LivERATURE.—This has been sufficiently indicated in the body of the above section of the article.
B. 1. JAMES, PROTEVANGELIUM OF .—
1. Litle, ii. Evidence of existence. 1. Fourth century writers. 2. Origen. 8. Possible traces of anonymous use, iii. Summary of contents. Variations in pseudo- Matthew and Nativity of Mary. iv. Character and tendencies. y. Relation to Latin recensions— 1. Gospel of pseudo-Matthew. 2. Gospel of the Nativity of Mary. vi. Date. Literature.
i. TrTLE.—This work claims to have been written by James the Just, in Jerusalem, but its author does not describe it as a Gospel. Its title in the manuscripts is ‘The History of James concerning the Birth of Mary.’ Early writers do not refer to it as evayyédov, but describe it as dupynors, Moyos icropixds, toropla or yévynots Mapias. The name of Protevangelium was probably given to it by Ori- ental Christians; it isnot known to have existed before the 16th Icent., when the Latin version of Postellus and the Greek version (rpwrevayyéNov) of Michael Neander appeared.
ii. EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE.—1. The Protevan- gelium, in its present form, was known to 4th cent. Fathers. Epiphanius (c. 376) made use of it (Her. Ixxix. 5, xxviii. 7); Harnack (Chron. i. 601) finds reference to it in Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. in diem Natal. Christi, iii. 346), Eustathius, and the Eau- cerpta Barbare.
2, If this work had been known in early times as ‘the Gospel of James’ the evidence of Origen (c. 246 A.D.) would have been less trustworthy. There is, however, little doubt that he refers to it as ‘the Book of James’ (% BiBdos *IaxéBov) in a passage where he distinguishes its title from that of ‘the Gospel according to Peter,’ and yet refers to both writings as common sources of the tradi- tion that our Lord’s brethren were ‘sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.’ Origen adds: ‘Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end’? (in Matt. tom. x. 17); this comment is an accurate description of the purpose of the Prot- evangelium.
3, Possible traces of anonymous use.—Points of contact between this work and other writings have been found. Peter of Alexandria (d. 311) in all pro- » bability derived from it his account of the death of Zacharias (Routh, Rell. Sac. iv. 44). Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 A.D.) may have learnt from it the story of the attestation of Mary’s virginity after the birth of her son, but the indefinite words ‘some say’ may refer to oral tradition (Strom. vii. 16). Justin Martyr (c. 140 A.D.) has several remarkable ‘concordances’ with the Protevan- gelium. Both combine (Apol. 33) the angel’s message to Mary (Lk 1%) with his words to Joseph (Mt 124); both state (Dial. 78) that our Lord was born in a cave; both speak (Apol. 33) of Mary’s overshadowing by ‘the power of God’; both attach importance (Dial. 100) to the Davidic descent of Mary; both assert that ‘Mary received joy,’ though Justin (Dial. 100) connects the words kal xapav AaBodoa Mapia with the angelic salutation, whilst in the Protevangelium the same words are associated with the priest’s benediction. Zahn regards the dependence of Justin on this Gospel as proved. But the more exact resemblances would
430 APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
be satisfactorily explained if both writers made use of a common tradition; and the variation in the context of the statement about Mary’s joy points, in the judgment of many scholars, to the use by Justin of an older text of the Protevangelium. On the whole, the evidence cannot be said to prove that he used this Gospel in its present form.
ili. SUMMARY OF CONTENTS.—[T wo Latin Gospels of the Childhood—pseudo-Matthew and the Nativity of Mary—either depend on the Protevangelium, or on the sources used by its author. In so far as the contents of these Latin Gospels are parallel to its narrative, the chief variations will be noted ; they furnish important data for the solution of the pro- blem of the mutual relations of these Gospels].
1. On a great festival, Joachim, an exceedingly rich man, brings double offerings to the temple ; they are rejected because he is childless. In his grief he retires to the desert and fasts forty days, prayer being his food and drink. 2. Anna, the wife of Joachim, being reproached by Judith her maid-servant, prays to God under a laurel, and asks that to her, as to Sarah, a child may be given. 3. Beholding a sparrow’s nest in the laurel, Anna laments that she is not like the fowls of the heaven, which are ‘productive before thee, O Lord.’ 4. An angel of the Lord announces to Anna that her prayer is heard; she vows that her child shall be a gift to God. Another angel bids Joachim return home; he obeys, and takes with him flocks for an offering. Anna and Joachim meet at the gate.
In pseudo-Mat. 3 the angel bids Anna meet her husband at the Golden Gate ; in Nat. Mary 4 the angel bids Joachim meet his wife at the Golden Gate. Cf. Ac 32.
5. On the following day Joachim brings his offer- ing to the temple and goes down to his house ‘justified.’ In course of time a daughter is born to Anna and Joachim ; Anna calls the child Mary.