Protoevangelium of James

Thekla said:

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.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I can think of any evidence that the ancient church derived its doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary from the Protoevangelium.

Yab Yum said:

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.)

Click to expand...

Wow, even Zwingli. Wesley, too, but wow, even Zwingli.

Yab Yum said:

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.)

Click to expand...

In pre-modern times, people used to determine truth through the authority of this or that prestigious man. That is to say, "X is true because Aristotle says it is true", or "X is true because Plato said so".

This by and large remains the Catholic and EO way of making the argument. That is to say, "X is true because the pope says it is true, or "X is true because the Church says so".

From that point of view, I can see why you might think that your above argument might carry a lot of weight. In this case, the Protestant authorities would be Luther and Calvin and Zwingli, the grand poobahs of Protestantism.

But really, given the form that the argument has taken so far, by Standing Up and myself and CJ and others, you have not really been able to grasp fully the arguments that are being made here.
The point of view is not that something is true because some great figure of the past has said so, but to look at it from the modern view of finding the evidence from history.

Only the apostles themselves are the primary sources for the faith, for only the apostles were the eye witnesses to the life, death, and rising of the Christ.
The evidence for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary therefore requires to be somehow tied back to the people that knew her for it to become a valid testimony. P of J does not do this.
Jerome and the aforementioned pope both knew this and therefore rejected this kind of accounting. Beyond that they only had theories and faith in the non-Biblically based virginity of Mary.

The underlying attitude seems to be that sex is dirty, and therefore it is inconceivable that Joseph would 'dirty' the Immaculate Mother of God through sex. spunk up the Shrine of the Torah that is the womb that held the Living Torah Incarnate.
I cannot argue against the fact that this is not a common Christian attitude, that sex is dirty and unbecoming. I do think I can argue against the idea that this is a Biblical idea though.

Christians throughout the ages have aubscribed to many non-biblical attitudes, for good or for bad.
That is inevitable.

On the other hand, it is not inevitable that we make a religion out of these attitudes and non-biblical ideals.

Martin Luther:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

John Calvin:

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli:

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .

‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’

{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger

Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .

‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

John Wesley:

The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

{“Letter to a Roman Catholic” / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}

SolomonVII said:

In pre-modern times, people used to determine truth through the authority of this or that prestigious man. That is to say, "X is true because Aristotle says it is true", or "X is true because Plato said so".

This by and large remains the Catholic and EO way of making the argument. That is to say, "X is true because the pope says it is true, or "X is true because the Church says so".

From that point of view, I can see why you might think that your above argument might carry a lot of weight. In this case, the Protestant authorities would be Luther and Calvin and Zwingli, the grand poobahs of Protestantism.

But really, given the form that the argument has taken, by Stnading Up and myself and CJ and others, you have not really been able to grasp fully the arguments that are being made here.
The point of view is not that something is true becuase some great figure of the past has said so, but to look at it from the modern view of finding the evidence from history.

Only the apostles themselves are the primary sources for the faith, for only the apostles were the eye witnesses to the life, death, and rising of the Christ.
The evidence for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary therefore requires to be somehow tied back to the people that knew her for it to become a valid testimony. P of J does not do this.
Jerome and the aforementioned pope both knew this and therefore rejected this kind of accounting. Beyond that they only had theories and faith in the non-Biblically based virginity of Mary.

The underlying attitude seems to be that sex is dirty, and therfore it is inconceivable that Joseph would 'dirty' the Immaculate Mother of God through sex. spunk up the Shrine of the Torah that is the womb that held the Living Torah Incarnate.
I cannot argue against the fact that this is not a common Christian attitude, that sex is dirty and unbecoming. I do think I can argue against the idea that this is a Biblical idea though.
Christians throughout the ages have aubscribed to many non-biblical attitudes, for good or for bad.

That is inevitable.

On the other hand, it is not inevitable that we make a religion out of these attitudes and non-biblical ideals.

Click to expand...

SolomonVII said:

... the modern view of finding the evidence from history.

Click to expand...

Shudder ... As you wish, but I'm sorry, I can't join you on this "modern" quest.

You thereby reserve the attitude of limiting by [your] own experience what the Church has a right to propose as from God; that is what Luther did, what every Protestant assumes is possible ... The classical Catholic understanding is that human judgment makes it possible to see that Catholic faith could be true and is not unreasonable to accept. But that does not make one actually accept it. For that, Grace is needed, and access to that is by prayer and conversion of life, not by simple reasoning as an adult on experience.

SolomonVII said:

P of J does not do this.

Click to expand...

I'm not prepared to say that pseudoepigrapha are of no contextual or illustrative value. Who wrote 2 Peter, for example? Apparently, they say Peter didn't. And yet it's canonical.

SolomonVII said:

The underlying attitude seems to be that sex is dirty ...

Click to expand...

All religions revolve madly around sexual questions.

There is also the religious distinction between the sacred and the profane or ordinary. ... So there is a religious "logic" of the sacred as different from the profane, i.e., the creaturely element set apart only for Divine use or purpose, therefore never for ordinary use. It does not mean the ordinary is dirty or evil; the ordinary is good but not Divine. The sacred is taking something away from ordinary use and consecrating it for the Divine. That is why God would change the order of things for the unique Incarnation of His Divine Son.

St. Paul himself speaks with encouragement for wives and husbands to practice periods of continence in order for their prayer to flourish (1 Cor 6:17). He also wishes that some would be as he and live a celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom (cf. Matt 19:12).

Standing Up said:

Folks,

This thread is first and foremost about the PoJ and implications therefrom.

It is regarded by the church as spurious. It contradicts scripture. From that rejection, the church was left with the fact that the only other existing tradition (and scripture) was, these were in fact brothers (same mother, different father) of Jesus. A new theory had to be invented---the cousin theory.

Thanks,

SU

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. I have never read anywhere that the church regards it as spurious. I don't remember any contradictions to scripture.

Standing Up said:

We could also introduce LDS books, but that wouldn't be right, eh?

Click to expand...

I don't quite follow: presumably you are not saying that LDS baptism is valid? If Mormons are not validly baptized, why should we consider their views as to Christianity?

SolomonVII said:

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.

Click to expand...

What is even more ironic is the fact that you try to tag Orthodox and Catholics with an anachronistic type of belief when most Protestants, especially the lonewolf and non-denom. kinds, believe in a Trail of Blood version of ecclesiastical history to justify their choices.

Standing Up said:

A new theory had to be invented---the cousin theory.

Click to expand...

If the issue is whether or not Saint Jerome "invented" the cousin theory perhaps we might let the poor man speak for himself first? Notably, nowhere in his tract against Helvidius is the Protoevangelium mentioned.

Saint Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius:

15. What darkness, what raging madness rushing to its own destruction! You say that the mother of the Lord was present at the cross, you say that she was entrusted to the disciple John on account of her widowhood and solitary condition: as if upon your own showing, she had not four sons, and numerous daughters, with whose solace she might comfort herself? You also apply to her the name of widow which is not found in Scripture. And although you quote all instances in the Gospels, the words of John alone displease you. You say in passing that she was present at the cross, that you may not appear to have omitted it on purpose, and yet not a word about the women who were with her. I could pardon you if you were ignorant, but I see you have a reason for your silence. Let me point out then what John says, John 19:25 "But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." No one doubts that there were two apostles called by the name James, James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphæus. Do you intend the comparatively unknown James the Less, who is called in Scripture the son of Mary, not however of Mary the mother of our Lord, to be an apostle, or not? If he is an apostle, he must be the son of Alphæus and a believer in Jesus, "For neither did his brethren believe in him." If he is not an apostle, but a third James (who he can be I cannot tell), how can he be regarded as the Lord's brother, and how, being a third, can he be called less to distinguish him from greater, when greater and less are used to denote the relations existing, not between three, but between two? Notice, moreover, that the Lord's brother is an apostle, since Paul says, Galatians 1:18-19 "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." And in the same Epistle, Galatians 2:9 "And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars," etc. And that you may not suppose this James to be the son of Zebedee, you have only to read the Acts of the Apostles, and you will find that the latter had already been slain by Herod. The only conclusion is that the Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphæus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother, the one who is called by John the Evangelist "Mary of Clopas," whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason. But if you think they are two persons because elsewhere we read, "Mary the mother of James the Less," and here, "Mary of Clopas," you have still to learn that it is customary in Scripture for the same individual to bear different names. Raguel, Moses' father-in-law, is also called Jethro. Gedeon, without any apparent reason for the change, all at once becomes Jerubbaal. Ozias, king of Judah, has an alternative, Azarias. Mount Tabor is called Itabyrium. Again Hermon is called by the Phenicians Sanior, and by the Amorites Sanir. The same tract of country is known by three names, Negebh, Teman, and Darom in Ezekiel. Peter is also called Simon and Cephas. Judas the zealot in another Gospel is called Thaddaeus. And there are numerous other examples which the reader will be able to collect for himself from every part of Scripture.

16. Now here we have the explanation of what I am endeavouring to show, how it is that the sons of Mary, the sister of our Lord's mother, who though not formerly believers afterwards did believe, can be called brethren of the Lord. Possibly the case might be that one of the brethren believed immediately while the others did not believe until long after, and that one Mary was the mother of James and Joses, namely, "Mary of Clopas," who is the same as the wife of Alphæus, the other, the mother of James the Less. In any case, if she (the latter) had been the Lord's mother S. John would have allowed her the title, as everywhere else, and would not by calling her the mother of other sons have given a wrong impression. But at this stage I do not wish to argue for or against the supposition that Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary the mother of James and Joses were different women, provided it is clearly understood that Mary the mother of James and Joses was not the same person as the Lord's mother. How then, says Helvidius, do you make out that they were called the Lord's brethren who were not his brethren? I will show how that is. In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren— by nature, race, kindred, love. Instances of brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John. As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy 15:12 "If your brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto you, and serve you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you." And in the same book, Deuteronomy 17:15 "You shall in anywise set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, which is not your brother." And again, Deuteronomy 22:1 "You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely bring them again unto your brother. And if your brother be not near unto you, or if you know him not, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seek after it, and you shall restore it to him again." And the Apostle Paul says, Romans 9:3-4 "I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites." Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, that is πατρ ία, which corresponds to the Latin paternitas, because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds. In Genesis Genesis 13:8, 11 we read, "And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray you, between me and you, and between my herdmen and your herdmen; for we are brethren." And again, "So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother." Certainly Lot was not Abraham's brother, but the son of Abraham's brother Aram. For Terah begot Abraham and Nahor and Aram: and Aram begot Lot. Again we read, Genesis 12:4 "And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son." But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance. Genesis 14:14 "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen." And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, "And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot." Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion. But for fear you may make some cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother's treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew near and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother. Genesis 29:11 "And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son." Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother. And again, Genesis 29:15 "Laban said unto Jacob. Because you are my brother, should you therefore serve me for nought? Tell me what shall your wages be." And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said to Laban, Genesis 31:36-37 "What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued after me? Whereas you have felt all about my stuff, what have you found of all your household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and your brethren, that they may judge between us two." Tell me who are those brothers of Jacob and Laban who were present there? Esau, Jacob's brother, was certainly not there, and Laban, the son of Bethuel, had no brothers although he had a sister Rebecca.

Saint Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius:

17. Innumerable instances of the same kind are to be found in the sacred books. But, to be brief, I will return to the last of the four classes of brethren, those, namely, who are brethren by affection, and these again fall into two divisions, those of the spiritual and those of the general relationship. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." And in another psalm the Saviour says, "I will declare your name unto my brethren." And elsewhere, John 20:17 "Go unto my brethren and say to them." I say also general, because we are all children of one Father, there is a like bond of brotherhood between us all. Isaiah 66:5 "Tell these who hate you," says the prophet, "you are our brethren." And the Apostle writing to the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 5:11 "If any man that is named brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no, not to eat." I now ask to which class you consider the Lord's brethren in the Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say. But Scripture does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of Joseph. Shall we say they are brethren by race? But it is absurd to suppose that a few Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time might upon this principle have borne the title. Were they brethren by virtue of close intimacy and the union of heart and mind? If that were so, who were more truly His brethren than the apostles who received His private instruction and were called by Him His mother and His brethren? Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, "Behold, your brethren seek you," for all men alike were entitled to the name. The only alternative is to adopt the previous explanation and understand them to be called brethren in virtue of the bond of kindred, not of love and sympathy, nor by prerogative of race, nor yet by nature. Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 "She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's," that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. Otherwise, what are we to say of Abraham, a just man, taking to wife the daughter of his own father? Scripture, in relating the history of the men of early times, does not outrage our ears by speaking of the enormity in express terms, but prefers to leave it to be inferred by the reader: and God afterwards gives to the prohibition the sanction of the law, and threatens, Leviticus 18:9 "He who takes his sister, born of his father, or of his mother, and beholds her nakedness, has commited abomination, he shall be utterly destroyed. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, he shall bear his sin."

18. There are things which, in your extreme ignorance, you had never read, and therefore you neglected the whole range of Scripture and employed your madness in outraging the Virgin, like the man in the story who being unknown to everybody and finding that he could devise no good deed by which to gain renown, burned the temple of Diana: and when no one revealed the sacrilegious act, it is said that he himself went up and down proclaiming that he was the man who had applied the fire. The rulers of Ephesus were curious to know what made him do this thing, whereupon he replied that if he could not have fame for good deeds, all men should give him credit for bad ones. Grecian history relates the incident. But you do worse. You have set on fire the temple of the Lord's body, you have defiled the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit from which you are determined to make a team of four brethren and a heap of sisters come forth. In a word, joining in the chorus of the Jews, you say, "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? The word all would not be used if there were not a crowd of them." Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy? Who thought the theory worth two-pence? You have gained your desire, and have become notorious by crime. For myself who am your opponent, although we live in the same city, I don't know, as the saying is, whether you are white or black. I pass over faults of diction which abound in every book you write. I say not a word about your absurd introduction. Good heavens! I do not ask for eloquence, since, having none yourself, you applied for a supply of it to your brother Craterius. I do not ask for grace of style, I look for purity of soul: for with Christians it is the greatest of solecisms and of vices of style to introduce anything base either in word or action. I have come to the conclusion of my argument. I will deal with you as though I had as yet prevailed nothing; and you will find yourself on the horns of a dilemma. It is clear that our Lord's brethren bore the name in the same way that Joseph was called his father: Luke 1:18 "I and your father sought you sorrowing." It was His mother who said this, not the Jews. The Evangelist himself relates that His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written, John 1:45 "Philip finds Nathanael, and says unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." You will certainly find this in your manuscript. Now tell me, how is Jesus the son of Joseph when it is clear that He was begotten of the Holy Ghost? Was Joseph His true father? Dull as you are, you will not venture to say that. Was he His reputed father? If so, let the same rule be applied to them when they are called brethren, that you apply to Joseph when he is called father.

19. Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel— that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length.

Standing Up said:

PoJ contradicts scripture. We reject it for good reason.

As mentioned above, please don't comingle the Hebrew definition of ach with the Greek definition of adelphias. Jerome didn't.

Click to expand...

αδεληοις is used in Koine Greek to mean more than first-order siblings. It's used that way in the Septuagint. It's used that way in intertestamental Jewish literature. Why can't it be used that way in Matthew and Mark?

Standing Up said:

Oh, I thought you were introduced spurious books like PoJ and others as on par with scripture.

Click to expand...

No, why would I do that?

Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is based on the canonical Gospels which it expands with legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile or fantastic.

Again, just because a document that may be a pseudoepigraph has no place within dogma does not mean it cannot be of use in other regards - to illustrate a belief at the time of writing, for example.

Notwithstanding this, you have still not proven per your OP that "Jerome invented this theory, having rejected the PoJ book as spurious". Saint Jerome does not mention the Protoevangelium at all.

Standing Up said:

LDS qualifies (but too bad we didn't have this conversation 12 years ago---RC was still accepting LDS baptism as valid).

Click to expand...

The validity of doubtful baptism has always been presumed first, because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Therefore the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament. This does not preclude becoming more aware of Trinitarian errors which the teaching proposed by Smith contained. We are allowed to conduct investigations. If it turns out that a specific sect have all along held that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, and that Christ did not institute baptism, we are permitted to say that this baptism has never been valid.