Protoevangelium of James

[SolomonVII]

"Part of the Catholic lore", some have described it.
It is an interesting part of the story though too, for Mary was seen as being a Temple virgin, cutting the cloth and the like. If I am reading the text correctly, it seems by virgins what is meant is little girls before menstruation, for there is some reference to either staining or polluting the temple.
The suggestion here would be that virginity is more of a temporary state actually, for with adolescence comes the stains of pollution, and hence betrothal. to Joseph in this instance:

And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, 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. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

The account below finds the idea of Temple Virgins spurious and related more to Roman Vestal virgins than in anythign in Judaism.
Other accounts have disagreed.
Albrecht Dürer's 'Life of the Virgin ' | Suite101.com

The document presents itself as written by James: "I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem." Thus the author is purported to be James the Just, whom the text claims is a son of Joseph from a prior marriage, and thus a stepbrother of Jesus. However, in the Roman Catholic Church they are considered cousins, whereas in the Eastern Orthodox tradition they are seen to be step brothers, Joseph having been a widow at the time of his marriage to Mary.

Scholars have established that, based on the style of the language and the fact that the author is not aware of contemporary Jewish customs, while the historical James the Just certainly would have been. For instance the work suggests there were consecrated temple virgins in Judaism, as with Vestal Virgins in pagan Rome, but this has been shown to be spurious. Celibacy has played little role in Judaism, in which marriage and raising children are understood as holy obligations.



Read more at Suite101: Albrecht Dürer's 'Life of the Virgin ' | Suite101.com Albrecht Dürer's 'Life of the Virgin ' |

 

[Montalban]

Re: the other thread on this topic that was closed I did see the part that seems to imply non-broken hymen. It doesn't say exactly what test she performed with her finger but that would be a logical choice.

I believe there's a passage in the OT about the gates of the temple remaining shut

 

[Christos Anesti]

This seems to be the basic argument.

1. A Church teaches that Mary is ever virgin.
2. A book of questionable orthodoxy also teaches the same thing.
3. Therefore the Church in question that teaches the continued virgin status of Mary is wrong.


Number 3 is hardly demanded by 1 and 2. If it was we would also have to say

1. A Church teaches that Jesus exists.
2. The Quran, A book that is heretical in terms of Christian orthodoxy, teaches that Jesus existed.
3. Therefore the Church in question is wrong and Jesus doesn't exist.

 

[Montalban]

This seems to be the basic argument.

1. A Church teaches that Mary is ever virgin.
2. A book of questionable orthodoxy also teaches the same thing.
3. Therefore the Church in question that teaches the continued virgin status of Mary is wrong.

Furthermore that 'brother' must mean a literal brother because it must.

The 'supporting' texts in the Bible are simply more texts where 'brother' is assumed to be a literal brother.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

This seems to be the basic argument.

1. A Church teaches that Mary is ever virgin.
2. A book of questionable orthodoxy also teaches the same thing.
3. Therefore the Church in question that teaches the continued virgin status of Mary is wrong.


Number 3 is hardly demanded by 1 and 2. If it was we would also have to say

1. A Church teaches that Jesus exists.
2. The Quran, A book that is heretical in terms of Christian orthodoxy, teaches that Jesus existed.
3. Therefore the Church in question is wrong and Jesus doesn't exist.

That's my understanding as well.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I posted the synaxarion earlier that described Mary as a Temple Virgin.

To all those who are listening that makes it an official doctrinal teaching.

Who she was is not a question, nor St. Joseph.

Forgive me...

 

[Standing Up]

This seems to be the basic argument.

1. A Church teaches that Mary is ever virgin.
2. A book of questionable orthodoxy also teaches the same thing.
3. Therefore the Church in question that teaches the continued virgin status of Mary is wrong.


Number 3 is hardly demanded by 1 and 2. If it was we would also have to say

1. A Church teaches that Jesus exists.
2. The Quran, A book that is heretical in terms of Christian orthodoxy, teaches that Jesus existed.
3. Therefore the Church in question is wrong and Jesus doesn't exist.

You're presupposing the conclusion by placing it as a given.

Read the last few pages, you'll find another scriptural tradition.

 

[razeontherock]

So wait, there were Jewish Temple virgins?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This seems to be the basic argument.

1. A Church teaches that Mary is ever virgin.
2. A book of questionable orthodoxy also teaches the same thing.
3. Therefore the Church in question that teaches the continued virgin status of Mary is wrong.


Number 3 is hardly demanded by 1 and 2. If it was we would also have to say

1. A Church teaches that Jesus exists.
2. The Quran, A book that is heretical in terms of Christian orthodoxy, teaches that Jesus existed.
3. Therefore the Church in question is wrong and Jesus doesn't exist.

That's my understanding as well.

Forgive me...

Gentlemen, you have applied sound logic to that which is very questionable!

 

[razeontherock]

Clement argued against the debunked PoJ view of a light birth, leaving Mary in the puerperal state (sick). Scripture was the true and continuing virgin.

I'm not sure we should be joking about Mary being left in any purple state

 

[Kepha]

Clement argued against the debunked PoJ view of a light birth, leaving Mary in the puerperal state (sick). Scripture was the true and continuing virgin

.
Negative. Anybody who's open can read the fact He's defending it as previous posts went in depth to show that She like the Scriptures gave birth yet remained a Virgin.
Your interpretation is quite brutal to be frank. And any lurker out there who may ever read this thread, please read the previous posts by Thelka especially. She does a wonderful job of explaining it.

Cyril is a perfect example of apostolic succession, receiving the same truth as his bishop. James brother of the Lord, first bishop of the same see.

You sure you want to use that as some type of argument cause you know... He was quite clear on the Eucharist afterall.


On the Real Presence he is unambiguous: "Since He Himself has declared and said of the bread: This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any more? And when He asserts and says: This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?" Of the Transformation, he argues, if Christ could change water into wine, can He not change wine into His own Blood?

For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account

Relatives can't mean cousins according to the flesh? Why not?

Except one doesn't follow, given the truth of the other.

You've proved nothing on here so that's an irrelevant statement. Remember, you need the entire historical writings from the early Church like the ones from Polycarp, St. Irenaeus etc I mentioned earlier, to prove all the 1st Century Church believed so. The few you have here only show, as we already knew before this thread started, the EV Doctrine wasn't Universal.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I'm not sure we should be joking about Mary being left in any purple state

Purple? (sorry, didnt mean to laugh)

 

[Kepha]

of course it's about winning or losing. Don't kid yourself. I'm not naive.

I won't address your issue with Thekla, other than to say that she is intelligent, kind, and more deserving of respect than you showed her.

And it's not beyond the realm of reason that yes, you in fact, had no idea what SHE was talking about.

Good day.

Loved this entire post. Those who immediately go into defensive mode against the patient and gracious Thekla, only prove who's the real agitators. She's our measuring stick per say.

 

[SolomonVII]

So wait, there were Jewish Temple virgins?

I don't know.
I posted the blog where the author notes this is one of the reasons scholars understand the book to be spurious, for James the Just would have known better. Scanning through Catholic discussions in the subject, there are a few posters that say that this is true, but more say that it is myth. As for Jews, virginity simply not a value at all. Jews have even noted in their discussions with Catholics(in frank discussions where things such as this can be talked about) that maybe one of the reasons that Jews often score above average compared to your typical European on intelligence test is that the brightest and the best in Judaism procreated, whereas the brightest and best in Europe cloistered themselves away into virginal same-sex sort of communities.

But I think a case can be made that maybe pre-pubescent girls did stay at the Temple, do the sewing and mop up the blood of the slaughtered animals and what not. If so, likely it would be Temple Virgins per se, because I don't think that anyone assumes that little girls would be anything but virgins until they come of age anyways. Virginity in childhood does not usually need to be named as such, for it is the universal state of children.
It is interesting to understand the history of this a little better though. I don't think that it even part of the Jewish memory anymore even if it was a part of Temple culture, and it is only the POJ about Mary where the issue would even be discussed.

The story of May in POJ, by the way, certainly would not justify the cult of virginity that was a part of Christianity from a very early date. Mary was betrothed when she came of age. This was a story mainly about little girls working in the Temple, with the odd angel and what not thrown in for dramatic effect.
I don't know the history behind this at all though.

 

[SolomonVII]

This seems to be the basic argument.

1. A Church teaches that Mary is ever virgin.
2. A book of questionable orthodoxy also teaches the same thing.
3. Therefore the Church in question that teaches the continued virgin status of Mary is wrong.


Number 3 is hardly demanded by 1 and 2. If it was we would also have to say

1. A Church teaches that Jesus exists.
2. The Quran, A book that is heretical in terms of Christian orthodoxy, teaches that Jesus existed.
3. Therefore the Church in question is wrong and Jesus doesn't exist.

Rather, this seems to be the basic misunderstanding that makes intelligent conversation all but impossible with the traditionalists.

 

[SolomonVII]

Purple? (sorry, didnt mean to laugh)

Puerperal is one of those words that I had to look up, and even then I am not sure all the implications that are associated with the word in the context of ECF discussions
Purple, Peuperaler, Peuperalest.

No wonder Mary chooses to dress in blue and leaves the Royal Purple for the Catholic Women's League.

It must have been a very traumatic event for her that left here that in that extreme hue.

 

[Montalban]

Rather, this seems to be the basic misunderstanding that makes intelligent conversation all but impossible with the traditionalists.

You're welcome to re-state your own position.

I've found one person here saying that they're not against tradition, but then arguing against it. They say they're not against any tradition that's not against the bible, but arguing against that. And I also find the summation in the post above correct... that a thing can't be right if one can disprove another source taking that thing as true. It's simply substituting an attack on the teaching of the ever-virginity with an attack on a text that supports that teaching. At best it's a refutation of one source - but therein is another error - a belief that this source is the earliest time the teaching was done.

 

[SolomonVII]

You're welcome to re-state your own position.
..

Well thank you for giving me permission.
And you are welcome to restate your position too.

 

[Standing Up]

you DO realize that I do not support the PoJ or EV at all, right?

I was just trying to provide context from 1800 years ago. The gnostic PoJ existed. Believers knew of it. Used it. Promoted it. Other Christians then had to battle against its notions. Even from 1 John we know of these things with some saying Christ didn't come in the flesh. PoJ is Marcion stuff. He flourished in Rome. His disiciples went to Alexandria. The teachings from it are obvioius (no normal birth, made of light, of stardust, just appears). And the push back, Christ was born of flesh normally, like you and I.

So in this thread, it's been shown. The connections. Some folks get it. Some folks disagree. I get it. But to ask for the same information as if it hasn't been presented is to avoid the obvious. The PoJ is rejected by the church. It is spurious. It is gnostic. It contradicts scripture. To use any of what it says to base a belief on, is as Pope Gelasius opined, outside the church.

BTW, does anyone understand the implication of the water of jealousy the PoJ says took place with Mary VERSUS scripture saying God gave Joseph a dream of confirmation?

 

[Standing Up]

"Part of the Catholic lore", some have described it.
It is an interesting part of the story though too, for Mary was seen as being a Temple virgin, cutting the cloth and the like. If I am reading the text correctly, it seems by virgins what is meant is little girls before menstruation, for there is some reference to either staining or polluting the temple.
The suggestion here would be that virginity is more of a temporary state actually, for with adolescence comes the stains of pollution, and hence betrothal. to Joseph in this instance:




The account below finds the idea of Temple Virgins spurious and related more to Roman Vestal virgins than in anythign in Judaism.
Other accounts have disagreed.
Albrecht Dürer's 'Life of the Virgin ' | Suite101.com

The document presents itself as written by James: "I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem." Thus the author is purported to be James the Just, whom the text claims is a son of Joseph from a prior marriage, and thus a stepbrother of Jesus. However, in the Roman Catholic Church they are considered cousins, whereas in the Eastern Orthodox tradition they are seen to be step brothers, Joseph having been a widow at the time of his marriage to Mary.

Scholars have established that, based on the style of the language and the fact that the author is not aware of contemporary Jewish customs, while the historical James the Just certainly would have been. For instance the work suggests there were consecrated temple virgins in Judaism, as with Vestal Virgins in pagan Rome, but this has been shown to be spurious. Celibacy has played little role in Judaism, in which marriage and raising children are understood as holy obligations.



Read more at Suite101: Albrecht Dürer's 'Life of the Virgin ' | Suite101.com Albrecht Dürer's 'Life of the Virgin ' |

That is definitely the other piece. How was it put? There's a bridge with teachings passing back and forth. Not only do you have to show the spurious ones, but you have to show from where the spurious ones originated.

The PoJ is spurious, and the notions are gnostic, from paganism, from roman vestal virgins. As mentioned, odds are Marcion or a disciple of his wrote it. We know he flourished in Rome under/with Anicetus c150ad.

Anyway, perhaps a different thread.