« 前へ次へ »
Serapion, bishop of Antioch, found it in circulation at Rhossus a Cilician town, and at first tolerated it: but finding on examination that, though it had much in common with the Gospels recognised by the Catholic Church, there were sentiments in it favourable to the heretical views that were secretly gaining ground there, he forbad its use. In the fragment of Serapion preserved by Eusebius (H. B. vi. 12)", from which our information is derived, he speaks of this apocryphal work as if it had been long in circulation, so that its date must be about the middle of the second century at the latest, and probably somewhat earlier. To this gospel Origen refers, as stating that the Lord's brethren were Joseph's sons by a former wife and thus maintaining the virginity of the Lord's mother”. 3. PROTEvangelium Jacobi, a purely fictitious but very early Protevan. narrative, dating probably not later than the middle of the second too. century, represents Joseph as an old man when the Virgin was o: espoused to him, having sons of his own (§ 9, ed. Tisch. p. 18) but gospels. no daughters (§ 17, p. 31), and James the writer of the account apparently as grown up at the time of Herod's death (§ 25, p. 48). Following in this track, subsequent apocryphal narratives give a similar account with various modifications, in some cases naming Joseph's daughters or his wife. Such are the Pseudo-Matthaei Evang. ($32, ed. Tisch. p. 104), Evang. de Nativ. Mar. (§ 8, ib. p. 111), Historia Joseph. (§ 2, ib. p. 116), Evang. Thoma (§ 16, p. 147), Evang. Infant. Arab. ($35, p. 191), besides the apocryphal Gospels mentioned by Jerome (Comm. in Matth. T. vii. p. 86) which were different from any now extant”. Doubtless these accounts, so far as they step beyond the incidents narrated in the Canonical Gospels, are pure fabrications, but the fabrications would scarcely have taken this form, if the Hieronymian view of the Lord's brethren had been received or even known when they were written. It is to these sources that Jerome refers when he taunts the holders of the Epiphanian view with following ‘deliramenta apocryphorum.’ 4. The EARLIEST VERSIONs, with the exception of the Old Latin Older
Versions. * For this fragment see Routh's Rel. * See below, p. 281. Sacr. 1. p. 452, and Westcott History * As appears from the fact mentioned of the Canon, p. 385. by Jerome; see above, p. 260, note 3.
and Memphitic which translate the Greek literally and preserve the same ambiguities, give renderings of certain passages bearing on the subject, which are opposed to the Hieronymian view. The CUREToNIAN Syriac translates Mapia 'Iax43ov (Luke xxiv. Io) ‘Mary the daughter of James.' The Peshito in John xix. 25 has, ‘His mother and His mother's sister and Mary of Cleopha and Mary Magdalene'; and in Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13, it renders “Judas son of James.' One of the old Egyptian versions again, the THEBAic, in John xix. 25 gives “Mary daughter of Clopas,’ and in Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13 ‘Judas son of James.’ 5. The CLEMENTINE Homilies, written, it would appear, not late in the second century to support a peculiar phase of Ebionism, speak of James as being ‘called the brother of the Lord’ (6 Asx6eis doexpos toū Kuptov, xi. 35), an expression which has been variously interpreted as favouring all three hypotheses (see Blom, p. 88: Schliemann Clement. pp. 8, 213), and is indecisive in itself". It is more important to observe that in the Epistle of Clement prefixed to this work and belonging to the same cycle of writings James is styled not Apostle, but Bishop of Bishops, and seems to be distinguished from and in some respects exalted above the Twelve. 6. In the portion of the Clementine Recognitions, which seems to have been founded on the Ascents of JAMEs, another very early Ebionite writing”, the distinction thus implied in the Homilies is explicitly stated. The Twelve Apostles after disputing severally with Caiaphas give an account of their conference to James the chief of Bishops; while James the son of Alphaeus is distinctly mentioned among the Twelve as one of the disputants (i. 59). 7. HEGESIPPUs (about 160), a Hebrew Christian of Palestine, writes as follows: “After the martyrdom of James the Just on the same charge as the Lord, his paternal uncle's child Symeon the son of Chopas is next made bishop, who was put forward by all as the second in succession, being cousin of the Lord' (perd to uaprup?oral 'Idikoflov röv 8tratov is kai d Koptos tri ré aurë Aéyo, triNiv ć to rot, 6etov auros, Xupied v 3 ros, KAamrå kaðtorrarai trioxoros, Šv trpoéðevro rivres àvra dveywov rod Kuptov Šetirepov', Euseb. H. E. iv. 22). If the passage be correctly rendered thus (and this rendering alone seems intelligible"), Hegesippus distinguishes between the relationships of James the Lord's brother and Symeon His cousin. So again, referring apparently to this passage, he in another fragment (Euseb. H. E. iii. 32) speaks of ‘the child of the Lord's paternal uncle, the aforesaid Symeon son of Clopas’ (6 k 6etov ros, Kuptov ć trpostpmuévos Supedv vios KAwará), to which Eusebius adds, “for Hegesippus relates that Clopas was the brother of Joseph.” Thus in Hegesippus Symeon is never once called the Lord's brother, while James is always so designated. And this argument powerful in itself is materially strengthened by the fact that, where Hegesippus has occasion to mention Jude, he too like James is styled ‘the Lord's brother’; ‘There still survived members of the Lord's family (ot drö yévous roń Kuptov) grandsons of Judas who was called His brother according to the flesh” (rod Karā adpka Aeyopévov aros, döeMood); Euseb. H. E. iii. 20. In this passage the word ‘called' seems to me to point to the Epiphanian rather than the Helvidian view, the brotherhood of these brethren, like the fatherhood of Joseph, being reputed but not real. In yet another passage (Euseb. H. E. ii. 23) Hegesippus relates that ‘the Church was committed in conjunction with the Apostles” to the charge of (êta8éxeral rov čkkAmortav Heră răv dirogróMov) the Lord's brother James,
* The word Mex0els is most naturally and thus to favourther piphanian view. taken, I think, to refer to the reputed See the expressions of Hegesippus, and brotherhood of James, as a consequence of Eusebius, pp. 277, 278. of the reputed fatherhood of Joseph, * See the next dissertation.
1 For Seárepov comp. Euseb. H. E. iii. 14.
* A different meaning however has been assigned to the words: wixty and &etrepov being taken to signify ‘another child of his uncle, another cousin,' and thus the passage has been represented as favouring the Hieronymian view. So for instance Mill p. 253, Schaf p. 64. On the other hand see Credner Einl. p. 575, Neander Pflanz, p. 559 (4te auf.). To this rendering the presence of the definite article alone seems fatal (6 k ros, below not repos révéx row belov); but indeed the whole passage appears to be framed so as to distinguish the relationships of the two persons; whereas,
had the author's object been to represent Symeon as a brother of James, no more circuitous mode could well have been devised for the purpose of stating so very simple a fact. Let me add that Eusebius (l.c.) and Epiphanius (Haeres. pp. 636, 1039, 1046,ed. Petav.) must have interpreted the words as I have done. Whether atros, should be referred to "Iáxw8ov or to Köpuos is doubtful. If to the former, this alone decides the meaning of the passage. This seems the more natural reference of the two, but the form of expression will admit either. * Jerome (de Vir. Ill. § 2) renders it ‘post apostolos,' as if uerå rot's drogróMovs; Rufinus correctly ‘cum apostolis.’
who has been entitled Just by all from the Lord's time to our own
li 8. TERTULLIAN's authority was appealed to by Helvidius, and 1am.
Jerome is content to reply that he was not a member of the Church
Accordingly in reply Jerome alleges on his own side
* “Numquid non possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem commovere: Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenaeum, Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios apostolicos et eloquentes viros?’ (adv. Helvid. 17). I have already (p. 130, note 3) mentioned an instance of the unfair way in which Jerome piles together his authorities. In the present case we are in a position to test him. Jerome did not possess any writings of Ignatius which are not extant now ; and in no place does this apostolic father maintain the perpetual virginity of St Mary. In one remarkable passage
indeed (Ephes. 19), which is several
this one point and had no reference to the relationship of the Lord's brethren. Thus too the more distinct passages in the extant writings of Tertullian relate to the virginity only (de Carn. Christ. c. 23 and passim, de Monog. c. 8). Elsewhere however, though he does not directly state it, his argument seems to imply that the Lord's brethren were His brothers in the same sense in which Mary was His mother (adv. Marc. iv. 19, de Carn. Christ. 7). It is therefore highly probable that he held the Helvidian view.
was so strenuous an advocate of asceticism is worthy of notice.
Such an admission from one who
9. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (about A.D. 200) in a passage of the Clement Hypotyposeis preserved in a Latin translation by Cassiodorus (the ... authorship has been questioned but without sufficient reason") puts forward the Epiphanian solution; ‘Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, being one of the sons of Joseph and [the Lord's] brother, a Latin man of deep piety, though he was aware of his relationship to the fragment. Lord, nevertheless did not say he was His brother; but what said he's Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, because He was his Lord, but
brother of James; for this is true; he was his brother, being
Joseph's [son]” (ed. Potter, p. 1007).
was crucified in Jerusalem, had not been
This statement is explicit.
lis purificata doctrina ejus securior