Who was the James of the Proevangelium?


#1

Catholic tradition cites a James writing the proevangelium in 200 a.d. or around that time. But who was this person? Was he a church bishop or what? Does anybody know?


#2

The Protevangelium was written in the name of James the Lesser, aka, James the Just, aka the Brother of the Lord, whom eastern tradition says was a son of Joseph before his marriage to Mary. This is the same James who, as the first Bishop of Jerusalem, wrote the epistle of James which is in our New Testament. He could not have written the Protevangelium however, for he would have to be about 200 years old.
Therefore, the Protevangelium is a fascinating, ancient document, but never-the-less written by somebody else, of whose true identity lies in mystery to this very day…boogedy boogedy boo!

Here’s kind of a link, cuz its important to have a link:
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/gospels/gosjames.htm


#3

The actual date is supposed to be somewhere between 125 and 150 A.D.

This still means that the author of the document is not James the Less. He was murdered (martyred) prior to the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

If you read the document carefully you will see that there are a few things within it that are contrary to the Gospel account.

Maggie


#4

[quote=MaggieOH]The actual date is supposed to be somewhere between 125 and 150 A.D.

This still means that the author of the document is not James the Less. He was murdered (martyred) prior to the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

If you read the document carefully you will see that there are a few things within it that are contrary to the Gospel account.

Maggie
[/quote]

Neither James lasted this long. Ergo this book is not in the NT canon. Its an entertaining book which has many pious catholic traditions that we still hold today but some things are clearly questionable. Historically important but not canonical.


#5

[quote=Maccabees]Neither James lasted this long. Ergo this book is not in the NT canon. Its an entertaining book which has many pious catholic traditions that we still hold today but some things are clearly questionable. Historically important but not canonical.
[/quote]

Absolutely correct, and certainly it should only be used as an historical reference but nothing more than that.

Maggie


#6

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.