The proto-Gospel of James (Jesus, virginity, translation, myth, dogmas)

[angellous_evangellous]

Has anyone read the proto-Gospel of James?

It includes some really good stories about the background of Mary and Joseph.

Infancy Gospel of James: English Translation by Andrew Bernhard

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Has anyone read the proto-Gospel of James?

It includes some really good stories about the background of Mary and Joseph.

Infancy Gospel of James: English Translation by Andrew Bernhard

I read it several years ago. Seemed like it's purpose was to serve as a polemic for the purity of Mary, presaging the development of dogmas like the Immaculate Conception.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

I read it several years ago. Seemed like it's purpose was to serve as a polemic for the purity of Mary, presaging the development of dogmas like the Immaculate Conception.

Yes - probably apologetic rather than polemic.

It solves a lot of problems around the virgin birth - it offers explanation for Joseph having other children (he was a widower with children before he took Mary as her gaurdian only), Mary was a virgin after giving birth (Salome tests her just after giving birth, so we have perpetual virginity). I also like the story of Elizabeth moving a mountain.

[angellous_evangellous]

The story of Salome in the proto-Gospel is fabulous...

Doubting Thomas... doubting Salome

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Yes - probably apologetic rather than polemic.

Good point. Though it could still be "polemical." Backdating ideology into a mythology is a sign of mythology gone horribly awry.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Good point. Though it could still be "polemical." Backdating ideology into a mythology is a sign of mythology gone horribly awry.

Interesting and I see where you're coming from. I do agree that in some cases the simple assertion of a point of view is an attack on opposing ideologies -- I often argue it actually. In this case, it seems to me to be an apology, as it does not attack opposing views, it just presents its case. It offers no condemnation of other groups, etc.

Anyway, that's beside the point.

Backdating ideology into a mythology is a sign of mythology gone horribly awry.

Myth of a faith community is constantly in flux.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Myth of a faith community is constantly in flux.

Of course. But not in any way they are generally allowed to admit. Which is why faith communities seem inherently intellectually dishonest to me.

Try suggesting that the stories of Jesus in the NT were written well after the fact and are tailored to reflect the biases of their individual authors and see how well it is received in your "faith community" (as opposed to the academic community of which you are also a part).