liitt) used to be quoted on Jerome's
1 lli:i( the Papias in question lived
I n (AD. 160) and Clement of
Mnngly claimed on the same
l-^l'iphanian view.
lu .liiis (liL- is addressing Hel-
2321.22 first cousins are called brethren (CrT-K = iSiX?»; , LXX): in Lv lO-i, first cousins once removed (03'nK:
i5rtc»« i"<:», LXX). So I ■ ■ - ' ■ '■
i Ilierapo
tended use of ' brother' .are taken from the OT ; that the usage of iSt*^« is much less elastic than that of nx ; that no instances of a5a^«=«»£'J/iof are cited from profane writers; and that even the OT does not sanction the habitual use of n^ to describe any other relationship than that of brother. The term i>I^^l« is not avoided in the NT (see Uol 4'"), and Hegesippus
BRETHREN OF THE LORD
BRETHREN OF THE LORD 235
sistent with the three certainties, which, as we have shown, a true theory must necessarily pre- suppose, namely, the common household, the un- belief of the brethren, and their non-incdusion among the Twelve. Jerome's theory i-< iinonsistiiit not only with the last two of t'luM' < i itriinlns, Imt even with the first, for though liis wu|iiiuiU'rs allege that the two sisters were both widows and kept house together, this does not explain the fact that the brethren of Jesus are regarded in Scripture as belonging to the Virgin's family, and are con- tinually represented as being in her company, and never in the company of their alleged mother, Mary of Clopas. *
iii. The Helvidian and Epiphanian Views.— The rejection of the Hieronymian view leaves the choice open between the Helvidian and the Epi- phanian views, both of which have the immense advantage over the Hieronymian of not being inconsistent with the three certainties laid down
A. Arguments for the Helvidian vieio.f —
(1) The Helvidian view, which maintains that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph and Miiri/, gives a fuller and more natural meaning to tlie term docXipol than the Epiphanian, which denies that they were blood-relations of Jesus at all.
Reply. — The advantage of the Helvidian view in this respect is but slight. Joseph was not a blood- relation of Jesus, and yet he is called, not only by friends and acquaintances (Mt 13-'^ = Mk 6^, cf. also Jn 1« 6^=i), but also by the Virgin herself (Lk 2^), and by an Evangelist who lays great stress upon the supernatural birth (Lk 2^'), the father of Jesus. Since, therefore, even in the Holy Family Joseph was called the father of Jesus, it is certain that if he had had sons, they would have been called the brethren of Jesus.
(2) In Lk 2' Jesus is called Maxy's first-born son (irpuTbroKov). This implies that she had other children.
Reply. — tpo>t6tokos among the Jews was a tech- nical term, meaning ' that which openeth the womb' (Ex 34ii"r-), and does not imply the birth of other offspring. Indeed, the redemption-price of a first-born son, required by tlie Mosaic law, was due at the end of a month (Nu S""*-), before it could be known whether there was any likelihood of further oftspring. Dr. Mayor objects that in a purely historical passage, like Lk 2', this technical meaning is not to be thought of ; but the subse- quent statement ' they brought him up to Jeru- salem to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord' (Lk 2:^' ^), renders it certain that it was precisely this which was in tlie Evangelist's mind when he called Jesus irjiuTdTOKov (so already Jerome, I.e. x.).
(3) Mt l"*, 'before they came together' (irpii/ i) (Tme\0(h), implies that the connubial relations of Joseph and Mary were of the ordinary kind.
Riply — <n veXtfeiK need not mean more than living to^ethei in tlie same house
(4) Mt 1 5, ' and knew liei not till she had biought foith a son' (khI oh. iyhuiaKti' aiT-qv im ov Irckcv
')t:
that he kii theL\an^( list nu
I" t;ir"r ';;:'!: '
,.<.s4.,05 , but James, k<fi>i Clearly, there < Kup.ou as equivalent
I iuthorit\
iL the hrethren j
^-.1 \ ■. ud that they wer
I Jerome. ! The -rpajT, im Lk 2'.
' of the TR here
of Jesus, without any warning that they were not Mary's children.
Reply. — This is an argument of real weight, and is not adequately answered by Jerome, Cornelius a Lapide, Pearson, etc., who allege such passages as Mt 28-", ' Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of tlie world,' and 2 S 6=^, ' Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death,' as a proof that ' until ' does not fix a limit or suggest a subsequent change. It is quite true that in such passages as those quoted, where the circumstances of the ease preclude the idea of change, 'until' does not imply change. But ' until ' does imply change when it introduces a state of things in which change is naturally to be expected. Thus, as Dr. Mayor justly remarks, if 2 S 6^ be made to read ' Michal the daughter of Saul had no child, until she left David and became the wife of Phcdtiel,' then ' until ' does imply that she had a child afterwards, because chUd-bearing is a natural and usual sequel of marriage. So in the present case it may be fairly argued that inasmuch as connubial inter- course is the natural accompaniment of marriage, the Evangelist in asserting that it did not take place tiniil a, certain date, attirms that it took place afterwards. Still the argument, as applied to this particular case, is not convincing. The Evangelist is not (even by implication) comparing together the connubial relations of Joseph and Mary before and after the birth of Jesus (as, in the case supposed by Dr. Mayor, Michal's connubial relations with David and Phaltiel are compared), but simply affirming in the strongest possible way that Joseph had no share in the procreation of Jesus. Bengel's laconic comment is therefore, upon the whole, justified — ' donee] Non sequitur, ergo post.' The subsequent mention of the brethren of Jesus (Mt 13^^) does not affect the question, because it was well known, when the Evangelist wrote, who the brethren were, and there was no need to guard against misconception.