proved. See Alph.eus. (2.) If his cousins only were meant, it would be signally untrue that "neither did his brethren believe on him" (John vii, 5 sq.), for in all probability three out of the four (viz. James the Less, Simon [i. e. Zelotes], and Jude, the brother [?] of James) were actual apostles. (3.) It is quite unac- countable that these "brethren of the Lord," if they were only his cousins, should be always mentioned in conjunction with the Virgin Mary, and never with their own mother Mary, who was both alive and in constant attendance on our Lord. (4.) They are gen- erally spoken of as distinct from the apostles ; see Acts i, 14 ; 1 Cor. ix, 15 ; and Jude (17) seems almost to imply that he himself was not an apostle.
(II.) A second tradition, accepted by Hilary, Epi- phanius, and the Greek fathers generally, makes them the sons of Josejih by a former marriage with a certain Escha or Salome, of the tribe of Judah ; indeed, Epi- phanius {Hares. 29, § 4) even mentions the supposed order of birth of the four sons and two daughters. But Jerome {Com. in Matt, xii, 49) slights this as a mere conjecture, borrowed from the "deliramenta Apocryphorum," and Origen says that it was taken from the Gospel of St. Peter. The only ground for its possibility is the apparent difference of age between Joseph and the Virgin.
(III.) They are assumed by many to have been the offspring of a Levirate marriage between Joseph and the wife of his deceased brother Clopas. This, al- though a mere hypothesis, is the only one that actual- ly meets all the conditions of the problem. For the discussion of the details of this adjustment, see James ; Mary. The accompanying table exhibits the whole subject in one view, with the passages bearing upon it, and the adjustment proposed of this difficult question (see Meth. Quar. Revieic, 1851, p. 671-672).
PROBABLE SCHEME OF CUBIST'S IMMEDIATE BELATIVES.
FAMILY OF AARON.
FAMILY OF PA VII).
Some
pi-ii'-t
Some priest 1
Matthan
1 Matthat
A
1 son
riah1
7 1 i
A son to A daughter
Unknown 1 Jacob
Anna to Eli
Zecht
to Elizabeth'-^
Mary3 to Alphseus,* then to Joseph,5 who to Mary (the aVirgin")$
1 John {the Baptist)
1 1 James ('he "Less")7 Daughters8 Simon (the '■•Zealot'")'3 and Jude (or uLcblo3its''')10 younger Josesii Brothers12
Jescs
1 T.ukc i, 5.
2 Luke i, 5, 36.
3 Ma
4 Jul
rk xvi, 1. i Matt. n xix, 25. 6 Luke i
10. 7
27. 8
Matt, x, 3; xiii, 55; Gal. i, 19. 9 Luke vi, 15 Matt, xiii, 55. 1" Mark vi, 3;
Mark vi, 3. 1 1 Mark vi, 40. Lake vi, 10. l-> John vii, 5; Acts i, 14.
III. The arguments against their being the sons of i the Virgin after the birth of our Lord are founded on (l.i the almost constant tradition of her perpetual vir- ginity (auirapQtvia). St. Basil {Serm.de S. Xatir.) even records a story that "Zechary was slain by the i Jews between the porch and the. altar" for affirming her to be a virgin after as well as before the birth of her most holy Son (Jer. Taylor, Duct. Dubit. ii, 3, 4). j Still, the tradition was not universal : it was denied, for instance, by large numbers called Antidicomarianitae and Helvidiani. To quote Ezek. xliv, 2, as any argu- ment on Hi- question is plainly idle. (2.) On the fact that upon the cross Christ commended his mother to of the apo tie John; but this is easily ex- plicable on the ground of his brethren's apparent dis- belief in him al that time, though they seem to have been converted very Boon afterward; or better, per- haps, on the ground of their youth at the time. (•">.) On the identity of their names with those of the sons of Alphsus. Whatever force there may be in this argument is retained by the above Levirate scheme.
On the other hand, 1 1 » < - arguments for their being
our Lord's uterine brothers are numerous, an 1, taken collectively, to an unprejudiced mind almost irresistible,
although singly they are open to objections : e. g. (1.) The words "first-born son" {irpioroTOKor vioc'), Luke ii, 7. (-2.) Matt, i, 25, "knew her not till she had brought forth" {oi>k tyiyvuiOKEV ai>Tt)v f'we. ov iVt/ctr), etc., to which Alford justly remarks only one mean- ing could have been attached but for preconceived the- ories about the Virginity. (3.) rIhe general tone of the Gospels on the subject, since they are constantly spoken of with the Virgin Mary, and with no shadow of a hint that they were not her own children (Matt, xii, 46 ; Mark iii, 31, etc.). It can, we think, be hard- ly denied that any one of these arguments is singly stronger than those produced on the other side. — Smith s. v. See Jesus.
"BROTHER" {Frater) was the common appella. tion given by Christians to each other in the early Church. See Brethren. In the Roman Church it came to be especially applied to monks. When those monks who were priests assumed the name of Fathers (Patres), the name brothers was reserved to the mem- bers who were not ordained. Since the 13th century I this title has also been given to the begging monks, in distinction from the other orders of monks. In the Protestant churches it is common for ministers to ad- dress each other bv the name brother.