Talk:Gospel of James

[Untitled]

User:Trc inserted the following: Catholic theology does not completely ignore extracanonical sources, which, "with unwarranted and legendary facts...[yet] contain some historical data borrowed from reliable traditions...." [1] His quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, is from the entry on St. Joachim, which also warns "If we were to obey the warning of St. Peter Damian, we should consider it a blameable and needless curiosity to inquire about those things that the Evangelists did not deem it advisable to relate, and, in particular, about the parents of the Blessed Virgin...." etc etc and much in similar vein. Does anyone feel this intrusion is helpful in this entry in any way? For an idea of User:Tnc's contributions, see Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Wetman 04:56, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(It's "Trc".) The sentence you mention occurs in the article, but the paragraph in question is about sources of tradition, in effect, so a brief quote showing how extracanonical sources can influence tradition should be a help. Trc | [msg] 04:59, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

An apologia presenting the Roman Catholic Church's view of its uses of extracanonical sources would make an excellent entry-- elsewhere. There should be a link to it at the entry for Gospel of James. We look forward to seeing it. Wetman 05:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The quote I have contributed is very relevant, showing how Catholic theology adapts extracanonical sources, in a paragraph about that very subject. Trc | [msg] 05:17, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Trc who hews the RC party line has entered the following statement: "No doctrine of the Catholic Church has origins in an apocryphal writing." This is a deeply dishonest and cynical user who should be carefully monitored. Wetman 07:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What I meant by that is that they aren't defined that way. As the quote offered in this entry shows, apocryphal material is incorporated into the Catholic theology. Trc | [msg] 07:32, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) — minimally; theology is a very broad category of material. (Trc | [msg])

---

I am not sure about this paragraph:

While the Gospel of James has never been an accepted part of the New Testament canon, it does provide the basis for many of the hymns used in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and for much of their teachings concerning Mary.(edit:conversion script 25 Feb 2002) Catholic theology does not completely ignore extracanonical sources, which, "with unwarranted and legendary facts...[yet] contain some historical data borrowed from reliable traditions...." [2](edit: Trc 14 June 2004)

It may be fantasy. The quote about Catholic theology not completely ignoring extracanonical sources is true enough, but I would like to see some substantiation for "it [the Protoevangelium] does provide the basis for many of the hymns used in..." and "and for much of their teachings". The latter is conjecture and the former is something that ought to be localizeable in a book. For example, can anyone name a hymn that comes from the Protoevangelium? Or even "many of the hymns"? The "teachings" do not come from apocryphal documents, but rather the apocryphal documents reflect the teachings. That is a point of methodology. Trc | [msg] 01:18, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure about any of this, myself, though I have now added the edits where they first appeared in boldface. One, labelled "true enough" is actually from Trc himself. Very odd maneuver. A way to remove the first sentence, perhaps?... Wetman 01:37, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

The intrusive interjection concerning James, the brother of Jesus (as attested in Scripture), "if one existed" I have now amended to read ("if one existed" some Catholics might interject), which sets it in correct context. What if we realists inserted Purported into every mention of the Purported Virgin Birth? Wetman 07:30, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it to something like "The Gospel of James claims to be written by James the Jus, who the Gospel of James says is the step-brother of Jesus". francis 19:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

== I think there's a problem with the sentence "Interestingly enough, not one work of the genre under discussion [infancy gospels] is in any Bible." (added here). What does the author mean by "any Bible" - any modern Bible? We all know that. And what are they trying to prove with "interestingly enough"? Can anyone who knows more about the topic than me shed any light on this? I'll remove the sentence in a few days if no-one objects. --Grace 00:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Interestingly enough" is such a tattered signal flag for POV irony, it's suprising how often it's still employed. --Wetman 07:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you take out the follow up sentences about biblical gospels clearly being jewish books. It's POV and not generally accepted I believe. (IanErc)

Masoretic Text.

The current article reads

"The echoes and parallels of the Old Testament appear to derive from its Greek translation, the Septuagint, as opposed to the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which is noticeable due to several peculiarities and variations present in the Septuagint. It apparently embellishes what is told of events surrounding Mary, prior to and at the moment of Jesus' birth, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke."

This is problematic, because the Masoretic Text dates between 600-1000 CE (I am sure I have seen later dates from scholars as well) and the period that this article deals with is the mid 2nd Century, 500 years before the Masoretic text was even beginning to be "compiled."

Another issue is that the Greek Lxx text was used by Jews in the Diaspora who spoke primarily Greek, and so to claim that the use of the Lxx. somehow proves that it is a pseudographical work is stretching it. The Lxx is used more often in the NT in quoting the Old Testament than the Masoretic related texts are. I suggest some revision, but I am not sure what.Grailknighthero (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree the use of the LXX adds nothing to the argument for or against it being pseudographical for the reasons stated. I will therefore amend the article to remove this statement, as I think this is the best approach. Angliananglican (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The earliest Masoretic manuscripts date from around 1000 AD (slightly earlier), but the text itself (the form of words) is far older - 90% of the Dead Sea Scrolls follow the Masoretic wording, not the LXXXAchar Sva (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

1 Authorship and Date

„For example, the work suggests there were consecrated temple virgins in Judaism, similar to the Vestal Virgins in pagan Rome, this is unlikely to have been a practice in mainstream Judaism, but could possibly have been a practice within the ancient Essene culture.“

Where is the evidence to the proposed „example“ to this work? I would like to read it myself, if anything when I did read the Protoevangelium, the only thing I have read was that the character Mary was chosen, along with six other [a total of seven] „undefiled virgins of the family of David.“

If there is no evidence found, there is no value in this proposed connection of this article to the Vestal Virgins, and I will see that this „example“ is removed accordingly to Wikipedia's verifiability policy.

序名三「Jyonasan」 ^Talk_Stalk 06:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Virgin or slut?

I'm puzzled by the statement:

Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics argue that the Old Testament shows that consecrated virginity had been practiced in Judaism since the days of the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 2:22)

The cited scripture verse is nothing to do with virginity, rather about serving women at the meeting tent who were sleeping with Samuel's sons. That the citation from catholic.com should use this to support the idea that "Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries" is even more puzzling - unless of course the Catholic translation of this verse is entirely different. Can anyone throw light on this? Chris55 (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Language

1. In what language did the composition originate?
2. In what language is the oldest surviving fragments of the composition?

allixpeeke (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

On the Document’s Relation to Marian Doctrine

Relating to the thread of recent edits, I’m bringing this topic here in talk.

The citation in question comes from the article by Hunter, which says on p. 63, “But by far the most significant document for the post partum and in partu virginity of Mary is the Protevangelium of James, a text which stands as the ultimate source of almost all later Marian doctrine.” My reading is that here, and supported by the context of the whole article, Hunter is saying that this pertains to the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity ONLY, rather than all Marian doctrine.

Achar Sva, a frequent contributor to this article, contends, “It became the source of almost all Mariological doctrine, not just the perpetual virginity”.

The discussion goes in three directions from here:

1) Does Hunter argue that the protoevangelium is the “ultimate source of almost all later Marian doctrine” in an unqualified sense, or merely in regards to perpetual virginity?

2) Setting aside for a moment Hunter’s view, is it demonstrably the case that the protoevangelium is the “ultimate source of almost all later Marian doctrine” in an unqualified sense? That is, even if Hunter did not argue this, is it ultimately true anyway?

3) Is Hunter’s view, even in the qualified sense that I argue for, even a useful point to bring out?

To the first: I think the burden of proof is on Achar Sva to produce better proof that the article is speaking about later Marian doctrine in an unqualified sense. Given that the whole article limits its scope to the issue of the perpetual virginity of Mary, it seems unlikely that Hunter wishes in this moment to make a sweeping claim about all Marian doctrine. Not only is it unlikely, but it’s inappropriate for Hunter to do so. In order to validly make this point in the Wikipedia page, we would need a source that has the proper credentials (standing on a different foundation than a study of 4th century views of perpetual virginity), and can speak about “almost all later Christian doctrine regarding [Mary]” from an expert perspective. Then, it would be reasonable to include this point in the Wikipedia page. However, that source would be hard to find, and if found, be subject some suspicion, based on my second point.

Thus, to the second: Not only does Hunter not seem to be arguing for his point in an unqualified sense, it is simply not the case in an unqualified sense.

From the outset, it should be noted that it’s difficult to speak about Christian doctrine regarding Mary monolithically, since this breaks down further into Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, etc...

Nevertheless, to refute the point in question requires that in any one of these (but especially one with a history of Marian doctrine), it is not the case that “almost all” of its Marian doctrine finds its ultimate source in the Protoevangelium of James.

Hence, we can look to the Catholic Church, a worthy source to examine considering its size, its demonstrated interest in Marian doctrine, and its clarity with regard to what counts as “doctrine regarding her.”

In the Catholic Church, there are four Marian Dogmas which are officially proclaimed, which constitute the official Marian doctrine. To examine these would give a good picture as to whether something can make a claim to being the “ultimate source of almost all Christian doctrine regarding” Mary.

I. Mary as Mother of God - This doctrine comes from the Council of Ephesus in 431 and is addressed clearly in Pope Pius XI’s 1931 encyclical, Lux Veritatis. Neither our accounts of the Council of Ephesus nor the papal encyclical reference, implicitly or explicitly, the Protoevangelium of James. Instead, the doctrine comes out of the belief in the unity of the two Natures of Christ in one Person. Because a mother is mother of a person and not merely a nature, Mary is understood as the Mother of God, given that Christ is truly God and truly Man. The Protoevangelium of James is not a useful, let alone ultimate, source here.

II. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - Despite Hunter’s historical claims, the actual definition of this doctrine does not root the teaching in the Protoevangelium of James as anything close to an ultimate source. The virginity of Mary is rooted in Scripture. However, it can even be found in Baptismal formulae of the 3rd century. The Council of the Lateran in 649 said that Mary conceived Christ “without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth" (Canon 3). Lumen Gentium, a document of the Second Vatican Council, confirms this in #57. In neither place is there any reference, implicit or explicit, made to the Protoevangelium of James. Instead, the Scriptures may well be cited, especially Luke 1:34 where the Fathers of the Church comment on the fact that Mary asks the Angel Gabriel, “How can this be, since I do not know man?”. The question makes little sense if it does not point to Mary’s commitment to virginity, since the problem of not knowing man could otherwise be resolved by, well, knowing a man. Where the Second Vatican Council cites sources, it cites: “Conc. Lateranense anni 649, Can. 3: Mansi 10, 1151. S. Leo M., Epist. ad Flav.: PL S4, 7S9. - Conc. Chalcedonense: Mansi 7, 462. - S. Ambrosius, De inst. virg.: PL 16, 320.” The Lateran Council we have addressed. St. Leo, the Council of Chalcedon, and St. Ambrose also do not reference the Protoevangelium. Hence, even in the doctrine about which Hunter writes, it can scarcely be said that the Protoevangelium is the “ultimate source.” It is not ultimate temporally since there are earlier references to belief in the doctrine, and it is not ultimate in importance, since it is not referenced anywhere in the Catholic doctrinal formulations. Certainly we can understand, as Hunter points out, that the Protoevangelium expresses an early tradition. But it would be a vast overstatement to say it became an ultimate source of doctrine.

III. The Immaculate Conception - I will treat of this and the next more quickly. This was defined by Pius IX on December 8, 1854 in his Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus. A later document also spoke of it, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum by Pius X, on February 2, 1904. Neither document implicitly or explicitly makes use of the Protoevangelium. Hence, the Protoevangelium of James is not a useful, let alone ultimate, source here.

IV. The Assumption - This doctrine was defined by Pius XII on November 1, 1950 in his Encyclical, Munificentissimus Deus, and referred to later in Lumen Gentium #56. Neither document implicitly or explicitly makes use of the Protoevangelium. Hence, the Protoevangelium of James is not a useful, let alone ultimate, source here.

Perhaps it can be demonstrated that in other Christian traditions, the Protoevangelium of James is the ultimate source, but that remains to be seen. As it stands, the Catholic Church’s complete avoidance of the Protoevangelium in its doctrinal formulations is damning to the claim that it was the ultimate source of almost all later Christian doctrine regarding Mary. Even if one could show that it is a resource for some, it is no where near the case for “almost all.” We could, if we insisted, say that the Protoevangelium is a resource, but then find me some citations from any of “later Marian doctrine” and then we can include it. But that leads onto the final question.

Onto the third: Should this point be included? I would note two things. One, my argument should have at least made it clear that there is more work to be done before this point can validly be made from the sources. And two, I want to acknowledge an implicit polemic that the Wikipedia page seems to portray. By placing this point in a larger sentence about the condemnation of the protoevangelium, not only is it making a claim that doesn’t bear itself out in the sources, but it risks needlessly casting a stone at Christian doctrine about Mary. It does this by juxtaposing the claim that almost all Marian doctrine was founded on this document with the statement that this document was quite seriously condemned. Since Marian doctrine does not find its ultimate source in this document, although it has perhaps seen it as a resource (needs proof), there is no need for the implication. I mean to imply no intentions on the author(s) who produced this part of the Wikipedia page. I mean only to ensure that as an objective source of knowledge, the article does not communicate more than it intends to.

In conclusion, while I feel that my point about (1) is sufficient, it remains the case that (2) and (3) need to be refuted in their own right for the point to remain on the Wikipedia page. Even if Hunter is arguing about Marian doctrine in an unqualified sense, as Achar Sva contends, and even if Hunter is an expert scholar on later Marian doctrine, we should consider it merely one scholarly opinion in the face of many other quite valid scholarly opinions, not the least of which are the opinions of authorities who have promulgated Christian doctrine regarding Mary.

I invite any discussion, and thank Achar Sva for many contributions to this page. Severinus Boethius (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Severinus Boethius - you are evidently very well versed in Marian doctrine. I agree that four such doctrines are at issue (Hunter doesn't specify, but I imagine this is what he had in mind when he mentioned "all later Marian doctrine).

First, the use of sources in Wikipedia: we don't indulge in our own reasoning, we simply quote or refer to reliable sources. They, not we, are the experts. Hunter is a reliable source (I think we agree on that), and he says, as I and you both quoted, that the GoJ "stands as the ultimate source of almost all later Marian doctrine" (Hunter 1993, p.63). I cannot read that as restricted to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity, which as we agree is only one of four essential doctrines. I gather you disagree, but at least we do agree that the GoJ is the basis of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity?

So the second doctrine, which is that Mary is the Mother of God, or Theotokos. As you say, this was defined as dogma at Ephesus in 431. This was the result of a theological argument between the main body of the Church and a minor body of opinion represented by Nestorius, who held that Mary was properly called Christotokos, Mother of Christ - the point he was making was that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus, not the divine. It was the GoJ that had depicted the Divine Birth as divine, not merely human, and even if the Fathers present at Ephesus didn't overtly reference the GoJ they were certainly referencing the idea it had introduced. There is a great deal of scholarship on this, but you might like to see Mario Baghos. In other words, Hunter's more general point about the influence of the GoJ is linked specifically to the Theotokos doctrine.

The third doctrine is the Immaculate Conception, which holds that Mary was conceived in the womb of her mother Anne free from original sin. At the most basic level, it was the GoJ that gave Mary's mother the name of Anne and a narrative forher pregnancy and the birth of Mary - all that comes from James, not the Gospels. The IC had a long road to follow; Aquinas denied it, the Council of Basel declared it a "pious opinion", but it was the focus of much popular devotion, and in the 19th century it was declared dogma. This thus takes in an immense period of time and many influences, but for the role of the GoJ, see, for example,

Brian Reynolds, "Gateway to Heaven: Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods" (there are of course many more like this, but one is enough to demonstrate that Hunter's idea is a common one in the scholarly world). Reynolds traces the chain of influence some way forward from that point.

The final doctrine is the Assumption. Its origins are somewhat later, from the Liber Requiei Mariae ("Book of Mary's Repose"), and the "Six Books Dormition Apocryphon". Note that Hunter isn't saying that ALL Marian doctrine comes from the Protoevangelium, nor that the influence is direct; he says it's the ULTIMATE source of MOST doctrine. I believe the above demonstrates that he's not alone in this conclusion. Achar Sva (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Achar Sva: for your follow-up. I appreciate your research and work. I think I'm seeing a bit more of our divergence here. As a preliminary note, you mentioned, "we don't indulge in our own reasoning, we simply quote or refer to reliable sources." I appreciate the insight – and really, I do; you can see that I am new to editing pages! – but I don't think that the sources that I referenced fall into the category of the fruits of indulging my own reasoning. Please let me know which sources I referenced that were evidence of indulgence in personal reasoning, and also which ones are unreliable. In any case, I agree that I am not an expert, and that we ought to present what the experts say. I have shown what official documents of the Catholic Church say, and I have still not seen evidence from you contrary to my point, saying that later Marian doctrine uses the Protoevangelium of James as an ultimate source.

We have to make a decision on how to appreciate Hunter's point from a critical perspective. What do we think he means (pertains to my question 1 above)? Even given your interpretation of Hunter, do we think that he is reliable on this point, or do we see that other sources contradict him (pertains to my question 2 above)? And do we ultimately have the responsibility to include the point (pertains to question 3 above)?

And these are the questions that you tackled, too, in your answer. This is clear, because if you were arguing on the authority of Hunter alone, you would not have put the work into going through the four dogmas. By your arguments, you also imply that more than Hunter's article alone is necessary to make a point about later Marian doctrine. I'll also respond to each of your arguments. I will address Hunter's point with regard to each of the dogmas, as well as the larger question of how to include this point, if at all (i.e., questions 1 and 2 above).

Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: As you have said, Hunter's article is well within its scope when it speaks about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Based on the use of Hunter, it would be acceptable to call the Protoevangelium a fairly fundamental source to look to for the historical-theological background of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity. It certainly presents a popular view in the early Church, which I suspect you are right to claim was in the background of the early Church's conception of Mary. That Hunter is speaking about this doctrine is manifestly evident. But let us dwell here for a moment. We have seen Hunter's quote from p.63 about later Marian doctrine. But are you really correct that he means all later Marian doctrine? I remain unconvinced. The paragraph which houses this citation sets the scope of its contents by beginning, "For evidence of early Christian teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary..." (p. 62). It would be strange for him to make a claim about more doctrines than this at the end of this paragraph. In fact, his entire discussion of the Protoevangelium lacks anything else even remotely relating to later Marian doctrine about anything but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Further, nowhere in this whole document does he make serious mention of the other major Marian dogmas. If we think that this one statement is the only time in the whole article that Hunter is speaking about all later Marian doctrine, then we must think that Hunter speaks very loosely. If he wished to speak authoritatively about later Marian doctrine, he would need to say more about that than a tangential point. Hence, it is far more likely that the meaning is to be restricted to the Perpetual Virginity. In the other doctrines, we will see that Hunter makes no claim about them.

The doctrine of Mary, Mother of God (Theotokos) does not show up at all in Hunter's discussion of the Protoevangelium. When he speaks of motherhood, it never relates to the Protoevangelium or its influence. The source you recommended, Mario Baghos, is fine for demonstrating that the Protevangelium did contribute in some manner, but even that source doesn't argue that it is "ultimate." Baghos says that interest in the Protoevangelium goes back to the Gospel of Luke and "second-century apocryphal texts, such as the Protoevangelium of James" (emphasis my own). The Protoevangelium is one among others, and at that, not earlier than the Gospel of Luke. Hunter doesn't speak about the doctrine of the Theotokos, and whatever the Protoevangelium has to say about it, it has not yet been clearly demonstrated to me that it is "the ultimate source" of the doctrine.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception similarly does not show up in Hunter's article, implicitly or explicitly. When he speaks of things that are "immaculate," he is always speaking of sexual purity (p. 58), the "immaculate semen" from the Holy Spirit (p. 58), the birth of Jesus (p. 59), or the fecundity of the Church (p. 59). Although you, perhaps in an indulgence in your own reasoning, make the point that the Protoevangelium relates to the Immaculate Conception, Hunter does not. This further contributes to the inadequacy of the argument that Hunter has almost all later Marian doctrine in an unqualified sense in mind. Another source would be necessary to say so. I appreciate your reference to Reynolds. He makes the point clearly that we can find the sacredness of Mary's conception implicitly in the Protoevangelium. But for a document to be first to imply something does not ipso facto make that document a source for the doctrine, let alone the ultimate source.

The doctrine of the Assumption does not show up at all in Hunter's article – not a single time. Nor is it related to the Protoevangelium. You have conceded these points.

Our difficulties relate to substance, but in a larger way, to semantics. Strictly from the sources brought out in our discussion, there is simply nothing that conclusively demonstrates that the Protoevangelium of James was "the ultimate source of almost all later doctrine regarding [Mary]" in an unqualified sense. In matters of substance, I have maintained my disagreement with you on the proper interpretation of Hunter and demonstrated why my view is correct. I have also aimed to attenuate the conclusions you have drawn from your other points, even though their premises, I tend to like. In matters of semantics, we have to understand what we are saying when we say something is "the ultimate source" of doctrine. Do we mean "ultimate" as "earliest," so that we are just saying that something is the earliest source to talk about a topic? Or do we mean "ultimate" as "paramount," the most important source for a doctrine? And furthermore, in either case, we must admit that the definite article "the" radicalizes the claim. It is one thing for a source to be an ultimate source, but it is another thing entirely for it to be the ultimate source.

If we mean "earliest," then it is a somewhat acceptable use of the word, but only if we take Hunter's view (which, as we said, we must, since this is not a matter of indulging in our own reasoning, but listening to the experts), and at that, only for the perpetual virginity. Outside of Hunter's view, and outside of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity, you have yet to demonstrate evidence that "almost all" later Marian doctrine is found earliest in the Protoevangelium. Instead, your evidence from Baghos has even shown that the Gospel of Luke is an even earlier source. Likewise with the other doctrines, the Protoevangelium is early, but never the earliest, if we include Scripture (and find me an ecclesiastical body that does not rely on the Scripture for doctrine). Hence, even if the Protoevangelium is an early source, it is not the earliest source.

If we mean "paramount," then similarly, on the use of Hunter, we can use it, but only with respect to the Perpetual Virginity, and nothing more. Outside Hunter's view, and outside the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity, you have yet to demonstrate evidence that "almost all" later Marian doctrine is most importantly drawn from the Protoevangelium, and I have provided ample, reliable evidence to the contrary. There is no doctrinal statement, of the Catholic Church at least, which makes any reference to the Protoevangelium of James as the most important source.

And I am concerned about a too-facile view of the way doctrine is formed. Just because an early document points to something that is later found in a doctrinal formulation, doesn't mean that the later doctrinal formulations on the same topic have actually utilized that early document. Perhaps a first century document may be found some day that says, "the Blessed Virgin Mary was Immaculately Conceived, and she was Assumed Body and Soul into Heaven." As historically interesting as this would be, it would say nothing as to the actual ultimate sources of the later doctrine, since that later doctrine was defined entirely aside from this newfound document. It may be early and related, and it may even represent early Christian opinion, but it does not represent a source.

And so, I return to my very original point: If we insist on using the point that this document was influential for other Marian doctrine, then we must state it only that way, and not overstate it. And we must use more sources than Hunter. I have argued this to be the case, and above, I have further demonstrated that, even if my position on Hunter's interpretation were incorrect, Hunter still remains one source among many, and his point would ultimately be inappropriate here. If an article studying the color of the sky happens to mention the color that the grass is "almost all" the time, I would still be disinclined to reference its point about the grass, in favor of someone who has taken the grass as their aim. If an article speaks about 4th century views of virginity, and it happens to mention the Protoevangelium in relation to almost all later Marian doctrines, it hardly seems reasonable to lean on that document's authority so strongly, when another source could and should be found. This is all predicated if my reading of Hunter is incorrect.

Finally, my point about the implicit polemic remains. It is inappropriate to say that this document is the ultimate source of almost all later Christian doctrine regarding Mary, and juxtapose this with the statement that this document was seriously condemned. That is unscholarly, and ultimately, unacceptable.

Pardon me if I have seemed unduly forceful, and please do let me know what you think. Respectfully yours, Severinus Boethius (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't think you've been unduly forceful, although perhaps a little inclined to be long-winded :). I still believe that we should leave Hunter's words in place ("ultimate source"), as he does say them. It's legitimate to question sources - sometimes a source can be outdated, or represent a minority view, for example - but in such cases we need to cite other sources to demonstrate this. Anyway, I'm going to ask an editor I respect, Elizium23, to give us his opinion, if he cares to become involved. (For Elizium: the dispute is whether Hunter's view that the Gospel of James is the ultimate source of almost all Marian doctrine it true, or partly true, or whatever).Achar Sva (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps long-winded is true :) Thanks for taking the time; you clearly know your stuff (about Mary and Wikipedia editing). Also, for you and Elizium, take a look at the additional source that I added in the article on that point, which uses "widely influential." If you can't access the book, I can reproduce the full text in question if you like. My hope is that it expresses a compromise with Hunter's article that still honors his point, but in a larger scholarly context.Severinus Boethius (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Severinus Boethius, I should have told you a little earlier that I'm happy with your latest proposal :) Achar Sva (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Achar Sva, oh good, I'm so glad! :) This whole thing has been a learning experience for me. Thanks for all the discussion. Severinus Boethius (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I am a bit late. To say that a book of Scripture or Apocrypha is the "source of doctrine" is to take a Protestant approach to Catholic belief. For Catholics, Sacred Scripture, as part of Sacred Tradition, is reflective of doctrines as believed by the inspired authors who wrote the texts. Doctrines exist eternally, they are believed from the start of the Church, and then they are expounded by inspired authors, Church fathers, Popes, and theologians.

As for the Protevangelium, I think it is significant that it was ignored in doctrinal formulations, but then again, aren't all apocryphal writings ignored? I have a Catechism in front of me: sources cited include the books of the Bible, encyclicals, the Code of Canon Law, the sacred liturgy, the Summa Theologiae; well, frankly I don't see the Church Fathers cited directly in here, either. I think the Protevangelium represents some incipient traditions which have survived to this day, because they are orthodox, but I do not think it is the be-all and end-all of Marian doctrine. Elizium23 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Origen

Rafaelsornio, you seem to believe that our source (Hunter) says that Origen Mary remained ever-virgin (a virgin before, during, and after the birth). It does not. Hunter says this: "If Origen insisted that Mary remained ever-virgin, he did not believe that this extended to her physical integrity in the process of giving birth to Jesus." (See page 69 here). He goes on: "Origen ... insisted that Jesus's body truly 'opened' the womb of Mary...". In other words, Origen believed in Mary's virginity before and after the birth, but not during. The Protoevangelium, by contrast, holds that Mary remained a virgin during the birth as well as before and after. If you persist in changing the article to reflect your own views in such clear contradiction of the source, I will be forced to take this to dispute resolution. Achar Sva (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Stick to the sources. The text says the following:

"To sum up this brief survey of Marian theology, it is fair to say that the doctrines of Mary's virginity post partum and in partu have only a fragile basis in the tradition of the first three centuries. The Protevangelium of James is virtually unique in its description of the physical integrity of Mary's womb after the birth of Jesus. Both Tertullian and Origen associate this view with the docetic christologies of Marcion and Apelles. There is somewhat greater diversity on the issue of Mary's post partum virginity, although here, too, the evidence is remarkably sparse. Except for Origen and the Protevangelium, the doctrine is virtually absent from both Western and Eastern sources prior to the fourth century. And in the two sources where the post partum virginity is important, it appears to rest on either Encratite or Origenist accounts of the origin of sin and sexuality." Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

When it says "Except for Origen and the Protevangelium, the doctrine is virtually absent from both Western and Eastern sources prior to the fourth century" it refers to post partum doctrine, please read well what it says before. The book clearly says that Origen believed in the post partum doctrine, I don't understand why you want to delete it. Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You say that Origen did not believe that Mary was a virgin during the birth of Jesus, and in this you are correct. You are incorrect if you think, as you appear to think, that the Gospel of James holds the same opinion. Our article says this: "Most notably it [i.e., the Gospel of James] is the earliest assertion of her [Mary's] perpetual virginity, meaning her virginity not just prior to the birth of Jesus, but during the birth and afterwards." The source is page 200 of Bernard Lohse's "Short History of Christian Doctrine". We also have, although we do not use them as sources, Lily Vuong's statement that "Mary's perpetual virginity is addressed at several points throughout the narrative" (page 33 of her The Protevangelium of James). Origen, in short, did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but the author of the Protoevangelium did. That's the point we're making. Achar Sva (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

In that case you must change the source, because the source only says talking about post-partum doctrine "the Protoevangelium is virtually unique in its description of the physical integrity of Mary's womb after the birth of Jesus. Except for Origen and the Protevangelium, the doctrine (of post-partum) is virtually absent from both Western and Eastern sources prior to the fourth century." Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)