THE NEW SCHAFP-HERZOG
the summary way, however, in which both brothers were called by Jesus to become his disciples, and the readiness with which they obeyed (Mark i. 19-20), make it appear probable that they were prepared for this summons. From that time they remained disciples of Jesus with all the burning zeal which characterized them. This zeal was not without its drawbacks; it could lead them into heartless fanaticism (Luke ix. 54) and also inspire unbridled ambition (Mark x. 35 sqq.); but it enabled them to endure resolutely the hardest sufferings with Jesus (Mark x. 35 sqq.). How highly Jesus appreciated their fervent nature is apparent in his applying to them the epithet " sons of thunder " (Mark iii. 17) and in his receiving them, with the equally impetuous Peter, into the inner circle of the twelve apostles (Mark v. 37, ix. 2, xiii. 3 sqq., xiv. 33 sqq.). After the departure of the Lord, however, James seems to have become less prominent. Nevertheless, he soon took precedence over the other apostles as the first who gave his life for the faith, since he was executed by order of Herod Agrippa I (Acts xii. 1, 2).
2. James, the Son of Alphseus : This James is mentioned with this name in the four lists of the apostles (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13), but no other passage of the New Testament can be brought into connection with him or his family. Especially groundless is everything that has been asserted regarding a relationship of James Alphseus (see Alphseus) and his house to Jesus, based on the identity of the names Alphseus and Cleophas. The statement of Hegesippus (in Eusebius, Hist, eccl., III., xi.) that Cleophas was a brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus, can not be accepted, and the identification of the names Alphaeus and Cleophas can not be established. Possibly James Alphaeus is alluded to in Matt, xxvii. 56; Mark xvi. 1, xv. 40; Luke xxiv. 10; if so, it may be inferred from these passages that James's mother was called Mary and belonged to the followers of Jesus, and that he had a brother called Joses, and that the epithet of " the little " was applied to him. Possibly this passage refers to another James of whom nothing further is known. It is altogether improbable, however, that in Luke vi. 16 and Acts i. 13 the designation " Judas of James " [R. V. " Judas the son of James " marg. or, " brother," as in A. V.] signifies that Judas was the brother of James Alphaeus, since this designation can only mean " Judas the son of James," and a combination of these passages with those in which a Mary is named as the mother of James and Joses is quite impossible. But neither the apostle Judas Lebbseus (see Judas) nor Simon Zelotes is to be regarded as a brother of James Alphaeus. Nothing further is heard of James Alphogus, except the legend that he was active in the southwest of Palestine and in Egypt, and was crucified in Ostrakine, in Lower Egypt (Nicephorus, ii. 40).
3. James the Just: A James who was the Lord's brother, head of the community of Jerusalem, is mentioned as a different person from both the apostles in Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; Acts xii. 17, xxi. 18; I Cor. xv. 7; Gal. i. 19, ii. 9-12, as well as James i. 1; Jude 1. Also, outside of the New Tes-
tament, by Josephus {Ant. XX., ix. 1), Hegesippus (in Eusebius, Hist, eccl., II. 23), and other Church Fathers. The view of the early Church 1. Broth- was that Jesus and this James were ■Rr'th Dr°thers, and James was distinguished
Cousin of from *ne two apostles of the same Jesus. name. Clement of Alexandria expressly states that this view, which he himself rejected, was general in his time (Strom. vii. 93 sqq.). Tertullian refers to the marriage of Mary after the birth of Jesus and to the mention of his brothers in connection with her, as a proof of the reality of the humanity of Jesus (De monogamia, viii.; De came Christi, vii.; " Against Marcion," 19) . In the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 55, vi. 12, 13), besides the twelve apostles and Paul, James, the Lord's brother, is mentioned as one of the advocates of catholic doctrine, and he is reckoned among the seventy disciples. Eusebius counts fourteen apostles; the twelve, Paul and James (on Isa. xvii. 5; Hist, eccl., I., xii., II., i., VII., xix.), and when he once writes of James as the " so-called " brother of the Lord, the context shows that he is not suggesting a more distant relationship. When, however, the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary gained ground in the Church, the brotherly relationship between Jesus and James was transformed into the more distant one of stepbrother, this view appearing in several popular writings such as the Proto-Gospel of James (ix. 2), the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of pseudo-Matthew (viii. 4), the Gospel of Thomas (xvi.). and the History of Joseph (ii.). In the period after Epiphanius, the recognition of James as a son of Joseph and Mary is seldom met. On the other hand, the view of Origen, that James was a stepbrother of Jesus, was followed in the East by Ephraem, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, and later by Euthymius; in the West by Hilary, Ambrose, and Ambrosiaster. Alongside of this, however, arose the other opinion that the brothers of Jesus were cousins and were identical with the men of the same name among the apostles. It is possible that Clement of Alexandria entertained this view as well as the hypothesis that James was a stepbrother of Jesus (in Eusebius, Hist, eccl., II., 1). The first assured defender is Jerome, who, in his writings against Helvidius, expounds it, but practically abandons it in his Commentary on Isaiah (xvii. 6), in that he counts fourteen apostles: the twelve, Paul, and the Lord's brother, James. Ambrose and Augustine express themselves even more doubtfully. Gradually, however, the hypothesis of identification was more and more widely accepted in the West. In the Middle Ages it was the predominant theory. On the other hand, it found so little favor in the East that two different festival days, one for James the Just and the other for James Alphajus, remained traditional.
The statements of the New Testament favor the view that James was a full brother of Jesus and the son of Mary. Matt. i. 25 and Luke ii. 7 imply that, after the birth of Jesus, a conjugal relation existed between Joseph and Mary and that they had children. Whenever in the Gospels brothers of Jesus are mentioned, they appear in such a