Mary: The Answer to Eve

The importance of Mary’s virginity for the four doctrinal writers of the week is based off of not only fighting off of heresy about Jesus’ humanity but also about those who doubt the actually answering of the prophecies in her. Ireneus spoke clearly against Jews who questioned not only the translation but the belief, the one which breached Christians from their Judaic fathers. He said that those who wished to revise the virginal emphasis of the Septuagint must “also alter the form of the promise which was given to David, when God promised him to raise up, from the fruit of his belly, the horn of Christ the King”. Though this speaks louder to the issue of translation, it does emphasize the importance of the actual birth of Jesus and through this can also disparage gnostic tendencies that were rampant during Ireneus’ lifetime.

Though modern thinkers would not immediately link virginal Mary with Eve, the parallels are undeniable in the minds of the early medieval and late antiquity Christian writers who had to answer heresy and doubt. It was not because there was a need for a woman in the new founded Christian movement but rather that just as Trinitarian teachings work in a cyclical pattern, all parts answering the one and vice versus, to create a call and response forum. This forum shows that though Eve was born without original sin, all who came from her did suffer from this stain on humanity until Mary. Her Immaculate Conception allowed her to be the first to be in a state of purity and thus to be able to bear what never had been brought down from heaven before: God himself.

Eve was mother of humanity but Mary was mother of God and one who gave of himself to expunge the effects of original sin. It was as Epiphanius of Salamis wrote “since death had entered into the world through a woman, the Master and Savior of all… came down and was himself born of a virgin woman to bar death out, complete what was missing, and perfect what was lacking” to essentially revive the world through Mary. She, like Eve, is not a goddess or divine but she alters all of humanity around her through her progeny which is but one more of countless ideas that appears strong within the readings.

Tertullian was right in making the parallel of the Old Testament to the new, to the first mother and the most revered mother of humanity. “As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel” is Tertullian’s way of showing that one forgot God and the other did not. Two women of such importance to the faith are naturally compared but Eve and Mary are quite exceptional circumstances. One wipes away the others crimes, one was the first to be delivered into motherhood.

However it attaches her in the mind of early Christians to Eve, this motherhood is not so simple for Mary. She not only is passing onto the world the Son of God but the Son of David. This is an immutably important fact when reading Ephrem the Syrian. His second hymn emphasizes Mary’s multifaceted relationship because of her roles as daughter of David, wife of David, and mother of David. This trifold correlation leads to not only a robust dynamic for her and her child but also for how she fits into the overwhelming plan of salvation through Jesus. She not only passes on this royal line through her blood but the blood of her father and of her husband to culminate in the child a heritage abounding in kingly tradition. And just as David’s son was given the rite to reign through Bathsheba, Mary gave her son the throne of this world, though he already held that of heaven as Creator. Through her blood she gives Jesus not only noble rights but also Judaic blood and from this, the heritage to fulfill the prophecies as well as the faith itself.

In addition to these traditions, she gave him his physical form and did so while remaining virginal, something Eve never accomplished. Not only did Eve find her own form from Adam but neither she nor her husband could resist turning from God. Jesus came from Mary and became the new Adam, the new father of humanity in a sense. Ireneus agreed with this sentiment as Jesus remade humanity in his image and that “He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin”. This new Adam, this new Eve were flesh and blood but they were not equals.

Jesus is both Mary’s son and her savior. Adam may have named the animals but he did not create them, he was not omnipotent and so, though he was the first man, he was no longer the pinnacle because of Jesus’ birth. Just so, Eve no longer was the apex of woman or motherhood. Mary’s purity, virginity, and faith resulted in the promised savior, a fact that doctrinal works emphasized and protected from heresy and from unbelief. 

- A. Graff

Mary vs. Eve / Mary vs. Joseph

A scriptural reference that was made several times in the readings alludes to Mary’s role as a parallel and reversal of Eve.  “And why are you afraid of seeing the wicked spirit, since you crushed his head and stripped him of his imperial power?” says an angel to Mary in “The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary” (p.78).  This phrase recalls Genesis 3:15, when God curses Eve, Adam, and the serpent in the Garden of Eden: “I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head and you will strike his heel.”  The suggestion is that Mary should no longer fear demons because she has “crushed the head” of Satan.  She no longer has to fear what has plagued humanity since the expulsion from Eden.  Similarly, Joseph in The Protevengelium of James despairs when he learns that Mary has become pregnant, saying, “Has the story of Adam been repeated in me?  For as Adam was absent in the hour of his prayer and the serpent came and found Eve alone and deceived her, so also has it happened to me” (p.62, paragraph 13).  Joseph is clearly incorrect, but the parallel between the stories highlights Mary’s exceptional nature as a human exempt from the consequences of the Genesis episode.  As another example, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew claims that “there has been no spilling of blood at [Jesus’s] birth, no pain in bringing him forth” (p.93, chapter 13).  This detail refers to Genesis 3:16, in which God curses Eve (and her descendents) with pain in childbirth.

The theme of Mary as the foil of Eve isn’t revelatory, but I’m curious how well-established it was when the apocrypha were written.  My first thought is that it shows a tie between sexuality and the concept of the first sin, given that Mary escapes the curse of Eve because of her virginity.  However, that falls outside the realm of the questions we’re trying to answer in this class, which are the “historical type B” questions on the board on Thursday.  I think the authors of the apocrypha who allude to Eve in the story of Mary are attempting to presage their understanding of Christ as savior with Mary’s role as a contributor to the possibility of the forgiveness of sins.  In the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew particularly, the divine aspect of Jesus is emphasized over his human aspect and Mary serves as a fully-human component in the story (who is nevertheless surrounded by miraculous occurrences).

The place of Joseph in these stories is interesting, at least in light of the usual modern Protestant understanding of Mary and Joseph as a pair who are both special and important.  In The Protevengelium of James, Joseph is a sympathetic character whose thoughts and feelings are clear to the reader.  However, he is a more of a witness to events than a participant.  In contrast to Mary, whose existence is marked as special from before her birth, Joseph is notable only in relation to Mary and Jesus.  Pseudo-Matthew presents Joseph as a stern man who rebukes Mary during childbirth and who appears foolish when he scolds Mary again for wanting fruit in the desert, only to watch as the infant Jesus says a word and makes fruit fall from the palm tree (p.95, chapter 20).  Joseph later refers to Jesus as “Lord” and respectfully asks permission to change their route—unnecessarily, since Jesus can simply shorten the way (p.96, chapter 22).  In the section summarized by the editor, in which Mary and Joseph cannot seem to discipline Jesus as a child, Jesus says to Joseph, “I have no earthly father.  When I am lifted up from the earth I will make all mention of your descent to cease.  I know when you were born and how long you have to live” (p.90, chapter 29).  Joseph is never in charge or fatherly in this version of the story.  While Jesus demonstrates that there is no need for Mary to raise him like a normal child, he also behaves toward her like a loving son.  As someone mentioned in class, Jesus frequently appears on Mary’s lap in this section.  He also calls her “mother” (p.95, chapter 19).

The contrast between the portrayal of Joseph and Mary in these two texts suggests that Mary is meant by the authors to be worthy of reverence far beyond that of Joseph.  Mary’s role is relative to that of Jesus in the sense that she is notable for being the “vessel” for Christ, yet there is also a clear intention to present her as extraordinary even before her birth and after her death.  Though Joseph is convenient plot-wise because Mary needs a husband, he remains “Joseph” to Jesus, while Mary is “mother.”

I suppose in both of these comparisons, I find it interesting that while Mary comes across as someone worthy of devotion “in herself,” it’s also impossible to say that she is independently significant.  She is, after all, only the Virgin Mary because of her relation to Jesus.  I find myself wanting to determine whether the texts were interested in Mary as a figure of power or significance independently or just as a purified vessel to convey Jesus into the world, but they don’t seem to be resolved so easily.  Mary appears before widows, thieves, clerics, priests, etc. to aid them after her death and in some sense reversed Eve’s deed in the Garden of Eden, but her ability to do so can’t be separated from her relation to her son.

- JF

How Should We Read the Apocrypha?

             The Golden Legend is the latest document we have read and de Voragine is the author least likely to have any special insight into the events of the Virgin’s life, but I submit that he provides the key to understanding the Protoevangelium and “The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.” In recounting the birth of Mary, de Voragine describes how he has gathered the information. Some comes directly from the Gospels, such as the lineage of Joseph, whereas other bits are derived inferentially from scripture. He considers the Davidic descent of Mary to be definitive “because, as Scripture often testifies, Christ was born of the seed of David,” and Mary is Christ’s sole human parent (149). For much of the narrative, de Voragine does not make explicit his source material, but he is clearly piecing together information, drawing from authorities such as John Damascene and Jerome. He is attempting to draw as much information as he can out of the facts he has – he is not just repeating a story. He ultimately attempts to show how that information is meaningful and how it concords with other significant truths of faith. For example, he connects Mary’s lineage to 1 Peter and the ‘kingly priesthood.’

            While the authors of the Protoevangelium and “The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew” lived closer to the events of Mary’s life, they were not contemporaries or eyewitnesses. Much like de Voragine, they were people who were removed from the events in space and time but connected by some sort of tradition and a deep sense of the events’ significance. They depended on authorities much like de Voragine – the difference is that we have no access to their sources. Pseudo-Matthew begins with a (probably inauthentic) correspondence that shows the document’s context: “the birth of the Virgin Mary, and the nativity and infancy of our Lord Jesus Christ, we find in apocryphal books. But considering that in them many things contrary to our faith are written we judged that they all ought to be rejected” (91). The author understands there to be an authentic tradition in opposition to an inauthentic one, and the tradition judges the stories, not the other way around. Although the text was likely contrived by someone with minimal factual knowledge of the Virgin’s life, its central ideas and goals are aligned with a tradition. Rather than dismiss the Apocrypha for what seems fantastic about it, we should focus on the authors’ coherent claims and their significance.

            Pseudo-Matthew’s primary goal is to make clear who Christ is. The term may be slightly anachronistic, but I think he is trying to illuminate the incarnation. In the text, the Child Jesus poses the problem: “How much better are the beasts than you, seeing that they recognize their Lord and glorify him; while you men, who have been made in the image and likeness of God, do not know him! Beasts know me and are tame; men see me and do not acknowledge me” (97). Man has not recognized his savior, and Pseudo-Matthew is attempting to fix that. He shows the child Jesus to have healing power because “he is the Saviour of the world and of all that hope in him” (94).” When Mary and Joseph fear for Christ’s safety from dragons, he says,  “do not consider me to be a child, for I am and always have been perfect” (95). The point of the story is not the actual encounter with the dragons as an event of particular significance. The dragons connect Christ to Old Testament prophecy, reveal him to be lord through their obedience, and give him the opportunity to explain his nature. While the Gospels convey information about Jesus through his preaching and adult ministry, Pseudo-Matthew turns to his infancy to show Christ’s identity.

            The Protoevangelium has no introduction to make its goals explicit, but the text seems to, like Pseudo-Matthew, focus on fighting heresy. It has a lot to say about who Christ is and who the Virgin is, as we discussed in class and as some peers have already commented on in their blog posts. The aspect I found particularly interesting and noteworthy was the extended emphasis on Mary’s virginity. Again and again the author seemed to go out of his way to defend and justify it, suggesting that was one of the goals of the text. This was especially obvious in the explanation of Joseph’s prior marriage and in the story of Salome physically confirming Mary’s virginity after the birth of Christ. I have sometimes heard people ask what difference it really makes whether Mary was a virgin. Clearly it made a great deal of difference to early Christians.

            Professor Fulton Brown made it very clear on Thursday that our goal is not to discover the historical Mary. By trying to show that the Protoevangelium and “The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew” are more than just invented stories, I am not trying to break that rule. Instead, I am trying to break through modern prejudices and the conceit that we are smarter than the people writing and receiving the apocryphal texts. It seems that they had some idea what they were doing, that they were trying to convey specific claims which were in line with some sort of tradition, and that to discount those claims because of the unbelievable aspects of the stories (or confirmed historical errors, such as the description of Simeon as High Priest) is to miss the point entirely. Taking the texts seriously, then, I am left with a few questions I will be keeping in mind as the course goes on. First, what is the significance of Mary’s virginity after giving birth? I understand the analogy to the temple, but what about that is so powerful that early Christians put emphasis on a question that seems very peripheral to the story of Christ. Second, why is Christ’s infancy a lens on who he is as the incarnation? Where did interest in his human origins come from?

MD

Mary, Queen of the Angels

Mary and the angels seem to have had a special relationship since the earliest Christian texts. Both are noted for their exemplary chastity; both are widely venerated for their intercessory abilities; both are models of the ideal servant of God. As early as the sixth-century Akathist hymn, Mary is known as the Queen of the Heavenly Hosts. The earliest apocryphal text we read this week, the Protoevangelion of James, also shows a profound connection between Mary and the angels. Angels, named or unnamed, show up every few paragraphs: they instruct Mary's parents, attend Mary during her childhood in the temple, and assist her before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. 

Even at this early date of composition, this association is much more than a simple narrative device. But - in the immortal words of our professor - so what? Angels are awesome and venerable; Mary is awesome and venerable. Does it really make a difference that the two are so often associated? 

Well, yes - in this case the total is greater than the sum of its (already great) parts.

It is certainly no idle association, in any case. As we saw this week, angels are everywhere in the Protoevangelion and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. Mary and the angels had a close relationship even in canonical scripture. God delivered His commands to the Israelites from between the two golden cherubim atop the Ark of the Covenant, one of the most important artefacts of the Old Testament (and one which was incidentally housed, like young Mary, in the Temple in Jerusalem). For early Christians, like those who might have read the Protoevangelion, Mary was the New Ark of the Covenant, the 'container' or 'focus' of God's earthly presence; being surrounded by angels would have thus been a natural result of this role. Even the New Testament contains important examples of this relationship. In both the Protoevangelion and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, angels play a central role up to and during the Nativity of Jesus: it is an angel who reveals the child's true parentage to Joseph, tells him to name the child Emmanuel, and warns him of the danger the child will face at the hands of Herod, and it is an angel (or numerous angels) that the shepherds see at Christ's birth and from whom they receive the good news. The most important angel episode in the New Testament, however, is perhaps that of the Annunciation, when Gabriel - one of the few named Biblical angels - delivers the good news of the Incarnation to Mary in person. 

Medieval authors seem to never run out of things to say about this one miraculous meeting. It takes on further meaning and nuance as centuries pass, though certain themes remain the same. Theodore the Studite, an eighth-century Byzantine saint, says that Mary was the only human to ever see Gabriel's true form, thanks to her perfect purity. (Five hundred years later, Dante will say almost the same thing as he finally stands in Mary's presence before God.) Even Jacobus de Voragine devotes an entire chapter to this event on the Feast of the Annunciation, despite condensing it to little over a sentence in the selections we read this week. This is undoubtedly one of the most popular episodes of Marian interaction with angels, populating mosaics, icons, and illuminations for centuries afterwards.  

The Annunciation's portrayal in art shows some of interesting implications for later understanding of this relationship. Byzantine churches were often decorated with scenes from the so-called Feast Cycle, including many events described in these apocryphal texts - the Nativity, for example, as well as Mary's Presentation to the Temple and the assumption of her body to Heaven at the Dormition. The location of these scenes could vary from church to church, but Annunciation scenes in particular were often used to decorate the spandrels of the apse, as in this example from the Cappella Palatina in Palermo: 

Source: Christopher Wood, "Sicily, Palermo, Capella [sic] Palatina, Apse." 2010, Digital Image. Available from: Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/australiansstudyingabroad/5138011394.
Check out the full resolution version of this photo - a lot of details are hard to see at this size, including at least four Marys!

Above the central arch, Gabriel is on the left; Mary and the dove of the Holy Spirit are on the right. This scene was thus immortalized right above the altar where the Eucharist was celebrated during Mass. What happened at the Annunciation? Mary accepted God's plan, and the Word was made Flesh. What happens during the Eucharist? The Bread and Wine really become Christ's body (at least according to the doctrine of transubstantiation). Just as the angels of the Protoevangelion supported Mary's status as the only woman worthy to be the new Holy of Holies, the angelic salutation depicted here continuously realizes the miracle that takes place below the mosaic itself. 

This reflects a deep text-image association, but not always according to strictly canonical versions of this event. In the Gospels, Luke gives us the most information about the Annunciation, but unlike this week's apocryphal readings, he never mentions what Mary was doing at the time. The Protoevangelion does. (Nor is this text-image relationship evident only in images of the Annunciation: above the smaller apse to the right of Mary, for example, is a depiction of the Nativity, but it's set in the cave.) The fact that Mary is shown in the middle of weaving the temple veil - the liminal boundary that separates God from the material world, just as she is the gate through which God enters it - adds another layer of Mariological meaning to these nearly-ubiquitous depictions. What's more, we can see in these depictions that the same phenomena continued to take place in the context of Marian devotion even with a great deal of spatial and temporal separation. Why was the association of Mary with angels so popular and so long-lived? What about this relationship appealed to such a wide audience? There's undoubtedly a great deal more evidence to consider for this question, but with so much material to choose from, we'll have to do plenty more research in order to explore it.

-- F. S.

Joseph Revealing Mary

One common belief that many came into the first day of class holding was that Mary, the Mother of God, was a lowly and humble handmaid of the Lord. Very quickly this was dispelled as tradition that has arisen and not as something that can be known from the gospels. In the gospel narratives of Luke and Matthew there is no mention of any activity or status that would indicate Mary’s interior humility or exterior poverty. In the apocryphal texts that we read concerning Mary, the opposite is true.

The apocryphal texts emphasize that Mary came from a background of status and wealth. In The Protevangelium of James we are told that Mary’s father Joachim “was a very rich man” and would use his excess wealth to make offerings to God on behalf of the whole people. Even when Anna is mourning over her bareness her maid tries to give her a headband which is more fitting for Anna because it “bears a royal cipher”.

Some of Mary’s earliest experiences recounted in The Protevangelium also reveal the wealth and pomp that surrounded her. Mary, when she was sixth months old, was put into a special sanctuary in her bedroom and was attended to specially by “the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews”. Joachim also held a great feast to celebrate Mary’s first birthday inviting the most important people: the chief priests, scribes, elders and the people of Israel. These guests didn’t come just to celebrate. They all took turns praising Mary and asking God to bless her eternally. This does not fit the picture of humble and poor origins that many of us were used to ascribing to Mary.

Even when Mary is grown and after her years living in the temple she is still associated with wealth and royalty, rather than poverty. When she casts lots to see what she will weave Mary ends up with purple and scarlet, colors most often associated with royalty.

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew paints the same picture. We are told that Joachim doubled his offerings to God and God in turn increased his wealth. A detail told here not recounted in The Protevangelium is that Mary was sought after by the son of the priest Abiathar and that many gifts were offered to her in this effort. In Pseudo-Matthew when Mary’s lot assigns her to work on the purple veil the other virgins in her company are quick to tease her and call her “Regina virginum”. An angel quickly comes and rebukes them for this because it will be true. These experiences do not indicate humility or poverty and could rather be used to develop the opposite traits in Mary.

The person who is portrayed as humble and who thinks little of himself in these accounts is Joseph. In The Protevangelium Joseph is first introduced as an obedient man. He “threw down his adaze” and went running to the meeting summoned by the heralds of the priest. In the test to find who will take charge of Mary, Joseph is given his rod last and when the dove lands on Joseph and chooses him he protests. Joseph does not want to take charge of Mary. He thinks he is unfit because of his age, but he is also concerned about how he will appear to the other sons of Israel. Joseph in the end submits, revealing his humility to accept the will of God and his fear of the Lord. This is proven again when Joseph discovers Mary’s pregnancy and wants to put her away. As soon as the Lord confirms that Mary’s child is of the Holy Spirit Joseph praises God and continues to guard Mary despite how the situation might appear to the Israelites.

Again, in Pseudo-Matthew a similar story is presented. This time, Joseph did not even initially present his rod in the test to see who would take charge of Mary. He did not think he was fit to do so and so when the dove appeared indicating Joseph as the Lord’s choice Joseph resisted. Also in Jacobus’s The Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary we are told that Joseph withheld his branch in the test because he thought his age and situation made him unfit to take Mary in his care. This recounting of Joseph’s election takes up more space than the one sentence that is added to the end of a paragraph to tell us about the annunciation.

So why all this concern about Joseph when we are interested in Mary? Joseph’s reactions only add to the mounting evidence that goes against the image of Mary as a lowly, humble peasant. This is exactly the point. The authors of the apocryphal texts are concerned with portraying Mary as the mother of God, the first place on earth where God will come to dwell. Mary is the perfect place for God to dwell because she is so uncommon and special. Joseph’s God-fearing reactions  show his humility and obedience to God but also reveal Mary as someone who is different, who is extraordinary.

While Christ does spend his first moments after birth (and the rest of his life) in the most common and simple of circumstances the emphasis on Mary is made because she is the vehicle through which God enters the earth and joins our human existence and this is no small thing. So we can give credit to Joseph for his reactions and behavior because they show to us who Mary is and why she ought to have the status she is given. The important details about Joseph in the apocryphal texts can guide how we think about Mary and in kind interact with God.

-MB

Our Pure, Noble, and Priestly Mary (Mary in the Apocrypha)

             Coming to today’s readings, I started with a view of Mary from the Gospels of the Evangelists in the New Testament. As said in class, the information that they provide is scant. We get a sense that there was a woman named Mary who was married to Joseph and birthed someone named Jesus. The information provided mostly portrays Mary in relation to Jesus or Christianity as a mother and focuses less on Mary herself. The authors of the Protevagelium of James (PJ), the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (P-M), and portions of Jacobus’ Golden Legend however felt the need to give Mary more of a backstory. Why do they do so? Why is Mary’s past central to Christianity? This question seems central to the motivation for writing the texts. From my reading and discussions in class, it seems that these readings help provide the link between God and Earth through Mary. If Jesus is God incarnate, then his entrance to Earth (Mary) is important theologically as a link between God and Earth.

            All of the texts stress the purity of Mary’s birth and by extension Jesus’ birth. As elaborated in all of the stories, Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, have Mary because of divine ordinance as communicated by angels (PJ 4, P-M 3, GL p.152). This scene is interestingly portrayed in the Protevangelium of James. Concerned with her lack of children, Anna prays under a “laurel tree” and sings a song emphasizing the “fruitful[ness]” of other creatures that God created (PJ 2-3). The use of trees and fruit is interesting. It evokes the passage from Genesis in which God creates “tree of knowledge of good and bad” that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from (Genesis 2:17). This connection is strengthened when Joseph later directly cites the story of the fall of Adam and Eve (PJ 13:1). Of course, trees and fruit are symbolic of nature and fertility. However, given the use of trees and fruit remind the reader of original sin and the tainting power of lust. Given that Mary was born free of lust because of Anna’s infertility, she (and later Jesus) can escape original sin.

            This interpretation is in line with Jacobus’ writings (written after the Protevangelium of James). Jacobus makes clear that Mary was born out of “divine generosity” and not “the fruit of carnal desire” (152). The “fruit of carnal desire” here seemingly references the story of Adam and Eve. We see that Mary (and later Jesus) escape original sin because of the circumstances surrounding Mary’s birth. She is born by the grace of God and not because of human sin.

            In addition to escaping original sin, Mary appears to be important because of her lineage (as seen in observations by Jacobus). In the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew begins by describing in detail the lineage of Joseph. While reading this passage for class, I was not struck by anything in particular. However, after encountering Jacobus’ recounting of Mary’s lineage via the line of David and Levi (GL 149-151), I was amazed at how out-of-touch Matthew’s account seems. If we take that Jesus is the child of the Holy Ghost/ Holy Spirit/ God and Mary, how is Joseph’s lineage at all relevant? Jacobus’ insight in to the importance of Mary seemingly makes sense. He tries to use Mary’s connection to the royal house of David and priestly house of Levi to show Christians (through Christ through Mary) as a “kingly priesthood” (GL 151). Like with original sin, Mary’s lineage directly affects Jesus, which has implications for Christianity as a whole.

            Should we be so convinced that Mary’s lineage matters? As told in The Protengelium of James and The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Mary’s virginity was left intact (PJ 19-20; P-M 13). This point is seemingly important given what happens when Salome questions Mary’s virginity. In both PJ and P-M, Salome’s hand is greatly hurt – caught on “fire” (PJ 20) and “dried up” (P-M 13). These punishments by God underscore the importance about Mary’s virginity.

            Given that Mary remains a virgin, does that make Jesus less related to Mary’s lineage? While we discussed this point in class, this question still bothers me. One might interpret the importance given to the preservation of Mary’s virginity as a way of confirming her virginity pre conception. The authors could use this point as an additional way of confirming Mary’s virginity for the reader. They might imagine that the reader (like Joseph in the story) doubts Mary’s faithfulness and suspects Mary’s child is a product of sin. This additional confirmation helps dispel these thoughts.

            At the same time, Mary’s preserved virginity seemingly makes her lineage irrelevant. I suspect my interpretation here might be a product of my contemporary notions of heredity. To explore this topic more, I should probably explore Aristotelian science (or other more relevant scientific thought from the time) more deeply.

            By working through these texts, I tried to explore how Mary’s backstory and birth portray Mary as a pure, noble, and priestly vessel for Jesus. The stories surrounding Mary have implications for how people interpret the birth of Jesus and have larger considerations in Christianity. While I focused on details surrounding Mary’s birth, The Protevangelium of James, The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and The Golden Legend also have other motivations. For example, their numerous references to the Old Testament help lend credibility to the story of Mary and Jesus by fulfilling earlier prophecies. Additionally, while I have thought of Mary in relation to Jesus, this discussion of her birth and lineage could also more generally describe the relationship of God (the father) to Earth with Mary in one of her traditional roles as an intercessor.

- MM-T

Beata Maria: Portrayal in the Apocrypha, Portrayal in Practice

            This week we wrapped up our initial discussions on Blessed Mary, focusing on the descriptions surrounding her conception and birth in Apocryphal writings. Now, as a newcomer to the field of extensive historical analysis, as well as being raised in the Protestant faith with adherence to the principle of Sola Scriptura (Latin, “by Scripture alone,” a doctrine promoting the strict exegetical study of Biblical canon as the highest, and in some cases, only authority governing one’s faith), I found texts such as the “Protevangelium of James” (PJ) and Pseudo-Matthew (PM) to be at once unfamiliar and fascinating. My primary interest in these writings is that of authorship and intent – given that these early works influenced traditions and worship practices nearly a millennium later, as seen in the Golden Legend by Jacobus, I’m interested in how they portray the Virgin, why they do so in such a manner, and how they resonate with canon scripture.

Many observations were made concerning the emphasis on purity in PJ. This theme begins early in the text when Anna, who has been publicly lamenting her childlessness following Joachim’s rejection at the temple, discards her mourning garments, cleanses her body, and dons her bridal clothing to present herself before the Lord in her garden, asking Him to bless her with child (PJ, 57-8). And shortly after this self-cleansing, an angel of the Lord indeed informs Anna of the impending conception and birth of the Virgin.

Later, after Mary is born, she is able to walk to her mother at 6 months of age, at which point Anna “took her up saying ‘As the Lord my God lives, you shall walk no more upon this earth until I bring you into the temple of the Lord.’ And she made a sanctuary in her bedroom and did not permit anything common or unclean to pass through it. And she summoned the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews, and they served her.” (PJ, 59). Even the earth itself is too base for Mary’s body; the next time she sets foot outside Anna’s sanctuary, it is to dance before the Lord at the temple.

There are many other references to Mary’s physical purity in PJ – her residence in the temple of the Lord, where she was fed by angels daily; her selection among the pure virgins to weave the scarlet and purple for the temple veil; her testing by the “water of conviction” to confirm her virginity before the tribes of Israel.

In class, we discussed the idea associating imagery of the temple with Mary’s purity – just as the temple must be kept clean to house the Holy of Holies and the Lord’s presence, Mary must be pure to contain and produce Jesus Christ, Son of the Most High, Blessed Redeemer, Emannuel. We also discussed the significance of Moses, Miriam, and Aaron with regards to Mary’s name and status. I will admit that I had difficulty seeing any connection between Mary and Miriam at first besides the similarity in name and their shared sex. However, in reading Exodus 15:20-21, we see that Miriam, sister of Moses, leads the Israelites in song to the Lord following their safe passage through the Red Sea: “Then Miriam the prophet, Aaron’s sister, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women followed her, with timbrels and dancing. Miriam sang to them: ‘Sing to the Lord, for he is highly exalted. Both horse and driver he has hurled into the sea.” (NIV). The imagery of this scene resonates with at least two other points in Scripture and the Apocrypha: the procession of the Ark under King David in 1 Chronicles 15, and the dancing of Mary upon the steps of the temple for the pleasure of the Lord and the tribes of Israel. With regard to the former, I recall someone in class mentioning that it was a custom for Israelite women to sing praises after a victory – however, it appears that this practice was flipped by David, who personally danced and sung praise to the Lord in public, petitioning Him to return favor to Israel. Furthermore, the dancing of Mary seems to connect closely with Miriam’s dance in the Exodus, suggesting perhaps that as Miriam’s song signified the end of physical slavery for the Israelites, Mary’s dance preluded the salvation of all humankind through her Son, the Christ.

However, I am wary of drawing too close a connection between Miriam and Mary, based on my reading of Numbers 12, in which Miriam is struck with skin disease following her and Aaron’s dissension of the Lord’s favor on Moses. Even when Moses intercedes to beg the Lord to heal his sister, she is put to shame by being forcibly confined outside the camp for 7 days. So here, she is both physically and socially dirtied, whereas Blessed Mary is and was always pure – indeed, Miriam actually dies and is buried during the journey to the Promised Land (Numbers 20:1, NIV) in a scene significantly more humble than the Assumption of the Virgin. Perhaps this is symbolic of the gap between the two women and the kinds of salvation they represented: one, physical, temporary, fallible, the other, pure, eternal, glorifying.

I have explored to a limited extent the portrayal of the pure Virgin in PJ. I now turn briefly to PM, where our class discussed the scene concerning the taming of the dragons by Jesus, thereby fulfilling David’s prophecy in Psalms. There are several other instances of such fulfillment quite close to this scene: when Christ is placed in a manger shortly after His birth, he is watched over by an ox and an ass, fulfilling prophecies by both Isaiah and Habakkuk (PM, 94). Later, when the Virgin carries Christ into the temple at Egypt, 365 idols prostrate themselves before Him, fulfilling another of Isaiah’s prophecies (96). Even in Scripture, the Gospels are full of references to the things happening “as they were foretold by the prophets,” creating a continuous chronology for Biblical events and affirming Christ’s role as the Messiah.

It is a bit puzzling, therefore, when I read the series of liturgical events described at the ends of both assigned chapters of the Golden Legend and see little mention of either purity or prophecy. Stories like the woman who stole the Son of the Virgin as hostage for her own son’s release seem to have little to do with the Queen of Heaven, nor do stories like her forced reinstatement of the clergy who only knew how to worship her, or saving one of her worshippers from the Lord’s wrath by interceding on his behalf. To me, these stories seem more personal and relate individual encounters with the Virgin, whereas the other Apocryphal texts appear as texts intended to be taken as Scripture. But perhaps that is the beauty of Mary? That one so pure, loving, and beloved could appear before you or I, something we could never imagine from, say, Elijah, the Apostles, or Christ Himself without at least some amount of fear.

I pray that we should be so blessed as to receive further inspiration and insight from Mary’s perfect grace.

-SL