Hi Mary, Why do you think
the Protevangelium of James is an important text?
I think it's an important text partly because it is so early,
it's dated to the second century.
People argue about exactly when,
middle or end, and we can talk about that later.
But it is a text that in a way,
builds on the canonical gospels and provides a huge amount of
material about a figure we hear very little about in,
for example, the Gospels of Luke and Matthew.
That is the Virgin Mary.
The Protevangelium tells us the story of
her conception from two righteous people,
Joachim and Anne,
how she was dedicated to the temple
at the age of three and brought up there.
This is the Jewish temple in
Jerusalem. Was then betrothed to Joseph.
And the story goes on and
retells the story of the Nativity of Christ,
the annunciation, and the Nativity of Christ.
And goes on through to talk very much about her,
the virgin birth and how she was
discovered to be a virgin even after the birth of Christ.
And thus provides details about the mother of Jesus Christ,
her background, her purity,
which is a huge preoccupation in this text.
The detail with which it goes into these events in her life,
which we don't know what
their basis is, whether they're legendary,
transmitted by oral tradition,
or what did then enter
into the tradition of
both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches east and west,
to form the basis of the cult of the Virgin Mary
for reflection and devotion to her purity, to her childhood.
What formed her to become,
as she's known in the east as the mother of God.
And of course, that's creation.
The Protevangelium creates,
as it were, a backstory in that it recreates
the time before the Gospels,
and also then in creating
that backstory is the earliest evidence we have
for this massive outflowing of later Christian cult.
Most Christians down
the centuries of this probably would not be true today,
have just assumed the history
that the world that we know a great deal about,
historical people, Joachim
Anne, Mary in the temple and so forth.
But of course also, it's also
an incredibly valuable document in terms of the second century.
And again, we may disagree on the timescale.
In that the way it is one of
the it is probably the earliest work that,
that it is the earliest work that definitely quotes
both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew,
where they are most
different from each other in their infancy narratives.
And while you might have said there
are other second century gospels that,
that can be seen as quoting earlier texts.
What's significant about the Protevangelium
is, by quoting both Matthew and Luke
it notes where they disagree, but
rather than just noting
the disagreement and opting for one or the other,
it engages in a very careful process of creating
a larger story that will allow
the disagreements in the infancy narratives to appear to be, 'oh
they just got one part of the story, they got the other.'
And so it actually creates a harmony between them.
Now, of course harmonizations of the Gospel
we know that Celsus was in the second century,
pointing to the discrepancies in the Gospels as a proof
Christianity was a fraudulent religion.
So the idea of
a second century harmony is not itself that unusual.
But what I think is most valuable about the Protevangelium
is that the fact that it must keep
the details from both Matthew and Luke
signifies that these texts are already being
given some sort of authoritative status in the church.
These gospels are being retold,
are being re-read, they're being,
they're being preserved in the churches.
So it's no longer a case that you can just go with
one or the other, the story,
But the fact that the story has to keep both of
them and has to try and integrate them,
indicates that they're already proto canonical.
And I therefore, I am intrigued by it,
not so much in terms of its later impact,
but as a witness to
the canonization of the fourfold gospel in the second century.
Because if you, if you,
it clearly canonises
both Matthew and Luke,
insofar as these are not texts that you can just disagree with,
and therefore they must both be true and harmless.
But of course, if you have both Matthew and Luke,
we know that the churches were preserving the Gospel of Mark,
so that's absorbed into that
And also there is, there is
a curious reference in the Protevangelium
that indicates a knowledge
of of John's gospel as well. So
It's curious, this is a text that's on the periphery of study,
but for you, it's crucial because of its later impact.
And for me it's crucial
because what it tells us was happening in the second century.
I would be interested to know what you think about
the date or your arguments for placing
quite early in the second century are if thats what you believe.
My argument a, well,
we know that we can date...
every piece a dating depends where you put
the first pin on the date line. So
the question is, do you put the pin? We can.
Let's take Justin the Martyr. Justin... 155
He certainly been martyred by 155.
So say between 145 and 155,
the very central years of the second century are
probably his most productive period.
He takes for granted the story of the cave,
that Jesus was born in the cave. Now
his reference to Jesus being born in a cave is for
those who go for the early dating of the Protevangelium
This is the give away
detail because if you take Matthew's Gospel and Luke's Gospel,
their accounts of the birth of Jesus.
There's no reference to a cave.
in any of them, there's no reference to anything
except the usual thing
is that there was no room for them in the,
in the, there was no,
traditionally, there was no room for them in the inn.
And it's taken for granted that it was in Bethlehem.
In order to get the two stories to come together.
The approach evangelium develops the story
that it's outside Bethlehem and it's in a cave.
So the cave makes perfect sense as
an integral part of the Protevangelium story.
And it's theological and apologetic task.
It doesn't make any sense as just another bit of
storytelling that gets absorbed into it.
So the fact that
Justin knows the word, has this has,
Justin clearly thinks just as
a throwaway, in the way that umpteen artists down the centuries.
And indeed that the famous icon of the, of the,
the Nativity has that,
that Jesus is born in a cave.
And I see that reference in,
in Justin as meaning that he not only
knows the two canonical gospels,
but he knows this other text which integrates them.
I'd also, and I hope you don't think this is a I think
sometimes there is a there has been a tendency.
Among scholars dealing with these texts,
which they get this,
they get this sort of, this,
this term of abuse,
Apocryphon, if it's an apocryphal,
then it must be late.
It seems to make life neater
And so I think, I think everyone is
agreed there must be a second century text.
But there's almost, there's almost a default setting amongst
scholars with every year after
150 that you could put it, you somehow defuse it.
It's less likely.
And so, so my...
I think all scholars would agree that
it's before the end of the second century,
but I, I personally think that it will make...
It does not make sense to have Justin referring to a cave
independently of this text,
because the cave is a motif needed from the very,
from the very fundamental task.
The text sets itself, in integrating
these two divergent infancy narratives.
I'm not sure whether I'll have convinced you.
That's, that's at least why I go for the early dating.
Well the terminus ante quem is Clement of Alexandria and origin.
>>Yes, Who both cite the texts in
the early third century
>>and who both cite it as something that they,
that they know and know a long time ago and therefore
you can push it back to about 180.
Yes, there are two aspects
of the texts that really interests me as well.
One is the fact that
the portrayal of Mary
as a space like the temple, a sanctified space.
It's a very theological narrative,
which is teaching theology by means of its narrative, I think.
So a lot of its aim is to show how holy she
is as someone who will bear Christ, the Son of God.
Which must reveal quite a high Christology already,
to prove that she is pure enough, holy enough,
and this is truly a virgin birth fit for the Son of God.
So that's, I think, an important message in
the text which the authors try >> I certainly would hold
one of the, one of the key reasons why
this text needs to receive far more scholarly attention than it
has, is that it explains it if it's the
it's almost where the missing link
in the development of high Christology,
That's one, you said there was a second >> The second one,
is that it's known, incited by fathers,
as we've mentioned, Clement and
Origin and later Gregory of Nyssa, I think.
But they all are wary of naming the text.
But by the eighth century in Byzantium, we find preachers,
people who I've been working on and their
sermons using it almost as if it were Scripture,
quoting it, commenting on it,
dramatizing this text, talking
about the way Mary entered the temple.
Creating dialogues between Anna and the high priest.
In the same way that they develop
and sort of dramatic interpretation of scripture.
They do the same with the Protevangelium
and it's entered tradition by that point.
So it's more than just an apocryphal text.
I would say it's part of the tradition. And also in the,
in an interesting reflection of that in the Latin tradition,
in that there's a hesitation.
It's clear that people knew the text.
It's.. But there's a hesitation to cite it.
It, it,
it becomes part of,
in Latin, it survives as
part of the gospel of the pseudo Matthew.
But even if you leave that sort of official question aside,
Joachim and Anne get a feast day,
the presentation of Mary in
the temple becomes a feast day.
If you actually look, the evidence for
the text in the Latin tradition is not to be found
in manuscripts are in theologians referring to it,
it's to be found in church dedications
It's to be found in liturgy,
and above all, it is to be found in
the Christian calendar because in the,
in the Latin church,
the birthday of Mary,
the conception of Mary,
the eighth of, the eighth of December for her birthday,
the eighth of eighth of September for our birthday,
the eighth of December for her,
for her conception, later to become the Immaculate Conception.
in the West. The feast of Joachim
All of the Latin, Latin liturgical time
has a whole wealth of Mary references,
all of which relate to this text.
So when you look at it,
if you look at it in terms of surviving manuscripts,
it's a, it's a, it's a,
it's a minor texts of very little importance.
When you actually look at Christian memory and praxis.
It's a crucial text and one which I think
needs a lot more study and a lot more
Harvard had studied than just, you know, I think,
I think not only as you project Christology,
reception of the New Testament, interpretations you do,
but also how liturgical time and
the figure of Mary has played in Christian history.
>> Yes, in Byzantium,
I can add to that that St. Joachim and Anna are
always named last in
the prayers at the end of the divine liturgy,
as if they were among
the most important figures to be named every
single time you celebrate the liturgy and Anne, Saint Anne
becomes a patron of women in childbirth and infertility.
She's a mediator for that particular problem for women.
So very important for women, I think.
in the Eastern traditions. >>And,
and in fact in the West, in, in folklore,
>> because they, they're,
they're an old couple and they have, you know, they, they, they,
they meet as an old couple and they become,
they become the intercessors for spinsters.
And in fact, there's actually a little ditty,
recited by spin... ladies
of a certain age in Ireland 50 years ago.
Oh, Holy Joachim, and blessed St Anne
Please find me a man as fast as you can.
Now it might seem,
it might seem a sort of a banal statement,
but it shows how deeply this text embedded
itself in lived Christian consciousness.
>> Thank you.