JAMES
754
JAMES
the same name given to them, an unprecedented over- sight that would produce continual confusion in the fam- ily ; besides, the law did not allow a man to be married to two sisters at the same time (Lev. xviii, 18), as Jo- seph in that case would have been ; nor would either of these objections be obviated by supposing the two Marys to have been half-sisters. The only plausible conjecture is that they are called sisters (i. e. sisters-in-law), be- cause of their marriage to two brothers, Cleophas and Jo- seph ; a supposition that is strengthened by their ap- parent intimacy with each other, and their similar con- nection with Jesus intimated in John xix,25. Cleophas (or Alphffius) seems to have been an elder brother of Joseph, and dying without issue, Joseph married his wife (probably before his marriage with the Virgin, as he seems to have been much older than she) according to the Levirate law (Dent, xxv, 5) ; on which account his oldest son by that marriage is styled the (legal) son of Cleophas, as well as (reputed half ) brother of Jesus. See Ai.i'ii-«us; Mary. This arrangement meets all the statements of Scripture in the case, and is confirmed by the declarations of early Christian writers. (See No. 3, below.) The only objection of any force against such an adjustment is the statement, occurring towards the latter part of our Saviour's ministry, that " neither did his brethren believe on him" (John vii, 5), whereas two of them, at least, are in this way included among his dis- ciples (namely, James and Jude, if not Simon) ; and, al- though they are mentioned in Acts i, 14 as subsequent- ly yielding to his claims, yet the language in John vii, 7 seems too decisive to admit the supposition that those there referred to sustained so prominent a position as apostles among his converts. A more likely mode of reconciling these two passages is to suppose that there were still other brothers besides those chosen as apos- tles, not mentioned particularly anywhere (perhaps only Joses and one j'ounger), who did nut lH-lie\u on liini un- til a very late period, bei.i-- iiossilily convinced only by his resurrection. Indeed, itlliree of these brethren \vere apostles, the language in Acts i, 13, 14, requires such a j supposition; for, after enumerating the eleven (includ- ing, as usual, James, Simon, and Jude), that passage adds, "o«<'/ with his brethren." Whether these mention- ed brothers (as indeed may also be said of the sifters, and perhaps of Simon) were the children of Mary, Cleophas's widoAv, or of the Virgin Mary, is uncertain ; yet in the expression "her_/?>,s/-born son," applied to Jesus (Luke ii, 7), as well as in the intimation of temporary absti- nence only in Matt, i, 25, tliere seems to be implied a reference to other children (see Viugin) ; but, be that as it may, there can be no good reason given ■why such ahoidd not liave been the case ; we may therefore con- jecture that while James, Simon, Jude, and Joses were Joseph's children by Cleophas's widow, and the first three were of sufticient age to be chosen apostles, all the oth- ers were by the Virgin Mary, and among them only some sisters were of sufficient age and notoriety at Christ's second visit to Nazareth to be specified by his townsmen (Matt, xiii, 55; Mark vi, 3), Joses and the children of the Virgin generally being the " brethren" j that did not believe in Jesus till late (John vii, 5; Acts i, 14). See Judic. To the objection that if the Virgin hail had other children, especially sons (and still more, a half-son, J.aines, older than any of them), she Avould not have gone to live with the apostle John, a compara- tive stranger, it may be replied that they may have been still too young (except James, who was already charged with the care of his own mother), or otherwise not suit- ably circumstanced to sujtport her; and if it had been othcrivise, still the express direction of Jesus, her eldest son, would have decided her residence Avith '■• the be- loved disciple," Avho was eminently fitted, as Christ's fa- vorite, no less than by his amiable manners and com- parative aflluence, to discharge that dutv. See John. (See Meth. Quart. Rev. Oct. i«51, p. G70-672.) See on the No. 3. below.
There have been three principal theories on the sub-
ject : 1. For the identity of James, the Lord's brother, with James the apostle, the son of Alphteus, we find (see Kouth, Rdiq. Sacr. i, 16, 43, 230 [Oxon. 1846]) Clement of Alexandria (^Hypotyposeis^ bk. vii, apud Eusebius, //. K. i, 12 ; ii, 1) and Chrj-sostom {in Gal. i, 19). This hy- pothesis, being warmly defended by St. Jerome {in JMatt. xii, 49) and supported by St. Augustine {Conti-a ?\mst. xxii, 35, etc.), became the recognised belief of the "West- ern Church. 2. Parallel with this opinion, there exist- ed another in favor of the hypothesis that James was the son of Joseph by a former marriage, and therefore not identical with the son of Alphjeus. This is first found in the apocPi'phal Gospel of Peter (see Origen, in Matt, xiii, 55), in the Protevangelium of James, and the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitution of the 3d century (Thi- lo, Cod. Apocr. i, 228 ; C'lnst. Ajioff. vi, 12). It is" adopt- ed by Eusebius (Comm. ill /.'■.((/. xvii, 6; H.E.\,\'i; ii, 1). Perhaps it is Ori-cn's (ijiiiiion (see Comm.in Joh. ii, 12). St. Epiphanius, St. Hilary, and St. Ambrose we have alreaily mentioned as being on the same side. So are Victorinus (Vict. Phil, in Gal. apud IVIaii Script, ret, noi\ coll. [Roma?, 1828]) and Gregory Nyssen {Opp. ii, 844, D. [Paris ed. 1618)], and it became the recognised belief of the Greek Church. 3. The Helvidian hypothe- sis, put forward at first by Bonosus, Helvidius, and Jo- viniau, and revived by Herder and Strauss in Germany, is that .James, .loses, Jude, Simon, and the sisters were all children of Joseph and IMary, ivhile James the apos- tle and James the son of Alphreus (whether one or two persons) were different from, and not akin with these " brothers and sisters" of our Lord. English theologi- cal writers have been divided between the first and sec- ond of these views, with, however, a preference on the whole fbr the first hypothesis. See, e. g. Lardner, vi, 495 (London, 1788) ; Pearson, ^finor Works, i, 350 (Oxf. 1844), and On the Creed, i,308; ii. 224 (Oxford. 1833); Thorndike, i, 5 (Oxf. 1844) ; Home's Jninnl. in //. ,S'. iv, 427 (Lond. 1834), etc. On the same side are Lii;litfoot, AVitsius, Lampe, Baumgarten, Semler, Gabler, Eiclihorn, Hug, Bertholdt, Guericke, Schneckenburger, IMeier, Stei- ger, Gieseler, Theile. Lange, Tavlor {Op. v, 20 [ London, 1849]), Wilson {Op. vi, 673 [Oxf! 1859]), and Cave {Life of St. James) maintain the second hypothesis with "\'os- sius, Basnage, Valesius, etc. The third is held by Dr. Davidson {Inti-od. Neio Test. vol. iii) and by Dean Alford {Greek Test, iv, 87). Our own position, it wiU be per- ceived, combines parts of each of these views, maintain- ing with (1) the identity of the two Jameses, with (2) the Levirate marriage of Joseph and the widow of Al- phEcus, and with (3) that these were all the children of Joseph and in part of Mary. See James, Epistle of (below).