The Brethren of the Lord

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD1.

I

N the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions Two rival

theories

were held regarding the relationship of those who in the

Gospels and Apostolic Epistles are termed ' the brethren of the

1 The interest in this subject, which was so warmly discussed towards the close of the fourth century, has been revived in more recent times by the publication of Herder"s Brie/e zweener BrUdtr Jesu in unserem Kanon (1775), in which the Helvidian hypothesis is pat forward. Since then it has formed the subject of numberless monographs, dissertations, and incidental comments. The most important later works, with which I am acquainted, are those of Blom, De rois ABe\<poTset raii doeX<t>ais Too Kvplov (Leyden, 1839); of Schaf, Das Verhaltniss des Jakob us Bruders des Herrn zu Jakobus Alphai (Berlin, 1842); and of Mill, The accounts of Out Lord's Brethren in the New Testament vindicated etc. (Cambridge, 1843). The two former adopt the Helvidian view; the last is written in support of St Jerome's hypothesis. Blom gives the most satisfactory statement which I have seen of the patristic authorities, and Schaf discusses the Scriptural arguments most carefully. I am also largely indebted to the ability and learning of Mill's treatise, though he seems to me to have mistaken the general tenor of ecclesiastical tradition on this subject. Besides these monographs I have also consulted, with more or less advantage, articles on the subject in works of re

ference or periodicals, such as those in Studien u. Kritiken by Wieseler; Die Sdhne Zebediii Vettern des Herrn (1840, p. 648), and Ueber die Briider des Herrn, etc. (1842, p. 71). In preparing for the second edition I looked over the careful investigation in Laurent's Neutest. Studien p. 155 sq (1866), where the Helvidian hypothesis is maintained, but saw no reason to make any change in consequence The works of AmauA, Recherchessur VEpitredeJude, and of Goy (Mont. 1845), referred to in Bishop Ellicott's Galatians i. 19,1 have not seen. My object in this dissertation is mainly twofold; (1) To place the Hieronymian hypothesis in its true light, as an effort of pure criticism unsupported by any traditional sanction; and (2) To say a word on behalf of the Epiphanian solution, which seems, at least of late years, to have met with the fate reserved for ra iUaa in literature and theology, as well as in politics, inr'

<f>6iyu rov repitlvai SiefpBttpovto. I suppose it was because he considered it idle to discuss a theory which had no friends, that Prof. Jowett (on Gal. i. 19), while balancing the claims of the other two solutions, does not even mention the existence of this, though in the early centuries it was the received account.

Lord.' On the one hand it was maintained that no blood relationship existed; that these brethren were in fact sons of Joseph by a former wife, before he espoused the Virgin; and that they are therefore called the Lord's brethren only in the same way in which Joseph is called His father, having really no claim to this title but being so designated by an exceptional use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of the miraculous incarnation. On the other hand certain persons argued that the obvious meaning of the term was the correct meaning, and that these brethren were the Lord's brethren as truly as Mary was the Lord's mother, being her sons by her husband Joseph. The former of these views was held by the vast majority of orthodox believers and by not a few heretics; the latter was the opinion of a father of the Church here and there to whom it occurred as the natural inference from the language of Scripture, as Tertullian for instance, and of certain sects and individuals who set themselves against the incipient worship of the Virgin or the one-sided asceticism of the day, and to whom therefore it was a very serviceable weapon of controversy.

A third Such was the state of opinion, when towards the close of

propounded by the fourth century Jerome struck out a novel hypothesis. One

Helvidius, who lived in Rome, had attacked the prevailing

view of the superiority of virgin over married life, and in doing

so had laid great stress on the example of the Lord's mother

who had borne children to her husband. In or about the year

383 Jerome, then a young man, at the instigation of 'the

brethren' wrote a treatise in reply to Helvidius, in which he

put forward his own view1. He maintained that the Lord's

brethren were His cousins after the flesh, being sons of Mary

the wife of Alphaeus and sister of the Virgin. Thus, as he

boasted, he asserted the virginity not of Mary only but of

Joseph also.

Names These three accounts are all of sufficient importance either

totnen from their real merits or from their wide popularity to deserve

three.

1 Adv. Helvidium de Perpetua Virginitate B. Marine, n. p. 206 (ed. Vail.). Comp. Comment, ad Gal. i. 19.

consideration, and I shall therefore investigate their several claims. As it will be convenient to have some short mode of designation, I shall call them respectively the Epiphanian, the Helvidian, and the Hieronymian theories, from the names of their most zealous advocates in the controversies of the fourth century when the question was most warmly debated.

But besides the solutions already mentioned not a few others have been put forward. These however have been for the most part built upon arbitrary assumptions or improbable Arbitrary combinations of known facts, and from their artificial character tfonTM1' have failed to secure any wide acceptance. It is assumed for instance, that two persons of the same name, James the son of Alphaeus and James the Lord's brother, were leading members of the Church of Jerusalem, though history points to one only1; or that James the Lord's brother mentioned in St Paul's Epistles is not the same James whose name occurs among the Lord's brethren in the Gospels, the relationship intended by the term 'brother' being different in the two cases'; or that 'brethren' stands for 'foster-brethren,' Joseph having undertaken the charge of his brother Clopas' children after their father's death"; or that the Lord's brethren had a double parentage, a legal as well as an actual father, Joseph having raised seed to his deceased brother Clopas by his widow according to the levirate law4; or lastly, that the cousins of Jesus were rewarded with the title of His brethren, because they were His steadfast disciples, while His own brothers opposed Him*.

All such assumptions it will be necessary to set aside. In to be aet themselves indeed they can neither be proved nor disproved. But it is safer to aim at the most probable deduction from known facts than to build up a theory on an imaginary foundation. And, where the question is so intricate in itself, there is little temptation to introduce fresh difficulties by giving way to the license of conjecture. Relation of To confine ourselves then to the three accounts which have accounts, the greatest claim to a hearing. It will be seen that the hypothesis which I have called the Epiphanian holds a middle place between the remaining two. With the Helvidian it assigns an intelligible sense to the term 'brethren': with the Hieronymian it preserves the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother. Whether or not, while uniting in itself the features which have recommended each of these to acceptance, it unites also their difficulties, will be considered in the sequel.

aside.

1 e.g. Wieseler Ueber die Brilder etc., the son of Alphseus the successor of the

l.c, p. 80 sq. According to this writ- Lord's brother.

er the James of Gal. ii. 9 and of the 8 The writers mentioned in Schaf,

Acts is the son of Alphams, not the p. 11.

Lord's brother, and therefore different 3 Lange in Herzog's Real-Encycl. in

from the James of i. 19. See his notes the article 'Jakobus im N.T.'

on Gal i. 19, ii. 9. An ancient writer, 4 Theophylact; see below, p. 44.

the psendo-Dorotheu8 (see below, p. B Renan Vie de J4m3 p. 24. But in

40, note), had represented two of the Saint Paul p. 285 he inclines to the

name as bishops of Jerusalem, making Epiphanian view.

From a critical point of view however, apart from their bearing on Christian doctrine and feeling, the Helvidian and Epiphanian theories hang very closely together, while the Hieronymian stands apart. As well on account of this isolation, as also from the fact which I have hitherto assumed but which I shall endeavour to prove hereafter, that it was the latest born of the three, it will be convenient to consider the lastmentioned theory first. Jerome's St Jerome then states his view in the treatise against

s a men . gglyi^ug SOmewhat as follows:

The son of The list of the Twelve Apostles contains two of the name the Lord's of James, the son of Zebedee and the son of Alphaeus. But brother; e]8ewhere we read of a James the Lord's brother. What account are we to give of this last James? Either he was an Apostle or he was not. If an Apostle, he must be identified with the son of Alphaeus, for the son of Zebedee was no longer living: if not an Apostle, then there were three persons bearing this name. But in this case how can a certain James be called 'the less,' a term which implies only one besides? And how moreover can we account for St Paul's language 'Other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother' (Gal. i. 19)? Clearly therefore James the son of

Alphaeus and James the Lord's brother are the same person.

And the Gospel narrative explains this identity. Among the Vir

ixt gin's sister the Lords brethren occur the names of James and Joseph, being his

Now it is stated elsewhere that Mary the mother of James the mo er'

less and of Joseph (or Joses) was present at the crucifixion

(Matt, xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40). This Mary therefore must have

been the wife of Alphaeus, for Alphaeus was the father of James.

But again in St John's narrative (xix. 26) the Virgin's sister

'Mary of Cleophas (Clopas)' is represented as standing by the

cross. This carries us a step in advance. The last-mentioned

Mary is to be identified with the wife of Alphaeus and mother

of James. Thus James the Lord's brother was in reality the

Lord's cousin.

But, if His cousin, how is he called His brother? The Meaning following is the explanation. The term 'brethren' is used in Brethren. four different senses in Holy Scripture: it denotes either (1) actual brotherhood or (2) common nationality, or (3) kinsmanship, or (4) friendship and sympathy. These different senses St Jerome expresses by the four words 'natura, gente, cognatione, affectu.' In the case of the Lord's brethren the third of these senses is to be adopted: brotherhood here denotes mere relationship, just as Abraham calls his nephew Lot brother (Gen. xiii. 8), and as Laban uses the same term of Jacob his sister's son (Gen. xxix. 15).

So far St Jerome, who started the theory. But, as worked Jerome's out by other writers and as generally stated, it involves two suppleparticulars besides. meuted

(i) The identity of Alphceus and Clopas. These two words, Aiphsus it is said, are different renderings of the same Aramaic name with Clo'sSn or iflJUt (Chalphai), the form Clopas being peculiar to pas" St John, the more completely grecized Alphaeus taking its place in the other Evangelists. The Aramaic guttural Cheth, when the name was reproduced in Greek, might either be omitted as in Alphaeus, or replaced by a K (or '%) as in Clopas. Just in the same way Aloysius and Ludovicus are recognised Latin repre

sentatives of the Frankish name Clovis (Clodovicus, Hludovicus, Hlouis)1.

This identification however, though it materially strengthens his theory, was unknown to Jerome himself. In the course of his argument he confesses plainly that he does not know why Mary is called Clopae, (or Cleophae, as he writes it): it may be, he suggests, after her father or from her family surname ('gentilitate familiae') or for some other reason'. In his treatise on Hebrew names too he gives an account of the word Alphaeus which is scarcely consistent with this identity8. Neither have I found any traces of it in any of his other works, though he refers several times to the subject. In Augustine again, who adopts Jerome's hypothesis and his manner of stating it, it does not anywhere appear, so far as I know. It occurs first, I believe, in Chrysostom who incidentally speaks of James the Lord's brother as 'son of Clopas,' aDd after him in Theodoret who is more explicit (both on Gal. i. 19)4. To a Syrian Greek, who, even if he were unable to read the Peshito version, must at all events have known that Chalphai was the Aramaean rendering or rather the Aramaean original of 'A\<£ato?, it might not unnaturally occur to graft this identification on the original theory of Jerome. Jude the (ii) The identity of Judas the Apostle and Judas the Lord's

therone brother. In St Luke's catalogues of the Twelve (Luke vi. 16,

Twelve Acts j• 13) the name 'Judas of James' (lovSai 'Ia*ft>/3ou) occurs. Now we find a Judas also among the four brethren of the Lord (Matt. xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3); and the writer of the epistle, who was doubtless the Judas last mentioned, styles himself 'the brother of James' (Jude 1). This coincidence suggests that the ellipsis in ' Judas of James' should be supplied by brother as in the English version, not by son which would be the more obvious word. Thus Judas the Lord's brother, like James, is made one of the Twelve. I do not know when the Hieronymian theory received this fresh accession, but, though the gain is considerable in apparent strength at least, it does not appear, so far as I have noticed, to have occurred to Jerome himself.

1 This illustration is taken from ib. p. 98. Thus he deliberately rejects

Mill, p. 236. the derivation with a Cheth, which is

9 adv. Helvid. § 15, H. p. 219. required in order to identify 'Alphreus'

'Alphaus, fugitivus [tfon; the with 'Clopas.' Indeed, as he inoor

Greek of Origen was doubtless olx&M*- reotly wrote Cleopas (or Cleophas) for

ww, see p. 626], sed melius millesimus Clopas with the Latin version, this

pj!w] vel doctus pf*q>; ra. p. 89; identification was not likely to ooour

and again, 'Alphitus, millesimus, sive

to him.

i „ , , * See below, p. 44.

super os [nB7U?] ab ore non ab osse';

And some have gone a step farther. We find not only a and perJames and a Judas among the Lord's brethren, but also a mc^j ais0Symeon or Simon. Now it is remarkable that these three names occur together in St Luke's list of the Twelve: James (the son) of Alphaeus, Simon called Zelotes, and Judas (the brother) of James. In the lists of the other Evangelists too these three persons are kept together, though the order is different and Judas appears under another name, Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus. Can this have been a mere accident? Would the name of a stranger have been inserted by St Luke between two brothers? Is it not therefore highly probable that this Simon also was one of the Lord's brethren? And thus three out of the four are included among the Twelve1.

Without these additions the theory is incomplete; and indeed they have been so generally regarded as part of it, that advocates and opponents alike have forgotten or overlooked the fact that Jerome himself nowhere advances them. I shall then consider the theory as involving these two points; for indeed it would never have won its way to such general acceptance, unless presented in this complete form, where its chief recommendation is that it combines a great variety of facts and brings out many striking coincidences.

But before criticizing the theory itself, let me prepare the Jerome

himself

1 It is found in Sophronius (?), who 958. Compare the pseudo-Hippolytus

however confuses him with Jude; 'Si- (i. App. p. 30, ed. Fabric). Perhaps

monCananaeus cognomento Judas, fra- the earliest genuine writing in which it

ter Jacobi episcopi, qui et successit illi occurs is Isidor. Hispal. de Vit. et Ob.

in episcopatum etc.'; Hieron. Op. n. p. Sanct. c. 81. See Mill p. 248.

way by divesting it of all fictitious advantages and placing it in its true light. The two points to which attention may be directed, as having been generally overlooked, are these:

(i) claims (1) Jerome claims no traditional support for his theory.

tonal " This is a remarkable feature in his treatise against Helvidius.

sanction jje ^g^g tne question solely on critical and theological

theory, grounds. His opponent had claimed the sanction of two older writers, Tertullian and Victorinus of Pettaw. Jerome in reply is obliged to concede him Tertullian, whose authority he invalidates as 'not a member of the Church,' but denies him Victorinus. Can it be doubted that if he could have produced any names on his own side he would only too gladly have done so? When for instance he is maintaining the virginity of the Lord's mother, a feature possessed by his theory in common with the Epiphanian, he is at no loss for authorities: Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin, and many other 'eloquent apostolic men' occur to him at once1. But in support of his own account of the relationship he cannot, or at least does not, name a single writer; he simply offers it as a critical deduction from the statements of Scripture*. Again in his later writings, when he refers to the subject, his tone is the same: 'Some suppose them to have been sons of Joseph: it is my opinion, as I have maintained in my book against Helvidius, that they were the children of Mary the Virgin's sister8.' And the whole tenor of patristic evidence, as I shall hope to show, is in accordance with this tone. No decisive instance can be produced of a writer holding Jerome's view, before it was propounded by Jerome himself.

(ii) and (2) Jerome does not hold his theory staunchly and consis

holditcon- tently. The references to the subject in his works taken in sistently,

1 See however below, p. 31, note 1. tem mihi videtur Mariae sororis matris

3 He sets aside the appeal to autho- Domini Alius'; Comment. inMatth.

rity thus: 'Verum nugas terimns, et xii. 49 (vn. p. 86) 'Quidam fratres

fonte veritatis omisso opinionum rivu- Domini de alia uxore Joseph Alios

los consectamur,' adv. Helvid. 17. suspicantur...no> autcm, sicut in libro

* de Vir. Illustr. 2 ' ut nonnulli ex- quem contra Helvidium scripsimus

istimant, Joseph ex alia uxore; ut au- continetur etc'

chronological order will speak for themselves. The theory is first propounded, as we saw, in the treatise against Helvidius written about 383, when he was a young man. Even here his main point is the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother, to which his own special solution is quite subordinate: he speaks of himself as not caring to fight hard ('contentiosum funem non traho') for the identity of Mary of Cleophas with Mary the mother of James and Joses, though this is the pivot of his theory. And, as time advances, he seems to hold to his hypothesis more and more loosely. In his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 19) written about 387 he speaks very vaguely: he remembers, he says, having when at Rome written a treatise on the subject, with which such as it is he ought to be satisfied (' qualiacunque sunt illa quae scripsimus his contenti esse debemus'); after which he goes on inconsistently enough,'Suffice it now to say that James was called the but wavers Lord's brother on account of his high character, his incomparable faith, and extraordinary wisdom: the other Apostles also are called brothers (John xx. 17; comp. Ps. xxii. 22), but he preeminently so, to whom the Lord at His departure had committed the sons of His mother (i.e. the members of the Church of Jerusalem)'; with more to the same effect: and he concludes by showing that the term Apostle, so far from being confined to the Twelve, has a very wide use, adding that it was 'a monstrous error to identify this James with the Apostle the brother of John1.' In his Catalogue of Illustrious Men (a.d. 392) and in his Commentary on St Matthew (a.d. 398) he adheres to his earlier opinion, referring in the passages already

1 'Quod autem exceptis duodecim morum primus fuit cognomento Justus

quidamvocenturapostoli.illud in causa etc' (vn. p. 396). These are just the

est, omnes qui Dominum viderant et arguments -which would be brought

eum postea praedicabant fuisse aposto- by one maintaining the Epiphani&n ae

los appellatos'; and then after giving count. Altogether Jerome's language

instances (among others 1 Cor. xv. 7) here is that of a man who has commit

he adds, 'Unde vehementer erravit qui ted himself to a theory of which he has

arbitratus est Jacobum hunc de evange- misgivings, and yet from which he is

lio esse apostolum fratrem Johannis;... not bold enough to break loose, hie autem Jacobus episcopus Hierosoly

quoted1 to his treatise against Helvidius, and taunting those

who considered the Lord's brethren to be the sons of Joseph by

a former wife with 'following the ravings of the apocryphal

writings and inventing a wretched creature (mulierculam)

and seems Melcha or Eschaby name*.' Yet after all in a still later work,

to aban- the Epistle to Hedibia (about 406 or 407), enumerating the

on Maries of the Gospels he mentions Mary of Cleophas the

maternal aunt of the Lord and Mary the mother of James and

Joses as distinct persons, adding 'although others contend that

the mother of James and Joses was His aunt*.' Yet this

identification, of which he here speaks with such indifference,

was the keystone of his own theory. Can it be that by his long

residence in Bethlehem, having the Palestinian tradition

brought more prominently before him, he first relaxed his hold

of and finally relinquished his own hypothesis?

If these positions are correct, tne Hieronymian view has no

claim to any traditional sanction—in other words, there is no

reason to believe that time has obliterated any secondary

evidence in its favour—and it must therefore be investigated

on its own merits.

Objections And compact and plausible as it may seem at first sight,

rome's the theory exposes, when examined, many vulnerable parts.

(lfiF f W ^ne instances alleged notwithstanding, the sense thus

the word assigned to 'brethren' seems to be unsupported by biblical Brethren. ° „ . , , . , ,

usage. In an anectionate and earnest appeal intended to

move the sympathies of the hearer, a speaker might not unnaturally address a relation or a friend or even a fellowcountryman as his 'brother.' And even when speaking of such to a third person he might through warmth of feeling and under certain aspects so designate him. But it is scarcely conceivable that the cousins of any one should be commonly and indeed exclusively styled his 'brothers' by indifferent persons; still less, that one cousin in particular should be singled out and described in this loose way, 'James the Lord's brother.'

1 See p. 10, note 3. a very exact representation of HEtt

2 'Sequentes deliramenta apocry- (Ishah). On the other hand, making phorum et quandam Melcham vel Es- allowance for the uncertain vocalisation chammulierculamconfingentes.'Comm. of the Hebrew, the two daughters of i'n Matth. 1. c. 'Nemo non videt,' says Haran (Gen. xi. 29) bear identically the Blom, p. 116, 'illud nomen flC'X [wife, same names: 'the father of Milcah (lxx woman] esse mere fiotitium, nee minus MtXxd) and the father of Iscah (H3D*) posterius [prius]rD7D [queen].'(Comp. (lxx 'Iarxi).' Doubtless these names Julius Africanus in Routh's Eel. Sacr. were borrowed thence.

n. p. 233, 339.) If so, the work 'Epist. oxx, i. p. 826. Comp.

must have been the production of some Tischendorrs Evang. Apocr. p. 104. Jewish Christian. But Escha is not

(2) But again: the Hieronymian theory when completed (?) Re'a" supposes two, if not three, of the Lord's brethren to be in the Lord's number of the Twelve. This is hardly reconcileable with the t0 the place they hold in the Evangelical narratives, where theyTwelveappear sometimes as distinct from, sometimes as antagonistic to the Twelve. Only a short time before the crucifixion they are disbelievers in the Lord's divine mission (John vii. 5). Is it likely that St John would have made this unqualified statement, if it were true of one only or at most of two out of the four? Jerome sees the difficulty and meets it by saying that James was 'not one of those that disbelieved.' But what if Jude and Simon also belong to the Twelve? After the Lord's Ascension, it is true, His brethren appear in company with the Apostles, and apparently by this time their unbelief has been converted into faith. Yet even on this later occasion, though with the Twelve, they are distinguished from the Twelve; for the latter are described as assembling in 'prayer 'with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and [with] His brethren' (Acts i. 14).

And scarcely more consistent is this theory with what we especially know of James and Jude in particular. James, as the resident Jude. bishop or presiding elder of the mother Church, held a position hardly compatible with the world-wide duties which devolved on the Twelve. It was the essential feature of his office that he should be stationary; of theirs, that they should move about from place to place. If on the other hand he appears sometimes to be called an Apostle (though not one of the passages

alleged is free from ambiguity), this term is by no means confined to the Twelve and might therefore be applied to him in its wider sense, as it is to Barnabas1. Again, Jude on his part seems to disclaim the title of an Apostle (ver. 17); and if so, he cannot have been one of the Twelve.

(3) Their (3) But again: the Lord's brethren are mentioned in the with Jo- Gospels in connexion with Joseph His reputed father and Mary Mary ^s mother. never once with Mary of Clopas (the assumed wife

of Alphaeus). It would surely have been otherwise, if the latter Mary were really their mother.

(4) James (4) Jerome lays great stress on the epithet minor applied

(116 16SS.

to James, as if it implied two only, and even those who impugn his theory seem generally to acquiesce in his rendering. But the Greek gives not 'James the less' but 'James the little' (o puipo<;). Is it not most natural then to explain this epithet of his height2 ?' There were many of the name of James,' says Hegesippus, and the short stature of one of these might well serve as a distinguishing mark. This interpretation at all events must be regarded as more probable than explaining it either of his comparative youth or of inferior rank and influence. It will be remembered that there is no Scriptural or early sanction for speaking of the son of Zebedee as 'James the Great.'

(5) The (5) The manner in which Jude is mentioned in the lists of Jude in the the Twelve is on this hypothesis full of perplexities. In the j^l°g first place it is necessary to translate 'IaKco(3ov not 'the son'

but 'the brother of James,' though the former is the obvious rendering and is supported by two of the earliest versions, the Peshito Syriac and the Thebaic, while two others, the Old Latin and Memphitic, leave the ellipsis unsupplied and thus preserve the ambiguity of the original. But again, if Judas were the brother of James, would not the Evangelist's words have run more naturally,'James the son of Alphaeus and Jude

1 See Galatiaus, p. 95. ring to stature, as appears from Plato,

3 As in Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 2 'Kpurrb- Symp. 173 B; and in Arii/t. Ran. 708 Sriiuiy rbv iwipbv iriKa\oi/uvov, refer- K\eiyh>ris i niKpbs.

his brother,' or ' James and Jude the sons of Alphaeus,' as in the

case of the other pairs of brothers? Then again, if Simon

Zelotes is not a brother of James, why is he inserted by St

Luke between the two? If he also is a brother, why is the

designation of brotherhood ('Ia/co<5/3ov) attached to the name of

Judas only?

Moreover in the different lists of the three Evangelists the

Apostle in question is designated in three different ways. In

St Matthew (x. 3) he is called Lebbaeus (at least according to a

well-supported reading); in St Mark (iii. 18) Thaddaeus; and

in St Luke 'Jude of James.' St John again having occasion

to mention him (xiv. 22) distinguishes him by a negative,

'Judas not Iscariot1.' Is it possible, if he were the Lord's

brother Judas, he would in all these places have escaped being

so designated, when this designation would have fixed the

person meant at once?

(6) Lastly; in order to maintain the Hieronymian theory (6) Punc. . *' . . . tuation of

it is necessary to retain the common punctuation of John xix. j0h. xix.

25, thus making ' Mary of Clopas' the Virgin's sister. But it is'

at least improbable that two sisters should have borne the same

name. The case of the Herodian family is scarcely parallel, for

1 The perplexity is increased by seems no reason for doubting this very the Curetonian Syriac, which for 'Ioi5- early tradition that he also was a Jude.

fas ovx & 'laKapulmii reads K'.IOcn* At the same time i4 is ^^7 impro

. bable that St John should have called

ndSOOr**, 'Judas Thomas,' i.e. the ^^ Ap08tle ^^ ^^

'Judas the Twin.' It seems therefore (Joh. xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24 etc.) and here

that the translator took the person in- Judas, and we may therefore conclude

tended by St John to be not the Judas that he is speaking of two different per

Jacobi in the list of the Twelve, but song. The name of the other brother

the Thomas Didymus, for Thomas was is supplied in Clem. Hom. ii. i lrpoatri

commonly called Judas in the Syrian Si Gu/uas Kox 'EWfepos ol SlSvnoi. Church; e.g. Euseb. H. E. i. 13 'loiSiu The Thebaic version again for oi)x

6 Kox Ouuas, and Acta Thomae 1 'lo6Sq. i 'laKapiilirris substitutes 6 KaraWrip.

6uM9 rip Ko.1 MSifup (ed. Tisch. p. 190); Similarly in Matth. x. 3 for OaSSaios

see Assemani Bibl. Orient, i. pp. 100, some of the most important uss of the

318, Cureton's Syriac Gospels p. Ii, Old Latin have 'Judas Zelotes'; and in

Ane. Syr. Documents p. 33. As the Canon of Gelasius Jude the writer

Thomas (auvmos), 'the Twin,' is pro- of the epistle is so designated. This

perly a surname, and this Apostle must points to some connexion or confusion

have had some other name, there with Simon Zelotes. See p. 9, note.

Jerome's hypothesis must be abandoned

Herod was a family name, and it is unlikely that a humble Jewish household should have copied a practice which must lead to so much confusion. Here it is not unlikely that a tradition underlies the Peshito rendering which inserts a conjunction: 'His mother and his mother's sister, and Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene1.' The Greek at all events .admits, even if it does not favour, this interpretation, for the arrangement of names in couples has a parallel in the lists of the Apostles (e.g. Matt. x. 2—4).

I have shown then, if I mistake not, that St Jerome pleaded no traditional authority for his theory, and that therefore the evidence in its favour is to be sought in Scripture alone. I have examined the Scriptural evidence, and the conclusion seems to be, that though this hypothesis, supplemented as it has been by subsequent writers, presents several striking coincidences which attract attention, yet it involves on the other hand a combination of difficulties—many of these arising out of the very elements in the hypothesis which produce the coincidences—which more than counterbalances these secondary arguments in its favour, and in fact must lead to its rejection, if any hypothesis less burdened with difficulties can be found.

Thus, as compared with the Hieronymian view, both the Epiphanian and the Hel vidian have higher claims to acceptance. They both assign to the word brethren its natural meaning; they both recognise the main facts related of the Lord's brethren in the Gospels—their unbelief, their distinctness from the Twelve, their connexion with Joseph and Mary—and they both avoid the other difficulties which the Hieronymian theory creates.

and replaced by one of the remaining two.

1 See Wieseler Die S'dhne Zebedai etc. p. 672. This writer identifies the sister of the Lord's mother (John xix. 25) with Salome (Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1), who again is generally identified with the mother of Zebedee's children (Matt, xxvii. 56); and thus James and John, the sons of Zebedee, are made cousins of our Lord. Compare the pseudo-Papias, (below p. 25, note); and see the various reading 'lu&rmjs for 'lua^<p in the list of the Lord's brethren in Matt. xiii. 55. But as we are told that there were many other women present also (Mark xv. 41, comp. Luke xxiv. 10),— one of whom, Joanna, is mentioned by

name—both these identifications must be considered precarious. It would be strange that no hint should be given in the Gospels of the relationship of the sons of Zebedee to our Lord, if it existed.

The Jerusalem Syriac lectionary gives the passage John xix. 25 not less than three times. In two of these places (pp. 387, 541, the exception being p. 445) a stop is put after 'His mother's sister,' thus separating the words from 'Mary of Cleophas' and suggesting by punctuation the same interpretation which the Peshito fixes by inserting a conjunction.

And moreover they both exhibit a coincidence which de- A coinserves notice. A very short time before the Lord's death His common brethren refuse to accept His mission: they are still unbelievers.to" Immediately after His ascension we find them gathered together with the Apostles, evidently recognising Him as their Master. Whence comes this change? Surely the crucifixion of one who professed to be the Messiah was not likely to bring it about. He had claimed to be King of Israel and He had been condemned as a malefactor: He had promised His followers a triumph and He had left them persecution. Would not all this confirm rather than dissipate their former unbelief? An incidental statement of St Paul explains all; 'Then He was seen of Jamea' At the time when St Paul wrote, there was but one person eminent enough in the Church to be called James simply without any distinguishing epithet—the Lord's brother, the bishop of Jerusalem. It might therefore reasonably be concluded that this James is here meant. And this view is confirmed by an extant fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the most important of all the apocryphal gospels, which seems to have preserved more than one true tradition, and which expressly relates the appearance of our Lord to His brother James1 after His resurrection.

This interposition, we may suppose, was the turning-point in the religious life of the Lord's brethren; the veil was removed at once and for ever from their hearts. In this way the antagonistic notices in the Gospels—first the disbelief of the Lord's brethren, and then their assembling together with the Apostles—are linked together; and harmony is produced out of discord.

1 See below, p. 26.

Objections Two objections however are brought against both these

theories, which the Hieronymian escapes, (l) Bepeti- (1) They both, it is objected, assume the existence of two names. pairs of cousins bearing the same names, James and Joseph the sons of Alphaeus, and James and Joseph the Lord's brothers. If moreover we accept the statement of Hegesippus1 that James was succeeded in the bishopric of Jerusalem by Symeon son of Clopas, and also admit the identification of Clopas with Alphaeus, we get a third name Symeon or Simeon common to the two families. Let us see what this objection really amounts to. Cousin- It will be seen that the cousinhood of these persons is

either represented as a cousinhood on the mothers' side, and that it depends on three assumptions: (1) The identification of James the son of Alphaeus in the list of the Twelve with James the Little the son of Mary: (2) The identification of 'Mary of Clopas' in St John with Mary the mother of James and Joses in the other Evangelists: (3) The correctness of the received punctuation of John xix. 25, which makes ' Mary of Clopas' the Virgin's sister. If any one of these be rejected, this cousinhood falls to the ground. Yet of these three assumptions the second alone can safely be pronounced more likely than not* (though we are expressly told that 'many other women' were present), for it avoids the unnecessary multiplication of Maries. The first must be considered highly doubtful, seeing that James was a very common name; while the third is most improbable, for it gives two sisters both called Mary—a difficulty far surpassing that of supposing two or even three cousins bearing the same name. On the other hand, if, admitting the second identification and supplying the ellipsis in 'Mary of Clopas' by 'wife5,' we combine with it the statement of Hegesippus1 that Clopas the father of Symeon was brother of Joseph, we get three cousins, James, Joses, and Symeon, on their fathers' side. Yet or fathers' this result again must be considered on the whole improbable, probable. I see no reason indeed for doubting the testimony of Hegesippus, who was perhaps born during the lifetime of this Symeon, and is likely to have been well informed. But the chances are against the other hypotheses, on which it depends, being both of them correct. The identification of Clopas and Alphaeus will still remain an open question*.

mothers'

1 See below, p. 29 sq. the daughter or the wife or the mother

3 Eusebius however makes 'Mary of of Clopas, this expression has been com

Clopas' a different person from Mary bined with the statement of Hegesippus

the mother of James and Joses; in various ways. See for instance the

Quaest. ad Marin, ii. 5 (Op. iv. p. 945, apocryphal gospels, Pieudo-Matth. Ev

Migne). ang. 52 (ed. Tisch. p. 104), Evamj. Inf.

* As ^ rov KXura may mean either Arab. 29 (ib. p. 186), and the marginal note on the Philoxenian version, Joh. xix. 25, besides other references which will be given in the account of the patristic authorities.

1 The statement of Hegesippus suggests a solution which would remove the difficulty. We might suppose the two Maries to have been called sisters, as having been married to two brothers; but is there any authority for ascribing to the Jews an extension of the term 'sister' which modern usage scarcely sanctions?

3 Of the three names Alpha-us (the father of Levi or Matthew, Mark ii. 14, and the father of James, Matt. x. 3, Mark iii. 18, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13), Clopai (the husband or father or son of Mary, Joh. xix. 25), and Cleopai (the disciple journeying to Emmaus, Luke xziv. 18), it is considered that the two former are probably identical, and the two latter certainly distinct. Both positions may be disputed with some reason. In forming a judgment, the following points deserve to be considered; (1) In the Greek text there is no variation of reading worth mentioning; Clopas is certainly the reading in St John, and Cleopas in St Luke. (2) The versions however bring them together. Cleopee (or Cleophoe) is read in the Pesbito, Old Latin, Memphitic, Vulgate, and Armenian text of St John. (3) Of these the evidence of the Peshito is par

ticularly important in a matter relating to Aramaic names. While for 'A.\<paios in all five places it restores what was doubtless the original Aramaic form *i£ulw, Ghalphai; on the other hand,

it gives the same word r^&OaJLfi Kleopha (i.e. KXiiras) in Luke xxiv. 18 and in John xix. 25, if the printed texts may be trusted. The Jerusalem Syriac too renders KXiinrai by cv»Qi/> .\ n (Kleophas), and 'AX^aioj by ,»r<£AA*» (Chalphai). (4) The form KXonris, which St John's text gives, is confirmed by Hegesippus (Euseb. II. E. iii. 11), and there is every reason to believe that this was a common mode of writing so me proper name or other with those acquainted with Aramaic; but it is difficult to see why, if the word intended to be represented were Chalphai, they should not have reproduced it more exactly in Greek. The name XaX^l in fact does occur in 1 Maoc. xL 70. (5) It is true that KXeiras is strictly a Greek name contracted from KXeirrarpoj, like 'Av-rtras from 'akt/rotpos, etc. But it was a common practice with the Jews to adopt the genuine Greek name which bore the closest resemblance in sound totheirown Aramaicname, either side by side with it or in place of it, as Simon for Symeon, Jason for Jesus; and thus a man, whose real Aramaic

But, whether they were cousins or not, does the fact of two families having two or three names in common constitute any real difficulty? Is not this a frequent occurrence among ourselves? It must be remembered too that the Jewish names in ordinary use at this time were very few, and that these three, James, Joses, and Symeon, were among the most common, being consecrated in the affections of the Jews from patriarchal times. In the list of the Twelve the name of James appears twice, Symeon twice. In the New Testament no less than twelve persons bear the name of Symeon or Simon, and nearly as many that of Joseph or Joses1. In the index to Josephus may be counted nineteen Josephs, and twentyfive Simons1.

The names
are com-
mon.

name was Clopas, might grecize the
word and call himself Cleopas. On
these grounds it appears to me that,
viewing the question as one of names
merely, it is quite as reasonable to
identify Clopas with Cleopas as with
Alphseus. But the identification of
names does not carry with it the iden-
tification of persons. St Paul's Epa-
phras for instance is probably a dif-
ferent person from his Epaphroditus.

A Jewish name 'Alfius' occurs in
an inscription Alkivh . Ivda . Abcon .
ARCosiNAGOovs (Insor. Gudii, p. cclxiii.
5), and possibly this is the Latin sub-
stitute for Chalphai or Chalphi, as'AX-
4>iuos is the Greek; Alfius being a not
uncommon Latin name. One would be
tempted to set down his namesake also,
the ' fenerator Alfius' or 'Alphius' of
Horace (Epod. ii. 67, see Columella i.
7. 2), for a fellow countryman, if hie
talk were not so pagan.

1 I am arguing on the supposition that Joses and Joseph are the same name, but this is at least doubtful. In St Matthew, according to the best authorities, the Lord's brother (xiii. 55) is 'lu<rfi<p, the son of Mary (xxvii. 56) Iuatjs. In St Mark on the other hand the latter word is found (the genitive being differently written 'Iuarjrn or 'lu<nj, though probably Tregelles is right in preferring the former in all

three passages), whether referring to the Lord's brother (vi. 3) or to the son of Mary (xv. 40, 47). Thus if existing authorities in the text of St Mark are to be trusted, there is no distinction between the names. Yet I am disposed to think with Wieseler (die S'ohne Zebeddi etc, p. 678) that St Matthew's text suggests the real difference, and that the original reading in Mark vi. 3 was '1wiw>; but if so, the corruption was very ancient and very general, for 'Iuaij<p is found in K alone of the uncial manuscripts. A similar confusion of these names appears in the case of Barsabbas, Acts i. 23, and Barnabas, iv. 36; in the former case we find a various reading • Joses' for 'Joseph,' in the latter we should almost certainly read'Joseph' for 'Joses' of the received text. I am disposed to think the identification of the names Joses and Joseph improbable for two reasons: (1) It seems unlikely that the same name should be represented in Greek by two such divergent forms as 'iuwtjs, making a genitive 'luoijtos, and 'Iurii<f> or'Ii&njros, which perhaps (replaced by a genuine Greek name) became 'Hyijo-irroj. (2) The Peshito in the case of the commoner Hebrew or Aramaic names restores the original form in place of the somewhat disfigured Greek equivalent, e.g. Juchanon for 'luawris, Zabdai for Ze/9eSaun. Following this rule, it ought, if 1 The popularity of this name is

And moreover is not the difficulty, if difficulty there be, diminished rather than increased on the supposition of the cousinhood of these two families? The name of a common ancestor or a common relative naturally repeats itself in households connected with each other. And from this point of view it is worthy of notice that the names in question actually occur in the genealogies of our Lord. Joseph's father is Jacob or James in St Matthew (i. 15, 16); and in St Luke's table, exclusively of our Lord's reputed father, the name Joseph or Joses occurs twice at least8 in a list of thirty-four direct ancestors.

(2) When a certain Mary is described as 'the mother of (2) 'Mary James,' is it not highly probable that the person intended 0f James.' should be the most celebrated of the name—James the Just, the bishop of Jerusalem, the Lord's brother? This objection to both the Epiphanian and Helvidian theories is at first sight not without force, but it will not bear examination. Why, we may ask, if the best known of all the Jameses were intended here, should it be necessary in some passages to add the name of a brother Joses also, who was a person of no special mark in the Church (Matt, xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40)? Why again in others should this Mary be designated 'the mother of Joses' alone (Mark xv. 47), the name of his more famous brother being

the names were identical, to have re- probably due to Simon Maccabeus, stored Att>flu (Joseph) for the Greek 3 And perhaps not more than twioe

'Iuwifa (w. 24, 30). In ver. 26 'Wfa I<^,inplaceofwhichithasr<i»CU seemg to be the right reading) where

(JosI, Jausi, or Jusi). In Matt, xxvii. the received text has 'iuot^; and in

56, Mark xv. 40, the Memphitio Ver- ver. 29 'i7jo-oo, where it has 'Iaarj.

sion separates Uapla [ri Too] 'Io/«i/Sov Possibly 'lao-fa mav be a corruption

[too /uKpoS] and 'Iu<rij[ros] jiifrnj/>, for 'Imr^ through the confusion of f|

making them two different persons. and "|, which in their older forms resem

On the other hand, similar instances ble each other closely; but if so, it is a

of abbreviation, e.g. Ashe for Asher, corruption not of St Luke's text, but of

Jochana for Jochanan, Shabba for the Hebrew or Aramaic document from

Shabbath, are produced; see Delitzsch which the genealogy was derived, in Laurent Neutest. Stud. p. 168.

suppressed? In only two passages is she called simply 'the mother of James'; in Mark xvi. 1, where it is explained by the fuller description which has gone before 'the mother of James and Joses' (xv. 40); and in Luke xxiv. 10, where no such explanation can be given. It would seem then that this Mary and this James, though not the most famous of their respective names and therefore not at once distinguishable when mentioned alone, were yet sufficiently well known to be discriminated from others, when their names appeared in conjunction. The two The objections then which may be brought against both

theories .... . . . .

compared, these theories m common are not very serious; and up to this point in the investigation they present equal claims to acceptance. The next step will be to compare them together, in order to decide which of the two must yield to the other, (l) Rala- 1. The Epiphanian view assumes that the Lord's brethren

brethren " ^d really no relationship with Him; and so far the Helvidian

to Joseph hg^ t}je advantage. But this advantage is rather seeming than and Mary. ° ° °

real. It is very natural that those who called Joseph His

father should call Joseph's sons His brethren. And it must be

remembered that this designation is given to Joseph not only

by strangers from whom at all events the mystery of the

Incarnation was veiled, but by the Lord's mother herself who

knew all (Luke ii. 48). Even the Evangelist himself, about

whose belief in the miraculous conception of Christ there can

be no doubt, allows himself to speak of Joseph and Mary as

'His father and mother' and 'His parents1.' Nor again is it

any argument in favour of the Helvidian account as compared

with the Epiphanian, that the Lord's brethren are found in

company of Mary rather than of Joseph. Joseph appears in

the evangelical history for the last time when Jesus is twelve

years old (Luke ii . 43); during the Lord's ministry he is never

once seen, though Mary comes forward again and again. There

can be little doubt therefore that he had died meanwhile.

1 Lake ii. 33 6 rariip airoO Km i have taken offence and substituted n-fynip, ii. 41, 43 ol yovus airov, the 'Joseph and Mary,' 'Joseph and His correct reading. Later transcribers mother,' in all three places.

2. Certain expressions in the evangelical narratives are (2) Virginsaid to imply that Mary bore other children besides the Lord, Mary, and it is even asserted that no unprejudiced person could interpret them otherwise. The justice of this charge may be fairly questioned. The context in each case seems to suggest another explanation of these expressions, which does not decide anything one way or the other. St Matthew writes that Joseph 'knew not' his wife 'till (&0? ov) she brought forth a son' (i. 25)'; while St Luke speaks of her bringing forth 'her firstborn son' (ii. 7). St Matthew's expression however, 'till she brought forth,' as appears from the context, is intended simply to show that Jesus was not begotten in the course of nature; and thus, while it denies any previous intercourse with her husband, it neither asserts nor implies any subsequent intercourse2. Again, the prominent idea conveyed by the term 'firstborn' to a Jew would be not the birth of other children, but the special consecration of this one. The typical reference in fact is foremost in the mind of St Luke, as he himself explains it,' Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord' (ii. 23). Thus 'firstborn' does not necessarily suggest'later-born,' any more than 'son' suggests 'daughter.' The two words together describe the condition under which in obedience to the law a child was consecrated to God. The 'firstborn son' is in fact the Evangelist's equivalent for the 'male that openeth the womb.'

It may indeed be fairly urged that, if the Evangelists had considered the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother a matter of such paramount importance as it was held to be in the fourth and following centuries, they would have avoided expressions which are at least ambiguous and might be taken to imply the contrary; but these expressions are not in themselves fatal to such a belief.

Whether in itself the sentiment on which this belief was

1 rbr rpvrtrroKov ought to be reject- 'For parallel instances see Mill,

ed from St Matthew's text, having p. 304 sq. been interpolated from Luke ii. 7.

founded be true or false, is a fit subject of enquiry; nor can the present question be considered altogether without reference to it. If it be true, then the Epiphanian theory has an advantage over the Helvidian, as respecting or at least not disregarding it; if false, then it may be thought to have suggested that theory, as it certainly did the Hieronymian, and to this extent the theory itself must lie under suspicion. Into this enquiry however it will not be necessary to enter. Only let me say that it is not altogether correct to represent this belief as suggested solely by the false asceticism of the early Church which exalted virginity at the expense of married life. It appears in fact to be due quite as much to another sentiment which the fathers fantastically expressed by a comparison between the conception and the burial of our Lord. As after death His body was placed in a sepulchre 'wherein never man before was laid,' so it seemed fitting that the womb consecrated by His presence should not thenceforth have borne any offspring of man. It may be added also, that the Epiphanian view prevailed especially in Palestine where there was less disposition than elsewhere to depreciate married life, and prevailed too at a time when extreme ascetic views had not yet mastered the Church at large. (3) Our 3. But one objection has been hurled at the Helvidian

ing words, theory with great force, and as it seems to me with fatal effect, which is powerless against the Epiphanian1. Our Lord in His dying moments commended His mother to the keeping of St John; 'Woman, behold thy son.' The injunction was forthwith obeyed, and 'from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home' (John xix. 26, 27). Yet according to the Helvidian view she had no less than four sons besides daughters living at the time. Is it conceivable that our Lord would thus have snapped asunder the most sacred ties of natural affection? The difficulty is not met by the fact that her own sons were

1 This argument is brought forward who all held the view which I have not only by Jerome, but also by Hilary designated by the name of the last of of Poitiers, Ambrose, and Epiphanius, the three.

still unbelievers. This fact would scarcely have been allowed to override the paramount duties of filial piety. But even when so explained, what does this hypothesis require us to believe? Though within a few days a special appearance is vouchsafed to one of these brethren, who is destined to rule the mother Church of Jerusalem, and all alike are converted to the faith of Christ; yet she, their mother, living in the same city and joining with them in a common worship (Acts i. 14), is consigned to the care of a stranger of whose house she becomes henceforth the inmate.

Thus it would appear that, taking the scriptural notices Conclualone, the Hieronymian account must be abandoned; while of the remaining two the balance of the argument is against the Helvidian and in favour of the Epiphanian. To what extent the last-mentioned theory can plead the prestige of tradition, will be seen from the following catena of references to the fathers and other early Christian writings1.

1 The testimony of Papias is frequently quoted at the head of the patristic authorities, as favouring the view of Jerome. The passage in question is an extract, to which the name of this very ancient writer is prefixed, in a Bodleian Ms, no. 2397, of the date 1302 or 1303. It is given in Grabe's Spicil. Ii. p. 34, Routh's Rel. Sacr. I. p. 16, and runs as follows: 'Maria mater Domini: Maria Cleophae, sive Alphei uxor, quae fuit mater Jacobi episcopi et apostoli et Symonis et Thadei et cujusdam Joseph: Maria Salome uxor Zebedei mater Joannis evangelistae et Jacobi: Maria Magdalene: istae quatuor in Evangelio reperiuntur. Jacobus et Judas et Joseph filii erant materterae Domini; Jacobus quoque et Joannes alterius materterae Domini fuernnt filii. Maria Jacobi minoris et Joseph mater, uxor Alphei, soror fuit Mariae matris Domini, quam Cleophae Joannes nominat vel a patre vel a gentilitatis familia vel alia causa. Maria

Salome a viro vel a vioo dicitur: hano eandem Cleophae quidam dicunt quod duos viros habuerit. Maria dicitur illuminatrix sive Stella maris, genuit enim lumen mundi; sermone autem Syro Domiua nuncupatur, quia genuit Dominum.' Grabe's description 'ad marginem expresse adscriptum lego Papia' is incorrect; the name is not in the margin but over the passage as a title to it. The authenticity of this fragment is accepted by Mill, p. 238, and by Dean Alford on Matth. xiii. 55. Two writers also in Smith's Biblical Dictionary (s. vv. 'Brother' and ' James'), respectively impugning and maintaining the Hieronymian view, refer to it without suspicion. It is strange that able and intelligent critics should not have seen through a fabrication whioh is so manifestly spurious. Not to mention the difficulties in whioh we are involved by some of the statements, the following reasons seem conclusive: (1) The last sentence' Maria dicitur etc' is evidently

1. The Gospel According To The Hebrews, one of the earliest and most respectable of the apocryphal narratives, related that the Lord after His resurrection 'went to James and appeared to him; for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which the Lord had drunk the cup (biberat calicem Dominus), till he saw Him risen from the dead.' Jesus therefore 'took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him, My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man has risen from the dead' (Hieron. de Vir. Illustr. 2). I have adopted the reading 'Dominus,' as the Greek translation has Kv/>w?, and it also suits the context better; for the point of time which we should naturally expect is not the institution of the eucharist but the Lord's death1. Our Lord had more than once spoken of His sufferings under very late, and is, as Dr Mill says,' justly time, that the passage was written by a the image of draining the cup (Matt. xx. 22, 23, xxvi. 39, 42, Mark x. 38, 39, xiv. 36, Luke xxii. 42)1; and He is represented as using this metaphor here. If however we retain 'Domini,' it must he allowed that the writer represented James the Lord's brother as present at the last supper, but it does not follow that he regarded him as one of the Twelve. He may have assigned to him a sort of exceptional position such as he holds in the Clementines, apart from and in some respects superior to the Twelve, and thus his presence at this critical time would be accounted for. At all events this passage confirms the tradition that the James mentioned by St Paul (1 Cor. xv. 7) was the Lord's brother; while at the same time it is characteristic of a Judaic writer whose aim it would be to glorify the head of his Church at all hazards, that an appearance, which seems in reality to have been vouchsafed to this James to win him over from his unbelief, should be represented as a reward for his devotion.

Hebrew
Gospel.

rejected by Grabe.' Grabe says, 'ad-
didit is qui descripsit ex suo'; but the
passage is continuous in the Ms, and
there is neither more nor less authority
for assigning this to Fapias than the
remainder of the extract. (2) The state-
ment about' Maria uxor Alphei' is taken
from Jerome (adv.Helvid.) almost word
for word, as Dr Mill has seen; and it is
purely arbitrary to rejeot this as spuri-
ous and accept the rest as genuine.
(3) The writings of Papias were in Je-
rome's hands, and eager as he was
to claim the support of authority, he
could not have failed to refer to testi-
mony which was so important and
which so entirely confirms his view
in the most minute points. Nor is it
conceivable that a passage like this,
coming from so early a writer, should
not have impressed itself very strongly
on the ecclesiastical tradition of the
early centuries, whereas in fact we dis-
cover no traces of it.

For these reasons the extract seemed
to be manifestly spurious; but I might
have saved myself the trouble of ex-
amining the Bodleian Ms and writing
these remarks, if I had known at the

mediaeval namesake of the Bishop of Hierapolis, Papias the author of the 'Elementarium,' who lived in the 11th century. This seems to have been a standard work in its day, and was printed four times in the 15th century under the name of the Lexicon or Vocabulist. I have not had access to a printed copy, but there is a Ms of the work (marked Kk. 4. 1) in the Cambridge University Library, the knowledge of which I owe to Mr Bradshaw, the librarian. The variations from the Bodleian extract are unimportant. It is strange that though Grabe actually mentions the later Papias the author of the Dictionary, and Routh copies his note, neither the one nor the other got on the right track. I made the discovery while the first edition of this work was passing through the press [1865].

1 There might possibly have been an ambiguity in the Hebrew original owing to the absence of case-endings, as Blom suggests (p. 83): but it is more probable that a transcriber of Jerome carelessly wrote down the familiay phrase 'the cup of the Lord.'

2. The Gospel According To Peter was highly esteemed Gospel of by the Docetae of the second century. Towards the close of that century, Serapion, bishop of Antioch, found it in circulation at Rhossus a Cilician town, and at first tolerated it: but finding on examination that, though it had much in common with the Gospels recognised by the Catholic Church, there were sentiments in it favourable to the heretical views that were secretly gaining ground there, he forbad its use. In the fragment of Serapion preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 12)*, from which our information is derived, he speaks of this apocryphal work as if it had been long in circulation, so that its date must be about the middle of the second century at the latest, and probably somewhat earlier. To this gospel Origen refers, as stating that the Lord's brethren were Joseph's sons by a former wife and thus maintaining the virginity of the Lord's mother*.

1 Comp. Mart. Polyc. 14 iv T$ ro- Sacr. i. p. 452, and Westoott History t7jpii(i Toy XpwTov aov. of the Canon, p. 385.

3 For this fragment see Routh's Rel. * See below, p. 35.

Protevan- 3. Protevangelium Jacobi, a purely fictitious but very andother earty narrative, dating probably not later than the middle of a'hfljry* the second century, represents Joseph as an old man when the gospels. Virgin was espoused to him, having sons of his own (§ 9, ed. Tisch. p. 18) but no daughters (§ 17, p. 31), and James the writer of the account apparently as grown up at the time of Herod's death (§ 25, p. 48). Following in this track, subsequent apocryphal narratives give a similar account with various modifications, in some cases naming Joseph's daughters or his wife. Such are the Pseudo-Matikcei Evang. (§ 32, ed. Tisch. p. 104), Evang. de Nativ. Mar. (§ 8, ib. p. Ill), Historia Joseph. (§ 2, ib. p. 116), Evang. Thomce (§ 16, p. 147), Evang. Infant. Arab. (§ 35, p. 191), besides the apocryphal Gospels mentioned by Jerome (Comm. in Matth. T. VII. p. 86) which were different from any now extant1. Doubtless these accounts, so far as they step beyond the incidents narrated in the Canonical Gospels, are pure fabrications, but the fabrications would scarcely have taken this form, if the Hieronymian view of the Lord's brethren had been received or even known when they were written. It is to these sources that Jerome refers when he taunts the holders of the Epiphanian view with following 'deliramenta apocryphorum.' Older 4. The Earliest Versions, with the exception of the Old

ereions. Ijatin and Memphitic which translate the Greek literally and preserve the same ambiguities, give renderings of certain passages bearing on the subject, which are opposed to the Hieronymian view. The CuRETONlAN Syriac translates Mapla 'iaiewfiou (Luke xxiv. 10) 'Mary the daughter of James.' The Peshito in John xix. 25 has, 'His mother and His mother's sister and Mary of Cleopha and Mary Magdalene'; and in Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13, it renders 'Judas son of James.' One of the old Egyptian versions again, the Thebaic, in John xix. 25 gives 'Mary daughter of Clopas,' and in Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13 'Judas son of James.'

As appears from the fact mentioned by Jerome; see above, p. 12, note 2.

5. The Clementine Homilies, written, it would appear, ciemennot late in the second century to support a peculiar phase of writings. Ebionism, speak of James as being 'called the brother of the Lord' (o Xe^ei? dSe\<pb<; rod Kvpiov, xi. 35), an expression which has been variously interpreted as favouring all three hypotheses (see Blom, p. 88: Schliemann Clement, pp. 8, 213), and is indecisive in itself1. It is more important to observe that in the Epistle of Clement prefixed to this work and belonging to the same cycle of writings James is styled not Apostle, but Bishop of Bishops, and seems to be distinguished from and in some respects exalted above the Twelve.

6. In the portion of the Clementine Recognitions, which seems to have been founded on the Ascents Of James, another very early Ebionite writing*, the distinction thus implied in the Homilies is explicitly stated. The Twelve Apostles after disputing severally with Caiaphas give an account of their conference to James the chief of Bishops; while James the son of Alphaeus is distinctly mentioned among the Twelve as one of the disputants (i. 59).

7. Hegesippus (about 160), a Hebrew Christian of Pales- Hegesip tine, writes as follows: 'After the martyrdom of James thep Just on the same charge as the Lord, his paternal uncle's child Symeon the son of Clopas is next made bishop, who was put forward by all as the second in succession, being cousin of the Lord' (fiera To fiaprvprjcai 'la/iwftov rbv Slieaiov <»? Kal 6 Kvptoi eirl r<p avrw \6yq>, iraXiv 6 e/i rod $eiov avrov Xvfieiov

6 rov KXwira naQlararai eVtir/toTro?, bv irpoeBevro Travres ovra dveifribv rod Kvpiov Sevrepov", Euseb. H. E. iv. 22). If the passage be correctly rendered thus (and this rendering alone seems intelligible4), Hegesippus distinguishes between the relationships of James the Lord's brother and Symeon His cousin. So again, referring apparently to this passage, he in another fragment (Euseb. H. E. iii. 32) speaks of 'the child of the Lord's paternal uncle, the aforesaid Symeon son of Clopas' (o iie deiov Tov K.vpt,ov 6 irpoeipr/fievos 2u/xeojj> vlbs Kxtotto), to which Eusebius adds, 'for Hegesippus relates that Clopas was the brother of Joseph.' Thus in Hegesippus Symeon is never once called the Lord's brother, while James is always so designated. And this argument powerful in itself is materially strengthened by the fact that, where Hegesippus has occasion to mention Jude, he too like James is styled 'the Lord's brother'; 'There still survived members of the Lord's family (ol diro yevovi Tov Kvpiov) grandsons of Judas who was called His brother according to the flesh' (tov Kara adpKa. \eyo/ievov avrov d8e\xf>ov); Euseb. H. E. iii. 20. In this passage the word 'called' seems to me to point to the Epiphanian rather than the Helvidian view, the brotherhood of these brethren, like the fatherhood of Joseph, being reputed but not real. In yet another passage (Euseb. H. E. ii. 23) Hegesippus relates that 'the Church was committed in conjunction with the Apostles1 to the charge of (BiaBi^erat Tijv iKKK/qaLav fierd Twv diroaroKwv) the Lord's brother James, who has been entitled Just by all from the Lord's time to our own day; for many bore the name of James.' From this last passage however no inference can be safely drawn; for, supposing the term 'Apostles' to be here restricted

1 The word \i%Btis is most naturally 3 For Sevrepav comp. Euseb. H. E.

taken, I think, to refer to the reputed iii. 14.

brotherhood of James, as a consequence 4 A different meaning however has

of the reputed fatherhood of Joseph, been assigned to the words: ri\iv and

and thus to favourtheEpiphanian view. Sevrepov being taken to signify 'another

See the expressions of Hegesippus, and child of his uncle, another cousin,' and

of Eusebias, pp. 277, 278. thus the passage has been represented

2 See the next dissertation. as favouring the Hieronymian view. So

for instance Mill p. 253, Schuf p. 64. Eusebius (I.e.) and Epiphanius (Haar.

On the other hand see Credner Einl. pp. 636, 1039, 1046, ed. Fetav.) must

p. 575, Neander Pftanz. p. 559 (4te have interpreted the words as I have

aufl.). To this rendering the presence done.

of the definite article alone seems fatal Whether avroC should be referred to

(d U Tov Velov not frepos rm in Tov 6iiov); 'UKupov or to Kvpios is doubtful. If

but indeed the whole passage appears to to the former, this alone decides the

be framed so as to distinguish the rela- meaning of the passage. This seems

tionships of the two persons; whereas, the more natural reference of the two,

had the author's object been to repre- but the form of expression will admit

sent Symeon as a brother of James, no either.

more circuitous mode could well have 1 Jerome (de Vir. III. § 2) renders it

been devised for the purpose of stating 'post apostolos, 'asif^ier&rovi droar 6

so very simple a fact. Let me add that Xoiii; Rufinus correctly' cum apostolis.'

to the Twelve, the expression ^iera Twv airoaroXxov may distinguish St James not from but among the Apostles; as in Acts v. 29,'Peter and the Apostles answered.'

Thus the testimony of Hegesippus seems distinctly opposed to the Hieronymian view, while of the other two it favours the Epiphanian rather than the Helvidian. If any doubt still remains, the fact that both Eusebius and Epiphanius, who derived their information mainly from Hegesippus, gave this account of the Lord's brethren materially strengthens the position. The testimony of an early Palestinian writer who made it his business to collect such traditions is of the utmost importance.

8. Tertullian's authority was appealed to by Helvidius, Tertuland Jerome is content to reply that he was not a member of the Church (' de Tertulliano nihil amplius dico quam ecclesiae hominem non fuisse,' adv. Helvid. § 17). It is generally assumed in consequence that Tertullian held the Lord's brethren to be sons of Joseph and Mary. This assumption, though probable, is not absolutely certain. The point at issue in this passage is not the particular opinion of Helvidius respecting the Lord's brethren, but the virginity of the Lord's mother. Accordingly in reply Jerome alleges on his own side the authority of others1, whose testimony certainly did not go

1 'Numquid non possum tibi totum subsequent writers, he speaks of the

veterum scriptorum seriem commove- virginity of Mary as a mystery, but

re: Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenaeum, this refers distinctly to the time before

Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios the birth of our Lord. To this passage

apostolioos et eloquentes viros?' (adv. which he elsewhere quotes (Comment.

Helvid. 17). I have elsewhere (Ga- in Matth. T. vn. p. 12), Jerome is

lotions p. 130, note 3) mentioned an doubtless referring here, instance of the unfair way in which In Cowper's Syriac MisceU. p. 61,

Jerome piles together his authorities. I find an extract, 'Justin one of the

In the present case we are in a posi- authors who were in the days of Augus

tion to test him. Jerome did not tus and Tiberius and Gaius wrote in the

possess any writings of Ignatius which third discourse: That Mary the Gali

ore not extant now; and in no place lean, who was the mother of Christ who

does this apostolic father maintain the was crucified in Jerusalem, had not

perpetual virginity of St Mary. In been with a husband. And Joseph did

one remarkable passage indeed (Ephes. not repudiate her, but Joseph continued

19), which is several times quoted by in holiness without a wife, he and his

beyond this one point and had no reference to the relationship of the Lord's brethren. Thus too the more distinct passages in the extant writings of Tertullian relate to the virginity only (de Cam. Christ, c. 23 and passim, de Monog. c. 8). Elsewhere however, though he does not directly state it, his argument seems to imply that the Lord's brethren were His brothers in the same sense in which Mary was His mother (adv. Marc. iv. 19, de Cam. Christ. 7). It is therefore highly probable that he held the Helvidian view. Such an admission from one who was so strenuous an advocate of asceticism is worthy of notice. 9. Clement Of Alexandria (about A.d. 200) in a passage of the Hypotyposeis preserved in a Latin translation by Cassiodorus (the authorship has been questioned but without sufficient reason1) puts forward the Epiphanian solution; 'Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, being one of the sons of Joseph and [the Lord's] brother, a man of deep piety, though he was aware of his relationship to the Lord, nevertheless did not say he was His brother; but what said he? Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, because He was his Lord, but brother of James; for this is true; he was his brother, being Joseph's [son]'1 (ed. Potter, p. 1007). This statement is explicit. On the other hand, owing to an extract preserved in Eusebius, his authority is generally claimed for the Hieronymian view; 'Clement,' says Eusebius, 'in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis gives the Quotafollowing account: Peter and James and John, he tells us, after Eusebius. the resurrection of Hie Saviour were not ambitious of honour, though the preference shown them by the Lord might have entitled them to it, but chose James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem. The same writer too in the seventh book of the same treatise gives this account also of him (James the Lord's brother); The Lord after the resurrection delivered the gnosis to James the Just' and

Clement of Alexandria.

Latin
fragment.

five sons by a former wife: and Mary
continued without a husband.' The
editor assigns this passage to Justin
Martyr; but not to mention the ana-
chronism, the whole tenor of the pas-
sage and the immediate neighbourhood
of similar extracts shows that it was
intended for the testimony (unques-
tionably spurious) of some contempo-
rary heathen writer to the facts of the
Gospel.

1 We read in Cassiodorus (de Inst.
Div. Lit. 8), 'In epistolas autem cano-
nioas Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter,
qui et Stromateus vocatur, id est, in
epistola (-am ?) S. Petri prima (-am ?)
S. Johannis prima (-am ?) et secunda
(-am?) et Jaoobi quaedam Attico ser-
mone declaravit. Ubi multa quidem
subtiliter sed aliqua incaute loqnutus
est, quae nos ita transferri fecimus in
Latinum, ut exclusis quibusdam offen-
diculis purifioata doctrina ejus securior

possit hauriri.' If 'Jude' be substituted for 'James,' this description exactly applies to the Latin notes extant under the title Adumbrationei. This was a very easy slip of the pen, and I can scarcely doubt that these notes are the same to which Cassiodorus refers as taken from the Hypotyposeis of Clement. Dr Westcott (Canon, p. 401) has pointed out in confirmation of this, that while Clement elsewhere directly quotes the Epistle of St Jude, he never refers to the Epistle of St James. Bunsen has included these notes in his collection of fragments of the Hypotyposeis, Anal. Anten. I. p. 325. It should be added that the statement about the relationship of Jude must be Clement's own and cannot have been inserted by Cassiodorus, since Cassiodorus in common with the Latin Church would naturally hold the Hieronymian hypothesis.

1 'Frater erat ejus [filius] Joseph.' The insertion of ' filius' (with Bunsen) is necessary for the sense, whether Cassiodorus had it or not. Perhaps the Greek words were &Se\<pAi avrov Toy 'i«otj0, which would account for the omission.

* Credner, Einl. p. 585, condemns the words rip Smalif as spurious. Though it might be inferred from the previous extract given by Eusebius that the son of Zebedee is meant here, I believe nevertheless that they are genuine. For (1) They seem to be required as the motive for the explanation which is given afterwards of the different persons bearing the name James. (2) It is natural that a special prominence should be given to the same three Apostles of the Circumcision who are mentioned in Gal. ii. 9 as the pillars of Jewish Christendom. (3) Eusebius introduces the quotation as relating to James the Just (repl ain-ol), which would not be a very good description if the other James were the prominent person in the passage. (4)1 find from Hippolytus that the Ophite account singled out James the Lord's brother as a possessor of the esoteric L.

gnosis, tavrd i<nu> arb ro\\&v ravv \byav To. KvpiXaia a <p-ijatr rapaSeSuKivai Jtapid/iKjj T'tw 'Idxu/Soy rod Kvplov Tbv aSe\<piv, Haer. x. 6, p. 95. Clement seems to have derived his information from some work of a Jewish Gnostic complexion, perhaps from the Gospel of the Egyptians with which he was well acquainted (Strom, iii. pp. 529 sq, 553, ed. Potter); and as Hippolytus tells us that the Ophites made use of this Gospel (tai Si i(aWayi,s rafrras Tas rroita'Aas hi rif iinypaipoiUvip Kat' Alywrlovi eiayyMip xeinivat txovo"iv, ih. v. 7, p. 98), it is probable that the account of Clement coincided with that of the Ophites. The words T<# Sutaiip are represented in the Syriac translation of Eusebius of which the existing Ms (Brit. Mus. add. 14,639) belongs to the 6th century.

I hold Toj Sutatip therefore to be the genuine words of Clement, but I do not feel so sure that the closing explanation Suo Si yeyivao"iv 'l&Kvfioi K.t.x. is not an addition of Eusebius. This I suppose to be Bunsen's opinion, for he ends his fragment with the preceding words i. p. 321.

John and Peter. These delivered it to the rest of the Apostles; and the rest of the Apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. Now there are two Jameses, one the Just who was thrown down from the pinnacle (of the temple) and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded' (H. E. ii. 1). This passage however proves nothing. Clement says that there were two of the name of James, but he neither states nor implies that there were two only. His sole object was to distinguish the son of Zebedee from the Lord's brother; and the son of Alphaeus, of whom he knew nothing and could tell nothing, did not occur to his mind when he penned this sentence. There is in this passage nothing which contradicts the Latin extract; though indeed in a writer so uncritical in his historical notices1 such a contradiction would not be surprising*.

10. Okigen (t A.d. 253) declares himself very distinctly in favour of the Epiphanian view, stating that the brethren were sons of Joseph by a deceased wife8. Elsewhere4 indeed he says that St Paul' calls this James the Lord's brother, not so much on account of his kinsmanship or their companionship together, as on account of his character and language,' but this is not inconsistent with the explicit statement already referred to.

1 For instance he distinguished p. 75) dfcX^o/b nlr Ovk e'xi <j>i<xu, o6re

Cephas of Gal. ii. 9 from Peter (see T^s rapBivov raro&np trepov ovSi airos

Galatiaw, p. 129), and represented iK Tov 'Iwrtyp rvyxivav- vbiup tuyapovv

St Paul as a married man (Euseb. l-xMnArurax airov &Se\<pol, viol '\m-',;,;>

H. E. iii. 30). Syris iK rpoteBvr/Kvla.% yvvaiKos: Hom.

3 On the supposition that Clement in Luc. 7 (m. p. 940, ed. Delarue) 'Hi

held the Hicronymian theory, as he is enim filii qui Joseph dioebantur non

represented even by those who them- erant orti d"e Maria, neque est ulla

selves reject it, the silence of Origen, scriptura quae ista commemoret.' In

who seems never to have heard of this this latter passage either the translator

theory, is quite inexplicable. Epipha- has been confused by the order in the

nius moreover, who appears equally original or the words in the translation

ignorant of it, refers to Clement while itself have been displaced accidentally,

writing on this very subject (Haer. p. but the meaning is clear. 119, Petav.). Indeed Clement would * e. Celi. i. 47 (i. p. 363) 06 Too-

then stand quite alone before the age ovrov &A To rpbi atnaros o-vyyerh 17 Tv

of Jerome. twjjr air&v &voiarpo<p^v Saov Sii. rd

In Joann. ii. 12 (Catena Carder, ijtfos Kox riv X^oy.

In one passage he writes at some length on the subject; 'Some persons, on the ground of a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or the Book of James (i.e. the Protevangelium), say that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph's sons by a former wife to whom he was married before Mary. Those who hold this view wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity throughout...And I think it reasonable that as Jesus was the first-fruit of purity and chastity among men, so Mary was among women: for it is not seemly to ascribe the first-fruit of virginity to any other woman but her' (in Matt. xiii. 55, III. p. 462)1. This passage shows not only that Origen himself favoured the Epiphanian view which elsewhere he has directly maintained, but that he was wholly unaware of the Hieronymian, the only alternative which presented itself being the denial of the perpetual virginity *.

1 Op. in. p. 462 sq. Mill, pp. 261, 273, has strangely misunderstood the purport of this passage. He speaks of Origen here as 'teaching the opinion of his (James the Just) being the son of Joseph, both as the sentiment of a minority among right-minded Christians and as founded on apocryphal traditions'; and so considers the note on John ii. 12, already referred to, as 'standing strangely contrasted' to Origen's statement here. If Dr Mill's attention however had been directed to the last sentence, Kal ofyuu X^ov t%ea> K.t.x., which, though most important, he has himself omitted in quoting the passage, he could scarcely have failed to see Origen's real meaning.

a The authority of Hippolytus of Portus, a contemporary of Origen, has sometimes been alleged in favour of Jerome's hypothesis. In the treatise De XII Apostolis ascribed to this author (ed. Fabric, i. app. p. 30) it is said of James the son of Alphaeus, rqpoffffuv tv 'TepovaaXri/i i/rb 'lovSalur

Kata\evff6eU &viuptirai Ko.1 Bdrrerai tKii rapa. Tw Vtl<z. He is thus confused or identified with James the Lord's brother. But this blundering treatise was certainly not written by the bishop of Portus: see Le Moyne in Fabricius i. p. 84, and Bunsen's Hippol. l. p. 456 (ed. 2). On the other hand in the work De LXX Apostolis (Fabricius i. app. p. 41), also ascribed to this writer, we find among the 70 the name of 'I<uiu/Sos i &Sf\<piBeos {ri&kosios lepoaoMnu»>, who is thus distinguished from the Twelve. This treatise also is manifestly spurious. Again Nieephorus Callistus, if. E. ii. 3, cites as from Hippolytus of Portus an elaborate account of our Lord's brethren following the Epiphanian view (Hippol. Op. I. app. 43, ed. Fabric); but this account seems to be drawn either from Hippolytus the Theban, unless as Bunsen (I c.) supposes this Theban Hippolytus be a mythical personage, or from some forged writings which bore the name of the older Hippolytus. Euaebius of Cssa

Apostolical Constitutions

Viotorinus of Pettaw.

11. The Apostolical Constitutions, the main part of 'which may perhaps be regarded as a work of the third century, though they received considerable additions in later ages, distinguish James the Lord's brother from James the son of Alphaeus, making him, like St Paul, a supernumerary apostle, and thus counting fourteen in all (vi. 12, 13, 14; compare ii. 55, vii. 46, viii. 4).

12. Victorinus Petavionensis (about 300) was claimed by Helvidius as a witness in his own favour. Jerome denied this and put in a counter claim. It may perhaps be inferred from this circumstance that Victorinus did little more than repeat the statements of the evangelists respecting the Lord's brethren (adv. Helvid. 17).

13. Eusebius Of CiESAREA (f about 340) distinguished James the Lord's brother from the Twelve, representing him as a supernumerary apostle like St Paul (Comm. in Isai. in Montfaucon's Coll. Nov. Pair. n. p. 422; Hist. Eccl. i. 12; comp. vii. 19). Accordingly in another passage he explains that this James 'was called the Lord's brother, because Joseph was His reputed father' (Hist. Eccl. ii. I)1.

1 Iiutu/Soc riv rod Kvplov \eyinevov a5t\ipbv, Jti Srj Kal oJros rov 'laatyp uvdfuutto rait Toc SI Xpurrov rarty i 'lua-fyp, if pjrqarev8iio"a j) rapBivos K.t.\. On the whole this passage seems to be best explained by referring ovros to Kr'pio?. But this is not necessary; for ivond£iaBai (or Ka\e?a8ai) rats nvbs is a good Greek phrase to denote real as well as reputed sonship: as ^Escli. Fragm. 285 aiS' trr "Ar\avros raiSes iivoiiaaiUvax, Soph. Trach. 1105 i rrji aplffrris inrrpbs Civopjaapivos, Eur. Elect. 935: oomp. Ephes. iii. 15 rov raripa i( 08 raVa rarpia dmnifcrai. The word <livb/wurro cannot at all events, as Mill (p. 272) seems disposed to think, imply any doubt on the part of Eusebius about the parentage of James, for the whole drift of the passage is plainly against this. The other reading, tn Si) Kox

Ostos Tov 'iioffii<p rov votufopivov olovel rarpis Tov XpurroS, found in some Mss and in the Syriao version, and preferred by Blom p. 98, and Credner Einl. p. 585, I cannot but regard as an obvious alteration of some early transcriber for the sake of clearness. Compare the expressions in i. 12 e U 6e Kal Oitos r&v ipiponivuv &5t\<pu>y Ijc, and iii. 1 rov Kvplov Xp^mot^uv d(5<X<pbs. He was a reputed brother of the Lord, because Joseph was His reputed father. See also Eusebius On the Stav, 'Joseph and Mary and Our Lord with them and the five sons of Hannah (Anna) the first wife of Joseph' (p. 17, Wright's Transl.). The account from which this passage is taken professes to be founded on a document dating A.d. 119.

14. Cyril Of Jerusalem (t 386) comments on the sue- Cyril of cessive appearances of our Lord related by St Paul, first to saiemPeter, then to the Twelve, then to the five hundred, then to James His own brother, then to Paul His enemy; and his language implies that each appearance was a step in advance

of the testimony afforded by the former (Catech. xiv. 21, p. 216, ed. Toutte'e). It may be gathered thence that he distinguished this James from the Twelve. As this however is only an inference from his language, and not a direct statement of his own, too much stress must not be laid on it. In another passage also (Catech. iv. 28, p. 65, Kai Tois airoaro\oi,^ /ial 'IaK&>/Sa> rw ravrr}s Tij? eKKKrjirLas t7rtc7ioVG>) Cyril seems to make the same distinction, but here again the inference is doubtful.

15. Hilary Of Poitiers (f 368) denounces those who Hiiaiy of 'claim authority for their opinion (against the virginity of the 01 iersLord's mother) from the fact of its being recorded that our

Lord had several brothers'; and adds, 'yet if these had been sons of Mary and not rather sons of Joseph, the offspring of a former marriage, she would never at the time of the passion have been transferred to the Apostle John to be his mother' (Comm. in Matth. i . 1, p. 671, ed. Bened.). Thus he not only adopts the Epiphanian solution, but shows himself entirely ignorant of the Hieronymian.

16. Victorinus The Philosopher (about 360) takes el /*?/ Viotorin Gal. i. 19 as expressing not exception but opposition, and phiiodistinctly states that James was not an Apostle: 'Cum autem s°Pherfratrem dixit, apostolum negavit.'

17. The Ambrosian Hilary (about 375) comments onAmbrosiGal. i. 19 as follows; 'The Lord is called the brother of James

and the rest in the same way in which He is also designated the son of Joseph. For some in a fit of madness impiously assert and contend that these were true brothers of the Lord, being sons of Mary, allowing at the same time that Joseph, though not His true father, was so-called nevertheless. For if these were His true brothers, then Joseph will be His true father; for he who called Joseph His father also called James and the rest His brothers.' Thus his testimony entirely coincides with that of his greater namesake. He sees only the alternative of denying the perpetual virginity as Helvidius did, or accepting the solution of the Protevangelium; and he unhesitatingly adopts the latter.

Basil. 18. Basil The Great (f 379), while allowing that the

perpetual virginity is not a necessary article of belief, yet adheres to it himself' since the lovers of Christ cannot endure to hear that the mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin' (Horn, in Sanct. Christ. Gen. H. p. 600, ed. Garn.)1. As immediately afterwards he refers, in support of his view, to some apocryphal work which related that Zacharias was slain by the Jews for testifying to the virginity of the mother of Jesus (a story which closely resembles the narrative of his death in the Protevang. §§ 23, 24), it may perhaps be inferred that he accepted that account of the Lord's brethren which ran through these apocryphal gospels.

Gregory 19. His brother Gregory Ntssen (f after 394) certainly

adopted the Epiphanian account. At the same time he takes up the very untenable position that the' Mary who is designated in the other Evangelists (besides St John) the mother of James and Joses is the mother of Ood and none else3,' being so called because she undertook the education of these her stepsons; and he supposes also that this James is called 'the little' by St Mark to distinguish him from James the son of Alph&us who

1 This very moderate expression of p. 117). Possibly Gregory derived it

opinion is marked by the editors with a from some such source. It was also

caute legendum in the margin; and in part of the Helvidian hypothesis, where

Garnier's edition the treatise is con- it was less out of place, and gave Jerome

signed to an appendix as of doubtful au- an easy triumph over his adversary

thenticity. The main argument urged (adv. Helvid. 1% etc.). It is adopted

against it is the passage here referred moreover by Cave (Life of St James the

to. (See Garnier, u. praf. p. xv.) Less, § 2), who holds that the Lord's

J Similarly Chrysostom, see below, brethren were sons of Joseph, and yet

p. 43, note 1. This identification of makes James the Lord's brother one

the Lord's mother with the mother of of the Twelve, identifying Joseph with

James and Joses is adopted and simi- Alphicus. Fritzsche also identifies

larly explained also in one of the apo- these two Maries (Matth. p. 822, Marc.

cryphal gospels: Hitt. Joseph. 4 (Tiseh. p. 697).

Nyssen.

was 'great,' because he was in the number of the Twelve Apostles, which the Lord's brother was not (in Christ. Resurr. ii. Op. m. pp. 412, 413, ed. Paris, 1638).

20. The Antidicomarianites, an obscure Arabian sect in Antidicothe latter half of the fourth century, maintained that the Lord's ites. mother bore children to her husband Joseph. These opinions

seem to have produced a reaction, or to have been themselves reactionary, for we read about the same time of a sect called Collyridiam, likewise in Arabia, who going to the opposite extreme paid divine honours to the Virgin (Epiphan. Haeres. lxxviii, lxxix)1.