Reliability (or its lack) of the Protevangelium of James

[Difflugia]

There's some historiographical discussion going on in a few places here that compares the Gospels in particular with other sources of history from antiquity that are considered more-or-less reliable. Let's go the other way. The Protevangelium of James is a mid-second century gospel that is generally considered to be unreliable in any sort of historical sense.

There are also several other works that are generally considered to be derivative of the Protevangelium and contain similar stories:

• The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
• The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
• The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior

What are the differences between this work and the canonical Gospels that should account for its rejection as a historical source? Alternatively, should any of its details be treated as plausible or probable? Should the "derived" works be treated as independent sources?

If you don't like the translation I linked (or want to read others), There is a different public domain translation in a PDF scan at Internet Archive, and a much more modern translation by Bart Ehrman in both Lost Scriptures (page 63) or The Apocryphal Gospels (page 31).

Note that if you're doing a Google, it's maddeningly known as all of the following by different authors:

• The Protevangelium of James,
• The Protoevangelium of James,
• The Gospel of James,
• The Proto-gospel of James,
• and The Infancy Gospel of James.

It is not, however, The Apocryphon of James. That's different.

I'll further point out that Craig Evans is a noted scholar and self-described evangelical Christian that is an expert on early Christian writings. He is critical of all non-canonical would-be books of the Bible, so books, articles, and YouTube videos featuring him might offer insight or ammunition.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

There are three reasons why I reject The Protevangelium of James. (I usually call it the Gospel of James.)

The first is authorship. There is a strong argument that at least three of the four canonical gospels were written by the men whose names they bear, even though the books themselves never claim specific authors. The Gospel of James claims a specific author, and yet it almost certainly was not written by that author. The Gospel of James was written in a time when it was common to falsely attribute writings to famous authors, and it is questionable if books like these were ever meant to be taken as anything other than parables.

The second reason is acceptance. Three of the four canonical gospels were immediately accepted as accurate by virtually everyone who knew the story of Jesus. The fourth was accepted after some debate. The Gospel of James, on the other hand, was never widely accepted as true when it was written and then later it was outright condemned as false.

To make a secular analogy, imagine that there were two biographies of Alexander the Great. Both were mostly positive and both were commented on by Greeks living about 100 years after Alexander’s death. If Greeks universally accepted one biography as true, while they only commented on the second biography to explain how it got the facts wrong, then that would be strong evidence that the latter biography is unreliable.

My third reason is internal consistency. If you agree with the canonical gospels or not, it is clear that each individual gospel tells its own consistent story. The Gospel of James does not. For example, in chapter 18 Joseph suddenly becomes the narrator of the Gospel of James. This kind of internal inconsistency is a serious strike against the reliability of the document.

On the whole I would not consider the Gospel of James to be a “source,” but rather I would treat it like a parable.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

What are the differences between this work and the canonical Gospels that should account for its rejection as a historical source?

Just on the small amount I have so far read [re: The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew-] it appears that it was seen by the Christian establishment to place at risk the possibility of people being lead off the beaten track as stated;

"this book afforded matter, not of edification, but of perdition; and the opinion of the Synod in regard to it was according to its deserts, that the ears of the Church should not be open to it. Let the snapping of those that bark against us now cease; for we do not add this little book to the canonical writings, but we translate what was written by an Apostle and Evangelist, that we may disclose the falsehood of heresy."

Alternatively, should any of its details be treated as plausible or probable? Should the "derived" works be treated as independent sources?

Also from the link:

"But this I say freely — and I think none of the faithful will deny it — that, whether these stories be true or inventions, the sacred nativity of St. Mary was preceded by great miracles, and succeeded by the greatest; and so by those who believe that God can do these things, they can be believed and read without damaging their faith or imperilling their souls. In short, so far as I can, following the sense rather than the words of the writer, and sometimes walking in the same path, though not in the same footsteps, sometimes digressing a little, but still keeping the same road, I shall in this way keep by the style of the narrative, and shall say nothing that is not either written there, or might, following the same train of thought, have been written."

One can do with the stories what they will. Are the Synods sources any more plausible or probable?

It is likely all the stories [biblical too] are hearsay, which is such a similar word as "heresy" as to raise an eyebrow...

[William]

Up to Chapter 8;

It is easy to see here where the Catholic Church got its influence from in regard to nuns.

[Difflugia]

The first is authorship. There is a strong argument that at least three of the four canonical gospels were written by the men whose names they bear, even though the books themselves never claim specific authors.

Since I'd argue that the evidence is that none of them were written by their traditional authors, how much do you think it would affect the historical reliability if none of the Gospels were written by the traditional authors?

The Gospel of James, on the other hand, was never widely accepted as true when it was written and then later it was outright condemned as false.

That's not entirely accurate. From Apocryphal Gospels: A Very Short Introduction by Paul Foster:

It is sometimes suggested that a fundamental difference between canonical and non-canonical gospels is that whereas the former enjoyed widespread circulation throughout the early Church, the latter were read only in small isolationist conventicles that were themselves representative of aberrant forms of Christianity. Not only is such an understanding historically anachronistic, retrojecting the 4th-century structure of a dominant orthodoxy into the 2nd century, when there were multiple expressions of Christianity struggling to define beliefs, but it is just plain wrong in representing the use of at least some of the non-canonical gospels as being highly limited. The Protevangelium of James was a particularly widely read document in many branches of Christianity. Based on the evidence of surviving manuscripts, the wide circulation of this document is amply attested. To date, more than 140 Greek manuscripts have been catalogued. The text is also witnessed in numerous translational versions, including Sahidic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Slavonic, and Arabic. In fact, the Arabic text may have influenced Qur’anic and later Islamic understandings of the place of Mary in the Christian tradition.

Aside from that, it was at least accepted well enough to have been the likely source of the doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox churches that Mary's parents were named Joachim and Anna and that she was a perpetual virgin. If it wasn't the source of those doctrines, then it at least shares the traditions that later became official doctrine.

Do you think that any of the extrabiblical traditions in the Gospel of James were based on historical fact?

When it was condemned in the fifth century, it was for doctrinal reasons, not independent concerns about authenticity. From Apocryphal Gospels:

As certain sections of the Church became fixated on virginity as a spiritual discipline and a purer state of being, not only was it necessary to present Mary as a perpetual virgin – a key concern of the Protevangelium – but the perpetual virginity of Joseph was also asserted. Since the storyline of the Protevangelium presented Joseph as an elderly widower with surviving children, this text became highly problematic in the Latin Church. However, within the orthodox tradition the perpetual virginity of Joseph did not feature as a doctrinal concern. Consequently, the text circulated widely and shaped orthodox beliefs, as is attested by the wealth of surviving manuscripts.

How much of your skepticism is based on its lack of popularity?

My third reason is internal consistency. If you agree with the canonical gospels or not, it is clear that each individual gospel tells its own consistent story. The Gospel of James does not. For example, in chapter 18 Joseph suddenly becomes the narrator of the Gospel of James. This kind of internal inconsistency is a serious strike against the reliability of the document.

The vision of Joseph isn't out of place in the narrative and even if the narrator is different, it fits the chronological order of the story. This is speculative, but if we assume for a moment that James did write it, do you think it's unreasonable to think that this was a story told by Joseph of this vision to James and then James recounted the story verbatim in Joseph's voice?