Over the past few days I have been working on my syllabus for the graduate seminar I will be teaching this term, on Early Christian Apocrypha — that is, other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses that did not become part of the New Testament. As chance would have it, I was also just now browsing through some old blog posts, and came across this one, posted on this date seven years ago. It is about one of the most historically influential and downright interesting Gospels from outside the New Testament. In the Middle Ages, this book was sometimes *treated* as Scripture: it inspired a good deal of Christian art, for example, and provided people with “information” about Jesus’ birth and what happened before it.
So I thought I should post it again. Here it is:
**********************************
In my graduate class on non-canonical Gospels, we typically analyze the Proto-Gospel of James (which scholars call the Protevangelium Jacobi — a Latin phrase that means “Proto-Gospel of James,” but sounds much cooler….). It is called the “proto” Gospel because it records events that (allegedly) took place before the accounts of the NT Gospels. Its overarching focus is on Mary, the mother of Jesus; it is interested in explaining who she was. Why was *she* the one who was chosen to bear the Son of God? What made her so special? How did she come into the world? What made her more holy than any other woman? Etc. These questions drive the narrative, and make it our earliest surviving instance of the adoration of Mary. On the legends found here was built an entire superstructure of Marian tradition. Most of the book deals with the question of how Mary was conceived (miraculously, but not virginally), what her early years were like (highly sanctified); her youth up to twelve (lived in the temple, fed every day by an angel), her betrothal to Joseph, an elderly widower with sons from a previous marriage, the discovery of her pregnancy and the “proof” that she (and Joseph) were both pure from any “sin” (such as, well, sex).
The book was originally ….
The rest of this post is for blog members only. Wanna keep reading? It gets interesting. All you need to is join the blog. We still have free memberships for those who cannot afford them; and if you want to pay the regular membership fee, it’s not much and every nickel goes to help those in need. So why not??
I recall reading that the Protoevangelion may have been an influence on the Qur’an depiction of Mary. I’d like to know your thoughts on this.
Yes, it’s widely thought so.
Unrelated question: In Mark 8:27f Jesus asks his disciples “Who do people say that I am?” “John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets. “But who do you say that I am?” “You are the Christ.”
Luke keeps it almost the same, although he adds “the Christ of God.” (Was there another kind of Christ?!)
Matthew however has Jesus ask, “Who do people say that *the Son of Man* is?” Usual answer, although Jeremiah is added in. “But who do you say that *I* am?” “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.”
So, was Matthew having Jesus ask two different questions: who is the Son of Man, and who am I? Or is Matthew trying to have Jesus refer to himself in this passage as the Son of Man? In fact, is Matthew equating Jesus, the Son of Man and the Son of God as all the same person in this passage? Or is he differentiating between Jesus and the Son of Man? He obviously tweaked the passage for some purpose.
Great questions. I was writing out a reply, and it was getting way too long: so I’ll address it in a couple of days in a full length post.
I have understood that in addition to Book of Revelation there where to two other disputed books that proto-orthodox Christians nearly accepted into NT: The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas. Have you ever speculated how Christianity could look today if one of these had been chosen instead of Revelation?
Yup, a good deal. Christainity would have become a lot *more* anti-Jewish than it did (even thoguh it was very badly that way as it was), because of Barnabas (which is very nasty toward Jews who don’t believe in Jesus); and their Bible would be enormously longer. The Shepherd is a very, very long text, and rather monotonous for most readers.. I’m not sure it would have changed Christainity much otherwise though….
Seems to me this book was quite influential. Christians today often believe that John’s father Zechariah was the “high priest.” This text seems to be the source of that idea [which is certainly untrue]. It’s in ch. 8.5-6
‘And they said to the high priest, “Go in and pray about her [Mary].” …. Suddenly, an angel of the Lord stood before him, saying, “Zachariah, Zachariah…”
The present work is also the apparent source of the idea that Zechariah was killed by Herod I. [See 23.7] I think this misconception results from an interpretation of Matthew 23:35 — “from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” This gets convoluted, because Matthew confuses the prophet who wrote the Book of Zechariah [the son of Berekiah] with the prophet who died as a martyr [the son of Jehoiada] centuries earlier. And then the author of Proto-James confuses them both with the father of John the Baptist.
And yet it never makes it into any Christmas pageants!
Historically it did!
Well now that is interesting! How long have we had this book? How old is the oldest copy? I am assuming the council at Nicea wasn’t about to add this to the Bible? Thanks for sharing.
Fourth century. Actually, the Council of Nicaea did not discuss which books would be in the Bible, contrary to popular opinion.
On the subject of the infant Jesus, Away In a Manger – “But little Lord Jesus no crying he makes”. Hmm, so Baby Jesus didn’t cry? Sounds like docetism to me…
Hey, I’m sure I didn’t cry either….
Great post. It’s curious that so much Christian (particularly Catholic) tradition comes from this non-canonical gospel. Furthermore, it sounds like it fails the criterion of contextual credibility on more than one occasion. For instance, would Mary (a girl) be allowed to live in the temple, which I imagine was probably a building site at that time?
I always loved the story from when you talk about it in your public appearances, but never read the whole thing. Now that I have, here are three questions about it:
What tone should I read “O man” in?
How exactly would one determine if a woman is still a virgin of said woman just gave birth?
Why is Joseph specifying that he’s looking for a Hebrew midwife? Does he need her to be familiar with the Law?
1. I don’t know what you mean; 2. You check to see if her hymen is still intacdt 3. Yup.
Seems the story was revised and given a G rating and softer consequence — blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.
I am very interested in the historical timeline of the development of both canonical and non-canonical Christian texts. Can you provide a reference that lists the texts and their most likely origin dates from an objective standpoint? Most of what I have seen on the ‘net seems to carry some agenda so that the dates are suspect to me. Thanks!
That would be too much for a comment, but maybe I can make a post out of it.
Could you please comment on the usefulness of the list found here: earlychristianwritings.com
It’s the most complete list I have found, but I am somewhat suspect of the timelines.
Sorry, I’m not familiar with it.
Bart; Bart; you should have started a verse earlier. This is the best bit of all:
“18.
And I Joseph was walking, and was not walking; and I looked up into the sky, and saw the sky astonished; and I looked up to the pole of the heavens, and saw it standing, and the birds of the air keeping still. And I looked down upon the earth, and saw a trough lying, and work-people reclining: and their hands were in the trough. And those that were eating did not eat, and those that were rising did not carry it up, and those that were conveying anything to their mouths did not convey it; but the faces of all were looking upwards. And I saw the sheep walking, and the sheep stood still; and the shepherd raised his hand to strike them, and his hand remained up. And I looked upon the current of the river, and I saw the mouths of the kids resting on the water and not drinking, and all things in a moment were driven from their course.”
Back in the day, when I was in a Catholic Parochial school, Mary “adoration” was a very, very, big deal. We heard any number of stories about her perpetual virginity, her freedom from original sin, miracles, apparitions, and her bodily assumption into heaven. We were urged to pray to her, to intercede on our behalf, to heal this, and heal that, but most of all to convert Russia! Mary was the supreme weapon against Soviet Communism. We were shown how the rosary was effectively a slingshot, like David’s against Goliath. A priest even demonstrated, holding his rosary like a slingshot. It went on and on. I think we heard more about Mary and Marian Apparitions than Jesus. Those were the days. I wonder whether that sort of thing still goes on. With the fall of the old Soviet Union, some of the wind might have gone out of those sails. It was quite an experience, to be Catholic in the fifties.
Hi, Professor. I was wondering your view concerning the infancy narratives, especially in Luke. How did they come to be integrated in the gospel’s narrative? Are they from the same author or are these later additions? Especially the psalms in the beginning of Luke seem to be independent units.
I’ve long argued that they were added after a first edition of the Gospel was put into circulation. I posted on that long ago: I think I’ll repost it! I think they are probably from a different author, and yes, the “psalms”/hymns or whatever we call tehm may have existed independently.
Yes, i would love to read that post, i’m new here, so i might have missed it. Thank you so much!
It’s on my list!
Well, that’s pretty weird!
Bart,
I am new to your blog (love it) and am doing a lot of catch-up on old posts. I find it particularly intriguing when something seems to be of special interest or amazement to you. Are there other examples of this type of writing/passage/book, etc. that have been especially important or compelling to you? Something that you find impossible to adequately analyze to your satisfaction and that lingers in your thoughts. Thank you.
Elizabeth
Tons! I talk about this kind of thing all the time on the blog, as you’ll see. (Little in early Christianity is “suprising” to me these days — though occasionally! — since I’ve been studying it for 45 years; but a *lot* of it is amazing!)
Jesus is just a prophet right ? Then did he prophesying about incoming prophet in the future after him? And who was Moses prephecied about incoming future prophet of Israel if it doesn’t fit Jesus, because Jesus don’t have wife like Moses? Are Arabs people from Ismaelite? And is there any non Israelites prophet in the bible , that cames from Arab? And which one is more in number clear cut contradiction or contradiction that can be reconcilled?
Syrahreza, I’m happy to answer questions, but as spelled out in the comment protocol, I can do only one, at most two, questions per day per commenters. In my opinion, yes, Jesus was a prophet; for me he was not a divine being because I don’t believe ther are divine beings. And no, he was not prophecying about a future prophet to come. He did speak of a cosmic judge of the earth to come soon from heaven, that he called the Son of Man. After his death his followers began to say that *he* was the Son of Man, and was retunring now in judgment.
Dr ehrman so your view same as muslim taht said Jesus is just a prophet, and majority scholar say that? I know bible have mistake in them, but why don’t you believe in God ? Do you believe there is a devil? If devil exist then he try to attck us who gonna save human if god doesn’t exist
No, I don’t believe in any supernatural beings of any kind (God, gods, angels, Devil, demons, or anything else isn’t made of particle originating at the Big Bang). And so I don’t agree with the Qur’an either. When I say Jesus was a prophet I don’t mean he was literally speaking for God, since I don’t think there is a God; I mean that he was one who believed and portrayed himself to be a spokesperson for God.
But still, you agree that Jesus never claim to be God or claim divinity? Also he can’t ever be Yahweh too right?
Yes, I agree. And no, he cannot be Yahweh in my opinion because Yahweh does not exist in my opinion.
And about historical error also scientific error , are there many of them ? I’m not talk about contradiction but historical and scientific error also geographical error, are there many of them? And is there a count on how many contradiction and error in the Bible as example?
There aren’t any reliable counts/figures, no, but yes, lots of historical and geographical errors. You may want to read my book Jesus Interrupted which is about that kind of thing.
How many forgery are there in the Bible ?
When I use the term “forgery” I mean something very technical by it. A forgery is a work that claims directly or indirectly to be produced by (a famous) person who in fact did *not* produce it. By that criterion there is one forgery inthe Old Testament (Ecclesiastes) and by my count — scholars disagree on this 14 in the New Testament (Luke, Acts, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John, and Jude)
Hi Sir,
A silly type of question but asking out of curosity in one of your lecture you was talking about touring hell of Peter(Apocalypse of Peter).Sir is it a part of the Bible?
Not silly at all! No, it is not part of the Bible.
Sir you are just awesome you always clears doubts of every questioners.Thank you sir.
I just ran across your short discussion of this passage in Jesus Before the Gospels. I’ve read very little of these non-canonical texts, but it often seems that the writing style, the content of the narrative, or something about them (the genre?) doesn’t sound, well, canonical. Maybe it’s just because the passages are unfamiliar. Anyway, this passage is, as you say, interesting. Sometimes I imagine the discussion over the canon being along the lines of . . . .”naw, that one just sounds too far fetched, that’s out.” 🙂 –Dan
Yes, my guess is that it is simply because they sound unfamiliar. If John’s Gospel were not in the Bible, anyone reading it would say “That doesn’t sound like Jesus!!”
Did such ancient authors separate books into fiction and non-fiction categories like we do today?
Great question. They had the concepts of accounts that were historically accurate and those that were not, and knew that lots of stories didn’t really happen, but they don’t have terms for such things the way we do. Being “historically true” was more important for some people than others. Especially among serious historians it was often a big deal. Not always with others.
This is a question i’ve wanted to ask you for some time, and apologies if you’ve answered it elsewhere or if i’ve asked this before (i’m sure i’ve slept and drank since then. ). which Christian denomination in existence today do you think most closely resembles the Christianity of Paul’s era?
I don’t think any of them particularly does. But I suppose any that meet in private homes without clergy and structure that still practice spiritual gifts might be the closest?
Prof Ehrman,
Thank you again for the post.
1. Please, in what time period does the Church embrace Marian Traditions?
2. Why wasn’t this Book (Protevangelium Jacobi) considered canonical by the church or at least part of the Apocrypha if it heavily supports the Marian Tradition.
3. Can we equate Christianity under Romans to be the same as Roman Catholicism? If not when does Roman Catholicism start in the history of the Christianity?
1. Already starting in the second century, at least (though if you count Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 as among “Marian traditions” then it would be earlier;
2. There is no official “Apocrypha” of Xn writings as there is for hte OT. But it wasn’t considered canonical because it was not believed to have been written by an apostle or to be one of the most ancient of the Gospels.
3. Roman Catholocism is a long term phenomenon: it didn’t appear over night. The Roman church started in the first century, achieved wider importance by the 2nd century, but is not seen as *the* prominent church until the 3rd or 4th century. Even then the structures and dogmas of later Catholicism had not developed.
Hi Dr. Ehrman, I have a question that is not really related to this blog post, I hope it’s OK if I just post it here: In 2 Timothy 3:16, the author (probably not Paul?) writes “All scripture is inspired by God…”. My question is this: What could the author have meant at this point with the words “all scripture”? Only the old testament books, the Hebrew Scriptures, right?
Because Paul (or his secretary or whoever wrote the epistle) would not have had any knowledge of the Gospels, or Acts, or Revelation. (And even if he did, those books would not come to be regarded as “scripture” until later.) And this author would not have considered Paul’s letters “scripture”, because Paul (in his authentic letters) did not claim to write under divine inspiration. As far as he was concerned, he was just writing letters to his churches. He was not producing “scripture”. Right?
Yes, that’s right — he definitely meant the Hebrew Bible.
Two questions (one related and one unrelated):
1) Is the birth narrative in the Protevangelium thought to be a third infancy tradition in addition to Matt & Luke or simply an expansion on the earlier infancy narratives?
2) It is generally understood that Q did not have a passion, and that both Matt & Luke used Mark & Q. However, Matt seems to follow Mark’s passion narrative more closely than Luke. Has anyone advocated that Luke may be getting his passion narrative from Q? (if so could you please point out where I can read more on that)
Thanks
1. Both, I suppose. 2. Yes, I’ve long been suspicious of “Q had no passion narrative.” how would we know? Especially if either Matthew or Luke simply chose not to use it, but the other did??
This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBQnQTkhsq4 is a good debunking of myths about the hymen. (For the short on time, you only need to watch the 1 minute and 34 seconds from 6:56 to 8:30. At least fifty percent of women (and if you go by 9:16 to 9:36 that’s conservative) have a hymen that’s elastic enough to fool the author of the Proto-Gospel of James into thinking they were virgin mothers. Which says something about the relative importance, throughout history, of the philosophical quest for truth as compared to the manipulation of women…
Followup: I think I got a bit muddled there. It’s virginity, not childbirth, that cannot be ascertained through inspection.