ages of Mary and Joseph?

[Uphill Battle]

jump on, sneer, jump off.

thanks for the visit.

 

[Thekla]

secondarily, you would think that God, who is truth, there is no lie in him, no untruth could pass his lips or be in his scriptural record, would condone a lie as a method of transmitting his truth?

what should be done, then, with the book of Revelation ?

 

[Uphill Battle]

what about it?

 

[narnia59]

you do realize that the "tradition" of not thinking of Joseph as a doddering octegenarian, would be because it's not the norm?

it's less about traditon, and more about common extrapolation.

If a text says "such and such married such and such" the first assumption would be that they were of relatively marriagable age, and much closer in age.

the Old man young woman scenario would be an abberation, not a matter of course.

When people read Scripture and apply the "norm" or the "common extrapolation", it is reading from their personal tradition. While that is quite understandable, one must at least be honest in recognizing this is what is occuring. And then, when presented with an alternative that does not meet the 'norm' of their personal experience, it is important to be able to admit it is certainly a plausible alternative which does not contradict what is known from Scripture, as opposed to elevating their default assumption which is rooted in their personal tradition to somehow be more accurate or plausible.

Aside from that, what about the Incarnation itself was a 'matter of course'? Why is it reasonable to apply that as a standard for anything surrounding it? Why would one assume anything of the "norm" would be applicable to a once in eternity event?

 

[narnia59]

what about it?

I must admit, she has tweaked my curiosity as well.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When people read Scripture and apply the "norm" or the "common extrapolation", it is reading from their personal tradition. While that is quite understandable, one must at least be honest in recognizing this is what is occuring.

I agree....

Of course, the RCC insists that such is a good thing - as long as it is the RCC (alone) interjecting it's own thoughts (alone) into the text.

I think it's probably neither good or bad, but we need to realize that it's OUR "stuff" being interjected - and not confuse it with the text itself. But then I'm now Protestant.



IF I understand your position, you are stating that their ages are not revealed in Scripture but that there is old tradition that Scripture does not contradict. IF I understand your perspective, I'm in agreement. You and I are likely giving that variant significance, but I don't disagree.





.

 

[narnia59]

I agree....

Of course, the RCC insists that such is a good thing - as long as it is the RCC (alone) interjecting it's own thoughts (alone) into the text.

Actually the Catholic church has no doctrine around the ages of Mary and Joseph; simply that Mary remained a virgin. Information in the Protoevangelium is seen as 'tradition' as opposed to "Sacred Tradition". What you consider to be the Catholic church's "own thoughts" we see to be Sacred Tradition. Thus the view expressed here is your own and not an accurate portrayal of what the Catholic church "insists" and shouldn't really be expressed in those terms, but rather as your own view.

I think it's probably neither good or bad, but we need to realize that it's OUR "stuff" being interjected - and not confuse it with the text itself. But then I'm now Protestant.

As long as everybody realizes what their own "stuff" is and its source, which is quite often not the case. As a Catholic I am perfectly within my belief system to read Scripture within the light of our Sacred Tradition. Therefore I can read certain verses in such a way that bring that more into focus. Those who claim Scripture alone have no such leeway within their belief system.

IF I understand your position, you are stating that their ages are not revealed in Scripture but that there is old tradition that Scripture does not contradict. IF I understand your perspective, I'm in agreement. You and I are likely giving that variant significance, but I don't disagree.

In terms of the Protoevangelium I'm not even sure we give it variant significance. My belief in the ever-virginity of Mary is not based upon that document, but rather rests on the church council which defined it as true. Your first statement is correct -- my position is that there is an ancient apocryphal document that gives their ages that Scripture does not contradict. If people wish to state that those ages are "false" the burden of proof then becomes theirs to prove that. If they wish to hold the opinion that we do not know -- fair enough. If they wish to state that their ages are not recorded anywhere, well, frankly that is false. If they wish to state that Scripture does not record their ages -- quite true.

 

[Thekla]

what about it?

Both recent scholarship and "tradition" attest that Revelation was not actually recorded by John - (St. Prochorus has long been identified as John's disciple and scribe, who recorded the information, yet the book identifies John as its author/writer).

As I indicated earlier (as did Narnia) attestation in earlier times is to the one who originates the information , not the writer of the information. If one is to hold that this practice is not of God, should the book of Revelation be included in scripture ?

 

[Hentenza]

Both recent scholarship and "tradition" attest that Revelation was not actually recorded by John - (St. Prochorus has long been identified as John's disciple and scribe, who recorded the information, yet the book identifies John as its author/writer).

As I indicated earlier (as did Narnia) attestation in earlier times is to the one who originates the information , not the writer of the information. If one is to hold that this practice is not of God, should the book of Revelation be included in scripture ?

Sure because Revelation was written within the life of John. The book also claims authorship by John. The infancy gospel of James on the other hand was written in the middle of the second century, 100 years after the death of James. I find it interesting that it actually claims authorship by James but that is quite impossible. Mmmmm........

 

[Thekla]

Sure because Revelation was written within the life of John. The book also claims authorship by John. The infancy gospel of James on the other hand was written in the middle of the second century, 100 years after the death of James. Mmmmm........

and Plato wrote after the death of Socrates, yet the teachings of Socrates that he wrote of are still ascribed to Socrates (Socratic method, etc) though Socrates wrote nothing.

Information that is passed then recorded is still ascribed to the origin.

 

[Hentenza]

and Plato wrote after the death of Socrates, yet the teachings of Socrates that he wrote of are still ascribed to Socrates (Socratic method, etc) though Socrates wrote nothing.

Information that is passed then recorded is still ascribed to the origin.

Not according to Origen. Also, the later the time from event to print the more the possibilities exist that it is folklore. The fact that the book was written 100 years after the event certainly casts doubt of its authenticity.

 

[Thekla]

Not according to Origen. Also, the later the time from event to print the more the possibilities exist that it is folklore. The fact that the book was written 100 years after the event certainly casts doubt of its authenticity.

poor Origen

In pre-literate culture (and continuing past the age of literacy in some cultures) the retelling, experientially, conferred the experiencing to the listener as participant in the events (witnessing).

 

[Hentenza]

poor Origen

In pre-literate culture (and continuing past the age of literacy in some cultures) the retelling, experientially, conferred the experiencing to the listener as participant in the events (witnessing).

Yes, in literary jargon that is called folktale.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, in literary jargon that is called folktale.

As a former lit major, I must disagree.

It can be argued that, in line with a sense of honor, the anonymous author was refusing to ascribe to himself the experience of another -- he was attesting that this information was attested to and experienced by another.

We may, in this age, view this as 'folklore', yet (iirc) the Haudenosaunee long-count (orally passed) has been found to accurately recall a solar eclipse occurring hundreds of years earlier.

 

[Hentenza]

As a former lit major, I must disagree.

It can be argued that, in line with a sense of honor, the anonymous author was refusing to ascribe to himself the experience of another -- he was attesting that this information was attested to and experienced by another.

We may, in this age, view this as 'folklore', yet (iirc) the Haudenosaunee long-count (orally passed) has been found to accurately recall a solar eclipse occurring hundreds of years earlier.

LOL!!! You made me brake out the google search.

The thing was that these indians actually used a system of shells and shell beads and then arranged them in belts representing different events so it wasn't all just oral. Thanks for bringing that up. That was interesting.

 

[narnia59]

Sure because Revelation was written within the life of John. The book also claims authorship by John. The infancy gospel of James on the other hand was written in the middle of the second century, 100 years after the death of James. I find it interesting that it actually claims authorship by James but that is quite impossible. Mmmmm........

I think your point regarding the Protoevangelium is the basis for its rejection from the canon of Scripture. There is not a record of its being rejected because it was believed it contained heresy.

And while by your standard Revelation may qualify as valid for the canon because it was written during the life of John even though it's doubtful John actually authored it, it does not meet the standard that Uphill Battle has set to qualify as being true.

 

[Thekla]

LOL!!! You made me brake out the google search.

The thing was that these indians actually used a system of shells and shell beads and then arranged them in belts representing different events so it wasn't all just oral. Thanks for bringing that up. That was interesting.

Wampum are mnemonic devices; the repetitive portions of Homer (deity attributions, etc) are also perhaps another example. Oral cultures utilize a variety of mnemonics to assist in accurate recall. In this instance, they seem to work

(an interesting aside - the Psalms include numerous repetitive verses; music/melody can also be utilized as a mnemonic )

 

[Hentenza]

Wampum are mnemonic devices; the repetitive portions of Homer (deity attributions, etc) are also perhaps another example. Oral cultures utilize a variety of mnemonics to assist in accurate recall. In this instance, they seem to work

(an interesting aside - the Psalms include numerous repetitive verses; music/melody can also be utilized as a mnemonic )

I should have paid more attention in my Lit courses in college.

 

[narnia59]

I should have paid more attention in my Lit courses in college.

Isn't she a marvel.

 

[Hentenza]

I think your point regarding the Protoevangelium is the basis for its rejection from the canon of Scripture. There is not a record of its being rejected because it was believed it contained heresy.

I agree. It does not contain heresy.

And while by your standard Revelation may qualify as valid for the canon because it was written during the life of John even though it's doubtful John actually authored it, it does not meet the standard that Uphill Battle has set to qualify as being true.

The scholar consensus is that John probably did write Revelation sometime between 69ad and 95ad. John claims authorship and also the author claims that he was in exile in Patmos. The evidence is strong that the apostle John did indeed write it.