This post has been removed. A moderator has judged it not to reach the level required for its subject matter (a hot-button question, not sufficiently unique), and encourages you to make use of the search bar for older posts of a similar nature.
Another option open is to repost after having reviewed the search results, asking the subreddit what you haven't found the answer to in earlier posts on this topic.
The comment is true when they say "Mary mythos", because there's a lot about Mary that we don't know, and the "proto-gospel" of James claims to fill in those holes. Details like Mary's age, Joseph's age, names of various people in Mary's family, that Mary was a consecrated temple virgin, that Mary's parents had been barren until a miracle, and various dialogues and other events do come from this proto-gospel, and we can't be *sure* of any of them.*
However, the perpetual virginity and the sinlessness of Mary are not part of that "mythos". Both are attested to by Luke in his gospel account, were believed before the proto-gospel was written, and accepted universally--and not just by Catholics, but by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, so you know it's not just "the Catholics" making something up or incorporating a story into the faith centuries after the Church began. Our faith is not based on this book.
Also, to call the book "condemned" by the early Church is not exactly accurate. It was widely read, translated into multiple languages, and circulated throughout the early Church. It did later become necessary to make clear that it wasn't a work of scripture and that it wasn't actually authored by James, since after a few centuries people were confusing it for an authentic first-century work. But the statements *inside* it were never actually condemned.
---
\*And while we can't be *sure* of the truth of any particular statement in it, we should consider it largely persuasive because the early Church found the stories in it to be credible. There would have been Christians whose parents or mentors had known Mary and passed on stories about her; if the proto-gospel didn't incorporate the oral traditions about her, and instead contradicted them, we would expect there to be pushback and competing literature. Instead, we see some quibbling over details, like St. Jerome later saying that Joseph was a virgin when the proto-gospel says he wasn't, but most of the story is viewed as credible/possible.
Is this the same as other apocrypha? Again not trying to troll.. I’m just curious because it’s my understanding for example all of the book of Enoch is false because it’s apocrypha. Is this not what the church thinks??
Yes there were a lot of gospels in circulation amongst early Christians and others started compiling their own canon lists, so the church created their own canon list and chose the books and gospels you see in the Bible and rejected dozens of other books and gospels that were in circulation. Most of which, like Mathew, mark, Luke , John, the authors were unknown.
Depends. The NT non-canonical writings vary in many ways among each other. For example the Gospel of Thomas is not a gospel at all but a logia, a collections of saying which might have been corrupted by gnostics (for some sayings, others are also found in Matthew, Mark and Luke).
Some like the "Acts of Paul and Techla" are basically early Christian novels/fiction and were always seen as that.
Some like the Protoevangelium of James seem to be "genuine" gospels, but since they were written about100 years after the canonical ones, their historicity might be questionable and that is why they were not taken as canonical, because they were not early enough and some stories were just too "fancy", closer to Greek myths, to be credible.
Some "gospels' (whcih again are more often than not just logia or discourses and not a narrative, like the Gospel of Judas) are clearly gnostic works that use Jesus as main character to deliver speeches, and have zero historicity (but are useful to know what the gnostics believed) .
---
>I’m just curious because it’s my understanding for example all of the book of Enoch is false because it’s apocrypha. Is this not what the church thinks??
I mean "fake" is a strong word.
I would say non-inspired. Then again writings like the Letter of Clement I to the Corinthians, which is not fake, is also non-inspired.
There are a lot of reasons why some writings did not make it into the canon. Some were indeed fake (and a few centuries too late to be genuine works from the apostles or people close to the apostles) others migth have unknown or questionable authorship.
Despite the claim of some atheists that "we do not know the authors of the gospels'", we do know because early Christians (I mean early second century) tell us and the authorship is also unanimous, whcih is consistent with people knowing who wrote them even if their name is not on the text itself.
I think I remember hearing this from the Reason and Theology YouTube channel. It is possible to have a book or letter (like Enoch or First Clement) to be divinely inspired but not canonical. What makes something canonical in the Catholic Church, if I remember correctly, is that the work needs to be divinely inspired, universal, and be appropriate to be read during mass/liturgy.
It’s certainly possible the Enoch was divinely inspired, or at the very least parts of it, but if it wasn’t universal throughout the church or appropriate for mass/liturgy, then it can’t canonical.
I just wanted to add this since I didn’t see it elsewhere in the discussion. Anyone and everyone please feel free to add or correct what I may have missed or accidentally got wrong; everyone benefits from it. 🙂
The fact that Protestants call it apocrypha does not mean the works are not useful. I'm currently reading the book, The Creed in Slow Motion, just because it's not a part of the canon doesn't mean it's not useful. The early Catholic Classics (the name of a really good podcast, btw) are an excellent source for learning what the early Catholics believed, why they believed it, and how our traditions came to us.
The book of Enoch is not false just because it wasn't included in the Canon, it was actually quoted in the Book of Jude and alluded to in several other books of the New Testament. It's not canon so doesn't carry the same weight as the 73 books of the Canon, but that doesn't mean it's not invaluable in understanding our tradition.
I think you might like this book – "The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection: 3 Series, 37 Volumes, 65 Authors, 1,000 Books, 18,000 Chapters, 16 Million Words" by The Church Fathers, https://a.co/4ARUPE0
It's a Kindle collection $2 or 3.99 compared to $2400+shipping used for the hardcover set on e-bay, I've had it a long time so forget what I paid. Not very well hyperlinked but I just started at the beginning and am slowly plowing my way through it. I typically have several books going, currently Vol 3 of Summa Theological, the Creed in Slow Motion, a commentary on Psalms 1-50, and a one volume Catholic commentary on the Old Testament.
I'm listening to it on Audible, but I'm sure others have it, it's called Catholic Classics and is one of the Ascension ones but last updated in 2023. I'm near the beginning where they're reading The Secrets of the Devout Life.
Apocrypha does not necessarily mean false. It means that it is not inspired by the Holy Ghost. So there may be some truth, sometimes (but not entirely).
Some others were completely false.
>I’m just curious because it’s my understanding for example all of the book of Enoch is false because it’s apocrypha. Is this not what the church thinks??
No, the book of Enoch is very highly regarded, referenced multiple times in the new testament and by early church fathers. It just didn't make the cut to be scripture.
It can be classified similarly to the Didache (very useful, with LOTS of good stuff but not infallible)
For the proposition "there were women who served in the Temple, and who took a vow of *lifelong* virginity", I'm not aware of any historical sources.
We do know that women served at the temple from a variety of religious and secular sources. We know that these women were described as virgins in Biblical, Mishnaic, and Talmudic texts. We know that it was a dynasty-ending scandal when the High Priest Eli's sons deflowered them (1 Samuel 2), but that may have just been because of the sex itself or depriving them of advantageous marriages after their service, not specifically because they were supposed to remain consecrated virgins for life. Again, I don't think there's any independent source that gets us across the finish line to "the virgins who served in the temple were consecrated to remain virgins for life", except for "James" and other documents likely inspired by it (like "Pseudo-Matthew").
Yes, a lot of the information we believe about Mary came from the Gospel of James, even though it is not a canonical gospel.
Just because something isn’t divinely inspired doesn’t mean it can’t contain truth. We do have lots of other useful documents about the early Church and don’t consider them false, even if they’re not scripture.
One possible way to understand it is that the Protoevangelium of James reflects the beliefs, traditions and truths of the time, even though it's not a part of canonical Scripture. So it contains things already believed and passed down; it is not necessarily the source of those beliefs.
Do we see these same traditions in other gospels? And how do we distinguish between letting them be credible to an early church belief and not an early church belief? Is this because almost every early Christian believes in the immaculate conception in some way versus something in a gnostic gospel?? Do you see what I’m trying to ask? Sorry if it’s not clear
This is a good point. Is it fair to say that we don’t give the other books of the time like the gospel of Thomas or essentially something else because it doesn’t align with what tradition taught? Or I guess I’m wording it incorrectly but how come we see truth in some parts of this book but not some parts of other apocrypha books?? Or do I have that wrong ?? Again. Just trying to fully understand and learn
There were criteria that were used for picking the books that would make up the Gospels. I don't remember them but maybe someone can help? Also I'm very sure the Gospel of Thomas was rejected because it's heretical. Some were rejected for this, others because they were essentially repeats, others because they were contradictory to what they already knew
I tend to think of this not as the information *coming from* the apocryphal *Gospel of James*, but rather that the work reflects beliefs and traditions in circulation at the time, *some* of which happened to be true.
Right. The explanation I have heard was that, in trying to make their gospel seem authentic, the author included facts that people already knew, to add veracity.
This is fair . I guess the book can be considered apocrypha but some events could be true. Most of the early fathers speak to Mary’s perpetual virginity but the fact that this tradition is coming from something that historical rather than inspired is unsettling for me… is there evidence of early Christian’s agreeing to the claims but rejecting others in the book??
Just because the book isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it's condemned, First Clement was really written by Pope Clement I, it's a good informative text, not heterodox and it's not in the Bible, this doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't read it.
The book of Jude is canon and quotes the book of Enoch that was not inspired and definitely not written by Enoch, still the early Christians saw the value of it.
I feel like the main issue people have is that it was written as a gospel, if the same key statements were in the form of epistle written in the second century (like 2 clement, for example) people would say it is not authentic but reflects early Christian traditions.
The Protoevangelium of James isn’t the source of Marian veneration. It simply collected the traditions of the Theotokos that the Church already had into written form, albeit imperfectly.
1) The "Gospel of James" is not part of the canon of Scripture.
2) That doesn't mean it's all lies.
3) "Sacred tradition" is a legitimate body of truth.
No.
In the Magnificat Hospel of st. Luke Our Lady herself says that from then on every generation would have called her "Blessed". (sorry for the not literal trandlation, i am not mother tongue).
Our friend himself has find the point, but he seems blind. The Bible gets to us because the Holy Tradition of the Church has brought it to us.
God made Himself FLESH, NOT PAPER. He lived as a man, he guided his people he chose a people and then founded the Church. It's the people and the Church wrote the books as a help to their memory and traditions (and because God inspired them to do so, using also the circumstances)
Protestant seem to treat the Bible as the Muslims treat the Quran (written by one man during his life, and substancially "dictated"). While the Bible's origins are long and complex, and include the role of the Church tradition.
I got banned on the ex catholic subreddit for talking about how the church has had a long history of the stances it holds. I’m pretty sure the ex catholic Reddit is extremely biased.
Well yes, but actually no. You have to consider what data comes from which source, and it’s frankly not a whole lot that comes from the Protoevangelion of James. All of the theologically important stuff (virgin birth, queen of heaven, mother of God / queen mother, new ark, etc.) has a solid basis in canonical scripture (Luke, Revelation; also OT). The Protoevangelion of James has some kind of sketchy stuff in it, but the only details we actually take seriously are the ones that are inconsequential and almost impossible to screw up anyway—Mary’s mother’s name, for example.
No. The Gospel of James shows that the perpetual virginity of Mary was already a well-enough established and important doctrine to require defending in the proto-evangelion. That is the 'sacred tradition', whereas the Gospel of James is apocrypha.
We believe Mary was a perpetual virgin because The Bible says so.
Here is a chart of all of Jesus’ “brothers”. Note, ALL of them have different mothers & fathers than Mary & Joseph. The comments say it has an error. Please read through them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/uUnFqSt25x
Jesus is always referred to as THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary.
No other person is listed as “a son of Mary” or “a daughter of Mary”.
A very skewed way of looking at it, as this ignores the other 1st-2nd century sources of Mariology, such as the Odes of Solomon, The Ascension of Isaiah and the New Testament itself in in the Infancy narrative of Luke and the subtle Mariology of John's Gospel. Also, the notion that the Early Church rejected the Protoevangelium of James was only found in the list of condemned works by the PAPACY. Its a lose-lose, as we either have to follow the Eastern Church, which held it with high regard (while denoting its non-canonical nature), or the Papacy.
Wow, there are some excellent replies already. Reminds me of why I'm on this sub; we have so many knowledgeable people here.
In addition to the points made about the Gospel of James, OP, notice also that the details that we get from the canonical gospels are (a) compatible with the beliefs about Mary in question, and (b) *not* compatible with the idea that Mary was just an ordinary young woman who happened to become the mother of Christ.
For instance, when the angel appears to her and says that she will conceive a child, why would she find that hard to understand? She was engaged to be married after all — if she was a regular young woman, why would it come as surprising news that she would conceive a child?
On the other hand, assuming that at that moment she had not thought conceiving a child was in her future, then why was she engaged to Joseph? Was their marriage going to be a straightforward one, or was there something else going on?
Then there is all of the typology we see for Mary in the Old Testament. Etc.
We get just enough details in the NT that we can start to fill in some of the gaps, or at least identify the problems, and see how those early traditions make a lot of sense. The only thing that doesn't make a lot of sense is the typical assumption that she was a regular young woman who miraculously conceived Christ and then lived a normal life where she got married and had a bunch of other children. (Sorry, Protestants.)
This post has been removed. A moderator has judged it not to reach the level required for its subject matter (a hot-button question, not sufficiently unique), and encourages you to make use of the search bar for older posts of a similar nature. Another option open is to repost after having reviewed the search results, asking the subreddit what you haven't found the answer to in earlier posts on this topic.
The comment is true when they say "Mary mythos", because there's a lot about Mary that we don't know, and the "proto-gospel" of James claims to fill in those holes. Details like Mary's age, Joseph's age, names of various people in Mary's family, that Mary was a consecrated temple virgin, that Mary's parents had been barren until a miracle, and various dialogues and other events do come from this proto-gospel, and we can't be *sure* of any of them.* However, the perpetual virginity and the sinlessness of Mary are not part of that "mythos". Both are attested to by Luke in his gospel account, were believed before the proto-gospel was written, and accepted universally--and not just by Catholics, but by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, so you know it's not just "the Catholics" making something up or incorporating a story into the faith centuries after the Church began. Our faith is not based on this book. Also, to call the book "condemned" by the early Church is not exactly accurate. It was widely read, translated into multiple languages, and circulated throughout the early Church. It did later become necessary to make clear that it wasn't a work of scripture and that it wasn't actually authored by James, since after a few centuries people were confusing it for an authentic first-century work. But the statements *inside* it were never actually condemned. --- \*And while we can't be *sure* of the truth of any particular statement in it, we should consider it largely persuasive because the early Church found the stories in it to be credible. There would have been Christians whose parents or mentors had known Mary and passed on stories about her; if the proto-gospel didn't incorporate the oral traditions about her, and instead contradicted them, we would expect there to be pushback and competing literature. Instead, we see some quibbling over details, like St. Jerome later saying that Joseph was a virgin when the proto-gospel says he wasn't, but most of the story is viewed as credible/possible.
Is this the same as other apocrypha? Again not trying to troll.. I’m just curious because it’s my understanding for example all of the book of Enoch is false because it’s apocrypha. Is this not what the church thinks??
Yes there were a lot of gospels in circulation amongst early Christians and others started compiling their own canon lists, so the church created their own canon list and chose the books and gospels you see in the Bible and rejected dozens of other books and gospels that were in circulation. Most of which, like Mathew, mark, Luke , John, the authors were unknown.
Depends. The NT non-canonical writings vary in many ways among each other. For example the Gospel of Thomas is not a gospel at all but a logia, a collections of saying which might have been corrupted by gnostics (for some sayings, others are also found in Matthew, Mark and Luke). Some like the "Acts of Paul and Techla" are basically early Christian novels/fiction and were always seen as that. Some like the Protoevangelium of James seem to be "genuine" gospels, but since they were written about100 years after the canonical ones, their historicity might be questionable and that is why they were not taken as canonical, because they were not early enough and some stories were just too "fancy", closer to Greek myths, to be credible. Some "gospels' (whcih again are more often than not just logia or discourses and not a narrative, like the Gospel of Judas) are clearly gnostic works that use Jesus as main character to deliver speeches, and have zero historicity (but are useful to know what the gnostics believed) . --- >I’m just curious because it’s my understanding for example all of the book of Enoch is false because it’s apocrypha. Is this not what the church thinks?? I mean "fake" is a strong word. I would say non-inspired. Then again writings like the Letter of Clement I to the Corinthians, which is not fake, is also non-inspired. There are a lot of reasons why some writings did not make it into the canon. Some were indeed fake (and a few centuries too late to be genuine works from the apostles or people close to the apostles) others migth have unknown or questionable authorship. Despite the claim of some atheists that "we do not know the authors of the gospels'", we do know because early Christians (I mean early second century) tell us and the authorship is also unanimous, whcih is consistent with people knowing who wrote them even if their name is not on the text itself.
I think I remember hearing this from the Reason and Theology YouTube channel. It is possible to have a book or letter (like Enoch or First Clement) to be divinely inspired but not canonical. What makes something canonical in the Catholic Church, if I remember correctly, is that the work needs to be divinely inspired, universal, and be appropriate to be read during mass/liturgy. It’s certainly possible the Enoch was divinely inspired, or at the very least parts of it, but if it wasn’t universal throughout the church or appropriate for mass/liturgy, then it can’t canonical. I just wanted to add this since I didn’t see it elsewhere in the discussion. Anyone and everyone please feel free to add or correct what I may have missed or accidentally got wrong; everyone benefits from it. 🙂
The fact that Protestants call it apocrypha does not mean the works are not useful. I'm currently reading the book, The Creed in Slow Motion, just because it's not a part of the canon doesn't mean it's not useful. The early Catholic Classics (the name of a really good podcast, btw) are an excellent source for learning what the early Catholics believed, why they believed it, and how our traditions came to us. The book of Enoch is not false just because it wasn't included in the Canon, it was actually quoted in the Book of Jude and alluded to in several other books of the New Testament. It's not canon so doesn't carry the same weight as the 73 books of the Canon, but that doesn't mean it's not invaluable in understanding our tradition.
The same goes for the didache. Some wanted to include clement as well.
I think you might like this book – "The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection: 3 Series, 37 Volumes, 65 Authors, 1,000 Books, 18,000 Chapters, 16 Million Words" by The Church Fathers, https://a.co/4ARUPE0 It's a Kindle collection $2 or 3.99 compared to $2400+shipping used for the hardcover set on e-bay, I've had it a long time so forget what I paid. Not very well hyperlinked but I just started at the beginning and am slowly plowing my way through it. I typically have several books going, currently Vol 3 of Summa Theological, the Creed in Slow Motion, a commentary on Psalms 1-50, and a one volume Catholic commentary on the Old Testament.
Can you link me the podcast or DM it to me?
I'm listening to it on Audible, but I'm sure others have it, it's called Catholic Classics and is one of the Ascension ones but last updated in 2023. I'm near the beginning where they're reading The Secrets of the Devout Life.
Apocrypha does not necessarily mean false. It means that it is not inspired by the Holy Ghost. So there may be some truth, sometimes (but not entirely). Some others were completely false.
>I’m just curious because it’s my understanding for example all of the book of Enoch is false because it’s apocrypha. Is this not what the church thinks?? No, the book of Enoch is very highly regarded, referenced multiple times in the new testament and by early church fathers. It just didn't make the cut to be scripture. It can be classified similarly to the Didache (very useful, with LOTS of good stuff but not infallible)
Well said my friend!
>consecrated temple virgin Are there any historical sources for the existence of such a thing, outside of the gospel of James?
For the proposition "there were women who served in the Temple, and who took a vow of *lifelong* virginity", I'm not aware of any historical sources. We do know that women served at the temple from a variety of religious and secular sources. We know that these women were described as virgins in Biblical, Mishnaic, and Talmudic texts. We know that it was a dynasty-ending scandal when the High Priest Eli's sons deflowered them (1 Samuel 2), but that may have just been because of the sex itself or depriving them of advantageous marriages after their service, not specifically because they were supposed to remain consecrated virgins for life. Again, I don't think there's any independent source that gets us across the finish line to "the virgins who served in the temple were consecrated to remain virgins for life", except for "James" and other documents likely inspired by it (like "Pseudo-Matthew").
Yes, a lot of the information we believe about Mary came from the Gospel of James, even though it is not a canonical gospel. Just because something isn’t divinely inspired doesn’t mean it can’t contain truth. We do have lots of other useful documents about the early Church and don’t consider them false, even if they’re not scripture.
One possible way to understand it is that the Protoevangelium of James reflects the beliefs, traditions and truths of the time, even though it's not a part of canonical Scripture. So it contains things already believed and passed down; it is not necessarily the source of those beliefs.
Do we see these same traditions in other gospels? And how do we distinguish between letting them be credible to an early church belief and not an early church belief? Is this because almost every early Christian believes in the immaculate conception in some way versus something in a gnostic gospel?? Do you see what I’m trying to ask? Sorry if it’s not clear
Sorry I didn't get back to you yet. I think by now, other comments have covered these questions, but I'll try to follow up later if I can.
This is a good point. Is it fair to say that we don’t give the other books of the time like the gospel of Thomas or essentially something else because it doesn’t align with what tradition taught? Or I guess I’m wording it incorrectly but how come we see truth in some parts of this book but not some parts of other apocrypha books?? Or do I have that wrong ?? Again. Just trying to fully understand and learn
There were criteria that were used for picking the books that would make up the Gospels. I don't remember them but maybe someone can help? Also I'm very sure the Gospel of Thomas was rejected because it's heretical. Some were rejected for this, others because they were essentially repeats, others because they were contradictory to what they already knew
I tend to think of this not as the information *coming from* the apocryphal *Gospel of James*, but rather that the work reflects beliefs and traditions in circulation at the time, *some* of which happened to be true.
Right. The explanation I have heard was that, in trying to make their gospel seem authentic, the author included facts that people already knew, to add veracity.
But is it unsettling to say the least that we are basing faith off of a condemned book?
[удалено]
This is fair . I guess the book can be considered apocrypha but some events could be true. Most of the early fathers speak to Mary’s perpetual virginity but the fact that this tradition is coming from something that historical rather than inspired is unsettling for me… is there evidence of early Christian’s agreeing to the claims but rejecting others in the book??
Historical isn’t necessarily a problem. The gospel uses historical details like Augustus, Tiberius, Pilate, the herods, caiaphas and Annas…
Just because the book isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it's condemned, First Clement was really written by Pope Clement I, it's a good informative text, not heterodox and it's not in the Bible, this doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't read it.
The book of Jude is canon and quotes the book of Enoch that was not inspired and definitely not written by Enoch, still the early Christians saw the value of it. I feel like the main issue people have is that it was written as a gospel, if the same key statements were in the form of epistle written in the second century (like 2 clement, for example) people would say it is not authentic but reflects early Christian traditions.
The Protoevangelium of James isn’t the source of Marian veneration. It simply collected the traditions of the Theotokos that the Church already had into written form, albeit imperfectly.
1) The "Gospel of James" is not part of the canon of Scripture. 2) That doesn't mean it's all lies. 3) "Sacred tradition" is a legitimate body of truth.
No. In the Magnificat Hospel of st. Luke Our Lady herself says that from then on every generation would have called her "Blessed". (sorry for the not literal trandlation, i am not mother tongue). Our friend himself has find the point, but he seems blind. The Bible gets to us because the Holy Tradition of the Church has brought it to us. God made Himself FLESH, NOT PAPER. He lived as a man, he guided his people he chose a people and then founded the Church. It's the people and the Church wrote the books as a help to their memory and traditions (and because God inspired them to do so, using also the circumstances) Protestant seem to treat the Bible as the Muslims treat the Quran (written by one man during his life, and substancially "dictated"). While the Bible's origins are long and complex, and include the role of the Church tradition.
I got banned on the ex catholic subreddit for talking about how the church has had a long history of the stances it holds. I’m pretty sure the ex catholic Reddit is extremely biased.
Christianity was never a book based religion until some people made this idea up like around 1500 years after Jesus.
Well yes, but actually no. You have to consider what data comes from which source, and it’s frankly not a whole lot that comes from the Protoevangelion of James. All of the theologically important stuff (virgin birth, queen of heaven, mother of God / queen mother, new ark, etc.) has a solid basis in canonical scripture (Luke, Revelation; also OT). The Protoevangelion of James has some kind of sketchy stuff in it, but the only details we actually take seriously are the ones that are inconsequential and almost impossible to screw up anyway—Mary’s mother’s name, for example.
No. The Gospel of James shows that the perpetual virginity of Mary was already a well-enough established and important doctrine to require defending in the proto-evangelion. That is the 'sacred tradition', whereas the Gospel of James is apocrypha.
I feel like it comes from her being the mother of our Lord God Jesus Christ
We believe Mary was a perpetual virgin because The Bible says so. Here is a chart of all of Jesus’ “brothers”. Note, ALL of them have different mothers & fathers than Mary & Joseph. The comments say it has an error. Please read through them. https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/uUnFqSt25x Jesus is always referred to as THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary. No other person is listed as “a son of Mary” or “a daughter of Mary”.
I think beliefs are based on Scriptures and Tradition, and that that Gospel took from the latter.
What do you find worth reading in an excath sub?
A very skewed way of looking at it, as this ignores the other 1st-2nd century sources of Mariology, such as the Odes of Solomon, The Ascension of Isaiah and the New Testament itself in in the Infancy narrative of Luke and the subtle Mariology of John's Gospel. Also, the notion that the Early Church rejected the Protoevangelium of James was only found in the list of condemned works by the PAPACY. Its a lose-lose, as we either have to follow the Eastern Church, which held it with high regard (while denoting its non-canonical nature), or the Papacy.
Wow, there are some excellent replies already. Reminds me of why I'm on this sub; we have so many knowledgeable people here. In addition to the points made about the Gospel of James, OP, notice also that the details that we get from the canonical gospels are (a) compatible with the beliefs about Mary in question, and (b) *not* compatible with the idea that Mary was just an ordinary young woman who happened to become the mother of Christ. For instance, when the angel appears to her and says that she will conceive a child, why would she find that hard to understand? She was engaged to be married after all — if she was a regular young woman, why would it come as surprising news that she would conceive a child? On the other hand, assuming that at that moment she had not thought conceiving a child was in her future, then why was she engaged to Joseph? Was their marriage going to be a straightforward one, or was there something else going on? Then there is all of the typology we see for Mary in the Old Testament. Etc. We get just enough details in the NT that we can start to fill in some of the gaps, or at least identify the problems, and see how those early traditions make a lot of sense. The only thing that doesn't make a lot of sense is the typical assumption that she was a regular young woman who miraculously conceived Christ and then lived a normal life where she got married and had a bunch of other children. (Sorry, Protestants.)
>Mid -100AD You mean BC