and Mary the mother of James and Joses, as distinct persons, 'although some contend that the mother of James and Joses was His aunt.'
(1) In the above argument of Jerome it is assumed that the word ' brother ' (dS<\^4i) may be used in the sense of cousin (ave^j/ibt, found in Col 4'"). The supporters of this theory do not offer any parallel from the NT, but they appeal to classical use both in Greek and Latin, and to the OT. The examples cited from classical Greek are merely expressive of warm affection, or else metaphorical, as Plato, Critu, § 16, where the laws of Athens are made to speak of oi Tj^rtpoi d5e\i/>oi ol it> AXSov v6iioi. There is no instance in classical Greek, as far as I know, of aSc\(p6s being used to denote a cousin. In Latin /rater may stand for /rater patruelis, where there is no danger of being misunderstood (cf. Cic. ad Att. i. 5. 1). The Heb. word is used loosely to include cousin, as in Gn 14"''' (of Abraham and Lot), where the LXX has dJeX^iSoOs ; in Lv 10*, where the first cousins of Aaron are called brethren (a.5e\ipol) of his sons, Nadab and Abihu ; in 1 Ch 2321.52 ('The sons of Mahli, Eleazar and Kish. And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brethren the sons of Kish took them ') where also the LXX has dSeXipol. These passages seem to me to be hardly covered by the general rule laid down by Bishop Lightfoot (p. 261) : ' In an affectionate 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 fellow-countryman as his " brother": and even when speaking of such to a third person he might through warmth of feelin" and under certain aspects so designate him.' Ithink, how- ever, the Bishop is entirely right wh»n he goes on to say : ' It is .scarcely conceivable tnat the cousins of any one should be commonly and indeed exclusively styled his "brothers" oy indifferent persons ; still less, that one cousin in particular should be singled out and described in this loose way, "James, the Lord's brother." ' If we remark, too, the care with which Hegesinpus (quoted above) employs the terra iSe\(p6s of St. James and St. Jude, the brothers of the Lord, while he keeps the term 6LVf\pi.6s for Symeon, the cousin of the Lord and second bishop of Jerusalem, we shall feel that there is a strong probability against the use of aSe\(pol in NT to denote anyt^iing but brothers.
(2) Jerome's main argument is that James the Lord's brother was one of the Twelve, and therefore identical with James the son of Alphaius. He grounds this assertion on a single passage in St. Paul, which I shall presently examine. Bishop Lightfoot and others have sll0^vn that it is not a necessary consequence of St. Paul's language, and that it IS opjKised to the distinction everywhere made in the NT between the brethren of the Lord and the Twelve. Thus in Ac 1", after the list of the Eleven including James the son of Alphieus, we read, ' these all continued instant in pra^'er' <ri>v 71'1'ai^li' icol Mapid/i rp t^Tfrpl roO 'iTjtTov Kal Toil ijeX^ott airroS. Again, in Jn 2" we read that Jesus went down to Capernaum aiVAt ical ^ /xtJtt;/) airroO Kal ol dSfXtpol Kal ol fiaOyjTal aiWou' Kal ^i«r ffietvao 01' iroXXij ri/i^fxit ; and in Mt 1 2*"- ' One said to him * tSod ^ fJ'.^ftrvp i^oi* 'f**^ ol dStXtpol (tov ^fw idT-fiKaciv i^rjTovvr^i iroi XaX^ira* . . , 'and stretching forth his hand to his disciples he saith ' l&oi> ^ /iifrrijp IJ.OV Kal ol iSeXipoi fiov 6tmi ydp Slv voffi<r-j) rd 6^\tHmi toC UaTp6s fjMVtTou ^voupaifoi^,avT6ifioi 45fX06y ^ai iSt\<l>ii Kal ii-fiTTfp iarlv. In the last pas.Mage then' is the same strong antithesis between natural earthly ties and Ills duty to His Father in heaven, wliioli we observe in the words spoken by Him when found as a boy in the temple. Notice also th.'it there is in this passage not only a distinction mode between the brethren of Jesus and Hit disciples.
S22 BRETHREN OF THE LORD
BRETHREN OF THE LORD
but a certain opposition is implied, which is brought out more clearly in St. Mark's narrative of the same event (3-'- ^f'^'). From the latter it appears that the reason why they of His family (ol rap' avTov) desired to speak with Him was because the rumour which liad reached them of His inc<!ssant labours led them to believe that His mind was overstrained. As St. Mark goes on to say (v. ^) that the scritma accused Jesus of casting out devils through Beelzebub, and as we further read in St. John (10=" S") that many said, ' He hath a devil, and is mad,' it would seem, though it is not expressly stated, that these calumnious reports of Hia enemies liad not been witliout eliect on some members of His own family. At all events, they went out prepared KparvjaaL avrdv, i.e. to put Him under some restraint. This narrative gives additional point to the words in Mk 6'', spoken with imme- diate reference to the unbelief of the people of Nazaretli, oi)/c ^<jti.v 7rpo(f>riTT]s Arifios ci /xt] iv rp iraTpldt avTou Kal iv toIs avY^^vexiaiv aiiTov Kal iv ry olKlq. airrou. U it were simply the disbelief of towns- people not immediately related to Him, there seems no need for the addition ' in his own kinsfolk and in his own house.' This inference, which we naturally draw from the words of St. Mark, is confirmed by the express statement of St. John (7^"^), oudi yap ol dSeX^ol avTov iwicmvov eh avTdv, and by our Lord's words addressed to them (v.'), ov Suvarai 6 Kdafiot fuaeiv vfidr i/Jii Si fiLffet, firt iyu fiaprvput irepi avroO 6tl tA ^pya. aivrou Tovrjpd iffTiv. Compare this with the words spoken shortly after- wards to the disciples (15'"), ei ix toD xda/iov lire, 6 K6(rp.os &v rd tStov i^iXef &ri di ix tov K6(r^ov ovk ^crre, d\\' iyu) i^iXi^a vfids iK tov Kbffpuov, 5ti tovto futrei ufids 6 k6j^oz