Jewish Aspects of the Protoevangelium of James

Jewish Aspects of the Protoevangelium of James

Horner, Timothy J.

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 12, Number 3, Fall 2004,pp. 313-335 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/earl.2004.0041

For additional information about this article

Access provided by UniversitÃ degli studi Roma Tre (19 Mar 2013 17:03 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v012/12.3horner.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v012/12.3horner.html

HORNER/PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES 313

Journal of Early Christian Studies 12:3, 313–335 © 2004 The Johns Hopkins University Press

Jewish Aspects of theProtoevangelium of James*

TIM HORNER

This essay is a reexamination of the Protoevangelium of James and its Jewishimagery and setting. By reading the Protoevangelium of James alongside theMishnah several interesting parallels arise. The mishnaic teachings on theprocess by which girls become women and how they are passed from fathersto husbands provide intriguing parallels. Moreover, the concern in each of thetexts is for the preservation and assurance of virginity. The implication for thiscultural connection is that the assertion of Mary’s postpartum virginity (thereal innovation of the Protoevangelium of James) may have come from withina Jewish community (albeit a Christian one).

INTRODUCTION

As scholarship on the early centuries of the Christian movement develops,it is becoming increasingly problematic to rely on traditional literarycategories of Christian, Jewish, and pagan to classify a given text. Moreand more these categories mean less and less. They carry modern conno-tations that can have misleading implications for how we understand thevarious religious groups during the late Roman period. Scholars some-times struggle to find new terminology to describe documents and theirwriters that do not fit into the traditional constructs. This effort to besensitive to the world of these ancient texts is well worth the temporaryloss of clarity that occurs when a text is reevaluated. This is especially truewith the Protoevangelium of James (hereafter Prot. Jas.), a documentfrom the late second century c.e. whose purpose is to defend the personof Jesus by promoting Mary beyond pregnant virgin to virgin postpartum.

*A good part of this work was completed during the 2003 NEH Summer Institutein Oxford, England (“Representations of the Other”: Jews in Medieval Christendom).During this time I worked with Henry Abramson of Florida Atlantic University, whohelped me understand the mishnaic teaching on marriage and betrothal.

314 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

In light of the subsequent rise of the Marian cult and its importance inChristianity, the assertion that Prot. Jas. could have its origins in Judaismmight seem absurd. But the prevailing view that Prot. Jas. has no mooringsin Judaism may be due to looking back through the lens of later Christiantradition and may not represent the true character of this document.

This study is a reexamination of Prot. Jas.’s Jewish imagery and itsimplications for our understanding of Jewish/Christian relations. Insteadof analyzing Prot. Jas.’s depiction of Judaism according to the New Testa-ment or the much later talmudic tradition—both anachronistic—this dis-cussion will focus on the more contemporary mishnaic material.1 Granted,the mere mention of the Mishnah at this early date is rightfully problem-atic. Suspicions about historicity and influence of the Mishnah in thesecond century c.e. are well founded. There is no compelling evidencethat the rabbinic movement had any kind of substantial influence in pan-Judaism at this time. The force of later tradition may say that this is so,but it is difficult to substantiate this claim with corroborating literary orsociological evidence. This study is not, however, an attempt to make adirect literary link between Prot. Jas. and the Mishnah. So if the Mishnahdid not cast a wide net in the second century c.e. and there are seriousmethodological problems with making Prot. Jas. literally dependent onthe Mishnah, why use it? Because parallels between Prot. Jas. and theMishnah help to deconstruct the assumption that Prot. Jas. had nothingto do with Judaism. This comparison also shows that Prot. Jas. may havehad more in common with contemporary Judaism, or at least one part ofit, than is often assumed. The goal of this investigation is to look at howsuch a text might have functioned in the complex relationship betweenthose groups who believed in Jesus as the Messiah and those who did not.It is a document that uses Jewish imagery to address the concerns andcriticisms that might have been important to people who understoodChristianity within a predominantly Jewish matrix or those who wereattempting to reinterpret the Jewish matrix in the light of Christian doctrine.

But what is a Jewish matrix? What makes something Jewish or Chris-tian in the first few centuries of the common era? For the sake of simplic-ity, I am assuming that someone is Jewish if they were born of Jewishparents and considered themselves to be Jewish. The category also in-cludes those who may not have had Jewish parents but chose to followthe Torah and considered themselves a part of living Judaism, i.e., aconvert. This does not exclude Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah

1. All quotes from the Mishnah are taken from H. Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1933, reprint 1987).


but still lived as Jews. More generally, Christians are defined as those whobelieved that Jesus was the Messiah. By design there is a significantamount of overlap between these two groups. By my definition Christian-ity could be completely contained within Judaism, but not necessarily.This ambiguity is deliberate because it seems to fit the landscape of theseearly centuries, especially Prot. Jas.

Prot. Jas. is a document that was very popular in its day. We have overone hundred extant MSS in six different languages, all from the GreekEast. Probably due to its teaching regarding the past marriage of Joseph,Prot. Jas. was condemned as apocryphal by the Decretum Gelasianum inthe fifth century c.e. Jerome’s condemnation of Prot. Jas. was instrumen-tal in this process. Nevertheless, the West absorbed Prot. Jas. indirectly,and ironically, through Jerome’s involvement with the production of theGospel of Pseudo-Matthew.2 This account contains a nearly completeversion of Prot. Jas. within a larger narrative of Jesus’ life drawn from theInfancy Gospel of Thomas.

The oldest copy of Prot. Jas. that we possess can be dated to the earlyfourth century c.e. (Papyrus Bodmer V), but there is evidence that sug-gests Justin Martyr knew of Prot. Jas.3 This means that Prot. Jas. prob-ably comes from one of the most mysterious centuries in Jewish history.Two Jewish revolts (115–117 c.e. in Egypt, and Bar Kochba in 133–135c.e.) and violent Roman retaliation had shaken the Jewish world. Severalgenerations earlier a group of rogue messianic Jews had set themselves upas the new standard for Judaism, and one of its main promoters—Paul—was using the Septuagint and apocalyptic fervor to open the Abrahamiccovenant to the Gentiles and abandon observance of Torah. The rabbinicmovement was in its infancy and its authority had not yet been estab-lished or widely disseminated. For the most part, our evidence of Jewry inthe second century c.e. is restricted to Christian and pagan references toJews, the witness of the Mishnah, and a scattering of epigraphic evidence.It is therefore tricky business at best to a paint a picture of Judaism, unlessone can read between the gaps created by a few brush strokes on anotherwise blank canvas.

2. It is contained in a canon list attributed to Gelasius (492–496 c.e.), even thoughthe MS dates from the sixth century c.e. See E. Hennecke, W. Schneemelcher, andR. Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), 38–40.

3. Compare the wording of Justin Martyr 1 Ap. 33 with Prot. Jas. 11.3, which isa similar synthesis of Matt 1.20–21 and Luke 1.30–31. See also E. de Strycker, “Uneancienne version latine du Protévangile de Jacques avec des extraits de la Vulgate deMatthieu 1–2 et Luc 1–2,” AB (1965): 365–402, for a critique of these connections.


Within the scholarly opinion regarding the Jewishness of Prot. Jas.there are discernable categories and assumptions about Judaism that haveshaped the conclusions about its cultural provenance. I want to suggestthat there are several instances in Prot. Jas. that can be better understoodby looking at the Jewish sources available to us rather than relying uponour assumptions about what constituted normative Judaism. For ex-ample, J. K. Elliott dismisses any chance of “Jewish” authorship based on“confusions” in the text regarding the geography of Palestine.4 Moreover,the bitter water of conviction, which was given both to Mary and Joseph,was not intended for men, and the oracular plates of the high priest wereunknown outside of Prot. Jas. Certainly there are details in the text thatcannot be contained by what we know of Judaism during this time. Forexample, how would the presence of temple virgins sit with Jewish read-ers? Why does the text seem to know about the twelve tribes of Israel(Prot. Jas. 1), yet later refers to the tribe of David (Prot. Jas. 10)? What isdifficult to assess is whether these instances are problematic because ofour modern categories or if they reflect genuine unfamiliarity with anyform of Judaism.

In general, the Jewish elements in Prot. Jas. have been discarded be-cause they do not fit with our understanding of post-Second-Temple, pre-rabbinic Judaism. Ronald Hock also concludes that “indeed, the authorhimself hardly came from a Jewish milieu, as there are not only problemswith Palestinian geography but also little knowledge of Jewish life andcustoms that does not come from the Septuagint.”5 And while Hockoffers very helpful insight into the literary genre of Prot. Jas. and itsconnection with the Greco-Roman novel, the conclusion that its encomi-astic structure and style precludes Jewish authorship and culture saysmore about his understanding of Judaism than it does about the possibleauthorship and audience of Prot. Jas. While I have no reason to doubt hisliterary analysis of the text, it is inappropriate to draw the conclusion thatProt. Jas. had no real connections with any Jewish culture. Whateverparallels there are with other Greco-Roman novels or histories do notpreclude a Jewish readership or author(s).

Greco-Roman Judaism and its contemporary Jewish literature wouldnot find this genre incomprehensible in the least. There would have beennothing to stop a Jewish writer from acquiring the skills necessary to

4. J. K. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal ChristianLiterature in English Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 49.

5. R. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Santa Rosa: PolebridgePress, 1995), 10.


create a document such as Prot. Jas., and there would be nothing to stopa Jewish reader from reading and appreciating a work of this style. It is, asfar as readership and authorship are concerned, not an argumentum adrem.

George Zervos’ extensive textual work on Prot. Jas. suggests that partsof Prot. Jas. may even predate the second century.6 Yet despite his richanalysis of the annunciation story in Prot. Jas.—called the Genesis Marias(GM)—his conclusion concerning its provenance seems to be chosenfrom a Christian menu. In his reconstruction and analysis of the GM heshows how it is interwoven with angels, the voice of God (Bat Kol), andmystical temple imagery. For each of these images he makes connectionswith the Septuagint and shows the theological connections to the rabbinictradition, Josephus, and 1 Enoch. Yet he concludes from this that “thecumulative evidence presented of the numerous parallels of central themesin the GM with significant documents of the turn of the first to the secondcentury c.e. strongly indicates a Sitz im Leben for the GM within veryearly, possibly Syrian, Christianity.”7 Granted, Syrian Christianity had arich tradition of narrative and appears to have been more open andpermeable to a wider range of literary influence compared to the Latintradition, but his conclusions are based on a presupposition that Prot.Jas. is unquestionably Christian and therefore could not be Jewish. WhileI believe that his textual analysis is helpful, if at times adventurous, hisconclusion on provenance is too restrictive and does not allow theseJewish images to change the way we view this text and its function.

In this reading of Prot. Jas. I offer an alternative interpretation of thoseaspects of the text that have been seen as odd, fantastic, or simply incom-prehensible (and therefore out of touch with contemporary Judaism). Iwill also treat those parts of the text that appear to me to be distinctlyJewish, insofar as they echo mishnaic teaching. My thesis is that Prot. Jas.would have been best understood—perhaps only fully understood—withina community that was familiar with concerns and images of contempo-rary Judaism. Its strangeness may have more to do with our understand-ing of second-century Judaism than it does with the text itself.

6. G. Zervos, “An Early Non-Canonical Annunciation Story,” SBL Seminar Papers36 (1997): 686. This is based on the idea that Prot. Jas. may have influenced Luke toincorporate language from the GM.

7. Ibid., 688.


CHILDLESSNESS

The first passage under examination comes when Joachim is on his wayto make his sacrifices in the temple.

Now the great day of the Lord was approaching and the people of Israelwere offering their gifts. And Reubel confronted Joachim and said, “You’renot allowed to offer your gifts first because you haven’t produced anIsraelite child.” And Joachim became very upset and went to the book ofthe twelve tribes of the people, saying to himself, “I’m going to check thebook of the twelve tribes of Israel to see whether I’m the only one in Israelwho hasn’t produced a child.” And he searched [the records] and foundthat all the righteous people in Israel did indeed have children. (Prot. Jas.1.4–7)8

Not being able to produce a child was often seen as an act of God,9 butwhether this ever meant that childlessness could disqualify one fromoffering gifts at the temple is unknown. But this may be nothing morethan Reubel taking the law into his own hands and publicly shamingJoachim. Reubel is not necessarily a priest and may have simply beenjealous of Joachim’s wealth and prosperity. After all, his objection is notthat he was giving an offering, but that he was first. Regardless of Reubel’sstatus or motives, Joachim feels publicly shamed and retreats into isola-tion. The wording here is also interesting: Reubel seems to place theblame firmly on Joachim for his childlessness. This is contrary to thebiblical view, which is more concerned with the state of the woman’swomb than the man’s virility. For the most part, childlessness is nearlyalways attributed to the barrenness of the woman. But Joachim’s guiltmight be related to the idea in the Mishnah that it is not solely the duty ofthe woman to bear fruit and multiply. In a discussion of fertility problemsthe rabbis state that a man cannot abstain from his wife even after tenyears of childlessness and that “the duty to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ [Gen1.28) falls on the man but not on the woman” (Yevamot 6.8). Perhaps thisis why Joachim is portrayed as so self-conscious about his lack of afamily. Even Gittin 4.8, which on the surface seems to lay all the blamefor infertility on the woman, could also be taken as a warning to men whodivorce their wives on the grounds of barrenness. If it turns out that she isnot barren and has a child by her next husband, the divorce is deemedinvalid, i.e., the first husband is still married to her and now has anadulterous wife and a bastard child. That would make any couple think

8. All quotes from Prot. Jas. come from Hock, Infancy Gospels, 32–77.9. 1 Sam 1.5; Gen 16.2, 20.18; and Hos 9.14.


twice about attributing barrenness only to the woman. Joachim feelsashamed of, and responsible for, their childlessness. So while the biblicalview places responsibility for childbearing on the woman, Prot. Jas. sup-ports an understanding that responsibility for producing children is shared.Joachim’s reaction is more understandable within a mishnaic tradition.

METAL PLATES

The second passage comes after Anna becomes pregnant and Joachimreturns to the temple.

[W]hen he was presenting his gifts, he thought to himself, “If the Lord Godhas really been merciful to me, the polished metal disk on the priest’sheadband will make it clear to me.” And so Joachim was presenting hisgifts and paying attention to the priest’s headband until he went up to thealtar of the Lord. And he saw no sin in it. And Joachim said, “Now I knowthat the Lord God has been merciful to me and has forgiven me all mysins.” And he came down from the temple of the Lord acquitted and wentback home. (Prot. Jas. 5.1–4)

This seems to be a reference to the oracular power of Urim and Thummim(revelation and truth) as found in Exodus 28.30.10 This form of divinedisclosure runs consistently through the Hebrew Bible,11 but this is also aconcept which was taken into the Second Temple period. The descriptionand function of this polished metal disk are described by Josephus assardonyxes, which are stones borne on the shoulder of the priest thatindicate whether God is present at the sacrifice.12 Granted, there are

10. “In the breast piece of judgment you shall place the Urim and the Thummim,and they shall be on Aaron’s heart when he goes in before the Lord: thus Aaron shallbear the judgment of the Israelites on his heart before the Lord continually.”

11. Generally see C. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: An Old TestamentMeans of Revelation (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993). See also Num 27.2; Josh6.6; and 1 Sam 14.37.

12. “For as to those stones, which we told you before, the high priest bare on hisshoulders, which were sardonyxes, (and I think it needless to describe their nature,they being known to everybody), the one of them shined out when God was presentat their sacrifices; I mean that which was in the nature of a button on his rightshoulder, bright rays darting out thence, and being seen even by those that were mostremote; which splendor yet was not before natural to the stone. This has appeared awonderful thing to such as have not so far indulged themselves in philosophy, as todespise divine revelation” (Josephus Ant. 3:215–16; trans. W. Whiston, Works ofJosephus [Peabody: Hendrickson, reprint 1996]). Josephus goes on to explain thatthis oracular function ceased two hundred years ago, long before the setting of Prot.Jas. But we should not be surprised that a text such as Prot. Jas. would not take this


differences in material (gold vs. stone) and appearance (round vs. square).And while this unusual description does raise questions about Prot. Jas.’sfamiliarity with the priestly tradition, the cosmetics are not as importantas the function. Not only does Josephus discuss this as God’s oracle, but itis linked to revelatory power in a few Qumran fragments that refer toMoses’ tongues of fire (1Q29, 4Q376, 4Q408). All of these texts describethe oracular, light/fire giving properties of the high priest’s breastplate inrelation to the mysterious Urim and Thummim.13

So when Joachim is looking into these plates, he is probably looking forGod’s acceptance of his gifts. It is an idea that would have been familiar,even if mysterious, to anyone with an understanding of the traditions ofthe temple and priestly cult. Oracles were common in the broader Helle-nistic context, but this type is distinctively Jewish. There are no clearHellenistic parallels, beyond the occasional use of mirrors. Contrary toElliott, these breastplates (metal or otherwise) would have been familiarto Jews, even if their precise meaning varied.

BETROTHAL AND MARRIAGE

When we look at how Prot. Jas. addresses the issue of Mary’s life beforethe birth of Jesus, it is clear that the text is preoccupied with the detailssurrounding her virginal status, not only before her pregnancy but after itas well. It could be said that this is, in fact, the entire agenda of thedocument. In general terms, but perhaps most strikingly, virginity is also aconcern of the Mishnah. Judging from the amount of space devoted to theprocedures for how girls are transferred from their fathers to their hus-bands and how levirate marriage (when a widowed woman is married toher late husband’s brother) is conducted, it may not be an overstatementto say that Prot. Jas. is not alone in its obsession with virginity and purity.But regardless of the judgments we might pass on this body of halakoth,14

into consideration. The author of Prot. Jas. may not have not been familiar withJosephus, even if he was familiar with the tradition of the plates.

13. This connection was mentioned by Dr. Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis in apersonal email. There may be a more contemporary link in the Talmud: “Said Abayeto him, Was then the ziz woven? But it was taught: The ziz was a kind of golden platetwo fingerbreadths broad, and it stretched round [the forehead] from ear to ear, andupon it was written in two lines [yod] [he] above and ‘Holy’ [lamed] below. ButR. Eleazar son of R. Jose said: I saw it in the city of Rome, and ‘Holy unto the Lord’was written in one line” (b. Shabbath 63b).

14. Judith Wegner, Chattel or Person?: The Status of Women in the Mishnah (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1988), is helpful in understanding the teaching of theMishnah, even if her unchecked condemnation is sometimes distracting.


it is clear that the goal is to insure that girls move from their family totheir husbands undefiled, i.e., having virginal status. If a girl’s virginity iskept until marriage, then the value of the daughter is twice that of a girlwhose virginity is not assured. Prot. Jas. has the same, perhaps evengreater, fanatical concern for virginity, except that in Prot. Jas. Mary’svirginity goes far beyond the bounds of what would have been perceivedas normative. But that, as I will argue below, is exactly what Prot. Jas.intends.

At this point it is helpful to look at the ways in which the structure ofMary’s life follows the Mishnah. Prot. Jas.’s attitude toward girls andtheir virginity has some striking parallels. Prot. Jas. goes into great detailabout the circumstances of Mary’s birth: how she was kept as a baby byAnna and Joachim, was dedicated as a young girl to live in the temple,and ended up in Joseph’s care. Mary’s life is divided into three distinctstages: from conception to age three, from three to twelve, and fromtwelve until the birth of Jesus. (There is an anomaly in Prot. Jas. as to herexact age when she gave birth. See below.) Within this tripartite divisionthere are two turning points: the first when Mary is given to the temple atage three, and the second when she is transferred to Joseph at twelve.

TURNING THREE YEARS OF AGE

One of the underlying assumptions of the Mishnah is that if a child losesher virginity before the age of three, her hymen will spontaneously regen-erate. Niddah 5.4 says that, “if she is younger than this [three years and aday], it is as if one puts a finger in the eye” (i.e, it will cause temporarydiscomfort, but will not have any permanent physical effect). This beliefin the regeneration of the hymen is important when considering thesuitability of a given child. Ketubbot 1.2–3 states that: “The Ketubah[bride price] of a virgin is two hundred denars and of a widow one mina[half as much]. . . . The Ketubah of a female proselyte, captive, or slavewho was redeemed, proselytized, or freed under the age of three years anda day is two hundred denars . . . and after the age of three and a day is onemina.” The implications of this teaching are clear and consistent through-out the Mishnah. After a girl turns three and a day, she becomes aKetannah and in a purely physical sense she is more vulnerable to defile-ment. Now she must be protected lest she lose her status as a virgin. But itis important to note that the Mishnah seems to assume that any younggirl who came into Judaism from outside—as a captive, slave, or simplynon-Jewish—should be considered violated. If she is younger than three,her hymen will regenerate; if older, then she is no longer a virgin. This


may be the most cautious, cynical approach in dealing with outsiders, butthe flip side is that this does not apply to girls born into a Jewish house-hold. This kind of skepticism about non-Jews may be helpful in under-standing why Anna and Joachim decide to dedicate Mary to the temple atthe age of three and not two.

Many months passed, but when the child reached two years of age, Joachimsaid, “Let’s take her up to the temple of the Lord, so that we can keep thepromise that we made, or else the Lord will be angry with us and our giftswill be unacceptable.” And Anna said, “Let’s wait until she is three, so shewill not miss her father or mother.” And Joachim agreed: “Let’s wait.”(Prot. Jas. 7.1–3)

Initially, it may seem odd that Joachim entertains the idea of dedicatingher to the temple at two but then changes his mind in light of Anna’sreasoning. Why even mention the age at all? Why mention two years ofage only to switch to three? There is nothing in the text that would help usunderstand this odd reference. But when we read this through the lens ofthe Mishnah, it takes on a significant meaning. Prot. Jas.’s exacting lan-guage about age focuses attention on Mary’s purity and her betrothal. IfProt. Jas. reported that she was dedicated to the temple at two years ofage (perfectly acceptable), then she may have been vulnerable to theaccusation that she was from an abusive, even non-Jewish, household.No matter what happened before her dedication she would still be con-sidered a mishnaic virgin, but if it was assumed that only children fromnon-Jewish environments needed to be rescued before three years and aday, then Mary’s dedication to the temple before three might appearsuspect, especially to critics who were looking for ways to discredit herand/or her offspring, especially the charge that she was the product of aliaison with a Roman soldier.

The fact that Prot. Jas. stresses the age of Mary in this way makes itclear that she was three, not two. In fact, it goes so far as to place hersafely in the temple by the time she is three years and one day, when shewould become a minor (Ketannah). And in fact, on the day of her thirdbirthday she is presented to the temple (Prot. Jas. 7.4). This is presumablythe safest environment in which to grow up. By placing her in the purestspace in the world—the temple—Prot. Jas. does not allow even the faint-est possibility of impropriety with Mary. If we assume that Prot. Jas. isconcerned to protect Mary’s virginity during a time in her life when she ismost vulnerable to defilement, then her dedication to the temple at theage of three, not two, insures that there is no possibility of compromise,no hint of defilement, no reason to doubt her purity from day one.


In addition to this, the age of three follows the guidelines for the earliestpossible betrothal. The mishnaic teaching on how girls are passed fromfather to husband is complex and detailed. Qiddushin 1.1 states that awoman can be legitimately acquired (betrothed) in three ways: by money,by written document, or by sexual intercourse. But as Qiddushin goes onit becomes apparent that there are different levels of connection leadingup to the final consummation of the marriage vow. Sexual intercourse isthe final stage of the process, but if this happens, the betrothal andespousal (handing over) are all assumed to be included in the act ofconsummation. If a girl has sex, consensual or not, after the age of three,the Mishnah considers her married. But there is a much longer, morenormative procedure that can last until the girl is beyond twelve. The keyto a successful, legitimate betrothal is the presence of witnesses or agents.A girl can be promised while still in utero, but the earliest a child can beespoused to a husband is three years and a day (Niddah 4.5). In order todissolve this betrothal there must be a writ of divorce (Niddah 3.8). Onewould think, therefore, that betrothal is synonymous with marriage, butthis is not the case either. During the betrothal stage the girl is promised,but until the vow has been consummated through sexual intercourse sheis not fully married. Because of the complexities involved in gaining alegitimate marriage contract, it is difficult to know the exact proceduresthat may have applied to a situation like Mary’s. But again it is strikingthe way in which Prot. Jas. uses language and structures familiar to theMishnah, but only as a way of showing how Mary does not fit thefamiliar categories of how things are done. As Prot. Jas. progresses, itbecomes increasingly clear that nothing about Mary can be containedwithin the assumed modus operandi of the Judaism in the text. The factthat she is given over to the temple at three harkens to betrothal language,but who is her betrothed? And if she is betrothed to the temple—aprovocative and strange notion—how, when, and by whom will this“betrothal” be consummated? I believe these are exactly the questionsthat Prot. Jas. wants the reader to ask because they lead the reader to adistinctly radical, Christian conclusion.

Mary’s life as a temple virgin brings up an issue that foreshadows thegeneral analysis of this text in the last section, but it is useful to introducethe idea at this stage. As mentioned in the introduction, there are manythings in Prot. Jas. that cannot be attached to anything even remotely apart of the world of Judaism as we understand it. What would a Jew thinkof the idea of a virgin being raised in the temple? There is no biblicalprecedent for such a practice. The Mishnah, given its attitudes towardwomen and childbirth, would find this kind of practice complicated, if


not abhorrent. But how much can we assume that a second-century Jewliving in the Diaspora would know about either mishnaic teaching or lifeduring the latter days of the Second Temple? What can be consideredcommon knowledge and what could be termed “insider” knowledgeavailable only to those who studied scripture or the teachings of thetannaim? This is a difficult distinction to make, but it is likely thatprocedures surrounding rites of passage would have had a greater cur-rency to Jews than the inner workings of the temple and its priesthood. Sowhile the idea of temple virgins may seem exotic in academic discussionsof Judaism,15 this does not mean that second-century readers, even thoseof Jewish origins, would have found this wholly inappropriate. It mayhave been fantastic and hard to believe, but when it is delivered in astructure that follows the basic concerns and practices of contemporaryJudaism as reflected in the Mishnah, then we must entertain the possibil-ity that Mary’s life as a virgin in the temple as a weaver might not havebeen sufficient grounds to discount Prot. Jas. In fact, it may have had theopposite effect on its audience by reinforcing the idea that nothing aboutMary’s life fit into the structure of the known Jewish world, even thoughthe entire story takes place within it.

TURNING TWELVE YEARS OF AGE

An example of how problems are created by Mary’s condition of extremepurity and her puzzling betrothal comes when she reaches the age oftwelve.

When she turned twelve, however, there was a meeting of the priests.“Look,” they said, “Mary has turned twelve in the temple of the Lord.What should we do with her so she won’t pollute the sanctuary of the Lordour God?” And they said to the high priest, “You stand at the altar of theLord. Enter and pray about her, and we will do whatever the Lord Goddiscloses to you.” And so the high priest took the vestment with the twelvebells, entered the Holy of Holies, and began to pray about her. Andsuddenly a messenger of the Lord appeared: “Zachariah, Zachariah, go outand assemble the widowers of the people and have them each bring a staff.She will become the wife of the one to whom the Lord God shows a sign.”(Prot. Jas. 8.3–8)

15. For the possibility of virgin weavers, see 2 Baruch 10.19; for the evidence forvirgin temple weavers, see F. Manns, Essais sur le Judéo-Christianisme (Jerusalem:Franciscan Press, 1977), 106–9.


Prot. Jas. depicts this episode as a problem to be solved, but it is a only aproblem that could happen within a framework where absolute purity isan issue. Again we see how the mishnaic understanding of when girlsbecome women comes into play. The age of twelve is the second signifi-cant turning point in Prot. Jas.; so also with the Mishnah. At twelve yearsand one day a girl is no longer considered a minor. She is now classified asa pubescent girl (naarath). This status lasts for just six months, afterwhich time she is considered a woman who can now choose her ownhusband and/or refuse any vow made by her father on her behalf. TheMishnah provides the analogy of ripening fruit to explain.

The Sages spoke a parable about woman: [She is like] an unripe fig, or aripening fig, or a fully ripe fig. “An unripe fig” while she is still a child; and“a ripening fig”—these are the days of her childhood [twelve to twelve anda half], [and during both times her father is entitled to anything that shefinds and to the work of her hands, and he can annul her vows]; and “afully ripe fig” after her childhood when her father has no more rights overher. (Niddah 5.7)

The danger at twelve, of course, is that Mary will soon begin menstru-ating and thereby bring impurity to the temple. It seems strange that thepriests do not see this coming. Apparently, it just dawns on them and theydo not know what to do. The temple is Mary’s home, but it is a homewhere she can no longer stay. And there seems to be no administrativestructure to deal with this inevitability. If there were so many virginsliving and weaving in the temple, one would imagine that there would besome kind of system in place that would move them on when the timecame. But the emergency meeting and failure to find a solution forcesthem to ask God for guidance. The circumstances of Mary’s age and theconcerns of the priests illustrate how Prot. Jas. simultaneously adopts thebetrothal structure and mirrors its attitude toward women, but it alsoshows how Mary’s situation is radically different from anything thatcame before. In the mishnaic world twelve is a crucial age in the life of aJewish girl. Now she can make vows and in a very short time she will befree from the power of her father. This would be the time when mostyoung girls were physically delivered over to their husbands. This sixmonth window beginning at twelve is the last opportunity to pass author-ity from the father to the husband through consummation.

BEYOND TWELVE YEARS OF AGE

But in Prot. Jas. things are not so simple. Mary is still a virgin. She isbetrothed and possibly espoused, but there has been no consummation.


At this point Joseph enters the picture as an older widower with children.Since he had been chosen by divine fiat, one would think that he wouldwelcome this girl into his household. She was as ritually pure as possibleand a virgin; the “perfect” wife. There would be nothing out of theordinary for an older man, widowed, to take a young wife, even a twelve-year-old. Yet Joseph reacts strongly against the match, and the priestshave to remind him where this order is coming from:

“Joseph, Joseph,” the high priest said, “you have been chosen by lot to takethe virgin of the Lord into your care and protection.” But Joseph objected:“I already have sons and I’m an old man; she’s only a young woman[neaniw]. I’m afraid that I’ll become the butt of jokes among the people ofIsrael.” And the priest responded: “Joseph, fear the Lord your God andremember what God did to Dathan, and Abiron, and Kore; the earth wassplit open and they were all swallowed up because of their objection. Sonow, Joseph, you ought to take heed so that the same thing won’t happento your family.” And so out of fear Joseph took her into his care andprotection. He said to her: “Mary, I’ve gotten you from the temple of theLord, but now I’m leaving you at home. I’m going away to build houses,but I will come back to you. The Lord will protect you.” (Prot. Jas. 9)

Again, anyone familiar with mishnaic teaching would think Joseph’sactions were strange. Joseph’s small rebellion about taking Mary and hisconcern about being laughed at should make the reader stop and wonderwhat is going on. If this is some kind of betrothal ceremony, then Joseph’sopposition is wholly inappropriate. But that is the point: this is not abetrothal. Here we can see Prot. Jas. going directly against the grain of thegospel account so that the reader can see that Joseph is a marginal, evencomic figure and that the real husband of Mary and father of Jesus is mostemphatically not Joseph. But Prot. Jas. is also slightly confused aboutMary and Joseph’s exact relationship. When the angelic messenger comesto Zachariah (the priest in charge), he says that Mary will be Joseph’s wife(Prot. Jas. 8.8). But even if the angel said this to the priest, this is not themessage that is passed on to Joseph. There is no indication, from Joseph’spoint of view, that he is being given a wife. The priest tells him he must“take the virgin of the Lord into your care and protection” (Prot. Jas.9.7). It is easier to understand Joseph’s reaction if we take the priest’sassignment at face value. It also maintains the overall trajectory of thetext. Whatever is happening, it is very unusual, if not unique. All proce-dures of betrothal and marriage point away from Joseph as husband andtoward a divine espousal to God. And in fact, the consummation of thispeculiar betrothal takes place while Mary is being “protected” by Joseph.

As mentioned earlier, the age of twelve is a crucial turning point for the


mishnaic girl. When she is twelve and a half she will become a fullyentitled Jewish woman, capable of making vows and choosing a husband.It would be compelling evidence indeed if Prot. Jas. stated that the con-ception of Jesus happened within the first six months of Mary’s life withJoseph. This would follow the standard practice of sealing the marriagebefore the girl reaches the age where she could possibly refuse her chosenhusband. But it is here that Prot. Jas. is not forthcoming on the exacttiming. As soon as Mary is transferred to Joseph he exits the picture. Thisis clearly a detail intended to assure the reader that no matter whathappened Joseph was out of town when Jesus was conceived. It is not atall improbable that Prot. Jas. intends for the reader to assume that theevents leading to and through the pregnancy happened within the firstyear, even the first few months. The problem with this more compacttimeline is the reference at Prot. Jas. 12.9 that states: “She was just sixteenyears old when these mysterious things happened to her.” There is, how-ever, a good deal of variance in the MSS as to the age of Mary at the pointof conception.16 This textual disagreement as to Mary’s age when Jesuswas born makes the reference to sixteen less reliable. Her status as atwelve-year-old girl on the cusp of womanhood is much more in line withthe trajectory of Prot. Jas. If we follow the flow of the text, Mary’sbetrothal would have been “consummated” before she became a womanat twelve and a half.

But regardless of the weight given to this detail, it is clear that by thetime Joseph returns from building houses Mary is in the sixth month ofpregnancy. And Joseph now must account for this. Of course he initiallyassumes that some outsider did this (how could he, when he was away?),but in a dream he is assured that the baby is from the Holy Spirit (hereProt. Jas. follows Matthew). But this is not the way others see it. Annas, ascribe, comes to visit Joseph; and when he catches sight of Mary (begin-ning her third trimester), he naturally assumes that Joseph is the father:

He left in a hurry for the high priest and said to him, “You rememberJoseph, don’t you—the man that you yourself vouched for? Well, he hascommitted a serious offence.” And the priest asked, “In what way?”

16. There are also MSS that give Mary’s age as twelve, fourteen, fifteen, andseventeen; see E. de Strycker, Protévangile, in Studia Evangelica III, ed. F. Cross, TU88 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964), 339–59. De Strycker suggested that twelvewould be the logical age and goes so far as to suggest that the author “forgot” whathe had said about Mary’s age in ch. 8. While it is unlikely that such variance can beattributed to forgetfulness, this does indicate that the reference to sixteen is probablynot reliable.


“Joseph has violated the virgin he received from the temple of the Lord,” hereplied. “He has had his way with her and has not disclosed his action tothe people of Israel.” (Prot. Jas. 15.4–6)

Prot. Jas. then includes an event intended to defend Mary against anycharge of infidelity or impropriety.

WATER OF CONVICTION

Annas runs to tell the priests and Mary and Joseph are summoned. Theyboth deny that either one of them has had intercourse with the other (oranyone in Mary’s case). In order to resolve the issue the priest demands atest.

And the high priest said, “I’m going to give you the Lord’s drink test, and itwill disclose your sin clearly to both of you.” And the high priest took thewater and made Joseph drink it and sent him into the wilderness, but hereturned unharmed. And he made the girl drink it too, and sent her into thewilderness. She also came back unharmed. And everybody was surprisedbecause their sin had not been revealed. And so the high priest said, “If theLord God has not exposed your sin, then neither do I condemn you.” Andhe dismissed them. Joseph took Mary and returned home celebrating andpraising the God of Israel. (Prot. Jas. 16.4–8)

This instance is often used as the strongest evidence against theJewishness of Prot. Jas. The biblical parallel is Numbers 5.11–31. Butthere are some striking differences between Prot. Jas. and the biblicalaccount: (1) in Prot. Jas. Joseph is made to drink the water, whereas inNumbers the drink is solely for the woman; (2) in Prot. Jas. Mary isknown to be six months pregnant, whereas in Numbers the test seems toact as some sort of abortive device that will reveal an illegitimate preg-nancy; and (3) Prot. Jas. does not follow the same procedure described inNumbers, for here Mary’s hair is not tussled and no curse formula ismentioned. These differences are often cited as evidence against theJewishness of Prot. Jas. But Prot. Jas.’s use of the water is closer to themishnaic discussion on this procedure in Sotah.

There is no evidence that this test was ever carried out at any time.From the nature of the rabbinic discussion in the Mishnah it was not asettled issue, even in theory. In Sotah the rabbis discuss this procedure,how it should be administered, and its limitations. The emphasis of thetest in Sotah is not so much on whether the woman is pregnant, rather itis focused on establishing the integrity of the relationship and to deter-mine fidelity. This fits much better with the circumstance of Prot. Jas.where the question revolves around truth, not the presence of a baby.


In Prot. Jas. the water acts more as a veritaserum, not as an abortivedevice. This may explain why Joseph is made to drink the water as well.This idea is supported by the Sotah when it states that: “As the water putsher to the proof so does it put the paramour to the proof, for it is written,‘And it shall come,’ and again, ‘it shall come’ [Num 5.22, 24]” (Sotah5.1). This means that when the woman drinks, the lover will be affected.But unlike Numbers, Sotah sees that the man is involved in this process aswell. Prot. Jas. makes this even more clear. Joseph, who is the suspectedlover (the paramour), is therefore asked to take the test along with Maryso that his guilt might be revealed. The visual picture of Joseph and Marydrinking is closer to the spirit of the Mishanic teaching. Even the resultsof the water differ from the biblical account. In the Mishnah it is a matterof revealing guilt, not of a dropped uterus and permanent sterility as inNumbers. The account in Prot. Jas. fits much better within the mishnaicunderstanding of this procedure, even if this understanding was knownonly in theory. Again, it is important to stress that this similarity does notindicate a direct literary link between Prot. Jas. and the Mishnah. Such alink is not necessary to make the point that Prot. Jas. contains elementsthat may have been more readily understood by readers who were famil-iar with contemporary Jewish teaching, perhaps even Jews.

IOUDAIOI

The last point of contact is based not so much on any particularity of thetext, or even an original observation. Instead, it is based on the work ofMalcolm Lowe, who did a detailed analysis on the use of the term ioudaioi(“Judeans”) in Prot. Jas.17 His conclusion is based on his previous findingsthat this term was used to connote geographical status (from Judea).18

Non-Jewish usage of ioudaioi seems to have been applied to all Jews,whereas Jews tended to make a distinction between “Judeans” (thosefrom Judea strictly speaking) and the “people of Israel” (the phrase usedby Jews inside Roman Palestine to refer to themselves as a whole people).Lowe believes that literature that follows this “insider language” reflectsa Jewish, if not specifically Palestinian, provenance. He applied this meth-odology to Prot. Jas. and found that later editions of the MS can be seento make deliberate attempts to make the text seem more canonical by

17. M. Lowe, “ioudaioi of the Apocrypha: A Fresh Approach to the Gospels ofJames, Pseudo-Thomas, Peter and Nicodemus” NT 23 (1981): 56–90.

18. M. Lowe, “Who were the ioudaioi?” NT 18 (1976): 101–31.


adopting the language of the gospels, even if this violates the rules ofinsider usage. The earliest MS of Prot. Jas. (Bodmer Papyrus V, early thirdcentury c.e.) consistently follows insider usage. When Jews refer to them-selves, they are “Israel”; when outsiders refer to them, they are ioudaioi.This, he concludes, provides evidence that the original author “was prob-ably a Palestinian Jew.”19 Even the oft-quoted geographical faux paswhere the text has Joseph going into Judea from Bethlehem (Prot. Jas.21.1) is not a problematic phrase. Other MSS have different wordings,and one of the earliest texts from Ethiopia does not have the phrase at all.In any case, it is not, on its own, sufficient grounds for dismissing thepossibility of Jewish authorship.

CONCLUSION

When trying to assess the impact that such a document would have hadon its audience, it is important to acknowledge that it is extremely prob-lematic to make any substantive insight into the author’s original intent.Even though this inquiry has sought to show the ways in which Prot. Jas.and the Mishnah may share a similar understanding on certain issues andoutlooks, to make a connection between them is mitigated by the dis-agreements and distance that exists between them. It is more fruitful toask what kind of audience would have responded to the imagery andargumentation of Prot. Jas. The target audience of Prot. Jas. would bethose who found the idea of a virgin birth most difficult to believe and thecircumstances of Jesus’ birth most suspect. If we look at the polemicalarguments used against early Christians, it becomes evident that theearliest attacks against the person of Jesus—against his family, his suspi-cious origins, and the claim of divinity placed on him—all come fromJewish sources.

Only a few years before Prot. Jas. was written, the charge of illegiti-macy of Jesus and promiscuity by Mary is used by Celsus in his attack onChristianity. Celsus’ document (entitled True Doctrine) comes to us em-bedded in Origen’s Against Celsus, but it is usually dated to the latesecond century c.e. Some scholars have even argued that Prot. Jas. is adirect response to Celsus.20 Here Celsus, mediated through Origen, putsthis charge into the mouth of his Jewish critic:

19. Lowe, “ioudaioi of the Apocrypha,” 70.20. P. Van Stempvoort, “The Protoevangelium Jacobi, the Sources of Its Theme and

Style and Their Bearing on Its Date,” in Studia Evangelica III, ed. F. Cross, TU 88(Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964), 413–23.


The Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that“when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter towhom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and thatshe bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera.”21

Later, in the Babylonian Talmud, the connection between Panthera andJesus was also made (b. Sanhedrin 67a).22 This may indicate that theRoman father scenario may have been a critique known to Jewish oppo-nents of Christianity. There is also the possibility that the Roman namePanthera (“panther”) is an ironic play on the Greek word paryenow.Perhaps this is a connection between the Jewish polemic against Jesus’birth and the Christian use of Isaiah 7.14.23 Even if there is no word playhere, it is apparent that the charge of illegitimacy is attributed to Jews. Infact, Origen taunts Celsus to engage in the exegetical battle over Isaiah7.14.

And these arguments I employ as against a Jew who believes in prophecy.Let Celsus now tell me, or any of those who think with him, with whatmeaning the prophet utters either these statements about the future or theothers which are contained in the prophecies? Is it with any foresight of thefuture or not? If with a foresight of the future, then the prophets weredivinely inspired; if with no foresight of the future, let him explain themeaning of one who speaks thus boldly regarding the future, and who is anobject of admiration among the Jews because of his prophetic powers.24

From this passage perhaps we can suggest that the contravirgin exegesisof Isaiah 7.14 was Jewish, rather than pagan. Celsus has many reasons todiscredit Christianity, but when it comes to the words of scripture, at leastin the case of Isaiah 7.14, he defers to his “Jewish” source.

The possible Jewish origin of the critique of the virgin birth is alsosuggested by the possible references to Jesus found in the Mishnah. Thereis material that is thought to refer to the person of Jesus and his birth.Pesahim 110b–101a deals with the error of affirming two gods. Thismight relate to the kerygmatic statement that Jesus was equal with God

21. Origen Cels. 1.32; trans. New Advent, Fathers of the Church, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm.

22. See especially the much later Toledot Yeshu in Morris Goldstein, Jesus in theJewish Tradition (New York: Macmillian, 1950) 148–54.

23. See R. Joseph Hoffman’s comment in Celsus, On the True Doctrine: ADiscourse Against the Christians, trans. R. J. Hoffman (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1987), 129 n. 14.

24. Origen Cels. 1.35; trans. New Advent, Fathers of the Church, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm.


and the subsequent Christian affirmation that he was God. The warningis: “O whore’s son who tells you there are two gods.” Here, not only isthe person (Jesus?) condemned for teaching the existence of two gods buthis birth is also attacked. Maybe the phrase “whore’s son” was simply anancient form of our slur “son of a bitch,” but it is clear that this writer isattempting to rebuke the teaching with an ad hominem remark aimed atthe teacher and his “mama.”25 Elsewhere, in b. Sanhedrin 106a, there is areference to an unnamed woman who “was the descendent of princes andrulers, who played the harlot with carpenters.” Interestingly, the state-ment accepts the Davidic connection while equating the woman (Mary?)to a harlot.

If we accept that the earliest critics of Christianity came from withinJudaism, then it is easier to understand the kind of audience that wouldhave responded to Prot. Jas. Moreover, if we read the actors in Prot. Jas.as reflective of the perceived audience, then what we find is an acknowl-edgment that the idea of a virgin birth was not easy to accept. All thecharacters in Prot. Jas. show acute skepticism toward the idea. From themidwives to the priests to Joseph himself, everyone needed to be con-vinced that Mary conceived while she was still a virgin, that the concep-tion was not from an earthly father, and that even after the birth of JesusMary’s hymen remained intact. Against the backdrop of accusations thatJesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier, or even that he was just oneof the natural sons of Joseph and Mary, Prot. Jas. attempts to addressthese ideas head on and counter them en masse. Perhaps because thesearguments against Jesus came from predominantly Jewish sources andvoices, Prot. Jas. could be said to confront those who would have had themost difficulty with this idea: Christian Jews or simply Jewish critics.

Not only can we see Prot. Jas. operating within a Jewish frameworkbut the arguments themselves also fit the polemic leveled against Jesus by

25. Note also a similar sentiment in The Gospel of Thomas where it says that“whoever knows father or mother shall be called the son of a harlot” (105). Thisstatement by Jesus may refer to himself. In Dialogue with Trypho 66 Justin Martyrused Isa 8.4 (“For before the boy knows how to cry out ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the kingof Assyria”) to refute Trypho’s assertion that Isa 7.14 referred to Hezekiah, not Jesus.Justin claimed that this was not the case for Hezekiah, so the entire prophecy mustrefer to Jesus. Perhaps this passage from Isaiah lies behind the comment in Thomas.There is an acknowledgement that Jesus (the one who “knows both mother andfather”) will be called son of a harlot. We would not expect the Gospel of Thomas tosupply clarity on such matters. This is speculation based on the familial wording andthe kinds of accusations that were leveled at the person of Jesus.


detractors. It was not that Jesus’ teaching was abrasive to Jews, rather itwas the messianic and divine claims made about him that seemed over-reaching. Prot. Jas. may be the response to these claims, because it com-bats the criticism not only by defending the gospel claim but also byratcheting the rhetoric to a new level. It used the social structures andassumptions familiar to those who lived as Jews to assert incredibleclaims about Mary and her son Jesus. This framework is adopted, thensubverted, then exploded by the divine nature of this event. Far fromwatering down the idea and deflecting its critics, Prot. Jas. delivers itsmessage to a doubtful, skeptical, even hostile audience: Mary’s virginityand purity are unquestionable. And Jesus’ father, it can be inferred, isGod himself.

Throughout this study the terms “Jewish” and “Christian” have beenused for the sake of convenience, but in fact there is a deep and lingeringquestion about Prot. Jas. How can a text so full of Jewish imagery betaken up with the task of defending the person of Jesus and, more strik-ingly, asserting the idea of a virgin birth? Who ever heard of a Jewish textsupporting the virgin birth of Jesus? Given that the idea of a virgin birthwas one of the earliest and most durable objections to be attributed toJewish critics of Christianity, it is ironic that the text that established theMarian cult might have arisen from a community that was closely con-nected to contemporary Judaism. Yet Prot. Jas. also defies facile categori-zation. Terminology that can describe the borders between Christianityand Judaism is vague, but as a provisional conclusion I would place Prot.Jas.’s initial author and audience within the milieu of Christian Judaism.This is a term that is loosely defined as those Christians who maintainedthat Jesus was the prophetic Messiah but also saw no reason to reinter-pret the Torah and its incumbent practices: food, festivals, and circumci-sion. I use this label, however, with some reservation. The more familiarterm might be Jewish Christianity, but I shy away from this term for tworeasons: (1) The Ebionites are the most well-known group of JewishChristians and they directly opposed the concept of a virgin birth. That isnot, however, to say that Prot. Jas. could not fit within this group ofChristians. In fact, the consideration of Prot. Jas. as Jewish Christian maybe helpful in loosening the primary association with the Ebionites becauseit problematizes the assumption that Jewish Christians opposed the ideaof a virgin birth.26 (2) The name Jewish Christian also has polemical

26. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.2, 3.21.1, 5.1.3; Hippolytus, Refutation of AllHeresies 7.22; Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 33; Epiphanius, Refutation ofAll Heresies 29–30; and Origen, Against Celsus 2.1.


undertones. It was used mainly as an accusation to condemn those groupsof Christians that did not fall within the bounds of orthodox Christianityas defined by the handful of patristic writers who came to define norma-tive Christian beliefs: Irenaeus, Origen, Epiphanius, Hippolytus, and Euse-bius. Subsequently, this term puts emphasis on Christianity with the wordJewish as a negative modifier. Jewish Christianity is a “Jewish” form ofChristianity. Christian Judaism puts Judaism as the main framework andmodifies it with the word Christian (which could be seen by some as anegative modifier as well). This is a Christian form of Judaism. It isslightly odd to call for such a fine distinction between groups that weknow almost nothing about, but Christian Judaism is the term that allowsProt. Jas. to stand on its own without being grouped too quickly withJewish Christianity. Prot. Jas. has distinctly Christian concerns and waspreserved by Christians, but its unusual affiliation (from my perspective)with Judaism makes it useful in understanding the boundaries betweenJews and Christians, or the lack of them.

The examples offered here should not be regarded as peculiarities asmuch as particularities that place this text within a Christian/Jewishmilieu. While this text does not prohibit a larger, mixed audience fromunderstanding the major point of the story—Mary is no ordinary womanand certainly not a harlot; in fact, she is a virgin!—the details of the textwould have been better understood by someone who was intimatelyacquainted with Jewish scripture, tradition, and its contemporary cul-ture, varied as that may have been. It is also unreasonable to imagine anon-Jewish writer going into such detail about Jewish practices so as tomake the text incomprehensible, or at least strange, to their intendedGreco-Roman audience.

Certainly, later generations of non-Jewish Christians embraced thistext because of its vividness, readability, and teaching. Even my under-graduate Catholic students find it more appealing and reassuring than thegospels. But in its second-century context Prot. Jas. addresses the Chris-tian concerns and doubts about the possibility of a virgin birth by draw-ing from the culture and tradition of its critics. This is not as strange as itmight first appear. It was Jewish critics, above all others, who found thecircumstances of Jesus’ birth the most problematic. The Prot. Jas. mayhave come into existence precisely because the idea would have been sodifficult for some Jews to accept. Prot. Jas. becomes a much more impor-tant text if one is trying to appeal to those Christian Jews who neededhelp believing in Jesus’ virgin birth.

Prot. Jas. introduces characters who encounter Mary’s pregnancy withdeep skepticism: Joseph, the priests, and finally the two midwives; all of


them Jewish, all of them showing a wariness of such an incredible occur-rence. Yet all of them are convinced in the end. The crowning proof is thetwo Jewish midwives, one of whom performed a vaginal exam and foundMary intact immediately after the birth of Jesus (Prot. Jas. 20.1–2). In thisway Prot. Jas. addresses the concerns directly and graphically. The initialcontradiction of Prot. Jas.—a Christian assertion soaked in a Jewishnarrative—may give us some insight into its raison d’être, even if it makesit more difficult to place.

The real insight comes not when we decide on a place for Prot. Jas. inthe Christian, or even Jewish, corpus but when we allow Prot. Jas. toinform our understanding of early Christianity and Judaism. The linebetween these two groups becomes blurred and the distance betweenthem is reduced. In the end, the success of Prot. Jas. to quell the skepti-cism of a virgin birth for Christian Jews was negligible. The absurdity ofthe virgin birth has been a consistent Jewish and non-Jewish objectionthroughout Christian history. But the importance of Prot. Jas. lies not inthe effect it had on later readers but on the origin of the initial apologeticimpulse and how that can inform our understanding of early Christianity.

Tim Horner is a Lawrence C. Gallen Fellow in the Humanities atVillanova University

Jewish Aspects of the Protoevangelium of James

Documents

Transcript of Jewish Aspects of the Protoevangelium of James