The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 227

Leee" in the ov11ngelic nnrrative (Mark xv. the Evangelist Matthew hnd not a vestige in 40), If the "cousin theory " holds, this him of that adoration of virginity, or Mari- must havo been the caeo. Finally," coneins '' olatry, which has !eel ecclesiastical historiam, would ho.rdly so persistently have been and commentators to reject the Helvidian spoken of 11e brothers, and this would be still hypothesis. Godet and some other bar- lees likely if their mother was living. (3) monists endeavour to find, clnriog the resi- • 'fhe third hypothesis, which is the sugges- clenee in Capemaum, the occasion for the tion of Epipho.niue, is that these brothers were first miraculous draught of fishes, a.nd the the chilclronof Joseph by a previous marriage, final call of the two pa.ira of brothers; but it to whom tho blessed Virgin had 11clecl the is_ exclnded by the notes of time snbaeqnently pru:t of mother. This is based on e. legend given. of the apocryphal' Protevang. of Jo.mes' (eh. Vers.12-22.-(2) The second sign. &'JY'e- ix. and xvii.), where Joseph speaks of his macy 011er the theocratic home. llluatrcdiom "sons." The theory saves the virginity of of righ/.eou8ness, rer,erence, poicer, and sacrifi- Mory, but sacrifices that of Joseph. Such cial miniary. • o. conclusion, in some ecclesiastic circles, is Vera. 12, 13.-They abode there not many nlmost as unwelcome as the former. .Against clays. And the Passover of the Jews was at Jeromc's hypothesis the greatest number of hand, and JeBll8 went up to Jerusalem. The difficulties present themselves, o.nd it most narrative at ver. 22; eh. iii. 22; iv. I, 27, he abandoned. Therefore the choice really etc., shows, that some disciples were with lie~ between that of Helvidius (1) and that him; bot there is no reason for believing that of Epiphe.nins (3). These are alike en- the whdle gronp were there. The fa.et is im- cumbered by the perplexity that among the portant that Jesus personally is said (a.ve/311) twelve apostles there were two Jameses, two to have gone np to Jernsalem, and that no J udases, and two Simons ; o.nd among the reference is made to his disciples, mother, or "brethren" there must have been also a brethren doing so. This undoubtedly aa- James, Judas, Joses, and Simon, with sisters. 8Il1Iles that he was not attended by any com• Moreover, there was e. Joees or Joseph. who pact gronp of followers. It is more than was son of .Al phreus, ancl theref01·e a brother probable that Simon and James, if not of James. This is not an insuperable dif- Nathanael and Philip, remained in Galilee ficulty, because of the frequency with which to receive their final call in due sea.son. One personal nam_es recur in Oriental families. cannot donbt that John and .Andrew were Whether this multiplicity be true or not, his anditors and witnesses. He went up to there are, at least, ten other Simons in the utter his prophetic snmmons to the metro- New Testament, and neru:ly e.s many Josephs polis of the nation, to take his pince in the or Joses; and Judas Barsabas (.Acts xv. 22) palace-temple of his Father, in the centre must be discriminated from the two Judases of the old theocracy. .After showing his here supposed. We must, however, choose be- perfect human sympathy, his power over tween suppositions (1) and (3). On the one physical nature, his abounding resources, and side, it is said, if the brethren of Jesus were the glory of his love, he resolved that there not the own sons of l\Ia.ry, the language of should be no misunderstanding of his moral Jesus on the cross would be entirely expli- mission, and proceeded to i..n,,-.t,itute a public cnble. This is true; but, on the other side, demonstration of his loyalty to the theocracy, if John were indeed a blood-relation and to the temple, and to its worship. Just at the beloved disciple (even if James was so also, moment when the One who, greater than the hut did not believe on him), the <lifficulty temple, was about to display his unique claims of the language is 1·educed to a minimum. to a service which woulJ. outlive all the There is no scriptural nuthority for the pomp of temple-worship, it was profounilly Epiphanian theory, but it is made plau- significant that he should demand from it a sible by the 'Gospel according to St. Peter' right presentation, and not a corrupt defile- and the' Protevnng. Jncobi,' which refer to ment, of its true significance. Modern criti- Joseph's sous. The whole history of its re- cism refuses to accept the statements of the ception in the Church may be seen in the synoptists and of John as a.like true, and masterly essay of Bishop Lightfoot. The endeavonrs to explain a.w,,y one or the other view of Alford, Mill, Farrar, Godet, and nccount. We are content to say here that a. many others is in favour of a plain common• repetition of the Christ's claim to sanctify sense interpretation of the letter of Scripture. the temple w~ again made on the eve ot Christ, who honoured marriage by his first that awful do.y when that blood should be display of miraculous power, nn<l this at the shed which would exho.ust all the siguifi- suggestion of his own mother, and in the oa.nce of the heoatombs of victims slain in society of thoso who passed uncloubtedly o.s its precincts, and when the veil of the his brothers, would not feel that the faintest temple should be rent iu twain. Weiss here shnclow of a shade foll on the loi'ty purity of shows that Baur and Ililgeufold are iucon• his mother by this hypothesis. Cortniuly sistent in repudio.ting the historicu.J. chamcte,  88 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOllN. [ OII. lt. 1--25,