My friend,

I  have  made  new discoveries on Mary's alleged virginal vow. You may
remember  that I was asking you about some minute consequences of this
hypothesis some time. But you constantly sidestepped with a preventive
attack  that  I  was  despising God's power. I responded that I wasn't
doing  anything  like  that, but limited myself within the Word of God
and  rejected  everything  which  flatly  contradicts  it. I found the
common  (although  outdated)  vow  theory  to  be contradictory to the
Bible.  You,  in  turn, responded nothing to the gist of my arguments,
apart  from  the  blunt accusations in the manner of "You are limiting
God's power"  and  "You lack trust in God" and "Do you think that Mary
cared about what the Pharisees thought of her?"

Now let me share with you a recent discovery of mine, namely, a forged
gospel  written specifically about the vow hypothesis and Mary's other
alleged  deeds.  It  is  commonly  professed  to be apocryphal. When I
criticize it from a Christian point of view, I at the same time try to
make  you  realize  that  the very hypothesis you advocated against me
rests  on  very  shaking  ground.  Indeed,  a  renowned Roman Catholic
theologian,  Dr.  Ludwig  Ott, writes in his "Fundamentals of Catholic
Dogma", TAN, 1974 (first German edition: 1954), p. 207:

`From the question which Mary puts to the Angel, Luke 1,34: "How shall
`this  be  done,  because I know not man?" it is inferred that she had
`taken  the  resolve  of constant virginity on the ground of a special
`Divine  enlightenment.  In  the  light of this text St. Augustine and
`many  Fathers and theologians believed that Mary made a formal vow of
`virginity. However, the subsequent espousals can be hardly reconciled
`with this.

So, it's not too late for you to retract your belief about the vow. It
is  not  an  article  of  your  faith - even a theologian could safely
contradict  it  and  accuse  some Fathers of misinterpretation on this
account.  However,  it  begs the question: If the Fathers could err in
this case then where elsewhere could they blunder?

        Here comes the quotation. The material can be found at
        http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers (Series 1, vol. VIII.)
        in unwrapped text.zip files (also in other formats).

? THE PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

? THE  BIRTH OF MARY THE HOLY MOTHER OF GOD,
? AND VERY GLORIOUS MOTHER OF JESUS CHRIST. (1)

[...]

? 13. And she was in her sixth month; and, behold, Joseph came back from
? his building, and, entering into his house, he discovered that she was
? big  with  child.  And he smote (6) his face, (7) and threw himself on
? the  ground  upon  the sackcloth, and wept bitterly, saying: With what
? face  shall  I look upon the Lord my God? and what prayer shall I make
? about  this  maiden? because I received her a virgin out of the temple
? of  the  Lord,  and  I  have  not watched over her. Who is it that has
? hunted  me  (8)  down?  Who  has done this evil thing in my house, and
? defiled  the  virgin? Has not the history of Adam been repeated in me?
? For  just  as  Adam was in the hour of his singing praise, (9) and the
? serpent  came, and found Eve alone, and completely deceived her, so it
? has  happened  to me also. And Joseph stood up from the sackcloth, and
? called  Mary,  and said to her: O thou who hast been cared for by God,
? why  hast thou done this and forgotten the Lord thy God? Why hast thou
? brought  low  thy  soul,  thou  that  wast  brought up in the holy  of
? holies, and that didst receive food from the hand of an angel? And she
? wept  bitterly,  saying:  I  am  innocent,  and have known no man. And
? Joseph  said to her: Whence then is that which is in thy womb? And she
? said: As the Lord my God liveth, I do not know whence it is to me.

Joseph's  drama  was  indeed shattering. In the biblical account he is
depicted  as  being confounded here, to which the angel's intervention
had  to  be  the  answer.  The  evangelist's narrative thus solves the
problem:  the  only  one  who could have had Mary stoned or could have
ejected her (if he had wanted), was warned by dream not to do so.

? 14.  And  Joseph  was  greatly  afraid,  and  retired  from  her,  and
? considered  what  he should do in regard to her. (10) And Joseph said:
? If  I   conceal her sin, I find myself fighting against the law of the
? Lord; and if I expose her to the sons of lsrael, I am afraid lest that
? which  is in her be from an angel, (11) and I shall be found giving up
? innocent blood to the doom of death. What then shall I do with her? I
? will  put  her  away  from  me secretly. And night came upon him; and,
? behold, an angel of the Lord appears to him in a dream, saying: Be not
? afraid  for  this  maiden,  for  that  which  is in her is of the Holy
? Spirit;  and  she will bring forth a Son, and thou shall call His name
? Jesus,  for  He  will save His people from their sins. (12) And Joseph
? arose  from  sleep, and glorified the God of lsrael, who had given him
? this grace; and he kept her.

Thus  far  the narrative is parallel to that of the gospel, where this
intervention  solved  all  problems.  But due to the primary heretical
supposition,  viz. that Mary had made a vow of chastity, an additional
problem  arises,  to  which I have been pointing out constantly in our
former  correspondence.  This  problem  is that in the ancient Israel,
vows  used  to  be public; so the priests before whom it had allegedly
been  made  must  have posed strict questions to Joseph with regard to
this  vow.  And  as  they weren't likely to have read the gospel, they
needed  a  divine sign to believe that the child was of God. This sign
is provided by Pseudo-James in his fabricated gospel.

Note that this problem does not arise at all if we don't hastily argue
for  a  vow. The gospel directly attests that Jesus Christ was thought
to  be  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary; and the birth of a child in a
marriage  wasn't  such  an  ignominious  thing  as  it  would  be in a
"virginal" or "Josephine marriage", even supposing for the sake of the
argument  that such manicheistic kind of marriage existed then. It was
in  fact  instituted  by  the  council of Elvira (~300), canon 33: "We
decreed  that  the  bishops, priests, and all the clerics ordained for
(altar)  service  should  abstain  from  their  wives,  and  not beget
children.  Whoever  does  [not abstain and beget children], let him be
deprived  of  his  clerical  office."  Translation from Hungarian, in:
"Church  Discipline  of Ancient Christianity", edited by a RC canonist
called Pe'ter ERDO".

? 15.  And  Annas  the  scribe  came to him, and said: Why hast thou not
? appeared  in our assembly? And Joseph said to him: Because I was weary
? from my journey, and rested the first day. And he turned, and saw that
? Mary  was  with child. And he ran away to the priest (13) and said to
? him:  Joseph,  whom  thou  didst  vouch  for, has committed a grievous
? crime.  And  the  priest said: How so? And he said: He has defiled the
? virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord, and has married
? her by stealth, and has not revealed it to the sons of lsrael. And the
? priest  answering,  said:  Has  Joseph  done this? Then said Annas the
? scribe:  Send  officers, and thou wilt find the virgin with child. And
? the officers  went away, and found it as he had said; and they brought
? her  along  with Joseph to the tribunal. And the priest said: Mary,
? why  hast  thou done this? and why hast thou brought thy soul low, and
? forgotten  the  Lord  thy  God?  Thou  that wast reared in the holy of
? holies,  and  that  didst  receive food from the hand of an angel, and
? didst  hear  the hymns, and didst dance before Him, why hast thou done
? this?  And  she wept bitterly, saying: As the Lord my God liveth, I am
? pure  before  Him,  and know not a man. And the priest said to Joseph:
? Why  hast  thou  done this? And Joseph said: As the Lord liveth, I am
? pure concerning her. Then said the priest: Bear not false witness, but
? speak  the  truth.  Thou  hast  married  her  by stealth, and hast not
? revealed  it  to the sons of Israel, and hast not bowed thy head under
? the  strong  hand,  that  thy  seed  might  be blessed. And Joseph was
? silent.

The  dramatic  tension  increases.  Joseph  and  Mary  are  charged of
breaking the vow. And the forger of this fabulous pseudo-gospel, being
endowed  with  greater historical sense than what you displayed in our
correspondence,  was  wholly  aware  of  this  implication  of his vow
theory,  thus  he  invented  a  "deus  ex  machina" event to solve the
problem. We'll later on see with what success.

? 16.  And  the  priest said: Give up the virgin whom thou didst receive
? out  of  the  temple of the Lord. And Joseph burst into tears. And the
? priest  said:  I  will give you to drink of the water of the ordeal of
? the  Lord, (14) and He shall make manifest your sins in your eyes. And
? the  priest took the water, and gave Joseph to drink and sent him away
? to  the hill-country; and he returned unhurt. And he gave to Mary also
? to  drink,  and  sent  her  away to the hill-country; and she returned
? unhurt.  And  all the people wondered that sin did not appear in them.
? And  the priest said: If the Lord God has not made manifest your sins,
? neither  do  I judge you. And he sent them away. And Joseph took Mary,
? and  went  away  to his own house, rejoicing and glorifying the God of
? Israel.

Let  us magnanimously forbear to investigate into Numbers 5, where the
use  of  the  "curse-bringing bitter water" is described. (There it is
designated  to  exclude  adultery, and not to exclude holy matrimonial
intercourse,  not  to  speak  about  any forbidden sexual act within a
Manicheistic  "virginal  marriage"  which  wasn't  in  vogue until the
Middle Ages.) So: let's accept Pseudo-James' staggering assertions.

Thus  the  problem  is apparently solved. But here we remain entangled
into  a  baffling labyrinth of unwarranted assertions which eventually
result  in contradicting the canonical Scripture, ie. the word of God.
As  I  have  already  mentioned,  Jesus  was  regularly  identified by
contemporary  Jews  as the son of Joseph, and they knew nothing of His
miraculous conception. Even according to reliable patristic literature
(not such forgeries as this "protoevangelium") Jesus' conception was a
mystery which wasn't revealed to unbelievers.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch wrote to the Ephesians:

! CHAP. XIX.--THREE CELEBRATED MYSTERIES.

! Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as
! was  also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of
! renown,(5)  which were wrought in silence by(6) God. How, then, was He
! manifested  to  the  world?(7) A star shone forth in heaven above all
! the  other  stars,  the  light  of  which was inexpressible, while its
! novelty  struck  men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars,
! with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star, and its light was
! exceedingly  great above them all. And there was agitation felt as to
! whence  this  new spectacle came, so unlike to everything else [in the
! heavens].  Hence  every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of
! wickedness  disappeared;  ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom
! abolished,  God  Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal
! of eternal life. And now that took a beginning which had been prepared
! by  God.  Henceforth  all things were in a state of tumult, because He
! meditated the abolition of death.

Ignatius says that Mary's virginity was hidden from the Satan, thus it
couldn't be revealed in such a conspicuous form that even Jews, not to
become His followers, saw and believed it. Certainly the Sanhedrin and
the  people didn't know anything about Christ's birth (Lk 3:23, 4:22).
How  could then the bishop of Antioch say that it was a mystery hidden
even  from  the Satan? Those Mariac forger who lurked under the mighty
name  of  James  a  century  later  should  have  known  this. But his
obstinacy  can be well fathomed through his unscrupulous assertions in
the  face  of  the  canonical books. I'm grieved to find your ideas in
such  a  sordid  heretical  forgery  - but at least the responsibility
doesn't rest solely on you.

However,  it  was  you  to  have  slapped  in my face that "letters of
Clement  and  Ignatius were considered canonical by the early Church",
further,  "they  are  considered  canonical  even  now"; and "only for
clarity's  sake were they removed recently from the printed versions".
You have never retracted this audacious assertion, so you are bound by
your   clinging   to   your   vow  hypothesis  to  deem  the  spurious
Protoevangelium  divine  revelation,  for  otherwise  whence could you
justify what is contained therein?

But then, you are found fighting against the councils of Carthage,
Hippo, Rome, Florence, Trent and Vatican I which excluded them from
the canon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. Reply not needed - this is the last day I can use my internet
account. I wish you the best. Goodbye.

                                 Ferenc Nemeth