Provenance
In terms of the epilogue’s final claim that
the text was written in Jerusalem, most scholars continue to doubt that there
is any truth to be found here. Often cited in support of a provenance other
than Jerusalem is the author’s lack of familiarity with Palestinian geography
in general and the topography of Jerusalem in particular. Against the claim
that the author is ignorance of such things, Malcom Lowe has argued (as a
resident of Jerusalem) that the author of the Protoevangelium is actually quite
accurate in terms of how they describe the geography of Jerusalem. Those who
claim otherwise, he argues, are themselves ignorant of the geography of
Jerusalem. Lowe’s arguments have failed to gain any serious traction among
scholars of this text. In terms of provenance, the most likely candidates are
Egypt or Syria. Émile de Strycker suggests Egypt as the more likely option
because of the alleged connection between this text and the works of Clement
and Origen, as well as what he considers to be the modesty of the author’s
Greek and the presence of certain “Coptic elements.” Lily Vuong, by contrast,
has made a compelling case for Syria as the more likely place of composition.
Citing the author’s interest in varying types of purity and ritual practice, as
well as the need to portray Mary as both a perpetual virgin and a mother, Vuong
argues persuasively that this text fits what we know of second-century in
Syria. (Eric M. Vanden Eykel, “Protoevangelium of James,” in Early New
Testament Apocrypha, ed. J. Christopher Edwards [Ancient Literature for New
Testament Studies 9; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2022], 143-44)
