13 was not the brother, but the father of Judas, ^midst this great disagreement of views (see in Winer's Realwur. s. V. .Tacobus ; Davidson's Inti-od. to the N. T. iii, 302 sq. ; Ibirne's Introduction, ndw ed. iv, 591, n. ; Princeton Re- ri( ir. Jan. isil.')), the most probable solution of the main qurstidu is that given above (No. 2), identifying James, the son of Alphicus or Cleophas with one of the apostles, the literal brother of our Lord, and the son of Mary, the sister-in-law of the Virgin by virtue of the marriage of both with Joseph (l)ut see Alford, Prolegg. to vol. iv, pt. 1 of his C'iniinii/t. ]). .s« »([.). This Levirate explanation is summarily dismissed by Andrews (LiJ'e of our Lord, p. 108) and jNIombert (in the Am. edit, of Lange's Com- ment(m/, introd. to epist. of James, p. 19) as "needing no refutation ;" but, altliough conjectiu-al, it is the only one that makes it possible for James to have been at once Christ's brother and yet the son of A Iphaus. If he was likewise the same with the son of Mary, the wife of Cleo- phas, the theory may be said to be demonstrated. Oth- er treatises on the subject are Dr. Mill's Accounts of our Lord's Brethren Vindicated (Cambridge, 1843) : s'chaff, Bds Verhdltniss des Jacobus, Brudeis des Berrn, iind Ja- cobus A Iphai (Berlin, 1842) ; Gabler, I)e Jacobo. cpistolw, eideni ascriptm auctori (Altorf, 1787). For other mono- graphs, see Volbeding, Index Prof/rammatum, p. 31.
If we examine the early Christian writers, we shall meet with a variety of opinions on this subject. Euse- bius {Hist. Eccles. ii, 1) says that James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, brother of the Lord, son of Joseph, the hus- band of Mar}'', was surnamed the Just by the ancients on account of his eminent virtue. He uses similar lan- guage in his Evanrjelicul Demonstration (iii, 5). In his I commentary on Isaiah he reckons fourteen apostles, viz. the twelve, Paul, and James, the brother of our Lord. A I similar enumeration is made in the "Apostolic Conslitu- ! tions" (vi, 14). Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Theophy- i lact speak of James, the Lord's brother, as being the same j as the son of Cleophas. They suppose that .liisejih and Cleophas were brothers, and that the L.tter dying without issue, Joseph married his widow for his first wile, acccjnl- ing to the Jewish custom, and that James and his breth- ren were the offspring of this marriage (Lardner'^ Cred- ibilifi/, ii, 118; Works, iv, 548; i, 163; v, 160; IJist. of Heretic^, ch. xi, § 1 1 ; Works, viii, 527 ; Supplement to the Credibility, c\\. y.\\\ , J Fori's, vi, 188). A passage from Josephus is quoted by Eusebius {Hist. Eccles. ii, 23), in which James, the brother of " him who is called Christ," is mentioned {Ant. xx, 9, 1) ; but in the opinion of Dr. Lardner and other eminent critics, this clause is an in- terpolation {haxAncx's Jewish Testimonies, ch.iv; Works, vi, 496). That James was formally appointed bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself, as reported by Epipha- nius {Hceres. Ixxviii), Chrysostom {Hom. xi in 1 Cor. rii), Proclus of Constantinople {De Trad, Div. Litwg.), and Photius {Ep. 157), is not likely. Eusebius follows this account iu a passage of his history, but says else- where that he was aiijiointed by the apostles {U.Eccl. ii, 23). Clement of Alexandria is the first author who speaks of his episcopate (flypotyposeis, bk. vi, apud Eu- sebius, Hist. Ecc. ii, 1), and he alludes to it as a thing of which the chief apostles, Peter, James, and John, might M-ell have been ambitious. The same Clement reports that the Lord, after his resurrection, delivered the gift of knowledge to James the .Just, to John, and Peter, who delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and they to the seventy. These views of the leadership of James in the college of the apostles agree with the account in Acts (ix, 27; xii, 17; xv, 13, 19). According to Hege- sippus (a converted Jew of the 2d century) James, the brother of the Lord, undertook the government of the Church along with the apostles {fxtra. toiv aTroaTuXwv). He describes him as leading a life of ascetic strictness, and as held in the highest veneration by the Jews (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. ii, 23). But in the account he gives of his martjTdom some circumstances are highly im- probable (see Kouth, Reliquice Sacj-ce, i, 228), although the event itself is quite credible (A.D. 62). In the apoc-
JAMES
V56
JAMES
ryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, he is said to have been precipitated from a pinnacle of the Temple, then assaulted with stones, and at last dispatched by a blow on the head with a fuller's pole (Lardner's Supple- ment, eh. xvi, Works, vi, 174 ; Neander, Planting, etc., ii, 9, 22). Epiphanius gives the same account that Hege- sippus does, in some^^•hat different words, having evi- dently copied it for the most part from him. He adds a few" particulars which are probably mere assertions or conclusions of his own {llieres. xxix, 4; Ixxviii, 13). He calculates that James must have been ninety-six years old at the time of his death, and adds (on the au- thority, as he says, of Eusebius, Clement, and others) that lie wore the ir'tTaXov on his forehead, in which he probably confounds him with St. John (Polj-cr. apud Eusebius, IJistor. Eccles. v, 24. But see Cotta, f)e lam. ponf. App. Joan. Jac. et Marci [TUb. 1755]). Gregory of Tours reports that he was buried, not where he fell, but on the Mount of Olives, in a tomb in which he had already buried Zacharias and Simon {De (jlor. mart, i, 27). The monument — part excavation, part edifice — which is now commonly known as the " Tomb of St. James," is on the east side of the so-called Valley of Je- hoshaphat. The tradition about the monument in ques- tion is that St. James took refuge there after the capture of Christ, and remained, eating and drinking nothing, initil our liOrd appeared to him on the day of his resur- rection (see (Juaresmius, etc., quoted in Tobler, Siloah, etc., p. 299). The legend of his death there seems to be first mentioned by ^Maundeville (A.D. 1320 : see Eai-ly Trav.p. 17G). By the old travellers it is often called the "Church of St, James." Eusebius tells us that his chair was preserved down to his time (on which see Heinichen's Excursus \^Exc. xi, ad Euseh. Hist. Eccles. vii, 19, vol. iv, p. 957, ed. Burton]). We must add a strange Talmudic legend which appears to relate to James. It is found in the Midrash Kohelelli, or Com- mentarj^ on Ecclesiastes, and also in the Tract A boduh Zarah of the Jerusalem Talnnid. It is as follows : " E. Eliezer, the son of Dama, was bitten bj' a serpent, and there came to him Jacob, a man of Caphar Secama, to heal him by the name of Jesu, the son of Pandera ; but E. Ismael suffered him not, saying, ' That is not allowed thee, son of Dama.' He answered, ' Suffer mc, and I will produce an authority against thee that is lawful,' but he could not produce the authority before he ex- pired. And what was the authority? This: 'Which if a man do, he shall live in them' (Lev. xviii, 5). But it is not said that he shall die in them." The son of Pandera is the name that the Jews have always given to our Lord when representing him as a magician. The same name is given in Epiphanius {Hceres. Ixxviii) to the grandfather of Joseph, and by John Damascene {De Fide Orth. iv, 15) to the grandfather of Joachim, the supposed father of the Virgin Mary. For the identifi- cation of James of Secama (a place in Upper Galilee) with James the Just, see Mill {Historic. Criticism of the Gospel, p. 318, Camb. 1840). — Kitto; Smith. For the apocryphal v.orks attributed to James, see Jajiks, Spu-