Talk:Gospel of James
|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Religious texts||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
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...."  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...." (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)
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)
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.
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)