The words on which Jerome lays stress are Gal J18. ly tit,TJ\$ov eU 'lepoa^XufUL laToprjaat Kfj^dv Kal irep-etva 7rp6s aurdv ij/xipai SeKdwevre- ^repov 5i tup dtroaTdXojv ovk eloov, el fiij 'laKuj^ov rdv ddeX<pdv tov K vplov. But even if we give its usual force to el piri, it will not follow that St. James was included in the Twelve, for there can be no doubt that in Gal 1" Hepov looks backward to Kij^ac, not forward to 'Uku^ov. The sentence would have been complete at eXSov, ' I saw Peter and none other of the apostles.' Then it strikes St. Paul, as an after- thought, that the position of James, as president of the Church at Jerusalem, was not inferior to that of the apostles, and he adds ' unless you reckon James among them.' That the term 'apostle' was not strictly confined to the Twelve appears from another passage in which James is mentioned, 1 Co 15*"'. Here it is said that Jesus after His resur- rection ' appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then to above five hundred brethren at once, then to James, then to all the apostles,' where we should perhaps consider the term to include the Seventy, according to the view of Irenieus and other early writers. At any rate there can be no doubt as to St. Paul's ajiostleship. Barnabas also is called an apostle (Ac 14*' "), probably also Andronicus and Junias (Ko 16') and Silvanus (I Th e").* The mosi natural interpretation of the two passages just dealt with is that which concedes the name ' apostle ' in the wider sense to St. James, but makes a distinction between him and the Twelve.
(3) Scarcely less strong is the argument against the Hieronyiuian view drawn from what we read of the relation of the brethren of the Lord to His mother. Though, according to this view, their own mother Mary was living at the time of the cruci- fixion, and though there is nothing to show that their father was not also living, yet they are never found in the company of their parents or parent, but always with the Virgin. They move with her and
• See Llehtfoot, l.c. pp. 02-101, and the Didachi, xi. 1. 6, with Funk's Dot«a.
her divine Son to Capernaum and form one house- hold there (Jn 2'^) ; they take upon themselves to control and check the actions of Jesua ; they go with Mary * to take him,' when it is feared that His mind is becoming unhinged. They are referred to by the neighbours as members of His family in exactly the same terms as His mother and Hia reputed father. It is suggested indeed that the Virgin and her sister were Loth widows at this time, and had agreed to form one household ; but this is mere hypothesis, and is scarcely consistent with the remarks of the neighbours, who endeavour to satisfy themselves that Jesus was not entitled to speak as Ho had done, by calling to mind those nearest to Him in lilood.
(4) That Mary of Clopas was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord is not only most improb- able in itself (for where do we find two sisters with the same name ?), but is not the most natural interpretation of Jn 19'-^ elaT-ZiKeiaav Si Trapd rijj (TTavptjj tov 'It/ctoD t; fJ-VTVP avTov Kal ij dSeXipi] riji fn}rpbi avTOVj 'Mapia ij tov KXwTrd Kal Mapfa ij M07- SaXrjvri (translated in the Peshitta, ' His mother and his mother's sister, and Mary of Cleopha and Mary Magdalene'). If we compare this verse with Mk 15* and Mt 27'*'', we find that, of the three women named as present in addition to the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene occurs in all three lists ; ' Mary the mother of James and Joses' of the two synoptic Gospels is generally identified \vith ' Mary of Clopas ' ; and we then have left in Matthew ' the mother of the sons of Zebedee,' in Mark ' Salome,' and in John ' his mother's sister. Salome is generally identified with ' the mother of the sons of Zebedee,' and there seems good reason also for identifying her with ' his mother's sister' in the Fourth Gospel. It does not seem likely that St. John would omit the name of his own mother ; and the indirect way in which he describes her is very similar to the way in which he refers to himself as ' the disciple whom Jesus loved.' If we are right in this supposition, it is natural that the two sisters should be paired together, and then the two other Marys, just as we have the apostles arranged in pairs witliout a connecting particle in Mt 10'-*. If the sons of Zebedee were so nearly related to our Lord, it helps us to understand Salome's request that they might sit on His right hand and on His left hand in His glory, as well as the commendation by our Lord of His mother to one, who was not only His best-loved disciple, but her own nephew. If, how- ever, this interpretation is correct, if the sister of the Lord's mother is not the mother of James and Joses, but the mother of the sons of Zebedef, then the foundation-stone of the Hieronymian theory is removed, and the whole fabric topples to the ground.