So was Matthew 28:19. So was 1 John 5:7. So was Mark 16:9-20. How about the whole of John 21? And a whole raft of others. Do you admit it or not? If yes, then I admire your willingness to grasp what is. If not, then what?
AND yet this apochryphal fabrication is BELIEVED more than the actual WORD of GOD!
You haven't been paying attention, have you? The Gospels are considered the pinnacle of God's revelation to man. The rest of the NT is seen through the prism of the Gospels and OT. The OT is seen through the New. As a matter of fact, for several hundred years, the OT was thought to be spurious and not necessarily for early Christians. It took the Councils to bring them back into general acceptance.
The 21st. chapter of John??? Well, I guess you can't use the "feed my sheep" command from Jesus to Peter anymore to prove he was the first Pope, can you? Oh, and that part about "there were also many other things which Jesus did that if they should be written, every one, the world itself could not contain the books that should be written", I guess you can't use that one anymore either to prove "Tradition" is just as authoritative as Scripture, can you?
That last part about it taking the "Councils" to bring the Old Testament back into "general usage", have you forgotten that the NT is full of references from the Old Testament as well as numerous future prophecies? Why on earth would the early Christians - who were mostly Jewish - reject the OT or discontinue reading it, proving Jesus as the Messiah from it and studying it? What makes you think that when they concluded their worship services and sang a "psalm", that is wasn't referring to the Psalms in the OT? Honestly, sometimes I get the impression that the early church is thought to be nothing but a bunch of idiot bumpkins without The Church to show them everything.
The TRUTH? The truth is that this was a forgery, NOT written by James.So was Matthew 28:19. So was 1 John 5:7. So was Mark 16:9-20. How about the whole of John 21? And a whole raft of others. Do you admit it or not? If yes, then I admire your willingness to grasp what is. If not, then what?
Suspect verses in EXISTING books that do not alter or contradict KNOWN scripture is hardly comparable to a forgery condemned by a Pope!
Is the protevangelium of James part of the Church Canon?
Was the author an eye witness who just happend to be over 150 years old when the forgery was written?
Why are the handul of NT verses about Mary interpreted thru the "Prizm" of this condemned forgery? Aquinas on the forgery: "apocryphal ravings" (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 9, Reply to Objection 3)