Can the Protevangelium of James also be read as an
anti-docetic or more specifically, as an anti-Marcionite response? I suggest
that this interpretation is a real possibility on two levels. First, given the
detailed description of Mary’s physical, pregnant body and the child Jesus
nursing at her breast along with the text’s emphasis on details surrounding
Mary’s genealogy, childhood, and adolescent years, and interactions with the
Jewish Temple, the Protevangelium of James can be convincingly read, on
one level, as a possible response to docetic claims about the body of Jesus. Perhaps
the one questionable aspect attested in our text that would tell against this
reading is Mary’s virginitas in partu and post-partum. For
Tertullian, while Mary’s virginity ante partum could be confirmed, her
virginity in partu had to be forfeited to argue effectively for Jesus’
humanity and thus against docetic claims that his body was not real. In the Protevangelium
of James, the conception and birth of Jesus are both presented as
miraculous in the narrative (e.g., Mary conceives through the Holy Spirit; there
is no pain mentioned during the birth; and she remains a virgin before, during,
and after the birth), and yet there is nothing in the text that suggests
docetism – miraculous happenings, yes, but not docetism. Indeed, the narrative
even tells us of the discomfort Mary feels before she is about to give birth,
and a very physical gynecological examination is performed on her after the
birth. (Lily C. Vuong,
Gender and Purity in the Protoevangelium of James [Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 358, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013], 218)
