Validity of the Protoevangelium of James

  • Thread starter Thread starter katholikos12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

katholikos12

Guest
What is the validity of the Proto of James? It is not canonical, but I do not hear or see many Catholics using it in defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is the writing spurious altogether, hence the lack of usage? It seems to be a great explanation of her perpetual Virginity and why Joseph is not around at Christ’s crucifixion since he was so much older and likely perished.
 
katholikos12 said:
What is the validity of the Proto of James? It is not canonical, but I do not hear or see many Catholics using it in defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is the writing spurious altogether, hence the lack of usage? It seems to be a great explanation of her perpetual Virginity and why Joseph is not around at Christ’s crucifixion since he was so much older and likely perished.
Click to expand...
I am going to look into this ,

Welcome home glad your joining this Easter! :harp:
 
I would venture a guess that it is because that since it isn’t held as sacred scripture, even among us Catholics, that it doesn’t hold any water for those who hold tightly to the concept of using the bible alone.
 
katholikos12 said:
What is the validity of the Proto of James? It is not canonical, but I do not hear or see many Catholics using it in defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is the writing spurious altogether, hence the lack of usage? It seems to be a great explanation of her perpetual Virginity and why Joseph is not around at Christ’s crucifixion since he was so much older and likely perished.
Click to expand...
Here’s the problem :

And they said to the high priest: You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto you, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be.

Zacharias was never high priest.

No early father even mentions it until Origin.
 
katholikos12 said:
What is the validity of the Proto of James? It is not canonical, but I do not hear or see many Catholics using it in defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is the writing spurious altogether, hence the lack of usage? It seems to be a great explanation of her perpetual Virginity and why Joseph is not around at Christ’s crucifixion since he was so much older and likely perished.
Click to expand...
I can’t remember which book of the Pope’s I was reading at the time - think it was The Apostles - since it is fresh on my mind. But he did reference it because he was using a lot of extant work to gather information on the Apostles for his homilies. If I remember correctly, he said something like “while it isn’t inspired it’s good for gleaning bits and pieces…” meaning “don’t read too much into it.”

To me though, it would not be good for arguing our position on Mary or Joseph for two reasons: A) It’s not inspired B) Most Protestants wouldn’t accept it as a proof text or allow it in the discussion anyway.
 
So the dedication of Mary to the temple as a virgin is likely not true?
 
The tradition for it is very very strong.

A vow of virginity is the only way to explain why when the angel tells her she will soon conceive, the married Mary said, “How? I’m not currently having sex?”

She automatically assumed that she WASN’T supposed to sleep with her husband.

That’s really odd unless she took a vow of virginity.
 
The Protoevangelium is the widest circulated book of pre-canon NT “Scripture”. To this date we have recovered more copies of this than even the 4 canonical Gospels. One thing is for sure, most of the contents of the Protoevangelium has been popular among the Early Churches, and has been widely accepted. Ultimately there were some doubts to some of what is contained in the work and it was stricken from canon. But it doesn’t meant that all of it is false. A lot of the traditions we hold to this day is found in the Protoevangelium, a few off the top of my head:
  1. The names of the parents of Mary
  2. The Feast of the Entrance of Mary to the Temple (a Great Feast in the Byzantine Rite, a lesser feast in the Latin Rite but it still is celebrated on the same day)
  3. The birth of Jesus in a cave (the image was superceded eventually by St. Francis of Assisi’s Nativity Scene in the West, though Eastern icons still always depict the birth in a cave)
 
=katholikos12;10141720]What is the validity of the Proto of James? It is not canonical, but I do not hear or see many Catholics using it in defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is the writing spurious altogether, hence the lack of usage? It seems to be a great explanation of her perpetual Virginity and why Joseph is not around at Christ’s crucifixion since he was so much older and likely perished.
Click to expand...
NOT in THEE catholic Bible = avoid it!🙂
 
katholikos12 said:
What is the validity of the Proto of James? It is not canonical, but I do not hear or see many Catholics using it in defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is the writing spurious altogether, hence the lack of usage? It seems to be a great explanation of her perpetual Virginity and why Joseph is not around at Christ’s crucifixion since he was so much older and likely perished.
Click to expand...
The Church does not consider it to be Apostolic/inspired.
Its interesting reading but never quoted by the Church.
 
I believe it is a valuable historical work.

We may say, accurately, that the perpetual virginity of Mary was not some “made up invention” in so-and-so century, that some Protestant circles may attest, but a doctrine that was believed in the first century itself.
 
It may contain some oral traditions that were in the early Church. It could also be the equivalent of one of those novelized versions of the life of Jesus, in that it fed the hunger of the early Church to learn more about Christ, with some information made up by the author for dramatic effect and some he may have heard circulating around the early Church. Not considered canonical or worthy of inclusion as scripture, though.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
It may contain some oral traditions that were in the early Church. It could also be the equivalent of one of those novelized versions of the life of Jesus, in that it fed the hunger of the early Church to learn more about Christ, with some information made up by the author for dramatic effect and some he may have heard circulating around the early Church. Not considered canonical or worthy of inclusion as scripture, though.
Click to expand...
Arizona_Mike said:
Pope Benedict says there was no such tradition in Judaic life.
Click to expand...
The problem here is we are treating the Bible as some historical document meant to state the events on a factual basis like a CNN report today complete with video and commentary. That is not the case. It was a different time and place, a different culture. There are many inconsistencies in the Bible, that is a fact. But the Bible was never written to be a history book, rather it is a witness to the Word of God becoming flesh to save mankind from sin and death.

I love the fact that in the Byzantine Rite, the Entrance of the Theotokos to the Temple is a Great Feast. Every year we are reminded that even though the story may not be absolutely true, the whole point of the Bible is to point us to the Truth. As Fr. John Behr said in a podcast I just listened this evening, the point of Scripture is that we come in reading it with an assumption, and that assumption is that Jesus Christ is Truth. If we’re trying to analyze the words of Scripture hoping it would prove itself to us to be factual, then we will be disappointed. Moreover, that is not the intention why the Church came up with the Bible. So don’t look at the Bible or other Church traditions and try to base their merit on historical fact. Rather, look at the Tradition and appreciate what is related by the Tradition to us and what it teaches about our faith.
 
Dorothy said:
Although the Protoevangelium did not make it into the canon of the Church, that doesn’t mean there isn’t any truth in it.
Click to expand...
That could be said. However, because it is not considered inspired and the Church does not quote from it we cannot say what is true or not in that document. Speculating is a waste of time.
 
thistle said:
That could be said. However, because it is not considered inspired and the Church does not quote from it we cannot say what is true or not in that document. Speculating is a waste of time.
Click to expand...
The Church does not quote from it? What do you think the Church celebrates on November 21?

americancatholic.org/Features/Saints/saint.aspx?id=1206

Mary’s presentation was celebrated in Jerusalem in the sixth century. A church was built there in honor of this mystery. The Eastern Church was more interested in the feast, but it does appear in the West in the 11th century. Although the feast at times disappeared from the calendar, in the 16th century it became a feast of the universal Church.
As with Mary’s birth, we read of Mary’s presentation in the temple only in apocryphal literature. In what is recognized as an unhistorical account, the Protoevangelium of James tells us that Anna and Joachim offered Mary to God in the Temple when she was three years old. This was to carry out a promise made to God when Anna was still childless.

Though it cannot be proven historically, Mary’s presentation has an important theological purpose. It continues the impact of the feasts of the Immaculate Conception and of the birth of Mary. It emphasizes that the holiness conferred on Mary from the beginning of her life on earth continued through her early childhood and beyond.

Comment:

It is sometimes difficult for modern Westerners to appreciate a feast like this. The Eastern Church, however, was quite open to this feast and even somewhat insistent about celebrating it. Even though the feast has no basis in history, it stresses an important truth about Mary: From the beginning of her life, she was dedicated to God. She herself became a greater temple than any made by hands. God came to dwell in her in a marvelous manner and sanctified her for her unique role in God’s saving work. At the same time, the magnificence of Mary enriches her children. They, too, are temples of God and sanctified in order that they might enjoy and share in God’s saving work.

Quote:

“Hail, holy throne of God, divine sanctuary, house of glory, jewel most fair, chosen treasure house, and mercy seat for the whole world, heaven showing forth the glory of God. Purest Virgin, worthy of all praise, sanctuary dedicated to God and raised above all human condition, virgin soil, unplowed field, flourishing vine, fountain pouring out waters, virgin bearing a child, mother without knowing man, hidden treasure of innocence, ornament of sanctity, by your most acceptable prayers, strong with the authority of motherhood, to our Lord and God, Creator of all, your Son who was born of you without a father, steer the ship of the Church and bring it to a quiet harbor” (adapted from a homily by St. Germanus on the Presentation of the Mother of God).
 
ConstantineTG said:
The Church does not quote from it? What do you think the Church celebrates on November 21?

americancatholic.org/Features/Saints/saint.aspx?id=1206

Mary’s presentation was celebrated in Jerusalem in the sixth century. A church was built there in honor of this mystery. The Eastern Church was more interested in the feast, but it does appear in the West in the 11th century. Although the feast at times disappeared from the calendar, in the 16th century it became a feast of the universal Church.
As with Mary’s birth, we read of Mary’s presentation in the temple only in apocryphal literature. In what is recognized as an unhistorical account, the Protoevangelium of James tells us that Anna and Joachim offered Mary to God in the Temple when she was three years old. This was to carry out a promise made to God when Anna was still childless.

Though it cannot be proven historically, Mary’s presentation has an important theological purpose. It continues the impact of the feasts of the Immaculate Conception and of the birth of Mary. It emphasizes that the holiness conferred on Mary from the beginning of her life on earth continued through her early childhood and beyond.

Comment:

It is sometimes difficult for modern Westerners to appreciate a feast like this. The Eastern Church, however, was quite open to this feast and even somewhat insistent about celebrating it. Even though the feast has no basis in history, it stresses an important truth about Mary: From the beginning of her life, she was dedicated to God. She herself became a greater temple than any made by hands. God came to dwell in her in a marvelous manner and sanctified her for her unique role in God’s saving work. At the same time, the magnificence of Mary enriches her children. They, too, are temples of God and sanctified in order that they might enjoy and share in God’s saving work.

Quote:

“Hail, holy throne of God, divine sanctuary, house of glory, jewel most fair, chosen treasure house, and mercy seat for the whole world, heaven showing forth the glory of God. Purest Virgin, worthy of all praise, sanctuary dedicated to God and raised above all human condition, virgin soil, unplowed field, flourishing vine, fountain pouring out waters, virgin bearing a child, mother without knowing man, hidden treasure of innocence, ornament of sanctity, by your most acceptable prayers, strong with the authority of motherhood, to our Lord and God, Creator of all, your Son who was born of you without a father, steer the ship of the Church and bring it to a quiet harbor” (adapted from a homily by St. Germanus on the Presentation of the Mother of God).
Click to expand...
Are you talking about Eastern Catholic Churches which are in union with Rome or the schismatic Eastern Orthodox?
 
thistle said:
Are you talking about Eastern Catholic Churches which are in union with Rome or the schismatic Eastern Orthodox?
Click to expand...
Did you read the link? That is a feast in the Roman Catholic Church. I’m not even talking about the Eastern Churches. But since you brought it yup anyway, the Eastern Catholic Churches and the valid and true Apostolic Orthodox Churches celebrate the feast equally as a Great Feast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top