Question:
Answer:
The Protoevangelium of James is reliable in affirming the Incarnation, Virgin Birth, and also the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother, explaining that Mary’s parents consecrated her to God’s service: “And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord‘” (9, emphasis added; see 6-7; 9; 13).
In addition, the Protoevangelium was written early–ca. 120 A.D. In that light, the grandchildren of Mary’s close relatives would still have been alive. So if the author of were lying–or otherwise mistaken–about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, they could have testified to the contrary that the Blessed Mother had other kids, or at least had engaged in traditional marital relations.
But there is no such contrary evidence in the early Church. Rather, the early Church Fathers attest to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, as we illustrate in our related tract on the Blessed Mother. See also Tim Staples‘ larger and more general presentation on Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Gnostic heresy regarding the birth of Jesus?
Some Protestant apologists, like James White, claim that that the Protoevangelium is Gnostic. Gnosticism teaches dualism, i.e., that the spiritual realm is good while the material realm is evil. In one of his podcasts, White offers this argument:
The worldview of the creator God making all things, central to the Christian faith, Gnosticism denies that. So, you have a dualistic system within Gnosticism. This is plainly seen in these sources. You have this idea of Jesus basically beaming in to the world. He beams out of Mary, there’s a bright light and as the light fades, ah, there’s a baby. So, no birth. There couldn’t be, because in Gnostic thought that would make Jesus a part of the fallen physical order. . . .
White references a divine light that accompanies the miraculous birth of Jesus in the Protoevangelium:
And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things—because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary (19).
Trent Horn puts the passage in perspective:
It’s a reference to the Ark of the Covenant. When the Ark of the Covenant was in the Old Testament, there was always a cloud that followed it. There was a cloud that would settle up on it. So, that’s what the author is trying to assert here with Mary. Immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave. A great light shown in the cave, so the eyes could not bear it. Once again, that’s not Gnostic. Having a great light be present is a common theophany in the Old Testament and Hebrew scriptures. There was a great light, a light that’s shown when Jesus was born in the canonical Gospels [i.e., the Star of Bethlehem].
To be clear, the Protoevangelium affirms the Incarnation, that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), that God became man in the Person of Jesus Christ (emphasis added). Indeed, in this ancient writing, Mary conceives Jesus bodily in her womb (12) well before his birth, adding that, “in her sixth month,” Mary “was big with child” (13). Also, from a Gnostic perspective wouldn’t Jesus have necessarily been tainted during his gestational phase in his fallen mother’s womb, irrespective of how his birth took place? Wouldn’t those prenatal nine months themselves “make Jesus a part of the fallen physical order” of which White expresses concern? If the author of the Protoevangelium were truly a Gnostic, surely he would’ve avoided such a doctrinal blunder.
Also, as the aforementioned excerpt shows, Jesus is a divine Child who bodily nurses from his mother, similar to how any other baby boy would nurse (19). The Protoevangelium further affirms, in conformity with Luke 2, that Simeon was told “by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death until he should see the Christ in the flesh (24, emphasis added).
On a side note, Christians agree that, in being conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:34-35), God became man. If the Incarnation is possible, why should White have trouble conceiving that Jesus could’ve been born miraculously? Clearly, the latter is less remarkable than the former.
A Fictional Tale on the Life of Jesus that Nevertheless Affirms Doctrinal Truth
On the other hand, there’s a reason the Protoevangelium is not in the biblical canon, including because it’s a fictional work that intermixes elements of historical truth in telling the real-life story of Jesus and his parents. For example, in telling how Mary herself was conceived, it borrows from the scriptural account of when Hannah beseeched God and was blessed with a son, Samuel, whom she dedicated to the Lord (1 Sam. 1; see Protoevangelium, 2-4). Also, that Joseph was chosen by lot to become Mary’s husband, and that Joseph is unbecoming in resisting his call: “I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel” (9).
And Mary herself is presented as having doubts shortly after the Annunciation:
And Mary, with great joy, went away to Elizabeth her kinswoman, Luke 1:39-40 and knocked at the door. And when Elizabeth heard her, she threw away the scarlet, and ran to the door, and opened it; and seeing Mary, she blessed her, and said: Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, behold, that which is in me leaped and blessed you. Luke 1:34, 44 But Mary had forgotten the mysteries of which the archangel Gabriel had spoken, and gazed up into heaven, and said: Who am I, O Lord, that all the generations of the earth should bless me? Luke 1:48 (12).
Regarding its literary genre, Trent Horn says,
Christian midrash is what I would call it. . . . Midrash is a Jewish genre of retelling stories in the Old Testament in a markedly different way to draw particular points out of them, and they’re clearly retold in even a fictional kind of way. So, I think that the Infancy Gospel of James, it does not perfectly align with the Infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. There are many touchpoints, there are also differences. So, I would say those differences represent a midrashic retelling, but they’re underscoring the main points of the canonical narratives, which is that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit, that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. Jesus only has one father, God, God is his Father, and that this is a miracle that has happened for Mary to give birth, and that Jesus was born of a Virgin. That’s what’s being underscored here.
In summary, the Protoevangelium of James is a fictional tale regarding the life of Jesus and his parents, and that’s why the Church didn’t include it in the biblical canon. At the same time, the Church recognizes that the Protoevangelium has historical elements corroborated by the canonical Gospels and otherwise in the early Church, including regarding Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.