The Protevangelium of James: Critical edition, with translation and commentary (Brepols Library of Christian Sources, 3) [Critical ed.] 9782503593142, 2503593143

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Abbreviations
Introduction
Date
Genre
Sources
The Influence of the Protevangelium
Author
Versions
The Place of the Protevangelium in Christian Memory
Text and Translation
Text
Translation
Commentary
Bibliography
Index of Scriptural Citations
Ancient and Medieval Authors
Modern Authors
General Index

Citation preview

Brepols Library of Christian Sources Patristic and Medieval Texts with English Translations The cry ‘ad fontes!’ has been a constant among theologians of every variety since the mid-twentieth century. This is no simple process. Each generation needs to engage with the ancient and medieval sources afresh in a great act of cultural, intellectual, and linguistic translation. More than reproducing an historical artefact or transferring it into a new linguistic code, it requires engaging in a dialogue with the text. One dialogical pole is to acknowledge the inherited text’s distance from us by reading it in its original language, the other is to explore what it says within our world and language. Here the facing-pages of text and translation express this. These editions respect the original context by providing the best currently available Greek or Latin text, while the task of stating what it says today is found alongside it in the translation and in the notes and commentaries. The process testifies to the living nature of these texts within traditions. Each volume represents our generation’s attempt to restate the source in our language, cognisant that English is now the most widely used language among theologians either as their first language or their adopted language for scholarly communication.

Brepols Library of Christian Sources Patristic and Medieval Texts with English Translations

3 EDITORIAL BOARD Professor Thomas O’Loughlin, Director Dr Andreas Andreopoulos Professor Lewis Ayres Dr Lavinia Cerioni Professor Hugh Houghton Professor Doug Lee Professor Joseph Lössl Dr Elena Narinskaya Dr Sara Parks

The Protevangelium of James

Introduced, edited & translated by J. K. Elliott With a commentary by Patricia M. Rumsey

F

Cover image: Ebstorfer Mappa mundi © Kloster Ebstorf. Used with permission. © 2022, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2022/0095/172 ISBN 978-2-503-59314-2 eISBN 978-2-503-59315-9 ISSN 2736-6901 e-ISSN 2736-691X DOI 10.1484/M.BLCS-EB.5.122227 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper.

To Carolyn

For Sarah

Table of Contents

Abbreviations9 Introduction ( J.K. Elliott) 11 Date17 Genre17 Sources18 The Influence of the Protevangelium18 Author19 Versions19 The Place of the Protevangelium in Christian Memory (P.M. Rumsey) 27 Text and Translation ( J.K. Elliott) 67 Text68 Translation69 Commentary (P.M. Rumsey)

91

Bibliography113 Index of Scriptural Citations Ancient and Medieval Authors Modern Authors General Index

119 121 122 124

Abbreviations

Biblical materials Gen Genesis Num Numbers Lev Leviticus Jds Judges 1 Sam 1 Samuel 2 Sam 2 Samuel 1 Kgs 1 Kings Tob Tobit Ps Psalms Mt Matthew Mk Mark Lk Luke Jn John Gal Galatians 1 Cor 1 Corinthians 1 Tim 1 Timothy Jas James

Abbreviations for Journals BAR BBR EEC FS GRBS IJHCS JECS JCRCJ JRS PRSM SA TS

Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin for Biblical Research Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Feminist Studies Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies International Journal of History and Cultural Studies Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism Journal of Roman Studies Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine Studia Antiqua Theological Studies

Introduction

To borrow Aurelio de Santos Otero’s title to this apocryphon, it is the Protoevangelio de Santiago. The title obviously tells principally of those events that occurred prior to the ones retailed in the canonical four-fold Gospel canon. Hence, it is properly an apocryphal writing that is pre-canonical in its main story. Such a title correctly implies that this apocryphon goes behind and therefore beyond any of these other accounts and it has expanded them. The Protevangelium of James is an anglicized version of the name given in the long Latin title of the first published edition in 1552 by its editor, the French humanist Guillaume Postel SJ and printed in Basle. The Latin version was based on a now-lost Greek manuscript of this work — published later by M. Neander also in Basle in 1564 (and 1567) but found by Postel in the Middle East in the sixteenth century. It is not an ideal title but, faute de mieux, it is the one we and most contemporaries now use. This is, in part, based on the title of the work cited at the end of the work (PEJ 25), especially in the famed early witness currently in Cologny near Geneva at the Bodmer library. This late third or early fourth century work known as Bodmer V ends with the attributions ‘The Birth of Mary’ and also ‘The Revelation of James’. The first of these titles may indeed be true — as far as it goes — but the second alleged title is improbable because the work is not apocalyptic. Even the authorship itself is doubtful, as we shall see later in these isagogics. The original writing seems to be older than the Bodmer papyrus itself. As a ‘proper’ apocryphal writing, that is one of many that (typically) expand the stories in other texts (here, mainly the infancy stories behind Matthew and Luke, which (in this case) should be called, certainly by the fourth century at the latest, ‘those books about to be made canonical and scriptural’). Our author certainly knows the birth stories in what became known as the four canonical Gospels very well, in addition to other New Testament books (i.e. those books that also were soon to be included amid other canonical writings), albeit to a lesser extent. In addition to its concentrating on Mary, her background and life, thus making it an encomium of her. Similarly, it (re-)tells very fully tales about Jesus’ birth and his formative early years in Egypt during his family’s escape there, in order to avoid Herod’s killing of all living infants, PEJ is somewhat different from those tales in the New Testament itself in these regards. For instance, it often differs from Mathew’s or Luke’s early chapters. Most apocryphal stories tend to have originated as the fillings-in of alleged gaps in the traditional story-line. However, believers wanted to know precisely how and where Jesus Christ of Nazareth was born, who his parents were and their pre-history. Similarly they, in particular, asked why Mary of all women was selected as the theotokos, what her upbringing was and who her parents were. All those queries do

12

in tro ducti o n

have answers here — although the birth of Mary does take up a disproportionate part of PEJ 1–17 and beyond, as the early title found in the Bodmer papyrus shows. Mary’s parents, Anna and Joachim, figure prominently at the start of this tale. The names, Anna and Joachim, are both taken from the Old Testament, although Hannah (= Anna or Anne here) has Elkanah as her husband in 1 Sam. 1:2. It is, however, worth our while also checking on the name, Anna/Hannah, at Tob. 1:20. Joachim’s wealth parallels the immensely rich Joachim/Joakim of the Old Testament apocryphal writing, usually known today as ‘Daniel and Susanna’. The defamatory stories retold (falsely to a Christian) by Celsus are clearly in our author’s mind. PEJ was written when these objections about Christianity were circulating widely. Celsus’ work is to be found cited in Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.17 and Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.19.93, in which Celsus states that Jesus’ and his parents’ families were impoverished and that his birth was illegitimate. Christianity is portrayed by Celsus as a poor man’s religion. Mary was clearly not of royal descent according to Celsus; that is perhaps why in PEJ the slave-girl to Hannah, named Euthine or in differing manuscripts, Juthine (or even Judith), tells her mistress (often in difficult and obscure Greek) that she (i.e. Euthine herself) cannot wear the headband proffered because, unlike Anna, Euthine is a commoner and is not royal. This apocryphon, the Protevangelium, copes with these problems, such as when Mary, then about to be a newly-wed woman, works as a youngster appropriately weaving a veil for use in the Jerusalem Temple. This she readily does; the work itself is not for profit and her father, Joachim, is described in the opening words of PEJ as a very wealthy and respected figure. (Our author is, however, confused on the question who and who does not, contribute to the veil-making. He even has Elizabeth be like Mary and the Hebrew virgins who contributed to its manufacture. Nowhere is this oddity about Elizabeth explained.) To take us through the story of Mary’s parents, her upbringing and ‘relationship’ with Joseph up to the time of Jesus’ birth, let us turn to the sequencing in PEJ. First of all, Joachim’s abnormally generous double-offering is rejected by Reubel (or, in some manuscripts, named as Reuben), who is a non-priest; he serves as a spokesman for all Jews. Possibly, we must think that his rejection of the offering was quite rare, albeit said here to have been divinely inspired. The refusal by the Jews is said to have been most regrettable. Later, as if in order to confirm Anna’s, his wife’s, pregnancy, Joachim, according to this yarn, can only then offer his sacrifices without any objections being raised (PEJ 5). Like Sarah and Abraham, these two parents are now enabled by God to bring forth an infant in their (unspecified) old-age. In their case it is the girl, Mary; in Sarah’s and Abraham’s it is a boy, Isaac. Joachim’s absence from his wife and his home for forty days and for forty nights after he hears of this news is clearly intended to conjure up for us the Old Testament’s time for a recognizable period of travail (as is to be seen in, e.g. Exod. 24:18; 34; 1 Kings 19:8). Some recent scholars have also made (rather too) much of the proximity of the wilderness or desert to Jerusalem or to anywhere else, for that matter. The reference is surely one that is purely conventional. It need not refer to the provenance of this work as a totality or to the origin of this specific yarn.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

Anna’s dirge in the garden, during her husband’s significant forty-day absence, in what one is intended to assume is in their huge estate occurs in PEJ 3. The lament there obviously parallels Anna’s ‘Magnificat’ in PEJ 6 — one suspects that a longer version of the latter has been greatly shortened. The scene with the dirge is followed by the rebuke by Anna’s maid and it shows how badly Anna’s childlessness was seen by the lower classes too. This tale about Anna occurs despite the luxury of her home. It is the maid who also tells her how to dress ‘properly’ on that occasion. Anna has to be informed that this is because the Great Day of the Lord is obviously an important, albeit otherwise unknown or unidentifiable, feast-day, and it is already occurring. (Mention here of the Great Day clearly is intended to provide a reference to Joel 2:11.) The variants in PEJ 4bis, concerning the tense of the verbs i.e. εἴληφεν and λήψεται, show us here how vitally important textual criticism is for these apocryphal texts. Which is the original reading — the perfect tense, implying a present reality, or the future tense, because the event is yet to happen? And why are the variants here, anyway? My hunch is that, if the original were the perfect tense, then this is clearly intended by the original author to be a prophetic affirmation concerning future events. There are also several textual variants that concern numbers/numerals. It seems not to matter whether or not the original writer used Greek numerals or wrote the word for those numbers out in full — or, indeed, used a mixture of the two.1 Anna then becomes mysteriously pregnant with resultant jubilation from the two people most involved, Anna and Joachim. The pregnancy then runs to its full term of nine months. Later, a party for the whole of the Jewish establishment and all Israelites en bloc occurs in PEJ to mark Mary’s first birthday. This event shows just how prominent a figure Joachim was (and, by extension, his family were), but the detail also tells us of his wealth — he was able to indulge in and, just like Abraham in the first book of the Bible, house a huge number of guests at the same time. Throughout her whole life, Mary’s purity is emphasised by the author of this apocryphon. Her mother sees to it that her early years at home are free from corruption. In PEJ 5–6 her birth, then her bedroom and her companions (called the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews. maintain that purity.2 These girls are also





1 Z. Cole in a published thesis dealing only with early New Testament manuscripts opened up various questions such as the possibility that scribes were aware that their writing material (papyrus or parchment (vellum)) was coming to its end and thus they may have curtailed the writing by omitting text and making all numerals Greek letters. The oddly-named ‘Western Non-Interpolations,’ referring to certain readings in Luke-Acts in the New Testament, may have been omitted precisely because a scribe initially may have deliberately avulsed what was then considered to be excessive verbiage. Cole finds such a procedure most unlikely. Similarly, he also dismisses as unreasonable the suggestions that special numbers like twelve, forty or fifty were always and only written in a particular and distinctive way. Again, Cole dismisses that as another red-herring. Scribes and original writers were arbitrary how and when (and where) they transcribed such terms. What we see is that either is fine — as fully written-out words or Greek letters standing for these numbers. Scribes made changes to their exemplars willy-nilly. 2 According to this story there are apparently only seven such females in the whole of Israel. This sect is otherwise unknown. At PEJ 6 they ‘keep her amused’ if that is what is meant by the odd verb (in this context), namely, διεπλάνων. (Probably διεκόνων is intended; I use that word and in my English translation, below.).

13

14

in tro ducti o n

protective of her even after the alleged ‘marriage’ to Joseph, especially when he (as a wealthy entrepreneur) needs a very long absence from the family home. That house is said to have been in the capital, Jerusalem. Even when Mary was a young child, during her sojourn in the Jerusalem Temple, where she had willingly gone at the mere age of three the Temple and its regime are described as a type of Christian monastery. On her arrival as a very young child, Mary is gladly received by the High-Priest and the other Jewish dignitaries; it is there where she is said to have been fed by the hand of God (through the/a divinely-appointed angel) ‘like a dove’ (cf. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 8). Mary’s modesty and her own purity are well understood and are the essential attributes on arrival at and her years in the Temple. PEJ is, in general, very favourably disposed to the Jews. That not only includes the parents of Mary and of Jesus but also leaders, ‘high priests’ in the Temple and others. The main bad character is Herod, the child-killer. He is only a half-Jew and is certainly outside the Jewish establishment. The Temple’s priests are described (rather idealistically and improbably) as pious agents of not only Judaism but of Christianity too. Nine years later, when she is twelve and seen as capable (through her menstruation) to ‘pollute’ the Temple, Mary’s alleged yet forthcoming marriage is to be thought of as merely a wardship. To prepare for the ‘wedding,’ the priests duly arrange for Mary to come under this wardship or guardianship and they summon all the widowers of Judaea to come to a meeting to find out who will be that chosen one to serve as her guardian. It is to be noted that only widowers receive this summons to attend the Temple when each of them comes along, obediently and armed with a rod. They all then act in unison and our author seems to expect that, as all of them are elderly, they must therefore all be beyond the age of carnal desires. The Annunciation to Mary (cf. Lk 1:26–38). The dis-similarities between this account in PEJ and in Luke’s Gospel tell us that PEJ is no mere copy of the other. Much of the work in PEJ, as in all apocryphal writings, is a re-thought and a re-written text. The variant, makes Gabriel, who conveys the divine message to Mary, no mere ‘angel’. That is the translation of the simple noun, ἄγγελος. Some manuscripts, however, have the variant ‘archangel’ (ἀρχάγγελος). That larger form of the word may be due to a pedantic scribe who altered an original ‘angel’ to make Gabriel the ‘archangel’ he is remembered to have been and where he is alongside Raphael and the chief archangel, Michael, in order to increase the number of some of these other beings. Conversely, one could argue that later scribes only knew or chose to call Gabriel an ‘angel’ rather than his originally being named as an ‘archangel’. The jury is still out on this particular problem. PEJ 11–12 reads ‘angel of the Lord’ twice and also once (of Gabriel), in some manuscripts. Joseph is then chosen. Later, as announced at the Annunciation, Jesus’ conception is to be divinely encouraged, following the canonical story-line about her being ‘overshadowed’ by the Holy Spirit (= God). Mary is said that she ‘knows not a man,’ thus informing us that the wardship by Joseph is a non-sexual relationship. PEJ also emphasises Joseph’s great age (e.g. in PEJ 9) and, as an elderly widower, Joseph, like the other widowers, is also thereby assumed not to be interested in Mary qua woman. After Mary is sixteen years of age, her would-be husband, could not have impregnated her. With Celsus’ accusations about the Holy Family’s status also in mind, PEJ 14 has

i nt ro d u ct i o n

Joseph ‘protecting’ her. Earlier, he feels obligated to care for the virgin of the Lord, as Mary is called here.3 Joseph leaves her in God’s hands in chapter 9. And so all should have been well. But we also need to see his later recriminations (in PEJ 14); and for his plans for the future when he will try to properly care for her himself. Certainly, when Joseph returns home after four years that he apparently needs to attend to his building works, he observes that she is pregnant and he thinks about the narrative of Adam and Eve, found in the first book in the Bible (cf. also 2 Cor. 11:3). According to thoughts such as those attributed here to Joseph, why should anyone consider that Mary will be worthy of a judicial death if he should indeed tell ‘the people of Israel’ that it was not he who had impregnated his own wife? (That was never seen as problematic in Matthew’s Gospel 1:18–25.) However, the real heroine of this apocryphon is Mary herself and certainly is so until Joseph seems to take over the leading role, especially as it is he who speaks in PEJ 18 (in a first person passage, rather than the ‘normal’ third. person, used up to that point) — when he says that all of nature has ceased its functions because of Jesus’ birth (cf. also Rev. 8:1). His monologue, like the magi’s star, are the main cosmological signs to indicate the beginnings of Jesus’ life; these events parallel the eclipse, risings from the tombs and the earthquake seen and felt at his death in the canonical Gospels. The cessation of natural events here occurs precisely at the moment of his birth and thus throws a veil over the event itself. The midwife (see further, below), whom Joseph has only just found, is thereby made to be redundant in that role. Another woman, named in PEJ as Salome (PEJ 19 f.) is also (one assumes) a Jewish midwife or wet-nurse brought into the story to cast doubt on Mary’s virginity. She then physically tests Mary and is thus like doubting Thomas in the Fourth Gospel (known as the Gospel attributed to John) in the New Testament proper, after Jesus has been killed. In Salome’s case, the withering of her hand destroyed by a heavenly fire, is obviously due to her doubting Mary’s virginal state but, of even greater importance in this story, Jesus, as a mere neonate, is able to restore her hand to full health and usefulness immediately. (That is a theme developed in other later languages, e.g. The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy edited by Abraham Terian (Oxford University Press, 2008) that has many a tale of the infant Jesus as a healer par excellence.) The odd tale of the two ‘midwives’ after Jesus’ birth confirms Mary’s on-going virginity in partu and indeed post-partum. Those confections have been specifically created to counter Celsus’ and others’ suspicions and accusations that the founder of Christianity was illegitimate and therefore a bastard. (Tales of Mary’s sexual involvement with a Roman soldier had also emerged and were a popular version of that particular accusation against her.) PEJ has the earliest reference to Jesus’ birth in a cave. It happens en route from Jerusalem to Bethlehem for Caesar Augustus’ enigmatic and unlikely census.



3 Note also that Mary is seldom referred to in narrative or addressed by her own name. Typically we see that she often appears as the or a virgin, or as the girl. Many manuscripts regularly adjust those references, often replacing them by the use of the pronouns ‘she’ and ‘her’.

15

16

in tro ducti o n

(Throughout PEJ, as here, Mary is herself described as belonging to the tribe of David.) Normally, as we know from numerous illustrations, the birth itself takes place indoors, albeit in a cowshed for the neonate. Here in PEJ the manger as used by the animals is ‘merely’ the convenient hiding-place for Jesus. It can, however, show Mary is not only pure and free from all (sexual) sins, but she is also inventive and very brave. In the canonical stories the Holy Family makes its escape to Egypt to avoid the child-killer, Herod. (In the New Testament those events obviously lack such a subterfuge.) The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (of the sixth century), which uses PEJ in its opening chapters, has two animals present by that manger, an ox and an ass, thus fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies, especially those found in the book of the prophet Isaiah, as well as its introduction of a new element of verisimilitude into the tale. As far as this yarn is concerned, we may now ask of PEJ: Why should Joseph (and the rest of his family) assume or know that Jesus needs to escape from Herod the Great’s wrath by their leaving Bethlehem? It is, therefore, suggested that these disturbances seem to take place only there (according to PEJ 21). In this context the eastern kings, known as the Wise Men or the Magi, duly follow a star and thereby not only find and worship Jesus but also thwart King Herod’s plans to have Jesus killed. The gold, frankincense and myrrh from their communal (or individual) pouches is a tale that follows Matthew’s Gospel, for the most part. Joseph, rather like Joachim earlier in PEJ, was also said to have been exceptionally wealthy and well-known. His failure to hold a welcoming party for the whole of the Jewish council on his return home to Jerusalem is symptomatic of that wealth. Annas the scribe’s visit to the house of both Joseph and Mary means that he sees her; she is already several months pregnant. Strangely, the story-teller both here and later in PEJ, has Mary ‘forget’ Gabriel’s prior unique message to her, when later i.e. in PEJ 15, she is attending the rite known as the Water of Discovery (or the Water of Conviction). This is an odd instance of amnesia. In Num. 5:11–31 the two rites were both differentiated to reveal a woman’s infidelity. It is odd that our author applies the test to Joseph and to Mary, which involves both of them having publicly to drink the special water and then to depart to the wilderness before then showing themselves to the high-priest to prove (somehow) that neither has suffered from their having drunk the potion. In other words, sufficient proof is here shown to have both of Jesus’ parents being declared ‘innocent’ — they are to be believed because both are pure. No sin is now found (ἐφάνη) in them, although the verb makes it look as if, nonetheless, each has underlying yet undetected sins. Returning to PEJ 13 that chapter, telling of Joseph’s return home, portrays him, just like Mary herself, as a virginal character (at least since his first wife had died). In this context this apocryphon tells us that after his return, occurring during Mary’s sixth month of pregnancy, Joseph ‘rests’ after the journey, as too had Joachim (PEJ 6). Whereas Joachim’s ‘rest’ may have been a euphemism for sexual activity, in Joseph’s case he is likely to have really rested, especially as we are told in PEJ 13 that this occurs several months into Mary’s pregnancy. Jesus’ birth is really therefore portrayed as a unique virginal conception through the Holy Spirit (Ghost) and

i nt ro d u ct i o n

indeed his birth is unique too. Mary remains a virgin for the rest of her days. She is obviously a virgo intacta.4 Date

The Protevangelium itself was obviously very early and because of its longevity was exceptionally popular and (as we shall also see below) very influential too; it survives in c. 150 Greek witnesses which contain all or part of this work. de Strycker divides his Greek manuscripts of PEJ into five families or groups. If the Herod here is considered to be Herod the Great (who died c. 4 bce) then the argument seems to be that the author or the subsequent copyists of his work recognized only ‘James’ as James the Less, the brother of Jesus. (‘James’ as a name occurs mutiple times often of differing characters especially in Mark’s Gospel. The name never occurs in the Fourth Gospel.) However, Herod is more probably Herod Antipas, and many scholars now say that PEJ was written around 200 ce. This is the date I agree with. Such a dating is pre-Origen (pace Hock p. 11 where the name is mis-spelled) and also earlier than the days for Clement of Alexandria’s major writings. Origen died in 253 and Clement in 212. These dates provide appropriate termini ad quem for the PEJ. Genre

In ancient times a history, especially of an heroic figure, had to be plausible. That teaching obviously informed our author. His story about Mary, her ancestry and her son’s life need not be ‘historic’ and provable to be accurate but only ‘plausible’ to qualify as an ἱστορία. Coupled with that description of the possible genre is the tradition that he also followed the Christians’ adulation of Mary. PEJ is thus often called an encomium or, perhaps even better, an apologia. It is, nevertheless, a literary fiction, rather than a gospel, as traditionally understood. PEJ may also sometimes be described as a midrash on what became the canonical Gospels; the earliest two chapters in both Matthew and Luke also contain accounts of Jesus’ birth. The Oxford Dictionary defines a midrash as: An ancient homiletic commentary on a text from the Hebrew scriptures, characterized by non-literal interpretation and legendary illustration. If this definition may be applied to PEJ, it is because it is a typical re-writing of the earlier birth stories and related issues. However, there are



4 The ‘Immaculate Conception,’ as defined finally in the nineteenth century by the Vatican, refers to a divinely encouraged birth, whereby a child thus conceived lacks the ‘stain’ of original sin. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus speak of Mary, the theotokos, to be the one born free from sin. Roman Catholic theologians define this old Christian doctrine as a dogma of the church. The dogma itself implies that Mary’s conception put her outside original sin and that state results in Mary’s continuing sinlessness. In itself it has nothing to do with a lack of male input. In other words, it could, of course, lead to discussions of Anna’s status too — but need not do so, as she, unlike her daughter, is not a virgin, a state that is significant in such teaching. The doctrine may indeed refer to the later conceiving of Jesus by Mary but in its context here it is specifically intended to be applied to her mother, Anna.

17

18

in tro ducti o n

some differences, which suggest there were accidental alterations (or possibly, even if only occasionally, deliberate changes) due to the writer’s abilities. As for the Old Testament, often now referred to as the Hebrew Scriptures, this florilegium also includes the writings to be found in the Old Testament Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha (i.e. the LXX or Septuagint). Those texts are made to give a particular or even a peculiar sense to the burgeoning Christians’ scriptures (even if the LXX were originally translated in order to assist Jews who had lost their ability to read Hebrew — especially those in Egypt — from the third century bce onwards). However, the author has made many errors regarding Jewish practices and its Temple (the latter obviously must refer to the years pre 70 ce) and Palestinian geography i.e. re Judaea. To expand the examples in my ANT (p. 51), we could question also: Was the ‘Water of Discovery’ ever administered as a drink for men? What was the royal headband proffered by Anna’s slave? Why was the alleged fact that not ever having produced a child in Israel made a cause celèbre for Anna and Joachim here? The ‘Great Day of the Lord’. What was it and when did it occur? Was Mary really from the line and house of David? Did Joseph have the priests’ permission to marry ‘properly’ i.e. to have consummated that marriage? (PEJ 5 implies that this is so, if only he first were to tell — or to have already told — the ‘sons of Israel’.) What was it that Joachim in PEJ 5 expected not to see (e.g. his own ‘sinfulness’) in the priest’s frontlet/plate or headband (literally ‘leaf ’)? The author of PEJ was certainly no Palestinian Jew. Sources

Adolf von Harnack in 1897 was highly important in his day, looking for sources behind all types of ancient literature. He tried to prove that the composition of PEJ was dependent on numerous sources. For instance, he saw differing sources behind PEJ 1–17; 18–20 and 22–24. Nowadays, and especially since the discovery of the Bodmer papyrus, in modern times, most contemporary scholars accept that the author of PEJ put differing traditions together; hence the combination of styles and contents that are to be found here in PEJ. The Influence of the Protevangelium

To have Joseph described as an old widower with grown-up sons obviously deals not only with the troublesome references to several dramatis personae with the common name James and the biblical references to Jesus’ half- (or real) brothers (and sisters); these characters are mentioned in the New Testament Gospels (e.g. Mark 6:3; 15:40; and Luke 24:10; 7:56, etc.). It was the belief that Mary was not a virgin or that Joseph had had children from a different and earlier wife because Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, which turned St Jerome, in particular, against the story here. Another Church Father though, Epiphanius, accepted that Joseph already had grown-up children at the time of his (reluctant) acceptance of Mary as his ward and when he was about to become her guardian story.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

Mariology is clearly in the author’s sights. As indicated above, the real heroine of PEJ is Mary, Jesus’ mother. Her pre-history, upbringing, marriage to Joseph and her being chosen by God to bear his only Son show that he described her as a ‘pure’ female from her conception, birth and then in her subsequent behaviour. Whether we wish to call this apocryphon an encomium to her or not, her importance is paramount here. Christology also was a potent and major influence on the author. Just as his mother is praised in PEJ, so too is, Jesus. His miraculous conception and birth are also dominant themes. Both receive praise from all they meet. Among its other possible sources and influences, we see in PEJ eastern Christianity behind many of its themes. This apocryphon is never found in a full, proper, Latin translation. Later, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, having underplayed certain aspects of Mary’s background, are possibly the reasons why those stories (albeit ultimately based on PEJ) were more popular in the west having then been transmitted largely in Latin; they therefore replaced PEJ. Frequent citations of the Old Testament especially the Septuagint (= LXX) are noted in marginalia of the English translation, below. The LXX is often called the Christians’ Old Testament especially by Jews, and hence generally avoided by Jewry as an appropriate Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures to read. (This is despite the favourable view of Christians and Christianity in this book.) Our author, however, has a good knowledge of the Old Testament in Greek (probably using the LXX) and especially the Pentateuch. One also notes the inclusion here of books that are distinctive of the Old Testament Apocrypha, and known to us from the LXX. (I refer here to works including Judith and Susanna in particular.). Author

The author of this apocryphon is popularly known by modern scholars as James, as indicated earlier. (This is the name used in my ANT. pp. 48–67.) If the name of its author were indeed, or thought to have been, James the Less, i.e. a relative of Jesus’ (his brother), then that authorship made this book clearly authoritative. The name ‘James’ was certainly added relatively soon after its composition, but may not be any more original to the text than the four names, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all of which were dutifully added to the originally anonymous Gospels. When one possessed only one Gospel anonymity caused few problems. But one was obliged to differentiate between them, once a community or an individual was in possession of two or more similar works. Versions

The popularity of PEJ was not restricted to only those who read Greek as their mother tongue. Many versions in most of the Christian languages testify to its wider popularity. PEJ occurs nowadays in Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian and also in Georgian. Among patristic citations are those quotations from PEJ found in the writings of inter alia Silvanus and of Andrew of Crete.

19

20

in tro ducti o n

Editors of the Protevangelium and Textual Criticism

Greek texts usually accept the longer text wherever a variant shortens it. That applies also to the divine names. Thoroughgoing textual critics, especially those working on manuscripts of the New Testament, tend always to print a shorter term; thus a simple ‘Jesus’ would take precedence over a longer form, such as ‘Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,’ which probably came from prayers or from the liturgical use of such a title. To shorten such a commonly used and well-known term would be most improbable. Here in PEJ, however, the shorter term is likely to have been the original. I therefore, print the fuller titles below. At PEJ 2, 7, 8, 11, 20, 25 I, likewise, print δεσπότης (‘master’) mainly because of its comparative rarity compared with Κύριος (‘Lord’) to which δεσπότης often comes as a variant. To my eye, it seems as if the more commonly used and known expression (‘Lord’) would have replaced ‘Master’ throughout. The reverse direction does not happen. Whenever the context and the variants allow it, I have preferred to write highpriest rather than the shortened and possibly more democratic ‘priest’. Examples may be found in PEJ chapters, 9, 10, 12, 15, 21. Note that the word ‘Temple’ found in manuscripts in ch. 21 is better in that context than ‘priest’. Likewise where Gabriel appears (i.e. in chapter 12) he is an ‘archangel’ rather than (in many manuscripts and current editions) a mere ‘angel’. Textual criticism prefers to use words like ‘longer’ or ‘shorter’ texts rather than (as Tischendorf and Hock do) verbs like ‘omits’ and ‘adds,’ because those are words which imply that the editor knows precisely what an earlier writer, editor or scribe intended. Nonetheless, in the apparatus to his Greek pages, Hock has only some seventeen places where he says that de Strycker ‘omits’ compared with c. 70 for omissions allegedly made by Tischendorf.5 Hardly any of these alleged omissions or indeed the additions significantly affect the story-lines’ translations into English. Hock has a splendidly easy style in his translation of the Greek — he is readily and confessedly idiomatic (even colloquial) in that section. But unlike others’ text, Hock in his edition claims, in general, to be following de Strycker’s work. It seems to me that it is better to do as Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše do in their apparatus, that is they specify precisely what their manuscripts actually used at each point of variation, although they repeat the abbreviations c-o + codices omnes, c-p=codices plerique (i.e. a few only of those manuscripts cited by von Tischendorf) and, only occasionally c-n=codices nonnulli, to refer to two-thirds of other manuscripts used by von Tischendorf. These two editors list all seventeen manuscripts (or eighteen if F is to be divided into two portions) as found in von Tischendorf ’s edition. There come four further witnesses used by Ehrman and Pleše as well as by de Strycker. Those include Z, the code letter for the Bodmer witness, our oldest witness of the PEJ. (As was indicated above, palaeographers usually assign a date in the third or fourth century to this papyrus.) The other three witnesses cited by them all are S, X and



5 Most of (von) Tischendorf ’s manuscripts are mediaeval. (See also Tischendorf ’s edition in his EA pp. xii–xxii.).

i nt ro d u ct i o n

Y, which are, respectively, S (ninth century; although de Strycker, on his pp. 34–35, gives ad loc an earlier date namely the fifth-sixth centuries), X (ninth century) and Y (fourth century). (In addition to these, Hock refers in the apparatus to ch. 25 to Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3524, labelled by him as of the sixth century simpliciter, which came to light only after de Strycker had published his work. Again, Hock has not told us what this Oxyrhynchus papyrus precisely contains).6 Three of those ‘highly fragmentary’ Greek manuscripts are not given precise dates by Ehrman and Pleše. All that is printed in their edition is ‘n.d.’ presumably meaning ‘not dated’ and with no age shown or known. Two Sahidic witnesses here are also said to be ‘highly fragmentary.’ An early witness needs be important or significant only where a text-critic can tell us what changes each scribe made and, ideally, when. And no-one can tell us that information. All readers need to note that an old witness like Z (Bodmer V) has no special significance applied to it, despite its being the basis for most of de Strycker’s chosen and edited text of PEJ 1–17. All ancient witnesses may be catalogued merely as ‘old’ witnesses, as designated by experts such as palaeographers. If Z (as de Strycker’s title indicates) is his primary concern, it deliberately shortened the original, longer, text — or, indeed, other many subsequent manuscripts. These manuscripts then also added to PEJ 1–21 — the chapters now numbered 22–24 and at a later stage chapter 25 to the PEJ. What we see here is how frequently ‘omissions’ and ‘additions’ from these very early texts were later applied. In PEJ chapters. 21–24 Zacharias (or, Ze/acariah/s) and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, are the most prominent characters. (Zecharias [sic] is rendered dumb in PEJ 10 — as in Lk 1:5–25; PEJ refers to that malady in an abrupt reference). Both parents defend John’s whereabouts independently and both suffer horrible fates at the hands of Herod’s henchmen — Elizabeth, like Thecla (in the Acts of Paul), is immolated, albeit in a translucent mountain although this light is due to divine protection. Her husband, Zecharias, however, is killed at the altar in the Temple.7 Incidentally, John’s birth is never mentioned in this apocryphon — he merely appears. But John is the son of Zechariah. After Zecharias’ death, the high-priesthood previously held by him passes to another New Testament worthy, Simeon (known to us more widely in Luke 2:25–26). Tischendorf ’s edition includes as footnotes those variants that differ among his chosen witnesses. The most exhaustive recent listings of such information are to be found in de Strycker’s volume, but even that apparatus is not fully complete. We need to recall that very few of the manuscripts extant have been read in their entirety. Until they have been completely read and exhaustively studied, any selection is bound to be



6 cf. also C. Jordan and A. Welsby who studied thoroughly three manuscripts of PEJ for the main part of their co-authored thesis for the University of Birmingham, UK; the manuscripts are Z (the Bodmer papyrus) and also a twelfth century and a tenth-eighteenth century Greek witness. They also analysed a further six Greek manuscripts albeit only in PEJ 13: all of those are menologions. 7 The death of Ze/acharias/h seems to be based on the Old Testament stories in Dan. 8:15 ff. or 9:21 ff. and in the New Testament at 1 Thess. 4:16 and Jude 9. Again the mourning for his death in PEJ takes place in unison.

21

22

in tro ducti o n

restricted only to those manuscripts that have been read in their entirety by experts and palaeographers and, ideally, then published. Above, I stated that omissions are usually easier to make than additions to a text are. Hom., to use A. C. Clark’s term, refers to both homoioteleuon and homoioarcton as they may create shorter texts, especially if parablepsis is aided by optical illusions when the eye of the copyist jumps from the similar or same letters to another similar set of lettering elsewhere.8 This accidental shortening can readily be demonstrated throughout the manuscripts which copy New Testament texts. The normal direction of change is typically one way only and that is away from the original longer text. But we need to remind ourselves that the effort of adding to a text (which must occasionally have happened) requires mental activity from the scribe and his sponsors (even though, occasionally, it is clear that the scribe did add to a short text — especially when the original writing made little sense to him). The opposite regularly occurred accidentally (and, even, deliberately), in which words are deleted, especially as that procedure requires less effort. The two editors, Ehrman and Pleše, make several slips — especially in their apparatus. A full review of their book is not appropriate here. In a private communication Bart Ehrman recently informed me of the many errors not always altered by its proof-readers employed by the press; both of the editors had to cope with these matters as tactfully as they could. However, we ought to warn all potential readers to take care. The English translation does not always represent what is printed on the Greek of the facing page. So, for instance, I note that the variants εἶδεν and εὗρεν in their footnote 59 result in the latter’s appearing in the Greek on p. 54 but the former is what is translated on p. 55. The Bodmer papyrus appears usually with the siglum Z, but twice (pp. 46 and 62) with z as a lower case siglum. We are obliged to guess what alii alia means on their p. 48. The typesetter gets us off to a poor start in the very first line of their introduction on p. 31. Their comment on p. 5 then tells us that the text is based on that of de Strycker (with the singularly unhelpful rider ‘with only occasional changes’ appended to it). Errata to their bibliographical details include the mis-spelling of de Strycker’s name on their pp. 45 and 61. Modesty should mean that I ought appear alongside Cartlidge’s name in a title on their p. 37. On p. 38 the alphabetical sequence of authors’ and editors’ names has gone astray. Ehrman and Pleše do not tell us that there could have indeed been a comma printed before θορύβου — despite what they tell us on their p. 35. The versional evidence cannot be relied upon implicitly. Occasionally it is not at the end of the entries, as they stated. Latin retroversions may indeed indicate those places where only versional evidence is included, but see also note no. 99 and other places where Syriac a is to follow. The Bodmer witness (often alone) has many of its precise contents shown — especially its omissions. From PEJ 18 its text is highly truncated, compared with the fuller witnesses. But we are told under Ehrman and Pleše’s footnotes numbered 82, 92 (repeated in n. 94 for manuscript Z — without exactly the same wording!) what



8 The term hom is better — especially when one is referring to texts where the writing is set out in scriptio continua i.e. without the conventional spaces found in modern typography between words.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

Bodmer V reads. Hock’s edition is somewhat better in spelling out precisely the main differences are in the Bodmer witness on its pp. 64, 66, 68, 70 (a chapter not referred to at all by Ehrman and Pleše for this papyrus). At the beginning of PEJ 25 de Strycker (following Tischendorf) punctuates the opening sentence with a comma following the word ‘Jerusalem’ (pr.) thus making this word belong to the preceding reference and to James’ writing of the Protevangelium. Other editors tend to ignore printing this comma. They, therefore, imply (as the sentence following also states it) that the ‘disturbance’ has indeed occurred in Jerusalem. (Hence James’ escape from Jerusalem to avoid the uproar. One assumes that James wrote the ‘revelation’ during his absence from the capital and thus he did not write the current book there.). De Strycker’s edition is extremely thorough and is to be recommended to all potential editors and readers of this apocryphon. As far as Hock’s edition on its own is concerned, on his p. 30 he, rather like Ehrman and Pleše, is highly selective, as indeed de Strycker himself is also obliged so to be, by choosing which notes ‘virtually’ all the places where de Strycker differs from the text printed by Tischendorf in EA. Hock is keen to state that only where significant differences in the translation are those manuscripts printed out in his apparatus. Similarly, Hock informs us that the two printed texts used by him (de Strycker’s and Tischendorf ’s) differ some 500 times (!) and that 40% of those would result in differing translations such as those into English.

23

All the chapters here below (attributed originally to J. A. Fabricius) maintain modern Greek spellings with punctuation and modern word divisions. Verse numbers have, however, been deleted: differing versifications exist and thus may confuse the unwary. () is used in the text to mean that words are added (in the translation) to make better sense for readers. Cf. is used in footnotes to indicate an allusion rather than a direct citation for the Bible. Capitals are used, albeit sparingly, in the Greek. (Those appear regardless of how the manuscripts behave in that matter.)

The Place of the Protevangelium in Christian Memory

This text, here newly edited and translated by Keith Elliott, the Protevangelium of James,1 is attracting renewed academic interest today, along with other early Christian apocryphal writings. In this introduction the PEJ will be presented, as will the questions it raises in the current world of scholarship, by discussing matters of purpose, authorship, genre, provenance, dating, and sources. Translations and expanded versions of the original Greek text into local vernaculars were disseminated throughout the early Christian world, from Ireland and Spain in the West to Georgia, Armenia and Mesopotamia in the East and from Britain in the North to Ethiopia in the South, by means of which the PEJ became well known throughout the Christian world of the early centuries. The text of the PEJ purports to recount the early history of the life of Mary, beginning even before her conception (hence the title: ‘Genesis Mariae,’ given it by Guillaume Postel in his translation into Latin of the Greek text in 1552), but large sections of his material are at odds with the canonical account found in Luke. Luke presents Mary as a poor peasant girl from a humble village background in Galilee, but in the PEJ her parents, here named Joachim and Anna, are a very wealthy, influential and highly respected couple, living in Jerusalem, who are childless and who both suffer on this account. Joachim appears to be based on the wealthy Joachim in the Old Testament apocryphal story of Susanna while Anna has parallels with Hannah in 1 Samuel. There also seem to be some clear links between the PEJ and the Book of Tobit. Zervos regards the PEJ as ‘having suffered from decades of neglect by scholars’ and as having been ‘relegated to an inglorious position as a secondary writing of the middle to late second century ce with little or no relevance for the study of early Christianity.’2 He goes as far as to say: ‘The Prot. Jas. has not had the benefit of international teams of scholars working arduously for decades to produce thorough critical editions of its text with accompanying exhaustive commentaries and volumes of extensive critical evaluations.’3 However, he wrote this negative condemnation





1 Regarding the title of this work: ‘Protevangelium’ (sometimes expanded to ‘Protoevangelium’) is the name given to it by Postel in 1552. We will treat Postel’s orthography as standard, abbreviating it to the PEJ for convenience. The title Protevangelium (i.e. ‘before the Gospel’) was intended to signify that the text dealt with the early life of Mary before the beginning of the canonical gospel accounts. 2 Zervos (2002), 107. 3 Zervos (2002), 120.

28

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

nearly twenty years ago and since then scholarship has been catching up and there has been increased academic interest in the PEJ. He is in fact, publishing his own two volume translation and commentary on the text. However, even as recently as 2015 Hock could remark: ‘Scholarship on PEJ has not advanced much recently.’4 So there is still much work needed to be done and this new translation will have much to contribute. This introduction begins with an overview of accessible texts, translations and studies going back to the beginning of the last century. An early Western annotated popular edition of the PEJ was that of James Orr, published in 1903.5 Research into the apocryphal writings of the New Testament eventually produced a more critical appraisal of the PEJ and this developed further under the influence of feminist studies and Mariology.6 The publication of Hock’s English translation with its accompanying commentary on The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas7 in 1995 made the text more accessible and so assisted all these aims. Major studies by Vuong, Shoemaker, O’Loughlin, Elliott, Cartlidge, Hunter, Gaventa, Foskett, Vanden Eykel and many others on different aspects of this text have advanced and expanded research and there are numerous new studies of different aspects of the text. Zervos himself accelerated the progress of research and scholarship by suggesting an underlying document, to which he gave the name Genesis Marias, which he claimed could have been the ‘primary source document’ contributing to the evolving Mariology of the ancient Christian world and could thus have been reflected in the PEJ, as well as such early texts as the Ascension of Isaiah and possibly the letters of Ignatius of Antioch.8 Vuong very rightly begins her exhaustive study of the PEJ by declaring that ‘Pseudonymous writings are notoriously difficult to situate and date, since they maintain from the start, to have been written by someone else and at another time.’9 And she goes on to point out that the PEJ is here no exception: ‘inferences about date, authorship and provenance that can be extracted from the text are indirect at best, and often ambiguous or inconclusive.’10 So we are frequently making what can only be regarded as informed guesses. Vuong suggests in connection with the genre and provenance of the PEJ that it ‘can be seen as part of the broader growth of biographical literature in Late Antiquity dedicated to great and famous personalities.’11 However, the examples Vuong gives in her footnote are all from at least two hundred years later than the PEJ; there is little or nothing contemporaneous.



4 5 6 7 8

Hock (2016), 250. Orr (1903). Foskett (2002); Gaventa (1999); Levine (2005); Vuong (2013). Hock (1995). Zervos (2002), 120. For a revised calculation of the date of Ignatius of Antioch, see Barnes (2008), 119–30. Barnes puts the writing of these letters in the 140s. 9 Vuong (2013), 31. 10 Vuong (2013), 31. 11 Vuong (2013), 52.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

David Cartlidge and Keith Elliott in their study of the influence which Christian apocryphal writings have exerted on art through the centuries,12 begin their chapter on Mary by saying ‘The importance of Mariam of Nazareth in history can hardly be overstated’ and they quote Jaroslav Pelikan as saying that she ‘has been more of an inspiration to more people than any other woman who ever lived,’13 though arguably, it has been the way Mary has been perceived by the multitudinous authors who have written about her through the centuries, according to their own, sometimes colourful, imaginings, that has been the inspiration, rather than the authentic woman herself. The Mary we meet in the gospels, the peasant girl from Nazareth, the wife of the village carpenter and the mother of at least seven children, has been subsumed into the Mary of religious imagination and frequently over-zealous devotional piety, a symbol of unearthly ‘perfect’ womanhood, placed on a heavenly pedestal far above and out of the reach of ordinary women. Mary Malone comments: There was Mary placed above the saints and the angels and archangels, so it was obvious what the Church thought of women. This highly-symbolic figure, with practically all traces of humanity and womanhood removed, with no obvious sexual characteristics, and no hint whatsoever of any female carnality, was exactly what the Church wished for women — a fictional and highly-symbolic image which never existed and never could exist. ’14 Mary has traditionally been held up as the ideal model for the Christian woman, and the PEJ bears powerful witness to the way in which ‘the Christian imagination wants to include Mary in a central place in its universe.’15 In fact, it is the PEJ which is responsible for giving Mary that central place; a place she never receives in the gospel, where, particularly in the synoptics, the evangelists give her very little or no prominence. Many of its commentators see the PEJ as probably the most influential non-canonical text in the whole history of the Church, so much so that Elliott, in his article ‘The Apocryphal Gospels’ in The Expository Times comments: Whatever one’s opinion of the apocryphal texts, especially those dealing with the birth and the passion, it cannot be denied that they were among the popular literature of the pious for many centuries. Their influence in shaping belief as well as exposing the beliefs that created them is significant and important for all those whose interests lie in the history of Christian doctrine. Their testimony also has a bearing on the history of the canon and on mediaeval art and literature.16 He makes this statement with regard to all the apocryphal texts, but the PEJ has been by far the most influential, largely because of the elevated status it has given to Mary

12 13 14 15 16

Cartlidge, and Elliott (2001), 21. Pelikan (1966), 2. Malone (2014), 142. See also Johnson (2003), 22-33  O’Loughlin (2003), 135–69, at 137. See Elliott, The Apocryphal Gospels, The Expository Times, October 1, (1991).

29

30

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

which has in its turn profoundly affected so many areas of the Christian faith. Let us turn now examine specific questions.

The Purpose of the PEJ Our first question needs to be: Why was this text written? Hippolyte Delehaye insists on the importance of determining the reason why ‘the hagiographer [took] up his pen if we are to understand the text.’ He wrote: This notion of authorial intent is central to the work of the historian working with texts. We understand a text to the extent that we understand the questions it answers and the points its author wants to make.17 However, pace Delehaye, commentators are as undecided as to the original purpose of the text as they are to its provenance, genre and dating. Hock discusses this at some length, under the heading: ‘Apologetic or Encomiastic Purpose?’18 While he concludes that, ‘given the general currency of slanders against Mary and Jesus, apologetic designs cannot be ruled out entirely’ and that ‘an apologetic reading of the Infancy Gospel of James has much to commend it,’19 given the enormous emphasis placed on the purity of Mary by the author, he concludes that the most likely reason for the composition of the text was encomiastic, that is to eulogize Mary and write in praise of her in the literary genre current at the time.20 He sees the practice at that time of teaching students of rhetoric how to compose an encomion as a parallel for this ‘Praise of Mary’. As he points out, the author of the PEJ never uses the term ‘encomion’ to describe his work, preferring instead the word ‘historia,’ but Hock shows that by the time the PEJ was written, because of the contemporary confusion between these two literary genres (noted, as Hock states, ‘with dismay’ by Lucian of Samosata), ‘historia’ was becoming ‘encomion’ and there was little to choose between them.21 He concludes his detailed analysis by commenting: ‘The infancy Gospel of James gains in coherence when it is viewed as an [historia] which has the structure and purpose of an [encomion].’22 Gaventa, however, adopts a different argument; she writes that: ‘Ascertaining anything about the author of the Protevangelium … (or) the purpose that occasioned its composition is exceedingly difficult.’23 She is of the opinion that although ‘features of the text can support multiple, even conflicting, conclusions,’24 the PEJ was written, partly at least, from apologetic motives in order to defend the authenticity of the

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Delehaye (1955, 1998), xi. Hock (1995), 15–20. Hock (1995), 15. Hock (1995), 16. Hock (1995), 17. Hock (1995), 20. Gaventa (1999), 106. Gaventa (1999), 106.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

humanity of Jesus. Dating the text in the mid- to late-second century, she claims that by then there were ‘docetic arguments’ that Jesus was not fully human (which argument was countered by the PEJ’s account of his birth) and that Mary was a ‘poor and outcast woman’ (which claim was refuted by the PEJ’s presentation of her parents as wealthy and influential).25 Brown, however, would rather see the text as an example of early Christian midrash.26 ‘Midrash’ as a genre occurs both in the Old (Rabbinic midrash) and New Testaments (Christian midrash), and is expounded as a method of interpreting and explaining various stories in scripture in order to present them dramatically as more than just straightforward clarifications of moral, ethical or religious teachings. The aim of midrash was to provide a explanatory commentary by filling in lacunae left in the biblical narrative regarding events and personalities and this it frequently did with colour and imagination. The Infancy narratives in both Matthew and Luke can be understood as Christian midrash, where the various events narrated, many of them presented as miraculous, emphasise the theological significance of the birth and the person of Jesus, rather than the actual historical events they purport to describe. Thus Quarles makes this clarification with regard to the PEJ: ‘[M]idrash is intended to signify texts that use narrative themes from the OT in the composition of creative historiography that invents stories and presents them as history.’27 He describes the author of the PEJ as: ‘a skilled second-century midrashist’28 and his text as carefully crafted and sophisticated. Having explored the place and the significance of Rabbinic midrash in Judaism at that time, Brown suggests: ‘Already in the second century the Protevangelium of James rewrote the biblical material in a creative way.’29 In order to do this, the author used various OT narratives, particularly the Samuel cycle from 1 Samuel, on which he leans very heavily, as a source for his presentation of the birth and early days of the child Mary. Quarles pinpoints ‘seven verbal and thematic allusions’ to the birth and early life of Samuel.30 There are also echoes, though these are fainter, of the stories of Susanna and Tobit. These will be noted in the commentary. Vuong, who also discusses the purpose of the text at some length,31 agrees that the text ‘spans multiple genre boundaries and serves various purposes’32 and agrees with Hock that the chief aim is encomiastic, but explains that the other purposes (apologetic or to fill in the gospel narratives) can be subsumed into an encomium. The main focus of Mary Clayton’s work is the cult of Mary in Anglo-Saxon England, but she prefaces this work with a brief survey of ‘the growth of Marian doctrines and legends’33 and makes this comment on the purpose of the text:

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Gaventa (1999), 107–08. Brown (1993), 557–62. Quarles (1998), 139–49, at 140. Quarles (1998), 149. Brown (1993), 559. Quarles (1998), 140–41. Vuong (2013), 52–57. Vuong (2013), 57. Clayton (1990), 1.

31

32

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

A combination of natural curiosity about biblical characters and the necessity to counter anti-Christian calumnies lies behind the earliest Greek apocryphon describing the birth and conception of Mary. This narrative, the Proteuangelium Iacobi, was extremely influential in the West and gave rise, directly or indirectly, to all other legendary treatments of the topic.34 In this way she also indicate its responsibility for all the other legendary accounts of Mary’s early years, and remarks on the witness the text gives to the development of non-biblical Marian beliefs even as early as the second century. One of the most recent commentators on the text is of the opinion that ‘certain aspects of the narrative betray an apologetic, even polemical tone, which suggests that its author may have written in order to counter instances of second-century, anti-Marian libel.’35 In this context, Vanden Eykel uses the premises of E. D. Hirsch, ‘who distinguishes between a text’s meaning and its significance, namely what its author intends it to mean and how it is capable of being construed in relation to anything else.’36 It seems that while the specific intention of the text’s author may have been any of the above: apologetic, anti-docetic, encomiastic, complementary or midrashic — and all the commentators quoted above agree that multiple and overlapping aims are possible — what we are dealing with here, maybe under the guise of a multiplicity of different literary genres, is an effort to fulfil the enthusiasm of early Christians wishing to know more about the people who had become so significant to them in their new found religious beliefs; desires which have continued to exercise the minds of the faithful and which explain the enormous popularity of the PEJ together with the influence which the text has had on popular piety and devotion right down through the centuries of Christian faith even to the present day. Ora Limor has a very similar interpretation in her study of the holy places dedicated to Mary in Jerusalem. She sees the memories of events occurring in Mary’s life — either real or imagined — which are enshrined and commemorated in these holy places as bearing witness to the eager desires of worshippers to recall those events both for themselves and for future generations in concrete and tangible ways.37 Churches and shrines were built and dedicated at places understood to be sacred to Mary, and worshippers flocked to these holy sites. So in this way the written text of Mary’s life, even if expressed in legend, affects even the general topography of Jerusalem and its environs. Shoemaker describes the situation thus: The Christians of late ancient Jerusalem took full advantage of their uniquely consecrated terrain, fusing feast with place through ritual commemoration, and with processions between the city’s major shrines and beyond to more remote

34 35 36 37

Clayton (1990), 3. Vanden Eykel (2016), 1. Vanden Eykel (2016), 4. Limor (2014), 14.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

stations in Bethany and Bethlehem, they visibly wove the Christian faith into the fabric of Jerusalem’s urban landscape.38 In other words, people heard (during liturgical celebrations) or read for themselves, what they understood to be events in the life of Jesus and of Mary and they wanted to go, to see, to touch and to pray at what they believed to be the sacred places where these events had taken place. This desire was vastly increased by the freedom to worship publically granted to Christians after the Edict of Milan (313 ce) under Constantine. O’Loughlin comments: ‘PEJ may tell us far more about the development of the theological imagination, both generally as well as specifically with reference to such matters as the growing cult of Mary, than has hitherto been recognised.’39 Delehaye should have the final word here: he ‘repeatedly pointed out that the legend develops through the continuity of cultus. It is the repetition of the story, the celebration of liturgy … that leads to the development of the hagiographical myth.’40 This is why the PEJ is such a valuable and significant text for theologians, historians and liturgists today.

Authorship So, given its importance, who was first responsible for this influential text? It is assumed by commentators that the ‘James’ of the final colophon of the PEJ is intended to be James ‘the brother of the Lord’ who appears in the New Testament:41 ‘Now I, James, wrote this history when tumult arose in Jerusalem on the death of Herod, and withdrew into the desert until the tumult in Jerusalem ceased.’42 however, as Hock, speaking for all commentators, makes very clear, ‘the claims do not bear the simplest scrutiny’; the epilogue, where this claim is made, is to be regarded as ‘a literary fiction’43 and as the PEJ obviously relies heavily on the infancy narratives in the canonical Gospels of Matthew and Luke which were composed probably c. 80–85 ce,44 this ‘James’ could not possibly have written the text attributed to him, as he died, according to Josephus, in 62 ce. Hock acknowledges the difficulty of discovering the true author45 and eventually concludes: ‘the chances of knowing much about the author are minimal … (he) emerges as a figure of some literary ability and training who possessed a bookish acquaintance with Judaism.’46 It was written originally in Greek, the earliest translation we have is into Syriac and then it was translated into Ethiopic, Coptic (Sahidic), Georgian, Old Slavonic, Armenian, eventually, much edited, into Irish and Arabic. The variety 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Shoemaker (2016), 181. O’Loughlin (2009), 80. Delehaye (1955, 1998), xi. Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19. PEJ 24. Hock (1995), 9. O’Loughlin (2017), 3–21. Hock (1995), 9–11. Hock (1995), 11.

33

34

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

and the number of these texts,47 as well as the ‘textual variation and fluidity,’48 bear witness to its enormous popularity and the breadth of its influence,49 though at first this influence spread eastwards rather than westwards.50 Horner comments: ‘[T] he West absorbed Prot. Jas. indirectly, and ironically, through Jerome’s involvement with the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. This account contains a nearly complete version of Prot. Jas. within a larger narrative of Jesus’ life drawn from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.’ In the west, for the first 1,500 years, the influence of the PEJ was indirect, mainly through the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, which was largely based on the PEJ and was more popular and more widespread in the West. Clayton comments: Between 550 and 700 the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, or the Liber de ortu beatae Mariae, was composed in Latin. This is in origin a free rehandling of the Proteuangelium, which was later combined with stories of the flight into Egypt and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. There are at present approximately 130 known manuscripts of the text, the earliest of which was written before 825, and the gospel seems to have achieved an immediate, though contested popularity.51 The fact of these great number of translations into vernacular languages bears witness to the immense popular appeal of the PEJ. Whereas many Church Fathers, teachers and clerics disapproved of the PEJ, and sought to discredit the stories it contained, the laity from Ireland in the West to Armenia in the East and from Ethiopia in the South to Britain in the North were enthusiastically reading and/or hearing the PEJ in their own vernacular tongues. However, isolated scenes from the PEJ became known and popular throughout the then-known world by means of the Church’s liturgy,52 and these events were celebrated from the sixth century onwards, but the actual text itself did not reach the west until it was translated from Greek into Latin by Guillaume Postel, who acquired a manuscript of the text in Greek (unfortunately no longer extant) during a visit to Constantinople in 1551. Postel’s translation was published by Theodor Bibliander in 155253 and he and Postel believed the text to be the prologue to the Gospel of Mark; so they included in the text of their edition the Gospel of Mark; a Life of Mark and a lengthy index to this gospel.54

47 We have at least 140 extant Greek manuscripts alone. 48 Vuoug (2013), 6. 49 Vanden Eykel comments that many of the extant texts are liturgical, indicating that the PEJ was ‘a regular part of Christian worship.’ Vanden Eykel (2016), 13. 50 Horner (2004), 313–35, at 315. There is a very useful table of comparison between the Western and Eastern cycles of the life of Mary in Cartlidge and Elliott (2001), 28–32. 51 See Clayton (1990), 13, 14. 52 Vanden Eykel comments that many of the extant texts are liturgical, indicating that the PEJ was ‘a regular part of Christian worship.’ (Vanden Eykel [2016], 13). 53 Vanden Eykel gives the Latin title of Bibliander’s edition of Postel’s translation: Protevangelion sive de natalibus Jesu Christi et ipsius matris virginis Mariae, sermo historicus divi Jacobi minoris, consobrini et fratris Domini Jesu, apostolic primarii, et episcope Christianorum primi Hierosolymis (Basil: Oporin, 1552). Vanden Eykel (2016), 12. 54 Vanden Eykel (2016), 12.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

Genre So how should this text be classified? Nearly all commentators on the PEJ admit that it is not easy to allocate a single specific genre to the text. If we refer to the classical study of the exegesis of hagiographical texts — that of Hippolyte Delehaye already mentioned55 for a methodology in identifying its genre, we find that according to Delehaye’s classification, in spite of its long standing title as a ‘Gospel,’ the PEJ would best be interpreted as a legend: A legend … has of necessity an historical or topographical connexion, It refers imaginary events to a real person, associates fanciful stories with an existing place… So we see that a legend, considered as a connected narrative and as distinct from a myth or a tale, presupposes an historical fact which is its subject or an occasion: that is the first essential element of this genre. The second is that the historical fact is embroidered or distorted by popular imagination.56 Bearing in mind that even the canonical gospels themselves do not give us ‘history’ in the modern sense, in his use of the terms ‘imaginary events applied to a real person,’ ‘fanciful stories,’ ‘embroidery’ and ‘distortion’ of historical facts Delehaye gives us a very accurate description of the PEJ. However, there is another class of criteria by which the PEJ can be analysed as being one of the earliest examples of a literary genre known as the ‘apocryphal Infancy Gospels,’ which became extraordinarily popular from the second century onwards, and which were intended to fill in the lacunae left in the four gospels which came to be regarded as ‘canonical.’57 However, as Vanden Eykel rightly points out, in the first few Christian centuries there was an ‘absence of firm canonical/non-canonical boundaries’ and even later there was a ‘relative fluidity’ in the drawing of those boundaries. This, for Vanden Eykel, emphasises both the ‘complexities of early Christian literature’ and the ‘profound diversity of the early Christian movement.’58 So scholarly opinion is as undecided and hesitant about the legitimacy of the classification ‘apocryphal infancy gospel’ as it is about almost every other aspect of the PEJ. Mary Beard uses different criteria from those of Delehaye. By analysing the category of ‘myth’ in her study of the Vestal Virgins,59 and by quoting Lévi-Strauss she argues that: ‘it is a distinguishing feature of mythical thought that fundamental oppositions […] are set up within the framework of the myth and are then resolved by the introduction of a third element, which, through its character as an intermediary, seen to partake of features of both extremes, forms a bridge between them or, in other words acts as a mediator.’60 According to the model Beard describes here, it is possible to assign the category of myth to the PEJ, for the two fundamental oppositions of 55 56 57 58 59 60

Delehaye (1955, 1998). Delehaye (1955, 1998), 7, 8. See Meier (1991), 114–41. Vanden Eykel (2016), 167. Beard (1980), 23. Beard (1980), 23.

35

36

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

virginity and motherhood are set up very clearly within the text’s framework, and these are resolved when a third element — Salome — appears who, in testing Mary’s virginity and then finding both her physical integrity and her motherhood to be existential states, ‘forms a bridge between them.’ So, according to this analysis of Beard’s, the PEJ could well be classed as a ‘myth.’ However, there is still another category. No one has yet explored the possibility that the PEJ could perhaps be categorised as a satire, but given the overwhelming and incredible importance the text places on Mary’s virginity, which is presented in an almost ridiculously exaggerated manner, this would seem to be a very real possibility. Because the image of Mary presented in the PEJ forms such a total contrast to that found in the canonical gospels, and is, in fact, almost a caricature of the ‘Mary’ found there, quite possibly the author did not intend his readers to take his presentation of Mary literally or even seriously. His portrayal of Mary and her virginal state is exaggerated to the point of irony. In his discussion of the writings of Helvidius and Jovinian and their understanding of Mary, Hunter comments on the PEJ: It is unique even among the apocrypha because of its intense focus on Mary’s perpetual virginity … Mary’s sole merit, according to the Protevangelium, is her sexual chastity, and the sole purpose of the narrative is to express and defend sexual purity.61 Thus, Hunter sees that in contrast to other early writings such as the Ascension of Isaiah and the Odes of Solomon, which also stress Mary’s sexual purity but in a Christological context, the emphasis has now become ‘preoccupied entirely with Mary and with her consecration to a life of perpetual virginity.’62 In support of the satire theory, there are so many contradictions and anomalies in the text, which, although attributed by most commentators to ‘confusion,’63 or, less kindly, to ‘astonishing ignorance,’64 might hint that the author would not have intended his tale to be taken over-seriously. Along with the frequently remarked geographical errors, we note the indecision about Anna’s conception of her child — was it miraculous or not?65 Then the contradiction in the appearing of the angel/ messenger of the Lord to Zechariah, when the heavenly messenger says that Mary ‘she shall be a wife’ of the one whom God will designate by a sign. Hock comments here that this implies Mary and Joseph will live a normal married life, once wedded, but Zechariah reinterprets this message, calling Mary a ‘virgin of the Lord,’ which is the first time she is so described. Zechariah also addresses Joseph: ‘You have been chosen by lot to receive the virgin of the Lord as your ward.’66 but Joseph immediately and puzzlingly, given that such a great responsibility had fallen to his lot, abrogates this responsibility by disappearing and somewhat insensitively telling his new bride: 61 62 63 64 65 66

Hunter (1993), 64. Hunter (1993), 64. Hock (1995), 71. Hock (1995), 12, quoting Quasten and others. Hock (1995), 39; fn. to 4:4. PEJ: 9.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

‘now I leave you in my house and go away to build my buildings. I will return to you; the Lord will guard you.’67 Another instance is that of Mary being banished from the Temple, having attained puberty, but then the author seeing no dichotomy in recalling her to the Temple with the other virgin weavers to make the new veil. The suggestion that either she or the other ‘virgins of the Lord,’ who as young women were possibly menstruating and so could now defile the Holy Place seems to have vanished. The same incident refers to these identical virgins, and also to Mary herself, as belonging to ‘the tribe of David’ but there has never been a ‘tribe of David’ in Israelite history. The story of the mountain opening to receive and hide Elizabeth and the infant John the Baptist also stretches credulity. These unlikely incidents and inconsistencies are so glaring and so blatant that they suggest that the author did not mean his story to be taken literally and that he may have been deliberately supplying misinformation; possibly with a satirical intention. It is possible that just as the book of Judith has been described as ‘the earliest Jewish novel’68 so might the PEJ be termed the first Christian novellette. Novels were a powerful medium in the second century cf. Joseph and Asenath). There are so many obvious anomalies, inaccuracies and sheer contradictions within the text that perhaps we are not meant to take this story literally. Did the author intend his work to be read as entertainment or even as amusement? Maybe we have approached the PEJ with solemn faces and have been prepared to carry out serious theological investigations, whereas the many inconsistencies and glaring contradictions so obvious as to be ridiculous might suggest the author’s intentions were not quite so grave or weighty. That this could be an accurate assessment is suggested by Shoemaker’s giving a hint to this interpretation when he suggests in his discussion of the literary genre of the text: ‘Quite probably early editors of the Christian apocryphal writings found the Protevangelium’s intense interest in glorifying the Virgin to be so incongruous with their views on Mary’s place in the early church that they did not know what else to make of it.’69 It is this very incongruity which makes the suggestion of a satirical novel plausible. Because of the enormous influence this short text has had through the centuries this has serious implications for the theological, doctrinal and historical issues it raises and its contribution to Christian thought. As O’Loughlin comments: ‘[T]he Protevangelium bristles with a range of problems for later theology.’70

Provenance of the Text Just as commentators have difficulty in identifying the genre of the text, so also there is little consensus regarding the provenance of the PEJ and scholarly opinions 67 PEJ 9. 68 As well as the book of Judith, this literary genre also includes the books of Esther, Daniel, Tobit, and the non-biblical story of Joseph and Aseneth. The Book of Judith has also been categorised as within the genre of Hellenistic romance. 69 Shoemaker (2016), 48. 70 O’Loughlin (2013), 166.

37

38

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

vary widely. An older commentator, Von Campenhausen, is of the opinion that ‘unfortunately it cannot be determined more precisely where this writing comes from,’ and he asserts that it is unlikely that it ‘originated in Jewish Christian circles.’71 However, more recently Lapham has put forward the theory that as the suggested place of authorship in the text itself (25.1) is Jerusalem, he sees no reason to disbelieve this, though he grants, as so many others have done, that perhaps the author is not entirely familiar with Jewish customs.72 To demonstrate how complex and inconclusive this whole issue is, Hock evaluates the evidence and prefaces it by remarking, perhaps rather pessimistically: ‘The question of provenance for the Infancy Gospel of James is the most difficult to answer, and perhaps only negative answers are possible.’73 He repeats J. Quasten’s objection to a Palestinian origin, because of the author’s apparent ignorance of the geography of Palestine,74 and singles out the limitations of the author’s Greek vocabulary and syntax, which would, he thinks, rule out a source for the text such as any ‘centres of Greek language and culture’; that is, Greece itself, the Greek islands or any of the Greek cities of Asia Minor.75 Hubertus Drobner, a recent commentator, states categorically that ‘It originated in Egypt in the second half of the second century and was later expanded’76 but he does not offer any evidence for his forthright views. Vuong notes that the Syrian church was recognised for its ascetic bent and the great value it put on chastity and so she sees the PEJ as emanating from a Syrian background because of its great emphasis on purity and virginity. She refers to parallels with other texts emanating from Syria as well. Hannah Hunt, also, in her study of the tension between ‘dualistic and holistic’ interpretations of Christianity refers to the apocryphal writings, noting their links with ‘the Syrian ascetic tradition’ and remarking specifically that some individual logia have ‘a distinctly Syrian encratite emphasis.’77 This suggestion has a possible corroboration in the way that Mary the mother of Jesus replaces Mary Magdalene in some early Syriac texts; one of the possible explanations for this substitution being seen by Sebastian Brock as the ascetic character of the early Syrian church, which preferred the traditional purity and virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus to the supposedly questionable morals of Mary Magdalene, who was identified with the ‘sinful woman’ of Luke 7:36–50.78 Susan Ashbrook Harvey agrees with this assessment in her study of the place of women in early Syrian Christianity, commenting on the parallels between the

71 Von Campenhausen (1954), 41. 72 Lapham (2003), 64. If the suggestion of satire is correct, maybe this apparent unfamiliarity is deliberate. 73 Hock (1995), 12. 74 There is confusion regarding the topography of Bethlehem, which the author seems to envisage as being outside the area known as ‘Judea’. 75 Hock (1995), 12. 76 Drobner (2007), 23. 77 Hunt (2012), 116–17. 78 Brock (2004), 129–42. On the strict standards of asceticism in the Syrian church see also Theodoret of Cyrrhus (trans Price, 1983).

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

Marian poetry of Ephrem and the ideas expressed in the much earlier PEJ and Ode 19 of Solomon: The spiritual kinship bridging Ode 19 and the Marian hymns of Ephrem may add weight to the theory that the Protevangelion of James — the singularly influential second century apocryphal account of the Virgin’s life, composed originally in Greek — is a work of Syrian origins. More important however, is the enormous favour it enjoyed with the Syrian Christian communities. The Syriac version is our oldest translation of the work and its immediate and long-lasting popularity in the Syrian Orient is well attested.79 Harvey bases her conclusions on literary grounds and the popularity the PEJ enjoyed in the Syrian Church while Hunter argues for the same conclusion but for different reasons: The Protevangelium was written towards the end of the second century, probably in Syria. It reflects the radically ascetic, probably Encratite, environment of early Syrian Christianity, which produced other apocryphal works such as the Acts of Thomas.80 Hunter’s argument is based on the previously mentioned strong ascetic bent of the early Syrian Church, into which context the PEJ with its overwhelming emphasis on virginity and purity, would fit. He comments: These various features are best accounted for by the profoundly ascetic, possibly Encratite, origin of the text, The intense focus on Mary’s perpetual virginity and the image of the celibate marriage of Mary and Joseph corresponds precisely with the ideal of “spiritual marriage” cherished in Syrian ascetical circles.81 Peter Brown also concurs with this theory.82 He gives a very full discussion of Tatian and the Encratite movement, although he does qualify this by saying ‘The celibacy of the Encratites was a group celibacy and not one that favoured isolated recluses.’83 But even so, although this gives an alternative setting to that of the virginity of the young Mary hidden in the solitude of the temple, it anchors the practice of celibacy and virginity firmly in the ascetic character of the Syrian Church, and so makes Syria a very likely milieu for the provenance of the PEJ.84 Although, as already stated, we cannot yet prove with certainty a definitive place of origin, probably the most balanced solution is that of Hock who says: ‘it may be best at present to withhold judgement on the matter of provenance,’85 but until such time as more reliable evidence is discovered, the balance seems to swing very definitely for all the reasons given above in favour of Syria. 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Ashbrook Harvey (1993), 288–98 at 291. Hunter (1993), 63. Hunter (1993), 64. See Brown (1988), 83–102. Brown (1988), 101. See Hunter (1993). Hock (1995), 13.

39

40

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

Dating When was this text written? The original appearance of the PEJ has been dated to probably the middle of the second century,86 but the oldest extant manuscript version we now have, Papyrus Bodmer V, was only found as recently as 1958 near the town of Dishna in Upper Egypt, and is now kept in the Bodmer Library in Geneva, hence its name. This manuscript dates from the early fourth century. It is a composite manuscript text, containing the following items: ‘Nativity of Mary’ (i.e. PEJ), III Corinthians, eleventh Ode of Solomon, Jude, Melito’s Passover Homily, a fragment of a liturgical hymn, the Apology of Phileas, and the Septuagint version of Ps 33:2–34. Jones comments in his discussion of the genres and themes of the various texts to be found in Papyrus Bodmer V: ‘The term composite, in my opinion, better represents these codices for what they are — multi-text codices with no common theme.’87 Earlier versions of the PEJ text had various different titles, including ‘The Birth of Mary,’ ‘The Story of the Birth of Saint Mary, Mother of God,’ and ‘The Birth of Mary; The Revelation of James.’ Thus, some schools of thought suggest that the original version may have been concerned only with Mary’s life up to the birth of Jesus and that the stories connected with the birth and early life of John the Baptist have been added later, while other commentators are of the opinion, as Hock himself acknowledges the ‘overall consistency in vocabulary and syntax,’ suggest a literary unity, rather than a different source.88 O’Loughlin uses the text of the PEJ to approximate the dating of the canonical gospels, particularly those of Matthew and Luke;89 however, the argument is circular and can equally be used in the dating of the PEJ itself. Because the PEJ depends on Matthew and Luke, it derives from ‘a time when the gospels’ collection was accorded the dignity of being equal to ‘the Law and the Prophets’ — in other words, the short time window when there was known to be ‘a collection of four gospels which had to be reconciled and yet which did not have to be respected as scripture.’ A much earlier commentator, Von Campenhausen, had also made this connection and agrees: ‘For the Protevangelium of James on the one hand takes for granted the great canonical Gospels, but on the other hand it amplifies and corrects them with an ingenuousness that would hardly have been possible at a later time, even in heretical circles,’90 So a mid-second century date for this text would seem to be appropriate. We can also situate the PEJ’s timescale in relation to the author’s understanding of the significance of the Temple in Judaism. This text bears witness to the fact that the whole of early Christian theology had been struggling to come to terms with the destruction of a physical temple building. We have in the PEJ a text which still cherishes memories of the Temple and remembers its importance for Judaism, but the

86 87 88 89 90

For a full discussion of the dating of the PEJ, see Vuong (2013), 32–39. Jones (2011–2012), 9–20. See Hock (1995), 13, 14. See O’Loughlin (2017), 3–21. O’Loughlin (2017), 3–21. Von Campenhausen (1954), 54.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

details of the Temple architecture and their theological significance have by this time been lost.91 Many commentators on the PEJ describe how Mary, as a female, could never have been allowed anywhere near the Holy of Holies or the altar. Whitaker refers to Stephen Benko, whose research on Early Christianity often returns to these themes, and who also points to the impossibility of Mary’s access to the ‘third step of the altar’ and the Holy of Holies as related in the Protoevangelium’s account as an indication of greater pagan influences than Palestinian, as Palestinian Jews would have been much less likely to ignore the significance of priestly functions in the context described in the Protoevangelium.92 Mary would have been allowed no further than the Court of the Women and the description of her ‘dancing on the third step of the altar’ has to be erroneous as there were no steps leading to the altar; the priests ascended by means of a ramp.93 The Torah specifically forbad the use of steps to approach the altar: ‘Do not climb up to my altar with steps, so that your nakedness not be revealed on it’94 However, Megan Nutzman in a very thought provoking article,95 suggests that, although in the actual historical situation the child Mary would have been precluded from growing up within the Temple precincts, the author of the PEJ makes a deliberate literary association of Mary with three classes of women who would have had access to the inner courts of the Temple according to early rabbinic texts. These were: women accused of adultery, girls chosen to weave the temple curtain and female Nazirites. In the canonical Gospels Mary does not belong within these classes of women, but according to the presentation of Mary in the PEJ, she can be fitted into all three categories. However, Léonie Archer makes the point that, although ‘the suspected adulteress and the female nazirite’ were permitted ‘to perform the act of waving’ when bringing a meal-offering, ‘[i]t is possible however, that even for these exceptions women were not allowed into the inner area’ because in the case of the suspected adulteress the offering had to be made at ‘the Eastern Gate’ (i.e. near the entrance which separated the Court of Women from the Court of Israel) and that ‘by this time’ the nazirites (female ascetics) were ‘something of a dying breed’ and so ‘the other exception listed in the Mishnah might not have had any reality.’96 Some scholars have remarked on possible parallels with other New Testament apocryphal texts. There are suggested links with the Ascension of Isaiah 11 and passages in the PEJ, and with the Odes of Solomon 19 and similar passages. The

91 For symbolic representations of ‘Jerusalem’ see Kühnel et al. (2014). 92 Whitaker (2009), 4. See also Quarles (1998), 139–49, at 141: ‘Mary could not have been raised in the Holy of Holies as the Protevangelium of James asserts, since doing so was clearly forbidden by OT law and first-century Jewish legislation.’ 93  For diagram, see Ousterhout (1990), 44–53. This is also commented on by Hayward (1996), 31, referring to Josephus, War V, 225: ‘The figure it was built in was a square, and it had corners like horns; and the passage up to it was by an insensible acclivity.’ However, as Hock points out, the description of the Temple in Ezek. 43:17 does specifically mention steps. Hock (1995), 45. 94 Ex. 20:26. 95 Nutzman (2013), 551–78. 96 Archer (1993), 273–87, at 279.

41

42

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

opinion of Charlesworth in 1985 was that: ‘[T]he description of the Virgin and the unique statement that she did not need a midwife and laboured without pain (OdesSol 19:8 f.) may have influenced the author of the Ascension of Isaiah 11:2–25, in which the Virgin Mary did not need a midwife and apparently uttered no cries of pain. These parallels between the Odes of Solomon and the apocryphal writings have apparently never been discussed by the commentators, whether the parallels are to be dismissed as insignificant, merely generic in nature, and coincidental or whether they are indicative of influence upon or from the Odes will depend on future critical examination.’97 However, as the dating of these texts is uncertain, the parallels, even if proven, do not make the dating of the PEJ any clearer. So, as with provenance, in this matter of dating we cannot come to any firm conclusions, but only suggest that, until further evidence becomes available, a mid-second century date seems the most likely.

Sources The author seems to have drawn on a number of different sources and to have used them freely and with ingenuity. At least three groups of sources are clearly identifiable which the author of the PEJ makes use of with a great deal of imagination: the Old Testament, particularly the Septuagint version; his own extracanonical traditions, whether stemming from his own inventiveness or from common oral and/or written traditions (which would include such issues as the names of Mary’s parents, elaborate details of her birth and childhood, her supposed presentation in the Temple, her betrothal to Joseph [presented as an old man and a widower with children of his own from a previous marriage] and the birth of Jesus, not in the ‘inn’ as in Luke’s gospel, but in a cave, which innovation was known to Justin Martyr and Origen) and the author also employs certain aspects of the infancy narratives from the early chapters of the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke.98 Vanden Eykel explores the context of the nativity narrative, its possible sources and its relationship to the writings of Justin and Origin in great detail. He says: ‘The cave-birth tradition originates during the second century, but its source is undetermined. Outside of PEJ, its earliest attestations are in the works of Justin Martyr and Origin (Dial. 78.5; 97

Charlesworth (1985), 733. The relevant passages are: So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies, And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, Because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, Because he caused her to give life. (Ode 19, 7–9). ‘Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she has been married two months.’ But many said, “She did not give birth; the midwife did not go up (to her), and we did not hear (any) cries of pain.”’ (Ascension of Isaiah, 11:13, 14), Knibb, (1985), 143–76, at 175. 98 Cooper comments: ‘Where Luke is interested in moral courage and hidden potential, the Infancy Gospel offers an exercise in magic realism. Its vision of Mary’s childhood is characterized by colourful detail and a touch of comedy.’ Cooper (2013), 56.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

Cels. 1.51.11–17). It is possible that both authors reveal familiarity with PEJ. This is especially the case with Origin who elsewhere refers to a “Book of James”… Scholars have explored alleged correlations between PEJ and Justin with varying results… These studies illustrate the complexity of this tradition.’99 But the author of the PEJ does not just create a simple compilation of his sources; he uses them with great inventiveness and some poetic artistry to produce a literary text, which although naïve and unsophisticated in many respects and on occasion quite bizarre, has a certain appeal. The central argument of his text on which all else hinges and which he stresses throughout with unrelenting emphasis, is the extraordinary purity of Mary throughout her life, which prepared her for her unique destiny and because of which she was chosen to be the mother of the Lord. At every stage in her life the absolute purity of Mary is constantly impressed upon the reader. Hock remarks: ‘It is difficult to imagine anyone more pure than Mary.’100 The author of the PEJ seems to have been very familiar with the Septuagint, both by drawing parallels between scenes from the Greek version of the Old Testament and similar incidents and characters in his own narrative and also by borrowing phrases and expressions from the Septuagint vocabulary and then by referring to the Septuagint for information about Jewish life and customs. In his use of the canonical gospels, the author frequently endeavours to draw passages from Matthew and Luke into a sometimes uneasy harmony, or even to conflate the two texts into a single narrative story; his is arguably the first attempt to do this that we have, and so it can be used, as described above, to aid the dating of the canonical gospels.101 By doing this and by adding dramatic, and sometimes eccentric, scenes from his own special sources (or his own imagination) against a background drawn from the Septuagint he produces the colourful and graphic events in the PEJ.102 As Hock comments: In sum, it is clear that the author of the Infancy Gospel of James borrowed extensively from the canonical birth stories, but it is just as clear that he did not hesitate to be innovative in retelling these stories. Indeed, the innovations involve rearranged details, new events, and changes in characterization — all of which give the Infancy Gospel of James a familiar yet fresh quality.103 So, as stated above, O’Loughlin uses this argument to assist in the dating of the canonical gospels; Matthew and Luke were widely diffused and well known throughout the early Mediterranean world, but they had not yet attained the respected status of ‘canonical’ as is demonstrated by the PEJ’s very free and inventive use of their details. These sources are all recognised by earlier commentators, and another should be added to them, so far unrecognised and so not previously acknowledged: that

99 100 101 102 103

Vanden Eykel (2016), 138. Hock (1995), 15. See O’Loughlin (2013), 165–73. Hock (1995), 22–25. Hock (1995), 25.

43

44

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

of the Roman priestesses known as the Vestal Virgins.104 The Vestal Virgins were an important part of Roman society and religion. Consecrated to the service of the goddess Vesta, the protectress of the hearth, they were considered to be vital to the security and preservation of Rome itself. Pomeroy describes their historic function in this way: At some point in the remote past, the service of the state cult of Vesta was assumed by virgin priestesses known as Vestals. Their principal duty was to tend the fire in the temple of Vesta, and any Vestal who let the fire go out incurred the penalty of scourging. In addition to the service of Vesta, the Vestals were active in other areas of Roman religion.105 Their chief task was to keep the fire of Vesta alight; their chief obligation was to preserve their virginity intact during their time of service to Vesta. A Vestal who committed the crimen incesti and forfeited her virginity was condemned to be buried alive.106 Pomeroy claims that although their lives were ‘severely regulated, […] in some respects they were the most emancipated women in Rome.’107 However, she qualifies this by adding that this emancipation ‘was legal rather than de facto.’ Sawyer gives a much more negative ‘feminist critique’ of this analysis, claiming that ‘The Vestal Virgins are an example of a male-defined idealized woman-hood, which disempowers women according to their nature.’108 The parallel with Mary’s status in RC theology is inescapable. Although there are parallels between the lives of the Vestal Virgins and the life of the child Mary in the Temple, Beard’s claim of ‘emancipation’ is one aspect where the parallels break down; Mary was never emancipated while in the service of the Temple; on the contrary, her life was strictly circumscribed within the Temple boundary and she had no external freedom to make her own choices or live her own life. However, one of the most striking parallels with the presentation of the three year old Mary in the temple is the ceremony by which the novice Vestal was received into the ‘college’ by the Pontifex Maximus. Mary Beard describes the ceremony thus: In the course of this ‘capture’ the child was removed from her father and led away by the high priest veluti bello capta, a process which resembles the forcible abduction of the bride during a Roman wedding. The young girl was also addressed by the Pontifex as ‘Amata’109 Although some aspects, such as the child being removed from her father; led away by the High Priest; and addressed as ‘Amata’ (‘the whole house of Israel loved her’) show a striking similarity with the presentation of the child Mary in the Temple; there 104 For contemporary texts regarding the institution and choice of the Vestal Virgins, see Kraemer (1988), 212–15. 105 Pomeroy (1975), 210–11. 106 Cornell (1981), 27–37. 107 Pomeroy (1975), 213. 108 Sawyer (1996), 127. 109 Beard (1980), 15.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

are dissimilarities also: the novice Vestal had to be between six and ten years of age, whereas Mary was only three; the Vestal was ‘captured’ and taken from her father, whereas Joachim particularly wished Mary to go to the Temple willingly and in joy; the Vestal Virgins had the crucially important and sacred task of keeping the fire of Vesta alight in the Temple of the goddess, whereas Mary is not depicted as having any significant duty to perform during her time in the Jerusalem Temple (it was only after she had left the Temple that she was recalled as one of the virgins chosen to weave the new curtain). The commitment of a Vestal virgin to serve in the temple was for thirty years; the expectation for Mary was only till she attained presumed puberty at the age of twelve; when her time of consecration was over the Vestal was free to marry (although not many did); while Mary, though no longer in the Temple, was required to be a virgin perpetually. The anxiety of the priests for the purity of the Temple meant Mary had to leave ‘lest she pollute’ it by menstruating; there is no indication that menstruation was seen as a pollutant for the Vestals, though any form of sexual activity would have been. As Mary Beard remarks ‘the chastity of the Vestals is simply a more extreme example of a phenomenon found commonly in the Greek world.’110 Many ancient cult regulations111 laid down that sexual activity was polluting and so made a person unfit for close contact with the deity. Entry into a temple, for example, might be forbidden to a person for two or three days after intercourse. The analogy with the Vestals is clear: they were in constant contact with the deity and therefore had always to abstain from sexual contact with men.112 The same was required of Mary, she must have no polluting sexual experience either before, during or after her sojourn in the Temple. There is also a reference to the enigmatic matter of the ‘head band.’ The Vestal Virgins were identified by the clothing they wore, and one item of this clothing was the vittae,113 or cloth bands used to tie up their hair. These bands were worn by Roman matrons and brides and were an indication of their status as citizens and their purity. In the course of the actual PEJ narrative, there is mention of a controversial ‘head band’ and it is applied to Mary’s mother, where Anna has a disagreement over this head band with her handmaid, Justhine. Is there perhaps, a garbled memory of the Vestal headband in the text of the PEJ where the author is confused and applies it to Anna rather than to Mary? This same potential connection between Roman married women and virgin brides is seen in Beard’s analysis of the sexual status of the Vestals and is also relevant to the status of Mary. Beard writes that ‘like the girl on the day of her wedding’ the Vestal Virgins are seen as ‘on the brink between virginal and marital status,’ like Mary, they are ‘perpetually on the brink, perpetually fixed at the moment of transmission from

110 111 112 113

Beard (1980), 12. See Ex. 19:15; 1 Sam. 21:4, 5. See Beard (1980), 12, 13. Wildfang (2006), 15, 16.

45

46

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

one category to another.’114 Beard sees the Vestals as leaving the ‘patria potestas’ — the authority of the father — when they entered the ‘college’ of Vestals in the Atrium Vestae and as they had not entered the ‘tutela’ of anyone else they were ‘isolated from any family group.’115 This can be seen as defining Mary’s status also: she is perpetually fixed as an innocent child, yet she is also to become a mother, and the ambiguity of her sexual status is what Beard refers to as ‘an isolating factor.’ Just as, according to Beard: ‘the ambiguity of the sexual status of the Vestals is of crucial importance in marking them out as sacred,’ so the same can be said of Mary: she is unique in that of all women according to the narrative of the PEJ, she is the only one who is both virgin and mother. This is the cause of her supreme holiness and defines her as perpetually sacred. It is not difficult to see how the narrative of the PEJ appealed so widely to early Christians of the second century, new to their faith and familiar with the Septuagint and the canonical Gospels and anxious to know more about the persons they found there. This appeal has lasted down through the centuries, in both the liturgy of the church and in popular piety and devotion, especially in the Eastern Church, where it also figures largely in the church’s iconographic tradition. This is what makes the PEJ, in spite of the imaginative excesses of the author, such a valuable text for scholars today. As O’Loughlin remarks: ‘[E]arly Christian texts … are precious not because they are perfect, but because with all their limitations and errors they are the vehicles of our earliest memories as the community which believes itself to be one in Christ.’116 This is demonstrably true of the PEJ; it was written, as Clayton remarks, out of ‘natural curiosity about biblical characters … it also testifies to the development of nonbiblical Marian beliefs even at this early date.’117 At a superficial reading of the text, it could possibly seem that the events recorded in the PEJ remain at a childlike level of charm and naïvité, especially with regard to the miraculous elements which on occasion stretch credulity. Kate Cooper describes the text, almost in fairy tale usage and idiom, as ‘set in a world where anything can happen: the miraculous and the ridiculous can be found side by side.’118 The author gives the appearance of being someone with a vivid imagination and ingenuity and the pictures he paints of second century life have the same artless quality as the pictures of peasant farmers and rustic scenes of country life found in the borders of medieval manuscripts. We feel that, in spite of the eccentricity of some of the characters and scenarios, we are in touch with life in the world of the second century. However, in spite of what Cooper calls the ‘comic nosiness’ of the PEJ, commentators such as Nutzer119 and Quarles120 take a very different view and see the author as ‘a skilled midrashist’ and a sophisticated writer who has produced a very carefully 114 115 116 117 118 119 120

Beard (1980), 21. Beard (1980), 21. O’Loughlin (2004), 127. Clayton, (1990), 3, 4. Cooper (2013), 57. Nutzman (2013), 551–78. Quarles (1998), 139–49.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

crafted text with a definite agenda of his own, while Jutta Raithel sees complex and technical grammatical constructions in the Greek text.121 It is sometimes said that the author was producing a narrative theological text which formed an anti-gnosticising counter-point to tendencies in early Christian thought, however closer study reveals that this is inaccurate.

Summary of the Text of the PEJ Joachim, a wealthy and influential citizen of Jerusalem, is forbidden to offer his gifts ‘first’ to the Lord, because of his lack of offspring and Anna, his wife, was reproached by her servant girl for the same reason.122 Joachim and Anna both offer prayer to the Lord and their prayers are answered. A ‘messenger’ (angel?) of the Lord appears to Anna and assures her that she will bear a child.123 As Hock points out, the manuscripts differ here as to whether Anna ‘is pregnant’ or ‘will be pregnant’; Hock comments: ‘Given the stress on Mary’s purity throughout the document, it is probable that he understands Mary to have also been the product of a miraculous conception.’124 This conclusion is borne out by the traditional iconography in which Joachim and Anna are depicted in the icon of the Conception of Mary embracing outside the walls of Jerusalem.125 In due course, Anna gave birth to the infant Mary, but, according to the text, only breast fed the baby when her own time of purification was over: ‘And when the days were completed, Anna purified herself and gave suck to the child, and called her Mary.’126 In other words, because Anna herself was a cause of ritual impurity until her post partum purification was complete, so that anything or anyone she touched during that time would also be ceremoniously unclean, she even refrained from feeding her child until that time was completed, in order to safeguard Mary’s purity. Mary, even as a newborn infant must not come into contact with anything ritually unclean, even her own mother. The text does not state that the infant Mary was fed miraculously; but maybe we are meant to infer this. Other miraculous events are associated with Mary’s infancy: she is described as being able to walk at the age of six months. However, Anna did not wish her daughter to be tainted by contact with anything earthy, such as treading on the common ground, and so she ‘made a sanctuary in her bedroom and did not permit anything common or unclean to pass through her.’127 Mary is thus singled out as having extraordinary purity from her earliest

121 122 123 124 125

Raithel (2011). There are strong overtones here of Sarah’s reproach by her servant girl: Tob. 3:7. Lk 1:26–33. Hock (1995), 39. This interpretation gained ground during the medieval disputes over the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; because original sin was supposed to be passed on through the act of sexual intercourse which brought the foetus into being, if Mary had been immaculately conceived, it was necessary that her conception be miraculous and not according to normal human biology. 126 PEJ 5. 127 PEJ 6.

47

48

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

childhood. She was only allowed to associate with ‘the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews’128 whose purity, both ritual, moral and sexual, was unquestionable. Her father marked her first birthday by holding a great banquet befitting the family’s wealth and status and in this way her parents celebrated their joy at having produced such an offspring. Anna’s triumphant exclamations echo the joy of the previously barren women of the Old Testament, Sarah and Hannah.129 When her second birthday arrived her parents discussed their vow to present her as an offering in the Temple, but they decide to wait until she is three, thus paralleling the offering of Samuel by Hannah at the cult shrine at Shilo. This offering is eventually duly carried out, but in a way that will not permit Mary’s heart to be ‘tempted away from the temple of the Lord.’130 Her attention is enchanted by the daughters of the Hebrews carrying lamps and so she follows them into the Temple without a regretful backward glance at her parents. The priest then blessed her and ‘placed her on the third step of the altar, and the Lord God put grace upon her and she danced with her feet, and the whole house of Israel loved her.’131 Vanden Eykel sees great significance in this dancing of Mary’s and develops the theme at some length with parallels from classical sources. He concludes: ‘The scene thus adds another dimension to the author’s portrait of Mary: in addition to being exceptionally and distinctively pure, she enjoys a unique relationship with the God of Israel.’132 According to the narrative, Mary then remained ‘like a dove’ in the Temple, even in the Holy of Holies itself, miraculously receiving food from the hand of an angel (this scene is depicted in mosaics in the thirteenth-century Chora Church [now the Kariye Museum], Istanbul: where the angel Gabriel, with a branch of lilies in his hand, delivers her daily ration of manna to the child Mary in the Temple), until she reached the age of twelve, which was reckoned in Judaism to be the time of puberty. And here a surprising paradox occurs; so far in the account of Mary’s life there has been enormous emphasis on her purity; nothing earthy or anything savouring of this corrupt and fallen world has been allowed to contaminate her ethereal existence. But now, strangely, the author seems to take for granted that Mary will become subject to that most earthy of all events, the menarche, which will mark the beginning of her life as an adult woman. Vuong claims that her ‘departure from the Temple precincts’ was ‘recognised and agreed to by Mary.’133 However, there is nothing in the text of the narrative to suggest that Mary’s leaving the Temple was in any way a deliberate choice on her own behalf, or even that it was suggested to her for her approval; in fact so far in the PEJ, Mary seems incapable of any natural human reactions or of making any responsible decisions for herself; this only happens after her departure from the Temple. The way the text presents the Temple authorities

128 PEJ 6. Hock comments: ‘The point is … to underscore that Mary’s first years were spent in the purest seclusion of her mother’s bedroom.’ 129 Throughout these early chapters of the PEJ there are allusions to the Abraham cycle in Gen. and the story of Samuel in 1 Sam. 130 PEJ: 7. 131 PEJ: 7. 132 Vanden Eykel (2016), 98. 133 Vuong [2013], 234.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

as discussing Mary’s proximate menarche does not indicate that she was even present. Before this took place, according to the decision of the priests, she must leave the Temple, lest she ‘pollute’ it by her presence as a menstruating woman. Joseph, who appears here as an elderly widower, is chosen by miraculous lot to be her chaste guardian; at first unwilling (Vanden Eykel comments: ‘Joseph’s objection makes him the only character who does not respond positively to Mary.’134 This is another instance of the PEJ being at variance with the canonical gospels). Having been admonished by the high priest and reminded of God’s punishment of disobedience in the Old Testament, he then takes her into his care, but immediately, and amazingly, considering he has now taken on the guardianship of Mary in order to protect her purity and oversee the preservation of her virginity, goes away to build buildings. Vanden Eykel sees this departure as amounting to ‘a blatant abandonment of the Virgin who was safeguarded carefully from the moment of her birth.’135 Mary is then chosen to spin the most precious threads of scarlet and purple for a new veil for the Temple. Whitaker comments: ‘The image of the virgin weaving as a symbol of modesty and wisdom was something that had long been associated with the veneration of Athena.’136 While going to the well in order to fill her water jar, she hears a bodiless voice (as many commentators have remarked: possibly intended to be the bat kol — the Voice of God), greeting her as ‘Blessed among women’. Frightened and unable to locate the voice, she returns home (since leaving the Temple, there is no suggestion that she lives a totally other-worldly life protected and shielded from life’s harsh realities in order to protect her purity and virginity; here she goes to the well in order to fetch water like any other village woman). However, when visited by a heavenly messenger and told she will conceive, she questions not (as in Luke) the possibility of conception, but the manner of giving birth, with the implied anxiety about her virginity: ‘Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God, and bear as every woman bears?’137 The heavenly messenger reassures her and she gives her consent as in the canonical gospel of Luke.138 She then completes her task of spinning and returns her work to the high priest. After this she visits ‘her relative, Elizabeth.’ Throughout this part of the narrative there are strong similarities with, if not direct references to, the early chapters of Luke’s Gospel, but with occasional anomalies. Mary then returns home and, to her embarrassment, her pregnancy is now visible. Joseph, returning from his house building; realises her condition and blames himself for not guarding her more responsibly. Mary, in great distress, protests her innocence, making the astonishing claim that she has forgotten the angel’s visitation and does not know where the child within her came from and God then reassures Joseph in a dream. ‘Annas the scholar’ then makes an appearance and visits Joseph, becomes aware of Mary’s pregnancy, and reports Joseph to the high priest. The high priest subsequently

134 135 136 137 138

Vanden Eykel, (2016), 80. Vanden Eykel (2016), 81. Whitaker (2009), 104. See also Pomeroy (1975), 199–200. PEJ: 11. Lk 1:38.

49

50

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

sends for Joseph and Mary and questions first Mary and then Joseph, who both continue to uphold their innocence. They are both then subjected to ‘the Lord’s drink test,’ which appears to derive from the ritual of the water of bitterness as a test for unfaithful wives in Num 5:11–31, but in the PEJ they are both tested and then sent separately into the wilderness. To everyone’s surprise, this ordeal reveals their innocence, which the high priest proclaims in words taken from Jn 8:11. The narrative continues with the story of the census, though PEJ has it confined to the town of Bethlehem and not encompassing the whole Roman empire, as in Luke. They then make the journey to Bethlehem, as in Luke’s account, with some rather picturesque details added: ‘Mary, why is it that I see your face at one moment laughing and at another sad?’139 The birth becomes imminent before they reach the town and Joseph finds a cave to afford Mary some privacy. The narrative then adopts the first person, and is told by Joseph, who describes a vision he has of the suspension of time in the country side around Bethlehem. Hock comments: ‘[T]he temporary suspension of all activity, which is coincident with birth in the cave, is intended to show that all of nature takes note of the birth of Jesus, just as will happen at his crucifixion when darkness, earthquakes, and the tearing of the Temple curtain mark his death (see Mt 27:45, 51).’140 Joseph then meets a midwife who goes with him to the cave (the narrative has returned to the third person), but her ministrations are not needed as Jesus has appeared in an intense cloud of light and Mary is now feeding him. The midwife, whose name we are not told, leaves the cave, and declares to a passing friend called Salome (otherwise unknown, though some commentators think the author may have intended to identify her with the Salome who stood at the cross: Mk 15:40) that she has just witnessed the miracle of a virgin giving birth. Vanden Eykel graphically describes the appearance of Salome: ‘Her character is enigmatic, her entrance into the narrative abrupt: she is not mentioned before the midwife finds her loitering about the cave entrance, and she disappears soon after she performs her examination of Mary.’141 Salome refuses to believe that this could be possible unless she tests Mary’s virginity in a similar way to that of John’s account of Thomas examining the wounds of the risen Jesus. Quarles shows the ‘significant verbal parallels’ between the Greek text of Jn 20:25 and the PEJ 19:3 (the Salome incident) which, as he rightly points out, ‘heighten the suspicion of dependency.’ However, although the verbal similarity is so strong as to suggest dependency, the dynamic of the argument in the two incidents is different. In Jn 20:25, the protagonist, Thomas, refuses to believe in the reality of the resurrection unless the wounds are real: unless the body of the risen Lord has been torn open. In the PEJ 19:3, the protagonist, Salome, refuses to believe in the virgin birth unless there is no ‘wound’: unless the virgin body of Mary is found to be intact; not torn open. Thomas’ finger finds a wound, and Thomas

139 PEJ: 17. 140 Hock (1995), 65. Vanden Eykel sees this as a most significant element in the narrative; hence the title of his work. 141 Vanden Eykel (2016), 140.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

believes, though he is chided by the Lord for doubting; Salome’s finger finds no wound and her hand is consumed by fire as a punishment for her unbelief, though it is subsequently healed. There is also a parallel between the Salome incident and that of Uzzah ‘reaching our his hand’ to touch the ark of the Lord, 2 Sam 6:6–7.142 Salome’s hand ‘disappears,’ being ‘consumed by fire’ until a messenger of the Lord appears and tells her to pick up the child and she will be healed, which then happens. Zervos sees the addition of the Salome episode as an addition to the original text and demonstrates this quite conclusively by analysing very carefully the Greek version of Papyrus Bodmer V. However, there seems to be no need for a ‘nameless, faceless person, a redactor’; there is no reason why the original author could not have added this passage (though perhaps somewhat clumsily) himself. Vanden Eykel here introduces Zervos’ argument for an interpolated account of the first person vision of the suspension of time,143 saying: ‘Zervos sees Salome’s character as a means of introducing Mary’s postpartum virginity, which an editor accomplishes by appending the episode “to a discrete pre-existing account whose central figure was a Hebrew midwife,”’ According to Vanden Eykel, Zervos sees ‘the question of [Salome’s] identity’ as being ‘eclipsed by her function;144 she exists to confirm that Mary remains a virgin after the birth of Jesus.’145 Then a great uproar takes place in Bethlehem, due to the arrival of the astrologers. The account here in the PEJ now substitutes Matthew’s account for the version of Luke (although there has been no mention of the shepherds, as in Luke), and follows Matthew’s gospel though with some notable omissions. The slaughter of the innocents, as presented here, is strangely different from the account in Matthew. In the PEJ, it is only then that Mary wraps the baby in swaddling clothes and lays him in ‘a feeding trough used by cattle,’ the implication being to hide him and there is no mention of a nocturnal journey to Egypt. The remainder of the PEJ is concerned with Elizabeth and the young John the Baptist who hide in the side of a mountain which miraculously opens for them so that they can escape the soldiers of Herod. Instead of killing the infant John, Herod’s soldiers kill his father, Zechariah. Hock suggests that the author is identifying the father of John the Baptist with the Zechariah mentioned in Matt 23:35, where another Zechariah is murdered near the altar. Zechariah is then replaced by Simeon, who ‘is the one who was informed by the holy spirit that he would not see death until he laid eyes on the Anointed of the Lord.’146 The narrative ends with a colophon identifying the author with ‘James,’ presumably ‘the brother of the Lord,’ thus claiming authenticity for his account, and stating the difficulties he experienced in writing it.

142 Quarles (1998), 139–49, See Hollman (2015), 126: ‘in the presence of such holiness, people must take care not to incur the divine wrath.’ 143 Zervos (2005), 88–89. 144 For the issue of women being examined by women, specifically in the Jewish tradition, see Fonrobert (2000), 128–65. 145 Vanden Eykel (2016), 141. 146 Hock comments that the name Simeon and the prophecy come from Lk 2:25–26.

51

52

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

The Transmission of the text of the Protevangelium of James147 The transmission of the text is, in itself an interesting study in the different ways texts have been interpreted and used, critically or otherwise, throughout Christian history. Although, as demonstrated above, it is impossible at this distance in time to be sure of its original sitz-im-leben, the PEJ was extremely popular, as the number of extant texts and the large number of vernacular translations show. The mention of a ‘cave near the village’ which we find in the writings of Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) rather than a ‘stable’ which we find in the Lukan account may indicate that the text of the PEJ was familiar to Justin and so quite widely known as early as the mid-second century: But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him. I have repeated to you what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave… Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him.148 Justin also bears similarities to the PEJ in omitting any mention of the shepherds in relation to Bethlehem and referring immediately to the Magi in the above passage. If these references do, indeed, mean that the PEJ was quite widely known as early as the mid-second century then, according to Horner: ‘This means that Prot. Jas. probably comes from one of the most mysterious centuries in Jewish history. Two Jewish revolts (115–117 ce in Egypt, and Bar Kochba in 133–135 ce) and violent Roman retaliation had shaken the Jewish world.’149 Horner presents the argument that: ‘Prot. Jas. would have been best understood — perhaps only fully understood — within a community that was familiar with concerns and images of contemporary Judaism.’150 There are other commentators who disagree with him and feel that there is internal evidence proving that the PEJ could not have come from a Jewish background. Clement, bishop of Alexandria (c. 160–216) also referred to the tradition contained in PEJ151 in his Stromata: But, as appears, many even down to our own time, regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth.

147 See also Vuong (2019), 45–48. 148 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 78. See McDonald (2008), 265. 149 Horner (2004), 315. 150 Horner (2004), 317. 151 See Von Campenhausen (1954), 55–56.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

‘And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth’ says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself and not from conjunction.152 Here he is apparently referring to the incident of Salome’s doubting Mary’s virginitas in partu, though it appears as if, by his manner of referring to the incident, he regards it as dubious hearsay: ‘for some say that.’ Von Campenhausen thinks that Clement ‘does not want to discuss further the question of its possible trustworthiness.’153 A near-contemporary of Clement, Origen (c. 185–c. 251) seems also to be referring to the traditions contained in the PEJ,154 writing in his Contra Celsum that Jesus was born in a cave, rather than in the stable (presumed, on the basis of there being ‘a manger’) of Luke’s Gospel: [T]here is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians.155 According to von Campenhausen’s negative judgment, Origen knows that this text ‘is open to objections, and therefore disdains to rely on its evidence.’156 However, apparently, Justin, Clement and Origen are all familiar with these traditions to which they seem to refer, which appear to trace back to the PEJ, regarding Mary’s early life and the birth of Jesus. Thus it would seem that by at least the late second century if not earlier, the PEJ was known and was being quoted as a source of information about the supposed historical events of the life of Mary, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the early life of Jesus, in the churches of the Greek-speaking countries bordering the Mediterranean. However, despite the apparent initial popularity of the PEJ, by 348 Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 387) was admonishing his catechumens to have nothing whatever to do with the apocryphal writings which included the PEJ, although it was apparently the ignorance of his catechumens regarding the canon of accepted scriptures that was bothering him rather than the truth or otherwise of incidents recorded in the apocryphal writings. At a slightly later date, Augustine (354–430) also gave the apocrypha short shrift, though by now it is the content of the apocryphal writings which is receiving censure: Let us leave aside the fictions of those scriptures which are called ‘apocryphal’; for their obscure origin was unknown to the Fathers, who handed down to us the credentials of the true scriptures by sure and well known tradition. Even though some truth may be found in these apocrypha, they have, by reason of the many false things that are in them, no canonical authority.157 152 Stromata vii; 16:93.7–94.5. For translation, see Roberts and Donaldson (1885), 551. 153 Von Campenhausen (1954), 56. 154 See Von Campenhausen (1954), 57–64. 155 Origen, Contra Celsum, 1, 51. 156 Von Campenhausen (1954), 62. 157 Augustine, De civ. Dei, 15, 23, 4.

53

54

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

Jerome (347–420) was the most condemnatory of all the Church fathers; in many places he denigrated the PEJ, calling it variously ‘a fabrication of heretics,’ ‘apocryphal nonsense,’ ‘idle dreams.’ He counselled Paula’s daughter-in-law Laeta (the young wife of Paula’s son Toxotius) about the reading habits of her own daughter, little Paula: She should steer clear of all the apocryphal books and if ever she wishes to read them not for the truth of the miracles contained in them, she must be aware that they are not really written by those whose names are given in their titles and that many bad things have been mixed into them and that one must take great care in trying to sift the gold from the mud.158 So Jerome saw the apocrypha more as exercises for little Christian girls who were learning to read; he completely disregarded the evidence the PEJ offered for the virginity of Mary (which otherwise he strenuously upheld, particularly against Helvidius): ‘No midwife assisted at his birth; no woman’s officiousness intervened. With her own hands she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, herself both mother and midwife, “and laid him,” we are told, “in a manger, because there was no room in the inn”; a statement which on one hand, refutes the ravings of the apocryphal accounts.’159 He regarded the apocryphal writings as false, ambiguous and misleading and would have his protegées avoid them completely. We find that later official documents issued by the teaching authority of the church have been equally dismissive. Epiphanius (c. 310?–403) Bishop of Cyprus, wrote in his Panarion160 that different beliefs about Mary were ‘popular misconceptions’ that he thought could lead to ‘heretical devotion.’161 In 405 Innocent I in a letter to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse (d. 410) listed for the first time the books accepted as canonical scripture, with a stricture against the apocryphal writings, including that of ‘James the Less’ which is presumed to be the PEJ: Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon, and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra, two of Chronicles. And of the New Testament: of the Gospels four. Epistles of the apostle Paul fourteen. Epistles of John three. Epistles of Peter two. Epistle of Jude. Epistle of James. Acts of the Apostles. John’s Apocalypse. But the rest of the books, which appear under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and John (which were written by a certain Leucius), or under the name of Andrew (which were written by the philosophers Xenocharides and Leonidas), or under the name of Thomas, and 158 Jerome, Epistola 107 ad Laetam, 12. 159 Jerome, Aduersus Heluidium, 10. 160 Literally, a ‘medicine chest’ with ‘cures’ against the various poisons of the different heresies. 161 Limor (2014), 14, Limberis (1994), 117.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

whatever others there may be, you should know they are not only to be rejected but also condemned. The so-called Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome (492–496). However, it is more likely to be of sixth century South Gallic origin, but several parts can be traced back to Pope Damasus and reflect Roman tradition. Vanden Eykel quotes Vuong on ‘the irony of the text’s condemnation’: ‘The so-called Gelasian Decree is a sixth-century forgery … that claims to have been penned by Gelasius, bishop of Rome in 492–496 ce in other words, this text that condemns apocrypha is itself apocryphal.’162 The so-called Decretum Gelasianum stated: The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics.163 Among these ‘remaining writings’ written or recognised by heretics and ‘to be avoided by catholics’ was included the PEJ. The Decretum closes with the words: What also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics or schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.164 Thus did the West endeavour to obliterate the apocryphal gospels including the PEJ.165 So it seems that the PEJ along with other apocryphal writings had been condemned by the Church Fathers, and forbidden by the teaching authority of the church. (However, O’Loughlin qualifies this when he says that the condemnation of the Decretum Gelasianum ‘should not be over estimated as the actual impact of such decretals in the historical situation of the churches was far less than its significance within the memory of canon law.’ He points out in a footnote that ‘what is condemned by the Decretum Gelasianum is a work attributed to James the Younger (cf. Mk 15:40) and it is assumed that this is our text — but this is only a well founded assumption rather than a definite definition).’166 Even so, the popularity of its legends had earned the events which it purports to describe a permanent place in the stream of tradition within the church and its stories had entered the imagination of both popular piety and learned discourse and have remained there ever since.167 As one of the earliest of the more modern commentators, James Orr, remarks in the introduction to his

162 163 164 165 166 167

Vuong (2013), 12, quoted by Vanden Eykel (2016), 12. Von Dobschütz (1912), 29–60. Von Dobschütz (1912), 29–60. See O’Loughlin (2009). See Vuong (2013), 10–13. O’Loughlin (2009), 57. For just one example from the British Isles in the seventh century, see O’Loughlin, (2009a), 229–33.

55

56

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

annotated edition of the PEJ: ‘[A]part from doctrinal reasons, sufficient motive always existed in persons of lax tendency to pander to the principle of curiosity and love of the marvellous in human nature by inventions of narratives on subjects on which the genuine Gospels were silent.’168 Orr is one of the most condemnatory of commentators; more than a hundred years ago he wrote of the apocryphal gospels generally: The stories might be puerile, demoralising, ridiculous to the last degree, but if they were only circumstantial and marvellous enough, and were backed up by names of Apostles, or others of repute, the narrator could always rely on finding readers greedy enough to receive them.169 He goes on to quote Charles J. Ellicott who was even more dismissive: Their real demerits, their mendacities, their absurdities, their coarseness, the barbarities of their style and the inconsequence of their narratives, have never been excused or condoned. It would be hard to find any competent writer, in any age of the Church, who has been beguiled into saying anything civil or commendatory.170 Coming slightly nearer to our own times, nearly seventy years ago, Hans von Campenhausen described the PEJ as ‘extolling Mary’s virginity in a fantastic way.’171 Zervos condemned scholarship at the turn of the millennium as viewing the PEJ ‘as a monolithic composition written in the middle to latter part of the second century ce whose value for earlier Christology and Mariology is not worth serious consideration.’172 He advanced his own research to demonstrate the untruth of this. Amongst modern commentators John Meier is just as condemnatory as Jerome, if not more so, when he describes the apocryphal Gospels as ‘mixed bags of scattered fragments … a field of rubble, largely produced by the pious or wild imaginations of certain 2d-century Christians.’ He is even more specific about the PEJ, which he sees as ‘the pious imagination and curiosity of “popular” Christianity, verging on the novelistic’ and ‘a hilarious mishmash of the infancy stories of Matthew and Luke, with a heavy dose of novelistic folklore that betrays ignorance of the very Jewish institutions being described,’173 and ‘a wildly imaginative folk narrative that is outrageously inaccurate about things Jewish.’174 Raymond Brown wades into the argument by stating: ‘[T]he resultant Protevangelium of James is highly legendary, makes elementary mistakes about Temple procedure, and is more obviously folkloric than the canonical infancy narratives.’175 However, Tim Horner in his article on the

168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Orr, (1903), 7. Orr (1903), 8. Orr (1903), 8, quoting Ellicott (1856), 153. Von Campenhausen (1954), 41. Zervos (2002), 120. Meier (1991), 115. Meier (1991), 324. Brown (1993), 33.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

possible Jewish setting of the PEJ, reverses the argument and suggests that by reading the PEJ in connection with the Mishnah, ‘intriguing parallels’ arise — such as ‘the process by which girls become women, how they are passed from fathers to husbands and the preservation and assurance of virginity’ — and he suggests that the PEJ may actually have come from within a Jewish-Christian community.176 Meier, however, having claimed to ‘have been sitting on the beach, sorting the dragnet’ and ‘throwing the […] apocryphal gospels […] back into the sea,’177 then goes on in the accompanying Notes to state that: ‘This remark is made only with reference to the quest for the historical Jesus. All these documents have great value for the history of early Christianity in the patristic period.’178 J. N. D. Kelly concludes his revised study of early Christian doctrines by adding a short account of early Mariology in which he claims that the PEJ was ‘written for Mary’s glorification’ and describes it as ‘the work which most richly embroidered the gospel narratives’ and which ‘was destined to exert a tremendous influence on later Mariology.’179 Which comment brings us to current research into the PEJ. Vanden Eykel begins his study by describing it as ‘an influential apocryphal narrative with a complicated past,’180 which perhaps sums up the PEJ quite neatly and accurately. Today it is being revisited, not by the pious as a devotional aid or as an accurate historical text (though there are those who accept and vigorously defend the historicity of those stories, even the most improbable, contained in the PEJ), but critically by academics and theologians as a rich source of information about the beliefs of second century Christianity and how these have become part of the Christian heritage.181 Thus, although John L. McKenzie regarded it as ‘of little or no historical value,’ he also referred to it as an ‘important work’.182 And Raymond Brown, although he refers to the text of the PEJ as ‘highly legendary’183 also sees it as ‘the oldest extant commentary on the canonical Gospel narratives’184 and thus a distant forerunner of his own magisterial work. Jo Ann McNamara comments: ‘Collections of apocryphal and Gnostic writings from the second and third centuries may not yield trustworthy historical data but they do illuminate the tradition that passed through many generations. The life of Jesus’ mother was enlarged and enhanced as befitted a cult that would swell in importance over the centuries.’185 As have so many other commentators, she describes the PEJ as ‘an influential apocryphal gospel.’

176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185

Horner (2004), 313–35. Meier (1991), 140. Meier (1991), 166. Kelly (2006), 492. Vanden Eykel (2016), 1. Vuong (2013), 2–3. McKenzie (1966), 44. Brown (1993), 33. Brown (1993), 707, fn. 329. McNamara (1996), 16.

57

58

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

Rene Laurentin is another writer who differentiates between the historical value of the PEJ and the witness it bears to the beliefs of second century Christians regarding Mary’s virginity: [T]he Protoevangelium of James [is] an apocryphal gospel without historical value. I do not say … without value. The Protoevangelium of James testifies not only to great fervor towards Mary, but also to a profound insight into her holiness and her virginity. He is also appropriately critical of the tradition that she was presented in the Temple at the age of three: Yet, in spite of its antiquity (the middle of the second century), it shows (unlike our gospels), a tremendous ignorance regarding the Jewish customs and laws which were operative in the temple in Jerusalem. It is totally unlikely that a little girl of three years of age could have been reared there, let alone in the holy of holies, reserved for priests on solemn occasions.186 Although he refers to it as a ‘story book text,’ Luigi Gambero makes these similar, but uncritical, observations about the historicity of the PEJ: Obviously, works such as the Protoevangelium cannot claim the seal of divine inspiration. However, in some way they helped the first generations of Christians to intuit the truth of certain mysteries whose dogmatic formulation would later become more and more clear in the light of divine revelation; these writings also traced an itinerary through which believing people sought to draw near to the unfathomable mystery of the virgin mother … The Protoevangelium’s author, as a collector of different stories and traditions, can be considered a very early and valid witness to the Christian people’s faith in the complete holiness and virginity of the Mother of the Lord.187 The question remains: was the author of the PEJ a very early witness to the already existing faith of early Christians in ‘the complete holiness and virginity of the Mother of the Lord,’ or was he responsible for spreading and enlarging that belief? Also, was there, in second century Christianity, a causal link between ‘complete holiness’ and ‘virginity’?188 In the early church, as already mentioned, there was very little interest shown in the physical family of Jesus, and that included his mother. It was well into the second century before evidence of Christian devotion to Mary began to appear.189 Brown and the other authors of Mary in the New Testament point out the contribution of Justin:

186 Laurentin (1987), 29. 187 Gambero (1999), 40–41. 188 These are issues which Foskett, Gaventa and Vuong seek to address critically; Foskett (2002); Gaventa (1999) and Vuong (2013). 189 See Shoemaker (2016).

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

It is only with Justin Martyr, the apologist and philosopher (d. c. ce 165), that Marian themes and particularly Jesus’ virginal conception, gained some prominence in theological argument. It is possible … that Justin knew the Protoevangelium and used it. However, his interest in Mary basically serves a christological and soteriological purpose: Jesus’ birth of the virgin is, on the one hand, proof of his messiahship and, on the other, the sign of a new time.190 The Catholic Encyclopedia in 1909 offers the following lengthy critique of the PEJ: It purports to have been written by “James the brother of the Lord,” i.e. the Apostle James the Less. It is based on the canonical Gospels which it expands with legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile or fantastic. The birth, education, and marriage of the Blessed Virgin are described in the first eleven chapters and these are the source of various traditions current among the faithful. They are of value in indicating the veneration paid to Mary at a very early age. For instance it is the “Protoevangelium” which first tells that Mary was the miraculous offspring of Joachim and Anna, previously childless; that when three years old the child was taken to the Temple and dedicated to its service, in fulfilment of her parents’ vow. When Mary was twelve Joseph is chosen by the high-priest as her spouse in obedience to a miraculous sign — a dove coming out of his rod and resting on his head. The nativity is embellished in an unrestrained manner. Critics find that the “Protoevangelium” is a composite into which two or three documents enter. It was known to Origen under the name of the “Book of James”. There are signs in St Justin’s works that he was acquainted with it, or at least with a parallel tradition. The work, therefore, has been ascribed to the second century. Portions of it show a familiarity with Jewish customs, and critics have surmised that the groundwork was composed by a Jewish Christian. The “Protoevangelium” exists in ancient Greek and Syriac recensions. There are also Armenian and Latin translations.191 Again, the value of the text in witnessing to the belief of second century Christians is acknowledged, without accepting the details of the text as historical. A similar critique is offered by Butler’s Lives of the Saints: They ( Joachim and Anne) feature by name for the first time in the so-called Book of James, an apocryphal gospel about the infancy of Our Lord also known as the Protevangelium of James. This probably dates from the middle of the second century and is of no historical value. With the increasing popularity of Our Lady in the Middle Ages, however, it became a useful source for stories about her birth and early life and provided inspiration for a number of artists.192 So we see how the PEJ has evolved from being a very popular and widely dispersed imaginative text used to fill in the gaps in the canonical gospels for people hungry 190 Brown et al. (1978), 254–55. 191 http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view. 192 Butler’s Lives of the Saints, (2000), 208.

59

60

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

for more knowledge about their new beliefs, to being denigrated and condemned by theologians and church fathers for its ‘fabrications’ and ‘idle imaginings,’ to being, at least in the West, all-but forgotten as a text, even while its detailed scenes were cherished in liturgy and popular art and piety, and especially as a foundation for the wilder flights of fancy of some of the later mystics, to being rediscovered and then reinstated as a ‘valuable source’ of information about the beliefs of the early church and their influence on later centuries, now studied critically and analytically by theologians. Gambero comments: ‘Notwithstanding the limits and shortcomings that a work of this genre exhibits, we must recognize that it cast an undeniable spell over the Christian mentality of the first centuries and that it has profoundly conditioned Christian liturgy, preaching, popular devotion and art.’193 Although its various scenes such as the Presentation of Mary in the Temple, and the Conception and Nativity of Mary, were known and celebrated liturgically long before, the body of the text was not widely known in the West until it was translated into Latin, by Guillaume Postel in 1552, although the Greek text which he used has since been lost. So we see that the influence wielded by the PEJ had long been familiar in the West, although lacking textual transmission until much later, and its influence was conveyed mainly through the medium of the liturgy. Vanden Eykel comments that the great number of extant Greek manuscripts of the PEJ are liturgical evidence that the text was ‘a regular part of Christian worship,’194 while Mary Cunningham observes that: ‘By the early eighth century at the latest, the Protevangelion had achieved full acceptance in the Byzantine liturgical and theological traditions.’195

The Underlying Theological Principles of the PEJ: Christology versus Mariology? The theological principles upon which the PEJ is based, taken from the account this text gives of the early life of Mary, are those of divine election and heavenly favour, predestination, exclusion, separation, elitism, and the overwhelming importance of ritual purity, especially of virginity;196 all values which run completely counter to the gospel preached by Jesus. This has been an issue debatable and open to question since disputes around the teaching of Helvidius and Jovinian in the fifth century; Hunter comments regarding the valuing of virginity over marriage: ‘Any ascetic piety that would depreciate marriage, in Helvidius’ view, is false both because it fosters an elitist distinction within the church and because it introduces an unhealthy

193 Gambero (1999), 35. This statement reveals the mixed message in this situation; the details of Mary’s life were regarded as ‘factual’ and accepted; but the authority of the apocryphal gospels was seen as suspect. 194 Vanden Eykel (2016), 13. 195 Cunningham (2011), 167. 196 O’Loughlin comments: ‘Throughout the PEJ the basic religious categories of the pure/impure are at work.’ O’Loughlin (2009), 63.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

theological pessimism into its appraisal of creation and the works of creation.’197 On the issue of elitism within the church and its effects Hunter also comments: ‘Jovinian revived Helvidius’ two primary concerns, that is, the opposition to the formation of an ascetic elite in the church and resistance to the ascetic devaluation of creation and human sexuality.’198 The undue emphasis placed upon Mary’s virginity in partu and post partum, both derived from the PEJ and developed and emphasized by doctors and church teachers, is crucial to the way in which virginity was subsequently held up as an ideal to be imitated by all Christian women, and most especially by monastic women as part of their lives of asceticism. The upholding of Mary’s perpetual virginity influenced the lives of Christian women because it was championed by teachers in the church in their defence against those whom they saw to be heretics. Jerome’s refutation of Helvidius and Jovinian was particularly influential in this regard. In the year 383 Jerome was approached by a group of Christians in Rome and asked to respond in writing to a treatise by Helvidius. ‘The result was the first treatise in Christian history devoted solely to defending the perpetual virginity of Mary.’199 Hunter comments: Helvidius saw that an emphasis on Mary as ever-virgin resulted in a symbol that was essentially exclusive: Mary as a model for virgins, not for all Christians.200 Helvidius argued that to emphasise Mary’s virginity in partu and post partum within her marriage was to denigrate human sexuality and procreation as something somehow unclean, a critique which would lead ultimately to a denial of the reality of the Incarnation because it denied the goodness and holiness of the creation itself. This theological approach was to encourage ascetic elitism by denying the goodness of the created world in which so-called ‘ordinary’ people lived and it did nothing at all to enhance the position of women within the Church Although Jerome castigated Helvidius and Jovinian as heretics (though Helvidius was never formally condemned as such) Hunter marshals evidence to demonstrate that theirs may have been a view widely held in the fourth century. Hunter sums up the PEJ when he describes it as a ‘puzzling text’ whose ‘high Mariology stands at a variance with the sort of concerns evidenced by other second century sources such as Justin and Irenaeus.’201 The theological principles which underpin this text have even more far-reaching consequences. In its aversion to a real and genuine humanity for Mary, it brings into question the reality of the Incarnation. While some commentators have seen the PEJ as simply attempting to glorify Mary, others have regarded the text as ‘Christological’202

197 Hunter (1993), 50. Hunter (1993) 51. 198 Hunter (1993) 51. Unfortunately, both Helvidius and Jovinian were regarded as heretics themselves (though Helvidius was never formally condemned). 199 See Hunter (1987, 1993, 2007). 200 Hunter (1993), 49. 201 Hunter (1993), 64. 202 Brown concludes that ‘we are not seeing here a mariology where Mary is treated for her own sake … but a working out of Christology.’ Brown (1993), 583.

61

62

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

rather than Mariological in its focus, but if this is true, this text introduces a denial of the genuineness of Christ’s Incarnation, by asserting a dichotomy between the human and the divine where what is ‘human,’ ‘natural,’ ‘bodily’ is seen to be bad; what is ‘spiritual,’ ‘supernatural,’ ‘disembodied’ is understood to be good and holy. That this is a position taken by early Syriac writers203 strengthens the case for a Syrian origin for this text, but cannot prove it conclusively. Hunter also comments on this issue: ‘Helvidius also argued that the rejection of Mary’s marital life rested on an essentially negative evaluation of human sexuality and procreation, one which led ultimately to a denial of the goodness of creation itself. Echoing earlier anti-heretical writers, Helvidius maintained that to deny the goodness of creation leads logically to a denial of the Incarnation itself and to the heresy of Docetism.’204

The Impact of the PEJ on Christian Tradition and Culture The PEJ has influenced Christian tradition more than any other text outside the New Testament, an influence out of all proportion to its very modest size. It has determined new liturgical feasts, had a profound effect on Mariology, given birth to new doctrines, invented new saints, has greatly influenced the iconographic tradition, has profoundly changed the status of women in the Christian church and has helped to produce a ‘two-tier’ Christianity where virginity and celibacy have been seen as superior to marriage and child-bearing. The pictorial images to which the PEJ gave rise have been almost as influential as the text itself, particularly in the iconographic forms found in the Eastern churches. The novel ideas discussed above in this introduction which can be identified in the PEJ were being spread throughout the Church by means of the various liturgical feasts which have their origin in this text, in spite of the fact of it being regarded with disfavour by the Gelasian Decretal and by many doctors and teachers in the Church. In the course of the sanctoral cycle, the Marian feasts of her Nativity (September 8), the Presentation of Mary in the Temple (November 21) and the Immaculate Conception (December 8), owe their existence entirely to the PEJ, as do also the celebration of Joachim and Anna (her parents, according to the text) on July 26 and the former feast of the Betrothal/Espousals of Mary and Joseph (celebrated on January 23 by some religious Orders before the 1969 revision of the liturgical year). The feasts of Christmas (December 25) and Holy Innocents (December 28) also owe some details both theological and interpretive to the PEJ. The widespread distribution both of so many different translations of the text and of the artefacts which illustrate its various scenes bears witness to the influence exerted by the PEJ, both in the aspect of time — through the centuries, and in the aspect of place — right across the Christian world. According to these criteria, it has been, and remains, one of the most enduringly influential texts in Christian

203 Hunt (2012). 204 Hunter (1993), 50.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

history. Shoemaker would actually go so far as to credit the apocryphal gospels with ‘having a quasi-canonical status.’205 So, while the church may have officially regarded the apocryphal texts with disapproval and perhaps even downright condemnation, the influence these texts have had on ‘the faith which the church believes’ has been incalculable and of no apocryphal text is this more true than of the PEJ. It seems probable that the specific name of the text would be recognised by very few people today, even if they are perhaps dimly aware of the stories it presents. It is the earliest non-canonical text which bears witness to a growing devotional interest in Mary and the supposed events of her early life. Bradshaw and Johnson find evidence of a liturgical cult of Mary developing surprisingly early and attribute this at least in part to the PEJ. However, Von Campenhausen takes a slightly different stance and claims that the church in the early centuries had ‘no thematic theological concern with Mary’s person’206 but he reckons that there is, first of all in the East, ‘a new approach to the primitive witness, less … in pure theology than in popular piety.’207 He claims that ‘there does actually begin here something decisively new that points to the future’ and he attributes this trend to the popular influence of the PEJ,208 although he sees the text as ‘fantasy’ and ‘fantastic.’ Vasiliki Limberis corroborates this view of the spread of devotion to Mary more as popular piety, rather than doctrinal statements of the church: ‘What is most interesting is that very few Patristic authors allowed the apocryphal tales to influence their doctrinal writing until late in the fourth century. Marian piety, however, was spreading in spite of the Church during this period.’209 Cartlidge and Elliott make the significant comment that there is hardly any artistic representation of Mary which has not been influenced by the PEJ and also the other apocryphal texts to which it has given birth and so ‘the iconic version of these gospels puts a visual and therefore very decisive stamp upon the way in which the church saw the Virgin in its theology.’210 Depictions of Mary inspired by the PEJ are to be found even outside Christianity, in particular in Islamic art, as is shown by an article by Heba Abdel Naby, which article traces Christian influence generally, and that of the apocryphal gospels and the PEJ in particular on the artistic tradition of Islam. This article develops specifically research on the way the Virgin Mary is represented in Islamic art during the Ayyubid Dynasty of the twelfth/thirteenth century and both in text and illustrations shows direct influence from the PEJ.211 We also see confirmed from remaining artefacts such as icons, paintings, sculptures, ivories, frescos, carved crosses, miniatures, Books of Hours, textiles and manuscripts that the influence of the PEJ had spread in the West as far as the shores of the Atlantic, possibly as far as the banks of the Euphrates in the East and from the snows of Russia in the North to the sands of Egypt and the mountains of Ethiopia in the South. 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

Shoemaker (2010), 155. Von Campenhausen (1954), 7. Von Campenhausen (1954), 53. Von Campenhausen (1954), 54. Limberis (1994), 146. Cartlidge and Elliott (2001), 41. Abdel Naby (2018), 20–41.

63

64

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

Through artistic representations of every possible kind, the PEJ’s expression of the events of Mary’s life and the attendant theology, have been dispersed throughout Christendom from the earliest times, and through the centuries these have informed and shaped the belief and devotion of countless millions by means of the PEJ’s pictorial mode as well as its written and oral form. In earlier ages, many who were illiterate, learned what they believed to be Mariological truths from looking at these images, particularly when these took the form of stained glass windows or statues in churches, and they incorporated them into their prayer and devotion from Books of Hours. The same process is at work throughout Europe by means of churches and cathedrals through the centuries down to modern times. In its emphasis on the ritual defilement of women’s menstrual uncleanness,212 which even affected someone as pure as Mary, and of her consequent exclusion from the sacred, the PEJ has had a direct and negative influence on Western Christianity’s hesitancy, especially that of Rome and Orthodoxy, regarding the possibility of women’s ordination to the presbyterate or to any positions of leadership in the church. This is clearly at odds with the situation which we find in Paul’s letters, where women are active and influential in ministry. In the author’s effort to remove Mary from the sacred precincts of the Temple before she can pollute or defile the holy place by attaining womanhood, he completely removes her from the world of living women, and so removes from women themselves the possibility of presbyteral ordination, because that same womanhood has now become something shameful, polluting and degrading, something which precludes them from entering a holy place. Warner comments very rightly on this: ‘[A] dualistic distaste for the material world reinforces the ideal of virginity; and an undiminished certainty that women are subordinate to men continues to make the priesthood of women unacceptable.’213 Thus does she show the connection between the negative, life-denying stance of the PEJ and the unacceptability of women’s ordination. McNamara reinforces this with her comment: ‘the natural pollution of the female body rendered women ineligible to participate in the sacrifice of the altar.’214

The Ascetic Theology of the Protevangelium As we have seen, Mary has, since very early in Christian imagination, been held up as a model for all women, but the whole question of Mary’s influence is very complex. It has given rise to ascetic tendencies within Christian theology which have more in common with Gnosticism than with the example and teaching of Jesus. When Mary is set as an example for all women, her traditional role as both virgin and mother becomes problematic and contradictory. In the PEJ she is both virgin and mother, but her marriage and her motherhood are far removed from those of

212 That which Børreson refers to as ‘the cultic incapacity of femaleness’ (Børreson [2002], 210). 213 Warner (1976), 338. 214 McNamara (1976), 146.

the p l ac e o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n chri st i an me mo ry

other women. Her marriage to Joseph is in name only; he is her ‘guardian’ not her husband. She both conceives and gives birth without the loss of her virginity and she is presented relentlessly throughout the narrative as completely asexual. But for other women, marriage and childbearing of necessity imply sexuality and procreation. With regard to this physicality, there had been various attitudes towards the body among the followers of Jesus and then among Christians. Judaism had always had a high regard for marriage as sharing with God in the act of creation, and Christianity inherited this ideal. In the first-century, the mainstream opinion among the followers of Jesus seems to have been to regard those who rejected marriage as heretical. These seem to have maintained the Jewish notion that procreation was a participation in God’s own act of creation and was therefore good and holy. In Jewish thought, the day of a man’s marriage was the greatest day of his life. This is reflected in the story of the marriage feast at Cana,215 and other positive references to marriage and weddings in the canonical gospels where Jesus used the image of the wedding feast frequently in parables illustrating the kingdom of God. Later second-century Christian writers, too, saw marriage in a positive light and had a negative regard for those who rejected marriage and sexuality as suspect and saw them as heretical.216 Hellenistic culture, on the other hand, supported an ideal of sexuality which was very different from that of Judaism: [T]he doctors hastened to add a significant note of caution for the male… Frequent sexual activity was frowned upon. It decreased the fertility of the male seed and hence the father’s chance of children… The most virile man was the man who had kept most of his vital spirit — the one, that is, who lost little or no seed.217 Thus, philosophers such as Plato and doctors such as Soranus and Galen taught that sexual activity was dangerous to health: ‘Men who remain chaste are stronger and better than others and pass their lives in better health.’218 The Stoics taught that the only valid reason for sexual intercourse was to produce offspring.219 The critique of celibacy as heretical which we find in such early documents as 1 Tim can be viewed as the early suspicion of this Hellenistic ideal; the Gnostics in particular, having a dualistic concept of creation, saw celibacy and the rejection of the ‘works of the flesh’ as good and were therefore opposed by mainline Christians.220 However, as awareness of the difference between Christianity and Greek culture subsided, so celibacy and virginity became gradually more and more acceptable, eventually becoming seen as a ‘higher’ state than that of marriage, probably to a large degree, through the influence of the PEJ. The idea that marriage and sexuality are inferior states before God becomes explicit in writers such as Jerome and Augustine, 215 John 2:1–11. 216 See 1 Tim 4:3: ‘They forbid marriage and prohibit foods which God created to be accepted with thanksgiving.’ 217 Brown (1988), 18–19. 218 Brown (1988), 19. See also Ranke-Heinemann (1990), 9–20. 219 Brown (1988), 21. 220 For Gnosticism, see Perkins (1990), 371–76; also O’Loughlin (2005), 323–25.

65

66

the p l ace o f t h e p rot e van g e l i u m i n c hri st i an me mo ry

who relegated married Christians to the rank of second class citizens in the kingdom of God. Thus ‘the body,’ and specifically sexuality, came to be seen as dangerous to the life of the spirit and the Christian life was understood as waging war against ‘the passions’. The arguments in favour of celibacy and virginity were undergirded by a body/spirit dualism which owed much to Gnosticism where the body was seen as ‘bad’ and the spirit opposed this as ‘good.’221 Throughout the Hellenistic tradition found in the PEJ which encompassed both Gnosticism and Stoicism there was a persistent suspicion of the body which was deeply influential in the Christian ascetic tradition of virginity and celibacy.

Conclusion This introduction shows how the PEJ has influenced the beliefs of early Christians and how so many of those beliefs have survived the centuries and are still with us today. If the suggestion that it might have been originally intended as a satire is correct, then so much of the influence it has wielded through the centuries has been founded on an illusion. But we have to admit: the Protevangelium of James is still a total conundrum: there is so much about it that we do not know and which is open to surmise. Its author is unknown, its date, provenance, purpose and genre we can only guess at. While agreeing with most commentators that we cannot decide with certainty on any of the questions surrounding the PEJ, the possibility has been examined in this commentary that the author was deliberately writing a novelised ‘variation on a (gospel) theme’; possibly to satirise, possibly to entertain, possibly to amuse his readers as the novel was a popular literary form in the second century. One of the most prolific writers and satirists was Lucian of Samosata who wrote novels satirising Christianity. One of the most widely known novels was The Acts of Paul and Thecla, which Goodspeed has described as ‘a religious romance.’222 Another popular tale was Joseph and Aseneth which has links to Syria. Both of these narratives have been dated as roughly contemporaneous with the PEJ. However, even if this text is understood as a quasi-satirical novel, there are much deeper theological issues swirling round behind the text itself as it stands, which have, even today, not been fully recognised or addressed. Although so vastly influential, it continues to conceal its secrets even today.

221 Cunneen comments on this issue: ‘In presenting sexual renunciation as an ideal, Christianity had made a significant break with Judaism as well as with the pagan world’ Cuneen (1996), 77. 222 Goodspeed (1901), 185–90, 185.

Text and Translation

Text

1.  Ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, ἦν Ἰωακεὶμ πλούσιος σφόδρα, καὶ προσέφερε κυρίῳ τὰ δῶρα αὐτοῦ διπλᾶ λέγων ἐν ἑαυτῷ· Ἔσται τὸ τῆς περισσείας μου ἅπαντι τῷ λαῷ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀφέσεως κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ εἰς ἱλασμὸν ἐμοί. Ἤγγισεν δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα κυρίου ἡ μεγάλη, καὶ προσέφερον οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ τὰ δῶρα αὐτῶν. καὶ ἔστη κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ Ῥουβὶμ λέγων· Οὐκ ἔξεστί σοι πρώτῳ ἐνεγκεῖν τὰ δῶρά σου, καθότι σπέρμα οὐκ ἐποίησας ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ. Καὶ ἐλυπήθη Ἰωακεὶμ σφόδρα, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὴν δωδεκάφυλον τοῦ λαοῦ λέγων ἐν ἑαυτῷ· Θεάσομαι τὴν δωδεκάφυλον τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, εἰ ἐγὼ μόνος οὐκ ἐποίησα σπέρμα ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ. καὶ ἠρεύνησε, καὶ εὗρεν πάντας τοὺς δικαίους ὅτι σπέρμα ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ ἀνέστησαν. καὶ ἐμνήσθη τοῦ πατριάρχου Ἀβραάμ, ὅτι ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ αὐτοῦ ἡμέρᾳ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κύριος ὁ θεὸς υἱὸν τὸν Ἰσαάκ. Καὶ ἐλυπήθη Ἰωακεὶμ σφόδρα καὶ οὐκ ἐφάνη τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον καὶ ἔπηξεν τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖ. καὶ ἐνήστευσεν τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας καὶ νύκτας τεσσαράκοντα, λέγων ἐν ἑαυτῷ Ἰωακείμ· Οὐ καταβήσομαι οὔτε ἐπὶ βρωτὸν οὔτε ἐπὶ ποτόν, ἕως ἐπισκέψηταί με κύριος ὁ θεός μου· καὶ ἔσται μου ἡ εὐχὴ βρώματα καὶ πόματα. 2.  Ἡ δὲ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ Ἄννα δύο θρήνους ἐθρήνει καὶ δύο κοπετοὺς ἐκόπτετο λέγουσα· Κόψομαι τὴν χηροσύνην μου καὶ κόψομαι τὴν ἀτεκνίαν μου. Ἤγγισεν δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα κυρίου ἡ μεγάλη. καὶ εἶπεν Ἰουθίνη ἡ παιδίσκη αὐτῆς πρὸς αὐτήν· Ἕως πότε ταπεινοῖς τὴν ψυχην σου; Ἰδοὺ ἤγγισε ἡ ἡμέρα κυρίου ἡ μεγάλη, καὶ οὐκ ἔξεστί σοι πενθεῖν· ἀλλὰ λάβε τοῦτο τὸ κεφαλοδέσμιον, ὃ ἔδωκέν μοι ἡ κυρία τοῦ ἔργου, καὶ οὐκ ἔξεστί μοι δήσασθαι αὐτό, καθότι παιδίσκη εἰμὶ σὴ καὶ χαρακτῆρα ἔχει βασιλικόν. Καὶ εἶπεν Ἄννα· Ἀπόστηθι ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ. καὶ ταῦτα οὐκ ἐποίησα, καὶ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἐταπείνωσέν με σφόδρα. μήπως τοῦτο πανοῦργος ἔδωκέν σοι, καὶ ἦλθες κοινωνῆσαί με τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ σου. Καὶ εἶπεν Ἰουθίνη ἡ παιδίσκη· Τί ἀράσωμαί σε, καθότι οὐκ ἤκουσας τῆς φωνῆς μου; ἀπέκλεισεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὴν μήτραν σου, τοῦ μὴ δοῦναί σοι καρπὸν ἐν Ἰσραήλ. Καὶ ἐλυπήθη Ἄννα σφόδρα, καὶ περιείλετο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῆς τὰ πενθικὰ καὶ ἀπεσμήξατο τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς καὶ ἐνεδύσατο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῆς τὰ νυμφικά, καὶ περὶ ὥραν ἐνάτην κατέβη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον αὐτῆς τοῦ περιπατῆσαι. καὶ εἶδεν δαφνιδέαν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ὑποκάτω αὐτῆς, καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀναπαύσασθαι ἐλιτάνευσεν τὸν δεσπότην λέγουσα· Ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων μου, εὐλόγησόν με καὶ ἐπάκουσον

Translation

1.  In the ‘Histories of the Twelve Tribes of Israel’ Joachim was a very rich man, and he brought all his gifts to the Lord twofold, saying to himself, ‘What I bring in excess shall be for the whole people, and what I bring as a sin-offering shall be for the Lord God, as a propitiation for me.’ Now the Great Day of the Lord drew near, and the sons of Israel were bringing their gifts. And Reubel stood up in front of him and said, ‘It is not lawful for you to offer your gifts first, because you have begotten no offspring in Israel.’ Then Joachim became very sad, and went to the [record-book of the] twelve tribes of the people and said, to himself, ‘I will look in the register to see whether I am the only one who has not begotten offspring in Israel,’ and he searched and found that all the righteous had raised up offspring in Israel. And he remembered the patriarch Abraham to whom in his last days the Lord God gave a son, Isaac. And Joachim was very sad, and did not show himself to his wife, but went into the wilderness; there he pitched his tent and fasted there forty days and forty nights, and said to himself: I Joachim shall not go down either for food or for drink until the Lord my God visits me; my prayer shall be food and drink.1 2.  Anna his wife sang two dirges and gave voice to a twofold lament: ‘I will mourn my widowhood, and grieve for my childlessness.’ Now the Great Day of the Lord drew near, and Euthine her maid said to her ‘How long do you intend to humble your soul; I behold the Great Day of the Lord is near and it is not lawful for you to mourn. But take this headband, which the mistress of work gave me; it is not right for me to wear it because I am your servant and it bears a royal cipher.’ But Anna said, ‘Get away from me! I shall never do these things. The Lord God has greatly humbled me. Who knows whether a deceiver did not give it to you, and you have come to make me share in your sin!’ Euthine, the slave answered, ‘Why should I curse you because you did not hear my voice? The Lord God has shut up your womb2 to give you no fruit in Israel.’ And Anna was very sad, but she took off her mourning garments, washed her head, put on her bridal garments, and about the ninth hour went into her garden to walk there. And she saw a laurel tree and sat down beneath it and implored the Master



1 cf. John 4:34. 2 cf. Gen. 20:18; 1 Sam. 1:5.

70

te xt

τῆς δεήσεώς μου, καθὼς εὐλόγησας τὴν μητέρα Σάραν καὶ ἔδωκας αὐτῇ υἱὸν τὸν Ἰσαάκ. 3.  Καὶ ἠτένισεν Ἄννα εἰς οὐρανόν, καὶ εἶδεν καλιὰν στρουθῶν ἐν τῇ δαφνιδέᾳ. καὶ εὐθέως ἐποίησεν θρῆνον Ἄννα ἐν αὑτῇ λέγουσα · Οἴμοι, τίς με ἐγέννησεν; ποία δὲ μήτρα ἐξέφυσέν με; ὅτι ἐγὼ κατάρα ἐγεννήθην ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. καὶ ὠνειδίσθην καὶ ἐμυκτήρισαν καὶ ἐξώρισάν με ἐκ ναοῦ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ μου. Οἴμοι, τίνι ὡμοιώθην ἐγώ; οὐχ ὡμοιώθην ἐγὼ τοῖς πετεινοῖς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὅτι καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ γόνιμά ἐστιν ἐνώπιόν σου, κύριε. Οἴμοι, τίνι ὡμοιώθην ἐγώ; οὐχ ὡμοιώθην ἐγὼ τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζῴοις, ὅτι καὶ τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα γόνιμά εἰσιν ἐνώπιόν σου, κύριε. Οἴμοι, τίνι ὡμοιώθην ἐγώ; οὐχ ὡμοιώθην ἐγὼ τοῖς θηρίοις τῆς γῆς, ὅτι καὶ τὰ θηρία τῆς γῆς γόνιμά εἰσιν ἐνώπιόν σου, κύριε. Οἴμοι, τίνι ὡμοιώθην ἐγώ; οὐχ ὡμοιώθην ἐγὼ τοῖς ὕδασιν τούτοις, ὅτι καὶ τὰ ὕδατα ταῦτα γαληνιῶντα καὶ σκιρτῶντα καὶ οἱ ἰχθύες αὐτῶν σε εὐλογοῦσιν, κύριε. Οἴμοι, τίνι ὡμοιώθην ἐγώ; οὐχ ὡμοιώθην ἐγὼ τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ, ὅτι καὶ ἡ γῆ προσφέρει τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς κατὰ καιρὸν καί σε εὐλογεῖ, κύριε. 4.  Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐπέστη λέγων· Ἄννα Ἄννα, ἐπήκουσεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῆς δεήσεώς σου. συλλήψει καὶ γεννήσεις καὶ λαληθήσεται τὸ σπέρμα σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ. Καὶ εἶπεν Ἄννα· Ζῇ κύριος ὁ θεός· ἐὰν γεννήσω εἴτε ἄρσενα εἴτε θήλειαν, προσάξω αὐτὸ δῶρον κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ μου, καὶ ἔσται λειτουργῶν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθον ἄγγελοι δύο λέγοντες αὐτῇ· Ἰδοὺ Ἰωακεὶμ ὁ ἀνήρ σου ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν ποιμνίων αὐτοῦ. ἄγγελος γὰρ κυρίου κατέβη πρὸς Ἰωακεὶμ λέγων· Ἰωακεὶμ Ἰωακείμ, ἐπήκουσεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῆς δεήσεώς σου· κατάβηθι ἐντεῦθεν· ἰδοὺ ἡ γυνή σου Ἄννα ἐν γαστρὶ εἴληφεν. Καὶ εὐθέως κατέβη Ἰωακεὶμ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τοὺς ποιμένας λέγων αὐτοῖς· Φέρετέ μοι ὧδε δέκα ἀμνάδας ἀσπίλους καὶ ἀμώμους, καὶ ἔσονται αἱ δέκα ἀμνάδες κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ· καὶ φέρετέ μοι δώδεκα μόσχους ἁπαλούς, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δώδεκα μόσχοι τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν καὶ τῇ γερουσίᾳ· καὶ ἑκατὸν χιμάρους, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ ἑκατὸν χίμαροι παντὶ τῷ λαῷ. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἥκει Ἰωακεὶμ μετὰ τῶν ποιμνίων αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἔστη Ἄννα πρὸς τῇ πύλῃ καὶ εἶδεν Ἰωακεὶμ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν ποιμνίων αὐτοῦ καὶ εὐθὺς ἔδραμεν καὶ ἐκρέμασεν αὑτὴν εἰς τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ Ἄννα λέγουσα· Νῦν οἶδα ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεὸς εὐλόγησέν με σφόδρα· ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἡ χήρα οὐκέτι χήρα, καὶ ἡ ἄτεκνος ἰδοὺ ἐν γαστρὶ εἴληφα. Καὶ ἀνεπαύσατο Ἰωακεὶμ τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ.

t ranslat i o n

saying, ‘O God of our fathers, bless me and heed my prayer, just as you blessed the womb of Sarah and gave her a son, Isaac.’3 3.  And Anna sighed towards heaven and saw a nest of sparrows in the laurel tree and straightaway Anna sang a dirge to herself: ‘Woe is me, who gave me life? What womb brought me forth? For I was born a curse before them all and before the sons of Israel, And I was reproached, and they mocked me and thrust me out of the temple of the Lord my God. Woe is me, to what am I likened? I am not likened to the birds of the heaven; for even the birds of the heaven are fruitful before you, O Lord. Woe is me, to what am I likened? I am not likened to the dumb animals, because even the dumb animals are fruitful before you, O Lord. Woe is me, to what am I likened? I am not likened to the beasts of the earth; for even the beasts of the earth are fruitful and move before you, O Lord. Woe is me, to what am I likened? I am not likened to these waters; for even these waters are tranquil and their fish bless you, O Lord. Woe is me, to what am I likened? I am not likened to this earth; for even this earth brings forth its fruit in its season4 and praises you, O Lord.’ 4.  And behold an angel of the Lord appeared to her and said, ‘Anna, Anna, the Lord God has heard your prayer. You shall conceive and bear,5 and your offspring shall be spoken of in the whole world.’ And Anna said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I bear a child, whether male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord God, and it shall serve him all the days of its life.’6 And behold there came two angels, who said to her, ‘Behold, Joachim your husband is coming with his flocks and his shepherd and sheep and goats and oxen for an angel of the Lord had come down to him and said to Joachim, “Joachim, Joachim, the Lord God has heard your prayer. Go down from here; behold, your wife Anna shall conceive.”’ And Joachim went down immediately and called his herdsmen and said to them, ‘Bring me here ten lambs without blemish and without spot; the ten lambs shall be for the Lord my God. And bring me twelve tender calves and the twelve calves shall be for the priests and council of elders, and a hundred young goats for the whole people.’ And, behold, Joachim came with his flocks, and Anna stood at the gate and saw Joachim coming and ran immediately and threw her arms around his neck saying, ‘Now I know that the Lord God has greatly blessed me; for behold the widow is no longer a widow, and I, who was childless, shall conceive.’ And Joachim rested the first day in his house.



3 4 5 6

cf. Gen. 21:1–3. cf. Ps. 1:3. cf. Luke 1:13. cf. 1 Sam. 2:11 (1:28).

71

72

te xt

5.  Τῇ δὲ ἐπαύριον ἔφερεν τὰ δῶρα αὐτοῦ λέγων ἐν ἑαυτῷ· Ἐὰν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἱλασθῇ μοι, τὸ πέταλον τοῦ ἱερέως φανερόν μοι ποιήσει. καὶ προσέφερεν τὰ δῶρα αὐτοῦ Ἰωακεὶμ καὶ προσεῖχε τῷ πετάλῳ τοῦ ἱερέως ἕως ἐπέβη ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον κυρίου, καὶ οὐκ εἶδεν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ εἶπεν Ἰωακείμ· Νῦν οἶδα ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἱλάσθη μοι καὶ ἀφῆκέν μοι πάντα τὰ ἁμαρτήματά μου. καὶ κατέβη ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ κυρίου δεδικαιωμένος, καὶ ἥκει ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ἐπληρώθησαν οἱ μῆνες αὐτῇς· τῷ δὲ ἐνάτῳ μηνὶ ἐγέννησεν Ἄννα καὶ εἶπεν τῇ μαίᾳ· Τί ἐγέννησα; Καὶ εἶπεν ἡ μαῖα· Θήλειαν. Καὶ εἶπεν Ἄννα· Ἐμεγαλύνθη ἡ ψυχή μου τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην. καὶ ἀνέκλινεν αὐτήν. Πληρωθεισῶν δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀπεσμήξατο ἡ Ἄννα τῆς ἀφέδρου αὐτῆς καὶ ἔδωκε μαστὸν τῇ παιδὶ καὶ ὠνόμασεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Μαρία. 6.  Ἡμέρᾳ δὲ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκραταιοῦτο ἡ παῖς· γενομένης δὲ αὐτῆς ἑξαμήνου ἔστησεν αὐτὴν ἡ μήτηρ αὐτῆς χαμαί, διαπειρᾶσαι εἰ ἵσταται. καὶ ἑπτὰ βήματα περιπατήσασα ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς. καὶ ἀνήρπασεν αὐτὴν ἡ μήτηρ αὐτῆς λέγουσα· Ζῇ κύριος ὁ θεός μου, οὐ μὴ περιπατήσῃς ἐν τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ ἕως σε ἀπάξω ἐν τῷ ναῷ κυρίου. Καὶ ἐποίησεν ἁγίασμα ἐν τῷ κοιτῶνι αὐτῆς, καὶ πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον οὐκ εἴα διέρχεσθαι δι’ αὐτῆς. καὶ ἐκάλεσε τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν Ἑβραίων τὰς ἀμιάντους, καὶ διεπλάνων αὐτήν. Ἐγένετο δὲ πρῶτος ἐνιαντὸς τῇ παιδί, καὶ ἐποίησεν Ἰωακεὶμ δοχὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐκάλεσε τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἱερεῖς καὶ τοὺς γραμματεῖς καὶ τὴν γερουσίαν καὶ ὅλον τὸν λαὸν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. καὶ προσήνεγκεν τὴν παῖδα Ἰωακεὶμ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν, καὶ ηὐλόγησαν αὐτὴν λέγοντες· Ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, εὐλόγησον τὴν παῖδα ταύτην καὶ δὸς αὐτῇ ὄνομα ὀνομαστὸν αἰώνιον ἐν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς. Καὶ εἶπεν πᾶς ὁ λαός· Γένοιτο, ἀμήν. Καὶ προσήνεγκεν αὐτὴν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν, καὶ εὐλόγησαν αὐτὴν λέγοντες· Ὁ θεὸς τῶν ὑψωμάτων, ἐπίβλεψον ἐπὶ τὴν παῖδα ταύτην καὶ εὐλόγησον αὐτὴν ἐσχάτην εὐλογίαν ἥτις διαδοχὴν οὐκ ἔχει. Καὶ ἀνήρπασεν αὐτὴν ἡ μήτηρ αὐτῆς ἐν τῷ ἁγιάσματι τοῦ κοιτῶνος καὶ ἔδωκε μαστὸν τῇ παιδί. καὶ ἐποίησεν ᾆσμα κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ Ἄννα λέγουσα· Ἄισω ᾠδὴν ἁγίαν κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ μου, ὅτι ἐπεσκέψατό με καὶ ἀφεῖλεν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ὀνειδισμὸν τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου· καὶ ἔδωκέν μοι κύριος ὁ θεός μου καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ μονοούσιον πολυπλάσιον ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. τίς ἀγγελεῖ τοῖς υἱοῖς Ῥουβὴλ ὅτι Ἄννα θηλάζει; ἀκούσατε ἀκούσατε, αἱ δώδεκα φυλαὶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, ὅτι Ἄννα θηλάζει. Καὶ ἀνέπαυσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῷ κοιτῶνι τοῦ ἁγιάσματος, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν καὶ διηκόνει αὐτοῖς. τελεσθέντος δὲ τοῦ δείπνου κατέβησαν εὐφραινόμενοι καὶ ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν Ἰσραήλ. καὶ ἐπέθηκαν αὐτῇ ὄνομα Μαρίαν διότι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς οὐ μαρανθήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 7.  Τῇ δὲ παιδὶ προσετίθεντο οἱ μῆνες αὐτῆς. ἐγένετο δὲ διετὴς ἡ παῖς, καὶ εἶπεν Ἰωακείμ· Ἀνάξωμεν αὐτὴν ἐν ναῷ κυρίου ὅπως ἀποδῶμεν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν ἣν ἐπηγγειλάμεθα, μήπως ἀποστείλῃ ὁ δεσπότης ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀπρόσδεκτον ἔσται τὸ δῶρον ἡμῶν.

t ranslat i o n

5.  The next day he offered his gifts, saying to himself, ‘If the Lord God is gracious to me the frontlet of the priest will make it clear to me.’ And Joachim offered his gifts and observed the priest’s frontlet when he went up to the altar of the Lord; and he saw no sin in himself. And Joachim said, ‘Now I know that the Lord God is gracious to me and has forgiven all my sins.’ And he came down from the temple of the Lord justified, and went to his house. And her months were fulfilled; in the ninth month Anna gave birth. And she said to the midwife, ‘What have I brought forth?’ And she said, ‘A female.’ And Anna said, ‘My soul is magnified this day.’ And she lay her down. And when the days were completed, Anna purified herself and gave suck to the child, and called her Mary. 6.  Day by day the child grew strong; when she was six months old her mother set her on the ground to see if she could stand. And she walked seven steps and came to her mother’s bosom. And her mother took her up saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, you shall not walk of upon this earth until I bring you into the temple of the Lord.’ And she made a sanctuary in her bedroom and did not permit anything common or unclean to pass through her. And she summoned the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews, and they served her. On the child’s first birthday Joachim made a great feast, and invited the chief priests and the priests and the scribes and the elders and all the people of Israel. And Joachim brought the child to the priests, and they blessed her saying, ‘O God of our fathers, bless this child and give her a name eternally renowned among all generations.’ And all the people said, ‘So be it, so be it, Amen.’ And he brought her to the chief priests, and they blessed her saying, ‘O God of the heavenly heights, look upon this child and bless her with a supreme blessing which cannot be superseded.’ And her mother carried her into the sanctuary of her bedroom and gave her suck. And Anna sang this song to the Lord God: ‘I will sing a holy praise to the Lord my God, for he has visited me and removed from me the reproach of my enemies. And the Lord God gave me the fruit of his righteousness, unique yet manifold before him. Who will proclaim to the sons of Reuben that Anna gives suck? Hearken, hearken, you twelve tribes of Israel: Anna gives suck.’ And she laid her down to rest in the bedroom of her sanctuary, and went out and served them. When the feast was ended they went down rejoicing and glorifying the God of Israel and they gave her the name Mary because her name shall never fade. 7.  The months passed, and the child grew. When she was two years old Joachim said, ‘Let us take her up to the temple of the Lord, so that we may fulfil the promise which we made, lest the master send some evil to us and our gift be unacceptable.’

73

74

te xt

Καὶ εἶπεν Ἄννα· Ἀναμείνωμεν τὸ τρίτον ἔτος, ὅπως μὴ ζητήσῃ πατέρα ἢ μητέρα. Καὶ εἶπεν Ἰωακείμ· Ἀναμείνωμεν. Ἐγένετο δὲ τριετὴς ἡ παῖς, καὶ εἶπεν Ἰωακείμ· Καλέσωμεν τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν Ἑβραίων τὰς ἀμιάντους, καὶ λαβέτωσαν ἀνὰ λαμπάδα, καὶ ἔστωσαν καιόμεναι, ἵνα μὴ στραφῇ ἡ παῖς εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω καὶ αἰχμαλωτισθήσεται ἡ καρδία αὐτῆς ἐκ ναοῦ κυρίου. καὶ ἐποίησαν οὕτως ἕως ἀνέβησαν ἐν ναῷ κυρίου. Καὶ ἐδέξατο αὐτὴν ὁ ἱερεύς, καὶ φιλήσας αὐτὴν εὐλόγησεν καὶ εἶπεν· Ἐμεγάλυνεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς· ἐπὶ σοὶ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν φανερώσει κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸ λύτρον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ. Καὶ ἐκάθισεν αὐτὴν ἐπὶ τρίτου βαθμοῦ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, καὶ ἔβαλλε κύριος ὁ θεὸς χάριν ἐπ’ αὐτήν, καὶ κατεχόρευε τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῆς, καὶ ἠγάπησεν αὐτὴν πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραήλ. 8.  Καὶ κατέβησαν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτῆς θαυμάζοντες καὶ ἐπαινοῦντες καὶ δοξάζοντες τὸν δεσπότην θεὸν ὅτι οὐκ ἀπεστράφη ἡ παῖς ἐπ’ αὐτούς. ἦν δὲ Μαρία ἐν ναῷ κυρίου ὡσεὶ περιστερὰ νεμομένη καὶ ἐλάμβανε τροφὴν ἐκ χειρὸς ἀγγέλου. Γενομένης δὲ αὐτῆς δωδεκαετοῦς, συμβούλιον ἐγένετο τῶν ἱερέων λεγόντων· Ἰδοὺ Μαρία γέγονεν δωδεκαετὴς ἐν τῷ ναῷ κυρίου· τί οὖν αὐτὴν ποιήσωμεν, μήπως μιάνῃ τὸ ἁγίασμα κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν; καὶ εἶπον τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ· Σὺ ἕστηκας ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον κυρίου. εἴσελθε καὶ πρόσευξαι περὶ αὐτῆς· καὶ ὃ ἐὰν φανερώσῃ σοι κύριος ὁ θεός, τοῦτο ποιήσομεν. Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς λαβὼν τὸν δωδεκακώδωνα εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων καὶ ηὔξατο περὶ αὐτῆς. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐπέστη λέγων· Ζαχαρία Ζαχαρία, ἔξελθε καὶ ἐκκλησίασον τοὺς χηρεύοντας τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ ἐνεγκάτωσαν ἀνὰ ῥάβδον, καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν ἐπιδείξῃ κύριος ὁ θεὸς σημεῖον, τούτῳ ἔσται γυνή. ἐξῆλθον δὲ οἱ κήρυκες καθ’ ὅλης τῆς περιχώρου τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ ἤχησεν ἡ σάλπιγξ κυρίου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔδραμον ἅπαντες. 9.  Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ῥίψας τὸ σκέπαρνον ἐξῆλθεν καὶ αὐτὸς εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῶν· καὶ συναχθέντες ὁμοῦ ἀπῆλθον πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιερέα λαβόντες τὰς ῥάβδους. λαβὼν δὲ ἁπάντων τὰς ῥάβδους εἰσηλθεν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ηὔξατο. τελέσας δὲ τὴν εὐχὴν ἔλαβε τὰς ῥάβδους καὶ ἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς· καὶ σημεῖον οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐταῖς. τὴν δὲ ἐσχάτην ῥάβδον ἔλαβε ὁ Ἰωσήφ· καὶ ἰδοὺ περιστερὰ ἐξῆλθεν ἀπὸ τῆς ῥάβδου καὶ ἐπεστάθη ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ Ἰωσήφ. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Ἰωσὴφ Ιωσήφ, σὺ κεκλήρωσαι τὴν παρθένον κυρίου παραλαβεῖν εἰς τήρησιν σεαυτῷ. Καὶ ἀντεῖπεν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ λέγων· Υἱοὺς ἔχω καὶ πρεσβύτης εἰμί· αὕτη δὲ νεᾶνις· μήπως ἔσομαι περίγελος τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Ἰωσήφ, φοβήθητι κύριον τὸν θεόν σου, καὶ μνήσθητι ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς Δαθὰν καὶ Ἀβιρὼν καὶ Κορέ, πῶς ἐδιχάσθη ἡ γῆ καὶ κατεπόθησαν ἅπαντες διὰ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν αὐτῶν. καὶ νῦν φοβήθητι, Ἰωσήφ, μήπως ἔσται ταῦτα ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου. Καὶ φοβηθεὶς Ἰωσὴφ παρέλαβεν αὐτὴν εἰς τήρησιν ἑαυτῷ. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· Μαρία, παρέλαβόν σε ἐκ ναοῦ κυρίου. καὶ νῦν καταλείπω σε ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου. ἀπέρχομαι γὰρ οἰκοδομῆσαι τὰς οἰκοδομάς, καὶ ἥξω πρὸς σέ· κύριός σε διαφυλάξει.

t ranslat i o n

And Anna replied, ‘Let us wait until the third year, that the child may then no more long for her father and mother.’ And Joachim said, ‘Let us wait.’ And when the child was three years old Joachim said, ‘Call the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews, and let each one take a torch, and let these be burning, in order that the child may not turn back and her heart be tempted away from the temple of the Lord.’ And they did so until they had gone up to the temple of the Lord. And the priest took her and kissed her and blessed her, saying, ‘The Lord God has magnified your name among all generations; because of you the Lord God at the end of the days will reveal his redemption to the sons of Israel.’ And he placed her on the third step of the altar, and the Lord God put grace upon her and she danced with her feet, and the whole house of Israel loved her. 8.  And her parents returned home marvelling, praising the Master, God because the child did not turn back to them. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord nurtured like a dove and received food from the hand of an angel. When she was twelve years old, there took place a council of the priests saying, ‘Behold, Mary has become twelve years old in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her lest she defile the temple of the Lord God.’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You have stood at the altar of the Lord; enter and pray concerning her, and that which the Lord God shall reveal to you we will indeed do.’ And the high priest took the [vestment with the] twelve bells and went into the Holy of Holies and prayed concerning her. And behold, an angel of the Lord appeared and said to him, ‘Zechariah, Zechariah, go out and assemble the widowers of the people and to whomsoever the Lord shall give a sign she shall be a wife.’ And the heralds went forth through all the country round about Judaea; the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and behold all came running. 9.  And Joseph threw down his adze and he went out to their meeting. And when they were gathered together, they took the rods and went to the high priest. He took the rods from them, entered the temple and prayed. When he had finished the prayer he took the rods, and went out and gave them to them; but there was no sign on them. Joseph received the last rod, and behold, a dove came out of the rod and flew on to Joseph’s head. And the high-priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to receive the virgin of the Lord as your ward.’ But Joseph answered him, ‘I have sons and am old; she is but a girl. I object lest I should become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel.’ And the high-priest said, ‘Joseph fear the Lord your God, and remember what God did to Dathan, Abiram, and Korah, how the earth was split in two and they were all swallowed up because of their rebellion. And now beware, Joseph, lest these things happen in your house.’ And Joseph was afraid and received her as his ward. And he said to her, ‘I have received you from the temple of the Lord, and now I leave you in my house and go away to build my buildings. I will return to you; the Lord will guard you.’

75

76

te xt

10.  Ἐγένετο δὲ συμβούλιον τῶν ἱερέων λεγόντων· Ποιήσωμεν καταπέτασμα τῷ ναῷ κυρίου. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Καλέσατέ μοι τὰς παρθένους τὰς ἀμιάντους ἀπὸ τῆς φυλῆς τοῦ Δαυίδ. καὶ ἀπῆλθον οἱ ὑπηρέται καὶ ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ εὗρον ἑπτὰ παρθένους. καὶ ἐμνήσθη ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς παιδὸς Μαρίας ὅτι ἦν τῆς φυλῆς τοῦ Δαυὶδ καὶ ἀμίαντος τῷ θεῷ. καὶ ἀπῆλθον οἱ ὑπηρέται καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰσήγαγον αὐτὰς ἐν τῷ ναῷ κυρίου· καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Λάχετέ μοι ὧδε, τίς νήσει τὸν χρυσὸν καὶ τὸ ἀμίαντον καὶ τὴν βύσσον καὶ τὸ σιρικὸν καὶ τὸ ὑακίνθινον καὶ τὸ κόκκινον καὶ τὴν ἀληθινὴν πορφύραν. Καὶ ἔλαχε τὴν Μαρίαν ἡ ἀληθινὴ πορφύρα καὶ τὸ κόκκινον. καὶ λαβοῦσα ἀπῄει ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτῆς. τῷ δὲ καιρῷ ἐκείνῷ Ζαχαρίας ἐσίγησεν, καὶ ἐγένετο ἀντὶ αὐτοῦ Σαμουήλ, μέχρι ὅτε ἐλάλησεν Ζαχαρίας. Μαρία δὲ λαβοῦσα τὸ κόκκινον ἔκλωθεν. 11.  Καὶ ἔλαβεν τὴν κάλπιν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν γεμίσαι ὕδωρ· καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ λέγουσα αὐτῇ· Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη· ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ· εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν. καὶ περιεβλέπετο τὰ δεξιὰ καὶ τὰ ἀριστερὰ Μαρία πόθεν αὕτη εἴη ἡ φωνή. καὶ ἔντρομος γενομένη εἰσῄει εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς καὶ ἀναπαύσασα τὴν κάλπιν ἔλαβεν τὴν πορφύραν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ εἷλκεν αὐτήν. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔστη ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐνώπιον αὐτῆς λέγων· Μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαρία· εὗρες γὰρ χάριν ἐνώπιον τοῦ πάντων δεσπότου. συλλήψει ἐκ λόγου αὐτοῦ. Ἡ δὲ ἀκούσασα Μαρία διεκρίθη ἐν ἑαυτῇ λέγουσα· Εἰ ἐγὼ συλλήψομαι ἀπὸ κυρίου θεοῦ ζῶντος, καὶ γεννήσω ὡς πᾶσα γυνὴ γεννᾷ; Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου· Οὐχ οὕτως, Μαρία· δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς ὑψίστου. καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. Καὶ εἶπε Μαρία· Ἰδοὺ ἡ δούλη κυρίου κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ· γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου. 12.  Καὶ ἐποίησεν τὴν πορφύραν καὶ τὸ κόκκινον, καὶ ἀνήνεγκεν τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ. καὶ λαβὼν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εὐλόγησεν αὐτὴν καὶ εἶπεν· Μαρία, ἐμεγάλυνεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸ ὄνομά σου, καὶ ἔσῃ εὐλογημένη ἐν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς τῆς γῆς. Χαρὰν δὲ λαβοῦσα Μαρία ἀπῄει πρὸς τὴν συγγενίδα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβεδ. καὶ ἔκρουσεν πρὸς τὴν θύραν, καὶ ἀκούσασα ἡ Ἐλισάβεδ ἔρριψεν τὸ κόκκινον καὶ ἔδραμεν πρὸς τὴν θύραν καὶ ἤνοιξεν αὐτῇ καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτὴν καὶ εἶπεν· Πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου ἔλθῃ πρὸς ἐμέ; ἰδοὺ γὰρ τὸ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐσκίρτησεν καὶ εὐλόγησέ σε. Ἡ δὲ Μαρία ἐπελάθετο τῶν μυστηρίων ὧν ἐλάλησεν Γαβριὴλ ὁ ἄγγελος καὶ ἠτένισεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ εἶπεν· Τίς εἰμι ἐγώ, κύριε, ὅτι πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαὶ τῆς γῆς μακαριοῦσίν με;

t ranslat i o n

10.  Now there was a council of the priests saying, ‘Let us make a veil for the temple of the Lord.’ And the high-priest said, ‘Call to me pure virgins of the tribe of David.’ And the officers departed and searched and they found seven virgins. And the high-priest remembered the child Mary, that she was of the tribe of David and was pure before God. And the officers went and fetched her. Then they brought them into the temple of the Lord and the high-priest said, ‘Cast lots to see who shall weave the gold, the amiantus, the linen, the silk, the hyacinth-blue, the scarlet, and the pure purple.’ The pure purple and scarlet fell by lot to Mary. And she took them and went home. At that time Zechariah became dumb,7 and Samuel took his place until Zechariah was able to speak again. Mary took the scarlet and spun it. 11.  And she took the pitcher and went out to draw water, and behold, a voice said to her, ‘Hail, highly favoured one,8 the Lord is with you, you are blessed among women.’ And Mary looked around to the right and to the left to see where this voice came from. And, trembling, she went to her house and put down the pitcher and took the purple and sat down on her seat and drew out the thread. And behold, an angel of (the) Lord stood before her and said, ‘Do not fear, Mary; for you have found grace before the master of all things and shall conceive by his Word.’ When she heard this she considered it and said, ‘Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God, and bear as every woman bears?’ And the angel of (the) Lord said, ‘Not so, Mary; for the power of God shall overshadow you; therefore the holy one who is born of you shall be called the Son of the Most High. And you shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.’ And Mary said, ‘Behold, (I am) the handmaid of the Lord before him: be it to me according to your word.’9 12.  And she made ready the purple and the scarlet and brought them to the highpriest. And the high-priest blessed her and said, ‘Mary, the Lord God has magnified your name, and you shall be blessed among all generations of the earth.’10 And Mary rejoiced and went to Elizabeth her kinswoman and knocked on the door. When Elizabeth heard it, she put down the scarlet and ran to the door and opened it, and when she saw her she blessed her and said, ‘How is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, that which is in me leaped and blessed you.’11 But Mary forgot the mysteries which the archangel Gabriel had told her, and raised a sigh towards heaven and said, ‘Who am I, Lord, that all generations of the earth count me blessed!’

7 8 9 10 11

cf. Luke 1:20–22. 64. Luke 1:28. Luke 1:38. Luke 1:47–48. Luke 1:41–44.

77

78

te xt

Καὶ ἐποίησεν τρεῖς μῆνας πρὸς τὴν Ἐλισάβεδ. καὶ ἡμέρᾳ ἀφ’ ἡμέρας ἡ γαστὴρ αὐτῆς ὠγκοῦτο. καὶ φοβηθεῖσα ἡ Μαρία ἦλθεν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτῆς καὶ ἔκρυπτεν αὑτὴν ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. ἦν δὲ ἐτῶν δέκα ἓξ ὅτε ταῦτα τὰ μυστήρια ἐγένετο αὐτῇ. 13.  Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῇ ἕκτος μήν, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκοδομῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰσῆλθεν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ καὶ εὗρεν αὐτὴν ὠγκωμένην. καὶ ἔτυψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔρριψεν αὑτὸν χαμαὶ ἐπὶ τὸν σάκκον καὶ ἔκλαυσεν πικρῶς λέγων· Ποίῳ προσώπῳ ἀτενίσω πρὸς κύριον τὸν θεόν μου; τί ἄρα εὔξωμαι περὶ αὐτῆς ὅτι παρθένον παρέλαβον αὐτὴν ἐκ ναοῦ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐφύλαξα αὐτήν; τίς ὁ θηρεύσας με; τίς τὸ πονηρὸν τοῦτο ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου; τίς ᾐχμαλώτευσε τὴν παρθένον ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ καὶ ἐμίανεν αὐτήν μήτι ἐν ἐμοὶ ἀνεκεφαλαιώθη ἡ ἱστορία τοῦ Ἀδάμ; ὥσπερ γὰρ Ἀδὰμ ἦν ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ τῆς δοξολογίας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἦλθεν ὁ ὄφις καὶ εὗρεν τὴν Εὔαν μόνην καὶ ἐξηπάτησεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐμίανεν αὐτήν, οὕτως κἀμοὶ συνέβη. Καὶ ἀνέστη Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τοῦ σάκκου καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὴν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· Μεμελημένη θεῷ, τί τοῦτο ἐποίησας; ἐπελάθου κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου; τί ἐταπείνωσας τὴν ψυχήν σου, ἡ ἀνατραφεῖσα εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων καὶ τροφὴν λαμβάνουσα ἐκ χειρὸς ἀγγέλου; Ἡ δὲ ἔκλαυσεν πικρῶς λέγουσα ὅτι καθαρά εἰμι ἐγὼ καὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Ἰωσήφ· Πόθεν οὖν τοῦτό ἐστιν ἐν τῇ γαστρί σου; Ἡ δὲ εἶπεν· Ζῇ κύριος ὁ θεός μου καθότι οὐ γινώσκω πόθεν ἐστὶν ἐν ἐμοί. 14.  Καὶ ἐφοβήθη ὁ Ἰωσὴφ σφόδρα καὶ ἠρέμησεν ἐξ αὐτῆς, διαλογιζόμενος αὐτὴν τί ποιήσει. καὶ εἶπεν Ἰωσὴφ ἐν ἑαυτῷ· Ἐὰν αὐτῆς κρύψω τὸ ἁμάρτημα, εὑρεθήσομαι μαχόμενος τῷ νόμῳ κυρίου· καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴν φανερώσω τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, φοβοῦμαι μήπως ἀγγελικόν ἐστιν τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ, καὶ εὑρεθήσομαι παραδιδοὺς ἀθῷον αἶμα εἰς κρίμα θανάτου. τί οὖν αὐτὴν ποιήσω; λάθρᾳ αὐτὴν ἀπολύσω ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ. Καὶ κατέλαβεν αὐτὸν νύξ. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου φαίνεται αὐτῷ κατ’ ὄνειρον λέγων· Μὴ φοβηθῇς τὴν παῖδα ταύτην· τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ ὂν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου· τέξεται δέ σοι υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων αὐτῶν. καὶ ἀνέστη Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου καὶ ἐδόξασεν τὸν θεὸν τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ τὸν δόντα αὐτῷ τὴν χάριν ταύτην. καὶ ἐφύλασσε τὴν παῖδα. 15.  Ἦλθεν δὲ Ἄννας ὁ γραμματεὺς πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ἰωσήφ, διὰ τί οὐκ ἐφάνης τῇ συνόδῳ ἡμῶν; Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ὅτι ἔκαμον ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ καὶ ἀνεπαυσάμην τὴν μίαν ἡμέραν. Καὶ ἐστράφη Ἄννας καὶ εἶδεν τὴν Μαρίαν ὠγκωμένην. Καὶ ἀπῄει δρομαῖος πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιερέα καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ἰδοὺ Ἰωσήφ, ᾧ σὺ μαρτυρεῖς, ἠνόμησεν σφόδρα.

t ranslat i o n

And she remained three months with Elizabeth. Day by day her womb grew, and Mary was afraid and went into her house and hid herself from the sons of Israel. And Mary was sixteen years old when all these mysterious things happened. 13.  Now when she was in her sixth month, behold, Joseph came from his buildings and entered his house and found her with child. And he struck his face, threw himself down on the ground on sackcloth and wept bitterly saying, ‘With what countenance shall I look towards the Lord my God? What prayer shall I offer for this maiden? For I received her as a virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God and have not protected her. Who has deceived me? Who has done this evil in my house and defiled the virgin? Has the story of Adam been repeated in me? For as Adam was absent in the hour of his glory and the serpent came and found Eve alone and deceived her, so also has it happened to me.’ And Joseph arose from the sackcloth and called Mary and said to her, ‘You who are cared for by God, why have you done this and forgotten the Lord your God? Why have you humiliated your soul, you who were brought up in the Holy of Holies and received food from the hand of an angel?’ But she wept bitterly, saying, ‘I am pure, and know not a man.’ And Joseph said to her, ‘Whence is this in your womb?’ And she said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I do not know whence it has come to me.’ 14.  And Joseph feared greatly and parted from her, pondering what he should do with her. And Joseph said to himself, ‘If I conceal her sin, I shall be found to be in opposition to the law of the Lord. If I expose her to the sons of Israel, I fear lest that which is in her may be from the angels and I should be found delivering innocent blood to the judgement of death. What then shall I do with her? I will put her away secretly.’ And the night came upon him. And behold, an angel of (the) Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Do not fear this girl. For that which is in her is of the Holy Spirit. She shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.’12 And Joseph arose from sleep and glorified the God of Israel who had bestowed his grace upon him, and he guarded the girl. 15.  And Annas the scribe came to him and said to him, ‘Joseph, why have you not appeared in our assembly?’ And Joseph said to him, ‘Because I was weary from the journey and I rested the first day.’ And Annas turned and saw that Mary was pregnant. And he went running to the high-priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, for whom you are a witness, has grievously transgressed.’ And the high priest said, ‘In what way?’

12 cf. Matt. 1:19 f.

79

80

te xt

Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Τί τοῦτο; Καὶ εἶπεν· Τὴν παρθένον ἣν Ἰωσὴφ παρέλαβεν ἐκ ναοῦ κυρίου, ἐμίανεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἔκλεψεν τοὺς γάμους αὐτῆς καὶ οὐκ ἐφανέρωσεν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Ἰωσὴφ ταῦτα ἐποίησεν; Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ἀπόστειλον ὑπηρέτας καὶ εὑρήσεις τὴν παρθένον ὠγκωμένην. Καὶ ἀπῆλθον οἱ ὑπηρέται καὶ εὗρον αὐτὴν καθὼς εἶπεν καὶ ἀπήγαγον αὐτὴν ἅμα τῷ Ἰωσὴφ εἰς τὸ κριτήριον. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Μαρία, τί τοῦτο ἐποίησας; τί ἐταπείνωσας τὴν ψυχήν σου; ἐπελάθου κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου, ἡ ἀνατραφεῖσα εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων καὶ λαβοῦσα τροφὴν ἐκ χειρὸς ἀγγέλων; σὺ ἡ ἀκούσασα τῶν ὕμνων αὐτῶν καὶ χορεύσασα ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν, τί τοῦτο ἐποίησας; Ἡ δὲ ἔκλαυσε πικρῶς λέγουσα· Ζῇ κύριος ὁ θεός καθότι καθαρά εἰμι ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Ἰωσήφ, τί τοῦτο ἐποίησας; Εἶπεν δὲ Ἰωσήφ· Ζῇ κύριος καθότι καθαρός εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐξ αὐτῆς. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Μὴ ψευδομαρτύρει, ἀλλὰ λέγε τὰ ἀληθῆ· ἔκλεψας τοὺς γάμους σου καὶ οὐκ ἐφανέρωσας τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, καὶ οὐκ ἔκλινας τὴν κεφαλήν σου ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα ὅπως εὐλογηθῇ τὸ σπέρμα σου. Καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἐσίγησεν. 16.  Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Ἀπόδος τὴν παρθένον ἣν παρέλαβες ἐκ ναοῦ κυρίου. Καὶ περιδάκρυτος γενόμενος ὁ Ἰωσήφ… Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Ποτιῶ ὑμᾶς τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς ἐλέγξεως κυρίου, καὶ φανερώσει τὸ ἁμάρτημα ὑμῶν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ὑμῶν. Καὶ λαβὼν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐπότισεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ ἔπεμψεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, καὶ ἦλθεν ὁλόκληρος. καὶ ἐπότισεν καὶ τὴν παῖδα καὶ ἔπεμψεν αὐτὴν εἰς τὴν ἐρεμίαν, καὶ κατέβη ὁλόκληρος. Καὶ ἐθαύμασεν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὅτι οὐκ ἐφάνη ἡ ἁμαρτία αὐτῶν. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· Εἰ κύριος ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἐφανέρωσεν τὸ ἁμάρτημα ὑμῶν, οὐδὲ ἐγὼ κρίνω ὑμᾶς. καὶ ἀπέλυσεν αὐτούς. καὶ παρέλαβεν Ἰωσὴφ τὴν Μαριὰμ καὶ ἀπῄει ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ χαίρων καὶ δοξάζων τὸν θεὸν Ἰσραήλ. 17.  Κέλευσις δὲ ἐγένετο ἀπὸ Αὐγούστου τοῦ βασιλέως ἀπογράψασθαι ὅσοι εἰσὶν ἐν Βηθλεὲμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας. καὶ εἶπεν Ἰωσήφ· Ἐγὼ ἀπογράψομαι τοὺς υἱούς μου· ταύτην δὲ τὴν παῖδα τί ποιήσω; πῶς αὐτὴν ἀπογράψομαι; γυναῖκα ἐμήν; ἐπαισχύνομαι. ἀλλὰ θυγατέρα; οἴδασιν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν θυγάτηρ μου. αὕτη ἡ ἡμέρα κυρίου ποιήσει ὡς βούλεται. Καὶ ἔστρωσεν τὴν ὄνον καὶ ἐκάθισεν αὐτὴν καὶ εἷλκεν ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἠκολούθει Σαμουήλ. καὶ ἤγγισαν ἐπὶ μίλιον τρίτον, καὶ ἐστράφη Ἰωσὴφ καὶ εἶδεν αὐτὴν στυγνήν. καὶ εἶπεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ· Ἴσως τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ χειμάζει αὐτήν. καὶ πάλιν ἐστράφη Ἰωσὴφ καὶ εἶδεν αὐτὴν γελῶσαν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· Μαρία, τί ἐστίν σοι τοῦτο, ὅτι τὸ πρόσωπόν σου βλέπω ποτὲ μὲν γελῶντα ποτὲ δὲ στυγνάζον;

t ranslat i o n

And he said, ‘The virgin, whom Joseph received from the temple of the Lord, he has defiled the virgin, and he has secretly consummated his marriage with her, and has not disclosed it to the sons of Israel.’ And the high-priest said to him, ‘Has Joseph done this?’ And Annas said to him, ‘Send officers, and you will find the virgin pregnant.’ And the officers went and found as he had said, and brought her and Joseph to the court. And the high-priest said to her, ‘Mary, why have you done this? Why have you humiliated your soul and forgotten the Lord your God, you who were brought up in the Holy of Holies and received food from the hand of angels, and you heard their hymns, and danced before them? Why have you done this?’ But she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him and I know not a man.’ And the high-priest said to Joseph, ‘Why have you done this?’ And Joseph said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure concerning her.’ And the high-priest said, ‘Do not give false witness, but speak the truth. You have consummated your marriage in secret, and have not disclosed it to the sons of Israel, and have not bowed your head under the mighty hand in order that your seed might be blessed.’ And Joseph was silent. 16.  And the high-priest said, ‘Give back the virgin whom you have received from the temple of the Lord.’ And Joseph began to weep. And the high-priest said, ‘I will give you both to drink the water of the conviction of the Lord, and it will make your sinfulness manifest in your eyes.’ And the high-priest took it and gave it to Joseph to drink and sent him into the desert, and he returned whole. And he made the girl drink also, and sent her into the desert, and she returned whole. And all the people marvelled, because sin did not appear in them. And the high-priest said, ‘If the Lord God has not revealed your sin, neither do I judge you.’ And he released them. And Joseph took Mary and departed to his house, rejoicing and glorifying the God of Israel. 17.  Now there went out a decree from King Augustus that all those in Bethlehem in Judaea should be enrolled.13 And Joseph said, ‘I shall enrol my sons, but what shall I do with this girl? How shall I enrol her? As my wife? I am ashamed to do that. Or as my daughter? But all the sons of Israel know that she is not my daughter. On this day of the Lord he shall do as he wills.’ And he saddled his she-ass and sat her on it; his son led, and Samuel followed. And they drew near to the third milestone. And Joseph turned round and saw her sad and said to himself, ‘Perhaps that which is within her is paining her.’ Another time Joseph turned round and saw her laughing and said to her, ‘Mary, why is it that I see your face at one moment laughing and at another sad?’ 13 Luke 2:1; Matt. 2:1.

81

82

te xt

Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ἰωσήφ, ὅτι δύο λαοὺς βλέπω ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς μου, ἕνα κλαίοντα καὶ κοπτόμενον καὶ ἕνα χαίροντα καὶ ἀγαλλιῶντα. Καὶ ἦλθον ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς ὁδοῦ, καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Μαριάμ· Ἰωσήφ, κατάγαγέ με ἀπὸ τῆς ὄνου, ὅτι τὸ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐπείγει με προελθεῖν. Καὶ κατήγαγεν αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ὄνου καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· Ποῦ σε ἀπάξω καὶ σκεπάσω σου τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην, ὅτι ὁ τόπος ἔρημός ἐστιν; 18.  Καὶ εὗρεν ἐκεῖ σπήλαιον καὶ εἰσήγαγεν αὐτὴν καὶ παρέστησεν αὐτῇ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ζητῆσαι μαῖαν Ἑβραίαν ἐν χώρᾳ Βηθλεέμ. Ἐγὼ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ περιεπάτουν καὶ οὐ περιεπάτουν. καὶ ἀνέβλεψα εἰς τὸν πόλον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ εἶδον αὐτὸν ἑστῶτα, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀέρα καὶ εἶδον αὐτὸν ἔκθαμβον καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἠρεμοῦντα. καὶ ἐπέβλεψα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ εἶδον σκάφην κειμένην καὶ ἐργάτας ἀνακειμένους, καὶ ἦσαν αἱ χεῖρες αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ σκάφῃ. καὶ οἱ μασώμενοι οὐκ ἐμασῶντο καὶ οἱ αἴροντες οὐκ ἀνέφερον καὶ οἱ προσφέροντες τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν οὐ προσέφερον, ἀλλὰ πάντων ἦν τὰ πρόσωπα ἄνω βλέποντα. Καὶ εἶδον ἐλαυνόμενα πρόβατα, καὶ τὰ πρόβατα ἑστήκει· καὶ ἐπῆρεν ὁ ποιμὴν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατάξαι αὐτά, καὶ ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ ἔστη ἄνω· καὶ ἐπέβλεψα ἐπὶ τὸν χείμαρρον τοῦ ποταμοῦ καὶ εἶδον ἐρίφους καὶ τὰ στόματα αὐτῶν ἐπικείμενα τῷ ὕδατι καὶ μὴ πίνοντα. καὶ πάντα θήξει ὑπὸ τοῦ δρόμου αὐτῶν ἀπηλαύνετο. 19.  Καὶ εἶδον γυναῖκα καταβαίνουσαν ἀπὸ τῆς ὀρεινῆς, καὶ εἶπέν μοι· Ἄνθρωπε, ποῦ πορεύῃ; Καὶ εἶπον· Μαῖαν ζητῶ Ἑβραίαν. Καὶ ἀποκριθεῖσα εἶπέν μοι· Ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ εἶ; Καὶ εἶπον αὐτῇ· Ναί. Ἡ δὲ εἶπεν· Καὶ τίς ἐστιν ἡ γεννῶσα ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ; Καὶ εἶπον ἐγώ· Ἡ μεμνηστευμένη μοι. Καὶ εἶπέ μοι· Οὐκ ἔστι σου γυνή; Καὶ εἶπον αὐτῇ· Μαρία ἐστίν, ἡ ἀνατραφεῖσα ἐν ναῷ κυρίου. καὶ ἐκληρωσάμην αὐτὴν γυναῖκα, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν μου γυνή, ἀλλὰ σύλλημμα ἔχει ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. Καὶ εἶπεν ἡ μαῖα· Τοῦτο ἀληθές; Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Ἰωσήφ· Δεῦρο καὶ ἴδε. Καὶ ἀπῄει ἡ μαῖα μετ’ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἔστησαν ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τοῦ σπηλαίου. καὶ ἦν νεφέλη σκοτεινὴ ἐπισκιάζουσα τὸ σπήλαιον. καὶ εἶπεν ἡ μαῖα· Ἐμεγαλύνθη ἡ ψυχή μου σήμερον, ὅτι εἶδον οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου παράδοξα σήμερον, ὅτι σωτηρία τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γεγένηται. Καὶ παραχρῆμα ἡ νεφέλη ὑπεστέλλετο τοῦ σπηλαίου, καὶ ἐφάνη φῶς μέγα ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ ὥστε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς μὴ φέρειν. Καὶ πρὸς ὀλίγον τὸ φῶς ἐκεῖνο ὑπεστέλλετο, ἕως ἐφάνη βρέφος· καὶ ἦλθεν καὶ ἔλαβε μαστὸν ἐκ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας. Καὶ ἀνεβόησεν ἡ μαῖα καὶ εἶπεν· Ὡς μεγάλη μοι ἡ σήμερον ἡμέρα αὕτη, ὅτι εἶδον τὸ καινὸν θέαμα τοῦτο. Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ σπηλαίου ἡ μαῖα, καὶ ἀπήντησεν ἡ μαῖα τῇ Σαλώμῃ. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· Σαλώμη Σαλώμη, καινόν σοι θέαμα ἔχω ἐξηγήσασθαι· παρθένος ἐγέννησεν ἃ οὐ χωρεῖ ἡ φύσις αὐτῆς.

t ranslat i o n

And she said to him, ‘Joseph, I see with my eyes two peoples, one weeping and lamenting and one rejoicing and exulting.’ And having come half-way, Mary said to him, ‘Joseph, take me down from the she-ass, for that which is within me presses me to come forth.’ And he took her down from the she-ass and said to her, ‘Where shall I take you and hide your shame? For the place is desert.’ 18.  And he found a cave there and brought her into it, and left her in the care of his sons and went out to seek for a Hebrew midwife in the region of Bethlehem. Now I, Joseph, was walking, and yet I did not walk, and I looked up to the air and saw the air in amazement. And I looked up at the vault of heaven, and saw it standing still and the birds of the heaven motionless. And I looked down at the earth, and saw a dish placed there and workmen reclining, and their hands were in the dish. But those who chewed did not chew, and those who lifted up did not lift, and those who put something to their mouth put nothing [to their mouth], but everybody looked upwards. And behold, sheep were being driven and they did not come forward but stood still; and the shepherd raised his hand to strike them with his staff but his hand remained upright. And I looked at the flow of the river, and saw the mouths of the kids over the water and they did not drink. And then suddenly everything went on its course. 19.  And behold, a woman came down from the hill-country and said to me, ‘Man, where are you going?’ And I said, ‘I seek a Hebrew midwife.’ And she answered me, ‘Are you from Israel?’ And I said to her, ‘Yes.’ And she said, ‘And who is she who has given birth in the cave?’ And I said, ‘My betrothed.’ And she said to me, ‘Is she not your wife?’ And I said to her, ‘She is Mary, who was brought up in the temple of the Lord, and I received her by lot as my wife, and she is not my wife, but she has conceived by the Holy Spirit.’ And the midwife said to him, ‘Is this true?’ And Joseph said to her, ‘Come and see.’ And she went with him. And they stopped at the entrance to the cave and behold a bright cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said, ‘My soul is magnified today, for my eyes have seen wonderful things; for salvation is born to Israel.’ And immediately the cloud disappeared from the cave and a great light appeared, so that our eyes could not bear it. A short time afterwards that light withdrew until the baby appeared, and it came and took the breast of its mother Mary. And the midwife cried, ‘This day is a great day for me, because I have seen this new sight.’ And the midwife came out of the cave, and she met Salome. And she said to her, ‘Salome, Salome, I have a new sight to tell you about; a virgin has brought forth, a thing which her condition does not allow.’

83

84

te xt

Καὶ εἶπεν Σαλώμη· Ζῇ κύριος ὁ θεός μου, ἐὰν μὴ βαλῶ τὸν δάκτυλόν μου καὶ ἐρευνήσω τὴν φύσιν αὐτῆς, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω ὅτι ἡ παρθένος ἐγέννησεν. 20.  Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν ἡ μαῖα καὶ εἶπεν· Μαρία, σχημάτισον σεαυτήν· οὐ γὰρ μικρὸς ἀγὼν πρόκειται περὶ σοῦ. Καὶ ἡ Μαρία ἀκούσασα ταῦτα ἐσχημάτισεν αὑτήν. καὶ ἔβαλε Σαλώμη τὸν δάκτυλον αὐτῆς εἰς τὴν φύσιν αὐτῆς. καὶ ἀνηλάλαξεν Σαλώμη καὶ εἶπεν· Οὐαὶ τῇ ἀνομίᾳ μου καὶ τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ μου, ὅτι ἐξεπείρασα θεὸν ζῶντα. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ χείρ μου πυρὶ ἀποπίπτει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ. Καὶ ἔκλινεν τὰ γόνατα πρὸς τὸν δεσπότην Σαλώμη λέγουσα· Ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων μου, μνήσθητί μου ὅτι σπέρμα εἰμὶ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ· μὴ παραδειγματίσῃς με τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, ἀλλὰ ἀπόδος με τοῖς πένησιν· σὺ γὰρ οἶδας, δέσποτα, ὅτι ἐπὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι τὰς θεραπείας ἐπετέλουν καὶ τὸν μισθόν μου παρὰ σοῦ ἐλάμβανον. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐπέστη λέγων πρὸς αὐτήν· Σαλώμη Σαλώμη, ἐπήκουσεν ὁ πάντων δεσπότης τῆς δεήσεώς σου. προσένεγκε τὴν χεῖρά σου τῷ παιδίῳ καὶ βάστασον αὐτό, καὶ ἔσται σοι σωτηρία καὶ χαρά. Καὶ προσῆλθε Σαλώμη τῷ παιδίῳ καὶ ἐβάστασεν αὐτὸ λέγουσα· Προσκυνήσω αὐτῷ, ὅτι οὗτος ἐγεννήθη βασιλεὺς τῷ Ἰσραήλ. καὶ παραχρῆμα ἰάθη Σαλώμη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ σπηλαίου δεδικαιωμένη. Καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ λέγουσα· Σαλώμη Σαλώμη, μὴ ἀναγγείλῃς ὅσα εἶδες παράδοξα ἕως ἔλθῃ ὁ παῖς εἰς Ἱεροσάλημα. 21.  Καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἰωσὴφ ἡτοιμάσθη τοῦ ἐξελθεῖν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ καὶ θόρυβος ἐγένετο μέγας ἐν Βηθλεὲμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας· ἦλθον γὰρ μάγοι λέγοντες· Ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ τεχθεὶς βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; εἴδομεν γὰρ τὸν ἀστέρα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἤλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ. Καὶ ἀκούσας ὁ Ἡρώδης ἐταράχθη καὶ ἔπεμψεν ὑπηρέτας πρὸς τοὺς μάγους· καὶ μετεπέμψατο καὶ τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ ἀνέκρινεν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ πραιτωρίῳ λέγων αὐτοῖς· Πῶς γέγραπται περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; ποῦ γεννᾶται; Λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· Ἐν Βηθλεὲμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας· οὕτως γὰρ γέγραπται. Καὶ ἀπέλυσεν αὐτούς. Καὶ ἀνέκρινεν τοὺς μάγους λέγων αὐτοῖς· Τί εἴδετε σημεῖον ἐπὶ τὸν γεννηθέντα βασιλέα; Καὶ εἶπον οἱ μάγοι· Εἴδομεν ἀστέρα παμμεγέθη λάμψαντα ἐν τοῖς ἄστροις τούτοις καὶ ἀμβλύναντα αὐτούς, ὥστε τοὺς ἀστέρας μὴ φαίνεσθαι· καὶ οὕτως ἔγνωμεν ὅτι βασιλεὺς ἐγεννήθη τῷ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἤλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἡρώδης· Ὑπάγετε καὶ ζητήσατε, καὶ ἐὰν εὕρητε ἀπαγγείλατέ μοι, ὅπως κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν προσκυνήσω αὐτῷ. Καὶ ἐξῆλθον οἱ μάγοι. καὶ ἰδοὺ ὃν εἶδον ἀστέρα ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ προῆγεν αὐτοὺς ἕως εἰσῆλθον ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ, καὶ ἔστη ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ παιδίου. καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν οἱ μάγοι ἑστῶτα μετὰ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας, ἐξέβαλον ἀπὸ τῆς πήρας αὐτῶν δῶρα χρυσὸν καὶ λίβανον καὶ σμύρναν.

t ranslat i o n

And Salome said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, unless I insert my finger and test her condition, I will not believe that the virgin has given birth.’ 20.  And the midwife went in and said to Mary, ‘Prepare yourself of, for there is no small contention concerning you’ And when Mary heard these things, she lay down in preparation. And Salome inserted her finger to test her condition. And she cried out, saying, ‘Woe for my wickedness and my unbelief; for I have tempted the living God; and behold, my hand falls away from me, [consumed] by fire!’ And Salome bowed her knees before the Master saying, ‘O God of my fathers, remember me; for I am the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; do not make me pilloried for the sons of Israel, but give me to the poor. For you know, Master, that in your name I perform my duties and from you I have received my hire.’ And behold, an angel of the Lord appeared and said to her, ‘Salome, Salome, the Master of all has heard your prayer. Bring your hand to the child and touch him and salvation and joy will be yours.’ And Salome, joyfully, came near and touched him, saying, ‘I will worship him, for a great king has been born to Israel.’ And Salome was healed immediately and she went out of the cave justified.14 And, behold, a voice said, ‘Salome, Salome, do not report what marvels you have seen, until the child has come to Jerusalem.’ 21.  And behold, Joseph was ready to go to Judaea. And there took place a great tumult in Bethlehem of Judaea. For there came wise men saying, ‘Where is the new-born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him.’ When Herod heard this he was troubled and sent officers to the wise men, and sent for the high priests and questioned them in the praetorium, saying to them,’How is it written concerning the Messiah? Where is he born?’ They said to him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judaea; for thus it is written.’ And he let them go. And he questioned the wise men and said to them, ‘What sign did you see concerning the new-born king?’ And the wise men said, ‘We saw how an indescribably greater star shone among these stars and dimmed them, so that the stars no longer shone; and so we knew that a king was born for Israel. And we have come to worship him.’ And Herod said, ‘Go and seek, and when you have found him, tell me, that I also may come to worship him.’ And the wise men went out. And behold, the star which they had seen in the east, went before them until they came to the cave. And it stood over the head of the child. And the wise men saw him with Mary his mother, and they took out of their pouch these gifts: gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

14 cf. Luke 18:14.

85

86

te xt

Καὶ χρηματισθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου μὴ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν, διὰ ἄλλης ὁδοῦ ἀνεχώρησαν εἰς τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν. 22.  Τότε Ἡρώδης ἰδὼν ὅτι ἐνεπαίχθη ὑπὸ τῶν μάγων ὀργισθεὶς ἔπεμψεν αὐτοῦ τοὺς φονευτὰς λέγων αὐτοῖς ἀνελεῖν πάντα τὰ βρέφη ἀπὸ διετίας καὶ κάτω. Καὶ ἀκούσασα ἡ Μαρία ὅτι τὰ βρέφη ἀναιρεῖται, φοβηθεῖσα ἔλαβεν τὸν παῖδα καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἔβαλεν ἐν φάτνῃ βοῶν. Ἡ δὲ Ἐλισάβεδ ἀκούσασα ὅτι Ἰωάννης ζητεῖται, λαβοῦσα αὐτὸν ἀνέβη ἐν τῇ ὀρεινῇ· καὶ περιεβλέπετο ποῦ αὐτὸν ἀποκρύψῃ, καὶ οὐκ ἦν τόπος ἀπόκρυφος. τότε στενάξασα ἡ Ἐλισάβεδ φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγει· Ὄρος θεοῦ, δέξαι με μητέρα μετὰ τέκνου. Οὐ γὰρ ἐδύνατο ἡ Ἐλισάβεδ ἀναβῆναι διὰ τὴν δειλίαν. καὶ παραχρῆμα ἐδιχάσθη τὸ ὄρος καὶ ἐδέξατο αὐτήν. καὶ ἦν τὸ ὄρος ἐκεῖνο διαφαῖνον αὐτῇ φῶς· ἄγγελος γὰρ κυρίου ἦν μετ’ αὐτῶν διαφυλάσσων αὐτούς. 23.  Ὁ δὲ Ἡρώδης ἐζήτει τὸν Ἰωάννην, καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ὑπηρέτας ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ πρὸς Ζαχαρίαν λέγων αὐτῷ· Ποῦ ἀπέκρυψας τὸν υἱόν σου; Ὁ δὲ ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων αὐτοῖς· Ἐγὼ λειτουργὸς ὑπάρχω θεοῦ καὶ προσεδρεύω τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ. Τί γινώσκω ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου; Καὶ ἀπῆλθον οἱ ὑπηρέται αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνήγγειλαν αὐτῷ πάντα ταῦτα. καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ Ἡρώδης εἶπεν· Ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ μέλλει βασιλεύειν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ; Καὶ ἔπεμψεν πάλιν τοὺς ὑπηρέτας λέγων αὐτῷ· Εἰπέ μοι τὰ ἀληθῆ· ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ υἱός σου; οἶδας ὅτι τὸ αἷμά σου ὑπὸ τὴν χεῖρά μού ἐστιν; Καὶ ἀπῆλθον οἱ ὑπηρέται καὶ ἀνήγγειλαν αὐτῷ ταῦτα. Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν Ζαχαρίας· Μάρτυς εἰμὶ τοῦ θεοῦ. ἔχε μου τὸ αἷμα· τὸ δὲ πνεῦμά μου ὁ δεσπότης δέξεται, ὅτι ἀθῷον αἷμα ἐκχεῖς εἰς τὰ πρόθυρα τοῦ ναοῦ κυρίου. Καὶ περὶ τὸ διάφαυμα ἐφονεύθη Ζαχαρίας, καὶ οὐκ ᾔδεισαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ ὅτι ἐφονεύθη. 24.  Ἀλλὰ τὴν ὥραν τοῦ ἀσπασμοῦ ἀπῆλθον οἱ ἱερεῖς, καὶ οὐκ ἀπήντησεν αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὸ ἔθος ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ζαχαρίου. καὶ ἔστησαν οἱ ἱερεῖς προσδοκῶντες τὸν Ζαχαρίαν τοῦ ἀσπάσασθαι αὐτὸν ἐν εὐχῇ καὶ δοξάσαι τὸν ὕψιστον θεόν. Χρονίσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐφοβήθησαν πάντες. τολμήσας δέ τις ἐξ αὐτῶν εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ἁγίασμα καὶ εἶδεν παρὰ τὸ θυσιαστήριον κυρίου αἷμα πεπηγὸς καὶ φωνὴ λέγουσα· Ζαχαρίας πεφόνευται, καὶ οὐκ ἐξαλειφθήσεται τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἕως ἔλθῃ ὁ ἔκδικος. Καὶ ἀκούσας τὸν λόγον τοῦτον ἐφοβήθη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἀνήγγειλεν τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἃ εἶδεν καὶ ἤκουσεν. καὶ τολμήσαντες εἰσῆλθον καὶ εἶδον τὸ γεγονός. καὶ τὰ φατνώματα τοῦ ναοῦ ὠλόλυξαν, καὶ αὐτοὶ περιεσχίσαντο ἐπάνωθεν ἕως κάτω.

t ranslat i o n

And having been warned by the angel that they should not go into Judaea, they went to their own country by another route.15 22.  But when Herod realized that he had been deceived by the wise men he was angry and sent his murderers and commanded them to kill all the babies who were two years old and under.16 When Mary heard that the babies were to be killed, she was afraid and took the child and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in an ox-manger.17 But Elizabeth, when she heard that John was sought for, took him and went up into the desert. And she looked around to see where she could hide him, and there was no hiding-place. And Elizabeth groaned aloud and said, ‘O mountain of God, receive a mother with a child.’ For Elizabeth could not ascend because of her fear. And immediately the mountain was rent asunder and received her. And that mountain made a light shine on her; for an angel of the Lord was with them and protected them. 23.  Herod was searching for John, and sent officers to Zechariah saying, ‘Where have you hidden your son?’ And he answered and said to them, ‘I am a minister of God and serve in his temple. I do not know where my son is.’ And the officers departed and told all this to Herod. Then Herod was angry and said, ‘His son is to be king over Israel!’ And he sent his servants to him again saying, ‘Tell the truth. Where is your son? You know that you are at my mercy.’ And the officers departed and told him these things. And Zechariah said, ‘I am a witness of God if you pour out my blood! But the Lord will receive my spirit, for you shed innocent blood at the threshold of the temple of the Lord.’ And about daybreak Zechariah was slain. And the children of Israel did not know that he had been slain. 24.  But at the hour of the salutation the priests were departing, and the customary blessing of Zechariah did not take place. And the priests stood waiting for Zechariah, to greet him with prayer and to glorify the Most High God. But when he failed to come they were all afraid. But one of them took courage and went in to the sanctuary and he saw beside the altar of the Lord congealed blood; and a voice said, ‘Zechariah has been slain, and his blood shall not be wiped away until his avenger comes.’ And when he heard the words he was afraid and went out and told the priests what he had seen and heard. And they took courage and entered and saw what had happened. And the ceiling panels of the temple wailed, and they split their clothes

15 cf. Matt. 2:1–12. 16 cf. Matt. 2:16. 17 cf. Luke 2:7.

87

88

te xt

καὶ τὸ πτῶμα αὐτοῦ οὐχ εὗρον, ἀλλ’ εὗρον τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ λίθον γεγενημένον. καὶ φοβηθέντες ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἀνήγγειλαν τῷ λαῷ ὅτι Ζαχαρίας πεφόνευται. καὶ ἤκουσαν πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐπένθησαν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκόψαντο τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας. Μετὰ δὲ τὰς τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐβουλεύσαντο οἱ ἱερεῖς τίνα ἀναστήσουσιν εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦ Ζαχαρίου. καὶ ἀνέβη ὁ κλῆρος ἐπὶ Συμεών· οὗτος γὰρ ἦν ὁ χρηματισθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον ἕως ἄν τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἴδῃ. 25.  Ἐγὼ δὲ Ἰάκωβος ὁ γράψας τὴν ἱστορίαν ταύτην ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ θορύβου γενομένου, ὅτε ἐτελεύτησεν Ἡρώδης, συνέστειλα ἐμαυτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἕως κατέπαυσεν ὁ θόρυβος ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ, δοξάζων τὸν δεσπότην θεὸν τὸν δόντα μοι τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ γράψαι τὴν ἱστορίαν ταύτην. Καὶ ἔσται ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων τῶν φοβουμένων τὸν κύριον. Ἀμήν. Γένεσις Μαρίας Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰακώβ Εἰρήνη τῷ γράψαντι καὶ τῷ ἀναγινώσκοντι

t ranslat i o n

from the top to the bottom. And they did not find his body, but they found his blood turned into stone. And they were afraid, and went out and told all the people that Zechariah had been slain. And all the tribes of the people heard and they mourned him and lamented three days and three nights. And after the three days the priests took counsel whom they should appoint instead of Zechariah and the lot fell upon Symeon. Now it was he to whom it had been revealed by the Holy Spirit that he should not die until he had seen the Christ in the flesh.18 25.  Now I, James, wrote this history when tumult arose in Jerusalem on the death of Herod, and withdrew into the desert until the tumult in Jerusalem ceased. And I praise Master God who gave me the wisdom to write this history. Grace shall be with all those who fear the Lord to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen. [Birth of Mary Revelation of James grace to the writer and to those who read (his words)]

18 cf. Luke 2:25–26.

89

Commentary

1. In the ‘Histories…food and drink. From the very beginning the contrast between the canonical gospel accounts and PEJ is made obvious. We know very little about Mary from the canonical gospels — Matthew and Luke present her as being a peasant girl in the northern village of Nazareth who is of marriageable age and is betrothed to the village ‘workman’ — usually assumed to be the carpenter. They are introduced as a poor couple, only able to give ‘two young pigeons’ as their Temple offering (Lk 2:24). There is nothing marvellous implied about her life and status, according to Luke until God sends the angel Gabriel ‘in the sixth month.’ However, in PEJ, on the contrary, she is chosen and predestined from the outset even before her birth, the privileged daughter of a childless couple, who live in the capital city, Jerusalem, in the south. Joachim, her wealthy and highly respected father is possibly modelled on the Joachim of the Susannah story in Daniel (Dan 13) who is also rich and influential. As with many of the characters in the narrative, Reubel is given no introduction or explanation. He may be a priest; he may be a fellow Israelite; he seems to have some kind of authority but we are given no clue as to what or why. He is simply a foil for Joachim’s inability to make his offering which is the beginning of the story. According to the narrative, Mary is conceived, probably miraculously ( Joachim departed for the wilderness, and ‘did not show himself to his wife’) in answer to the prayers of her parents, as were so many heroic characters of the Old Testament. Her father is very rich, devout, influential, and very generous. That there were written records of earlier Israelite history that have not survived seems to be clear from references to The History of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41) and the History of the Kings of Judah and the History of the Kings of Israel referred to throughout 1 and 2 Kings. However the Histories of the Twelve Tribes of Israel and the record book of the twelve tribes of the people mentioned here, are otherwise unknown. A special, but otherwise unknown, feast is implied by ‘the Great Day of the Lord’ and although this specific term is used in Joel 2:11 it is used there in the context of judgement which is interpreted eschatologically in Christian liturgy (see Acts 2:20). Lack of offspring was considered a disgrace, but it seems here that the problem is that while Joachim is permitted to offer his gift, he cannot do so ‘first’ (which, presumably, as a man of standing in the community he would expect to do). There is no suggestion that a childless couple were forbidden by the law to offer sacrifice, in fact Elkanah (1 Sam 1:5), specifically offers a portion of his sacrifice for his childless wife, Hannah. Joachim seems to have overlooked the word of the Lord that came to the prophet Jeremiah ( Jer 16:1–3) specifically forbidding him to marry

92

co m m e n ta ry

and have children because of the wickedness of the times. All these show a nodding acquaintance with the background to Judaism but are either instances of a lack of detailed knowledge and understanding of Jewish history, customs and laws which would have been familiar to someone of Jewish descent or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent Jewish customs, suggesting a satirical intent. A period of fasting in the wilderness for forty days and forty nights is the recognised description of preparation for an important mission for the Lord. Moses, Elijah and Jesus are the prime examples of this feat of biblical asceticism. Joachim follows their example.

2. Anna his wife…a son, Isaac. Anna grieves for two reasons: first. because she has been deserted by her husband, who has ‘gone off into the wilderness’ without ‘showing himself to his wife’ and then, second, because she is childless. This was a two-fold tragedy for a Jewish woman, for whom marriage and motherhood were so important and who understood sterility to be a curse (cf. Jds 11:39–40; Pss 127:3–5; 128:3–4). The Great Day of the Lord appears again; this time, though still not explained, in this instance it is obviously a celebratory feast day when mourning is not appropriate. The significance of the headband is unclear. Hock thinks the symbolism may be lost on us. However, there is a possible explanation from ancient Rome. The Vestal Virgins of Rome were identified by the clothing they wore, and one item of this clothing were the vittae, or cloth bands used to tie up their hair. These bands were worn by Roman matrons and brides and were an indication of their status as citizens and their purity. Is there perhaps, a garbled memory of the Vestal headband in the text of the PEJ only the author is confused and applies it to Anna rather than to Mary?1 There is another possibility suggested by Cartlidge and Elliott. In the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg is an ivory diptych, dated to the sixth century, part of which shows the mysterious ‘Affront to Anna’ by her servant girl involving the headband. Cartlidge and Elliott suggest that the author’s intention is to emphasise the importance of Mary’s family and the possible aristocratic connections of her parents, symbolised by the headband. They comment: The headband is a symbol, especially in the oriental areas of the Greco-Roman world, of royalty… The scene of the headband is a paradigm for the images of the Virgin’s life-cycle as they develop in the early church. The drift is toward exaltation of the principle characters.2 However, they also go on to point out that because an incident such as this of a servant reproaching her mistress would have been so inappropriate in the Byzantine socio-cultural world, it gradually disappeared.3   1  For a full discussion of the possible relevance of the headband, see Rumsey (2020), 38–41.   2  Cartlidge and Elliott (2001), 41.   3  See full discussion in Cartlidge and Elliott (2001), 41.

co mme ntary

The incident of a mistress being mocked by a slave because of her childlessness parallels the story of the oft-wedded but never bedded Sarah (Tob 3:7–11), also the barren Sarah being mocked by Hagar (Gen 16:1–6), and also Hannah’s taunting by Pennina (1 Sam 1:6) while the possibility of a stolen gift being unlawfully handed on has similarities with the story of Tobit’s wife, who was also called Anna (Tob 2:13, 14). There are several stories of OT heroines dressing themselves in their best before a challenging encounter: Judith (10:1–4) Esther (14:2) Ruth (3:1–4) but in all these there is an element of sexual provocation, which is missing from Anna’s solitary sojourn, unless she wishes by her choice of clothing to return to her wedding day with its promise of fertility and offspring, which any Jewish bride would expect. For Anna it seems that dressing in her bridal garments is a prelude to prayer which takes place ‘at the ninth hour’: one of the customary ‘hours’ for Jewish prayer which was taken over by Christians. There is evidence in classical literature that the laurel was regarded as a symbol of fertility;4 maybe this is why the writer depicts Anna as sitting under a laurel tree. On the other part of the previously mentioned ivory diptych in the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg there is a scene which, almost uniquely, is identified as the Annunciation to Anna in her garden (rather than the Annunciation to Mary), as the ivory also shows, as well as the angelic messenger, the birds in the trees, which birds inspired in part Anna’s lament for her sterility, and there are none other of the various details which usually illustrate an indoors Annunciation to Mary such as the spindle for her spinning.

3. And Anna sighed…praises you, O Lord.’ Anna’s dirge has faint echoes of Job’s laments ( Job 15:10; 20:14–18), as in her distress and unhappiness she regards her birth as a ‘curse’ and seems to imply that she, as well as her husband, was denied the right to offer a gift in the Temple, but again it is her barrenness which is the cause of her sadness. She contrasts her own barren state with the fruitfulness and fertility of the natural world around her. So in her lament she moves through the various layers of creation, comparing her own sterility with the fruitfulness she sees around her and grieving over it, comparing herself to both animate and inanimate creation. Ps 104:12 has a picture of birds nesting and singing in the trees by the springs of water. The fact that she has the luxury of ‘a garden’ to walk in with trees and water where fish swim underlines the wealth and social standing of the family and also emphasises the parallel with the wealthy Joachim in the book of Daniel, where all the action takes place in a garden.

  4  Flory, (1995) ‘Laurel … “fastened to the doorposts of a house, announced an occasion of domestic happiness such as a wedding or a birth.”’ 43. See also Ogle, (1910), 300.

93

94

co m m e n ta ry

4. And behold an angel…its life.’ This passage is very obviously modelled on scriptural events depicting the (usually miraculous) birth of an important character to aged or barren parents: Isaac is born to the elderly Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 18, 21); the conception and birth of Samson ( Jds 13); Samuel and his subsequent dedication in the shrine at Shiloh by Hannah, his previously barren mother (1 Sam 1) and the conception and birth of John the Baptist to aged parents (Lk 1). However, all of these are male; although there are some female protagonists who feature prominently in scriptural stories (Sarah, Rachel, Ruth, Rebecca, Deborah, Esther, Judith) there is no mention in scripture of the miraculous birth (or any birth stories) of a heroine. Hock has ‘messenger’ in this passage, preferring the more prosaic translation; Elliott prefers ‘angel’. Either way, even if not actually miraculous because of the age of the parents (there is no indication that Joachim and Anna are too old for parenthood) the conception of Mary is seen as a (possibly — depending on the manuscript version) miraculous answer to the prayer of her parents in the absence of Joachim and the child is seen as specially chosen by God. Anna expresses her gratitude, as did her OT namesake, by dedicating the coming child, whether male or female, to God before the birth. And behold there came two angels…first day in his house.

The emphasis of this incident is focused specifically on the conception of Mary by her mother, ‘Anna the ancestress of God’. East and West interpret this incident differently both artistically and theologically. It does not seem to have had the same appeal for Western artists as it has done through the ages for Eastern iconographers. Though nowhere alluded to in scripture, the scene of Joachim and Anna embracing at the Golden Gate of the Temple is the subject of countless icons, where it is frequently referred to as the Conception of the Theotokos; in some iconographic depictions there is — unambiguously — a bed in the back ground. In others the backdrop is the walls of Jerusalem and the Golden Gate. An important theological issue which divides East and West hinges on the manuscript tradition. Is Joachim told that his wife ‘has conceived’ or ‘shall conceive’? Hock notes: The manuscripts differ over whether Joachim is told that Anna is pregnant (perfect tense) or that she ‘will be pregnant’ (future tense).5 Hock chooses the perfect tense ‘has conceived’ while this time it is Elliott who prefers the more prosaic translation and uses the future tense ‘shall conceive’. For translators who accept the former, a miracle has occurred: Anna has conceived her child in Joachim’s absence. Although it is anachronistic to equate this statement with the much later Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which derives

  5  Hock 4:4. See also Vuong (2019), 56 for a full discussion.

co mme ntary

from Augustine’s teaching on ‘Original Sin,’ it has implications for this dogma, which now divides East and West.6 Its liturgical history, which charts the spread of this incident from East to West throughout the Christian world, is complex: the date on which this feast is celebrated (December 9 in the East; December 8 in the West), corresponds with the date of her Nativity: September 8. Anna’s conception of Mary was being celebrated by the seventh century on December 8 (or 9). There is evidence of a feast of the ‘Conception of the Most Holy and All Pure Mother of God’ being celebrated in Syria on December 9. From Syria it came to Rome with Syrian refugees and from there it spread, slowly at first, throughout the Western church. There is evidence of its celebration in Anglo-Saxon England (where devotion to Mary was strong) by about the year 1000 and possibly in Irish monasteries at an even earlier date. The Irish martyrological tradition notes a feast of ‘Mariae virginis conceptio’ possibly in the early ninth century.7 The great number of Joachim’s flocks and the generosity of his offerings are intended to underline his wealth, social standing and importance. In a traditionally agricultural society this was the accepted way of measuring wealth and status (cf. Old Testament characters such as Abraham and Job).

5. The next day…called her Mary. This paragraph contains another mysterious element: Hock comments that ‘how this plate would make clear Joachim’s sin is not made clear,’ but assumes that the ‘frontlet’ was some kind of burnished disc (Ex 28:1–39) in which Joachim could see his own reflection either distorted or non-distorted, and comments that in the ancient world mirrors were frequently used for divination.8 There is an echo of Lk 18:14 when the tax collector ‘went home justified’ knowing he had been forgiven by God. Liturgically the Nativity of Mary is one of the oldest feasts in her honour. The celebration of this feast originated in Jerusalem, where it was kept in the fifth century as the dedication feast of the Basilica Sanctae Mariae ubi nata est, now known as the Basilica of St Anne, and traditionally regarded as being the home of the parents of Mary, so, according to the legend, where she would have been born. The feast was celebrated in the East as the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Syrian monks had brought the feast to Italy by the end of the seventh century. From then onwards the feast was celebrated by Western Christians, although the text of the PEJ to which it owes its origin was unknown in the West until the turn of the fifteenth century. By the thirteenth century the liturgical feast had spread throughout the West and had developed into a solemnity with a preceding vigil which stipulated

  6  For a full discussion see, Rumsey (2020), 162–63.   7  For a full discussion see Rumsey (2020), 163–64.   8  Hock (1995), 5:1. See also discussion in Vuong (2019), 58.

95

96

co m m e n ta ry

a day’s fast in preparation. The feast itself, however, remained in the post-Vatican II renewal of the liturgy, and has continued to be celebrated on September 8. To illustrate its importance for the Orthodox churches: it is one of the Twelve Great feasts of the year and the icon of the Nativity of the Mother of God has its honoured place on the iconostasis. On icons Mary’s birth is depicted as taking place in a wealthy household with rich furniture and hangings and where serving women wait on Anna, demonstrating reliance on the PEJ for the details of this story. Ritually, we have here an indication of the unique (and impossible) purity attributed to Mary; the baby Mary is only breast fed after Anna has purified herself from her post-partum ritual uncleanness (Lev 12:1–8). According to the PEJ even her own mother is not allowed to endanger the purity of Mary by feeding her while she herself is still ritually impure. Mary, even as a newborn baby must not come into contact with anything ritually unclean, even her own mother. Vuong introduces the possibility of a wet nurse, but prefers to understand the incident as intended to be miraculous.9 There are several differing manuscripts traditions regarding the length of Anna’s pregnancy: some manuscripts have six months, some have seven months, some eight or nine. Elliott and Hock both accept nine months as original, while Vuong prefers seven.10 The probable intention behind the differing lengths of Anna’s gestation was to show, once again, how unique and precocious the baby Mary was, even before her birth. Great figures in both the OT and classical literature are frequently identified by unusual or improbable events surrounding their conception and/or birth. Day by day the child grew strong…they served her.

Mary’s growth and maturing is paralleled with Luke’s description of Jesus (Lk 2:40) and John the Baptist (Lk 1:80). She even exceeds her mother’s expectation by being able not only to stand but even to walk seven steps at the premature age of six months. Anna realises by the precocity of her child that she is somehow special, destined for greatness and must not be allowed to contaminate herself by contact with anything savouring of the world around her. Anna prepares a sanctuary in her bedroom for Mary (individual bedrooms where ‘shrines’ can be erected are another indication of the wealth of the family; Jesus illustrates the communal nature of peasant families’ sleeping arrangements in his parable about the householder ‘in bed with his children’) where apparently Mary spends her childhood ‘cloistered’ from any defiling elements. The ‘undefiled daughters of the Hebrews’ are unexplained and otherwise unknown — they do not appear in scripture — but they appear and reappear throughout the narrative rather like a Greek chorus whenever Mary’s purity is emphasised.11 Elliott translates the verb in the last sentence as ‘served’ but Hock shows how it could be translated as ‘amused’ or ‘played with’. Whatever the

  9  See Vuong (2019), 60.   10  See Vuong (2019), 59–60 for discussion of this preference.   11  See Vuong (2019), 62, 65 for a discussion of the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews.

co mme ntary

original intention, the significance is clear: Mary was only allowed contact with those who would not endanger her extraordinary purity but would serve to enhance it. However, in all these circumstances, Mary is as far removed from the reader as she is from the world around her. In spite of her precociousness, we do not hear her speak or know what she is feeling or thinking. Mary, even as a very young child, dwells in another, unreal world completely cut off and isolated from anything that savours of this material universe. Anna, by removing her unique child into the sanctuary of her room, also removes her from us; we know nothing about the ‘real’ Mary, only about the puppet she has become. On the child’s first birthday…cannot be superseded.’

Once again Joachim’s wealth and social position are emphasised, this time by the lavish feast he provides to celebrate Mary’s first birthday, and to which he invites all the local dignitaries and religious leaders. He is obviously recognised in his society as a man who has influence and authority and who commands great respect. The priests on their part recognise the potential importance of the child and bless her accordingly. She will have significance not only for the Jewish nation but for all peoples and not only for her own time but for all ages to come. The words in these paragraphs echo the words attributed to Mary in the Magnificat in Luke’s Gospel account. Mary is here recognised by priests and people as being more highly blessed than any other human being. In this way the reader is prepared for the amazing events surrounding the conception and birth of her son. And her mother carried…shall never fade.

All these narrative conceits — Joachim’s wealth and social status, Anna’s piety and devotion, the enthusiastic blessings of the priests, parallels with great and heroic figures from the OT, the circumstances surrounding Mary’s miraculous conception and her unrivalled purity, ritual isolation and advanced development — give enormous emphasis to her uniqueness and mark her our as being ‘different’ and special. So we see that the principles upon which the PEJ is based, are those of divine election and heavenly favour, predestination, exclusion, separation, elitism, and the overwhelming importance of ritual purity, especially, as Mary grows up, of virginity; all values which run completely counter to the gospel preached by Jesus. We see in the New Testament that the God whom Jesus came to reveal as Father does not encourage separation or exclusion; all are his children and all are welcome in his kingdom and at his table, which was a lesson the early disciples, coming from a Jewish background, had to learn the hard way and had to struggle to accept. But the PEJ has perpetuated an Old Testament attitude towards society: that of exclusion, divine election, and discrimination based on ritual purity, particularly for women. As the narrative develops, more and more importance is given to Mary’s virginity, but as far as we know from the written gospel accounts, Jesus had nothing to say about the value of virginity for women; according to Paul, no teaching of his on the subject has been recorded (1 Cor 7:25) and he is presented as accepting the various women

97

98

co m m e n ta ry

who figure in the gospel narratives warmly and with respect without questioning their sexual status. He seemed particularly caring and gentle towards women who, for whatever reason, were not virgins, and certainly did not insist that the women who followed him adopt a celibate way of life. He seems to have made a point of sharing with women disciples both his table fellowship, which thus involved eating with women, and also his teaching, which included ‘sinners and prostitutes’ — to the shock and dismay of his critics.

7. The months passed…temple of the Lord. Anna’s song here echoes that of her namesake in the OT (1 Sam 2:1–10) and the story of her bringing the child Mary to be presented in the Temple and then dedicated to a life lived there parallels very closely that of the child Samuel by his parents. The ‘undefiled daughters of the Hebrews’ appear again as Mary’s virginal companions but without any explanation. And the priest took her…Israel loved her.

The scene of Mary’s presentation in the Temple, although completely fabricated by the author, is one which has appealed to many artists in both East and West. While Russia, Greece and other traditionally Orthodox countries have an iconographic tradition which is many centuries old and makes very definite stipulations as to how the scenes must be depicted, medieval and Renaissance artists such as Giotto, Titian, Michaelangelo and many others have produced countless interpretations of the scene according to their own vision and understanding of the PEJ. Whereas in the East, the writers of icons working within the tradition portrayed her Presentation in the Temple,12 and other scenes from the PEJ, anonymously in accordance with the traditional canons of iconography,13 dating back many centuries, in the West it was great Late Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque painters and artists such as Giotto di Bondone (1266/67–1337); Fra Angelico (1395–1455); Hans Holbein the Elder (c. 1460–1524); Titian (1488/1490–1576); Raphael (1483–1520), Jan Mertens the Younger (c. 1470–c. 1547); Jacques Stella (1596–1657), and many others,14 who have portrayed these feasts of Mary according to their own imaginative interpretation of these events and so the faithful learned their Mariology, not from theologians but from canvas, from frescoes and from stained glass windows. Liturgically, the celebration of what came to be known as the feast of the Presentation of Mary in the Temple began in sixth-century Jerusalem. It originated

  12  For the icon of the Entry of the Mother of God into the Temple, see Lossky (1983), 156.   13  Such as, for example, the Manual of Iconography published at Novgorod in the XVIth century.   14  For illustration, see Cartlidge and Elliott (2001), 43. Woodcut by Albrecht Dürer, c. 1503–4, Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

co mme ntary

as a result of the consecration of the colossal ‘Nea Church’; the Basilica of Saint Mary the New,15 built in 543 by the Emperor Justinian I near the site of the ruined Temple in Jerusalem. This feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Temple is kept on November 21 in both Eastern and Western Churches.16 The history of its establishment as a liturgical feast in the West is especially interesting because we can actually track its journey from East to West in great detail thanks to the energetic lobbying of a French nobleman, the crusader Philippe de Mézières (c. 1327–1408). It was through his labours and enthusiasm that the feast gained first in popularity and then eventual celebration in the West.17

8. And her parents…hand of an angel. From this point in the narrative, Joachim and Anna disappear; they have served their usefulness and are no longer needed. They do not even appear in scenes where their presence would have been particularly appropriate and expected, such as the selection of a suitable suitor for their daughter where, in the culture of the time, the full responsibility would have been theirs. Instead, this responsibility has been given to the priests in the Temple. The issue of food and eating habits provides us with a very telling window into the text. In the PEJ, Mary is presented as solitary and alone in the Temple where she is ‘nurtured like a dove’ and eats the exclusive heavenly food of angels, thus suggesting that the author’s view of the nature of society is one of extreme ritual purity and firm exclusion, which exclusion is based on having transgressed the laws upholding this ritual purity. This is the very opposite of the Gospel where Jesus’ table is open to everyone: no one feels left out. Jesus preaches an inclusive message of God’s love and compassion, not one of exclusion on grounds of ritual impurity and is consistently criticised by his opponents for ‘eating with unwashed hands’ and other ritual transgressions of the law. Commentators throughout the centuries, whether they regarded the feast as historical or not, have seen the theme of this incident to be the preparation of Mary for her role as Mother of God. They describe Mary as being in the holiest place of Israel, the Temple, because, she is herself the holy temple of the God, having conceived the Son of God within her womb. However, although the historical reality is suspect, both traditions, West as well as East, put a similar interpretation on this feast in that they use it to present Mary as a model of total passivity; she has become a mere cipher with no individuality.

  15  For the process by which the remembrance of the dedication of a church became first of all a feast day of Mary and then a commemoration of her personal dedication, see the analysis by O’Loughlin (2009), 57–80.   16  For a full account of the establishment of the feast see Rumsey (2011), 165–70.   17  For a full account of the liturgical history of the feast, see Rumsey (2020), 166–67.

99

1 00

co m m e n ta ry

When she was twelve…will indeed do.’

According to the text of the PEJ, Mary was welcomed into the most sacred place in Israel, the Temple, and not just into the area set apart for women, the Court of the Women, but into the very Holy of Holies itself, where only the High Priest was allowed to go once a year and only on the strictest terms of ritual purity and Mary was welcomed not just into the Holy of Holies but right up to the very altar itself. Nothing could express more clearly the almost unimaginable ritual purity of the child Mary. However, once she became a woman, on reaching the age of twelve which was seen in Judaism as the customary age for the menarche, her presence in the Temple became problematic because of the possibility of her ritual impurity (Lev. 15:19–33) which would defile both Mary herself and the Temple.18 So the ‘high priests, priests, scholars, council of elders’ who had welcomed her so enthusiastically nine years before and had given her the supreme blessing now saw her as an embarrassment and were anxious to remove her, not, apparently, having realised the inevitability of this natural occurrence. So it seems, there is an anomalous tradition in Christianity, which sees Mary as simultaneously reconciling human beings to God by giving birth to the Holy One of God and yet being herself potentially ‘impure’ and capable of polluting the sacred.19 By insisting on the permanent exclusion of Mary from the sacred space of the Temple when she reached womanhood ‘lest she defile it,’ the author of the PEJ, by means of the popularity and widespread dissemination of his work and the consequent devotion it has inspired towards Mary and her place in the church as a model for all women, has labelled women generally as unfit to minister in the sacred space of the Christian sanctuary. And the high-priest…came running.

Here and in two other places in the narrative ‘the high priest’ is identified with Zechariah the father of John the Baptist. This is a conceit of the author as in Lk 1:5 Zechariah is simply one of the regular priests ‘who belonged to the Abijah section of the priesthood’ (Lk 1:5) and who took his turn to minister in the Temple. Later we see further attempts by the author to harmonise his own story with incidents involving various priestly individuals named Zechariah in scripture. Although Mary is promised as ‘wife’ to whoever the Lord indicates, the fact that it is only (presumably elderly) ‘widowers’ who are to be considered as potential marriage partners suggest that Mary’s ‘marriage’ was to be unconsummated so that even after she left the Temple, her extraordinary purity would not be compromised.

  18  For a full discussion, see Rumsey (2020), 125–49.   19  For a full treatment of this issue, see Rumsey (2020), 195–237. See also Vuong (2019), 69.

co mme ntary

9. And Joseph threw…as your ward.’ Joseph (hitherto unknown in this text; the author seems to assume that the reader will be familiar with him) is chosen (again by a miracle to emphasise Mary’s unique status) to receive ‘the virgin of the Lord’ — the first time she is given this title. In the accounts we have in the synoptic Gospels, neither Luke nor Matthew even hint that Joseph has been married previously and/or widowed. On the contrary, the implication in the nativity narratives in both Gospels is that the betrothal of Mary and Joseph follows completely normal Jewish custom. But here Joseph is chosen by divine intervention and by means of a miraculous sign receives Mary as his ‘ward’; not as his wife. Further differences between the characterised version of Joseph presented in the canonical Gospels of Matthew and Luke and the Joseph we find in the PEJ narrative are as follows. In Matthew Joseph has God’s will revealed to him in dreams (thus paralleling Joseph in Gen 37) and he carries out the divine commands immediately and without question, whereas Joseph in the PEJ narrative is querulous and full of objections and has to be warned by the high priest who quotes OT punishments for disobedience. But Joseph…of Israel.’

Here we have the origin of the story — perpetuated by Epiphanius of Salamis — that Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage were the ‘brothers of Jesus’ mentioned in the canonical Gospels. Jerome wishes to present Joseph as virginal, like Mary, so he understands these ‘brothers’ as cousins of Jesus, the offspring of Joseph’s brother Clopas. It is these two versions of Joseph’s previous marital status (or lack of it) which have endured in Christian tradition. And the high-priest…will guard you.’

It now becomes necessary for the narrative that Joseph be removed from the domestic scene so that it is quite apparent that he is in no way involved in the conception of Jesus. However, his departure does appear to be irresponsible when he has been specially chosen by divine intervention; he has only just received Mary as his ward and has taken such a precious possession into his sole care but he apparently passes this responsibility on to ‘the Lord.’ The incident of the betrothal of Mary and Joseph figures largely in the PEJ, because Mary’s reputation and her virginal purity depended on a suitable guardian being found for her, and the miraculous account of Joseph’s staff indicated that he was God’s choice. (Thus he is frequently portrayed in Western religious art carrying a staff from which a dove is flying or out of which a lily blossoms). As a liturgical celebration it was popular with some religious orders particularly those dedicated to Mary, but was removed from the calendar, along with other devotional feasts, by the liturgical reforms of Vatican II.

101

102

co m m e n ta ry

10. Now there was a council…fetched her. Here we have more confusion: Hock and Vuong point out, along with other commentators, that there was no ‘tribe of David.’ And yet another anomaly in what is becoming a very self-contradictory narrative is that the high-priest is anxious to find seven virgins to weave a new Temple veil and these young women are brought right into the Temple precincts with Mary, whom the same high-priest has just been anxious to remove from the sacred area in case she pollute it by her menstruation. The fact that any or all of these young women could have been menstruating and so pollute the Temple does not seem to occur to him or to be an obstacle to their presence. The important issue here, in line with the overall moral concerns of the author, seems to be their purity and virginity. Then they brought…and spun it.

Mary, in line with her position of privilege and predilection, is chosen to weave the most precious threads of purple and scarlet. A further mention of Zechariah, identifying him with John the Baptist’s father, attempts to harmonise this incident with Lk 1, ‘clumsily’ according to Hock.

11. And she took the pitcher…drew out the thread. Mary has now returned ‘home’ (we are not told where ‘home’ is; if we are to assume it is Nazareth, according to the canonical gospels, then the narrative assumes a good deal of travelling between north and south in Israel). The scene of ‘The Annunciation at the Well’ has no basis in canonical scripture or liturgical commemoration but has been adopted iconographically and can be seen in numerous frescoes throughout the traditionally Orthodox Mediterranean countries. This depiction of the Annunciation at a spring of water, or the Annunciation at the Well has been inspired by the accounts as they are presented in the PEJ and in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and this interpretation of the event depicts Mary being greeted by Gabriel as she is drawing water, the first of two successive meetings in which the archangel delivers his news, the first one out of doors, when she hears a voice but sees no one, followed by an indoor annunciation. There are many frescoes, ivories and icons which depict the scene as recounted in the PEJ, with its characteristic scenarios. The oldest extant is in the church in Dura Europos in Syria, where there is a fresco of a woman apparently drawing water at a well. This has been linked to the many Old Testament scenes which feature women drawing water and although the consensus of scholarship sees this wall painting as the Samaritan woman of Jn 4, Michael Peppard, following Dominic Serra, having completed a detailed critical analysis of the fresco, sees it as the Annunciation scene as described in the PEJ.20 This would seem to be a more likely interpretation than   20  Vanden Eykel is another commentator who offers a possible identification of this fresco as the annunciation, and he also cites Serra and Peppard. Vanden Eykel (2016), 114.

co mme ntary

that of the Samaritan woman, as there is no figure of Christ in the scene. It is also striking that the woman is depicted poised in an almost identical attitude to that of Mary in the examples described below. This identification of this fresco from Dura Europos is also discussed by Shoemaker,21 and Mary Joan Winn Leith makes the same identification, describing it as the ‘earliest known depiction of Mary.’22 Another early example of this scene appears on an ivory plaque from the fifth century, which may have been originally part of a book cover, and which is now in the Treasury of Milan Cathedral. Here, we have a small square ivory plaque which depicts the Annunciation. This plaque shows Mary kneeling by a stream, a pitcher in her hand, as she looks back over her shoulder to hear the angel’s greeting. In a much later manuscript example, the twelfth-century Homilies of James Kokkinobaphos the two meetings are again suggested: at the left, Mary dips her pitcher into a well in a similar pose to that depicted on the Milan cathedral ivory, as she turns to hear Gabriel’s message; at the right, she approaches a house where she will receive the angel’s message for a second time but now indoors.23 And behold, an angel…woman bears?’

Although this scene in the PEJ closely approximates that in Luke’s Gospel, Mary’s question here is contrasted with Luke’s account, and her concern seems to be rather about the manner in which she will give birth; the implications being the hope that, in accord with the overall emphasis of the narrative, she will not lose her virginity. And the angel…to your word.’

This account of the Annunciation places the action within the house and parallels the account in Luke’s Gospel very closely, with an occasional echo of Matthew. The canonical story of the Annunciation to Mary is situated indoors in Luke’s Gospel, but in many artistic representations it shows extra non-canonical details which link this event to the text of the PEJ. For instance, Mary is frequently found spinning the veil for the temple, and this begins to occur in icons, carvings and sculptures from the late fourth or early fifth centuries. Vanden Eykel comments at length on the significance of the Virgin the Spinner and analyses the scene of Mary spinning at the Annunciation.24 He points out the significance of the parallel between Mary both spinning the veil for the temple, and ‘spinning’ the human flesh for the Christ at the Incarnation and agree that ‘it signifies a correspondence between the thread

  21  Shoemaker (2016), 196.   22  See Leith (2017), 40. ‘A painting in the baptistery of the third-century church at Dura-Europos, Syria, depicts a woman beside a well. Although this figure has been interpreted previously as the Samaritan woman, new analysis suggests that she is actually the Virgin Mary. This scene portrays the Annunciation — when the angel Gabriel announces to the Virgin Mary that she will bear a son, Jesus (Lk 1:26–38). This is the earliest depiction of the Virgin Mary found to date.’   23  For further examples, see Rumsey (2020) 185–88.   24  Vanden Eykel (2016), 101–34.

103

104

co m m e n ta ry

of the veil and Jesus’ flesh.’25 From then on the scene of Mary spinning appears with great frequency in icons and paintings, both East and West. Cartlidge and Elliott comment on ‘an especially beautiful example’ of an eleventh century icon from the monastery of St Catherine, Mount Sinai.26 They continue to comment: The Annunciation in which Mary was interrupted at her wool-work, it is safe to say, was the dominant image of the event in the pre-Carolingian period, and it persists in the Eastern Church to this day. In the West, Mary’s occupation at the Annunciation began to shift from her working on the temple veil to an emphasis on her learning. In the Carolingian period, Mary holds a book, or is seated by a bookstand upon which is a Bible; she is reading the Psalms.27 This depiction echoes the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, which found better acceptance in the West than the PEJ, and which states: ‘No-one could be found better instructed than [Mary] in the law of God and the singing of the songs of David.’28 This is a detail not found in the PEJ, but it echoes the thought of that text; again, Mary is singled out as specially gifted and close to God. Liturgically this feast is kept on March 25 in both East and West. It has been observed in the Western Church since at least the seventh century as it is mentioned as being kept universally throughout the Church by two Spanish synods in the mid- late-seventh century.

12. And she made ready…leaped and blessed you.’ Yet another anomaly is that after the great concern of the priests that the young women weavers should be ‘pure virgins of the tribe of David’ in this scene Elizabeth — married and pregnant and of the tribe of Aaron, according to Luke, here appears to be included among the virgin weavers supposedly from the ‘tribe of David’ and this elicits no comment from the author. It seems that maybe the author is attempting to harmonise his own version of the story of the visitation with that of Luke. But Mary forgot the mysteries…mysterious things happened.

The narrative has apparently moved on four years since Mary left the Temple and she is now, according to the story, sixteen and unaware of the miraculous events of the recent past. Mary’s puzzling lapse of memory is yet another surprising invention of the author; there is nothing in the canonical gospels to indicate that was so.

  25  Vanden Eykel (2016), 101.   26  See Cartlidge and Elliott (2001), 80 and for illustration, 81.   27  See Cartlidge and Elliott (2001), 80–82. For illustrations, see Cartlidge and Elliott (2001), 81, 82, 83. This parallels Western illustrations of the child Mary with her mother, Anne, where Anne is holding a book, or a scroll, and is teaching Mary to read.   28  Cartlidge and Elliott (2001), 80.

co mme ntary

13. Now when she…it has come to me.’ 14. And Joseph feared…he guarded the girl. This portion of the narrative follows the canonical account in Matthew’s Gospel closely, with the additions of some original dialogue which is invented by the author and dramatises the succinct account in Mt 1:18–25. In the PEJ version, Joseph is much more suspicious of Mary’s behaviour and at first suspects her of ‘sin’ but when she repeats her ignorance of the cause of her pregnancy he allows the possibility of divine intervention and Mary’s innocence.

15. And Annas the scribe…Joseph was silent.

16. And the high-priest…God of Israel. This very protracted and tortuous section comes entirely from the prolific imagination of the author. ‘Annas the scribe’ is a fabrication, unknown in the gospel accounts. The author’s highly inventive version seems to be inspired by the trial of wives suspected of unfaithfulness (Num 5:11–31) who had to drink the water of bitterness, but he reconstructs this trial and makes both marriage partners subject to the test and eventually Joseph and Mary are both able to maintain their innocence and allay his suspicions. However, as it is presented here, it is not a test of infidelity to a marriage partner, but a question of whether their marriage has been consummated or not. This presents the issue, which was becoming more and more controversial in the early church, as to whether celibacy was more meritorious than marriage. The PEJ added fuel to the fire of this argument by its insistence on Mary’s virginity within her marriage to Joseph which the author presents as praiseworthy. (It is noteworthy that the main protagonists in the drama of the text, Joachim and Anna, Mary and Joseph, do not enjoy normal marital relationships. In both marriages it is implied that celibacy is preferable: in that of Joachim and Anna by the fact that Mary is conceived miraculously in the absence of her father and in that of Mary and Joseph because their marriage is unconsummated). Hunter comments that, as early as the fifth century, the supremacy of virginity was a controversial issue: ‘[B]oth Helvidius and Jovinian rejected the notion that virginity was a higher and better way of life than marriage. Both taught that ascetic elitism threatened a sound understanding of the church, whose holiness was shared by all members alike. They also shared the view that the ascetic depreciation of marriage was based on a faulty, and ultimately heretical, view of created reality. Both writers saw these negative tendencies mirrored in the ascetic use of Mary’s virginity.’29   29  Hunter (1993), 60–61. For a detailed discussion, see Rumsey (2021), 61–92.

105

1 06

co m m e n ta ry

17. Now there went…place is desert.’ The beginning of this section returns to the Lukan account but here it is only those in ‘Bethlehem in Judea’ who are to be enrolled, not ‘the whole world’ as in Lk 2:1, adding yet another anomaly to an already geographically confused text. Joseph has to travel to Bethlehem, presumably from Jerusalem, where the previous action has taken place in the Temple. Again the ‘a son of Joseph’ makes an appearance in the narrative (‘Samuel’ appears without any introduction), but Joseph, here an old man, although happy to enrol his sons, is unsure how to record his relationship with ‘the girl’ Mary.

18. And he found a cave…of Bethlehem. In this passage we have one of the defining elements of the PEJ version: Jesus’ birth taking place, not in an inn in the town of Bethlehem (as in Luke) but in a wayside cave some miles away in the open desert countryside outside the town. This is the reference found in Justin, Origen and Clement which later commentators identify as apparently confirming their familiarity with the text of PEJ. Vanden Eykel treats this scene, its possible sources and its relationship to the writings of Justin in great detail. He says: ‘The cave-birth tradition originates during the second century, but its source is undetermined. Outside of PEJ, its earliest attestations are in the works of Justin Martyr and Origin (Dial. 78.5; Cels. 1.51.11–17). It is possible that both authors reveal familiarity with PEJ. This is especially the case with Origin who elsewhere refers to a “Book of James”… Scholars have explored alleged correlations between PEJ and Justin with varying results… These studies illustrate the complexity of this tradition.’30 Now I, Joseph…on its course.

This is a remarkable and memorable passage and is in a completely different literary genre from the rest of the text. Here the narrative abruptly changes to the first person and we are presented with Joseph’s autobiographical account of the cosmic effects of the nativity of the Christ child. Here we have a passage which tries to express the importance of the birth of the Christ in a quasi mystical way, by describing the elements of the universe and the daily agricultural life of the region as coming to a complete standstill at the moment of the nativity as if Joseph is retelling it for the reader from his own experience. In this it parallels the account of the crucifixion of Jesus in Mt 27:45, 51 ‘when there was darkness over all the land … the earth quaked; the rocks were split and the tombs gave up their dead’ in order to emphasize its significance as an event with cosmic repercussions. Vanden Eykel sees this as the most significant element in the narrative; hence the title of his work.31

  30  Vanden Eykel (2016), 138.   31  Vuong discusses this incident at some length; see Vuong (2019), 90, 91.

co mme ntary

19. And behold…‘Come and see.’ At this point the narrative suddenly reverts to the third person (apart from a phrase in a coming sentence) and from now on Joseph is no longer speaking directly to the reader but the quasi-mystical events continue to be recounted in the way the child is born. Here we have another protracted dialogue invented by the author and with no foundation whatever in the canonical gospels. And she went…this new sight.’

The midwife then accompanies Joseph to the cave (the narrative has returned to the third person), but her ministrations are not needed as Mary has given birth to her child and is now feeding him. In this passage is announced the virginitas in partu which has had such a fundamental effect on Mariology throughout the centuries. Whereas the canonical gospels maintain silence on the exact means of this event, in the PEJ Mary does not give birth according to the normal laws of nature, but the Christ child appears in ‘a great light’ without causing any physical damage to his mother. To see that this was a controversial issue in the early centuries we only have to return to Hunter’s discussion of the thinking of two early sceptics of the received doctrine regarding marriage and virginity: ‘for Helvidius, the doctrine of Mary’s virginity post partum served to narrow the scope of holiness. For Jovinian, the virginity of Mary in partu, currently being espoused by Ambrose, expressed the ascetic party’s contempt for the material world and implied that only the virginal Christian truly transcended the original sin.’32 By thus giving the theology of marriage and celibacy this new twist, the biblical view of the goodness of creation, of the material world (Gen 1) and of the holiness of the married state as sharing in the creative power of God has been reversed. Largely because of this incident in the PEJ, celibacy, in imitation of Mary, has now become the preferred state over marriage. And the midwife came…not allow.’

This unnamed midwife leaves the cave, and declares to a passing friend called Salome33 (otherwise unknown, though some commentators think the author may have intended to identify her with the Salome who stood at the cross: Mk 15:40) that she has witnessed the hitherto unknown miracle of virginitas in partu. And Salome said…given birth.’

  32  Hunter (1993), 60–61.   33  Vanden Eykel graphically describes Salome thus: ‘Her character is enigmatic, her entrance into the narrative abrupt: she is not mentioned before the midwife finds her loitering about the cave entrance, and she disappears soon after she performs her examination of Mary.’ Vanden Eykel (2016), 140.

107

1 08

co m m e n ta ry

20. And the midwife…[consumed] by fire!’ This incident is at once the most bizarre and probably the most influential in the whole narrative in the effects it has had on the lives of Christian women ever since in the importance it gives to virginity. The author presents supposed physical proof of Mary’s virginal childbearing in a way which parallels the incident of Thomas testing the wounds of the risen Jesus. Quarles shows the ‘significant verbal parallels’ between the Greek text of Jn 20:25 and the PEJ 19:3 (the Salome incident) which, as he rightly points out, ‘heighten the suspicion of dependency.’34 However, although the verbal similarity is so strong as to suggest dependency, the dynamic of the argument in the two incidents is different. In Jn 20:25, the protagonist, Thomas, refuses to believe in the reality of the resurrection of Jesus unless the wounds are real: unless the body of the risen Lord has been torn open. In the PEJ 19:3, the protagonist, Salome, refuses to believe in the virgin birth unless there is no ‘wound’: unless the virgin body of Mary is found to be intact; not torn open. Thomas’ finger finds a wound, and Thomas believes, though he is chided by the Lord for doubting; Salome’s finger finds no wound and her hand is consumed by fire as a punishment for her unbelief, though it is subsequently healed. There is also a parallel between the Salome incident and that of Uzzah ‘reaching out his hand’ to touch the holy ark of the Lord, 2 Sam 6:6–7 and being punished, which punishment is understood by the biblical writer to be for his lack of reverence.35 And Salome bowed…the cave justified.

There is an echo here of the woman with the haemorrhage who placed her faith in being cured on the power of touch (Lk 8:44–45). Throughout scripture the conceptualisation of ‘touch’ is rendered in various ways. Two which are relevant to this passage are ‘touch as negative’ relating to fear of the holy, as in the above quoted passage from 2 Sam 6:1–11 where Uzzah is apparently punished for his irreverence in touching the supremely holy ark of the Lord. Mary is represented in the opening chapters of Luke as the holy ark of the New Covenant so Salome is duly punished for her irreverence. But ‘touch’ is also presented as positive, particularly in gospel incidents where Jesus, introduced as a Jewish thaumaturge, worked healing miracles through the power of touch.36 Both of these scriptural motifs, touch as negative and touch as positive, are graphically illustrated in the Salome incident. And, behold…to Jerusalem.’

There is here a clear echo of the ‘Messianic Secret’ as found in Mark’s Gospel, where recipients of Jesus’ restorative powers are told not to reveal the source of their healing.

  34  Quarles (1998), 139–49.   35  Vuong also discusses this incident at some length; see Vuong (2019), 100–01.   36  See Mk 1:31; Mk 1:40–42; Lk 7:14; Lk 8:54.

co mme ntary

From this point in the text Mary almost disappears. Apart from two minor mentions in further paragraphs the narrative is silent about her and the interest shifts to the family of John the Baptist. Hock comments on this, and discusses the literary unity of the text in some detail.37 But whereas other commentators posit secondary sources Hock argues that ‘overall consistency in vocabulary and syntax’38 support literary unity.

21. And behold, Joseph…to worship him.’ In describing Joseph as ‘ready to go to Judaea’ the author introduces even more confusion into the already geographically muddled text. Is this deliberate on the part of the author? However, this is the last mention we have of Joseph. He now disappears from the narrative just as Joachim and Anna did much earlier once their significance in the evolution of the story was not longer needed. Even Mary eventually fades into the background as Elizabeth, John the Baptist and Zechariah become the major actors in the drama. With the arrival of the wise men the PEJ narrative approximates Matthew’s gospel presentation. When Herod heard…by another route.

This section follows Matthew’s gospel closely albeit with a slightly extended dialogue, which only contradicts the canonical account in some minor details, such as the wise men finding the Child and his mother in the cave, rather than in the house, where Matthew situates them. It does, however, place Herod in the unlikely place of ‘the praetorium’ which was the Roman, not Jewish, seat of authority.

22. But when Herod realized…an ox-manger. The account here in the PEJ has now switched from Luke’s version (although there has been no mention of the shepherds, as in Luke), and follows Matthew’s gospel though with some notable omissions. The slaughter of the innocents, however, is strangely different from the account in Matthew. In the PEJ, it is only then that Mary wraps the baby in swaddling clothes and lays him in ‘an ox-manger,’ the implication being to hide him. There is no mention of a journey to Egypt or a return to Nazareth as in Matthew. But Elizabeth, when she heard…protected them.

This incident as recounted in the PEJ is completely extraneous to the New Testament account and puts the infant John the Baptist’s life just as much at risk as that of the

  37  Hock (1995), 13–15.   38  Hock (1995), 15.

109

110

co m m e n ta ry

infant Jesus. There is no suggestion in the canonical gospels that John was in immediate danger. More confusion is introduced by Herod’s remark ‘His son is to be king over Israel’ as this was never even suggested as a possibility for John. Perhaps no other artefact illustrates so graphically the adoption by the Orthodox iconographic tradition of the PEJ than the composite icon of the Nativity. Lossky describes a particular ‘example of a XVIIth century multiple icon with many figures. It consists of 16 scenes, differing as to time and place of action, combined into one general composition. Since all these scenes are connected with the nativity of Christ, either directly or indirectly, they are grouped together in such a manner that one scene overlaps another; this gives the image the character of a consecutive story and, as a whole, constitutes a multiple icon of the Nativity.’39 All these scenes are taken directly from the PEJ and many of them occur nowhere else.

23. Herod was searching…had been slain. 24. But at the hour…Christ in the flesh. The remainder of the PEJ is concerned with Elizabeth, Zechariah and the young John the Baptist. Mary, her child, and Joseph have been removed from the narrative. Now Elizabeth hides her son in the side of a mountain which miraculously opens to conceal them. Instead of killing the infant John, ‘the murderers’ kill his father, Zechariah. Hock suggests that the author is identifying the father of John the Baptist with the Zechariah mentioned in Mt 23:35, where another Zechariah is murdered near the altar.40 Zechariah is then replaced by Symeon, who was ‘he to whom it had been revealed by the Holy Spirit that he should not die until he had seen the Christ in the flesh.’ This section of the narrative has no roots in the canonical Gospels, although it does have some echoes of Lk 2, but is completely the fruit of the author’s vivid imagination.

25. Now I, James…Amen. [Birth of Mary Revelation of James grace to the writer and to those who read (his words)] The narrative here ends with a colophon identifying the author with ‘James,’ presumably the James who was ‘the brother of the Lord,’ thus claiming authenticity for his account, and stating the difficulties he experienced in writing it. If indeed, the PEJ is making this claim to be by James ‘the brother of the Lord’;41 Hock, speaking for all commentators, makes very clear, ‘the claims do not bear the simplest scrutiny’;

  39  Lossky (1983), 160–63 at 160.   40  Hock (1995), 75.   41  Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19.

co mme ntary

the epilogue, where this claim is made, is to be regarded as ‘a literary fiction’42 and as the PEJ obviously relies heavily on the infancy narratives in the canonical Gospels of Matthew and Luke which were composed probably c. 80–85 ce, ‘James’ could not possibly have written this text attributed to him, as he died, according to Josephus, in 62 ce. However, by even making the claim to be by the Lord’s brother, the author contradicts all that he writes about Mary’s perpetual virginity, hinting that this is not to be taken seriously, unless, of course he understands James to be a step brother of the Lord, a son of Joseph’s previous marriage. Hock acknowledges the difficulty of discovering the true author43 and eventually concludes: ‘the chances of knowing much about the author are minimal … (he) emerges as a figure of some literary ability and training who possessed a bookish acquaintance with Judaism.’44 However, this is debatable and commentators are divided on the issue. All we can be certain about is that this short text has had more far reaching influence on Christian theology and devotion and on the lives of women than any other extra-canonical writing.

  42  Hock (1995), 9.   43  Hock (1995), 9–11. See also Vuong (2019), 28, 29, 108.   44  Hock (1995), 11. For a full discussion of the relationship of the PEJ to Judaism, see Vuong (2019), 21–26.

111

Bibliography

Ancient and Medieval Authors Augustine, De civ. Dei, 15, 23, 4. Clement of Alexandria, ‘The Stromata, or Miscellanies,’ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (1885). Jerome, Aduersus Heluidium, PL vol. 23, 183–206. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 78, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans, 1986). Origen, Contra Celsum, Book I, Chapter 51. Trans. Frederick Crombie in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.).

Modern Authors Abdel, N. H., (2018) ‘The Representation of Virgin Mary in Islamic Art during the Ayyubid Dynasty (12th–13th Century),’ IJHCS 4: 4, 20–41. Archer, L. J., (1990), ‘In thy blood live’: Gender and Ritual in the Judaeo-Christian tradition’ in Joseph, A. ed., Through the Devil’s Gateway: Women, Religion and Taboo, London, 22–49. Archer, L. J., (1993) ‘The Role of Jewish Women in the Religion, Ritual, and Cult of Graeco-Roman Palestine’ in Cameron, A. and Kuhrt, A. eds, The Images of Women in Antiquity, Detroit, 273–87. Barnes, T., (2008) ‘The Date of Ignatius,’ ET, 120, 119–30. Børresen, K., (1985) ‘Mary in Catholic Theology’ in Küng, H. and Moltmann, J., eds, Mary in the Churches. Edinburgh. Børresen, K. ed., (1991) The Image of God: Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition, Oslo. Børresen, K., (2002) From Patristics to Matristics; Selected Articles on Christian Gender Models, Rome. Bovon, F. and Geoltrain, P. eds, (1997) Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 1 (Paris: Gallimard), especially pages 73–104. Beard, M., (1980) ‘The Sexual Status of Vestal Virgins,’ JRS, 70, 12–27. Brock, A. G., (2004) Mary Magdalene, the First Apostle: The Struggle for Authority, Harvard Theological Studies 51, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Brown, P., (1988) The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, New York.

114

bi bl io gr a p hy

Brown, P., (1991) The World of Late Antiquity ad 150–750, London. Brown, R., (1973) The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, London. Brown, R. Donfried, K. P., Fitzmyer, J. A., Reumann, J. eds, (1978) Mary in the New Testament, New York. Brown, R., (1993) The Birth of the Messiah, New York. Cartlidge, D. R., (2003) ‘How can this be?’ Bible Review, 18, 28–39 and 60. Cartlidge, D. R. and Elliott, J. Keith, (2001) Art and the Christian Apocrypha, London. Charlesworth, J. H., (1985) ‘Odes of Solomon (Late First to Early Second Century A. D.) A New Translation and Introduction’ in Charlesworth, J. H., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2. London, 725–71. Clark, A. C., (1918) The Descent of Manuscripts (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Clark, A. C., (1933) The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford and London: The Clarendon Press). Clayton, M., (1990) The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England, Cambridge. Cole, Z., (2017) Numerals in Early Greek New Testament Manuscripts: Text-Critical, Scribal, and Theological Studies (Leiden: Brill) (= NTTDS 53). Cooper, K., (1992) ‘Insinuations of Womanly Influence: An Aspect of the Christianization of the Roman Aristocracy,’ JRS, 82, 150–64. Cooper, K., (1999) The Virgin and the Bride: Idealized Womanhood in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Massachusettes. Cooper, K., (2013) Band of Angels: The Forgotten World of Early Christian Women, London. Cornell, T., (1978) ‘Some observations on the “crimen incesti,”’ in Le délit religieux dans la cité antique. Actes de la table ronde de Rome Rome: École Française de Rome, 1981. 27–37. Crawfurd, R., (1915) ‘Of Superstitions concerning Menstruation,’ PRSM, 9: Dec., 49–66. Cullmann, O., (1963) ‘Infancy Gospels,’ The New Testament Apocrypha Wilhelm Schneemelcher ed.; 2 vols; Philadelphia. Cunneen, S., (1996) In Search of Mary: the Woman and the Symbol, New York. Cunningham, M., (2011) ‘The Use of the Protevangelion of James in Eighth-Century Homilies on the Mother of God’ in Brubaker, L. and Cunningham, M. eds, The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium: Texts and Images. Farnham. Delehaye, H., (1995, repr. 1998) The Legends of the Saints, Dublin. Drobner, H. R., (2007), The Fathers of the Church; A Comprehensive Introduction. Massachusettes. Ehrman, B. D. and Pleše, Z., (2011) The Apocryphal Gospels (New York: Oxford University Press), especially pages 31–71. Ellicott, C. J., (1856) ‘On the Apocryphal Gospels,’ Cambridge Essays. Elliott, J. K., (1991) The Apocryphal Gospels, The Expository Times, October 1. Elliott, J. K., (2005) The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: The Clarendon Press), especially pages 48–67. Erbetta, M., (1981) Gli Apocrifi del Nuevo Testamento I, 2 (Casale Monteferrato: Marietti), especially pages 7–43. Flory, M. B., (1995) ‘The Symbolism of Laurel in Cameo Portraits of Livia’ Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Vol. 40. University of Michigan Press. Fonrobert, C. E., (2000) Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender. Stanford.

b i b li o graphy

Foskett, M. F., (2002) A Virgin Conceived: Mary and Classical Representations of Virginity. Indiana. Foster, P., (2009) The Apocryphal Gospels: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Gambero, L., (1991) Mary and the Fathers of the Church, trans. Thomas Buffer. San Francisco. Gaventa, B. R., (1999) Mary: Glimpses of the Mother of Jesus; Personalities of the New Testament. London. Goodspeed, E. J.(1901), ‘The Acts of Paul and Thecla’ The Biblical World 17.3, 185–90. Harvey Ashbrook, S., (1993) ‘Women in Early Syrian Christianity,’ in Cameron A and Kuhrt, A. eds, The Images of Women in Antiquity, Detroit, 288–98. Hayward, C. T. R., (1996), The Jewish Temple: A Non-biblical Sourcebook, London. Hock, R., (1995) The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas. Santa Rosa. Hock, R., (2015) ‘Response: Luke and the Protevangelium of James’ in. Robbins, V. K and Potter, J. M., eds, Jesus and Mary Reimagined in Early Christian Literature. Atlanta. Hollman, M. E., (2015) ‘Temple Virgin and Virgin Temple: Mary’s Body as Sacred Space in the Protevangelium of James’ in Robbins, V. K. and Potter, J. M. eds, Jesus and Mary Reimagined in Early Christian Literature. Atlanta. Horner, T. J., (2004) ‘Jewish Aspects of the Protoevangelium of James,’ JECS, 12: 3, 313–35. Hunt, H., (2012) Clothed in the Body: Asceticism, the Body and the Spiritual in the Late Antique Era. Farnham. Hunter, D., (1987) ‘Resistance to the Virginal Ideal in Late-Fourth Century Rome: The Case of Jovinian,’ TS, 48, 45–64. Hunter, D., (1993) ‘Helvidius, Jovinian and the Virginity of Mary in Late Fourth-Century Rome,’ JECS, 1: 1, 47–71. Hunter, D., (2007) Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy: The Jovinianist Controversy (Oxford Early Christian Studies). Oxford. Johnson, E. A., (2003) Truly our Sister: A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints. New York; London. Jones, B. C., (2011–2012), ‘The Bodmer “Miscellaneous” Codex and the Crosby-Schøyen Codex ms 193: A New Proposal,’ JCRCJ, 8, 9–20. Kelly, J. N. D., (2006), Early Christian Doctrines. London. Klauck, H.-J., (2003) Apocryphal Gospels English translation (London: T&T Clark). Kraemer, R. S., (1988), Maenads, Martyrs, Matrons, Monastics. Philadelphia. Kraemer, R. S., (1992) Her Share of the Blessings: Women’s Religions Among Pagans, Jews and Christians in the Greco-Roman World. New York. Kraemer, R. S., (1999) ‘Jewish Women and Christian Origins, Some Caveats’ in Women and Christian Origins. Oxford. Kraemer, R. S., (2012), ‘Becoming Christian’ in James, S. L. and Dillon, S. A Companion to Women in the Ancient World. Oxford, 524–38. Laurentin, R., (1987) A Year of Grace with Mary. Dublin. Lapham, F., (2003) An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha. London. Leith, M. J., (2017) ‘Earliest Images of the Virgin Mary; A summary of the earliest images and some early texts relating to the Virgin Mary with multiple illustrations’ BAR, 40–70.

115

116

bi bl io gr a p hy

Levine, A-J., (2005) A Feminist Companion to Mariology; A Feminist Companion to the New Testament & Early Christian Literature. London. Limberis, V., (1994) Divine Heiress: The Virgin Mary and the Creation of Christian Constantinople. London. Limor, O., (2014) ‘Mary in Jerusalem: An Imaginary Map’ in Kühnel, B., Noga-Banai, G., Vorholt, H. eds, Visual Constructs of Jerusalem. Turnhout, 11–22. Lossky, V., (1983) The Meaning of Icons. New York. Malone, M. T., (2014) The Elephant in the Church; A Woman’s Tract for our Times. Dublin. Markschies, C. and Schrðöter, J., with Heiser, A. eds, (2012) Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck) 1 in two parts. Especially pages 903–29. Meier, J. P., (1991) A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. New York. McKenzie, J. L., (1966) Dictionary of the Bible. London. McNamara, J. A., (1976), ‘Sexual Equality and the Cult of Virginity in Early Christian Thought,’ FS, 3: 3/4, 145–58. McNamara, J. A., (1996) Sisters in Arms. Massachusetts. Moraldi, L., (1998) Apocrifi del Nuevo Testamento I (Turin: Casale Monferrato), especially pages 113–1 9 (= Classici delle Religioni). Nutzman, M., (2013) ‘Mary in the Protevangelium of James: A Jewish Woman in the Temple?’ GRBS, 53, 551–78. Ogle, M. B., (1910), ‘Laurel in Ancient Religion and Folk-Lore’ The American Journal of Philology, 31, no. 3, 287–311, John Hopkins University Press. O’Loughlin, T., (2009) ‘The Protoevangelium of James and the Liturgical Memory of the Roman Rite: a Case Study of the Marian Feasts, Anaphora, 3:2, 57–80. O’Loughlin, T., (2017) ‘The Protevangelium Iacobi and the Status of the Canonical Gospels in the mid-second Century’ in Guldentops, G., Laes, C. and Partoens G., eds, Felici Curiositate: Studies in Latin Literature and Textual Criticism from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century, In Honour of Rita Beyers, Turnhout, 3–21. O’Loughlin, T., (2021) ‘The many feasts of Mary in the contemporary Catholic liturgy: a study of the persistence of the Protevangelium of James within liturgical memory’, Maria, 1:1, 1-20. Orr, James, (1903) The Protevangelium of James, London. Ousterhout, R., (1990) ‘The Temple, the Sepulchre, and the Martyrion of the Saviour,’ Ges, 29, 44–53. Pelikan, J., (1966) Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture. New Haven and London. Perkins, P., (1990) ‘Gnosticism’ in E. Ferguson ed., EEC, Chicago, 371–76. Pomeroy, S. B., (1975) Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves. London. Pomeroy, S. B. ed., (1991), Women’s History and Ancient History. North Carolina. Quarles, C. L., (1998) ‘The Protevangelium of James as an Alleged Parallel to Creative Historiography in the Synoptic Birth Narratives,’ BBR 8, 139–49. Raithel, J. C., (2011) ‘Beginning at the End: Literary Unity and the Relationship between Anthropology and Liturgy in the Protevangelium Jacobi (P. Bodm. 5)’ PhD. Dissertation, Catholic University of America.

b i b li o graphy

Ranke-Heinemann, U., (1990) Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, Sexuality and the Catholic Church. London. de Santos Otero, A., (1963) Los evangelos apocryphos 2nd edition (Madrid: Biblioteca autores cristianos), especially pages 126–76. Sawyer, D. F., (1996) Women and Religion in the First Christian Centuries. London. Shoemaker, S. J., (2016) Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion, New Haven. Strycker, É., de (1961) La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques: Recherches sur le papyrus Bodmer 5 avec une édition critique du texte grec et une traduction annotée (Brussels: Society of Bollandists) (= Subsidia Hagiographica 33). Testuz, M. M., (1958) Papyrus Bodmer V Nativité de Marie (Cologny-Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana). Thierry, N., (1996) ‘L’iconographie capadocienne de l’affront fut à Anne d’après le Protévangie de Jacques,’ Apocrypha, 7, pp. 261–72. Tischendorf, K., (1876) Evangelia Apocrypha (Leipzig: Avenarius and Mendelssohn, second edition, 1876 [reprinted by Georg Olms, Hildesheim, 1966]), especially pages xii–xxii, 1–50. Vanden Eykel, E., (2016) ‘But Their Faces Were All Looking Up’ Author and Reader in the Protevangelium of James, London. von Campenhausen, H., (1954) The Virgin Birth in the Theology of the Ancient Church London. von Dobschütz, E., (1912) Das Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipiendis et Non Recipiendis, Leipzig. Vorster, W., (1992) in Freedman, D. N. ed., The Anchor Dictionary of the Bible IV, pp. 629–32. Vuong, L. C., (2019) The Protevangelium of James (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books/Wipf and Stock) (= Early Christian Apocrypha, Westar Tools and Translations 1). Zervos, G. T., (2002) ‘Seeking the Source of the Marian Myth: Have we Found the Missing Link?’ in F. Stanley Jones, ed (2002) Which Mary? The Marys of Early Christian Tradition SBLSymS, 19: Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 107–20. Zervos, G. T., (2005) ‘Christmas with Salome,’ in A-J. Levine ed., (2005) A Feminist Companion to Mariology, London, 77–98. Whitaker, S., (2009) ‘Asteria and Epitogia: Apocalypses, Laic Veneration, and the Formation of Mariology in Constantinople,’ SA, 7: 2. Wildfang, R. L., (2006) Rome’s Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome’s Vestal Priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire, Oxford and New York.

Websites http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001452469110300103. http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.

117

Index of Scriptural Citations

Genesis 16:1-693 18:2194 20:1869 21:1-371 37101 Exodus 19:1545 20:2641 28:1-3995 Leviticus 12:1-896 15:19-33100 Numbers 5:11-32

1 Kings 11:4191 Tobit 2:13,1493 3:747 3:7-1193 Job 15:1093 20:14-1893 Psalms 1:371 33: 2-34 40 127:3-592 128:3-492

50, 105

Judges 11:39-4092 1394 1 Samuel 194 1:5 69, 91 1:693 1:2871 2:1-1098 2:1171 21:4-545 2 Samuel 6:1-11108 6:6-7 51, 108

Jeremiah 16:1-391 Ezekiel 43:1741 Daniel 1391 Joel 2:1191 Matthew 1:18-25105 1:19f79 2:181 2:1-1287

120

in d e x o f s c r i p t u r al c i tat i o n s

2:787 2:1687 23:3551 2:25-2689 13:5333 13:55110 23:35110 27:45, 51 50, 106 Mark 1:31108 1:40-42108 6:3 33, 110 15:40 50, 55, 107 Luke 194 1:5100 1:1371 1:20-2277 1:26-3347 1:26-38103 1:2877 1:3877 1:41-4477 1:47-4877 1:6477

1:8096 2:1 81, 106 2:787 2:2491 2:25-26 51, 89 2:4096 7:14108 7:36-5038 8:44-45108 8:54108 18:14 85, 95 John 2:1-1165 4:3469 20:25 50, 108 Acts 2:2091 1 Corinthians 7:2597 Galatians 1:19

33, 110

1 Timothy 4:365

Ancient and Medieval Authors

Anon, Decretum Gelasianum  55 Augustine 53 Clement (of Alexandria)  52 Epiphanius 54 Jerome 54 Justin 52 Origen 53

Modern Authors

Abdel Naby, H.  63 Archer, L.  41 Ashbrook Harvey, S.  38, 39 Barnes, T.  28 Beard, M.  35, 36, 44, 45, 46 Benko, S.  41 Børreson, K.  64 Bradshaw, P.  63 Brock, S.  38 Brown, P.  39, 65 Brown, R.  31, 56, 57, 59, 61 Cartlidge, D.  28, 29, 34, 63, 92, 104 Clark, A. C.  24 Clayton, M.  31, 32, 34, 46 Charlesworth, J. H.  41 Cooper, K.  42, 46 Cornell, T.  44 Cunneen, S.  66 Cunningham, M.  60 Delehaye, H.  30, 33, 35 de Santos Otero, A.  1 de Strycker, E.  26 Drobner, H.  38 Ehrman, B.  22 Ellicot, C.  56 Elliott, K.  27, 28, 29, 34, 63, 92, 94, 96, 104 Fonrobert, C. E.  51 Foskett, M.  28, 58 Gambero, L.  58, 60 Gaventa, B. R.  28, 30, 31, 58 Goodspeed, E. J.  66 Hayward, C. T. R.  41 Hock, R.  21, 26-27, 28, 30, 33, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 50, 51, 94, 95, 96, 109, 110, 111 Hirsch, E. D.  32

Hollman, M. E.  51 Horner, T.  34, 52, 56, 57 Hunt, H.  38, 62 Hunter, D.  28, 36, 39, 60, 61, 62, 105, 107 Johnson, E.  29 Johnson, M.  63 Jones, B. C.  40 Jordan, C.  22 Kelly, J. N. D.  57 Kraemer, R.  44 Kühnel, B. G.  41 Lapham, F.  38 Laurentin, R.  58 Leith, M. J.  103 Lévi-Strauss, C.  35 Limberis, V.  54, 63 Limor, O.  32, 54 Lossky, V.  98, 110 Malone, M.  29 McDonald, L. M.  52 McKenzie, J.  57 McNamara, J.A.  57, 64 Meier, J.  35, 56, 57 Nutzman, M.  41, 46 O’Loughlin, T.  28, 29, 33, 37, 40, 43, 46, 55, 60, 65, 99 Orr, J.  28, 55, 56 Ousterhout, R.  41 Pelican, J.  29 Peppard, M.  103 Perkins, P.  65 Pleše, Z.  22, 24-26 Pomeroy, S.  44, 49 Quarles, C. L.  31, 46, 50, 51, 108 Quasten, J.  36, 38, 41 Raithel, J.  47

mo d e rn au t ho rs

Ranke-Heinemann, U.  65 Rumsey, P. M.  92, 95, 99, 100, 193, 105 Sawyer, D. F.  44. Serra, D,  102 Shoemaker, S.  28, 32, 33, 37, 58, 63, 103 Vanden Eykel, E.  28, 32, 34, 35, 42, 43, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 57, 60, 103, 104, 106, 107 Von Campenhausen, H.  38, 40, 52, 53, 56, 63

Von Dobschütz, E.  55 Von Tischendorf, C.  21, 23 Vuong, L.  28, 31, 34, 38, 40, 48, 52, 55, 58, 94 95, 96, 100, 106, 108, 111 Warner, M.  64 Welsby, A.  22 Whitaker, S.  41, 49 Wildfang, R. L.  45 Zervos, G.  27, 51, 56

123

General Index

Aaron 104 Abraham  48, 69, 85, 94, 95 Acts of Paul and Thecla  66 Acts of Thomas  39 Adam 79 Augustus (“king”)  81 Altar  41, 48, 51, 73, 75, 100 Angel of the Lord  71, 75, 77, 79, 85 Anglo-Saxon England  31, 95 Anna (mother of BVM)  27, 36, 45, 47, 48, 59, 69, 71, 73, 75, 92, 93 94, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105, 109 Annas (the scholar/scribe)  49, 79, 81, 105 Arabia 52 Armenia  27, 34 Ascension of Isaiah  28, 36, 42 Asia Minor  38 Athena 49 Augustine  54, 65, 94 Ayyubid Dynasty  63 Bar Kochba  52 bat kol  49 Bedroom/sanctuary  73, 96, 97 Bethany 33 Bethlehem  33, 38, 50, 51, 52, 53, 81, 83, 106 Bibliander, T.,  34 Britain  27, 34 Cana 65 Cave  83, 106, 109 Clement (of Alexandria)  106 Constantine 33 Constantinople (Istanbul)  34, 38 Cyril (of Jerusalem)  53 Damasus (Pope)  55 Daniel 37 Daughters of the Hebrews  73, 75, 96, 98

David (tribe of)  37, 104 Deborah 94 Decretum Gelasianum  62 Dura Europos  102, 103 Eastern Gate (of Temple)  41 Edict of Milan  33 Egypt  34, 38, 40, 51, 52, 63 Elijah 92 Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist)  37, 49, 51, 77, 79, 87, 104, 109, 110 Elkanah 91 Encratites  38, 39 Ephrem 39 Epiphanius of Salamis  101 Esther  37, 93, 94 Ethiopia  27, 34, 63 Euphrates 63 Exuperius (bishop of Toulouse)  54 Feasts of Mary: Betrothal/Espousal  62, 101 Immaculate Conception  62 Nativity  62, 95, 96 Presentation in Temple  62, 68, 99 Fra Angelico  98 Gabriel  48, 77, 91, 102, 103 Galen 65 Gelasius (Pope)  55 Geneva 40 Georgia 27 Giotto 98 Golden Gate  94 Gospel of Matthew  34, 102, 104, Gnostics/Gnosticism  64, 65, 66 Great Day of the Lord  69, 91, 92 Greece 38 Hagar 93

ge ne ral i nd e x

Hannah  27, 48, 91, 93, 94 Hans Holbein  98 Headband/vittae  45, 69, 92 Helvidius  36, 54, 60, 61, 105, 107 Hermitage Museum  92, 93 Herod  33, 51, 85, 87, 89, 109, 110 High priest/chief priest/priest 49, 50, 73, 75, 77, 79, 89, 97, 99, 100, 102 Holy of Holies  41, 48, 75, 79, 100 Holy Spirit  83 Ignatius (of Antioch)  28 Immaculate Conception  47, 94 Incarnation  61, 62 Infancy Gospel of Thomas  34 Ireland  27, 34 Irenaeus 61 Isaac  69, 71, 85, 94 Isaiah 52 Islam 63 Jacques Stella  98 James (brother of Jesus)  33, 51, 59, 89, 110, 111 James Kokkinobaphos  103 Jan Mertens  98 Jeremiah 91 Jerome  34, 54, 60, 65, 101 Jerusalem  27, 32, 33, 38, 47, 58, 85, 91, 95 Joachim  27, 45, 47, 59, 69, 71, 73, 75, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 99, 105, 109 Job  93, 94 John the Baptist  37, 40, 51, 87, 94,96, 100, 102, 109, 110 Joseph and Asenath  37, 66 Joseph (of Nazareth)  36, 39, 42, 49, 50, 59, 65, 75, 79, 81, 83, 100, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111 Jovinian  36, 60, 61, 105, 197 Judaea 109 Judaism  33, 65, 111 Judith  37, 93, 94 Justhine/Euthine  45, 69 Justin Martyr  42, 43, 52, 53, 59, 106 “Lord’s Drink Test” / ”Water of Conviction”  50, 81, 105 Lucian of Samosata  30, 66

Magi/wise men  52, 85, 109 Manna 48 Marriage 65 Mary (BVM)  passim Mary Magdalene  38 Menarche/menstruation  45, 48, 49, 63, 100 Mesopotamia 27 Messianic Secret  108 Michaelangelo 98 Midrash  31, 32 Midwife/wives  50, 51, 83, 85, 107 Milan 103 Mishnah 41 Mithras 52 Moses 92 Mt Sinai  104 Nazareth  29, 91, 102, 109 Nazirites 41 Odes of Solomon  36, 39, 40, 42 Origen  42, 43, 106 Palestine  38, 41 Papyrus Bodmer V  40, 51 Paul, St  97 Paula 54 Pennina 93 Philippe de Mézières  99 Plato 65 Pontifex Maximus  44 Postel, Guillaume  27, 34, 60 Priest’s frontlet  73 Rachel 94 Raphael 98 Rebecca 94 Reubel  69, 91 Rome  44, 64, 95 Russia 63 Ruth  93, 94 Salome  36, 50, 51, 53, 83, 85, 107, 108 Samaritan woman  102, 103 Samson 94 Samuel (prophet)  31, 48, 77 Samuel (son of Joseph)  81, 106 Sarah (wife of Abraham)  48, 71, 93, 94 Sarah (wife of Tobias)  47, 93

125

1 26

ge n e r a l in d e x

Satire  36, 66 Septuagint  42, 43, 46 Shilo 48 Shepherds 52 Simeon/Symeon  51, 89, 110 Slaughter of the Innocents  51, 110 Soranus 65 Spain 27 Star 85 Stoics  65, 66 St Petersburg  92, 93 Susanna (Daniel)  27, 31 Syria  38, 39, 66, 95 Tatian 39 Temple  37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 48, 49,50, 56, 58, 59, 64, 71, 73, 75, 77, 81, 83, 91, 93, 98, 99, 100, 102, 104, 106 Texts and translations: Arabic 33 Armenian 33, 59Coptic 33 Ethiopic 33

Georgian 33 Greek  33, 34, 47, 59, 60 Irish 33 Latin  34, 59 Old Slavonic  33 Syriac  33, 39, 59 Theodoret of Cyrrhus  38 Thomas  50, 108 Titian 98 Tobit  31, 37 Torah 41 Twelve Tribes of Israel  69 Uzzah  50, 108 Veil (of Temple)  37, 49, 77, 102, 103 Vesta  44, 45 Vestal virgins  35, 44, 45, 46, 92 Virgin(s)/virginity  passim Wilderness 50 Za/echariah  36, 51, 75, 77, 87, 89, 100, 102, 109, 110