Equally evident is it that these three Apostles were not brethren of Jesus. The coincidence of three such common names as James, Simon, and Jude in the list of brethren and in the list of Apostles proves nothing. So common are the names that they are duplicated in the Apostolic list itself. If it could be shown that James, Simon, and Jude, Apostles, were also brothers, the coinci- dence would be worth considering ; but since they were not, the coincidence is witliout significance. The very way in which these IIium.' Apostles are designated shows tliat they wcir not linlhren of Jesus. It was necessary to ili>l iiii;iiish tlinii from three other Apostles of the >i-Mw u:u\w. .■iiid yet they are not once called, for distiiiction, ' the Lord's brethren.' James is called 'of Alpha;us,' perliaps also 'the Little'; Simon is called 'the Canamean,' and ' tlie Zealot'; Jude receives no less than four distinguishing titles, ' not Iscariot,'
234 BRETHKEN OF THE LOED
BRETHREN OF THE LORD
'of James,' 'Thaddteus,' and ' Lebba^us ' { Mt 10^, Western Text). How strange, if be really was tlie Lord's brother, that he is not once so de- scribed !
(5) The last argument consists of three distinct steps, (a) James, the son of Alphaeus, the Apostle, is identical with 'James the Little' of Mk 15* = Mt 27^". But this James the Little had a brother Joses, clearly a well-known character, and there- fore (since no other Joses is mentioned in the Gospels) the same as Joses (he brother of Jesus (Mk 6^; and Mt 13=", where the authorities are divided between the forms Joses and Joseph). (6) The mother of this James is called by the Synoptists Mary, and she is further described in Jn 19^ as 'Mary of Clopas' {Mapta v toO KXuTra). This might mean ' Mary daughter of Clopas,' but since Clopas and Alphieus are the same word, both being transliterations of the Aramaic 'S^n ('sS), the correct translation is ' Mary the wife of Clopas. ' (c) This Mary, wife of Clopas, is said by St. John to have been the Virgins sister. Accordingly James and Joses (and consequently also Simon and Jude), the Lord's 'brethren,' were really His Jirsf cousins on His mother's side.
Reply. — This argument is ingenious rather than strong. For (a) the identification of James the Little (Mk 15") with the son of Alph;<?us, though generally accepted and not improbable, is only a guess. Indeed it may be argued that since St. Mark in his Gospel gives no liint that the son of Alphfeus was called 'the Little,' he must mean by 'James the Little' another person. But con- ceding the identity (which, however, whether true or not, is too precarious to bear the weight of an important argument), we stUl cannot concede the identity of Joses, the brother of this James, with Joses the brother of Jesus. The identity of James of Alphajns with James the Little may be con- ceded, because, though it is weakly attested, nothing of weight can be ur^ed against it. I5ut if this Joses, the brother of James, was also the brother of Jesus, then three of our Lord's brethren were Apostles, a conclusion which is negatived by an overwhelming weight of evidence (see i. 2, 3). In such a case the mere coincidence of a name (and Joses or Joseph is, as Lightfoot shews, a particularly common name) is of no weight at all. (6) Jerome's assumption that ' Mary the mother of James and Joses' (Mt, Mk.) is identical with ' Mary of Clopas ' is probably, though not cer- tainly, correct. But there is no ground for sup- posing, as Jerome's supporters do, that this Mary was the ivife of Clopas. There bning no indication in the context to the contrary, tlic ii:itui:.l trans- lation of Map/a 71 ToD KXun-S is ' M;iiy lli<- il'iinjltfcr of Clopas.'* It is maintained, iii.UiMl, that ^iIn■e she was the mother of James Iht; LiLtlc (wh.i was an Apostle), her husband must liave bi, n Alphfeus, i.e. Clopas. But it is doubtful if Jam. the Little really was an Apostle, and it is still more doubtful if Alphoeus is the same person as Clopas. KXcuttSs, or, as it should probably be ac- cented, KXuiras, is a purely Greek name, being contracted from KXedirarpos (cf. 'AcTiVas from 'Ai/r(- Trarpos). 'AXi^aios ('AX0aios, WH), on the other hand, is the Aramaic 'sSn (5alpai), the initial pittural being, as is frequently the case, omitted. The names are therefore linguistically distinct.
are allt-gcd.
Against the identification of KAwT«f and Alphieus it may be urged : (1) That inasmuch as initial sh'va is almost invariably
represented by a full vowel in Greek (nnVj" = :i«A«|i<.i;» ; ninjss i7-«t(3«i»; etc.), there is a presumption against a word like Clopas, which begins with two consonants, representing a Semitic name. (2) Although n is occasionally transliterated « in the middle or at the end of a word, this never, or hardly ever, happens at the beginning. (3) -s^n OsSn) is transliterated quite regularly X«x«; in 1 Mac ll'o. (4) The u of KXiiT«5 cannot be derived from "S^n. The nearest Semitic equivalent of KAi.T«f would be some such form as NjiVf. (5) The Semitic versions uniformly regard ■AJ.4«;»,- as a Semitic word, but KAiiT«5 as Greek, transliterating the « by p.
(c) There is more plausibility about Jerome's contention that Mary of Clopas is described in Jn 19-' as the Virgin's sister. The words are laTriKCKTav Sk iraph tij) ffravpf toS 'Ir)<rov -q /iijrijp avToS Kal i) d5fX0j) Trjs fiV'Pos avToO, Mapta i] toD KXwjra, Kal Mapta i] May5a\-r)vri. It must be candidly admitted that the prima facie impression v.hicli this passage makes upon the mind is that only three women are mentioned, and that the Virgin's sister is Mary of Clopas. There are, however, important con- siderations on the other side. (1) When persons or things are enumerated in pairs (cf. the list of Apostles, Mt lO^--*), the copula is not inserted be- tween the pairs. If, therefore, St. John in this passage designs to speak of two pairs of tvotncn, Kal is correctly omitted before Mapta ii toS KXwTrfi. (2) The Synoptic parallels show that Salome, the another of James and John, w-as present at the Crucifixion, and since it is unlikely tliat St. John would omit to mention the presence of his own mother, •^ d5e\<pri r^s nrjrp&s avroS is probably not Mary of Clopas, but Salome. The suppression of her name is quite in the style of the Evangelist, who is very reticent in ])ersonal matters, and never even names himself. (3) If Mary of Clopas was sister to the Virgin, then two sisters had tlie same name, a circumstance most improbable, unless they were only step-sisters. The point is undoubtedly a difficult one, and different opinions will continue to be held about it, but fortunately its decision does not affect the main point of our inquiry, because, whether Mary of Clopas was the Virgin's sister or not, there is no reason for supposinr/ that she was the mother of the brethren of Jesus. B. Objections to the Hieronymian view. — The liieronymian view is to be rejected, partly because the arguments in its favour, though in- genious, arc inconclusive and often far-fetched ; partly because no trace of it is to be found before the tmie of Jerome, who apparently invented it ; * partly because it 'is obviously an attempt of an ardent champion of celibacy to maintain the per- I)etual virginity not only of Mary, but of Joseph ; t partly because it involves an unnatural use of the term ' brethren ' ; J but chietly because it is incon-