(5) I take next two minor identifications, that of ' James the Less ' with the ' brother of the Lord,' and that of 'JouSas 'laKui^ov, of Lk 6" and Ac 1'^, with Jude the writer of the Epistle, who calls himself ' brother of James.' We have seen that Mary the mother of James tov fuKpoO and of Joses, in Mk IS", is probably the same as Mary of Clopas, and that we have no reason for inferring from the Gospels that she was related to Jesus. If so, there is an end to the sujiposition that Janics the Less is James the brother of the Lord. But it is worth while to notice the mistranslation in which Jerome imagined that he found a further argument for the identification of our James with the son of Alplixus. The comparative minor, he says, suggests two persons, viz. the two apostles of this name. But tlie Greek has no comparative, simply TOV /uxpoO, 'the little,' wliich no more implies a comparison with only one person than any other descriptive epithet, such as eiepyiTiis 01
BRETHEEX OF THE LORD
BRETHREN OF THE LORD 323
^\dSe\(poi, As to 'lovSas 'laKw^ov, no instance is cited for snch an omission of the word dScX^it, and we must therefore translate 'Judas son of James' with the KV. Independently of this, if James, Judas, and Simon are all sons of Alphaeus, what a strange way is this of introducing their names in the list of the apostles, 'James of Alphieus, Simon Zelotes, Judas of James' 1 Why not speak of all as ' sons of Alphaius,' or of the two latter as 'brothers of James'? Why not speak of all as 'brethren of the Lord'? It is especially Btran','e that, if Judas were really known as such, he should have been distinguished in John (14--) merely by a negative, 'Judas not Iscariot,' and in the other Gospels by the appellation ' Lebbaeus' or ' Xhaddseus ' (Mt l(y, Mk 3'").
C. We have still to examine two cmcial passages which have to be set aside before we can accept either the Epijihanian or the Hieronj'mian theory : Mt 1** 'IwffTj0 . . . TapAa^er TT]y yvvaiKa avrov Kal o6k iylfOKrKtv aMiv lus oi (reicfy v16p, and Lk 2' xal trtKtr rhy vlhw auT^j rir TpurrbroKOV. Reading these in connexion with those other passages which speak of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, it is hard to believe that the evangelists meant us to understand, or indeed that it ever entered their heads that the words could be understood to mean, anything else than that these brothers were sons of the mother and the reputed father of the Lord. It has been attempted, however, to prove that we need not take the passages referred to in their ordinary and natural sense. Thus Pearson, treat- ing of the ])hrase ?us o5, tells us that ' the manner of the Scripture language produceth no such inrer- ence ' as that, from a limit assigned to a negative, we may imply a subsequent atlirmative ; and he cites tiie following instances in proof. ' When God said to Jacob, " I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of" (Gn 28">), it followeth not that, when that was done, the God of Jacob left him. When the con- clusion of Deuteronomy was written it was said of Moses, "No man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day" (Dt 34'), but it were a weak argunitni to infer from thence that the sepulchre of Moses has been known ever since. When Samuel had delivered a severe prediction unto Saul, he " came no more to see him unto the day of his deatli " (I S 15"); but it were a strange collection to infer, that he therefore gave him a visit after he was dead. " Michal the dauj^hter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death " (2 S H'^) ; ami yet it were a ridiculous stupidity to dream of any midwifery in the grave. Christ promised His presence to the apostles "until the end of thtj world" (Mt SS*) ; who ever made so unhappy a construction, as to infer from thence that for ever after He would l>e absent from them?' {C'retil, Art. III. Chan. iii. p. 174).
It is ditticult to believe that a man of Pearson's ability can have been blind to the dilVerenct between two kinds of limit, the mention of one of which suggests, while the mention of the other negatives, tlie future occurrence of the action spoken of. If we read ' the debate was adjourned till the papers should be in the hands of the members, it as certainly implies the intention to resume the debat« at a subsequent period, as the phrase ' the debate was adjourned till that day six months,' or ' till the Or. Kalends,' implies the contrary. So when it is said ' to the (lay of his death,' 'to the end of the world,' this is only a more vivid way of saying iji sfrruin strruhintjn. In like manner the pliruse 'unto tliis day' implies that a certain state of things continued up to the verj' last nioineiit known to the writer : the sug- gestion is, of course, that it will still continue. The remaining instance is that found in (Jn 2.S".