These words of Tertullian, himself strongly ascetic, which were written about the end of the 2nd cent., do not betray any consciousness that he is controverting an established tradition in favour of the perpetual virginity. And Origen (d. 253 A.D.), thougn upholding the virginity, and objecting to the phrase used above by Tertullian {quod asserunt earn nupsisse post partum, unde approbent non habent, Com. in Luc. 7), does not claim any authority for his own view, but only argues that it is admissible.* For the statement that the ' brethren ' were sons of Joseph by a
Eredeceased wife, he refers to two apocryphal ooks, dating from about the middle of the 2nd cent., as tlie authority for his view that the ' brethren ' were sons of Joseph by a predeceased wife. One of these books is the Gospel of Peter, which, as we learn from Eusebius (HE vi. 12), Serapion, bishop of Antioch at the end of the 2nd cent., forbade to be used in a Cilician church, on the ground that it favoured the heretical views of the Docetae. The latter portion of this Gospel (of course not containing the passage referred to by Origen) was dis- • Comm. in ilatt. xii. 56 (vol lit p. 46, Lomin.)
BRETHREN OF THE LORD
BRETHREN OF THE LuRU ;i21
covered in a fragmentary condition in EKypt a few years ago, the Editio Princeps bein^ pumished in 1S92. Tlie other book to wliich Origen refers is still extant, the Protevaiigeliuin Jacobi. It contains the story of Anna and Joachim, the ijiirents of Marj', of her miraculous birth and belrotlial to Joseph to be her guardian, he ha^'ing been desiL-nated tor this honour, a''ainst his will, out of all tlie widowers of Israel, by the dove which Lssued from his rod. The names of Joseph's sons are variously given in the MSS as Simon, Samuel, James.
I think that these facts prove that the belief in tlie I'erpetual Virginity, which was growing up during the 2nd cent, and established itself in the 3rd cent., was founded, not upon historic evidence, but simply on sentimental grounds, wliiih may have gained additional strength from op|)osition to the Ebionites, who denied the mir- aculous birth of the Lord (Ori^. c. Cels. v. til). Even Basil the Great, who died in A.D. 379, in discussing the meaning of Mt I^, stUl holds the belief in the Virginity, not as a necessary article of faith, but merely as a pious opinion.* It is un- necessary to give the names of otners who held that the ' brethren' were sons of Joseph by a former wife. The chief supporter of this view is Epiphanius, who wrote against the Antidicomarianita; atxjut the year A.D. 370. The view of TertuUian was reasserted by Uelvidius, Bonosus, and Jovinianus, about the year A.D. 381).
B. Jerome's answer to Helvidius, which fastened on the Western Church the doctrine of the Perpetual \'irginity and the interpretation of ' brethren ' in the sense of ' cousins,' appeared about the year A.D. 383. He begins by identifying James the Lord's brother with .lames the son of Alphieus, one of the Twelve. Otherwise, he says, there would be three disciples called James, but the distinctive epithet wiinorattached to one of them in Mk 15" inoijlies that there could be only two. Moreover, St. Paul calls liim an apostle in Gal 1" 'other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.' Again, in Mk 6' we find a James and Joses amongst the brethren of Jesus, and in Mk 15*° we read that Mary, the mother of James and Joses, was present at the crucifixion ; but in Jn 19^ this Mary (whom, a« mother of James, we know to be wife of Alphajus) is called Mary of Clopas, sister of the Lonl's mother. James is therefore the cousin of tlie Ijord ; the word brother being used for kinsman. Later writers carried the theory further by identi- fying Alphanis and Clopas as double fonns of the Aramaic Chalphai, ana by identifying 'Judas of James,' who occurs in St. Luke's list of the aj>o.stle8 (Lk 6", Ac 1"), with the writer of the Epistle (who calls himself 'brother of James'), and also with the brother of Joses, James, and Simon, in Mk 0*. Simon is further identilicd with Simon Zelotes, who is joined with James and Judas in the list of the apostles ; and some hold that Matthew, being identical with Levi, sonof Alphieu.s, must belong to the same family. Bp. Lightfoot calls attention to the fact that not only does .lerome make no pretence to any tra<litional support for this view, but that he is himself by no means con- iistent in holding it. Thus in his comment on the (ialatians, written about A.D. 387, he says: 'James was called 'he Lord's brother on account of his high character, his incompariible faith, and his extraordinary wisiiom ; the other apostles are also culled brothers (.In 20"), but he preeminently so, to whom the Lord at His departure had committccl the sons of His mother (i.e. the members of the Church at Jenisalem).' In a lat«r work still, the Epistle to Hedibia, written about 406, he speaks of Mary of Cleophas (Clopas) the aunt of our Lord,
* Horn, in SancU fArvjI. Otn. II. p. 600. eil. Oani. vol. I. — 21