Protoevangelium of James

[Thekla]

Actually, Augustine is a good example. He is considered a Saint because of his deep repentance, some of his writings are considered interesting, some beneficial, and some are not accepted at all. His teaching on Original Sin, for example, is not accepted - it is thought to be not in Scripture and a new teaching (not received).

 

[Fireinfolding]

We don't.
(I don't think the Protoevangelion is considered even an "ECF piece".)



First by comparison with what was received/always taught. Then, if the disagreement remains and is spreading, through a Council of all of the bishops (each having one vote). Then at the next Council, the earlier Council is either approved or rejected.

Some of Origen is "accepted", but some of his writings are condemned. Mostly, he worked on the first "parallel Bible", lining up all the different available versions.



A lot of what Origen taught was overidden. The Church, as before, judges by what was always taught and also "mindset"; what is called the "mind of the Church", the character - it's Christ centerdness. We have no infallible Pope.

After a while of reading the ECFs, you notice that they mention an earlier author (usually an ECF) and continue discussing that idea. They usually only mention the last author to state the idea, but you can generally follow teachings back to very early on this way. The earliest speak of what they have received.

So it is a pick and choose sort of thing, but based on a standard. Some writings are accepted, some discarded (or condemned), some kept but not as dogma or doctrine.

Just using what Standing Up is showing, thats what I am interested in.



No way is an ECFs word equal to God - Scripture is called the "Crown of Tradition" (and the Gospels are sort of like the "Crown" of Scripture). If an ECF is wrong, he's wrong. They're just human. But we recognize the Holy Spirit working in and through people, and and of course the working of the Holy Spirit is for the benefit of the whole (as in Paul's letter to the Corinthians).

The Protevangelion is not considered as Scripture (or even like an ECF). And the ECFs vary in opinions on many matters. As long as these matters do not negatively affect salvation, or are clearly wrong in some way, then they can be used for study, etc.



Never equal to Scripture (we kiss the Gospels, but no other book ).

So some things are relevant, some important, some interesting, and some dangerous (like some of Origen's teachings). The dangerous writings are "tossed out".

Thanks Thelka, you explained that very well (and easy for me to read) because you know me (lol) Ok I do sometimes forget you and the RC differ, I come to a site that offered the Protevangelion of James on a church fathers CD, and sometimes its hard to tell which is which.

I havent read any of them, so I dont know, however I am curious as to when certain doctrines began and finding their originations.

Thanks for that, you were very helpful

 

[Fireinfolding]

Actually, Augustine is a good example. He is considered a Saint because of his deep repentance, some of his writings are considered interesting, some beneficial, and some are not accepted at all. His teaching on Original Sin, for example, is not accepted - it is thought to be not in Scripture and a new teaching (not received).

Gotcha I'd hate to weed through all of them to be truthful Ive just never been inclined to I guess.

Thanks

 

[Thekla]

Thanks Thelka, you explained that very well (and easy for me to read) because you know me (lol) Ok I do sometimes forget you and the RC differ, I come to a site that offered the Protevangelion of James on a church fathers CD, and sometimes its hard to tell which is which.

I havent read any of them, so I dont know, however I am curious as to when certain doctrines began and finding their originations.

Thanks for that, you were very helpful

The earliest writers after the Scripture (like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) show the teachings, but don't always explain them. Later writers will refer back to the Scriptures and explain a bit more, but always keeping the "thread" of the teaching.

Thanks for asking

 

[Thekla]

Gotcha I'd hate to weed through all of them to be truthful Ive just never been inclined to I guess.

Thanks

I don't blame you

I read Scripture every day; I like to read, so when I want to read about Christ I might in addition pick up an ECf or a "spiritual elder". (Paul's writings are sort of the first of the spiritual elder letters - advice on living the Christian life, often in response to a question, or trouble, or as encouragement.)

Actually, sometimes the writings explain in a way that make something in Scripture just "pop out" or make sense in a way that is so simple, so straightforward. Although the ECFs sound complicated some times - usually when they are responding to a heresy - but at the core the teachings we have are so simple, they "fly" or "lift" the heaviness away. I think things that point to Christ are that way - they sit in the heart with an ease that shows all the stuff in the heart that's a mess. They are "light". Like He says, "My yoke is good/purposeful and my burden is light."

(I love that passage - in Greek, the word for good sounds like the word Christ, and the word for light sounds like the word for deer. So I always think of this, from the Psalms there - "He makes my feet like deer feet, and sets me upon my high places." )

 

[Fireinfolding]

I don't blame you

I read Scripture every day; I like to read, so when I want to read about Christ I might in addition pick up an ECf or a "spiritual elder". (Paul's writings are sort of the first of the spiritual elder letters - advice on living the Christian life, often in response to a question, or trouble, or as encouragement.)

Actually, sometimes the writings explain in a way that make something in Scripture just "pop out" or make sense in a way that is so simple, so straightforward. Although the ECFs sound complicated some times - usually when they are responding to a heresy - but at the core the teachings we have are so simple, they "fly" or "lift" the heaviness away. I think things that point to Christ are that way - they sit in the heart with an ease that shows all the stuff in the heart that's a mess. They are "light". Like He says, "My yoke is good/purposeful and my burden is light."

(I love that passage - in Greek, the word for good sounds like the word Christ, and the word for light sounds like the word for deer. So I always think of this, from the Psalms there - "He makes my feet like deer feet, and sets me upon my high places." )

Now I personally prefer when God does that popping thing directly "to me" which is probrobly why Im not partial to secondhand (or should I say, thirdhand?) pops as you say

I know what your saying though, I (personally) am not geared to work that way, I cant understand the way certain people speak, and alot of mens wordiness in their wisdom of words or eloquence (those sorta things) hinders me (not helps me). But I always receive more directly and through those who minister more directly in the way they might handle his words (without all that).

But everyones different I think.

 

[Yab Yum]

Another interesting little aside from Scripture. Num 30:

So Moses told the Israelites what charge the Lord had given him. He also gave the chief men of Israel's tribes this command from the Lord: It may be, man or woman will take a vow, or an oath. If it be a man, he must in any case carry out what he promised, and not be false to his word. But if a woman has made a vow, or bound herself by an oath, it may be she is only a girl, living in her father's house still. Did her father know that she had vowed or sworn, and make no protest? Then she is bound by her vow; she must fulfil what she bound herself by oath to fulfil. Did her father, as soon as he heard of it, refuse his consent? Then vow or oath are null and void; she cannot be held to her promise if her father did not consent to it. It may be such a girl will marry, still under her vow, still bound by her youthful undertaking; does her husband hear of it without protest? She must be held to her vow thenceforward; she must carry out what she promised. Or does he refuse his consent upon hearing of it? Then he annuls this promise, this youthful undertaking of hers, and the Lord will not hold her guilty. Or the woman may be a widow, or a wife divorced; she must then fulfil her promise. Or a wife already living under her husband's roof, may take vow or oath; is she bound to fulfil her promise? Yes, if he hears of it and makes no protest. But if he immediately refuses his consent, she cannot be held to her undertaking; the Lord will not hold her guilty if her husband's consent is refused.

It may be a wife will bind herself by an oath, vowing to mortify herself by fasting or some other kind of abstinence; it is for her husband to decide whether she is to keep it or not. If he makes no protest on hearing of it, but waits till afterwards before making his decision, she must pay her vow, keep the promise she made; there was no protest from him when he heard of it. If, after hearing of it, he refuses his consent, then it is he that will be held to account for her fault.

Such are the rules the Lord gave Moses, to govern the conduct of husband and wife, or of a father and his daughter when she is a girl still living at home.

Expositor's Bible Commentary:

It was seen that in the ardour of religious zeal women were disposed to make large promises, dedicating their means, their children, or perhaps their own lives to special service in connection with the sanctuary.

This understanding of Numbers 30 was also shared by Jacob Milgrom whose commentary is invaluable.

Basically it means it is quite possible that the "virgin consecrated to the temple" theory is plausible.

 

[Thekla]

Now I personally prefer when God does that popping thing directly "to me" which is probrobly why Im not partial to secondhand (or should I say, thirdhand?) pops as you say

I know what your saying though, I (personally) am not geared to work that way, I cant understand the way certain people speak, and alot of mens wordiness in their wisdom of words or eloquence (those sorta things) hinders me (not helps me). But I always receive more directly and through those who minister more directly in the way they might handle his words (without all that).

But everyones different I think.

Some things do just "come out directly", but some things don't for me. Sometimes because I think I'm not ready for them, or because I want to ignore them I guess it's like when you pray for help - sometimes there's a direct sort of thing, and others you get led somewhere - and when you don't expect it, the answer is there.

The spiritual elders are much easier to read, so I like those a great deal. These writings aren't dealing with "arguments against" something (and because they don't use the older language and style).

But as long as Christ is the center of it - well whatever we read we are in some way blessed

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

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.

The writing has nothing to do with the Liturgy.

You have made an incorrect assumption. The fact is that the EO liturgical calendar teaches who St. Joseph is, (a very old man with children of his own) and that you would find that these two sources are in agreement about much. We also know who Joachim and Annaare.

The protoevangelium of James is not influential over the liturgy. If anything, the opposite is true.

Forgive me...

 

[Christos Anesti]

A books lack of placement in the canon really only means that it's not canon. It's not necesarily a mark against what you find in the book. I think it's fairly obvious that it was pseudoepigraphical. Maybe written a little later than the books that did make it in the canon. It's lack of canonicity may have nothing whatsoever to do with it's teachings. A text written in the 2nd century still attests to a second century belief. Such a belief may or may not be true or inline with the mainstream of the Church teachings.

 

[Standing Up]

A books lack of placement in the canon really only means that it's not canon. It's not necesarily a mark against what you find in the book. I think it's fairly obvious that it was pseudoepigraphical. Maybe written a little later than the books that did make it in the canon. It's lack of canonicity may have nothing whatsoever to do with it's teachings. A text written in the 2nd century still attests to a second century belief. Such a belief may or may not be true or inline with the mainstream of the Church teachings.

Well, the PoJ specifically contradicts Scripture. In fact, PoJ rails against one of the holiest Traditions of Mary. NO PAIN in childbirth.

The PoJ has midwives helping Mary, indicating pain, weakness. Scripture has her wrapping the Child, indicating no pain.

(I fixed the link in the OP, if folks want to know the point Aquinas made. IOW, the PoJ contradicts scripture. The PoJ is rejected because it suggests a HUGE DOCTRINAL ERROR.)

PS. I am not saying I agree with Aquinas (I don't), but I am trying to explain his POV.

 

[Standing Up]

Thanks Thelka, since I dont know much of the church fathers, do certain churches believe they are all without error?


For instance if Origen would disagree or others somehow on a point another book (say the protoevangelium of James) or what Standing Up is showing, how is that handled if the church seems to go in the direction otherwise? I ask that only because I dont understand how the whole church fathers (and what they believed) comes into play (or is taught downward). Well, since (for instance) if not going by scripture. How might a disagreement (such as one Origen might have had) with a point of PoJ then "churched out" so to speak? By that are their beliefs valued to a point where the church considers and halts, or is it a pick and chose type thing, or would the church override what they might have taught?

Just using what Standing Up is showing, thats what I am interested in.

I mean I know they can just say, "the protoevangelium of James is spurious" (and add though that doesnt make everything 100% untrue) I understand. However if a church father points out an error he doesnt agree with specifically in it, would His word be equal to Gods in a sense? Well, given Gods words just dont say (just leaving room for speculation). Since the POJ is considered spurious (already) and some of those considered church fathers come out and say what might be, how is that taken into consideration overall if at all?

Is it blown off? considered? held relevant? Equal to the words of God, Hows that work?

The PoJ is spurious because it contradicts scripture. The main contradiction to the church at that time was it says Mary suffered in childbirth. The Virgin surely did not. The ears of the church rang against the notion.

Yet, that PoJ tradition still lingering in parts of the church. So, we have the great mind of Jerome invent the cousin theory, rather than the son of Joseph theory in the PoJ; to wit, the 300 year old tradition and scripture that James the Just (brother of Jesus) was different from James the Lesser (son of Alphaeus) is transformed into the assertion they were actually the same person.

 

[Standing Up]

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.-snip-.

Yep.

 

[Thekla]

Well, the PoJ specifically contradicts Scripture. In fact, PoJ rails against one of the holiest Traditions of Mary. NO PAIN in childbirth.

The PoJ has midwives helping Mary, indicating pain, weakness. Scripture has her wrapping the Child, indicating no pain.

(I fixed the link in the OP, if folks want to know the point Aquinas made. IOW, the PoJ contradicts scripture. The PoJ is rejected because it suggests a HUGE DOCTRINAL ERROR.)

PS. I am not saying I agree with Aquinas (I don't), but I am trying to explain his POV.

How is the correlation made between midwives and pain ?

Pain management/coaching is a role the midwife can play, but is hardly the whole of it. (Friend of midwife, 3x recipient of midwife's care.)

Nor does pain or not pain have anything to do with wrapping one's child at birth.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-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.

It's interesting to read those men of the brothers (same mother, different father) of our Lord and their understanding of who the Virgin is. It's the Church itself, pure in doctrine from the pure scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

How is the correlation made between midwives and pain ?

Pain management/coaching is a role the midwife can play, but is hardly the whole of it. (Friend of midwife, 3x recipient of midwife's care.)

Nor does pain or not pain have anything to do with wrapping one's child at birth.

Read the OP. If Aquinas and SU and many others in the thread can make the connection, surely you are able too.

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.

Look, you aren't going to agree, but try not to ask such apparent questions. How is the correlation made? Read the link. It's there in black and white.

 

[Thekla]

Here also:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' And the LORD said to me: 'What they have spoken is good. 'I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him'.” (Deuteronomy 18:15-19, NKJV).

The mother of all Israel in prophecy is Jerusalem, Zion; her children are those of this race. Those whom Paul calls brethren, too.

And clearly, Jerusalem did reject Him, and her children, the brethren of Paul and Christ ...

 

[Thekla]

Read the OP. If Aquinas and SU and many others in the thread can make the connection, surely you are able too.

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.

Can you quote the passage; that would help, thanks !

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.

Look, you aren't going to agree, but try not to ask such apparent questions. How is the correlation made? Read the link. It's there in black and white.

So you agree with Jerome. That's cool

 

[SolomonVII]

IF that were the official position, I suspect none would have even a tiny bit of an issue with it (CERTAINLY not me!). I'm not even sure I disagree with you. But it's de fide dogma. A whole other enchilada.






Wow. That's all I have to say about that.... wow!

People have been burned at the stake for less than that, for issues less than de fide dogma.

I left the RCC because I couldn't say "I am CERTAIN to the highest level possible that __________ is a matter of highest importance possible for all persons of the Earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter that impacts the eternal salvation of souls!" I didn't deny it, I didn't even disagree with it, in a couple of cases, I even saw it as most likely - but because I couldn't (in good conscience) say that later, I was "not Catholic" Again, people have been dispatched to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke for a whole lot less than what you've posted concerning issues a whole lot less in status than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Things must be VERY different in the EOC... Ah, but a discussion for another day and thread.

BTW, your statement is like that of MANY Lutherans.... Perhaps Lutherans and Orthodox are more alike in other things, too?







IF you are referring to Luke (and not this false, rejected "protoevangelium") then I disagree with you (respectfully). I think ALL THE WORLD agrees with what it says. It's not hard. Read the words. All of them are very common Greek words. We all agree on what it says.







Wow. I'm just stunned.

It's far MORE, far far MORE than doctrine. It's de fide DOGMA (at least in the RCC).

The problem is not that the Sacred Traditions are stating that they don't know.
By making doctrine and dogma and liturgy out of these very ideas, historically available to us first through pseudoepigrpahia such as the P of J, Joseph the Carpenter, and other apocryphal works, they are stating positively that they do know, that they do know so infallibly even.

Doctrine, dogma, liturgy, are all positive statments of true knowledge. It therefore becomes a valid inquiry, for an apostolic church, how do these dogma, doctrine and liturgy tie back to the apostles?

Ignorance is a valid enough response, if, as you say, dogma is not involved.
But dogma, doctrine and/or liturgy is involved, and the only historical lines of proof that exist all tie back to P of J*, etc.

If not the P of J then, not dogma, doctrine or liturgy either.

That is not doctrine, dogma and liturgy, if the tradition churches don't desire being the the churches where dogma is defined by " a little birdie told me so".





* not that P of J would even be proof, but more like damage control in light of what Scripture actually says.

 

[Thekla]

Irenaeus, hearer of Polycarp, hearer of John, consistently uses the name (as opposed to adjective plus name) "the Virgin Mary".