of God ever ceased I her perpetual virgin; (.Horn, xn Sanct. Chr,
believe that after the birth of Jesus she bore children to her husband.*
(3) Reverence for Mary as ' Mother of God ' would have prevented Joseph from cohabiting with her as her husband.
Reply. — If we could be sure that Joseph and Mary regarded the infant Jesus as God, this argu- ment would have great weight ; but it is just this point which is doubtful. The angel described the infant as the Messiah, and the Son of God, but neitlier of these terms involved necessarily to Jewish ears the idea of Divinity. The term Son of God is used in the OT even of the Davidic king.
(4) The brethren of Jesus behave to Him as if they were elder brothers. Thus they are jealous of His popularity (Mk 6*), criticize and advise Him in no friendly spirit (Jn V-), attempt to control His actions, and even to place Him under restraint (Mk 2,-"^; cf. Mk 3^' n). Butif they were older than Jesus, they were not Mary's children.
Reply. — It cannot be denied that their actions seem lilce those of elder brethren, but it is possible that they were only slightly younger than Jesus, and if so their conduct is perhaps intelligible.
(5) Jesus upon the Cross commended His mother not to His ' brethren,' but to St. John (Jn 19=«- '"). He would have been very unlikely to do this, if His ' brethren ' had really been the Virgin's sons.
Reply. — (a) The cause of this arrangement may have been the great poverty of the brethren of Jesus, and the comparative affluence of St. John, who, after all, was a near relation of Jesus (a first cousin). This is, of course, possible ; but there is nothing to indicate that the brethren of Jesus were specially poor. They were living with St. Mary, and their united earnings would, under ordinary circumstances, have sufficed to maintain a single household in comfort. (6) Some allege as a cause the unbelief of the brethren. But this is unlikely, because Jesus must have known that within a few days their unbelief would pass into faith.
(6) The most ancient ecclesiastical tradition, especially that of Palestine, favours the Epi- phanian view. The testimony of Hegesippus, a native of Palestine, and a man of learning, who wrote about A.D. 160, is definitely against the Hieronymian, and (as is almost certain) in favour of the Epiphanian view. His works are lost, but in the fragments which remain, he consistently speaks of tlie first Bishop of Jerusalem (James) as the Lord's brother ; but of the second (Synieon) as His cousin (d^ei/'<6s, which he more exactly defines as 6 (k Belov ToC Kvplov, the Seios being KXiixar, the brother of Joseph).! Clearly, therefore, Hege- sippus did not regarii the brethren of Jesus as His cousins. That he did not regard them as sons of Mary, is shown by his description of Jude, the Ijortl's brother, as roO Kara aapna. 'Kiyoy-ivov aiiroD doe\0or, ,tii(l by the fact that Eusebius and Epi- pli.iiiiii>, who draw their information mainly from liiiii, regard tlie brethren as children of Joseph by a former wife.t This view is taken by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Gregory of Nyssa ; in fact, so far as ^^•e know, by all tlie Fathers before Jerome, with the excejjtion of Tertullian, who probably, though his statements are not explicit, held the view of
• Quite unjust, therefore, is the customary Hieronj-mian abuse of Helvidius as * sjnirrtis hn^n'siarcha.' and the char- acterization of his theory as ■ l.la^plMTin.i.' Those who use such language virtually den>' tti' .--ah iii\ ^i ninriage. Helvidius' theory is perfectly reverent- w )i ih. i ii is true or not is another question.
t It is possible, hnt ii-i .i. .' ' i pi- ,v m, ,t ttii- Plopas, the
brother of Jos'-].) I i... (,: , r ^ mm.i ^*ni--oiithe
Lord's brother), i- , I [ tn l > ■. or the
K>.ciT<«,- of Lk J I ' I. - il. -- - I I, ..i.etyino-
logically the satn- ■.-. ■rd, I- ■■ li !■ inu' '"i;ri- ,. i ,, m^ Mt K/ :'.Ta.Tpo<. : The statements m Hi-esippus ubuul uur Loni s brethren are noted by Eusebiui, UJj ii. -t>, iii. Zi), iii. oJ, iv. JJ.
BRIDE, ETC.
EROOK
237
3 suie oi cne i!,pipnanian view. hj. — It is possible that the Apocryph.al Is, e!>pecially the Gospel of Peter and the I'angelium of James, and not any authentic
Helvidius. Since Jerome the Western Church has adopted the Hieronymian theory, but the Eastern Church still maintains that of Epiphanius. The traditional evidence, therefore, is almost entirely on the side of the Epiphanian view.
Reply. Gospel: Protevangel
tradition, are the source of the Epiphanian theory This is Jerome's view, who taunts Epiphanians with following ' deliramenta apocryjihorum.' This, how- ever, is not likely. The statements of the best informed Fathers "seem based on Hegesippus, who made an independent investigation, under specially favourable conditions. The Apocryphal Gospels probably adopted, rather than originated, the cur- rent view.
C. The main objection to the Epiphanian view. — There is one objection to the Epiphanian view so important that it deserves special notice. It is well known tliat a high — an even extravagant- estimate of virginity prevailed extensively in the early Church ; and therefore there is some reason to suspect that, just as, at the close of the 4th cent., zeal for the virginity of Joseph produced the Hieronymian theory, so, three centuries earlier, zeal for the virginity of Mary produced the Epi- phanian. That this may have been so, no cautious critic will deny ; but it does not, upon the evi- dence, apjiear to be probable. For (1) if Mary bore to Joseph, as the Helvidian theory assumes, seven children, of whom one was Bishop of Jerusalem, and three others prominent members of the Church, the non-virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus must have been so notorious a fact in the Apostolic Church, that the (practically) unanimous tradition of her perpetual virginity could never have arisen. (2) The tradition of the Perpetual Virginity was already prevalent early in the 2nd cent., tliat is, long before ascetic views were dominant or even aggressive in the Church. It prevailed, moreover, in Palestine, where, there is reason to believe, ascetic views had less influence than elsewhere. For these reasons we are inclined to think that the Ejjiphanian tradition has a real historical basis.