The protoevangelium of James

[james_neville]

Hi I have always thought that the protoevangelium of James was a credible source for the perpetual virginity of Mary. However in Pope Benedict’s book the infancy narrative, he says that it is very much a hard concept to consider given that vows of virginity were not Common with judaism at that time and that it would be very unrealistic that mary was given a protector Joseph. He is not alone in his historical opinions.

My other concern is that there are certain parts of this document which would seem to contradict parts of the Bible, so why isn’t it considered like the gospel of Mary and Thomas as gnostic Gospel?

My other concern is that our church tradition, if taken largely off this document, would be based on a non-credible document.

So my question is, how would we defend the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity given the debatable reliability of this source?

 

[thistle]

Hi I have always thought that the protoevangelium of James was a credible source for the perpetual virginity of Mary. However in Pope Benedict’s book the infancy narrative, he says that it is very much a hard concept to consider given that vows of virginity were not Common with judaism at that time and that it would be very unrealistic that mary was given a protector Joseph. He is not alone in his historical opinions.

My other concern is that there are certain parts of this document which would seem to contradict parts of the Bible, so why isn’t it considered like the gospel of Mary and Thomas as gnostic Gospel?

My other concern is that our church tradition, if taken largely off this document, would be based on a non-credible document.

So my question is, how would we defend the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity given the debatable reliability of this source?

The Church does not accept the Protoevangelium of James as an inspired writing and it is not used by the Church to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[DavidFilmer]

So my question is, how would we defend the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity given the debatable reliability of this source?

Why do you think that the Church’s teaching is (in any way) related to this source?

Paul and Silas were pestered by a demonically-possessed fortune-teller who proclaimed, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” [Acts 16:17]. Yes, the woman spoke the truth (for her own reasons), but nobody says that her word was the basis of the Apostolic teaching.

This fortune-teller was no more the source of Paul’s teaching than the protoevangelium is the source of the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth. Proclaiming a truth does not make you the source of that truth.

 

[james_neville]

The Church does not accept the Protoevangelium of James as an inspired writing and it is not used by the Church to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Catholic answers has used it in talking bout her virginity.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Catholic answers has used it in talking bout her virginity.

As a newcomer to CA, this raises a question in my mind. Does CA monitor everything that is posted here and bring the discussion into conformity with Church teaching? Given the sheer number of posts, it would seem a near impossible task. Also, is there way to decipher when CA staff is speaking, and when the general membership is speaking? It occurs to me that all the necessary guidance is written in the rules of the forum, but I’ll leave my questions here as I look for the answers on my own.

 

[patrick457]

Catholic answers has used it in talking bout her virginity.

Yes, but only in the extent to show that the belief in Mary’s virginity was something already known to Christians by the time the author was writing the Protoevangelium (probably around the 2nd-3rd century). It is not tantamount to “this work is totally historically accurate/is canonical.”