BOOK IV. A REVIEW OF THE LABOURS OF JAMES AND PETER DURING THIS PERIOD. CHAPTER I. THE CHARACTER OF JAMES-REMARKS ON HIS EPISTLE. As along with that unity of the spirit which proceeded from Christ, we have observed an important difference existing in the forms of its representation among the apostles, so the apostle Paul, and that James who was known as a brother of the Lord, present the most striking contrast to each other, whether we regard their natural peculiarities, their Christian conformation, or the sphere of their labours. In Paul, Christianity is exhibited in its most decided self-subsistence, freed from the preparatory garb of Judaism; while James represents the new spirit under the ancient form, and we may observe in him the gradual transition from the old to the new. Hence Paul and James mark the two extreme limits in the development of Christianity from Judaism; as Paul was the chief instrument for presenting Christianity to mankind as the new creation, so was James for exhibiting the organic connexion of Christianity with the preparatory and prefiguring system of Judaism. After the martyrdom of the elder James, who was a son of Zebedee and brother of John, only one very influential person of this name appears in the Christian history, who stood at the head of the church at Jerusalem, and under the titles of the Brother of the Lord, and the Fust, was held in the highest esteem by Christians of Jewish descent. But from ancient times it has been doubted, whether this James was, strictly speaking, a brother of the Lord, that is, either a son of Joseph by a former marriage, or more probably a later son of Mary,' and therefore a different person from the apostle the son of Alpheus, or whether he was in a general sense a relation of Jesus, a sister's son of Mary, a son of Cleopas or Alpheus, and accordingly identical with the apostle of this name." 1 See Leben Jesu, p. 40. 2 This question is one of the most difficult in the apostolic history. Dr. Schneckenburger in his acute and profound investigation (in his Annotatio ad Epistolam Jacobi. Stuttgart, 1832, p. 144,) has brought the hypothesis of only one James to a higher degree of probability than it had before attained, and has said many things deserving consideration, which tend to remove the difficulties attached to it; but after all his remarks, many reasons for doubting remain. Later investigations, especially those of Credner, in his Einleitung, p. 573, have thrown additional weight into the opposite scale. We wish to present in an impartial manner the arguments for and against this hypothesis. Since, after the death of James the son of Zebedee, only one James is mentioned as one of the most influential men in the first apostolic church, and ranking with those apostles who were most esteemed, there is the highest probability that this James was no other than the only apostle still living of this name. If the term adeλpòs is understood only in a laxer sense, the title of "Brother of the Lord" proves nothing against the identity of the person; for, from comparing Matt. xxvii. 56; xxviii. 1, Mark xv. 40, with John xix. 25, it is evident that James the apostle, son of Alpheus or Cleopas (both names derived from the Hebrew '), was really a sister's son of Mary the mother of Jesus. As so near a relation of Jesus, he might accordingly be distinguished from the other apostles by the title of a brother of the Lord. But then it is asked, Why was he not rather distinguished by the strictly appropriate name of aveós? And if at that time there were persons in existence who might with strict propriety be called "Brothers of the Lord," is it not so much the less probable, that this name in an improper sense would be applied to him? Nevertheless, we may suppose, that in common discourse-since it was not a point of consequence to mark definitely the degree of kin between Jesus and this James, but only to represent him in general terms as enjoying the honour of near relationship to the Lord, it had become customary to designate him simply a brother of the Lord, especially among the Judaizing Christians, by whom such distinctions of earthly affinity would be most highly prized; and this might be still more easily explained, if we admit with Schneckenburger, that after the death of Joseph (which took place at an early period), Mary removed to the house of her sister, the wife of Alpheus; hence, it would be usual to designate her sons who lived from their childhood with Jesus, who had no other brothers, simply as the brethren of Jesus. Thus, then, this James would be one of the brethren of Jesus who are named in Matt. xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3. Among these we find a Joses, who, in Matt. xxvii. 56, is distinguished as the brother of James, and a Judas; and if we explain the surname 'Iakoẞov given to the apostle If we put together all that is handed down to us in the New Testament, and in other historical records, the most proJudas, on comparing it with the Epistle of Jude, v. 1, by supplying the word adeλods (which cannot be assumed as absolutely certain), we shall also again find in him a brother of the apostle James. And the one named Simon among these brethren, we may perhaps find again in the list of the apostles, as all three are named together in Acts i. 13. According to that supposition, it would be no longer surprising that the brethren of Christ are often mentioned in connexion with his mother; and yet from that circumstance no evidence can be deduced that would prove Ahem to be in a strict sense his brethren. We must then assume with Schneckenburger, that when Matthew (xiii. 55), after the mention of the twelve apostles, distinguishes the brethren of Jesus from them, it proceeded from the want of chronological exactness in his mode of narration. But if several of the so-called brethren of Jesus were among the apostles, still the manner in which the former are distinguished from the latter in Acts 1. 14, is remarkable. Besides, according to the account in Mark iii. 31, a state of mind towards Jesus is supposed to exist in these brethren, which could not be attributed to the apostles, and yet it appears from comparing this account with the parallel passages in Matt. xii. and Luke viii., that this incident must be placed after the choice of the twelve apostles. This view is confirmed by the disposition manifested by these brethren of Christ, even in the last half-year before his sufferings. All this taken together, must decide us in favour of the supposition, that the brethren of Jesus, commonly mentioned in connexion with Mary the mother of Jesus, are to be altogether distinguished from the apostles, and therefore they must be considered as the brethren of Jesus in a stricter sense, either as the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, or the later born sons of Joseph and Mary, which from Matt. i..25, is most probable. That Christ when dying said to John, that from that time he should treat Mary as his mother, can at all events oppose only the supposition, that these brethren were the offspring of Joseph and Mary, and not the supposition that they were the step-sons of Mary. But even against the first supposition, this objection is not decisive; for if these brethren of Jesus still continued estranged from him in their disposition, we can at once perceive why at his death he commended his mother to his beloved disciple John. It may indeed appear surprising, that these brethren of Christ, according to Matthew xiii. 55, bore the same names as their cousins, but this can be affirmed with certainty only of two, and as the two sisters had one name, it might happen, owing to particular circumstances, that one son of each was named alike. But from what has been said, it by no means follows, that the James who is distinguished in the New Testament as a brother of the Lord, was one of these brethren of Christ in a stricter sense. It might still be consistent with that fact, that this James was to be distinguished from the James who was the actual brother of the Lord, and, as a cousin of Christ who was honoured with this name, was to be held as identical with the apostle, although in this case it is less probable that when an bable result of the whole is, that this James was one of the brethren of Christ, of whom we have spoken in our "Life of Jesus," p. 40. Thus it appears how very much the course of actual brother of Jesus bore the name of James, the cousin should be honoured with the same title, instead of being distinguished by the epithet aveos from that other James, to whom the surname of Brother of the Lord would in strictest propriety be given. If we are disposed to examine the passages in the Pauline epistles which contain a particular reference to this point, there are two espe cially deserving of notice. As to the passage in 1 Cor. ix. 5, xal oi λοίποι ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου, it cannot be proved from these words that the brethren of the Lord were distinct from the apostles, for they may be supposed to mean, that Paul, by the other apostles, understood those who could not claim such a relationship to the Lord, and that he particularly distinguishes those who were brethren of the Lord from the other apostles, because, in virtue of that relationship, they stood high in the opinion of the party with whom he had here to do. That he names Peter immediately after, rather favours the notion that the brethren of the Lord, as well as Peter, belonged to the number of the apostles. Yet this is not a decisive proof, for it would surely be possible that, although the brethren of the Lord did not belong to the apostles, Paul might mention them in this connexion, because they, or some of them, were held in equal estimation by the Jewish Christians of Palestine; and as, along with them, Peter was most highly respected, he is particularly mentioned at the same time. It is indeed possible, that Paul here uses the term apostle, not in the strictest sense, but in a wider meaning, as in Rom. xvi. 7; and so much the more, since he afterwards mentions Barnabas, to whom the name of an apostle could be applied only in that more general acceptation of the term. The second important passage is Gal. i. 19, where Paul, after speaking of his conference with the apostle Peter at Jerusalem, adds, that he had seen no other of the apostles, save James the Lord's brother." Yet, from this passage, it cannot be so certainly inferred as Dr. Schneckenburger thinks, that the James here named was one of the apostles. The state of the case may be conceived to have been thus: Paul had originally, in his thoughts, only a negative position, he had seen no other apostle but Peter at Jerusalem. But as it afterwards occurred to him, that he had seen at Jerusalem James the brother of the Lord, who, though no apostle, was held in apostolic estimation by the Judaizers, on this account he added, by way of limitation, a reference to James. We must therefore add to the elu, a complementary idea allied to that of aπóσтoλos; on a construction of this kind, see Winer, p. 517. It may be asked whether Paul would have expressed himself in this manner, if he had reckoned James in the stricter sense among the apostles? Would he have expressed the nega tion so universally, and, after he had so expressed it, have here first introduced the limitation, if from the first he had thought of saying that he saw none of the apostles excepting two? When Schneckenburger, from the words in Acts ix. 27, infers that Paul must at that his religious development was distinguished from that of the apostle Paul. The latter, during the life of Christ on earth, time have conferred with at least two apostles at Jerusalem, he attaches greater weight than can be allowed with certainty to single expressions in this short narrative. Yet, if we compare on this point the oldest ecclesiastical traditions, the comparison of the account in the gospel of the Hebrews (see Hieronym. de V. I. c. ii.) with 1 Cor. xv. 7 appears to favour the identity of the one James, for in that gospel it is said that Christ, after his resurrection, appeared to James the Just, the brother of the Lord. But in the passage in the Epistle to the Corinthians, the same James seems to be mentioned as one of the twelve apostles. Still we find here nothing absolutely certain, for it cannot be shown that the reference in that gospel is to the same appearance of Christ as in the epistle. And if it be assumed that James the brother of the Lord was then held in such great esteem, that when this name was mentioned only one individual would be generally thought of, it is not perfectly clear, from his being brought forward in this connexion, that he was reckoned by Paul among the apostles. Now, in reference to the tradition of Hegesippus, in Euseb. ii. 23, when he says that James the brother of the Lord undertook with the apostles, μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων, the guidance of the church at Jerusalem, it is most natural to suppose that he means to distinguish James from the apostles, otherwise he would have said μetà tŵv Xoiπŵv, although we would not consider the other interpretation as impossible, especially in writers of this class, in whom we do not look for great precision in their mode of expression. Also, the whole narrative of Hegesippus leads us to believe, that he considered James as distinct from the apostles; for, although this representation bears upon it, at all events, marks of internal improbability, yet it would not appear altogether irrational, on the supposition that this James was an apostle appointed by Christ himself. But we must compare with this passage the words of Hegesippus in Euseb. iv. 22, μετὰ τὸ μαρτυρῆσαι Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον, ὡς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγω, πάλιν ὁ ἐκ θείου αὐτοῦ Συμεὼν ὁ τοῦ Κλωπα καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος, ὃν προέθεντο πάντες ὄντα ἀνεψιὸν TOU KUρÍOV DEUTEрov. If we understand by these words, that this Simeon was called the second nephew in relation to the afore-mentioned James the Just, as the first nephew of the Lord, it would follow that that James, as a nephew of the Lord, is called his brother. Yet, if another interpretation is possible, according to which Hegesippus agrees with himself, in reference to the words before quoted, such an interpretation must be readily preferred. And this interpretation is that which agrees best with the words in their existing position. For, since James is the principal subject in the first half of the sentence, the auroû must refer to him. Cleopas, accordingly, is called the uncle of James, and his son Simeon cannot therefore be the brother of James, but is his cousin ; as Cleopas (= Alpheus) is the uncle of Jesus, (and, according to Hegesip pus in Euseb. iii. 11, both on the side of Joseph as well as of Mary,) Simeon the cousin of Jesus and the cousin of James, which again favours the opinion that they were brothers. But Hegesippus might call this Simeon a second nephew, since he looked upon the apostle VOL. I, A A |