GET THE AUTOGRAPHED VERSION WITH EXCLUSIVE BONUS INTERVIEW ON CD.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Beyond this, the orthodox christians maintain the teaching of Jesus having step-brothers as tradition.
Unconvincing. The Protoevangelium of James is probably non-canonical for a reason.
Why was she considered “unclean” at a certain point? Are we to understand that dedicated virgins in the Temple could only be there as children and not adults due to menstration, for example? How many virgins were dedicated to the Temple at any one time?
Jimmy on a Q & A programme you mentioned that you are looking at bringing your Fathers’ book out in various formats. What formats were you thinking of?
“Unconvincing.”
Why?
If this is unconvincing because the Protoevangelium is non-canonical, how are we to feel about the rest of classical history – Tacitus, Suetonius, and the like? They’re not canonical either, so are they unconvincing or untrustworthy as historical sources? There might be no truths necessary for salvation in the Protoevangelium, but that doesn’t mean that there are no truths at all.
If this is unconvincing because the Protoevangelium is non-canonical, how are we to feel about the rest of classical history – Tacitus, Suetonius, and the like? They’re not canonical either, so are they unconvincing or untrustworthy as historical sources? There might be no truths necessary for salvation in the Protoevangelium, but that doesn’t mean that there are no truths at all.
The best one may do is say that Tacitus reports such-and-such, not that it is true. One may report what the protoevangelia say without assigning a definite degree of trustworthiness to them, unless there is supporting evidence from other documents of different authors, preferably from an earlier date.
The Chicken
The question I have is that if Mary was a consecrated virgin, wouldn’t that mean (to my way of thinking, anyway) that Mary’s pregnancy would have been morally problematic to observers, even after the marriage, if the point of the marriage was to provide Mary with a guardian who would protect her virginity?
Can anyone say what the painting is at the 31 second mark (also shown before hitting play on my PC) of Mary and the Jesus as a toddler? It is quite beautiful!
I would consider getting a print if it were available.
Found it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La_Vierge_au_lys.jpg
Wikipedia says it was painted by William-Adolphe Bouguereau in 1899.
Greg
The Protoevangelium of James was written by an anonymous someone claiming to be the step-brother to Jesus about 150 years after the fact. Who knows what agenda was behind it. That makes it a little different than the rest of classical history.
If Dan Brown was making an appeal to the “Gospel of Thomas,” would you take him seriously?
Not only in Aramaic, but also in Hebrew, there is no word for “cousin.” There are numerous places in the Old Testament in which those who are obviously cousins or close relatives are called “brothers.”
Jay D, do you reject all historical writings not directly comtemporary with the events they describe? The Protoevangelium of James was written within living memory of the Apostolic age and probably within living memory of the life of Mary.
Bill912,
Apparently the anonymous author claiming to be Jesus’ step-brother didn’t know that much about Jewish customs. And he contradicted the actual Bible in some places.
The Protoevangelium of James sounds like bad fanfiction to me. I’m actually kind of embarrassed for you guys. Jimmy Akin is usually better than that.
Jay D, what does your response have to do with my question?
Bill912,
No, do not reject all historical writings not directly comtemporary with the events they describe.
I don’t know where you are going with this, but it sounds like you are setting up some kind of logical fallacy.
Daniel,
Even if Mary wasn’t a consecrated virgin, her pregnancy would have been problematic to others. At the time she got pregnant, she and Joseph had not yet completed the Jewish marriage customs to the point that they ought to have been engaging in relations. As you recall, Joseph himself was scandalized and wished to divorce her, for it seemed to him that she had become pregnant through another man.
So whether she was a consecrated virgin or not, it doesn’t really effect how others would have seen her. One way or the other, she almost certainly did have to endure glares and gossip from people.
“The Protoevangelium of James sounds like bad fanfiction to me. I’m actually kind of embarrassed for you guys. Jimmy Akin is usually better than that.”
“…the most doctinally orthodox and historically reliable of the New Testament Apocrypha, the Protevangelium of James….The probable date of … portions of the Proevangelium of James … is about 130 or 140 A.D., not long after the probable date of composition of St. John’s Gospel and the close of the canonical New Testament.”–Dr. Warren H. Carroll, president and, later, chairman of the History Department, at Christendom College, from Volume 1 of his “History of Christendom”, page 310.
Dr. Carroll then goes on to write about the “tenacious genealogical memory of ancient and rural people, and especially of the Jews”.
Jimmy, you’re in good company.
Whoa there kemosabe. “Not long after the close of the canonical New Testament?” Nonsense! The New Testament canon was not nearly “closed” in A.D. 140.
The closing of the New Testament was a process.* The “period of discussion” took place from AD 220–367. The “period of fixation” took place from AD 367–405. The Proevangelium of James was around at the time. There was plenty of time for it to be included in the canon. It apparently did not come close to meeting the criteria. It was weeded out. If it was universally accepted as an accurate account of the life of Mary and Joseph, do you think they would have at least discussed including it in the canon?
*Although the canon was not dogmatically closed for Latin Rite Catholics until 1546.
By “the close of the canonical New Testament”, Dr. Carroll meant when the last book of the New Testament was written.
“If is was universally accepted as an accurate account of the life of Mary and Joseph, do you think they would have at least discussed including it in the canon?”
I don’t know where I made any comment about the canon of scripture; I was writing about a historical document, and of its use by historians.
I am making a different point. Namely,
If it was universally accepted as an accurate account of the life of Mary and Joseph, do you think they would have at least discussed including it in the canon?
Jay D,
It is important to understand how the canon of the Scriptures was decided. When these discussions were had, there were (at least) three important criteria that every book to be included was to meet:
1) It must be consistent with the doctrinal traditions which had been passed down
2) It must have been written by either an apostle or one who directly studied under/worked with an apostle
3) It must have been read in “all the churches.”
Let me explain each of these. The first point is obvious: since the time of the apostles, teachings had been handed down from bishop to bishop. Writings inconsistent with these teachings were not to be admitted to the canon.
The second point has to do with preserving authenticity. The apostles were those who originated the faith (apart from the obvious person of Christ). It was they who had the authority given by Christ to teach. For this reason, even amongst Protestants the absolute authority of the apostles is recognized. Now, as you I am certain are aware, it is easy for information to quickly deteriorate as it passes from one had to the next, and so even modern historians have a hierarchy of value that they give to first hand accounts, second hand accounts, and others following. Third hand accounts are considered unreliable, and so the Church would not consider any writing that had a greater degree of separation from the apostles than being second-hand. For this reason alone, the Protoevangelium would not even have been open to consideration.
The third point has to do with maintaining the a sense of authority as well, this time pertaining to tradition. If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church or Lumen Gentium from the Second Vatican Council, it will explain how the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church – which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit – consists of the teaching of all of the bishops everywhere. In other words, when all (understood to mean the vast, vast majority) of the bishops of the world agree on some point, it is considered to be a teaching of the Church which has been preserved by the Holy Spirit. This is not a new concept, of course, and in the early Church, the fact that a given writing had been permitted for Liturgical use in all of the churches of the world indicated that the Holy Spirit was behind it.
As the Protoevangelium had not been used in a sufficient number of churches, it was again not open for consideration as a canonical book. Note that this does not mean that it is untrue or that the Holy Spirit somehow prevented it from being read because it was erroneous. There are many reasons why it may not have been used in a variety of churches, including the simple idea that they already had enough to read in the writings of the apostles.
Thus, it is entirely possible that it was universally or widely regarded as an accurate account of the life of Mary and Joseph and yet was not considered for the canon. There was no need to even consider it on theological grounds or those of accuracy: it was not possible to even be considered, due to its authorship.
Can anyone tell me, as a verifiable fact, whether or not there were, in truth, “dedicated virgins” in the Temple? If so, what were their functions? (Btw, I’ve read the Protoevangelium, and I don’t find it to be reliable, partly because, if I’d just given birth, virgin or otherwise, I’d strongly object to being given the TSA treatment by a local midwife just to satisfy her own curiosity. Gross!!!)