.

This document, however, is wholly another matter. It supports the idea of a chain of grace (if you will) beginning with Ann, Mary’s mother. It tells us Ann was barren and the birth of Mary was an act of grace (in the tradition of Sarah and Rebekah).

It postulates a miracle child in Mary who began walking at six months old. Moreover, it directly references the preservation of Mary’s purity.

I would not consider such things “wholly …other matter”, but legitimate developments on the ideas already present in the Bible. But that’s a matter of interpretation.

If I compare Catholic Marian dogma with this book, it seems to match up quite nicely? This is why my curiosity.

It does indeed match up quite nicely. However, our faith does not stem from this book: it transcends it, and is merely witnessed by it. Our faith stems from the Word of the apostles alone – as transmitted to us both in Scripture, and in Tradition, particularly the Liturgies and the writings of the Fathers and other early Christians.

 

[sola_scriptura]

The angel greeted her with kecharitomene, which, as a perfect participle, refers to a past event that was completed – at the time of the Annunciation, in other words, Mary had already been completely under God’s grace.

Here’s some usages of this terminology:

John 1:14 says that Jesus was charitos, which literally means “full of grace.”

Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means “one who has been graced” or “woman who has been graced” (since the gender is female). It doesn’t literally mean “full of grace,” though that is defensible as a free translation.

κεχαριτωμενη verb - perfect passive participle - nominative singular feminine

charitoo khar-ee-to’-o: to grace, i.e. indue with special honor – make accepted, be highly favoured.

Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as charitos, so again it’s literally “full of grace” and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.

Since she had been graced before the Annunciation, it cannot have been “limited to the period between the annunciation and birth of Christ”.

I agree here.

Not necessarily, no. However, when grace is completed in the Christian, he is “holy and blameless” according to Ephesians 1:4-6: in this passage, charitoo is used to describe Christians as ultimately becoming holy and blameless in God’s sight.

However, this clearly does not mean sinless, rather it means our sins are not counted against us. So here I must disagree.

This same word is the one used of Mary in Luke 1:28, where it is spoken of as a completed action. Thus at that point, Mary had already become, by God’s grace, “holy and blameless” in His sight, whereas the rest of us merely progress to that point, as to a goal.

Again, same point as above. Holy & blameless “in His sight” (in other words God is not counting our sin against us – however, we’re still sinners). Indeed, as a reformed protestant I agree with the premise you mention. We were elected by eternal decree. Election is a past event, and is not ongoing. Therefore, yes in that sense Mary was always under grace.

However, here’s the distinction. We can say Paul was always under grace. For instance God decreed that Paul would be an Apostle to the gentiles from eternity. However, Paul was neither made aware of God’s choice nor was he anything close to perfect or sinless prior to his conversion on the road to Damascus. Indeed even after his conversion he remained a sinner.

We are never made perfect, we’re simply viewed as perfect by God. We can never be perfect while in the flesh. By grace through faith – it is not of ourselves.

I simply see nothing indicating Mary is any different in this regard.

In fact I think Paul hints at this in his use of the word “woman” in Galatians 4:4 when describing Mary. Here’s a section of an article on this issue I find persuasive:

*But why must He be made of a woman? why not of a man?—For the simple reason that to be made of a man would not bring Him close enough to mankind as mankind is, under sin. He was made of a woman in order that He might come, in the very uttermost, to where human nature is in its sinning.

In order to do this, He must be made of a woman, because the woman, not the man, was first and originally in the transgression. For “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” 1 Timothy 2:14.*

gospel-herald.com/a_t_jones/cwcp/cwcp_ch6.htm

And also:

*Christ was thus made of a woman in order that He might meet the great world of sin at its very fountain head of entrance into this world. To have been made otherwise than of a woman would have been to come short of this and so would have been only to miss completely the redemption of men from sin.

It was “the Seed of the woman” that was to bruise the serpent’s head; and it was only as “the seed of the woman” and “made of a woman” that He could meet the serpent on his own ground, at the very point of the entrance of sin into this world . . .

And this must He do to redeem lost mankind. For Him to be separated a single degree or a shadow of a single degree in any sense from the nature of those whom He came to redeem would be only to miss everything. (See Id.)*

 

[dmar198]

Here’s some usages of this terminology:

John 1:14 says that Jesus was charitos, which literally means “full of grace.”

Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means “one who has been graced” or “woman who has been graced” (since the gender is female). It doesn’t literally mean “full of grace,” though that is defensible as a free translation.

κεχαριτωμενη verb - perfect passive participle - nominative singular feminine

charitoo khar-ee-to’-o: to grace, i.e. indue with special honor – make accepted, be highly favoured.

Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as charitos, so again it’s literally “full of grace” and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.

I agree. I would emphasize what you said about “full of grace” being “defensible as a free translation” of kecharitomene.

Now consider that where this word, charito (in the verb) and charitos (as a noun), is used of Jesus and Mary, it treats of this as something inherent in both of them: Jesus is “full of grace” from all eternity (John 1:14), and Mary is “one having been highly graced” by divine epithet (Luke 1:28). But where it uses this word for Stephen, it is not inherent, but incidental: he was graced by God’s power, contextually, only insofar as he used this to inspire conversion among the gentiles. (I’m trying to be as exegetically helpful and reasonable as possible, as it is written: Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone; Colossians 4:6 NIV.)

Thus, just as Jesus enjoyed perfect holiness because of His eternal fullness of grace, so Mary enjoyed perfect holiness so long as she was completely under God’s grace. Luke 1:28 establishes that she had been in that state for some time; Catholics and Protestants merely disagree about the duration.

However, this [Ephesians 1:4-6] clearly does not mean sinless, rather it means our sins are not counted against us. So here I must disagree.

Ephesians 1:4-6 says: “For he * chose us in him * before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us [Gk: echaritosen] in the One he loves.” You say this clearly means that our sins are merely not counted against us, i.e. God looks through them to Christ. While I would agree in principle, your interpretation of this seems to make God pretentious: as though He pretends our sins are not there, whereas they truly are. This, however, is probably not what you mean: I think you will agree that Christians are actually and ontologically made to share in Christ’s holiness via a process (this is explained very profoundly in Hebrews 12:4-11, and is also mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3:18). We are not just considered righteous in spite of what we are, we are being changed so that we may ultimately reflect God’s glory perfectly, at the end of time. This, then, is the contextual backdrop of Ephesians 1:6 – it will ultimately be fulfilled “when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” (v. 10). That is when we will be truly be “holy and blameless in His sight”, for “without holiness no one will see the Lord” and “nothing impure will ever enter” Heaven. That is when God’s grace is completed in us.

This is why I think it is so important to note that the angel speaks of Mary as “having been highly graced”, the verb is in the perfect tense – i.e., God’s grace was already completed in her. She did not have to wait for the ultimate fulfillment of the end times, as Eph. 1 says the rest of us do. Since she already had God’s fullness of grace, she was sinless – holy and blameless – already, at the time of the Annunciation, and for some time before that.

We were elected by eternal decree. Election is a past event, and is not ongoing. Therefore, yes in that sense Mary was always under grace.

However, here’s the distinction. We can say Paul was always under grace. For instance God decreed that Paul would be an Apostle to the gentiles from eternity. However, Paul was neither made aware of God’s choice nor was he anything close to perfect or sinless prior to his conversion on the road to Damascus. Indeed even after his conversion he remained a sinner.

Agreement in principle is something we have in share. I would emphasize that in view of eternal election, Paul (and indeed all Christians) are under grace potentially before God brings about our salvation, and actually from thenceforth. But Scripture never speaks of being under grace from the potential standpoint, except (as mentioned) in Ephesians 1. Mary was under grace actually, not merely potentially, as per Luke 1:28, and I interpret this to mean that she was actually – not merely potentially – under grace from the moment of conception; but again, that’s a matter of interpretation.

We are never made perfect, we’re simply viewed as perfect by God. We can never be perfect while in the flesh. By grace through faith – it is not of ourselves.

This manifests the fundamental disagreement between Catholics and Protestants on the issue of justification – or more precisely, sanctification. Catholics believe that even now in the flesh, we are indeed called to perfect holiness, and it is not an impossibility. God declares us perfect before Him when we are justified, and because God’s word “shall not return unto me * void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11), it follows that when God thus declares us perfect, we actually become perfect. And though this perfection becomes tainted by sin, we begin anew every time through confession – for He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness, if we but confess our sins to Him!

I simply see nothing indicating Mary is any different in this regard.

• I understand. Perhaps with this post you will see why I do. It is because my understanding of sanctification differs from yours – and of course I consider mine the Biblical one.

In fact I think Paul hints at this in his use of the word “woman” in Galatians 4:4 when describing Mary. Here’s a section of an article on this issue I find persuasive:

*But why must He be made of a woman? why not of a man?—For the simple reason that to be made of a man would not bring Him close enough to mankind as mankind is, under sin. He was made of a woman in order that He might come, in the very uttermost, to where human nature is in its sinning.

In order to do this, He must be made of a woman, because the woman, not the man, was first and originally in the transgression. For “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” 1 Timothy 2:14.*

gospel-herald.com/a_t_jones/cwcp/cwcp_ch6.htm

And also:

*Christ was thus made of a woman in order that He might meet the great world of sin at its very fountain head of entrance into this world. To have been made otherwise than of a woman would have been to come short of this and so would have been only to miss completely the redemption of men from sin.

It was “the Seed of the woman” that was to bruise the serpent’s head; and it was only as “the seed of the woman” and “made of a woman” that He could meet the serpent on his own ground, at the very point of the entrance of sin into this world . . .

And this must He do to redeem lost mankind. For Him to be separated a single degree or a shadow of a single degree in any sense from the nature of those whom He came to redeem would be only to miss everything. (See Id.)* This is very beautiful and true exegesis of Paul’s writings. Jesus was “born of a woman” (Mary) to fulfill the fact that sin had its beginning in woman. But then consider this: Jesus fulfilled this in such a way that He turned it on its head, manifested by the fact of His sinlessness in spite of the First Adam’s sinfulness. The same sin spiritually conceived in Eve by the Devil’s prompt, was destroyed in Mary by Jesus’ conception from the Holy Spirit.

Catholics see in this that, just as Eve produced via Adam the sinful human nature, this sinful human nature must have been destroyed in Mary via the Last Adam, Christ our Lord! This indeed is what we mean when we say that Mary was immaculately conceived! For “the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin”! Amen! Thank you for pointing this out to me, Sola Scriptura! I had not discerned this in Paul’s letter until I discovered it by the prompt of that exegesis you gave! You are most enlightening!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!*

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Keep in mind these statements were copied from Wikipedia (verbatim) & they are not my own. However, I have had enough interest in this to find this document online & read it (it’s short, only seven printed pages).

I’m very familiar with the document and the literature on it. The Wikipedia article is accurate.

IMO the Gospel of Luke does not support Mariology to the extent this document does (in fact for any who read this text so much is clear, it tells the story of Ann, the mother of Mary, it discusses the childhood of Mary, it talks about Joseph in detail, and so forth). The few passages from Luke (i.e. Hail Mary full of grace) only supports the idea that Mary was under divine grace, nothing more nothing less. Additionally, it leaves unanswered the duration of this grace (whether it existed since birth and continued throughout Mary’s life; or whether it was limited to the period between the annunciation and birth of Christ).

Define FULL.

Moreover, grace does not necessarily imply either sinlessness or perfection. Paul was saved by grace and he admits his own imperfections in his epistles quite clearly.

True.

This document, however, is wholly another matter. It supports the idea of a chain of grace (if you will) beginning with Ann, Mary’s mother. It tells us Ann was barren and the birth of Mary was an act of grace (in the tradition of Sarah and Rebekah).

Salvation History is one of choices and covenants, from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Judah to David to Christ. Is this shocking?

It postulates a miracle child in Mary who began walking at six months old. Moreover, it directly references the preservation of Mary’s purity.

OK

If I compare Catholic Marian dogma with this book, it seems to match up quite nicely?

So? Are you rejecting it because they match?

This is why my curiosity.

OK.

And btw you’re welcome, words like Mariolatry are not in my vocabulary. I enjoy scholarly debate, learning and teaching, not mud slinging.

Yes, you can get into a scholarly scrap without the name calling.

 

[sola_scriptura]

This manifests the fundamental disagreement between Catholics and Protestants on the issue of justification – or more precisely, sanctification. Catholics believe that even now in the flesh, we are indeed called to perfect holiness, and it is not an impossibility. God declares us perfect before Him when we are justified, and because God’s word “shall not return unto me * void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11), it follows that when God thus declares us perfect, we actually become perfect. And though this perfection becomes tainted by sin, we begin anew every time through confession – for He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness, if we but confess our sins to Him! *

I would say that this difference exists within Protestantism as well (for instance between Calvinism and Arminianism); although there are differences between even the Catholic and Arminian/Wesleyan views (i.e. the views held by the Remonstrants). Nevertheless I would offer this commentary as an illustration of my own view:

Romans 7 (Geneva Bible Study):

*7:24 14 O d wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

(14) It is a miserable thing to be yet in part subject to sin, which of its own nature makes us guilty of death: but we must cry to the Lord, who will by death itself at length make us conquerors, as we are already conquerors in Christ.
(d) Wearied with miserable and continual conflicts.

7:25 I e thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I f myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

(e) He recovers himself, and shows us that he rests only in Christ.
(f) This is the true perfection of those that are born again, to confess that they are imperfect. *

This is a little easier to read than Calvin’s commentary on 7:24-25, but makes the same point. The idea that we can excel in our flesh, or the idea that worldly purity is attainable while we reside in the flesh, is cast aside by Paul.

This is very beautiful and true exegesis of Paul’s writings. Jesus was “born of a woman” (Mary) to fulfill the fact that sin had its beginning in woman. But then consider this: Jesus fulfilled this in such a way that He turned it on its head, manifested by the fact of His sinlessness in spite of the First Adam’s sinfulness. The same sin spiritually conceived in Eve by the Devil’s prompt, was destroyed in Mary by Jesus’ conception from the Holy Spirit.