Protoevangelium of James

[JacktheCatholic]

Let's discuss the Protoevangelium of James.

Link: CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James

Or use your own copy. But if you do please provide a link if you have one.

Let us discuss it's importance and what it has to say and it's value for learning.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In the records of the twelve tribes of Israel was Joachim, a man rich exceedingly; and he brought his offerings double, saying: There shall be of my superabundance to all the people, and there shall be the offering for my forgiveness to the Lord for a propitiation for me. For the great day of the Lord was at hand, and the sons of Israel were bringing their offerings. And there stood over against him Rubim, saying: It is not meet for you first to bring your offerings, because you have not made seed in Israel. And Joachim was exceedingly grieved, and went away to the registers of the twelve tribes of the people, saying: I shall see the registers of the twelve tribes of Israel, as to whether I alone have not made seed in Israel. And he searched, and found that all the righteous had raised up seed in Israel. And he called to mind the patriarch Abraham, that in the last day God gave him a son Isaac. And Joachim was exceedingly grieved, and did not come into the presence of his wife; but he retired to the desert, and there pitched his tent, and fasted forty days and forty nights, saying in himself: I will not go down either for food or for drink until the Lord my God shall look upon me, and prayer shall be my food and drink.

I show this dates to 150 AD.

This first part comparing Mary's parents Abraham because his they have no child. Sound about right?


I think this writing was popular for many Christians and up until the 4th or 5th century found it's use quite often, even at the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Mr Dave]

I read it for the first time about a month ago, and the thing that struck me (well one of them anyway) was the similarity to Hannah in 1 Samuel (even though as you point out, the links made in the text are with Abraham), desperation to have a child, promising to give the child to the temple (7:1, "Now we should take her to the temple of the Lord, to fulfill the promise we made" 1 Sam 1:28 "Therefore I have lent him to the Lord; as long as he lives, he is given to the Lord") and the song of Joy upon God's favour (1 Sam 2:1-10 and PeJas 6:3 "I sing a holy song to the Lord...")


(I'm using the translation in Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books that did not make it into the New Testament)

 

[buzuxi02]

Keep in mind that this was not the only infancy gospel in existence at 150 a.d. Origen makes mention of the gospel of Peter which was similar to PJ. Today the apocryphal gospel of Peter is known for an unearthed fragment about the burial and ressurection, so modern scholars usually label it a passion gospel.

Another aspect of PJ is the descendant of Mary's parents from the seed of David. Today we usually believe Jesus is of the seed of David thru adoption by Joseph. But Justin Martyr who was a contemporary of PJ and even Ignatius of Antioch also claims Mary was of the seed of David.
With this in mind, it actually throws in a new monkey wrench as to whether Paul believed Jesus was of David 'according to the flesh' due to Joseph or from His Mother.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The part where Mary's mother is to have a child though she is barren and she offers the child up:

And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by, saying: Anna, Anna, the Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive, and shall bring forth; and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world. And Anna said: As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God; and it shall minister to Him in holy things all the days of its life.

Could this have anything to do with the story that Mary made a vow to never know a man?

 

[simonthezealot]

"The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognized by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by Catholics:" - Gelasian Decree, Chapter 5

Aquinas called them "apocryphal ravings."

and

From Jan Wakelin the director of Catholic Answers Radio..
in response to the question...
"How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?":
"We don't."
​

 

[JacktheCatholic]

"The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognized by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by Catholics:" - Gelasian Decree, Chapter 5​

Aquinas called them "apocryphal ravings."​

and​

From Jan Wakelin the director of Catholic Answers Radio..
in response to the question...
"How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?":
"We don't."​

Yes, it is aprocryphal.

But it still shows something taught in those days.

 

[simonthezealot]

"The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognized by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by Catholics:" - Gelasian Decree, Chapter 5

Aquinas called them "apocryphal ravings."

and

From Jan Wakelin the director of Catholic Answers Radio..
in response to the question...
"How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?":
"We don't."
​

SPECIAL NOTE:See what the warning at the end of the list of books says about these books...Then consider whether you should be even perusing this stuff as a catholic JACK.

here...
we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

SPECIAL NOTE:See what the warning at the end of the list of books says about these books...Then consider whether you should be even perusing this stuff as a catholic JACK.

here...
we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.

Gotta study this stuff. I am sure Aquinas did too.




What are your thoughts?

 

[simonthezealot]

Gotta study this stuff. I am sure Aquinas did too.




What are your thoughts?

Fake garbage trash! the work of none other than the deceiver and adversary himself.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Fake garbage trash! the work of none other than the deceiver and adversary himself.

We are not in Heaven and Satan is free to roam about with all the other demons in this world. Until you and I get to Heaven we will have to live in the trash, so to speak. But even the trash has some good.

For me this is a study of two kinds. One is to understand this book and also to know how it fits with Catholic teachings.

Here, I have a post next that will help explain a little.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

From the Vatican website:

After the Council of Ephesus, churches began to be dedicated to Mary and feasts in her honour began to be celebrated on particular days in these churches. Prompted by popular piety and gradually adopted by local churches, feasts celebrating Mary’s conception (December 8/9), birth (September 8), presentation (November 21), and dormition (August 15) mirrored the liturgical commemorations of events in the life of the Lord. They drew both on the canonical Scriptures and also on apocryphal accounts of Mary’s early life and her ‘falling asleep’. A feast of the conception of Mary can be dated in the East to the late seventh century, and was introduced into the Western church through southern England in the early eleventh century. It drew on popular devotion expressed in the second-century Protoevangelium of James, and paralleled the dominical feast of the Annunciation and the existing feast of the conception of John the Baptist. The feast of Mary’s ‘falling asleep’ dates from the end of the sixth century, but was influenced by legendary narratives of the end of Mary’s life already widely in circulation. In the West, the most influential of them are the Transitus Mariae. In the East the feast was known as the ‘dormition’, which implied her death but did not exclude her being taken into heaven. In the West the term used was ‘assumption’,which emphasized her being taken into heaven but did not exclude the possibility of her dying. Belief in her assumption was grounded in the promise of the resurrection of the dead and the recognition of Mary’s dignity as Theotókos and ‘Ever Virgin’, coupled with the conviction that she who had borne Life should be associated to her Son’s victory over death, and with the glorification of his Body, the Church.

Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ


Though this this apocrypha it is still part of Christian history and reflects some accepted traditions. Kind of like not throwing the baby out with the diaper.

 

[simonthezealot]

From the Vatican website:



Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ


Though this this apocrypha it is still part of Christian history and reflects some accepted traditions. Kind of like not throwing the baby out with the diaper.

well if you listened to Pope Gelasius Decree, and threw this writing out where it belonged into the flames. You'd be hard pressed to find a historical basis for much Marian doctrine... Heck you don't even know whether or not this was written as a fable or story as a fictional piece of work.

Heed the words of your EARLY Pope G.
nothing to learn but false doctrine in this work...False doctrine that leads to glory usurping.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

well if you listened to Pope Gelasius Decree, and threw this writing out where it belonged into the flames. You'd be hard pressed to find a historical basis for much Marian doctrine... Heck you don't even know whether or not this was written as a fable or story as a fictional piece of work.

Heed the words of your EARLY Pope G.
nothing to learn but false doctrine in this work...False doctrine that leads to glory usurping.

I hear ya.


This dialogue got me thinking and reading and so I had to post in EO to get more: http://www.christianforums.com/t7497687/#post55665673

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I hear ya.


This dialogue got me thinking and reading and so I had to post in EO to get more: http://www.christianforums.com/t7497687/#post55665673

This is what we got from the EOC area: http://theotokos-skete.goarch.org/wp-content/uploads/Dormition_1.pdf


Now to finish reading it.

 

[simonthezealot]

This is what we got from the EOC area: http://theotokos-skete.goarch.org/wp-content/uploads/Dormition_1.pdf


Now to finish reading it.

Seriously Jack I think it's a travesty for ANY church that they would yoke a people to doctrines that have not been levied from scripture rather from a source we don't even know is credible. Eegads man, these are de fide doctrines that according to your own church are bound on the consceince of it's people...Flirting with the devil bro.

 

[Standing Up]

I show this dates to 150 AD.

This first part comparing Mary's parents Abraham because his they have no child. Sound about right?


I think this writing was popular for many Christians and up until the 4th or 5th century found it's use quite often, even at the Divine Liturgy.

The document presents itself as written by James: "I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem."-XXV[2] Thus the purported author is James the Just, whom the text claims is a son of Joseph from a prior marriage, and thus a stepbrother of Jesus.
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 who claims to have done so).[3] It apparently embellishes what is told of events surrounding Mary, prior to and at the moment of Jesus' birth, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
The consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria 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.[4]
Gospel of James - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you suppose it was necessary for the author to attach the name of James to the work? IOW, if the author had said, I'm Joe Blow and I wrote this, then what reception would it have had?

This reminds me of the spurious Ignatian letters. Only by attaching a respected name was it ever accepted. Trying to undo a falsehood is hard. We don't see Eve reattaching the bitten apple.

The next question is why then do folks continue to support something that is false?

 

[Standing Up]

Yes, it is aprocryphal.

But it still shows something taught in those days.

Wow. Pagan Rome taught lots of things. Very weird acceptance dude.

 

[Standing Up]

Seriously Jack I think it's a travesty for ANY church that they would yoke a people to doctrines that have not been levied from scripture rather from a source we don't even know is credible. Eegads man, these are de fide doctrines that according to your own church are bound on the consceince of it's people...Flirting with the devil bro.

It is quite incredible isn't it? We have to believe that something else is going on. IOW, everyone pretty much knows that the doctrine did not come from scripture or apostles or even legitimate tradition, yet it is required to believe the Pope's command, else they can't be saved. So, the question is, really, exactly what is going on 'behind the scenes'? Why require obedience to a vacuous doctrine? What is down the road for these people? For us.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It is quite incredible isn't it? We have to believe that something else is going on. IOW, everyone pretty much knows that the doctrine did not come from scripture or apostles or even legitimate tradition, yet it is required to believe the Pope's command, else they can't be saved. So, the question is, really, exactly what is going on 'behind the scenes'? Why require obedience to a vacuous doctrine? What is down the road for these people? For us.

Where is your support for such a grievous claim?

Based on the fact that you have provided no evidence I think this should be retracted or at the least provide some support.