Abstract
For anybody interested in detailed study of the early Christian writing known as the Protevangelium of James Zervos’ two volumes provide a wealth of detailed textual and theoretical information. The text survives in a large number of Greek manuscripts – in vol. 1 Zervos mentions 169 manuscripts, while in the second volume he describes his catalogue as ‘a comprehensive listing of the 170 Greek MSS containing ProJac of which I am aware’ (vol. 2, p. 30). Presumably a further manuscript came to light between the publication of the first and second volume. Of these, based on his own work and that of predecessors, especially Boyd Daniels, ‘exhaustive collations of 126 out of the 169 known, extant Greek manuscripts of the ProtJac are available in Volume 2 of this book, easily linked to the text of P.Bodm V, so as to provide an easy reference for the scholarly study of the text of ProtJac’ (vol. 1, p. viii).
It is probably fair to assume that the first volume will be of greater interest to general readers, whereas the second volume provide more detailed textual data for specialists working to the text of the Protevangelium of James. In this regard, it is worth pointing out that the first volume is now available in a much more affordable paperback edition. Zervos questions several broad scholarly consensuses concerning this text. He devotes most of the first volume in a detailed demonstration of the composite nature of this text against those who claim it to be a unified work written by a single author. Building on this observation, he argues that the earliest layer might be date considerably prior to the typical late second century date suggested for the composition of the text. It is worth citing his ideas to fully appreciate the force of what is being suggested:
The present study is based upon the premise that ProtJac was not the unitary composition of a single author dating to the second half of the second century CE but rather was a composite work largely composed of a very early document whose original title, the Genesis Marias (GenMar), may be preserved in the oldest copy of ProtJac, P.Bodm. V. The individual who wrote GenMar will be designated as the Author. The GenMar, which was written as early as the first century CE, seems to have undergone substantial augmentation, already in the first century, by a subsequent writer to whom we shall refer as the Composer. In this second phase of the composition of the ProtJac a large amount of new material, which featured the person of Joseph, was integrated into the GenMar text. (vol. 1, pp. 19-20).
Such ideas will be a challenge to prevailing scholarship, and it is likely that some might ask whether various theological ideas present in the text could have been formulated in the first century. No doubt this is an area where debate will continue. Moreover, while the work of the Composer is placed in the post 70 CE period, it appears that Zervos is supportive of the dating of the GenMar prior to that date and ‘would have originated in an even earlier, idiosyncratic Judean-Christian milieu that was contemporary with, although independent of, the first generation of Christian source, Mark, Paul, and Q’ (p. 158). Therefore, although not explicitly stated, it appears the GenMar is being dated around the 50s or 60s of the first century. That of course is an idea that will create much academic conversation.
Despite the subtitle of volume 1, the Greek text and English translation actually appear in volume 2: pp. 50-78 and pp. 79-91 respectively. The majority of the volume is a collation of the variant readings of the 126 manuscripts that have bene collated. This is important, detailed and time-consuming work. Zervos labours are important for subsequent work on the text of this highly influential and important work.
These two volume form a much need resource for those working on the Protevangelium of James. No future serious scholarship on this text will be able to ignore the textual data that is present here. The theories Zervos advances in regard to the composition of the text are intriguing and will certainly occasion debate. He also presents a strong case of the text of the Protevangelium of James that occurs in P.Bodm. V as being the best available text of the earliest form of this writing. It is apparent that these two volumes are the fruit of a life-time of work focused on one of the most fascinating texts of early Christianity.