Protoevangelium of James

[Standing Up]

The Protoevangelium of James (PoJ) has been coming up in a number of threads. So I thought I'd post Aquinas' and Jerome's views of it, not to mention Pope Gelasius.

Basically, the PoJ is used to "prove" the idea that the brothers of Jesus (see my recent thread) were really the children of Joseph by a previous marriage, that Joseph was old and Mary was young when they became espoused.

The second theory was the brothers were cousins. Jerome invented this theory, having rejected the PoJ book as spurious. Because, the only other conclusion is that the brothers of Jesus were brothers of Jesus (same mother, different father). This view is the same as a number of people like Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria.

Gospel of James - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, the church reject the PoJ because it contradicts scripture.


-Aquinas-

" Objection 3: Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [*Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.
Reply to Objection 3: We are told (Lk. 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q35_A6.html


It contradicts scripture. Here's Pope Gelasius (remember this was c500 ad), before the Great Split of 1054.

FROM POPE GELASIUS I c495ad
The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised 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: …

the book on the infancy of the saviour
apocryphus
the book of the nativity of the saviour and of Mary or the midwife
apocryphus
the book which is called by the name of the Shepherd
apocryphus



all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, 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.
Tertullian : Decretum Gelasianum (English translation)

Hope this helps our understanding.

 

[Standing Up]

Bump.

No comments? Everyone agree with Aquinas that the PoJ is spurious ravings?

 

[SolomonVII]

I agree that it is spurious.
EO hold its ideals as part of the liturgy, apparently, according to OrthodoxyUSA.

These infancy gospels were highly popular in the day, apparently. The cult of virginity among young woman was also common. Mimiking Mary as the Perpetual Virigin through vows fo chastity, even for married women, was a pragmatic means to offer a woman a modicum of freedom from family and raising children. In our age of birth control, it is a fading part of Christian culture, but at the times of these nativity gospels, this kind of icon of the Virgin Mary had its appeal for women.

Scripturally speaking, there is no reason to believe this about Mary virginity. The Protevengelium of James, and stories like Joseph the Carpenter created a mythic justification for this kind of behavior, a pre-feminist 'biology is not destiny' revolt against motherhood, ironically with Mother Mary, ever Virgin, become the iconic figure for this.

The works are spurious, and if they are not then the Pope is very fallible indeed for declaring that they are.
Accordingly, the dogma that derives from these kind of pseudoepigraphia are also spurious, and therefore , the Church is very fallible indeed, for making these works a part of their liturgy.

Other than that, there is magical thinking that denies, denies, denies.

 

[Erose]

The Protoevangelium of James (PoJ) has been coming up in a number of threads. So I thought I'd post Aquinas' and Jerome's views of it, not to mention Pope Gelasius.

Basically, the PoJ is used to "prove" the idea that the brothers of Jesus (see my recent thread) were really the children of Joseph by a previous marriage, that Joseph was old and Mary was young when they became espoused.

Like I have said and others have said before the PoJ is not used to "prove" Mary's perpetual virginity. The ECFs found that "proof" within Scripture. If you read for example Jerome's The perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary (linked below) you will not find any reference to this document as a "proof". What the PoJ and the other infancy gospels provide is a witness and nothing more.

CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome)

The second theory was the brothers were cousins. Jerome invented this theory, having rejected the PoJ book as spurious.

What proof do you have that Jerome created this theory? Augustine taught it at the same time or before Jerome and taught it as if it was common knowledge.

2. He went down, as the evangelist says, to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples; and they continued there not many days. Behold He has a mother, and brethren, and disciples: whence He has a mother, thence brethren. For our Scripture is wont to call them brethren, not only that are sprung from the same man and woman, or from the same mother, or from the same father, though by different mothers; or, in truth, that are of the same degree as cousins by the father's or mother's side: not these alone is our Scripture wont to call brethren. The Scripture must be understood as it speaks. It has its own language; one who does not know this language is perplexed and says, Whence had the Lord brethren? For surely Mary did not give birth a second time? Far from it! With her begins the dignity of virgins. She could be a mother, but a womanknown of man she could not be. She is spoken of as mulier [which usually signifies a wife], but only in reference to her sex, not as implying loss of virgin purity: and this follows from the language of Scripture itself. For Eve, too, immediately she was formed from the side of her husband, and as yet not known of her husband, is, as you know, called mulier: And he made her a woman [mulier]. Then, whence the brethren? The kinsmen of Mary, of whatever degree, are the brethren of the Lord. How do we prove this? From Scripture itself. Lot is called Abraham's brother; he was his brother's son. Read, and you will find that Abraham was Lot's uncle on the father's side, and yet they are called brethren. Why, but because they were kinsmen? Laban the Syrian was Jacob's uncle by the mother's side, for he was the brother of Rebecca, Isaac's wife and Jacob's mother. Genesis 28:5 Read the Scripture, and you will find that uncle and sister's son are called brothers. Genesis 29:12-15 When you have known this rule, you will find that all the blood relations of Mary are the brethren of Christ.

3. But rather were those disciples brethren; for even those kinsmen would not be brethren were they not disciples: and to no advantage brethren, if they did not recognize their brother as their master. For in a certain place, when He was informed that His mother and His brethren were standing without, at the time He was speaking to His disciples, He said: Who is my mother? Or who are my brethren? And stretching out His hand over His disciples, He said, These are my brethren; and, Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, the same is my mother, and brother, and sister. Matthew 12:46-50 Therefore also Mary, because she did the will of the Father. What the Lord magnified in her was, that she did the will of the Father, not that flesh gave birth to flesh. Give good heed, beloved. Moreover, when the Lord was regarded with admiration by the multitude, while doing signs and wonders, and showing forth what lay concealed under the flesh, certain admiring souls said: Happy is the womb that bare You: and He said, Yea, rather, happy are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. Luke 11:27 That is to say, even my mother, whom you have called happy, is happy in that she keeps the word of God: not because in her the Word was made flesh and dwelt in us; but because she keeps that same word of God by which she was made, and which in her was made flesh. Let not men rejoice in temporal offspring, but let them exult if in spirit they are joined to God. We have spoken these things on account of that which the evangelist says, that He dwelt in Capernaum a few days, with His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples. (on the Gospel of John Tractate X)

Note: he also discusses this same thing:
On the Gospel of John: Tractate XXI
On Holy Viriginity: 6 CHURCH FATHERS: Of Holy Virginity (St. Augustine)
Contra Faustum XXII: 35 CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Faustum, Book XXII (Augustine)

Because, the only other conclusion is that the brothers of Jesus were brothers of Jesus (same mother, different father). This view is the same as a number of people like Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria.

I am still waiting for you to supply that quote from the Fathers that someone besides Jesus is called the Son of Mary. But please show us what you have.

Anyway, the church reject the PoJ because it contradicts scripture.

The church rejected it as Scripture and did not reject it as something one can piously read. There is a difference there. The PoJ is like any other document. It is a story that one can accept or not. The PoJ never claims to be without error and since the author of the PoJ did not have the grace of infallibility as the authors of the writings of the Bible, one should not be surprised that there were some things that he may have gotten wrong.

-Aquinas-

" Objection 3: Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [*Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.
Reply to Objection 3: We are told (Lk. 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/sum...TP_Q35_A6.html

Interesting

It contradicts scripture. Here's Pope Gelasius (remember this was c500 ad), before the Great Split of 1054.

FROM POPE GELASIUS I c495ad
The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised 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: …

the book on the infancy of the saviour
apocryphus
the book of the nativity of the saviour and of Mary or the midwife
apocryphus
the book which is called by the name of the Shepherd
apocryphus

all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, 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.
Tertullian : Decretum Gelasianum (English translation)

Hope this helps our understanding.

Ok when are you going to show that one of these writings rejected by the Pope is actually the writing in question. Like I told you in the previous thread there were more than just one infancy gospel written and most of them where gnostic. So you will need to do a better job tieing the PoJ to one of these rejected writings.

 

[Standing Up]

Like I have said and others have said before the PoJ is not used to "prove" Mary's perpetual virginity. The ECFs found that "proof" within Scripture. If you read for example Jerome's The perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary (linked below) you will not find any reference to this document as a "proof". What the PoJ and the other infancy gospels provide is a witness and nothing more.

CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome)

What proof do you have that Jerome created this theory? Augustine taught it at the same time or before Jerome and taught it as if it was common knowledge.

2. He went down, as the evangelist says, to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples; and they continued there not many days. Behold He has a mother, and brethren, and disciples: whence He has a mother, thence brethren. For our Scripture is wont to call them brethren, not only that are sprung from the same man and woman, or from the same mother, or from the same father, though by different mothers;

Keeping in mind that Jerome rejected the PoJ as spurious, he just set up the problem for us, didn't he?

Brother in this context can mean ONLY 1 of 3 things:
same father and mother (but this denies Jesus' divinity, birth from the virgin)
same mother, different father (but this denies the ever-virgin)
same father, different mother (but this requires acceptance of PoJ)

What is the solution?

or, in

truth, that are of the same degree as cousins by the father's or mother's side:

Jerome's cousin theory!

Rejecting a book (PoJ) that "proves" a theory, that is close to apostolic times, yet contradicts scripture has led to a major problem. Those men had some awareness that it really isn't the right thing to do to use a book that contradicts scripture. It's not pious in the least.

So, either the solution is to admit the plain words of scripture and the tradition of Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem and Clement of Alexandria and lose the ever-virgin myth or INVENT the cousin theory and retain the EV idea.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't think anyone really thinks it was written by St James - but that doesn't make it a lie. It's literature that expresses an idea. In this case, the idea was in harmony with what the church already believed, and so it was incorporated poetically, like a hymn. It is not used for doctrine as you claim.

When a book starts with "James wrote this" and it turns out not to be James, that isn't a lie?

See the post on Brothers of the Lord II re Tertullian. He comes against this view, calling it from an angel. Clement of Alexandria also rejects the idea.

PoJ contradicts scripture. We know, however, from Tertullian and Clement of A and Cyril of Jerusalem the real tradition that ties to scripture.

 

[Yab Yum]

While we are on proto-gospels expanded with legendary elements why not also the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary which also states that [FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]that many of the earliest Christians believed in Mary's consecrated virginity and which is also an interesting read?

I have a question.

Luk 1:30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
Luk 1:31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
Luk 1:32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
Luk 1:33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Luk 1:34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

In Luk 1:34, why should Mary express surprise? She is engaged. Isn't she planning, at some point, to have children? Gabriel hasn't said when she will conceive, or how. We would expect that for all she knows, she is going to conceive in the normal manner in the normal timeframe. But she does something unexpected. She expresses astonishment - for a very specific reason.

I quoted the DRB which appears to stick to what I think is the literal translation of "know not man". NASB has:

Luk 1:34 Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

It gets some of the same sense, i.e. I was, am, and will be, a virgin - hence the source of the surprise. Otherwise why would a normal engaged woman, who up until Luk 1:34 believes she is going to have sexual relations with her normal engaged husband - express surprise?
[/FONT]

 

[SolomonVII]

I don't think anyone really thinks it was written by St James - but that doesn't make it a lie. It's literature that expresses an idea. In this case, the idea was in harmony with what the church already believed, and so it was incorporated poetically, like a hymn. It is not used for doctrine as you claim.

It is not written by James, as claimed and therefore it is at the very least misleading. It is likely true enough that there are scriptural texts that may not have been written by the apostles, but to the extent that they were written by scribes following the direct teachings of those apostles, there is no attempt to mislead at least.

To think that this is what is already believed by the church is a statement of blind faith on behalf of anyone who makes such a claim. This is the first written record of what the church believed, so it is circular reasoning to claim this is what the church always believed because the church says so.

As for doctrine, if the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not doctrine, then true enough this doesn't matter.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Keeping in mind that Jerome rejected the PoJ as spurious, he just set up the problem for us, didn't he?

Brother in this context can mean ONLY 1 of 3 things:
same father and mother (but this denies Jesus' divinity, birth from the virgin)
same mother, different father (but this denies the ever-virgin)
same father, different mother (but this requires acceptance of PoJ)

What is the solution?



Jerome's cousin theory!

Rejecting a book (PoJ) that "proves" a theory, that is close to apostolic times, yet contradicts scripture has led to a major problem. Those men had some awareness that it really isn't the right thing to do to use a book that contradicts scripture. It's not pious in the least.

So, either the solution is to admit the plain words of scripture and the tradition of Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem and Clement of Alexandria and lose the ever-virgin myth or INVENT the cousin theory and retain the EV idea.

Great post

 

[Yab Yum]

Pseudepigrapha are all necessarily misleading? Couldn't they, like other historical documents, provide a context for the understanding of the origins of Christianity - given a proper grounding in orthodoxy first?

 

[SolomonVII]

While we are on proto-gospels expanded with legendary elements why not also the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary which also states that [FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]that many of the earliest Christians believed in Mary's consecrated virginity and which is also an interesting read?

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]I have a question.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Luk 1:30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Luk 1:31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Luk 1:32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Luk 1:33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Luk 1:34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]In Luk 1:34, why should Mary express surprise? She is engaged. Isn't she planning, at some point, to have children? Gabriel hasn't said when she will conceive, or how. We would expect that for all she knows, she is going to conceive in the normal manner in the normal timeframe. But she does something unexpected. She expresses astonishment - for a very specific reason.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]I quoted the DRB which appears to stick to what I think is the literal translation of "know not man". NASB has:[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Luk 1:34 Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" [/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]It gets some of the same sense, i.e. I was, am, and will be, a virgin - hence the source of the surprise. Otherwise why would a normal engaged woman, who up until Luk 1:34 believes she is going to have sexual relations with her normal engaged husband - express surprise?[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Because her fiance Joseph would not normally have been referred to as the "Most High".

 

[Erose]

Keeping in mind that Jerome rejected the PoJ as spurious, he just set up the problem for us, didn't he?

Brother in this context can mean ONLY 1 of 3 things:
same father and mother (but this denies Jesus' divinity, birth from the virgin)
same mother, different father (but this denies the ever-virgin)
same father, different mother (but this requires acceptance of PoJ)

What is the solution?

The solution is simple. It was the one used by both Jerome and Augustine and that is use references from Scripture. As has been shown to you by those who are much smarter than I in Greek, that brethren also has other potential meanings as well and they are used in the OT and the NT, i.e. Abraham and Lot are good examples. Scripture refers to Lot being Abraham's nephew and yet Abraham refers to Lot as his brother as well. Anyway do yourself a favor and at least read Jerome's writing on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Jerome's cousin theory!

Rejecting a book (PoJ) that "proves" a theory, that is close to apostolic times, yet contradicts scripture has led to a major problem. Those men had some awareness that it really isn't the right thing to do to use a book that contradicts scripture. It's not pious in the least.

The PoJ wasn't as popular in the West as it was in the East, because a different tradition came down. But like I said before and I guess I will say it again: YOU HAVE NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT JEROME CAME UP WITH THIS THEORY.

Augustine also knew and believed this line of reasoning and actually discussed it in more of his writings than Jerome. Also the way Augustine discusses the idea, it is obvious that it is something that is viewed as popular and accepted view that he did not invent. If you don't know Augustine and Jerome where contemporaries.

So, either the solution is to admit the plain words of scripture and the tradition of Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem and Clement of Alexandria and lose the ever-virgin myth or INVENT the cousin theory and retain the EV idea.

You are right the solution is to admit the plain words of Scripture and Tradition and stop attacking and belittling the mother of Jesus Christ for the sake of trying to win a debate.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'm inclined to the position of Jerome, that the Protoevangelium is spurious, but that αδελφοι means something broader than "first order siblings' and is rather something more like "close kinsmen," which can include cousins, nephews, etc. Note that this is its usage in the Septuagint, including translations of Hebrew words for brother, nephew, uncle, and cousin.

 

[Kristos]

It is not written by James, as claimed and therefore it is at the very least misleading. It is likely true enough that there are scriptural texts that may not have been written by the apostles, but to the extent that they were written by scribes following the direct teachings of those apostles, there is no attempt to mislead at least.

To think that this is what is already believed by the church is a statement of blind faith on behalf of anyone who makes such a claim. This is the first written record of what the church believed, so it is circular reasoning to claim this is what the church always believed because the church says so.

As for doctrine, if the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not doctrine, then true enough this doesn't matter.

It was very common in antiquity and was not meant to mislead.

 

[Thekla]

There seems to be a great deal of confusion; that the Protoevangelium contains some things in accord with teachings in evidence is not the same as having received those teachings from said text.

Correlation is not causation.

 

[Yab Yum]

Because her fiance Joseph would not normally have been referred to as the "Most High".

Then why was that not the source of her surprise, instead of this:

Luk 1:34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

She does not say: How shall this be done, because he to whom I am engaged is not the Most High?

She says:

Luk 1:34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Correlation is not causation.

More words to look up

Awh Thelks, after all these years I was hoping some of your vocabulary would stick to me, but I will be for ever hopeless

 

[Yab Yum]

I have another question. You are a First-Century Jew with all that entails. One day, this happens to you:

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins.
Mat 1:22 Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying:
Mat 1:23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

You're Joseph. Your wife gave birth to God. Would you have sex with her?

And let's not get into "until" again: 2 Samuel 6:23, 1 Samuel 15:35, 1 Timothy 6:14, Genesis 8:7, Deuteronomy 34:6, Luke 1:80, 1 Corinthians 15:25, 1 Timothy 4:13, Revelation 2:25-26.

Origen, From "Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew," Book XII, 34. MEANING OF "UNTIL." NO LIMITATION OF PROMISE:

But since some one may think that the promise of the Saviour prescribes a limit of time to their not tasting of death, namely, that they will not taste of death "until" they see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom. but after this will taste of it, let us show that according to the scriptural usage the word "until" signifies that the time concerning the thing signified is pressing, but is not so defined that after the "until," that which is contrary to the thing signified should at all take place.

Now, the Saviour says to the eleven disciples when He rose from the dead, this among other things, "Lo, I am with you all the days, even until the consummation of the age." When He said this, did He promise that He was going to be with them until the consummation of the age, but that after the consummation of the age, when another age was at hand, which is "called the age to come," He would be no longer with them?--so that according to this, the condition of the disciples would be better before the consummation of the age than after the consummation of the age?

But I do not think that any one will dare to say, that after the consummation of the age the Son of God will be no longer with the disciples, because the expression declares that He will be with them for so long, until the consummation of the age is at hand; for it is clear that the matter under inquiry was, whether the Son of God was forthwith going to be with His disciples before the age to come and the hoped for promises of God which were given as a recompense.

But there might have been a question--it being granted that He would be with them--whether sometimes He was present with them, and sometimes not present. Wherefore setting us free from the suspicion that might have arisen from doubt, He declared that now and even all the days He would be with the disciples, and that He would not leave those who had become His disciples until the consummation of the age; (because He said "all the days" He did not deny that by night, when the sun set, He would be present with them.)

But if such is the force of the words, "until the consummation of the age," plainly we shall not be compelled to admit that those who see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom shall taste of death, after being deemed worthy of beholding Him in such guise. But as in the case of the passage we brought forward, the urgent necessity was to teach us that "until the consummation of the age" He would not leave us but be with us all the days; so also in this case I think that it is clear to those who know how to look at the logical coherence of things that He who has seen once for all "the Son of man coming in His own kingdom," and seen Him "in His own glory," and seen "the kingdom of God come with power," could not possibly taste of death after the contemplation of things so good and great.

But apart from the word of the promise of Jesus, we have conjectured not without reason that we would taste of death, so long as we were not yet held worthy to see "the kingdom of God come with power," and "the Son of man coming in His own glory and in His own kingdom."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Protoevangelium of James (PoJ) has been coming up in a number of threads. So I thought I'd post Aquinas' and Jerome's views of it, not to mention Pope Gelasius.

Basically, the PoJ is used to "prove" the idea that the brothers of Jesus (see my recent thread) were really the children of Joseph by a previous marriage, that Joseph was old and Mary was young when they became espoused.

The second theory was the brothers were cousins. Jerome invented this theory, having rejected the PoJ book as spurious. Because, the only other conclusion is that the brothers of Jesus were brothers of Jesus (same mother, different father). This view is the same as a number of people like Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria.

Gospel of James - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, the church reject the PoJ because it contradicts scripture.


-Aquinas-

" Objection 3: Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [*Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.
Reply to Objection 3: We are told (Lk. 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/sum...TP_Q35_A6.html


It contradicts scripture. Here's Pope Gelasius (remember this was c500 ad), before the Great Split of 1054.

FROM POPE GELASIUS I c495ad
The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised 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: …

the book on the infancy of the saviour
apocryphus
the book of the nativity of the saviour and of Mary or the midwife
apocryphus
the book which is called by the name of the Shepherd
apocryphus



all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, 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.
Tertullian : Decretum Gelasianum (English translation)

Hope this helps our understanding.

GOOD points, thank you....


We often see members of 2 denominations refer to this as "substantiation" that Mary died (or didn't) as a virgin. But even if we regard this rejected book with any credibility AT ALL, a reading of the short book reveals NOTHING about that matter. At all. The unknown author says NOTHING about issue... at all. Which is likely why they reference the rejected book but don't quote it. There's nothing in it to quote about that issue. Even if it had any credibility or significance, which, as you revealed, it doesn't.





.

 

[Yab Yum]

Martin Luther:
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

"Calvin routinely brushes aside the difficulties sometimes raised from "first born" and "brothers of the Lord." O'Carroll, M., 1983, Theotokos, M Glazier, Inc.: Wilmington, DE, p. 94.

Zwingli:
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

Zwingli:
I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary ...(Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)