the same nature, a fellow-man (Gen. xiii, 8; xxvi, 31; Matt, v, 22, 23, 24 ; vii, 5 ; Heb. ii, 17 ; viii, 11). 10. One beloved, i. e. as a brother, in a direct address (Acts ii, 29; vi, 3; 1 Thess. v, 1). 11. An ally of a con- federate nation (Amos i, 9). 12. A friend or associate (Job vi, 15; comp. xix, 1:1; 1 Kings xix, 13; Neb. v, 10, 14). 13. It is a very favorite Oriental metaphor, as in Job xxx, 29, "I am become a brother to the jackals." 14. It is even applied (in the Heb.) to in- animate things in the phrase "one another" (lit. a man Its brother), e. g. of the cherubim (Exod. xw, 2d; xxxvii, 9). The term is still used in tin- East with the same latitude (Hackett's Illustra. of Script, p. 118). The Jewish schools, however, distinguish between "brother" and "neighbor;" "brother" meant an Is- raelite by blood, "neighbor" a proselyte. Tiny al- lowed neither title to the Gentiles ; but ( hrist and the apostles extended the name "brother" to all Chris- tians, and "neighbor" to all the world, 1 Cor. v, 11; Luke x, 29, 30 (Lighttbot, llor. JJebr. ad Matt, v, 22).
BROTHERS OF OUR LORD.— In Matt, xiii, 55, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are mentioned as the brothers of Jesus, and in the ensuing verse sisters are also ascribed to him. The Protestant spirit of opposi- tion to the Popish notion about the perpetual virginity of Mary has led man}' commentators to contend that this must be taken in the literal sense, and that these persons are to be regarded as children whom she bore to her husband Joseph after the birth of Christ. On the whole, we incline to this opinion, seeing that such a supposition is more in agreement with the spirit and letter of the context, than any other, and as the force of the allusion to the brothers and sisters of Jesus would be much weakened if more distant relatives are to be understood. Nevertheless, there are some grounds for the other opinion, that these were not natural broth- ers and sisters, but near relations, probably cousins of Christ. In Matt, xxvii, 5G, a James and Joses are de- scribed as sons of Mary (certainly not the Virgin); and again a James and Judas are described as sons of Alphanis (Luke vi, 15, 16), which Alphaus is probably the same as Cleopbas, husband of Mary, sister of the Virgin (John xix, 25). If, therefore, it were clear that this James, Joses, and Judas are the same that are elsewhere described as the Lord's brothers, this point would be beyond dispute ; but as it is, much doubt must always hang over it. See Jour. Sac. Literature, July, 1855 ; Stud. ». AY/7. 1812, i, 71 sq., 124.— Kitto.
I. It should be observed that in arguing at all against their being the real brethren of Jesus, far too much stress has been laid on the assumed indeliniteness of meaning attached to the word "brother" in Scripture. In all the adduced cases (see above), it will be perceived that, when the word is used in any but its proper sense, the context prevents the possibility of confusion ; and, indeed, in the only two exceptional instances (not metaphorical), vi/.. those in which Lot and Jacob are respectively called "brothers" of Abraham and Laban, the word is only extended so far as to mean "nephew;" and it must be remembered that even these exceptions are quoted from a single book, seventeen centuries earlier than the Gospels. If, then, the word "breth- ren," as repeatedly applied to James, etc.. really mean "cousins" or "kinsmen," it will lie the only instance of such an application in which no data arc given to correct the laxity of meaning. Again, no really paral- lel case can be quoted from the N. T.. except in mere- ly rhetorical and tropical passages'; whereas, when "nephews" are meant, they are always specified as such, as in Col. iv, 10; Acts xxiii, 1G (Kitto. The Apostles, etc. p. 165 sq.). There is therefore no ade- quate warrant in the language alone to take "breth- ren" as meaning "relatives," and therefore tin' a priori presumption is in favor of a literal acceptation of the term. We have dwelt the more strongly on this point, because it seems to have been far too easily
BROTHER
896
BROTHER
assumed that no importance is to be attached to the mere fact of their being invariably called Christ's brethren, whereas this consideration alone goes far to prove that they really were so.
II. There are, however, three traditions respecting them. They are first mentioned (Matt, xiii, 56) in a manner which would certainly lead an unbiassed mind to conclude that they were our Lord's uterine brothers. " Is not this the carpenter's son ? is not his mother called Mary? ami his brethren James, and Joses, and Judas, and .Simon ? and his sisters, are they not all with us ?" But since we find that there was a " Mary, the mother of James and Joses" (Matt, xxviii, 36), and that a "James and Judas (?)" were sons of Alphams (Luke vi, 15, 16), the most general tradition is, (I.) That they were all our Lord's first cousins, the sons of Alphaeus (or Clopas — not Cleopas, see Alford, Gk. Test. Matt, x, 3) and Mary, the sister of the Virgin. This tra- dition is fully accepted by Jerome {Cat. Script. Ecc. 2), Augustine, and the Latin Church generally, and is now the one most commonly- received. Yet there seem to be forcible arguments against it; for (1.) The reasoning depends on three assumptions, viz. a. that "his mother's sister" (John xix, 25) must be in appo- sition with "Mary, the wife of Cleophas," which, in case sisters-german are meant, would be improbable, if only on the ground that it supposes two sisters to have had the same name, a supposition substantiated by no parallel cases [Wieseler (comp. Mark xv, 40) thinks that Salome, the wife of Zebedee, is intended by " his mother's sister"], b. That " Mary, the mother of James," was the wife of Alphams, i. e. that the James intended is "James [the son] of Alphaeus" ( Icacwfiog 6 'AXtpaiov'). c. That Cleophas, or, more correctly, Clopas, whose wife Mary was, is identical with Al- phajus ; which, however possible, cannot be positively