Origen was very quick to point out it's recent appearance and questionable details.
The Church took it as true although not scriptural. It is a historical account that also reflects the belief of the Church at that time, namely that the Blessed Theotokos remained a virgin after the Birth of her Son, just as she remained a virgin at His conception.
Which Church?
Origen noted that "while the notion might seem pious, it was not unlikely that the obvious interpretation of Scripture (that Mary bore them for Joseph) was true and acceptable" when talking about the brothers of Jesus.
It is eye opening how that forgery followed so shortly after the forgery "the Acts of Paul and Thekla". In this case it was Tertullian who quickly noted it being a forgery. What makes it all so interesting is Thekla is written about at length. Her praise of virginity. She was a devoted disciple. Her aggressive evangelism and refusal to be "pushed around" by men. Tertulian complains some Christians were using Thekla as an example to legitimate women's roles of teaching and baptizing in the church.
It's a good thing that those of the other school of thought had an example of a submissive, quiet woman content to sit in the background, Mary. The shame of it is in both cases the books were forgeries.
“The shame of it is in both cases the books were forgeries.”
Well, yeah, I suppose so, but knowing that, and understanding, if not accepting as “gospel truth”, that these works reflect the beliefs of The Church at the time, what difference does it make who wrote them?
By the way, I assume you know that both Origen and Tertullian ended up terrible heretics. Bad enough that we quote them on occasion. For a Reformed Christian to do so is quite something given what they ended up preaching.
How quick?
Which Church?
The One and Only, catholic and Apostolic that brought you the Bible.
Origen noted that "while the notion might seem pious, it was not unlikely that the obvious interpretation of Scripture (that Mary bore them for Joseph) was true and acceptable" when talking about the brothers of Jesus
Origen also taught a universal salvation and pre-existence of the souls. So, it doesn't surprise me that he taught Mary had children with Joseph.
Tertulian complains some Christians were using Thekla as an example to legitimate women's roles of teaching and baptizing in the church
Tertullian embraced a sect that taught that their prophesies were higher than those of the apostles.
Both Origen and Tertullian are fine examples that brilliant theologians are not immune to falling in grave error. If you rely on such souces, you might as well use Marcion and Valntius while you are at it!
Actually, I checked on this, and Origen confirms that the "brothers" of Jesus were children of Josph's by the previous wife. Please provide a source that shows Origen saying "Mary bore them for Joseph."
It is eye opening how that forgery followed so shortly after the forgery "the Acts of Paul and Thekla". In this case it was Tertullian who quickly noted it being a forgery
It was a popular myth. It reflected the early Christian reality of sacrifice and perseverance and persecution. Tertullian objected to it because Montanists and Gnostics had problems with women in authority.
The myth was widespread and popular but it was never elevated to scripture by any local church as far as I know.
The Protoevangelium of James or the Gospel of James the Just was a reflection of what the Church believed or wanted to believe. Just as it is in the Old Testament, some of the events described are mythological and allegorical, but they reflect the wide-held belief that they were true.
Besides the two heretics, Orgien and Tertullian, can you come up with anyone else objecting to Mary's perpetual virginity in the early Church or, for that matter, in the first 1,500 years of the Church? By the way, Origen's comments are traced back to the early 3rd century, a time of his complete fall into heresy.