(10 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...In this thread I’ve been talking about some of the more famous Gospels that are not in the New Testament. I move now to one that I’ve talked about on the blog before, but it’s been a few years so it’s worth talking about again. It is arguably the most influential Gospel outside the canon: 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).
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Your article introduces a nuanced view of how early Christian communities might have viewed Mary, offering a different perspective from the canonical texts. This adds another layer to the complex narrative of early Christian beliefs, particularly concerning Mariology.
What differences have you observed in the portrayal of Mary in the Proto-Gospel of James compared to her portrayal in the New Testament, and how do these differences influence our understanding of her? Pardon me if this is something you are planning to discuss in your future writings.
It’s much more celebratory than in the NT; her most exalted portrayal there is in Luke 1-2, but in the Proto-Gospel she is exceedingly holy, from birth onward. None of these celebratoins of her extreme holiness can be found in the NT.
Interesting to read later dated gospels. But with their later dates (particularly 2nd century and beyond), they really don’t give much insight , if any, into the historical Jesus. Almost a distraction.
Yes, if someone is principally interested in the historical Jesus and not, for example, what people later believed and said, then the Proto-Gospel would not be their cup of tea. But if they are interested in how all Gospels portray Jesus differently (including the canonical ones) then it’s a gem.
That’s putting all the gospels (original 4 and later ones) on a parity with each other. Clearly, they are not on a parity. The later gospels in most cases have much more incorrect and false info about the historical Jesus than the original 4 gospels.
I don’t put the later Gospels on a parity with the earlier ones when it come to knowing what happened in the life of the historical Jesus (or know anyone else who does, with the possible exceptoin of the Gospel of Thomas). I do think these later books are important, though, for knowing what Christians were *saying* about Jesus, just as it is important to analyze what people today say about Jesus — e.g. preachers, authors, protesters at your local abortoin clinic, wide-eyed liberals at your local university, your nextdoor neighbor — if you want to understand their views (a worthwhile thing to do) even if you think that what they’re saying is not historically accurate. If you’re interested, for examplke, in how people today use the teachings of Jesus to defend, justify, or promote their social agendas, ttha’s worth doing, even if what thye way has no bearing on what Jesus actually said. (Or possibly precisely because it does or does not relate closely to what Jesus actually said) disabledupes{31ec10a9dd0589ac91b0ca5fd1f190d1}disabledupes
Do you know any good books addressing why the church is so squeamish about sex, like requiring Mary’s perpetual virginity, even though sex is a very basic human function and supposedly God Himself told us to be fruitful and multiply right from the start? (And there’s certainly plenty of lusty sexy stories in the Bible!)
The books that deal with this kind of thing the most are ones that focus on the rise of asceticism in the church in late antiquity.
Can you recommend any?
Well, beginning scholars who start in on this kind of work often begin with Peter Brown’s The Body and Society. I’m not sure if that’s the best place or not — I’m not sure what I would suggest to a general reader. Some of the top authors are Elizabeth Clark, Virginia Burrus, and Susanna Elm.
Might I suggest
Endsjø, Dag Øistein. 2011. Sex and Religion: Teachings and Taboos in the History of World Faiths
and
Brundage, James A. 1987. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe
for starters.
Thanks!
Peter Brown’s The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity is also a classic work on this subject.
“Salome, Salome, do not report all the miraculous deeds you have seen until the child enters Jerusalem.”
1. More secrecy? Like Mark?
2. Does this mean not to report all the miracles until Jesus enters Jerusalem as a child or as an adult?
1. Yup, it’s curious why she is to be silent. Not like Mark to the extent that she will be able to tell while he is still an infant. 2. No, just the birth miracles she has just witnessed (virgin birth, Jesus walking, her healing)
Dr Ehrman,
This is of special interest to me because I was raised Catholic and have never heard this. Do you think the cave spoken of in this proto gospel has it roots in Plato’s allegory of the cave?
It doesn’t seem to be, but one can see interesting parallels (cave, light, revelation) but also very strong contrasts (when the light appears, who sees it, why they didn’t see it earlier, what the light entails, what it leads to, etc.
Fascinating! So Jesus was born out of wedlock since Joseph and Mary were betrothed but not married. Did they ever officially marry? When?
Do you mean historically? I’m afraid we don’t know. the reason for saying she was betrothed and not married is that it shows they are legitimately a couple but have not yet had sex, so it explains why they’re together without compromising the virgin birth story itself.
Non-Blog Question:
It would be great to get the “Roman View” of history of the area regarding what we know about the Governorship of Judea, the First Jewish-Roman War, the Kitos War, Bar Kikhba Revolt, the Year of Four Emperors, etc. and then overlay these events on the development of early Christianity. Also, a breakdown of what “legends” may have developed centuries later about Romans and early-Christians that may not be as factual as some would typically believe. Thank you.
Yes indeed. (And it is a blog question!) But we do have information, of course, on most of these points from Roman sour es (e.g., the year of the four emperors is not mentoined in Christian sources at all, but we know a lot about it from Roman)
Hi Dr. Ehrman! I have a general question on authorship in antiquity, since we often speak about how the NT gospels are anonymous writings. If an author in antitquity wanted to be identified as such, how did he do that? Scrolls didn’t have covers like modern books, did they? Did scrolls have some form of front matter or postscript where the author identified himself? Or would the author introduce himself in the main text body of the book? Or would the author be indicated on the outside of the scroll, similar to modern book covers? I’m just curious about how this was normally done, back in that time period. Thank you!
Normally an author circulated his work to friends who knew who wrote it, so the work itself may not have indicated who wrote it, but the people who read it did. I would assume that’s what happened with the Gospels. It was possible though for the author or someone else to attach an author’s name to the book, by attaching a kind of identity card or putting it in a title. Tat certainly happned since we have some ancient authors (e.g., Martial) who complain about books being sold or just distributed in their name, when they didn’t write them. Scrolls normally didn’t have covers but codices (our form of book) usually did; they were not produced with the author’s name on them though: they were used as protective shields.
If, as you have said, no Jew in the world in the 1st Century CE believed the messiah would be someone who would die on a cross rather than be a king or leader who would restore the kingdom of Israel, how then did the historical Jesus, a peasant way out in Galilee, come to believe the opposite idea– that of a sacrificial messiah– and see himself as the one destined to be that other kind of messiah?
I don’t think he did. He saw himself as God’s prophet who was declaring that the day of judgment was soon to arrive when God would destroy his enemies and set up a new kingdom on earth. It’s only after his death that his followers, who had thought he was the messiah, began to say that his resurrection showed that hte messiah had to suffer.
I assume Matthew was a source for James’ proto-gospel (census, Maji, Herod, etc.). I found it interesting and odd that there was no mention of the flight to Egypt or what the ‘holy family’ did to escape Herod’s wrath. After Mary puts the baby in an ox-stall, she is not mentioned as the tale switches to Elizabeth and John.
There’s a lot more of Luke than Matthew behind the proto-Gospel, and that’s probalby why we don’t have some of Matthew’s distinctive features (though you’re right, we do get the magi/Herod story). As to the sudden switch, yup, it’s very interesting and a bit strange. Because of the complete shift of focus, scholars for over a century have maintained that the author at that point switched to a different source.
Dr. Ehrman,
I have an unrelated question. Richard Carrier has said in his most recent blog that you’ve
“repeatedly refused” to read his book ” On the Historicity of Jesus” and Raphael Lataster’s “Questioning the Historicity of Jesus”. Have you read either of these books?
Thank you,
Jordon
Potential Theism
Yup, I’ve read Richard’s. He can’t believe I have because I don’t find it in the least bit persuasive (and surely I would if I bothered to read it, right?) and because I’ve steadfastly refused to engage with him because he has publicly mocked and demeaned me, and I don’t think ridicule is a form of intellectual discourse. I’ve said before that I’ve read it, btw, so I don’t know why he keeps saying I haven’t. (Well, OK, I know why….). I’ve looked at Lataster’s book but haven’t read it carefully, since what I’ve seen seems so unconvincing and since it’s not really a high priority of mine to explain why Jesus existed.
” My soul has been magnified today” reminds of Luke’s Magnificat ( Magnificat anima mea Dominum et exultavit spiritus meus), which in turn goes back to Hannah,Samuel mother’s prayer after she gives birth to her long awaited son, whom she consecrates to God: Hannah prays “my soul magnifies the Lord”. “Magnifies” is also translated as ” exults” and “rejoices”. עלץ ליבי ביהוה . Aletz libi ba Adonay, where “libi”,literally” ” my heart” corresponds to “my soul”.. ” Salvation” also appears in Hannah’s prayer.
First, I wonder if Luke would have consciously reproduced the language in the HB, with
” magnifies” ,”soul” and ” exults” being common words.
Secondly, if the Proto-Gospel of James was written *after* the Gospels, in the second century, how does it anticipate them?
If would then seem that the common words in the NT are transferred from Luke to the Proto-Gospel and not the other way round.
In short, I am not clear about the chronology ( Luke/Proto-Gospel)
Luke was definitely first and heavily influential on the Proto-Gospel
When Salome kneels before baby Jesus and says ” O God of my fathers” is she referring to Jesus as being God or is she addressing God the Father? If she sees Jesus as God that early on in the history of Christianity, would we be justified in thinking that Jesus “became God” much earlier than is currently assumed?
She’s addressing God above. My view is that Jesus was thought to be God as soon as his earliest followers came to believe in his resurretion. God had exalted him to heaven and he became a divine being.