1

LEGITIMATION OF CHRISTIANITY BY THE APOCRYPHAL INFANCY GOSPELS IN

LIGHT OF THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN POLEMIC

INTRODUCTION

The apocryphal infancy gospels are a part of the Christian literature that was not included in

the New Testament canon. This particular group of books comprises legendary narratives

about the life of Jesus from his birth to the age of twelve. The origin and purpose of these

writings has long been a subject of controversy and discussion. The predominant scholarly

opinion about the gnostic nature of these apocryphal texts has changed recently.1 Instead,

general Greco-Roman social, religious and political backgrounds are considered a foil for the

origination of the apocryphal documents. In this essay, I will suggest that early Jewish-

Christian conflict can account for the production of the apocryphal infancy gospels, which

were to serve as an argument for the legitimacy of Christian origins.

I will start with a short discussion of the Jewish-Christian polemic of the early centuries.

Since the witness of early heresiologists like Ignatius and Irenaeus on the issue is

controversial and highly debatable, one can be far from certain regarding the nature of the

ancient debate. Thus, testimonies in this section will be presented in order to recreate a

general atmosphere in the interfaith relationships of that time. In the next section, I will

provide a survey of The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGT), Protevangelium of James (Protev.),

Pseudo-Matthew (Ps.-Mat.), and Arabic Infancy Gospel (AIG) showing how they were

intended to defend the noble origin of Mary and, therefore, the suitability of her candidacy to

be the Mother of Jesus. Finally, I will present the justification given by the apocryphal writers

for the divinity of Jesus in response to Jewish accusations of him as an illegal child and an

Egyptian sorcerer.

I. TESTIMONIES OF THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN POLEMIC IN THE EARLY

CENTURIES

In the middle of the second century, there was much controversy over the legitimacy of the

Christian faith. Believers were cursed as heretics. According to William Horbury, Jewish-

Christian polemic in the middle of the second century was evident in several ways. One

example is a much debated Jewish public prayer, the Amidah, and particularly, the

Benediction of the minim, whereby the Jewish, as well as gentile Christians (noserim), were

1 See for example the essential critique of the “gnostic” perspective by Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking

“Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press,

1996).

2

cursed as heretics.2 Horbury informs, “[t]his malediction on heretics was approved at Jamnia

under Gamaliel II and incorporated in the Tefillah.”3 The same practice, along with

anathematizing Jesus in the synagogues, is affirmed by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with

Trypho the Jew.4 According to Justin, “Bar Kochba, the leader of the revolt, subjected the

Christians, and the Christians alone, to appalling tortures if they did not deny and blaspheme

Jesus Christ.”5 In spite of the fact that Justin’s writings have a polemical character against

Jews and usually exaggerate real situations and practices, they nevertheless bear witness to

the general contentious tendency between Jewish and Christian communities. In rabbinical

circles, the controversial figure of Jesus was associated with invented stories recorded by a

pagan opponent of the Christians, Celsus. There, Jesus is portrayed as a child of adultery

between Mary and a soldier named Panthera. Origen contends that, Jews “concocted all this

[i.e., legend] to get rid of the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit.”6 The son of Mary

was charged as a sorcerer who learned his magic as a youth in Egypt and led many Jews

astray.7 Mutual condemnation of synagogue/church attendance by rabbis and certain Patristics

led to the further parting of Judaism and Christianity.8

Similarly, an identification of Jesus’ followers with their Messiah gave birth to contra-Jewish

statements such as those in 1 Cor. 16:22, 1 Thess. 2:14-16 and Acts 24:5. From the canonical

gospels, we can detect some hints of the apologetic nature of the early Christian writings. In

Mk. 3:22 the scribes bring a charge against Jesus as being a demon-possessed person who was

exorcising by means of evil power. The chief priests and the Pharisees call the crucified Jesus

“that deceiver” (Mt. 27:63, cf. Jn. 7:12, 47). The gospel of John reflects tension between the

participants of the nascent Jesus-group and the Jewish authorities that was manifested in the

expulsion of the former from the synagogues (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). The Acts of the Apostles

bear witness to the earlier rejection of “the sect of the Nazarenes” by Jewish leaders (4:1-22;

5:17-41; 24:5; 28:22) and even the execution of Stephan (7:1-60).

2 William Horbury, Jews and Christians: In Contact and Controversy (Edinburg: T & T Clark, 1998), pp. 9-10.

For a good summary of views on the object of the curse in the Eighteen Benedictions and relevant anti-Christian

curse in Patristics see the second chapter in this book, pp. 67-110. 3 Ibid, p. 108.

4 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 16, 35, 47, 93, 95-96, 108, 110, 123, 133, 137, cited by Horbury,

Jews and Christians, p. 67. 5 Justin, 1 Apology 31.6, cited by François Blanchetière, “The Threefold Christian Anti-Judaism,” in Graham N.

Stanton and Guy Stroumsa, eds., Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 192. 6 Origen, Contra Celsum 1.32, trans. by Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).

Horbury links this report to another two magicians or false prophets – a second-century person, Jesus ben

Pandera (Sanhedrin 43a), and Jeshua ben Pantiri (Tosefta, Hullin 22-3; 24). Horbury, Jews and Christians, p. 20. 7 Origen, Cont. Cel. 1.28.

8 Justin, Dial. 38; Tosefta, Hullin 2.20f.

3

Historically, the oppressive attitude toward the minority of Jesus’ followers instigated

denouncement and dissociation from Jews that resulted in the subsequent withdrawal of the

former group (or, the Nazarenes) from besieged Jerusalem in 68 A.D.9 Justin, asserting the

teaching of supersession, called the Church, true Israel, and the Hebrew Scriptures, Christian

inheritance.10 Jews were blamed for misusing the sacred texts.11 In the heresiologist’s account,

the hardships of Jewry are a fulfilment of Old Testament prophesy.12 Other scriptural images,

such as Jacob persecuted by Esau and Susannah threatened by two elders, are employed by

Irenaeus and Hippolytus in order to accuse Jewish of intolerance toward Christians.13 Judith

Lieu summarizes, “[t]hus Jewish involvement in Christian suffering is an important element

in delegitimating not only any Jewish appeal to scriptural fulfilment but also Jewish suffering

itself.”14 Thus, the juxtaposition of two rival identities leads to inevitable confrontation and

often exaggerated polemical rhetoric.

The authors of the canonical as well as apocryphal infancy gospels were eager to defend their

Master and his mother against any suspicions of the opposing Jews. The Infancy Gospel of

Thomas, Protevangelium of James, Arabic Infancy Gospel, Pseudo-Matthew and other

extracanonical Christian writings were intended to supply additional support for Mary’s

virginity and the divinity of Jesus to their canonical counterparts pertaining to the period of

the Saviour’s birth and childhood.

II. THE DEFENSE OF MARY’S SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN AND ABILITIES AS

THE MOTHER OF THE LORD JESUS

In light of the Jewish-Christian polemic over their respective identity and over the right to

claim themselves as “the people of God” and “the true Israel,” one could expect a twofold

approach from both parties. One approach is to legitimate one’s personal origin and

inheritance to God-chosen Israel and her Scriptures. The other is to invalidate your opponent

9 Blanchetière, “The threefold Christian anti-Judaism,” p. 190.

10 Justin, Dial. 11.4; 29.

11 Justin, Dial. 84, cited by Tessa Rajak, “Talking at Trypho: Christian Apologetic as Anti-Judaism in Justine’s

Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,” in Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman, and Simon Price, eds., Apologetics in the

Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 71-75. 12

Justin, Dial. 109-110. 13

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 4.21.3. Hippolytus, Ad Danielem 1.13.15, cited by Judith M. Lieu, “Accusations

of Jewish Persecution in Early Christian Sources, with Particular Reference to Justin Martyr and Martyrdom of

Polycarp,” in Graham N. Stanton and Guy Stroumsa, eds., Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and

Christianity (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 284. In Martyrdom of Polycarp the Jews are

allies of the devil who exterminates the Christian saint; thus dehumanizing an enemy is shown to be a rhetorical

device in the Jewish-Christian polemic. Ibid, pp. 287-9. 14

Lieu, “Accusations of Jewish Persecution,” p. 284.

4

by discrediting the heads of their movement. Thus, one of the reasons for the production of

the apocryphal writings in the first centuries of Christianity was the lack of hagiography of

Mary, the mother of Jesus, whose role in the canonical gospels is insignificant. J. K. Elliott

observed: “Such gaps in her biography gave rise to curiosity and the imaginative

reconstructions that were the motives behind many an apocryphal text’s origins.”15 The

infancy gospels provided the basis for raising Mary’s status.

1. Mary’s birth and upbringing.

In the infancy gospels, Mary is endowed with an account that precedes her birth. The reader

learns that Joachim and Anna, the parents of the future mother of Jesus, resemble the humble

Old Testament parents of the prophet Samuel. The barren Anna, like her prototype, Hannah,

promises God that she will offer her firstborn child to the temple and the petition was granted

(Protev. 1-5; Ps.-Mat. 1-4). It is obvious that, for the authors of these narratives, Mary is of

prophetic origin16 because her birth was foretold and aligned with Samuel’s story (1 Sam. 1-2)

and perhaps of John the Baptist (Lk. 1:5-25; 57-80). The baby was nurtured in an atmosphere

of absolute ritual purity and was ushered to the temple at the age of three by “the undefiled

daughters of the Hebrews” (Protev. 6-7), remaining “in the community of virgins” (Ps.-Mat.

4-5).17 Being in the temple, Mary was “nurtured like a dove and received food from the hand

of an angel” (Protev. 8). She was admired by people for her maturity, wisdom, virtue,

skilfulness, chastity, a life of constant prayer, for conversing with angels, and curing ills (Ps.-

Mat. 6-7). Upon reaching the age of twelve Mary was placed in Joseph’s ward by supernatural

lot (Protev. 9; Ps.-Mat. 8). The portrait of the Virgin Mary has her beyond even the suspicion

of impurity.

2. Annunciation to Mary of the divine incarnation and birth of Jesus.

An extensive narrative on Mary’s miraculous conception and birth of Jesus could well serve

to refute Jewish attacks on illegitimacy of her son.18 This aspect of the infancy gospels

resembles the canonical narratives. The angel of the Lord appeared to Mary informing her of

the conception of a son from above by the Holy Spirit. The humble maiden is given further

15

J. K. Elliott, “The Relevance of Christian Apocrypha”, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 57 (2003): 118-

130, 121. 16

One might even assume a divine conception of Anna based on her words upon the arrival of her husband

Joachim, “…I was barren, and behold I have now conceived” (Ps.-Mat. 3). 17

All texts of the apocryphal infancy gospels are cited from J. K. Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity

and Infancy Narratives (Leiden: Brill, 2006). 18

Oscar Cullmann, “Infancy Gospels,” in W. Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, trans. by R. M.

Wilson (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991), p. 417.

5

explanation about the character of her future child, who is of unnatural human origin (Lk.

1:26-38; Ps.-Mat. 9; Protev. 11). Later, Elizabeth testifies that the child in Mary’s womb is the

Lord (Lk. 1:41-45; Protev. 12). When Joseph discovered her pregnancy he became greatly

troubled and, with frustration, drew a parallel to the apocryphal story of Eve’s sexual

deception by the serpent (Protev. 13). But the virgins that accompanied Mary witnessed to her

untouched virginity (Ps.-Mat. 10). Additionally, the angel assured Joseph of her purity,

revealing that the child is of the Holy Spirit, the Saviour of “his people from their sins” (Mt.

1:20-21; Protev. 14; Ps.-Mat. 11). The holy couple had to give witness and be tested before

the court of priests on the matter of the alleged “illegal” pregnancy, but both were proven

innocent (Protev. 15-16; Ps.-Mat. 12).

The mention of the decree from Augustus to enrol in the place of origin may have been

intended to explain why Jesus of Nazareth can be called the Son of David from Bethlehem

(Lk. 2:1-5; Protev. 17; Ps.-Mat. 13; AIG 2). On the way to Bethlehem, Mary prophetically

wept over the Jews who had departed from their God and rejoiced over the Gentiles who will

soon receive the blessing of Abraham (Protev. 17; Ps.-Mat. 13). Mary gave birth to Jesus in a

cave, preserving her virginity, which was attested by a Hebrew midwife, called Zelomi, and

Salome (Protev. 17-20; in Ps.-Mat. 13 the midwife is called Zelomi; AIG 2-3). Zelomi

affirmed, “[a] virgin has conceived, a virgin has brought forth, and a virgin she remains” (Ps.-

Mat. 13). Moreover, Salome confessed, “Woe for my wickedness and my unbelief; for I have

tempted the living God” as if the author wanted to highlight godlessness of suspicions among

the Jews about Mary’s perpetual purity (Protev. 20).

3. Miracles performed by Mary in Egypt and in Bethlehem.

The dominant view of Mary’s ever virginity fuelled chastity and celibacy in early Christian

circles. Popular piety of the time found its hero in the Virgin, who not only preserved her

purity, but also became a mediator of divine mercy and healing power. Mary’s pity on a

demoniac woman cured the latter of her torment. The demon confessed, “Woe to me from

you, Mary, and from your son” (AIG 14). Likewise, Virgin’s pity on a bewitched man that

had been made a mule brought him back to a human form (AIG 20-21). Multiple healings of

children were performed by the word of Mary, things that belonged to Jesus, and the water in

which he was bathed. “O Lady Mary, – confessed the mother of the healed Bartholomew, –

now I know that the power of God dwells in you, so that your son heals those that share the

6

same nature with himself, as soon as they have touched his clothes” (AIG 27-33). Definitely

Mary should be considered holy and not lecherous.

III. JESUS IS THE LORD OVER ALL AND SUPERSEDES JUDAISM.

If M. S. Enslin is correct in his analysis of nativity stories then Matthew’s and Luke’s agenda

were primarily theological, i.e., they were intended to battle against an adoptionist

misinterpretation of Mark’s gospel.19 Subsequently, one can assume that the early apocryphal

writers supplemented theological material into their writings.

1. Absence of Jesus’ genealogy and reversal of the patriarchal order in the Holy

Family in the apocryphal gospels accounts for divine origin.

The absence of the Jesus’ genealogy in the apocryphal infancy gospels, unlike in Mt. 1:1-17

and Lk. 3:23-38, can be explained as an intentional desire to stress the divine origin of Jesus

or perhaps to downplay the differences in the genealogy attested in Matthew and Luke.20 The

extraordinary descent of the Messiah is supported by a reversal of the patriarchal order by

elevating Mary over her husband. In the apocryphal infancy gospels, Mary, being a

descendant of David, receives an account of her supernatural origin, and perpetual virginity,

as well as of her status as co-healer with her divine son (Protev. 10; AIG 14). A clothes dyer,

Salem, (AIG 37) and some women whose children had become goats (AIG 40), called Jesus,

“son of Mary,” not “son of Joseph.” Unlike Mary, Joseph, not being a natural parent of Jesus,

is not granted the supernatural power and ability to heal or perform miracles.21 He is scarcely

mentioned in the AIG and, when he is mentioned, it is often as a silent companion of Mary

and Jesus, not as a wonder-worker. Moreover, Joseph misunderstands and even mistreats his

divine adopted son, pulling him by the ear (IGT 5). A vexed child concludes that Joseph’s

judgment is similar to that of the contemporary Jews: “It is fitting for you to seek and not to

find” any reasons for condemning Jesus, but blaming him despite that. It was obvious to the

apocryphal writers that the sons and daughters of Joseph are stepbrothers and stepsisters of

Jesus because Mary remained Virgin, even after the birth of her son (Ps.-Mat. 42).

2. Hebrew woman is of no avail in Jesus’ birth.

19

Morton S. Enslin, “The Christian Stories of the Nativity”, Journal of Biblical Literature, 59:3 (Sep. 1940):

317-338. 20

This discrepancy is acknowledged already by Origen, Contra Celsum. 2.32. 21

With the exception of one occasion in Ps.-Mat. 40, where, on the command and instruction of Jesus, Joseph

raised a dead person with his kerchief and said, “Jesus save you.”

7

Perhaps the ethnic identification of the midwife that came to help Mary in her delivery as

“Hebrew” is noteworthy, because she might signify to the readers that not only does Jesus

have no need of Jews but they themselves were in need of the healing that Jesus provides.

Being a witness of this unprecedented delivery, the midwife stated, “you are not at all like the

daughters of Eve.” The reason for the drastic difference is explained by Mary, “[a]s my son

has no equal among children, so his mother has no equal among women” (AIG 3). Thus, no

human effort was operating in the conception and delivery of the Messiah. There can be no

doubt that the birth of the Son of God is an absolutely divine endeavour.

3. Angels and people acknowledge messianic and royal origin of Jesus.

The host of heavenly beings proclaimed to the shepherds about the birth of the Saviour, the

Messiah, on whose account the cave was “made like a temple of the upper world” (Lk. 2:8-

15; Ps.-Mat. 13; AIG 4). The appearance of the great star over the place of birth “pointed out

the birth of Christ, who should according to the promise restore not only Israel, but all

nations” (Ps.-Mat. 13). On the eighth day Jesus was circumcised in the temple and redeemed

with a sacrifice according to the law being the firstborn child (Lk. 2:21-24; Ps.-Mat. 15; AIG

5 says he was circumcised in the cave). Old Simeon and Anna recognized in the baby Jesus

the promised Christ (Lk. 2:25-38; Ps.-Mat. 15; AIG 6). Pagan magi paid their tribute to the

royal child whose birth was prophesied in the Old Testament and by a pagan prophet and was

affirmed by the star (Mt. 2:1-12; Protev. 21; Ps.-Mat. 16; AIG 7). As Oscar Cullmann pointed

out, “[b]ehind the story of the wise men from the east there lies the theological idea of

Christ’s universal kingdom, and the same theological tendency governs the story of the flight

of his parents, which brings the child Jesus into Egypt.”22 Thus, the point of the magi’s visit is

to reaffirm that the reign of Jesus is not limited to Jewish people. Moreover, mentioning of

Zeraduscht’s prophecy (AIG 7) indicates not only familiarity of the author with the sacred

traditions of Iranian Zoroastrism, but also prepares the reader to see the glory of the new-born

king of Israel in Egypt.

4. Jewish king Herod’s attempts to kill Jesus failed.

The readers of the infancy gospels should understand that Jewish antagonism toward

Christians of the first few centuries is not new. The first enemy of Jesus is the Jewish king

Herod who plotted a mischievous plan against the divine rival. Despite his cunning, Herod

failed twice: first, when tried to misuse the magi’s knowledge and second, when the Holy

22

Cullmann, “Infancy Gospels,” p. 416.

8

Family escaped to Egypt as Herod prepared to slay the infants in Bethlehem (Mt. 2:13-18;

Protev. 22; Ps.-Mat. 17; AIG 9).23 The flight to Egypt was the means of God’s sovereign

protection of his Son and not a maverick’s sly quest for pagan magic to deceive the naïve

Jews.

5. Power of Jesus manifested in Egypt and not learned.

Upon the arrival of Mary with the child in an Egyptian temple, three hundred and fifty-five

idols fell down on the ground as in worship before the Holy Family. The governor of the city,

Affrodosius, admitted that only “God of our gods” could do such a thing. Moreover, he

equated this divine manifestation of power over Egyptian gods with the great miracles of

Exodus (Ps.-Mat. 23-24). In the AIG 10-12 the speaking idol announced that the true Son of

God arrived in the city. A demon-possessed son of the local idol priest was freed by putting

Jesus’ clothes on his head. Both the father and the son praised God and Jesus for the miracle.

Men, who were delivered from robbers by the sound of a great noise of a coming king, asked

Joseph and Mary question similar to that of the magi, “Where is that king?” (AIG 13). Later, a

deaf bride and demon-possessed woman found healing when they took the baby Jesus in their

arms (AIG 15-16). A girl and the son of a princess were cured of their leprosy when they were

washed with the same water in which Jesus was earlier washed (AIG 17-18, cf. 31-32). Jesus

prophesied that Titus and Dumachus will be crucified in thirty years alongside of him in

Jerusalem, but Titus will enter paradise before him (AIG 23). The child had no need to learn

magic to perform these miracles, because he possessed the divine power from his origin.

6. Breaking of the Sabbath by creating life shows Jesus as the Lord of the

Sabbath.

The author of the IGT draws connections between canonical and the apocryphal infancy

gospels, albeit indirectly. For example, he links the motive of animating clay sparrows on the

Sabbath (IGT 2) with numerous instances of Sabbath breaking by Jesus, e.g., the healing of a

man that Jesus performed on that day according Mark 3:1-5. Later the son of a Jewish scribe

destroys Jesus’ handmade pools, but withers as the way of judgment (IGT 3). The canonical

story of the fruitless olive tree in Matthew 21, symbolizing Jesus’ condemnation of the Jewish

unbelieving authorities, can link together these judgments of opposing religious beliefs.24

23

In the History of Joseph the Carpenter 8, it is Satan that informs Herod about Jesus’ flight, which might

indicate the aggravation of later anti-Jewish polemic. 24

Cf. IGT 5, where Jesus’ opponents become blind.

9

Gero correctly pointed out that Jesus’ “creating life out of matter (u[lh)” coincides with the

picture of the canonical Jesus who created like the God of the Old Testament (cf. Jn. 5:17).25

And as God created the world by his word, so did Jesus, whose “every word is an

accomplished deed” (IGT 4-5 “and became a miracle”). Therefore, to destroy Jesus’ works

means to destroy creation of God and is blameworthy. Jesus cursed the evil boys as the Father

cursed the evil-doers (Ps.-Mat. 29). In the parallel story, in the AIG 36, the children equated

Jesus’ creation of animals as the act of the Creator’s Son, while their parents called him “a

wizard.” Only the Lord of the Sabbath has the right to break the Sabbath.

7. Jewish teachers recognize the abnormal origin and superiority of Jesus.

In the infancy gospels, Jesus three times overshadowed in knowledge those who attempted to

teach him the letters of alphabet and to honour the elders.26 The first perplexed teacher who

encountered Jesus’ wisdom concluded that this child “is not earth-born” but “begotten even

before the creation of the world” (IGT 7). Zacchaeus continued: “What belly bore him, what

womb nurtured him I do not know” (IGT 7). The reader is expected to come to the conclusion

that no ordinary human womb is able to give birth to such a person. It is impossible for men

to know the human origin of Jesus, and it is meaningless to look for the one because he had

none. Furthermore, in a variant of the Syriac IGT 6-8, Jesus pronounced: “For when I am

greatly exalted, I shall lay aside whatever mixture I have of your race.”27 One gets no sense of

need for an intellectual development in this “god or an angel of God” who possessed all

knowledge and was capable of teaching the teachers. Jesus was a spontaneous miracle-

worker. He had no need to study magic, Torah or anything else to apply the divine power in

cursing or healing. The child Jesus performs supernatural acts and utters incomprehensible

words of “grace and wisdom,” being in full possession of the Holy Spirit. Maltreatment of

people around him and thoughtless usage of divine power to hurt others may indicate that the

Jesus is an alien to the human world.

The allegorical meaning of the letter “Alpha” sounds puzzling to Zacchaeus, who confessed

his ignorance and inability to comprehend. Instead of becoming a teacher to Jesus, he became

25

Stephen Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: A Study of the Textual and Literary Problems,” Novum

Testamentum, 13 (1971): 46-80, 75. 26

The author of Ps.-Mat. narrates that the teacher wanted to instruct Jesus “in Jewish learning” (Ps.-Mat. 30).

The teachers of Ps.-Mat. and of AIG (48) intended to teach their unusual student the Hebrew alphabet “from

Aleph even to Thet” unlike the teacher of IGT who spoke of Greek letters “Alpha” and “Beta” (IGT 7) that may

mean an adaptation to the Greek speaking community. 27

Cullmann, “Infancy Gospels,” p. 452.

10

his disciple (IGT 7). The explanation of “Alpha” by Jesus may have a Trinitarian meaning.28

In another version of IGT Jesus proclaimed knowledge of the past and future “I know when

your fathers’ fathers were born, and I understand how many are the years of your life” and

“[t]ruly I know when the world was created. Behold, you do not believe me now. When you

see my cross then you will believe that I speak the truth” (IGT 6). Jesus of Ps.-Mat. 30-31

claimed that teaching in the Jewish laws is inferior to his knowledge:

The precepts of the law which you have just spoken of, and all the things that you have

named, must be kept by those who are instructed in human learning; but I am stranger

to your law-courts, because I have no father after the flesh. You who read the law, and

are learned in it, abide in the law; but I was before the law. But you think that no one

is equal to you in learning, and that no other can teach anything but that which you

have named I shall teach you.

Zachyas of Ps.-Mat. acknowledged that no one can understand the child’s utterance without

divine assistance (Ps.-Mat. 31). Those astounding words, in the crowd’s view, surpass those

of “the prophets, or the Pharisees, or the scribes.” As an argument for his supernatural

knowledge, Jesus mentions personal acquaintance with Abraham (cf. Jn. 8:58). The teacher

Zachaeus of the AIG (48) testified with astonishment that his pupil does not need an

instructor because he “was born before Noah.” Jesus rebukes the listeners in unbelief,

explaining that in fact they are little children who do not understand his teaching. The second

teacher was annoyed by Jesus’ arrogance, but being unable to respond to the boy’s challenge,

resorted to violence. In retaliation, the ignorant teacher was cursed and fell unconscious or

dead (IGT 14; Ps.-Mat. 38; AIG 49).

The third teacher, a friend of Joseph, took the responsibility to instruct this unruly boy with

fear. The teaching, however, ended without having been started, because the Holy Spirit-

inspired speech of Jesus was “full of great grace and wisdom” and thus enlightened all

listeners in the law (IGT 15). This discourse brought the audience to wonder about the lad. In

Ps.-Mat. 39 it is social pressure that caused Mary and Joseph to send their child to the school.

They knew “he could learn nothing from man, because he had perfect knowledge from God

only.” Each time the Jewish teachers encountered Jesus, they would confess with adoration

that, instead of a student in Jesus, they have met a master or a superior instructor.

28

H-J. Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels (London: T & T Clark, 2003), 75. Klauck admits that a longer Slavonic

version of the Alpha passage was presumably influenced by Gnosticism (see also Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses

1.20.1, who considered this story as “false and wicked” invention of Marcosians). However, as Gero thinks,

“[t]here is nothing specifically Gnostic in toying with the shape and occult meaning of letters” because it can be

accounted by Hellenistic mysterious cults. Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 75-76.

11

8. Jesus receives worship from amazed people and lions.

The parents of a resurrected child, Zeno, who previously fell down from the roof of a house

and died, glorified God and worshiped Jesus (IGT 9; Ps.-Mat. 32, AIG 44). “Some praised

and admired him” for creating birds out of clay and animating them (Ps.-Mat. 27). Often

Jesus’ words and deeds brought people to astonishment and wonder (Ps.-Mat. 27, 30-31, 39;

IGT 6, 15). The crowd acknowledged that “the Spirit of God dwells in this child” after they

saw Jesus healing a man’s foot spilt by an axe (IGT 10). Both Mary and Joseph were amazed

on several occasions of Jesus’ miraculous performances, e.g. for bringing water in his

garment or stretching a beam (IGT 11, 13; Ps.-Mat. 33, 37; AIG 45, 38). Even lions when

they saw Jesus “ran to meet him and worshipped him” recognizing “their Lord” (Ps.-Mat. 35).

Jews praised God, being witnesses of Jesus’ dying clothes in the colour the dyer wished (AIG

37). The miracle of stretching a throne that Joseph made short of required measures with

Jesus’ assistance had the same effect on the people. (AIG 39). Only one who is equal to God

can receive the worship that Jesus received because of his works.

9. Jesus crosses Jordan like Moses and Joshua.

The episode when the waters of Jordan divided before Jesus and lions (Ps.-Mat. 36) alludes to

the division of the Red Sea before of Moses and Jordan before Joshua (Ex. 14:21; Josh. 3:15-

17). Thus Jesus is no lesser a prophet than Moses and Joshua.

10. Jesus defeats a viper as the promised “seed” of Genesis 3.

Perhaps power of the divine child over a snake was an allusion to the prophecy of Genesis

3:15, where the “seed” of Eve will crush the serpent, the devil of old. The viper that bit James,

one of Joseph’s sons, burst when Jesus had healed him (IGT 16; Ps.-Mat. 41; AIG 43). A

similar story happened on another occasion when a poisoned boy was cured by the “king”

Jesus who, by command, killed the serpent (AIG 42).

11. Jesus supersedes in knowledge the wise men in the temple at the age of twelve.

Obviously the authors were familiar with an orthodox tradition of the twelve-year-old Jesus’

superiority in spiritual knowledge attested in Luke 2:46-47.29 The AIG shows Jesus’ superior

knowledge not just in the matters of the law, but also in astronomy and philosophy:

29

Gero pointed out a connection of the child’s superiority in knowledge over the old teacher with Logion 4 in

the Coptic Gospel of Thomas: “The old man in his days will not hesitate to ask a small child of seven days about

12

And the Lord Jesus answered him, and explained the number of the spheres, and of the

heavenly bodies, their natures and operations; their opposition; their aspect, triangular,

square, and sextile; their course, direct and retrograde; the twenty-fourths, and

sixtieths of twenty-fourths; and other things beyond the reach of reason…. And he, in

reply, explained to him physics and metaphysics, hyperphysics and hypophysics, the

powers likewise and humours of the body, and the effects of the same; also the number

of members and bones, of veins, arteries, and nerves; also the effects of heat and

dryness, of cold and moisture, and what these give rise to; what was the operation of

the soul upon the body, and its perceptions and powers; what was the operation of the

faculty of speech, of anger, of desire; lastly, their conjunction and disjunction, and

other things beyond the reach of any created intellect (AIG 52-53).

The point of the episode is clear: nobody but a fool and arrogant person can criticise Jesus

without complete understanding the depth of his teaching.

12. Jesus fulfils the Old Testament Messianic expectations.

In Ps.-Mat. one finds several occasions when the boy Jesus’ activity was viewed as fulfilment

of the Old Testament texts. In chapter 18, a dragon worshiped Jesus – we are told – in

accordance with David’s prophetic utterance (cf. Ps. 148:7). Likewise, an escort of the wild

animals in chapter 20, accompanying the Holy Family, finds its scriptural anticipation in

Isaiah 11:6-7. The entrance of Jesus and his family to Egypt, according to the author of Ps.-

Mat. 23, fulfilled another prophesy from Isaiah about God’s visitation of that ancient land

(19:1). Then, the divine child crossed the Jordan River, which had divided before him as

before Joshua (Ps.-Mat. 36; cf. Josh. 3). The author of AIG found fulfilment of Hosea’s

prophecy about God’s calling his son from Egypt in the story of Jesus (AIG 12; Hos. 11:1, cf.

Mt. 2:15). The image of the full river of God, which prepares the grain in Ps. 65:9, is

resembled in Jesus’ teaching (Ps.-Mat. 39).

CONCLUSION

Undoubtedly, the apocryphal infancy gospels are products of their time. The reader of these

gospels can trace the development of several dogmatic trends. Firstly, arguments for a high

Christology were constructed in opposition to Jewish and pagan critics. Thus, Jesus is of

divine origin and possessed sovereign power over creation, people’s life and death, and

demons. A person, who performed such miracles and deposed Egyptian idols as a child,

cannot be accused of learned magic. He manifested unlimited knowledge from his birth and

superseded the wise Jewish men in understanding the law. His ability to fulfil Old Testament

the place of life and he shall live.” At the same time, Gero is sceptical about gnostic origin of the saying. Gero,

“The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 77.

13

prophesy indicated his control over events and his partnership with God, the creator of

history. The infancy gospels provide a rebuttal of the main Jewish charges against Jesus.

Secondly, one cannot but acknowledge a high role of Mary in the infancy gospels that far

exceeds the amount of attention she is given in the canonical gospels. According to the

Protevangelium of James, Mary had an arguably divine origin, supernatural conception and

delivery, and her virginity was preserved afterwards. Most of the miracles in the Arabic

Infancy Gospel are done by Mary alone or by her instructions, while it seems that Jesus was

already capable of talking. Besides, many petitions and praises are addressed to the Holy

Mother, not to the baby Jesus. Thus the authors of the infancy gospels attempted to contest

contemporary Jewish accusations imputed to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Thirdly, one can expect an elevation of women’s roles in the early Christian communities and

the importance of relics and holy objects. Corrington developed the idea of the “divine

woman” as a female counterpart to the “divine man” in the extra-canonical writings. The

female apostles of the first four centuries utilized in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles the

same authority to teach, baptize and preach as their male counterparts. These celibate and

authoritative female figures were propagating social and ecclesiastical equality. On the one

hand, this was perceived as beneficial by male church leaders in term of creating pious

examples for women. On the other hand, these heroines were breaking stereotypes of the

social rank and function of women in ancient society.30 It is not unlikely that the cult of the

Virgin Mary was popularized for the same reason in the apocryphal infancy gospels.

Likewise, the veneration of holy relics and objects in early Christianity is attested in The

Martyrdom of Polycarp 18 and The Martyrdom of Ignatius 6. It would be worth studying,

what influence – if any – the apocryphal infancy gospels had on the development of the cult

of Mary as sacred matter.

30

Gail Paterson Corrington, “The ‘Divine Woman’? Propaganda and the Power of Celibacy in the New

Testament Apocrypha: A Reconsideration,” Anglican Theological Review, 70:3 (July, 1988): 207-220.

14

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blanchetière, François. “The Threefold Christian Anti-Judaism.” In Graham N. Stanton and

Guy Stroumsa, (eds.). Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Corrington, Gail Paterson. “The ‘Divine Woman’? Propaganda and the Power of Celibacy in

the New Testament Apocrypha: A Reconsideration”, Anglican Theological Review

70:3 (July, 1988): 207-220.

Cullmann, Oscar. “Infancy Gospels.” In W. Schneemelcher, (ed.). New Testament Apocrypha.

Translated by R. M. Wilson. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991.

Elliott, J. K. “The Relevance of Christian Apocrypha”, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 57

(2003): 118-130.

. A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity and Infancy Narratives. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

Enslin, Morton S. “The Christian Stories of the Nativity”, Journal of Biblical Literature 59:3

(Sep. 1940): 317-338.

Gero, Stephen. “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: A Study of the Textual and Literary

Problems”, Novum Testamentum 13 (1971): 46-80.

Horbury, William. Jews and Christians: In Contact and Controversy. Edinburg: T & T Clark,

1998.

Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.

Klauck, H-J. Apocryphal Gospels. London: T & T Clark, 2003.

Lieu, Judith M. “Accusations of Jewish Persecution in Early Christian Sources, with

Particular Reference to Justin Martyr and Martyrdom of Polycarp.” In Graham N.

Stanton and Guy Stroumsa, (eds.). Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and

Christianity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Origen, Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1980.

Rajak, Tessa. “Talking at Trypho: Christian Apologetic as Anti-Judaism in Justine’s Dialogue

with Trypho the Jew.” In Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman, and Simon Price, (eds.).

Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1999.

Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious

Category. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996.