Jewish Aspects of the Protoevangelium of James

Horner, Timothy J.

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 12, Number 3, Fall 2004, pp. 313-335 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/earl.2004.0041

For additional information about this article

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

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

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

313

Jewish Aspects of the Protoevangelium of James*

TIM HORNER
This essay is a reexamination of the Protoevangelium of James and its Jewish imagery and setting. By reading the Protoevangelium of James alongside the Mishnah several interesting parallels arise. The mishnaic teachings on the process by which girls become women and how they are passed from fathers to husbands provide intriguing parallels. Moreover, the concern in each of the texts is for the preservation and assurance of virginity. The implication for this cultural connection is that the assertion of Marys postpartum virginity (the real innovation of the Protoevangelium of James) may have come from within a Jewish community (albeit a Christian one).

INTRODUCTION As scholarship on the early centuries of the Christian movement develops, it is becoming increasingly problematic to rely on traditional literary categories of Christian, Jewish, and pagan to classify a given text. More and more these categories mean less and less. They carry modern connotations that can have misleading implications for how we understand the various religious groups during the late Roman period. Scholars sometimes struggle to nd new terminology to describe documents and their writers that do not t into the traditional constructs. This effort to be sensitive to the world of these ancient texts is well worth the temporary loss of clarity that occurs when a text is reevaluated. This is especially true with the Protoevangelium of James (hereafter Prot. Jas.), a document from the late second century c.e. whose purpose is to defend the person of Jesus by promoting Mary beyond pregnant virgin to virgin postpartum.

*A good part of this work was completed during the 2003 NEH Summer Institute in Oxford, England (Representations of the Other: Jews in Medieval Christendom). During this time I worked with Henry Abramson of Florida Atlantic University, who helped me understand the mishnaic teaching on marriage and betrothal.
Journal of Early Christian Studies 12:3, 313335 2004 The Johns Hopkins University Press

314

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

In light of the subsequent rise of the Marian cult and its importance in Christianity, the assertion that Prot. Jas. could have its origins in Judaism might seem absurd. But the prevailing view that Prot. Jas. has no moorings in Judaism may be due to looking back through the lens of later Christian tradition and may not represent the true character of this document. This study is a reexamination of Prot. Jas.s Jewish imagery and its implications for our understanding of Jewish/Christian relations. Instead of analyzing Prot. Jas.s depiction of Judaism according to the New Testament or the much later talmudic traditionboth anachronisticthis discussion will focus on the more contemporary mishnaic material.1 Granted, the mere mention of the Mishnah at this early date is rightfully problematic. Suspicions about historicity and inuence of the Mishnah in the second century c.e. are well founded. There is no compelling evidence that the rabbinic movement had any kind of substantial inuence in panJudaism at this time. The force of later tradition may say that this is so, but it is difcult to substantiate this claim with corroborating literary or sociological evidence. This study is not, however, an attempt to make a direct literary link between Prot. Jas. and the Mishnah. So if the Mishnah did not cast a wide net in the second century c.e. and there are serious methodological problems with making Prot. Jas. literally dependent on the Mishnah, why use it? Because parallels between Prot. Jas. and the Mishnah help to deconstruct the assumption that Prot. Jas. had nothing to do with Judaism. This comparison also shows that Prot. Jas. may have had more in common with contemporary Judaism, or at least one part of it, than is often assumed. The goal of this investigation is to look at how such a text might have functioned in the complex relationship between those groups who believed in Jesus as the Messiah and those who did not. It is a document that uses Jewish imagery to address the concerns and criticisms that might have been important to people who understood Christianity within a predominantly Jewish matrix or those who were attempting to reinterpret the Jewish matrix in the light of Christian doctrine. But what is a Jewish matrix? What makes something Jewish or Christian in the rst few centuries of the common era? For the sake of simplicity, I am assuming that someone is Jewish if they were born of Jewish parents and considered themselves to be Jewish. The category also includes those who may not have had Jewish parents but chose to follow the Torah and considered themselves a part of living Judaism, i.e., a convert. This does not exclude Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah
1. All quotes from the Mishnah are taken from H. Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933, reprint 1987).

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

315

but still lived as Jews. More generally, Christians are dened as those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. By design there is a signicant amount of overlap between these two groups. By my denition Christianity could be completely contained within Judaism, but not necessarily. This ambiguity is deliberate because it seems to t the landscape of these early centuries, especially Prot. Jas. Prot. Jas. is a document that was very popular in its day. We have over one hundred extant MSS in six different languages, all from the Greek East. Probably due to its teaching regarding the past marriage of Joseph, Prot. Jas. was condemned as apocryphal by the Decretum Gelasianum in the fth century c.e. Jeromes condemnation of Prot. Jas. was instrumental in this process. Nevertheless, the West absorbed Prot. Jas. indirectly, and ironically, through Jeromes involvement with the production of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.2 This account contains a nearly complete version of Prot. Jas. within a larger narrative of Jesus life drawn from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The oldest copy of Prot. Jas. that we possess can be dated to the early fourth century c.e. (Papyrus Bodmer V), but there is evidence that suggests Justin Martyr knew of Prot. Jas.3 This means that Prot. Jas. probably comes from one of the most mysterious centuries in Jewish history. Two Jewish revolts (115117 c.e. in Egypt, and Bar Kochba in 133135 c.e.) and violent Roman retaliation had shaken the Jewish world. Several generations earlier a group of rogue messianic Jews had set themselves up as the new standard for Judaism, and one of its main promotersPaul was using the Septuagint and apocalyptic fervor to open the Abrahamic covenant to the Gentiles and abandon observance of Torah. The rabbinic movement was in its infancy and its authority had not yet been established or widely disseminated. For the most part, our evidence of Jewry in the second century c.e. is restricted to Christian and pagan references to Jews, the witness of the Mishnah, and a scattering of epigraphic evidence. It is therefore tricky business at best to a paint a picture of Judaism, unless one can read between the gaps created by a few brush strokes on an otherwise blank canvas.
2. It is contained in a canon list attributed to Gelasius (492496 c.e.), even though the MS dates from the sixth century c.e. See E. Hennecke, W. Schneemelcher, and R. Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), 38 40. 3. Compare the wording of Justin Martyr 1 Ap. 33 with Prot. Jas. 11.3, which is a similar synthesis of Matt 1.2021 and Luke 1.3031. See also E. de Strycker, Une ancienne version latine du Protvangile de Jacques avec des extraits de la Vulgate de Matthieu 12 et Luc 12, AB (1965): 365402, for a critique of these connections.

316

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Within the scholarly opinion regarding the Jewishness of Prot. Jas. there are discernable categories and assumptions about Judaism that have shaped the conclusions about its cultural provenance. I want to suggest that there are several instances in Prot. Jas. that can be better understood by looking at the Jewish sources available to us rather than relying upon our assumptions about what constituted normative Judaism. For example, J. K. Elliott dismisses any chance of Jewish authorship based on confusions in the text regarding the geography of Palestine.4 Moreover, the bitter water of conviction, which was given both to Mary and Joseph, was not intended for men, and the oracular plates of the high priest were unknown outside of Prot. Jas. Certainly there are details in the text that cannot be contained by what we know of Judaism during this time. For example, how would the presence of temple virgins sit with Jewish readers? Why does the text seem to know about the twelve tribes of Israel (Prot. Jas. 1), yet later refers to the tribe of David (Prot. Jas. 10)? What is difcult to assess is whether these instances are problematic because of our modern categories or if they reect genuine unfamiliarity with any form of Judaism. In general, the Jewish elements in Prot. Jas. have been discarded because they do not t with our understanding of post-Second-Temple, prerabbinic Judaism. Ronald Hock also concludes that indeed, the author himself hardly came from a Jewish milieu, as there are not only problems with Palestinian geography but also little knowledge of Jewish life and customs that does not come from the Septuagint.5 And while Hock offers very helpful insight into the literary genre of Prot. Jas. and its connection with the Greco-Roman novel, the conclusion that its encomiastic structure and style precludes Jewish authorship and culture says more about his understanding of Judaism than it does about the possible authorship and audience of Prot. Jas. While I have no reason to doubt his literary analysis of the text, it is inappropriate to draw the conclusion that Prot. Jas. had no real connections with any Jewish culture. Whatever parallels there are with other Greco-Roman novels or histories do not preclude a Jewish readership or author(s). Greco-Roman Judaism and its contemporary Jewish literature would not nd this genre incomprehensible in the least. There would have been nothing to stop a Jewish writer from acquiring the skills necessary to
4. J. K. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in English Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 49. 5. R. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 1995), 10.

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

317

create a document such as Prot. Jas., and there would be nothing to stop a Jewish reader from reading and appreciating a work of this style. It is, as far as readership and authorship are concerned, not an argumentum ad rem. George Zervos extensive textual work on Prot. Jas. suggests that parts of Prot. Jas. may even predate the second century.6 Yet despite his rich analysis of the annunciation story in Prot. Jas.called the Genesis Marias (GM)his conclusion concerning its provenance seems to be chosen from a Christian menu. In his reconstruction and analysis of the GM he shows how it is interwoven with angels, the voice of God (Bat Kol), and mystical temple imagery. For each of these images he makes connections with the Septuagint and shows the theological connections to the rabbinic tradition, Josephus, and 1 Enoch. Yet he concludes from this that the cumulative evidence presented of the numerous parallels of central themes in the GM with signicant documents of the turn of the rst to the second century c.e. strongly indicates a Sitz im Leben for the GM within very early, possibly Syrian, Christianity.7 Granted, Syrian Christianity had a rich tradition of narrative and appears to have been more open and permeable to a wider range of literary inuence compared to the Latin tradition, but his conclusions are based on a presupposition that Prot. Jas. is unquestionably Christian and therefore could not be Jewish. While I believe that his textual analysis is helpful, if at times adventurous, his conclusion on provenance is too restrictive and does not allow these Jewish images to change the way we view this text and its function. In this reading of Prot. Jas. I offer an alternative interpretation of those aspects of the text that have been seen as odd, fantastic, or simply incomprehensible (and therefore out of touch with contemporary Judaism). I will also treat those parts of the text that appear to me to be distinctly Jewish, insofar as they echo mishnaic teaching. My thesis is that Prot. Jas. would have been best understoodperhaps only fully understoodwithin a community that was familiar with concerns and images of contemporary Judaism. Its strangeness may have more to do with our understanding of second-century Judaism than it does with the text itself.

6. G. Zervos, An Early Non-Canonical Annunciation Story, SBL Seminar Papers 36 (1997): 686. This is based on the idea that Prot. Jas. may have inuenced Luke to incorporate language from the GM. 7. Ibid., 688.

318

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

CHILDLESSNESS The rst passage under examination comes when Joachim is on his way to make his sacrices in the temple.
Now the great day of the Lord was approaching and the people of Israel were offering their gifts. And Reubel confronted Joachim and said, Youre not allowed to offer your gifts rst because you havent produced an Israelite child. And Joachim became very upset and went to the book of the twelve tribes of the people, saying to himself, Im going to check the book of the twelve tribes of Israel to see whether Im the only one in Israel who hasnt produced a child. And he searched [the records] and found that all the righteous people in Israel did indeed have children. (Prot. Jas. 1.47)8

Not being able to produce a child was often seen as an act of God,9 but whether this ever meant that childlessness could disqualify one from offering gifts at the temple is unknown. But this may be nothing more than Reubel taking the law into his own hands and publicly shaming Joachim. Reubel is not necessarily a priest and may have simply been jealous of Joachims wealth and prosperity. After all, his objection is not that he was giving an offering, but that he was rst. Regardless of Reubels status or motives, Joachim feels publicly shamed and retreats into isolation. The wording here is also interesting: Reubel seems to place the blame rmly on Joachim for his childlessness. This is contrary to the biblical view, which is more concerned with the state of the womans womb than the mans virility. For the most part, childlessness is nearly always attributed to the barrenness of the woman. But Joachims guilt might be related to the idea in the Mishnah that it is not solely the duty of the woman to bear fruit and multiply. In a discussion of fertility problems the rabbis state that a man cannot abstain from his wife even after ten years of childlessness and that the duty to be fruitful and multiply [Gen 1.28) falls on the man but not on the woman (Yevamot 6.8). Perhaps this is why Joachim is portrayed as so self-conscious about his lack of a family. Even Gittin 4.8, which on the surface seems to lay all the blame for infertility on the woman, could also be taken as a warning to men who divorce their wives on the grounds of barrenness. If it turns out that she is not barren and has a child by her next husband, the divorce is deemed invalid, i.e., the rst husband is still married to her and now has an adulterous wife and a bastard child. That would make any couple think
8. All quotes from Prot. Jas. come from Hock, Infancy Gospels, 3277. 9. 1 Sam 1.5; Gen 16.2, 20.18; and Hos 9.14.

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

319

twice about attributing barrenness only to the woman. Joachim feels ashamed of, and responsible for, their childlessness. So while the biblical view places responsibility for childbearing on the woman, Prot. Jas. supports an understanding that responsibility for producing children is shared. Joachims reaction is more understandable within a mishnaic tradition. METAL PLATES The second passage comes after Anna becomes pregnant and Joachim returns to the temple.
[W]hen he was presenting his gifts, he thought to himself, If the Lord God has really been merciful to me, the polished metal disk on the priests headband will make it clear to me. And so Joachim was presenting his gifts and paying attention to the priests headband until he went up to the altar of the Lord. And he saw no sin in it. And Joachim said, Now I know that the Lord God has been merciful to me and has forgiven me all my sins. And he came down from the temple of the Lord acquitted and went back home. (Prot. Jas. 5.14)

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

10. In the breast piece of judgment you shall place the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be on Aarons heart when he goes in before the Lord: thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the Israelites on his heart before the Lord continually. 11. Generally see C. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: An Old Testament Means of Revelation (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993). See also Num 27.2; Josh 6.6; and 1 Sam 14.37. 12. For as to those stones, which we told you before, the high priest bare on his shoulders, which were sardonyxes, (and I think it needless to describe their nature, they being known to everybody), the one of them shined out when God was present at their sacrices; I mean that which was in the nature of a button on his right shoulder, bright rays darting out thence, and being seen even by those that were most remote; which splendor yet was not before natural to the stone. This has appeared a wonderful thing to such as have not so far indulged themselves in philosophy, as to despise divine revelation (Josephus Ant. 3:21516; trans. W. Whiston, Works of Josephus [Peabody: Hendrickson, reprint 1996]). Josephus goes on to explain that this oracular function ceased two hundred years ago, long before the setting of Prot. Jas. But we should not be surprised that a text such as Prot. Jas. would not take this

320

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

differences in material (gold vs. stone) and appearance (round vs. square). And while this unusual description does raise questions about Prot. Jas.s familiarity with the priestly tradition, the cosmetics are not as important as the function. Not only does Josephus discuss this as Gods oracle, but it is linked to revelatory power in a few Qumran fragments that refer to Moses tongues of re (1Q29, 4Q376, 4Q408). All of these texts describe the oracular, light/re giving properties of the high priests breastplate in relation to the mysterious Urim and Thummim.13 So when Joachim is looking into these plates, he is probably looking for Gods acceptance of his gifts. It is an idea that would have been familiar, even if mysterious, to anyone with an understanding of the traditions of the temple and priestly cult. Oracles were common in the broader Hellenistic context, but this type is distinctively Jewish. There are no clear Hellenistic parallels, beyond the occasional use of mirrors. Contrary to Elliott, these breastplates (metal or otherwise) would have been familiar to Jews, even if their precise meaning varied. BETROTHAL AND MARRIAGE When we look at how Prot. Jas. addresses the issue of Marys life before the birth of Jesus, it is clear that the text is preoccupied with the details surrounding her virginal status, not only before her pregnancy but after it as well. It could be said that this is, in fact, the entire agenda of the document. In general terms, but perhaps most strikingly, virginity is also a concern of the Mishnah. Judging from the amount of space devoted to the procedures for how girls are transferred from their fathers to their husbands and how levirate marriage (when a widowed woman is married to her late husbands brother) is conducted, it may not be an overstatement to say that Prot. Jas. is not alone in its obsession with virginity and purity. But regardless of the judgments we might pass on this body of halakoth,14
into consideration. The author of Prot. Jas. may not have not been familiar with Josephus, even if he was familiar with the tradition of the plates. 13. This connection was mentioned by Dr. Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis in a personal email. There may be a more contemporary link in the Talmud: Said Abaye to him, Was then the ziz woven? But it was taught: The ziz was a kind of golden plate two ngerbreadths broad, and it stretched round [the forehead] from ear to ear, and upon it was written in two lines [yod] [he] above and Holy [lamed] below. But R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said: I saw it in the city of Rome, and Holy unto the Lord was written in one line (b. Shabbath 63b). 14. Judith Wegner, Chattel or Person?: The Status of Women in the Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), is helpful in understanding the teaching of the Mishnah, even if her unchecked condemnation is sometimes distracting.

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

321

it is clear that the goal is to insure that girls move from their family to their husbands undeled, i.e., having virginal status. If a girls virginity is kept until marriage, then the value of the daughter is twice that of a girl whose virginity is not assured. Prot. Jas. has the same, perhaps even greater, fanatical concern for virginity, except that in Prot. Jas. Marys virginity goes far beyond the bounds of what would have been perceived as normative. But that, as I will argue below, is exactly what Prot. Jas. intends. At this point it is helpful to look at the ways in which the structure of Marys life follows the Mishnah. Prot. Jas.s attitude toward girls and their virginity has some striking parallels. Prot. Jas. goes into great detail about the circumstances of Marys birth: how she was kept as a baby by Anna and Joachim, was dedicated as a young girl to live in the temple, and ended up in Josephs care. Marys life is divided into three distinct stages: from conception to age three, from three to twelve, and from twelve until the birth of Jesus. (There is an anomaly in Prot. Jas. as to her exact age when she gave birth. See below.) Within this tripartite division there are two turning points: the rst when Mary is given to the temple at age three, and the second when she is transferred to Joseph at twelve. TURNING THREE YEARS OF AGE One of the underlying assumptions of the Mishnah is that if a child loses her virginity before the age of three, her hymen will spontaneously regenerate. Niddah 5.4 says that, if she is younger than this [three years and a day], it is as if one puts a nger in the eye (i.e, it will cause temporary discomfort, but will not have any permanent physical effect). This belief in the regeneration of the hymen is important when considering the suitability of a given child. Ketubbot 1.23 states that: The Ketubah [bride price] of a virgin is two hundred denars and of a widow one mina [half as much]. . . . The Ketubah of a female proselyte, captive, or slave who was redeemed, proselytized, or freed under the age of three years and a day is two hundred denars . . . and after the age of three and a day is one mina. The implications of this teaching are clear and consistent throughout the Mishnah. After a girl turns three and a day, she becomes a Ketannah and in a purely physical sense she is more vulnerable to delement. Now she must be protected lest she lose her status as a virgin. But it is important to note that the Mishnah seems to assume that any young girl who came into Judaism from outsideas a captive, slave, or simply non-Jewishshould be considered violated. If she is younger than three, her hymen will regenerate; if older, then she is no longer a virgin. This

322

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

may be the most cautious, cynical approach in dealing with outsiders, but the ip side is that this does not apply to girls born into a Jewish household. This kind of skepticism about non-Jews may be helpful in understanding why Anna and Joachim decide to dedicate Mary to the temple at the age of three and not two.
Many months passed, but when the child reached two years of age, Joachim said, Lets take her up to the temple of the Lord, so that we can keep the promise that we made, or else the Lord will be angry with us and our gifts will be unacceptable. And Anna said, Lets wait until she is three, so she will not miss her father or mother. And Joachim agreed: Lets wait. (Prot. Jas. 7.13)

Initially, it may seem odd that Joachim entertains the idea of dedicating her to the temple at two but then changes his mind in light of Annas reasoning. Why even mention the age at all? Why mention two years of age only to switch to three? There is nothing in the text that would help us understand this odd reference. But when we read this through the lens of the Mishnah, it takes on a signicant meaning. Prot. Jas.s exacting language about age focuses attention on Marys purity and her betrothal. If Prot. Jas. reported that she was dedicated to the temple at two years of age (perfectly acceptable), then she may have been vulnerable to the accusation that she was from an abusive, even non-Jewish, household. No matter what happened before her dedication she would still be considered a mishnaic virgin, but if it was assumed that only children from non-Jewish environments needed to be rescued before three years and a day, then Marys dedication to the temple before three might appear suspect, especially to critics who were looking for ways to discredit her and/or her offspring, especially the charge that she was the product of a liaison with a Roman soldier. The fact that Prot. Jas. stresses the age of Mary in this way makes it clear that she was three, not two. In fact, it goes so far as to place her safely in the temple by the time she is three years and one day, when she would become a minor (Ketannah). And in fact, on the day of her third birthday she is presented to the temple (Prot. Jas. 7.4). This is presumably the safest environment in which to grow up. By placing her in the purest space in the worldthe templeProt. Jas. does not allow even the faintest possibility of impropriety with Mary. If we assume that Prot. Jas. is concerned to protect Marys virginity during a time in her life when she is most vulnerable to delement, then her dedication to the temple at the age of three, not two, insures that there is no possibility of compromise, no hint of delement, no reason to doubt her purity from day one.

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

323

In addition to this, the age of three follows the guidelines for the earliest possible betrothal. The mishnaic teaching on how girls are passed from father to husband is complex and detailed. Qiddushin 1.1 states that a woman can be legitimately acquired (betrothed) in three ways: by money, by written document, or by sexual intercourse. But as Qiddushin goes on it becomes apparent that there are different levels of connection leading up to the nal consummation of the marriage vow. Sexual intercourse is the nal stage of the process, but if this happens, the betrothal and espousal (handing over) are all assumed to be included in the act of consummation. If a girl has sex, consensual or not, after the age of three, the Mishnah considers her married. But there is a much longer, more normative procedure that can last until the girl is beyond twelve. The key to a successful, legitimate betrothal is the presence of witnesses or agents. A girl can be promised while still in utero, but the earliest a child can be espoused to a husband is three years and a day (Niddah 4.5). In order to dissolve this betrothal there must be a writ of divorce (Niddah 3.8). One would think, therefore, that betrothal is synonymous with marriage, but this is not the case either. During the betrothal stage the girl is promised, but until the vow has been consummated through sexual intercourse she is not fully married. Because of the complexities involved in gaining a legitimate marriage contract, it is difcult to know the exact procedures that may have applied to a situation like Marys. But again it is striking the way in which Prot. Jas. uses language and structures familiar to the Mishnah, but only as a way of showing how Mary does not t the familiar categories of how things are done. As Prot. Jas. progresses, it becomes increasingly clear that nothing about Mary can be contained within the assumed modus operandi of the Judaism in the text. The fact that she is given over to the temple at three harkens to betrothal language, but who is her betrothed? And if she is betrothed to the templea provocative and strange notionhow, when, and by whom will this betrothal be consummated? I believe these are exactly the questions that Prot. Jas. wants the reader to ask because they lead the reader to a distinctly radical, Christian conclusion. Marys life as a temple virgin brings up an issue that foreshadows the general analysis of this text in the last section, but it is useful to introduce the idea at this stage. As mentioned in the introduction, there are many things in Prot. Jas. that cannot be attached to anything even remotely a part of the world of Judaism as we understand it. What would a Jew think of the idea of a virgin being raised in the temple? There is no biblical precedent for such a practice. The Mishnah, given its attitudes toward women and childbirth, would nd this kind of practice complicated, if

324

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

not abhorrent. But how much can we assume that a second-century Jew living in the Diaspora would know about either mishnaic teaching or life during the latter days of the Second Temple? What can be considered common knowledge and what could be termed insider knowledge available only to those who studied scripture or the teachings of the tannaim? This is a difcult distinction to make, but it is likely that procedures surrounding rites of passage would have had a greater currency to Jews than the inner workings of the temple and its priesthood. So while the idea of temple virgins may seem exotic in academic discussions of Judaism,15 this does not mean that second-century readers, even those of Jewish origins, would have found this wholly inappropriate. It may have been fantastic and hard to believe, but when it is delivered in a structure that follows the basic concerns and practices of contemporary Judaism as reected in the Mishnah, then we must entertain the possibility that Marys life as a virgin in the temple as a weaver might not have been sufcient grounds to discount Prot. Jas. In fact, it may have had the opposite effect on its audience by reinforcing the idea that nothing about Marys life t into the structure of the known Jewish world, even though the entire story takes place within it. TURNING TWELVE YEARS OF AGE An example of how problems are created by Marys condition of extreme purity and her puzzling betrothal comes when she reaches the age of twelve.
When she turned twelve, however, there was a meeting of the priests. Look, they said, Mary has turned twelve in the temple of the Lord. What should we do with her so she wont pollute the sanctuary of the Lord our God? And they said to the high priest, You stand at the altar of the Lord. Enter and pray about her, and we will do whatever the Lord God discloses to you. And so the high priest took the vestment with the twelve bells, entered the Holy of Holies, and began to pray about her. And suddenly a messenger of the Lord appeared: Zachariah, Zachariah, go out and assemble the widowers of the people and have them each bring a staff. She will become the wife of the one to whom the Lord God shows a sign. (Prot. Jas. 8.38)

15. For the possibility of virgin weavers, see 2 Baruch 10.19; for the evidence for virgin temple weavers, see F. Manns, Essais sur le Judo-Christianisme (Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1977), 1069.

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

325

Prot. Jas. depicts this episode as a problem to be solved, but it is a only a problem that could happen within a framework where absolute purity is an issue. Again we see how the mishnaic understanding of when girls become women comes into play. The age of twelve is the second signicant turning point in Prot. Jas.; so also with the Mishnah. At twelve years and one day a girl is no longer considered a minor. She is now classied as a pubescent girl (naarath). This status lasts for just six months, after which time she is considered a woman who can now choose her own husband and/or refuse any vow made by her father on her behalf. The Mishnah provides the analogy of ripening fruit to explain.
The Sages spoke a parable about woman: [She is like] an unripe g, or a ripening g, or a fully ripe g. An unripe g while she is still a child; and a ripening gthese are the days of her childhood [twelve to twelve and a half], [and during both times her father is entitled to anything that she nds and to the work of her hands, and he can annul her vows]; and a fully ripe g after her childhood when her father has no more rights over her. (Niddah 5.7)

The danger at twelve, of course, is that Mary will soon begin menstruating and thereby bring impurity to the temple. It seems strange that the priests do not see this coming. Apparently, it just dawns on them and they do not know what to do. The temple is Marys home, but it is a home where she can no longer stay. And there seems to be no administrative structure to deal with this inevitability. If there were so many virgins living and weaving in the temple, one would imagine that there would be some kind of system in place that would move them on when the time came. But the emergency meeting and failure to nd a solution forces them to ask God for guidance. The circumstances of Marys age and the concerns of the priests illustrate how Prot. Jas. simultaneously adopts the betrothal structure and mirrors its attitude toward women, but it also shows how Marys situation is radically different from anything that came before. In the mishnaic world twelve is a crucial age in the life of a Jewish girl. Now she can make vows and in a very short time she will be free from the power of her father. This would be the time when most young girls were physically delivered over to their husbands. This six month window beginning at twelve is the last opportunity to pass authority from the father to the husband through consummation. BEYOND TWELVE YEARS OF AGE But in Prot. Jas. things are not so simple. Mary is still a virgin. She is betrothed and possibly espoused, but there has been no consummation.

326

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

At this point Joseph enters the picture as an older widower with children. Since he had been chosen by divine at, one would think that he would welcome this girl into his household. She was as ritually pure as possible and a virgin; the perfect wife. There would be nothing out of the ordinary for an older man, widowed, to take a young wife, even a twelveyear-old. Yet Joseph reacts strongly against the match, and the priests have to remind him where this order is coming from:
Joseph, Joseph, the high priest said, you have been chosen by lot to take the virgin of the Lord into your care and protection. But Joseph objected: I already have sons and Im an old man; shes only a young woman [neaniw]. Im afraid that Ill become the butt of jokes among the people of Israel. And the priest responded: Joseph, fear the Lord your God and remember what God did to Dathan, and Abiron, and Kore; the earth was split open and they were all swallowed up because of their objection. So now, Joseph, you ought to take heed so that the same thing wont happen to your family. And so out of fear Joseph took her into his care and protection. He said to her: Mary, Ive gotten you from the temple of the Lord, but now Im leaving you at home. Im going away to build houses, but I will come back to you. The Lord will protect you. (Prot. Jas. 9)

Again, anyone familiar with mishnaic teaching would think Josephs actions were strange. Josephs small rebellion about taking Mary and his concern about being laughed at should make the reader stop and wonder what is going on. If this is some kind of betrothal ceremony, then Josephs opposition is wholly inappropriate. But that is the point: this is not a betrothal. Here we can see Prot. Jas. going directly against the grain of the gospel account so that the reader can see that Joseph is a marginal, even comic gure and that the real husband of Mary and father of Jesus is most emphatically not Joseph. But Prot. Jas. is also slightly confused about Mary and Josephs exact relationship. When the angelic messenger comes to Zachariah (the priest in charge), he says that Mary will be Josephs wife (Prot. Jas. 8.8). But even if the angel said this to the priest, this is not the message that is passed on to Joseph. There is no indication, from Josephs point of view, that he is being given a wife. The priest tells him he must take the virgin of the Lord into your care and protection (Prot. Jas. 9.7). It is easier to understand Josephs reaction if we take the priests assignment at face value. It also maintains the overall trajectory of the text. Whatever is happening, it is very unusual, if not unique. All procedures of betrothal and marriage point away from Joseph as husband and toward a divine espousal to God. And in fact, the consummation of this peculiar betrothal takes place while Mary is being protected by Joseph. As mentioned earlier, the age of twelve is a crucial turning point for the

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

327

mishnaic girl. When she is twelve and a half she will become a fully entitled Jewish woman, capable of making vows and choosing a husband. It would be compelling evidence indeed if Prot. Jas. stated that the conception of Jesus happened within the rst six months of Marys life with Joseph. This would follow the standard practice of sealing the marriage before the girl reaches the age where she could possibly refuse her chosen husband. But it is here that Prot. Jas. is not forthcoming on the exact timing. As soon as Mary is transferred to Joseph he exits the picture. This is clearly a detail intended to assure the reader that no matter what happened Joseph was out of town when Jesus was conceived. It is not at all improbable that Prot. Jas. intends for the reader to assume that the events leading to and through the pregnancy happened within the rst year, even the rst few months. The problem with this more compact timeline is the reference at Prot. Jas. 12.9 that states: She was just sixteen years old when these mysterious things happened to her. There is, however, a good deal of variance in the MSS as to the age of Mary at the point of conception.16 This textual disagreement as to Marys age when Jesus was born makes the reference to sixteen less reliable. Her status as a twelve-year-old girl on the cusp of womanhood is much more in line with the trajectory of Prot. Jas. If we follow the ow of the text, Marys betrothal would have been consummated before she became a woman at twelve and a half. But regardless of the weight given to this detail, it is clear that by the time Joseph returns from building houses Mary is in the sixth month of pregnancy. And Joseph now must account for this. Of course he initially assumes that some outsider did this (how could he, when he was away?), but in a dream he is assured that the baby is from the Holy Spirit (here Prot. Jas. follows Matthew). But this is not the way others see it. Annas, a scribe, comes to visit Joseph; and when he catches sight of Mary (beginning her third trimester), he naturally assumes that Joseph is the father:
He left in a hurry for the high priest and said to him, You remember Joseph, dont youthe man that you yourself vouched for? Well, he has committed a serious offence. And the priest asked, In what way?

16. There are also MSS that give Marys age as twelve, fourteen, fteen, and seventeen; see E. de Strycker, Protvangile, in Studia Evangelica III, ed. F. Cross, TU 88 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964), 33959. De Strycker suggested that twelve would be the logical age and goes so far as to suggest that the author forgot what he had said about Marys age in ch. 8. While it is unlikely that such variance can be attributed to forgetfulness, this does indicate that the reference to sixteen is probably not reliable.

328

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Joseph has violated the virgin he received from the temple of the Lord, he replied. He has had his way with her and has not disclosed his action to the people of Israel. (Prot. Jas. 15.46)

Prot. Jas. then includes an event intended to defend Mary against any charge of indelity or impropriety. WATER OF CONVICTION Annas runs to tell the priests and Mary and Joseph are summoned. They both deny that either one of them has had intercourse with the other (or anyone in Marys case). In order to resolve the issue the priest demands a test.
And the high priest said, Im going to give you the Lords drink test, and it will disclose your sin clearly to both of you. And the high priest took the water and made Joseph drink it and sent him into the wilderness, but he returned unharmed. And he made the girl drink it too, and sent her into the wilderness. She also came back unharmed. And everybody was surprised because their sin had not been revealed. And so the high priest said, If the Lord God has not exposed your sin, then neither do I condemn you. And he dismissed them. Joseph took Mary and returned home celebrating and praising the God of Israel. (Prot. Jas. 16.48)

This instance is often used as the strongest evidence against the Jewishness of Prot. Jas. The biblical parallel is Numbers 5.1131. But there are some striking differences between Prot. Jas. and the biblical account: (1) in Prot. Jas. Joseph is made to drink the water, whereas in Numbers the drink is solely for the woman; (2) in Prot. Jas. Mary is known to be six months pregnant, whereas in Numbers the test seems to act as some sort of abortive device that will reveal an illegitimate pregnancy; and (3) Prot. Jas. does not follow the same procedure described in Numbers, for here Marys hair is not tussled and no curse formula is mentioned. These differences are often cited as evidence against the Jewishness of Prot. Jas. But Prot. Jas.s use of the water is closer to the mishnaic discussion on this procedure in Sotah. There is no evidence that this test was ever carried out at any time. From the nature of the rabbinic discussion in the Mishnah it was not a settled issue, even in theory. In Sotah the rabbis discuss this procedure, how it should be administered, and its limitations. The emphasis of the test in Sotah is not so much on whether the woman is pregnant, rather it is focused on establishing the integrity of the relationship and to determine delity. This ts much better with the circumstance of Prot. Jas. where the question revolves around truth, not the presence of a baby.

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

329

In Prot. Jas. the water acts more as a veritaserum, not as an abortive device. This may explain why Joseph is made to drink the water as well. This idea is supported by the Sotah when it states that: As the water puts her to the proof so does it put the paramour to the proof, for it is written, And it shall come, and again, it shall come [Num 5.22, 24] (Sotah 5.1). This means that when the woman drinks, the lover will be affected. But unlike Numbers, Sotah sees that the man is involved in this process as well. Prot. Jas. makes this even more clear. Joseph, who is the suspected lover (the paramour), is therefore asked to take the test along with Mary so that his guilt might be revealed. The visual picture of Joseph and Mary drinking is closer to the spirit of the Mishanic teaching. Even the results of the water differ from the biblical account. In the Mishnah it is a matter of revealing guilt, not of a dropped uterus and permanent sterility as in Numbers. The account in Prot. Jas. ts much better within the mishnaic understanding of this procedure, even if this understanding was known only in theory. Again, it is important to stress that this similarity does not indicate a direct literary link between Prot. Jas. and the Mishnah. Such a link is not necessary to make the point that Prot. Jas. contains elements that may have been more readily understood by readers who were familiar with contemporary Jewish teaching, perhaps even Jews. IOUDAIOI The last point of contact is based not so much on any particularity of the text, or even an original observation. Instead, it is based on the work of Malcolm Lowe, who did a detailed analysis on the use of the term ioudaioi (Judeans) in Prot. Jas.17 His conclusion is based on his previous ndings that this term was used to connote geographical status (from Judea).18 Non-Jewish usage of ioudaioi seems to have been applied to all Jews, whereas Jews tended to make a distinction between Judeans (those from Judea strictly speaking) and the people of Israel (the phrase used by Jews inside Roman Palestine to refer to themselves as a whole people). Lowe believes that literature that follows this insider language reects a Jewish, if not specically Palestinian, provenance. He applied this methodology to Prot. Jas. and found that later editions of the MS can be seen to make deliberate attempts to make the text seem more canonical by

17. M. Lowe, ioudaioi of the Apocrypha: A Fresh Approach to the Gospels of James, Pseudo-Thomas, Peter and Nicodemus NT 23 (1981): 5690. 18. M. Lowe, Who were the ioudaioi? NT 18 (1976): 10131.

330

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

adopting the language of the gospels, even if this violates the rules of insider usage. The earliest MS of Prot. Jas. (Bodmer Papyrus V, early third century c.e.) consistently follows insider usage. When Jews refer to themselves, they are Israel; when outsiders refer to them, they are ioudaioi. This, he concludes, provides evidence that the original author was probably a Palestinian Jew.19 Even the oft-quoted geographical faux pas where the text has Joseph going into Judea from Bethlehem (Prot. Jas. 21.1) is not a problematic phrase. Other MSS have different wordings, and one of the earliest texts from Ethiopia does not have the phrase at all. In any case, it is not, on its own, sufcient grounds for dismissing the possibility of Jewish authorship. CONCLUSION When trying to assess the impact that such a document would have had on its audience, it is important to acknowledge that it is extremely problematic to make any substantive insight into the authors original intent. Even though this inquiry has sought to show the ways in which Prot. Jas. and the Mishnah may share a similar understanding on certain issues and outlooks, to make a connection between them is mitigated by the disagreements and distance that exists between them. It is more fruitful to ask what kind of audience would have responded to the imagery and argumentation of Prot. Jas. The target audience of Prot. Jas. would be those who found the idea of a virgin birth most difcult to believe and the circumstances of Jesus birth most suspect. If we look at the polemical arguments used against early Christians, it becomes evident that the earliest attacks against the person of Jesusagainst his family, his suspicious origins, and the claim of divinity placed on himall come from Jewish sources. Only a few years before Prot. Jas. was written, the charge of illegitimacy of Jesus and promiscuity by Mary is used by Celsus in his attack on Christianity. Celsus document (entitled True Doctrine) comes to us embedded in Origens Against Celsus, but it is usually dated to the late second century c.e. Some scholars have even argued that Prot. Jas. is a direct response to Celsus.20 Here Celsus, mediated through Origen, puts this charge into the mouth of his Jewish critic:
19. Lowe, ioudaioi of the Apocrypha, 70. 20. P. Van Stempvoort, The Protoevangelium Jacobi, the Sources of Its Theme and Style and Their Bearing on Its Date, in Studia Evangelica III, ed. F. Cross, TU 88 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964), 41323.

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

331

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

Later, in the Babylonian Talmud, the connection between Panthera and Jesus was also made (b. Sanhedrin 67a).22 This may indicate that the Roman father scenario may have been a critique known to Jewish opponents of Christianity. There is also the possibility that the Roman name Panthera (panther) is an ironic play on the Greek word paryenow. Perhaps this is a connection between the Jewish polemic against Jesus birth and the Christian use of Isaiah 7.14.23 Even if there is no word play here, it is apparent that the charge of illegitimacy is attributed to Jews. In fact, Origen taunts Celsus to engage in the exegetical battle over Isaiah 7.14.
And these arguments I employ as against a Jew who believes in prophecy. Let Celsus now tell me, or any of those who think with him, with what meaning the prophet utters either these statements about the future or the others which are contained in the prophecies? Is it with any foresight of the future or not? If with a foresight of the future, then the prophets were divinely inspired; if with no foresight of the future, let him explain the meaning of one who speaks thus boldly regarding the future, and who is an object of admiration among the Jews because of his prophetic powers.24

From this passage perhaps we can suggest that the contravirgin exegesis of Isaiah 7.14 was Jewish, rather than pagan. Celsus has many reasons to discredit Christianity, but when it comes to the words of scripture, at least in the case of Isaiah 7.14, he defers to his Jewish source. The possible Jewish origin of the critique of the virgin birth is also suggested by the possible references to Jesus found in the Mishnah. There is material that is thought to refer to the person of Jesus and his birth. Pesahim 110b101a deals with the error of afrming two gods. This might relate to the kerygmatic statement that Jesus was equal with God

21. Origen Cels. 1.32; trans. New Advent, Fathers of the Church, http:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm. 22. See especially the much later Toledot Yeshu in Morris Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition (New York: Macmillian, 1950) 14854. 23. See R. Joseph Hoffmans comment in Celsus, On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians, trans. R. J. Hoffman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 129 n. 14. 24. Origen Cels. 1.35; trans. New Advent, Fathers of the Church, http:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm.

332

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

and the subsequent Christian afrmation that he was God. The warning is: O whores son who tells you there are two gods. Here, not only is the person (Jesus?) condemned for teaching the existence of two gods but his birth is also attacked. Maybe the phrase whores son was simply an ancient form of our slur son of a bitch, but it is clear that this writer is attempting to rebuke the teaching with an ad hominem remark aimed at the teacher and his mama.25 Elsewhere, in b. Sanhedrin 106a, there is a reference to an unnamed woman who was the descendent of princes and rulers, who played the harlot with carpenters. Interestingly, the statement accepts the Davidic connection while equating the woman (Mary?) to a harlot. If we accept that the earliest critics of Christianity came from within Judaism, then it is easier to understand the kind of audience that would have responded to Prot. Jas. Moreover, if we read the actors in Prot. Jas. as reective of the perceived audience, then what we nd is an acknowledgment that the idea of a virgin birth was not easy to accept. All the characters in Prot. Jas. show acute skepticism toward the idea. From the midwives to the priests to Joseph himself, everyone needed to be convinced that Mary conceived while she was still a virgin, that the conception was not from an earthly father, and that even after the birth of Jesus Marys hymen remained intact. Against the backdrop of accusations that Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier, or even that he was just one of the natural sons of Joseph and Mary, Prot. Jas. attempts to address these ideas head on and counter them en masse. Perhaps because these arguments against Jesus came from predominantly Jewish sources and voices, Prot. Jas. could be said to confront those who would have had the most difculty with this idea: Christian Jews or simply Jewish critics. Not only can we see Prot. Jas. operating within a Jewish framework but the arguments themselves also t the polemic leveled against Jesus by

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

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

333

detractors. It was not that Jesus teaching was abrasive to Jews, rather it was the messianic and divine claims made about him that seemed overreaching. Prot. Jas. may be the response to these claims, because it combats the criticism not only by defending the gospel claim but also by ratcheting the rhetoric to a new level. It used the social structures and assumptions familiar to those who lived as Jews to assert incredible claims about Mary and her son Jesus. This framework is adopted, then subverted, then exploded by the divine nature of this event. Far from watering down the idea and deecting its critics, Prot. Jas. delivers its message to a doubtful, skeptical, even hostile audience: Marys virginity and purity are unquestionable. And Jesus father, it can be inferred, is God himself. Throughout this study the terms Jewish and Christian have been used for the sake of convenience, but in fact there is a deep and lingering question about Prot. Jas. How can a text so full of Jewish imagery be taken up with the task of defending the person of Jesus and, more strikingly, asserting the idea of a virgin birth? Who ever heard of a Jewish text supporting the virgin birth of Jesus? Given that the idea of a virgin birth was one of the earliest and most durable objections to be attributed to Jewish critics of Christianity, it is ironic that the text that established the Marian cult might have arisen from a community that was closely connected to contemporary Judaism. Yet Prot. Jas. also dees facile categorization. Terminology that can describe the borders between Christianity and Judaism is vague, but as a provisional conclusion I would place Prot. Jas.s initial author and audience within the milieu of Christian Judaism. This is a term that is loosely dened as those Christians who maintained that Jesus was the prophetic Messiah but also saw no reason to reinterpret the Torah and its incumbent practices: food, festivals, and circumcision. I use this label, however, with some reservation. The more familiar term might be Jewish Christianity, but I shy away from this term for two reasons: (1) The Ebionites are the most well-known group of Jewish Christians and they directly opposed the concept of a virgin birth. That is not, however, to say that Prot. Jas. could not t within this group of Christians. In fact, the consideration of Prot. Jas. as Jewish Christian may be helpful in loosening the primary association with the Ebionites because it problematizes the assumption that Jewish Christians opposed the idea of a virgin birth.26 (2) The name Jewish Christian also has polemical
26. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.2, 3.21.1, 5.1.3; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.22; Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 33; Epiphanius, Refutation of All Heresies 2930; and Origen, Against Celsus 2.1.

334

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

undertones. It was used mainly as an accusation to condemn those groups of Christians that did not fall within the bounds of orthodox Christianity as dened by the handful of patristic writers who came to dene normative Christian beliefs: Irenaeus, Origen, Epiphanius, Hippolytus, and Eusebius. Subsequently, this term puts emphasis on Christianity with the word Jewish as a negative modier. Jewish Christianity is a Jewish form of Christianity. Christian Judaism puts Judaism as the main framework and modies it with the word Christian (which could be seen by some as a negative modier as well). This is a Christian form of Judaism. It is slightly odd to call for such a ne distinction between groups that we know almost nothing about, but Christian Judaism is the term that allows Prot. Jas. to stand on its own without being grouped too quickly with Jewish Christianity. Prot. Jas. has distinctly Christian concerns and was preserved by Christians, but its unusual afliation (from my perspective) with Judaism makes it useful in understanding the boundaries between Jews and Christians, or the lack of them. The examples offered here should not be regarded as peculiarities as much as particularities that place this text within a Christian/Jewish milieu. While this text does not prohibit a larger, mixed audience from understanding the major point of the storyMary is no ordinary woman and certainly not a harlot; in fact, she is a virgin!the details of the text would have been better understood by someone who was intimately acquainted with Jewish scripture, tradition, and its contemporary culture, varied as that may have been. It is also unreasonable to imagine a non-Jewish writer going into such detail about Jewish practices so as to make the text incomprehensible, or at least strange, to their intended Greco-Roman audience. Certainly, later generations of non-Jewish Christians embraced this text because of its vividness, readability, and teaching. Even my undergraduate Catholic students nd it more appealing and reassuring than the gospels. But in its second-century context Prot. Jas. addresses the Christian concerns and doubts about the possibility of a virgin birth by drawing from the culture and tradition of its critics. This is not as strange as it might rst appear. It was Jewish critics, above all others, who found the circumstances of Jesus birth the most problematic. The Prot. Jas. may have come into existence precisely because the idea would have been so difcult for some Jews to accept. Prot. Jas. becomes a much more important text if one is trying to appeal to those Christian Jews who needed help believing in Jesus virgin birth. Prot. Jas. introduces characters who encounter Marys pregnancy with deep skepticism: Joseph, the priests, and nally the two midwives; all of

HORNER/ PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

335

them Jewish, all of them showing a wariness of such an incredible occurrence. Yet all of them are convinced in the end. The crowning proof is the two Jewish midwives, one of whom performed a vaginal exam and found Mary intact immediately after the birth of Jesus (Prot. Jas. 20.12). In this way Prot. Jas. addresses the concerns directly and graphically. The initial contradiction of Prot. Jas.a Christian assertion soaked in a Jewish narrativemay give us some insight into its raison dtre, even if it makes it more difcult to place. The real insight comes not when we decide on a place for Prot. Jas. in the Christian, or even Jewish, corpus but when we allow Prot. Jas. to inform our understanding of early Christianity and Judaism. The line between these two groups becomes blurred and the distance between them is reduced. In the end, the success of Prot. Jas. to quell the skepticism of a virgin birth for Christian Jews was negligible. The absurdity of the virgin birth has been a consistent Jewish and non-Jewish objection throughout Christian history. But the importance of Prot. Jas. lies not in the effect it had on later readers but on the origin of the initial apologetic impulse and how that can inform our understanding of early Christianity. Tim Horner is a Lawrence C. Gallen Fellow in the Humanities at Villanova University