The Protevangelium of James. Lily C. Vuong
a literary dependency between the Protevangelium and Justin Martyr (d. 160), who makes reference to Mary giving birth in a cave outside of Bethlehem (1 Apol. 1.33). Zervos proposes a date no later than 150–160, the period in which Justin was actively writing, and a date no earlier than 80–90 when Matthew and Luke were discussing the virgin birth.31 Zervos’s argument is based in part on the work of Émile de Strycker, who suggested that the Protevangelium knew Justin’s work grounded on four concordances he found between the two texts.32 Zervos reverses the direction of dependency.33 While Zervos has not been able to persuade many, his theory is intriguing and speaks to the range of proposed dates for our text.
Provenance
The Protevangelium’s provenance is one of the more debated issues surrounding the text’s origin, most likely because it is intricately related to questions regarding its relationship to Judaism (see section on relationship to Judaism below). Frequent dismissals of proposed geographical areas largely depended upon the text’s knowledge of Judaism or lack thereof. The problematic assumption that knowledge of “Jewish tradition and customs” would necessitate a Palestinian setting while the lack of this knowledge would require a different location functioned as the dominant determinant for how the text’s provenance should be discussed. Diasporic Jews who engaged in pilgrimages to Jerusalem offer a clear example of why such an approach is flawed, inasmuch as such travels gave them intimate knowledge of the geographical space of Jerusalem, despite not being inhabitants of the area.34
Other contentious criteria traditionally used for determining locale involve references to or knowledge of geographical and/or environmental details. De Strycker is often cited in this regard, as he rejected Palestine because of the author’s apparent confusion about the distance between Jerusalem, Judea, and Bethlehem with regard to Mary’s and Joseph’s travels. He argues instead for an Egyptian provenance based on linguistic features and the influence of Coptic elements in the author’s writing, but also on the description of the mountains and wilderness at Prot. Jas. 1:9; 4:5; and 16:4–5, which he argues is characteristic of the geographical landscape of Egypt.35 Also problematic is the close proximity of the gates of Jerusalem to the desert (Prot. Jas. 4:4–5), which persuaded de Strycker even further that the text was not composed in Palestine.36 É. Cothenet also supports Egypt as the place of origin, but his reasoning is based on Origen’s and Clement’s knowledge of the text.37
Not everyone has so readily rejected Palestine as a possible place of composition. Malcolm Lowe reevaluated the passages traditionally viewed as demonstrating ignorance of Palestinian geography and proposed instead an alternative interpretation of the details. He suggests that Joseph’s reference to being “in,” “near,” or “around” Bethlehem before preparing to “depart for Judea” (Prot. Jas. 21:1) may be influenced by John 3:22, where Jerusalem is described as distinct from Judea. In this case, Jesus is described as going forth into Judea from Jerusalem. Lowe also offers other examples from Jewish literature (e.g., Ezra 1:2, 1:3, 2:1; m. Ket. 4.12), which acknowledge that a distinction can be made between Jerusalem and Judea.38 In response to the widely accepted proposals by de Strycker over the location of mountains and deserts, Lowe also argues that Palestine cannot be so easily dismissed if one considers the heavy rainfall on the western slopes that would allow for the desert to start on the eastern slopes of the mountains that borders Jerusalem. To further support his claim, Lowe notes that the author calls the people not Ἰουδαῖοι (Judeans), but “Israel,” that is, the term commonly used by writers living in Palestine. The only reference to ᾿Ιουδαῖοι is made by one of the Magi, a non-Israelite, in his questioning of Herod over the location of the newborn King of the Jews. While Lowe’s investigation offers legitimate pause for the exclusion of Palestine, several scholars have noted that his explanation for Joseph going “from Bethlehem to Judea” at Prot. Jas. 21:1 is still not adequate.39
While the debate on provenance remains unsettled, perhaps the strongest contender for the text’s origin is Syria. Much like the arguments put forth for Egypt, however, traditional proposals have also relied on dubious assumptions about the proposed location’s geography and environment. H. R. Smid, for instance, rejected an Egyptian origin because he was unconvinced that the geographical details reflected a specifically Egyptian landscape. Opting for Syria instead, he cites the popular laurel trees and gardens of Syria as having inspired Anna’s garden scene.40 More recent trends have seen Syria as the more persuasive locale, but the criteria for determining such a conclusion have moved away from geographical details to a focus on literary parallels and the concerns and interests of the texts that may be more popularly reflected there. Ron Cameron notes that the Protevangelium’s harmonization techniques parallel the popular use of gospel harmonies in Syria.41 Drawing comparisons between the Protevangelium’s depiction of Mary’s unique virginal status and the birth of her child and those found in the second-century writings of the Ascension of Isaiah and the Odes of Solomon, J. K. Elliott also posits a Syrian provenance.42 In the case of the Ascension of Isaiah, these similarities include the absence of a midwife during the actual birth (Prot. Jas. 19:12–16; cf. Ascen. Isa. 11:14) and Mary’s virginitas post partum (Prot. Jas. 20:1–3; cf. Ascen. Isa. 11:10). Other correspondences between these two texts include the reference to Mary’s Davidic descent (Prot. Jas. 10:4; cf. Ascen. Isa. 11:2), Joseph’s depiction as a carpenter (Prot. Jas. 9:1; cf. Ascen. Isa. 11:2)43 and the reference to and use of lots or “portions” (Prot. Jas. 9:7, 10:7–8; cf. Ascen. Isa. 11:3).44
Another literary source that strengthens the case for Syria is Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Ephesians (19.1), which also attests to Mary’s virginity in partu, albeit it is only implied in that giving birth too did not nullify her status as virgin: “the virginity of Mary and her giving birth eluded the ruler of this age, likewise also the death of the Lord—three mysteries of a cry which were done in the stillness of God.”45 The Odes of Solomon, another text of Syrian origin, shares with both the Ascension of Isaiah and the Protevangelium the view that no midwife was present and that Mary seemed to suffer no pain during the delivery of the child (19:6–9). Though literary dependency between the texts may be difficult to prove, the parallels between the texts are too close to be mere coincidences and may suggest a common provenance.
If one takes into consideration the text’s overarching themes and concerns, Syria continues to be a leading contender for place of origin. Anti-docetic and anti-Marcionite views, for example, are prominent themes in sources of Syrian provenance. The Protevangelium’s detailed description of Mary’s pregnant body (12:7, 13:1), descriptions of physical discomfort (17:6–7) coupled with her nursing of Jesus (19:16), and a very corporeal gynecological examination (20:1–2) can be convincingly read as a response to docetic claims that regarded Jesus’ body as semblance (as Irenaeus taught of Marcion’s beliefs: Haer 4.33.2.5) and likened Mary’s experience of childbirth “as water through a tube” (Irenaeus on Valentinus: Haer. 1.7.2 and 3.11.3). Additionally, while Marcion’s docetic ideas are only known to us from his opponents’ writings, there is scholarly consensus that his canon excluded the first four chapters of Luke.46 This rejection of Jesus’ conception, genealogy, baptism, and temptation as well as information about his parents and the prediction of his birth (and John’s) could be seen as an attempt to sever all human connections and Jewish roots from Jesus. Such as position might readily be countered by the Protevangelium’s massive expansion of Mary’s upbringing and emphatic Davidic ties.
Additionally, the general Jewish-Christian milieu of Syria is consistent with the presentation of continued Jewish practices and customs in the Protevangelium. In particular, Torah observances especially related to the temple and concern for biblical law (especially purity regulations and dietary restrictions), fit in well with the kind of sentiments held by Paul, Matthew, and Ignatius on the appropriate relationship between Judaism and Christianity.47 These three writers, among others, attest to the vehement debates and the complicated relationship between Judaism and Christianity in the early Christian centuries. Some firmly rejected the fluidity between Jewish and Christian traditions and the continued Jewish observances held by some who professed Christ; precisely that same fluidity is promoted within the Protevangelium.48 Thus while a Syrian locale cannot be determined with absolute certainty, it is a highly plausible proposition and presently the most sensible conclusion.
Relationship to Judaism
As mentioned above, the