Joseph, we should thus have Mary the wife of Clopas designated as the mother of James, who was an apostle, and of Joses, who was not an apostle, to the exclusion of her son Judas, who was also an apostle. Is not this, to say the least, extremely improbable?

8. And besides this, let us review for a moment the epithet "the small," attached to "Jacobus" (James) by St. Mark. Beyond question, at the time when this Gospel was written, James the son of Zebedee had long ago fallen by the sword of Herod 2. And as certainly, at this time James the Lord's brother was at the head of the mother church at Jerusalem, one of the three pillars (Gal. ii. 9) of the Christian body. Was it likely that at such a time (for the notice and epithet is one whose use must be sought at the time of the publication of the Gospel, not at that of the formation of the apostolic oral history, seeing that it does not occur in the parallel place in Matthew) the epithet "the small" would be attached to this James by way of distinguishing him from that other, long since martyred? Is it not much more probable that the epithet, for whatever reason, was attached to James the son of Alphæus to distinguish him from this very James the brother of the Lord?

9. If James the son of Alphæus, the Apostle, were the head of the mother church at Jerusalem, and a man of such distinction among the Jewish Christians, how comes it, that when an Apostle of the circumcision is to be named, over against St. Paul, St. Peter, and not he, is dignified by that title?

10. There is another more general consideration, which, however much it may be disallowed by some, yet seems to me not without weight. It hardly consists with the mission of the Twelve, that any of them should be settled in a particular spot, as the president or Bishop of a local church. Even granting the exceptional character of the Jerusalem church, it does not seem likely that the chief presbyter there would be one of those to whom it was said, “Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature:" and of whom all that we read in the Acts of the Apostles, and all that primitive tradition relates to us, assures us that they fulfilled this command.

11. If we compare this hypothesis with early tradition, its first notices present us with a difficulty. Speaking of James the brother of the Lord, Eusebius quotes Hegesippus, an immediate successor of the Apostles, as saying that "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the church of Jerusalem with the Apostles, and was of all men named the Just from the Lord's time even to our own; for there were many who bore this name of James."

12. This passage seems most plainly to preclude all idea of James the Lord's brother being one of the Twelve. However we understand the

2 See Introd. Vol. I. ch. iii. § iv.

not very perspicuous words "with the Apostles;" whether we boldly suppose with Jerome, on account of the verb "succeeded to," that they are a mistake for " after the Apostles," or take them as they stand, and as is most likely from comparison with St. Paul's narrative in Gal. ii.‚— of joint superintendence with the Apostles; on either, or any view, they expressly exclude James from the number of the Apostles themselves.

13. And entirely consistent with this is the frequently misunderstood other testimony from Hegesippus, cited by Eusebius: the straightforward interpretation of which passage is, that " after James the Just had been martyred, as was the Lord also for the same cause, next was appointed bishop Symeon, the son of Clopas, the offspring of his (James's, not the Lord's, as Lange and others have most unfairly attempted to make it mean) uncle, whom all agreed in preferring, being, as he was, second of the cousins of the Lord." That is, Joseph and Clopas (Alphæus) being brothers, and one son of Alphæus, James, being an Apostle, his next brother Symeon (Joses may have been dead ere this) being thus "second of the cousins of our Lord," and born of his (James's) uncle, succeeded James the Just in the bishopric of Jerusalem. I submit that on the hypothesis of Symeon being James's own brother, such a sentence is simply unaccountable.

14. It is true that in this, as in so many other matters, ancient tradition is not consistent with itself. For Euseb., H. E. ii. 1, quotes from Clement of Alexandria, "The Lord delivered the (traditional) knowledge to James the Just and John and Peter after the Resurrection. These delivered it to the other Apostles: and the rest of the Apostles to the Seventy, of whom was also Barnabas. Now there were two named James, one the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle and struck to death by a fuller with his club, and the other the one who was beheaded." And in the same chapter he speaks of Clement as reporting that Stephen was the first martyr, "and then James, who was called the brother of the Lord, whom men of old called the Just, first bishop of Jerusalem."

15. Compare with this Eusebius: "And then they say He appeared to James, who was one of those commonly reputed disciples of the Lord, yea, and His brothers:" and the Apostolical Constitutions, where after the enumeration of the Twelve Apostles, we have named "James the brother of the Lord and bishop of Jerusalem, and Paul the teacher of the Gentiles." Thus it appears, that the assumption of the identity encounters several difficulties, both from Scripture itself (even supposing the crowning one of John vii. 5 got over), and from primitive tradition. It nevertheless became very prevalent, as soon as the setting in of asceticism suggested the hypothesis of the perpetual virginity of the Mother of our Lord. This is found from Jerome downwards; and all kinds of artificial

explanations of the relationship of the brethren to our Lord have been given, to escape the inference from the simple testimony of Holy Scripture, that they were veritably children of Joseph and Mary, younger than our Lord.

16. Let us now follow the other hypothesis, that James the brother of the Lord and James the son of Alphæus were different persons. Against this, many objections have been brought, the principal of which seems to be, that thus we have so considerable a repetition of names among the family and disciples of our Lord. But this cannot on any hypothesis be got rid of. The undoubted facts of the Gospel history give us the following repetitions of names: a) we have under the name SIMON, 1) Simon Peter: 2) Simon the Cananæan or Zelotes, the Apostle : 3) Simon, the brother of the Lord, Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3: 4) Simon, the father of Judas Iscariot, John vi. 71 and elsewhere: 5) Simon the leper, in Bethany, Matt. xxvi. 6; Mark xiv. 3: 6) Simon of Cyrene, who bore the cross after our Lord, Matt. xxvii. 32 and parallels: 7) Simon Magus: 8) Simon the tanner: besides 9) Simon the Pharisee, in whose house our Lord was anointed by the woman who was a sinner, Luke vii. 40. b) Under the name JUDAS, 1) Judas Lebbæus or of James," the Apostle: 2) (?) Judas, the brother of the Lord: 3) Judas Iscariot: 4) Judas Barsabas, Acts xv. 22: if not also 5) the Apostle Thomas, "the twin" (" Thomas who was also called Judas," Eusebius), so called by way of distinction from the two other Judases among the Twelve.

c) Under the name MARY, 1) the Mother of our Lord: 2) the mother of James and Joses, Matt. xxvii. 56: 3) Mary Magdalene: 4) Mary, the sister of Lazarus: 5) Mary, the mother of John Mark.

17. Besides these, we have d) at least four under the name Joseph, viz. 1) the reputed father of our Lord: 2) Joseph of Arimathea : 3) Joseph Barnabas, Acts iv. 36: 4) Joseph Barsabas, Acts i. 23: if not two more, a brother of our Lord, Matt. xiii. 55, and according to some MSS., a son of Mary and brother of James, Matt. xxvii. 56.

This being so, it really is somewhat out of place to cry out upon the supposed multiplication of persons bearing the same name in the New Testament.

18. The improbability of there being in each family, that of Joseph and that of Alphæus (Clopas), two sets of four brothers bearing the same names, is created by assuming the supplement of “ Judas of James,” Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13, to be "brother," which, to say the least, is not necessary. The sons of Alphæus (except Levi [Matthew] who appears to have been the son of another Alphæus, but has been most unaccountably omitted from all consideration by those who object to the multiplication of those bearing the same name) are but two, James the less the Apostle, and Joses. We have not the least trace in Scripture, or even in tradition rightly understood, indicating that Simon Zelotes was

a son of Alphæus. What is the improbability, in two brethren of our Lord bearing the same names as two of their cousins? Cannot almost every widely-spread family even among ourselves, where names are not so frequently repeated, furnish examples of the same and like coincidences?

19. No safe objection can be brought against the present hypothesis from St. Paul's words, "Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother," Gal. i. 19. For 1) the usage of the word " apostle" by St. Paul is not confined to the Twelve, and Christian antiquity recognized in Paul himself and this very James, two supplementary Apostles besides the Twelve: and 2) it has been shewn by Fritzsche, Neander, and Winer, and must be evident to any one accustomed to the usage of some" or "except" in the New Test., that it need not necessarily qualify "other" here, but may just as well refer to the whole preceding clause.

20. The objection of Lange that it is impossible to imagine the growth of an apocryphal Apostleship, by the side of that founded by our Lord, entirely vanishes under a right view of the circumstances of the case. There would be no possibility, on Lange's postulates, of including St. Paul himself among the Apostles. There was nothing in the divine proceeding towards him, which indicated that he was to bear that name: still less was there any thing designating Barnabas as another apostle, properly so called. These two, on account of their importance and usefulness in the apostolic work, were received among the Apostles as of apostolic dignity. Why may the same not have been the case, with a person so universally noted for holiness and justice as James the brother of the Lord ?

21. Again, Lange objects, that "real Apostles thus altogether vanish from the field of action, and are superseded by other Apostles introduced afterwards." I would simply ask, what can be a more accurate description, than these words furnish, of the character of the history of the book which is entitled the Acts of the Apostles? Is it not, in the main, the record of the journeyings and acts of a later introduced Apostle, before whom the work of the other Apostles is cast into the shade? Besides, what do we know of the actions of any of the Apostles, except (taking even Lange's hypothesis) of Peter, James, John, and James the son of Alphæus? Where shall we seek any record of the doings of St. Matthew, St. Thomas, St. Philip, St. Jude, St. Bartholomew, St. Andrew, St. Simon, St. Matthias? In Acts xv. 22, a certain Judas appears as a man of note," or "a leading person among the brethren :" but he is not St. Jude the Apostle. In Acts viii. we hear much of the missionary work of Philip but he is not St. Philip the Apostle.

3 See the citation from the Apostolic Constitutions, above, par. 15.

66

22. It seems to me from the above considerations, far the more probable inference from Scriptural and traditional data, that James the brother of the Lord, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the presumed Author of our Epistle, was distinct from James the son of Alphæus, one of the Twelve Apostles. And assuming this, I shall now gather up the notices which we find of this remarkable person.

23. It is certain, from John vii. 3-5, that he was not a believer in the Messiahship of Jesus at the period of His ministry there indicated. And from our Lord, when on the Cross, commending His mother to the care of St. John, the son of Zebedee, and probably His cousin after the flesh, we may infer that neither then did his brethren believe on Him. It would appear, however, from our finding them expressly mentioned in Acts i. 13, as assembled in the upper room with the Apostles and with the Mother of our Lord, and the believing women, that they were then believers, having probably been, from a half-persuaded and wavering faith, fixed, by the great events of the Passion and Resurrection, in a conviction of the divine mission of Jesus.

24. And of these the Lord's brethren, let us now fix our attention on JAMES, who seems, from his being placed first in the enumeration, Matt. xiii. 55 and the parallel place in Mark, to have been the eldest among them.

25. The character which we have of him, as a just and holy man, must in all probability be dated from before his conversion. And those who believe him to have been not by adoption only, but by actual birth a son of our Lord's parents, will trace in the appellation of him as "the Just," the character of his father (Matt. i. 19), and the humble faith and obedience of his mother (Luke i. 38). That the members of such a family should have grown up just and holy men, is the result which might be hoped from the teaching of such parents, and above all from the presence ever among them of the spotless and bright example of Him, of whom his cousin according to the flesh, yet not knowing Him to be the Messiah, could say, "I have need to be baptized of Thee" (Matt. iii. 14).

26. The absence in the Holy Family of that pseudo-asceticism which has so much confused the traditions respecting them, is strikingly proved by the notice, furnished by St. Paul in 1 Cor. ix. 5, that "the brethren of the Lord" were married men. At the same time there can be no doubt from the general character of St. James's Epistle, and from the notices of tradition, confirmed as they are by the narrative in the Acts, ch. xxi. 17 ff., and by Gal. ii. 11 ff., that he was in other matters a strong ascetic, and a rigid observer of the ceremonial Jewish customs. In the testimony of Hegesippus, quoted by Eus. H. E. ii. 23, we read, "This man was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine nor strong drink, and ate no animal food. No razor came upon his head, he anointed not himself with