Posted on 11/21/2005 2:11:12 PM PST by annalex
“So, whoever wrote the Protoevangelium was believable to his readers of 2nd c, or else it wouldn't have survived. The Protoevangelium therefore is evidence of what the Early Church thought credible”
Not so believable perhaps. The inspired gospel writers seem to have missed all this “believable” stuff about Salome and fingers being thrust into Mary and the cave. And this “gospel” was not in the recognized canon of Scripture.
In fact lots of garbage has survived like the Gnostic writing and “gospels”.
I wondered how I missed this. Now I know — looking at the date.
The Evangelists wrote, under the dictation of the Holy Ghost, the narrative centered on Jesus. This was one of the criteria for selection into the canonical New Testament: that the book be direct evidence of the life and teachings of Jesus. There were others: that the authorship be plausible by one connected to the Apostles, and that it be consistent with the other canonical books. Obviously, the Protoevangelium is failing the Jesus-centeredness test of canonicity; also the authorship of St. James is not certain. There were other multiple writings circulating around, that likewise failed, and some of them failed also on the account of consistency with the known teachings of Church. That there were other surviving writings that reflected heresy is not a proof that this is also a heresy.
It was brought up on a recent marathon thread and I asked the poster there to move the discussion of the Protoevangalium here.
You said it was the survival of the writing that gave support to the Evangelium. The best one can make of it is that it's survival is also not a proof that it is NOT heresy. This one writing that fails the test of agreement with the inspired Scriptures.
It certainly was not written by James. He knew the details of Christ's birth and we can hardly suppose he would be so far afield from the facts.
It wasn't written by James, it contradicts the inspired Scriptures, it has never been accepted as part of the Biblical canon. In brief, it's fraud. Written to support some doctrine? Perhaps but still fraud.
We are not sure if it was written by St. James. We are also not sure if the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul. It was common practice in antiquity to attribute a book to a better known figure, -- there was no intention to defraud.
It does not contradict the inspired scripture. Where do you see a contradiction?
It was not accepted for a good reason that does not impugn its content: it is not about Jesus.
You must have some strange definition of "fraud".
“Why hast thou brought low thy soul, thou that wast brought up in the holy of holies, and that didst receive food from the hand of an angel? And she wept bitterly, saying: I am innocent, and have known no man. And Joseph said to her: Whence then is that which is in thy womb? And she said: As the Lord my God liveth, I do not know whence it is to me.”
Mary knew exactly how she came to be pregnant, it was announced to her before it ever began. Is she lying?
No woman could approach the altar least of all the holy of holies in the temple.
Any writer, any Christian would know this.
Shall I go on? No magi, wise men came to a cave but only when Mary was living in a house well after the birth of Jesus. This was well know too by any Christian and from the inspired Scriptures.
Yeah, “fraud” is exactly the right word, perhaps too gentle a word.
Her reply, “I do not know whence it is to me” merely explains that she does not have a natural explanation for her pregnancy. A reply “I am pregnant by the Holy Ghost” would not be fitting as it would sound as horrible blasphemy to her husband, so Mary wisely sidesteps it.
Regarding the entering the Holy of Holies, the text does not exactly say that she did. It was an exaggerated rebuke, as surely Joseph did not think that Mary actually “was reared” on the altar and had her meals there. Also, as Dr. Taylor Marshall notes in the link I gave a few posts back, the Holy of Holies was empty at the time anyway.
Forgot to say: from the gospel of Matthew alone it is not evident that the wise men visited “well after the birth of Jesus”; in fact, the opposite is evident, as the wise men went to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:8), and therefore went not to the house in Nazareth but where the birth occurred. That it was a cave and not some other structure is a detail that cannot be contradicted by the use of generic “house” in Matthew 2:11.
The writers certainly knew the difference between a manger where the shepherds went to view Jesus and a house where the magi went.
How old Jesus was when the magi visited the house would depend upon how long it took them to travel from Jerusalem to Bethlehem's and search out the child. That would have been well after the birth.
If you have contrary evidence, let's hear it.
Returning to your comment....the only time Jesus and family are spoken of as living in Nazareth is after they return from Egypt.
What we must keep in mind is that the POJ is an extant document from the early second century. The fact that it is not recognized as an inspired or inerrant document does not make it 100% false. For example we learn that it was common enough knowledge that there were consecrated Temple virgins to not immediately invalidate the document in the second century. That does not affirm that Mary was such a virgin but it does introduce the possibility.
Peace be with you.
The motives and actions you suggest are neither expressed nor implied in the story. There simply is no way to make sense of this nonsense tale or rationalize it into anything of use to Christians.
Exactly, and the Protoevangelium puts them there. That the magi visited the house somewhere else "well after the birth" is your conjecture. The Protoevangelium conflicts with your conjecture. It does not conflict the Gospels.
They are however consistent with the Gospel of Matthew:
[18] ...she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. [19] Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately (Matthew 1)
You might as soon discredit Evangelist Matthew with the same remark as in 27, since apparently Mary did not explain her pregnancy to Joseph according to the gospel either.
Salient point. And there were temple virgins; see Dr. Taylor Marshall.
“The conjecture that Mary “had forgotten” the “mysteries” of the Annunciation is indeed a psychological elaboration that rings false”
Whose conjecture? It's what the author of the Evangelium says.
If false then it is his falsehood, amongst others.
Mary didn't forget Jesus when he was twelve, Luke 2:41-44 says his parents assumed he was with the relatives and acquaintances traveling with them from Jerusalem but when they sought him out he was missing.
“According to the Protoevangelium, she did not forget about the Annunciation altogether, but “of the mysteries”.
What “mysteries”? Something too trifling to remember?
An angel comes to Mary and she forgets part of the message? What can a person say? Really.
It has been a while, but IIRC, the earliest extant copy is third century (like almost everything else the RCC leans upon). As such, it is disingenuous to claim that what is contained therein is accurately attributable to 2nd century, and to my knowledge, it is inaccurate to claim an extant mss dating to that time.
The fact that it is not recognized as an inspired or inerrant document does not make it 100% false. For example we learn that it was common enough knowledge that there were consecrated Temple virgins to not immediately invalidate the document in the second century. That does not affirm that Mary was such a virgin but it does introduce the possibility.
I find such an observation to be ignorant of Temple/Jewish history. The Jewish priesthood and particulary rabbinical law enumerated an absolutely suffocating blanket of rules and laws which governed even the most mundane of every-day actions, to include a correct method wrt putting on and tying one's shoes - Yet in my memory, I cannot recall *any* regulation wrt 'temple virgins,' or any other orderly assembly of virgins whatsoever.
I would submit that if such an order of virgins were in existence, there would no doubt be a large body of regulation governing such a group, not to mention other anecdotal evidence in Jewish tradition. To my knowledge, no such evidence exists.
So to use such a document to 'introduce the possibility' of such an order of virgins is specious to say the least, and lends no credence in the first part, not to mention an inference that Mary might possibly be from among their ranks.
Secondly, The POJ shows itself to be so uninformed in the nature of Judaism as to be positively daft, as I am certain any of our Jewish FRiends will be happy to affirm. To draw any sort of authority or history from such a document is wholly without merit. It may not be 100% false, as you suggest, but whatever percentage of truth one might find within it is certain to be negligible.
Shall I go dismantling this fraud?
. Also calling it “fraud” does not make it so.
The conjecture that Mary “had forgotten” the “mysteries” of the Annunciation is indeed a psychological elaboration that rings false. It is an artistic attempt to give a background to Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), which it proceeds to quote in part. It does not discredit the factual content of the book.
Let us also remember that Mary is not free from human weakness; she did, for example, forget her child in the Temple. According to the Protoevangelium, she did not forget about the Annunciation altogether, but “of the mysteries”. Her subsequent speech explains that her perplexion is not of her mission, but of the fact that it is she who was chosen for it. It is a reasonable and humble attitude, same as when she is rebuked by St. Joseph and answers obliquely.”
Mary didn’t forget Jesus, Joseph and Mary were traveling with friends and family, it was assumed Jesus was with them. (Lue 2:41-44)
It was an angel that informed Joseph and with no hint he would think it blasphemy that Mary was pregnant by the power of the holy spirit.
You are quite right, the Evangelium is not a fraud because I say it is, it’s a fraud because what it says is false. But if you wish to assert it has true statements I invite you to grab that blue pencil and have at it. Saying that means this and this means that doesn’t make it so either.
“You might as soon discredit Evangelist Matthew with the same remark as in 27, since apparently Mary did not explain her pregnancy to Joseph according to the gospel either”
Did she say, “I dunno how this happened!”? as the Evangelium asserts?”
May be I did not understand what your objection was in your "No magi, wise men came to a cave but only when Mary was living in a house well after the birth of Jesus" (post 27).
In chapter 21 Magi follow the star and come to the cave. In the Matthew's gospel the Magi follow the star and come to "where the child was" (Matthew 2:9) and then they enter "into the house" (v. 11) and adore him.
In Luke 2:7 we learn that Christ was born outside the inn in what apparently housed animals, as thee was a manger in there.
None of that is a contradiction, unless you don't think a visit to the cave serving as a stable of the house cannot be described as visit to the "house".
If you think that the Magi visited not in Bethlehem but someplace else and much later, then it is your own interpretation of events. The Book of Matthew seems to suggest that they went to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:8).
Whose conjecture? It's what the author of the Evangelium says.
The conjecture, by St. James or the author other than St. James, that Mary forgot "the mysteries" is a psychological portrait that I personally find unconvincing. But it is plausible that in fact she continued to wonder about the "mystery" of her being of all women the chosen one. It is poetic license, not a hard contradiction; it only contradicts my personal sense of how she felt.
What “mysteries”? Something too trifling to remember?
The Protoevangelium does not say she forgot because of the mystery being trifling. Most likely, if she indeed forgot it was because it was impossible to express in words, and left her wondering afterwards. Compare Luke 2:33: "his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.