Gee, thanks.
Since you (sarcastically) accuse me of magnanimity, let's review what I wrote initially:
Ever read the Protoevangelium of James? Yes, I know it's not part of the Canon and, so, I don't assert it as a scriptural source (rather an early non-canonical source that reflects the views of, at least, some of the Church (for those of you in Rio Linda, the prior phrase implicitly disassociates itself with an authorship of James the Lesser, and asserts that the document reflects the views of some...rather than the views of an apostle) in the second century AD (For those of you in Rio Linda, the second century incorporates the time that the respondent refers to as 'at least 100 years after the end of the Apostolic Era')-- that's a couple of centuries before Constantine for the conspiracy theorists in the audience)
In other words, you should really make an effort to read and comprehend what was written before slamming it. You'll generally not embarrass yourself so badly if you do so.
Your welcome.
If you want to consider discredited forgeries that's up to you.
Some of us HAVE studied some of these issues a lot more extensively than you seem to think.