[count-your-change]

” That there were other surviving writings that reflected heresy is not a proof that this is also a heresy”

You said it was the survival of the writing that gave support to the Evangelium. The best one can make of it is that it's survival is also not a proof that it is NOT heresy. This one writing that fails the test of agreement with the inspired Scriptures.

It certainly was not written by James. He knew the details of Christ's birth and we can hardly suppose he would be so far afield from the facts.

It wasn't written by James, it contradicts the inspired Scriptures, it has never been accepted as part of the Biblical canon. In brief, it's fraud. Written to support some doctrine? Perhaps but still fraud.

[annalex]

The multiplicity of surviving manuscripts ("about 130", Wiki), not the mere fact that it survived in some form, points to its popularity in the Early Church.

We are not sure if it was written by St. James. We are also not sure if the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul. It was common practice in antiquity to attribute a book to a better known figure, -- there was no intention to defraud.

It does not contradict the inspired scripture. Where do you see a contradiction?

It was not accepted for a good reason that does not impugn its content: it is not about Jesus.

You must have some strange definition of "fraud".