that his brethren did not believe on him. This, however, is not conclnsi-ve, for St. John only speaks in general terms, and one of the brethren may have been an exception. (It must be remembered that there is no sufficient reason for supposing Simon Zelotes to have been a. brother of James, and that Judas the apostle was the son not brother of James. Hence the i:andom assertion, so often made, that on this view two or even three of the "brethren" were apostles, falls to the ground.) The statement of St. Paul in Gal. i. 19 is too doubtfnl in meaning for any stress to be laid on it iu either way. The prima, facie view is that he does include the Lord's brother e.mong the apostles. But no reliance can be placed on this, as it may fairly be asserted that &,,roo-ToAo!. is applied to others besides the twelve ; or it is even possible (with R.V. margin) to render d µ.~ "but only," in which case St. James will be excluded from the number of the apostles. (3) A third argument may be given in Bishop Lightfoot's words: "The Lord's brethren are mentioned in the Gospels in connection with Joseph his reputed father, and Mary his mother, never once with Mary of Clopas (the assumed wife of Alphreus). It would surely have been otherwise if the latter Mary were really their mother" (' Galatians,' p. 256). (4) The identification is apparently due to St. Jerome in the fourth cen- tury, never being heard of before his day. These last considerations are weighty, and will show us that there are difficulties in either view. If the identification be given up, there still remains two competing theories, known as the Helvidian and the Epi- phanian. (a) The Helvidian, which supposes that the "brethren" were own brothers of our Lord, the sons of Joseph and Mary. But (a) the passages quoted in favour of this view utterly fail to establish the point for which they are adduced (see Lightfoot, 'Galatians,' p. 263). (/l) If Mary had other children of her own, why did our Lord, on the cross, commit her to the care of the beloved disciple, who took her to his own home from that hour ? (y) The" brethren" appear to have been older than our Lord, from the part which they took in endeavouring to restrain him, in advising him, etc. (S) The early Church must have had knowledge on such a point as this. (b) The Epiphanian theory, which supposes that the brethren were sons of Joseph by a former wife, bas a considerable amount of support from early writers, and has lately been revived and supported with consummate ability by Bishop Lightfoot. It has the advantages mentioned above, and is not open to the same formidable objections as the Helvidian. But at the same time, the points urged in favour of the Rieronymian theory are weighty c,bjections to it. The real choice, however, must lie between these two-the Hieronymian and the Epiphanian. The arguments are so evenly balanceu, and. the objections to both so considerable, that it is difficult to decide posi- tively in favour of either; and the writer of these lines is inclined to think that the question is one of which, in our present state of knowledge, a iv INTRODUCTION TO
solution is impossible. He will, therefore, leave it undecided whether the author of our Epistle was the first cousin of the Lord, or his rep11ted half. brother, a son of Joseph by a former wife.
Il. CHARACTER AND POSITION 01' THE WRITER.
His position throughout the Acts of the Apostles appears as that of Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, the only example of diocesan episcopacy before the closing years of the apostolic age. The earliest !reference to him in this capacity is found in Acts xii. 17, just about the time when persecution first fell on the members of the apostolic college. Subsequent notices of him are in Acts xv. and :x:xi. At the Council of Jerusalem he acts as presi- dent, sums up the debate, and gives sentence ( fyw ,cp{vw, Acts xv. 19) ; and it has been thought, from certain slight coincidences with his Epistle, that the letter to the Syrian Churches was drawn up by him. Later on, St. Paul, on the occasion of hls last visit to Jerusalem," went in unto James, and all the elders were present" (Acts :x:xi. 18). As might be expected from the bishop of the Church of the circumcision, the glimpses we get of him show us one who is zealous for the Law. 1. Wbile St. Peter " proposes the emancipation of the Gentile converts from the Law, it is James who suggests the restrictive clauses of the decree." 2. Very characteristic is the allusion made by him to the fact that "Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day" (Acts xv. 21). 3. Equally characteristic is the tenderness shown by him for the feelings of the "many thousands of the Jews which believe, who are all zealous of the Law" (Acts xri. 20), a.nd the suggestion with regard to the vow (ver. 23). 4. In accordance with all this, it is not unnatural that the Judaizers in Gal ii. 12 are spoken of as having come "from James." "It is not improbable,'' says Bishop Lightfoot," that they came invested with some powers from James which they abused." This is all that can be gathered from Holy Scripture with regard to the person and position of St. James. To fill in the outline of the picture thus sketched, we must have recourse to tradition and early historical notices, some of which a.re interesting and suggestive. (1) The fact that one of the early appearances of the risen Saviour was to" James" is stated by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 7; but there is no further mention of it in the New Testament. We learn, however, from Jerome, < Catalogue Ser. Eccl.' (u,. "Jacobus"), that the 'Gospel e.ecording to the Hebrews ' contained an account of this appearance. The passage from thiB apocryphal Gospel is given by Mr. Nicholson, in his edition of the 'Gospel accordiDg to the Hebrews' (p. 62), as follows:- THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES.