medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

From the standpoint of historical methodology, one must be aware of the limits and possibilities of the argument from silence.  The absence (silence) from the records of an explicit statement of a particular doctrine or belief does not mean the belief did not exist prior to the first explicit mention.  It simply means that no record has survived.  This may be because the belief did not exist, it may equally be because earlier records have been lost or it may equally be because the belief existed but was not recorded earlier.  There is absolutely no way to resolve this historically because we are dealing with an absence, a negative.

I agree that the Protevangelium Jacobi is pre-180 (personally, I think it draws on apostolic-era materials contemporary with the sources for the Synoptics) and itself incorporates traditions much older than the point of its composition.  AD 180 itself is within 3 generations of the eyewitnesses to the events.  (Polycarp, a disciple of John the Evangelist lived to about AD 150; Irenaeus who flourished around 180 calls himself a disciple of Polycarp).

Moreover, we are talking about the first _explicit_ mention of the Virgin Birth being found in the Protevangelium Jacobi.  One way of reading the Gospel account in Luke would yield an implicit affirmation of the Virgin Birth (Mary asks the Angel: "How can this be, since I know not a man, i.e., am a virgin").  Moreover, one has to take account of the creeds, e.g., the Apostle's Creed which, although it's explicit form is much later, would appear to have very early roots in the Roman Church, not to mention other creedal fragments.  Finally, we also have to consider liturgical recording of beliefs.  Although a given liturgy may come down to us in a form established at a later date, it may carry elements that are much older.  Historical methodology simply cannot completely distinguish all these elements and date them precisely.  So we have to leave some latitude when making statements about when belief in the virgin birth of Jesus is first attested to. But I think with the Protevangelium Jacobi, at the very least, we are within easy oral tradition range of the eyewitnesses.  Belief in the virgin birth of Jesus _could_ well be, on historical grounds, apostolic.  One cannot _categorically_ say it is a post-apostolic addition.  One can look at the evidence and conclude it is likely that it is post-apostolic, but historical evidence does not permit a dogmatic conclusion of that sort.  And historical evidence does permit a dogmatic conclusion that it is apostolic, which, of course, is the Catholic and Orthodox theological position, as George Gereby rightly notes in his reference to a theologumen.  My point here is that that theologcal position is not ruled out by historical evidence.

More attention to the limits of the argument from silence would make for more accuracy about what we can and cannot know for sure about what happened in history.  Unfortunately, silence is often taken as proof of very late dating of ancient texts.  If that were good historical method, then we would be in a real pickle when it comes to trustworthy evidence for, to name one example, the textual tradition of Tacitus's historical accounts.

Dennis Martin

>>> [log in to unmask] 05/23/01 10:59AM >>>
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

Greetings,

as far as my limited knowledge goes the virgin birth was explicitly stated first in the purportedly historical account of the Nativity in the Protevangelium Jacobi (this title from the 16th century), or rather, the Book of James, or 'Historia' (Pap. Bodmer V.), ususally dated pre-180, with possibly later interpolations. 

The PJ had a tremendous influence not least because it was incorporated into the Latin Ps-Matthew, well known in the West (probably reaching its definitive form in the early 6th century).  It's quasi-canonical position was only thwarted by the end of the 4th century (Jerome et al.), and definitively by the Decreta Gelasii. In the form of the Ps-Matthew, however, it enjoyed a clandestine existence.

My personal impression is that the PJ is not the origin, only the most poignant presentation of an earlier tradition. Partly, because, if my memory is correct, the virgin birth was already present theologically in the early 2nd century,  but I should check my notes for details.

This early presence can be explained, I think, by the virgin birth as a theologeme, for it  seems to be a Christological statement originally, emphasising the divine and, therefore, transcendent nature of Christ, capable of entering the physical world (and the human nature) without physical (i.e. spatio-temporal) movement, as opposed to e.g. an adoptianist Christology. 

Iconographycally this is what is indicated by the three stars on the Theotokos icons (virgo ante partum, in partu, post partum), but, of course, this representation is a much later development. Tertullian's position, however, is interesting, who accepts the virgin birth ante et in partu, but not post partum, probably because of his insistence of the full divinity AND full humanity of Christ. 

Another interesting point is, that as to the genealogy of Christ, in the PJ it is Mary who decended from David, not Joseph. The tradition was ambiguous, I think, well into the 3rd c.

I hope it helps. I can provide more details if needed, esp. on the PJ. 

George Gereby  ([log in to unmask])
Medieval Studies Dept.
Central European University, Budapest, Hungary

**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html