BEETHREN OF THE LORD 233
(1 ThS", cf. V). That James the Lord's brother ■was one of the Twelve is implied already in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (c. A.D. 100),* but the evidence of this dubious source cannot outweigh the strong negative presumption aftbrded by the canonical writings.!
ii. The Hieronymian View.— With these three points established, we proceed to consider the Hieronymian view that the brethren of Jesus were really His first cousins. Jerome's theory, as stated by himself in his acrimonious but able treatise adversus Hdvidiuiii, involves the following positions : —
(a) That James the Lord's brother was an Apostle, being identical with James the Less, the son of Alpha?us.
(b) That the mother of James and of the other ' brethren' was ' Mary of Clopas' (Jn 19^5).
(c) That this Mary was the Virgin's sister.
As developed by subsequent writers, the Hier- onymian theory altirms in addition —
(d) That Simon the Zealot and Judas 'not Iscariot' were also brethren of the Lord.
(c) That Clopas is identical with Alpha;us, and that consequently ' Mary of Clopas' is not to be regarded as the daughter of Clopas, but as his wife. J
As these two additional points are maintained by all modern followers of Jerome, we shall regard them as integral parts of the Hieronymian theory. Jerome's theory has already been virtually dis- proved by the proof (i. 2, 3) that the Lord'.s brethren were not Apostles, but its great ingenuity and wide acceptance § render full discussion of it necessary.
A. Arguments for the Hieronymian view. —
(1) James the Lord's brother must have been of the Twelve, because he is called an Apostle, Gal 1'". (For a reply to this see i. 2, 3).
(2) James the Lord's brother must have been of the Twelve, because he exercised great authority among, and even over Apostles. Thus at the Council of Jerusalem he presided and pronounced the decision, althougli St. Peter himself was
ijresent (Ac 15^^). St. Paul names him before St. *eter as one of the cliief pillars of the Church (Gal 2'). The Galatian heretics appealed to his authority as superior to that of St. Paul (Gal 2'-), and his importance is further shewn by such passages as Ac 12" 21"*.
liciilij. — St. James' prominent position is ad- mitted, but it can be accounted for without sup- posing him to have been of the Twelve. For —
(a) His close relationship to Jesus (whatever the relationship was) would have sufKced of itself to gain him great consideration among the first Christians. He probably owed in part at least to this his election to the see of Jerusalem. Relationship to Jesus was clearly the main motive in the appointment of his successor, Symeon the son of Cloj)as,|| who was a cousin of Jesus (Eusebius,
t It IS perhaps w orth addinj, that '5t James in his Epistle does not claim to 1 e of the TtttUe and that his brother St Jude seems even to exuludc hin '.elf from the number of the Apostles (Jude 17)
t Jerome himself s V Mir an ri npl I r es Evangelista cognominat si c | 1 t -vut qua
quumque aha ti
5 Jerome s tre r inalh held
the Epiphaman f these two
great doctors ri i 11 I pre\ail e\
clusn el) in the \\ est It sjl II iini lied in the
asirethienof Jes
I Th sLloia-J v\'
,vtl the Cluias
ma ^ ) M ry oH
IlE iii. 11). Hegesippus sjieaks of the relations of Jesus as ' ruling the churclies ' as such. Even as late as tlie reign of Domitian they were sufficiently important to incur the jealousy of the tyrant {I.e. iii. 20).
(6) James the Lord's brother possessed personal qualities which fully account for his elevation. Even the Jews, according to Hegesippus, rever- enced him for his piety, his unceasing prayers, his life-long Nazirite vow, and above all for his justice (I.e. ii. 23). Josephus mentions the indig- nation which his execution excited among the Jews (Ant. XX. ix. 1), and in a passage not now extant; ascribes the sufferings endured by the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem to Divine vengeance for his murder (Origen, c. Celsum, i. 47).
(3) James the Lord's brother must have been of the Twelve, because there were only two promi- nent Jameses in the Church, as the expression ' James the Less ' (Mk 15'"') indicates. He was therefore either James the Great, son of Zebedee, or James the Less, son of Alphaeus. But he was not the former, who was martyred as early as A.D. 44 (Ac 122). Therefore he was the latter, the son of Aiphceus.
Mephj.— Jerome and his followers have been mis- led by the Latin translation Jacobus minor, ' James the Less.' The Greek is 'Iokw/Sos 6 fuKpds, 'James the Little,' the allusion being to his .short stature.
(4) The names of James, Simon, and Jude occur together, and in the same division, in all the Apostolic lists. This suggests— («) that they were brothers, and (6) that they are identical with our Lord's brethren of the same name (see Mt 10""-, Mk 3'™-, Lk &'«■, Ac 1").
Rcplj/. — It has already been conclusively proved that our Lord's brethren were not Apostles (see i. 2, 3) ; but, waiving this point, we answer: (l)'rhe occurrence of the three names togetlier in the list of Apostles is no proof of fraternal relationship. (2) There is definite proof that the three were not brothers. For had they been so, it would natur- ally have been mentioned in some at least of the Gospels, as it is in the cases of the brothers Peter and Andrew, James and John. Moreover, the fatlier of James is Aiphceus, but the father of Jude is a certain James, of whom nothing definite is known. It is true that some propose to translate 'loi/Sas 'IoKii/3ou (Lk 6"", Ac 1'^) 'Jude the brother of James,' but so unusual, and jjrobably unexampled, a meaning would require at least to be indicated by the context. We conclude, therefore, that James was certainly not the brotlier of Jude, and there is no evidence that he was the brother of Simon. If he was the brother of any Apostle, it was of Matthew (Levi), whose father was also called Alphoeus (Mk 2"). But even this, in the absence of any evidence of the identity of the two Alphoeuses, must be pronounced doubtful.