Protoevangelium of James

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I am not sure what your argument even is anymore. I did think everyone rejected the book as spurious an not fit for basing liturgy/ doctrine/dogma on. It didn't seem to me like anyone was saying anything otherwise about it.

If it is either your position, or the position of the EO in general that this is not the case, I stand corrected.

Ah... the problem comes in how you are mixing the two together.

We do not 'reject' the book as spurious. Nor is it the source for anything. It never was...

Your proposal puts two things together that never were...

"The Church" has NEVER said one word about the book. How then can you say that it has been 'rejected'... or anything else for that matter? (There have been many books that have been outright rejected by The Church.)

We (Orthodox Christians) hold it as correct pious beliefs... because it matches what we are taught in our liturgy.

Some people are of the opinion that if a book was not chosen for the canon, then it is automatically rejected as being not true... That's not the case at all.

The Canon was set so that every Church body, everywhere, could hold the same services 'according to a calendar'.

The fact that a book is not canon has no bearing on it's truth of fiction.

If you're looking for false books... look for the ones that The Church had burned.

Your phrasing makes attempts to cite it as the source for our doctrines. Which it is not, nor has it ever been.

Forgive me...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Protoevangelion is not the source of the teaching.

1. Then why the CONSTANT reference (but never quote of anything in it) as "here's the proof?" I've been told - over and over - when I was Catholic and by Catholics since, "Here's the proof." Why is that?


2. I think there is one very valid reason for that: it says NOTHING about Mary having had no sex ever OR Jesus having no siblings.


3. So, since it says nothing to support the Dogma that Mary Had No Sex Ever, and since it says nothing to support the opinion that Jesus Had No Sibs, then what's the point of the constant, perpetual, references to this rejected, non-authoritative book in reference to such?







.

 

[Standing Up]

Bump--there seems to be some confusion from some about the PoJ:

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

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

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

Gospel of James - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


-Aquinas-

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


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

FROM POPE GELASIUS I c495ad
The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics: …

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



all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.
Tertullian : Decretum Gelasianum (English translation)

Hope this helps our understanding.

 

[Standing Up]

Clement of Alexandria, c175
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.3666
3666 [A reference to the sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]3666 [A reference to the sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvi.html


Clement of Alexandria c175 long before Aquinas and Pope Gelasius, clearly rejected not only the PoJ, but also its doctrine.

 

[Standing Up]

Contrasts Scripture with Tradition:
“is not this the carpenter’s son?”52625262 Matt. xiii. 55. And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, “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?”52635263 Matt. xiii. 55, 56. They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,”52655265 Protevangelium Jacobi, c. 9. that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iii.xvii.html

Origen too, contrasts what scripture says with the ravings (per Aquinas) of the spurious PoJ

 

[SolomonVII]

Ah... the problem comes in how you are mixing the two together.

No, the problem is how you are mixing the two together.

 

[SolomonVII]

Contrasts Scripture with Tradition:
“is not this the carpenter’s son?”52625262 Matt. xiii. 55. And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, “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?”52635263 Matt. xiii. 55, 56. They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,”52655265 Protevangelium Jacobi, c. 9. that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iii.xvii.html

Origen too, contrasts what scripture says with the ravings (per Aquinas) of the spurious PoJ

The 'undivided' church seems to be of two minds on this matter too, if the convoluted testimony of EO members here are to be taken seriously.

I suppose by raving one might be where one concludes that the book itself is not used for the liturgy, but only the ideas of the book are outsourced for such things.

 

[Thekla]

1. Then why the CONSTANT reference (but never quote of anything in it) as "here's the proof?" I've been told - over and over - when I was Catholic and by Catholics since, "Here's the proof." Why is that?

Dunno; I'm not Catholic.

2. I think there is one very valid reason for that: it says NOTHING about Mary having had no sex ever OR Jesus having no siblings.

So it doesn't contradict your view; okay.

3. So, since it says nothing to support the Dogma that Mary Had No Sex Ever, and since it says nothing to support the opinion that Jesus Had No Sibs, then what's the point of the constant, perpetual, references to this rejected, non-authoritative book in reference to such?

It seems in GT it is , at least of late, typically brought up by non-RC/EO.
Again, I don't know why ...

 

[Thekla]

No, the problem is how you are mixing the two together.

His point is that we don't.

There is a difference between sourcing and overlap.

 

[Thekla]

The 'undivided' church seems to be of two minds on this matter too, if the convoluted testimony of EO members here are to be taken seriously.

I suppose by raving one might be where one concludes that the book itself is not used for the liturgy, but only the ideas of the book are outsourced for such things.

This book and the issue of the biological identity of the adelphos has never been the subject of nor a discussion of a Council.

Again, can evidence be provided that all the information in the text is in fact entirely original to the author of the text ?

 

[SolomonVII]

His point is that we don't.

There is a difference between sourcing and overlap.

The overlap is between the only source PoJ and what the little birdie whispered into the ear of the Chruch as a whole-except in the west where P of J and its ideas are rejected as spurious.
The heterodox church pre-1054.

 

[SolomonVII]

This book and the issue of the biological identity of the adelphos has never been the subject of nor a discussion of a Council.

Again, can evidence be provided that all the information in the text is in fact entirely original to the author of the text ?

Like yourself, I cannot either.

That is why I reject doctrine/dogma/liturgy that has pseudoepigraphia as its only proven documentation as spurious.

Jerome and many ecf agree with me on this. Only EO cannot-not without giving up claims to an infallible church doctrine at any rate.

 

[Thekla]

The overlap is between the only source PoJ and what the little birdie whispered into the ear of the Chruch as a whole-except in the west where P of J and its ideas are rejected as spurious.
The heterodox church pre-1054.

It has not been demonstrated that the Protevangelion is the only source.

It would be atypical for a novel position to be introduced without some discussion, unless the matter under consideration is not doctrinal - and even then some discussion would be expected.

 

[Thekla]

Like yourself, I cannot either.

That is why I reject doctrine/dogma/liturgy that has pseudoepigraphia as its only proven documentation as spurious.

Jerome and many ecf agree with me on this. Only EO cannot-not without giving up claims to an infallible church doctrine at any rate.

This of course assumes that:
1. all facts/ideas are documented
2. all facts/ideas originate in their documentation
3. all documentation is extant

These three assumptions which underly the position presented by yourself are demonstrably false.


The claimed "agreement" among "many ECFs" uses dubious standards for some claimed advocates of the OP's position.

For example, though the term "adelphos" requires further descriptive to narrow from among the definitions (both in Scripture and secular works), authors have been cited using the term but not the 'narrowing' gloss as supposed "support" for the OPs claim. This is invalid.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It has not been demonstrated that the Protevangelion is the only source.

This rejected, false, nonauthoritative book is not a source at all...
Even this rejected work says NOTHING about Mary having had no sex ever or Jesus having had no siblings ever.


The substantiation - both from valid and invalid sources - is absent.




.

 

[razeontherock]

The substantiation - both from valid and invalid sources - is absent.

That seems to be the difference between those that are SS and those that accept tradition; SS wants a source to be documented to be valid.

 

[Thekla]

This rejected, false, nonauthoritative book is not a source at all...
Even this rejected work says NOTHING about Mary having had no sex ever or Jesus having had no siblings ever.


The substantiation - both from valid and invalid sources - is absent.

That depends; what is your standard for substantiation ?

 

[razeontherock]

what is your standard for substantiation ?

As long as it's not "trans"

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That depends

It's evident from the reality that while many in the EOC and RCC reference the rejected book, none quote from it (I think they are all aware that it doesn't teach what they do - ergo, the unwillingness to quote the false book). If you are willing, just quote the part that says Mary Had No Sex Ever and Jesus Had No Siblings Ever. Or if you have some other false, non-authoritative book that has some substantiation for these views, feel free to quote them.




.

 

[Thekla]

It's evident from the reality that while many in the EOC and RCC reference the rejected book, none quote from it (I think they are all aware that it doesn't teach what they do - ergo, the unwillingness to quote the false book). If you are willing, just quote the part that says Mary Had No Sex Ever and Jesus Had No Siblings Ever. Or if you have some other false, non-authoritative book that has some substantiation for these views, feel free to quote them.

I meant what is your standard for substantiation; how have you made the asessment that the Protoevangelion is "spurious".