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,

lementine writings.


* 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
day; for many bore the name of James.' From this last passage
however no inference can be safely drawn; for, supposing the
term ‘Apostles’ to be here restricted to the Twelve, the expression
pera röv droarróAov may distinguish St James not from but among
the Apostles; as in Acts v. 29, “Peter and the Apostles an-
Thus the testimony of Hegesippus seems distinctly opposed to
the Hieronymian view, while of the other two it favours the Epi-
phanian rather than the Helvidian. If any doubt still remains, the
fact that both Eusebius and Epiphanius, who derived their in-
formation mainly from Hegesippus, gave this account of the Lord's
brethren materially strengthens the position. The testimony of an
early Palestinian writer who made it his business to collect such
traditions is of the utmost importance.


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
(‘de Tertulliano nihil amplius dico quam ecclesiae hominem non
fuisse,' adv. Helvid. § 17). It is generally assumed in consequence
that Tertullian held the Lord's brethren to be sons of Joseph and
Mary. This assumption, though probable, is not absolutely certain.
The point at issue in this passage is not the particular opinion of
Helvidius respecting the Lord's brethren, but the virginity of the
Lord's mother.
the authority of others', whose testimony certainly did not go beyond

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
times quoted by subsequent writers,
he speaks of the virginity of Mary as
a mystery, but this refers distinctly to
the time before the birth of our Lord.
To this passage which he elsewhere
quotes (Comment. in Matth. T. VII.
p. 12), Jerome is doubtless referring
In Cowper's Syriac Miscell. p. 61,
I find an extract, “Justin one of the
authors who were in the days of Augus-
tus and Tiberius and Gaius wrote in the
third discourse: That Mary the Gali-
lean, who was the mother of Christ who

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
with a husband. And Joseph did not
repudiate her, but Joseph continued in
holiness without a wife, he and his five
sons by a former wife: and Mary con-
tinued without a husband.” The editor
assigns this passage to Justin Martyr;
but not to mention the anachronism,
the whole tenor of the passage and the
immediate neighbourhood of similar
extracts shows that it was intended for
the testimony (unquestionably spuri-
ous) of some contemporary heathen
writer to the facts of the Gospel.
* We read in Cassiodorus (de Inst.
Div. Lit. 8), “In epistolas autem cano-
nicas Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter,
qui et Stromateus vocatur, id est, in
epistola (-am?) S. Petri prima (-am?)
S. Johannis prima (-am?) et secunda
(-am?) et Jacobiquaedam Attico sermo-
ne declaravit. Ubi multa quidem sub-
tiliter sed aliqua incaute loquutus est,
quae nos ita transferri fecimus in Lati-
num, ut exclusis quibusdam offendicu-

This statement is explicit.

lis purificata doctrina ejus securior
possit hauriri.” If ‘Jude’ be substi-
tuted for ‘James,’ this description ex-
actly applies to the Latin notes extant
under the title Adumbrationes. This
was a very easy slip of the pen, and I can
scarcely doubt that these notes are the
same to which Cassiodorus refers as
taken from the Hypotyposeisofclement.
Dr Westcott (Canon, p. 4or) has pointed
out in confirmation of this, that while
Clement elsewhere directly quotes the
Epistle of St Jude, he never refers to
the Epistle of St James. Bunsen has
included these notes in his collection of
fragments of the Hypotyposeis, Anal.
Anten. 1. p. 325. It should be added
that the statement about the relation-
ship of Jude must be Clement's own and
cannot have been inserted by Cassiodo-
rus, since Cassiodorus in common with
the Latin Church would naturally hold
the Hieronymian hypothesis.
* “Frater erat ejus [filius] Joseph.”
Theinsertion of “filius' (with Bunsen) is

« 前へ次へ »