4

The Portrayal of Joseph in the Infancy of James

Introduction With few exceptions, most scholars think the Infancy Gospel of James (hereafter identified as I GJames) was composed in the second half of the second century CE, some time around or after 150.1 They usually base this conclusion on two factors. The first is found in the narrative of the church father, , in his Commentary on Matthew (in his reference in 10.17 to Mt. 13.55), in what most believe to be a 'certain reference' to IGJames. 2 The second factor consists of the 'apologetic concerns that drive much of the narrative'. 3 By this time, if not before this narrative was composed, Jewish and pagan writers had started to raise serious ques• tions about the divinity ofJesus through attacks upon his virtue and that of his mother. 4 These attacks inevitably led to a variety of apologetical

1 Most scholars believe the Infancy Gospel of James was written in the second half of the second century CEo See Hann Reinder Smid, Protevangelium Jacobi: A Commentary. Novi Testamentil(Assen: van Gorcum, 1965), p. 24; J.K. Elliott, The Apoc• ryphal , p. 49; and Ronald F. Hock, The Infancy , pp. 11-12. 2 With respect to this first factor see Bart D. Ehnnan and Zlatko Plde, The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 32. They note that Origen states that 'James was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage, claiming that this is taught either in "the " or the "Book of James," the latter of which, he says, stresses the ongoing virginity of Mary. As the latter is a key theme of the Protevangelium (the Intmcy Gospel ofJames), there is litde doubt that Origen is referring to our text.' Smid, ProtevangeliumJacobi: A Commentary. Apocry• pha Novi Testamenti 1, pp. 22-24; Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 49; and Hock, The , p. 11, concur with this point. Smid, Protevangelium Jacobi: A Commentary. Apocrypha Novi Testamenti 1, pp. 22-24, and Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 49, believe additional support for dating this narrative in the second half of the second century CE can be found in the writings of , in his Stromateis 7.16.93. 3 This quote from Ehrman and Plde, The Apocryphal Gospels, p. 35, summarizes the second factor that leads to this conclusion. 4 One of the most noted attacks was executed by Celsus, the pagan philosopher. In his work (found in Origen's, Contra Celsum 1.28-39), he argued that the divinity ofJesus was a fabrication because, as Ehrman and Plde recount (The Apocryphal Gospels, p. 35), 84 Joseph the Carpenter responses from the Christian community in this period and many schol• ars believe IGJames is one ofthese.5 But in contrast to their reflections on the date of the text, scholars offer little definitive with respect to the provenance of this text. While some postulate a possible location in Syria, only Elliott offers explicit evidence for this hypothesis. 6 He believes this may be suggested since IGJames, the , and Ignatius (ad Eph. 19) seem to share the idea that Mary's virginity was 'virginity in partu'.7 However, most scholars are reluctant to suggest more than some location within the Greek east of the Roman Empire.8 In light of the large reservoir of early Greek manuscripts of I GJ ames, few question that the original language was Greek.9 But there is some dispute about the shape and completeness of the text for even the 'earliest full manuscript, Bodmer V, ... demonstrates that enormous textual alterations have been made in the course of the transmission' .10 Further, as Ehrman and Plese assert, any search 'for an ostensible original is complicated by the circumstance that the Protevan• gelium gives clear signs of being based on yet earlier sources available to the author.'l1 Nevertheless, the editor of the best available edition of IGJames, E. de Strycker, and IGJames scholars, Hock and Elliott, believe the vocabulary and literary style of the present texts allude to 'an original unity of the text ... '12 Nonetheless, the multiplicity of extant manuscripts of this work alone suggest that the thoughts and beliefs articulated in this narrative were shared by members of other early Christian communities throughout eastern Christianity. Thus, various forms of the manuscript would have

' came from the lower class, that his parents were poor and not of royal blood, that his "father" was a common laborer (a carpenter), and that his mother had to spin for a living. Moreover, the circumstances of his birth were highly suspect: his mother, ac• cording to Celsus, had been seduced by a Roman soldier and given birth out of wed• lock.' 5 This led to numerous apologetical treatises by , including that of Origen who, in his Contra Celsum, defended both the virtue and virginity of Mary and the di• vinity ofJesus. 6 See Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 49. Smid, Protevangelium Jacobi, p. 22, makes the same claim but offers no evidence for this hypothesis. 7 Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 49. 8 Most scholars believe the origin remains elusive. In this regard see especially Hock, The Infancy Gospels, pp. 12-13, and Ehrman and PleSe, The Apocryphal Gospels, p. 35. They believe there is not enough evidence to warrant a conclusion in this regard. 9 See Hock, The Infancy Gospels, pp. 28-30. 10 See Ehrman and PleSe, The Apocryphal Gospels, p. 33. 11 See Ehrman and PleSe, The Apocryphal Gospels, p. 33. 12 See Hock, The Infancy Gospels, pp. 13-14; Elliort, Apocryphal New Testament, p. 50; Ehrman and PleSe, The Apocryphal Gospels, p. 33.