How old was Mary when she gave birth to Christ?
- Christian Scriptures
- 31 Replies
Protestants (including me) usually are very, very reluctant to take into account anything extra-Biblical from the Apostolic or post-Apostolic era when it comes to the Bible or the early church history, but this position is inconsistent. Protestants assume Julius Caesar, Napoleon, St. Augustine existed - they usually attribute some degree of credibility to the various accounts about their lives - but somehow when it comes to the Apostolic and early church era all of a sudden all historical record in its entirety is disregarded because it's not the BibleI would say that there is no reason either to dismiss or to believe extra-biblical details about people or events mentioned in the bible. Particularly with the biblical account of the Incarnation, we find all sorts of "details" added, and accepted as an essential part of the "Christmas story." The donkey, an innkeeper, the wise men visiting Jesus at the same time as the shepherds, and much more. Some of these things actually contradict what we find in the bible, and others, we just do not know.
I would suggest to read e.g. 'History of the Church' by Eusebius (4th century) - the author was present at the famous Council of Nicea; and writes about all kind of fascinating details. We have to treat the history of the Apostolic early church era like any other historical period. Evaluate the sources using the common historian methods - and try to derive history from that with varying degrees of certainty.
The Apostles shared their accounts with others, what happened got passed on, etc. All that may not be canonised certainty but it's still very valuable.
We need historical realism for the early church era in the same way we apply it to any other historical period. It's a typical post-Reformation reflex to dismiss any extra Biblical record, but the Apostles and the early church left a historical trail of oral or written accounts. We need discernment in properly dealing with that. But the trail and the history it reflects on is real. Also we may overlook the early church fathers had access to information/libraries we now don't have anymore (e.g. Jerome mentions he personally had seen the Hebrew original version of the gospel of Matthew)
The very early church fathers who defined the Creeds didn't live in a vacuum - they lived in that trail. It's intriguing to notice that orthodox Protestant churches will vigorously defend the Creeds and Sola Scripture at the same time ... but also rejecting the worldview and many aspects of the faith of the authors of these Creeds. Many modern Protestants would deem the authors of the Creeds to be Catholic heretics, but yet somehow magically believe the resulting Creeds are infallible hallmarks of the proper faith.
We need realism, discernment and modesty - and a weighed valuation of the historical church trail.
To come back to the original subject; the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century AD) contains elements on Mary & Joseph that are referenced and valued by various church fathers. I consider it valuable background information - it's not canon, not infallible, but it may contain elements of that historical trail. Btw I don't believe in Mary's perpetual virginity as it would be very inconsistent with Jewish marriage, but the account may have truthful bits.
Be blessed brother!
Upvote
0