p. 53), then the Teutobodiaci were not necessarily Teutons any more than Thessalonica was Thessalian. The remaining word Germanopolis seems in its very form to betray its later origin, or at all events to mark some exceptional occupants other than the main population of the country. German It is quite possible indeed, as Thierry supposes (1. p. 225), that A possible swept away with the hordes of Gaulish invaders a small body of element. Germans also settled in Asia Minor, and this may be the true account of the names Lutarius and Teutobodiaci. We know that of all the Gauls the Belgians were most mixed up with the Germans, and it is with the Belgian members of the Celtic family especially that the Gauls of the Asiatic settlement seem to be connected. But the evidence is scarcely strong enough to bear the strain of the German theory, even when pared down to these very meagre dimensions. Beyond this we cannot go without doing violence to history. sion. There is every reason then for believing that the Galatian Conclusettlers were genuine Celts, and of the two main subdivisions into which modern philologers have divided the Celtic race, they seem rather to have belonged to the Cymric, of which the Welsh are the living representatives. Thus in the age when St Paul preached, a native of Galatia spoke a language essentially the same with that which was current in the southern part of Britain. And if-to indulge a passing fancy-we picture to ourselves one of his Asiatic converts visiting the far West to barter the hair cloths of his native country for the useful metal which was the special product of this island, we can imagine that finding a medium of communication in a common language he may have sown the first seeds of the Gospel and laid the foundations of the earliest Church in Britain. Two rival theories. IN II. THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD'. N the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions were held regarding the relationship of those who in the Gospels and Apostolic Epistles are termed 'the brethren of the Lord.' On the one hand it was maintained that no blood relationship existed; that 1 The interest in this subject, which was so warmly discussed towards the close of the fourth century, has been revived in more recent times by the publication of Herder's Briefe Zweener Brüder Jesu in unserem Kanon (1775), in which the Helvidian hypothesis is put forward. Since then it has formed the subject of numberless monographs, dissertations, and incidental comments. The most important later works, with which I am acquainted, are those of Blom, De Tois å deλpoîs et raîs ådeλφαῖς τοῦ Κυρίου (Leyden, 1839); of Schaf, Das Verhältniss des Jakobus Bruders des Herrn zu Jakobus Alphäi (Berlin, 1842); and of Mill, The accounts of our Lord's Brethren in the New Testament vindicated etc. (Cambridge, 1843). The two former adopt the Helvidian view; the last is written in support of St Jerome's hypothesis. Blom gives the most satisfactory statement which I have seen of the patristic authorities, and Schaf discusses the Scriptural arguments most carefully. I am also largely indebted to the ability and learning of Mill's treatise, though he seems to me to have mistaken the general tenor of ecclesiastical tradition on this subject. Besides these monographs I have also consulted, with more or less advantage, articles on the subject in works of re ference or periodicals, such as those in Studien u. Kritiken by Wieseler; Die Söhne Zebedäi Vettern des Herrn (1840, p. 648), and Ueber die Brüder des Herrn, etc. (1842, p. 71). In preparing for the second edition I looked over the careful investigation in Laurent's Neutest. Studien p. 155 sq (1866), where the Helvidian hypothesis is maintained, but saw no reason to make any change in consequence. The works of Arnaud, Recherches sur l'Epître de Jude, and of Goy (Mont. 1845), referred to in Bishop Ellicott's Galatians i. 19, I have not seen. My object in this dissertation is mainly twofold; (1) To place the Hieronymian hypothesis in its true light, as an effort of pure criticism unsupported by any traditional sanction; and (2) To say a word on behalf of the Epiphanian solution, which seems, at least of late years, to have met with the fate reserved for rà μéσa in literature and theology, as well as in politics, vπ' ἀμφοτέρων ἢ ὅτι οὐ ξυνηγωνίζοντο ἢ φθόνῳ τοῦ περιεῖναι διεφθείροντο. I suppose it was because he considered it idle to discuss a theory which had no friends, that Prof. Jowett (on Gal. i. 19), while balancing the claims of the other two solutions, does not even mention the existence of this, though in the early centuries it was the received account. these brethren were in fact sons of Joseph by a former wife, before he espoused the Virgin; and that they are therefore called the Lord's brethren only in the same way in which Joseph is called His father, having really no claim to this title but being so designated by an exceptional use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of the miraculous incarnation. On the other hand certain persons argued that the obvious meaning of the term was the correct meaning, and that these brethren were the Lord's brethren as truly as Mary was the Lord's mother, being her sons by her husband Joseph. The former of these views was held by the vast majority of orthodox believers and by not a few heretics; the latter was the opinion of a father of the Church here and there to whom it occurred as the natural inference from the language of Scripture, as Tertullian for instance, and of certain sects and individuals who set themselves against the incipient worship of the Virgin or the one-sided asceticism of the day, and to whom therefore it was a very serviceable weapon of controversy. Jerome. Such was the state of opinion, when towards the close of the A third propound. fourth century Jerome struck out a novel hypothesis. One Helvi- ed by dius, who lived in Rome, had attacked the prevailing view of the superiority of virgin over married life, and in doing so had laid great stress on the example of the Lord's mother who had borne children to her husband. In or about the year 383 Jerome, then a young man, at the instigation of 'the brethren' wrote a treatise in reply to Helvidius, in which he put forward his own view'. He maintained that the Lord's brethren were His cousins after the flesh, being sons of Mary the wife of Alphæus and sister of the Virgin. Thus, as he boasted, he asserted the virginity not of Mary only but of Joseph also. assigned These three accounts are all of sufficient importance either from Names their real merits or from their wide popularity to deserve con- to these sideration, and I shall therefore investigate their several claims. three. As it will be convenient to have some short mode of designation, 1 Adv. Helvidium de Perpetua Virginitate B. Mariæ, 11. p. 206 (ed. Vall.). Comp. Comment. ad Gal. i. 19. assump tions I shall call them respectively the Epiphanian, the Helvidian, and the Hieronymian theories, from the names of their most zealous advocates in the controversies of the fourth century when the question was most warmly debated. But besides the solutions already mentioned not a few others have been put forward. These however have been for the most part Arbitrary built upon arbitrary assumptions or improbable combinations of known facts, and from their artificial character have failed to secure any wide acceptance. It is assumed for instance, that two persons of the same name, James the son of Alphæus and James the Lord's brother, were leading members of the Church of Jerusalem, though history points to one only'; or that James the Lord's brother mentioned in St Paul's Epistles is not the same James whose name occurs among the Lord's brethren in the Gospels, the relationship intended by the term 'brother' being different in the two cases; or that 'brethren' stands for 'foster-brethren,' Joseph having undertaken the charge of his brother Clopas' children after their father's death; or that the Lord's brethren had a double parentage, a legal as well as an actual father, Joseph having raised seed to his deceased brother Clopas by his widow according to the levirate law1; or lastly, that the cousins of Jesus were rewarded with the title of His brethren, because they were His steadfast disciples, while His own brothers opposed Him". to be set aside. All such assumptions it will be necessary to set aside. In themselves indeed they can neither be proved nor disproved. But it is safer to aim at the most probable deduction from known facts than to build up a theory on an imaginary foundation. And, where the question is so intricate in itself, there is little temptation to 1 e.g. Wieseler Ueber die Brüder the son of Alphæus the successor of the Lord's brother. 2 The writers mentioned in Schaf, P. II. 3 Lange in Herzog's Real-Encycl. in the article 'Jakobus im N.T.' 4 Theophylact; see below, p. 290. 5 Renan Vie de Jésus p. 24. But in Saint Paul p. 285 he inclines to the Epiphanian view. introduce fresh difficulties by giving way to the license of conjecture. To confine ourselves then to the three accounts which have the Relation of the three greatest claim to a hearing. It will be seen that the hypothesis accounts. which I have called the Epiphanian holds a middle place between the remaining two. With the Helvidian it assigns an intelligible sense to the term 'brethren': with the Hieronymian it preserves the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother. Whether or not, while uniting in itself the features which have recommended each of these to acceptance, it unites also their difficulties, will be considered in the sequel. From a critical point of view however, apart from their bearing on Christian doctrine and feeling, the Helvidian and Epiphanian theories hang very closely together, while the Hieronymian stands apart. As well on account of this isolation, as also from the fact which I have hitherto assumed but which I shall endeavour to prove hereafter, that it was the latest born of the three, it will be convenient to consider the last-mentioned theory first. statement. St Jerome then states his view in the treatise against Helvidius Jerome's somewhat as follows: The list of the Twelve Apostles contains two of the name of The son of Alphæus is James, the son of Zebedee and the son of Alphæus. But elsewhere the Lord's we read of a James the Lord's brother. What account are we to brother; give of this last James? Either he was an Apostle or he was not. If an Apostle, he must be identified with the son of Alphæus, for the son of Zebedee was no longer living: if not an Apostle, then there were three persons bearing this name. But in this case how can a certain James be called 'the less,' a term which implies only one besides? And how moreover can we account for St Paul's language 'Other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother' (Gal. i. 19) Clearly therefore James the son of Alphæus and James the Lord's brother are the same person. Among the the Vir Now it is And the Gospel narrative explains this identity. Lord's brethren occur the names of James and Joseph. stated elsewhere that Mary the mother of James the less and of gin's sister being his mother. |