The Infancy Gospel of James and Joseph's Part in the Triumph over Original Sin

In reading a small portion of the Infancy Gospel of James in one of my New Testament textbooks, it struck me how one elaboration of that uncanonical text sheds light on one of the New Feminist theological developments of original sin (based upon John Paul the Great). While nothing in the Infancy Gospel is proclaimed as authoritative or accurate by the church, its influence is important enough to glean from beneath its wordings ideas that could help explain some elements of the Church's essential Truth. Indeed, as the textbook by Stephen L . Harris commented, "Traditional lore about Mary incorporated into the Infancy Gospel of James probably contributed significantly to the unique position that Jesus' mother eventually held in both the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches...Although never officially admitted to the New Testament canon, in some Christian groups the book has exerted as much influence in shaping orthodox belief as have the canonical Gospels" (Harris, The New Testament, 5th ed, 263). Other lore contained in the book include information and names for Mary's parents, Anna and Joachim.

In interpretations of the Genesis narratives, the beginnings of original sin lay first and primarily with the temptation of Eve, seduced by the serpent. While Adam's acceptance of the fruit included all mankind in Eve's first sin, it was done after the fault had been initiated by his weaker wife. In more contemporary analyses, Eve did indeed do a fault by saying "No" to God, and thus departing from her role as a human and as a woman, but so too did Adam, simultaneously as or even before Eve's sin, by not fulfilling his role as a man, as a guardian of his wife - not in the domineering sense, but in the self-sacrificial love Jesus later exemplified and in the service of authority. A misunderstanding of the faults of each sex in the Fall of Mankind has also subsequently led to a misunderstanding of the nature of sex (as gender), sexuality and human relations. Mary's "Yes" to God and Jesus's sacrifice for the fault of all mankind thus redeemed humanity and overturned the Original Sin of Adam and Eve.

But Eve's "No" and Mary's "Yes" notably took place in very similiar contexts - without the presence of a Guardian male. While this may have been obvious to other theologians (I have not read widely enough to discern one way or the other), this fact was first illuminated to me in the reading of the Infancy Gospel of James which expands upon the life of Mary and the emotional turmoil they were put through when Jesus was conceived. It reads:

"She [Mary] was in her sixth month when one day Joseph came home from his building projects, entered his house, and found her pregnant. He struck himself in the fact, threw himself to the ground on sackcloth and began to cry bitterly: "What sort of face should I present to the Lord God? What prayer can I say on her behalf since I received her as a virgin from the temple of the Lord God and didn't protect her? Who has set this trap for me? Who has done this evil deed in my house? Who has lured this virgin away from me and violated her? The story of Adam has been repeated in my case, hasn't it? For just as Adam was praying when the serpent came and found Eve alone, decieved her, and corrupted her, so the same thing has happened to me."

Joseph first thinks, then, that he is merely another suffering man doomed to repeat the sins of Adam and Eve and that Satan has tempted and stolen the woman under his protectorate. But, beautifully, he acknowledges the part of the sin of Adam that has often gone overlooked or misunderstood - his failure in his duties as a man to protect that which is the most sacred and beautiful of life, in this case, the virgin Mary. He knows that he has repeated this sin of Adam and cries out in dismay, "What prayer can I say on her behalf...?" - the deed has already been done.

Interestingly, though, the Genesis account reveals nothing of Adam "praying when the serpent came and found Eve alone" - we simply know that he was not there, regardless of the reason. In light of what this commentary reveals about how original sin was overcome, it seems likely that Adam was not praying - he was simply not fulfilling one of his duties and remained alone somewhere else. If that is the case, then Joseph's own "prayer", as we can assume he was involved in because of the parallel he made to Adam, is the complete opposite of Adam's motivation for not guarding Eve. In Joseph's case, his virtuous prayer and connection with his God left his wife to find her own spiritual calling - to be the Mother of God with her resounding "Yes." This is a complete reversal from Adam's selfish pursuit of pure solitude when God had given him a companion.

Joseph also immediately recognized the seeming error of the woman under his guardianship. In his mind, she, under Satan's temptation, had committed a gross offense under Jewish law - pregnancy out of wedlock. He is thus turn, saying to hmself "If I try to cover up her sin, I'll end up going against the law of the Lord. And if I disclose her condition to the people of Israel, I'm afraid that the child inside her might be heaven-sent and I'll end up handing innocent blood over to a death sentence." Being a virtous man, as the canonical Gospels also record, he decided to "divorce her quietly". What a contrast Joseph's choice is from Adam's! who instead decided to succomb to his wife's temptations and eat of the fruit himself! Mary's resounding "Yes" is indeed the triumph and model of all mankind, but so is (perhaps on a lesser degree), Joseph's "Yes" to God - to his love of the Law, but also to his care and sensitivity to its circumstance and his openness to the revelation of God. This is indeed remarkable.

What, then, does this say about masculinity and femininity? In Adam's response to Eve is seen the response of weaker men to some of the more radical fallacies of the Feminist Movement - that their "No" to God is something to be followed and praised. If women should "own" their bodies, so should men. If the pursuit of sex solely for sexual pleasure is to be followed, the door is open for men to succomb to their own temptations as well. But in Joseph's response, he adapts his masculinity, as all holy men do (and all holy women do in vice versa), to express in his own actions some of the characteristic strengths of the opposite sex - caring about the person, sensitivity to complicated situations, and the openness of receptivity to God's call.

As New Feminists endeavouring to find the place of women, Mary's "Yes" has been a resounding affirmation of the love of God to which we are all called. But the position of men is equally as important in a feminim that advocates that complementary equality in dignity. Joseph's model as a human man trying to fulfill God's word is equally worthy of study. While he might not be the New Adam - as Jesus was in his sacrifical offering - he is certainly an Adam for all mankind to learn from.