« 前へ次へ »
Evangelists (besides St John) the mother of James and Joses is the mother of God and none else',' being so called because she undertook the education of these her stepsons; and he supposes also that this James is called ‘the little' by St Mark to distinguish him from James the son of Alphaeus who was “great,' because he was in the number of the Twelve Apostles, which the Lord's brother was not (in Christ. Resurr. ii. Opp. III. pp. 412, 413, ed. Paris, 1638).
20. The ANTIDICOMARIANITEs, an obscure Arabian sect in the Antidico
latter half of the fourth century, maintained that the Lord's mother o bore children to her husband Joseph. These opinions seem to have produced a reaction, or to have been themselves reactionary, for we read about the same time of a sect called Collyridians, likewise in Arabia, who going to the opposite extreme paid divine honours to the Virgin (Epiphan. Haeres. lxxviii, lxxix”). 21. Epiphanius a native of Palestine became bishop of Con-Epipha. stantia in Cyprus in the year 367. Not very long before Jerome Illus. wrote in defence of the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother against the Helvidians at Rome, Epiphanius came forward as the champion of the same cause against the Antidicomarianites. He denounced them in an elaborate pastoral letter, in which he explains his views at length, and which he has thought fit to incorporate in
his subsequently written treatise against Heresies (pp. 1034–1057,
* Similarly Chrysostom, see below,
p. 289, note 1. This identification of the Lord's mother with the mother of James and Joses is adopted and similarly explained also in one of the apocryphal gospels: Hist. Joseph. 4 (Tisch. p. 117). Possibly Gregory derived it from some such source. It was also part of the Helvidian hypothesis, where it was less out of place, and gave Jerome an easy triumph over his adversary (adv. Helvid. 12 etc.). It is adopted moreover by Cave (Life of St James the Less, $ 2), who holds that the Lord's brethren were sons of Joseph, and yet makes James the Lord's brother one of the Twelve, identifying Joseph with Alphaeus. Fritzsche also identifies
* The names are plainly terms of ridicule invented by their enemies. Augustine supposes the ‘Antidicomarianitae' of Epiphanius (he writes the word ‘Antidicomaritae') to be the same as the Helvidians of Jerome (adv. Haer. 84, win. p. 24). They held the same tenets, it is true, but there seems to have been otherwise no connexion between the two. Considerations of time and place alike resist this identification.
Epiphanius had heard that these opinions, which he held to be derogatory to the Lord's mother, had been promulgated also by the elder Apollinaris or some of his disciples; but he doubted about this (p. 1034). The report was probably circulated by their opponents in order to bring discredit upon them.
Helvidius, Bonosus, and Jovinianus.
ed. Petav.). He moreover discusses the subject incidentally in other
In earlier times this account of the Lord's brethren, so far as it Motive of was the badge of a party, seems to have been held in conjunction o with Ebionite views respecting the conception and person of Christ'. For, though not necessarily affecting the belief in the miraculous Incarnation, it was yet a natural accompaniment of the denial thereof. The motive of these latter impugners of the perpetual virginity was very different. They endeavoured to stem the current which had set strongly in the direction of celibacy; and, if their theory was faulty, they still deserve the sympathy due to men who in defiance of public opinion refused to bow their necks to an extragavant and tyrannous superstition.
We have thus arrived at the point of time when Jerome's answer Evidence summed
to Helvidius created a new epoch in the history of this controversy. up.
And the following inferences are, if I mistake not, fairly deducible from the evidence produced. First : there is not the slightest indication that the Hieronymian solution ever occurred to any individual or sect or church, until it was put forward by Jerome himself. If it had been otherwise, writers like Origen, the two Hilaries, and Epiphanius, who discuss the question, could not have failed to notice it. Secondly : the Epiphanian account has the highest claims to the sanction of tradition, whether the value of this sanction be great or small. Thirdly: this solution seems especially to represent the Palestinian view. In the year 382 (or 383) Jerome published his treatise; and the Jerome's effeet of it is visible at once. treatise. AMBRose in the year 392 wrote a work De Institutione Virginis, Ambrose. list. The writer distinguishes James
the Lord's brother and James the son of Alphaeus, and makes them successive
stantiate the assertions in the following
bishops of Jerusalem. See Combesis
first understood in the most obvious
in which he especially refutes the impugners of the perpetual virginity
In a passage which is perhaps intentionally
the same country.
to be accursed for my brethren (Rom. ix. 3). Doubtless they might be
* The passage, which I have thus paraphrased, is “Fratres autem gentis, et generis, populi quoque consortium nuncuparidocet Dominus ipsequidicit: Narrabo momen tuum fratribus meis; in medio ecclesiae laudubo te. Paulus quoque ait: Optabam ego anathema esse pro fratribus meis. Potuerunt autem fratres esse ex Joseph, non ex Maria.
Quod quidem si quis diligentius prosequatur inveniet. Nos ea prosequenda non putavimus, quoniam fraternum nomen liquet pluribus esse commune' (11. p. 260, ed. Ben.). St Ambrose seems to accept so much of Jerome's argument as relates to the wide use of the term ‘brothers’ and nothing In Ore.
by Jerome in the treatise against Helvidius (In Joh. Evang. x, III.
2. p. 368, ib. xxviii, III. 2. p. 508; Enarr. in Ps. cxxvii, Iv. 2. p. 1443; Contr. Faust. xxii. 35, VIII. p. 383; comp. Quaest. XVII in
Matth., III. 2. p. 285).
Thus supported, it won its way to general acceptance in the Latin Western Church; and the WESTERN SERVICES recognise only one James besides the son of Zebedee, thus identifying the Lord's brother with the son
In the East also it met with a certain amount of success, but this Chryso. was only temporary. CHRYSoSTOM wrote both before and after Jerome's treatise had become generally known, and his expositions of the New Testament mark a period of transition. In his Homilies on the earlier books he takes the Epiphanian view: St James, he says, was at one time an unbeliever with the rest of the Lord's brethren (on Matth. i. 25, VII. p. 77; John vii. 5, VIII. p. 284; see also on 1 Cor. ix. 4, x. p. 181 E); the resurrection was the turning-point in their career; they were called the Lord's brethren, as Joseph himself was reputed the husband of Mary (on Matth. i. 25, l.c.). Hitherto he betrays no knowledge of the Hieronymian account.
the comments on 1 Cor. xv. 7 (x.