J. B. Beistow.
BRETHREN OP THE LORD.-Tlie only three theories about ' the brethren of the Lord '' which are worthy of serious consideration are those which are called by Lightfoot (1) the Hieronymian (from its advocacy by Jerome [Hieronymus]), (2) the EpiphanUin (from its advocacy by Epiphanius), and (3) the Helvidian (from its advocacy by Jerome's opponent, Helvidius).
According to the Hieronymian view, the ' breth- ren ' of Jesus were His first cousins, being sons of the Virgin's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas. Ac- cording to the Epiphanian view, they were sons of Joseph by a former wife. According to the Helvidian view, they were sons of Joseph and Mary born after Jesus. All these views claim to be Scriptural, and the Epiphanian claims in addi- tion to be in accordance with the most ancient tradition.
i. Points that are certain.— In discussing a question of such intricacy a.stlie present, it is well to begin by distinpiisfiing what is reasonably certain from what is uncertain. A careful com-
parison of the relevant Scripture passages renders it certain —
(1) That the brethren of the Lord,'whatcver their true relationship to Him was, lived tinder the same roof with Jesus and His mother, and were regarded as members of the Virgin's fam ill/. The common household is implied in Jn V, and more distinctly still in 2'-, where we read that 'he went do\\'n to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples : and there they abode not many days.' That the brethren were members of the same family as Jesus, and stood in some definite filial relation to Joseph and Mary, is distinctly stated in IMt 13^^ ||, ' Is not this the carpenter's son ? is not his mother called Mary ? and his brethren, James, and Joseph,* and Simon, and Judas ? And his sisters, are they not allf with us?' (cf. also Mt 12" 'Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak to thee'). In harmony with this the Gospels represent the brethren of Jesus as habitually going about in company with the Virgin (Mt 12« ||).
(2) I'hat the brethren of Jcsits were jealous of Him, and vp to the time of the Hesurreetion dis- believed His claims. Thus tlie Gospels represent Jesus as lamenting the unbelief and want of sym- pathy of His near relatives : ' A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house ' (Mk 6*) ; and again, 'My time is not yet come, but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you, but me it liateth' (Jn 7"'). There are, moreover, the still more definite statements, ' For even his lirethren did not believe on him' (Jn 7^); and,
' his friends (oi Trap ain-oV) went out to lay hold on him, for they said. He is beside himself ' (Mk 3-'). Some attempts have been made to attenuate the force of these
lim ^iderent eum tot signa et miracula facere, illaque vera esse non dubitarerit, tamen dubitabant an ipse esset Messias et Dei Films: lir^l cnim hoc verum esse optarent, et ex parte ob tot ejiK^ nui-aciila ri'ilrrent— tamen alia ex parte videntes ejus paupertatem ct nenlectum, dubitabant. Ut ergo certi hac de re fiant, hortantur Christum ire secum in Jerusalem, eto.* But St. John asserts disbetif^ (ovii iTirrtutf), not doubt, and implies jealousy and hostility. Other critics have maintained that some ot\ly of the brethren disbelieved. But St. John's language at the very least .isserts that the majority (that is, three out of the frair brethren) disbelieved, and almost certainly implies tlu- disbelief of all.
From this there follow > thr mc is>iuv inference—
(3) That none of thr brrtlinn irrre numbered among the Twelve Apostles. Tliis conclusion is confirmed by the manner in which they are dis- tinguished from the Twelve in Ac 1", ' [The eleven] all with one accord continued steadfastly in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.' With this may be compared 1 Co 9° (' Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?'), which, though less decisive than Ac 1", because Cephas is first classed among the Twelve and then separately, ix)ints in the same direction. It is no sufficient reply to this to say that in Gal 11' James is called an Apostle ('But other of the apostles saw I none, save [el fiv] James the Lord's brother '). Granting that this is the case, though it has been denied {e.g. by Grotius, Winer, Bleek ; cf. RVm), it may be fairly maintained that St. James is called an Ajwstle in that wider sense in which the term is ajjplied to St. Paul himself, to St. Barnabas (Ac 14'- ", 1 Co 9"), to Andronicus and Junias (Ko 16"), and perhaps also to Silvanus
' In Mt. the correct readiiiL- s. irn- to li. 'i^^Kf (so WH and RV, with BC, etc.). In Mk ' ' t.-.) is certainly
right.
t Epiphanius says that 11 Salome, but the rairai sli-. The present passage seeuia L- ..i---..- and resided at Nasareth.
passages. C
fi-s, Mary an& hree at least, ^vere married,
BEETHEEN OF THE LOED