[Springfield Reformer]

.. there were so many similar versions of this story throughout the ancient world by the second century ...

Similar in what way?  Can you point us to specific citations of these pre-pseudo-James narratives of Mary's alleged perpetual virginity?  Because everything I am finding suggests our friend pseudo-James was the first to come up with that fallacious idea.  Furthermore, it appears the patristic references to this fiction novel we now call Protoevangelium of James come very late in the Second Century, not early, as you suggest.  

So the problem is, if a cardinal Marian dogma must be built on a book whose author lied about being James the Just, brother of Jesus (I suspect just to get an audience for his warped retelling of the nativity story), does that not suggest a degree of desperation?   And if details of the Protoevangelium flatly contradict what we know to be inspired truth from the canonical Gospels (which they do), why is this book treated with any respect at all? It is apparently little more than an early effort at religious pulp fiction, loosely based on characters of the true nativity story, but with no commitment to telling the truth. A sorry source indeed to get support for soul-binding dogma.

Peace,

SR

[dangus]

i cited James just to explain why Mary was expelled from the temple. the infancy narrative of James is not the source of the Catholic doctrine. in fact as I noted several times it reflects the Greek believe, not the Catholic one; Catholics reject the theory expressed in james that Joseph had sons older than Jesus.the multitudinous versions of the story throughout literally hundreds of ancient churches is one reason why the gospel of James was not accepted as canonical. but the vast number of versions also demonstrates a far older tradition than the book of James.

[dangus]

As for sources older than the gospel of James, the great difficulty is that the persecution of Christians during the early Christian era leaves us with relatively few documents. However, Jerome for instance cites as his authority for the perpetual virginity of Mary, Ignatius who, in context, appears to refer to the 1st century bishop of Antioch, who reigned even during the lifetime of John the disciple. he also cites a number of other extremely ancient Church Fathers as his source. While we don’t have the writings that he cites, how could anyone in his day have taken him seriously where are they not well known?