And compact and plausible as it may seem at first sight, the theory exposes, when examined, many vulnerable parts.
(1) The instances alleged notwithstanding, the sense thus assigned to ‘brethren’ seems to be unsupported by biblical usage. In an affectionate and earnest appeal intended to move the sympathies of the hearer, a speaker might not unnaturally address a relation or a friend or even a fellow-countryman as his ‘brother.’ And even when speaking of such to a third person he might through warmth of feeling and under certain aspects so designate him. But it is scarcely conceivable that the cousins of any one should be commonly and indeed exclusively styled his ‘brothers’ by indifferent persons; still less, that one cousin in particular should be singled out and described in this loose way, ‘James the Lord’s brother.’
(2) But again: the Hieronymian theory when completed supposes two, if not three, of the Lord’s brethren to be in the number of the Twelve. This is hardly reconcilable with the place they hold in the Evangelical narratives, where they appear sometimes as distinct from, sometimes as antagonistic to the Twelve. Only a short time before the crucifixion they are disbelievers in the Lord’s divine mission (John 7:5). Is it likely that St. John would have made this unqualified statement, if it were true of one only or at most of two out of the four? Jerome sees the difficulty and meets it by saying that James was ‘not one of those that disbelieved.’ But what if Jude and Simon also belong to the Twelve? After the Lord’s Ascension, it is true, His brethren appear in company with the Apostles, and apparently by this time their unbelief has been converted into faith. Yet even on this later occasion, though with the Twelve, they are distinguished from the Twelve; for the latter are described as assembling in prayer ‘with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and [with] his brethren’ (Acts 1:14).
And scarcely more consistent is this theory with what we know of James and Jude in particular. James, as the resident bishop or presiding elder of the mother Church, held a position hardly compatible with the world-wide duties which devolved on the Twelve. It was the essential feature of his office that he should be stationary; of theirs, that they should move about from place to place. If on the other hand he appears sometimes to be called an Apostle (though not one of the passages alleged is free from ambiguity), this term is by no means confined to the Twelve and might therefore be applied to him in its wider sense, as it is to Barnabas. Again, Jude on his part seems to disclaim the title of an Apostle (v 17); and if so, he cannot have been one of the Twelve.
(3) But again: the Lord’s brethren are mentioned in the Gospels in connexion with Joseph His reputed father and Mary His mother, never once with Mary of Clopas (the assumed wife of Alphaeus). It would surely have been otherwise, if the latter Mary were really their mother.
(4) Jerome lays great stress on the epithet minor applied to James, as if it implied two only , and even those who impugn his theory seem generally to acquiesce in his rendering. But the Greek gives not ‘James the Less’ but ‘James the little .’ Is it not most natural then to explain this epithet of his height? ‘There were many of the name of James,’ says Hegesippus, and the short stature of one of these might well serve as a distinguishing mark. This interpretation at all events must be regarded as more probable than explaining it either of his comparative youth or of inferior rank and influence. It will be remembered that there is no Scriptural or early sanction for speaking of the son of Zebedee as ‘James the Great.’
(5) The manner in which Jude is mentioned in the lists of the Twelve is on this hypothesis full of perplexities. In the first place it is necessary to translate 'Iakwbou not 'the son' but 'the brother of James,' though the former is the obvious rendering and is supported by two of the earliest versions, the Peshito Syriac and the Thebaic, while two others, the Old Latin and Memphitic, leave the ellipsis unsupplied and thus preserve the ambiguity of the original. But again, if Judas were the brother of James, would not the Evangelist's words have run more naturally, 'James the son of Alphaeus and Jude his brother,' or 'James and Jude the sons of Alphaeus,' as in the case of the other pairs of brothers? Then again, if Simon Zelotes is not a brother of James, why is he inserted by St. Luke between the two? If he also is a brother, why is the designation of brotherhood attached to the name of Judas only?
Moreover in the different lists of the three Evangelists the Apostle in question is designated in three different ways. In St. Matthew (10:3) he is called Lebbaeus (at least according to a well-supported reading); in St. Mark (3:18) Thaddaeus; and in St. Luke ‘Jude of James.’ St. John again having occasion to mention him (14:22) distinguishes him by a negative, ‘Judas not Iscariot.’ Is it possible, if he were the Lord’s brother Judas, he would in all these places have escaped being so designated, when this designation would have fixed the person meant at once?
(6) Lastly; in order to maintain the Hieronymian theory it is necessary to retain the common punctuation of John 19:25, thus making ‘Mary of Clopas’ the Virgin’s sister. But it is at least improbable that two sisters should have borne the same name. The case of the Herodian family is scarcely parallel, for Herod was a family name, and it is unlikely that a humble Jewish household should have copied a practice which must lead to so much confusion. Here it is not unlikely that a tradition underlies the Peshito rendering which inserts a conjunction: ‘His mother and his mother’s sister, and Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene.’ The Greek at all events admits, even if it does not favour, this interpretation, for the arrangement of names in couples has a parallel in the lists of the Apostles (e.g. Matt 10:2-4).
I have shown then, if I mistake not, that St. Jerome pleaded no traditional authority for his theory, and that therefore the evidence in its favour is to be sought in Scripture alone. I have examined the Scriptural evidence, and the conclusion seems to be, that though this hypothesis, supplemented as it has been by subsequent writers, presents several striking coincidences which attract attention, yet it involves on the other hand a combination of difficulties—many of these arising out of the very elements in the hypothesis which produce the coincidences—which more than counterbalances these secondary arguments in its favour, and in fact must lead to its rejection, if any hypothesis less burdened with difficulties can be found.
Thus, as compared with the Hieronymian view, both the Epiphanian and the Helvidian have higher claims to acceptance. They both assign to the word brethren its natural meaning; they both recognize the main facts related of the Lord’s brethren in the Gospels—their unbelief, their distinctness from the Twelve, their connexion with Joseph and Mary—and they both avoid the other difficulties which the Hieronymian theory creates.
And moreover they both exhibit a coincidence which deserves notice. A very short time before the Lord’s death His brethren refuse to accept His mission: they are still unbelievers. Immediately after His ascension we find them gathered together with the Apostles, evidently recognizing Him as their Master. Whence comes this change? Surely the crucifixion of one who professed to be the Messiah was not likely to bring it about. He had claimed to be King of Israel and He had been condemned as a malefactor: He had promised His followers a triumph and He had left them persecution. Would not all this confirm rather than dissipate their former unbelief? An incidental statement of St. Paul explains all; ‘Then He was seen of James.’ At the time when St. Paul wrote, there was but one person eminent enough in the church to be called James simply without any distinguishing epithet—the Lord’s brother, the bishop of Jerusalem. It might therefore reasonably be concluded that this James is here meant. And this view is confirmed by an extant fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the most important of all the apocryphal gospels, which seems to have preserved more than one true tradition, and which expressly relates the appearance of our Lord to His brother James after His resurrection.
This interposition, we may suppose, was the turning-point in the religious life of the Lord’s brethren; the veil was removed at once and for ever from their hearts. In this way the antagonistic notices in the Gospels—first the disbelief of the Lord’s brethren, and then their assembling together with the Apostles—are linked together; and harmony is produced out of discord.
Two objections however are brought against both these theories, which the Hieronymian escapes.
(1) They both, it is objected, assume the existence of two pairs of cousins bearing the same names, James and Joseph the sons of Alphaeus, and James and Joseph the Lord’s brothers. If moreover we accept the statement of Hegesippus that James was succeeded in the bishopric of Jerusalem by Symeon son of Clopas, and also admit the identification of Clopas with Alphaeus, we get a third name Symeon or Simeon common to the two families. Let us see what this objection really amounts to.
It will be seen that the cousinhood of these persons is represented as a cousinhood on the mothers’ side, and that it depends on three assumptions: (1) The identification of James the son of Alphaeus in the list of the Twelve with James the Little the son of Mary: (2) The identification of ‘Mary of Clopas’ in St. John with Mary the mother of James and Joses in the other Evangelists: (3) The correctness of the received punctuation of John 19:25, which makes ‘Mary of Clopas’ the Virgin’s sister. If any one of these be rejected, this cousinhood falls to the ground. Yet of these three assumptions the second alone can safely be pronounced more likely than not (though we are expressly told that ‘many other women’ were present), for it avoids the unnecessary multiplication of Maries. The first must be considered highly doubtful, seeing that James was a very common name; while the third is most improbable, for it gives two sisters both called Mary—a difficulty far surpassing that of supposing two or even three cousins bearing the same name. On the other hand, if, admitting the second identification and supplying the ellipsis in ‘Mary of Clopas’ by ‘wife,’ we combine with it the statement of Hegesippus that Clopas the father of Symeon was brother of Joseph, we get three cousins, James, Joses, and Symeon, on their fathers’ side . Yet this result again must be considered on the whole improbable. I see no reason indeed for doubting the testimony of Hegesippus, who was perhaps born during the lifetime of this Symeon, and is likely to have been well informed. But the chances are against the other hypotheses, on which it depends, being both of them correct. The identification of Clopas and Alphaeus will still remain an open question.
But, whether they were cousins or not, does the fact of two families having two or three names in common constitute any real difficulty? Is not this a frequent occurrence among ourselves? It must be remembered too that the Jewish names in ordinary use at this time were very few, and that these three, James, Joses, and Symeon, were among the most common, being consecrated in the affections of the Jews from patriarchal times. In the list of the Twelve the name of James appears twice, Symeon twice. In the New Testament no less than twelve persons bear the name of Symeon or Simon, and nearly as many that of Joseph or Joses. In the index to Josephus may be counted nineteen Josephs, and twenty-five Simons.
And moreover is not the difficulty, if difficulty there be, diminished rather than increased on the supposition of the cousinhood of these two families? The name of a common ancestor or a common relative naturally repeats itself in households connected with each other. And from this point of view it is worthy of notice that the names in question actually occur in the genealogies of our Lord. Josephs’ father is Jacob or James in St. Matthew (1:15,16); and in St. Luke’s table, exclusively of our Lord’s reputed father, the name Joseph or Joses occurs twice at least in a list of thirty-four direct ancestors.
(2) When a certain Mary is described as ‘the mother of James,’ is it not highly probable that the person intended should be the most celebrated of the name—James the Just, the bishop of Jerusalem, the Lord’s brother? This objection to both the Epiphanian and Helvidian theories is at first sight not without force, but it will not bear examination. Why, we may ask, if the best known of all the Jameses were intended here, should it be necessary in some passages to add the name of a brother Joses also, who was a person of no special mark in the Church (Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40)? Why again in others should this Mary be designated ‘the mother of Joses’ alone (Mark 15:47), the name of his more famous brother being suppressed? In only two passages is she called simply ‘the mother of James’; in Mark 16:1, where it is explained by the fuller description which has gone before ‘the mother of James and Joses’ (15:40); and in Luke 24:10, where no such explanation can be given. It would seem then that this Mary and this James, though not the most famous of their respective names and therefore not at once distinguishable when mentioned alone, were yet sufficiently well known to be discriminated from others, when their names appeared in conjunction.
The objections then which may be brought against both these theories in common are not very serious; and up to this point in the investigation they present equal claims to acceptance. The next step will be to compare them together, in order to decide which of the two must yield to the other.
1. The Epiphanian view assumes that the Lord’s brethren had really no relationship with Him; and so far the Helvidian has the advantage. But this advantage is rather seeming than real. It is very natural that those who called Joseph His father should call Joseph’s sons His brethren. And it must be remembered that this designation is given to Joseph not only by strangers from whom at all events the mystery of the Incarnation was veiled, but by the Lord’s mother herself who knew all (Luke 2:48). Even the Evangelist himself, about whose belief in the miraculous conception of Christ there can be no doubt, allows himself to speak of Joseph and Mary as ‘His father and mother’ and ‘His parents.’ Nor again is it any argument in favour of the Helvidian account as compared with the Epiphanian, that the Lord’s brethren are found in company of Mary rather than of Joseph. Joseph appears in the evangelical history for the last time when Jesus is twelve years old (Luke 2:43); during the Lord’s ministry he is never once seen, though Mary comes forward again and again. There can be little doubt therefore that he had died meanwhile.
2. Certain expressions in the evangelical narratives are said to imply that Mary bore other children besides the Lord, and it is even asserted that no unprejudiced person could interpret them otherwise. The justice of this charge may be fairly questioned. The context in each case seems to suggest another explanation of these expressions, which does not decide anything one way or the other. St. Matthew writes that Joseph ‘knew not’ his wife ‘ till (ewV ou) she brought forth a son’ (1:25); while St. Luke speaks of her bringing forth ‘her firstborn son’ (2:7). St. Matthew’s expression however, ‘ till she brought forth,’ as appears from the context, is intended simply to show that Jesus was not begotten in the course of nature; and thus, while it denies any previous intercourse with her husband, it neither asserts nor implies any subsequent intercourse. Again, the prominent idea conveyed by the term ‘firstborn’ to a Jew would be not the birth of other children, but the special consecration of this one. The typical reference in fact is foremost in the mind of St. Luke, as he himself explains it, ‘ Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord’ (2:23). Thus ‘firstborn’ does not necessarily suggest ‘later-born,’ any more than ‘son’ suggests ‘daughter.’ The two words together describe the condition under which in obedience to the law a child was consecrated to God. The ‘firstborn son’ is in fact the Evangelist’s equivalent for the ‘male that openeth the womb.’
It may indeed be fairly urged that, if the Evangelists had considered the perpetual virginity of the Lord’s mother a matter of such paramount importance as it was held to be in the fourth and following centuries, they would have avoided expressions which are at least ambiguous and might be taken to imply the contrary; but these expressions are not in themselves fatal to such a belief.
Whether in itself the sentiment on which this belief was founded be true or false, is a fit subject of enquiry; nor can the present question be considered altogether without reference to it. If it be true, then the Epiphanian theory has an advantage over the Helevidian, as respecting or at least not disregarding it; if false, then it may be thought to have suggested that theory, as it certainly did the Hieronymian, and to this extent the theory itself must lie under suspicion. Into this enquiry however it will not be necessary to enter. Only let me say that it is not altogether correct to represent this belief as suggested solely by the false asceticism of the early Church which exalted virginity at the expense of married life. It appears in fact to be due quite as much to another sentiment which the fathers fantastically expressed by a comparison between the conception and the burial of our Lord. As after death His body was placed in a sepulcher ‘wherein never man before was laid,’ so it seemed fitting that the womb consecrated by His presence should not thenceforth have borne any offspring of man. It may be added also, that the Epiphanian view prevailed especially in Palestine where there was less disposition than elsewhere to depreciate married life, and prevailed too at a time when extreme ascetic views had not yet mastered the Church at large.
3. But one objection has been hurled at the Helvidian theory with great force, and as it seems to me with fatal effect, which is powerless against the Epiphanian. Our Lord in His dying moments commended His mother to the keeping of St. John; ‘Woman, behold thy son.’ The injunction was forthwith obeyed, and ‘from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home’ (John 19:26,27). Yet according to the Helvidian view she had no less than four sons besides daughters living at the time. Is it conceivable that our Lord would thus have snapped asunder the most sacred ties of natural affection? The difficulty is not met by the fact that her own sons were still unbelievers. This fact would scarcely have been allowed to override the paramount duties of filial piety. But even when so explained, what does this hypothesis require us to believe? Though within a few days a special appearance is vouchsafed to one of these brethren, who is destined to rule the mother Church of Jerusalem, and all alike are converted to the faith of Christ; yet she, their mother, living in the same city and joining with them in a common worship (Acts 1:14), is consigned to the care of a stranger of whose house she becomes henceforth the inmate.