Protoevangelium of James

[SolomonVII]

Responding in context to post #74: Sup, she's right; you committed some sort of logical fallacy there. Just because PoJ sez it and PoJ is false, doesn't mean it is wrong on this point. (That would be what, ad hom?)

The assumption that SUp is making seems to be that P of J is the first source for this EO doctrine. It is a blind faith that would hold that another 'Q' source exists that would gave rise to both the EO and tje P of J story, which seem to agree point to point, at least how OrthodoxyUSA presented it to us in another thread.

What is the probability that the more authentic, more authoritative, more legitimate EO source, faded out, and that the heretic source is the only one that lived on?

The reason why these nativity pseudoepigraphia lived on is that they were wildly popular. They could fill in the gaps of the early life of Jesus like the testimony of the apostles simply did not do. They satisfied a need, and justified the very popular practice of female virginity in the early church.

While it istheoretically possible that P of J is not the first source, there is no other that has been produced by the proponents of Perpetual Viriginity theory in order to authenticate that claim as valid history.
It is either the falsel P of J, or blind faith in a source that no longer exists for us.

If blind faith however, on the Catholic dogma/ doctrine of PV, then it must be admitted that the claims of the Church to have always taught the same simply have no historical basis.
Historically speaking, there is the PofJ, and everything follows from that.

 

[Thekla]

The assumption that SUp is making seems to be that P of J is the first source for this EO doctrine. It is a blind faith that would hold that another 'Q' source exists that would gave rise to both the EO and tje P of J story, which seem to agree point to point, at least how OrthodoxyUSA presented it to us in another thread.

What is the probability that the more authentic, more authoritative, more legitimate EO source, faded out, and that the heretic source is the only one that lived on?

The reason why these nativity pseudoepigraphia lived on is that they were wildly popular. They could fill in the gaps of the early life of Jesus like the testimony of the apostles simply did not do. They satisfied a need, and justified the very popular practice of female virginity in the early church.

While it istheoretically possible that P of J is not the first source, there is no other that has been produced by the proponents of Perpetual Viriginity theory in order to authenticate that claim as valid history.
It is either the falsel P of J, or blind faith in a source that no longer exists for us.

If blind faith however, on the Catholic dogma/ doctrine of PV, then it must be admitted that the claims of the Church to have always taught the same simply have no historical basis.
Historically speaking, there is the PofJ, and everything follows from that.

Many are assuming this is the case, but have provided absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.

Nor do people seem to remember that the record of an event is not the origin of it; further, not all events are recorded, and not all records are extant.

If I may ask, hoping for an honest reply, why so much interest in attack on RC and EO, and why the persistent misrepresentation ?

 

[SolomonVII]

The same can be said for Jerome's opinion, except doubly so, for his opinion has no basis in any previous historic documentation whatsoever. He studies the matter, rejects the P of J story, which is the only historical documentation for the EO belief that existed, and reasons out his own ideas. He doesn't bother to refer his ideas to some historical source, nor makes any pretense that any such source exists.
Earlier sources just do not exist that this is the explanation for the brothers of Jesus.

The usual readin even of these early writings is to see the word 'brother' in the Scriptural text, and then to add the qualifiiers as to what else this could really have meant. For those who already believe in the virginity of Mary, the ordinary reading of the text of Scripture must be explained away.

It is not Scripture that is directing the understanding, but a belief in the institution of Immaculate Virginity for women that is attempting to skew the text.

Nobody much believes in the usefullness of a doctrine/dogma of Perpetual Virginity anymore anyways. It is just the baggage that traditionalist churches have to carry around with them in order to maintain that their church is the infallible one.

 

[Thekla]

The same can be said for Jerome's opinion, except doubly so, for his opinion has no basis in any previous historic documentation whatsoever. He studies the matter, rejects the P of J story, which is the only historical documentation for the EO belief that existed, and reasons out his own ideas. He doesn't bother to refer his ideas to some historical source, nor makes any pretense that any such source exists.
Earlier sources just do not exist that this is the explanation for the brothers of Jesus.

The usual readin even of these early writings is to see the word 'brother' in the Scriptural text, and then to add the qualifiiers as to what else this could really have meant. For those who already believe in the virginity of Mary, the ordinary reading of the text of Scripture must be explained away.

It is not Scripture that is directing the understanding, but a belief in the institution of Immaculate Virginity for women that is attempting to skew the text.

Nobody much believes in the usefullness of a doctrine/dogma of Perpetual Virginity anymore anyways. It is just the baggage that traditionalist churches have to carry around with them in order to maintain that their church is the infallible one.

For folks who read the Bible end to end and are familiar with the term adelphos, there is no reason to assume that it means any particular relationship unless there is a further description.

I've given the list of uses for adelphos in Scripture - it just gets ignored (even by Thayers).

This is true of those who read secular Greek writings as well - except those that deal with the extensive and well defined responsibilities for funerary arrangements etc. and inheritance laws.

I understand that coming from a reading solely in translation (and sometimes the general terminology is replaced with the more accurate term where the relationship is known) there might be a different view point.

But I also think that for some every RC and EO post is first filtered through the bias of those who are not in tradition Churches.

It has been my experience also that, because I am EO, some posters automatically assume I am "brainwashed", or dishonest, or generally unreliable.

I must admit, the whole thing gets quite tiresome.

 

[SolomonVII]

Many are assuming this is the case, but have provided absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.

Nor do people seem to remember that the record of an event is not the origin of it; further, not all events are recorded, and not all records are extant.

If I may ask, hoping for an honest reply, why so much interest in attack on RC and EO, and why the persistent misrepresentation ?

Well I am sure that the reason why you are persistently misrepresenting me is that you fully understand that what I am saying is irrefutable.

There is no evidence for your claim that there the ideas about Joseph and Mary that OrthodoxyUSA correctly identified as EO belief pre-existed the P of J.
If there is evidence, it is contingent on you to produce it. It would be insane for anyone to refute what you have no produced in the first place.

The only evidence to support the claim that the P of J is the first source is the total lack of evidence that anything came before that.

I am open to correction. Produce the evidence for your belief, and I will welcome it.

Otherwise it it you who are again being a dishonest broker by pretending that I am smearing your church.

There is no reason to think that there is a Q source that produced both the P of J and the identical EO doctrine. If there is a reason, then produce it, and I will be more than happy to be corrected.

Until then, you have nothing.

 

[Thekla]

Well I am sure that the reason why you are persistently misrepresenting me is that you fully understand that what I am saying is irrefutable.

There is no evidence for your claim that there the ideas about Joseph and Mary that OrthodoxyUSA correctly identified as EO belief pre-existed the P of J.
If there is evidence, it is contingent on you to produce it. It would be insane for anyone to refute what you have no produced in the first place.

The only evidence to support the claim that the P of J is the first source is the total lack of evidence that anything came before that.

I am open to correction. Produce the evidence for your belief, and I will welcome it.

Otherwise it it you who are again being a dishonest broker by pretending that I am smearing your church.

There is no reason to think that there is a Q source that produced both the P of J and the identical EO doctrine. If there is a reason, then produce it, and I will be more than happy to be corrected.

Until then, you have nothing.

But you've ignored the bulk of my post !

Absence of extant record is not the same as absence of fact.

I've explained this before - any historian will say the same.

And I pointed out that if the Bible is read end to end, and one is reading the term "adelphos" in the Bible, there are so many instances that it doesn't mean "brother" as in full or half-blood sibling, that to think it means any particular relationship without further description would be ... irrational.

I have listed the meanings for adelphos found in Scripture; the list is longer than the one given here from Thayers.

I am not claiming you are "smearing my Church".

But when the meaning and usage of adelphos is given from Scripture, and is persistently ignored, there must be some other reason at hand.

The same for the fallacy of correlation = causation used repeatedly here.

Claiming that referring to the actual definition of the term adelphos as an attempt to ignore the evidence is misleading; it's also ignoring the evidence of this from Scripture.

 

[Thekla]

If, when in the course of your reading, the word car has meant variously: Ford, Chrysler, Plymouth, GMC, Jeep, Honda, Toyota, Saab, Citreon, Kia, Chevrolet, and VW - why when reading the word car without the brand being named would you automatically assume that car = Chevrolet ?

 

[SolomonVII]

For folks who read the Bible end to end and are familiar with the term adelphos, there is no reason to assume that it means any particular relationship unless there is a further description.

It seems like the early Christian writers commenting on the subject assumed the same as the modern reader does.
The prophecy of Psalms is additional proof.

I've given the list of uses for adelphos in Scripture - it just gets ignored (even by Thayers).

It is not relevant to anything I have said. Anuthing is possible; but what is probable?

It is like the Muslims I conversed with years ago, who retort that Mohammed calling Mary the brother of Aaron instead of Miriam is not a mistake on Mohammed's part, but really the way that Arabs talk.
Like hey sis, whassup.Yo yo.
I get it. I just don't find the argument particularly convincing, that's all.
Same goes for you and your adelphos.
It could be brother too, in the normal usage of the word.
I can admit to both. You must admit to the more uncommon usage of the term, or the walls of the infallible church come tumbling down.
It seems to me then, that like the defenders of the infallible Koran, it is the doctrine driving the scriptural text, and not the Scripture driving the doctrine.

But I also think that for some every RC and EO post is first filtered through the bias of those who are not in tradition Churches.

I am a Christian. That is my only bias.

It has been my experience also that, because I am EO, some posters automatically assume I am "brainwashed", or dishonest, or generally unreliable.

I personally think you are dishonest, but that has nothing to do with you being an EO. That is because of how you have personally treated me on this forums.
You also certainly know the nature of good historical proof, when it is convenient for your argument.
But then again, that is jusgt you. It is not your church, I don't think.

I must admit, the whole thing gets quite tiresome.

It would be tiresome for me too to be droning out the same argument again and again, thread after thread, post after post. I come here because I still have things to learn, things that I am interested in that I don't know.
It would be tiresome for me too, if I read your every word, because like Montalban, it is the same message over and over again.
Adelphos right?
I get it already. We all do.

Gods Word gave me the scriptural prophecy that made brother the better understanding of the word being used.

Without any real good reason to not the usual meaning of the word brother, I don't much like the dogma of the Virgin Wife. It doesn't fit well into what Judaism and even especially what Catholicism teaches about one flesh union of authentic marriage, and it leads to a culture where men go to dirty girls for sex and good girls get put on the pedestals.

With the historic evidence being so underwhelming, the linguistic evidence being at best a toss-up, and nary a EO or a RCC stepping up to laud the actual theology of virginity (other than to turn up their noses at the idea of Joseph mucking around and dirty sexing it up in the Holy Presnce of the Torah) suffice it to say I am not the only one who doesn't much believe in the dotrine/dogma!!
Nary a one believes in it on other than a distant intellectual level!! Nary a one of us!! It is not just me then that you have a problem with. It is jsut a doctrine for you too, a writing on a paper, and nothing like an actual way of life.

Other than 'because my chruch says so, people have talked themselves blue in the face, without even once proclaiming the model of Perpetual Vriginity as something that has any meaning to them at all.

I can truthfully say that I don't believe this dogma, but more than that, I can say that I don't much believe in it, whatever the sex life of the Virgin Mary might have been all about.
I don't see the dogma as having produced much good fruits actually, and nothing I have read here by the traditonalist ahve done much to convince me others. Whether or not you proclaim the doctrine/dogma, you don'tbelieve in it either.

 

[SolomonVII]

Philadephia - the city of kissin' cousins

As translated by St Jerome
​

 

[Thekla]

It seems like the early Christian writers commenting on the subject assumed the same as the modern reader does.
The prophecy of Psalms is additional proof.

I've read some of the early Christian writers; which are you referring to ?

Re: the Psalms; I read this in accord with the prophets.

It is not relevant to anything I have said. Anuthing is possible; but what is probable?

It points to the context of the Scriptures as a whole.
Nor can I assume that the things of God will conform to my expectations, or what I think probable or possible. We are to be conformed to Him.

It is like the Muslims I conversed with years ago, who retort that Mohammed calling Mary the brother of Aaron instead of Miriam is not a mistake on Mohammed's part, but really the way that Arabs talk.
Like hey sis, whassup.Yo yo.
I get it. I just don't find the argument particularly convincing, that's all.
Same goes for you and your adelphos.
It could be brother too, in the normal usage of the word.
I can admit to both. You must admit to the more uncommon usage of the term, or the walls of the infallible church come tumbling down.
It seems to me then, that like the defenders of the infallible Koran, it is the doctrine driving the scriptural text, and not the Scripture driving the doctrine.

This parallel seems to indicate something else ... why the comparison with Islam ?

I am a Christian. That is my only bias.

And among Christians who have only the bias of being Christians, some hold that Mary was ever-virgin. Including Protestants.

I personally think you are dishonest, but that has nothing to do with you being an EO. That is because of how you have personally treated me on this forums.
You also certainly know the nature of good historical proof, when it is convenient for your argument.
But then again, that is jusgt you. It is not your church, I don't think.

Then you can provide the information where you found me dishonest, and this should be discussed.

It would be tiresome for me too to be droning out the same argument again and again, thread after thread, post after post. I come here because I still have things to learn, things that I am interested in that I don't know.
It would be tiresome for me too, if I read your every word, because like Montalban, it is the same message over and over again.
Adelphos right?
I get it already. We all do.

Then it is impossible to consider that the term might indicate something other than your conclusion in this one instance ?

Gods Word gave me the scriptural prophecy that made brother the better understanding of the word being used.

And many say the same, but come to another conclusion.

Without any real good reason to not the usual meaning of the word brother, I don't much like the dogma of the Virgin Wife. It doesn't fit well into what Judaism and even especially what Catholicism teaches about one flesh union of authentic marriage, and it leads to a culture where men go to dirty girls for sex and good girls get put on the pedestals.

I don't think that is the only possible outcome.
Paul mentions that chastity, by agreement, is practiced for enhanced dedication to prayer.
I also don't understand why you would adhere to the Catholic definition of marriage.
As for Judaism, I'm not sure why this would apply in every instance, nor why one child is not considered fruitful, much less Christ.

With the historic evidence being so underwhelming, the linguistic evidence being at best a toss-up, and nary a EO or a RCC stepping up to laud the actual theology of virginity (other than to turn up their noses at the idea of Joseph mucking around and dirty sexing it up in the Holy Presnce of the Torah) suffice it to say I am not the only one who doesn't much believe in the dotrine/dogma!!

What is meant by the "theology of virginity" ?
And who said that sex was "dirty"; I do not recall any such statement in these threads.

Nary a one believes in it on other than a distant intellectual level!! Nary a one of us!! It is not just me then that you have a problem with. It is jsut a doctrine for you too, a writing on a paper, and nothing like an actual way of life.

I don't follow what you mean here ...
If it is meant that I am not single, nor celibate - I'm not.
But my husband and myself do - like many - agree to forego sexual relations for a time for the purpose of increased prayer.
And we know some who are celibate.
It's not just "on paper", or "just a doctrine".
It's not just "intellectual"; it's something Christians have been doing for 2,000 years.

Other than 'because my chruch says so, people have talked themselves blue in the face, without even once proclaiming the model of Perpetual Vriginity as something that has any meaning to them at all.

It's been discussed in other threads, or at least the attempt has been made; no-one seems much interested in discussing it.

I can truthfully say that I don't believe this dogma, but more than that, I can say that I don't much believe in it, whatever the sex life of the Virgin Mary might have been all about.
I don't see the dogma as having produced much good fruits actually, and nothing I have read here by the traditonalist ahve done much to convince me others. Whether or not you proclaim the doctrine/dogma, you don'tbelieve in it either.

Why do you say I don't believe it ?

How can one know the absence of benefit without an historical investigation ?

 

[bbbbbbb]

PoJ is not part of the canon but it remained a popular sentiment, along with books like the Acts of Paul and Thecla. I hold it to be a pious book along with other texts.

As for Christians believing a lie, I find the heretical teachings of Tim LaHaye and Left Behind far more destructive than the belief that celibacy is a blessed state as St. Paul encourages in 1st Corinthians.

I do believe that Mary remained a virgin for other reasons, which I inherited from my Lutheran background.

Thank you for your response. As an Orthodox Christian, do you believe the Perpetual Virginity of Mary to be a pious opinion upon which sincere Christians can disagree or as dogmatic truth to be embraced by all Chistians?

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

I agree that the use of literature is critical in determining the outcome. If, for example, one chooses to take the gospels poetically as some liberal theologians do, then no determination of their veracity is possible or even necessary. On the other hand, if Christians take the gospels as conveying historic truth, then veracity does play a critical role.

Also to considered is the apparent intent of the author. Most, if not all, of us here at CF would say that the intent of the authors of the Gospels was to convey historical truth. If this is the case, it behooves us to do our level best to determine whether or not these claims are actually true or not. If they are not, then they are a lie.

That brings me to the Protoevangelaum. Is is evident that the author intended to convey historical truth or was he merely waxing eloquently about non-verifiable poetic ideas? If it was the latter, I can understand its rejection from the canon of the NT. If the former, then there does not seem to be a major obstacle to its acceptance into the canon.

In either case, its use and interpretation by individuals in the Church seems to be the question at hand. If they do not use this, as you assert, to define who the brothers of Jesus Christ are, then where do you find older, or at least contemporary, support for such an idea? It assuredly is not in the Bible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Thanks for the good post. I was hoping this thread would pique your interest. Good to see you again.

 

[Kristos]

I agree that the use of literature is critical in determining the outcome. If, for example, one chooses to take the gospels poetically as some liberal theologians do, then no determination of their veracity is possible or even necessary. On the other hand, if Christians take the gospels as conveying historic truth, then veracity does play a critical role.

Also to considered is the apparent intent of the author. Most, if not all, of us here at CF would say that the intent of the authors of the Gospels was to convey historical truth. If this is the case, it behooves us to do our level best to determine whether or not these claims are actually true or not. If they are not, then they are a lie.

That brings me to the Protoevangelaum. Is is evident that the author intended to convey historical truth or was he merely waxing eloquently about non-verifiable poetic ideas? If it was the latter, I can understand its rejection from the canon of the NT. If the former, then there does not seem to be a major obstacle to its acceptance into the canon.

In either case, its use and interpretation by individuals in the Church seems to be the question at hand. If they do not use this, as you assert, to define who the brothers of Jesus Christ are, then where do you find older, or at least contemporary, support for such an idea? It assuredly is not in the Bible.

It would seem that the crux of agreement is in your last statement. We both believe the Bible is true but don't agree on the truth. I would say that the evidence is stronger in favor of the view that Mary did not give birth to any other children before or after Jesus, but I acknowledge that even with this evidence there is some ambiguity. So we have a text that we both believe is 100% true, but we don't agree on what it says. What next? The logical starting point would be to explore what was believed through history. This is where the Protoevangelium comes in - not because anyone thinks it's on the same level as scripture or because anyone thinks it was actually written by St James himself, but because regardless of who wrote and why - it expresses the belief at the time it was written. It's corroborating evidence. Add to this other evidence, such as the use of "Ever Virgin" in the ecumenical councils, the common belief held by groups of Christians separated by other doctrinal issues (e.g. Copts, Armenian, Syrians, Greek, Latins all believe this same thing). Is it doctrinal? I would have to say no, but at the same time I think it would be close to impossible to maintain otherwise and commune with the OO, EO, ACOE or RCC because the title "Ever Virgin" is used often in the hymns - she is always the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary. Is that poetic hyperbole in the hymns meant to convey a transcendent truth? Perhaps, and I suppose you could believe that as long as you don't flat out deny it.

 

[Kristos]

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.





.

I have given you the paragraphs multiple times, but it seems that you haven't actually read it. Proof texting doesn't count as reading. In any case it's not really that important because this work is offered only as corroborating evidence to our interpretation of scripture itself, so there is no contradiction to scripture, rather support to the one truth.

 

[Yab Yum]

Cousins--Jerome started.

There's apparently this Hegesippus guy who it seems pre-dates even Tertullian.

Lets also not forget that Jerome has his own citations. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius:

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.

 

[Standing Up]

There's apparently this Hegesippus guy who it seems pre-dates even Tertullian.

Oh yeah. Forgot about him. And yes he was c165-175. He's very specific, wouldn't you agree?

"There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother.
Hegesippus (Roberts-Donaldson translation)


The Church was the virgin, not Mary. This is also what Clement of Alexandria was saying about Scripture (same difference).

"Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching
-same-

 

[Thekla]

According to the flesh does not indicate "same biological parent",

Paul uses the term to refer to the Jews as his brethren.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.


.

I have given you the paragraphs multiple times

With all due respect, no, you have not.

There's a solid and sound reason why you have not. This REJECTED, non-authoritative book says NOTHING about Mary's perpetual... anything. Nothing. I have, in fact, quoted verbatim the ENTIRE, full, complete, verbatim content of the REJECTED book (it's not long) and asked for the quote from it that indicates that Mary died a virgin... but no one could for one very simple reason - it says no such thing. There's a good reason why a few members of the EOC and RCC denominations reference this REJECTED book but never quote it - it doesn't teach what they insist that it does...

Nor does this REJECTED book say ANYTHING about Jesus having no siblings or Mary having no other children. NOTHING. I've read the whole, entire, compete letter, very carefully, many times. It's not there. As if it would matter if it did... it's a REJECTED, nonauthoritative, false book.






.

 

[Kristos]

With all due respect, no, you have not.

There's a solid and sound reason why you have not. This REJECTED, non-authoritative book says NOTHING about Mary's perpetual... anything. Nothing. I know that and I'm pretty sure you do, too. I have, in fact, quoted verbatim the ENTIRE, full, complete content of the REJECTED book (it's not long) and asked for the quote from it that indicates that Mary died a virgin... but no one could for one undeniable and obvious reason - it says no such thing. There's a good reason why a few members of the EOC and RCC denominations reference this REJECTED book but never quote it - it doesn't teach what they insist that it does... and (to be blunt but honest) I sincerely believe they know it.

Nor does this REJECTED book say ANYTHING about Jesus having no siblings or Mary having no other children. NOTHING. I've read the whole, entire, compete letter, very carefully, many times. It's not there. Obviously. Undeniably. As if it would matter if it did... it's a REJECTED, nonauthoritative, false book.






.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I did, but whatever...I doubt it would make any difference to you anyway.