Protoevangelium of James

[OrthodoxyUSA]

THE SYNAXARION

​

On March 25 in the Holy Orthodox Church we celebrate the Annunciation to our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-virgin Mary.

When the All-Holy Virgin completed the fourteenth year after her birth and was entering her fifteenth year, after having spent eleven years of living and serving in the Temple of Jerusalem, the priests informed her that, according to the Law, she could not remain in the Temple but was required to be betrothed and enter into marriage. The All-Holy Virgin surprised the priests when she told them that she had dedicated her life to God and that she desired to remain a virgin until death. Then, Zacharias, the high priest and father of the Forerunner, under the inspiration of God, and in agreement with the other priests, betrothed the Virgin Mary to Joseph of Nazareth to preserve her virginity and to care for her. When the fullness of time had come, as prophesied by Daniel the Prophet, and when God was pleased to fulfill His promise to the banished Adam and to the Prophets, the great Archangel Gabriel appeared in the chamber of the All-Holy Virgin and, as some priestly writers wrote, precisely at that same moment when she held open the book of the Prophet Isaiah and was contemplating his great prophecy: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son! (7:13)” Gabriel appeared in all of his angelic brightness and saluted her: “Rejoice, highly favored one! The Lord is with thee,” and the rest in order as it is written in the Gospel of Luke. With this angelic annunciation and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Virgin, leading to the incarnation of our Lord, the salvation of mankind and restoration of all creation began.

Through the intercessions of the Most Holy Theotokos and of all Thy Saints, O Christ God, have mercy upon us. Amen.

Forgive me...

 

[Standing Up]

I mentioned the possibility that Marcion was the author of the PoJ. Upon a bit more, it could also have been one of his disciples Apelles c160ad. He travelled to Alexandria. This would be the tie with Clement of Alexandria arguing against the work c175ad. As well as Tertullian arguing against the belief by saying Mary had other children; proof that Christ came in the same flesh as yours and mine. And with Origen of Alexandria who also knew of the PoJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apelles_(gnostic)

Here's the gnostic idea operating in the PoJ:


2 And they stood in the place of the cave: and behold a bright cloud overshadowing the cave. And the midwife said: My soul is magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen marvellous things: for salvation is born unto Israel. And immediately the cloud withdrew itself out of the cave, and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-mrjames.html

another translation:
And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html

Born in a cave (mithraism)
Great light in the cave
The young child appeared (no birth mentioned)

Those ideas may be traced to Apelles, Marcion, Valentius, Basildes, etc.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Let's say the EOC and RCC are both totally wrong and that the Protoevangelium of James should be viewed as authoritative. Okay. So what? It STILL says NOTHING about Mary having had no sex ever or Jesus having no sibs at all. Even if it was a bit credible or a bit authoritative.




.

 

[Standing Up]

.

Let's say the EOC and RCC are both totally wrong and that the Protoevangelium of James should be viewed as authoritative. Okay. So what? It STILL says NOTHING about Mary having had no sex ever or Jesus having no sibs at all. Even if it was a bit credible or a bit authoritative.




.

Well, it becomes even more complicated.

"IV. 1 And behold an angel of the Lord appeared, saying unto her: Anna, Anna, the Lord hath hearkened unto thy prayer, and thou shalt conceive and bear, and thy seed shall be spoken of in the whole world. And Anna said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I bring forth either male or female, I will bring it for a gift unto the Lord my God, and it shall be ministering unto him all the days of its life. "

Anna, Mary's mother, vowed a vow about Mary ministering to the Lord all her days. (The ever virgin part.) Dedicated before birth and taken to the temple at age 3.

So, in this sense, Mary was to remain a virgin. But it sorta takes away from Mary's obedience. She was doing what was already decided.

At age 15 Mary is given to Joseph for fear of temple impurity (monthly thing). Presumably after say age 60, Mary would be allowed back into the temple. Not sure how Mary would be protected during all that time, given that Joseph was an old man, say 80. So maybe 125 when he dies.

Anyway, Anna dedicated Mary, according to the PoJ.

 

[Thekla]

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.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvi.html

Again, he references the PoJ. He says, she was not a virgin upon bringing forth. The PoJ says she was.

Good luck finding any direct quote like the above from Clement of Alexandria about belieiving anything different.

What we have is two traditions at this stage. The brothers were same mother, different father. OR different mothers, different fathers. The former comes from scripture to Clement of Alexandria to Origen. The latter begins with PoJ and then is denied by CoA and Origen. In Origen's case, however, he nonetheless chooses the PoJ tradition.

The puerperal state is the state of demonstrating the bodily effect of childbirth; the author states she was not.

I'm not sure what you think the author means here - could you explain ?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I find it very foolish to believe that because the PoJ exists today that it must be the source of all miracles claimed.

Why is one miracle of God so much more difficult to believe than another?

From the Synaxarion:

"The All-Holy Virgin surprised the priests when she told them that she had dedicated her life to God and that she desired to remain a virgin until death."

Forgive me...

 

[Thekla]

God's Word referred us Psalm 69, btw.
Like all OT prophecies fulfilled through Jesus, what David is referring to in terms of his own biography, is fulfilled by the NT in often startling and livid detail-it often fits better to the time a thousand years hence than to David himself!
For all I know, not being an erudite Jew myself, what David was referring to himself in this biography could have been meant in a more general sense. The poison and vinegar given to him as food and drink may well not have been offered in the literal sense as was the case for Jesus. The children of his Mother likewise may have been meant more in a general sense. I am not totally aware of what he is referring to when it comes to himself.

For Jesus however, like the vinegar and gall given to him in mockery of his distress, were quite literally given him. Likewise, his brethren, the children of his mother according to God's written Scripture, specifically rejected him and he could do no works in his hometown on account of that disbelief.


Psalm 69 - Matthew Henry’s Commentary - Bible Commentary

Throughout the OT, the mother-children passages of prophecy refer to the Jews, not particular persons.

It is known that some of the adelphos were believers - James and Jude for example; why would they be called unbelievers ?

If Mary were the mother of the adelphos, why did they not not provide support for her at the cross ?

 

[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.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvi.html

The puerperal state is the state of demonstrating the bodily effect of childbirth; the author states she was not.

I'm not sure what you think the author means here - could you explain ?

Clement is contrasting the two states. Some say she was in the puerperal state, but she was not. Why do they say that? Because of the PoJ tradition. But she was not.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I find it very foolish to believe that because the PoJ exists today that it must be the source of all miracles claimed.

I agree...

"Very foolish" too since it doesn't say Mary Had No Sex Ever or Jesus Had No Siblings Ever.

Thus, the oddity: Why this REJECTED, late book which doesn't teach these things at all is given as the proof for both.

Why is one miracle of God so much more difficult to believe than another?

Point taken, it's no more difficult to believe that Joseph Smith found those plates, but while all miracles are equally possible for God, I disagree with you that ergo all claims are true - in fact, dogmatic facts of highest importance to all persons of Earth, matters of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, matters impacting the eternal salvation of souls. I suspect we just disagree on that.






.

 

[Standing Up]

I find it very foolish to believe that because the PoJ exists today that it must be the source of all miracles claimed.

Why is one miracle of God so much more difficult to believe than another?

From the Synaxarion:

"The All-Holy Virgin surprised the priests when she told them that she had dedicated her life to God and that she desired to remain a virgin until death."

Forgive me...

Just to be clear. No Christian for 2000 years has denied a virgin gave birth. The division is over Mary's life thereafter.

EO---follows PoJ, the brothers are sons of Joseph/previous marriage.

RC---follows Jerome, the brothers are cousins

Other---there is, as has been shown, another scripture/tradition (Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem); that is, the brothers were in fact brothers (same mother, different father).

Can we get together or not?

 

[Thekla]

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.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvi.html




Clement is contrasting the two states. Some say she was in the puerperal state, but she was not. Why do they say that? Because of the PoJ tradition. But she was not.

So where in the PoJ is it stated or shown that she was in the pueperal state; it's been some time since I've rad it, and you are more familiar with the text.

 

[Kepha]

Just to be clear. No Christian for 2000 years has denied a virgin gave birth. The division is over Mary's life thereafter.

That isn't true. Going by Scriptures alone, and eliminate any early CF uninspired writing, when a sS Christian attempts to educate him/herself, they will at times conclude that they don't know if she was or was not since the word 'virgin' is not so clear in the translations. It's not a set dogma per say.

EO---follows PoJ, the brothers are sons of Joseph/previous marriage.

RC---follows Jerome, the brothers are cousins

The RCC does not follow the Jerome theory alone. It's one possible theory of the two. It may be the 'standard' now but it's not inclusive only to that one.

Other---there is, as has been shown, another scripture/tradition (Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem); that is, the brothers were in fact brothers (same mother, different father).

Can we get together or not?

Are you saying all of these fathers admited to a tradition of same mother/different fathers?

 

[Kepha]

The puerperal state is the state of demonstrating the bodily effect of childbirth; the author states she was not.

I'm not sure what you think the author means here - could you explain ?

You are 100 percent correct on this. His focus was the word 'puerperal' right after labour and has nothing to do with intercourse after the birth of Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

You are 100 percent correct on this. His focus was the word 'puerperal' right after labour and has nothing to do with intercourse after the birth of Christ.

The PoJ says the young child appears, thus leaving her in the puerperal state. They say this because when examined, they found her still a virgin.

Clement says, she was not. He then goes on to say, for us scripture is the virgin. Not Mary.

PS. As you might be able to see, this impacts John 3, eh? But not to disrail.

 

[Standing Up]

That isn't true. Going by Scriptures alone, and eliminate any early CF uninspired writing, when a sS Christian attempts to educate him/herself, they will at times conclude that they don't know if she was or was not since the word 'virgin' is not so clear in the translations. It's not a set dogma per say.

Being born of a virgin isn't a dogma? A belief set from the OT and fulfilled in the NT and passed down as such. I don't know any Christian who denis 'born of a virgin'.

The RCC does not follow the Jerome theory alone. It's one possible theory of the two. It may be the 'standard' now but it's not inclusive only to that one.

Okay.

Are you saying all of these fathers admited to a tradition of same mother/different fathers?

Yes. You must not be reading all the threads. All the quotes are here, but let me know which one you doubt.

 

[Thekla]

The PoJ says the young child appears, thus leaving her in the puerperal state. They say this because when examined, they found her still a virgin.

Clement says, she was not. He then goes on to say, for us scripture is the virgin. Not Mary.

PS. As you might be able to see, this impacts John 3, eh? But not to disrail.

Breaking of the hymen is one part of the condition of being in a puerperal state.
One cannot be in a a puerperal state and be "still a virgin".

I don't follow what you're getting at ...

 

[Kepha]

The PoJ says the young child appears, thus leaving her in the puerperal state. They say this because when examined, they found her still a virgin.

You do realize there's a difference between perpetual and puerperal yeah?

Clement says, she was not. He then goes on to say, for us scripture is the virgin. Not Mary.

Soooooo St. Clement is saying Mother Mary was not a Virgin when She gave birth to Christ. Gotcha.

PS. As you might be able to see, this impacts John 3, eh? But not to disrail.

Please don't waste anymore of my time with your silly water/spirit analogy. I'm not biting.

Being born of a virgin isn't a dogma?

Depends which sS Christian believer you ask. And since last time I checked, there is no such thing as an sS Catechism, I'm going to have to affirm again with a no to that question.

I don't know any Christian who denis 'born of a virgin'.

I did a quick search online earlier and already found those who don't give much importance to it and can see it one way or the other.

Yes. You must not be reading all the threads. All the quotes are here, but let me know which one you doubt.

No I haven't so if you can, I'd like all the evidence where the word Tradition appears in each of these ECFs quotes. Not saying it's not there, I'm just interested in reading them myself.

 

[Thekla]

The PoJ says the young child appears, thus leaving her in the puerperal state. They say this because when examined, they found her still a virgin.

Clement says, she was not. He then goes on to say, for us scripture is the virgin. Not Mary.

PS. As you might be able to see, this impacts John 3, eh? But not to disrail.

Actually Clement writes, "The Scriptures of the Lord are like that to us.
They gave birth to the truth, but they remain virgin in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth." (p. 114, linked below)
The One Who Knows God - Clement of Alexandria - Google Books

He is making a comparison, but is not calling the Scriptures "the Virgin". (He does not even use the term virgin as an appellation for Scripture - he uses a straight comparative.)

 

[Standing Up]

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.
Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin,
ccel

... in the childbearing state ... but she was not. For (because) after the birth, found to still be a virgin.
paraphrased thekla-source

The PoJ states the child appears (no birth per se), which means to them Mary was still in the childbearing (puerperal) state. They say this because upon inspection she was still found to be a virgin. Clement denies this; she was not; she didn't remain a virgin. Jesus' birth was "normal". Water, birth, placenta.

PoJ--the child appears. No normal delivery. Mary remains as before.

Clement---normal birth.

St Paul---born of a woman. The virgin conceived.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

No I haven't so if you can, I'd like all the evidence where the word Tradition appears in each of these ECFs quotes. Not saying it's not there, I'm just interested in reading them myself.

Eh? The word tradition has to be there? You like Jerome, is the word tradition in there?