tions in On the other hand, owing to an extract preserved in Eusebius, his authority is generally claimed for the Hieronymian view; 'Clement,' Quota- says Eusebius, 'in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis gives the Eusebius. following account: Peter and James and John, he tells us, after the resurrection of the Saviour were not ambitious of honour, though the preference shown them by the Lord might have entitled them to it, but chose James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem. The same writer too in the seventh book of the same treatise gives this account also of him (James the Lord's brother); The Lord after the resurrection delivered the gnosis to James the Just' and John and Peter. These delivered it to the rest of the Apostles; and the rest of the Apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. Now there are two Jameses, one the Just who was thrown down from the pinnacle (of the temple) and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded' (H. E. ii. 1). This passage however proves nothing. Clement says that there were two of the name of James, but he neither states nor necessary for the sense, whether Cassio- implies that there were two only. κεφάλαια & φησιν παραδεδωκέναι Μαριἀμνῃ τὸν Ἰάκωβον τοῦ Κυρίουτὸν ἀδελφόν, Haeres. x. 6, p. 95. Clement seems to have derived his information from some work of a Jewish Gnostic complexion, perhaps from the Gospel of the Egyptians with which he was well acquainted (Strom. iii. pp. 529 sq, 553, ed. Potter); and as Hippolytus tells us that the Ophites made use of this Gospel (ràs dè ἐξαλλαγὰς ταύτας τὰς ποικίλας ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ κατ' Αἰγυπτίους εὐαγγελίῳ κειμένας ἔχουσιν, ib. v. 7, p. 98), it is probable that the account of Clement coincided with that of the Ophites. The words T dikalw are represented in the Syriac translation of Eusebius of which the existing Ms (Brit. Mus. add. 14,639) belongs to the 6th century. I hold T dikaly therefore to be the genuine words of Clement, but I do not feel so sure that the closing explanation δύο δὲ γεγόνασιν Ιάκωβοι κ.τ.λ. is not an addition of Eusebius. This I suppose to be Bunsen's opinion, for he ends his fragment with the preceding words 1. p. 321. His sole object was to distinguish the son of Zebedee from the Lord's brother; and the son of Alphæus, of whom he knew nothing and could tell nothing, did not occur to his mind when he penned this sentence. There is in this passage nothing which contradicts the Latin extract; though indeed in a writer so uncritical in his historical notices' such a contradiction would not be surprising'. 10. ORIGEN († A.D. 253) declares himself very distinctly in favour of the Epiphanian view, stating that the brethren were sons of Joseph by a deceased wife. Elsewhere indeed he says that St Paul 'calls this James the Lord's brother, not so much on account of his kinsmanship or their companionship together, as on account of his character and language,' but this is not inconsistent with the explicit statement already referred to. In one passage he writes at some length on the subject; 'Some persons, on the ground of a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or the Book of James (i.e. the Protevangelium), say that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph's sons by a former wife to whom he was married before Mary. Those who hold this view wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity throughout... And I think it reasonable that as Jesus was the firstfruit of purity and chastity among men, so Mary was among women: for it is not seemly to ascribe the first-fruit of virginity to any other woman but her' (in Matt. xiii. 55, III. p. 462). This passage 1 For instance he distinguished Cephas of Gal. ii. 9 from Peter (see above, p. 129), and represented St Paul as a married man (Euseb. H. E. iii. 30). 2 On the supposition that Clement held the Hieronymian theory, as he is represented even by those who themselves reject it, the silence of Origen, who seems never to have heard of this theory, is quite inexplicable. Epiphanius moreover, who appears equally ignorant of it, refers to Clement while writing on this very subject (Haeres. p. 119, Petav.). Indeed Clement would then stand quite alone before the age of Jerome. 3 In Joann. ii. 12 (Catena Corder. Ρ. 75) ἀδελφοὺς μὲν οὐκ εἶχε φύσει, οὔτε τῆς παρθένου τεκούσης ἕτερον οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἐκ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τυγχάνων· νόμῳ τοιγαροῦν ἐχρημάτισαν αὐτοῦ ἀδελφοί, υἱοὶ Ἰωσὴφ ὄντες ἐκ προτεθνηκυίας γυναιKós: Hom. in Luc. 7 (III. p. 940, ed. Delarue) 'Hi enim filii qui Joseph dicebantur non erant orti de Maria, neque est ulla scriptura quae ista commemoret.' In this latter passage either the translator has been confused by the order in the original or the words in the translation itself have been displaced accidentally, but the meaning is clear. 4 c. Cels. i. 47 (I. p. 363) OÚ TOσοῦτον διὰ τὸ πρὸς αἵματος συγγενὲς ἢ τὴν κοινὴν αὐτῶν ἀναστροφὴν ὅσον διὰ τὸ ἦθος καὶ τὸν λόγον. 5 Op. III. p. 462 sq. Mill, pp. 261, 273, has strangely misunderstood the purport of this passage. He speaks of Apostolical Con shows not only that Origen himself favoured the Epiphanian view which elsewhere he has directly maintained, but that he was wholly unaware of the Hieronymian, the only alternative which presented itself being the denial of the perpetual virginity'. II. The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, the main part of which stitutions. may perhaps be regarded as a work of the third century, though they received considerable additions in later ages, distinguish James the Lord's brother from James the son of Alphæus, making him, like St Paul, a supernumerary apostle, and thus counting fourteen in all (vi. 12, 13, 14; compare ii. 55, vii. 46, viii. 4). Victorinus of Pettaw. Eusebius of Casa rea. 12. VICTORINUS PETAVIONENSIS (about 300) was claimed by Helvidius as a witness in his own favour. Jerome denied this and put in a counter claim. It may perhaps be inferred from this circumstance that Victorinus did little more than repeat the statements of the evangelists respecting the Lord's brethren (adv. Helvid. 17). 13. EUSEBIUS OF CESAREA († about 340) distinguished James the Lord's brother from the Twelve, representing him as a supernumerary apostle like St Paul (Comm. in Isai. in Montfaucon's Coll. Nov. Patr. II. p. 422; Hist. Eccl. i. 12; comp. vii. 19). Accordingly in another Origen here as 'teaching the opinion of 1 The authority of Hippolytus of Tva. He is thus confused or identified with James the Lord's brother. But this blundering treatise was certainly not written by the bishop of Portus: see Le Moyne in Fabricius I. p. 84, and Bunsen's Hippol. I. p. 456 (ed. 2). On the other hand in the work De LXX Apostolis (Fabricius 1. app. p. 41), also ascribed to this writer, we find among the 70 the name of 'Iákwßos ò ἀδελφόθεος ἐπίσκοπος Ιεροσολύμων, who is thus distinguished from the Twelve. This treatise also is manifestly spurious. Again Nicephorus Callistus, H. E. ii. 3, cites as from Hippolytus of Portus an elaborate account of our Lord's brethren following the Epiphanian view (Hippol. Op. 1. app. 43, ed. Fabric.); but this account seems to be drawn either from Hippolytus the Theban, unless as Bunsen (l. c.) supposes this Theban Hippolytus be a mythical personage, or from some forged writings which bore the name of the older Hippolytus. passage he explains that this James was called the Lord's brother, because Joseph was his reputed father (Hist. Eccl. ii. 1)'. Jerusalem. 14. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM († 386) comments on the successive Cyril of appearances of our Lord related by St Paul, first to Peter, then to the Twelve, then to the five hundred, then to James His own brother, then to Paul His enemy; and his language implies that each appear ance was a step in advance of the testimony afforded by the former (Catech. xiv. 21, p. 216, ed. Touttée). It may be gathered thence that he distinguished this James from the Twelve. As this however is only an inference from his language, and not a direct statement of his own, too much stress must not be laid on it. In another passage also (Catech. iv. 28, p. 65, καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ Ἰακώβῳ τῷ ταύτης τῆς ¿kkdŋoías étiokótw) Cyril seems to make the same distinction, but here again the inference is doubtful. Poitiers. 15. HILARY OF POITIERS († 368) denounces those who 'claim Hilary of authority for their opinion (against the virginity of the Lord's mother) from the fact of its being recorded that our Lord had several brothers'; and adds, 'yet if these had been sons of Mary and not rather sons of Joseph, the offspring of a former marriage, she would never at the time of the passion have been transferred to the Apostle John to be his mother' (Comm. in Matth. i. 1, p. 671, ed. Bened.). 1 Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Κυρίου λεγόμενον ἀδελφόν, ὅτι δὴ καὶ οὗτος τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ ὠνόμαστο παῖς, τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ πατὴρ ὁ Ἰωσήφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα ἡ παρθένος K.T.λ. On the whole this passage seems to be best explained by referring ouros to Kúpios. But this is not necessary; for ὀνομάζεσθαι (or καλεῖσθαι) παῖς τινὸς is a good Greek phrase to denote real as well as reputed sonship: as Esch. Fragm. 285 αἵδ ̓ ἕπτ ̓ "Ατλαντος παῖδες ὠνομασμέναι, Soph. Trach. 1105 ὁ τῆς ἀρίστης μητρὸς ὠνομασμένος, Eur. Elect. 935 comp. Ephes. iii. 15 Tòv waтépa ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ὀνομάζεται. The word vóμacro cannot at all events, as Mill (p. 272) seems disposed to think, imply any doubt on the part of Eusebius about the parentage of James, for the whole drift of the passage is plainly against this. The other reading, 8тɩ dǹ Kal OνTOS τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ νομιζομένου οἱονεὶ πατρὸς Compare the expressions in i. 12 els Victor inus the Philosopher. Ambrosi aster. Basil. Gregory Thus he not only adopts the Epiphanian solution, but shows himself entirely ignorant of the Hieronymian. 16. VICTORINUS THE PHILOSOPHER (about 360) takes el μǹ in Gal. i 19 as expressing not exception but opposition, and distinctly states that James was not an Apostle: 'Cum autem fratrem dixit, apostolum negavit.' 17. The AMBROSIAN HILARY (about 75) comments on Gal. i. 19 as follows; 'The Lord is called the brother of James and the rest in the same way in which He is also designated the son of Joseph. For some in a fit of madness impiously assert and contend that these were true brothers of the Lord, being sons of Mary, allowing at the same time that Joseph, though not His true father, was so called nevertheless. For if these were His true brothers, then Joseph will be His true father; for he who called Joseph His Father also called James and the rest His brothers.' Thus his testimony entirely coincides with that of his greater namesake. He sees only the alternative of denying the perpetual virginity as Helvidius did, or accepting the solution of the Protevangelium; and he unhesitatingly adopts the latter. 18. BASIL THE GREAT († 379), while allowing that the perpetual virginity is not a necessary article of belief, yet adheres to it himself 'since the lovers of Christ cannot endure to hear that the mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin' (Hom. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. II. p. 600, ed. Garn.)'. As immediately afterwards he refers, in support of his view, to some apocryphal work which related that Zacharias was slain by the Jews for testifying to the virginity of the mother of Jesus (a story which closely resembles the narrative of his death in the Protevang. §§ 23, 24), it may perhaps be inferred that he accepted that account of the Lord's brethren which ran through these apocryphal gospels. 19. His brother GREGORY NYSSEN († after 394) certainly adopted the Epiphanian account. At the same time he takes up the very untenable position that the 'Mary who is designated in the other This very moderate expression of opinion is marked by the editors with a caute legendum in the margin; and in Garnier's edition the treatise is con signed to an appendix as of doubtful authenticity. The main argument urged against it is the passage here referred to. (See Garnier, II. præf. p. xv.) |
